Green Mountain Quarry, LLC Act 250 

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Appeal from Act 250 District Commission Decision 

Title: Motion for Party Status (Motion 2) 

Filer: Eric & Stacey Carpenter 

Attorney: Ronald A. Shems 

Filed Date: November 30, 2017 

No response filed (Response deadline set by the Court as Jan. 31, 2018.) 

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. 

Eric and Stacey Carpenter are part of a group of neighbors who expressed concerns about 

the possible impacts that may be caused by the operations proposed at the Waterford, Vermont 

project site of Cross-Appellant/Applicant Green Mountain Quarry, LLC (“Green Mtn.”). When the 

District 7 Environmental Commission (“District Commission”) considered Green Mtn.’s 

application for an Act 250 permit, the District Commission conferred preliminary party status 

upon all of the neighbors, including Mr. and Mrs. Carpenter, upon whom the Commission 

conferred preliminary party status under Act 250 Criteria 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8. Re: Green Mountain 

Quarry, LLC, Application #7C0505-1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 2 (Dist. 7 Envtl. 

Comm. Oct. 4. 2017) (“District Commission Decision”). 

The District Commission held its initial hearing on Green Mtn.’s application on May 9, 

2017, and adjourned those proceedings on September 18, 2017, after having received additional 

submissions by the parties. In its October 4, 2017, Decision, the District Commission announced 

its final party status determinations, which included a denial of all of the Carpenter’s party status 

requests. The District Commission explained that it had denied the Carpenters final party status 

because they “had not attended the hearing or participated after the hearing.” Id. at 3. 

All of the neighbors who received preliminary or final party status, including the 

Carpenters, appealed the District Commission Decision. They filed a joint Statement of 

Questions, listing five legal challenges to the District Commission Decision. Green Mtn. also filed 

a cross-appeal. 

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

 Docket No. 135-10-17 Vtec
In re Green Mtn. Quarry, LLC, No 135-10-17 Vtec (EO on Motion for Party Status) (04-30-2018) Page 2 of 3. 

By the pending motion, Mr. and Mrs. Carpenter seek party status under Act 250 Criteria 

1, 2, 3, 5, and 8. They represent that they live across the road from the proposed new access 

road for the Green Mtn. project site. The Carpenters make generalized allegations that they will 

be “severely impacted by this project,” although they provide no details as to the factual basis 

for this allegation, nor do they provide factual representations concerning the possible impacts 

that they may suffer under the specified criteria concerning air, water, erosion, traffic, and 

aesthetic impacts. See 10 V.S.A. §§ 6086(a)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8). 

We note, however, that neither Green Mtn., nor any other party has voiced opposition to 

the Carpenters’ party status request. We further note that the proximity of the project to the 

Carpenters’ home leads us to assume that there is a possibility of impacts upon their 

particularized interests under the Criteria listed. Based upon that assumption, we conclude that 

the proposed project could adversely impact Mr. and Mrs. Carpenter under Act 250 criteria 1, 2, 

3, 5, and 8. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6085(c)(1)(E), we conclude that Mr. and Mrs. Carpenter have 

made a sufficient preliminary showing that they are owners of adjoining property who may have 

particularized interests that may be affected by the act or decision that is the subject of this 

appeal. 

Because we are unclear, based upon the limited facts presented, as to what particularized 

interests and impacts may be involved, we only confer preliminary party status upon the 

Carpenters, under the Criteria requested, and will revisit our party status determination at the 

close of evidence in this de novo appeal, pursuant to Act 250 Rule 14(E). 

We note that the Carpenters and their attorney appear to conflate the legal concepts of 

party status and standing to appeal an Act 250 determination. To participate in any Act 250 

proceeding, an individual must show that they have party status by specifically alleging that they 

have a particularized interest that may be affected by the proposed project. See 10 V.S.A. 

§ 6085(c)(1)(E). To also have rights to appeal a determination made in an Act 250 proceeding, an 

individual must show both that they (1) have party status and (2) participated in some way in the 

proceedings. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(1). 

Those who wish to appeal without having participated may gain permission from this 

Court to appeal, when (A) there is a sufficient showing of a procedural defect; (B) the decision 

being appealed is a denial of party status; or (C) “some other condition exists which would result 

in manifest injustice if the person’s right to appeal was disallowed.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2). 

The Carpenters represent that their absence was the result of physical and mental 

illnesses from which Mrs. Carpenter suffers that are so severe as to require Mr. Carpenter to 

provide primary care for his wife. We extend our sympathies to Mrs. and Mr. Carpenter. 

However, without a more specific showing, we cannot conclude that their failure to participate 

below should nonetheless allow them to serve as appellants in this proceeding. 

We have previously established a broad definition of what constitutes “participation.” 

See, e.g., In re Verizon Wireless Barton Act 250 Permit Telecomm. Facility, No. 61-1-09 Vtec, slip 

op. at n. 7 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Feb. 2, 2010) (Durkin, J.), aff’d May 1, 2012 (unpub. entry order) available 

at https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/eo11-204.pdf. We are left 

to wonder why the Carpenters did not participate by merely sending in a written statement of 
In re Green Mtn. Quarry, LLC, No 135-10-17 Vtec (EO on Motion for Party Status) (04-30-2018) Page 3 of 3. 

their concerns to the District Commission. We also believe that before any representation of 

physical or mental illness would warrant the relief that the Carpenters request, we would need 

to be provided with a written representation from Mrs. Carpenter’s treating physician, specifying 

the illnesses suffered and confirming that the illnesses are so debilitating as to prohibit her 

participation. 

All of our discussion here may prove to be more academic than substantive. We have 

determined here that the Carpenters are entitled to preliminary party status on all the requested 

Criteria. That status entitles them to participate as Interested Persons under all the legal issues 

raised by their neighbors, who remain Appellants in this proceeding. Therefore, the fact that the 

Carpenters may participate as Interested Persons, but not appellants, is most likely a distinction 

without a substantive difference in this appeal. 

For all these reasons, we GRANT Mr. and Mrs. Carpenter preliminary party status under 

Act 250 Criteria 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8. However, their status in this appeal is that of Interested Persons 

only; they shall no longer be regarded as appellants in this proceeding. 

So Ordered. 

Electronically signed on April 30, 2018 at Newfane, Vermont, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). 

________________________________ 

Thomas S. Durkin, Superior Judge 

Environmental Division 

Notifications: 

Ronald A. Shems (ERN 5032), Attorney for Appellants Fred & Mary-Em Saar, Susan Hutchinson, 

 Dane Thorgelsen, Joan Adams, Kevin Pratt, Alexander Wood, and Eric & Stacey Carpenter 

Gregory J. Boulbol (ERN 1712), Attorney for the Vermont Natural Resources Board 

Jon T. Anderson (ERN 1856), Attorney for Cross-Appellant/ Applicant Green Mtn. Quarry, LLC 

vtadsbat