State of Vermont 

Superior Court—Environmental Division 

====================================================================== 

E N T R Y R E G A R D I N G M O T I O N 

====================================================================== 

In re Roystan Ridge Extraction Permit Docket No. 121-7-10 Vtec 

(Appeal from Development Review Board of the Town of Newbury) 

Title: Motion to Disqualify Party (Filing No. 4) 

Filed: November 12, 2010 

Filed By: Applicants James B. and Alma L. Roystan 

Response in opposition filed on November 22, 2010 by Natasha Longmoore 

Further Response filed on November 26, 2012 by Natasha Longmoore 

Response in opposition filed on November 26, 2012 by Appellant Sandra J. Soseos 

Reply to opposition filed on November 27, 2012 by Applicants 

Further Response filed on November 27, 2012 by Natasha Longmoore 

 X Granted ___ Denied Other 

Currently before the Court is Applicants James B. Roystan and Alma L. Roystan’s 

(“Applicants”) Motion to Disqualify Natasha Longmoore as an Interested Party. Applicants 

claim that Mrs. Longmoore does not have standing to appear in this matter. For the reasons 

detailed below, we agree and therefore GRANT Applicants’ Motion. 

The background to this Motion is as follows. On September 29, 2010 Natasha 

Longmoore filed her pro se appearance as an Interested Person in the above-referenced appeal. 

On November 12, 2010 Applicants filed a Motion to Disqualify Mrs. Longmoore as an Interested 

Person on the grounds that Mrs. Longmoore had failed to satisfy the standards laid out in 24 

V.S.A. § 4461(b) and § 4465(b) regarding how to obtain standing as an Interested Person in a 

land use appeal brought to this Court. In short, Applicants assert that Mrs. Longmoore did not 

enjoy special status as an Interested Person under § 4465(b) and, in particular, failed to show, 

under § 4465(b)(3), that she either owned or occupied property in the immediate neighborhood 

of the proposed development and could demonstrate that the proposed development would 

have an impact on a protected interest of hers. 

On November 22, 2010, Mr. and Mrs. Longmoore filed a letter signed by Natasha 

Longmoore entitled “Motion To Not Disqualify Party” which emphasized a desire to appear in 

this matter as an Interested Person. 

In December 2010, this appeal and all pending motions were stayed for the Applicants 

to file an Act 250 application with the District Environmental Commission. The matter 

remained stayed until a telephone conference with the Court on October 22, 2012, when the 

Court re-activated this appeal and invited all parties to file responses to Applicants’ Motion to 

Disqualify Natasha Longmoore as a party. 
In re Roystan Ridge Extraction Permit, No. 121-7-10 Vtec (E.O. on Motion To Disqualify) (12-21-12) Pg. 2 of 2. 

2

In apparent response to the Court’s invitation, on November 26, 2012, the Court received 

from Mrs. Longmoore a handwritten letter stating that “upon Attorney Robinson’s advice I 

declined myself [sic] from the Roystan Ridge extraction.” However, Mrs. Longmoore goes on to 

say that “we’d still like to be interested persons in this matter.” Id. 

On November 26, 2012 the Court also received a response to Applicants’ motion from 

Sandra J. Soseos (”Appellant”). Appellant referred to Natasha Longmoore’s handwritten letter 

as a request not to be disqualified and argued that Mrs. Longmoore be allowed to remain as an 

Interested Person in this matter. Appellant also referred to Mrs. Longmoore as being 

“disqualified as a Witness.” Id. 

On November 27, 2012 the Court received a letter from Applicants’ attorney stating that 

he had been contacted by Natasha Longmoore by telephone and that she had confirmed to him 

that she did not want to participate in this appeal any further. 

Finally, and also on November 27, 2012, the Court received a further handwritten letter 

from Natasha Longmoore stating that she wished to “withdraw myself as a[n] interested person 

concerning the Roystan Ridge Extraction.” Id. 

In this appeal, despite earlier ambiguity in her letter of November 26, 2012, Natasha 

Longmoore, in her letter of November 27, 2012, clearly states that she no longer wishes to be an 

Interested Person in this matter. While 24 V.S.A. § 4465 does not explicitly address the issue of 

a party voluntarily withdrawing from an appeal as an Interested Person, it is clear that the 

Court has no power to compel a party to remain as an Interested Person. Further, we have yet 

to receive from Mrs. Longmoore even a minimal showing of why she is entitled to standing in 

this appeal. As such, the Court accepts Natasha Longmoore’s request to withdraw as an 

Interested Person and hereby GRANTS Applicants’ Motion to Disqualify Natasha Longmoore

as an Interested Person in this appeal. 

By way of clarification, with regards Appellant Soseos’s letter dated November 26, 2012, 

this Order relates to Natasha Longmoore’s status as an Interested Person and does not impact 

on the question of whether she may be called as a witness by any remaining party to this 

appeal. 

_________________________________________ December 21, 2012 

 Thomas S. Durkin, Judge Date 

============================================================================= 

Date copies sent: ____________ Clerk's Initials: _______ 

Copies sent to: 

 Attorney Colin Robinson for Appellees James B. Roystan and Alma Roystan 

 Appellant Sandra J. Soseos 

 Interested Person Natasha Longmoore 

 Attorney Gavin A. Reid for Interested Person Town of Newbury