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 o f 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 b y Natasha Longmoore Further Response filed on November 26, 2012 by Nata sha Longmoore Response in opposition filed on November 26, 2012 b y Appellant Sandra J. Soseos Reply to opposition filed on November 27, 2012 by A pplicants Further Response filed on November 27, 2012 by Nata sha Longmoore

X Granted ___ Denied Other

Currently before the Court is Applicants James B. R oystan and Alma L. Roystan’s (“Applicants”) Motion to Disqualify Natasha Longmoo re 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 Sep tember 29, 2010 Natasha Longmoore filed her pro se appearance as an Interes ted Person in the above-referenced appeal. On November 12, 2010 Applicants filed a Motion to D isqualify Mrs. Longmoore as an Interested Person on the grounds that Mrs. Longmoore had faile d to satisfy the standards laid out in 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b) and § 4465(b) regarding how to obt ain standing as an Interested Person in a land use appeal brought to this Court. In short, A pplicants 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 occupi ed property in the immediate neighborhood of the proposed development and could demonstrate t hat 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 motio ns were stayed for the Applicants to file an Act 250 application with the District En vironmental Commission. The matter remained stayed until a telephone conference with t he Court on October 22, 2012, when the Court re-activated this appeal and invited all part ies 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 th at “upon Attorney Robinson’s advice I declined myself [sic] from the Roystan Ridge extrac tion.” 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 resp onse 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 re ferred to Mrs. Longmoore as being “disqualified as a Witness.” Id.

On November 27, 2012 the Court received a letter fr om Applicants’ attorney stating that he had been contacted by Natasha Longmoore by telep hone 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 r eceived 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 le tter of November 26, 2012, Natasha Longmoore, in her letter of November 27, 2012, clea rly 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 a n Interested Person, it is clear that the Court has no power to compel a party to remain as a n Interested Person. Further, we have yet to receive from Mrs. Longmoore even a minimal showi ng of why she is entitled to standing in this appeal. As such, the Court accepts Natasha Lo ngmoore’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 Sos eos’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 w itness 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 To wn of Newbury