VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT

Environmental Division Docket No. 22-ENV-00038

32 Cherry St, 2nd Floor, Suite 303,

Burlington, VT 05401

802-951-1740

www.vermontjudiciary.org

│

│

│

622 Keyser Hill Road Conditional Use Appeal │ DECISION REGARDING AMENDED 

│ STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS

│

│

│

This is an appeal of a decision by the Town of Barnet Planning/Zoning Board granting, in 

part and with conditions, a change of use/conditional use permit for the property located at 622 

Keyser Hill Road, Saint Johnsbury, Vermont (the “Property”).1 Applicants Michael and Jane 

Lawton (“Applicants”) seek approval to operate a non-polluting commercial enterprise to provide 

seasonal overnight camping accommodations. After the original Appellant, David Brody, 

withdrew from this action, interested party Gregory Jackmauh sought to maintain the appeal 

with respect to the issues raised in Appellant’s Statement of Questions. In a January 8, 2024,

Entry Order, this Court granted summary judgment on eight of those Questions, in favor of the 

Applicants. 622 Keyser Hill Road Conditional Use Appeal, No. 22-ENV-00038, slip op. at 7 (Vt. 

Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Jan. 8, 2024) (Durkin, J.). With respect to the remaining four Questions, the 

Court ordered Mr. Jackmauh to amend and clarify those Questions by citing to specific provisions 

in the Bylaws and permit application which give rise to a triable issue. We further explained that, 

to the extent possible, the revised Questions must relate to the issues raised in the original 

Statement of Questions. 

On January 20, 2024, Mr. Jackmauh filed an amended Statement of Questions which 

contained a two-page narrative, along with four Questions containing multiple sub-questions. 

Applicants filed an objection to the amended Statement of Questions, arguing that the amended 

Questions are unrelated to the issues raised by the original Appellant, and that they do not raise 

cognizable, triable issues. In doing so, Applicants ask this Court to dismiss Questions 1 through 4 

and consequently, this appeal. For the reasons stated below, we agree that the amended 

Questions raise non-jurisdictional, non-triable issues, and therefore DISMISS Questions 1 

through 4. 

1 The listed address for the Property says St. Johnsbury, but the Property is located in the Town of Barnet. 
As a threshold issue, we are reminded that “the statement of questions should be a short, 

concise and plain statement that will establish the scope of the appeal, and ultimately, the scope 

of the issues for trial.” In re Champlain Marina, Inc., No. 28-2-09 Vtec, slip op. at 1-2 (Vt. Envtl. 

Ct. July 31, 2009) (citation omitted). A Statement of Questions is not a mechanism for arguing 

the substance of one’s claims. See In re Conlon CU Permit, No. 2-1-12 Vtec, slip op. at 1 (Vt. 

Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Aug. 30, 2012) (Durkin, J.) (“[D]etailed factual and legal information that 

goes beyond identifying the Questions and crosses over into arguing the merits . . . is misplaced 

in a Statement of Questions.”) (citation omitted). 

Because Mr. Jackmauh’s amended Questions are so voluminous, we will not reproduce 

them within this Decision. Generally, the Questions make factual allegations or request 

information relating to the application that are more akin to discovery requests. Furthermore, 

many of the Questions fail to cite to any provision in the Bylaws or the permit application. Lastly, 

we decline to consider the narrative portion of Mr. Jackmauh’s amended Statement of Questions, 

as it discusses the merits of his arguments and is therefore an improper use of a Statement of 

Questions. 

Amended Question 1 contains 12 sub-questions, each of which is directed to the 

Applicants, asking about what activities will occur on the property. These sub-questions are not 

legal issues that the Court can resolve, but are instead questions framed as interrogatories for 

the Applicants. Sub-questions 7 and 8 are the only ones which refer to the Zoning Bylaws, and 

even so, they do not raise a cognizable issue relating to this application. Because these subquestions are not directed to the Court, and because they do not raise any discernable issue for 

this Court to resolve, we hereby DISMISS amended Question 1 in its entirety. 

 Amended Question 2 contains 6 sub-questions, each of which asks about actions taken 

by the Zoning Board. Specifically, these Questions ask whether the Zoning Board was aware of 

unpermitted activities occurring on the Property, and whether the Board took steps to verify 

whether the application was true, accurate, and complete. These sub-questions ask the Court to 

review the Zoning Board’s actions, which we cannot do. This appeal is de novo, meaning that we 

review the application “as though no action whatever has been held prior thereto.” Chioffi v. 

Winooski Zoning Bd., 151 Vt. 9, 11 (1989) (citation omitted); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). Because 

Question 2, as amended, pertains exclusively to actions (or inaction) taken by the Zoning Board, 

we must DISMISS Question 2 in its entirety. 

Amended Question 3 contains 8 sub-questions, each of which is unrelated to the 

application presently before the Court. Sub-question 1 asks about the Applicants’ tax bill and 

does not cite to any provision in the bylaw or permit application. Sub-questions 2 and 3 ask about 

permitted uses in the Low Density Zoning District. This application is for conditional use approval, 

so it is unclear to the Court how these sub-questions relate to the pending application. Subquestions 4 through 8 ask generally about how the proposed project should be classified. These 

questions were all answered in the Court’s January 8, 2024, Entry Order, in which we determined 

that the proposed use is a non-polluting commercial enterprise, which is listed as a conditional 
use in the zoning district in which the project is located. 622 Keyser Hill Road Conditional Use 

Appeal, No. 22-ENV-00038, slip op. at 2–3 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Jan. 8, 2024)(Durkin, J.). 

Because these Questions have already been answered, we hereby DISMISS Question 3 in its 

entirety. 

Lastly, Question 4 as amended asks whether the proposed glamping structures are 

prohibited because “they offer sleeping and living accommodations and are therefore NOT “nonresidential” and NOT “commercial” enterprises and are NOT designated by the regulations as 

either a Permitted Use or a Conditional Use?” Amended Statement of Questions at 6, filed 

January 20, 2024. The Court is not entirely sure what this Question is asking. To the extent that 

it challenges how the proposed use should be classified, we again refer to our previous decision, 

which conclusively determined that the proposed project is a “non-polluting commercial 

enterprise.” Therefore, we must DISMISS Question 4 as amended. 

In reviewing Mr. Jackmauh’s amended Statement of Questions, we conclude that none of 

the Questions raise triable issues for this Court to adjudicate. As a result, we must DISMISS 

Questions 1 through 4. In doing so, there are no remaining Questions before the Court. 

This concludes the matter before the Court. A Judgment Order accompanies this 

Decision. 

Electronically signed at Newfane, Vermont on Monday, April 15, 2024, pursuant to 

V.R.E.F. 9(d).

Thomas S. Durkin, Superior Judge

Superior Court, Environmental Division