Court Opinion

ID: 4267993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-04-24 00:07:43.730583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:13.231508
License: Public Domain

State of Vermont
                               Superior Court—Environmental Division

======================================================================
                   ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
======================================================================

In re Barefoot et. al. Act 250 Application                                  Docket No. 46-4-12 Vtec
(Appeal from District 5 Envtl. Commission determination)

Title: Motion to Dismiss Applicant-Appellants’ Question 9 (Filing No. 2)
Filed: May 24, 2012
Filed By: Interested Person Francis Kincaid (Kinny) Perot
Response filed on 7/2/2012 by Applicant-Appellants

    ___ Granted                              X Denied                                ___ Other

       On December 30, 2011 the District 5 Environmental Commission (“the Commission”)
denied an Act 250 permit application submitted by Applicants Tom Barefoot III, Joni Zweig,
and True North Wilderness Programs, LLC (“Applicants”) to operate a wilderness therapy
program on a 25-acre tract owned by Barefoot/Zweig off Dana Hill Road in the Town of
Waitsfield, Vermont. Applicants appealed the decision on April 2, 2012, and Interested Person
Francis Kincaid Perot (“Ms. Perot”) filed a cross-appeal on May 4, 2012.
        On May 24, 2012, Ms. Perot filed a motion to dismiss Question 9 of Applicants’
Statement of Questions.1 Question 9 asks whether Ms. Perot “satisf[ies] requirements for Party
Status on Criteria 4 and 10.”2 Simultaneously with this motion to dismiss Question 9, Ms. Perot
filed a motion for party status under Act 250 criteria 4 and 10 as well as under criteria 1, 2, 3, 5,
8, and 9. On the same date, she also filed a Statement of Questions that we understand to
encompass both her party status motion and her cross-appeal. On July 2, 2012, Applicants
moved to dismiss all of the 27 questions in Ms. Perot’s Statement of Questions.
        The basis for the motion to dismiss Applicants’ Question 9 (which questions the
propriety of Ms. Perot’s party status) was Ms. Perot’s argument that party status may be
challenged only through a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to V.R.E.C.P. 5(d)(2) and not in an
appellant’s statement of questions. We do not read V.R.E.C.P. 5(d)(2) so strictly as to impose
such a constraint on how questions regarding party status may be raised. Challenging party
status through a statement of questions has the same practical effect of moving to dismiss that
party, and none of the Rules of Environmental Court Procedure prohibit a party from asking, in
a statement of questions, whether an opponent satisfies party status requirements. In any case,

1 Ms. Perot had previously filed a motion to dismiss Applicants’ questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 on April
24, 2012, alleging that Applicants’ notice of appeal referenced only the Commission’s final action in this
case (regarding a motion to amend) rather than the permit denial itself. We denied this motion to dismiss
in an Entry Order also issued today.
2   The Commission granted Ms. Perot final party status for criteria 4 and 10.
Re Barefoot Act 250 Application, No. 46-4-12 Vtec (EO on Mot. to Dismiss Questions) (12-21-12)        Pg. 2 of 2.

as Applicants did subsequently move to dismiss Ms. Perot’s motion for party status on criteria 4
and 10 (among others), Ms. Perot’s challenge to Applicants’ Question 9 is now moot. We intend
to address the legitimacy of Ms. Perot’s party status in a separate decision that resolves the
remaining motions pending in this appeal.
     For the reasons stated above, Ms. Perot’s motion to dismiss Applicants’ Question 9 is
DENIED.

_________________________________________            December 21, 2012
       Thomas S. Durkin, Judge                           Date
=========================================================================
Date copies sent: ___________                                               Clerk's Initials ______
Copies sent to:
  Atty Geoffrey H. Hand for Appellants Thomas Barefoot III, Joni Zweig, & True North Wilderness Program, LLC
  Attorney Rebecca Boucher, Co-Counsel for Appellants
  Attorney Catherine Gjessing for the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
  Attorney David Grayck for Cross Appellant Frances Kincaid Perot
  Attorney Peter Gill for Interested Person Natural Resources Board/LU Panel.