10 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 8504

Section 8504(h) entitles parties appealing a municipal decision that is not on the record to a de novo trial.

34 Fitzsimonds Rd 3-Lot SD - Decision on Motions · filed 2019-04-25(h)

Parties who appeal a municipal decision to this Court that is not an “on the record” decision are “entitled to a de novo trial.” 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a); see also 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

Section 8504 does not give the Environmental Court jurisdiction to decide the validity of private easements.

Harvey & Symmes Final Plat Application · filed 2005-09-29

However, the Environmental Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the validity of easements.

Section 8504(n) allows a person to intervene in an Environmental Court proceeding only if one of its six prerequisites is satisfied.

Keystone Development Corp. NOV Appeal · filed 2007-06-04(n)

One of the six prerequisites of 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n) must be satisfied for “a person”5 to intervene in an Environmental Court proceeding.

Section 8504(b)(1) allows a person who participated in a municipal hearing through testimony or a written submission to qualify as a party-appellant.

Rozzi Real Estate Subdiv. Final Plan Application · filed 2006-03-08(b)(1)

While neither party provided the minutes of the August 25, 2005 Planning Commission hearing, the decision shows that a copy was sent to Mr. Koval, from which we may deduce that he either appeared and testified at the hearing or submitted evidence or a statement of concern in writing sufficient to qualify as a party‐appellant under 24 V.S.A. §4465(b)(3) and §4471(a), and under 10 V.S.A. §8504(b)(1).

Section 8504(a) allows a person aggrieved by a district coordinator’s decision to appeal to the Environmental Court without first having party status before a district commission.

Marcelino Waste Facility JO 4-405 2nd Reconsideration · filed 2007-05-30(a)

Ranger Asphalt has standing to appeal the District Coordinator’s determination of that request to this Court pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a), which provides that “any person aggrieved by an act or decision of . . . a district coordinator . . . may appeal to the environmental court.”

Section 8504(a) limits appeals from a district coordinator’s jurisdictional opinion to persons aggrieved by an injury to an interest protected under Act 250.

Marcelino Recycling Facility JO · filed 2007-11-06(a)

This limitation is stated in 10 V.S.A. § 8504 (entitled “Appeals to the Environmental Court”), which states that “any person aggrieved” by a JO issued by a district coordinator may appeal that decision to the Environmental Court.

Section 8504(a) limits appeals of Act 250 jurisdictional opinions to persons aggrieved.

Marcelino Waste Facility JO · filed 2008-01-28(a)

Compare 10 V.S.A. § 6007(c) with §§ 8502(7) and 8504(a) (§ 6007(c) allows “any person” to request a JO; §8504(a) limits proper appellants of JOs to “persons aggrieved”, as defined in § 8502(7)).

Section 8504(d) gives the Environmental Court jurisdiction over appeals of party status determinations, whether made before or as part of a final decision.

Unified Buddhist Church, Inc. · filed 2006-03-20(d)

Under §8504(d), this Court has jurisdiction of appeals of party status determinations, whether interlocutory or embedded in a final decision, as here.

Section 8504(b)(1) requires a person appealing a municipal decision to have participated in the municipal proceeding; another person’s appeal does not satisfy that requirement.

Burkett 2-Lot Subdivision · filed 2007-01-09(b)(1)

In accordance with the foregoing, Applicants’ Motion to Dismiss the appeal is hereby GRANTED; Mr. Smith’s appeal to this Court is DISMISSED, due to Mr. Smith’s failure to fulfill the participation requirement of 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1).

Section 8504(b)(2)(C) permits a court to preserve qualified individuals’ appeal rights when disallowing them would cause manifest injustice.

Kaminsky House Replacement · filed 2007-03-28(b)(2)(C)

They did not initially file the appeal as individuals due to incorrect information given the group by the City’s representatives; therefore, although the failure of the group as a group to have filed the petition required under that section prevents the appeal from proceeding with the §4465(b)(4) group appellant, they were given the opportunity to convert the appeal to one filed by qualified individuals under §4465(b)(3), as it would have resulted in manifest injustice if those qualified individuals’ rights to appeal were disallowed. 10 V.S.A. §8504(b)(2)(C); V.R.E.C.P. 1.

An interested person who participated in a municipal regulatory proceeding may appeal a development review board decision to the Environmental Court.

Ingleside Development 2 Lot Subdivision · filed 2007-07-03(b)(1)

Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1), “an interested person, as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4465, who has participated as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4471 in the municipal regulatory proceeding” may take an appeal to the Environmental Court from a decision of a development review board. ... We conclude that NCRG meets the statutory requirements for party status as to every member except Ms. Frey and Mr. Hudak; therefore NCRG is a proper appellant.

Section 8504(d)(1) requires an Act 250 appellant to have retained party status before the District Commission; an LLC cannot appeal in its own name based on party status granted to its owner individually.

Sports Venue Foundation, Inc. Act 250 LU Permit · filed 2007-10-24(d)(1)

Dwinell Enterprises, LLC was not granted final party status, and therefore is not the proper party to continue in this matter.

Section 8504(c) limits Environmental Court appeals from municipal development review boards to matters arising under 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117 or Chapter 61, Subchapter 12.

G.R. Enterprise, Inc. Sign Application · filed 2008-05-12(c)

This Court has jurisdiction of appeals from municipal development review boards, but only in matters arising under 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117 or 24 V.S.A. Chapter 61, Subchapter 12. 4 V.S.A. § 1001(b); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(c).

Section 8504(b)(2)(A) permits an interested person to appeal despite not participating in the municipal proceeding when the lack of a hearing prevented participation.

Honora Vineyard Application · filed 2008-10-31(b)(2)(A)

Although the statute requires that the interested person filing the appeal must have participated in the municipal regulatory proceeding below, id., there is an exception recognized where, such as here, the municipal panel never actually conducted a hearing. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(A). Had such a hearing occurred, Neighbors would have been able to participate. Thus, the lack of a hearing was a procedural defect that prevented Neighbors from participating, and Neighbors therefore have a right to appeal.

Section 8504(b)(1) requires an interested person to participate in the municipal proceeding before the municipal panel makes its final decision in order to appeal.

Verizon Wireless Barton Permit · filed 2009-05-20(b)(1)

Although the Augers appear to be interested persons, they must also meet the participation requirement before they can bring an appeal under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1).

Section 8504(a) provides for an appeal of an ANR decision; that appeal is not a private cause of action.

Omya Solid Waste Disposal Facility · filed 2009-04-14(a)

Appellant has simply appealed the ANR’s interim certification decision, under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a), and does not claim a private right of action in this proceeding.

Section 8504 does not give the Environmental Division jurisdiction to decide whether a declaration is a lawful instrument under Title 27A.

Geddes PUD CU Application · filed 2009-04-21

As discussed in the August 22, 2008 summary judgment decision in Docket No. 101- 5-07 Vtec, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over issues arising under Title 27A of the Vermont Statutes, relating to whether the Declaration is a “lawful instrument.” This Court has statewide jurisdiction to hear certain matters specified by statute. 4 V.S.A. § 1001(b), 10 V.S.A. § 8504. As with regard to Questions 8 and 9 of Docket No. 101-5-07 Vtec, to the extent that Question 3 raises an issue beyond this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, that issue must be dismissed.

Section 8504(a) permits a person aggrieved by an ANR decision to appeal, including abutting property owners who allege particularized injuries.

Champlain Marina, Inc. Dock Expansion · filed 2009-07-31(a)

The statute at issue in this case grants standing to “any person aggrieved by an act or decision of [ANR].” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a). ... We conclude that Neighbors have a right to appeal a dock expansion permit amendment such as this, since they are abutting property owners to the area that will be most affected by Applicant’s proposed project.

Section 8504(d)(1) requires an Act 250 appellant to have retained party status for each criterion the appellant seeks to appeal.

Verizon Wireless Act 250 Permit Barton · filed 2010-02-02(d)(1)

According to the plain language of the statute, party status for criterion 10 is a prerequisite to appeal criterion 10.

Section 8504(b)(1) allows interested persons who participated in municipal hearings to appeal the resulting decision.

New Cengular Wireless, dba AT&T Sousa Telecommunications · filed 2009-12-30(b)(1)

Our Legislature has established that interested persons (as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4465) who have participated (as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4471) in municipal hearings have standing to challenge the determinations made in those municipal proceedings. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1).

Section 8504(a) allows a party by right or a person aggrieved by an Act 250 or state agency decision to appeal it.

JLD Property St. Albans Wal Mart · filed 2010-01-20(a)

JLD properly notes that a party wishing to appeal an Act 250 or state agency permit determination must either be a “party by right” or a “person aggrieved by an act or decision” they seek to appeal.

Section 8504(a) allows a person to appeal a land use determination only if the person is aggrieved.

Agri-Mark Indirect Discharge Permit Amendment · filed 2010-07-20(a)

Our Legislature further determined that a person may only appeal a land use determination, such as the amended indirect discharge permit issued by DEC in this case, when they may be deemed to be a “person aggrieved.”

Section 8504(b)(1) allows an interested person to appeal a municipal land use decision only if that person participated in the municipal proceeding.

Hawk's Nest South, LLP Condition Use PUD · filed 2010-11-17(b)(1)

First, the individual must qualify as an “interested person” as that status is defined by 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b). See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1). ... Second, the individual must have participated in the proceeding below. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1).

Section 8504(b)(1) requires a person appealing a municipal land use decision to be an interested person who participated in the municipal proceeding.

Hawk's Nest South, LLP Conditional Use/PUD Applications · filed 2010-11-29(b)(1)

First, the individual must qualify as an “interested person” as that status is defined by 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b). See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1). ... Second, the individual must have participated in the proceeding below. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1).

Section 8504(b) allows a person who participated in a municipal panel proceeding and qualifies as an interested person to appeal the panel’s decision to the Environmental Division.

Goddard College CU · filed 2012-07-05(b)

Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b) and 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a), a person has standing to appeal a municipal panel’s decision to this Court if he or she participated in the proceeding below and qualifies as an “interested person” under one of the categories defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b).

Section 8504(b)(1) requires an interested person to participate in the municipal proceeding before appealing its determination to the Environmental Division.

Verizon Wireless Westford Site CU & SP · filed 2011-06-23(b)(1)

In general, only interested persons—as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)—who have participated in the municipal proceeding below may appeal that determination to this Court. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1).

Section 8504(d) requires party status under a specific criterion to appeal a district commission’s conclusions on that criterion.

Chaves Londonderry Gravel Pit · filed 2011-11-22(d)

Appellants correctly state that a party must have party status under a specific criterion in order to appeal a district commission’s conclusions on that criterion. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d) (establishing the requirements to appeal a district commission’s decision, which include the granting of party status).

Section 8504(b) requires an interested person who did not participate in the municipal proceeding to justify that failure before appealing a development review board decision.

Moran Site Plan Amendment · filed 2012-02-15(b)

However, only three of the 47 Appellants appeared at the DRB proceedings, and the remaining 44 Appellants therefore had the burden of proving why they failed to “participate” below.

Section 8504(a) does not require an agency act or decision to be formal or in writing for it to be appealable.

Northeast Res. Recovery Ass'n v. State of Vermont Agency of Natural Res. · filed 2013-10-10(a)

However, the court finds nothing in the statute requiring that something must be written and formal to be an “act or decision.”

Section 8504(a) permits an aggrieved person to appeal an Agency act or decision to the Environmental Division, including a final corrective action plan that is not clearly part of an exempt civil enforcement action.

Bradford Oil Properety "CAP" · filed 2014-03-06(a)

Bradford and SRDC seek review of the CAP under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a) which allows any person aggrieved by an act or decision of the Secretary of the Agency of Natural resources to appeal that act or decision to the Environmental Division. ... Because the statute’s plain language provides a broad right of appeal of the Agency’s acts or decisions, and the Agency’s act or decision is not clearly part of the exempted civil enforcement matter, we cannot proscribe Bradford’s and SRDC’s right to appeal.

Section 8504(a) limits standing to appeal a municipal land use decision to people who participated in the municipal proceedings.

Memorial Hall Renovation Addition · filed 2013-11-25(a)

Appellants make a sincere and sympathetic argument, but we regret that the applicable law does not allow their appeal to go forward. Our Legislature has chosen to limit standing to appeal a land use determination to those individuals who have “participated” in the municipal proceedings that resulted in the decision they seek to appeal. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a) and 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a).

Section 8504(a) requires a person appealing a district commission decision to allege a particularized injury protected by Act 250 that is attributable to the decision and can be redressed.

Zaremba Group Act 250 · filed 2014-02-14(a)

To have standing in this Court as a “person aggrieved” by a district commission decision, an appellant must allege “an injury to a particularized interest” protected by Act 250 that is attributable to the decision and that can be redressed. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a) and § 8502(7).

Section 8504(a) permits a party aggrieved by a DEC decision on an indirect discharge permit to appeal to the Environmental Division.

Vt Turquoise Hospitality, LLC Discharge Permit · filed 2014-11-06(a)

In the context of an Indirect Discharge Permit, a party has standing to appeal a DEC act or decision if they are aggrieved by it. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a).

Section 8504(b)(1) requires a person appealing a municipal regulatory decision to be an interested person who participated in the proceeding.

Bay Harbor Marina, Inc SP & Variance · filed 2014-04-16(b)(1)

To have standing to appeal a DRB decision, a party must be an interested person who participated in the municipal regulatory proceeding. Id. at ¶ 9; 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1); 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a). ... Because the parties do not dispute Mr. Germain’s interested person status, we find that he has standing in this appeal.

Section 8504(b)(1) permits an interested person who participated in the municipal proceedings to appeal the panel’s decision to the Environmental Division.

Brisson Gravel Extraction · filed 2014-11-07(b)(1)

A party is entitled to appeal a municipal panel’s act or decision to this Court if they are an interested person, as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4465, and they have participated in the proceedings below, as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4471. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1).

Interested persons may participate in an Environmental Division appeal, but only an appellant who participated in the proceeding below may set the questions for review.

Farmer Mold & Machine Works, Inc. · filed 2015-01-07(b)(1), (n)

While any interested person may participate in an appeal before this Court, participation is confined to the Statement of Questions raised by an Appellant who, in addition to meeting the criteria of an interested person, has participated in the proceeding below.

Section 8504(b)(1) allows interested persons who participated in a municipal regulatory proceeding to appeal the municipal panel’s decision to the Environmental Division.

Hannaford SD Revision · filed 2015-02-04(b)(1)

Interested persons (as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4465) who have participated in the municipal regulatory proceeding (as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4471) may appeal a decision of a municipal panel to this Court. ... We therefore conclude that Cross-Appellants are proper parties before the Court under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1).

Section 8504(b) allows an interested person who participated in the municipal proceeding to appeal the panel’s decision.

Groundworks Collaborative for Peter Putnam · filed 2017-04-28(b)

Such interested persons will be granted the right to appeal decisions of municipal panels, provided they participated in the proceeding below. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b); 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a). ... As an interested person, Ms. Artra also participated in the proceeding below, and therefore has the standing to appeal the DRB’s decision in this case.

Section 8504(d) limits an Act 250 appeal to criteria for which the district commission granted final party status unless the Environmental Division grants party status after an appeal of the denial.

Orlandi Act 250 Kennel Permit · filed 2015-02-13(d)(1)–(2)

Unless a party appeals the district commission’s denial, and the Court in turn grants party status, standing before the Environmental Division is limited to those Act 250 Criteria for which the district commission granted final party status.

Section 8504(a) allows an aggrieved person to appeal a District Commission decision, including an amended permit, to the Environmental Division within thirty days.

In re Treetop Development Company Act 250 Development (Treetop at Stratton Condominium Assn., Inc., Appellant) · filed 2016-02-12(a)

Under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a), any person aggrieved by an act or decision of the District Commission may file an appeal in the Environmental Division within thirty days. This includes the Commission’s decision granting the amended permit.

Section 8504 allows an appeal from ANR’s decision not to renew a solid waste facility certification; an unappealed decision is final and cannot be challenged in a later enforcement action.

ANR v. Colacecci · filed 2016-08-19

ANR’s decision not to renew Mr. Colaceci’s solid waste facility certification occurred on October 3, 2014. This decision was appealable under 10 V.S.A. § 8504. Mr. Colaceci did not appeal the decision. It is therefore final and binding, and cannot be challenged here.

Section 8504(d)'s District Commission party status requirements apply to aggrieved persons, not landowners appealing as parties by right.

Diverging Diamond Act 250 · filed 2017-03-17(d)

Because an aggrieved person is different from a landowner, and the requirements regarding party status before the District Commission in § 8504(d) refer specifically to aggrieved persons, we conclude that these requirements do not apply to landowners.

Section 8504(b)(1) requires an appellant to have participated in the municipal proceeding; a petition filed before the evidence fully closes satisfies that requirement.

Devonwood Investors, LLC 75 Cherry Street · filed 2017-05-22(b)(1)

Under the standard for 12(b)(1) review, we take Appellants’ factual assertion as true, and assume for the purposes of this motion that Appellants filed to participate before the evidence was fully closed. The filing was therefore timely. For this reason, Devonwood’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing based on a failure to comply with the participation requirement set out in 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a) and 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1) is DENIED.

Section 8504(d)(1) limits an appeal to issues under criteria for which the appellant was granted party status.

623 Roosevelt Highway Act 250 - Entry Regarding Motion to Dismss/Clarify · filed 2018-02-27(d)(1)

Parties “may only appeal those issues under the criteria with respect to which the person was granted party status.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(1). ... Appellants did not request and were not granted party status under Criterion 10. As Appellants do not have party status to address these issues, Question 15 is outside the scope of the present appeal. The motion to dismiss Question 15 is GRANTED.

Section 8504(b)(1) gives interested persons who participated in municipal proceedings standing to appeal.

MT Assoc AKA Midway Oil LU Permit - Decision on Motion · filed 2019-05-07(b)(1)

Under circumstances such as the one presently before the Court, a notice of appeal would invoke 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1), which guarantees standing for interested persons who participated in the municipal proceedings below.

Section 8504(a) allows a person aggrieved by an ANR Secretary or District Commission decision to appeal to the Environmental Division; the appellant must show a possible effect on a particularized interest.

Snowstone LLC SW Discharge - Decision on Motion · filed 2020-01-28(a)

Any “person aggrieved by an act or decision by the Secretary” of ANR or the District Commissions may appeal to this Court. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a). ... Given that we have not been provided with claims by Neighbors that the DEC Authorization could have an adverse impact upon Neighbors’ particularized interests, we conclude that Neighbors lack the requisite standing to maintain this appeal.

Section 8504(d)(1) limits an Act 250 appeal to issues under the criteria for which the appellant was granted party status.

BlackRock Construction LLC Act 250 - Decision on Motion · filed 2019-06-19(d)(1)

The person may only appeal those issues under the Act 250 criteria for which they were granted party status. Id.

On a de novo appeal, the Environmental Division applies the same party status standards as the district commission.

Capitol Plaza Act 250 - Decision on Motions · filed 2019-08-01(h)

Further, sitting in the District Commission’s place, the Environmental Division applies the same standards applicable below, including the party status standards. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

Section 8504(d)(2)(B) permits an Act 250 appeal from a district commission’s grant or denial of party status.

Founder's Hall Act 250 Appeal - Decision on Motion · filed 2020-02-06(d)(2)(B)

In the Act 250 context, a person may appeal a District Commission decision if the decision being appealed is the District Commission's grant or denial of party status.

Section 8504(a) permits standing to appeal based on a nonfrivolous allegation of possible injury to a particularized interest, without requiring proof of injury.

In re Snowstone Stormwater Discharge Authorization (Michael Harrington, Appellants) · filed 2021-05-21(a)

While a frivolous or entirely speculative allegation may not be sufficient to support statutory standing under § 8504, the statute does not require that a person seeking statutory standing to appeal under § 8504 satisfy any evidentiary threshold in showing a potential injury to a particularized interest.

Section 8504(a) allows a person aggrieved by a Secretary’s decision to appeal to the Environmental Division; the appellant must allege an injury tied to the permitted activities.

Younger Wetlands Permit Appeal - Decision on Motions · filed 2024-07-01(a)

To have standing to appeal an Agency decision, one must meet all relevant statutory requirements. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a) (“any person aggrieved by an act or decision by the Secretary… may appeal to the Environmental Division . . . .”). ... Accordingly, we GRANT Applicant’s motion on the grounds that Neighbors have failed to demonstrate an injury, personal to them, related to the Permit on appeal.

Section 8504(a) permits a person aggrieved by the Secretary’s decision to appeal to the Environmental Division within 30 days; the appellant must have an injury the court can redress.

Lake Bomoseen Association and LBPT Denial - Decision on Motions · filed 2025-01-10(a)

“[A]ny person aggrieved by an act or decision of the Secretary . . . may appeal to the Environmental Division” within 30 days of the date of the act or decision. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a). ... As the sole appellant, Mr. Waterhouse has failed to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury which is redressable by this Court in light of the Co-Applicants’ absence.

Section 8504(a) allows only a person aggrieved by an act or decision of the ANR Secretary to appeal that decision to the Environmental Division.

Lot 20, 295 Applewood Road Wetland Determination - Decision on Motion · filed 2025-06-18(a)

Only a “person aggrieved by an act or decision of the Secretary [of ANR]” may appeal that decision to this Court. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a). ... Upon a review of ANR’s exhibits, which include Appellants’ written comments and petition to ANR below, the Court concludes that Appellants lack standing to appeal ANR’s decision to this Court because their injury is not “attributable” to the decision on appeal, it is not particularized to them and, to the extent that it is, it is not redressable by the Court.

Section 8504(a) permits only a person aggrieved by a decision of the ANR Secretary to appeal it to the Environmental Division.

State Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit WW-5-9867 - Decision on Motion · filed 2025-09-23(a)

Only a “person aggrieved by an act or decision of the Secretary [of ANR]” may appeal that decision to this Court. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a). ... Because Mr. McAlonan lacks standing to appeal the Permit to this Court, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

Section 8504(a) requires a person appealing as aggrieved to show a particularized injury that the court can redress; the right to appeal does not confer standing automatically.

In Re Lake Bomoseen Association and Lake Bomoseen Preservation Trust Denial (Lindsey C. Waterhouse, Appellant) · filed 2025-11-07(a)

We clarify that being able to appeal and having standing are not equivalent. ... We therefore assess whether Mr. Waterhouse has alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate that he is a “person aggrieved” for the purposes of 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a). We conclude he has not.

Section 8504’s participation requirement applies to appellants, not to nonappealing parties seeking to appear in an appeal.

Lake Bomoseen Association and LBPT Denial - Decision on Motions · filed 2024-09-19(2)(A)

First, Fair Haven is not an appellant in this matter. The requirement that a party must participate before the Secretary does not extend to a non-appealing party such as Fair Haven.

Section 8504(b)(1) requires an appellant to have participated in the municipal proceeding before appealing to the Environmental Division; that requirement is jurisdictional.

Chompupong DRB Decision Appeal - Decision on Motions · filed 2025-09-22(b)(1)

High Ridge Plaza, LLC did not participate in the municipal regulatory proceeding below. This is a jurisdictional prerequisite to appealing a decision to this Court. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1).

Section 8504(d)(1)(B) allows a person aggrieved by a District Commission proceeding to seek an Environmental Division determination of party status by demonstrating entitlement under the relevant Act 250 criteria.

Tyler Bridge Road Permit Amendment Application - Decision on Motion · filed 2025-11-25(d)(1)(B)

The motion must seek to demonstrate, inter alia, that Mr. Palmer is a person aggrieved by a District Commission proceeding who seeks this Court’s determination of party status under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(1)(B).

Section 8504(d)(1)(B) permits an aggrieved person to appeal a District Commission’s denial of party status despite the usual limits on Act 250 appeals.

Tyler Bridge Road Permit Amendment Application - Decision on Motion · filed 2026-01-08(d)(1)(B)

Thus, the Court concludes that the decision being appealed from is the denial of party status that may be properly appealed to the Environmental Division under § 8504(d)(1)(B), notwithstanding the limitations of § 8504(d)(1), assuming Appellant otherwise qualifies as an aggrieved person.

Section 8504(b)(1) permits an interested person to appeal a municipal panel decision only if the person participated in the municipal proceeding.

4659 Main Street Certificates of Compliance - Decision on Motion · filed 2026-01-08(b)(1)

Section 8504 provides that an “interested person” may appeal the decision of an appropriate municipal panel, here the DRB, so long as that person participated in the municipal proceeding below. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1). ... Although the Trust is listed on Appellants’ most recently “updated” notice of appeal, it does not appear that the Trust participated in the proceedings before the DRB (it is not referenced anywhere in the DRB decision) and it did not enter an appearance before this Court.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court to apply the substantive standards applicable to the tribunal under review, including Environmental Board Rule 34(E).

Mountainside Properties, Inc. · filed 2005-12-13(h)

We cannot disregard an analysis made necessary by the specific language of this Rule. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) directs that we apply this substantive standard.

Section 8504(h) requires the court in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards that governed the tribunal appealed from.

Judge Dev. Corp. & SW Corner, LLC · filed 2006-08-07(h)

In this de novo appeal of a District Commission decision, we apply “the substantive standards that were applicable in the tribunal appealed from.”

Section 8504(h) requires the reviewing court to apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from.

Woodchip Power Plant A250 JO 2-234 · filed 2007-01-30(h)

We look to the former Environmental Board Rules as they existed on ... February 16, 2006, because we are required to apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court to apply the substantive standards that applied before the development review board.

Kaminsky Cove Road Home Replacement · filed 2007-12-29(h)

In addressing the issues raised by the remaining questions in Appellants’ Statement of Questions, the Court is required to apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the DRB. V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires a court hearing a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards that governed before the tribunal appealed from.

Watchtower Wireless Cell Tower · filed 2006-08-23(h)

Though this appeal is de novo, we are mindful that we are bound to apply the “substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires the court in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards that applied to the tribunal below.

Dover Valley Trail JO 2-233 · filed 2007-01-16(h)

In a de novo appeal, the Legislature has directed this Court apply the substantive standards that were applicable to the tribunal below. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards used below, including the applicable municipal regulations and burdens of proof.

Pierce Woods PRD & Subdivision Application · filed 2007-02-28(h)

Section 8504(h) of title 10 also requires that in administrating a de novo hearing, this Court must apply “the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from.” Our Rule 5(g) mirrors this directive. We interpret this directive to include both a requirement as to which municipal regulations control our determination and which party carries the initial burden of production and the subsequent burdens of persuasion.

Section 8504(h) requires the court in a de novo appeal to apply the same substantive standards that governed the tribunal below.

Maggio Act 250 Permit Amendment · filed 2007-04-19(h)

In any event, the Court is directed in this de novo appeal to apply the same substantive standards as were applicable in the tribunal appealed from, that is, the District Commission. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g). In applying these standards, the Court reaches the same result.

Section 8504(h) requires a de novo appeal from an ANR permit decision, without a presumption that the agency’s decision is correct.

Entergy Nuclear/Vt Yankee Thermal Discharge Permit Amendment · filed 2007-06-06(h)

As we explained in 2006 and in footnote 4 on page 5 of the decision issued today on the other pending motions, the statutory provision under which this appeal is taken is entirely unambiguous that it is de novo. 10 V.S.A. §8504(h). Unlike in judicial review of administrative agency action in the federal system or in some other states, no presumption is afforded the fact that the permit amendment was issued by the ANR, and the Court is not charged with determining whether the ANR determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

Section 8504(h) requires the court in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards that applied to the tribunal below.

Hamm Mine Reclamation Act 250 JO 2-241 · filed 2007-09-27(h)

In a de novo appeal, the Legislature has directed that this Court apply the substantive standards that were applicable to the tribunal below. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). Therefore, we will apply the standards applicable when the District Coordinator made her determination on the jurisdictional questions posed by Appellants.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of a DRB decision when the municipality has not elected review on the record.

Woodstock Community Trust, Inc. & Housing Vt. PUD · filed 2007-05-10(h)

Rather, a de novo standard of review applies in this Court to the decisions of this DRB. 10 V.S.A. §8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court to review appeals of Agency of Natural Resources permit decisions de novo.

Entergy Nuclear/Vermont Yankee thermal Discharge Permit Amendment · filed 2007-06-19(h)

A court cannot alter the clear language of a statute; the terms of 10 V.S.A. §8504(h) preclude this Court’s application of the more deferential standard of review preferred by Entergy.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards that applied before the DRB.

Dodge Farm Community, LLC Concept Plan · filed 2008-03-21(h)

In this de novo appeal, the Court must apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the DRB.

Section 8504(h) directs the Environmental Court in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards that applied before the zoning board.

Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club · filed 2008-03-25(h)

In this de novo appeal, we are directed to apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the ZBA; this forms our opinion about which facts are material.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court in a de novo ANR permit appeal to apply the substantive standards that governed the agency decision.

Britting Wastewater/Water Supply Permit · filed 2008-04-07(h)

In this de novo appeal from an ANR permit decision, this Court sits in place of the ANR and must apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from.

Section 8504(h) requires a de novo hearing on appealed issues and allows the Environmental Court to decide an issue within the appeal even if it was not raised before the commission.

Gizmo Realty/VKR Assoc., LLC Act 250 Permit · filed 2008-04-30(h)

In this de novo appeal, our role is to “hold a de novo hearing on those issues which have been appealed.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). ... Thus, even though it appears undisputed that Gizmo failed to raise the issue before the Commission below of which regional plan applies to its application, we have the authority, and the obligation, to determine which plan should be used in assessing whether the application now before us on appeal conforms with Act 250 Criterion 10.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court to apply the same substantive standards as ANR when hearing an ANR permit appeal de novo.

Entergy Nuclear/Vermont Yankee Thermal Discharge Permit Amendment · filed 2008-05-22(h)

Unlike federal review of administrative agency decisions, and unlike judicial review in Vermont prior to the adoption of the current appeals legislation, the present proceeding is not a ‘substantial evidence’ review of a record made in the administrative level, and therefore the ‘substantial evidence’ standard of review is inapplicable. Rather, by statute, the Court is required to apply the same substantive standards that the ANR was required to apply. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

In a de novo appeal, the Environmental Court applies the substantive standards that applied before the municipal board.

Lake Carmi, LLC CU Application CU Application · filed 2008-06-23(h)

When considering the summary judgment motion pending in this de novo appeal, we first note that we are directed to apply the substantive standards which were applicable before the ZBA. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h), V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court in a de novo appeal to apply the standards used below and hear the appealed application anew, rather than review the evidence presented to the prior tribunal.

Jackson Subdivision ROW Access · filed 2008-07-08(h)

Our role in a de novo appeal is to apply the standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from and to hear the appealed-from application anew, as though no prior action had been taken. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h), V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); and see In re: Gizmo Realty/VKR Assocs., LLC, Docket No. 199-9-07 Vtec, slip op. at 4 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Apr. 30, 2008) (J. Durkin) (explaining that a de novo hearing “contemplates an entire trial similar to the proceedings from which the appeal arose”). Because we will consider anew those aspects of Mr. Jackson’s application that have been appealed, the question of whether the evidence presented to the ZBA was sufficient is not a claim we are charged with addressing.

In a de novo appeal, § 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court to apply the governing statute and municipal zoning ordinance to the facts of the particular application.

Spurr Self Storage Unit Construction Application · filed 2008-08-07(h)

The Court is obligated to apply the statute and the municipality’s zoning ordinance to the specific facts of each application that comes before the Court. 10 V.S.A. §8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

Section 8504(h) requires de novo review of an ANR decision on a petition, and that review does not violate the separation of powers.

CLF Stormwater Discharge · filed 2008-08-28(h)

As explained in our earlier Decision, 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) unambiguously directs this Court to review this case de novo. ... We therefore find no constitutional deficiencies in the de novo review provisions of 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) and we decline to strike down those statutory provisions.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards anew, as though the prior tribunal had not acted.

Irish Construction Application · filed 2008-09-08(h)

In this de novo appeal, our role is to apply “the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). ... In the context of this appeal, because we are directed to apply the standards contained in the Zoning Bylaws as though the ZBA had not acted on this permit, the question of whether it was proper for the ZBA to deny this application because of alleged prior zoning violations is beyond the scope of this appeal.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court to review an appealed planning commission decision de novo, without deferring to the commission's determination.

Huntington Remodeling Application · filed 2008-11-05(h)

In reviewing the decision that was before the Planning Commission, we look at the issue de novo. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); see also 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a). This means that while we have the utmost respect for the Planning Commission and its individual members, we should not defer to the specific determination that is now before us on appeal.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of an appeal from a development review board decision, with the Environmental Court standing in the board’s place.

Phillips Property Non-Enforcement · filed 2008-11-18(h)

In this appeal the Court stands in place of the DRB, to act de novo on Appellants’ appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s letter. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

Section 8504(h) requires de novo review of ZBA decisions, without deference to the ZBA’s prior determinations.

Hale Mountain Fish and Game Club · filed 2008-11-21(h)

In reviewing this question de novo under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) and 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a), we cannot defer to the ZBA’s prior determinations on these matters.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards that governed the municipal board.

Mansfield Professional Building PRD Final Plat Application · filed 2008-12-09(h)

Second, in this de novo proceeding, our role is to apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the DRB. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

Section 8504(h) provides a de novo hearing on the issues appealed in a municipal appeal.

Keenan Conditional Use Approval · filed 2009-06-04(h)

This municipal appeal is entitled to “a de novo hearing on those issues which have been appealed.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); accord 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards used by the tribunal below and decide the issues raised on appeal.

Highland Development Co., LLC & JAM Golf, LLC Master Plan · filed 2010-02-02(h)

In a de novo proceeding, “the Court sits in place of the [DRB] to consider what was before the [DRB], applying the substantive standards that were applicable before the [DRB].” In re: Kibbe Zoning Permit, No. 173-8-07 Vtec, slip op. at 1–2 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Nov. 6, 2008) (Wright, J.) (citing V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h)). As the present matter is de novo before the Court, and the Statement of Questions raises the issue of the appropriate number of units for each of the four development areas on appeal, it will be for this Court to determine whether each of the contested development areas meets the applicable master plan criteria and to determine the number of units in each area that should be approved in the master plan.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court to apply the substantive standards that applied before the zoning board.

Fenoff Accessory Dwelling Application · filed 2008-03-19(h)

The Court must apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the ZBA.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court to apply the substantive standards that governed the tribunal below, even when an appeal is unopposed.

Legrove & Paznokaitis Variance Application · filed 2008-07-15(h)

Rather, the Court must independently examine the material facts, and may only grant the motion if the moving party is entitled to judgment under the applicable substantive law, because the Court is obligated to apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); see also In re Bergmann Act 250 Subdivision, Docket No. 158-8-05 Vtec, slip op. at 6–7 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Mar. 12, 2008).

Section 8504(h) directs the Environmental Court to apply the substantive legal standards that applied before the development review board.

Ledgewood Condo PUD CU Amend Application · filed 2008-08-26(h)

We are also directed to apply the substantive legal standards that were applicable before the DRB. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). We proceed with our analysis here with these directives in mind.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court to apply the substantive standards that governed the land use tribunal whose decision is appealed.

Delano Variance Application · filed 2008-08-28(h)

In determining whether either party in an appeal before this Court is entitled to summary judgment, we are also directed to apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the land use tribunal that rendered the appealed from decision. V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). We review the pending motions in this light.

On appeal to the Environmental Division, the court applies the substantive standards that applied before the development review board.

Beliveau NOV · filed 2008-09-15(h)

The Court applies the substantive standards that were applicable before the DRB.

On appeal, the Environmental Court applies the substantive standards that applied before the zoning board.

Kirschner Home Construction Application · filed 2008-09-25(h)

The Court applies the substantive standards that were applicable before the ZBA . V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court to apply the substantive standards that governed before the tribunal appealed from.

RCC Atlantic, Inc. & Sousa Appeal of Jones Leinoff · filed 2009-05-08(h)

Although further amendments to the Act 250 Rules are currently under consideration, we are directed to “apply[] the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from,” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h), which in this case requires us to apply the current version of the Act 250 Rules.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court to apply the substantive standards that applied before the tribunal appealed from.

JLD Properties Wal-Mart St. Albans · filed 2009-03-16(h)

That said, we are directed to “apply[] the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from,” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h), which in this case requires us to apply the Environmental Board Rules in effect at the time that JLD filed the pending application.

Section 8504(h) directs the Environmental Division to apply the substantive standards that governed the tribunal whose decision is appealed.

Rivers Development, LLC Conditional Use · filed 2010-03-25(h)

We are directed to apply “the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from,” which in this case would be the District #5 Environmental Commission. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to apply the substantive standards that applied before the agency.

Omya Solid Waste Facility Interim & Final Certification · filed 2010-11-16(h)

In making these decisions, the Court is required to apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the ANR. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(n)(6) permits intervention under the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, but a mortgage interest that the appeal will not directly affect is insufficient.

Randolph Town Officce Decision/Zoning Application · filed 2006-03-30(n)(6)

We find the Court’s reasoning instructive and find that Mr. Kevan cannot intervene under V.R.C.P. 24(a) and 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(6) because any disposition relating to the Town’s expansion of their municipal office building will not directly affect Mr. Kevan‘s mortgage interest in the property at 13 Summer Street.

Section 8504(n)(6) allows intervention under the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure; a mortgage holder cannot intervene when the proposed development will not directly affect the mortgage interest.

Town of Randolph v. Finkle and Quillia · filed 2006-11-08(n)(6)

We find the Court’s reasoning instructive and find that Mr. Kevan cannot intervene under V.R.C.P. 24(a) and 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(6) because any disposition relating to the Town’s expansion of their municipal office building will not directly affect Mr. Kevan‘s mortgage interest in the property at 13 Summer Street.

An organization seeking to intervene under § 8504(n)(4) must show that its members have standing as individuals.

Unified Buddhist Church, Inc. · filed 2007-05-11(n)(4)

The information provided to the Court regarding such members is not sufficient to confer standing on them as individuals, and thus is not sufficient to confer standing on the organization under Parker or §8504(n)(4).

A person seeking to intervene under § 8504(n)(1), (4), or (6) must show that the statutory requirements are met.

Appeal of Rivers Development, LLC · filed 2007-07-03(n)(1), (4), (6)

DENIED because there has been no showing ... that the requirements of 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(1), ... (4), or (6) have been met.

Section 8504(n)(4) allows an organization to intervene as a person aggrieved when its members have individual standing, its asserted interests relate to its purpose, and the requested relief does not require individual members to participate.

Unified Buddhist church, Inc. Indirect Discharge Permit · filed 2007-08-15(n)(4)

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that VNRC’s Motion to Alter or Amend is GRANTED and the Court’s May 11, 2007 Order is altered to allow VNRC to intervene in this appeal as a “person aggrieved” pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(4).

Section 8504(n)(4) permits an organization to intervene as a person aggrieved only when its members have a particularized interest protected by the applicable Act 250 criterion; generalized policy interests do not suffice.

Morgan Meadows/Black Dog Realty Subdivision Act 250 Permit · filed 2008-05-01(n)(4)

The interests that the individual members of both CLF and VNRC have asserted are important but generalized policy interests, rather than “particularized interests” protected by Criterion 9(B). ... Therefore, neither VNRC nor CLF qualifies for intervention under § 8504(n)(4).

Section 8504(n)(5) allows an interested person to participate in another party’s appeal without having participated in the municipal proceedings.

DeSimone & Moisis Family Trust CU Application · filed 2010-04-27(n)(5)

Instead, Mr. Smith and Ms. Weeks have merely entered their appearances in this matter as interested parties, as provided in V.R.E.C.P. 5(c) and 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(5). ... Because neither Mr. Smith nor Ms. Weeks has filed an appeal or cross-appeal, the question of whether either ”participated” in the ZBA hearings is irrelevant to their ability to participate as an interested party in the appeal filed by Appellant-Applicants.

Section 8504(n)(4) permits qualifying individuals to intervene in an Environmental Division appeal.

Omya Solid Waste Facility Interim Certification · filed 2011-02-28(n)(4)

Rather, their affidavits reveal that they qualify for intervention under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(4), if not also under § 8504(n)(6). With the dismissal of RCO as an organizational party, their interests will not otherwise be represented by any party in the litigation. They are therefore granted leave to intervene.

Section 8504(n)(5) allows an interested person under 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(2) to participate as a party in an appeal of a municipal panel decision.

Lawrence Site Plan Approval · filed 2011-07-27(n)(5)

Any individual or entity who qualifies as an “interested person” under the definitions found in 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(2) can participate as a party in an appeal of a municipal panel decision. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(5).

Section 8504(n)(5) permits a municipality that qualifies as an interested person to participate in a pending Environmental Division appeal.

Lawrence Site Plan Approval · filed 2011-07-27(n)(5)

Here, the Town is both—an interested person under the definition in 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(2) and, as a result, an interested person who can participate in this appeal via 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(5).

Section 8504(n) allows intervention in a municipal zoning appeal for parties who retained their status, parties by right, interested persons under 24 V.S.A. § 4465, and those who meet the standards of V.R.C.P. 24.

Brandan Plaza CU Permit · filed 2011-08-05(n)

Under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n), intervention is allowed in a municipal zoning appeal for those who appeared as a party in the action appealed from and retained party status; those who are parties by right (such as the applicant or the municipality); those who qualify as interested persons under 24 V.S.A. § 4465; and those who meet the standards for intervention under V.R.C.P. 24.

An interested person who participated in a municipal review board proceeding may appeal its decision within thirty days or participate in another party’s appeal through a timely appearance or motion to intervene.

Schuyler NOV · filed 2012-05-30(b)(1)

Thus, a person entitled to appeal under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1) can either choose to appeal or, alternatively, choose to participate in the appeal of another party by either filing a timely notice of appearance or, if the time to do so has passed, by filing a timely motion to intervene.

Section 8504(n)(5) allows a qualifying interested person to appear in another party’s appeal regardless of whether that person participated in the proceedings below.

Main St Place LLC · filed 2012-06-19(n)(5)

Parties qualifying as “interested person[s]” under 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(2) have a right to appear in the appeals of others, regardless of whether they participate below. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(5);3 V.R.E.C.P. 5(4)(c).

Section 8504(n)(5) allows interested persons who meet the criteria in 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(3) to intervene in municipal appeals.

McCullough Crushing, Inc. · filed 2013-06-27(n)(5)

10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(5) allows the same interested persons to intervene in pending appeals of such decisions to this Court. ... Accordingly, we find that the Davins have standing to remain interested persons in the pending municipal appeal.

Section 8504(n)(6) allows intervention as of right when a party meets the standard in the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure.

Diverging Diamond Interchange SW Permit/Diverging Diamond Interchange A250/R.L. Vallee, Inc.et Al MS4 · filed 2017-04-28(n)(6)

For the reasons set out below, we conclude that Costco meets the standard for intervention by right under § 8504(n)(6) and V.R.C.P. 24(a)(2).

Section 8504(n)(5) allows an interested person to intervene in an Environmental Division appeal, but a challenged intervenor must produce evidence of a reasonable possibility that the project will affect their particularized interests.

KR Properties, LLC Prelim & Final Plat - Entry Regarding Motion to Dismiss · filed 2018-06-28(n)(5)

A person may intervene in an appeal to this Court if they qualify as an “interested person.” ... Once a party’s right to intervene as an interested person is challenged, that party has the burden of producing evidence showing a reasonable possibility that the proposed project will impact the intervenor’s particularized interests. ... He has therefore failed to meet his burden of production.

Section 8504(n)(2) permits a party by right to intervene as an interested party in a pending appeal.

Hollow Road 9-Lot PUD - Entry Regarding Motion to Determine Party Status · filed 2018-07-20(n)(2)

A party may intervene in a pending appeal as an interested party if they are a party by right. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(2).

A party by right is entitled to intervene in litigation before the Environmental Division.

Snowstone LLC SW Discharge & Snowstone, LLC JO 2-308 - Decision on Motion · filed 2020-01-28(n)(2)

Therefore, a party by right is entitled in intervene in litigation before this Court. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(2).

Section 8504(n)(2) allows an owner of land at issue in a municipal appeal to intervene as a party by right without participating in the proceedings below.

Zlotoff Foundation Inc. NOV (2) - Decision on Motion (Intervene) · filed 2020-08-11(n)(2)

AIR is a party by right pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(2). ... Owners of the land at issue in a municipal appeal are parties by right and “may intervene in a pending appeal.” ... While participation is a prerequisite to filing an appeal pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4471 or gaining interested person status pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4465, it is not required for intervention as a party by right.

An interested person who participated in the proceeding below may participate as a non-appellant party in the Environmental Division appeal.

Poultney Properties LLC Change of Use & SP App. - Decision on Motion · filed 2021-02-04(n)(5)

As an interested person who participated in the proceeding below, CCP is entitled to participate in a pending appeal before the Environmental Division.

Section 8504(n)(6) permits intervention as of right when a person's interest in the subject property may be impaired by the appeal and existing parties do not adequately represent that interest.

Poultney Properties LLC Change of Use & SP App. - Decision on Motions · filed 2021-06-23(n)(6)

As the motion for intervention is timely, the question remaining before the Court whether Neighbors are interested persons pursuant to V.R.C.P. 24 and 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(6). Intervention as of right must be granted if (1) the intervenor has “an interest relating to the property or transaction” that is the subject of the underlying action; (2) the intervenor would be impaired or impeded in his or her ability to protect that interest depending on the outcome of the action; and (3) the intervenor's interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties.

Section 8504(n) allows a municipality to intervene as a party by right in a pending appeal concerning a project within its borders.

53 North Pleasant Street Denial - Decision on Motion · filed 2024-04-01(n)

Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n), “[a]ny person may intervene in a pending appeal if that person . . . is a party by right.” ... The Town is a party by right because it is the municipality in which Applicant’s project is located. The Town may participate in the appeal in this capacity.

Section 8504(n) does not require a municipality that is a party by right and timely files a notice of appearance to move to intervene.

Ranney Dairy Farm, LLC Major Subdivision Appeal - Decision on Motion · filed 2025-02-06(n)(2)

The Court declines to order the Town to file a motion to intervene because it is not required by this Court's procedural rules or statutory law. ... Rule 5(c) references 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(1)—(3) in noting who may appear in an action by simply filing a timely notice of appearance. ... Thus, those who timely file a notice of appearance are entitled party status unless challenged.

Section 8504(a) allows a person aggrieved by a secretary’s decision to appeal to the Environmental Court; a person with that right must be advised of it before the appeal can be barred as untimely.

Rowley Fuels Storage Tanks · filed 2006-07-31(a)

If Appellant has a right to appeal a governmental decision, which it had in this instance at least as to the March 10, 2005 letter, then it has a right to be advised of that right of appeal to enable it to exercise that right.

Section 8504(c)(1) requires an appellant to serve notice of an appeal on interested persons.

Sports Venue Foundation, Inc. · filed 2007-12-18(c)(1)

There is no evidence that Appellant individually served any interested parties with a corrected notice, so as to comply with 10 V.S.A. § 8504(c)(1) and V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(B).

Section 8504(c)(1) requires newspaper publication of an appeal notice within ten days of individual notice; a three-day delay caused by the newspaper does not warrant dismissal.

Three Church Street Act 250 Land Use Permit · filed 2007-01-03(c)(1)

The notice was intended to be published in the August 3, 2006 edition of the newspaper, the eighth business day1 after Appellants had provided the individual required notice, which would have met the ten-day deadline imposed by V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(B) and 10 V.S.A. §8504(c)(1). ... Because timely publication of a copy of the notice of appeal in the newspaper is not jurisdictional, we must determine what action would be appropriate regarding this three-day exceedance of the ten-day deadline for publication, without fault on the part of Appellants. ... A three-day delay in the publication notice under the circumstances of this case does not warrant dismissal of the appeal.

Section 8504(c)(1) requires an appellant to notify the parties who had party status before the District Commission, the Natural Resources Board, and any friends of the commission, and to publish notice of the appeal in a newspaper of general circulation.

Bergmann Act 250 Subdivision · filed 2008-03-12(c)(1)

The notice requirement in the appeals statute, 10 V.S.A. § 8504(c)(1), simply requires the appellant to notify all parties who had party status at the end of the District Commission proceeding, as well as the NRB and any “friends of the commission,” that an appeal is being filed, and to publish that notice in a newspaper of general circulation.

Section 8504(c)(1) requires an appellant challenging a Commission decision to serve the notice of appeal on the Commission, Friends of the Commission, parties by right, parties who had status at the end of the Commission proceeding, and the Natural Resources Board.

Hovey Act 250 Permit · filed 2014-03-06(c)(1)

In an appeal of a Commission decision, the appellant must serve a copy of the notice of appeal upon the Commission, all Friends of the Commission, any party by right as defined in 10 V.S.A. § 8502(5), any party who had party status as of the end of the Commission proceeding, and the Natural Resources Board. V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(B); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(c)(1).

Section 8504(i) treats evidence of regulatory compliance and agency approvals as meeting an applicant’s initial burden of production, shifting the evidentiary obligation to opponents.

Route 103 Quarry · filed 2006-11-22(i)

Where an applicant has presented evidence of compliance with applicable regulations and receipt of the necessary agency determinations or approvals, the applicant has met its threshold burden of production on the applicable land use criteria. 10 V.S.A. § 6086(d) and 10 V.S.A. § 8504(i). This evidentiary presumption does not end our analysis, but rather then transfers the evidentiary obligation to the party opposing the project to present some credible evidence that “fairly and reasonably indicat[es] that the real fact is not as presumed” by the agency determination and evidence of compliance with applicable regulations.

Section 8504(i) requires the Environmental Court in an Act 250 appeal to give ANR technical determinations the same deference they receive before a district environmental commission.

Unified Buddhist Chuch, Inc. Act 250 Permit Application · filed 2008-01-02(i)

In this appeal of the Act 250 permit, under 10 VSA § 8504(i) any technical determinations of the ANR are to be accorded the same deference as they are accorded by a district environmental commission under 10 VSA § 6086(d), which provides that “technical determinations of the agency shall be accorded substantial deference.”

Section 8504(i) requires substantial deference to ANR technical determinations in permit approvals during Act 250 proceedings.

Woodstock Comm. Trust and Vermont Housing PUD · filed 2011-10-14(i)

In addition, the technical determinations of the ANR in such approvals or permits are to be accorded substantial deference by the District Commissions and hence by this Court in Act 250 proceedings. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(i). ... Appellants have failed to come forward with expert evidence to rebut the presumptions or to overcome the deference due to the technical determinations of the ANR permits.

Section 8504(i) requires substantial deference to ANR technical determinations in approvals or permits during Act 250 proceedings.

Harvey and West 65 Unit Campground Act 250 Application · filed 2011-11-09(i)

In addition, the technical determinations of the ANR in such approvals or permits are to be accorded substantial deference by the District Commissions and hence by this Court in Act 250 proceedings. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(i).

Section 8504(m) requires the Environmental Court to give former Environmental Board decisions the same weight and consideration as its own prior decisions.

Lathrop Limited Partnership · filed 2006-11-29(m)

In fact, this Court has been instructed to give the decisions of the former Environmental Board “the same weight and consideration as prior decisions of” this Court. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m).

Section 8504(m) directs the Environmental Court to give prior Environmental Board decisions the same weight and consideration as its own prior decisions.

Cetrangolo & DeFelice · filed 2007-04-12(m)

This Court is directed by 10 V.S.A. §8504(m) to give prior decisions of the former Environmental Board “the same weight and consideration” as it gives its own prior decisions.

Section 8504(m) gives decisions of the former Environmental Board the same weight and consideration as the Environmental Court gives its own decisions as precedent.

CVPS/Verizon Act 250 LU Permit Amendment 7C1252 · filed 2007-08-13(m)

This Court gives decisions of the former Environmental Board the same “weight and consideration” as it gives to its own decisions as precedent. 10 V.S.A. §8504(m).

Section 8504(m) requires the Environmental Court to give prior Environmental Board decisions the same weight and consideration as its own prior decisions.

Zurn Sisters Development, LLC · filed 2007-11-09(m)

The Court must also give prior decisions of the former Environmental Board the same weight and consideration as it gives its own prior decisions. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m). The Court has considered the two decisions to which the parties have directed the Court’s attention, Donald I. Gurney, #2S0923-EB (Vt. Envtl. Bd. Nov. 2, 1993) and Black Willow Farm, DR #202 (Vt. Envtl. Bd. June 30, 1989), but has not given them great weight, as the fact patterns in those cases are not sufficiently similar to those in the present case.

Section 8504(m) directs the Environmental Court to give former Environmental Board decisions the same weight and consideration as its own prior decisions.

Rivers Development, LLC · filed 2008-01-11(m)

We are directed under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m) to give the same weight and consideration to the decisions of the former Environmental Board as we do to prior decisions of this Court.

Section 8504(m) directs the Environmental Division to give precedential weight to prior decisions of the former Vermont Environmental Board, but does not require the same weight for decisions of local zoning administrators or municipal panels.

Mastelli Construction Application · filed 2008-09-18(m)

We are directed to afford precedential weight to prior decisions of the former Vermont Environmental Board. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m). But we know of no requirement that we afford such weight to the decisions of local zoning administrators or the various municipal panels.

Section 8504(m) requires the Environmental Court to give former Water Resources Board decisions the same weight as its own prior decisions, but does not bind the court to them.

Montpelier WWTF Discharge Permit · filed 2009-06-30(m)

While we recognize that under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m) this Court must give “the same weight and consideration” to decisions of the former Water Resource Board that we give to our own previous decisions, we are not bound by those previous decisions.

Section 8504(m) directs the Environmental Court to give former Environmental Board precedent the same weight and consideration as its own prior decisions.

O'Neill Sand and Gravel Act 250 Amendment · filed 2009-09-11(m)

Under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m), this Court is directed to give precedent from the former Environmental Board “the same weight and consideration as prior decisions” of this Court.

Section 8504(m) directs the Environmental Division to give prior decisions of the former Environmental Board the same weight and consideration as its own prior decisions.

Rinker's, Inc. dba Rinkers Communications & Shepard Act 250 LU Permit · filed 2010-05-17(m)

Under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m), the Court is directed to give “the same weight and consideration” to prior decisions of the former Environmental Board as it gives it its own prior decisions.

Section 8504(m) gives prior Environmental Board decisions the same weight and consideration as prior Environmental Division decisions.

Big Rock Gravel, LLC Act 250 JO · filed 2010-10-19(m)

Prior decisions of the Environmental Board are given the same weight and consideration as prior decisions of this Court.

Section 8504(m) directs the Environmental Division to give some weight and precedent to prior Vermont Water Resources Board decisions.

Champlain Marina Dock Expansion · filed 2011-01-10(m)

While that Board no longer exists, and its successor—the Water Resources Panel of the Vermont Natural Resources Board—no longer is vested with appellate responsibilities, we are directed to give some weight and precedent to prior decisions of the Board, given its broad prior experience in these areas. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m). We therefore look to and rely upon the former Board and its decisions for guidance.

Section 8504(m) gives prior Environmental Board decisions the same weight and consideration as the Environmental Division’s own prior decisions.

Wright Parcel Act 250 Subdivision JO Opinion · filed 2011-02-23(m)

In its analysis, the Court gives prior decisions of the former Environmental Board “the same weight and consideration” as its own prior decisions. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m).

Section 8504(m) directs the Environmental Court to give former Environmental Board decisions the same precedential weight and consideration as its own decisions.

Lake Champlain Bluegrass Festival JO · filed 2012-01-03(m)

Given the expertise and quasi-judicial experience of the former Environmental Board, we show its prior decisions the same precedential weight and considerations as decisions from this Court, as directed by 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m).

Section 8504(m) directs the Environmental Division to give prior Environmental Board decisions the same weight and consideration as its own prior decisions.

Big Rock Gravel Act 250 · filed 2012-11-28(m)

10 V.S.A. § 8504(m) directs us to give these prior decisions of the Environmental Board the same weight and consideration as prior decisions of this Court.

Section 8504(m) gives prior Environmental Board decisions the same weight and consideration as prior Environmental Division decisions.

Goddard College CU · filed 2014-01-06(m)

We give prior Environmental Board decisions the same weight and consideration as prior decisions of this Court. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m).

Section 8504(m) requires the Environmental Division to give prior Environmental Board decisions the same weight and consideration as its own prior decisions.

N.E. Materials Group LLC · filed 2014-04-28(m)

We are directed to give prior decisions of the Environmental Board the same weight and consideration as prior decisions of the Environmental Division. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m).

Section 8504(m) directs the Environmental Division to give prior Environmental Board decisions the same weight and consideration as its own prior decisions.

Burlington Airport Act 250 JO · filed 2014-05-13(m)

We are directed to give prior decisions of the Environmental Board the same weight and consideration as prior decisions of the Environmental Division. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m).

In Act 250 appeals, prior Environmental Board decisions receive the same weight and consideration as prior Environmental Division decisions.

In re Application of Lathrop Limited Partnership I, II and III · filed 2015-03-20(m)

We agree that the reliance on McLean Enterprises was appropriate, see 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m) (stating that in Act 250 appeals, prior decisions of Environmental Board “shall be given the same weight and consideration as prior decisions of the Environmental Division”), but the court failed to apply the full holding of McLean Enterprises.

Section 8504(m) requires the Environmental Division to give prior Environmental Board decisions the same weight and consideration as its own prior decisions.

Hovey Act 250 Permit · filed 2015-03-31(m)

Title 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m) directs us to give these prior decisions of the Environmental Board the same weight and consideration as prior decisions of this Court.

Section 8504(m) gives decisions of the Vermont Water Resources Board and other predecessor entities the same precedential weight as prior Environmental Division decisions.

Costco SW Discharge Permit · filed 2015-08-27(m)

We afford prior decisions of the Vermont Water Resources Board, as well as those of other predecessor entities, the same precedential weight as prior decisions of our Division. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m).