In Re Appeal of Albert

Johnson, J.,

¶ 17. dissenting. Because I believe that landowners had standing to appeal under pre-amendment 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(4), I respectfully dissent.

¶ 18. To begin, the majority disregards the fact that developer here explicitly concedes that pre-amendment § 4464(b)(4) did not require interested persons to participate at the municipal level — e.g., the planning commission — as a threshold to filing an appeal to the Environmental Court.5 This position is consistent with the Environmental Court’s long-standing interpretation of the statute. Nonetheless, developer argues, and the majority…