Act 250 jurisdiction: parents are as a matter of law affiliated with minor children because of their obligation of support.

  In re Shenandoah LLC, 2011 VT 68 (Burgess, J.) (Skoglund, J., joined by Justice Dooley dissenting.)
          Shenandoah, LLC, David Shlansky, Ting Chang, and other entities and individuals, appeal from the Environmental Court’s summary judgment decision upholding an Act 250 jurisdictional opinion.  The Environmental Court found that all prior subdivisions attributable to a Trust were also attributable to Shenandoah because they were “individuals and entities affiliated with each other for profit.”  10 V.S.A. § 6001(14)(A)(iii).The Environmental Court also found these units attributable to Shlansky and Chang as parents of the minor beneficiaries of the Trust, because profits of the trust would “diminish the parents’ burden to provide for their minor children.” We affirm the court’s jurisdictional opinion.
          The parents are financially responsible for their minor children so that, absent any evidence or argument to the contrary, any financial benefit to the children inures to the benefit of the parents.
          That benefit to the parents renders them “persons” as defined by Act 250.  10 V.S.A. § 6001(14)(A)(iii) (pertaining to subdivisions); Act 250 Rule 2(C)(1)(a) (pertaining to development).   Under the first definition of “person,” it is explicitly up to the parents to prove otherwise.  See 10 V.S.A. § 6001(14)(A)(iv) (presuming to include the parents as “persons,” “unless the individual establishes that he or she will derive no profit or . . . acquire any other beneficial interest from the partition or division of land by the . . . child”). Because any financial benefit to the minor children constitutes a financial advantage to the parents ordinarily responsible for their support the parents are affiliated “persons.”
          Justice Skoglund,  joined by Justice Dooley dissenting. would remand for further factual development, otherwise they argue, the result in this case is so far beyond the broad definition of the term “person” that any parent is swept into the Act 250 process if their child, dependent or not, benefits from a proposed land development.  This is far beyond the broad definition of that term recognized under the Act.



Note that Chief Justice Reiber was present for oral argument, but did not participate in this decision. Judge Eaton was not present for oral argument, but reviewed the briefs, listened to oral argument, and participated in the decision, with Justice Johnson making a majority.