In Re Shenandoah LLC, 27 A.3d 1078

Shenandoah, LLC and related entities appeal a Environmental Court summary judgment upholding an Act 250 jurisdictional opinion.
The court attributed subdivision and development activities to Shlansky and Chang through the irrevocable Trust that benefits their minor children.
The Trust holds interests in Shenandoah, LLC, Ferrisburgh Realty Investors, Bluefield, LLC, Witherbee, LLC, and Shlansky owns Mahaiwe, LLC; subdivisions/units were attributed to these entities.
Shade Roller PUD in Vergennes prompted the jurisdictional inquiry; the district coordinator found Act 250 permitting applicable for a 10-unit housing project and attributed lots/units across related entities.
The Environmental Court concluded that the Trust’s development activities benefit the minor children, thereby making the parents “persons” under Act 250; the court relied on 10 V.S.A. § 6001(14)(A)(iii)-(iv) and Act 250 Rule 2(C)(1)(a); the court declined to address a constitutional challenge due to lack of preservation; the Supreme Court affirmed.
The dissent would have remanded for factual development and rejected the broadparental-beneficiary interpretation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parents fall within the Act 250 ‘person’ definition for subdivisions.	Shlansky/Chang contend they do not derive a beneficent interest.	Court properly treats parents as ‘persons’ under §6001(14)(A)(iii)-(iv).	Yes; parents can be ‘persons’ for subdivisions.
Whether trust beneficiaries’ interests render the parents affiliated with the development.	Trust beneficiaries’ interests yield benefits to parents.	Affiliation presumed under statute when parents benefit from the child’s interests.	Yes; attribution to parents affirmed.
Whether the development qualifies under Act 250 Rule 2(C)(1)(a) to include a trust’s beneficial interests.	Rule 2(C)(1)(a) should not broaden parental attribution.	Rule 2(C)(1)(a) encompasses any beneficial interest from development.	Yes; Rule 2(C)(1)(a) expands the concept of ‘person.’
Whether summary judgment was appropriate given potential factual disputes.	There were unresolved factual issues regarding control/benefits.	Environmental Court correctly concluded no genuine issue of material fact.	Affirmed; summary judgment sustained.
Whether the constitutional challenge was preserved for review.	Constitutional challenge raised on appeal.	Not preserved below; waived.	Not addressed on the merits.

In re Spencer, 152 Vt. 330 (1989) (broadened ‘person’ to include those benefiting from partition/division of land)
State Envtl. Bd. v. Chickering, 155 Vt. 308 (1990) (discussed ‘control’ of a corporation for Act 250 purposes)
Gore v. Green Mountain Lakes, Inc., 140 Vt. 262 (1981) (summary judgment standards and reliance on evidence)