RE: Richard and Nancy Jewett, Land Use Permit #1R0714-1-EB, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Dismissal Order (June 29, 1995) VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 10 V.S.A. Chapter 151 Re: Richard and Nancy Jewett Land Use Permit #1R0714-1-EB FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DISMISSAL ORDER I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS On February 14, 1994, Robert Christian and Karen Lawton ("Appellants") filed an appeal from Land Use Permit #1R0714-1 ("Permit") issued to Richard and Nancy Jewett. The Permit authorizes the Jewetts to construct a meat, fish, and assorted frozen food product retail market building of 3,600 square feet with docking and storage space for up to six refrigerated truck trailers attached to the building ("Project"). The Project is located on a tract of land containing a pre- existing retail building currently used for the same operations as this Project. The Appellants are adjoining landowners to the Project who were admitted as parties by the District #1 Environmental Commission on Criteria 1 (air pollution) and 8 (noise and aesthetics). They object to the District Commission's findings and conclusions with respect to Criteria 1 and 8. They also object to the issuance of the Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit for the Project. On April 20, 1994, a prehearing conference was convened by Board Chair Arthur Gibb in Pittsford. At the prehearing conference, the parties agreed that the Board should stay the appeal pending review of revised plans for the Project by the District Commission. On April 27, 1994, the Board deliberated on the stay request. On May 4, 1994, the Board issued a Memorandum of Decision, staying the appeal pending review by the District #1 Environmental Commission of an amendment application for revised plans for the Project. The Order required the appellants to notify the Board within two weeks from the District Commission's decision on the amendment application as to whether they wish to proceed with the appeal or have it dismissed. A Proposal for Dismissal and proposed decision were sent to the parties on May 16, 1995, and the parties were provided an opportunity to file a Motion to Revoke Proposal for Dismissal before the full Board. No party filed a Motion to Revoke Proposal for Dismissal with the Board. The Board deliberated concerning this matter on June 21, 1995. This matter is now ready for decision. II. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The most recent Board file entry prior to the issuance of the Proposal for Dismissal in this matter is dated May 4, 1994. 2. On May 16, 1995, the Board Chair, John T. Ewing, issued a Proposal for Dismissal in this matter, which included a copy of the Docket Management Notice. 3. No party filed a Motion to Revoke Proposal for Dismissal with the Board on or before seven days prior to the Board's deliberations in this matter. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 10 V.S.A. § 6083(d) requires the Board to process permits in a prompt manner and to establish time limits for permit processing. Pursuant to this authority, the Board has established a docket management protocol governing the failure of parties to diligently prosecute appeals. This protocol is described in a Docket Management Notice provided to all parties. This notice states in pertinent part: In any appeal of a permit, the Board Chair may issue, without notice, a Proposal for Dismissal where no document has been filed with the Board by any Appellant: After the expiration of six months from the most recent Board file entry in the case. However, if a continuance or stay with a definite termination date which has been issued by the Board is in effect, this time period will commence on the termination date; or In the case of an indefinite continuance or stay issued by the Board, after the expiration of twelve months from the issuance of the continuance or stay by the Board. The Board Chair may also issue, without notice, a Proposal for Dismissal upon request of the Board's Director of Administration, where twelve months have passed from the commencement of the appeal, and in the opinion of the Director, the appeal is not being diligently prosecuted. Where the Board Chair has issued a Proposal for Dismissal, the Board will dismiss the appeal at the next Board deliberation after 30 days have passed from the issuance of the Proposed Dismissal Order, unless any of the parties files a "Motion to Revoke Proposal for Dismissal" on or before seven days prior to the Board deliberation. A form motion will be provided to the parties when the Proposal for Dismissal is issued. If a Motion to Revoke Proposal for Dismissal is timely filed in proper form prior to deliberation on the Proposal for Dismissal by the Board, the Board will postpone consideration on the proposal until the next Board deliberation after 30 days have passed. At that time, the Board will consider the motion and shall either revoke the proposal for dismissal, or dismiss the appeal. The most recent Board file entry prior to the issuance of the Proposal for Dismissal in this matter is dated May 4, 1994. On May 16, 1995, the Board Chair, John T. Ewing, issued a Proposal for Dismissal in this matter, which included a copy of the Docket Management Notice. No party filed a Motion to Revoke Proposal for Dismissal with the Board on or before June 14, 1995. As a result, dismissal of this appeal by the Board is proper. IV. ORDER Dismissal of this matter is not contrary to the values embodied in Act 250. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Dismissal Order is limited in effect to the appeal proceeding before the Environmental Board. Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 29th day of June, 1995. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD /s/John T. Ewing John T. Ewing, Chair John M. Farmer Arthur Gibb Marcy Harding Samuel Lloyd William Martinez Rebecca M. Nawrath Robert Page Steve E. Wright prot\jewett.ord (ry3)