RE:  Mt. Mansfield Co., Inc., d\b\a Stowe Mountain Resort, Application 
#5L1125-4-EB, Memorandum of Decision (August 14, 1995)

                VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
                   10 V.S.A. Chapter 151

Re:  Mt. Mansfield Co., Inc. d\b\a Stowe Mountain Resort Application
  #5L1125-4-EB



                   MEMORANDUM OF DECISION



     The July 6, 1995 Motion for Reconsideration is denied.


I.   PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       On June 15, 1995, the Board issued Land Use Permit Amendment
  #5L1125-4-EB ("Permit") and associated Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law
  and Order("Findings").  On July 6, 1995, Joy Fagan ("Appellant") filed a
  Motion for Reconsideration and requested oral argument.  On July 21, 1995,
  the Mt. Mansfield Company, Inc. ("Applicant") filed a Motion in Opposition
  to the Motion for Reconsideration.  On July 24, 1995, the Stowe Planning
  Commission filed a letter regarding the Motion for Reconsideration.

       On July 26, 1995, the Board convened a public hearing to consider the
  Motion for Reconsideration.  Oral argument was presented by the Appellant
  and the Applicant.  The Board deliberated on the Motion for Reconsideration
  thereafter.

II.  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       The Appellant asserts that the Board incorrectly determined, as a
  matter of fact, that the light fixtures and related reflectors on the
  Lights (FN1) are hidden from view substantially beyond the trails.  The
  Appellant argues that this erroneous factual determination led the Board to
  incorrectly conclude, as a matter of law, that the Lights do not violate
  Section 4.4 of Stowe's zoning ordinance.

       Parties face a heavy burden when trying to convince us to alter permit
  conditions or findings of facts, conclusions of law and orders.  As we
  noted recently:

        In general, the Board disfavors reconsideration
        under EBR 31(A) because it causes appeals to take
        longer and ties up resources which are then not
        available for later-filed appeals.  The Board
        therefore believes that reconsideration under EBR
        31(A) should not be liberally granted.


  St. Albans Group and Wal*Mart Stores, Inc., #6F0471-EB, Memorandum of
  Decision on Motions to Alter at 4 (June 27, 1995).

       We have reviewed the record, Permit and Findings.  We conclude that
  the Motion for Reconsideration is without merit.  We note that the area
  illuminated by the Lights can be seen from substantially beyond the trails. 
  However, the light fixtures themselves and the related reflectors on the
  Lights are, in fact, hidden from view substantially beyond the trails. 
  Consequently, the Lights do not violate Section 4.4 of the Stowe zoning
  ordinance.

III. ORDER

       The July 6, 1995 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

       Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 14 th day of August, 1995.

                         ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
                         s/s Arthur Gibb

                         _________________________
                         Arthur Gibb, Acting Chair
                         Rebecca Day*
                         John T. Ewing
                         John M. Farmer                      
                         Lixi Fortna
                         Samuel Lloyd
                         William Martinez
                         Robert Page
                         Steve E. Wright



       *Although Alternate Member Day dissented from the Permit and Findings,
  she joins the Board in denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

FN1.  Lights is a defined term.  See, Findings at 1. When it is spelled with
  an upper case "L" in the Findings and this Memorandum of Decision, it means
  the 130 light fixtures on 65 twenty-five foot high wooden utility poles
  that are part of the night lighting at issue.




Mt. Mansfield.mod (bjb)
c:\wp51\decision\Mt. Mansfield.mod (v)