RE: Ronald L. Saldi, Sr., Amendment Application #5R0891-11-EB, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Dismissal Order (June 28, 1995) VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 10 V.S.A. Chapter 151 Re: Ronald L. Saldi, Sr. Amendment Application #5R0891-11-EB FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DISMISSAL ORDER I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS On September 20, 1993, an appeal was filed with the Environmental Board by Ronald L. Saldi, Sr. ("Appellant"), through his attorney, Stephen J. Craddock, Esq., from Amendment Application #5R0891-11 and supporting Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order issued by the District #5 Environmental Commission on September 8, 1993. The application was for the construction of a forty-eight foot by ninety-six foot wood frame office building on Lot #12 of a 15 lot commercial subdivision located off Vermont Route 14, in the Town of Williamstown. The subdivision was originally approved under Land Use Permit #5R0891-6. The Appellant believed that the Commission erred with respect to Criterion 8 (aesthetics) of 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a). On September 29, 1993, Mr. Craddock filed a letter with the Board stating that Appellant had filed a motion for reconsideration with the District Commission and requesting that the Board delay proceedings in this appeal until the District Commission had an opportunity to act on reconsideration. On October 18, 1993, General Counsel Stephanie Kaplan wrote to the Appellant stating that the appeal would be stayed until the District Commission ruled on the motion for reconsideration, and that the Appellant would be required to notify the Board within 30 days of the date of the District Commission decision if he wished to pursue the appeal. 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 October 18, 1993. 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 October 18, 1993. 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 28th day of June, 1995. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD s/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\saldi.ord (ry3)