RE: Synergy Gas Corporation, #9A0204-EB (Revocation), Memorandum of Decision (November 6, 1995) VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 10 V.S.A. Chapter 151 RE: Synergy Gas Corporation Land Use Permit RR 2, Box 2260 #9A0204-EB Bennington, VT 05201 (Revocation) and Vermont Railway, Inc. C/O State of Vermont Agency of Transportation 133 State Street Montpelier, VT 05633 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This Memorandum of Decision pertains to a request by Leicester Emergency Management ("LEM") that an order be issued making final a conditional order of permit revocation. LEM also seeks the reconsideration of zoning and wetlands issues. As is explained below, the Environmental Board (i) denies LEM's request for an order, and (ii) refuses to reconsider for a second time zoning or wetlands issues. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On June 8, 1995, the Board issued Re: Synergy Gas Corporation, #9A0204-EB (Revocation), Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (June 8, 1995) (the "Decision"). The Decision contains a detailed summary of the background and procedural history of this revocation petition prior to the Board's issuance of the Decision. On June 16 and 21, 1995, LEM filed a motion to alter the Decision (the "Motion"). On June 20, 1995, Acting Chair Gibb issued a memorandum to parties allowing all parties until July 12, 1995 to respond to the Motion. Parties were also informed that the Board would deliberate on the Motion on July 26, 1995. On July 31, 1995, the Board issued Re: Synergy Gas Corporation, #9A0204-EB (Revocation), Memorandum of Decision (July 31, 1995) (the "Motion to Alter Decision"). The Motion to Alter Decision denied the Motion in all respects. On September 6, 1995, LEM filed a request (the "Request") that the Board issue an order making final the conditional order of revocation made in the Decision relative to Land Use Permit #9A0204 (the "Permit"). On September 11, 1995, Acting Chair Gibb issued a memorandum to parties allowing all parties an opportunity to respond to LEM's Request. On September 13 and 28, 1995, LEM filed supplementary documents in support of the Request. On October 18, 1995, the Board deliberated relative to the Request. II. DECISION A. Order Request The Decision concluded that Synergy violated the Permit, but that Synergy could correct the violations by filing for and obtaining a permit amendment. The Board gave Synergy thirty days from the date of the Decision to file its completed permit amendment application with the District #9 Environmental Commission (the "District Commission"). On September 21, 1995, the District Commission issued Re: Synergy Gas Corporation, #9A0204-1, Memorandum of Decision (Sept. 21, 1995) (the "District Commission Memorandum"). The District Commission Memorandum provides, in part: On June 16 and 21, LEM filed a Motion to Alter the Board's [D]ecision pursuant to Board rule 31(A). On June 23, 1995, Synergy filed with the Commission an application to amend the [P]ermit. On June 28, 1995, District #9 Coordinator Dana H. Farley advised Synergy in a letter that she would wait until the Board issued a decision on the [Motion] before making a final determination on the completeness of the application. In this letter, the Coordinator advised Synergy on additional requirements for a complete application. On July 31, 1995, the Board issued a Memorandum of Decision in which LEM's Motion to Alter was denied. On August 10, 1995, Synergy submitted filings to the Commission which made the amendment application complete. On August 21, 1995, the Commission issued a notice of application and a memorandum to all the parties indicating that Synergy had filed an application to amend the Permit . . . " The Request contends that Synergy failed to file a complete permit amendment application within the thirty days allotted by the Decision. The Board disagrees. The Board concludes that Synergy complied with the Decision. Synergy filed its permit amendment application within thirty days of the Decision. Whether the application was complete was a matter for the District Coordinator to decide under EBR 10(D). The District Coordinator properly exercised her authority under EBR 10(D) to postpone her determination as to completeness until the Board decided the Motion. While a motion to alter under EBR 31(A) does not stay a permit condition, the Board frequently extends dates by which orders or permit conditions must be complied with to account for the elapse of time while a motion to alter is pending. See E.g., Re: Charles and Barbara Bickford, #5W1186- EB, Memorandum of Decision at 8 (Sept. 12, 1995). Therefore, even if the Request was timely filed, the Board would allow Synergy thirty days from the date of the Motion to Alter Decision to file a complete permit amendment application, in which case, Synergy's permit amendment application would be timely filed. B. Zoning and Wetlands Issues The Request seeks to raise issues relative to zoning and wetlands. The Board has addressed these issues in the Decision and the Motion to Alter Decision. The Board therefore deems this part of the Request to be a motion to alter. The Board will not address these issues for a third time. Moreover, the Request is untimely under EBR 31(A). III. ORDER LEM's request for an order is denied. No further motions or requests will be considered by the Board relative to the revocation petition filed on June 20, 1994. Dated at Montpelier, Vermont, this 6th day of November, 1995. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD /s/ Art Gibb Arthur Gibb, Acting Chair Samuel Lloyd Dr. Robert Page John T. Ewing Marcy Harding John M. Farmer c:\mod\9a0204.mt2 (dp1)