Re: Lift Development Corporation, Docket No. EPR-97-04 (Appeal of DEC
Permit #WW-2-0964), Dismissal Order (Oct. 28, 1997)


                                
                        State of Vermont
                     WATER RESOURCES BOARD
                                 
     RE: Lift Development Corporation
         (Appeal of DEC Permit #WW-2-0964)
         Docket No. EPR-97-04
     
                        DISMISSAL ORDER
                                 
     I.  BACKGROUND
     
      On July 21, 1997, the Lift Development Corporation ("Liftline"),
     through its counsel A. Jay Kenlan, Esq., filed a Notice of Appeal
     from the Agency of Natural Resources' ("ANR") issuance of Water
     Supply/Wastewater Disposal Permit No. WW-2-0964 ("WW Permit") to
     the Stratton Corporation.  The authority for filing the appeal
     with the Board was cited as Environmental Protection Rule ("EPR")
     Section 1-201 (E). 
     
      Upon receipt of the Notice of Appeal, the Board's Executive
     Officer sent a letter, dated July 22, 1997, in which he
     determined that the Notice of Appeal and supporting documents
     were not substantially complete pursuant to Rule of Procedure 18. 
     Liftline was given until August 4, 1997 to remedy the deficiencies 
     in the appeal, which were specifically identified as (1) the lack
     of a citation to the statutory authority pursuant to which the 
     appeal had been filed and (2) a certification showing that all 
     statutory parties and other persons required to receivenotice had 
     been served.
     
      On July 22, 1997, Stephen Reynes, Esq. filed an entry of
     appearance on behalf of permittee, the Stratton Corporation.  
     
      On July 28, 1997, Andy Raubvogel, Esq. filed an entry of
     appearance on behalf of the ANR.
     
      On August 12, 1997, Board counsel spoke with Liftline's counsel,
     Jay Kenlan, regarding the Executive Officer's letter dated July
     22, 1997.  Attorney Kenlan acknowledged receipt of the letter
     from the Board's Executive Officer and cited continuing
     settlement negotiations as the reason for the lack of a response,
     noting at that time that he expected to file a motion to withdraw
     the appeal.  Attorney Kenlan also noted that he would contact
     Board staff on or about August 15 to let the Board know whether
     settlement negotiations were successful, and whether Liftline
     would indeed seek to have the appeal withdrawn.
     
      At the time Board staff prepared the agenda for the October 14
     Board Meeting, Liftline had not responded to the July 22, 1997
     letter.  Likewise, neither Liftline nor Stratton Corporation had
     informed the Board or its staff of any progress toward
     settlement.  Therefore, Board Chairman, William Boyd Davies,
     determined that the Board should consider dismissal of this
     matter pursuant to Water Resources Board Rule of Procedure 21
     because there had been no response to the Executive Officer's
     July 22, 1997 letter to Liftline.    The rationale for such a
     dismissal is set forth at Rule of Procedure 18(B) which states:
     
     Any petition or notice of appeal that is incomplete in substantial
     respects shall not be accepted by the Executive Officer who shall
     so notify the filing party in writing indicating the basis for 
     action.  The filing party shall have 15 days from the date of 
     written notice within which to correct any defects noted by the 
     Executive Officer or to seek Board review.  
          
          However, because of the parties' efforts to reach settlement, the
     Board delayed acting on its own motion.  
     
      On October 3, 1997, the parties filed a "Stipulation for
     Withdrawal and Dismissal between Lift Development Corporation and
     the Stratton Corporation."
     
      All interested parties were informed that the Board would
     deliberate upon the Stipulation and Withdrawal request.  
     Although each party was available for the Board's hearing, Chair
     Davies, through Board counsel, informed the parties that unless
     they chose to present oral argument, they need not be present for
     the Board's deliberation.  
     
     II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
     
      The Board may, on its own motion or at the request of a party,
     consider the dismissal of any matter before the Board for reasons
     provided by the Water Resources Board's Rules of Procedure, by
     statute or by law.  See Rule of Procedure 21.
     
      In the above-referenced matter, the Appellant, Liftline, and the
     permittee, Stratton Corporation, entered into a stipulation in
     which they agreed that the appeal shall be withdrawn and that the
     matter shall be dismissed.  Neither ANR nor any other interested
     party objected.
          
     III. ORDER
     
     Accordingly, based on the foregoing facts and the parties'
     stipulation, it is hereby ordered that the matter of Lift
     Development Corporation, Docket Number EPR-97-04 is DISMISSED
     WITH PREJUDICE.
     
     
      Dated at Montpelier on this 28th day of October, 1997.
     
     
            Vermont Water Resources Board
     
            /s/ William Boyd Davies
     
            ___________________________
            William Boyd Davies
     
     Concurring:
     Ruth Einstein
     Jane Potvin
     Gail Osherenko
     Gerry Gossens