Rivers Development, LLC Discharge Permit 3-1524 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                           Environmental Court of Vermont
    State of Vermont
    ===============================================================================
    E N T R Y R E G A R D I N G M O T I O N
    ===============================================================================
    Rivers Dev. LLC Discharge Permit 3-1524             Docket No. 157-7-08 Vtec
    Project:     Rivers Development LLC Quarry          (direct discharge appeal)
    Applicant:   Rivers Development LLC
    Title: Motion to Dismiss Appeal, No. 7
    Filed:        January 9, 2009
    Filed By:     Appellant/Applicant Rivers Development LLC, via Atty C. Nordle
    Preliminary Response filed on 01/12/09 by Interested Persons Neighbors, via
    Atty Zachary K. Griefen
    Reply filed on 02/09/09 by Appellant/Applicant Rivers Development LLC
    Additional Response filed on 02/12/09 by Interested Persons Neighbors, via Atty
    Zachary K. Griefen
    Sur-Reply filed on 02/18/09 by Appellant/Applicant Rivers Development LLC
    _X_ Granted                 ___ Denied                 ___ Other
    Appellant-Applicant Rivers Development LLC (“Rivers”) has filed a motion
    to dismiss its appeal of an Agency of Natural Resources (“ANR”) direct
    discharge determination in Docket Number 157-7-08 Vtec.      The pending motion
    does not ask for any action to be taken on the remaining consolidated appeals
    that were the subject of the Court’s multi-week trial and are currently the
    subject of post-trial filings.     Rivers’ motion seeks dismissal of its own
    appeal of ANR’s denial of Rivers’ application for a direct discharge permit.
    Rivers has given notice to the parties and to this Court that it does not
    believe that a direct discharge permit is needed for its proposed quarry
    project, to be located off of Route 100B in Moretown, Vermont.
    Since filing its appeal with this Court, Rivers applied for and obtained
    a Multi-Sector General Permit (“MSGP”) for its proposed quarry. Rivers and ANR
    (relying on representations made by Rivers in its MSGP application) now
    maintain that this is currently the only discharge permit that Rivers needs.
    Neighbors, on the other hand, argue that Rivers still needs additional permits
    before it can legally operate its proposed quarry and before it can meet its
    burden under the water quality criteria of Act 250.            See 10 V.S.A.
    § 6086(a)(1).
    In ruling upon this motion, we do not need to resolve the pending dispute
    over whether the MSGP suffices to allow Rivers to meet all applicable discharge
    permit requirements for operating its quarry.      To the extent that we are
    required and jurisdictionally permitted to address that question, we reserve
    judgment for our Merits Decision, in which we understand it to be this Court’s
    duty “to conduct an independent review of the environmental impact of proposed
    projects” under the water quality and other Act 250 criteria that are at issue
    Rivers Dev. LLC Quarry, Docket No. 157-7-08 Vtec (Apr. 8, 2009 Entry Order)                                Page 2
    in these consolidated appeals.                   In re Hawk Mountain Corp., 
    149 Vt. 179
    , 184
    (1988).1
    The only fact relevant to our ruling today is that Rivers no longer seeks
    the direct discharge permit that is the subject of the above-referenced Docket.
    In our November 21, 2008 Decision in these consolidated appeals, we dismissed
    an appeal as “moot because it asks this Court to pass judgment on a project
    that Rivers does not actually intend to pursue.”        Id. at 12.    The same
    reasoning applies to permits that Rivers no longer intends to pursue.      Such
    scenarios “present a textbook definition of a request for an advisory opinion.”
    Id. (citing In re Lawrence & Darlene McDonough, Decl. Ruling #306, Memo. of
    Decision & Dismissal Order (Vt. Envtl. Bd. Dec. 22, 1995)); see also Doria v.
    Univ. of Vt., 
    156 Vt. 114
    , 117 (1991) (holding that an appeal becomes moot the
    moment an actual live controversy ceases to exist).       Courts cannot render
    advisory opinions, see In re Opinion of the Justices, 
    115 Vt. 524
    , 529 (1949),
    and we decline to do so here.
    For these reasons, we GRANT Rivers’ motion to dismiss Docket Number 157-
    7-08 Vtec (the direct discharge permit appeal) from the consolidated appeals
    that are before this Court, and Docket Number 157-7-08 Vtec is hereby
    DISMISSED.    The ANR denial of Rivers’ prior direct discharge application
    remains in effect, but this procedural reality in no way acts as a bar to the
    subsequent   MSGP  application  and   approval.     We  will   render  our  own
    determinations on the sufficiency of Rivers’ discharge presentations in regards
    to the legal issues preserved for our review in the remaining appeals.
    This case has already been through an extensive merits hearing and is
    awaiting a Merits Decision by this Court on the two remaining appeals in this
    case—Docket Numbers 7-1-05 Vtec (the conditional use appeal) and 68-3-07 Vtec
    (the Act 250 appeal). The parties have already submitted their initial post-
    trial briefings in this matter, and responses to those briefs are due by April
    27, 2009.   To the extent that this Entry Order affects the arguments made in
    those briefs or raises any additional issues, we expect that the parties will
    address those issues in their response filings that are due on April 27, 2009.
    ___________________________________________                            _____April 9, 2009______
    Thomas S. Durkin, Judge                                                   Date
    Date copies sent to: ____________               Clerk's Initials _______
    Copies sent to:
    Attorneys James A. Caffry & Christopher J. Nordle for Appellant/Applicant
    Rivers Development, LLC
    Attorneys Ronald A. Shems & Geoffrey H. Hand for the Town of Moretown
    Attorneys David Grayck & Zachary K. Griefen for Interested Persons Jack
    Byrne, Virginia Farley, the June Holden Life Estate, Robert & Beverly
    McMullin, John & Sandy Porter, and Ben & Denise Sanders
    Interested Persons Arthur & Linda Hendrickson
    Attorney Michael Steeves for Appellee Agency of Natural Resources
    Attorney Mark L. Lucas for Interested Person Natural Resources Board
    1
    Rivers argues in its sur-reply that Hawk Mountain might not be applicable to this case. This argument goes
    beyond what must be decided today, and we reserve judgment on this issue for our Merits Decision. If they
    wish, the parties may address this issue further in their post-trial response briefs that are due on April 27, 2009.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 157-7-08 Vtec

Filed Date: 4/9/2009

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/24/2018