Sec., ANR v. Henry, ORDER, (E93-030)

                             STATE OF VERMONT

                           ENVIRONMENTAL COURT

Secretary,
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources,

         v.                                      Docket No. E93-030

Leo R. Henry and
 Nancy Henry,
 Respondents.

                                    ORDER


    Respondents are represented by Stephen Reynes, Esq.; the Secretary is
represented by Christine Melicharek, Esq.; the Greenwoods Tenants'
Association (GTA) is represented by Lila Shapero, Esq. and Jack McCullough,
Esq.   The Lake Champlain Housing Development Corporation (LCHDC),
represented by Neil H. Mickenberg, Esq., took no position on the current
round of motions in this matter. 

    Respondents filed a timely motion to alter or amend this court's April 4,
1995 order regarding the finality of the penalty amount pending the partial
new trial on the matter of Act 250 jurisdiction.  The Secretary opposed this
motion and also moved to reconsider the granting of the partial new trial on
Act 250 jurisdictional issues.  The Tenants' Association also opposed
Respondents' motion, requesting that the partial funding of the receivership
by May 15, 1995 take place as required by the April 4, 1995 Order. 
Respondents' motion to postpone the finality of the penalty amount and the
Secretary's motion to deny the partial new trial on Act 250 jurisdiction are
both DENIED. 

    First, if there is no Act 250 jurisdiction, the Court is simply without
power to issue an order with future effect under Act 250, and it is within
the Court's discretion to reopen the hearing to take supplementary evidence
on this question.  All the evidence presented by the parties to date remains
in the record of the trial and may be considered by the Court in any future
decision on this issue, so the Secretary should not be prejudiced by the
delay. 

    Second, as the April 4, 1995 Order made clear, on the one hand the Court
had imposed the full penalty amount just for the mobile home park violation
and deterrence. On the other hand, the Court declined under the circumstances
of this case to increase the penalty on account of the public water supply
and Act 250 violations.(FN1)  Paragraphs I, J and K to apply to the water
supply of fewer of the households covered by the February 10, 1995 Order. 
Therefore, Respondents' motion is DENIED. 

    The Secretary also moved that the Court reconsider the portion of its
April 4 Order allowing Respondents to sell the 40.651 acre parcel of land. 
Respondents and the Tenants' Association both opposed the Secretary's motion,
arguing that the parcel is a separate one under the authority of Re: New
England Land Associates, Decl. Ruling. No. 289 (Vt. Envtl. Bd. May 26, 1994)
and that the sale would lead to the funding of the receivership.  As
Respondents note, the deed to the parcel is in evidence, demonstrating that
the parcel is not contiguous to Respondents' other property and that the
parcel was separate when deeded to Respondents.  Therefore, the Secretary's
motion is DENIED. 

    The hearing on the Act 250 jurisdictional issues has been scheduled for
Monday, May 22, 1995, beginning at 9:00 a.m., at the Franklin Superior Court.

    Done at Montpelier, Vermont, this 26th day of April, 1995.





                                  ____________________________
                                  Merideth Wright
                                  Environmental Judge



FN1.  The parties should note that 10 V.S.A.  8012(b)(2) may preclude the
Court from modifying such a provision, as opposed to vacating and remanding
it to the Secretary, and the Court would require memoranda addressing that
issue in connection with any such motion.