was reasonable. Cf. Vt. Elec. Power Co., 131 Vt. at 434-35, 306 A.2d at 692 (approving process whereby Board gave parties in post-certification proceeding opportunity to comment and convince Board that hearing was necessary for further review as to location of transmission lines). ¶ 82. The real question is whether the Board abused its discretion in denying a hearing in this instance, given the com ments it received from the parties. The Towns do not challenge the Board’s finding that their expert was unqualified, which was the basis for the Board’s conclusion that they failed to raise a significant issue warranting a technical hearing. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision not to hold a hearing. Cf. In re D.B., 161 Vt. 217, 222, 635 A.2d 1207, 1210 (1993) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 83. Regarding the merits of the Board’s
holding that vrcp 78b2 which gives trial courts discretion whether to hold hearings on written motions provides trial courts with discretion to deny evidentiary hearings on posttrial motions holding that issues raised and dealt with in posttrial evidentiary hearings are preserved for appeal holding that issues are not waived for failing to file posttrial motions from a remand proceeding where no evidence was presented because no posttrial motions were required under those circumstances holding that issues raised and dealt with in posttrial evidentiary hearings may be preserved for appeal holding that although the defendant filed a number of motions because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions no delay could be attributed to the motions