Lawrence Site Plan Approval ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                        State of Vermont
    Superior Court—Environmental Division
    =========================================================================
    ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
    =========================================================================
    In re Lawrence Site Plan Approval                   Docket No. 166-10-10 Vtec
    (Appeal from Town of Brattleboro Development Review Board decision)
    Title: Motion to Re-submit Evidence (Filing No. 9)
    Filed: May 9, 2011
    Filed By: Appellant Susan Rockwell
    ___ Granted                          X Denied                         ___ Other
    Appellant Susan Rockwell has requested permission to re-submit evidence that
    she previously attached to a version of her Statement of Questions that the Court struck
    from the record.      Appellant’s current motion seeks a reconsideration of that
    determination. For the reasons stated below, we DENY Appellant’s request.
    An appellant’s Statement of Questions both establishes the scope of the appeal
    and provides notice to other parties of what issues are being appealed. See V.R.E.C.P.
    5(f); Appeal of Town of Fairfax, No. 45-3-03 Vtec, slip op. at 4 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. June 13,
    2005) (Wright, J.). However, a Statement of Questions is not a proper vehicle for the
    submission of evidence by an appellant.
    Appellant’s submission of evidence is particularly inappropriate here where the
    municipality, the Town of Brattleboro, has fulfilled all necessary legislative requirements
    to have its land use and environmental determinations considered on-the-record when
    appealed to this Court. See 24 V.S.A. § 4471(b). Our task in an on-the-record appeal is
    to review the record from the DRB proceeding and determine whether the DRB’s factual
    findings are supported by “substantial evidence.” In re Stowe Highlands Resort PUD and
    PRD Application, 
    2009 VT 76
    , ¶ 7, 
    186 Vt. 568
     (citation omitted). We are not authorized
    to consider evidence not in this record nor may we reach our own factual determinations.
    For these reasons, we DENY Appellant’s pending motion to re-submit evidence; in
    reaching a decision on Appellant’s appeal we intend to rely solely upon the record
    submitted by the DRB to the Court pursuant to V.R.E.C.P. 5(h).
    _________________________________________                                 July 27, 2011_____
    Thomas S. Durkin, Judge                                                Date
    =============================================================================
    Date copies sent to: ____________                                           Clerk's Initials _______
    Copies sent to:
    Appellant Susan Rockwell, Esq., Pro Se
    Jodi P. French, Attorney for Interested Person Town of Brattleboro
    Appellee Stephen Lawrence, Pro Se
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 166-10-10 Vtec

Filed Date: 7/27/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/24/2018