Title: City of Burlington v. VT Environmental Board

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

City of Burlington v. VT Environmental Board (95-369); 164 Vt 607; 669 A.2d 1184

[Filed 17-Oct-1995]


                                ENTRY ORDER

                 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-369 & 95-370

                           SEPTEMBER TERM, 1995


City of Burlington             }     APPEALED FROM:
                               }
                               }
     v.                        }     Original Jurisdiction
                               }    
State of Vermont Environmental }
Board                          }     DOCKET NO. 4C0696-11-EB (R)    
                               }
                               }
Williston Citizens for         }
Responsible Growth             }
                               }    Original Jurisdiction
     v.                        }
                               }
State of Vermont Environmental }     DOCKET NO. 4C0696-11-EB (R)
Board                          }


       In the above-entitled causes, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiffs, Williston Citizens for Responsible Growth and City of
  Burlington, brought extraordinary relief petitions to obtain review of
  orders issued by the Vermont Environmental Board in the Act 250 permit
  proceedings of Taft Corners Associates to construct two buildings for use
  as retail and warehouse sales by Wal-Mart and Sam's Discount Price Club. 
  Plaintiffs participated as parties before the Board.  Neither plaintiff is,
  however, a party who may appeal to this Court from a judgment of the Board. 
  See 10 V.S.A. Sec. 6085(c) (listing parties who may appeal); In re Cabot
  Creamery Coop., 6 Vt. L.W. 188, 188 (July 14, 1995).

       We recently ruled that a party, not entitled to appeal, is also
  precluded from obtaining review in the nature of an appeal by filing a
  petition for extraordinary relief: "Petitioner may not challenge the merits
  of an Environmental Board decision by relying on the extraordinary relief
  provided by Rule 75.  In other words, petitioner may not do indirectly what
  he cannot do directly.  Such an end run circumvents the Legislature's
  intent."  Cabot Creamery, 6 Vt. L.W. 

 

  at 188.(FN1)  Relying on Cabot Creamery, the Board and Taft Corners
  Associates, the permit applicant, move to dismiss this action.
  
       Plaintiffs respond that an exception to Cabot Creamery exists to
  enforce a mandate of this Court that the Board has refused to follow. 
  Specifically, plaintiffs charge that the Board has violated the mandate
  issued by this Court in In re Taft Corners Assocs., 160 Vt. 583,