Appeal of Cliffside Leasing Co., Inc., 96-391
| Decision Date | 25 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-391,96-391 |
| Citation | 167 Vt. 569,701 A.2d 325 |
| Parties | In re Appeal of CLIFFSIDE LEASING COMPANY, INC. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Before AMESTOY, C.J., and GIBSON, DOOLEY MORSE and JOHNSON, JJ.
Cliffside Leasing Company, Inc. appeals from a ruling of the Environmental Court that Cliffside's application for a building permit was subject to major-impact review under the City of Burlington's zoning ordinances. Because the appeal is not from a final judgment, and Cliffside failed to seek interlocutory review, the appeal must be dismissed.
In May of 1995, Cliffside applied to the City's Planning Department for a zoning/building permit to construct a truck terminal on Flynn Avenue. The Department informed Cliffside that the site contained "designated wetlands or natural areas of state or local significance" within the meaning of the City's zoning ordinance, and therefore required major-impact review. Cliffside appealed this determination to the City's zoning board of adjustment, which concluded that the site satisfied the criteria for major-impact review. Cliffside then appealed the Board's decision to the environmental court, which affirmed and remanded the matter for that review to take place. This appeal followed.
V.R.C.P. 76(d)(5)(B), which governs appeals from environmental court, provides that "[a] final judgment under this rule shall be appealable as of right to the Supreme Court." (Emphasis added.) As we have recently explained, "The import of our law is that 'a final judgment is a prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction unless the narrow circumstances authorizing an interlocutory appeal are present.' " In re J.G., 160 Vt. 250, 253, 627 A.2d 362, 364 (1993) (quoting Hospitality Inns v. South Burlington R.I., 149 Vt. 653, 656, 547 A.2d 1355, 1358 (1988)). The environmental court's ruling in this matter was plainly not a final disposition of the subject matter. Morissette v. Morissette, 143 Vt. 52, 58, 463 A.2d 1384, 1388 (1983); Woodard v. Porter Hosp., Inc., 125 Vt. 264, 265, 214 A.2d 67, 69 (1965). Cliffside's permit application remains pending subject to major-impact review on remand from the environmental court. The court's decision was in the nature of an interlocutory ruling, of which Cliffside was free to seek review under V.R.A.P. 5. It failed to do so. Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In re J.G., 160 Vt. at 253, 627 A.2d at 364.
Appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Handy
...to our resolution of the cases before us. 3. Neither the Town nor Jolley appealed from a final judgment. See In re Cliffside Leasing Co., 167 Vt. 569, 570, 701 A.2d 325, 325 (1997) (mem.). Nevertheless, we exercised our discretion under V.R.A.P. 2 to consider both appeals, stating that the ......
-
In re Smith, 97-417.
...remand to university did not resolve controversy between parties and therefore was not final judgment); In re Cliffside Leasing Co., 167 Vt. 569, 570, 701 A.2d 325, 325 (1997) (mem.) (no final judgment where environmental court remanded matter for town's review of permit application). Altho......
-
Larkin v. City of Burlington
...251, 719 A.2d 415, 417 (1998) (court's order is not final unless it resolves controversy between parties); In re Cliffside Leasing Co., 167 Vt. 569, 570, 701 A.2d 325, 325 (1997) (mem.) (environmental court's decision remanding matter to zoning board was interlocutory ruling). Second, the C......
-
Hayes v. Mountain View Estates Homeowners Ass'n, 17–079
...415, 417 (1998) (explaining that court's order is not final unless it resolves controversy between parties); In re Cliffside Leasing Co., 167 Vt. 569, 570, 701 A.2d 325, 325 (1997) (mem.) (holding that environmental court's decision remanding matter to zoning board was interlocutory ruling)......