Shortle v. Board of Zoning Adjustment

Supreme Court of Vermont

Shortle v. Board of Zoning Adjustment

388 A.2d 430, 136 Vt. 202, 1978 Vt. LEXIS 717

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJune 6, 1978

Docket152-77 & 172-77

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 388 A.2d 430 (Shortle v. Board of Zoning Adjustment) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shortle v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 388 A.2d 430, 136 Vt. 202, 1978 Vt. LEXIS 717 (Vt. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Rutland City Zoning Administrative Officer denied defendant below a zoning permit to operate a restaurant. It appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, which ruled the proposed use a permitted one. Plaintiffs sought to reverse this decision by bringing a declaratory judgment action to the Rutland Superior Court. Upon motion, that court dismissed the action upon the authority of Fisher v. Town of Marlboro, 131 Vt. 534, 310 A.2d 119 (1973), holding that 24 V.S.A. § 4471, an appeal, afforded plaintiffs their exclusive remedy for contesting the decision of a board of adjustment. We concur in that ruling. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Subsequently, by various motions made and denied, plaintiffs asked the Superior Court to have their appeal time extended, or their declaratory judgment complaint treated as a notice of appeal, and for relief under 12 V.S.A. § 558, V.R.C.P. 60(b), and other related rules.

Extension of the appeal period was properly denied. Such extension, if timely requested, must be obtained from the board, agency or court appealed from. V.R.A.P. 4, 13 (b). In addition, however construed, the complaint here was not filed with the clerk of the Zoning Board of Adjustment as required by V.R.A.P. 4, and the extension of time was not sought and obtained within the sixty day period prescribed by V.R.A.P. 4. This defect is jurisdictional. See Village of Northfield v. Chittenden Trust Co., 128 Vt. 240, 260 A.2d 406 (1969).

Judgments affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The Rutland City Zoning Administrative Officer denied defendant below a zoning permit to operate a restaurant. It appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, which ruled the proposed use a permitted one. Plaintiffs sought to reverse this decision by bringing a declaratory judgment action to the Rutland Superior Court. Upon motion, that court dismissed the action upon the authority of Fisher v. Town of Marlboro, 131 Vt. 534, 310 A.2d 119 (1973), holding that 24 V.S.A. § 4471, an appeal, afforded plaintiffs their exclusive remedy for contesting the decision of a board of adjustment. We concur in that ruling. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Subsequently, by various motions made and denied, plaintiffs asked the Superior Court to have their appeal time extended, or their declaratory judgment complaint treated as a notice of appeal, and for relief under 12 V.S.A. § 558, V.R.C.P. 60(b), and other related rules.

Extension of the appeal period was properly denied. Such extension, if timely requested, must be obtained from the board, agency or court appealed from. V.R.A.P. 4, 13 (b). In addition, however construed, the complaint here was not filed with the clerk of the Zoning Board of Adjustment as required by V.R.A.P. 4, and the extension of time was not sought and obtained within the sixty day period prescribed by V.R.A.P. 4. This defect is jurisdictional. See Village of Northfield v. Chittenden Trust Co., 128 Vt. 240, 260 A.2d 406 (1969).

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 A.2d 430, 136 Vt. 202, 1978 Vt. LEXIS 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shortle-v-board-of-zoning-adjustment-vt-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack