                                       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
