Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Vermont opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Vermont courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re Pierce Subdivision Applicationgreen1 sentence2021Appellants further argue that § 5.3.6 (c) creates ambiguity by stating that where a parking waiver “may be or [has] been legally granted, such a waiver shall not be considered to increase the degree of nonconformity.” In looking to the ordinance as a whole, CDO § 5.3.5 (a)(1) clarifies that a change to a nonconforming structure is only permitted if the change “may reduce the degree of nonconformity and shall not increase the nonconformity. . ..” See In re Trahan, 2008 VT 90, ¶ 20 ; In re Pierce, 2008 VT 100, ¶ 24 (noting that general and specific requirements contained in the bylaw generate su | 1 | 1 |
In re Confluence Behavioral Health, LLC Conditional Use to Operate a Therapeutic Community Residence Program (Jason Albert, Appellants)green1 sentence2018Construing the one parking space per 200 square feet of floor space requirement to include all space would therefore be irrational and would fail to “giv[e] effect to the whole and every part of the ordinance.” Confluence Behavioral, 2017 VT 112, ¶ 20 (citation omitted).5 It is more reasonable to construe this parking requirement with some consideration of how that floor space is to be used, as the Supreme Court did in In re Dunnett, 172 Vt. 196, 201 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Dunnettgreen1 sentence2018Construing the one parking space per 200 square feet of floor space requirement to include all space would therefore be irrational and would fail to “giv[e] effect to the whole and every part of the ordinance.” Confluence Behavioral, 2017 VT 112, ¶ 20 (citation omitted).5 It is more reasonable to construe this parking requirement with some consideration of how that floor space is to be used, as the Supreme Court did in In re Dunnett, 172 Vt. 196, 201 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Jolley Associates
green
2 sentences2009As we explained in In re Jolley Assocs. , 2006 VT 132 , ¶ 12, an Environmental Court ruling that purports to be “without prejudice” represents “no more than an expression of the successive application doctrine and confers no greater right to reapply than is allowed by that doctrine.” The trial court here concluded that the evidence failed to support applicant’s request for a shared-use parking waiver. 2009As we explained in In re Jolley Assocs., 2006 VT 132 , ¶ 12, an Environmental Court ruling that purports to be “without prejudice” represents “no more than an expression of the successive application doctrine and confers no greater right to reapply than is allowed by that doctrine.” The trial court here concluded that the evidence failed to support applicant’s request for a shared-use parking waiver. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
In Re Appeal of Trahan Nov
green
1 sentence2021Appellants further argue that § 5.3.6 (c) creates ambiguity by stating that where a parking waiver “may be or [has] been legally granted, such a waiver shall not be considered to increase the degree of nonconformity.” In looking to the ordinance as a whole, CDO § 5.3.5 (a)(1) clarifies that a change to a nonconforming structure is only permitted if the change “may reduce the degree of nonconformity and shall not increase the nonconformity. . ..” See In re Trahan, 2008 VT 90, ¶ 20 ; In re Pierce, 2008 VT 100, ¶ 24 (noting that general and specific requirements contained in the bylaw generate su | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Armitage
green
1 sentence2007In its April 20, 2007 decision on motions in the present appeal, the Court applied the analysis from In re Appeal of Armitage, 2006 VT 113 (which had been decided by the Vermont Supreme Court after this Court’s decision in Docket No. 199-10-04 Vtec). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.