DRB hearing in Vermont

2013When a DRB’s hearing spans more than one day, the subsequent hearing days do not require separate or additional notice if the time and place for the continued hearing are announced before adjournment of each hearing day. 1 V.S.A. § 312(c)(4); see also, e.g., In re McEwing Servs., LLC, 2004 VT 53, ¶ 17 , 177 Vt. 38 (stating that a municipal panel can “continue [a] hearing and reconvene it at a later date, as long as it announces at adjournment the time and place where the 3 This is also the case if Appellant sought to appeal the ZA’s decision as a member of a group of 10 or more voters or real

2013When a DRB’s hearing spans more than one day, the subsequent hearing days do not require separate or additional notice if the time and place for the continued hearing are announced before adjournment of each hearing day. 1 V.S.A. § 312(c)(4); see also, e.g., In re McEwing Servs., LLC, 2004 VT 53, ¶ 17 , 177 Vt. 38 (stating that a municipal panel can “continue [a] hearing and reconvene it at a later date, as long as it announces at adjournment the time and place where the 3 This is also the case if Appellant sought to appeal the ZA’s decision as a member of a group of 10 or more voters or real

2011See V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); In re Maple Tree Place, 156 Vt. 494, 500 (1991) (stating that the “court is limited to consideration of the matters properly warned as before the local board” (citing In re Torres, 154 Vt. 233, 235 (1990))); In re: Kibbe Zoning Permit, No. 173-8-07 Vtec, slip op. at 1–2 (Vt.

2007Of course, it would be better practice for the DRB to rule on the merits of the application in the first instance, see, e.g., In re Maple Tree Place, 156 Vt. 494 , 498–501 (1991); In re Jolley Associates, 2006 VT 132, ¶ 13 , as Appellant may now be willing to arrange for the new site visit.

2025See Mahar, 2018 VT 20, ¶ 17 .

2025See Mahar, 2018 VT 20, ¶ 17 .

2017See In re Town of Killington, 2003 VT 87A, ¶¶ 16–19, 19, 176 Vt. 60 (internal office procedure breakdown not excusable neglect, as matter of law, that would allow untimely-filed appeal); Bergeron v. Boyle, 2003 VT 89, ¶ 22 , 176 Vt. 78 (lawyer’s vacation and internal office procedure breakdown not excusable neglect).

2017See In re Town of Killington, 2003 VT 87A, ¶¶ 16–19, 19, 176 Vt. 60 (internal office procedure breakdown not excusable neglect, as matter of law, that would allow untimely-filed appeal); Bergeron v. Boyle, 2003 VT 89, ¶ 22 , 176 Vt. 78 (lawyer’s vacation and internal office procedure breakdown not excusable neglect).

2014Although bias of a decision maker can be a legitimate concern before this Court, we caution that in our de novo review we consider the matter anew and are 2 generally not concerned with the details of the proceedings below. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); In re Poole, 136 Vt. 242, 245 (1978) (“A de novo hearing is one where the case is heard as though no action whatever has been held prior thereto.”).

2014Although bias of a decision maker can be a legitimate concern before this Court, we caution that in our de novo review we consider the matter anew and are 2 generally not concerned with the details of the proceedings below. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); In re Poole, 136 Vt. 242, 245 (1978) (“A de novo hearing is one where the case is heard as though no action whatever has been held prior thereto.”).

2011See V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); In re Maple Tree Place, 156 Vt. 494, 500 (1991) (stating that the “court is limited to consideration of the matters properly warned as before the local board” (citing In re Torres, 154 Vt. 233, 235 (1990))); In re: Kibbe Zoning Permit, No. 173-8-07 Vtec, slip op. at 1–2 (Vt.

2010Because material facts are in dispute, or at least have not been provided to the Court, regarding whether the DRB or the Town have consistently applied the definition of “street” as described in the Town attorney’s comment quoted above, summary judgment must be denied on Questions 1 and 2 at this time. 3 See In re Champlain College Maple Street Dormitory, 2009 VT 55, ¶ 10 (“We defer to the approach taken by the City below, which appears to have been applied consistently, and we uphold the Environmental Court's conclusion that the project complies with the density requirement.” (citations omitt

2010Because material facts are in dispute, or at least have not been provided to the Court, regarding whether the DRB or the Town have consistently applied the definition of “street” as described in the Town attorney’s comment quoted above, summary judgment must be denied on Questions 1 and 2 at this time. 3 See In re Champlain College Maple Street Dormitory, 2009 VT 55, ¶ 10 (“We defer to the approach taken by the City below, which appears to have been applied consistently, and we uphold the Environmental Court's conclusion that the project complies with the density requirement.” (citations omitt

2010Champlain College Maple Street Dormitory, 9 2009 VT 55, ¶ 10 .