(a) No rule or regulation and no amendment or repeal thereof shall take effect except
after public hearing. The Secretary shall appoint a time and place for the hearing
and shall order the publication of the substance thereof and of the time and place
of hearing two weeks successively in the daily newspapers of the State, the last publication
to be at least seven days before the day appointed for the hearing.
(b) Appeals of any act or decision of the Secretary under this chapter shall be made in
accordance with chapter 220 of this title.
(c) [Repealed.]
(d)-(f) [Repealed.]
(g) If a permit is denied under this section, and that denial is the subject of either
an appeal or a request for a variance, the applicant need not commence application
proceedings anew, once those issues are resolved. (Added 1967, No. 310 (Adj. Sess.), § 12; amended 1971, No. 185 (Adj. Sess.), § 24, eff. March 29, 1972; 1971, No. 212 (Adj. Sess.), § 3; 1993, No. 92, § 6; 1993, No. 92, § 6; 1993, No. 232 (Adj. Sess.), § 38, eff. March 15, 1995; 2003, No. 115 (Adj. Sess.), § 14, eff. Jan. 31, 2005.)
Conservation Law Found. v. Burke, 645 A.2d 495 (Vt. 1993). · cites it 2דThe 1981 amendment to Rule 74 covers this case because review is specifically *126 authorized by statute, 10 V.S.A. § 562(c), although a contested case is not involved.”
In Re Appeal of LiCausi, 2008 VT 59 (Vt. 2008). “Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 562(d), 1 several neighbors appealed this determination to the Environmental Court, complaining, among other things, that: (1) the 2004 permit application contained outdated data that did not accurately represent the equipment to be used on site; (2) ANR…”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 562(c): 1 case
Conservation Law Found. v. Burke, 645 A.2d 495 (Vt. 1993). “The 1981 amendment to Rule 74 covers this case because review is specifically *126 authorized by statute, 10 V.S.A. § 562(c), although a contested case is not involved.”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 562(d): 1 case
In Re Appeal of LiCausi, 2008 VT 59 (Vt. 2008). “Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 562(d), 1 several neighbors appealed this determination to the Environmental Court, complaining, among other things, that: (1) the 2004 permit application contained outdated data that did not accurately represent the equipment to be used on site; (2) ANR…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.