Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 001 : GENERAL PROVISIONS

(Cite as: 10 V.S.A. § 6001)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 145 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: In Re Vill. Assocs. Act 250 Land Use Permit, 998 A.2d 712 (Vt. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Vill. Assocs. Act 250 Land Use Permit, 998 A.2d 712 (Vt. 2010). · cites it 24× “10 V.S.A. § 6001(15). *716 ¶ 5. The Environmental Court noted that because the Legislature explicitly included forestland in its list of present uses of land that could be considered primary agricultural soils, the presence of trees could not be classified as a limitation to…”
In Re Shenandoah LLC, 2011 VT 68 (Vt. 2011). · cites it 17× “And, I suggest, on such a remand the court would be obligated to consider all relevant statutory language. The central question before the court was what constitutes a "person" for purposes of Act 250 jurisdiction.”
In Re Agency of Admin., Etc., 444 A.2d 1349 (Vt. 1982). · cites it 13× “” 10 V.S.A. § 6001 (3). The Environmental Board saw fit to interpret this statute by defining development in its Rule 2(A) (4) as follows: “Development” means: (4) The construction of improvements for state, county or municipal purposes, on a tract or tracts of land involving…”
In re Korrow Real Est., LLC Act 250 Permit Amendment Application (State of Vermont, Appellant), 187 A.3d 1125 (Vt. 2018). · cites it 8× “) § 1; see generally 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001 - 6111. Act 250 requires a land-use permit before certain development can occur.”
In re Mountain Top Inn & Resort, JO 1-391 (Katherine Hall, Appellant), 2020 VT 57 (Vt. 2020). · cites it 6× “Specifically, she argues that the Resort needs an amended Act 250 permit because under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(14)(A), the Resort and owners of the homes involved in the rental program are a collective “person.”
In Re Eustance Act 250 Juris. Opinion (No. 2-231), 2009 VT 16 (Vt. 2009). · cites it 10× “The Eustances argue that the improvements they constructed were for alpaca farming and thus are exempt from Act 250 review under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3)(D)(i). We disagree that the farming exemption applies and affirm.”
Roberts v. Chimileski, 2003 VT 10 (Vt. 2003). · cites it 8× “See 10 V.S.A. § 6001(11). Additionally, the 1984 version of 10 V.”
In Re Vitale, 563 A.2d 613 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 6× “The Board defined the issue as whether petitioner had commenced construction of a "development" within the meaning of 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3), [1] thus requiring an Act *615 250 permit under 10 V.”
In re Laberge Shooting Range (Firing Range Neighborhood Grp., LLC, Appellant), 198 A.3d 541 (Vt. 2018). · cites it 6× “Act 250 Environmental Board Rules define “commercial purpose,” as used in 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3), as “the provision of facilities, goods or services by a person other than for a municipal or state purpose to others in exchange for payment of a purchase price, fee, contribution,…”
In re Ochs, 915 A.2d 780 (Vt. 2006). · cites it 7× “See 10 V.S.A. § 6001(22) (exempting certain agricultural activities from Act 250 permitting process).”
In Re Spring Brook Farm Found., Inc., 671 A.2d 315 (Vt. 1995). · cites it 8× “See 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3). The Board concluded that the commercial purpose test was satisfied, within the language of Board Rules 2(L) and 2(M), because the Foundation would provide facilities to the students in exchange for contributions and donations by third parties.”
In Re Appeal of S-S Corp./Rooney Hous. Developments, 2006 VT 8 (Vt. 2006). · cites it 8× “The Board concluded the construction of the houses was "development" under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3)(A)(iv) and Environmental Board Rule 2(A)(1)(c) because together they consist of ten or more units and are "commercial dwellings" under Rule 2(M).”
Show all 145 citing cases →
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(1) — 1 case
Bibby 5-Lot Final Plat subdivision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(11) — 2 cases
Roberts v. Chimileski, 2003 VT 10 (Vt. 2003). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6001(11). Additionally, the 1984 version of 10 V.”
In Re Appeals of Shantee Point, Inc., 811 A.2d 1243 (Vt. 2002).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(12) — 3 cases
In Re Southview Assocs., 569 A.2d 501 (Vt. 1989).
Southview Assocs., Ltd. v. Bongartz, 980 F.2d 84 (2d Cir. 1992).
Barefoot & Zweig Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(14) — 6 cases
In Re Agency of Admin., Etc., 444 A.2d 1349 (Vt. 1982). “” 10 V.S.A. § 6001 (3). The Environmental Board saw fit to interpret this statute by defining development in its Rule 2(A) (4) as follows: “Development” means: (4) The construction of improvements for state, county or municipal purposes, on a tract or tracts of land involving…”
In Re Shenandoah LLC, 2011 VT 68 (Vt. 2011). “And, I suggest, on such a remand the court would be obligated to consider all relevant statutory language. The central question before the court was what constitutes a "person" for purposes of Act 250 jurisdiction.”
In Re Proposed Sale of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 2003 VT 53 (Vt. 2003).
State of Vermont Env't Bd. v. Chickering, 583 A.2d 607 (Vt. 1990).
PLH Vineyard Sky LLC v. Vermont Pub. Util. Comm'n (D. Vt. 2024).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(14)(A) — 8 cases
In re Mountain Top Inn & Resort, JO 1-391 (Katherine Hall, Appellant), 2020 VT 57 (Vt. 2020). “Specifically, she argues that the Resort needs an amended Act 250 permit because under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(14)(A), the Resort and owners of the homes involved in the rental program are a collective “person.”
In re Spencer, 566 A.2d 959 (Vt. 1989).
Shenandoah LLC JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009).
Mountain Top Inn & Resort JO 1-391 - Decison on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018).
Baldwin Prop. Act 250 JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(14)(A)(i) — 5 cases
In re Mountain Top Inn & Resort, JO 1-391 (Katherine Hall, Appellant), 2020 VT 57 (Vt. 2020). “Specifically, she argues that the Resort needs an amended Act 250 permit because under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(14)(A), the Resort and owners of the homes involved in the rental program are a collective “person.”
Mountain Top Inn & Resort JO 1-391 - Decison on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018).
Baldwin Prop. Act 250 JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
Shenandoah LLC JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009).
Sports Venue Found., Inc. Act 250 LU Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2007).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(14)(A)(iii) — 4 cases
In Re Shenandoah LLC, 2011 VT 68 (Vt. 2011). “And, I suggest, on such a remand the court would be obligated to consider all relevant statutory language. The central question before the court was what constitutes a "person" for purposes of Act 250 jurisdiction.”
Mountain Top Inn & Resort JO 1-391 - Decison on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018).
Shenandoah LLC JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009).
Baldwin Prop. Act 250 JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(14)(A)(iv) — 5 cases
In Re Shenandoah LLC, 2011 VT 68 (Vt. 2011). “And, I suggest, on such a remand the court would be obligated to consider all relevant statutory language. The central question before the court was what constitutes a "person" for purposes of Act 250 jurisdiction.”
In re Spencer, 566 A.2d 959 (Vt. 1989).
State of Vermont Env't Bd. v. Chickering, 583 A.2d 607 (Vt. 1990).
Baldwin Prop. Act 250 JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
Shenandoah LLC JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(14)(B) — 1 case
In Re Shenandoah LLC, 2011 VT 68 (Vt. 2011). “And, I suggest, on such a remand the court would be obligated to consider all relevant statutory language. The central question before the court was what constitutes a "person" for purposes of Act 250 jurisdiction.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(14)(iii) — 1 case
Shenandoah LLC JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(15) — 13 cases
In Re Vill. Assocs. Act 250 Land Use Permit, 998 A.2d 712 (Vt. 2010). “10 V.S.A. § 6001(15). *716 ¶ 5. The Environmental Court noted that because the Legislature explicitly included forestland in its list of present uses of land that could be considered primary agricultural soils, the presence of trees could not be classified as a limitation to…”
In Re Times & Seasons, LLC, 2011 VT 76 (Vt. 2011).
Agency of Nat. Resources v. Weston, 2003 VT 58 (Vt. 2003).
In Re Appeal of Times & Seasons, LLC, 2008 VT 7 (Vt. 2008).
In Re Spear Street Assocs., 494 A.2d 138 (Vt. 1985).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(16)(A) — 1 case
SM Farms Shop, LLC Permit Appeal - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(16)(A)(i) — 1 case
SM Farms Shop, LLC Permit Appeal - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(17) — 2 cases
In re Korrow Real Est., LLC Act 250 Permit Amendment Application (State of Vermont, Appellant), 187 A.3d 1125 (Vt. 2018). “) § 1; see generally 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001 - 6111. Act 250 requires a land-use permit before certain development can occur.”
Korrow Real Est. LLC Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(19) — 10 cases
Roberts v. Chimileski, 2003 VT 10 (Vt. 2003). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6001(11). Additionally, the 1984 version of 10 V.”
In re SP Land Co., LLC, Act 250 LUP Amendment, 2011 VT 104 (Vt. 2011).
State of Vermont Env't Bd. v. Chickering, 583 A.2d 607 (Vt. 1990).
In Re Eastland, Inc., 562 A.2d 1043 (Vt. 1989).
In re Spencer, 566 A.2d 959 (Vt. 1989).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(19)(A) — 2 cases
Snowstone, LLC JO 2-308 - Decision on Merits (Initial Bifurcated Issues) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018).
Snowstone LLC, JO 2-308 - Revised Merits Decision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2019).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(22) — 12 cases
In re Ochs, 915 A.2d 780 (Vt. 2006). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6001(22) (exempting certain agricultural activities from Act 250 permitting process).”
In re Moore Accessory Structure Permit & Use, 2013 VT 54 (Vt. 2013).
In Re 8 Taft Street DRB & NOV Appeals (Stephen Wille Padnos & Sharon Wille Padnos, Appellants), 2025 VT 27 (Vt. 2025).
Moore Accessory Structure Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
Moore Accessory Structure (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(22)(A) — 5 cases
In re Ochs, 915 A.2d 780 (Vt. 2006). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6001(22) (exempting certain agricultural activities from Act 250 permitting process).”
In re Moore Accessory Structure Permit & Use, 2013 VT 54 (Vt. 2013).
WhistlePig, LLC Act 250 JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014).
Moore Accessory Structure (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012).
WhistlePig LLC Act 250 JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(22)(D) — 1 case
Times & Seasons LLC Act 250 Reconsideration (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(22)(E) — 9 cases
In re Ochs, 915 A.2d 780 (Vt. 2006). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6001(22) (exempting certain agricultural activities from Act 250 permitting process).”
WhistlePig LLC Act 250 JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015).
Mountain Top Inn & Resort JO 1-391 - Decison on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018).
WhistlePig, LLC A250 JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015).
WhistlePig Act 250 LU Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(22)(F) — 1 case
Moore Accessory Structure (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(22)(G) — 1 case
Gingras Act 250 Amended Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(23) — 1 case
Diverging Diamond Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(27) — 1 case
Windham Windsor Hous. Trust JO Appeal - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(29)(B) — 1 case
Windham Windsor Hous. Trust JO Appeal - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3) — 33 cases
In Re Agency of Admin., Etc., 444 A.2d 1349 (Vt. 1982). “” 10 V.S.A. § 6001 (3). The Environmental Board saw fit to interpret this statute by defining development in its Rule 2(A) (4) as follows: “Development” means: (4) The construction of improvements for state, county or municipal purposes, on a tract or tracts of land involving…”
In Re Vitale, 563 A.2d 613 (Vt. 1989). “The Board defined the issue as whether petitioner had commenced construction of a "development" within the meaning of 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3), [1] thus requiring an Act *615 250 permit under 10 V.”
In Re Spring Brook Farm Found., Inc., 671 A.2d 315 (Vt. 1995). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3). The Board concluded that the commercial purpose test was satisfied, within the language of Board Rules 2(L) and 2(M), because the Foundation would provide facilities to the students in exchange for contributions and donations by third parties.”
Comm. to Save the Bishop's House, Inc. v. Med. Ctr. Hosp. of Vermont, Inc., 400 A.2d 1015 (Vt. 1979).
In re Laberge Shooting Range (Firing Range Neighborhood Grp., LLC, Appellant), 198 A.3d 541 (Vt. 2018). “Act 250 Environmental Board Rules define “commercial purpose,” as used in 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3), as “the provision of facilities, goods or services by a person other than for a municipal or state purpose to others in exchange for payment of a purchase price, fee, contribution,…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(A) — 18 cases
In Re CVPS/Verizon Act 250 Land Use Permit Numbers 7C1252 & 7C0677-2, 2009 VT 71 (Vt. 2009).
In Re Huntley, 2004 VT 115 (Vt. 2004).
In re North East Materials Grp. LLC ACT 250 JO 5-21 (Russell Austin, Pamela Austin, Julie Barre, Marc Bernier, Appellants), 2015 VT 79 (Vt. 2015).
In re North East Materials Grp. LLC Act 250 JO 5-21, 199 Vt. 577 (Vt. 2015).
In re Eastview at Middlebury, Inc. (Vt. 2009).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(A)(i) — 14 cases
In re Laberge Shooting Range (Firing Range Neighborhood Grp., LLC, Appellant), 198 A.3d 541 (Vt. 2018). “Act 250 Environmental Board Rules define “commercial purpose,” as used in 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3), as “the provision of facilities, goods or services by a person other than for a municipal or state purpose to others in exchange for payment of a purchase price, fee, contribution,…”
In re Mountain Top Inn & Resort, JO 1-391 (Katherine Hall, Appellant), 2020 VT 57 (Vt. 2020). “Specifically, she argues that the Resort needs an amended Act 250 permit because under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(14)(A), the Resort and owners of the homes involved in the rental program are a collective “person.”
In Re Eastview at Middlebury, Inc., 2009 VT 98 (Vt. 2010).
In re Ochs, 915 A.2d 780 (Vt. 2006). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6001(22) (exempting certain agricultural activities from Act 250 permitting process).”
Laberge Shooting Range JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(A)(ii) — 10 cases
In re Snowstone Stormwater Discharge Authorization (Michael Harrington, Appellants), 2021 VT 36 (Vt. 2021).
In re Snowstone, LLC Act 250 Jurisdictional Opinion (Michael Harrington, Appellants), 2021 VT 72 (Vt. 2022).
Snowstone, LLC JO 2-308 - Decision on Merits (Initial Bifurcated Issues) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018).
Snowstone LLC, JO 2-308 - Revised Merits Decision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2019).
In re Snowstone, LLC Act 250 Jurisdictional Opinion (Michael Harrington, Appellants), 2021 VT 72 (Vt. 2021).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(A)(iv) — 5 cases
In Re Appeal of S-S Corp./Rooney Hous. Developments, 2006 VT 8 (Vt. 2006). “The Board concluded the construction of the houses was "development" under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3)(A)(iv) and Environmental Board Rule 2(A)(1)(c) because together they consist of ten or more units and are "commercial dwellings" under Rule 2(M).”
In Re Shenandoah LLC, 2011 VT 68 (Vt. 2011). “And, I suggest, on such a remand the court would be obligated to consider all relevant statutory language. The central question before the court was what constitutes a "person" for purposes of Act 250 jurisdiction.”
Shenandoah LLC JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009).
Snowstone, LLC JO 2-308 - Decision on Merits (Initial Bifurcated Issues) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018).
Snowstone LLC, JO 2-308 - Revised Merits Decision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2019).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(A)(v) — 4 cases
In re Request for Jurisdictional Opinion re: Changes in Physical Structure & Use at Burlington Int'l Airport for F-35A, 2015 VT 41 (Vt. 2015).
In re Request for Jurisdictional Opinion re: Changes in Physical Structure & Use at Burlington Int'l Airport for F-35A (Vt. 2015).
Burlington Airport Act 250 JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014).
Dover Valley Trail JO 2-233 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2007).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(A)(xi) — 1 case
Windham Windsor Hous. Trust JO Appeal - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(C)(iv) — 1 case
In Re MacIntyre Fuels, Inc., 2003 VT 59 (Vt. 2003).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(D) — 4 cases
In Re CVPS/Verizon Act 250 Land Use Permit Numbers 7C1252 & 7C0677-2, 2009 VT 71 (Vt. 2009).
Woodchip Power Plant A250 JO 2-234 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2007).
WhistlePig, LLC A250 JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015).
WhistlePig LLC Act 250 JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(D)(i) — 7 cases
In Re Eustance Act 250 Juris. Opinion (No. 2-231), 2009 VT 16 (Vt. 2009). “The Eustances argue that the improvements they constructed were for alpaca farming and thus are exempt from Act 250 review under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3)(D)(i). We disagree that the farming exemption applies and affirm.”
In re Mountain Top Inn & Resort, JO 1-391 (Katherine Hall, Appellant), 2020 VT 57 (Vt. 2020). “Specifically, she argues that the Resort needs an amended Act 250 permit because under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(14)(A), the Resort and owners of the homes involved in the rental program are a collective “person.”
In Re CVPS/Verizon Act 250 Land Use Permit Numbers 7C1252 & 7C0677-2, 2009 VT 71 (Vt. 2009).
In re Ochs, 915 A.2d 780 (Vt. 2006). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6001(22) (exempting certain agricultural activities from Act 250 permitting process).”
In Re Green Crow Corp., 2006 VT 14 (Vt. 2006).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(D)(ii) — 2 cases
Glebe Mountain Wind Energy, LLC (Vt. Super. Ct. 2006).
Glebe Mountain Wind Energy, LLC (Vt. Super. Ct. 2006).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(D)(viii)(III) — 1 case
Windham Windsor Hous. Trust JO Appeal - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(E) — 3 cases
In Re Eustance Act 250 Juris. Opinion (No. 2-231), 2009 VT 16 (Vt. 2009). “The Eustances argue that the improvements they constructed were for alpaca farming and thus are exempt from Act 250 review under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3)(D)(i). We disagree that the farming exemption applies and affirm.”
In Re 8 Taft Street DRB & NOV Appeals (Stephen Wille Padnos & Sharon Wille Padnos, Appellants), 2025 VT 27 (Vt. 2025).
WhistlePig Act 250 LU Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(a)(iv) — 2 cases
In Re Appeal of S-S Corp./Rooney Hous. Developments, 2006 VT 8 (Vt. 2006). “The Board concluded the construction of the houses was "development" under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3)(A)(iv) and Environmental Board Rule 2(A)(1)(c) because together they consist of ten or more units and are "commercial dwellings" under Rule 2(M).”
Shenandoah LLC JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(i) — 1 case
McCullough Crusing, Inc. Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(35) — 2 cases
In Re Windham Windsor Hous. Trust JO Appeal (Deborah Lazar & Laura Campbell, Appellants), 2024 VT 73 (Vt. 2024).
Windham Windsor Hous. Trust JO Appeal - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(36) — 1 case
SM Farms Shop, LLC Permit Appeal - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(6) — 7 cases
In re Korrow Real Est., LLC Act 250 Permit Amendment Application (State of Vermont, Appellant), 187 A.3d 1125 (Vt. 2018). “) § 1; see generally 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001 - 6111. Act 250 requires a land-use permit before certain development can occur.”
In Re Woodford Packers, Inc., 2003 VT 60 (Vt. 2003).
In re Zaremba Grp. Act 250 Permit, 127 A.3d 93 (Vt. 2015).
Korrow Real Est. LLC Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017).
Katzenbach A250 Permit 7R1374-1 - Decision on Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(7) — 1 case
Korrow Real Est. LLC Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(8) — 1 case
In Re Agency of Admin., Etc., 444 A.2d 1349 (Vt. 1982). “” 10 V.S.A. § 6001 (3). The Environmental Board saw fit to interpret this statute by defining development in its Rule 2(A) (4) as follows: “Development” means: (4) The construction of improvements for state, county or municipal purposes, on a tract or tracts of land involving…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(9) — 1 case
Union Bank Act 250 Application (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013).
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.