Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001 (2026)

Definitions

✓ 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).
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).”
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.”
State of Vermont Env't Bd. v. Chickering, 583 A.2d 607 (Vt. 1990).
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).
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.”
Baldwin Prop. Act 250 JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
Shenandoah LLC JO (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009).
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.”
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
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(16)(A)(i): 1 case
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.”
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
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).”
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).”
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
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).
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
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(29)(B): 1 case
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.”
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 Huntley, 2004 VT 115 (Vt. 2004).
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
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).
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(3)(A)(v): 4 cases
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
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
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 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
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.”
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
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6001(36): 1 case
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).
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.