Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 10 Chapter 151
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6027 (2026)

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

Subchapter 002 : ADMINISTRATION

(Cite as: 10 V.S.A. § 6027)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 2008–2018 · leading case: In re Treetop Dev. Co. Act 250 Dev. (Treetop at Stratton Condo. Assn., Inc., Appellant), 2016 VT 20 (Vt. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Treetop Dev. Co. Act 250 Dev. (Treetop at Stratton Condo. Assn., Inc., Appellant), 2016 VT 20 (Vt. 2016). · cites it 3× “See 10 V.S.A. § 6027(g) (authorizing NRB to “initiate enforcement” of Act 250 permits and to “petition the Environmental Division for revocation” of Act 250 permits for, among other things, “noncompliance with any permit or permit condition.”
In re North East Materials Grp., LLC Amended Act 250 Permit (Russell Austin, Pamela Austin, Julie Barre, Marc Bernier, Collectively, Neighbors for Healthy Communities, Appellants), 174 A.3d 747 (Vt. 2017). · cites it 3× “See 10 V.S.A. § 6027(g) ; id. § 8003 (stating that NRB has discretion to institute enforcement actions); id.”
In re Mathez Act 250 LU Permit (Sung-Hee Chung, Appellant), 192 A.3d 400 (Vt. 2018). “Neighbor also observes that the revocation process *404 under 10 V.S.A. § 6027(g) does not adequately provide for correcting a mistake.”
In re Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 Permit, 179 A.3d 727 (Vt. 2017). “Thus, the trial court's reliance on enforcement proceedings, in the absence of evidence supporting the trial court's finding that the swale would likely work, deprives Neighbors of their only certain opportunity to present evidence demonstrating that the system would not…”
Rueger & Moyers v. Nat. Resources Bd. & the Dist. 9 Env't Comm'n of the State of Vermont, 2012 VT 33 (Vt. 2012). “” 2 There is no dispute that district commissions are public agencies that act in a quasi-judicial capacity. As the trial court explained, the commissions hear evidence and issue rulings in the manner of a court, and their decisions are subject to review by the Environmental…”
Mathez Act 250 LU Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “There is, however, an exception to this rule: the NRB “may petition the Environmental Division for revocation of” final Act 250 permits on various grounds set out in 10 V.S.A. § 6027(g). In this case, the District Commission has attempted to void or revoke the June 17, 2016…”
In re Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 Permit / In re Hinesburg Hannaford Site Plan Approval (Mary Beth Bowman, Appellants) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). “4; see 10 V.S.A. § 6027(g) (assigning to NRB discretion to initiate enforcement on matters related to land use permits).”
R.L. Vallee, Inc.et Al MS4 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). “25, 2016) (citing 10 V.S.A. § 6027(g)). These statutes can be contrasted with that which deals with municipal zoning violations, and which makes enforcement mandatory.”
NRB v. Stratton (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6027(g) (“The Natural Resources Board .”
Treetop Dev. Co. Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). “10 V.S.A. § 6027(g). Further, the Association cannot use Condition 14 to privately enforce the Permit or Permit Amendment.”
Donovan CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). “4 The Act 250 analogue is found at 10 V.S.A. § 6027. 5These factors are: (1) the capacity of existing or planned community facilities; (2) the character of the area affected; (3) traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity; (4) bylaws then in effect; and (5) the utilization of…”
Phillips Prop. Non-Enf't (Vt. Super. Ct. 2008). “Chapter 201); Act 250 permit revocation complaint (10 V.S.A. § 6027(a); V.R.E.C.P. 3(1)). 1 Appellants also have brought a civil action in Rutland Superior Court against the Phillips, the Town, and others: Docket No.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6027(a) — 1 case
Phillips Prop. Non-Enf't (Vt. Super. Ct. 2008). “Chapter 201); Act 250 permit revocation complaint (10 V.S.A. § 6027(a); V.R.E.C.P. 3(1)). 1 Appellants also have brought a civil action in Rutland Superior Court against the Phillips, the Town, and others: Docket No.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6027(g) — 9 cases
In re Treetop Dev. Co. Act 250 Dev. (Treetop at Stratton Condo. Assn., Inc., Appellant), 2016 VT 20 (Vt. 2016). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6027(g) (authorizing NRB to “initiate enforcement” of Act 250 permits and to “petition the Environmental Division for revocation” of Act 250 permits for, among other things, “noncompliance with any permit or permit condition.”
In re North East Materials Grp., LLC Amended Act 250 Permit (Russell Austin, Pamela Austin, Julie Barre, Marc Bernier, Collectively, Neighbors for Healthy Communities, Appellants), 174 A.3d 747 (Vt. 2017). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6027(g) ; id. § 8003 (stating that NRB has discretion to institute enforcement actions); id.”
In re Mathez Act 250 LU Permit (Sung-Hee Chung, Appellant), 192 A.3d 400 (Vt. 2018). “Neighbor also observes that the revocation process *404 under 10 V.S.A. § 6027(g) does not adequately provide for correcting a mistake.”
In re Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 Permit, 179 A.3d 727 (Vt. 2017). “Thus, the trial court's reliance on enforcement proceedings, in the absence of evidence supporting the trial court's finding that the swale would likely work, deprives Neighbors of their only certain opportunity to present evidence demonstrating that the system would not…”
Mathez Act 250 LU Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). “There is, however, an exception to this rule: the NRB “may petition the Environmental Division for revocation of” final Act 250 permits on various grounds set out in 10 V.S.A. § 6027(g). In this case, the District Commission has attempted to void or revoke the June 17, 2016…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6027(g)(2) — 1 case
In re North East Materials Grp., LLC Amended Act 250 Permit (Russell Austin, Pamela Austin, Julie Barre, Marc Bernier, Collectively, Neighbors for Healthy Communities, Appellants), 174 A.3d 747 (Vt. 2017). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6027(g) ; id. § 8003 (stating that NRB has discretion to institute enforcement actions); id.”
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.