§ 6082. Approval by local governments and State agencies
The permit required under section 6081 of this title shall not supersede or replace the requirements for a permit of any other State agency
or municipal government. (1969, No. 250 (Adj. Sess.), § 27, eff. April 4, 1970.)
Comm. to Save the Bishop's House, Inc. v. Med. Ctr. Hosp. of Vermont, Inc., 400 A.2d 1015 (Vt. 1979). · cites it 2דThus, where local regulation is in effect, a person proposing to subdivide or develop might have to gain approval both at the local and the state levels, see 10 V.S.A. § 6082, or might need local approval only.”
In Re Hawk Mountain Corp., 542 A.2d 261 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 2דSee 10 V.S.A. § 6082. However, the legislative scheme indicates that the legislature intended to confer upon the Board powers of a supervisory body in environmental matters.”
In Re Agency of Admin., Etc., 444 A.2d 1349 (Vt. 1982). “Nothing suggests that the Legislature intended to foreclose consideration of the Act 250 criteria by creating the Capitol Complex Commission.”
In Re Agency of Transp., 596 A.2d 358 (Vt. 1991). “” 10 V.S.A. § 6082. Section 6082 makes plain that a less stringent Act 250 permit may not substitute for a more stringent provision required elsewhere.”
Hinesburg Hannaford CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015). “) (holding that Act 250 does not dictate the timeline for seeking municipal permits); see also 10 V.S.A. § 6082 (“The permit required under section 6081 of this title shall not supersede or replace the requirements for a permit of any other state agency or municipal government.”
Conlon CU Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6082 (“The permit required under section 6081 of this title [Title 10] shall not supersede or replace the requirements for a permit of any other state agency or municipal government.”
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.