Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6087 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 004 : PERMITS

(Cite as: 10 V.S.A. § 6087)

§ 6087. Denial of application

(a) No application shall be denied by the District Commission unless it finds the proposed subdivision or development detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.

(b) A permit may not be denied solely for the reasons set forth in subdivisions 6086(a)(5), (6), and (7) of this title. However, reasonable conditions and requirements allowable in subsection 6086(c) of this title may be attached to alleviate the burdens created.

(c) A denial of a permit shall contain the specific reasons for denial. A person may, within six months, apply for reconsideration of his or her permit which application shall include an affidavit to the District Commission and all parties of record that the deficiencies have been corrected. The District Commission shall hold a new hearing upon 25 days’ notice to the parties. The hearing shall be held within 40 days of receipt of the request for reconsideration. (Added 1969, No. 250 (Adj. Sess.), § 12, eff. April 4, 1970; amended 2003, No. 115 (Adj. Sess.), § 57, eff. Jan. 31, 2005.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 35 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: In Re Times & Seasons, LLC, 2011 VT 76 (Vt. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Times & Seasons, LLC, 2011 VT 76 (Vt. 2011). · cites it 6× “It also found that on reconsideration of the original application pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6087, applicant could not avail itself of the new definition, amended during the course of litigation, to secure compliance with criterion 9(B).”

In re Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 Permit, 179 A.3d 727 (Vt. 2017). · cites it 4× “In Hannaford's view, considering that neither the Town nor VTrans has any plans for a signal at the intersection despite the intersection's LOS F rating, the condition requiring the *748 installation of a signal before the proposed project becomes operational amounts to a…”

In Re JLD Props. of St. Albans, LLC, 2011 VT 87 (Vt. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 10 V.S.A. § 6087(c). In reviewing the application, the Natural Resources Board rule provides that a district commission may limit its “scope of review to those aspects of the project or application which have been 'modified to correct deficiencies” and that findings not…”

In Re Wildlife Wonderland, Inc., 346 A.2d 645 (Vt. 1975). · cites it 4× “” 10 V.S.A. § 6087 (a). To arrive at this finding, processing a permit application first involves consideration by the Board of the ten criteria of 10 V.”

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× “10 V.S.A. § 6087(b) ; see also id . § 6086(c) ("A permit may contain such requirements and conditions as are allowable proper exercise of the police power .”

In re Champlain Parkway Act 250 Permit (Fortieth Burlington LLC, Appellant), 2015 VT 105 (Vt. 2015). · cites it 2× “See 10 V.S.A. § 6087(b) (providing that, while a permit “may not be denied solely for the reasons set forth” under Criterion 5, “reasonable conditions and requirements .”

In re Costco Stormwater Dishcharge Permit, Costco Final Plat & Site Plan, Costco Act 250 Land Use Permit, Wetlands, Reclassification (R.L. Vallee, Inc. & Timberlake Assocs. LLP, Appellants), 2016 VT 86 (Vt. 2016). “Viewed in the light of these standards, we conclude the record evidence here was sufficient to support the trial court’s findings and conclusions under Criterion 5. With respect to the impact of the additional traffic at the 1-89 interchange, Costco’s traffic expert testified…”

In Re Pilgrim P'ship, 572 A.2d 909 (Vt. 1990). · cites it 2× “That rule requires that the “record owner” of the tract of involved land be a co-applicant unless good cause is shown for a waiver of the requirement.”

In Re Quechee Lakes Corp., 580 A.2d 957 (Vt. 1990). “4 In support of its proposition that permit conditions must be reasonable, Quechee cites 10 V.S.A. § 6087(b), which provides: “A permit may not be denied solely for the reasons set forth in subdivisions (5), (6) and (7) of section 6086(a) of this title.”

In Re Sherman Hollow, Inc., 641 A.2d 753 (Vt. 1993). “Applicant requested reconsideration by the District Environmental Commission pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6087(c), and filed an affidavit certifying that the Commission denied the request for reconsideration.”

In Re Agency of Transp., 596 A.2d 358 (Vt. 1991). “10 V.S.A. § 6087(b). AOT maintains that these two legislative schemes — both dealing with traffic safety — conflict with each other and argues that rules of statutory construction must be applied to resolve the conflict.”

Omya, Inc. v. Town of Middlebury, 758 A.2d 777 (Vt. 2000). “* As provided under 10 VS.A. § 6087(b), the license was issued subject to five conditions, including Condition 4, the truck trip limit.”

Show all 35 citing cases →

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6087(a) — 2 cases

In Re Wildlife Wonderland, Inc., 346 A.2d 645 (Vt. 1975). “” 10 V.S.A. § 6087 (a). To arrive at this finding, processing a permit application first involves consideration by the Board of the ten criteria of 10 V.”

Costco Wholesale Matters - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024).

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6087(b) — 26 cases

In re Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 Permit, 179 A.3d 727 (Vt. 2017). “In Hannaford's view, considering that neither the Town nor VTrans has any plans for a signal at the intersection despite the intersection's LOS F rating, the condition requiring the *748 installation of a signal before the proposed project becomes operational amounts to a…”

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). “10 V.S.A. § 6087(b) ; see also id . § 6086(c) ("A permit may contain such requirements and conditions as are allowable proper exercise of the police power .”

In re Champlain Parkway Act 250 Permit (Fortieth Burlington LLC, Appellant), 2015 VT 105 (Vt. 2015). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6087(b) (providing that, while a permit “may not be denied solely for the reasons set forth” under Criterion 5, “reasonable conditions and requirements .”

In re Costco Stormwater Dishcharge Permit, Costco Final Plat & Site Plan, Costco Act 250 Land Use Permit, Wetlands, Reclassification (R.L. Vallee, Inc. & Timberlake Assocs. LLP, Appellants), 2016 VT 86 (Vt. 2016). “Viewed in the light of these standards, we conclude the record evidence here was sufficient to support the trial court’s findings and conclusions under Criterion 5. With respect to the impact of the additional traffic at the 1-89 interchange, Costco’s traffic expert testified…”

In Re Pilgrim P'ship, 572 A.2d 909 (Vt. 1990). “That rule requires that the “record owner” of the tract of involved land be a co-applicant unless good cause is shown for a waiver of the requirement.”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6087(c) — 10 cases

In Re Times & Seasons, LLC, 2011 VT 76 (Vt. 2011). “It also found that on reconsideration of the original application pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6087, applicant could not avail itself of the new definition, amended during the course of litigation, to secure compliance with criterion 9(B).”

In Re JLD Props. of St. Albans, LLC, 2011 VT 87 (Vt. 2011). “” 10 V.S.A. § 6087(c). In reviewing the application, the Natural Resources Board rule provides that a district commission may limit its “scope of review to those aspects of the project or application which have been 'modified to correct deficiencies” and that findings not…”

In Re Sherman Hollow, Inc., 641 A.2d 753 (Vt. 1993). “Applicant requested reconsideration by the District Environmental Commission pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6087(c), and filed an affidavit certifying that the Commission denied the request for reconsideration.”

Katzenbach A250 Permit 7R1374-1 - Decision on Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021).

Times & Seasons LLC Act 250 Reconsideration (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).

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.