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

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6088 (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. § 6088)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: In Re Wildlife Wonderland, Inc., 346 A.2d 645 (Vt. 1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Wildlife Wonderland, Inc., 346 A.2d 645 (Vt. 1975). · cites it 8× “§ 6085(a)(5); 10 V.S.A. § 6088 (b). Air pollution is a similar ground, with the burden of proof on the applicant.”
In re North East Materials Grp., LLC/Rock of Ages Corp. Act 250 Permit (Russell Austin, Pamela Austin, Julie Barre, Marc Bernier, Collectively, Neighbors for Healthy Communities, Appellants), 2019 VT 55 (Vt. 2019). · cites it 2× “10 V.S.A. § 6088(a). Section 6086(d) and Act 250 Rule 19 provide that specific ANR permits create presumptions of compliance with certain Act 250 Criteria.”
In re Petition of Rutland Renewable Energy, LLC for Certificate of Pub. Good Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248, 2016 VT 50 (Vt. 2016). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, I 11 Although a specific statute places the burden on the party opposing an Act 250 permit to show an “unreasonable or adverse [aesthetic] effect,” 10 V.S.A. § 6088(b), this provision is not expressly incorporated into the CPG review process under 30 V.”
In re Diverging Diamond Interchange SW Permit, Diverging Diamond Interchange A250 (R.L. Vallee, Inc. & Timberlake Assocs., LLP, Appellants), 2019 VT 57 (Vt. 2019). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6088(a). We also recognize that the District #4 Environmental Commission in 24 this case rejected Vallee’s arguments under Criterion 1, concluding that Vallee had failed to demonstrate that any increase in chloride or phosphorus resulting from the project was…”
In Re Route 103 Quarry, 2008 VT 88 (Vt. 2008). “The applicant has the burden of demonstrating compliance with both Criterion 1 and Criterion 3, 10 V.S.A. § 6088(a), although the issuance of certain permits from the Agency of Natural Resources creates a presumption of compliance with Criterion 1(B).”
In Re Quechee Lakes Corp., 580 A.2d 957 (Vt. 1990). “Since 10 V.S.A. § 6088(b) places the burden of proof on the parties opposed to the permit where aesthetic impact is at issue, *553 Quechee contends that the Board erred in concluding that the project would have such an impact.”
In Re Rinkers, Inc., 2011 VT 78 (Vt. 2011). “They claim that while they, as opponents to the project, had the burden of proving that the adverse effect of the tower would be undue, 10 V.S.A. § 6088(b), Rinkers failed to prove the tower needed to reach 180 feet in height.”
In Re Spear Street Assocs., 494 A.2d 138 (Vt. 1985). · cites it 2× “It further concluded that the developer failed to satisfy its burden of proof, 10 V.S.A. § 6088(a), as it failed to demonstrate that the criteria relating to developments on primary agricultural soils were satisfied.”
In re Champlain Parkway Act 250 Permit (Fortieth Burlington LLC, Appellant), 2015 VT 105 (Vt. 2015). “” 10 V.S.A. § 6088(b). Fortieth maintains, nevertheless, that applicants retained the initial burden of production for the court “to make an affirmative finding” under Criterion 5, and that they failed in this regard because their own evidence showed that the Parkway would cause…”
In re Goddard Coll. Conditional Use, Goddard Coll. Act 250 Reconsideration, 2014 VT 124 (Vt. 2014). “10 V.S.A. § 6088(b). “[I]n the absence of evidence on the issue, or where the evidence is *91 indecisive, the issue must be decided in the applicant’s favor.”
In Re McShinsky, 572 A.2d 916 (Vt. 1990). “On appeal to this Court, plaintiffs contend that the Board’s findings and conclusions were not supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. II Before discussing the evidence, we first address the burdens imposed by Act 250, the type of evidence the Board may rely on, and…”
In re Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 Permit, 179 A.3d 727 (Vt. 2017). “Nor did he address the uncontradicted testimony of Neighbors' expert that the swale would not function as designed and thus would not meet those standards for very specific reasons-the area was perennially wet, saturated with water, and populated by wetlands plants that would…”
Show all 69 citing cases →
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6088(a) — 28 cases
In Re Wildlife Wonderland, Inc., 346 A.2d 645 (Vt. 1975). “§ 6085(a)(5); 10 V.S.A. § 6088 (b). Air pollution is a similar ground, with the burden of proof on the applicant.”
In re North East Materials Grp., LLC/Rock of Ages Corp. Act 250 Permit (Russell Austin, Pamela Austin, Julie Barre, Marc Bernier, Collectively, Neighbors for Healthy Communities, Appellants), 2019 VT 55 (Vt. 2019). “10 V.S.A. § 6088(a). Section 6086(d) and Act 250 Rule 19 provide that specific ANR permits create presumptions of compliance with certain Act 250 Criteria.”
In re Diverging Diamond Interchange SW Permit, Diverging Diamond Interchange A250 (R.L. Vallee, Inc. & Timberlake Assocs., LLP, Appellants), 2019 VT 57 (Vt. 2019). “See 10 V.S.A. § 6088(a). We also recognize that the District #4 Environmental Commission in 24 this case rejected Vallee’s arguments under Criterion 1, concluding that Vallee had failed to demonstrate that any increase in chloride or phosphorus resulting from the project was…”
In Re Route 103 Quarry, 2008 VT 88 (Vt. 2008). “The applicant has the burden of demonstrating compliance with both Criterion 1 and Criterion 3, 10 V.S.A. § 6088(a), although the issuance of certain permits from the Agency of Natural Resources creates a presumption of compliance with Criterion 1(B).”
In Re Spear Street Assocs., 494 A.2d 138 (Vt. 1985). “It further concluded that the developer failed to satisfy its burden of proof, 10 V.S.A. § 6088(a), as it failed to demonstrate that the criteria relating to developments on primary agricultural soils were satisfied.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6088(b) — 41 cases
In re Petition of Rutland Renewable Energy, LLC for Certificate of Pub. Good Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248, 2016 VT 50 (Vt. 2016). “Accordingly, I 11 Although a specific statute places the burden on the party opposing an Act 250 permit to show an “unreasonable or adverse [aesthetic] effect,” 10 V.S.A. § 6088(b), this provision is not expressly incorporated into the CPG review process under 30 V.”
In re North East Materials Grp., LLC/Rock of Ages Corp. Act 250 Permit (Russell Austin, Pamela Austin, Julie Barre, Marc Bernier, Collectively, Neighbors for Healthy Communities, Appellants), 2019 VT 55 (Vt. 2019). “10 V.S.A. § 6088(a). Section 6086(d) and Act 250 Rule 19 provide that specific ANR permits create presumptions of compliance with certain Act 250 Criteria.”
In Re Quechee Lakes Corp., 580 A.2d 957 (Vt. 1990). “Since 10 V.S.A. § 6088(b) places the burden of proof on the parties opposed to the permit where aesthetic impact is at issue, *553 Quechee contends that the Board erred in concluding that the project would have such an impact.”
In Re Rinkers, Inc., 2011 VT 78 (Vt. 2011). “They claim that while they, as opponents to the project, had the burden of proving that the adverse effect of the tower would be undue, 10 V.S.A. § 6088(b), Rinkers failed to prove the tower needed to reach 180 feet in height.”
In re Champlain Parkway Act 250 Permit (Fortieth Burlington LLC, Appellant), 2015 VT 105 (Vt. 2015). “” 10 V.S.A. § 6088(b). Fortieth maintains, nevertheless, that applicants retained the initial burden of production for the court “to make an affirmative finding” under Criterion 5, and that they failed in this regard because their own evidence showed that the Parkway would cause…”
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.