Appeals of any act or decision of a District Commission under this chapter or a district
coordinator under subsection 6007(c) of this title shall be made to the Environmental Division in accordance with chapter 220 of this
title. For the purpose of this section, a decision of the Chair of a District Commission
under section 6001e of this title on whether action has been taken to circumvent the requirements of this chapter shall
be considered an act or decision of the District Commission. (Added 1969, No. 250 (Adj. Sess.), § 14, eff. April 4, 1970; amended 1973, No. 85, § 12; 1973, No. 193 (Adj. Sess.), § 3, eff. April 9, 1974; 1985, No. 52, § 1, eff. May 15, 1985; 1987, No. 76, § 10a; 1993, No. 232 (Adj. Sess.), § 34, eff. March 15, 1995; 1997, No. 155 (Adj. Sess.), § 28; 2003, No. 115 (Adj. Sess.), § 58, eff. Jan. 31, 2005; 2009, No. 154 (Adj. Sess.), § 236; 2013, No. 11, § 14; 2015, No. 150 (Adj. Sess.), § 34, eff. May 31, 2016.)
In Re Taft Corners Assocs., Inc., 632 A.2d 649 (Vt. 1993). · cites it 5ד” We do not decide whether this rule violates the more restricted mandate of 10 V.S.A. § 6089 because, in the instant case, the Board did not proceed under the rule.”
In Re Denio, 608 A.2d 1166 (Vt. 1992). · cites it 4דAppellants then went to the Board for a de novo review of the Commission’s decision, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6089. After a hearing and visit to the site, the Board issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order permitting the proposed subdivision, subject to…”
In Re White, 779 A.2d 1264 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 2ד§ 6089(c) ("No objection that has not been urged before the board may be considered by the supreme court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances."). The Legislature, through § 6089(c), has restricted our…”
In Re Wildlife Wonderland, Inc., 346 A.2d 645 (Vt. 1975). · cites it 7דIn accordance with procedures set forth in 10 V.S.A. § 6089 governing appeals, de novo hearings were held by the Board upon all criteria of § 6086(a).”
In Re Killington, Ltd., 616 A.2d 241 (Vt. 1992). · cites it 3דPursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6089(a), Killington appealed the Commission’s denial to the Environmental Board on August 13, 1987.”
In Re Preseault, 292 A.2d 832 (Vt. 1972). · cites it 4ד10 V.S.A. § 6089. Soon after, counsel for the adjoining property owners filed a notice of appearance with the Environmental Board.”
In Re Quechee Lakes Corp., 580 A.2d 957 (Vt. 1990). · cites it 2ד” 10 V.S.A. § 6089(c). This Court has defined “substantial evidence” to mean “‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
In Re State Aid High. No. 1, Peru, 328 A.2d 667 (Vt. 1974). · cites it 5ד1949): [T]he primary purpose of the act [is] to have a declaration of rights not theretofore determined, and not to determine whether rights theretofore adjudicated have been properly adjudicated.”
In Re Gallagher, 549 A.2d 637 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 4דOn December 8, 1986, the Town and Commission appealed to the Board a land use permit amendment issued by the District Environmental Commission pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6089. The permit amendment authorized conversion of twenty-two rental cabins in Westmore, Vermont, to…”
In Re Appeal of Times & Seasons, LLC, 2008 VT 7 (Vt. 2008). “The Board’s findings of fact are conclusive “if based on ‘substantial evidence,’ 10 V.S.A. § 6089(c), which is evidence properly before the Board that is relevant and which a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
In Re Hawk Mountain Corp., 542 A.2d 261 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 2דPittsfield, the town in which the sewage system for the expansion is located, appealed to the Environmental Board for a de novo review pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6089(a). After one hearing before a panel of three Board members and another before the full Board, the permit was…”
In Re Taft Corners Assocs., Inc., 632 A.2d 649 (Vt. 1993). “” We do not decide whether this rule violates the more restricted mandate of 10 V.S.A. § 6089 because, in the instant case, the Board did not proceed under the rule.”
In Re Killington, Ltd., 616 A.2d 241 (Vt. 1992). “Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6089(a), Killington appealed the Commission’s denial to the Environmental Board on August 13, 1987.”
In Re Preseault, 292 A.2d 832 (Vt. 1972). “10 V.S.A. § 6089. Soon after, counsel for the adjoining property owners filed a notice of appearance with the Environmental Board.”
In Re Wildlife Wonderland, Inc., 346 A.2d 645 (Vt. 1975). “In accordance with procedures set forth in 10 V.S.A. § 6089 governing appeals, de novo hearings were held by the Board upon all criteria of § 6086(a).”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6089(c) — 25 cases
In Re Denio, 608 A.2d 1166 (Vt. 1992). “Appellants then went to the Board for a de novo review of the Commission’s decision, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6089. After a hearing and visit to the site, the Board issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order permitting the proposed subdivision, subject to…”
In Re White, 779 A.2d 1264 (Vt. 2001). “§ 6089(c) ("No objection that has not been urged before the board may be considered by the supreme court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances."). The Legislature, through § 6089(c), has restricted our…”
In Re Quechee Lakes Corp., 580 A.2d 957 (Vt. 1990). “” 10 V.S.A. § 6089(c). This Court has defined “substantial evidence” to mean “‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
In Re Wildlife Wonderland, Inc., 346 A.2d 645 (Vt. 1975). “In accordance with procedures set forth in 10 V.S.A. § 6089 governing appeals, de novo hearings were held by the Board upon all criteria of § 6086(a).”
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.