Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 19 Chapter 11
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 1111 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(Cite as: 19 V.S.A. § 1111)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2021 · leading case: David Demarest v. Town of Underhill, 2021 VT 14 (Vt. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
David Demarest v. Town of Underhill, 2021 VT 14 (Vt. 2021). · cites it 4× “The court noted that although the statute did not 11 specifically grant the Town authority to review applications prior to DRB consideration, it also did not mandate town consideration only after DRB review.”
City of Burlington v. Fairpoint Commc'ns, Inc., 2009 VT 59 (Vt. 2009). “For the reasons set forth in the ensuing discussion, we conclude that the right imparted by § 2502, whatever precisely it may be, is trumped by the city charter.”
Barnett v. Town of Wolcott, 2009 VT 32 (Vt. 2009). “The DRB’s decision and the permit are reproduced in the record, and do not explicitly require that any further permits be acquired.”
Town of Rutland v. City of Rutland, 743 A.2d 585 (Vt. 1999). “§ 1524 (now superseded by 19 V.S.A. § 1111), persons proposing to install pipes and wires in highways must obtain a permit and the issuing entity must include any conditions imposed.”
Town of Ludlow v. Watson, 571 A.2d 67 (Vt. 1990). “Plaintiff, the Town of Ludlow, brought an action for injunctive relief, pursuant to 19 V.S.A. § 1111(h), mandating the removal of all fences and obstructions constructed by the defendants within one and one-half rods of the center line of the traveled portion of Town Highway No.”
Town of Richmond v. Cowan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). · cites it 5× “19 V.S.A. § 1111(b) Obstruction of a Drainage Ditch Town’s legal challenges to Landowner’s improvements derive from its position as a sovereign and an uphill property owner.”
Town of Richmond v. Cowan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). · cites it 5× “19 V.S.A. § 1111(b) Obstruction of a Drainage Ditch Town’s legal challenges to Landowner’s improvements derive from its position as a sovereign and an uphill property owner.”
Hinesburg Hannaford CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “Appellants contend that, based on their interpretation of the governing statute, 19 V.S.A. § 1111, Applicant cannot obtain approval for the use of the Town highway to install the drainage pipe.”
Application of Severance (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “” 19 V.S.A. § 1111(b). However, it allows such denial “as necessary to be consistent with the planning goals of 24 V.”
Jackson Subdivision ROW Access (Vt. Super. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “Wright) (explaining the application of 19 V.S.A. § 1111). Section 620 also provides that “any activity for which a zoning permit is required and which involves the construction or modification of a driveway intersection with a public right of - 10 - way shall require, as part of…”
In re: Appeal of John & Sharon O'Rear (Decision & Order on Motion for Reconsideration & on Scope of Remand) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “The landowners may have to be, and may in fact already be, co-applicants for the 19 V.S.A. §1111 curb cut permit, but this Court has no jurisdiction to make that determination prospectively.”
In re: Appeal of John & Sharon O'Rear (Vt. Super. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “The landowners may have to be, and may in fact already be, co-applicants for the 19 V.S.A. §1111 curb cut permit, but this Court has no jurisdiction to make that determination prospectively.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 1111(a) — 1 case
David Demarest v. Town of Underhill, 2021 VT 14 (Vt. 2021). “The court noted that although the statute did not 11 specifically grant the Town authority to review applications prior to DRB consideration, it also did not mandate town consideration only after DRB review.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 1111(a)(1) — 1 case
David Demarest v. Town of Underhill, 2021 VT 14 (Vt. 2021). “The court noted that although the statute did not 11 specifically grant the Town authority to review applications prior to DRB consideration, it also did not mandate town consideration only after DRB review.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 1111(b) — 4 cases
Town of Richmond v. Cowan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). “19 V.S.A. § 1111(b) Obstruction of a Drainage Ditch Town’s legal challenges to Landowner’s improvements derive from its position as a sovereign and an uphill property owner.”
Town of Richmond v. Cowan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). “19 V.S.A. § 1111(b) Obstruction of a Drainage Ditch Town’s legal challenges to Landowner’s improvements derive from its position as a sovereign and an uphill property owner.”
Application of Severance (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “” 19 V.S.A. § 1111(b). However, it allows such denial “as necessary to be consistent with the planning goals of 24 V.”
Jackson Subdivision ROW Access (Vt. Super. Ct. 2008). “Wright) (explaining the application of 19 V.S.A. § 1111). Section 620 also provides that “any activity for which a zoning permit is required and which involves the construction or modification of a driveway intersection with a public right of - 10 - way shall require, as part of…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 1111(c) — 2 cases
Hinesburg Hannaford CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015).
Hinesburg Hannaford CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015). “Appellants contend that, based on their interpretation of the governing statute, 19 V.S.A. § 1111, Applicant cannot obtain approval for the use of the Town highway to install the drainage pipe.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 1111(f) — 1 case
Application of Severance (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “” 19 V.S.A. § 1111(b). However, it allows such denial “as necessary to be consistent with the planning goals of 24 V.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 1111(h) — 1 case
Town of Ludlow v. Watson, 571 A.2d 67 (Vt. 1990). “Plaintiff, the Town of Ludlow, brought an action for injunctive relief, pursuant to 19 V.S.A. § 1111(h), mandating the removal of all fences and obstructions constructed by the defendants within one and one-half rods of the center line of the traveled portion of Town Highway No.”
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.