In its order of condemnation, the court may direct the Agency to install passes under
the highway for the benefit of large modern farm properties, the fee title of which
is owned by any party to the proceedings, where a reasonable need is shown by the
owner. The court may consider evidence relative to present and anticipated future
highway traffic volume, future land development in the area, and the amount and type
of acreage separated by the highway in determining the need for an underpass of larger
dimensions than a standard cattle pass of reinforced concrete, metal, or other suitable
material that provides usable dimensions five feet wide by six feet three inches high.
Where a herd of greater than 50 milking cows is consistently maintained on the property,
the court may direct that the dimensions of the larger underpass shall be eight feet
in width and six feet three inches in height to be constructed of reinforced concrete,
and the owner of the farm property shall pay one-fourth of the difference in overall
cost between the standard cattle pass and the larger underpass. Where the owner of
the farm property desires an underpass of dimensions greater than eight feet in width
and six feet three inches in height, the underpass may be constructed if feasible
and in accordance with acceptable design standards, and the total additional costs
over the dimensions specified shall be paid by the owner. The provisions of this section
shall not be interpreted to prohibit the Agency and the property owner from determining
the specifications of a cattle pass or underpass by mutual agreement at any time,
either prior or subsequent to the date of the court’s order. The owner of a fee title
shall be interpreted to include lessees of so-called lease land. (Added 1985, No. 269 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; amended 1993, No. 172 (Adj. Sess.), § 22; 1995, No. 183 (Adj. Sess.), § 18d, eff. May 22, 1996; 2009, No. 3 (Sp. Sess.), § 1; 2011, No. 126 (Adj. Sess.), § 2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1991–2006 · leading case: In Re Agency of Transp., 596 A.2d 358 (Vt. 1991).
In Re Agency of Transp., 596 A.2d 358 (Vt. 1991). · cites it 5דAOT contends that 19 V.S.A. § 507(b) gives the superior court exclusive jurisdiction to decide the need for and size of cattle underpasses and that therefore the Board exceeded its authority under 10 V.”
Rossetti v. Chittenden Cnty. Transp. Auth., 674 A.2d 1284 (Vt. 1996). “19 V.S.A. § 507(a). It discharged it by testimony that there were no acceptable alternative sites, and the court accepted this evidence.”
William E. v. Agency of Transp., 2006 VT 68 (Vt. 2006). “To reach a business on the eastern side of the road, southbound drivers must drive past the business, turn around, and access it from the northbound lanes. Northbound traffic can reach businesses on the western side of the road in a similar fashion.”
Chittenden Solid Waste Dist. v. Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co., 730 A.2d 614 (Vt. 1999). “19 V.S.A. § 507(b) (in condemnation proceeding, after finding that a taking is necessary for a proposed highway, court may direct transportation agency to construct cattle passes under highway if a reasonable need is demonstrated by owner of condemned land); see generally In re…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 507(a) — 1 case
Rossetti v. Chittenden Cnty. Transp. Auth., 674 A.2d 1284 (Vt. 1996). “19 V.S.A. § 507(a). It discharged it by testimony that there were no acceptable alternative sites, and the court accepted this evidence.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 507(b) — 2 cases
In Re Agency of Transp., 596 A.2d 358 (Vt. 1991). “AOT contends that 19 V.S.A. § 507(b) gives the superior court exclusive jurisdiction to decide the need for and size of cattle underpasses and that therefore the Board exceeded its authority under 10 V.”
Chittenden Solid Waste Dist. v. Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co., 730 A.2d 614 (Vt. 1999). “19 V.S.A. § 507(b) (in condemnation proceeding, after finding that a taking is necessary for a proposed highway, court may direct transportation agency to construct cattle passes under highway if a reasonable need is demonstrated by owner of condemned land); see generally In re…”
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.