(a) Persons who are either voters or landowners, and whose number is at least five percent
of the voters, in a town, desiring to have a highway laid out, altered, reclassified,
or discontinued, may apply by petition in writing to the selectboard for that purpose.
A person who is a landowner in a town, desiring to have an unidentified corridor which
passes through or abuts his or her land discontinued or altered, may apply in writing
to the selectboard for that purpose. The selectboard may also initiate these proceedings
on its own motion.
(b) A class 4 highway need not be reclassified to class 3 merely because there exists
within a town one or more class 3 highways with characteristics similar to the class
4 highway. In considering whether to reclassify a class 4 highway to class 3, consideration
may be given as to whether the increased traffic and development potential likely
to result from the reclassification is desirable or is in accordance with the town
plan. (Added 1985, No. 269 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; amended 2005, No. 178 (Adj. Sess.), § 3.)
In Re Kisiel, 772 A.2d 135 (Vt. 2000). · cites it 2ד" See 19 V.S.A. § 708(b) ("A class 4 highway need not be reclassified to class 3 merely because there exists within a town one or more class 3 highways with characteristics similar to the class 4 highway.”
Ketchum v. Town of Dorset, 2011 VT 49 (Vt. 2011). “19 V.S.A. § 708(a). After hearing from interested parties and examining the premises, the selectboard can then reclassify upon a finding that it is for the “public good, necessity and convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality.”
Friends of Pine Street d/b/a Pine Street Coalition v. City of Burlington, 2020 VT 43 (Vt. 2020). · cites it 3ד1 Pursuant to 19 V.S.A. § 708, persons who are either voters or landowners, and whose number is at least five percent of the voters in a town, can petition the selectboard to have a highway laid out, altered, reclassified, or discontinued.”
Kelly v. Town of Barnard, 583 A.2d 614 (Vt. 1990). “§ 709 relates to 19 V.S.A. § 708, a provision for the “la[ying] out, altering], reclassif[ying] or discontinu[ing]” of a highway.”
Hansen v. Town of Charleston, 597 A.2d 321 (Vt. 1991). “The standard applicable in road reclassification cases is whether “the public good, necessity and convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality require the highway to be .”
korb v. panton (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “19 V.S.A. § 708(a); see generally 19 V.S.”
Escheverria v. Tunbridge (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). “), § 1; 19 V.S.A. § 708(b). A question left unaddressed by the 1979 legislation was whether courts might still require towns to repair their class 4 roads or otherwise maintain them by finding that such repairs were “required by the necessity of the town, the public good and the…”
Hedden v. Town of Hinesburg (Vt. Super. Ct. 2004). “It is therefore, more in line with 19 V.S.A. § 708, which allows citizens to petition for reclassification, to affirm the Selectboard’s reclassification and leave it open for Hedden to petition the Town to further reclassify the road.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 708(a) — 3 cases
Ketchum v. Town of Dorset, 2011 VT 49 (Vt. 2011). “19 V.S.A. § 708(a). After hearing from interested parties and examining the premises, the selectboard can then reclassify upon a finding that it is for the “public good, necessity and convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality.”
Friends of Pine Street d/b/a Pine Street Coalition v. City of Burlington, 2020 VT 43 (Vt. 2020). “1 Pursuant to 19 V.S.A. § 708, persons who are either voters or landowners, and whose number is at least five percent of the voters in a town, can petition the selectboard to have a highway laid out, altered, reclassified, or discontinued.”
korb v. panton (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “19 V.S.A. § 708(a); see generally 19 V.S.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 708(b) — 3 cases
In Re Kisiel, 772 A.2d 135 (Vt. 2000). “" See 19 V.S.A. § 708(b) ("A class 4 highway need not be reclassified to class 3 merely because there exists within a town one or more class 3 highways with characteristics similar to the class 4 highway.”
Hansen v. Town of Charleston, 597 A.2d 321 (Vt. 1991). “The standard applicable in road reclassification cases is whether “the public good, necessity and convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality require the highway to be .”
Escheverria v. Tunbridge (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). “), § 1; 19 V.S.A. § 708(b). A question left unaddressed by the 1979 legislation was whether courts might still require towns to repair their class 4 roads or otherwise maintain them by finding that such repairs were “required by the necessity of the town, the public good and the…”
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.