(a) A final decision in a contested hearing shall be in writing and shall separately state
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(b) Findings of fact shall explicitly and concisely restate the underlying facts that
support the decision. They shall be based exclusively on evidence of the record in
the contested hearing.
(c) Conclusions of law shall be based on the findings of fact.
(d) The final decision in any case involving local Act 250 review of municipal impacts
shall include notice that it constitutes a rebuttable presumption under the provisions
of 10 V.S.A. chapter 151, and notice that presumption may be overcome in proceedings
under 10 V.S.A. chapter 151.
(e) The presiding officer shall cause copies of the decision to be delivered to each party.
(f) Transcriptions of the proceedings of contested hearings shall be made upon the request
and upon payment of the reasonable costs of transcription by any party. (Added 1993, No. 232 (Adj. Sess.), § 44, eff. March 15, 1995.)
Turnley v. Town of Vernon, 2013 VT 42 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 2דWe are invited instead to assume that such a finding was made in support of the Board’s ultimate decision that it was legally entitled to fire the chief for cause.”
VTRE Inv. LLC CU Duplex - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2020). · cites it 5ד” 24 V.S.A. § 1209(a). In an on-the-record appeal, the Court considers only the decision below, the record made before the municipal panel, and the briefs submitted by the parties.”
Okemo Mountain Sch. Fitness Facility (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 4דAppellants filed a motion to strike OMS’s response on May 16, 2016, arguing that this attempt to supplement the record violates 24 V.S.A. § 1209(f) and V.R.E.C.P. 5(h)(1)(A) and (B).”
Zaremba Grp. Dollar Gen. CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 6ד” 24 V.S.A. § 1209(a). The DRB’s findings of fact must “explicitly and concisely restate the underlying facts that support the decision” and be “based exclusively on evidence” in the record.”
Ferrera & Fenn Gravel Pit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012). · cites it 4ד” 24 V.S.A. § 1209(a). Applicants argue that because the DRB did not include a separate section labeled “Conclusions of Law,” or otherwise distinguish its findings of fact from its conclusions of law, we must remand this matter to the DRB for it to separately state such findings…”
Okemo Mountain Sch. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2ד2, 2011) (Durkin, J.). We do not take new evidence or complete our own determination of the facts.”
The Nat. Child Sch. LLC CU - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2דWe do not take new evidence or make our own factual determinations, instead reviewing whether the DRB’s findings of fact “explicitly and concisely restate the underlying facts that support the decision” and are “based exclusively on evidence of the record.”
Castine Mountain Road LLC CU (Remand) - Merits Decision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2022). · cites it 2דWe do not take new evidence or complete our own determination of the facts. Instead, we review the municipal -3- panel’s factual findings to determine whether the decision below “explicitly and concisely restate[s] the underlying facts that support the decision.”
Stanion NOV (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2ד” 24 V.S.A. § 1209(a) and (b). The findings of fact serve, in part, to provide “a clear statement to the parties and the court in the event of an appeal on what was decided and how the decision was reached.”
3 Gill Terrace DRB Decision Appeal - on the Record Decision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2ד" See 24 V.S.A. § 1209(a)-(b). The Court will affirm factual findings only if they are ' The Zoning Administrator, DRB, and the parties refer to the permit at issue as both a "building permit" and a "zoning permit.”
VTRE Inv. LLC CU Duplex - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2020). “” 24 V.S.A. § 1209(a). In an on-the-record appeal, the Court considers only the decision below, the record made before the municipal panel, and the briefs submitted by the parties.”
Okemo Mountain Sch. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “2, 2011) (Durkin, J.). We do not take new evidence or complete our own determination of the facts.”
Castine Mountain Road LLC CU (Remand) - Merits Decision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2022). “We do not take new evidence or complete our own determination of the facts. Instead, we review the municipal -3- panel’s factual findings to determine whether the decision below “explicitly and concisely restate[s] the underlying facts that support the decision.”
3 Gill Terrace DRB Decision Appeal - on the Record Decision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). “" See 24 V.S.A. § 1209(a)-(b). The Court will affirm factual findings only if they are ' The Zoning Administrator, DRB, and the parties refer to the permit at issue as both a "building permit" and a "zoning permit.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 1209(b) — 7 cases
Zaremba Grp. Dollar Gen. CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). “” 24 V.S.A. § 1209(a). The DRB’s findings of fact must “explicitly and concisely restate the underlying facts that support the decision” and be “based exclusively on evidence” in the record.”
Ferrera & Fenn Gravel Pit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012). “” 24 V.S.A. § 1209(a). Applicants argue that because the DRB did not include a separate section labeled “Conclusions of Law,” or otherwise distinguish its findings of fact from its conclusions of law, we must remand this matter to the DRB for it to separately state such findings…”
The Nat. Child Sch. LLC CU - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021). “We do not take new evidence or make our own factual determinations, instead reviewing whether the DRB’s findings of fact “explicitly and concisely restate the underlying facts that support the decision” and are “based exclusively on evidence of the record.”
Stanion NOV (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). “” 24 V.S.A. § 1209(a) and (b). The findings of fact serve, in part, to provide “a clear statement to the parties and the court in the event of an appeal on what was decided and how the decision was reached.”
Turnley v. Town of Vernon, 2013 VT 42 (Vt. 2013). “We are invited instead to assume that such a finding was made in support of the Board’s ultimate decision that it was legally entitled to fire the chief for cause.”
The Nat. Child Sch. LLC CU - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021). “We do not take new evidence or make our own factual determinations, instead reviewing whether the DRB’s findings of fact “explicitly and concisely restate the underlying facts that support the decision” and are “based exclusively on evidence of the record.”
Zaremba Grp. Dollar Gen. CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). “” 24 V.S.A. § 1209(a). The DRB’s findings of fact must “explicitly and concisely restate the underlying facts that support the decision” and be “based exclusively on evidence” in the record.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 1209(f) — 1 case
Okemo Mountain Sch. Fitness Facility (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “Appellants filed a motion to strike OMS’s response on May 16, 2016, arguing that this attempt to supplement the record violates 24 V.S.A. § 1209(f) and V.R.E.C.P. 5(h)(1)(A) and (B).”
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.