Any municipality that has adopted and has in effect a plan and has created a planning
commission under this chapter may implement the plan by adopting, amending, and enforcing
any or all of the regulatory and nonregulatory tools provided for in this chapter.
All such regulatory and nonregulatory tools shall be in conformance with the plan,
shall be adopted for the purposes set forth in section 4302 of this title, and shall be in accord with the policies set forth therein. (Added 1967, No. 334 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. March 23, 1968; amended 1969, No. 116, § 5; 1971, No. 257 (Adj. Sess.), §§ 9, 10, eff. April 11, 1972; 1973, No. 261 (Adj. Sess.), § 4, eff. July 1, 1974; 1975, No. 164 (Adj. Sess.), § 5; 1983, No. 249 (Adj. Sess.), § 4; 1993, No. 232 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. March 15, 1995; 2003, No. 115 (Adj. Sess.), § 91.)
Kalakowski v. John A. Russell Corp., 401 A.2d 906 (Vt. 1979). · cites it 2דBecause the regulations have the purpose of implementing the plan and are to be in accord with its policies, 24 V.S.A. § 4401, a claim that the decision is inconsistent with the regulations is also, impliedly, a claim that the decision is not in accord with the plan.”
In re Wagner & Guay Permit (Mary Bourassa, Appellant), 2016 VT 96 (Vt. 2016). · cites it 2ד2d 1271, 1275 (1995) (quoting 24 V.S.A. §§ 4401(b)(2), 4415). Although we would note that even neighbor’s expert stated in his trial testimony that a scalloped line “generally represents the edge of an open area” and “typically .”
In Re McCormick Mgmt. Co., Inc., 547 A.2d 1319 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 3דUnder 24 V.S.A. § 4401(a) as added by that act, only a municipality “which has adopted and has in effect a plan .”
Town of Sandgate v. Colehamer, 589 A.2d 1205 (Vt. 1990). · cites it 2דFurther, there is no requirement in our law that specific regulations that are based in part on aesthetic considerations have greater support *87 in the local plan.”
In Re Appeal of Taft Corners Assocs., Inc., 758 A.2d 804 (Vt. 2000). · cites it 2דThe Vermont Planning and Development Act authorizes two major types of bylaws to regulate land development within a municipality: zoning regulations and subdivision regulations.”
Vermont Baptist Convention v. Burlington Zoning Bd., 613 A.2d 710 (Vt. 1992). · cites it 2ד” The Zoning Board’s position would allow the zoning ordinance to be construed as permitting regulation of property based on the identity of the owner, not the use of the land.”
In Re Stowe Club Highlands, 668 A.2d 1271 (Vt. 1995). “Thus, although we will not recognize implied permit conditions as subdivision permits, recorded plats necessarily become subdivision permit conditions.”
Bryant v. Town of Essex, 564 A.2d 1052 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 3דThe trial court rejected plaintiffs’ assertion that municipalities in Vermont may use only zoning ordinances to control future growth and density of population, and concluded that the statutory authority of 24 V.S.A. § 4401(b) to regulate density of population and intensity of…”
In Re Appeal of Sardi, 751 A.2d 772 (Vt. 2000). · cites it 2דIn other words, their theories are based on the idea that applicant should not be allowed to create a lodge because of its private-membership status. This theory would require us to construe the zoning ordinance as permitting regulation of property based solely on the ownership…”
In Re Paynter 2-Lot Subdivision, 2010 VT 28 (Vt. 2010). “See 24 V.S.A. §4401 (“Any municipality that has adopted and has in effect a plan .”
In Re Molgano, 653 A.2d 772 (Vt. 1994). “The Board concluded, however, that zoning bylaws were irrelevant because the Board was required by statute to determine whether a project conforms with a town plan, not with zoning bylaws that may or may not implement a town plan.”
In Re McCormick Mgmt. Co., Inc., 547 A.2d 1319 (Vt. 1988). “Under 24 V.S.A. § 4401(a) as added by that act, only a municipality “which has adopted and has in effect a plan .”
Kalakowski v. John A. Russell Corp., 401 A.2d 906 (Vt. 1979). “Because the regulations have the purpose of implementing the plan and are to be in accord with its policies, 24 V.S.A. § 4401, a claim that the decision is inconsistent with the regulations is also, impliedly, a claim that the decision is not in accord with the plan.”
Town of Sandgate v. Colehamer, 589 A.2d 1205 (Vt. 1990). “Further, there is no requirement in our law that specific regulations that are based in part on aesthetic considerations have greater support *87 in the local plan.”
In Re Molgano, 653 A.2d 772 (Vt. 1994). “The Board concluded, however, that zoning bylaws were irrelevant because the Board was required by statute to determine whether a project conforms with a town plan, not with zoning bylaws that may or may not implement a town plan.”
Bryant v. Town of Essex, 564 A.2d 1052 (Vt. 1989). “The trial court rejected plaintiffs’ assertion that municipalities in Vermont may use only zoning ordinances to control future growth and density of population, and concluded that the statutory authority of 24 V.S.A. § 4401(b) to regulate density of population and intensity of…”
Town of Sandgate v. Colehamer, 589 A.2d 1205 (Vt. 1990). “Further, there is no requirement in our law that specific regulations that are based in part on aesthetic considerations have greater support *87 in the local plan.”
In Re Appeal of Taft Corners Assocs., Inc., 758 A.2d 804 (Vt. 2000). “The Vermont Planning and Development Act authorizes two major types of bylaws to regulate land development within a municipality: zoning regulations and subdivision regulations.”
Vermont Baptist Convention v. Burlington Zoning Bd., 613 A.2d 710 (Vt. 1992). “” The Zoning Board’s position would allow the zoning ordinance to be construed as permitting regulation of property based on the identity of the owner, not the use of the land.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4401(b)(1)(D) — 1 case
Bryant v. Town of Essex, 564 A.2d 1052 (Vt. 1989). “The trial court rejected plaintiffs’ assertion that municipalities in Vermont may use only zoning ordinances to control future growth and density of population, and concluded that the statutory authority of 24 V.S.A. § 4401(b) to regulate density of population and intensity of…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4401(b)(2) — 4 cases
In re Wagner & Guay Permit (Mary Bourassa, Appellant), 2016 VT 96 (Vt. 2016). “2d 1271, 1275 (1995) (quoting 24 V.S.A. §§ 4401(b)(2), 4415). Although we would note that even neighbor’s expert stated in his trial testimony that a scalloped line “generally represents the edge of an open area” and “typically .”
In Re Stowe Club Highlands, 668 A.2d 1271 (Vt. 1995). “Thus, although we will not recognize implied permit conditions as subdivision permits, recorded plats necessarily become subdivision permit conditions.”
In Re Appeal of Taft Corners Assocs., Inc., 758 A.2d 804 (Vt. 2000). “The Vermont Planning and Development Act authorizes two major types of bylaws to regulate land development within a municipality: zoning regulations and subdivision regulations.”
In Re McCormick Mgmt. Co., Inc., 547 A.2d 1319 (Vt. 1988). “Under 24 V.S.A. § 4401(a) as added by that act, only a municipality “which has adopted and has in effect a plan .”
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.