Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 007 : BYLAWS

(Cite as: 24 V.S.A. § 4414)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: In re Application of Lathrop Ltd. P'ship I, II & III, 2015 VT 49 (Vt. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Application of Lathrop Ltd. P'ship I, II & III, 2015 VT 49 (Vt. 2015). · cites it 2× “24 V.S.A. § 4414(3)(A). The Town is within its discretion to choose the districts within which conditional uses may be located.”
In re Confluence Behavioral Health, LLC Conditional Use to Operate a Therapeutic Cmty. Residence Prog. (Jason Albert, Appellants), 180 A.3d 867 (Vt. 2017). “The DRB determined that the Project complied with, and would not have an undue adverse impact under, the applicable criteria. This process is more rigorous than the review required for residential uses in the Rural Residential district.”
In re Grp. Five Investments CU Permit, 93 A.3d 111 (Vt. 2014). · cites it 2× “Later, in an amended opinion, the court acknowledged that it had mistakenly applied the newer statute, § 4414(3), to this case when the older statute, § 4407, was actually controlling.”
In Re Sisters & Bros. Inv. Grp., LLP, 2009 VT 58 (Vt. 2009). “See also 24 V.S.A. §4414(3). 2 Because there is no colorable contention here that SBI has delayed or acted in bad faith, this case does not require us to resolve the more difficult questions that might arise if a landowner in SBI’s position were dilatory in filing the site-plan…”
In re Appeal of Carroll, 925 A.2d 990 (Vt. 2007). “§ 4414 provided: “Before holding such public hearing on a plat, the planning commission or the development review board may hold one or more preliminary hearings and grant preliminary approval to authorize the preparation of the plat for such public hearing.”
In re Petition of Acorn Energy Solar 2, LLC (Therese Holmes & Timothy Holmes, Appellants), 2021 VT 3 (Vt. 2021). “(B) With respect to a ground-mounted solar electric generation facility, the facility shall comply with the screening requirements of a municipal bylaw adopted under 24 V.S.A. § 4414(15) or a municipal ordinance adopted under 24 V.”
In re Appeal of Carroll, 181 Vt. 383 (Vt. 2007). “§ 4414 provided: "Before holding such public hearing on a plat, the planning commission or the development review board may hold one or more preliminary hearings and grant preliminary approval to authorize the preparation of the plat for such public hearing.”
In re Grp. Five Investments CU Permit, 195 Vt. 625 (Vt. 2014). · cites it 2× “1 use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of’ the municipality’s adopted general standards, see 24 V.S.A. § 4414(3), whereas Bylaws § 9.4 requires a determination “that the proposed use will not adversely affect” the general standards.”
In re Lathrop Ltd. P'ship I, 199 Vt. 19 (Vt. 2015). · cites it 2× “Although it is not entirely clear whether “one to two” slopes rise one foot for every two feet across or vice versa, it does not bear on the question of whether Lathrop’s project creates a pit.”
Rublee CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 6× “The statutory language in 24 V.S.A. § 4414 sets a “floor” for municipalities’ conditional use regulations, but it does not displace the requirements of municipal bylaws.”
Sprague Farms, LLC (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). · cites it 8× “3 as written is beyond the scope of the zoning enabling statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4414, the DRB’s decision as to the quarry must be reversed and remanded in this on-the-record proceeding.”
McCullough Crusing, Inc. Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 3× “3(D)(2) of the Regulations and 24 V.S.A. § 4414(3)(A)(ii). Section 5.3(D)(2) provides that a project may not have an “undue adverse impact” on: Character of the neighborhood or area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project…”
Show all 90 citing cases →
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(1) — 2 cases
S. Vermont Beagle Club (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013).
Sprague Farms, LLC (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “3 as written is beyond the scope of the zoning enabling statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4414, the DRB’s decision as to the quarry must be reversed and remanded in this on-the-record proceeding.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(1)(D) — 1 case
Svendsen Docket Extension Variance (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(1)(E) — 1 case
Atwood-Hood PRD (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(15) — 1 case
In re Petition of Acorn Energy Solar 2, LLC (Therese Holmes & Timothy Holmes, Appellants), 2021 VT 3 (Vt. 2021). “(B) With respect to a ground-mounted solar electric generation facility, the facility shall comply with the screening requirements of a municipal bylaw adopted under 24 V.S.A. § 4414(15) or a municipal ordinance adopted under 24 V.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(3) — 22 cases
In Re Sisters & Bros. Inv. Grp., LLP, 2009 VT 58 (Vt. 2009). “See also 24 V.S.A. §4414(3). 2 Because there is no colorable contention here that SBI has delayed or acted in bad faith, this case does not require us to resolve the more difficult questions that might arise if a landowner in SBI’s position were dilatory in filing the site-plan…”
In re Grp. Five Investments CU Permit, 93 A.3d 111 (Vt. 2014). “Later, in an amended opinion, the court acknowledged that it had mistakenly applied the newer statute, § 4414(3), to this case when the older statute, § 4407, was actually controlling.”
In re Grp. Five Investments CU Permit, 195 Vt. 625 (Vt. 2014). “1 use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of’ the municipality’s adopted general standards, see 24 V.S.A. § 4414(3), whereas Bylaws § 9.4 requires a determination “that the proposed use will not adversely affect” the general standards.”
Grp. five Investments LLC CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012).
Rublee CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “The statutory language in 24 V.S.A. § 4414 sets a “floor” for municipalities’ conditional use regulations, but it does not displace the requirements of municipal bylaws.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(3)(A) — 23 cases
In re Confluence Behavioral Health, LLC Conditional Use to Operate a Therapeutic Cmty. Residence Prog. (Jason Albert, Appellants), 180 A.3d 867 (Vt. 2017). “The DRB determined that the Project complied with, and would not have an undue adverse impact under, the applicable criteria. This process is more rigorous than the review required for residential uses in the Rural Residential district.”
In re Application of Lathrop Ltd. P'ship I, II & III, 2015 VT 49 (Vt. 2015). “24 V.S.A. § 4414(3)(A). The Town is within its discretion to choose the districts within which conditional uses may be located.”
In re Grp. Five Investments CU Permit, 93 A.3d 111 (Vt. 2014). “Later, in an amended opinion, the court acknowledged that it had mistakenly applied the newer statute, § 4414(3), to this case when the older statute, § 4407, was actually controlling.”
In re Grp. Five Investments CU Permit, 195 Vt. 625 (Vt. 2014). “1 use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of’ the municipality’s adopted general standards, see 24 V.S.A. § 4414(3), whereas Bylaws § 9.4 requires a determination “that the proposed use will not adversely affect” the general standards.”
In re Lathrop Ltd. P'ship I, 199 Vt. 19 (Vt. 2015). “Although it is not entirely clear whether “one to two” slopes rise one foot for every two feet across or vice versa, it does not bear on the question of whether Lathrop’s project creates a pit.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(3)(A)(i) — 2 cases
Missbrenner & Legge SD Approval - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021).
Jockey Lane Subdivision Final Plat (Vt. Super. Ct. 2007).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(3)(A)(ii) — 20 cases
In re Application of Lathrop Ltd. P'ship I, II & III, 2015 VT 49 (Vt. 2015). “24 V.S.A. § 4414(3)(A). The Town is within its discretion to choose the districts within which conditional uses may be located.”
In re Lathrop Ltd. P'ship I, 199 Vt. 19 (Vt. 2015). “Although it is not entirely clear whether “one to two” slopes rise one foot for every two feet across or vice versa, it does not bear on the question of whether Lathrop’s project creates a pit.”
McCullough Crusing, Inc. Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “3(D)(2) of the Regulations and 24 V.S.A. § 4414(3)(A)(ii). Section 5.3(D)(2) provides that a project may not have an “undue adverse impact” on: Character of the neighborhood or area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project…”
Wright & Boester Conditional Use - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2020).
Rublee CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “The statutory language in 24 V.S.A. § 4414 sets a “floor” for municipalities’ conditional use regulations, but it does not displace the requirements of municipal bylaws.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(3)(A)(iii) — 3 cases
Harrison Quarry CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014).
Richard Notice of Violation (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011).
Sprague Farms, LLC (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “3 as written is beyond the scope of the zoning enabling statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4414, the DRB’s decision as to the quarry must be reversed and remanded in this on-the-record proceeding.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(3)(B) — 3 cases
JSCL, LLC CU Permit - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2020).
Lathrop Ltr P'ship I (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013).
Sprague Farms, LLC (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “3 as written is beyond the scope of the zoning enabling statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4414, the DRB’s decision as to the quarry must be reversed and remanded in this on-the-record proceeding.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(3)(B)(iv) — 2 cases
Grp. Five Investments, LLC (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012).
Gen. Land Co. CU Application (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(3)(a)(ii) — 1 case
Sisters & Bros. Inv. Corp LLP (Vt. Super. Ct. 2004).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(3)(ii) — 2 cases
Highland Dev. Co., LLC & JAM Golf, LLC Master Plan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
Application of Kevin Blakeman (Vt. Super. Ct. 2006).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(4) — 1 case
110 East Spring Street CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(5) — 4 cases
Shatney Home Occupation Denial (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017).
Shatney NOV (Overturned) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015).
Sprague Farms, LLC (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “3 as written is beyond the scope of the zoning enabling statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4414, the DRB’s decision as to the quarry must be reversed and remanded in this on-the-record proceeding.”
Appeal of LiCausi (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(7) — 1 case
Kowalski Subdivision Preliminary Plat (Vt. Super. Ct. 2008).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(8) — 10 cases
Carrigan Waiver & Variance Applications (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011).
LaFogg Subdivision final Plat (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012).
Fenoff Variance Amendment (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011).
Musto Cosntruction Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011).
Fenoff Variance Amendment (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(8)(A) — 3 cases
Benson Road Site Plan & Condition Use - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021).
Carrigan Waiver & Variance Applications (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011).
DeRoy Variance Applications (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4414(a)(3) — 1 case
Mansfield Prof'l Bldg. PRD Final Plat Application (Vt. Super. Ct. 2008).
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.