(a) As prerequisite to the approval of any use other than one- and two-family dwellings,
the approval of site plans by the appropriate municipal panel may be required, under
procedures set forth in subchapter 10 of this chapter. In reviewing site plans, the
appropriate municipal panel may impose, in accordance with the bylaws, appropriate
conditions and safeguards with respect to the adequacy of parking, traffic access,
and circulation for pedestrians and vehicles; landscaping and screening; the protection
of the utilization of renewable energy resources; exterior lighting; the size, location,
and design of signs; and other matters specified in the bylaws. The bylaws shall specify
the maps, data, and other information to be presented with applications for site plan
approval and a review process pursuant to section 4464 of this title.
(b) Whenever a proposed site plan involves access to a State highway or other work in
the State highway right-of-way such as excavation, grading, paving, or utility installation,
the application for site plan approval shall include a letter from the Agency of Transportation
confirming that the Agency has reviewed the proposed site plan and determined whether
a permit is required under 19 V.S.A. § 1111. If the Agency determines that a permit for the proposed site plan is required under
19 V.S.A. § 1111, then the letter from the Agency may set out conditions that the Agency proposes
to attach to the permit required under 19 V.S.A. § 1111. (Added 2003, No. 115 (Adj. Sess.), § 95; amended 2013, No. 167 (Adj. Sess.), § 29; 2021, No. 55, § 36; 2021, No. 184 (Adj. Sess.), § 39, eff. July 1, 2022.)
In Re Appeal of Lunde, 688 A.2d 1312 (Vt. 1997). · cites it 4דBecause the court denied the permit on the basis of the mobile-home regulation, it did not decide whether the subdivision approval had expired by operation of 24 V.S.A. § 4416 (planning commission approval of plat shall expire in ninety days unless recorded in office of clerk).”
In re Burlington Airport Permit, 2014 VT 72 (Vt. 2014). · cites it 2ד” 24 V.S.A. § 4416 (emphasis added). The DRB interpreted the language “one- and two-family dwellings” to mean the construction of one- and two-family dwellings.”
In re Hopkins Certificate of Compliance (Bernard J. Boudreau, Appellant), 2020 VT 47 (Vt. 2020). “See 24 V.S.A. § 4416(a). Thereunder, the exclusive remedy of an interested person with respect to any decision or act taken, or any failure to act, under this chapter or with respect to any one or more of the provisions of any plan or bylaw shall be the appeal to the appropriate…”
In re Appeal of Tekram Partners, 2005 VT 92 (Vt. 2005). “25 (mandating and establishing minimum requirements for parking associated with land development); 24 V.S.A. §4416 (allowing such requirements to be imposed by municipal bylaws).”
Burlington Airport (Removal of Structures) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). · cites it 4דApplicability of 24 V.S.A. § 4416. Finally, Appellant’s Question 3 asks “[w]hether the exception for one- and two-family dwellings in 24 V.”
Ranney Dairy Farm, LLC Major Subdivision Appeal - Merits Decision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2023). · cites it 2דIt asks, generally, “[d]oes the plot plan filed by the Applicant conform to the site plan review requirements of 24 V.S.A. § 4416 and Westminster zoning and subdivision bylaws?” Id.”
Mahaiwe, LLC SP & CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2ד” Regulations § 702; 24 V.S.A. § 4416. The Regulations also call for conditional use review to include consideration of appropriate fencing.”
Hinesburg Hannaford CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2ד” This, however, comports with 24 V.S.A. § 4416, which specifically allows a municipal panel to impose conditions on the site plan aspects enumerated in Regulations § 4.”
Grist Mill Horse Barn Redevelopment Plan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2דThe Regulations authorize the DRB to conduct site plan review pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4416. Regulations § 701. Although the statute expressly authorizes the DRB to “impose appropriate conditions and safeguards .”
Hinesburg Hannaford SP (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “Furthermore, as we also explained in the March 4, 2015 Decision, there is clear authority under the enabling legislation, 24 V.S.A. § 4416, and the 2009 Regulations for this Court to impose reasonable conditions.”
Poultney Props. LLC Change of Use & SP App. - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2020). “Concerning § 1203(A), Poultney Properties argues that the terms “maximum safety” and “particular consideration” are not a meaningful standards and subsection (A) fails to provide new or heightened standards that those set forth in the introductory paragraph and 24 V.S.A. § 4416.…”
In re Hopkins Certificate of Compliance (Bernard J. Boudreau, Appellant), 2020 VT 47 (Vt. 2020). “See 24 V.S.A. § 4416(a). Thereunder, the exclusive remedy of an interested person with respect to any decision or act taken, or any failure to act, under this chapter or with respect to any one or more of the provisions of any plan or bylaw shall be the appeal to the appropriate…”
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.