Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 24 Chapter 117
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4449 (2026)

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

Subchapter 009 : ADOPTION, ADMINISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT

(Cite as: 24 V.S.A. § 4449)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Gade v. Chittenden Solid Waste Dist., 2009 VT 107 (Vt. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gade v. Chittenden Solid Waste Dist., 2009 VT 107 (Vt. 2009). “§ 6085(c)(1)(C) (giving the municipality in which a project site is located party status in proceedings before district commissions).”
Marckres Zoning Permit 24-09 - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026). · cites it 7× “Despite this, Appellants assert that they may appeal the Permit because the Applicants and zoning administrator failed to post the permit in the manner required by 24 V.S.A. § 4449 and, consequently, they were deprived of notice and due process.”
Benning Accessory Use Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). · cites it 8× “In addition, if the 2009 Application had been forwarded to the ZBA for conditional use approval, actual notice to adjoining property owners, such as Appellants, would have been required under 24 V.”
Feeley Constr. Permits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). · cites it 7× “As described by the DRB, Appellants cited the following three grounds for their appeals of the permits: that there was “defective notice of the appeal period” as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4449; that there was a “misstatement of material fact on the application warranting refusal…”
Shatney Home Occupation (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 4× “Whether the Application Was Reviewed in Compliance with 24 V.S.A. § 4449(d), and Whether It Should Have Been Approved Under the Proposed Amendments Appellants argue that the Town should have reviewed their zoning application under the proposed amendments, and should have…”
Duval CU Denial - Decision on Motion (Summary Judgment) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2020). · cites it 3× “Question 1 asks whether 24 V.S.A. § 4449(d) requires this Court to apply the 2018 ULDR in contrast to the 2014 ULDR when Applicant failed to submit a complete application until after the Selectboard’s first public notice.”
Town of Westford v. Pelkey & Pelkey Zoning Permit - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2019). · cites it 3× “This provision contains two caveats that are not relevant here.”
Feeley Constr. Permits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011). · cites it 5× “4 24 V.S.A. § 4449(a)(2). No party appealed or attempted to appeal the Zoning Administrator’s action in issuing the Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance, either in October of 2005 or since that time.”
Benning Accessory Use Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). · cites it 5× “However, the Court declined to dismiss the appeal at that time because facts were in dispute as to whether Applicant had properly posted notice of the permit on his property during the appeal period, as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4449(b). The decision left open the question of…”
Town of Westford v. Mathieu (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 4× “By letter dated September 21, 2009, the Town of Westford Zoning Administrator (“the ZA”) gave formal notice to Linda Mathieu that she had allowed a road to be constructed on her Lot without first receiving the necessary municipal permit in violation of the applicable Regulations…”
Town of Northfield v. Drown (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “5 The NOV listed the following four actions as being in violation of both the Town’s Zoning Regulations and 24 V.S.A. § 4449(a)(1) (requiring a permit before land use development may commence in a town that has zoning bylaws): 1) “[u]se of property not consistent with…”
Okemo Mountain Sch. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “24 V.S.A. § 4449(d) (incorporated in the 2006 and 2015 Regulations at Section 226).”
Show all 53 citing cases →
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4449(a) — 1 case
Gade v. Chittenden Solid Waste Dist., 2009 VT 107 (Vt. 2009). “§ 6085(c)(1)(C) (giving the municipality in which a project site is located party status in proceedings before district commissions).”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4449(a)(1) — 7 cases
Town of Westford v. Mathieu (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). “By letter dated September 21, 2009, the Town of Westford Zoning Administrator (“the ZA”) gave formal notice to Linda Mathieu that she had allowed a road to be constructed on her Lot without first receiving the necessary municipal permit in violation of the applicable Regulations…”
Town of Northfield v. Drown (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “5 The NOV listed the following four actions as being in violation of both the Town’s Zoning Regulations and 24 V.S.A. § 4449(a)(1) (requiring a permit before land use development may commence in a town that has zoning bylaws): 1) “[u]se of property not consistent with…”
City of St. Albans v. Hayford - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021).
Town of Westford v. Pelkey - Entry Regarding Motion to Dismiss (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018).
3 Gill Terrace DRB Decision Appeal - on the Record Decision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4449(a)(2) — 2 cases
Feeley Constr. Permits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011). “4 24 V.S.A. § 4449(a)(2). No party appealed or attempted to appeal the Zoning Administrator’s action in issuing the Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance, either in October of 2005 or since that time.”
Feeley Constr. Permits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “As described by the DRB, Appellants cited the following three grounds for their appeals of the permits: that there was “defective notice of the appeal period” as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4449; that there was a “misstatement of material fact on the application warranting refusal…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4449(a)(3) — 1 case
Sweet Bldg. Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4449(b) — 10 cases
Marckres Zoning Permit 24-09 - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026). “Despite this, Appellants assert that they may appeal the Permit because the Applicants and zoning administrator failed to post the permit in the manner required by 24 V.S.A. § 4449 and, consequently, they were deprived of notice and due process.”
Benning Accessory Use Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “However, the Court declined to dismiss the appeal at that time because facts were in dispute as to whether Applicant had properly posted notice of the permit on his property during the appeal period, as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4449(b). The decision left open the question of…”
Benning Accessory Use Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “In addition, if the 2009 Application had been forwarded to the ZBA for conditional use approval, actual notice to adjoining property owners, such as Appellants, would have been required under 24 V.”
Feeley Constr. Permits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011). “4 24 V.S.A. § 4449(a)(2). No party appealed or attempted to appeal the Zoning Administrator’s action in issuing the Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance, either in October of 2005 or since that time.”
Feeley Constr. Permits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “As described by the DRB, Appellants cited the following three grounds for their appeals of the permits: that there was “defective notice of the appeal period” as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4449; that there was a “misstatement of material fact on the application warranting refusal…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4449(b)(2) — 4 cases
Feeley Constr. Permits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “As described by the DRB, Appellants cited the following three grounds for their appeals of the permits: that there was “defective notice of the appeal period” as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4449; that there was a “misstatement of material fact on the application warranting refusal…”
Benning Accessory Use Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “In addition, if the 2009 Application had been forwarded to the ZBA for conditional use approval, actual notice to adjoining property owners, such as Appellants, would have been required under 24 V.”
Marckres Zoning Permit 24-09 - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026). “Despite this, Appellants assert that they may appeal the Permit because the Applicants and zoning administrator failed to post the permit in the manner required by 24 V.S.A. § 4449 and, consequently, they were deprived of notice and due process.”
In re Fuller Bldg. Permit (Vt. 2014).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4449(c) — 1 case
Hinesburg Hannaford SD Revision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4449(d) — 24 cases
Shatney Home Occupation (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “Whether the Application Was Reviewed in Compliance with 24 V.S.A. § 4449(d), and Whether It Should Have Been Approved Under the Proposed Amendments Appellants argue that the Town should have reviewed their zoning application under the proposed amendments, and should have…”
Duval CU Denial - Decision on Motion (Summary Judgment) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2020). “Question 1 asks whether 24 V.S.A. § 4449(d) requires this Court to apply the 2018 ULDR in contrast to the 2014 ULDR when Applicant failed to submit a complete application until after the Selectboard’s first public notice.”
Town of Westford v. Pelkey & Pelkey Zoning Permit - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2019). “This provision contains two caveats that are not relevant here.”
Okemo Mountain Sch. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “24 V.S.A. § 4449(d) (incorporated in the 2006 and 2015 Regulations at Section 226).”
Trombley Height Variance Denial - Merits Decision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024).
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.