If more than one type of review is required for a project, the reviews, to the extent
feasible, shall be conducted concurrently. A process defining the sequence of review
and issuance of decisions shall be defined in the bylaw. (Added 2003, No. 115 (Adj. Sess.), § 104.)
In Re Appeal of Ashline, 2003 VT 30 (Vt. 2003). · cites it 3ד§ 4472 to dismiss Landowners’ questions submitted on appeal, arguing that the ZBA’s failure to comply with 24 V.S.A. § 4462(a) resulted in a nondecision from *205 which they could not appeal.”
Application of 66 North Main Street, 481 A.2d 1053 (Vt. 1984). · cites it 4ד24 V.S.A. § 4462 (a). Based on these two grounds, the court ruled that the Board had failed to render a decision within the prescribed time and that, therefore, the variance was deemed granted to the Partnership.”
In Re Dunnett, 776 A.2d 406 (Vt. 2001). “, that *199 proceedings “be recorded” and that an “adequate record” be produced, would have been superfluous because municipal boards have consistently been required to keep minutes under 24 V.S.A. § 4462 since its enactment in 1968.”
Nash v. Warren Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 569 A.2d 447 (Vt. 1989). “, 24 V.S.A. § 4462(a) (“For the conduct of any hearing and the taking of any action, a quorum shall be .”
In Re Appeal of Reynolds, 749 A.2d 1133 (Vt. 2000). · cites it 2ד2 In re 66 North Main Street was decided under 24 V.S.A. § 4462(a), which governs zoning board decisions and has similar language to 1 V.”
In Re Lionni, 648 A.2d 832 (Vt. 1993). “Nor does the existence of 24 V.S.A. § 4462(a), which allows only a majority of the members of zoning boards to take action, coupled with the absence of a similar statute directed specifically at planning commissions, somehow suggest that planning commissions need not abide by §…”
Appeal of Baker & Johns (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2דCo-operative argues in support of summary judgment that the existing PUD was lawfully modified pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4462 and the Town’s Zoning Ordinance.”
Main St Place LLC (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012). “2 One of the only court-directed instances in which deemed approval has been applied was in Appeal of McEwing Services, LLC, a case in which a municipal panel held multiple deliberative sessions stretching over a period of more than four months after the panel had 2 In Appeal of…”
Losier Variance Application (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “On appeal, the Environmental Court declared invalid the vote to deny the application and therefore reasoned that the deemed approval remedy must apply, given that no valid decision had been rendered. Id. at 463–64.”
Sisters & Bros. Inv. Grp., LLP (Vt. Super. Ct. 2007). “04(C) implementing 24 V.S.A. § 4462, the 2002 Regulations are not so clear.”
Granger Enter., Ltd. v. City of Rutland, 590 A.2d 883 (Vt. 1991). “Granger also argues that the variance devolved to it because the minutes of the meeting at which the vote was held failed to contain a recitation of factual findings, and a city attorney was directed to prepare the Board’s decision.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4462(a) — 8 cases
In Re Appeal of Ashline, 2003 VT 30 (Vt. 2003). “§ 4472 to dismiss Landowners’ questions submitted on appeal, arguing that the ZBA’s failure to comply with 24 V.S.A. § 4462(a) resulted in a nondecision from *205 which they could not appeal.”
Application of 66 North Main Street, 481 A.2d 1053 (Vt. 1984). “24 V.S.A. § 4462 (a). Based on these two grounds, the court ruled that the Board had failed to render a decision within the prescribed time and that, therefore, the variance was deemed granted to the Partnership.”
Nash v. Warren Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 569 A.2d 447 (Vt. 1989). “, 24 V.S.A. § 4462(a) (“For the conduct of any hearing and the taking of any action, a quorum shall be .”
In Re Appeal of Reynolds, 749 A.2d 1133 (Vt. 2000). “2 In re 66 North Main Street was decided under 24 V.S.A. § 4462(a), which governs zoning board decisions and has similar language to 1 V.”
In Re Lionni, 648 A.2d 832 (Vt. 1993). “Nor does the existence of 24 V.S.A. § 4462(a), which allows only a majority of the members of zoning boards to take action, coupled with the absence of a similar statute directed specifically at planning commissions, somehow suggest that planning commissions need not abide by §…”
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.