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

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464 (2026)

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

Subchapter 010 : APPROPRIATE MUNICIPAL PANELS

(Cite as: 24 V.S.A. § 4464)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 200 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: In Re Verizon Wireless Barton Permit, 2010 VT 62 (Vt. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Verizon Wireless Barton Permit, 2010 VT 62 (Vt. 2010). · cites it 7× “The parties dispute whether applicant or the Town adequately provided notice of this hearing as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(1) and the Town's bylaws.”
In Re Appeal of Albert, 2008 VT 30 (Vt. 2008). · cites it 6× “Developer moved to dismiss landowners' appeal for their failure to comply with the requirements of 24 V.S.A. § 4464, a statute governing appeals from municipal decisions.”
In re Mahar Conditional Use Permit (Mary Lahiff, Carolyn Hallock, Susan Harritt & William Butler, Appellants), 183 A.3d 1136 (Vt. 2018). · cites it 4× “The court concluded as a matter of law that Harritt and Butler were adjoining landowners under 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(1)(C), which entitled them to mailed notice of the DRB hearing.”
Wesco, Inc. v. City of Montpelier, 739 A.2d 1241 (Vt. 1999). · cites it 7× “Wesco contends that the court erred in its determination because (1) the zoning board of adjustment was barred from requiring a conditional use permit when the zoning administrator’s determination had not been appealed within fifteen days as required by 24 V.S.A. §§ 4464(a) and…”
In Re Appeal of Gadhue, 544 A.2d 1151 (Vt. 1987). · cites it 5× “The standing issue, as framed by the parties, is whether an “interested person,” as defined by 24 V.S.A. § 4464, must show special damages in order to have access to equitable remedies to abate what is essentially a public nuisance in the context of a zon *325 ing appeal.”
In re Appeal of MDY Taxes, Inc. & Vill. Car Wash, Inc., 2015 VT 65 (Vt. 2015). · cites it 7× “This situation precisely illustrates why, regardless of one’s view of the merits of any given'' zoning application, participation at the municipal level is of the utmost importance, and further underscores why the Legislature has mandated the extensive notice requirements…”
In Re Appeals of Shantee Point, Inc., 811 A.2d 1243 (Vt. 2002). · cites it 3× “” The term “interested person” is defined in 24 V.S.A § 4464(b), including: (3) A person owning or occupying property in the immediate neighborhood of a property which is the subject of any decision or act taken under this chapter, who alleges that the decision or act, if…”
In Re Appeal of 232511 Investments, Ltd., 2006 VT 27 (Vt. 2006). · cites it 2× “Vermont’s municipal planning statute allows an “interested person” to appeal the Board’s decision to the Environmental Court.”
In Re Appeal of Gulli, 816 A.2d 485 (Vt. 2002). · cites it 2× “However, the court found that the Gulli group and the Dunnett group had standing to appeal action taken by the DRB in November 2000 pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(4), which allows “[a]ny ten persons owning real property within a municipality .”
Brisson Stone LLC, Allan Brisson & Michael Brisson v. Town of Monkton & Claudia Orlandi, 2016 VT 15 (Vt. 2016). · cites it 3× “In this combined appeal, applicants — Allan Brisson, Michael Brisson, and Brisson Stone, LLC — claim that their application for a commercial gravel extraction permit is allowed under the Town of Monkton’s zoning regulations and that their application should have been deemed…”
Town of Randolph v. Est. of White, 693 A.2d 694 (Vt. 1997). · cites it 3× “See 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a). Similarly, he argues that the notice failed to advise him that the proceeding before the board is the exclusive remedy for challenging decisions of the zoning administrator, see id.”
Scott v. City of Newport, 2004 VT 64 (Vt. 2004). · cites it 2× “See 24 V.S.A. §§ 4464, 4471 (giving “interested persons” party status to appeal decision of board of adjustment to superior court) (1994).”
Show all 200 citing cases →
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(5) — 1 case
Ridgetop Highridge PUD (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(a) — 23 cases
Wesco, Inc. v. City of Montpelier, 739 A.2d 1241 (Vt. 1999). “Wesco contends that the court erred in its determination because (1) the zoning board of adjustment was barred from requiring a conditional use permit when the zoning administrator’s determination had not been appealed within fifteen days as required by 24 V.S.A. §§ 4464(a) and…”
Town of Randolph v. Est. of White, 693 A.2d 694 (Vt. 1997). “See 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a). Similarly, he argues that the notice failed to advise him that the proceeding before the board is the exclusive remedy for challenging decisions of the zoning administrator, see id.”
Kalakowski v. John A. Russell Corp., 401 A.2d 906 (Vt. 1979).
In Re Appeal of Hignite, 2003 VT 111 (Vt. 2003).
Boutwell v. Town of Fair Haven, 527 A.2d 225 (Vt. 1987).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(a)(1) — 20 cases
In Re Verizon Wireless Barton Permit, 2010 VT 62 (Vt. 2010). “The parties dispute whether applicant or the Town adequately provided notice of this hearing as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(1) and the Town's bylaws.”
In re Atwood Planned Unit Dev. (Kevin Trout, Dorothy Wilson, Graham McAfee, Linda McAfee, Steven Wyatt, Donna Wyatt, Jeff Marshall, Jack Manning, Suba Luck, Brian Stevens & Catherine Stevens, Appellants), 2017 VT 16 (Vt. 2017).
In re Appeal of MDY Taxes, Inc. & Vill. Car Wash, Inc., 2015 VT 65 (Vt. 2015). “This situation precisely illustrates why, regardless of one’s view of the merits of any given'' zoning application, participation at the municipal level is of the utmost importance, and further underscores why the Legislature has mandated the extensive notice requirements…”
Cummings Subdivision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011).
Atwood PUD - Jericho (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(a)(1)(A) — 4 cases
Jolley Assoc Car Wash Middlebury (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014).
Mad River Barn CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017).
Zaremba CU - Jericho (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014).
Cummings Subdivision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(a)(1)(B) — 4 cases
Atwood PUD - Jericho (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016).
Walsh d/b/a Deerwood Est. Conditional Use (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009).
Donovan CU Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013).
Cummings Subdivision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(a)(1)(C) — 15 cases
In Re Verizon Wireless Barton Permit, 2010 VT 62 (Vt. 2010). “The parties dispute whether applicant or the Town adequately provided notice of this hearing as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(1) and the Town's bylaws.”
In re Mahar Conditional Use Permit (Mary Lahiff, Carolyn Hallock, Susan Harritt & William Butler, Appellants), 183 A.3d 1136 (Vt. 2018). “The court concluded as a matter of law that Harritt and Butler were adjoining landowners under 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(1)(C), which entitled them to mailed notice of the DRB hearing.”
In re Appeal of MDY Taxes, Inc. & Vill. Car Wash, Inc., 2015 VT 65 (Vt. 2015). “This situation precisely illustrates why, regardless of one’s view of the merits of any given'' zoning application, participation at the municipal level is of the utmost importance, and further underscores why the Legislature has mandated the extensive notice requirements…”
Jennifer Weinstein v. Jeanmarie Leonard & Carol Sayour v. Lloyd J. Weinstein & The Weinstein Grp., P.C., 2015 VT 75 (Vt. 2015).
Jolley Assoc Car Wash Middlebury (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(a)(2) — 3 cases
Moran Site Plan & Major Impact Dev. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012).
Moran Site Plan Amendment (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012).
Cummings Subdivision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(a)(2)(B) — 3 cases
Ridgetop Highridge PUD (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016).
Cummings Subdivision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011).
Woodstock Cmty. Trust, Inc. & Hous. Vt. PUD (Vt. Super. Ct. 2007).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(a)(3) — 2 cases
Cummings Subdivision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011).
Mem'l Hall Renovation Addition (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(a)(5) — 17 cases
In re Mahar Conditional Use Permit (Mary Lahiff, Carolyn Hallock, Susan Harritt & William Butler, Appellants), 183 A.3d 1136 (Vt. 2018). “The court concluded as a matter of law that Harritt and Butler were adjoining landowners under 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(1)(C), which entitled them to mailed notice of the DRB hearing.”
In re Petition of LK Holdings, LLC, 201 A.3d 373 (Vt. 2018).
982 Holiday Point Road Setback Waiver - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025).
S. Vermont Beagle Club (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013).
Mahar CU (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(a)(l) — 1 case
Nye Conditional Use Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(b) — 27 cases
Garzo v. Stowe Bd. of Adjustment, 476 A.2d 125 (Vt. 1984).
In Re Appeals of Shantee Point, Inc., 811 A.2d 1243 (Vt. 2002). “” The term “interested person” is defined in 24 V.S.A § 4464(b), including: (3) A person owning or occupying property in the immediate neighborhood of a property which is the subject of any decision or act taken under this chapter, who alleges that the decision or act, if…”
Kalakowski v. John A. Russell Corp., 401 A.2d 906 (Vt. 1979).
In Re Appeal of Gadhue, 544 A.2d 1151 (Vt. 1987). “The standing issue, as framed by the parties, is whether an “interested person,” as defined by 24 V.S.A. § 4464, must show special damages in order to have access to equitable remedies to abate what is essentially a public nuisance in the context of a zon *325 ing appeal.”
Jacobsen v. Garzo, 542 A.2d 265 (Vt. 1988).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(b)(1) — 61 cases
Brisson Stone LLC, Allan Brisson & Michael Brisson v. Town of Monkton & Claudia Orlandi, 2016 VT 15 (Vt. 2016). “In this combined appeal, applicants — Allan Brisson, Michael Brisson, and Brisson Stone, LLC — claim that their application for a commercial gravel extraction permit is allowed under the Town of Monkton’s zoning regulations and that their application should have been deemed…”
Town of Sandgate v. Colehamer, 589 A.2d 1205 (Vt. 1990).
In re Morrill House, LLC, 2011 VT 117 (Vt. 2011).
Rossetti v. Chittenden Cnty. Transp. Auth., 674 A.2d 1284 (Vt. 1996).
Morrill House, LLC & Smith Variance (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(b)(2) — 21 cases
In Re Appeal of 232511 Investments, Ltd., 2006 VT 27 (Vt. 2006). “Vermont’s municipal planning statute allows an “interested person” to appeal the Board’s decision to the Environmental Court.”
In Re Jolley Assocs., 2006 VT 132 (Vt. 2006).
Rossetti v. Chittenden Cnty. Transp. Auth., 674 A.2d 1284 (Vt. 1996).
Sabourin v. Town of Essex, 505 A.2d 669 (Vt. 1985).
In re Appeal of Jolley Assocs., 181 Vt. 190 (Vt. 2006).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(b)(3) — 25 cases
In Re Appeals of Shantee Point, Inc., 811 A.2d 1243 (Vt. 2002). “” The term “interested person” is defined in 24 V.S.A § 4464(b), including: (3) A person owning or occupying property in the immediate neighborhood of a property which is the subject of any decision or act taken under this chapter, who alleges that the decision or act, if…”
In re Mahar Conditional Use Permit (Mary Lahiff, Carolyn Hallock, Susan Harritt & William Butler, Appellants), 183 A.3d 1136 (Vt. 2018). “The court concluded as a matter of law that Harritt and Butler were adjoining landowners under 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(1)(C), which entitled them to mailed notice of the DRB hearing.”
In Re Appeals of Garen, 807 A.2d 448 (Vt. 2002).
In re Glen M., 575 A.2d 193 (Vt. 1990).
In re Appeal of Carroll, 925 A.2d 990 (Vt. 2007).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(b)(4) — 7 cases
In Re Appeal of Albert, 2008 VT 30 (Vt. 2008). “Developer moved to dismiss landowners' appeal for their failure to comply with the requirements of 24 V.S.A. § 4464, a statute governing appeals from municipal decisions.”
In Re Verizon Wireless Barton Permit, 2010 VT 62 (Vt. 2010). “The parties dispute whether applicant or the Town adequately provided notice of this hearing as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(1) and the Town's bylaws.”
In Re Appeal of Gulli, 816 A.2d 485 (Vt. 2002). “However, the court found that the Gulli group and the Dunnett group had standing to appeal action taken by the DRB in November 2000 pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(4), which allows “[a]ny ten persons owning real property within a municipality .”
Appeal of Osherenko (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005).
Hitchcock 2-Lot Subdivision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(b)(5) — 2 cases
Bennington High, LLC Dev. Agreement Amendment - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025).
Bennington High, LLC Dev. Agreement Amendment - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(b)(6) — 1 case
Deer Brook Buffer Reduction (Vt. Super. Ct. 2007).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(b)(l) — 2 cases
Lidstone Variance & Waiver (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
Chiorgno Bldg. Permit Application (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(c) — 4 cases
Nash v. Warren Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 569 A.2d 447 (Vt. 1989).
Sabourin v. Town of Essex, 505 A.2d 669 (Vt. 1985).
In Re Maurice Memorials, 458 A.2d 1093 (Vt. 1983).
Benzie v. Town of Underhill, 454 A.2d 1233 (Vt. 1982).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(d) — 2 cases
JSCL, LLC CU Permit - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018).
Long View Investments Site Plan Application (Vt. Super. Ct. 2006).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4464(e) — 1 case
Benzie v. Town of Underhill, 454 A.2d 1233 (Vt. 1982).
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.