Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4468 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 011 : APPEALS

(Cite as: 24 V.S.A. § 4468)

§ 4468. Hearing on appeal

The appropriate municipal panel shall set a date and place for a public hearing of an appeal under this chapter that shall be within 60 days of the filing of the notice of appeal under section 4465 of this title. The appropriate municipal panel shall give public notice of the hearing and shall mail to the appellant a copy of that notice at least 15 days prior to the hearing date. Any person or body empowered by section 4465 of this title to take an appeal with respect to that property at issue may appear and be heard in person or be represented by an agent or attorney at the hearing. Any hearing held under this section may be adjourned by the appropriate municipal panel from time to time; provided, however, that the date and place of the adjourned hearing shall be announced at the hearing. All hearings under this section shall be open to the public and the rules of evidence applicable at these hearings shall be the same as the rules of evidence applicable in contested cases in hearings before administrative agencies as set forth in 3 V.S.A. § 810. (Added 2003, No. 115 (Adj. Sess.), § 106.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 44 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2021 · leading case: In re Appeal of Mutschler, 2006 VT 43 (Vt. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Appeal of Mutschler, 2006 VT 43 (Vt. 2006). · cites it 6× “§ 4468(a) was amended so that the relevant language of 24 V.S.A. § 4468 now appears, in nearly identical form, as 24 V.”

Application of McDonald's Corp., 560 A.2d 362 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 9× “McDonald’s Corporation appeals from the decision of the Rutland Superior Court denying it a zoning variance made pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4468(a). McDonald’s argues that the trial court misapplied the “five criteria” of the zoning variance statute.”

Gadhue v. Marcotte, 446 A.2d 375 (Vt. 1982). · cites it 9× “In addition he requested a variance, 24 V.S.A. § 4468, because the lot was not 150 feet wide as required by the zoning regulations.”

In Re Dunnett, 776 A.2d 406 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 3× “The court determined that Tofferi had failed to meet any of the five criteria necessary for the grant of a variance under the village’s zoning regulations.”

In re Zoning Variance Application of Ray Reilly Tire Mart, Inc., 449 A.2d 910 (Vt. 1982). · cites it 6× “, satisfied the five criteria set forth in 24 V.S.A. § 4468 (a) for obtaining a variance.”

Blow v. Town of Berlin Zoning Adm'r, 560 A.2d 378 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 5× “In plaintiff’s view, if Lot A is an existing small lot within the ordinance and the statute, he is entitled to the requested zoning variance. 1 This latter proposition is erroneous.”

In Re Maurice Memorials, 458 A.2d 1093 (Vt. 1983). · cites it 6× “In other words, the trial court held that the hardship which would result from a cessation of business was not required by the provisions of 24 V.S.A. § 4468. The trial court therefore granted plaintiff the variance.”

Chioffi v. Winooski Zoning Bd., 556 A.2d 103 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 2× “Thus, the court is restricted to its traditional judicial role of finding the facts and applying the law to the facts before it.”

L. M. Pike & Son, Inc. v. Town of Waterford, 296 A.2d 262 (Vt. 1972). · cites it 6× “” These findings of fact are to include, among other things, that there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, et cetera, in connection with the lot size and/or topography; that there are such physical conditions and circumstances that there is no possibility that'the…”

W. R. Sorg & North Hero House, Inc. v. North Hero Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 378 A.2d 98 (Vt. 1977). · cites it 3× “But the parties admit the proviso in question, and agree that the legal question presented is whether the action of the trial court can be sustained in light of the statutory provisions of 24 V.S.A. § 4468(a), requiring specified findings before a variance is granted.”

Chioffi v. City of Winooski, 676 A.2d 786 (Vt. 1996). · cites it 3× “See 24 V.S.A. §§ 4468(a), 4471, 4472(a). A variance is available for the circumstances present here, where the “physical conditions peculiar to the particular property” prevent its development consistent with the zoning ordinance.”

Nash v. Warren Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 569 A.2d 447 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 2× “See 24 V.S.A. § 4468(a). The zoning ordinance establishes specific standards to which a conditional use must conform, and the zoning board “after public notice and public hearing” must determine that the proposed use conforms to the standards.”

Show all 44 citing cases →

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4468(A)(2004) — 1 case

Appeal of Yates (Vt. Super. Ct. 2007).

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4468(a) — 28 cases

Gadhue v. Marcotte, 446 A.2d 375 (Vt. 1982). “In addition he requested a variance, 24 V.S.A. § 4468, because the lot was not 150 feet wide as required by the zoning regulations.”

In re Appeal of Mutschler, 2006 VT 43 (Vt. 2006). “§ 4468(a) was amended so that the relevant language of 24 V.S.A. § 4468 now appears, in nearly identical form, as 24 V.”

In Re Dunnett, 776 A.2d 406 (Vt. 2001). “The court determined that Tofferi had failed to meet any of the five criteria necessary for the grant of a variance under the village’s zoning regulations.”

Application of McDonald's Corp., 560 A.2d 362 (Vt. 1989). “McDonald’s Corporation appeals from the decision of the Rutland Superior Court denying it a zoning variance made pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4468(a). McDonald’s argues that the trial court misapplied the “five criteria” of the zoning variance statute.”

In re Zoning Variance Application of Ray Reilly Tire Mart, Inc., 449 A.2d 910 (Vt. 1982). “, satisfied the five criteria set forth in 24 V.S.A. § 4468 (a) for obtaining a variance.”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4468(a)(1) — 3 cases

Application of McDonald's Corp., 560 A.2d 362 (Vt. 1989). “McDonald’s Corporation appeals from the decision of the Rutland Superior Court denying it a zoning variance made pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4468(a). McDonald’s argues that the trial court misapplied the “five criteria” of the zoning variance statute.”

Blow v. Town of Berlin Zoning Adm'r, 560 A.2d 378 (Vt. 1989). “In plaintiff’s view, if Lot A is an existing small lot within the ordinance and the statute, he is entitled to the requested zoning variance. 1 This latter proposition is erroneous.”

Chioffi v. City of Winooski, 676 A.2d 786 (Vt. 1996). “See 24 V.S.A. §§ 4468(a), 4471, 4472(a). A variance is available for the circumstances present here, where the “physical conditions peculiar to the particular property” prevent its development consistent with the zoning ordinance.”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4468(a)(2) — 7 cases

In Re Dunnett, 776 A.2d 406 (Vt. 2001). “The court determined that Tofferi had failed to meet any of the five criteria necessary for the grant of a variance under the village’s zoning regulations.”

Application of McDonald's Corp., 560 A.2d 362 (Vt. 1989). “McDonald’s Corporation appeals from the decision of the Rutland Superior Court denying it a zoning variance made pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4468(a). McDonald’s argues that the trial court misapplied the “five criteria” of the zoning variance statute.”

Blow v. Town of Berlin Zoning Adm'r, 560 A.2d 378 (Vt. 1989). “In plaintiff’s view, if Lot A is an existing small lot within the ordinance and the statute, he is entitled to the requested zoning variance. 1 This latter proposition is erroneous.”

In Re Appeal of Gadhue, 544 A.2d 1151 (Vt. 1987).

In re Zoning Variance Application of Ray Reilly Tire Mart, Inc., 449 A.2d 910 (Vt. 1982). “, satisfied the five criteria set forth in 24 V.S.A. § 4468 (a) for obtaining a variance.”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4468(a)(3) — 3 cases

Application of McDonald's Corp., 560 A.2d 362 (Vt. 1989). “McDonald’s Corporation appeals from the decision of the Rutland Superior Court denying it a zoning variance made pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4468(a). McDonald’s argues that the trial court misapplied the “five criteria” of the zoning variance statute.”

L. M. Pike & Son, Inc. v. Town of Waterford, 296 A.2d 262 (Vt. 1972). “” These findings of fact are to include, among other things, that there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, et cetera, in connection with the lot size and/or topography; that there are such physical conditions and circumstances that there is no possibility that'the…”

Application of Fecteau, 543 A.2d 693 (Vt. 1988).

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4468(a)(4) — 2 cases

Chioffi v. Winooski Zoning Bd., 556 A.2d 103 (Vt. 1989). “Thus, the court is restricted to its traditional judicial role of finding the facts and applying the law to the facts before it.”

In Re Appeals of Letourneau, 726 A.2d 31 (Vt. 1998).

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4468(a)(5) — 2 cases

In re Appeal of Mutschler, 2006 VT 43 (Vt. 2006). “§ 4468(a) was amended so that the relevant language of 24 V.S.A. § 4468 now appears, in nearly identical form, as 24 V.”

In Re Maurice Memorials, 458 A.2d 1093 (Vt. 1983). “In other words, the trial court held that the hardship which would result from a cessation of business was not required by the provisions of 24 V.S.A. § 4468. The trial court therefore granted plaintiff the variance.”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4468(b) — 1 case

Chioffi v. City of Winooski, 676 A.2d 786 (Vt. 1996). “See 24 V.S.A. §§ 4468(a), 4471, 4472(a). A variance is available for the circumstances present here, where the “physical conditions peculiar to the particular property” prevent its development consistent with the zoning ordinance.”

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.