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

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4472 (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. § 4472)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 360 cases (60 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Donald Gould v. Town of Monkton, 2016 VT 84 (Vt. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Donald Gould v. Town of Monkton, 2016 VT 84 (Vt. 2016). · cites it 7× “Instead, landowner’s statutory challenge is governed by 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a), and our case law concerning the effect of that statute is clear: suits that challenge the procedural enactment of municipal planning laws must be brought before the Environmental Division.”
Chioffi v. Winooski Zoning Bd., 556 A.2d 103 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff appeals from a decision by the Chittenden Superior Court holding unconstitutional the de novo trial provision of 24 V.S.A. § 4472. We reverse. *10 I. The facts are not in dispute.”
In re Application of Lathrop Ltd. P'ship I, II & III, 2015 VT 49 (Vt. 2015). · cites it 5× “) (stating that unappealed permit conditions are final under 24 V.S.A. § 4472 and may not be challenged collaterally); In re Garen , 174 Vt.”
In Re Poole, 388 A.2d 422 (Vt. 1978). · cites it 5× “24 V.S.A. §§ 4472, 4475. After an extensive evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued findings of fact and concluded that the site plan as prepared was in substantial compliance with the appropriate provisions of the St.”
In re Burns Two-Unit Residential Bldg. (Michael Long Appellants), 2016 VT 63 (Vt. 2016). · cites it 4× “A group of nineteen Burlington residents (neighbors) appeal a decision from the Superior Court, Environmental Division declining to reach the merits of neighbors’ claim that applicants converted their home into a duplex without a zoning permit on the grounds that the challenge…”
Vermont Human Rights Comm'n v. Town of St. Johnsbury, 2024 VT 71 (Vt. 2024). · cites it 7× “While the court found that it had “exclusive jurisdiction over [VFHPAA] claims,” it concluded that “[t]here is no meaningful way for this court to rule on an asserted [VFHPAA] claim focused on the denial of a zoning permit when that denial has become final under 24 V.S.A. §…”
In Re Appeal of Ashline, 2003 VT 30 (Vt. 2003). · cites it 4× “Landowners contend that the environmental court improperly applied the exclusive remedy provisions of 24 V.S.A. § 4472 to dismiss Landowners’ questions submitted on appeal, arguing that the ZBA’s failure to comply with 24 V.”
Town of Charlotte v. Richmond, 609 A.2d 638 (Vt. 1992). · cites it 5× “First, the town maintains that 24 V.S.A. § 4472 bars defendants’ defense of nonconforming use.”
Town of Bennington v. Hanson-Walbridge Funeral Home, Inc., 427 A.2d 365 (Vt. 1981). · cites it 5× “As an initial ground for affirmance, defendant would have us bar the appeal on the claimed preclusive effect of 24 V.S.A. § 4472. It states, accurately, that the Town took no appeal from the building permit within the five days allowed by 24 V.”
Harvey v. Town of Waitsfield, 401 A.2d 900 (Vt. 1979). · cites it 7× “In *82 view of the provisions of 24 V.S.A. § 4472 setting out an appeal to the superior court as the exclusive method of review of actions under a zoning law established in accordance with 24 V.”
Hinsdale v. Vill. of Essex Junction, 572 A.2d 925 (Vt. 1990). · cites it 4× “We think that distinction is significant because a landowner can often restate a request for a permit in terms of such necessity that the denial might rise to a constitutional deprivation. To consider such constitutional issues through a collateral attack taken many months after…”
In Re Hildebrand, 2007 VT 5 (Vt. 2007). · cites it 3× “The Environmental Court held that, while neither the bylaws, subdivision regulations, nor the Vermont Planning and Development Act expressly prohibit applications to amend final subdivision permits, the enacted, unappealed subdivision permit conditions that are the subject of a…”
Show all 360 citing cases →
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4472(a) — 117 cases
Chioffi v. Winooski Zoning Bd., 556 A.2d 103 (Vt. 1989). “Plaintiff appeals from a decision by the Chittenden Superior Court holding unconstitutional the de novo trial provision of 24 V.S.A. § 4472. We reverse. *10 I. The facts are not in dispute.”
Donald Gould v. Town of Monkton, 2016 VT 84 (Vt. 2016). “Instead, landowner’s statutory challenge is governed by 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a), and our case law concerning the effect of that statute is clear: suits that challenge the procedural enactment of municipal planning laws must be brought before the Environmental Division.”
In Re Poole, 388 A.2d 422 (Vt. 1978). “24 V.S.A. §§ 4472, 4475. After an extensive evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued findings of fact and concluded that the site plan as prepared was in substantial compliance with the appropriate provisions of the St.”
State v. Madison, 658 A.2d 536 (Vt. 1995).
Appeal of Farrell & Desautels, Inc., 383 A.2d 619 (Vt. 1978).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4472(b) — 32 cases
Donald Gould v. Town of Monkton, 2016 VT 84 (Vt. 2016). “Instead, landowner’s statutory challenge is governed by 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a), and our case law concerning the effect of that statute is clear: suits that challenge the procedural enactment of municipal planning laws must be brought before the Environmental Division.”
Hinsdale v. Vill. of Essex Junction, 572 A.2d 925 (Vt. 1990). “We think that distinction is significant because a landowner can often restate a request for a permit in terms of such necessity that the denial might rise to a constitutional deprivation. To consider such constitutional issues through a collateral attack taken many months after…”
Harvey v. Town of Waitsfield, 401 A.2d 900 (Vt. 1979). “In *82 view of the provisions of 24 V.S.A. § 4472 setting out an appeal to the superior court as the exclusive method of review of actions under a zoning law established in accordance with 24 V.”
Town of Sandgate v. Colehamer, 589 A.2d 1205 (Vt. 1990).
Killington, Ltd. v. State, 668 A.2d 1278 (Vt. 1995).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4472(c) — 2 cases
In Re Appeal of Gulli, 816 A.2d 485 (Vt. 2002).
In Re Zoning Permit Application of Clyde, 437 A.2d 121 (Vt. 1981).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4472(d) — 202 cases
In re Burns Two-Unit Residential Bldg. (Michael Long Appellants), 2016 VT 63 (Vt. 2016). “A group of nineteen Burlington residents (neighbors) appeal a decision from the Superior Court, Environmental Division declining to reach the merits of neighbors’ claim that applicants converted their home into a duplex without a zoning permit on the grounds that the challenge…”
In re Application of Lathrop Ltd. P'ship I, II & III, 2015 VT 49 (Vt. 2015). “) (stating that unappealed permit conditions are final under 24 V.S.A. § 4472 and may not be challenged collaterally); In re Garen , 174 Vt.”
Levy v. Town of St. Albans Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 564 A.2d 1361 (Vt. 1989).
Wesco, Inc. v. City of Montpelier, 739 A.2d 1241 (Vt. 1999).
In Re Appeal of Jackson, 2003 VT 45 (Vt. 2003).
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.