It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for review of all questions arising out
of or with respect to the implementation by a municipality of this chapter. Except
as specifically provided herein, no board of adjustment or development review board
may amend, alter, invalidate, or affect any development plan or bylaw of any municipality
or the implementation or enforcement thereof, or allow any use not permitted by any
zoning regulations or other bylaw. (Added 1967, No. 334 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. March 23, 1968; amended 1973, No. 255, § 4, eff. April 11, 1974; 1993, No. 232 (Adj. Sess.), § 21, eff. March 15, 1995.)
In Re Appeal of Gadhue, 544 A.2d 1151 (Vt. 1987). “”); 24 V.S.A. § 4473 (“[i]t is the purpose of [chapter 117 of Title 24] to provide for review of all questions arising out of or with respect to the implementation by a municipality of this chapter.”
City of Rutland v. McDonald's Corp., 503 A.2d 1138 (Vt. 1985). “See also 24 V.S.A. § 4473 (“It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for review of all questions arising out of or with respect to the implementation by a municipality of this chapter.”
Town of Waterford v. Pike Indus., Inc., 373 A.2d 528 (Vt. 1977). “24 V.S.A. § 4473. The town argues, however, that as a result of its appeal to the county court, Pike had a proper forum in which it could litigate the issue of validity.”
In Re Appeal of Rhodes, 305 A.2d 591 (Vt. 1973). “In 24 V.S.A. § 4473 we find that the legislature has designated the board of adjustment the place for ultimately finding the facts for purposes of review.”
In Re Guillemette ZA Determination Appeal (Anne Guillemette & Mark Guillemette, Appellants), 2025 VT 25 (Vt. 2025). “§ 8503(c); see 24 V.S.A. § 4473 (explaining that purpose of appeals subchapter within chapter 117 is to provide review “of all questions arising out of or with respect to the implementation by a municipality of this chapter” (emphasis added)); see also, e.”
Zlotoff Found. Inc. NOV (2) - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2020). “at 222–23; see also 24 V.S.A. § 4473. In this case, the Foundation contends that the Museum NOV is improper and should not be upheld on appeal.”
All Star Grp., LLC SD Denial - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2019). “298, 301 (1984); 24 V.S.A. § 4473). The fundamental standing requirement of an injury in fact still tempers the general freedom to raise issues with a permit application that this Court affords qualifying appellants.”
In re UVM Certificate of Appropriateness (Vt. 2014). “298, 301 (1984) (quoting 24 V.S.A. § 4473 (emphasis omitted)). He maintains that the lack of proper notice to other members of the public affects both the public interest as well as his own interests.”
Fowler NOV (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012). “24 V.S.A. § 4473. Also not fatal to a petition’s validity is the failure of a petition to identify a representative for the group.”
Intervale Ctr., Inc. & Half Pint Farm (Hoop House) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “, 24 V.S.A. § 4473 (“It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for review of all questions arising out of or with respect to the implementation by a municipality of this chapter.”
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.