(a) In reviewing the procedures used in the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any plan
or bylaw, no court shall invalidate the plan or bylaw or its amendment or repeal because
of a failure to adhere to strict and literal requirements of this chapter concerning
minor or nonessential particulars. The court shall uphold the plan, bylaw, or action
if there has been substantial compliance with the procedural requirements of this
chapter.
(b) No person shall challenge for purported procedural defects the validity of any plan
or bylaw as adopted, amended, or repealed under this chapter after two years following
the day on which it would have taken effect if no defect had occurred. (Added 2003, No. 115 (Adj. Sess.), § 109.)
In Re Paynter 2-Lot Subdivision, 2010 VT 28 (Vt. 2010). “” 24 V.S.A. § 4483(b). Applicant asserts that the Town’s failure to have a valid town plan in place when it adopted the 2005 ordinance was a procedural defect and that the statute of limitations, therefore, applies.”
Union Bank Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012). · cites it 3דIn its response in support of Cross-Appellant’s motion, the Village additionally argues that the statute of limitations for challenging the procedures used by the Village to adopt the plan has run, under 24 V.S.A. § 4483(b). Appellant challenges both arguments.”
Walsh d/b/a Deerwood Est. Conditional Use (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2ד” 24 V.S.A. § 4483(b). The Bridport Zoning Regulations were approved on November 13, 2006, and took effect twenty-one days later on December 3, 2006.”
Devonwood Investors, LLC 75 Cherry Street (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). “See Kuligoski v. Brattleboro Retreat, 2016 VT 54A, ¶ 71 (indicating that case law can be superseded by later-enacted statutes); State v.”
B & M Realty Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015). “§ 4350 that suggests a regional plan is unenforceable if the regional planning commission does not adhere to the meeting and consultation requirements of Section 4350.”
B M Realty Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). “10, 2013); see 24 V.S.A. § 4483(b) (limiting actions alleging procedural defects in any plan or bylaws to two years).”
Paynter 2-Lot Subdivision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “By its plain language, 24 V.S.A. § 4483(b) only applies to procedural defects.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4483(a) — 1 case
Devonwood Investors, LLC 75 Cherry Street (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). “See Kuligoski v. Brattleboro Retreat, 2016 VT 54A, ¶ 71 (indicating that case law can be superseded by later-enacted statutes); State v.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4483(b) — 5 cases
In Re Paynter 2-Lot Subdivision, 2010 VT 28 (Vt. 2010). “” 24 V.S.A. § 4483(b). Applicant asserts that the Town’s failure to have a valid town plan in place when it adopted the 2005 ordinance was a procedural defect and that the statute of limitations, therefore, applies.”
Union Bank Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2012). “In its response in support of Cross-Appellant’s motion, the Village additionally argues that the statute of limitations for challenging the procedures used by the Village to adopt the plan has run, under 24 V.S.A. § 4483(b). Appellant challenges both arguments.”
Walsh d/b/a Deerwood Est. Conditional Use (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “” 24 V.S.A. § 4483(b). The Bridport Zoning Regulations were approved on November 13, 2006, and took effect twenty-one days later on December 3, 2006.”
B M Realty Act 250 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). “10, 2013); see 24 V.S.A. § 4483(b) (limiting actions alleging procedural defects in any plan or bylaws to two years).”
Paynter 2-Lot Subdivision (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “By its plain language, 24 V.S.A. § 4483(b) only applies to procedural defects.”
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.