Legal Opinion
In Re Handy
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided November 17, 2000No. 98-015 & 98-016PublishedCited by 88 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDooley, J.
In these consolidated appeals, we consider the status of zoning permit applications filed during what we will refer to as the “pendency period” — the period from the date that public notice is given of proposed amended zoning bylaws and the date that the bylaws come into effect. At issue is the meaning of 24 Y.S.A. § 4443(d),1 which provides that, following public notice of a proposed zoning bylaw amendment, a town administrator may not issue a permit regarding that amendment during the period between notice and the effective date of the adoption or rejection of the amendment, except with the…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Kent v. DullesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Smith v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1993
- Osius v. City of St. Clair ShoresMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
- Appeal of WeeksSupreme Court of Vermont · 1998
- Town of Hinesburg v. DunklingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1998
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by88 opinions
- In Re Appeal of JAM Golf, LLCSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
- Mellin v. Flood Brook Union School DistrictSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001
- In Re John A. Russell Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2003
- Springfield Terminal Railway Co. v. Agency of TransportationSupreme Court of Vermont · 2002
- In re Pierce Subdivision ApplicationSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.