Legal Opinion

In Re Rinkers, Inc.

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided July 13, 2011No. 10-446PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶ 1. The question this ease presents is whether a 180-foot telecommunications tower in the town of Hardwick would have an undue adverse effect on the aesthetics of the area in violation of Criterion 8 of Act 250. Neighboring landowners appeal the issuance of an Act 250 land-use permit for the project. Specifically, they contest (1) whether the project violates a clear, written community standard intended to preserve the aesthetics of the area, and (2) whether a reduction of the tower’s height is a mitigating step that the developer should have taken to improve the harmony of the project with…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re Eastview at Middlebury, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2010
  2. In re Stokes Communications Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1995
  3. In Re Appeal of ShawSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. In re Chaves A250 Permit ReconsiderSupreme Court of Vermont · 2014
  2. In re Petition of Apple Hill Solar LLC (Libby Harris and Apple Hill Homeowners Association, Appellants)Supreme Court of Vermont · 2019
  3. In re Goddard College Conditional Use, Goddard College Act 250 ReconsiderationSupreme Court of Vermont · 2014
  4. Regan v. Pomerleau, DeForest Realty, Inc. and City of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2014
  5. In re North East Materials Group LLC ACT 250 JO 5-21 (Russell Austin, Pamela Austin, Julie Barre, Marc Bernier, Appellants)Supreme Court of Vermont · 2015

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API