Legal Opinion

In Re Huntley

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided November 9, 2004No. 03-369PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶ 1. Richard and Elinor Huntley, owners of a five-acre gravel mine, appeal a declaratory ruling by the Environmental Board. The Board determined that the Huntleys’ mine and associated property remained subject to Act 250 jurisdiction even though the site had been fully reclaimed, and its former permit had expired. We reverse and hold that, when á permit expires pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6090(b)(1), the land is no longer subject to Act 250 jurisdiction absent some activity to trigger the statute’s application.

¶ 2. In 1986, the Huntleys’ predecessors in interest applied for an Act 250 permit,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re Agency of Administration, Etc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1982
  2. Secretary, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. Handy Family EnterprisesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1995
  3. In Re AudetSupreme Court of Vermont · 2004
  4. In Re RusinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1994
  5. In re Wildcat Construction Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1993

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005
  2. In re Mountain Top Inn & Resort, JO 1-391 (Katherine Hall, Appellant)Supreme Court of Vermont · 2020
  3. In Re Hamm Mine Act 250 JurisdictionSupreme Court of Vermont · 2009
  4. State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Alternate Fuels, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2005
  5. CVPS/Verizon Act 250 LU Permit Amendment 7C1252Vermont Superior Court · 2007

10 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