10 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 8504

Section 8504(m) gives prior Environmental Board decisions precedential effect in the Environmental Division.

B & M Realty Act 250 · filed 2015-11-12(m)

Prior decisions of the Environmental Board serve as precedent in this Court. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m).

Section 8504(m) requires the Environmental Division to give prior Environmental Board decisions the same weight and consideration as its own prior decisions.

Katzenbach A250 Permit 7R1374-1 - Decision on Merits · filed 2021-04-16(m)

Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m), we give these prior decisions of the Environmental Board the same weight and consideration as prior decisions of this Court.

Section 8504(m) directs the Environmental Division to give some weight and precedent to prior decisions of the former Water Resources Board.

Lake Rescue Encroachment Permit - Decision on the Merits · filed 2024-03-19(m)

While that Board no longer exists, and its successor—the Water Resources Panel of the Vermont Natural Resources Board—is not vested with appellate responsibilities, we are directed to give some weight and precedent to prior decisions of the former Board, given its broad prior experience in these areas. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(m). We therefore look to and rely upon the former Board and its decisions for guidance.

Section 8504(h) directs the Environmental Court to decide an appeal anew under the substantive standards that applied before the agency, without applying the agency’s procedural requirements.

Entergy Nuclear/Vermont Yankee Thermal Discharge Permit Amendment · filed 2007-01-09(h)

However, in its proceedings on the merits of the amendment application, this Court is only required and authorized to apply the substantive standards that applied before the ANR, V.R.E.C.P. 5(g) and 10 V.S.A. §8504(h); the statute and rules do not direct it to apply the administrative procedural requirements.

Section 8504(h) requires de novo review of the facts under the applicable zoning standards, without regard to the prior municipal decision.

Ilges Zoning Permit · filed 2007-04-27(h)

We first note, as a threshold matter, that the issue of whether the ZA or the ZBA’s decision to issue the permit was proper is immaterial to this de novo appeal, since we are directed to review the facts presented to this Court in light of the applicable zoning standards, and do so as if no prior ZA or ZBA decision had been rendered. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court, on de novo review, to apply the substantive standards that applied before the agency.

Entergy Nuclear/Vt Yankee Thermal Discharge Permit Amendment · filed 2007-06-06(h)

It is this Court’s statutory obligation, under the de novo standard of review governing this appeal, to apply the “substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). If the ANR were required to consider whether the proposed thermal discharge amendment would violate any relevant standard established by either the Vermont Water Pollution Control Act, 10 V.S.A. § 1250 et seq., or the VWQS, the Court must consider the evidence in relation to the same standards.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards that governed the proceeding before the agency.

Entergy Nuclear/Vermont Yankee thermal Discharge Permit Amendment · filed 2007-06-19(h)

It is this Court’s statutory obligation, under the de novo standard of review governing this appeal, to apply the “substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court in a de novo ANR appeal to apply the substantive standards that governed before the agency and apply them anew to the evidence.

Unified Buddhist Church, Inc. Indirect Discharge Permit · filed 2007-07-31(h)

In a de novo appeal of any ANR decision, such as the issuance of the renewal indirect discharge permit at issue in the present case, this Court is required by statute to apply “the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). The Agency’s own practices may assist the Court in interpreting and applying the substantive standards, but the Court’s basic obligation is to apply anew the substantive legal standards to the facts the Court finds from the evidence presented in the de novo proceedings.

Section 8504(h) limits de novo review of a subdivision appeal to the issues the appellant properly raises in the statement of questions.

Brisson Subdivision Application · filed 2007-10-04(h)

In this de novo proceeding, the Court sits in place of the Planning Commission to consider this subdivision application, but only on the issues properly raised by the Appellant in the Statement of Questions. V.R.E.C.P. 5(f) (“a statement of the questions that the appellant desires to have determined”); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) (“on those issues which have been appealed”).

Section 8504(h) directs the Environmental Court in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards that applied before the review board.

Kowalski Subdivision Preliminary Plat · filed 2008-01-16(h)

In this de novo appeal, we are directed to apply the substantive standards that were ... applicable before the DRB to see if either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) limits a de novo appeal to matters before the ZBA and applies the substantive standards that governed there.

Kibbe Zoning Permit · filed 2008-02-13(h)

In this de novo proceeding, the Court sits in place of the ZBA to consider what was before the ZBA, applying the substantive standards that were applicable before the ZBA. V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of Act 250 appeals, limited to issues preserved in the appellants’ statements of questions.

Eastview at Middlebury, Inc. Act 250 Permit 9A0314 · filed 2008-02-15(h)

Act 250 appeals are heard de novo by this Court. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). But such a statement is often misleading, since most Act 250 appeals, such as here, include challenges to only a limited number of issues. A more precise explanation is that our de novo review is limited to the issues that have been preserved by the appellants in their respective statements of questions.

Section 8504(h) limits Environmental Court review to the issues appealed.

Free Heel, Inc. d/b/a/ Base Camp Outfitters · filed 2007-03-21(h)

Conformity of the proposed banners with Criterion 8 of Act 250, 10 V.S.A. §6086(a)(8), is the sole issue in this appeal. 10 V.S.A. §8504(h) (Environmental Court to address “those issues which have been appealed”); V.R.E.C.P. 5(f).

Section 8504(h) limits an environmental appeal to the issues the appellant has appealed.

Woodstock Community Trust, Inc. & Housing VT · filed 2007-10-03(h)

At the telephone hearing held on an audio-taped record on October 1, 2007, the Court and the parties went over the statement of questions seeking to narrow the issues to those actually put in issue by Appellants. V.R.E.C.P. 5(f) (“a statement of the questions that the appellant desires to have determined”); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) (“on those issues which have been appealed”).

Section 8504(d)(1) limits an appeal to issues preserved by a person with party status under the relevant criteria.

Rivers Development, LLC. · filed 2008-01-08(d)(1)

We are only authorized to take evidence and rule on issues preserved on appeal. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(1).

Section 8504(h) makes the appellants’ Statement of Questions define the scope of an Environmental Division appeal.

Woodstock Community Trust & Housing Vermont PRD · filed 2008-11-15(h)

Appellants objected to their having to identify the issues on appeal, despite the requirement in 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) and V.R.E.C.P. 5(f) that the scope of the appeal is defined by the Appellants’ Statement of Questions, and despite this Court’s ruling on pretrial motions on October 3, 2007, that Appellee-Applicants would nevertheless have the burden of proof that the application met the requirements of the zoning ordinance.

Section 8504(h) gives the Environmental Court hearing a de novo appeal the same power and authority as the municipal panel that first heard the application.

Sisters and Brothers Investment Grp., LLP · filed 2008-06-13(h)

It is important to again note that this Court is vested in de novo appeals with all the power and authority of the municipal panel that first heard the application. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); In re Torres, 154 Vt. 233, 235 (1990).

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of the same application under the standards applicable before the appealed tribunal and permits relevant evidence first offered on appeal.

Leiter Subdivision Permit · filed 2008-07-25(h)

In a de novo proceeding such as this, this Court’s role is to apply the standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from and to hear the appealed-from application anew, as though no prior action had been taken. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h), V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); and see In re: Gizmo Realty/VKR Assocs., LLC, Docket No. 199-9-07 Vtec, slip op. at 4 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Apr. 30, 2008) (Durkin, J.) (explaining that a de novo hearing “contemplates an entire trial similar to the proceedings from which the appeal arose”). ... Our authority extends to evidence that was not presented to the appropriate municipal panel below, but is presented to this Court during its de novo merits hearing on the same application that was once before the municipal panel.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court in a de novo appeal to consider what was before the ZBA and apply the substantive standards that applied there.

Kibbe Zoning Permit · filed 2008-11-06(h)

In this de novo proceeding, the Court sits in place of the ZBA to consider what was before the ZBA, applying the substantive standards that were applicable before the ZBA. V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court to apply the substantive standards that governed the tribunal whose decision it reviews.

Godnick Family Trust Permit & Variance Application · filed 2010-01-06(h)

We are instructed to apply “the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). As a result, we must consider the propriety of the Trust’s proposed modification to the variance conditions in the same manner and with the same authority as the DRB enjoyed when the Trust’s modification request was first presented to the DRB.

Section 8504 does not require an issue to be raised at preliminary approval to preserve it for appeal after final approval.

R.L. Vallee, Inc. PUD Preliminary Plat · filed 2008-10-03

Neither the Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings nor the statute granting jurisdiction in these cases require issues to be raised at a preliminary approval stage in order to preserve them for appeal at the final approval stage. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504; 24 V.S.A. § 4471; V.R.E.C.P. 5.

Section 8504(h) limits an Environmental Court appeal to the issues considered by the tribunal below.

Baldwin Property Act 250 JO · filed 2010-05-06(h)

This appeal is a g no_yg proceeding regarding the request that Was considered below, 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h), which in this case is Appellants’ request for a jurisdictional opinion, and their request for reconsideration of that opinion, that were submitted to the District Coordinator. The substantive scope of this appeal is limited to what was before the District Coordinator,~ the Court does not have authority to hear issues that were not before the District Coordinator or issues that are broader than those that were before the District Coordinator.

Section 8504(a) limits an appeal to issues under Act 250 criteria for which the appellant was granted party status.

Pion Sand & Gravel Pit · filed 2010-07-02(a)

Before proceeding to the merits of the appeal, however, Neighbors must first present sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that they are entitled to party status for each of the Act 250 criteria they wish to appeal. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a) (“[T]he person may only appeal those issues under the criteria with respect to which the person was granted party status.”).

Section 8504(h) limits an appeal to matters that were properly before the local board; the Environmental Division cannot decide the merits of an application that was not warned for local review.

Carrigan Waiver & Variance Applications · filed 2011-01-13(h)

Because neither DRB hearing was warned for conditional use review, the merits of conditional use approval of the project were not before the DRB and hence are not before this Court.

Section 8504(h) limits Environmental Court review to legal issues preserved in the appellant’s statement of questions.

Rodriques Variance Application · filed 2010-04-27(h)

Our review, however, is not of all legal issues that an appealed application presents, but only those legal issues that have been preserved for our review by an appellant ln re Jolley Assoc., 2006 VT 132, 11 9, 177 Vt. 491 (quoting ln re Garen, 174 Vt. 151, 156 (2002)); see also V.R.E.C.P. S(f); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); Vill. of Woodstock v. Bahramian, 160 Vt. 417, 424 (1993). We therefore limit our review here to only those legal issues preserved for our review by Applicants’ Statement of Questions, and render findings upon those legal issues, based upon the evidence presented at our trial.

Section 8504(h) limits the Environmental Division’s review of a permit appeal to the use proposed in the application.

All Metal Recycling Inc · filed 2012-04-23(h)

Again, we emphasize that any activities All Metals may or may not have conducted prior to the DRB’s granting of a discretionary permit have no bearing on the proceedings currently before the Court. This Court must consider only Applicants’ proposed use, as stated on its Discretionary Permit Application.

Section 8504(h) limits a de novo appeal to matters that were before the municipal panel and calls for the court to apply the substantive standards applicable there.

Feeley Construction Permits · filed 2010-06-16(h)

In a de novo appeal such as this, “the Court sits in place of the ZBA to consider what was before the ZBA, applying the substantive standards that were applicable before the ZBA.” In re: Kibbe Zoning Permit, No. 173-8-07 Vtec, slip op. at 1–2 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Nov. 6, 2008) (Wright, J.) (citing V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h)). That is, the scope of this de novo appeal is limited to what was before the DRB.

Section 8504(j) limits an appeal of authorization or coverage under a general permit to whether the permitted activity complies with the permit’s terms and conditions.

Ridgewood Est. HOA & Indian Creek HOA Association · filed 2011-01-26(j)

Under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(j), which governs “[a]ppeals of authorizations or coverage under a general permit,” any appeal of “an authorization or coverage under a general permit” is “limited in scope to whether the permitted activity complies with the terms and conditions of the general permit.”

Section 8504(d)(1) does not bar a party with a particularized interest from appealing procedural issues concerning an administrative amendment and the review required under Act 250.

In re SP Land Co., LLC, Act 250 LUP Amendment · filed 2011-09-22(d)(1)

Given Mountainside’s party status in this regard, we do not read 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(1) to prevent Mountainside from appealing procedural matters relating to the use of Rule 34(D) to grant an administrative amendment absent an underlying Act 250 land use permit or the authorization of the subdivision absent full review of the project under all Act 250 criteria.

Section 8504(b) allows an interested person to appeal a development review board decision even when the decision does not expressly address an issue raised on appeal.

Foreger Revocable Trust 4-Lot Subdivison · filed 2012-03-29(b)

Under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b), an interested person can appeal an ”act or decision” by a development review board. ... The DRB is not required to include in its written decision a discussion of the sections of the Regulations that do not apply to an application before it.

Section 8504(h) limits the Environmental Division’s review of a municipal panel decision to the substantive standards the panel had authority to apply.

Couture SD · filed 2015-02-23(h)

The scope of an appeal before this Court is defined by the powers of the municipal panel below, and thus this Court’s review is limited by the substantive standards applicable in the proceeding before the Planning Commission.

Section 8504(h) limits the Environmental Division’s review of a municipal appeal to matters within the municipal panel’s authority.

Camp Abnaki Sign · filed 2015-08-13(h)

Further, the scope of an appeal before this Court is defined by the powers of the municipal panel below, and thus this Court’s review is limited by the substantive standards applicable in the proceeding before the ZA and the DRB on appeal. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); In re Torres, 154 Vt. 233, 235 (1990) (“The reach of the superior court in zoning appeals is as broad as the powers of a zoning board of adjustment or a planning commission, but it is not broader.”).

Section 8504(h) limits the legal issues heard in a de novo appeal to those raised in an appellant’s statement of questions.

Killington Resort Parking Project A250 Amendment · filed 2016-03-07(h)

The District Commission’s legal determinations that the Project conformed to other applicable criteria were not appealed and have therefore become final. V.R.E.C.P. 5(f); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) (limiting the legal issues to be heard in a de novo appeal to those that have been raised in an appellant’s statement of questions).

Section 8504(h) limits an Environmental Division appeal to issues within the municipal panel’s authority.

Shatney NOV (Overturned) · filed 2015-03-04(h)

As a primary matter, we note that the scope of an appeal before this Court is defined by the powers of the DRB, and thus this Court will apply the legal issues raised by the NOV issued by the Zoning Administrator. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); In re Torres, 154 Vt. 233, 235 (1990) (“The reach of the superior court in zoning appeals is as broad as the powers of a zoning board of adjustment or a planning commission, but it is not broader.”). ... As the NOV gave no notice of an alleged violation of Bylaw provisions relating to a Home Industry or Contractor’s Yard, this Court is without the authority to address such issues as raised in Questions 4 and 5.

Section 8504(h) directs the Environmental Division to apply the substantive standards that applied before the tribunal appealed from.

Shires Housing PUD Amendment/Shires Housing Inc. Act 250 · filed 2017-04-14(h)

Furthermore, the Environmental Division is a Court of limited jurisdiction. See 4 V.S.A. § 34 (defining the Court’s jurisdiction under state laws); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) and V.R.E.C.P. 5(g) (the Environmental Division applies the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from). Although this Court must ensure compliance with applicable regulations, we do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate private property rights.

Section 8504(h) limits de novo review of an ANR permit decision to the substantive standards applicable before ANR; discharges outside the permit are outside the scope of the appeal.

R.L. Vallee, Inc TS4 · filed 2017-07-18(h)

In a de novo review of an ANR permit decision, we “apply[] the substantive standards that were applicable before” the ANR. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). Our reach in this review is as broad as that of ANR when it considered the permit, but not broader. See In re Torres, 154 Vt. 233, 235 (1990). In deciding whether to grant a permit that allows discharges, ANR does not consider discharges that are not covered by the permit. Likewise, discharges not covered by the permit are outside the scope of our review on appeal.

Section 8504(h) limits a de novo appeal to the legal issues presented in the appellant’s statement of questions.

27 Fletcher Place Change of Use · filed 2017-08-02(h)

We do not embark upon a review of all applicable CDO provisions, however, since our review in this de novo appeal is limited to the legal issues presented by the Neighbors’ Statement of Questions. V.R.E.C.P. 5(f) and 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review in the Environmental Division, where the court reviews a municipal application anew.

JSCL, LLC CU Permit - Decision on Motion · filed 2018-06-20(h)

In this de novo appeal we sit in the place of the municipal panel and review the application anew. V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of a jurisdictional opinion, with the Environmental Division taking evidence anew and applying the same substantive standards as the District Coordinator.

Mountain Top Inn & Resort JO 1-391 - Decison on Motions · filed 2018-08-22(h)

This is a de novo appeal. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g). As such, we sit in the place of the District Coordinator, taking evidence anew and developing our own legal conclusions by applying the same substantive standards that the Coordinator was required to apply.

Section 8504(h) allows the Environmental Division, on de novo review, to decide whether hydroelectric generation is an existing use under the Vermont Water Quality Standards.

Morrisville Hydroelectric Proj Water Quality - Decision on the Merits · filed 2018-09-18(h)

Our role, in conducting our de novo review, is to determine, in part, the Project’s compliance with the VWQS. See In re Morrisville Hydroelectric Project Water Quality Certification, No. 103-9-16 Vtec, slip op. at 4-5 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Jun. 13, 2017) (Walsh, J.) (citing 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h)). It is therefore within the scope of our review to determine if hydroelectric generation is an existing use pursuant to VWQS § 1-03(B)(1)(d).

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of permit appeals, with the Environmental Division assessing evidence anew and applying the substantive standards ANR would use.

Multiple Wastewater Treatment Facility Permits - Decision on Motions · filed 2019-02-01(h)

This is a de novo appeal. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g). As such, we sit in the place of ANR, taking and assessing evidence anew and developing our own legal conclusions by applying the same substantive standards that ANR would apply when considering the permits now before the Court.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to consider and apply the Act 250 Rules in its de novo review of District Commission decisions and District Coordinator jurisdictional opinions.

Mountain Top Inn & Resort JO 1-391 - Decision on Motion · filed 2019-02-14(h)

We note, however, that we are required to consider and apply the Act 250 Rules in our de novo review of District Commission decisions and District Coordinator jurisdictional opinions.

Section 8504(h) limits the Environmental Division’s de novo review of a municipal decision to matters within the municipal panel’s authority.

Perham Right of Way Det. - Decision on Motion · filed 2019-05-08(h)

In our de novo appellate review of municipal decisions, this Court sits in the shoes of the relevant municipal panel. V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); ... The scope of the municipal panel’s review determines the scope of ours.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of ANR decisions, without deference to the decision being appealed.

Champlain Parkway Wetland Determination - Decision on Motions · filed 2019-06-04(h)

This Court considers ANR decisions de novo when providing appellate review, meaning we afford no deference to the appealed-from ANR decision itself.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of zoning appeals, allowing the Environmental Division to reconsider appealed conditions within the municipal panel’s authority.

Charron 13-Lot PUD Preliminary Plat - Decision on Motions · filed 2019-06-07(h)

In de novo review, this Court evaluates zoning applications anew as if there were no prior proceedings. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); In re Cote NOV, No. 273-11-06 Vtec, slip op. at 3 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Aug. 22, 2007) (Durkin, J.). This wipes the slate clean of conditions imposed by the municipal panel below when the conditions are appealed.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of a permit application, allowing the court to decide questions about the application rather than challenges to the propriety of the review board’s actions.

Town of Westford v. Pelkey & Pelkey Zoning Permit - Decision on the Merits · filed 2019-07-25(h)

Most of the Pelkeys’ remaining Questions are presented as challenges to the propriety of the DRB’s actions in the permit application proceedings below. Only Question 6 and Question 8, though general in nature, present issues that this Court can assess in its de novo review of the Pelkeys’ permit application.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of a municipal decision, allowing the Environmental Division to consider the application anew.

Bart Industries, Inc. Zoning Permit - Decision on Motion · filed 2019-08-08(h)

This, however, is a de novo appeal. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g). This means we consider the application on appeal “as though no [municipal] action whatever had been held prior []hereto.”

Section 8504(h) limits the Environmental Division’s de novo review of a municipal decision to matters within the municipal panel’s authority.

Demars Prop LLC 275 Brooklyn St. - Decision on Motion · filed 2020-01-31(h)

In our de novo review of municipal decisions, this Court sits in the shoes of the relevant municipal panel. V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); In re Feeley Constr. Permits, Nos. 4-1-10 Vtec, 5-1-10 Vtec, slip op. at 11-13 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Jan. 3, 2011) (Wright, J.) (citing In re Maple Tree Place, 156 Vt. 494, 500 (1991)). The scope of the municipal panel’s authority determines the scope of ours.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of municipal decisions, with the Environmental Division’s authority limited to that of the municipal panel.

Capitol Plaza 2-Lot Subdivision/Capitol Plaza Major Site Plan - Decision on Motions · filed 2020-02-04(h)

In our de novo review of municipal decisions, this Court sits in the shoes of the relevant municipal panel. ... The scope of the municipal panel’s authority determines the scope of ours.

Section 8504(h) limits de novo review to the factual and legal issues raised in an appellant’s statement of questions.

JSCL, LLC CU Permit - Decision on the Merits · filed 2020-05-29(h)

Rather, we are only authorized to consider the factual and legal issues raised in an appellant’s statement of questions. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) and V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

Section 8504(d)(2)(A) preserves an issue for appeal when it is intrinsic to a comment that gives ANR enough detail to respond meaningfully.

Champlain Parkway SW Discharge Permit - Decision on Motion (Dismiss) · filed 2019-04-26(d)(2)(A)

Applying that principle to the matter before us, we conclude that the issue of which version of the VSMM applies is intrinsic to Comment 5’s assertion that the application for the Renewal Permit is a new application that does not demonstrate compliance with the 2017 version of the VSMM. Comment 5 questions the applicability of the 2017 VSMM to the Renewal Permit. Implicit in this is the question of whether the Renewal Permit needs to comply with the 2017 VSMM at all.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo permit appeals under the substantive standards applied by the agency, but that appellate authority does not extend to adjudicating private property disputes such as easements.

In Re DJK, LLC WW & WS Permit (Ralph Crowley and Joanne Crowley, Appellants) · filed 2024-06-14(h)

Pursuant to Chapter 220, the ... Environmental Division considers permit appeals de novo, “applying the substantive standards” that applied at the agency level. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). The fact that the Environmental Division has authority to consider permit appeals does not authorize it to adjudicate private property disputes, such as the existence of easements.

Section 8504(h) limits the legal issues in a de novo Environmental Division appeal to those that have been appealed.

In Re Dousevicz, Inc. CU & Site Plan Approval (Kathleen Culpo, Appellants) · filed 2025-05-02(h)

Its review here was limited to the legal issues identified by applicant through its statement of questions. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(f) (limiting legal issues that may be presented at trial to those raised in appellant’s statement of questions, subject “to a motion to clarify or dismiss some or all of the questions”); see also 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) (directing that, with respect to de novo hearings, legal issues to be addressed on appeal limited to “those issues which have been appealed”).

Section 8504(h) limits the legal issues in a de novo Environmental Division appeal to those appealed.

In Re Wheeler Parcel Act 250 Determination (James M. Leas, Appellants) · filed 2025-05-23(h)

The Environmental Division’s review here was limited to the Project’s compliance with Act 250 criteria as identified by applicant through its statement of questions. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(f) (limiting legal issues that may be presented at trial to those issues raised in appellant’s statement of questions, subject “to a motion to clarify or dismiss some or all of the questions”); see also 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) (directing that, with respect to de novo hearings, legal issues to be addressed on appeal are limited to “those issues which have been appealed”).

Section 8504(h) requires a de novo hearing on appealed issues properly raised within the scope of the statement of questions.

Hydroelectric Project Water Quality Cert Appeal Cases - Decision on Motion · filed 2026-01-23(h)

We reiterate that 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) requires the Court to hold a de novo hearing on those issues which have been appealed and that are properly raised by and within the scope of Appellants’ Statement of Questions.

Section 8504(h) limits a de novo appeal to the issues appealed, but permits the court to consider an issue intrinsic to the appellant’s statement of questions.

NEWSVT Act 250 JO 7-413 - Decision on Motions · filed 2026-01-27(h)

Our review is further limited to those issues identified through an appellant’s Statement of Questions, here NEWSVT. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(f); see also 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) (directing that, with respect to de novo hearings, legal issues to be addressed on appeal be limited to “those issues which have been appealed”). ... NEWSVT’s Questions 3 and 4 are broad enough to intrinsically reach NEWSVT’s assertion that preemption renders a permit amendment unnecessary.

Section 8504(d)(2)(A) precludes an appeal issue when the appellant’s comments to ANR did not raise it, explicitly or intrinsically, with enough particularity for a meaningful response.

Bellows Falls Hydroelectric Water Quality Cert. Appeal - Decision on Motions · filed 2025-12-04(d)(2)(A)

For all these reasons, the Court concludes that Appellants failed to comment on the issues presented in Questions 1 and 2 such that they are precluded from raising these Questions on appeal as set forth in 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2)(A).

A party seeking dismissal under § 8504(d)(2)(A) bears the burden of proving that the appellant did not satisfy the comment requirements.

Hydroelectric Project Water Quality Cert Appeal Cases - Decision on Motions · filed 2026-02-05(d)(2)(A)(iii)

A party moving to dismiss an appeal, or issue within an appeal, pursuant to § 8504(d)(2)(A) has the burden of proving that the comment requirements were not satisfied. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2)(A)(iii). Thus, Applicant here has the burden of demonstrating that dismissal is warranted under § 8504(d)(2)(A).

Section 8504(h) limits the Environmental Division’s review to legal issues preserved in the appellant’s Statement of Questions.

Georgia Development Regulations Appeal - Decision on Motion · filed 2026-06-11(h)

The scope of our review of any given matter is further limited to the legal issues preserved for our review by an appellant’s Statement of Questions. See. V.R.E.C.P. 5(f); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). The Court is therefore confined to those issues raised in Appellant's Statement of Questions and cannot consider issues beyond the Questions. ... Thus, the assertion is beyond the scope of the Court’s review in this appeal.

Section 8504(f) does not automatically stay an Act 250 permit; the permit remains in effect unless a stay is granted.

Bergmann Act 250 Subdivision · filed 2007-03-23(f)

The status of the matter as of the time of this filing was that the permit was in effect, as a stay is not automatic. 10 V.S.A. §8504(f); V.R.E.C.P. 5(e).

Section 8504(f)(2) provides for discretionary stays in appeals both to and from the Environmental Court.

In re Route 103 Quarry · filed 2007-07-17(f)(2)

We need not parse the language of that rule regarding automatic stays because we conclude that 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f) controls and establishes discretionary stays in appeals not only to, but also from, the Environmental Court.

Section 8504(f) requires the Environmental Court to exercise discretion under established precedent when deciding a stay request.

Route 103 Quarry · filed 2007-09-14(f)

As directed by our Supreme Court, we must review the pending motion for stay within the context of 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f). A stay request under this section requires this Court to exercise its discretion, within the context of the established precedent.

Section 8504(f)(1) provides an automatic stay for specified environmental permit decisions and denials of interested person status; it does not apply to these conditional use, site plan, and zoning permit approvals.

Northern Comm. Investment Corp. CU · filed 2007-08-30(f)(1)

10 V.S.A. § 8504(f)(1) relates to “[a]cts or decisions involving stream alteration permits or shoreline encroachment permits” issued by the Agency of Natural Resources, and to “[t]he denial of interested person status by a board of adjustment, planning commission, or development review board . . . .” Neither is applicable here.

Section 8504(f)(1) provides an automatic stay for appeals of ANR stream alteration and shoreline encroachment permits, but not construction stormwater permits.

Sheffield Wind Project · filed 2010-11-17(f)(1)

With regard to appeals from decisions of the ANR, 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f)(1) provides for an automatic stay only in appeals of stream alteration permits and shoreline encroachment permits.

Section 8504(f)(1)'s automatic stay does not apply to these appeals of municipal subdivision approvals.

Waitasfield Water Supply · filed 2012-07-20(f)(1)

The automatic stay provided by 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f)(1) is not applicable to the appeals now before us, nor has Appellant requested that we issue a stay of the DRB considering the final subdivision plan application.

Section 8504(f)(1) automatically stays an appeal only for specified permit decisions or denials of interested person status.

Sweet Building Permit · filed 2012-12-12(f)(1)

10 V.S.A. § 8504(f)(1) states that a stay is automatically issued in only two instances: (1) an act or decision involving stream alteration permits or shoreline encroachment permits issued by the secretary and (2) the denial of interested person status by a board of adjustment, planning commission, or development review board. The pending appeal does not concern either of these scenarios. Thus, a stay did not automatically issue upon commencement of this appeal.

Section 8504(f) does not authorize the Environmental Division to stay an unappealed permit or construction undertaken under that permit.

RACDC Retention Pond · filed 2013-01-29(f)

In sum, we do not have the authority in this case, pursuant to either 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f)(1)(B) or (f)(2), to stay the grant of a permit not under appeal or to stay construction undertaken under such a permit.

Section 8504(f) provides automatic stays in two specified circumstances and allows the Environmental Division to grant other stays on a party’s petition or its own motion.

Moretown Landfill Recertification · filed 2013-04-12(f)

ANR and Neighbors are correct that 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f) addresses the topic of stays in the context of appeals to the Environmental Division. First, 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f)(1) enumerates two circumstances where stays are automatic; those circumstances do not apply to the case before us. This Court has the ability to issue stays upon petition by a party or upon its own motion. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f)(2).

Section 8504(f)(2) authorizes the Environmental Division to grant a stay of a decision on appeal.

Howard Cener Renovation Permit · filed 2013-04-12(f)(2)

See also 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f)(2) (authorizing the Environmental Division to grant a stay). ... Taking into account the four factors discussed above, we find that the equities weigh against granting a stay. Accordingly, we DENY the District’s motion for a stay of the DRB’s decision below.

Section 8504(f)(2) permits a discretionary stay pending appeal only if the movant establishes all four required factors.

Lathrop Limited Partnership I · filed 2014-02-11(f)(2)

Because Neighbors cannot establish all four elements required for the granting of a discretionary stay, we DENY Neighbors’ motion for a stay pending appeal under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f)(2).

Section 8504(f)(2) gives the Environmental Division discretion to grant a stay while its decision is appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court; a stay is not automatic.

Mahar CU · filed 2016-12-02(f)(2)

When an appealing party seeks an order staying an appeal of a municipal approval that has been upheld by this Court, we are directed to “perform the initial review of the request and may grant a stay.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f)(2). A stay request under this statutory provision is not automatic, but rather requires this Court to exercise its discretion, within the context of established precedent.

Section 8504(f) provides that appealing a building permit does not automatically stay it; the challenger must persuade the court that a stay is necessary.

Devonwood Investors, LLC 75 Cherry Street (Motion to Stay) · filed 2017-06-22(f)

In addition, as explained above, the legislature provided in 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f) that a building permit is not automatically stayed on appeal. Instead, the challenger has to convince the Court that a stay is necessary.

Section 8504(f) generally requires a court-granted motion to stay a municipal panel’s decision during an appeal.

Dugan Landscape Permit · filed 2015-04-08(f)

Rather, as referenced in § 4449(a)(3), a stay of a municipal panel’s decision is governed by 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f), which for most matters requires a motion to stay being granted by the Court.

Section 8504(f) provides that Act 250 permits and municipal panel decisions are not automatically stayed on appeal, but a party may move for a stay.

623 Roosevelt Highway - Entry Regarding Motion to Enjoin · filed 2018-02-27(f)

Act 250 permits and decisions issued by the appropriate municipal panel – such as the DRB, in this case – are not automatically stayed on appeal. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f); V.R.E.C.P. 5(e). A party may move to have this Court stay the authority granted by a permit, however.

Section 8504(f)(1)(B) automatically stays an appealed decision when a board denied the appellant interested person status.

Punderson 2-Lot Subdivision - Decision on Motion (Stay) · filed 2019-03-29(f)(1)(B)

Under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f)(1)(B), the filing of an appeal with this Court automatically stays the act or decision appealed from when there was a “denial of interested person status by a board of adjustment, planning commission, or development review board” below.

Section 8504(f) provides that an appeal from a municipal panel decision does not automatically stay that decision.

Beam Lot Line Adjustment Appeal - Decision on Motion · filed 2023-10-10(f)

An appeal from a decision issued by a municipal panel, such as the DRB’s instant permit approval, does not automatically stay that decision. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f); V.R.E.C.P. 5(e).

An appeal from a municipal panel or officer’s decision does not stay that decision or the underlying permit.

210 Fishkill Permit Appeal - Decision on Motion · filed 2024-01-23(f)

An appeal from a decision issued by a municipal panel or officer, such as the DRB’s denial of interested persons appeal of the August Zoning Permit, does not stay that decision or the underlying permit. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f); V.R.E.C.P. 5(e).

An appeal from a municipal panel decision does not automatically stay that decision.

2508 West Lake Road Nonconforming Structure - Decision on Motion · filed 2025-06-30(f)

An appeal from a decision issued by a municipal panel does not automatically stay that decision.

Section 8504(a)’s 30-day appeal period begins with ANR’s final determination when an earlier decision allows further agency review.

Bradford Oil Co. Fund Reimbursement · filed 2008-05-09(a)

Because the April 9th letter contained an appeal provision allowing for a subsequent determination on reimbursement by ANR, we will treat the November 19th letter as the final determination for purposes of the accrual date for the appeal period.

Section 8504(b)(1) requires an appeal of a municipal panel decision to be filed with the Environmental Court within 30 days of the decision.

Geddes PUD · filed 2010-04-20(b)(1)

Generally, an appeal of a decision made by a municipal panel must be filed with the Environmental Court “within 30 days of the act or decision.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1); V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(1).

Section 8504(a) requires an aggrieved person to appeal an ANR decision to the Environmental Division within 30 days of the decision.

Musto WW & WS Permit · filed 2013-08-28(a)

Section 8504(a) permits an aggrieved person to appeal an act or decision of the Secretary of ANR to the Environmental Division. Such a person must bring such an appeal within 30 days of the decision appealed, however.

Section 8504(a) gives an aggrieved person thirty days from an agency act or decision to appeal; later discovery of a ground for appeal does not restart that period.

In Re Musto Wastewater System and Water Supply Permit WW-1-1949 in Re Musto Wastewater System and Water Supply Permit Revocation · filed 2014-08-29(a)

In limiting the appeal period to thirty days, § 8504(a) does not deny neighbor the opportunity to appeal; rather, it simply defines the period in which such an appeal is possible. ... Therefore, we uphold the environmental court’s dismissal of neighbor’s direct appeal as untimely under § 8504(a).

Section 8504(b)(1)’s appeal deadline does not apply to a motion to enforce a court-adopted agreement rather than contest a local zoning decision.

Sanfacon NOV · filed 2015-06-23(b)(1)

Mr. Pollock’s motion is not an action to contest a local zoning decision made by either the municipality’s administrative officer or development review board, and is therefore, not bound by the time limits relevant to such matters.

Section 8504(b)(2)(C) permits a late appeal when refusing it would cause manifest injustice.

PCH, Inc. PCG, Inc Building Permit · filed 2015-01-22(b)(2)(C)

Relief from the 30 day appeal deadline may be granted pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(C) upon a finding that “manifest injustice” will result if the late appeal is not allowed.

Section 8504(a) requires an appeal of an ANR act or decision to be filed with the Environmental Division within 30 days of the decision.

Davis WW WS · filed 2015-02-18(a)

Title 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a) and Vermont Rule for Environmental Court Proceedings (V.R.E.C.P.) Rule 5(b)(1) require that an appeal of an act or decision of ANR be filed with the Environmental Division within 30 days of the date of the ANR decision. Thus, a timely appeal in this matter would have had to have been filed on or before November 20, 2014. Appellants filed their appeal on November 21, 2014, 31 days after issuance of the ANR decision.

Section 8504(b)(1) requires an appeal of a development review board decision to be filed with the Environmental Division within 30 days of the decision.

Atwood PUD-Jericho · filed 2015-02-18(b)(1)

Title 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1) and Vermont Rule for Environmental Court Proceedings (V.R.E.C.P.) Rule 5(b)(1) require that an appeal of a DRB decision be filed with the Environmental Division within 30 days of the date of the DRB decision.

Section 8504(a) gives a party 30 days to appeal a Board decision on Act 250 jurisdiction; correcting a clerical error does not restart that period.

Laberge Shooting Range JO · filed 2016-10-20(a)

Relying on the case law, we agree with the Neighborhood Group that the Altered Decision, identical save for a correction of the jurisdictional opinion number, does not affect the appeal period set by the date the original Decision was issued.

Section 8504(b)(1) gives interested persons 30 days from a municipal panel’s decision to file an appeal.

109-111 Shelburne St/97 Locust St CU · filed 2017-07-14(b)(1)

By state statute and the rules of this Court, interested persons have 30 days from the date of a municipal panel’s decision to file an appeal. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1); V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(1). The Appellant did not file her appeal until May 26, 2017, more than 60 days after the DRB’s decision.

Section 8504(a) requires an appeal of a Commission decision to be filed with the Environmental Division within 30 days of issuance and service of the decision.

Jericho Market Act 20 · filed 2016-03-02(a)

An appeal of a Commission’s decision is commenced by filing a notice of appeal with the Environmental Division within 30 days of issuance and service of the decision. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a); V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(1). ... As Mr. Duval’s notice of appeal was first received by the Court more than 30 days after the issuance and service of the Decision and LUP, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 8504(a) sets a thirty-day deadline to appeal an agency permit determination to the Environmental Division.

Dybvig WW & WS - Entry Regarding Motion to Dismiss · filed 2018-03-16(a)

An appeal from that permit determination would have had to have been filed by September 23, 2017 (the thirtieth day after the permit determination). 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a); V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(1). However, since September 23, 2017 was a Saturday, Appellant here had until Monday, September 25, 2017, to file a timely appeal. V.R.C.P. 6(a)(1)(C). Appellant filed its appeal electronically in the early morning of Sunday, September 24, 2017. We therefore conclude that Appellant timely filed its Notice of Appeal.

Section 8504(f)(2) does not authorize the Environmental Division to extend a statutory time limit.

Hinesburg Hannaford SP Application - Decision on Motion · filed 2019-02-11(f)(2)

We can find no support for the proposition that V.R.E.C.P. 5(e), or 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f)(2), permit this Court to grant extensions of time.

Section 8504(b)(1)'s appeal period is effectively tolled by a properly submitted request for reconsideration of the underlying DRB decision.

Punderson 2-Lot Subdivision - Decision on Motion (Dismiss) · filed 2019-03-29(b)(1)

Therefore, based on the jurisdictional requirements that only final and binding decisions are appealable and the ban on dual jurisdiction, we conclude that the appeal period set forth in 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1) is effectively tolled by an interested party’s properly submitted request to reconsider the underlying decision of the DRB.

Section 8504(k)(3) requires parties opposing a final partial review decision to appeal within 30 days to avoid its binding effect.

Snyder Group, Inc. Act 250 - Decision on Motions · filed 2019-05-21(k)(3)

Parties who oppose the partial decision must appeal it within 30 days to avoid this binding result. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(k)(3).

Section 8504 requires an appeal from a municipal panel decision to be filed with the Environmental Division within 30 days of the final decision.

Banyai Zoning Permit Appeal - Decision on Motion · filed 2021-10-13

Appellants must file appeals from decisions of appropriate municipal panels with the Environmental Division within 30 days of the final decision. V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(1) and 10 V.S.A. § 8504. ... The appeal was therefore filed on August 24 and is untimely.

Section 8504(b) requires an appeal of a municipal act or decision to be filed within 30 days of that act or decision.

Highridge Plaza, LLC Amendment - Decision on Motion · filed 2024-03-04(b)

Such an appeal must be filed within 30 days of the act or decision appealed from. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b).

Section 8504(b)(1) requires an appeal from a municipal panel decision to the Environmental Division within 30 days of the decision.

Fadial CU Appeal - Decision on Motion · filed 2025-03-26(b)(1)

An appeal from a decision of an appropriate municipal panel to this Court must be filed within 30 days of the act or decision appealed from.

Section 8504(b)(1) requires an appeal to be filed within 30 days of the date the decision is issued.

Two Lakes, LLC ZBA Denial W-10-21 & W-22-25 - Decision on Motions · filed 2026-02-04(b)(1)

10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1) establishes that the notice of appeal must be filed “within 30 days of the date of the act or decision” being appealed.

Section 8504(h) requires the court in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards that governed the tribunal below.

Fowler Subdivision & CU Permit · filed 2008-07-22(h)

In this de novo appeal, our rules of procedure direct our Court to apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from. V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). Thus, we will apply the laws and Regulations that were in effect during the DRB review, but will evaluate the applications now under appeal, including any site modifications, based upon the evidence the parties now present to this Court.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review when a municipality has not adopted procedures for on-the-record appeals; the court applies the substantive standards that governed below.

Geddes 9-Lot Subdivision · filed 2008-08-22(h)

The Town of Bakersfield has not adopted the procedures necessary to have its appeals be on the record; rather, this Court considers the application de novo, applying the substantive standards applicable in the tribunal appealed from. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Court in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards applicable in the tribunal appealed from.

Hubbard Subdivision · filed 2008-08-26(h)

The Environmental Court is obligated in a de novo appeal to apply the substantive standards applicable in the tribunal appealed from. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

Section 8504(h) provides for a de novo hearing on the issues appealed in a municipal appeal that is not on the record.

Irish Construction Application · filed 2009-04-06(h)

When an interested person brings a municipal appeal before this Court, and the appeal is “not on the record, as allowed under section 4471 of this title,” the appellant “shall be entitled to a de novo trial.” 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a); accord 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) (recognizing the general rule that these appeals receive “a de novo hearing on those issues which have been appealed”); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g) (“All appeals under this rule shall be by trial de novo . . . .”). The appeal in this case is not on the record, and it is therefore entitled to a de novo hearing.

In a de novo appeal, the Environmental Court applies the substantive standards that governed the tribunal appealed from.

E. E. Buttolph Revocable Trust Act 250 Abandonment Petition · filed 2009-10-01(h)

This Court is directed in de novo appeal proceedings to “apply[] the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h)(1) governs whether an appeal to the Environmental Court proceeds on the record rather than de novo.

Tasha Tudor & Family, Inc. CU Permit · filed 2009-08-04(h)(1)

Please note that this appeal is not de novo, contrary to several references to it as such in Appellant’s petition. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h)(1); compare V.R.E.C.P. 5(g), with V.R.E.C.P. 5(h)(1).

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of legal issues in an appeal to the Environmental Court.

Martin & Perry, LLC Final Plat Application · filed 2009-08-13(h)

We review the legal issues raised in this appeal de novo. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

Section 8504(h) requires de novo review of ANR decisions outside Act 250 and permits the Environmental Court to impose permit conditions supported by the record.

In Re Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Discharge Permit 3-1199 · filed 2009-12-18(h)

The Legislature has set out the appropriate standard of review to be employed by the Environmental Court reviewing actions of ANR in proceedings outside of Act 250: “The environmental court, applying the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from, shall hold a de novo hearing on those issues which have been appealed.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). ... Our case law interpreting this statutory framework supports the view that the Environmental Court is granted broad discretion in reviewing ANR determinations. ... This discretion necessarily includes the ability to impose permit conditions. ... Though we do not delve into the exact parameters of the Environmental Court’s authority in this regard, at a minimum, any conditions must still be supported by the record.

Section 8504(h) makes an appeal to the Environmental Division de novo: the court applies the substantive standards used below and independently decides the issues raised in the statement of questions.

Highlands Development Co., LLC & JAM Golf, LLC Master Plan Application · filed 2010-09-21(h)

In any event, by statute and rule, Applicants’ appeal in this Court is de novo. V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). The Court does not review the DRB decision and does not affirm (or reverse) any of its conclusions. Rather, the Court applies “the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from” and reaches an independent decision on the merits of those aspects of the master plan application raised by the Statement of Questions.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to consider a permit amendment appeal de novo under the substantive standards that applied before the district commission.

Downing Act 250 Application · filed 2010-11-29(h)

However, this Court is required to consider the permit amendment application de novo, applying the substantive standards that were applicable before the District Commission. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review in the Environmental Division, where the court makes its own findings on the appealed issues.

Town of Charlotte Recreational Trail · filed 2011-02-14(h)

Because the proceedings before this Court are de novo, the Court will be looking anew at the evidence presented at trial and making its own findings of fact. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g). In fact, this de novo standard of review has been interpreted, at least as to the issues preserved by the appeal, to have the same effect as if “no decision had been previously rendered” by the Commission. In re Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Discharge permit 3-1199, 2009 VT 124, ¶ 54. Consequently, we regard these challenged Findings as VOID, by virtue of the appeal and cross-appeals filed in this Docket.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to apply the substantive standards that applied before the ANR, even in a de novo appeal.

Omya Solid Waste Facility Final Certification · filed 2011-02-28(h)

Although this appeal is de novo, the Court is required to apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the ANR. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo appeals, in which the commission’s factual and legal determinations do not affect the court’s decision.

Verizon Wireless Barton Act 250 Permit · filed 2011-04-21(h)

Since this appeal is heard on a de novo basis, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h), the factual and legal determinations made by the Commission do not impact upon our determinations here.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of a DRB decision when the appeal is not on the record, using the substantive standards applicable before the DRB.

Richard Notice of Violation · filed 2011-04-29(h)

When considering an appeal of a DRB decision that is not on the record, the Court holds a de novo hearing on the issues which have been appealed, and applies the substantive standards that were applicable before the DRB. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to decide an ANR permit appeal anew under the applicable substantive standards, rather than review the agency’s factual decision for substantial evidence.

Audet WW System & Potable Water Supply Permit · filed 2011-08-03(h)

This is a de novo appeal; the Court must rule anew on the merits of Appellee-Applicant’s application for Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit No. WW-5-4533-2, applying the substantive standards that were applicable before the ANR. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g). Contrary to Appellee-Applicant’s argument, although the Court does give weight to the ANR’s interpretation of its own rules, the statute does not allow the Court simply to determine whether an ANR factual decision is based on substantial evidence in the record, as would be the case in an on-the-record proceeding.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to review a permit amendment application de novo under the substantive standards that applied before the District Commission.

Downing Act 250 Application · filed 2012-05-10(h)

This Court is required to consider the permit amendment application de novo, applying the substantive standards that were applicable before the District Commission. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to hear appealed issues de novo except in on-the-record appeals; in a de novo zoning appeal, the court generally does not review the propriety of the municipal panel’s earlier actions.

Freimour and Menard CU · filed 2012-06-06(h)

We agree that the appeal before us is de novo. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) (requiring the Environmental Division to conduct a de novo hearing of the issues appealed except in the context of on-the-record appeals); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g). ... In a de novo appeal of an appropriate municipal panel’s decision on a zoning permit application, for the most part, we do not address questions seeking our review of the propriety of the actions previously taken by that panel.

Section 8504(h) provides for a de novo hearing in which the Environmental Division assesses the credibility and weight of the evidence presented.

Conlon CU Permit · filed 2012-08-30(h)

We are charged with the responsibility of assessing the credibility and weight to be afforded any evidence presented in the upcoming de novo hearing. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); 24 V.S.A. § 4470a. Therefore, to the extent that Question 19 challenges the credibility of Applicants’ future presentation of evidence, the Question is unnecessarily duplicative of our procedural process in a de novo proceeding.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review in which the Environmental Division considers the application anew, limited to the issues raised on appeal and the evidence presented to the court.

Conlon CU Permit · filed 2012-08-30(h)

We first clarify that this is a de novo appeal. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). In this de novo appeal, we will consider Applicants’ application anew to determine whether it complies with the Town of Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, constricting our review to those issues raised by Appellants in their Statement of Questions and considering only the evidence presented to the Court, not the evidence that was presented to the Commission during the proceeding below.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review, in which the Environmental Division hears the case as though no prior proceeding occurred.

49 Tanglewood Final Plan · filed 2012-09-08(h)

As Applicant states, this appeal is de novo. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). In a de novo appeal, this Court will hear the case “as though no action whatever has been held prior thereto.”

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to hear an appeal de novo unless the appeal is on the record.

Whiteyville Properties, LLC · filed 2012-12-13(h)

Burlington is not an “on-the- record” municipality, thus our review here is de novo.1 In a de novo review, the Court does not consider the propriety of any previous decision; rather, we review the application anew as to the specific issues raised in the statement of questions.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review in which the Environmental Division hears the evidence anew and applies the substantive standards used by the municipal panel.

Southern Vermont Beagle Club · filed 2013-01-18(h)

During our two day de novo hearing in this case, we applied the substantive standards that were applicable before the DRB, and we considered the questions raised by Appellants. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); see also, e.g., In re Green Peak Estates, 154 Vt. 363, 372 (1990) (“In a de novo hearing, the tribunal hears the matter as if no prior proceedings had taken place.”). This Court heard the evidence anew, and proceedings before the DRB and any record produced by the DRB had no effect on this Court’s proceedings or our final decision on the merits of the proposal.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review in which the Environmental Court weighs the evidence presented to it rather than reviewing the municipal panel’s handling of the application.

Sweet Building Permit · filed 2013-01-25(h)

Accordingly, to the extent that Question 11 asks whether the application before the DRB contained misrepresentations of material facts, we conclude that we have no authority to undertake such review. Instead, while reviewing the application anew in the context of Appellant’s Questions, we will assess the credibility and weight of the evidence presented in the upcoming de novo hearing. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); 24 V.S.A. § 4470a.

In a de novo appeal under § 8504(h), the Environmental Division makes its own findings from the trial evidence rather than reviewing the adequacy of the DRB’s findings.

Blake-Lake Dunmore Road Zoning Permit · filed 2013-01-28(h)

However, since this Docket concerns a de novo appeal, the Court did not consider the adequacy of the DRB’s Findings, but rather rendered its own Findings based upon the evidence presented at trial. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.C.P. 5(g). We therefore DISMISS Question 2.

Section 8504(h) gives the Environmental Division, in a de novo appeal, the same power and authority as the municipal panel that first heard the application.

49 Tanglewood Final Plan · filed 2013-04-22(h)

This Court is vested in de novo appeals with all the power and authority of the municipal panel that first heard the application.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review in the Environmental Division, where the court considers the application anew.

Pelkey Final PLat Major Subdivision · filed 2013-07-26(h)

We also clarify that this is a de novo appeal. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of a permit application in the Environmental Division.

J. R. Vinagro Wast Transport Permit · filed 2013-09-13(h)

In this appeal, we review the permit application de novo. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires de novo review of appeals from decisions of appropriate municipal panels.

Williamson third Tier Application · filed 2013-10-07(h)

Appeals from decisions of appropriate municipal panels are heard de novo. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a). This means that we review the appeal as though no prior action whatever has been held.

Section 8504(h) requires de novo review of municipal panel decisions: the Environmental Division considers the evidence anew and decides whether the proposed development complies with applicable regulations.

Bissig Subdivision Final Plat · filed 2013-12-23(h)

The parties overlook that this is a de novo appeal. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). In appeals of decisions by appropriate municipal panels, we review the evidence anew and decide whether the applicant has met its burden of showing that the proposed development conforms to the applicable regulations.

Section 8504 entitles a person aggrieved by an ANR decision to a de novo hearing in which the Environmental Division makes its own findings of fact.

J.R. Vinagro Corp · filed 2014-04-07(a), (h)

In appealing an ANR act or decision, a person aggrieved by that act or decision is entitled to a de novo hearing before this Court. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a), (h). We cannot, therefore, simply defer to ANR’s prior determinations but must rather make our own findings of fact.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review, in which the Environmental Division considers the application anew rather than reviewing the proceedings before the municipal board.

Buckwald Home Occupation CU · filed 2014-04-15(h)

Although bias of a decision maker can be a legitimate concern before this Court, we caution that in our de novo review we consider the matter anew and are generally not concerned with the details of the proceedings below. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); In re Poole, 136 Vt. 242, 245 (1978) (“A de novo hearing is one where the case is heard as though no action whatever has been held prior thereto.”).

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review in which the Environmental Division considers the evidence anew and decides whether the applicant has shown compliance with the applicable regulations.

Harrison Quarry CU · filed 2014-07-18(h)

The Court reminds the parties that this is a de novo appeal, meaning that we review the evidence anew and decide whether the Harrisons have met their burden of showing that the proposed development conforms to the applicable regulations.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to hear an appeal de novo, reviewing the application anew on the issues raised in the statement of questions.

Killington Village Master Plan Act 250 · filed 2014-08-06(h)

As discussed above, this is a de novo appeal. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). Thus, the Court does not consider any previous decisions or proceedings below; “rather, we review the application anew as to the specific issues raised in the statement of questions.”

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of an appealed permit application.

Vinagro Waste Transporter · filed 2014-08-22(h)

In this appeal, we review the permit application de novo. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to hear appealed Act 250 issues de novo under the substantive standards that applied before the tribunal below.

Treetop Dev. Co. Act 250 · filed 2014-11-14(h)

In Act 250 appeals, this Court, “applying the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from, shall hold a de novo hearing on those issues which have been appealed . . . .” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). Thus, before considering the Association’s Questions and Stratton’s objections to those Questions, we must determine what decision is being appealed and what standards were applicable before the Commission.

Section 8504(h) directs the Environmental Division to review municipal permit appeals de novo on factual and legal issues.

Pelkey Final Plat Major SD · filed 2014-12-31(h)

Given that the two appeals pending before this Court concern various applications for municipal permits, 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) and V.R.E.C.P. 5(g) direct us to conduct a de novo review of the factual and legal issues relevant to those applications.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to hear appealed issues de novo, applying the substantive standards used by the tribunal below.

Hinesburg Hannaford Wetland Determination · filed 2015-03-04(h)

The statutory framework for an appeal of this is the type of act or decision of the Secretary specifically provides for de novo review of that Agency decision. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) (“The Environmental Division, applying the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from, shall hold a de novo hearing on those issues which have been appealed . . . .”).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to consider the application anew when a permit condition is challenged on appeal.

Lakehouse Pub Grille Permit · filed 2015-03-19(h)

However, once that challenge is in place, we consider the pending application anew.

Section 8504(h) requires de novo review of appealed ANR decisions, including water quality certifications, and that review is constitutional when ANR acts in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Hinesburg Hannaford Water Quality · filed 2015-08-11(h)

Title 10 Section 8504(h) makes clear that in appeals by aggrieved parties of acts or decisions of ANR, the Environmental Division “shall hold a de novo hearing on those issues which have been appealed. . . .” ... Because the act or decision of ANR to deny, grant, or grant with conditions a § 401 water quality certification involves ANR performing a quasi-judicial function, de novo review of that decision is constitutional.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to review an agency determination de novo, applying the agency’s substantive standards and deciding the facts and law anew.

Hinesburg Hannaford Wetland · filed 2016-04-12(h)

As we stated above, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h), we consider ANR’s determination de novo. This standard of review requires this Court to apply the substantive standards applicable to ANR and consider the facts and law as if no prior determination had been made.

Section 8504(h) limits the legal issues in a de novo appeal to those appealed.

Killington Village Master Plan Act 250 · filed 2016-06-21(h)

Our review is limited to the legal issues preserved for our review by the Statement of Questions presented by SPLC (as the principal Appellant) and the Durkee Entities (as Cross-Appellants), subject to any pretrial motions that dispose of the questions presented. V.R.C.P. 5(f) (restricting the legal issues that may be presented at trial to only those issues raised in an appellant’s statement of questions, subject “to a motion to clarify or dismiss some or all of the questions”); see also 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) (directing that, in the case of de novo hearings, the legal issues to be addressed on appeal shall be limited “to those issues which have been appealed”).

In a de novo appeal under § 8504(h)(1), the Environmental Division hears the evidence anew, so the correctness of the review board’s decision does not matter.

D&D Properties LLC CU · filed 2016-08-23(h)(1)

As this is a de novo appeal proceeding, see 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h)(1), the “correctness” of the DRB’s decision has no bearing on our Decision, and thus we will not address Questions 1 and 2.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of appeals to the Environmental Division, so the evidence, findings, and conclusions below have no bearing on that review.

Werner CU · filed 2016-08-31(h)

We review appeals de novo, 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h), and the evidence, factual findings, and legal conclusions below have no bearing on our review.

Section 8504(h) provides a de novo hearing on the issues appealed.

Bolding Zoning Permit Amendment · filed 2016-12-16(h)

The Bolds are entitled to a de novo hearing of their appeal. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a); accord 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) (recognizing that these appeals receive a “de novo hearing on those issues which have been appealed”); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g) (“All appeals under this rule shall be by trial de novo”).

On de novo appeal, the Environmental Division sits in ANR’s place and may identify an existing use when considering a water quality certification.

Morrisville Hydroelectric Proj Water Quality · filed 2017-06-13(h)

The matter now before the Court is an application for a § 401 certification, and the Court is sitting in the place of ANR in considering that application. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). Even if the 2016 Lamoille Basin Plan does not identify whitewater boating on the Green River as an existing use, that would not be dispositive, because we would have the power to identify it as an existing use.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to decide a de novo appeal independently, without considering the municipal panel’s findings or legal determinations.

Hawkins Bay Lane Minor SD - Decision on the Merits · filed 2018-08-07(h)

This is a de novo appeal, and we are therefore tasked with making our own independent determinations, based upon the evidence presented at our trial. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g). In matters appealed on a de novo basis to our Court, we are directed to not consider the findings and legal determinations rendered below.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to review appeals from District Commission decisions de novo.

Katzenbach Act 250 Permit - Decision on Merits · filed 2019-01-02(h)

This Court reviews appeals from District Commission decisions de novo.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of an appeal from a DRB decision.

Zlotoff Foundation Inc. NOV (2) - Decision on Motions · filed 2020-09-24(h)

Our review of the Foundation’s appeal from the DRB’s decision is de novo. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g).

Section 8504(h) limits a de novo appeal to matters that were before the local board, under the substantive standards applicable there.

Zlotoff Foundation Inc. NOV (2) - Decision on Motion (To Amend SOQ) · filed 2020-09-24(h)

In a de novo appeal such as this, the Court sits in place of the DRB to consider and adjudicate what was before the DRB, applying the substantive standards that were applicable before the DRB. V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); see, e.g., In re Maple Tree Place, 156 Vt. 494, 500 (1991) (stating that the “court is limited to consideration of the matters properly warned as before the local board”) (citing In re Torres, 154 Vt. 233, 235 (1990)).

In a de novo municipal appeal, the Environmental Division’s review is limited to the scope of the municipal panel’s review.

Lonie Parker DBA Porky's Bkyd BBQ SP & NOV - Decision on Motion · filed 2020-11-17(h)

In our de novo appellate review of municipal decisions, this Court sits in the shoes of the relevant municipal panel. V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); In re Feeley Constr. Permits, Nos. 4-1-10 Vtec, 5-1-10 Vtec, slip op. at 11-13 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Jan. 3, 2011) (Wright, J.) (citing In re Maple Tree Place, 156 Vt. 494, 500 (1991)). As we have said, the scope of the municipal panel’s review determines the scope of ours. ... In this case the scope of review for the DRB, and therefore this Court, is limited to the alleged violations cited in the NOV.

Section 8504(h) allows the Environmental Division to review noticed Act 250 criteria de novo when the district commission considered them but deferred its decision.

Suburban Propane, LP A250 Denial - Decision on Motion · filed 2021-02-17(h)

In a de novo appeal, this Court is limited in scope to issues raised in the notice of the appeal and reviews the application and supporting materials anew, as if no proceedings have taken place before. ... In addition, these criteria were noticed for appeal by Applicant and are within this Court’s de novo authority to review, given that they were the subject of the original application.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of a municipal decision, with new findings and conclusions made without deference to the municipal panel.

Wolcott SD Final Plat Denial - Decision on Motion · filed 2021-03-04(h)

This is a de novo appeal. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). As such, the case and the evidence is “heard anew, and the probative effect determined by the appellate [court] as though no decision had been previously rendered.” In re Poole, 136 Vt. 242, 245 (1978). This Court sits in the place of the DRB and renders new findings of fact and conclusions of law with no deference to the DRB’s decision. See In re Green Peak Estates, 154 Vt. 363, 372 (1990).

Section 8504(h) limits de novo review of a municipal appeal to the substantive standards and powers available to the municipal panel below.

Down River Investments, LLC CU - Decision on Motion · filed 2021-04-06(h)

The scope of a de novo appeal before this Court is defined by the powers of the municipal panel below, and thus this Court's review is limited by the substantive standards applicable in the proceeding before DRB.