10 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 8504

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to conduct a de novo evidentiary hearing, assess witness credibility and other evidence, and apply the law to that evidence.

Lumbra Farm Medium Farm Operation (MFO) Denial - Decision on Motions · filed 2022-03-25(h)

The Court is charged with conducting its own de novo evidentiary hearing, assessing the credibility of witness testimony and other evidence, and rendering a decision, based upon an application of the applicable law to that credible evidence. V.C.E.C.P 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review, so allegations of bias or improper procedure before the municipal panel are generally outside the Environmental Division’s review.

Spaulding NOV - Decision on Motion · filed 2024-01-18(h)

Further, with limited exceptions not relevant here, we review appeals de novo. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). ... Because of this Court’s de novo trial process, allegations of decisionmaker bias or improper procedure on the part of the municipal panel are outside the scope of our review.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review, so the Environmental Division reviews the application rather than the zoning board’s prior actions.

622 Keyser Hill Road Conditional Use Appeal - Decision · filed 2024-04-15(h)

These sub-questions ask the Court to review the Zoning Board’s actions, which we cannot do. This appeal is de novo, meaning that we review the application “as though no action whatever has been held prior thereto.” Chioffi v. Winooski Zoning Bd., 151 Vt. 9, 11 (1989) (citation omitted); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). Because Question 2, as amended, pertains exclusively to actions (or inaction) taken by the Zoning Board, we must DISMISS Question 2 in its entirety.

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review, under which the Environmental Division considers the application anew rather than the sufficiency of the municipal panel’s decision.

100 Terra Lane Zoning Permit Appeal - Decision on Motions · filed 2025-03-25(h)

With limited exceptions not relevant here, we review appeals de novo. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). ... Thus, the Court will not review the sufficiency of the decision by the ZBA in this de novo appeal.

Section 8504(h) generally requires the Environmental Division to review appeals de novo, subject to limited exceptions.

Town of Berlin v. Harr, LLC & Harr, LLC Zoning Permit App - Decision on Merits · filed 2025-05-28(h)

With limited exceptions, not relevant here, we review appeals de novo. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to hold a de novo hearing on the appealed issues when a party aggrieved by an ANR act or decision appeals.

Bellows Falls Hydroelectric Project Water Quality Cert. Appeal - Decision on Motion to Vacate Certifications & Judgment on Questions 1 & 2 · filed 2025-12-04(h)

As noted above, 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h) makes clear that in cases involving appeals by parties aggrieved by acts or decisions of ANR, this Court must “hold a de novo hearing on those issues which have been appealed ....” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(h) provides for de novo review of an environmental permit application, so the court does not review ANR’s earlier decision-making process.

Alta Assets, LLC WW & WS Permit WW-5-8796-1 - Merits Decision · filed 2025-12-08(h)

With limited exceptions not relevant here, we review appeals in a de novo trial. 10 V.S.A § 8504(h). As such, we hear the case “as though no action whatever has been held prior thereto.”

Section 8504(h) generally requires the Environmental Division to hear appeals de novo, reviewing the application anew rather than the municipal panel’s decision.

Corey Acres Rd. Variance & Change of Use Applications - Decision on Motion · filed 2026-03-31(h)

Further, with limited exceptions not relevant here, we review appeals de novo. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). As such, we hear the case “as though no action whatever has been held prior thereto.” Chioffi v. Winooski Zoning Bd., 151 Vt. 9, 11 (1989). Therefore, we generally do not consider the underlying decision of, or proceedings before, the municipal panel below, “rather, we review the application anew as to the specific issues raised in the statement of questions.” In re Whiteyville Props. LLC, No. 179- 12-11 Vtec, slip op. at 1 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Dec. 13, 2012) (Durkin, J.).

Section 8504(h) generally requires a de novo hearing in the Environmental Division, so issues about proceedings and evidence before the municipal board fall outside the court’s review.

637 Kimo Drive Site Plan Application & Scannell and Allen Brook Site Plan Application - Decision on Motion · filed 2026-05-07(h)

With limited exceptions not applicable here, review before this Court is by de novo hearing. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a); V.R.E.C.P. 5(g). ... In light of that standard, issues regarding proceedings and evidence before the DRB are beyond the scope of our jurisdiction.

Section 8504(h) requires the Environmental Division to hear permit appeals anew, with the applicant retaining the burden of proving compliance with zoning rules.

Burton Corp. Site Work Approval - Decision on Motions · filed 2021-06-28(h)

Thus, the allocation of burdens in a de novo appeal of permit applications to this Court is the same as it would be before the DRB in the first instance. CDO § 12.2.2(d) applies only when the DRB is evaluating a decision of the Zoning Administrator. See CDO §§ 12.2.2, 2(d). Because we have a statutory mandate to consider Burton’s applications anew, and we may not review the Zoning Administrator’s decision, we conclude that § 12.2.2(d) does not apply. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h).

Section 8504(b)(2) makes party status for an interested person who did not participate in the municipal proceeding discretionary and places the burden of claiming and establishing that status on the appellant.

In Re Verizon Wireless Barton Permit · filed 2010-07-09(b)(2)

Before analyzing the parties’ claims, we make two general observations about claims for party status under § 8504(b)(2). First, determination of party status under this statute is discretionary, not automatic, and this discretion is vested in the trial court. Second, the burden of claiming party status under this section falls on the appellant who “must affirmatively claim and satisfy the burden of establishing party status with a motion filed with the notice of appeal.”

Section 8504(d)(2) allows a person denied party status on an Act 250 criterion to seek that status from the Environmental Division; failing to file the required motion forfeits review of that criterion.

Waitsfield Public Water System Act 250 Permit · filed 2010-11-03(d)(2)

Appellant’s circumstances in the appeal now before us raise no issue distinguishing her from the appellant in Verizon Wireless Barton Act 250 Permit; Appellant has not filed a motion seeking party status, and Appellant has not filed for an enlargement of time to file such a motion. Therefore, in the interest of “fairness, uniformity, and regularity of treatment to all litigants appearing before the courts,” we conclude that Appellant has failed to preserve her right to appeal under Act 250 criteria 2, 4, and 9(K). Krulee, 121 Vt. at 302; see also 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2).

Section 8504(d)(2)(B) allows an aggrieved person to appeal a district commission’s denial of party status even if the person does not qualify to appeal under subsection (d)(1).

Bennington Walmart · filed 2012-04-24(d)(2)(B)

We therefore DENY Applicants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding as a matter of law that, under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2)(B), VNRC and CFGB have standing to appeal the Commission’s denial of party status.

Section 8504(b)(2)(C) requires a showing of manifest injustice to allow a late appeal, a stricter standard than good cause or excusable neglect.

Feeley Construction Permits · filed 2011-01-03(b)(2)(C)

The statutory standard of “manifest injustice,” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(C), is even more stringent than the findings of either “good cause” or “excusable neglect” required for taking a late appeal to court under V.R.A.P. 4(d).

Section 8504(d)(2)(C) permits an appeal despite the lack of party status below when denying the appeal would cause manifest injustice; disagreement with the district commission’s decision does not establish that injustice.

Granville Mfg Co., Inc. Act 250 · filed 2011-07-01(d)(2)(C)

Exercising this discretion, we ultimately conclude, for the reasons discussed below, that the application of § 8504(d)(2)(C) is not warranted in this instance because Appellant has failed to show that manifest injustice will result if he is not allowed to include in his appeal issues pertaining to criteria 5 and 9(E).

Section 8504(b)(2) allows an otherwise eligible person who did not participate in a municipal proceeding to appeal if a procedural defect prevented participation or denying the appeal would cause manifest injustice.

Cummings Subdivision · filed 2011-07-13(b)(2)

Accordingly, to the extent that Appellant’s appeal is taken from the Planning Commission’s 2010 decision, it is DISMISSED because Appellant failed to participate in the hearing as required by 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1) and 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a), and has not shown under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2) that any procedural defect prevented him from participating in the 2010 proceeding, or that manifest injustice would result if his right to appeal the 2010 Planning Commission decision were disallowed.

An appellant invoking § 8504(b)(2)’s lack-of-notice exception can state the request and its basis in the notice of appeal.

Main St Place LLC · filed 2012-06-19(b)(2)

In Docket No. 163-8-09 Vtec, the adjoining property owner explicitly asked for a right to appeal under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2) and indicated that its basis for doing so was its lack of notice for the public hearing leading to the decision it sought to appeal. ... In both Granville Manufacturing Co. and Docket No. 163-8-09 Vtec, the Court and other parties were put on clear notice, at the same time as or shortly after the filing of a notice of appeal, that the party appealing sought to do so under an exception to the normal requirements and on what basis the party claimed such a right.

Section 8504(d)(2)(A) can permit an appeal when a notice defect prevented an interested person from participating in the municipal proceeding.

Main Street Place, LLC Demolition Permit · filed 2010-02-12(d)(2)(A)

We envision that the absence of notice to adjoining property owners in this case is the very type of “procedural defect” that justifies an exception to our appeals process, since the absence of notice “prevented [CNB] from obtaining party status or participating in the {ZBA} proceeding.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2)(A).

Section 8504(b)(2) permits an exception to the participation requirement when a procedural defect prevented participation or disallowing the appeal would cause manifest injustice.

Zaremba CU - Jericho · filed 2014-04-21(b)(2)

Because the named Appellants have failed to show that a procedural defect prevented their participation or that manifest injustice will result from disallowing their appeals, their motion for permission to move pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2) is DENIED.

Section 8504(d)(2)(B) allows a person denied party status by a district commission to appeal; if the Environmental Division grants party status, it may hear the appeal without remanding.

Bennington Wal Mart · filed 2012-08-17(d)(2)(B)

The Court need not remand the matter back to the district commission if we determine that a prospective appellant who was denied party status below does, in fact, qualify for such status and, thus, has the ability to appeal under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2)(B).

Section 8504(d)(2)(B) permits an aggrieved person to appeal a district commission’s denial of party status under an Act 250 criterion, including an express decision not to grant that status.

Champlain Parkway Act 250 · filed 2012-10-12(d)(2)(B)

Because the Commission effectively denied VTR party status under criterion 9(K), and because VTR appealed that denial in its amended Statement of Questions, VTR has procedural standing to seek party status for criterion 9(K) before this Court pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2)(B).

Section 8504(d)(2)(B) permits a person to appeal a district commission’s denial of party status despite the usual limits on who may appeal.

Champlain Parkway Act 250 · filed 2012-11-14(d)(2)(B)

Under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2)(B), a person may appeal a decision of a district commission notwithstanding § 8504(d)(1) if the appeal is of the commission’s denial of party status to that person.

Section 8504(d)(2) permits a person denied party status by a district commission to appeal the denial; that person acquires party status only if the Environmental Division grants it.

Northeast Materials Group Amended Permit · filed 2013-08-21(d)(2)

Persons denied party status by a district commission may appeal that denial to this Court. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2)(B). ... Those persons to whom the District Commission denied final party status have not yet acquired such status unless and until this Court rules in their favor on their motion for party status.

A person granted preliminary party status must participate in the district commission proceeding to appeal a later denial of final party status.

Northeast Materials Broup LLC Amended Permit · filed 2013-08-21(d)(2)(B)

When parties who obtained preliminary party status appeal a denial of final party status under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2)(B), they must have availed themselves of the opportunity to participate in order to preserve their right to appeal to this Court.

Section 8504(b)(2)(B) permits a person to appeal a municipal panel’s denial of interested person status without first proving that status.

RACDC Retention Pond · filed 2012-09-27(b)(2)(B)

Here, Appellant has standing to bring his case before this court under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(B). The decision being appealed denies Appellant interested person status and Appellant, at least in his initial notice of appeal, claims to be an interested person.

Section 8504(d)(2)(B) allows an aggrieved person to appeal a district commission’s denial of party status for particular Act 250 criteria despite not retaining party status for those criteria.

Barefoot & Zweig Act 250 · filed 2013-03-14(d)(2)(B)

Notwithstanding the restrictions in 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(1)—that is, even when a person participated but failed to retain party status for particular criteria at the end of the proceeding— an aggrieved person may appeal an act or decision of the district commission under those criteria if this Court determines that one of three statutory circumstances exist, including that “the decision being appealed is the grant or denial of party status.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2)(B).

Section 8504 limits an appellant’s standing to the Act 250 criteria for which the district commission granted final party status unless the appellant successfully appeals a denial of party status.

Killington Resort Parking Project A250 · filed 2014-08-05(d)(1)–(2)

The appellant’s standing before the Environmental Division is limited to those Act 250 criteria for which the district commission granted final party status, unless the party appeals the denial of party status and the Court in turn grants party status. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(1)–(2).

Section 8504(d)(2) requires a person denied party status below to qualify for an exception to obtain party status on appeal.

Union Bank Act 250 · filed 2012-11-08(d)(2)

Because the Commission denied Cross-Appellant final party status for criteria 5, 7, and 81 in the proceeding below, Cross-Appellant’s appeal must fall under an exception described in 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2) for this Court to grant her party status under those criteria in this appeal.

Section 8504(d)(2)(C) allows a person who did not request party status before the district commission to seek it on appeal when denying the opportunity would cause manifest injustice.

Union Bank Act 250 Application · filed 2013-04-01(d)(2)(C)

Under the specific facts of this case, we find that denying Cross-Appellant the opportunity to seek party status under Criterion 1(D) would be a manifest injustice. ... Accordingly, we find that Cross-Appellant has standing to seek party status for Criterion 1(D) under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2)(C).

Section 8504(b)(2)(C) does not excuse an interested person’s failure to participate in a municipal proceeding when the person received statutory notice and objects to the merits of the decision.

Jolley Assoc Car Wash Middlebury · filed 2014-03-19(b)(2)(C)

Appellants make similar arguments regarding the applicability of the manifest injustice exception, 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(C), and the requirements of due process and fundamental administrative fairness. For similar reasons, we conclude that declining to hear Appellants’ concerns about the DRB’s decision and decision making process will not result in manifest injustice or a denial of due process or administrative fairness.

Section 8504(b)(2)(C) excuses participation in the municipal proceeding when denying an appeal would result in manifest injustice.

Willowell Foundation CU · filed 2014-07-10(b)(2)(C)

Furthermore, disallowing the appeal of Mr. Higbee and Ms. Knauth would result in manifest injustice, and therefore participation is not required of them under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(C).

Section 8504(b)(2)(A) does not excuse failure to attend a municipal proceeding based on a belief that the application would fail when proper notice was given.

In re Appeal of MDY Taxes, Inc. & Village Car Wash, Inc. · filed 2015-04-17(b)(2)(A)

Simply put, relying on one’s subjective view regarding the likelihood of success of any given application is not a justification for failing to attend the municipal regulatory proceeding in situations where proper statutory notice has been provided. ... The court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants party status under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(A).

Section 8504(b)(2) permits an appeal when a procedural defect prevented participation, but the appellant must affirmatively claim and establish party status with a motion filed with the notice of appeal.

Mahar CU · filed 2016-07-13(b)(2)

While this provision appears applicable to the Harritt/Butlers, the burden falls on Appellants to establish that the appeal is permitted under Section 8504(b)(2). ... Appellants have, therefore, failed to affirmatively claim a right to appeal pursuant to Section 8504(b)(2).

Section 8504(b)(2)(C) allows an appeal period to be extended to prevent manifest injustice when due process or fundamental fairness requires it.

Snyder NOV · filed 2016-04-28(b)(2)(C)

An appeal will be allowed under the manifest injustice clause of 10 V.S.A. § 8504 where due process or fundamental fairness outweighs the strong policy in favor of finality and demands that the appellant be allowed to contest the municipal decision.

Section 8504(b)(2)(C) allows an appeal despite failure to participate in municipal proceedings when denying the appeal would cause manifest injustice; concerns that could have been raised after proper notice do not qualify.

Mad River Barn CU · filed 2017-03-08(b)(2)(C)

As with the argument on notice, Appellants’ concerns about noise do not constitute a “condition . . . which would result in manifest injustice if the person’s right to appeal was disallowed” to justify overriding the participation threshold established by the legislature. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(C).

Section 8504(b)(2)(A) allows a person prevented from participating in a municipal hearing by a notice defect to claim party status for an appeal; filings that clearly assert that basis can suffice without a formal motion.

In re Mahar Conditional Use Permit (Mary Lahiff, Carolyn Hallock, Susan Harritt and William Butler, Appellants) · filed 2018-02-16(b)(2)(A)

We therefore hold that Harritt and Butler have carried their burden in this instance of affirmatively claiming party status under § 8504(b)(2). Further, the undisputed facts demonstrate that Harritt and Butler meet the requirements of § 8504(b)(2)(A) because a procedural defect—the Town’s failure to provide them with notice of the DRB hearing—prevented them from participating in the proceeding and obtaining interested-person status.

Section 8504(d)(2) allows an appeal without prior participation for a procedural defect, denial of party status, or another condition that would make denial of the appeal manifestly unjust; a person seeking that exception must make a specific showing.

Green Mountain Quarry, LLC Act 250 - Entry Regarding Motion for Party Status · filed 2018-04-30(d)(2)

Those who wish to appeal without having participated may gain permission from this Court to appeal, when (A) there is a sufficient showing of a procedural defect; (B) the decision being appealed is a denial of party status; or (C) “some other condition exists which would result in manifest injustice if the person’s right to appeal was disallowed.” 10 V.S.A. § 8504(d)(2). ... However, without a more specific showing, we cannot conclude that their failure to participate below should nonetheless allow them to serve as appellants in this proceeding.

Section 8504(b)(2)(C) requires the court to allow a late appeal when barring it would result in manifest injustice; actual notice of the decision can support denying that exception.

109-111 Shelburne St/97 Locust St CU - Decision on Motions · filed 2019-05-10(b)(2)(C)

Based on this notice, this Court has already concluded that Ms. Murray’s untimely appeal should not be permitted under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2) because no manifest injustice would result from a denial of her appeal.

Section 8504(b)(2) allows an interested person who did not participate in a municipal hearing to appeal when a reasonable misunderstanding about the hearing would make denial of the appeal unfair.

Robertson Variance - Decision on Motion · filed 2019-07-08(b)(2)(A) and (C)

The totality of these factors leads us to conclude that the Thomashows have established a basis under 24 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(A) and (C) for their standing.

Section 8504(b)(2)(C) allows an untimely appeal to proceed upon a showing of manifest injustice.

Andersen 140 Main Street Denial - Decision on Motion · filed 2022-01-06(b)(2)(C)

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in the absence of a timely appeal and cannot allow it to proceed absent a showing of manifest injustice. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(C). Appellants have not shown any injustice or excusable neglect in their mistake of law and the resulting failure to file the appeal within 30 days of the DRB decision.

Section 8504(b)(2) allows a person who did not participate in municipal proceedings to seek party status for an appeal, but the person must file a motion claiming that status.

Yummy Woodstock, LLC DRB Change of Use Appeal - Decision on Motion · filed 2024-12-13(b)(2)

He has not filed any motion for party status under § 8504(b)(2). Thus, Mr. Werner is precluded from claiming party status under § 8504(b)(2).

A party seeking manifest injustice status under § 8504(b)(2)(C) must raise the issue in the notice of appeal and file a timely motion.

1330 Jericho Road ZA Permit Decision - Decision on Motions · filed 2025-03-06(b)(2)(C)

To the extent that they argue that we must allow their untimely appeal as proper under a “manifest injustice” standard set forth in 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(C), the Brooks did not raise this issue in their notice of appeal to this Court as required by V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(3) and did not file a timely motion to raise that claim as required by V.R.E.C.P. 5(d)(2). Thus, they are precluded from claiming such status.

Section 8504(b)(2)(C)’s manifest injustice exception applies to appeals from municipal panels to the Environmental Division, not appeals from municipal administrative officers.

In Re Guillemette ZA Determination Appeal (Anne Guillemette & Mark Guillemette, Appellants) · filed 2025-05-16(b)(2)(C)

We agree that § 8504(b)(2)(C) does not apply to appeals from the decision of a municipal administrative officer and therefore reverse.

Section 8504(b)(2)(A) allows an appeal despite lack of participation below when a procedural defect prevented the person from obtaining interested person status or participating.

982 Holiday Point Road Setback Waiver - Decision on Motion · filed 2025-11-12(b)(2)(A)

The Court concludes no “procedural defect” existed that prevented Ms. Shields “from obtaining interested person status or participating in the proceeding” before the DRB. For the reasons set forth herein, while imperfect, the Town’s public hearing notice was legally sufficient, and the Town made reasonable efforts to provide that notice to the public, including Ms. Shields. Thus, 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(A) is inapplicable.

When more than one State agency other than the Natural Resources Board appears in an appeal, only the Attorney General may represent those agencies’ interests.

Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 · filed 2015-02-04(l)

As this matter progresses through the Court’s review, ANR and VTrans are directed to comply with 10 V.S.A. §8504(l), requiring that if more than one State agency, other than the NRB, appear in an appeal, only the Attorney General may represent the interests of those agencies of the State in the appeal.

Section 8504 allows an appeal from ANR’s denial of a solid waste facility certification renewal; an unappealed denial is final and cannot be challenged in a later enforcement action.

ANR v. Colaceci · filed 2016-12-06

ANR’s decision not to renew Mr. Colaceci’s solid waste facility certification occurred on October 3, 2014. This decision was appealable under 10 V.S.A. § 8504. Mr. Colaceci did not appeal the decision. It is therefore final and binding, and cannot be challenged here.

Section 8504(g) allows the Environmental Division to coordinate appeals that relate to the same project.

R.L. Vallee, Inc. et a MS4 · filed 2017-03-17(g)

V.R.E.C.P. 2(b); see also 10 V.S.A. § 8504(g) (“The Environmental Division may consolidate or coordinate different appeals where those appeals all relate to the same project.”). ... We agree that the stormwater appeal and the Act 250 appeal involve the same project: the DDI. ... Because the two appeals involve the same project, and common issues of law and fact, we conclude that coordination at this time “will promote expeditious and fair proceedings and avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” V.R.E.C.P. 2(b).

Section 8504(g) permits the Environmental Division to coordinate appeals concerning the same project, but an appeal concluded by final judgment must be reopened before it can be coordinated with another appeal.

Duval CU Denial - Decision on Motion (Reopen) · filed 2020-06-30(g)

When this Court has issued a final judgment concluding a separate matter, as we have here, an appeal can no longer be coordinated. The Court may, however, grant relief from a judgment upon a motion to reopen and then coordinate the appeals.

Section 8504(b)(1) makes a permit final and binding on all parties even if it was issued in error.

Burris Zoning Permit Denial - Decision on the Merits · filed 2018-07-09(b)(1)

Even if this permit was issued in error, it has become final and binding upon all parties pursuant to Title 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1).