24 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 4472

Section 4472(b) bars a municipality from later contesting a zoning permit when it fails to appeal within the appeal period.

Graves v. Town of Waitsfield · filed 1972-06-06(b)

In this proceeding the town is precluded from contesting the validity of the permit. The appeal time having expired, the action of the administrative officer is uncontestable.

Section 4472(d) bars a collateral challenge to an unappealed zoning board decision even if the board exceeded its authority.

Levy v. Town of St. Albans Zoning Board of Adjustment · filed 1989-07-14(d)

To the contrary, § 4472 implements a policy of repose, even where the board’s ruling is ultra vires.

Section 4472(d) does not bar a later conditional use determination when the zoning administrator merely referred an application for design review and had not decided it on the merits.

Wesco, Inc. v. City of Montpelier · filed 1999-09-03(d)

Because no decision on the merits was rendered until the denial of the application, the fifteen-day time period for an appeal did not run, see 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a), and the zoning board is not barred from requiring conditional use approval.

Section 4472(d) bars extraordinary relief and other collateral challenges to a zoning decision when an interested person fails to pursue the statutory appeal process.

Fisher v. Town of Marlboro · filed 1974-07-26(d)

It ... clearly states a legislative policy to deny extraordinary relief, and other collateral remedies, to parties in the position of these plaintiffs seeking the relief asked for here.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning decision binding and bars a nonconforming-use defense in a later enforcement proceeding.

Town of Charlotte v. Richmond · filed 1992-02-14(d)

Having failed to appeal the determination by Charlotte’s zoning administrator, defendants were bound by his decision. Defendants’ affirmative defense of a permitted nonconforming use was therefore barred by their failure to appeal.

Section 4472 does not require dismissal for failure to appeal when the zoning administrator made no formal, ascertainable decision and conveyed no decision to the interested parties.

Richardson v. City of Rutland · filed 1995-11-03

It would be inappropriate to dismiss this ease for failure to pursue an administrative appeal, because the administrator never made a formal ascertainable decision and never conveyed a decision to plaintiffs, despite their requests for action.

Section 4472(d) bars an unappealed variance decision from being contested in an enforcement action, but does not bar a defense based on a prior nonconforming use that the board never considered.

Town of Shelburne v. Kaelin · filed 1978-06-06(d)

In the case at bar, § 4472(d) precludes any contest relative to a variance. The existence of ... a prior nonconforming use, however, was never considered or adjudicated by the Board of Adjustment and hence is available as a defense in the instant action.

An interested person who does not directly appeal a timely zoning board denial is bound by it, even if the board’s findings are deficient.

City of Rutland v. McDonald's Corp. · filed 1985-10-11(d)

Having failed to challenge the board’s letter of denial by the exclusive remedy of direct appeal, McDonald’s became bound by that denial. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Section 4472(d) does not make a zoning administrator’s referral for conditional use review final when the administrator made no decision on the merits.

Application of White · filed 1990-11-21(d)

We disagree. The simple answer to appellant’s semantic alchemy is that the zoning administrator made no determination on the merits. All he decided was that Mr. White’s application was a request for a conditional use permit, not that the use Mr. White was proposing met all the conditions for a conditional use permit, a decision the zoning administrator in any case would have no authority to make.

Section 4472(d) binds a landowner to an unappealed zoning administrator decision but does not bar an application for approval that would bring the use into compliance.

In Re Appeal of Newton Enterprises · filed 1998-01-23(d)

In any event, it did not directly or indirectly challenge the decisions of the zoning administrator. Neither § 4472(d) nor the decisions in Richmond or Colehamer prevented the zoning board or the environmental court from granting approval that would bring Newton Enterprises’ uses into compliance with the zoning ordinance.

Section 4472(a) bars a party from challenging an unappealed planning commission determination, either directly or indirectly in later litigation.

Appeal of ATC Realty, Inc & spectrum Res. Towers, LP · filed 2002-07-16(a)

If an appeal is not timely filed, under 24 V.S.A. ' 4472(a) the court lacks jurisdiction. Moreover, under that section, a party which has failed to appeal from a determination (for example, a notice of violation) cannot later raise those appeal issues indirectly in later litigation, even if that later litigation is timely filed (for example, in an enforcement action or an appeal of a permit denial).

Section 4472(d) does not bar a challenge to a use the zoning administrator did not know about when making the unappealed decision.

Town of Bennington v. Hanson-Walbridge Funeral Home, Inc. · filed 1981-02-03(d)

Without actual information of the proposed crematory operation, the administrator’s only decision was that a pathological incinerator would not violate the zoning bylaw. ... Absence of that knowledge here, however innocent the applicant and negligent the administrator, precludes the making of a “decision” upon the true facts. The relief sought is not barred by 24 V.S.A. § 4472.

Section 4472(d) deprives a board or court of jurisdiction over a later appeal involving the same application when its earlier denial was not appealed.

Boutwell v. Town of Fair Haven · filed 1987-02-20(d)

If a board or court were to entertain an appeal from the denial of an application previously ...denied and not appealed, 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) would deprive the tribunal of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 4472(d) bars a challenge to a zoning board ruling, even if the board exceeded its authority, unless a timely direct appeal is taken.

Phillips Construction Services, Inc. v. Town of Ferrisburg · filed 1990-06-29(d)

We have recently held, however, that “even where the board’s ruling is ultra vires,” 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) “unequivocally forecloses” a challenge to that ruling, absent a timely, direct appeal.

Section 4472(d) bars a nonconstitutional challenge to a zoning provision’s validity as a defense to an enforcement action when the challenge was not pursued through the zoning appeal process.

Town of Sandgate v. Colehamer · filed 1990-11-30(d)

By its terms, § 4472(d) clearly applies to defenses raised in enforcement proceedings and clearly applies to attacks on the validity of zoning provisions unless they raise constitutional issues.

Section 4472(d) bars a person who fails to timely appeal a ZBA decision from challenging it directly or indirectly in a later enforcement action.

Town of Hinesburg v. Dunkling · filed 1998-04-10(d)

Because landowner failed to appeal the decision within thirty days, he was barred from directly or indirectly attacking the ZBA’s decision at the enforcement action.

Section 4472(d) does not bar an interested person from seeking enforcement of a zoning permit after the deadline to appeal the permit has passed.

In Re Charlotte Farm & Mills · filed 2001-08-02(d)

Further, the finality and exclusivity doctrines embodied in § 4472(d) do not preclude an interested person from taking action to ensure compliance with the terms of a zoning permit.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning decision final and bars later direct or indirect challenges to its conditions.

Appeal of Postma · filed 2005-07-14(d)

In the absence of a timely appeal, interested persons are bound by decisions of the DRB, and they "shall not thereafter contest, either directly or indirectly, such decision or act ... in any proceeding." 24 V.S.A. §4472(d); In re Ashline, 175 Vt. 203, 206 (2003).

Section 4472(a) bars a municipality from enforcing zoning violations involving areas it approved through certificates of occupancy when it failed to timely appeal that approval.

In re Appeal of Tekram Partners · filed 2005-07-28(a)

Though this may have been an error on the administrative officer’s part, § 4472(a) mandates the procedure for correcting such an error. The City’s failure to follow that procedure precludes the City from enforcing violations regarding areas it approved three years earlier.

An unappealed municipal zoning decision binds interested persons and bars them from later contesting it.

Appeal of Hardy · filed 2005-08-23(d)

Therefore, the exclusivity of remedy provision applies and Appellant is barred from revisiting the issue of whether the 2.2± acre parcel is located in the Forest and Agricultural Lands zoning district.

Section 4472(d)’s finality bar does not prevent review of a condition that left the action required for compliance unresolved.

Appeal of Hart · filed 2005-11-24(d)

The circumstances here lead us to conclude that we cannot consider Condition # 7 to be a final condition.

An unappealed DRB permit decision is not before the Environmental Court, including a challenge to the DRB’s jurisdiction to issue it.

Mount Snow, Ltd. Parking Plan · filed 2006-01-24(a)

No party appealed the ‐07 permit decision (including the issue Appellant now seeks to raise regarding the DRB’s jurisdiction to consider that subsequent application), and therefore no aspect of the ‐07 permit decision is before the Court. 24 V.S.A. §4472(a).

Unappealed municipal zoning decisions become final and cannot later be challenged directly or indirectly.

State of Vermont Agency of Transportation · filed 2006-02-09

No party appealed the September 2003 Planning Commission or ZBA decisions; therefore they cannot now be challenged, either directly or indirectly.

Section 4472 prevents a party from directly or indirectly challenging a zoning approval that was not appealed.

Vt. Canoe & Kayak CU Application · filed 2006-02-24

No party appealed the ZBA’s issuance of conditional use approval, and it cannot now be challenged, directly or indirectly. 24 V.S.A. §4472.

Section 4472(d) prevents either party from directly or indirectly contesting an unappealed site plan approval or Certificate of Occupancy.

Appeal of Wesco, Inc. · filed 2006-04-10(d)

Accordingly, under 24 V.S.A. §4472(d) neither the site plan approval nor the Certificate of Occupancy can be contested, directly or indirectly, either by Appellant or by the City.

Section 4472(d) makes unappealed zoning decisions final and bars later challenges to their validity, even when they are alleged to have been void from the outset.

Appeal of V.G. General Store, Inc. · filed 2006-05-26(d)

The “permits at issue,” presumably the Planning Commission’s 1993 and 2000 decisions and the Zoning Administrator’s 1993 grant of a zoning permit, are unappealed final judgments not subject to reconsideration here, 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed determination final and bars a direct or indirect challenge to it in a later proceeding.

Appeal of Davies · filed 2006-05-26(d)

As there has been no appeal of the November 17, 2005 ... jurisdictional opinion, that opinion is a final determination that cannot be contested directly or indirectly in this proceeding, pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Section 4472 bars direct and indirect challenges to a zoning decision that was not appealed.

Perini Road Quarry · filed 2006-08-28

The amended site plan with hours of operation of 6:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, was approved orally at the September 23, 2004 public hearing, and was not appealed. Therefore, the hours of operation cannot be challenged directly or indirectly in this appeal. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472.

Section 4472(d) bars direct and indirect challenges to a zoning permit that was not appealed.

Cameron Variance Application · filed 2006-09-20(d)

Under 24 V.S.A. §4472(d), the placement of the modular home cannot now be challenged, either directly or indirectly, even if its placement is what drives the location of the proposed garage/storage building at issue in the present appeal.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning violation final and bars a later challenge to it.

Smith NOV Appeal (Interim Decision on Summary Judgment Motion · filed 2006-12-21(d)

Having not timely appealed the change of use violation, Appellant is bound by the Notice of Violation with respect to that issue. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). Thus, we conclude that Appellant is limited in this appeal to contesting the allegation that he filled in a floodway in violation of the Flood Plain Ordinance and may not now contest the Zoning Administrator’s first violation allegation. The latter is now final and no longer appealable.

Section 4472 bars direct or indirect challenges to an unappealed ZBA approval, but a party who did not receive required notice may petition to contest it out of time.

Young's Tuttle St. ROW Extension · filed 2006-12-28

Moreover, the fact that Petitioner-Appellant failed to appeal the 1996 action of the ZBA in approving the private driveway across the original Young property bars her from contesting it now, either directly or indirectly. 24 V.S.A. §4472. Although parties may petition to contest such an approval out of time if they can demonstrate that they failed to receive required notice of the ZBA’s action, Petitioner-Appellant has not shown that any specific notice to her was required, nor has she shown why she could not have sought to take a late appeal of the 1996 action earlier than the present 2004 petition, such as during the 2001 permit proceedings regarding the twenty-acre parcel or during the 2003 permit proceedings that resulted in the litigation and order in Docket No. 45-3-03 Vtec.

Section 4472 bars direct or indirect challenges to an unappealed zoning permit.

Three Church Street Application · filed 2007-01-03

In any event, no party appealed the issuance of the 1990 permit, and it cannot now be challenged, directly or indirectly. 24 V.S.A. §4472.

Unappealed zoning decisions become final and cannot be challenged directly or indirectly.

Boutin PRD Amendment · filed 2007-02-12(d)

No appeal was taken of this decision, so that it became final, and cannot be challenged, directly or indirectly. 24 V.S.A. §4472(d).

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed municipal zoning decision final and binding as to matters it decided, foreclosing later direct or collateral challenges to those matters.

White 5-Lot Subdivision · filed 2007-03-19(d)

It is important to recognize that 24 V.S.A. §4472(d) holds municipal zoning litigation to a higher standard of finality than does the general law of collateral estoppel in the administrative context. ... Therefore, although the 2003 Subdivision Decision is final and binding, it is only final as to what that decision decided.

Section 4472(d) bars direct or indirect challenges to zoning decisions that became final without appeal.

Champlain College, Inc. 304-306 Maple St. College Project · filed 2007-03-20(d)

To the extent that those approvals became final without appeal, the College’s Institutional Parking Plan cannot now be challenged, either directly or indirectly. 24 V.S.A. §4472(d).

Section 4472(d) prevents a party from contesting a violation upheld in an unappealed zoning decision.

Town of Calais v. Noordsij · filed 2007-04-04(d)

As Defendant failed to appeal the DRB’s decision upholding the Notice of Violation, she cannot contest that her failure to construct the barn in the location approved in her original permit was a violation.

Section 4472 makes a timely appeal the exclusive remedy for a municipal zoning decision and bars later collateral attacks after the appeal period passes.

Appeal of Yates · filed 2007-04-17

Section 4472 of Title 24 provides that the “exclusive remedy” of an interested person with respect to any decision or act of a municipal body is an appeal to the appropriate panel under § 4465 and, subsequently, to the Environmental Court under § 4472. This rule of finality precludes an interested person from collaterally attacking an earlier act or decision of a DRB after the time for appeal has passed.

An unappealed zoning decision prevents a party from later contesting the violation it established, but does not bar a new application for approval.

Town of Calais v. Noordsij · filed 2007-07-23(d)

On the other hand, that failure to appeal does not prevent Defendant from now seeking approval of the as-built location.

Section 4472 makes unappealed conclusions of a development review board final.

Blakeman Site Plan · filed 2007-07-30

No party cross-appealed the DRB’s decision that the application meets the development standards of the regulations and the provisions of other municipal regulations and ordinances, or that it meets §§4.1(c) and 4.1(d); those conclusions of the DRB have therefore become final. 24 V.S.A. §4472.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning administrator decision final and bars a later challenge to it, even when the decision denies a permit that was previously deemed approved.

Trahan NOV · filed 2007-08-10(d)

Therefore, even though Appellants’ application was deemed approved by statute and Regulation prior to the ZA’s January 18, 2007 decision denying it, Appellants’ failure to appeal the ZA’s January 18, 2007 decision rendered that decision final and unassailable pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4472.

An unappealed municipal subdivision approval is final under § 4472(d).

Stagecoach Rd. Overhead Power Line Extension · filed 2008-02-29(d)

We have not been made aware of any party appealing the DRB’s 2006 approval of the revised Kenfield Brook subdivision; the 2006 approval is therefore final. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Section 4472(d) bars collateral challenges to an unappealed municipal panel decision, including a later request to clarify an approval condition outside an application or appeal.

Remy subdivision Alteration · filed 2008-07-31(d)

Regardless of whether this action is labeled as a mere interpretation or even clarification of Condition 7, the intent was to imbue that condition with a more specific meaning and to put the Condition’s eventual application to a contest. This is precisely the type of action that undercuts the clear policy of favoring finality that § 4472(d) embodies.

Section 4472(d) makes a municipal panel’s determination final when it is not preserved for appeal.

Appeal of Bren · filed 2008-08-12(d)

This determination was not preserved by Appellant in her last Amended Statement of Questions and is therefore a final determination that Applicant’s proposed subdivision is minor in nature. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) (making final unappealed decisions of appropriate municipal panels).

Section 4472 bars a collateral challenge to an unappealed zoning board decision even when the board’s authority to make that decision is disputed.

In Re Appeal of Ashline · filed 2003-03-28(d)

Accordingly, § 4472 unequivocally forecloses Landowners’ challenge to the authority of the ZBA’s ruling absent a timely, direct appeal.

An unappealed zoning board decision binds interested persons and bars later challenges to a permit or its conditions in enforcement proceedings.

In Re Appeal of Jackson · filed 2003-05-09(d)

Section 4472(d) provides that the failure of an interested person to appeal a ZBA decision means that the person is bound by the decision “and shall not thereafter contest, either directly or indirectly,... such decision of the board in any proceeding, including, without limitation, any proceeding brought to enforce this chapter.” 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). We have consistently refused to allow a party to challenge the validity of a permit or permit conditions in subsequent enforcement proceedings.

Section 4472 makes an appeal to the appropriate municipal panel within 15 days the exclusive way to contest a zoning violation notice.

Town of Grand Isle v. Patry · filed 2006-03-06

The statutory provisions relating to challenges of zoning violation allegations provide an exclusive remedy: appeal of the notice of violation within 15 days to the appropriate municipal panel. 24 V.S.A. § 4472.

Section 4472 binds interested persons to the final determination of a zoning appeal, even if they were not parties to that appeal.

Sisters & Brothers Investment Group, LLP · filed 2007-02-21(a) and (d)

Section 4472 is broader than claim and issue preclusion, in that under it persons who were not parties to a prior appeal can be bound by the final determination in that appeal.

Section 4472(d) bars direct or indirect challenges to an unappealed zoning decision once it becomes final, including challenges by a subsequent owner.

Kirschner Home Construction Application · filed 2008-09-25(d)

As that zoning permit and certificate of compliance became final without appeal, Appellant’s predecessor became bound by them, including their description of the property in its merged, three-acre configuration, and was precluded by 24 V.S.A. §4472(d) from contesting them, either directly or indirectly.

Section 4472 makes an unappealed zoning violation final, so it cannot be challenged in a later proceeding.

Huntington Remodeling Application · filed 2008-11-05

The Zoning Administrator issued a notice of violation on June 27, 2007, and Applicant failed to appeal that violation within 15 days. As a result, the fact of the violation—namely, the fact that the third apartment, while it may have once been a lawful, pre-existing, non-conforming use, became an illegal use once discontinued for more than one year—cannot now be challenged, either directly or indirectly, in any subsequent proceeding, including this one.

An unappealed zoning permit becomes final and cannot be challenged directly or indirectly in a later proceeding.

Northfield Engine House Renovation · filed 2008-11-14(d)

If it was not appealed to the ZBA, it became final and cannot be challenged in the present proceeding, either directly or indirectly. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

An unappealed zoning administrator decision becomes final, so a later variance appeal does not bring that decision before the court.

Edgar Northshore Drive Variance Application · filed 2009-02-05(d)

Any issues regarding the Zoning Administrator's decision not to approve the February 2007 zoning permit application are not before the Court, because Appellant did not appeal the denial of the zoning application or seek to file a late appeal after receiving actual notice, and it became final. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Section 4472(d) bars direct and indirect challenges to an unappealed zoning board decision once it becomes final.

Patricia Wood, Trustee Construction Permit · filed 2009-02-17(d)

The ZBA’s grant of a variance in connection with Permit No. 48- 07 was not appealed and became final; it cannot be challenged, either directly or indirectly.

Section 4472(d)’s finality provisions apply to municipal zoning decisions, not determinations by the Agency of Agriculture.

Intervale Ctr., Inc. & Half Pint Farm (Hoop House) · filed 2009-02-24(d)

Cases like City of South Burlington involve an interpretation of 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d), a statutory provision that only applies to municipal zoning decisions. ... The finality provisions of 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) are therefore inapplicable.

Section 4472(d) does not bar an issue from being raised on appeal when the zoning administrator did not issue a written decision on it.

Binkhorst Lake Access · filed 2009-03-09(d)

If the latter, he does not appear to have issued the decision in writing, so that 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) does not preclude raising the issue in the present appeal.

Unappealed zoning approvals cannot later be contested, either directly or indirectly.

Marsh Zoning Permit · filed 2009-03-17(d)

The 1986 approval of the guest apartment also was not appealed and cannot now be contested in this Court under 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117, either directly or indirectly. 24 V.S.A. §4472(d).

Section 4472(d) prevents direct or indirect challenges to municipal land use determinations that were not appealed.

Intervale Center Inc. & Half Pint Farm (Hoop House) · filed 2009-04-02(d)

Unlike the determination made by the Agency of Agriculture on this matter, the City’s determination was a municipal land use determination that falls under 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). When such determinations are not appealed, they cannot be challenged, “either directly or indirectly,” in any subsequent proceeding.

Interested parties who receive notice of a zoning determination and its appeal but do not participate cannot later contest issues necessarily decided in that proceeding.

In Re Sisters & Bros. Investment Group, LLP · filed 2009-05-29

Interested parties who received notice of the conditional-use determination and subsequent appeal of that determination but chose not to participate may not later contest issues necessarily decided therein, such as the determination that a convenience store with gas pumps is a permitted use at SBI’s Colchester property. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472.

An unappealed zoning decision cannot be contested directly or indirectly in a later proceeding.

Keenan Conditional Use Approval · filed 2009-06-04(d)

On March 28, 1967, when the ZBA approved the conversion of the church building on this Property into three apartments, it was done with the express stipulation that there would be no parking in the front area. That decision was not appealed and therefore cannot be contested “directly or indirectly” in a later proceeding. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

An unappealed zoning approval becomes final and cannot later be challenged, even if it may have been improperly granted.

Valois Airplane Storage Application · filed 2009-07-14(d)

That administrative approval was treated as unappealed by this Court in a subsequent related appeal, Docket No. E96-124 (see Appellant’s Ex. 6 at 2), and no party in the present appeal claims that it was ever appealed to the ZBA or reviewed by a court. Regardless of whether it was properly granted under the then-zoning ordinance or not, the decision could not thereafter be challenged.

An unappealed zoning decision becomes final and cannot be challenged directly or indirectly in a later proceeding.

Byrne Trust NOV · filed 2009-07-15(d)

The Third Decision, which granted that permit, was not appealed, and the permit was therefore a final decision that could not be challenged “directly or indirectly” in any subsequent proceeding. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

An unappealed zoning decision becomes final and cannot be challenged, but its conditions may be amended in appropriate circumstances.

Fenoff Accessory Dwelling Unit · filed 2009-09-03(d)

The April 2006 variance decision was not appealed and became final. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). Although such unappealed decisions may not be challenged, “they may be amended in appropriate circumstances.”

Section 4472(d) makes unappealed municipal board decisions final and bars direct or indirect challenges, even when the board acted outside its authority.

Century Partners, LP CO Application · filed 2009-09-15(d)

Under 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d), unappealed decisions of municipal boards are final and cannot be challenged, “directly or indirectly.” Section 4472(d) applies even where the municipal board’s decision was outside the scope of its authority.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning decision final and bars a later challenge to it.

Fecteau Capital Heights Subdivision · filed 2009-09-18(d)

That Decision has therefore become final and cannot be contested in this proceeding. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). Thus, neither party in this proceeding may now question the DRB’s decision in 2007 to allow Fecteau a two-year period in which to file its final plat application.

An unappealed zoning board decision becomes final and cannot later be challenged directly or indirectly.

Walsh d/b/a Deerwood Estate Conditional Use · filed 2009-12-09(d)

No party appealed this decision and it became final. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

An unappealed zoning administrator determination becomes final under § 4472(d).

Cushing Family, LLC Site Plan Application · filed 2009-12-17(d)

The Zoning Administrator’s December 31, 2008 letter was not appealed, and therefore became final. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Section 4472 makes an unappealed zoning decision final and bars direct or indirect challenges to it in later proceedings.

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

The DRB’s February 27, 2009 decision granting the Trust a variance is a final, unappealed decision that cannot now be challenged, “directly or indirectly,” in this or any subsequent proceeding. 24 V.S.A. § 4472.

An unappealed zoning permit becomes final, and affected persons cannot later challenge its requirements.

City of Burlington v. Beliveau · filed 2010-01-15(d)

Defendant did not appeal the 1999 Zoning Permit/COA, and it became final. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) (stating that upon “failure of any interested person to appeal” a municipal decision or order, “all interested persons affected shall be bound by that decision or act . . . and shall not thereafter contest [it], either directly or indirectly”). That is, even though the preexisting use of that corner garage had been for parking, the 1999 Zoning Permit/COA required its replacement with open space, and that requirement cannot now be challenged.

An unappealed DRB decision becomes final and cannot be challenged directly or indirectly in a later appeal.

Atwood-Hood PRD · filed 2010-03-18(d)

Applicants failed to appeal the March 10, 2009 DRB Growth Management Allocation Decision and it has become final. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). Therefore, Applicants cannot now challenge that decision in the present appeal, either directly or indirectly.

An unappealed zoning board decision becomes final and cannot be challenged directly or indirectly.

Benning Accessory Use Permit · filed 2010-03-25(d)

No party appealed the ZBA’s denial of the 2002 Application; it therefore became final and cannot be challenged, either directly or indirectly. 24 V.S.A. §4472(d).

Section 4472(d) binds interested persons to a municipal panel decision if they fail to appeal it and bars them from contesting it later.

Geddes PUD · filed 2010-04-20(d)

As previously discussed, absent an extension of the time to appeal, the failure to file a timely appeal of a municipal panel decision with the Environmental Court extinguishes the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and binds all parties to the panel’s decision.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning decision final and bars later challenges to its validity.

Fenoff Variance Amendment · filed 2010-12-27(d)

However, even if it was erroneously granted, the 2006 Variance has long since become final without appeal, and its validity can no longer be challenged. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d); City of South Burlington v. Department of Corrections, 171 Vt. 587, 588-89 (2000) (determining that 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) prevents any sort of collateral attack on a zoning decision that has not been properly appealed).

Section 4472(d) makes unappealed municipal land use decisions final and bars collateral attacks on them in a later permit appeal.

Musty Permit · filed 2011-02-24(d)

We find no authority for ignoring § 4472(d) and the jurisdictional limits thereby imposed on this Court. We therefore conclude that these Questions must be DISMISSED as a matter of law.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning decision final and bars a later challenge to it, even if the decision was incorrect.

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

This DRB decision was not appealed to this Court and therefore became final; it cannot be challenged in this appeal, even indirectly, regardless of whether it was or was not correctly decided.

Section 4472(d) makes unappealed zoning decisions final and binding and bars parties from challenging those decisions in later proceedings.

Musty Zoning Permit · filed 2011-04-29(d)

No party to the subdivision proceedings chose to appeal the DRB Decision or the subsequent staff and DRB Chairman’s actions that followed that Decision. Such actions and Decision therefore became final and binding upon the parties, who are specifically prohibited from challenging the prior determinations in any subsequent proceedings. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning or subdivision decision final and bars later challenges, even if the decision was erroneous.

Cummings Subdivision · filed 2011-07-13(d)

The general rule is well settled in Vermont that a municipal zoning or subdivision decision, even if made in error, that is not timely appealed becomes final and cannot later be challenged in any proceeding.

Section 4472(d) gives prior land use determinations final effect against later owners of the property.

Mastelli Construction Application · filed 2009-08-31(d)

Our Supreme Court has repeatedly stated the importance of respecting the finality of land use determinations. See, e.g., In re Hildebrand, 2007 VT 5, ¶11, 181 Vt. 568 (mem.) (citing In re Dep’t of Bldgs. & Gen. Servs., 2003 VT 92, ¶ 21, 176 Vt. 41); see also 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). The respect and finality that must be afforded to prior land use determinations also binds future owners of the property, as the successors or assigns from the party that made the original representations.

Section 4472 makes an unappealed subdivision approval final, so it cannot be challenged in a later permit appeal.

Musty Zoning Permit · filed 2011-07-28

To the extent that Mr. Tiballi wishes to challenge the finality of the subdivision approval Ms. Musty received from the DRB, he has not given us reason to doubt that that prior decision has become final under 24 V.S.A. § 4472.

An unappealed variance and its conditions become final, preventing a later challenge to whether the variance met statutory criteria.

Fenoff Variance Amendment · filed 2011-08-30(d)

The variance and its conditions therefore became final, regardless of whether the accessory building met the statutory criteria for a variance to be issued. Therefore, the issue of whether the 2006 Variance met the statutory criteria for a variance is not before the Court in the present case.

A person who does not timely appeal a zoning administrator’s determination is bound by it and cannot contest it in a later appeal.

Smith Building Permit (Garage) · filed 2012-01-09(d)

Upon the failure to timely appeal, an interested person “shall be bound by that decision or act [of the ZA] . . . and shall not thereafter contest, either directly or indirectly, the decision or act . . . .” 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). ... Here, it is undisputed that Applicants did not appeal the ZA’s determination that their 2008 permit had expired prior to completion of their garage construction. Accordingly, they are bound by the ZA’s determination and cannot now contest it.

An unappealed municipal land use decision becomes final and cannot be contested later, directly or indirectly.

Hartland Group Real Estate · filed 2012-03-01(d)

Since that permit has not been appealed, it has become final. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) (one who fails to appeal a municipal land use decision ”shall be bound by that decision . . . and shall not thereafter contest, either directly or indirectly, the decision”). Thus, our review in this appeal is limited to determining whether the Ordinance allows for the timeline extension request sought by Hartland.

Section 4472(d) prevents parties from relitigating final zoning determinations in a later application.

316 Main St. LLC · filed 2012-06-27(d)

Section 4472 of Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated bars us from ignoring the final determinations made in that prior proceeding.

An unappealed municipal decision upholding a zoning violation becomes final and cannot be challenged in a later enforcement action.

Town of Westford v. Mathieu · filed 2012-10-10(b)

Defendant does not dispute that an access road was built across her property without the required permit and does not offer any facts that are legally sufficient to refute the legal impact of her decision to not appeal the DRB’s decision to uphold the NOV, thereby rendering it final.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning board decision final and bars a collateral challenge to it.

Lidstone Setback Waiver · filed 2012-12-19(d)

Applicant did not appeal the ZBA’s decision, and therefore, the January 15, 2009 decision is now final pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4472(d) and cannot be collaterally attacked in the present matter.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed municipal panel decision final and binding, barring later challenges to the permit’s validity.

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

Those permits are therefore final, and any questions as to the validity of those permits are not reviewable by the DRB or this Court.

An unappealed municipal panel decision approving a preliminary plat is final and cannot be challenged collaterally in an appeal from final plat approval.

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

Appellants did not appeal the DRB’s decision approving Applicants’ preliminary plat; thus, that decision cannot be challenged collaterally in this appeal.

Section 4472(d) binds interested persons to an unappealed zoning decision and bars later challenges to it.

Howard Center Renovation Permit · filed 2013-11-12(d)

The underlying PUD approval and permit for the existing medical office cannot now be challenged in this appeal.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning administrator decision final and bars later direct or indirect challenges to it.

Fuller Building Permit · filed 2014-01-10(d)

When a party fails to file a timely appeal with the appropriate municipal panel, that party is “bound by that decision or act of that officer . . . and shall not thereafter contest, either directly or indirectly, the decision or act . . . .” 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). Appellant here was duty-bound to file a timely appeal with the DRB if she wished to contest the permit issued by the ZA to the Fullers. Her failure to do so foreclosed her right to challenge that permit, “either directly or indirectly.” Id. The pending appeal must therefore be DISMISSED.

An unappealed zoning permit is final and cannot be collaterally challenged in an appeal concerning a later expansion.

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

This appeal is not an enforcement action, and the 2012 permit was not appealed and is therefore final. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

An unappealed zoning administrator decision binds an interested person and bars direct or indirect challenges to that decision.

Brothers Building Co. Change of Use · filed 2014-07-10(d)

Thus, although we agree with Brothers that the unappealed December 17, 2012 ZA decision is binding upon Appellant and that he cannot contest, directly or indirectly, that decision, material facts remain in dispute regarding whether Brothers’ current use of its 49 Butcher House Drive property has materially changed and is currently in violation of the Waitsfield Zoning Bylaws.

An applicant who does not appeal a zoning permit is bound by it and cannot indirectly challenge it through a later application.

In re Application of Lathrop Limited Partnership I, II and III · filed 2015-03-20(d)

Looking at the first step in this case, there is a judgment—the 2004 ZBA permit—with preclusive effect as specified in 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). While the permit is not final because of neighbors’ appeal, it is final with respect to any change from Lathrop because Lathrop failed to appeal.

Section 4472(d) bars a later application that indirectly contests an unappealed zoning decision, unless an applicable preclusion exception permits it.

In re Lathrop Ltd. Partnership I · filed 2015-03-20(d)

The Lathrop II application contests, at least indirectly, the decision of the 2004 ZBA in Lathrop I, to the extent that there is an inconsistency between them. Thus, it violates § 4472(d), and the ZBA should not have entertained it.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning decision by an authorized zoning specialist final and binding, barring a later collateral challenge.

Burns 2-Unit Residential Building · filed 2015-06-23(d)

Regardless, § 4472(d) is clear that zoning decisions of this type when not appealed are final and binding and cannot be subsequently attacked.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed municipal zoning decision final and binding, preventing affected persons from contesting it in a later proceeding.

Tilton Variance · filed 2015-06-24(d)

Their failure to appeal that decision to this Court renders the ZBA’s denial final and binding.

Section 4472 makes a zoning permit final and binding after the appeal period passes, even if the permit contains an error.

Foss NOV (Shared Parking) · filed 2015-07-30

Considering that the CU Permit was deficient for the DRB’s failure to require more than four parking spaces for the 2,640 square foot building, the appeal period has passed and the CU Permit is final and binding as is, even if it is in error. 24 V.S.A. § 4472; City of Burlington v. Dept of Corrections, 171 Vt. 587 (2000); Town of Sandgate v. Colehamer, 156 Vt. 77, 84 (1990).

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning decision final and binding on the parties, even if the decision was erroneous.

BlackRock Construction, LLC · filed 2016-04-21(d)

Accordingly, because the DRB’s conclusions in its August 27, 2014 Decision were not appealed, they are final and binding even if they are in error. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). As a result, BlackRock and the Town are “bound by that decision.” Id.

Section 4472(d) does not make an unappealed zoning specialist’s letter final and binding when the letter is not a decision of the zoning administrator.

In re Burns Two-Unit Residential Building (Michael Long Appellants) · filed 2016-05-27(d)

Because it is not a decision of the zoning administrator, the complainant did not have to appeal it to the DRB to avoid the invocation of § 4472(d).

Unappealed municipal land use decisions and permit conditions bind interested parties and cannot be challenged later, directly or indirectly.

Southerly Side of US Rte 7 LLC · filed 2016-05-27(d)

Applicant did not appeal this decision and is therefore prohibited from challenging these final permit conditions in a subsequent application. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Section 4472(a) bars a later challenge to an unappealed subdivision approval, even if the approval was ultra vires.

In re Musty Permit · filed 2012-06-08(a)

Even if the DRB’s approval of the subdivision application was ultra vires, as appellant contends, the policy of repose imposed by statute and by this Court does not allow appellant to challenge the subdivision approval at the Environmental Division level because he did not appeal the decision to the DRB.

Section 4472 makes a final subdivision approval binding and prevents the court from reconsidering it in a later permit proceeding.

Willowell Foundation CU · filed 2014-09-02

The subdivision at issue is final and cannot now be considered by the Court.

An interested person who does not appeal a municipal panel’s decision is bound by that decision and cannot later contest its conclusions.

Mahan CU · filed 2015-02-19(d)

As such, Applicant’s failure to appeal the ZBA’s decision on the October 1 application binds her to both the decision and the provisions therein and precludes her from contesting the decision or provisions therein, including the ZBA’s conclusion that the Structure’s nonconforming use has been abandoned.

An oral zoning administrator opinion conveyed only to an applicant, without a formal application or public notice, is not a final, binding decision under § 4472(a).

Langlois Novicki Variance · filed 2016-09-09(a)

We decline, therefore, to conclude that the ZA’s opinion was a final and binding decision under 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a).

A DRB decision must be appealed within 30 days; otherwise, it becomes final and cannot be challenged in a later proceeding.

Town of Lyndon v. Brink · filed 2016-12-15

Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4472, a DRB decision must be appealed within 30 days. In re Ashline, 2003 VT 30, ¶ 8, 175 Vt. 203. If no appeal is made in that time, the DRB decision becomes final and binding and cannot be challenged in a subsequent proceeding. Id.

An unappealed zoning decision is final and binding on successors in interest.

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

The unappealed decision is therefore final and binding on successors in interest. In re Hildebrand, 2007 VT 5, ¶ 11, 181 Vt. 568; 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a), (d).

Section 4472(d) does not bar a court from deciding whether an unappealed approval created an enforceable condition in the first place.

In re Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 Permit · filed 2017-11-09(d)

Neighbors' argument that the trial court erred in allowing Hannaford to collaterally attack the unappealed 1987 plat approval, in violation of 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d), misses the central issue. Hannaford is not seeking to set aside a condition of the plat approval; the issue in this case is whether that 1987 approval created an enforceable setback condition in the first place.

An unappealed municipal land use decision becomes final and binding under § 4472(d).

Speer/McInnis NOV - Decision in On-The-Record Appeal · filed 2018-02-22(d)

Any “decision or act” taken under the municipal planning and development act, V.S.A. Title 24, chapter 117, can be appealed pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a). If no appeal is made, that “decision or act” becomes final and binding under 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Section 4472(d) makes final municipal land use decisions binding and bars collateral challenges to them.

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

We therefore also decline to address Applicants’ Question 2, because to do so would violate the finality requirement of 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Section 4472(d) requires a final zoning permit to be respected even if it was issued in error.

Ledoux Zoning Permit - Decision on the Merits · filed 2018-08-23(d)

However, the permit has now become a final decision. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). Even if the permit was issued in error it must be respected.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning decision binding on interested parties and bars a later collateral attack on that decision.

Bridges Zoning Permit Approval - Decision on Motions · filed 2018-08-29(d)

A failure to appeal a decision results in all interested parties being bound by that decision. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed pre-application decision binding only as to issues it actually decided; silence on issues reserved for later review does not approve them.

DeVita Subdivision Amendment - Decision on Motion · filed 2018-10-01(d)

A failure to appeal decisions like the 2016 Pre-Application determination results in all interested parties being bound by the decision. 24 V.S.A § 4472(d). ... For these reasons, we conclude that the 2016 Decision is a final and binding decision on the determinations reached therein. These determinations are limited to the authorization of the DeVitas’ proposed Project to proceed to later, more-detailed stages of DRB review. We conclude that the 2016 Decision did not approve the road design or lot configuration aspects of the Project by its choice to preserve those issues for later deliberation.

Section 4472(b) makes an unappealed zoning decision final and bars a later direct or indirect challenge to it.

Spencer CU & SP - Decision on Motion · filed 2018-10-23(b)

By allowing the NOV to remain unchallenged, Appellant caused the ZBA’s determination that his apartment use was unlawful to become final; he cannot not now challenge that final determination in these subsequent proceedings. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(b) (directing that those who fail to appeal an adverse decision to the Environmental Division “shall be bound by that decision . . . and shall not thereafter contest, either directly or indirectly” the municipal panel decision rendered against them.). We therefore conclude that whatever right Appellant may have had to claim a grandfathered status for his apartment use at his property, that right was extinguished by his failure to appeal the ZBA decision upholding the NOV.

An unappealed zoning decision becomes final and cannot be challenged indirectly in a later variance proceeding, though the applicant may still seek a variance.

Banyai Variance - Decision on Motions · filed 2019-01-04(d)

A failure to timely appeal decisions like the ZA’s denial binds all interested parties to the determinations made therein. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). An appeal is the “exclusive remedy” available to a party who wishes to challenge the determinations or acts of a municipal officer or panel. Id. This means that parties cannot later contest, “either directly or indirectly,” the contents of the decision “in any proceeding, including any proceeding brought to enforce this chapter.” Id.

An unappealed zoning administrator determination becomes final.

Williams NOV - Decision on Motions · filed 2019-01-10(d)

To the extent that Mr. Williams wished to challenge that determination by the Zoning Administrator, he could only do so by appealing the Administrator’s July 29, 2017 determination. When he failed to do so, that determination became final. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Section 4472(d) makes an appeal the exclusive way to contest a municipal zoning decision; an unappealed notice of violation binds the parties and cannot be challenged later.

Town of Halifax v. LeMay & Jeffrey - Decision on Motion · filed 2019-01-16(d)

An appeal is the exclusive remedy available to parties who wish to contest the act or decision of a municipal body. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). A failure to appeal municipal decisions like notices of violation binds all parties, and this Court, to the determinations reached therein.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning decision final and binding.

Pelican/Lamos Variance - Decision on Motion · filed 2019-04-01(d)

This conclusion was not appealed and has since become final and binding. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). This further supports our conclusion that a variance is inappropriate in this matter with respect to the side yard setback issue.

An unappealed municipal land use approval becomes final and cannot be challenged in a later proceeding.

Brattleboro Memorial Hospital Act 250 - Decision on Motion (Dismiss) · filed 2019-04-12(d)

Therefore, the determination that the proposed project complies with the municipal regulations has become final and cannot be challenged in this proceeding. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). We therefore GRANT BMH’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s Question 4.

An unappealed municipal zoning decision is immune from collateral attack in a later proceeding.

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

He is not appealing the ZA’s November 18, 2014 decision originally approving Mr. Perham’s permit for the barn. Nor could he. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) (providing that unappealed municipal decisions are immune from collateral attack in subsequent proceedings).

An unappealed final certificate of compliance is binding and cannot be collaterally attacked under § 4472(d).

Hopkins Certificate of Compliance - Decision on Motion · filed 2019-06-20(d)

We could not determine otherwise; Mr. Boudreau’s attempt to collaterally attack the conclusions of the Final Certificate are barred by 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

A person who fails to timely appeal a zoning decision is bound by it and cannot later contest its allegations.

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

By failing to timely challenge the NOV in an appeal, the Pelkeys gave up their right to contest the allegations contained in the NOV. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) (directing that when an interested person fails to file a timely appeal, that person “shall be bound by that decision or act”); see also In re Newton Enterprises, 167 Vt. 459, 463 (1998).

Section 4472 makes unappealed zoning decisions final and bars collateral challenges to them in enforcement proceedings.

City of St. Albans v. Arsenault - Decision on Motion · filed 2019-09-18(d)

However, as these issues constitute collateral attacks upon the factual basis of the NOV, they are time barred by the exclusivity provisions of 24 V.S.A. § 4472.

An unappealed municipal panel decision has preclusive effect under § 4472(d), making its permit conditions difficult to amend.

Clark & Castle Final Plan Amendment - Decision on the Merits · filed 2020-05-22(d)

The first element in the successive application doctrine requires a judgment, such as permit, with preclusive effect as specified in 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). ... Here, the 2014 DRB Decision operates as final with respect to any charge from Applicants because Applicants failed to appeal the 2014 denial.

An unappealed notice of violation by a zoning administrator becomes final and binds interested parties to its determinations.

Town of Pawlet v. Banyai - Decision on Motion · filed 2020-06-05(d)

A failure to timely appeal decisions of the zoning administrator, such as the NOV in this case, binds all interested parties to the determinations made therein. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

Section 4472(a) makes an appeal the exclusive remedy for challenging a zoning decision, so unappealed approvals become final and cannot be challenged.

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

The Foundation’s Questions 1 and 7 ask whether the existing approvals for the Museum and the Garage are final under 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a). See Statement of Questions. We can now answer Questions 1 and 7 in the affirmative.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed municipal zoning decision final and enforceable, even if the board lacked authority to impose a permit condition.

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

Because no party filed a timely appeal with this Court, the decision of the DRB is final and incontestable. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). ... Thus, although the condition prohibiting service of liquor may have been beyond the DRB’s authority, it became final and enforceable when the time to appeal expired.

Section 4472(d) generally binds interested parties to unappealed zoning decisions, but does not preclude a neighbor whose affected interest and proper notice have not been shown.

Purvis North Willard Street - Decision on Motion · filed 2020-12-08(d)

The Vermont Supreme Court, however, has shown a clear reluctance to apply § 4472(d) broadly in circumstances involving neighbors’ failure to appeal a zoning decision where there is little or inadequate notice or participation. ... For these reasons, we conclude that Applicant is not collaterally estopped from arguing that the portion of the DA that is located on the neighboring property is a preexisting nonconforming use due to the issuance of a 2011 zoning permit No. 12-0277CA that refers to the DA as a “green space.”

Section 4472 makes an appeal the exclusive remedy for challenging a zoning decision and bars later challenges to an unappealed subdivision permit condition.

Zins 2-Lot Subdivision Denial - Decision on Motion · filed 2020-12-15(a), (d)

Under 24 V.S.A. §§ 4471 and 4472(a) an appeal is the “exclusive remedy” for a party seeking to alter a municipal act or decision. If a direct appeal is not taken, the decision of the zoning board is final and can not be contested “either directly or indirectly” in subsequent proceedings.

Section 4472(d) binds interested parties to the factual and legal determinations in a notice of zoning violation if they do not appeal it on time.

Town of Pawlet v. Banyai - Decision on Motion · filed 2021-01-21(d)

We have further already ruled that due to his failure to file a timely appeal the NOV served upon him, Mr. Banyai relinquished his right to challenge the factual and legal representations contained in the NOV. Id. at 5–6; see 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) (establishing that failure to timely appeal binds all interested parties to determinations made by the decision or act). Thus, we turn to the NOV do determine whether the conceded facts warrant a granting of the requested preliminary injunction.

Section 4472(d) does not bar a zoning violation notice about occupancy when the earlier zoning decision did not address occupancy.

15-17 Weston Street NOV - Decision on Motion · filed 2021-01-22(d)

The 1994 zoning board decision did not mention occupancy limits for any apartments because that was never an issue raised or required in that proceeding. The fact that the 1994 zoning board decision did not mention occupancy limits cannot be grounds for this Court to now conclude that the Trust’s property enjoys a pre-existing, nonconforming right to rent Unit #1 without occupation limits.

An unappealed site plan approval binds the permit holder to its terms.

Lonie Parker DBA Porky's Bkyd BBQ SP & NOV - Decision on Motion · filed 2021-02-11(d)

The 2019 Site Plan Approval was never appealed, and Applicant was bound by its terms.

Section 4472 makes an appeal the exclusive way to challenge a municipal zoning decision and binds interested persons to a zoning administrator’s decision if they do not appeal it on time.

VTRE Investments, LLC Zoning Appeal - Decision on Motion · filed 2021-06-11(a), (d)

Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a), an appeal is the “exclusive remedy” for interested persons seeking to challenge a municipal act or decision. If there is no direct, timely appeal of a zoning administrator’s decision to the DRB, “all interested persons affected shall be bound . . . and shall not thereafter contest [the decision], either directly or indirectly.”

An unappealed subdivision approval is final and binding, and a later amendment application does not reopen conditions unaffected by the proposed revisions.

Hinesburg Hannaford SD - Decision on Motion · filed 2019-02-15(d)

The underlying 1987 subdivision approval became final and binding when it was not appealed. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). The aspects of that decision that are not affected by Hannaford’s proposed revisions cannot now be collaterally attacked.

Section 4472(d)'s finality bar does not support summary judgment without a showing that the unappealed decision forecloses the matters raised in the appeal.

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

To the extent the decision is a final and binding approval, Burton has not explained how or why it operates to bar this appeal of both Certificates in its entirety. ... In the face of these unresolved issues, and giving CRZ the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences, we cannot conclude that this appeal should be dismissed outright.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed permit decision final and bars collateral attacks on it in later proceedings.

DeVita Subdivision Amendment - Decision on Merits · filed 2019-04-23(d)

When a land permit decision has become final, a party cannot collaterally attack that final decision in a later proceeding. Levy v. Town of St. Albans Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 152 Vt. 139, 141 (1989); see also 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) (barring collateral attacks on final permit decisions).

Section 4472 bars a collateral challenge to an unappealed zoning decision, even when a related earlier decision was appealed.

In re Hopkins Certificate of Compliance (Bernard J. Boudreau, Appellant) · filed 2020-06-19(a), (d)

We conclude that Boudreau’s appeal is a collateral attack on a zoning decision barred by the exclusivity-of-remedy provision in 24 V.S.A. § 4472 and affirm.

Section 4472(d) bars a party who fails to timely appeal a notice of zoning violation from later contesting its determinations, including in an enforcement proceeding.

Town of Pawlet v. Banyai - Decision on the Merits · filed 2021-03-05(d)

Thus, failure to timely appeal restricts parties from later contesting, “either directly or indirectly,” the contents of a notice of zoning violation “in any proceeding, including any proceeding brought to enforce this chapter.”

Section 4472 makes a direct appeal the exclusive remedy for contesting a zoning board decision, so unappealed conditions become final and must be followed.

Lonie Parker DBA Porky's Bkyd BBQ Co - Decision on Motion · filed 2021-12-21(a), (d)

Direct appeal is the “exclusive remedy” for contesting such DRB actions, so all three decisions, and consequently the conditions imposed within, are final and incontestable. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a), (d).

An unappealed notice of violation becomes final, even if erroneous, and the recipient cannot later contest the violation.

Town of Brattleboro v. Powers & Seeger - Decision on Motion · filed 2022-02-11

Indeed, the NOV was not appealed, making the determination final, even had it been in error. ... Respondents therefore cannot now contest the violation. Id.; see 24 V.S.A. § 4472.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed notice of zoning violation final and bars a later collateral challenge to it in an enforcement action.

Town of Concord v. Schwag - Decision on Motion · filed 2022-03-25(d)

It is settled law that an appeal is the exclusive remedy available to parties who wish to contest the act or decision of a municipal officer or body. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). ... Because the NOV was properly served upon Respondent and not timely appealed by him, it cannot now be collaterally attacked, and the Town is now entitled to judgment in this enforcement action.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed zoning administrator decision binding and bars later direct or indirect challenges to it.

Vincent Permit 23-071 - Decision on Motion · filed 2023-11-16(d)

The Permit has therefore become final and binding on all parties, including this Court.

Section 4472(a) makes de novo review in the Environmental Division the exclusive remedy for a denied zoning variance; an unappealed denial cannot be challenged indirectly in Civil Division.

human rights comm v. st johnsbury · filed 2024-01-02(a)

There can be no doubt that the DRB’s variance decision is final and cannot be contested, directly or indirectly, in this forum. The statute setting out finality and exclusivity-of-remedy principles for zoning decisions is not ambiguous. Under 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a), Ms. Stone’s exclusive remedy for the variance denial was de novo review in the Environmental Division.

Section 4472 makes an appeal the exclusive way to challenge a municipal zoning decision and bars later challenges if no appeal is taken.

Town of Marshfield v. Harris - Decision on Motions · filed 2024-01-31(a), (d)

Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §§ 4471 and 4472(a), the “exclusive remedy” for a party seeking to challenge a municipal act or decision, such as the NOV, is to appeal. If an appeal is not taken, then the underlying act or decision becomes final and cannot be contested “directly or indirectly” in subsequent proceedings. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d); see also Levy v. Town of St. Albans Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 152 Vt. 139, 142 (1989).

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed municipal decision final and bars later challenges to it.

Alta Assets LLC Appeal - Decision on Motion · filed 2024-01-31(d)

If an appeal is not taken, then the underlying act or decision becomes final and cannot be contested “directly or indirectly” in subsequent proceedings. ... Because there has not been, nor can there be, an appeal of the December Notice of Decision it is final and binding on all parties, including the Court. The Court cannot entertain any collateral attack on the terms of the December Notice of Decision.

Section 4472 makes an unappealed zoning violation notice final and binding after the appeal period expires.

Town of Rockingham v. Van Schoick - Decision on Motions · filed 2024-03-28

Failure to file a timely appeal results in the NOV becoming final and binding on all parties, including Mr. Van Schoick. 24 V.S.A. § 4472 (setting forth the rule of finality).

Section 4472 makes an appeal the exclusive remedy for a municipal zoning decision and binds interested persons to a decision that is not timely appealed; under these circumstances, a request for reconsideration did not toll the appeal period.

In re 2078 Jersey Street CU Reconsideration Denial (Town of Ferrisburgh, Appellant) · filed 2024-04-12

Absent contrary notice or applicable local rules, where a municipal panel grants a conditional use permit, thirty-one days after the approval, the permit applicant should be able to check the environmental court docket, see that no appeal was filed, and assume that the decision is therefore final. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472 (providing that appeal is the “exclusive remedy” and binding all interested parties to decisions not appealed). ... For these reasons, we conclude that the appeal period was not tolled by applicant’s request for reconsideration.

An unappealed notice of violation is final and binding even if issued in error, preventing later review of whether it complied with statutory notice requirements.

Town of Duxbury v. Kessler - Decision on Motion · filed 2024-12-09

Mr. Kessler did not appeal the NOV and, therefore, it is final and binding even if issued in error. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472; see also City of S. Burlington v. Dep’t of Corr., 171 Vt. 587, 588—89 (2000) (mem.). Thus, a determination of whether the NOV fully complied with 24 V.S.A. § 4451 is beyond our jurisdiction in this appeal.

Section 4472(d) makes an unappealed municipal zoning decision final and bars direct or indirect challenges to it in later proceedings, even if the decision was erroneous.

172 North Willard St. Zoning Permit Appeal - Decision on Motions · filed 2025-02-05(d)

If an appeal is not taken, then the underlying act or decision becomes final and cannot be contested “directly or indirectly” in subsequent proceedings.

An unappealed conditional-use approval remains final when a later decision addresses only compliance with a condition of that approval.

In Re Alta Assets LLC, Appeal · filed 2025-02-07(d)

We also reject neighbors’ assertion that the June 2023 decision constituted a new conditional-use approval. The conditional-use approval issued on December 22, 2022, and the June 2023 decision concerned only applicant’s compliance with a landscaping condition.

An unappealed municipal zoning decision binds the parties and the court and cannot be challenged later, directly or indirectly.

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

Once a municipal decision is final and binding, parties cannot later challenge, “either directly or indirectly,” the contents of the decision. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d).

An unappealed zoning notice of violation becomes final and binding.

Town of Richford v. Spencer - Decision on the Merits · filed 2025-03-27(d)

By failing to timely appeal the NOV, that decision is now final and binding.

Section 4472 makes unappealed zoning permit decisions and their conditions final and binding.

Honos Real Estate, LLC Variance Denial - Decision on Motions · filed 2025-04-04

Applicant did not appeal the permits, and they are therefore final and binding. 24 V.S.A. § 4472.