Our Fall 2025 Planning and Zoning Forum focus is on key initiatives shaping Vermont’s future in housing, land use, and community development. You will gain insight into new funding opportunities, changes to Act 250, and the implementation of statewide housing legislation – all designed to support municipalities in their planning and zoning efforts.
In a case of widespread municipal importance (Echeverria et al v. Town of Tunbridge), two owners of a property in Tunbridge have appealed an Orange County Superior Court ruling that the town has the sole legal authority to determine whether and how to build, maintain, and repair the legal municipal trails located on their property.
A legal trail is defined in statute as a “public right of way that is not a highway and that (A) previously was a designated town highway having the same width as the designated town highway, or a lesser width if so designated; or (B) a new public right-of-way laid out as a trail by the selectmen for the purpose of providing access to abutting properties or for recreational use.” 19 V.S.A. § 301(8).
Until this point, the uncontested conventional legal wisdom has been that selectboards have the exclusive authority to maintain their municipality’s legal trails. The Superior Court affirmed that understanding, and the landowners appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.
VLCT MAC attorneys have filed with the Supreme Court an amicus curiae brief in support of the town’s position. The Vermont Attorney General’s Office and the Town of Pomfret have joined the fight and have also submitted their own amicus briefs in support of the town’s position.
At the lower court (Court), the plaintiff landowners claimed the legislature removed a municipality’s authority to maintain its legal trails with its 1986 amendments to the road classification statutes, and therefore only the landowners can determine maintenance of legal trails that pass through their property. The Court disregarded this argument, explaining that, as far back as at least 1921, it was clear that towns had authority to build and maintain their public trails. And even though some road “nomenclature change[d]” with the 1986 (and previous) amendments, the Court continued, there was never a suggestion in the legislative history that this authority was stripped from towns. Hence, today, it’s clear that trails “remain[] a form of public easement that the public ha[s] the right to use and that towns ha[ve] the right to build and maintain.” Furthermore, the Court noted that it “would defeat the purpose of a public easement to locate the ‘right to control’ the easement not with the town but rather with the underlying landowner, and thus require the public to bargain with that landowner for the use of the easement.” Finally, citing data from VLCT’s 2024 survey of its members about legal trails in their municipalities, the Court noted the frequency with which towns are maintaining their legal trails for public use and explained that its decision is consistent with “more than a century of both legal precedent and practical experience.”
Despite the Court’s thorough rebuke of their argument as well as the legislative amendment last session that makes it clear that towns have the authority to maintain their legal trails (see pg. 53 of Act 66 of 2025), the plaintiffs are appealing the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court. Because Act 66 is not effective until April 1, 2026, a favorable decision for the landowners before the Supreme Court would only affect trail maintenance performed before that time.
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court in this case are scheduled for 10:45 AM Tuesday, October 14 in Montpelier.
At the request of the Tunbridge selectboard, MAC attorneys have filed with the Supreme Court an amicus curiae brief in support of the town’s position. The Vermont Attorney General’s Office and the Town of Pomfret have joined the fight and have also submitted their own amicus briefs in support of the town’s position. Oral arguments before the Court in this case are scheduled for 10:45 AM Tuesday, October 14 at the Vermont Supreme Court (111 State Street in Montpelier). A decision is expected sometime later this fall.
Kail Romanoff
Staff Attorney II
VLCT Municipal Assistance Center
The Vermont Supreme Court, in the decision of Salisbury AD 1, LLC v. Town of Salisbury, 2025 VT 43, upheld a Board of Civil Authority’s (BCA) denial to hear a property tax assessment appeal because the taxpayer filed late. The taxpayer claimed that the BCA should hear the taxpayer despite the late appeal because the listers failed to send the grievance decision letter to the taxpayer’s attorney in addition to the taxpayer.
Taxpayer Salisbury AD 1, LLC owns property in Salisbury, Vermont. In 2023, it challenged the town’s property tax assessment of its property by grieving to the listers. The taxpayer’s attorney attended the grievance hearing before the listers. The listers denied the grievance and, as they are required per state law, sent their grievance decision letter to the taxpayer via certified mail with return receipt requested. The decision letter was not mailed separately to the taxpayer’s attorney. Later, the taxpayer confirmed it received the grievance decision letter in a timely fashion.
Under state law, taxpayers have 14 days from the date the listers’ grievance decision letter is mailed to appeal the decision to the BCA. Here, the taxpayer filed their appeal with the BCA several days late. The BCA denied the appeal because of the late appeal.
At the superior court level, the court said, “under the circumstances, it was clear that [taxpayer] was represented by counsel in all prior proceedings related to the matter in controversy, with the result that notice only to the party personally and not to counsel resulted in fundamental unfairness.” Therefore, it ruled that constitutional due process required the town listers to mail the grievance decision letter to both taxpayer and its attorney.
The Town of Salisbury appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court (Court), which reversed the lower court’s ruling. The Court relied on two main points. First, the controlling statute explicitly states that listers must only send the grievance decision letter to “taxpayer” and not any other parties or persons. 32 V.S.A. §§ 4222. Here, the Court noted that the listers did in fact send the grievance decision letter on time and the taxpayer received the letter with enough time (12 days) to appeal to the BCA. Second, because the stakes of property tax appeals are lower than some other cases involving personal rights and interests of individuals, such as unemployment benefits, constitutional due process did not require additional notice beyond what the statute required.
Upshot: In property tax assessment grievance cases, due process is satisfied when the listers’ grievance decision letter is mailed to the taxpayer, even if the taxpayer is represented by an attorney. The Town of Salisbury’s notice was legally sufficient, even though the letter was not mailed to the taxpayer’s attorney, so the taxpayer’s late appeal could not proceed.
Two exciting revisions regarding municipal finance (in Act 57) took effect on July 1, 2025, thanks to our Advocacy Team’s efforts. They helped secure new provisions of law that allow legislative bodies (selectboards, city councils, etc.) to carry forward unassigned fund balances (surpluses) and borrow for emergency response for up to five years of debt service, both without prior voter approval. These have been summarized in VLCT’s 2025 Legislative Wrap-Up.
