Title: In re Petition of Cross Pollination for a Certificate of Public Good

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Petition of Cross Pollination for a Certificate of
Public Good (2011-352)
 
2012 VT 29
 
[Filed 12-Apr-2012]
 
ENTRY ORDER
 
2012 VT 29
 
SUPREME COURT
  DOCKET NO. 2011-352
 
FEBRUARY TERM, 2012
 
In re Petition of Cross Pollination
  for a 30 V.S.A. Section 248 Certificate of Public Good
}
}
}
}
APPEALED FROM:
 
}
Public Service Board 
 
}
 
 
}
DOCKET NO. 7645
 
 
 
 
In the above-entitled
cause, the Clerk will enter:
 
¶ 1.            
Appellant John Madden appeals the Public Service Board's order granting
a certificate of public good for appellee Cross Pollination, Inc.'s planned
construction of a solar energy farm in the Town of New Haven.  Appellant
claims that the Board erred in applying 30 V.S.A. § 248, which regulates the
construction of electric generation facilities, and should not have issued the
certificate because the solar farm will have an "undue adverse effect" on the
aesthetics of the natural landscape as defined by 30 V.S.A. § 248(b)(5). 
We affirm. 
¶ 2.            
The facts and procedural history may be summarized as follows. 
Appellant is a New Haven resident who owns property near the planned
construction site.  Cross Pollination is a Vermont corporation based in
Burlington.  In July 2010, Cross Pollination petitioned for a certificate
of public good to build and operate a 2.2 megawatt solar electric generation
facility along Route 7 in New Haven (the Project).  Appellant opposes the
Project and was granted intervention in this matter. 
¶ 3.            
On September 28, 2010, a site visit was held at the Project's proposed
location, followed by a public hearing at the New Haven town hall.  Around
fifteen members of the public attended the meeting, several of whom questioned,
among other things, the Project's economic benefit, its costs to ratepayers,
its effect on property values, and its impact on the environment and the
natural landscape.  The Town of New Haven, however, along with the Addison
County Regional Planning Commission, the Agency of Agriculture, Food and
Markets, the Agency of Natural Resources, and the Department of Public Service,
joined in support of the Project. Together, these parties filed a stipulation
and an amended set of proposed findings of fact and order agreeing that the
Board should issue the certificate of public good with conditions (the
Stipulation).  
¶ 4.            
After a technical hearing on the merits on February 17, 2011, the
hearing officer issued a proposal for decision (PFD) recommending that the
Board approve the petition.  The PFD relied on the pre-filed testimony of
Paul Lekstutis, a principal of Cross Pollination, and Mark Kane, a land-use
planner with the Burlington firm SE Group hired by Cross Pollination, along with
various exhibits and the Stipulation.  Among the exhibits received as
evidence were the "Open View Solar Farm Visual Land Use Analysis Report" (the
Report), prepared by SE Group, and pertinent provisions of the New Haven Town
Plan and Zoning Bylaws, and Addison County Regional Plan.  
¶ 5.            
Drawing from this evidence, the hearing officer made detailed findings
covering each of the statutory criteria for the issuance of a certificate of
public good.  The PFD's findings and discussion of the Project's potential
effect on the aesthetics of the land, the subject of 30 V.S.A. § 248(b)(5),
were especially thorough.  Applying the standard named after this Court's
decision in In re Quechee Lakes Corp., 154 Vt. 543, 580 A.2d 957 (1990)
(the Quechee test), the PFD acknowledged that the Project would have an
adverse impact on the aesthetics of the landgiven its placement of solar
panels on forty acres of farmlandbut concluded that this impact would not be
undue.  It reasoned that the Project does not violate clearly written
standards found in the New Haven Town Plan or the Addison County Regional
Plan.  Moreover, it explained that Cross Pollination's plans include
reasonable steps to limit the Project's aesthetic impact by minimizing
visibility and, where possible, mimicking the natural look and use of the
land.  Finally, it concluded that the effort to blend renewable energy
into a farming landscape is not "shocking or offensive to the average
person."  The hearing officer noted the opposition of appellant, who had
participated in the hearing and later filed a brief, but explained that he
"provide[d] no cogent argument or evidence of why the Project does not satisfy
the Quechee test."  
¶ 6.            
The Board adopted the PFD and issued the certificate of public good on
July 8.  In doing so, it accepted the hearing officer's reasoning for why
the Project will not have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetics of the
landscape.  Devoting much discussion to appellant's concerns, the Board
further explained that, beyond his disagreement with the PFD's decision on this
point, appellant made no specific allegations of error, and dismissed as
unfounded his questioning of the hearing officer's qualifications.  The
Board denied appellant's motion for reconsideration, and this appeal
followed.  
¶ 7.            
Appellant's sole claim is that the Board erred in applying the Quechee
test and should have concluded that, under 30 V.S.A. § 248(b)(5), the
Project will have an "undue adverse effect" on the aesthetics of the
land.  As a result, he urges, no certificate of public good should have
issued.  Citing provisions from the New Haven Town Plan stating the Town's
goal of preserving the agricultural character of the land and describing open
land as a "scenic attraction," appellant argues that the Project violates a
clear, written community standard.  And, citing letters from various
townspeople who oppose the Project as well as other sources describing the
natural beauty of Vermont, he argues that the Project "offends the
sensibilities of the average person."  
¶ 8.            
The Board's consideration of a petition for a certificate of public good
is a "legislative, policy-making process" and is thus accorded great
deference.  In re Vt. Elec. Power Co., 2006 VT 69,
¶ 6, 179 Vt. 370, 895 A.2d 226 (quotation
omitted).  We will affirm the Board's findings unless they
are clearly erroneous. Id.  Moreover, because we "presume that
decisions made within the Board's expertise are correct, valid and reasonable,"
we will uphold the Board's legal conclusions if "they are rationally derived
from a correct interpretation of the law and supported by the findings."  In
re Times & Seasons, LLC, 2008 VT 7, ¶ 6, 183 Vt. 336, 950 A.2d 1189.
(quotation omitted).  We affirm the Board's findings in this case, and
hold that its decision was based on a correct reading of the law and is
supported by its findings.
¶ 9.            
Before turning to the Board's decision, we begin by outlining the
applicable law.  Under 30 V.S.A. § 248, no company may construct an
electric generation facility within the State of Vermont without first
obtaining a certificate of public good from the Board.  30 V.S.A. §
248(a)(2)(A).  Section 248(b) generally sets forth criteria that must be
satisfied before the Board issues a certificate of public good.  Section
248(b)(5) in particular requires in part that the Board find that a facility
"will not have an undue adverse effect on [a]esthetics . . . with due
consideration having been given to the criteria specified in" 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(8). 
Section 6086(a)(8)which also applies in the context of Act 250 permit
applicationsin turn specifies that the Board must find that the project
"[w]ill not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the
area, aesthetics, historic sites or rare and irreplaceable natural areas."
¶ 10.        
This Court has approved the Quechee test as the standard for
compliance under § 6086(a)(8).  The first prong of this test asks
whether the proposed project "will have an adverse impact on scenic and natural
beauty."  In re UPC Vt. Wind, LLC, 2009 VT 19, ¶ 24, 185 Vt. 296,
969 A.2d 144; see also Quechee Lakes Corp., 154 Vt. at 555-57, 580 A.2d 
at 964-65 (reviewing Environmental Board's decision regarding aesthetic impact
of proposed Act 250 permit amendment).  If the reviewing authority so
finds, the question becomes whether this adverse impact would be "undue." 
In re UPC Vt. Wind, 2009 VT 19, ¶ 24.  Such an impact is not undue
if three conditions are met.  First, the project must not violate "a
clear, written community standard intended to preserve the aesthetics or
scenic, natural beauty of the area."  Id.  Second, it must not
"offend[] the sensibilities of the average person."  Id. 
Finally, the applicant for the certificate of public good must take "generally
available mitigating steps that a reasonable person would take to improve the
harmony of the proposed project with its surroundings."  Id.*
¶ 11.        
The record supports the Board's general finding that the Project will
not have an undue adverse effect on the aesthetics of the land. This finding
rests mainly on the testimony of Mr. Kane, itself based on the Report, which
evaluates the Project in accordance with the Quechee test.  Mr.
Kane, supported by the Report's "visual analysis," testified that "[w]hile
visible from portions of Route 7, the Project is not a dominant element in the
landscape, but rather, would be seen as a land use consistent with the
agricultural uses that dominate the region."  He also noted, as did the
Report, that Cross Pollination took steps to limit the Project's visibility,
such as using existing hedgerows and trees as screening, ensuring minimum
setbacks of 300 feet, expanding on the property's agricultural use, and adopting
"context-appropriate" design for structures.  Finally, he testified that
the Project was consistent with both the New Haven Town Plan and the Addison
County Regional Plan, explaining that, given its limited aesthetic impact, the
Project did not conflict with the former's provisions for land conservation and
the protection of scenic views.  In light of this, Mr. Kane concluded that
the Project would not have an undue adverse aesthetic impact.  
¶ 12.        
Appellant argues with, but does not dispel this evidence supporting the
Board's finding.  Appellant's disagreement with the Board about whether
the Project is inconsistent with the New Haven Town Plan, or offends the
sensibilities of the average person, does not establish error.  See In re Wildlife Wonderland, Inc., 133 Vt.
507, 511, 346 A.2d 645, 648 (1975) ("Where a conflict in the
evidence develops, its resolution falls within the Board's jurisdiction, for
the Board is the proper trier of
fact.").  Rather, "our focus is upon the evidence supporting the Board's
findings and the question whether that evidence is adequate."  Quechee
Lakes Corp., 154 Vt. at 555, 580 A.2d  at 964.  Given its support in
the record, we see no error in the Board's finding as to the § 248(b)(5)
criterion.  
¶ 13.        
The Board's decision also reflects its proper application of the Quechee
test.  The Board acknowledged the adverse aesthetic effect of placing a
solar panel array in the middle of farmland.  It then considered the
weight of this effect under the standards expressed in the New Haven Town and
Addison County Regional Plans, in light of the steps taken to mitigate the
Project's visibility, and according to the sensibilities of the average
person.  In doing so, the Board correctly interpreted the applicable legal
standard, and its decision, rooted in its detailed findings, was a rational
application of that standard.  Appellant's sincere belief that the Project
will diminish the beauty of the farmland nestled along Route 7 in New Haven
provides no basis to disturb the Board's decision.  See In re Denio, 158 Vt.
230, 239, 608 A.2d 1166, 1171 (1992) ("Determining the degree of adverse aesthetic effect
is a matter of weighing of the evidence, a role for the Board rather than for
this Court.").  Given this, and mindful of the deference accorded to the
Board's policy expertise, we affirm the Board's decision. 
Affirmed.
 
BY THE COURT:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paul L. Reiber, Chief
  Justice
 
 
 
 
 
John A. Dooley, Associate
  Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Brian L. Burgess, Associate
  Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Beth Robinson, Associate
  Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Michael S. Kupersmith,
  Superior Judge, 
Specially Assigned
 

* 
Because appellant appeals the Board's decision only on the basis of its finding
as to the Project's effect on the aesthetics of the land, we confine our review
of the Board's decision to this issue alone.