Opinion ID: 1057300
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substantive Challenge

Text: ¶ 32. Turning to the substance of the Board's decision, Ridge argues that, in reaching its conclusion, the Board disregarded its own precedent and that of the Environmental Board. Ridge maintains that the project will be grossly out of character with the natural scenic surroundings, it will significantly diminish the aesthetic qualities of the area, and it will be visually shocking and offensive. In support of its argument, Ridge cites the competing evidence that it presented at the hearing. Ridge also argues that UPC offered essentially no mitigation steps and that the Board erred in accepting UPC's minimal mitigation efforts. ¶ 33. All of these arguments turn on the Board's assessment of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, a role reserved exclusively for the Board. As reflected above, the Board considered the evidence presented on the aesthetic impact of this project, it made findings about how the project would be viewed by the public, and it concluded that the average person would not be shocked or offended by it. As the Board explained, its findings were based on visual simulations presented at the hearing as well as viewshed analyses, which demonstrated to the Board that the majority of the views of the project were from a distance such that its size would not be overwhelming and, consequently, that the average person would not find its observation shocking or offensive. ¶ 34. Ridge cites numerous Environmental Board decisions to support its assertion that the Public Service Board misjudged the evidence before it. Relying on cases where the Environmental Board has found a project so out of character with its surroundings as to be shocking. Ridge asserts that the Public Service Board should have reached a similar conclusion here. The cases cited by Ridge do not stand for the proposition that every project out of character with its surroundings must be deemed to have an undue adverse aesthetic impact. As previously discussed, the Board here found, based on its evaluation of the evidence, that this project would not be shocking or offensive to the average person. While the project may be seen as out of character with the surrounding area, the Board reasoned that the views of the project would be intermittent and from such a distance that they would not shock or offend the average person. ¶ 35. It is elemental that each case turns on its own facts, and as we have explained, [d]etermining the degree of adverse aesthetic effect is a matter of weighing of the evidence, a role for the Board rather than for this Court. In re Denio, 158 Vt. 230, 239, 608 A.2d 1166, 1171 (1992). The Board applied the appropriate standard in evaluating the aesthetic impact of this project; its conclusion is supported by its findings, and its findings are supported by the record. Given this, we will not disturb the Board's assessment of the weight of the evidence on appeal. See In re Cent. Vt. Pub. Serv. Corp., 167 Vt. at 627, 711 A.2d at 1160 (When conflicting or... imperfect evidence is admitted, it is not our province to reweigh such evidence, or reassess its credibility.). ¶ 36. Under the same standard of review, the Board also weighed the evidence as to UPC's mitigation efforts. While Ridge characterizes these efforts as minimal, the Board concluded otherwise. It made numerous findings in support of its decision, set forth above. These findings are supported by the record, and they support the Board's conclusion that the project satisfied the third prong of the Quechee test. [7] ¶ 37. Finally, we note that Ridge also argues that the regional plan contains a clear written community standard. Even assuming that Ridge preserved this claim of error and that it has standing to raise this argument on appeal, we find the argument without merit. The Board properly concluded that the provisions of the regional plan identified by the Town of Sutton were not sufficiently specific to constitute a clear written community standard that would prohibit the development at issue here. ¶ 38. As the Board explained, to satisfy this standard, a provision must be intended to preserve the aesthetics or scenic beauty of the area where the proposed project is located and must apply to specific resources in the proposed project area. The plan here did not identify any particular scenic area for preservation that would be affected by the project. Instead, it recommended that there be limited development in the rural area districts that made up large portions of the Northeast Kingdom, and stated that development should be compatible with existing land use. Unlike the provisions at issue in the Environmental Board cases upon which Ridge relies, these general statements of preferred, rather than mandated, objectives are far too open-ended to constitute a clear, community written standard that would put UPC on notice that its project was prohibited. The Board did not err in its evaluation of § 248(b)(5), and we find no grounds to disturb its conclusion that the project satisfied this statutory requirement. ¶ 39. As we stated at the outset, the Board is afforded much discretion in evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of a petition for a CPG under 30 V.S.A. § 248, and this Court gives great deference to its decision. Vt. Elec. Power Co., 2006 VT 69, ¶ 6, 179 Vt. 370, 895 A.2d 226. It is evident that the Board properly exercised its discretion here, weighing the alternatives presented to it and utilizing its particular expertise and informed judgment. Id. (quotation omitted). We find no basis to disturb its conclusion that this project, with appropriate conditions, complies with the statute and promotes the general good of the state, and thus, is entitled to a CPG. Affirmed.