You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In re Cross Pollination

Citations: 191 Vt. 631; 2012 VT 29; 47 A.3d 1285; 2012 WL 1352675; 2012 Vt. LEXIS 27Docket: No. 11-352

Court: Supreme Court of Vermont; April 12, 2012; Vermont; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, an appellant challenged the Public Service Board's issuance of a certificate of public good for a solar energy farm, claiming that the Board misapplied 30 V.S.A. § 248 by failing to adequately consider the project's aesthetic impact under the Quechee test. The appellant argued that the solar farm would detract from the area's scenic beauty and violate local planning standards aimed at preserving agricultural character. Despite these objections, the Board found that the adverse aesthetic effects were not undue due to compliance with community standards and effective mitigation measures. The decision was supported by substantial evidence, including testimony regarding the project's integration into the landscape and adherence to local and regional plans. The appellant's motion for reconsideration was denied, and the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the deference given to the Board's expertise and findings. This case underscores the application of the Quechee test in determining aesthetic impacts and highlights the importance of deference to administrative agency decisions in the context of electric generation facility approvals.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of 30 V.S.A. § 248 for Electric Generation Facilities

Application: The Board's decision to grant a certificate of public good was based on compliance with statutory criteria under 30 V.S.A. § 248, determining that the proposed solar farm would not have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics.

Reasoning: The Board adopted the Proposed Final Decision (PFD) and issued a certificate of public good on July 8, supporting the hearing officer's conclusion that the Project would not adversely impact landscape aesthetics.

Deference to Administrative Agency Decisions

Application: The Board's findings were afforded significant deference as a legislative, policy-making action, with the decision being upheld unless clearly erroneous.

Reasoning: The Board's process for issuing a certificate of public good is characterized as a legislative, policy-making action that is afforded significant deference. The findings will be affirmed unless clearly erroneous, with a presumption of correctness in the Board's expertise.

Quechee Test for Evaluating Aesthetic Impact

Application: The Board employed the Quechee test to assess the aesthetic impact of the solar project, concluding that despite some adverse effects, they were not undue due to compliance with community standards and mitigation measures.

Reasoning: The Board applied the Quechee test correctly in evaluating the aesthetic impact of a proposed solar panel array on farmland. It recognized the negative visual effect of the installation but assessed this within the context of local planning standards and mitigation efforts aimed at reducing visibility.