Quechee test in Vermont

2014In re Rinkers, 2011 VT 78, ¶ 9 (endorsing use of the Quechee test). “[A] determination must first be made as to whether a project will have an adverse impact on aesthetics and the scenic and natural beauty of an area because it would not be in harmony with its surroundings.” In re Halnon, 174 Vt. 514, 515 , 811 A.2d 161, 163 (2002) (mem.).

2014In re Rinkers, 2011 VT 78, ¶ 9 (endorsing use of the Quechee test). “[A] determination must first be made as to whether a project will have an adverse impact on aesthetics and the scenic and natural beauty of an area because it would not be in harmony with its surroundings.” In re Halnon, 174 Vt. 514, 515 , 811 A.2d 161, 163 (2002) (mem.).

2025When assessing a project under Criterion 8, a court follows the two-part “Quechee test.” See In re Rinkers, Inc., 2011 VT 78, ¶ 9 , 190 Vt. 567 , 27 A.3d 334 (mem.) (approving use of Quechee test).

2025When assessing a project under Criterion 8, a court follows the two-part “Quechee test.” See In re Rinkers, Inc., 2011 VT 78, ¶ 9 , 190 Vt. 567 , 27 A.3d 334 (mem.) (approving use of Quechee test).

2022To evaluate a project’s aesthetic impacts, this Court uses the Quechee test, a two- pronged analysis stating that “a project violates Criterion 8 if: (1) the proposed project will have an adverse aesthetic impact and (2) that impact will be undue.” Lathrop, 2015 VT 49, ¶ 74 (citing In re Quechee Lakes Corp., Nos. 3W0411-EB, 3W0439-EB, slip. op. at 19-20 (Vt.

2022To evaluate a project’s aesthetic impacts, this Court uses the Quechee test, a two- pronged analysis stating that “a project violates Criterion 8 if: (1) the proposed project will have an adverse aesthetic impact and (2) that impact will be undue.” Lathrop, 2015 VT 49, ¶ 74 (citing In re Quechee Lakes Corp., Nos. 3W0411-EB, 3W0439-EB, slip. op. at 19-20 (Vt.

2009Bd. Nov. 4, 1985); cf. In re UPC Vermont Wind, LLC, 2009 VT 19, ¶ 24 (affirming the former Environmental Board’s use of the Quechee test); In re Times & Seasons, LLC, 2008 VT 7 , ¶¶ 8–10, 183 Vt. 336 (same); In re Halnon, 174 Vt. 514, 515 (2002) (mem.) (same); In re McShinsky, 153 Vt. 586 , 591–92 (1990) (same).

2009Bd. Nov. 4, 1985); cf. In re UPC Vermont Wind, LLC, 2009 VT 19, ¶ 24 (affirming the former Environmental Board’s use of the Quechee test); In re Times & Seasons, LLC, 2008 VT 7 , ¶¶ 8–10, 183 Vt. 336 (same); In re Halnon, 174 Vt. 514, 515 (2002) (mem.) (same); In re McShinsky, 153 Vt. 586 , 591–92 (1990) (same).

2015With respect to aesthetics, the application applied the two-part Quechee test, named for this Court’s decision in In re Quechee Lakes Corp., 154 Vt. 543 , 580 A.2d 957 (1990).

2015With respect to aesthetics, the application applied the two-part Quechee test, named for this Court’s decision in In re Quechee Lakes Corp., 154 Vt. 543 , 580 A.2d 957 (1990).

2025CU Permit, 2014 VT 14 , ¶ 14, 195 Vt. 625 (upholding our use of the two-part Quechee test to analyze undue adverse effect on specific characteristics within a town’s zoning ordinance, including character of the area), overruled on other grounds 2017 VT 112 .

2025CU Permit, 2014 VT 14 , ¶ 14, 195 Vt. 625 (upholding our use of the two-part Quechee test to analyze undue adverse effect on specific characteristics within a town’s zoning ordinance, including character of the area), overruled on other grounds 2017 VT 112 .

2015See In re Rinkers, 2011 VT 78, ¶ 9 , 190 Vt. 567 , 27 A.3d 334 (endorsing use of the Quechee test for determining whether an Act 250 application complies with Criterion 8); In re Eastview at Middlebury, Inc., 2009 VT 98, ¶ 20 (establishing the standard for an undue impact).

2015See In re Rinkers, 2011 VT 78, ¶ 9 , 190 Vt. 567 , 27 A.3d 334 (endorsing use of the Quechee test for determining whether an Act 250 application complies with Criterion 8); In re Eastview at Middlebury, Inc., 2009 VT 98, ¶ 20 (establishing the standard for an undue impact).

2012We do not see a conflict in employing the Quechee test to determine the proposed project’s conformance with Bylaws § 9.4(A), even though that municipal provision speaks merely of adverse effects, rather than “undue” adverse effects, because our Supreme Court has held “that the adverse effect test [referenced in zoning municipal ordinances] must be applied reasonably to prohibit only substantial and material adverse effects.” In re Miller, 170 Vt. 64, 69 (1999) (citing In re Walker, 156 Vt. 639, 639 (1991) (mem.)).

2012We do not see a conflict in employing the Quechee test to determine the proposed project’s conformance with Bylaws § 9.4(A), even though that municipal provision speaks merely of adverse effects, rather than “undue” adverse effects, because our Supreme Court has held “that the adverse effect test [referenced in zoning municipal ordinances] must be applied reasonably to prohibit only substantial and material adverse effects.” In re Miller, 170 Vt. 64, 69 (1999) (citing In re Walker, 156 Vt. 639, 639 (1991) (mem.)).

2021Cf. In re Cross Pollination, 2012 VT 29, ¶ 13 , 191 Vt. 631 , 47 A.3d 1285 (mem.) (explaining that where PUC rationally applied Quechee test in deciding whether project would have undue adverse impact on aesthetics, this Court would defer to that decision).

2021Cf. In re Cross Pollination, 2012 VT 29, ¶ 13 , 191 Vt. 631 , 47 A.3d 1285 (mem.) (explaining that where PUC rationally applied Quechee test in deciding whether project would have undue adverse impact on aesthetics, this Court would defer to that decision).

2019Wind, 2009 VT 19, ¶ 24 (explaining that in determining whether project will have undue adverse aesthetic impact under § 248(b)(5), PUC employs so-called Quechee test under which impact is undue if it violates clear written community standard, offends sensibilities of average person, or developer has failed to take reasonable mitigating steps).

2014Wind, LLC, 2009 VT 19, ¶ 24 , 185 Vt. 296 (applying the Quechee test); see also In re Quechee Lakes Corp., 154 Vt. 543 , 555–57 (1990) (reviewing Environmental Board’s decision regarding aesthetic impact of proposed Act 250 permit amendment).

2012We do not see a conflict in employing the Quechee test to determine the proposed project’s conformance with Bylaws § 9.4(A), even though that municipal provision speaks merely of adverse effects, rather than “undue” adverse effects, because our Supreme Court has held “that the adverse effect test [referenced in zoning municipal ordinances] must be applied reasonably to prohibit only substantial and material adverse effects.” In re Miller, 170 Vt. 64, 69 (1999) (citing In re Walker, 156 Vt. 639, 639 (1991) (mem.)).

2012We do not see a conflict in employing the Quechee test to determine the proposed project’s conformance with Bylaws § 9.4(A), even though that municipal provision speaks merely of adverse effects, rather than “undue” adverse effects, because our Supreme Court has held “that the adverse effect test [referenced in zoning municipal ordinances] must be applied reasonably to prohibit only substantial and material adverse effects.” In re Miller, 170 Vt. 64, 69 (1999) (citing In re Walker, 156 Vt. 639, 639 (1991) (mem.)).

2017Id. 15 Regarding the first prong of the Quechee test, an impact is adverse if it is not “in harmony with its surroundings,” or fails to “fit the context within which it will be located.” In re Quechee Lakes Corp., Nos. 3W0411-EB and 3W0439-EB, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, at 18 (Vt.

2017Id. 15 Regarding the first prong of the Quechee test, an impact is adverse if it is not “in harmony with its surroundings,” or fails to “fit the context within which it will be located.” In re Quechee Lakes Corp., Nos. 3W0411-EB and 3W0439-EB, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, at 18 (Vt.

2021We have repeatedly “approved the use of the Quechee test by the [PUC] in reviewing a permit for a CPG,” Rutland Renewable Energy, LLC, 2016 VT 50, ¶ 14 , including in the instant case, see Apple Hill I, 2019 VT 64, ¶ 41 (directing PUC to “apply the standard in the Town Plan in evaluating whether the project’s adverse effect would be undue”).

2021We have repeatedly “approved the use of the Quechee test by the [PUC] in reviewing a permit for a CPG,” Rutland Renewable Energy, LLC, 2016 VT 50, ¶ 14 , including in the instant case, see Apple Hill I, 2019 VT 64, ¶ 41 (directing PUC to “apply the standard in the Town Plan in evaluating whether the project’s adverse effect would be undue”).

2021Cf. In re Cross Pollination, 2012 VT 29, ¶ 13 , 191 Vt. 631 , 47 A.3d 1285 (mem.) (explaining that where PUC rationally applied Quechee test in deciding whether project would have undue adverse impact on aesthetics, this Court would defer to that decision).

2016See In re Cross Pollination, 2012 VT 29, ¶ 10 , 191 Vt. 631 , 47 A.3d 1285 (mem.) (affirming two-step Quechee analysis which asks first whether project “will have an adverse impact on scenic and natural beauty” and second “whether this adverse impact would be undue” (quotations omitted)). ¶ 51.

2019Conditional Use, 2014 VT 124, ¶ 6 , 198 Vt. 85 (reciting the test first applied in Re: Quechee Lakes Corp., Nos. 3W0411-EB and 3W0439-EB, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Vt.

2019Conditional Use, 2014 VT 124, ¶ 6 , 198 Vt. 85 (reciting the test first applied in Re: Quechee Lakes Corp., Nos. 3W0411-EB and 3W0439-EB, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Vt.

2021We have repeatedly “approved the use of the Quechee test by the [PUC] in reviewing a permit for a CPG,” Rutland Renewable Energy, LLC, 2016 VT 50, ¶ 14 , including in the instant case, see Apple Hill I, 2019 VT 64, ¶ 41 (directing PUC to “apply the standard in the Town Plan in evaluating whether the project’s adverse effect would be undue”).

2021We have repeatedly “approved the use of the Quechee test by the [PUC] in reviewing a permit for a CPG,” Rutland Renewable Energy, LLC, 2016 VT 50, ¶ 14 , including in the instant case, see Apple Hill I, 2019 VT 64, ¶ 41 (directing PUC to “apply the standard in the Town Plan in evaluating whether the project’s adverse effect would be undue”).

2011See In re Denio, 158 Vt. 230, 237 (1992); 10 V.S.A. § 6088(b). 12 The so-called Quechee test, named for a 1985 decision of the former Environmental Board, In Re Quechee Lakes Corp., Nos. 3W0411-EB and 3W0439-EB, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, at 17–20 (Vt.

2011See In re Denio, 158 Vt. 230, 237 (1992); 10 V.S.A. § 6088(b). 12 The so-called Quechee test, named for a 1985 decision of the former Environmental Board, In Re Quechee Lakes Corp., Nos. 3W0411-EB and 3W0439-EB, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, at 17–20 (Vt.

2009See In re Handy, 171 Vt. at 348–49; cf. In re Hildebrand, 2007 VT 5, ¶ 13 , 181 Vt. 568 (mem.) (holding that “the Environmental Court reasonably used the Act 250 standards” in a zoning case).

2009See In re Handy, 171 Vt. at 348–49; cf. In re Hildebrand, 2007 VT 5, ¶ 13 , 181 Vt. 568 (mem.) (holding that “the Environmental Court reasonably used the Act 250 standards” in a zoning case).