In re Goddard College Conditional Use, Goddard College Act 250 Reconsideration, 198 Vt. 85

Goddard College obtained an Act 250 permit to replace oil heating in 23 campus buildings with a central woodchip boiler, including a 2,469 sq ft boiler building, chip yard, pipeline, and access road in Plainfield.
Neighbor (Karen Bouffard) appealed the District Commission permit to the Environmental Division, arguing among other things that the project would have an undue adverse aesthetic impact under 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(8).
The Environmental Division held a de novo review, found the project would have adverse aesthetic impacts but not undue impacts, and concluded the college had taken reasonable, generally available mitigating steps (design, landscaping, compatibility, limited noise).
Neighbor contended the court refused to allow evidence on alternative siting within the college tract and that the court’s mitigation analysis lacked adequate findings supported by the record.
The trial court permitted neighbor to testify about college representatives mentioning other considered sites but found neighbor produced no competent evidence showing feasible alternate sites or that relocation would satisfy permitting requirements.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) no evidentiary exclusion occurred, (2) the Environmental Division’s findings were supported, and (3) neighbor bore the burden to produce competent evidence of alternative, reasonably feasible mitigation and failed to do so.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alternative siting within the project tract must be considered as a "generally available mitigating step" under Criterion 8	Bouffard: Court should consider relocation within the tract as a mitigation option to avoid undue aesthetic impacts	College: Focus on mitigation measures it actually implemented; alternative siting is not shown to be feasible or part of the required analysis here	Court assumed (without deciding) that alternative siting could be considered but held Bouffard produced no competent evidence to support relocation as a reasonable mitigating step, so no reversal.
Whether the trial court improperly excluded evidence about alternative sites	Bouffard: Trial court refused to let her present evidence that college considered other sites	College: No exclusion occurred; trial court allowed testimony and later indicated limited reliance	Court found no evidentiary ruling barring evidence; the record shows trial court permitted testimony and Bouffard presented only her own statements.
Who bears burden to prove undue aesthetic impact and mitigation evidence	Bouffard: Implied contention that applicant/ court should have developed or considered alternatives	College: Burden on opponent to prove undue impact and show reasonable mitigating alternatives	Court reaffirmed statutory rule: burden to show undue impact is on opponent under 10 V.S.A. § 6088(b); absent competent evidence from opponent, applicant prevails.

In re Vill. Assocs. Act 250 Land Use Permit, 998 A.2d 712 (Vt. 2010) (deference to Environmental Division factual findings)
In re Grp. Five Invs. CU Permit, 93 A.3d 111 (Vt. 2014) (de novo review of legal/statutory questions)
In re Chaves Act 250 Permit Reconsider, 93 A.3d 69 (Vt. 2014) (Quechee test articulation for Criterion 8)
In re Halnon, 811 A.2d 161 (Vt. 2002) (Quechee first-step—adverse impact inquiry)
In re Rinkers, Inc., 27 A.3d 334 (Vt. 2011) (application of Quechee test)
In re Eastview at Middlebury, Inc., 992 A.2d 1014 (Vt. 2009) (factors making an aesthetic impact "undue")
In re Stokes Commc’ns Corp., 664 A.2d 712 (Vt. 1995) (definition of "generally available mitigating step")
Denio v. Town of (In re Denio), 608 A.2d 1166 (Vt. 1992) (burden on objector for Criterion 8; absent evidence, matter decided for applicant)