In re Zaremba Group Act 250 Permit, 2015 Vt. 88

Zaremba Group sought an Act 250 permit amendment to build a Dollar General store on a 10.08-acre lot in Chester; proposed building lies within the floodway of Lovers Lane Brook.
Project would remove 1,305 cubic yards of flood-water storage but include an excavation providing 2,544 cubic yards of additional storage and a minimum 50-foot buffer along the Brook.
The Project would create two narrowings of the Brook floodway, but experts testified those constrictions would be no narrower than the Brook’s existing narrowest point; ANR and Zaremba both presented expert floodway evidence; neighbors presented none.
Neighbors challenged the permit on Act 250 Criteria 1(D) (floodways), 5 (traffic), 8 (aesthetics), and 10 (plans); the environmental division approved the amendment and the neighbors appealed only Criteria 1(D) and 8 to the Supreme Court.
The environmental division found the Project would have an adverse aesthetic impact but not an undue one; it also found the Project would not significantly increase peak discharge or otherwise endanger the public under Criterion 1(D).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Project violates Criterion 1(D) by increasing erosion/peak discharge	Neighbors: Experts were insufficient; constrictions would narrow floodway and unperformed computer modeling was necessary to assess increased velocity/erosion	Zaremba/ANR: Expert testimony and Technical Guidance show additional storage and 50-ft buffer prevent significant increase in peak discharge or erosion; modeling not required	Court: Affirmed approval — credible expert evidence supports no significant increase in peak discharge; lack of modeling not fatal
Whether Project’s aesthetic impact is undue under Criterion 8 by violating a clear, written community standard	Neighbors: Chester zoning provision requiring adherence to New England architectural appearance is a clear, written community standard and Project violates it	Zaremba: The zoning language is discretionary/vague and, as applied to the vehicle-oriented site (not historic village center), does not constitute a clear standard	Court: Provision is not a clear community standard as applied here; therefore no undue impact on that ground; approval affirmed

In re Eastview at Middlebury, Inc., 187 Vt. 208, 992 A.2d 1014 (discusses clearly erroneous standard for environmental findings)
In re Bennington School, Inc., 176 Vt. 584, 845 A.2d 332 (standard for review of environmental findings)
In re Woodford Packers, Inc., 175 Vt. 579, 830 A.2d 100 (ANR’s role in floodway determinations and use of ANR expert evidence)
In re Times & Seasons, LLC, 183 Vt. 336, 950 A.2d 1189 (community standard must preserve actual aesthetics of area)
In re Woodstock Cmty. Trust & Hous. Vt. PRD, 192 Vt. 474, 60 A.3d 686 (clarifies application of community aesthetic standards)