In re Zaremba Group Act 250 Permit, 127 A.3d 93

Zaremba owns a 10.08-acre parcel in Chester and sought an Act 250 permit amendment to build a Dollar General; the proposed building footprint lies within the floodway of Lovers Lane Brook.
Project would remove 1,305 cubic yards of floodwater storage but create 2,544 cubic yards of mitigation storage and include a minimum 50-foot buffer along the Brook.
The Project would narrow the Brook floodway at two points, but those constrictions are at least as wide as the Brook’s existing narrowest section downstream of the site.
Neighbors appealed the District Commission’s permit amendment approval to the Environmental Division on Criteria 1(D) (Floodways), 5 (Traffic), 8 (Aesthetics), and 10 (Local Plans); the Environmental Division affirmed the permit.
On appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court neighbors challenged only the Environmental Division’s findings on Criteria 1(D) (erosion portion) and 8 (aesthetics); they presented no floodway evidence at trial and relied on attacking the experts’ testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Project violates Criterion 1(D) by causing erosion/increasing peak discharge	Neighbors argued that constrictions and changed topography could increase velocity/erosion and that absent computer modeling the Division lacked sufficient evidence	Zaremba & ANR relied on expert testimony showing no increase in peak discharge, mitigation storage would reduce velocities, and 50-foot buffer addresses erosion	Affirmed: credible expert evidence supported finding no significant increase in peak discharge; computer modeling not required under Criterion 1(D)
Whether Project violates Criterion 8 as an undue aesthetic impact under the Quechee test (clear, written community standard prong)	Neighbors argued Project violates Chester zoning provision requiring new construction to ‘‘adhere harmoniously to the over-all New England architectural appearance’’ of Chester center	Zaremba/Division argued the provision is not a clear written community standard applicable to this vehicle-oriented site and, in any event, the Project’s impacts were not undue	Affirmed: the zoning language is not a clear community standard for the Project’s location (area has mixed/diverse architecture), so neighbors’ Criterion 8 challenge fails

In re Lathrop Ltd. P’ship I, II, III, 121 A.3d 630 (Vt. 2015) (standard of review and application of Quechee test)
In re Eastview at Middlebury, Inc., 992 A.2d 1014 (Vt. 2009) (factual-findings deferential review)
In re Bennington School, Inc., 845 A.2d 332 (Vt. 2004) (clarifying standard for clear-error review)
In re Woodford Packers, Inc., 830 A.2d 100 (Vt. 2003) (ANR authority and intervention role in floodway cases)
In re Times & Seasons, LLC, 950 A.2d 1189 (Vt. 2008) (community-standard requirement under Criterion 8)
In re Woodstock Cmty. Trust & Hous. Vt. PRD, 60 A.3d 686 (Vt. 2012) (clarifying when local provisions constitute clear community standards)
Flex-A-Seal, Inc. v. Safford, 117 A.3d 823 (Vt. 2015) (issues inadequately briefed may be forfeited)