Pre-Filed Testimony and Exhibits of David Raphael - Vermont Public ...

STATE OF VERMONT 

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD 

Petition of Beaver Wood Energy Fair Haven, ) 

LLC for a Certificate of Public Good, pursuant 

to 30 V.S.A. § 248, to install and operate a 

Biomass Energy Facility and an integrated wood 

pellet manufacturing facility located north of 

Route 4 in Fair Haven, Vermont, to be known as 

) 

the “Fair Haven Biornass Project” ) 

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF 

DAVID RAPHAEL 

D k N 

OC e 0. 

ON BEHALF OF 

BEAVER WOOD ENERGY FAIR HAVEN, LLC 

November 2, 2010 

The purpose of the pre-filed testimony of Mr. Raphael is to demonstrate that the proposed 

Fair Haven Biotnass Project will comply with certain provisions of 30 V.S.A. § 248 

(b)(l) & (b)(5), namely those per aining to orderly development, public investments, and 

aesthetics.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. Introduction 1 

2. Summary of Findings 4 

3. Conclusion 5 

EXHIBIT 

Petitioner’s Exhibft DR-i Resumé of David Raphael 

Petitioner’s Exhibit DR-2 Lund Works Report



Petition of Beaver Wood Energy Fair Haven. 





Rotite 4 in Fair Haven, Vermont. to be known as 

the “Fair Haven Biomass Project” 

1 1. Introduction 

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF 

DAVID RAPHAEL 

Docket No 

ON BEHALF OF 

BEAVER WOOD ENER(;Y FAIR HAVEN, LLC 

2 Qi. Please state your name, business address and employment. 

3 Al. My name is David Raphael, and lam a Professional Landscape Architect and 

4 Planner as well as Lecturer in the School of Natural Resources at the University 

5 of Vermont. I am the Principal and owner of LandWorks, a multidisciplinary 

6 planning. design and communication% firm based in Middlehury. Vermont. My 

7 business address is 228 Maple Street, Suite 32, Middlebury. Vermont 05753. 

8 Q2. Please describe your educational background and professional experience. 

9 A2. I began my career as landscape architect and planner working for the State of 

10 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. I have been 

11 associated with LandWorks since its inception in 1986. LandWorks serves both 

12 public and private sector clients in Vermont and the Northeast. Our areas of 

13 expertise include visual, aesthetic and environmental assessment, site and master

Fair Haven Biomass Project, PSB Docket No. 

Prefiled Testimony of David Raphael 


Page 2 of 6 

1 planning. graphic communications and GIS mapping. permit planning. 

2 participatory and community planning, downtown revitalization, open space and 

3 conservation planning, zoning ordinance and design review development, 

4 landscape architecture and environmental design. At LandWorks we have 

5 worked as advocates for communities, appellants. the State of Vermont, and 

6 private corporations. I personally have testified and served as an expert witness 

7 before most of the Disti-ict Commissions in the State and the former 

8 Environmental Board, as well as the Public Service Board. 

9 LandWorks has extensive experience with regard to visual assessment and 

10 environmental impact, Criterion 8 of Act 250, and the design and installation of 

II utility facilities and structures. We have evaluated the aesthetic and 

12 environmental impact of (I) transmission lines arid corridors (including the 

13 Northwest Reliability, Lamoille and Southern Loop projects, and the PV2O line 

14 removal along the Route 2 causeway in Milton/South Hero): (2) 

15 telecommunication facilities (Coy Mountain tower proposal and four 

16 telecommunications facilities in Essex and Milton. Vermont proposed by 

17 FairPoint Communications); and (3) wind energy development, the Searsburg 

18 Project, the Sheffield Project (on behalf of UPC, now First Wind), and three wind 

19 projects in Maine (on behalf of First Wind). We have prepared feasibility studies 

20 for wind energy facilities siting for the Lamoille County Development 

21 Commission. I have served as a member of the Design Issues Study Committee 

22 appointed by the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, an initiative



November 2. 2010 


1 which clarified the application of the Quechee Analysis for aesthetics and which 

2 resulted in the publication of Vermont’s Scenic Landscapes: A Guide for Growth 

3 and Protection. In addition, we have prepared a number of zoning ordinances 

4 based on scenery preservation and environmental protection guidelines (such as 

5 the Town of Stowe Ridgeline and Hillside Overlay District), prepared scenic 

6 highway corridor studies (Interstate 91 in Brattleboro. The Molly Stark Byway 

7 Management Plan and the Route 10DB Scenic Byway Management Plan) and 

8 authored a study and state policy which was adopted for permit review of the 

9 night lighting of ski areas (Agency of Natural Resources). I have also recently 

10 helped to author a revision to the EPRI Transmission Line Reference Book -115- 

11 345kV Compact Line Design. Chapter 9. A copy of my resume is attached as 

12 Petitioner’s Exhibit DR-I. 

13 Q3. What is the purpose of your testimony? 

14 A3. The purpose of my testimony is to demonstrate that the Fair Haven Biomass 

15 Project (the “Pro jeci’) satisfies the requiremenis of 30 V.S.A. ** 248(h)(1) and 

16 (5), namely those pertaining to aesthetics, orderly development of the region, 

17 public investments, and historic resources. 

18 Q4. Have you ever testified before the Public Service Board? 

19 A4. Yes. I have presented testimony on behalf of the Department in connection with 

20 Dockets 6860 (Northwest Reliability Project). 7032 (Lamoille County Project). 

21 7314 (East Avenue Loop), 7373 (Southern Loop), and 7250 (Searsburg Wind 

22 Project). I have also testified on behalf of UPC (now First Wind) for Docket 7156





1 (Sheffield Wind Project), for Green Mountain Power regarding Docket 7558 

2 (Kingdom Community Wind Project), and on behalf of Georgia Mountain 

3 Community Wind, LLC, Docket 7508. 

4 2. Summary of Findings 

5 Q5. Based upon your evaluation and analyses, does the Project comply with 

6 Section 248? 

7 A5. Yes. On October 18. 2010. we visited Fair Haven to reconnaissance the Project 

8 Site and surrounding area, to take photos. and to document historic resources. We 

9 have prepared a visual simulation from the Welcome Center. A viewshed map 

10 has been completed to identify areas with potential visibility, and we have 

11 reviewed a 3D model to confirm that visibility. 

12 Q6. Please describe your analysis and conclusions. 

13 A6. My report, attached as Petitioner’s Exhibit DR-2, addresses the Fair Haven 

14 Biomass Project (the “Project”) in light of the aesthetics, historic tesources and 

IS orderly development and pnhlie investment criteria of 30 V.SA.* 248(h). As set 

16 forth in the report. my analytical methods include visual and cartographic 

17 analyses, document research and review. Landworks’ primary analyses assess the 

18 Project’s visibility and potential for visual and aesthetic impacts, with a focus on 

19 vantage points from major federal, state or local roads.. relationships to nearby 

20 areas of public interest; or high scenic value and/or official designation as a 

21 cultural, aesthetic or recreational facility or resource, Locations that involve 

22 resideniiaj areas in close proximity to the proposed Project were also considered.





1 I used on-site and field study to reinforce my analyses and findings, and also 

2 documented public sentiment and concerns in this process. 

3 I conducted my Project aesthetic analysis within the parameters set forth 

4 in Section 248 for review of utility scale energy generation and transmission 

5 projects. including the Quechee Analysis. established in the 1985 Environmental 

6 Board Quechee Lakes decision. This analysis also recognized that the Public 

7 Service Board weighs “societal benefits” when considering the aesthetic impacts 

8 of projects within its jurisdiction. 

9 By way of summary we conclude unequivocally that the Project, if 

10 constructed, would not result in an undue adverse impact to the aesthetics and 

11 scenic beauty of the area because: 1) the Project will not be shocking or offensive 

12 to the average person; 2) the Project does not violate any clearly written 

13 community standard; and 3) the Petitioner has taken reasonably available 

14 mitigation steps to reduce the Project’s visual and aesthetic impacts. In addition, 

15 there will be no significant views from historic resources that will materially 

16 impact the integrity of the site. The Town Zoning has identified the area where 

17 the Project is proposed for industrial development and the Regional Plan 

18 encourages towns to establish renewable energy sources, including biomass. 

19 Based on the foregoing, and on our findings more specifically detailed in 

20 my report. it is my conclusion that the Project has no undue adverse effects on 

21 aethestics. the orderly development of the region, public investments, or historic 

22 resources.

1 3. Conclusion 

2 Q7. Does this conclude your testimony? 

3 AT Yes. 




Page 6 of 6

Petition of Beaver Wood Energy Fair Haven, 







Route 4 in Fair Haven, Vermont. to be known as 

the “Fair Haven Biomass Project” 

PREFILED TESTIMONY OF 

DAVID RAPHAEL 

Docket No. 

Exhibit BWEFH DR -1 

Resumé

David Raphael, B.A., M .L.A. I 

Principal/Landscape Architect & Planner 

David Raphael founded LandWorks in 1986 after ten years of professional work as a Landscape Architect and 

Planner for the public and private sector. He is a graduate, with honors, of Tufts University and the School 

of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, where he studied Enghsh, ecology and graphic design. He attended 

Harvard Universi:y Graduate School of Design with a Crocker Scholarship and graduated with a Masters in 

Landscape Architecture. He also attended the Dartmouth Coege Outward Bound orogram. 

Mr. Raphael has been an Associate Professor in the Graduate Program in Urban and Environmental Policy 

at Tufts University, on the faculty of Middlebury College, and is currently a Lecturer in the University of 

Vermont Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, where he has been teaching courses 

in aesthetics, environmental design, and landscape architecture since 1982. Additionally, David has been 

Chairman of his local Planning Commission and Development Review Board for 25 years and was a found 

ing member of the .Middiebury Design Advisory Committee. Mr. Raphael is also a member of the Vermont 

Urban and Community Forestry Council and the American Society of Landscape Architects. 

EDUCATION 

M.L.A., Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 1977 Cambridge, Massachusetts 

B.A. in English, Tufts University, Cum Laude, Minor in Ecology, 1972 Med ford, Massachusetts 

School of the Museum of Fine Arts. 1971. Boston, Massachusetts 

Diploma. Dartmouth College Outward Bound Program, 1970, Hanover; New Hampshire 

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY, PROFESSIONAL SKILLS, AND DUTIES 

1986-present: Land Works, Middlebury, Vermont; Founded the firm and has been Principal 

1984 - 

1980 - 

1976 - 

1985: 

1979: 

1982: 

Landscape Architect & Planner for most of the company’s projects. 

Alexander, Truex, deoroot, Architects, Burlington, Vermont; Consultant and staff 

Landscape Architect/Planner 

Kiley-Waiker; Charlotte. Vermont; Associate Landscape Architect 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, Planner/Landscape Architect 

TEACHING/ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS 

:982-present: Lecturei Rubenstein Schcol of Environment & Natura’ Resources, University of Vermont 

1992-1994: Visiting instructor, Middlebury College, Middiebury, VT 

1991-1993: Adjunct Faculty Member, Vermont Technical College 

1988- 1989: Director; “Design Vermont” project of the Vermont Council on the Arts and the

Governor’s Institute on the Arts, funded by the National Endowment of the Arts & 

held at Castleton State College, July 1989 

1983: Visiting Assistant Professor, School of Architecture, University of Arkansas 

1932-984: Adjunct Associate Professor, Graduate Program in Urban and Environmental Policy, 

Tufts University 

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS 

MEMBERSHIPS 

• Registered Landscape Architect - State 

of Rhode Island 

• Passed Uniform National Examination: eligible for registration in other states 

• Registered with the Professional Ski Instructors of America 

• Member, American Society of Landscape Architects 

• Member, American Planning Association 

• Member, Society of Environmental Graphic Designers 

• Member, Board of Trustees. Lake Champlain Land Trust 

• Member, Board of Directors, Vermont State Craft Center at Frog Hollow 

• Cr 

1airman, Town of Panton Planning Commission and Zoning Board of 

Adjustment 1985 - 

2005 

• Delegate, Addison County Regional Planning Commission 

• Member, Agency of Natural Resources, Design Issues Study Committee 

• Member, Town of Middlebury, resign Advisory Committee 

• Member, Vermont Natural Resources Council 

PARTIAL LISTING OF RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS 

“BGOC (Big Graphics on Campus) Signs and environmental graphics that impact collegiate 

environments” Signs of the Times, Oct. 2003 

‘A New Vision for Vermont.’ Landscape Archi:ee:ure Magazine, December 1999 

Special Correspondent, Burlington Free Press, Burlington, Vermont, :994 to 1998 

Brave New Vermont,” Vermont Magazine, June 1995. Contributor. 

Sign Management: Aesthetics, Economics, Environment - 

The 

Vermont Experience, 1992

(“Best of the Conference” award at national conference on sign management, 1992) 

‘Prospect,” Landscape Architecture Magazine, September/October 1985. 

“Grounds for Playful Renaissance,” Landscape Architecture Magazine, July 1975. 

Richard P. White Award, Horticultural Research Institute, Washington, D.C., 1983-1984 Windbreaks 

and Sheherbelts for the Northeast 

Rivers Downtown: Riverfront Revitalization in Vermont, for the Winooski Vahey Park District, 

October 1981; funded with a Housing and Urban Development and Research Grant 

“Evolutionary Trends and Essential Themes of WEderness Preservation” in Public Space, Peter 

AWARDS 

Trowbndge, Ed. and with an Introduction by J.B. Jackson; Harvard University, Cambridge 1975. 

2005 View From the Road Public Space Award 

Vermont Chapter American Society of Landscape Architects 

2005 Island Line Sign & Amenities Plan I Award of Excellence 


2005 Lake Morey Resource Conservation Project Merit Award 

Vermont Chapter American Society of Landscape Architects Public Space 

2005 Danville Transportation Enhancement Project Public Space Award Honorable Mention 


2004 Manchester Design Guidelines Honor Award 


2003 The Pownal Municipal Plan & Land Use Regulations I Certificate of Merit for Outstanding 

Planning Project 

Vermont Planners Association 

2002 Danville Route z, Danville, Vermont Certificate of Merit for Engineering Excellence 

American Council of Engineering Companies 

2001 Stowe Ridgeline Ordinance: Ridgeline & Hillside Overlay District I Merit Award 


2001 The University of Vermont Wayfinding System & Design Standards Certificate of Merit 

for Outstanding Planning Project 

Vermont Planners Association



Petition of Beaver Wood Energy Fair Haven, 



Biomass Energy Facility and an integrated wood ) Docket No 

pellet manufacturing facility located north of ) 

Route 4 in Fair Haven, Vermont, to be known as ) 

the “Fair Haven Biomass Project” ) 

PREFILED TESTIMONY OF 

DAVID RAPHAEL 

Exhibit BWEFH DR -2 

LandWorks Report

;4$71 rAw, L!

AESTHETIC ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED 

BEAVER WOOD BIOMASS FACIUTY 

Fair Haven, Vermont 

Date: 


Prepared for: 

Beaver Wood Energy Fair Haven, LLC 

Prepared by: 

LandWorks 

Landscape A rchitec Hire. Planning. Graphic Design. 

228 Maple Street, Suite 32 

Middlebury, Vermont 05753 

Phone: 802.388.3011 

Fax: 802.3881950 

info@landworksvt.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND...1 

1.1 Introduction .1 

1.2 Report Organization and Contents.. .2 

1.3 Project Description. .2 

1.4 The Aesthetic Assessment.. .2 

2. THE QUECHEE ANALYSIS...4 

2.1 First Step of the Quechee Analysis.. .4 

2.1.A What is the nature of the Project surroundings?...4 

2.l.B Is the Project’s design compatible with its surroundings’ 5 

2.1.C Are the colors and materials selected for the Project suitable for the 

context within which it is located?,..6 

2.] .D What is the Project’s impact on open space?...6 

2.1 .E Where is the Projed visible from?... 7 

2.1 .F Conclusion to the First Step of the Quechee Analysis... 10 

2.2 The Second Step of the Quechee Analysis. .10 

2.2.A Does the Project violate a clear written community standard intended to 

preserve the aesthetics or scenic beauty of the area?...]O 

2.2.H Does the Project offend the sensibilities of the average person? Is the 

Project, when viewed as a whole, offensive or shocking, because it is out 

of character with its surroundings, or significantly diminishes the scenic 

qualities of the area 

2 12 

2.2.C Has the applicant failed to take generally availabie mitigating steps which 

a reasonable person would take to improve the harmony of the proposed 

Project with its surrounding?...13 

2.3 Overall Conclusion.. .14 

3. IMPACTS TO HISTORIC RESOURCES...16 

4. ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC INVESTMENTS...19 

4.1 Orderly Development.. .19 

4.2 Public Investments 20 

ATTACHMENTS 

Exhibit]. Photo Inventory 

Exhibit 2. Photo Location Map 

Exhibit 3. Potential Visibility from Open Areas 

Exhibit 4. Plan Excerpts 

ExhibitS. Landscape Mitigation Plan 

Exhibit 6. Landscape Mitigation Section 

Exhibit?. Visual Simulation

“Our analysis, . 

however, does not 

end with the results 

of the Quechee 

test. Instead, our 

assessment of 

Aesthetic Assessment of the Proposed Beaver Wood Biomass Facility 

1. Project Background 


1.1 Introduction 

This aesthetic assessment of the proposed Beaver Wood Biomass Facility in Fair 

Haven (Project) is conducted in response to the requirements set forth for aesthetic 

review of energy transmission and generation projects under Title 30 Section 248 of 

the Vermont statutes. The Public Service Board has adopted the Quechee Analysis, a 

two-step analysis as set forth originally for the review of aesthetics under Criterion 8 

of Act 250. 

This report will be referenced by the testimony of David Raphael, ASLA, Principal 

and Landscape Architect with Land Works, the firm preparing this assessment. Thus, 

this report and its accompanying appendices will become a part of the overall 

aesthetics testimony submitted by Beaver Wood Energy, LLC in its application for a 

Certificate of Public Good (CPC) from the Vermont Public Service Board (P58) to 

construct a biomass facility under Section 248 of Title 30 of the Vermont Statutes. 

The methodology for the aesthetics assessment of this Project includes visual and 

cartographic analyses, document research and review. Our primary analyses assess 

the Project’s visibility and potential for visual and aesthetic impacts, with a focus on 

vantage points from major federal, state or local roads, relationships to nearby public 

lands and areas of public interest, high scenic value and/or official designation as a 

cultural, aesthetic or recreational facility or resource. Locations that involve 

residential areas in close proximity to the proposed biomass facility were also 

considered, although review of aesthetics under Section 248, using the Quechee 

. 

Analysis, specifically does not guarantee that views from individual private homes 

and properties will never change. We have used on-site and field study to reinforce 

our analyses and findings. 

whether a particular 

The aesthetic analysis for this Project has been conducted within the parameters set 

project will have an . . . . 

forth in Section 248 for review of commercial energy generation and transmission 

undue’ adverse . 

projects. The analysis thus follows and responds to the process 

effect 

and determinations 

on aesthetics . . . 

and scenic or 

natural beauty is 

significantly 

informed by the 

overall societal 

benefits of the 

project” — Findings, 

PSB Docket 6860 

required under the Quechee Analysis, established in 1985 in the Environmental 

Board’s Quechee Lakes decision. This analysis also recognizes that the Public Service 

Board weighs “societal benefits” when considering the aesthetic impacts of projects 

within its purview (see side panel).



1.2 Report Organization and Contents 

This analysis is organized around and relics on an extensive narrative of the Quechee 

“Test” as it applies to this proposal. It also includes a number of exhibits and 

studies, including the following: 

1. Project context map. 

2. Photographic inventory presenting the character of the area and views to the 

Project area from a range of public locations. 

3. Line-of-site sections. 

4. Potential visibility map. 

5. Visual simulation of the Project. 

6. Analysis of the aesthetic impacts, which may result from the smoke stack 

plume. 

7. A review of applicable and regional plans. 

The following discussions, narratives, and appendices, assembled by the professional 

staff at Land Works, present a compelling case for the suitability of the Project and 

collectively demonstrate and conclude that the Project will not result in an undue, 

adverse impact on aesthetics. 

1.3 Project Description 

The proposed Project is a 29.5 MW wood biomass-fired electric generation plant and 

integrated wood pellet manufacturing facility in Fair Haven, Vermont. The site plan 

submitted by the Petitioner illustrates the layout and components of the facility, 

which include several buildings and silos, conveyors, storage piles, and 

approximately 35 parking spaces (or employees and visitors. The built portion of the 

Project comprises 60 acres, while the un-built portion comprises 26.3 acres. 

Access to the Project site will be via a proposed limited access exit ramp off of U.S. 

Route 4, near the Vermont Welcome Center. There will be no new public road 

constructed for the Project, but interior access roads will be built within the site. 

1.4 The Aesthetic Assessment 

Under Section 248(b)(5) the Vermont Public Service Board must find that the Project 

will not have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics, giving due consideration to 

Criterion S of Act 250. Act 250’s Criterion S addresses aesthetic impact within the 

parameters of the so-called Quechee Analysis, which was established to provide a 

consistent and defensible method for evaluating the aesthetic impacts of projects 

2



undergoing Act 250 review. The Quechee Analysis is a two-step process, which 

begins with assessing the nature of the project, its context, and whether it will lead to 

adverse aesthetic impacts. This step asks whether the project is in harmony with its 

surroundings, and the analysis is based on a clear understanding of the nature of the 

visual impacts. This step must describe the surrounding area of the project and the 

compatibility of the project with those surroundings. It also asks: 1) whether suitable 

colors and materials have been used; 2) how visible the project is; 3) how the project 

affects open space in the area; and, 4) whether the project has been proposed for 

visually sensitive land. 

If the conclusion from this first step of the analysis is that the aesthetic impacts of the 

project are considered to be in harmony or compatible with its surroundings, then 

the aesthetic impacts of the project are considered not adverse. If this is not the case, 

then the project is considered to have an adverse impact and the second step of the 

analysis is required to determine if the adverse impacts are undue. The second step 

asks three questions: 1) Does the project violate any clear, written community 

standards intended to protect the scenic beauty of the area?; 2) Does the project 

appear shocking or offensive to the average person?, and, 3) Has the applicant taken 

all generally available and reasonable steps to mitigate the identified adverse impacts 

of the project as proposed? If the answer to questions 1 or 2 is yes, or the answer to 

question 3 is no, then the aesthetic impact of the project is considered unduly adverse 

under the Quechee Analysis. 

3


2. The Quechee Analysis 


As slated hi the initial narrative regarding the Quechee analysis, the applicant must 

address the relationship of the proposed project to its surroundings, describe its color 

and materials, its impact on open space, and assess other aesthetic qualities. 

Therefore, this section follows the Quechee analysis on a step-by-step basis. The first 

step asks a series of questions to ascertain whether or not a project will have an 

“adverse” impact. The second step determines whether that impact, if adverse, is 

“undue.” 

LandWorks employs a number of methodologies, as slated in Section 1.2, to assess 

the nature of the project’s surroundings and the potential visual and aesthetic 

impacts that the project may pose to those surroundings. Site reconnaissance efforts, 

review of important public vantage points and scenic and conservation resources, 

line of sight sections, 3D analysis, photographic simulations and travel along local 

roads have all contributed to our assessment and the conclusions derived from that 

assessment. In summation, all of the research, activities and exhibits generated and 

presented as part of this assessment have informed and guided the conclusions 

which have been reached by the assessment. 

2.1 First Step of the Quechee Analysis 

2.1.A What is the nature of the Project surroundings? 

The proposed site for the Beaver Wood Energy Fair Haven Biomass Flant is located 

in an area approximately one mile from the downtown core of the Town of Fair 

Haven. The site is currently zoned Industrial. The bulk of the development 

infrastructure will be sited on a relatively level, low elevation area that comprises 

approximately 60 acres. The facility is bordered by the tracks of the Delaware 

Hudson Railroad along the south, along the southeast by US Route 4, on the east it is 

bordered by mature forests atop rock outcroppings, followed by farm fields further 

out. To the north it is bordered by a densely forested riparian zone along the 

Castleton River, which flows west where the site is bordered by a forested riparian 

zone along the Poultney River, which also represents the border with New York State 

beyond. 

The immediate environs of the site include a range of land uses including the major 

transportation infrastructure of the limited access Route 4 highway and the rail line, 

commercial and industrial uses along Prospect Street, a cell tower and scattered 

residences to the west of the Poultney River in New York State, and a Welcome 

Center across the highway on the south side of the highway. The only public land in 

4

Aesthetic Assessment of the Proposed Beaver Wood Biomoss Facility 

2. the Quechee Analysis 

the vicinity of the Project is the recreational area at the site of the old South School 

located on Academy street. The area does not include any unique or outstanding 

scenic features or high value aesthetic qualities, other than typical Vermont 

landscape conditions of field, forest and roadside development. The roadside 

development in the Project environs, typified by West and Prospect Streets, includes 

a mix of low density commercial, industrial and residential land uses and building 

types. It is an area without a distinct character and feel given the predominance of 

the highway and railroad infrastructure, and while there are some long distance 

views to the Taconic Mountains to the east, and New York hills to the west, the 

landscape has few distinguishing characteristics other than the riverine landscapes 

and floodplains associated with the Poultney and Castleton Rivers. 

The nearest residential neighborhood is approximately one mile away, otherwise 

there is a scattering of residences along West Street, becoming more concentrated as 

one travels easterly towards the center of Fair Raven’s developed commercial and 

Town core. The neighborhoods are densely developed in the pattern typical of older 

neighborhoods with narrow streets, houses close to the road, and large, mature trees. 

Throughout Fair Haven, traces of its industrial, mill-town roots are present, and have 

become part of the aesthetic of the Town. 

The area to the west in New York State is relatively undeveloped, has a rural 

character and scattering of commercial and residential uses along the existing road 

network. It should be noted that the Town of Fair Haven itself has very little in the 

way of scenic or tourism attractions, rather this community has a long tradition of 

quarrying due to the slate rock type present in nearby hills and ridges. Two miles to 

the east of the Project site and a mile east of the Town center are extensive areas of 

quarry development, running over 4 miles north to south. Fair Haven is an area 

known principally for its slate quarries and its long tradition of quarrying the 

desirable building stone. 

The Project site itself is an open field surrounded on about 65% to 70% of its 

perimeter by wooded buffers of deciduous and coniferous vegetation ranging in 

height from 20 to 50 feet and of varying widths. Minimal additional clearing will be 

required by the Project, as the footprint of the facility is contained within the open 

field area. 

2.1.B Is the Project’s design compatible with its sunoundings? 

The Project site is zoned industrial and is of a use that is compatible with the Town 

zoning as well as current and historical industrial uses within the Town. The Project 

lies in a rural area where much of the existing industry utilizes native natural 

resources in its product, as has historically been the case. Logging is common in the 

S



area as there are large tracts of forests, and logging trucks are commonly seen 

driving through the center of Town as well as along US Route 4. Stone and gravel 

quarries are also common throughout the area, as are related industries such as the 

Vermont Structural Slate Company, located nearby on South Main Street. 

Fair Haven is a historic mill town and has historically been home to various 

industries ranging from sawmills and paper mills, to forges, marble mills and slate 

mills. Its industrial heritage is apparent throughout the Town, both in the current 

uses it supports, as well as the remaining buildings and homes that once were part of 

the mills and worker housing. Therefore, this aspect of the Project will be compatible 

with what is already in place and common to residents and visitors of the area. 

2.1.C Are the colors and materials selected for the Project suitable for the context 

within which it is located? 

While industrial in nature, the visual impact of the biomass facility will be minimized 

by incorporating non-reflective earth tone colors wherever possible. The facility will 

consist of buildings, chip silos, a chimney (or stack), and other associated smaller 

silos and tanks as well as conveyors. All buildings will have metal siding painted 

light forest green. The silos will be constructed out of concrete and will be light tan in 

color. Smaller silos and tanks will be metal and painted light tannish brown. The 

chimney will be metal and may have a red stripe at the top, depending on the final 

height of the stack (200 ft or higher requires a stripe). However, the stack is not 

expected to reach over 180 feet. 

Due to the site being surrounded largely by forest, the neutral earth tones, such as 

the light forest green, were chosen to allow the buildings and associated structures to 

blend into their surroundings as much as possible. Where this is not possible, as with 

the chimney, the color or material was dictated by considerations for safety. 

2.1.D What is the Project’s impact on open space? 

This is not a public open space nor is there any designated or official public use or 

access for this property, therefore the Project will not directly impact any existing 

open space in Town. The Fair Haven Green, will have zero visibility. The park is 

heavily covered with mature trees, and any possible views have been precluded by 

canopy cover and surrounding buildings. The only open space that will have a view 

is from parts of the Old School site located on Academy Street. The view from here 

will be limited to no more than 40% of the stack and will not disrupt activities on the 

site. There will be no impact, visual or otherwise, to public open space anywhere else 

yithin the Town. 

6



2.1.E Where is the Project visible from? 

Exhibit I of this assessment provides photographs of the site and environs, 

demonstrating the limited visibility of the Project site from surrounding locations. 

The Project viewshed map (Exhibit 3) also demonstrates the limited visibility of this 

Project from surrounding locations. There are very few areas in Fair Haven from 

which the Project will be visible due to the density of the neighborhoods and 

presence of mature trees throughout Town. 

A site reconnaissance conducted by LandWorks along the roads within a 1 and 3 

mile radius, including Prospect Street, US Route 4, Swamp Road, Pleasant Street, 

Academy Street, South Main Street to the New York Border, River Street, Maple 

Street, West Park Place, Caernarvan Street, 1st Street, jst Avenue, 2 Street, 3rd Street, 

4th Street, Airport Road and West Street yielded the conclusion that visibility of the 

site will be limited to only those roads directly adjacent or very close to the site, 

namely Prospect Street where it meets US Route 4, including the Vermont Welcome 

Center, US Route 4 along the southeast edge of the Project site, and the western end 

of West Street before it passes into New York State. The views From the south will be 

partially screened by the berms, rock outcroppings and trees that currently exist 

along US Route 4. Views from West Street will be limited to small sections of road 

and partially screened by roadside vegetation. In these locations that have visibility, 

the view encompasses an existing cell tower across the border in New York, a rail 

road bridge, and highway. 

The Welcome Center site and Old School site on Academy Street provide the only 

vantage points from public property in the vicinity of the Project. Otherwise the only 

locations with potential visibility of the site would include a short stretch of Prospect 

Street running easterly from the Welcome Center, and limited locations along West 

Street. Given the view will be very limited from the Old School site and that there are 

no other public lands in the vicinity of the Project, the Project will not be readily 

visible to large numbers of local residents. The view of the Project from the Welcome 

Center site will definitely change the current conditions, but not in an extreme or 

overt manner, given the viewing context from the site (see Photographic Inventory- 

Exhibit 1). This context includes the view of the highway itself, the railroad and 

railroad bridge over Route 4, a nearby cell tower approximately 4/lOths of a mile 

from the Welcome Center, as well as commercial structures and sites immediately to 

the east on Prospect Street. This is not, as described in the initial section of this 

analysis, a highly scenic or engaging area with tourist destinations or tourism 

infrastructure. The Welcome Center has been established to serve travelers entering 

Vermont with the typical Welcome Center elements including restrooms, snack 

machines and brochure racks. The Welcome Center does contain some interpretive 

exhibits, but none that are specific to or highlight the site. This is a not an area where 

7



travelers would linger due to any scenic views or unique landscape qualities. 

Nonetheless, views to the site will be readily apparent, and the elements of the 

biomass power plant are not particularly attractive and will constitute a change in 

the landscape and represent an industrial land use. 

Biomass electricity is created through direct combustion. The facilities (boilers) 

produce steam to use either within an industrial process, or to produce electricity 

directly. They can also produce heat, which is then captured for one purpose or 

another. As such, the Fair Haven facility is expected to produce two possible plumes 

depending on the outside temperature, which need to be accounted for in this 

analysis. One is from the 180-foot tall stack and the other from the two cell cooling 

towers. The plumes are the same for both in that when the outside air is at or near 

saturation, the tower and/or stack adds more water vapor to the air. Saturated air 

with liquid water droplets can be discharged and this is what is seen as fog. This 

typically occurs on cool, humid days and can be mistaken as smoke. 

The developer has provided the following narrative about plume visibility: 

8 

Air leaving the cooling tower is usually saturated with moisture and is wanner than 

the ambient air, causing a wet exhaust plume to he created. The saturated exhaust 

plume may be visible or not depending on the specific meteorological conditions. This 

plume will also vary in size depending on meteorological conditions and operational 

factors. Conditions favoring a condensed plume occur more frequently in the fail 

and winter seasons, as atmospheric conditions, such as air tempcratl4re and relative 

humidity, arc niorc favorable during these periods for plume formation. Also, plume 

formation tends to occur more frequently during nighttime hours and during 

adverse weather conditions. 

Industry research indicates that the visible plume formation will occur 20% of the 

time during visible hours and will stay within the facility boundary during all 

seasons. The estimated downward visible plume length will be less than 300 feet 

and the estimated plume visible height can reach up to 300 feet above ground level, 

depending on meteorological conditions. In the winter the plume length and height 

may be 20% larger. Plume breadth is estimated at 40 to 50 feet. 

The boiler chimney plume is formed for all the similar reasons as the cooling tower 

plume, and the height and width is all deternnned hi 1 operational and weather 

conditions. At times the detached plume will he almost horizontal and at other times 

it is almost straight up. The plume length in either direction, horizontal or 

vertical, is estimated to be 150 ft or less with a diameter of approximately 30 feet.



The plumes are a necessary byproduct of the plant’s operation and will be seen 

intermittently in surrounding areas, usually rising above treeline. Overall, visibility 

of the plumes will be limited since formation is dependent on atmospheric and 

operational conditions, and will not be dominant in the visual landscape on a daily 

basis. Plumes and stacks are not uncommon sights in our developed landscapes and 

are often associated with manufacturing or energy generation. 

In conclusion, due to the limited visibility, the topographical nature of the site itself, 

and compatible uses within the vicinity, this seems to he an ideal site for a biomass 

facility. If constructed, the Project will result in minimal off-site aesthetic impacts. 

Notes with regard to Exhibit 3. Potential Visibility Map 

The potential visibility map provides a point of departure for assessing how visible a 

project may be within its delineated viewshed. The process includes an initial 

assessment using GIS software and data sets and is then refined by analysis on the 

ground. Field assessment provides additional verification of visibility or lack of visibility. 

Land Works conducted a field study to ascertain the extent of visibility within the 1 and 

3 mile radius, using the GIS analysis os a point of departure. The following notes are 

keyed to the numbers inserted on the Potential Visibility Map and they explain why the 

visibility of the Project, as verified in the field, will be extremely low even within the 

areas of potential visibility displayed on Exhibit 3. 

I. The Project will not be visible from the majority of residential and Town center areas 

af Fair Haven. Consisting largely of alder neighborhoods, the buildings were built close 

together and there exists a large quantity of mature trees and urban toresi cover that 

will screen ‘potential views” as shown on the Potential Visibility Map. 

2. Similar to area 1, the density of the neighborhoods and the maturity of the tree 

canopy will largely block views from this area. Visibility opens up at the recreation field 

at the Old School site, but will be imited to sections of the field away from trees, and 

when the view is clear, at most, the top 40% of the stack will be visible. 

3, This area represents the greatest Project visibility. Located in this section is a segment 

of US Route 4 and the Vermont Welcome Center. The Welcome Center will have the 

most visibility, whie views from Route 4 will be limited along as the grade of the 

highway is considerably lower than that of the surrounding areas with additional 

screening in the farm of rock outcroppings adjacent to the highway and intermittent 

vegetation. The majority of the area consists of farm fields in the flood plain and few 

residences. 

4. Views from this area will be largely screened by the immediate presence of 

buildings and trees where the road is more densely developed, and where the view 

opens up along farm fields, the dense forest to the north of the Project site will provide 

additional screening. Any potential views will be filtered through these layers of 

intervening structures and vegetation. 

9



2.1.F Conclusion to the First Step of the Quechee Analysis 

The conclusion of the first step of this assessment is that the Project will most likely 

result in an “adverse” impact on the aesthetics and scenic beauty of the area under 

the Quechee Analysis, given that siting a biomass facility on an undeveloped site is 

sufficiently different than the existing land use, and will alter existing conditions 

within the landscape. The Project will not, however, result in an undue adverse 

impact to aesthetics and the scenic beauty of the region, and the basis for that 

conclusion is presented in the next section of this assessment. 

2.2 The Second Step of the Quechee Analysis 

2.2.A Does the Project violate a clear written community standard intended to 

preserve the aesthetics or scenic, natural beauty of the area? 

“[ii order for a provision to he considered a clear, written conuininity standard, it 

must he ‘intended to preserve the aesthetics or scenic beauty of the area’ where the 

proposed project is located and must apply to specific resources in the proposed 

project area. 

In evaluating whether a project violates a clear community standard, which directly 

addresses aesthetics or a scenic resource under the Quechee test, the Board routinely 

looks to the Town Plan as the foremost document for providing these standards. If 

the Board finds that such standards do exist, and that the project as designed would 

violate those standards, the adverse impact would be undue. 

The development boundaries of the biomass facility are located in the Town of Fair 

Haven and under the purview of the Rutland County Regional Planning 

Commission (RCRPC). A review of the Fair Haven Town Plan and the Rutland 

County Regional Plan yields the conclusion that the Project will not violate a clear, 

community standard intended to preserve the aesthetics or scenic beauty of the area 

in accordance with the Quechee test (see Exhibit 4 for plan excerpts). 

The 2008 Rutland Regional Plan makes many references to the scenic quality of the 

region, stating that “Active farmlands provide ... scenic views, [and] forests provide 

a ... scenic backdrop throughout the year” (p. 106). One of the Plan’s land use goals 

is “to provide for the long-term sustainability of resources, open space and scenic 

lands” (p. 28). The Plan also seeks “To protect the natural environment and its 

aesthetic benefits” (p. 27). It suggests that “The quality of many outdoor recreational 

I In re 1-lalnon, NM-25, Order of 3/15/01 at 22 n.5. 

10



experiences is dependent upon the ... 

provision 

of aesthetically pleasing landscapes 

and the degree to which the environment has been altered by human activity” (p. 94). 

It continues to identify some areas with scenic quality such as the Clarendon Gorge 

State Forest, as well as scenic roads including Vermont Route 30. However, the Plan 

does not identify the Project site as a scenic resource, nor does it contain specific 

provisions that would preclude development on the site due to its scenic quality. 

Moreover, there are no guidelines or standards specific to the aesthetics of energy 

generation other than to “Work with towns to find the most suitable locations for 

wind power production or other commercial scale power generation” (p. 132). 

This is an important consideration, since the Town of Fair Haven has loosely 

identified scenic views in its Town Plan, which do not include the Project site: 

Two major features dominate Fair Havens landscape: the foothills of (lie Green 

Mountains and the Poultney River Valley. Much of Fair Havens rural character and 

appeal results from the scenic vistas that can he observed in many parts of the town and 

include an interplay of villages, nioun tains, forested hills, unbroken ridge lines, farms, 

fields, rivers, streams, ponds and wood lands. Fair Haven is also fortunate to have many 

tree-lined streets in its village and along its outlying roads. Trees provide shade, beauty 

and habitat; can serve as food sources, and reduce air and noise pollution. They also can 

increase property values as much as 10%. Species in Fair Haven include the stately sugar 

maple (p. 41). 

Policies to protect scenic views include: 

Identify, protect and preseroe important natural and historic features of the Vermont 

landscape, including significant natural and fragile areas; outstanding water resources, 

including lakes, rivers, aquifers, shorelines; wetland; outstanding land resources 

including significant scenic roads, views; and the quality of air, and encourage and 

strengthen agriculture and forest indus tries...” (p. 46) 

However, there are no other specifically identified scenic areas, nor are there any 

clearly defined criteria, standards, or guidelines to implement these broad goals, or 

that limit or strictly prohibit industrial development. Moreover, the Town Zoning 

has identified this area as an Industrial District, the purpose of which is “To al]ow for 

light and heavy industry such as slate or stone works, machine shops, textile 

manufacture, laundry and dry cleaning plants or similar operations as described in 

the Table of Uses. These areas are separated from residential and natural areas to 

minimize use conflicts” (p. 13). 

In conclusion, the applicable Regional and Town plans do not contain “clear, written 

community standards intended to preserve the aesthetics or scenic beauty of the 

‘11



area” because there are no mandatory provisions or language that could be 

considered a clear guide for protecting scenic values under Step 2 of the Quechee 

analysis. The zoring regulations provide one clear standard that identifies the 

Project site as an Industrial District, and the Project development will be well within 

the zoning standards. 

2.2.B Does the Project offend the sensibilities of the average person? Is the Project, 

when viewed as a whole, offensive or shocking, because it is out of character with 

its surroundings, or significantly diminishes the scenic qualifies of the area? 

This is a challenging question insofar as a biomass plant of this scale is concerned. 

There is no question that there may be some individuals who will find this Project to 

be not pleasing or overly compatible with its surroundings. We have already 

established that this plant, as proposed, will have an adverse impact on the area from 

a visual perspective. It is, admittedly, at a scale and size that will dominate its site as 

a single purpose energy generation facility. However, a number of factors prevail 

under this step of the Quechee Analysis when coming to an overall conclusion. These 

factors include: 

1) The stated intent of the community as a whole that this is to be a suitable site for 

this type of development via the zoning designation. 

2) The consideration that energy generation via biomass fuel conversion is a form of 

energy production that is becoming more widespread in the region and is 

recognized as a renewable form of energy - hence more acceptance and 

understanding by the general public. The Fair Haven Town Plan confirms this by 

recognizing that bioniass generation may be a viable form of energy with 

supplies coming from local sources. A biomass plant has long been operating in 

Burlington’s lntervale without offending local sensibilities. 

3) The overall lack of visibility of the Project reduces the potential for the Project to 

offend local residents or visitors. The site is wail screened from most directions 

and adjacent roads. This factor will reduce the presence of the plant in the 

landscape - 

as it also will be well set back from local roads and there are very few 

residences in the vicinity. There will be minimal if any visibility from the Fair 

Haven Town Center and this will be primarily of the vertical chimney or stack 

and an occasional plume from that stack and the cooling towers. 

4) The siting of the Project in area that has a mixed land use quality, with dominant 

infrastructural elements such as the limited access highway, a nearby cell tower, 

and a rail corridor. 

5) The Project will not be directly seen from any designated park, open space, 

recreation facility or conserved land. Therefore, there will be little if any visual 

12 

intrusion or effect of the Project and its operation on such facilities or lands. The 

only exception to this is the Welcome Center on Route 4.



Two particular issues that need to be considered with regard to “sensibilities” and 

compatibility, the Welcome Center and the “plume” 

The view from the Welcome Center will not necessarily enhance the visitor’s 

impression of this gateway area to the State (see visual simulation in Exhibit 7). 

While the area is not highly scenic, and the Project as proposed will not overtly or 

ultimately, unduly undermine the visual character and quality of the surrounding 

area, it will negatively affect the area by introducing a new development with some 

visual impacts. It is recommended that an outdoor interpretive sign be placed at the 

Welcome Center in the direction 0f the biomass plant to explain its purpose and 

operation, (and that the plume is steam) and to provide an opportunity to educate 

interested onlookers about this form of renewable energy and its local benefits. 

The plumes are a necessary byproduct of the plant’s operation and will be seen 

intermittently in surrounding areas. Plumes and stacks are not uncommon sights in 

our developed landscapes and are often associated with manufacturing or energy 

generation. The cooling tower plume is only visible in certain weather conditions, as 

outlined elsewhere in this assessment. It is estimated that a plume will be generated 

20% of the time during the plants’ operation, and with a variable breadth of 40 to 50 

feet from 80 to perhaps as much as 300 feet in height depending on the season and 

atmospheric conditions. These plumes tend to dissipate much in the way clouds do. 

The boiler chimney plume is not as extensive in height and breadth. The plumes will 

not extend beyond the property of the plant and thus will not create any off site 

impacts, such as odor, other than being visible from a distance. It is not unusual to 

expect some byproduct from a energy generating facility such as this, and again, 

given the limited overall visibility, it cannot be concluded the plumes in and of 

themselves will be so extensive and so “present” in the visual landscape so as to 

offend the sensibilities of an average, informed individual. 

2.2.C Has the applicant taken generally available mitigating steps which a 

reasonable person would take to improve the harmony of the proposed Project 

with its surrounding? 

The siting of the facility in a designated industrial/development area indicates that 

the Project is complying with the intent of the community. The selection of the site 

can be considered a mitigating factor. The site is relatively well screened and a 

suitable location in and of itself given the proximity to electrical transmission lines 

and the rail corridor. 

As stated in the previous section, another form of potential mitigation includes the 

proposal to develop an outdoor interpretive sign be placed at the Welcome Center in 

13



the direction of the biomass plant to explain its purpose and operation, (and that the 

plume is steam) and to provide an opportunity to educate interested onlookers about 

this form of renewable energy and its local benefits. The option to place interpretive 

sign(s) can be considered a mitigatthg element. 

The site is also one that includes existing 

extensive perimeter screening with native and 

mature vegetation. The retention of most of this 

perimeter vegetation will be an important factor 

in helping to accommodate the development 

visually and will help set the Project off from 

surrounding areas and vantage points. 

Proposed new buffers by means of landscape 

mitigation plantings is proposed along the 

Route 4 alignment of the property and will 

provide additional screening from both the 

Welcome Center and the highway. The existing 

and proposed vegetation reduce potential 

visibility from off site vantage points and can be 

considered a distinct mitigation measure. 

The selection of subdued and earth tone colors 

such as forest green and light brown for the 

buildings and silo respectively will reduce the 

overall visual impact of the Project. Additional 

The height and scale of biomoss plants ore not so great that 

even intervening deciduous trees, within a quarter to half mile, 

materials selected will be in their native 

coloration such as the concrete chip silo and as 

such will not be prominent or stand out, 

or closer, !ocking foliage, can orovide a reasonable amount ot 

effective screening for a roadside or nearby vantage point. 

In this simulation, the tour trees and their branches partially 

screen a biornoss plant and its primary stack. 

Finally, it is possible that there are other potential mitigation measures that may not 

have been identified as of yet. Additional mitigation measures that may be available 

and that a reasonable person would consider may emerge or be proposed during the 

review process with a project of this nature. The developers should consider such 

proposals and thus be open to additional and suitable mitigation opportunities. 

2.3 Overall Conclusion 

Based on our analysis. as described in the narrative above, we conclude 

unequivocally that the Project, if constructed, would not result in an undue adverse 

impact to the aesthetics and scenic beauty of the area. The Project’s impacts will not 

be unduly adverse because; fl the Project will nat be shocking or offensive to the 

average person; 2) the Project does not violate any clearly written community 

14



standard; and 3) the applicant has taken reasonably available mitigation steps to 

reduce the Project’s visual and aesthetic impacts. Th summary, this is an appropriate 

project sited in an appropriate location that will have limited, if any off-site aesthetic 

impacts. 

15


3. Impacts to Historic Resources 


A requirement of the Section 248 review includes a determination of whether a 

proposed project will have an undue adverse effect on historic sites within the 

surrounding areas of the project. To address this requirement, LandWorks has 

undertaken a review of the historic structures in the vicinity of the hiomass facility, 

and has concluded that the Project will create no undue adverse effect on any historic 

sites. 

This review was conducted following standards used by the Vermont Division for 

Historic Presen’ation (VDI-{P), guided by Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and that have been applied in other Section 248 cases. Project 

review identified potential historic buildings, structures, and historic districts. 

Research of these resources was conducted by examining National Register and State 

Register (SR) files at VDHP offices in Montpelier, VT for structures that are currently 

listed, To establish an appropriate Area of Potential Effect (APE), LandWorks relied 

on our familiarity with the site and environs, as well as the viewshed map (Exhibit 3), 

which provided a 3-mile radius around the Project Site and also identified areas with 

potential visibility. Since the nature of the Project with its low profile within the 

landscape greatly reduces visibility from long-distances, the 3-mile radius was used 

as the APE for the historic structure review. Fieldwork involved visiting, 

photographing, and identifying potential impacts to the structures within the APE 

and within the area of potential visibility. 

There are fourteen (14) individual sites listed on the State Register that are located 

within the 3-mile APE. Based on research and field analysis it was noted that there 

did not appear to be any additional sites or structures eligible for listing on the State 

or National Register within the 3-mile Project radius. The following table and 

accompanying photographs and location map (see Exhibit I and 2) provide a listing 

of these resources, their locations, and visibility. Due to topography, buildings and 

forested woodland, there will be limited to no views from these sites, and it can be 

concluded that the Project will not have an undue adverse impact on historic 

resources. 

Table 1. Listing of Historic Sites 

Site 

Address 

Fair Haven 

16 

Village 

Public Park, 

Fair Haven Green private residences 

Historic District (1) and businesses 

Potential 

Visibility! 

Impact 

NR, SR None 

What’s the ‘Area of 

Potential Effects? 

The SHPO uses the 

federal definition of 

‘Area of Potential 

Effects” (APE) to 

describe the 

maximum area that 

may be affected by 

a project. Both 

direct and indirect 

effects to historic 

resources must be 

considered when 

determining the 

APE. 

‘The geographic 

area or areas within 

which an 

undertaking may 

direc fly or indirect!y 

cause changes in 

the character or 

use of historic 

properties, if any 

such properties 

exist. The area of 

potential effects is 

influenced by the 

scale and nature of 

on undertaking and 

may be different for 

different kinds of 

effects caused by 

the undertaking.” 

136 CFR 800.16(d)). 

Source; Vermont 

Dept. of Historic 

Preservation 

http;//www.hisforicv 

ermont.org/general 

/reviewlaq.html



Site 

Address Site Name 

Fair Haven 

Village 

Vermont 

Route 22A 

Inman Pond 

Road 

Scotch Hill 

Road 

Scotch Hill 

Road 

Vermont 4A 

East of Fair 

Haven 

Corner of 

White Road 

and Greene 

Road 

1108 South’ 

Main Street 


Prospect 

Road and 

Swamp 

Road 


Prospect 

Road and 

Swamp 

Road 

West Road 

Scotch Hr 

Road 

Fair Haven Village 

Historic District (2) 

Maplewood Inn 

Private 

Residences, 

Parochial, Private 

Businesses, etc. 

Private Residence 

Farm 


• 


Farm 

Inn 

. 

Private Residence SR 

Farm 


Partial when 

traveling 

West 

Partial when 

traveling 

SR West 

Potential 

Visibility! 

Impact 

Partial from 

some 

portions of 

SR property 

SR None 

Very limited 

due to 

intervening 

trees, 

SR topography 

SR None 

SR None 

SR None 

SR None 

SR None 

SR None 

SR None 

17

Aesthetic Assessment of the Proposed Beaver Wood Blomass Facility 


18 

Potential 

She Visibility/ 

Address Site Name Use Listed Impact 

Scotch Hill 

Road Private Residence SR None 

(1) The Fair Haven Green Historic District contains a total of 36 properties listed 

on the State and National Historic Register. The buildings that comprise 

these properties include 13 residences, 2 schools, 3 churches, a store, a 

library, a garage, a bank, 4 carriage barns, I pump house, 12 commercial 

block buildings, the green, as well as other buildings that are noncontributing. 

(2) The Fair Haven Village Historic District contains a total of 149 properties 

listed on the State Historic Register. The buildings that comprise these 

properties include 119 houses, 12 carriage barns, I fish hatchery, 26 barns, 4 

churches, 4 garages, I rectory, 3 stores/shops, and 2 commercial block 

buildings as well as other buildings that are non-contributing.


4. Orderly Development and Public Investments 

4. Orderly Development and Public 

Investments 

4.1 Orderly Development 

Section 248 requires that a project not unduly interfere with the orderly development 

of the region. We have evaluated the Fair Haven Town Plan 

2 and the Rutland 

County Regional Plan for the Project’s compliance with the orderly development of 

the region. The Project is a 29.5 MW biomass electric power plant with an integrated 

wood pellet manufacturing plant. The Project is a renewable energy base load 

resource that will have a very positive fiscal impact on the State of Vermont, Town of 

Fair Haven and its citizens. The Project will create hundreds of jobs and make a 

significant contribution to the Town in form of property tax revenue. It can be 

concluded from this review that the Project will not unduly interfere with the 

Orderly Development of the Region and is, in fact, consistent with the local and 

regional plans and those plans’ advocacy for the development of renewable energy 

resources and generating facilities. 

For example, the Fair Haven Town Plan states on page 66 “renewable energy sources 

have become very real possibilities” and that “biomass energy production from solid 

waste sources is rapidly gaining credibility and may be considered” (p. 66). As an 

objective, the Town would like to “Encourage the use of community renewable 

energy resources” (p. 69). To further this goal, the zoning regulations have identified 

the proposed Project area as an Industrial District suitable for such a development. 

The Rutland Regional Plan also includes policies and goals that directly support the 

development of local renewable energy generation facilities, as reflected on page 132 

of the plan, which include “Work with local planning commissions and communities 

to encourage the development of renewable sources of energy and efficient building 

design in public and private projects,” and to “Work with towns to identify the most 

suitable locations for wind power production or other commercial scale power 

generation.” Availability of local and reliable power sources is critical to the future 

planned development of any region, and nowhere does the Plan specifically 

discourage the development of a biomass facility at this location, or anywhere in the 

region. 

Thus, this Project is an integral part of the region’s orderly development, is proposed 

for a site that is suitable for the use being proposed and will, in fact, support Orderly 

2 Excerpts of the relevant portions of the Town Plan and Regional Plan are attached to the Application as 

Exhibit 4. 

19



Development by avoiding key scenic and natural features and providing a local 

source of renewable energy that is necessary for such development to occur 

4.2 Public Investments 

Section 248 references and incorporates 10 V.S.A. Section 6086, which includes 

Criterion 9(K) Development affecting public investments. This criterion considers 

whether a project, as proposed, will unnecessarily or unreasonably endanger the 

public or quasi public investment in public facilities, services or lands or materially 

jeopardize or interfere with the function, efficiency or safety of, or public’s use or 

enjoyment of or access to the public facility, service or lands. 

The proposed Fair Haven Biomass Project will not unnecessarily or unreasonably 

affect public investments or services in the Fair Haven area. The applicable 

investments include the state highway, Route 4, the Delaware and Hudson Railroad 

(although this may be a privately owned company running on a corridor that may or 

may not have public investment), The State of Vermont Welcome Center, and a 

public open space/recreation parcel at the end of Academy Road. 

The site of the plant will be accessed from Route 4 directly with exit ramps, thus 

providing for efficient flow in and out of the project site without any significant 

traffic impacts or unacceptable physical impacts to the highway. The traffic impact 

assessment conducted by Conley Associates did not conclude that there would be 

any significant impacts accruing from this project and that the L.evel of Service (LOS) 

at the intersection of Routes 4 and 4A would remain at the same level it currently 

functions at. Therefore, there will be no material change affecting the safety or 

operation of the highway, or specific impact to the physical attributes of the 

investrnenL 

There will be no specific impacts or changes to the existing rail line other than a 

proposed spur (which would be privately funded and operated). The spur would be 

consistent with the purpose and operation of the rail line and as such will not 

adversely affect the operation or safety of the railroad. 

There will be no direct impacts to the Welcome Center other than visual, and the 

visual impact has been addressed in Section 2 of this report. As the Welcome Center 

is not adjacent to the site (it is approximately .12 miles from the boundary of the 

project site) there will be no direct physical impacts that could endanger the public’s 

well being or safety, or interfere with the functioning of the Welcome Center. In 

terms of the public’s use and enjoyment of the Center, the project will not affect the 

public’s use of the site (aside from a gazebo which is closed-in and with a bench 

facing in a different direction from the site). There is only one picnic table outdoors 

20



and the parking lot (which is oriented away from the project site), and it can be 

concluded that the occasional use of this table will not be directly affected or 

undermined by the view of the project. Most of the activity in the Center is indoors, 

with exhibits, restrooms and vending machines, and the Center itself was not sited 

- with any particular view in focus or scenic lands as a feature 

it 

was not sited for a 

scenic vantage point, rather sited in this location because it is at the state line. 

Based on several visits, it is clear that most people who use the Center do so for 

primarily two reasons: 1) for a rest stop, and 2) to obtain information about 

attractions and destinations within the state. The construction of the project will 

impact visual qualities, but the setting is not one of high or unique scenic values to 

begin with, and includes other infrastructural elements which are readily visible 

from the Welcome Center, such as the entire highway corridor, the rail line in an 

overpass, a nearby cell tower, a dumpster for the Center, and mixed commercial and 

industrial type uses adjacent to it. As the public is not typically attracted to this site 

for enjoyment - 

rather 

for information and a travel break from driving - 

it 

can be 

concluded that the project, as proposed, will not unnecessarily or unreasonably 

endanger the public or quasi-public investment in this facility. 

There is one nearby recreation site as listed in the Fair Haven Zoning Ordinance and 

referred to as the “area at the former ‘South School’ on Academy Street.” Based on a 

site visit it appears that this site gets little use, and is overgrown and does not include 

any specific recreation or public facilities or even a designated parking area. While it 

is possible that the 180 foot stack associated with the project and the occasional 

plume From that stack may be visible from this site, it appears as though no other 

component of the project will be visible due to intervening vegetation (as there is a 

perimeter tree line around the property, landforms and development). The site is not 

oriented towards any long distance views, and, as stated, does not appear to attract 

large numbers of users. Taking all these factors into consideration, it can be 

concluded that the public’s use and enjoyment of this site will not be materially 

affected, nor will there be any safety or other direct impacts to this investment as a 

result of the project, as proposed. 

21

3. Vermont SVelesin,e Center and Gazebo. Project tie is apprsodnsalely (1.15 miles 

north. 

2. Vesv of projeco cite from gazebo it Vermont Wlcon Center Pnsirct silo is ap 

prointazeIy it IS tales nonh. 

I. View of radroad overpess and proiret ‘lIe beyond from Prospect Sneer Vermont 

\Qleoine Ceciter ncr’s roots!. Pisijec! site is :tppiosintatey It I nsile, nooh 

Ii 

6. View Iowan! project site from US Route 4 overpass •1 Airport Road. Project site 

approintalely 1.3 miles north East. 

5. Nearby Cell Tower ‘rest of project site. view frornjunelion US Route 4 and Pros 

pect Sires 

1 U S Route 4 and Prospect Street. Proj— 

4. View Toward project site froni unctiinto 

eel silo is spprOxtniatc I y II.’ nj ics north 

Exhibit 1: Photo Inventory Sheet 1 of 3 11/2/2010 Laii%.ts 

heaver Wood Biomass Project- Fair Haven! Vermont Prepared to,- Beaver od Energy

9. View toward project site foam the junction of Cedar Street and Academy Street. 

Project site a approximately 1.0 miles”r.north west. 

8. Vie’s [uwani proicct site of storage units dons Pxospect Street. Project site is ap’ 

ptoxtiiatel’ 0.2 nsrlca svcaL 1north west. 

7. View toward project site front the Lirktron of Prospect Street and Swamp Road. 

Proiect stic a approximately 0.4 trilL-s xses unorth “eat. 

k 

2. hiS Route 4 and project site heyond as viewed irons West Road Isridse. Project 

site is appros insatety 0,5 nsiles sotitls ‘vest. 

II. The Ventronl Slate Company as viewed irons the Maplewood Inn, a National 

historic Site. Project site is approximately 1.7 nsiles north west 

ID. View toward project site (ron’ the end of Academy Street, Project site is ap’ 

petixitnalely 0.8 miles wesUnor(h west. 

Exhibit 1: Photo Inventory Sheet 2 of 3 11/2/2010 Laiidás 

Beaver Wood Biomass Project- Fair Haven, Vermont Prepaeed for Beaver tod Energy

I 

t4. Zoom view toward project site from bridge on Rivet Street. Project site is ap 

proximately 1.4 miles vesUnorah west. 

13. View west toward project site Irons bridge on River Street. SOnic houses in 

view are on State Historic Register as pail of stie Pair Haven Village Historic Dii 

triel. Project site is approximately 1.4 mites west, 

I 8. View toward the project site from West Road. Project site is approximately 0,4 

mites south. 

I]. View toward the projeel site Irons side yard of Marble Mansion, Project site is 

approximately 1.2 miles ‘vest/north west. 

16. Marble Mansion in the Fair Green National Historic District. Project site is 

approx i inalely I .2 liii lea west/south WesI 

Exhibit 1: Photo Inventory Sheet 3 of 3 111212010 LandIdcs 

Beaver Wood Biomass Project- Fair Haven, Vermont Prepared for Beaver od Energy

•Ft3b3 

• — 

— 3—P3(R3.3 

- 

— ‘I—’ 

- 

- Th—3 

as-.— 

Cfl34 R3d 

Exhibit 2. Photo Location Map 

Beaver Wood Energy Fair Haven LLC 

0 313 0.3 6 

0’3311 by SM

- N 

— VT 1e HgInson 

— Tone. CA 2 peed 

— Tons Ca.o.3nn.d 

loop Cd non 4 00 

p_a, — 

— lMlePepplRaGn 

• Tote 0ot 

C] 

• Aeon tam Poarnal Moot, 

1 

TOTE. This nop dtpmdt open omen eli, POTENTIN.enbtbtyn(the taiteen Project oo’nponenlo. Forested aieasoreaoetomed rhine mnmmmntblity000 to iileNentng eegenaboe roTor Oct lii snanonres (on alt p011001 slnnctn,es veil be seen 

eacemlccatmor Themroporipocconmre,000tbpter,pbpanddecid0000.noniler000.0011 rre.edeoreecooenarassodheghmnlaoletlbeeeepdornlnrr000lMorerereosncbesbuilomrq000dntnodsreoaoooateehegproeddnesty 

site speafic vegetation andlorrennonat onranonemnegesighl and aloneepimercand mteaonercnedbare. Under colUmn cendinters elms op eeersoameoedrereonwcnsmesomml be seen front Ponentan deosbed is based on coo dote ememlable atone tern 

frornVCN&OeormerWeodEnelgyLtc Donssrniy051ccsraneasmeormginaisaeneeandenongjorenmeedepLannoiomss 

teams br NO 

Exhibit 3: Potential Visibility from Open Areas 

Beaver Wood Energy Fair Haven LLC 

o 

0 CC Id as 

Dee 11210 

flu

Exhibit 4. Excerpts from Town & Regional Plan 


Pownal, Vt

PROSPERITY WITH PRIDE 

OUR GATEWAY TO THE FUTURE 

TOWN PLAN 2003 

Adopted by the Fair Haven Select Board September 24, 2003 

Approved aid Confirmed by Rutland Regional Planning Commission

of a healthy aquatic environment. Native trout are extremely sensitive to increases in 

sedimentation and temperature that may result from incompatible land use activities. Some local 

streams are also home to stocked fish. 

Flora, Fauna and Natural Communities 

Fair Haven is also known to be home to certain rare species and natural communities -- species 

or communities that are restricted in occurrence relative to other species or communities, or that 

may have declined significantly due to natural or human-induced causes. 

The largest unbroken wooded area in town is in what is known as the “North Woods, and 

involves roughly the northeasterly quarter of the town. Again there is much water there, 

including Inman Pond (our local water supply), the Howard Dam, the Sheldon Dam, and Old 

Marsh Pond (The Marsh” locally). Also located in the “North Woods” is a very fragile “den’, 

one of the only two presently viable habitats known to exist in the state, of timber rattlesnakes. 

Relatively few are ever sighted (and then never near the village), and their natural camouflage 

and ability to avoid people, even while gathering the sunlight so much needed for their survival, 

is probably the reason for their survival thus far. Until the early 1970s towns people hunted 

them for state bounties, and there seems to be much local prejudice, largely based on unfounded 

fears and ignorance of the snakes biology and habitat, against them Local people, and for that 

matter everyone else, should be encouraged not to kill the remaining snakes, but to try to 

preserve this denning area near the very northern extreme of the snakes habitat. While the 

unusual coloring of the local snakes does not make them a subspecies. they do seem to be an 

endangered species in Vermont. 

Scenic Views 

Two major features dominate Fair Haven’s landscape: the foothills of the Green Mountains and 

the Poultney River Valley. Much of Fair Haven’s rural character and appeal results from the 

scenic vistas that can be observed in many parts of the town and include an interplay of villages, 

mountains, forested hills, unbroken ridge lines, farms, fields, rivers, streams, ponds and wood 

lands. Fair Haven is also fortunate to have many tree-lined streets in its village and along its 

outlying roads. Trees provide shade, beauty and habitat; can serve as food sources, and reduce 

air and noise pollution They also can increase property values as much as 10%. Species in Fair 

Haven include the stately sugar maple. 

Air Quality 

There are a number of significant sources of air pollution in Vermont. The Nggest source is 

the automobile. Several steps have been taken over the last years to improve the emissions from 

automobiles nation wide. However, while the controls have reduced the amoi.mt of pollution 

from each vehicle, the number of vehicles on Vermont roads and the number of miles they travel 

have increased dramatically. Although theL-efficient vehicles are in popular use it is hoped that 

alternative energy sources will become available in the future. The increase in vehicles and road 

miles is a trend that is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. 

Another source of air pollution still common is trash burning. Although illegal, people continue 

to burn trash as an alternative to paying for it to be put in a landfill. As air pollution is better 

understood, it has become clear that the uncontrolled open burning of trash and debris is an 

environmentally unsound disposal method posing both immediate and long-term health risks. 

41

Policies on PresenTation of Resources 

This is a statement on the preservation of rare and irrepiaceable natural areas, scenic and 

historic features and resources for the town of Fair Haven. Most of these policies have been 

stated in other section of the plan and will therefore not be repeated here but rather referenced. 

The Referenced section is not meant to he restrictive, definitive or exclusive of other parts of 

the entire plan for the Town of Fair Haven. The policies put forth in this section are to be part of 

the policies as stated in the plans entirety. 

Furthennore the policies stated in this section are not the complete and final statement of the 

policies of the Planning Commission. The Commission reserves that right for itself and may 

make or promulgate such policies as it sees fit at any time. The planning process is a continuous 

process that will change and be redefined in a manor that is faster then the governmental 

process allows for in the written form of this plan and as such the sitting planning commission 

has the final authority as to it’s policies and procedures. These policies should be clearly defined 

in the minutes of the Planning Commission as retained on file by the town clerk 

1. PoLicies to identifi, protect and preserve important natural and historic features of 

the Vermont landscape, Including significant natural and fragile areas; outstanding 

water resources, including lakes, rivers, aquifers, shorelines; wetland; outstanding 

land resources including significant scenic roads, views; and the quality of air, and 

encourage and strengthen agriculture and forest industries would be contained in 

the section on Natural Resources. 

2. l.and resources, such as mineral resources should be planned for use and 

dcveiopnient according to thc principles set forth in 10 ‘.‘SA section 6086(a) and 

the land use section as well as economic development section. 

3. Policies to identi’, protect and preserve important historic structures, sites, or 

district, archaeological sites andlor archaeological sensitive areas would be 

contained in the Flistorical Resources Section 

4 Policies to encourage the efficient use of energy and the developmein of 

renewable energy resources would be contained in Energy Section. 

5. Policies and Strategies to protect long term viability of agriculture and forest 

lands should be encouraged and should include maintaining low overall density 

and would be listed in the economic development and natural resources section 

and having the following objectives: 

1. The manufacture and marketing of value added agriculture and forest 

products along with the use of locally grown food products should be 

encouraged by forming a Farmers Market to be held during summer 

months in the park. 

2. Sound forest and agricultural management practices should be encouraged 

by continued evaluation of conserved lands so residents do not bear a tax 

burden for conserved lands that is excessive when the overall tax rate is 

compared to all other municipalities in Vermont. 

3. Fair Haven has in the past maximized public investment to minimize 

development pressure on agriculture and forest lands. A balance must be 

achieved so that Fair Haven does not bear unrealistic burdens compared to 

46

Although pumped storage sites are not net producers of electricity - it actually takes more 

electricity to pump the water up than is recovered when it is released - they are a valuable 

addition to electricity suppLy systems. Their value is in their ability to store electricity for use at a 

later time when peak demands are occurring. Storage is even more valuable if intermittent 

sources of electricity such as solar or wind are hooked into a system. 

Environmental Impacts 

Ilydro-electric power plants have many environmental impacts, some of which are just 

beginning to be understood. These impacts, however, must be weighed against the 

environmental impacts of alternative sources of electricity. Until recently there was an almost 

universal belief that hydro power was a clean and environmentally safe method of producing 

electricity. Flydro-electric power plants do not emit any of the standard atmospheric pollutants 

such as carbon dioxide or sulfur dioxide given off by fossil fuel fired power plants. In this 

respect, hydro power is better than burning coal, oil or natural gas to produce electricity, as it 

does not contribute to http://www.iclei.orgIEFACTS!globwai-m.htm or 

http://www.iclei.orgIEFACTS/acidrain.htm. Similarly, hydro-eiectric power plants do not result 

in the risks of radioactive contamination associated with 

http //www.iclei.org1EFACTS/flssion.htrn. 

A few recent studies of large reservoirs created behind hydro darns have suggested that decaying 

vegetation, submerged by flooding, may give off quantities of greenhouse gases equivalent to 

those from other sources of eLectricity. If this turns out to be true, hydro-electric facilities such 

as the James Bay project in Quebec that flood large areas of land might be significant 

contributors to global warming. Run of the river hvdro plants without dams and reservoirs 

would not be a source of these greenhouse gases. 

The Future of Hydro-Electric Power 

In North-America and Europe, a large percentage of hydro power potential has already been 

developed. Public opposition to large hydro schemes will probably result in very little new 

development of big dams and reservoirs Small scale and low head hydro capacity will probably 

increase in the future as research on low head turbines, and standardized turbine production, 

lowers the costs of hydro-electric power at sites with low heads. New computerized control 

systems and improved turbines may allow more electricity to be generated from existing 

facilities in the future. As well, many small hydro electric sites were abandoned in the 1950’s and 

60’s when the price of oil and coal was very low, and their environmental impacts unrealized. 

Increased fuel prices in the fUture could result in these facilities being refurbished. 

Other Renewable Resources 

Several other renewable energy sources have become very real possibilities in recent years. The 

first of these, co-generation, has become increasingly more popular in Vermont. Faced with 

abundant wood supplies and the prospect of unstable fUture oil prices, small-scale wood fired 

co-generation may become a feasible alternative for Fair HavenS The smoke and environmental 

consideration of this would need to be examined. Similarly, biomass energy production from 

solid waste sources is rapidly gaining credibility and may be considered. Wind Power is a source 

that needs further consideration. 

66

patterns that will continue to be energy efficient and conscious. Further growth in other areas of 

town in an unrestricted manner would not lead to the continuation of such patterns in terms of 

energy consumption 

Fair Haven has the transportation facilities that could facilitate state wide collection at an 

economical rate due to the economy of scale. The reprocessed regrind could be shipped world 

wide. 

OBJECTIVES 

Actively encourage efficient energy consumption. 

Maximize energy conservation. 

Utilize land use planning to influence development patterns and site design in an energy efficient 

manner. 

Encourage the use of community renewable energy resources. 

Actively consider energy efficiency in all future transportation planning. 

Further development of the hydroelectric plant in Fair Haven is to be considered as a potential 

renewable energy profit center. 

IMPLEMENTATION 

Encourage the use of energy efficient techniques for new residential constniction by having the 

zoning administrator provide all applicants with any available information on energy efficiency 

from the State. 

Encourage the use of energy efficient space and water heating techniques through Planning 

Commission proposed revisions to Town bylaws and ordinances. 

Promote development patterns that concentrate growth in central areas and locate residential 

growth near work and shopping areas through Planning Commission proposed revisions to 

Town codes and ordinances 

Encourage building with southern solar access to utilize passive solar heating, and to retain the 

opportunity for future solar development, through sighting recommendations by the Zoning 

Administrator. 

Encourage the use of shelterbelts (tree rows) to act as wind buffers in the winter, and for 

shading during the summer through sighting recommendations by the Zoning Administrator. 

The Town should promote the use of locally produced wood as an energy source by maintaining 

a list of local wood suppliers. 

69

Rutland Regional Plan 

ADOPTED B THE RUTLAND REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 15, 2008 

;1 I)l 

/ 

- - a. .• — 

-- ..cr--.. - 

“ii 

fri 

:

foundation of the Region’s planning and 

development program. They ore intended 

to be appiied throughout the Region along 

with the P/an’s goals for housing, 

economic development—ir. several farms, 

transportation, public facilities, notural and 

cultural resources, and energy, among 

others 

FUTURE USE OF LAND GOALS 

The collowing broad goals for the future 

use of land in the Rutland Region ore 

presented with the intent that they be read 

and considered together, as whoe, and 

not as a series of individual statements: 

• To maintain and improve the 

accessibility, livability and viability of 

existing built-up areas. 

• To protect the character of rural areas 

and resource areas by discouraging 

scaftered dev&opment and incompatible 

land uses. 

• To promote competitive and sustainable 

agricultural, forestry, mineral extraction, 

and other practices that make use of the 

Region’s natural resources. 

• To encourage and 

development in existing 

growth centers appropriate 

of the centers. 

to the scale 

• To promote intensive land uses and 

development only in areas where 

adequate public services, facilities, and 

employment centers are available. 

facilitate 

and future 

• To protect the notural environment and 

its economic, ecological, sociological, 

psychological and aesthetic benefits. 

RUTLAND RPC AcTioNs 

n addition to supporting activities and 

developments that contribute to individual 

communities and the Region, and which 

help meet the needs identified in this P/an, 

the Rutland Regiona Plonning 

Rutland Regional Plan Adopted 4-1508 

Commission will strive to accomplish the 

following actions in the coming years: 

• Work with communities to develop 

municipal plans on.d regulations that 

promote compact development, mixed 

use villages and town centers, ond 

productive working landscapes. 

• Work with towns to implement 

plans through regulatory and 

regulatory controls 

their 

non- 

• Provide towns with GIS data so when 

development proposals are presented, 

towns hove the most up-to-date 

information to make informed decisions. 

• Work with communities to retair vibrant 

village centers. 

• Work with interested communities to 

successfully tie commercial and 

industrial uses into existing lord use 

patterns. 

• Provide ongoing education to local 

officials and boards on best practices for 

the review of development proposals. 

FOOD FOR 

THOUGHT 

“Densiry is an emotLoLml 

thing masquerading as a 

scientific ratio. 

“We always hear from people 

that they want a cafe, a 

bakery, and a bookstore. But 

all these businesses depend on 

a certain amount of street 

traffic. They’re a function ci 

densiw.... you need a certain 

amount of densiry at a certain 

household income within a 

certain radius to suDport a 

grocery store.” 

— architect Alex Seidel 

FAST FACT 

Between 1997 and 2002, the 

Rutland Region lost 7-000 

acres of agricultural land 

(roughly half the size ot 

Sudbury or Wells) to 

development. 

— US Census ofAgriculture 

27

THE FUTURE USE OF LANb MAP 

The Regional P/an’s Future Use of Land Map is a general guide for 

the forthcoming growth of the Region. It is based upon analyses from 

throughout the P/an and attempts to balance competing and 

complementary goals into a single image. 

The map is intended to be conceptual: boundaries between area are 

imprecise. Specific sites and their prescribed uses are addressed 

locally. 

The map is divided based on preferred densities of development 

intensity of activity. These include four generalized land use areas, a 

series of labels for the Region’s town centers and villages. Together, 

these designations promote a cohesive pattern of growth and 

conservation that advances the intent of the Rut/and Regional P/an. 4 

Why the Labels and Land Use Areas Exist 

The map is based on an analysis of the location, magnitude, and 

potential of multiple features that make different areas more or less 

suitable, with a goal of making efficient use of limited infrastructurej 

and maintaining the unique qualities of the Region. 

For example, business and industry rely on the presence of public 

water and sewer, close proximity of major transportation networks, 

and, in some cases, access to markets for selling their goads. 

By the same token, due to physical site limitations (steep slopes and 

wetlands, among others) and relatively high costs incidental to land 

development in certain areas, much of the Region is not readily 

available for development. These areas are suited for less dense and 

intense development, in keeping with the Regions rural environment. 

Additionally, deep, well drained soils, proximity to good roads, and 

access to markets as key elements of a successful agricultural future 

for the Region. The P/an is also intended to provide for the long-term 

sustainability of resources, open space and scenic lands. 

Finally, the P/an seeks to promote housing and small business I 

development within and adjacent to villages that is in keeping with 

their unique histories. 

The attached map depicts both an efficient use of land and a 

shared vision for the future based on public input. It should be used as 

a guide for future development of the Region. Planned growth and 

development is directed to those areas most suitable for such 

development and away from areas in which the proposed growth would 

be incompatible, due to the availability of services or protection of 

resources. 

Using the Map’s Legend 

HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS 

Areas shown as “high density” on the map 

are those most suitable for large-scale 

activity, within and in areas contiguous to 

the Regions downtowns, sub-regional 

centers, and industrial centers. They share 

a number of common features which make 

them attractive and suitable for these 

types of activities: 

• Ease of access to major transportation 

routes 

• Availability of utilities, including public 

water and sewer and high speed 

telecommunications 

• Historic and current areas of 

concentrated population, business, and 

education 

• Less critical natural resource and wildlife 

areas 

These areas include the following 

designations within the Region: 

CENTER- The Regions 

economic, population, education, 

flURBAN 

and service focus areas. Businesses 

and services in this area draw their 

employees and clients from throughout the 

Region. Many of the Region’s largest 

employers are located in area, making use of 

the conglomeration of people and services. 

SUB-REGIONAL CENTERS-Areas 

where central public utilities for 

water and sewer are available and 

where there exists a central location or 

locations for commercial activities, schools, 

Why the Map is Blended 

and civic activities 

- I surrounding towns. 

for the town and 

Boundaries between the four land use areas are intentionally 

blended to underscore the regional nature of the map and to promote 

growth and development that is within and contiguous to existing 

villages, hamlets, town centers, and sub-regional centers. 

INbUSTRIAL / BUSINESS 

PARKS— Areas designated by towns 

28 Mopted 415O8 Rutland Regional Plan 

I

CTING 

THANLAN 

The Quality of many outdoor 

recreaflonal experiences is 

dependent upon the health of 

the natural environment, 

continuance of open space, 

provision of aesthetically 

pleasing landscapes and the 

degree to which the 

environment has been altered 

by human activity. 

Land development patterns 

affect rccrearion. The 

fragmentation of large open 

tracts of land into smaller 

often residential, lots 

decreases hunting 

opportunities in the county. 

Stortnwatcr runoff, clearing 

of riparian vegetation and 

other attects of deveiopTncnt 

affccr fish populations 

to adequately plan and provide recreation 

options. Only half the towns in the Region 

have a recreation commission, recreation 

department or recreation director. 

The capacity of mary groups to identify 

recreationai needs, organize sports 

eagues, conauct easioility studies for 

proposed recreation facilities and plan for 

facility maintenance and enhorcement, on 

top of seeking out new recreational 

opportunities, is often insufficient. Towns 

with no recreation director or commission 

are at an even greater disadvantage and 

often depend on neighboring town’s 

recreation facilities and programs. 

Facility Needs 

Many municipalities have cited 

1ism, high maintenance costs of 

vande 

historic and public aciUties, over use of 

recreational faciuties ard loss of scenic 

views and open areas to development as 

i potential threats to the Region’s 

recreational resources. Often, needs or 

increased staff training, netter 

nformatiorai signs, and more extensive 

budgeting acrivi:ies are necessary for 

current facilities to adequately meet users 

needs. 

Even while municipalities are having 

trouble maintaining the facilities they have, 

there is a recognized need for additional 

basic facilities such as ball fields and trail 

networks to meet recreational needs at the 

local level. 

New recreation programs 

Wh:le chidren’s recrea’ion orograms 

ad sports opoortunities are availab e -o 

aimost every cniid in tne Region, there are 

few facilities and programs meeting the 

needs of adult, elderly arc disabled users. 

The need for g’eater recreational 

opportunities for youth not interestea n 

traafonal sports leagues has also ceen 

identified. 

Access to recreation opportunities 

Udeveloped recreation a’eas_sieading 

hills, swimming hales, hunting ands, 

etc.—seNe important recreaTianal needs in 

almost every town in tne Region. Loss of 

access to private ands is increasing due to 

:iabi;ity concerns and the reiuctance of 

andowners to

FOOD FOR 

THOUGHT 

Farm and forest lands have a 

number of benefi: 

• Production of local food 

products significantly 

reduces transportation 

costs and consumption of 

fuel; 

• As a land use, agriculwre 

has a positive fiscal impact 

on the commtlnity’s tax 

base (ie. demands less 

services than it contributes 

in taxes); 

• Farming of certain crops is 

a positive use of floodplain 

areas; 

• Open tields. forests and 

meadows are an imoorrant 

areas for groundwater 

recharge 

• Locally-owned and 

o1rated businesses such as 

farms and wood 

‘nan titacru tets circulate 

local money in thc local 

economy; 

• Corn fields and other 

farmlands provide habitat 

for wild animals including 

deer, turkey and woodcock; 

• Forests provide habitat to a 

wide range of animals and 

birds, including large 

animals such as moose, 

bear and large cats; 

• Active farmlands provide 

open space and scenic 

views as well as a land use 

tradition characteristic of 

rural Vermont; and 

• Forests provide a variety of 

outdoor recreation 

opportunities as well as a 

varied and scenic backdrop 

throughout the year. 

in the coming years. Financial incentives 

to seasonal employees may be an 

enticement. Elsewhere there are 

programs designed to recruit a pool of 

workers interested in seasonal 

agriculture jobs. 

RRPC ACTIONS 

In addition to supporting activities and 

developments that contribute to 

individual communities and the Region, 

and which help meet the needs identified 

in this chapter, the Rutland Regional 

Planning Commission will strive to 

accomphsh the following actions in the 

coming years: 

Work with interested communities to 

better support the retention ana viability 

of agricultural ands through their land 

use plans and regulations. For 

example, use the “Is Your Town Farm 

Friendly” checklist to examine 

weaknesses in land use plans and 

regulations or language that may 

unintentionally inhibit farm enterprises. 

Work with area farmers and the Rutland 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 

Area Farm and Food Link to dentify 

gaps in infrastructure neeaed to increase 

supply of agricultural products produced 

in the Region. 

Work with local towns and land trusts to 

examine the effects of land conservation 

techniques and to devise ways of 

countering unintended consequences 

such as escalating land and housing 

costs. 

• Partner with other organizations to 

create a farm incubator in the Rutland 

Region to help new farmers get started in 

this Region. 

• Support partnerships with Natural 

Resource Agencies to plan far 

sustainable farming and forestry. 

• Where housing or other development an 

lands suitable for agriculture and forestry 

is proposed, help shape land use 

regulations and development review to 

encourage cluster housing to allow for 

the continuation of large tracts. 

• Work with 

Investment 

employment 

sectors. 

the Rutland Workforce 

Board to address 

needs of farm and forestry 

One of the objectives of this Plan is to provide communities with the tools, and the frame 

work, for developing effective local plans and policies. This Plan should be used as a resource 

for communities preparing plan updates. In addition to the plan, however, a number of other 

resources are available: 

• US Census — (www.census.gov). This site contains the most commonly used housing and 

demographic data across the country 

• 2002 us Census on Agriculture (www.census,gov). Contains the most widely used basic agri 

cultural data 

• Vermont Agency of Agriculture website (www.vermontagriculture.com) 

• Cornell Community Food arid Agriculture Program website (www.thp.org) 

• Food Routes website (www.foodroutes.org) 

• Vermont Fresh Network (www.vermontfresh.net) 

• Rutland Area Farm and Food Link website (www.rutlandfarmandfood.org) 

• Poultney-Mettowee Natural Resource Conservation District (www.vacd.org/prnnrcd) 

• Rutland Natural Resource Conservation District (www.vacd.orglrutlandl) 

•Vermont Forest Parks and Recreation Maple website (http:/Fwww.mapleinfo.orgl) 

•Vermont Division of Forestry website (http:llwww.vtfpr.arglhtrn/forestry.cfm) 

106 Adopted 4-15-08 Rutland Regional Plan

FOOD FOR 

THOUGHT 

Efficiency Vermont is a 

statewide supplier of energy 

efficiency services, providing 

technical assistance and 

financial incentives to 

Vermont households and 

businesses to use more energy 

efficient practices. 

Efficiency Vermont provides 

information and tools for 

households and businesses to 

reduce energy costs through 

energy-efficient equipment, 

lighting, and approaches to 

consti-uction and renovation. 

www. el ficiencermont.com 

1-888-92 1-5990 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 

land use for the purpose of helping to 

contribute to the Region’s energy needs. 

Individual Energy Production 

Since 1998, the Vermont Public Service 

Board has issued “Certificates of Public 

Good for Interconnected Net Metered 

Power Systems,” permifting electrical utility 

customers in Vermont to generate their 

own power using small-scale renewable 

energy systems. In the “net metering” 

program, any excess power generated that 

is not used by the customer is fed bock to 

the utilities, and customers are credited on 

their next monthly bill. 

This program is also available to farmers 

who generate up to 150 kilawafts. This 

limit offers an opportunity to farms to 

economically generate their own power 

and reduce demand from utUities. 

RUTLAND RPC AcTioNs 

• Engage the public in a Region-wide 

discussion about energy needs and the 

benefits and drawback to energy 

production within the Rutland Region. 

• Work with local planning commissions 

and communities to encourage the 

development of renewable sources of 

energy and efficient building design in 

public and private projects. 

• Essablish crteria towns can use to 

review renewabie energy technology 

installations in their towns 

identify the most 

far wind power 

commercial scale 

develop incentives 

build compact 

• Help towns establish local energy 

coordinators working to reduce 

municipal energy use and encourage 

development of renewable energy 

• Encourage towns in Rutland Region to 

take advantage of the State funds to 

establish biamass ca-generation 

facflities to provide heat and energy in 

local schools and other public facilities. 

• Hep educate and encourage local 

architects, engineers and developers 

about Green Building techniques and 

LEED standards 

• Work with towns to deveiop clans and 

regulations that coil for compact 

development 

• Provide information to individuals 

seeking to reduce their awn energy 

consumption and reliance an fossil 

fuels. 

• The Vermont Energy Digest: An lnvento of Renewable Energy and Efficiency (Vermont Council on Rural Devel 

opment. April 2007) 

• Strengthening Vermont s Energy Economy: Final Report and Recommendations of the Vermont Rural Energy 

Council (Vermont Council on Rural Development, August 2007) 

• 

• Work with towns to 

suitable locations 

production or other 

power generafian 

• Work with towns to 

for developers to 

development 

Guide to Municipal Energy Planning (Vermont Department of Public Service. April 7993) 

Vermont Fuel for Schools: A Renewable Energy- Use Initiative (Biomass Energy Resource Center, Montpelier) 

132 Mopted 4-15-08 Rutland Regional Plan

I 

Town of Fair Haven 

Zoning Districts 

Rural 

Industrial 

Fair Haven Village Area 

Legend 

Watershed (Qi Recreation Areas 

Lake Shore Rivers and Streams 

Residential Lakes and Ponds 

Floodplains Road Right-of-Way 

Mixed River 

-. Commercial 

o 05 1 2 

— — 

- 

: :j:i: 

/ 

.4 

I 

• L 

41 — 

I 

A 

3 4 5 Miles 

14r 

C. 

F -‘ 

1 

Ft 

December 3, 200B 

Updated December15, ZOOS

Purpose: To promote commercial activity in the form of retail stores, restaurants, professional 

and business offices. light industry, and other establishments as detailed in the Table of Uses. 

Development should be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and promote ease 

of access between neighboring parcels and uses for vehicles and pedestrians. 

5. Industrial 

Purpose: To allow for light and heavy industry such as slate or stone works, machine shops, 

textile manufacture, laundry and dry cleaning plants or similar operations as described in the 

Table of Uses. These areas are separated from residential and natural areas to minimize use 

conflicts. 

6. Rural 

Purpose: To maintain a balance between ongoing agricultural practices. slate quarrying, low 

density residential settlement, commercial use and light industrial uses in the town. Any 

residential development in this district should consider the effects of permitted quarries in the 

area. 

7. Recreation A teas’ 

There are five areas within the town borders which are set aside as public recreational areas. 

They are as follows: 

(a) A small area of airport property used as a barbecue picnic recreation area; 

(b) Louis Faryniarz Playground - the area east of the Grade School known as the 

“playground”; 

(c) The area at Fair Haven Union High School: 

(d) The area at the former “South School” on Academy Street 

(e) The area of the Fair Haven Green known as the Park. 

8. Watershed 

Purpose: To protect the Town’s water supply from contamination by prohibiting potentially 

threatening activities. 

9. Flood Hazard Area 

Purpose: To maintain the flood water carrying capacity of all flood-prone areas in the Town 

and to ensure that any structures or uses permitted within these areas ate properly protected 

I’rom flood hazards. 

Section 204- Interpretation of District Boundaries 

If uncertainty exists with respect to the boundary of any Zoning District on the Zoning Map. 

- 13—

iii I 

1 

[1 I 

I’ 

‘I 

z 

I 

I 

ill 

Ph E 

u’l 

4 

1) 

a 

ru 

II d.d 

t.11 

I!I! 

Pt 

1 

I; 

ii

ENERGY 

WOOD Ethbfl 5: Landecepe Ia,,a.r Sedlon Looking Natiwest From US RaM 4 T)n4i to P10150 84e Mtny.Vn” 

BEAVER Beaver Wood Energy Fair Haven, Inc VeM,bSflt,32 IJfldWOI*S 

- 

4__ .% -- 

ear •n 

S W W 

‘4__ 

to 

/•_ / 

I 

II 

-7 

WI 

e 

I 

I 

I 

building 

I I 

I 

Max height 

:1 

I 

Max helgtitof 

sffick

CD 

C, 

0 

3 

CD 

0 

CD 

z 

CD -‘ 

0 

z 

C 

‘a 

a 

CD 

•< 

CD 

aC -. 

03 

r 

0)

Pre-Filed Testimony and Exhibits of David Raphael - Vermont Public ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?