Putney Rowing Club, Inc. Land Use Permit Application - Merits Decision

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
Environmental Division Docket No. 25-ENV-00073
32 Cherry St, 2nd Floor, Suite 303,
Burlington, VT 05401
802-951-1740
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Putney Rowing Club Inc. Land Use Permit Application

MERITS DECISION
This is an appeal by Putney Rowing Club, Inc. (Appellant), of an August 18, 2025 decision of
the District #2 Environmental Commission (District Commission) approving, pursuant to 10 V.S.A.
§§ 6001-6011, Appellant’s Act 250 permit amendment application to install a seasonal dock and
footpath on the Connecticut River, but denying its further request to clear portions of the site and
construct a 38’ x 100’ boathouse building with associated driveway and parking areas (collectively, the
Project). Specifically, the District Commission concluded that aspects of the Project, namely the boat
house, driveway and parking areas, did not comply with Act 250 Criteria 1, 1(E) and 1(F). Appellant
timely appealed that decision to this Court; it challenges the denial of its request to construct the
boathouse, driveway, and parking area, as well as the site clearing necessary for the project’s purpose.
This Court conducted a merits hearing on October 7, 2025 via the Webex platform. During the merits
hearing, the Appellant was represented by Hans Huessy, Esq. The Land Use Review Board was
represented by Jenny Ronis, Esq., and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources was represented by
Kane Smart, Esq., and Charles Peel, Esq.

With respect to this Merits Decision, the parties have submitted a set of stipulated facts largely
drawn from the District Commission’s decision. The Court commends the parties for reaching a
stipulation that allows the efficient adjudication of the matter. Further, the Court has reviewed the
stipulation and concludes that the stipulated-to facts are adequately supported. As such, the Court
adopts the party’s stipulated facts herein. Although the Court has incorporated the parties’ facts into
this decision in a different order than they were submitted to this Court, the facts themselves are
restated verbatim.1

1 The parties’ stipulated facts have been marked with an asterisk at the end of the sentence.

Page 1 of 13
Findings of Fact

1. Appellant owns a long, narrow tract of land, consisting of 5.13 acres, located along and
immediately adjacent to the Connecticut River in Dummerston, Vermont (Property).
2. Prior to Appellant’s purchase of the Property in 2020, it had been developed with an A-frame
dwelling, wastewater system and parking area. Access to the dwelling was via Dummerston Station
Road, which terminates at or near the site. A gravel driveway passes under the railroad tracks to reach
the dwelling.
3. At the time that Appellant purchased the Property it was covered by a substantial amount of
junk and debris, including trash, junk vehicles, batteries and liquid in steel drums. Appellant has
worked to clean up and remove these materials from the Property.
4. In 2023, Appellant submitted Act 250 application #2W0317-6 to the District Commission to
authorize the construction of a 38’ x 100’ boathouse building with a driveway and parking lot (with
related site clearing) and seasonal installation of a dock on the Connecticut River.
5. The application was deemed complete April 5, 2023, and the District Commission held a
hearing on the matter on June 15, 2023.
6. On February 4, 2025, the District Commission issued Land Use Permit 2W0317-6 (the
Permit). The District Commission found, however, that only the seasonal dock and footpath
complied with all Act 250 criteria, and that construction of the building, driveway, parking, and site
clearing did not comply. Appellant timely appealed that decision to the Environmental Division. The
application was subsequently remanded by stipulation so that the District Commission could correct
deficiencies in the Permit’s factual findings.
7. On August 19, 2025, the District Commission re-issued the Permit (2W0317-6 (Remanded)),
which, in addition to authorizing construction of the seasonal dock and footpath, expressly denied the
portion of the application concerning construction of the boathouse and related driveway and parking
facilities. Appellant again timely appealed the matter to this Court.
8. The project site on Appellant’s parcel is located on one of two large plateaus of land running
parallel to the Connecticut River. One plateau, the more easterly of the two, is immediately adjacent
to the riverbank and rises from/falls steeply to the water. This is the plateau on which the Project is
located. The other plateau, located to the west, is created from the elevated railroad tracks that run
behind the project. Further to the west of the proposed project (and the railroad tracks) lies
approximately 16 acres of farmland.

Page 2 of 13
9. A single 20-inch culvert (beneath the railroad line adjacent to the river) effectively serves as
the primary drainage location during storm events for an area of approximately a quarter mile
surrounding the Property. The westerly plateau created by the railroad line effectively serves as a dam
and funnels stormwater and runoff from the 16 acres of farmland through the culvert.
10. The culvert is located directly uphill of the proposed boathouse and has carved large gullies
out of the riverbank over the passage of time due to highly concentrated, long-duration flows of water.
11. The entire property is located within the 100-foot riparian buffer of the Connecticut River. *
Parties’ Stipulated Facts.
12. The Connecticut River and the railroad tracks “bookend” the relevant tract of land (and those
around it in this area), such that available, developable river-side property is generally scarce and
development outside of the river’s riparian buffer, for boathouse purposes, is extremely difficult
because the railroad blocks access.
13. The original site plan for the project was circulated to the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR),
which requested certain modifications. All of ANR’s requested changes and modifications were
addressed to its satisfaction by Appellant prior to production of the final version of the site plan
submitted to the Court at the merits hearing.
14. ANR reviews Act 250 applications for their conformance with the Agency’s Guidance for
Agency Act 250 and Section 248 Comments Regarding Riparian Buffers (“Buffer Guidance”).
Undisturbed, naturally vegetated riparian zones (i.e., riparian buffers) are important for providing
many ecological functions as well as maintaining the natural condition of the stream. * Id.
15. Before the Commission hearing, ANR submitted the following comment [by] letter:
a. As a standard approach, the Agency typically requests a 100-foot, undisturbed riparian
buffer for new projects, however the buffer guidance also provides the Agency with
discretion for review and approval of riparian management plans. The Putney Rowing
Club’s application presents factors that warrant consideration of a riparian management
plan in this case, based on the site constraints (a significant portion of the long narrow
parcel immediately adjacent to the river and located within the riparian buffer area); the
project purpose (boat house); and the fact that commencement of construction has already
begun (site clearing with removal of mature trees and construction on the foundation of
the boat house) necessitating additional mitigation.* Id.
16. ANR requested that the following conditions be included if the Court were to issue a land use
permit for the Project:

Page 3 of 13
a. The Project tract is located within 100 feet of the top of the slope of the Connecticut
River. Except for Project activities authorized by this permit, and which are shown and
described in Exhibits 8 and 10 (Site plan, planting plan and monitoring plan), the Permittee
shall maintain an undisturbed, naturally vegetated riparian zone on the Project Tract which
shall begin at the water’s edge at base flow conditions, and shall extend to the western
property boundary as depicted on the site plan, Sheet C-1, Exhibit 10. The term
“undisturbed” means that there shall be no activities that may cause or contribute to
ground or vegetation disturbance or soil compaction, including but not limited to
construction; earth-moving activities; storage of materials; tree trimming or canopy
removal; tree, shrub, or groundcover removal; plowing or disposal of snow; grazing; or
mowing. *
b. Permittee shall implement the planting plan dated March 1, 2024, revised April 24, 2024
(Exhibit 8) and the Site Monitoring Plan (Exhibit 8). Riparian zone plantings shall be
completed within one growing season following Project construction. During each
growing season for five years after planting, the Permittee shall monitor the proposed
mitigation and enhancement areas to ensure 75% survival of planted species and shall
replace failed plantings. A report shall be submitted to the District Commission and
Agency by November 30 each monitoring year identifying results, survival shortfalls, and
remediation plans if necessary. * Parties’ Stipulated Facts.
17. The Appellant submitted a planting plan. * Exhibit 8.
18. The Appellant applied for and received Authorization to Conduct Stream Alteration Activities,
permit number SR-2665, for the “[r]iverbank slope grading for access to the river” on May 12, 2021.
* Id.
19. Appellant, through its Club President, stipulated that it will comply with ANR’s conditions a.
and b., above.
20. The project plan proposes to address impacts from both on-site and off-site stormwater. On-
site stormwater is water that accumulates directly in the project area from precipitation, snowmelt and
similar circumstances. Off-site stormwater is water that accumulated elsewhere (such as the adjacent
farmland) and flows from the point of accumulation across the project area.
21. The stormwater system (including, without limitation, the catch basin, overflow structure, 36”
HDPE pipe, swale, berm and rip-rap with filter fabric shown on the submitted site plan details) is
primarily intended to mitigate and reduce impacts from off-site stormwater, while the French drains

Page 4 of 13
(which utilize perforated PVC pipe in a stone-filled trench), plantings and vegetation (shown on the
site plan and the planting plan) are intended to mitigate and reduce impacts from on-site stormwater,
including from the gable roof of the boathouse.
22. The stormwater system will also mitigate and reduce the erosive effects of the culvert’s
channelization by intercepting the stormwater before it can flow across the Property, discharging
stormwater flows in a manner that dissipates the erosive energy of the water.
23. The plantings are intended to stabilize the ground to reduce further erosion. The plantings
alone, however, would not suffice to stop further erosion of the riverbanks without the inclusion of
the stormwater system.
24. The Project will result in approximately 3,800 square feet of new impervious surfaces (the
boathouse roof) and 0.4 acres of anticipated disturbance on the property, to be located entirely within
the 100-foot riparian buffer. * Id.
25. Although construction of the boathouse will increase the total amount of impervious surface
in the project area, that increase will not result in additional erosion, runoff of sediments, or runoff of
other pollutants into the river.
26. Runoff from the boathouse’s gable roof will be captured by the French drains, and the sandy
soil present in the area should absorb any additional on-site stormwater.
27. Appellant intends to construct the driveway and parking area for their project on land that had
previously been used for that purpose. As a result, any soil compaction from vehicles has already
occurred, and the construction of those features will not result in additional soil compaction.
28. Appellant intends to use an existing gully for the path to the river following work to stabilize
the banks of the gully. The intent of the project is, in part, to provide access to the river by members
of the public.
29. The dock will be removed seasonally. * Id.
30. The dock will be located adjacent to one of the large gullies and the Appellant will access it
via an already cut slope.
31. Only the seasonal dock and footpath will be visible on the shoreline of the Connecticut River.
By using existing vegetation and adding plantings of species native to the area, Appellant will screen
the other features of the project from view.
32. The project will maintain the shoreline in its natural state to the extent possible, including by
retaining vegetation.

Page 5 of 13
33. The plantings, together with the stormwater system, will serve to stabilize the riverbank,
mitigate the potential for future erosion, and begin the process of rehabilitating sections of the bank
that have already eroded.
34. At present, Appellant must deconstruct its boathouse and remove all boats annually. Removal
of the boats also occurs during flooding events, which has happened on multiple occasions over the
past few years.
35. The Appellant’s boats are long, heavy, and cumbersome—they can be up to 45 feet long and
weigh up to 150 pounds. They usually require multiple people to carry, sometimes as many as six to
carry a “quad” boat. Bringing the oars for the boats down to the river requires a second trip.
36. Many of Appellant’s members are elderly. Carrying the boats any distance to the river—even
half a mile—would be difficult for this reason, but also because the boats are handmade out of wood,
fragile and susceptible to damage.
37. No reduction in the planned length of the boathouse could occur without impacting
Appellant’s ability to move the boats in and out of the structure. Similarly, no reduction in the width
of the boathouse could occur without increased danger of striking one boat with another during
transport.

Discussion
I. Criterion 1: Water Pollution
10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(1) provides:
(a) Before granting a permit, the District Commission shall find that
the subdivision or development:
(1) Will not result in undue water or air pollution. In making this
determination it shall at least consider: the elevation of land above sea
level; and in relation to the flood plains, the nature of soils and subsoils
and their ability to adequately support waste disposal; the slope of the
land and its effect on effluents; the availability of streams for disposal
of effluents; and the applicable Health and Environmental
Conservation Department regulations.
10 V.S.A. §6086(a)(1).
Criterion 1 prohibits granting applications for proposed projects that will cause “undue water
or air pollution.” Id. “[W]hether ‘undue’ pollution will result from a proposed project is a highly fact-
specific inquiry that depends on a wide variety of factors, only one of which is compliance with
applicable regulations.” In re Diverging Diamond Interchange SW Permit, 2019 VT 57, ¶ 44. There
is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes undue pollution, but a commonly accepted

Page 6 of 13
definition is “that which is more than necessary—exceeding what is appropriate or normal.” Id; In re
Diverging Diamond Interchange A250, No. 169-12-16 Vtec, slip op. at 13 (Vt. Super. Env. Div. Apr.
16, 2020) (Walsh, J.). The sub-factors listed in Criterion 1 are relevant to the Environmental Division’s
considerations of whether a project will result in undue pollution, but the Court may permissibly
consider “any factors relevant to a determination of whether a proposed project will cause undue
pollution.” Diverging Diamond Interchange, 2019 VT 57, ¶ 45 (citing In re Hawk Mtn. Corp., 149
Vt. 179, 184). Whether an applicant plans to take steps to mitigate any proposed discharges from the
project may factor into the undue water pollution analysis. Diverging Diamond Interchange A250,
No. 169-12-16 Vtec, slip op. at 14 (Apr. 16, 2020) (Walsh, J)..
Appellant’s proposed project complies with Criterion 1. While the project will result in
approximately 3,800 square feet of new impervious surface within the riparian buffer, the effect would
be mitigated by the presence of the stormwater system and French drains that Appellant plans to
install on the Property. Appellant sited these features with due consideration for the nature of the
soils in the area and their ability to support waste disposal in relation to flood plains. 2 Appellant
intends ― and has taken reasonable steps to ensure ― that runoff from the boathouse roof will be
captured by both stormwater features, and that the sandy soils present in the project area will absorb
any additional runoff such that the project will not result in additional runoff, runoff of sediments, or
runoff of other pollutants into the water. Appellant has also taken into consideration both the land’s
elevation and the slope of the land and its effect on effluents. While the stormwater system serves
several purposes in Appellant’s project, one of its primary functions is to divert the flow of off-site
stormwater across the property from neighboring (elevated) farmland.3
The final piece of Criterion 1 requires consideration of applicable Health and Environmental
Conservation Department regulations set by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR). ANR has been
an active participant throughout the permitting process for this project and requested two specific
conditions be added to Appellant’s permit, should the permit be granted. Condition “a” requires
maintaining vegetation in the riparian zone and an “undisturbed” shoreline, which in part forbids

2 Although it was not noted explicitly at the hearing, the Court assumes (based on the location and topography

of the parcel) that at least a portion of the property lies in the flood plain. As such, we include analysis of these
subfactors of Criterion 1 for completeness.
3 Additionally, the Court understands Appellant and members have removed trash/debris, batteries, junk

vehicles, and miscellaneous liquid-filled barrels from the property in making improvements in preparation for the
project. Exhibit 2. Although this is not a required element of the Act 250 Criteria at issue in this appeal, the waste
removed clearly had the potential to result in serious pollution, particularly given its proximity to the river. The Court
appreciates members’ diligence and commitment to maintaining the condition of the area and mitigating potential
negative environmental impacts from the waste materials previously located on site.

Page 7 of 13
activities that contribute to vegetation disturbance and soil compaction. Condition “b” mandates
implementation of the planting plan submitted by Appellant and sets parameters for gauging its
success. Appellant has stipulated that it would abide by the Agency’s conditions. Additionally,
Appellant has located the planned parking area and driveway in the same area already used by vehicles
to avoid additional soil compaction on an alternative portion of the Property. Appellant also intends
to conduct extensive plantings to help reduce erosion and stabilize the riverbanks. At the conclusion
of trial, all parties agreed that ANR’s concerns were addressed through these activities and conditions.
Finally, Appellant has applied for and received a stream alteration permit from ANR for grading the
riverbank slope. For all these reasons, the project complies with Criterion 1.

II. Criteria 1(E) (Streams) & 1(F) (Shorelines)

A. Criterion 1(E)

Criterion 1(E) requires that “the development or subdivision of lands on or adjacent to the
banks of a stream will, whenever feasible, maintain the natural condition of the stream, and will not
endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the public or of adjoining landowners.” 10 V.S.A. §
6086(a)(1)(E). The burden of proof is on the Applicant under Criterion 1(E). 10 V.S.A. § 6088(a);
Re: Times & Seasons, LLC et al, #3W0839-2-EB (Altered), Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Order at 35 (Vt. Envtl. Bd. Nov. 4, 2005).
In this case, Appellant has taken a number of steps to maintain the natural condition of the
stream, and the project will not pose any danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the public or
adjoining landowners.4 Appellant will stabilize the banks of the river and construct an armored rip
rap apron as part of its stormwater management system that will help to dissipate the erosive energy
of off-site stormwater flowing across the property towards the river. Appellant will install extensive
plantings of species native to the area to work in concert with the stormwater system to stabilize the
banks of the river, and conduct additional stabilization work on a gully created by erosion from the
existing culvert in the area, as shown on Exhibits 8 and 10. The plantings will also work to screen the
project from view, helping to preserve the river’s natural appearance and condition. The gully will be

4 It is highly likely that the natural condition of the Connecticut River in this area had already been altered by the

construction of the railroad, as evidence by the culvert and resulting gullies carved out from long periods of concentrated
erosive flow. Taking that information as the background condition of the project site, the Court interprets the requirement
to “maintain the natural condition of the stream” to mean no further significant alterations to the condition of the stream,
as it now exists, occur. Despite this, the planned remediation work Appellant will conduct in connection with this project,
such as planting and stabilization on the banks and gully, will likely begin the process of restoring those areas, bringing the
river closer to its natural condition than it would have otherwise been.

Page 8 of 13
used as the primary access to the river from the project site, obviating the need to further alter the
river’s natural condition by creating a separate pathway. Further, as set forth below, the project will
maintain the shoreline in its natural condition to the extent possible. Because only the dock and
footpath will be visible on the shoreline, and Appellant’s dock will be removed seasonally, this impact
will be minimal.
There is no evidence before the Court to suggest that this project could pose a danger to the
health, safety or welfare of the public or adjoining landowners. The project will not create any
discharges that could independently contribute to the degradation of water quality and indirectly pose
a danger in that way. Presently, discharges originating in other (off-site) locations flow through the
proposed project area (such as from the adjacent farm) via the existing culvert, down the path of least
resistance evidenced by the existing gully, and directly into the river. Construction of the project
means this off-site stormwater will pass through the boathouse’s stormwater system, where it will be
slowed down and filtered through the filter fabric in the rip-rap apron. Exhibit 10. Thus, it may well
be the case that implementation of the project improves the quality of existing discharges into the
river. Additionally, the removable dock could be taken out of the river with proper warning, limiting
the danger of possible hazards during extreme flooding events.
For these reasons, the Court finds the project will maintain the shoreline in its natural
condition and will not endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the public or adjoining landowners.
Thus, the project complies with Criterion 1(E).

B. Criterion 1(F)

Criterion 1(F) concerns shorelines. 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(1)(F) mandates:

A permit will be granted whenever it is demonstrated by the Applicant
that, in addition to all other criteria, the development or subdivision of
shorelines must of necessity be located on a shoreline in order to fulfill
the purpose of the development or subdivision, and the development
or subdivision will, insofar as possible and reasonable in light of its
purpose:
(i) retain the shoreline and the waters in their natural condition;
(ii) allow continued access to the waters and the recreational
opportunities provided by the waters;
(iii) retain or provide vegetation which will screen the development or
subdivision from the waters; and

Page 9 of 13
(iv) stabilize the bank from erosion, as necessary, with vegetation
cover.
10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(1)(F).
The first step of this analysis is to determine whether the project must of necessity be
located on the shoreline. Act 250 Rule 21 defines “of necessity” to mean:
[T]hat the project or a portion of the project must serve a water-related
purpose and that the project’s location on the shoreline serves as such
an integral part of the developmental scheme that the inability to locate
the project, or a portion of the project, on the shoreline would make
the project impossible.
Act 250 Rules, Rule 2(C)(21). The Applicant bears the burden of proving compliance with
Criterion 1(F). 10 V.S.A. § 6088(a); In re Korrow Real Estate, LLC Act 250 Permit
Amendment Application, 2018 VT 39, ¶4.
The Appellant in this case has shown that the project serves a water-related purpose
and that the project’s location on the shoreline serves as an integral part of the developmental
scheme. The primary purpose of the boathouse will be to store the boats Appellant regularly
uses during the spring, summer, and fall for rowing on the Connecticut River. This is a water-
related purpose, justifying a conclusion that the project must “of necessity” be located along
the shoreline. W. River Acres, Inc. et. al., #2W1053-EB, Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and
Order (Vt. Envtl. Bd. July 16, 2004) (Environmental Board finds planned swimming and
canoeing access areas to be “of necessity” located on a shoreline because they are “water-
dependent activities”; horse carriage training area is not water-dependent and thus not required
to be located on the shoreline). Rowing is a water-dependent activity. A rowing boathouse
thus serves a water-related purpose, and the project meets this prong of the analysis.
To meet the second prong of the “of necessity” analysis, there must be a finding that
the project’s location on the shoreline serves as an integral part of the developmental scheme.
Appellant’s entire parcel lies within the 100-foot riparian buffer of the Connecticut River.
Further, the topography of the land creates natural barriers in the form of plateaus that
bookend the property—one formed by the raised railroad tracks, another formed by a gradient
on the side near the boathouse and steep drop-off to the river on the other side. Further, the

Page 10 of 13
boathouse cannot be constructed any shorter or more narrowly than currently designed
without increased danger of damaging the boats during storage and transport.5
Due to the parcel’s unique location and topography, construction of the boathouse at
the requisite dimensions anywhere on the parcel necessarily triggers the protections of
Criterion 1(F). Put another way, there is no location on the property where the boathouse
could be sited outside the 100-foot riparian buffer. The boathouse has been specifically
designed to meet the needs of the overall project and the boats it will house. To make the
boathouse smaller would materially impede the primary purpose of the project, which is a
permanent structure for boat storage that does not require seasonal removal of the boats and
can withstand periodic flooding. As such, the Court finds the boathouse to be an integral
aspect of the overall project’s developmental scheme, and that it meets the second prong of
the “of necessity” test.6
Finally, while not directly relevant to the standard, it is worth noting that, were the
boathouse not constructed in its planned location, there would be no need for the installation
of the stormwater system and French drains to mitigate the effects of the additional
impervious surface created by the roof and prevent further erosion in the project area. These
aspects of the project have already been found beneficial to the environment and natural
condition of the river in the area.
The Court next turns to the subcriteria of Criterion 1(F).
i. Retention of shoreline and waters in their natural condition

5 Although this Court has jurisdiction to review all aspects of the project de novo, including the seasonal dock

and footpath, no party disputed that both of those features complied with all Act 250 criteria. We decline to disturb the
District Commission’s finding(s) in that regard and, thus, focus on the boathouse in our analysis.
6 The project at issue here can easily be distinguished from previously denied projects like the one in Woodford

Packers, Inc. In that case, the Environmental Board found that a walking path for a retirement home on the shoreline of
a river did not satisfy the “developmental scheme” prong of the “of necessity” test and was affirmed by the Supreme
Court. Woodford Packers, Inc., #8B0542-EB, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, p. 26; In re Woodford
Packers, Inc., 2003 VT 60, ¶ 20. Specifically regarding the walking path, the Board found:
The site plan for the Project includes, not only the walking path, but a community
center, shuffleboard court, and lawn for lawn bowling and croquet. There is no
reason to believe that the statute's requirement for "significant facilities and services"
cannot be met by these other proposed recreational and social facilities.
Woodford Packers, Inc., #8B0542-EB, p. 26.
Unlike the project in Woodford Packers, this project directly serves a water-related purpose. Moreover, other aspects of
the Woodford Packers project could accomplish the end goal of recreational uses for residents; here, inability to construct
the boathouse would frustrate one of the project’s primary purposes (permanent storage for fragile boats) and could not
be replaced by some other aspect of the project.

Page 11 of 13
Appellant’s project will retain the shoreline and waters in their natural condition, as
covered in greater detail in the discussion of Criterion 1(E), above. Appellant will: 1) stabilize
the banks of the river with plantings; 2) control on- and off-site stormwater using French
drains and a stormwater system to minimize effluents and sediment entering the river; 3) put
measures in place to prevent further erosion of existing gullies and utilize a gully as a pathway;
4) screen the project from view; and 5) seasonally remove the dock. Thus, Appellant has met
the requirements of subcriteria (i).
ii. Continued access to the waters and the recreational opportunities
provided by the waters
The project’s main intention, in part, is to provide access to the river for members of
the public. Further, completion of the project would not change the current access or
recreational opportunities provided by the Connecticut River. Thus, this element of Criterion
1(F) is met. W. River Acres, Inc. et. al., #2W1053-EB, Findings, Conclusions, and Order slip
op. at 15 (Vt. Envtl. Bd. July 16, 2004).
iii. Retention or provision of vegetation which will screen the
development or subdivision from the waters
Appellant has met this element of Criterion 1(F). A significant element of Appellant’s
plan to mitigate erosion involves stabilizing the banks of the river by using existing vegetation
and planting additional native vegetation selected in conformity with ANR standards. Exhibit
8. These plantings will screen the project from view and only the dock and footpath will be
visible from the river. Further, the dock will be removed seasonally, meaning it will only be
visible for a portion of the year. For these reasons, Appellant has met this element of Criterion
1(F).
iv. Stabilization of the bank from erosion, as necessary, with vegetation
cover

Based on discussions of Appellant’s compliance with Criterion 1(E) and 1(F)(iii)
above, this element of 1(F) has been met.

Conclusion

For all the above reasons, the Court concludes that Appellant’s project satisfies Criteria 1,
1(E), and 1(F). A Judgment Order accompanies this decision.

Page 12 of 13
Electronically signed on November 21, 2025, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d).

Joseph S. McLean
Superior Court Judge
Environmental Division

Page 13 of 13