Case Title: ANR v. Earth Construction, Inc.

Citation: 165 Vt 160, 676 A.2d 769

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Secretary v. Earth Construction, Inc.  (93-427); 165 Vt 160; 676 A.2d 769

[Opinion Filed 12-Jan-1996]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 6-Mar-1996]

[Motion for Reconsideration Denied 29-Mar-1996]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
  40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
  Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
  order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 93-427


Secretary, Vermont Agency                    Supreme Court
of Natural Resources
                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Environmental Law Division

Earth Construction, Inc.                     September Term, 1995
and Rodney Jordan


Merideth Wright, J.

  Christine Melicharek, Waterbury, for plaintiff-appellee

  Rodney Jordan, Groton, pro se and for defendant-appellant Earth
  Construction, Inc.


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       GIBSON, J.   Defendants Earth Construction, Inc. and Rodney Jordan
  appeal two orders of the Environmental Law Division (ELD) imposing
  penalties for the renovation, expansion and use of an access road and
  portions of their gravel pit in East Montpelier in violation of Act 250 and
  the Vermont Wetland Rules.  We affirm.

       Rodney Jordan is the president and executive officer of Earth
  Construction.  In February 1992, Earth Construction purchased a
  seventy-five-acre tract containing a gravel pit in East Montpelier, with a
  plan to continue extracting gravel.  That same month, Earth Construction
  began to improve the access road from Route 2 that descends into the gravel
  pit and forks around the western and southern borders of an area that the
  National Wetlands Inventory map identifies as a Class Two Wetland.  Under
  Jordan's supervision, Earth Construction cut trees and levelled a
  54-by-102-foot turnaround area for trucks, removed a clay bank that
  obstructed the planned path of the road, applied gravel to 115 feet of the
  road, paved a seventy-three-foot section of the road at the intersection
  with Route 2, and installed eight cubic yards of asphalt to

 

  the edge of the gravel pit to facilitate truck passage.  Defendants did not
  apply for a permit to improve the access road or for conditional use
  approval for filling, excavating and grading activities that occurred
  within fifty feet of the wetland.  Nor did they apply for reclassification
  of the wetland to Class Three status so that it would not require
  protection.  During the spring of 1992, after defendants started to remove
  part of a clay berm on the edge of the gravel pit, 200 cubic yards of clay
  slid down the slope of the pit into the wetland.  Defendants removed most
  of the clay with a backhoe, but were unable fully to restore the wetland to
  its previous condition.

       In March 1992, the District 5 Environmental Coordinator asked
  defendants to submit information that would enable the Board to determine
  whether the activities on the site were preexisting and therefore exempt
  from Act 250 jurisdiction.  Defendants responded, but did not provide
  enough information for the Board to make the determination.  On April 17,
  1992, the District Coordinator issued an advisory opinion that, because a
  substantial change had taken place on the property, an Act 250 permit was
  required for the entire site.  Later, after inspecting the site, the Agency
  of Natural Resources (ANR) Enforcement Division served a Notice of Alleged
  Violation on defendants advising them to obtain Act 250 approval before
  continuing any aspect of the gravel pit operation.  In May 1992, defendants
  sought an advisory opinion from the Executive Officer of the Environmental
  Board as to whether there was Act 250 jurisdiction over the project, and
  continued to operate.

       While the Board deliberated the jurisdiction question, the Secretary
  of ANR, on June 3, 1992, served defendants with an Administrative Order
  citing violations of Act 250 and the Vermont Wetland Rules, ordering that
  certain activities cease and remedial actions be taken, requiring
  defendants to apply for an Act 250 permit, and assessing a penalty. 
  Defendants continued to operate without an Act 250 permit, however, until
  an Emergency Order issued from the ELD on June 17, 1992.  Defendants
  requested a hearing before the ELD regarding the Administrative Order.  The
  ELD held hearings on September 9 and 11, and October 22, 1992,

 

  and then continued the hearings at defendants' request to await the Board's
  ruling regarding Act 250 jurisdiction.  Pending receipt of the Board's
  jurisdictional decision, the ELD ruled on February 9, 1993 that defendants
  had violated the wetland rules.

       On October 1, 1992, on behalf of the Executive Officer of the
  Environmental Board, Board counsel issued an advisory opinion, concluding
  that Act 250 jurisdiction did extend over the disputed site.  On November
  9, 1992, defendants petitioned the Board for a declaratory ruling on the
  opinion, but the Board dismissed the petition as untimely on March 16,
  1993.

       At the close of the ELD hearings, defendants moved to dismiss,
  claiming the State had not presented sufficient evidence to support either
  a wetland or an Act 250 violation.  In its order of February 9, 1993, the
  ELD denied the motion, determined that defendants had violated the Vermont
  Wetland Rules, and imposed a penalty of $3,500.  On July 6, 1993, after
  receiving notice of the Board's March 16 dismissal of defendants' petition,
  the ELD reviewed the jurisdictional issue, and determined that defendants'
  activities had brought them under Act 250 jurisdiction.  It held that
  defendants had violated Act 250, and imposed a penalty of $36,497.

       We give deference to the Environmental Board's interpretations of Act
  250 and its own rules, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. Duranleau,
  159 Vt. 233, 237, 617 A.2d 143, 146 (1992), and to the Board's specialized
  knowledge in the environmental field.  In re Sherman Hollow, Inc., 160 Vt.
  627, 628, 641 A.2d 753, 755 (1993) (mem.).  We also defer to the
  conclusions of the ELD, in recognition of the ELD's "expertise in
  environmental enforcement," Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. Handy
  Family Enters., ___ Vt. ___, ___,