Case Title: Agency of Natural Resources v. Weston

Citation: 175 Vt. 573, 2003 VT 58, 830 A.2d 92

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-06-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
Agency of Natural Resources v. Weston (2002-456); 175 Vt. 573; 830 A.2d 92

2003 VT 58

[Filed 18-Jun-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 58

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-456

                              APRIL TERM, 2003

  Agency of Natural Resources	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Environmental Court
                                       }	
  Don Weston	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 105-5-02 Vtec

                                                Trial Judge: Merideth Wright

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Defendant Don Weston appeals from the environmental court's
  order fining him approximately $15,000 for violating solid waste
  regulations and a condition of his Act 250 land use permit.  We affirm the
  violations, but reverse the penalty imposed for the permit violation and
  remand the matter for reconsideration of the appropriate fine for the
  transgression.

       ¶  2.  Defendant owns and operates an excavating business.  In March
  1989, he purchased 146 acres of undeveloped land that was subject to an Act
  250 permit.  Seven months earlier, the seller of part of the land had
  obtained the permit to allow him to subdivide the property.  The permit had
  been denied twice before because of the applicant's failure to demonstrate
  that the proposed subdivision would "not significantly reduce the
  agricultural potential of the primary agricultural soils."  10 V.S.A. §
  6086(a)(9)(B); see 10 V.S.A. § 6001(15) ("Primary agricultural soils" are
  soils having potential "for growing food and forage crops").  The permit
  was finally granted when the applicant consolidated the areas to be set
  aside for agricultural use into a single thirty-three-acre parcel.  Among
  the conditions of the permit were the following:
       
    17.  The 33 acres of primary agricultural soils . . . shall be
    maintained as open, cleared, uncluttered and unencumbered land. 
    Activities which will reduce the potential of the soils for
    agricultural use, such as the construction of buildings or
    swimming pools, are prohibited.  At a minimum, the owner . . . or
    the lessee of the Agricultural Area . . . shall cut the hay from
    the Agricultural Area twice each year and shall fertilize this
    area at least once every three years.

    18.  A multiple year lease arrangement shall be made available by
    the owner . . . to a farmer for a commercial farming practice
    utilizing the Agricultural Area.  The condition of the lease shall
    in no way inhibit the responsible use of fertilizer, reseeding or
    other appropriate improvements for the enhancement of the
    agricultural potential for the soils on the site.  This lease
    shall be for a minimum term of five years, renewable for five year
    periods at the end of each term.

       ¶  3.  From 1989 to 1999, in compliance with these permit conditions,
  defendant leased the thirty-three-acre parcel to local farmers, who planted
  corn and cut hay.  In 1999, defendant applied for a permit to develop his
  property.  Neighbors opposed the proposal, and the application was denied.

       ¶  4.  In the summer of 2000, defendant dumped three loads of
  chicken manure on the thirty-three-acre parcel near the property line with
  residents who had opposed his development proposal.  Some of the residents
  complained to local and state officials about the odor and other problems
  associated with the manure.  The Jericho town health officer inspected the
  manure pile in August 2000 and then contacted officials from the Department
  of Agriculture, who inspected the property in August and again in November
  2000.  Following the August visit, the agricultural investigator found no
  violation, concluding that the pile looked like normal chicken manure, and
  that stacking manure for late spreading was a normal agricultural practice. 
  The investigator noted, however, that the field had not been cut in some
  time, and that there was a high weed content in the hay.

       ¶  5.  At their November visit, state agricultural officials noted
  that the field was old corn stubble and overgrown weeds that had not been
  cut.  The field did not appear to have been used for any agricultural
  production during the summer 2000 growing season.  The officials met with
  defendant and explained to him that he needed to take a crop from his land
  to keep it in agricultural use and legitimize the stacking of manure for
  fertilizer.  The officials further advised Weston that the manure pile had
  to be spread before December 15 of that year, and that the storage of
  manure without an agricultural use is a solid waste violation.  Late on
  December 14, the last day of the year on which the rules for acceptable
  agricultural practices allowed the spreading of manure, defendant had a
  local farmer spread the manure.

       ¶  6.  In the summer of 2001, defendant delivered another two loads
  of chicken manure to the thirty-three-acre parcel, again dumping it near
  the residential properties.  In response to more complaints from the
  neighbors, the same agricultural investigator from the previous year
  visited the property on a number of occasions.  Concluding that the parcel
  was not being put to any agricultural use, the investigator referred the
  matter to plaintiff Agency of Natural Resources for possible solid waste
  violations.  An environmental enforcement officer from the Agency visited
  defendant's property on August 28 and September 4, 2001.  Defendant told
  the officer that he would be bringing in another two loads and spreading
  the manure within two weeks in preparation for crop planting the following
  year.  On September 19, after determining that defendant had not spread the
  manure pile, the officer issued defendant a notice of violation for storage
  of a solid waste without a permit, and ordered him to remove the pile by
  September 28.
   
       ¶  7.  That same month, the Commissioner of the Department of
  Agriculture wrote the Town of Jericho health officer a letter stating that
  because no farming practices had occurred on defendant's property in the
  past two years, the Department had concluded that the property was not
  being used for an agricultural operation, and thus the Town could regulate
  the storage of manure.  On October 1, the Jericho health officer issued a
  health order directing defendant to remove the manure pile.  Defendant had
  a local farmer spread the manure later that month.

       ¶  8.  On April 29, 2002, the Agency of Natural Resources issued an
  administrative order finding that defendant (1) had violated Condition 17
  of his Act 250 permit by failing to cut hay on the thirty-three-acre parcel
  in accordance with the permit; and (2) had violated 6-302(d) of Vermont's
  Solid Waste Management Rules by storing solid waste (chicken manure) for an
  extended period of time outside a certified facility without distributing
  the manure as fertilizer.  The order required defendant (1) to pay a $2000
  penalty within thirty days; (2) to plow and seed the thirty-three-acre
  parcel by June 1, 2002; (3) to refrain from disposing of chicken waste,
  including chicken manure, on the property, and to follow the Department's
  accepted agricultural practices when fertilizing the soil; and (4) to abide
  by the conditions of the Act 250 permit, including Condition 17's
  requirement that hay be cut twice each year on the parcel.  The order also
  stated that the $2000 fine could be augmented depending on evidence
  presented at a hearing before the environmental court, should defendant
  request one.

       ¶  9.  Defendant appealed the administrative order to the
  environmental court, which held a hearing on July 10, 2002.  Following the
  hearing, the court determined that (1) defendant violated Condition 17 of
  his Act 250 permit by failing either to cut hay in the years 2000 and 2001
  or to seek a minor permit amendment to allow him to forego cutting hay for
  one or both of those years; and (2) defendant violated Solid Waste
  Management Rule 6-302(d), which prohibits the storage of a solid waste
  outside a certified facility, by stacking chicken manure without using it
  for soil enrichment.  The court modified one of the provisions of the
  administrative order to allow the use of manure but not chicken waste, and
  then imposed a $14,640 penalty based on avoided costs - $14,000 for the
  cost avoided in not having to cut hay twice a year for two years, and $640
  for the cost of removing the manure pile in 2000 and 2001.

       ¶  10.  On appeal, defendant argues that (1) the environmental
  court's findings concerning the presence of chicken carcasses in the manure
  as well as the odor and flies resulting from the chicken waste were
  unsupported by the evidence and outside the court's jurisdiction because
  they were unrelated to the issues before the court; (2) the court
  misinterpreted Condition 17 to require defendant to cut hay twice a year
  regardless of the physical condition of the land or the use of the land for
  other agricultural activities; (3) the court misconstrued the solid waste
  management rules to prohibit the extended field stacking of manure; and (4)
  the court abused its discretion in assessing the penalty for the permit
  violation.

       ¶  11.  Defendant first contends that we must vacate the environmental
  court's findings that were made in excess of its jurisdiction.  According
  to defendant, the court's findings concerning the presence of animal
  carcasses in the manure, the strong odor and number of flies generated by
  the manure, and the timing of the deliveries of the manure to maximize the
  neighbors' annoyance were all unrelated to the issues before court -
  whether defendant violated his Act 250 permit by failing to cut hay twice a
  year and whether he stacked manure in violation of solid waste management
  rules.  Defendant surmises that the court made the challenged findings for
  the sole purpose of supporting its advisory opinion that defendant's
  neighbors might have a private nuisance action against him.  He contends
  not only that these findings are extra-jurisdictional, but also that they
  are unsupported by the evidence presented at the hearing.
   
       ¶  12.  We decline to address these arguments.  The challenged
  findings may not have been relevant to the alleged violations at issue in
  the environmental court hearing, but, in any event, they played no part in
  the court's disposition of the matter.  The penalties imposed by the court
  were expressly tied to avoided costs, and were not increased based on any
  finding of malicious or wilful behavior.  Although the court modified the
  administrative order to prohibit defendant from storing or using chicken
  waste other than chicken manure, defendant has not suggested that he should
  be permitted to use chicken waste as fertilizer, and thus that prohibition
  is innocuous.  In short, we decline to review the challenged findings
  because they had no negative impact on defendant with respect to the
  environmental court order on appeal here.

       ¶  13.  Next, defendant argues that the environmental court erred by
  construing the solid waste management rules to prohibit the long-term field
  stacking of manure.  Vermont's solid waste management rules prohibit the
  "storage or disposal of solid waste outside of a certified facility," Rule
  6-302(d), 8 Code of Vermont Rules 12 036 003-15-16 (2002) but exclude from
  the definition of solid waste "animal manure and absorbent bedding used for
  soil enrichment," Rule 6-201, 8 Code of Vermont Rules 12 036 003-11 (2002);
  10 V.S.A. § 6602(2) (same definition).  According to defendant, he did not
  violate those rules because the evidence demonstrated that (1) it is common
  practice for farmers to stack manure for long periods of time; (2) the
  regulations do not limit the time period for the stacking of manure; and
  (3) in this case, he eventually used the manure for soil enrichment.

       ¶  14.  We find these arguments unavailing.  The environmental court
  found incredible defendant's claim to have used the manure for soil
  enrichment, given that (1) there was too little manure to enrich the soil
  of a field the size of the parcel in question; (2) the manure was spread as
  late as possible in the fall after the growing season; (3) none of the
  reasons for stacking manure long term existed in this case; and (4) no
  crops were planted on the parcel until late in the 2002 growing season,
  approximately one week before the environmental court hearing was held. 
  The evidence supports these findings, see Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v.
  Bean, 164 Vt. 438, 443,