Title: Agency of Natural Resources v. Persons

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Agency of Natural Resources v.
Persons and Trust A of Persons (2012-274)
 
2013 VT 46
 
[Filed 28-Jun-2013]
 
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 by email at: JUD.Reporter@state.vt.us or by
mail at: 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.
 
 
2013 VT 46 
 
No. 2012-274
 
Agency of Natural Resources
Supreme Court
 
 
 
On Appeal from
     v.
Superior Court, 
Environmental Division
 
 
 
 
Timothy Persons, and Trust A of
  Timothy Persons
February Term, 2013
 
 
 
 
Thomas
  S. Durkin, J.
 
Paul S. Gillies of Tarrant, Gillies, Merriman &
Richardson, Montpelier, for Appellants.
 
William H. Sorrell, Attorney General,
and Kyle H. Landis-Marinello, Assistant Attorney General,
  Montpelier, for Appellee.
 
 
PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Skoglund, Burgess and Robinson,
JJ., and Bent, Supr. J.,
                    
Specially Assigned
 
 
¶ 1.            
SKOGLUND, J.  Defendants Timothy Persons and Trust A of
Timothy Persons appeal from a Superior Court, Environmental Division decision
that held certain construction and excavation work performed on defendants'
property violated the Vermont Wetlands Protection and Water Resources
Management laws and the Vermont Wetlands Rules (VWR).  For a host of
reasons, defendants contend they were not given adequate notice that portions
of their lands contain a protected wetland, and therefore, they should not be
subjected to the resulting fines.  We affirm.
¶ 2.            
Defendant Timothy Persons or his relatives owned a 152-acre plot of
farmland in Lunenburg, Vermont, with frontage along U.S. Route 2 and Hastings
Road.  In August 1998, the property was subdivided into seven individual
parcels.  Defendant Trust A of Timothy Persons (Trust A) purchased the
property in April 1999 and began selling the subdivided lots.  Defendant
Trust A sold Lots 5 and 5A to Carl Jaborek, an individual not a party to this
proceeding.  Defendant Trust A retained ownership of Lot 4, with Allen
Bacon acting as sole trustee.  
¶ 3.            
Lots 4, 5, and 5A are the subject of this appeal.  Lots 4 and 5A
each contain 10.1 acres; Lot 5 contains 59 acres, including the property's
original farmhouse.  There is a Class II wetland located on Lot 4.  As
found by the environmental court, areas with wet soils extend from the Lot 4
wetland across Lots 5 and 5A, such that the wet soils abut the Class II
wetland.  
¶ 4.            
In September 1999, the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) issued an
Administrative Order against defendant Persons for unpermitted excavation work
within a Class II wetland and its fifty-foot buffer on Lot 4.  Defendant
Persons initially contested the Order but later admitted to the 1999 wetland
violation.  He subsequently entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance
(AOD)[1]
with ANR in 2001, wherein he admitted to the existence of the Class II wetlands
on Lot 4, and that excavation work and the dumping of fill and gravel within
the wetland and its buffer were violations of the applicable wetland-protection
laws and regulations.  Defendant Persons thereafter enrolled in
classes pertaining to wetlands delineation and septic design. 
¶ 5.            
Years later, Mr. Jaborek, owner of Lots 5 and 5A, learned of the
Administrative Order against defendant Persons and contacted ANR's Waterbury
office to inquire what excavation could lawfully be performed on his property
in order to prepare his lots for sale.  He also asked whether there were
any outstanding requirements from the 2001 AOD that required attention.
 As a consequence, ANR officials visited Lots 4, 5, and 5A in May 2007 and
confirmed that the wet soils located on the lots represented an additional wetland
as evidenced by the surrounding vegetation, soil, and hydrology.  
¶ 6.            
During the initial visit, ANR officials noted that defendant Persons
recently cleared a swath of trees and excavated soils from a strip of land that
cut across Lots 4, 5, and 5A, to replace a damaged water line that supplied
water to Lot 4.  The area cleared was wholly contiguous to the Class II
wetland on Lot 4.  In June 2007, after receiving a report that defendant
Persons was conducting further excavation work in the identified wetland, ANR
conducted another site visit, which revealed that defendant Persons dug three
additional spring-fed wells, approximately five feet deep in the secondary
wetland.  The wells were encapsulated in concrete tiles and extended three
feet above ground level. 
¶ 7.            
In July 2007, ANR issued a notice of violation, requiring that
defendants remove the new tiles and gravel and make repairs to the cleared land
by August 15, 2007.  In September 2007, an ANR official and the State
Wetlands Coordinator conducted another site visit, where they observed no
change in conditions or attempt to ameliorate the cited violations; rather,
they found that defendant Persons had installed electrical fixtures on the
three new tile structures.  In May 2010, ANR issued an
Administrative Order against defendants for dredging and filling in a Class II
wetland and its fifty-foot buffer zone without obtaining a conditional use
determination pursuant to VWR §§ 6.3(b), 8.  
¶ 8.            
Defendants appealed the Order to the environmental court.  After a
full hearing on the merits, the court concluded that defendants "knew or should
have known that their activities were conducted within wetlands that are
protected by 10 V.S.A., Chapter 37 and the VWR."  Even though defendant
Persons testified that the soils were not wet when he conducted the excavation
work, the court did not find his testimony credible.  Based on the
credible evidence, including evidence of the existing plant, soil, and hydrology
in the area in question, the court determined that a Class II wetland existed
at the time defendants conducted their work and, continues to exist today.
 As such, the court concluded that defendant Persons knowingly and
defiantly excavated the land and installed wells without seeking the guidance
of ANR or petitioning for a new wetlands determination.  The court also
found Allen Bacon, the sole trustee of Trust A, to be equally responsible,
based on his knowledge of the area and the Trust's ownership interest.
 Accordingly, the court assessed a penalty of $14,222 against
defendants pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8010(b)(1)-(8).  This
appeal followed.  
¶ 9.            
We begin by setting forth the appropriate standard of review.  The
trial court's factual findings must be upheld unless clearly erroneous.  Town
of Bethel v. Wellford, 2009 VT 100, ¶ 5, 186 Vt. 612, 987 A.2d 956.
 "Where the trial court has applied the proper legal standard, we will
uphold its conclusions of law if reasonably supported by
its findings."  Id. (quotation omitted). 
¶ 10.        
Defendants articulate thirteen objections to the trial court's
findings.  The thrust of their arguments focuses on whether they knew or
should have known they were working within protected wetlands and whether the
associated penalty is reasonable.  Because of the significant overlap
among defendants' claims, we address them thematically. 
¶ 11.        
Defendants first contend they were not given adequate notice that they
were working in protected wetlands, and any violation would be in contravention
of basic due process.  Specifically, they allege that ANR should have
informed them of wetland boundaries during the initial site visits. 
Defendants also maintain that neither the 2001 AOD nor the National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) maps sufficiently alerted them to other wetland areas located
on the property.  We disagree. 
¶ 12.        
VWR[2]
provides protection for significant wetlands, which include any Class I or Class
II wetland and their associated buffer zones.  Vermont Wetlands Rules §§
2.24, 6.1, 6 Code of Vt. Rules 12 004 056.  The rules require landowners
to seek authorization from the Secretary of ANR before commencing any nonexempt
activities, including clearing and excavating the land.  See VWR §§ 6.3,
8.1, 6 Code of Vt. Rules 12 004 056; see also 10 V.S.A. § 913(a) ("[N]o person
shall conduct or allow to be conducted an activity in a significant wetland or
buffer zone of a significant wetland except in compliance with a permit,
conditional use permit determination, or order issued by the
secretary.").  The rules provide further that all wetlands shown on the
state's NWI maps and all wetlands contiguous to such mapped wetlands are
presumed to be Class II wetlands.  See VWR §§ 4.1, 4.2, 6 Code of Vt.
Rules 12 004 056. Similarly, Chapter 37 of Title 10, entitled Wetlands
Protection and Water Resources Management, outlines the state's commitment to
protect and regulate the water resources of the state through statute and sets
forth similar guidelines in determining wetlands; Chapter 201 of Title 10
outlines the enforcement action for wetland violations.  
¶ 13.        
Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8006, the Secretary of ANR may issue either a
written warning or a written notice for an alleged violation, with a brief
description of the violation and the intended course of action, as well as,
specific time lines and directives to achieve compliance, if appropriate. 
The rules do not require the Secretary to first issue a warning and then a
notice as defendants contend.  While it may have been good practice for
ANR officials to orally notify defendants of the alleged violation during their
first site visit in May 2007, such action was not required.[3]   
¶ 14.        
Next, defendants argue that the 2001 AOD did not provide adequate notice
that they were operating on protected wetlands, as the AOD addressed only a
discrete portion of Lot 4, and failed to indicate the existence of nearby wetlands.
 The record makes clear that the work in question, namelyexcavation,
dredging, gravel and other fill work, and the installation of the spring
wellstook place outside the precise boundaries of what the AOD delineated as
Class II wetlands.  The trial court, however, did not presume that the AOD
had provided defendants in 2001 with actual notice of all wetlands on their
property.  The court merely reasoned that, in light of defendants' prior
exchanges with ANR officials, defendants knew agency officials could provide
wetland boundary determinations on their land.  Also, the court
found that, because of the prior compliance matter, defendants knew or should
have known that if they "intended to conduct excavation work or other
activities and uses in an area protected by state wetland protection laws and
regulations, [they] could only receive lawful authority to do so by requesting
a conditional use determination."  So, while the court used the 2001 AOD
as contextual background, it did not find that the AOD provided defendants with
a definitive ruling of the boundaries of all the existing wetlands.  
¶ 15.        
Similarly, defendants allege that the NWI maps failed to accurately
denote the secondary wetlands on their property.  They argue the maps were
difficult to read and required professional assistance or input to determine
the boundary, as they were not "intended to show the exact location of wetland
boundaries."  We find this argument unavailing.  
¶ 16.        
Even though the record indicates that NWI maps may not illustrate the
precise boundary of each and every wetland in the state, they highlight
protected areas, generally.[4] 
The onus is placed on the landowner to seek further clarification or petition
for remapping.  VWR § 7.1, 6 Code of Vt. Rules 12 004 056.  In
fact, the rules expressly state that "the maps denote the approximate location
and configuration of significant wetlands.  The actual
boundaries . . . shall be determined in the field."
 VWR § 3.2(b), 6 Code of Vt. Rules 12 004 056.  Furthermore, the
trial court never declared that NWI maps would apprise defendants of
wetlands.  Instead, the court used the map as a counterpoint to illustrate
that Class II wetlands extend beyond those marked on the map.
Class
II wetlands are not limited to just those wetlands identified on the VSWI map.
 Rather, due to the metamorphic nature of surface and ground water, the
classification of Class II wetlands also includes "all wetlands contiguous to
such mapped wetlands, . . . unless determined otherwise by
the [Water Resources] Board," pursuant to a successful petition for an
alternative wetlands determination by ANR or a property owner.  VWR
§ 4.2(b), 6 Code of Vt. Rules 12 004 056.  
 
¶ 17.        
In sum, defendants argue they were not afforded basic due process
because they were never notified or able to learn the location of the wetlands
before being charged by ANR for violating the law and regulations.  Due
process necessitates that there is "notice sufficient to give the person of
ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited and
to provide explicit standards for those who apply them.  Agency of
Natural Res. v. Irish, 169 Vt. 407, 411, 738 A.2d 571, 575-76 (1999)
(quotations omitted).  The U.S. Supreme Court has "expressed greater
tolerance of enactments with civil rather than criminal penalties because the
consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe."  Village of
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498-99
(1982). 
¶ 18.        
In particular, this Court in Agency of Natural Resources v. Irish,
found that NWI maps in conjunction with ANR's recommendations could provide a
defendant with reasonable notice that it was necessary to procure a conditional
use determination before commencing work.  169 Vt. at 413, 738 A.2d  at
577.  There, the Court reasoned that in light of the less demanding
strictures in civil suits and the fact that the defendant knew there were
significant wetlands on his property as marked by the NWI maps and that ANR
recommended that he obtain an expert opinion and a conditional use
determination prior to the excavation work, the defendant had ample notice he
was working on protected land.  Id. at 412-13, 738 A.2d  at 576-77.
¶ 19.        
Similarly, defendants here were well aware that significant wetlands
were located on the property.  While neither the AOD nor the NWI map
detailed the precise locations of all secondary wetlands, the underlying facts
suggest defendants knew or had reason to know they were performing work on
protected wetlands, as evidenced by the fact that Lot 4 contains a Class II
wetland, the work was performed on Lot 4 and the abutting lands, and as the
environmental court noted, credible evidence indicated that the surrounding
soils were wet.  Based on the totality of facts, defendants had sufficient
reason to know that the excavation work was prohibited without a permit or a
conditional use determination.  At the very least, defendants should have
sought the advice of ANR before commencing work.  What is more telling is
that defendants received the notice of the violation in July 2007, and they did
not protest the violation or make reparations to the land until ANR sought a
penalty for noncompliance in May 2010.  Accordingly, we are satisfied
there was no violation of defendants' due process rights. 
¶ 20.        
Defendants next assert that the trial court erred in calculating the
penalty.  We disagree.  "The imposition of civil penalties represents
a discretionary ruling that will not be reversed if there is any reasonable
basis for the ruling."  Id. at 418, 738 A.2d  at 580.  Here,
the court outlined its penalty assessment in accordance with 10 V.S.A. § 8010,
the remedial statute designed to "to enhance the protection of environmental
and human health," "prevent the unfair economic advantage obtained by persons
who operate in violation of environmental laws," "foster greater compliance
with environmental laws, and deter repeated violation[s]."  10 V.S.A. § 8001;
see also Agency of Natural Res. v. Deso, 2003 VT 36, ¶ 18, 175 Vt. 513,
824 A.2d 558.
¶ 21.        
The court imposed a total penalty of $14,222.  To encourage
remediation, the court imposed a penalty of $3000.  Because defendant
Persons had knowledge of the significance of the wetlands and nonetheless
pursued his own interests, it imposed a $3000 penalty.  Defendant Persons'
previous violations generated a $4000 fine.  To deter future violations,
the court assessed a penalty of $2000.  The court incorporated ANR's
expenditures of $1722 into the assessment.  Lastly, the court fined
defendants $500 for the amount of time they allowed the wetland encroachments
to go unaddressed. 
¶ 22.        
Defendants claim the trial court failed to account for mitigating factors
when assessing the penalty.  They suggest that their attempt to locate
wetland maps and defendant Persons' enrollment in wetland classes was
sufficient to eliminate any penalty assessment.  They also maintain that
ANR's failure to notify them that they were operating in wetlands should serve
as a mitigating factor.  We find defendants' arguments unavailing.  
¶ 23.        
The fact that defendant Persons took a class on wetland delineation and
made an effort to locate wetlands on environmental maps is not a mitigating
factor here.  As a landowner of protected wetlands, the onus is on him,
individually, to ensure that he is conducting permissible activities in
permitted areas.  Also, ANR had no obligation to discuss the situation
with defendants before issuing the violation.  See 10 V.S.A. §
8006(b).  Moreover, defendants had almost three years from receipt of the
notice of violation before any penalties were assessed.  In those three
years, they could have challenged the ANR's findings pursuant to VWR § 7.1, 6
Code of Vt. Rules 12 004 056, or they could have complied with the Agency's
order and performed the necessary repairs. The mitigating factors argued were
insignificant.  We find no error in the court's decision.
¶ 24.        
Additionally, defendants claim that the court improperly assessed the
fines because there was no evidence of direct impacts on the wetlands. 
Section 8010(b)(1) of the remedial statute specifically informs the court to
consider both actual and potential impacts of the environmental violation when
calculating a penalty.  While there were no demonstrable impacts to the
wetlands evidenced at trial, the court factored that into its assessment.
 In fact, it declined to impose a more significant penalty because "actual
impacts were not demonstrated by the evidence presented at trial."  Because
the court factored the actual impacts into its equation, we find its
calculation reasonable.  
¶ 25.        
Finally, defendants assert that the environmental court increased the
penalty six fold based on a violation of the 2001 AOD.  We find no facts
to support this assertion.  There was no dispute that the activities in
question were beyond the scope of the AOD.  The environmental court merely
found that the AOD should have informed defendants that they were operating in
areas contiguous to the previously identified wetlands on Lot 4.  Further,
the court provided calculated and well-founded reasoning for each and every
penalty assessment under 10 V.S.A. § 8010.  The record does not indicate
that the environmental court increased any one penalty six fold on the basis of
the AOD violation.  
¶ 26.        
Finally, defendants allege that they were entitled to a jury trial.
 They concede they do not have a constitutional right to jury trial and
fail to provide any rationale as to why this Court should expand its
interpretation of the right to a jury trial in this instance.  See State
v. Irving Oil Corp., 2008 VT 42, ¶ 11, 15, 183 Vt. 386, 955 A.2d 1098.  (looking beyond traditional analysis of whether claim had
eighteenth century common law analogue and reasoning that civil penalty served
remedial purpose and as such, found that  not address this issue. 
Affirmed.
 
 
 
FOR THE COURT:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Associate
  Justice
 

[1] Pursuant
to 10 V.S.A. § 8007(a), the Secretary may accept from a respondent an assurance
of discontinuance of a violation as an alternative to administrative or
judicial proceedings.  
[2] 
Since the activities in question were conducted in 2007, the Rules that were in
effect from January 1, 2002 through July 31, 2010 control.
 
[3]
 Reginald Smith, an ANR environmental enforcement officer, testified that
he attempted to call defendant Persons and Allen Bacon, trustee, to inform them
of the alleged violation but was unable to reach them. 
[4]
As an extension, defendants argue that because the maps lack exactitude, a
landowner cannot discern lands "contiguous" to an identified wetland, or a
"buffer zone"fifty feet from the designated wetland.  For the same
reasons we find defendants' argument regarding the maps unavailing, we also
find this argument unpersuasive.