Title: Jones v. Dept. of Forests, Parks and Recreation

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Jones v. Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation (2003-017); 177 Vt. 81; 
857 A.2d 271

2004 VT 49

[Filed 04-Jun-2004]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 28-Jul-2004]

       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.

                                 2004 VT 49

                                No. 2003-017

  Joseph C. Jones and Anne J. Jones	         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Rutland Superior Court

  Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation	 January Term, 2004

  William D. Cohen, J.

  Harry R. Ryan, III and John A. Serafino of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd.,
    Rutland, for  Plaintiffs-Appellees. 

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Jeanne Elias and Rebecca Ellis,
    Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.

  PRESENT:  Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Pearson, Supr. J. and
            Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   The State of Vermont Department of Forests,
  Parks and Recreation appeals from a superior court judgment in favor of
  landowners Joseph and Anne Jones.  The State contends the court erred in
  ruling that the Department is equitably estopped from asserting that the
  Joneses violated the forest management plan governing their property in the
  State's Use Value Appraisal Program (UVA), 32 V.S.A. §§ 3751-3776, and that
  the Joneses are further entitled to retroactively remove their property
  from the UVA program under an expired 1996 statute. We agree that the trial
  court erred, and therefore reverse. 
   
       ¶  2.  The record evidence may be summarized as follows (additional
  facts will be adduced as necessary in the discussion section below).  In
  1980, the Joneses enrolled about 500 acres of their property located in the
  Town of Mendon in the State's UVA program.  The program is designed to
  provide a tax incentive for landowners to maintain their agricultural or
  forest land by taxing it at  its current use value rather than at the
  higher "best use" value.  See 32 V.S.A. § 3752(12) (defining "use value
  appraisal" as price land would command if it remained in agricultural or
  forest use).  Forest land is eligible for enrollment in the UVA program
  only if it is subject to a forest management plan signed by the owner and
  approved by the Department.  Id. § 3755(b)(1).  Upon enrollment, a lien
  attaches to the property in exchange for the tax benefit conferred by the
  program.  Id.  § 3757(f).  The lien secures payment of a land use change
  tax, imposed in the event that any portion of the land is subsequently
  "developed," id., which may include the cutting of timber in a manner
  contrary to the forest management plan.  Id. § 3752(5).   The lien runs
  with the land, but is only payable in the event of development, and only to
  the extent of the value of that area of the land that has been developed. 
  Id. §§ 3757(f), 3757(a).  Thus, upon enrollment of the Jones property in
  the UVA program, a lien of about $78,000 was automatically recorded in the
  land records of the Town.
   
       ¶  3.  The Department, through its inspector James Philbrook, the
  Rutland County Forester, approved the Joneses' 1980 forest management plan,
  as well as revised plans in 1985 and 1991.  Philbrook inspected the Jones
  property in August 1985 and noted problems relating to their compliance
  with the plan, but did not issue an adverse inspection report.  See id. §
  3755(c) (every five years, Department shall inspect enrolled tract to
  verify that terms of forest management plan have been carried out and shall
  file adverse inspection report if it finds that management is contrary to
  conservation or forest management plan).  An inspection in December 1988,
  noted that several scheduled treatments for the property had not been
  performed, but again recommended continued enrollment in the program.  

       ¶  4.  In August 1992, Philbrook received a report of muddy water in a
  brook coming from the Jones property, which suggested logging activity.  He
  visited the property on August 20, and observed clear cutting in the area
  of Stand 5 that was not in conformance with the plan, and evidence of
  logging activity in the western portion of Stand 1 (the 1991 plan, prepared
  in consultation with Mark Riley, an experienced forester, had divided the
  property into five stands numbered 1 through 5).  Philbrook testified that
  he called Mr. Jones after the inspection, advised him that he could lose
  his UVA eligibility if he failed to conform to the plan, and suggested that
  he work more closely with his consulting forester, Mark Riley.   Riley,
  apparently in response, sent a memorandum to Philbrook in late September
  requesting an amendment to the 1991 forest management plan to provide that
  Stand 5 would be "liquidated" due to "excessive rot."  Philbrook approved
  the amendment.
   
       ¶  5.  Rutland County Forester Nathan Fice, who succeeded Philbrook
  in June 1996, conducted the next conformance inspection of the Jones
  property in October 1996.  Fice discovered three clear-cut areas in Stand 3
  that ranged from one to two acres in size.  He concluded that these were
  not in conformance with the forest management plan, which permitted  much
  smaller "selection cuts approximately 40 feet in diameter." Fice also noted
  heavy logging in portions of Stand 1 contrary to the provisions of the
  plan, which called for "limited single tree and group selection cut in
  overstocked areas." Fice returned several days later to take additional
  measurements, and subsequently filed an adverse inspection report in which
  he documented the violations and recommended that the Jones property be
  discontinued from the UVA program for nonconformance with the forest
  management plan.  See id. § 3756(i) (director of division of property
  valuation and review shall remove from use value appraisal entire parcel of
  managed forest land when  Department has received adverse inspection
  report).  The report was forwarded to the Department of Taxes, which issued
  a notice of discontinuance withdrawing the Jones property from the UVA
  program and imposing a land use change tax of $1547.  This represented 10%
  of the fair market value of the 20.3 acres that had been harvested contrary
  to the plan. See id. § 3757(a) (land use change tax must be paid on portion
  of managed forest land that has been developed).

       ¶  6.  The Joneses appealed the adverse inspection report to the
  Commissioner of the Agency of Natural Resources.  See id. § 3758(d).  
  Following a hearing, the Commissioner issued a written decision and
  findings, affirming the adverse inspection report and determination of
  noncompliance.  The Joneses then appealed to the superior court, which held
  a de novo evidentiary hearing and issued a written decision in November
  2002.  As discussed more fully below, the court concluded that the clear
  cuts in Stand 3 did "not violate the 1991 Forest Management Plan," that the
  logging in Stand 1 did not result in a violation of the plan, and that the
  State was equitably estopped from asserting the alleged violations because
  the Department's inspector had failed to inform the Joneses of the
  violations within thirty days of his site visit in 1992.  See id. § 3755(c)
  (if Department finds that management of tract is contrary to forest
  management plan, it must file adverse inspection report with owner and
  director within thirty days of inspection).  The court also concluded that
  the Department's failure to inform the Joneses of the violations in a
  timely manner had wrongfully deprived them of the opportunity to withdraw
  their property from the UVA program and extinguish the statutory lien under
  a 1996 law then in effect.  This appeal by the State followed.      

 
                                     I.

       ¶  7.  The State raises a number of challenges to the court's
  decision, which we address in the order most conducive to logical analysis. 
  The State contends that the evidence conclusively established the
  violations cited in the adverse inspection report that resulted in the
  Joneses' discontinuance from the UVA program and the imposition of a land
  use change tax of $1547.  While we review the trial court's factual
  findings for clear error, Houle v. Quenneville, 173 Vt. 80, 93,