Title: Secretary, VT Agency of Natural Resources v. Irish

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources v. Irish (97-509); 169 Vt. 407; 
738 A.2d 571

[Opinion Filed 25-Jun-1999]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 21-Jul-1999]

       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. 97-509

Secretary, Vermont Agency of	                      Supreme Court
Natural Resources and
City of South Burlington	                      On Appeal from
     		                                      Environmental Court
     v.
                                                      January Term, 1999
Frank Irish

Merideth Wright, J.

       Gary S. Kessler, Senior Environmental Enforcement Attorney, Waterbury,
  for Plaintiff-Appellee Agency of Natural Resources.

       Joseph S. McLean of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., Burlington, for
  Plaintiff-Appellee City  of South Burlington.

       Michael B. Clapp, Burlington, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       SKOGLUND, J.  Defendant Frank Irish appeals from an Environmental
  Court decision  that certain excavation work on his property was in
  violation of the Vermont Wetland Rules, the  City of South Burlington
  zoning bylaws, and 10 V.S.A. § 1259 (discharge of waste into State  waters
  without a permit).  Defendant contends: (1) the Wetland Rules failed to
  provide adequate  notice that the work was occurring in a significant
  wetland; (2) the area in question had not been  validly designated as a
  significant wetland; (3) the work was for farming purposes and therefore 
  did not violate the Wetland Rules; (4) the evidence did not support a
  finding that he violated 10 

 

  V.S.A. § 1259; (5) the zoning-violation finding was erroneous; and (6) the
  monetary penalties  were improper.  We affirm in part, reverse in part, and
  remand for further proceedings.

                                    FACTS

       Defendant is a farmer whose property is located in South Burlington. 
  The subject of this  dispute concerns a 26-acre parcel of the farm lying
  south of Allen Road.  The northerly and  easterly halves of the parcel
  consist of hayfields.  Approximately in the middle of the parcel is a 
  wetland demarcated on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps for the
  State of Vermont.

       In February 1996, the Irish Development Corporation submitted an
  application to the City  for a 48-lot subdivision for the property.  The
  application listed defendant as the owner of the  property, and Peter
  Smejkal and Ron Brousseau as contacts for the applicant corporation.  On 
  March 19, 1996, Catherine O'Brien, assistant wetlands coordinator for the
  Agency of Natural  Resources (Agency), visited the site in response to a
  request by the City.  She informed Smejkal  that the site contained
  significant wetlands, including areas contiguous to wetlands identified on 
  the NWI maps, informed him that a conditional use determination (CUD) by
  the Secretary of the  Agency would be required before any development could
  take place on the property, and  recommended that he hire a wetlands
  consultant to further define the wetland areas.  The  consultant was
  estimated to cost $1500.

       Later that month, defendant hired a contractor to excavate a drainage
  ditch along the  southern and western boundaries of the parcel to intercept
  water draining onto the land from an  existing water supply line.  The
  excavator proceeded to cut and remove trees and brush from the  area, grub
  up tree roots and stumps, excavate the ditch, and deposit some of the brush
  and roots  into the ditch.  In early April, O'Brien visited the site again
  in response to a complaint that work  was occurring in a protected wetland. 
  In addition to the excavation work, O'Brien 

 

  observed substantial erosion in the ditch that was causing a continual
  discharge of silt into the  nearby Bartlett Brook.  

       The City sent defendant a notice of violation on April 17, followed by
  a second notice of  violation on April 30, alleging violations of the
  City's zoning bylaws.  In early May, the Agency  sent a notice of
  violation, stating that the excavation work was within a significant
  wetland area  and required a CUD under the Vermont Wetland Rules.   One
  year later, in May 1997, the  Secretary of the Agency issued an
  Administrative Order finding that defendant had violated § 6.3  of the
  Wetland Rules by stumping, grading and ditching in a significant wetland
  without first  obtaining a CUD, and had further violated 10 V.S.A. § 1259
  by causing a discharge into state  waters.  The same month, the City filed
  a complaint in Chittenden Superior Court alleging  violations of the City's
  zoning bylaws.  Defendant filed a request for hearing on the Agency's 
  Administrative Order with the environmental court, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §
  8012(a).  By  stipulation of the parties, the City's complaint was
  consolidated with the proceeding on the  Administrative Order.  

       Following an evidentiary hearing, the court issued a written decision,
  finding that  defendant had committed the charged violations, and imposed
  "alternative penalties."  The court  imposed a base penalty of $2,500 for
  the State violations, and $2,195 for the City violations.  In  the event
  that on or before May 6, 2001, the property was sold, subdivided, or
  developed by  defendant for other than agricultural purposes, the court
  ordered that defendant would be required  to pay an additional penalty of
  $15,000 to the State, and an additional penalty of $19,755 to the  City. 
  This appeal followed.

 

                                 DISCUSSION
  Notice

       Defendant first contends the Vermont Wetland Rules failed to provide
  sufficient notice that  the portion of his property where the excavation
  work was performed was a significant wetland,  thereby requiring a CUD
  before the work could be commenced.  The Wetland Rules require a  CUD by
  the Secretary for certain uses within "significant" wetlands.  See Vermont
  Wetland  Rules, § 6.3.(FN1)  The Wetland Rules provide further that all
  wetlands shown on the NWI maps  for the State of Vermont, and all wetlands
  contiguous to such mapped wetlands, are presumed to  be Class Two wetlands,
  which in turn are defined as significant.  See id. §§ 4.1, 4.2.(FN2)  In 
  addition, the Wetland Rules set forth standards and methods for identifying
  the boundary between  wetland and upland areas, and distinguishing wetlands
  from deepwater habitat.  See id. § 3.2.

       It is undisputed that the NWI maps for Vermont showed a wetland on
  defendant's  property.  Although the specific area where the excavation
  work was performed lay outside the  delineated wetland, the Agency alleged,
  and the court found, that it was within a contiguous  wetland area. 
  Defendant asserts that the Rule designating continuous wetlands as
  significant  

 

  failed to give reasonable notice of the precise area subject to the CUD
  requirement.

       Due process of law requires 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."  Grayned v.
  City of Rockford,