Opinion ID: 2336245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Agricultural Use

Text: Defendant next contends he was not subject to the CUD requirement because the excavation work was for an agricultural purpose. The argument implicates two provisions of the Wetland Rules. Section 3 exempts from the definition of a wetland those areas used for farming activities, which are generally limited to the grow[ing] of food or crops . . . in ordinary rotation. Wetland Rules, § 3.1(c); see also 10 V.S.A. § 902(5) (wetlands shall exclude such areas as grow food or crops in connection with farming activities). The rules provide further that [t]he exemption will expire whenever the area is no longer used to grow food or crops or in ordinary rotation. Wetland Rules, § 3.1(c). The court here found, and the evidence amply demonstrated, that the area where the work was performed was not being used to grow food or crops in ordinary rotation, and had not been farmed for many years. Therefore, it did not qualify for the exemption. In addition to the farming exemption, the Wetland Rules also provide that farming constitutes an allowed use within a significant wetland area. See Wetland Rules, § 6.2. [P]rovided that the configuration of the wetland's outlet or the flow of water into or out of the wetland is not altered and that no draining, dredging, filling, or grading occurs, a landowner may engage in [t]he growing of food or crops in connection with farming activities without prior review by the Secretary. Id. § 6.2(f). Thus, it is undisputed that while the farming exemption requires a current and ongoing use of the land for growing crops, an allowed use may include the preparation of land for future farming purposes. Defendant contends that the excavation work was performed for the purpose of preparing the area for pasture and crop production, and therefore constituted an allowed use that required no prior approval. Defendant testified that this was his purpose, and the excavation contractor provided some corroboration, recalling that defendant had said something about wanting to grow soybeans. The State asserts, on the contrary, that the work was not to prepare the land for farming, but rather to prepare the area for development in accordance with the subdivision proposal, a conditional use that required prior approval from the Secretary. The State relies on a map of the proposed subdivision showing the excavation area divided into housing lots. The court's finding on this issue was decidedly ambiguous. It stated: From the evidence we cannot find that the disturbed area constituted land which grows food or crops in connection with farming activities. 10 V.S.A. § 902(5) and Vermont Wetland Rules § 6.2(f). Unlike the neighboring fields, the disturbed area showed no traces of having been used as cropland, pasture, or other farmland in accepted agricultural practices. Although the court's finding clearly concerns the farming exemption, the citations relate to farming as an allowed use. Despite the confusion, it is clear that the court made no factual finding concerning defendant's purpose in undertaking the work, other than noting that defendant believed that drainage or development work in a wetland would be exempt if it was for agricultural purposes. Absent a finding on this issue, we are unable to determine whether the excavation work was a conditional or an allowed use, and therefore cannot adequately review the court's findings that defendant was required to obtain a CUD, and violated § 6.3 of the Wetland Rules by failing to do so. Accordingly, this portion of the judgment must be reversed, and the case remanded to the trial court for further findings and, if necessary, additional evidence on these issues.