Pleasant Valley Farms Permit MFO - Decision on Motion ( 2019 )

STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
Docket No. 26-3-18 Vtec
Pleasant Valley Farms Permit MFO
ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Motion to Clarify & Dismiss (Motion 3)
Filer: Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets
Attorney: Thea J. Schwartz and Melanie Kehne
Filed Date: July 9, 2018
Response in Opposition filed on 07/25/2018 by Attorney Joan W. D. Donahue
for Appellant Pleasant Valley Farms, LLC
The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Pleasant Valley Farms of Berkshire, LLC (“PVF”) is the owner and operator of several dairy
farms in the northwestern Vermont towns of Berkshire, Richford, St. Albans, and Enosburg,
including the Lumbra Farm, at 1567 Skunk Hollow Road in Berkshire, Vermont (“Lumbra Farm”).
When the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets (“AAFM”) denied PVF’s Notice of
Intent to Comply (“NOIC”) with the General Permit for Medium Farm Operations, and instead
determined that the Lumbra Farm should be governed by the rules and statutes covering large
farm operations, PVF filed a timely appeal with this Court.
There are several motions pending before this Court. PVF filed a motion for summary
judgment on July 5, 2018, to which AAFM filed an opposition memorandum and PVF filed a reply.
However, before the Court addressed PVF’s summary judgment motion, AAFM filed a motion
requesting that the Court dismiss or order PVF to clarify most of the Questions contained in its
Statement of Questions. As part of its memorandum objecting to PVF’s summary judgment
motion, AAFM also requested that the Court allow it additional time to respond to PVF’s
summary judgment motion, after the Court has ruled upon AAFM’s motion for dismissal or
clarification. On August 6, 2018, the Court granted that secondary part of AAFM’s request,
determining that AAFM would have 15 days from the date of any ruling on its motion for dismissal
or clarification to file an additional response to PVF’s summary judgment motion.
This Entry Order is issued solely to address AAFM’s pending motion for dismissal or
clarification. For the reasons stated below, we GRANT AAFM’s motion and intend to rule upon
PVF’s summary judgment motion after AAFM’s extended time to respond has elapsed.
Pleasant Valley Farms MFO, No. 26-3-2-18 Vtec (EO on Motion to Dismiss or Clarify) (02-20-2019) Page 2 of 5.
Factual Background
The Court has determined that there are several material facts that appear to be
uncontested by the parties. In certain instances, the material facts are somewhat lacking in
clarity. However, the Court understands that the parties will assist the Court with any
clarifications that they deem relevant to its consideration of the pending summary judgment
request. We lay out a general factual background here for the sole purpose of understanding the
pending motion to dismiss or clarify PVF’s Statement of Questions.
PVF has previously operated Lumbra Farm as a small farm operation where up to 195
mature dairy cows and up to 280 youngstock or heifers have been stabled, confined, fed and
maintained. Sometime prior to January 2018, PVF decided to plan an increase in its dairy farming
operation at Lumbra Farm by increasing the size of its herd and barn. AAFM appears to represent
that most or all of the expanded barn is used for the care, feeding and maintaining of the
livestock. PVF disputes this fact but does not provide specific details of the use of the expanded
barn.
By January 2018, PVF had received an authorization from the Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources (“ANR”) to construct its planned barn expansion and thereafter completed the
expansion. By this time, PVF had also expressed its intentions to increase its herd to between
200 to 699 mature dairy cows and to between 300 to 999 youngstock or heifers. The actual
livestock numbers at the Lumbra Farm at that time have not been specified by the parties.
On January 6, 2018, PVF submitted its NOIC with the General Permit for Medium Farm
Operations, as defined in 6 V.S.A. § 4857(2). On the NOIC form that it submitted, PVF
represented that the Lumbra Farm was then operating at livestock levels that constituted a small
farm, as defined in 6 V.S.A. § 4857(3).
On January 9, 2018, AAFM officials conducted a site inspection at the Lumbra Farm,
including its recently expanded barn. AAFM officials also interviewed PVF officials and employees
and reviewed documents submitted by PVF in support of its NOIC and its application to ANR,
Department of Environmental Conservation, for authorization to construct the barn expansion
under a Vermont Construction General Permit (#3-9020).
On February 19, 2019, an AAFM official notified PVF that it had denied coverage for the
Lumbra Farm under the Medium Farm Operation General Permit. The AAFM official advised that
it based its denial upon a determination “that the expanded barn has been designed to house
more than the [Large Farm Operation] threshold number of animals listed in 6 V.S.A. § 4851.”
AAFM denial ltr., dated Feb. 19, 2018. No party has represented to the Court the specific
livestock count at Lumbra Farm, as of the filing of the NOIC. Upon receiving AAFM’s denial letter,
PVF filed a timely appeal with this Court.
Legal Analysis
The Statement of Questions limits the scope of review to the specific issues raised on
appeal. V.R.E.C.P. 5(f). It performs a similar function to a civil complaint and requires only a
“short, concise and plain statement that will establish the scope of appeal, and ultimately, the
scope of the issues for trial.” In re Rivers Dev., LLC, Nos. 7-1-05 Vtec, 68-3-07 Vtec, slip op. at 15
Pleasant Valley Farms MFO, No. 26-3-2-18 Vtec (EO on Motion to Dismiss or Clarify) (02-20-2019) Page 3 of 5.
(Vt. Envtl. Ct. Jan. 8, 2008) (Durkin, J.). Therefore, the questions must be sufficiently clear to give
the Court and the other parties notice of the grounds on which the appellant’s claim rest.
Reporter’s Notes, V.R.C.P. 8(a) (citing Conly v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Both the parties
and the Court “are entitled to a statement of questions that is not vague or ambiguous, but is
sufficiently definite so that they are able to know what issues to prepare for trial.” In re Unified
Buddhist Church, Inc., Indirect Discharge Permit, No. 253-10-06 Vtec, slip op. at 5 (Vt. Envtl. Ct.
May 11, 2007) (Wright, J.).
The general question presented by PVF’s appeal here is whether it’s planned livestock
expansion at the Lumbra Farm satisfies the statutory requirements of being classified as a
medium farm operation such that it may seek authorization to act under the General Permit for
Medium Farm Operations, pursuant to 6 V.S.A. § 4858(c)(2). AAFM seeks dismissal of PVF’s
Questions 1–3, and 6, which either seek a determination or rely upon a determination that the
Lumbra Farm, at the time PVF filed its NOIC on January 6, 2018, “satisfied the definition of a Small
Farm pursuant to 6 V.S.A. § 4857(3)?” PVF Statement of Questions, filed March 22, 2018, at 1–2
(hereinafter “PVF SoQ”).
AAFM asserts that PVF’s Questions 1–3, and 6 must be regarded as moot, based upon
AAFM’s assertion that PVF admits through language in its SoQ that the livestock numbers at the
Lumbra Farm have already exceeded the maximum allowed for small farms and are therefore
within the limits for medium farms. As noted above, no party has provided the Court with an
estimate of the exact livestock numbers, currently or in January 2018, at the Lumbra Farm.
However, to say that PVF has “itself allege[d] that the animal numbers at the Lumbra Farm are
between 200–699 dairy cows and 300–999 cow/calf pairs” is a misreading of PVF’s SoQ.
In Question 2 and 3, PVF asserts that it had an “intent of expanding the animal numbers
to between 200–699 Mature Dairy Cows and 300–999 Youngstock/Heifers . ..” PVF SoQ, at 1–2.
We see no admission by the language used in these Questions that PVF had actually exceeded
the livestock numbers at Lumbra Farm, particularly prior to the January 6, 2018 filing of its NOIC
referenced in its Question 1.1
However, this clarification does not end our analysis of the appropriateness of
Questions 1–3, and 6. We have not been presented with any allegation that the Lumbra Farm at
any point up to the filing of its January 6th NOIC, had livestock numbers that exceeded the
definitional limits for a small farm. While it appears that 6 V.S.A. § 4858(c)(2) makes relevant the
factual question of whether the Lumbra Farm’s livestock numbers were below the small farm
maximums on January 6, 2018, we have no evidence of a dispute that we must resolve.
Therefore, because the principal question presented is whether Lumbra Farm can now qualify as
a medium farm, or must it satisfy the requirements for a large farm, we conclude that Questions
1–3, and 6 must be dismissed as being beyond the scope of the application presented in this
appeal. We therefore GRANT AAFM’s motion with respect to these Questions.
1
We note that PVF appears to concede in Questions 4 and 5 that, after filing its NOIC, it had expanded its
livestock numbers to within the definitional parameters for a medium farm operation, as defined in 6 V.S.A.
§ 4857(2). We will address those factual allegation at trial when we consider Questions 4 and 5.
Pleasant Valley Farms MFO, No. 26-3-2-18 Vtec (EO on Motion to Dismiss or Clarify) (02-20-2019) Page 4 of 5.
AAFM next challenges Questions 6, 7, 8, and 9 from PVF’s SoQ as improperly asking this
Court to conduct a review of the appealed determinations, instead of the Court rendering its own
determinations.2 Since this appeal is taken on a de novo basis (see 6 V.S.A. § 4855), we are tasked
with conducting our own review of the evidence presented to this Court, and then rendering our
own determination on the appealed application. In fact, when conducting a de novo review, we
are directed to act “as though no action whatever has been held prior thereto.” In re Poole, 136
Vt. 242, 245 (1978); see also Chioffi v. Winooski Zoning Bd., 151 Vt. 9, 11 (1989). Thus, it is beyond
our jurisdiction in a de novo appeal to conduct an on-the-record review of the appealed-from
determinations.
Questions 6 and 7 specifically ask whether AAFM “erred in applying § 4851” and whether
it misinterpreted “the term ‘designed to house’ found in 6 V.S.A § 4851.” PVF SoQ, at 2–3. Given
that these Questions ask this Court to determine whether AAFM’s review and determination was
proper, we conclude that Questions 6 and 7 are not appropriate to consider in this de novo
appeal. We therefore GRANT AAFM’s request that they be dismissed.
Questions 8 and 9 also begin with a challenge to whether AAFM “err[ed] in applying
6 V.S.A. § 4851.” PVF SoQ, at 3. However, if that introductory phrase in each Question is
removed and the Question’s verbiage is slightly adjusted, each becomes one that is appropriate
to review in a de novo proceeding. Rather than directing that PVF revise each Question for
purpose of clarity, as AAFM requests, we direct that PVF accept the following re-wording of its
Questions:
8. Should the term “designed to house” found in 6 V.S.A § 4851 be interpreted to mean
the overall size of the structure, irrespective of the intended and actual use or number of
animals present in the structure?
9. Should the term “designed to house” found in 6 V.S.A § 4851 be interpreted to
consider the layout, design, intended, and actual use of the structure, and intended and
actual number of animals housed in the structure, and if the layout, design, intended, and
actual use of the structure, and intended and actual number of animals housed at the
Lumbra Farm fall within the Medium Farm definition pursuant to 6 V.S.A § 4857(2), should
the Lumbra Farm be considered a Medium Farm?
In its pending motion, AAFM does not specifically challenge the remaining Questions in PVF’s
SoQ: Questions 4, 5, and 10. Those Questions appear to each be phrased in a manner to present
legal issues that may be presented in a de novo appeal. For example, Question 4 asks whether
PFV’s expanded animal numbers “satisfied the definition of a Medium Farm pursuant to 6 V.S.A
§ 4857(2)”; Question 5 asks whether the expanded animal numbers “satisfied the definition of a
Medium Farm pursuant to Subchapter 1 of the [AAFM] Rules”; and Question 10 asks whether the
medium farm coverage that was requested in PVF’s NOIC should be approved.
Appeals from AAFM determinations have a qualifier, however: while the applicable
statute specifies that appeals from AAFM determinations are de novo, it directs that the appeal
“shall be limited in scope to whether the medium farm complies with the terms and conditions
2
Because we conclude that Question 6 is beyond the scope of the present appeal, we include this analysis
in the alternative.
Pleasant Valley Farms MFO, No. 26-3-2-18 Vtec (EO on Motion to Dismiss or Clarify) (02-20-2019) Page 5 of 5.
of the general permit.” 6 V.S.A § 4861. We therefore intend to conduct a de novo trial on the
remaining Questions with this statutory limitation in mind.
For all these reasons, AAFM’s motion to dismiss or clarify is GRANTED, in part, and
DENIED, in part. The Questions remaining for our review at trial shall be Questions, 4, 5, 10, and
Questions 8 and 9, as restated above.
The Court Operations Manager shall set this matter for a pre-trial status conference, so
that the matter may be set for trial.
So Ordered.
Electronically signed on February 20, 2019, at Newfane, Vermont, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d).
________________________________
Thomas S. Durkin, Superior Judge
Environmental Division
Notifications:
Joan W. D. Donahue (ERN 4857), Attorney for Appellant Pleasant Valley Farms, LLC
Kevin T. Brennan (ERN 4685), Co-counsel for Appellant Pleasant Valley Farms, LLC
Thea J. Schwartz (ERN 3342), Attorney for the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets
Melanie Kehne (ERN 2561), Co-counsel for the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets
vtadsbat