In re 8 Taft St. DRB

• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CARROLL, J.
• Citation: In re 8 Taft St. DRB, 342 A.3d 852, 2025 VT 27 (Vt. 2025)
• Docket Number: 24-AP-273
• Decision Date: 30 May 2025
• Parties: IN RE 8 TAFT STREET DRB & NOV Appeals (Stephen Wille Padnos & Sharon Wille Padnos, Appellants)

342 A.3d 852

2025 VT 27

IN RE 8 TAFT STREET DRB & NOV Appeals (Stephen Wille Padnos & Sharon Wille Padnos, Appellants)

No. 24-AP-273

Supreme Court of Vermont.

March Term, 2025

May 30, 2025

On Appeal from Superior Court, Environmental Division, Thomas G. Walsh, J.

William B. Towle of Ward & Towle Law, South Burlington, for Appellants.

Megan Nelson and Alexander J. LaRosa of MSK Attorneys, Burlington, for Appellee Jason Struthers.

PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Eaton, Carroll, Cohen and Waples, JJ.

CARROLL, J.

¶ 1. Neighbors Stephen and Sharon Wille Padnos appeal two Environmental Division decisions granting summary judgment to landowner Jason Struthers on the grounds that the City of Essex Junction cannot regulate landowner’s duck-raising and cannabis-cultivation operations. The court concluded that landowner’s duckraising operation is exempt from municipal regulation under 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) because it constitutes a commercial farming operation subject to the Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) Rule. The court also concluded the City could not enforce its zoning regulations on landowner’s cannabis-cultivation operations under 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2), which provides that certain outdoor cannabis cultivation shall “not be regulated by a municipal bylaw … in the same manner that Required Agricultural Practices are not regulated by a municipal bylaw under 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A).” We hold that neither statute exempts landowner’s operations from all municipal regulation and thus reverse the Environmental Division’s decisions and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Background

¶ 2. The following facts are undisputed for summary-judgment purposes unless otherwise noted. Landowner owns property at 8 Taft Street in Essex Junction, Vermont, in the City’s Residential-1 Zoning District. There, landowner raises and sells ducks and duck eggs. In May 2023, the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets issued landowner a farm determination, confirming these activities met the definition of “farming” under the Agency’s RAPs Rule, subjecting him to compliance with the Rule. See Required Agricultural Practices Rule for the Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program § 3.1, Code of Vt. Rules 20 010 008 [hereinafter RAPs Rule], http://www.lexisnexis. com/hottopics/codeofvtrules (“Persons engaged in farming and the agricultural practices as defined in … this rule and who meet the minimum threshold criteria for applicability of this rule … must meet all applicable Required Agricultural Practices conditions, restrictions, and operating standards.”).¹ Landowner also operates a commercial cannabis-growing operation through his company, Trichome VT, LLC, which has an outdoor tier 1 cultivator’s license issued by the Vermont Cannabis Control Board.

¶ 3. The City’s zoning regulations do not allow agricultural, farming, or cannabis cultivation establishments as permitted or conditional uses in areas zoned Residential-1. Landowner, neighbors, and the City sought clarification from the City’s zoning officer as to whether the City could enforce its zoning regulations against landowner. In July 2023, the City’s zoning officer issued a memorandum declining to enforce the City’s Residential-1 zoning regulations against landowner’s duck-raising and cannabis-cultivation operations, concluding the City’s zoning regulations conflicted with, as relevant here, 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) and 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2).

¶ 4. Neighbors appealed the zoning officer’s decision to the City’s Development Review Board (DRB). The DRB reversed the zoning officer’s decision as to the duck-raising operation, concluding 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) precludes only municipal regulation of agricultural water quality. It upheld the zoning officer’s decision regarding landowner’s cannabis-cultivation operation. Neighbors appealed the DRB decision to the Environmental Division. Landowner cross-appealed.

¶ 5. Following the DRB decision, the City issued landowner a notice of violation for his duck-raising operation, stating his activities were “in violation of [s]ection 724 of the [City’s Land Development Code] which prohibits the raising and keeping of livestock outside of the Planned Agricultural and Planned Exposition zoning districts.” Landowner appealed to the DRB, which upheld the notice of violation. Landowner then appealed to the Environmental Division and neighbors cross-appealed.

¶ 6. At issue before the Environmental Division in the first appeal were neighbors’ and landowner’s cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the question of whether the City can regulate landowner’s duck-raising operation. In the second appeal, neighbors moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the City can regulate landowner’s cannabis-cultivation operation. Neighbors also moved to combine the two proceedings.

¶ 7. The Environmental Division granted summary judgment in favor of landowner in both cases. The court concluded the term “required agricultural practices” in 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) means the farming activities, or “agricultural practices,” regulated by the RAPs Rule. The court determined the City could not regulate landowner’s duck-raising activities because the Agency determined landowner’s duck-raising operation was a farming activity subject to the RAPs Rule. In another decision, the court concluded “a municipality may not constrain licensed outdoor cultivators to certain zoning districts” because 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2) cites § 4413(d)(1)(A). The court also denied neighbors’ motion to consolidate the proceedings because it concluded it lacked authority to do so. Neighbors appealed both Environmental Division decisions to this Court. The dockets were joined for the purposes of this appeal. V.R.A.P. 3(c)(2).

II. Analysis

¶ 8. At issue on appeal is (1) to what extent landowner’s duck-raising operation is exempt from municipal regulation under 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A); and (2) to what extent landowner’s licensed outdoor cannabis-cultivation operation is exempt from municipal regulation under 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2).² Neighbors maintain that these provisions limit municipal regulation of the agricultural water-quality rules established by the RAPs as opposed to exempting agriculture or farming subject to the RAPs and licensed outdoor cannabis cultivators from all municipal regulation related to those activities, as the Environmental Division held. We address each statutory provision in turn.

¶ 9. “This Court reviews summary-judgment decisions from the Environmental Division de novo.” In re Mountain Top Inn & Resort, 2020 VT 57, ¶ 18, 212 Vt. 554, 238 A.3d 637 (noting we apply “same standard as the environmental court” (quotation omitted)). Summary judgment is proper “if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. “We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.” State v. Colehamer, 2023 VT 39, ¶ 41, 218 Vt. 230, 308 A.3d 440.

A. Duck-Raising Operations

¶ 10. We first address whether farming activities subject to the RAPs Rule are exempt from all municipal regulation under 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A). We begin with a brief overview of the relevant statutory and regulatory scheme. The Legislature has directed the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets, as well as the Secretary of Natural Resources, to “implement[] and enforc[e] programs, plans, and practices developed for reducing and eliminating agricultural nonpoint source pollutants and discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations.” 6 V.S.A. § 4810(d). The Legislature has also charged the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets with ensuring that these programs, plans, and practices “concerning agricultural nonpoint source pollution [are] consistent with the water quality standards and water pollution control requirements of 10 V.S.A. chapter 47 and the federal Clean Water Act.” Id. (footnote omitted). Specifically, the Legislature directed the Agency to adopt rules to “implement and enforce agricultural land use practices” in two categories: required agricultural practices and best management practices. Id. § 4810(a)-(c).

¶ 11. Our review here focuses on the required agricultural practices. The enabling statute anticipates that the “Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) shall be management standards to be followed by all persons engaged in farming” in Vermont. Id. § 4810(b). Specifically, “[t]hese standards shall address activities that have a potential for causing agricultural pollutants to enter the groundwater and waters of the State, including daily and other livestock operations” and shall “include … practices for farmers in preventing agricultural pollutants from entering the groundwater and waters of the State when engaged in animal waste management and disposal, soil amendment applications, plant fertilization, and pest and weed control.” Id. The standards “shall be designed to protect water quality and shall be practical and cost-effective to implement, as determined by the Secretary.” Id. In turn, the Agency adopted what is now titled “Required Agricultural Practices Rule for the Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.”³ Under this Rule, “[p]ersons engaged in farming and the agricultural practices as defined in … th[e] rule and who meet the minimum threshold criteria for applicability of th[e] rule … must meet all applicable Required Agricultural Practices, conditions, restrictions, and operating standards.” RAPs Rule §3.1.

¶ 12. With this background in mind, we turn to the disputed statutory provision at issue, 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A), which states: “[a] bylaw under [chapter 117 of Title 24] shall not regulate … required agricultural practices, including the construction of farm structures, as those practices are defined by the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets.”

[1–4] ¶ 13. The goal of statutory interpretation is to carry out the Legislature’s intent....