Lancaster Cnty. Agric. Pres. Bd. v. Doris F. Fryberger, Quarryville Resorts, LP
| Decision Date | 26 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 684 C.D. 2020,684 C.D. 2020 |
| Parties | LANCASTER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE BOARD v. Doris F. FRYBERGER, Quarryville Resorts, LP, and Benjamin Flahart, Appellants |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Lindsey M. Cook, Lancaster, for Appellants Doris F. Fryberger and Benjamin Flahart.
Aaron M. Phelps, Grand Rapids, MI, for Appellant Quarryville Resorts, LP.
Mark E. Lovett, Lancaster, for Appellee.
BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge, HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge, HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
OPINION BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON
Doris Fryberger (Fryberger), Quarryville Resorts, LP (Quarryville), and Benjamin Flahart (Flahart) (collectively, Contracting Parties) appeal from two orders entered on June 25, 2020, by the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County (trial court). In one order (Order 1), the trial court denied the summary judgment motion filed by the Contracting Parties. In the other order (Order 2), the trial court granted the summary judgment motion filed by the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board (Board) on all claims asserted by the Board. In Order 2, the trial court enjoined the Contracting Parties from pursuing an easement agreement under which Quarryville would discharge treated wastewater through an irrigation system to be installed on farmland (Farm) belonging to Fryberger and managed by Flahart. The trial court also enjoined Quarryville from making any proposed ancillary use of any part of the Farm.
On review, we affirm Orders 1 and 2 in part, reverse in part, and vacate and remand in part.
Fryberger owns a 120-acre1 Farm in Lancaster County which is managed by Flahart, her son. Reproduced Record (R.R.) 487a, 504a, 507a, & 887a. The Farm currently has no irrigation system because of the expense of such a system. R.R. 491a-92a & 495a-97a.
In 2003, Fryberger's predecessor-in-title entered into an agricultural conservation easement agreement (Conservation Easement)2 with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth), approved by the State Agricultural Land Preservation Board (State Board), regarding the Farm. R.R. 886a-93a. The Conservation Easement generally restricts use of the Farm to agricultural production. R.R. 887a. However, the Conservation Easement also permits "construction or use of any building or other structure for agricultural production ...." R.R. 888a. Use of an irrigation system is not prohibited.3 See R.R. 621a-26a, 636a-37a, & 886a-93a. In addition, the Conservation Easement expressly allows Rural Enterprises, which it defines as "[c]ustomary part-time or off-season minor or rural enterprises and activities which are provided for in the County Agricultural Easement Purchase Program approved by the State Board ...." R.R. 889a.4
In 2013, the Board developed its Rural Enterprises Guidelines regarding ancillary land uses permitted under agricultural conservation easements (Guidelines), which were amended in 2014. R.R. 1054a-59a; Bd.’s Br. at 55. The purpose of the Guidelines is to allow owners of land subject to agricultural conservation easements to "supplement farm incomes in a manner which will not adversely affect the use of preserved farmland for agricultural production and to create a healthy environment for the long-term sustainability of the agricultural economy and farming as a way of life." R.R. 1054a. The Guidelines facially apply to Rural Enterprises allowed by the Agricultural Area Security Law, Section 14.1,5 which specifically provides: "An agricultural conservation easement shall not prevent ... [c]ustomary part-time or off-season minor or rural enterprises and activities which are provided for in the county Agricultural Conservation Easement Purchase Program approved by the State [B]oard ...." 3 P.S. § 914.1(c)(6)(v). The Guidelines include a provision that any Rural Enterprise conducted on a farm subject to an agricultural conservation easement must not detract from the required primary use of the land and must be owned or operated by the landowner. R.R. 1054a. The Guidelines also require advance Board approval before commencing any Rural Enterprise. R.R. 1056a.
Notably, the 2003 Conservation Easement did not incorporate or otherwise reference the Guidelines, which would not be promulgated by the Board for another 10 years.6 See generally R.R. 1054a-59a.
Quarryville owns a campground and resort facility on property adjacent to the Farm. R.R. 14a. Quarryville is contemplating an increase in the number of its campsites and anticipates a corresponding need for increased on-site sewage facilities. R.R. 127a. Quarryville approached Flahart with a proposal for a mutually beneficial arrangement in which Quarryville would treat its sewage waste on site and then discharge the treated wastewater on part of the Farm through a pivot spray irrigation system Quarryville would install at its own expense. R.R. 498a-99a, 504a, & 524a. Quarryville's plan also called for placement of four monitoring wells in the ground on the Farm to assure compliance with applicable regulations concerning quality of the wastewater. R.R. 521a. The monitoring wells would be part of the irrigation equipment and would be placed so as to avoid any interference with farming operations. R.R. 516a.
Quarryville and Flahart eventually reached an easement agreement for the installation of the irrigation system and associated monitoring wells on a portion of the Farm (Irrigation Easement). R.R. 132a-46a. The Irrigation Easement would require Quarryville to comply with all state and federal limitations applicable to the Farm regarding use of effluent as fertilizer.7 Id . It would also allow Flahart to use the irrigation system for watering crops using water from other sources in addition to the treated wastewater discharged by Quarryville. R.R. 516a-17a & 581a. The irrigation system would be movable and could also be programmed by computer to allow Flahart to control the system remotely. R.R. 510a-11a & 527a. Implementation of the Irrigation Easement would require approval from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and other governmental and local authorities. R.R. 134a.
In addition, the Irrigation Easement would allow Quarryville to use a small section of land on the Farm, 300 x 600 feet, "to grow crops for its own use and conduct additional ancillary activities." R.R. 134a. For example, in October 2017 and 2018, Quarryville used a small portion of the Farm for a "haunted trail" or corn maze through an existing cornfield.8 R.R. 503a, 531a, & 651a. Quarryville also caused or allowed some recreational vehicles (RVs) to be parked on the land9 and placed a temporary haunted house structure or tent there.10 R.R. 945a. Quarryville has not placed any RV, corn maze or trail, tent, or other temporary structure on the Farm since 2018. R.R. 529a & 663a. The Board alleged that Quarryville also allowed RV camping and/or sales on the Farm, but Quarryville denied such activities, explaining that a few RVs were simply parked on one edge of the Farm "while not in use." R.R. 1090a () & 1097a (answer to requests for admission). Similarly, the Board alleged that Quarryville also advertised numerous other autumn activities. See R.R. 1061a-62a (). However, the advertisement did not indicate that those activities were occurring on the Farm. Id. Quarryville maintained only the corn maze was located on the Farm. R.R. 1099a (). The Board offered no contrary evidence. Thus, the record contains no evidence of any activities on the Farm by Quarryville other than the corn maze, along with a related tent or temporary structure, and a few parked RVs.
The Board learned of the Irrigation Easement when East Drumore Township contacted the Board for guidance after Quarryville submitted a planning module seeking approval of its proposed sewage disposal system, which included the irrigation system. R.R. 16a; Bd.’s Br. at 20. During an inspection of the Farm in October 2018, the Board's representative also noted the presence of a "corn maze" with "props and decorations," as well as RVs and a structure or tent on the Farm. R.R. 97a-99a, 530a, 923a, & 945a-50a.
In October 2018, the Board filed a four-count civil complaint11 against the Contracting Parties: Count I asserted breach of contract by Fryberger; Count II sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Fryberger and Quarryville alleging violations of the Conservation Easement; Count III asserted a quiet title action against Fryberger and Quarryville; and Count IV asserted a claim of tortious interference with the Conservation Easement by Quarryville and Flahart. R.R. 5a-100a. The Contracting Parties asserted a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the Irrigation Easement did not violate the Conservation Easement. R.R. 101a-86a.
The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. R.R. 466a-700a & 714a-1062a. In Order 1, the trial court denied the Contracting Parties’ motion. R.R. 1168a. In Order 2, the trial court granted the Board's motion for judgment as to "all claims." R.R. 1169a-70a. Order 2 declared the Irrigation Easement void ab initio and enjoined the Contracting Parties from "the construction of the sewage system and related facilities on the Fryberger Property and the discharge of effluent under the [Irrigation] Easement," as well as from ancillary activities authorized under the Irrigation Easement. R.R. 1170a. The Contracting Parties timely appealed Orders 1 and 2 on July 16, 2020. R.R. 1203a-04a.
On July 8, 2020, the Board filed a petition in the trial court seeking a hearing to fix the amount of attorneys’ fees it would be entitled to recover as the prevailing party,12 pursuant to the terms of the Conservation Easement. R.R. 891a & 1171a-1201a. On September 9, 2020, the trial court entered an order (Order 3), without an accompanying opinion,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler Twp. v. Aubrey
...is appropriate only where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Our review of a non-jury trial verdict is limited determining whether the findings of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence and whether......