Long Green Valley Ass'n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 June 2012
• Docket Number: Sept. Term, 2009.,No. 0228,0228
• Citation: 205 Md.App. 636,46 A.3d 473
• Parties: LONG GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATION, et al. v. BELLEVALE FARMS, INC., et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

205 Md.App. 636

46 A.3d 473

LONG GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATION, et al.

v.BELLEVALE FARMS, INC., et al.

No. 0228, Sept. Term, 2009.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

June 8, 2012.

Michael R. McCann, Towson, MD, for Appellant.

Thomas F. Filbert, Annapolis, MD, & John B. Gontrum, Towson, MD (Craig A. Nielsen, Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., Annapolis, MD, & Jennifer R. Lazenby, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP, Towson, MD), on the briefs, for Appellee.

Panel: MEREDITH, ZARNOCH, and JAMES A. KENNEY III, (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

KENNEY, J.

Appellants Long Green Valley Association (“LGVA”) and John and Susan Yoder (“the Yoders”) appeal the issuance of a declaratory judgment by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in favor of appellees: Bellevale Farms, Inc., Bellevale Farms Limited Partnership, Prigel Family Creamery, Inc., and Robert E. and Carol A. Prigel (collectively, “Bellevale”), and the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (“MALPF”).¹ Appellants present one question, which we have reworded slightly:

Did the circuit court err in concluding that appellants lack standing to bring an action challenging Bellevale's proposed construction and operation of a creamery in violation of an agricultural preservation easement held by MALPF?

For the reasons that follow, we shall vacate the judgment and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS ²

Bellevale owns and operates a dairy farm (“Bellevale Farm”) on approximately 199 acres located at 4851–53 Long Green Road in the Long Green Valley area of Baltimore County. The Yoders own and operate an adjacent dairy farm.

MALPF is an entity of the Maryland Department of Agriculture. SeeMD. CODE ANN., AGRIC., § 2–502. Section 2–501 of the Agriculture article ³ provides,

(a) In general.—It is the intent of the Maryland General Assembly to preserve agricultural land and woodland in order to:

(1) Provide sources of agricultural products within the State for the citizens of the State;

(2) Control the urban expansion which is consuming the agricultural land and woodland of the State;

(3) Curb the spread of urban blight and deterioration; and

(4) Protect agricultural land and woodland as open-space land.

To carry out that intent, MALPF is granted the power to (1) “enter into contracts generally and to execute all instruments necessary or appropriate to carry out its purposes,” and (2) to “acquire, by gift, purchase, devise, bequest or grant, easements in gross or other rights to restrict the use of agricultural land and woodland as may be designated to maintain the character of the land as agricultural land or woodland[.]” Id. at § 2–504(2)–(3). Under the statute,

(1) A landowner whose land is subject to an easement may not use the land for any commercial, industrial, or residential purpose except:

(i) As determined by the Foundation, for farm- and forest-related uses and home occupations; or

(ii) As otherwise provided under this section.

Id. at § 2–513 (emphasis added).

LGVA is “a community association representing approximately 300 residents of the Long Green Valley of Baltimore County, and is dedicated to the preservation of open space, farmland, natural resources, historic sites, and the heritage and character of the Long Green Valley.” The Yoders are members of LGVA.

As described in the affidavit of LGVA's secretary,

Over the years, the LGVA has solicited landowners in the Long Green Valley to sell or donate easements on their properties to MALPF, Baltimore County's Agricultural Land Preservation and Rural Legacy programs, the Long Green Conservatory, and other conservancies and trusts. Members of LGVA, [including the Yoders,] in fact, have placed their properties in conservation easements, including MALPF easements. The LGVA has contributed funds towards the purchase of at leas[t] one easement.

On January 12, 1997, the State, on behalf of MALPF, purchased an “agricultural preservation easement” on Bellevale Farm for $796,500. Under the deed of easement (“the Easement Agreement”), it is

the intention of the parties that the said land shall be preserved solely for agricultural use in accordance with the provisions of the Agriculture Article, Title 2, Subtitle 5 ... and that the covenants, conditions, limitations and restrictions hereinafter set forth, are intended to limit the use of the above described land[.]

The section of the Easement Agreement labeled COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS, and RESTRICTIONS states:

[A](1)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this instrument, the above described land may not be used for any commercial, industrial, or residential purpose....

[A](3) The grantor reserves the right to use the above described land for any farm use, and to carry on all normal farming practices ... including any operation directly relating to the processing, storage, or sale of farm, agricultural or woodland products produced on the said above described land....

[B](6) If the Grantor has any doubts concerning the easement, covenants, conditions, limitations or restrictions herein contained with respect to any particular use of the said land, the Grantor may submit a written request to the Grantee for consideration and approval of such use....

[B](9) This easement shall be in perpetuity, or for so long as profitable farming is feasible on the Grantor's land and may be released only by the Grantee as provided by Agriculture Article, Section 2–514[.]

The Easement Agreement also states that it “shall be governed by the laws of the State of Maryland and the parties hereby expressly agree that the courts of the State of Maryland shall have jurisdiction to decide any question arising hereunder after all administrative remedies have been exhausted.”

As stated by MALPF's Executive Director,

under the [Easement Agreement], consistent with § 2–513 ... Bellevale [is] prohibited generally from using the land for any commercial, industrial, or residential purpose. There are, however, exceptions to this general prohibition—one notable exception [is] the ability to use the land, as determined by MALPF, for “farm and forestry related uses and home occupations.”

On August 1, 2007, Bellevale filed a request with MALPF seeking,

to construct a 7,000 to 10,000 square foot building to house [a] creamery operation, processing facility and a farm store. As well, [Bellevale is] requesting a parking area that would accommodate fewer than 10 vehicles. The parking area is proposed to be located on Long Green Road with the creamery directly behind it. A short distance of access on an existing farm lane may be needed.

According to MALPF's Executive Director,

[o]n October 23, 2007, MALPF, pursuant to its authority under § 2–513(b)(i), reviewed the ... request and approved the creamery operation, as proposed to the Board, having determined that the operation was a “farm related use” that complements [Bellevale's] organic dairy operation—a use that is compatible with agriculture and MALPF's program. MALPF took this action after being advised that the Baltimore County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board already had reviewed [Bellevale's] request and voted favorably on it.

Appellants submit,

[a]fter MALPF's approval of the Creamery Operation on October 23, 2007, [a]ppellants requested that MALPF reconsider its approval and enforce the terms of the Easement Agreement and State and County law. Appellants also requested that the Secretary of Agriculture intervene. Despite these requests, MALPF and the Secretary have refused to take further action to enforce the Easement Agreement and the law.

On April 4, 2008, in Zoning Case No.2008–0506 (“the Zoning Case”), appellants filed a “Petition for Special Hearing” before the Deputy Zoning Commissioner for Baltimore County in order to determine “whether a dairy processing facility is permitted in an R.C.2 zone[.]” On August 12, 2008, the Deputy Zoning Commissioner found the proposed facility was permitted. Appellants appealed that decision to the Board of Appeals, but later dismissed their appeal.

On May 30, 2008, based on MALPF's approval of the proposed creamery, appellants filed an amended four-count complaint with the Circuit Court for Baltimore County:

• Count I: Writ of Mandamus—MALPF's Failure to Enforce the Easement Agreement

• Count II: Writ of Mandamus—MALPF's Failure to Enforce the Provisions of State and Local Law

• Count III: Declaratory Judgment

• Count IV: Permanent Injunctive Relief

As characterized by appellants, the complaint seeks:

(i) a writ of mandamus ordering MALPF to enforce the terms of the Easement Agreement and provisions of State and County law, (ii) a declaration that the proposed Creamery Operation violates the Easement Agreement, as well as State and County law, because it constitutes a commercial and/or industrial use, and (iii) an order permanently enjoining Bellevale from constructing and operating the Creamery Operation and further violating the Easement Agreement and State and County law.

In response, on June 27, 2008, Bellevale filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, averring that appellants “lack standing to bring their equitable claims[.]” After the circuit court issued its Motions Ruling on August 6, 2008, and “HELD [the motion] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,” MALPF filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, primarily based on appellants' lack of standing on all counts of the complaint. On October 7, 2008, appellants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, “request[ing] that the Court find, as a matter of law, that the Creamery Operation is a commercial use that is prohibited by terms of the Easement Agreement.”

At the hearing on the motions, the court said,

[I] need to sit down and to make a declaratory judgment on the motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment, whatever is filed in here, to the effect that this is an issue involving standing ... [and] the legislature has not indicatedone way or another through any...