Merrill v. Saco Valley Land Trust
| Decision Date | 29 April 2017 |
| Docket Number | SUPERIOR COURT Civil Action Docket No. RE-16-44 |
| Parties | THOMAS W. MERRILL & MARY R. MERRILL, Plaintiffs, v. SACO VALLEY LAND TRUST, Defendant. |
| Court | Maine Superior Court |
STATE OF MAINE
YORK, SS.
Plaintiffs Thomas W. Merrill and Mary R. Merrill move for summary judgment on Counts I and II of their three-count complaint for declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs' complaint stems from an objection defendant Saco Valley Land Trust ("SVLT") raised to the sale of plaintiffs' properly to the Ecology School pursuant to a conservation easement burdening the plaintiffs' property in Saco. In Count I, plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Ecology School's proposed use of the property is not a "commercial" use prohibited by the easement. Count II seeks a declaration that new structures proposed by the Ecology School have been permitted under local land use laws and that the "local land use laws" referenced in the easement are not limited to the laws in effect on the date the easement was executed. For the reasons discussed below, the court grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
In 1998, Thomas Merrill's Aunt, Mary D. Merrill, placed approximately 105 acres of her land in Saco, Maine (the "Properly") under a conservation easement recorded in the York County Registry of Deeds at Book 8640, Page 232 (the "Easement"). (Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 1.) The Easement divides the Property into two areas: approximately 96 acres are designated as the "Protected Property" or "Protected Portion" and 8.75 acres are designated as the "Residence/Farm Area" or "Residential/Farm Area.' (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) Defendant Saco Valley Land Trust ("SVLT") was chosen by Ms. Merrill to be the holder of the Easement. (Id. ¶ 4.)
The Easement explains that its dominant purpose is to "preserve and protect in perpetuity the natural, farmland, scenic, agricultural, open space pastures, ecological and wildlife habitat features and rural character of the Protected Property...to foster the continuation of responsible conservation practices and farming, and to prevent any use of the Protected Property that would significantly impair or interfere with the scenic and conservation values of the Protected Property." (Supp'g S.M.F. ¶7.) The Easement was created pursuant to "the Uniform Conservation Easement Act, Title 33, Maine Revised Statutes, Sections 476 through 479-B, inclusive, as amended; and...the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended...Title 26, U.S.C.A., Section 170(h)(1)-(6) and Section 2055 and 2522, as amended...." (Ex. A to Anderson Aff., Easement, p. 1, 2nd & 3rd Whereas clauses) (emphasis added). Additionally, the SVLT is qualified to hold the Easement "pursuant to Title 33, [M.R.S.A.] Section 476(2)(B), as amended, and is a qualified organization under Title 26 U.S.C.A. Section 170(h)(1)-(6), as amended...." (Id. at p. 1, 4th Whereas clause) (emphasis added).
The Easement provides the following pertinent restrictions on uses of the Property:
Commercial, industrial, and quarrying or other surface mining activities are prohibited on the Protected Property. In addition and for the benefit of the Holder, the prohibition on commercial use shall also apply to and encumber the Grantor's remaining land and buildings shown on Exhibit B as Residence/Farm Area. Commercial uses prohibited shall not include foresting or agriculture, including animal husbandry and on-site sale of produce.
(Easement p. 3, § 2). The Easement also restricts the presence of structures on the Protected Property and provides that "[a]dditional structures shall be permitted in the Residence/Farm Areaas long as they are permitted by local land use laws and are in keeping architecturally with the other structures in the Residence/Farm area." (Id. at p. 4, § 3.)
The Easement further provides:
The fact that any of the uses prohibited herein, or other uses not mentioned, may become more economically valuable than permitted uses, or that neighboring properties may in the future be put entirely to such non-permitted uses, has been considered by Grantor in granting this perpetual Easement. It is Grantor's belief that any such changes will increase the benefit to the public of the continuation of this Easement, and it is the intent of both the Grantor and Holder that any such changes should not be deemed to be changed conditions permitting termination of this Easement.
On September 2, 2015, plaintiffs and The Ecology School entered into a purchase agreement for the School to acquire the Property. (Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 23.) The School is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization. (Id. ¶ 24.) Andrew J. Dumsch, the executive director of the School, asserts that it conducts programs to foster stewardship for the environment by educating youths and adults in the science of ecology and the practice of sustainable agriculture. (Dumsch Aff. ¶ 4.) The School asserts that it intends to acquire the Property in order to operate day and weekly educational programs, including food production farming, woodlot and sustainable natural resource management, four season growing, forest gardening, perennial based food production and harvesting, historical assessments of orchard and farming practices, and agro-ecology focusing on conservation and soil management practices. (Id. ¶ 5.) The School claims that as part of its operation, it intends to construct several new buildings within the Residence/Farm Area as part of a "green campus" that can accommodate up to 120 weekly program students and approximately 10 seasonal staff. (Id. ¶ 6.) The School intends to charge fees for its programs, but asserts that its proposed dorms/dining hall are notcommercial hotels with a restaurant and are instead "dormitory" style housing paid for as part of tuition by schools that send students to the School for educational programs and that such offerings simply offset expenses inside the non-profit framework of the School's operation. (Id. ¶ 7.)
The School claims that no temporary or permanent structures will be constructed on the Property, aside from those expressly permitted under Section 3 of the Easement, and that the Protected Property will be used exclusively for farming, education, conservation, and recreation consistent with the stated purposes of the Easement. (Id. ¶ 8.) The Ecology School has not proposed to alter, demolish, or otherwise modify the existing structures within the Residence/Farm Area, including the existing house, garage, and apartment. (Id. ¶ 9.) The School asserts that its goal or aim is not to earn a profit. (Id. ¶ 10.)
Richard Rhames, the President of the SVLT, asserts that the SVLT obtained and reviewed copies of records through the Freedom of Access Act including a proposed budget for the School and email from Mr. Dumsch acknowledging that the information may feed into concerns people had about the size of the project and that the information should be kept confidential. (Rhames Aff. ¶ 13.) Mr. Rhames also asserts that a draft budget for the School through 2019 shows the School's plan to increase revenue by 124% by 2019. (Id. ¶ 14.) Mr. Rhames did not, however, attach the referenced documents to his affidavit.
On October 2, 2015, Mr. Rhames wrote plaintiffs that SVLT has struggled with the issues presented by the School's proposed institutional use of the Property and that the trust "requires a well developed plan, unlike the (barely) conceptual proposal that has been presented to date, before determining if the proposed Ecology School development conforms to the easement."(Ex. B to Anderson Aff., Rhames Email.) The email concludes that (Id.)
Shortly after receiving SVLT's October 2 email, the School submitted an application for a contract zone to the City of Saco to permit the operation of the School on the Property (the "Contract Zone"). (Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 34.) The School asserts that its application included a description of the proposed curriculum and specific requirements for the type and size of structures proposed as part of the campus within the Residence/Farm Area. (Dumsch Aff. ¶ 14.) Mr. Rhames responds that, to the knowledge of the SVLT, the zone change application did not include a site plan showing the location and size of the buildings, parking areas and other relevant parts of the School's infrastructure. (Rhames Aff. ¶ 12.) Mr. Rhames further asserts that the SVLT has only been provided vague and incomplete schematics as to the proposed school plans. (Id.) Although the parties disagree as to the extent of the School's application, they agree that the School has not submitted a final development plan to SVLT, including specific renderings of any structures. (Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 31.) The School's contract zone application is not in the record.
After numerous meetings and public hearings before the Saco Planning Board and the Saco City Council, the City Council approved the School's Contract Zone by a vote of 5-2 on February 1, 2016. (Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 36.) In its written decision, the City concluded that an "ecology school with residential programs, field trips, and outreach programs to schools,workshops, curriculum design, camps and events is a permitted use of the Property." (Ex. C to Anderson Aff., City Decision § III(A).) The City further determined that the Contract Zone permitted two dormitories of up to nine-thousand square feet of...
To continue reading
Request your trial