Collings v. Planning Board of Stow
About This Legal Opinion
The appellate court reversed, holding that the requirement to offer the land to the conservation commission and a land trust was a violation of the statute, and that the waiver itself was not just compensation.
Membership Required
This resource is a Land Trust Alliance member benefit for the staff, board and volunteers of land trust and affiliate member organizations, and Alliance donors at the Protector level.
Wooster v. Department of Fish and Game
The appellate court affirmed the trial court in holding that the posting requirement was a covenant, and not a condition subsequent, of the easement, and therefore the failure to comply with this requirement was not grounds for rescission.
Northampton Twp. v. Parsons
The appellate court reversed, finding that the pole barn was a violation of the DCCR and the Agreement of Sale. In particular, the appellate court held that the DCCR limited the use of Lot 1 to passive recreational uses. The appellate court ordered that the pole barn be removed.
Salmon v. Evans
The trial court and the appellate court held that the county was not authorized to interpret or enforce the conservation easement, which was a private agreement.
In the Matter of Girard v. Town of East Hampton
The appellate court affirmed in a very brief opinion, holding that the Town's zoning requirement of a conservation easement was arbitrary and capricious.
Cahaba Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Water Works Board of City of Birmingham
Alabama’s conservation easement enabling statute largely tracks the Uniform Conservation Easement Act, and thus the holding that a landowner cannot grant a conservation easement to itself under the statute could have widespread applicability. The messiness of this case is not surprising insofar as conservation easements are often proposed as solutions to land use disputes, even when the parties are not clear on the fundamental statutory elements of the tool.
Oak Ridge Land Co, LP v. Roberts
The appellate court reversed, holding that there was no conflict between the statute and the regulation, and that the easement must be valued based on its book value in accordance with the regulation.
Adirondack Land Trust v. Town of Putnam Assessor
The appellate court reversed, holding that use of property as a wildlife or nature sanctuary is a charitable use, and that restricted access is acceptable where consistent with protecting wildlife so that the land trust was entitled to a tax-exemption.
W.O.R.C. Realty Corp. v. Town of Islip
The appellate court reversed the trial court on the collateral estoppel issue, finding that the earlier property tax action did not address the issue of the validity of the easement. However, the appellate court went on to rule for the town based on the statute of limitations defense.
Dalton v. Hudson River Heritage
On summary judgment, the trial court upheld the easement, finding that its purposes included protecting the landscape surrounding the home, and not just the structure itself. The court noted that the party seeking termination bears the burden of showing that it is unenforceable.
Committee of 100 on the Federal City v. Hodel, 250 U.S. App. D.C.
The appellate court, reversing the trial court, held that the transaction was an 'exchange' and not a 'boundary revision,' thus triggering one section of the statute and not another. The end result was to allow the transaction to stand.