After years of legal wrangling over the nature of a conservation restriction in an ongoing lawsuit, a New London Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of a local land trust and ordered the restoration of a landscaped property along the Connecticut River in Lyme.

The Lyme Land Conservation Trust had sought, in a case that began six years ago, a declaratory judgment after private property owners landscaped areas the land trust said were under its protection.

At issue was if the property owners' actions breached an easement placed on the property by the original owner, or if - as the current property owners claimed - that restriction was unclear or invalid.

Judge Joseph Koletsky said in his decision Thursday that the easement at 66 Selden Road is neither "ambiguous" nor "void" and found a "deliberate violation of existing restrictions on the property," according to a court transcript.

State Attorney General George Jepsen had intervened in the case on behalf of the land trust to "protect the public interest in conservation restrictions."

A hearing, set for 10 a.m. on March 24, will determine the compensation for lawyers' fees and "the multiple of restoration costs to be awarded as damages." The court will retain jurisdiction over the matter during the restoration of the property.

"We are very disappointed by the judge's decision," Santa Mendoza, a lawyer for Beverly Platner, the property owner, said in a statement on Friday. "The Platner family and the legal team will review all the appropriate information in the next few weeks, and then determine our next course of action."

Representatives and a lawyer for the land trust declined to comment on Friday.

The case began in 2009, when the Lyme Land Conservation Trust filed a lawsuit over an easement it held and the activities it would restrict on the property on Selden Road, purchased by the Platner family in 2007.

The land trust claims, in court filings, that Platner violated several terms of the restriction placed over a large part of the property by the property's original owner, Paul Selden, in 1981.

In court filings, the land trust said Platner encroached on "open space" and converted almost the entirety of a field on their property "from its natural condition into a highly manicured and treated residential lawn." Contractors employed by Platner also used heavy machinery and dump trucks, the suit alleged.

Other violations claimed in the suit include the installation of "a golf course style irrigation system" throughout the field, ornamental planting, and turning the understory of the property's woodlands into a "manicured, park-like condition."

Court documents filed on behalf of Platner argue that she is entitled to a declaratory ruling that the restriction is invalid. If the court does determine it's valid, then any ambiguity in the restriction should be decided in favor of Platner, the documents state.

The filings claim the trust does not actually hold the conservation restriction because it was recorded as the "Lyme Conservation Trust," rather than its full name. They also state that Selden had granted the restriction in the 1980s in exchange for obtaining a wetlands permit from the Lyme Conservation Commission to build a home on the property. In turn, the land trust states that even if the allegation is true, the decision became final when Selden's time to appeal ended in 1981.

Among other points, the defense documents also dispute the claim of "installing lawns." The documents argue that a previous owner had been in the practice of mowing the grassy area twice a year, before the claim that Platner "overseeded" the area.

During the course of the ongoing legal battle, Platner filed a separate suit for defamation against the land trust and its executive director, George Moore, a case resolved in a confidential settlement, according to Mendoza.

The state attorney general filed a memorandum in support of the land trust in the Selden Road property case.

"The Attorney General has a substantial interest in advocating for an appropriate approach to the interpretation of conservation restrictions, which in the first instance means reading the Conservation Restriction in a straight forward manner and not creating ambiguity where none exists," the document states. "Second, it means interpreting any ambiguity that the Court may find consistently with Connecticut's established public policy of conserving natural resources."

k.drelich@theday.com

Twitter: @KimberlyDrelich