It has become a common practice for environmentally conscious landowners to work with land preservation groups in adding deed restrictions to portions of their property, requiring the land to remain in its natural state for perpetuity.

These restrictions are only as useful, however, as the ability to enforce them by law. That is why a recent case in Lyme could set an important precedent by enforcing an easement held on property by the Lyme Land Conservation Trust. When current owner Beverly Platner had the restricted section of her property landscaped with a lawn and irrigation system, the land trust sued. Recently Superior Court Judge Joseph Q. Koletsky issued a decision in favor of the land trust and ordered the owner to pay $350,000 in damages to restore the land and $300,000 in attorneys’ fees to cover the plaintiff’s expenses.

It was the right decision and appellate courts should uphold it if challenged on appeal. Property owners must know they cannot blithely ignore the restrictions agreed to by a prior owner. In this case, the restriction held by the land trust dates to 1981.

“We have a duty and we couldn’t shirk it,” Lyme Land Conservation Trust Executive Director George Moore told The Day.

Also deserving of credit is state Attorney General George Jepsen, who recognized the importance of the case to the state’s goal of conserving vital natural resources and who put the legal weight of his office behind the case to uphold the conservation restrictions.

As decades pass, the chances that a land trust might let down its guard, or cease functioning, increase. That is why it was all the more important for Judge Koletsky to send a strong message with this ruling and for the state to demonstrate its backing.

In this case, Judge Koletsky found the landowner’s actions “were willful and caused great damage to the protected area’s natural condition.” Other owners are now warned that they, too, could face a big financial penalty for acting in the same manner.