Hartford — A longstanding argument between the Lyme Land Conservation Trust and local property owners over a conservation easement on their Selden Road property reached the Connecticut Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The land trust and the Platners of Lyme disagree over whether the Platners' landscaping of their property violates the easement placed on the majority of their 20-acre property in 1981 by an earlier property owner. 

Lawyers representing the land trust and Beverly Platner argued their cases before the court Tuesday morning, after Platner appealed a lower court's ruling in favor of the land trust.

New London Superior Court Judge Joseph Q. Koletsky had ordered Platner in 2015 to restore the property to its original condition, as well as pay legal fees and damages to the land trust. He declared that "the defendant's actions were willful and caused great damage to the protected area's natural condition." 

In court documents appealing the decision, Platner's lawyers argued that "the court improperly enlarged the scope of the Declaration [of Restrictive Covenant] beyond its stated intent." 

Meanwhile, the land trust, in court documents, maintained that the Platners' landscaping — including the installation of a "highly manicured and treated residential lawn," ornamental garden beds, an irrigation system, and relocated driveway — violated the easement.

During Tuesday's arguments before the Supreme Court, Brendon P. Levesque, a lawyer for Platner, said the land trust wanted a field that remained rustic, while the Platners wanted a lawn.

He argued that the land is not specifically required to be kept in its natural condition, but rather to be "open, scenic or natural." 

When asked by the court about a restriction against clearing and destroying trees, grasses or other vegetation, he cautioned against a "very narrow read" of the restrictions. He said the document, in another section, allows the planting of new trees and shrubs. Grass needs to be removed anytime that a new shrub or tree is planted, he said.

Lyme Land Conservation Trust President John Pritchard, also a lawyer, said in his arguments that the defendant destroyed virtually all the natural grasses in the field. He said the property's natural field grass did not require fertilizers or a "golf-course style irrigation system."

He said there is a "tremendous difference" between the natural field grass on the property before the Platners purchased it — which was mowed twice a year — and the "highly artificial lawn the defendant has installed."

He said the purpose of the conservation document is to retain the "natural, scenic and open condition" of the land.

State Attorney General George Jepsen is a co-plaintiff with the land trust. Assistant Attorney General Gary W. Hawes joined Pritchard in arguments Tuesday that the defendants violated the restrictions on the property.

After the court session, Levesque said that people have a right to use their property. He said the declaration expressly says the Platners can plant trees and shrubs and mow their lawn.

Pritchard said the Supreme Court case is the "culmination of a long-running dispute and litigation." 

"We thought the court clearly understood the facts in the case and showed a grasp of the legal principles that need to be applied, and we're hopeful of a good result," he said.

k.drelich@theday.com