The Connecticut Supreme Court has agreed with a lower court's ruling that the owners of a Selden Road property in Lyme violated a conservation easement when they landscaped protected areas of their property, but sent the issue of attorney's fees and damages back to the lower court.

The Lyme Land Conservation Trust and the Platners, the owners of 66 Selden Road, have been at odds for years over the meaning of a conservation restriction placed in 1981 by a prior property owner on about 14 acres of the roughly 19-acre property.

The Platners appealed a 2015 state Superior Court decision in favor of the land trust, which owns the easement. The court had concluded that the conservation restriction was not ambiguous and ordered the Platners to restore protected areas to their condition prior to landscaping and pay $350,000 in damages and $300,000 in attorney's fees.

In a decision this week, the state Supreme Court rejected the appeal's claims that the Superior Court misinterpreted the easement, lacked authority to order the restoration plan and lacked evidence about the condition of the property prior to the Platners' taking ownership in 2007.

But the Supreme Court also agreed with some parts of the appeal regarding attorney's fees and damages and said the Superior Court must recalculate them.

The land trust had alleged that the Platners violated the conservation easement by replacing a natural field with a "highly manicured and treated residential lawn," installing an irrigation system and relocating their driveway over part of the restricted area, among other complaints, according to court documents.

Land Trust President John Pritchard told the Supreme Court in February that they had destroyed nearly all the natural grasses in the field.

The State Attorney General's Office joined the land trust in arguing the case.

But the Platners' lawyer told the Supreme Court that the easement did not mandate that the land be kept natural, but be kept "open, scenic or natural."

The Platners said in court documents that their actions were not prohibited under the easement's language. They said the Superior Court had "improperly enlarged the scope of the Declaration [of Restrictive Covenants] beyond its stated intent."

The land trust and the Platners reacted this week to news of the Supreme Court's decision. 

"We're very pleased with the decision," said Tracy Collins, an attorney for the land trust. "We're pleased that Judge [Joseph Q.] Koletsky's decision was upheld, other than some minor points on attorney's fees. The issue of damages has been remanded to the trial court."

"I really commend the land trust for really following through and looking to the court to uphold the easement, because it's been a long fight and they never gave up," she added.

Brian Platner said that he and his wife, Beverly, purchased the property in 2007 and had sought out a legal interpretation of the restrictions placed on the property. He said all their landscaping was done with the understanding that they were within their rights under that legal interpretation of the documents. Unfortunately, the courts disagreed with their lawyers, he said.

"Everything we did, we did because of the legal interpretation we were provided even before we bought the property," he said. "We never intended to do anything bad or harmful to the environment or disregard our responsibility to the restricted documents."

Damages, attorney fees

The case will next return to the Superior Court for a recalculation of attorney's fees.

In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court should not have included about $12,000 in attorney's fees from when the land trust went before the town's Inland Wetlands Commission to oppose the Platners' relocation of their driveway, along with a subsequent appeal. The land trust decided to later withdraw the appeal and bring proceedings to the Superior Court.

The Supreme Court also said the Superior Court must recalculate damages.

State law allows for a court to award damages up to five times the cost of the restoration of the property.

To determine the damages, the Superior Court in 2015 had multiplied by three-and-half the $100,000 estimate for the restoration plan outlined by a botanist, an expert for the land trust.

At later hearings, the court ultimately chose a different restoration plan — a "hybrid" between the land trust's plan and the Platners' plan — with no cost estimate attached to it, according to court documents. The Supreme Court said the trial court must devise damages that are based on the cost of the chosen restoration plan.

"Upon remand, the trial court should take evidence as to the cost of the plan that it ordered and fashion a new damages award that is within the statutory parameters," the Supreme Court decision stated.

k.drelich@theday.com