SHARON — Attorneys representing the Connecticut Department of Agriculture and the current owners of Paley Farm argued that an ongoing injunction case should be dismissed at a preliminary hearing on Monday, Dec. 9. Judge Walter Menjivar has yet to rule.
The case surrounds DOAG’s decision to approve the landowners’ application to construct a residence on the protected farmland.
Sharon Land Trust and Carol Flaton brought the case to Torrington Superior Court in July when they filed an injunction request to block the construction, arguing that DOAG misapplied the language of the original easement in its approval decision.
The property at the center of the suit, a 187 acre parcel located at 135 Millerton Road, was put under a farmland protection easement in 1984 when retired farmer Morris Paley sold his development rights to the state through DOAG’s Farmland Preservation Program.
The easement bars the development of the land for purposes other than agriculture, but it allows for the construction of residences for “persons directly incidental to farm operation.”
In 2022, current owners David and Liza Bainbridge of Rye, New York, purchased the property and applied to DOAG for building approval. Their proposal included a two-story home, pool and outdoor spa, all of which were later approved in a letter from DOAG Commissioner Bryan Hurlburt.
Flaton and SLT contend that the approval decision ran afoul of the intent of the easement and constituted a misappropriation of public funds; the state paid today’s equivalent of about $900,000 for Paley’s development rights.
These arguments were not the focus of Monday’s hearing, however, which centered instead on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. The pivotal question was whether Flaton and SLT had legal standing to bring the suit in the first place.
Representing DOAG, attorney Gail Shane argued that the plaintiffs’ claims are not legally relevant under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which holds that the state cannot be sued, in all but a few select cases, for conducting its given duties.
A memorandum prepared by the defense emphasized that the 1984 deed granted the state the “right to enforce the restrictions” on development, turning over sole responsibility for the deed’s future interpretation to DOAG staff.
Shane stated at the hearing that, without proof that Commissioner Hurlburt engaged in wrongful conduct to reach his approval decision, the plaintiff’s argument is “factually and legally” incorrect.
Adding to Shane’s argument, attorney Ken Slater emphasized that his clients, the Bainbridges, complied with DOAG’s construction application process and were duly approved by the department. He argued that the Bainbridges met the “incidental to farm operation” stipulation by laying out their plans to oversee continued farming on the land.
“We very much disagree that this isn’t going to be [dedicated] to agricultural use,” said Slater.
Shane and Slater also contended the plaintiffs’ standing, arguing that SLT and Flaton had not demonstrated that they were specifically and injuriously impacted by the construction.
While the plaintiffs’ initial complaint referenced SLT’s position abutting the property and the alteration of ridgeline views for hikers on SLT land, Shane asserted that the personal feelings of speculative hikers are irrelevant to SLT’s standing.
Slater meanwhile argued that Flaton’s position as a taxpayer and resident is insufficient to show standing, as any neighbor might disagree with how the house is built.
“It’s between the owner and the party that has the easement or the covenant over my clients’ land,” said Slater.
In his rebuttal, attorney Wilson Carroll, on behalf of the plaintiffs, contended that not only did Hurlburt’s decision constitute wrongful conduct, thus meeting an exception to the sovereign immunity doctrine, it also ran afoul of the public trust doctrine by misusing taxpayer dollars.
“This is a matter of significant public concern in Sharon and in the rest of the state right now,” said Carroll.
Carroll asserted that the “groundswell of public opposition” to DOAG’s decision legitimizes the plaintiffs’ standing as public representatives, and decried the lack of public oversight in DOAG’s easement interpretation process. To date, 485 people have signed a petition calling for stricter easement enforcement.
“The public has not ratified this [decision] in any way,” Carroll said.
Judge Menjivar has yet to rule on the case.
In a comment following the hearing, Slater said his client was “very happy that the hearing on the motion to dismiss was held” and that he is personally “very hopeful” the yuling will be in their favor.
SLT Board President Jennifer Dillon was less pleased with the hearing.
“We’re still just talking about these technicalities and not the merits of our argument,” she said. “I would love to get to a point where we can talk about the merits of the case.”
Flaton said that should the case be dismissed on standing technicalities, they plan to try again.
“We will simply refile. It will be much more straightforward,” said Flaton.
