- 27 -
development, and the requests of Hyland and the MVLA to limit
development. Respondent does not dispute that the Grist Mill
property was an “historically important land area”. Respondent
contends that there was no “historic structure” on the Grist Mill
property that petitioners could have preserved. In addition,
respondent contends that the conservation easement did not
preserve the Grist Mill property’s “historically important land
area” or its natural state. Respondent also references the loss
of trees on the development portion of the Grist Mill property as
demonstrating that, in fact, there was a loss of historical
importance after the Grist Mill property’s development.
Conversely, petitioners strongly deny that they contributed to
any loss of historical importance by the removal of trees during
the development of the Grist Mill property.
The parties’ disagreement about tree loss or removal is
irrelevant. If the trees contributed to the historical
importance of the Grist Mill property, the measure should be
based on the potential use of the property before and after the
contribution of a conservation easement. Even if no trees were
removed by petitioner, such restraint was not mandated by the
terms of conservation easement, which failed to reference
preservation of trees or the view, but merely referenced a
11(...continued)
to develop and/or to preserve the floodplain ring hollow as no
homes could have been built on that land.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011