Francis Small Heritage Trust, Inc. v. Town of Limington, 98 A.3d 1012

Trust owns eleven contiguous parcels near Sawyer Mountain in Limington; eight parcels are open space land with conservation easements and some with other public protections, while three are Tree Growth parcels.
Trust’s purposes are to conserve natural resources and provide free public access; land is used as conserved wildlife habitat and is publicly accessible year-round for education and recreation.
Trust Articles contemplate charitable, educational, and scientific aims and permit limited “compatible” commercial activities; testimony suggested plans for educational forestry, with revenues used for Trust purposes.
Board of Property Tax Review denied exemption, finding Trust’s activities were not exclusively benevolent and charitable; eight open space parcels already received tax relief under the open-space program—impacting exemption analysis.
Superior Court vacated the Board’s decision, holding Trust entitled to charitable exemption; Town appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court for review of both exemption and valuation issues.
Court holds Trust is organized and conducted for benevolent and charitable purposes, entitling it to exemption; valuation issue not reached as the exemption determines the outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Trust is organized and conducted exclusively for benevolent and charitable purposes.	Trust is organized to conserve resources and provide public access.	Board found Articles permit commercial activities; thus not exclusively charitable.	Yes; exemption granted; charitable purpose shown.
Whether land conservation with public access qualifies as charitable under §652(1).	Conservation and public access serve indefinite public benefit.	Holbrook and Silverman limit charitable scope for conservation.	Conservation with public access is charitable under the statute.
Whether the Farm and Open Space Tax Law preempts the charitable exemption.	Exemption coexists with open-space valuation statute; not preempted.	Open-space framework limits or preempts exemptions.	No preemption; charitable exemption applies independently.

Holbrook Island Sanctuary v. Inhabitants of the Town of Brooksville, 161 Me. 476 (Me. 1965) (wildlife sanctuary not charitable where public benefit is lacking)
Silverman v. Town of Alton, 451 A.2d 103 (Me. 1982) (not a charitable exemption case; scientific use not sufficient)
Cushing Nature & Pres. Ctr. v. Town of Cushing, 2001 ME 149, 785 A.2d 342 (Me. 2001) (charitable exemption considered in land conservation context)
Episcopal Camp Found., Inc. v. Town of Hope, 666 A.2d 108 (Me. 1995) (quid pro quo and public benefit considerations in exemption)
Green Acre Baha’i Inst. v. Town of Eliot, 150 Me. 350, 110 A.2d 581 (Me. 1954) (origin of charitable exemption and public benefit rationale)
Hebron Acad., Inc. v. Town of Hebron, 2013 ME 15, 60 A.3d 774 (Me. 2013) (incidental nonexempt use does not destroy exemption; incorporation documents may be compatible)
Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2006 ME 44, 896 A.2d 287 (Me. 2006) (defines benevolent/charitable scope and government burden relief aspect)
New England Forestry Foundation, Inc. v. Board of Assessors of Hawley, 9 N.E.3d 310 (Mass. 2014) (Massachusetts court recognized charitable conservation benefits as public good)