Long Green Valley Ass'n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc.
46 A.3d 473
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Bellevale Farm (Bellevale) owns ~199 acres in Baltimore County; Yoders operate adjacent dairy farm; MALPF holds agricultural preservation easement on Bellevale, restricting non-farm use; Bellevale sought MALPF approval to build a creamery; circuit court granted summary judgment to Bellevale and MALPF, ruling appellants lacked standing; circuit court held plaintiffs could pursue zoning/land-use processes but not direct judicial review; court discussed potential charitable-trust concepts and third-party-beneficiary theory for standing; on appeal, court vacates and remands to address standing with full record and consider 120 W. Fayette aggrievement framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do LGVA and the Yoders have standing to challenge the creamery | LGVA/Yoders claim third-party-beneficiary, charitable-trust, or special-harm standing | No standing under statute/contract doctrine; easement enforcement lies with MALPF/State | Yoders are prima facie aggrieved; LGVA lacks standing under the theories presented; remand to resolve aggrievement and standing issue |
| Does the Easement Agreement give LGVA and Yoders standing as third-party beneficiaries or through charitable-trust status | Easement intended beneficiaries or as a charitable trust entitled to enforce | No express or implied intent to create third-party beneficiaries or a public-charitable trust; enforcement reserved to grantee (State/MALPF) | Appellants not persuaded to have standing as third-party beneficiaries or as a charitable trust; standing not established on these bases |
| Are the Yoders and LGVA specially harmed by the creamery compared to the public, enabling standing | Neighbors/sometimes LGVA members will be specially harmed by stormwater, environment, and landscape impacts | mere competition or general public interest insufficient for standing; aggrievement not shown | Under 120 W. Fayette, neighbors may be aggrieved; circuit court erred in dismissing neighbor standing on summary judgment; remand to rebut aggrievement |
Key Cases Cited
- Sugarloaf Citizens’ Ass’n v. Department of Env’t, 344 Md. 271 (Md. 1996) (extension of standing to adjoining property owners in land-use appeals)
- 120 W. Fayette St., LLLP v. Mayor of Baltimore, 407 Md. 253 (Md. 2009) (extension of standing to neighboring landowners in urban renewal/land-use contexts)
- Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137 (Md. 1967) (standing; aggrievement and neighbor interests in zoning)
- First United Pentecostal Church v. Seibert, 22 Md.App. 434 (Md. App. 1974) (intent to create third-party beneficiaries governs standing to enforce covenants)
- Volcjak v. Washington County Hosp. Ass’n, 124 Md.App. 481 (Md. App. 1999) (contractual intent governs who may enforce restrictions in servitudes)