State Supreme Court Rules Against Land Bank in Aquinnah Dispute
Two hiking trails, both leading to a bluff overlooking the ocean in Aquinnah, cannot be connected to create a single loop trail, the state’s highest court ruled in a unanimous decision this week.
Two hiking trails, both leading to a windswept bluff overlooking the ocean in Aquinnah, cannot be connected to create a single loop trail, the state’s highest court ruled this week. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Judicial Court refused to tinker with the law regarding easements to allow the Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank to link two adjacent parcels that are part of the 49-acre Aquinnah Headlands Preserve.
The ruling is a victory for the Taylor family, owners of the Outermost Inn, who went to court to block the land bank from using an easement that passes next to the inn, in order to provide access to an additional piece of property.
Hugh C. Taylor, a trustee of Taylor Realty Trust which owns the inn, said in a telephone interview on Wednesday that the decision provides clarity about the easements and about his obligations to the land bank for access to the trail.
“I don’t mind being a good neighbor to anybody, but it was incumbent on me to find out what our legal obligations are, and the only way was to go to court,” he said.
The land bank, one of the Island’s largest landowners, currently has a 40-foot-wide easement that crosses Taylor land to reach three land bank properties. The parcels are in the North Head section of the Aquinnah Headlands Preserve, the site of an old Coast Guard station, that opened to the public in 2011. The trail rolls out to the cliffs northwest of the Aquinnah lighthouse, with breathtaking views of Vineyard Sound and the Elizabeth Islands beyond.
The Outermost group sued to prevent the land bank from extending the trail into a fourth parcel, called Diem lot 5, claiming the easement across the Outermost lot was not intended to serve that property. The land bank has another trail that ultimately leads to the Diem parcel and uses a 20-foot easement across a different piece of Outermost land, and had hoped eventually to link the two. The second trail has not undergone a complete planning and permitting process and is not yet open to the public.
In its decision, the court declined to change a “bright line” rule that has existed for six decades barring easements from being extended to properties for which they were not originally intended.
In oral arguments before the court in March, the land bank’s lawyers had argued for a more flexible rule that would allow exceptions when the outcome would have little adverse impact.
Attorney Dianne C. Tillotson, arguing for the land bank, said there would be no real impact to the Taylor family by connecting the two trails.
“We’re not talking about a parking lot being placed on the Diem lot,” she said. “We’re not talking about a two-family home in the place of a single-family residence. We’re talking about the same use by the same users . . . by the same means of transport.”
But the court said the current law gives landowners a degree of predictability.
“We conclude that the benefits of preserving the longstanding, bright-line rule set forth in [a 1965 ruling by the court] outweigh any costs associated with its rigidity…” wrote Justice Barbara A. Lenk.
The court’s ruling used the example of a company that purchases a small parcel of land served by an easement, and then uses that easement to link to multiple adjoining parcels to develop large commercial developments.
James Lengyel, executive director of the land bank, downplayed the decision, saying an earlier court decision had affirmed the more significant right of public access to the parcels using easements across Outermost land.
The North Head portion of the Aquinnah preserve contains several parcels purchased by the land bank in the early to mid-1990s. No signs or markers along Lighthouse Road direct hikers to the trails; they are situated at the trailhead itself, which is not visible from the road. Parking and a map are available to the southwest, on the other side of the Aquinnah circle by the South Head trailhead. The available North Head trails are closed in the high season, from mid-June to mid-September.

Comments
The Land Bank has an
Ben West TisburyThe Land Bank has an important charter and does good work with our money. That said, the Land Bank's occasional penchant for activism forces the hand of property owners to litigate and protect their rights. Thanks to the Supreme Judicial Court for upholding the law and their good judgment.
I'm perplexed. What is the
Matthew H. Gallagher Redmond, WAI'm perplexed. What is the “substantial burden” the Taylor family will incur by connecting these two trails?
Also, what is to prevent hikers from striking out on their own and creating an illegal path to connect the two trails systems?
Don't worry. We already have
Slater MVDon't worry. We already have plans in the works.
What you think doesn't
Islander TooWhat you think doesn't actually matter.
It doesn't matter that the Land Bank is sure that their side represents the good, that they they assert that there are only benefit and no downsides and that the Taylor's defense of their rights is, in effect, frivolous. What matters is the landowner's right to insist on a clear statement of the law, and their rights. A contrary ruling would have created a precedent that would be an open invitation for abuse.
Apparently the LB thought the righteousness of their cause, as they see it, trumped others' rights and established law.
There is a lesson here for others so inclined . . .
It was overreach on the Land Bank's part. It was a frivolous suit. The outcome was predictable.
This lawsuit was a waste of public monies. Let's have a full accounting of staff time and money spent on this.
Understood, but why then
Matthew H. Gallagher Redmond, WAUnderstood, but why then would the attorney reference to a "substantial burden" at all?
Why does there need to be a
Paul NHWhy does there need to be a "substantial burden"to allow an easement to be used in a way it was not originally intended for?
And the deterrence for hikers to create an illegal path connecting the two trail systems would be the fact that.... it's illegal. That's what most respectful folks would base their judgment on, I would hope.
The easements are to provide
Neil Off IslandThe easements are to provide access to the respective properties. IMHO, a trail loop is a completely different animal. What is being asked for is no longer access to the properties, it has become access to a trail over the easements.
Land Bank, you have enough--
islander mvLand Bank, you have enough-- too much, in fact. Stop disrespecting private property. So glad the court stopped you on this one.
The Land Bank needs to back
Taffy OBThe Land Bank needs to back off. A little too power happy these days with all the dollars squeezed out of us into their coffers. I feel sorry for the Taylor family that they had to go through this trauma--and I am sorry that they have to grant ANY access to these parcels.
whats the big deal?
Marcos Chilmarkwhats the big deal?
People have to walk a few
John B Oak BluffsPeople have to walk a few extra yards to get to the nature trail. We should be thankful to be on an island where this is front page news.
lol so true John from OB. Off
dick prescott Sandwichlol so true John from OB. Off island, this may have been buried on page 10, section 4 of the local rag.....
Land Bank, your a good cause
William ExPBA HK & NYLand Bank, your a good cause but not above he law. Do what anyone else would have to do, get commercial and buy an easement, Taylors please be reasonable and commercial.
Add new comment