— by Margie Doyle —
“There are lots of private roads in the county…Those who are burdened by a road easement can enforce its terms,” said County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord in his comments on the judicial decision on Feb. 27 to block the use of Fieldstone Road on San Juan Island for a marijuana grow operation.
San Juan SunGrown had leased a portion of Jenny Rice’s 78-acre Fieldstone Farm, which shares access to the road, for its greenhouse production of marijuana. Neighbors who also own property along the private road had filed suit to limit the use of the road for single-family residential purposes only.
Judge Alan Hancock interpreted the road documents at issue to mean that Rice is prohibited to use the road for anything but a single family residence. Gaylord noted that the covenant on the road easement is signed by other property owners who may use the road for agricultural or horse-riding businesses; and pointed out that Hancock ruled the covenant “does not have to be enforced uniformly.
Gaylord said, “The facts of this case are unique, given the way the easements are written. [Other private roads] may not be affected by any of this.”
Gaylord added that a recent ruling by the Hearing Examiner also affects Sun Grown’s operation: after Sun Grown’s building permits were challenged because of environmental protection assurances, its building permits were revoked.
Sun Grown had announced in January 2015 that it had ceased doing business, due to the challenges to its continued operations. It is owned by David Rice, Jenny Rice’s brother, both long-time island residents.
Following the announcement, Jenny Rice wrote on Facebook, “I, Jenny Rice, and Fieldstone Farms, still face all four claims against me in the lawsuit: Injunction, Trespassing, Damages, Unjust Enrichment.
“I am not enjoined from the road YET. But what’s unsettling is this: when I stood before Judge Hancock yesterday, he told me that not only do I not have a right to use Feildstone Road for farming… but I don’t even have the right to use Fieldstone Road to access the non-residential structures on my property… which I take to mean that I may use the road for accessing my house, but not my barn! This is despite the fact that everyone else on Fieldstone Road uses the road to access their own non-residential and commercial structures.”
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
“The covenants do not have to be enforced uniformly”? This is insane! Also: If “residential use” does not include access to one’s barns & outbuildings, then a lot of people in our largely rural county could be in real trouble.
Jenny Rice’s neighbors should be deeply ashamed.
There are a lot of very important issues here.
Not all of the quotes for Gaylord made sense to me–or at the very least, they raised a bunch more questions. For all of you following Jenny’s situation, and for all of us who see preservation local farms, ag land and agriculture in general as critical issues, we need to keep talking and advocating.
I believe we need to break down Hancock’s judgement, and the Gaylord’s statements, and the preliminary SJC CPD staff report on 502 and greenhouses into small parts to understand the current situation and begin to develop a coherent and pro-ag position that we can advocate to the County–and the State legislature if necessary. Some time down the road there may be need for a county-wide initiative to make real reforms to our ag policies and regulations in San Juan County.
For anyone who is willing to devote a another second of precious time on the Internet and Facebook (when you should be out there growing food of your own), there is a fb group called the Committee for Diversified Agriculture. We attempt to have an online conversation about these important issues. Input from Orcas would be very welcome.
My sentiments exactly Thea. Insane. What exactly does residential use mean? This is one lawsuit that should go to the State level.
This is not how you Island. This is not how you Neighbor. Shame on them! And where did this judge get his credentials? Out of a crackerjack box?
From the bottom of my heart, I hope this case finds it’s way to the State level (and quickly)….
The statement that the “covenants do not have to be enforced uniformly” is misleading. The apparent fact is that different restrictions were imposed on the use of the road in question in easements granted in different transactions. For example, one purchaser may have bargained for and obtained the right to use the private road for commercial purposes, while others sought and obtained only residential use. Each transaction has its own easement and restrictions. That they are not uniform in impact is commonplace.
Thank you Peg for clarifying the meaning of the statement that the “covenants do not have to be enforced uniformly”…it had been confusing and confounding to me.