Trinitas Bankruptcy Court Supports County Definition of Agritourism

In a 65-page decision filed November 21, 2011, Judge Ronald H. Sargis upheld the Calaveras Board of Supervisor’s decision that golf is not Agritourism, and rejected the Nemee’s argument that they were misled by the County. The judge went on to grant the County’s request for an injunction on commercial golfing at Trinitas. Unless the judge’s decision is appealed, the injunction will take effect on January 27, 2012. The decision is part of a larger Chapter 11 bankruptcy case involving the Trinitas Golf Course.

After a three days of trial, including the extensive examination and cross examination of witnesses for both sides, and the review of documentary evidence, the Judge concluded that, “construction of the golf course and development of The Property by the Plaintiffs was not done based upon being misled by representatives of the County or a misunderstanding of the law, but as part of a calculated business strategy of the Plaintiffs. At the heart of this strategy is a “it is better to seek forgiveness than to get permission” approach to land use and real estate development.”

The decision states that, “The Plaintiff’s proceeded with the development of The Property knowing that it did not meet the then existing zoning for The Property. There was no reliance on any representations of anyone at the County that the construction of an 18-hope commercial golf course was legal.” The court went on to state that, “The Plaintiffs may not like the decision of the Board of Supervisors on their land-use application, but they are not entitled to a different decision because they gambled and developed the land for a commercial 18-hole golf course in the belief that they could convince a majority of the Board of Supervisors to make it legal after the fact.”

In addition, the court agreed that, “the Board of Supervisors is correct- the commercial golf course is not Agritourism as defined in the Calaveras County zoning ordinance.”

First the court rejected the Nemee’s argument that the golf course was an “Agricultural Operation.” “The court does not find persuasive Plaintiffs’ contention that since they grow olives on The Property, then whatever other use they make of The Property, such as building a multi-million-dollar golf course is an agricultural activity.”

Next, the court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the golf course was Agritourism simply because it generated income to help underwrite the costs of the olive orchard. He concluded that accepting the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the ordinance, “would render the carefully crafted permitted activities and administrative/conditional use activities a hollow shell, with Agritourism trumping this detailed set of ordinances in the County’s statutory scheme.”

The Court noted that, “The Board of Supervisors has used a consistent set of examples demonstrating a rural, natural state use of property for Agritourism. The multi-million dollar development of agricultural land into a commercial 18-hole golf course is not consistent with the enumerated examples of the Board of Supervisors.” The court went on to observe that, “This commercial 18-hole golf course is clearly no cross-country ski, hiking, nature walking trail.”

The court also observed that, “Golf is expressly provided for in 11 of the 21 Calaveras County-base property zone districts. The court will not presume that the Board of Supervisors had a secret, unstated intention to have golf included as Agritourism on property zoned for agriculture.”

Acknowledging the proper role of the Board of Supervisors in approving the zoning code, and the proper role of the court in reviewing the zoning code’s interpretation, Judge Sargis declined the Plaintiff’s invitation to as he put it “rewrite the statute to state what the Plaintiffs desire.” “The court will not assert itself into making the economic, societal, political, and practical decisions for the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors, or presume that this court has greater wisdom to write a permitted use which does not exist into the Zoning Ordinance.”

Thanks go to CPC member Keep It Rural Calaveras for exposing the many problems with this project so that the Board of Supervisors could make an informed decision not to approve it. Thanks also go to Janis Elliott for her excellent legal defense of the County, and of the integrity of land use planning.