Court Opinion

ID: 9825831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 14:07:30.106751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:54.706649
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: AUGUST 25, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

           Commonwealth of Kentucky
                   Court of Appeals
                      NO. 2022-CA-0652-MR

HAL SNOWDEN, JR., D/B/A
ROSEGLADE FARM                                       APPELLANT

           APPEAL FROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT
v.        HONORABLE C. HUNTER DAUGHERTY, JUDGE
                   ACTION NO. 17-CI-00158

CITY OF WILMORE, KENTUCKY;
BRIAN DENGER, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
JESSAMINE COUNTY – CITY OF
WILMORE JOINT PLANNING
COMMISSION; DAVE CARLSTEDT,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
MEMBER OF THE JESSAMINE
COUNTY – CITY OF WILMORE
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION;
DAVID RIEL, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
WILMORE, KENTUCKY, CITY
COUNCIL; DENNIS ADAMS, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER
OF THE JESSAMINE COUNTY –
CITY OF WILMORE JOINT
PLANNING COMMISSION; DON
COLLIVER, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
JESSAMINE COUNTY – CITY OF
WILMORE JOINT PLANNING
COMMISSION; ERIC ZABILK, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
MEMBER OF THE JESSAMINE
COUNTY – CITY OF WILMORE
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION;
HAROLD RAINWATER, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A
MEMBER OF THE WILMORE,
KENTUCKY, CITY COUNCIL;
HAROLD RAINWATER, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR
OF THE CITY OF WILMORE,
KENTUCKY; JAMES MCKINNEY, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
MEMBER OF THE JESSAMINE
COUNTY – CITY OF WILMORE
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION;
JANE BALL, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
JESSAMINE COUNTY – CITY OF
WILMORE JOINT PLANNING
COMMISSION; JEFF BAIER, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER
OF THE WILMORE, KENTUCKY,
CITY COUNCIL; JESSAMINE
COUNTY – CITY OF WILMORE
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION;
JIM BRUMFIELD, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
WILMORE, KENTUCKY, CITY
COUNCIL; JOHN OSBORNE, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER
OF THE JESSAMINE COUNTY –
CITY OF WILMORE JOINT
PLANNING COMMISSION; KIM
DEYER, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
WILMORE, KENTUCKY, CITY
COUNCIL; LEONARD FITCH, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER

                             -2-
OF THE WILMORE, KENTUCKY,
CITY COUNCIL; LYNN COOPER, IN
HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
MEMBER OF THE WILMORE,
KENTUCKY, CITY COUNCIL;
MARY JO MORROW, IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER
OF THE JESSAMINE COUNTY –
CITY OF WILMORE JOINT
PLANNING COMMISSION; AND
PETER BEATY, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
JESSAMINE COUNTY – CITY OF
WILMORE JOINT PLANNING
COMMISSION                                                            APPELLEES

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: DIXON, GOODWINE, AND KAREM, JUDGES.

GOODWINE, JUDGE: Hal Snowden, Jr. (“Snowden”) appeals from orders of the

Jessamine Circuit Court entered on October 28, 2018, November 9, 2018, August

9, 2019, July 20, 2020, September 24, 2020, May 12, 2021, March 22, 2022, and

April 18, 2022. After careful review, we find no error and affirm.

                                BACKGROUND

            This matter, litigated for nearly three decades, concerns the location

and size of a conservation easement on Snowden’s property, Roseglade Farm, in

Wilmore, Kentucky. The history of this matter includes a 2018 appeal in this

                                        -3-
action and two prior appeals to this Court in related actions concerning the

development of Roseglade Farm.1 In the 2018 appeal, this Court summarized the

history of this matter as follows:

                     Snowden owns a 175-acre parcel of land referred
              to as Roseglade Farm. The northeast portion of the tract
              lies near the “Y” intersection of U.S. Highway 68 and
              Kentucky Highway 29 in Jessamine County. . . .

                     In 1997, Snowden submitted an application for a
              zone change for the farm from agricultural to residential.
              A review of the several public hearings conducted as part
              of the zoning process indicates that the matter was hotly
              contested. Members of the public were most concerned
              that greenspace would be lost across that part of
              Roseglade [F]arm lying between two historic homes on
              the northern part of the farm near the Y-intersection of
              U.S. Highway 68 and Kentucky 29. However,
              Snowden’s preliminary plan for the development of the
              farm explicitly depicted greenspace at this location,
              setting aside slightly more than 100 acres (identified as
              the East Field Permanent Greenspace Area) for continued
              agricultural uses.
                     In December 1997, the Wilmore City Council
              approved a zone change of the farm from A-1 to R-5 as
              consistent with the Wilmore Comprehensive Plan. “R-5”
              is designated a rural transition zone. The local zoning
              ordinance provides that those areas within the City of
              Wilmore zoned as R-5 should function as transition areas
              between the smaller urban lots found in the Wilmore
              community and the five (5) – acre minimum density lots
              found in the agricultural areas of surrounding Jessamine
              County. In R-5 zones, both agricultural and residential

1
 See Kopser, et al. v. City of Wilmore, No. 2001-CA-000232-MR (Ky. App. Mar. 1, 2002); see
also Snowden v. City of Wilmore, 412 S.W.3d 195 (Ky. App. 2013); see also City of Wilmore v.
Snowden, No. 2017-CA-001345-MR, 2018 WL 4264921 (Ky. App. Sep. 7, 2018).

                                             -4-
               development are permitted. According to the ordinance,
               this zone “shall provide a permanent green space/buffer
               area to the growing areas of Wilmore and allow a
               compatible transition into the active agricultural areas of
               the surrounding County.” As a condition to development
               in this zone, “an undeveloped portion of the parent
               tract . . . will remain in permanent green space.”
                      The town council found that “the proposed zone
               change and development plan are in agreement with the
               comprehensive plan as they meet all the criteria of the
               requirements of an R-5 zoning classification, the goals
               and objectives and the Wilmore Community Plan.” It
               also found that there “is a present need for residential
               property as proposed by the applicant. His property
               provides for and protects a substantial green space along
               the two abutting highways [the Y-intersection at U.S.
               Highway 68 and Kentucky Highway 29].”

Snowden, 2018 WL 4264921, at *1. In December 1998, Snowden dedicated

approximately 100 acres of the farm to the City of Wilmore (“the City”) as a

conservation easement. Id. The deed of conservation easement stated, in part,

               [t]he property includes a designated area of permanent
               greenspace, as shown on Exhibit “B” and described in
               Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by
               this reference, and such area shall be maintained
               perpetually subject to the terms and restrictions of this
               Conservation Easement[.]

Id. at *2.2 The deed further described the conservation easement as containing

“open space of approximately 100 acres of farmland, pastures, and grassland[.]”

Id. The easement consisted of “approximately 4,100 feet of frontage along U.S.

2
 Neither Exhibit B nor C was attached to the deed, nor did it appear from the record that either
had ever been prepared.

                                               -5-
Highway 68 . . . and approximately 3,000 feet of frontage along Kentucky

Highway 29[.] . . . Furthermore, the [conservation easement] is specifically located

at the beginning of the Kentucky Highway 29 scenic entry corridor to the City of

Wilmore[.]” Id. The deed also describes the Betty Bryan House and Ashbrook

House as “immediately adjacent” to the easement. Id. The deed states that “the

remaining balance” of the property, meaning Roseglade Farm, would be rezoned to

R-5 to allow for development. Id. at *3.

                    In 2016, Snowden applied again to the planning
             commission for a new consideration of a plan to develop
             Roseglade Farm into 174 residential lots of
             approximately .25 acres each. This plan for the property
             reconfigured the preliminary development plan prepared
             in August 1997 (and approved in December 1997) by
             inverting the proposed residential area as platted and the
             greenspace area referred to in the conservation easement.
             Under Snowden’s amended plan, the residential area
             would now be located on the northeast portion of the
             farm near the Y-intersection of U.S. Highway 68 and
             Kentucky 29. The revised preliminary plat and amended
             development plan indicated that Snowden would grant to
             the City of Wilmore a substitute conservation easement
             to include the newly envisioned permanent greenspace
             areas identified on the revised preliminary plat.

                    Because the property that Snowden proposed to
             develop encompassed the conservation easement, the
             planning commission advised him in writing that it
             would not approve the amended development plan absent
             the agreement of the town council to release or modify
             the easement recorded in January 1999. Snowden
             represented to the town council that the 1999
             conservation easement “will remain totally intact and
             valid until such time that a new easement for the land

                                        -6-
            residual may be established.” Nevertheless, through a
            resolution adopted on January 17, 2017, the town council
            denied Snowden’s request to modify or release the 1999
            conservation easement. Snowden sought to void any
            arguable binding effect of the 1999 conservation/
            agreement.

                    On March 9, 2017, Snowden filed a complaint for
            declaratory relief in the Jessamine Circuit Court.
            Snowden contended that he had a continuing right to
            modify and amend his preliminary development plan for
            Roseglade Farm subject only to the rules, regulations,
            and processes of the planning commission and without
            regard for the conservation easement recorded in 1999.
            Snowden argued that the portion of the farm that the
            parties intended to subject to the conservation easement
            “would and could only be identified with specificity at a
            future date when the [planning commission] approved
            ‘final construction plans.’” He contended that as a
            consequence, the easement “obviously fails to
            sufficiently identify the dimensions and boundaries of the
            property” and that the physical location of the property
            that it purported to encumber could not be located with
            reasonable certainty. In essence, Snowden sought to void
            any binding effect or continuity of his original
            conservation easement. The City of Wilmore and
            members of the town council denied that Snowden was
            entitled to the relief he sought.
Id. at *4. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Snowden,

finding the conservation easement facially void and unenforceable because the

description of the encumbered property was inadequate. Id. at *5. The City of

Wilmore appealed.

                                       -7-
                This Court reversed the summary judgment of the circuit court,

holding the description was adequate under KRS3 Chapter 382, the Uniform

Conservation Easement Act. Snowden , 2018 WL 4264921, at *5. Specifically,

this Court determined

                [d]espite the absence of Exhibits B and C identified in
                the written easement at the center of this dispute, the
                dimensions and boundaries of the conservation easement
                can be physically located with reasonable certainty.
                Roseglade Farm is bounded by U.S. Highway 68 to the
                north and Kentucky Highway 29 to the southeast. These
                highways intersect at a point just northeast of the farm.
                The description of the encumbered property indicates that
                it forms a quadrilateral. The location of two of its sides
                are defined by the location of the two highways
                bordering the farm; the third side is defined by its
                intersection with the first two (and is more particularly
                described as that part of the farm bordering the existing
                commercial property located at the Y-intersection lying
                to the northeast); the fourth is, therefore, readily
                ascertainable. Moreover, the [conservation easement] is
                described as consisting of approximately 100 acres lying
                between the Betty Bryan House and the Ashbrook House
                and “located at the beginning of the Kentucky Highway
                29 scenic entry corridor to the City of Wilmore.”

                        Finally, the easement provides that its objective is
                to comply with the requirements of the R-5 zone calling
                for a transition area between the City of Wilmore lying to
                the southwest of the farm and the agricultural areas of
                Jessamine County lying to its west, north, and south. The
                dimensions and boundaries of the conservation easement
                are fairly delineated. Its situs is clear. Consequently, we
                agree with the [City of Wilmore] that the easement is not

3
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.

                                            -8-
                  void as a matter of law but that it is instead susceptible of
                  enforcement.
Id.

                  After the 2018 appeal, Snowden moved for a declaration of rights,

requesting the circuit court determine the location and boundaries of the

conservation easement. The circuit court denied Snowden’s motion on October 26,

2018. Snowden timely moved to alter, amend, or vacate the order. On November

9, 2018, the circuit court granted Snowden’s motion to the extent that it amended

the order to remove language making the October 26, 2018 order final and

appealable. Over the City’s objection, the circuit court also allowed Snowden to

amend his complaint to include claims of legislative invalidity, res judicata, failure

of a condition subsequent, mutual mistake, integration of the agreement, and

spoliation of evidence.

                  Snowden then moved for partial summary judgment on his claim that

the conservation easement was legislatively invalid, making it nonbinding and

unenforceable. On July 20, 2020, the circuit court denied his motion, finding that

under KRS 83A.010, a conservation easement is not an “ordinance.” Record (“R”)

at 515.4 Snowden again timely moved to vacate the court’s order. On September

24, 2020, the court denied the motion but informed the parties it would “consider

4
    Citations to the record in this case are to volumes titled “After 1st Appeal.”

                                                   -9-
whether a final plat is required to convey [a] valid easement and whether the law of

the case or any other defense, precludes [Snowden] from raising that issue at this

time.” R. at 617.

              After briefing by the parties, the circuit court entered an interlocutory

order on May 12, 2021, resolving those issues. The court found that the law of the

case doctrine precluded any argument by Snowden regarding the adequacy of the

description of the conservation easement, including his argument that a final plat is

required for an easement to be valid. The court then scheduled a hearing to

determine the exact location of the easement consistent with the 2018 opinion of

this Court.

              At the hearing, the parties presented evidence on the location of the

easement, primarily focusing on the disputed fourth boundary of the quadrilateral

referenced in the 2018 opinion. Snowden argued the boundary was the sightline

between the Betty Bryan House and Ashbrook House. This would make the

easement approximately 40 acres in total. Snowden claimed the City, both in

writing and orally, made judicial admissions asserting the boundary was the

sightline between the two homes. The City presented testimony from the mayor of

the City and the chairman of the Jessamine County/City of Wilmore Joint Planning

Commission. It argued the court should rely on Snowden’s development plan,

presented to the city council in support of his request for the change in zoning in

                                          -10-
1998, to determine the location of the easement. The development plan depicts

“permanent greenspace” of approximately 105 acres.

             In its March 22, 2022 judgment, the circuit court held, based on the

2018 opinion, there exists no material issue of fact as to the description of the

easement. It further determined Snowden asserted no issue of material fact

concerning any of his other claims and any legal issues had been resolved by prior

orders. On this basis, the court dismissed Snowden’s remaining claims. Both

parties timely moved to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment because it did not

address the location of the easement. Snowden also requested the court vacate the

dismissal of his claims because they remained unresolved.

             The circuit court amended its judgment on April 18, 2022, identifying

the location of the conservation easement based on Snowden’s development plan.

The court determined an evidentiary hearing was necessary because the easement

contained a latent ambiguity requiring consideration of parol evidence to determine

the location of the fourth boundary.

             The circuit court was unconvinced by Snowden’s argument that the

City must be bound by its statements that the fourth boundary is the sightline

between the two historic homes. The court determined that at no time did the City

assert the sightline between the two homes would constitute the entirety of the

easement. The court found any statements the City or its counsel made regarding

                                         -11-
the sightline “were clearly inconsistent with the more specific portions of the

City’s argument[,]” including its repeated assertion that the easement consisted of

approximately 100 acres. R. at 882.

              The circuit court found there was “overwhelming evidence” that the

parties intended for the location of the easement to be based on Snowden’s

development plan and that the plan was likely meant to be one of the missing

exhibits. While the sightline between the two historic homes as the fourth side

would create an easement of approximately 40 acres, the “permanent greenspace”

referenced in the development plan amounts to 105.31 acres. The plan was also

consistent with Snowden’s statements to the Planning Commission and city

council in 1997, the easement description, and the 2018 opinion of this Court.5

The development plan accurately depicted the frontage amounts along U.S.

Highway 68 and Kentucky Highway 29 included in the description. Based on the

development plan, the circuit court held

              The legal description of the Conservation Easement
              conveyed by Mr. Snowden to the City of Wilmore shall
              be the area described as the East Field Permanent
              Greenspace Area of 83.10 acres and the West Field
              Permanent Greenspace Area of 22.21 acres for a total of
              105.31 acres, as shown on [the City’s] Exhibit 5 from the

5
  Despite Snowden’s repeated assertion otherwise, this Court’s opinion did not reference the
“sightline” between the two homes. Instead, this Court only described the conservation
easement as “consisting of approximately 100 acres lying between the Betty Bryan House and
the Ashbrook House.”

                                             -12-
             trial of June 28, 2021, which is incorporated herein by
             reference.
Id. at 886. This appeal followed.

                             STANDARD OF REVIEW

             Decisions on motions for summary judgment, applications of the law

of the case doctrine, and determinations of whether statements are judicial

admissions are all reviewed de novo. Martin v. Wallace, 651 S.W.3d 753, 756

(Ky. 2022) (citation omitted); University Medical Center, Inc. v. Beglin, 432

S.W.3d 175, 178 (Ky. App. 2014); Reece v. Dixie Warehouse and Cartage Co.,

188 S.W.3d 440, 448 (Ky. App. 2006) (footnote omitted).

                                    ANALYSIS

             On appeal, Snowden argues the circuit court erred in three respects:

(1) by applying the law of the case doctrine; (2) by denying his motion for

summary judgment because the conservation easement is legislatively invalid; and,

(3) by not finding the City’s statements regarding the “sightline” between the two

historic homes to be judicial admissions. Snowden further argues that this Court,

in Kopser, No. 2001-CA-000232-MR, determined his development plan was not

final or binding upon him.

             First, the law of the case is “an iron rule, universally recognized, that

an opinion or decision of an appellate court in the same cause is the law of the case

for a subsequent trial or appeal[.]” TECO Mechanical Contractor, Inc. v. Kentucky

                                         -13-
Labor Cabinet, 474 S.W.3d 153, 158 (Ky. App. 2014) (citation omitted). Once an

issue is decided by an appellate court, it cannot be relitigated. St. Clair v.

Commonwealth, 455 S.W.3d 869, 887 (Ky. 2015) (citation omitted). The doctrine

guards against parties endlessly revisiting previously decided issues so that

litigants can be ensured finality of appellate decisions. Wright v. Carroll, 452

S.W.3d 127, 130 (Ky. 2014) (citation omitted).

              In both the May 12, 2021 interlocutory and March 22, 2022

judgments, the circuit court correctly determined that Snowden was precluded

from raising any issue concerning the adequacy of the description in the

conservation easement, including his argument regarding whether a final plat is

necessary. This Court’s 2018 decision determined the description was adequate

and that decision cannot now be relitigated.

              As to any claim not relating to the adequacy of the description,

Snowden was given adequate opportunity to litigate all his claims. Importantly, in

the March 22, 2022 judgment, the circuit court did not dismiss Snowden’s other

claims based on the law of the case but instead determined he had asserted no issue

of material fact relating to any of his remaining claims. See Steelvest, Inc. v.

Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991).6 He was given

6
  It appears from the record that the circuit court granted summary judgment on Snowden’s
claims sua sponte. Despite having argued in briefing that Snowden’s amended complaint should
have been dismissed based on the law of the case doctrine, the City did not formally move for

                                            -14-
ample time to complete the discovery. Blankenship v. Collier, 302 S.W.3d 665,

668 (Ky. 2010) (citation omitted). The record contains numerous notices of

depositions, interrogatories, and requests for the production of documents from

Snowden. The record does not reveal any genuine issue of material fact.

Furthermore, on appeal, Snowden identifies no such issue. Instead, he focuses the

entirety of his argument on the law of the case doctrine. We can only find that the

circuit court properly dismissed his claims.

              Furthermore, the circuit court properly denied summary judgment on

Snowden’s claim of legislative invalidity. He claims the conservation easement is

void because the City did not comply with the procedure for passing ordinances

under KRS 83A.060. In its July 20, 2020 interlocutory order, the circuit court

found that acceptance and approval of a conservation easement do not constitute an

ordinance under KRS 83A.010(11), meaning that the procedures a city must follow

to pass an ordinance do not apply. Snowden again makes no argument contesting

the reasoning of the circuit court.

              An ordinance is “an official action of a city legislative body, which is

a regulation of a general and permanent nature and enforceable as a local law or is

an appropriation of money.” KRS 83A.010(11). A conservation easement is not

summary judgment. Kentucky law discourages sua sponte dismissals. Smith v. Norton
Hospitals, Inc., 488 S.W.3d 23, 35 (Ky. App. 2016) (citation omitted). However, this issue is not
before us.

                                              -15-
an appropriation of money. Although an easement such as the one agreed to by

Snowden and the City is an official action and of a permanent nature, it is not

“general.” Like any easement, a conservation easement is created by and

interpreted as a contract. Vorherr v. Coldiron, 525 S.W.3d 532, 542 (Ky. App.

2017) (citations omitted); see also KRS 382.810(1). As a contract, the easement

binds only the parties thereto – Snowden and the City. See Ping v. Beverly

Enterprises, Inc., 376 S.W.3d 581, 595 (Ky. 2012). Therefore, it cannot be defined

as “general.”

             The easement also is not “enforceable as a local law” under KRS

83A.065. The City cannot cite, fine, or penalize Snowden for violating the

easement. KRS 83A.065(1). A violation would not be a misdemeanor. KRS

83A.065(2). Instead, the circuit court correctly cites section 6 of the easement

itself, which lists remedies available to the City. R. at 30-31. Where Snowden has

not cited any authority contradicting this analysis, we affirm the circuit court’s July

20, 2020 order.

             Next, the circuit court appropriately found that the City’s statements

were not judicial admissions. A judicial admission is “a formal statement

concerning a disputed fact, made by a party during a judicial proceeding, that is

adverse to that party, and that is deliberate, clear, and uncontradicted[.]” Turner v.

C & R Asphalt, LLC, 579 S.W.3d 194, 197 (Ky. App. 2019) (citation omitted).

                                         -16-
“The conclusiveness of a judicial admission should be determined in the light of all

the conditions and circumstances proven in the case.” Reece, 188 S.W.3d at 448

(internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). Such admissions must be

narrowly construed. Id.

             Here, Snowden asserts the City made judicial admissions when

describing the easement, referring to the “sightline” between the Betty Bryan

House and the Ashbrook House. Although these statements were adverse to the

City’s interests, they do not constitute judicial admissions as to the fourth boundary

of the easement. These statements are directly contradicted by the City’s constant

assertion that the easement consists of approximately 100 acres, which is

consistent with the description of the easement and Snowden’s development plan.

Although imprecise, these statements cannot be considered judicial admissions

because they are not uncontradicted.

             Finally, Snowden’s argument that his development plan is not

“binding on him” based on this Court’s decision in Kopser, No. 2001-CA-000232-

MR, is incorrect. In Kopser, this Court affirmed an order of the circuit court which

held an agreed order between the parties “did not prevent Snowden from

proceeding with the typical planning process including seeking modifications or

variances from the original preliminary plat as provided by the rules and

regulations of the Planning Commission.” Id. at 4. This Court described the

                                        -17-
preliminary plat as “illustrative.” Id. at 10. Although Snowden and the City were

parties to Kopser, it is a distinct action from the current matter. Kopser originated

as a challenge by adjacent property owners to the rezoning sought by Snowden and

granted by the city council. Although this Court acknowledged Snowden’s right to

pursue usual planning procedures through the planning commission, the opinion

did not pertain to the conservation easement. Instead, it appears to relate to the

housing development Snowden intended to implement on the remainder of the

property.7

              Here, the circuit court did not limit Snowden’s ability to pursue

changes to his development plan before the planning commission. This action was

immediately preceded by Snowden’s unsuccessful attempt to do so in 2016.

Instead, the court relied upon the plan to determine where the parties intended the

conservation easement to be located. It is appropriate to use extrinsic evidence to

ascertain the parties’ intent where the evidence shows “the circumstances

surrounding execution of the contract, the subject matter of the contract, the

objects to be accomplished, [or] the conduct of the parties.” Vorherr, 525 S.W.3d

at 543 (citations omitted). The development plan is clear evidence of the parties’

7
 Because Kopser arose from a separate circuit court action, the record is not before us.
However, the opinion of this Court references an agreement among the parties stipulating to
various conditions which appear to relate to construction of a subdivision.

                                             -18-
intent when the easement was executed. Nothing in Kopser precludes the court

from relying upon the plan in this manner.

                                  CONCLUSION

             Based on the foregoing, the October 28, 2018, November 9, 2018,

August 9, 2019, July 20, 2020, September 24, 2020, May 12, 2021, March 22,

2022, and April 18, 2022 orders of the Jessamine Circuit Court are affirmed.

Specifically, the circuit court’s reliance on Snowden’s development plan and the

resulting description of the location of the easement contained in its April 18, 2022

amended judgment are affirmed. Furthermore, the court properly dismissed

Snowden’s remaining claims.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEES CITY OF
                                           WILMORE AND JESSAMINE
Carl D. Edwards, Jr.                       COUNTY/CITY OF WILMORE
Will E. Messer                             JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION:
Lexington, Kentucky
                                           Robert L. Gullette, Jr.
Christopher M. Clendenen                   Nicholasville, Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky
                                           Henry E. Smith
                                           Nicholasville, Kentucky

                                        -19-