Orange County NC Website
Page 2 farmland preservation report April 2004 <br />New laws tweak <br />Maryland programs <br />Continued from page I <br />agreements, but the new law calls for a plan from the <br />Foundation to establish a 25 -year term. The law <br />takes effect Oct. 1. <br />Along with the introduction of installment <br />purchase agreements to the state program, another <br />new law will allow the Foundation to make grants to <br />localities that operate their own installment purchase <br />programs. Easements under the grant program will <br />be co -held by the county and the Foundation. This <br />law takes effect July 1. <br />Another bill, HB 777, ends the program's 25- <br />year easement termination provision on Sept. 30, <br />and for all easements purchased on or before that <br />date, creates a hearing and appeals process. Coun- <br />ties are establishing their own review procedures. <br />Landowners who choose to appeal a denial of <br />termination will go directly to the county circuit court <br />where the property is located. The new law holds <br />that all easements purchased. on or after Oct. 1, <br />2004.will simply "be held by the Foundation in <br />perpetuity " <br />Another new law, HB 164, will prevent ap- <br />proved lots from being transferred for a period of <br />five years after a nontransferable building permit is <br />farmland preservation report <br />is published monthly exceptforAugust &December by <br />Bowers Publishing, Inc. <br />900 LaGrange Road <br />Street, Maryland 21154 <br />Telephone: 410 692 -2708 Email: bowerspub @hotmail.com <br />www.fannlandpreservationrepoit.com <br />Deborah Bowers <br />Editor &Publisher <br />Tom Daniels <br />Senior Contributing Editor <br />Robert J. Heuer <br />Contributing Editor <br />Subscription rate of $205 includes index & hotline services. ISSN: <br />1050 -6373. Copyright 02004 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. All rights <br />reserved. Reproduction in any form, or electronic forwarding of this <br />material requires permission from the publisher. <br />certified by the Foundation. The transfer prohibition <br />can be waived in cases of foreclosure. <br />Last year the Foundation altered its owner's and <br />child's lot rules, restricting the number of lots ac- <br />cording to parcel size, with a maximum of three. <br />Prior law, for the first 24 years of the program, <br />allowed up to 10 total lots for owners and children. <br />New law also allows landowners to opt, instead, for <br />one subdividable and transferrable lot. <br />Passage of HB 770 allows the Foundation to <br />consider allowing more than one tenant house per <br />100 acres (if compelling need is shown), but the <br />Foundation will now have a say in the size and <br />location ofthe dwellings. <br />Under HB 820 land trusts no longer have to co- <br />hold easements with or convey fee title to a govern- <br />ment agency in order to be exempt from recordation <br />tax. The bill also will authorize the Department of <br />Natural Resources to accept donated easements, <br />until now the exclusive domain of the Maryland <br />Environmental Trust, and a move MET opposed. <br />Nick Williams, acting director at MET, said the <br />quasi - governmental board, created in 1967, felt it <br />was best to keep "a clear delineation of who takes <br />donated and purchased easements.-MET has <br />traditionally been a unique destination of choice for <br />donated easements." <br />MET will now enter into an agreement with <br />DNR "about instances where they would like to <br />acquire an easement through donation." <br />One bill that did not pass would have allowed <br />easement donors to transfer (sell) income tax credits <br />allowed under Maryland law for land conservation. <br />According to Nick Williams, this would have <br />allowed persons whose incomes were not sufficient <br />to take advantage of the credit to sell the credit to a <br />third party - an individual or a corporation. While <br />the idea was well received, the state comptroller <br />indicated "making it a refundable credit, with a tax <br />refund check, would be a better option," with less <br />administrative burden, Williams said. <br />"So we were hopeful the comptroller's enthusi- <br />asm would carry the day, but it didn't. Nevertheless, <br />it established a foothold to continue the discussion <br />next year." <br />Contacts: Nick Williams, 410 514 -7900. <br />