APB agenda 041603 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 I Pape 2 farmland preservation report March 2003 STATE EASEMENTS Termination either tough or impossible Continued from page 1 have to be approved by the MALPF board, state secretary and state treasurer. If final approval is reached, the landowner would pay for an ap- praisal ordered by the Foundation, and would be able to pay "the difference between the fair market value and the agricultural value of the land," or, the easement value. If the request for termination is denied, landowners under current law must wait five years before requesting again. The NMPF board is facing requests for termination of easements in high growth areas. Pennsylvania, Delaware share 25 -year clauses Two other states allow landowners a way out of their easements after 25 years. In Pennsylvania "there's a stipulation that if a farmer for some particular reason at 25 years or more decides he can't farm any longer, he can ask to be let out of the easement," said Wayne Grube of the state Farmland Preservation Bureau. Grube said the program, created in 1989, has not yet established regulations for the provision. "The only reason it would be considered is if development has surrounded the farm. But even then, you still could do vegetables." In Delaware, an easement can be terminated after 25 years "if a farmer can prove to the Foundation's satisfaction no one can farm that land anymore," said program communications director Cathy Mesick. The program's first easements were com- pleted in 1996. Beginning in 2021, if any ease- ments are allowed to be terminated, "the Founda- tion would get the development value," in cash, she said. State program `buy -back' status Allow buy -back after 25 years Maryland Pay current easement value Delaware Pay current development value Pennsylvania No regulations Extreme case escape clause Kentucky Must petition circuit court Connecticut Escape /eminent domain only Mass. Extreme case escape clause Ohio Escape /eminent domain only No provision New Jersey Rhode Island source: Interviews with program administrators, Feb. 03, and regulatory documents "Designed to be rare or never" In Kentucky, where just over 10,000 acres have been enrolled in a program that just com- pleted its second round of applications, landown- ers "must petition circuit court and show farming is not viable, that it's surrounded by develop- ment," said program manager Brent Frazier. "If they are convinced, you can buy out by paying back, plus interest, or you can have appraisals - the court decides." In Ohio, another program just underway in the last few years, an extinquishment clause "is designed to be between rare and never" that a farm could be bought back for development, said program director Howard Wise. If an eminent domain situation were to take a farm or part of it, Wise said. In any case, "we would in effect get the development value. There's no monetary gain for someone wanting to come in and develop." "Very cumbersome and involved..." Connecticut's program takes a tough stance on the permanance of its ag program easements. Continued on page 3