David Birdsall
(Resource Management Service, Inc.); Robert Gibson (King and Queen); Rick
Allen, Robert Hudgins (Gloucester); Andy Lacatell (The Nature Conservancy); Pat
Tyrrell (Tidewater Resource Conservation and Development Council); Mike
Anderberg, Lorna Anderberg, Mary Ann Krenzke (Friends of Dragon Run); Jack
Miller (Middlesex); Dorothy Miller (Essex); David Fuss (MPPDC)
The Land Use Policy
Audit project got started with an introductory meeting on April 7. Paradigm
Design is using feedback during the meeting to guide analysis of the land use
policies in the four counties. The May SAMP Advisory Group meeting will be used
as the first work session during which Paradigm Design will reveal their
findings.
Friends of Dragon
Run are holding an open house at Rose Hill in Essex County, the home of the
Prue Davis and her mother, Mrs. Hundley. Tours of the main house and garden
shed and hayrides down to the Dragon Run will be offered.
Andy Lacatell
reported that Senators Allen and Warner and Representative Davis wrote letters
of support for the proposed funding in the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Legacy
Program for acquisition and purchase of easements on working timberland in the
Dragon Run watershed. Congress continues to debate the budget.
David Fuss
described conservation easements as one of the voluntary tools that are
available for land conservation. There are several options for conservation
easements. First, landowners can donate permanent conservation easements and
are eligible for federal and state tax benefits. Second, landowners can sell
conservation easements such as in a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)
program. Third, easements can be either permanent or for a fixed term (e.g. 10,
20, or 30 years), although only permanent easements are eligible for tax
benefits. Finally, there are a number of agricultural programs that offer
reimbursement for easements (e.g. Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program) when landowners take cropland out of production or
institute Best Management Practices (BMPs).
It was noted that conservation
easements are potentially complementary to zoning ordinance regulations because
they can help to attain the goals of the Comprehensive Plan (e.g. preserve open
space). Local governments could provide an endorsement for the concept of using
conservation easements to preserve open space.
There was
discussion of whether the SAMP and watershed management plan should provide the
“how” for conservation easements. There
were conflicting views about conservation easements. Some think that they
should definitely be used, while others think that they are not for everybody.
One problematic
issue about conservation easements was property taxes. The question was raised
as to what happens when properties are reassessed. Who pays the taxes and the
rising costs associated with reassessments?
Again, a
distinction was made between the donation of a conservation easement and the
purchase of development rights. When donating a conservation easement, a
landowner voluntarily extinguishes the development rights attached to the
property. When development rights are purchased through an easement program, an
entity (e.g. local government) actually owns the development rights.
Mr. Miller
indicated that he would check with the Middlesex County Commissioner of the
Revenue about how easements are valued, since Middlesex is undertaking a
reassessment right now. Counties are required to reassess property at least
every four years. The Code of Virginia requires localities to acknowledge the
value of a conservation easement.
It was noted that
the purchase of an easement could be a tool for splitting cash among heirs
instead of needing to sell land to pay estate taxes and split the estate.
Pat Tyrrell
explained the work the Tidewater RC&D’s Farmland Preservation Steering
Committee chaired by Prue Davis. Market forces have put increasing pressure on
farmers and they need a large agricultural land base to remain viable. Encroaching
development puts pressure on farming because of higher land values, increasing
pressure to sell the land, and a misunderstanding of farming and farming
practices. Farmers need tools to keep their land so that they can remain
viable. Often, farmers cannot donate easements, but they may be interested in
programs for purchasing easements. There are also a number of programs, for
example in the Farm Bill and the Highway Bill, that offer purchase of
easements. It was noted that another trend is going to ever-larger farms
requiring ever an ever-larger land base to remain viable.
Mr. Gibson
indicated that he was personally not comfortable with the idea of conservation
easements being “forever.” Maybe other options are appropriate for some people
who are not sure that they want to limit their future options permanently.
Ms. Krenzke asked
where information on this topic might be found. Mr. Lacatell provided some
handouts for attendees. He highlighted a Conservation Forestry easement in southwestern
Virginia where The Nature Conservancy (TNC) holds an easement in exchange for
managing the timber in sustainable fashion. TNC then pays 4% on the value of
the timber to the landowner. The timber is reassessed every ten years. The
landowner extinguishes the development rights for the term of the easement
(e.g. 10 years). It was noted that this could be a good option for someone who
is at retirement age because it provides a steady stream of income. This is
similar to timber leases offered by timber companies.
Mr. Hudgins
indicated that he did not see how easements would benefit him as a landowner. He
does not want to sell or develop his land. The primary problem is greed and the
primary agent for greed is land development. Land developers have buying power.
Protecting the Dragon Run is the goal and land ownership is the key. For
example, hunt clubs should pool their money and buy land. However, even
conservation-minded landowners want something in return for donating/selling an
easement. They need some insurance on their investment of land (e.g. emergencies).
Zoning can be a tool for land conservation (e.g. cluster zoning). If easements
save one parcel of land, then it would be worth using them as one of the tools
to preserve the land and traditional land uses. It was noted that often heirs
to family land don’t have an interest in the land, but want to split their
share of the estate. Easements are designed to determine the outcome of the
future. For example, an easement on a 150-foot buffer won’t change, but the
owner can keep the development rights on the rest of the parcel as insurance
for emergency situations.
Upon request from
Anne Ducey-Ortiz of Gloucester, David Fuss brought up the idea of cluster
zoning that is designed to address the idea the Robert Hudgins brought up about
developing part of a parcel and leaving the rest of the parcel undeveloped. In
cluster zoning, the same number of parcels allowed under existing zoning could be
developed. However, these parcels will be allowed at a higher density and limited
to only part of the original parcel. The remainder of the parcel will remain in
its existing use as open space.
To illustrate the
point, Mr. Fuss distributed a handout from Final Report of the Southern Watershed
Area Rural Area Preservation Program at the Hampton Roads Planning District
Commission. The diagram illustrated that a 600-acre parcel could be subdivided
into 40 15-acre lots. In cluster zoning, the same 600-acre parcel would allow
40 homes on 0.75-acre lots, while the remaining 95% of the original parcel is
left in open space. This area could continue to be farmed or timbered, or it
could be more of a park-like setting, usually under conservation easement.
It was noted that
this approach could have conflicts with other requirements in zoning or
subdivision ordinances. It was also noted that people actually like the idea of
conservation subdivision, as opposed to more conventional development styles.
Mr. Fuss asked the
group to give the idea some consideration.
Mr. Fuss also
brought up the idea of access framed within the context of private property
rights versus publicly owned waters. Indeed, there are frustrations from both
landowners and visitors/recreationists alike. Landowners are concerned about
trespassing and damage to their property. Visitors are frustrated at the
limited public access in the watershed. This represents a use conflict.
Mr. Hudgins noted
that most landowners are willing to grant access if permission is sought in
advance. On the other hand, they don’t want too much access. Mr. Anderberg
noted that access is somewhat self-regulating due to the difficult conditions
that exist (e.g. obstacles, navigating).
One alternative is
to provide better land-based access. Friends of Dragon Run has developed a
short 200-yd trail equipped with benches from which to view recently installed
nesting boxes for prothonotary warblers. This site is listed on the VA Dept. of
Game and Inland Fisheries Birding and Wildlife Trail. Also, the Chesapeake Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve now owns a 120-acre parcel that will offer
managed access for educational and research purposes.
The group felt that
there is a need for managed access, but they did not want any public boat
ramps. Hazards exist between Rt. 603 and U.S. 17 and should be advertised as
potentially dangerous. Also, membership in hunt clubs has been suggested as an
idea for gaining access. In general, limited access should prevail.
David handed out a
draft outline and action plans for a watershed management plan for review. The
next SAMP Advisory Group meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 13 from 6-9 PM
and will serve as the first work session for the land use policy audit with the
land use consultant. The next Dragon Run Steering Committee will be held on
Wednesday, May 14 at 7:30 PM. The meeting was adjourned.