IS Lancaster Farming, Saturday, November 24,1979
Deed restriction plan
(Continued from Page I)
implementing the provisions
of the Act could be adopted
unless authorized by a
resolution adopted by a
majority of the county
commissioners.
The commissioners could
be approached by a group of
farmers or agricultural
leaders who would suggest
an area worth preserving for
fanning.
If the commissioners
agree, they would hold a
hearing. Anyone who op
posed the idea could speak at
the hearing.
HB 1983 provides for
establishment of a County
Agricultural Preserve
Board.
It would consist of not
more than nine members
appointed by the County
Commissioners, at least
three of whom would be
actively engaged in or
recently retired from active
farming.
One member would be a
county commissioner, two
would be municipal officials.
The recorder of deeds also
would be represented as an
ex-officio member of the
board.
Commission members
would serve staggered terms
of four years and would be
removable only for cause.
They would serve without
compensation, except for
expense money.
HB 1983 would require a
map and legal description of
each county ag preserve
area to be filed in the office
of the Board and in the office
of the Recorder of Deeds.
Section 8 of the bill says
“no transfer or conveyance
of an interest in land situated
within an agricultural
preserve area shall be valid
and no deed therefor
recorded until a copy of the
contract providing for such
transfer or conveyance is
submitted to the Board by a
party thereto and no such
transfer or conveyance shall
be valid or recorded for a
period of 30 days thereafter.
“Whenever a contract is
executed for the sale of an
interest in land situated
within an agricultural
preserve area, the seller or
purchaser of said interest
shall submit a certified copy
of the contract to the
Board,” the bill says.
If the Board fails to make
a written binding offer to
acquire the land within 45
days following receipt of the
contract, the transfer of the
land will not be affected by
the bill.
But HB 1983 does allow the
Board to acquire the mterest
of the purchaser of a
property on behalf of the
county, by making an offer
which will exceed the
contract price by $1 within 45
days following submission of
the contract.
Section 10 demands “The
Board shall immediately
subject said land to a
restrictive covenant limiting
it to agricultural use.”
It also would allow persons
owning land situated within
an agricultural preserve
area to voluntarily subject
their land to a restrictive
covenant which would keep
the land in farming.
Section 10c would allow
any person who voluntarily
subjects land to a restrictive
covenant to apply to the Ag
Preserve Board prior to the
recording of the restriction
for compensation for the
difference in value of land, if
any, after the restriction is
recorded.
The county would not be
required to compensate
anyone for any piece of
property. This would
prevent a group from getting
together and bidding up the
price of a property just to
collect a big compensation.
Funk said he would like to
see a five percent bonus paid
on the purchase price of a
new farm if the buyer pin > he
land into an ag distru I
The monej would help the
buyer with the down
payment. And, Funk said, it
would represent a bargain
for the county.
The county could gel a 100
acre farm which sold for
$4OOO an acre into the
program for $20,000 (five
percent of $400,000). Others
have advocated a two per
cent figure.
If the county were to
purchase a farm the Ag
Board would be required to
offer to sell the county in
terest to the original pur
chaser at a price equal to
that paid by the county.
Second option would be
offered to any person leasing
the land at the tune of the
sale. If the lesee turned down
the offer within 45 days the
Board could sell the county
interest m the land at public
sale.
If the Board were unable
to sell the land, HB 1983
would allow the Board to
lease the land for one year.
The bill also exempts the
county’s purchase of any
property from the two
percent real estate transfer
tax.
Advantages for those in
the program are spelled out
m Sections 12 through 16.
They include preferential
tax assessments at
agricultural value, rather
than development value
Farmers would be
protected from any agency
of the Commonwealth or
public utility exercising
power of eminent domam
without the approval of the
Board.
HB 1983 would not allow a
condemnation unless the
Board fmds there is no
reasonable alternative, that
the public good served by
Drainage Pays High Returns COMP A RE
Investment Annual Return
Even with the conservative fig-
FarmSS' ures shown here. 't’s obvious that
Farm Land 11 % land drainage should top farmers’
Bonds 6 S lists of investment priorities.
77
V COCALICO EQUIPMENT CO.
DRAINAGE & EXCAVATING
RD #3, DENVER, PA 17517
u Jeimiatioii oulwughs
anj adverse impact upon the
ag preserve and that the
purpose can not be served by
condemnation of other land
situated within or outside the
ag preserve
No local political body
could enact laws or or
dinances within a district
which would restrict or
regulate ag reserve use
unless the regulations bear a
direct relationship to public
health or safety.
Penalties for violation of
the provisions of the act also
are included.
Section 18 says
“provisions of this Act shall
not apply to any transfer or
conveyance of any interest
in land by the owner thereof
to a member of his or her
immediate family unless
there is a change in the use
of the land such that it is no
longer m agricultural use ”
The section says nothing
about a farmer selling the
land to his neighbor. “We
could improve the language
there,” Funk says.
At present, the Lancaster
County group is seeking
support on a local basis.
They are talking to township
supervisors and local farm
groups.
While Pennsylvania
Farmers’ Association did
not say it would support the
proposal it said it would not
come out against it, Funk
said he was told by PFA.
Individual leaders in both
the Grange and PFA have
indicated interest in the
program, Funk said
A similar program has
been tried m France.
Charles Little, President
of the American Land
Forum, said of the French
program: “The very
existence of this kind of
★ We Stock Heavy Grade Tubing which
Exceeds SCS Specifications. In sizes 4",
6", 8", 10" and 12".
★ Also Pipe And Fittings For Tile Outlet
Terraces.
me< nanism tends to stabilize
farm areas”
Funk admitted the
program is not as voluntary
as it could be
But he said if it is too
voluntary it is no good
either. He cited Maryland’s
system which he said is a
good program but has one
problem.
Should a farmer, under a
completely voluntary
program, restrict his land to
farming and all of his
around him sell
Emerson Citizenship
award presented
J. Gordon Warfield, Marriottsville (Howard
County) is the 1979 recipient of the “Dorothy
Emerson 4-H Citizenship Award”. The recipient of
the award is selected for support of the 4-H
program in a way that reflects the spirit of service
embodied by Miss Emerson since the beginning of
4-H in Maryland Miss Emerson, the first leader of
a 4-H program for girls in the state, was named
State Girls Club Leader m 1923 and has remained
an active supporter of the youth organization. A
Silver Spring (Montgomery County) resident, she
Is still an active supporter of 4-H activities for
youth. Mrs. Betty Bull (left), Baltimore, presenting
the award for Miss Emerson, was one of the first 4-
H members in Maryland.
out to commercial uses,
there is no way the man can
either sell out to go farming
elsewhere or get away from
the development.
The program has to cover
a broad area to protect all
the individuals as well as the
group, Funk said.
The proposed HB 1983 has
been assigned printer’s
number 2493.
It was referred this week
to the House Agriculture
Committee.
PH: 215-267-3808