C2—Lancaster Fannins, Saturday, January 29,1983 Farmland preservation sparks ag business seminar By Joyce Bupp annual York Agri-Business Staff Correspondent seminar, hosted Jan. 20 at Avalong YORK —ln the last ten years, Farms restaurant by the York York County has lost 820 farms, a Chamber of Commerce and the decline of 25 percent. At the same Extension service. Theme for the time, the 60,000 farms across day-long session was agricultural Pennsylvania diminished by land preservation. 12,000. An “ex-farm girl,” Com- Still, food supplies have missioner Peiffer related why remained constant, Cumberland elected officials must be concerned County Commissioner Rosemarie with the continuing loss of far- C. Peiffer told an audience of more mland. than one hundred attending the “Current farmland preservation Setting ag land aside in an “industrial district”, with ap propriate zoning, is the preservation technique adopted by Miilcreek Township in Lebanon County. David Schreffler, a member of Millcreek's planning and zoning board, outlined that municipality's unusual approach to' saving prime farm ground. Are ag areas for you? YORK Interested in preser ving your back forty from the encroachments of housing developers and the ensuring noise pollution-odor neighborhood problems that could follow? Consider establishing a volun tary “Ag Area,” suggests Richard Fox, Capital region Extension agent for community develop ment. Fox outlined the legislation and procedural steps during York’s Agri-Business seminar. Act 43, the Agricultural Area Security Law, provides the enabling legislation allowing farmowners to voluntarily establish Ag Areas, if approved, within their municipality. Benefits of ag area enrollment include a limit on local regulations, lowered chances of land-taking by eminent domain, and possible modifications of certain rules by state agencies. Optional development-right purchases could possibly be offered for acreages included in ag areas in the future, if such a program was established and funded. Landowners representing the minimum 500 acre-size must voluntarily make the ag area proposal to their local governing municipality, using proposal forms available from the state Depart ment of Agriculture. Land to be considered for enrollment must be used for the production of crops, livestock or livestock products. The total 500 or more acres do not have to be ad jacent, and could likely even cross municipal boundaries, if all local governments involved granted approval. A published notice of the proposal allows 30 days for public comment on the ag area ap plication, during which time other landowners may request inclusion in the set-aside area. Local municipalities then have 45 days in which to review the voluntary proposal, which must be studied by both the planning and zoning board, and an ag area advisory committee drawn from municipal residents. Included on that committee are to be three farmers, one interested citizen and one local official. Taken into consideration during review of the proposal are such factors as types of soil, climate, topography, farm improvements within the area and predicted trends in agriculture. Visuals available for additional in formation are Soil Conservation Service soil maps, ag census statistics, and land use surveys. A public hearing follows the review, to allow additional public comment on the proposal. Within 180 days from the initial ap plication for an ag area, action must be taken by the municipality to either grant or deny the far mland preserve. Appeals on the final decision must be made to the county’s common pleas court within 30 days of the municipality’s action. For additional information, or for copies fo the ag area proposal form, contact the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Office of Planning & Research, 2301 North Cameron Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110. J.B. J A York Agri-Business seminar panel of farmland preservationists puzzled over a recent report by the president’s commission on housing that suggested saving farmland could create future housing shortages. Clockwise from bottom left are Amos Funk, Bill Conn. Leon Lankford and Gilbert Malone. legislation still hasn’t changed or halted the loss of farmland,” she warned. With land development slowed by economic conditions, and farm incomes remaining stagnant, Peiffer suggested that this is a critical period for taking action to preserve remaining prime farm ground. A panel representing various interests in ag land preservation shared views and experience, and speculated on the future of preserving productive farm ground. Panelists were Amos Funk, fanner and chairman of Lancaster County’s Agricultural Preservation Committee; attorney Gilbert MaKie; Dover Township manager Ceon Lankford; and William Conn, chief of land use and development controls for the York County Planning Commission. Funk, a recognized leader in agriculture land ‘preservation, admitted that his ideas have changed with his involvement over the past 13 years. Today, said Funk, his earlier goals to have ag land saved through agricultural districts, and then later through the purchase of development rights, no longer seem viable. ”1 just don’t think it’s possible to save great amounts of land by the purchase of development rights,” claimed the Lancaster vegetable producer and retail marketer. Funk’s altered opinions on development-right purchases is due to the huge volumes of money needed to buy up such rights on any great quantity of land. Neighboring Maryland is the only state committed to large scale development-right pur chases. And, at the current rate of their funding, paying $l,OOO per acre for those rights, Funk said it would take 200 years to buy up the estimated 1.5 million acres of prime Maryland farmland, or a century if the purchase rate could somehow be doubled. Instead, he said he now leans more toward the“Millcreek Township” concept, taken by that rural Lebanon County municipality, where agriculture is treated as an industry and productive grounds set aside in an industrial district. Attorney Gilbert Malone has worked for many years with developing farmland preservation regulations in several southern York County townships. He ex pressed his chief concern, not solely for preserving productive soils, but for preserving it in viable-sized tracts. He cited what he sees as three (Turn to Page C 3) Cumberland County commissioner Rosemarie C. Pieffer told York Agri-Business seminar participants that state legislation has had little effect toward changing or halting the |i 'of n r! 'f; ’ll land A featured York Agri-Business seminar speaker was Dr. Samuel Smith, dean of Penn State's college of agriculture. Dr, Smith was welcomed to the annual confab by co-chairman Bill Fleet. •fc, ... '"'■V )
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers