Way to prevent development

Okay, gonna lay out what I am trying to do, and see if any of you have any ideas to help. I realize state laws may differ, but ideas will still help.

I have been farming an old homestead that has not been farmed in a while, the older lady (87 years old) still lives there. All of her kids want to sell the place off when she goes, or just don`t care. Her and her husband homesteaded the place in 1952, around the same time my grandpa homesteaded, hence the family connection. This ladys entire life has been making the farm what it is, and she cries at the idea of it being broken up. We have been trying to get the land into a farmland trust, that ensures that it will not be developed. The saddest part is it is in a rural, agricultural area with little demand for housing lots, so there would be no money in subdividing, but her kids still think it is a goldmine. She has agreed to sell me the place, on the condition that I place it in the farmland trust to protect it in the future. I have no problem with the idea, but the trust we are dealing with is being very difficult. Here lies the question. Are there any other legal options to protect the ground from future development, that do not require dealing with an established organization? I have no intention of developing it as anything other than a farm, but she wants it protected down the line as well.

A deed with covenant restrictions on all future owners. Can be an assortment of restrictions, IE; only pink barns. never to be subdivided, only pumpkins to be grown--etc.
I have bought land and sold land with covenants.

My first question would be how the covenants are placed in the deed, second, and the one I know will be the first one the lady has, is who will enforce the covenants? I know that many covenants get disregarded because there is no enforcement done, but I would guess that the state would refuse a plat change to subdivide if there are covenants preventing it?

In this part of the country (Tennessee ) you sell the development rights or the lack of called a conversation easement. They actually pay you for the right not to develop. What part of the country are you in?

I am in Alaska, that is exactly what we have been working on. The problems lie in the the elderly gal is not sure she will make it long enough forthe trust to come through, and they are trying to put regulations on the ground that will make it difficult to farm. Restricting any buildings to a 2 acre area, restricting the number of buildings, getting approval before clearing any new fields (66 acres of timber on the property) and other silly things.

This is one of the rare situations where I believe lawers are worth what they charge. In my opinion,whatever you do will be challenged and tested more than once as time rolls by. And the trust "will be broken",it's just a question of how long and when regardless how many lawers draw it up. Rest assured,if you DIY,the inevitable will happen first time it is litigated.
Huh,what's that you say Mr Heard? Yes I know you think a trust can never be broken if it's properly set up but may I remind you of "The Lights On Wriggly Field".

Besides the above,as long as you can keep a few hogs around,yours will be the very last place the developers look at.
As a last resort,do what Uncle Joe says do "[b:3ae1eb5dbc]BUY A SHOOTGUN,,,,Buy a shootgun,,,[/b:3ae1eb5dbc]buy a shotgun. :roll:

Local trust was set up, no restrictions like you mentioned but restrictions that would not allow it to be divided and sold. Heirs would receive revenues. This has gone one for 40 yrs. One heir wanted their money for the property not just the revenue off of it. She hired a group of attorneys. They now own 2 sections of land, the attorneys, that came out of her part but, she broke the trust. One section across the road from me owned by the attorneys. An attorney once told me : “There is not a trust written that can’t be broken”

If you can purchase it and own it I don't think you have to worry about putting it in a trust to stop development, since you'll be the owner and will farm it.

Pat, that is what I am afraid of, the trust is more for the current owners peace of mind and to discourage her children from their gold-digging ways. The only advantage I see to the farmland trust we are dealing with is that they set aside a stewardship fund for legal action against any violations of the conditions of the easement.

You better get cracking with a lawyer, I would bet that the family will not let this happen.

I think she should sell it to you in good faith with
no restrictions. that would be the simplest way and
not hinder your heirs at some future date.

In Virginia, conservation easements are held by an outside party, under whatever agreement they make with the landowner. Usually costs the landowner to set up because the outside organization has costs associated with supervising the agreement for the next many years. How long it takes to set up depends on the organization, several are potentials. Easy enough to find out who could do it fastest. It's a contract between them and the landowner.

An alternative is a deed restriction, which is not enforced other than making the property unattractive to a buyer. It is the legal cloud that hangs over the property. Even legal deed restrictions can be challenged. And not all buyers will pay attention.

We have a third option, joining an Agricultural-Forestal District, which is a voluntary group of landowners who pledge to each other non-development. There is a set term, often 10 years.

The tax situation doesn't change, only the allowed use. My land is in the third option, but for other reasons peculiar to our county government.

Sounds like you should either enter into a sales contract between you and her, or she should pursue a conservation easement. Her heirs would inherit the mortgage she carried for you, salable to any interested buyer.

I'm assuming that there is no zoning prohibition against subdividing the land. If the local taxing authority is interested in non-development (as mine is), they can be a great source of information, particularly about choices for who holds a conservation easement.

BTW, conservation easement contracts are not foolproof. One landowner here thought the property was protected, sold it, and it didn't take long for the buyer to figure out how to get around a key provision. The seller, the county, and the holder of the conservation easement were mad, but nothing they could do about it.

Good luck. Get solid advice about whatever contract comes up.

You need to talk to a lawyer to find our what your options are.

Myself, I'd encourage the mother to work things out with her children and then stay out of it until they do. One or more of the children are probably already looking after mom. Hopefully a will has been filed and an assignment of power of attorney has been fled if there should be a need for it. One of the children may already have the power of attorney for the mom. If you are only hearing one side of the story you may find they already have worked everything out and at 87 the mom maybe confused, is unhappy with the result, or is just lamenting.

The mother and her husband have had sixty years to determine what they wanted to happen to the place after they are gone. It could be that they didn't encourage, couldn't afford, or didn't want any of the children to be involved in the farm until now. If they put off estate planning for this long and their only plan is to let the children work it out after they are gone, then I wouldn't change that now. I certainly wouldn't do anything behind the children's backs that you can't defend in court later.

It's probably to late to make an offer on the farm now without involving the children. You can always purchase the farm from the children when it does goes on the market and then you will be free to do whatever you feel is right with it.

If you do jump into the middle of this now you will likely be seen as an interloper, especially if some of the children still live locally and can tell their side of the story. I do have to wonder if are you actually trying to buy the place cheap from behind the children's backs? I hope not and I do give you the benefit of the doubt, but your question does not rule that possibility out.

Again, talk to a lawyer.

I can't for the life of me see why you'd want to be financially shackled to a trust... Own it free and clear or stay clear. What happens to you in 10 years time if you need to sell and there is no market for land tied up in a trust? Is it worth losing everything you own over this?

Rod

Many of these groups are ripoffs they are actually buying the development rights which they can sell.Also with her being that old expect a lawsuit from her heirs after she passes.

VaTom, she is already in negotiations with the Alaska Farmland Trust for a conservation easement, right now the biggest sticker is they do not want to change the 2% development envelope, which puts a restriction on how much surface area can be developed. It is way too small, and her 3/4 mile driveway takes up half the allotment. I am also beginning to see problmes cropping up in the future with the trust, as they are not being as forward as they could be, and also putting it in the trust interferes with getting financing. I think the next best thing would be the deed restriction, but that only works if the state honors it if someone put in for a subdivision.

Have somebody write up a set of covenants and restrictions that
spell out what can and cannot be done to the land. Have it
notarized and register it with the register of deeds or whatever it is
called in your area but it should be recorded with the deed at the
courthouse. Whenever the property is sold it will show up in the
title insurance. Somebody has to enforce it though if the time ever
comes. Probably could be gotten around but will slow things for a
while anyway.

Around here it is the zoning office that would stop it if it didn't
meet the covenants and restriction as far as replating or use
changes would go. As far as 'pink barns' or that type of restriction,
the person filing the restrictions would have to enforce that. I
wrote up my own set of covenants for the subdivision I did and as
the developer I am responsible for their enforcement. Once the
development is full, I turn all responsibility over to the homeowners
who can form an association and enforce the rules. Little different
in your case but basically the same way of doing it.

All she needs to do is put DEED covenants and restrictions on the deed you get. When you sign for the new deed you are agreeing to the covenants and restrictions listed in the new deed.

This is a very common practice is sub divided land. The covenants and restrictions just can't be racially restricting. You see some old deeds that state the land can't be sold to blacks as an example. Common ones that are seen are no junk yards or other nuisance businesses. Another common one is all homes must have a permenate foundation (that make it so no mobile homes can be put there)

The land trust out fits are a rip off. The one ones to even think about are run buy the state government's.

So buy the land and give her a "life estate" on the house and a small tract of land for her yard/garden/drive way etc. She can stay right where she is at until she dies. She will know the land is protected once it transfers with the deed covenants and restrictions.

Any good real estate attorney will know exactly how to do this. It is a very common practice.

The deed covenants are sounding like the best alternative, I`ll have to run them by her before I know what she will like. This trust was sounding like a good thing, no money required from our end, and they were supposed to not interfere with any farming activities. Turns out they just listened to all my objections (as the farm manager and the owners representative), then ignored them and were going to try to get the owner to sign without me there to read the paper (she has poor eyesight). Not necesarily out, but if I can not get financing with the easement on the place, that`ll seal the deal.

Dont have much help, but - in wht world is development land a gold mine, and farmland isn't today? Farmland that used to go 2-4,000 bucks is bringing 7-12,000 bucks now.

My county has really cracked down on building, if it is farm land they want it to remain farmland. A John Deere dealership was turned down because they wanted to develop a 40 of farm land, and the big coop in the neighboring county put up a railroad terminal elevator, but they have to plant any undeveloped ground to crops to get the permits, no acres of worthless mowed lawn.

They do take farmland seriously around here.

paul

Alaska. This state has always taken a bass-ackwards approach to development, and despite the fact that spec houses sit empty in many places, more are being built. Half the people who live here insist you cannot farm in Alaska, so why not subdivide? Cleared farmland up here is going for around $500 an acre, with agricultural covenants already in place. Biggest reasons the place I am on is worth something is because most ag land around here is 1500 acre plots or bigger, it still has timber on it for building material, and I have a family connection to the place, and it makes the current owner so danged happy that I am farming her place.

Some of the finest farmland in our county is
now 1 and 2 acre "Estates", while marginal land
is not desireable. Even the School district is
trying to stop young "Breeding" famlies from
moving in and causing need for another school.

Why would you want to buy land that someone else put restrictions on. You might change your mind later and want to do something different.
Why restrict your self? Government can do enough of that.

I don`t have a problem restricting myself, because I know there is plenty of unfarmable ground to build houses on, I do not like cutting up farm fields and building houses on them as a retirement plan, it seems like a giant dead-end for our society. More people need more farms, not the other way around.