Conservation Easements
Conservation Subdivisions
Conservation Easement/Subdivision hybrids.
Not sure why, but this seems to be the new wave at my office now.?ÿ
Even have one place with three different ones.
That one got reconfigured from two into three trading and adding parcels so there is Conservation Easement #1, 2 and 3.?ÿ
I have to say it gets very confusing at times.?ÿ
Indeed.
Charge accordingly.
?ÿ
????
Conservation Subdivision...that's a new one for me. Do explain.
Conservation Subdivision...that's a new one for me. Do explain.
Visualize a golf course community; but the actual course is protected community forest, wetlands, stream bottoms, meadows, ponds, etc. with a trail/path system through it?ÿ
@james-fleming Okay, that makes sense. But why break out the separate parts? Do upland and wetland folks duke it out over credits? Do those land hungry trail/path folks think they can just go wherever??ÿ
Seriously though, it must have something to do with credits in highly scrutinized districts. In all respect, that sounds like something one would find in CA or MN and seems a little over the top.
Conservation easements have been around Fl. Plats since the??70??s. ?????ÿ
Here's the briefest of descriptions from a land trust that accepts such easements and donations. It seems that landowners with holdings in now-desirable areas for development can preserve the nature of their property while reducing estate taxes and property taxes.
I have only casual knowledge, but aren't there horror stories in the Rockies of developers driving up land values to the point that current owners couldn't afford to keep their property? Like Aspen or famous ones in Idaho? This seems like a way to protect their interets.
https://threeriverslandtrust.org/land-owners/tax-incentives/
The examples I've seen around here are straight capitalism.?ÿ Even going back to the early 70's when my parents bought the house I grew up in, wooded lots got a premium over open lots.?ÿ So if you can take a 100 acre parcel and get the planning powers who love the word "green" that be to let you keep the same density on the footprint by building on smaller lots with open space you're going to cash in with the savings on infrastructure, reducing the storm water management, etc.?ÿ Then jack up the price 20% and sell the houses to Volvo driving Karens and...cha-ching$$$$.?ÿ (Disclaimer - I've been actively out of the residential land development end of surveying since 2012, ymmv)
In essence it's a way to skirt subdivision statutes. Little pods for the houses and then "common areas", most I've done have common areas being ranch lands. Then to allow it you sign over your rights to the conservation group whoever they might be. There are as many conservation easement groups, land trusts, ect as stars in the sky.?ÿ
Development is controlled by zoning, in Ag zone you can be restricted to a minimum lot size of 35-160Acres depending on the county you live in. To get smaller than that you need to have an exception that is written into the statutes. Conservation subdivisions not being one of them,,,,,,,but hey, who cares.?ÿ
aren't there horror stories in the Rockies of developers driving up land values to the point that current owners couldn't afford to keep their property?
It's not the developers who drive up prices; it's the people who want to live there.?ÿ The developers are just responding to market demand.?ÿ They may direct the geographic focus of that demand some, but without buyers there aren't any developers.
Excellent replies.?ÿ
?ÿ
