Discussionspublic

Environmental Due Diligence

This is a public Forum  publicRSS

Topic

    JenW
    Is farmland a "developed use"?
    Topic posted December 14, 2011 by JenWMember, last edited January 19, 2012
    434 Views, 5 Comments
    Title:
    Is farmland a "developed use"?
    Content:

    Regarding the AAI requirement for property history research back to 1940 or the "first developed use," whichever occurred first, would farming (i.e., row crop production) be considered a "developed use?"  I'm talking about land with no barns, machine sheds, roads, or other structures.  My vote is no, but would like to hear your opinions.

    Comment

     

    • Tom Speight
      posted December 15, 2011 by Tom SpeightElite Contributor

      I don't consider it to be a developed use, but I attempt to characterize what the more recent agricultural use was (e.g. orchards, or the tobacco farms we used to have all down the CT river valley here in MA).

      One of my reasons for this came out of data failure.... after a certain point all I have to go on is old USGS maps, Richards Maps, county atlases, and maps that unlike Sanborns show non-developed areas; like the plat maps Joe Burley talks about in another thread, these show buildings to variable degrees of detail but often don't distinguish between forest, farmlands, etc.

      The other reason is simple practicality.  I work in New England.  If agriculture is counted as a developed use, then I have to go all the way back to the early 1600s (as a historical nugget to illustrate the timescale, this is the reign of King Charles I) in order to comply with ASTM requirements, and quite frankly even if I wanted to I couldn't do so because the info usually just isn't there, and the worst you're likely to find is lead bullets in the ground from King Phillip's War. 

      Also, as a risk issue, prior to the late 19th Century when certain pesticides came into use (most notoriously lead arsenate, paris green, etc) agriculture was essentially all-organic-- what came out of a cow one year was fertilizer the next. 

    • Show/Hide Replies
      geochemistry
      posted December 15, 2011 by geochemistryMember

       Check definitions 3.2.12 commercial real estate..."This term includes but is not limited to undeveloped real property and real property used for industrial, retail, office, agricultural, other commercial, medical, or educational purposes..."  If it was tilled, plowed, cleared of brush/vegetation, or other alteration for agricultural use, it was developed.  If it was fenced only, and there was no alterations to the natural landform, I wouldn't consider it developed.

      Remember too, that if you can reasonably show the development for farming was not interrupted by other commercial uses, you don't need to take the review back before to the first land patent.

      • JenW
        posted December 16, 2011 by JenWMember

        Thank you.  I think your reply clearly shows farmed land IS a developed use.  Take note all:  we should be identifying a data gap prior to the earliest resource we have available if we believe the land was being farmed!  And by farmed we mean tilled/planted, not cattle grazing.

         

        Geochemistry, please clarify your last sentence.  What is a land patent?  I am not familiar with that term.

    • geochemistry
      posted December 16, 2011 by geochemistryMember

       The wiki definitions is,"A land patent is evidence of right, title, and/or interest to a of land, usually granted by a central, federal, or state government to an individual or private company", this was the way land was distributed in Colonial times, even in Texas, New Mexico, and much of the west.

      Have a great Christmas holiday and a prosperus New Year!

    • Scott
      posted December 20, 2011 by ScottSuper Contributor

      I think the following is more definitive than the commercial real estate definition is:

      Section 8.3.2 Uses of the Property - All obvious uses of the property shall be identified from the present back to the property's first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier.....For purposes of 8.3.2, the term "developed use" includes agricultural uses and placement of fill dirt...".  This section of the standard also addresses TomSpeight's comment regarding properties developed back into the 1700s.

      There is no definition of what constitutes agricultural use, so I would argue that cattle grazing IS an agricultural use, and therefore a developed use.  I myself would argue against geochemistry's statement that if the land was fenced with no alterations of the landform, it's not developed. A fence is an improvement, and may be an indication of another land use.  Even if that use is only grazing of livestock, that's agricultural, and again a developed use.  I don't mean to say that this would lead to an REC, but it is historical development of the property that I believe deserves at least a passing mention. 

      If it was agricultural land in the earliest available resource, then yes, this is a data gap, but probably not a significant one.  You're rarely going to find a piece of property that was farmed in 1970 but was a gas station/dry cleaner/industrial plant in 1940.  Far more likely that agriculture was the first developed use, even if you're not able to indicate when it began.  Especially if you can establish that it was ag in 1970 and ag in 1940, there's very little chance that it was going to be otherwise developed prior to that...but you need to be able to articulate that in your report in order to explain why the data gap is not significant.