SNOW HILL – County officials approved plans to seek Rural Legacy Area funding as well as an expansion of eligible lands this week.
On Tuesday, the Worcester County Commissioners voted 4-3 to approve an application for $2,076,000 in Rural Legacy Area (RLA) funding from the state. The application includes proposed expansions of the Dividing Creek RLA and the Coastal Bays RLA.
“I think it’s a golden opportunity,” Commissioner Bud Church said. “I think if we don’t approve this it will be a loss to the county.”
According to staff, state-designated RLAs enable property owners to apply for conservation easements that restrict development on their property in exchange for compensation. The program lets property owners maintain ownership of the land but ensures that the land will remain rural. The program is funded by Program Open Space and general obligation bonds from the state’s capital budget.
Along with this year’s request for funding, Worcester County is seeking an expansion of each of its two RLAs. Staff proposed expanding the Dividing Creek RLA by 27,877 acres and the Coastal Bays RLA by 16,600.
“I think we’re going to be more challenged to find interested landowners without an expansion,” said Katherine Munson, planner for Worcester County.
Bob Mitchell, the county’s director of environmental programs, said expanding the areas didn’t mean the additional land would all be preserved.
“We’re just widening the net,” he said.
He said 29 percent of the county’s land was currently protected and that if the RLAs were expanded, that could increase to 32 or 33 percent.
Commissioner Jim Bunting said much of the land proposed for part of an RLA was already protected because it was in the Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area.
“I like the program,” he said. “I don’t have any problem with the program. I’m just questioning using money to protect land that’s already protected.”
Mitchell said that land in the critical area could still be used for things like chicken houses. Once land is accepted through the RLA program, however, certain restrictions — such as limits on impervious surface area — are placed on it.
“There are restrictions that come with this program that could help and be beneficial for the environment and for water quality and land protection…,” Mitchell said. “You have to give something up to get the money.”
Munson pointed out that properties were reviewed by county staff before landowners were compensated. She said the county had turned down properties that didn’t have significant development potential.
Commissioner Ted Elder said he’d spoken to farmers who’d been compensated for their property and several said they’d never had any intentions of developing their land.
“This program is good for certain persons but I don’t see how well it affects the people of the county,” he said. “I think it favors persons over people.”
Church asked if the RLA funding would go to other jurisdictions if Worcester County didn’t apply for it.
“Correct,” Munson said. “All counties have an opportunity to apply for these funds.”
The commissioners voted 4-3, with Bunting, Bertino and Elder opposed, to submit the RLA funding and expansion request to the state.
Elder, who routinely votes against RLA agreements, said after Tuesday’s meeting he simply didn’t support the program. He said it benefitted a handful of people but did not help the majority of Worcester County’s residents.
“I’ve been voting against giving money to rich landowners since I’ve been elected,” he said. “We’re giving away a lot of taxpayer money that could be used for something more constructive.”
Elder said that much of the property that landowners were compensated for through the program couldn’t be developed anyway. When asked what would have happened if the commissioners hadn’t approved participating in the RLA program, Elder acknowledged that the money would be available for other counties.
“If it’s wrong it’s wrong,” he said. “To participate just because another county can do it, it’s still wrong.”
