Fayette County board moves to let agricultural buffer parcels join small‑farm easement program; approves two purchase authorizations in closed session

The Fayette County Rural Land Management Board voted unanimously to amend the ordinance that sets minimum criteria for conservation easements so that properties in the county's agricultural buffer (AB) areas may participate in the Small Farm Conservation Easement Program.

The board made the amendment after staff told members they had received 35 applications for the new small‑farm easement round but identified two applicants whose parcels fell inside an AB zone shown on a planning map. Staff and board members said the rural land management plan and the county zoning ordinance language had not made the treatment of AB parcels explicit for this program, and the amendment was intended to avoid excluding parcels that meet the program's intent and show active farm uses.

Why it matters: The change allows owners of qualifying buffer parcels to apply for easements that would limit future nonagricultural development on their land. Board members said they did not intend to exclude owners who have farm activity on their parcels and that leaving AB parcels out could create inconsistent outcomes for neighbors along the same road.

Board discussion and program status Board members and staff reported that the small‑farm program attracted an unusually large number of applicants for a first round — 35 submitted applications — and that the applications ranged from roughly 10 acres up to larger tracts. Staff said the program will continue to accept applications submitted after the April 1 deadline but that late applications would be added at the end of the review list.

Staff described operational issues affecting processing: the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency had limited capacity to produce soil maps and conservation plans, so county GIS staff produced soil‑score overlays and ranking maps used for the program. The board heard that appraisals and legal work are constrained by budget rules: the county can spend up to $40,000 on appraisers per fiscal year before requiring a request for proposals, and NRCS requirements mean appraisal and easement work also often need appraisers and attorneys trained in conservation easements.

Funding and grants The board discussed sign production for participating farms and agreed to use $3,000 from an American Farmland Trust grant (managed by the city's grants division) to supplement a $10,000 award the county already received for related outreach. Staff reported the grant balance shown to the county was $9,600; the board said staff would investigate a previously authorized $4,000 payment to the Fayette Conservation District that did not appear in the city's grant records.

Farm stays and short‑term rental issue Board members and staff reported an emerging issue where one property subject to a PDR easement applied for a short‑term rental (STR). Under the easement and current zoning, an STR is not permitted on PDR‑protected farms. Staff said the county administration had sent a letter to NRCS earlier asking whether ‘‘farm stays’’ — a separately defined, limited form of farm lodging being considered for PDR properties — could be permitted under federal easement rules; the mayor's office sent that letter on the board's behalf. Meanwhile, staff will notify the property owner and the board of adjustment filing that the STR is not allowed under the existing easement language.

Kentucky Department of Transportation request for easement property Board members raised a separate, higher‑stakes property issue: Kentucky Department of Transportation (KYDOT) has proposed roadway work on Military Pike that would affect Farm 52006, a PDR easement property of over 200 acres. Staff said the easement is federally funded through NRCS and prohibits land‑disturbing actions without NRCS written consent.

Staff described the administrative process NRCS provides for seeking an exception (an "administrative action") but said NRCS told the board the standards are strict and the landowner and board must both want the change for an administrative action to proceed. Staff and several board members characterized KYDOT's proposed work as a substantial disturbance to the easement frontage — the board estimated removal of hundreds of linear feet of fencing and multiple mature trees — and said they planned to send a letter to KYDOT, copied to NRCS, asserting that the easement prohibits the project as proposed. Board members said they intended to defend the easement and attend any meetings with KYDOT.

Closed session actions and authorizations After a closed session to discuss potential acquisitions, the board returned to open session and authorized two actions related to easement purchases: an authorization to make an offer tied to form 7‑20‑22 (as discussed in closed session) and authorization to make an offer on Farm 12024 per the appraisal. Both motions were moved, seconded, and approved by show of hands; meeting minutes record those authorizations as approved.

What happens next Staff said they will complete site visits and produce a written ranking report for the small‑farm applicants ahead of the board's next meeting; appraisals for the top‑ranked properties will follow only after the board reauthorizes selected properties as required by the ordinance. Staff also said they would draft the amendment language for section 27.5(b) to add the phrase "agricultural buffer area" to the minimum criteria and forward that recommendation to the county council members present for possible consideration by the council. The board scheduled its next meeting for May 28.

Ending note: Board members emphasized protecting existing easements and clear communications with applicants. Several members said defending conservation easements is essential to maintaining public trust in the county's PDR and small‑farm easement programs.