Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Farmland Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kent County approves two purchase‑of‑development‑rights resolutions to preserve farmland
Summary
The board adopted Resolutions 67 and 68 on July 9 to buy development rights for two properties under the county farmland‑preservation program, passing both 13–3; one commissioner later clarified the purchases are mostly grant‑funded.
The Kent County Board of Commissioners voted July 9 to approve two purchase‑of‑development‑rights (PDR) resolutions intended to preserve farmland in the county.
Commissioner Pondstein moved Resolution 67 to purchase the development rights for the Robertson property; the measure was supported by Commissioner Morse and passed 13–3 after debate. Pondstein framed the program as a way to preserve land for future generations and discussed cluster preservation strategies. "I wholeheartedly support this," Pondstein said while urging stewardship for future food production.
Commissioner DeBoer said he supports land preservation in principle but opposed Resolution 67 on process and funding grounds, stating concerns about public funds going to private property. "My hang up with our program is tax money going to a private property where a private landowner is benefiting," DeBoer said. Commissioner Richard Womack said he would vote yes, emphasizing the county’s agricultural diversity and the value of green space.
A later, clarifying comment by Commissioner DeBoer during commissioner comments corrected his earlier funding characterization: he said the PDR actions are "mostly funded from a grant," and apologized for misspeaking when he earlier suggested taxpayer dollars were the main source.
The board then approved Resolution 68, a separate PDR purchase moved and supported by the same members, by the same 13–3 margin. Both resolutions were adopted without amendments.
Votes: Resolution 67 — adopted 13 yays, 3 nays; Resolution 68 — adopted 13 yays, 3 nays.
The board’s action preserves specified parcels under the county program; the transcript does not list the dollar amounts or identify the grant source. Commissioners cited long‑term agricultural value and cluster preservation as rationales for the program; opponents questioned the use of public resources and process details.
Next steps: Resolutions were adopted at the meeting; staff follow‑up and any program implementation details were not specified in the session record.
