Preservation Alliance director explains easement programs to Lower Makefield Historical Commission

Jennifer Robinson, director of preservation services at the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, told the Lower Makefield Township Historical Commission on June 10 that preservation easements are “a legal right of an organization to enforce preservation standards on a building” and that the interest “runs with the land.” Robinson spoke to commissioners and residents about how easement programs operate, what they protect and what a municipality should consider if it contemplates holding easements.

Robinson said an easement is a voluntary donation by a property owner and is generally perpetual. “It’s not impossible to remove an easement, but it’s quite difficult. Basically, it has to go to court,” she said, noting that easements are recorded with the county and the holder enforces restrictions. She contrasted easements with historic designation, noting that local designation can include demolition protections but that National Register listing typically does not.

Why it matters: an easement can lock in protections for features that local designation or the National Register might not, but it also creates an ongoing enforcement obligation for the easement holder. Robinson emphasized that municipalities or nonprofits must have both the technical expertise and the financial capacity to administer easements in perpetuity.

Robinson outlined core program elements commissioners should plan for, including clear acceptance criteria (for example, a demonstrated level of significance or specific protected features), precise baseline documentation of what is protected, and an enforcement framework. “You need to have legal counsel that reviews every easement document, and you need to have enforcement capacity before you take the easement,” she said. Inspections, she said, are typically annual or every 18 months, with written reports maintained permanently.

Robinson described project-review procedures and time-sensitive responses: some easements include a clause that a lack of response within 30 days is deemed approval, so staff must track and respond promptly. She gave a recent enforcement example in Philadelphia where the easement holder filed for an injunction to stop an unauthorized penthouse addition and then worked with the owner and an architect to redesign the addition to make it less visually obtrusive.

On costs and funding, Robinson said models vary: organizations typically require an upfront donation to cover baseline documentation, legal review and initial endowment for future enforcement. Some groups are experimenting with lower upfront fees and a small percentage of future sale proceeds to create longer-term revenue streams. “There’s a lot of different models for funding a program,” she said, and cited sample one-time payments in the tens of thousands for many easements while noting wide variation.

Robinson also walked commissioners through case studies of municipal partnerships that used easements to preserve key resources while permitting development. In one example she described as the Madison Estate, a municipality required easements on the main historic building and site resources as a condition of subdivision permits; the result preserved the principal historic elements while new housing and a senior facility were built on other parts of the property.

Commissioners asked practical questions about who holds easements and how property transfers are handled. Robinson answered that homeowners donate the easement interest and the holder — which can be a nonprofit, land trust or government entity — holds and enforces the recorded agreement. She recommended that organizations be named as additional insured on policies and that holders plan for succession (for example, specifying a successor grantee if the organization dissolves).

Robinson closed by urging commissioners to weigh enforceability and flexibility carefully: easements should be explicit enough that someone 50 years in the future can understand what was protected, but not so rigid that normal maintenance or reasonable changes become impossible. She offered contact information and membership materials and told commissioners she is willing to meet with property owners and staff to explain options.

The presentation and subsequent questions occupied the bulk of the commission’s June meeting. Commissioners thanked Robinson for the overview and discussed next steps for outreach and whether the township could help property owners with upfront costs if the commission chose not to run an easement program itself.