Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Farmland Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lancaster Farmland Trust outlines preservation tools, warns county losing 3,000 acres a year
Summary
Jeff Schweinhart of Lancaster Farmland Trust told the East Hempfield Board the nonprofit holds easements on 621 farms (about 38,300 acres) and is working with municipalities and the county to expand permanent preservation, but resource limits mean 53 farms (about 3,300 acres) are on a waiting list.
Get email alerts on the Farmland Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jeff Schweinhart, president and CEO of Lancaster Farmland Trust, told the East Hempfield Township Board on Monday that the nonprofit’s mission is to “vigorously accelerate the permanent protection and stewardship of farmland.” He said Lancaster Farmland Trust currently preserves 621 farms covering roughly 38,300 acres across Lancaster County and that the county’s combined preservation programs have protected about 126,000 acres to date.
Schweinhart described four pillars of the trust’s work — preservation, conservation, stewardship and community engagement — and detailed how the programs are financed. He said the trust typically compensates landowners at about 35% of appraised development value, that its maximum payment is currently $2,000 per acre, and that development-rights appraisals across the county commonly range from $4,000–$5,000 per acre (with some appraisals reportedly reaching as high as $67,000 per acre). The trust has 53 farms (about 3,300 acres) on a waiting list, which Schweinhart estimated represents roughly a $7 million funding need.
Board members sought local context; Schweinhart said Lancaster County is losing about 3,000 acres of farmland per year (roughly eight acres per day, citing the 2017–2022 Ag Census) while preservation programs together protect about 2,000 acres annually. He urged municipal engagement — for example, rezoning or removing parcels from designated growth areas when necessary — and described several local tools including transferable development rights and municipal open-space funding used elsewhere in the county.

