…
The distinction between land
devoted to agriculture and land used for residential purposes can be a fine one
when the land in question is primarily wooded and surrounds a residence. Unlike
other crops, timber can take mature between harvests and may not always require
the same level of care. Thus, the outward signs distinguishing between
agricultural and non-agricultural use are not as distinct on those properties.
In part because of that
dilemma, The DLGF issued a memorandum addressing how to classify and value
agricultural land, including agricultural woodland. The DLGF listed several
factors to consider. Significantly for this appeal, the DLGF highlighted the
significance of a property having received a “farm number” from the United
States Department of Agriculture: Assessors are further directed that all acres
enrolled in programs of the . . . USDA, Farm Services Agency, and Natural
Resources Conservation Service and have received a “farm number” are eligible
for classification as “agricultural.” Those acres have been determined by those
administering federal programs to be part of an “agricultural operation.” This
applies to non-homestead acreage. Pet’rs Ex. 8. The DLGF also pointed to
four other non-controlling factors: (1) the acreage is designated by the DNR as
qualifying for one of their classified programs. The DNR has established a 10
acre minimum for its programs; (2) the owner can show an active timber
management program in place which will improve the marketability of the forest
for an eventual harvest; (3) the owner possesses a DNR management plan to
further enhance the forest quality; (4) The owner can show that regular forest
harvests have occurred over a long time period. Id.
The Shelburnes offered a
printout from the USDA Farm Services Agency showing that the subject property
had been assigned a farm number (5681) for “crop year” 2010. Pet’rs Ex. 5.
The rest of the factors are more ambiguous. The photographs of the subject
property show several cut stumps and therefore support Ms. Shelburnes’ contention
that the previous owner harvested timber from the property, but they do little
to show the extent or frequency of those harvests. And while the Shelburnes
have a Stewardship Plan from the DNR, that plan was not prepared until after
the assessment dates at issue. Similarly, although the land computations
portion of the most recent record card for the subject property that the
parties submitted appears to show that the land is now part of a classified
program and therefore valued at $1 per acre, that was not the case on March 1,
2010.
Nonetheless, based on the
record as a whole, placing particular weight on the subject property’s farm
number, the Board finds that the Shelburnes devoted their property to
agricultural use as of the March 1, 2010, assessment date. The subject land
should therefore be assessed as it was previously—one-acre as a homesite with
the remainder as agricultural woodlands.
