Properties clean, green, open

By Jennifer Learn-Andes jandes@timesleader.comLuzerne County Reporter

Sunbathing by Bear Creek Lake.

Additional Photos Below

Hiking up a mountain at Harveys Lake.

Tossing a Frisbee on the lawn of one of the area’s finest mansions.

These activities may now be available to the public on select privately owned properties in Luzerne County because of a little-known requirement that certain Clean and Green tax break participants open their land to the public.

Property owners must allow public access if they sign up for the “agricultural reserve” category of Clean and Green.

Clean and Green values land for its worth as agriculture, woods or open space instead of real estate development. The tax break is usually associated with farms, but the owners of non-farm parcels over 10 acres – including those with homes on them – may receive the break if they agree to keep most of the land undeveloped and meet one of two other conditions:

• Ensure the land is stocked with trees capable of producing annual growth of 25 cubic feet per acre, which puts the parcel in the “forest reserve” category.

• Allow the public to access the land, free of charge, for outdoor recreation or enjoyment of its scenic and natural beauty – the “agricultural reserve” classification.

The owners of 99 parcels have signed up under agricultural reserve, according to the county assessor’s office. This land totals 2,106 acres and is located in 25 municipalities, the office says.

In total, these property owners received $8.57 million in assessment reductions, which equates to about $125,133 in property tax savings.

Landowners in agricultural reserve may place “reasonable restrictions” on public access to their property, said Doug Wolfgang, who oversees Clean and Green for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

For example, owners could prohibit swimming or fishing in a pond, evening and early morning access, dogs, guns, alcohol, all-terrain vehicles, hunting and access within a certain distance of a home, Wolfgang said.

The public access requirement was meant to compensate others for the tax reduction. The public benefits from the elimination of land from development, he said.

Agricultural reserve participants cannot hang no-trespassing signs or charge fees to access their property, Wolfgang said.

“It would be encouraged that the person who wants to use the property would at least contact the property owner, but that isn’t a requirement,” Wolfgang said.

The Nuangola Rod & Gun Club may be breaking the no-trespassing sign rule. The club has 38 acres in agricultural reserve. According to a photograph of this property attached to the county record, the entrance has a gate with a stop sign and posting that says, “Closed Sunday. Members only.” No one answered the club’s phone, and the representative listed on county property records does not have a listed phone number.

The beach at Bear Creek Lake in Bear Creek Village is part of an 84-acre package put in agricultural reserve by the Bear Creek Association, according to a county map of the parcel.

If the association intends to keep the general public off the beach, it would have to convince the county assessor’s office that the restriction was “reasonable,” Wolfgang said.

According to the county’s “Understanding the Clean and Green Program” handbook, property owners may reasonably limit access points and portions of land open to the public to prevent property damage or exposures to hazardous conditions.

“The reasons for limiting public access must be based upon fact and be acceptable to the county assessor,” says the handbook, which was distributed to program participants.

County Assessment Director Tony Alu said he will have to consider disagreements on a case-by-case basis. The issue is new to him because only 185 properties had been in all categories of Clean and Green before the county’s reassessment. Updated land values have caused participation in the tax break program to explode, with 3,451 parcels signed up countywide.

Attorney Frederick Alcaro, who is listed as the Bear Creek Association contact on property records, deferred comment until he does more research. Association President John Glod, who signed the Clean and Green application, could not be reached for comment on several attempts.

The largest agricultural reserve assessment break – $869,000 – went to Kenneth and Susan Wallace, owners of a 40-acre parcel on Goodleigh Road in Dallas Township.

This mostly cleared parcel includes an 11,700-square-foot mansion, but that structure isn’t part of the tax break. The law requires the county to value the home and 1 acre on which it sits at market value.

The $869,000 reduction equates to an estimated $13,300 in savings on school, county and local property taxes this year.

Wallace could not be reached for comment. Much of the property is fenced, leaving questions about what will happen if people want to access the property.

The second highest assessment break – $755,500 – went to the Sutton Hills Homeowners’ Association Inc., which owns 37.1 acres of vacant land on Cross Creek Road.

Association President Jeffrey Fritzen said the largely wooded parcel must remain open space for the Sutton Hills development. The site includes a pond that has always been posted to ban fishing, swimming and boating.

The association is well aware of the public access requirement and decided further posting was not necessary because people in the development have been using the land without causing damage or other problems, Fritzen said. The association will revisit the issue if necessary, he said.

Several property owners were completely unaware that they had to allow public access, though the stipulation is clearly spelled out in the formal Clean and Green applications filed with the county assessors and Recorder of Deeds offices.

Here’s the agricultural reserve description on the official documentation signed by the property owner: “In order to qualify, the land must be at least 10 contiguous acres in area, non-commercial, and must be open to the public for outdoor recreation or enjoyment of the land’s scenic or natural beauty. The owner may not charge for public access to his or her property.”

Antoinette Simchick, who owns 11.2 acres in Fairmount Township, said she knew nothing about the public access.

Simchick said she won’t establish rules unless the county contacts her to request them or she discovers damage on her property. She said she doesn’t object to public access of her property but hopes visitors don’t litter or come close to the house.

Wolfgang advises property owners to alert the county of public access rules so they may be filed with the parcel in case people inquire about access. Assessor’s employees say no rules have been filed to date.

Harveys Lake property owner Tracey Gribble, who has about 43.5 acres in agricultural reserve, said he has no problem allowing public access, but wants to make sure he’s protected if someone sues claiming they were injured on his property and were unaware of his rules.

Gribble contacted his lawyer Thursday and was advised to post rules at his driveway entrance so visitors can’t claim ignorance.

“I have to put a kiosk out front,” said Gribble, a builder who specializes in environmentally-conscious construction.

Some may argue that there’s little likelihood that people will actually visit these properties, but Gribble isn’t taking any chances because his property has already become a popular spot for neighbors to walk and hunt.

Gribble has always welcomed neighbors who are respectful. Those interested in hunting have approached him ahead of time and participated in a group meeting to set up parameters. For example, hunters must wear fluorescent orange and stick to assigned regions. He worries that a stranger in camouflage would arrive unannounced in someone’s assigned turf and get shot.

A lifelong ATV rider, Gribble also allows the vehicles on the property, though he had to put up a sign banning them during hunting season. But he worries that opening the property to more ATVs will cause damage and endanger his family when his baby gets a little older and is playing around the perimeter of the house.

“I’ve already had people doing donuts in my driveway,” he said.

Gribble also likes to target-shoot in a designated spot of his property, so he wants to designate that area off-limits for safety reasons.

He believes county officials should set up a meeting with the owners of all 99 parcels to discuss rules and what should be done if people break them. For example, property owners and the county could establish standards on an acceptable distance from homes, he said.

“The theory behind the program is good, but it’s not even close to being thought out,” Gribble said.

Alu said he does not know if a meeting will be held but said he welcomes questions and suggestions from property owners about Clean and Green, advising them to call the office at 825-1540.

The county’s handbook says it’s the public’s responsibility to inquire which land is accessible, either by asking the landowner or the county assessor. Boundary lines may be obtained from the mapping department.

Controversy over perceived abuse of the agricultural use exemption in western Pennsylvania prompted state Sen. Wayne Fontana, D-Brookline, to propose legislation in 2007 upping the acreage eligibility from 10 to 30 acres for agriculture and forest reserve. Eligibility on land used for farming would remain at 10 acres.

Fontana’s staff pointed to agricultural reserve properties in upscale neighborhoods that were surrounded by stone walls barring public access. Many had no-trespassing signs.

The issue came to light there through the media, including a television reporter who set up picnics on the lawns of estates in a posh neighborhood. The owners complained when the reporter accessed their properties, even though they were receiving the tax break.

Fontana’s legislation also proposed mandatory monitoring of the public access requirement by the county assessment office. The package died last November.

Supporters argue that agricultural reserve helps the environment by preventing development, with penalties for those who change their minds.

All or some of the money saved through the tax break must be repaid if property owners decide to sell the land for development. That way, property owners can’t enjoy the break and then suddenly sell the land for a housing development.

The payback applies only to the most recent seven years. For example, a property owner who received a $2,000 annual tax break for 15 years would have to repay $14,000 plus interest if the owner decided to develop. The $16,000 saved from the first eight years wouldn’t have to be paid back.

Jackson Township property owner Ed Chesnovitch, who is not in the program, said he is frustrated that some non-farming estates receive the break when the property owners have no intention of allowing public access. Some of these properties wouldn’t be developed anyway because the owners want large parcels for privacy, he said.

Chesnovitch recently complained to commissioners about the extent of reductions granted to some Clean and Green participants.

He owns a 1,272 square-foot home on three acres along Huntsville Road and said he would love to put two acres in Clean and Green. The land is too swampy for development but helps the environment by harboring wildlife, he said.

His three acres are assessed at $80,300. He has publicly pointed to a prominent Jackson Township property owner who has a Clean and Green value of $75,000 for 19 acres, which includes the land that holds a 16,305-square-foot home. That property is in the forest reserve tax-break category.

He cites another township property owner who has 31 acres assessed at around $65,000 thanks to Clean and Green. This property is also in forest reserve.

“My property will be clean and green forever, but I don’t qualify. This sort of discriminates against those of us that have less land,” Chesnovitch said.

Chesnovitch said he knows of several property owners who were eligible for agricultural reserve but opted against taking the tax break because they did not want to deal with public access.

“They didn’t want the hassle,” he said.

Jennifer Learn-Andes, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 831-7333.