Property tax break for farms?

[cowbell76]

Originally Posted by buck naked

lowers the value of the property when you sell, I think.


it's all perspective - I'd rather keep the woodsy, natural atmosphere and the farmlands instead of seeing new developments of mcmansions.

12 acres would mean a huge profit if the property were not in current use, so paying higher taxes is only fair

there used to be a meat cattle farm near me, and the farmer was ready to retire and move south - his son did not want to continue the farm - however, before he ever got to retire, he passed away

so the son took the property out of current use, and paid the higher rate for a couple years, then sold the place for millions

I looked pretty extensively at assessments for properties in my area, comparing taxes for properties in current use with taxes for equivalent properties not in current use. I was interested in this because we're just below the amount of land needed to place the property in current use. (And thanks to Nonesuch who on another thread set me straight on a couple specifics about what happens when property in current use is sold.)

People with massive amounts of land save A LOT on taxes if the property is in current use. People who are right around that 10 acre mark don't save that much around here. In my town, as in many towns, there is a minimum lot size (2 acres) in the rural zone. A 2 acre lot - or for that matter, a 1 acre lot which was developed before the zoning ordinance existed - is only assessed at about $10,000-$15,000 less than a non-current use 10 acre lot. The first two acres are assessed at a certain amount, say $65,000, and each additional acre is assessed at much, much less - more like $2,000. If your 12 acre lot is in current use, you're still paying taxes on a minimum lot size. So, the difference between what you'll pay in taxes with your 12 acres in current use, and not in current use is a matter of hundreds of dollars, not thousands. I was rather annoyed that a neighboring property which was just a regular old residential property, like mine, but which was slightly bigger, could be in current use, while mine cannot be. I'm still annoyed because there is really no reason they should get ANY break at all - paying less in taxes when they own more land - but at least it's not a huge difference.

Unless you're in a very desirable area where land is heavily developed and at a premium, 12 acres is actually unlikely to bring much more than would, say, 2 acres at sale time. Certainly not millions around here unless it's waterfront! Less than $100,000 total for the land (maybe much less), and maybe $15,000 of that being for the extra acres over the minimum lot size. The way land is assessed even outside the current use scenario (as I just described) reflects that fact. Nevertheless I still agree that given two regular old residential lots, the one with more land should pay more taxes on that land.

I'm speaking in generalities here... there may be something extraordinary about the 12 acres to allow it to sell for a lot more than a nearby smaller lot. Ability to be subdivided can make a property more valuable but around here, a 12 acre lot is a lot which has been divided off a larger lot... usually that larger lot has already been divided in a way which makes the most financial sense. Most towns (and maybe this is a state regulation) require lots in each zone to have a certain minimum road frontage. In my town (and maybe everywhere) this is 225' in the rural zone. So, although all the surrounding lots are 5-12 acres, they're all long and narrow lots - when the land was subdivided, the owner divided it into the most lots he could, given the frontage requirement. So the lots all have right around 225' of frontage... meaning that although they may be large enough to divide into five 2 acre lots, the regulations prevent them from being further subdivided at all. Those residential lots with a lot of road frontage tend to have fewer than 4 acres... so although they may have enough road frontage to be subdivided, they don't have enough overall acreage to be subdivided and meet the 2 acre minimum. It doesn't seem that there are very many existing "small" lots (meaning, not part of vast farm- or woodlands) which can be further subdivided. There are of course the rare smaller lots which were divided off decades ago and have tons of frontage, but it seems most of those are going away as longtime owners want to sell and see the opportunity to make money.

[NHForester]

Boy, there is a lot of bad info in this thread.

ease visit this link, posted earlier.

SPACE: New Hampshire's Current Use Coalition