SHARON — Construction is underway on two protected agricultural properties after the Connecticut Department of Agriculture (DOAG) approved the owners’ plans to build multimillion-dollar homes in August of last year.
The properties were placed under farmland preservation restrictions in the mid-1980s, making them two of the earliest protected properties of their kind in the country. These restrictions work by placing agricultural land under easement when landowners sell their development rights to the state, barring subdivision and requiring that the land remain available for farming.
DOAG, which is the sole authority on the interpretation of the easements, found the proposed homes, garages, and pools to be permissible according to the language of the original deeds — an interpretation that has spurred pushback from local residents and lawmakers.
“The development is absolutely contrary to the heart and the spirit of what the easements were put in place for,” said State Senator Stephen Harding (R-30). That intention, in Harding’s view, was “protecting this land as agriculture and open space.”
One of the properties, known as Paley Farm, is at the center of a Superior Court Case brought by Sharon Land Trust (SLT) and Carol Flaton when they filed an injunction request against the residential construction in July.
Paley Farm was put under a farmland protection easement in 1984 by retired farmer Morris Paley, who told a New York Times reporter in a 1982 interview that he wanted the land to remain a working farm.
The other property, 39 Sharon Mountain Road, was put under easement by farmer Walter “Pete” Turkiewicz in 1986. It was purchased by Rokeby Farm, LLC and signed for by James Reddoch of Rye, New York in December 2021, three months before David and Liza Bainbridge, also of Rye, purchased Paley Farm. Reddoch and the Bainbridges filed applications to construct within three months of each other, and both applications were approved by DOAG in August 2023.
Attempts at contact with Reddoch and the Bainbridges were unsuccessful.
Interpreting easements
According to DOAG Director of Communications Rebecca Eddy, DOAG’s decision-making process regarding such applications is “guided by the language contained in the particular recorded deed at issue.”
Eddy explained that amendments made to the development rights program in 1988 and 1996 tightened the bounds of permissible residence construction, but those amendments don’t work retroactively. As the DOAG construction approval letters for both properties state, “It is likely that this house would not be permitted under our current statutes and deed requirements.” The original language, however, is all that applies.
That language, per the Turkiewicz property deed, retains the right to construct “residences for persons directly incidental to farm operation [...] as long as the acreage and productivity of arable land for crops is not materially decreased and due consideration is given to the impact of any decrease in acreage or productivity of such arable land upon the total farm operation.”
In the applications submitted by both Reddoch and the Bainbridges, the owners described their planned construction as “farm residences.” Reddoch stated that he sought to build the residence “to enable farm operations.”
According to building permits provided by the Town of Sharon Building Department, Reddoch’s construction plans include an approximately $4.6 million home, $980,000 pool house and $350,000 garage.
Both Reddoch and the Bainbridges stated in correspondence with DOAG that they plan to allow their land to be farmed, though Reddoch did not specify who would be farming the land or the timeline for beginning farm operations.
According to Eddy, farmland preservation deeds do not “force the property owners to engage in farming practices,” but require that land remains “available for farming.”
“Available for farming means that we haven’t plopped houses all over the place, we haven’t stripped the topsoil off, we haven’t negatively impacted the ability of that land to continue to be used for farming other than the footprint of the house,” said Joan Nichols, executive director of the Connecticut Farm Bureau Association, a private membership-based nonprofit that advises DOAG on the preservation program.
Nichols explained that in its early stages, Connecticut’s farmland preservation program was aimed at combating the intense development pressures that came along with the 1980s’ “boom of the subdivision movement.”
Preserving farmland
While the program bars multi-home and commercial development, State Representative Maria Horn (D-64) argued that its requirements aren’t specific enough to preserve farmland in effect.
“Is it active agriculture? When does it start? Is it just somebody who mows their field once a year and calls it agriculture?” she said, referencing the ‘available for agriculture’ language. “It allows a little too much play in my view.”
Horn has been working alongside Harding to engage DOAG, the Attorney General’s office, land trusts, and local constituents on the issue of DOAG’s interpretation of the Paley easement.
Both lawmakers contend that DOAG’s decision to approve construction ran afoul of the original intent of the easement, which Horn emphasized was at the expense of constituents’ tax dollars.
According to SLT Treasurer Allen Reiser, the state paid today’s equivalent of about a million dollars to purchase Paley’s development rights. Likewise, the state paid about $300,000 to purchase Turkiewicz’s development rights in 1986, equating to over $800,000 today.
“Included in that calculation of the value of these easements is, what kinds of activities is it stopping?” said Horn. “And if this is all it meant, I think the government overpaid for these easements.”
Horn emphasized that the easement interpretation debate is especially pertinent as the state recently dedicated nearly $10 million to DOAG to purchase additional agricultural easements.
Beyond taxpayer interests, Nichols noted that farmland protection measures are of particular concern for local farmers as farmland prices continue to soar in Connecticut. The more attractive protected farmland is to non-farming buyers, the more local farmers must struggle to compete for the same land, she explained.
“We need to protect not just the interests of the land, but the interests of the farmer,” said Nichols, calling for further discourse among farmland protection stakeholders. “How do you make sure land stays in production and doesn’t turn into someone’s 60-acre lawn? That’s the question we haven’t answered yet.”
Jennifer Dillon, SLT board president, underscored the Trust’s hope in the Paley Farm court case decision to pave the way for more restrictive easement interpretations in the future.
“We’re doing this because of the precedent as much as because of this individual case,” Dillon said.
According to Horn, there’s a high likelihood that as land under historic easements changes hands in the coming years, wealthy buyers will be looking to develop more homes using the same pathway as Reddoch and the Bainbridges.
“These are spectacular properties in a very desirable area,” said Horn. “We better be prepared.”
Read more in our previous coverage of these proceedings here:
Paley Farm owners build ‘at their own risk’
Construction begins on protected farm ahead of Superior Court case
