Dartmouth may look into new ways to preserve farmland and open spaces in town following a joint meeting between the Dartmouth Planning Board and the town’s Agricultural Commission on February 24.

The aim was to discover ways the town agencies could work together towards the goal of agricultural preservation.

One of the more popular ideas proposed by Agricultural Commission member Susan Guiducci included lifting minimum sizes for house lots on protected agricultural land.

When an agricultural preservation restriction is put in place, Guiducci noted, the state automatically takes out a two-acre parcel for housing. 

She recalled a situation in South Dartmouth where someone bought a farm for $205,000 and sold it not too long afterwards for more than $600,000.

“That’s because they transferred all of the value to the two-acre house lot,” she said.

Other ideas floated at the meeting included tax incentives and imposing restrictions on subdividing open space.

“Other than throwing money at the issue...What can the Planning Board, what can other town agencies or the town in general do going forward?” asked board member John Sousa.

“Farming’s a hard business to make money in,” noted Agricultural Commission member Fred Dabney. “One of the biggest challenges now is the increasing number of conflicting regulations that impact so many aspects of farming.”

Each town, he said, sets up their own rules alongside state and federal regulations.

Planning Board member Stephen Taylor suggested tightening up the town’s rules on green field development to make it more difficult to subdivide open land.

“By contrast, we change and work with our colleague agencies to reduce the amount of regulations that deliberately get in farmers’ way,” he suggested.

Derek Christianson, chair of the Agricultural Commission, said that current property prices are driving out young farmers.

“The division between development of land and land values in the traditional economy that exists today is so far divorced from what the agricultural economy can support,” he said.

He suggested raising awareness in the town of existing farmland and its infrastructure. “The town looks at competitive needs for recreational facilities.”

“The town is spending thirty-something cents on the dollar...When we allow green field development,” noted Taylor, attributing the costs to the increases in schools, police, fire, and other public services that go along with development.

A brochure handed around by Christianson summarized data found in a Cost of Community Services study conducted in 2008 by the American Farmland Trust.

According to the study, for every dollar of tax revenue for farmland and open space, the town spent just 26 cents on services, compared to 29 cents for industrial, 45 cents for commercial, and $1.14 for residential uses.

In 2008, the study found, residential land use generated 79 percent of the town’s revenue but took up 91 percent of the expenditures for services, ultimately costing the town $8.5 million.

The pamphlet also stated that the number of active farms in Dartmouth fell from 240 in 1940 to 56 in 2008.

“The reality for most people who choose to make agriculture their profession is that it’s a passion profession,” said Christianson. “There’s no economic incentive to make your career growing food or raising livestock.”