Open Space and Recreation Plan - Town of North Andover

T O W N O F N O R T H A N D O V E R
O P E N S P A C E A N D R E C R E A T I O N P L A N 2 0 0 6
Farmland
2 0 1 0 U P D A T E
Farmland has defined the Town's character since the first settlers arrived. As previously discussed, most of
North Andover's farmland has been replaced by residential development since the 1950s. As a response to this,
the 1972 Comprehensive Plan's first long- range goal was to "Retain the natural character of woodlands, fields,
and farms throughout the Town so that they can be used for recreation, conservation and enjoyment of open
space to the extent possible" (Brown, 1972).
Some landowners file their property under certain taxation classifications such as Chapter 61, Forestry; Chapter
61A, Agricultural and Horticultural Lands; and Chapter 61B, Open Space / Nature Area / Recreation.
Presently fifteen (15) landowners protect 1094.81 acres through the Chapter 61A. This is a 13% decrease since
the 2000 Open Space & Recreation Plan. Additionally, there are four (4) landowners that have filed under
Chapter 61 and protect approximately 59.62 acres of forested areas, and three (3) landowners are classified
under Chapter 61B, preserving 62.17 acres open space. When the landowner decides to sell the chapter land or
convert to a different use, the Town can exercise its first right of refusal to purchase the land. The former
Mazurenko Farm was purchased using this option in 1988 for the purpose of watershed protection and the
preservation of farmland. Acquiring this parcel kept the crop and hay fields active, and eliminated the
development of a residential subdivision with potentially harmful impacts on the community's water supply.
This acquisition also triggered the Conservation Commission to create a farming program (agricultural use
license) that allows local farmers to rent usable hay or crop fields. Not only does this program keep the old
agricultural fields active, but it also provides the farmer with additional income and crop. To date, the
Conservation Commission rents two (2) fields at Mazurenko Farm, Foster Farm, and Half Mile Hill. The most
recent first right of refusal purchases was the Foster Farm (Chapter 61A) and the Cullen property (Chapter 61).
Overall, little has been done proactively to preserve the remaining open fields and farmland that has helped to
define the community character; although the Planned Residential Development (PRDs) concept has been used
successfully to preserve hundreds of acres of open fields, wetlands, and forested upland areas.
One reason why many people accept the loss of more natural landscapes is the common misconception that
there is a financial gain to the community from the conversion of these land uses to residential or commercial
development. A better understanding of the positive financial impact of land preservation would hopefully
improve the attitude of not only landowners, but also municipal policy-makers toward land preservation.
Various studies, such as the American Farmland Trust (AFT) study previously cited, have shown that residential
growth is more of a strain on local services than preserving open land, forests and farmland. Over the last five
(5) years, Massachusetts’ prime farmland has seen a 66% lost as a result of development.
One common claim made to Massachusetts’ towns is that residential development increases the local tax base,
thereby lowering property taxes. Others are that resource conservation is too expensive at the local level, and
that farmland does not make a significant contribution to the tax base, so it is best converted to its "highest and
best use," which is generally assumed to be development. The AFT found although residential development
increases the local tax base, it does not pay for itself. These towns paid more on residential services than they
received from residential services. (American Farmland Trust, 1992)
24