- 30 -
c. Conclusion
The Senate report on the enactment of the legislation
pertaining to conservation easements contains the following
explanation:
[T]he committee believes that provisions allowing
deductions for conservation easements should be
directed at the preservation of unique or otherwise
significant land areas or structures * * * the
committee bill would restrict the qualifying
contributions where there is no assurance that the
public benefit, if any, furthered by the contribution
would be substantial enough to justify the allowance of
a deduction. * * * [S. Rept. 96-1007, supra at 9-10,
1980-2 C.B. at 603.]
With respect to the Grist Mill property, the record does not
support a finding that any public benefit would be furthered by
petitioners’ claimed13 conservation easement. We need not decide
whether petitioner’s choice not to pursue a rezoning for more
intense development was due to: The realization that the
rezoning would not get approved, his business partner’s desire to
quickly sell the property, or a desire to benefit the community.
Here there has been no preservation of open space. Nor have
petitioners preserved anything that is historically unique about
the Grist Mill property or the surrounding historical areas.
Petitioner simply developed the Grist Mill property to its
maximum yield within the property’s zoning classification.
13In effect, petitioner was attempting to self-impose a
limitation that was already imposed by the zoning classification
and requirements of Fairfax County.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011