Same difference. These conservation easements are usually very clear. They don't want the property to be used to live on, just farmed, or as a park, etc. While you and I think every cute little farm deserves a farm house, in the legal sense that's simply not allowed if the deed or logical interpretation of its langague doesn't permit. I guess you didn't read the article I linked to.
In 1989, a judge ruled that a farmhouse was acceptable based on the language in the deed, and he built it based on that ruling.
But the greenies didn't like it and found a judge in 1995 who would overturn the ruling. They bulldozed his house the next day.
But the greenies didn't like it and found a judge in 1995 who would overturn the ruling. They bulldozed his house the next day.
Oh, I did read the article. A ruling is only as good as the last judge that makes it. In this case, another judge ruled differently. Although I suspect there is more to the story. Generally, when one trial court judge hears a case an rules, only an appellate court can overrule him.
Here is the actual language from the deed:
"The use of the premises hereby conveyed shall be restricted to farming or for use as a wildlife sanctuary or nature conservation area and for the study of natural history. No buildings shall be placed thereon other than small buildings accessory to such uses."
The property is to be used *FOR FARMING* not a *A* farm. Farm implies all the accoutrements thereof, which could, arguably, include a 'farm house'. On the other hand, the limit on the use of the property FOR FARMING clearly does not imply use as a farm with a house. It's no different that a very common occurance where a person leases his land 'for farming'. The person that leases the property grows crops, etc. But they don't live on the property.
Here is a link to a factual account of this case:
http://www.paeb.uscourts.gov/pages/pubopins/pdf/natale-sr.pdf