MINUTES
TRUSTEES
PRESENT:
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman
Allen H. Cohey
Mildred H. Darcey
Judith C. Lynch
Joseph K. Scott
Joseph F. Tassone, representing
Secretary of Maryland Office of Planning
Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary Maryland
Department of Agriculture
Robert E. Wolf
TRUSTEES
ABSENT:
Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer Dixon
Gerald Thorpe, representing Comptroller Schaefer
Maurice L. Wiles
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Bob Anderson,
Darlene M. Athey, Secretary
Ann Baker,
Peter Baker,
Deborah Bowers, Editor, Farmland Preservation Report
Buddy Bowling, Maryland Department of Agriculture
Carol S. Council, Administrative Specialist
Richard Counts, Attorney for Linda Prager
Deborah Fialka,
Iva L. Frantz, Administrative Officer
Virginia Hanahoe, Comptroller=s Office
Robert Jarrell, Attorney for Mattie Mezick
Joy Levy, Queen Anne=s
Wally Lippincott,
Mary Mezick-McClellan,
Richard Mezick,
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General
Bill Powel, Carroll
Bradley Powers, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture
Linda Prager,
Charles Rice, Charles
Dan Rosen, MD Department of Planning
Donna Sasscer, St. Mary=s
Paul W. Scheidt, Executive
Director
Tammy Scheidt,
Susan Wilson,
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman, called the meeting to
order at
I. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES/ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
A. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES OF:
Motion #1: To approve the minutes of
Motion: Allen Cohey Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
B. APPROVAL
OF EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES OF:
Motion #2: To approve the minutes of the Executive Session of:
Motion: Mildred Darcey Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
C.
ADDITION
OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS
None.
II. AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
A.
1. 08-03-01-02 KOCH, Richard P. & Joanna E. 223.0000 acres
2. 08-04-01-03 WATHEN, Sr., Francis P., et al 146.4139 acres
3. 08-04-01-04
4. 08-05-01-05 ROSS, Robinette 127.7300 acres
5. 08-10-01-06 BARRETT, Peter I. 220.1628 acres
6. 08-10-01-07 NIXON, William A. & Lois L. 196.5000 acres
Foundation staff recommended approval based on meeting
minimum district size and soils productive capability criteria.
Paul Scheidt, Executive Director,
stated that on some of the properties listed, the owners have withheld
acreage. 1) Richard Koch is withholding
10 acres surrounding a dwelling, 2) Francis Wathen
has several lots that were previously excluded, 3) William St. Clair is
withholding 8 acres, and 4) Peter Barrett is withholding 12.5 acres for a
dwelling and access.
Mildred Darcey, Board member,
expressed concern that the Wathen property has 106.0
acres of woodland with no forestry management plan and states the general
farming operation is forestry management.
Ms. Darcey further stated that forest
management is woodland that is managed for harvest. She asked what type of trees is on the
property.
Charles Rice, Program Administrator for
Ms. Darcey stated that this
landowner should be encouraged to have a forestry management plan.
Mr. Scheidt, stated that where 50% or more of the land is forested, the
landowner is encouraged to have a forestry management plan. A forestry management plan is not a
requirement.
Joseph Tassone, representing the
Secretary of the Maryland Office of Planning, questioned how many development
rights were on the acres being withheld on the mentioned properties.
Mr. Scheidt stated that on
property excluded prior to district establishment the Foundation does not
determine development rights. The local
zoning would determine the amount of building lots.
Motion #3: To approve the requests of Richard P. & Joanna E. Koch,
Francis P. Wathen, Sr., et al, William A. St. Clair,
Robinette Ross, Peter I. Barrett, and William A. & Lois L. Nixon to
establish an agricultural land preservation district on their properties. The Board also encourages Mr. Wathen to have a forestry management plan done on his
property.
Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
7. 08-05-01-08A KIMMONS John H. 38.1000 acres
Approval based on COMAR 15.15.01.03D(2)(a)(i) which states, A...a parcel of less than 100 acres may qualify as a district
if it adjoins a 100-acre parcel which has been approved by the Foundation as an
agricultural land preservation district@ and meeting soil productive capability criteria.
Motion #4: To approve the request of John H. Kimmons,
to establish an agricultural land preservation
district on his property.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second: Joseph Scott
Status: Approved
8. 08-08-01-09A HOGUE, Gaylord G. & Bobby Coe 94.0330 acres
9. 08-08-01-10A HOGUE, Gaylord G. & Bobby Coe 38.8000 acres
Approval based on COMAR 15.15.01.03D(2)(a)(ii) which states,
A...a parcel of less than 100 acres
may qualify as a district if it is added to one or more adjoining parcels which
together have been approved by the Foundation as agricultural land preservation
districts@ and meeting soil productive
capability criteria.
Motion #5: To approve the requests of Gaylord G. & Bobby Coe Hogue,
and Gaylord G. & Bobby Coe Hogue to establish an agricultural land
preservation district on their properties.
Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Joseph Scott
Status: Approved
Mr. Tassone asked why the two
properties were submitted separately and could both properties be presented as
one district.
Mr. Scheidt stated that they are
two different parcels. He further stated
that both parcels could be combined into one if the owner preferred.
Mr. Tassone asked if coming in
separately would allow multiple lot rights on each parcel.
Mr. Scheidt stated that on the 94.0-acre
parcel they would be entitled to 5 building lots while on the 38.0-acre parcel
they would be entitled to 2 building lots.
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, stated that each
parcel would be entitled to an owner=s lot and child=s lots unless the Board placed a condition on the acceptance
of the properties.
Ms. Darcey asked if the lots were
to come in separately, how many lot rights would they
gain.
Mr. Scheidt stated that, as a 124-acre
district, they would be entitled to seven buildable
lots. As two separate parcels they would
still be entitled to a total of seven lots.
Doug Wilson, representing Secretary of Agriculture, stated
that in the case where there is one child they could not have a child=s lot on each parcel.
Allen Cohey, Board member, stated
that he was not in favor of splitting the two properties,
they should be combined as one district.
Mr. Tassone asked if these are two
separate agricultural operations.
Mr. Rice stated that it is one agricultural operation, they
are separate parcels treated as one.
Mr. Tassone asked if the Board
would consider an amendment to accept these parcels as one district instead of
two separate ones.
Motion #6: To table the requests of Gaylord G. & Bobby Coe Hogue to
establish an agricultural land preservation district on their properties
pending their agreement to combine their acerage to
form one district consisting of 124.0 acres.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
B.
1. 17-01-01-02 BOSTIC, Richard H., et al 178.7360 acres
2. 17-01-01-03 LEAGER, George Roland 154.5200 acres
Foundation staff recommended approval based on meeting
minimum district size and soils productive capability criteria.
Motion #7: To approve the requests of Richard H. Bostic,
et al and George Roland Leager to establish an
agricultural land preservation district on their properties.
Motion: Allen Cohey Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
C.
1. 04-01-01-01 DORSHOW, Alice F., Trustee 181.8200 acres
Foundation staff recommended approval based on meeting
minimum district size and soils productive capability criteria.
Motion #8: To approve the request of Alice F. Dorshow,
Trustee, to establish an agricultural land preservation district on her
property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second:
Joseph Tassone
Status: Approved
2. 04-01-01-02 BAKER, Raymond N., et al 102.0000 acres
Foundation staff recommended approval based on meeting
minimum district size and soils productive capability criteria.
3. 04-01-01-03A BAKER, Raymond N., et al 20.0000 acres
4. 04-01-01-04A BAKER, Raymond N., et al 20.0000 acres
5. 04-01-01-05A BAKER, Raymond N., et al 20.0000 acres
Approval based on COMAR 15.15.01.03D(2)(a)(ii) which states,
A...a parcel of less than 100 acres
may qualify as a district if it is added to one or more adjoining parcels which
together have been approved by the Foundation as agricultural land preservation
districts@ and meeting soil productive
capability criteria.
Mr. Scheidt stated that the Baker
properties deal with up front estate planning. The landowner agrees that, by
establishing districts in this manner, there would be only one child=s lot located on one of the 20.0-acre
parcels. The districts are a family owned
operation with Raymond & Ann Baker along with their six children who have
signed an affidavit agreeing that Mr. & Mrs. Baker will receive the owner=s lot, one child=s lot will be provided on each of
the 20.0-acre parcels and the remaining children will receive a child=s lot on the larger parcel.
Mr. Tassone stated that he was in
agreement with the estate planning measures and this appears to be a well
thought out plan. If this plan had not
been presented it would be three 20.0-acre subdivisions with children=s lots. He further stated that the Board should
consider the approach taken with regards to dealing with agricultural
subdivisions and lot exclusions.
Mr. Wilson stated that if the 120.0-acre parcel was approved
with the landowner coming in at a later date with the 20.0-acre parcels, the
Board would approve all of them as districts.
In
Mr. Tassone asked what is the nature of the farming operation.
Peter Baker, landowner, stated that they have an active
forestry management plan on the farm.
Some of the acreage is leased to local farmers with the remainder of the
land used for hay crop.
Mr. Tassone asked what would
happen to the farm when all of the children have grown. Would the land be sold, would there be a
stipulation in future deeds that this land would remain within the family.
Mr. Baker stated that it was the family=s intent to keep the farming
operation and lands intact within the family.
He further stated that there would be no stipulation in the deeds
stating that the land was to stay within the family.
Mr. Cohey stated that, even though
he seconded the motion, he does not like the idea of breaking land down into
separate parcels, this leaves the door open to development.
Motion #9: To approve the requests of Raymond N. Baker, et al, to
establish an agricultural land preservation district on their properties
limiting the owner=s and child=s lots as agreed to by the Baker family.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
D.
1. 06-01-01-01
2. 06-01-01-02 HARNER, Dennis J. & Mary W. 124.6200 acres
3. 06-01-01-03 DEVILBISS, Robert L. 113.9400 acres
Foundation staff recommended approval based on meeting
minimum district size and soils productive capability criteria.
Motion #10: To approve the requests of Gordon & Jean
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second: Judy Lynch
Status: Approved
4. 06-01-01-04A DAVIS, Kenneth L. & Karen S. 24.1440 acres
5. 06-01-01-05A BARNES,
6. 06-01-01-06A HARNER, Louella
S., et al 86.7400
acres
7. 06-01-01-07A RODKEY, Fern A. & Doris 86.1600 acres
Approval based on COMAR 15.15.01.03D(2)(a)(i) which states, A...a parcel of less than 100 acres may qualify as a district
if it adjoins a 100-acre parcel which has been approved by the Foundation as an
agricultural land preservation district@ and meeting soil productive capability criteria.
Mr. Tassone asked what is the relationship between the Gordon & Jean Davis, and
Kenneth & Karen Davis, and, also, the two adjacent properties.
Bill Powel, Carroll County Program Administrator, stated
that Kenneth is Gordon & Jean
Motion #10: To approve the requests of Kenneth L. & Karen S. Davis,
Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
III. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 08-09-81-01Ce SERENITY FARMS, INC. 222.7550 acres
Franklin Robinson
Request for approval of a 50.0-acre
agricultural subdivision of easement property.
Mr. Franklin Robinson, President of Serenity Farms, Inc., is the original owner of the 222.755-acre property. His current request is for approval of a 50.0-acre
agricultural subdivision on his easement property to be conveyed to his son.
Mr. Robinson is requesting that a 50.0-acre parcel be
agriculturally subdivided in accordance with the Foundation=s recently approved Policy on
Agricultural Subdivisions. However, he
is requesting that a smaller amount be considered as he desires only to convey
about 20.0 acres surrounding a greenhouse and the area on which a second
greenhouse is being constructed.
The Foundation=s new Policy on Agricultural Subdivisions states that an
approved agricultural subdivision must be at least 50.0 acres unless the parcel
is to be conveyed to an adjoining easement property or is to straighten a
boundary line.
According to
There are no pre-existing dwellings on the easement property
and there have been no requests for lot exclusions or previous agricultural
subdivisions.
Foundation staff recommended approval as the proposed
agricultural subdivision meets the criteria set forth in the Foundation=s Policy on Agricultural
Subdivisions.
Mr. Rice stated that Mr. Robinson=s intentions are to subdivide the
existing greenhouse and the one under construction out. They prefer the 20.0-acre subdivision to
convey to their son. However, they will
agree to the 50.0-acre subdivision if necessary.
Mr. Scheidt stated that there will
be no building lots on the subdivision.
Motion #11: To approve the request of Serenity Farms, Inc. (Franklin
Robinson) for a 50.0-acre agricultural subdivision of easement property.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second: Judy Lynch
Status: Approved
2. 08-04-00-25A BOWLING, Sr., Larry W. 45.0000 acre
Request to amend the District Agreement to increase acreage
to 103.96 acres.
On
According to
Foundation staff recommended approval as the proposed
amended district continues to meet minimum district size and soils productive
capability criteria.
Motion #12: To approve the request of Larry W. Bowling Sr. to amend the
District Agreement to increase acreage to 103.96 acres.
Motion: Mildred Darcey Second:
Joseph Tassone
Status: Approved
B.
1. 17-06-88-07e WILLIS, Linda E. 226.1300 acres
Request for approval to exclude a
2.0-acre child=s lot from easement property for
daughter, Julie Meyers, to construct a dwelling intended for her use.
Ms. Willis is the original owner of the 226.13-acre easement
property. Her current request is for
exclusion of a 2.0-acre child=s lot for her daughter, Julie, to
construct a dwelling for her personal use.
According to Queen Anne=s County, the proposed child=s lot will be located in what is
currently cropland and will have a minimal impact on the overall farm
operation. A 2.0-acre lot is being
requested in order to satisfy the County Health Department=s requirement for 1.5 acres in order
to accommodate the sewage reserve area as well as 0.5 acre to provide fee
simple access to the county road.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the easement property
which has not been excluded. There have
been no previous requests for lot exclusions on this property and Ms. Willis
does not own other district or easement properties.
Foundation staff recommended approval based on Agricultural
Article, Section 2-513, Annotated Code of Maryland, which allows a lot size of
up to 2.0 acres to be released, if the purpose for excluding the lot is to
construct a dwelling house intended for the owner or the owner=s child(ren)
and the regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment requires a
minimum lot size of not less that 2.0 acres or the regulations adopted by the
county require the lot to be larger than 1.0 acre but not to exceed 2.0 acres.
Motion #13: To approve the request of Linda E. Willis to exclude a 2.0-acre
child=s lot from easement property for
daughter, Julie Meyers, to construct a dwelling intended for her use.
Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
C. ITEM
MOVED TO V.B
D.
1. 07-04-87-02e MACKIE, Richard D. 373.130 acres
Request for approval of an 82.9-acre
agricultural subdivision of easement property.
Mr. Mackie is the original owner of the 373.13-acre easement
property. His current request is for
approval of an 82.9-acre agricultural subdivision which will be conveyed to a
third party.
According to
There are two pre-existing dwellings on the easement
property. If this request is approved,
one pre-existing dwelling will be located on the agricultural subdivision
parcel. There have been no requests for
owner=s or children=s lot exclusions or agricultural
subdivisions on this property. Mr.
Mackie owns two district properties.
Foundation staff recommended approval as the proposed
agricultural subdivision meets the criteria set forth in the Foundation=s Policy on Agricultural
Subdivisions.
Mr. Tassone asked if the intention
of the third party would be to subdivide and sell the 82.9-acre subdivision.
Carol Council, Foundation staff, stated that at this time, the
Foundation does not have knowledge of an interested buyer.
Mr. Tassone asked if the
agricultural subdivision policy was intended for a parcel to be subdivided with
the intent of continuing farming on both parcels of property, as opposed to
selling the subdivided parcel.
Mr. Scheidt stated that this is
one concept that has been discussed.
Mr. Tassone stated that if this is
going to be the criteria the Board should be prepared to approve all of the
agricultural subdivisions presented.
Mr. Scheidt stated that approval
would be only if the subdivisions met the criteria.
Mr. Wilson stated that if a subdivision has met all the
criteria it can be considered a farming operation. The Board has approved subdivisions for
easement properties that have met the criteria.
Tammy Scheidt, Caroline County
Program Administrator, quoted from the Policy on Agricultural Subdivisions, the
General Perspective, ANo district or easement property may
be subdivided without the written approval of the Foundation. All requests for agricultural subdividions shall be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis. An approval for an agricultural
subdivision should not be portrayed as an absolute right to the landowner. Each request will be reviewed to determine if
the proposed subdivided parcel and remaining parcel will continue to be able to
sustain long-term agricultural production.
The boundaries of the proposed agricultural subdivision should follow
physical characteristics of the farm such as the end of a field or hedge row,
edge of woodland, a stream, road or farm lane, or some other physical feature
of the farm.
Motion #14: To approve the request of Richard D. Macke
for an 82.9-acre agricultural subdivision of easement property.
Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Mildred Darcey
Opposed: Joseph Tassone, Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
IV. PROGRAM
POLICY/EASEMENT OFFERS
A. Proposed
Policy on
On
Foundation staff=s current request is for the Board of Trustees to formally
adopt the Proposed Policy on Lot Exclusions and Lot Density so that we may
begin the process of preparing legislation for the 2002 Legislative Session.
Mr. Scheidt stated that the
Foundation staff did a telephone poll of the Program Administrators as to their
stance on this matter. This proposal
takes into account more than lot exclusions.
It covers total number of houses on the property, who lives in the
houses, and how many houses are allowed.
It removes the title of owner=s or child=s lots, promotes different uses for
dwellings, and allows the landowner more flexibility. There had been discussion about making this
retroactive which was tabled. This
proposal reduces the number of lots, allows them to be conveyed to subsequent
owners to utilize these rights. This
will determine who receives lots in the case of corporations and
partnerships. It will also eliminate the
two stage release process. The Policy
Review Committee recommends that we adopt this proposal so it may be presented
for the next legislative session. There
is an alternative measure being proposed by
Joseph Scott, Board member, asked if the first owner does
not use the rights will the subsequent owner or owners be able to exercise this
right.
Mr. Scheidt stated that under the
proposed policy this will be allowed.
Mr. Wilson asked if the proposal was submitted to other
agricultural programs and organizations.
Ms. Council stated that the policy was submitted to the Farm
Bureau, the State Grange, and Maryland Agricultural Commission, with no
response.
Mr. Tassone stated that on
Mr. Wilson asked if the proposed policy was submitted to the
sub-committee.
Mr. Scheidt stated that this has
been submitted to the sub-committee showing what the Foundation is considering.
Mr. Tassone stated that the
sub-committee was under the impression that this was drafted by the Policy
Review Committee and that it has not been to a vote by the Board.
Mr. Wilson stated that the telephone poll indicates that
most counties are in support of it except for
Wally Lippincott, Baltimore County
Program Administrator, stated that after various discussions not only was
Mr. Powel stated that if you could get this through the
Legislature to sell lots after easement sale, we would lose all public
support. The program administrators get
calls from citizens questioning building on easement properties.
Mr. Wilson stated that there are legislators that question
the current law when grandchildren and subsequent owners want lot rights. The Board needs to establish a policy and
submit it to the Task Force for support.
Mr. Scheidt stated that the
sub-committees are studying the policies, procedures and practices of the
Foundation. The Foundation has addressed
many of the issues that the Task Force is evaluating. This issue is being reviewed by two
sub-committees that report to the full Task Force which may or may not result
in legislation.
Mr. Lippincott stated that this is
the biggest change in the program in 20 years.
This is a major change in the program that impacts on a variety of areas
with profound fiscal implications.