MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION

MINUTES

March 26, 2002

TRUSTEES PRESENT:

Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman

Allen H. Cohey

Mildred H. Darcey

Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer Dixon

Judith C. Lynch

Joseph K. Scott

Joseph F. Tassone, representing Secretary of Maryland Department of Planning

Gerald Thorpe, representing Comptroller Schaefer

Maurice L. Wiles

Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary Maryland Department of Agriculture

Robert E. Wolf

TRUSTEES ABSENT:

None

OTHERS PRESENT:

Bill Amoss, Harford County Program Administrator

Darlene M. Athey, Secretary

Kevin Clark, Queen Anne=s County Program Administrator

James Conrad, Administrator

Jeff Everett, Howard County Program Administrator

Thomas F. Filbert, Assistant Attorney General

Iva L. Frantz, Administrative Officer

Eric Hines, Anne Arundel Planning & Zoning

Dave Kelleher, Asst. Chief, Appraisal & Valuation, Department of General Services

Carla Martin, Kent County Program Administrator

Donna Mennitto, Gun Powder Conservancy

Bill Powel, Carroll County Program Administrator

Charles Rice, Charles County Program Administrator

Charles Sasscer, Sr., St. Mary=s County Landowner

Donna Sasscer, St. Mary=s County Program Administrator

Mary Sasscer, St. Mary=s County Landowner

Tammy Scheidt, Caroline County Program Administrator

Susan Wilson, Frederick County landowner

Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. at the Maryland Department of Agriculture building, Annapolis, Maryland.

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES/ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:

A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 26, 2002

Motion #1: To approve the minutes of February 26, 2002.

Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Robert Wolf

Status: Approved

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE SESSION: February 26, 2002

Motion #2: To approve the minutes of Executive Session for February 26, 2002.

Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Robert Wolf

Status: Approved

C. ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:

None

II. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS

A. WASHINGTON COUNTY

1. 21-18-02-01 GRIMM, Sr., et al, Bobbie E. 129.7000 acres

Motion #3: To approve the request of Bobbie E. Grimm, Sr. to establish an agricultural land preservation district on his property.

Motion: Allen Cohey Second: Robert Wolf

Status: Approved

B. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

1. 02-01-02-01 FRANKLIN, Gary D. & Johnnie A. 103.6100 acres

Motion #4: To approve the request of Gary D. & Johnnie A. Franklin to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their property.

Motion: Mildred Darcey Second: Allen Cohey

Status: Approved

C. QUEEN ANNE=S COUNTY

1. 17-06-02-03 DOWNES, Sr., Mervyn J. & Catherine A. 52.0000 acres

Motion #5: To approve the request of Mervyn J. & Catherine A. Downes, Sr to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their property.

Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Robert Wolf

Status: Approved

2. 17-03-02-04 MILLIKEN, William James 260.0000 acres

Motion #6: To approve the request of William J. Milliken to establish an agricultural land preservation district on his property.

Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Joseph Scott

Status: Approved

3. 17-06-02-05 CALLAHAN, Brian 88.0320 acres

Motion #7: To approve the request of Brian Callahan to establish an agricultural land preservation district on his property.

Motion: Lewis Logan Second: Maurice Wiles

Status: Approved

D. ST. MARY=S COUNTY

1. 18-02-02-09 MEINHARDT, Sr., Walter M. 117.52 acres

Motion #8: To approve the request of Walter M. Meinhardt, Sr. to establish an agricultural land preservation district on his property.

Motion: Mildred Darcey Second: Robert Wolf

Status: Approved

III. DISTRICT/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS

A. CARROLL COUNTY

1. 06-02-99-13A MEYERS, et al, Geary 79.2841 acres

Request for approval to locate a reserve well site on pending easement property.

When the above referenced district was established on June 22, 1999, three (3.0) acres were withheld surrounding an existing construction business.

The landowners were made an easement offer for the FY 2001 Easement Acquisition Program. The offer was not accepted immediately because of the concern that the three acres withheld for the existing construction business and related houses may not be enough to address possible future well and septic needs.

The easement offer consisted of 100% county funds. At the time the offer was made, the landowners asked if the deadline to respond to the offer could be extended. The Foundation and the Carroll County agreed to extend the offer until Health Department regulations could be addressed.

Recently, the landowners have been told that the current well is acceptable with the exception that a future well may be needed 70 feet outside of the three acres that has been withheld pending easement property. As a result of this, the landowners are requesting written approval, in advance of selling the easement, for a well to be located 70 feet on easement property, if the well is ever necessary. If approval is given by the Foundation, the landowners will proceed with signing the Option Contract. Acceptance of the offer will be counted as a Fiscal Year 2002 offer instead of counting it as a Fiscal Year 2001 easement. Funding will be with 100% additional county funds outside of the FY >02 ranking and funding.

All water pipes and wiring for the well will be placed underground. Disturbance to the pending easement property will be limited to placement of the well casing, and possibly, a small covered pit..

The current use of the proposed location is cropland.

Foundation staff recommended approval of this request as placement of the well will not have any more of an effect on the pending easement property than if the well were on the three acres.

Motion #9: To approve the request of Geary Meyers, et al to locate a reserve well site on pending easement property.

Motion: Gary Thorpe Second: Judy Lynch

Status: Approved

2. 06-02-99-13A MEYERS, et al, Geary 79.2841 acres

Request for approval to increase withheld acreage from 3.00 to 3.35 acres from a pending easement property to accommodate access across easement property.

When the above referenced district was established on June 22, 1999, three (3.0) acres were withheld surrounding an existing construction business.

The landowners were made an easement offer for the FY 2001 Easement Acquisition Program. The offer was not accepted immediately because of the concern that the three acres withheld for the existing construction business and related houses may not be enough to address possible future well and septic needs. The easement offer consisted of 100% county funds. At the time the offer was made, the landowners asked if the deadline to respond to the offer could be extended. The Foundation and the Carroll County agreed to extend the offer until Health Department regulations could be addressed.

The landowners= intent at the time of District establishment was to exclude these 3.0 acres for their business and have a 20-foot right-of-way access of approximately 760 feet in length, approximately 0.35 acres. The District Agreement tax map drawing submitted by Carroll County was not clear regarding the access, but the map recorded with the District Agreement indicates that the access is within the 3.00 acres.

It is not possible to satisfy Health Department requirements if the lot must include the access road within the 3.00 acres because the lot lines would encroach on buildings or septic areas. The previous agenda item (III.A.1) already requests permission to locate a reserve well site on easement property to satisfy Health Department requirements.

The landowners are requesting and the Carroll County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board recommends that the acreage withheld from the easement sale be increased from 3.00 to 3.35 acres, more or less, to exclude the access road from the easement sale. If this is not acceptable to the Board, the Carroll County Advisory Board recommends that an easement be granted for the right-of-way access to the three-acre withheld area.

If approval is given by the Foundation, the landowners will proceed with signing the Option Contract. Acceptance of the offer will be counted as a Fiscal Year 2002 offer instead of counting it as a Fiscal Year 2001 easement. Funding will be with 100% additional county funds outside of the FY >02 ranking and funding.

Foundation staff recommended approval of this request because the legal status of the access road will have no impact on the farming operations of the pending easement property.

Motion #10: To approve the request of Geary Meyers, et al to increase withheld acreage from 3.00 to 3.35 acres from a pending easement property to accommodate access across easement property.

Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Maurice Wiles

Status: Approved

B. KENT COUNTY

1. 14-02-90-02e MEEKS, Roberta 123.618 acres

Request for approval to exclude 1.0 acre child=s lot from easement property for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for child, Amy M. Cullum, for her personal use.

Mrs. Meeks is the original owner of a 123.618 acre easement property. The current request is for the exclusion of a 1.0 acre child=s lot for her daughter, Amy M. Cullum.

According to Kent County, access for the proposed lot will be provided from Browntown Road. The area is currently in cropland and the impact to the overall farm operation will be minimal.

There is one pre-existing dwelling on this easement property. Mrs. Meeks is also requesting approval for a child=s lot for her daughter, Christine Meeks Turner (See Agenda Item III.B.2).

If this request is approved, there will be a required payback of the per acre amount of $725.00 that Mrs. Meeks received for the easement.

Mrs. Meeks still has the right to request an owner=s lot. Mrs. Meeks does not own any other district or easement property.

Foundation staff recommended approval based on the landowner=s rights contained in the deed of easement=s covenants, conditions, limitations and restrictions, Section A(1)(b) A...the Grantee, on written application from the Grantor, shall release free of restrictions only for the Grantor who originally sold this easement, 1.0 acre or less for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for the use only of that Grantor or the Grantor=s child...@

Motion #11: To approve the request of Roberta Meeks to exclude 1.0 acre child=s lot from easement property for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for her child, Amy M. Cullum, for her personal use.

Motion: Joseph Tassone Second: Judy Lynch

Status: Approved

2. 14-02-90-02e MEEKS, Roberta 123.618 acres

Request for approval to exclude 1.0 acre child=s lot from easement property for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for her child, Christine Meeks Turner, for her personal use.

Mrs. Meeks is the original owner of a 123.618 acre easement property. The current request is for the exclusion of a 1.0 acre child=s lot for her daughter, Christine Meeks Turner.

According to Kent County, access for the proposed lot will be provided from Browntown Road. The area is currently in cropland and the impact to the overall farm operation will be minimal.

There is one pre-existing dwelling on this easement property. Mrs. Meeks is also requesting approval for a child=s lot for her daughter, Amy M. Cullum. (See Agenda Item III.B.1)

If this request is approved, there will be a required payback of the per acre amount of $725.00 that Mrs. Meeks received for the easement.

Mrs. Meeks still has the right to request an owner=s lot. Mrs. Meeks does not own any other district or easement property.

Foundation staff recommended approval based on the landowner=s rights contained in the deed of easement=s covenants, conditions, limitations and restrictions, Section A(1)(b) A...the Grantee, on written application from the Grantor, shall release free of restrictions only for the Grantor who originally sold this easement, 1.0 acre or less for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for the use only of that Grantor or the Grantor=s child...@

Motion #12: To approve the request of Roberta Meeks to exclude 1.0 acre child=s lot from easement property for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for child, Christine Meeks Turner, for her personal use.

Motion: Joseph Tassone Second: Judy Lynch

Status: Approved

Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary Maryland Department of Agriculture, asked about the location of the access road.

Carla Martin, Kent County Program Administrator, explained the current location of the access road.

3. 14-03-90-01c PARKER, David & Brenda 227.916 acres

Request to agriculturally subdivide.

David and Barbara Parker are subsequent owners of this 227.916 acre property in Kent County. The District Agreement was originally recorded the ownership of PPKL Associates, of which David Parker was the principal. Their current request for an agricultural subdivision will result in two parcels of 50.1000 acres and 177.816 acres in size. The larger parcel will be sold to an adjacent landowner who will incorporate it into his present farming operation. The smaller parcel will be retained by the current owners who will continue to farm it. The owners wish to reduce the size of their operation so they can manage it by themselves. The principal farming activity is field crops.

The smaller parcel retained by the owners will include the house and outbuildings. This parcel is located in the northeast area of the current parcel with substantial road frontage along St. James Road. The larger parcel to be conveyed is generally the southwest area of the current parcel, also with substantial road frontage along St. James Road.

According to Kent County, both parcels retain soils eligibility for MALPF. The smaller parcel includes 22.7 acres of Class II soils and 4.4 acres of Class III soils for a total of 54.2% of the total parcel. The larger parcel includes 85 acres of Class II soils (47.8% of the total acreage) and 49 acres of Woodland Group II soils (27.5% of the total acreage). The larger parcel is unimproved.

As both properties will be owned by subsequent owners, the only residential right retained is the right to construct a tenant house on the larger parcel with the approval of the Foundation.

The Foundation staff recommended approval because the proposed agricultural subdivision meets the criteria set forth in the Foundation=s Policy on Agricultural Subdivisions.

Motion #13: To approve the request of David & Brenda Parks to agriculturally subdivide.

Motion: Gary Thorpe Second: Maurice Wiles

Status: Approved

Joseph F. Tassone, representing Secretary of Maryland Department of Planning, clarified that the Parkers are requesting to retain the smaller acreage to continue farming on a smaller scale while the larger portion was going to be utilized by another farmer to continue to grow crops.

Allen Cohey, Board member, raised the issue of tenant houses on these parcels.

James Conrad, Administrator, stated that the 50.0 acres does not qualify for a tenant house. This property was originally purchased by a partnership. The partners were bought out and Mr. Parker is now the only landowner. Technically, this would make him a subsequent owner. The only parcel that would be allowed a tenant house is the 177.816 acres.

C. ST. MARY=S COUNTY

1. 18-03-99-14 JOHNSON, Sr., Estate of, Edwin; 111.34 acres

SASSCER, Sr., Charles & Mary

Request to agriculturally subdivide pending easement property.

This 111-acre District property in St. Mary=s County has an easement sale pending on it. Edwin P. Johnson, Sr., passed away many years ago. The property is currently owned by his Estate. Charles and Mary Sasscer are contract purchasers of the property. Their purchase is contingent on receiving permission from the Foundation for an agricultural subdivision of the property (this agenda item) and for an exchange of a three-acre building lot held out from the district for a building right on one of the subdivided parcels (see agenda item III.C.2). Because this property is subject to the tobacco buyout incentive, the Sasscers must wait to purchase the property until after the easement has been sold. The sale of the easement by the Estate will realize a 10% bonus on the property=s easement.

The contract purchasers= request for an agricultural subdivision will result in two parcels of 54.67 acres each, more or less. The farm is currently planted in wheat by a neighboring farmer as part of a larger grain operation. The parcel away from Rte. 234 will be owned by Mary and Charles Sasscer and support a cattle (Angus) operation as a standalone operation. The parcel nearest to Rte. 234 will be owned by Charles Sasscer, Jr., their son, and support a hay and vegetable operation as part of a larger operation. The cattle operation is moving from Prince George=s County and will be an owner-operator farm working in conjunction with the son=s proposed adjacent farming operation. This move will allow the Sasscer=s to expand their cattle herd.

The existing house on the property is subject to a life estate and will not convey. Otherwise there are no residences on the property. A six-acre parcel was held out of the MALPF program to ensure that the next owner would be able to construct two dwellings on the property, because the building rights will be extinguished with the sale of the property. (See agenda item III.C.2.) The surveyor is in the process of recording two lots through Planning & Zoning on these six acres.

According to St. Mary=s County, both parcels retain soils eligibility for MALPF. The parcel to convey to the son of the contract purchasers has 37.30 acres of eligible soils (68.23%); the parcel to be retained by the contract purchasers has 37.00 acres of eligible soils (67.68%).

This request has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the St. Mary=s Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board and is consistent with the planning and zoning regulations.

The Foundation staff recommends approval because the proposed agricultural subdivision meets the criteria set forth in the Foundation=s Policy on Agricultural Subdivisions.

Motion #14: To approve the request of Edwin Johnson, Jr. and Charles Sasscer to agriculturally subdivide pending easement property.

Motion: Mildred Darcey Second: Joseph Scott

Status: Approved

Mr. Tassone asked if this property has been looked as with respect to the Foundation=s policy on agricultural subdivisions.

Mr. Conrad stated that this property has been looked at very carefully by the Foundation staff. It has been determined that this property meets the criteria.

Mr. Wilson asked if the farm would be going in as a whole prior to the easement sale and subdivide at a later date.

Mr. Conrad stated that in order for the property to qualify for the Tobacco Incentive Buy Out, the landowners would have to go to settlement this way in order to receive the 10% bonus.

Mr. Wilson asked if the son would be entitled to a child=s lot.

Mr. Conrad stated that he would not as he would not be the original landowner. He would be considered a subsequent owner. The estate has no intention of developing the land, they are settling the estate.

2. 18-03-99-14 JOHNSON, Jr., Estate of, Edwin; 111.34 acres

SASSCER, Sr., Charles & Mary

Request to exchange a 3-acre building lot for 1 building right on pending easement property.

This 111-acre District property in St. Mary=s County has an easement sale pending on it. The property is currently owned by Mr. Johnson=s Estate. Charles and Mary Sasscer are contract purchasers. Their purchase is contingent on receiving permission from the Foundation for an agricultural subdivision of the property (see agenda item III.C.1) and for an exchange of a building lot held out from the district for a building right on one of the subdivided parcels (this agenda item). Because this property is subject to the tobacco buyout incentive, the Sasscer=s must wait to purchase the property until the easement has been sold. The sale of the easement by the Estate will realize a 10% bonus on the property=s easement.

The original parcel was approximately 117 acres (currently being surveyed). The only existing dwelling on the property will not convey because a relative of Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Weible, has a life estate on the house. A six-acre parcel on Rte. 234 was held out of the program to ensure that the next owner could construct two dwellings on the property, because the building rights will be extinguished with the sale of the property. The surveyor is in the process of recording two lots through Planning & Zoning on these six acres.

The contract purchasers= request for an agricultural subdivision would result in two parcels of 54.67 acres each, more or less. The parcel away from Rte. 234 would be owned by Mary and Charles Sasscer, Sr., and support a cattle (Angus) operation. The parcel nearest to Rte. 234 will be owned by Charles Sasscer, Jr., their son, and support a hay and vegetable operation as part of a larger operation.

Because the existing two building rights are located on non-MALPF property on Rte 234, and because the parent=s parcel will support the cattle operation away from Rte. 234 for safety of the livestock and which the father wishes to keep a close eye on, the contract purchasers request that one of building rights attached to the lot on Rte 234 be moved to the original easement parcel away from Rte 234 and be extinguished on the excluded building lot. The acreage associated with this building right would be placed under the MALPF easement. Access to this proposed residence would be on an existing farm road. The other lot on Rte 234 will be owned by the son for a future residence connected to the agricultural subdivision parcel, though it is not likely to be developed in the foreseeable future.

The Foundation staff recommends approval based on the recommendation of the local Agricultural Land Preservation Board and its judgment that the relocation of the building lot will have less of an impact on the farm operation than the land left out of the easement. There will be no net increase in development on the property, and the Foundation will receive additional acreage under easement at no additional expense. However, the staff feels that any house constructed as a result of this approval should convey with the easement property where it is located.

Motion #15: To approve the request of Edwin Johnson, Jr. and Charles Sasscer to exchange a 3-acre building lot for 1 building right on pending easement property.

Motion: Mildred Darcey Second: Joseph Scott

Status: Approved

Mr. Tassone asked for clarification as to the location of the dwellings.

Mr. Conrad stated that the dwelling on subdivision that Mr. & Mrs. Sasscer will occupy, would be located on the back part of their part of the subdivision away from Rt. 234. Their son, Charles Jr., will be closest to Rt. 234 with an access road for his parents.

Mr. Wilson stated that the lot in question, on the parent’s farm, would not be conveyed from the farm.

Mr. Conrad stated that this is correct.

IV. PROGRAM POLICY/EASEMENT OFFERS

A. Foundation Policy on Sod farming as an acceptable agricultural activity on District and Easement properties. Request for formal determination by Somerset County.

Thomas J. Lawton, Program Administrator for Somerset County, has asked for a formal determination from the Foundation=s Board of Trustees as to whether sod farming is an acceptable agricultural activity on District and Easement properties. This enquiry comes from a landowner interested in participating in the Program who currently is pursuing this activity on his farm. At the time of the letter, no Foundation policy expressly addresses this use.

Motion #16: To approve the request of Somerset County to establish a policy that allows turf/sod farming as a viable agricultural use on district and easement property.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Allen Cohey

Status: Approved

VII. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION

A. Legislative Issues

Mr. Wilson reviewed the current budget restrictions and allotments with the Board. He stated that there was a proposal of Bond Issues for Project Open Space, Rural Legacy, GreenPrint and MALPF. At this time, this proposal has been tabled but there is a possibility of this issue coming up again. He went on to elaborate on the status of bills in the House and Senate that are in the process of being voted.

Motion # 17: To adjourn the regular session of the Board of Trustees to go into Executive Session for the purpose of making easement offers to landowners.

Motion: Maurice Wiles Second: Gerald Thorpe

Status: Approved

The regular session Board meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

________________________________________

Douglas H. Wilson, Acting Executive Director

________________________________________

Darlene M. Athey, Foundation Secretary