MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION
FOUNDATION
MINUTES
April 23, 2002
TRUSTEES
PRESENT:
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman
Allen H. Cohey
Mildred H. Darcey
Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer Dixon
Judith C. Lynch
Hagner R. Mister, Secretary Maryland
Department of Agriculture
Joseph K. Scott
Joseph F. Tassone,
representing Secretary of Maryland Department of Planning
Gerald Thorpe, representing Comptroller Schaefer
Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary Maryland
Department of Agriculture
Robert E. Wolf
TRUSTEES
ABSENT:
Maurice L. Wiles
OTHERS PRESENT:
Darlene M. Athey,
Secretary
Kevin Clark, Queen Anne=s County Program
Administrator
Jim Conrad, Administrator
Sandra Edwards, Cecil County Program Administrator
Thomas F. Filbert, Assistant Attorney General
Iva L. Frantz, Administrative
Officer
Frank Hall, Talbot County Program Administrator
Dave Kelleher, Asst. Chief, Appraisal &
Valuation, Department of General Services
Wally Lippincott,
Baltimore County Program Administrator
Donald Pearce-Belt, Landowner
Bill Powel, Carroll County Program Administrator
Charles Rice, Charles County Program Administrator
Dan Rosen, Maryland Department of Planning
Tammy Scheidt, Caroline
County Program Administrator
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 March 26, 2002
Motion #1: To approve the minutes of March 26,
2002.
Motion: Mildred Darcey Second: Joseph Scott
Status: Approved
B.
APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES: March 26, 2002
Motion #2: To approve the minutes of Executive
Session: March 26, 2002.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
C. ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
1. Secretary Mister=s Address to the Board
Hagner R. Mister, Secretary
Maryland Department of Agriculture, stated to the Board that the Legislature decreased
the funding for the MALPF program by $10 million. He further stated that he is pleased with the
Board=s efforts to preserve farm
land in the State of Maryland. This will
be a challenging year and he is confident that the Board will continue providing
fair and equitable practices to the landowners.
2. Farmland Preservation Report
Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary Maryland
Department of Agriculture, stated that in the current issue of the Farmland
Preservation Report the editor indicates that Pennsylvania has surpassed
Maryland in the preservation of agricultural land. Mr. Wilson pointed out that the article
failed to mention other programs such as Rural Legacy, Green Print, Land Trusts
and various county programs. Mr. Wilson
further stated that he has contacted the editor and brought this oversight to
her attention.
3. Easement Offers Update
Mr. Wilson stated that to date there have been 75
offers made and 39 landowners have accepted.
There has only been 1 rejection with 2 requests for extensions. At this point that leaves approximately 35
offers outstanding. Program
Administrators and Foundation staff are in the process of securing the finality
of these offers in order to be able to get an idea of how many offers can be
made next month.
Jim Conrad, Administrator, stated that the reasons
for the requests for extensions, one has to obtain signatures from out of state
co-owners and the second is in the process of purchasing additional farmland
and are looking into the tax implications.
II. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
A. TALBOT COUNTY
1. 20-04-02-01 EWING,
Bernard E. & Helen 137.0000
acres
2. 20-04-02-02 EWING,
Bernard E. and Gary E. 30.227
acres
3. 20-04-02-03 EWING,
Gary 29.6900
acres
4. 20-04-02-04 EWING,
B. Eugene, et al 61.31
acres
5. 20-04-02-05 EWING,
B. Eugene & Helen G. 25.0000
acres
Joseph F. Tassone,
representing Secretary of Maryland Department of Planning, stated that all of
the properties appeared reasonable except for the possible complicating items
relating to the owners, children=s lots and multiple properties. He stated that the landowner of each district
be notified that, and this information be placed in the district agreement that
density clarify who the owner is for each district for purposes of owner=s and children=s lots. This is to verify that there is no
duplication of owners on any of the districts.
Frank Hall, Talbot County Program Administrator,
stated that this is not a corporation, that B. Eugene
and Bernard E. Ewing are one in the same person, his wife is Helen and their
son is Gary Ewing. These are also
separate parcels that were purchased that comprise one farm.
Mr. Tassone stated that
Bernard Ewing could come and request an owner=s lot on two separate
parcels.
Mr. Hall stated that the Program Administrators
deal with a vast majority of case scenarios before they come before the
Board. It is at the county level that
most attempts to obtain more lots than allowed are detected sometimes with
difficulty. This is not the case.
Mr. Tassone stated that
based on what is presented, he feels that the wording of the District Agreement
he suggested is appropriate and will make the motion stating so.
Mr. Conrad stated that in recent approvals of
easement contracts, where additional landowners are named, a letter has been
sent out about multiple owners putting them on notice that there is only one
owner=s lot even though there are
multiple owners. This is standard
easement policy as far as this issue is concerned.
Mr. Tassone stated that
he is addressing more than that issue in that the conveyance for lot rights
come into play even after the easement sale, that the
Board should take care of this issue now.
Mr. Wilson stated that in correspondence to the
landowners specifying the Board=s intent and that the
landowner is aware of the situation, it will be on record as to what the
Foundation will allow.
Mr. Tassone stated that
this way there would not be landowners coming into the program with expectations
only to have the Board confer on and possibly deny.
Mr. Wilson stated that on property 04 and 05 have
Eugene Ewing and others and
on 06 it is listed as Eugene and Helen Ewing. This would lead to believe that they are separately
deeded and there may be other names on the property.
Mr. Hall stated that these parcels are
adjoining. This would make their request
correct.
Mr. Tassone stated that
in this case, the Board should make the District Agreement state what is in his
motion.
Mr. Hall asked if there would have to be a change
in the law in order to do it.
Mr. Tassone stated that
the law states one owner=s lot and children=s lots according to
density, for the owner. He further
suggested that the Board has not been following the law.
Mr. Wilson stated that the Board has allowed
parcels that are separately deeded to come in as individual
districts. He further stated that he
would support the motion to put correspondence in clarify that the Board is on
record stating that multiple owners lots would not be permitted given the
proximity of these districts.
Mr. Tassone stated that
he does not know what the issue is in making a distinction concerning owners of parcels in a
district.
Tammy Scheidt, Caroline
County Program Administrator, stated that the law states that a landowner is
allowed one owner=s lot per district. The landowner comes in, establishes a
district and at that time has the right to request an owner=s lot. When the landowner applies for a district,
that is the time to deny the lot right, not once the district has been
established.
Mr. Tassone stated that
the landowner needs to be told at the time the district is formed that they are
being denied the lot.
Ms. Scheidt stated that
the law does not allow for the denial of an owner=s lot after the district
has been formed.
Mr. Conrad stated that Foundation staff does not
have an issue with one owner=s lot,
it has not been resolved how many child=s lots are allowed.
There is not a clear mandate in saying that the line of the ownership
actually receives the owner=s lots. If this is the case, then the Board could be
creating a policy.
Mr. Tassone stated that
he is of the opinion that the Board should create a policy.
Mr. Wilson stated that in this case, it is fair to
tell the landowner that the Foundation would not allow an owner=s lot or child=s lots on all of the
districts, because of the ownership structure.
Mr. Hall stated that it appears to be the Board=s presumption that the
landowners in question are trying to obtain more lots than they are allowed.
Mr. Wilson stated that a motion should be made
stating that if this district is approved, contingent upon the receipt of the
correspondence acknowledging that lot rights an issue.
Mr. Hall stated that the motion would be acceptable
to him.
Mr. Tassone stated that
he is concerned by the fact that the Board is making this decision, saying that
there is no such thing indicated in the District Agreement. Why would the Board want to choose stating
this and ambiguity, when the Assistant Attorney General has been stating for
years that if it is not stated in the agreement, then there is a problem. Will this
correspondence be on file with the agreement so it will have the same legal standing.
Robert Wolf, Board member, stated that the Board
needs to be more up front so that landowners cannot come back and state that
they were not informed of their rights.
Ms. Scheidt stated that
if this is what the Board is in favor of doing, have the Assistant Attorney
General review this decision to ensure that this motion is appropriate. The wording of the District Agreement has
been reviewed, in the past, for changes and the Board has been advised that the
changes were not within the limits of the law.
Mr. Wilson stated that it is only fair to let the
landowners know that the Foundation is concerned over the owner=s and child=s lots on each of these
parcels/districts. He further stated
that he moved to approve the 5 district petitions subject to correspondence
that the landowner acknowledges the restrictions that could be imposed on the
owner=s and children=s lots.
Mr. Cohey expressed
concerns that the farm is being broken up into smaller parcels.
Mr. Hall explained that these have been smaller parcels
combined into one large farm since the Ewings
purchased it.
Mr. Wilson stated that on the smaller parcels, they
cannot get an owner=s and child=s lots.
Mr. Conrad stated that for clarity, how is the Board defining the child=s
lot issue.
Mr. Wilson stated that the correspondence will need
to be worked on, but will state because of the multiple acreage and the
multiple owners, the issue around the owner=s and child=s lots are complicated and that clearly, all of
them and all of the children would not get owner=s or children=s lots on all of the
parcels. The landowners will have to
come up with a plan indicating which individuals are to receive building lots.
Mr. Tassone stated that
this is not his original intention. That
his original intention is to essentially say that in reference to children=s lots, one individual or
one couple be considered as owner for purposes of building lots on each of
these properties and that they cannot be the same on any two of the properties.
Mr. Wilson stated that this discussion has arisen
in prior instances and has been agreed to.
Mr. Tassone stated that
as far as the contents of the correspondence, if the wording is what he ordinally stated he will vote in favor, otherwise he will
vote against it.
Mr. Wilson stated that his approach is that the
Foundation wants the family to recognize that the ownership structure of these
5 individual district properties, complicates the issue of the owner=s and children=s lots and that they need
to acknowledge that because of that arrangement, owners may not have duplicate
lots or the children may not have duplicate lots on any of the other districts.
Mr. Tassone stated that
is appears that Bernard and Helen would be able to have up to 6 lots on 137
acres for Bernard=s children and Helen=s children. Eugene and Helen owning the other parcels, would be entitled to lots.
Mr. Cohey asked if
Bernard and Helen and Eugene and Helen are not the same people.
Mr. Hall acknowledged that they are one and the same,
husband and wife.
Mr. Wilson stated that he, Craig Nielsen and Jim
will work on the language of the letter and if it does not meet the Board=s approval the letter will
not be sent.
Mr. Tassone stated for
clarification that each one of these individuals would only get one building
lot.
Mr. Wilson stated that Eugene and Helen would get
one owner=s lot between the districts
and that Gary could get one. However,
the children=s lots could be scattered
over all of the parcels.
Motion #3: The Foundation will draft a letter to
B. Eugene & Helen Ewing, Gary Ewing, B. Eugene and Gary Ewing, B. Eugene
Ewing, et al and Bernard E. & Helen G. Ewing asking them to acknowledge
that the owner=s may have no more than one
building lot on the combination of all the parcels of the districts and no
child may have more than one building lot on the combination of all the parcels
of the districts.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Lewis Logan
Opposed: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
B. ST. MARY=S COUNTY
1. 18-03-02-10 MORGAN,
Rebecca 54.50
acres
Motion #4: To approve the request of Rebecca
Morgan to establish an agricultural land preservation district on her property.
Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
2. 18-04-02-11 HILL,
Sr., James L. 84.264 acres
Robert E. Wolf, Board member, stated that the
landowner should be advised to have a forestry management plan.
Mr. Conrad stated that the landowner will be
advised, however, the forestry on this district does not comprise 50% of the
total acreage.
Motion #5: To approve the request of James L.
Hill, Sr. to establish an agricultural land preservation district on his
property.
Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
3. 18-04-02-12 GUAZZO,
Eugene J. & Shelby P. 138.416
acres
Motion #6: To approve the request of Eugene J.
& Shelby P. Guazzo to establish an agricultural
land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second:
Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
C. WORCESTER COUNTY
1. 23-01-02-01 OUTTEN,
Willard D. & Louise T. 140.0000
acres
Motion #7: To approve the request of Willard D.
& Louise T. Outten to establish an agricultural
land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Judy Lynch
Status: Approved
2. 23-04-02-02 DYKES,
Ned S. & Eileen P. 78.0000
acres
Motion #8: To approve the request of Ned S. &
Eileen P. Dykes to establish an agricultural land preservation district on
their property.
Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Joseph Scott
Status: Approved
III. DISTRICT/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A. WORCESTER COUNTY
1. 23-01-01-01 EAST,
George C. & Sharon A. 107.0000
acres
Request to amend the District Agreement to decrease
acreage to 107.0000 acres.
On June 28, 2001, Mr. and Mrs. East=s request for district establishment
on a 121.50 acre property was approved by the Board of Trustees.
After the district was approved last June,
Foundation staff received notification from Worcester County that the
landowners wanted to change the amount of acreage being withheld from district
restrictions. Staff was instructed to
not record the District Agreement until an amended District Agreement was
received.
In the interim, Mr. and Mrs. East submitted an
easement application for the FY 2002 Easement Acquisition Program. The easement application reflected the
revised acreage amount of 107 acres to be placed under district
restrictions. However, the amended
District Agreement was never forwarded and a District Agreement on this property
has never been recorded.
However, the East=s are slated to receive an
easement offer when the Foundation convenes to Executive Session during this
meeting to make additional Round One offers
for the FY 2002 Easement Acquisition Program.
The Foundation may not purchase an easement on land
which is located outside an established agricultural district.
The current request is to amend the District
Agreement to decrease the district size, resulting in a district of 107.00
acres and to process the amended District Agreement to allow the landowners to
receive an easement offer. If approved,
the land will continue to meet the Foundation=s minimum requirements for
district establishment.
Foundation staff recommends approval as the
proposed amended district continues to meet district size and soils productive
capability criteria and because the appraisal for the FY 2002 Easement
Acquisition Program was based on 107 acres.
Mr. Tassone asked if the
landowners originally withheld acreage and how much was withheld at the time of
the original request.
Iva L. Frantz, Administrative
Officer, stated that they originally withheld 14.0 acres.
Mr. Tassone asked that
with this acreage, would that be 24 acres withheld.
Ms. Frantz indicated that it will be only 14.5
acres withheld.
Mr. Tassone asked how
many lot rights are being extinguished with the 24 acres being withheld.
Mr. Wilson stated that the appraisal was calculated
on 107.0 acres.
Mr. Conrad stated that in Worcester County the
original parcel will have a limit of 5 development rights on it. The appraiser would make the assumption that
the rights would exist.
Mr. Tassone stated that
the appraiser does make this assumption; however, it has no standing as to what
is allowed on easement acreage.
Motion #9: To approve the request of George C.
& Sharon A. East to amend the District Agreement to decrease acreage to
107.0000 acres.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Mildred Darcey
Opposed: Joseph Tassone,
Gary Thorpe
Status: Approved
B. BALTIMORE COUNTY
1. 03-10-89-09A PEARCE,
Robert M. et al 93.834
acres
Request for approval to exclude a 1.0 acre child=s lot from easement
property for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for their son, Donald Pearce-Belt,
for his personal use
The Pearce-Belt family is the original owner of a
93.834 acre easement property. The
current request is for the exclusion of a 1.0 acre child=s lot for the personal use
of Donald Pearce Belt, son of Charlotte P. Belt.
According to Baltimore County, the proposed lot has
been relocated from where it was originally proposed on the recommendation of
the Advisory Board to minimize the overall impact on the agricultural
capability of the farm. The proposed lot
will be located adjacent to a pre-existing lot; thus, the impact to the overall
farming operation will be minimal. The
access will be an in-fee strip from the proposed lot to the public road, Markoe Road.
The Pearce-Belt family has previously requested one child=s lot
exclusion for Erik T. Pearce, son of Robert M. Pearce. The family does not own any other district or
easement property.
If this request is approved, there will be a
required payback of the per acre amount of $3,400.00 that the family received
for the easement.
Motion #10: To approve the request of Robert M.
Pearce, et al to exclude a 1.0 acre child=s lot from easement property for the purpose of
constructing a dwelling for their son, Donald Pearce-Belt, for his personal
use.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Joseph Scott
Status: Approved
C. CECIL COUNTY
1. 07-01-97-01e WILLIAMS,
H. Bayard and Agnes M. 246.9
acres
Request for approval to exclude a 1.0 acre owners= lot from easement property
for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for the owners= personal use.
H Bayard and Agnes M. Williams are the original
owners of a 246.9 acre easement property.
The current request is for the exclusion of a 1.0 acre owners= lot for their personal
use. Because percolation tests have not
yet been performed due to the drought, it is currently unknown if the lot will
be required to be larger than one acre to meet Health Department requirements.
According to Cecil County, the proposed lot fronts
directly on Cassidy Wharf Road, so access will be in fee simple. The proposed lot is also located next to a
pre-existing lot; thus, the impact to the overall farming operation will be
minimal. There is one pre-existing
dwelling on this easement property. They
wish to construct their retirement home.
The Williams have not requested any other lot
exclusions. They do not own any other
district or easement property.
If this request is approved, there will be a
required payback of the per acre amount of $1,600.00 that the Williams received
for the easement.
Motion #11: To approve the request of H. Bayard and
Agnes M. Williams to exclude a 1.0 acre owners= lot from easement property
for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for the owners= personal use.
Motion: Allen Cohey Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
D. GARRETT COUNTY
1. 11-01-85-02 CUSTER,
Melvin H. 383.37
acres
Request for approval to
agriculturally subdivide easement property
Melvin Custer is the original owner of this 383.37
acre property in Garrett County. Mr.
Custer is requesting an agricultural subdivision that will result in selling a
parcel of approximately 215 acres in size to an adjacent landowner who will
incorporate it into his present farming operation (raising, buying, and selling
horses). The remaining acreage will be
retained by the current owner who will continue to farm it. Mr. Custer=s principal farming activity has been a mixture of
cattle, hay, corn and other crop production, and timber management. The existing cropland, pasture and woodland
on the property to be transferred will continue to be used for the same purpose
by the new owner, with. the exception that the crops
will be raised to support the horse operation rather than for cattle. The acreage retained is composed of three
non-contiguous parcels of 52.8 acres, 34.7 acres, and 72.3 acres, for a total
retained acreage of 159.80 acres.
The history of the original easement property
includes the release of 3.779 acres for road improvements, five lot exclusions
for children, the exclusion of an owner=s lot, and permission to relocate an existing
dwelling elsewhere on the property. With
these exclusions, the easement property is currently approximately 374.80 acres
in size.
According to
The Foundation staff recommends approval because
the proposed agricultural subdivision meets the criteria set forth in the
Foundation=s Policy on Agricultural
Subdivisions. Because the contract
purchaser of the 215-acre parcel plans to incorporate the property into a
larger equestrian operation, the Garrett County Agricultural Land Preservation
Advisory Board has recommended that the buyer submit an outline of the intended
use of the easement property to the Foundation to ensure that it is within the
scope of permitted activities.
Mr. Tassone stated that
aside from being three separate parcels and being physically separated from
each other, it seems questionable with the parcel being cut up into 4 pieces
and one going to the neighbor. He asked
if this was all one parcel prior to this request.
Mr. Conrad stated that the tax map indicated that
they were at one time all one parcel.
Mr. Tassone stated that
there would then be 3 separate parcels.
Mr. Wilson stated that these parcels are all under
easement regardless of the division.
Mr. Tassone stated that
this should all remain part of the main parcel.
Mr. Conrad stated that the remaining 3 parcels
would remain as a cattle and crop operation.
Mr. Tassone stated that
he would be willing to approve this request provided that the 3 separate parcel
s remain as one easement.
Mr. Conrad asked if there would be any potential
for agricultural subdivision in the future.
Mr. Tassone stated that
there are rules governing agricultural subdivisions. The three pieces being retained by the
landowner remain as one parcel.
Mr. Conrad asked if the Board wanted to include the
condition of the local Advisory Board.
Mr. Wilson stated that the letter could be
included.
Motion #12: To approve the request of Melvin H.
Custer to agriculturally subdivide easement property provided that the three
(3) parcels remain as one easement property.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second: Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
E. WASHINGTON COUNTY
1. 21-12-91-03 WEAVER,
Carl P. and Patricia A. 174.05
acres
Request for approval to
exclude a 1.0 acre child=s lot from district
property for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for the child=s personal use (Carl P.
Weaver, Jr.)
Carl P. and Patricia A. Weaver are the original
owners of a 174.05 acre district property.
The current request is for the exclusion of a 1.0 acre child=s lot for their son, Carl
P. Weaver, Jr.
According to Washington County, access for the
proposed lot will be provided directly from Jordan Road. The proposed lot is at one corner of the
farm, and the impact to the overall farming operation will be minimal. There is one pre-existing dwelling on this
district property.
The Weavers still has the right to request an owner=s lot. The Weavers do not own any other district or
easement property.
Foundation staff recommends approval.
Motion #13: To approve the request of Carl P. &
Patricia A. Weaver exclude a 1.0 acre child=s lot from district property for the purpose of
constructing a dwelling for the child=s personal use (Carl P. Weaver, Jr.).
Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
IV. PROGRAM POLICY/EASEMENT OFFERS
A. Rural Legacy – Co-Hold Rural Legacy Easement within the
Little Pipe Creek Rural Legacy Area (Carroll County)
1. DELL, Walter D., and Sylvia B. 158.65 acres
On February 23, 1999 the Board of Trustees approved
the concept of co-holding Rural Legacy conservation easements, but reserved the
right to review and approve specific conditions on a case-by-case basis.
Attached for your review and consideration is a proposed Rural Legacy easement on a
158.65 acre parcel for Walter D. and Sylvia B. Dell within the Little Pipe
Creek Rural Legacy Area in Carroll County.
The proposed easement does not diverge from the
model easement already approved by the Board to be co-held with the County
Commissioners of Carroll County. If the
final easement diverges in substance from the approved model easement, those
changes will be resubmitted to the Board for review.
Motion #14: To approve the request to co-hold the
Rural Legacy Easement of Walter D. & Sylvia B. Dell on their property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
B. Rural Legacy Program – Co-hold Rural Legacy Easement within
the Long Green Valley Rural Legacy Area with the Long Green Valley Conservancy,
Inc. (Baltimore County)
1. GABRIEL, Katherine 29.69
acres
On February 23, 1999 the Board of Trustees approved
the concept of co-holding Rural Legacy conservation easements but reserved the
right to review and approve specific conditions on a case-by-case basis.
Attached for your review and consideration is a proposed Rural Legacy easement on a
26.69 acre parcel for Katherine H. Gabriel within the Long Green Valley Rural
Legacy Area in Baltimore County.
The easement is perpetual. Activities other than agriculture and
specified residential uses are prohibited on the property except for (1)
small-scale commercial activities within structures used as residences, (2)
small-scale commercial activities related to agriculture within structures used
for agriculture, and (3) the sale to the public of agricultural products
produced on the property. The property
has no pre-existing dwellings and reserves one residential right. The property may not be subdivided. A soil conservation and water quality plan is
required. A 25' forested buffer is
required from the edges of the streams on the property. The easement will be co-held with the Long
Green Valley Conservancy, Inc., in Long Green, Maryland.
The easement language for this property is similar to the easements the Board reviewed in March, representing some revisions in the standard Rural Legacy easement language.