MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION
FOUNDATION
MINUTES
June 25, 2002
TRUSTEES
PRESENT:
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman
Allen H. Cohey
Mildred H. Darcey
Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer Kopp
Judith C. Lynch
Hagner Mister, Secretary,
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Joseph K. Scott
Joseph F. Tassone,
representing Secretary of Maryland Department of Planning
Gerald Thorpe, representing Comptroller Schaefer
Maurice L. Wiles
Robert E. Wolf
TRUSTEES
ABSENT:
Douglas H. Wilson, Acting Executive Director
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Bill Amoss, Harford
County Program Administrator
Darlene M. Athey,
Secretary
Kevin Clark, Queen Anne=s County Program
Administrator
Michael P. Cody, Reporter, Howard County Times
Jim Conrad, Administrator
Caitlan Dennison, Prince George=s County Landowner
Donna Dennison, Prince George=s County Landowner
Dwayne Dennison, Prince George=s County Landowner
John D. Dennison, Prince George=s County Landowner
Jeff Everett, Howard County Program Administrator
Debra Fialka,
representing Greg Bowen, Calvert County Program Administrator
Nancy Forrester, Department of General Services
Iva L. Frantz, Administrative
Officer
Eric Hines, representing Barbara Polito, Anne Arundel County Program Administrator
Dave Kelleher, Asst. Chief, Appraisal &
Valuation, Department of General Services
Carla Martin, Kent County Program Administrator
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General
Bill Powel, Carroll County Program Administrator
Charles Rice, Charles County Program Administrator
Dan Rosen, Maryland Department of Planning
Donna Sasscer, St. Mary=s County Program
Administrator
Tammy Scheidt, Caroline
County Program Administrator
Tom Tyson, Prince George=s County Program
Administrator
Elizabeth Weaver, Administrative Officer
Susan Wilson, Frederick County landowner
John Zawitoski,
Montgomery 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: May 28, 2002
Motion #1: To approve the minutes of May 28, 2002
with correction of the date.
Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
B. APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES: May 28, 2002
Motion #2: To approve the minutes of the Executive
Session of May 28, 2002 with corrections.
Motion: Allen Cohey Second:
Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
C. ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
Jim Conrad, Administrator, stated that Foundation
staff and Board members went to look over the situation at Sagamore
Farm with Wally Lippincott, Program Administrator for
Baltimore County, David Carroll, Director of the Baltimore County Department of
Environmental Protection and Resource Management, and Dan Colhoun,
Chair of the Baltimore County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory
Board. They met with members of the
Caves Valley Golf Club and the 2002 U.S. Senior Open event staff. The landowners, Jim and Patsy Ward, were not
present. The reason for this visit was
that the Wards leased MALPF easement land to the Golf Club for temporary
parking for a golf tournament to be held the weekend prior to today=s Board meeting. He further stated that the Board members met
after the site visit and voted to ask Caves Valley for a bond to guarantee to
that the property would be restored to its original condition. The Caves Valley Golf Club put up a $100,000
bond later that week for that guarantee.
Maurice Wiles, Board member, asked what the vote
was of the Board concerning allowing this situation to occur, with or without
the bond.
Mr. Conrad stated that the vote of the Board
members present at the meeting in Baltimore County was unanimous. The motion on which they voted was: (1) MALPF would request that Caves Valley Golf
Club post a bond to guarantee that the property would be returned to its
original condition to return as soon as possible to active agriculture; (2)
MALPF staff would write a letter to the Wards stating that such use of the
property in the future shall include a review by MALPF to protect their
interest and MALPF=s interest in the property;
and (3) MALPF staff would inform program administrators and local departments
of planning and zoning that such use requests by landowners in the future
include a review of whether the property is covered by a MALPF easement. If MALPF has an interest in the property, the
local program administrator should be notified to avoid such problems in the
future.
Based on Counsel=s advice at the meeting that an injunction to stop
the parking on the property was not possible because, after consulting with the
State=s soil scientist on the
issue of soil compaction, no permanent irreparable harm could be shown, the
Board did not address by vote whether this activity
was permitted on easement property.
However, Board members present expressed dissatisfaction with this
activity and the lack of consultation.
Counsel indicated that, with the letter to the landowner, the landowner
has been put on notice in advance that the Board shall be consulted if such an
activity is contemplated in the future.
For the record, the members present for the site
visit and the subsequent meeting were: L. C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman, Robert
Wolf, Mildred Darcey, Allen Cohey,
and Lewis Logan. Board members who could
not attend but who had cast a Ano@ vote opposing this
activity on easement property were Judy Lynch, Maurice Wiles and Joseph Scott.
Mr. Conrad stated that there are two additions to
the Agenda. The first is a memo from
Joseph Tassone, Maryland Office of Planning,
concerning the multiple owners and multiple parcels issue. The second addition is a property from
Somerset County applying for district establishment.
There are also three deletions. The first is item II.G.2, the request from
Joseph Riehl in Harford County for district
establishment. The second is item III.B.2-4, the request from Christine Claggett to approve the re-recording of three district
agreements in Anne Arundel County. The
third deletion is item III.E.1 for Esther Gross, Washington County, for an
agricultural subdivision.
II. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
L. C. Jones, Acting Chair, stated that because of
the importance of the agenda item from Prince George=s County, being potentially
the first district application approved in the County, because Secretary Mister
is attending the meeting to recognize the significance of this application, and
because the Denison family and Tom Tyson, the County program administrator, are
present for this meeting, the Board will begin with the consideration of the
Denison application from Prince George=s County. Hagner Mister, Secretary of Agriculture, introduced the
agenda item to the Board.
K. PRINCE GEORGE=S COUNTY
1. 16-01-02-01 DENISON, John P. & Donna L. 122.744 acres
Mildred Darcey, Board
member, stated that this is a proud day for Prince George=s County as it has been 14
years since a property from Prince George=s has applied for district establishment. She went on to introduce the Program
Administrator from Prince George=s, Tom Tyson, and the Denison family, the
landowners, as the first of many to be included in the program.
Motion #3: To approve the request of John P. &
Donna L. Denison to establish an agricultural land preservation district on
their property.
Motion: Mildred Darcey Second:
Judy Lynch
Status: Approved
A. CALVERT COUNTY
1. 04-03-02-06 WARD,
S. Dallas & Bette W. BACKES 218
acres
2. 04-01-02-07 EWALT,
et al, Chloe B. 109.4
acres
Motion #4: To approve the requests of S. Dallas
Ward & Bette W. Backes and Chloe B. Ewalt, et al to establish an agricultural land preservation
district on their properties.
Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
B. CAROLINE COUNTY
1. 05-03-02-01 FOUNTAIN,
Roland F. 128
acres
2. 05-03-02-02 FOUNTAIN,
Roland F. 114.74acres
Joseph Tassone, representing
Secretary of Maryland Department of Planning, stated that, because these two
agenda items are composed of two separate parcels of land with a single owner
coming into the program, a letter concerning the issue of how many owner=s and children=s lots will be permitted
needs to be sent to the landowner so the owner is clear from the outset what
rights he retains under the District Agreement.
Motion #5: To approve the requests of Roland F.
Fountain to establish an agricultural land preservation district on each of his
properties.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second:
Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
3. 05-05-02-03 KIRK,
Sarah Nagel 60
acres
Mr. Tassone stated that
he had reservations on withholding 4 acres for a cell tower.
Tammy Scheidt, Program
Administrator for Caroline County, stated that this was not a cell tower but a
microwave tower. Four acres are required
because there is a line of these microwave towers already in place. This structure is already in place and has
been so since the early 1970's. The
tower has guide wires that hold it in place.
According to the deed, any rights to this tower revert to the original
owners. At this time, the Kirk=s have no jurisdiction over
either the tower or the 4.0 acres it sits on.
Motion #6: To approve the request of Sarah Nagel
Kirk to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second:
Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
4. 05-08-02-04 NAGEL,
Gary & Jennifer. 84.55
acres
5. 05-08-02-05 NAGEL,
Harry C. & Janice F. 88.23
acres
6. 05-06-02-06 WOOD,
Eileen T. & M. David 189.7
acres
7. 05-02-02-07 EDWARDS,
Richard A. & Janice M. 309.38
acres
Motion #7: To approve the requests of Gary &
Jennifer Nagel, Eileen T. & David M. Wood, and Richard A. & Janice M.
Edwards to establish an agricultural land preservation
district on their properties.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second:
Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
8. 05-02-02-07 WILLIN,
Harvey V. & Hilda M. 23
acres
Mr. Tassone
asked who farms this land.
Ms. Scheidt
stated that the landowners farm the land.
She further stated that the Willins have other
property but that this parcel does not adjoin it. This is the reason for the separate parcel as
a separate district.
Motion #8: To approve the request of Harvey V.
& Hilda M. Willin to
establish an agricultural land preservation district on their properties.
Motion: Judith Lynch Second: Joseph Tassone
Status: Approved
C. CARROLL COUNTY
1. 06-06-02-06 WOLFE,
Vernon C. & Florence H. 28.85
acres
2. 06-07-02-07 NOTTINGHAM,
Guy D. & Dawn G 90.77
acres
3. 06-01-02-08 ZIMMERMAN,
Doris G. 140.35
acres
4. 06-11-02-09 HAINES,
John W. & Melanie R. 119
acres
5. 06-04-02-10 FROCK,
Myron R. & Laura J 67.05
acres
6. 06-04-02-11 STAIR,
Charles A. 100
acres
Motion #9: To approve the requests of Vernon C.
& Florence H. Wolfe, Guy D. & Dawn G. Nottingham, Doris G. Zimmerman,
John W. & Melanie R. Haines, Myron R. & Laura J. Frock, and Charles A.
Stair to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their
properties.
Motion: Allen Cohey Second:
Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
D. CECIL COUNTY
1. 07-06-02-05 MAHONEY,
Joseph & Andrea 136
acres
Motion #10: To approve the request of Joseph &
Andrea Mahoney to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their
property.
Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
E. FREDERICK COUNTY
1. 10-05-02-03 GRIMES,
Charles & Nancy 24.87acres
2. 10-05-02-04 GRIMES,
Eugene & Karen 96
acres
3. 10-05-02-05 GRIMES,
Charles & Nancy 158.35
acres
4. 10-01-02-06 ALBAUGH,
Ronald L. & Bonnie L. 86.92
acres
5. 10-19-02-07 BURRIER,
Kenneth E. & Reba B. 101.48
acres
6. 10-10-02-08 BRIGGS,
Donald N. & Elizabeth P. 84.48
acres
7. 10-10-02-09 HARBAUGH,
Charles H. & Vonnie E. 161.34 acres
Mr. Tassone stated that a
letter should go to Charles & Nancy Grimes clarifying the rights they
retain under the District Agreements on their two parcels.
Motion #11: To approve the requests of Charles &
Nancy Grimes (with stipulations) Eugene & Karen Grimes, Ronald L. &
Bonnie L. Albaugh, Kenneth E. & Reba B. Burrier,
Donald N. & Elizabeth P. Briggs and Charles H. & Vonnie
E. Harbaugh to establish an
agricultural land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Maurice Wiles Second:
Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
F. GARRETT COUNTY
1. 11-16-02-05 BRENNEMAN, Kenneth P. 151.18
acres
Mr. Wiles stated that there are only 30 acres of
cropland on this parcel and 116 acres of woods so there does not seem to be a
lot of farming on the land.
Discussion continued.
Robert Wolf, Board member, noted that the staff
report says that a Forest Management Plan is still Ain progress.@ He stated that before the parcel comes before
the Board the Forestry Management plan should be in effect along with the Soil
Conservation plan.
Ms. Scheidt stated that
the Soil Conservation plan already must be in effect before a property can go
to easement sale. Also, that the
Forestry Management plan is required for all properties where the forest encumbers
50% or more of the land.
Mr. Wolf stated that he feels that if only 5 acres
of a district is forested, a Forestry Management plan should be in effect. The landowner does not have to perform a
timber operation but he should demonstrate how he is going to handle the
forested land.
Allen Cohey expressed
concern about the desire by the landowner to withhold 7.1 acres to construct Aadditional buildings around
his farm buildings,@ particularly given local
zoning ordinances in Garrett County.
Discussion followed by Board members expressing concern over acreage
withheld from District Agreements more generally.
Motion #12: To approve the request of Kenneth P. Brenneman to establish an agricultural land preservation
district on his property conditioned on his agreement to include the 7.1 acres
in the District Agreement.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second:
Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
G. HARFORD COUNTY
1. 12-03-02-05 LAMBROS,
Daniel M. & Cheryl A. 91.398
acres
Motion #13: To approve the request of Daniel M. &
Cheryl A. Lambros to establish an agricultural land
preservation district on their property.
Motion: Judith Lynch Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
2. WITHDRAWN
3. 12-34-02-04 JAMES,
Mary-Dulany 125
acres
Mr. Tassone stated that
there are four issues concerning this property to discuss: soil productivity, the size of the property;
the location of the property relative to other agricultural, preserved, and/or
developed land; and value of the land and the rights remaining on the land.
In terms of the soil productivity, the Harford
County Cooperative Extension Service says that it seems to be exceptionally
productive. From seeing the cropland
during the site visit, it is above average compared to other cropland. The farm is average size for the State.
This property is bordered by the town of Havre de
Grace on the northwest and the northeast sides.
South of the subject property is a large area of agricultural land that
Harford County wishes to keep in agriculture and open space, as shown in part
by its being zoned agricultural. There
are approximately 1,500 acres of agricultural land in this contiguous block on
the peninsula. Within this 1,500 acre
area of agricultural land is the Swan Harbor Farm Park, an agricultural
district and two additional County-owned parks.
East (inland) from the James farm and the agricultural area more
generally is large lot development.
Along Swan Creek, there are a variety of 20 acre parcels with
development potential.
Bill Amoss, Harford
County Program Administrator, explained the overall agricultural significance
of the properties along the peninsula.
Mr. Tassone stated that
the reason for looking at this block of land is the advisability of taking this
125 acre tract into the program based on what is going to happen to the
surrounding area. He further stated that
he is not aware of how many dwellings are presently located on the property. One document indicates residences, Foundation
documents indicate four residences, and information from John Bernstein of
Maryland Environmental Trust indicates there are two dwellings. There is no clear count of dwellings on the
property, but this may be accounted for in part because some dwellings are in
fact tenant houses that cannot be subdivided from the main parcel. There is a Resource Conservation overlay on
this property as a critical area that further complicates the issue.
Mr. Tassone noted that,
in his opinion, this is a valuable piece of land, both overall and in terms of
the remaining development rights. Under
the current Maryland Environmental Trust easement, one owner=s lot and two children=s lots could be
developed. His recommendation is to
accept the property as a district if an agreement can be reached with the
landowner to limit the remaining potential residential rights to the property
to one sub-dividable lot.
Mr. Amoss stated that
this property and the other preserved parcels are surrounded on one side by
municipalities, general industrial properties and low to medium density
residential areas. These areas are
mainly to the west as this is a peninsula protected to the east by the
Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Tassone stated that
the Foundation will need to ensure that the Foundation=s interests are protected
in a District Agreement and in any potential permanent easement. Above all, the Foundation needs to be getting
something of substance in return for participation in the program, whether or
not an easement is ever purchased on the property. He stated that an agreement with the Maryland
Environmental Trust will needed concerning how its easement will work in
conjunction with the Foundation=s District Agreement and
any possible future MALPF easement. He
further stated that a District Agreement (and any potential permanent easement)
must include language that the landowner could subdivide only one residential
lot.
Motion #14: To
approve the request of Mary Dulany James to establish
an agricultural land preservation district on her property conditioned on (1)
verification of the County=s intent to preserve a
significant area of adjacent properties in agricultural and open space use; (2)
verification of the land-use of adjacent properties and future intentions of
the city of Havre de Grace; (3) an agreement with the land owner to limit the
remaining potential residential rights to the property to one sub-dividable
lot; and (4) to work out with Maryland Environmental Trust how the District
Agreement and any potential MALPF easement would work with the restrictions of
the existing MET easement.
Motion: Lewis Logan Second: Robert Wolf
Abstain: Gerald Thorpe
Status: Approved
H. HOWARD COUNTY
1. 13-04-02-01 DALY,
Henry K. & Betty A. 25.76
acres
Mr. Conrad stated that this parcel is not
contiguous to any other MALPF property, however, it backs up to Patuxent State Park and its significant acreage of managed
forestland and is in an area that contains properties that are in the Howard
County agricultural land preservation program and is near parcels targeted by
the Rural Legacy Program.
Mr. Tassone asked how a
property of this size could sustain a viable farming operation.
Jeff Everett, Howard County Program Administrator,
stated that the property has recently supported a small herd of cattle on a
grazing rotation. Corn and hay is grown
on the property for feed. The property
has supported a horse operation in the past and will soon have horses on it
again.
Discussion continued.
Mildred Darcey, Board
member, stated that she felt the farm was too small to be economically viable
and was not in favor of approving the district.
Motion #15: To deny the request of Henry K. &
Betty A. Daly to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their
property.
Motion: Mildred Darcey Second:
Allen Cohey
Abstain: Joseph Tassone
Status: Denied
2. 13-04-02-02 HANSON,
James C. & LAVINE, Elizabeth M. 21.22
acres
Mr. Conrad stated that this property is adjacent to
a Howard County Agricultural Easement property.
It is a horse farm.
Allen Cohey, Board
member, stated that he did not view this as a viable farming operation and that
it was not in the best interest of the Board to approve this request.
Mr. Tassone stated that
other properties have been approved today that are similar to this
property. This property has two
agricultural easements adjacent to it which provides a larger agriculturally
preserved area.
Motion #16: To approve the request of James C. Hanson
& Elizabeth M. Lavine to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their
property.
Motion: Robert Wolfe Second: Gerald Thorpe
Opposed: Allen Cohey,
Mildred Darcey, Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
I. KENT COUNTY
1. 14-02-02-06 JOHNSON,
Anthony C. 227.9
acres
2. 14-01-02-07 GREEN
FOREST FARM LLC 228
acres
Mr. Tassone stated that
in the case of the Green Forest Farm LLC the lot rights retained under a
District Agreement by a corporate entity be communicated to the landowners.
Motion #17: To approve the requests of Anthony C.
Johnson and Green Forest Farm, LLC to establish an agricultural land
preservation district on their properties, with the stipulation that a letter
be sent to the Green Forest Farm LLC concerning retained development rights.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second:
Judy Lynch
Status: Approved
J. MONTGOMERY COUNTY
1. 15-11-02-01 MDR
FRIENDLY ACRES 109.539
acres
2. 15-03-02-02 MDR
FRIENDLY AHOY LLC 231.07
acres
3. 15-11-02-03 MDR
FRIENDS ADVICE LLC 150.97
acres
Mr. Cohey asked for
clarification on the ownership of these properties and what development rights
these entities expect to retain under the MALPF Program. He also expressed concern on the amount of
acreage being withheld from these districts.
John Zawitoski,
Montgomery County Program Administrator, stated these three LLCs
or corporations are owned by the same person.
As corporate entities, they should be able to retain one lot as a
corporate lot. The properties were
originally purchased by General Wiedemeyer after
World War II. The current landowner
rents out the land to individuals who farm the land. The landowner wants to retain the right to
have one corporate lot on the three parcels.
He has no need for children=s lots. The
acreage being withheld represents acreage connected to pre-existing dwellings
at a density of 1:25. He wishes to
retain the ability to dispose of these dwellings separately from the farming
acreage which he wishes to retain.
Because these are pre-existing dwellings built to the maximum county
density, there will be no additional dwellings built on the excluded
acreage. One reason he wishes to remove
the dwellings from the farming acreage is to limit corporate liability in the
larger farming operation.
Motion #18: To approve the requests of MDR Friendly
Acres, MDR Friendly Ahoy, LLC and MDR Friends Advice, LLC to establish an
agricultural land preservation district on their properties.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second:
Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
L. ST. MARY=S COUNTY
1. 18-04-02-13 FARMER,
James F. & Helen H. 193.048
acres
Mr. Tassone requested
clarification on the reasons for the exclusion of 5 acres on this property.
Donna Sasscer, St. Mary=s County Program
Administrator, stated that the Farmers are requesting the lot exclusion as it
is their intent to sell the pre-existing dwelling, a large
historically-significant house, with the 5 acre parcel surrounding it. The Farmers are interested only in the
farming property, and do not wish to retain ownership of the house.
Motion #19: To approve the request of James F. &
Helen H. Farmer, to establish an agricultural land preservation district on
their property.
Motion: Gerald Thorpe Second:
Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
6. 18-02-02-18 PUSSLER,
et al, Edward 163.5
acres
Mr. Tassone requested
clarification on the reasons for the exclusion of 5 acres on this property.
Ms. Sasscer stated that
the reason for the exclusion was the pre-existing dwelling is a historical site
and the requested 5 acres is to accompany the dwelling.
Mr. Tassone stated that
the Board should know what is going on with the excess land and that we can say
to the landowner that the Board is not going to purchase the easement until the
Board is satisfied with the activity on the withheld land.
Ms. Scheidt stated that
the landowners come to the program administrators looking for guidance to have
their property enrolled in the program.
For years, the program administrators have been told to have exclusions,
etc., presented to the Board up front at the meetings. This seems to be changing. The program administrators need to know how
to educate the landowners as to how the Board wants to proceed. Should landowners be up front with the uses
and exclusions or wait until easement time to make changes.
Mr. Tassone stated that
until the Board is satisfied with the activity on the excluded land the entire
parcel should not be allowed into the program.
In addition, an offer on an easement should not be made until the Board
is satisfied that the potential activities on the excluded acreage will not
undermine the investment of the State in larger parcel.
Discussion continued.
Motion #20: To approve the request of Edward Pussler, et al to establish an
agricultural land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Mildred Darcey Second:
Gerald Thorpe
Opposed: Joseph Tassone
Status: Approved
2. 18-04-02-14 RUSSELL,
Paul B. 86.236
acres
3. 18-02-02-15 SPRINGER,
Jr., et al, Robert I. 44.78 acres
4. 18-05-02-16 DEFREITAS,
Obberron 98.6
acres
5. 18-04-02-17 HILL,
James T. & Dora Lyn 24.28
acres
7. 18-02-02-19 MORRIS,
Malcolm & Charlotte 35.59
acres
Motion #21: To approve the requests of Paul B.
Russell, Robert I. Springer, Jr., et al, Obberron Defreitas, James T. & Dora Lyn Hill, and Malcolm &
Charlotte Morris to establish an agricultural land preservation district on
their properties.
Motion: Judy Lynch Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
M. TALBOT COUNTY
Mr. Tassone stated that
all of these properties presented today should be reviewed, after the vote on
the lot policy, for the lot rights retained based on the ownership structure
and number of parcels. All but one of
the properties have exclusions on them, and this is a
concern where retained development rights are concerned. He further stated that a line needs to be
drawn as to how much acreage will the Board allow to
be excluded up front and what acreage is acceptable.
Frank Hall, Talbot County Program Administrator,
stated that the law has determined that 50 acres is the acceptable minimum to
establish a district.
Mr. Cohey stated that it
appears that the Delahays want to preserve the land
but make money at the same time by developing their excluded acreage.
Mr. Tassone stated that
it is not the Board=s place to determine how a
landowner makes money off of their land.
However, the Board can determine which properties receive offers to
purchase an easement.
Mr. Hall stated that the more profitable land on
the Delahay property is on the waterfront. However, this is not the area from which
acreage is being excluded. They chose an
area by the road to minimize the impact on the farm. On the other Delahay
property, the landowners wish to live there, and they want enough acreage to be
able to have a smaller operation. The
daughter and son-in-law who will be living on the farm are in their 40s, therefore, there will be no child=s lots.
Motion #22: To reserve the right to return to
discussion on the Mark R. & Victoria L. Sump properties and the Charlotte Delahay and Charlotte Delahay, et
al properties after the vote on the Lot Policy.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second:
Gerald Thorpe
Status: Approved
1. 20-04-02-06 SUMP,
Mark R. & Victoria L. 63.0000
acres
2. 20-04-02-07 SUMP,
Mark R. & Victoria L. 119.0000
acres
Motion #23: To approve the requests of Mark R. &
Victoria L. Sump to establish an agricultural land preservation district on
their properties.
Motion: Joseph Tassone Second:
Gerald Thorpe