MALPF Board Minutes: July 23, 2002

MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION

MINUTES

July 23, 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

Robert E. Wolf

TRUSTEES ABSENT:

Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary Maryland Department of Agriculture

OTHERS PRESENT:

Terry Adams, City of Centreville

Darlene M. Athey, MALPF Secretary

John Burnell, City of Centreville

Kevin Clark, Queen Anne=s County Program Administrator

Henry Daly, Howard County Landowner

Carl DeMatteo, Maryland Farm Bureau

Jim Dieter, Maryland Department of the Environment

Jeff Everett, Howard County Program Administrator

Iva L. Frantz, MALPF Administrative Officer

Eric Hines, 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

Chris Rogers, U.R.S.

Dan Rosen, Maryland Department of Planning

Faith Rossing, Queen Anne=s County Planning & Zoning

Tammy Scheidt, Caroline County Program Administrator

Elizabeth D. Weaver, MALPF Administrative Officer

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 June 25, 2002

Motion #1: To approve the minutes of June 25, 2002.

Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Maurice Wiles

Status: Approved

B. APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES OF June 25, 2002

Motion #2: To approve the minutes of June 25, 2002.

Motion: Allen Cohey Second: Robert Wolf

Status: Approved

C. ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:

Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman, announced that the Policy Review Committee will be meeting at 8:00 a.m. prior to the General meetings to select new members, review the Lot Rights, and some of the items will be presented to the Task Force. He further stated that anyone who would like to be on the committee is invited to attend.

II. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS

A. HOWARD COUNTY

1. 13-04-02-01 Daly, Henry K. & Betty A. 25.76 acres

Iva L. Frantz, Administrative Officer, stated that this is a reconsideration from the June 25, 2002 meeting. She further stated that the Foundation staff recommended approval as this property is adjacent to over 100 acres of Patuxent River State Park and near over 500 acres of easement property. Mr. Daly, the landowner, was present and available to answer questions. Along with the request for district establishment, the application for easement was pending the approval of this district.

Jeff Everett, Howard County Program Administrator, stated that this property is adjacent to the Patuxent River State Park, in a Rural Legacy area and adjacent to Howard County Agricultural easement properties. He stated that Mr. Daly, the landowner, is present and is interested in the MALPF program and is considering the Howard County program.

Maurice Wiles, Board member, asked if Mr. Daly has horses or cattle on his property.

Henry Daly, landowner, stated that he has been on this property since 1969. In the past he had cattle, however, currently it is a horse operation.

Mildred Darcey, Board member, asked if his sole farm income was from the horses. Did he raise thoroughbreds, give riding lessons, board horses.

Mr. Daly stated that he is retired and that he raises thoroughbreds.

Allen Cohey, Board member, stated that in order to form a district, the property has to be at least 50 acres or contiguous to another district or easement property.

Mr. Daly stated that he did not realize that a district had to be 50 acres.

Mr. Jones asked what was the gross of the horse operation.

Mr. Daly stated that it was approximately $10,000.00.

Elizabeth Weaver, Foundation staff, stated that at a recent MALPF Task Force meeting, the issue was raised that the Foundation needs to be more flexible with the program. Ed Thompson, American Farmland Trust, recommended that the Foundation keep this in mind when rendering decisions. She further stated that Jeff Everett, Howard County Program Administrator, has been working to bring more Howard County farmers into the program. Another landowner is contemplating applying for a district pending the establishment of Mr. Daly=s district.

Joseph F. Tassone, representing Secretary of Maryland Department of Planning, stated that the Board has approved properties in Howard County quite similar to this one and he does not understand the basis to accept those and the reluctance to accept this one. It was mentioned about contiguity and the operation of this property. He stated that he was not aware that in order to be a district that this has to be a stand alone operation. If this is the case, then the Board will be obligated to reject many properties. He further stated that the Board has a policy that indicates that contiguity is to other districts or easements and not to other protected land. However, due to the nature of the protected land, the Board has flexed on this issue in the past. In his opinion, accepting this property may be questionable, however, it is done in other counties. If the Board precludes Howard County, then the Board must find a way to do it in other counties as well. He further stated that it appears that the Board is discriminating against this property.

Robert Wolf, Board member asked Mr. Everett what his goal is with adding this property that is bordering State property.

Mr. Everett stated that Howard County is a small county and there is not much agricultural land left. He stated his goal is to preserve as much land as possible by working with MALPF, Rural Legacy and other preservation organizations. He stated that in Howard County, the equine industry is very popular especially in the western part of the county. Many properties, 20 acres or less, have horses on them.

Ms. Darcey stated that she does not recall the Board approving a property of this size that is not contiguous to a district or an easement property. She further stated that this may not be a property where the Foundation would want to purchase the development rights. This is a stand alone operation and that park land is not the same as being contiguous to an agricultural district or easement. She stated that she has researched previous minutes and has not found where the Board has approved a property such as this. She further stated that if all of the neighboring properties were to come in at one time that the Board may not be as reluctant to approve this property.

Mr. Tassone stated that in the past the Board has approved properties of this size, stand alone operations and contiguous to other protected or park land.

Mr. Cohey stated he has not been able to find where the Board has approved such a property.

Gerald Thorpe, representing Comptroller Schaefer, stated that because of the encroaching development and the fact that there is a protected park, that this property may be better in a rural legacy program. He further stated that the Board should not get into the habit of accepting land that should be in a rural legacy program.

Tammy Scheidt, Caroline County Program Administrator, asked if the park land could be taken as Aother protected land@.

Mr. Jones stated that it needs to be contiguous to MALPF properties.

Mr. Tassone asked if the Foundation staff would research the records to see if the Board has in fact accepted Aother protected land@ as a qualifier for contiguous land.

Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, stated that the reason the Foundation staff supported this was the program not only preserves agricultural land, but forestry, and all sorts of preservable open space. It was felt that although this is a smaller parcel, it complied because of the land that is being protected. The point is not MALPF, the point is protected land.

Mr. Wolf stated that the Board should consider the fact that this would be protected land. He stated that the Board needs to look at the policy concerning this.

Mr. Jones stated that when in the past, if the Board varied from the 100 acres, they were looking for a substantial use of the land such as agricultural, woodland, etc. The same criteria would apply here. If it is not a substantial agricultural use it would not qualify. He further stated that the landowner had to present documentation verifying income from the operation.

Mr. Tassone stated that with the contiguity issue appears be central to the Board members decision. It appears to be essential that research into properties that have been approved under these conditions needs to be conducted by the Foundation staff and reported back to the Board.

Mr. Jones suggested that the Board table this issue until the records can be searched for properties that have been approved being contiguous to other protected lands.

Mr. Nielsen stated that there is no 25 year Abuy out@, the land would stay under easement in perpetuity. The larger parcel could have been bought out leaving the smaller parcel. However, in this case, the larger parcel is a State park which will remain in perpetuity.

Mr. Cohey stated that in his opinion, approving this parcel would not do anything to preserve agriculture.

Mr. Everett stated that under the Rural Legacy easement, Mr. Daly would be penalized $50,000 for every lot he would take out. A MALPF easement would be worth more than a Rural Legacy easement.

Mr. Tassone requested more clarification on the law regarding contiguity. Mr. Nielsen stated that he would look into it.

Motion #3: To table the decision until such time as Mr. Everett can bring back more information to the Board and the staff will do research to determine if State protected land has in the past been considered adequate to satisfy the requirement for contiguity to protected land.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Mildred Darcey

Status: Approved

B. GARRETT COUNTY

1. 11-16-02-05 Brenneman, Kenneth P. 151.18 acres

Mr. Tassone stated that he would like to remind the Board about the concern about the development rights remaining on the excluded acreage. The Board continues to allow landowners to exclude acreage without any constraints. If the Board of Public Works realized what MALPF was doing, they would not be happy.

Mr. Tassone stated that the Board should place appropriate constraints on excluded acreage. The Board should state that it reserves the right to not make an easement offer on property with excluded acreage. Mr. Tassone asked Mr. Nielsen if the Board could do that and still remain within the law. Mr. Nielsen said it is possible that the Board could exercise discretion in that area.

Mr. Jones asked for a motion. Mr. Tassone asked for clarification about the motion. Mr. Scott stated the motion.

Motion #4: To approve the request of Mr. Brenneman to establish an agricultural land preservation district on his property.

Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Robert Wolf

Status: Approved

Opposed: Allen Cohey, Joe Tassone

III. DISTRICT/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS

A. CARROLL COUNTY

1. 06-02-91-52 Forney, Thomas E. and Barbara A. 144.118 acres

Request for approval to exclude a 1.0 acre child=s lot from easement property to construct a dwelling for their son, David R. Forney, for his personal use.

Mr. and Mrs. Forney are the original owners of the144-acre easement property. The current request is for the exclusion of a 1.0 acre child=s lot for their son, David R. Forney.

According to Carroll County, the lot is located in a corner of the property directly on the farm driveway with right-of-way access to Trevanion Road. The area is currently in cropland and the impact to the overall farm operation will be minimal.

There are two pre-existing dwellings on the property. Mr. and Mrs. Forney have documented their intent to grant two additional child=s lots from their easement. Mr. and Mrs. Forney do not own any other district or easement property.

The request conforms to Carroll County Zoning regulations. Attached for your review and consideration are the landowner=s request letter, Carroll County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board approval, and a location map.

If this request is approved, there will be a required payback of the per acre amount of $2,000.00 that Mr. and Mrs. Forney received for the easement.

Foundation staff recommends 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...@

Mr. Wolf stated that he believes that the word Aminimal impact on agriculture@ is not appropriately descriptive. He stated that it should say either it does or it does not impact agriculture. If it does, it should say how much.

Motion #5: To approve the request of Mr. Forney to exclude a one-acre child=s lot from his easement property.

Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Maurice Wiles

Status: Approved

2. 06-02-83-13e Kegel, Robert E. and Jacqueline N. 155.002 acres

Request for approval to exclude a 1.0 acre child=s lot from easement property to construct a dwelling for their son, Randolph David Kegel, for his personal use.

Robert E. and Jacqueline N. Kegel are the original owners of a 155-acre easement property. The current request is for the exclusion of a 1.0 acre child=s lot for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for their son, Randolph David Kegel, for his personal use.

According to Carroll County, the proposed lot is located in a corner of a field and next to the yard of a pre-existing dwelling. There will be a short right-of-way access to Trevanion Road due to a steep embankment between the lot and the road.

A child=s lot has previously been approved on this easement property for their daughter, Darlene Kegel. The Kegels own an additional 75-acre District property but have not requested any lot exclusions on that property.

If this request is approved, there will be a required payback of the per acre amount of $2,100.30 that the Kegels received for the easement.

Motion #6: To approve the requests of Mr. and Mrs. Kegel to exclude a one-acre child=s lot from easement property.

Motion: Allen Cohey Second: Mildred Darcey

Status: Approved

3. 06-02-83-13e Kegel, Robert E. and Jacqueline N. 155.002 acres

Request to relocate an already approved child=s lot for their daughter, Darlene Kegel, on easement property.

Robert E. and Jacqueline N. Kegel are the original owners of a 155-acre easement property. The current request is for the relocation of a previously approved child=s lot for their daughter, Darlene Kegel.

The Kegels have requested approval for another child=s lot on this property for their son, Randolph Kegel.

According to Carroll County, the new location is near the corner of a crop field and will be set-back 30 feet from the centerline of Trevanion Road. Access cannot be directly onto Trevanion Road due to a steep embankment, but will be over a 100-foot right-of-way from an existing field road cut in the embankment. Agricultural impact will be minimal.

Mr. Tassone asked Mr. Powel what was the reason for the relocation. Mr. Powel stated that it was for practical access reasons.

Motion #7: To approve the request of the Kegels to relocate an already approved child=s lot.

Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Judith Lynch

Status: Approved

B. BALTIMORE COUNTY

1. 03-06-83-09 Dubel, David H. & Mary L. 119.63 acres

Request to increase size of a child=s lot for their son, Michael Dubel, to satisfy septic requirements.

On August 28, 1999, the Foundation approved a request from the landowners to exclude 1.4 acres from the easement for a child=s lot for their son, Michael Dubel. The additional .4 acres was requested in order to provide for in-fee road access as required by Baltimore County.

The owner is requesting an increase in the lot size because of issues which arose during the septic approval process. In order to receive County approval for the septic system, the owner is requesting the release of an additional .115 acres for a total lot size of 1.515 acres.

According to Baltimore County, the minor increase in size will have no material impact on the agricultural resources. The lot release and location have been approved by the County Department of Planning and Zoning.

The owner has been informed that a revised plat and an additional reimbursement of approximately $99.78 will be required for an amended Preliminary Release.

Foundation staff recommends approval based on Agricultural Article, Section 2-513, Annotated Code of Maryland, which allows a minimum 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 than 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 #8: To approve the request of the Dubels to increase the excluded acreage of a child=s lot to 1.515 acres.

Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Maurice Wiles

Status: Approved

2. 03-06-83-09 Dubel, David H. & Mary L. 119.63 acres

Request to increase size of a child=s lot for their son, Rene Dubel, to satisfy septic requirements.

On February 25, 2000, the Foundation approved a request from the landowners to increase the lot size for a previously approved child=s lot for their son, Rene Dubel, in order to satisfy Baltimore County requirements for in-fee road access and septic requirements.

The owner is requesting an additional increase in the lot size because of issues which arose during the septic approval process. In order to receive County approval for the septic system, the owner is requesting the release of an additional .114 acres for a total lot size of 1.914 acres.

The owner has been informed that a revised plat and an additional reimbursement of approximately $98.92 will be required for an amended Preliminary Release.

Motion #9: To approve the requests of the Dubels to increase the excluded acreage of a child=s lot to 1.914 acres.

Motion: Allen Cohey Second: Robert Wolf

Status: Approved

IV PROGRAM POLICY/EASEMENT OFFERS

A. POLICY -- WASTE WATER SPRAY IRRIGATION ON EASEMENT PROPERTY

Jim Dieter, Program Manager for Wastewater Permits at Maryland Department of the Environment addressed concerns raised by Board members in a discussion about the issue at the January, 2002, MALPF Board meeting.

Since the January Board meeting, the Foundation has received requests for a policy statement by the Board from Talbot County and by telephone from the town of Cecilton in Cecil County in addition to the original request from Queen Anne=s County.

Mr. Dieter stated that wastewater spray irrigation on farmland is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Maryland Department of the Environment.

Mr. Dieter stated that there are two considerations that the Board is looking at: Number one is where the land is used as part of the treatment process of sewage effluent -- not solids or insolubles. This is liquid effluent that is normally discharged to the creeks. You still have to treat the sewage, either through a mechanical system or through a lagoon system. It has to be treated to a certain level before it is sprayed on the land. The farmland is used as a filter media to complete the treatment process. The normal application rate is about two to three inches per week - you cannot allow it to pond on the land or run off. There are requirements for good soils just as there are for septic systems. Plants are also used in the filtering system in the uptake of nutrients through their root system. In this way, plants absorb the nutrients from the soil.

There are buffer requirements. The buffer requirements are substantial -- 200 feet from the wetting perimeter on a farm. If the spraying is in a residential area -- the buffer zone can be as much as 500 feet. In cases where the land is not being used as a treatment media, where the water has been pre-treated at a treatment plant, then the buffer zone is much lower because the water has a much lower bacterial level. Both types of wastewater should not be sprayed on crops that are eaten raw by humans. The most common use is on feed corn and soy. A nutrient management plan is required for farms that are spraying wastewater.

Mr. Dieter stated that he understands that another of MALPF=s concerns is the reimbursement that a farmer receives from a municipality -- if this should be considered commercial use. That is a MALPF policy issue.

Mr. Cohey asked if a farmer wanted to grow strawberries on his land after it was sprayed, How long would he have to wait or is he forever precluded from growing such crops on the land? Mr. Dieter stated that the farmer would have to do some form of rotation before growing strawberries or other such crops.

Mr. Jones inquired about the storage for wastewater. Mr. Dieter stated that you are required to have a minimum of 60 days storage.

Mr. Jones asked about heavy metals in the water. Mr. Dieter responded that it depends on the municipality and the type of industry that is located in the area. Heavy metals are more of a concern in sludge than in wastewater.

Mr. Tassone asked if there are limits on the heavy metal levels for effluent. Mr. Dieter stated that most towns have pre-treatment requirements on what they will accept into their system. The towns issue permits to industries that use their system. The heavy metal levels are looked at in the pre-treatment process and are less of a concern at the effluent stage.

Mr. Tassone asked about MDE=s involvement in the permitting process. Mr. Dieter stated that MDE has oversight over the municipalities. There are monitoring reports that have to be done which are sent to MDE.

Mr. Tassone inquired about the productivity of land that has been spray irrigated with wastewater versus land that has been treated with conventional methods. Mr. Dieter stated that it depends on the level of treatment of the wastewater. The higher the level of treatment, the more nutrients are removed and, therefore, the fertilizing value is significantly reduced.

Ms. Darcey stated that she would not place sludge on her land and that she as a landowner is responsible for what goes on the land.

Mr. Dieter stated that it was his understanding that the discussion was focused on wastewater, not sludge, and that landowners have the right to decide what goes on their land but he is just here to give the technical perspective.

Mr. Nielsen called attention the provisions in the deed of easement that states that no trash etc. shall be dumped on the land and that land shall be managed by sound soil and water conservation practices. However, there is also a provision that says that the landowner has the right to dump trash that is considered part of the normal, regular operation of a farm. There is a tension between what is prohibited and what is allowed. The question is, Is this a sound soil and conservation practice? That is what the argument will be.

Mr. Hall asked about the regulation of private water treatment. Mr. Dieter stated that it would still be regulated by MDE.

Mr. Tassone stated that he is concerned about the long term effect on the land.

Mr. Dieter stated that MDE will require that the land is suitable for application of wastewater. Also the requirement for a nutrient management plan acts as a check in the system. The problems that you are looking at are the same as if you are looking at the effects of application of commercial fertilizer.

Mr. Tassone asked about the duration of the contract between the municipality and the farmer. Mr. Dieter stated that it depends on the situation. There is no limit. It is up to the parties involved. It depends on the structure of the contract.

Mr. Wolf stated that the concern about whether this is considered commercial use or not has little merit. If he is getting paid for growing corn on his land how is that different from getting paid for spraying wastewater on his land? He does not see any problem with this. It just makes sense. We cannot determine if it is sound soil and water conservation management. We have to leave it up to the experts. They can advise us if this is safe or not.

Mr. Tassone stated that he would like to see a treatment plant and see farms that have been spray-irrigated with wastewater for a long period of time so that he could see the effect on the land.

Mr. Rogers of URS stated that wastewater spray irrigation systems can be designed to fit the agricultural use of the property. The wastewater spraying does not have to be the predominant use of the land. Soil conservation in Cecil County can come out and design a crop management plan that sets application rates to suit a particular farmer and that compliments the crop that he wants to grow. Mr. Rogers offered to assist MDE or MALPF design a policy for wastewater spray irrigation.

Mr. Hall stated that he would like the Board to not take too long in making a decision as he has several municipalities in Talbot County that are inquiring about MALPF=s policy. This is an important issue for his county and wastewater spray irrigation will become a necessity in the future in many municipalities. The town of Trapp is particularly interested because they are surrounded by easement property and will need to have land for wastewater spray irrigation. It is important for the municipalities to know soon where MALPF is going to stand on this issue.

Mr. Wolf stated that this is not a new issue and that this has been happening on land for some time. He stated that he believes that MALPF should allow it.

Mr. Jones stated that MALPF should not give just blanket approval. He said that MALPF should review each application on a case by case basis because it depends on the reliability of the operator.

Mr. Cohey expressed that he is concerned about some of the sites that he has seen and the undesirable condition of the crops.

Mr. Jones stated that the Board should visit some of the sites that use wastewater spray irrigation to help evaluate whether the Board should allow it on MALPF easement properties.

Mr. Scott stated that he believed that there was a motion on the floor that should be voted on. Mr. Jones asked what the motion was. Mr. Scott stated his motion.

Motion #10: To accept wastewater spray irrigation as allowable practice on easement properties.

Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Joseph Scott

Status: Denied

(Opposed by entire Board with the exception of Mr. Wolf and Mr. Scott)

Mr. Jones proposed that the discussion be tabled and that the staff organize a site visit for the members of the Board and the Board will render its decision shortly after the site visit.

The Board members concurred.

B. POLICY -- WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR OWNER AND CHILD LOTS

Mr. Nielsen stated that Foundation staff and counsel met with Edward Halle, Jr., an attorney in Hunt Valley and Maryland Environmental Trust Board member, and Daniel Colhoun, a MALPF easement holder and Chair of the Baltimore County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board, concerning whether the Foundation would accept the donation or waiver of an owner's or child's lot.

Mr. Nielsen stated that MALPF would have to fill out an IRS form stating, not the value of what was given, but that a gift was received by the Foundation from the named donor. The Foundation has the ability to accept gifts. Mr. Nielsen stated that he spoke with Bill Beach and others about this issue. The concern is that assessing the value of an owner=s or child=s lot is highly speculative because the lots are solely for the owner=s or child=s use and it is therefore unclear that these lots have any real value at all. Once the owner dies or the property is transferred to another owner, those lots rights are extinguished. Mr. Nielsen stated that the safest route would be to write to Mr. Halle and ask him to bring the issue to the IRS and let them decide.

Mr. Powel stated that he was interested in the Board=s decision because he had landowners in Carroll County who were interested in doing the same thing.

Mr. Nielsen stated that the question is does the lot have a real value.

Mr. Wolf stated that our attorney should inform the landowner that he is free to consult with the IRS but he can make no representation on behalf of the MALPF Board or MDA.

Motion #11: To inform Mr. Halle that he is free to consult with the IRS but he can make no representation on behalf of the MALPF Board or MDA.

Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Joe Tassone

Status: Approved

C. CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM -- REQUEST FOR RE-CERTIFICATION - QUEEN ANNE=S COUNTY

Queen Anne=s County has submitted an application for Re-certification of a local Agricultural Land Preservation Program and is requesting joint approval from the Foundation and the Maryland Office of Planning for a two year term. The Office of Planning will conduct an independent review of the application.

The Foundation staff recommends that Queen Anne=s County be re-certified as the County=s local program continues to be successful in supporting viable agricultural operations and preserving agricultural land in perpetuity.

Motion #12: To approve the request for Re-certification of Queen Anne=s County=s Agricultural Land Preservation Program

Motion: Judith Lynch Second: Joseph Scott

Status: Approved

E. CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP -- OPTION CONTRACT -- SAMUEL L. MCSORLEY

The request is for a change of ownership of a pending 2003 easement offer for Daniel L. McSorley in Kent County. The staff has received notification that Daniel McSorley, has passed away. The heirs want to transfer the option to purchase the easement from Daniel McSorley to the trustees under the will, Ruth Ann Taylor, Nancy Hawkins and Daniel P. McSorley. This is something that the Foundation does routinely and staff requests to continue with the application process to settlement under the new names.

Motion #13: To approve the request for a name change on McSorley option contract.

Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Maurice Wiles