MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION
FOUNDATION
MINUTES
August 27, 2002
TRUSTEES
PRESENT:
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman
Allen H. Cohey
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:
Mildred H. Darcey
Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer Kopp
Judith C. Lynch
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Kevin Clark, Queen Anne=s County Program
Administrator
James Conrad, MALPF Administrator
Carl DeMatteo, Farm
Bureau Director of Local Affairs
Jeffrey Everett, Howard County Program
Administrator
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General,
Department of General Services
Iva L. Frantz, MALPF
Administrative Officer
Frank Hall, Talbot County Program Administrator
Dave Kelleher, Asst. Chief, Appraisal &
Valuation, Department of General Services
Carla Martin, Kent County Program Administrator
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Agriculture
Bill Powel, Carroll County Program Administrator
Charles Rice, Charles County Program Administrator
Ralph Robertson, Carroll County Land Preservation
Specialist
Chris Rogers, URS Corporation
Donna Sasscer, St. Mary=s County Program
Administrator
Dr. Tien, Maryland
Department of the Environment
Elizabeth 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 ,
Motion #1: To approve the minutes of July 23,
2002.
Motion: Allen Cohey Second:
Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
B. ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
Deletion: Item III.E.1. HOWARD
COUNTY (13-04-80-06Ce; NEWSOME, Wayne and Melissa)
This review of an earlier approval to construct a
tenant house on easement property has been delayed until the September meeting
of the Board of Trustees at the request of the Newsome=s attorney.
Addition: The Policy Review Committee has requested
that its tenant house policy recommendation be reviewed by the Board.
II. AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS:
A. HOWARD COUNTY
1. 13-04-02-01 DALY,
Henry K. and Betty A. 25.76
acres
The Board had requested that this property be
brought back for review based on precedents to approve similar properties based
on adjacent state-owned land being considered for purposes of establishing
property eligibility. A precedent was
identified by the staff where the Vogelsang property
in Baltimore County was considered eligible by being contiguous to the Soldiers
Delight Natural Environment Area. Jeff
Everett, program administrator for Howard County, noted that two adjacent
properties have expressed interest in the county and state agricultural
preservation programs, though neither has yet submitted an application for selling
easements. Robert Wolf noted the
importance of the size and contiguity of state-owned forested land in
establishing eligibility of smaller parcels.
Motion #2: To approve the request of Henry and
Betty Daly to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their
property.
Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Robert
Wolf
Opposed: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
III. DISTRICT/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A. CECIL COUNTY
1. 07-04-88-05e MACKIE,
Joseph and Beverly 223
acres
Motion #3: To approve the request of Joseph and
Beverly Mackie to exclude a 1.0 acre child=s lot from their easement property for the purpose
of constructing a dwelling for the personal use of their son, Mark S. Hurm, Jr.
Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Robert
Wolf
Status: Approved
B. WASHINGTON COUNTY
1. 21-12-91-03 WEAVER,
Carl P. and Patricia A. 174.05
acres
Motion #4: To approve the request to increase size
of a child=s lot from 1.0 acre to
1.6761 acres on District property for their son, Carl P. Weaver, to satisfy
Washington County septic requirements.
Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Joseph
Scott
Status: Approved
C. Item withdrawn.
A.
QUEEN ANNE=S COUNTY
1. 17-03-90-11 MORRIS,
Thomas P. and Delores D. 136
acres
Joe Tassone asked for
clarification of the staff report. Kevin
Clark, Queen Anne=s Program Administrator,
noted that the farm is a grain operation with about 100 acres under
cultivation. The tenant to be living in
the tenant house is the owners= grandson who is now the
full-time operator of the farm.
Motion #5: Request to approve the request of
Thomas and Delores Morris to establish a tenant house on easement property.
Motion: Allen Cohey Second:
Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
E. Item postponed until September Board meeting at the request
of the landowners= attorney.
IV. PROGRAM POLICY/EASEMENT
OFFERS
Addition: TENANT
HOUSE POLICY
Jim Conrad noted that the tenant house policy has
been under discussion since late 2001, with the last version of the proposed
tenant house policy that is being handed out dating from February 14,
2002. The Policy Review Committee
reviewed this policy before the Board meeting this morning and has some
recommended changes to the language of the proposed policy to be considered by
the Board before final approval.
Following is the most recent version of the tenant
house policy which is used for the subsequent discussion.
POLICY ON TENANT HOUSES
Fifth Draft Proposal
GENERAL
PERSPECTIVE:
No
tenant houses shall be constructed without the written approval of the
Foundation. An approval for the
construction of a tenant house is not an absolute right for the landowner, but
shall be reviewed by the Foundation on a case-by-case basis. Each request will be reviewed to determine if
the proposed tenant house is needed based on the nature of the farming
operation. Given its purpose as housing
for tenants fully engaged in the operation of the farm, the construction of the
tenant house should make sense in terms of the size and proposed location on
the property.
CRITERIA:
A. A request
for a tenant house shall not be considered for any property that contains less
than 100.00 acres.
B. No more than
one tenant house per full 100.00 acres shall be considered for any property
(e.g., one house for 100.00-199.99 acres, two for 200.00-299.99 acres).
C. The
construction of a tenant house shall only be approved to house tenants fully
engaged in the operation of the farm who derive a minimum of 50% of their
income from this employment.
D. The
Foundation shall approve the location and size of the tenant house (for example, if possible, it should be
located in the vicinity of other farm buildings and/or at the core of the
farming operation) and take both location and size into consideration as
potentially relevant factors in determining the approval or denial of a
request.
E. A request
for the construction of a new tenant house shall conform with
local planning and zoning regulations.
F. The land on
which a tenant house is constructed shall not be subdivided or conveyed to any
person independent of the original parcel on which the owner=s house or an approved owner=s lot is located, should such owner=s house or approved lot exist.
G. The owner(s)
of land on which a tenant house is constructed cannot be a tenant or occupy an
approved tenant house.
H. The
Foundation shall not approve the construction of a tenant house for the purpose
of producing rental income.
SPECIAL
EXCEPTION TO CRITERIA:
A.
A request for a tenant house may be considered by the Foundation for a
property between 50.00 and 99.99 acres, provided:
1.
The Foundation determines that the labor intensive nature of the farming
operation would warrant the need for a tenant house;
2.
The landowner requests the approval of one tenant house only; and
3.
The house tenants are full engaged in the operation of the farm and
derive a minimum of 75% of their income from this employment.
B.
A request for a tenant house to be included in an agricultural
subdivision may be considered provided:
1.
The parcel to be subdivided is conveyed to an adjoining easement
property;
2.
The maximum density requirement of one tenant house per 100.00 acres has
not been reached on that adjoining easement property; and
3.
The agricultural subdivision otherwise meets all other requirements of
the Foundation and has been approved.
C. Rental
Housing. A request for a tenant house
will not be considered if the Foundation previously approved, on the same
property, the conversion of a tenant house to a rental house.
1. A request for a tenant house to be converted to a rental
house may be considered, provided:
a. The nature of the farming operation has changed; and
b. Regulations .03B and .03F remain in effect.
2. A request to convert a tenant house to a rental house shall
be done in a letter and accompanied by the following:
a. Tax maps;
b. Verification by the County Program Administrator of the
circumstances surrounding the request;
c. A letter of recommendation from the Local Agricultural Land Preservation
Advisory Board;
d. A written statement from the local Planning and Zoning
Office, or Program Administrator, that such a conversion is permitted under
local regulations; and
e. Any other documentation requested by the Foundation.
D. The criteria
and criteria exceptions that apply to new tenant housing shall also apply to
preexisting dwellings that are designated as tenant houses when the easement is
recorded among the county land records.
APPLICATION PROCEDURES:
Before the Foundation will consider
a request for the construction of a tenant house, all of the following
information shall be submitted:
A. An
application for Construction of a Tenant House which has been fully completed
and signed by all titled landowners.
B. An
unmarked copy of the tax map which outlines the entire district or easement
property.
C. A
second copy of the tax map, which shall include the following:
1. Property boundaries or the district of
easement property
2. Location of, and access to, the
proposed tenant house; and
3. Location of, and access to, all
preexisting dwellings, lot exclusions, tenant houses, and farm buildings.
D. A
written statement signed by at least one of the titled landowners indicating
how much the tenant will be compensated for the tenant's work.
E. Written
verification from the County Program Administrator describing the following:
1. The current overall farm operation; and
2. The need for the proposed tenant housing to support the
current farming operation.
F. A
written review from the Agricultural Extension Service of this request for
tenant housing based on the requirements of the farming operation, if the
Agricultural Extension Service can provide such a review.
G. A
letter of recommendation from the local Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory
Board.
H. A
written statement from the local Planning and Zoning Office or the County
Program Administrator that the proposed tenant house can be constructed under
current local regulations.
__________________________________________________
Mr. Conrad detailed the recommended changes to the
policy. First, the Policy Review
Committee recommended deleting specific income criteria in determining a tenant
fully engaged in the operation of the farm.
For example, in the fifth draft proposal, Criteria C states:
AThe construction of a tenant house shall only be
approved to house tenants fully engaged in the operation of the farm who derive
a minimum of 50% of their income from this employment.@
@Fully engaged@ and @50% of income@ are contradictory. The Committee recommended that this be stated
simply as:
AThe construction of a tenant house shall only be
approved to house tenants fully engaged in the operation of the farm.@
Second, the Policy Review Committee recommended
adding language to Criteria E as underlined to state:
AA request for the construction of a tenant house
shall conform with local planning and zoning
regulations as or more restrictive than those of the Foundation.@
Third, in the Special Exception to Criteria, item A
contradicts existing statute. The Policy
Review Committee recommended that the item concerning tenant houses for
properties between 50 and 99 acres be left out until the statutory language can
be change to accommodate this policy.
Douglas Wilson, representing the Secretary of
Agriculture, asked if the intention is to seek department legislation now to
allow this policy to be adopted in the future.
He recommended both that the Board approve the proposed tenant house
policy with the exception of ASpecial Exception to the
Criteria@ item A, and that the Board
approve giving the staff authority to seek legislation at the next legislative
session to allow the Board to adopt item A of the Special Exception to the
Criteria on giving the Board the discretion to approve tenant houses on farms
from 50 to 100 acres in size under exceptional circumstances.
Motion #6: Request to approve the tenant house
policy as recommended by the Policy Review Committee, with the exception of the
Special Exception to the Criteria that is currently inconsistent with existing
statute.
Motion: Allen Cohey Second:
Joe Tassone
Opposed: Joseph Scott
Status: Approved
Motion #7: Request to approve giving the staff
authority to prepare legislation for the upcoming General Assembly to allow the
Board to adopt Special Exception to the Criteria A concerning the discretion
for the Board to allow tenant houses on farms from 50 to 100 acres in size.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second:
Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
A. WASTEWATER SPRAY IRRIGATION POLICY
Jim Conrad, Administrator, noted that the invited
guest, Dr. Tien from
B. EASEMENT REVISION AND
The discussion of the Easement Revision and
C. RURAL LEGACY PROGRAM (EXECUTIVE SESSION B BOARD MEMBERS ONLY)
Because the Board will not discuss the offer amount
on this property, it will facilitate the meeting to discuss the proposal to
co-hold this Rural Legacy easement with the Commissioners of Carroll County in regular
session.
The easement is on a MALPF district property. The District Agreement would have to be
subordinated to the Rural Legacy easement.
Robert Wolf asked if the Board could impose the condition
of a forest management plan, given the amount of acreage in forest. Douglas Wilson responded that the easement
has already been negotiated by the Rural Legacy sponsor and that it really is
not possible to impose a condition after the easement has been negotiated.
Clarification was requested as to why the Board is
co-holding Rural Legacy easements.
Douglas Wilson noted that the Foundation does this in part as a courtesy
to the Rural Legacy Program which is not an easement holding entity. More importantly, some sponsors are required
by Rural Legacy legislation to co-hold Rural Legacy with a state agency, either
MALPF or the Maryland Environmental Trust.
MALPF is usually asked to co-hold easements on agricultural properties;
Maryland Environmental Trust is usually asked to co-hold easements on
environmentally-sensitive properties.
1. White, Emil H. Trust 123.578
acres
Motion #8: Request to approve co-holding a Rural
Legacy easement with the Commissioners of Carroll County on the Emil H. White Trust
property.
Motion: Maurice Wiles Second:
Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
D. CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP (HARNER)
(EXECUTIVE
SESSION B BOARD MEMBERS ONLY)
Because the Board will not discuss the offer amount
on this pending easement property, it will facilitate the meeting to discuss
the request for the transfer of ownership in regular session.
The Harners own a dairy
farm in
Douglas Wilson recommended writing a letter to the
owners about how the change of ownership will affect the eligibility for lots
on the property.
Motion #9: Request to approve the transfer of
ownership of a pending easement offer property from Louella
S. Harner, Dennis J. Harner,
and Mary W. Harner to Dennis J. Harner
and Mary W. Harner.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second:
Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
Douglas Wilson sought to clarify where this
property is in the process of going to settlement because of the possibility
that title work will need to be reordered.
Staff will clarify this issue with the Department of General Services.
E. FY 2002 EASEMENT ACQUISITION PROGRAM - MALPF/GREEN PRINT
OFFERS
(EXECUTIVE SESSION B BOARD MEMBERS ONLY)
Discussion deferred to Executive Session.
F. LOCAL MATCHING FUND PROGRAM (2003)
The following counties have requested approval to
participate in the FY 2003 Local Matching Funds Program. Please note that
Carroll County Queen
Anne=s County
Cecil County St.
Mary=s County
Motion #10: Request to approve the participation of
the listed counties in the FY 2003 Local Matching Funds Program.
Motion: Joseph Scott Second: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
Douglas Wilson reminded program administrators that
MALPF=s funding is normally about
$18 to 21 million from transfer taxes plus $3 million in agricultural transfer
taxes. The General Assembly cut this
amount by $10 million for FY 2003. This
means MALPF will have about $12 million total B a significant
reduction. Program administrators should
keep this in mind when planning matching funds for FY 2003. For FY 2004, there is a similar reduction in
the Budget Reconciliation Act. Whether
the General Assembly chooses to supplement the remaining funding with bond
money remains to be seen. There is no
official state position on this to date.
But keep in mind that this funding hit is significant.
Jim Conrad noted that the Foundation is still
waiting to hear about the Federal Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
funding. The range of possible funding
has declined from $3 to 5 million to $2 to 4 million for FY 2003. Doug Wilson noted that an agreement on FPP
funding will have to be signed by the end of September.
Douglas Wilson noted that anyone who wishes to let
MALPF know what matching funds will be made available will improve their
chances of getting early offers, if making offers earlier based on that
information is possible.
G. CORN MAZE B REQUEST TO ALLOW ACTIVITY
ON DISTRICT/EASEMENT PROPERTY
Joseph and Mary Wood of St. Mary=s County have requested permission
to have a corn maze on their property as a permissible use. The Tri-County Council is holding a grant for
the Woods pending this approval from the Foundation. The staff recommends approval based on the
MALPF Task Force=s logic in its last year
report and the explicit reference to corn mazes as a proposed allowable use on
easement property. This property has a
pending easement offer.
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General,
recommended that any approval be made subject to certain limitations to be sure
that the property owner understands that there are limits to such activities,
such as commercial t-shirt sales, etc.
Joe Tassone noted that
the landowners= request letter specifies
the conditions and terms that would be useful to refer to in the Board=s approval. These conditions, however, do not address how
many acres would be affected by the corn maze.
Jim Conrad asked the Board to be specific in any
approval as to whether the Board is making general policy or approving this
request on a case-by-case basis.
Discussion suggested that any approval should be made case-by-case.
Donna Sasscer, St. Mary=s County program
administrator, clarified the requirements of the Farm Viability Grant in
helping tobacco farmers find alternatives to make income after the transition
from tobacco production. The grant is
long term and is intended to pay for advertising and the development of the
corn maze itself. Ms. Sasscer also clarified the extent to which this request
involves commercial non-agricultural activities.
Joe Tassone suggested
that as long as this use remains limited to the activity described in the
request letter, the Board would consider the request to be reasonable. The Board can add conditions if it wishes,
such as specifying that no permanent commercial structures can be built. Also, the effect of this plan on agricultural
production should be no greater than that which is proposed.
Joe Scott suggested that this approval might be a
single year approval. Others pointed out
that the grant depends on the Board=s approval being longer term to qualify for the
grant and make the Council=s investment in the
activity worthwhile.
Robert Wolf suggested that no conditions should be
imposed on this activity. Douglas Wilson
suggested the Board approval should have conditions, because even the Task
Force recommendations had conditions and limitations on what were deemed
permissible uses.
Craig Nielsen stated that the Board has the
discretion to approve this use, but that it should be subject to an agreement
or a letter specifying the limits of the activity.
Motion #11: Request to approve the use of the pending
easement property owned by Joseph and Mary Wood for a corn maze subject to a
letter from the Foundation referring to the conditions already accepted by the
landowners in their request letter.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second:
Joe Tassone
Abstain: Allen Cohey,
Gerald Thorpe
Status: Approved
Discussion continued regarding the specific
conditions to be imposed on this approval.
Joe Tassone suggested continuing annual review
of what is being done on the property.
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, noted that the Foundation has
the photo of the original corn maze as a potential exhibit establishing a
baseline against which future activity can be compared. If the activity is expanded, MALPF can
withdraw its approval.
H. SAGAMORE B RELEASE OF BOND
Jim Conrad stated that, based on a satisfactory
site inspection by MALPF and
Motion #12: Request to approve the release of Caves
Valley Golf Club from the bond held by MALPF on Sagamore
Farm for temporary parking for the Seniors Open Golf Championship..
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second:
Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
Jim Conrad suggested that
the Board can now return to the Wastewater Spray Irrigation discussion that was
delayed earlier in this meeting.
[A.] WASTEWATER SPRAY IRRIGATION POLICY
For the benefit of Board members who could
participate, Jim Conrad recounted briefly the August 9 visit to Allen Family
Foods in Cordova,
Mr. Conrad reminded the Board that the original
request was for the MALPF Board to develop a policy concerning: (1) Is wastewater spray irrigation an acceptable use of easement
property? and (2) If wastewater spray irrigation is an
acceptable use of easement property, what is the process by which a project
using easement properties could be approved?
Douglas Wilson noted that a central concern is that
the outcome of any wastewater disposal on MALPF easement properties does not
create growth patterns contrary to State, county and/or municipal
objectives. The impact on growth could
be consistent with the Smart Growth initiative or could undercut it. So these jurisdictions must be part of the
approval process, particularly the Department of Planning on behalf of the
State and county and/or municipal government on behalf of local concerns. Growth management considerations must be part
of the approval process.
Mr. Conrad asked if it makes more sense for the
Board to address approvals on a case-by-case basis or to provide a blanket
approval as long as proposed projects meet certain minimum criteria. Mr. Wilson suggested that any approval
process must be on a case-by-case basis.
MALPF could say it is an acceptable practice as long as certain
conditions are met, so those who might propose a project don=t invest a substantial
amount of money to develop a project only to have it disapproved by MALPF. Yet the Foundation would still review the
requests on a case-by-case basis.
Joe Tassone suggested
that the field trip observations were positive, but an additional consideration
should be to recognize that the State has a significant investment in easement
properties. The investment is ultimately
in the long-term viability of the property for profitable production. Spray irrigation of wastewater is not
necessarily incompatible with this objective and investment, but the use does affect what can be grown on the
property. This suggests that each
project should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis so it is clear what the effect
might be on the State=s investment. There may be cases where such projects may
not be the best decision that the Foundation might make in protecting its
investment.
Douglas Wilson asked Mr. Tassone
if the Department of Planning would be willing to participate in such a
decision-making process. Mr. Tassone said that he would ask the Secretary of Planning if
this was something that the Department would be willing to do. Douglas Wilson suggested that the Smart
Growth agencies might be solicited to provide information to the Board
concerning such requests, and that they could be asked if they would be willing
to provide evaluations of projects.
Smart Growth agencies could respond at a future Board meeting if they
would be willing to do this.
Allen Cohey expressed
concern about the potential impact of wastewater spray irrigation on growth
management. Douglas Wilson stated that
this is precisely the reason to have the Department of Planning and local
government entities involved in the project evaluation and approval process.
Douglas Wilson stated that the Board must develop a
general policy and a specific policy related to the application process. The Foundation needs a process that includes
an environmental evaluation or permitting process, possibly approval by the
Maryland Department of the Environment, as well as growth management
considerations.
The Board discussed the likely impact of wastewater spray irrigation on growth management and growth patterns. Frank Hall