MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Lewis R. Riley, Secretary Maryland
Department of Agriculture
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman
Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Gerald Thorpe, representing Comptroller
Schaefer
Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer Kopp
Maurice L. Wiles
Allen H. Cohey
Robert E. Wolf
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Joseph F. Tassone,
representing Secretary of Maryland Department of Planning
Joseph K. Scott
Mildred H. Darcey
Judith C. Lynch
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jim Conrad, Executive Director
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General
Dave Kelleher, Asst. Chief, Appraisal & Valuation,
Department of General Services
Carla
Tammy Scheidt,
Bill Powel, Carroll
Radhika Sakhamuri, Queen Anne's
Queen Anne’s County
Bill Sharp, Queen Anne’s County landowner
John Zawitoski,
Susan Wilson,
Matthew
Tom Devilbiss,
Hydrologist for
Ed Wormald,
William Sharp, Queen Anne’s County landowner
Iva L. Frantz,
Administrative Officer
Elizabeth Weaver, Administrative Officer
Darlene M. Athey,
Foundation Secretary
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman, called
the meeting to order at
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES/ADDITION OR DELETION
OF AGENDA ITEMS:
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion #1: To approve the minutes of
Motion: Maurice Wiles Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
James Conrad, Executive Director, introduced
Mr. Lewis Riley, Secretary Department of Agriculture, who addressed the
Board. Secretary Riley stated that, at
this time, there is no decision on the fiscal outlook. He stated that he is hopeful that the
Foundation will be able to make all of the offers that we are committed
to. He went on to mention that he was
meeting with the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources concerning
the CREP program. He further stated
that, in his opinion, a portion of the CREP money should be allotted to the
Foundation to protect agricultural land.
He stated that there is approximately 63,000 acres that are
protected. However, there is a lot of
productive land that has been taken out of production and placed in the CREP
program. He stated that a Congressman is
talking about creating an Agriculture Corridor and Mr. Riley wants to see this
land remain as productive, protected agricultural land. He stated that he wants the Board to
understand that he is supportive of the work of the Board and the
Foundation. He stated that he felt that
funding to support the MALPF Program should be supplemented.
B.
ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
1.
Mr. Conrad noted that corrections to the January
28, 2003 minutes to be made are Treasurer Kopp’s name should replace Mr.
Richard Dixon and on page 4 the minutes should state “…the Department of
General Services will not be accepting acreage adjustments…”. These changes have been made to the minutes.
2.
Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary Maryland
Department of Agriculture, stated that the Budget Committee voted on the FY’02
monies and voted it back to the Administration with the instructions to modify
$2.5 million of our money and 100% of all County money. The Administration has made the adjustments
and returned the figures to the Legislature, as requested. It is Mr. Wilson’s
understanding that Legislative Services and the Budget Analysts have
reviewed it and have distributed it to the Legislature to approve it since
their requests have been made. There
should be a response from the General Assembly by
He further stated that the Budget
Reconciliation Act has been introduced to the House of Delegates and the
Senate. It has the reductions as
structured by law. He has not seen the
Bond Bill, however, it may have already been
introduced with $21 million of Bond money.
The budget will have to be amended in order for the Foundation to be
able to use the monies in the FY’02 and FY’03 programs. The Board will then have to discuss how to
proceed for future offers. The only
items that need to be watched are the amendments to the Reconciliation Act for
the monies that were not approved. There
is another law that needs to allow these monies to be moved to the General Fund
in order for the Foundation to be able to utilize these funds.
He stated that we can notify DGS, since
there is the action on the 100%, and ask them to take landowners whose offers
are 100%, put them up for review and the others will be reviewed at a later
date.
He further mentioned to the Board that in
correspondence to the Legislature concerning bills, that as a private citizen
they are certainly able to contact the Legislature. However, they must be careful in their
wording so as their correspondence cannot be construed as the opinion of the
Foundation Board of Trustees.
3.
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, stated
that Judge Sweeney in
He further stated that he has filed, on the
behalf of MALPF, a suit against the Mullinix Brothers
who are clearly in violation of the program by conducting a commercial nursery
and landscaping business on MALPF district property. There is a trial set for October for this
case.
He further stated that
4.
Mr. Conrad stated that the MALPF Legislation
introduced is as follows:
HB 91 – introduced by George Edwards, this
is the Natural Gas Rights Bill that proposes to have the Foundation from
Garrett and
HB 131 – introduced by Delegates Stocksdale and Elliott, this pertains to allowing
HB 157 – from
HB 406 – proposes to reduce the minimum
acreage to qualify to participate in the MALPF program from 50 to 25
acres. Foundation staff testified
against this bill.
HB 804/SB 564 –
introduced by Delegates James and Dyson. This
is the first of the Task Force bills.
The first hearing on this bill is today in the Senate building. This bill proposes to have the Foundation
establish ranking guidelines to review the County ranking easement systems. Foundation staff usually does this however,
it is not done where the County chooses to use the Foundation’s discounting
system.
Delegate James has also introduced the Task
Force recommendation to end the use of agricultural value formula in
calculating easement values, but rather base easement values on Fair Market
Value.
HB 805/SB 626 –
introduced by Delegate James and Senators Middleton and Dyson. This is a recommendation to change the lot
exclusion policy and give the Foundation more flexibility in what economic
activity takes place on easement property.
This will limit the lots to 3 down from 10 maximum lots on a property, it decreases the density from 1 in 20 to 1 in 20
for the first lot and 1 in 50 for the subsequent 2 lots. It allows easement applicants to ask for 1
unrestricted lot rather than the family lot option. It carries with the land and makes the
exclusion of dwellings at the time of easement sale to be tied to the lot
exclusion limit.
HB 826 – introduced by Delegates Glassman
and Parrott. This is a termination of
easement proposal that will allow the Counties to have easement applicants
commit to a perpetual easement and to also allow asking current easement
landowners to waive the 25 year out position.
The second bill that they have introduced is a proposal to replace the
current installment payment option with and installment purchase agreement
arrangement. Rather than being paid
every 2 to 10 years, it would be payable over 20 years.
II. AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
A.
CARROLL COUNTY
1. 06-03-03-02 MCKENZIE, Thomas E. & Nancy A. 167.319 acres
Motion #2: To approve the request of Thomas E.
& Nancy A. McKenzie to establish an agricultural land preservation district
on their property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second:
Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
B.
1. 10-08-03-01 CASSIS, Steve H. 124.84
acres
Gerald Thorpe, representing Comptroller
Schaefer, stated that there seems to be significant development in the area.
Mr. Conrad stated that when it comes to
District Applications, there has not been much thought on contiguity. However, in terms of Easement Applications
and the making of easement offers, the Task Force has spent a lot of time on
contiguity.
Motion #3: To approve the request of Steve H.
Cassis to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their
property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second:
Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
2. 10-15-03-02 NOWELL, Daniel M. & Brenda L. 67.00 acres
Motion #4: To approve the request of Daniel M. and
Brenda L. Nowell to establish an agricultural land
preservation district on their property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second:
Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
C. ST. MARY’S COUNTY
1. 18-01-03-01
Motion #5: To approve the request of Donna J.
Taylor to establish an agricultural land preservation district on her property.
Motion: Lewis Logan Second:
Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
2. 18-04-03-02 RUSSELL-MORGAN, Carol M. 90.43
acres
Mr. Thorpe stated that, based on the best
use of the land, he was not in agreement with the district application.
Motion #6: To approve the request of Carol M.
Russell Morgan to establish an agricultural land preservation district on her
property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second:
Lewis Logan
Abstain: Gerald Thorpe
Status: Approved
3. 18-07-03-03 McDONALD, William T. & Barbara
J. 27.18 acres
Motion #7: To approve the request of William T.
& Barbara J. McDonald to establish an agricultural land preservation district
on their property.
Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
4. 18-07-03-04 EBNER, Francis E. & Madge T. 90.56 acres
Motion #8: To approve the request of Francis E.
& Madge T. Ebner to establish an agricultural
land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Maurice Wiles
Abstain: Gerald Thorpe
Status: Approved
III. DISTRICT/EASEMENT
AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 06-11-01-13A WHITFIELD, John D. & Marty Lou 22.613 acres
Request to exclude a 1-acre child's lot from
district property for their daughter, Laurie Pusateri,
for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for her personal use.
Mr. and Mrs. Whitfield are the original
owners of the district property. The
current request is for the exclusion of a 1.0 acre child's lot for their
daughter, Laurie Pusateri.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the
property. Mr. and Mrs. Whitfield own
another district property, 28 acres, which adjoins this district. They have not requested any other lots.
According to Carroll County, the proposed
lot will have minimal impact on the agricultural use of the land as it is
located at the edge of cropland, adjacent to the lawn area. Access to the lot will be through an existing
driveway, with a section of new driveway along the edge of the existing lawn
area.
The request conforms to Carroll County
zoning regulations.
Foundation staff recommended approval based
on COMAR 15.15.01.03.F(1) which states: "A
landowner may request to have excluded from a district certain portions of the
owner’s property constituting lots of either 1 acre or less….if the purpose is
to construct a dwelling for the owner or the owner’s children.”
Motion #9: To approve the request of John D. and
Marty Lou Whitfield to exclude a 1-acre child's lot from district property for
their daughter, Laurie Pusateri, for the purpose of
constructing a dwelling for her personal use.
Motion: Gerald Thorpe Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
2. 06-07-80-18e MANN, Roland H. 144.49
acres
Request to modify a previously approved
owner’s lot location and relocation of a pre-existing dwelling.
Mr. Mann is the original owner of the
144.4923 acre easement property. The
current request is to modify a previously approved owner’s lot and relocation
of a pre-existing dwelling.
On
According to Carroll County, the
designations of the location of the owner’s lot and the relocation of the
pre-existing dwelling were inadvertently mislabeled on the prior request. The intent of this request is to correctly
label the locations of the lots. Both
lots are of equal size and access to the lots has not changed.
There is one additional pre-existing
dwelling on the property. Two 1.0 acre
child's lots have been approved and released.
A tenant house has been approved and constructed on the property. An agricultural subdivision of the property
was approved on
Supporting documentation included original
memos to the Board, the minutes from the September 25, 2001 Board meeting, the
landowner's request letter, Carroll County Agricultural Land Preservation
Advisory Board approval, and a location map.
Foundation staff recommended approval of the
request because it will have no impact on the agricultural use of the land as
the area of land involved in both the owner’s lot and the area surrounding the
pre-existing dwelling are equal in size and access to the lots has not been
altered. An approval should be granted
conditional upon the existing dwelling being demolished and the land being
reclaimed for agricultural use. The
approval for the relocation of the pre-existing dwelling should also be
conditional upon the lot not being subdivided from the parcel of land on which
it is located.
Motion #10: To approve the request of Roland H. Mann
to modify a previously approved owner’s lot location, the demolition of the
pre-existing dwelling, and relocation of a pre-existing dwelling lot.
Motion: Gerald Thorpe Second: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
3. 06-01-90-09Ae WORDEN, Herbert T. & Karen S. 46.62
acres
Request for approval to place a
communications antenna on an existing silo located on easement property.
Mr. and Mrs. Worden are the original owners
of the easement property. They are
requesting approval to place a communications antenna on an existing silo
located on their property.
As you are aware, on May 22, 2001 (McElwain) and on October 22, 2002 (Heaps) the Foundation
approved similar requests. The minutes
from those meetings are attached.
According to Carroll County, the silo is
located next to the main barn. Access
will be through an existing gravel drive.
The Carroll County Agricultural Advisory Board approved the request.
The configuration of the site for this
request is similar to that of the October, 2002 (Heaps) approved site, but
requests more enclosed area for the equipment cabinets. This application requests a total of 525
square feet (15’X35’) to be enclosed by an 8’ fence. The October, 2002 (Heaps) request was for a
512 square feet (16’X32’) enclosed area.
No fence was indicated on the drawing for the May, 2001 (McElwain) request. In the McElwain
situation, the footprint size, i.e. concrete pad for equipment cabinet, was 300
square feet.
Foundation staff recommended approval based
on the McElwain and Heaps precedent. Although the size of the enclosed area is
larger that the McElwain and Heaps requests, staff
believes that, as the enclosed area is located in an area of the farm that
houses other farm buildings, the impact on the farming operation would be
minimal. Staff further recommends that
an approval should be subject to the condition set forth in the McElwain approval, i.e. that any further additional
equipment be housed in an existing structure.
Motion #11: To approve the request of Herbert T. and
Karen S. Worden to place a communications antenna on an existing silo located
on easement property.
Motion: Gerald Thorpe Second: Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
4. 06-11-89-22 KAVANAGH, Joseph D., Jr., & Jeanettie
S. 106.33 acres
Request to exclude a child’s lot from a
co-held Rural Legacy easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Kavanagh
are the original owners of this Rural Legacy easement property. The current request is for the exclusion of a
1.469 acre child's lot for their daughter, Jacqueline Kavanagh.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the
property. Mr. and Mrs. Kavanagh do not own any other district or easement
properties. They have not requested any
other lots, and this request is the only lot that has been reserved in the
Rural Legacy easement.
According to Carroll County, the proposed
lot has the least possible impact on the agricultural use of the land. It is located against the property line with
access directly onto the existing driveway.
The request conforms to Carroll County
zoning regulations. The request for
1.469 acres is being made because the location of this building site to
minimize the impact on the farm requires additional space to locate the well
and septic while retaining a reasonable distance for the front and side yard.
Foundation staff recommended approval based
on the negotiated Rural Legacy easement that is co-held by the Maryland
Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation and the Board of Commissioners of
Carroll County. The easement language
states:
“…the Grantors hereby reserve for themselves and
any future owner the right to exclude from the easement one residential
lot. The location and size of the lot is
subject to the approval of the Grantees.
It is intended that the lot be one acre in size, or the minimum lot size
permitted by the zoning and health department regulations. The Grantees agree to execute a partial
release of this easement at the time of the creation of the lot.”
The Carroll County Attorney’s Office will
prepare a release document for consideration and review by MALPF staff and
legal counsel upon approval of this request by the Foundation’s Board of
Trustees.
Motion #12: To approve the request of Joseph D., Jr.,
and Jeanettie S. Kavanagh
to exclude a child’s lot from a co-held Rural Legacy easement property.
Motion: Maurice Wiles Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
B. QUEEN ANNE”S COUNTY
1. 17-01-01-03 LEAGER, George R. 154.52
acres
Request to swap 10 acres of district
property for 10 acres of non-district property.
Mr. Leager is the
original owner of the district property.
The current request is to swap 10 acres of previously excluded land for
10 acres of district property.
The landowner wants to exclude a portion
that is currently part of the district because he wants to locate a swimming
pool for his horses close to the racetrack.
The acreage that is currently excluded is located too far from the
racetrack. The landowner also wants to
build a tenant house on the land that he wants to exclude. The landowner wants to exclude the acreage because
he believes it would be less time-consuming than going through the process of
seeking approval from the Foundation for the swimming pool and the tenant
house.
According to Queen Anne’s County, the
proposed swap will have no impact on the agricultural use as the land that the
landowner wants to exclude is currently planted in crops and the acreage that
he is proposing to bring into the district will also be planted in crops. The proposed uses are permitted by the county
as they are considered accessory to agricultural use.
Supporting documentation included the
landowner’s request letter, Queen Anne’s County Agricultural Land Preservation
Advisory Board approval, and a location map.
Foundation staff recommended approval
because the swap involves land with similar soil characteristics and
agricultural properties.
Mr. Thorpe asked
what type of race course this is.
Mrs. George Leager stated that they are standardbreds
(trotters)
Mr. Wilson asked
why there is excluded land.
Mrs. Leager stated that they wanted the excluded land in case
they wanted to build another home. They
want to swap the land because with the advent of the swimming pool, it makes
more sense to put it in the area where the horses will be rather on the other
side of the property.
Mr. Wilson stated
that he does not understand why they want to exclude the land.
Mrs. Leager stated that they are holding this for possible
future sale or build a house on it.
Motion #13: To approve the request of George R. Leager to swap 10 acres of district property for 10 acres
of non-district property.
Motion: Gerald Thorpe Second: Maurice Wiles
Opposed: Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
2. 17-06-90-02 SHARP, William B. & Barbara B. 197.07 acres
Request for the relocation of a previously
approved owner’s lot on easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Sharp are the subsequent owners
of the easement property. The current
request is for the relocation of a previously approved owner’s lot.
The 2-acre owner’s lot was approved in
August 23, 1994 for the original owner, Mr. Herschell
B. Claggett. The final release of the lot was
recorded in September, 2002. Mr. and
Mrs. Sharp purchased the property from Mr. Claggett
in November, 2002.
There are no other dwellings on the
property. There have been no other
requests for lots. The 2-acre owner’s
lot was approved to satisfy septic requirements.
According to Queen Anne’s County, the
relocation will have minimal agricultural impact because both the previously
approved location and the proposed location will be planted with soybeans. The current owners are requesting the new
location because it is closer to the main access road and will have a better
view of the farm.
Supporting documentation included the
landowner's request letter, Queen Anne’s County Agricultural Land Preservation
Advisory Board approval, planning and zoning concurrence, and a location map.
Staff has asked Foundation counsel for a
legal opinion on this request because the owner’s lot was approved for the
original owner, Mr. Claggett, not the present owners,
Mr. and Mrs. Sharp.
Mr. Wilson asked if Mr. Claggett
lived in the trailer. It is known that
Mr. Claggett has another farm not far from this
farm. He further asked for documents
from Queen Anne’s County indicated that Mr. Claggett
lived in the house and did not put a trailer on a lot to sell to a subsequent
owner, which is not allowed.
Mr. Nielsen stated that the statute states
that the right to build, the house must be for the personal use of the Grantor.
William Sharp, Queen Anne’s County
landowner, stated that he is not living in the trailer at present but they will
be using the same well and septic system for the new dwelling.
Mr. Thorpe stated that since Mr. Sharp
intends to use the same septic system he moved for approval.
Mr. Conrad stated that the two owner’s lots
for Mr. Claggett were based on the fact that one farm
is located in Queen Anne’s County and the other is located in Ken t
County. The justification for the two
was because of the distance between the two the dwellings were needed.
Mr. Nielsen stated that
Motion #14: To approve the request of William B. and
Barbara B. Sharp for the relocation of a previously approved owner’s lot on
easement property.
Motion: Gerald Thorp Second:
Robert Wolf
Opposed: Lewis Logan, Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
C.
1. 12-03-85-02 GORRELL, Clara E. 115.000
acres
Request to exclude two 2-acre child’s lots
from easement property for her son, Wilson S. Gorrell
and her daughter, Lorraine Gorrell
Ms. Gorrell is the
original owner of the easement property.
The current request is for the exclusion of a two 2-acre child’s lots
for her son, Wilson S. Gorrell and her daughter,
Lorraine Gorrell.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the
property. There are no other lot
exclusions on the property. Ms. Gorrell does not own any other district or easement
properties.
According to
The request conforms to Harford County
Zoning regulations.
Foundation staff recommended 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 require 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 #15: To approve the request of Clara E. Gorrell to exclude two 2-acre child’s lots from easement
property for her son, Wilson S. Gorrell, and her
daughter, Lorraine Gorrell.
Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
2. 12-04-94-02A HARLAN, William A. & Judith 105.125
acres
Request to exclude a 2-acre child’s lot from
easement property for their son, Wesley Ross Shellhamer
Mr. and Mrs. Harlan are the original owners
of the easement property. The current
request is for the exclusion of a 2-acre child’s lots for their son William R. Shellhamer.
There are two pre-existing dwellings on the
property. There are no other lot
exclusions on the property. Mr. and Mrs.
Harlan do not own any other district or easement properties.
According to Harford County, the impact on
the farm operation will be minimal because the lot is located along the border
of the property in a wooded location.
Access will be from a panhandle driveway which will benefit the farming
operation by allowing for safer access for farm machinery operators who
currently use the road.
Harford County zoning ordinance requires a
two-acre minimum lot size in areas outside their development districts. If this request is approved, there will be a
required payback of $7,000 (2 acres X $3,500 per acre).
The request conforms to
Foundation staff recommended 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 require 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 #16: To approve the request of William A. and
Judith Harlan to exclude a 2-acre child’s lot from easement property for their
son, Wesley Ross Shellhamer.
Motion: Maurice Wiles Second: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
IV. PROGRAM POLICY/EASEMENT OFFERS
A. Water Recharge Easement Overlay Policy
Carroll County asked the Foundation to
consider taking a policy position on the issue of groundwater recharge area
easements as overlays on MALPF district and easement properties. The Board of Trustees discussed the issue at
the December, 2002, Board meeting.
At the December meeting, the Board requested
input from Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Staff arranged for a presentation from Mr.
Matthew Pajerowski, Chief of Water Rights Division of
MDE. Mr. Pajerowski’s
division evaluates groundwater recharge and water availability during the water
appropriation permit process. He has experienced instances where permit
applicants acquired easements on adjacent agricultural land.
Also present and available for questions
during the discussion was Mr. Tom Devilbiss, Hydrologist
for the Division of Water Resource Planning for Carroll County. Bill Powel, Carroll County Program
Administrator, recommended Mr. Devilbiss as
intimately knowledgeable about
Matthew Pajerowski,
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), explained the recirculation of
water in the environment. When it rains
generally 10 to 12 inches fall to the ground and become recharge. The ground water that is available for
withdrawal comes from rainfall. Ground
water travels approximately 7 miles. The
water generally seeps through the ground to underground streams. In determining how much ground water is
available to the people who live in the area, the MDE says that for the last 10
years, there is a water balancing or water
budget. There is a water appropriation
that allows the water to be withdrawn but not to exceed the water being
recharged. In doing a water budget
analysis, they determine how much ground water recharge is spent in the
watershed area on a daily basis and divide it by the number of acres. One of the issues is how much of the
underground recharge would be available for users other than farmers. There have been cases where a developer has
land adjacent to easement property to a recharge area.