MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Lloyd C. Jones,
Jr., Acting Chairman
Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Joseph F. Tassone,
representing Secretary of Maryland Department of Planning
Gerald Thorpe, representing Comptroller
Schaefer
Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer Kopp
Maurice L. Wiles
Joseph K. Scott
Mildred H. Darcey
Judith C. Lynch
Allen H. Cohey
Robert E. Wolf
TRUSTEES ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT:
James A. Conrad,
Executive Director
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General
Vera Mae Schultz, MALPF Task Force Member
David Robinson, Serenity Farm, Inc.
Bill Beach, Department of General Services
Dave Kelleher, Department of General
Services
Eric Balsley,
Maryland Department of Planning
Carla
Tammy Scheidt,
Bill Powel, Carroll
Gloria Smith, Wicomico Co. Program Administrator
Chuck Ward, Wicomico Co. Department of
Planning and Zoning
Radhika Sakhamuri, Queen Anne’s County Program Administrator
Donna Sasscer, St.
Mary’s Co. Program Administrator
John Zawitoski,
Lisa Collison,
Queen Anne’s Co. Assistant Program Administrator
Charles Rice, Charles
Mina Hilsenrath,
Howard Co. Department of Planning and Zoning
Joy Levy, Howard Co. Program Administrator
Barbara Polito,
Anne Arundel Co. Program Administrator
Ann Jones, Piney Run Rural Legacy Area
Susan Wilson,
David M. Edwards, son of Sally Murray, Anne
Arundel Co. Landowner
Eileen Powers, Attorney for Sally Murray,
Anne Arundel Co. Landowner
Iva L. Frantz,
Administrative Officer
Elizabeth Weaver, Administrative Officer
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: Allen Cohey Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
B. ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
James Conrad, Executive Director, announced
that that Doug Wilson would provide an update on the funding situation for FY
03/04. Mr. Conrad stated that Joe Tassone will provide an update on the status of the MALPF
Task Force legislation. Towards the end of the meeting, Mr. Conrad will provide
some information about the sand and gravel policy. Mr. Conrad announced that there would be one
addition to Section II of the agenda: The Kenneth property, a petition for a
district in St. Mary’s County. In
Section III, there will be two additions:
An easement amendment for the
Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary
Maryland Department of Agriculture, stated that Doug Wilson provided handouts
regarding MALPF funding issues. Mr.
Wilson, on behalf of Secretary Riley, explained that the language in the PAYGO
capital and the Bond capital budget has been revised several times. He provided the latest update. The language contained in the budgets is
intended to show the legislators’ intent in the revised budgets. The language acknowledges that they (the
Legislature) took away MALPF’s FY 02 money and that
the Budget Reconciliation and Finance Act takes away MALPF’s
portion of the transfer tax for FY 03 and 04 and acknowledges that they are
doing bond funding which is available for FY 04. From the language contained in the document,
it is clear that the intent is for MALPF to not dispose of the contracts that
were approved by the Board of Public Works and that these should be made a
priority. It is clear that they want to
fund the FY 03 easements. Mr. Wilson
asked them to insert language in the Budget Reconciliation Act to make it clear
that there would not be a problem with using FY 04 money for paying past year
obligations.
Mr. Gerald Thorpe, on behalf of the
Comptroller, asked if there was any elaboration or clarification on what was
meant in the legislature’s use of the term contained in the budget act about
“outdated program management practices that should be changed?” Mr. Wilson stated that the language refers to
the MALPF’s practice in the past of not formally
encumbering the dollars at the end of the year and carrying them forward in the
following year which creates a situation of having to get a budget amendment at
the end of the year and this is the practice that put MALPF “in a jam” in the
last two years and they were recognizing this and they wanted to fix that.
The Budget Amendment was signed by the
Governor in mid March for $2.5 million of State money and all of the local
money which was about $14 million. MALPF
staff immediately wrote a check request and with the cooperation of the Comptroller’s
office and processed those transactions and the checks are either at DGS or on
their way to DGS for all of the people who had completed their settlement
activity as of
Mr. Wilson presented a list of people whom
MALPF has not yet received notification from DGS that they are ready to
settle. Mr. Wilson provided a separate
list of the people who MALPF has received notification from DGS since December,
2002, MALPF is ready to go to settlement with.
As soon as he receives the April 1 financial statements, he believes he
will be able to have enough dollars to pay the first group. There are four on the last list that he is
not sure that he can pay because the amount of money taken was increased from
$18 million to $18, 800, 000.00. At this
point that number could change in a couple directions as it is going to
conference committee. Mr. Wilson stated
that any money that MALPF receives, we will pay as far down the list as we can
get.
Mr. Wilson is in discussion with DBM because
there is a process where bonds, once they are approved, are available June
1. If he can process the payments on
June 1 instead of waiting until July, he will do so. He stated that he will know if he can do that
very shortly. As soon as the legislature
finishes the budget and the capital budget, two independent acts, we should
know. If they get done on time, that
will be next Monday. If they don’t get
done on time, it will be anyone’s guess.
Mr. Wilson stated that, of the FY 02
easements, anyone’s transactions that are 100% county funding will be paid
immediately because he has appropriations for those.
Mr. Wilson stated that, regarding funding
issues, he attended a Senate Budget Decision Meeting, yesterday (March 24) with
the sub-committee reporting to the Capital Budget Committee and the House
Capital sub-committee reporting last night (March 24). Both committees are using the same numbers,
which is a good thing. Right now the
bond amount looks like it will be $21, 160,000.00. MALPF’s PAYGO
operating capital budget has $1.5 million of the agricultural transfer
tax. The other half of that goes to fund
MALPF’s operating budget. So that leaves $22 million. Of that money, $6 million will have to go to
pay the old obligations, which leaves approximately $16.5 million. The Foundation will have to decide how it
will use that funding. Should the money
be split by funding some FY 03 easements and the rest go to fund FY 04 offer
cycle or should all of the money go to fund FY 03 only and therefore MALPF would
not have a FY 04 cycle. As of today
(March 25) MALPF has approximately 320 applications for the FY 03 cycle that
DGS has appraised or is in the final stages of the appraisals. Of those properties, 120 are re-applications
from previous years. MALPF has an
additional $1.8 million of federal money that can be rolled into the FY 03
program.
Mr. Wilson pointed out that there are some
down sides to not having an FY 04 cycle.
If MALPF does not have an FY 04 program, the ability for new people to
apply is precluded. Also, some counties
may not have the flexibility to move money around to accommodate MALPF’s situation and this could be problematic for those
counties.
Mr. Wilson stated that there will most
likely be a similar amount of federal funding coming from FPP (Farmland Protection Program) this year
and he was unsure of how flexible FPP would be to match FY 03 offers. If FPP money has to be put toward an FY 04
cycle, then that money could not be matched with State money if we do not have
a FY 04 cycle. We could still match it
with county money, if the counties want to do that.
Mr. Wilson stated that MALPF’s
is an annual program and if we do not have an FY 04 cycle, this will stop the
momentum.
Mr. Wilson stated that on the other side, if
MALPF does not an FY 04 cycle, a much greater percentage of the FY 03
applications can be funded. There would
not be any additional application costs, which would be a significant
savings. Also, not having an FY 04 cycle
would free up some staffing time and staff could use this time to devote to
policy issues and other things, such as outside reviews.
Mr. Wilson stated that Jim Conrad has been
in communication with the program administrators about the funding issue and
solicited comments from them with regard to how they would like MALPF to
proceed. Mr. Wilson said that Mr. Conrad
would share what the comments were.
Mr. Conrad stated that, with regard to FPP
money, he has been in touch with Tom Heisler of NRCS
about the upcoming FPP funding. Mr. Heisler indicated to him that the FPP money can be used to
fund FY 03 offers. Mr. Heisler also informed Mr. Conrad that the initial amount of
FPP money for all of the states was cut from $100 million down to $50 million,
which is the same amount as last year.
Mr. Heisler indicated that he believed that
MALPF would probably be receiving an amount similar to last year’s.
Mr. Conrad stated that he has received
comments back from the program administrators by email but that because there
were several program administrators present; he asked if they would like to
present their comments.
John Zawitoski,
Program Administrator for
Charles Rice, Program Administrator for
Mina Hilsenrath,
temporary Program Administrator for Howard County, stated that her county has
set aside funding for matching the FY 03 funds and her county would prefer all
funds go toward FY 03 offers and not have an FY 04 cycle. Ms. Hilsenrath has
already informed any new applicants that there would most likely not be an FY
04 cycle so they would not have any expectations of having one.
Bill Powel, Program Administrator for
Tammy Scheidt,
Program Administrator for
Radhika Sakhamuri, Program Administrator for Queen Anne’s County,
stated that her county would prefer MALPF use all its bond funding to fund the
FY 03 offer cycle and not have an FY 04 cycle.
Mr. Wilson asked if any program
administrator would prefer to split the bond funding between FY 03 and FY
04. There was no response. Mr. Conrad stated that he received only one
clear response by email that wanted to have an FY 04 cycle and that was
Mr. Wilson stated that given the input from
the county program administrators which indicates that they are in favor of not
having a FY 04 cycle, he was prepared to make a motion:
Motion #2: The Foundation will take 100% of the
available dollars appropriated to the agency by the General Assembly and use
them to pay all FY 02 application that were approved by the Board of Public
Works and to take the residual and use it against the applicants in the FY 03
cycle.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
Motion #3: The Foundation will allow all the local
jurisdictions, with a date to be set by the Foundation, to raise their matching
dollars so that Iva Frantz can figure out the funds split.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Joseph Tassone
Status: Approved
Mr. Conrad asked Joseph Tassone,
Maryland Department of Planning, to provide an update of the Task Force
legislation that is before the General Assembly.
Mr. Tassone stated
that HB 804, which is the bill affecting MALPF’s
ranking, was amended to more clearly spell out the intentions of the Task
Force. The portion of the bill placing a
cap on the percentage of fair market value that MALPF would pay for an easement
was removed from the bill by Delegate James.
The Senate version of the bill did not contain language dealing with
valuation.
Mr. Tassone stated
that HB 805 was amended to clarify what types of income-generating uses would
be allowed on MALPF district and easement properties. Mr. Tassone stated
that he expects that both bills look like they will pass through both the
Senate and the House.
Mr. Conrad stated that HB827, introduced by
Glassman and Parrott, regarding installment purchase agreements, received an
unfavorable report by the House Environmental Matters Committee. Mr. Conrad stated that he expects that this
issue will most likely be assigned to next year’s Task Force. Mr. Conrad stated the legislation that was
introduced that would reduce the minimum acreage size of properties entering
the MALPF program from 50 to 25, also received an unfavorable report from the
Environmental Matters Committee. Mr.
Conrad stated that a bill was introduced that would remove the income tax
credit for charitable contribution for easements. Mr. Conrad stated that the bill, which would
have affected Maryland Environmental Trust (MET) much more than MALPF, does not
look like it is going to move forward out of the
II. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT
PETITIONS
A.
1. 06-06-03-03 BEARDS, Edward J. and Bette J. 170.42 acres
Motion #4: To approve the request of Edward J. and
Bette J. Beards to establish an agricultural land preservation district on
their property.
Motion: Allen Cohey Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
2. 06-06-03-04 RIDER,
Alice E. 100.51
acres
Motion #5: To approve the request of Alice E.
Rider to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their
property.
Motion: Joseph Scott Second:
Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
3. 06-07-03-05 RICH MEADOW FARM LLC 99.34 acres
Motion #6: To approve the request of Rich Meadow
Farm, LLC, to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their
property.
Motion: Robert Wolf Second: Joseph Scott
Status: Approved
B.
1. 13-04-03-01 BELL, Robert B. and Doris E. 18.56 acres
Mr. Tassone stated
that he had some questions regarding the
Mina Hilsenrath,
Chief of Environmental and Community Planning, introduced Joy Levy who is
taking over the position of Howard County Program Administrator, which Ms. Hilsenrath had been performing since Jeff Everett left the
position.
Ms. Hilsenrath
displayed a map showing the location of the candidate properties with respect
to protected lands in
Gerald Thorpe asked if there is a potential
for residential development surrounding the
Mr. Conrad asked what is meant by rural
conservation density exchange option zoning.
Ms. Hilsenrath explained that the zoning in
the rural conservation area is 1 per 4.25; however, the development rights can
be transferred in the density exchange option.
Mr. Conrad asked if the area in question is only a sending area. Ms. Hilsenrath
confirmed that this is a sending area.
Mr. Tassone asked
Ms. Hilsenrath to describe the situation with the Stukes property. Ms.
Hilsenrath stated that the Stukes
property is located on Route 32 and is adjacent to a large
Mr. Cohey asked
why these properties have not gone into the
Mr. Cohey asked if
the County Agricultural Advisory Board approved the districts. Ms. Hilsenrath
stated that they did, as did the county council. Mr. Cohey asked
Craig Nielsen, MALPF counsel, if these properties qualified for the MALPF
program, if the adjacent land is not in an agricultural preservation
program. Mr. Nielsen stated that there
is precedence for allowing properties that are preserved by other types of
programs. Mr. Conrad stated that the
adjacent land must be protected by an easement as strict as or stricter than
the MALPF program and that agriculture must be an allowed activity.
Mr. Tassone asked
if the area surrounding the
Mr. Cohey stated
that he has a problem spending MALPF money to protect property that the county
would not spend money on.
Motion #7: To approve the request of Robert B. and
Doris E. Bell to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their
property.
Motion: Joseph
Scott Second: Robert Wolf
Opposed: Jseph Tassone, Gerald Thorpe,
Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
2. 13-04-03-02 PUGH, William L. 20.05 acres
Motion #8: To approve the request of William L.
Pugh to establish an agricultural land preservation district on his property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Joseph Tassone
Opposed: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
3. 13-05-03-03 STUKES,
Howard W. and Pierrette R. 22.74 acres
Motion #9: To approve the request of Howard W. and
Pierrette R. Stukes to
establish an agricultural land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Judith Lynch
Opposed: Joseph
Tassone, Gerald Thorpe, Allen Cohey,
Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
Mr. Tassone stated
a concern that the Board does not have an opportunity to take another look at
the properties at the time of easement purchase. The Board receives a list of the properties and
there is insufficient time to review them in detail. This is the only time we look at properties
in detail.
Mr. Tassone stated
a concern to Mr. Wilson about approving these properties. Mr. Wilson stated that in this case, the
properties meet the adjacency policy, and therefore he approves them.
4. 13-04-03-04 WITTY, Stephen P. and Kathleen L. 18.33 acres
Motion #10: To approve the request of Stephen P. and
Kathleen L. Witty to establish an agricultural land preservation district on
their property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second:
Mildred Darcey
Opposed: Joseph
Tassone, Gerald Thorpe, Allen Cohey,
Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
C. ST. MARY’S COUNTY
1. 18-07-03-05 KENNETT, Edward and Genevieve 176.16 acres
Mr. Conrad pointed out that there is a separate
wooded parcel that is not contiguous to the main parcel. The parcels are considered a single parcel in
the tax records. There is a problem with
the property description for the entire property as the deed is illegible. There was discussion between Donna Sasscer, Program Administrator for St. Mary’s County, Mr. Tassone and Mr. Wilson about the relevance of good property
descriptions. Mr. Wilson stated that
until this property description issue gets straightened out, MALPF could not
consider an easement offer on this property.
Motion #11: To approve the request of Edward and
Genevieve Kennett to establish an agricultural land preservation district on
their property.
Motion: Gerald
Thorpe Second:
Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
III.
DISTRICT/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A. QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY
1. 17-01-90-06 CONOVER, Theodore C. and Joyce E. 250 acres
Request to
increase the size of a previously approved lot to satisfy septic requirements
Mr. Conover is the original owner of the
easement property. The owner is
requesting an increase in the lot size to satisfy septic requirements.
The owner received approval from the
Foundation on
According to Queen Anne’s County, the
additional requested land is in pasture and the agricultural impact will not be
significant. A mobile home that is
currently located on the site will be removed.
The lot increase is in accordance with local zoning. The Queen Anne’s County Agricultural Advisory
Board has approved the increase in lot size.
The owner has been informed of the additional payment of $612.10 (0.69
acres @ $887.10 per acre) that is required for the release of the additional
acreage. The total payment for the lot
will be $1,499.20.
Attached for your review and consideration
are a letter from the county administrator, a letter from the Queen Anne’s
County Health Department and a survey plat of the lot.
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.
The staff recommends that the approval be contingent upon the removal of
the existing mobile home from the lot.
Motion #12: To approve the request of Theodore C. and
Joyce E. Conover to increase the size of a previously approved lot with the
condition that the existing mobile home is removed.
Motion: Allen
Cohey Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
B.
1. 14-02-01-06 FUCHS, William P. & Barry W. 217.86 acres
Request to construct a tenant house on
district property
Messrs. Fuchs are the original owners of the
district property. The current request
is for approval to construct a tenant house for the use of William’s daughter,
Heidi Fuchs, who is fully engaged in the operation of the farm.
According to the landowners, Ms. Fuchs milks
the cows in the morning and evening, takes care of the heifers and calves, and
oversees the farm when the landowners are not available. Ms. Fuchs lives 40 minutes from the farm and
would benefit from the convenience of living on the property.
There is one existing dwelling on the
property. There have been no
applications for child's lots or owner's lot on this property. There are no other tenant houses on the
property. The tenant house will be
clustered with existing farm buildings.
Access to the property will be through an existing farm lane.
Attached for review and consideration are an
Application for a Tenant House and a location map. Kent County Agricultural Land Preservation
Advisory Board recommended approval of the request. The request is consistent with the county’s
comprehensive plan.
Foundation staff recommends approval based
on the terms and conditions of the regulations governing tenant houses, the
grantors have the right to construct, subject to the approval of the
Foundation, houses for tenants fully engaged in the agricultural operation of
the farm, provided such construction does not exceed one tenant house per each
100 acres.
Mr. Conrad asked if the daughter has a
financial interest in the property.
Carla Martin, Program Administrator for
Motion #13: To approve the request of William P. and
Barry W. Fuchs to construct a tenant house.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second:
Joseph Scott
Status: Approved
Mr. Nielsen stated that he wished to
reiterate that the Foundation intends that tenant houses are for the use of
people who are fully engaged in the operation of the farm.
C.
1. 05-08-84-06 ROSS, Estate of William R. 102.1 acres
Request for an
Agricultural Subdivision of easement property
William R. Ross was the original owner of
the 102.1-acre easement property.
Constance Jones, who is the personal representative of the Ross Estate,
is requesting an agricultural subdivision of this parcel into two parcels of
76.62 and 25.478 acres, as per the directions of Mr. Ross, as stated in his
will.
Both resulting parcels meet the minimum
soils eligibility. The smaller parcel
has 100% qualifying soils, and the larger parcel also has 100% qualifying
soils. There have been no other
subdivisions from the original tract.
The farm is
currently rented out for use as cropland. If approved, the 25.478 subdivided acres
will be incorporated into an adjoining MALPF easement property owned by Oscar
N. Maloney and will be part of Mr. Maloney’s larger crop operation. If this subdivision is approved, the Maloney
property, which is currently 113.37 in size, would increase to 138.848. The remaining 76.62 acres will be transferred
to Ms. Jones, the personal representative of the Estate. The farm will be tilled by the new owners,
Connie Jones and her family, when the property is transferred to her.
The request was approved by the Caroline
County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board. Attached for review and consideration are the
application form, location maps, and the Department of Assessments and Taxation
review of continued eligibility of both parcels for agricultural assessment.
The Foundation staff recommends approval
because the proposed agricultural subdivision meets the criteria for special
exceptions set forth in the Foundation's Policy on Agricultural
Subdivisions: “A request for an
agricultural subdivision of less than 50.0 acres from easement property may be
considered on a case-by-case basis only if the parcel to be subdivided is
conveyed to an adjoining easement property and the remaining parcel consists at
least 50.0 acres.”
Mr. Tassone asked
for clarification that the agricultural purpose of the agricultural subdivision
is for Mr. Maloney to add the 25 acres to his easement property for tilling and
that Ms. Jones and her family are going to farm the 76.5 acres themselves as
opposed to renting it out. Tammy Scheidt, Program Administrator for
Motion #14: To approve the request of the estate of
William of William R. Ross to agriculturally subdivide easement property.
Motion: Joseph
Tassone Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
D.
1. 06-10-97-09 WATT, Jerry L. & Barbara S. 174.00 acres
Request to exclude a 1-acre child’s lot from
easement property for their son, Jason, for his personal use
Mr. and Mrs. Watt are the original owners of
the easement property. The current
request is for the exclusion of a 1.0 acre child’s lot for the personal use of
their son, Jason.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the
property. There are no other lot exclusions
on the property. The Watts do not own
any other district or easement property.
The Watts have documented their intent to create a child’s lot for the
use of another son, Justin L. Watts.
According to
The request conforms to
If this request is approved, there will be a
required payback of the per acre amount of $2,175.00 that the
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) “...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...”
Motion #15: To approve the request of Jerry L. and Barbara
S. Watt to exclude a 1-acre child’s lot from easement property for their son,
Jason, for his personal use.
Motion: Gerald Thorpe Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
2. 06-20-80-12
Request for an
acreage swap of easement property for non-easement property
Mr. Stanley is the original owner of the
easement property. The current request
is for an acreage swap of 1.116 acres of easement property for non-easement
property.
At the time of district establishment, the
owner withheld 2.2846 acres, with the intention of creating two lots. However, one of the lots cannot accommodate a
well location. Mr. Stanley is requesting
an acreage swap of 1.116 acres of the withheld land for 1.116 acres of adjacent
easement land, where a recent perk was successful.
According to
Attached for your review and consideration
are the landowner's request letter, Carroll County Agricultural Land
Preservation Advisory Board approval, planning and zoning concurrence, and a
location map.
Staff recommends approval because the
agricultural impact is minimal. The
approval should be granted with the condition that the landowner will be
responsible for any legal and administrative costs associated with an amended
deed of easement.
Motion #16: To approve the request of
Motion: Robert
Wolf Second:
Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
3. 06-12-97-12 BABINGTON, Paul L. & Betty L. 95.93 acres
Request to exclude three child’s lots from easement
property for the personal use of their children
Mr. and Mrs. Babington are the original
owners of the easement property. The
current request is for the exclusion of three child’s lots for the personal use
of their children, Cheri Lee Babington (
There are two pre-existing dwellings on the
property. No other lot exclusions have
been requested. The Babingtons
do not own any other district or easement properties.
According to
Carroll County Subdivision regulations
require that the center lot (
The request conforms to
If this request is approved, there will be a
required payback of the per acre amount of $6,175.00 ($1,900.00 per acre X
3.25) that the
Foundation staff recommends approval of Lot
1 and Lot 3 based on the landowner’s rights contained in the deed of easement’s
covenants, conditions, limitations and restrictions, Section A (1)(b) “...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...”
Staff recommends approval of Lot 2 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 #17: To approve the request Paul L. and Betty
L. Babington to exclude three child’s lots from easement property for the
personal use of their children.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second:
Joseph Tassone
Status: Approved
E.
1. 10-04-90-08 STAMBAUGH, J. Franklin & Marie A. 119.82 acres
Request to exclude a 1-acre child’s lot from
easement property for their son, Wayne, for his personal use
Mr. and Mrs. Stambaugh
are the original owners of the easement property. The current request is for the exclusion of a
1.0 acre child’s lot for the personal use of their son, Wayne.
There are two pre-existing dwellings on the
property. There are no other lot exclusions
on the property. The Stambaughs
do not own any other district or easement properties.
According to
The request conforms to
If this request is approved, there will be a
required payback of the per acre amount of $1,200.00 that the Stambaughs 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) “...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...”
Motion #18: To approve the request of J. Franklin and
Marie A. Stambaugh to exclude a 1-acre child’s lot
from easement property for their son, Wayne, for his personal use.
Motion: Lewis
Logan Second:
Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
F.
1. 08-09-81-01ce SERENITY FARM, INC. 222.75 acres
Request to allow the installation of a train
track on easement property
Serenity Farm, Inc. is the original owner of
the easement property. The current
request is to allow the installation of a train track on easement property.
Serenity Farms, Inc. is proposing the
installation of a train track to accommodate a historic train with three to
four cars. The train would be used to transfer customers to pumpkin fields in
the fall. The train would also be used
to transport grain to grain bins located in the farmstead area.
The proposed track would be 36-inch
gauge. The track will be approximately
one mile in length. The ties for the
track would cover a total width of eight feet. The train would make a loop
around pasture land with an extension to the farmstead area. While the majority of the track would run
alongside existing roads, a significant portion would cut through a field (see
attached map). No additional land will
be used for parking as the customers will use an existing parking area. If approved, the track would cover
approximately 42,240 square feet of farmland.
Charles County Agricultural Advisory Board
members approved the request because they concluded that the track would not
impact the usability of the land. In
addition, the members concluded that the train would be a functional tool on
the farm. If the train track is approved
by the Foundation, the county will require the landowner to submit an
application for a zoning variance.
Staff recommends that the Board, in its
deliberations, consider the recommendations of the MALPF Task Force. The Task Force has recommended the Foundation
allow recreational activities such as, pumpkin patches, hay rides and corn
mazes. However, the Task Force’s
guidelines provide the following as a justification for approval: “A farm support event having no long term
impact on the land.”
Mildred Darcey
asked about the location of the grain bins.
David Robinson, speaking on behalf of Serenity Farm, Inc. stated that
they are located in the northern end of the property. Ms. Darcey asked
about the type of cars that will be used on the train. Mr. Robinson replied that they would be flat
cars but that the train would have box cars also, which would be used to haul
the grain. Mr. Robinson clarified that
the train runs along a fence line and does not cut through the middle of a
field and it does not affect tillage.
Mr. Conrad asked about how visitors to the farm are transported for
events, such as for pumpkin picking. Mr.
Tassone asked if the track is going to interfere with
the movement of farm machinery. Mr.
Robinson stated that there would be no problem with the movement of farm
machinery.
Mr. Wilson asked if the proposal would meet
local county approval. Mr. Robinson
stated that the county required MALPF approval first.
Mr. Tassone asked
if the members of the Board who are farmers if they believed that the train and
track would have a negative impact on the long term use of the land. Mr. Robinson stated that the track would not
be permanent, the track and ties would be removable.
Motion #19: To approve the request of Serenity Farm,
Inc. to install a train track on easement property.
Motion: Robert
Wolf Second: Mildred Darcey
Opposed: Allen
Cohey
Status: Approved
G.
1.
RURAL LEGACY— OSBORN, Phyllis & Better Cole 320 acres
Piney Run Rural Legacy – Request for preliminary
consideration of co-holding a non-standard MALPF/Rural Legacy easement
Piney Run Rural Legacy Program requests that
the MALPF Board provide a preliminary consideration of a proposed easement
property prior to the sponsor moving forward with the expense involved in the
processing of an easement, including the cost of a survey. Ann Jones, Piney Run Rural Legacy Area,
explained that the property has been in the Osborn family since before 1865. The property is now owned by two sisters who
have been attempting to settle the estate since the mid-1970s. The property does not have an adequate
property description. A survey of the
property is currently being done. At it
stands right now, there could be 18 mini-estates from the property.
The Osborn farm has been a high priority
property for the Piney Run Rural Legacy Program since the program’s
inception. The farm would not qualify
under MALPF’s minimum soil capability; however, the
farm has historical value and is contiguous with other preserved properties. The farm has 41% total qualifying soils. While there are highly productive fields on
the property, much of the property has rough, irregular surfaces. The property is contiguous with three large
Rural Legacy agricultural properties.
The inclusion of this property would extend the existing 9,000-acre
easement block in the Piney Run Area.
The Piney Run Rural Legacy Sponsor Board
wants to minimize the number of subdivisions allowed on the property. According to the sponsor, the topography of
the property does not allow for a division of the property into two parcels
without making it difficult for the existing farming operation to
continue. The farm is currently farmed
as part of a larger farming operation.
Rather, dividing the property into three large viable farm parcels and
one small lot located in the woods would best allow the property to continue to
operate as a true farm.
If the estate is not satisfactorily settled
in the near future there is a high probability that the property will be
developed into the eighteen mini-estates allowed under current zoning. The proposed easement would allow the
division of the 320 (+) acre parcel into a maximum of 4 parcels with a maximum
of 4 homes (see attached map). The first will be an approximately 50-acre
parcel where one new home will be allowed in a designated building
envelope. The new home will only be
allowed in the wooded area, with minimum impact on the productive agricultural
area. The second will be an
approximately 100-acre parcel with an existing home. A building envelope will be established
around the existing home and no additional residences will be allowed. The third will be approximately a 170-acre
parcel with an existing home. A building
envelope will be established around the existing home and no additional
residences will be allowed. The fourth will be a maximum of a 5-acre parcel
where one new home will be allowed in a designated building envelope.
All building envelopes will be surveyed at
the Rural Legacy Program’s expense and recorded with the easement, as will the
proposed subdivision of the property.
The value of the easement will be reduced by $70,000 for each of the
allowed new residences.
Staff recommends approval as there is
precedence for approval of MALPF/Rural Legacy co-held easements which do not
meet MALPF’s minimum soil productivity capability.
Mr. Wilson asked if Rural Legacy will allow
for subdivision of the two pre-existing dwellings. Ms. Jones stated that they will not be
sub-dividable.
Mr. Tassone asked
about limitations on farming. Ms. Jones
stated that the only issue would be the requirement for a 50’ vegetative buffer
around the streams. However, most of the
streams are in wooded areas with just a small portion in pasture.
Motion #20: To agree to the preliminary consideration
of co-holding a non-standard MALPF/Rural Legacy easement with Piney Run Rural
Legacy Area.
Motion: Joseph
Scott Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
K.
1. 02-07-80-02B MURRAY, Sally, et al. 66 acres
Request to
relocate a previously approved child’s lot and the release of two septic
reserve areas for pre-existing dwellings
Mr. Nielsen stated that this case arose out
of a law suit. Ms. Murray’s neighbors,
the Holadays, filed suit against the Foundation a
couple of years ago. The court ruled in
favor of the Foundation but in the mean time, the parties have worked with the
county and the Foundation to resolve the dispute. The decision to move the child’s lot further
away from the Holadays represents a compromise between
all the parties involved.
Ms. Murray, et al, are the original owners
of the easement property. The owner is
requesting the relocation of a previously approved child’s lot to settle a law
suit brought by her neighbors.
On
According to
Ms. Murray is also requesting the Foundation
to allow septic reserve area easements of 10,000 square foot each for two
pre-existing dwellings located on the property, to satisfy the requirements of
the Anne Arundel Health and Planning Code.
The septic areas would continue to be farmed and are reserved to be used
only in the event of a failure of the septic fields associated with the
pre-existing dwellings. On
Joe Rutter,
Director Anne Arundel Planning & Zoning Department, is holding the
necessary waivers pending the outcome of the request to the Foundation. Eileen Powers, counsel to Ms. Murray will
meet with Mr. Rutter on March 27. Ms. Powers is
requesting, on behalf of Ms. Murray, that, should Anne Arundel County not grant
the waivers, the Foundation allow the approval of the lot relocation be
reversed to the original location.
Staff recommends approval of the lot
relocation as it will not impact the agricultural use of the land. Staff further recommends approval of the
septic reserves as the land above the area can be farmed and granting the
reserve areas will not contribute to further development on the property nor on
any adjacent property. The Foundation
approved a policy allowing septic reserve easements on MALPF properties on
Motion #21: To approve the request of Sally Murray,
et al, relocate a previously approved child’s lot and the release of two septic
reserve areas for pre-existing dwellings,
and should Anne Arundel County not grant the waivers, the Foundation
allow the approval of the lot relocation be reversed to the original location.
Motion: Gerald
Thorpe Second:
Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
IV. DISCUSSION
Mr. Conrad stated that he wished to inform
the Board of the status of the Sand and Gravel Study. In the 1999 Legislative Session, SB572, sponsored by
Senator Middleton, established a pilot program to determine the impact
of the extraction of sand and gravel from land in not more than three specified
agricultural districts. A report is
required to be submitted by the Foundation on or before
This legislation proposes that the pilot project include the following.
1. Identification of areas in which sand or
gravel underlie land in an agricultural district.
2.
Assessment
of compatibility between particular agricultural activities and the extraction
of sand and gravel.
3.
Assessment
of the potential impacts of sand and gravel extraction on agricultural
activities, including particulate generation, noise generation, and the
availability and quality of water.
4.
Assessment
of the agricultural productivity of the reclaimed land after the extraction of
sand and gravel.
5.
Limitation
of areas in an agricultural district from which sand or gravel may be
extracted.
6.
Best
management practices to limit the impact of sand and gravel extraction on
agricultural activities.
Representatives of different industry groups
and those with the necessary expertise were asked to serve on a committee to
set up and oversee this pilot project.
After a number of meetings and a couple of field trips, this committee
and the pilot project has languished through limited participation of committee
members, staff changes, and limited staff expertise and available time.
The study must be completed and the
legislative mandate for a final report met.
The Board should be aware of this obligation and what the staff proposes
to fulfill its obligation. The staff
proposes to complete its obligation by working to meet the following schedule.
April 22: Activate a relatively
small oversight committee dedicated to completing this pilot project, drawing
first on those who took part in the initial discussions.
May 27: Review the past
discussions on setting up this pilot project.
Identify and secure the services of someone with the necessary expertise
who can help the MALPF staff with the evaluative part of the pilot project,
particularly the issues arising with the impact on soil structure and
productivity; this person should be available to work part-time on this project
through the remainder of the year, either as a student intern or, more likely,
a consultant. This person will work with
MALPF’s director to conduct the study and write the
report.
June 24: Finalize the study’s
methodology with the guidance of the oversight committee.
July 29: Complete collection of
existing data (soil types on study properties, production data) and
identification of any additional data (production data) that needs to be
collected at the end of the current growing season. Proposed landowner questionnaire will have
been reviewed by oversight committee.
August 26: Complete analysis of
available data. Draft report sections on
general issues related to reclamation and the soil analysis of reclaimed land.
September 23: Complete collection of
end-of-growing season data to complete analysis. Draft report sections on the analysis of the production
data, landowner questionnaires, the impact of mining on the farming operation,
and policy recommendations.
October 28: Completed draft circulated to
committee, Board, and staff members for comments.
November 25: Comments incorporated into the
final draft for circulation and approval by the oversight committee and the
Board of Trustees.
January 1: Final report presented to
the Governor and the General Assembly.
Pilot
Project Outline
Review existing standards for sand and
gravel mining.
Clarify what this study needs to address in
its assessment of the potential impact of sand and gravel mining on district
and easement properties.
a. Size of Study Site and Size of Mined Area
·
Mac Middleton's property (
·
Rick Middleton's property (
·
Mike Davidson's property (
b. Analysis of Soil Types on Property and
Location of Sand and Gravel
preference for maps over text information
information available from landowner, mining
company, and/or State
·
Mac Middleton's property (
·
Rick Middleton's property (
·
Mike Davidson's property (
c. Production Data on Crop Yields Before and After Mining
production data preferably should come from landowner;
may be obtainable from FSA or elsewhere, but there is an issue concerning
confidentiality. Ask for a minimum of
three years before mining and three years after reclamation; prefer five years
to account for seasonal variations.
·
Mac Middleton's property (
·
Rick Middleton's property (
·
Mike Davidson's property (
d. Specific Items Related to Reclamation
topography available from
the erosion and sediment control plan
·
drainage
·
soil amendments available from the mining plan
·
management plan
·
all of this should be in the questionnaire to the
landowner
e. Time Frame of Mining and Mining Activity
(e.g., compaction)
f. Soil Analysis and Classification of
Reclaimed Land
g. Effects of Mining on Agricultural Land and
Operations
·
Positive effects
·
Negative effects
·
compatibility of mining process and on-going
farming
·
water quantity and quality impacts
h. Policy Recommendations
Mr. Conrad thanked Mr. Logan for pushing him to get the sand and gravel
study done. Mr. Conrad asked if there
were any comments. Mr. Conrad thanked
the Board members for their patience with this issue. He stated that there was no need for a
motion.
Motion #22: There being no further business to
discuss, the regular session meeting should be adjourned.
Motion: Joseph
Scott Second: Gerald Thorpe
Status: Approved
The regular session Board meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully Submitted:
___________________________________
James A. Conrad
Executive Director
___________________________________
Elizabeth Weaver
Administrative Officer