MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman
Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer Kopp
Maurice L. Wiles
Joseph K. Scott
Judith C. Lynch
Allen H. Cohey
Robert E. Wolf
Mildred H. Darcey
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Joseph F. Tassone,
representing Secretary of Maryland Department of Planning
OTHERS PRESENT:
James A. Conrad,
Executive Director
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General
Joy Levy, Howard
Mina Hilsenrath,
Howard County Department of Planning
John Zawitowski,
Eric Balsley,
Maryland Department of Planning
Robert Hirsch,
Carla
Tammy Buckle,
R. H. Slaterbeck,
Michelle Naish,
John Naish,
Susan Wilson,
Mike Larrick,
Amy Larrick,
Nancy Larrick,
Rad Sakhamuri, Queen Anne’s County Program Administrator
George Legg III,
Barbara Polito,
Bill Powel, Carroll
Lisa Collison,
Queen Anne’s County assistant to Program Administrator
Charles Rice, Charles
Karen Houtman,
Nancy Forrester, Maryland Department Office
of Attorney General
Dave
Carl DeMatteo, MD.
Farm Bureau
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 May
27, 2003.
Motion: Allen
Cohey Second: Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
B. APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
MINUTES:
Motion
#2: To approve the minutes of May
27, 2003.
Motion: Mildred
Darcey Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
C. ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
Douglas Wilson, representing
Secretary Lewis Riley, announced the retirement of the Foundation’s secretary,
Darlene Athey.
Mr. Wilson thanked her for her service and stated that, on behalf of the
Foundation, he wished her well in her retirement.
Mr. Wilson stated that he has
requested that the Foundation be placed on the Board of Public Works schedule
for the July 2 meeting. The purpose is
to request for permission to change the funding for the 34 MALPF easements from
2002 and earlier, that had either 100% county money or a combination of State
and county funds to bonds, as was discussed at last month’s meeting. Secretary Riley will accompany Mr. Wilson to
the Board of Public Works meeting. As
soon as he receives approval at the meeting, Mr. Wilson will ensure that check
requests are immediately processed for the landowners who are ready to go to
settlement.
James Conrad, MALPF Executive
Director, stated that the David E. Fisher district application has been
withdrawn from the agenda.
Mr. Conrad announced that in the
future, the district applications will, with the permission of the Board, be
heard after the district and easement amendments. Mr. Conrad and Craig Nielsen, Foundation
counsel, determined that due to the potential complicated nature of the
district and easement amendment requests, it would be beneficial to hear them
before the district applications, which tend to be more routine and less
complicated. Mr. Conrad asked if there
were any objections to the change. There
were none.
II. AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
A.
1. 15-03-03-01 MIHM,
BERNARD A. & KATHLEEN A. 272.84
ACRES
Motion
#3: To approve the request of
Bernard A. and Kathleen A. Mihm to establish and
agricultural land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Joe
Scott Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
B.
1. 03-06-03-01 KESSLER,
EDWARD F. 39.25
ACRES
2. 03-06-03-02 SMITH,
WILLIAM K. & ELVA M. 66.66
ACRES
Motion
#4: To approve the requests of
Edward F. Kessler and William K. and Elva M. Smith to establish agricultural
land preservation districts on their respective properties.
Motion: Lewis
Logan Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
C.
1. 20-03-03-01 PHELPS,
DOROTHY L. ET AL 199.25
ACRES
2. 20-04-03-02
Motion
#5: To approve the requests of
Dorothy L. Phelps, et al, and Marian S. Davis to establish agricultural land
preservation districts on their respective properties.
Motion: Joe
Scott Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
3. 20-04-03-03 DAVIS,
DONALD W. 30.44
ACRES
Motion
#6: To approve the request of
Donald W. Davis to establish an agricultural land preservation district on his
property.
Motion: Robert
Wolf Second: Joe Scott
Status: Approved
D. ST. MARY’S COUNTY
1. 18-07-03-07 KENNETT,
EDWARD & GENEVIEVE 66.00 ACRES
Motion
#7: To approve the request of
Edward and Genevieve Kennett to establish an agricultural land preservation
district on their property. The
Foundation recommends that the owners obtain a Forestry Management Plan.
Motion: Robert
Wolf Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
E.
1. 06-10-03-06 HARPER, EARLE R. 61.37 ACRES
2. 06-10-03-07 HARPER, EARLE R. 64.74 ACRES
3. 06-02-03-08 SCHOLL,
Motion
#8: To approve the requests of
Earle R. Harper and I. Cordelia Scholl to establish
agricultural land preservation districts on their properties.
Motion: Allen
Cohey Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
4. 06-04-03-09 LEISTER, PAUL W. 27.06
ACRES
Motion #9: To
approve the request of Paul W. Leister to establish an agricultural land
preservation district on his property.
Motion: Robert
Wolf Second: Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
5. 06-03-03-10 GREEN, DELBERT A. & LEO D. 61.88
ACRES
6. 06-03-03-11 GREEN, DELBERT A. AND DANIEL W. 82.92 ACRES
7. 06-03-03-12 GREEN, DELBERT A. AND LEO D. 116.00
ACRES
8. 06-03-03-13 NELSON, CHARLES L. 94.82
ACRES
9. 06-02-03-14 HEMPHILL, DAVID B. 55.61
ACRES
11. 06-10-03-16 WARNER, KEITH E. & SHARON J. 134.88 ACRES
Motion #10: To
approve the requests of Delbert A. Green, Leo D. Green, Daniel W. Green,
Charles L. Nelson, David B. Hemphill, and Keith E. and Sharon J. Warner to
establish agricultural land preservation districts on their respective
districts.
Motion: Maurice
Wiles Second: Joe Scott
Status: Approved
10. 06-06-03-15 HOKE, SOLOMON N. & NELLIS G. 98.15 ACRES
Mr.
Conrad asked Bill Powel, Carroll County Program Administrator, to explain the
request of Mr. and Mrs. Hoke regarding the ability to
subdivide the district property at a later date.
Mr.
Powel explained that the landowners would like to have the ability to subdivide
their property for estate planning reasons.
Mr. Powel understands that the Foundation has a policy requiring a
minimum of 100 acres but like to ask the Foundation to consider allowing the
subdivision. The County, which will be
paying for the easement on this property, would have to pay far more for if the
property comes in as two districts than if it were allowed to come in as one.
Mr.
Wilson asked if this is allowable under the regulations. Craig Nielsen, MALPF counsel, advised the
board that it is dangerous for a State agency to adopt regulations and then not
follow them. A State agency should
follow its own policy and its own regulations.
Mr.
Conrad stated that, given the advice of counsel and the subdivision
regulations, the Foundation does not have the discretion to approve this
request.
Mr.
Wilson asked if the Board may approve the Hoke
property as two districts. Mr. Conrad
stated that the Board could approve the districts subject to the Foundation
receiving the appropriate documentation.
Motion
#11: To approve the request of
Solomon N. and Nellie G. Hoke to establish two
agricultural land preservation districts on their property, contingent on the
receipt of the appropriate documentation.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
12. 06-06-03-17 NEVIUS, CHARLES H. & MARIE T. 162.61 ACRES
Motion
#12: To approve the request of
Charles H. and Marie T. Nevius to establish an
agricultural land preservation district on their property, under the special
exception criteria.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
13. 06-06-03-18 NEVIUS, CHARLES H. & MARIE T. 67.28 ACRES
Motion
#13: To approve the request of
Charles H. and Marie T. Nevius to establish an
agricultural land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Joe
Scott Second: Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
14. 06-14-03-19 KUHN-CALKINS, LOIS E. ET AL. 105.47
ACRES
Motion
#14: To approve the request of Lois
E. Kuhn-Calkins to establish an agricultural land preservation district on
their property, under the special soils exception criteria.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
15. 06-02-03-20 GREER, JOEL C. & JOAN M. 108.56
ACRES
Bill Powel stated that the
landowners have requested and the county has agreed to stipulate in the
easement that none of the pre-existing dwellings on the property may be
subdivided from the property.
Mr. Nielsen stated that the
Foundation should discuss this with the Department of General Services as this
will affect the value of the easement.
Mr. Powel stated that he would
like to know how this will be treated under the new law that will come into
effect on
Mr. Wilson stated that at this
point the Board is only considering the district and that any stipulations with
regard to value and treatment of pre-existing dwellings will be dealt with
during the easement application process.
Mr. Nielsen stated that he wanted
clarification that the Foundation is not guaranteeing anything to the landowner
at this point. Mr. Wilson stated that in
this case, the Board is agreeing only to allow the landowner to establish a
district.
Motion
#15: To
approve the request of Joel C. and Joan M. Greer to establish an agricultural
land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
16. 06-06-03-21 DIEM, ALBERT F. & ELIZABETH A. 32.69 ACRES
Motion
#16: To approve the request of
Albert F. and Elizabeth A. Diem to establish an agricultural land preservation
district on their property.
Motion: Robert
Wolf Second: Joe Scott
Status: Approved
III. DISTRICT/EASEMENT
AMENDMENTS
Mr. Conrad stated that he is moving the Stabler
request forward on the agenda, to accommodate John Zawitoski,
Montgomery County Program Administrator, so he can attend an Envirothon meeting.
E.
1. 15-01-01-03 STABLER,
DREW W. 170.00
ACRES
Mr. Conrad stated that Mr. Stabler is the original owner of the easement
property. The current request is for the
exclusion of a 2.0 acre child’s lot for the personal use of his daughter,
Tricia S. Holland. There are two
pre-existing dwellings on the property.
There are no other lot exclusions on the property. Mr. Stabler owns
another easement property but has not requested any lot exclusions on the
property. A 2-acre lot is necessary to
satisfy septic requirements. According
to
Foundation staff recommends
approval based on meeting the requirements of the Agricultural Article, Section
2-513, Annotated Code of Maryland.
Motion
#17: To approve the request of Drew
W. Stabler to exclude a 2-acre child’s lot for the
use of his daughter, Tricia S. Holland.
Motion: Joe
Scott Second: Mildred
Darcey
Status: Approved
A.
1 03-03-99-08C SLATERBECK,
ROBERT & CATHERINE 134 ACRES
Mr. Conrad stated that Robert
and Catherine Slaterbeck are subsequent owners of the
134-acre easement property. The current
request is for an agricultural subdivision into two parcels of 119 acres and 15
acres. The Slaterbecks
want to convey 15 acres to the landowners of an adjoining property, John and
Michele Naish.
The Naishs operate a 13-acre horse operation
and want to add the 15 acres to make it a more viable operation of 28 acres.
The parcel proposed for subdivision is separated from the main parcel by
woodland. Both parcels meet the minimum
qualifying soils criteria: The main
parcel will contain 84% qualifying soils; the parcel to be subdivided will
contain 82% qualifying soils. The Naishs have begun the process of donating an easement on
the 13-acre property. MET has provided
verification that the donation is in process.
Upon completion of the easement process, the subdivision will meet the
special exception criteria: “A request for an agricultural subdivision of less
than 50 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 of at least 50 acres. If the adjoining easement is not a MALPF
easement, it must be restricted by a recorded instrument that permits
agricultural activities and contains restrictions that are the same as or more
stringent than those found in the MALPF deed of easement” COMAR 15.15.01.03.D
(1) (b). The request was approved by the
Baltimore County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board, contingent on
the Naish property being under an MET easement. The
Foundation staff recommends approval, contingent upon the completion of the
easement donation process. The Naishs’ horse operation will become a more viable operation
with the addition of the 15 acres. The
main parcel will not be impacted because the land to be subdivided is already
separated from it by forest.
Motion
#18: To approve the request of
Robert and Catherine Slaterbeck to subdivide their
property with the condition that the MET easement is finalized on the Naish property.
Motion: Robert
Wolf Second: Joe Scott
Status: Approved
B.
1. 09-02-99-04 LEGG,
GEORGE W. III 118.01
ACRES
Mr. Conrad stated that this item
was reviewed by the Board at last month’s meeting and the item was tabled
pending a legal opinion from Craig Nielsen, MALPF counsel. Mr. Legg wants to sell the 65-acre parcel and
retain the 53.01-acre parcel. The
easement property is currently divided into two parts, separated by a road,
Maryland Route 16. The parcel to the
north of the road is 48.26 acres. The
parcel to the south is 69.75 acres. The proposed subdivision would keep 4.75
acres south of Route 16 with the northern acreage to meet agricultural
subdivision acreage requirements. Both
parcels meet the minimum soils eligibility with 100% qualifying soils. The farm is currently rented out as
cropland. The land located to the north
of the road is zoned suburban residential.
The parcel located to the south of the road is zoned agricultural
conservation. At last month’s meeting,
the Board of Trustees asked the Assistant Attorney General to consider possible
alternative responses to this request.
(1) Is it possible to retain Maryland Route 16 as a natural boundary
between the two parcels and have an agricultural subdivision based on a 48.26
acre for the parcel to the north of the road?
(2) If this is not possible, are there other scenarios that are
consistent with statute and regulation and the principles of the program?
The Foundation staff discussed
this issue with Craig Nielsen and Nancy Russell-Forrester of the Office of the
Attorney General. In response to the
first question, current regulations do not permit this 48.26 parcel to be the
result of an agricultural subdivision.
Their recommendation is, in order to minimize the agricultural impact,
as Dorchester County requires two acres to meet septic requirements, the
acreage across Route 16 necessary to meet the minimum acreage requirements for
agricultural subdivision should be configured as a two-acre owner’s lot to
convey with the 48.26 parcel. Karen Houtman, Dorchester Program Administrator, has since
informed MALPF staff that this lot will not perk. Mr. Conrad stated that Mr. Legg has indicated
that he does not like that particular scenario either. Mr. Conrad stated that Mr. Legg is here to
talk to the Board.
Mr. Legg that the Health Department
has informed him that the area of the property located to the south of Route 16
will not perk and so he is going to have to start over. He stated that he is considering a few
scenarios depending on the desires of the buyer of the property. He may not be able to build on the area to
the south of the road, depending on the ability of the land to perk and how the
future buyer would want it. He asked if
the Foundation would allow him to place the owner’s lot on the northern side of
the road. Mr. Legg also wanted to be
advised if it was possible to sell the land with the lot before he builds on
the lot.
Mr. Nielsen stated that the
owner’s lot is for the exclusive use of the original owner of the
property. The owner’s lot cannot be
transferred to the subsequent owner. The
purpose of the owner’s lot is for the owner to live on the farm.
Mr. Conrad stated that, while
the owner’s lot is affected by the subdivision, the creation of an owner’s lot
is a separate request.
Mr. Legg asked if he built a
house, could he then sell it. Mr.
Nielsen stated that when a landowner requests an owner’s lot, they should have
the intention to live there. The house
would have to be for Mr. Legg’s use. Mr.
Legg asked if he could sell it at a later date and how long he would have to
keep the house before he could sell it.
Mr. Nielsen stated that the landowner would have to live in it. It
depends on the county. Some counties
require the landowner to live in the house for five years before they can sell
it. The Foundation does not have a
formal requirement at this point.
However, the Foundation expects that when a landowner requests an
owner’s lot, they intend to live in it.
Mr. Nielsen stated that the Foundation went to court over a case in
Motion
#19: To approve the request of
George W. Legg to subdivide his property as presented and outlined on the tax
map.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
Opposed: Allen Cohey,
Mildred Darcey
C.
1. 13-04-80-06e COVERED
BRIDGE FARMS, LLC 131.35 ACRES
Mr. Conrad stated that Wayne and
Melissa Newsome are subsequent owners of this easement property. The current request is for the relocation of
a pre-existing dwelling. There are no
other dwellings on the property. There
have been no lot exclusions on this property.
This request should be considered a new request, but is made as a
proposed settlement of pending litigation regarding a tenant house request
approved by the Foundation at the February 26, 2002 Board meeting. This tenant house approval was subsequently
withdrawn by the Foundation on
The basis for this current
request is as follows. (1) The existing
principal dwelling cannot be rehabilitated at reasonable cost. (2) The septic field serving the existing
dwelling is located in soils that are inappropriate for that use under current
standards. (3) The site for the proposed
relocation contains better percolating soils suitable for septic purposes (see
the attached report from Eco Sense addressing soils on the property). (4) The requested site for relocating this
dwelling was already approved for the original tenant house request.
The agricultural impact of
relocation will be relatively small as the new house will be sited on a
one-acre lot, while the existing house will be removed and returned to
agriculture, being located in the corner of a field near the farm structure
complex. The owner has the right to
exclude one acre around a pre-existing dwelling, wherever it is located. If relocation is approved, the exclusion of
the pre-existing dwelling lot will be granted administratively (it has not
already been excluded from the easement).
The owner also intends to alter the farming operation to reduce dependence
on field crops, and increase the livestock component, converting the fields
near the proposed house relocation site to pasture and additional paddock
areas.
The Howard County Department of
Planning and Zoning and the Howard County Agricultural Land Preservation staff
have recommended approval of this request.
The County’s Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board reviewed this
request, but did not make a recommendation.
Staff recommends approval of
this request as a reasonable settlement that defends the principles of the
Foundation’s program that were being protected by litigation. Staff has identified a large number of
relocation requests that were approved by the Foundation for a variety of
reasons. Just since Fall of 2001, these
requests include: the Opel district in Garrett County (pre-existing dwelling was
relocated from its site where it had burned down – approved: 05-27-2003); the Knott easement in Frederick
County (pre-existing dwelling in poor repair was demolished and reconstructed
1000’ from the original site on cropland – approved: 02-26-2002); the Joiner easement in Kent
County (pre-existing dwelling relocated to a previously approved child’s lot on
cropland – approved: 02-26-2002); Bounds
easement in Worcester County (pre-existing dwelling removed and dwelling site
relocated to a different location on the property in forested area –
approved: 10-22-2002); Mann easement in
Carroll County (pre-existing dwelling relocated to partial slope and partial
cropland area to help with an agricultural subdivision – approved: 09-25-2001).
The relocation should be granted conditional upon the original site
being demolished and the area being returned to agriculture.
Mr. Wolf asked why the Newsomes’ attorney did not ask for this at the
beginning. Discussion ensued. L.C. Jones,
acting Chair, informed Mr. Wolf that Mr. Ganz has not
appeared before the Board. That was a
different attorney. Mr. Nielsen stated
that this was a proposed reasonable solution that was agreed to by
Motion
#20: To approve the request of
Covered Bridge Farm, LLC, to relocate a pre-existing dwelling, with the
condition that once the new house is built, the existing dwelling be razed and
the area returned to agriculture.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
D.
1. 06-02-82-01e QUINN,
WILLIAM F. 153.00
ACRES
Mr. Conrad stated that Mr. Quinn
is a subsequent owner of the easement property.
The current request is to swap 1.66 acres of easement property for 1.66
of non-easement property.
Mr. Quinn wants to expand his
kennel operation. Mr. Quinn’s present
operation takes place on an area that is excluded because it is contained in a
one-acre lot that surrounds an existing dwelling. However, an expansion of his current location
would require use of land outside the excluded acre. Since the operation of a kennel is considered
a non-agricultural commercial activity, it is not allowed on MALPF district or
easement properties. Since he will not
be allowed to operate his kennel on easement property, Mr. Quinn proposes to
swap easement acreage for non-easement acreage as delineated on the attached
map. Mr. Quinn proposes to add a parcel
(parcel 351) that was not part of the original easement, for an area located in
the woods, which is currently under easement.
The Carroll County Agricultural
Advisory Board approved the request. The
request conforms to
Mr. Conrad stated that Mr. Quinn
is present to explain his plans.
Mr. Quinn stated that he has
been before the Board before about this issue and he had hoped that the new
Task Force legislation would allow dog kennels but he had been informed that it
probably would not and he was disappointed to hear that. He stated that farming is not paying well
and, were it not for kennel operation, they would not
be able to stay solvent. Mr. Quinn
stated that due to county zoning regulations, he could not place his kennel
operation on the excluded land because it was too close to other properties and
houses.
Mr. Wolf asked if Mr. Quinn was
raising sheep dogs. Mr. Quinn answered
that he does not. He stated that he
boards dogs for other people.
Mr. Wilson stated that the
Foundation has approved similar swap requests in the past.
Mr. Conrad asked what would
happen to the land if the kennel operation ceased at some point in the
future. Bill Powel, Carroll County
Program Administrator, stated that the lot could not be used as a lot because
it would not have in-fee access to the road. The County allotted number of
off-conveyances has been used up on this property by former owners.
Motion
#21: To approve the request of
William F. Quinn to swap 1.66 acres of easement property for 1.66 of
non-easement property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Joe Scott
Status: Approved
Opposed: Allen Cohey
2. 06-09-00-08 LARRICK,
P. MICHAEL & NANCY A. 154.00
ACRES
Mr. and Mrs. Larrick
are the original owners of the easement property. The current request is for the exclusion of
an owner’s lot and 3 child’s lots for their and their children’s personal use.
There is one pre-existing
dwelling on the property. There are no
other lot exclusions on the property.
Mr. and Mrs. Larrick do not own any other
district or easement property. The
owners are requesting 1.95 acres for each lot because of septic reasons and due
to the steep slope of the property. However,
the Carroll County Health Department has not provided letters documenting the
need for the additional acreage.
According to