MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION
MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Lloyd
C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman
Allen
H. Cohey
Mildred
H. Darcey
Jerry
Klasmeier, representing Comptroller Schaefer
Lewis
Logan, representing Treasurer Kopp
Judith
C. Lynch
Joseph
F. Tassone, representing the Secretary of Maryland Department of Planning
Maurice
L. Wiles
Douglas
H. Wilson, representing the Secretary of Maryland Department of Agriculture
Robert
E. Wolf
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Joseph K. Scott
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tammy
Buckle, Caroline County Program Administrator
Rob
Hirsch, Baltimore County Assistant Program Administrator
Ann
Jones, Piney Run Rural Legacy Program sponsor
Joy
Levy, Howard County Program Administrator
Wally
Lippincott, Baltimore County Program Administrator
Barbara
Polito, Anne Arundel County Program Administrator
Bill
Powel, Carroll County Program Administrator
Charles
Rice, Charles County Program Administrator
Radhika
Sakhamuri, Queen Anne's County Program Administrator
Donna
K. Sasscer, St. Mary's County Program Administrator
Pam
Bush, Director, Rural Legacy Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Michelle
Cable, Rural Legacy Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Michael
Nelson, Assistant Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
E.
John Bryan, Baltimore County Volunteer Firemen's Association
Claude
Gamble, Baltimore County Volunteer Firemen's Association
Delegate
J. B. Jennings,
Charles
R. Tucker,
Miriam
Tucker,
Lester
A. Walls,
Erik
Balsley, Maryland Department of Planning
Chad
Shrodes, Maryland Department of Planning
Iva L. Frantz, MALPF
Administrative Officer
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF
Administrative Officer
Craig Nielsen, Assistant
Attorney General, Maryland Department of Agriculture
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting Chairman,
called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m., at the Maryland Department of
Agriculture building, Annapolis, Maryland.
Doug Wilson, representing the Secretary
of the Maryland Dept. of Agriculture, welcomed and introduced Jerry Klasmeier
to the Board of Trustees. Mr. Klasmeier
will represent Comptroller Schaefer and take the place of Gerald Thorpe who has
retired.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES/ADDITION OR DELETION OF
AGENDA ITEMS:
A. APPROVAL OF
MINUTES,
Motion #1: To
approve the minutes of the June 24, 2003, Board meeting.
Motion: Allen
Cohey Second: Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
Motion #2: To approve
the minutes of the June 24, 2003, Executive Session Board meeting.
Motion: Mildred
Darcey Second: Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
B. ADDITIONS OR
DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
No additions or
deletions of agenda items, but the Baltimore County request for consideration
of fire suppression equipment to be located on easement property (item V.B)
will be addressed first in the meeting.
Doug Wilson introduced
the guests from Baltimore County: E.
John Bryan, Chief Fire Protection Engineer, Baltimore County Volunteer
Firemen's Association; Claude Gamble, Chairman, Baltimore County Volunteer
Firemen's Association; and Delegate J. B. Jennings, Baltimore County.
V. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION
B.
1. 03-05-98-04 LIPPY BROTHER, INC. 134 acres
Request to allow an
overlay easement on MALPF easement property for purposes of installing an
underground water storage tank.
Delegate Jennings
presented the first fire suppression item:
the request to locate a 30,000 gallon underground water storage tank on
MALPF easement property owned by Lippy Brothers, Inc., the original owner of
the easement property. This request
entails approval to allow an overlay easement specific to installing this
underground water storage tank on a defined area on the property of
approximately 3 acre, including the
right-of-way to allow fire equipment access to the storage tank and the ability
to turn around. The area is currently
under cultivation.
The guests from
Baltimore County presented additional details and responded to questions from
members of the Board of Trustees. Among
the information presented included the following points:
a. The tank is a 30,000 gallon 20-year warranty
fiberglass tank that is hydrocarbon quality similar to what is at service
stations. It is purchased for its
longevity. The tank is filled with
potable water. Some of these water tanks
already are installed in Carroll, Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Harford
Counties. The only thing to be exposed
from the burial of the tank would be the pipe coming out of the ground.
b. The tank is 10 feet in diameter and about 50
feet long. It will be buried to a depth
of 4 feet which means digging a hole of about 14 feet deep, 10 feet wide, and
50 feet long. There is no pump inside
the tank, so fire equipment trucks must generate the suction needed to get the
water out of the tank. Farmers can
maintain pasture immediately over the top of the tank, but the ground cannot be
tilled. Because this property is in
cropland, not grazing, for all practical purposes, this 3 of an acre will be
removed from farming. The tank is marked
so the farmer can work around it.
c. The only use of this equipment is for fire
fighting and other public safety issues such as bio-terrorism. The farmer will not benefit financially from
locating the tank of the property, and it cannot be considered a commercial use
of the property.
d. The Volunteer Firemen's Association (VFA)
requires an ample supply of strategically located and accessible water
throughout the County. Locational
criteria require accessibility and strategic positioning. This property meets these criteria ideally,
because trucks will be able to turn around and the property will not be blocked
by other traffic during an emergency situation.
Mr. Wilson pointed out that the Foundation does
not at this point have a statement from the County of its approval and support
for this proposal. Because this can
imply contradictory public objectives, the Foundation cannot move to vote
approval of this request until the County has weighed in.
2.
BALTIMORE COUNTY VOLUNTEER FIREMAN'S ASSOCIATION
Request to allow the installation of pipes for
dry hydrants on MALPF district and easement properties for the purpose of fire
suppression.
Baltimore County Volunteer Fireman's Association
has received a grant to install dry hydrants in rural areas of Baltimore County
for the purpose of supplying water for fire suppression. The dry hydrants require an infrastructure of
pipes, which are buried underground, to connect water sources, such as
irrigation ponds, to the road where they can be accessed by fire-fighting
equipment. Some of the farmland on which
the pipes may be installed is under MALPF easement. The guests from Baltimore County presented
additional details and responded to questions from members of the Board of
Trustees. Mr. Wilson thanked the guests
for their presentation.
II. DISTRICT/EASEMENT
AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 05-07-80-04e DEAN, Charles T., Jr. 332.82 acres
Request for an Agricultural Subdivision of
easement property.
Mr. Wilson presented the request by Mr. Dean for
an agricultural subdivision of easement property. Mr. Dean is the son of the original owner of
the easement property. He wishes to
agriculturally subdivide the farm into two parcels of 270.17 acres and 62.65
acres. He wishes to convey the smaller
parcel to Lester Walls. Both parcels
continue to meet minimum soils productive capability criteria. There is a natural boundary between the two
parcels resulting from this subdivision.
Board members addressed questions to Tammy
Buckle concerning the purpose of the agricultural subdivision, the nature of
the adjacent farming operation, and any remaining rights on the property. Mr. Walls, the adjoining landowner who is to
acquire the 62.65 acre parcel, explained that the agricultural purpose of the
subdivision was to expand and improve his horse raising operation and that he
planned to reconstruct an existing dwelling on the property.
Motion #3: To approve
the request of Charles T. Dean, Jr., to agriculturally subdivide his easement
property.
Motion: Judith
Lynch Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
B.
1. 08-05-00-09 FARMER, James F. & Helen H. 127.94 acres
Request for the overlay of a CREP easement on district
property.
Elizabeth Weaver presented the request from Mr.
and Mrs. Farmer. Mr. and Mrs. Farmer are
the original owners of the district property.
The current request is for approval to allow an overlay of a
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) easement over MALPF district
property. According to Charles County,
Mr. Farmer donated a conservation easement on the property to the Maryland
Environmental Trust in June, 1996. The
Foundation was not informed at the time of district establishment (April, 2000)
that there was an MET easement on the property.
The Foundation cannot purchase an easement on property which is already
under easement.
Mr. Farmer would like to place a CREP easement
over 45.16 acres of the property. The
areas of the property proposed for the CREP easement are traditionally very wet
and difficult to cultivate row crops.
The northeast CREP fields also border tidal marsh associated with the
Wicomico River. The easement allows
timber harvest activity with a Forest Stewardship Plan and also allows for
grass buffers to be mowed for hay twice yearly.
The remaining crop land, comprising primarily of class II and class III
soils, will be unaffected by the CREP easement.
Board members asked why a district would be
established on a property which already had donated an easement to the Maryland
Environmental Trust. Charles Rice,
Charles County Program Administrator, explained that there are tax benefits
that derive from being in an agricultural district. In response to Allen Cohey's question, Craig
Nielsen, Asst. Attorney General, noted that district establishment does not
create a legal problem with an existing MET easement, though it would probably
create issues if the landowner sought to sell an easement to the Foundation.
Mr. Wilson noted that MALPF could purchase an
easement if any development value remained on the property, but it may pose
political problems. A similar issue had
arisen already during this round of easement offers, and the relevant county
chose to withdraw the property at issue from the easement offer cycle.
Motion #4: To approve
the request of James and Helen Farmer to overlay a CREP easement on a district
property.
Motion: Mildred
Darcey Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
Opposed: Allen Cohey
C.
1. OSBORN,
Phyllis, & Betty Cole 330.29
acres
PINEY RUN RURAL LEGACY
AREA
Request to hold a non-standard MALPF/Rural
Legacy easement.
Doug Wilson presented this request for final
approval from the Foundation to co-hold a non-standard MALPF/Rural Legacy
easement on the Osborn/Cole property, located in Reisterstown. The Board gave preliminary approval at the
March 2003 meeting so the sponsor could proceed with negotiations and an
expensive survey based on the preliminary approval. Even though it does not meet the standard
MALPF soils capability criteria, there are precedents for accepting it as a
co-held easement. The staff recommends
approval because of the precedence, the role as co-holder of the easement, and
because of the benefits to agriculture.
Motion #5: To approve
the request for the Foundation to co-hold the Rural Legacy easement on the
Phyllis Osborn and Betty Cole property with the Land Preservation Trust.
Motion: Judith
Lynch Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
D.
1. 02-07-80-01a CHANEY, Christopher J. 127.00 acres
Request to relocate a pre-existing dwelling on
easement property.
Doug Wilson presented this request. Mr. Christopher Chaney, a subsequent owner of
this property, has requested the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling. There are three additional dwellings on the
property. The proposed relocation site
is near an existing barn with access through an existing farm land. The staff recommends approval because of the
new location will have minimal impact on the farming operation. Approval should be conditioned on the
original site of the dwelling being returned to agriculture and placed under
easement. After discussion among the
Board members and staff, the following motion was made and approved.
Motion #6: To approve
the request for Christopher Chaney to relocate an existing dwelling on the
property as presented, with the condition that the original dwelling site be
returned to agriculture.
Motion: Joe
Tassone Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
2. 02-07-81-04 TUCKER, Charles R. & Miriam D. 40.056 acres
Request to exclude two
1-acre child's lots from easement property
Doug Wilson presented this request. Mr. and Mrs. Tucker wish to release two one-acre
child's lots from the easement.
According to Anne Arundel County, the area of the proposed lot locations
is currently in pasture. Lot 1 will be
accessed directly from the road. Lot 2
will be accessed through a driveway of the pre-existing house. Foundation staff recommends approval. Board members asked questions of staff and
the landowner to clarify the locations and right of way access.
Motion #7: To approve
the request by Charles and Miriam Tucker to exclude two one-acre lots for the
personal use of their sons, Matthew and Curt.
Motion: Mildred
Darcey Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
E.
1. 13-04-80-04Ae SHOFFEITT, Paul G. 70.08 acres
Request to exclude two 1-acre child's lots from
easement property
Doug Wilson presented this request. Mr. Shoffeitt wishes to release two one-acre
child's lots from the easement. There
are two pre-existing dwellings that have been subdivided from the farm. According to Howard County, the lots will be
clustered in an area with the two pre-existing dwellings with which they will
share access. Howard County has asked
that the lots be located closer together if the percs will allow it. Foundation staff recommends approval with the
provision that the lots be located closer together if possible. Board members asked questions of Joy Levy,
Howard County Program Administrator, concerning the status of the locational
issue.
Motion #8: To approve
the request by Paul Shoffeitt to exclude two one-acre lots for the personal use
of his sons, John and Michael.
Motion: Joe
Tassone Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
F. ST. MARY'S COUNTY
1. 18-04-02-02 DAVIS, Ann B., Thomas B., & Leonard B., Jr. 200 acres
Request to exclude a one-acre owner's and a
one-acre child's lot from district property.
Doug Wilson presented this request. The Davises wish to release a one-acre
owner's lot and a one-acre child's lot from the district agreement. An important issue is that this property has
had a pending easement offer on it.
Family members were informed that, to have this request considered, they
would need to withdraw their easement application and have the property
reappraised in a new offer cycle with these lot exclusions taken into
consideration. In fact, the family
decided to withdraw the easement application.
Motion #9: To approve
the request by Ann Davis and family to exclude a one-acre owner's lot and a
one-acre child's lot for the personal use of Leonard Davis, Jr. (owner) and the
son of Ann and Thomas Davis.
Motion: Robert
Wolf Second: Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
III. AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
A.
1. 12-03-04-01 ARCHER, Winfield T. & Alice A. 55.63 acres
Motion #10: To approve the
request of Winfield and Alice Archer to establish an agricultural land
preservation district on their respective property.
Motion: Maurice
Wiles Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
Mr. Wilson noted that the Board still has two
presentations to hear, one on the revised easement document and one on the
status of the Rural Legacy program.
Because Mike Nelson, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Natural
Resources, is here, the Board will do his presentation on Rural Legacy first,
different than how the agenda presents the material.
V. INFORMATION AND
DISCUSSION
A.
PRESENTATION: Update on
the Status of the Rural Legacy Program
Mike Nelson, Assistant Secretary, Capital Grants
and Loans, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and Pam Bush, Director,
Rural Legacy Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Mr. Nelson noted that the Rural Legacy was about
to achieve a real milestone in protecting 40,000 acres with more than 80% of it
in farms and forest. He wants to make
the case that the Rural Legacy program is an important land protection program
irrespective of which Administration gave birth to it. Rural Legacy program has become one of
Maryland's reliable land protection programs and he hopes it will continue to
get strong funding. Also, Rural Legacy
has the same concern as MALPF about the future of the transfer tax that
provides funding for MALPF, Rural Legacy, and Program Open Space. At a recent Rural Legacy Board meeting in
Vienna, the Secretary of Agriculture expressed a desire to direct more of the
transfer tax to MALPF to protect production agriculture. Mr. Nelson is concerned about that view,
because Rural Legacy is primarily in the business of preserving production
agriculture.
The Maryland Department of Agriculture staff and
Secretary have a lot invested in the Rural Legacy Program, whether in the
Advisory Committee or the Rural Legacy Board on which the Secretary sits. Many of the folks in the room are either
Rural Legacy sponsors or involved in land trusts. Jerry Klasmeier has been invaluable. Allen Cohey has served on the Advisory Board
for the Rural Legacy Board.
Rural Legacy has focused on the rural landscape
and rural-based economies. The Program
has worked with co-holding easements with other programs and has worked with
CREP and the tobacco buyout program. We
have 21 counties with 25 Rural Legacy areas.
The Rural Legacy Board is composed of the Secretaries of Natural
Resources, Planning, and Agriculture.
The Advisory Committee has a wide range of representation. The staff work involved in application review
is extensive, including Dept. of Agriculture and Dept. of Planning staff. These staff and advisory committee members go
and visit the areas and provide comments on the strengths and weaknesses of
applications that are included in the final recommendations.
Piney Run Rural Legacy Area is a prime example
of a Rural Legacy area whose primary focus is on preserving working
agricultural lands, but which also has preserved other related values.
One of the strengths of the program is the
community support, including farmers and other landowners. This program has grassroots support for land
preservation and preservation of landscapes.
This support is regardless of which administration is in place. The Program has had strong support from the
legislature and local governments. The
legislature has worked to help the program achieve the level of performance
that it has achieved today.
One thing we realized before we recommended this
program is that there is a need to buffer natural resource areas, such as the
Patuxent River. It is important to begin
to put together large contiguous blocs of land.
It was also important to try to get reinforcement for Rural Legacy goals
through local land conservation measures, which was a concern of the Department
of Planning in reviewing applications.
We have encouraged the counties to put their money into this program.
The Program had had fairly steady funding
between $20 and $30 million dollars annually.
Last year Rural Legacy received only $5 million. We are concerned with predictable funding,
because that is necessary to establish and maintain momentum for landowner
participation. With a number of years of
no or low funding, property owners lose interest in the program.
The ultimate success of the Program will be
based on the strength of the partnerships it has with the counties and other
programs and departments, not on the bureaucracy within the Department of
Natural Resources. The programs involved
in land conservation should not be overly competitive and try to raid each
other's money during times of fund shortages.
This was one of the recommendations of an earlier MALPF Task Force
report. Finally, a central concern of
Rural Legacy has been and will continue to be to protect working farms and
forests.
Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Nelson how agricultural
land preservation is approached by Rural Legacy. Mr. Nelson responded that, while using MALPF
appraisals as a benchmark, the staff has established an evaluation system that
gives points to reward certain features of or on the land, such as farm
management plans, stewardship along the streams, or existence of natural
resources. Generally, easements are approved
that cost more than 60 or 70% of MALPF's fair market value. In many cases, Rural Legacy has paid at or
less than MALPF's discounted value.
Rural Legacy works hard on the forestry
component of the Program. Rural Legacy
encourages good forest management practices through its easement. It must be kept in mind that, just because
the Program is in the Dept. of Natural Resources, it is not simply an
environmental program. It is protecting
farmland and forest land, and both interests are strongly represented on the
Advisory Committee and the Board.
Mr. Wilson noted that at the creation of Rural
Legacy, everyone agreed not to fight turf battles over where it would be
housed. Everyone recognized the primary
beneficiaries would be rural farmers and landowners. Farmers have the option to come to MALPF to
co-hold their Rural Legacy easement.
Mr. Nelson noted also that sometimes when MALPF
funds are insufficient to purchase certain easements, Rural Legacy has been
able to purchase the easement when the property was in a Rural Legacy
area. Mr. Nelson, responding to comments
from a Board member, noted that forestry management issues on Rural Legacy
easements existed early in the program, but have been addressed. The forestry industry has reviewed the
easement, and all potential Rural Legacy participants were sent letters
informing them of the concerns of the forestry industry on how Rural Legacy
incorporates forestry management plans.
L.C. Jones thanked Mr. Nelson and Ms. Bush for
coming and presenting this material on the Rural Legacy Program to the MALPF
Board.
IV. PROGRAM POLICY
A.
PRESENTATION: Revised
Easement Document
Craig Nielsen, Assistant
Attorney General, Maryland Office of the Attorney General.
Mr. Wilson notes the staff has presented this
draft of the revised easement document with those items not yet approved by the
Board in bold type. At the end of this
discussion, we should have a vote for this easement document to then be used
for all easements after October 1, 2003.
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, led
the discussion on the easement. He noted
that this document is longer, but clarifies issues in language that have come
about over the years, including tenant houses, multiple ownership, land use, etc. The attempt is to reduce ambiguity in
language. The second purpose is to
incorporate new statutory requirements for the Program. This contract will help us enforce the
Program better and help landowners understand the requirements of the
Program. This easement will also require
staff to personalize further individual easement documents.
In response to a question from Tammy Buckle,
Caroline County Program Administrator, Mr. Nielsen noted that the easement is
an attachment to the option contract, giving the landowner the opportunity to
review the document before committing to the acceptance. Ms. Buckle asked about the timing of the
adoption of the revised document. Mr. Wilson
responded that the Office of the Attorney General ruled that anyone from the
current cycle whose option contract is not approved by the Board of Public
Works by October 1 will come under the new revised easement document. This is why the Foundation has been pushing
to get responses to offers during this easement cycle, to get these contracts
before the Board of Public Works as soon as possible. As people apply for future cycles, landowners
will be given this document in developing their asking prices and deciding
whether to participate. Mr. Nielsen
noted that this October 1 deadline is not something we can play with, because
the legislature has spoken. He also
noted that the new requirements in the program passed by the legislature may
well be to the advantage of some landowners.
A question was raised concerning the language on
page 3 of the document (II.A.1) on Afarm and forest related uses and home
occupations.@ The question is whether the Board really
wants to have to approve all farm and forest related uses and home
occupations, as implied by the language.
Mr. Nielsen agreed that perhaps the Board could just place period after AGrantee@ in that provision to
give the Board more discretion. To
clarify this issue, it may be better to adopt regulations on farm and forest
related uses and home occupation.
Bill Powel, Carroll County Program
Administrator, expressed some concern with very specific language. For example, on page 12 (IV.B.5), instead of
requiring a Asurvey plat,@ it would be more
appropriate at that stage of the process to only ask for a property outline. Because the location has not yet been
approved, the landowner should not have to pay to have a survey at that point
of the approval process. Mr. Nielsen
agreed with the point.
On page 13 (IV.C.2), Mr. Powel noted that the
Foundation has never required approval for the transfer of title from the
release of a family lot. Mr. Nielsen
noted that this is in response to some problems created by the difficulty in
enforcing the restriction that lot approvals are restricted to those who actually
qualify, making sure that some review is in place to know when such lots are
quickly conveyed to third parties. Mr.
Powel noted that the preliminary release helps reduce this problem. Mr. Nielsen notes that legitimate
justifications for early transfer of a family lot might include death, divorce,
job transfer, etc., but flipping the lot to a third party is not a legitimate
justification. This is information that
the legislature may want to know when reviewing the Foundation's budget. This gives the Foundation enforcement
capability. The Foundation could sue, a
title company should pick up the language in the easement, etc.
Board members noted that the Foundation really
needs to put an outside limit as to how long a time the Foundation should be
able to require approval before selling a property. In other words, a certain period of house
occupancy should be sufficient. Mr.
Nielsen noted that Anne Arundel County requires five years for a family
conveyance. Mr. Wilson suggested that it
would be good to have a specific time period so people know that an approval to
sell the house is no longer necessary after a certain time. This does not mean that someone can't get out
before five years, but that he or she must ask for approval. The Board generally agreed at putting in a
specific time period.
A question was raised concerning the tenant
house policy language, specifically the acreage requirements. Mr. Nielsen noted that this represents a
change in regulation.
Motion #11: With the
exception of the recommended changes in language discussed in the Board
meeting, to accept the revised easement document as presented to go into effect
on October 1, 2003.
Motion: Joe
Tassone Second: Robert Wolf
Status: Approved
Motion #12: There being
no further non-Executive Session business to discuss, the regular session
meeting should be adjourned.
Motion: Joe
Tassone Second: Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
The regular session Board meeting was adjourned
at approximately
Respectfully Submitted:
______________________________________
Iva Frantz, Administrative Officer
______________________________________
James A. Conrad, Executive Director