MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Acting
Chairman
Douglas H. Wilson,
representing Secretary Maryland Department of Agriculture
Jerry Klasmeier,
representing Comptroller Shaefer
Joseph K. Scott
Mildred H. Darcey
Maurice L. Wiles
Allen H. Cohey
Judith C. Lynch
Robert E. Wolf
Dr. James Pelura
TRUSTEES
ABSENT:
Lewis Logan, representing
Treasurer Kopp
Joseph Tassone,
representing Secretary Scott, Maryland Department of Planning
OTHERS PRESENT:
Craig Nielsen, Assistant
Attorney General
Tammy Buckle, Caroline
County Program Administrator
Bill Powel, Carroll County
Program Administrator
Rad Sakhamuri,
Queen Anne=s County Program
Administrator
Charles Rice, Charles
County Program Administrator
Erik Balsley,
Maryland Department of Planning
Chad Shrodes,
Maryland Department of Planning
Carla Martin, Kent County
Program Administrator
Donna Sasscer,
St. Mary=s County Program
Administrator
Karen Houtman,
Dorchester County Program Administrator
Harold Phillips, Dorchester
County landowner
Naomi Phillips, Dorchester
County landowner
Brenda Fornos.
Queen Anne=s County landowner
Jaime Fornos,
Queen Anne=s County landowner
Bill Sharp, Queen Anne=s County landowner
Nancy Forrester, Assistant
Attorney General
Mark Rose, NRCS
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: Mildred Darcey Second: Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
B. APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES
Motion #2: To approve the Executive Session
minutes of
Motion: Bob Wolf Second:
Allan Cohey
Status: Approved
C. ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
Douglas Wilson,
representing Secretary Riley, briefly addressed the Board of Trustees informing
them that James Conrad, Executive Director, and Secretary Riley, were making a
presentation to the Joint Subcommittee on Program Open Space and Agricultural
Land Preservation. Mr. Wilson indicated
that he passed out the Secretary=s comments to the Board members.
IV. PROGRAM POLICY
A. Dry Hydrants - Request from Baltimore County to allow
installation of dry hydrants on MALPF Properties
Mr. Jones indicated that
the Board=s first order of business
would be Dry Hydrants (Agenda Item IV. A) and the
request from
Mr. Rose addressed the
Board and said he was here to answer any questions the Trustees may have. He stated that he understood that the Board
was looking to adopt a policy on the dry hydrants installation on MALPF
properties. He stated he also understood
from his conversations with Elizabeth Weaver, Foundation staff member, that the Board wanted to make sure there would be no
long term erosion or damage to the property.
He explained that any kind of work done through the NRCS offices had to
follow standard specifications. When
that kind of work is done, it is done in cooperation with the local fire
departments and through Resource Conservation Development Office, with NRCS
standards and specifications being utilized.
There are strict guidelines of erosion control to make sure that the land
is not going to be graded. The hydrants
or the water supply itself must be sufficient (particularly in a 50 year
drought) to supply water for the fire department=s needs otherwise installation
would not be recommended.
Mr. Rose also stated he
reviewed the policy MALPF staff drafted and it looked good to him and it
appeared workable.
Mr. Wilson reminded the
board that on
Proposed Policy for Dry Hydrants
The installation of dry hydrants shall be allowed
on MALPF district and easement properties subject to the following conditions:
1.
The installation shall be within 100 feet of the water supply normal
pool level elevation, i.e. the edge of the pond=s normal water line. Installations at a distance greater than 100
feet from the normal water elevation shall be subject to Board approval.
2.
Engineering plans for each installation shall be developed in
cooperation with the Soil Conservation District and the NRCS office.
3.
The engineering and installation shall follow NRCS Dry Fire Hydrant
Standard 432 (attached), including, but not limited to, specifications for
erosion control, before, during and after construction, referring to Maryland
NRCS Standard 342 B Critical Area Planting.
4.
Topsoil shall be separated from subsoil during construction and replaced
after construction. Seed and mulch are
applied as per NRCS Standard 342.
5.
The job site and installation shall be inspected and approved by the
Soil Conservation District/NRCS representative.
Motion #3: To approve the proposed policy for dry
hydrants
Motion: Joe Scott Second:
Bob Wolf
Status: Approved
Mr. Wilson asked for
clarification as to whether each request for installation of dry hydrant would
come before the Board.
Ms. Weaver stated if the
request met the conditions as stated in the Foundation=s policy, administrative
approval would be granted. Installations
at a distance greater than 100 feet from the normal water elevation would be
subject to the Board=s approval.
II. DISTRICT/EASEMENT
AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 22-05-89-05 AGNEW,
Louise M. 100.49
acres
Request to swap 3 acres of easement property for 3
acres of non-easement property
Mr. Wilson stated Ms. Agnew
is the original owner of the easement property.
The current request is for approval to swap three acres of easement property
for three acres of non-easement property to accommodate a church parking lot.
Ms. Agnew=s property is
adjacent to
The trustees of
the church contacted MALPF to determine if the Foundation would allow the
donation of the land to the church.
Foundation staff contacted Alfred Brumbley,
Chairman, Board of Trustees,
The Foundation
received a letter from Ms. Agnew=s neighbors, William H. and Doris A.
Mariner, who proposed placing under easement, three acres of their land, which
is adjacent to the Agnew property.
However, the Mariners wanted to retain ownership of the property. Foundation staff explained to Mr. Brumbley and the Mariners that it is unlikely that the
Board would approve a land swap where the land proposed to be added to the
easement is separately owned. Mr. Brumbley stated that it was his understanding that Mr.
Mariner intended to transfer ownership of the three acres to Ms. Agnew. Foundation staff contacted Mr. Mariner for
clarification of his intentions regarding ownership of the three acres. Mr. Mariner stated that he does not intend to
transfer ownership of the three acres to Ms. Agnew.
The land
proposed to be removed from the easement is adjacent to the road. The land to be added to the easement lies to
the north of the property, away from the road.
Both parcels are woodland. The
land area to be added to the easement consists of Class II soils. The area to be removed from the easement
consists of Class III soils. The acreage
exchange was approved by the local advisory board with the understanding that
the three acres, currently owned by Mr. Mariner, would be transferred to Ms.
Agnew.
Mr. Wilson said
if Mr. Mariner is not going to transfer the ownership to the Agnew=s that creates
a problem for the Foundation. Mr. Wilson
said Foundation staff recommends approval of the request subject to the
condition that the ownership of the three acres currently owned by Mr. Mariner
be transferred to Ms. Agnew and added to her easement.
Mr. Wilson told
the Board he would move for approval subject to the condition of the property
being transferred to Ms. Agnew as the staff recommended.
Dr. James Pelura, Trustee, suggested we table the issue until MALPF
got some assurance from Mr. Mariner that we would in fact transfer the property
to Ms. Agnew.
Mr. Wilson
stated that he felt if the Board approved the request based on the condition of
Mr. Mariner transferring the property to Ms. Agnew, it would demonstrate that
the Board was doing something positive.
Dr. Pelura asked if there was any opposition in the county. Mr. Jones replied there was none. Ms. Weaver added that the county was under
the impression that Mr. Mariner was going to transfer the property to Ms.
Agnew.
A discussion
ensued regarding what would happen if Mr. Mariner did not transfer the property
to Ms. Agnew. Mr. Jones indicated that
there would be no swap.
Jerry Klasmeier, Trustee, stated that if the Board takes the
action proposed, it gives us more leverage and may make Mr. Mariner reconsider
his position as far as transferring the property.
Mr. Wilson
stated that he would prefer we not table this, since it may send a negative
message to the County. In approving this
with conditions, we are giving the community the idea we are supportive of the
general concept.
After much
discussion, it was decided to follow the recommendation made by the local board
and staff that Mr. Mariner has to transfer the three acres to Ms. Agnew in
order to proceed with the swap.
Motion #4: To approve the request from Louise
Agnew to swap 3 acres of easement property for 3 acres of non-easement property
subject to the condition that the ownership of the 3 acres currently owned by
Mr. Mariner be transferred to Ms. Agnew and added to her easement.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second:
Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
Abstain: Allen Cohey
Dr. James Pelura, Trustee, asked to discuss an issue. He referred to the recent press regarding
land acquisition programs and questioned whether the Board of Public Works
approves everything that the MALPF Board does.
Mr. Wilson said
that the Board of Public Works only approves MALPF=s broad policy
through their broad authority as a governing body of the State. They also approve MALPF easements, since it=s the granting
of dollars on land acquisition. He
further stated that when MALPF has certain policy issues, we often take them to
the BPW to receive their blessing.
Mr. Wilson told
Dr. Pelura that the policy he was referring to is
under discussion by the administration at this point. In fact, Secretary Riley, DNR Secretary
Franks, MDP Secretary Scott are working with Mr. DiPaula,
Budget and Management, and staff to craft the Governor=s posture on
land and easement acquisition.
In a press
statement that has been widely reported, all of the programs were lumped
together. The position the Department
has taken with the administration is that it must be recognized that our
program is an easement acquisition program for the preservation of an
industry. It is not primarily an
environmental program, as is Rural Legacy or some of Program Open Space, under
the Department of Natural Resources.
This does not
mean that the Foundation=s program does
not have an impact on a variety of State policies and environmental programs,
Smart Growth, etc. The Department is
trying to have the Governor focus on both of those concepts and see if he is
going to put a policy forward that is all inclusive or recognizes the
differences of the programs. It is still
under discussion and has not been finalized yet. It is expected a policy will come out
reasonably shortly. The Administration
has moved towards recognizing that it cannot say to the agricultural community
that the only place easements will be bought is on properties directly adjacent
to the
B.
1. 05-07-87-18A EATON, William H. & Carlene 41.45
acres
Request to allow riding lessons on
easement property
Mr. Wilson
stated that Mr. and Mrs. Eaton are subsequent owners of easement property. The current request is to allow riding lessons
on their easement property. According to
Mr. Wilson
stated that it has been the policy of the Foundation in the past not to allow
riding lessons for the general public on district or easement properties. He reminded the Board of the new legislation,
SB626 and HB805 enacted
Mr. Wilson said
Foundation staff recommends approval based on the recommendations of the Task
Force to include riding lessons as an acceptable use on MALPF properties, with
the condition that the facility shall cover no more than 2% of the farm and no
more than 2% of the farm shall be used for parking and any parking areas shall
be pervious.
Chad Shrodes, Maryland Department of Planning, stated that he
was part of the Task Force committee on land uses and he thought that the
condition that the facility shall cover no more than 2% of the farm and no more
than 2% of the farm shall be used for parking actually should be 1%. Ms. Weaver clarified that it was originally
1%, but it had been changed to 2%, and everyone was in agreement with that.
Craig Nielsen,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture, asked if it would he
possible for the Foundation to send landowner a letter and have the landowner
sign or initial what the conditions are so that if there is a problem in the
future it can be used as a basis for whatever we may need to do to enforce the
agreement. He stated it would help both
parties with the understanding of what the conditions are.
Mr. Wolf,
Trustee, asked Tammy Buckle, Caroline County Program Administrator, what is 2%
of the land and how many acres that would cover. Ms. Buckle replied she was also concerned
about that. The acreage is 41.45 acres
and 2% would be a little less than an acre.
Ms. Buckle went
on to ask for clarification as far as the conditions. She questioned the conditions imposed: no more than 2% of the farm is to be used for
parking, any parking areas shall be pervious and the riding facility should
cover no more than 2% of the farm. Ms.
Buckle asked if that mean the riding facility itself should cover no more than
2% of the total acreage in addition to the parking or including the parking.
Ms. Weaver
stated that no more than 2% of the acreage should be used for a riding facility
applied to structures used for riding only.
It does not apply to existing buildings or to the outdoor area that is
used for riding. Also, as recommended by
the Task Force, no more than 2% of the farm should be used for parking, but
these are separate issues.
Discussion
ensued regarding percentage versus acreage.
Mr. Wilson stated that he thought Mr. Nielsen=s request was
reasonable. He wants to make sure
everyone has an understanding of what is expected of the landowner.
Mr. Wilson
asked that the Board approve the broad agenda item and to have staff and the
County work with the landowner on an agreement or letter of agreement so that
we make sure we do not approve something that is outside of the bounds of where
the Task Force was headed and make sure the landowner can live with it.
Ms. Weaver
stated that for this type of request that staff would send individual letters
tailored to the individual and their specific request.
Motion #5: To approve the request from William H.
and Carlene Eaton to allow riding lessons on easement property
Motion: Judy Lynch Second:
Mildred Darcey
Status: Approved
C.
1. 08-04-00-25A BOWLING, Sr., Larry W. 99.02
acres
Request for a 2.00 acre owner=s lot on
easement property
Mr. Wilson stated that Mr. Bowling is the original owner of the
easement property. The current request
is for a 2-acre owner=s lot for the
personal use of Mr. Bowling. Mr. Bowling
does not own any other district or easement properties.
According to
If approved, there will be a required payback to the Foundation of
$5,899.00 (2 acres at $2,948.50 per acre), which is the per acre amount that
the landowner received for the easement.
The request was approved by the local advisory board. The request conforms to local zoning
regulations.
Staff recommends approval based on the provisions of the deed of
easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b)(3),
Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of
up to 2 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the
Environment or the county.
Motion #6: To approve the request of Larry W.
Bowling, Sr. for an owner=s lot on
easement property.
Motion: Joe Scott Second:
Bob Wolf
Status: Approved
2. 08-09-81-01ce ROBINSON, Sr., Franklin A. 222.00
acres
Request for a
2.00 acre owner=s lot and three
2.00 acre child=s lots on
easement property
Mr. Wilson stated that Mr. Robinson is the original owner of the
easement property. The current request
is for a 2-acre owner=s lot for his
personal use and three child=s lots for the personal use of his
children, Franklin, Robert and Adina.
According to
If approved, there will be a required payback to the Foundation of
$9,229.12 (8 acres at $1,153.64 per acre), which is the per acre amount
which the landowner received for the easement.
Staff recommends approval based on the provisions of the deed of
easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b)(3),
Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of
up to 2 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the
Environment or the county.
Allen Cohey, Trustee, questioned why the
Application for Lot Exclusion was dated
Mr. Wilson stated that staff had reviewed the request and all the
requirements were met. The information
on the form has not changed so the forms are still valid. Mr. Wilson also stated that this is a common
way for landowners to document their intentions as to lots for children.
Mildred Darcey, Trustee, commented on
the property and stated that she wanted to go on the record indicating she was
not comfortable with the requests associated with this property. She questioned the procedure for releasing
the lots. She wanted to know if the
landowner got building permits for himself and the children in their names
would they have to build homes or could they not build on the lots.
Mr. Wilson indicated that the property does not get released until
the second stage, final release, which is when the building permit is
required. If it clearly looks like the
lots were being used for third parties for residential development that our
attorneys would do what they could to prevent it.
Mr. Nielsen stated the lots were for their personal use, not to be
transferred. He said that there was no
time line as far as how long the landowner had to live in the house. He said the Foundation recognizes if there is
a death, divorce or someone gets transferred to another state.
Mr. Wilson stated there was new policy, going through regulatory
legal process, to require there be a certain time frame associated with living
in a house. However, it is not
formalized yet.
Mr. Nielsen stated that
Motion #7: To approve the request of Franklin
Robinson for a 2.00 acre owner=s lot and three 2.00 acre childs’ lots on easement property.
Motion: Bob Wolf Second:
Joe Scott
Status: Approved
Abstain: James Pelura,
III
Mildred Darcey
Allen Cohey
3. 08-05-02-12 PHELPS, Taylor & Margaret 351.40
acres
(
Request for the exclusion of a 2.00 acre child=s lot from
district property
Foundation staff advised the Board that this item had been pulled
from the agenda.
D.
1. 06-02-91-52 FORNEY, Thomas E. & Barbara A. 143.12 acres
Request for a
1.0 acre child=s lot on
easement property
Mr. Wilson stated that Mr. and Mrs. Forney are the original owners
of the easement property. The current
request is for a 1.0 acre child=s lot for the personal use of their
son, Thomas.
According to
Mr. and Mrs. Forney do not own any other district or easement
properties. A child=s lot was
approved on this property in July, 2002, for their son, David. The current request was approved by the local
advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations.
If approved, there will be a required payback to the Foundation of
$2,000.00, which is the per acre amount the landowner 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) A...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 #8 To approve
the request for Thomas E. and Barbara Forney for a 1.00 acre child=s lot on
easement property.
Motion: Allen Cohey Second: Judy Lynch
Status: Approved
2. 06-03-02-04 MILLER, David I. 66.00
acres
(Basha's Barn,
LLC)
Request for a 1.0 acre owner=s lot on easement property
Mr. Wilson stated that Dr. and Mrs. Miller are the original owners
of the easement property. The current
request is for a 1-acre owner=s lot for their personal use.
According to
There have been no other lot requests for this property. Dr. and Mrs. Miller do not own any other
district or easement property. The
current request was approved by the local advisory board. The request conforms to local zoning
regulations.
If approved, there will be a required payback to the
Foundation of the per acre amount of $3,010.00, which the landowner 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) A...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 #9 To approve
the request of David I. Miller for a 1.00 acre owner=s lot on
easement property
Motion: Joe Scott Second:
Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
3. 06-06-87-03 WOLFE, Vernon C. & Florence H. 105.00 acres
Request for a
1.0 acre owner=s lot on
easement property
Mr. Wilson stated that Mr. and Mrs. Wolfe are the original owners
of the easement property. The current
request is for a 1.0 acre owner=s lot for their personal use.
According to
Mr. and Mrs. Wolfe own another district property, but they have
not requested any lots on that property.
The current request was approved by the local advisory board. The request conforms to local zoning
regulations.
If approved, there will be a payback to the Foundation of
$1,701.61, which is the per acre amount the landowner 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) A... the Grantee,
on written application from the Grantor, shall release free from 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 the Grantor or
Grantor=s child..@
Motion #10 To approve the
request of Vernon C. and Florence H. Wolfe for a 1.00 acre owner=s lot on
easement property
Motion: Bob Wolf Second:
Maurice Wiles
Status: Approved
4.