MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION

MINUTES

February 24, 2004

TRUSTEES PRESENT:

Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Chairman

Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer Kopp

Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Dept. of Agriculture

Jerry Klasmeier, representing Comptroller Schaefer

Allen H. Cohey

Judith C. Lynch

James Pelura, D.V.M.

Vera Mae Schultz

Joseph F. Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Dept. of Planning

Daniel Colhoun

TRUSTEES ABSENT:

Mildred H. Darcey

Shirley Pilchard

OTHERS PRESENT:

Erik Balsley, Maryland Dept. of Planning

Tammy Buckle, Caroline County Program Administrator

Carla Martin, Kent County Program Administrator

Charles Rice, Charles County Program Administrator

Kevin Schmidt, American Farmland Trust

Donna Mennitto, Consultant to MALPF on the Sand and Gravel Pilot Study

Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Dept. of Agriculture

Pete Cruikshank, Charles County Soil Conservation District

Ed Larimore, MD Dept. of Environment

Charles Rice, Charles County Program Administrator

Radhika Sakhamuri, Queen Anne's County Program Administrator

James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive Director

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Dept. of General Services

Iva L. Frantz, MALPF Administrative Officer

Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Administrative Officer

Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:44 a.m. at the Maryland Department of Agriculture building, Annapolis, Maryland. Mr. Jones informed the Board there were two new Trustees and asked them to introduce themselves: Vera Mae Schultz, representing the forestry community and Daniel Colhoun, Baltimore County. James Conrad, Executive Director, stated that Vera Mae has been officially appointed as an At Large Representative and Daniel Colhoun is officially appointed to represent the Maryland Grange. Mr. Conrad told the Board there was another new Trustee, Shirley Pilchard, Worcester County, who could not make this month’s meeting, but expects to be at the March, 2004 meeting. Mr. Conrad stated that Ms. Pilchard was appointed as an At-Large Representative and advised the Board that Ms. Pilchard is a former Delegate. Mr. Jones also asked guests to introduce themselves.

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES/ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:

A. APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES, December 19, 2003

Motion #1: To approve the Executive Session minutes of the December 19, 2003, Board meeting.

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Allen Cohey

Status: Approved

B. APPROVAL OF REGULAR SESSION MINUTES, December 19, 2003

Motion #2: To approve the Regular Session minutes of the December 19, 2003, Board meeting.

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

C. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:

James Conrad, Executive Director, stated that Douglas Wilson, representing Secretary Riley had information regarding the budget and then he will speak briefly about proposed legislation.

Mr. Wilson addressed the Board regarding the budget stating that the Department of Agriculture has had hearings on the tax side budget on both sides, House and Senate. He reminded the Board that the primary source of funding for MALPF is state transfer tax. This year the Foundation’s share would have been roughly about $13 million. Last year, the State Budget Reconciliation Act took 50% of the funds for this year and put it in the general fund and we were supposed to get the other 50% for FY 05. The Governor’s Budget has taken all of the state transfer tax money and put it in the General Fund. So for us, we lose $13 million. The Governor put $5 million in bond money to replace those funds. Rural Legacy got $0 funds in the upcoming budget and Green Print got $5 million, of which MALPF will get 25%. POS got $0 money on the State side. The Governor did not put any bond funds there. So as you can see, MALPF made out fairly well. The other interesting quirk in the budget, current statute requires the Governor to put in at least $5 million into the Rural Legacy Program. The Governor did not do that. In the Capital Budget the Governor has language that reverses that requirement, takes it away and says if you remove my amendment Rural Legacy will get the MALPF money. As far as the Bond budget, the legislature has many different avenues. They can add to the Capital Bond Bill, they can subtract from it. They can change language, etc. There are a variety of strategies. The Capital Bond Bill is the last bill to be approved usually.

This year the federal government has announced that the allocation for Maryland is $5.9 million for the upcoming year. We are going to have to be as creative as we can to help Maryland meet the matching fund requirements to obtain the federal funds. Mr. Conrad noted that of the $5.9 million, $1.7 million is earmarked for the Eastern Shore as part of the Conservation Corridor program.

Mr. Conrad stated that staff was still in the process of revising the Application to Sell Easement, based on new legislation passed last year. No applications are being accepted, since we do not have the form finalized and since we do not know what the funding will be.

Mr. Conrad briefly went over the proposed legislation with the Board.

Mr. Wilson, also announced that Iva Frantz, Foundation staff was retiring after 30 years of State service, of which 20 has been with the Department of Agriculture; 13 + with the MALPF program.

II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT AMENDMENTS

A. CARROLL COUNTY

1. 06-10-97-09 WATT, Jerry L. & Barbara S. 174.00 acres

Request for the exclusion of a 1.1454-acre child’s lot from easement property and an increase in the size of a previously approved child’s lot

Mr. Conrad stated Mr. & Mrs. Watt are the original owners of the easement property. The current request is for the exclusion of a 1.1454-acre lot from the easement for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for the personal use of their son, Justin and to increase the size of a previously approved child’s lot for their son Jason.

The Watts also own a MALPF district property but there have been no lot requests on that property.

According to Carroll County, the proposed child’s lot for Justin is to be located in cropland, along the perimeter of the property adjacent to the previously approved child’s lot for his brother, Jason. Access will be directly from the road. The Watts are requesting a lot size of 1.1454 acres for Justin’s lot to meet county subdivision requirements.

At the March 25, 2003, Board meeting, the Foundation approved a 1-acre child’s lot on this property for Jason Watt. The Watts are requesting an additional 0.1563 acres for Jason’s lot to satisfy Carroll County subdivision requirements.

Both requests were approved by the local agricultural advisory board and conform to local zoning regulations. If approved, there will be a required payback amount of $2,491.25 for Justin’s lot (1.1454 acres @ $2,175.00 per acre) and $339.95 for the additional acreage required for Jason’s lot (0.1563 acres @ $2,175.00 per acre).

Staff recommends approval of both requests 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 #3: To approve Jerry L. and Barbara S. Watt’s request for a 1.1454 acre child’s lot on easement property and to increase the size of a previously approved lot.

Motion: Judy Lynch Second: Allen Cohey

Status: Approved

2. 06-02-83-13e KEGEL, Robert E. & Jacqueline N. 155.00 acres

Request to relocate a previously approved child’s lot on easement property.

Mr. Conrad stated Mr. and Mrs. Kegel are the original owners of the easement property. The current request is for the relocation of a previously approved child’s lot for their daughter Darlene and for an owner’s lot for their personal use.

On February 27, 1996, the Board approved a child’s lot for Darlene Kegel, the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Kegel. On July 23, 2002, the Board approved a relocation of the lot to a location along the road. Ms. Kegel wants to relocate to another location back from the road because the prior location is within the Historic District of Uniontown, which has residential restrictions. While a house could be built in the area, there are severe restrictions on the type of home, e.g. no garage is allowed.

According to Carroll County, the proposed relocation is located along the perimeter of the property. Access will be through an 800’ right-of-way, which runs along the perimeter of the property.

The relocation request was approved by the local Agricultural Advisory Board as the Board found that the new location would have a minimal impact on the agricultural operation of the farm. The new location is consistent with local zoning regulations. Additionally, the Kegels are requesting an owner’s lot for their personal use.

According to Carroll County, the Kegels wish to locate their lot in the location which was approved for Darlene in July, 2002, as the lot has already been surveyed. The Kegels intend to retire at some point in the future and want to build their retirement home on the farm.

Carroll County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning have given approval for this.

Foundation staff recommends approval of the new location for Darlene’s lot, given the residential restrictions in the historic area. Staff further recommends approval of the owner’s lot 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...”

Joe Tassone, Trustee, asked for clarification regarding the reason for moving the daughter’s lot. He stated it was his understanding that the daughter did not want to be subject to the residential restrictions associated with living within the historic district of Uniontown, but the owner’s did not have any problem with the restrictions. Mr. Conrad stated that Mr. Tassone’s understanding was correct.

Motion #4: To approve Robert E. and Jacqueline N. Kegel’s request to relocate a previously approved child’s lot on easement property and for an owner’s lot for their personal use.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Lewis Logan

Status: Approved

3. 06-01-82-09 BLUM, Roland L. and Mary A. 117.5800 acres

Request for an owner’s dwelling under the terms of HB 131.

Mr. Conrad stated Mr. and Mrs. Blum are the original owners of the easement property. They are requesting a one-acre exclusion for an owner’s dwelling for the use of a subsequent owner, under the terms of House Bill 131.

HB 131 is the legislative basis for the statute, which became effective October 1, 2003, the provisions of which allows a landowner who originally sold an easement to apply for an exclusion from the easement of one acre for a dwelling for the use of a subsequent owner.

According to Carroll County, the Blum property did not contain a dwelling when the property was placed under easement. The proposed acre for release is located next to woodland, along the perimeter of the property. Access will be through an existing farm lane. The Blums understand that the dwelling site cannot be subdivided from the farm. They do not intend to sell the property at this point but wish to retain the right to exclude the acre for a subsequent owner should the property be sold in the future.

The Carroll County Advisory Board approved the request. The request conforms to local Planning and Zoning regulations. If approved, there will be a required payback to the Foundation of $544.31, which is the per acre amount the landowner received for the easement.

Foundation staff recommends approval of the request based on meeting the terms of House Bill 131.

Motion #5: To approve a request for an owner’s dwelling under the terms of HB 131.

Motion: Lewis Logan Second: Joseph Tassone

Status: Approved

4. 06-07-82-03 DELL, Roger A. & Gregory 154.990 acres

Request for a lot re-designation

Mr. Conrad explained that the request for the owner’s lot on easement property and the request for the withdrawal of previously approved HB131 lot have both been withdrawn. There are three issues involved, however, the request for lot re-designation is the only request being discussed today. The other two issues were withdrawn by the landowners.

On September 24, 2002, the Foundation approved an owner’s lot and five child’s lots on the easement property. The owner’s lot was approved for the use of Gregory Dell. The lot has not been released from the easement. The Dells wish to designate Roger Dell as the owner of the lot originally intended for the use of Gregory Dell. The Carroll County Advisory Board approved the request. The request conforms to local planning and zoning regulations.

Foundation staff recommends approval based on the Foundation’s Multiple Owner/ Multiple Properties Lot Policy which allows any one of the owners of the property to be the designated owner of the owner’s lot, providing all titled landowners of the property agree.

Mr. Tassone asked for clarification of what the Board was being asked to approve. Mr. Conrad stated that there is a request for change of the ownership structure of the property to a corporation owned by the two brothers, rather than the property being owned by the two brothers individually. The brothers are asking what the implications are or the impact as far as the remaining lot rights since they changed the ownership structure. Mr. Conrad stated that the issue had not been resolved, but that it will be discussed by Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services and Craig Nielsen, Agriculture’s Assistant Attorney General. Mr. Conrad stated we needed to get more information from the landowners regarding this.

Motion #6: To approve the request for a lot re-designation

Motion: Joseph Tassone Second: Douglas Wilson

Status: Approved

5. 06-14-85-11esx1 FISCHER, Louis M. & Betty O. 105.4500 acres

Request to relocate a previously approved child’s lot for easement property

Mr. Conrad stated Mr. and Mrs. Fischer are the original owners of the easement property. The current request is for the relocation of a previously approved child’s lot for their daughter Katherine Koons.

On May 28, 1991, the Board approved a child’s lot for Katherine Koons, the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Fischer.

According to Carroll County, the previously approved location posed safety concerns to Mr. and Mrs. Fischer and their daughter, including proximity to a busy horse-riding trail, which could be hazardous to Ms. Koons’ young child. The proposed relocation is located next to woodland. Access to the lot will be through a 400’ right-of-way, primarily along the edge of woodland. Both the original lot location and the proposed location are in cropland.

The new location is consistent with local zoning regulations and Carroll County Advisory Board has approved the new location.

Foundation staff recommends approval of the new location for Katherine Koons as the location will have a minimal impact on the agricultural operation of the farm.

It was questioned if the approval was for a one acre lot. Mr. Conrad stated it was, however, he noted that this request may be back before us in the future, since Carroll County may require additional acreage to meet local requirements.

Motion #7: To approve the request to relocate a previously approved child’s lot on easement property.

Motion: Lewis Logan Second: Joseph Tassone

Status: Approved

B. KENT COUNTY

1. 14-01-02-06 JOHNSON, Anthony 277.9400 acres

Request to exclude up to 1 acre for a child’s lot to be used for septic system.

Mr. Conrad noted this is an interesting request. A similar request was approved in the past. Mr. Johnson is the original owner of the district property. The current request is for the exclusion of a 1-acre lot for the personal use of his daughter, Dana Johnson Shields.

According to Kent County, Ms. Shields currently resides in a dwelling on a ½ -acre lot, which is located adjacent to the district property. The lot was conveyed from the farm to Ms. Shields many years ago, prior to district establishment.

Recently Ms. Shields began the process of a home renovation. During the process, she was informed by Kent County Health Department that her septic system was failing. Her ½ - acre lot is oddly shaped and a suitable perc site could not be located on her property. The closest approved perc site is located on her father’s district property. Mr. Johnson is requesting that the Foundation allow Ms. Shields to use her right to a child’s lot to expand her current lot to accommodate the septic system.

Mr. Conrad explained there is one pre-existing dwelling on the district property. No other lot exclusions have been requested on the property. Mr. Johnson does not own another district or easement property.

According to Kent County, the area requested to be released is currently not being tilled and there will be minimal impact on the operation of the farm.

The request conforms to local zoning regulations and approval has been granted by the local Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board. Kent County asks that the Foundation release an area no greater than what is necessary to accommodate the perc site, up to 1-acre.

Foundation staff recommends approval based on COMAR 15.15.01.03F(1) which states that “A landowner may request to have excluded from a district certain portions of the owner’s property constituting lots of 1 acre or less for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for the use of the owner or the owner’s children.” Further, staff recommends approval as the land to be released will not be used to construct a new dwelling, i.e. a child of the owner who has a right to a build a home on the district property, has forfeited that right, resulting in less potential development of the farm. As the area is zoned agricultural, with an allowed density of 1:20 acres, it is unlikely that the lot can be subdivided. Additionally, there is precedence of Board approval of a child’s lot for a similar use. On December 18, 2001, the Board approved a 1-acre child’s lot for the expansion of an adjacent lot owned by the child of the owner. Mr. Conrad noted that Carla Martin, Kent County Program Administrator was here to answer any questions.

Dr. James Pelura, Trustee, asked for clarification regarding the request. Mr. Conrad answered that the regulations say to allow the building of a dwelling; it does not specify the dwelling has to be on that lot.

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, DGS, stated that the daughter’s lot was excluded way before it came into the district and we have no control over that. Ms. Forrester further stated that it makes sense to allow this because she could in theory ask for a 1.00 acre lot and build another house, and then there would be two houses out there. The request is furthering the purposes of the Foundation’s goals to limit development.

Mr. Wilson asked why a similar request (December 18, 2001) was approved.

Mr. Conrad stated that in doing this the child no longer has the right to build a house on the property because they have used up that right with this request. That right, is now gone. Mr. Wilson stated that this is specifically being done to preclude a request for a child’s lot. This would be the rationale we would use.

Motion #8: To approve the request to exclude up to 1 acre for a child’s lot for a septic system

Motion: Joseph Tassone Second: Judy Lynch

Status: Approved

III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS

Mr. Conrad presented a petition to establish an agricultural preservation district.

A. KENT COUNTY

1. 14-03-04-04 FRY, Edwin C. & Lorraine R. 404.0000 acres

Mr. Conrad read from the staff report stating the property is a tree farm with 87.4% qualifying soils and three dwellings on the property. The property has a soil conservation plan, but no forest management plan. Five acres are being withheld for active gravel mining. There is a third party interest, Fair Hill Farms operates a licensed borrow pit (less than 5 acres) for Bank Run Gravel. Foundation Staff recommends approval.

Vera Mae Schultz, Trustee, asked why there was not a forest management plan on the property. Carla Martin spoke up and said it was not a tree farm, but a dairy farm.

Mr. Conrad stated that in the Annotated Code it states you can bring a property in with an active gravel pit on it but you cannot expand it in the future unless you have your expansion plans approved in advance by the Foundation’s Board of Trustees prior to going under the easement. In this case, they withheld acreage before coming into the program.

Motion #9: To approve the request of Edwin C. Fry and Lorraine R. Fry to establish an agricultural land preservation district.

Motion: Joseph Tassone Second: Douglas Wilson

Status: Approved

IV. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION

Sand and Gravel Report

Mr. Conrad stated that prior to the reviewing the withheld acreage policy, the members of the Sand and Gravel Steering Committee were here to give a presentation. The Steering Committee had asked to meet with the Board of Trustees in order to discuss the draft of the sand and gravel report.

Mr. Conrad stated that the Sand and Gravel Steering Committee had completed a study of the effects that mining may have on district and easement properties. Mr. Conrad turned the meeting over to Donna Mennitto, Consultant for the Sand and Gravel Pilot Study, for further discussion.

Donna Mennitto provided some history of the committee and distributed information. She explained the focus of the study is to determine if sand and gravel mining were to occur, could the land used for sand and gravel extraction be reclaimed to productivity at least as great as pre-mining levels? What are the scientific and practical issues associated with it and is sand and gravel mining appropriate on MALPF districts and easements and if so under what circumstances?

Ms. Mennitto discussed the Sand and Gravel regulatory processes. She briefly discussed other State’s with land preservation programs relative to Sand and Gravel. She also explained that most counties only allow the process by special exception process in their agricultural or rural zones. The Maryland Department of Environment issues a surface mine permit, which includes soil conservation district review and a reclamation plan. Of 267 current permits (pits), 48 are intended for return to field agriculture, 17 to agricultural-related ponds.

Ms. Mennito discussed the results of case studies, using several slides to illustrate the case studies. She noted six farms were visited by the Steering Committee in 2000. She explained anecdotal information was gathered this year from landowner interviews, public records and field observation. The case studies show the variety of scale and outcomes of sand and gravel mining on coastal plain farms. The circumstances of each property raised issues to be thought about for this investigation.

Ms. Mennitto discussed the issues:

· Finding ways to protect both mineral and agricultural resources is becoming more important as sprawling development puts pressure on both industries.

· Sand and Gravel extraction does not occur in all parts of the state, however, it supplies the construction industry throughout the state just as food produced in certain parts of the state is consumed well beyond those areas.

· Successive use of land for mining and farming has been happening for decades in parts of the state without systematic documentation of reclamation results.

Ms. Mennitto also presented the conclusions:

It is likely that land can be reclaimed to pre-mining levels but it is not an accidental process. A reclamation plan is required beyond regulatory minimums that plans for:

1. Fields; storage and handling of material, depth of excavation, grading, quality and amount of biosolids applied, scale and timing relative to agricultural activity. However, Guidelines do not yet exist

2. Aquaculture: pre-mining water testing, dept and shape of ponds. Guidelines exist but not required to be followed.

3. Optimal reclamation of productive agricultural land after mining should be goal throughout the state, regardless of status.

4. Guidelines (BMPs) are needed for all reclamation for agricultural land.

5. Current level of experience suggests that a careful, incremental approach to blending of uses possible in MALPF is reasonable. Research and guidelines would add to confidence in predictable outcome.

Ms. Mennitto discussed the recommendations:

Recommendation #1:

Amend State law and clarify regulations to allow discretion to MALPF Trustees to consider limited sand and gravel mining on a case-by-case basis with specific parameters. All would be subject to local and state regulatory approvals; local approvals and minimum soils eligibility (50% Class I, II and III must be met with natural soils).

For properties already mined applying for District creation:

· In lieu of minimum natural soils, capability of ‘made’ soil must be assessed by soil scientist at owner’s expense plus three years of crop data.

District Farm Asks to Mine:

· Minimum eligibility natural soils remain undisturbed. Farming can continue during mining.

· Before and after production data is kept.

· No application for easement sale until reclamation complete. Offer not guaranteed.

Easement Farm Asks to Mine:

· Minimum eligibility natural soils remain undisturbed. Farming able to continue during mining.

· Total mining impact less than 20% of total easement acres

· Before and after production data is kept.

· Reclamation plan to return to previous use. Aquaculture facility designed.

· Amendment to termination clause.

Recommendation #2:

Build confidence in a predictable outcome by monitoring case study sites, conducting research and developing field reclamation best management practices. Broaden their application beyond the MALPF Program.

· Continue to monitor case study properties, determine post-mining soil capability, and track crop production. Add aquaculture operation.

· Development BMPs with experienced individuals and groups for optimizing post mining agricultural production. Should include:

1. Storage and handling of topsoil and overburden

2. Depth of excavation

3. Quality and quantity of the biosolids applied.

4. Role of scale and timing relative to other BMPs and on-going agricultural operations.

5. For aquaculture, completeness of existing standards.

A lengthy discussion ensued. It was generally agreed that this is not something that we can implement tomorrow.

Ms. Mennito stated that recommendation # 1 will require action by the legislature and that recommendation # 2 will require coordination by governing body and involvement of Maryland Department of Environment and Maryland Department of Agriculture and operating funds for research and data collection.

Mr. Wilson asked Ms. Mennitto about the idea of a bond, similar to what another State preservation program uses. Ms. Menitto said the bond could be problematic. The property would already be bonded through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Ed Larrimore, MDE, stated that a reclamation bond is required for the permitted acres to make sure reclamation is done per the plan. He feels that we may have a difficult time getting another bond. The bond market has been very difficult to manage itself. The actual implementation may be difficult. It may be problematic if a separate bond were required. Discussion ensued about bonding.

Mr. Wilson stated that five or six years ago it was thought that mining of Sand and Gravel was not “do-able”. He stated that based on the information from the report and the pictures the Board saw, in certain circumstances it may be “do-able”. Mr. Wilson cautioned, it would have to be tightly controlled and tightly monitored. Mr. Wilson reminded the Board the purpose of the original legislation that set up the pilot program was for the Foundation to make a determination if this were possible, not necessarily to resolve the issue right away.

Mr. Wilson stated that the committee has made two recommendations. He said Board’s task is to provide a report to the General Assembly. In that report we could say that the Foundation recognizes that new technology has emerged. It is possible that certain applications could move forward in a strictly controlled environment, whether it be before an easement or after an easement. He further stated the Foundation will work towards developing regulations/law so we can move forward and submitting them to the proper authority. We would be saying that if someone meets specific conditions they can move forward and be considered for the MALPF program. He reiterated that is all we would be saying. The Board recognizes, of course, that more work needs to be done on this.

Mr. Wilson stated we can accept the report of the steering committee and it would be our intent to draft the regulations/law that would begin this process.

Motion #10: To accept the Sand and Gravel report and agree to work towards developing language that could implement the opportunity for sand and gravel operation to occur on MALPF properties.

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Vera Mae Schultz

Status: Approved

Opposed: Dan Colhoun

A. Withheld Acreage Policy – Feedback from MALPF County Program Administrators

Mr. Conrad asked to Board to go back to the Withheld Acreage Policy. He stated Foundation staff originally brought the withheld acreage policy to the Foundation about 2 months ago, and it was requested by Doug that we have the policy reviewed by Program Administrators. The policy was circulated to Program Administrators, who provided us comments.

The MALPF Task Force’s “Interim Report for the 2003 Legislative Session” (January 2003) recommended that the Foundation’s Board of Trustees clarify its policy on landowners establishing districts excluding some of the acreage from the district. The Task Force recommended that the Board establish and begin using appropriate guidelines to address this issue, recognizing both that there are legitimate reasons to exclude land from a district and that the potential exists for commercial, industrial, or residential development to take place on excluded acreage that could diminish the state’s investment in the remaining acreage. No guidelines currently exist to guide the Board’s decisions when land is requested to be withheld from a district petition.

Because of the new lot exclusion policy adopted on the recommendation of the Task Force in the 2003 Legislative Session, the need for a clear policy on withheld acreage during district establishment is even more compelling. The maximum number of lots that can be excluded from an easement property has been reduced from ten to three. Landowners who do not need family lots will likely choose the unrestricted lot option, even more restrictive of development. Further, landowners with pre-existing houses on their potential district property will have a strong incentive to exclude them at district establishment or risk not being able to subdivide them in the future (or only being able to subdivide them by losing lot rights). Thus, withheld acreage guidelines need to be very clear for the Board, program administrators counseling potential program participants, and to landowners considering establishing agricultural districts.

The Task Force recommends the following:

· The Foundation should establish a policy guiding the approval of districts from which contiguous acreage is being excluded.

· In general, the Foundation should accept district applications if withheld land poses little or no potential risk to future agriculture and forestry on the district.

· The Foundation should reach agreements with each county to ensure that development rights the State pays to extinguish are not retained for private use by the original or a subsequent land owner of withheld land.

Legitimate Reasons for Exclusion of Land from Districts:

· To meet qualifying soils criteria

· Land excluded is zoned for development

· Land is planed for a non-agricultural public purpose

· Excluded land contains existing commercial or residential development

· Withheld land poses little or no potential risk to investment in the district for agriculture

· Land is under local agricultural zoning and will allow three or fewer lots

Comments on the proposed policy from the Program Administrators were received:

Barbara Polito, Anne Arundel Program Administrator, stated that her county’s advisory board proposed that MALPF add the following to the policy as one of the conditions for allowing acreage to be withheld: “Such other legitimate reasons as the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation may determine.” Bill Powel, Carroll County Program Administrator, proposed that the Foundation consider allowing the owner of a farm that does not have a dwelling on it to exclude up to two acres for a dwelling for a current or subsequent owner. The excluded acreage should not be sub-dividable from the farm.

Carla Martin, Kent County Program Administrator, stated that her county has a policy of not allowing landowners to exclude land from a district.

John Zawitoski, Montgomery County Program Administrator, also provided comments. His main points are that any policy should consider the zoning of acreage withheld. Policy should reflect a written declaration from the landowner as to the intent for withholding acreage. There should be agreement from local agricultural land preservation advisory board and Board of Trustees that the withheld acreage would not threaten the integrity or the viability of the district or farming operation. Make it possible for withheld acreage to be done for economic security reasons.

Joseph Tassone, Trustee, stated that everyone had provided good comments. He asked if we could take the policy as articulated now and incorporate Barbara and Bill’s points. Nancy Forrester stated that, if we include Barbara’s statement, that would incorporate everyone’s concerns. Mr. Tassone asked about John Zawitoski’s point, regarding the written declaration from the landowner. Mr. Conrad stated that it’s related, but not usually from the landowner. He stated it is usually in the report presented from the county. Mr. Conrad did not feel that a statement like that is not a legal document that they can be held to.

After some discussion, Mr. Conrad stated it becomes more compelling for us to adopt guidelines because of the changed legislation towards pre-existing dwellings. If landowners do not take them out ahead of time, they may be stuck with them on the farm forever. Mr. Conrad further stated he would like to have the policy adopted so it can be placed in the Maryland Register. Mr. Conrad will work with staff and incorporate the comments received from the Program Administrators into the proposed policy.

Motion #11: To approve the Withheld Acreage Policy after incorporating comments received from the Program Administrators.

Motion: Joseph Tassone Second: Douglas Wilson

Status: Approved

Mr. Wilson notified the Board there would be a brief Executive Session. Mr. Jones asked if there was any further business to discuss.

Motion #12: There being no further business to discuss, the regular session meeting should be adjourned.

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Lewis Logan

Status: Approved

The regular session Board meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

________________________________________

James A. Conrad, Executive Director

________________________________________

Iva Frantz, Administrative Officer