MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION
MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Allen H. Cohey
Daniel W. Colhoun
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Chairman
Jerry Klasmeier,
representing Comptroller Schaefer
Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer
Kopp
Judith C. Lynch
James Pelura,
D.V.M.
Shirley W.
Pilchard
Vera Mae Schultz
Joseph F. Tassone,
representing Secretary Scott, Dept. of Planning
Douglas H. Wilson, representing
Secretary Riley, Dept. of Agriculture
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Mildred H. Darcey
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tammy Buckle,
James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive
Director
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney
General, Dept. of General Services
Iva L. Frantz, MALPF Administrative
Officer
Dave Kelleher, Asst. Chief, Appraisal
& Valuation, Department of General Services
Joy Levy, Howard
Carla
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney
General, Dept. of Agriculture
Bill Powel, Carroll
Charles Rice, Charles
Radhika Sakhamuri,
Queen Anne's
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF
Administrative Officer
Florence H. Wolfe,
Vernon C. Wolfe,
John Zawitoski,
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., 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 the
Motion: Joseph
Tassone Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
Motion
#2: To approve the minutes of the
Motion: Allen
Cohey Second:
Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
B. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
James Conrad,
Executive Director, stated that the State of
Mr. Conrad asked
Mr. Wilson if he has any comments about the budget. Mr. Wilson stated that the $5 million bond
bill was still on track to be approved this year but it is still possible that
changes will be made. He will keep the
Board informed as developments occur.
II. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 10-26-90-09c GROSSNICKLE, Gary L. & Cindy C. 162.00 acres
Request for a
tenant house on district property.
Mr. Conrad presented the request of
Mr. and Mrs. Grossnickle for a tenant house for the
use of a tenant fully engaged in the operation of the farm. Mr. and Mrs. Grossnickle
are the original owners of the district property.
Mr. Hernandez is employed full-time
as a milkman and a general laborer on the farm.
The Grossnickles have a 250-head dairy
operation. According to
Motion
#3: To approve the request of
Motion: Lewis
Logan Second: Joseph Tassone
Status: Approved
2. 10-01-98-05 STUP, Howard J. & Texanna
B. 139.00
acres
Request for the exclusion of up to 2
acres for a child’s lot on easement property
Mr. Conrad
stated that the staff has altered the procedure for lot requests with lot sizes
in excess of one acre, which usually involve issues related to septic
requirements. In the future, the staff
will recommend the approval of a lot size of up to two acres in circumstances
where the Program Administrators believe there may be perk problems on
properties. The Board has approved such
requests in the past. Under the new
procedure, the letter from the Health Department verifying the requirement for
additional acreage must be provided, along with the metes and bounds, at the
time of the request for the Preliminary Release of the lot. The lot size to be released must not exceed
the size recommended by the Health Department.
The staff has taken this action to avoid the burden on the landowner and
county staff when lot sizes must be increased to satisfy septic requirements;
such requests must be brought back to the Foundation when additional acreage is
required. The following request from Mr.
and Mrs. Stup is a request for the release of up to
two acres.
Mr. and Mrs. Stup are the original owners of the easement property. The current request is for the release of up
to two acres for a child’s lot for the personal use of their son, Gregory. Mr. and Mrs. Stup
do not own any other district or easement property. There have not been any other lot requests
for this property. The Stups subdivided a lot for another son prior to entering
the Program. A lot size of up to two
acres is requested to meet Health Department requirements.
According to
If the request
is approved, there will be a required payback to the Foundation of the per acre
amount of $1,900.00, which the landowner received for the easement. The full amount will be determined when the
landowner submits a metes and bounds and a letter from the Health Department
indicating the amount of land required to meet the septic requirements.
Staff recommends
approval of the release of one acre plus such minimum additional acreage if
required by the County Health Department, not to exceed 2 acres total, 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
#4: To approve the request of
Howard J. & Texanna B. Stup
to exclude one acre plus such minimum additional acreage if required by the
County Health Department, not to exceed 2 acres total
Motion: Shirley
Pilchard Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
B.
1. 06-01-80-02e BANKARD, Robert E., & JANAC, Lois B. 135.69 acres
Request for a lot
under the terms of HB 131.
Mr. Conrad presented the request of
Robert E. & Janac and Lois B. Bankard
for a lot under the terms of HB131. Mr. Bankard and Ms. Janac are the
original owners of the easement property.
HB 131 is the
legislative basis for the statute, Agricultural Article, Section 2-513
(2)(b)(7), Annotated Code of Maryland, 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.
No dwellings
existed on the property at the time of easement sale. No lots have been requested on this
property. If approved, the dwelling
cannot be subdivided from the farm. According to
Vera Mae Schultz
inquired about the figure shown adjacent to the subject property on the tax map
which was provided with the request.
Bill Powel could not say what the figure represents as he did not visit
the site. His assistant, Ralph Robertson
visited the site. Douglas Wilson
suggested that MALPF and
Motion
#5: To approve the request of
Robert E. & Janac and Lois B. Bankard
for a lot under the terms of HB131.
Additionally, MALPF staff will work with
Motion: Joseph
Tassone Second: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
2. 06-06-87-03
WOLFE, Vernon C. and Florence H. 105.00 acres
Request for an increase in the size
of an already approved owner’s lot on easement property.
Mr. Conrad stated the Mr. and Mrs.
Wolfe were present in the audience. They
are the original owners of the easement property. The current request is for an increase in the
size of a previously approved owner’s lot to meet septic requirements.
On
If the request is approved, there is
a requirement of an additional payback to the Foundation of the per acre amount
which the landowner received for the easement.
The full amount of the payback will be $2,246.13. Staff recommends approval.
Motion
#6: To approve the request of
Vernon C. and Florence H. Wolfe to increase the size of their owner’s lot to
1.32 acres.
Motion: Judith
Lynch Second: Joseph Tassone
Status: Approved
3. 06-07-80-18e MANN, Roland H. & Kathleen P. 144.49 acres
Request to relocate a pre-existing
dwelling on easement property.
Mr. Conrad
presented the request of Mr. and Mrs. Mann to relocate a pre-existing dwelling
on their property. They are the original
owners of the easement property and are in the process of selling the farm. The contract purchasers wish to relocate the
pre-existing dwelling and construct a new home for their use.
The proposed
relocation is along the wood line.
Access will be through an existing farm lane or through the woods. The pre-existing dwelling will be demolished
and the location will be used as a pasture area.
The request was
approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations.
Foundation staff recommends approval subject to the condition that the area
from which the dwelling is being relocated will be returned to agriculture.
Mr. Tassone asked Mr. Powel if he thought that moving the
dwelling compromises the agricultural use of the property in any way. Mr. Powel replied that it would not. Mr. Powel added that
Motion
#7: To approve the request of
Roland H. and Kathleen P. Mann to relocate a preexisting dwelling conditional
upon clarification of the ownership of the property; that the area where the
original dwelling is located will be returned to agriculture; and the new lot
resulting from the relocation of the pre-existing dwelling will not be
sub-dividable.
Motion: Joseph
Tassone Second: Douglas Wilson
Status: Approved
C.
1. 07-09-99-06 REISLER, Ralph E. & Nancy G. 45.50 acres
Request for a one-acre owner’s lot on district property
Mr. Conrad presented the request of
Mr. and Mrs. Reisler for a one-acre owner’s lot for
the construction of a dwelling for their personal use. They are the original owners of the district
property. The Reislers
do not own any other district or easement property.
According to
Ms. Schultz noted that the
landowner’s application form states that there is no pre-existing dwelling on
the property, yet the assessments and taxation information shows a dwelling on
the property. Ms. Weaver stated that the
landowners who fill out the forms often do not understand the questions on the
forms. Staff does not use the form as a
data source. Staff uses the data in the
files to review the request. When staff
reviews the requests, the file is examined to determine whether the landowner
has a right to the lot that is being requested; that is whether there is
sufficient acreage and whether a lot right has been granted to the landowner on
the subject property or on another property.
Mr. Tassone
asked if the concern is if there is an existing dwelling on the property, why
the landowner would need another dwelling.
Mr. Wilson stated that is not the concern because regardless of whether
or not there is another dwelling on the property, the landowner has a right to
an owner’s lot. The concern is the
accuracy of the information provided regarding an existing dwelling. Mr. Wilson stated that staff should check the
file to make sure that the information in the file and the database is correct.
Motion
#8: To approve the request of
Ralph E. & Nancy G. Reisler for an owner’s lot.
Motion: Douglas
Wilson Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
Mr. Tassone
asked about the status of HB 164 which deals with the resale of released
lots. He stated that Ms. Schultz’s
question regarding the Reisler request reminded him
of the bill. Mr. Conrad stated that the
bill was passed by the House and will go to a hearing in the Senate in the
upcoming week.
III. AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
Mr. Conrad presented the petitions
to establish agricultural preservation districts. He stated that Joy Levy, Program
Administrator for
A.
1. 13-04-04-01 SPENCE,
Barbara C. 14.36
acres
This
property has 86% qualifying soils, one dwelling on the property; the property
is primarily in pasture. No acreage is
being withheld. The property is located
in an area of high development pressure.
Staff recommends approval based on meeting qualifying soils and being
located next to protected farmland.
Mr. Wilson
asked if the property owners had applied for the
Mr. Tassone asked Ms. Levy about the map that she displayed for
the Board. Ms. Levy pointed out the
protected land around the proposed district property. Mr. Tassone asked
again why the county will not accept the property into its own program if the
county believes it is such an important property. Ms. Levy stated that the county has a 20-acre
minimum size criterion. Mr. Tassone asked why they do not have a size exception
criterion like MALPF’s, which allows smaller
properties to enter the program when they are adjacent to protected land. Ms. Levy stated that the county has
considered it but does not know whether the county will approve an
exception. Daniel Colhoun
asked if she thought
Mr. Tassone asked if it would be okay with the Board if both
1. 13-04-04-02 ROSCOE,
George S. & Dana H. 10.21
acres
Ms. Levy
displayed a map showing the Roscoe property.
Ms. Levy stated that she concedes that the Roscoe property is not as
well protected as the Spence property.
The Roscoe property qualified for the MALPF program as it is adjacent to
a recently acquired MALPF property and a county agricultural easement property.
Mr. Conrad
stated that he has two concerns. The
first issue involves the development potential on the properties. His second concern is the economic viability
of the operations. He asked if the
properties are economically viable stand-alone agricultural operations. He stated that he is raising the concern
because this issue will come up when property owners may attempt to terminate
the easement after 25 years if they can prove that the farms are no longer
economically viable. Ms. Levy stated
that on the Spence property, the owner boards old horses that are no longer being
raced. On the Roscoe property, the
landowner grows hay. Ms. Levy stated
that concerning the development potential, the zoning is 1 per 4.25 acres.
John Zawitoski, Montgomery County Program Administrator, stated
that
Dr. Pelura asked about the nature of the Spence horse
operation. Ms. Levy stated that Ms.
Spence refers to her operation as a rescue operation. Dr. Pelura asked if
Ms. Roscoe performs an agricultural service.
Ms. Levy said she could not answer whether the service Ms. Spence
performs could be considered an agricultural use of the land. Ms. Levy sated that she thought the issue of
what constitutes agricultural use was subjective.
Mr. Tassone stated that he felt the Board should decide to vote
on the properties. He reminded the Board
that in recent easement purchases in
Mr. Tassone asked if there are clear criteria which we use to
determine which properties can be accepted as districts. Craig Nielsen, Foundation counsel, stated
that there is a regulation governing the size criteria for district
establishment. Mr. Tassone
asked if the Foundation has a basis for not accepting properties into districts
other than what is stated in regulation and if the Foundation’s Board has any
discretion in determining which properties should come into the program. Mr. Nielsen stated the Foundation could adopt
a new regulation. Mr. Tassone asked if the Board could vote to not accept the
properties right now. Mr. Nielsen stated
that the Foundation could if it had a reason.
Mr. Tassone stated that he did not feel it was
worth arguing about these particular properties at this time. He stated that instead the Board should
approve the two districts but the Foundation should address the issue either
through the Policy Review Committee or the Task Force because the Foundation
needs the flexibility to exercise discretion in making decisions about district
properties.
Mr. Conrad
stated that he would like to add that these properties may in the future prove
not to be stand alone economically viable operations. He suggested that the Board as part of its
motion place a condition that if easements are sold, the 25-year termination
clause must be eliminated.
Mr. Cohey stated that he believes that small parcels like the
current properties being proposed for districts are draining the resources of
the Foundation. There are many with
owners of larger properties that are applying to the program but the Foundation
cannot buy easements on them because of lack of funds. He stated that if
Motion
#9: To approve the request of the
Barbara C. Spence and George S. and Dana H. Roscoe to establish agricultural
land preservation districts on their properties with the condition that if
easements are sold, the 25-year termination clause will be removed; and to look
into methods that would allow the Foundation more discretion in deciding which
properties will be accepted into the program.
Motion: Joseph
Tassone Second: Douglas Wilson
Status: Approved
Opposed: Allen Cohey,
Dr. Pelura
IV. PROGRAM
POLICY
A. Pre-existing
dwelling status under new lot legislation
Mr. Conrad stated that the issue of
the impact of new legislation of pre-existing dwellings was discussed at the
Policy Review Committee meeting prior to the Board meeting. The issue was not resolved during the
meeting. Mr. Conrad encouraged the Board
members to read the material was distributed.
He stated that, if anyone has comments, he would like to hear them.
L.C. Jones asked if there was any
further business for discussion.
Motion
#10: There being no further
non-Executive Session business to discuss, the regular session meeting should
be adjourned.
Motion: Joseph
Tassone Second:
Douglas Wilson
Status: Approved
The regular session Board meeting
was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully Submitted:
_______________________________________
Elizabeth Weaver, Administrative
Officer
_______________________________________
James A. Conrad, Executive Director