MALPF Board Minutes: April 27, 2004

MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION

MINUTES

April 27, 2004

TRUSTEES PRESENT:

Allen H. Cohey

Daniel W. Colhoun

Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Chairman

Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer Kopp

James Pelura, D.V.M.

Shirley W. Pilchard

Vera Mae Schultz

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

TRUSTEES ABSENT:

Mildred H. Darcey

Jerry Klasmeier, representing Comptroller Schaefer

Judith C. Lynch

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

OTHERS PRESENT:

Bill Amoss, Harford County Program Administrator

Tammy Buckle, Caroline County Program Administrator

James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive Director

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

Iva L. Frantz, MALPF Administrative Officer

Karen Houtman, Dorchester County

Sonja Ingram, Frederick County Program Administrator

Joe Kuhn, Chairman, Carroll County Advisory Board

Joy Levy, Howard County Program Administrator

Carla Martin, Kent County Program Administrator

Jason Myers, Carroll County landowner

Eileen Powers, Attorney for Sally Murray property

Charles Rice, Charles County Program Administrator

Ralph Robertson, Carroll County Program Administrator

Jim Rutledge, Attorney for Mr. Markline

Radhika Sakhamuri, Queen Anne's County Program Administrator

Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Administrative Officer

Gabe Zepp, Carroll County landowner

Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. at the Maryland Department of Agriculture building, Annapolis, Maryland. Mr. Jones asked guests to introduce themselves.

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

A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, March 23, 2004

James Conrad, Executive Director, requested the Board to look over the minutes carefully and if any changes are needed to advise him. A portion of last month’s taped minutes were lost.

Motion #1: To approve the minutes of the March 23, 2004, Board meeting (subject to revising if any changes are needed)

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Allen Cohey

Status: Approved

Motion #2: To approve the minutes of the March 23, 2004, Executive Session Board meeting (subject to revising if any changes are needed).

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Allen Cohey

Status: Approved

B. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:

Douglas Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Maryland Department of Agriculture, reported on the capital budget. He reported the Foundation will have $5 million in bond funds. Green Print funds were reduced to $3 million. The Foundation will get a 25% share, which equates to $750,000.00. Staff had estimated $1,580,000.00 for agricultural transfer taxes and $7 million from local government, and $3.5 million from the federal government. The figure from the federal government will most likely go up now, depending on what our application shows. Mr. Wilson informed the board that the Department is in the process of writing to Secretary DiPaula (Department of Budget and Management) to fill the position for which Jim Conrad was originally hired, previous to being named Executive Director. We also need to fill Iva Frantz’s position, and we are asking to hire Ms. Frantz back contractually on a consultant basis. Clerical assistance is also needed.

Mr. Wilson stated that Mr. Conrad and he plan to meet with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Deputy, and the Foundation’s Chairman, regarding changing the commitment period of the district agreement. Currently the commitment period is for 5 years. They will discuss the possibility of having a commitment period of less than 5 years or eliminating it.

Recently Foundation staff asked the program administrators for comments regarding this because the proposal for earlier district termination was going to be introduced as a standalone bill or as an amendment to another bill. About ½ of the program administrators said MALPF should do away with the district agreement, while others said to reduce the time commitment. However, several had the opinion that MALPF should continue with the 5 year commitment period as it is now. Their feelings were it takes a lot of work to counsel people regarding the program and effort to process the district agreement, so their commitment to agricultural preservation should be a serious one.

With such a diverse range of opinions, it was difficult to argue against the bill. The Department opposed the bill based on it not having gone through the normal review process (i.e., consulting the Grange, the Agriculture Commission, Farm Bureau, etc).

Those supporting a reduction in the district commitment apparently had the votes in the Senate to attach it to one of the Department bills that was going to pass, so the Committee Chair shelved both the original bill and the departmental bill to which the amendment would have been attached. As a result, we lost the departmental bill on how appraisals are appealed.

Mr. Wilson turned the meeting over to Mr. Conrad, Executive Director. Mr. Conrad stated that there was one addition to the agenda – the Sally Murray property in Anne Arundel County. This item will be heard second. Mr. Conrad informed the board that the first item would be Kent County’s request. Mr. Conrad explained that Carla Martin, Program Administrator for Kent County, has an appointment and needs to leave shortly. Therefore, we will address that issue first.

II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT AMENDMENTS

A. KENT COUNTY

1. 14-02-01-06 FUCHS, William P. and Barry W. 217.8600 acres

Request to allow a florist/craft shop on district property

Messrs. Fuchs are the original owners of the district property. The current request is to allow a florist and craft shop on district property.

According to Kent County, Heidi Fuchs, daughter of William Fuchs and niece of Barry Fuchs, would like to operate a florist and craft shop in an old barn that is located on the property. The barn is currently not being used for agriculture.

Ms. Fuchs currently resides in a tenant house which was approved by the Foundation on March 25, 2004. Heidi Fuchs works for her brother, Trevor Fuchs, who runs the dairy operation on the farm. There is one pre-existing dwelling on the farm.

Ms. Fuchs would be required to obtain a special exception because county regulations do not allow the proposed activity in the area where the farm is located.

Foundation staff and counsel recommend denial of the request as presented. However, staff suggests two alternatives which may allow Ms. Fuchs to operate the business on the farm: 1) Operate the business from the home, which could be excluded from the district; or 2) if the landowner wants to use the barn, at least 50% of the flowers that are sold in the shop should be grown on the property. Only items that are accessory to the business should be sold. The staff recommendation is based on the recommendations of the Task Force, which allow certain home occupations on MALPF properties, with the conditions that: 1) the business is run by residents only; 2) the business shall be operated within structures existing at the time of recordation; and 3) no retail sales are permitted unless the sale is accessory to the service offered. While not explicitly stated in the Task Force report, Foundation staff believes (and verified by conversations with sub-committee members) that it was the intent of the Task Force that, unless the business has a direct relationship with agriculture, home occupations should be run out of the home only. The Task Force recommends allowing the sale of products on district or easement property if the product is directly related to agriculture and 50% or more of the product is produced on the farm. Mr. Conrad stated that we did not have the Kent County Advisory Board recommendation at the time the agenda was prepared.

Ms. Martin, reported that the local board decided not to make a recommendation because they felt they did not have enough information. She also stated that she had attempted to get in touch with Ms. Fuchs, but that she had not returned her telephone calls. Ms. Martin went on to explain that the local board did not want to make a recommendation because approving this may set a precedent. They also wanted to know if Ms. Fuchs was going to be selling flowers grown on the farm. Ms. Martin did not have the answer for that. Ms. Martin stated the Advisory Board would have had a greater comfort level if Ms. Fuchs would be selling flowers grown on the site.

Mr. Wilson stated that florists import most of their flowers. Dan Colhoun, Trustee, stated he was concerned that the local advisory board took no action and declined to give a recommendation. He felt we should deny the request. L. C. Jones, Chairman, clarified that the Foundation staff had recommended denying the request. He asked Mr. Colhoun if his motion was to approve the staff’s recommendation. Mr. Colhoun answered affirmatively.

Mr. Wilson addressed the Board and stated that his goal was to follow what the Task Force asked the Foundation to do. He did not want the Board to flat out deny the request stating the Board could approve the request, but outline the restrictions to the landowner.

Vera Mae Schultz, Trustee, stated that the Board has the option to table action on this until the County is satisfied. Mr. Wilson concurred stating the Board can defer decision on it and refer it back to the local government for more information.

Dr. Pelura, Trustee, stated that no one has addressed the craft shop and asked Ms. Martin if the landowner was aware of the conditions the Foundation would require for approval. Ms. Martin stated the landowner was not told of the staff’s recommendation. Dr. Pelura stated that he feels the landowner should be made aware of the staff’s recommendation. He feels the Board should deny the request. He stated the landowner may want to come back and resubmit the request after she is advised of the conditions.

Mr. Conrad, stated that he agreed with Dr. Pelura that the issue of the craft shop was not really addressed in the information. He wondered if that would be acceptable as a home occupation under certain conditions or would it be considered not related to agriculture.

Mr. Jones said we had a motion to deny the request and a second. The Board voted unanimously to deny the request.

Motion #3: To deny the request of William P. and Barry W. Fuchs for a florist/craft shop on district property.

Motion: Dan Colhoun Second: Dr. James Pelura

Status: Approved

Mr. Wilson asked staff to make certain that the letter to the landowner explicitly states the reasons for denial and that the Foundation is following the recommendation of the Task Force.

Mr. Conrad stated the next item to be heard was from Anne Arundel County on the Sally Murray property.

B. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

1. 02-07-80-02B MURRAY, Sally, et al 66 acres

Request to increase the size of an already approved child’s lot

Mr. Conrad asked Elizabeth Weaver, Foundation staff, to present the agenda item to the Board.

Ms. Murray, et al, is the original owner of the easement property. The current request is to increase the size of an already approved child’s lot to satisfy Anne Arundel County zoning regulations.

On November 28, 1995, the Foundation approved the release of a child’s lot for Ms. Murray’s son, David M. Edwards. Subsequent to the approval, Ms. Murray’s neighbors, John W. Holaday, et al, sued the Foundation with Ms. Murray as a co-defendant, to prevent the location of the child’s lot in the area approved by the Foundation. On March 25, 2003, the Foundation’s Board, in consultation with Craig Nielsen, MALPF counsel, approved the relocation of the child’s lot.

On August 26, 2003, the Foundation approved the release of an additional 0.4 acres for the child’s lot (Lot 2) to satisfy Anne Arundel County’s subdivision requirements. However, Anne Arundel County’s Department of Planning and Zoning has recently informed Ms. Murray that she will need a minimum lot size of two acres to comply with the County Critical Area requirement for intra-family transfers, which states: “Each lot created for an intra-family transfer shall be at least two acres….” Article 28, Anne Arundel County Code, §1A-107(d).

The local agricultural advisory board has not heard this request as there has been inadequate time for the board to review the request in the time since the county notified Ms. Murray of the change in the size requirement. Ms. Murray and her son have been prevented, through no fault of their own, from building on a child’s lot that was originally approved by the Foundation more than seven years ago. In a conversation with Barbara Polito, Program Administrator for Anne Arundel County, Foundation staff suggested, and Ms. Polito concurred, that the request go forward to the Foundation’s Board provided any approval be made contingent upon: 1.) the approval of the local agricultural advisory board; and 2.) the receipt of a letter from the county’s Department of Planning and Zoning confirming the requirement for a 2-acre lot.

Foundation staff recommends approval, contingent upon the approval of the Anne Arundel County Agricultural Advisory Board, to increase the size of the child’s lot to two acres 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.

Ms. Weaver explained that a preliminary release of 1.4 acres has been recorded and now it needs to be increased to 2 acres.

Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer Kopp, made a motion for approval of the request. Mr. Wilson provided a second.

Dr. Pelura stated he would abstain from the vote since he has a professional relationship with the Murray family.

Mr. Colhoun questioned if the Board of Trustees should be approving something that has not been heard by the local advisory board. Mr. Colhoun stated that if there was not adequate time involved to meet regarding this issue, the County could have done a telephone poll of the advisory board members before asking the Foundation for approval.

Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer Kopp, stated that his motion was to facilitate the process for the farmer and to allow the farmer to proceed. He stated he could modify the motion for approval to be contingent on county approval. Mr. Jones stated that was what Foundation staff’s recommendation was.

Motion #4: To approve the request of Sally Murray to increase the size of the child’s lot to 2.00 acres subject to local advisory board approval.

Motion: Lewis Logan Second: Douglas Wilson

Status: Approved

Abstain: Dr. Pelura

C. HOWARD COUNTY

1. 13-04-80-04Ae SHOFFEITT, Paul G. 115.00 acres

Request to exclude an owner’s lot on easement property

Mr. Shoffeitt is the original owner of the easement property. The current request is for the approval of an owner’s lot for the personal use of Mr. Shoffeitt. In July, 2003, the Foundation approved two child’s lots from the property for the personal use of his sons, John and Michael.

Two pre-existing dwellings have been subdivided from the farm. There are no other lot exclusions on the property. Mr. Shoffeitt does not own any other district or easement properties.

According to Howard County, the lot will be located in an area of the farm that is currently in pasture. The lot will be accessed by a right-of-way along the property boundary. No payback is required as the easement preceded the payback clause.

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) “...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...”

Ms. Schultz asked if there were any dwellings on the two parcels excluded from the easement. Joy Levy, Program Administrator for Howard County stated that there was on one of the parcels excluded. Mr. Shoeffit has his home there currently. Mr. Conrad asked if Mr. Shoeffit would be selling the main residence. Ms. Levy was not sure, but that was her assumption.

Motion #5: To approve the request of Paul G. Shoffeitt to exclude an owner’s lot from easement property.

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Dan Colhoun

Status: Approved

D. HARFORD COUNTY

1. 12-04-84-01 MARKLINE, Benjamin H. and Marta Y. 115.00 acres

Request to relocate the lot around a pre-existing dwelling and re-designate a pre-existing dwelling as a tenant house on easement property.

Mr. and Mrs. Markline are the original owners of the easement property. The current request is to re-designate a pre-existing dwelling as a tenant house for the use of a tenant fully engaged in the operation of the farm and relocate the pre-existing dwelling lot to another location on the farm.

Arthur F. and Marie N. Wood are contract purchasers of the farm. The tenant who would live in the proposed (re-designated) tenant house would be fully engaged as a groom and trainer for the Woods’ 8-15 horses and as a farm worker for their planned 110-acre crop operation.

According to Harford County, the pre-existing dwelling lot would be relocated along the edge of the property. Access would be through an existing farm lane. The request was approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations.

Foundation staff and counsel recommend denial of the request. The Foundation has a policy of not allowing re-designation of lots because of the potential to encourage more development on a property than would normally be allowed under the terms of an easement. On October 28, 2003, the Board denied a request to re-designate a pre-existing dwelling as a tenant house.

Mr. Conrad introduced Mr. Rutledge to Board members, the attorney representing Mr. Markline, and William Amoss, Program Administrator for Harford County. Mr. Amoss stated there were really two separate requests in front of the Board. The first request is to move an existing main dwelling to a higher location and the second request is to ask for a tenant dwelling. Mr. Amoss stated that requests to move an existing dwelling have been brought before the Foundation in the past and generally have been approved. He stated the new owner wanted a larger home and the tenant dwelling would be the existing smaller home, which is right next to the barn.

Mr. Amoss explained to the Board that Mr. Markline has a small dairy operation and it is hard to make money in the dairy industry on such a small piece of property. Properties around Mr. Markline’s farm have become horse farms. Mr. Markline has looked at some property in upstate New York where he could have a dairy farm on larger acreage. Mr. Amoss asked Mr. Rutledge to address the Board.

Mr. Rutledge reiterated that Mr. Markline’s farm was not large enough to sustain a dairy farm, and the surrounding properties were more equine than dairy. He stated the contract purchaser would like to operate the farm as breeding operation and equine training facility. That type of facility needs and warrants a tenant house. This farm is suited for that type of operation.

He explained to the Board that when Mr. and Ms. Markline went into the agricultural land preservation program, they assumed that in the future they would be eligible to request an owner’s lot and children’s lots. He stated no one looked at the deed. He asked the board to look at the map particularly the panhandle that runs into the farm off of Harford Creamery Road. That panhandle is granted under an 1866 one page document that granted the owner’s a privilege, but not a title. As time went along and options were considered as far as owner’s and children’s lots, it was discovered under the Harford County rules that there cannot be a lot released. In essence, this land is land-locked and there will never be any owner’s or children’s lots.

Mr. Rutledge stated that the landowner is not asking for the re-designation of a lot, nor are they asking for a door to be opened that would be contrary to the Foundation’s policy. He understands the Foundation policy, which is no re-designation of a lot for a tenant house. It is a good policy. We are only asking for the relocation of the main dwelling site that would not obstruct the agricultural operation. They want to be able to use the existing house site without having to tear the house down, pave over the septic, fill in the well, cap it off, drill another well, etc. That existing home is right beside the barn that will be refitted for the horse business. This is a legitimate tenant dwelling.

There was discussion about the possibility of amending the Deed of Easement to have the Markline’s waive the right to exclude the acreage around the pre-existing dwelling.

Mr. Wilson stated perhaps the landowners would be willing to amend the Deed of Easement so that no further subdivision could occur on the property.

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services, stated that the Board can vote to amend the Deed of Easement to put further restrictions on the property. She cautioned that the Board may want to revisit the policy on re-designation of lots. She noted that the Board should be consistent, because just last October a request similar to this was denied.

Mr. Wilson stated the facts were different. The landowner was supposed to return the original land back into agriculture. They were going to move the house and take existing property and return it to agriculture. However, they had not done that. That was the reason it was denied.

Mr. Conrad stated the Newsome property in Howard County was similar in that they had requested re-designation. It was an informal request that did not come to the Board. Legal counsel stated it was not acceptable.

Mr. Colhoun asked how big the new owner’s residence would be. He wanted to know how much of the farmland it would take up. Mr. Rutledge stated the home would be of significant size and be consistent with other homes in the area. Mr. Colhoun stated he had a concern with the size of an owner’s or child’s house. Mr. Conrad added the Board can only restrict the size of a tenant house. Mr. Rutledge stated the house should not take up more than one acre.

Dr. Pelura asked for clarification if the new owner could get an owner’s or children’s lots. Mr. Jones stated that right extinguishes when the property transfers. Mr. Conrad stated the Board needs to keep in mind if we decide to approve this request (with additional restrictions added such as no further subdivision) we will be amending an existing policy that currently states we will not approve re-designations. It would be changed to state we will not approve re-designations unless we place further restrictions on the property such as no subdivision or and to make the easement perpetual.

Ms. Weaver addressed the Board and told them that Craig Nielsen, MDA’s principal counsel, had advised that we remain consistent with the past policy and felt this request should be denied.

Mr. Wilson stated that the new easement will allow owners in the future to choose either family lots or an unrestricted lot. This would allow new easement holders the ability to hold a lot back for the potential use of a future subsequent owner. The current easements do not allow that. The owner would have to make that choice at the time of easement application. Clearly the property would have to be appraised as such and it would have an impact.

Allen Cohey, Trustee, stated he has sympathy for what the landowner’s are proposing but he is going to be opposed to it. This is very complicated and there are things we do not know, such as the size of the house.

There was a lengthy discussion. Joy Levy and Rad Sakhamuri, Program Administrators from Howard and Queen Anne’s Counties, addressed the Board and stated that because this type of request had been denied in the past in their counties, this request should also be denied. They felt it is important that the Board be consistent in applying policy.

Mr. Logan stated we should defer this request until Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, is available to advise the Board on the legal implications of this policy. He was concerned about changing the policy.

Tammy Buckle, Caroline County Program Administrator, stated that if there is a question on existing policy, the policy should be changed prior to making decisions at the Board meeting.

Mr. Jones stated it was the consensus of the Board to defer the request of Benjamin and Marta Markline to re-designate a pre-existing dwelling as a tenant house on easement property until Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, can review the request in light of current policy and be available for the Board discussion.

Mr. Rutledge suggested that the Board not let its policy decisions be determined by the advice of its legal counsel.

2. 12-05-90-01B SEBRING, Scott N. 59.30 acres

Request for the exclusion of a 2.00 acre child’s lot on easement property

Mr. Sebring is the original owner of the easement property. The current request is for the release of 2-acres for a child’s lot for the personal use of his son, Jeffrey.

Mr. Sebring does not own any other district or easement property. There have not been any other lot requests for this property. A lot size of 2 acres is required in areas zoned for agriculture under Harford County regulations.

According to Harford County, the proposed lot is to be located in a corner of the property. Access will be directly off the road.

The 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 $6,800.00 (2 acres @ $3,400.00 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.

Motion #6: To approve the request for the exclusion of 2 acres for a child’s lot on easement property.

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Shirley Pilchard

Status: Approved

E. CARROLL COUNTY

1. 06-11-89-27 MYERS, Jason M. and Donna G 126.00 acres

Request to exclude a child’s lot on easement property and to swap 2.52 acres of easement property for non-easement property.

Mr. and Mrs. Myers are the original owners of the easement property. The current request is for: 1) a child’s lot for the personal use of their daughter, Kelly; and 2) to swap 2.52 acres of easement property for 2.52 acres of non-easement property.

1) Child’s Lot

There have been no other lot exclusions on this property. The Myers do not own any other district or easement properties.

According to Carroll County, the proposed child’s lot is to be located in an area of the property that is not suitable for agriculture due to the rocky nature of the soils. Access will be through the area proposed to be released from the easement.

The request was approved by the local agricultural advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If the request is approved, there will be a required payback of $2,850.00, which is the per acre amount which the landowners received for the easement.

2) Acreage Swap

The Myers are requesting the permission of the Foundation to swap 2.52 acres of an adjoining parcel, which they own, for 2.52 acres that is currently under easement. There are four reasons for the acreage request.

a) The Myers' daughter and son‑in‑law raise red Angus cattle. At the time the Myers sold the easement (April, 1999), the Foundation’s minimum size for an agricultural subdivision was 20 acres, which would have allowed them to request a 20‑acre agricultural subdivision to go with a child lot. The Myers feel that a 50‑acre agricultural subdivision is not feasible for this farm. Carroll County zoning regulations require a minimum of 3 acres for raising livestock. The proposed exchange of acreage plus the child’s lot would satisfy the county’s requirement.

b) Once the 1‑acre house site and perc tests for the child’s lot were determined, the west end of the crop field contained approximately 2.52 acres with significant rock outcroppings that is not suitable for tillage, but could be used for pasture.

c) The straightened boundary lines of the new configuration would allow for more efficient contour farming as awkward corners would be eliminated.

d) Any additional modifications necessary to satisfy septic requirements could be satisfied within the area proposed for exclusion.

According to Carroll County, the proposed swap would not have a negative impact on the operation of the farm, as the area to be excluded is composed of primarily rocky soils. The land that is proposed to be taken out of the easement is: Class II – 0.18 acres; Class III - 2.34 acres. The land that is proposed to be added is: Class II – 1.68 acres; Class III 0.67 acres; Class IV- 0.17 acres.

The acreage swap was approved by the local agricultural advisory board and is compatible with local zoning regulations.

Foundation staff recommends approval of the acreage swap because the area being proposed to add to the easement is composed of better soils than the area that is being removed from the easement and will result in more efficient agricultural use of the land. The approval should contain a condition that the 2.52-acre parcel will not be further sub-divided and the landowner will be responsible for any costs associated with the easement alteration and the preparation of related necessary documentation.

Mr. Wilson said that when looking at the map, his concern was the area being excluded appeared to be the front yard of the child’s lot. He wanted to know if we are really creating a 5 acre lot or a 2 acre lot.

Ralph Robertson, Carroll County Program Administrator, stated the total area with the exclusion will be 3.5 acres: 1 acre for child’s lot and 2.5 acres for the swap. Mr. Robertson said the current area for the swap was in hay ground and is not conducive for small grain crops because of the outcropping of rocks.

Ms. Schultz asked who owned Parcel 245. Mr. Myers, landowner, stated that was owned by him, however, it is a separate parcel, not included under the easement. He stated that parcel was purchased separately, 5 years after he purchased the farm. It is part of the overall farming operation.

Mr. Robertson stated the proposal to straighten the line is actually conducive to the farming practices put together by the Soil Conservation service. It is a highly successful dairy operation. Mr. Kuhn, Carroll County Advisory Board Chairman stated the local advisory board had similar concerns as to whether this was going to end up being a large front yard and that is why the request was modified.

There was additional discussion regarding Parcel 245, including how it would help straighten the boundary line. Mr. Wilson stated that we should modify the request to add that there will be a minor boundary adjustment to straighten the line. Mr. Wilson stated his motion for approval will include straightening the boundary.

Motion #7: To approve the request for 1) a child’s lot on easement property; and 2) to swap 2.52 acres of easement property for 2.52 acres of non-easement property and to do a minor adjustment to straighten the boundary line.

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Lewis Logan

Status: Approved

Mr. Colhoun inquired about lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and along the edge of Parcel 245. Mr. Robertson stated they were lots that were taken off prior to the Myers’ buying the property. They are older houses that have been there for 30 years.

Mr. Conrad asked if the lot adjustment made Parcel 245 more developable in the sense that now you have better access to that parcel. Mr. Robertson stated he could not deny that. Mr. Myers stated that there was another access to that parcel. It’s a fee access between the dotted lines on the map between lot 5 and 6. Some discussion followed.

2. 06-11-89-36 ROACH, Harry W. 105.00 acres

Request for the exclusion of a 1-acre child’s lot from easement property

Mr. Roach is the original owner of the easement property. The current request is for the exclusion of a 1-acre lot from the easement for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for the personal use of his son, Ryan. There have been no other lot exclusions on this property. Mr. Roach does not own any other district or easement property.

According to Carroll County, the proposed child’s lot is to be located in a corner of the property that is wooded. Access will be directly from the road.

The request was approved by the local agricultural advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If the request is approved, there will be a required payback amount of $1,586.94.

Motion #8: To approve the request for the exclusion of a 1-acre child’s lot from the Harry Roach easement property.

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Dan Colhoun

Status: Approved

F. CALVERT COUNTY

1. 04-01-01-02 BAKER, Raymond N, et al 101.00 acres

Request for the exclusion of 2 acres for a child’s lot on easement property.

Mr. Baker, et al, are the original owners of the easement property. The current request is for the release of two acres for a child’s lot for the personal use of Peter G. Baker, who is a co-owner with his parents and siblings, of the easement property.

The Foundation’s lot policy allows a child’s lot right for a child who is a co-owner of a property with his or her parents. There have been no other lot requests on this property. At district establishment, 5.08 acres were excluded around a pre-existing dwelling, which is a separately deeded parcel. The Bakers have three additional properties in the program but there have been no lot requests on those properties.

According to Calvert County, the proposed lot is to be located in an area of the farm previously used for recreational horseback riding. Access will be through an existing farm lane.

A lot size of 2 acres is requested to meet Health Department requirements. The request was approved by the local advisory board. The request conforms to local zoning regulations.

If the request is approved, there will be a required payback to the Foundation of $13,000.00 (2 acres @ $6,500.00), which is the per acre amount which the landowner received for the easement.

Motion #9: To approve the request for the exclusion of a 2 acre child’s lot from Baker easement property.

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Shirley Pilchard

Status: Approved

III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS

Mr. Conrad presented the one petition to establish agricultural preservation district.

A. FREDERICK COUNTY

1. 10-19-04-09 LEATHERMAN, Bradley, D., et al 188.00 acres

This property has 90% qualifying soils, 2 dwellings on the property; the property is a horse operation which is primarily in cropland. No acreage is being withheld. The property is located in an area of moderate development pressure. Staff recommends approval based on meeting the minimum size and soils criteria.

Motion #10: To approve the request of the Bradley D. Leatherman, et al to establish agricultural land preservation district on their property.

Motion: Dan Colhoun Second: Douglas Wilson

Status: Approved

Mr. Conrad stated that there were several items under program policy that needed to be discussed. He noted that some of them were time sensitive. It was decided that Agenda Item IV. A. – Retention of Lot Rights when Property is transferred to Family Corporations, Partnerships, Trusts, etc. would be deferred until next month.

IV. PROGRAM POLICY

A. Cap for appraisals for FY 2005 Easement Acquisition Program

Mr. Conrad addressed the board by stating that, as Mr. Wilson announced at the beginning of the meeting, the Capital Budget has been finalized. The Foundation will have $5 million in bond funds. Green Print funds were reduced to $3 million. The Foundation will get a 25% share, which equates to $750,000.00. We estimate $1,580,000.00 from agricultural transfer taxes and whatever commitment for matching funds we get from local government . We are currently in the process of applying for the approximately $6 million available in federal funds through FRPP.

Traditionally when the Foundation is relatively short on funds available, the Board puts a cap on the number of easement applications that will be accepted to control the cost of appraisals and the burden it places on the MALPF and DGS staff to process them. Mr. Conrad stated if we accept all applicants, we could have a fairly significant expense when we know we will not have enough funds to purchase them all. On the other hand, we are also aware that there are counties like Carroll County that puts a large number of applications forward and are willing to follow up our offers with additional offers purchased with 100% County funded offers.

If we set a general cap, we need to be aware that there are certainly some exceptions to where counties are putting up additional money for offers. Thus, we may not want to place a cap on all applications in all counties. Generally speaking, last year was the first year we did not have a cap in quite awhile. Over the past several years, we have asked for approval of up to five applications or, if more than five applications are submitted to the county, the top 80% of the total number of applications received from each county. This helps to maximize the use of State funds for actual easement purchases by limiting the number of properties to be appraised, thus saving on appraisal costs.

There was discussion among the program administrators present regarding the cap. After a short discussion, the Foundation’s Board of Trustees voted approval of up to five applications or, if more than five applications are submitted to the county, the top 80% of the total number of applications received from each county. If a county wishes to submit additional easement applications, they may do so if the county will pay for the additional appraisals beyond the cap. Appraisals are approximately $800 per property (two appraisals per property at $400 per appraisal).

Motion #11: The cap for the FY 2005 Easement Acquisition Program will be up to 5 applications, or if more than five applications are submitted to the county, the top 80% of the total number of applications received from each county. Counties may submit more if they pay for additional appraisals beyond the cap.

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Lewis Logan

Status: Approved

B. Memorandum of Understanding between MALPF and the Commissioners of Carroll County

Mr. Conrad addressed the Board regarding the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation and the Commissioners of Carroll County for Agricultural Land Preservation Easement Co-grantees.

Mr. Conrad explained that this MOU was similar to the Rural Legacy Memorandum of Understanding. In fact most of the wording comes directly out of the Rural Legacy Memorandum of Understanding, but it is different in that it is strictly between MALPF and Carroll County and based upon the fact that they are funding this year (FY 2004 Easement Acquisition Program offers) 100% funded easements for 26 properties. Based on this, Carroll County would like to be co-grantees. In other words, its legal office has asked that they be listed as co-grantees on the Deed of Easement.

Mr. Conrad stated it was necessary to have this approved and in place in order to go forward with the easement offers for FY 2004 – 100% Carroll County funds – that we will be making shortly.

Mr. Robertson stated that Carroll County had looked at this document, and the document was similar to the Rural Legacy Memorandum of Understanding. The County is satisfied with the drafted language.

Motion #12: Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation’s Board of Trustees approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation and the Commissioners of Carroll County for Agricultural Land Preservation Easement Co-grantees.

Motion: Lewis Logan Second: Douglas Wilson

Status: Approved

C. Pre-Existing Dwellings/Appraisals

Mr. Conrad addressed the Board stating that this item was something discussed in the Policy Review Committee meeting which was held just prior to today’s Board meeting.

He explained it has time value in relationship to the application to sell easement that will be received by the July 1, 2004 deadline. If possible, he would like to get the approval of the full Board on the proposals outlined in the memo.

This is an issue that came up because of Carroll County being the “guinea pig” this year and the new legislation, which passed last year. It was discovered that there are some real issues as far as pre-existing dwellings and how their treatment affected appraisal values. A meeting was held with Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, DGS, Julia Davis, principal counsel, DGS, Bill Beach, Chief, Appraisal and Review, DGS, Office of Real Estate to discuss the requirements of the law and how the appraisals were done under the existing statute.

Mr. Conrad told the Board he would not read the entire memo, but focus on what was discussed with the Policy Review Committee. One example is taking into account subdivision lot rights. This really doesn’t work under existing statute. Given the nature of the problem that exists, which is addressing problems dealing with multiple pre-existing dwellings on the property, how can we find a way to equitably address this issue with the Easement Applications which will be coming in July, 2004? There are possible solutions that we would like to pursue. An issue is the people who had established districts since October of last year (2003), before we had a full understanding of the implications of multiple pre-existing dwellings and the appraisal process. These people did not really have a full understanding and could not have been properly counseled by Program Administrators as to whether they should withhold or do something else with pre-existing houses or basically have them treated as tenant houses making them non-subdividable.

The solutions that have been proposed by the Policy Review Committee this morning is that this small pool of landowners that have come in since October, 2003, who have multiple pre-existing houses will be counseled regarding the implications of their decision and in making application to sell easement if they are going to apply in July, 2004. Then if there are those who feel they would like to change the conditions of their application to sell easement, they would have the ability to amend their District Agreement based on the withheld acreage policy and adjust their district agreement no later than the August, 2004 Board meeting.

This essentially means if their Easement Application comes in July, 2004, they would have July to make a decision and the county would have until August to get the amendment to this Board and get the accurate acreage to the Department of General Services by September, 2004 for the appraisal process to start.

The second part of this problem is to propose a longer-term solution. We need to know how to address these kinds of inequities for the future. One solution that seems the most applicable is for counties other than Baltimore County (that already does this) is to work out policies acceptable to the Foundation and the Department of General Services regarding the designation of certain pre-existing dwellings beyond the main dwelling to be treated as tenant houses and not dwelling units that use up development rights. The Policy Review Committee felt this was the best solution because it is not likely that the appraisal methodology or valuation system will be amended in the foreseeable future. What we are putting before the full Board is 1) accepting the concept of a mistake as a result of inadequate counseling to landowners coming into districts established after October, 2003; 2) to amend the District Agreements of the people only who have multiple pre-existing dwellings who came in after October, 2003, based upon that mistake concept (no later than the August, 2004 Board meeting); and, 3) allowing, where applicable, landowners to do partial terminations or take out acreage surrounding existing dwellings. Normally the Foundation does not allow landowners to amend their district agreement while there is a pending easement application.

Foundation staff will work with Program Administrators to develop a policy acceptable to the Foundation’s Board of Trustees and DGS concerning the designation of pre-existing dwellings beyond the main dwelling to be treated as tenant houses and not dwelling units, using up development rights.

Motion #13: Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation’s Board of Trustees approve Policy on Pre-Existing Dwellings/Appraisals and the solutions as determined by the Policy Review Committee.

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Allen Cohey

Status: Approved

Mr. Conrad stated we should move to Executive Session and then come back to the presentation he prepared on Rankings. He requested approval from the Board of Trustees to circulate the Rankings document to the program administrators for comment and for a general presentation so they understand the content.

Motion #14: Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation’s Board of Trustees give Foundation Staff approval to circulate the document regarding Rankings to the Program Administrators and for comments and subsequently to bring the issue back to the Board for discussion.

Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Lewis Logan

Status: Approved

Motion #15: There being no further non-Executive Session 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 approximately 12:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

_______________________________________

Iva L. Frantz, Administrative Officer

_______________________________________

James A. Conrad, Executive Director