MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Erik Balsley on behalf of Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Dept. of Planning
Allen Cohey
Daniel 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 Pilchard
Vera Mae Schultz
Robert F. Stahl, Jr.
Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Dept. of
Agriculture
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Joseph F. Tassone, representing
Secretary Scott, Dept. of Planning
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tammy Buckle,
Bruce Burgess, Queen Anne’s
James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive Director
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Dept. of
General Services
John Hobner,
Carla
William Powel III, Carroll
William Quinn,
Amber Rhodes, Cecil
Charles Rice, Charles
Radhika Sakhamuri, Queen Anne's
Martin Sokolich, Talbot
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Administrative Officer
Christopher Wilson,
Susan Wilson,
Lloyd C. Jones, Jr., Chairman, called the meeting to order
at approximately
I. APPROVAL OF
MINUTES/ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
A. APPROVAL OF
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING,
Motion #1: To
approve the minutes of the regular session of the
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
B.
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION,
Motion #2: To
approve the minutes of the executive session of the
Motion: Lewis
Logan Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
C. ADDITIONS OR
DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
James Conrad, Executive Director, noted that the schedule
for 2005 Board meetings is included in the current agenda. There are an addition and a deletion to the
agenda. One quick item has been added
for the executive session. Under the
information and discussion, section V, the matching funds item for the FY 2005
easement acquisition cycle will be delayed until next month while staff obtains
information from the last couple of counties.
Mr. Conrad stated that there would be a change in the order
of the items on the agenda for the convenience of those who will be appearing
before the Board and are either already here or will arrive later.
Mr. Conrad noted that there was an item in the Farmland
Preservation Report he wished to mention in passing. Over the last couple of years, the Farm and
Ranchlands Preservation Program (FRPP) has been giving us an increasing amount
of money, almost $5 million this year.
We could be receiving even more if a fairly substantial amount of the
total funds available for FRPP was not being diverted to pay for the
administrative expenses of other USDA programs as well as FRPP’s
administrative costs. A lot of this has
to do with disagreements over how these programs ought to be funded. One of the problems has been that, FRPP
really doesn’t have a substantial lobby, so things get cut or diverted to other
areas because those who use FRPP haven’t been vocal objecting to those cuts and
diversions. One of the things this Board
could consider doing is making certain that the Maryland delegation is kept
informed about how critical FRPP funds have become to the operation and success
of this program and how we would be able to access more of this funding for the
Conservation Corridor project and the statewide program if these funds were not
being diverted to cover administrative costs.
Mr. Conrad stated that he was ready to begin with item
II.A.2 for the Larrick’s from Carroll County because
Mr. Quinn has not yet arrived for the first item on the agenda.
II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
2. 06-09-00-08 Larrick, P.
Michael and Nancy A. 154
acres
Request
to re-designate two previously approved child’s lots
This
is a request to re-designate two previously approved child’s lots. This is a 154 acre parcel. Mr. and Mrs. Larrick
are the original owners of the easement property. On
Motion #3: To
approve the request of the Larrick’s to redesignate the child’s lots of Christopher and David Larrick so the preliminary releases can be amended.
Motion: Lewis
Logan Second: Shirley Pilchard
Status: Approved
3. 06-82-04e Arbaugh,
John H. & Doris R. 131.58
acres
Request
for an owner’s dwelling under terms of HB131
Mr.
and Mrs. Arbaugh are the original owners of this
easement property. They are requesting a 1-acre exclusion for an owner’s dwelling for the use of a
subsequent owner, under the terms of House Bill 131. Under the provisions of HB 131, which became
effective
For
the information of the Foundation’s Board, five landowners were eligible to
obtain lots under the terms of HB131.
Four lots have already been approved by the Foundation. This is the final request under the terms of
the bill.
Motion #4: To
approve the request of the Arbaugh’s for an owner’s
dwelling on easement property under the terms of HB131.
Motion: Judith
Lynch Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
Because Mr. Quinn arrived during the Arbaugh
agenda item, Mr. Conrad returned to the Quinn request, II.A.1.
1. 06-82-01 Quinn, William F. 153.00
acres
Request
for installation of a septic drainage field and a septic reserve area on
easement property
Mr.
Quinn is a subsequent owner of the easement property. It’s a 153 acre parcel. He is requesting an approximately 30,000
square feet septic drainage field and a septic reserve area on a portion of
easement property, close to an area which was excluded from the easement. On
On
The
County Health Department is requesting approval of the location of the drain
field by the Foundation before granting approval of the septic system. The Carroll County Advisory Board approved
the proposed drain field and septic reserve area. The request complies with local zoning
regulations. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Hobner are available to answer questions.
The staff is not making a recommendation. The Foundation has approved septic reserve
areas in the past. Drain fields are
normally placed within the area excluded for lots. The Board has approved septic reserve areas
on easement land for existing residences or for dwellings approved for children
or owners of the properties. Foundation
staff has not found any instances of approvals of septic reserve areas or drain
fields which enable commercial development.
Mr. Conrad asked if there is anything that Mr. Hobner, Mr. Quinn, or Bill Powel, Carroll County Program
Administrator, wishes to add.
Mr. Hobner passed out a plan of
the proposed septic area serving the kennel.
Doug Wilson, representing the Secretary of Agriculture, in
response to a question from Erik Balsley,
representing the Secretary of Planning, noted that he had a question in whether
the Foundation is creating a precedent by allowing an easement that enabled
existing or permitted commercial activity more generally. The only case that he could recall was the
Robinson case in
Mr. Conrad responded that clearly access is allowed on
easement property for pre-existing development or permitted development such as
child’s lots. Also right-or-way
easements are allowed across Foundation easement properties for moving farm
equipment onto adjacent farming properties.
Mr. Balsley asked Mr. Powel whether
a person need fee simple access an adjacent property or will the County accept
a right-of-way easement for that property to be built on. Mr. Powel responded that both are allowed by
the County.
Mr. Balsley clarified that his
concern is that, just because this lot has no access now, there won’t ever be
access in the future where someday there may be no kennel, but a large house
instead.
Mr. Colhoun, Trustee, asked if
farming, by opening up a 24 inch slot over this septic reserve area, would not
have an impact on the efficiency of the septic system. Mr. Hobner
responded that it would not have any impact, while noting that it’s possible
that the deep trench lines may be placed even deeper than proposed because soil
testing has not yet been done. The
County Health Department is waiting on the perc
testing until the Foundation Board has made its decision. The proposed plan at this point is relying on
the existing soil survey. Over the
entire property, only this portion of the property is suitable for a deep
trench system. The remainder of the
soils shows a predicted rock depth of about three feet.
Mr. Powel noted that the Health Department felt that its
staff should not spend the time doing soil testing until the proposed septic
system had been approved by the Foundation.
Mr. Colhoun noted that perhaps the perc testing should be done before the approval. Mr. Wilson noted that, if the site doesn’t perc, even though approved by the Board, the septic system
won’t go in anyway. Mr. Colhoun noted that some lot requests had been tabled by the
Board because no perc tests had been done before the
request. These landowners had been
instructed to go back and get the percs and then make
the request to the Foundation.
Mr. Hobner noted that this, being
the only possible location on the property for this kind of a septic system,
that either it percs and the project moves forward,
or it doesn’t perc and the project does not move
forward.
Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Quinn if
this information about the limited possible location of a septic system on the
property was available at the meeting when Mr. Quinn asked for the swap to
relocate the kennel, and if it was, why was this not
relayed to the Board. Mr. Quinn stated
they originally intended to put the septic system in the woods. The planning and design was done in stages,
each with an approval process. Mr. Hobner noted that the Health Department needs to know that
the system is feasible before the perc testing is
actually done. Mr. Colhoun
noted that perc testing is not difficult or expensive
to do.
Mr. Balsley asked if any
construction has been undertaken on the kennel at this point. Mr. Quinn responded that only the survey work
has been done so far.
Mr. Powel was asked for his input. He responded that he is neutral on this proposal. The swap and the access were approved already
by the Board. His feeling is that these
two approvals will have more of an impact on the easement than this septic
system, outside of making certain that any soil removed during the creation of
the system be properly restored to its original layering. Mr. Powel noted that he had been a full-time
dairy farmer for 30 years and put his farm under easement in the first year of
the program. Thus, keep in mind he wears
two hats. In county zoning there are
certain uses that are more appropriate in agricultural areas: cell towers being one, dog kennels being
another, contractor equipment storage yards being another.
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, noted that she
and Craig Nielsen (Assistant Attorney General) agree with Mr. Powel that the
primary decision was the approval to allow the swap, not any approval of a
septic system. If the Board did not
approve the septic, it would be sending a mixed message. It certainly has the power not to approve
this request, but the question is whether it has an effect on the easement, it
probably is not this part of the project that will have the impact on the
easement.
Mr. Balsley noted that his concern
is commercial development encroaching on the easement. While the relocation has already been
approved, by doing this the Foundation is opening up a whole new can of
worms. If there is an adjacent
commercial development, whether a supermarket or whatever, it will now see the
easement property as the area for potential expansion.
Mr. Klasmeier noted that, when the
swap was approved, he had assumed that everything would be contained in the
area of the swap, not that it would be spilling over onto the easement
property. Is the Foundation setting a
precedent by allowing easement property to be used for a commercial operation?
Mr. Colhoun stated that he was not
aware when the swap was asked of the Board that additional easement land would
be required for a commercial septic system.
He doesn’t believe that any of the other Board members were aware of
that either. Now the Board is presented
with this septic situation. It is not to
support a residence, a child’s lot, or anything related to agriculture that
could be reasonably approved. The analogy
here is that a person owns a property where half is in easement and on the other
half they decide to build a shopping center.
But they decide to locate the septic system, not under the parking lot
or under the building, but under easement land.
This is exactly where the Foundation is today. Is the Foundation to approve a septic system
to support a commercial development?
Mr. Logan, representing the Treasurer, asked Mr. Quinn about
the impact of the kennel on the rest of the farming operation if the septic was
not approved for the kennel. Mr. Quinn
responded that, with a 400 foot set-back requirement, this was the only logical
place relocate the kennel. There is no
other location for the kennel. He leases
about 60 acres of crop land which does not even pay the property taxes.
Mr. Wilson noted that in a letter included in the agenda
material that, “due to the soil and rock types located in the woods, that the
wooded area is not the best location.”
Mr. Wilson is curious about the words “best” location as opposed to the
other area being the “only” area. He
wants to know if there are other alternatives.
Mr. Hobner said the only possibility with the
woods is that a sand mound system could be located there but by taking land out
of agriculture there. Mr. Hobner feels less land would be taken out of agriculture
with the deep trenching system which could be farmed over. With 1.66 acres, after the building and
parking, there is no space left for a system.
The probability it would not work.
Mr. Wilson stated that, if this is the case, this should
have been disclosed during the earlier meeting when the swap was approved. Mr. Hobner
responded that this is a matter of sequencing.
The approval had to be sought from the Foundation before the septic
system could be designed. Based on the
information they had available at that point, they made application at that
point without the additional information that was obtained later.
Mr. Jones asked about scaling down the size of the
kennel. Mr. Quinn responded that that
was a slim possibility because the space freed up on the 1.66 acres would not
be adequate given the shallow bedrock on the parcel. In all probability, it wouldn’t work, though
that judgment is not absolute. At some
point, in shrinking the size of the kennel, the project is no longer
economically feasible. Keep in mind that
the entire operation is enclosed, including the dog runs, to make the kennel
acceptable to the community.
Motion #5: To
approve the request by Mr. Quinn for the installation of a septic drainage
field and a septic reserve area on easement property.
Motion: Jerry
Klasmeier Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
Vote: For
– 6; Against – 4
Mr. Logan and Mr. Wilson asked for the Foundation to be
informed during the perc tests on the property. Mr. Conrad also asked about the
responsibility of Mr. Quinn for undertaking the trenching and refill in a way
that minimizes the disturbance of the soil composition. Mr. Jones stated that the rest of the Board
feels strongly about this issue. Mr.
Quinn responded that the trenching and refill would be done to minimize the
disturbance to the topsoil. Mr. Balsley asked about the authority of the Board to put a
restriction on the use of the swapped parcel, restricting it to being used as a
kennel. Ms. Forrester responded that any
such restriction should have been made when the swap was approved.
Mr. Wilson recommended that the original motion should be
amended to include the requirement to safeguard the topsoil in the construction
of the septic system. Mr. Colhoun responded that this would be wise to make sure the
layering is recreated because contractors tend to backfill in opposite order,
putting the topsoil in first and the subsoil on top.
Mr. Klasmeier stated that he
thought that this was understood in the original motion. Mr. Colhoun noted
that the technical specifications need to refer specifically to restoring the
soil to the same “horizon” as it was when removed.
Amendment to Motion
#5: The removed soil shall be restored
by the contractor of the septic system to the same horizon from which it was
removed.
Amendment: Doug
Wilson
Status: Approved
4.
Request to place under the
district agreement 2.2 acres which were withheld at district establishment
Mr.
and Mrs. Naecker are the original owners of the district
property. The current request is to add
to the district 2.2 acres which were withheld from the district at district
establishment. On
drainage field and a septic reserve area on easement property.
Motion #6: To
approve the request by the Naecker’s to add 2.2 acres
to their existing agricultural district by amending the district agreement.
Motion: Shirley
Pilchard Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
B. QUEEN ANNE’S
COUNTY
1. 17-88-03 Leager,
Donald L. 150.55
acres
Request for a tenant house on
easement property
Mr.
Leager is the original owner of the easement
property. The proposed tenant house, a
trailer, will be occupied by John Fonlock, who works
full-time as a farm hand on Mr. Leager’s crop
operation. Mr. Leager
tills approximately 3,000 acres in Queen Anne’s County. He has another easement property but it does
not have a tenant house. The proposed
tenant house is to be located along the edge of woods with access through an
existing farm lane. The request was
approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning
regulations. There is now a locational map that has been provided to the Board for
consideration. Staff recommends approval
based on requirements in the Agriculture Article which grants an allowance of
one tenant house per 100 acres for use of a tenant fully engaged in the
operation of the farm.
Motion #7: To
approve the request by Mr. Leager for a tenant house
on his easement property.
Motion: Allen
Cohey Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
2. 17-99-13 Burgess, D. Bruce & Wendy T. 154.00 acres
Request for a 2-acre owner’s lot
on easement property
Mr.
and Mrs. Burgess are the original owners of the easement property. There are no dwellings on the property. There have been no other lot requests on the
property. They do not own any other
district or easement property. While in
the process of inspecting easement properties, Radhika
Sakhamuri, Queen Anne’s County Program Administrator,
found that they had begun construction of a dwelling for which they had not
requested approval and were therefore in violation of the terms of the deed of
easement. In a letter to the Foundation,
Ms. Sakhamuri stated that, in her opinion, this was
“an honest mistake.” They were not aware
that, although they are entitled to an owner’s lot, they must go through the
approval process. It should be noted,
that, though requested by the Foundation staff, the County did not issue a stop
work order, unlike what is indicated in the agenda memo. The County decided not to because the house
construction was so far along. Queen
Anne’s County issued a building permit without checking for restrictions on the
property. According to Ms. Sakhamuri, steps have been taken by the county government
to prevent the issuance of building permits on protected land.
The
lot is located in an area where a former dwelling was located at some time in
the past. The lot will be accessed
through an existing farm lane. A 2-acre lot is required to meet health
department requirements. 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 the per acre amount that the landowner
received for the easement.
Supporting documentation has been handed out to Board members, including
a map locating the house on the property.
Staff recommends approval. Mr.
Burgess is here if anyone has any questions.
Mr.
Colhoun asked Ms. Sakhamuri
what the County has done to ensure that this does not happen again. Ms. Sakhamuri
explained the checks and balances that the Department of Planning and Zoning
has implemented to avoid such a situation in the future.
Judith Lynch, trustee, noted that there are two properties
on this agenda with the same issue. She asked Ms. Sakhamuri
if it is possible that there are other properties out there with the same
problem. Ms. Sakhamuri
responded that when this problem appeared, the office systematically examined
the database to see if there were any other properties that had similar
problems. None were found.
Motion #8: To
approve the request for a 2-acre owner’s lot for Mr. and Ms. Burgess on
easement property.
Motion: Allen
Cohey Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
3. 17-86-13 Scott, Linwood B. 107.40
acres
Request
for the exclusion of a 1-acre owner’s lot from easement property
Mr.
Scott is the original owner of this property.
The current request is for the exclusion of a 1-acre lot from the
easement for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for his personal use. There have been no other exclusions on this
property. There is one pre-existing
dwelling on the property. Mr. Scott does
not own any other district or easement property. According to Queen Anne’s County, the
proposed lot is to be located along the perimeter of the property with access
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 based on the per acre amount paid for the
easement. Foundation staff recommends
approval.
A
Board member asked if this house was already under construction. Mr. Conrad responded that it is not. Vera Mae Schultz, Trustee, asked the nature
of the pre-existing dwelling on the property.
Ms. Sakhamuri did not know the nature of this
dwelling. Mr. Wilson asked if this is a
relocation of an existing dwelling. Mr.
Conrad responded that this is a new lot.
Mr. Colhoun asked if the pre-existing dwelling
had been excluded. Ms. Sakhamuri stated that it had not been excluded. Elizabeth Weaver, Administrative Officer for
the Foundation, stated that any pre-existing houses have no bearing on the
exercise of the right to an owner’s lot.
Motion #9: To
approve the request for a 1-acre owner’s lot for Mr. Scott on easement
property.
Motion: Shirley
Pilchard Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
Abstain: Allen
Cohey
4.
Request for the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling
on district property
This
is a fait accompli, the house having
already been relocated. Mr. and Mrs. Leager are the original owners of this property. There have been no lot exclusions on this
property, and they do not own any other district or easement property. The agenda memo states that the Leager’s are in the process of constructing the dwelling in
the new location; in fact, they have already completed construction, and the
old dwelling has been demolished. They
do not yet have an occupancy permit. The
new lot location is in woodland and will be accessed through an existing farm
lane. The Leager’s
wanted to move their existing dwelling away from their hog operation. The request was approved by the local
agricultural advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. Foundation staff recommends approval as the
new location will not adversely affect the operation of the farm.
Mr.
Balsley asked if the site of the demolished house had
been returned to agriculture. Ms. Sakhamuri confirmed that it had.
Motion #10: To
approve the request for the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling on district
property, as shown on the locational map.
Motion: Bob
Stahl Second: Allen Cohey
Status: Approved
Mr. Conrad introduced Amber
Rhodes, the new program administrator for
C.
1.
Request for a 1-acre unrestricted
lot on district property
Ms. Brown is the original owner of the district
property. The Foundation approved the
establishment of a district on Ms. Brown’s property, which was recorded on
The
reason this is of concern in this situation is that Ms. Brown’s grandson, Scott
Brown, and his family are currently living with Ms. Brown as she needs constant
care. Ms. Brown’s son passed away. Ms. Brown wants Mr. Brown, the grandson who
is a policeman in
In
discussing this with Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, the solution
that we came to is, given that there appears to be an honest mistake here, she
could remedy that by re-recording the district so the district is under the new
requirements that include the unrestricted lot provision. She could at that point ask to have an
unrestricted lot on the property. The
proposed lot would be located behind the existing dwelling, as close as
possible to the existing lot. The lot
could not be located directly adjacent to the existing dwelling because the
area did not perk. The lot would be
accessed through an extension of the existing driveway. The request was approved by the local
advisory board and conforms to
To
be clear, the Board is being requested to allow Ms. Brown to re-record her
district, which would allow her to request an unrestricted lot. Ms. Brown still intends to follow through and
apply to sell the easement at some point in the future. Staff further recommends approval of the
request for an unrestricted lot, contingent upon re-recordation of Ms. Brown’s
current district, in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section § 2-513 (b)(3),
Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants the right to a landowner to exclude
one unrestricted lot from a district or easement.
Ms.
Schultz asked if this request would involve a termination of the existing
district agreement and then re-entering with a new 5-year agreement. Ms. Forrester responded that it’s best not to
connect the agreement to the existing agreement, but to terminate the existing
agreement and the recordation of a new district agreement.
Bob
Stahl, Trustee, clarified that the request for this motion is to terminate the
original district agreement, re-record the new agreement, and approve the
unrestricted lot.
Motion #11: To
approve the request by Ms. Brown to terminate the original district agreement,
record a new district agreement, and approve an unrestricted lot.
Motion: Bob
Stahl Second: Shirley Pilchard
Status: Approved
Mr.
Wilson asked for clarification at to why Ms. Brown did not apply for an
easement in the ’05 cycle, particularly whether it was related to the turnover
in personnel. Ms. Rhodes replied that
she is not aware personally of any issues related to personnel turnover. Mr. Wilson stated that this question arises
from a situation in another county where a significant number of people thought
they had applied and their applications were never forwarded because of
personnel turnover. These applications
were accepted after the deadline because they had been received on time by the
local government. This does not appear
to be the case here; the local government had not actually received a completed
application. Mr. Conrad stated that he
thought there was an honest disagreement between the County and the landowner
over what actually happened and who was responsible. Mr. Wilson noted that there was no reason
here to accept an application from Ms. Brown late because the county never had
an application nor had an application been approved by the Commissioners. Ms. Weaver noted that David Black, the
interim program administrator, had taken issue with the statement in the agenda
memo that the county had any responsibility in this matter, but that it was the
responsibility of the landowner to come into the office to complete the
application. He wanted to make sure that
this was placed in the record.
Tammy
Buckle,
Mr.
Stahl noted that people who came in under the old district agreement should not
be punished and kept from getting something that is given to those under the
new district agreement. Mr. Conrad noted
that there are benefits for landowners as well to remain under the old
agreement, such as how many lots they are allowed. He noted that there is
a very small number of people who would be affected by this discrepancy – those
who have been under district agreements less than five years and are interested
in an unrestricted lot.
Ms.
Weaver pointed out that the policy statement is quite clear on page three.
“While there is a pending easement application or offer, the Foundation has a longstanding policy not to entertain requests for district amendments, including requests for family lots. The critical event in this scenario is the appraisal – if a lot request can be considered by the Foundation before the appraisal is done, the staff will accept the request. In effect, the district will only continue under the old district agreement if either no offer is made or if the landowner rejects the Foundation’s offer, at which point lot requests can be submitted to [the] Foundation under the old rules. Otherwise, no lot requests will be considered until the easement has settled, at which point the new legislation applies to lot requests.”
IV. PROGRAM POLICY
Mr. Conrad turned the floor over to Ms. Weaver and Ms.
Schultz to present the final item on the proposed revision to the Foundation’s
Forest Stewardship Plan Policy.
Ms. Weaver noted that two issues were raised by program
administrators and Board members during the initial presentation of the
proposed revisions: (1) the availability
of foresters to prepare the forestry plans in a way that wouldn’t hold up the
settlement process; and (2) the stage of the easement process at which the
forestry plan must be completed.
Ms. Schultz observed that the material handed out showed
that there are quite a number of foresters available throughout
The fees charged by DNR to prepare a forestry stewardship plan
ranges from $200 for a 5 to 25 acres parcel to $300 for a parcel larger than
500 acres. Private foresters would
charge a higher amount, since they
can set their own fee. The incentive for
a private forester to prepare a plan is not great unless they see future
business coming out of preparing a plan.
A big factor in all of this is educating the landowner to see what a
resource he or she has in the forest on a property. There are some incentives for landowners to
have a forest stewardship plan. Even if
the forest stewardship plan costs $500, this would represent less than two-tenths
of one percent of the average amount a landowner receives for an easement.
When this information was presented earlier, cost sharing
was not available for preparation of forest stewardship plan because the
federal program to cover this cost had been raided. Though not a given, the future for cost
sharing is brighter and may be available for this purpose. A forest stewardship plan for 25 acres, cost
sharing may amount to over $400. So if
the plan cost $500, most of this cost would be covered by cost sharing when it
becomes available again.
Mr. Colhoun described this as a
step forward to include a greater percentage of Foundation land under the
forest stewardship plan requirement. He
highly recommended that this revision be adopted by the Foundation.
Motion #12: To
approve the proposed revisions to the Foundation’s Forestry Stewardship Plan
requirements as presented to the Board.
Motion: Dan
Colhoun Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
Ms. Weaver stated that, at the last presentation, the first
option discussed was requiring the plan to be in place at the time of
application. Program administrators felt
that this was a financial burden for landowners to bear when they don’t know if
they will be getting an offer. The
second option discussed was requiring the plan to be in place at the time of
settlement. There was concern that this
may slow down the settlement process, because sometimes it can take quite
awhile to get a plan completed. Other
options were developed. One was to
require the plan to be in place within one year after settlement. There was concern about enforcement – you’ve
gone to settlement, so what is the incentive for landowners to complete the
plan and what leverage does the Foundation have to get landowners to comply
with this requirement? One suggestion
was that some settlement money be withheld at settlement that would be released
when the plan is completed. This raised
issues about the complications and costs of escrow. Another suggestion would be withholding the
payment to the forester from the settlement.
This seemed to be relatively easy, and many were in favor of it.
The last suggestion came from Charles Rice was to just place
the requirement in the easement and then enforce it if someone is out of
compliance just like any other easement violation would be enforced. Ms. Forrester feels this is the simplest
solution, but it would require more personnel to ensure compliance. Mr. Wilson described the complications of
holding money in escrow. Ms. Forrester
stated that she also likes the withholding of the funds to pay for the plan at
settlement, but paying the forester at settlement to complete the plan. Ms. Weaver noted that the intent was to keep
the life of landowners as simple as possible, which could best be done by the
last option of enforcement of having a plan as part of the easement. Mr. Wilson agreed that this option is preferable
and is the easiest to administrate, making it part of the monitoring
process. Mr. Stahl noted that the intent
is compliance to get landowners to manage their resources better. Mr. Rice stated that the intent in suggesting
this option is to simplify rather than complicate the process. It should be looked at as an education
opportunity more than anything.
Mr. Colhoun stated that this plan
has already been voted on, so it should go into the easement by a certain date
and that provision could require that the plan has been implemented by a
certain date. Mr. Wilson said that the
next step in the process is to put the revised forestry management policy both
in the easement and regulation. The
first time this would be in the easement document would be FY 2006, because the
current applicants applied under the rules in place for FY 2005. Before finalizing this, the regulation needs
to be developed and floated for comments.
The Foundation has time to work through the administrative process. Ms. Buckle noted that the education should
start at district establishment and that landowners should know that they
should really have a plan in place at the time of settlement. She noted that no applicants in
The Board unanimously agreed to move forward with putting
the revised forestry stewardship plan requirements into regulation and the
easement language for the FY 2006 easement acquisition cycle.
L.C. Jones asked if there was any further business for
discussion.
Motion #13: 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
Respectfully
Submitted:
_____________________________________
James A.
Conrad, Executive Director
_____________________________________
Elizabeth
Weaver, Administrative Officer