MINUTES
TRUSTEES
PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun, Chairman
Jerry Klasmeier, representing Comptroller Schaefer
Lewis Logan,
representing Treasurer Kopp
Douglas H. Wilson,
representing Secretary Riley, Dept. of Agriculture
Secretary Audrey Scott,
Dept. of Planning
Joe Tassone,
representing Secretary Scott, Dept. of Planning
Robert F. Stahl, Jr.
Patricia Langenfelder
Judith C. Lynch
Vera
Mae Schultz
Chris Wilson
James Pelura, D.V.M.
TRUSTEES
ABSENT:
Shirley Pilchard
OTHERS
PRESENT:
James A. Conrad, MALPF
Executive Director
Nancy Forrester,
Assistant Attorney General, Dept. of General Services
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF
Administrative Officer
Carol Council, MALPF
Administrative Officer
Dan Rosen, Md. Dept. of
Planning
Dave Kelleher, DGS
Tammy Buckle,
William Powel III,
Carroll
Bill Amoss,
Harford
Carla
Charles Rice, Charles
Radhika Sakhamuri,
Queen Anne's
Sonja Ingram,
representing Frederick County Program Administrator
Raymond E. Woollard,
Deborah C. Woollard,
Bradley Woollard,
Steve Bunker, The Nature Conservancy
Christie Wallace, WilTel
Communications
Michelle Dickenson, WilTel
Communications Legal Counsel
Ron Wand, KCW Engineering
Daniel Colhoun, 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,
James Conrad, MALPF
Executive Director, explained that due to the length of the
Mr. Conrad stated that
he has been doing Priority Places application reviews. He and Elizabeth Weaver have attended two
conferences. The Foundation is in the
process of advertising for a secretarial position. The Foundation also has hired Carol
Council. Ms. Council worked for the
Foundation for about eight years, left for a stint with the Rural Legacy
Program, and now has returned to MALPF.
She is a major addition to the Program.
Daniel Colhoun, Chairman, stated that timely minutes are an extremely
important part of the meetings as the members memories get short.
B. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
There are no additions or deletions to the Agenda.
Mr. Colhoun
stated that as information: Two members
were not in attendance for the last meeting, so he has provided a copy of
Roberts Rules of Order for their perusal and information.
Mr. Colhoun
has suggested to Mr. Conrad that a work session be scheduled for the Board
Members and Program Administrators to sit down together to discuss the
Program. This will be an all-day
meeting, including lunch. Some of the
items he suggests for the session include:
uniform standards for submissions to the Board of Trustees; 25-year
clause (some landowners are close to this mark); Task Force recommendations and
different upcoming legislation; Certification Programs; and Districts (are they
doing what the legislation intended them to do?). The Foundation welcomes input from the
Program Administrators on topics they would like to see covered.
Mr. Colhoun
attended an all-day work session in
II. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 12-91-03 REESE, William, et al 317.9101
acres
Request to relocate a
pre-existing dwelling on district property.
William Reese, Katharine Reese and Barbara Currie
are the original owners of the district property. According to Mr. Reese, the pre-existing
dwelling, which is used as a tenant house, was built in 1951 and is in need of
extensive reconstruction. Rather than
investing the needed funds to reconstruct the dwelling, they wish to demolish
the old house and construct a replacement dwelling in an area of the farm that
has been designated by
The proposed relocation is along
Foundation staff recommends approval subject to
the condition that the area from which the dwelling is being relocated will be
returned to agriculture.
Motion #1: To approve the request of William
Reese, et al., to relocate a pre-existing dwelling on district property.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
B.
1. 03-82-12e WOOLLARD, Raymond E. & Deborah C. 127.5000 acres
Request to exclude a
1-acre child’s lot from easement property.
Mr. & Mrs. Woollard
are the original owners of the easement property. The current request is for the exclusion of a
1.0 acre lot from the easement for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for
the personal use of their son, Bradley.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. Mr. and Mrs. Woollard
do not own any other district or easement property.
According to
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...”
Wally Lippincott,
Program Administrator, stated that the location of the lot is actually not in
the middle of an open field, but adjoining an adjacent property.
Motion #2: To approve the request of Raymond E. and
Deborah C. Wollard to exclude a 1.0 acre child’s lot
from their easement property.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Judy Lynch
Status: Approved
C.
1. 10-92-06e KRANTZ, William and Geraldine 125.15 acres
Re-review of request to exclude
up to 2.0 acres for an owner’s lot from easement property.
This request was originally presented to the
Board of Trustees at their
Mr. and Mrs. Krantz
are the original owners of the easement property. They do not own any other district or
easement properties. A child’s lot has
been approved and released from this property for the use of their son, Mark Krantz.
Additionally, there is one pre-existing dwelling on the property.
If more than one acre is required to meet Health
Department regulations, a letter from the Health Department must be presented
to the Foundation at the time of Preliminary Release of the lot. 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 the per acre amount of $1,072.88, which
the landowner received for the easement.
The full amount will be determined when the landowner submits a metes
and bounds and a final letter from the Health Department indicating the amount
of land required to meet the septic requirements.
Staff recommends approval of the release of 1.0
acre plus such minimum additional acreage as required by the County Health
Department, not to exceed 2.0 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 2.0 acres if required by regulations adopted by
the Department of the Environment or the county.
James Pelura, Board
member, asked if there was a reason why the lot was being located in the chosen
area and not on the other side of an existing lot.
Sonja Ingram, representing the Frederick County
Program Administrator, stated that they wanted their lot to be adjacent to
their son’s lot. She felt the Krantz’ may not have a problem moving the lot, if the Board
requested. They did have a concern with
wet soils in the other area and she feels that is why they chose the location
that was presented.
Mr. Colhoun asked if
on future agendas there could be a demonstration of why certain locations are
chosen when there may be alternative locations that could lessen the impact on
the farm operation.
Motion #3: To table the request of William and
Geraldine Krantz to exclude up to 2.0 acres for an
owner’s lot from easement property.
Motion: Vera Mae Schultz Second: None
Status: Defeated
Motion #4: To approve the request of William and
Geraldine Krantz to exclude up to 2.0 acres for an
owner’s lot from easement property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Opposed: Vera Mae Schultz
Status: Approved
A.
1. 08-94-06 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 126.37
acres
Request
for a 21.37 acre partial termination of district property.
The Nature Conservancy is the subsequent owner
of this district property. Its request
is for a partial termination of 21.37 acres.
Approval of this request will result in more than three development
rights being associated with the 21.37 acre parcel and the Nature Conservancy
is aware that the request does not meet the current guidelines for partial
termination of district property.
Therefore, in accordance with the new partial termination policy,
Foundation staff is presenting this request for the Board’s consideration.
Currently, the 126.37 acre district has 41
development rights associated with it.
These 41 development rights are eligible for transfer according to
Approval of this request will serve two purposes
for The Nature Conservancy: 1) it will
allow them to uphold their end of the agreement made as a part of the sale of
the property; and 2) it will allow them to retain equity in the property by
keeping 7 development rights.
Approval of this request will serve four
purposes for the Foundation: 1) the
21.37 acre parcel will not be subdivided at the county level; 2) The Nature
Conservancy has stated that they will not develop the 21.37 acres; 3) The
Nature Conservancy will not request the sale of an easement from the
Foundation; and 4) the 105 acres that will remain in the district will be
encumbered by the County’s TDR easement.
According to
Foundation staff recommends approval of this
request.
Charles Rice, Charles County Program
Administrator, explained that the Nature Conservancy (TNC) wants to try to
maintain some equity in the land so that if an appraiser looks at it, they can
recognize the 7 development rights as equity in the land. TNC has no intention of using the TDR’s. The entire
property would stay intact. There would
be no subdivision at the county level.
Bob Stahl, Board member, stated that he would
abstain from the vote to either approve or disapprove this request as he is a
member of the Charles County Advisory Board.
He stated that it was his understanding that although the 7 TDRs would remain with the 21 acre tract, they could not
develop them because as soon as 1 TDR is removed, they would lose the right to
develop them.
Mr. Rice stated that if the partial termination
were approved, they could subdivide the parcel separately. The 105 acre remaining district is what would
be described for the TDR easement.
Mr. Stahl explained that this is a different
explanation from what the Charles County Advisory Board had thought.
Mr. Tassone questioned
the need to do this transaction as an accounting mechanism. Mr. Rice explained that if the partial
termination is not approved, the entire property would be encumbered by the TDR
easement and TNC would not retain 7 available development rights.
Steve Bunker, Nature Conservancy, stated that
there was a contract purchaser who had intended to purchase the property, sell
most of the TDRs and then subdivide into three lots
to be sold as developable lots. TNC had
an interest in the property so they purchased it. The appraisal that was done for this sale, had to allow the contract purchasers’ intent to be
carried out. Therefore, they have to
preserve that same equity in order to balance their books. This is more of an internal accounting
mechanism for them.
Mr. Colhoun asked if
there was a way that TNC could agree not to develop the 7 lots. Otherwise, the only assurance that the Board
would have that they would not be developed is the word of TNC. Mr. Bunker answered that he would have to
speak with their attorneys.
Lewis Logan, Board member, asked if there was a
specific time frame in which this transaction has to be done. If not, he would like for TNC’s
attorneys to speak with MALPF’s attorneys
Mr. Stahl stated that he didn’t have a problem
with this request from an equity standpoint but he feels that there needs to be
some clarification about the ability to develop the lots. If the agricultural subdivision is done, it
will physically take away the agricultural viability of that land.
Mr. Conrad stated that TDRs
have a different value from actual lots and asked Mr. Rice if he knew what that
difference was.
Mr. Rice stated that the TDRs
are worth, at the top end, $5,000 a piece.
A building lot is worth about $140,000.
Mr. D. Wilson reminded the Board that the
landowners could leave this meeting, submit a request to terminate the entire
district, and come back to us with a request for a 105 acre district.
Motion #5: To table the request of The Nature
Conservancy for a 21.37 acre partial termination of district property until the
December meeting to give TNC’s attorneys an
opportunity to speak with MALPF’s attorneys to see if
they can work out a way that the Board can be assured that the 7 development
rights will not be developed in the future.
Motion: Lewis Logan Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
B.
QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY
1. 17-90-02e Fornos, Jaime & Brenda 199.073 acres
Request to construct a
tenant house on easement property.
Mr. & Mrs. Fornos
are the subsequent owners of the easement property. The current request is for a tenant house for
the use of a tenant fully engaged in the running of the farm.
The proposed tenant house will be occupied by a
person who is fully engaged in the operation of the farm. This individual will assist the Fornos’ with the care and training of 12 to 20 horses,
harvest of hayfields, and maintenance of 80 acres of CRP, along with various
other daily upkeep and maintenance requirements.
According to Queen Anne’s County, the proposed
tenant house is to be located near a tree line.
Access will be via a 100’ driveway from
Staff recommends approval based on the
provisions of the deed of easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article,
Section 2-513(b)(4), Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of one
tenant house per 100 acres for use of a tenant fully engaged in the operation
of the farm.
Rad Sakhamuri
stated that the proposed lot is actually located along the road, with direct
access. A tenant was recently hired to
work on the farm.
Mr. Conrad asked if a tenant house previously
existed on the property (the map notes a previous location of a trailer). Ms. Sakhamuri
stated that the original owner had placed a trailer on an approved owner’s
lot. A second owner moved the trailer
off of the property and replaced it with a permanent dwelling. This same trailer is now going to be moved
back onto the property if this request is approved.
Ms. Schultz asked for clarification of the
request letter stating that the property could have two tenant houses on 199
acres. Mr. Conrad answered that the
landowner is entitled to one tenant house but could request a second which may
be approved by the Board if a compelling need is demonstrated.
Motion #6: To approve the request of Jaime and
Brenda Fornos to construct a tenant house on their
easement property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
III. AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
No district petitions
IV. PROGRAM
POLICY
A.
State Ranking Guidelines (no attachments)
The ranking guidelines
have been circulating for a while. Mr.
Conrad is asking the Board to approve the Rankings Guidelines as presented,
incorporating the minor suggestions of Ms. Schultz and comments of Mr. Colhoun, along with the Board’s allowance of administrative
approval of any counties rankings that are considered consistent with the
guidelines and do not incorporate any county specific criteria or alter the
language of any of the measures as they are now set out. He is also asking the Board allow administrative
approval for any county that chooses to adopt the existing Federal Farm and
Ranchland Protection Program LESA ranking system.
Ms. Schultz offered a
comment. One question is on the
protection of surrounding areas where greater points are given to a parcel that
is protected with surrounding district or easement areas. Does that jeopardize the first parcel in that
area? Mr. Conrad stated that the
intention is to build large blocks of contiguous land. Obviously, if the county doesn’t already have
any preserved area, the area that already has a contiguous block will have an
advantage. Part of the guidelines is to
encourage the building of existing blocks.
Mr. Colhoun
asked if the Board members have had an opportunity to look through the guidelines
and if they would like more time. Mr.
Conrad added that we have been working with the Program Administrators and had
a workshop in June to go over the guidelines with the Department of Planning,
NRCS, and MDA, they were then reviewed by the county program
administrators. What was presented is
the product of that process.
Tammy Buckle, Caroline
County Program Administrator, stated that within the county most of them are
done on a point system. So if a county
is less concerned about building a contiguous block they would give it fewer
points.
Mr. Lippincott
stated that
Mr. Conrad answered that
the points are only there as examples of how you implement it. The county can chose any points they
want. What makes the difference is the
percentage. It can be rewritten to be
clearer if that’s necessary.
Mr. Tassone
asked Mr. Lippincott if he anticipated being able to
use the optimization analysis for the coming round? Mr. Lippincott
replied that was correct. It would not
be available for another year. Mr. Tassone suggests that since this is for longer terms than
the current cycle, we need to recognize that any approval is for later rounds.
Mr. Colhoun
emphasized again that he wants to give the Board members every opportunity to
study the document and be confident in any decision they make. Mr. C. Wilson stated that he would like to
have an opportunity to review the document.
This is only his second meeting and he has not yet read it.
Mr. Conrad asked that if
the review goes for another month that the Board gives administrative approval
of the portion that is within the guidelines.
Ms. Buckle stated that
they have 13 or 14 applications and it would be nice to have more than a week
or two to do them. Also, the guidelines
have to be approved by their local boards.
Mr. Conrad stated that
we have to have all of the systems in place before we can make offers (sometime
in March or April). This year, the
counties will receive administrative approvals if they are staying within the
guidelines. This is not final.
Mr. Tassone
reiterated that the guidelines are the result of a piece of legislation that
passed two years that were a recommendation of the Foundation’s Task Force to
implement ranking guidelines like this that are designed to make sure that the
selection of priority properties for easement acquisition best contributes to
the achievement of the program’s goals.
It was a really long and difficult process to take the Task Force’s
recommendation and the law and turn them into something that might be
logistically workable for all of the counties.
It will be almost impossible to fully determine how well and how
efficient they are without giving them a try.
Mr. Rice asked if the
counties are required to come up with their own ranking system based on the
guidelines. Mr. Conrad responded that he
has a bare-bones ranking that is available for their use. The counties could use the basic one this
year until they decide what they want to do.
Mr. D. Wilson stated
that if it is approved today, this will be how we tell the counties to proceed
for this cycle, so that they can get moving.
At the work session, we will have had a couple of months to see if this
is working or we will have the opportunity to make changes for the next
cycle. He is confident that with all of
the work that has gone into this process, we probably won’t have any
problems. The idea is to buy properties
in the order that the local government feels fits all of their needs yet ties
into our overall principles.
Ms. Buckle stated that
their properties have already been ranked once.
Using this new system, may change the order of the properties that they
have. Mr. Conrad explained that the
initial ranking was done at the county level because the Foundation has a cap
of 80% properties if there are over five (5) applications in order to keep
control of the cost of appraisals. The
counties do this initial ranking before any applications are forwarded to the
Foundation. Most counties use their own
ranking system. Ms. Buckle stated that
they don’t use a different ranking to then determine which properties would be
first. They have two estate properties
that have ranked in the top three. Due
to the amount of money they have, they are hoping that these two properties
will be purchased. If they go through
the new ranking, that may change.
Mr. Rice asked what if
the Board finds that the guidelines that
Elizabeth Weaver,
Administrative Officer, clarified that we are not requiring use of the LESA
system. MALPF’s
guidelines actually give more flexibility to the counties.
Mr. Colhoun
asked if the Board was ready to make a decision to adopt the guidelines and
move on.
Motion # 7: To accept
MALPF staff’s proposal for the ranking system for use in the FY 05 easement
cycle.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
B.
Option Contract Violation
The Foundation has a signed Option Contract with
David B. Hemphill on his 55.61 acre district.
After the effective date of the title review, Mr. Hemphill conveyed 31
acres of the farm to himself and Manon C. Roderick by
Deed recorded in Liber 4117, folio 486. In addition, Mr. Hemphill obtained additional
loans on part of the property, and put on three additional Deeds of Trust
recorded in Liber 4117, folio 492; Liber 4117, folio 515; and Liber
4117, folio 540, also in violation of the Option Contract. These are violations of the Option Contract
with the State, and effectively subdivides the farm in violation of the
District Agreement, which in pertinent part states: “The Grantor shall not mortgage, encumber, or otherwise dispose of the
aforesaid property, or any part thereof prior to the expiration of this option
without having first obtained the prior written consent of the Grantee…”
On Advice of Counsel, Foundation staff recommends
the following courses of action:
1)
The Board of Trustees approves assignment of the State's Option
Contract from Mr. Hemphill to Mr. Hemphill and Ms. Roderick.
2)
Mr. Hemphill put himself and Ms. Roderick in title to the entire
55.61 acres.
3)
The new lenders must subordinate to the MALPF Deed of Easement
with the understanding that they may not foreclose and sell off one parcel of
the property (over which they have their Deeds of Trust) from the entire 55.61
acres.
4)
Once placed under Easement, the farm may not be subdivided by
foreclosure.
William Powel, Carroll
County Program Administrator, stated that this is a multi-parceled deed. It was done out carelessness and not an
attempt to circumvent the Foundation. Mr.
Hemphill and his title company have already agreed to all of these
conditions. They will place the property
under joint ownership.
Nancy Forrester,
Assistant Attorney General, confirmed that Mr. Hemphill was unaware of what he
did. He wanted his fiancé to be on the
title for a majority of the farm with him.
Motion
#8: To approve staff’s
recommendation on a course of action to correct Mr. Hemphill’s Option Contract.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Judy Lynch
Status: Approved
Ms. Scott asked if the Foundation needs anything in writing to assure us
that these steps will be taken. Mr.
Forrester responded that she will prepare an amendment to the option contract
and the landowner will provide a new deed.
V. INFORMATION
AND DISCUSSION
A. Re-review of request by WilTel Communications & KCW Engineering Technologies
(Information to be passed out at meeting)
This request was originally placed on the
According to
The request was approved by the Baltimore County
Advisory Board and is consistent with local zoning.
The easements and plats were reviewed by Nancy
Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services, to
verify that the overlay easements do not contain language that may compromise
the MALPF easements or district agreements and that there will be minimal
impact on the agricultural operation of the farms. Ms. Forrester will report her findings to the
Board.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the
request, based on the Foundation’s policy on overlay easements, provided that
Ms. Forrester has determined that the overlay easements do not compromise the
MALPF districts and easements.
Christie Wallace and Michelle Dickenson of WilTel Communications, and Ron
Wand of KCW Engineering were present.
Ms. Wallace apologized for missing the previous meeting. She explained that WilTel
has answered a lot of MALPF’s questions. There are five properties that are covered by
MALPF easements. On three of the
properties along
Ms. Wallace explained that the fiber optic
conduit cable systems consist of 3 conduits, about 1½ - 2 inches in
diameter. On this project, given the
terrain, they will mostly bore. Mr. Wand
explained that the boring operation is directional. The bore travels from 500 to 1000 feet at a
time. At that time, it has to be
reconnected and reburied.
Ms. Forrester stated that there will be no
farmed land affected. There is some
question of the language of the easement and WilTel
has agreed to the acknowledgement paragraph acknowledging that MALPF has
superior interest in the property and that the parties are going to work to
preserve the agricultural integrity of the land. The only other question had to do with the
word ‘subdivide’ in the paragraph that allows the grantee to divide a
portion. Companies go through mergers
and changes and she questions the use of the words ‘divide’ and ‘subdivide.’
Mr. Stahl stated that his concern is the possibility
of subdivision. Most of this cable will
be laid along the gas right-of-way. Is
there clarity of the term ‘telecommunication?’
Ms. Wallace replied that in 50 years we don’t
know what the term ‘telecommunication’ will mean.
Mr. D. Wilson asked if the acknowledgement
paragraph would be inserted into their agreement with the landowner. Ms. Wallace replied that Mr. Constable
represents the Manor Hills Farms and the Waters properties. She is working on him to insert the wording
into those easements. The other
easements have already been changed. The
easements will be executed upon Board approval.
Mr. Wilson explained that by this language being placed within the
easements, if MALPF sees something happening on the property, we could step up
and take action because we have superior interest.
Ms. Dickenson stated that the easement is
self-limiting to the use of ‘telecommunications’ as there is a paragraph that
describes the use as “The provision or transmission of data, information or
communications.”
Motion #9: To approve the request of WilTel Communications to place an overlay communications
easements on easement property subject to the approval of the Attorney Generals
Office of language in the easement document to reflect the changes that the Board
feels are necessary.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
Mr. Colhoun
invited all of the Board members and Program Administrators to join the staff
at the
Motion #10: To adjourn the meeting.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Judy Lynch
Status: Approved
The regular session
Board meeting was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully Submitted:
_____________________________________
James A. Conrad, Executive Director
_____________________________________