MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun, Chairman
Jerry Klasmeier, representing
Comptroller Schaefer
Patricia Langenfelder
James Pelura, D.V.M.
Vera Mae
Schultz, Vice Chairman
Robert F. Stahl, Jr.
Joe Tassone, representing Secretary
Scott, Dept. of Planning
Chris Wilson
Douglas H. Wilson, representing Secretary
Riley, Dept. of Agriculture
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer
Kopp
Judith C. Lynch
Shirley Pilchard
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jim Boyle, representing Queen Anne’s County landowner
Tammy Buckle,
Allen H. Cohey, Queen Anne’s County landowner
James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive
Director
Carol Council, MALPF Administrative
Officer
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney
General, Dept. of General Services
Dave Kelleher, DGS
Joy Levy, Howard
Wally Lippincott,
Chris McMahon, engineer representing
Carla
Ann Merryman,
Patrick Naehu, The Nature Conservancy
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney
General, Dept. of Agriculture
Karl Phelps, representing Queen Anne’s County landowner
Barbara Polito,
William Powel III, Carroll
Charles Rice, Charles
Ralph Robertson,
Kelly Rowan,
Radhika Sakhamuri, Queen Anne's
Eric
Debbie Vaughn,
Katharine M. Voss,
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 OF
Mr. Colhoun announced that Mr.
Conrad would like to allow the Board members and others additional time to
review the October, 2004, minutes as they have just been completed. The November, 2004, minutes have been
distributed in time to allow ample time for review. Mr. Conrad explained that the October minutes
were extremely long, in excess of 30 pages.
In addition, because he experienced difficulty understanding some of
what the representatives from
Motion #1: To approve the
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
B. ADDITIONS
OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr. Conrad announced that there were
two deletions of agenda items. Items
II.B.2 and II.B.4 were withdrawn from the agenda.
Mr. Conrad announced that the
workshop that the Board had discussed at the November meeting has been
scheduled for
Mr. Colhoun asked the program
administrators to forward to the Foundation staff any thoughts or ideas they
would like to have discussed at the meeting.
Mr. Colhoun asked them to prioritize the items they would like
discussed. Mr. Conrad stated that the agenda
will be circulated prior to the meeting.
Mr. Conrad stated that with regard
to the WilTel fiber optic cable request that was heard by the Board last month,
the Foundation staff was recently informed that
II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 13-82-06e Fleming, Donald E. & Shirley L. 176.41 acres
Amendment to motion of approval of a
child’s lot
Mr. Conrad stated that this request is coming back to the
Board to address an issue concerning a condition that was placed on an approval
of a child’s lot request.
Mr. & Mrs. Fleming are the original owners of the
easement property. On
As part of the motion approving the lot, the Board added a
condition that a trailer located on the property be removed once the new
dwelling is constructed. The information
provided to the Board stated that two dwellings existed on the property at the
time of district establishment and easement sale. One of the dwellings was in a dilapidated
state; the other dwelling was a trailer in which Scott Fleming and his wife
currently reside.
Donald E. Fleming recently contacted the Foundation
requesting information and clarification about the condition of the removal of
the trailer. In researching the issue,
staff and counsel determined that, since the trailer was counted as an existing
dwelling at the time of easement sale, the Board does not have the authority to
place the condition attached to the approval of the child’s lot.
The Foundation does not pay for the acre surrounding
existing dwellings at the time of easement purchase. Mr. and Mrs. Fleming have not yet requested
release of the lot surrounding the pre-existing dwellings, which is an
administrative process. Under the terms
of their easement, they may request to release the lots at any time. (Note the Fleming easement pre-dates the new
lot rights provisions which became effective
Foundation staff recommends that the Board amend its
original motion to remove the condition placed on the approval of the child’s
lot. Staff recommends approval of the
child’s lot based on the landowner’s rights contained in the deed of easement’s
covenants, conditions, limitations and restrictions, Section A (1)(b) “...the Grantee, on written application from the
Grantor, shall release free of restrictions only for the Grantor who originally
sold this easement, 1.0 acre or less for the purpose of constructing a dwelling
for the use only of that Grantor or the Grantor’s child...”
Mr. Conrad stated that, because the Flemings were not
present during the October meeting, inadequate information was available about
the situation. Joy Levy, Howard County
Program Administrator, had stated during the October meeting that the Flemings
may be required by
Mr. Colhoun asked if the property owner was in attendance at
this meeting. He was informed that they
were not. Mr. Colhoun stated that he
wished to make it clear that many of these types of issues would be easily
resolved if the property owner attended the meeting at which his request is
being heard.
Joy Levy stated that in the past she would ask the landowner
to attend the meeting if she felt that the request would be controversial in
some way. She felt that this request was
a standard child’s lot request and she did not feel it necessary at the time to
ask the landowner to attend. If this is
to be the standard procedure in the future, she will ask all landowners to
attend the Board meetings.
Motion
#2: To remove the condition placed
on the original approval of the child’s lot and to continue to recognize the
trailer as a pre-existing dwelling.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Pat Langenfelder
Status: Approved
Discussion ensued about what constitutes
a pre-existing dwelling when a trailer is involved. Mr. Conrad stated that the Foundation relies
on the information provided by the County Program Administrators. The issue is treated differently by the
various counties. The Board advised that
this issue should be addressed and clarified at the upcoming retreat.
B.
1. 03-94-03Ae Estate of Katherine W. Merryman
(Orebanks II LLC) 80.00 acres
Request for the exclusion of a
1-acre child’s lot from easement property
Mr. Colhoun stated that he would recuse
himself as chairman as he knows the individual who is making the request
personally. He asked Ms. Schultz, who is
vice-chair of the Board, to act in the capacity of the chair for the Merryman
agenda items.
Wallace Lippincott, Baltimore County Program Administrator,
introduced himself to the Board. He also
introduced Ann Merryman and Katherine Voss, the landowners making the
request. He also introduced Chris
McMahon who is the engineer representing the landowners.
Mr. Lippincott stated that the Merrymans are one of the more
esteemed farming families in
Ms. Schultz asked Mr. Conrad to present the agenda item.
Mr. Conrad stated that Katherine W. Merryman was the
original grantor of the easement. 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 John B. Merryman,
child of Katherine W. Merryman.
During her lifetime, Ms. Merryman documented her intent to
create lots for her children, including John B. Merryman. Since the easement property remains under the
ownership of the immediate family (Orebanks II, LLC is a family-owned LLC
created by the estate of Katherine W. Merryman), the child is entitled to
request a child’s lot. (
According to
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
$4,750.00.
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...”
Mr. Tassone asked for an explanation for the choice of the
location of the lot as it relates to the farm use of the property.
Katherine Voss stated that the lot is to be located along
the edge of the property. The area
surrounding the lot is not currently farmed.
Mr. Lippincott stated that the lot is adjacent to another easement farm
owned by the family. The farm buildings
on that farm are located adjacent to the proposed lot location.
Ms. Schultz asked about the wedge of land between the lot
and the road. Mr. McMahon stated that he
does not anticipate that the wedge shown on the drawing will actually remain
and that the lot will actually be located next to the road. He did not want to do the final drawing until
the Foundation had approved it.
Motion
#3: To approve the request for a
1.0 acre child’s lot for John Merryman.
Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder
Abstain: Dan Colhoun
Status: Approved
2. 03-99-10e Buffalo Run II, LLC (Merrymans) 165.59 acres
ITEM
WITHDRAWN
3. 03-99-10e Buffalo Run II, LLC (Merrymans) 165.59 acres
Request for acreage exchange of
easement property
Mr. Conrad presented the request of the members of Buffalo
Run II, LLC. Buffalo Run II, a
family-owned LLC, was the original grantor of the easement. The current request is for an acreage
exchange of easement property for non-easement property.
The membership of Buffalo Run II, LLC, requests an acreage
exchange of 82.3 acres of non-easement property for 16.2 acres of easement
property. The exchange is being
requested for estate planning purposes. The Merrymans own two additional
contiguous easement properties. They own
two additional contiguous parcels not under easement. The total of the five contiguous parcels
covers 343.7 acres.
According to
According to the County, the 16.2-acre area proposed to be
removed from the easement is comprised of 100% Class II soils. The acreage proposed to be added to the easement
contains 28.3 acres of Class II soils, 22 acres of Class III soils and 23 acres
of Class IV soils (Note: Class IV soils are not considered prime soils) . The acreage being added is comprised of 61%
prime soils.
The request was approved by the local agricultural advisory
board and conforms to local zoning regulations.
Foundation staff recommends approval because significantly
more acreage is being added to the easement than is being removed and the
exchange will not result in additional development. Bill Beach, Office of Real Estate, Department
of General Services, is currently reviewing this request to determine if the
exchange would impact the value of the easement. Mr. Beach’s office had indicated that he
expected to provide a response at the Board meeting. However, he has since communicated to the
staff that he was unable to finalize a response prior to today’s meeting.
Mr. Lippincott stated that the Merryman family had met with
the Foundation staff several months ago as they had several questions while
they were going through the estate planning process. The Merrymans have also met several times
with
Mr. Doug Wilson asked about the plans for the 16.2
acres. Mr. Lippincott stated that the
family plans to put it under easement through a land trust. Mr. Lippincott stated that the 16-acre
portion is located adjacent to a county easement. The County will not allow that property to
stay out of easement. He expects that
the property will be put under a Land Preservation Trust easement. The reason the 16-acre portion is being taken
out is because it will be going to one of the children as part of the estate
planning process. It will be joined to
another family-owned piece of property.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that the Foundation would have to
have DGS tell us that we are okay as far as value is concerned before we can go
forward with this request. Mr. Wilson
asked Mr. Lippincott if the County feels that the Board should make an approval
conditional on the placement of an easement on the 16 acres. Mr. Lippincott stated that the County can
make requirements as part of the zoning approval.
Mr. Conrad stated that he would like to be able to provide a
clear sequence to the Board of Public Works when it comes up for approval and
he wants to be able to give them a clear answer on what is going to happen on
the 16 acres because the question will most likely come up.
Ms. Schultz asked if there were further questions. There were none.
Motion
#4: To approve the request to
exchange easement land with the condition that DGS provides a favorable report
regarding the effect on the value of the easement.
Motion: Bob Stahl Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Abstain: Dan Colhoun
Status: Approved
4. 03-94-06 Bryant, Barry C. & Elizabeth L. 103.00 acres
ITEM
WITHDRAWN
C.
QUEEN
ANNE’S COUNTY
1. 17-98-06 EMERSON, Marjorie B. 105.00
acres
Change in the configuration of the
boundaries of a property that has a pending easement offer
Mr. Conrad stated that Mr. James Boyle, the legal guardian
of Ms. Emerson, is in attendance and is available for any questions that the
Board members may have. Mr. Conrad
asked Mr. Boyle to feel free to add anything that he feels may be helpful to
the Board members in making their decision.
Mr. Conrad stated that Ms. Emerson is the original owner of
this pending easement property. The
easement offer currently pending was made in FY 2000. At the July meeting of the Foundation’s Board
of Trustees, the Board set a
·
Only
105 acres of the 298.803 acre property was put into an agricultural district
with the approval of Queen Anne’s County and the Foundation.
·
The
entire property was encumbered by a Queen Anne’s County open space easement,
though only 60 acres were required to be covered by easement under County
rules. The County and the Foundation had
to reach an agreement on how to configure the property so MALPF would not be
purchasing development rights over already encumbered land, and the landowner
had to amend the open space agreement to reflect the County’s and Foundation’s
agreement.
·
The
landowner had to provide an adequate property description for the 105 acre agricultural
district over which the Foundation’s easement would be placed.
Mr. James Boyle, the legal guardian of Ms. Emerson, resolved
the issue of the open space easement by working with the County to relocate it
onto the portion of the property that will not be subject to the MALPF easement
and amending the original open space easement.
He has also now provided a survey to meet the property description
requirement. The line established by the
survey differs from the original line proposed by Mr. Boyle and approved by the
Foundation. Because the modification is
not a minor modification, the staff wishes for the Board to review the surveyed
line in light of the goals and requirements of the program. If approved, the district agreement would be
amended to reflect this survey allowing the property to go to settlement.
The soils on the 105 acres within this surveyed area are
composed of over 92% Class II and III soils and are used to produce small grain
crops. The soils on the originally
approved configuration were 82% qualifying soils. When the agricultural district was
established in 1998, the Board approved withholding the remaining 193.803+
acres of the parcel. At the time, the
entire parcel was subject to a County open space easement, but only a total of
approximately 60 acres are required by the County to be encumbered. The original configuration of the
agricultural district was as a wedge in the southeast corner of the property. The surveyed configuration follows the general idea of taking out the
southeast wedge, but configures the southern end more narrowly and extends the
parcel farther north and east along the property line and excludes an area that
has sand and gravel potential, shown on the plat as a concave dip in the
boundary line. In Mr. Boyle’s capacity
as Ms. Emerson’s legal guardian, he has a legal obligation to maximize the
return on her assets to ensure her care.
He wishes to retain the possibility of using this area for a commercial
sand pit, should it be necessary to provide funding to ensure Ms. Emerson’s
care. The County has noted that no
application has been made for such an operation, and if an application were
submitted, it would not be readily granted.
Queen Anne’s County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory
Board reviewed this change at its meeting on December 1 and has made a
favorable recommendation. The change is
also acceptable to the Department of Planning and Zoning.
Staff recommends approval of this modification to the
configuration of the agricultural district because it results in a higher
proportion of qualifying soils for the land over which the easement will be
purchased and it will have no appreciable effect on the value of the
parcel. If the configuration is considered
in conjunction with the location of the open space easement in the north and
northwest portion of the excluded acreage, the combined configuration reduces
much of the potential problem posed by the proposed narrow neck of the district
along the northeast boundary line. It
should be noted, however, that this district line was configured deliberately
to allow the possibility of a commercial sand pit on the excluded acreage
covered by neither the open space nor the MALPF easements, though such a
commercial operation may not be approved by local authorities.
Mr. Conrad stated that the Foundation staff initially had
concerns about the farmability of the property. A color map showing the location of the open
space easement, provided during this meeting to the Board members, better demonstrates
the configuration of the property than what was provided with the agenda. Upon examining the color map, staff
concluded that the resulting parcel will be farmable.
Mr. Boyle stated that the sandpit idea has been proposed to
make provisions to allow additional income to provide for the future health
care of Ms. Emerson. He does not know if
the sandpit will ever actually happen, but he wants to keep that option open.
Radhika Sakhamuri, Queen Anne’s County Program
Administrator, stated that there are several instances where individuals apply
to the County for permission for a sandpit but they haven’t followed through in
the creation of a sandpit.
Mr. Tassone asked why the open space easement covered 130
acres. Ms. Sakhamuri stated that in 1993
Queen Anne’s County did not force a landowner to survey off an area delineating
the area set aside for Open Space when a lot was requested. The County gave the landowner the option to
temporarily place the Open Space easement over the entire property. This helped the landowner avoid the costly
expense of paying for a survey. However,
the County has since changed its policy, and the landowner must now delineate
exactly where the open space easement will be located.
Mr. Tassone asked if there was a cluster subdivision request
on this property to prompt the requirement for a 60-acre set aside. Ms. Sakhamuri stated that there had been a
cluster subdivision request on the property which necessitated 56 acres to be placed
under an open space easement.
Mr. Chris Wilson asked if the open space easement area could
be timbered. Mr. Boyle stated that it
could.
Motion #5: To approve the request to change the configuration of the
boundaries of the Emerson pending easement offer property
Motion: Bob Stahl Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that the
Emerson easement was the oldest pending easement on the Foundation’s books and
he was very glad to see this issue resolved today. He thanked counsel and staff for their work
on bringing this issue to resolution. He
stated that the General Assembly consistently asks about the number of
outstanding easements that have not been settled. He stated that he is glad that he can report
that the Foundation has made great progress on this issue.
D.
1. 08-94-06 The Nature Conservancy 126.37
acres
Re-review of request for a 21.37
acre partial termination of district property.
Mr. Conrad stated that Patrick
Naehu, Project Director for The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Charles Rice,
Charles County Program Administrator, were in attendance to answer
questions. Mr. Conrad presented the
request of The Nature Conservancy.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 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. 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 TNC
to uphold their end of the agreement made as a part of the sale of the
property; and 2) it will allow TNC 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 it 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 program.
According to
At last month’s Board meeting, the Board tabled the request
to allow time for “TNC’s attorneys 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”
(MALPF Board Meeting Minutes, November, 2004).
Upon consultation with Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney
General for the Department of General Services, the Foundation staff recommends
approval of this request with the condition that TNC draft a proposed agreement
between itself and MALPF that limits development of the 21 acres to no more
than three lots in consideration of MALPF permitting partial termination of the
District, and that if TNC decides to transfer all or any part of the 21 acres
in the future that it be required to record a Restrictive Covenant against the
21 acres delineating the limited development prior to any transfer.
Mr. Conrad asked Mr. Naehu if he wanted to provide any
further details or had any comments. Mr.
Naehu stated that The Nature Conservancy accedes to the Foundation’s
conditions.
Mr. Rice asked that, if the Foundation approved the partial
termination today, the Board make the motion to approve a partial termination
of 21 acres or less to enable The Nature Conservancy to retain the other four
development rights by keeping more land in the district.
Mr. Colhoun asked Ms. Forrester for her opinion on Mr.
Rice’s request because it differs from what he understood the request to
be. Ms. Forrester stated that she too is
surprised by this request and she did not know about the change in the request
until now. She asked Mr. Rice and Mr.
Naehu if they wanted to add twelve acres back into the district so they could
sell the additional TDR’s. Mr. Neahu
stated that TNC is not making that specific request here today. He stated that TNC, like the Foundation, has
an interest in limiting development on the property. The request, as stated by Mr. Rice, was to
allow TNC the flexibility to sell the additional four development rights, if
it’s in its interest to do so.
Mr. Stahl stated that he wanted to remind the Board that he
is abstaining from the vote on this item because he has been involved in this
at the county level. He stated that his
concern was that TNC had said that the request was being made for an accounting
reason. But, in fact, it wanted to sell
development rights all along.
Mr. Naehu stated that the request was made so TNC could
maintain equity in the property. TNC
wants to have the ability to sell the development rights but does not, at this
point, have specific plans to do so.
Mr. Naehu stated that TNC has acceded to all the conditions made by the
Foundation. The ability to sell four
development rights will not result in more development on this property. In acceding to the conditions placed on the
approval, additional development is not possible on the property.
Ms. Forrester asked Mr. Rice why he did not just ask for the
partial termination of nine acres. Mr.
Rice stated that it would probably not be possible to create three buildable lots on nine acres. Also three 3-acre lots would probably not
appraise at the value that TNC needs to show.
Mr. Colhoun stated that the item was tabled at the last
meeting to allow TNC to be in direct contact with the Attorney General’s
office. For some reason, that did not
happen. It was his understanding that
the details were to be worked out between TNC and the AG’s office. There are many details entering into the
discussion today.
Mr. Naehu stated that he had been working with Mr. Rice and
he apologized if not all the details were attended to. Had he known that there were additional
details that he could have worked out, he would have contacted the AG’s office
directly.
Mr. Tassone stated that last month the concern was how the
Foundation could ensure that no more than three lots could be created on the
terminated area. He felt the issue today
is if the Board feels it has adequate assurance that no more than three lots
can be created, and additionally, if the Board should allow TNC to sell the
additional four TDR’s. Mr. Conrad stated
that the problem is that the County will only allow them to sell the TDR’s if
the associated land is in a district.
They want to be able to leave more of the land in the district so they
could sell the additional TDR’s.
Mr. Conrad stated that another issue is the location of the
area to be terminated if it is less than the 21 acres. Mr. Tassone asked if the location of the area
has been determined. Mr. Rice stated
that it would certainly be located within the 21-acre area already delineated,
most likely in the southern portion. Ms. Forrester asked if it would be
contiguous. Mr. Rice stated that it
would have to be. Mr. Tassone asked if
the Board feels it is necessary to see the actual location of the area before
approving it.
Mr. Tassone asked again if the Board is comfortable with
what is being requested. Mr. Colhoun
asked what Ms. Forrester has to say about it.
Ms. Forrester stated that it is easy to make TNC abide by the agreement
not to develop more than three lots on the property. The part that the Board has to decide
concerns the four development rights. She stated that that is not a legal
issue; it is a policy issue. Whether the
Board members are going to allow them to sell the TDR’s is not an issue for
counsel; it is a policy decision. The
issue of location can be resolved by TNC providing a map showing the location.
Mr. Chris Wilson asked why it makes a difference where
they’re located as long as they are within the 21 acres. Ms. Forrester stated that we need to define
where the terminated area is. We would
need to know the location of the houses that the eventual owners of the
property will build.
Mr. Colhoun stated that the Board should deal with this
issue as if it is not dealing with The Nature Conservancy, but with any
landowner. The Board should keep in mind
any precedent that would be set. He
wants to be sure that the Attorney General is comfortable with any decision
that is made.
Mr. Rice stated that, on the TDR issue that Ms. Forrester
raised, if the 21 acres is scaled down to a smaller area, the remainder will go
back into the district and the accompanying TDR’s would be available for sale
anyway, just as it is today. Those TDR’s
can be sold anytime now or later. He
stated that he does not think that should be an issue for the Board.
Mr. Stahl asked who the owner of the property is at the
moment. Mr. Naehu stated that TNC owns
it. Mr. Stahl asked why the
documentation constantly makes reference to conditions of the sale if it’s
already sold. Mr. Rice stated that there
were conditions attached to the original sale that TNC gives the right to the
original owner to sell the TDR’s associated with the property. Mr. Stahl asked what would happen if the
conditions are not fulfilled. Mr. Rice
stated that the property would revert back to the original owner who could then
sell it at any time for development.
Mr. Tassone asked if Ms. Forrester was concerned that the
landowner would be able to profit from the development rights on
districts. Mr. Conrad stated that the
County makes it a condition, that in order to sell TDR’s,
a property must be in a district. The
Foundation cannot make it a condition that landowners cannot sell TDR’s from
their properties. Ms. Forrester stated
that, for the Board, the issue is, is the Foundation promoting development by
allowing them to sell the four TDR’s?
It’s not a legal issue.
Ms. Schultz asked if the Foundation is being responsible to
the taxpayers by granting this request and what perception would be created by
granting the request.
Mr. Conrad stated that in terms of the use of public funds,
TNC has no intention to sell an easement to the Foundation. It is going the TDR route.
Mr. Conrad stated that TNC is asking to have the ability to
remove less acreage from the district, not more. So this request should actually be considered
more favorable to us. They are still
only going to be able to create three lots.
If they can do that on less land, then that’s a better deal for the
Foundation.
Mr. Naehu stated that the Foundation should consider, in the
context of considering this request, that
Mr. Colhoun asked Ms Forrester if she was comfortable with
the three lots issue. Ms. Forrester
stated that the only issue is location.
Mr. Rice stated that he would like to avoid having this
issue come back to the Board again.
Provided the area is contiguous and located within the delineated area,
could the request be approved administratively?
Mr. Conrad asked if the County should review it again before
it comes to the Foundation.
Mr. Stahl stated that, while he respects the work of TNC, he
wishes that the requests wouldn’t keep changing every time he hears them. It concerns him that TNC does not just simply
say what it wants and stay consistent.
Motion #6: To approve the request to terminate up to 21.37 acres or
less, subject to the following conditions: the area that is not terminated must
be contiguous with the existing district; the area that is terminated must be
one contiguous block; the area to be terminated must be located within what has
already been delineated and is subject to approval by MALPF staff; and TNC will
agree to sign an agreement document, approved by Ms. Forrester, limiting development of the terminated area
to no more than three lots.
Mr. Colhoun stated that before we
move forward with a vote that he would be more comfortable if he had the
assurance that the staff will work in close consultation with Nancy
Forrester. He stated that he also feels
it would be a good idea for TNC to sit down with the Attorney General and the
staff after the meeting.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Chris Wilson
Abstained: Bob Stahl
Opposed: Vera Mae Schultz
Status: Approved
III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
No district petitions
IV. PROGRAM POLICY
None
V. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION
A.
Mr. Conrad stated that George Mauer
of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) had requested a meeting with him and
Nick Williams, Acting Executive Director, Maryland Environment Trust. Mr. Mauer informed Mr. Conrad and Mr.
Williams that CBF would like to put together a group with a common concern for
land preservation to act as an advocacy group to try to protect land
preservation funding, starting with the 2005 legislative session. It would be a non-partisan advocacy network
made up of individuals who own property protected with easements through state
or local government or private land trusts.
Mr. Conrad stated that according to
Mr. Mauer, CBF would provide seed funding.
It would probably be carried out through either the Maryland Land Trust
Alliance or the Partners for Open Space, to provide information about
legislation or funding issues to the members of the mailing list. The idea would be for people who are
interested in this to then contact members of their local delegation during the
legislative session. It would also be
used throughout the year as an information network about issues such as updates
or changes to programs, information on stewardship or other information that
would be relevant to people who are participants in various state and local
programs. There would be no cost to any
members. This would be used as a
fundraising opportunity as much as legislative advocacy and as a communication
network. Mr. Mauer provided samples of
participation solicitation letters in the materials that were sent out with the
agenda. He welcomes any comments whether
or not MALPF, as a Board, chooses to participate.
Mr. Conrad stated that this issue
has already been heard by the Maryland Environmental Trust board. The board has
declined to participate but they have decided to make the mailing list of their
participants available to CBF. Mr.
Conrad stated that CBF has asked for a list of our participants. This is already available through a freedom
of information request. Do we wish to be
active participants in this proposal for a cooperative newsletter?
Mr. Wilson stated that he
understands why MET chose not to be a part of this. He stated that he did not understand why
Rural Legacy and GreenPrint were not included.
He felt that DNR should have been part of this. He stated that the Board as part of a state
government agency should not be a partner at this level of activity. That does not mean that we can’t provide them
with information about what is going in the program. However, he feels that the Foundation should
not be tied, as a state agency, to this type of advocacy, even though it may
help us with our endeavors.
Mr. Colhoun stated that, since
taking the position of chairman, he has been a speaker at several events to
take the opportunity to actively inform people about where the funding comes
from and why the funding is not there today.
He has discussed this matter with the Attorney General. He has publicly met with legislators and the
director of the budget for the State of Maryland and very actively stated the
Board’s case, i.e. we don’t want any more monies that are allocated to our
program to be diverted to other programs in the state, because it was
originally intended for agricultural land preservation, along with all the
other Open Space state programs. He
stated that he feels that Board members are independent persons who have the
right and the ability to talk. Mr. Colhoun stated that he wants to encourage
the Board members to talk to their legislators and to the administrative branch
and to whoever can be helpful in guiding the funding that the legislature
intended for the Board to spend. He
asked if any board member had comments.
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General
for the Department of Agriculture, stated that he feels that it is dangerous
for a state agency to have its members make statements that might be contrary
to the Governor’s policies. He stated
that the Governor is the one who sets up the budget and we have to be
careful. Each board member may have
their own individual opinion. One can
speak as a private citizen; that’s fine.
However, if one says that one is a member of a state agency, one should
not advocate a point of view that is not consistent with the Governor’s
policies. This is an executive state
agency. Mr. Nielsen stated that he
believes that when speaking on behalf of the agency, one should be consistent
with the Governor’s policies. The
Governor is the head of the state, and he is responsible for the budget and for
dealing with the state’s financial problems.
Mr. Nielsen stated that this is who we work for and who we represent.
Whatever statements are made could be working at cross purposes. People can speak as individuals and say what
they want on their own behalf. But when
you speak for the agency, you are seen as speaking on behalf of the State
government so you’ve got to be sure that your policies are consistent with the
Governor’s.
Mr. Conrad stated that he is not
sure that that is the role of the Board.
For instance, the Board will be presented with a Task Force report that
the members will be asked to take a position on. Part of the role that the Board plays is as
an advisor to the Governor’s office. He
stated that you can’t reflect the Governor’s policy if you are also an advisor
to the Governor on the policy.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that this
puts the Board members in a tough role between their role as advocates and
their role as Board members of an executive agency. He stated that the board members need to be
careful about where they are speaking as an individual and where they are
speaking as a representative of state government. He stated that the Foundation could, as an
organization, put out a newsletter to its landowners. The Board has talked about this, but it is a
staffing issue. The newsletter could
state that there are funding issues and that the Foundation is concerned about
them. However, there is a fine line.
Mr. Wilson stated that there have
been situations where MALPF staff has had to testify against legislation
proposed by the Task Force because the administration had decided to not go
along with the Task Force recommendations.
Mr. Colhoun stated that he wished to
recognize that Mr. Lewis Riley, Secretary of Agriculture, and Mr. John Brooks,
Deputy Secretary, have joined the meeting.
Mr. Colhoun stated that they have arrived at a good time as the Board is
having a philosophical discussion about the role of board members advocating on
behalf of agricultural land preservation and the funding for it.
Mr. Tassone stated that in any
public forum, members have to make it clear who they are speaking for, whether
it is as a board member or as an individual.
Mr. Tassone stated that what is not clear to him is that if a group (not
this specific group, the CBF, but any group) is advocating for full funding of
the program by the legislature, and it asks the Foundation to join them as an
advocate, and the non-government members of the Board votes to approve it, what
would then happen? Who would be required
or authorized to do what?
Mr. Nielsen stated that the whole
point is that whatever you vote on must be consistent with the Governor’s
policies. Mr. Tassone asked if it is
true that a Board member should then not even bring it up as a motion if it is
inconsistent with what the Governor wants.
Mr. Colhoun stated that, as the
Board is getting ready for the Christmas luncheon, the issue has to be put on
hold. He stated that CBF has asked for
two things. The first, the list of MALPF
landowners is obvious as it is public information anyway. The second issue is asking Mr. Colhoun to
sign the letter provided by the CBF. He
stated that he is not going to sign the letter.
A Board member stated that because
the letter does not include the CBF name, but is advocating CBF’s
positions on issues, he felt that the Foundation was being used and he does not
like to be used.
Mr. Colhoun stated that he had one
more comment before adjourning for lunch.
He feels that the Board is made up of individuals and he disagrees with
the Attorney General on this issue. He
feels that the Board members are all advocates for agricultural land
preservation and he has spoken as an individual to legislators and stated that
he feels that the funding is crucial to the future of agricultural land
preservation in the state. He stated
that he does not mind standing up and stating that he believes that the funding
should be put back where it should be.
There being no further business, Mr. Colhoun asked for a
motion for adjournment of the meeting.
Motion
#7: To adjourn the meeting.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Dr. Pelura
Status: Approved
The regular session Board meeting
was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully
Submitted:
_____________________________________
James A. Conrad, Executive Director
_____________________________________
Elizabeth Weaver, Administrative Officer