MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun, Chairman
Vera Mae
Schultz, Vice Chairman
Jerry Klasmeier, representing
Comptroller Schaefer
Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott,
Dept. of Planning
Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer
Kopp
Douglas H. Wilson, representing
Secretary Riley, Dept. of Agriculture
Patricia Langenfelder
Robert F. Stahl, Jr.
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Judith C. Lynch
Shirley Pilchard
Chris Wilson
James Pelura,
D.V.M.
OTHERS PRESENT:
James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive
Director
Carol Council, MALPF Administrative
Officer
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney
General, Dept. of General Services
Carla
Barbara Polito,
William Powel III, Carroll
Charles Rice, Charles
Ralph Robertson,
William Amoss, Harford
Sonia Ingram,
Radhika Sakhamuri, Queen Anne's
Daniel Rosen, Maryland Department of
Planning
Debbie Vaughan,
Larry Bowling,
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 stated that the
Motion #1: To approve the
Motion: Patricia
Langenfelder Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
APPROVAL
OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION OF
Mr.
Colhoun asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes.
Motion #2: To
approve the
Motion: Vera Mae Schultz Second: Patricia Langenfelder
Status: Approved
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR SESSION OF
Mr. Colhoun asked if there were any
additions or corrections to the minutes.
Ms. Schultz asked if two of the attendees could have further definition
of their affiliation. Jerry Klasmeier,
representing Comptroller Schaefer, asked for clarification of the acreage found
on page 5. In paragraphs 2, 4 and 8 the acreage is inconsistent. Also, Mr. Klasmeier stated that the soils
listed in paragraph 4 do not add up to 82.3 acres, or 61% prime soils. Carol Council, Administrative Officer, and
Robert Stahl, Board member, explained that the Class
IV soils are not prime. Therefore, the
61% prime soils consist of 28.3 acres of Class II soils and 22.0 acres of Class
soils. Added together, they equal 50.3
acres, or 61% of the 82.3 acres.
Motion #3: To
approve the
Motion: Jerry
Klasmeier Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
Mr. Colhoun stated that he has
spoken with Chris Wilson, Board member, and the reason he is not present at
today’s meeting is because of a farm accident.
Mr. Wilson has sustained a broken pelvis, which may take several months
to heal and rehabilitate.
Mr. Colhoun stated that Mr. Doug
Wilson has comments on the budget situation.
Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture,
passed out a chart of the budget projection for the MALPF program through
fiscal year 2010.
This year the House is the side of
the legislature that will move the budget. The basic budget bill is HB
150. The capital budget for bonds is not
out. The other bill that we have to deal
with in this year’s budget is SB 148, which is an administration Budget Reconciliation
Act, which alters a variety of structural things in law for the purposes of
adjusting budgetary issues.
The Department’s budget hearings are
the first on the calendar. We have our
budget in the Senate on
In looking at the sheet Mr. Wilson
passed out, If you were to look at the Governor’s
budget, it would indicate that the MALPF capital budget, what we spent for
easements, would be $57,000,000. But, in
order to understand what is really going to happen, he will talk about what the
Reconciliation Act does. The spreadsheet
is the budget, assuming the Reconciliation Act passes in its current form. The Reconciliation Act takes from the State
transfer tax, as they did the two previous years, and diverts money to the
General Fund. Last year, it diverted
100% of those revenues. That’s why, on
the form, under FY 2004 and FY 2005 there are no dollars for the transfer
tax. The General Assembly gave us bond
money in FY 2004 and FY 2005; they are shown on the form as ‘GO Bonds’. This year’s reconciliation bill is actually a
four (4) year piece of legislation. It
takes the revenue from the transfer tax and in different years diverts a
different percentage of the transfer tax.
Our share of the transfer tax is 17%.
Program Open Space gets about 25%.
In FY 2006, the Reconciliation Act takes 75% of the transfer tax and
puts it into the General Fund. In FY
2007, it takes 66%, in FY 2008 it takes 50%, in FY 2009 it only takes 25%, and
in FY 2010 it goes back to the old formula of law, under which we get our full
share. What that means for MALPF is just
the opposite. In FY 2006 we get 25%
($8,000,000 of a $30,000,000 pool), In FY 2007, we get 33%, in FY 2008 we get
50%, in FY 2009 we get 75%, and in FY 2010 we get 100%. On top of this, when we add the other revenue
sources: Agricultural Transfer Tax,
There have been articles in the
paper about the Governor’s diversion of the transfer tax, both from our agency
and from DNR and the impact that it has.
In the big picture, the Reconciliation Act takes over those four years
about 53% of what we would have normally gotten, about $133,000,000. We end up getting about $61,000,000. The impact of that, at $2,000 per acre, is
about 35,000 acres.
Mr. Tassone asked for clarification that
the numbers for FY 20007 are projections.
Mr. Wilson stated that yes, they are projections. The transfer tax is the State estimate based
upon the current revenue projection, but the other numbers are his and Mr.
Conrad’s estimates, based on the program’s history. Mr. Wilson also stated that one good thing
about the way the Reconciliation Act is done is that they will take a
percentage, rather than a specific number of dollars. There is a clause that in any year any
dollars over the estimate will revert to the general fund.
Mr. Tassone pointed that the
projections for FY 2007 and 2008 could change due to an act of legislation next
year. Mr. Wilson agreed. Any future Reconciliation
Acts of legislation have the potential to change these projections. But these are the current plans. It helps the counties to go to their
legislators and the county governments and have a handle of what to do for
their own programs or matching MALPF funds.
Mr. Colhoun stated that the bottom
line, as he sees it, is that we had $22,000,000 available in FY 2004 and with these
projections, we won’t be back to that level until FY 2009. Mr. Wilson stated that FY 2004 was an anomaly
year. The $21,000,000 is actual dollars. Of that, about $15,000,000 went to replace
the money that they took in FY 2003 so that we could fulfill old obligations.
Mr. Colhoun asked if it would be to
our advantage if some of the Board members were available in the audience
during the hearings. Mr. Wilson replied
that all of the Board members, and anyone else who is interested, is always
welcome. However, given that we are
taking such a large reduction, he doesn’t see any negative comments
forthcoming. It is a long and tedious
process. Letters from Board members
would be appreciated. But, budget
hearings rarely have visitors or outside testimony. Mr. Calhoun volunteered to attend and invited
any other Board members that are available to also attend, if needed.
Mr. Colhoun stated that it would be
helpful if the Board members had a list of the bills that are upcoming, along with information on the bill and the
sponsoring committee and the name of the committee chairman. Mr. Conrad answered that he actually has such
a sheet in hand and passed it to the Board members and guests. The sheet was the Status of Proposed
Legislation that affects the Foundation; it will be updated regularly on MALPF’s website (www.malpf.info). It contains the bill number, a description of
the legislation, the hearing dates, the Department’s position, and whether a
fiscal note is available.
Mr. Conrad stated that a couple of
things to note are that there will be some recommended Task Force legislation
forthcoming. It is possible that, down
the road, the Department cannot support, because of the Governor’s position,
the recommendation of any bills that will result in tax increases.
HB 067 and SB 103, Disposition of
Parklands, are bills that may affect the Foundation. There are a couple of other public land bills
that do not seem to affect the Foundation.
We are monitoring the bills or taking a position on them, depending on
our feeling for their affect on the Program.
For example, HB 067/SB 103 could be disastrous to the operation of the
Foundation because it could require that the General Assembly approve lot
releases, property exchanges, boundary line adjustments, etc. We are looking at it very closely. Mr. Wilson stated that the language of these
bills is very broad and general.
Depending on how you read it, you could be only talking about ‘parkland’
or it could mean us, since the bill has words like ‘preservation’ in it. We have talked to the bill drafters and asked
them to find out from the sponsor what their intent is. The last thing we want to do is figure that
it is not relevant to us, and then have them say that it is.
Mr. Colhoun stated that one item
that is missing is legislation concerning districts. We will be discussing this issue in the
workshop and, hopefully, out of that will come the Board’s feelings.
Mr. Conrad stated that there was a
bill last year that came up after the deadline that modified the term of the
District Agreement from five (5) years to two and one-half (2 ½) years that is
being put in for the sole purpose of getting one particular property out of the
district. The bill is coming back again
this year, hopefully with some of our recommended language changes. The reason it is not on the schedule that you
received today is that it has not been filed yet. This issue will be discussed at the retreat.
Mr. Colhoun asked William Powel,
Carroll County Program Administrator, to explain a meeting he had with their
legislator, Nancy Stocksdale.
Mr. Powel stated that in
Mr. Powel met with Delegate Stocksdale and he explained to her that the issue might be
better off waiting a year while MALPF has the workshop and is able to make more
of a decision at the MALPF Board level of what they want to do, rather than to
introduce their bill which would give each county the option to select the
length of time that they want districts to be (2 to 10 years). At this point, it is his understanding that
she will not introduce any legislation.
Mr. Colhoun stated that hopefully
the workshop will solidify the issue and the hearing on the bill won’t happen
until after the workshop is complete.
Mr. Conrad explained to the gentleman who proposed the bill both years
that our own discussion puts it in the context of either having a district or
not having one. He now understands the
larger issue.
Mr. Conrad mentioned that the Final
Task Force Report is now at the printer and will be distributed to the Board as
soon as it is ready. Mr. Tassone stated
that they are hoping to have it back from the printer before the end of the
month. It will be sent directly to the
Board members. Mr. Conrad stated that
there will be some legislation related to the Task Force’s
recommendations. The web address is at
the bottom of the Status sheet Mr. Conrad handed out.
Mr. Conrad reminded the Board
members and Program Administrators that the workshop is scheduled for
Mr. Colhoun added that a lot of
effort is going into setting up the workshop so that it will be a valuable use
of your time. He appreciates the Program
Administrators and Board members taking an extra day.
B. ADDITIONS
OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no additions or deletions
to the agenda.
II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT
AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 08-00-25Ae Bowling, Sr., Larry W. 99.02
acres
Request to operate a sporting clay range on easement
property.
Mr. Conrad introduced the item. Mr. Larry W. Bowling, Sr., landowner, and
Charles Rice, Charles County Program Administrator, are available to address
the Board.
Mr. Conrad stated that Mr. Bowling is the original owner of
the 99.02 acre easement property. The
current request is for the Board of Trustees approval for the operation of a
sporting clay range on the 99.02 acre easement property. Traditionally, the Foundation has allowed
hunting and hunting-related activities on easement properties. However, since sporting clay ranges are
generally commercial, they were included in the review of the Task Force to
Study the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation. In its January 2003 Interim Report, the Task Force
spelled out its recommendations (copy attached) for the allowance of economic
activities on easement properties. The
recommendations were that:
·
Activities
must be limited in nature and in the amount of land used, so that use of the
farm for active production is not compromised.
·
Activities
must be limited to those that have no damaging effect on soil productivity.
·
If
use of buildings is required, that use must be limited to existing farm
structures and have no permanent effect on their value for agricultural use.
·
Allowed
activities must be compatible with the rural character of the preserved farm
and its surrounding.
In addition, the Task Force’ specific recommendation for a
sporting clay/trap/skeet venture is that the area should cover no more than 5%
of the farm and no impervious parking would be permitted.
In
·
The
area proposed for the shooting range is located in the middle of the 99.02 acre
farm.
·
The
adjacent area to the proposed shooting range is undeveloped and unoccupied.
·
The
proposed area is approximately 100 feet below the crest of a hill where there
are residential structures.
·
The
nearest residential structure is approximately 1,200 feet from the proposed
area.
·
No
facilities will be constructed on the property.
·
The
proposed area is surrounded by high density woodland and fields.
·
There
will be no excavation of the area. Previous
land use was tobacco fields. (The
property is part of the tobacco buyout program.)
·
The
only equipment to be located in the proposed area is a battery operated clay
trap (temporary in nature and not affixed to the land) and portable on-site
toilet.
·
The
time of operation will be from Wednesday through Monday from
The 99.02 acre property consists of 35 tillable acres, 55
woodland acres, and 14 wetland acres.
According to
Foundation staff feels that as presented, this request would
fall within the recommendations of the MALPF Task Force and recommends approval
contingent upon approval of the Charles County Board of Appeals.
Mr. Conrad asked if the CREP contract is for 10 or 15
years. Mr. Bowling replied that it is a
10-year contract. Mr. Conrad asked if
Mr. Bowling or Mr. Rice had anything to add.
Mr. Bowling responded that he came up with the idea because
he shoots sporting clays himself and it is a very honorable program. There is a lot of family involvement. They call it ‘golfing with a shotgun’. It is
something like a quail hunt. Even though
it takes money to shoot, it’s pretty affordable. He feels it is a good thing for the
county. He could have some benefit
shoots for the Boys Club, Farm Bureau, Hospice, or the American Cancer
Society. This would benefit both them
and Mr. Bowling. At the moment, there
are no other sporting clays in
Mr. Tassone stated that typically land enrolled in CREP has
some sort of topographic or environmental features to qualify. He asked Mr. Bowling how his land
qualified. Mr. Rice answered that the
land is steep slopes and highly erodible soils. In addition, there is an association with the
wetlands on the property. Mr. Bowling
replied that the land is in grass that stands waist high. Mr. Tassone asked if the 5.0 acre area will
be kept in the warm season grasses in conjunction with the sporting range. Mr. Bowling answered that yes it would. To operate a sporting clay range, you move
the traps around to different areas but it is basically in the same place.
Mr. Conrad pointed out that looking at the aerial map, there
is a tobacco barn located in close proximity to the 5.0 acres that will be used
for the range. Mr. Bowling stated that
he recently painted the barn and he is keeping it in good repair because he can
use it for his sporting clay range. The
trap can be set up at the end of the barn.
Then the person pulling the trap will be protected. Mr. Conrad then stated that according to the
map, if you add the distance to the barn to the area outlined on the map, it
would be more than 5.0 acres. Mr. Rice
responded that the area outlined on the map in red designates the area in which
the traps would be set up and where people will be moving around. The blue area on the map designates the
proposed parking area. Mr. Bowling
stated that the red area denotes the area in which the birds will fall after
they are shot. The actual area is
probably no more than 1.0 acre, but the fallout area is larger. A bird will only go 25-30 yards. Mr. Conrad asked what happens to the clays
when they fall to the ground, what would be the effect on the land. Mr. Bowling stated that they just fall in the
grass. They are made of clay and are
biodegradable, there’s nothing in them that is toxic.
Patricia Langenfelder, Board
member, asked if the warm season grasses are allowed to be mowed for a certain
time. She asked how Mr. Bowling would
handle shooting in tall grass. Mr.
Bowling answered that they shoot from the side of the road, not actually
standing in the grass.
Ms. Schultz asked if the sporting clay range would be
compatible with the CREP contract. Mr.
Rice answered that as long as they are not jeopardizing the ability for the
grass to grow and they adhere to the mowing guidelines, it’s
okay.
Mr. Conrad asked for the reason why all county approvals
were not obtained prior to coming to this Board for review. Mr. Rice answered that it is mostly a matter
of scheduling. The Appeals Board is
meeting this evening. Mr. Rice also felt
that it would be good for the Board of Appeals to know the position of the
MALPF Board. If MALPF denies the
location, Mr. Bowling could propose to have the activity on the 2.0 acres that
are being excluded for his dwelling, but that would probably have an even
smaller chance of passing the county.
The Board of Appeals meeting was advertised and neighbors will be able
to testify for or against the activity.
Robert Stahl, Board member, asked what the feeling of the
neighbors is for this activity. Mr.
Bowling replied that while most of the neighbors want it, some people will
oppose anything. There are one or two
neighbors who will oppose it. But he
feels that most of the neighbors will be there in support. Most of them are hunters and shooters. There are about 15 or 20 houses. His farm is surrounded by farmland. He was approached before he sold the easement
and he could have placed 65 development rights on the property. He just wants to get some income off of the
farm.
Lewis Logan, Board member representing the State Treasurer,
asked if he could make the assumption that this activity would allow him to continue
farming. Mr. Bowling replied yes.
Mr. Colhoun asked if the title ‘LB’s Sporting Clays LLC’ was
the name of a company that he formed specifically to operate this
business. Mr. Bowling stated that the
county advised him to do it this way. The
business has not started up; it was just set up like this so that no one could
sue him and take the farm. Mr. Colhoun
then asked if he is the sole owner of LB’s Sporting Clays LLC and, if so, would
he remain the sole owner or might the operation be leased to a third
party? Mr. Bowling
replied that yes, he is the President and sole owner. He wants to retain control over what is
happening on his farm. Mr. Colhoun
stated that as a Board member he wants to see that this does not become a
commercial establishment outside of him.
Mr. Colhoun asked if there was a provision in Mr. Bowling’s application for someone to pick up the brass
(shotgun shells) because that would affect the land. Mr. Bowling replied that yes, the brass would
be picked up and placed in the trash can.
Mr. Conrad asked if the neighbors who are opposed to the
operation do so because of the noise, traffic, or location of the access. Mr. Bowling replied that he feels about 90%
of the neighborhood is for it. He is
going to have a lot of support at tonight’s hearing.
Mr. Colhoun asked for comments from the Nancy Forrester,
Assistant Attorney General.
Ms. Forrester asked Mr. Rice if there is a 30-day appeals
process following the Board of Appeals ruling.
Mr. Rice answered that they may hold the record open and not decide tonight. If
the Board of Appeals denies the application, the applicant can appeal to the
Mr. Tassone mentioned that he is pretty comfortable in
saying that the Task Force guidelines were based on the idea of trying to come
to terms with the issue of how much is going to have a reasonable chance of
compromising the utility and value of the rest of the land for its intended
easement purposes (its ability to support farming and forest both in the
present and long term). In this case,
what we have is a situation where it is CREP land that, in terms of how much
will be affected, winds up getting to be an issue of delineating the boundaries
of where all of the clays and the ejected shell casings go and how much people
tramp around on the warm season grasses.
What stands a greater risk of being compromised
are the terms of the CREP contract than the MALPF easement. He feels that we would not be doing anything
problematic should we approve this request.
Mr. Tassone further stated that he sees Ms. Forrester’s point about how
having MALPF’s approval prior to the Board of Appeals
process could result in a proposal that is different from what the Board is
reviewing today.
Mr. Stahl stated that he will comment on this issue but he
will abstain from voting as he sits on the Charles County Agricultural Advisory
Board. He feels that in this situation,
it is very important for Mr. Bowling to come to this Board first because of the
expense associated with going forward with the county’s Appeals Board. If there is an indication that this Board
will deny his request, it would be helpful for him to know that. There are a tremendous
number of sporting clay ventures on the
Motion #4: To approve Mr. Bowling’s request
for operation of a sporting clay range on his easement property, contingent
upon any substantial changes that may be made as a result of the county’s
approval process being brought back to the Board by the Program Administrator
for their further review.
Motion: Lewis Logan Second: Doug Wilson
Abstained: Robert Stahl
Status: APPROVED
Mr. Tassone asked Ms. Forrester if the motion addresses her
concerns. Ms. Forrester responded that,
yes, it does address her concerns, but that doesn’t mean that she agrees.
Mr. Wilson stated that he supported Mr. Logan’s motion for
two reasons. One, he heard from our
primary task force expert that it wasn’t out of the spirit of their
recommendation. And,
two, because it is located on CREP land, which is land that we have agreed to
allow landowners not to farm for several years. Once the land comes out of CREP, it may be a
different issue. He feels that having
any changes to the language after the Board of Appeals has reviewed it gives us
a further level of protection.
Mr. Conrad pointed out that one of the concerns is that
parking must remain pervious and cannot be paved over. Mr. Rice stated that he will relay that to
the Board of Appeals. Mr. Wilson stated
that if, for some reason, the County requires the parking area to be paved,
that is a major change and it should be brought back to us. Mr. Rice answered that being easement
property, he doesn’t see the County making that a requirement.
Mr. Klasmeier asked if it was possible for the Foundation to
provide something in writing for Mr. Bowling to take to the Board of Appeals
meeting, rather than placing him under the burden of having to explain the
MALPF Board’s actions. Mr. Conrad asked
Carol Council, MALPF Administrative Officer, if a letter could be prepared and
faxed to Mr. Rice by this afternoon. Ms.
Council agreed.
B.
1. Item pulled
by Program Administrator
2. Item pulled
by Program Administrator
C.
1. 21-92-27e Belz, Donald
F. and Michael W. 135.15
acres
Request to increase an approved 1.0 acre owner’s lot to 1.25
acres on easement property.
Donald and Michael Belz are the
original owners of the easement property.
The previous request for a 1.0 acre owner’s lot for the personal use of
Michael Belz was approved by the Board of Trustees on
According to
The current request has been 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 $1,437.50 @ $1,150.00/acre,
which the landowners received for the easement.
Staff recommends approval of the release of 1.25 acres based
on the provisions of the deed of easement and in accordance with Agricultural
Article, Section 2-513(b)(3), Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an
allowance of a maximum lot size of up to 2 acres if required by regulations
adopted by the Department of the Environment or the county.
Motion #5: To approve the request of Donald F. and Michael W. Belz to increase an approved 1.0 acre owner’s lot to 1.25
acres.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Doug Wilson
Status: APPROVED
D.
1. 10-87-09e Sowers, Randy & Karen 158.753
acres
Request to exclude up to 2.0 acres for an owner’s lot from
easement property.
Mr. Conrad introduced the item and stated that there are
three lot requests for this easement property.
They will all be treated separately.
Ms. Sonia Ingram, Frederick County Assistant Program Administrator, is
available to answer any questions.
Randy and Karen Sowers are the original owners of the
easement property. According to
The current request was approved by the local advisory board
and it conforms to local zoning regulations.
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. Attached
for your review are county approval letters and location maps.
If the request is approved, there will be a required payback to the Foundation of the per acre amount of
$799.98, which the landowner received for the easement. The full amount will be determined when the
landowner submits a metes and bounds description and a letter from the Health
Department indicating the amount of land required to meet the septic
requirements.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus
such minimum additional acreage 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 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the
Environment or the county.
Mr. Wilson asked for clarification of the lot location on
the maps. Ms. Ingram passed around a
clearer map for the Board’s review.
Mr. Conrad stated that Mr. Sowers has been quoted in the
papers saying that the wants to request to be let out of the easement at some
point in the future. He has also made
inquiries to the Foundation about releasing lots for commercial purposes. Mr. Conrad asked Ms. Ingram if it is clear
that these requested lots will be used for the individuals for whom they are
being requested. Ms. Ingram replied that
the county has had problems and are worried about the actual intent. But Mr. Sowers’ applications are straight
forward and they mention nothing about him wanting to sell the lots, or about
switching the pre-existing lots. The
County felt there was no reason for them to assume otherwise.
Mr. Conrad asked if Ms. Ingram is aware of what the status
of the pre-existing houses is. Is he
looking to sell them, or does she know the fate of the dwellings and what their
current use is? Ms. Ingram did not know
the answer to the question.
Mr. Colhoun stated that once again it is unfortunate that
the landowner is not available to address the Board. This puts the administrator in a difficult
position. As this landowner has three
lots on the agenda, it would be helpful if he were here to answer questions.
Mr. Stahl asked where the pre-existing dwellings are
located. Ms. Ingram answered that they
are located in the area where the farm buildings are located.
William Amoss, Harford County Program Administrator, stated
that one of the reasons he cancelled a request for this month’s agenda is
because the landowners could not be present.
It was his understanding from the two previous meetings that the Board
did not wish to review items unless the landowners or their attorney were able
to be present. He asked for
clarification on the Board’s policy, if there is a policy, on the need to have
landowners attend the meetings.
Mr. Colhoun responded that when MALPF has its workshop (
Mr. Conrad noted that on the map that was presented, the
lots are not adjacent to each other or adjacent to the lot lines. Ms. Ingram answered that this is a
preliminary drawing. The lots will be
contiguous to each other and will be located along the lot line.
Mr. Colhoun stated that he would like to deal with each lot
as a separate motion. That way, in the
future, if there is a withdrawal or change, the lots will be dealt with
individually.
Motion #6: To approve the request of Randy & Karen Sowers to exclude
up to 2.0 acres for an owner’s lot from easement property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: APPROVED
2. 10-87-09e Sowers, Randy & Karen 158.753
acres
Request to exclude up to 2.0 acres
for a child’s lot for their daughter, Abigail Sowers Brusco.
Motion #7: To approve the request of Randy and Karen Sowers to exclude
up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot for their daughter, Abigail Sowers Brusco, from easement property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status: APPROVED
3. 10-87-09e Sowers, Randy & Karen 158.753
acres
Request to exclude up to 2.0 acres
for a child’s lot for their son, Benjamin D. Sowers.
Motion #8: To approve the request of Randy & Karen Sowers to exclude
up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot for their son, Benjamin D. Sowers, from
easement property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status: APPROVED
4. 10-83-05e Moxley, Fred
H. Sr., & Marguerite 127.784
acres
Request to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot for
their daughter, Patricia A. Moxley Brunner
Mr. Conrad introduced the next five (5) agenda items and
stated that each item is to be considered individually. The owners of this property live in a
pre-existing dwelling on the property.
Fred H., Sr. and Marguerite Moxley
are the original owners of the easement property. This current request is for the exclusion of
up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot for their daughter, Patricia.
According to
The current request was approved by the local advisory board
and it conforms to local zoning regulations.
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.
Attached for your review are county approval letter and location maps.
If the request is approved, there will be a required payback
to the Foundation of the per acre amount of $690.12, which the landowner
received for the easement. The full
amount will be determined when the landowner submits a metes and bounds and a letter from the Health Department indicating
the amount of land required to meet the septic requirements.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one
acre plus such minimum
additional acreage 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 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the
Environment or the county.
Mr. Conrad stated that staff further recommends the previous
lot approvals be rescinded by a formal motion of the Board.
Mr. Conrad added one comment in reference to the placement
of the lots. This issue came to the
Foundation’s attention in dealing with an issue in
Ms. Ingram stated that they met with Patricia Brunner, the Moxley’s daughter.
This entire area is located on a hilltop. It is difficult to farm this area. That’s why it was chosen.
Ms. Langenfelder asked how
Mr. Wilson stated that if they don’t perc, the landowners
will have to come back to request a change of location. That’s always a given. He asked why lots #1 and #2 weren’t also
located along
Mr. Wilson asked if Ms. Ingram had any comments about Mr.
Conrad’s issue with
Mr. Stahl pointed out that this is another situation when
having a landowner present would have answered all of the Board’s
questions. Now we will end up voting on
something that the landowners may not agree with.
Ms. Ingram stated that, when she spoke with the landowners,
Patricia wanted to have her lot built upon as soon as possible. She requested the Board go ahead and pass the
motion and indicate that
Mr. Colhoun asked Ms. Forrester for her advice. The Board wants to help the landowner but
doesn’t want to get caught in an inappropriate situation. Ms. Forrester responded that she would like
to see the Board disapprove the other lots until
Ms. Ingram stated that she didn’t feel that getting one of
the lots perced first would be agreeable with the
landowners. They are concerned about the
father’s health, and they wanted approval on all of the children’s lots
now. Mr. Conrad stated that this is not
an issue as Mr. Moxley has already made his intention
for the children’s lots known. The
Foundation already has a signed request from him.
Rad Sakhamuri, Queen Anne’s County
Program Administrator, added that it may be advisable to have the landowners
contact the Health Department to make sure the soils perc before it comes back
to the Board.
Mr. Colhoun pointed out that approved perc tests are not a
requirement for approval, but it would be helpful. Mr. Conrad stated that we would advise the
landowners to have perc tests approved for all five lots prior to the item
being brought back to the Board.
Motion #9: To table the five (5) requests by Fred H. and Marguerite Moxley until such time as they are able to show that
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Jose Tassone
Status: APPROVED
5. 10-83-05e Moxley, Fred
H. Sr., & Marguerite 127.784
acres
Request to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot for
their son, Fred H. Moxley, Jr.
6. 10-83-05e Moxley, Fred
H. Sr., & Marguerite 127.784
acres
Request to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot for
their son, James Moxley.
7. 10-83-05e Moxley, Fred
H. Sr., & Marguerite 127.784
acres
Request to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot for
their son, Ernest Moxley.
8. 10-83-05e Moxley, Fred
H. Sr., & Marguerite 127.784
acres
Request to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot for
their son, Byron Moxley.
E.
1. 06-98-09c Lippy Brothers, Inc. 175.41
acres
Request to swap 2.0 acres of withheld land for 2.0 acres of
district property.
Lippy Brothers, Inc. are the original owners of this
district property. As there are no
pre-existing dwellings on the property, when the district was established they
withheld 2.0 acres to allow a future owner the ability to construct a
dwelling. The current request is to
relocate the 2.0 withheld acres to another location on the farm.
The original location of the 2.0 acre lot is a wooded area
contiguous to the residential lot of one of the owners, T. Edward Lippy. Mr. Lippy would like to use this area for a
potential future child’s lot. The proposed new location is away from existing,
separate family lots, and is currently used for cropland. The proposed lot will have direct access to
Lee’s
The landowners have received a fiscal year 2004 easement
offer using 100% county funds.
Settlement of the easement is pending approval of this request. The Carroll County Advisory Board has
approved this request.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the request as it
does not appear that there will be a negative impact to the overall farm
operation.
Bill Beach, DGS Appraiser, was asked if there would be a
negative impact to the appraisal if this request were approved. Mr. Beach responded that it would not
negatively impact the appraisal.
Motion #10: To approve the request of Lippy Brothers, Inc. to swap 2.0
acres of withheld land for 2.0 acres of district property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status: APPROVED
Mr. Tassone asked if there has been an easement application
for this property. Mr. Conrad replied
that yes, there is a pending FY 2004 easement application. The reason this request is not following our
standard process of not allowing any changes once an offer has been made is
that the easement offer was made with 100% county funds. This is at the county’s request and it has
not yet been to the Board of Public Works.
It will be taken after this approval is in place.
2. 06-98-09c Lippy Brothers, Inc. 175.41
acres
Request to do a partial termination of 3.0 acres.
Lippy Brothers, Inc. are the original owners of this
district property. The landowners have
received a fiscal year 2004 easement offer using 100% county funds.
During the appraisal process, it was discovered that there
is a group of large grain bins used for commercial purposes. Because of their commercial use, the
associated acreage should not have been included in the district when it was
established. The terms of the district
agreement have been met as of
According to Bill Beach, DGS Appraiser, approval of this
request will not significantly impact the value of the appraisal. The landowners’ asking price is significantly
below the easement value and when the 3.0 acres is terminated, it will still be
below the 70% fair market value cap that
If this request is approved, Foundation staff will subtract
the per acre value of the easement offer ($4,800 per acre). A new Option Contract will be generated for
the landowners’ signatures with the new acres and offer amount, the item will
be presented to the Board of Public Works for approval, and the project will
continue toward settlement of the easement.
Settlement of this easement is pending approval of this request. The Carroll County Advisory Board has
approved this request.
Foundation staff recommends approval.
Mr. Tassone stated that he certainly doesn’t want to
interfere with this process going forward, but he is confused about why grain
storage bins need to be excluded from a district or easement. While he understands they are commercial,
they are agriculturally commercial and are a fundamental part of the whole
issue of processing, distributing and marketing the products of agriculture.
Mr. Conrad replied that it is similar to a landowner with a roadside
stand. They are required to sell 75% of
the products that are produced on land that they own or lease. The difference is that if these grain bins
were for their own storage, it would be okay.
But, they are used commercially by other farmers.
Ms. Langenfelder stated that she
had the same question because the bins are supporting agriculture, whether it
is commercial or not. Without the
ability to store grain that is grown in that area, there won’t be farming in
William Powel, Carroll County Program Administrator,
explained that the aerial photograph shows that the grain bins cover the
greater part of 3.0 acres. They are
huge. The Lippy Brothers farm about
9,000 acres. On a separate tract,
directly across the road, is located a complex of buildings that is their
farming headquarters. The bins are more
appropriately attached to the headquarters operation. The bins are far more valuable for commercial
use than to be sold as part of the easement and possibly torn down. The headquarters operation is not in a
district or easement.
Motion #11: To approve the request of Lippy Brothers, Inc. to do a partial
termination of 3.0 acres of district property.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Patricia Langenfelder
Status: APPROVED
3. 06-89-28Ae Talbert, Harold T. 70.0
acres
Request to exclude a 1.0 acre child’s lot for daughter,
Elizabeth T. Stambaugh, from easement.
Mr. Talbert is the original owner of the easement
property. His request is for the exclusion
of a 1.0 acre child’s lot for the use of his daughter, Elizabeth. There is one (1) other request for exclusion
of a child’s lot on this agenda. Mr.
Talbert does not own any other district or easement properties.
According to
When the easement was purchased, this property was 92.824
acres. On
The request was approved by the local advisory board and it
conforms to local zoning and subdivision regulations. Attached for your review are county approval
letter and location maps. If the request
is approved, there will be a required payback to the Foundation of the per acre
amount of $1,500.00, which the landowner received for the easement.
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...”
Motion #12: To approve the request of Harold T. Talbert to exclude a 1.0
acre child’s lot for his daughter, Elizabeth T. Stambaugh,
from easement property.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Lewis Logan
Status: APPROVED
4. 06-89-28Ae Talbert, Harold T. 70.0
acres
Request to exclude a 1.0 acre child’s lot for son, Michael
J. Talbert, from easement.
Mr. Talbert is the original owner of the easement
property. His current request is for the
exclusion of a 1.0 acre child’s lot for the use of his son, Michael. There is one (1) other request for exclusion
of a child’s lot on this agenda. Mr.
Talbert does not own any other district or easement properties.
According to
When the easement was purchased, this property was 92.824
acres. On
The current request was approved by the local advisory board
and it conforms to local zoning and subdivision regulations. Attached for your review are county approval
letter and location maps. If the request
is approved, there will be a required payback to the Foundation of the per acre
amount of $1,500.00, which the landowner received for the easement.
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...”
Motion #13: To approve the request of Harold T. Talbert to exclude a 1.0
acre child’s lot for his son, Michael J. Talbert, from easement property.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Lewis Logan
Status: APPROVED
Ms. Schultz pointed out that the landowner’s application
states there are two pre-existing dwellings but the staff report states there
is only one. Mr. Conrad responded that
we are investigating the landowner’s claim to two pre-existing dwellings
administratively. There is a dispute
that must be resolved. We will, in the
landowner’s approval letter, note that it is a separate issue.
5. 06-82-03e Dell, Roger A. and Gregory W. 154.93 acres
Request to increase an approved child’s lot for son, Douglas
E. Dell, from 1.15 to 2.0 acres and to approve a 0.1271 acre right-of-way that
includes
Roger and Gregory Dell are the original owners of the
easement property. Their current request
is for approval to 1) increase an approved child’s lot for son, Douglas E.
Dell, from 1.15 to 2.0 acres, and 2) approve a 0.1271 acre right-of-way that
includes
On
In addition, the subdivision of the lot must include a
0.1271 acre roadway parcel between the lot and the centerline of
This request was approved by the local advisory board and it
conforms to local zoning and subdivision regulations. Attached for your review are the county
approval letter, location maps, and other backup documents. If the request is approved, there will be a
required payback to the Foundation of the per acre amount of $685.55 ($1,371.10 total), which the
landowner received for the easement.
Staff recommends approval of the release of 2.0 acres as
required by the County Health Department, based on the provisions of the deed
of easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b)(3), Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance
of a maximum lot size of up to 2 acres if required by regulations adopted by
the Department of the Environment or the county.
Ms. Forrester asked if it is possible for the landowner to
request a variance from the two acre requirement since it is an easement
property. Mr. Powel stated that they
have never been able to get a variance on this issue from their Health
Department. There have been other lots
within the Westminster Reservoir in which they would give no variance,
regardless of the easements. There is an
appeal process but it is an appeal above the local level and the process is
quite lengthy. However, looking at where
the failed percs are located, this would have come
back for more than a 1.0 acre lot anyway.
They wanted to make the lot less than 2.0 acres so that the 0.1271 acre
road dedication could have been included.
It is only through a lot of ‘arm twisting’ that the county agreed to
accept a right-of-way instead of fee simple acquisition.
Mr. Colhoun asked Ms. Forrester is this causes a problem
since it goes beyond our 2.0 acre rule.
Ms. Forrester agreed that the Foundation is stepping beyond the 2.0 acre
rule. However, the county does have
condemnation authority under the law.
This issue isn’t only coming up in
Motion #14: To approve the request of Roger A. and Gregory W. Dell to
increase an approved child’s lot for son, Douglas E. Dell, from 1.15 to 2.0
acres and to approve a 0.1271 acre right-of-way that includes Sullivan Road
subject to final by the Office of the Attorney General on the language of the
easement on the 0.1271 acre overlay easement.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Lewis Logan
Status: APPROVED
6. 06-79-04Ce Davidson, Mary L. and trust of Ira
Watson 113.37 acres
Request to relocate an approved 1.0 acre child’s lot for
daughter, Patricia M. Lemley.
Mary L. Davidson is the original owner of the easement
property. The current request is for
approval to relocate a 1.0 acre child’s lot for their daughter, Patricia. Ms. Davidson does not own any other district
or easement properties.
On
Approval of this request will not require a payback as Bruce
reimbursed the Foundation $931.97 when his lot was released. Also, a metes and bounds description has
already been written for the 1.0 acre parcel.
The following is a brief history of
actions that have taken place on this easement property:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
This request was approved by the local advisory board and it
conforms to local zoning and subdivision regulations. Attached for your review are
a county approval letter and location map.
Staff recommends approval of the relocation of the 1.0 acre
parcel as it will not adversely affect the easement property.
Motion #15: To approve the request of Mary L. Davidson, et al to relocate
an approved 1.0 acre child’s lot for daughter, Patricia M. Lemley.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Lewis Logan
Mr. Powel stated that when this original lot was placed back
under the easement, there was a motion and a letter stating that the payback
could be used by Patricia at a later date.
However, Patricia is fairly honest and among the family records there is
clear indication that the family was given credit for the payback and it was
deducted from the cost of legal expenses to place the lot back under the
easement. As this cost was less than
$931.97, Mr. Davidson received a check for the balance. Therefore, a payback is required for this
lot.
Mr. Conrad asked for a copy of the documentation for our
files. Ms. Forrester stated that the
documentation is probably in DGS’ files and she will forward a copy to this
office.
Mr. Conrad explained that also on this property, there was
an approval for the subdivision of the easement into four separate
parcels. The subdivision was never
completed by the landowners and the Program Administrator has stated that the
family does not intend to follow through with the subdivision. Mr. Conrad asked that the approval of the
agricultural subdivisions be rescinded as a part of this motion if this is the
wish of the family.
Ralph Robertson, Carroll County Assistant Program Administrator,
stated that the approval for the agricultural subdivisions could be rescinded
as the County would not allow the property to be subdivided.
Mr. Powel stated that Mr. Watson had the idea to separate
the farm as part of his estate planning. It was requested before the Foundation
had guidelines for agricultural subdivisions.
Mr. Robertson stated that he was the Chairman of the local advisory
board when the request came through. He
was adamantly against the subdivision.
They sent a letter to the MALPF Board and the request was approved
anyway. He is glad that MALPF is finally
saying they were right.
Motion #15: Amended to include a payback of $931.97, if appropriate
documentation is furnished to Foundation staff.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Lewis Logan
Status: APPROVED
Motion #16: Given testimony that the County rejected the agricultural
subdivision that the MALPF Board approved on
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Joe Tassone
Status: APPROVED
III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT
PETITIONS
A.
1.
This property has 64% qualifying soils; two dwellings; and
is a dairy operation. The landowners are
withholding 1.0 acre surrounding an agri-business (small store). Staff recommends approval based on meeting
the minimum size and soils criteria.
Motion #17: To approve the request of Robert W. and Alice E. Bender to
establish an agricultural land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status: APPROVED
2.
This property has 59.7% qualifying soils; 94.64 woodland
acres; one dwelling; and is a beef cattle, crop and hay operation. No acreage is being withheld from the
district. Texas Eastern has a third
party interest in the property. Staff
recommends approval based on meeting the minimum size and soils criteria. Staff further recommends the Board encourage
the landowner to obtain a forest stewardship plan.
Mr. Conrad stated that having the Texas Eastern third party
interest means that they have the right to store natural gas under the property
and we have legislation that says we can accept an easement on this property
even if Texas Eastern does not subordinate, if we consider it consistent with
the Foundation’s goals.
Motion #18: To approve the request of Kahl Farm
LLC to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their property
and to encourage the landowners to obtain a forest stewardship plan.
Motion: Patricia Langenfelder Second: Robert Stahl
Status: APPROVED
IV. PROGRAM POLICY
None
V. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION
There being no further business, Mr. Colhoun asked for a
motion for adjournment of the meeting.
Motion #19: To adjourn the meeting.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Doug Wilson
Status: APPROVED
The regular session Board meeting
was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully
Submitted:
_____________________________________
James A. Conrad,
Executive Director
_____________________________________
Carol S.
Council, Administrative Officer