MINUTES

February 22, 2005

 

 

TRUSTEES PRESENT:

 

Daniel W. Colhoun, Chair

Vera Mae E. Schultz, Vice-Chair

Jerry Klasmeier, representing Comptroller William Donald Schaefer

Patricia A. Langenfelder

Judith C. Lynch

James Pelura III, D.V.M.

Shirley W. Pilchard

Audrey E. Scott, Secretary, Maryland Department of Planning

Joseph Tassone, representing the Secretary, Maryland Department of Planning

Douglas H. Wilson, representing the Secretary, Maryland Department of Agriculture

 

TRUSTEES ABSENT:

 

Lewis Logan, representing Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp

Bob Stahl

Christopher H. Wilson

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Bill Amoss, Harford County Program Administrator

Dave Bourdon, Prince George’s County Program Administrator

Tammy Buckle, Caroline County Program Administrator

Joe Collison, Anne Arundel County Landowner

Maggie Collison, Anne Arundel County Landowner

Carol Council, Administrative Officer

Tina Emmerich, Anne Arundel County Landowner

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General

Sonja Ingram, Frederick County Department of Planning

Joy Levy, Howard County Program Administrator

Mark Love, St. Mary’s County Landowner

Carla Martin, Kent County Program Administrator

Jeff Moreland, Delmarva Farmer

Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General

Charles Rice, Charles County Program Administrator

Radhika Sakhamuri, Queen Anne’s County Program Administrator

Donna Sasscer, St. Mary’s County Program Administrator

Martin Sokolich, Talbot County Program Administrator

William Shepherd, Anne Arundel County Landowner

Alma Strickler, Carroll County Landowner

Dan Strickler, Carroll County Landowner

Debbie Vaughan, Anne Arundel County Assistant Program Administrator

Bob Warfield, Harford County Landowner

David Warfield, Harford County Landowner

Elizabeth Weaver, Administrative Officer

 

 

Daniel Colhoun, Chair, called the meeting to order at approximately 9:30 a.m. at the Maryland Department of Agriculture building, Annapolis, Maryland.

 

 

 

A.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES, January 25, 2005 and October 26, 2004.

 

Motion #1:       To approve the minutes of January 25, 2005, with corrections.

 

Motion:            Jerry Klasmeier                                    Second: Vera Mae Schultz

 

 

Motion #2:       To approve the final version of the minutes of October 26, 2004.

 

Motion:            Douglas Wilson                                   Second: Patricia Langenfelder

 

B.        ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:

 

Mr. Colhoun asked if there were any additions or deletions to the agenda. Elizabeth Weaver, Administrative Officer, responded that there are two additions to the agenda: one request from Frederick County, which has been distributed to the Board this morning; and second, Mr. Colhoun would give a brief update on the status of the Howard County Re-Certification.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that the Howard County Planning and Zoning Director and the Program Administrator and other administrative staff requested a meeting to discuss some of the thoughts that the Board had asked them to bring back. Mr. Colhoun stated that they (Howard County staff) had proposed some administrative changes that would help to clarify their position. During the meeting he asked if they (Howard County staff) could ascertain if the Howard County government was going to implement what they had suggested in their letter. He asked them (Howard County staff) to see if they could go back to the County and see if they could pin down more definitively what the County was prepared to do. He invited them to then come back to the Board for the Board’s subsequent consideration, which they said they would do. Mr. Colhoun stated that they discussed bringing this matter to a vote very shortly; or, alternatively, giving them a little more time to work those situations out internally. He stated that he left it with them to come back and tell him if they wanted him to call a vote of the (MALPF) Board at an early session or if they wanted to try to work all of these things out. He stated that he had not heard distinctly on that.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that he had an opportunity to speak with the Board of Directors of the Maryland Farm Bureau a week earlier. He spoke with them about how MALPF works, what it does, and what its problems with funding are. Prior to his talk, he stated that he heard conversation about Howard County certification and then included some remarks about it in his talk. He informed them about where it was in the process. He had some dialogue with a member who represents the western part of Howard County. He hopes he was able to clarify some of the issues for them.  He stated that he communicated to them that he and MALPF were working with the director of Planning and zoning and the Program Administrator so that something constructive would be forthcoming back to this (MALPF) Board at an early date.

 

Elizabeth Weaver, Administrative Officer, stated that she wished to remind the Program Administrators that there would be a meeting after the Board meeting to discuss this year’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) grant application.

 

Doug Wilson stated that the agency had its budget hearing in both the House and Senate. There were no recommended reductions. It doesn’t mean that MALPF is out of the woods yet; it just means there were no formal recommendations being made. The budget is dependent on the passage of the Governor’s Reconciliation Act, which is still under debate.

 

Mr. Wilson stated that he wanted to remind the Program Administrators that if they have not submitted their letters stating their contribution to the matching funds, those letters are due to MALPF soon. MALPF staff needs them so they can get started on the First Round and the splits.

 

Mr. Wilson stated that the State’s Agricultural Transfer Tax, which MALPF had estimated up to about $5 million, is going to exceed that amount. There may be as much as $6.5 million, maybe even $7 million. He stated that after the Executive Session today, there may be some additional money coming back into the pool from an individual who was not able to complete the settlement process. He stated that MALPF will have approximately $1.2 million of GreenPrint money this year.

 

Mr. Wilson stated that the Foundation is considering the advantages of using the GreenPrint funds at the front of the cycle, instead of at the back, which is how MALPF has done it up to now. Using it at the beginning of the cycle would enable MALPF to maximize the Foundation’s ability to match the Federal funding. He stated that he had asked Jim Conrad to come up with a list of pros and cons on this. He expected that there would be a recommendation at next month’s meeting. He stated that he expects the Foundation will be able to make offers at the April, May and June meetings.

 

 

II.        DISTRICT/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS

 

A.         HARFORD COUNTY

 

1.        12-90-31e       Ehlers, Barbara W.                                        99.8351 ACRES

 

Request for exclusion of two child’s lots from easement property

 

Ms. Weaver introduced the request from Ms. Ehlers, who is the original owner of the easement property. The current request is for the release of two child’s lots for the construction of dwellings for the personal use of her sons, Robert and David.

 

There are two pre-existing dwellings on the property. Ms. Ehlers also owns a district property but no lots have been requested on that property. According to Harford County, additional acreage will be required to meet Health Department requirements. A letter from the Health Department, indicating the necessary acreage, must be produced at the time of Preliminary Release. Robert’s lot will access the road through a 500’ in-fee driveway. David’s lot will use a stub road on an adjacent development for access.

 

The request was approved by the Harford County Agricultural Advisory Board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If the request is approved, there will be a required payback to the Foundation of the per acre amount of $1,759.02, which the landowner received for the easement. The full amount will be determined when the landowner submits a metes and bounds and a final letter from the Health Department indicating the amount of land required to meet the septic requirements.

 

Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus such minimum additional acreage if required by the County Health Department, not to exceed 2 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. Colhoun asked if Harford County had any comments to add. Mr. Amoss stated that the owners were present.

 

Mr. Tassone noted that the Ehlers have another district property. He asked if the staff had discussed with them the relationship between multiple lots and potential for lot exclusions. Ms. Weaver stated that all the Program Administrators are aware that owning multiple district or easement properties does not multiply lot rights.

 

Mr. Colhoun invited the landowners to come to the table and provide comments if they wished. David Warfield (son of Mrs. Ehlers) asked about the reference to the Health Department in the memo. Ms. Weaver explained that a letter from the Health Department must be provided to the Foundation at the time of preliminary release if more than one acre is being requested.

 

Mr. Warfield asked about clarification regarding in-fee or right-of-way. Ms. Weaver responded that if the access is in-fee, then that must be included in the size of the lot being excluded. However, right-of-way access is not included in the size of the lot exclusion.

 

Mr. Colhoun asked about the access to the lots being considered. Mr. Warfield stated that they are currently trying to determine what the best option is for all involved. They may consider sharing the access with the existing lot. Mr. Warfield demonstrated the proposed access on the diagram that was provided.

 

Mr. Wilson stated that if they are considering moving the lot, they will have to bring the new location back to the Board.

 

Vera-Mae Schultz asked about the current use of the land between the proposed lots. Mr. Warfield stated that it is being used for crops.

 

Mr. Colhoun asked if the family is working the farm. Mr. Warfield stated that his family has at various times farmed it; however, it is currently being rented.

 

Craig Nielsen stated that he wanted to clarify that the lots are for the use of the children and lots are not intended to be sold to just anyone. Mr. Warfield stated that he understands that.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that he Board would be concerned about isolating a corner that would result in rendering it unable to be farmed. The Board does not want to do that.

 

Motion #3:       To approve the request of Ms. Ehlers for two child’s lots.

 

Motion:            Doug Wilson                                        Second: Judith Lynch

 

 

2.        12-98-16         Getscher, Jr., Charles J.                                        66.47 acres

 

Request to relocate a lot surrounding a pre-existing dwelling and to re-designate the pre-existing dwelling as a farm building

 

Ms. Weaver introduced the next item, which was from Charles J. Getscher, who is a subsequent owner of the easement property. His uncle, Bernard G. Getscher, was the original grantor of the easement. The current request is: to relocate the lot surrounding the pre-existing dwelling to another location on the farm, for the construction of a home for the current owner; and to re-designate the pre-existing dwelling as a farm building to be used for the storage of hay.

 

According to Harford County, the apartment in the pre-existing dwelling would be dismantled and the building would be used for the storage of hay. In addition to the apartment, the existing dwelling is currently also used to store hay. Ms. Weaver stated that photos of the dwelling are currently being circulated to the Board members.

 

The proposed location of the new dwelling is within the current homestead area and would be accessed through an existing farm lane. The request was approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. Attached for your review are county approval letters, the landowner’s letter and a location map.

 

Foundation staff and counsel recommend denial of the request to re-designate the pre-existing dwelling, based on precedent of prior Board decisions. The Foundation has a policy of not allowing re-designation of lots because of the potential to encourage more development on a property than would normally be allowed under the terms of an easement. On April 22, 2003, the Board denied a request to re-designate a pre-existing dwelling as an agricultural support building (minutes attached). On October 28, 2003, the Board denied a request to re-designate the original area of a relocated pre-existing dwelling lot as a tenant house (minutes attached). On May 25, 2004, the Board denied a request to re-designate a pre-existing dwelling as a tenant house (minutes attached).

 

Foundation staff recommends approval of the request to relocate the lot surrounding the pre-existing dwelling contingent upon: 1) the total tear down and removal of the existing dwelling within 180 days from the issuance of a Use and Occupancy Permit by the County for the newly constructed dwelling; and 2) the return of the 1.0 acre surrounding the existing dwelling to agricultural use (condition 2 may not apply if the new dwelling is to be located within the 1.0 acre curtilage of the pre-existing dwelling).

 

Ms. Weaver stated that Mr. Getscher is present at the meeting, as is Bill Amoss, Harford County Program Administrator.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that the color copies of the photos are much more helpful than the photocopies which were distributed with the agenda. He invited Mr. Amoss and Mr. Getscher to come forward and provide any comments they may have.

 

Mr. Amoss stated that the request is a straightforward one, similar to the recent request from Mr. Markline. He stated that when the property came into the Program, there was an apartment in the loft. Now Mr. Getscher wants to be able to live on the farm with his family. He simply wants to build a small house within the area of the barn. He stated that Mr. Getscher wants to take out everything has that anything to do with residential use and use it as a hay barn, which is what it was principally built for.

 

Mr. Getscher stated that he grew up on the farm and would like to live there. He stated that he had not lived there in 20 years.

 

Mr. Tassone asked Mr. Amoss what he was referring to in his earlier discussion about re-locating a lot and tearing it down. Mr. Amoss stated that he was referring to the Markline situation. He stated that at least in that case it was a residential structure; in this case the subject is a barn.

 

Ms. Weaver asked why it was designated as a dwelling when it came into the program, if indeed it was not a dwelling. Why, if in fact it was a barn, was it not treated as a barn at that time? Mr. Getscher stated that he did not know why this happened.

 

Ms. Weaver stated that she wished to remind the Board that the easement does not grant a right to relocate a pre-existing dwelling. This is something that the Foundation has granted in the past to accommodate requests by landowners. It is not an automatic right.

 

Shirley Pilchard, Board member, stated that it appears that there are two barns on the property. She asked if both barns are currently being used for hay storage. Mr. Getscher stated that the other barn is used for the storage of machinery; this barn is used for hay. Ms. Pilchard stated that if this barn was torn down, he would then have no barn to store his hay. Ms. Pilchard asked if that was correct. Mr. Getscher stated this was correct.

 

Audrey Scott, Secretary, Maryland Department of Planning, asked if there was a bathroom or a kitchen in the dwelling. Mr. Getscher responded that there was, but he had already disconnected the water and sewer. He stated that it doesn’t work out very well for a family and he wanted to dismantle it anyway. Ms. Scott asked what Mr. Getscher would use the building for if he was not required to dismantle it. Mr. Getscher responded that he would use it for hay storage.

 

Mr. Wilson asked how the building was assessed. Mr. Amoss and Mr. Getscher both responded that it was assessed as a farm building. He stated that his uncle used it as a place to stay during weekends. He planned to move there when he retired.

 

Ms. Weaver asked who signed the easement document. Mr. Getscher stated that he did. Ms. Weaver asked in what capacity he signed it. She asked if the farm was in a trust and if he was the trustee. Mr. Getscher stated that was correct. Ms. Weaver asked if it was correct that the uncle applied for the easement. Mr. Getscher replied that his uncle applied. Ms. Weaver asked when the property was transferred to him. Ms. Getscher stated that his uncle died before the property settled. Ms. Weaver asked if he signed the easement document as an owner or as trustee of his uncle’s trust. Mr. Getscher stated that he signed as the trustee. Ms. Weaver stated that he was therefore entitled to an owner’s lot. She asked if he was aware of that. He stated that he was. Mr. Wilson stated that MALPF’s documentation stated that his uncle was the owner at the time of settlement. He asked about the status of the property at the time it settled. Mr. Getscher stated that it was under his uncle’s trust. Mr. Wilson asked if he was the trustee. He responded that he was.

 

Mr. Wilson stated that this revelation changes the situation, as all Mr. Getscher needed to do was to request an owner’s lot.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that he would like to hear from the Attorney General. Ms. Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services, stated that she believed she closed on the property but she did not remember how it was closed. She did not remember if it closed in the name of the uncle’s trust or how it closed.

 

Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture stated that he wished to remind everyone that the building came into the Program as a pre-existing dwelling. The Foundation has never in its history allowed the re-designation of dwellings because of the potential for problems associated with it. The concern has been about the Foundation’s control over what happens on the property. There has never been an instance where the Foundation has allowed the conversion of a dwelling into something else and then claim another development right elsewhere on the property.

 

Mr. Nielsen stated that he and Ms. Forrester were just now provided with a copy of the easement document and they have determined that, as trustee, Mr. Getscher is entitled to an owner’s lot.

 

Mr. Getscher stated that it was his understanding that if he took an owner’s lot, he would have to take it out of agriculture. Mr. Amoss stated that Mr. Getscher was referring to the property tax credit in Harford County. The landowner gets a 100% county tax credit up to $35 an acre. Once a landowner takes a lot out of the Program, he no longer receives that credit. That is why Mr. Getscher doesn’t want an owner’s lot.

 

Bill Powel, Carroll County Program Administrator, stated that in Carroll County the landowner is not required to take out the lot. If they are entitled to live on the farm, they simply get a building permit and it is released. But it is not a legal lot; it is still part of the overall property.  Mr. Powel asked if this would satisfy Mr. Getscher’s concern about how he could continue to receive tax credits.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that he would like to ask the Attorney General if he had any further comments. Mr. Nielsen stated that it would be absolutely contrary to precedent if the Foundation were to approve this.

 

Mr. Tassone asked if Mr. Getscher makes this his owner’s lot, does he intend to subdivide the lot? If he leaves the current dwelling as a pre-existing dwelling, then he can subdivide it. Mr. Nielsen stated that allowing it to be re-designated would be doing violence to the Program. Mr. Tassone stated that the explanation that was provided for not allowing this was that it can create additional dwellings and that would be appropriate for the Foundation’s purposes. In this case, allowing it would reduce the number of dwellings. If we don’t allow the re-designation, he could apply for an owner’s lot and he could subdivide the lot around the pre-existing dwelling.

 

Mr. Nielsen stated that he wished to remind the Board that they would be setting a precedent. The landowner could use the re-designated building as a pawn in the Program. Mr. Tassone asked if it could be done in conjunction with the granting of an owner’s lot and the elimination of the right to exclude a lot around an existing dwelling.

 

Mr. Wilson stated that he would be willing to make a motion that the Board could approve this as an owner’s lot with the provision that any ability to subdivide the lot surrounding the red building be extinguished.

 

Mr. Nielsen stated that there are some legal issues associated with this type of approval. He requested that the request be tabled until the next meeting to allow him and Ms. Forrester to review the legal issues surrounding the request and possible motions.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that because some new facts have been brought to light, such as Mr. Getscher’s right to an owner’s lot, and the Attorney General’s concern about the legal issues surrounding any proposed motion, he would like to give the Attorney General sufficient time to ascertain the legal constraints associated with this request. Mr. Colhoun stated that the Attorney General’s research may bring a benefit to Mr. Getscher. He asked Mr. Getscher if tabling the request would impose a hardship on him. Mr. Getscher stated that it would put him behind a little bit as far as getting the permits. He stated that he has no concern about not being able to subdivide the red building, he would agree to that. However, he is concerned that if he takes an owner’s lot he would have to take it out of agriculture and he would have to pay additional taxes. Ms. Weaver stated that, as far as the Foundation is concerned, he would not have to subdivide it; it can remain part of the farm property but released from the easement. Mr. Colhoun asked if the Board members felt comfortable with tabling the request.

 

Motion #4:       To table the request to re-designate the property until next month

 

Motion:            Joe Tassone                                       Second: Patricia Langenfelder

 

Secretary Scott stated that she hopes that the issue that was raised about the tax credit would be resolved. She would not wish to impose upon Mr. Getscher something that was unintentional.

 

Jerry Klasmeier, representing Comptroller Schaeffer, stated that he would like to request that in Mr. Nielsen’s examination of the precedents, that he evaluate if the precedents are of equal value. It sounds to him that what the Board is dealing with is a mischaracterization of the building in the first place.

 

Mr. Colhoun thanked Mr. Getscher for coming down to talk to the Board.

 

 

B.        ST. MARY’S COUNTY

 

1.        18-00-01         Watson, Alva J.                                                   254.89 acres

 

Request for a 2-acre owner’s lot on easement property

 

Ms. Weaver introduced the request from Mr. Watson, who is the original grantor of the easement. The current request is for a 2-acre owner’s lot for the construction of a dwelling for his personal use.

 

 

Staff recommends approval based on the provisions of the deed of easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b)(3), Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of up to 2 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the county.

 

Donna Sasscer, St. Mary’s County Program Administrator, stated that she wished to make a clarification on the request. She stated that the memo to the Board was helpful. In looking at the memo, she remembered that in bringing the property into the Program as a district and then as an easement, there was a successful perk site on the property and it was treated as a pre-existing dwelling. The landowner at the time had intended to build on the lot. He is now ready to do that and in going through the planning and zoning process, we (the County) had discovered that he needed two acres.

 

She stated that there really was not a pre-existing dwelling on the property but the acre was left out of the Program. This request is actually for an additional acre for the lot that was left out of the easement. Ms. Weaver asked if the Foundation should just ignore the whole application and instead go through the administrative process of excluding a pre-existing dwelling.

 

Ms. Sasscer stated that when she looked at the memo this morning, she saw the statement that there was a pre-existing dwelling and she thought that it was incorrect. She went back to her files and saw that the landowner had claimed an existing lot site because of the perk.

 

Mr. Tassone asked if the landowner even knew that he already has a lot. Ms. Sasscer stated that the landowner had filled out the form for her. When he went through the planning and zoning process, he found out that he needed an additional acre so he filled out the form. She reiterated that that it was not a dwelling but he had set it out at the beginning, as 1-acre house site. Mr. Tassone asked if the landowner believed that she was coming here to ask for an owner’s lot. She replied that this was the case. Mr. Tassone asked if Ms. Sasscer was just going to decide that she was not going to do that. Ms. Sasscer stated that he does not need that. She stated that what he needs is an extra acre, and if that can be done administratively, then…..

 

Mr. Wilson stated that he does not want to throw a log in front of this, but as staff reviews the request, he is not comfortable yet that this is a pre-existing dwelling. He stated that he is comfortable that it was an easement request with some excluded acreage, but he is not so sure that the board should just approve extra acreage to be excluded because the owner decided to build a house on an excluded acre and now the Health Department says to him: “If you are going to build a house, you’re going to need two acres.” He stated that he may be more comfortable allowing the extra acre if he waives his right to an owner’s lot. Otherwise, the Foundation is going to get another request for an owner’s lot. He stated that he is not comfortable with the idea that excluded acreage automatically qualifies as a pre-existing dwelling. Ms. Weaver stated that it was considered a lot. Mr. Wilson stated that Ms. Sasscer had stated that the acre was excluded. That means that if it was a 100-acre parcel, the Foundation only bought an easement on 99 acres.

 

Mr. Tassone stated that he was not clear on what is being asked for. The Board memo stated that there is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. Ms. Sasscer stated that there is no pre-existing dwelling. Mr. Tassone stated that then it was just an excluded acre. Mr. Tassone asked if the Board could just proceed as if it was a request for an owner’s lot. Mr. Colhoun asked if the staff was comfortable with the idea that this was not a pre-existing dwelling. Ms. Weaver stated that our records indicate one pre-existing dwelling on the property. Carol Council, Administrative Officer, stated that she had seen instances where an owner had set aside an acre when they have a perk; and they hold it out as a pre-existing dwelling because they intend to build a house there. The house is not constructed yet but the area is not excluded from the easement. The appraisal is done as if a house existed and the owner can build the house without having to come back to the Foundation to do that.

 

Mr. Wilson stated Ms. Council is making an assumption. He stated that he has no responsibility, once the landowner decides to exclude his acre, to give him two.  Ms. Council stated that the Foundation’s records indicate that he has a pre-existing dwelling. Mr. Wilson stated that he is okay with giving him an extra acre provided he waives his owner’s lot. He stated that he wants to make it clear that, if someone wants to exclude acreage and if they want additional acreage around that acreage, the Board is not obliged to approve that.

 

Mr. Nielsen stated that he agreed with Mr. Wilson. If this land was excluded, the landowner has no right to additional acreage to be taken out of the easement. He can only get what he is entitled to under the easement.

 

Mr. Tassone asked if it is legitimate to declare a piece of land a pre-existing dwelling even if there’s no dwelling there. He stated that he did not think you could do that. Ms. Council stated that she was not saying it should be done; she just remembered it happening in the past. She stated that she knows that there was a time that it did happen.

 

Dr. Jim Pelura, Board member, stated that for clarification, it was considered a pre-existing dwelling because it had a perk site, not because it was just a parcel of land. Mr. Colhoun asked if that is right or wrong. It may have been done in the past, but we are dealing with the present. Mr. Wilson stated that he felt that a pre-existing dwelling is clearly defined in the regulations. Mr. Tassone stated that a parcel of land with a perk site that’s excluded from the easement or district is not what is defined in the law as a pre-existing dwelling. He stated that no matter what was done, this is not a pre-existing dwelling.

 

Mr. Powel stated that he did not wish to contradict Ms. Council, but in Carroll County, when there are unimproved properties coming into the Program, they are encouraged to keep out an acre and they have to get a legal description of the excluded area; and when it comes time for the easement settlement, the acre has been legally excluded. He encourages the landowners to pick an acre they think will perk. Of course, they run a risk that it won’t.

 

Mr. Colhoun asked if the Attorney General had any further comment. Mr. Nielsen stated that it seems to him that, because the acre was excluded from the easement, the landowner is not entitled to any additional acreage.

 

Motion #5:       To approve the exclusion of an additional acre, subject to the condition that the landowner waive his right to an owner’s lot.

 

Motion:            Douglas Wilson                                   Second: Patricia Langenfelder

 

2.        18-99-14         Love, Mark                                                      109.25 ACRES

 

Request for acreage exchange of easement property

 

Ms. Weaver introduced the request of Mr. Love, who is a subsequent owner of the easement property. The current request is for an acreage exchange of easement property for non-easement property.

 

Mr. Love is requesting an acreage exchange of 6.0 acres of non-easement property for 2.0 acres of easement property (see attached map). The exchange is being requested to allow the landowner to construct a dwelling for his use. When the property entered the program as a district, a 6-acre area was withheld for a future home site. Mr. Love is requesting approval to add the 6.0 acres to the easement and, in exchange, remove a 2-acre area from the easement.

 

According to St. Mary’s County, the area proposed to be removed from the easement is contiguous with an existing dwelling located on the property. (Catherine Wible, one of the grantors of the easement, currently resides in the pre-existing dwelling.) The landowner had originally requested an acreage exchange of two areas of six acres each. The local advisory board voted to deny the request because the members felt that it was not in the best interest of the agricultural operation to remove from the easement a large area in the middle of the farm. The advisory board recommended several alternatives, including the option currently being requested by Mr. Love.

 

According to the County, the 2-acre area proposed to be removed from the easement is comprised of 100% prime agricultural soils (Class 2). The 6-acre area proposed to be added to the easement contains 50% prime soils (2.0 acres Class II, 1.0 acre Class III).      The request was approved by the local agricultural advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations.

 

Foundation staff recommends approval because significantly more acreage (a net gain of 1.0 acre of prime soils and 3 acres of non-prime, Class 4 soils) is being added to the easement than is being removed, and the future dwelling will be located in a more desirable location for agricultural use of the farm. Additionally, per the request of the local advisory board, an approval should be contingent on the removal of the existing right-of-way to the 6-acre parcel; and only one dwelling may be constructed on the 2-acre parcel. 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.

 

Ms. Weaver stated that Mr. Love is in attendance and is available to answer questions from the Board, as is Ms. Sasscer. Additionally, colored aerials have been distributed to each Board member.

 

Mr. Colhoun asked if Mr. Love had any additional comments. Mr. Love stated that he felt it was a simple request. The 6-acre area that was originally held out was not in a good location. He stated that the felt that the location he has chosen is a better one because it is near the farm buildings and near an existing house.

 

Mr. Wilson asked if Mr. Love would agree to the staff’s recommendation to give up the existing right-of-way. Mr. Love stated that he was agreeable. Mr. Wilson asked if the Office of Real Estate has reviewed the proposed exchange. Ms. Weaver stated that they expect to review it shortly. Mr. Wilson stated that just because we are getting more acreage, we should not assume that the value for the easement will be greater; sometimes that is not the case.

 

Mr. Tassone stated that he was confused by the staff’s recommendation that the location was better for the agricultural operation of the farm. It seemed to him that it protruded into the farm. Ms. Weaver stated that the access to the six acres would have gone right through the farm. She stated that the staff had indicated to the County that there was a concern about the configuration of the lot, particularly as it extended into the field and extended across the farm lane. She stated that the response from the County was “This was the location area that was submitted by Mr. Love. The reason for the choice would have to be addressed by him.” Mr. Colhoun asked if Mr. Love could address that concern.

 

Mr. Love stated that he would use the farm lane as a driveway. Mr. Colhoun asked if he could address the concern that the lot seems to occupy so much of what appears to be tillable field. Mr. Love stated that he was giving up tillable field in the back.

 

Ms. Weaver asked if it was necessary for the lot to protrude so far into the field. Mr. Wilson asked what it would happen if the lot was more square. Mr. Love stated that it was his intention to have a more square lot. He did not know why the lot ended up looking like the way it had been presented. He stated that it was difficult to see the lay of the land from the map. He stated that the lot was intended to be located between two fields. He wanted it to be situated in an area where it would not disturb either field. He stated that they could change it if necessary to do what the Foundation wants.

 

Mr. Tassone stated that the problem was not so much the configuration of the lot, as much as it was that there was going to be a subdivided 2-acre piece of land smack dab in the middle of the farm.

 

Mr. Wilson stated that from Mr. Love’s perspective, it made sense to locate a house close to the barn and at the same time make use of the farm lane. That is preferable to a lot with access right through the middle of the farm.

 

Mr. Tassone stated that makes sense if the farmer was going to live there. He believes that is not the case here. Mr. Tassone asked if Mr. Love farms the land. Mr. Love stated that he does not.

 

Motion #6:       To approve the exchange of the acreage subject to a favorable review from the Department of General Services and the staff’s and St. Mary’s County’s recommendation that the right-of-way to the 6-acre parcel be removed.

Motion:            Doug Wilson                                        Second: Dr. Jim Pelura

Opposed:        Joe Tassone

 

 

C.         CARROLL COUNTY

 

1.        06-91-45e       Cook, Walter F. & Delores R.                               113.87 acres

 

Request to 1) increase the size of a previously approved child’s lot; and 2) a waiver of the

payback of the lot

 

Ms. Weaver introduced the request of Mr. & Mrs. Cook, who are the original owners of the easement property. The current request is for an increase in the size of a previously approved child’s lot to meet county regulation requirements.