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.

 

On May 25, 2004, the Foundation approved a 1.15-acre child’s lot for the personal use of Joseph Cook, child of Mr. and Mrs. Cook. The additional 0.15 acres was required for dedication of the road to the County.

 

According to Carroll County, the lot is located in steep pastureland. The county is requesting an increase in lot size to 2 acres based on requirements of the County’s ordinance concerning rural design standards for agricultural and conservation districts, a copy of which is attached.

 

The request was approved by the local agricultural advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If the request is approved, the total payback for the lot will be $4,000.00 (2 acres @ $2,000.00 per acre).

 

The County is requesting a waiver of the payback. During settlement of the easement sale in 1999, a miscalculation of the acreage resulted in a reduced acreage of 2.75 acres from the actual size of the property. The Cooks believe, and the local advisory board concurs, that because the Cooks were not compensated for the 2.75 acres, they should not be required to reimburse the Foundation for the 2 acres to be released for the lot.

 

Foundation staff recommends approval of the increase in lot size 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. Staff has requested that our attorneys advise the Foundation on the statutory constraints on allowing a waiver of a payback for a lot.

 

Mr. Colhoun asked if Mr. Powel had any further comments. Mr. Powel stated that all the information was contained in the memo.

 

Motion #7:       To approve to increase the lot size of a previously approved child’s lot.

 

Motion:            Doug Wilson                                        Second: Jerry Klasmeier

 

Mr. Nielsen stated that on the issue of the mistake that may have been made, the issue

should be researched. On the issue of the payback, the statute is clear, requiring the landowner to pay back for the lot that is being released from the easement. It was his opinion that the matter should be addressed by the Board of public Works. He believes that the (MALPF) Board does not have the authority to waive a payback. He understands the logic of the request but this is a matter that should be addressed by the Board of Public Works.

 

Mr. Wilson asked the staff what the current process was when a property that was appraised at 100 acres and after it is surveyed it comes back at 102 acres. What does the Foundation do in that case? It is his understanding that the landowner has two choices: 1) he rejects the offer; or 2) he accepts the amount that was offered. While he was sympathetic to the landowner’s situation, he believes it would be inconsistent in this case to act differently.

 

Ms. Forrester stated that she would like to research the file. The property settlement took place before she came to work at DGS. She believes that back in the time that this property settled, the Foundation had a policy to take it back to the Board of Public Works and have the offer revised upward. However, without seeing the file, she does not know if the landowner may have opted not to go back to the Board of Public Works.

 

Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Powel if it was okay with him to table the payback issue until Ms. Forrester has time to review the file. Mr. Powel stated that he believes the landowner would be agreeable.

 

Motion #8:       To table the request to waive the payback to allow staff time to review the file.

 

Motion:            Doug Wilson                                        Second: Joe Tassone

 

2.        06-88-10          Daniel B. Strickler                                               119.96 acres

 

Request for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for an owner’s lot on easement property

 

Ms. Weaver introduced the request of Mr. Strickler, who is the original owner of the easement property. The current request is for the release of up to 2-acres for an owner’s lot for the construction of a dwelling for his personal use.

 

There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. There have been no other lot requests on the property. Mr. Strickler does not own any other district or easement property. According to Carroll County, the proposed lot is to be located along the driveway to the existing dwelling. No additional access roads are necessary.

 

According to Carroll County, more than one acre will be required to meet Health Department regulations. A letter from the Health Department, indicating the lot size required, must be presented to the Foundation at the time of Preliminary Release of the lot. The request was approved by the local advisory board. The request conforms to local zoning regulations.

 

If the request is approved, there will be a required payback to the Foundation of the per acre amount of $2,450.00, which the landowner received for the easement. The full amount will be determined when the landowner submits 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 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.

 

Staff requested that Mr. Strickler attend the meeting to explain the unusual configuration of the lot. Mr. Strickler is here and is available for questions.

 

Mr. Colhoun asked if Mr. Strickler had any comments. Mr. Strickler stated that he had difficulties getting the lot to perk, beginning in 1997. He did more than 14 perks in 2004. Three of the perks were located in the end of the panhandle of the proposed lot.

 

Mr. Tassone stated that he cannot tell from the pictures provided where the boundaries of the property are located. Mr. Strickler pointed out the location of the property lines. Mr. Tassone asked about the access to the lot. Mr. Powel stated that the lot will be accessed through a driveway to a lot that is contiguous to the proposed lot.

 

Motion #9:       To approve the exclusion of up to two acres for an owner’s lot.

 

Motion:            Pat Langenfelder                                Second: Joe Tassone

 

 

D.         ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

 

1.        02-84-03         Shepherd, Margaret G. (Deceased)                    121.68 acres

 

Ms. Weaver introduced the request for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for two child’s lots on easement property. Ms. Shepherd, who is deceased, was the original owner of the easement property. The current request is for the release of two child’s lots for the personal use of her son, William, and her daughter, Margaret.

 

On January 24, 1996, Ms. Shepherd documented her intent to create lots for her children in the event that they should decide to construct a home on the property at some point in the future. There are no pre-existing dwellings on the property. On October 26, 2004, the Foundation approved a child’s lot for another son, Edward Shepherd.

 

According to Anne Arundel County, William’s lot is to be located in close proximity to the lot approved for his brother, Edward. The lot will be accessed through an existing farm lane. Margaret’s lot is to be located on an area of the farm that was the site of a house that burned down. (Note: The site was not counted as a pre-existing dwelling lot when the property entered the program.) The lot will be accessed through an existing farm lane.

 

If more than one acre is required to meet Health Department regulations, a letter from the Health Department must be presented to the Foundation at the time of Preliminary Release of the lot. The request was approved by the local advisory board. The request conforms to local zoning regulations. If the request is approved, there will be a required payback to the Foundation of the per acre amount of $1,400.00, 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.

 

Ms. Weaver asked if any representatives from the Shepherd property were present. Debbie Vaughan, Assistant Program Administrator, Anne Arundel County, introduced herself. Ms. Vaughan stated that Margaret Shepherd Collison is present and available to answer questions.

 

Mr. Colhoun asked if Ms. Collison wished to make any comments. Ms. Collison stated that the family looked at several possible locations and felt the locations chosen were the best for the future use of the farm. They tried to use farm lanes for access as much as possible. The family has horses on the farm. They grow their own hay and lease out some of the property.

 

Ms. Vaughan stated that she was notified this morning that the site chosen by Ms. Collison did not perk. The family now requests to move the location approximately 500 feet due west of the site located on the map provided to the Board.

 

Dr. Pelura stated that he wanted to disclose that he knows the Shepherd family members and has provided veterinary services for their animals on the farm.

 

Mr. Wilson asked if the relocation would move the lot closer to the tree line shown on the map. Ms. Vaughan stated that it would move past the tree line into the next field, using another farm lane.

 

Ms. Weaver asked Ms. Vaughan to draw the new location on the map so it can be passed around to the Board members for their review.

 

Ms. Schultz asked if the area on the southern boundary was excluded acreage. Ms. Vaughan stated that the maps provided to the Board are aerial maps overlaid with tax maps. They do not always match the features on the ground. They can be off by several feet. Ms. Weaver asked if the lot was separately owned. Ms. Vaughan stated that it probably was; she stated that she would have to check the records to answer the question.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that in looking at Ms. Vaughan drawing on the map, the lot seems to him to have moved further than 500 feet. Ms. Vaughan apologized for the confusion about the location. Mr. Colhoun asked how it would be accessed. Ms. Collison stated that they would use the farm lane that goes to the barn where the farm equipment is stored.

 

Motion #10:     To approve the exclusion of two child’s lots up to two acres in size for Margaret Shepherd (deceased) from easement property for the use of her son, William, and her daughter, Margaret, subject to the condition that Anne Arundel County provides corrected data regarding the location of Margaret’s lot to the Foundation staff.

 

Motion:            Doug Wilson                                        Second: Judith Lynch

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that he wished to remind the Board that a child’s lot may be subdivided

from the farm at some point in the future; and someone unfriendly to farms may end up owning the lot. The solution to that is to ask the owner if he would consider making the lot stay with the farm. Mr. Colhoun asked Ms. Collison if that is something that she and her brother would consider. Ms. Collison stated that she believed that her brother would be willing to do that.

 

Craig Nielsen stated that the Foundation cannot impose the condition; it should be done voluntarily. Mr. Colhoun stated that is exactly what he is proposing. He is asking Ms. Collison to agree; he is not imposing it on the family. He is merely putting it out on the table. He stated that as the Board is allowing her to locate the lot out in the middle of the farm, it would be a great gesture toward the Program to have the lot stay with the farm.

 

Mr. Wilson asked if Ms. Collison is allowed to speak for her brother in this regard. She stated that she is not. Ms. Collison stated that she and her brother intend to stay on the farm as they grew up there.

 

Tammy Buckle, Caroline County Program Administrator, stated that it was her understanding that a child’s lot is supposed to transfer to the child. She asked how it can be transferred to the child if it is not subdivided separately. Ms. Weaver stated it has happened in the past. The lot does not have to be taken off the farm. It is removed from the easement. An audience member stated that the bank will not give a loan when the lot is not subdivided from the farm.

 

Mr. Tassone asked why the Foundation would impose the restriction in this case where the landowner is entitled to a child’s lot and not impose it in the earlier situation involving the swap. In that case, the Board was under no obligation to approve the swap. The Board could have imposed any condition at that time, but chose not to.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that Mr. Tassone had a good point. He stated that in this case, as the lot moved around the map, it occurred to him that there might be a problem in the future.

 

2.        02-81-13         Emmerich, Tina                                                   164.00 acres

 

Request for the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling on easement property

 

Ms. Weaver introduced the request of Ms. Emmerich, who is a subsequent owner of the easement property. The current request is for the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling.

 

No lots have been excluded from the property. There is one additional pre-existing dwelling on the property.

According to Anne Arundel County, Ms. Emmerich is requesting the relocation of the dwelling, which is located close to Route 2, because she is concerned that the county may take the land for an anticipated expansion of the road.

 

The proposed location is along the perimeter of the property in an area close to existing structures. The area is currently not being farmed. The lot will be accessed through an existing farm lane. The request was approved by the local agricultural advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations.

 

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.

 

Ms. Emmerich introduced herself to the Board. Mr. Colhoun asked if Ms. Emmerich if she understood the need to tear down the existing structure.

 

Dr. Pelura stated that he wanted to disclose that he knows the Emmerich family members and has provided veterinary services for their animals on the farm in the past. Dr. Pelura asked, for verification, if the location where the building is currently located is not currently used for agriculture; and the area where it is to be situated, in the back, where the barns are located, is currently not used for agriculture. He asked Ms. Emmerich if that was correct. Ms. Emmerich responded that he was correct.

 

Mr. Tassone asked for further clarification regarding Dr. Pelura’s statement. Dr. Pelura stated that he made the point because the condition in the memo stated that the area where the building is currently located must be returned to agriculture. The area is not currently used for agriculture. Mr. Wilson stated that the statement is in there because the building foundation must be removed.

 

Motion #11:     To approve the relocation of the pre-existing dwelling, subject to the condition that the foundation of the building be removed. 

 

Motion:            Doug Wilson                                        Second: Vera Mae Schultz

 

E.         TALBOT COUNTY

 

1.        20-87-01         Collins, Maurice E. & Helen E.                             251.64 acres

 

Request for an agricultural subdivision on easement property

 

Carol Council, Administrative Officer, introduced the request of Mr. and Mrs. Collins, who are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is for an agricultural subdivision of the farm, retroactive to February 26, 2002, when one of the parcels making up the property was sold to a neighboring landowner.

 

The original easement property was made up of two separately described parcels. Since there was no parcel subdivision involved in the sale, the landowners were not required to notify planning and zoning. According to Talbot County, the landowner stated that he was not aware of the requirement to seek approval from the Foundation for an agricultural subdivision. The County does not have in place a mechanism to flag easement properties when the ownership of a parcel that is separately described is transferred.

 

According to Talbot County, the easement was divided into two parcels (the aforementioned separately described parcels), a 58.23-acre parcel, which was sold to a neighboring property owner, John O. Brooks, and a 193.41-acre parcel, which Mr. and Mrs. Collins will retain. Mr. Brooks has added the 58.23-acre parcel to his existing crop operation on a neighboring farm.  The 58.23 portion, now owned by Mr. Brooks, contains 100% qualifying soils. The remaining portion contains 97.9% qualifying soils. The request was approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. Foundation staff recommends approval, retroactive to February 26, 2002, based on meeting minimum size and soils criteria. Additionally, the parcels resulting from the subdivision create viable farming operations.

 

Martin Sokolich, Talbot County Program Administrator, introduced himself to the Board. He stated that Mr. Collins is deceased. His grandson, Rodney Collins, who is the current landowner, is the individual who conducted this transaction.

 

Mr. Colhoun asked how this problem can be prevented in the future. Ms. Sokolich stated that he would welcome any suggestions. He discovered it by accident when he was in the process of updating the records.

 

Mr. Colhoun asked for a comment from the Attorney General. Mr. Nielsen stated that he believes that what is being done now is a good solution. He believes that in county government, things happen and things have to be approved retroactively. He supports the staff recommendation. Ms. Schultz stated that the question was asked how this can be avoided in the future. Mr. Nielsen stated that it’s a question of monitoring. He stated that there is legislation pending that gives the counties more authority in working with the Foundation in such matters. He believes the bill will help cement the relationship between the counties and the Foundation in dealing with these kinds of things. It’s a matter of working together. Luckily, in this case, the subdivision met the Foundation’s agricultural subdivision requirements.

 

Ms. Schultz stated that she believes it is a matter of educating the landowners. Mr. Wilson stated that this has not been a big problem. The Foundation receives one of these a year, at the most. Fortunately, the majority of landowners know that they must ask permission of the Foundation before proceeding with these types of things. He stated that one of the projects that the Foundation is trying to work on is a newsletter that goes out to all the landowners to let them know about things they should be aware of.

 

Mr. Tassone stated that he doesn’t understand how the property was sold without the discovery of this problem. It seemed to him that it should have been discovered in the legal review of the transaction. Ms. Forrester stated that the title company is under no obligation to notify the Foundation. The landowner who buys it should be put under notice. Mr. Tassone states that this suggests to him an absence of an enforcement mechanism. He stated that it seems to him that perhaps a law should be passed to obligate the title company to notify the Foundation. Ms. Forrester stated that she does not know how it could be done.

 

Ms. Scott stated that it seems to her that Assessments and Taxation is the appropriate place for this to be handled. Mr. Wilson stated that Assessments and Taxation is not concerned about all the different deed restrictions on a property. They are concerned with size and ownership and how much it costs. He stated that in this case the Foundation got lucky because it was a 58-acre subdivision. The Board would have a real problem if it had been 18 acres. The issue is what is our recourse. How can the sale of a property be undone?

 

Mr. Tassone stated that it was his understanding that there was something in the easement that forbids subdivision. Mr. Wilson states that the issue is how we get notice that a subdivision has occurred. Ms. Buckle stated that the Program Administrators do not get notice either.

 

Ms. Forrester stated that the Department of Assessments and Taxation are not notified of the transfer until after the transfer has been recorded so there is no mechanism for the Foundation to be put on notice.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that the Foundation is not setting a precedent today. What is important is that the Board makes it clear that this is being approved because it meets our requirements. He wants to make it clear that a person cannot cut off 20 acres and just come in here after the fact and get approval.

 

Motion #12:     To approve the subdivision retroactively, with the condition that it meets the Foundation’s minimum requirements for agricultural subdivision and that the approval in no way indicates a blanket approval of agricultural subdivisions.

 

Motion:            Doug Wilson                                        Second: Joe Tassone

 

Mr. Tassone asked if a landowner could subdivide a lot and if it could go through the process without the Foundation finding out about it. Ms. Weaver stated that it would have to go through a permitting process at the county. The Collins property was made up of two already separately described parcels, so they could transfer them without going through the county.

 

Mr. Tassone stated that this represents a hole in the process. The Foundation should look into introducing legislation that would close the loophole. Mr. Nielsen stated that we would have to work with the counties to get their support.

 

Mr. Wilson stated that staff should look into methods, either with legislation or something in the easement document, to close this loophole. Mr. Colhoun stated that he concurred with Mr. Wilson’s suggestion. Ms. Forrester stated that the new easements have a statement at the top in bold letters that puts the title company on notice that the easement contains restrictions that restrict off-conveyances from the property. Hopefully the title company should notify the buyer.

 

F.        QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY

 

1.        17-95-01         Moore, J. Bradford & Margaret H.                          88.00 acres

 

Request for the exclusion of 2 acres for a child’s lot on easement property

 

Ms. Council introduced the request from Mr. and Mrs. Moore, who are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is for the release of 2.0 acres for a child’s lot for the personal use of their daughter, Debra M. Sadler. There are two pre-existing dwellings on the property. No family lots have been requested on the property. Mr. and Mrs. Moore own one additional easement property. No lots have been requested on that property.

 

A lot size of two acres is requested to meet Health Department requirements (letter from Health Department attached). According to Queen Anne’s County, the proposed lot is to be located in an area of the farm where the pre-existing dwellings and farm buildings are clustered. The lot will be accessed through an existing farm lane.

 

The request was approved by the local advisory board. The request conforms to local zoning regulations.  If the request is approved, there will be a required payback to the Foundation of $2,000.00 (2 acres @ $1,000.00 per acre) which is the per acre amount which the landowner received for the easement. A representative from the County will be available at the meeting and will provide maps for the Board members.

 

Staff recommends approval of the release of 2.0 acres, based on the provisions of the deed of easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b), 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 #13:     To approve the request for up to 2-acres for a child’s lot for Debra M. Sadler.

 

Motion:            Doug Wilson                                        Second: Shirley Pilchard

 

G.        FREDERICK COUNTY

 

1.        10-87-05e       Harold, Sr. & Ruth Lenhart                                  105.54 acres

Request to re-designate two approved child’s lots on easement property

 

Ms. Council introduced the request of Mr. & Mrs. Lenhart, who are the original owners of the easement property. The current request is for the approval to re-designate two approved child’s lots. On February 26, 2002 the Board of Trustees approved two child’s lots on this property:  Lot #4, a 1.427 acre lot for daughter, Brenda; and Lot #3, a 1.5831 acre lot for son, David. It has been discovered that the lots are transposed. The landowner requests the lots be re-designated to:

Lot #3, 1.5831 acres for daughter, Brenda.

Lot #4, 1.427 acres for son, David.

 

Frederick County is in agreement with this request, see attached letter. Also attached, is the original agenda item requesting approval for the lots. Foundation staff recommends approval as the re-designation of these lots will have no negative impact on the easement property.

 

Motion #14:     To approve the request to re-designate the lots as requested.

 

Motion:            Doug Wilson                                        Second: Patricia Langenfelder

 

 

III.       AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS

 

 

1.         08-05-01         Chaney, Amber L.                                                 81.55 acres

 

Motion #15:     To approve the request to establish an agricultural preservation district.

 

Motion:            Joe Tassone                                       Second: Patricia Langenfelder

 

2.         08-05-02         Sullivan, Dennis A. & Dixie W.                               20.00 acres

 

Motion #16:     To approve the request to establish an agricultural preservation district.

 

Motion:            Doug Wilson                                        Second: Shirley Pilchard

 

           B.         KENT COUNTY

 

1.         14-05-01         Quiet Acres Farm, Inc.                                        269.26 acres

 

Motion #17:     To approve the request to establish an agricultural preservation district.

 

Motion:            Shirley Pilchard                                   Second: Judith Lynch

 

2.         14-05-02          Hudson, Frank P.                                                202.80 acres

 

Motion #18:     To approve the request to establish an agricultural preservation district.

 

Motion:            Patricia Langenfelder                          Second: Joe Tassone

 

C.         CARROLL COUNTY

 

1.         06-05-05         Dell, Francis l. & Marian V.                                  112.50 acres

 

Motion #19:     To approve the request to establish an agricultural preservation district.

 

Motion:            Joe Tassone                                       Second: Vera Mae Schultz

 

2.         06-05-06         Leister, Donald A.                                                 70.49 acres

 

Motion #20:     To approve the request to establish an agricultural preservation district.

 

Motion:            Patricia Langenfelder                          Second: Joe Tassone

 

 

IV.       PROGRAM POLICY

 

No policy discussion

 

V.        INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION

 

 

A         MALPF Workshop Discussion

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that he wished to thank the MALPF staff for helping to put together the workshop. He stated that he was very grateful to the Extension for the excellent facilitators. He felt they did an outstanding job. He stated that he had received some very positive comments from those who participated. He hopes that the Board will have an opportunity to continue the types of discussions that took place. He suggested that the Board members think about coming in early over the summer months and begin the meeting a half-hour early. They could then meet for a half-hour after the meeting to discuss various matters.

 

Mr. Tassone stated that he thought the workshop was very good. He was glad that all the issues were dealt with in a very positive way from all concerned.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that the staff was putting together a synopsis of what was discussed at the meeting for the Board members who were unable to attend.

 

Mr. Colhoun asked for comments about starting the Board meetings at 9 a.m. Ms. Schultz asked if the Program Administrators would prefer if the discussion was held earlier and the meeting begin at 9:30. Dr. Pelura stated that he would prefer to start the discussion at 9 a.m. and then go into the regular Board meeting at 9:30 a.m.

 

Ms. Weaver stated that she wished to remind the Board that the reason the Foundation changed the Board meeting time to 9:30 a.m. some time ago was to allow sufficient time for the policy review committee meeting, which began at 8:30 a.m. The Policy review committee initially began at 8 a.m. and was changed to 8:30 a.m. to accommodate some folks who were unable to make it here at 8. She stated that she was concerned that if we change things again, it may cause confusion from many people.

 

Mr. Wilson stated that it may be necessary to coordinate with the policy review committee when it meets and perhaps not have a meeting on the days when that committee meets. We need to make sure that we provide plenty of advance notice.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that he would expect to have a concise agenda for a meeting at 9 a.m. in March. Mr. Wilson stated that he wanted to make it clear that the meeting will still be open to anyone; it would not be an executive meeting. Mr. Colhoun stated that, while that was true, the meeting would be primarily for the benefit of the Board.

 

Mr. Klasmeier stated that he felt the workshop was very beneficial and he hoped that it would be held again soon. Mr. Wilson stated that while the workshop was certainly beneficial, the discussion was broad. He believes there should be more focused discussions for the next meeting. Mr. Klasmeier stated that he agreed; the meetings should be agenda driven.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that one of the outcomes of the meeting was the need for clear instructions for Program Administrators when they submit items for consideration for the Board meeting agenda. He asked Ms. Council to read the instructions for the Board.

 

Ms. Council read the instructions:

 

 

Agenda Items for Submission to the MALPF Board

 

The following items are to be included when requests are submitted to the Foundation for consideration at the monthly Board meetings:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please answer the following questions:

 

Has the request been reviewed and approved by the local advisory board? If the request was not approved, please explain why the local board recommended denial of the request.

 

Is the request consistent with local zoning regulations?

 

What is the reason for the choice of the lot location?

 

How will the lot be accessed?  In-fee or right-of-way?

 

Ms. Schultz suggested that the instructions or applications for child’s lots and owner’s lots include a question about what will happen if the family lot is sold.  She would like to at least get them to think about it. Mr. Wilson asked if she thought this would be a good way to let them know that this is an issue that the Board is going to be looking at. Mr. Colhoun stated that the local boards are not always asking those kinds of questions. A question such as this would put the local board and the Program Administrator on notice that this (MALPF) Board is prepared to ask the question.

 

Charles Rice, Charles County Program Administrator, suggested that the Board consider putting a statement up front on the application that the Board has the right to deny a location if it feels that the location would have a detrimental effect on the agricultural operation of the farm, especially if it transfers out of the family in the future. This way the landowners know that the Board can refuse their request if they don’t like their location.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that Mr. Rice’s suggestion is a good one; it is more direct.

 

Mr. Tassone stated that the maps need to show the property boundaries.

 

Ms. Council stated that the Foundation is requesting better maps from the Program Administrators.

 

Dr. Pelura stated that he thought the maps were nice but in many cases the locations were wrong because the landowners or program administrators said that the location didn’t perk. He stated that he believed that if the location is not what was provided in the agenda package, they should come back another time with the correct location; they should not change it at the meeting.

 

Mr. Colhoun stated that he felt color photos are very useful. It would be helpful if in cases such as the re-designation request today, that the Board members were provided with a color photo in the agenda package.

 

Motion #21:     To adjourn the regular session and to go into executive session.

 

Motion:            Joe Tassone                                       Second: Judith Lynch

 

 

 

 

The regular session Board meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:25 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

 

_____________________________________

James A. Conrad, Executive Director

 

 

_____________________________________

Elizabeth Weaver, Administrative Officer