MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun,
Chairman
Vera Mae
Schultz, Vice Chairman
Jerry Klasmeier,
representing Comptroller Schaefer
Patricia Langenfelder
Lewis Logan,
representing Treasurer Kopp
Judith C. Lynch
James Pelura,
D.V.M.
Robert F. Stahl, Jr.
Joe Tassone,
representing Secretary Scott, Department of Planning
Chris Wilson
Douglas Wilson, representing
Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Shirley Pilchard
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bill Beach, Department of General
Services, Office of Real Estate
Tammy Buckle,
James A. Conrad, MALPF, Executive
Director
Gregory Cornwell, Landowner,
Carol Council, MALPF, Administrative
Officer
Rama Dilip,
MALPF, Secretary
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of General Services
Carolyn and Ned Hallein, Landowners,
John Hayes, Queen Anne’s County,
Land Use Planner
Sonja Ingram,
David Kelleher, Department of
General Services, Office of Real Estate
Felice and Maria LePore, Landowners, Queen Anne’s County
Joy Levy,
Carla Martin,
Brian and George D.
Morris, Landowners, Queen Anne’s County
Craig Nielson, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of Agriculture
Charles Rice,
Daniel Rosen, Planner, Maryland
Department of Planning
Kelly Rowan,
Eric Shertz,
Gloria Smith,
Martin Sokolich,
Katrina Tucker, Queen Anne’s County,
Acting Program Administrator
Joseph and Debra Yater, Landowners, Queen Anne’s County
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF,
Administrative Officer
Susan
Wilson, Landowner,
The Board met in an open informational meeting at
The discussion and possible vote on the proposed
relocation regulations is proposed to be taken at the next board meeting. Mr.
Craig Nielson, Assistant Attorney General is working
on this issue. Mr. Colhoun encouraged Board
members and Administrators to use the opportunity to give their input.
This month
the Board took up the subject of `MALPF
Properties with Limited Development Potential.’
James
Conrad, Executive Director of the Foundation, discussed the issues arising when
appraisals are done and offers are extended to purchase easements and certain
properties turn out to have limited or no development rights to purchase.
Mr. Conrad explained that every year when the Foundation
goes through the process of making offers of easement, it gets a list from
Department of General Services identifying problems on different properties.
There have been some cases in the past, when offers have been made where there
is limited development value on the property or the offer has been made with
certain conditions because of limited development value.
The issues
that arise are as follows:
1.
The
law is currently written to set the easement value based on the assumption that
the development value remains on the property.
The formula for the easement value is based on the fair market value of
the property without restrictions less the agricultural value set by a formula
based on the productivity of the soil, the distance from the market, and
agricultural land rents. The result calculated this way is generally similar,
though not necessarily the same, as the development value on the property when
there is development value. The
easement value is the maximum amount MALPF can pay to somebody to buy the farm
on easement.
However, when there is very limited
or no development value, the formula’s calculation of easement value overstates
the value that might adhere to very limited development value or the
speculative value of farmland retaining no development value that could be
rezoned to create development rights. If the Department of General Services
were to have such a speculative value appraised, the methodology used would
necessarily be very different than the one in place now, requiring a change in
the statute.
Mr. Conrad asked Mr. Bill Beach to
correct him or if he would like to add on anything else. Mr. Beach agreed and added if they did the
appraisal before and after, there should be a nominal difference but very small
difference.
2. Because of this problem, it is
questionable if the Department of General Services is in a position to defend
appraisal values on such properties either to the Board of Public Works or the
public more generally. There is good
reason to protect such high quality farmland from potential development that
could be created by local rezoning decisions even when there is no right to
construct a dwelling may currently exist on the property; however, no mechanism
currently exists in statute to establish a justifiable easement value on such a
property. It could be done but presently, MALPF does not have this mechanism.
3. In the case of properties with only one
development right, issues arise when the landowner elects to exclude an
unrestricted lot from the easement property.
Because this lot is taken into account when the appraiser establishes
the fair market value of the property, for all practical purposes the resulting
easement value has the same problem as properties with no development value.
The Foundation cannot make it a condition that the landowner waives the
unrestricted lot to receive an offer, because the property would have to be
reappraised for the easement value to take that development value into account.
4. This issue is less problematic if the
landowner elects the family lot option.
Such lots have no fair market value because they cannot be sold on the
commercial market (they are restricted to eligible family members). Because of this, if the Foundation should
choose to make a limitation on family lots a condition of an offer because of
circumstances specific to a particular property, the property would not have to
be reappraised to establish an easement value under current statute. The Foundation may also choose to purchase
the easement on such a property, of course, with no conditions on the offer.
5. Where a perpetual easement restricting
future development already exists on a property, an offer should not be extended unless the landowner can provide
adequate written documentation of its development potential and that
development potential is properly taken into consideration in the appraisal. It
makes no sense to purchase an easement on a property that already has a
perpetual easement resulting in no development potential, even though the MALPF
statutory formula establishes an easement value.
Mr. Bill Beach, representing
Department of General Services, further added that the difficulty in this particular
type of situation is that, even if the appraisers are aware of existing
easement, they may or may not be able to interpret what the effect of the
existing easement actually is. We don’t obtain a title search ahead of time;
so, they have to make judgement as to what the effect
of the easement is on the value. There is a difference between being aware that
there is an easement and knowing exactly what the effect of the easement
is.
While purchasing a Foundation
easement over an existing Maryland Environmental Trust, Maryland Historical
Trust, or other easement may be justifiable under certain conditions yet to be
established, as a general rule Mr. Conrad would recommend that the Foundation
be very careful in making offers on such properties. Where there is no
documentation of what development value remains, particularly documentation
provided by the easement holding organization, no easement offer should be
extended.
6. When
development is restricted by a limited right of way, the value of an easement
offer must be based on the actual ability of the landowner to develop the
property under current county requirements. Such ability should be based on
acceptable documentation provided by the landowner in advance of the appraisal.
The appraisal must be based on accurate information of the actual development
potential given right of way requirements. If there is no development
potential, the Department of General Services may find it difficult to defend
the value determined by the Foundation’s statutory formula to the Board of
Public Works or the public more generally.
Mr. Beach explained that most
counties require at least 50 feet if not 60 feet for development purposes. In
many cases, these rights of way are not identified in the title deed as to their
width. Because of that, it is difficult for an appraiser to make a decision
without a title search. The appraiser usually errs on the side of assuming that
the property can be developed. Subsequent information obtained through title
search may show an inadequate right of way is available.
Mr. Conrad concluded by saying that
these issues will require a review of offers on a `case by case’ basis.
Mr. Beach further added that this
issue was not really an issue in the earlier days when we appraised before and
after values. We are not saying the properties don’t have Fair Market Value –
value of the property before placement of a MALPF easement. It is just that the
difference between that value and the agricultural value that establishes, by
law, the easement value, doesn’t reflect the true value of the easement.
Mr. Chris Wilson, Board Member,
wanted to know the possibility of having the title search done before making
offers and making conditional offers on proper right of way or based on
establishing that an adequate right of way exists to realize the development
potential on which the appraisal value is based.
Nancy
Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services remarked
that there’s an issue when we do title search, make an offer, and the landowner
rejects the offer; title work costs a lot of money.
Mr. Douglas Wilson, representing
Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture, clarified that couple of years back, we did not do a title search until approval from the
Board, and approval from the Board of Public Works. More recently, title work
is ordered at the time the Foundation makes an offer, because we are very sure,
the landowner will accept the offer. We have had up to 450 applications; we may
make offers maybe to a 100, so 300 extra title searches at over a $1000 or $
1500 per property would be very expensive. This was the compromise made as to
when title work would be requested and that eliminates 90% of the unnecessary
cost.
Mr. Colhoun
summed up saying that this was a very meaningful session and all involved
should wrestle with the various ideas and give feedback. He said it is very
important to remember the basic business of the Foundation is to preserve the
best farmland in
Mr. Bill Beach added that part of
the issue with limited development potential is that if we are thinking about
the contingent offers, we have to keep in mind, in fairness to all property
owners, these kinds of properties don’t always get appraised the same way.
Generally speaking, if we are able to determine between DGS and the appraisers
before the appraisal is done that there is no development potential, the
appraised value is diminished based on the limited development potential. On
the other hand, if we are not able to determine development potential, we
usually try to err on the side of giving benefit of the doubt to property
owners. It would help if DGS gets directions from the Foundation, to the extent
possible, as to how it would like these types of properties to be handled to
avoid arriving at questionable values.
Mr. Colhoun
convened the regular Board meeting to conduct the Foundation’s business at
approximately
I.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES/ADDITION OR
DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
A.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
Mr. Colhoun asked if there were
any additions or corrections to the
Motion #1 To approve the
Motion: Robert F. Stahl Second: Patricia Langenfelder
Status: Approved
B. ADDITIONS OR
DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
There were two
amendments of agenda items:
Item No. II A.1
10-93-05e Moxley, Fred H., Sr. & Marguerite Withdrawn
Item No. II A.2
10-83-02e Hipkins, Elwood W. Withdrawn
The Chairman reminded the Board that
Mr. Conrad has put the agenda on the web. In future, Mr. Conrad will
communicate to the Board when the agenda has been posted to the web to enable
the members to access the same at the earliest.
Mr. Colhoun
noted that, when he went though the meeting agenda, he found items that
deserved additional information for the Board. He asked Ms. Vera Mae Schultz,
Vice Chairman to visit the properties to assess the situation.
Ms. Schultz shared her report.
Mr. Moxley
had originally requested for 5 lots. He resubmitted his request for 3 lots. The
five lots were to have been adjacent to the road, but because of the perc test results, they could not be built there. The newly
requested lots were back from the road and on a very steep hill. The other
possible location at corner of the property is not included in the easement and
percs could not be obtained. Unfortunately Mrs. Moxley
had an emergency, so Ms.Schultz could not visit or
contact him over the phone.
Ms. Schultz visited Mr. Hipkins and his son, who had requested permission for the
mulch production on the property. Ms. Schultz had a very good conversation with
them. The Hipkins are doing lot of diversification on
the farm, primarily dairy and beef, vegetables meeting local restaurant needs,
exotic vegetables, supplying seedlings for a nearby nursery and considering
opportunities to increase income for the family to stay in farming.
She discussed the possible mulch
operation with them – they only recently heard about the possibility of compost
and by the end of the conversation, Mr. Hipkins and
his son felt that it was better to withdraw from this month’s agenda and
collect more information.
Mr. Douglas Wilson would find a
person, who can provide them relevant information and advice on the possibility
of compost in place of mulch.
Mr. Colhoun
praised Ms. Schultz’s efforts and encouraged the Board to be proactive in
trying to help someone. When Ms. Schultz met the landowners personally at their
farm, she was able to personally clarify lot of issues to the landowner, move
forward, and help them. He believed that this would encourage other Board
members to volunteer to see property owners in their general geographic areas
in the future.
Regarding the Board meeting from
09:00 am to 09:30 to discuss various policy issues and other various critical
issues, Mr. Conrad informed the Board that Mr. Craig Nielson,
Assistant Attorney General, has been working with a number of attorneys and
Program Administrators on the 25-year termination request regulations, and this
will be the topic for the next 09:00 meeting.
The Chairman and the
Board members felt half an hour is not enough to discuss such critical issues,
and it is the pre-preparation that counts. The Chairman wanted the meeting to
be productive and encouraged members to provide input as to whether we should
continue with the same starting time after summer ends, meet early or extend
later.
Mr. Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Department of Planning, would like to include the letters sent to counties in
response to certification in the INFORMATION
AND DISCUSSION item in the future.
II. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 10-87-10 Hallein,
Edward & Carolyn 156
acres
Request for the exclusion of up to 2
acres for a child’s lot on easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Hallein are the
original grantors of the easement property.
The current request is for the release of a child’s lot for the personal
use of their daughter, Katrina.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. No lots
have been requested for the property. The Halleins do
not own any other district or easement properties.
According to
The exact size of the lot will be determined once the
percolation tests are completed. 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 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 $1,990.00, which the landowner
received for the easement. The full amount will be determined when the
landowner submits 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.
The landowner Mr. Hallein was
present with his wife. Mr. Hallein introduced the
location of the lot to the Board. He confirmed the location of the lot, that it
has power line and road access and confirmed that the request will not impact
the farming operations at all. It is a pasture area in comparison to the steep
hilly area, where 3 to 4 times a year, kids try to get air borne off the hill
and crash. He can’t build right on the road itself, of course.
Motion # 2: To
approve the request for exclusion up to 2 acres for a child’s lot on easement
property.
Motion:
Douglas Wilson Second Robert Stahl
Status:
Approved
2. 10-95-03 Knott, David 322 acres
Request for an agricultural subdivision of easement property
Mr. Knott is the original owner of the easement property.
The current request is for an agricultural subdivision of the farm.
Mr. Knott is requesting a subdivision of 65.6 acres to
convey to Grossnickle Farms Partnership. According to
Both parcels meet the Foundation’s minimum soils and size
criteria. The parcel proposed to be subdivided has 100% prime soils. The remaining approximate 254 acres consists
of 75% prime soils.
Foundation staff recommends approval based on 1) meeting
minimum size and soils criteria; 2) the reason for the subdivision is to
enhance existing operations; and 3) the resulting parcels have the ability to
support viable agricultural operations.
Sonja Ingram, Frederick County Asst.
Administrator was present to answer any questions from the Board.
Mr. Tassone noted from the
background of the item that is clear that the sub-division is to exchange the
land to someone for a separate and self-sustaining independent agricultural
operation. Ms. Ingram confirmed the same
and added that currently Mr. Grossnickle rents this
piece of land from Mr. Knott.
Motion #3: To
approve the request for an agricultural subdivision of easement property.
Motion:
Patricia Langenfelder
Second Robert Stahl
Status:
Approved
Mr. Chris Wilson, Board Member wanted to confirm that there
would be no transfer of any buildings, and Ms. Ingram confirmed the same.
B.
1. 11-81-03A&B Ganoe, Ernest
& Carolyn 211.3
acres
Request to separate a district into two separate districts
to correct a mistake
Mr. and Mrs. Ganoe are the
original owners of this district property. The property has one pre-existing
dwelling and there have been no requests for lot exclusions. The Ganoes own three other district properties. Their current
request is to separate their 211.3 acre district into two separate districts to
correct a mistake and to facilitate sale of an agricultural land preservation
easement.
When the Ganoes originally
petitioned the Foundation for establishment of their district, they made
application for two separate districts:
A = 107.5 acres; and B = 103.8 acres.
However, during the process of setting up the district for presentation
to the Board of Trustees, they were combined into one district. As the property consists of two separately
deeded parcels, the Ganoes are requesting the
separation be made along these existing boundary lines as shown on the tax map
(attached). It is the landowners’ desire to apply for sale of an easement on
one or both of the parcels in the future.
Had the property originally been presented to the Board as
two separate districts, they would have been approved, as both properties are
of adequate size for district establishment. Also, both properties consist of
100% soil classes II and III. The properties are part of a larger dairy
operation.
The local Advisory Board approves this request as it is
their opinion that both parcels are of sufficient size to operate
independently.
Foundation staff recommends approval as both parcels meet
the minimum size and soils criteria for district establishment.
The Board members deliberated as to whether it was a mistake
on the part of the staff, which we are trying to correct now, or it was the decision
of the Board in the past to combine two applications into one application for a
district.
Mr. Douglas Wilson pointed out that, since the landowner did
not point out the mistake at the time when the initial decision was taken, we
cannot consider the earlier decision as a mistake, but the Board had wanted to
combine the two applications into one district. Hence the request should be
considered as a request to a new creation of two districts. The Board has
already made a decision in the past that these two districts should be
combined. The landowner choose not to protest, when
the Board took the earlier decision. Hence it is fair to consider this request
as not correcting a mistake but reversing an action taken in the past.
Mr. Conrad further clarified that the decision that the
Board had made was based on how the issue was presented to the Board.
The Chairman expressed his disappointment that neither the
property owner nor anyone representing the property owner,
was present for the meeting to answer questions from the Board.
Motion#4: To
table the amendment of the district.
Motion:
Vera Mae Schultz Second: Joe Tassone
In favor: Lewis Logan, Vera Mae Schultz, Joe Tassone
Opposed: Chris Wilson, Douglas Wilson, Patricia Langenfelder,
Robert Stahl, James Pelura, Jerry Klasmeier,
Judith Lynch
Status: Defeated
Motion #4A: To approve the request to separate a district into two
separate districts.
Motion: Lewis
Logan Second: Judith Lynch
In favor: Chris Wilson, Douglas Wilson, Patricia Langenfelder, Robert Stahl, James Pelura,
Jerry Klasmeier, Judith Lynch, Lewis Logan
Opposed: Joe Tassone, Vera Mae Schultz
Status: Approved
C.
1. 23-01-12Ae Pure Country Farm Partnership 33.39 acres
Request for the exclusion of a 2.0 acre child’s lot from
easement property for son, Brandon H. Lambertson
Pure Country Farm Partnership consists of M. Wayne and Diane
Lambertson and their son, Brandon. They are the original owners of this easement
property. There is one pre-existing
dwelling on the property. No previous
requests for lot exclusions have been made.
M. Wayne is part owner of three additional district and/or easement
properties. Diane is part owner of one
additional district and one additional easement property. There have been no previous requests for lot
exclusions on any of these properties.
The current request is to exclude a 2.0 acre lot for the
personal use of
If the request is approved, there will be a required payback
to the Foundation of $1,400.00, which is the per acre value ($700.00/acre) the
Foundation paid for this easement.
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 #5: To
approve the request to exclude a 2.0 acre child’s lot from easement property.
Motion: Chris
Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
D.
1.
Request to separate a district into three separate districts
to facilitate easement sale
Mr. and Mrs. Ptack are the
original owners of this district property.
There is one pre-existing dwelling, and there have been no requests for
lot exclusions. The Ptacks
do not own any other district or easement properties.
The current request is to divide the property into three
separate districts. As the property
consists of three separately deeded parcels, the Ptacks
are requesting the separation be made along these existing boundary lines as
shown on the tax map (attached). It is
the landowners’ desire to apply for sale of an easement on one of the parcels
and to transfer development rights from one of the parcels using the County’s TDRs.
If this request is approved, it will result in the following
three districts:
A = 67.28 acres (75% soils classes I, II and III);
B = 55.89 acres (80% soils class II); and
C = 20.00 acres (60% soils class II with one pre-existing
dwelling).
The farm operation on all three parcels is grain and
forestry. All three of the parcels have
current forestry management plans.
The local Advisory Board has approved this request as it is
the members’ opinion that the parcels meet the Foundation’s requirements for
district establishment.
Foundation staff recommends approval as each parcel meets
the minimum size and soils criteria for district establishment.
Mr. Charles Rice, Program Administrator was present. He informed the Board that the 20.00 acre
parcel in the middle has a historic house, and he believed it is on the
national register or is eligible to be.
The landowner can utilize the County’s TDR Program and transfer those
development rights, using the money to help fix up the historic house. Then, the landowner can either apply to the
State or apply for the other two County Preservation Programs, depending on
what looks best at the time. The parcels
are in the Rural Legacy area. It gives the landowners flexibility to work with
the various different Programs.
When the county had brought in the application last year,
Mr. Rice put it all under one district, even though they were three separate
parcels with three different deeds. He
thought it would be easier for him and the property owners, but it gives them
more option to have the properties as separate districts, because they can do
the county’s and the State programs
separately, depending on what looks the best for them at a time. Presently, the landowners would like to
transfer the development rights of the 20 acre parcel.
Robert Stahl, Board Member explained that the part of the
problem in Charles County Program is that, once one TDR is removed from the
parcel, the parcel is locked up. This
results in the whole parcel being encumbered without being able to sell the
other TDRs to an easement program.
Mr. Tassone wanted to know what
“locking the parcel” means. Mr. Rice
clarified that if one TDR is removed from the district,
the entire district will be under the governance document and could only
participate in the TDR Program. It can’t
apply to the Foundation. It also means
that the landowners lose all the sub-division and development rights. They only qualify for Child’s or owner’s lots as withheld
development rights not transferred.
Mr. Wilson wanted to know if in
Mr. Rice explained that the ordinance allows the county to buy
back development rights. For example, if
someone may have transferred all the development rights from a parcel, 20 years
from now, it allows them to buy back those development rights.
Mr. Wilson remarked that it is interesting that, in
Mr. Colhoun expressed his concern
that the landowner was not there to express his intent for this request. Mr. Rice clarified that he believes the
owner’s intent is to transfer the development rights from 20 acre piece now,
use the money to fix up the historic house and probably apply to the Foundation
on one of the other parcels in the coming cycle.
Mr. Colhoun stated that the Board
would feel more comfortable if the property owner was present to directly
answer the questions of the Board members.
Motion #6: To
table the request to separate a district into three separate districts until
the landowners are able to be present.
Motion: Chris
Wilson Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
Mr. Tassone
felt that the long term purpose of the Program is to preserve farms, not
parcels.
E.
1. 03-97-14A Cornwell Family Trust 45.21
acres
Request for a child’s lot of up to two acres on easement
property
The Cornwell Family Trust is the original grantor of the
easement property. The current request is for a child’s lot for the personal
use of Gregory S. Cornwell, the son of Mary Doris Cornwell.
No lots have been released from the property. The Trust owns
an additional easement property but no lots have been requested on that
property. Under the terms of the
easement, the children of Mary Doris Cornwell have a right to request a lot
right.
According to
The request was approved by the local advisory board and
conforms to zoning regulations. If
approved there will be a required payback of $3,000.00 per acre. The final
payback amount will be determined when the Foundation receives a letter from
the Health Department.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus
such minimum additional acreage as required by the County Health Department,
not to exceed 2.0 acres total, based on the provisions of the deed of easement
and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b) (3), Annotated
Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of up to 2
acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment
or the county.
Mr. Cornwell was present and explained the location of the
lot to the Board.
Motion
#7: To approve the request for a
child’s lot up to 2.0 acres on easement property.
Motion: Douglas
Wilson Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
F. QUEEN
ANNE’S COUNTY
1. 17-00-08
Yater,
Joseph F. & Debra L. 111.8
acres
Request for a tenant house on
easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Yater are the
original grantors of the easement property.
The current request is for a tenant house for the use of a tenant fully
engaged in the farm operation.
The proposed tenant house will be occupied by an individual
who will assist with paperwork, move equipment, flag fields, run errands for
the family, and care for the children through the harvest time.
According to Queen Anne’s County, the proposed tenant house
is to be located at the south west corner of the farm and will be accessed off
the existing farm lane. The location of
the tenant house will not affect the farm operations. The request was approved by the local
advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations.
Staff recommends approval based on the provisions of the
deed of easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b)(4),
Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of one tenant house per
100 acres for use of a tenant fully engaged in the operation of the farm.
Ms. Katrina Tucker and Mr. John Hayes were present at the
meeting, representing Queen Anne’s County.
The landowners were also available and responded to Board’s questions
regarding the location and size of the tenant house.
Mr. Tassone, requested for more details on the nature of work to be
handled by the tenant as generally tenants are engaged in full time farming
operations, whereas in this case, it seems to be a blend of farming and
domestic assistant. The Chairman also
agreed that this type of tenant is a precedent and would like to discuss more
to have more details.
Mr. Yater explained that the
present tenant lives 50 miles south west and spends considerable time
commuting. Due to the high prices in the
area, the tenant cannot afford to buy a house with his salary. He needs some
place closer to live. Ms. Shultz
remarked that the letter from Queen Anne’s County says that the request is for
someone who will be engaged in the farm operation and also help with paper
work, errands, and care for the children through the busy harvest time.
Mr. Douglas Wilson, clarified that our
regulations requires that the tenant is fully engaged in farming
operations. While appreciating the
honesty of the landowners in making the application of what the proposed tenant
is supposed to do, Mr. Wilson shared his concern about the level of farm
operations, the tenant would be able to do as compared to child’s care.
Mr. Yater confirmed that the child
care will be very minimal, as the children go to school and the Yaters are not involved in the farm during the harvest
time, but they are involved in spraying.
Motion #8: To approve the request for a tenant house on easement
property.
Motion: Lewis Logan Second: Douglas
Wilson
Status:
Approved
2. 17-01-01A
LePore, Fellice & Maria 89
acres
Request for an owner’s lot of up to
2 acres from easement property
Mr. and Mrs. LePore are the
original grantors of the easement property.
The current request is for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for an owner’s
lot for the personal use of the owners.
There are two pre-existing dwellings on the property. There have been no other lot requests for
this property. The LePores
do not own any additional district or easement properties.
According to Queen Anne’s County, the proposed lot will be
located in the vicinity of the two pre-existing dwellings on the property.
Access will be off of the existing farm lane.
The request was approved by the local advisory board and
conforms to local zoning regulations.
If the request is approved, there will be a required payback
to the Foundation of $1200.00, which is the per acre value the Foundation paid
for this easement. 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.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus
such minimum additional acreage as required by the County Health Department,
not to exceed 2.0 acres total, based on the provisions of the deed of easement
and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b)(3),
Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of
up to 2 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the
Environment or the county.
The landowners and Ms. Katrina Tucker, representing Queen
Anne’s County were available. Mr. Fellice LePore explained the
location of the lot and confirmed that they plan to reside in the house that
they propose to build on the lot.
Mr. Tassone wanted to know if they
are planning to sub-divide the lot, and Mr. LePore
replied in negative.
Motion #9: To approve the request for an owner’s lot up to 2 acres from
easement property with a condition that it will not be sub-divided.
Motion: Chris
Wilson Second: Patricia Langenfelder
Status: Approved
3. 17-86-18 Morris, George O. & Moira A. 183.45 acres
Request for the exclusion of up to 2
acres for a child’s lot on easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Morris are the original grantors of the
easement property. The current request
is for the release of a child’s lot for the personal use of their son, Jeffrey.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. No lots have been requested for the property.
Mr. and Mrs. Morris own an additional easement property, but no lots have been
requested on that property.
According to Queen Anne’s County,
the proposed lot is to be located along the perimeter of the property and will
be accessed directly from the road.
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 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 $475.00, which the landowner
received for the easement. The full amount will be determined when the
landowner submits 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.
The landowners and Ms. Katrina Tucker, representing Queen
Anne’s county were available. Mr. Morris explained the location of the lot and
confirmed that the location is the only practical place.
Motion #10: To approve the request for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for
a child’s lot on easement property.
Motion:
Patrica
Langenfelder Second: Chris Wilson
Status:
Approved
IV.
POLICY
None
V. INFORMATION
AND DISCUSSION
A.
On April 8, 2005 Eric Seifarth,
Washington County Administrator, contacted Carol Council, MALPF staff, to ask
if it were possible to place a sewage pump station on a property that was in
the process of selling an easement. On
Given this information, Mr. James Conrad and Ms. Council met
with Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General
Services, and Ms. Forrester suggested that should St. James School wish to
pursue this request, it could withdraw from the FY 2005 easement cycle, request
a partial termination of the area to be affected, and then reapply for a MALPF
easement in FY 2007.
Foundation staff forwarded a letter to Mr. Bishop relaying
Ms. Forrester’s suggestions, with a copy going to
B.
Relocation
of existing dwellings regulations
The Board has decided not to take a decision this month. Mr.
Craig Nielson and others are working on it.
The Chairman took this opportunity to request the Board and other
administrators to forward any comment on the subject to Mr.Conrad,
so that something can be put together and Board can have a look and take a
decision.
Mr. Joe Tassone had few
suggestions to be addressed by the Foundation staff for the next meeting, the
ones that requires urgent attention:
1) Various
correspondence regarding certification being sent to counties
/ Board to be placed for the information of Board members. This would give some background information
to the Board, subsequently, when the certification issues are taken up in the
future
2) IPA
3) Action
on non-traditional agricultural uses policy
4) Decision
about water recharge easements – he is very concerned as there is another group
of policy makers deliberating, before the Board and other entities have had a
chance to confront and resolve the issue at technical level
5) Evaluation
of MALPF’s District Program and issues relating to it
that are recurring in nature
Mr. Conrad stated that he cannot respond now on the Task
Force recommendations. This is actually
coming out of a discussion about staffing and other pending issues raised by
the Task Force that need to be addressed.
Mr. Tassone volunteered to write
on the above issues and distribute what he writes to the Board.
C. Allocation
Report for FY 2005
Mr. Douglas Wilson responded to the enquiry about staffing
and said that for the current budget, MALPF employed Iva
Frantz part time on contract to help train staff and do easement
inspections. Under the FY 2006 budget
(with some Federal dollars), MALPF should be able to employ a full time
contractual position to do some inspection and other work. MALPF now has one exceptional funding for one
permanent position – the one Mr. Conrad vacated when he became the Executive
Director. The Secretarial position is
now contractual position but MALPF will be making a decision in the next 6
months about trying to make it a permanent position.
There is lot of activity by the Administration and the
General Assembly to reduce the number of positions in Government across the
Board.
Mr. Douglas Wilson praised the Foundation staff as a “small but
tenacious team” and extended his compliments for their efforts to try and to
re-create the easement process.
Mr. Conrad shared with the Board members that he has
received the information that the Foundation and Board is receiving a letter
from Resource Conservation asking the Foundation not to go for settlement with
the properties, where the landowner does not have a nutrient management plan on
the property. Since we have not received the letter, our offers, this month
will not be affected, but the letter may possibly affect offers made in the
future.
Mr. Douglas Wilson shared with the Program Administrators
that the Board would like to make as many offers as possible in Round 1 and
urged theProgram Administrators to encourage
landowners to respond to the Foundation by the next meeting, so that if there
are any rejections, we can make offers.
The primary goal is to allocate as much money as possible within the
jurisdiction as possible before the Board goes into Round 2, which is
statewide.
For the benefit of many Program Administrators who are part
of the offer cycle for the first time, Mr. Wilson briefly gave an outline of
the process, as outlined in Mr. Conrad’s report titled “FY 2005 Allocation of
Funds Report.” Mr. Conrad explained that every county gets its fair share. How
much money is available for the fiscal year 2005 for making the easement
offers: $35,057,893.67. The funds are allocated as follows:
State Funds available for FY 2005
Easement Offers $13,537,000.00
General Allotted Funds (½ of State
funds) $6,768,500.00
State Matching Funds (½ of State
funds) $6,768,500.00
The half allocated to General Allotted Funds is equally
divided among 23 counties, whether or not they have any easement applications,
to ensure that every county will receive an equal share of funds. Thus each county gets $294,282.61. Funds allocated to the counties that do not
have any pending easement applications will be used in Round 2.
The second half of State funds, $6,768,500.00, is for used
for matching funds. 17 counties are participating in this year, and, hence,
$6,768,500.00 is divided among the 17 counties.
The Foundation matches the funds on the basis of $6 State for every $4
the county pledges until either we exhaust the amount from the county matching
funds, or until we exhaust the amount of funds required by the county.
Mr. Douglas Wilson concluded by saying that the allocation
of funds report represents a complicated process to divide the money as fairly
as possible within the statutory guidelines.
This serves as the basis for making offers.
Round 2 is the statewide round based on how steeply
landowners discount their asking prices from their easement values. Round 2 is funded by State funds that are
left after all possible offers are made using county – specific funding
allocations. When a Round 1 offer from
the Foundation is rejected by a landowner, staff will continue to go down the
prioritized list of properties within the county to get as many offers possible
within that county. Funds only roll over
to Round 2 when it is no longer possible to keep Round 1 funds within the
county to which those funds were allocated.
There being no further business, Mr. Colhoun
asked for a motion for adjournment of the regular session of the Board of
Trustees to go into Executive Session for meeting.
Motion #11: To adjourn regular session and go to
executive session.
Motion: Lewis Logan Second: Joe
Tassone
Status:
Approved
The regular session Board meeting
was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully
Submitted:
_____________________________________
Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary
_____________________________________
James A. Conrad, Executive Director