MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun, Chairman
Vera Mae
Schultz, Vice Chairman
Patricia Langenfelder
Lewis
Logan, representing Treasurer Kopp
Judith C. Lynch
James Pelura, D.V.M.
Shirley W.
Pilchard
Robert F. Stahl,
Jr.
Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Department of
Planning
Christopher H.
Wilson
Douglas Wilson, representing
Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Jerry Klasmeier, representing Comptroller Schaefer
OTHERS PRESENT:
Charlie Abell, Airport Manager,
Bill Amoss,
Anne Arnold,
Landowner,
Edward Boyce,
Landowner,
Tammy Buckle,
James A. Conrad,
MALPF, Executive Director
Carol Council,
MALPF, Administrative Officer
Tim Davis,
Planner,
Rama Dilip, MALPF, Secretary
Barbara Warfield
Ehlers, Landowner,
Theresa Brophy, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Services,
Department of Agriculture
L. Dean Guy,
Landowner,
John Hayes, Queen Anne’s County,
Land Use Planner
Sonja Ingram,
Louise Lawrence,
Chief, Resource Conservation, Department of Agriculture
Wally Lippincott,
Joy Levy,
Carla Martin,
Cora Morrison,
MALPF, Intern
Katherine
Munson,
Leroy E. Myers,
Landowner,
Craig
Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture
Bill
Powel III,
Joann
Ptack, Landowner,
Charles Rice,
Daniel Rosen,
Planner, Maryland Department of Planning
Donna Sasscer, St. Mary’s County, Program Administrator
Martin Sokolich,
Brad and Karen
Schott, Landowner,
Gloria Smith,
Robert Warfield,
Landowner,
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF,
Administrative Officer
Susan
Wilson, Landowner,
John
Zawitoski,
The Board met in an open informational meeting at
Mr. Nielsen shared with the members that the
Foundation has completed 25 years since its inception. The Foundation had worked hard to put
together this program and the program is a national model for other
States. Recently the Foundation and the
attorneys have been working on the issue of "25 Year Easement Termination
Requests." The Foundation staff and
the attorneys have outlined the draft regulations and would like to get the
approval of the Board for the regulations to be compiled and put in the
Maryland Register for public comment.
Until recently, an easement had a provision for a
possible termination after 25 years of its creation. The focus of the regulations is to make it
very difficult for a landowner to get out of the easement, except under
extraordinary circumstances. Easement
termination requires county approval; as per the law, the State cannot act
without county approval. This mirrors
the county approval of the creation of the district and sale of the easement.
The first request for an easement termination could
come as early as October 2005. Mr.Nielsen encouraged the Program Administrators, county
attorneys, and all concerned to review suggestions and comments.
Once the landowner makes a written request, the
Foundation has 180 days to conduct an inquiry to determine whether profitable
farming is feasible on the land and issue a decision on the landowners’ request
for termination.
The county’s role is to verify the feasibility of the
request in the light of the current land regulations, local comprehensive
planning, and any local priorities for the preservation of agricultural land.
The Foundation’s role is to determine whether profitable
farming is feasible on the land under easement or not. This is an executive decision, delegated by
Legislation to the Board, and the courts will not interfere with the Board’s
determination, if it is reasonable and within the Board’s prerogative.
To help the Board in this process, Mr.Nielsen has suggested a narrow definition of “profitable
farming.” If the land is no longer
capable of producing an agricultural product and the nature of the land has
changed, the land should be released from the preservation program. “Profitable farming is feasible on the land”
means that an agricultural product can be produced on the land that can be sold
to realize an excess of return over expenditures, excluding the cost of
constructing farm structures, the cost of acquisition of the land itself, and
the debt service relative to the financing of the acquisition of the land.
As a part of the termination process, the Foundation
is required to conduct an on-site inspection of the subject land; and a public
hearing within the 180 days time frame.
The county governing body shall
notify the Foundation of its decision within 90 days after the Foundation’s
public hearing. Upon receipt of a
landowner’s request for review to terminate an easement from the Foundation,
the county governing body shall notify and ask for the recommendation of the
county agricultural preservation advisory board or any other appropriate county
agency or board. The advisory board or
other county agency shall recommend to the County governing body the approval
or disapproval of the termination of the easement based on current land
regulations, local comprehensive planning, and any local priorities for the
preservation of agricultural land to the county governing body.
If either the Foundation or the
county fails to approve the request for termination, an easement may not be
terminated. The landowner has the right
to challenge the Foundation’s decision.
To determine whether the land is profitable or not, it is
proposed to hire an expert, who will visit the farm to determine whether
profitable farming is possible taking into account various factors such as soil
types, etc.
If the landowner’s request for an easement termination is
granted, the landowner has to repay the value, not as originally paid for the
easement, but the current value. If there is no agriculture value, the fair
market value would be the repayment amount. If the request for termination is
denied, or if the landowner fails to repurchase the easement within 180 days of
the date of the completion of the appraisal, the landowner may not again
request termination of the easement until five years after the last request for
termination.
Douglas Wilson, representing Secretary Riley,
Department of Agriculture, asked if there is any formal procedure laid out for
the Secretary of Agriculture and the State Treasurer to approve or disapprove,
when the request is forwarded to them for signature by the Foundation. Mr. Nielsen clarified that there are no separate
formal procedures. There may be some
instances when either the Foundation or the Secretary of Agriculture may not
agree on a decision or the Secretary and the State Treasurer may not agree, but
the decisions are always backed by reason and logic. Both the Secretary and the State Treasurer
have independent authority.
James Pelura, Board Member wanted
to know whether the landowner was aware of the termination process when the
agreement was made originally 25 years ago. Mr. Nielsen clarified that the
Department of Agriculture has the legal authority to define the procedure. However, it cannot change the contract
rights.
Mr. Nielsen summed up the session by sharing with the Board
members that the proposed draft regulations will be put in the Maryland
Register and will be open to the public for comments and suggestions.
Mr. Colhoun concluded the session
by saying that as can be seen from the discussions, a 25-year termination
request is a long drawn out procedure involving some critical issues and
decision making.
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
Mr. Colhoun
expressed the desire to have a local workshop session in September 2005. He is looking for comments from the Board on
which items they would like to discuss.
Carroll or
He encouraged the Board members to
suggest a convenient time and suggest an agenda for the Workshop session planned
in September 2005.
B. ADDITIONS OR
DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
There were a few changes in agenda
items:
II B.1 10-83-05e Moxley, Fred H., Sr. &
Marguerite Withdrawn
II.B.2 12-90-31e Ehlers,
Barbara W. A
II B.3 10-00-04 Wannuck, Irwin J. & Barbara A. Withdrawn
II.F.1 03-86-15 Tracey,
Arthur S. and A. Richard Withdrawn
II.E.1. 06-03-08e Schott,
Brad and Karen Withdrawn
earlier but now back on Agenda
III. G.7. Richardson, John R.
& Billie J. Withdrawn
IV.
PROGRAM POLICY
A. Nutrient Management Plans as a
Condition for MALPF Easement Purchases
James Conrad, Executive Director of the MALPF Program,
introduced the item. Assistant Secretary Douglas Scott of the Resource
Conservation Office of the Maryland Department of Agriculture has requested the
Foundation to consider making new easement settlements contingent on compliance
with the Water Quality Improvement Act. In other words, the Foundation should
treat having a Nutrient Management Plan on a property in the same way that the
Foundation treats the requirement for a current Soil Conservation and Water
Quality Plan.
A landowner must have a current Soil Conservation Plan on
the property to be eligible to offer an easement for sale to the Foundation. A
landowner must also have a Forest Stewardship Plan on the property before
settlement if the property contains 25 or more of contiguous forested acres. This means the following:
1.
A
landowner must have a Soil Conservation Plan for the property which:
·
has
been approved by the local soil conservation district;
·
has
been made or revised within the last ten years;
·
lists
all soil conservation and water quality practices needed to correct existing
problems on the property; and,
·
contains a schedule of implementation which indicates when the soil
conservation and water quality practices will be installed.
2.
If
the proposed easement property has 25 acres or more of contiguous forested
land, a landowner must provide a Forest Stewardship Plan to the Foundation
prior to settlement on the easement.
The Forest Stewardship Plan requirement is being implemented
in the FY 2006 easement acquisition cycle.
The requirement was included in the easement application form for FY
2006 and will be developed into regulation.
Staff recommends adoption of the Nutrient Management Plan
requirement based on stewardship expectations on State-funded easement
properties. The requirement is State law
already. However, the requirement should
not be implemented until it has been incorporated into the easement application
process, put into the regulations, and has been publicized. The requirement would apply to the
applications being submitted in July 2006 for the FY 2007 easement acquisition
cycle. This is consistent with the
implementation schedule of the Forest Stewardship Plan requirement recently
adopted by the Foundation. Further,
staff recommends that the Board of Trustees solicit the input of program
administrators before finalizing the adoption of this requirement. Program administrators should both be
informed of this possible change, and they should have input concerning the
adoption and implementation of this requirement.
Louise Lawrence, Office of Resource Conservation was
available to answer any questions Board members may have concerning this
request. Ms. Lawrence introduced herself
and shared Resource Conservation’s interest to make sure that all of the
Department’s programs are in sync so that people who benefit financially from
some of them are in compliance with State legal requirements. She suggested at the application stage to
inform people that they need to comply with the nutrient management
requirements.
Robert F. Stahl, Board member,
expressed that this would become an interesting requirement, because there are
two different people – the landowners and the farmers – because they are
affected by different requirements. The
Nutrient Management Plan is a requirement on the farmers, not necessarily a
requirement for the landowners. The
farmer is not involved in the easement application stage, and a landowner may
not necessarily know about operational issues on his farm, the responsibility
of the farmer.
Ms. Lawrence suggested that the
landowner would assure that the property under easement has met the
requirements of compliance with Water Quality Improvement Act.
Board members discussed the subject
in detail and concluded that the landowners can be encouraged to have a
Nutrient Management Plan as a condition while applying for an easement, but the
Foundation cannot be responsible for ensuring that the farmers are complying
with it or not.
Mr. John Zawitoski,
Program Administrator,
Motion #2: To table the request to adopt the Nutrient Management Plan
requirement on easement property until more details are worked out.
Motion: Shirley W. Pilchard Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
II. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1.
Request to separate the district into three separate
districts to facilitate sale of an easement
This item was tabled at the
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. 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 TDR Program.
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 in its
opinion the parcels meet the Foundations requirements for district
establishment.
Foundation staff recommends approval as each parcel meets
the minimum size and soils criteria for district establishment.
Mrs. Ptack and Mr. Charles Rice,
Program Administrator, were present at this meeting. Mr.Colhoun thanked
Mrs. Ptack for attending the meeting, as it helps the
Board members to directly ask questions to Mrs. Ptack
and take a decision on the item.
Mrs. Ptack informed the Board
members that the request is to facilitate their participating in the easement
and TDR programs of the County. She shared with the Board members that they
initially bought the 20 acre farm and over the years had managed to consolidate
the farm by picking up individual parcels as they came up for sale from the
family. At this point in time, they would like to preserve initially the 20
acre lot, with the TDR program to help pay for work needed on the historic
house. Their primary goal is the preservation of the whole farm.
Mr. Tassone asked Mrs.
Ptack is she had intended to preserve all three
pieces. Mrs. Ptack confirmed that ultimately, it was
their intention. Though initially they plan to preserve the 20-acre parcel,
their ultimate intention is to preserve all the three pieces.
Mr. Tassone explained
that if the Ptacks were just coming into the Program
and wanted to withhold the 55 acre piece, it would be inconsistent with the
Board’s policy. The reason is that the Foundation would be obligated to buy an
easement on the other pieces, while the Ptacks could
sub-divide the 55 acres into more than 3 residential lots next to the easement
property.
Mr. Tassone also noted
that, if the Ptacks were already in the Program and
wanted to sub-divide, the Board would require
that they demonstrate that there is an agricultural purpose for the
sub-division.
Thus, Mr. Tassone said
that, under normal circumstances, the Board should not approve a request to
subdivide a district unless it satisfies the terms for acreage withheld from
farms entering the Program, or the terms for agricultural subdivisions.
Otherwise, the decision would be inconsistent with the intent of Foundation
policies.
These policies are intended to protect the
Foundation’s interests, without having to rely on statements of intent from
landowners. In this case, he understands Mrs. Ptack’s
request, and that the Ptack’s intend to preserve all
three parcels through either the State Program or the County TDR Program.
Mrs. Ptack admitted
that it was a bit of shortcoming on her part in not understanding the process
because they initially applied for one district instead of applying for three
separate districts.
Mr. Tassone said that,
in this case, if the Board was asked to vote, it is likely everybody
would trust Mrs. Ptack and vote yes. In another case
the Board may say `yes’ or `no’. However,
relying on Board members’ judgment of applicants
trustworthiness is not a desirable way to do the Foundation’s business.
Mr. Tassone wondered
if the Board could, for example, approve the request but modify the district
agreement to reserve the option to not make an offer to buy an easement on any
of the parcels if the intent of the landowner to preserve all three parcels
changes.
Mr. Robert Stahl remarked that Mrs. Ptack is attending the meeting and if the application had
come as a request for three separate districts, the Board would not be
questioning it.
Dr. Pelura also felt
that sometimes we have to take people at their word.
Mr. Conrad remarked that the MALPF has it
recorded in the minutes that it is Mrs. Ptack’s
intention to protect the whole property and if between now and the time of
easement, she decides to put one of the parcels under easement and she puts 50
houses on the other parcel, the Foundation certainly has the ability to not to
make an offer in the future.
Motion #3: To approve
the request to separate the district into three separate districts to facilitate
sale of an easement.
Motion: Lewis
Logan Second: Vera Mae Schultz
Abstained: Robert
Stahl
Status: Approved
Mr.
Tassone responded to Mr. Stahl’s comments that the
long-standing tradition of the Program is to preserve farms in their entirety,
not just part of the farm. There are
many different mechanisms that work to ensure that we don’t sub-divide farms
for non-agricultural reasons. So the
Board had questioned in the past when properties came in as separate districts
and have approved them on the basis of whether the property as a whole is too
large to grant an easement offer. Thus,
contrary to Mr. Stahl’s assertion, Mr. Tassone would
have questioned a request from the Ptacks to enroll a
large property as separate, contiguous parcels.
Mr. Stahl commented that
had Mrs. Ptack done one parcel one month, another
parcel the next month, and one more parcel the following month, the Board would
have complimented the efforts of Mrs. Ptack that she
is working for the preservation for the whole piece. On behalf of the County, he commented that it
has many many small parcels – the County doesn’t have
large tracts of land. They are doing everything in
Mr. Colhoun
commented that after listening to the Board members, that this shows everyone
the value of a landowner coming and talking to the Board and the Board getting
the feel of the landowner’s intention.
He thanked Mrs. Ptack for coming because it
helps the Board in its decision making.
A.
2. 12-90-31e Ehlers, Barbara W. 99.83
acres
Request to relocate a previously approved child’s lot on
easement property
Ms. Ehlers is the original grantor
of the easement property. The current
request is for the relocation of a previously approved child’s lot.
On
According to
The new location (indicated as “A”
on aerial) was suggested by the Health Department as it avoids the septic
problems associated with the previously approved lot. The new location is consistent with local
zoning regulations and was approved by the local advisory board.
Foundation staff discussed possible alternate locations with
Mr. Warfield. Staff expressed concern
that the proposed location protrudes measurably into the field. Mr. Warfield stated that alternate locations
suggested by staff were unsuitable. The
location to the east (indicated as “D” on the aerial) of the originally
approved location was deemed unsuitable for septic reasons as it is
bottomland. The location to the west
(indicated as “E” on the aerial) is not preferred as it requires a very long
driveway – approximately 800 feet and would result in a larger lot size.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the location
because, due to perking and access issues, there does not appear to be a better
location.
NOTE: The location
indicated as “C” on the aerial is the lot approved for David’s brother, Robert.
Mrs. Barbara Warfield Ehlers, Mr. Robert Warfield and Mr.
Bill Amoss, Program Administrator, were available at
the meeting to address questions raised by the Board.
Motion
#4: To approve the request to
relocate a previously approved child’s lot on easement property.
Motion:
Joe Tassone Second: Lewis Logan
Status:
Approved
C.
1. 05-94-02A Robinson,
Request for the exclusion of a 1-acre child’s lot from
easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Robinson are the original grantors of the
easement. The current request is for the
exclusion of a 1-acre lot from the easement for the purpose of constructing a
dwelling for the personal use of their son, David.
There are no pre-existing dwellings on the property. No other family lots have been requested on
the property. Mr. and Mrs. Robinson own
additional properties in the Program; however, no lots have been requested on
those properties.
According to
The request was approved by the local agricultural advisory
board and conforms to local zoning regulations.
If the request is approved, there will be a required payback amount of
$450.00.
Foundation staff recommends approval based on the
landowner’s rights contained in the deed of easement’s covenants, conditions,
limitations and restrictions, Section A (1)(b) “...the
Grantee, on written application from the Grantor, shall release free of
restrictions only for the Grantor who originally sold this easement, 1.0 acre
or less for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for the use only of that
Grantor or the Grantor’s child...”
Ms. Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, was present. Mr. Robinson had conveyed his apology for not
being able to attend the Board meeting due to a surgery scheduled on the same
day. However, Ms.Buckle
was able to visit Mr. Robinson personally and talk to him at length.
Ms. Buckle shared with the members that the farm is a wheat
farm. There is no homestead on the
property at this time. There was an
existing homestead which was subdivided from the property before Mr. Robinson
went in a district for the use of his daughter-in-law and grandchildren.
Motion
#5: To approve the request for the
exclusion of a 1-acre child’s lot from easement property.
Motion:
Patricia Langenfelder Second: Judith Lynch
Status:
Approved
D.
1. 21-99-07e Myers, Jr., Leroy E. 150.0845
acres
Request for the exclusion of a
2-acre child’s lot from easement property.
Mr. Myers is the original grantor of the easement
property. The current request is for the
exclusion of a 2-acre lot from the easement for the purpose of constructing a
dwelling for the personal use of his son, Ryan A. Myers.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. Mr.
Myers received approval on
According to
The request was approved by the local agricultural advisory
board and conforms to local zoning regulations.
If the request is approved, there will be a required payback amount of
$4,057.06 @ $2,028.53/acre.
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.
Mr. Myers was present at the Board meeting and explained the
location of the requested lot to the Board members.
Mr. Myers further wanted to express
his views on the Agenda Item “Nutrient Management Plans as a Condition for
MALPF Easement Purchases”, earlier discussed in the meeting. He felt that the landowner does have the
responsibility as suggested by Mr. John Zawitoski,
Motion #6: To approve the request for the exclusion of a 2-acre child’s
lot from the easement property.
Motion:
Douglas Wilson Second: Patricia Langenfelder
Status:
Approved
E.
1. 06-03-08e Schott, Brad & Karen 105.1286
acres
Request for 1) reclassification of a
pre-existing dwelling as a farm office and 2) approval to construct a
replacement for the pre-existing dwelling in another location.
Mr. and Mrs. Schott are the subsequent owners of the
easement property. Mr. Schott’s mother, Cordelia Schott, was the original owner of the
property. The property has two
pre-existing dwellings that are located in close proximity to each other. One is the subject dwelling; the other is a
tenant trailer which will be replaced by an updated tenant trailer for a
general manager to oversee the nursery operation. There is one unrestricted lot available on
the property.
According to
The request has been approved by the local agricultural land
preservation board.
Foundation staff points out the following: 1) there is one unrestricted lot right
available for the landowners’ use; 2) the Schotts’
proposal is for the ‘future’ renovation of the pre-existing dwelling to a farm
office (as part of a five-year plan); 3) the Foundation’s proposed regulation
requires the demolition and removal of the existing dwelling and restoration of
the existing dwelling site to agricultural use (restoration to agricultural use
is defined as “to alter the land to open space so that it may produce a crop or
be used for livestock. The term does not
include altering an existing dwelling to another use as an accessory farm
building.”
Mr. and Mrs. Schott were available to address the Board.
Mr. Colhoun
thanked the Schotts for attending the meeting and
shared with the Board members that this item was originally excluded from the
agenda. Mr. Colhoun
was planning to visit the property personally when he was told by Mr. Conrad
that the item has been removed from the agenda.
Mr. Colhoun
later received a telephone call from the Agricultural Preservation Office that
the item was requested to be put back on the agenda. Mr. Colhoun then
made a specific effort and visited the property on
Judith C. Lynch, Board member, and
Bill Powel, Program Administrator, also visited the site around the same time.
Mr. Colhoun
allowed the Schotts to have the item back on the
agenda with a provision that additional data for the Board to study will not be
available until the meeting. Secondly,
as a part of the Program Policy, the Board members will be discussing “Proposed
Relocation of Existing Dwellings Regulations” later in the meeting.
Hence, Mr. Colhoun
recommended that the Board does not vote on this matter. If the Schotts are
willing to come and explain their intention and idea to the Board, they are
welcome to do so. However in the light
of reasons explained above, the Board will not make a decision today.
Mr. Schott distributed additional
information on their property to the Board Members. The property was originally his grandfather’s
and then his mother’s Cordelia Schott, who put the property under easement
recently.
Brad and Karen both studied at the
Mr. Schott further added that it is
not their intention to subdivide the property.
They want to preserve the house and to preserve the farm. Hence, they are requesting the Board’s
permission to relocate the existing dwelling to the nearest available site.
The existing structure does not have
electricity or plumbing, and it never had a bathroom. The structure is a pre-Civil War. They have no plans for using the unrestricted
lot.
Mr. Colhoun
reminded Mr. Schott and the Board members once again that this is not a
decision making session and to feel free to ask questions.
Mr. Douglas Wilson informed Mr.
Schott that his mother Cordelia Schott owned the
property but did not provide for children’s lots. She chose the unrestricted lot option. Mr. Schott also has the choice to use the
unrestricted lot or use the current provision MALPF has for existing
dwellings. The existing structure was
deemed as a pre-existing dwelling at the time of easement valuation.
This poses a problem when property
is passed on from one generation to another.
For example, Mr. Schott’s children after 20-30 years may want to tear
down the building as they want to live in a modern house and would like to
relocate. They may like to keep the old
building as a farm building and over the generations, the farm may have 40 old
barn houses and buildings. As a matter
of policy, the Board has to ensure that such cases do not occur.
Mr. Wilson explained to the Schotts that in view of pending discussion on “Relocation
of the site of an Existing Dwelling on a Farm subject to an Agricultural Land
Preservation Easement” and the time required by the Board members to study the
issue, it was decided to take up the issue at a later date.
Mr. Schott wanted to know if the
Board can let them know when the decision could be made, as they would like to
move forward with their farm operation plan at the earliest possible date and they
would have to rent a place to live until the decision is made.
Mr. Colhoun
responded that as he had already indicated the Schotts
should not rely on the Board to set specific time frames for its decision.
III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
Mr. Conrad presented the
district petitions.
A.
1.
Originally the acres were indicated as 76.08 but
the landowner requested to withhold additional acreage. Therefore, the actual district application
indicates 73.58 acres. It is contiguous to easements and is primarily cropland
with some pasture land. It is a hay and
grass farming operation. It has 95.78% qualifying soil and currently does not
have a Soil Conservation Plan.
2.
Originally the acres were indicated as 100.991
acres, with 1 acre withheld with pre-existing dwelling. In addition, the landowner now wishes to
withhold .881acre that would be divided among two parcels as conveyances. The property is in
Motion #7: To approve the requests of Karl Pryor
and Joyce Alban to establish an agricultural land preservation district on
their properties.
Motion: Judith
Lynch Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
B. ST. MARY’S COUNTY
1.
This is a 87-acre parcel located near the town of
It is a Rural
Preservation District. Staff recommends
the landowner acquire a Forest Stewardship Plan.
2.
This is a 134.655-acre
parcel located near Leonardtown. It is
contiguous to an easement. There is one
dwelling on the property. It is primarily
cropland with 49.905 acres of woodland.
It is part of larger operation and has 60.58% qualifying soils. The primary farming operation is vegetable
and grain. The property has Soil
Conservation Plan.
Staff recommends
approval and recommends the landowner acquires a Forest Stewardship Plan.
3.
This is a 57.59-acre
parcel located near the town of
Staff recommends
approval.
4.
This is a 96.9-acre
parcel located near the town of
Staff recommends
approval.
5.
This is a 178-acre
parcel located near the town of
Staff recommends
approval and recommends the landowner acquire a Forest Stewardship Plan.
6.
This is a 20-acre parcel
located in the town of
7.
This is a 24-acre parcel
located in the town of
8.
This is a 44.7-acre
parcel located in the town of
Staff recommends
approval all the district applications from St. Mary’s County.
Motion #8: To approve the requests of Joseph and Doreatha Lumpkins, James Farr,
James and Hana Horstkamp,
Old Gum Supply Co., LLC, Steve and Debra Purvins,
William and Kathy Clay, James Raley, George and
Barbara McWilliams III to establish agricultural land preservation districts on
their respective properties.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Shirley Pilchard
Status: Approved
C.
1.
This is a 35.76-acre
parcel located in the community of
2.
This is a 51.90-acre
parcel located west of
3.
This is a 60.00-acre
parcel located in the community of Pylesville. It is contiguous with a proposed district
property. There are two dwellings on the
property. It is primarily woodland (43
acres) and has 10 acres of cropland. The
primary operations are beef cattle, hay and timber production. It is owner operated and is not part of
larger operation. It has 85.3%
qualifying soils. The property has Soil
Conservation Plan and Forest Stewardship Plan.
4.
This is a 108-acre
parcel located in the community of Madonna/Norrisville. It is contiguous with a proposed district
property. There are no dwellings on the
property. It is primarily woodland, and its primary operation is forest
production. It is owner operated and is
not part of larger operation. It has 86%
qualifying soils. The property has Soil
Conservation Plan and Forest Stewardship Plan.
15 acres of land are being withheld to be used for a camping area
already in existence.
Staff recommends approval of all the four district
applications.
Motion #9: To approve the request of William and
Kim Hanlin, Robert and Paula Wall, William and
Patricia Troyer, Ralph and Sabrina Norton to establish agricultural land
preservation districts on their respective properties.
Motion: Douglas
Wilson Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
D.
1.
This is a 140-acre parcel located near the town
of
Staff recommends approval.
Motion #10: To approve the request of
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
E.
1.
This is a 41-acre parcel north-east of
Myersville. It is contiguous with
easement property with 20 cropland acres and 20 woodland acres. The property has one dwelling, and the general
farm operation is hay. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is part of larger
operation and is not owner operated. The
property has Soil Conservation Plan and does not have a Forest Stewardship
Plan. Staff recommends approval.
Motion #11: To approve the request of John C Hoover
to establish an agricultural land preservation district on his property.
Motion: Douglas
Wilson Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
2.
This is a 108.00 acre parcel near Unionville. It
is not contiguous but is in close proximity to MALPF easement properties. The property has one dwelling and is 22 acres
cropland, 60 acres pasture, and 21 acres woodland. The primary farm operation is vineyard, beef
cattle, and hay production. It has 56.5%
qualifying soils, and 38 acres are being withheld, subject to a Frederick
County Forest Resource easement. It is owner operated and is not part of larger
operation. It does not have a Soil
Conservation Plan and has Forest Stewardship Plan.
Staff recommends approval based on meeting
minimum size and soils criteria.
Additionally, the withheld acreage falls within the exceptions allowed
under the Foundation’s withheld acreage policy.
The landowner has plans for a future winery and
was present in the Board meeting to discuss his plans with the Board to determine if he should withhold
additional acreage because of the proposed winery operations.
Mr. Boyce introduced himself and informed the
Board members that he brought the property three years ago and is engaged in
grape and beef operations. From the beginning he had plans to build a vineyard
for processing grapes.
Mr. Conrad shared with the Board members that
last week he met with Ms. Theresa Brophy from
Marketing and Mr. Kevin Atticks from the Maryland
Winery Association about the allowable uses on easement properties involved in
the winery business. A winery can pose
some interesting issues under a MALPF easement.
When doing a winery, there might be issues arising out of the source of
grapes that will be processed, because of kinds of things sold in gift shops
such as aprons, T-Shirts, etc. The
operation may require some space for storage etc.
Mr. Boyce confirmed that as of now, they are not
planning to buy or sell grapes and they will be the only one in
Mr. Douglas Wilson pointed out that currently
Mr. Boyce is requesting withheld acreage and, if on a later date, the winery
business is not doing well, he may decide to sell the business or decide to be
out of winery business. If Mr. Boyce
does exclude the acreage and build the winery, he can actually sell that as an
independent business to somebody. If the
acreage is not excluded, Mr. Boyce would have to seek the Board’s
approval. Hence Mr. Wilson recommended
excluding the acreage to avoid any conflicts and to have wide range of
options. Mr. Boyce stated that he would
like to withhold 4 acres for the winery.
Ms. Brophy
stated that the agri-tourism business is not coming
from the sale of t-shirts, but from the visitors who come to the winery, and
they would like to make it accessible.
The Winery Association is also facing this issue, and Mr. Atticks feels that he can’t give a blanket recommendation
on the acreage that should be excluded.
Five acres may be a good compromise, if one is planning a large winery.
Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman, wanted to know if the
Forest Resource Easement on withheld acreage is a perpetual easement, and Mr.
Boyce replied in affirmative.
Motion #12: To approve the request of Edward Boyce
and Sarah O’Herron to establish an agricultural land
preservation district on their property with the exclusion of 4- 5 acres for
winery operation.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
3.
This is a 74.04-acre parcel located north of the
Ms. Anne Arnold, landowner, Sonja
Ingram, Frederick County Asst. Program Administrator, Tim Davis, Planner,
Frederick City, and Charlie Abell, Airport Manager,
Frederick County were present.
Ms. Arnold stated the farm is as old
as 1827 and informed the Board that, since 1950, the
property has been in her family, and she would like to protect it by putting it
under preservation. She is in active
farming – crops and not dairy operations.
Ms. Ingram added that
the district petition was approved by the Agricultural Advisory Board, Frederick
County Planning Board, and the Board of County Commissioners. The property is surrounded by
Mr. Tim Davis, Planner,
The Board members
expressed their concern on Mr. Davis’s request to postpone the decision in the
absence of a confirmed plan and did not see how the situation would change
whether the property is under preservation or not. By delaying a district application, the land
owners’ ability to apply for an easement is also delayed, which is contrary to
the Foundation’s efforts.
Mr. Davis explained that
their department has to go through the public process of making a future
decision regarding the airport. The
planning process involves advertising or communicating to the public in
newspapers, etc.. to make a
joint decision on the future of the airport.
Motion #13: To approve the request of Anne Arnold to
establish an agricultural land preservation district on her property.
Motion: Chris
Wilson Second:
James Pelura
Status: Approved
F.
1.
This is a 69-acre parcel located north-east of
Hurlock. It is contiguous with a
district property. It is primarily
cropland. There is one dwelling, and the
principal farming operation is poultry and grain. It has 92% qualifying soils. It is owner
operated and is part of larger operation.
The property has Soil Conservation Plan, and 3.994 acres are being
withheld for a future family lot.
Staff recommends approval.
Motion #14: To approve the request of Terri Wolf-King
to establish an agricultural land preservation district on his property.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
G.
1.
This is a 194.6-acre
parcel located near the town of
There is a private
hangar and two landing strips located on this property. Landowners and friends of landowner use the
landing strips on weekends.
Approximate total
acreage of landing strips: 5
acres
Vegetative cover of
landing strips: grass
Mr. Guy was present at
the meeting and confirmed that he did not have any expansion plan and does not
intend to use the landing strips for commercial purposes. There is community pressure to put a
commercial airport there. That is why he
wants to preserve whatever is remaining in that area. He further confirmed that he has the approval
of FAA,
Foundation staff
recommends approval and also recommends the landowner to acquire a Forest
Stewardship Plan.
Motion #15: To approve the request of Dean and
Deborah Guy to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their
property subject to the landing strips being a private air strip only. Any
future change would have to come to the Foundation for consideration.
Motion: Douglas
Wilson Second: Lewis Logan
Status: Approved
2.
This is a 262.3-acre
parcel located in
Staff recommends
approval and recommends landowner to acquire a Forest Stewardship Plan.
3.
This is a 141.5-acre
parcel located in the intersection of Dividing Creek and Fleming Mill Roads in
the town of
Staff recommends
approval.
4.
This is a 161.26-acre
parcel located near the town of
5.
This is a 63-acre parcel
located near the town of
6.
This is a 31-acre parcel
located near the town of
Motion #16: To approve the requests of Joseph Marion
Holland;
Motion: Lewis
Logan Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
H.
1.
This is a 135-acre parcel
is located in the community of Parkton. It is located in close proximity to
several district and easement properties.
It has 89.36 acres of cropland and 43.6 acres of woodland. There is no dwelling on the property. The primary farming operation is crops. It has 98.5% qualifying soils. The property has a Soil Conservation
Plan. It is not owner operated and is
part of larger operation. 2.96 acres are
being withheld. A 2-acre portion is
excluded for a future home site. A
0.96-acre is withheld for a lot line adjustment.
Foundation staff
recommends approval and recommends the landowner to acquire a Forest
Stewardship Plan.
2.
This is a 78.25-acre
parcel located in Upperco. It is contiguous with MALPF district property
and in close proximity to several easement properties. It has one dwelling on the property. It is primarily cropland 74.5 acres with 1.75
acres of woodland. It is not owner
operated field, is part of larger operation and has 70.3% qualifying
soils. The primary farming operation is
crop. The property has a Soil
Conservation Plan.
Staff recommends
approval.
Motion #17: To approve the requests of Grace Lambert and
Susan Cole-Johnson, et al to establish agricultural land preservation districts
on their respective properties.
Motion: Douglas
Wilson Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
I.
1.
This is a 194.01-acre
parcel located in the community of Williston.
It is contiguous with a MALPF district.
It has 37.5 acres of cropland and 92.01 acres of woodland. There are two dwellings on the property. The primary farming operation is corn, soya, grass and clover.
It has 85% qualifying soils. The
property has a Soil Conservation Plan.
It is owner operated and not part of larger operation.
Ms. Tammy Buckle,
Program Administrator wanted to make a correction regarding the two
dwellings. It actually looks like two
houses, but both share the septic system.
Hence she would not like to count them as two existing dwellings so they
can be sub-divided separately, but count them as a single dwelling. From the road side it actually looks like two
habitable dwellings.
Foundation staff
recommends approval.
2.
This is a 251.90-acre
parcel located in the community of
Staff recommends
approval and recommends landowner to acquire a Forest Stewardship Plan.
Motion #18: To approve the requests of Robert and
Mary Corkell and John Schmidt to establish
agricultural land preservation districts on their respective properties.
Motion: Douglas
Wilson Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
IV.
B. Overlay
Easement vs. Amended MALPF Easement – Sandy Bottom Farm,
This is an informational
item for the Board. Mr. Colhoun visited this property before the MALPF staff
approved this request based on his recommendation. Mr. Conrad gave a brief introduction. About 2 years ago the Board approved an
overlay easement to facilitate an agreement between Maryland Environment Trust
(MET) and Eastern Shore Land Conservancy (ESLC) to purchase a property in
partnership with several Amish families from
Three of the properties now have
easements on them. Instead of the
overlay easement, MET is requesting that for the three existing MALPF easements
and the one pending easement application on Sandy Bottom Farm be amended to
address the missing terms of the agreement between MET and ESLC.
The primary issues focus on the compatibility of
incorporating the restrictions of the terms of the overlay easement into the
MALPF deed of easement. The judgment of
the MALPF staff working with the legal counsel and Mr. Calhoun who visited the
Amish farms is that the terms are not only compatible, but they improve the
easement and can be legitimately incorporated into the MALPF deed of easement,
and can be enforced by the Foundation.
Mr. Dan Colhoun noted that he
needs to leave temporarily. In his absence, Vera Mae Schultz, Vice-Chairman
chaired the subsequent proceedings of the meeting.
V. INFORMATION
AND DISCUSSION
A.
TDRs on Early MALPF Easements in
Mr. Conrad introduced this item and said that the Foundation
was asked by one attorney and very soon by two more attorneys for grantors of
three early MALPF easements in
This request required legal advice for a response. In consulting with the Office of the Attorney
General, the following advice was provided and conclusions reached:
1)
Early MALPF easements do not control
transferable development rights.
Current MALPF deeds of easement control transferable
development rights on Foundation properties in two ways.
a.
Deed
of easement language requires approval from the Foundation’s Board of Trustees
before any overlay easement can be placed on the property (the TDR process
requires a restrictive covenant be placed on the property). The current language states: “Unless written approval is first obtained
from the Grantee, no easement or other restriction may be granted to any person
or government agency in the land subject to this deed of easement.”
b.
Deed
of easement language explicitly extinguishes the possibility of transferring
development rights from the property.
The current language states: “Except
as provided in Section IV herein, all development rights associated
with the land are hereby extinguished. No development rights from the land may
be transferred to another area, or to another person, or to a political subdivision,
notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary; nor may the land be used
for the purpose of calculating permissible lot yield of any other
property. In addition, Grantor agrees
that it shall not be permitted to develop the within described property based
on any existing, retained, or after acquired Development Rights, except for
that which the Grantee has given approval in accordance with Section IV
herein.”
Prior to 1985, MALPF deeds of easement did not include this
language. Thus, the Foundation has
neither approval authority over a landowner of such a property acquiring TDRs to sell, nor is it clear that the Foundation has in
fact acquired TDRs.
As has often been stated, if it isn’t in the deed of easement, you don’t
get it. The easement has always clearly
regulated any development that takes place on
a property. Prior to 1985, it was not
clear what the interaction was between the local TDR program and MALPF
easements, because TDRs in essence were making
development possible in the receiving area off
the property. Both MALPF and the
Montgomery County TDR program were in their pioneering days in the early
1980s. The County and Foundation only
learned over time what the interaction was between the two programs.
2)
The local governing authority must
determine if such early MALPF properties qualify for TDRs
under the County program.
In cases where the early MALPF easements did not provide for
the authority of MALPF to review overlay easements and/or did not regulate or
extinguish the transfer of development rights (and the easements must be read
individually to be certain what is addressed in each), the establishment and
sale of TDRs is an issue between the landowner and
the local governing authority. MALPF may
not and probably does not have review authority. It should be noted that it is not MALPF granting TDRs
to landowners of such properties; it is not up to MALPF if TDRs
can or cannot be taken from these properties, but up to the local governing
authority.
3)
TDR restrictions are subordinate to MALPF’s deed of easement.
If there is any incompatibility between TDR restrictions and
the MALPF easement, the Foundation’s easement will take precedence because the
Foundation will not subordinate its interests.
4) If TDR restrictions
and MALPF’S deed of easement apply to the same property, the more restrictive
provisions will apply.
If any provisions of the TDR overlay are more restrictive
than the Foundation’s easement and the overlay is compatible with the MALPF
easement, the County may still seek enforcement of those more restrictive
provisions, even if MALPF would not be opposed to the activity being
restricted. Similarly, if any provisions
of the MALPF easement are more restrictive than the TDR overlay, MALPF may
still seek to enforce those more restrictive provisions, even if the County’s
TDR program would ordinarily permit the activity being restricted. A TDR
overlay cannot create rights that are not granted under the MALPF
easement. Please note, this may mean
that development rights retained under a MALPF deed of easement could be
extinguished by the grantor’s decisions related to TDRs
(e.g. one or more child’s or owner’s lots could be extinguished). The TDR
overlay easement is perpetual with no termination provision or possibility.
Mr. Nielsen, the Assistant Attorney General, explained to
the Board members that when the Program started easements allowed no
development on the subject farms. At
that time, there were TDRs, but there was no concern
about the farmer using a local TDR Program. The concern was that if he sold the
easement he could not develop the subject farm subject to easement.
5) The Foundation
reserves the right to assert approval authority over TDR transactions upon
further review.
MALPF has advised these landowners that the Foundation may
choose to exercise approval authority upon further review. In such a case, or simply to remove any doubt
of the Foundation’s position in this matter, the Grantors should submit a
written request to MALPF for consideration and approval. Such a request would go through the normal
review channels of submission to the County’s agricultural land preservation
advisory board to review for recommendations before forwarding the request to
the MALPF Board of Trustees.
Mr. Conrad wanted the Board members to note that, after
1985, the foundation has the right to approve of overlay easements. In the
easement document itself, MALPF extinguishes any ability to transfer rights of
the property. In both ways we are
protecting ourselves against this kind of situation.
6) Approximately ten
MALPF properties may be able to serialize TDRs.
The properties for which these concurrence requests have
been made to MALPF are:
a.
ALLNUTT,
Benoni D., Jr., and Maureen
229 acres in Poolesville
MALPF File #15-83-01
b.
O’HANLON,
Patricia
316 acres in Poolesville
MALPF File #15-82-03
c.
HOPKINS,
R.
156 acres in Dickerson
MALPF File #15-82-05
Mr. Zawitoski shared with the
Board members that when MALPF and TDR Programs were developed 25 years ago, it was
considered that everybody involved would be negotiating in good faith. But over the years, people have been creative
to find loop holes in the system.
The Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board (APAB) met on
Mr. Zawitoski, further explained various implications as follows:
·
The
APAB felt, given many APAB members have sold easements themselves, that the
landowners who sold easements, knowing that the TDRs
were considered as a bundle of rights extinguished by the preservation
easement;
·
The
APAB believes that many of these acquisitions involved appraisals which valued
the TDRs as a part of the bundle of development
rights and that value represented the consideration as recorded within the
easement;
·
In
·
The
APAB discussed the moral versus legal perspectives surrounding the issue and
strongly believes it is morally wrong to sell these TDRs.
·
The
APAB believes that the TDRs are not owned by the
landowners. It also noted that the landowners are challenging the sale of TDR
now rather than when the easements were originally recorded almost 20 years
ago. It is obviously because now the prices are high and the motivation is very
high to participate in the TDR market. The motivation came from various clever
real estate brokers that petioned the landowners to
take a look at the easement documents.
·
Notwithstanding
these considerations, the APAB is aware that there may be a deficiency in the
legal construction of the recording documents themselves, which may bring the
status of the TDRs into question.
·
Given
this fact, the APAB acknowledges that in the event the County/State determines
the legal standing of the TDR cannot be firmly defended, a compromise may be
necessary to avoid a lengthy legal challenge that would be detrimental to all
parties involved.
·
The
APAB tried to consider both the positive and negative aspects of this.
Positive aspects to considering TDRs
as available on certain easement properties:
a) The TDRs
that would be created and transferred would fulfill the request for assistance
made from developers in finding TDRs they need;
b) The
sale of TDRs would create an economic opportunity for
these agricultural producers/landowners funded by the private sector;
c) The
State and County would benefit by creating an additional layer of protection,
paid for by the private sector, on lands already encumbered by agricultural
easements, thus making easement termination much more difficult; there would be
no impetus for termination.
Negative aspects to considering TDRs
as available on certain easement properties:
a) From State perspective, it could
create lot of disharmony and feelings of inequitable treatment for those
landowners who would not be eligible to create TDRs
from protected properties, given their easements were legally constructed with
specific references to the TDRs;
b) It may result in additional legal
challenges among all easement holders; theoretically people may feel that they
have been aggrieved somehow because someone has been treated differently; and
c) It may result in additional legal
challenges.
He further added that it has become apparent that no matter
what we finally decide to do, somebody will be negatively impacted by the
decision. We should be clearly in a
position to explain that, as the Programs have evolved, so has the level of
understanding.
He concluded that the County would not like the Board of
Trustees and the State to have to explain what is the issue
at stake, and he would appreciate if there are any questions they are
referred back to County for answers.
In response to Mr. Douglas Wilson’s questions on the
financial impact, Mr. Zawitoski responded that the
total of 10 easements would indicate a total of 322 TDRs
valued at $40,000 per TDR at the current market value. In terms of monetary value it may probably be
close to $20 million.
Mr. Douglas Wilson remarked that 10 easement holders in
Mr. Wilson asked an open question to all Program
Administrators with TDR Program if there is a potential that old easements in
those jurisdiction for the same time period could have the same issue. The issue of Montgomery County TDR issues may
break in the news anytime in the future.
The reason why this discussion is included in the agenda is to share with
others what is happening in one jurisdiction because of the legal constraints
in the early documents.
For jurisdictions who have a TDR Program or are planning to
set up a TDR Program, there are two issues:
·
one
is to explicitly extinguish TDRs when an easement is
purchased, or
·
if a TDR Program already exists; consult legal counsel, as was done in the
case of
IV. PROGRAM
POLICY
B.
Proposed
Relocation of Existing Dwellings Regulations
Mr. Nielsen, Assistant Attorney
General introduced this item and gave a brief history. On the relocation issue, the Foundation
already has a policy which is its past decision making. The Foundation wanted to allow subsequent
owners or the owners who sold the easement the ability to relocate the
house. There is nothing in the law or a
regulation which sanctions the practice of relocation. The Attorneys and the Foundation looked at
the law and concluded that, if the relocation does not have any impact on the
farm, if the landowner gives something in kind back to the Foundation that is
not a silo or a farm building, if they tear down the house and restore it to
agricultural use, this may be allowed.
This was an extraordinarily narrow exemption to accommodate the
realities of people whose houses had burned down.
The Foundation is preserving agricultural land and the
landowners have given something in kind to allow them to rebuild the dwelling
somewhere else. In an easement program, the
landowner participates in the preservation program voluntarily, accepts State’s
money, and, if they want to relocate the house, it is not given to them as an
automatic right as in the case of owner’s lot or child’s lot. Mr. Nielsen remarked that there is perception
that relocation of an existing dwelling is a right, which is not true.
Mr. Nielsen explained that the regulations being drafted by
him are to clarify the Foundation’s policy and are based on long term practices
of the Foundation.
Mr. Conrad shared with the Board members that, in recent
years, the problem has escalated with landowners’ requests for relocation also
asking to keep the original house as a
tenant house or to keep the house, because it was a historic house and redesignating it as a farm structure. In earlier days, the landowners did not tear
down a house but kept adding on to it.
Today it is cheaper to tear down an old historic house and build something
new.
Vera Mae Schultz, Chairing the Board, asked the members if
they had any comments on the proposed regulations.
Mr. Wally Lippincott, Program
Administrator from
Mr. Bill Powel, Program Administrator from
Mr. Conrad noted that legislation could be developed if the
Board wishes to give the Foundation discretion in certain compelling cases.
Board members discussed the issue in detail and concluded to
accept the regulations for publication in the Maryland Register for comment.
Motion #19: To accept the draft regulations with word
modifications (not content) and put them in the Maryland Register.
Motion: Douglas
Wilson Second: Judith C. Lynch
Opposed: Chris
Wilson
Status: Approved
V. INFORMATION
AND DISCUSSION
C.
Installment
Purchase Agreement Option – An update
Mr. Conrad noted that the implementation
of the installment purchase agreement payments option is now moving
forward. The main problem slowing down
the procurement of services to implement this program has been whether or not
it would be done sole source or through a request for proposals or RFP and,
more importantly, what would be the quickest way to get consultant services
active in developing the legislation necessary for the 2006 Legislative
Session. Thus, it was not clear if the
Department would handle the procurement, if the Treasurer's Office needed to
handle the procurement, or if it could be done by a cooperating agency
participating in the financial aspects of this program, specifically, MARBIDCO
(the Maryland Agricultural and Resource-Based Industry Development Corporation)
or its sponsoring agency, the Rural Maryland Council.
After discussions with the Rural
Maryland Council and a presentation to MARBIDCO in recent days, it has been
decided that MALPF will develop the RFP to procure these services. Once the RFP has been drafted, the Foundation
and the Rural Maryland Council will consult with the State Treasurer's Office
on the procurement process and follow the recommendations of the Treasurer's
Office.
D.
Easement
Offer Acceptances and Rejections, 2005 Easement Acquisition Cycle – Update
Ms. Elizabeth Weaver, Foundation Staff shared with the Board
members the status of FY 2005 Easement Acquisition Cycle FY 2005 Offer.
Option contracts mailed: 79
Option contracts held: 4
(pending
county commitment or Board action)
Option contracts accepted: 39
Option contracts rejected: 8
Option contracts pending appraisal
appeals: 3
Option contracts outstanding: 33
Mr. Douglas Wilson commented that he found it very
interesting that in the short time 50% people automatically accepted, given the
wide variance in appraisals and asking prices.
E.
Program
Support – Memo from Joe Tassone and extract from the
Final Task Force Report
Mr. Tassone
commented that he had growing concerns about moving forward on some of the
issues that were still outstanding.
1. Next
steps in the implementation of an IPA Program – as shared by Mr. Conrad, it is
already moving forward.
2. Development
of a critical farms program.
3. Repeated
legislation to eliminate or shorten the 5-year commitment for Agricultural
Districts. Mr. Douglas Wilson noted that
legislation was introduced both in 2004 and 2005 legislative sessions to reduce
the 5-year district commitment. This change was rejected by the General Assembly.
4. Follow
though on Task Force recommendations to allow farmers more activities to supplement income on MALPF easements.
5.
Follow
through on several other Task Force recommendations.
Mr. Tassone
shared his concern about issues when someone withholds acreage coming into the
Program and then they sell an easement.
MALPF is going to pay to extinguish all their development rights except
for the lot rights and their rights to develop the excluded acreage. What we were supposed to do was to come up
with ways where each County guarantees that if the excluded acreage has the
right to a certain development rights; that is all that can happen on the
property in the future. The Foundation
should not purchase an easement on a property when someone is going to put a
significant sub-division on adjacent excluded acreage.
Further, the landowner cannot use
development rights on the excluded easement for which the Foundation paid
because of the appraisal. We don’t have
in place a mechanism to guarantee that we get what we pay for.
One of the recommendations of the
Task Force was the Foundation increase the Foundation’s staff.
There being
no further business, Ms. Schultz asked for a motion for adjournment of the
Regular Session of the Board of Trustees to go into Executive Session.
Motion #20 : To adjourn Regular
Session and go to Executive Session.
Motion:
Patricia Langenfelder Second Lewis Logan
Status:
Approved
The regular session Board meeting
was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully
Submitted:
_____________________________________
Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary
_____________________________________
James A. Conrad, Executive Director