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.
Shirley W.
Pilchard
Robert F. Stahl,
Jr.
Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Department of
Planning
Douglas Wilson, representing
Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Christopher H.
Wilson
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tim Blaser,
Tammy Buckle,
James A. Conrad,
MALPF Executive Director
Carol Council,
MALPF Administrative Officer
Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary
Theresa Brophy, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Services,
Department of Agriculture
John Hayes, Queen Anne’s County,
Program Administrator
Joy Levy,
Carla Martin,
Craig
Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture
Ralph
Robertson,
Daniel Rosen,
Planner, Maryland Department of Planning
Donna Sasscer, St. Mary’s County, Program Administrator
Joseph and Debra
Yater, Landowners, Queen Anne’s County
Irwin J. Wannuck, Landowner,
Edward
Warner, MALPF Intern
Susan
Wilson, Landowner,
The Board met in an open informational session at
Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. James
Conrad, Executive Director of the MALPF Foundation, to start his presentation
on Land Use Issues and mentioned that after Mr. Conrad’s presentation, the
Board intends to form a task force consisting of minimum of two members from
the Board and encouraged Board members to give their names, if they are
particularly interested in a specific subject.
Mr. Conrad shared with the Board members that the
presentation is intended to propose a format for developing a systematic and
more comprehensive “use policy” in response to Task Force recommended
legislation, instead of making “use” decisions on an ad hoc, case-by-case
basis, and to start the discussions by focusing on one type of farming
operation. He felt that the Board can not develop a single “use policy” that
can apply to all the requests received by the Board, but it would be useful to
all involved in the MALPF Program to have clearer guidelines that can be used
by all concerned.
He had chosen the vineyard and winery use policy as
the first to review for two reasons. First, the Board had an introduction to
winery use issues at the June Board meeting with the Boyce and O’Herron district petition from
Secondly, the Maryland Wine and Grape Advisory
Committee presented its report earlier this year to the Governor and the
Secretary of Agriculture to “identify strategies to facilitate the growth of
Hence Mr. Conrad found the report timely and felt
MALPF can respond by addressing the concerns of the Advisory Committee
concerning the limitations of the Foundation’s policy, and systematically work
out any issues or problems in those areas involving winery and vineyard
operations. The next step would be to look at other industries.
Recommendations
from the
Recommendation 3: “Maryland Agricultural
Land Preservation Foundation … should add
the
Recommendation 17: “Remove the cap on
the number of Special Event Permits each
Recommendation 18: Permit Class 4
wineries to transfer Maryland-produced wine between class 4 wineries. Sometimes wine sale predictions are wrong and
the winery’s stock is either in surplus or in deficit. Hurricanes contribute to this problem. It would add stability if wineries were
allowed to transfer bulk wine from one winery to another.
Recommendation 19: Enable
Recommendation 21: Enable Maryland
Class 4 wineries to sell other Class 4 wines in their tasting rooms.
Recommendation 22: Enable
What is
allowed now on MALPF properties?
1.
Processing
(winery operations) of grapes grown on the property or on land under control of
the proprietor or person leasing the farming property. An issue that should be addressed is whether vineyards
and the grapes produced under contract to a winery would be considered to be
land under control of the proprietor.
2.
Storage
and sale of the final product (wine).
3.
Retail
operations, including tasting room, of wine and grapes produced on the property.
4.
Special
events that do not interfere with the farming operation (case-by-case by
permission).
What is not
allowed on MALPF properties?
1.
Processing
of grapes grown from other vineyards (over 25% of total crushed).
2.
Storage,
tasting, and sale of wine from other wineries (over 25% of total).
3.
Catering
and/or restaurant or restaurant-like facilities and activities.
4.
Retail
operations that include non-agricultural items, such as t-shirts; commercial
food products (jelly, jams, etc.) produced off the property; wine-related items
(art, cork pullers, wine glasses, etc.).
What are the gray areas of what is allowed on MALPF
properties?
1.
Special
events that may interfere with farming operation, require temporary or
permanent parking access, create significant traffic, and/or be non-agriculture
related such as music, fairs, or theater performances.
2.
Tour
operations of the winery and/or vineyard because of traffic and parking issues.
New
Criteria for Consideration of Uses on MALPF Properties
The
Foundation shall consider the following criteria in determining whether to
approve or disapprove any use or activity. The Foundation may approve any use
or activity if the Foundation determines that:
A.
it
is compatible and does not interfere with farm or forest production;
B.
it
will not damage soil productivity;
C.
it
is limited to existing farm structures or buildings and has no effect on any
agricultural or forest use;
D.
it
is compatible with the rural character of the farm and the surrounding area;
E.
it
complies with local zoning;
F.
it
does not interfere with the implementation or maintenance of a best management
practice provided in a soil conservation and water quality plan for the farm;
and
G.
it does not adversely impact sensitive natural resources on the farm, such
as steep slopes, highly erodible soils, wetlands or
stream buffers.
Conditions for New Uses:
a.
Acreage
devoted to agriculture-related and agriculture-supporting activities (1-5%).
b.
Acreage
devoted to parking and nature of parking surfaces (1-5%).
c.
Number
of special events per month or per year.
d.
Percent
of off-site production allowed to be sold on-site (50-75%).
Most of the problems related to
vineyard and winery operations deal with already preserved properties that are
developed into vineyard/winery operations. When an existing vineyard / winery
comes into the program, issues of incompatibility can be addressed through
acreage exclusion, as long as the landowner has a good idea of what the farming
operation is likely to entail.
Mr. Conrad believed the Board cannot develop a single “use
policy” that can apply to all of the requests that are made to the Board. However, it would be very useful to all
involved in the MALPF program to have clearer guidelines that can be used by
staff, program administrators, and current and potential program participants
to understand what can and cannot be done on preserved farmland, and when
certain activities are in the gray area that would require Board review and
approval.
He proposed that several committees
be set up by the Board of Trustees composed of representatives for the MALPF
Board, for MALPF staff (including Staff from Department of Planning), for the
program administrators, and for the kind of farming operation the use policy is
being considered. The task of each
committee would be to apply systematically the guidelines proposed by the Task
Force. The committee for winery and
vineyard would also involve Mr. Kevin Atticks, Executive Director from the Maryland Winery Association
and Ms. Carol Wilson, President of Winery Association.
Mr. Colhoun
encouraged participation, as this is a very important step for the future. Over the years the agriculture industry is
changing and the winery business is also progressing in
Mr. Conrad concluded the session by
passing around the proposed regulations on “use policy.” He would like to move forward and asked the
Board members if they have any comments or suggestions.
Mr. Colhoun
complimented the efforts of Mr. Joe Tassone and
members of Maryland Department of Planning in compiling a report on “Maximizing
Return on Public Investment in Maryland’s Rural Land Preservation Programs” and
encouraged the Board members to read it as he personally found it very
interesting reading and very genuine to all the problems the Board has to deal
with and lot of effort have gone into developing the report.
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
There was a fire alarm and the Board members resumed the
meeting after a break of 5 minutes.
Mr. Joe Tassone, representing
Secretary Scott, Department of Planning, suggested a few changes pertaining to
Item No. II.A.1 –
Mr. Conrad requested if Mr. Tassone
can send a paragraph on his comments to Rama Dilip, Foundation Secretary, and they would be incorporated
in the minutes.
Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman,
sought clarification from Mr. Craig Nielsen,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture, on the subject of the
termination process and asked if there is no right for appeal at the county
level.
Mr.
Nielsen clarified that there is no right to appeal at the county level. The
decision of the Foundation is made in two parts. The appeal cannot be made on a piece meal
basis and we have to deal with the decision that is made at Foundation
level. For example, if the county said
no, the Foundation can approve it. If
the Foundation said no, the landowner can appeal the Foundation’s decision.
Mr. Nielsen further said
that what was in the minutes is the correct interpretation.
Motion #1 To approve the
Motion: Vera Mae Schultz Second: Patricia Langenfelder
Status: Approved
Mr. Colhoun asked the Board members
to jot down the corrections, if any, in the June Executive Minutes and pass on
to Mr. Conrad at the end of Regular session.
B. ADDITIONS OR
DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
There was an amendment of agenda
item:
Part IV.A. Nutrient Management Plans as a
Condition for MALPF Easement Purchases – Continuation of Discussion has been
withdrawn for the time being.
Mr. Conrad also mentioned that he
had circulated the proposed legislation for the bill entitled “Agricultural
Land Preservation Foundation – Dwelling Relocation” for Board members’ comments
and suggestions, if any. The relocation
regulations were discussed in the last meeting, and it was agreed that the
Foundation would propose legislation.
Mr. Colhoun
suggested having a deadline of
Regarding the workshop session, the
earlier proposed dates in September were not convenient to
Ms. Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary, would be in touch with the Board
members to confirm their preference of dates.
Mr. Conrad shared with the Board
members that
Mr. Tassone
shared with the Board members that he spoke with the Planning Director, Ms.
Marsha McLaughlin, the week before last and sent her
the revised draft which is very much consistent with the resolution the Board
has, but it has some details that Mr. Tassone or
someone added for reasons of consistency with Program regulations and
statues. He did not get to meet with Ms.
McLaughlin, but they talked on the phone and would be meeting shortly.
Ms. Joy Levy, Program Administrator
of Howard County, was present and had brought the draft with the changes
proposed by Mr. Tassone and Mr. Conrad.
The Board members and the Foundation
staff also shared the various articles that had been published recently in the
newspaper on the
Mr. Colhoun
remarked that several times he had been approached by the Press for comments
and he had referred them to Mr. Conrad.
He encouraged the Board members to do the same.
Mr. Conrad introduced Edward Warner
as the MALPF Intern and stated that in Ms. Elizabeth Weaver’s absence Edward
had worked on some of the Agenda Items.
II. DISTRICT/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 10-00-04 Wannuck,
Irwin J. & Barbara 150.90
acres
Request for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for a child’s lot
on easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Wannuck are the
original grantors of the easement. The
current request is for the release of a child’s lot for the personal use of
their son, Alan Glenn Wannuck.
There are 4 pre-existing dwellings on the property. The most recently built structure is a cedar
siding house in which Mr. Wannuck resides. A second structure is the original farm house
which does not appear to be in the best condition and has a resident. The other two structures are trailers in
which tenants live who work on the farm.
Both are both within the barn complex area. No prior lot exclusions have been requested
for the property, and Mr. and Mrs. Wannuck own no
additional easement property.
According to
The request was approved by the local advisory board and is
consistent with local zoning regulations.
If the request is approved, there will be a required payback
to the Foundation of the per acre amount of $1,533.71, which the landowner
received for the easement.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus
such minimum additional acreage if required by the County Health Department,
not to exceed 2 acres total, based on the provisions of the deed of easement and
in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b)(3),
Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of
up to 2 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the
Environment or the county.
Mr. Wannuck, the landowner and Mr.
Tim Blaser, Program Administrator were present for
the meeting.
Mr. Wannuck briefly introduced
himself. He has been in
Douglas Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Department of
Agriculture, asked Mr. Wannuck if the farm house is
currently owned by Mr. Wannuck or rented. Mr. Wannuck
clarified that it was owned by him.
Mr. Wannuck explained the location
of the proposed lot. Patricia Langenfelder, Board member, asked Mr. Wannuck
about the location as the proposed child’s lot is very far from the actual
county road, about 1300 feet. Ms. Langenfelder remarked that if the proposed child’s lot is
approved and if the future generation after 5 years decided to sell the lot,
which is inside the farm, the farm gets sub-divided. She expressed her concern that if the
sub-division happens, the farm will get cut off and the future owner may not
necessarily use it for agricultural activity.
She suggested Mr. Wannuck place the lot nearer
to the county road.
Mr. Blaser clarified that the area
closer to the road was wet and they could not get the perc. The location adjacent to the existing house
would have been a compromise as far as agricultural use was concerned. He further confirmed that the proposed
child’s lot will have a common boundary to the existing house and will be a
panhandle lot.
Mr. Wilson observed that the Board can ask Mr. Wannuck to move the child’s lot to the east somewhere where
it might perc, but they also have an existing house
that can be sub-divided by the owner as per MALPF rules. In his opinion, Mr. Wannuck
has chosen a lot location adjacent to the existing property, and, if he
sub-divided the existing house, it would seem that he would be better off
having 4 adjacent total acres.
Mr. Wannuck said when he was
building his house (the pre-existing dwelling), he was
allowed to have three acres to build a house for himself and his wife before
having the easement on his property. He
recently lost his wife and his son wanted to move on to the farm and help Mr. Wannuck on the farm.
Thus, Mr. Wannuck wanted to give his son a
piece of land which they do not intend to sell in future. The land will stay in agriculture. The three acres of land were not excluded –
he thought they were, but they were not.
Mr. Conrad remarked that, under the law, landowners can get
up to a 1.0 acre lot. They may get more
than that if it is required for septic reasons to meet county regulations.
Mr. Blaser further clarified that
Mr. Wannuck has a large property and he wanted to
exclude approximately 2 acres for his son.
Mr. Tassone asked Mr. Wannuck if he has any intention of sub-dividing the child’s
lot. Mr. Wannuck
said that it depends – he is 69 years old and is a heart patient. He needs to check with his attorney.
Mr. Blaser commented that
initially the request had come from Mr. Wannuck for a
tenant house for the June agenda. But
the issue came up as to how much the son was involved in farming, and it was
suggested to the County that Mr. Wannuck be allowed
to request a child’s lot. Thus, the
County changed the request for a tenant house to child’s lot for Mr. Wannuck, but did not change the initial proposed location.
Mr. Tassone asked if the Board
felt that the proposed location was problematic enough to deny the request and
acquire an alternative location, or if the Board would like to consider
approving the proposed location conditional to the child’s lot being adjacent
to the existing house. If both of them
were sub-divided, then the sub-divided acreage should be contiguous. The Chairman remarked that the Board had an
opportunity to make such a motion.
Mr. Tassone asked if there was a
location closer to the road or the boundary of the property that could be
considered. Mr. Wannuck
clarified that there was no other place except the alfalfa field where water
drains came straight to the farm and that could damage the farms.
Ms. Langenfelder asked if the child’s
lot was close to other existing dwellings, which was confirmed by Mr. Wannuck.
Motion # 2: To approve the request for child’s lot subject to the
condition that the lot lines be drawn as close as
possible to the existing dwelling so that a subsequent sub-division could be
obtained with adjacent properties. If both parcels are sub-divided at a later
date, they will be contiguous and the access will travel along the boundary as
far as possible.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
Ms. Tammy Buckle, Program
Administrator remarked that it would be very helpful, if the Foundation would
consider requiring perc tests prior to reviewing lot
location.
2. 10-88-02 Free, Joseph and Eleanor 147.868 acres
Request to increase the size of a previously approved
child’s lot.
Mr. and Mrs. Free are the original grantors of the
easement. The current request is for an
increase in the size of a previously approved child’s lot to meet county and
Health Department regulation requirements.
On
According to
The request has been approved by the local agricultural
advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If the new request is approved by the MALPF
Program, the total payback for the lot will be $1,673.78 (1.557 acres @ $1,
075.00 per acre).
Foundation staff recommends approval of the increase in lot
size based on the provisions of the deed of easement and in accordance with
Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b) (3), Annotated Code of Maryland, which
grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of up to 2 acres if required by
regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the county.
Mr. Tim Blaser, Program
Administrator, briefed the Board members that the original request was approved
but they had to come back as they could not get close to the road.
Robert Stahl, Board member pointed out discrepancies in the
lot size as mentioned in the letter from the County. Mr. Blaser
commented that he is not sure. As the
plats come in, they get revised as agencies comment on it and the County tries
to accommodate the location.
Motion #3: To approve the request to increase the size of a previously
approved child’s lot subject to staff assessing the actual acreage that needs
to be reflected in the Foundation records.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
B. ST. MARY’S COUNTY
1.
Request to exclude a 1-acre child’s lot from district
property
Robert E. Fastnaught is the
original owner of the district property. The current request is for the exclusion of a
1.0 acre child=s lot for his son, Richard Lawrence Fastnaught.
There are two pre-existing dwellings on the property. Mr. Fastnaught does
not own any other district property and has not requested any other lots.
According to St. Mary’s County, the proposed lot will have
minimal impact on the agricultural use of the land. The land that would be taken out of
production is a pasture and access to the lot will be through an existing
gravel road.
The request has been approved by the local advisory board
and is pending Planning and Zoning approval.
The landowner=s application request, St. Mary’s
County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board approval, and a location
map were attached for Board members’ review and consideration.
Foundation staff recommends approval based on COMAR
15.15.01.03.F(1) which states: “A landowner may request to have excluded from a
district certain portions of the owner’s property constituting lots of either 1
acre or less….if the purpose is to construct a dwelling for the owner or the
owner’s children.”
Donna Sasscer, Program
Administrator was present and briefed the Board members about the location of
the proposed lot. It was a pastureland;
the road will go through the pasture, about 100 yards off from the gravel
road. It has shared access, and not a
county road.
Board members were concerned about the distance from the
gravel road.
Ms. Sasscer remarked that the
zoning regulations have changed since May 2002.
They have limited the number of lots, up to 5. There was an outcry for family provision, and
so, if a lot is for the family, the County approves the request with permission
from the Planning Commission.
Since the request came for a district property and not an
easement property, the Board decided not to go into the details of the right of
way access.
The property had two existing dwellings – there were two
houses created from two lots. Ms. Sasscer was not sure if the area had been perked or not.
Mr. Conrad commented that Mr. Craig Nielsen has pointed out
that the Board can approve a conditional motion.
Motion #4: To approve the request to exclude a 1- acre child’s lot from
district property with a condition that the owner tries to configure the lot to
minimize the flag stem.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
Mr. Tassone suggested that the
Board devise some guidelines for locations of lot exclusions. For example, it is clear that the Board
thinks it is most desirable for lots to be located generally as close to the
property boundaries and roads as possible.
In his opinion if the Board particularly articulates these points and
then ask for evidence that efforts have been made to do that in the submission
of proposals, it might be easier for the Board to make a decision.
Mr. Colhoun agreed with the
suggestion and asked an open question to all Program Administrators if such a
guideline will be helpful to them.
Ms. Buckle replied that it would be very helpful as long as
the Board members followed the guidelines closely while making the decision.
Ms. Joy Levy, Program Administrator in
Mr. Wilson agreed with Mr. Tassone’s
recommendation and remarked that the more information the Board has on the
selection of the lot, the better the position the Board would be in to make a
decision.
The Board members were concerned and debated if the perc tests could be conducted before the application comes
to the Board for review.
Mr. Wilson commented that the Board members and Program
Administrators had earlier discussed this issue and have always decided to make
it as uncomplicated to the farmer as possible.
In his opinion, it will be easier for the Board if all tests could be
done, but it would be tough on the farmer as a perc
test can cost approximately $800 dollars.
He further added that the Program Administrators have been
asked in the past about requiring perc tests upfront,
and they have always received an overwhelming response that it will be a
financial burden on the farmers. Thus,
he suggested going ahead with devising a general guideline, but not including
anything that will financially affect the farmer.
Jerry Klasmeier, Board member,
felt the Board needs an expression from the landowner that the lot he selected
is the lot that represents the least disruption to the agricultural value, and
he suggested that the Board can ask the staff to confirm that the lot was
selected because it has the least disruption to the agricultural value.
Mr. Colhoun concluded the session
by saying that the discussion gave the Board an opportunity to appoint a task group
with people who have experience and help the Administrators and staff very
specifically to put together the guidelines to help the Board to make a
decision.
Ms. Schultz asked Ms. Buckle if
C. QUEEN
ANNE’S COUNTY
1. 17-00-08 Yater,
Joseph & Debra 111.8
acres
Request to relocate a previously approved tenant house on
easement property.
Mr. and Mrs. Yater are the
original grantors of the easement property.
The current request is for the relocation of a previously approved
tenant house.
On
According to Queen Anne’s County, the previously approved
location (indicated as “X” on attached aerial) is not correct due to a
misquoting of the linear feet from the road frontage. The new location was also indicated on the
attached aerial map.
The tenant house will not affect farm operations and the
location is consistent with Queen Anne’s
Foundation staff recommends approval of the relocation of
the approved tenant house.
Mr. and Mrs. Yater and Mr. John
Hayes, Program Administrator, were present at the meeting. Mr. Hayes informed the Board members that the
physical location of the original perc location has
not changed. It was incorrectly located
on the map when it was previously approved by the Board.
Motion #5: To approve the request to relocate a previously approved
tenant house on easement property.
Motion:
Patricia Langenfelder Second: Shirley Pilchard
Status: Approved
D.
1. 06-84-08 Haines, Michael & Anita 233.411
acres
Request to agriculturally subdivide the property into three
separate districts.
Mr. and Mrs. Haines are the contract
purchasers of this district property. There are three pre-existing dwellings
and there have been no requests for lot exclusions. The Haines do not own any
other district or easement properties.
The current request is to agriculturally subdivide the
property into three separate districts.
As the property consists of three separately deeded parcels, the Haines
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 each parcel
separately. The Foundation has received
FY 2006 applications.
If this request is approved, it will result in the following
three districts:
A = 96.843 acres (57% soils classes II and III);
B = 87.4 acres (59% soils classes II and III); and
C = 50.499 acres (71% soils class II, III and MtC2.
The farm operation on all three parcels is crops for a dairy
herd.
The local Advisory Board has approved this request as it is
their opinion that the parcels meet the Foundations requirements for
agricultural subdivision.
Foundation staff recommends approval as the request meets
the Foundation’s requirements for agricultural subdivision which are: COMAR
15.15.01.17.I which states: “(1) The subdivided portion and all remaining
parcels shall be at least 50 acres, and each parcel shall meet the minimum
soils requirement, as provided … for district establishment; and (2) a request
for an agricultural subdivision may not be considered by the Foundation for land
that is less than 100 acres, unless the property is subject to an agricultural
preservation easement.
Mr. Ralph Robertson,
Subsequently, Michael and Anita Haines are the purchasers of
the farm from their aunt and, instead of extinguishing the district and then
re-forming three separate districts, they chose to
agriculturally subdivide the property into three separate districts. The Haines have been farming the farms and
are bona fide dairy farmers. Mr.
Robertson felt this was the best option for the Haines.
When the Haines bought the farms, they did so through the
County’s Critical Farms Program, and the County did three separate appraisals
on the farms. The present owner’s aunt,
Mrs. LaWanda Haines, was planning to sell the
property as three separate farms and was planning to extinguish the district
and sell the farms individually, but Michael and Anita Haines intervened and
decided to buy the farm as the whole block.
The County considered this as the best situation, keeping in mind Mrs.
Haines’ equity position and through this the County was extinguishing
approximately 16 lot rights on the farms.
The farming operation is also kept intact.
The Board members discussed that a district status is
necessary to apply for an easement.
Mr. Robertson remarked that in an option contract through
the County’s Critical Farms Program, it is a 5-year option to sell an easement
to the Foundation.
Carol Council, Foundation staff, observed that currently the
Haines cannot sell easements separately – they have to be sold as one, and that
is why they are making the request to subdivide the property into three
separate districts. They have submitted easement applications for the three
separate parcels.
Mr. Conrad shared with the members that if the Board
approves to agriculturally subdivide, there is still a single district.
Motion #6: To approve the request to agriculturally subdivide the
district property.
Motion: Lewis
Logan Second: James Pelura
Status: Approved
Mr. Tassone said in his opinion he
is in agreement with the proposal as the property is already protected by the Critical
Farms Program. This is another
manifestation of bringing in whole farms, allowing the properties to be
preserved rather than to be cut off in excessive ways. It has always been an objective and the
policy of the Foundation for a long time to prevent that as much as possible –
at whatever stage – whether it is a district or it is an easement. In this case
because of extraneous circumstances, the owner may terminate the district if
the proposal is not approved. In this
context, Mr. Tassone is in agreement with the
proposal, but he is not generally in agreement with sub-division.
In his opinion, an agricultural sub-division is supposed to
happen only because part of the farms are formed differently whereas in the
subject farm it is one operating farm – hence it is not a truly an agricultural
sub-division.
Judith Lynch asked for clarification of this process.
Mr. Conrad clarified that the original intent, when
legislation started in 1970s was that a landowner can have multiple parcels. A
county had multiple parcels within a single district. Over time, it became
synonymous with either a farm or a parcel which was not the original intent. It
is allowable under the statute that a landowner can have multiple parcels under
one district. They can individually and separately sell their easement to the
Foundation.
Ms. Buckle said that she has been working in this Program
for 20 years and it had always been her understanding and interpretation that
when a landowner goes into a district, the easement had to be sold on that
entire district.
Ms. Council, added that unless the Foundation approves an
agricultural sub-division or district amendment, that has been the practice.
Mr. Colhoun commented that in the
past six months, the Board has been allowing sub-division of the district a lot
more.
Mr. Wilson commented that these farms are already being
preserved – it is just involving some paper work. In his opinion, the issue on the bigger
picture is in relation to this transaction – it doesn’t matter if they want to
buy an easement on the entire area as long as there is enough money in the
Foundation to do that. If there is money
only for two of them, we can buy two of the three now and buy the balance in
the next year.
E.
1. 13-82-06e Fleming, Donald & Shirley 176.41 acres
Request to relocate an approved 1.0 acre child’s lot for
their son, Scott.
Mr. and Mrs. Fleming are the original owners of the easement
property. On
The new lot is proposed to be located along a woods line and
will be accessed by an existing farm lane.
According to
Joy Levy, Program Administrator,
When the local Board recently reviewed the
request, the Flemings attended the meeting and the Board was convinced that the
request did not have any detrimental impact on the operation of the farm.
Motion #7: To approve the request to relocate an approved child’s lot.
Motion:
Joe Tassone Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
III. AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
Mr. Conrad presented the district petitions.
A.
1.
This is an 84-acre
parcel located near the town of
Staff recommends the
landowner acquire a Forest Stewardship Plan.
2.
This is an 18.668-acre
parcel located near Taneytown. This property
is contiguous to a block of easement and district properties totaling
498.43. There is one dwelling on the
property. It is not part of larger
operation, is owner operated, and has 94.6% qualifying soils. The primary farming operation is Horse training
and boarding. It does not have a Soil
Conservation Plan on the property.
Staff recommends the
landowner acquire a Forest Stewardship Plan.
Motion #8: To approve the requests of Patrick and
Victoria Albright and Lorraine Barnes to establish agricultural land
preservation districts on their respective properties.
Motion: Shirley Pilchard Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
V. INFORMATION
AND DISCUSSION
A.
Recertification
Letters – Cecil and
Mr. Conrad noted that the recertification letters for Cecil
and
The purpose of providing these letters is as follow-up to
the Board approval of county recertification to keep Board members fully
informed on the results of the recertification requests.
Mr. Colhoun asked, if there were
any thing to be discussed. Ms. Lynch
wanted an update on the staffing issues discussed by Mr. Douglas Wilson in an
earlier Board meeting.
Mr. Wilson shared with the Board members that he and Mr.
Conrad are working on the position description for the position which Mr.
Conrad was holding before he became the Executive Director. MALPF has money in the budget and the Federal
budget for a contractual position. MALPF
has funds in the budget and a position to formally fill its clerical job,
currently held by Ms. Dilip as a contractual
person. MALPF intends to fill that job
by
Mr. Conrad shared that
For FY '06, MALPF had approximately 130 applications; for FY
'05, MALPF had 115. MALPF will have twice as much money for offers in FY '06 as compared to FY
'05 and fewer applications.
In the late spring and in early summer, farmers left lot of
money on the table between their asking prices and the new appraised
values. Mr. Wilson doubts if that would
occur in FY '06.
He encouraged the Program Administrators and Foundation
staff to re-energize their salesmanship.
There may be landowners in the jurisdiction still willing to get into an
easement program. The number of district
applications this year had been reduced substantially, and he felt the need for
renewed salesmanship.
This year we made approximately 80 offers with only $39
million. MALPF is now going to have over
$59 million, and so we can expect many more applications. Mr. Conrad expects fewer rejections next year
than this year.
Mr. Wilson concluded the session by saying that this year is
MALPF’s 25 year anniversary and MALPF has calculated that
it will make an offer on its 250,000th acre in easement this fiscal year. Next year between MALPF, local government, TDRs, Rural Legacy,
Mr. Wilson once again reiterated the need for salesmanship
to let the landowners know that there are dollars available, farm offers should
go up, and the county ranking should take lot of factors into account.
Mr. Colhoun shared with the Board
members about the various fairs in different counties and encouraged the Board members
to confirm the dates and try to attend any of them and share this information
with local advisory board members.
Mr. Wilson asked if there were any changes to be
incorporated in the Executive Session minutes of June meeting. There was one.
Motion #9: To approve the
Motion: Douglas Wilson 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