MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun,
Chairman
Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman
Jerry Klasmeier,
representing Comptroller Schaefer
Patricia Langenfelder
Judith C. Lynch
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:
Lewis Logan,
representing Treasurer Kopp
James Pelura,
D.V.M.
Shirley W. Pilchard
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bill Amoss,
Jacqueline Bryley,
Personnel Officer II, MDA
Tammy Buckle,
Danny Callahan, Landowner,
Kelly Coleman, Landowner,
James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive
Director
Carol Council, MALPF Administrative
Officer
Rama Dilip,
MALPF Secretary
James Elligson,
Landowner,
James Eveland,
Landowner,
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of General Services
Kurt
Tim & Cindy Harris, Landowners,
Sonja Ingram,
Robert Kegel,
Landowner,
David Kelleher, DGS Appraiser
Gloria M. Leager,
Landowner, Queen Anne’s County
Thomas Leager,
Landowner, Queen Anne’s County
Wally Lippincott,
Carla Martin,
Craig Nielsen, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of Agriculture
Barbara Polito, Anne Arundel, Program Administrator
Bill Powel,
Charles Rice,
Ralph Robertson,
Daniel Rosen, Planner, Maryland
Department of Planning
Rad Sakhamuri,
Queen Anne’s County, Program Administrator
Priscilla Stambaugh,
Landowner,
Richard Stambaugh,
Landowner,
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Tucker,
Landowners,
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF
Administrative Officer
Daniel Colhoun, Chairman,
called the meeting to order at approximately
The Chair asked the guests to
introduce themselves.
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
The amendment to motion no. 4 is subject to the Foundation staff’s
hearing the tape and making necessary changes.
Motion #1 To approve the
Motion: Judith C. Lynch Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
Mr. Doug Wilson, representing
Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture, had a few announcements to share
with the Board members. For FY 2005
MALPF has almost completed its easement cycle, except for two or three more
offers to be approved by the Board of Public Works. A few easement offers have
already been settled by DGS.
FY 2006 easement applications have
been received from the counties. MALPF
is a little behind schedule, but did not want to be late making easement
offers, so will be making some scheduling changes with DGS. The Foundation staff had 132 easement
applications (fewer than the 150 received for FY 2005) and will have 40 million
dollars. MALPF will be making lot of
offers to eligible properties.
Further Mr. Wilson shared with the
Board members that he will be attending the Capital Budget hearing for FY
2007. He also commented that property
prices, real estate transfer taxes, agricultural taxes, etc., are up and,
assuming the Administration or General Assembly does not do something with the
formulas, the current statute would provide the Foundation in excess of $ 32
million in the State transfer tax, about $ 6 million for the capital side in
the agricultural transfer tax. Federal money may go down a little bit, maybe to
$ 5 million, and the Foundation is going to request an appropriation of $ 13
million for local government. If all
this is taken into account, MALPF will have around $ 55 million in the capital
budget for FY 2007 – by far the largest amount ever. So he urged everyone participating in the
Program to encourage their landowners to apply.
He also recommended that program
administrators work with farmers on their asking prices. In FY 2005, the Program had a lot of
rejections primarily due to prices (because the farmers were a little
conservative in their asking prices and appraisal values were higher than what
the farmers expected). In this regard,
he felt it would be fair for people to be made aware that there is a lot of
money on the table and the prices are up.
On the other hand, a lot of money and a lot of applications can also
mean a lot of competition.
Mr. Wilson had two general
announcements – one being that Ms. Rama Dilip, currently a contractual employee, will be a
permanent State employee, effective next week.
MALPF is also submitting a hiring request to the Department of Budget
and Management to fill Mr. Conrad’s old position.
The State, recognizing the hike in gas
prices, has changed the mileage rate for State employees and reimbursement for
Board members on State business to 48 cents per mile. The new rate is effective
B. ADDITIONS
OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
There were a few amendments of
agenda items:
II.B.1.
05-94-03A Possum Hills Farms, Inc. 73.24 acres
Request for an
agricultural subdivision of easement property.
This item is now back
on the agenda.
V.A. QUEEN ANNE’S
This agenda item
has been postponed until the October Board meeting.
Mr. James Conrad, Executive Director
of the Foundation, shared with the Board members that Mr. Lewis Logan, a Board
member, was retiring from State service.
He will have a replacement in a couple of months. The Foundation staff, Mr. Dan Colhoun, and Ms. Vera Mae Schultz will discuss the plan to
honor Mr. Logan for his contribution.
Mr. Conrad also shared that the news
articles circulated with this month’s agenda include an interview with Mr.
Wally Lippincott, Program Administrator,
He urged Board members to read the
Executive Summary issued by Chesapeake Bay Foundation titled “Vital Signs”
giving details about the Program, which is looking at the State of
In the last Board of Public Works
meeting, the Governor also praised the MALPF Program mentioning that the
Program was bringing additional acres under easement. Mr. Conrad was also happy to share that in
the last three meetings, this is the second time the Program has been praised
by Governor Ehrlich. The Governor also
mentioned that the MALPF Program is starting its 25th year of
preserving land.
Mr. Conrad briefed the Board members
about the Farmland Preservation Report, where it has reported the ranking for
the top 12 locally operated farmland preservation programs in the country. This ranking included 5 local county programs
of
1 –
5 –
6 –
10 –
12 –
Since the report cannot be
reproduced, Mr. Conrad passed around the report for the benefit of all members.
Mr. Conrad reminded the Board
members and the Program Administrators about the upcoming Workshop in
Mr. Conrad pointed out that
Foundation staff has made slight changes in the 'staff recommendation' on some
of the agenda items. He shared with the
members that the Foundation staff had a long meeting going over the agenda
items and came up with slightly different conclusions on some of the
items. He urged the members to pay
attention as some of the staff recommendations will be different from the
original recommendations mentioned in the agenda memo. This has been as a result of the staff
meeting and in consultations with Mr. Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney
General, MDA, and Ms. Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, DGS.
Mr. Conrad concluded his
announcements by sharing with the Board members that
At the State Fair, MALPF introduced
a brand new display put together on a relatively short notice by the Public Information
Office. The display will be used at the
Farm Bureau Convention in December.
MALPF also used and still has color brochures about the Program. Mr. Conrad encouraged Board members and
administrators to take and use them.
Mr. Colhoun
shared with the Board members that the four committees have been working on
policy issues and have submitted their report.
The reports will be reviewed in the October 4 Workshop and will help in
establishing a clearer policy. He was
happy to share that every Board member will be coming to the workshop and
encouraged the Program Administrators to contribute freely to the
discussion. Carroll and Frederick
counties are playing the hosts, and the workshop will include a field trip.
II. DISTRICT
/ EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 06-83-13e Kegel,
Robert E. & Jacqueline N. 155.002
acres
Request to relocate a previously approved 1.0 acre owner’s
lot.
Robert and Jacqueline Kegel are
the original owners of this easement property.
There are two pre-existing dwellings on the property that have not been
excluded. The Kegels
own two other district properties, but no lot exclusions have been requested on
them. Previous approvals on this
easement property have included:
·
·
·
·
·
·
The current request is for approval to relocate the 1.0 acre
owner’s lot (Lot G on attached map). This request is being made in order to
cluster the owner’s lot with an approved child’s lot. According to
A required payback of $2,100.30 is required for release of
this 1.0 acre lot.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the request as it
will cluster two approved dwellings in a location that will not cause serious
impact to the overall farm operation.
Mr. Kegel and Mr. Ralph Robertson,
Program Administrator, were present to answer any questions from the
Board. Mr. Robertson briefed the Board
members about the current request. The
previously approved lot was located along the road which was in the historical
district of Uniontown. The Kegels felt it would be more prudent for them to move the
lot to a location which would be more consistent with the clustering
aspect. Thus, they are requesting to
move their lot next to the previously approved lot for their daughter.
The requested lot will be 1.0 acre size and can use the same
right of way as their daughter’s lot.
Mr. Colhoun referred to the tax
map and inquired about the lot indicated as
Mr. Robert Stahl, Board member, wanted to know if there is
any significant reason for the lot to be moved from what was a historical
district to what can be referred to as prime farmland. Mr. Robertson clarified that Uniontown has
very strict rules in its Historical district.
He does not know why that portion of the farm remained in the Historical
district.
Uniontown is also very particular about its view shed and
would not allow certain types of houses, driveway requirements, etc.
Motion # 2: To approve the request to relocate a previously approved 1.0
acre owner’s lot.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
2. 06-83-13e Kegel,
Robert E. & Jacqueline N. 147.868
acres
Request to increase the size of a previously approved
child’s lot for daughter, Darlene E. Kegel, to 1.573
acres.
Robert and Jacqueline Kegel are
the original owners of this easement property.
There are two pre-existing dwellings on the property that have not been
excluded. The Kegels
own two other district properties, but no lot exclusions have been requested on
them. Previous approvals on this
easement property have included:
·
·
·
·
·
·
The current request is for approval to increase the size of
the child’s lot from 1.0 acre to 1.573 acres (Lot H on attached map). This request is being made in order to
include an existing waterway, instead of creating a strip between the child’s
lot and the owner’s lot (which is requested to be located adjacent). That could in the future be under different
ownership. According to
A required payback of an additional $1,203.47 is required
for release of this 1.573 acre lot.
Mr. Conrad pointed out that this is an instance where staff
had earlier recommended approval of the release of 1.573 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.
The earlier recommendation for approval was not based on
statutory requirements for getting additional acreage beyond one acre. After discussing the case in detail, the
Foundation staff now recommends the request to be referred to the judgment of
the attorneys, Mr. Craig Nielsen and Ms. Nancy Forrester, as to whether or not
the Foundation has statutory authority to approve this request given the fact
that (a) it is neither required by Planning and Zoning as a part of local
zoning requirements nor (b) is it required by the Health Department for septic
reasons.
Mr. Colhoun asked for Mr.
Nielsen’s comment. Mr. Nielsen responded
by saying that he would need more time to look at the issue closely before
offering his response.
Mr. Robertson apologized that he did not get the
communication from Mr. Colhoun about the aerial map
or he would have made sure to bring it with him. He further added that originally the child’s
lot was defined as a 1-acre lot and all the percs
worked. However, when the engineers
visited, Mr. Robertson found that there was an area of a drainage ditch which
had been set up by the Soil Conservation Service. It is a long way between the two lots and it
made sense to him to draw the two lots together as 1-acre lot. Then they had perc
problems as the waterway could not be used as part of the perc
area. Consequently, they had an area
that Mr. Robertson perceived in the future may become a disputed area as to who
would take care of the waterway. So he
had asked the engineers to draw the two lots together. The engineers came back and said that they
could not do it as the area would not perc and the
Health Department would not allow anything to be put in the waterway.
Mr. Colhoun wanted to have a
clearer map. The Board had a sketch, and
it was not enough to clarify the issue.
Mr. Robertson responded that he would be glad to provide whatever
information is required by the Board, including the pictures of the area.
Mr. Nielsen commented that it seemed that if the lot size
can be expanded up to 2 acres, the statutory regulations adopted by Department of
Environment would require a minimum lot size larger than an acre because of
sewage disposal issues. The other legal
requirement, which is in statute, is that the County can require a lot to be
greater than 1 acre. These two
situations have to be looked at by the Foundation before rendering a decision.
Mr. Robertson commented that he has the letter from the
Chief of Bureau of Development Review, that the proposed lot meets all
requirements of local ordinance Chapter 103, Subdivision of Land. He had also spoken to the officers of
Development Review and they felt that the request is consistent with their
zoning laws. He understands that the
Health Department will never give a letter because the requested increase in
lot size has nothing to do with the septic requirements. He would expect that if the lot were to be
moved over next to the owners’ lot, they may have a real issue with the septic.
Mr. Nielsen pointed out, if the County will not allow a 1
acre lot, then the Foundation has the right to allow whatever the county
requires up to 2 acres.
Mr. Joe Tassone, representing
Secretary Scott, Department of Planning, commented that to him, it looked like
they could move the lot over so that it includes the ditch at 1 acre and then
have the County say that the lot has to expand further in the other direction
so that there is adequate space for septic reserve.
Mr. Chris Wilson, Board member, felt that maybe the Board
can save the landowners some time by approving the request in view of the
Health Department’s problems.
Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Nielsen if,
at this point in time, the Board can take some action that would help the
landowners and for any suggestions from a legal perspective.
Mr. Nielsen felt Mr. Tassone’s
solution was very imaginative, and, if the Board wants to proceed along those
lines to help the landowner, it will be a matter of the Board’s discretion.
Mr. Conrad was concerned about the precedence the Board
would be setting by such a decision.
Mr. Kegel, landowner, commented
that he wanted to increase the size for some time, but could not do so earlier
due to one reason or another. He felt he
had spent an enormous amount of money on blue prints, going back to county,
etc. He understands Board’s situation,
but he felt
Ms. Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman,
asked Mr. Kegel if he had considered putting Lot G on
the other side of Lot H. Mr. Kegel felt he may have the problem of percing
in the suggested area.
Mr. Tassone
said that his earlier 'supposedly imaginative' solution was only to illustrate
the ridiculous thing the Board has to do to take a common sense action and not
to actually suggest that the Board make the landowners do that. He felt it makes more sense to approve the
request and recognize the fact that it is not clearly authorized in statute;
but, it is the discretion of the Board to deal with such a situation.
Mr. Nielsen clarified that the Board
does not have the discretion to do so, and the statute is clear and has to be
followed by the Board. He feels that, in terms of the General Assembly and the
law, the Foundation has to follow the statute.
Mr. Conrad commented that Ms.
Forrester had addressed this point and clarified that this could be done within
the statute if there is any land which is not in use that could be swapped.
Mr. Robertson responded that this
would not be possible.
Mr. Tassone
said the Board members know from their experience that the legislature does not
and cannot anticipate everything in this or any other program.
Mr. Nielsen agreed with Mr. Tassone
that in certain cases the Foundation has lots of discretion, but in this case,
unfortunately, the Foundation does not.
The General Assembly, in all its wisdom, leaves a lot of difficult
details to the discretion of the Foundation.
However, in this case, like the number of lots a landowner has, its size
is fixed. There are times when the
statute can be interpreted in a way that benefits everybody, but in this case
it is not possible to deviate from the statute.
Mr. Robertson commented that this is an ultimate example of
how certain rules and regulations result in undesirable outcomes. He felt if he went to the Health Department
to ask for a letter, he would be given the answer that there is no reason they
cannot put the lot on 1 acre. As Program
Administrator, he is concerned as to who will arbitrate between the landowners
in the future when the landowner of the farm allows the ditch to grow into
weeds or he allows it to become a horrendous gutter. He feels that common sense has to prevail in
certain circumstances.
Ms. Nancy Forrester, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of General Services, stated that currently the
whole property is under common ownership and thus the current owners could
record a maintenance agreement that would provide for maintenance of this area.
Hence, she did not see that would provide for maintenance of this area. Hence, she did not see it as an issue. Mr.
Robertson disagreed with that.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know if this
easement had federal money. Mr.
Robertson clarified that it does not.
Mr. Stahl commented that if the
county requires a lot size, the Foundation approves it. Regardless of the sewage disposal issue, the
Foundation will view the request from the perspective of statutory
requirements. He asked if Mr. Robertson,
as a county employee, can give a letter from the County requesting an increase
in the size of the lot to 1.573 acres for reasons other than sewage disposal
issue.
Mr. Robertson clarified that this will not be possible as
Mr. Colhoun encouraged Mr.
Robertson to try and get another letter from the County and to give the
landowners an opportunity to present the request to the Board and the attorneys
for further consideration.
Mr. Tassone suggested getting
Development Review to say that the gap is not consistent with the clustering
requirement.
Mr. Colhoun suggested that the
item can come back on the agenda, and, in the meanwhile, Mr.Nielsen
can look at the situation and work out a solution that would be comfortable to
everyone.
It was decided to defer the request to increase the size of
a previously approved child’s lot for daughter Darlene E. Kegel
to 1.573 acres.
3. 06-81-06e Kurtz, Kenneth & Elizabeth 35.25 acres
Request to exclude a 1-acre child’s lot from easement
property for their son, Kenneth E. Kurtz, Jr.
Mr. and Mrs. Kurtz are the original owners of the easement
property. The current request is for the
exclusion of a 1.0-acre child=s lot for his son, Kenneth Edward
Kurtz, Jr.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. A 1.0-acre child’s lot was approved for their
son, William, in September, 1993. The
lot has been released from the easement.
Mr. and Mrs. Kurtz do not own any other district or easement properties.
According to Carroll County, to meet County Health
Department requirements, the proposed lot could not be located in a corner of
the property because of the proximity to the well and septic area on a
contiguous residential lot. The lot will
have access via right-of-way near the western boundary of the property. The land that would be taken out of
production is cropland. The request has
been approved by the local advisory board and conforms to Carroll County Zoning
regulations.
Mr. Conrad explained the lot with the help of a tax
map. There is an orphan area which is
going to continue under easement and is not farmable. This was explained by Mr.
Bill Powel, Program Administrator, that, since there was a house in the parcel
by the road, it has septic and that the child’s lot has to have certain set
back away from the roadside parcel – this is the only way it can be located on
the property. The County is willing to
accept it and would like to encourage the Foundation to do the same. If the
request is approved, there will be a required payback of $772.41.
Staff recommends approval of the 1.0-acre child’s lot 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...”
Mr. Bill Powel, Program Administrator, was present and
informed the Board members that the request is a case where the area has been
pre-perced and he had spoken to land engineers to
understand why the lot cannot be in the corner.
It is a ½ -acre lot that was created before the current zoning
restrictions. It also met the criteria
that the existing child’s lot can’t have a septic system uphill within 200 feet
of the well and he was satisfied that they can’t do anything better than this.
Motion #3: To approve the request to exclude a 1.0 acre child’s lot
from easement property for their son Kenneth E. Kuntz, Jr.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
4. 06-86-15e Grimes-Rhodes, Linda 160.63 acres
Request to increase the size of a previously approved
child’s lot for son, Mark L. Rhodes to 2.0 acres.
Ms. Rhodes is the original owner of
this easement property. There is one
pre-existing dwelling on the property that has not been excluded. Ms. Rhodes does not own any other district or
easement properties.
On
A required payback of $1,962.40 at $981.20/acre is required
for release of this 2.0 acre lot.
Staff recommends approval of the release of 2.0 acres, based
on the provisions of the deed of easement and in accordance with Agricultural
Article, Section 2-513(b), Annotated Code of Maryland,
which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of up to 2 acres if required by
regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the county.
Motion #4: To approve the request to increase the size of a previously
approved child’s lot for son, Mark L. Rhodes, to 2.0 acres.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Chris Wilson
Status:
Approved
5. 06-01-13A Whitfield, John D. & Marty Lou 22.613 acres
Request to exclude a 1.0 acre child’s lot from district
property for their daughter, Lisa M. Rutter
Mr. and Mrs. Whitfield are the original owners of the
district property. The current request
is for the exclusion of a 1.0-acre child=s lot for their daughter, Lisa Michele Rutter.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. A 1.0-acre child’s lot was approved for their
daughter, Laurie, on
According to
Mr. Conrad pointed out that there would be no more lots
available on this property, and, if they sell the easement, they may have no
development rights to sell.
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.”
Mr. Tassone commented that when a
property is 22.613 acres, the Foundation allows one lot
exclusion per 20 acres, so the two lot exclusions will take care of
that. He wanted to know what happens
when there is an existing dwelling in addition to two children’s approved lots.
Ms. Carol Council clarified that it is not included in the
lot allocation.
Motion #5: To approve the request to exclude a 1.0 acre child’s lot
from district property for their daughter, Lisa M. Rutter.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
B.
1. 05-89-07A Eveland,
James O. & Roberta S. 95.01 acres
Request for the exclusion of up to two acres for a child’s
lot from easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Eveland are the
original grantors of the easement property.
The current request is for the exclusion of up to two acres from the
easement for the purpose of constructing a dwelling for the personal use of
their daughter, Kelly Coleman.
There are no pre-existing dwellings on the property. No other family lots have been requested on
the property. At district establishment,
a 25-acre portion was withheld, as shown in the tax map.
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
$2,100.00 per acre.
Staff recommends approva