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 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), 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. Conrad pointed out that the requested location had not
been perced.
Staff does not generally recommend approval when there is a significant
distance to get to the lot. Staff
generally prefers if the requested lot is located along the road. However, the land along the road is all
farmland, and the requested location is outside of active agriculture.
The landowners and Ms. Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator,
were present to answer any questions from the Board.
The landowner introduced himself and stated that four generations
have lived on the farm. Ms. Buckle added
that the local Advisory Board did not approve the request unanimously. However,
there were one or two contingencies.
Usually they like to have the perc test before
bringing the case to the Board, but in this case the area has not been perced. The access
to the property will be through the existing farm lane, whereas the County
requires a 34 feet right of way.
Caroline County does not allow flag lots – it has to be by right of way
or pan handle, which has to be at least 75 foot width joined to either a County
or State road. The field road actually
follows the wood line and skirts the woods.
Ms. Buckle also noted the letter from Mr. Kevin Clark,
Deputy Codes Administrator, enclosed in the agenda items, where Mr. Clark had
expressed his concerns to be addressed by
Ms. Schultz wanted to know if Mr. Eveland
had considered a lot in the area which is not under preservation. Mr. Eveland
responded that it was kept aside for his financial security.
Motion #6: To approve the request for the exclusion of up to two acres
for a child’s lot from easement property.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
2. 05-94-02A Robinson,
Request to increase the size of a
previously approved child’s lot.
Mr. and Mrs. Robinson 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 subdivision
regulations.
On
The request has been approved by the local agricultural
advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If approved, the total payback for the lot will
be $475.65 (1.057 acres at $450.00 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), Annotated Code of Maryland, which
grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of up to 2 acres if required by
regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the county.
Ms. Buckle added that the surveyor had done the land work
and when he did the deed research he found that it stated that the land was
actually owned up to the end of pavement.
Normally it would say that it is owned up to County’s right of way and
that’s the reason for the change. The
hatched area, as seen in the plat, is a very small portion that is actually the
County’s right of way up to the edge of the pavement of the road.
Motion #7: To approve the request to increase the size of a previously
approved child’s lot.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
3. 05-94-03A Possum Hill Farms, Inc. 73.24 acres
Request for agricultural subdivision of easement property
Possum Hill Farms, Inc., a family corporation, is the owner
of the easement property. The easement
was granted by Carol A. and F. Elmer Robinson.
F. Elmer Robinson is deceased.
The children of Carol and Elmer, together with Carol Robinson, make up
the membership of Possum Hill Farms, Inc.
Cindy Harris, daughter of Carol and Elmer Robinson, is a member
(secretary) of the corporation. Ms.
Harris is requesting an agricultural subdivision of 0.02 acres of easement
property to convey to a neighboring property.
Cindy and Tim Harris own a
5.073-acre parcel that adjoins the easement property. Mr. and Mrs. Harris wish to erect an
implement shed on a portion of the easement property, which they have
maintained and used as a side yard since 1983.
According to
Foundation staff communicated to Ms.
Tammy Buckle, Caroline County Program Administrator, that the Foundation does
not have the authority to remove an area from easement without receiving an
in-kind acreage exchange. The Foundation
staff also communicated this information to Ms. Harris in a recent
correspondence. However, Ms. Harris
believed that the Foundation’s regulations allow an exception for a boundary
line adjustment:
COMAR 15.15.01.17
The Foundation may permit a subdivision of less than 50
acres of easement property if:
(a) One of the following exists:
(i) It is for the purpose of straightening
a boundary
Staff consulted with Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney
General, Maryland Department of Agriculture, regarding this matter. Mr. Nielsen stated that the boundary line
adjustment exception is intended for situations where there are errors in legal
property descriptions. The Possum Hill
Farms, Inc., situation does not appear to fall into this category. Mr. Nielsen confirmed that the Foundation
does not have the authority to grant the request. He suggests that the landowners bring back to
the Foundation a new request for an equal exchange of acreage.
Ms. Buckle stated that Mr. and Mrs.
Harris cannot convey any acreage to the Foundation as the Harris property is
separated from the easement property by a deep ditch. However, the existing 0.02-acre area is also
separated from the easement property by a ditch. Therefore, provided the soils are of equal or
better quality, the Foundation could consider an acreage exchange request.
Foundation staff recommends denial
of the request as the Board does not have the authority to grant it. Additionally, staff points out that, even if
the Board had the authority to approve the request, allowing the removal of
acreage from easement, however small, would set an undesirable precedent for
the Foundation. Staff recommends that
the Board advise the landowners to consider an acreage exchange.
Mr. Colhoun wanted to have
a legal opinion before proceeding on the agenda item. Mr. Nielsen commented that the Foundation has
rules and laws passed on what the Foundation can and cannot do. The law is very clear that, once an easement
is imposed, there are very limited opportunities to convey land. It is not the size of the parcel, but
the principle which governs the Foundation in its operation. As per the law, the Foundation allows
subdivision of the farm only if there is a mistake in the boundary line or
something similar to that.
Ms. Buckle and the landowners were present to answer any
questions from the Board. Ms. Buckle
introduced the landowners and apologized to the Board that she had
misinterpreted the definition of straightening a boundary lane. She felt the request met the criteria as
mentioned in the application for Agricultural Sub-division D.2, “A request for
an agricultural subdivision of minor acreage of district or easement property
may be considered by the Foundation on a case-by-case basis for the express purpose
of straightening property boundary lines.”
Ms. Cindy Harris wanted to clarify that they are not
requesting the area be removed from the easement. They are only asking for the small portion to
be joined to their property so that they can keep it under easement and use it
as an equipment storage area for the agricultural use they have on their own
property. She further added that the
request is for a very tiny piece of property surrounded on three sides by ditches. The property has been used by Tim and Cindy
Harris as a side yard since 1983. The
property in question is too small for farm equipment and is cut off from Possum
Hill Farms by ditches. The property has
large ditches on two sides, and road frontage with a shallow ditch and the
property of Tom and Cindy Harris. The
access lane to the Harris property is the only access to the parcel.
Ms. Harris also explained to the Board that she and her
husband have an agricultural business of their own along with Possum Hill
Farms. They are in the business of
raising horses. They felt that the
requested area is a bit of property that they could use better for their
agricultural business, keeping it in easement.
She felt that it was a worthless piece of property as far as Possum Hill
Farms was concerned. In addition she
also felt that COMAR did not give a clear definition of the purpose of
straightening the boundary. She was
asked if they can swap some land to facilitate the request. She stated that she considered it impossible
as they had no land which could be swapped.
Mr. Nielsen felt that this is not a case of boundary line
adjustment. This is a small subdivision
of the farm. The regulation rules out
such a case – it includes it only if there is litigation, a dispute between
landowners, or if there is a genuine mistake in the description of the boundary
line.
Mr. Douglas Wilson felt the original easement should not
have included this area as it was not accessible and should have been excluded.
Mr. Colhoun
suggested the landowners consider a land swap as it satisfies the Attorney
General’s Office and can be considered a possible solution. Ms. Harris did not
want to incur the cost of legal fees, survey fees etc. for what she considered
a worthless piece of property.
Mr. Nielsen reiterated that their request
as made does not meet the Foundation’s legal restrictions. It is not a boundary
line adjustment, but is a subdivision of an easement property.
Ms. Harris felt they are being penalized
for the piece of property which is of no use to Possum Hills. Mr. Conrad clarified to Ms. Harris that the
costs are needed to complete such a request and being responsible for such
costs is not a penalty. Mr. Conrad also
wanted to know whether Ms. Harris would like to have full ownership? The one way they can do so is by swapping
land. If ownership is not the question
and if the question is really of use, then they can have an easement so that
they can have control over the parcel, even though it remains under the ownership
of the larger farm operation. The right
to use would stay with Ms. Harris.
Mr. Wilson concluded by saying that the
choices are that Ms. Harris swaps the land and incurs the costs, or she can put
an overlay easement on the parcel addressing her right to use the parcel.
Ms. Harris wanted to know if with an
easement they can build farm structures.
The Board members responded in the affirmative. Ms. Harris also wanted to know if they can
have the easement to use forever. Mr.
Nielsen clarified that it is up to her and the owner, as long as it is
restricted to farming use.
Mr. Colhoun
urged Ms. Harris to use this opportunity to think and come back with a solution
or proposals for discussion before the next Board meeting. Ms. Forrester also suggested that, if Ms.
Harris has a draft easement, she can send it before coming to the Board as it
gives the Foundation staff and attorneys some time to look at the document and
confirm that it meets their requirements.
Motion #8: To withdraw the request and come back at a later time.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
C. QUEEN
ANNE’S COUNTY
1. 17-95-04 Leager,
Robert W., Jr. & Gloria M. 103.60
acres
Request for an agricultural subdivision of easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Leager are the
original grantors of the easement property.
The current request is for an agricultural subdivision of the farm.
According to Queen Anne’s County, the proposed subdivision
will create a 51.6-acre parcel and a 52-acre parcel. The Leagers will
retain the 52-acre parcel. They intend
to convey the 51.6-acre parcel to their grandson, Thomas Leager. The proposed subdivision line runs along a
hedgerow.
The portion proposed to be subdivided contains 60%
qualifying soils. The remaining portion
contains 85% qualifying soils.
Mr. Thomas Leager, intends to start a chicken house operation on the
farm. The parcel currently contains a
combination of cropland and woodland.
(The sliver of land on the eastern side of the property to be conveyed
contains woodland. The intent is to
convey all the woodland to the grandson.)
The Leagers will continue to till the
remaining portion of the farm, which is predominantly cropland. The Leagers own and
farm a larger crop operation.
The request was approved by the local advisory board. The request conforms to local zoning
regulations.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the request based on
meeting minimum soils and size criteria.
Furthermore, both parcels will be used to support viable farming
operations.
Ms. Rad Sakhmuri,
Program Administrator, and Mr. and Mrs. Leager were
available at the Board meeting. Ms. Sakhamuri informed the Board members that the intent of
this subdivision is to put a chicken house operation on the farm. They are including the woodland on the north
east of the property and some farm land on the
Mr. Douglas Wilson clarified to the grandson that, as a
subsequent owner of the easement property, he is not entitled to lot
rights. Ms. Schultz wanted to know if
there is a house on the farm. Ms. Sakhamuri confirmed that there are only farm buildings.
Board members confirmed with Mrs. Leager
that they have no intention to have a residence or a tenant house and that the
chicken houses will be separate, independent, and self sustainable operations.
Motion #9: To approve the request for an agricultural subdivision on an
easement property.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
2. 17-81-03 Schmidt, Nancy R. 600
acres
Request for a partial termination of district property
Ms. Schmidt is the original owner of the district
property. The current request is for a
partial termination of district property.
Ms. Schmidt is requesting a partial termination of a 10-acre
area of the district. The area is wooded
and is separated from the main farm by a road.
Ms. Schmidt intends to sell the 10-acre parcel at some point in the
future. According to Queen Anne’s County,
current zoning allows a maximum of two lots on the 10-acre parcel.
The request was approved by the local advisory board and
conforms to local zoning regulations.
Staff recommends approval.
The request falls within one of the allowable reasons for partial
termination of land from districts under the Foundation’s partial termination
policy. Specifically, the land requested
to be terminated from the district will allow less than three lots (the maximum
allowed under the partial termination policy).
The district continues to meet the minimum size and soils criteria. The Foundation’s partial district termination
policy and minutes approving the policy with amendments were attached with the
agenda item.
Ms. Rad Sakhamuri
was present at the meeting and confirmed that the property has been district
since 1982.
Motion #10: To approve the request for a partial termination of district
property.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
D.
1. 03-88-03A Lentz, Ken 79.921 acres
Request for the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling
Mr. Lentz is a subsequent owner of the easement
property. The current request is to
relocate an existing dwelling on the property.
The farm is currently leased as a grain operation. According to
At the Foundation’s
The proposed relocated lot will be accessed through an
existing farm lane. The request was
approved by the local advisory board and complies with local zoning
regulations.
Foundation staff recommends approval based on the condition
that the existing dwelling will be demolished and the area where the current
dwelling exists will be returned to agriculture once the new dwelling is
constructed.
Foundation staff further recommends that the Board rescind a
prior approval of an acreage exchange.
On
To approve the request of Ken and Carol Lentz to exchange
1.0 acre of land this is not under the easement for a 1.0 buildable
lot, contingent upon the pre-existing dwelling being designated as a tenant house,
forfeiture of the right to exclude the 1.0 acre surrounding the pre-existing
dwelling, the successful purchase of the adjoining 14.0 acre parcel, transfer
of the development right from the 14.0 acre parcel to the 1.0 acre build able
lot, and the donation of the 14.0 acre lot to the Baltimore County Agricultural
Land Preservation Program.
Subsequent to the Board’s approval, Mr. and Mrs. Lentz, in
consultation with their attorney, found that the conditions of the approval
would be too financially burdensome and decided not to move forward with the
acreage swap. As part of the original
request for the April, 2003, Board meeting, Mr. Lentz had requested the
rescinding of the January, 1997, approval.
However, it is unclear from the minutes (April, 2003) if the Board
rescinded the January, 1997, approval.
Mr. Wally Lippincott, Program
Administrator, was available to answer any questions from the Board. Mr. Conrad wanted to know if the existing
house is a federal historic structure.
Mr. Lippincott clarified that it is not
designated historic. After retirement,
Mr. Lentz plans to move out to the farm and wants to start a
community-supported agriculture operation.
Ms. Schultz pointed out that currently the request is for
the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling, but many times it happens that the
lot becomes center of the property regardless of whether it is along the wood
line, etc. To avoid this, she suggested
the Board can make a conditional approval that the lot will never be
subdivided. Mr. Lippincott
believed that Mr. Lentz would agree to that.
Motion #11: To approve the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling subject
to the condition that the lot will not be subdivided.
Motion: Vera Mae Schultz Second: Patricia Langenfelder
Status: Approved
Ms. Judith Lynch, Board member suggested the Board can add
“existing dwelling be demolished."
Amended Motion #11: To approve the relocation of a pre-existing
dwelling subject to the condition that the lot will not be subdivided and the existing dwelling be demolished
and returned to agriculture.
2. 03-80-04A Elligson,
Charles 98.80
acres
Request for acreage exchange of easement property
Mr. Elligson is the original
grantor of the easement. The current
request is for an acreage exchange of easement property for non-easement
property.
According to
The area to be added to the easement is woodland. A soils comparison was not provided with the
request. Mr. Wally Lippincott,
present at the Board meeting confirmed that the soils are the same.
Foundation staff has requested a review from the Department
of General Services (DGS) of the impact of the proposed exchange on the value
of the easement, which was not yet ready.
The request was approved by the local agricultural advisory
board and conforms to local zoning regulations.
Foundation staff recommends approval contingent upon 1) a
favorable review by DGS of the impact on the easement value; and 2) the
productive quality of the soils of the area to be added to the easement is
equal to or better than that of the soils of the area to be removed from the
easement.
Mr. Lippincott briefed the Board
members that the property owner and his family had put the adjacent land under
easement and he lives adjacent to this property. The landowner was also present
at the meeting and noted that there is nothing to be gained by the move except
swapping the land to retain the barn.
Mr. Douglas Wilson clarified to Mr. Elligson
that the property he is removing from the easement has barns and the area he is
adding to an easement is open woodland. Ms. Schultz confirmed that the proposed
property is contiguous to the easement property.
Motion #12: To approve the request for acreage exchange of easement
property.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Douglas Wilson
Status: Approved
E.
1. 12-79-02A Heston,
Richard and Barbara 242.00
acres
Request for a partial termination of a district
Mr. and Mrs. Heston are the
original owners of the district property.
The current request is for a partial termination of district property.
On
The request was approved by the local advisory board and
conforms to local zoning regulations.
In the written agenda memo, staff
recommended approval. The request falls within one of the allowable reasons for
partial termination of land from districts under the Foundation’s partial
termination policy. Specifically, the
landowner is requesting the exclusion of an existing residential structure that
cannot be further subdivided. The district continues to meet the minimum size
and soils criteria. The Foundation’s
partial district termination policy and minutes approving the policy with
amendments were attached.
Mr. Bill Amoss,
Progam Administrator, was present to answer any
questions from the Board. Mr. Conrad
pointed out that though in the agenda memo, staff recommended approval, they now have some comments to make on the
item. The Foundation had approved the
tenant house in 1990 conditional that it will not be subdivided and sold
separately from the property. The
Foundation staff had long discussion as they were concerned about the legal
issues. Mr. Conrad felt if this request
is approved, it will be clear that the landowners will be entitled to only one
more tenant house. If the owners decided
to sell the easement, then they will be losing one development right. The owners can terminate the entire property
and put it back in the Program. It will
only involve some paperwork, and no costs will be involved.
Thus, to avoid the precedent of
having a subdivided tenant house, the Foundation staff would recommend the Hestons terminate the entire property and then come in as a
new district. The property can also be re-evaluated on the basis of parcel
coming back as a district.
Mr. Amoss
informed the Board members that the farm has a number of easements around it,
including one in
Ms. Forrester informed the Board members that when we
approve a subdivision of tenant house in the district, there are some grey
areas.
Mr. Douglas Wilson pointed out that while he understands the
problems of a sub-dividable tenant house, if the Foundation minutes reflect
that the reason the Board approved this transaction was because the landowner
could just as easily terminate the district, re-establish the district and come
back with 2-acre area removed, the Board in the interest of all concerned can
allow the action, because it preserves the rest of the district. He wanted to know if this action would
violate a statutory requirement.
Ms. Forrester clarified that it does not, but wanted to
caution the Board that the landowners can terminate the 242-acre district,
return as 240-acre district, and then apply for a tenant house. To avoid that she suggested
making a conditional motion.
Motion #13: To accept the 2-acre partial termination with the tenant
house, understanding that it is being done on the basis that the landowner
would have the ability to do this in a variety of other administrative
steps. However, this approval is
conditional upon the owners recognizing that they would only be entitled to one
additional tenant house in future applications.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Amoss if the landowners would agree to the above
motion. The Board is helping the
landowners and would encourage them to apply for the easement. Mr.Amoss believed
that the landowners would agree to the motion.
F.
1. 10-90-08 Stambaugh,
J. Franklin & Marie 120.60
acres
Request to exclude a child’s lot from easement property for
their son, Richard
Mr. and Mrs. Stambaugh are the
original grantors of the easement. The
current request is for the exclusion of a child’s lot for the personal use of
their son, Richard.
There are two pre-existing dwellings on the property. A child’s lot was approved for Richard’s
brother Wayne in March, 2003.
According to
The landowners are requesting the approval of a lot size of
no more than one acre. Richard Stambaugh intends to use the existing gravel driveway that
services the farmstead for access to his proposed child’s lot. This scenario would require only a one-acre
lot. However, the County requires an
in-fee panhandle driveway to meet the County’s subdivision regulations. The inclusion of the panhandle driveway will
increase the lot size to 1.32 acres.
(The County does not require the creation of a new driveway, merely the
ability to create one if necessary in the future.) The
Following the advice of the
If this request is approved, there will be a required
payback of the per acre amount of $1,200.00 that the Stambaughs
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), 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.
* State
statute grants the Foundation the authority to allow the exclusion of up to two
acres to meet local or State regulations.
Under current statute, a lot size of up to two acres may be approved
when:
1. Regulations adopted by the
Department of the Environment require a minimum lot size for a dwelling house
of not less than 2 acres in areas where there is less than 4 feet of
unsaturated and unconsolidated soil material below the bottom of an on-site
sewage disposal system or in areas located within 2,500 feet of the normal
water level of an existing or proposed water supply reservoir; or
2. Regulations adopted by the
jurisdiction in which the land is situated require that a lot for a dwelling
house be larger than 1 acre.
(§ 2-513 Agricultural Article,
Section 2-513(b)(6)(i), Annotated
Code of
Ms. Sonja Ingram from
Ms. Ingram informed the Board members that originally the Stambaughs requested the lot for 1 acre. This would have meant that they had to apply
for variance to meet the County regulations for the panhandle. After discussions with the local Ag Board,
the Stambaughs decided to change their request to 2
acres. Ms. Ingram explained the location
of the proposed child’s lot.
Mr. Tassone suggested that the
Board approve the request and consider including the language that would ensure
that whoever owns the farm can cross the driveway in the future.
Motion #14: To approve the request to exclude a child’s lot from easement
property conditional upon the landowner creating an easement over the access to
the excluded property.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
2. 10-98-05 Stup,
Howard J. & Texanna B. 139.90 acres
Request for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for a child’s lot
on easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Stup are the original
grantors of the easement. The current
request is for the release of up to two acres for a child’s lot for the
personal use of their daughter, Kimberly.
A child’s lot was approved on this property for Kimberly’s
brother, Gregory Stup, on
According to
The request was approved by the local advisory board. The
request conforms to local zoning regulations.
If approved, there will be a required
payback of $1,900.00 per acre to the Foundation. The exact payback amount will be determined when
the Foundation receives a letter from the Health Department stating how much
acreage is required.
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), 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 #15: To approve the request for a child’s lot on easement property.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Patrica Langenfelder
Status: Approved
G.
1. 02-81-04Ae Tucker, Charles R. & Miriam D. 40.056 acres
Request to increase the size of a previously approved
child’s lot for son, Matthew
Mr. and Mrs. Tucker 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 Health
Department regulations from 1.0 acre to 1.25 acre.
On
The request has been approved by the local agricultural
advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If approved, the total payback for the lot
will be $2,560.43 (1.25 acres at $2,048.34 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), Annotated Code of Maryland, which
grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of up to 2 acres if required by
regulations adopted by the Department of the environment or the county.
Ms. Barbara Polito, Program
Administrator, and Mr. and Mrs. Tucker were available at the Board meeting.
Motion #16: To approve the request to increase the size of a previously approved
child’s lot.
Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
H.
1. 22-90-11
Request for the exclusion of two acres for a child’s lot
from easement property
Mr. Davis is one of the original grantors of the
easement. The current request is for the
exclusion of two acres from the easement for the purpose of constructing a
dwelling for the personal use of his son, Erik.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. No other family lots have been requested on
the property. At district establishment,
a 1.35-acre portion was withheld.
According to
A minimum lot size of two acres is required to meet Health
Department regulations. 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 $1,182.64 (2 acres at $ 591.32 per
acre).
During the research for this request, it was discovered that
there was an illegal subdivision of the easement property. When the property entered the Program, it
comprised of three parcels, a 10.52-acre parcel, a 37.41-acre parcel and a
55.9-acre parcel. Stephen Davis owned
the 10.52-acre parcel. The remaining
parcels were owned by his parents, Maurice and Joan Davis. Upon the death of his father, Stephen Davis
inherited the 37.41-acre parcel. Joan Davis inherited her husband’s share of
the 55.9-acre parcel. Shortly after the
death of her husband Joan Davis sold the 55.9-acre parcel. The 55.9-acre parcel
is now owned by David and Kelley Quelland. (SDAT records indicate the property
transferred
“The land subject to this Deed of Easement may not be
subdivided for any purpose unless written approval first has been obtained from
the Grantee.”
According to
The original staff recommendation was for conditional
approval of the release of two 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 approval
should be conditional upon the satisfactory resolution of the illegal
subdivision of the easement.
Mr. Conrad added that the Foundation staff now recommends
non-conditional approval for the exclusion of two acres for a child’s lot as
they feel Mr. Davis, as the original grantor, can request this. He has sufficient acreage, and the illegal
subdivision was not of his doing.
The Foundation suggested settling the question of illegal
subdivision separately as it needed to be discussed with the attorneys. Mr. Conrad felt it is an interesting
situation that both the district and the easement were done incorrectly. This property is made up of multiple parcels
and at the time of district establishment and sale of easement the parcels
remained separately deeded and under different ownership, which should not have
been done. To some extent, he felt that
the Foundation has a degree of responsibility for this situation. Hence, he recommended that the Board handles
the easement violation separately.
Mr. Colhoun expressed his
disappointment that no one was present to answer any questions from the Board.
Ms. Elizabeth Weaver, Foundation staff, stated that the
landowner need not go separately to the County, if they are separate
parcels. The County did not know that
this is one of the issues with properties coming in as separately described
parcels. There is no mechanism for the
County to actually stop this.
Ms. Weaver added that when the property was initially set up
as a district and an easement, it should not have been done because it is not
possible to have separately owned properties with different ownership
structures. Mr. Davis became the joint
grantor of the easement of 103.91 acres even though he actually owned only
10.52 acre. Hence Mr. Davis has the right to request a child’s lot.
Mr. Douglas Wilson commented that, since Mr. Davis is the
child, he is entitled to a child’s lot, but he is not entitled to an owner’s
lot. The Foundation deals with the
request as from a 'family’ and not on the basis of their ownership structures
unless the family declares who gets what.
Therefore, Mr. Davis is entitled to have a lot as a child’s lot for
himself, not his child.
Ms. Weaver clarified that actually Mr. Davis gets a child’s
lot for his child, not for himself. Mr.
Davis as a grantor can request a child’s lot for his son, Erik.
Mr. Wilson pointed out that before the Board approves a child’s
lot for Erik, the Board has to ensure that Mr. Stephen Davis did not get a
child’s lot. Mr. Wilson added that, in
this case, the Board has to determine whether or not Erik is entitled to a lot
or not. The only way Erik as a grandson
is entitled to a lot is when Stephen Davis declines the owner’s lot. He can
choose not to take it. That’s the only
way Erik can get a child’s lot.
Ms. Council, Foundation staff, clarified that in this case,
the grandfather is deceased and his wife has given up her portion of
ownership. So, only Stephen Davis is
available to request an owner’s lot.
Board members also discussed the probable location of the
lot, because it was not very clear from the tax map and the aerial map.
Motion #17: To approve the request for a child’s lot for Eric conditional
that staff makes a final determination that Stephen R. Davis is classified as
the owner of the easement and this is a child’s lot.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT
PETITIONS
Mr. Conrad presented the district petitions.
A.
1.
This is a 22-acre parcel located southeast of
Mr. Charles Rice, Program Administrator, was
present and shared with the Board members that the owners intend to enroll in
the County’s local TDR program and not apply to the Foundation for an
easement. He also clarified that the tax
map is wrong and the correct parcel number is 260.
Mr. Tassone understands the County’s strategy of enrolling a
property into a district and then selling its TDRs is
being done on a parcel by parcel basis; he wanted to have a broader picture on
the implications as it is not consistent with the past practice of the Program
to bring in full farms not parcels of a larger farming operations. Thus, he felt it would be good to encourage
landowners to take steps that would help in the preservation of land.
Mr. Colhoun wanted to know if the Foundation is really
accommodating
Mr. Stahl also
mentioned that they had discussed in the County if it is really necessary for
the farm to be in the district to be able to sell TDRs. There is no other reason than the district
having certain criteria which need to be fulfilled. The other reason is due to certain tax
benefits for districts in
Mr. Tassone remarked that, since this is a step for
preservation of all the parcels, he would suggest that the Board approves the
request with an understanding that, if
the properties come up for easement sale, the Board considers them as
one farm unless it is agriculturally subdivided or is otherwise justified to
come in as separate districts.
Ms. Council clarified
that the reason these are not considered as one is because the ownership is not
the same. It is the same family but with
mixed ownership.
Motion #18: To approve the requests of Brian G. Klaas to establish agricultural land preservation district
on his property.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Opposed: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
2.
This is a 19-acre parcel
located southeast of
Staff recommends
approval.
Motion #19: To approve the requests of Brian G. Klaas and Erin J. Klaas to
establish agricultural land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Chris Wilson
Opposed: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
Mr. Conrad reminded the Board that the Foundation is delaying
the Queen Anne’s recertification presentation until next month.
Motion #20: To adjourn regular session and go to
executive session.
Motion: Douglas Wilson Second: Patricia Langenfelder
Status: Approved
The regular
session Board meeting was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully
Submitted:
_____________________________________
Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary
_____________________________________
James A. Conrad,
Executive Director