MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun,
Chairman
Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman
Howard S. Freedlander, representing Treasurer Kopp
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
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Dr. James Pelura
Shirley W. Pilchard
Douglas Wilson, representing
Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tammy Buckle,
John Coleman, Landowner,
James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive
Director
Rama Dilip,
MALPF Secretary
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of General Services
Dave Kelleher, DGS Appraiser
Carla Martin,
Craig Nielsen, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of Agriculture
Barbara Polito,
Bill Powel,
Charles Rice,
Radhika Sakhamuri,
Queen Anne’s County, Program Administrator
Eric Shertz,
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF
Administrative Officer
Susan Wilson, Landowner,
Daniel Colhoun, Chairman,
called the meeting to order at approximately
Due to bad weather the informational session could
not commence at its scheduled time at
The Chair welcomed the new Board member, Mr. Howard
S. Freedlander, Deputy Treasurer for External Affairs
from the State Treasurer’s Office. Mr. Freedlander is also the liaison to the Board of Public
Works. Mr. Colhoun
stated his belief that Mr.Freedlander’s experience
with the Board of Public Works would help the MALPF Board.
Mr. Colhoun asked for a
motion in appreciation of Mr. Lewis Logan’s long service and dedication to the
MALPF Board. Mr. James Conrad, Executive
Director of the Foundation, shared with the Board members that the Foundation
is planning to invite Mr. Logan for the Christmas lunch in December to honor
his valuable service to the MALPF Board.
Motion #1: To appreciate Mr. Lewis Logan’s long service and dedication
to the Board.
Motion: Jerry Klasmeier Second: Patricia Langenfelder
Status: Approved
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES/ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS
A.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
Board members approved the suggested correction in the
motion.
Motion #2: 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: Vera Mae Schultz Second: Patricia Langenfelder
Status: Approved
B.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES OF
Motion #3: To approve the minutes of
Motion: Patricia Langenfelder Second: Vera
Mae Schultz
Status: Approved
C. ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS
There were a few amendments of
agenda items as follows:
IV. PROGRAM POLICY
C. Process
for Non-Subdividable Pre-existing Dwellings
(Withdrawn)
The presentation on Districts by Mr.
Bill Powel will be shifted from
II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
The amendment request was presented
by Mr. Conrad.
A.
1. 05-95-05 GLIME, Ronald and Joy 389.31
acres
Request for an owner’s lot of up to 2 acres from easement
property
Mr. and Mrs. Glime are the
original grantors of the easement property.
The current request is for the exclusion of up to two acres for an
owner’s lot for the personal use of the owners.
There are two pre-existing dwellings on the property. This is the first lot request for this
property. The Glimes
do not own any additional district or easement properties.
According to
The request was approved by the local advisory board and
conforms to local zoning regulations.
If the request is approved, there will be a required payback
to the Foundation of $430.00, which is the per acre amount the Foundation paid
for this easement. If more than one acre
is required to meet Health Department regulations, a letter from the Health
Department must be presented to the Foundation at the time of Preliminary
Release of the lot.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus
such minimum additional acreage as required by the County Health Department,
not to exceed 2.0 acres total, based on the provisions of the deed of easement
and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b)(3),
Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of
up to 2 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the
Environment or the county. The County
had provided aerial map and property map indicating the proposed location of
the lot.
Ms. Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator briefed the Board
members that the only reason that the proposed lot will be a sub dividable
owner’s lot is because the County requires it.
The property is located as described in the deed as two separate lots,
and there is already a pre-existing house on one block.
Ms. Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department
of General Services, wanted to know who is living in the two pre-existing
dwellings. Ms. Buckle clarified that one
is being occupied by the owner’s daughter, but she was not sure of the second
dwelling.
One pre-existing dwelling was down by the road on the south
side of the property, and the other dwelling was half way down on the access
road, towards the east of the property.
Motion # 4: To approve the request for an owner’s lot of up to 2 acres
from easement property.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
III. AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
Mr. Conrad presented the district petition.
A.
1.
This is a 52.65 acre parcel located north of
Mr. Charles Rice, Program Administrator, was
present to respond to questions.
Motion # 5: To approve the request of Joyce
Virginia Tipton to establish an agricultural land preservation district on his
property.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Jerry
Klasmeier
Status: Approved
IV. PROGRAM POLICY
A. Water
Recharge Easement Overlays – an update by Patricia Langenfelder
The Water Recharge Easement Committee presented its report to
the Board of Trustees during the October 4 workshop.
During the workshop, two issues were raised. First, attendees asked if the issue of future
climate change was addressed by the committee.
Second, attendees questioned the committee’s assertion that allowing
water recharge easements (WREs) as overlays on MALPF
easement property would result in a reduction of sprawl.
The committee discussed the issue of climate change during
its meetings prior to the workshop.
During the discussions, the committee members came to consensus that
they lacked the expertise necessary to make decisions on such a complicated and
specialized issue. The committee
believed that the issue would best be addressed by the recommended “follow-up
committee,” which would be comprised of individuals with expertise in areas
related to water and agriculture, including a hydro-geologist, representatives
from NRCS, MDE and Cooperative Extension.
Additionally, included in the committee report’s list of suggested
sources to assist in drafting guidelines was a water demand forecast report,
conducted by entities such as the US Department of the Interior, and the USDA.
Joe Tassone, representing
Secretary Scott, Department of Planning, questioned whether allowing water
recharge easements would have the effect of reducing sprawl. On this front, the committee is trying to get
some inputs from individual counties – Carroll, Frederick, and Harford.
These counties are located in the Piedmont region, which is
the area affected by the WRE issue. Ralph
Robertson,
Mr. Tassone wanted to clarify
about the question he has raised whether allowing water recharge easements
would have the effect of reducing sprawl.
He felt that that the idea that they 'automatically will’ is bogus. He felt that there is no 'automatically
will,’ but 'they might.' Ms. Langenfelder agreed with his comment that water recharge
easements on their own would affect the sprawl unless the counties themselves
are able to do something on that front.
Mr. Robert Stahl, Board member, commented that the concept
of water recharge does fit into Smart Growth.
Mr. Colhoun stated that one of the
things he wanted to know from the committee is how much water is adequate to be
dedicated in the long run to support agriculture. The Board’s first aim is to support
agriculture. Ms. Langenfelder
confirmed that the committee will do research on this issue as well.
II. DISTRICT / EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
B.
1.
Request for approval of operation of a farm business
Mr. Conrad apologized that the Board did not have the cover
memo from the Staff. Ms. Carol Council,
Foundation staff, was sick and was not available in Office for the last two
days. The Foundation was not aware that
Mr. Coleman would be present for the meeting.
However, since Mr. Coleman and Mr. Eric Shertz,
Cecil County Program Administrator, are available at the Board meeting, the
Foundation decided to include the item.
Mr. Conrad also felt that this item will also provide an example of
certain limitations of the Program, followed by Mr. Powel’s presentation.
Mr. Shertz briefed the Board
members that Mr. Coleman has two districts that have pending easement
offers. Mr. Coleman would like to use
both the properties for Christmas tree farms, pumpkins, corn maize, school tours etc., which are allowable activities on MALPF
easements.
Mr. Coleman had questions regarding the allowable uses of
parking areas, allowing products being sold on site, Christmas tree sales,
Halloween decorations, etc. Mr. Coleman
wanted to meet the Board to know its ideas and to make sure that there is no conflict
of interest before signing the easement offers.
Mr. Colhoun commented that he had
received the agenda material, but the rest of the Board members have not had a
chance to look at the relevant agenda material.
There has been a misunderstanding concerning whether the item would be
included on the agenda. Since Mr.
Coleman is already present in the meeting, the Board will work with him. But, it is generally the Board’s policy to
allow ample time to Board members to review the relevant material on an agenda
item ahead of the actual decision. Mr. Colhoun briefed Mr. Coleman that the Board may ask
questions or require more time to take an action. He also added that the Board is well aware of
the problem presented, and the Foundation had scheduled a presentation by
Mr. Coleman briefed the Board members about his operations,
including farm sales, Christmas items, school tours, food items like the sale
of hot chocolate, etc. He wanted to keep
a farm image for his retail business. He
needs more parking space to keep up with the
increasing number of people coming to the farm.
He wanted to make sure that his proposed business is not against any
regulation or law.
Mr. Conrad stated that the problem in such operations is to
find what are acceptable uses and what are not
acceptable under an easement. Ninety
percent of what Mr. Coleman is asking for is permissible under the current MALPF
Program. The critical issue is sale of
non-agricultural items and agricultural items produced off-site. The issue of bringing unrelated parties to
provide catering services on the farm also raises some issues as to whether
such an activity is allowable under an easement or not.
Mr. Conrad also informed the Board that these offers have
federal money as part of the allocation, and the federal money has requirements
as to how much impermeable surface is allowable under an easement
property. If the easement has federal
money, there is a maximum of 3% of the area as impermeable surface. It is not just the impact of impermeable
surfaces required by these activities, but it would also include any other
barns, agricultural structures, or residences on the property. Even if the parking proposed by Mr. Coleman
would be allowed, it may have to be permeable under federal requirements to
meet the terms of federal funding.
Mr. Colhoun suggested a solution
to work out a way of excluding the acreage where the activities are
proposed. The problem is that it was not
excluded before the district was created, and the easement necessarily under
statutory requirements mirrors the district.
He wanted to know if the district can be modified to exclude this area
and Mr. Coleman could reapply for an easement excluding this area.
Mr. Coleman wanted to know if there is
a percentage of sales that can be from off-site production. Mr. Conrad clarified that currently 75% of
the material sold must be produced on site.
This includes only agricultural goods and not non-agricultural goods
like sale of T-Shirts, catered food, ornamental items, which are not allowed.
The logical recommendation is exactly as Mr. Colhoun suggested:
excluding five acres and not bringing the excluded acreage under
easement. This would completely resolve
the issue. The problem is that it is not
a very old district – it came in as a district very recently and, thus, there
cannot be any partial termination. If
Mr. Coleman had completed 5 years of his district, he could partially terminate
a 5-acre parcel. In lieu of that, the
Department of General Services can look at the impact on appraisal values. The Foundation can then decide to move ahead
or have the appraisal done. If Mr.
Coleman wants to go through that process, he has to withdraw his application
and reject one of the two offers (which has the 5-acre
area), wait 3 – 4 years to do this partial termination, and then re-apply.
Mr. Colhoun wanted to know the
opinion of the Assistant Attorneys-General.
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Agriculture, clarified that the statute says that one has to stay
in the district for 5 years. Ms.
Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services, shared
with the Board members that they had a similar issue about three months ago,
but they could not terminate the district before it completed its 5 year
commitment. The district can be
terminated before it completes its 5 year term only in the case of economic
hardship.
Mr. Nielsen also clarified that commercial
non-agricultural activities are prohibited by law. The Foundation has a state-wide program
covering almost two thousand easements and has to be consistent. The Program must deal with everyone fairly,
and the Program’s emphasis is on open agricultural space.
Mr. Chris Wilson, Board member felt that it is
actually a question of timing. Mr. Colhoun commented that if the Foundation is able to adapt a
policy that can either alter the district process or can expand the use policy,
Mr. Coleman can come back to the Board to accomplish what he wants in less than
5 years.
Mr. Conrad clarified to Mr. Coleman that if he
chose to reject one or both offers, he has the choice to re-apply in July
2006. The application date will be in
late winter or early spring of 2007.
This is assuming the Foundation is able to resolve the usage issue, and
Mr. Coleman does not need to wait for 5 years to partially terminate the
district.
Mr. Colhoun asked if
Mr. Coleman, if he had understood this prior to his district application, would he have considered excluding the area at that
time? Mr. Coleman said that this issue
and its possible resolution were not brought up at that time and probably he
would have either excluded the area or not proceeded with the easement. Mr. Coleman commented that he did not have
sufficient information at the time of his application.
Mr. Wilson commented that the Board is facing similar
problems in the area of wineries, horse farms, etc., and considerable efforts
are being made so that such activities can take place within clear Foundation
guidelines.
Board members discussed the way agriculture and the policies
have evolved over the time.
Ms. Elizabeth Weaver, Foundation staff commented that if the
easement went forward, prior to actual settlement, the decision would have to
be arrived one way or the other.
Mr. Conrad asked Ms. Forrester if it is possible for Mr.
Coleman to accept both the easements by signing an option contract and moving
forward on it. In the meanwhile, if the
Foundation is able to develop the use policy, Mr. Coleman can go ahead with
settlement on the property. In case the
usage issue is not resolved, Mr. Coleman can chose at
that point to reject the offer before settlement.
Ms. Forrester agreed and also commented that Mr. Coleman has
the option to ultimately reject going into settlement. Ms. Forrester has had a handful of people
proceeding to the settlement, but at the last minute not going through to
settlement. This is acceptable and will
also keep Mr. Coleman in this easement acquisition cycle.
As part of the procedure, Ms. Forrester sends the contracts
to Board of Public Works for approval.
Her next scheduled date is
Mr. Jerry Klasmeier, representing
Comptroller Schaefer, asked Mr. Coleman to clarify the role of the
organizations such as the Lions Club, Rotary Club, churches and fire companies play on the farm.
Mr. Coleman clarified that they sell cookies, hot chocolate, etc. Mr. Coleman allows them to do so and lets
them get the benefit for their non-profit organizations. Mr. Coleman wanted to know if the operation
is not acceptable even if he does not take money from the organizations. Mr. Conrad responded in affirmative.
Mr. Nielsen also encouraged Mr. Coleman to go through the
copy of sample deed of easement. He felt
it was important to read every word about it.
Mr. Colhoun encouraged Mr. Coleman to think
and weigh the various options and let the Board know by the next meeting. Mr. Coleman has the option of signing the
contracts and can still pull out of the contract before the final settlement. The sale of items produced off site and
allowing organizations like Lions Club, Rotary Club, etc., to sell retail items
on the property is an issue. Parking is
not an issue unless it is impermeable and affects the federal component of the
funding.
Mr. Colhoun concluded by saying
that there is a possibility of the Board being able to amend the district
situation, but the earliest that could be implemented will be around October
2007. Mr. Colhoun
encouraged Mr. Coleman to work with the Foundation staff so that more details
can be worked out.
INFORMATIONAL SESSION: A PRESENTATION ON DISTRICTS BY MR. BILL
POWEL, CONSULTANT, CARROLL COUNTY
Mr. Powel
gave a history of the situation 6 – 8 years back when the legislative set up
the first task force for the MALPF Program.
Mr. Powel was one of the county program administrators and participated
in most of the task force meetings. He
remembered in the last meeting, one of the participants, Mr. Ed Thompson, made
a dramatic statement as to whether the State program should require a district
at all. Mr. Thompson was the counsel for
the American Farm Land Trust and was very well versed in agricultural
preservation programs. For a long time,
he had been the Advisory Board Chairman of Montgomery County Program. The task
force at its last meeting was not ready to take up an issue as significant as
eliminating districts; so, there was no action taken at that time, and the
issue was left for the next task force to consider.
The next
task force was under the direction and staffed by the Maryland Department of
Planning. Mr. Powel raised this issue,
but no consensus was reached by the task force on this issue and it was
dropped. Mr. Powel felt at this point of
time, the issue had great importance, especially in
Mr. Stahl, wanted to know if the easement document of the
Functions and
Benefits
1.
Counties
are required to provide a “right-to-farm” ordinance for Districts.
2.
District
approval is a public process.
3.
District
approval forces county and state administrators to document properties prior to
easement sale.
Mr. Powel had discussed
this issue with Mr. Bill Beach and Mr. Dave Kelleher of DGS. The district process forces the counties and MALPF to do a certain
amount of documentation of the property.
Mr. Powel felt the appraisal process already requires the necessary
details on the property. There are
always things that could have been done more thoroughly (like we had seen in
the morning) – for example, at times land should have been kept out of district
that was not. At least we need to do
certain amount of legal documentation so the recorded instrument in the land
records is correct and meaningful.
4.
There
is some assurance that a property will not get developed during the easement
sale process.
This makes sure the
landowner does not sell for development or develop the property himself during
the easement sale process. The State is
paying a lot of money to secure two appraisals, have DGS review them, and make
an offer. At least for the first five
years, we know applicants are not going to sell the farm to a developer. Carroll Count had a case where the district
property had completed the five-year commitment, and the landowner terminated
the district in the middle of easement sale.
Mr. Colhoun commented that putting the land in a district does
not prevent the landowner from negotiating its sale. Mr. Powel added that
Landowner
Perspective on Districts
1.
Landowners
request district approval only to become eligible for easement sale unless
there is a county incentive to create a district.
2.
With
a county incentive, such as a property tax credit, the districts also create a
“pool” for easement sale.
Mr. Stahl commented
that tax incentives could still work in those counties who are in the infancy
stage of agricultural preservation programs.
Disadvantage of
Districts
1.
Owners
are unwilling to make a five year commitment without knowing the value of the
easement and whether or not funds will be available.
2.
Staff
time is spent establishing and enforcing districts that are of questionable
value for preservation if an easement is not sold.
The landowners make a
commitment for 5 years, and they can feel this devalues their property. When the landowners are not happy with the
price offered for an easement, they become disenchanted with the program. In the past, there have been two periods of
time when no easement offers were made by the State Board due to funding
issues. There also have been instances
when the owner dies without making a commitment to preserve the property. In such an instance, the heirs may have to
wait up to five years to settle the property in the estate.
Alternatives to the
Current 5-Year District
1.
Do
nothing.
2.
Keep
the existing district process, but allow counties to choose the length of the
district commitment from two years to ten years.
3.
Make
districts solely a county function with each county having options including
the length of the recorded District Agreement.
4.
Eliminate
the requirements for a recorded District Agreement and allow counties to
designate farms as “county districts” which only indicates that the farm has
gone through a county approval process and is pre-qualified for easement sale
to the Foundation.
Mr. Powel would like
to recommend alternative 4. This ensures
that the owner has some serious intent and is not just making a casual enquiry
to test the value as a frivolous alternative to develop a property.
Mr. Colhoun appointed a task committee on this subject and
intends to include a number of program administrators and a few Board
members. The presentation and the
recommendations suggested by Mr. Powel will help the committee to move
forward. Mr. Colhoun
thanked Mr. Powel for all of his work.
Mr. Tassone wanted to know if Mr. Colhoun
expected the task committee to come up with legislation to implement the
recommendations. Mr. Colhoun
stated that it might be late for departmental legislation for the current
session, but the recommendations can be put up as a separately sponsored
legislation. Mr. Powel felt committee
review could be a long procedure, but if some consensus can be achieved on what
is required, it will help the counties in the long run. Mr. Colhoun felt it
appropriate to move forward at this point of time.
IV. PROGRAM POLICY
B. LOT LOCATION GUIDELINES –
an update by Ms. Tammy Buckle (Program Administrator,
The Lot Location Committee presented its report to the Board
of Trustees during the October 4 workshop.
The Board members and Program Administrators were present at the
workshop. During this meeting, a few
changes were suggested. Ms. Buckle
presented the final guideline, after incorporating the suggestions.
The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation
(MALPF) allows landowners to apply for the release of an owner’s lot,
children’s lot, or an unrestricted lot under certain conditions.
An application for the release of a lot is first made to the
local agricultural advisory board. If
approved, the application is submitted to the MALPF staff for review and
recommendation to the MALPF Board of Trustees.
When applying for the release of an allowable lot from a
district or easement property, the landowner should consider the following
location issues and propose a location that will have minimal impact. If the proposed location or access is not the
most desirable option listed below (see B and C), the landowner should explain
how more desirable alternatives were considered, and why they were not
possible:
A. Impact
on agriculture and forestry operations:
1. Current
– current operations and current residents
2. Future
– future operations and future residents/owners of the lot
B. Options
for geographical location (in priority order from most to least desirable):
1. Along
public roadway and (if they exist) clustered with other dwellings;
2. Along boundary lines, natural boundaries, or the edge of
tillable land, and (if they exist) clustered with other dwellings;
3. Clustered
with farmstead dwellings and buildings; and/or
4. Other.
C. Options
for Access (in priority order from most to least desirable):
1. Direct
road frontage access from public roadway;
2. Use
of an existing access, e.g., farm lane or right-of-way. If other dwellings exist, access should be on
a shared drive unless infeasible; and/or
3. Along property boundary lines, natural boundaries, or the
edge of tillable land. If other
dwellings exist, access should be on a shared drive unless infeasible.
When reviewing a request to release a lot from a district/easement
property, the local Agricultural Advisory Board, MALPF staff, and the MALPF
Board of Trustees shall consider the following guidelines:
A.
Lots
allowed under MALPF statute and regulations must be a maximum of 1.0 acre in
size unless county regulations or the Health Department requires additional
acreage. When this happens, MALPF
statute and regulations allow for the lot to be increased by such acreage as is
necessary, up to a maximum lot size of 2.0 acres, with appropriate
documentation. Therefore, all requests
for lot exclusions should be for ‘1.0
to 2.0 acres’ to minimize the possibility of the lot request coming
back to the Board at a later date to receive approval for an increase in
size. After MALPF Board approval, the
specific lot size will be reflected in the legal description (if an easement
property) that is provided by the landowner to MALPF staff. The legal description will be recorded with
the preliminary release document.
B.
Program
Administrators are required to provide property outlines, e.g., tax maps, which
show the location of the proposed lot and its access, and are encouraged to
provide documents that will identify the requested lot location clearly
(preferably color aerial maps that show the proposed lot location, its access,
the dimensions from property lines, and the location of failed perc tests, if any).
Photographs and site plans (may be hand drawn) also help identify the
lot location and should be provided when available.
C.
When
a lot is proposed to be located in an area that is not optimal, but is the only
place an acceptable perc can be located, it is
strongly encouraged that the application be accompanied by a site plan (showing
failed perc locations) from the Health Department, a
licensed sanitarian, or an engineer who is authorized to conduct perc tests or site preparation for perc
tests.
D.
If
direct road frontage access to a public road is not possible, the county should
encourage right-of-way access, unless the county has regulations that require
lots to have fee-simple access.
[NOTE: If fee simple access is
required by County regulation, it must be included in the allowable acreage of
the lot.] If access is to be in-fee, and
not along a property line, MALPF will (1) approve the lot only with the
condition that “the owner grants a right-of-way back to the farm over top of
the access to the lot,” and (2) list a requirement on the approval letter to
the landowner that the plat (survey or legal description) must include this
right-of-way before it can be recorded.
E.
If
an approved lot area does not perc after MALPF Board
approval, as long as the new location overlaps the approved lot area and the
new location will not appreciably interfere with farming or forestry more than
the approved lot location, the new location can be reviewed and approved
administratively by MALPF staff after it receives local agricultural advisory
board approval. If MALPF staff reviews
the request and feels it cannot make a sound judgment (new location leaves
unusable areas, requires different access, etc.), the request will be presented
to the Board of Trustees for its review.
F.
If,
just prior to a MALPF Board of Trustees meeting, it is determined that a lot
location must be changed, the request will be withdrawn from the agenda until
such time as the local agricultural advisory board and MALPF staff have had an
opportunity to review the new location.
G.
The
MALPF Board of Trustees will not attempt to change the location or review any
request that changes the location of a lot during the meeting. The application will be withdrawn to allow the
local agricultural advisory board and MALPF staff to first review the new
location. However, the Board can make
suggestions on where the lot should be located, and the new location must be
resubmitted at a subsequent meeting. To
avoid a resubmission when initially applying for a lot, a property owner may
submit two locations for approval by the local agricultural advisory board,
MALPF staff, and the MALPF Board of Trustees.
H.
The
landowner and Program Administrator are strongly
encouraged to be present at the MALPF Board meeting when the lot
application is presented to answer any questions that may arise. Both landowners and Program Administrators
must recognize that, if they are not present, circumstances might arise that
will require the request be tabled until they can be present.
Ms. Buckle also shared with the
Board members that the MALPF staff and the ad hoc committee members will be
working to amend the application for lot exclusion, to notify the landowners of
the guidelines, and, when the landowner chooses a lot location and the proposed
lot location does not meet the guideline, provide space for them to explain the
reasons. The revised application will
then be presented to the Board along with the recommendations of the local
agricultural advisory board and the MALPF staff.
Mr. Conrad stated that
the guidelines will be circulated to the Program Administrators and will be
brought back to the Board for its approval, probably in the December
meeting. Mr. Colhoun
commented that he had spoken to a few Program Administrators who were not
present at the October 4 workshop. They
would like to take this issue to their local board to seek any additional
comments. Mr. Conrad promised to
circulate the proposed guidelines to the Program Administrators with a deadline
to receive comments within 30 days time.
V. INFORMATION AND
DISCUSSION
A. RE-CERTIFICATION OF QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY
Queen Anne’s County has submitted an
application for Certification of a local Agricultural Land Preservation Program
and is requesting Foundation approval.
Ms. Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Administrative Officer, shared a few
highlights.
·
The
County continues to commit funding for Land Preservation Programs including
matching funds for MALPF Program, allowing the County to participate in
matching funds programs including MALPF and Federal Farmland Protection.
·
During
the reporting period, the County preserved 1,518 acres
of agricultural land and woodlands.
·
The
county has already surpassed its 2010 goal of preserving 30,000 acres by 2010.
To date, 35,336 acres have been preserved. The County has a further goal of protecting
50,000 by 2030.
·
Queen Anne’s County has agreed to participate in the Eastern Shore
2010 Regional Vision to protect 50% of lands outside of the designated growth
areas. The County has reached 29% of the
50% goal. It’s not clear that it will
reach that goal.
·
Preservation of agricultural land is an overarching theme in the
County’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in May, 2002.
Ms. Weaver wanted to
share the strengths of the program.
·
Strengths:
·
Movement towards establishing a
·
The Comprehensive Plan recommends reevaluation of the County’s TDR
program to improve implementation techniques to enhance the program.
·
The Comprehensive Plan recommends including a public outreach
program to promote land preservation.
·
Right to farm legislation passed by the County.
·
New legislation requires buffer from development around
agricultural land for new rural subdivisions.
However, in reviewing the recertification request report,
Foundation staff has identified trends related to development and land
preservation in the County that cause concern.
·
A large amount of residential development (89% in 2004) is located
outside designated development areas. It
appears that a major contributor to this development is the lack of sewer
facilities in designated growth areas.
·
There has been a dramatic reduction in applications for easement
sale to MALPF. This does not seem to be
an issue in surrounding counties (Kent, Talbot and Caroline). The number of applicants for the MALPF
program for FY 2005 decreased considerably (five applicants in FY 2005, as
compared with 25 applicants in FY 2003 – no program in 2004). The total farmland acres preserved for FY
2005 through the MALPF program is anticipated to be 390 acres. SDAT indicates a conversion rate of 683 acres
per year. The negative trend does not
improve for FY 2006. Only one applicant,
for a total of 114.3 acres, has applied for the MALPF FY 2006 easement
application program.
·
The County allows non-contiguous cluster subdivision, which allows
non-contiguous parcels to file a development plan as if they were one
parcel. The development potential is
consolidated onto one parcel, where the open space requirement is reduced to
50%. The 85% open space requirement is
maintained overall. These subdivisions,
which would qualify for a proposed fee-in-lieu of open space requirement, are
used infrequently. However, the County’s
request for re-certification states that such requests are “getting popular
over time.” It is not clear that such a
process would contribute to preservation of land for viable agricultural use.
The Foundation staff recommends that Queen Anne’s County be
recertified as the County’s local program as it continues to be successful in
supporting viable agricultural operations and preserving agricultural land in
perpetuity.
Mr. Tassone
stated that the report from Department of Planning was not yet ready, and he
shared Ms. Weaver’s concerns on non-contiguous cluster subdivision and what it
is doing to the ability of the County to control rural growth. Mr. Tassone
promised to give the report of the Department of Planning when it is
ready. Mr. Colhoun
wanted to confirm from Mr. Nielsen that the report from Department of Planning
will not affect the Board’s decision to review and recertify the County. Mr. Nielsen confirmed that it will not.
Ms. Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman,
commented that, since the Board received the information on the day of the
meeting, it will need more time to review the report.
Ms. Rad Sakhamuri,
Program Administrator, was present and wanted to address some of the concerns
raised by Ms. Weaver. She also displayed
the land preservation map of the County and pointed out the areas preserved
through the non-contiguous program.
She gave the Board an overview of how the non-contiguous
program operates in the County. Two
different landowners with parcels totally non-contiguous to each other come
together and agree to file a development plan and use the development rights
from both parcels on one parcel and totally preserve the other parcel. The County approves the preservation of one
farm entirely. The farm that can be
developed by right gets additional development rights from the other farm. This results in one preserved farm and one
farm that is being developed. She also shared with the Board members that
the
She also stated that there were several text amendments put
forward by citizens and non-profit organizations to change the non-contiguous
program. The County again appointed
another work group. The work group still
has not started its review, but she did not foresee any major changes.
Ms. Langenfelder wanted to know
that when they transfer development rights from Farm 'A’ to Farm 'B,' is Farm
'B’ designated as a receiving area or it can a receiving area be anywhere in
the County. Ms. Sakhamuri
responded by saying that it can be anywhere in the County. Ms. Langenfelder
felt this leads to the fragmentation of farming operations.
Ms. Sakhamuri stated that the way
the program works is that it can be transferred from one agricultural area to
another agricultural area. The task
force did talk about designating a “receiving area” and a “sending area,” but
it decided not to do it to keep a farmer from objecting to be in a “sending
area.” She also added that every farm in
the County is considered to be a "prime" farm, and the task force did
not want to differentiate among the farms.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know how similar the non-contiguous
transfer program is to a TDR program. In
a TDR program, TDRs are transferred in rural areas as
against having a “receiving area” and a “sending area." Ms. Sakhamuri
responded that it is very much same as a TDR program, but is named differently.
Mr. Tassone commented that there
is no density in rural areas, and it is easy to transfer density to some place
and create density. The hardest thing to
do is to set up a receiving area where there is already density to increase the
density; it stirs up public response because nobody wants to be in the
receiving area. The biggest problem will
be sending the extra density into a priority funding area – it is not as easy
as it is perceived.
Ms. Langenfelder expressed her
concern about the fragmenting of the farms and did not want to repeat what
happened in Howard County 14 months earlier. Mr. Chris Wilson also shared her
concerns.
Ms. Sakhamuri stated that in the
County there is a TDR program where the densities can be transferred to the
growth area, but there is no demand for small lots. In rural areas the required density is 3.5,
as required by PFA and in the County they don’t have densities close to it.
Ms. Sakhamuri also wanted to
address two more issues raised by Ms. Weaver:
·
The
reduction in MALPF applications – this issue was also addressed by the task
force. The farmers felt that the MALPF
program was getting more and more restrictive over time. The second reason may be that the farmers are
not sure as to how much funding is available even to apply for a district.
·
Growth
area – the sewage treatment plant is at full capacity and needs to be
expanded. There are several development
applications that have been pending for 5 – 6 years. If the applications are approved, they will
totally reverse the numbers – at least 60 – 70% of growth will be happening in
the growth area. But sewage treatment
capacity is the critical issue.
Ms. Weaver wanted to know the reason the County felt that
MALPF was getting more and more restrictive – was it the reduction in lot
allowances and densities or some other issue.
Ms. Sakhamuri responded by saying that farmers
felt that they know about their farm and where they want to locate their
allowed lots, but sometimes when they come to the Board, they don’t get what
they want. The reduction of number of
lots is also another concern for the farmers.
Ms. Sakhamuri did try and explain to them that
the MALPF program is a State program and deal with 23 counties; so, it is
difficult to look at a specific situation.
She added that when the County program materializes, they might be able
to address some of the issues. At the
County level, they would be dealing with fewer applicants than what the State
is currently dealing with. The
Mr. Colhoun offered support and
encouraged Ms. Sakhamuri to have the member of the
Board or the MALPF staff to help her work with the local Board and to change
the perception of the farmers.
Motion #6: To adjourn regular session and go
to executive session.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
The regular
session Board meeting was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully
Submitted:
_____________________________________
Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary
_____________________________________
James A. Conrad,
Executive Director