MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun,
Chairman
Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman
Jerry Klasmeier,
representing Comptroller Schaefer
Judith C. Lynch
Dr. James Pelura
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:
Howard S. Freedlander, representing Treasurer Kopp
Patricia Langenfelder
Shirley W. Pilchard
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bill Amoss,
Tammy Buckle,
Steve Cohoon,
Deputy Director, Queen Anne’s County
James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive
Director
Carol Council, MALPF Administrative
Officer
Henry Daly, Landowner,
Rama Dilip,
MALPF Secretary
Lynda Eisenberg, Resource
Conservation Planner, Maryland Department of Planning
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of General Services
Joy Levy,
Jeanine Nutter, MALPF Staff
Barbara Polito,
Charles Rice,
Ralph Robertson,
Daniel Rosen, Planner, Maryland
Department of Planning
Faith Elliott-Rossing, Planning Director, Queen Anne’s County
Martin Sokolich,
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
Motion #1: To approve the minutes of
Motion: Jerry Klasmeier Second: Vera Mae Schultz
Status: Approved
Ms. Jeanine Nutter, Foundation staff shared the proposed plan for Christmas
lunch. Mr. Colhoun
had suggested exploring the possibility of having an off-site lunch for Board
members and the MALPF staff after the December Board meeting. Ms. Nutter suggested Bertucci’s located at
Mr. Colhoun invited the spouses of Board
members and suggested including the ex-officio Board members from the State
Agencies as well as their representatives.
C. ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS
The presentation on Queen Anne’s
County’s re-certification was moved forward to accommodate the County staff to
attend another scheduled meeting.
II.C. QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY
1.
Withdrawn
Mr. James Conrad, Executive Director of the
Foundation, had a few announcements to make. He announced the appointment of committee on
districts, comprising of Mr. Howard Freedlander, Mr.
Bill Powel, Mr. Ralph Robertson, Mr. Charles Rice, and Ms. Jenny
Plummer-Welker. Ms. Carla Martin will
also be invited to be part of this committee when she returns from vacation. Mr. Dan Colhoun will
chair the committee. Mr. Conrad also
shared with the Board members that shortly there will be another committee on
general use issues, chaired by Ms. Vera Mae Schultz.
Mr. Conrad circulated the updated easement
participation table for FY 2005. The
total easements offered and accepted amount to 70 offers covering 8,842.3595
acres.
Mr. Conrad gave an update on one of the agenda item
of the October Board meeting. Mr.
Coleman,
Mr. Colhoun shared with the
Board members that he and Mr. Conrad met with Mr. Freedlander,
the new Board member, and gave an introduction of the Board’s functioning,
which he found very useful and informative. He also shared with the Board members about
the presentation he made to the American Farmland Trust on MALPF and its
functioning. He encouraged the Board members to speak about MALPF and its
functions, if they get an opportunity.
V.
INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION
B. Re-Certification of Queen Anne’s County
– a presentation by Maryland Department of Planning
Dan Rosen,
Certification Status and Overview: The County’s last certification period ended
on
The Maryland Department of Planning would like to recertify
the County program for the period
Mr. Rosen also hoped
that the certification period may be treated more as a period of dialogue
rather than the County submitting their memoranda and the Department of
Planning responding to them. The last
certification report covered the years from 2001 to 2004 and, based on the
experience, the Department of Planning recommends re-certification.
Background:
— In the
four fiscal years covered by the report, MALPF acquired 35 easements and
preserved 5,539 acres in Queen Anne’s County.
The County saw the development of just 913.8 acres as rural lots.
However, 3,071 acres were subject to agricultural land transfer tax, meaning they
will not stay in farming.
—
The County met the requirement for qualifying expenditures,
though the report was not entirely clear that the funds were spent.
—
The
·
Queen
Anne’s County’s goal is to preserve 30,000 acres by 2010 and 50,000 by 2030. The County has already surpassed its 2010 goal
(however, see the concern about preserved County open space, below). More than 35,336 acres have been preserved
through a combination of MALPF (21,604 acres), Rural Legacy, MET, and through
the efforts of local land trusts, including the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy.
·
During the reporting period 2001-2004, 55.4% of the new building
lots approved were located outside of designated growth areas.
·
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
for FY 2005. 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.
·
Rural
zoning seems moderately protective:
§
The
sliding scale option allows one extra unit per 100 acres.
§
More
important, the non-contiguous cluster subdivision 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 on the total acreage of the participating parcels. However, the developed portion of the
receiving parcel can be developed at a high density, apparently as high as
well, septic, and environmental restrictions will allow. In addition, rights that cannot be developed
on sending parcels can nevertheless be transferred. The County’s most recent recertification
report states that such requests are “getting popular over time.”
§
Open
space remainders from cluster subdivisions are not necessarily permanent. Some of them become receiving sites for
non-contiguous transfers even though they are currently mapped as preserved
open space.
§
As
the attached map shows, the Chino Farms Rural Legacy area, which the State paid
$8,000,000 to protect, is becoming a magnet for development, rather than a
nucleus for a larger preserved area. It
appears that this can happen anywhere in the agricultural zone, and the
Department does not know the extent to which it is occurring.
The Department acknowledged that the preservation of a farm
without public funds, which the non-contiguous transfer achieves, is a good
thing. However, the transfer of those
rights to another part of the rural zone, and the large number of houses that
are built as a result, are detrimental to an effective agricultural land
preservation program. The suburban
intrusion affects farmers' ability to farm, undermines the supporting
agricultural infrastructure, raises land prices beyond the reach of farmers,
and undermines the County’s own plans and goals for land preservation.
Conclusion: Overall, it appears
that demand for the type of development allowed by County zoning and land use
tools may be resulting in increasingly widespread development that is
incompatible with the goals for the Foundation and the certification
program. Land values for development
appear to be rising drastically, making it difficult or impossible for
preservation to compete with development of prime farmland, in parts of the
County designated for preservation.
In their next certification report, the
Maryland Department of Planning would like to require that the County does the
following:
·
Provide
a thorough evaluation of the degree to which its land use tools are allowing
development that is compromising State preservation investment, as described
above and otherwise.
·
Specifically
consider, in the evaluation, provisions for clustering; non-contiguous transfer; sliding scale
development rights; transferable development rights from parcels lacking
corresponding development capacity; impermanence of County open space; and the
cumulative effect of all provisions.
·
Include
the following data in the report:
§
The number of parcels on which non-contiguous
transfer has occurred, their location on a map, the number of units on them,
and the acreage that remains permanently open as a result of the non-contiguous
transfer remainder.
§
The
number, location, and acreage of open space parcels that exist as a result of
the cluster option and that can be used as a non-contiguous receiving area.
§
The
number, location, and acreage of open space parcels that have been built on as
a result of the non-contiguous cluster option.
§
Clarification
of County laws and procedures regarding County open space parcels: how much
land must be preserved and is it permanently preserved or not.
The report should include the steps the County is taking to
correct shortcomings in the ability of the program to manage subdivision and
development, consistent with the intent of the MALPF and certification
programs.
Mr. Rosen pointed to the map and illustrated
an example of the amount of development that is going in around preserved land in
the Rural Legacy Areas. He located on the
map the two parcels purchased for development and understands from the County
that there has not yet been a development proposal for the parcels (305 acres).
He would like to point out the amount of
money paid being $ 13,150 per acre.
Mr. Colhoun
wanted to know what the Board can do to support the County and invited the
County staff to make their presentation.
Ms. Faith Elliott-Rossing, Planning Director, Queen Anne’s County, thanked
the Board and the Foundation for the opportunity to be present at the Board
meeting and advancing the agenda item enabling them to attend to their other business
as well.
Ms. Rossing
commented that the re-certification request was hand delivered to the
Foundation Board in February 2005. She
felt, if the issue was contemplated prior to now, it is possible that some of
the discussions they are having now could have been had in the context of a more
general policy with Maryland Department of Planning and MALPF Board rather than
project specific information. There have
been a few significant changes in the map circulated by the Maryland Department
of Planning – such as, the Eastern Shore Conservancy
is no longer listed as one of the entities from whom the information was received,
more specifically as to who purchased the development parcels or who purchased
the adjacent property.
Ms. Rossing
displayed the map prepared by the County and explained that the map actually
mirrors the staff report that the Board has received from the Maryland
Department of Planning, but more specifically highlights the Chino Farms. The Maryland Department of Planning spoke to
the County regarding the proposed sub-division adjacent to the Chino Farms Rural
Legacy Area. She wanted to counter the
perception that the County is not doing a good job of protecting rural land or
easements whether from MALPF or Rural Legacy. She clarified that, although property owners
make a conscious and voluntary choice of participating in the MALPF program or
negotiating an easement through Rural Legacy, it does not imply the adjacent
property owners lose their developmental potential as a result of another property
owner's decision to participate in a voluntary program.
She pointed out the Rural Legacy Area
of Chino Farms on the map and commented that $8 million dollars was paid for
the 5,000 acres that were preserved. There
were lots created around the 10 existing parcels and the right to build on 22
additional lots that were created throughout the Rural Legacy Areas. There were also existing lots immediately
adjacent to the Rural Legacy Areas that existed prior to its creation. In
Ms. Rossing
explained that the map was actually created to display where the development is
going and where the preserved lands are coming from. The developed parcels can reduce its open space
requirement to 50% on site. There is
still a requirement of 85% overall throughout the County, which may not be
immediately adjacent to the developed parcel. The map shows the location of the developed
parcels and the deed-restricted lands supporting the development.
Ms. Rossing
commented that they wanted to present to the Board the County’s potential
strengths. The County is aware that its program
is under lot of criticism; but, at the same time, she wanted to inform the
Board about the County’s efforts to move forward with its preservation efforts
and re-certification.
Regarding the land preservation task
force report mentioned by Mr. Rosen, Ms. Rossing
commented that there were four more recommendations. One of them was a PDR Program, which will
allow the County to purchase development rights with a formula-based program. The County is looking at the possibility of
using the recertification money to partially fund a PDR Program. In addition, the
She added that landowners in the
County are realizing higher market values for their properties and are now
choosing not to participate in the State program when they see how much money they
could be leaving on the table.
Ms. Rossing
concluded her presentation by saying that, at this point in time, the
Responding to a question from Mr.
Conrad, Ms. Rossing clarified that the map is
extracted from the conservation lands map. Sometimes people have difficulty in
understanding non-contiguous transfers and how they work, and the map helps in
understanding this. Non-contiguous transfers
do work to create larger contiguous block of easement lands whether using Rural
Legacy or districts or TDR Open Space. At
this point of time, non-contiguous transfers are not a requirement for
prioritization, so that you do get more credit for being immediately adjacent,
but it seems to be naturally occurring. She
further stated that at this point of time, there have only been 20 projects
that have used the non-contiguous sub-division technique in the County. There are concerns that the densities could
far exceed anything except for restrictions that relate to natural resources or
other plat constraints. The reality is
that, because they have to preserve 85% of the overall acreage, they are still
not achieving 1 unit per acre, which is permitted by right by using the non-contiguous
technique. The map shows that there are
20 projects that have preserved 5,388 acres; there are some pending or proposed
projects that would protect another 1,595 acres. The TDR Program has been inactive for several
years. The County TDR Program requires
that lands be preserved in rural areas of the County by directing development towards
the growth area. The requirement is to
have 3½ dwelling units per acre to meet priority funding area requirements. That becomes problematic as the County’s
growth areas are not receptive to receiving growth at that density. So there was no need to purchase a development
right if you can’t build with the TDR. They
have had discussions with MDP on the options to enhance their TDR program.
Queen Anne’s County is in the
process of updating their master water and sewage plan and are also in the
process of increasing the gallons going through the waste water treatment
process from 2 million to 3 million gallons to bring on board an Enhanced
Nutrient Removal (ENR) wastewater treatment plant. The ENR plant is expected to be ready by 2007.
The
On the subject of permanent open
space, Ms. Rossing stated that their open space has
been a requirement since 1987. The
County participated in the Eastern Shore 2010, proposed by the Eastern Shore
Land Conservancy. The County looks at deed-restricted
open space as permanently protected.
Between 1987 and 1994 there were two
ways to sub-divide an agricultural land. There was an option of creating a 20-acre
parcel or a cluster sub-division at 1 per 8. At that point of time, the intent was for the
remainder of the land to be continued to be farmed. When it was realized, as a part of
sub-division process, that to delineate the open space you needed to identify the
restricted area on the property with a metes and bounds description of that
area for recordation. There was a policy
decision made that, if somebody subdivided off a lot or created a lot for their
child, then the rest of the farm would go into open space recognizing that as
another lot was created for another child or a sub-division was created, the open
space requirement would change. All the
numbers presented on the map are made on that assumption of the 85% open space
restrictions. The Open Space created
when residential lots are developed on a property is now recorded on a plat. Open Space does not mean all of the land is
restricted when one lot is developed; rather, in Queen Anne’s County, there is
an expectation that you can continue to have agricultural uses that is defined
by County ordinance on those lands, but some development potential may remain. Now the requirement has been revised to update
the ordinance that says that you have to go and spend the money, if you are
going to create additional residences, then you have to spend the money to
identify by metes and bounds only those open space areas which are required to
support the development that you are doing. This eliminates the potential conflict between
the landowners and the other residents in the area.
Mr. Cohoon,
Deputy Director, clarified that owners may have 95% of their farm in open space;
zoning ordinance requires 85%. Now there
are two options to use non-contiguous development – you can reduce on site to
50%, but support off-site development by other lands that maintain the 85% –
that land is deed-restricted off-site, and there is no future development on it.
It meets MALPF requirements as far as
soil is concerned and is 40-acre in size. Ms. Rossing also
stated that what happens normally is that landowners come in with 40 acres and
then do 40 more acres. It comes in
pieces and is not a commitment of the entire farm at one time. The Farm Bureau and the agricultural community
feel that this provides the farmers with a little more flexibility and more
money than MALPF (more immediate return on money rather than the 2-year wait).
Robert Stahl, Board member, remarked
that he is part of both Rural Legacy and the MALPF Board. He found it interesting that Chino Farms under
Rural Legacy was limited to the land under Rural Legacy and there was no
overall arching preservation area that was continuously worked on to get more
and more preservation within that area. What
happened was that there was a natural attraction to develop next to a preserved
area on the water. Mr. Stahl commented
that he shares the concerns with Planning that the State has made large
investment in the Chino Farms Rural Legacy area, but there isn’t the overarching
area that has been committed to preservation around it.
Board members shared their concerns
about the development pressure around the preserved areas, whether it is the Rural
Legacy Program or MALPF.
Mr. Stahl commented that, in Queen
Anne’s County, part of the problem with the non-contiguous situation that,
while it is putting a lot of land in preservation, the preserved parcels are
all over the place. There is not one
area of the County that is a designated preservation area, and it creates a potential
problem. It is not that the County is
not getting preserved land, but there are no clear demarcations for designated
growth areas or designated preservation areas.
Ms. Rossing
stated that the County recognizes this. While
the preserved lands seem scattered over the rural area, the County is seeing
the filling in of some of the scattered areas creating larger contiguous blocs
of preserved acreage. There is also the
recognition that more concentrated development results in fewer school bus
trips and stops, fewer trash pick ups and other economies of scale are created.
Mr. Colhoun
thanked Ms. Rossing for the comprehensive
presentation and asked if the County feels comfortable with the recommendations
suggested by Maryland Department of Planning.
Ms. Rossing
agreed and stated the County will work with Maryland Department of Planning and
the Foundation staff to address their concerns.
Dr. Pelura,
Board member, wanted to know if there had been a wastewater treatment plant
failure in the County. Ms. Rossing clarified that the County has only one wastewater
treatment and was not aware of any failure. The County has two other incorporated towns
with which the County has joint agreements, and the two towns have their own
wastewater treatment plants. The County
is in the process of initiating a new community planning area plan around the
Motion
# 2: To approve the recertification
of Queen Anne’s County.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
Mr. Tassone informed the
Board members that Mr. Rosen has also prepared a primer on re-certification
that had been distributed to the Board. As
always, once the decision of the Board has been made, the Department will put
together the Board’s and its concerns and will communicate them to the County
in a letter.
Ms. Rossing added that
currently the County is working with the legal counsel to develop an easement
document that will be consistent with the PDR Program. It is their intention to complete this
document as quickly as possible.
II. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 13-02-01e DALY, Henry and Betty 23.125 acres
Request to exclude a
1.0 acre child’s lot for their daughter, Terry Daly Radue,
from easement
Henry and Betty Daly are the original owners of this
easement property. The current request
is for the release of a 1.0 acre lot for their daughter, Terry.
The property has one pre-existing dwelling. There was a 1.0 acre child’s lot released
from the property for their daughter, Barbara Ann Floyd, while the property was
in District status. The Daly’s do not
own any other district or easement properties.
The landowners have located the lot adjacent to the
previously released child’s lot.
According to
If the request is approved, there will be a required payback
of $15,000.00. Also, if this request is
approved, there can be no more lot requests made on this 23.125 acre property.
Staff points out that this request is consistent with the
recently approved Guidelines for Lot Exclusions. 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. Daly and Ms. Joy Levy, Program Administrator, were
available at the meeting. There was a
minor adjustment of the proposed lot from the aerial map provided with the
agenda material.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know about the access to the woodland
behind the two lots, and Mr. Daly explained this to him.
Motion
# 3: To approve the request to
exclude a 1.0 acre child’s lot for their daughter, Terry Daly Radue, from easement.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: