MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun,
Chairman
Vera Mae Schultz,
Vice Chairman
Howard
S. Freedlander, representing Treasurer Kopp
Patricia
Langenfelder
Jerry Klasmeier,
representing Comptroller Schaefer
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:
Judith C. Lynch
Shirley W.
Pilchard
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dennis Brothers,
Landowner,
Tammy Buckle,
James A. Conrad,
MALPF Executive Director
Carol Council,
MALPF Administrative Officer
Rama Dilip,
MALPF Secretary
Lynda Eisenberg,
Resource Conservation Planner, Maryland Department of Planning
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General,
Department of General Services
Fred L. Hepler, Auction Manager,
Schrader Westchester,
Tom Lawton,
Joy Levy,
Carla Martin,
Mark Mullinix, Landowner,
Rawlings Nelson, Landowner,
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture
Jeanine Nutter, MALPF Staff
Barbara
Polito,
Charles
Rice,
Ralph
Robertson,
Daniel Rosen,
Planner, Maryland Department of Planning
Radhika
Sakhamuri, Queen Anne’s County, Program Administrator
Donna Sasscer,
St. Mary’s County, Program Administrator
Art Schultz,
Landowner,
Donna Smith,
Queen Anne’s County, Program Planner
Martin Sokolich,
Charles Tucker,
Landowner,
Miriam Tucker,
Landowner,
Elizabeth
Weaver, MALPF Administrative Officer
John Webster,
Landowner,
Vera Mae Schultz, Vice 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: Robert Stahl Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
B. ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS
IV.
PROGRAM
POLICY
The presentation on Lot Location
Guidelines has been included.
Jeanine Nutter, MALPF Staff briefed the Board members
and the Program Administrators about the Christmas lunch planned at Bertucci’s after the Board meeting.
Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Department
of Agriculture, informed the Board members that the Executive Department of
Maryland Department of Agriculture is meeting with the Budget Department. He did not foresee any particular issues with
funding. The issue of the over
attainment money discussed two months’ ago might still be a part of the
discussion.
In the last month’s meeting, Mr. Chris Wilson, Board
member, had raised a question on the amount of time it takes to settle
easements. In this regard Mr. Doug
Wilson circulated the information provided by Ms. Nancy Forrester, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of General Services. He stated that all easement acquisitions from
the 2003 easement cycle have been settled.
There are only two offers from the 2004 easement cycle that are pending,
and, therefore, there is no backlog. Mr.
Doug Wilson also informed the members that about half of the 2005 items have
already gone to Board of Public Works for approval.
The other side of the issue is the time frame from
the day the landowner applies. The
request comes to the Foundation in July, and the Foundation makes an offer in
the following spring – it takes 15 months in the pipeline, and the Foundation
is trying to look into the situation to shorten this time frame. James Conrad, Executive Director, MALPF,
agreed and informed the Board members that the Foundation Staff will be meeting
later this month to look at the entire process from application to settlement.
Ralph Robertson, Program Administrator,
Mr. Chris Wilson stated that this was his concern
when he raised the question in the last meeting. In his discussions with the Program Administrators,
they have expressed their concerns on this issue and felt that if the
Foundation could speed up the administrative process, it will have more
landowners interested in participating in the program.
Mr. Conrad mentioned that the Foundation is coming up
with the recommendation for a Critical Farms Program looking both at the
strategic importance of the property and the qualifications of the person purchasing the property. These issues are likely to be addressed in
this or the next Legislative Session.
The Critical Farms Program would be based on purchasing easement options
rather than going through the entire process to settle on an easement. The point of such a program is to get the
funds into the hands of the participant as quickly as possible.
Mr. Doug Wilson concluded that the Foundation is
trying to address specific issues and also on what is happening with appraisals
statewide. DGS contracts with the local appraisers ,and, normally by about this time, we have almost
completed all the appraisals and ranked the properties. The Foundation can make offers in April or
May 2006.
Howard S. Freedlander, representing Treasurer Kopp,
commented that he did not want to see the Board of Public Works blamed for
slowing down the settlement process and wanted to know if the MALPF Board has
set a guideline about the number of items held before submission to the Board
of Public Works. Mr. Doug Wilson stated
that the Foundation has not had many problems with that issue. Mr. Doug Wilson also stated that the
Foundation tries not to schedule agenda items on the date there is a bond sale
(which happens twice a year). Mr. Chris
Wilson commented that, in
Mr. Colhoun arrived and took over as the Chair.
II. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 02-81-04Ae TUCKER, Charles R. and Miriam D. 40.056 acres
Request to increase
the size of a previously approved child’s lot for their son, Curt
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.
Mr. and Mrs. Tucker and Ms. Barbara Polito, Program
Administrator were available at the meeting to answer
any questions from the Board.
Motion # 2: To approve the request to increase the size of a previously
approved child’s lot for their son Curt A. Tucker upon receipt of the letter
from the Health Department.
Motion: Robert
Stahl Second: James Pelura
Status:
Approved
Mr. Chris Wilson informed the Board
members that Mr. Tucker is a member of the County’s Advisory Board.
Mr. Tucker commented that his
present request is subsequent to his other son having the same problem. Unfortunately the Tuckers did not get the
percs for both the lots at the same time.
The Health Department did not accept the perc, so they had to come for
the present request.
Mr. Colhoun
thanked the landowners for coming to the Board meeting.
B.
1. 06-87-05e SAVAGE, Charles J. 398.093 acres
Request to exclude a
2.0 acre child’s lot for daughter, Charlotte O. Savage-Sipe,
from easement property
Mr. Savage is the original owner of this easement
property. There are three pre-existing
dwellings on the property that have not been excluded. There have been no previous requests for lot
exclusions. Mr. Rhodes does not own any
other district or easement properties.
According to
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.
Mr. Ralph Robertson, Program Administrator, was present at
the meeting. He informed the Board
members that the proposed lot is in the wooded area, situated on the corner of
the farm. The request is for a 2-acre
lot to meet the County’s Health Department requirements. The lot is also in an area of zoning
conservation which allows for 3-acre lots.
Since the proposed lot is in the MALPF Program, 2-acre lots are allowed.
Motion
# 3: To approve the request to exclude
a 2.0 acre child’s lot for daughter, Charlotte O. Savage-Sipe,
from Easement property
Motion: Vera
Mae Schultz Second: Chris Wilson
Status:
Approved
2. 06-97-07 LIPPY,
Request for the exclusion
of a 1-acre child’s lot on easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Lippy are the original grantors of the
easement. The current request is for the
release of a 1-acre child’s lot for the personal use of their daughter, Heidi
K. Lippy-Sprinkle.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. Mr. and Mrs. Lippy own additional easement
properties (as co-owners with other family members), but no lots have been
released on those properties for Heidi Lippy-Sprinkle.
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 $3,950.00 per acre to the Foundation.
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. Wilson Lippy and Mr. Ralph Robertson were present at the
meeting to answer any questions from the Board.
Mr. Robertson informed the Board that the landowners have multiple farms
in the program. This is their first
request for a lot. Mr. Robertson located
the proposed lot area in the map. The
map also located a 6-acres 'off conveyance' included
in the program.
Mr. Robertson also informed the Board members that the County
Advisory Board had approved the request.
Mr. Lippy expressed his appreciation for the program.
Mr. Colhoun expressed his
appreciation for the Lippy family’s extensive participation in the preservation
programs.
Motion
# 4: To approve the request for the
exclusion of a 1-acre child’s lot on easement property.
Motion: Joe
Tassone Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status:
Approved
3. COMMISSIONERS OF
Co-held Rural
Legacy Easement, Little Pipe Rural Legacy Area 109.74
acres
Request for
relocation of a pre-existing dwelling on a Rural Legacy easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Brothers are subsequent owners of the easement
property. The current request is for an
approval to relocate a dwelling on a Rural Legacy property.
The easement is co-held by MALPF and the Commissioners of
Carroll County. The property currently
contains a principal dwelling, a tenant dwelling, and a mobile tenant
dwelling. The easement allows for one
future lot right. No lots have been
requested to date. The landowners are
requesting permission to relocate the principal dwelling because it needs
“excessive upgrading” and the location of the existing septic in a low-lying
area makes expansion of the septic area difficult.
According to
The request was approved by the local advisory board. The request conforms to local zoning
regulations.
The deed of easement states that residential development
cannot interfere with the agricultural and open space character of the property
as determined by the Grantees (MALPF and
Staff recommends approval of the request to relocate the
dwelling with the condition that the existing dwelling be demolished and the
area restored for agricultural use.
(Note: Since this is a Rural
Legacy easement and not a MALPF easement, the recent MALPF regulations
concerning the relocation of an existing dwelling site do not apply. However, the regulations may be used as a
guideline for approval of the request.)
Mr. Brothers and Mr. Ralph Robertson were present to address
the Board. Mr. Robertson informed the
Board members that Dennis and Sandra Brothers are the recent purchasers of the
property. This is one of the first Rural
Legacy properties in
Mr. Brothers informed the Board members that they purchased
the property last year. He has a
part-time building business, has renovated many farm houses, and understands
the costs involved. He asked that his
request be approved because it would help them to make a home functional to
their needs. Mr. Brothers agreed to
demolish the existing house.
In response to a question from Mr. Conrad, Mr. Robertson
clarified that the County does not use Rural Legacy easements creating
“development envelopes.”
Mr. Freedlander wanted to know if
Rural Legacy is aware of this proposal and if Rural Legacy's review and
approval is a part of the process. Mr. Robertson commented that it is not a
part of the process. As per the
procedure, the County has to notify Rural Legacy, but it is up to the local
Board to decide on particular requests such as this.
There is a parcel which the former owner took as an
off-conveyance and is not part of the easement property. It is a separately deeded piece of
property. Mr. Doug Wilson commented
that, looking at the map, the area provided between the off-conveyance parcel
and the farmstead envelope is farmed.
Access to the farm property will then be very restricted. Mr. Robertson stated that the access can be
through any other area around the farm building.
Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Nielsen for
his opinion. Mr. Nielsen confirmed that
approval will be consistent with the regulations. Mr. Robertson stated that the demolition of
the old house is absolute. Mr. Colhoun confirmed with Mr. Brothers that he was agreeing to
demolish the old house.
Motion
# 5: To approve the request for
relocation of a pre-existing dwelling on a Rural Legacy easement property
Motion: Robert
Stahl Second: Joe Tassone
Status:
Approved
C.
1. 05-86-02 BRIGGS, Charles E. and Bonnie L. 658.21 acres
Request for an agricultural subdivision on easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Briggs are subsequent owners of the easement
property. The current request is for an
agricultural subdivision of the farm.
According to
Both parcels contain 100% prime soils (with the exception of
a cemetery). The subdivision line runs along the property line, a road and a
farm lane. The request was approved by
the local advisory board. The request
conforms to local zoning regulations.
Foundation staff recommends approval based on meeting
minimum qualifying criteria.
Additionally, the proposed resulting parcels appear to be able to
support viable farming operations. If
approved, a survey of the proposed 50.68-acre parcel will be necessary.
Mr. Fred Hepler, a nationwide land
auction marketing specialist from Schrader Westchester, and Ms. Tammy Buckle,
Program Administrator for
Mr. Hepler
informed the Board members that his company is in the business of land
auctions. It does title work for
farmland all around the
Mr. Hepler
informed the Board that his company is in the business of parceling up lands
for buyers’ best use in order to offer smaller parcels allowing neighboring
farmers to buy a smaller parcel versus buying a bigger parcel. This gives more opportunity to local farmers
to participate.
Research revealed there are two land
preservation easements on the property up for auction. One of them encompasses the entire lot
outlined in the map provided by the County.
Under the guidelines, even though there are two tax parcels included
under one current easement, it has to be sold as one unit. When Mr. Hepler evaluated the property, he
found that there is an on-going poultry operation on the southernmost parcel –
parcel 3 which is 36.6 acres located on the south side of the road. There is a row crop operation which consists
of the balance of the land on the north side.
Mr. Hepler felt that these were two separate
profit enterprises. He also felt, if
this opportunity were available, chicken farmers in the area could add to their
operations. Row crop farmers can add the
other operation to their on-going operations and would not have to buy the
chicken houses if they wanted additional farmland. During his research, Mr. Hepler also noticed
that the agricultural subdivision requirements have changed. The law requires each unit to have a minimum
of 50 acres. Therefore, on the
individual parcels Mr. Hepler is now requesting (1) to split the farm based on
2 tax parcels and (2) by adding 14 acres from across the road to chicken house
parcel, meet the Foundation guideline of 50 acres.
The company will offer that bidders
can bid on the individual parcels or they can buy the parcels together as a
unit. If purchased as a unit, the
subdivision request will not be needed.
Mr. Hepler also informed the Board that he
cannot offer them as separate units unless the Board approves the
subdivision. The request is in the best
interest of the farmer who is planning to pay off all his debts with the funds
from this sale.
Ms. Buckle informed the Board that
this item was discussed by the local Advisory Board on
Ms. Buckle stated that there are
four operating poultry houses on the 36.68 acre parcel. Each poultry house is 42 feet x 500 feet in
size. Each house holds 22800 birds with
a guarantee of $300 per thousand per flock at $6840 per flock (5 per
year). That makes it $34,200 per house
per year. With 4 houses, the gross
income per year would be $136,800. These
numbers show that the poultry operation is a stand alone viable farming
operation.
Mr. Doug Wilson expressed his
opinion that as per the Foundation guidelines the landowner can subdivide his
property at any time he chooses. The
only difference in this case is because of the bankruptcy there is a concern to
maximize value in limited time.
Mr. Tassone
wanted to know if the Foundation guidelines on subdivision are rigid about the
50-acre minimum size. Mr. Conrad
responded that an adjacent landowner contiguous to that property could buy the
property. If the landowner’s property is
already preserved under the MALPF or a similar program, then the Foundation
would agree to a subdivision of less than 50 acres of the parcel if it is then
incorporated into that landowner’s preserved farm.
Mr. Tassone
wanted to know if in this case the Board can approve the subdivision if it is
less than 50 acres. Mr. Conrad responded
that if the adjacent landowner is the one purchasing and the parcel he already
owns is under preservation then the new owner of the 'less than 50-acre parcel’
could incorporate it into that parcel.
Ms. Buckle stated that even though there are
two properties with separate tax ID numbers, the parcels are under one deed of
easement. Because they are under one
deed of easement, there is a need for an agricultural subdivision. Ms. Buckle stated that the ideal would be to subdivide only the 36.6
acres across the road because it is already a separately deeded parcel with its
own tax ID number. However, agricultural
subdivision requirements are not fulfilled.
Mr. Tassone expressed his concern that in this
instance the 50-acre requirement cuts out 14 acres from the other farming
operation.
Patricia Langenfelder, Board member, wanted to know about parcel 4. Ms. Buckle clarified that it is actually
owned by Mr. and Mrs. Briggs, but is not part of the easement. It is not in the program at all, but will be
part of the auction. It is identified on
the map because the map illustrates the entire property that is being sold in
auction. Ms. Schultz and Ms.
Langenfelder felt it would make more sense to include that rather than cut out
14 acres across the road to make a 50 acre chicken farm.
Mr. Doug Wilson felt that we are putting too much acreage in the chicken
operation to meet the administrative guideline of 50 acre and asked Mr. Nielsen
for his opinion. Mr. Nielsen expressed
that the regulations require 50 acres.
Mr. Conrad stated that, given the constraints of the program and
recognizing that there are two separate viable farming operations and the
subdivision proposal has followed existing natural boundaries, this is the best
that can be done.
Mr. Nielsen and the Board members appreciated Mr. Hepler’s attending the
Board meeting and providing the information.
Ms. Forrester
asked Mr. Hepler if the 14-acre parcel has been surveyed before the auction.
Mr. Hepler clarified that they are
actually requesting a contingency approval as there is a possibility that the
parcels may be sold as a unit. If it is sold to two different buyers, they have
a surveyor ready to begin the work. They
will be working with Ms. Buckle to meet the County guidelines.
Mr. Hepler informed the Board
members that the map provided in the agenda material (back of the staff memo)
is their best estimation for the subdivision line. It follows the field road and the property
boundary road and will go as far as required to encompass 14 acres.
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know about
the square box in the center of the property with a note “not part of easement
(separate district)." Ms. Buckle
clarified that the parcel has a historic house located on it and is actually
part of the district to the most northern part on the aerial provided. Those two parcels (parcel 2 and parcel 5) are
under the same District Agreement and are also being sold. There is a combination of easement property
and non-easement property under the same ownership being sold at auction at the
same time.
Mr. Robert Stahl, Board member,
suggested these parcels be connected by pipe stems but Ms. Buckle was not sure
if that would meet County subdivision requirements due to its irregular shape.
Mr. Jerry Klasmeier, representing
Comptroller Schaefer, wanted to know if, when the 14-acre parcel is added to
the chicken farms, it will affect the value of both the parcels.
Mr. Hepler
felt that if the property is sold together (as the law now dictates), there
will be a devaluation to the entire parcel, because they have to find a buyer who is
interested in both chicken and row crop operations. There may or may not be
such a buyer.
Taking the 14-acre parcel out of the
621.59 acre parcel means taking out a portion of real cropland from the row
crop operation, and Mr. Hepler did not feel it will affect the value of the
real crop operations. In the case of
chicken house operations, the
Mr. Conrad wanted to know if an
additional chicken house could be added on the 14-acre parcel. Ms. Buckle stated that they have a 200 foot
set back requirement from the property lines.
It might be a little tight on either parcel, but they may be able to do
it. Mr. Colhoun
asked about the possibility of a tenant house.
Ms. Buckle stated that tenant houses cannot be lived in by the property
owner. It has to be someone working for
the chicken operations.
Mr. Tassone stated that the
Foundation’s requirement reflects an intent to ensure
the viability of a separate agricultural operation.
Ms. Shultz appreciated the desire to
maximize the return from the sale and felt offering parcel 2 and 4 separately
does have an impact on maximizing return.
However, she felt that allowing 14 acres to be taken from parcel 1 and
used to subdivide off parcel 3 may create a difficult situation and suggested
considering not separating them.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that the
regulations require 50 acres to make it a viable operation. Ms. Schultz suggested parcel 3 remain with
parcel 1, which would mean not approving the subdivision.
Ms. Buckle stated that according to
the assessment records, they are two separate parcels with two separate tax id
numbers. When Mr. Noffsinger, the
original district applicant, came into the program, he chose to put both the
parcels with both property id numbers under the same district agreement, which
meant they have to be under the same easement. According to the Foundation, it
is one parcel. According to the
Mr. Chris Wilson wanted to know if
the landowner has an option of selling both the parcels as both are under
easement. Mr. Nielsen commented that
they cannot be sold individually without the Foundation’s approval. The Foundation historically does not want
parcels under a single easement divided.
Mr. Nielsen further stated that, for
the Foundation, it is one parcel and is qualified for agricultural subdivision
at 50 acres as per the regulations.
Motion # 6: To approve the request for an
agricultural subdivision on easement property subject to the actual event of
auction.
Motion: Joe
Tassone Second: Chris Wilson
Opposed: Vera Mae Schultz
Status:
Approved
D.
1.
Request for the exclusion of 2 acres for a child’s lot on
easement property plus an additional 2-acre overlay deed restriction
Merle R. Nelson, Mari Lynn Nelson, and their son, Jeremy A.
Nelson, are the grantors of the easement.
The current request is for the release of a 2-acre child’s lot for the
personal use of Lindsay Nelson Webster, daughter of Merle R. and Mari Lynn
Nelson. The request also includes a
two-acre deed restriction on an additional two acres to satisfy Health
Department requirements.
No other lots have been requested on this property. The Nelsons own additional easement
properties, but have not requested family lots on those properties.
According to
The Health Department is requiring a lot size of two acres
and a deed restriction on an additional two acres. The purpose of the deed restriction is to
prevent further development in the area surrounding the lot due to the limited
sewage disposal capability of the soil.
The deed will allow agricultural activity. According to Tom Lawton, Program
Administrator for
The request was approved by the local advisory board. The request conforms to local zoning
regulations. If approved, there will be
a required payback to the Foundation of $2,200.00 (2 acres at $1,100.00 per
acre).
Staff recommends approval of the release
of 2 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. Staff further recommends approval of the
2-acre deed restriction based on meeting the conditions of the Foundation’s
Overlay Easement Policy.
Mr. Nelson, Mr. Webster, and Mr. Tom
Lawton, Program Administrator, were available at the meeting to respond to
questions. Mr. Lawton informed the Board
that
Mr. Conrad asked Mr. Lawton if they
can build any house or agricultural building like a barn in the area; Mr.
Lawton believed it could not be done.
Mr. Doug Wilson suggested writing
the language that would meet Foundation’s requirements for an overlay easement.
Motion # 7: To approve the request for the exclusion
of 2 acres for a child’s lot on easement property plus a 2-acre deed
restriction overlay with a condition that there will be no development for
non-agricultural purposes.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Howard
Freedlander
Status: Approved
E.
WASHINGTON COUNTY
1. 21-99-07e MYERS, Jr., Leroy E. 148.08 acres
Request for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for an owner’s
lot
Mr. Myers is the original grantor of the easement. The current request is for the exclusion of
up to two acres from the easement for the purpose of constructing a dwelling
for his personal use.
There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. Two child’s lots have been approved on the
property for his sons, Ryan and Scott.
Mr. Myers does not own any other district or easement properties.
According to
If the request is approved, there will be a required payback
to the Foundation of $2,028.53, which is the per acre amount the Foundation
paid for the 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. The request
was approved by the local agricultural advisory board and conforms to local
zoning regulations.
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.
Motion # 8: To approve the request for the exclusion
of up to 2 acres for an owner’s lot.
Motion:
Doug Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status:
Approved
The landowner and the Program Administrator were not
available at the meeting. Mr. Tassone summed up the location of the proposed owner’s lot
for the benefit of Board members. Board
members discussed the possibility of clustering the lots.
Ms. Elizabeth Weaver, Foundation staff, informed the Board
members that the landowner was made aware of the fact that the Foundation
prefers lots to be located contiguous to each other, but the landowner prefers
the proposed location. Mr. Eric
Seifarth, Program Administrator, had conveyed that he was not clear whether the
landowner prefers to be next to his son’s lot or he just prefers to have the
proposed location. It was pointed out to
the landowner that Foundation would prefer that the lots be contiguous.
Amended
Motion # 8: To approve the request for
the exclusion of up to 2 acres for an owner’s lot subject to the lot lines
being contiguous.
Motion:
Doug Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
III. AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
Mr. Conrad presented the district petitions.
A.
1.
This is a 195.75 acre parcel located on
Motion
# 9: To
approve the request of Mr. and Mrs. Collins to establish an agricultural land
preservation district on their property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Robert
Stahl
Status: Approved
2.
This is a 118.81 acre parcel located on
Motion # 10: To approve the request of Mr. and
Mrs. Fretterd to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Vera
Mae Schultz
Abstained: Jerry Klasmeier
and Howard Freedlander
Status: Approved
IV. PROGRAM POLICY
A. LOT LOCATION GUIDELINES – an update by
Carol Council, Foundation Staff
At the
Anne Arundel County: The Anne Arundel County Agricultural Advisory
Board reviewed the Proposed Guidelines for Lot Locations on MALPF District and
Easement Properties at the November 21, 2005 meeting and wishes to provide the
following comments:
Options for
Geographical location and Options for Access – The Board discussed
the impact of multiple driveways along public roadways and the potential danger
created for school buses, mail trucks, and farm equipment. Also, a greater number of slow moving
vehicles would be entering/exiting individual driveways. Recommendation would be to make as a first
priority in both examples, existing access, e.g. farm lane or right of way,
along boundary lines, natural boundaries, or the edge of tillable land as
opposed to creating driveways along public roadways.
Page 1, Third
Paragraph – consider changing “should consider” to “demonstrate
consideration of.”
Page 1, Third
Paragraph – consider changing “location issues” to “location criteria.”
Page 1, Third Paragraph – Remove last sentence and put at the end of
the criteria. I think by separating out,
we make it clear that only in rare cases should exceptions occur. I suggest that you create an exceptions
paragraph at the end and put Page 2 C. in there.
Page 1, A. Rephrase 1
and 2 as follows:
1.
Current – current operations and
functioning of existing residential units.
2.
Future – future operations and
potential impacts of lot locations on the future capability of the farm for
production.
Page 2, C. Eliminate
“strongly encouraged” and require it.
Page 2. D. Need to clarify the issue of the
acreage for the in-fee access. Does this
mean that an applicant can exceed the 1 acre up to the 2 acre if county
requires in-fee?
Page 2. E. Consider changing, “will not
appreciably interfere with farming or forestry more than approved lot location”
to “will not appreciably alter the impact on farming or forestry.”
Page 2. E. Rephrase last sentence to read:
“MALPF staff reserved the right to refer any request to the Board of Trustees
for their review.” Do not take away
right to get Board opinion, because you never know what circumstances could
arise.
The
Carroll County: The Carroll County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board considered
and discussed the proposed policy and, as Carroll County already follows many
of the same steps to ensure, whenever possible, that there is minimal
disturbance in the agricultural operation of their district and easement farms,
supports the proposed policy.
Landowners may request a waterfront
lot for obvious reasons, and a public road lot is not acceptable. Please ensure that their waterfront option
remains available.
The County's subdivision regulations
do not allow additional lots on easements unless brought up to private road
standards. If this is not feasible, an
additional exclusive easement is often the only alternative.
In certain conditions the Health
Department may require up to a 4-acre lot density based on perc results and the
applicable groundwater protection zone.
As an alternative, the Health Department sometimes allows a 1-2 acre lot
with the remainder deed restricted to achieve the desired density. Would MALPF allow this option since the
remaining land is restricted already under the MALPF easement?
“When applying for the release of an
allowable lot from a district or easement property, the landowner should see Item A below. If the proposed location or access is not one of the most desirable options listed below in
Items B and C, the landowner should explain how more desirable alternatives
were considered, and why they were not possible:”
Please be aware that, if the proposed guidelines are
approved, MALPF staff and the Ad Hoc Committee will then work to update the
Application for Lot Exclusion to (1) notify landowners of the guidelines and
(2) ask the landowners if they have considered the guidelines when choosing a
lot location and, if the location does not meet the preferred locations, space
for them to explain why not. This
revised application will be presented to the Board, along with the
recommendation of the local agricultural land preservation advisory board and
MALPF staff to aid in their review of requests for lot locations on district
and easement properties.
Mr. Colhoun suggested circulating the suggestions received
from the Program Administrators and their Advisory Boards to the Board members
for their review and comment. The
comments can then be incorporated in the memorandum and given to the
Committee. The Committee can include
them in their final report to the Board.
Ms. Council wanted to point out the following few things
that might help the Board in reviewing the suggestions:
1.
Mr.
Wally Lippincott from
2.
Ms. Council wanted the Board members to be aware of such
issues. Some of the points have been taken care of and some of them are very
good suggestions.
Mr. Colhoun suggested
re-circulating them back to the administrators so that they can see others’
comments and have the opportunity to come back with their suggestions to the
committee.
The Program Administrators of Caroline County,
V. INFORMATION AND
DISCUSSION
A.
REVIEW
OF FY 2006 COUNTY RANKING SYSTEMS –
Ms. Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF staff, stated that
Ms. Weaver briefed the Board
members on
COUNTY:
CATEGORY: Farm
Quality and Potential
Under the MALPF guidelines, this criterion should be allocated
a minimum of 25% of the points in this category.
Additionally, the guidelines state that county-specific measures
that address the intent of the guidelines for the category may be added with
the approval of the Foundation.
[F3] Stewardship/Conservation of Natural Resources: Under the MALPF guidelines, this criterion
should be allocated a minimum of 25% of the points in this category.
CATEGORY: Priority
Preservation Area Status
[P2] Strategic Location
Relative to a Priority Funding Area (PFA): The intent is
to recognize local conservation strategies to prioritize specific locations for
easement acquisition as a means to accomplish Program goals in light of
development pressures and relation to development zoning districts. The goal is to rank properties higher if they
occur in such priority areas. Strategic
Locations may be:
·
Areas
planned as buffers or boundaries of preserved land between development and
conservation zoning districts. Land
values and easements costs in such areas may increase more rapidly than in more
distant rural areas. Part of the county
strategy may be to preserve as much of that land as possible before costs
escalate further.
·
Areas
at a greater distance from development districts, in which the desire is to
preserve larger blocks of quality agricultural land that is less subject to the
development pressure radiating from development districts. Land in these areas may be relatively
inexpensive to preserve, and it may be possible to preserve much more land than
would be possible in other areas.
MALPF guidelines suggest 25-50% of the points allocated in
this category to go to this criterion (P2).
Staff Comments:
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed ranking system for
(i) In consultation
with county governing bodies, the Foundation shall adopt guidelines to identify
easements for purchase that further the goals of the Maryland Agricultural Land
Preservation Program.
(ii) Guidelines adopted under subparagraph (i) of
this paragraph shall include consideration of:
1. Location in a priority preservation area of
the county;
2. Soil and other land characteristics
associated with agricultural productivity;
3. Agricultural production and contribution to
the agricultural economy; and
4. Any other unique county considerations that
support the goals of the program.
(Agricultural Article, Section 2-510(e)(3), Annotated Code of
COUNTY: CHARLES
CATEGORY: Farm
Quality and Potential
[F3] Stewardship/Conservation of Natural Resources: Under the MALPF guidelines, this criterion
should be allocated a minimum of 25% of the points in this category.
The guidelines state that county-specific measures that
address the intent of the guidelines for the category may be added with the
approval of the Foundation.
Additionally, the guidelines state that the county-specific measures may
alter the percentage distribution within a category. The County has added a
criterion of contiguous woodland acres to this category.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed ranking system for
Motion
# 11: To
approve the rankings for
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Joe
Tassone
Status: Approved
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to talk to MALPF staff to decide on
an application deadline for the County to change its ranking formula. He suggested if a jurisdiction wanted to
change its ranking system formula for its upcoming cycle, it needs to submit
its request for an approval prior to the date of its intent. He suggested this to avoid a situation where
one might have ranked in the old formula but may not be ranked if the ranking
system was revised in the middle of the cycle. Mr. Wilson wanted to avoid such
a situation.
There being
no further business, Mr. Colhoun asked for a motion for adjournment of the
meeting.
Motion #12: To adjourn regular session and go to
executive session.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Vera Mae Schultz
Status: Approved
The regular
session of the Board meeting was adjourned at approximately
After the Executive Session, the regular session
Board meeting was re-opened at
VI.B.
13-82-04 Mullinix Brothers Partnership 201.04 acres
Request to swap 1.0 acre of easement property of 1.0 acre of
non-easement property
The Mullinix Brothers Partnership is the original owner of
the easement property. The landowners
are requesting approval from the Board of Trustees to do a 1.0 acre swap of
easement property for non-easement property.
The Mullinix Brothers are leasing a 5.0 acre
portion of the property to a third party to operate a landscape business and
other non-agricultural activities.
According to
MALPF staff agrees with the local advisory board and County
staff that on balance this request is beneficial to the farming operation by
exchanging acreage in the middle of the property for acreage on the periphery
of the property for development purposes.
Staff recommends approval of this request. Exchanging easement for non-easement property
is not a right belonging to the landowner, but is only approved at the
discretion of the Board.
Mr. Mark Mullinix and Ms. Joy Levy, Program Administrator,
were available at the meeting. Ms. Levy
stated that the local Board was supportive of the request and felt the request
is in compliance with the new lot policy.
Mr. Tassone wanted to know if the
existing excluded lot could be built on and sold to the third party, and they
would have access to the lot. Mr.
Mullinix confirmed both.
Ms. Schultz wanted to know if Mr. Mullinix was aware of the
possibility that, if he wanted to exclude the new 1.0 acre and wanted to sell,
more than 1 acre would be needed to build on it. Ms. Levy stated that
Motion
# 13: To
approve the request to swap 1.0 acre of easement property for 1.0 acre of
non-easement property.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Vera Mae Schultz
Status: Approved
Ms. Schultz wanted to know about the pending legal action on
the possible easement violation. Mr. Mullinix commented that they had been renting an area out
to a gentleman, and he has since purchased other real estate and moved off the
easement property.
Mr. Colhoun thanked Mr. Mullinix and took the opportunity to
ask if the staff can visit the farm. Mr.
Mullinix said “yes.”
Mr. Conrad confirmed that he will try to give a call soon to arrange a
visit to the property.
There being no further business, Mr. Colhoun asked for a
motion for adjournment of the meeting.
Motion #14: To adjourn regular session.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Vera
Mae Schultz
Status: Approved
The regular
session Board meeting was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully Submitted:
_____________________________________
Rama
Dilip, MALPF Secretary
_________________________________
James A. Conrad,
Executive Director