MINUTES
TRUSTEES
PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun, Chairman
Vera Mae Schultz, Vice
Chairman
Howard
S. Freedlander, representing Treasurer Kopp
Jerry Klasmeier, representing Comptroller Schaefer
Pat Langenfelder
Judith C. Lynch
Dr. James Pelura
Shirley W. Pilchard
Secretary Scott,
Department of Planning
Joe Tassone,
representing Secretary Scott, Department of Planning
Christopher H. Wilson
Doug Wilson, representing
Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture
TRUSTEES
ABSENT:
Robert F. Stahl, Jr.
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Bill Amoss,
Page and Wayne L. Armacost, Landowner,
Alan Brauer,
Sr. Landowner,
Tammy Buckle,
Yates Clagett,
James A. Conrad, MALPF
Executive Director
Carol Council, MALPF
Administrative Officer
Rama Dilip,
MALPF Secretary
Nancy Forrester,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services
Joy Levy,
Wally Lippincott,
Ed Lippy, Landowner,
Carla Martin,
George Mayo, Executive
Director,
Harriet and Wayne
McGinnis, Landowner,
Charlotte and Malcolm
Morris, Landowner, St. Mary’s County
LeRoy Myers, State Delegate
and Landowner,
M. Richard Myers, Jr.,
Craig Nielsen, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of Agriculture
Bill Powel,
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
Donna Smith, Queen
Anne’s County, Program Administrator
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF
Administrative Officer
John Zawitoski,
The
Board met in an open meeting at
James Conrad, MALPF Executive Director,
presented the proposal on Critical Farms Program and distributed the draft
recommendations. The draft is an extract
from the report MALPF is doing for the Governor’s Office and the General
Assembly. Mr. Conrad stated that he is
presenting the draft to the Board to give them an idea of what is being
proposed and also to include comments, if any, from the Board.
The draft proposal originates in the recommendations
in the Final Report of the Task Force for MALPF in December 2004 suggesting a
statewide Critical Farms Program to help achieve the Foundation’s goals and
objectives. In the 2005 Legislative
Session, Senate Bill 502 recommended that MALPF and the Department of Planning
look at options to secure critical farms easements and identify those most
likely to succeed.
The purpose of the Critical Farms Program
is to provide interim or emergency financing for the acquisition of
agricultural preservation easements on critical farms that would otherwise be
sold for non-agricultural purposes. This
has been defined as the primary goal in the legislation.
The specific recommendations of the
report are:
·
Approve the proposed legislative language for the 2006 Legislative
Session that authorizes the Foundation to develop a Critical Farms Program
based on using easement option contracts for emergency and interim or bridge
financing in the acquisition of
permanent agricultural preservation easements or their equivalents on
land critical to the objectives of individual counties’ and the State’s land
preservation objectives. The specific
eligibility requirements, easement option valuation, and processes will be
developed and implemented within the general guidelines of the proposed
legislative language and set out as appropriate in COMAR.
·
Delay for one year the approval of legislative language that will
authorize the Foundation, as part of the Critical Farms Program, to make
fee-simple purchases of Critical Farms and resell them with an easement
attached. The delay is needed because of
the legal and process complexities related to potential liability,
environmental review requirements, land disposition requirements, etc. This will allow the Foundation time to review
legal and other issues to identify problems or issues that need to be addressed
by legislation.
·
Adopt the recommendations made by the Agriculture Stewardship
Commission for $20 million commitment from general funds for MALPF. MALPF should have flexibility to use this
additional funding for its existing easement acquisition program, the Critical
Farms Program, a Priority Preservation Areas Program, and/or an Installment
Purchase Agreement Program. Any funding not
used in a given fiscal year shall carry over to the next fiscal year and shall
not revert.
·
Approve the $5 million funding request from MARBIDCO for the Next
Generation Farmland Acquisition Program to benefit young farmers seeking their
first farm purchase.
·
If the related funding proposal is not adopted, the proposed
Critical Farms Program legislation should still be adopted and funded based on
existing funding, but without the PPA element, unless voluntarily adopted by
individual participating Counties. The
Program will be implemented based on existing funding. Funding legislation will be resubmitted in
2007 with legislation required to adopt the fee-simple purchase and resale with
easement-in-place element of the Critical Farms Program.
·
Creation of a permanent senior staff position PIN in MALPF for the
increased workload requirements associated with the development,
implementation, and administration of the Critical Farms Program and the IPA
program. Consultation with the Office of
the Attorney General (OAG) concerning expected increased workload for these
programs, and development of a recommendation to address MALPF workload issues
affecting the OAG.
Responding to a question, Mr. Doug
Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture, commented that
Stewardship HB 2 and SB 5 for MALPF recommend $20 million, but at this point in
time there is no funding in this regard neither in general funds nor in
Governor’s budget.
Mr. Conrad clarified that the program
could be created without additional funding.
The Foundation is proposing that it could draw an existing allocation
given the fact that the Foundation does expect a substantial increase in
funding in FY 2007 and that counties could choose to draw an existing
allocation for Critical Farms. Mr.
Conrad further commented that the additional funding is not absolutely
necessary, and the Foundation can start the process based on existing
funding. The options will be coming to
the MALPF Board and the Board of Public Works for approval.
Mr. Bill Amoss,
Program Administrator,
Mr. Conrad clarified that MARBIDCO will
not be creating an easement program, but will be a funding source and the
easement would be given to the Foundation.
The Foundation would actually be creating a common committee between the
Critical Farms Program and the MARBIDCO Program so that both can look at
applications and discuss them. The
Foundation will be recommending to MARBIDCO that they only approve those
properties which are eligible in the MALPF Program.
Mr. Conrad had to leave early to attend
the legislative session, where he was supporting the testimony of Maryland
Department of Planning.
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: Doug Wilson Second: Howard
Freedlander
Status: Approved
B. ADDITION OR DELETION OF
AGENDA ITEMS
II.D.
1. 21-99-07e Myers, Jr., Leroy E. 148.08 acres
Re-Review of request
for the exclusion of up to 2.0 acres for an owner’s lot
The item will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting as Delegate
Myers needs to attend the legislative session.
IV.
PROGRAM POLICY
C. The presentation
of Committee on Districts by Ms. Carol Council is being added.
Mr. Doug Wilson circulated the highlights
of the Governor’s budget announcement on the Department of Agriculture,
including the subsection on the Environment.
The handout provides a summary of the Maryland Department of
Agriculture’s overall budget. The
Department’s general fund budget is increasing for FY 06 over FY 07 from $23
million to $29 million – a 25% increase in general funds. The overwhelming majority of those dollars
are in the environmental area, primarily for a major initiative of the Governor
for cover crops and similar programs, such as commodity cover crops, harvest
cover crops, the Governor’s tributary strategy programs, directed funds for the
Corsica Watershed, and a yet to be named additional watershed for directed
action; these are under the heading currently called Corsica II. The total funding for the Department of
Agriculture will be more than $5 or $6 million.
Thus, there are lots of dollars directly allocated towards cover crops
and similar types of programs to improve the water quality. The last two pages of the handout relates to
the MALPF budget. The operating budget
for MALPF is under $2 million. This
amount is about $400,000 higher than the previous year, and the increase in
dollars is due to the additional funding available for MALPF, as it is expected
that MALPF will be paying for more appraisals and settlements. The additional expenses also towards include
a consultant who would be helping the Foundation to move forward on the Installment
Purchase Agreement program. Mr. Conrad
is currently working on this with the State Treasurer’s Office to hire a
consultant.
In the Capital Budget, which is expected
to be released very soon, the significant changes expected are driven by the increased
revenues in the State Real Estate Transfer Tax.
For FY 2006, the State Transfer Tax dollars are just under $20
million. For FY 2007, the Governor’s
budget does not modify at all the current formula in the law for the
distribution of State Real Estate Transfer Tax – of which MALPF gets 17% of the
aggregate total of the tax after taking out a couple of things. This year, under this proposal, the State
dollars exceed $40 million. In addition
to that, the General Assembly last year in the budget reconciliation act
addressed the issue of "over attainment," which is from last year’s
money that was appropriated in the General Assembly. The actual revenues exceeded revenue
projections. Those extra dollars are
allowed to be budgeted in the Foundation’s budget for FY 2007. Those dollars are under $20 million. The Foundation’s budget from the State
Transfer Tax alone is $61 million. In
addition to that, the Foundation anticipates about $5 million from the federal
government. On the capital side, the Foundation
expects about $5 million from the Agricultural Transfer Tax and has budgeted
$13 million as local government contributions towards matching funds and 100%
county-funded easements. When all this
is added together, the expected capital funding amounts to about $82 million
available to purchase easements in FY 2007.
Mr. Doug Wilson concluded that there will
be a significantly greater amount of funding available for FY 2007 compared to
previous years. Mr. Conrad has written
to all program administrators about going on the road, county by county, with
tailored information about what have been the trends for MALPF easements. He emphasized the need to ensure that the
farmers are educated about the changes in the real estate market and the values
for their properties. The farmers need
to be informed about the availability of funds for MALPF easements. Also, he mentioned that the farmers need to
be informed about the new ranking system and its implications. The old ranking system of having to discount deeply
to be competitive to receive an offer is no longer valid. Mr. Doug Wilson remarked that the farmers
need to be encouraged to speak to their program administrators and to provide
realistic asking prices for their farms.
The program administrators can still recommend discounting if it helps
the landowner improve his or her likelihood of receiving an offer, but to keep in mind
that discounting no longer determines ranking.
When the Foundation makes an offer, this measure should help them to be
closer to their asking prices and reduce MALPF's
recent 30% rate of rejections.
Mr. Doug Wilson believed that if this is
done, the Foundation will have happier farmers selling lots of easements and a
significantly increased value compared to what the Foundation paid last
year. MALPF can expect over 24,000 acres
of additional easement property for FY 2007.
Mr. Doug Wilson summarized the situation by saying that there is lots of
support in the broad community for MALPF (as can be seen on the Agricultural
Stewardship Committee, in the General Assembly, in the dedication of General
Funds, and as heard in the statewide Agricultural Listening Sessions), and it
is essential to have synergy between the money the Foundation has and what the
farmers are expecting.
The first budget hearing is on
Mr. Colhoun remarked
that, as can be seen from Mr. Doug Wilson’s presentation, MALPF Board and MALPF
staff have a big project in front of them, and he felt it essential to ensure
that the information about the availability of funding for FY 2007 gets to all
the interested parties. He encouraged
all the program administrators to provide MALPF staff with any information on
any public meetings or any farmers’ clubs, dinners, Farm Bureau, local meetings
and so on. He hoped that a MALPF Board
member would be there for each of the County Agricultural Land Preservation
Advisory Board meetings or other appropriate venues to convey their personal
interest. There will also be a MALPF
staff member to explain the details of the Program and the funding. Mr. Chris Wilson had already made a beginning
by planning to attend the Anne Arundel County Advisory Board meeting. Mr. Colhoun also
shared with the Board members that, on the request of Mr. Ralph Robertson,
Program Administrator of Carroll County, he will be attending the meeting in
II. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
D.
1. 21-99-07e MYERS,
Jr., Leroy E. 148.08
acres
Re-review of the request for the exclusion of up
to 2.0 acres for an owner’s lot
On
Carol Council, Foundation staff, spoke with Mr.
Myers by telephone and was informed that his intention was to place a 2.0 acre
lot for his daughter between Ryan’s lot and his proposed owner’s lot. Mr. Myers stated that at this time he is not requesting
approval of the lot for his daughter as she is not yet in a position to
construct a home. He asked that the
Board be polled in an effort to secure preliminary approval of the revised
owner’s lot location, with the understanding that the item would be brought to
the full Board at its January meeting.
Ms. Council sent an e-mail to the Board members, but received only three
responses giving preliminary approval and one response, from Ms. Vera Mae
Schultz, voicing concern about the need to have a 2.0 acre lot for the future
child’s lot. This was not enough
response to provide a quorum. Mr. Myers
is attending the January meeting to address the Board and answer any questions.
In response to Ms. Schultz’s concern, Ms.
Council researched the previous approval for Ryan’s 2.0 acre lot. This lot was required by the Washington
County Health Department to be 2.0 acres as “the presence of rock some what
limits our ability to manage the on site sewage disposal system in a
conventional manner.” Mr. Myers has
received a letter from the Health Department that gives the same justification
for his lot requiring 2.0 acres. It is
likely that a future lot located between these two, and in an area of rocky
soils, will also be required to be 2.0 acres in size.
Attached with the review was Mr. Myers request
letter, the Health Department letter, the survey, the original agenda memo, and
the original location map. Given receipt
of a letter from the Health Department requiring a 2.0 acre lot, Foundation
staff revised its recommendation to be one of 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.
Ms. Shirley Pilchard and Ms. Pat Langenfelder, Board members, stated that they did not
receive the e-mail sent by Ms. Council.
Mr. Myers said that he and his wife are the
owners, and they sold the easement to the Foundation. They thought it better to build a house on
their farm. The present request is for
the owner’s lot. The lot was required by
the Washington County Health Department to be 2.0 acres due to the presence of
rocky soils.
Motion #2: To approve
the request for the exclusion of up to 2.0 acres for an owner’s lot.
Motion: Chris
Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder
Status: Approved
A.
QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY
1. 17-91-04 PROUD, Donald W. and Catherine M. 106.60 acres
Request to exclude a child’s lot from easement
property
Mr. and Mrs. Proud are the original grantors of
the easement. The current request is for
the release of up to two acres for a child’s lot for the personal use of their
son, Donald. There have not been any
other lot requests for the property. The
Prouds do not own any other district or easement
properties. There are two pre-existing
dwellings on the property. The Prouds have requested a release of one of the pre-existing
dwellings.
The proposed location and access follow the
Foundation’s proposed lot location guidelines.
According to Queen Anne’s County, the proposed lot is to be located
along the road. The lot is clustered
with existing dwellings. Right-of-way
access to the proposed lot will be through an existing farm lane that serves as
access to two pre-existing dwellings.
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 $950.00 per acre to the Foundation. The exact payback amount will be determined
when the Foundation receives a letter from the Health Department stating how
much acreage is required.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one
acre plus such minimum additional acreage if required by the County Health
Department, not to exceed 2 acres total based on the provisions of the deed of
easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b),
Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of
up to 2 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the
Environment or the county.
Ms. Donna Smith, the new Queen Anne's County
Program Administrator, and Ms. Rad Sakhamuri, current Program Administrator, were available to
answer any questions from the Board. Mr.
and Mrs. Proud were not available. Ms.
Smith has been a long time resident of Queen Anne’s County and, also, a
neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Proud. Ms.
Smith felt confident of answering the questions from the Board, if any.
Since there were many requests for lot
exclusion, Mr. Joe Tassone, representing Secretary
Scott, Department of Planning wanted to know if the lot location policy
guidelines have been finalized. Ms.
Carol Council, MALPF staff responded that the Committee is meeting after the
Board meeting to finalize the guidelines and hoped to present the Committee’s
final recommendations at the next month’s Board meeting.
Mr. Colhoun commented
that a number of applications for lot requests have already started following
the guidelines, though they still have not been formally adopted.
Motion #3: To approve
the request for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for a child’s lot on easement
property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Shirley Pilchard
Status: Approved
B.
1. 14-87-03 MYERS, M. Richard 173.80
acres
Request for the relocation and release of a
pre-existing dwelling
Mr. Myers is the son of the original grantor of
the easement, Elma M. Myers. The current
request is for the relocation and release of an existing dwelling on the
easement property.
According to
The area being proposed for the relocation,
which accommodates a suitable septic reserve area, is located between two lots
as could be seen from the attached map distributed with the agenda. One of the lots is a child’s lot which was
excluded from the easement for Mr. Myers, Sr.
The second lot, which is adjacent to the proposed relocation lot, is
occupied by M. Richard Myers, Jr., another son of Mr. Myers, Sr. The lot was excluded prior to district
establishment. The area between Mr.
Myers, Sr.’s lot and the proposed relocation lot site will serve as a septic
reserve area for the remainder of the farm.
The soils map indicates that the soils on both sites are comparable. The
area of the proposed relocation site is currently used as cropland.
The farm consists of 82 acres of cropland, 47
acres of forest, and 19 acres planted with trees and warm season grasses. Additionally, a 24-acre area surrounding the
farmstead is mowed for hay.
A 41.125-acre agricultural subdivision of the
property was approved by the Foundation on
According to Carla Martin, Program
Administrator, the new location will not have a detrimental impact on the
agricultural operation of the farm as it is located along the road. The proposed relocation site will be accessed
directly off the road. The request was
approved by the local advisory board and complies with local zoning regulations. Additional information attached to the
request included photos of the existing dwelling and the proposed site, along
with a copy of the Foundation’s lot relocation regulations.
Foundation staff recommends approval based on
the condition that the existing dwelling will be demolished and the area where
the current dwelling exists will be returned to agriculture within 60 days of
the issuance of a use and occupancy permit for the replacement dwelling, or
sooner, if required under county law. If
the Foundation approves the request, Mr. Myers must enter into a written
agreement with the Foundation, to be recorded among the county land records,
describing the terms and conditions of the Foundation's approval.
Mr. Richard Myers, Jr.,
representing his brother and father, was present at the meeting. Ms. Carla Martin, Program Administrator, was
also available to answer any questions from the Board.
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted
to know about the property between parcel 105 and the excluded lot. Ms. Martin clarified that the County Health
Department is requiring that there will be a septic reserve area in that area
of the property.
Ms. Vera Mae Schultz,
Vice Chairman, wanted to know if the Board can assume that the trailer was not
a designated tenant lot location. Ms.
Martin confirmed that it was not.
Motion #4: To approve
the request for the relocation and release of a pre-existing dwelling.
Motion: Shirley
Pilchard Second: Howard Freedlander
Status: Approved
C.
1. 10-87-10 HALLEIN, Ned E. and Carolyn E. 156.00 acres
Request to place a stockade, formerly used in a
documentary film, on easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Hallein
are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is to allow the
placement of a log stockade, formerly used in a documentary film, on easement
property. The stockade was constructed
in
The Halleins own and
manage a beef cattle operation on their farm.
They propose to use the stockade as a corral for herd checks. The gates and fences currently used on the
farm for this purpose are in poor condition.
The stockade would be placed on an area of the farm currently kept in
pasture.
The Halleins intend to
make the stockade available to Media Magic for use in future documentary
films. The activity was approved by
Foundation staff has requested that the County
provide photographs and dimensions of the stockade to the Foundation. The County expects to make them available
during the Board meeting.
Foundation staff recommends approval because the
stockade will be used for agricultural purposes. However, the Board may want to consider
placing conditions on the approval, such as a condition that any
non-agricultural use of the stockade, beyond future use by Media Magic for documentary
films on other farms, must first be approved by the Foundation.
Ms. Elizabeth Weaver, Foundation staff informed
the Board members that there was no one from
Motion #5: To table
the request to place a stockade, formerly used in a documentary film, on
easement property until the Board receives more information.
Motion: Vera
Mae Schultz Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
2. 10-87-07 BRAUER, Alan L. Sr. 144.00
acres
Request to exclude a child’s lot from easement
property
Mr. Brauer is one of
the original grantors of the easement.
The current request is for the release of up to two acres for a child’s
lot for the personal use of his daughter, Kelly. Mr. Brauer was a
co-owner with his father when the property entered the Program. His father is deceased. Mr. Brauer is
currently the sole owner of the property.
There have not been any other lot requests for the property. Mr. Brauer does not
own any other district or easement property.
The proposed location and access follow the
Foundation’s proposed lot location guidelines.
According to
The request was approved by the local advisory
board and conforms to local zoning regulations.
If approved, there will be a required payback of $1,000.00 per acre to
the Foundation. The exact payback amount
will be determined when the Foundation receives a letter from the Health
Department stating how much acreage is required.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one
acre plus such minimum additional acreage if required by the County Health
Department, not to exceed 2 acres total based on the provisions of the deed of
easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b),
Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of
up to 2 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the
Environment or the county.
Mr. Brauer
was present at the meeting to answer any questions from the Board.
Motion #6: To
approve the request for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for a child’s lot on
easement property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander
Status: Approved
Mr. Brauer
took the opportunity to express his appreciation for the additional funding
available for Agriculture.
E.
ST. MARY’S COUNTY
1. 18-02-18e Morrris,
Malcolm & Charlotte 163.50
acres
Request to exclude a 1.0
acre child’s lot from easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Morris are the original owners of
this easement property. Their current
request is to exclude a 1.0 acre child’s lot from easement property for their
daughter, Patricia Ann Prosey. The Morris’ own one other easement property
but they have not made any previous requests for lot exclusions. There are no
pre-existing dwellings on this property.
According to St. Mary’s County, the proposed lot
is to be located in cropland. The lot
will be accessed through a right-of-way over an existing gravel road.
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 $5,000.00 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. and Mrs. Morris and
Ms. Donna Sasscer, Program Administrator, were
available at the Board meeting to answer any questions from the Board. Mr. Morris briefed the Board about his
farming operations and also informed the Board about the perc
test planned for
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted
to know if Mr. Morris owns another easement property. Mr. Morris confirmed that they own another
easement property consisting of 36 acres.
Mr. Doug Wilson asked if Mr. and Mrs. Morris were aware that if the
current request is approved they cannot ask for a child’s lot on the other
parcel. Mr. Morris confirmed that they
were aware.
Mr. Doug Wilson also
wanted to know about the RPD (Rural Preservation District) mentioned in the
letter from St. Mary’s County to the Foundation. Ms. Sasscer
clarified that the County requires one or two acre lots as open space preserved
parcels. These are identified and cannot
be built on.
Ms. Shultz pointed out
that the staff report indicated that there are no pre-existing dwellings, but,
from the aerial map, it looked as if the property had dwellings. Ms. Sasscer
clarified that they are excluded envelopes.
Motion
#7: To approve the request to
exclude a 1.0 acre child’s lot from easement property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
Ms. Sasscer
wanted to inform the Board that, on their way to the Board Meeting, Mr. Morris expressed
his desire to have the request approved for an owner’s lot rather than a
child’s lot.
Mr. Doug Wilson
suggested amending the earlier motion in reference to the child’s request to an
owner’s lot. Mr. and Mrs. Morris are
eligible for an owner’s lot.
Mr. Colhoun
expressed his appreciation that the issue was brought up for discussion and
encouraged Ms. Sasscer to explain the issues to Mr.
Morris at a more convenient point in time.
Amended Motion(7) (i): To rescind the earlier approval of excluding
a 1.0 acre child’s lot from easement property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
Amended Motion (7) (ii): To
approve the owner’s request for an owner’s lot on the easement property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
Dr. James Pelura, Board member, wanted to know if the Board can
change a request. Mr. Doug Wilson
clarified that in this case it is possible to change the request because the
eligibility of the owner’s lot and a child’s lot is same. Also, there are no special requirements for
an owner’s lot over a child’s lot as long as the owners have not had an owner’s
lot in another property owned by them.
Mr. Tassone
wanted to know from Mr. Morris if he was comfortable in opting for an owner’s
lot and waiving his option for a child’s lot.
Mr. Morris confirmed that he was comfortable with that. Ms. Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of General Services, commented that it is definitely Mr.
Morris’s choice, but the Board cannot make an approval contingent on Mr. Morris’s waiver of a
child’s lot, because it is not required under the law.
Mr. Doug Wilson
concluded the discussion by saying that only the owners can ask for a child’s
lot. If the owners never come to the
Foundation asking for a child’s lot, it will not occur. The daughter has no rights to come to the
Board requesting a lot. The current
motion allows the opportunity to the owners to change their mind later if they
choose and helps the owners not to preclude their options.
2. 18-81-04e BOYD, Estate of Lorraine A. 187.80 acres
Request to exclude up to
a 2.0 acres child’s lot from easement property
Ms. Council informed the Board that the request
is from Ms. Lorraine A. Boyd and not the estate of Lorraine A. Boyd, as mentioned
in the agenda item. Ms. Boyd is the
original owner of this easement property.
The current request is to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot from
easement property for her daughter, Lorraine Boyd Brewer.
Ms. Boyd does not own any other district or
easement properties and has not made any previous requests for lot
exclusions. There is one pre-existing
dwelling on this property. Ms. Council added that this request is not following
the proposed guidelines on lot locations.
According to St. Mary’s County, the proposed lot is to be located in
pasture. The lot will be accessed by
creating a new gravel right of way.
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 $685.22 per acre to the Foundation.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one
acre plus such minimum additional acreage as required by the County Health
Department or other county regulation, 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 2.0 acres if
required by regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the
county.
Mrs. Lorraine Brewer (daughter of Ms. Loraine
Boyd), her husband Mr. Rick Brewer, and Ms. Sasscer
were available at the Board meeting to answer any questions from the
Board. Ms. Brewer informed the Board
that the lot will be accessed by a non-existing road, but previously there was
a very old road. To use the existing
road will mean to travel a longer distance and that is the reason she is
suggesting putting a new road and not using the existing road. Also, there is a second home located on the
property. The second house will also be
able to use this road as an access. Mr. Colhoun wanted to know the estimated distance between the
proposed road and the existing county road.
Mr. Brewer remarked that it might be less than 100 yards.
Mrs. Brewer informed the Board that, since her
father’s passing away 8 years ago, she has been managing the farm. Coupled with her job with the State, managing
the farm part-time has been quite a task.
They have a gentleman who helps them with the farm. When she decided to build a house, she wanted
to locate a place that will not affect the farming operations. Mrs. Brewer believed it will not be possible
to build a house near the existing
Motion
#8: To approve the request to
exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot for daughter from easement.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander
Status: Approved
Mr. Dan Colhoun requested the Vice Chairman, Ms. Schultz, to chair
the meeting for the next 3 items as he personally knew the applicants.
F.
1. 06-82-13As4e LIPPY BROTHERS, INC. 211.486
acres
Request to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s
lot for son, J. Keith Lippy, from easement
Lippy Brothers, Inc.,
is the original owner of this easement property. The family corporation consists of three
brothers. This request is for the
exclusion of up to 2.0 acres for the child of one of the brothers, H. Joseph
Lippy (deceased).
Lippy Brothers, Inc. owns a total of eight (8)
easements and one (1) district property in
According to
Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre
plus such minimum additional acreage as required by the County Health
Department or other county regulation, 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 2.0 acres if
required by regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the
county.
Mr. Ed Lippy and Mr.
Ralph Robertson, Program Administrator, were present at the meeting. Mr. Robertson pointed out that in the staff
report the child was erroneously mentioned as Joseph Lippy instead of J. Keith
Lippy.
Motion
#9: To approve the request to
exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot for son, Joseph Keith Lippy, from
easement.
Motion: Chris
Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder
Abstained: Dan Colhoun
Status: Approved
G.
1. 03-98-05 LIPPY, Thomas E. (Lippy Bros. Inc.) 102.00 acres
Request for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for a
child’s lot on easement property
Lippy Bros., Inc., is the original grantor of
the easement. The current request is for
the release of up to two acres for a child’s lot for the personal use of Mary
Margaret Galletti, daughter of Thomas E. Lippy.
Thomas E. Lippy was a member of the family-owned
corporation when the easement was acquired.
Mr. Lippy continues to be one of the members of the corporation. There are no other dwellings on the
property. No other lots have been
requested for this property. Lippy
Bros., Inc., owns additional easement properties, but no lots have been
requested for Mary Margaret Galletti. (Two child’s lots were approved in November,
2005, and another child’s lot is being requested currently for the children of
Mr. Lippy’s brother, H. Joseph Lippy
(deceased)). Lippy Bros., Inc. owns
several MALPF district and easement properties in both Carroll and
According to
The justification for the request of a lot size
greater than 1 acre (1.28 acres is requested) is unclear. Staff has requested clarification from the
County. The Foundation can release more
than an acre only if the additional acreage is required by regulations adopted
by the Department of the Environment or the county. Ms.
Weaver added that the Foundation has a policy of approving up to 2 acres, and
in this case the County would have to provide justification for the lot size
prior to the preliminary release if the lot size is larger than one acre. The Foundation requires that in-fee access be
included in the lot acreage (right-of-way access is not required to be
included). If there is not a requirement
for a lot size greater than 1-acre, the lot must be reconfigured or the access
changed to right-of-way.
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 $4,800.00 per acre to the Foundation.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one
acre plus such minimum additional acreage if required by the County Health
Department, not to exceed 2 acres total based on the provisions of the deed of
easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b),
Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of
up to 2 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the
Environment or the county.
Mr. Lippy and Mr. Wally Lippincott, Program Administrator, were available at the
meeting. Mr. Lippy stated that
correspondence was sent to the Foundation.
Ms. Weaver clarified that, as was mentioned to Mr. Lippincott
earlier, the Foundation needs the clarification from the County, not from the
engineer, to justify a lot being larger than 1.0 acre. She also added that she had spoken to Mr. Lippincott, and they will take necessary action before the
preliminary release is completed.
Motion
#10: To approve the request for the
exclusion of up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot on easement property.
Motion: Pat Langenfelder Second: Chris Wilson
Abstained: Dan Colhoun
Status: Approved
2. 03-80-06B McGINNIS, Wayne and Harriet 156.75 acres
Request for the relocation of a pre-existing
dwelling
Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis are subsequent owners of
the property. The current request is for
the relocation of an existing dwelling on the easement property. According to
When the district was established, two dwellings
were located on the property. Since that
time, one of the dwellings burned down.
The existing dwelling lot is located along the road in a pasture area of
the property. The proposed relocation
area is along the edge of woodland. The
soils map indicates that the soils (Class II) on both sites are comparable.
In a letter to the Foundation Mr. McGinnis
indicates that he intends to return the area where the existing dwelling
foundation is located to agricultural use.
Mr. McGinnis also provides an explanation of the method he intends to
use for the restoration of the site. A
letter to the Foundation from the Soil Conservation District Conservationist
indicates that the area could be restored for agricultural use in the future.
According to Wally Lippincott,
Program Administrator, the new location will not have a detrimental impact on
the agricultural operation of the farm because the proposed location along the
edge of a wooded area of the property will not impede either the existing grain
or beef operations. The proposed
relocation site will be accessed through an existing farm lane. The access will be by right-of-way. The request was approved by the local
advisory board and complies with local zoning regulations.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the
request with the condition that the existing dwelling foundation will be
removed and the area will be returned to agriculture within 60 days of the
issuance of a use and occupancy permit for the replacement dwelling, or sooner,
if required under county law. If the
Foundation approves the request, Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis must enter into a
written agreement with the Foundation, to be recorded among the county land
records, describing the terms and conditions of the Foundation's approval.
Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis and Mr. Wally Lippincott were available at the meeting. Mr. Lippincott
informed the Board that Mr. McGinnis has been a member of the local
Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis corrected that they are the
original grantors of the easement and not subsequent owners. Photographs were distributed to the Board
members.
Motion
#11: To approve the request for the
relocation of a pre-existing dwelling.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Pat Langenfelder
Abstained: Dan Colhoun
Status: Approved
3. 03-81-07 ARMACOST, Wayne L. and Page 346.07 acres
(Hickory Hill Farms,
Inc.)
Request for the exclusion of a child’s lot on
easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Armacost,
as members of Hickory Hill Farms, Inc., a family-owned corporation, were
owners, along with parents and siblings, of the property when it was placed
under easement. They remain members of
the corporation. The current request is
for the release of a 1-acre child’s lot for the personal use of their daughter,
Page Armacost Wasti.
No family lots have been requested for the
property. Hickory Hill Farms, Inc., owns an additional easement property; however, no lots
have been requested on that property.
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 $829.35 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. and Mrs. Armacost,
and Mr. Wally Lippincott were present at the meeting
to answer any questions from the Board.
Mr. Armacost informed the Board members that
the location of the lot is on the corner of the operation and is located at a
place causing minimum disturbance to farm operations. It is a sixth generation farm.
Motion
#12: To approve the request for the
exclusion of a child’s lot on easement property.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Pat Langenfelder
Status: Approved
Mr. Colhoun
took over as the Chair.
IV. PROGRAM POLICY
A.
Mr. George Mayo, Executive Director, Maryland
Agricultural Education Foundation, Inc. (MAEF), was
present at the Board meeting. In
addition to the material distributed with the agenda, Mr. Mayo provided handouts
for the benefit of the Board members and staff.
In his memo, Mr. Mayo had suggested that landowners, at the time of
settlement, be given an opportunity to donate a portion of their land
preservation revenues to MAEF. Their
tax-deductible contribution would yield a multitude of benefits for the donor
as well as for the Foundation. Mr. Mayo
informed the Board that MAEF is a private, non-profit organization established
in 1989 as a result of a Governor’s task force reviewing the status of
agricultural education in
Currently the organization receives revenues
from the AG tags and generous grants and gifts from businesses, organization,
institutions, and government agencies.
But to expand the program, the organization needs more support. Currently they have $200,000 worth of
programs which are unfunded and, therefore, they are not able to do those
programs.
The objective of his addressing the Board was to
seek, if it is possible, to have representation either as a check off at the
time of settlement or a presentation provided to easement sellers endorsing
MAEF as a supporter of the recipient of the easement funds. He was not sure of the Foundation’s
settlement procedure and thanked the Board for giving him an opportunity to
introduce his organization. Mr. Mayo
felt that it would be an opportunity for the landowners to contribute to a 501(C)(3) organization and help to expand agricultural education
in
Mr. Doug Wilson noted that the Board will not be
making a decision today, but wished to comment there are many agricultural
organizations that are charitable in nature.
He wanted to know from Mr. Mayo if there is a way of differentiating
their organization from the other organizations committed to the same cause –
how does the Foundation pick and choose among similar organizations if in the
future another organization comes to the Foundation with a similar request.
Mr. Mayo commented that he completely
understands Mr. Wilson’s comments. The
article of incorporation gives MAEF the ability to fund other
organizations. MAEF currently funds the Future
Farmers of American (FFA), LEAD
Dr. Pelura commented
that when landowners get money from selling an easement, they are taxed for the
capital gains. He believed the
Foundation can tell landowners that they can save on their tax bill by donating
some of this money to a charitable institution, but the Foundation cannot pick
and choose which ones.
Mr. Doug Wilson remarked that there might be a
possibility to tell the clients about the availability of the charitable
institutions. There might be other ways
in which Maryland Department of Agriculture or MALPF can assist MAEF and other organizations
to provide information about their good work.
Mr. Mayo said that if the Foundation has a
committee, he will be open to have discussions with it. Mr. Colhoun thanked
Mr. Mayo for attending the meeting and providing the information to the Board
members.
B. WATER RECHARGE EASEMENTS – an
update by Ms. Pat Langenfelder, Chair, Water Recharge Easements Committee
The Water Recharge Easements Committee discussed
the input provided by Board members and others and have incorporated suggestions
and comments into the attached revised committee report. Included in the report are the following
modifications:
The report has been modified to remove the
assertion that allowing water recharge easements (WREs)
will reduce sprawl development. This
action was taken because no evidence currently exists that adequately
demonstrates that promoting growth in small municipalities results in a
reduction of the loss of farmland in surrounding areas. The attached report addresses the
relationship between growth management and WREs.
The committee has also changed the sequence of
its recommendations. The committee
recommends that the Board approve the formation of a follow-up committee to
develop guidelines prior to voting on the concept of allowing the use of MALPF
properties for WREs.
Originally, the committee recommended that the Board approve the concept
of allowing WREs conditional upon the subsequent
development of guidelines that, when implemented, would protect the future
viability of agriculture on MALPF properties.
The rationale for this sequence was the concern that resources of the
state and other entities would be wasted if, subsequent to the formulation of
the guidelines, the Board did not approve the concept of WREs. However, upon further consideration, the
committee members are aware that some Board members may not be comfortable
voting on the issue without first having reviewed the guidelines.
The follow-up committee should be charged with
developing guidelines that would ensure that sufficient water is retained with
the farm that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, agriculture will continue
to be viable on the land in the future.
The WRE committee recommends that the follow-up committee include
individuals with areas of expertise related to water and agriculture. A list of the entities that should be
represented on the committee is included in the attached report. Also included in the report is a list of data
sources that should be considered by the follow-up committee. Below is the report for additional
information.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Water Recharge Committee
Report to the MALPF Board
The
Water Recharge Committee includes representatives from Maryland Department of
the Environment (MDE), Maryland Department of Planning (MDP),
MDE
allows the use of water recharge easements as one of the methods available to
offset the groundwater demand of residential and commercial development in the
Piedmont region. Due to geology and
hydrogeology, only the Piedmont region (areas located generally north and west
of Interstate 95) of the state is affected.
Unlike other regions of the state, the groundwater in the Piedmont
region is stored in unconfined aquifers.
The region relies on rain to recharge the aquifers to compensate for
water that is extracted by wells in the region.
The amount of water extracted from an aquifer must not exceed the amount
recharged. Developed areas produce a high
level of impervious surface, preventing recharge. Only open spaces with pervious surface allow
sufficient absorption of groundwater to recharge the aquifers.
When
determining water appropriations for new development projects, MDE calculates
the amount of water a development will require.
The developer or town must demonstrate to MDE that sufficient
groundwater will be available in the region to support the proposed
development. If the water requirement is
being offset through water recharge easements, sufficient undeveloped land must
be set aside to recharge the aquifer.
While the amount of land required to be reserved to guarantee sufficient
recharge varies, it is usually calculated at a rate of one acre of undeveloped
land for each residential unit.
Withdrawal of the water on the undeveloped land is permanently
restricted to its current level of use.
Additionally, a limit is placed on the amount of impervious surfaces
allowed on the property. The water
recharge easement areas are generally required to be located within
approximately two miles of the area to be developed.
Representatives
from
The
committee weighed the positive and negative impacts to the Program of allowing
water recharge easements on MALPF properties.
The anticipated positive impacts to the Program include: 1) additional income to the farmer; and 2)
the development resulting from the WREs would occur
in designated growth area, consistent with state and county land use
policies. The obvious negative impact is
the limitation on future water use for agricultural purposes placed on
properties with WREs.
Positive and Negative
Impacts of WREs on the MALPF Program
Positive impacts:
1.
Economic benefit to farmers.
It was the consensus of the committee that the WREs
present a potential economic benefit for farmers with land in the Program. Farmers can obtain financial compensation
from developers or other entities seeking WREs. During recent years, farmers are finding it
increasingly difficult to make farming economically viable. The sale of WREs
would help ameliorate the financial difficulties facing farmers.
2.
Directing growth to designated growth areas or Priority Funding Areas.² Allowing WREs would permit development to take place in areas
defined in a county’s comprehensive plan as areas where future growth will be
directed. Where WREs
are readily available, developers could build in designated growth areas, at
higher density levels. When WREs are not available, and no other water source is
available to satisfy MDE’s water requirements,
developers must develop land outside of growth areas where they can build at a
lower density level. The
Negative impact:
Water recharge easements
require the landowner to forever limit the use of water on his or her
land. The future agricultural operations
of the land are limited. It is difficult
to predict how agriculture will develop in the future, and it is also
impossible to accurately predict climate.
It is likely that limiting the water availability on the land will limit
the type of agricultural use in the future.
Committee’s
Recommendations
The committee came to consensus that the
positive impacts outweighed the negative impact. While the committee believes that water
availability is a serious issue and warrants serious consideration by the
Foundation, water availability is currently not the major threat to agriculture
in the Piedmont region, particularly in the areas currently under
consideration, Carroll and
The committee members believe that the counties’
intention to direct growth to designated growth areas is consistent with the
intent of the MALPF Program. MALPF’s enabling legislation states:
It is the intent of the Maryland General
Assembly to preserve agricultural land and woodland in order to: provide sources of agricultural products
within the State for the citizens of the State; control the urban expansion
which is consuming the agricultural land and woodland of the State; curb the
spread of urban blight and deterioration; and protect agricultural land and
woodland as open-space land (Annotated Code of Maryland, § 2-501. Legislative
intent).
The committee was advised by Maryland Department
of Planning that, at this time, there is no evidence that the expansion of
growth in small municipalities reduces sprawl development. However, some counties in
Additionally, the committee believes that the
opportunity to supplement farmers’ income with proceeds from the sale of WREs is a desirable outcome. The committee discussed ways to ensure that
future farmers will be able to benefit from the financial proceeds of the WRE.
Recommended Conditions
of Approval of WRE Overlays
The committee recommends that the Foundation adopt
a policy of allowing water recharge easement overlays on MALPF properties with
the following conditions:
1.
Allow only a partial restriction of the future water use of the
farm. To ensure, to a reasonable degree
of certainty, the continued viability of farming the land in the future, it is
necessary to retain for future agricultural use a reasonably sufficient amount
(yet to be determined) of the water appropriated to the property. The committee discussed two methods to
accomplish this outcome. One method
would allow a WRE on a portion of the area of the farm. The second method would allow only a portion
(percentage based) of the water to be appropriated for a WRE. The farmer would retain the remainder of the
water for agricultural use. It was the consensus
of the committee that the second alternative provides better flexibility for
agricultural use. Additionally, the
committee recommends instituting a minimum water amount per acre that a farm
would retain. The committee recommends
that the WRE deed (or separate legal agreement) contain specific language that
guarantees that the portion being retained for farm use is retained even during
drought years. The committee believes
that in some areas, due to limited water availability and the projected future
agricultural use of the land, some farms may not be eligible for WRE overlays.
2.
The overlay should be approved only when development resulting
from the WRE is located within a Priority Funding Area.
(The committee considered a third recommendation
that payment for the WRE should be made over time rather than a one time lump
sum. The intent was to attempt to
provide for a predictable income stream to the farmer into the future, rather
than a one time payment to a landowner who may sell the farm soon after the WRE
is in place. Upon further consideration,
however, the committee decided that there may be constraints that would make
this recommendation difficult to institute.
Additionally, the committee believed that this requirement may
unnecessarily infringe on the rights of the farmer. The committee decided to
withdraw this recommendation.)
Proposed Methodology to
Ensure the Protection of the Water Resource and the Future Viability of
Agricultural Use of the Land
The committee recommends that the Board assemble
a follow-up committee for the purpose of providing guidelines to the MALPF
Board and other entities considering allowing WREs on land preserved for
agricultural use. The guidelines should
provide a method, based on data related to agricultural operations’ water use,
trends in agriculture, climate variability, projected water availability, water
demand forecasting, etc., to determine, with a reasonable degree of certainty,
the quantity of water that should be retained for future agricultural use. The committee should be comprised of members
with specific knowledge of the agricultural industries and individuals with
technical expertise in areas related to the WRE issue, as well as other
stakeholders. Among the entities the
committee recommends to be included are:
1.
Cooperative Extension
2.
NRCS
3.
Resource Conservation (
4.
MDE
5.
MDP
6.
DNR
7.
Carroll Co. Ag. Advisory Board
8.
Frederick Co. Ag. Advisory Board
9.
Hydro-geologist
10.
11.
Agriculture Commission
12.
MALPF Board member(s)
13.
Assistant Attorney General(s)
Recommended Data to
Assist the Follow-up Committee
To determine an acceptable amount of water to
retain for farm use, the committee will require technical resources and data
from several sources. Among the data the
committee will require are the following:
|
Data |
Source |
|
Water recharge rates for specific locations |
MDE |
|
Specific crop/animal operations water requirements/crop water
use estimates |
Resource Conservation/USDA Agricultural Research Service/MD Cooperative
Extension |
|
Trends in agriculture in |
Resource Conservation/NASS/ UMD College of Ag. and Natural Resources |
|
Water Demand Forecasting |
MDE/US Department of the Interior/ USDA |
|
Climate change/forecasting |
NOAA/National Weather Service |
______________________________________
¹
² Priority Funding Areas
(PFA) are geographic areas designated by counties in concert with the state to
which state funding is targeted. Funding
includes capital investments and grant and loan programs administered by
various state agencies. Counties may
designate areas as Priority Funding Areas if the areas meet guidelines for
intended use, availability or plans for water and sewer systems, and permitted
residential density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre. In general, areas eligible
for county designation are existing communities, industrial areas, and planned
growth areas. The Priority Funding Areas
Program is administered by the Maryland Department of Planning. More information is available at: http://www.mdp.state.md.us/fundingact.htm.
³ Advisory
Committee on the Management and Protection of the
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ms. Pat Langenfelder, Board member and Chair,
Water Recharge Easements Committee shared the highlights of the report with the
Board members. The Water Recharge
Committee had met, talked and corresponded over e-mail, spending a lot of time
on this issue. The Committee has made an
attempt to produce useful policy recommendations and has a memorandum and
report ready for the Board members (see above).
The Committee, after discussions and deliberations,
has decided to modify one of the earlier assertions that allowing water
recharge easements will reduce sprawl. The Committee is withdrawing this statement,
because the Committee does not have any evidence to prove the assertion. The Committee, however, feels that water
recharge easements will be a tool available to municipalities or to
jurisdictions to help direct water recharge commitments to allow development in
a PFA. Originally the Committee was
planning to approach the Board to approve or disapprove the concept of water
recharge easements as an overlay on MALPF property and also to develop
guidelines informed by experts in this area.
After discussion amongst the Committee and polling Board members, the Committee
has decided to seek consensus from the Board of Trustees that the Committee
should move forward to develop specific guidelines prior to having the Board
approve the concept of water recharge easements. Therefore, the Committee is now proposing to develop
the necessary guidelines for reviewing requests for water recharge easements on
MALPF properties and will present the proposed guidelines to the Board for its
approval.
The Committee, in its report, has recommended listing
proposed members for a committee to develop those guidelines and the source of
data and the areas of responsibilities for the various agencies participating
in developing those guidelines.
Ms. Langenfelder
mentioned that, on
Ms. Langenfelder
expressed her appreciation of Ms. Weaver’s efforts with the Committee and the
report.
Mr. Howard Freedlander, Board member, expressed
his appreciation of a great staff work and a good approach on the concept.
Mr. Tassone wanted to
know that if the Center for Agro Ecology is checking on its ability to come up
with some funding or a research project to examine the concept through
scientific methods. Ms. Langenfelder
confirmed Mr. Tassone’s statement and also stated that the Foundation does not
have funds to pursue this. During the
meeting, Drs. Brinsfield and Taylor-Rogers expressed
their willingness to work on the funding issues.
Mr. Doug Wilson requested the Committee to keep
in mind the suggestions and points raised by MALPF
Program Administrators. He also remarked
that, when a policy decision is made, the Foundation has to keep in mind that
this is a regional issue – the policy will affect only the Piedmont area and
may not affect
Ms. Langenfelder
informed the Board members that, at the Maryland Farm Bureau convention in
December 2005, a delegation from
Mr. Tassone expressed
his appreciation to Ms. Langenfelder for the briefing at the Joint
Sub-Committee for Program Open Space and Agricultural Land Preservation.
Mr. Colhoun believed
that the inclusion of the representatives from the
C.
DISTRICT COMMITTEE REPORT – Ms. Carol Council, MALPF
Administrative Officer
Mr. Colhoun remarked
that there are different pieces of legislation being proposed during this
legislative session. He hoped that it
might be possible in this legislature to expedite the MALPF easements allowing
the Foundation to spend the money budgeted.
In this regard he urged everyone to put their thoughts together and
recommend legislation.
Ms. Council informed the Board members that the
District Committee had its first meeting on
The Committee decided that, to determine whether
the Foundation should continue with the use of districts, the Committee should
first make a list of the pros and cons of continuing with districts. The list below is a result of a
brain-storming session. The points made
are in no particular order. The
Committee anticipates that, in its second meeting, members will be able to
purge the list of some items, add items that are offered by Program
Administrators and Board members, and, also, to look for solutions to the
problems that are identified.
Ms. Council informed the Board members that,
during the meeting, the Committee discussed things that pertained to one county
and did not pertain to another. In some cases,
it was a State issue, and in other cases it was a County issue. The list is quite exhaustive. The Committee discussed how the Foundation
could control what an applicant does on his property from the time an applicant
applies for an easement until he gets the settlement – how do we have control
over what the landowner does with his property, how do we stop him from
developing the property, and how do we stop him from cutting off lots if
districts were eliminated during the time an easement application is
pending. The Committee also discussed
having the district for 1-2 years as opposed to the current 5 year term. All these thoughts and points are summarized
in the list below.
For the future discussions, the Committee wants
to look at what it would like to do if it needs to streamline the process
regardless of the time commitment. It
would look at the various options, such as cutting down on staff time to
establish districts, monitor districts, and evaluate lot requests which takes a
lot of staff time and inputs from the Board.
For future discussions, the Committee plans to talk about 1–2 year
districts and, alternatively, for the Counties to operate their own district
programs, especially for those counties that need districts for property tax
credits or for their TDR program.
Ms. Council informed the Board members that she
asked all Program Administrators to respond to the following question: if the district agreement term is reduced
from 5 years to
_______________________________________________________________________________
REPORT ON DISTRICTS to the MALPF Board of
Trustees
FUNCTION OF THE DISTRICT: Prerequisite for
application to sell an easement.
PROS OF HAVING
DISTRICTS:
1.
‘Right-to-farm’ benefit to landowners, especially in counties with
no right-to-farm ordinance.
2.
Is a public process.
3.
Creates a ‘pool’ of applicant candidates for easement sale.
4.
Assurance the property cannot be developed or subdivided during
the easement application process.
5.
Tied to other county programs, i.e., tax credits, TDR programs.
6.
District application forces documentation of property. Shortens the administrative burden at
easement application time and helps with issues such as title, boundaries, etc.
7.
Temporary easement. Gives
landowners a trial period for the program.
8.
Program Administrators get a commitment from the landowner. 1 or 2 year district would serve the same
purpose.
9.
Recordation in land records makes the landowner liable.
10.
We (especially the County) get notification (even after the 5 years)
of any changes or potential changes to the property.
11.
Public officials get an opportunity for program exposure.
CONS OF HAVING DISTRICTS:
1.
Reluctance of people to commit for 5 years; properties may be
lost.
2.
Staff time to establish and maintain districts.
3.
Reconciliation of district and easement (during easement process),
i.e., acres, location, off-conveyances, etc., is time consuming.
4.
Serves more benefit for counties than state.
5.
6.
County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Boards would
potentially be taken out of the loop (dependant on whether the counties would
do localized districts).
IF WE DO AWAY WITH THE
DISTRICT:
1.
What will prevent landowners from subdividing or developing the
property?
2.
3.
What assurance would MALPF have that the property meets its
criteria?
4.
Record a ‘contract of sale’ to stop landowners from making
changes?
5.
Absence of the district may make appraisal review more difficult.
6.
7.
If counties create their own districts, would MALPF review and
approve their criteria or would they use MALPF existing criteria?
WHAT IF WE DO A 1-2 YEAR
DISTRICT:
1.
Same amount of administrative work to set up and maintain as a 5
year district.
2.
May require additional staff time if more landowners are
terminating at the end of their 1-2 year term because they have not sold an
easement.
3.
A commitment of only 1 year may be ineffective (given the time it
takes to get from easement application to settlement).
4.
Could they be approved administratively by the county or state
(given the fact that the criteria for approval is spelled out in COMAR)?
IF WE KEEP THE DISTRICT,
WHAT COULD BE DONE TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS, REGARDLESS OF THE TIME
COMMITMENT?
(For future discussion)
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FUTURE DISCUSSION:
1.
Do a 1-2 year district.
2.
Authorize the counties to operate their own district program
(especially for those counties that use the districts for tax credits or TDR
programs).
IF THE DISTRICT AGREEMENT
TERM CHANGED FROM 5 YEARS TO 1-2 YEARS, WOULD IT INCREASE EASEMENT APPLICATIONS
FOR FY 2007?
This
question was asked of all Program Administrators. Below is a synopsis of their responses.
Thinks it may increase the number of
applicants. Sounds like a good
compromise. They provide a property tax
credit for landowners who agree to a 10 year District. For the County program, a District Agreement
is signed at the settlement in order for them to get the tax credit.
Does not favor a
reduction in years as a solution. Uses the districts as a pool of landowners that can be encouraged
to sell easements. Landowners who
don’t like the 5 year district apply for the local program. Can we provide landowners with an option for
either doing a district, or not? Would
like to attend the meetings, perhaps make them available to everyone?
Prefers the district. “5 year preservation is better than no
preservation at all.” 1-2 years is not a
commitment to farming, just a waiting period to sell easements.
Doesn’t see how the length of time would
influence the decision to enter the program.
The 5 years allows property owners time to weigh all their options, get
the county’s tax break, and protect the land.
No significant increase in applicants,
especially for FY 07. It may bring in a
few more, assuming they were approved by June 30.
A decrease in time would be an improvement. Feels the district can be an impediment to
getting applications for easement sale to MALPF.
In favor of reducing the
term, if not eliminating the district altogether.
Favors the 5 year
district. Offers a
tax credit. Gives
the landowners time to consider if they want to continue on to a permanent
easement.
Any reduction in the district time requirement, or even no district at all, would help. The
No effect.
It takes about 4-5 months to go through the approval process. They have an area approved for agricultural
use and feel they can attract more landowners if districts are eliminated.
Any steps we can do to shorten the time, or
eliminate the district all together, would be helpful.
Feels that multi-year
districts are important. It takes some
landowners several years to get an offer.
Program Administrators would feel the burden if landowners are not
‘locked in’ to make sure the property didn’t change during the easement
application process.
Thinks the 1-2 year term would increase
participation. Has
several landowners each year who don’t want their land tied up for 5 years.
No effect.
No effect.
The district offers no benefit in the county.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ms. Council informed the Board members that the
Committee members will be meeting again prior to the next month’s Board meeting
to come up with a conclusion as to what they would like to do with the
districts.
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that, looking into the
responses, there seems to be no consensus about having or not having districts
or having some shorter districts. This
is expected given the differences in the various programs in
Mr. Colhoun commented
that Ms. Council has all of the data together.
He suggested consolidation and that certain
compromises can be reached to improve the efficiency and also retain the
uses of the district process. While
listing the response, Ms. Council had not included
Mr. Bill Amoss, Program Administrator,
Mr. Colhoun stated
that it is for the counties to review the issue and reach a compromise as to
whether to shift responsibility for districts to the counties for whatever
purpose they make of districts and to remove its role in the MALPF application
process, or to come up with alternatives to make the application process more
efficient, even if the district continues to play a central role. It is for the Committee to wrestle with these
issues and come up with a recommendation.
Mr. Tassone wanted to
know from Mr. Amoss that, if someone was going to get
tax benefits for district formation, the county might envision a process where
it can require district establishment for a property to be eligible to sell an
easement, but, to get tax benefits, the landowner would have to commit to a
minimum time period for that district to be in effect.
Mr. Amoss agreed and
commented that, in
Mr. Colhoun stated
that he has received a letter from Mr. Ralph Robertson, Program Administrator,
Mr. Robertson agreed with Mr. Amoss about the
flexibility of the districts. Mr.
Robertson also stated that the Foundation has more money available than it had
in preceding years. In
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the district has
been a long term practice of the Foundation, and there are some administrators
who believe that district formation is an asset in controlling growth in their
communities. It does not require any
money and people get other benefits. It
was not the intent of the Government to buy easements on every piece of
agricultural land in
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that, in the majority of
the situations, when legislation is proposed at the General Assembly on behalf
of the Foundation, there has been consensus in advance. In this particular
case, a consensus has not been reached.
In the next 20 days the bill will be proposed, and the Department of
Agriculture will have to take a position on it.
In that situation, if we don’t have a consensus, there is not much the
Foundation can do. He encouraged
everyone to voice their differences, if any.
Time is critical, and he wanted to alert the Board and the program
administrators that, if the Assembly hears only one side, the outcome of what will be passed is
clear.
Mr. Colhoun stated
that the Committee has to work on all the points and encouraged everyone to
provide advice and information to the Committee members. He will help the Committee as much he can and
hoped a recommendation that is agreeable to the majority can be reached soon.
Mr. Tassone wanted to
know from Mr. Robertson if he anticipates possibly not having a large enough
pool of applicants from existing district propertiesfor
FY 2007. Mr. Robertson said that is
possible and stated that doing something about the need for a district
formation might help.
Mr. John Zawitoski,
Program Administrator,
Mr. Robertson commented that
Mr. Colhoun concluded
the discussion and asked the program administrators to quickly send in their
opinion to Ms. Council so the Committee can move ahead.
Mr. Colhoun wanted to
announce the passing of Mr. Robert E. Wolf, former MALPF Board member, on
Mr. Doug Wilson informed the Board members about
the passing away of Allaire du Pont. The
former Executive Director, Mr. Paul W. Scheidt, had spent hours convincing Ms.
Allaire du Pont to put her land in land preservation. Mr. Scheidt worked for years to arrange a
variety of easement packages for her. Preserving
her properties was an important cornerstone for the MALPF Program in its
infancy.
V. INFORMATION AND
DISCUSSION
A. RE-CERTIFICATION
OF
·
5,558 acres were preserved during the reporting period
(2003-2005), surpassing the County’s objective of preserving 1,500 acres per
year.
·
The County continues to commit funding for the Agricultural
Preservation Program, allowing the County to participate in matching funds
programs including MALPF and Federal Farmland Protection.
·
With a total expenditure of $54,689,999.00, the local PDR program preserved
22,315 acres, more than any other county in the State.
·
The County continues to commit funds to provide improved
infrastructure in the designated growth areas to direct growth to that
region: over the past 20 years, 80% of
residential development has been concentrated in the designated growth areas.
·
The Office of Economic Development has two full time employees
working on developing marketing and educational opportunities for the
agricultural community.
·
Permitted uses in the agricultural areas have been expanded to
allow additional income opportunities for the farming community.
In reviewing the recertification request report,
Foundation staff has identified three concerns about the future of land
preservation and the future viability of agriculture in the County. The first is a sharp decline in applications
for easement sale to MALPF. Second, as
acknowledged by
The staff’s review of
The Foundation staff recommends that
Mr. Bill Amoss, Program Administrator, and Mr.
Dan Rosen from the Maryland Department of Planning, were available to answer
any questions form the Board.
Motion #13: To approve
the re-certification of
Motion: Judith
C. Lynch Second: Pat Langenfelder
Status: Approved
In addition to the staff report presented by Ms.
Elizabeth Weaver, Mr. Rosen informed the Board members that the existing zoning
1 per 10 allows much development in the rural areas. In addition to regular development pressures,
thousands of new jobs will be coming to the area. He also would be in touch with the County
from time to time and understands the problems in the County. The Department of Planning recommended
re-certification of
B. RE-CERTIFICATION
OF
·
The County continues to commit funding for the Agricultural
Preservation Program, allowing the County to participate in matching funds
programs including MALPF and Federal Farmland Protection.
·
During the reporting period, the County preserved 1,907 acres of
agricultural land and woodlands.
·
The County has a goal of preserving 100,000 acres. To date, 44,700 acres have been preserved.
·
The County continues to demonstrate a very strong commitment to
preserving its agricultural lands.
Staff’s review of
Mr. Ralph Robertson, Program Administrator, and
Mr. Dan Rosen from the Maryland Department of Planning, were available to
answer any questions form the Board. Mr.
Colhoun complimented Mr. Robertson for a satisfactory program in
Mr. Rosen stated Carroll County has a goal to
preserve 100,000 acres of land by 2020, which he felt was a very high goal and
said lot of counties have smaller goals.
He expressed the Department’s concerns that 54.5% of new residential
lots were located in unincorporated areas, while 45.6% were in incorporated
cities or towns for the FY 2000-2004.
The County’s approach to the southern part of the County may be
compromised because of the development taking place. The Department of Planning recommended
re-certification.
Motion #14: To approve the re-certification of
Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Vera
Mae Schultz
Status: Approved
C. RE-CERTIFICATION
OF
·
The County continues to commit funding for the Agricultural Preservation
Program, allowing the County to participate in matching funds programs,
including MALPF and Federal Farmland Protection.
·
During the reporting period, the County preserved 492 acres of
agricultural land and woodlands.
·
The county has a goal of preserving 70,000 acres by 2010. To date, 58,126 acres have been preserved.
·
The staff’s review of
The Foundation staff recommends that
Mr. John Zawitoski, Program Administrator, and
Mr. Dan Rosen, Maryland Department of Planning, were available to answer any
questions form the Board. Mr. Zawitoski stated that it has been tough preserving the land
in the County for last couple of years.
Mr. Zawitoski believed that one of the things
unique to the County is the interaction between its TDR program and its
easement programs. Traditionally TDR values have lagged behind easement
values. The County Easement Programs are
very popular. Over the past two years,
because of the increased demand for TDRs for new
development in
Mr. Dan Rosen commented that the Department of
Planning is concerned that the farms that are preserved under the TDR program
still have remaining development rights of
Mr. Zawitoski agreed
and stated that they have a large area of the less desired 1 to 25 zoning. They have nervous landowners because, anytime
someone calls about reducing density, the first thing they ask about is its
impact and how it will affect their equity.
He understands this is the concern of the State.
Mr. Zawitoski commented
that one of the things the County would be doing is to look at a mechanism to
value remaining density which is more representative of the value the landowner
would be giving up. In return, for each
right that would be extinguished under the new approach, the County will be
getting a 25 acre easement.
Ms. Schultz wanted to know if the report was
going to mention the Legacy Open Space Program.
Mr. Zawitoski commented that Legacy Open Space
was a very ambitious program undertaken by Park and Planning (County Planning
Department) about 5 years ago. The name
is very similar to Rural Legacy and, therefore, confuses a lot of people. The Legacy Open Space Program was primarily
an open space preservation program. It
has nine resource categories like historic resources, watershed protection,
special biological areas, etc.
Agriculture is only one resource category among others. Unfortunately, Park and Planning does not
have good rapport with the agriculture community. Park and Planning proposes to give the money
to the County to help it meet its goals under Legacy Open Space, but it never
provided resources for the program directly to the County. A lot of their money is directed towards open
space and historic preservation.
Mr. Tassone commented
that this implies that Park and Planning has money, but is not really doing
much in agriculture. Mr. Zawitoski
agreed and stated that Park and Planning has about $30 million in bond
funding. Most of the focus has been
outside of agricultural land preservation.
Motion #15: To approve the re-certification of
Motion: Pat Langenfelder Second: Shirley Pilchard
Status: Approved
Mr. Chris Wilson
wanted to know about the offers for MALPF easements. Mr. Zawitoski
commented that for the upcoming cycle the offer that was made by the landowner
was $6,100 per acre. The fair market value of land is $10,000 per acre.
There
being no further business, Mr. Colhoun asked for a motion for adjournment of
the meeting.
Motion #16: To adjourn regular session and go to
executive session.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Chris
Wilson
Status: Approved
The
regular session of the Board meeting was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully Submitted:
_____________________________________
Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary
_____________________________________
Carol
S. Council, Administrative Officer