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
Robert F. Stahl, Jr.
Joe Tassone,
representing Secretary Scott, Maryland Department of Planning
Christopher H. Wilson
Doug Wilson,
representing Secretary Riley, Maryland Department of Agriculture
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Bill Amoss,
Gail H. Bates, Delegate,
Joan M. Becker, Attorney
at Law,
Tim Blaser,
Anne Bradley,
Tammy Buckle,
Yates Clagett,
James A. Conrad, MALPF
Executive Director
Carol Council, MALPF
Administrative Officer
Will Doane,
John R. Dulin,
Landowner, Queen Anne’s County
Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary
Nancy Forrester,
Assistant Attorney General,
Stephanie Jordan,
Reporter, Delmarva Farmer,
Joy Levy,
Carla Martin,
Craig Nielsen, Assistant
Attorney General, Maryland Department of Agriculture
Barbara Polito,
Charles Rice,
Ralph Robertson,
Daniel Rosen, Planner,
Maryland Department of Planning
Donna Sasscer, St.
Mary’s County, Program Administrator
Rad Sakhamuri, Queen Anne’s
County, Planner
Martin Sokolich,
Mr. & Mrs. Jerry
Stambaugh, Landowners,
Donna Landis-Smith,
Queen Anne’s County, Program Administrator
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF
Administrative Officer
Susan Wilson, Landowner,
Daniel Colhoun, Chairman, called the
meeting to order at approximately
The
Board met in open session to discuss policy issues between at
Mr.
Colhoun welcomed Delegate Bates and Ms. Becker and stated his appreciation for
their attendance at the MALPF Board meeting.
Delegate
Bates informed the Board that she had been in touch with Mr. James Conrad,
MALPF Executive Director, on this particular issue. Delegate Bates had spoken to Mr. Conrad in
December 2005 and informed him of her interest in introducing the bill to solve
what she identified as problems, at least in Howard County, and probably
elsewhere.
Delegate
Bates stated that a number of people who entered the MALPF program 25 years
back have a clause in their easement contract stating that the easement is “in
perpetuity,” but allowing the option to petition for release from the
easement. She noted that some people who
had entered the program in the beginning are now seriously considering the
option of petitioning for release. Delegate
Bates did not feel that releasing program participants from their easement was
good for the program. Therefore, she
expressed her interest in trying to find a solution that would encourage them
not to petition for release.
Delegate
Bates commented that the farmers who came into the MALPF program early on have
less flexibility with their easements.
They were offered children’s lots, which is problematic.
Delegate
Bates introduced Ms. Joan Becker as a Zoning Attorney who will be making a
presentation to the Board.
Ms.
Becker introduced herself and stated that she is an attorney in the
Ms.
Becker commented that there are certain properties primarily in some of the
densely populated counties like Howard, Baltimore, and Carroll where many
preservation properties are surrounded by development. It has become increasingly more difficult for
the landowners to continue farming and make profit.
Ms.
Becker stated that
The
first easement settled in October 1980.
Ms. Becker commented that there are number of properties that are
completing 25 years in May 2006. The
reason for coming up with the proposed bill is to give an opportunity to people
having children’s lots an option to convert them into unrestricted lots. It recognizes the fact that we do not have
the traditional family farm any more, and it is difficult to have people
continue to live on the farms, especially if they want to create lots for more
than two children.
Ms.
Becker met with Mr. Conrad on this issue.
Ms. Becker believed that 60% of the original grantors are still the
easement holders. In the proposed
legislation, she is suggesting that these 60% the original grantors will have a
one year option period to consider their individual situations – if they wanted
to retain family lots, they can do so; but, if they wanted to convert to
unrestricted lots, they could do so at a density of 1 lot per 50 acres in
exchange for a perpetuity clause and that will close the door permanently on a
possible release from the easement on many farms. Because the average farm is about 130 acres,
this would result in no more that two or three unrestricted lots on those
eligible to participate in this proposed transaction.
When
she discussed this with Mr. Conrad, Mr. Conrad felt it would be a windfall to
the farmer; it is something the easement did not originally provide, and he
felt it would have a negative effect on the program. Mr. Conrad had commented that when the farmer
had originally signed the easement agreement, the farmer did not think about
the fair market value of what an unrestricted lot would be. The bill provides that we will be willing to
exchange lots at the fair market value.
So the State’s investment is not affected.
Doug
Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture, wanted to know
the proposed date at which the Fair Market Value of the lot would be determined
for purposes of repayment to MALPF.
Ms.
Becker responded that it would be fair market value of the lot at the time the
farmer sold the easement. The landowner
would pay back the fair market value of the lot from the time he or she sold
the easement however many years ago.
Instead of a release payback of $1,000 or $1,500 per acre, depending on
whatever the State paid, the release payback based on the fair market value of
the lot at the time the easement settled could be between $25,000 and $30,000
or more, depending on the location and the date of settlement. The Foundation would have revenues from the
paybacks coming back into the program to purchase more easement acreage.
Ms.
Becker stated that obviously the location of any released lot would have to be subject
to approval to avoid any negative impact upon farming operations. We are all talking about a limited number of
lots in exchange for which landowners would sign a new agreement with a
perpetuity clause. Ms. Becker felt this
action to be very significant for the State.
The exchange of family lots for unrestricted lots has been successfully
working in
When
Ms. Becker spoke to Mr. Conrad in December 2005 to ask about his concerns and
recommendations, she was informed that bills were passed in 2003 to change lot
rights and make the easement explicitly perpetual. Ms. Becker did not want to
reinvent the wheel. Program participants since 2003 should continue with the
requirements under their easements. This is just a window of opportunity to
lock the earlier grantors under the easements with the 25-year termination
clause into a perpetual agreement and giving them an incentive to do so. From
the standpoint of cost, the Foundation would have additional revenue coming in
as a result of this. Additionally, transfer tax would be generated for land
preservation. In the case of children’s lots, no transfer tax is generated.
Ms.
Becker stated that when the policy was amended in 2003, the State program
release provision required a five-year time period before a family lot could be
transferred without restriction. She was
aware that the Foundation amended the statute to allow a release where none had
been possible under the previous wording.
However, Ms. Becker expressed her concern that when early participants
entered the State program, there was no five-year restriction on the transfer
of family lots in the commercial marketplace.
Also,
the county requires a separate subdivision.
When a son or daughter of the farmer wants to continue in the farming
operation, and the farmer does not have a home on the property, the farmer goes
to the bank for a mortgage for constructing the home. The bank will not make a
mortgage loan because the lot is not separately subdivided. If the lot cannot
be separately subdivided from the larger farming property, there is an issue of
mortgaging the whole farm. This does not happen in
Mr.
Colhoun wanted to know if Delegate Bates would like to sum up the
presentation. He also encouraged Board
members to ask questions, if they have any.
Delegate
Bates stated that she had been in touch with Mr. Conrad since December 2005 and
had expressed her interest in introducing legislation allowing the landowners
to trade family lots for unrestricted lots.
She felt somewhat frustrated because Mr. Conrad did not recommend ways
to achieve this objective, but simply opposed her ideas. Delegate Bates stated that it is not their
intention to spoil the MALPF program. If
any of these farms get out, at least in
Mr.
Doug Wilson stated that he is not sure if the Board can act on their proposal
in this particular year. The State has
23 partners. Major state policies always
have full discussions along with Farm Bureau and others. The proposal is quite a significant
change. Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know
if while developing the legislation they talked to any of the other partners
since the issue is a statewide issue.
Whatever decision is made for
Delegate
Bates responded that they have not. They
were hoping to get some direction from Mr. Conrad, and they had plans to talk
to Senator Clark. It was only last week
that Mr. Conrad had suggested bringing the proposal to the Board. Delegate Bates stated that she would have
preferred to have this discussion with the Board back in December 2005, rather
than having it at the end of the legislative session.
Mr.
Doug Wilson stated that he would like to defend Mr. Conrad. Individual legislators come to program staff
and the program’s legal counsel all the time.
The Foundation creates problems when legislators are told if we like or
do not like an idea.
Delegate Bates stated that she
understands the situation, but would have desired to have had feedback in
January 2006, rather than having the idea still opposed at the end of February
2006. If she has the support of the
Board, she would like to work with the Board on the possibility of amending the
legislation for next year. They may
still be able to buy another year with some of the program participants
interested in terminating their easements if they thought that something will
happen.
James Pelura, Board member, wanted to
know if the constituents she spoke to would consent to the plan. If this is a constituent problem, then she
does not need the Board’s support. She
will need the support of other delegates and senators. The Board will administer whatever
legislation the delegates and senators successfully pass.
Delegate Bates stated that she really did
not want to destroy the present proposal and wanted it to go through the
Foundation and the Board. She believes that there are at least one or two farms
in
Joe Tassone, representing Secretary
Scott, Department of Planning, expressed his concern about the idea that this
would preclude a domino effect. He
believed it seemed unrealistic to think that all landowners inclined to
exercise their 25-year option to request termination will accept this as an
alternative. He personally did not feel
the effort would be successful as it would be contrary to the intent of the
provision in the easement. A termination
request can be successful only if profitable agriculture is impossible on the
farm in question. On the one hand, the
Foundation may have a certain number of landowners trying to get out of the
program. On the other hand, there also
might be number of landowners who will take advantage of the six unrestricted
lots, though they have no intent of leaving the program. These unrestricted lots will multiply
enormously the number of residential subdivisions in the areas in which the
State has invested a great deal of money to protect agricultural resources.
Mr. Tassone was also concerned that the
proposal will be contrary to the recent six-year MALPF Task Force effort
resulting in a reduction of lot exclusion allowances from ten to three with
much tighter guidelines.
Delegate Bates responded that under these
easements there are quite a number of children’s lots. You may end up with less development under
this alternative proposal. The choices
made by landowners will depend on the individual family situations, and the
option could only be exercised by the original easement sellers. Originally the children’s lots were 1 lot per
20 acres. This option would be 1 lot per
50 acres with a cap of six lots. Many
farms have fewer than the 300 acres necessary to get all six lots. We are not looking at a massive amount of
additional development. Whether it would
effectively stop the domino effect, she can’t say. She believed the proposal is one option to
consider.
Shirley Pilchard, Board member, commented
that being a delegate, she knows how busy the delegates are at the end of the
legislative session. She was concerned
with trying to push something through the General Assembly this late in the
session. Ms. Pilchard was afraid that
late legislation may not be thoroughly evaluated, and it may not be possible to
correct poorly conceived proposals. Ms.
Pilchard stated that she liked the general concept but would like to study it
more.
Delegate Bates appreciated the comments
and stated that they were trying to do something as the easements were nearing
completion of 25 years. If she gets an
idea that the Board will be willing to work with them on the concept, maybe
something can be done in the next session.
Mr. Colhoun concluded the session and
stated that the Board is always willing to sit with elected officials and look
at what could be improved in the program.
He thanked Delegate Bates and Ms. Becker for coming and sharing their
thoughts.
Howard Freedlander, representing
Treasurer Kopp, commented that he and Mr. Jerry Klasmeier, representing
Comptroller Schaefer, would like to know about the progress of the
Ms. Becker commented that making progress
has been very frustrating but there has been progress.
Ms. Joy Levy, Program Administrator,
Mr. Colhoun commented that discussions
may be held in the coming months and thanked Delegate Bates and Ms. Becker for
attending the meeting.
Daniel Colhoun, Chairman, called the regular
business 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: Chris Wilson Second: Howard
Freedlander
Status: Approved
Mr. Conrad gave an
update on Federal Farmland Ranch Protection Program. MALPF is still working with the State’s
program manager at NRCS to try to resolve the issues. The pending easements that are in the NRCS office
in
Mr. Conrad stated that
there will be an impact on the funding because of the problems with FRPP. The Foundation will have to pull money from
wherever it can find it possibly including from next year’s allocation. He promised to keep the program
administrators informed about the decision of the Foundation and the progress
being made on this issue.
Mr. Colhoun stated that
he was concerned that the landowners’ money has been held up in the FRPP review
process and shared with the Board members that he had asked Mr. Conrad to be in
touch with Mr. Doug Wilson to work out a way to use State funds to expedite the
settlement of the pending easements.
Mr. Doug Wilson
commented that the issues about the title review requirements, revising the
language of the deed of easement, and having to go to the farmers to re-sign a
new deed of new easement are very disturbing.
The Foundation may be able to deal with the new requirements that are
being implemented concerning the appraisal system. We still will have to address the “after”
appraisal issues. The Foundation is
looking at everybody that currently has federal dollars committed to their
pending easement. It is trying to
replace them with State and county dollars.
This is being done trying to limit the impact on the program. The Foundation is at risk for 4 million
dollars of federal money to be swapped unless Mr. Conrad and Mr. Robertson can
work magic during the next 30 or 60 days.
Once we ask landowners to sign the State easements without the federal
language, if NRCS then moves the pending easements forward towards settlement,
the Foundation cannot reverse itself and put the federal language back in the
easement. If MALPF can meet the new
requirements being imposed on its FRPP funding, we will put all federal money
we have to replace now from the FY 2004 award plus the grant funds from FY 2005
towards the future offers, probably in our FY 2007 easement acquisition
cycle. It is quite possible that, when
the Foundation begins its easement offer cycle next month, it will not be using
the federal money commitments. It will
put the funds to the FY 2007 easement acquisition cycle. The appropriation for next year through
transfer taxes will be 70 million dollars of state money. It will be far easier to match $10 to 12
million federal funds than today. The
Foundation’s plan is to take the 16 to 17 clients with pending easements with
federal commitments and settle them as soon as DGS is ready. For six of them, DGS already has the check
issued and is ready to settle.
Mr. Conrad pointed out
that there are also issues where properties have settled, but MALPF has not yet
received reimbursement on the federal funds commitments, and the Foundation is
not sure if it is going to be reimbursed on them. The Foundation also has to decide how much
money it is willing to spend to leverage the federal funds, because NRCS is
going to be adding requirements. The
additional requirements will cost money; currently the Foundation has not
budgeted for such requirements. Citing
an example of proposed NRCS requirements, Mr. Conrad stated that deed of
easement language may be required that would compel the Foundation to have phase one environmental assessments done on any FRPP
properties. On FRPP properties, the
Foundation may also be required to comply with Federal yellow book appraisal
standards with the appraisals completed within 12 months of settlement. This requirement will raise the cost of a
single property’s appraisal from approximately $1,200 to $3,000 or $4,000. So every time the Foundation receives a
federal grant, the Foundation will have significant additional costs, not just
in terms of the additional administrative hassles, but in terms of actual
expenditures.
Mr. Doug Wilson added
that, in FY 2007, the Foundation could have as many as 100 FRPP-funded
properties. The extra appraisal costs
could easily be $300,000. Environmental
assessments could be $10,000 per property, or a total of $1,000,000. So MALPF will be spending more than a million
dollars off the top in administrative costs to utilize the federal money under
the current system.
Mr. Colhoun
wanted to inform the program administrators that MALPF staff and Maryland
Department of Agriculture is very well aware of the constraints, problems, and
the pressure that is on the jurisdictions to settle these pending FRPP-funded
easements being held up in the process, and everyone is trying hard to break
through the stalemate. Our ultimate
objective is to serve the customer. The
villain in this situation may be the federal funds.
Ms. Tammy Buckle,
Program Administrator,
Mr. Doug Wilson said
that the changes may apply only to the FY 2006 application, not the FY 2004 and
2005 federal funding. If that is the
case, the Foundation may have to spend an extra $200,000 to get that $3
million, we don’t know for sure at this point.
That is still a lot of money. On
the other hand, we may have a total of $9-12 million of federal funds available
for matching, and we may have to spend a million dollars to secure those
funds. We don’t know which properties
will have federal matching in the first place.
The federal program manager picks the properties. When MALPF hires DGS to do the appraisals,
DGS does not know which properties will have federal matching funds; therefore,
DGS does not know which properties will require MALPF appraisals and the
federal standard before and after appraisal.
Currently not every appraiser we use is trained in yellow book appraisal
standards which are the standards that will have to be used when federal funds
are involved. Those administrative
problems create additional problems. For
example, using a before and after appraisal is to determine the easement value
simply does not work with our current easement value formula. Mr. Conrad stated that the Foundation would
be restricted to using 50% of the difference between before and after appraisal
as the maximum federal funding that could be applied to an easement. So the amount of federal money we can put in
to each individual easement will be less.
This would imply that the federal funding will be spread out over a
larger number of easements, raising our administrative costs. So there are a number of administrative
issues involved.
Mr. Doug Wilson said
that the person we relied on to negotiate the cooperative agreements and to process
the federal funds committed to our easements may or may not have received
approvals from the national headquarters with all the policy issues that the
Foundation has had in the past. There is
no written record, apparently, to support either conclusion. So now the federal government is saying that
our FY 2004 deed of easement has still to be approved by its office. When we got the deeds back from NRCS signed
from all of the FY 2004 commitments to date, it would be logical to conclude
that the deed of easement had been approved, particularly because MALPF had
included all of the federal language required to be in the deed of easement by
the FY 2004 cooperative agreement. It is
possible that NRCS did not get the necessary federal approvals it needed to
obtain. However, Mr. Conrad noted that
there is also no proof that NRCS did not get the necessary approvals. At this moment the federal government is
saying that it wants additional and different language in the MALPF deed of
easement, and if MALPF does not comply, no more funding will be forthcoming
from that federal grant.
Ms. Buckle expressed her
concern about the perception at the county level about the program in
general.
Mr. Doug Wilson
commented that 10 million dollars is still 10 million dollars. If we forgo the money, some people’s
easements will not be funded.
Mr. Conrad stated that,
even if we may secure future federal funding and the process starts working
again, those with federal funding commitments may find that it will take longer
to go to settlement with federal funds compared to going through the regular
program. NRCS may insist on a title
review above and beyond what DGS does – which is one of the best. Further, there may be additional reviews of
the appraisals and the language in individual deeds of easement. Certainly, securing phase one environmental
assessments will take additional time.
None of these requirements have been made clear yet, though they have
been discussed.
Mr. Tassone wanted to
know if the law precludes the Foundation from using state money to buy
easements which are valued from a different system other than prescribed in the
law.
Mr. Conrad clarified that
the Foundation will set the easement value according to its own statutory
requirements; however, the Foundation will likely be required by the federal
government to get a separate additional appraisal to meet federal requirements. That appraisal would not determine MALPF’s easement value, but would be used to determine the
maximum amount of money the federal government would put into our
easement. So all the appraisal would be
used for would be to calculate the federal contribution. This appraisal cannot be done at the time the
Foundation secures the appraisals used to set its value. The federal appraisal has to be done within
12 months of the time of settlement. The
Foundation values are set on July 1 of the year of application. The Foundation usually does not make offers
until 9 months after that, making meeting the 12 month requirement next to
impossible.
Mr. Freedlander wanted
some additional explanation on this subject for the Board of Public Works. Ms. Forrester said that she would be setting
up a meeting soon to brief the Board of Public Works about this issue, if it is
felt that a briefing would be necessary.
Mr. Conrad briefed the
Board about the major legislations in the current session. The bills HB 2, 90, 460, and 769 are moving
through the process. Mr. Colhoun and Mr.
Conrad will be attending hearings on some of this legislation in the
Senate. The relocation bill, HB 90, has
been slightly amended. The amendment
says that the original house which has been relocated elsewhere on the property
cannot be approved to be a tenant house after the main house has been
relocated. If it is not been adapted to
an alternative agricultural use, it has to be demolished. The Agricultural Stewardship bill, HB 2 has
passed. The House has now scheduled a
hearing for the Senate version of the bill, SB 5. The two major amendments are: 1) Priority Preservation Areas are voluntary
element rather than required element, and 2) the two certification program –
Priority Preservation Area and regular certification program – are collapsed
into a single program to reduce the administrative burden. It also says that only new money would go to
counties which certify Priority Preservation Areas, rather than withdrawing existing
MALPF money from counties which do not certify Priority Preservation Areas,
with the exception of the possibility of losing some agricultural transfer
taxes resulting from combining the two certification programs and any failure
of counties now certified to continue certification by successfully
establishing Priority Preservation Areas.
II. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY
1.
Request for acreage exchange of easement
property
Mr. and Mrs. Dulin are the original grantors of
the easement. The current request is for
an acreage exchange of easement property for non-easement property.
The Dulins are
requesting an acreage exchange of 1.022 acres of easement property for 4.6
acres of non-easement property (see attached map). The purpose of the exchange is to allow the
landowner to create an additional lot on withheld acreage for subsequent sale.
When the property (Parcel 12 on attached map)
entered the program as a district, an 8-acre area was withheld for “future
financial security.” (At district
establishment, the Foundation District Staff Report stated that the area was
zoned agricultural and the allowed density was one dwelling per 20 acres.) According to Queen Anne’s County, the current
zoning ordinance allows the creation of four “sliding scale” lots on an 8-acre
area that was withheld from the district.
However, the perc test indicated the area could only support three lots
under the current configuration. The
addition of a 1.022-acre area currently under easement would allow the creation
of four lots due to the improved percability of the land. If the Foundation denies the request, the
landowner would have the ability to place the fourth lot on withheld acreage on
an adjacent easement property (Parcel 13 on attached map). (At district establishment on the adjacent
property, the landowner withheld four acres, which currently has one “sliding
scale” right associated with it. The
County has indicated that a total of four lots could be created on the area
contained in Parcel 12 and 13.)
The landowner had originally requested an equal
acreage exchange of two areas of 1.022 acres each. The local advisory board recommended that the
landowner instead place 4.6 acres of the withheld portion back under
easement. The landowner has agreed to
this condition.
According to the County, both areas, i.e., the
1.022-acre area to be removed from the easement and the 4.6-acre area to be
added to the easement, are comprised of Class II soils. The request was approved by the local
agricultural advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations.
Foundation staff requested that the County
explain the “sliding scale” rights process during the meeting. The County’s letter to the Foundation states
that, under the Zoning Ordinance, “one new lot can be created using sliding
scale for every one hundred acres or part thereof.” The Foundation’s deed of easement states that
“No development rights from the above described tracts(s) or parcels(s) may be
transferred to another area, or to another person, or to a political
sub-division.” The Foundation should be
assured that, in keeping with the intent of the easement, the rights associated
with the easement property are not being used to create density elsewhere.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the
request with the condition that a deed restriction will be placed on the
adjacent property (Parcel 13) which extinguishes the right to develop the
withheld portion at any time in the future.
Denial of the request would result in a high probability of the
development of a lot on Parcel 13. An
additional lot on the area withheld from Parcel 12 would have less adverse
impact on the agricultural operation of the farm than the addition of a single
lot on Parcel 13. Additionally, the
approval should be conditional on a favorable review of the impact on the value
of the easement by the Office of Real Estate, Department of General Services.
Mr. Dulin and Ms. Rad
Sakhamuri were present at the meeting to answer any questions from the
Board. Ms. Sakhamuri explained the
“sliding scale technique” for the benefit of the Board members. The sliding scale technique allows landowner
to create lots without creating open space.
Queen Anne’s County requires 85% open space to create any lot. The open space was required by 1987 zoning,
and there were many properties that were caught with the open space
requirement. In 1993, the County updated
its zoning ordinance and introduced the sliding scale technique whereby a
farmer can subdivide off a lot for every 100 acres. If a farmer wants to create a lot for himself
or for his children, he does not have to go through the requirement of 85% open
space to support the lot. The sliding
scale technique has been used in the County since 1993.
Ms. Sakhamuri stated
that this easement property had come into the program after 1993, and she was
not aware about the information presented to the Board at the time of
application.
Mr. Dulin stated that
the land that he wanted to exchange is of the best area that would perc and
meets county standards. The land in the
green area of the map did not perc and did not have suitable land separations
to meet the county standards. The
proposed lot on the other hand would meet county standards.
Ms. Sakhamuri stated
that the landowner had left out a five-acre parcel, and the Foundation had
asked her if Mr. Dulin would be willing to put an easement on the 5-acre
parcel. Mr. Dulin is subdividing the 3
lots on the land that were left out. Mr.
Dulin was willing to put an easement on the five
acres in exchange for the 4 lots.
Mr. Tassone wanted to
know how the sliding scale rights are calculated in relationship to the lots by
acreage. For example, you can get 1 lot
per 20 acres or you can get 1 lot per 8 acres if you cluster. He wanted to know if the sliding scale rights
are in addition to those rights created by clustering.
Ms. Sakhamuri
responded in the affirmative and stated that the cluster density ratio is 1 for
8 and the sliding scale is 1 lot for every 100 acres or less than 100
acres. For anything more than that, for
every 100 acres there is one additional lot.
Citing an example, Ms. Sakhamuri stated that if a landowner has 98
acres, he will get 12 lots for 96 acres and for the 2 remaining acres the
landowner can draw on the sliding scale which means that the landowner can get
13 lots. It is not a cluster technique
but a sliding scale technique.
Mr. Bill Amoss, Program Administrator,
Ms. Sakhamuri stated
that the property became an easement property awhile ago, and she does not have
any evidence to confirm how many lots were taken out at that time. It was mentioned in the staff report that 8
acres were left out for “future financial security.” She believed that the program administrator
at that time would have informed the Board and the landowner about many lots
could have been developed on 8 acres.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know if anyone has checked
to verify the appraisals to see how many lots were actually appraised at the
time of the easement taking into account the withheld acreage and to find if
there has been any discrepancy. Ms. Sakhamuri stated that she did not verify the appraisal, but
she did check in the files to see if there was any evidence on what was the
intent of withholding the 8-acres and whether the information was relayed to
the Foundation or not. The financial
security objective was definitely mentioned in the staff report that was
presented to the Board. She was not
aware of the number of lots that were conveyed by that withheld acreage.
Mr. Colhoun commented
that in the staff memo circulated with the agenda material, staff has
recommended approval conditional on a favorable review of the impact on the
value of the easement by the Office of Real Estate, Department of General
Services. Mr. Colhoun
believed the answer will come from DGS Office.
Mr. Tassone commented
that the withheld acreage policy was enacted by the Foundation in response to
one of the recommendations from the Task Force.
One of the questions that the Task Force failed to answer was how to
handle a property with 10 development rights.
Withholding acreage means 3 lots could be withheld, leaving 7 rights to
be purchased. How do you make sure that the appraisal is done right; but more
importantly, how do we deal with the issue that 5, 6, 8, 10 years from now,
when somebody wants to sub-divide the withheld acreage? The rights they have are relative to the
original acres of property and the way the county interprets sub-division and
development regulations at that time.
The only solution the Task Force could think of was to put a deed
restriction on the withheld acreage limiting the development to what was
assigned to it by the process of coming into the MALPF program. But nobody would go for that. So the Foundation had to figure out with each
county how to fix that distribution of development rights between the withheld
acreage and the easement property. Mr. Tassone believed that Mr. Amoss’s question was relevant and
is something that the Foundation still should address.
Mr. Amoss stated that,
in
Ms. Sakhamuri stated
that this case before the Foundation is not part of a cluster subdivision. The sliding scale does not require any
restriction of open space; it is using a different technique. The County does not count easement acreage in
terms of open space.
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that it is correct to
have DGS have a say that the action, if approved, does not invalidate the
appraisal and the payments.
Ms. Forrester stated that it looks like the
Foundation is receiving nine acres in exchange for one acre. Ms. Sakhamuri
confirmed that this was the case.
Ms. Weaver, Foundation staff, wanted to know if
there is going to be a deed restriction.
Mr. Dulin felt that he
is already giving the Foundation quite a lot.
He stated that he had spoken to Ms. Joy Levy who was the Program
Administrator of the county when he entered the program. He was told at the beginning that there would
be no problem. Mr. Dulin
stated that he is only asking the Foundation to shift the line. He supports the MALPF program. When he bought the farm, he put it into land
preservation. There was no hesitation;
there was no problem of development rights.
Mr. Colhoun commented
that the Board is trying to resolve a larger issue and that Mr. Dulin should not feel that the Board is picking on
him. The issue is a state-wide issue and
that is the reason the Board and administrators are discussing it in detail.
Ms. Levy, Program Administrator,
Motion #2: To approve the request as recommended
by the staff with the condition that a deed restriction on easement be placed
on parcel 12 and 13 and DGS resolve the question about the lots versus the
appraisal.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
Ms. Buckle commented that the swap requests come
to the Board all the time and are approved without a question. Mr. Dulin has given
several acres for 1.022-acre area. She
wanted to know the reason why this request is treated differently.
Ms. Weaver explained that in this case there was
a concern about where the extra density is coming from. The staff report at the time the property
came in as a district mentioned density as 1 lot per 20 acres. So there was a question as to if the density
was 1 per 20 how can we put three lots here?
2. 17-99-12C Leager, James C. & Kay L. 192.27 acres
Request for the
exclusion of up to 2 acres for an owner’s lot on easement property.
Mr. and Mrs. Leager are the original grantors of
the easement. The current request is for
the release of up to two acres for an owner’s lot for their personal use.
There are no pre-existing dwellings on the
property. No other lots have been
requested for this property. The Leagers do not own any other district or easement
properties.
According to Queen Anne’s County, the proposed
lot is to be located along the perimeter of the property. The lot will be accessed through an existing
farm lane that runs along the edge of the property. The lot location follows the guidelines of
the Foundation’s approved lot location policy.
The landowners have applied for a perc test.
The request was approved by the local advisory
board and conforms to local zoning regulations.
If approved, there will be a required payback of $925.00 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.
Ms. Donna Landis-Smith, Program Administrator,
was present to answer any questions from the Board. Ms. Smith informed the Board, that, prior to
the farm being put in an easement, there was an old dwelling that was
destroyed. The proposed location is a
much better location on the farm. Mr. Leager is going to improve the farm lane to meet the county
regulations.
Motion #3: To approve the request of James and Kay
Leager for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for an
owner’s lot on easement property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Pat
Langenfelder
Status: Approved
3. 17-86-21 Clark, Sr, David M. & June K. 211.00 acres
Request for the relocation and release of a
pre-existing dwelling
Mr. and Mrs. Clark are the original grantors of
the easement. The current request is for
the relocation and release of an existing dwelling on the easement property.
According to Queen Anne’s County, the
Both proposed relocation areas are located along
the road. The existing dwelling is
located in the middle of the property and is accessed by a long driveway.
The soils map attached with the agenda item
indicates that the soils on the sites are comparable. The areas of the proposed relocation sites
are currently used as cropland.
The farming operation consists of an annual
rotation of wheat, corn, and soybeans.
In a letter to the Foundation, the
According to Donna Landis-Smith, Queen Anne’s
County Program Administrator, either proposed lot
locations will improve the agricultural operation because both are located
along the road, while the current dwelling is located in the middle of the
property.
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, the
Ms. Smith, Program
Administrator, was available to answer any questions from the Board.
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted
to know if the county had a preference as to which lot is preferred. Ms. Smith responded that the county and the
landowner would prefer the first choice because it is located in the corner of
the farm, but the landowner was not sure if it would perc. The second choice is along an existing farm
lane that goes up to the pre-existing dwelling.
Motion #4: To approve
the request by David and June Clark for the first choice for the relocation and
release of a pre-existing dwelling if it percs. If the first choice does not perc, the
approval is for the second choice. The
approval is subject to the landowners signing a pre-existing dwelling
Relocation agreement.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder
Status: Approved
B.
1. 06-89-28Ae Talbert, Harold T. 70.0
acres
Re-review of a request to acknowledge a dwelling
that existed prior to easement sale
At the
Since the February 28 Board meeting, Nancy
Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, and William Beach, DGS Appraiser, have
reviewed the appraisal and discussed this issue. Ms. Forrester and Mr. Beach both agree that
the dwelling was probably physically located on the property prior to the
appraisal. The reason the appraisals do
not reflect its existence is because the appraisers were instructed to view the
property as having only one pre-existing dwelling. They have both stated that they have no
objection to acknowledging the dwelling with the following stipulations: 1) the dwelling may not ever be subdivided
from the property; 2) if the dwelling is allowed to be replaced in the future,
the Foundation will have to approve its location and its size.
William Powel,
The Carroll County Advisory Board has approved
this request.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the
request to recognize the trailer as a pre-existing dwelling with the following
conditions: 1) the dwelling may not ever
be subdivided from the property; and, 2) if the dwelling is allowed to be
replaced in the future, the Foundation will have to approve its location and
its size. Foundation staff further
recommends the Board accept Mr. Talbert’s offer to relinquish the 1.0 acre
child’s lot that was approved on
Mr. and Mrs. Stambaugh,
daughter and son-in-law of Mr. Harold Talbert, and Mr. Ralph Robertson, Program
Administrator, were available at the meeting.
Mr. Robertson stated that he has the un-signed letter from Mr. Talbert
relinquishing the child’s lot.
Mr. Robertson wanted to know the reason behind
the limitation in the size of the dwelling.
Ms. Forrester commented that there is a concern
about the character of the farm as it existed when the Foundation purchased the
easement. The reason is not to limit the
size, and the Foundation does recognize the trailer.
Mr. Robertson stated that he vividly remembers
the house burned down because it was next to his farm.
Mr. Conrad commented that the rescinding the
approval for the child’s lot is not the same as relinquishing the right. The right for the child’s lot still
remains. If Mr. Talbert still wants to
come back and ask the Foundation for a child’s lot, that right is still
available. All that is being done is
just rescinding an earlier approval.
Mr. Conrad stated that what the Foundation is
creating here is not a tenant house but it is like a tenant house. It is non-sub-dividable. We have size restrictions on tenant house
approvals. The Foundation is not asking
for size restrictions, but just asking for size review. The Foundation is not saying that the house
is restricted to a certain size. Part of
the concern is how we are handling tenant houses, and there have been lots of
issues in
Motion #5: To approve
the request by Harold Talbert to acknowledge a dwelling that existed prior to
easement sale with no restriction on the size of the dwelling.
Motion: Robert
Stahl Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
Mr. Tassone wanted to
confirm the possibility that, since the pre-existing dwelling is now
recognized, the landowner has the right to request it to be re-located on the
property. Mr. Conrad agreed.
Mr. Colhoun
commented that he does understand the issue of redesignating
the existing house as the tenant house when a relocation request is made, and
he knows that there have been instances when people have wished to designate
the main house as tenant house because they want to build a larger house. He did not feel that was the case in this
present request.
Ms. Council, Foundation staff,
stated that the Foundation also needs a motion to accept the withdrawal of the
approval for the child’s lot for son, Michael Talbert.
Motion #5a: To approve
the relinquishing of the original approval for the child’s lot.
Motion: Joe
Tassone Second:
Pat Langenfelder
Status: Approved
Mr. Colhoun
thanked the Stambaughs for their patience and for
attending the meeting.
2. 06-00-06e Weber, Jr., John & Elizabeth 114.336 acres
Request for up to 2.0
acres for a child’s lot for their daughter, Heidi L. Biden
Mr. and Mrs. Weber are the original grantors of
the easement. The current request is for
the release of up to two acres for a child’s lot for the personal use of their
daughter, Heidi L. Biden.
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 $3,000.00 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 two 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 two acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the
Environment or the county.
Mr. Ralph Robertson was available to answer the
questions from the Board. Mr. and Mrs.
Weber conveyed their regret in not being able to attend the meeting.
Mr. Robertson briefed the Board members about
the location of the lot. The lot is on
the edge of the farm and is next to a wooded area. He confirmed that the location and access for
the lot conform to the Foundation’s recently approved Lot Location Guidelines.
Motion
#6: To approve the request by John
and Elizabeth Weber for up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot for their daughter,
Heidi L. Biden.
Motion: Shirley
Pilchard Second: Pat Langenfelder
Status: Approved
C.
1.
Request for up to 2.0 acres of district property
for a child’s lot for their son, Clinton L. Clark.
Mr. and Mrs. Clark are the original owners of
the district property. There are two
pre-existing dwellings, and there have been no previous requests for lot
exclusions. Mr. and Mrs. Clark do not own
any other district or easement properties.
According to
The local agricultural advisory board has
approved this request. The request
conforms to local zoning regulations. If
approved, there will be no payback for the lot as this is district property.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one
acre plus such minimum additional acreage if required by the County Health
Department, not to exceed 2.0 acres total 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 2.0 acres if required by regulations adopted by the
Department of the Environment or the county.
Mr. Conrad informed the
Board that the request does create some degree of clustering and briefed them
about the access to the lot.
Motion #7: To approve
the request by Billy and Dorothy Clark for up to 2.0 acres of district property
for a child’s lot for their son, Clinton L. Clark.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
Mr. Freedlander wanted
to know that since the agenda items have already been distributed to the Board
members, was it necessary for Mr. Conrad to read the introduction of each
agenda item before the Board starts discussing the specific issue.
Mr. Colhoun commented
that many times the agenda packet reaches the Board members at different times
and the Board members don’t always get to read all the details. He felt Mr. Conrad’s reading the pertinent
points is advantageous to the Board members as every Board member has not got
the chance to study the agenda items as much as some of the Board members do.
Mr. Conrad stated that he is flexible and can do
whatever the Board wants.
Mr. Tassone commented that
he goes through the agenda packet very carefully and writes down his comments,
but, frequently when the item comes up on the agenda, he does not always
remember his comments. So when Mr.
Conrad reads out the introduction, it helps Mr. Tassone to think about it. Mr. Tassone agreed with Mr. Colhoun that Mr.
Conrad can read the pertinent points especially when the staff memo is very
long.
Mr. Conrad stated that he will try to be as
brief as possible. Mr. Conrad continued
to proceed with the next item on the agenda.
2. 21-97-07
Request to relocate 5.82 acres that were
withheld from the district.
Mr. and Mrs. Clark are the original owners of
the district property. There are two
pre-existing dwellings and there have been no requests for lot exclusions. The
At the time of district establishment, the
landowners withheld 8.6 acres for the four (4) future lots for their
children. At this time, they are
requesting to relocate 5.82 of the 8.6 acres in order to cluster all of the
lots on the southernmost portion of the property. Mr. Conrad commented that, based on a
prepared sub-division plat, the relocation will result
in a total of five lots. All the
proposed lots have direct access. Staff
would like to make following comments:
1. The proposed location is
a better location for the lots – it has better access, and it is clustered.
2. There is an extra
lot. The earlier rule applied when they
withheld the acreage. So there was no
limitation at that point as to how many lots could be created. The district was created in 1997.
According to
Foundation staff recommends approval of the
request to relocate 5.82 acres that were withheld from the district because it
meets the Foundation’s Lot Location Guidelines and will cause less impact on
the overall farm operation.
Mr. Conrad noted that
the colored aerial map locates an exclusion in the
middle of the property. It is a cemetery
and was excluded when the district was created.
Mr. Tassone
wanted to know the location of the 8.6 withheld acres. Ms. Council located the lot in the ADC map.
Responding to a
question, Mr. Conrad stated that the property is a district and there is no
appraisal impact on the value of the property.
The lot down (lot 1) on the corner of the property is a previously
approved lot. That already exists, and
there is no creation of an additional lot.
Ms. Council stated that
it does create an additional lot. The
one down in the corner is a piece of the 8.6 acres that was originally
withheld. Since it was withheld the lot
has been sub-divided from the farm and has been developed. There is a child living on that lot. Originally the area along the edge was to
have three lots. By moving the acre,
they are going to create four lots. It
does create one extra lot, but this is a district and the property has not been
appraised. All five lots will be taken
into consideration next year when the
Mr. Stahl stated that
the earlier discussed request from Dulin was a
recently established district which meant that they could not have terminated
their district if the Board decided not to approve their request. This present request is on a district that is
older than five years, and it could be terminated anytime.
Mr. Conrad wanted to
know if the
Mr. Tassone
commented that the acreage that the Board is considering to be moved was
withheld for providing lots to the children.
So he wanted to know how the request is related to any subsequent
request for children’s lots.
Mr. Doug Wilson
commented that the landowners have a choice of withdrawing from the district
and coming back at a later date.
Mr. Craig Nielsen,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture, commented that the
landowners are not entitled automatically to sell an easement. If the Board sees someone who is purposefully
working against the intent of the program, the Board can always decide not to
buy the easement.
Mr. Tassone wanted to
have Mr. Nielsen’s opinion about making distinctions on requests like the
present one in the context of a district versus an easement. Mr. Tassone
believed that the two have to be treated equivalently.
Mr. Nielsen stated that
a district is a restriction on the use of the land and, in principle, both the
district and the easement have to be treated same. Mr. Nielsen stated the question will be
whether they should be allowed to sell an easement. If the children are already living there,
should the landowners get another set of children’s lots? The Board has the discretion to make a decision
in the interest of the program.
Mr. Stahl commented that
the Board can say that it is not going to take that into account, but the
reality is different and cannot be discounted.
Mr. Tassone stated that it can be recognized
and maybe the Board can preclude it.
Ms. Council stated that
conveying their intention of withholding the acres for their children does not
bind the
Mr. Doug Wilson commented
that he understands Mr. Tassone’s comments but wanted to support Mr. Stahl’s
comments. In April if the Foundation
rejects Mr. Clark’s application, he can turn around the next day and withdraw
from the program. Why should the
Foundation preclude a client from turning against the program by creating more
road blocks and more administration for something he is entitled to do in a
variety of ways? When the Clarks apply
for an easement, theoretically the lots are valued based on local zoning allows
and the Board can clearly ask the Clarks their intention – for example, if
three of the kids have moved into houses on the withheld acreage, asking their
intentions concerning child’s lots would make sense.
Mr. Tassone commented
that he has no problem with the location of the lots based on the staff memo,
but he has concerns about the children’s lots.
Motion
#8: To approve the request by Ray
and Geneva Clark to relocate 5.82 acres that were
withheld from the district.
Motion: Robert
Stahl Second: Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
D.
RURAL LEGACY EASEMENTS
Mr. Conrad wanted to brief the Board members
about the Rural Legacy Easements. MALPF
has a Memorandum of Understanding with certain land trusts where MALPF is a
co-holder of Rural Legacy easements. We
have a Memorandum of Understanding (or MOU) with the Land Conservation Trust
and Long Green Valley Conservancy for MALPF to co-hold Rural Legacy
easements. There is a requirement in
Rural Legacy that any purchase of easements by the state with a land trust has
to have a state or a county co-holder of that easement. It also makes sense for the landowner,
because, if there is any discounting taking place on any of these transactions,
landowners can claim an income tax credit for the bargain sale if a state
agency is an easement co-holder.
There used to be a choice between MALPF and the
Maryland Environmental Trust to act as an easement co-holder. Maryland Environmental Trust is no longer
co-holding. The other co-holder is
MALPF’s counterpart at the Department of Natural Resources, the Rural Legacy
Program. Rural Legacy has transformed
itself into an easement holding entity as well as a funding agency. The reason the Land Conservation Trust and
Long Green Valley Conservancy are asking MALPF to co-hold is because some
landowners prefer having a Board making decisions about their requests made up
of majority of people who have a farming background and understand farming
operations.
MALPF holds these properties as a matter of
courtesy. MALPF has the ultimate
responsibility of monitoring these easements and making sure that they continue
to work in the future, though MALPF’s land trust
partners provide monitoring services. We
do not count these properties in our totals.
They are counted in the acreage totals of the Rural Legacy Program, even
though MALPF does have some responsibilities.
Some additional
material, including the deed of easement of the Weber property, was distributed
to the Board members. Mr. Conrad
recommended that both the items be approved subject to review of the final deed
of easement by Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of
General Services, or Mr. Nielsen before they go to settlement. While reviewing the deed of easement, he did
notice some potential issues, such as who has the right to go onto the
property. In the deed of easement, the
monitoring entity is the Rural Legacy Board; Mr. Conrad believes that the
responsibility should be given to MALPF and to the Land Preservation Trust.
Both the properties are
in different parts of
Mr. Colhoun
stated that he will be abstaining from the next two agenda items and requested
Ms. Vera Mae Schultz to chair the meeting.
Ms. Ann Jones, Administrator on behalf of the Land Preservation Trust,
could not be present. Mr. Colhoun offered to substitute for her in case the Board has
any questions.
1. Miller, Benjamin G., & Catherine A. 175.27
acres
PINEY RUN RURAL LEGACY
AREA
Request to co-hold Rural Legacy Easement
On
The proposed Rural Legacy easement on a property
located within the Piney Run Watershed Rural Legacy Area in
The proposed easement follows the already
approved model easement. The easement is
in the Piney Run Watershed Rural Legacy Area of Baltimore County and will be
co-held with the Land Preservation Trust.
2. Weber, Adam H. & Jennifer 111.493
acres
The
Request to co-hold Rural Legacy Easement
On
The proposed Rural Legacy easement on a property
located within the Long Green Valley Rural Legacy Area in
Motion
#9: To approve the request for
approval to co-hold Rural Legacy easements for Benjamin and Catherine Miller
(with the Land Conservation Trust) and Adam and Jennifer Weber (with the Long
Green Valley Conservancy) pending the final easement review by Ms. Nancy
Forrester or Mr. Craig Nielson.
Motion: Robert
Stahl Second: Howard Freedlander
Abstained: Dan Colhoun
Status: Approved
Mr. Dan Colhoun took
over to chair the remainder of the meeting.
III. AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
Mr.
Conrad presented the district petitions.
A.
1.
This is a 121.31 acre parcel located in the
community of Swanton. There is 1
dwelling. The farm has 23.5 cropland, 23
pasture, and 67.8 woodland acres. The
landowners are in the process of acquiring a Forest Stewardship Plan. The primary farming operation is beef and
cattle. It has 81.2% qualifying
soils. It is owner operated and is not
part of a larger operation.
Staff recommends the landowners acquire a Forest
Stewardship Plan.
2.
This is a 65.00 acre parcel located in the
community of Gortner. There is no dwelling. The landowners are withholding three acres
for future expansion of a produce stand.
The area being withheld falls within the guidelines of the Foundation’s
withheld acreage policy. It has 26.4
cropland, 2.6 pasture, and 36 woodland acres.
The primary farming operation is dairy and vegetable. It has 90.2% qualifying soils. The property is in the process of acquiring a
Forest Stewardship Plan. It is owner
operated and is not part of a larger operation.
3.
This is a 62.77 acre parcel located in the
community of
4.
This is a 122.99 acres parcel located in the
community of
Staff recommends the landowner acquire a Forest
Stewardship Plan.
Mr. Nielsen commented that, since the Department
of Agriculture enforces the Nutrient Management Program, the Foundation should
at least request the landowners to answer the question as to whether they have
a Nutrient Management Plan on their farm.
Mr. Nielsen added that he is involved with enforcing the Nutrient
Management Program as a part of the Department, and MALPF is also part of the
Department of Agriculture. The
requirement is a state law. The ideal
thing would be to make the requirement of Nutrient Management Plan an eligibility
requirement to participate in this program.
He is currently asking the Board to consider asking the landowners
whether they have complied with a Nutrient Management Plan or have plans to
acquire a plan because it is required by another unit of this Department.
Mr. Colhoun clarified
that Mr. Nielsen is asking the Board to adopt a policy to ask the landowners
whether they have or will adopt a Nutrient Management Plan.
Mr. Conrad reminded the Board that the Foundation
recently had Ms. Louise Lawrence, Office of Resource Conservation, talk about
this requirement at the June 2005 Board meeting. The Board and the Foundation had agreed that,
when we have more time, we would address the issue. Mr. Conrad wondered if it would be more
advantageous if reviewing and adopting such a policy were to be done more
systematically when we have more time rather than just developing it in the
course of reviewing the district applications.
Mr. Colhoun said it is an interesting and an
important issue, but wondered if the Board would like to consider a policy of
this nature without close study and more detailed recommendations. He added that he was willing to appoint a
committee to get some details to the Board.
Mr. Stahl commented that he has concerns that,
without having told people about the requirement, we use such a requirement as
part of an enforcement action. This
would discourage the people coming into the program. Mr. Stahl stated that he understands that the
requirement is a State law and the landowners are required to do it. However, he believes, if the Board asks the
landowners as a part of the land preservation application, it would hurt the
program. Without having come out with a
formal policy that everyone is aware of, he would be very cautious with this
approach.
Mr. Tassone stated that, even if nothing bad
happens, at the very least it creates an awkward situation.
Mr. Conrad commented that, though it is an
unrelated issue, he wanted to remind everyone that the district approvals
should be subject to finalization of any pending legislation. If the legislation goes through, the
Foundation would be willing to hold the recordation of the district agreements
until the effective date of legislation, which is
Ms. Buckle stated that an easement requires a
Soil Conservation Plan. If landowners
have a Soil Conservation Plan, they are already required to have a Nutrient
Management Plan up to date. Ms. Buckle
believed the two should be working together depending on how well NRCS and the
extension office are working together.
Mr. Stahl commented that there are many
landowners who are not directly associated with the actual operations of the
farms. Suddenly we are making the owner
of the property responsible for ensuring that whoever works on the farm has a
Nutrient Management Plan in place. Many
of the landowners are not even aware of the Nutrient Management Plan
requirements. He voiced his concerns to
Ms. Lawrence during the June 2005 Board meeting. He felt that this action would create a negative
feeling about the program and believed the Board needs to be very cautious.
Motion #10: To approve the requests of Bonnie Sunny
and Herman Steiding, Paul and Naomi Petersheim, Ray and Rachel Miller, and Abner and Miriam Swartzentruber
to establish agricultural land preservation districts on their respective
properties.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Vera Mae Schultz
Status: Approved
B.
1.
This is a 125.77 acre parcel located in the
community of American Corner. There is 1
dwelling. The farm has 65.267 cropland
and 59 woodland acres. The landowners
have a Soil Conservation Plan and a Forest Stewardship Plan in place. The primary farming operation is field
crops. It has 99% qualifying soils. It is not owner operated and is part of a
larger operation.
2.
This is an 86.22 acre parcel located in the
community of
Staff recommends the landowners acquire a Forest
Stewardship Plan.
3.
This is a 73.86 acre parcel located in the
community of
Staff recommends the landowners acquire a Forest
Stewardship Plan.
4.
Mr. Conrad pointed out the correct acreage is 48.18
acres and not 73.86 mentioned in the staff report.
The 48.18 acre parcel is located in the
community of Williston/American Corner.
There is 1 dwelling. It has 2
cropland and 21.2 woodland acres. The
farm has 21.6 acres CRP and 2.2 acres in CREP contract. It is not owner operated and is part of a
larger operation. It has 100% qualifying
soils. While the property does not meet
the minimum size criteria, it is contiguous to a MALPF preserved property. It has a Soil Conservation Plan.
5.
This is a 93.01 acre parcel located in the
community of Federalsburg. There is no
dwelling. It has 71.6 cropland and 6.8
woodland acres. The primary farming
operation is vegetables and crops. It
has 100% qualifying soils. The property
has a Soil Conservation Plan. It is
owner operated and is part of a larger operation.
6.
This is a 63.40 acre parcel located in the
community of Federalsburg. There is no
dwelling. It has 61.7 cropland and 1.7
woodland acres. The primary farming
operation is vegetables and field crops.
It has 100% qualifying soils. The
property has a Soil Conservation Plan.
It is owner operated and is part of a larger operation.
Ms. Tammy Buckle,
Program Administrator, was available to answer questions from the Board.
Ms. Schultz commented
that Charles and Margaret Griffith property (
Motion
#11: To approve the requests of
Charles M. and Margaret A. Griffith, Brian J. and Penny L. Smith, and Donald L.
Leishear to establish agricultural land preservation districts on their
respective properties.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Pat Langenfelder
Status: Approved
Mr.
Colhoun asked Mr. Conrad to brief the Board about the activities of MALPF staff
on the statewide MALPF funding meetings.
Mr.
Conrad stated that the Foundation had a number of Board members accompanying
MALPF staff for these meetings and appreciated their participation. Ms. Schultz just recently visited
Mr.
Conrad commented that the meetings were very dynamic. In some counties the MALPF staff made
presentations to Farm Bureau or Soil Conservation group. He appreciated everyone’s efforts. He also stated that he looks forward to
hearing any comments if the visits had helped in generating more applications
in the county.
Mr.
Colhoun encouraged the program administrators to give feedback about the
meetings and wanted to know if they have a feel of the impact or if they want
the Board to do anything more. Mr.
Conrad requested program administrators to forward any news articles published
in the local paper as a result of these meetings.
Ms.
Council stated that Mr. Tom Lawton of
Ms.
Pilchard commented that she had spoken to Ms. Katherine Munson, Program
Administrator,
Mr.
Doug Wilson wanted to update the Board members about the conference committee
report on the operating budget related to MALPF. Around a month ago, Mr. Doug Wilson had
briefed the Board members about the proposal to cut the bonds that were going
to the Tri-County Council that support its three-pronged approach to the
Tobacco conversion program. This will
not impact the buy-out or the infrastructure grants, but would affect the
portion that is budgeted for assisting local governments in land preservation
over $2 million. These bonds were
eliminated. The General Assembly did
that because it intended to cover those funds out of the MALPF budget, with the
understanding that MALPF had so much money in FY 2007. The intention was to take money off the top
and give a direct grant to the Tri-County Council, which will in effect replace
$2+ million cut from bond funding.
What this really means is that eighteen of MALPF’s
jurisdictions are paying for the other five to run what is in effect a
separate, though related, land preservation program.
When
it went to the conference committee, the Senate approved the language taking
MALPF money. The House originally did
not. At the end of the day, the Senate’s
position prevailed, and there will be a clause requiring MALPF Board to give a
direct grant to Tri-County Council for FY 2007 amounting to over $2 million to
use for land preservation activities.
That money will go into land preservation, but will be outside our
normal formula. Just because somebody
stops growing tobacco, we still want them to stay in agriculture. What we don’t want them to do is to grow
houses. One of the tenets of the whole
conversion program is to retain as much land as they can in agriculture. They want to augment the extra land
preservation activities in
In
the big picture, the funding is going for the same purposes as MALPF would use
it. What needs to be watched are future
endeavors to tap into MALPF programs dollars for special needs. Mr. Wilson is not aware of any formal
opposition to the language that was in the operating budget from any of the
jurisdictions. This step has helped
Tri-County Council to create more room in the state-wide bond budget which
would allow legislators to give out more bonds for various local projects, especially
in an election year when politicians are particularly concerned with funding
special projects in their districts. For
MALPF, it will not have any impact until FY 2007 allocation. It does not affect the current year’s
allocation.
Mr.
Colhoun wanted to know if the bill is attempting to take funds away from MALPF,
or is there going to be additional funding authorized separately under the
Agricultural Stewardship bill.
Mr.
Doug Wilson believed all funding related to increased or new spending will be
changed in the Agricultural Stewardship bill.
The amendments to the bill have changed the bill from being simply
advisory on funding requirements to mandate funding commitments in certain
areas. The Agricultural Stewardship bill
sets up voluntary Priority Preservation Areas by counties which would have the
incentive of leveraging any new funding for MALPF, presumably from general
funds. So it does not directly affect
MALPF’s current dollars. There are other
places in the Agricultural Stewardship bill where it says to the Governor,
"you must fund certain programs in the government at certain
levels." Soil Conservation
Districts and MARBIDCO are two such examples.
If the bill comes out that way with funding mandates, the Governor has
to decide whether or not to sign a “mandated spending” bill, which means the
Chief Executives have less say about how dollars are allocated in the
budget. Mr. Doug Wilson believed the
bill will come out with mandatory spending requirements, and the Governor will
have to decide if he will sign the bill, veto the bill, or let it pass without
his signature.
Mr.
Conrad stated that the proposed funding for MALPF, Priority Preservation Areas,
the Installment Purchase Agreement Program, and the Critical Farms Program is
included in the bill as a statement of intent, which means that it is up to the
Governor and the General Assembly whether there is any available money for
funding these programs out of the general funds or not.
Mr.
Doug Wilson commented that the only other cut the Department of Agriculture
sustained was that the Department lost about $1- 1.2 million in new cover crops
funding. The Department overall has
still received an increase of about $3 million; the Department had proposed
nearly $5 million.
The
Agricultural Stewardship bill recommended a $3 million dollar increase in
general funds increase over the Bay Restoration funds already in place, which
are funds from the septic and sewer tax.
The Governor had put in a more aggressive program on Bay
Restoration. The legislature cut it back
to $3 million. In this case, we had the
legislature cutting a program back.
There
being no further business, Mr. Colhoun asked for a motion for adjournment of
the meeting.
Motion #12: To adjourn regular session.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: James Pelura
Status: Approved
The
regular session of the Board meeting was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully Submitted:
_________________________________
Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary
_________________________________
James
A. Conrad, Executive Director