MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun, Chairman
Howard S. Freedlander, representing Treasurer Kopp
Jerry Klasmeier, representing Comptroller Schaefer
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
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman
Pat Langenfelder (representing MALPF at the
bill signing ceremony)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Todd Bireley,
Anne Bradley,
Tammy Buckle,
James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive Director
Carol Council, MALPF Administrative Officer
Jack Dillon, Consultant,
Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of General Services
Ken Lentz, Landowner,
Joy Levy,
Wally Lippincott,
Carla Martin,
Steve McHenry, Rural
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Department of
Agriculture
Mile R. Patterson,
Landowner,
Charles Rice,
Ralph Robertson,
Daniel Rosen, Planner, Maryland Department of Planning
Kelly Schindel, Landowner,
Martin Sokolich,
Donna K. 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 Chair asked the guests to introduce
themselves.
I. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES/ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:
A.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
Motion #1: To approve the minutes of
Motion: Jerry Klasmeier Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
B. ADDITIONS OR
DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
There were two
amendments of agenda items:
II.D.2 03-98-06 Lippy Bros., Inc. Withdrawn
VI. Easement
Offers – Executive Session Will not be made
Mr. Colhoun briefed the Board members
about the bill signing ceremony being held in
Mr. Conrad informed the Board members
that the Foundation has been working with the State Treasurer’s Office, and the
Installment Purchase Agreement Contract has now been awarded to the firm
Evergreen Capital Advisors, managed by Mr. Pat O’Connell. Mr. O'Connell originated the technique of
installment purchase agreements and has worked with many preservation programs
to implement the technique. It is being
used in a number of counties and states.
The State Treasurer’s Office is finalizing the contract. Mr. Doug Wilson complimented the efforts and
the support received from the State Treasurer’s Office.
Mr. Conrad also wanted to update the
Board about the Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program. The Board of Public Works has approved the
substitution of FY 2005 state and county funds for FY 2004 federal funds. This action was taken to resolve temporarily
the problems arising from the use of federal funds. The Honorable Nancy K. Kopp, Treasurer,
expressed her willingness to help the Foundation resolve the pending issues
with FRPP.
Mr. Conrad stated that he has received
the information verbally that the Foundation and
Foundation staff attended a meeting with
Mr. Mark Rose, NRCS on
Mr. Doug Wilson, representing Secretary
Riley, Department of Agriculture, stated that NRCS does not want to be a
contingent holder any longer and wants to be a party to the easement. He further stated that the Foundation will
not be using the federal dollars in the allocation for the current fiscal
year. The Foundation will only be using
state and county money to make offers.
At a later date, if the federal dollars become available, they can be
substituted or be used in the allocation for FY 2007. At this point in time, Mr. Conrad wants to
make sure that the Foundation secures the money that is already available in
the grant for the 2004 and 2005 cooperative agreements.
Mr. Howard S. Freedlander, representing
Treasurer Kopp, commented that the letter written to the Board of Public Works
and the e-mail sent to him and Treasurer Kopp were excellent. The Treasurer was concerned about the
Program. He also suggested having a
discussion with Mr. Tom Hance at the Governor’s Office about what can be done.
Mr. Ralph Robertson, Program
Administrator,
Mr. Doug Wilson stated the reason for
using a cautious approach is to safeguard the money due from NRCS. He would like to play safe until NRCS
reimburses the Foundation and the counties for already settled easements. Also, for the Foundation to approach members
of congress or the press, a written list of the various issues involved is
needed.
Mr. Wally Lippincott, Program
Administrator,
Mr. Conrad stated that, on one hand, he
feels awkward asking the counties to apply under the current
circumstances. On the other hand, until the
issues are clear, it would not be right to turn down the $2.8 million already
allocated. If some counties choose to
opt out of the application, the money will be divided among fewer participants. He believed it will not be a very major
impact. If nobody participates, the
State will not be submitting an independent application.
Mr. Charles Rice, Program Administrator,
Charles County, wanted to know if there are any minimum number of counties that
need to submit before the State can say 'No.‘ Mr. Conrad responded that MALPF will submit
an application as long as any counties are interested in participating;
however, because the Foundation may not be able to resolve the pending issues
in the new RFP, we may say thank you or no thank you for any award received.
Ms. Donna K. Landis-Smith, Program
Administrator, Queen Anne’s County, stated that the County has concerns about
the impervious surface limits. In Queen
Anne’s County, there are lots of chicken houses. The new chicken houses take up quite a bit of
area. For example, for a 100-acre farm,
the County is estimating 4 to 5 chicken houses per operation. If the County has to comply with the NRCS’s
restrictions on impervious surfaces, it will not be able to put up chicken
houses because they would quickly exceed the allowable impervious surface. She stated that she did not know if they
would be able to get a waiver for that.
Mr. Conrad noted that this was pointed
out by Ms. Smith in the meeting at NRCS.
In response NRCS wanted the county to submit various problematic
scenarios, and NRCS will think about the issue.
Mr. Conrad believed the maximum waiver will be 6%. Even with a 6% waiver, Mr. Conrad was not
sure that it will work well with many chicken farm operations.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that these
situations indicate that NRCS restrictions may work in states like
Mr. Colhoun stated that everyone involved
is aware of the critical nature of the situation, and the MALPF staff is
spending more time on this issue than on any other issue. Once reimbursement is received from NRCS, the
political strategies can be worked out to find a solution.
Mr. Doug Wilson explained the
process. MALPF staff would make a
proposal to the MALPF Board to not use the federal money. The Board will have to make a decision on the
proposal. If the Board approves the
proposal, the Foundation would notify the concerned people. The result will be that the Foundation will
have the state and county money, and will be missing the matching federal
funds. Until 4 years ago, the Foundation
had very little federal funding. The
Foundation has always used the federal money as an augmentation to develop
extra easements. The federal money came
at a time when the state funds were very low.
Mr. Joe Tassone, representing Secretary
Scott, Department of Planning, wanted to know what precipitated this change,
given the fact that the program was working very smoothly until now.
Mr. Conrad stated that there have been
on-going changes at NRCS. There have
been things at NRCS which were not being implemented because NRCS did not have
resources to do so. These things
included title review, appraisal standards, etc. NRCS had required these as part of the
process, but could not actually enforce the requirement. When Mr. Tom Heisler left, the national
program administrator also left, and the easement manager left. NRCS had a new program manager, new local
state conservationist, a new national program manager, and a new national
person who was coordinating the review of easements. In addition, there were audits at NRCS, and
there was an interpretation that acquiring a contingent interest is the same as
acquiring property fee simple, and, thus, it has to meet the same
standards. There have also been new
requirements every year to be implemented.
Since the staff at NRCS was new, they have been very dependent on the advice
of the Office of the General Counsel to run the program.
Mr. Robertson commented that Mr. Heisler
ran this program as if it was a grant program, and it worked very well. The new staff is narrowly following the
Office of the General Counsel’s interpretation of federal law. Mr. Heisler may
have received verbal approvals. The new
staff is not recognizing verbal approvals, only approvals in writing.
Mr. Colhoun stated that the issue is a
priority item for the Board and the MALPF staff, and the Board will be briefed
about developments.
Mr. Conrad informed the Board that the
Foundation would not be making offers this month, as was planned earlier. However, he circulated the memo provided by
Mr. Doug Wilson indicating the state funding available for FY 2006
easements. Mr. Conrad stated that he
will be sending a draft of the allocation report to Board members before it is
finalized.
Mr. Colhoun asked the program
administrators if they have experienced any interest from the local
presentations made by MALPF staff about the upcoming budget. The Foundation has been trying to communicate
the increased funding across the state to create awareness about the money that
will be available.
Ms. Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator,
Ms. Landis-Smith,
stated that Queen Anne’s County will be having 10-12 new districts.
Mr. Lippincott,
responded that he is expecting around 20 applications in
Mr. Conrad commented that when he spoke
to Donna Sasscer, Program Administrator, St. Mary’s County, she informed him
that she is predicting 30-40 applications.
Mr. Martin Sokolich, Program
Administrator,
Ms. Carla Martin, Program Administrator,
II. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 21-92-34 Murphy, Mary E. 309.5
acres
Request for a 3.0 acre partial termination of
district property
Mary E. Murphy is the original owner of this
district property. There are two
pre-existing dwellings on the property, and Ms. Murphy has received approval (
The current request is for approval of a 3.0
acre partial termination of the district property. According to
The request has been approved by the local
Advisory Board and meets all Planning and Zoning requirements. The request meets the Foundation’s guidelines
for withheld acreage.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the
request for partial termination of 3.0 acres as it will not result in greater
than three development rights and the remainder of the farm will continue to
meet the Foundation’s criteria for district establishment.
The landowners and the program administrator
were not available at the meeting. Mr.
Conrad commented that, while Foundation staff does recommend approval, it did
have lots of questions and were hoping to get clarification from the
landowner. It is a 1992 district.
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that he has always
supported the view that, once the people have fulfilled their commitment in a
district, they can do what they want to do and then petition to come back again
as a district. But in this case he
hesitates to do so. The landowner is
essentially asking for a son’s lot to be 4 acres. The Board typically would not have approved
this request. The Board can either
inform the landowner that she can terminate the district and do whatever she
wants to do under the local governing rules, and if she wants, she can re-apply
under a new configuration. Mr. Doug
Wilson believed the issue of her being ill is not relevant to the issue at
hand. If Board members approve this
request, they would be setting a bad precedent, with the implication that
anyone can ask for a lot of any size wanted.
Mr. Robert Stahl, Board member, stated that Mrs.
Murphy can terminate the district and can do what she wants to do at anytime. The loser will be the program, if we force
her to do that.
Mr. Tassone stated
that he found the term “in danger of losing the farm” a little confusing. Mrs. Murphy wants to partially terminate
around her son’s lot. He did not see any
relationship between the two (her request and her health). He was concerned that the lot is in the
middle of the property. Mr. Tassone was also concerned that, if currently there is a
problem, what will happen when the landowner decides to sell the land? He felt that the Foundation would be
compromising on the desirability of the farm by having this 3-acre lot
exclusion granted out of the middle of the farm.
Motion #2: To table
the request until a family member or Program Administrator attends.
Motion: Shirley Pilchard Second: Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
2. 21-83-03e Eby, Glendon & Laura 94.877
acres
Request for approval to agriculturally subdivide
easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Eby are the subsequent owners of
this 94.877 acre easement property. The current
request is for the agricultural subdivision of 44.877 acres to be conveyed to a
contiguous MALPF easement property owned by Kyle and Kelly Schindel. The easement was purchased on
L1
L2
L3
L4
S1
S2
S3
S4
Since the
According to correspondence from the Schindels,
the Ebys currently run a dairy operation.
They have purchased a farm in
According to Washington County, the 44.877 acre
parcel consists of 98% USDA soils classes I, II and III, and the remaining 50
acre parcel consists of 57% USDA soils classes I, II and III. The request has been approved by the local
Advisory Board and meets with all County Department of Planning & Zoning
regulations. As required by the
Application for Agricultural Subdivision, attached are letters of support from
the Department of Assessments and Taxation, Cooperative Extension Agent, and
Soil Conservation District. Also attached
is a narrative written by the property line surveyor which gives a brief
history of the property.
Foundation staff would like to point out that,
if this request is approved, it will result in the fifth agricultural
subdivision of this property which was originally 314.00 acres. MALPF’s past policy
(which was in force at the time of the original requests for agricultural
subdivisions) stated that “no more than one agricultural subdivision for each
100 acres will be considered (1-100 acres = 1; 101-200 acres = 2; 201-300 acres
= 3, etc.).” MALPF’s current regulations
and policy do not limit the number of times a property can be agriculturally
subdivided. They do, however, require
that any agriculturally subdivided parcel, as well as any remaining parcel, be
at least 50 acres in size. The current
Policy on Agricultural Subdivisions states that ”If an easement property
contains less than 100 acres, a request for an agricultural subdivision may be
considered on a case-by-case basis ONLY if the parcel to be subdivided is
conveyed to an adjoining easement property and the remaining parcel consists of
at least 50.0 acres.” While this request
does not meet the specific requirements for agricultural subdivisions, it does meet
the intent of the policy as the interest of the farming operation will be
served in the long run.
Given the above information, Foundation staff
recommends approval of the request for agricultural subdivision.
Mr. Kyle Schindel attended
the meeting and briefed the Board members about the farming operations on his
farm and his intention of purchasing the 45-acres of land and adding it to the
39 acres that he bought 5 years ago in an effort to restore the original farm. Currently the farm has a cow-calf
operation. As their operations grow in
the next five years, they plan to operate their cow-calf operation on the
entire property. With the additional property,
they plan to have a commercial cattle operation.
Looking at the color map, Mr. Conrad wanted to
confirm that the pink section of the land is what Mr. Schindel currently
owns. It was already agriculturally
subdivided, approved by the MALPF Board.
We are currently talking about the agricultural subdivision of the
yellow and green parcels, with the yellow parcel to be agriculturally
subdivided and added to the existing subdivision currently owned by Mr.
Schindel. The Ebys
will retain the green portion of the parcel.
The intention at this point is for the green parcel to be leased out to
be continued to be farmed. Mr. Schindel
has a right-of-first-refusal right on that 50 acre parcel.
Mr. Conrad stated that, in the past, when the
original subdivision was done, there was a policy that allowed agricultural
subdivision only a certain number of times.
On one hand, this is a request for an agricultural subdivision; on the
other hand, it operates within a single easement.
Motion #3: To approve
the request of Glendon and Laura Eby to agriculturally subdivide the easement
property.
Motion: Chris
Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander
Status: Approved
Mr. Stahl wanted to know
if Mr. Schindel would be opposed to having the two parcels combined as one. Mr.
Schindel confirmed that it is his plan to put the two parcels as one.
Motion #3a: To approve
the request of Glendon and Laura Eby to agriculturally subdivide the easement
property and the two parcels owned by Mr. Schindel be
merged as one.
Motion: Robert
Stahl Second: Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
B.
1. Nupp, Joel T. 26.975
acres
LITTLE PIPE RURAL LEGACY
AREA
Request for approval for release of a lot on a
co-held Rural Legacy easement property
Mr. Nupp is the
original owner of this 26.975 acre Rural Legacy easement property. He is currently contracted to convey the property
to Mr. Curtis E. Willey. Mr. Willey, as
the contract purchaser, is requesting approval of a 1.0 acre residential lot,
as allowed for in the Rural Legacy easement.
Article 1, Section A(1)(i)
of the Easement states:
“. . . the Grantors
hereby reserve for themselves and any future owner the right to exclude from
the easement one residential lot. The location and size of the lot is subject
to the approval of the Grantees. It is intended that the lot be one acre in
size, or the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning and health department
regulations, whichever is greater.”
According to
Foundation staff notes that, if this property
were a MALPF easement, the request would conform to the Lot Location
Guidelines. Both proposed locations are
located along county roads and are in areas that will cause the least
disturbance to the overall farm operation.
Foundation staff recommends approval of this
request to release 1.0 acre of Rural Legacy easement property for the
construction of a dwelling.
Mr. Ralph Robertson, Program Administrator, was
present to answer any questions from the Board.
Mr. Conrad commented that usually Rural Legacy easements favor
development envelopes. He believed as
long as there is development envelope, the County does not require the Board’s
approval. Mr. Robertson stated that the
County agreement does not call for a development envelope and that is the
reason Mr. Robertson felt it was better to have Board’s approval.
Mr. Robertson commented that the farm is for
sale. There are two contract purchasers,
and both came to Mr. Robertson with the same request. Mr. Nupp, one of the contract purchasers,
came back and wanted an assurance that he can do this (request for a lot
release). There are two alternatives; if
one proposed site does not perc, the approval can be
for the other. The lot is subdividable, and the owner is planning to live in the main
house.
Motion #4: To approve
the request of Mr. Joel T. Nupp to release a lot on a co-held Rural Legacy
easement property.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
2. 06-91-16e Crawford, Deborah, & Charles E.
Conover 97.525 acres
Request for approval to relocate a pre-existing
dwelling on easement property
Ms. Crawford and Mr. Conover are the original
owners of the property. The current
request is for the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling on the easement
property.
According to
The request was approved by the local advisory
board and complies with local zoning regulations. The photographs of the farm taken from the
road were circulated at the Board meeting.
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, Ms.
Crawford and Mr. Conover 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. Robertson briefed the Board members about
the proposed relocation and the existing house.
There will be a sand mound septic system located in the approximate area
behind the divergence of the two circles.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know, given the existing
and the proposed dwelling are on the same location,
why are they moving the house?
Mr. Robertson stated that there is no way that
the landowners could put a sand mound system where
they would not have to pump a long way.
The old house is very beautiful, but is currently in a state of total
disrepair and ruin. The house is as old
as 1830 and does not have a septic system.
There are antiques in the house, the doors are open, and people have
ransacked the house. There are threshing
machines in the barn. The floors of the
house have collapsed.
The present owner is 96 years old. The owner’s daughter is not wealthy and is
trying to build a modest home to replace the old house so that the family can
stay on the farm. This is the only
structure on the farm.
Mr. Colhoun asked Mr.
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture, in the
event of the Board choosing to approve the relocation, is there something the
Board can do to prevent the demolition of the existing house?
Mr. Nielsen commented
that he has had discussions with the Maryland Historic Trust over the
Foundation’s policy of tearing down houses to enable relocation of
dwellings. Mr. Nielsen believed that
there is an existing law that addresses this issue. Mr. Nielsen would like to look at it and then
give his opinion to the Board.
Motion #5: To approve
the request by Deborah Crawford and Charles E. Conover to relocate a
pre-existing dwelling on easement property with a recommendation that the
County takes extra steps to evaluate whether or not the owner is interested in
having this structure reviewed for any historical significance and which then
may be allowed to be left standing.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Opposed: Dr. James Pelura
Status: Approved
Dr. James Pelura, Board
member, commented that, if it is clear that it is a historic property, then
something has to be done with the property.
Does it have to be restored and, if so, who has to pay for it? Or what if the property is put on the list of
historic structures and we cannot do anything about it.
Mr. Nielsen commented
that we cannot do anything if the property is listed under the Historic
Register. Mr. Nielsen stated that, while
discussing the issue with the Maryland Historic Trust, he was told that there
is a law that governs historical review process of tearing down structures on
state-controlled lands. He would like to
explore the process and report back to the Board.
Mr. Tassone
commented that, assuming the structure is evaluated and is considered historic,
will Mr. Nielsen have any issues if the Board will allow lot relocation and
construction of a replacement house. In
such a situation, we will have two houses – the original house that can then be
repaired and occupied and the new replacement house. Mr. Tassone wanted
to know if there is a need to include a stipulation that if the structure is
recognized as a historic structure, it cannot be occupied.
Mr. Nielsen reiterated
that he would like to review the process before giving his recommendation.
Mr. Doug Wilson
commented that, by the existing motion, the Board is giving an opportunity to
the landowner to avail himself of the opportunity to have the structure
evaluated to know if it is a historic property.
In the situation suggested by Mr. Tassone, the Board should never
approve a substitute lot location until the Foundation gets a clearing from the
Maryland Historic Trust that the house is not a historic property. After this, the landowners can tear down the
old structure. If it could be argued
that the house could be repaired and lived in, the Foundation could have given
the landowner an extra dwelling, which the Foundation cannot do. He suggested moving forward with the existing
motion. If there is any other law that
prevails, the Attorney General can advise the Board.
Mr. Tassone
wanted to know if there has been any agreement between the Maryland Department
of Agriculture and the Maryland Historic Trust.
Mr. Nielsen commented that so far there has not been any agreement. However, Mr. Nielsen was informed that a
review process does exist.
Mr. Colhoun
wanted to have Mr. Robertson’s opinion as to whether the motion suggested by
Mr. Doug Wilson gave him the flexibility to work with
Mr. Robertson stated
that the County has certain rules regarding vacant dwellings and replacement
dwellings on agriculturally preserved lands.
One of the rules is, if you replace a dwelling, the other one needs to be torn down.
Dr. Pelura,
stated that the MALPF Board is not a historic preservation Board, and it is not
something the Board has been asked to approve.
He believed putting in language that forces the landowner to ascertain
whether his property is a historic property or not is putting an unnecessary
burden on the landowner.
Mr. Robertson stated
that the landowner does not have means to restore such a structure. Mrs. Crawford is a co-owner of this
property. She can apply for an owner’s
lot and can put the lot in a corner of the property, but she does not want to
do that. She wants only one house on the
property and does not want to sub-divide.
It is a fourth generation farm, and they just want to keep it in the
family. There are lots of valuables in
the house, and Mr. Robertson would try to encourage the landowner to take a
look at what valuables they have.
Mr. Tassone
stated that in the past session when there was a discussion about a piece of
legislation [HB 90], he spoke to Ms. Elizabeth Hughes of the Maryland Historic
Trust. He was informed that the Historic
Trust was in touch with Mr. Conrad regarding this. Mr. Conrad clarified that Ms. Hughes had
conveyed her intent to come and talk to the Board about the legislation and the
interest the Historic Trust has in the Foundation's process. However, Ms. Hughes has not been able to
attend a Board meeting. She had to
cancel her attendance at two or three different times. So far there has been no procedural agreement
with the Maryland Historic Trust.
C. ST. MARY’S COUNTY
1. 18-98-01e Boyd, William D. 177.08
acres
Request for a 1.0 acre
child’s lot for son, Michael T. Boyd, from easement property.
Mr. Boyd is the original owner of this easement
property. The current request is to
exclude a 1.0 acre child’s lot from easement property for his son, Michael T.
Boyd. Mr. Boyd owns one other easement
property with his wife, and they received approval on
According to St. Mary’s County, the proposed lot
is to be located in woodland. The lot
will have direct access from
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...”
Motion #6: To approve
the request by William D. Boyd for up to 1.0 acre child’s lot for his son,
Michael T. Boyd.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Shirley Pilchard
Status: Approved
2. 18-99-13e Beaven, George & Alison 121.966
acres
Request for a 1.0 acre owner’s lot for their personal
use from easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Beavan are the original owners of
this easement property. The current
request is to exclude a 1.0 acre owner’s lot from easement property for their
personal use. Mr. and Mrs. Beavan co-own
one other district property, but have not received approval for any previous
lot exclusions. There is one
pre-existing dwelling on this property.
According to St. Mary’s County, the proposed lot
is to be located in woodland. The lot
will have right-of-way access along an improved existing farm road. The request meets the Foundation’s Lot
Location Guidelines. 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 $2,233.83 per acre to the Foundation.
Staff recommends approval of the 1.0 acre
owner’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...”
Motion
#7: To approve the request by
George and Alison Beaven for an owner’s lot for their personal use from
easement property.
Motion: Shirley
Pilchard Second: Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted
to know if the property co-owned by the landowners is in the same county. Ms. Carol Council, MALPF staff confirmed that
it is in the same county.
Mr. Doug Wilson
recommended MALPF’s approval letter to include a statement that the Beavens may
not have an owner’s lot on the other property.
It is standard language that is included when people have multiple
easements.
Motion
#7a: To approve the request by
George and Alison Beaven for an owner’s lot for their personal use from
easement property and recognize they could not have an owner’s lot on the other
easement property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Judy Lynch
Status: Approved
D.
1. 03-81-05 Patterson, Jr., Mile R. 108.00
acres
(Manor View Farms, Inc.)
Request to exchange equal area of easement property
for non-easement property
Mr. Patterson, as a member of Manor View Farms,
Inc., is one of the original grantors of the easement. The current request is for approval to
exchange 0.46 acres of easement property for 0.46 acres of non-easement property.
Mr. Patterson owns a residence adjacent to the
easement property. During the 1980’s,
with the permission of his parents, he constructed a horse stable on an area of
the easement property located immediately adjacent to his residence. Mr. Patterson has since converted the stable
to a garage/shop. He would like to add
the garage area to his residential lot.
In exchange, he proposes to add 0.46 acres of his residential lot to the
easement. A greenhouse is currently
located on the area to be added to the easement.
According to
Staff recommends approval as the exchange will not
negatively impact the agricultural operation.
While the quality of the soils of the area proposed to be added to the
easement is inferior to those of the area to be removed, the infrastructure
located on the area to be added is more valuable to the nursery operation than
that which is located on the area to be removed. Foundation approval should be contingent on a
satisfactory review by the Office of Real Estate, Department of General
Services, for a determination of the impact of the proposed exchange on the
value of the easement.
Mr. Patterson and Mr. Wally Lippincott, Program
Administrator, were available at the meeting to answer questions from the
Board. Mr. Patterson is a member of the
local advisory board and one of the owners of a very successful nursery in the
county.
Mr. Patterson located the green houses on the
property. He informed the Board members
that he was using part of the farm property for a stable and a garage. He believed that he is giving more land than
he is taking: .42 acres are coming out and .57 are
going under the easement.
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know how long ago Mr.
Patterson had built the facility that is on the easement property and was being
used outside the business. Mr. Patterson
responded that it has been the case since early 1980s. Mr. Doug Wilson stated that normally, if such
requests are to build farm structures, it does not need to come to the
Foundation for approval.
Mr. Patterson responded that the structures
existed as a stable even when the Foundation purchased the easement. The stable was for the use of the
homeowner. Mr. Doug Wilson commented
that this area should have been excluded when the easement was purchased for
the use of the homeowner.
Mr. Conrad commented that, by approving the
request, the Foundation will not be creating any potential development on the
property or any additional residence.
Mr. Patterson confirmed that he is not creating any density.
Motion #8: To approve
the request of Mr. Mile R. Patterson, Jr., to exchange an equal area of
easement property for non-easement property subject to the review by the Office
of Real Estate, Department of General Services.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
3. 03-88-03A Lentz, Ken 83.00
acres
Request to exchange equal area of easement
property for non-easement property
Mr. Lentz is a subsequent owner of the easement
property. The current request is for an
approval to exchange 1.096 acres of easement property for 1.096 acres of
non-easement property.
Mr. Lentz owns a 15-acre parcel that is adjacent
to the easement property. The 15-acre
parcel (Parcel 146) is under a permanent Land Preservation Trust (LPT) easement
with one retained lot right. Prior to
the LPT easement, the parcel had two development rights. Mr. Lentz also owns a 1.096-acre lot (Parcel
351) that is adjacent to the easement property, which has one development right
associated with it. According to
The current access to the15-acre lot (Parcel
146) is through a 75’ right-of-way that runs along a stream. Construction of a road would involve a stream
crossing and removal of several trees.
According to Mr. Lentz, the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Baltimore
County Department of Environmental Protection have requested that alternative
access be explored. (Mr. Lentz is
required to obtain permits from both agencies to construct the access
road.) To create an alternate access,
Mr. Lentz proposes to remove from the MALPF easement a 1.096-acre area that
runs along the edge of the property, which is also currently under an AT&T
easement. In exchange, Mr. Lentz
proposes to add Parcel 351 to the easement.
According to
The acreage exchange was approved by the local
advisory board and is consistent with local zoning regulations.
Staff recommends approval as the exchange will
not negatively impact the agricultural operation. Foundation approval should be contingent on a
satisfactory review by the Office of Real Estate, Department of General
Services, for a determination of the impact of the proposed exchange on the
value of the easement. The Foundation
should also request an easement over the road that provides the owner of the
MALPF easement property the use of the road for the movement of farm equipment.
Mr. Ken Lentz, Mr. Jack Dillon, Consulting
Planner, and Mr. Wally Lippincott, Program Administrator, were available to
answer any questions from the Board members.
Mr. Dillon clarified that the 75’ right-of-way
on the adjacent property is along the same property line and not along a stream
as mentioned in the staff memo. The
AT&T easement has a crossing already in place to cross the stream. Currently, if anyone has to access that part
of the property on both sides, they need to use that access because otherwise
there is a wooded area. The easement
that is under AT&T is 50’ wide with 15’ non-permanent easement and 20’
permanent easement. Mr. Lentz would like
to access the 20’ on the southern border which includes the crossing of the
stream to provide access for the future owner of the easement area. The AT&T line is for fiber optics.
Mr. Joe Tassone wanted
to know the area that is coming out of the easement. Mr. Lippincott
located it on the tax map.
Referring to the tax map, Mr. Conrad wanted to
know, if Mr. Lentz developed the easement along the AT&T line, will that
also create additional development on parcel 260 or 413. Mr. Lippincott
stated that parcel 260 has access already.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know if Mr. Lentz can
subdivide along the stream, develop and put it back into the property.
Mr. Dillon commented that subdivision can be
done on parcel 260, and the question would be more relevant for parcel
413. Parcel 413 has an access on the 75’
right-of-way. They have the same access.
Mr. Colhoun stated
that the Board would like to know if a lot could be put on parcel 413. He wanted to know if AT&T would allow Mr.
Lentz to build a road over the right-of-way.
Mr. Lentz stated that AT&T may not allow a road to be put on top of
its easement, but there is 15 feet of non-permanent easement area in addition
to the 20’ permanent easement area. This
15 foot non-permanent easement could provide the necessary access.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know if there is any
structure or development on parcel 413.
Mr. Dillon confirmed that there were none.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know if parcel 413 and 260
are farming parcels. Mr. Lentz confirmed
that they were farming parcels.
Responding to a question, Mr. Lentz commented
that the private road is owned by 4 people, and Mr. Lentz has not been able to
get any one of the four to agree to allow him to get back. He located the private road on the map.
Mr. Lentz stated the
photograph submitted by him shows the existing crossing.
Mr. Conrad wanted to
know if Mr. Lentz is planning to leave parcel 351 as a separate parcel. Mr. Lentz stated that parcel 351 is in the
farm deed and he plans to keep it as a farm under an easement.
Mr. Colhoun wanted to
know if parcel 413 would go back to have two lot rights. Mr. Lippincott
stated that Mr. Lentz believes it does not, but he would like to check. It should come out of parcel 260 on the other
side.
If the Board approves
this request, the Foundation would allow accessing two development rights – one
for 413 and one for 146. Mr. Lentz
stated that he has 15 acres on parcel 146, and he has put it under LPT conservation
easement. The development is
restricted. Parcel 413 has only one
density right, and it was recently subdivided.
Mr. Lentz informed the
Board that he is a contract purchaser for parcel 358 which had been part of his
farm’s original deed. He had swapped
parcel 358 for parcel 351. He is trying
to bring that parcel back into the farm.
Once he achieves it, Mr. Lentz plans to put an LPT conservation easement
on that. When he brings in both parcel
351and 358, he would have preserved the entire farm as described in the
original deed.
Mr. Conrad commented
that he thought Mr. Lentz had withdrawn an area of the property for a residence
or for some similar reason. Mr. Lentz
said he came to the Board to move the existing residence. The existing residence on this farm is on the
right hand side of stream crossing, and he has received the approval from MALPF
Board to knock the building down to have a new building on the other side of
the stream in the woods. The AT&T
right-of-way on the MALPF easement is on the boundary line between his property
and the one that his neighbor is going to sell.
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted
to know if Ms. Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of
General Services, was fine with the arrangement. She confirmed that she is.
Motion #9: To approve
the request of Ken Lentz for an exchange of equal area of easement property for
non-easement property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander
Status: Approved
Mr. Lippincott
thanked the MALPF staff for their efforts in helping landowners with federal
funding commitments in the County understand the issues involved in FRPP
funding and the reasons for the delay in settlement.
E.
1.
Choptank Electric Cooperative
Request to allow overlay easements for the
installation of overhead electric transmission line on district and easement
properties.
Choptank Electric Cooperative is
requesting a 90’ wide easement for the installation of an overhead electric
transmission line on MALPF easement and district properties. According to
The electric company is in the early design and
planning stage of the installation. The
company proposes to install a transmission line from an existing substation to
a planned substation near the town of
Staff has advised the county to inform the
electric company that some of the issues that may be raised by Board members
include: the extent of the disruption
during the construction period; the type and size of equipment used; expected
duration of the installation; determining factors used in the placement of
equipment; the proportion of line that will run through farms as compared to
the amount that will run along roadsides; consideration of alternate routes,
etc.
According to a letter from Choptank Electric,
Choptank’s contractor will be instructed to follow the company’s design
criteria which include, to the extent possible:
to attempt not disrupt the ability to farm under the transmission line;
to avoid conflicts with existing pivot irrigation systems; and to site poles on
existing lines where feasible. Choptank
Electric has indicated that it will endeavor to work with the farmers to site
poles to minimize disturbances to the farming operations.
Foundation staff recommends that the proposed
easements be reviewed by a MALPF or DGS attorney to verify that the overlay
easements do not contain language that may compromise the MALPF easements or
district agreements and that there will be minimal impact on the agricultural
operation of the farms. Additionally,
language should be inserted into the overlay easements stating that: all parties to the easement acknowledge that the land has
been previously encumbered by a MALPF easement; the rights granted under the
overlay easement shall not be assigned to any other person or entity without
MALPF approval; best efforts will be made to protect the future agricultural
use of the land, including minimizing the disruption of crop cycles, replacing
topsoil, etc.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the
request based on the Foundation’s overlay easement policy, conditional upon a
satisfactory review of the overlay easements and inclusion of certain language
referred to above and any other language deemed necessary by the attorney to
protect the future agricultural viability of the land. A copy of the Foundation’s policy on overlay
easements, including utility easements, was included.
Mr. Todd Bireley, Assistant Planning Engineer
from Choptank Electric, and Ms. Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, were available
at the Board meeting to address questions from Board members.
Mr. Bireley introduced
himself and the Choptank Electric Co-operative. The Choptank
Electric Co-operative is a non-profit electric utility service and services
45,000 customers in all the nine counties in the
Responding to a question, Mr. Bireley located
the Delmarva power line relative to the Choptank Electric Co-operative. Their strategy is to place their line
adjacent to the Delmarva power line. The
advantage for Choptank Electric Co-operative is that most of their right-of-way
is already clear. They are asking for
90’ wide easement.
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that Foundation’s role
is to try and reduce the impact on the state and the local government preserved
properties. 500’ or 600’ to the left of
the proposed transmission line, there is no preserved property; but, where the
transmission line is proposed, 5 – 6 properties are involved. Mr. Doug Wilson commented that people are
directly or indirectly already impacted by the Delmarva power line. He was concerned about how one more power
line will impact people.
Mr. Tassone stated that, assuming that Choptank
Electric Co-operative has to come to an agreement with all the individual farm
and property owners about the additional easement requirements, he wanted to
know the nature of disruption caused by the transmission line other than the
physical obstruction caused by the support system going into the ground.
Mr. Bireley stated that, during the initial
construction, there may be some crop damage, depending on where the access will
be. They will need access to the pole
locations. The Co-operative has already
surveyed the requirements of the transmission line. In the process they located several
irrigation systems and their locations.
As much as possible, they would like to keep their steel poles next to
Delmarva Power’s wood poles to lessen the disturbance to the farm
machinery. However, in some cases they
may have to move the pole at a distance of 20’ or 30’ from the existing
Delmarva poles.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know the County’s position
on this request. Ms. Buckle stated that
the County came to learn about this when a landowner informed her about the
proposed installation of a transmission line.
There was already one transmission line on his property. He wanted to know if he can do anything to
stop it. That’s how Ms. Buckle came to
know of the proposal and got in touch with Mr. Bireley of Choptank Electric
Co-operative. When she spoke to Ms.
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF staff, Ms. Weaver proposed to include the item for this
month’s Board meeting. The County will
not have its Agricultural Advisory Board meeting until
Mr. Colhoun commented that the normal procedure
is that the item should be discussed at the local Agricultural Advisory Board
before the State Board reviews it. The
local Agricultural Advisory Board should then send its recommendation to the
MALPF Board for its review. As such,
this agenda item should be viewed only as an informational item and not seeking
Board’s approval.
Mr. Freedlander wanted
to know if the Choptank Electric Co-operative has the power to exercise eminent
domain, and Mr. Bireley confirmed that it has.
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know if the Choptank
Electric Co-operative will be paying the people from whom they are getting the
right-of-way. Mr. Bireley
confirmed that it would and stated that they normally come up with a per-acre
figure for payment. The proposal is
planned in three phases – first phase for 2007, second for 2008, and the final
phase in 2009.
Mr. Doug Wilson was concerned about the impact
the transmission line will have on the values of the properties and their
easements. He was not sure if the
compensation the landowners would be getting would cover the loss of
development value. He was also concerned
about the maintenance fee paid to the property owner due to the costs incurred
from the ongoing maintenance of the transmission line on their properties.
Mr. Tassone wondered if the Board could obtain a
letter of the expected maintenance costs and the resulting agreement between
the Choptank Electric Co-operative and landowners. Could this issue be addressed in the
easement?
Mr. Colhoun thanked Mr. Bireley for coming to
the Board and the information he provided to the Board.
2. 05-91-18A Neal, Dallas W. & Carol A. 71.389 acres
Request for a partial termination of district
property
Mr. and Mrs. Neal are the original owners of the
district property. The current request is
for a partial termination of district property.
The Neals are
requesting a partial termination of a 3.298-acre area of the district. The request is being made to allow for the
future construction of a dwelling, possibly for a grandchild. There are currently no dwellings on the
property.
According to
Staff recommends approval. The request is consistent with the
Foundation’s partial termination policy as the maximum number of development
rights on the area to be terminated is not greater than three. The district continues to meet the minimum
size and soils criteria.
Ms. Buckle was present to answer any questions
from the Board. Mr. Conrad commented
that the landowner is requesting termination as they have completed their
5-year district commitment.
Motion #10: To approve
the request by Dallas W. and Carol A. Neal for a partial termination of the
district property.
Motion: Chris
Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
III. AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
Mr. Conrad presented the district petitions.
A.
1.
This is a 244.2199 acre parcel located in the
South of Riverside Road in the town of
Mr. Stahl stated that he has seen the property,
and it is a wonderful camp and is being run by Lions Club.
2.
This is a 208.116 acre parcel located in the
west of
3.
This is a 182 acre parcel located in the west of
4.
This is a 70.243 acres parcel located in the
South of Wilkerson Road in the town of
Staff recommends the landowners acquire a Forest
Stewardship Plan.
5.
This is a 27.5 acres parcel located in the East
and West of Bowling Drive in the town of
Motion
#11: To approve the requests of
Waldorf Lions Foundation, Inc., Mormar Family Trust, Ann Louise Beers, John W.
Bunting, and Joseph E. Plater to establish agricultural land preservation
districts on their respective properties with appropriate recommendations.
Motion: Robert
Stahl Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
B. QUEEN ANNE’S
COUNTY
1.
This is a 54.70 acres parcel located on
Motion
#12: To approve the request of John
S. Dulin to establish an agricultural land preservation district on his
property.
Motion: Robert
Stahl Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
There
being no further business, Mr. Colhoun asked for a motion for adjournment of
the meeting.
Motion #13: To adjourn regular session.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Joe
Tassone
Status: Approved
The
regular session of the Board meeting was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully Submitted:
_____________________________________
Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary
_____________________________________
James
A. Conrad, Executive Director