MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION

MINUTES

July 25, 2006

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

Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Department of Planning

Christopher H. Wilson

Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture

TRUSTEES ABSENT:

Robert F. Stahl, Jr.

Shirley W. Pilchard

OTHERS PRESENT:

Anne Bradley, Frederick County, Ag. Preservation Planner

Dan Beck, State Highway Administration, Office of Bridge Development Engineer, Caroline County

Tammy Buckle, Caroline County, Program Administrator

James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive Director

Carol Council, MALPF Administrative Officer

Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary

Sue duPont, Public Information Officer, Department of Agriculture

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services

Corey Johnson, State High Administration, Office of Bridge Development, Caroline County

Deborah J. Kenny, Real Property Specialist, State Highway Administration, Kent County

James Lee, State Highway Administration, Office of Bridge Development, Caroline County

Wally Lippincott, Baltimore County, Program Administrator

Carla Martin, Kent County, Program Administrator

Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture

Jeanine Nutter, MALPF Administrative Specialist

Ralph Robertson, Carroll County, Program Administrator

Charles Rice, Charles County, Program Administrator

Daniel Rosen, Planner, Maryland Department of Planning

Donna Sasscer, St. Mary’s County, Program Administrator

Eric Seifarth, Washington County, Program Administrator

Eric Shertz, Cecil County, Program Administrator

Dan Smyth, MALPF Intern

Mr. & Mrs. Charles Swam, Landowners, Baltimore County

Donna K. Landis-Smith, Queen Anne’s County, Program Administrator

Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Administrative Officer

Joe Woolman, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC, Attorney

John Zawitoski, Montgomery County, Program Administrator

Daniel Colhoun, Chairman, called the meeting to order at approximately 9:35 a.m. at the Maryland Department of Agriculture building, Annapolis, Maryland.

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 JUNE 27, 2006

Motion #1: To approve the minutes of June 27, 2006 with amendments.

Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

B. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:

Mr. James Conrad, Executive Director of the Foundation, informed the Board members that MALPF staff member, Ms. Elizabeth Weaver, has to attend another meeting, and, therefore, the items for which Ms. Weaver is responsible will be taken up before proceeding with other agenda items.

07-06-09 Raech, Paul A. & Barbara G. 287.85 acres Added

Request to amend the District Agreement to withhold 3.0 acres

In June 2006, Mr. Conrad had distributed a financial statement for the benefit of Board members. The statement is similar to a modified balance sheet intended to provide the Board members an idea about the Foundation’s financial situation: the status of capital funds and operating funds. A similar updated statement has been distributed today by Ms. Jeanine Nutter, MALPF Administrative Specialist. Mr. Conrad requested Board members to provide comments and suggestions about this proposed monthly statement and whether it would be useful to distribute each month. Board members commented that they found the statement useful and would like to receive it in future.

Mr. Conrad informed the Board members about a possible event in the first week of August 2006 planned by the Governor’s Office. The event is planned as a public acknowledgement of this year’s activities of MALPF.

Sue DuPont, Public Information Officer was available and informed the Board members that currently she is trying to schedule the meeting and is in touch with the Governor’s Office to firm up the details. The Governor’s Office would like to have the event on a farm before the recently approved easement offers go to Board of Public Works for approval. The MALPF easement offers are expected to go to Board of Public Works on August 9, 2006.

II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT AMENDMENTS

D. BALTIMORE COUNTY

1. 03-06-07 Martin, Marion A. 55.80 acres

Request to amend a district to change configuration of withheld acreage

On June 27, 2006, the Foundation’s Board of Trustees approved the establishment of a district on the property of Mr. Marion Martin. The district application included a request to withhold 2.5 acres from the district. The current request is to approve a reconfiguration of the withheld acreage.

The acreage originally withheld from the district was comprised of two separate areas. The landowner previously requested to withhold two acres around a proposed cell tower and a one half-acre area around an existing day care center. The landowner requests to change the request to allow the withholding of one half-acre around the cell tower and two acres around a day care center.

According to Baltimore County, the reconfiguration will not affect allowed density on the property. The request was approved by the local advisory board and is consistent with local zoning regulations.

Foundation staff recommends approval of the request because it does not appear to negatively impact the agricultural use of the property. The larger area being withheld (two acres), which was previously located in the middle of the property, is now located along the road.

Wally Lippincott, Program Administrator, was available to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Lippincott informed the Board members that the family felt it was better to convey the day care center to their son who is adjacent to their property. The landowners determined that they needed only one half-acre for the cell tower.

Motion #2: To approve the request of Marion A. Martin to change the location of withheld acreage.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

2. 03-86-15 Tracey, Arthur S. and A. Richard 299.71 acres

Request for a right-of-way overlay easement.

Messrs. Tracey are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is for a 20’ right-of-way overlay easement on a MALPF easement property. (Note: This request was pulled from the June, 2005, and the May, 2006, MALPF meeting agendas pending receipt of a copy of the proposed overlay right-of-way easement.)

Charles Swam, whose property lies adjacent to the Tracey property, has for a number of years used a driveway through the Tracey property to access his property. In addition to accessing his home, Mr. Swam uses the access for the movement of agricultural machinery. However, because no legal description of the driveway as a right-of-way existed, the right-of-way was not noted in the MALPF easement settlement process.

According to Baltimore County, the right-of-way traverses a forested portion of the Tracey property and does not impact the agricultural operation of the farm.

The request satisfies the criteria of the Foundation’s Overlay Easement Policy (copy attached): the right-of-way easement will not prohibit any agricultural operation; it will have minimal interference on the overall operation of the farm; the use is limited to the area defined in the overlay easement; and its use is limited to its current use as access to Mr. Swam’s property. Granting the right-of-way will not expand access to the Swam property.

The request was approved by the local advisory board and is consistent with local zoning ordinances.

A copy of the proposed overlay right-of-way easement was distributed to the Board members.

Foundation staff recommends approval based on meeting the criteria of the Foundation’s Overlay Easement Policy. Additionally, the right-of-way, while not legally described, preceded the MALPF easement.

Mr. and Mrs. Swam, Mr. Joe Woolman, Attorney, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC, and Mr. Lippincott were available to answer questions from the Board.

Mr. Lippincott stated that the County and the County Board support the approval of the overlay easement. However, the County and the County Board are not fully ready to endorse it. The County still has a few questions regarding the future use of the access for the present and future owners of the property. The County is concerned about the potential use of the access for more than personal use.

Mr. Lippincott stated that a 400-acre farm was owned by the Ensor family. The Ensors had a dairy farm and passed the property to Arthur Tracey. Arthur Tracey put 300 acres under preservation in Baltimore County. Mr. Tracey also developed 100 acres. In the course of developing the 100 acres, it was realized that there was no legally recognized or documented access to Mr. Swam’s property. Mr. Swam and his family wanted the access to be legally recognized, and the County has been working for quite sometime to resolve the issue.

The County and the County Board fully supports the Swams in getting this done. However, the County is concerned that, by granting this, it may invite one, two, or three additional users to utilize the access. The County had asked if there is another access that Mr. Swam has to his property. Mr. Lippincott has not received any documentation about the status of the other access to the property.

Mr. Swam stated that he bought the farm and has been living there for more than sixty years. The previous owners used the right-of-way for at least 40 years before that. The access is only 20’, and, therefore, he did not understand Mr. Lippincott’s concerns.

Mr. Lippincott stated that, if Mr. Swam sold the property and someone else subdivides it, the person could use the County process to use the subdivided property to use the access for additional lots.

Mr. Swam wondered if a 20’ right-of-way could be used for subdivision. Mr. Lippincott stated that Mr. Swam could approach the County and ask for special approval to get the lots.

Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, stated that the use of access by Mr. Swam already exists and the Foundation purchased an easement subject to that.

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services, stated that the Foundation is permitting Mr. Swam to memorialize the right-of-way. The document says that Mr. Swam cannot expand the width, and it is a gravel lane. The Foundation does not have an easement on the Swam property and, thus, does not have any authority over it.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that, if this was an easement property, the landowner (not the easement purchaser) said that he does not have any other access, and this is the only reasonable access to his property, then the Foundation has an issue; but if it already existed and there was, in effect, an error in recording the use of that right-of-way, the scenario is different. Therefore, there is a distinction between memorializing the right-of-way as it already existed as opposed to a new request coming to create an easement. The Foundation has a right to put a restriction on the use of the easement across MALPF property, but does not have authority over Mr. Swam because his property is not under a MALPF easement.

Mr. Woolman stated that, in a letter to Baltimore County Agricultural Advisory Board dated March 31, 2005, he indicated that “the access and the activities on the overlay easement will be strictly limited to the current use of the driveway that Mr. Swam uses to access his farm, and the condition of the existing driveway will not be altered in any way.”

In the draft document circulated, the ‘Right of Way Easement Agreement,’ section (4) of the Recitals, states that “the parties agree that the width and character of the driveway shall be maintained as it currently exists.”

Mr. Conrad located a barn in the aerial photograph. He pointed out that it is not just the driveway to the house, but it is also a driveway that goes up to the barn which provides better access for Mr. Swam’s agricultural machinery.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know if Mr. Swam has other right-of-way access to the property, or if this is the sole right-of-way access to the property. Mr. Swam confirmed that it is the only right-of-way access.

Mr. Colhoun wanted to know if there is any other legal access to the property other than the right-of-way currently being discussed. Mrs. Swam clarified that there is nothing on the deed.

Mr. Lippincott commented that, hearing the explanation of the attorneys has clarified the issue to him. He stated that he was not fully aware of the fact that the Board views the new request differently versus something that has existed historically, even if it had not been legally documented. The County was concerned about the ability to subdivide further, and, in hearing the differentiation, he understands that the attorneys do not have a right to limit it. In this situation, Mr. Lippincott would like to move forward to allow the request and expressed his intention to withdraw his concerns. ,He felt that there is no other alternative.

Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Department of Planning, wanted to know if the draft of the Right of Way Easement Agreement conformed to the typical language as used in easement agreements in similar cases. Ms. Forrester confirmed that it is.

Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Lippincott if he would like to take the item back to the County and go through the legal details that have come up, or would he like to proceed with the MALPF Board’s decision.

Mr. Lippincott commented that the attorneys have confirmed the appropriateness of the legal document and have confirmed that the document could not be amended to cover the County’s concerns regarding subdivision. In this situation, Mr. Lippincott recommended moving forward.

Mr. Nielsen stated that Mr. Swam has a right to use the driveway. There are situations where someone wants to develop and wants to have access over MALPF easements so that people living in the developed area could travel back and forth to their homes, which the Foundation can deny. But in this case, the driveway is pre-existing, and it does not burden the easement.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that the Board is not going to vote later to expand the size of the right-of-way easement. He commented that, if the County was to decide to let a future property owner put 50 townhouses back there, and if the property owners come to the County and asked for access to expand the right-of-way, the MALPF Board would say `No.’ If the County were to allow 50 more people to drive across the easement to get to that subdivision on the gravel road – that is a County decision. The Foundation’s clients have to understand that the County could do that. The County authorities can change local ordinances and regulations, and if the County is going to allow it, Foundation does not have much to say because it is taking the easement subject to the pre-existing right-of-way.

Motion #3: To approve the request of Mr. Swam for a right-of-way overlay easement on the Tracey property.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander

Status: Approved

V. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION

B. Road expansion affecting MALPF properties in Queen Anne’s and Caroline Counties

The State Highway Administration (SHA) is in the process of acquiring property in fee and acquiring permanent easements on properties adjacent to a portion of Route 313 where bridge construction and realignment of the road are planned. Four MALPF properties will be impacted by the construction.

The SHA project includes the replacement of the entire existing bridge structure and a realignment of Route 313 in the area adjacent to the bridge. Additionally, approximately 1,500 feet of the approach road on either side of the bridge will be reconstructed to improve horizontal alignment.

In Caroline County, SHA will purchase 1.154 acres in fee and require a permanent easement on 0.064 acres. In Queen Anne’s County, SHA will purchase 2.49 acres in fee. (See attached maps.)

Foundation staff is providing this outline for informational purposes only. According to Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, MDA, the Board does not have discretion to prevent the taking of the properties because the statute grants authority to the State or a county to acquire property for a public purpose. (Copy of statute attached.) The statute provides that the Foundation shall be compensated in an amount equal to the per acre amount paid to the landowner by the Foundation for the easement. The compensation due to MALPF is deducted from the payment that the landowner will receive from SHA. The total compensation due to the Foundation is $1,713.25. MALPF staff has requested that the payment amount be paid directly to the Foundation.

Details of the properties that will be impacted by the construction and the compensation due to the Foundation are as follows:

Compensation due to MALPF

File#	County	Acreage	Per Acre Amount	Amount Due
05-87-19es	Caroline	1.154 (in fee)	$ 498.00	$ 574.69
05-86-22	Caroline	0.064 (perm. easement)	$ 448.00	$ 28.67
17-86-04	Queen Anne’s	2.393 (in fee)	$ 423.00	$1,012.24
17-90-05	Queen Anne’s	0.097 (in fee)	$1,006.71	$ 97.65

Ms. Deborah J. Kenny and Mr. James Lee from State Highway Administration were available at the Board meeting with their engineers. Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, Caroline County, and Donna K. Landis-Smith, Program Administrator, Queen Anne’s County, were also available.

Ms. Weaver stated that one of the issues that still needed to be clarified is whether the Board of Public Works should be made aware that the project is impacting MALPF properties.

Howard S. Freedlander, representing Treasurer Kopp, stated that he has noticed that there have been exchanges of land when other similar items came to the Board of Public Works. One such situation related to properties with Maryland Environmental Trust easements in Carroll County. The property was taken to expand a large road in Carroll County, and SHA pledged to exchange the land. He wanted to know if this is included in the present case. Ms. Kenny clarified that this is not included because she believed that it is not required.

Ms. Kenny stated that, when the SHA was taking the land, it did not realize that it was a MALPF property and realized only when she started talking to the property owners. Briefing the Board members about the project, Ms. Kenny stated that the SHA is replacing a bridge over 100 years old that has become dangerous. It is a high traffic road used by trucks. There is a dangerous curve. In the design of the new road, a large part of the curve has been taken out. In doing so the SHA has acquired frontage of some agricultural properties in that area. When the old road gets torn up, it will remain state property until SHA determines whether it will be needed for any other purpose. If it is not needed for any other purpose, there is a possibility that SHA will offer it back to the landowners who are adjacent to the state-owned property. The payment will be based on the current appraised value.

Mr. Lee briefed the Board members about the plan of the State Highway Administration. The Administration has looked into the possibility of moving the road to the west side. The Administration has also looked into the possibility of returning a portion of the project to the east side. The advantage will be that it will be close to the road, along the road, and the property would be available for agricultural use if SHA returned the property to the landowners. But there is a departmental concern. There is a stream. SHA will have to leave an existing abutment in place on the Queen Anne’s side of the river. If SHA had to take that out, it will disturb the environment, and SHA doesn’t want to do that.

There is a wetland mitigation area that the Administration will use for the project.

Mr. Colhoun wanted to know if SHA is in the process of litigation with the property owners or if it is in the process of negotiating a settlement without litigation.

Ms. Kenny stated that currently the Administration is in the process of negotiating with the landowners and further added that the Administration is not in the process of condemnation, but in the process of acquisition. If the Administration is not able to come to an agreement with the property owners, it will go to a property review. The Board of Property Review will have a hearing and decide one way or the other. If there is an appeal, then it would go to a higher court.

Mr. Conrad stated that the State Highway Administration is doing wetland mitigation. He wanted to know if the wetland mitigation is something that is specific to the work that is being done, or if it relates to something that can be mitigated on non-easement property.

Mr. Lee stated that he was not exactly sure. He believed the Administration can mitigate anywhere in the area as long as it is within the same watershed.

Mr. Conrad stated that the Foundation has a committee working on wetland mitigation and is looking at specific policies as to what is allowed and what is not allowed on MALPF easement properties. So the road expansion project may raise some more questions related to wetland mitigation.

Mr. Freedlander stated that the Board of Public Works has seen mitigation areas that are distant from the project area. In the case of the Wilson Bridge, the mitigation area was removed to some extent from the immediate area.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that the Foundation would not like to have mitigation on the property. SHA’s action could take x% out of the property. The mitigation replacement will take more and very soon the Foundation will have no easement left. The farm cannot be farmed anymore. That gives a reason to the Foundation to tell an agency that it would prefer not to have mitigation on the easement property and suggest the agency do the mitigation somewhere else. Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know about the current policy about the money that would be reimbursed to the Foundation at the end.

Mr. Nielsen quoted Section 2-515 of the MD Agricultural Code. Essentially the landowner gets the full amount minus the money paid by the State or the County under the easement. He has written a memo to Ms. Janet Handy, Deputy Counsel, State Highway Administration, and it was attached with the agenda material.

Ms. Kenney stated that SHA was not aware of the section and did not realize that the Foundation wanted to be reimbursed directly from SHA and not through the property owners.

Mr. Tassone wanted to know the total amount of easement acreage that will be lost from the easement as a result of this project, how much of that will go for the road expansion, and how much will be towards wetland mitigation.

Ms. Smith stated that, in Queen Anne’s County, a little over 3.0 acres of MALPF property would be given up for this project, strictly devoted to the road, and not for wetland mitigation.

Ms. Buckle stated that in Caroline County it will be approximately 2.0 acres and was not sure of the wetland mitigation.

Mr. Lee stated that most of the acreage from the two counties will be taken for the new road. He estimated .095 acres may be for the mitigation and also the mitigation is going to be done in the existing roadways. The areas taken by SHA are existing drainage ditches for the road that are not currently owned by SHA. SHA is not taking any agricultural area.

Mr. Colhoun asked the two County Program Administrators if the property owners whose properties are involved in this project were aware that the project would be discussed during the Board meeting.

Ms. Smith stated that the owner of the large parcel with the most acreage involved in this project happens to be her friend’s mother. Ms. Smith’s friend’s mother contacted Mrs. Green, mother of Faith Rossing, Director, Planning & Zoning, Queen Anne’s County. Ms. Smith has spoken to the two owners and sent copies of the agenda material. The two landowners were aware of the meeting.

Ms. Buckle stated that, in Caroline County, she became aware of the project because the landowner, Mrs. Collier, had contacted her, and Mrs. Collier is aware of the meeting. Ms. Buckle had not contacted Mr. and Mrs. Snow.

Mr. Conrad commented that the Foundation is providing the outline for informational purposes only, and the Board is not required to take any decision. Mr. Colhoun stated that the loss of farmland is very important to the MALPF Board, and the Board also is concerned about the wetland mitigation on the farmland.

Ms. Smith stated that she travels by that road everyday, and the project is going to be a much needed improvement. She believed it will be a benefit to both counties to have the bridge constructed.

Ms. Schultz, Vice Chairman, wanted to know if there is a possibility of reconsidering a different mitigation location.

Mr. Lee stated that he was not sure if it is possible because SHA is currently in the design process. It will be a lot more expensive for SHA to do it. It is also more convenient for the whole ecological system to mitigate in the same location.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that he would like to heighten awareness that the State has a program that preserves agricultural land. SHA has its goal and objectives. Agricultural land is almost always the very best land. The State Government and the County Government is making decisions to preserve land. The Foundation’s job is to keep the land in agriculture. He wanted all the state agencies to be aware of this when they make such important decisions in the future.

Mr. Freedlander wanted to know the process SHA would go through while making a decision on wetland mitigation.

Mr. Lee stated that it is being handled by the SHA, and he was not sure of the process. He was not sure how they judge one plan of mitigation versus another plan of mitigation, or whether one plan of mitigation is acceptable or not.

Mr. Tassone stated that when wetland mitigation is done in a particular location, it has a variety of wetland functions, many of them hydrological. If the wetland is replaced in the same or equivalent hydrological position and landscape, it is handling the same water that was being handled by the wetland and has the same hydrological capacity. If the wetland that is being replaced is at a different hydrological position, different landscape, draining in a different area, it is difficult to confirm if the two are equivalent. It is easier to arrive at a choice when you don’t take yourself out of the same watershed hydrological context.

Mr. Colhoun thanked the officials from SHA administration for coming and hoped that they will convey the MALPF Board’s deep concern about the land that they will be taking out of the program for the project.

II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT AMENDMENTS

A. CARROLL COUNTY

1. 06-82-29 Walters, Don & Sally 111.11242 acres

Request for a 3.5-acre partial termination of district property

Mr. and Mrs. Walters are the original owners of the district property. There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property and no lots have been excluded. The current request is for approval of a 3.5-acre partial termination.

The landowners are applying for a FY 2007 easement application and would like to remove the 3.5-acre parcel prior to sale of the easement. The current use of the parcel is cropland that is located adjacent to a county road. If the request is approved, the remaining 107.61242 acres will consist of 82% qualifying soils and will continue to meet the Foundation’s minimum requirements for district establishment.

According to Carroll County, one (1) development right is associated with the requested 3.5-acre parcel. The local advisory board has approved the request.

Foundation staff recommends approval of the request for partial termination of 3.5 acres because 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.

Ralph Robertson, Program Administrator, was available to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Robertson informed the Board that Mr. and Mrs. Walters have had the farm in a district since 1982 and they only applied for an easement once in 1983. Since 1983 there has been no activity. The property has 1 lot available for every 3 acres.

Mr. and Mrs. Walters are in a position that they cannot wait for a FY 2007 offer. They have severe medical problems in the family, and they need to move. The landowners do not want to sell the farm. The lot will cause fairly minimum disturbance to the property. There will be one lot right on that area.

Mr. Tassone wanted to know if the location will perc. Mr. Robertson confirmed that it would.

Mr. Tassone wanted to know if MALPF has any other easements around the property. Mr. Robertson stated that there is one MALPF easement about ½ a mile from the location.

Motion #4: To approve the request of Mr. & Mrs. Walters for a 3.5-acre partial termination of district property.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Howard Freedlander

Status: Approved

B. WASHINGTON COUNTY

1. 21-93-34 Murphy, Mary E. 163.88 acres

Re-review of a 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 (December 16, 2003) for a 1.0-acre lot exclusion for her son, Arnold. There have been no other requests for lot exclusions on the property.

Previous information:

Ms. Murphy is seriously ill and may be in danger of losing the farm. It is her intention to add the 3.0 acres to her son’s 1.0-acre approved lot. If this request is approved, there will be no development rights associated with the 3.0 acres. According to the Foundation’s records of the request for the 1.0-acre child’s lot, access is via right-of-way along the woods line (not shown on the attached aerial photo).

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.

Subsequent information:

On April 25, 2006 the Board reviewed Ms. Murphy’s request for a 3.0-acre partial termination and was concerned about allowing 3.0 acres to be added to the son’s 1.0 acre child’s lot. The Board’s motion was to table the request until such time as the landowner or the Program Administrator could attend the Board meeting.

The land being taken out of production is class III cropland. There are no development rights associated with the proposed 3.0-acre partial termination.

According to Mr. Arnold Murphy, in an effort to have less impact on the field where the excluded 1.0-acre child’s lot is located, he wishes to move the lot within the wooded area. To properly configure the lot and access, he needs a total of four (4) acres.

Ms. Murphy has applied to sell an easement in the FY 2007 application cycle.

Foundation staff continues to recommend approval of the request for partial termination of 3.0 acres because 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.

Eric Seifarth, Program Administrator, was available to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Seifarth informed the Board members that Mrs. Murphy has medical problems and, of the four children, Arnold is the main farmer. There is another brother who helps out. They have two sisters who live in New York, and they want to sell the farm at the highest price to the developer as quickly as possible upon Mrs. Murphy’s death.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know how this property would rank. Mr. Seifarth believed the property should rank high, except for the fact that the County’s priority ranking has 5 points if it is a previous applicant. Mrs. Murphy is not a previous applicant. If it were not for that, the property probably will be close to being at the top of the list.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know, if the Murphys sold the easement, would the proceeds from the easement be used to settle the estate with the other siblings. Mr. Seifarth stated that the easement values in that area have been approaching $8000 an acre. The siblings will be very happy with a chunk of that money and let Arnold do whatever he wants to do with the farm. Arnold is very hopeful of selling some of the farm, maybe doing an agricultural subdivision, and letting the sisters do what they would like to do. Arnold wants to have the property so that he can live there and then possibly farm part of the farm even if Mrs. Murphy passes away before they can settle.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know, if the easement settles, Mrs. Murphy passes away, and Arnold ends up with the property, is he likely to move into the main house. Mr. Seifarth stated that he had not discussed that.

Mrs. Schultz wanted to know about the access to the 4-acre lot. Mr. Seifarth located the two options. One option is through the lane on the north side of the property, on the north-west corner of the property. The other option would be to go directly off the road to the 4 acres. The location has still not been surveyed yet.

Responding to a question, Mr. Seifarth stated that he wants maximum acreage in the easement application as it would help the ranking. If not this year, the property would be right at the top next year.

Mr. Tassone stated that he was concerned about some possible problems with the request. However, given the situation as described by Mr. Seifarth, he saw very little advantage to the Foundation if it does not approve this request.

Motion #5: To approve the request of Mary E. Murphy’s request for a 3.0-acre partial termination of district property.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Judith Lynch

Status: Approved

2. 21-91-09 Long, Lawrence & Hazel 163.88 acres

Request for a 2.0-acre partial termination of district property

Mr. and Mrs. Long are the original owners of the district property. There are two pre-existing dwellings. On August 22, 1995 a 2.0 acre child’s lot was approved for their daughter, Brenda L. Shane. On December 16, 2003 the Board approved a tenant house on the property. The current request is for a 2.0-acre partial termination.

According to Washington County, the proposed 2.0-acre lot will be used to construct a home for the Longs’ grandson, Lance Long, who works on the farm. The proposed lot consists of class III soils and is currently cropland. Access to the proposed lot will be directly onto Spielman Road. One development right will be associated with the lot. The impact to the farm is minimal. The location of this proposed lot meets the Foundation’s guidelines for lot location.

The request has been approved by the local advisory board and meets Planning and Zoning requirements.

Foundation staff recommends approval of the request for partial termination of 2.0 acres because 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.

Mr. Conrad commented that the request follows the lot location guidelines.

Mr. Seifarth was available to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Seifarth stated that the County had asked the owners to cluster the lots, and they agreed.

Motion #6: To approve the request of Lawrence and Hazel Long for a 2.0-acre partial termination of district property.

Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: Joe Tassone

Status: Approved

Ms. Shultz informed the Board members that the farm has been with the Long family for seven generations (for 175 years). They recently had an open house on their farm inviting local politicians and the public to visit the farm. Board members suggested Foundation staff should check if the owners are part of the Century Farms Program.

3. 21-90-10e Wiles, Charles & Martha 186.88 acres

Request for a 1.0-acre child’s lot exclusion from easement property

Mr. and Mrs. Wiles are the original owners of the easement property. The property has one pre-existing dwelling. The current request is for exclusion of a 1.0-acre child’s lot for their son, Jeffrey A. Wiles.

Previous approvals on the property have included:

April 23, 1991 - tenant house

June 25, 2002 - 1.0 acre owner’s lot (not yet released)

June 25, 2002 - 1.0 child’s lot for son, Greg (not yet released)

June 25, 2002 - 1.0 acre child’s lot for daughter, Melissa (Preliminary Release has been recorded, pending receipt of the building permit for the Final Release)

According to Washington County, the proposed lot will be located in what is currently pasture land and consists of class III soils. Access will be via an existing farm lane. Impact to the overall farm operation will be minimal.

The request has been approved by the local advisory board and meets Planning & Zoning requirements. If the request is approved, payback will be $2,109.99.

In conforming to the Foundations Lot Location Policy, the physical location of the lot should be (in priority order from most to least desirable):

1. Along public roadway and (if they exist) clustered with other dwellings;

2. Along boundary lines, natural boundaries, or the edge of tillable land, and clustered with other dwellings (if they exist);

3. Clustered with farmstead dwellings and buildings; and

4. Other.

From the aerial that was provided, it appears there would be less impact to the farm operation if the lot could be located closer to the property boundary or clustered with previously approved child’s lots. Foundation staff recommends the landowner attempt to locate the lot in an area that conforms to the Foundation’s Lot Location Policy.

Mr. Seifarth was available to answer any questions from the Board. Mr. Seifarth informed the Board members the request was originally approved as an owner’s lot, but Mrs. Wiles had a liver transplant. So they had to change their request, but it is still generally at the same location. At the time of original request, Mr. Wiles had stated that the land is cropland and the access was going back to the house. The land has good soil, and Mr. Seifarth expected it to perc.

Mr. Colhoun wanted to know if there is any other particular reason for the lot’s proposed location. Mr. Seifarth commented that the topography slopes up there.

Mr. Tassone asked if consideration was given to putting the proposed lot with the other two children’s lots. Mr. Seifarth stated that he talked about this with the owners, but they preferred the proposed location because they liked the spot.

Carol Council, Foundation staff, informed the Board members that the map indicated a different spot for the original approval for the owner’s lot. Mr. Seifarth stated that there might be a change of which he was not aware. Ms. Council informed the Board that none of the lots have been released. For one of the children’s lots, the owners had sent in the check, but not the building permit.

Mr. Colhoun asked if Mr. Wiles could attend the Board meeting to answer questions. Mr. Seifarth commented that he can try to get him to come, but he was not sure Mr. Wiles would be able to make it, considering Mrs. Wiles’s ill-health.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented on the fact that the owner’s lot was originally approved and then the landowners chose to put the owner’s lot on the other side of the farm. Given the Foundation’s current lot process, there is a preference to have lots clustered. If the request is otherwise, there is a need to hear the owner’s reason for the proposed location.

Responding to a question from Ms. Council, Mr. Seifarth commented that there is right-of-way access at the back of the farm for other properties. To each side of the property there are rights of way accesses, not roads.

Mr. Colhoun wanted to make sure that the owner understands that the Foundation has a lot location policy, and this request does not conform to the Foundation policy. If the request differs from the Foundation’s policy, then the owner needs to attend the meeting to explain the reason for his choice.

Motion #7: To table the request of Charles and Martha Wiles for a 1.0 child’s lot exclusion from easement property.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Vera Mae Schultz

Status: Approved

Mr. Tassone advised Mr. Seifarth to make the owners aware of the specific sequence of preferred locations for lots in the lot location policy.

Ms. Schultz commented that the staff memo indicates one pre-existing dwelling and the landowner’s application indicates two pre-existing dwellings.

Ms. Council clarified that the tenant house is considered by the landowner as a pre-existing dwelling.

C. MONTGOMERY COUNTY

1. 15-83-01e Allnut, Benoni D. 204.1454 acres

Request for relocation of a previously approved 1.0-acre child’s lot on easement property

Mr. Allnut is the original owner of the easement property. There are two pre-existing dwellings. The current request is for the relocation of an approved 1.0 acre child’s lot.

Previous approvals on the easement property include:

1-25-90 25.0-acre agricultural subdivision

1-25-90 1.0-acre child’s lot for son, Benoni D. Allnut, Jr. (not released)

At the time Mr. Allnut received approval for his son’s lot (which was to be located within the 25.0 acre agricultural subdivision), he could not get an approved perc test. Because of the failed perc tests, the proposed relocation is in a corner of the property and will have direct access onto Sugarland Road. The original location was in the middle of a crop field. The new location of the lot will pose less impact to the overall farm operation and meets the Foundation’s Lot Location Policy guidelines.

The request has been approved by the Montgomery County Agricultural Advisory Board. If the request is approved, a payback of $1,100.00 will be required.

Foundation staff recommends approval as the proposed relocated site meets the Foundation’s Guidelines for Lot Exclusions.

John Zawitoski, Program Administrator, was available at the Board meeting to answer any questions from the Board.

Ms. Schultz quoted from Mr. Zawitoski’s letter, “(d) Within the last sixteen years, the easement Grantors, Benoni D. Allnutt, III and his wife Sarah, conveyed their entire interest to their son Ben. He is now the successor to the easement property.”

Ms. Schultz wanted to know who was the owner of the property.

Mr. Zawitoski stated that Ben Allnut, Jr., is the owner of the property. Mr. Conrad stated that this request meets the requirements for the retention of lot rights because he is now the owner as well as qualifying for the child’s lot, and his father’s request has been made in writing.

Motion #8: To approve the request of Benoni Allnut for relocation of a previously approved 1.0 acre child’s lot on easement property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander

Status: Approved

III.E.1. CECIL COUNTY

1. 07-06-09 Raech, Paul A. and Barbara G. 204.1454 acres

Request to amend the District Agreement to withhold 3.0 acres

Mr. and Mrs. Raech are the original owners of the district property. The district was approved by the Board at its June 27, 2006, meeting. The current request is to amend the District Agreement to withhold 3.0 acres.

The landowners intended to withhold this 3.0-acre parcel from the district. However, during the district application process their intention was not conveyed to Foundation staff. It is the landowners’ intent to use the 3.0 acres for future family building lots. The landowners have submitted a FY 2007 easement application for 284.85 acres.

According to Cecil County, there are a maximum of two development rights associated with the withheld parcel.

Foundation staff recommends approval of the request as 1) the property continues to meet the minimum soils and size requirements and 2) the area being withheld falls within the guidelines of the Foundation’s withheld acreage policy.

Eric Shertz, Program Administrator, was available to answer any questions from the Board. He informed the Board members that the landowner had discussed the issue, but not finalized withholding the acres. The landowner had submitted the district application with the local NRCS Office. NRCS local office knew that the landowner wanted to withhold 3 acres, but the information was not property conveyed to his office.

Motion #9: To approve the request of Paul and Barbara Raech to amend the District Agreement to withhold 3.0 acres.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

Mr. Conrad asked Ms. Council to remind Mr. Bill Beach, Chief, Valuation and Appraisal, Department of General Services, Office of Real Estate, that there are two development rights associated with the withheld acreage.

III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS

A. CECIL COUNTY

1. 07-07-01 Milbourne, Anna R. 76.5191 acres

This is a 76.5191-acre parcel located in the South of Providence Road in the town of Elkton. It is within 3 miles from a MALPF district property. There is one dwelling. The farm has 45.5191 cropland acres and 29.6 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is hay, wheat, corn and soybeans. It has 79% qualifying soils. It is not owner operated and is part of a larger operation. The property has 5.0 acres of withheld acreage.

Staff recommends approval and that the landowners acquire a Forest Stewardship Plan on the property prior to easement sale.

Mr. Shertz was available at the meeting. Responding to a question from Mr. Tassone, Mr. Shertz stated that the land is not within the town development. The land is not planned for water and sewer service.

Motion #10: To approve the request of Anna R. Milbourne to establish agricultural land preservation district on her property with appropriate recommendation.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander

Status: Approved

V. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION

A. CHANGE OF ACRES FOR APPROVED WORCETER COUNTY DISTRICT

1. 23-06-01 Merrill, Allen & Juanita 164.54 acres

Change of acres for already approved Worcester County district

On June 27, 2006, the Board approved a 164.54-acre district for the Allen and Juanita Merrill property located in Worcester County. Since that time and prior to recordation of the District Agreement, the landowner has notified the Program Administrator that there is an FAA tracking station located on the property. The location of the tracking station and its access are estimated to be about 0.26 acre. The District Agreement has been amended to reflect this reduction of acreage. The revised document now covers 164.28 acres.

Mr. Conrad stated that this item is only for information and does not require approval.

There being no further business, Mr. Colhoun asked for a motion for adjournment of the meeting.

Motion #11: To adjourn regular session.

Motion: Pat Langenfelder Second: Chris Wilson

Status: Approved

The regular session of the Board meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:15 am.

Respectfully Submitted:

_____________________________________

Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary

__________________________________

James A. Conrad, Executive Director