MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION

MINUTES

August 22, 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

Shirley W. Pilchard

Robert F. Stahl, Jr.

Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Department of Planning

Christopher H. Wilson

Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture

OTHERS PRESENT:

Gregory Auerweck, Intern, Maryland Department of Planning

Joan Becker, Attorney, Howard County

Kenny Bounds, Caroline County, Mid-Atlantic Farm Credit

Anne Bradley, Frederick County, Agricultural Land Preservation Planner

Tammy Buckle, Caroline County, Program Administrator

Clifton L. Clevenger, Landowner, Howard County

Steve Cissel, Farmer, Harford County

James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive Director

Carol Council, MALPF Administrative Officer

William Cryer, Landowner, St. Mary’s County

Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary

Will Doane, Harford County, Program Administrator Assistant

Sherrie Doody, Landowner, Frederick County

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services

Joy Levy, Howard County, Program Administrator

Carla Martin, Kent County, Program Administrator

Jacqualine Miller, Landowner, St. Mary’s County

C. Anne Neal, Landowner, Caroline County

Wheatley Neal, Landowner, Caroline County

Larry & Sue Porter, Landowners, Somerset County

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

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

Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Administrative Officer

Jenny Plummer-Welker, Calvert County, Program Administrator

Clare Whitbeck, Candidate for Delegate District 29A, St. Mary’s County

Susan Wilson, Landowner, Frederick County

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 JULY 25, 2006

Motion #1: To approve the minutes of July 25, 2006 with amendments.

Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: Chris Wilson

Status: Approved

B. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:

Item II.H.1 19-91-01e Porter, Lawrence & Sue 163.749 acres Added

Request for an agricultural subdivision of easement property

Item IV Wetland Mitigation Easements – an update by Mr. Joe Tassone Added

Mr. James Conrad, Executive Director of the Foundation, informed the Board members about the demise of Senator Clark. Mr. Conrad stated that Senator Clark is considered the father of the MALPF program and acknowledged Senator Clark’s contributions and the critical role he played in the initial stages of the MALPF program. Foundation staff will advise the Board members and the program administrators about the details of his memorial service.

Mr. Conrad briefed the Board members about the Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program and circulated the summary he had prepared for Secretary Riley and Dr. Brooks. The deadline for signing the Cooperative Agreement with NRCS was August 21, 2006.

The summary report evaluates the costs to MALPF of accepting the FY 2006 FRPP grant of $1.717 million to match during MALPF's FY 2007 easement acquisition cycle. The FY 2006 FRPP proposal had seven county participants and requested federal matching funds to purchase easements worth $22,689,050 for the permanent protection of 4,012.59 acres of prime farmland. The participating counties are: Anne Arundel, Cecil, Charles, Frederick, Kent, St. Mary's, and Washington Counties. Divided equally among the seven county participants, the grant per county comes to approximately $245,000.

The additional costs of accepting FRPP funds over and above what is paid today for an easement will be approximately $8,500 in direct costs and $5,000 in indirect costs per easement.

MALPF has worked hard to streamline its settlement process and to complete easement transactions as quickly as possible. The additional time that will be necessary to go to settlement on easements with federal funding commitments will be approximately 5 months. The additional time necessary to settle on easements with federal funding commitments based on the new changes in federally-funded easements will be approximately 4 months more than the time necessary until now for each easement.

The potential MALPF easement properties that will not qualify for federal matching funds are: properties with a substantial proportion of woodland; properties that have or may have impervious surface issues (small properties, chicken farms, horse farms, greenhouse operations, etc.); properties owned by landowners who wish to settle using installment purchase agreements or the installment payments option with a commitment longer than five years; and, properties with unsubordinated interests (for example, utility easements or natural gas rights).

The additional restrictions and provisions required by federal funding include: federal co-held easement; no agricultural subdivision; grantor-signed environmental warranty; grantor-signed indemnification; and impervious surface limitations (2-6%). Possible restrictions that have not been clarified include: retention of family or unrestricted lot rights; restriction against condemnation by eminent domain; restriction of easement overlays; certain non-agricultural uses permitted under Maryland statute; and a restriction on boundary line adjustments.

Other issues created by FRPP include: administrative problems determining allocation of funds; legal restrictions against the State of Maryland indemnifying the federal government; the impact of FRPP on federal funding commitments to individual properties; and the encouragement of development on potential easement properties seeking FRPP funding.

Mr. Conrad stated that the Foundation would be talking to various Maryland representatives to seek ways to make the FRPP program work.

Mr. Colhoun stated that Mr. Ralph Robertson, Carroll County, arranged a meeting with Representative Roscoe Bartlett, and Mr. Colhoun attended the meeting. Representative Bartlett was briefed about the problems and promised to hold a meeting in September about the problems with FRPP.

Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture, stated that the federal money is available, but the State is not going to use the money until the issues are resolved. Once the issues are resolved, the Foundation will inform the farmers receiving offers and let them decide whether they would be willing to accept the restrictions. Other states are also having similar issues and are trying to use different types of pressure (either legislative or administrative) on the federal government to change the way the FRPP program is run. He believed that people would become more aggressive once the mid-term elections are over.

Mr. Conrad briefed the Board members that the Foundation has participated in two conference calls with the Northeastern Secretaries of Agriculture and the Chief and staff of NRCS. NRCS seems interested in trying to address the concerns. American Farmland Trust has planned a teleconference for all the interested state participants in August. During this teleconference, presentations will be made to explain why it is becoming difficult to use the FRPP funds.

II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT AMENDMENTS

A. HARFORD COUNTY

1. 12-79-02A Heston, Richard N. & Barbara L. 240.05 acres

Request for a partial termination of district property

Mr. and Mrs. Heston are the original owners of the district property. The current request is for a partial termination of district property.

The Hestons are requesting a partial termination of up to five acres. The request is being made to allow for the future construction of a dwelling for the use of their daughter. There are currently no dwellings on the property. A partial termination of two acres was approved by the Foundation in 2005.

The Hestons are not sure of the exact size of the area to be terminated. They expect the required acreage to be between three and four acres. They plan to have it surveyed, and MALPF will be notified of the exact acreage to be terminated at that time.

According to Harford County, the area to be terminated is currently cropland. The area is located along the edge of the property and backs up to woodland. Current zoning allows a maximum of one lot on the 5-acre area.

The request was approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations.

Staff recommends approval. The request is consistent with the Foundation’s partial termination policy because 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.

Will Doane, Harford County, Program Administrator Assistant, was present at the meeting to answer questions from the Board.

Mr. Doane clarified that the area to be terminated is not on cropland (as mentioned in the staff memo), but is on pasture that is not being used. There is a pre-existing dwelling on the property.

Mr. Doane stated that there is a large panhandle. Mr. Conrad wanted to confirm that the request is made to keep the acreage between the driveway and the property line. Mr. Doane confirmed this statement and mentioned that the request is also to accommodate the septic requirements.

The Hestons have not done a perc test on the property. They also have not applied for an easement and are not part of the County program.

Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Department of Planning, wanted to confirm that, if the Hestons applied for an easement in the future, the Foundation records would indicate a child’s lot has been excluded.

Mr. Conrad confirmed Mr. Tassone’s characterization.

Mr. Doug Wilson recommended approval and suggested staff to indicate to the family that the exclusions (the current and the earlier one approved in 2005) will be taken into account when the Hestons apply for an easement.

Motion #2: To approve the request of Richard N. and Barbara L. Heston for a partial termination with a condition to notify landowners that the child’s lot will be taken into account when they sell an easement.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Chris Wilson

Status: Approved

B. CAROLINE COUNTY

1. 05-94-02A Robinson, Wayne & Leona 65.75 acres

Request for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for a child’s lot on easement property

Mr. and Mrs. Robinson are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is for the release of up to two acres for a child’s lot for the personal use of their son, Christopher Lee Robinson.

There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. A child’s lot was approved on this property for another son, Shawn. The Robinsons own additional easement properties, but no lots have been requested for Christopher on those properties.

According to Caroline County, the proposed lot is to be located along the road, with direct access from the road. The lot is located in a corner of the property, adjacent to the child’s lot approved for Shawn. The lot location (indicated as Choice #1 on the map attached with staff memo) follows the guidelines of the Foundation’s proposed lot location policy. The Robinsons provided an alternative lot location in case the first choice location does not perc. The second choice location (indicated as Choice #2 on the map attached with staff memo) is located along the road and in a corner of the property, but it is not clustered with existing lots.

The request was approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If approved, there will be a required payback of $450.00 per acre to the Foundation.

Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus such minimum additional acreage if required by the County Health Department, not to exceed 2 acres total based on the provisions of the deed of easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b), Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of up to 2 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the county.

Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, was available to answer questions from the Board members.

Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman, wanted to know if David and Shawn are the same person. Ms. Buckle confirmed that they are the same person. A house has been built on the previously approved child’s lot for Shawn David who is now living in the house.

Motion #3: To approve the request of Mr. and Mrs. Robinson for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for a child’s lot on easement property.

Motion: Robert Stahl Second: James Pelura

Status: Approved

2. 05-89-11e Neal Farms, Inc 202.10 acres

Request for a 2-acre lot around an existing dwelling under the terms of new legislation

Neal Farms, Inc., is the original grantor of the easement. The current request is for the release of two acres around an existing dwelling under the terms of new legislation HB 460.

Until July 1, 2006, a landowner could request acreage in excess of one acre up to a maximum of two acres around an existing dwelling only if it was required by the regulations of the county or the Health Department. Absent a requirement for additional acreage, a landowner was entitled to only one acre. New legislation passed in the 2006 legislative session allows more discretion in allowing additional acreage. (The legislation also applies to family and unrestricted lots. A copy of HB 460, which was effective July 1, 2006, is attached.)

Under the terms of HB 460, the Foundation’s Board of Trustees may approve a lot size of up to two acres if the additional acreage is recommended by the local advisory board and the local planning and zoning authority. The legislation states that the Foundation must determine that a lot size of greater than one acre will not interfere significantly with the agricultural use of the property. The legislation was intended to avoid situations where the one-acre size restriction results in lots with irregular shapes, or where the lot creates small adjacent areas of land that remain under easement, but are not farmable.

According to Caroline County, the Health Department required the septic reserve area of the Neal lot to be located more than 365 feet from the dwelling, but required a lot size of only one acre, resulting in an irregular shaped lot. The dwelling would be connected to the septic reserve area by a 10-foot wide strip. The Health Department determined that no alternative location exists for the septic reserve area. Due to the size limitation, the one-acre lot would include only a very limited area immediately surrounding the dwelling and would not allow the yard area to be included. The proposed 2-acre lot configuration includes the dwelling, the septic reserve area, the access area, and the area currently used as a yard.

The local advisory board and the local department of planning and zoning recommend a lot size of up to two acres.

Staff recommends approval. The request is consistent with the new legislation (HB 460). The negative impact of the proposed lot configuration on the agricultural operation would not be significantly greater than the negative impact of the irregular shaped one-acre lot. Both configurations would require the use of the 10-foot wide strip of land to be removed from the easement. Apart from the septic reserve area, the land to be removed from the easement is currently not being farmed.

Anne Neal and Wheatley Neal were available at the Board meeting to answer any questions from the Board. Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator stated that subdivision regulations require a replacement system when the owner is subdividing. There is an existing septic system that is in operation. However there was not an area within the house area for a replacement system.

Ms. Buckle pointed out the 10” strip for the SRA (septic reserve area) on the aerial map and stated that it will be established only when a replacement system is necessary. Mr. Neal is requesting approval so that he may transfer the lot to his grandson.

Mr. Neal stated that he had been in touch with the County Health Department to meet all the required regulations.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know about the access to the lot; was it an easement right-of- way or a fee simple right-of-way. Ms. Buckle confirmed that it is an easement right-of-way.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know if the County requires the septic reserve to be under the same ownership. Mr. Neal confirmed and stated that he tried to get an overlay easement, but the County does not allow it. Ms. Buckle confirmed and stated that the County requires that the septic reserve area be a part of the lot in fee simple.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know if the existing septic is within the area that would have been excluded. Ms. Buckle stated that the existing septic reserve area is located on the lot to be excluded.

Mr. Tassone wanted to know if this was the configuration of the lot that would result if the Neals were granted the 2-acre lot. Mr. Neal stated that it would be the configuration if the 2-acre lot request were approved.

Kenny Bounds, Mid-Atlantic Farm Credit, stated that Mr. Neal’s grandson is a perfect example of a young man staying on the farm with the intention to continue farming. Mr. Bounds also stated that the Neals have made a commitment to the agricultural land preservation program by preserving many farms.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know if the 30-foot right-of-way is a County requirement. Ms. Buckle confirmed that it is a County requirement.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that the Neals were willing to wait until the legislation was passed. He believed this is a perfect example of the Foundation now having an authority to do something that would have been extraordinarily difficult under the previous statute. This is an example of good legislation.

Motion #4: To approve the request of Neal Farms for a 2.0-acre lot under the terms of new legislation.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Chris Wilson

Status: Approved

C. CALVERT COUNTY

1. 04-82-02A Stallings, Bruce E. & Thelma V. 95.9 acres

Request for retroactive approval of an owner’s lot and for approval of a child’s lot

Mr. and Mrs. Stallings are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is for a retroactive approval of an already constructed owner’s lot and for approval of a child’s lot for the personal use of their daughter, Julie.

The Stallings received approval in 2001 from the local advisory to construct an owner’s lot and a child’s lot. Calvert County forwarded to the Foundation a partial package for approval of the lots. Foundation staff notified Calvert County staff that further information was required. The Foundation’s files indicate that no further action was taken on the lots. Mr. and Mrs. Stallings proceeded with the construction of the dwelling on their owner’s lot. They currently reside in that dwelling. Mr. and Mrs. Stallings did not realize that the lots were not approved by the Foundation. The child’s lot has not yet been developed.

Another child’s lot was approved on the property in 1984 for the use of a son. No other lots have been approved on the property. The Stallings do not own any other district or easement properties.

According to Calvert County, both lots are located adjacent to existing lots. The proposed child’s lot is located behind an existing lot, and the already constructed owner’s lot is located behind the proposed child’s lot. Both lots will be accessed using a family conveyance access easement. The locations of the lots follow the guidelines of the Foundation’s lot location policy. The lots are clustered with existing dwellings. The lots cannot be located along the road because of existing development along the road frontage.

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 $1,009.00 per acre to the Foundation for each lot.

Staff recommends retroactive approval of the owner’s lot and approval of the release of one acre for the child’s lot based on the provisions of the deed of easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b), Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants to the original owner the right to construct a dwelling for his or her personal use and the right to request a child’s lot for the personal use of his or her children.

Jenny Plummer-Welker, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board. Ms. Welker stated that Mr. Stallings had conveyed his apology that he could not be present at the meeting and was recovering from an accident.

Mr. Tassone commented that the locations of the lots follow the guidelines of the Foundation’s lot location policy.

Ms. Schultz stated that the plat indicated parcel 86 (lot 3) belongs to the Stallings; she wanted to know if this was not included in the easement.

Ms. Plummer stated that it was not included in the easement. At the time of plotting, the owner’s lot was identified as non-buildable. The owners are currently going through the subdivision process for the daughter’s lot to make it a buildable lot. Ms. Plummer stated that it is also called a non-buildable lot, because the owners have not gotten permission for it to be declared a lot yet. Once the lot is approved and recorded, it becomes a buildable lot for building permit purposes.

Robert Stahl, Board member, stated that there are three lots located on the map. He wanted to confirm that the one existing on the road was not included in the easement.

Ms. Plummer confirmed the statement and stated that the son’s lot was part of the easement and was then excluded. The lot that was closest to the road was never included in the easement. The current request does not exceed the allowable number of lots.

Ms. Plummer stated the last correspondence in the file indicated that the engineering people are waiting for the Health Department’s approval. Mr. Stallings was actually surprised that he had not received a bill from the State.

Motion #5: To approve retroactively the request of Bruce and Thelma Stallings for an owner’s lot and a child’s lot.

Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Shirley Pilchard

Status: Approved

E. HOWARD COUNTY

1. 13-80-05e Clevenger, III, Clifton L. 189.683 acres

Request for the exclusion of a 1.0-acre owner’s lot on easement property

Mr. Clevenger is the original owner of the easement property. Two pre-existing dwellings were excluded from the easement. A tenant house was approved on June 23, 1987, and it is the only dwelling currently on the property. There have been no previous requests for lot exclusions. Mr. Clevenger does not own any other district or easement property. The current request is for the exclusion of a 1.0-acre owner’s lot.

According to Howard County, the proposed lot will be located in the southeastern corner of the property. Access will be directly onto Union Chapel Road. The lot will be served by an existing well and approved septic area. The current use of the 1.0-acre is pasture, and the impact to the current farm operation will be minimal. The proposed lot location meets the Foundation’s Guidelines for Lot Location.

No payback will be required for this 1.0-acre lot as the easement pre-dates this requirement. The Howard County Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board has approved the request, and it meets local zoning requirements.

Staff recommends approval of the 1.0-acre lot based on the landowner’s rights contained in the deed of easement’s covenants, conditions, limitations and restrictions and because the proposed site meets the Foundation’s Guidelines for Lot Exclusions.

Mr. Clevenger, Ms. Joan Becker, Attorney, and Ms. Joy Levy, Program Administrator, were available to answer any questions from the Board.

Mr. Clevenger has been farming for the last 25 years and wants to preserve his farm. As the landowners passed away, every farm around his farm went to development, and he has received five offers to sell for development.

Motion #6: To approve the request of Clifton L. Clevenger, III, for the exclusion of a 1.0 acre owner’s lot on easement property.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

2. 13-79-02Ces1 Sunnyside Properties, LLC; Steve Cissel 39.67 acres

Request for a tenant house on easement property

Mr. Cissel is the subsequent owner of the easement property. There are no dwellings on this parcel. The current request is for the approval of a tenant house on the easement property.

Property History:

Mr. A. G. Warfield is the original owner of a 232.88-acre easement. Under the Foundation’s policy at that time, the property could have yielded two (or possibly three) tenant houses.

On February 28, 1995, the Foundation approved a request to agriculturally subdivide 40.0 acres located on the west side of Rte. 94. The approval was made contingent upon the 40.0-acre parcel being merged at the county level with an adjacent 46.6 acre easement parcel. During the meeting, the Board of Trustees also approved a 1.0-acre owner’s lot on the 46.6 acre parcel which has never been subdivided nor released. Mr. Warfield retained ownership of the 40.0-acre parcel, but did not join the two easement properties together.

Mr. Warfield sold the larger portion of the property (192.88 acres) to Mr. Robert Long. This parcel contained three pre-existing dwellings. On February 23, 1999, Mr. Long received approval to exclude two of the pre-existing dwellings and approval to re-designate the third pre-existing dwelling as a tenant house.

The 40.0-acre parcel was later sold to Mr. Cissel, along with the adjoining, separate 46.6 acre easement. Neither of these parcels has any dwellings.

As follow-up to telephone conversations with Mr. Cissel, and upon consultation with Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, on February 7, 2006, Carol Council, MALPF staff, wrote a letter to Mr. Cissel which states that it may be possible to receive one tenant house on each of the two separate parcels because each of the easement stands alone as a separate contract. The Foundation’s policy on tenant houses and Mr. Warfield’s Deed of Easement provided for one tenant house per each 100 acres. However, in subsequent conversations with Mr. Nielsen and Ms. Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorneys General, the interpretation of the tenant house regulations has been clarified. Mr. Cissel’s request must meet the current standard of not more than one tenant house for each full 100 acres, unless the landowner can prove a compelling need for a tenant house on less than a full 100 acres.

Current Request:

According to Howard County, the proposed tenant house will be located along a wood line with access from an existing farm lane. The tenant house will have a minimal impact on the overall farm operation. Mr. Cissel’s request for approval states that the tenant house will be occupied by migrant farm workers which are responsible for mowing, pruning, spraying, planting, and harvesting the existing nursery stock operation which encumbers both the 40.0- and 46.6-acre properties.

The Howard County Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board has approved the request. However, Mr. Cissel would have to be granted a conditional use to meet the local zoning requirement of at least 50 acres for a tenant house.

Staff recommends that, should this request be approved by the Board, it be made with the condition that Mr. Cissel signs an agreement which waives, in perpetuity, the right to request a tenant house on the adjoining 46.6 acre easement property, or that both the parcels (40.0 and 46.6 acres, respectively) be merged under a single easement as a condition of approval.

Mr. Cissel, Ms. Joan Becker, and Ms. Joy Levy were available at the meeting to answer any questions from the Board. Ms. Levy stated that the local Board feels that the two pieces of property (40.0 and 46.6 acres) should be merged as one.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know if there were any reasons why the two parcels were never merged as was required in the original approval.

Ms. Becker stated that there are two separate legal descriptions. The tax map indicates one 82.96-acre parcel; the tax map merged the parcels on its own, but legally and in the land records the two parcels were never merged together. The deed description process in Howard County has been terminated and, therefore, to merge the parcels, the subdivision process is to be used, and this process is expensive. The other option is to get a waiver, and waivers are not usually granted.

Mr. Cissel informed the Board that he is a third-generation farmer in Howard County and he bought the business from his parents in the 80’s. He currently tills about 900 acres of nursery stock. Two thirds of it is agriculturally preserved, and the only property he owns are the parcels currently being discussed by the Board. Both parcels are under agricultural preservation.

Ms. Becker believed that this is a good opportunity for Mr. Cissel to place a tenant house on each property because obviously leases can be terminated at any point.

Mr. Colhoun commented that Ms. Becker’s point is that the tenant house serves tenants who work, not only on Mr. Cissel’s farm, but work on other parcels as well.

Mr. Cissel stated that he would like to grow his business and would like to continue to preserve more agricultural lands in Howard County.

Apart from the preserved property in Howard County, Mr. Cissel owns 80 acres in Montgomery County.

Mr. Doug Wilson asked Ms. Levy if the County knows that the waiver issue will resolve most of the Foundation’s concerns.

Ms. Levy stated that, if the MALPF Board believed the waiver will be an appropriate solution in the current situation, the MALPF Board can make it a condition of approval, rather than going through the subdivision process.

Mr. Colhoun wanted to know, if MALPF Board makes such a recommendation, what will be role played by the local county advisory board; will the MALPF Board’s recommendation be backed by the County Board?

Mr. Stahl wanted to know if Mr. Cissel was opposed to having the two parcels merged as one. Mr. Cissel stated that he is not opposed to the idea, but would like to weigh the options and make his decision.

Ms. Becker stated that she would prefer to go with Mr. Conrad’s suggestion of either having Mr. Cissel sign an agreement which waives, in perpetuity, the right to request a tenant house on the adjoining 46.6 acre easement property or that both the parcels (40 and 46.6 acres, respectively) be merged under a single easement as a condition of approval.

Mr. Tassone wanted to know if the 46.6-acre easement property is a MALPF property. Ms. Becker confirmed it to be a MALPF easement property. Mr. Tassone commented that the recommendation was already approved conditional on the combination of the two parcels to be done at the County level, which means in accordance with local land use rules, laws and land records. If it is not going to happen through the County process, it has to happen through the MALPF Board requiring it (as a governing entity on easements). Mr. Tassone believed that the Foundation has already approved things on this property presuming that the two parcels are one parcel.

Mr. Colhoun wondered why this was not done as previously agreed, and what is the guarantee that it will now be followed through.

Ms. Levy stated that, until the recent request came up, there was no indication that it had not been done. The deeds and the tax records showed it as one parcel, and so the assumption has been that it was merged when the request originally came in. Going through the property history and during discussions with Ms. Becker, she realized the merging of the two parcels has never been done. Ms. Levy suggested making a conditional approval, and making it the responsibility of the property owner to initiate the process. Ms. Levy stated that she would certainly do what she can to make it happen.

Mr. Conrad commented that the requirement of putting the two parcels together was put on the previous landowner, Mr. Warfield, and he was not sure whether the expenses should be placed on the current landowner. He wanted to make the Board aware of the expenses involved.

Mr. Doug Wilson recommended that the MALPF Board would approve the tenant house operation under the condition that the landowner seeks the waiver to have the two parcels merged because it should have been done years ago.

Motion #7: To approve the request of Sunnyside Properties, LLC, for a tenant house on easement property conditional that Mr. Steve Cissel seeks the waiver to have the two parcels merged.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Judith Lynch

Status: Approved

Mr. Tassone stated that the Foundation would communicate to the County its strong support for the waiver. The elimination of the adjoinder transfer was done to prevent the exact opposite of this. Thus, Mr. Tassone believed that the Foundation should articulate that as a part of the rationale for its decision.

Ms. Levy agreed with Mr. Conrad about the expenses involved. The prior landowner had a responsibility. If the waiver was not granted, the expenses to use the subdivision process are substantial, and it is not fair on the current owner.

Mr. Cissel expressed his concerns about invasive species plants and the presence of Canadian thistle in the Howard County.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that Maryland Department of Agriculture has an agency that conducts routine visits to the farms and inspects the farms. Mr. Doug Wilson promised to send Mr. Cissel’s request to that agency.

F. CARROLL COUNTY

1. 06-03-14 Hemphill, David B. 54.3651 acres

Request to approve an unrestricted lot of greater than 1.0 acre

Mr. Hemphill is the original owner of the easement property. There are no pre-existing dwellings on the property. The current request is for approval of an unrestricted lot of greater than 1.0 acre.

On June 27, 2006 the Foundation approved Mr. Hemphill’s request to exclude the 1.25-acre unrestricted lot conditional upon receipt of a letter from the Carroll County Health Department requiring the lot to be 1.25 acres in size to locate the septic reserve area or a letter from the County that the extra quarter of an acre was required by County Ordinance. However, the County’s Health Department is unwilling to provide a letter to justify the lot being greater than 1.0 acre in size, and no county ordinance applies.

The request is coming back before the Foundation to utilize recently enacted HB 460 which provides for approval of a lot greater than 1.0 acre, but no greater than 2.0 acre, “if recommended by the county agricultural preservation advisory board and the planning and zoning authority of the jurisdiction where the land is situated.” The 1.25 acre-lot has been approved by the Carroll County Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board and the Department of Planning.

Foundation staff maintains its recommendation for approval of the 1.25 acre unrestricted lot.

Mr. David Hemphill was present at the Board meeting to answer questions from the Board.

Motion #8: To approve the request by David Hemphill to approve an unrestricted lot of greater than 1.0 acre.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

G. FREDERICK COUNTY

1. 10-97-01A Doody, Robert A. & Sherri L. 92.331 acres

Request for a tenant house on easement property

Mr. and Mrs. Doody are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is for a tenant house for the use of a tenant fully engaged in the operation of the dairy farm.

The proposed tenant house would be occupied by John Woodward who will be the assistant herdsman. Mr. Woodward’s duties will include milking, feeding, animal care, and tending to crops. Currently, the Doodys are experiencing health problems. Mr. Woodward does not have a driver’s license.

According to Frederick County, the proposed tenant house is to be located in the lawn area surrounding the main house and will share access. The request was approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. The advisory board felt that the Foundation should make an exception to the one tenant house per 100 acres restriction due to the Doodys’ health problems.

Staff recommends approval in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b)(4), Annotated Code of Maryland, which provides for an exception to the one tenant house per 100 acres restriction at the discretion of the Foundation’s Board of Trustees, when a landowner can demonstrate a compelling need. Dairy operations are labor intensive and the Doodys are under duress due to family illnesses.

Mrs. Doody and Anne Bradley, Agricultural Preservation Planner, were present at the meeting to answer questions from the Board.

Mrs. Doody informed the Board members that, because of the health issues, they are making this request. They have two sons, and both are employed. They help out when they can, but it is helpful to have someone on the farm to help them. Mrs. Doody stated that she and her husband make most of the farming decisions.

Motion #9: To approve the request of Mr. and Mrs. Robert A. Doody for a tenant house on easement property.

Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

H. SOMERSET COUNTY

1. 19-91-01e Porter, Lawrence & Sue 163.749 acres

Request for an agricultural subdivision of easement property

Mr. and Mrs. Porter are the original owners of the easement property. The property contains two pre-existing dwellings. There have been no requests for lot exclusions. A 35.37-acre agricultural subdivision was approved while the property was in district status. The 35.37-acre parcel is not a part of this easement. A tenant house was approved on June 27, 2006. The current request is for approval to agriculturally subdivide 50.08 acres, resulting in three separate easement parcels.

According to Mr. Porter, his current farm operation is already mainly divided into three separate operations: small grain farming on the northern portion (65.99 acres with one pre-existing dwellings); a poultry operation on the center portion (50.08 acres with one pre-existing dwellings and an approved tenant house); and forestry on the southern portion (51.59 acres with no dwellings). Mr. Porter had originally requested 39.01 acres to be subdivided, but because this did not meet the Foundation’s minimum acreage requirement, he reconfigured the parcel to be 50 acres. Mr. Porter states that he is making the request to refinance his property and for estate planning purposes. He intends to convey the 50.08-acre parcel separately.

According to Somerset County, all three parcels consist of 100% soils classes I, II and III. The local agricultural advisory board ‘reluctantly’ approved the subdivision. The reason for its reluctance is the way the request had to be configured to meet the Foundation’s 50 acre criteria.

Foundation staff wishes to point out that, although Mr. Porter is requesting one agricultural subdivision, it results in the property being separated into three distinct parcels, each of which will be at least 50 acres in size. One criterion for approval of an agricultural subdivision is “no more than one agricultural subdivision per full 100.0 acres.”

Mr. and Mrs. Porter were present at the Board meeting to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Porter pointed out that 51.59 acres are already separated; this was his original farm. The balance of the farm came from his father around 20 years ago. The Porters never thought of this as a subdivision. The Porters are trying to do away with two of the boundary lines and reducing the 4 parcels to 3 parcels.

The three parcels include one on which the Porters live (on the edge of the 65.99-acre parcel), the broiler complex of 50.00 acres, and the remaining land of 51.59 acres, which has always been separated.

The Porters are trying to get the approval for the new survey. They had to go across the road and cut off 11.00 acres of the original farm to add to the broiler complex to make it 50.00 acres. About a year ago Mr. Porter received an offer to purchase this acreage. He did not even realize that he will have a problem with preservation and that he needs to add more land to that to make it 50.00 acres. At the same time, he had a surveyor doing a line down a private road. That divided the home from the broiler complex. What he is looking for is an approval of the plat.

Mr. Porter inherited the farm from his father. He has a son, and he had a dream that the son would take over from him. Mr. Porter’s son had a serious accident ten years ago and sustained a brain injury. His son will never be able to take responsibility for something like this. Mr. Porter also has a grandson, and there is a possibility that he could take over some day. In the meantime, if something happens to Mr. Porter, Mrs. Porter is not equipped to handle this broiler complex, and the only logical thing to do will be to sell the broiler complex. To do that, Mr. Porter has to have 50.00 acres as a standalone parcel. The deal fell through; but this event compelled Mr. Porter to address this issue in case the broiler operation needed to be sold at some point in the future.

Mr. Colhoun asked Ms. Council if the staff has aerial maps for the agenda item, because it helps the Board to visualize what Mr. Porter is describing. Ms. Council stated that Somerset County did not have aerial maps available. Mr. Porter stated that he does not have one with him, but he does have one.

Mr. Tassone commented that all of the operations are handled by Mr. Porter, and the various operations of small grain farming, poultry and forestry are operated separately. There is no indication that anyone is going to operate them as separate sources of income differently from Mr. Porter in the immediate future.

Mr. Porter commented that there is nothing planned in the near future, but there is always a possibility that someone will buy the broiler operation and possibly add more chicken houses.

Mr. Tassone wanted to confirm that Mr. Porter’s purpose is not to separate agricultural operations, but rather facilitate his ability to sell, and that the parcels are already separate parcels. The parcels are all separate, but under one easement. Mr. Porter confirmed this statement.

Ms. Schultz commented that, when the MALPF Board previously approved the tenant house, it was based on larger than one individual parcel.

Mr. Porter stated that it was actually based on the broiler complex. Ms. Council stated that Mr. Porter’s request for a tenant house was based solely on the broiler operations, and the tenant house was approved in June 2006. Mr. Porter’s intention is to enable him to sell part of his property in the future.

Mr. Tassone wanted to know if, to achieve his purpose, it is necessary for Mr. Porter ,not only to convey out the broiler area (50.08 acre as a subdivided piece), but also subdivide the other two parcels.

Mr. Porter stated that the other two parcels are already subdivided.

Mr. Tassone stated that Mr. Porter’s property of 163.749 acres is under one easement. What the Board is discussing currently is the ability of Mr. Porter to subdivide the easement. Mr. Tassone wanted to know if Mr. Porter could subdivide the 50.08 acres as a separate easement and leave the rest of the parcels as a separate easement. Mr. Porter can reconfigure the property lines.

Ms. Council stated that the issue is that the remaining parcels would no longer be adjoining.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that Mr. Porter’s plan seems very rational and the Board has to see if it falls within its authority to approve the request, keeping in mind the Foundation’s agricultural subdivision rules.

Mr. Colhoun was concerned about the 11.00 acres included in the broiler operation that are platted separately. Mr. Colhoun suggested the Board might look at the broiler operations on the other side of the road and then try to keep the rest of the farm on the other side of the road, even though the broiler operation is small. Mr. Colhoun reiterated the need to have the best solution for the piece of land and for Mr. Porter.

Mr. Porter stated that the local Board strongly believed that it was a wrong thing to do.

Mr. Conrad stated that the Foundation is not able to approve a subdivision of less than 50 acres. Mr. Porter is trying to suggest a logical and feasible solution to meet the Foundation’s minimum requirements. The Foundation can take out the 11.00 acres and put it back on the remainder of the wooded area.

Mr. Doug Wilson recommended moving forward with Mr. Porter’s request as proposed despite the Board’s reservation that there might be other ways to do it in a more logical operation.

Motion #10: To approve the request of Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Porter for an agricultural subdivision of easement property.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Opposed: Vera Mae Schultz

Abstained: Joe Tassone, Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS

A. QUEEN ANNE’S

1. 17-07-01 Taylor, William D. & John F. Robbert 149.19 acres

This is a 149.19-acre parcel located in the Barclay Road adjacent to the town of Barclay. It is contiguous with two easements. There are two dwellings. The farm has 69.741 cropland acres and 77.9 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is wheat, corn and soybeans. It has 91% qualifying soils. The property’s tilled area is rented to another producer. It is part of a larger operation. The property has 4.501 acres of withheld acreage.

Mr. Conrad stated that the staff memo has mentioned that 5.87 acres of property are located within the town’s 20-year water and sewer plan. This is not correct, and the landowners do not have water and sewer access. However, this acreage is within the town limits.

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

Donna K. Landis-Smith, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting. Ms. Smith stated that at this point in time there is no sewer or water; the landowners plan on having something in the next 20 years if that ever happens.

Motion #11: To approve the request of William Taylor and John Robbert to establish agricultural land preservation district on their property with appropriate recommendation.

Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: Robert Stahl

Status: Approved

B. CHARLES

1. 08-07-01 Richards Inheritance Partnership 169.9056 acres

This is a 169.9056-acre parcel located in the north of La Plata New Market Road in the town of La Plata. It is contiguous to a MALPF district. There are no dwellings. The farm has 31 acres of cropland and 138.9056 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry and grain. It has 69% qualifying soils. It is part of the larger operation and is owner operated.

Staff recommends approval.

2. 08-07-02 Marshall Corner Road Investment, LLC 62.5256 acres

This is a 62.5256-acre parcel located in the west of Chapel Point Road in the town of Port Tobacco. It is contiguous to a MALPF district. There are no dwellings. The farm has 17 acres of cropland and 25.5256 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry and grain. It has 59% qualifying soils. It is not part of the larger operation and is owner operated. Staff recommends approval.

Charles Rice, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting.

Motion #12: To approve the request of Richards Inheritance Partnership and Marshall Corner Investment, LLC, to establish agricultural land preservation districts on their properties.

Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

IV. PROGRAM POLICY

Wetland Mitigation Easements – an update by Mr. Joe Tassone

Mr. Tassone informed the Board about the progress made by the Wetland Mitigation Committee. The Wetland Mitigation Committee members met after the previous month’s Board meeting and have made considerable progress. The Committee members have drafted a report and are awaiting comments from one or two committee members on the report. The Committee is planning to have a meeting with the relatively small number of committee members after the conclusion of this month’s Board meeting to explore if the Committee can come to a resolution about a couple of pending issues. Mr. Tassone believed the Committee is in a position to wind up and give its recommendations to the Board probably during the next Board meeting.

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

Motion #13: To adjourn regular session.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Doug Wilson

Status: Approved

The regular session of the Board meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:25 am.

Respectfully Submitted:

_____________________________________

Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary

__________________________________

James A. Conrad, Executive Director