MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION

MINUTES

October 24, 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:

Anne Bradley, Frederick County, Agricultural Preservation Planner

Donald Briggs, Landowner, Frederick County

Tammy Buckle, Caroline County, Program Administrator

Bill Clark, District Manager, Calvert Soil Conservation

James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive Director

Carol Council, MALPF Administrative Officer

Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services

Danny Callahan, Landowner, Caroline County

Kelly Coleman, Landowner, Caroline County

Joy Levy, Howard County, Program Administrator

Carla Martin, Kent County, Program Administrator

Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture

Charles Rice, Charles County, Program Administrator

Ralph Robertson, Carroll County, Program Administrator

Daniel Rosen, Planner, Maryland Department of Planning

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

Randy Sowers, Landowner, Frederick County

Jenny Plummer-Welker, Calvert County, Program Administrator

Susan Wilson, Landowner, Frederick County

Daniel Colhoun, Chairman, called the meeting to order at approximately 9:30 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 SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

Motion #1: To approve the minutes of September 26, 2006, with amendments.

Motion: Vera Mae Schultz Second: Howard Freedlander

Status: Approved

B. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:

Item IV.B. Water Recharge Easement Policy – Update Postponed

to November 2006

Item V.A. Howard County Agricultural Land Preservation Postponed

Program (informational only) to December 2006

Withdrawal of FY 2006 Additional Round One Added

and Round Two Offers

James Conrad, Executive Director of the Foundation, stated that, at the conclusion of the regular agenda items, the Foundation would like to update the Board members about a settlement issue.

Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture, distributed the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Fund Summary for FY 2004-FY 2008 in response to a query from Ms. Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, Caroline County. She had expressed an interest in knowing about the dollars potentially available for next year for Caroline County.

Explaining the spreadsheet, Mr. Doug Wilson stated that FY 2007 values are the approved budget based on projected revenues. The FY 2008 dollars are also based on a set of revenue estimates that provide the basis for the Foundation’s Capital budget request to the Administration. If the Board of Revenue Estimates meets and changes its revenue projections, the Foundation’s budget request may also change. The real estate transfer tax estimates include both the current revenue projections for FY 2008 and the allocation of dollars from over-attainment in FY 2006. Over-attainment is actual revenues over what the Government estimated for the real estate transfer tax in FY 2006. The government allocates the over-attainment revenues two years after they are collected. For example, if revenues collected are higher than projected in FY 2006, those revenues are retained during FY 2007 and then budgeted in FY 2008. This year the government underestimated real estate transfer taxes; some years the government overestimates real estate transfer tax revenues. The Department of Natural Resources operates its Program Open Space (POS) by giving grants to local government for acquisition. If the real estate market goes down, POS may not have the dollars to cover all of the commitments made to local jurisdictions. If this were the year revenues were declining, when the budget is created for FY 2008, the revenue estimate is $50 million; if the under-attainment was $10 million, POS will only have $40 million budgeted next year because it is making up for the deficit to which the agency had committed in the prior year.

The potential dollars available to MALPF for next year may be around $64 million. Estimating $3 million towards administrative costs, the potential dollars available for next year can be roughly taken as $60 million range. Round 1 will use half of that money and divide it among 23 counties.

Howard Freedlander, representing Treasurer Kopp, wanted to know why the GreenPrint numbers are shown on the spreadsheet as zero.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that the GreenPrint Program and its funding were time-limited. By statute, the program lasted for five years, and it was not re-authorized by this Administration.

Jerry Klasmeier, representing Comptroller Schaefer, wanted an explanation of the term “uncommitted cash."

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that, at the end of the year, the Foundation is given an estimate of funds available when Foundation starts making easement offers. Based on that estimate the Foundation makes easement offers. It is possible that by the time the Treasurer and the Comptroller deposit all the accounts that the Foundation gets that there are more dollars than the Foundation had budgeted. The dollars have not been appropriated, but, because of the law, the dollars belong to the Foundation. When the Foundation closes the books, it will reflect that it got x dollars in revenue and it used x dollars in easement offers; the difference is the uncommitted cash. We first look at the actual revenue for the program, encumber funds to cover all the easement offers, and the residual amount is rolled over for the following year. In theory we budget 100% of what we think we are going to get. In some years, the amount of actual dollars is more than what has been appropriated. Sometimes we get large unexpected revenue allocations in June, and the Foundation does not have the ability to commit those revenues to easements because it does not have appropriations to cover those funds. So this is what comprises the "uncommitted cash."

II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT AMENDMENTS

B. CHARLES COUNTY

1. 08-07-02 Marshall Corner Road Investment, LLC 62.5256 acres

Request to amend the District Agreement to withhold 6.0 acres prior to recordation

On August 22, 2006 the MALPF Board approved the request of Marshall Corner Road Investment, LLC, to establish an agricultural land preservation district on its 62.5256-acre property. The District Agreement has not yet been recorded in the land records of Charles County. The current request is to amend the District Agreement prior to recordation to withhold 6.0 acres.

According to Charles County, if this request is approved, 6.0 acres of mostly cropland will be withheld to provide two possible building lots along Chapel Point Road. The property will continue to meet the Foundation’s criteria for district establishment. The local advisory board has approved the request to withhold 6.0 acres prior to district establishment.

Foundation staff recommends approval because the property continues to meet the Foundation’s criteria for both district establishment and withheld acreage (not more than three development rights).

Charles Rice, Program Administrator, was available to answer any questions from the Board.

Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman, wanted to know if the landowners have considered what the access will be for the acreage around the 6.0-acre parcel.

Mr. Rice stated that the landowners have not yet perced the area. The landowners were hoping to get two lots and have drawn the general location on the map. The landowners have not made any plans as to what the lot layout will be.

Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Department of Planning, wanted to confirm that the landowners intend to work with the protection of the property through the TDR program and not by selling the easement.

Mr. Rice confirmed this and stated that some of the landowners in the County tend to forget that, even if they use the County’s TDR program, they need to fulfill the MALPF commitments in the District Agreement. When the owners called him and mentioned that they would like to request two lots, Mr. Rice informed them that they are restricted to either one family lot or one unrestricted lot. That did not work for them. Because the district agreement had not yet been recorded, Mr. Rice suggested the withheld acreage option.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know what would happen if the landowners had a District Agreement, sold the TDRs, and found that the withheld acreage did not perc and wanted to move the lots elsewhere on the property: how would that scenario work with the County's TDR program?

Mr. Rice stated that the landowners would have to come to the MALPF Board for approval. Unless the request is approved by the MALPF Board, the landowners cannot do anything under the TDR Program.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know, if the landowners wanted to move a lot anywhere else on the property, could such a request work with the TDR program? Mr. Rice stated that it does work as long as the landowners have withheld development rights that can be transferred. If they had transferred all the TDRs and wanted to have a child’s lot or an owner’s lot, they cannot do it.

Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Rice to keep in mind the concern expressed by Ms. Schultz at the time of final configuration. Mr. Rice agreed and commented that the designation of the location to be withheld was general and made at the last moment.

Motion #2: To approve the request of Marshall Corner Road Investment, LLC, to amend the District Agreement to withhold 6.0 acres prior to recordation.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

C. KENT COUNTY

1. 14-92-06 Redman, William C. & Mary T. 120.93 acres

Request for the exclusion of a child’s lot on easement property

Mr. and Mrs. Redman 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, Brian.

There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. No other lots were approved on this property. Mr. and Mrs. Redman own an additional property in the program, but no lots have been removed from that property.

According to Kent County, the proposed lot is to be located along the road, adjacent to an existing farm lane. The lot location follows the Foundation’s lot location guidelines: it is located along the road and is clustered with existing dwellings.

The request was approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If approved, there will be a required payback of $1,200.00 per acre to the Foundation.

Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus such minimum additional acreage as required by the County Health Department, 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.

Carla Martin, Program Administrator, was available to answer questions from the Board members.

Motion #3: To approve the request of Mary T. and William C. Redman for the exclusion of a child’s lot on easement property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

D. CAROLINE COUNTY

1. 05-89-07A Eveland, James O. & Roberta S. 95.01 acres

Request to increase the size of an approved lot under the terms of new legislation (HB 460)

Mr. and Mrs. Eveland are original grantors of the easement. The current request is to increase the size of an approved child’s lot under the terms of statutory change resulting from HB 460 (2006 legislative session).

The Foundation approved a child’s lot of up to two acres for Kelly Coleman, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Eveland, on September 27, 2005.

Until July 1, 2006, a landowner could request acreage in excess of one acre up to a maximum of two acres for a lot to be excluded from a district or easement only if required by the regulations of the county or the Health Department. Absent a requirement for additional acreage, a landowner was entitled only to a maximum of one acre for a lot release. New legislation passed in the 2006 legislative session allows more discretion in allowing additional acreage. (The legislation also applies to existing dwellings and unrestricted lots. A copy of HB 460, which was effective July 1, 2006, was included with the staff memo.)

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 which remain under easement but are not farmable, and to generally provide discretion to the Board of Trustees to approve larger lot sizes in situations the Board determines appropriate.

According to Caroline County, the Health Department required a lot size of only one acre using a mound system. However, the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area law requires a 100’ buffer between any construction and the Chesapeake Bay, leaving a limited area for the construction of a dwelling, a garage, and a septic reserve area. According to Caroline County, Kevin Clark, Deputy Codes Administrator, stated that he strongly recommends a lot size of 2 acres to minimize the environmental impact through locating the sewage reserve area further away from the 100’ buffer and the river’s edge. The local advisory board and the local department of planning and zoning recommend a lot size of 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 is not significant due to its location in a wooded area along the water; and locating the septic reserve area further from the water will help to ameliorate the environmental impact on the Chesapeake Bay.

Kelly Coleman, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Eveland, and Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, were available at the Board meeting.

Mr. Tassone wanted to know about the access.

Ms. Coleman explained that the access starts off at an existing right-of-way and continues on a field road that has always existed.

Ms. Buckle stated that a 34-foot wide right-of-way is required for the subdivision to occur.

Motion #4: To approve the request of Roberta S. and James O. Eveland to increase the size of an approved lot under the terms of new legislation (HB 460).

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

E. QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY

1. 17-90-15 Bauer, Edward J. 195.79 acres

Request for the exclusion of a child’s lot on easement property

Mr. Bauer is the original grantor of the easement. The current request is for the release of up to two acres for a child’s lot for the personal use of his daughter, Brandy.

There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. No other lots were approved on this property. Mr. Bauer does not own any additional district or easement properties.

According to Queen Anne’s County, the proposed lot is to be located along the water and will be accessed by an existing lane. The lot location does not follow the Foundation’s lot location guidelines because it is not clustered with existing dwellings nor is it located along the road. However, the lot is located along the edge of the property, on the water, and therefore does not significantly interfere with the agricultural operation. The existing dwelling, while not immediately adjacent, is located within relatively close proximity to the proposed lot. The lot does not require the creation of a new access.

The request was approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If approved, there will be a required payback of $3,135.48 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.

Donna Landis-Smith, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting and stated that Brandy is the only child of the Bauers and the current request would be the only lot on the farm that will be excluded. The critical area issue is that it requires a setback of 100 feet.

Robert Stahl, Board member, wanted to know if there is a requirement of a fee right-of-way, or if easement access would be allowed.

Ms. Smith stated that she has not yet investigated that issue because the landowners have not even located the perc there yet. The County allows easement access with a recorded easement agreement.

Motion #5: To approve the request of Edward J. Bauer to exclude a child’s lot on easement property.

Motion: Judith Lynch Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

Ms. Smith stated that she would look into the issue of right-of-way.

2. 17-85-01 Morris, Robert and Anneliese 337.00 acres

Request for the exclusion of a child’s lot on easement property

Mr. and Mrs. Morris 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, Jeffrey.

There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. No other lots were approved on this property. Mr. and Mrs. Morris own an additional property in the program, but no lots have been removed from that property.

According to Queen Anne’s County, the proposed lot is to be located along the road and will be accessed directly from the road. The lot location follows the Foundation’s lot location guidelines: it is located along the road and is clustered with existing dwellings (the existing dwelling is located across the road from the proposed lot).

The request was approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If approved, there will be a required payback of $454.34 per acre to the Foundation.

Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus such minimum additional acreage as required by the County Health Department, 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.

Donna Landis-Smith, Program Administrator, was available to answer any questions from the Board. Responding to a question, Ms. Smith confirmed that the location of the lot is in the corner of the field.

Motion #6: To approve the request of Anneliese and Robert Morris for the exclusion of a child’s lot on easement property.

Motion: Pat Langenfelder Second: Judith Lynch

Status: Approved

F. FREDERICK COUNTY

1. 10-85-01 Sowers, Randy D. & Karen B. 160.77 acres

Request for a tenant house on easement property

Mr. and Mrs. Sowers are subsequent owners of the easement property. The current request is for a tenant house for the use of a tenant fully engaged in the running of the farm.

The Sowers own and operate a dairy and a creamery. The operation covers 1,200 acres supporting 600 animals. The proposed tenant house will be occupied by Miguel Mijangos who will be responsible for general labor tasks, including feeding the animals, cleaning buildings and general maintenance. The Sowers have an additional request on the agenda for a tenant house on another property.

According to Frederick County, the proposed tenant house is to be located along the road in a corner of the property. The location was chosen due to its rough terrain, which is extremely hard to crop.

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

Staff recommends approval based on the provisions of the deed of easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b)(3), Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of one tenant house per 100 acres for use of a tenant fully engaged in the operation of the farm.

Mr. Sowers and Ms. Anne Bradley, Agricultural Preservation Planner, were available at the meeting to answer any questions from the Board.

Motion #7: To approve the request of Karen B. and Randy D. Sowers for a tenant house on easement property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Robert Stahl

Status: Approved

2. 10-87-09 Sowers, Randy D. & Karen B. 157.61 acres

Request for a tenant house on easement property

Mr. and Mrs. Sowers 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 running of the farm.

The Sowers own and operate a dairy and a creamery. The operation covers 1,200 acres supporting 600 animals. The proposed tenant house will be occupied by Rick Mose who will be responsible for driving the creamery delivery truck, attending farmers markets, and other farm hand tasks. The Sowers have an additional request on the agenda for a tenant house on another property.

According to Frederick County, the proposed tenant house is to be located adjacent to existing farm buildings in an area currently used for parking farm equipment.

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

Staff recommends approval based on the provisions of the deed of easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b)(3), Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of one tenant house per 100 acres for use of a tenant fully engaged in the operation of the farm.

Mr. Sowers and Ms. Anne Bradley, Agricultural Preservation Planner, were available at the meeting to answer any questions from the Board.

Motion #8: To approve the request of Karen B. and Randy D. Sowers for a tenant house on easement property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Robert Stahl

Status: Approved

3. 10-02-08 Briggs, Elizabeth & Donald 84.48 acres

Request for the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling and conversion of existing dwelling to agricultural use

Mr. and Mrs. Briggs are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is for the relocation of an existing dwelling on the easement property and conversion of the existing dwelling to agricultural use.

According to Frederick County, Mr. and Mrs. Briggs intend to convert an existing dwelling to a greenhouse and to build a replacement dwelling on another area of the farm. The landowner intends to use the proposed greenhouse for “plant starter” purposes.

During the 2006 session, the legislature passed House Bill 90 (copy attached with staff memo) that grants explicit discretion to the Foundation’s Board of Trustees to approve the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling and subsequent conversion of an existing dwelling to agricultural use. The bill states that the proposed agricultural use must be “integral to the farm operation.”

The dwelling that would be relocated was originally a chicken house and was converted to an apartment by a former owner. The dwelling is located adjacent to other farm buildings and the main residence. The proposed location of the relocated lot is currently uncultivated steep pastureland. Mr. and Mrs. Briggs’ farm is primarily a crop operation.

The soils map (copy attached with staff memo) indicates that the soils where the current dwelling is located are Class II. The soils of the area of the proposed relocated lot are Class III.

The Foundation has not yet received a letter from the Soil Conservation District Conservationist regarding the request. The Program Administrator has been informed that if the letter has not been received by the Foundation prior to the meeting, the item will be pulled from the agenda. (The Foundation’s regulations (COMAR 15.15.04.04C - copy attached with staff memo) require a letter from the local soil conservation district regarding the feasibility of the landowner's plan to restore the site to agricultural use.)

The proposed relocation site will be accessed through an existing farm lane. Staff has requested clarification from the county regarding the distance from the lane and the proposed lot. According to Tim Blaser, Program Administrator, the new location will not have a detrimental impact on the agricultural operation of the farm because the proposed location is “open, uncultivated steep pastureland.”

Foundation staff has communicated to Frederick County staff that the Foundation may not approve the proposed location of the lot because the Foundation’s regulations state that the replacement dwelling may not be located “in an area that interferes with any agricultural use” (COMAR 15.15.04.03B(2)(b)). Staff has requested a topographic map indicating the grade of the land where the dwelling would be relocated.

The request was approved by the local advisory board and complies with local zoning regulations.

Staff has expressed concern that the agricultural use of the dwelling does not clearly conform to the intent of the legislation (HB 90) because it is not clear that the proposed use is “integral to the farm operation,” and has requested advice of counsel.

Foundation staff recommends approval with the condition that the original dwelling be converted to the stated agricultural use within a specified period of time (staff suggests a period no longer than one year from the issuance of a use and occupancy permit for the replacement dwelling). Additionally, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the landowners should provide photographic evidence that the existing dwelling is in the process of being converted from residential use to the proposed greenhouse use. The approval should further contain a condition that the existing dwelling be demolished if the landowner does not conform to the conditions of the approval. If the landowners are unable to finish construction of the greenhouse within the time specified and more time is required to complete construction, the applicant should be allowed to come back to the Foundation to request an extension, but should be required to demonstrate significant progress in the conversion of the structure.

If the Foundation approves the request, Mr. and Mrs. Briggs must enter into a written agreement with the Foundation to be recorded among the county land records describing the terms and conditions of the Foundation's approval. The agreement will run with the land and bind all future landowners.

Mr. Briggs and Ms. Bradley were present at the meeting to answer questions from the Board.

Mr. Colhoun shared with the Board members that he had the opportunity to visit the farm, and to look at the building and the property.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the staff memo indicated that it used to be a greenhouse, then was converted to a chicken house, and it then became a residence.

Mr. Briggs stated that he brought this property in 1986. Sometime around 1973 the chicken house became a tenant house once it was equipped with septic, etc. Once it was converted, it turned out to be a nice apartment where a grandmother or someone else could live. The Briggs themselves used it for some time as a dwelling when their house had a fire in 1999.

Mr. Doug Wilson asked if it was assessed as a residential property in the County’s tax records.

Mr. Conrad stated that in the original appraisal used to calculate the Foundation's offer, the structure was counted as a residential right that has been used. It is recognized by MALPF as a pre-existing dwelling.

Mr. Tassone wanted Mr. Nielsen’s input on HB 90 and the way it clarifies the term "integral to the farm operations." At this point in time, Mr. Nielsen was not available at the meeting.

Mr. Colhoun stated that he and Mr. Conrad had spoken to Mr. Nielsen. Mr. Nielsen had suggested that it was up to the Board to determine if the greenhouse would be integral to the operation of the farm and conveyed that ultimately it is the discretion of the Board to determine whether the structure is required to be demolished or not.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know if the adjacent landowner is doing the farming operations on this property for Mr. Briggs, and what use Mr. Briggs was making of the property for farming.

Mr. Briggs stated that if the existing structure was converted to a greenhouse and the house relocated, the new dwelling could not be subdivided from the rest of the property; he also noted that his wife has a large number of plants for a garden for their personal use, and this greenhouse would be a great help in their gardening operation.

Mr. Conrad specifically wanted to know, if the structure becomes a greenhouse, what role the greenhouse will play in the farming operations.

Mr. Tassone wanted to confirm with Mr. Briggs that a relocated dwelling could not be subdivided from the property. Mr. Briggs confirmed this. Mr. Conrad stated that it will be excluded from the easement, but cannot be subdivided as per the County regulations. The County treats it as a tenant house. The Foundation treats it as a pre-existing house that could be excluded from the easement.

Mr. Tassone commented that it is an excluded lot that cannot be subdivided. Mr. Tassone wanted to know if it could be included in the easement as the local land uses can change. Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Briggs if it is agreeable to him.

Mr. Briggs stated that the chicken house is about 60 feet from the existing house. He would like to keep it as a family place and build another home for them. Mr. Briggs stated that they would like to move the pre-existing house (tenant house) to a hillside. Mr. Briggs will not be exercising his owner’s lot. Mr. Conrad stated that actually Mr. Briggs could not exercise his owner’s lot because, by county regulations, Mr. Briggs cannot have another dwelling on the property because of access issues. The farm that Mr. Briggs drives through to access his property is also under easement.

Mr. Tassone recommended approval with a proviso that the new relocated location would not be sub-dividable. After voting on this item, Mr. Tassone also wanted to briefly discuss HB 90 since Mr. Nielsen was now available in the meeting room.

Motion #9: To approve the request by Elizabeth and Donald Briggs for the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling and conversion of existing dwelling to agricultural use with Foundation staff’s recommendation as outlined in the staff memo. The approval is with a provision that the newly relocated dwelling cannot be subdivided from the rest of the property.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Judith Lynch

Status: Approved

Mr. Tassone sought clarification from Mr. Nielsen on HB 90. He wanted to know 1) how to deal with the proposed lot relocations (not new lot locations), where is it located, and how it relates to farm operations and disturbs or compromises Foundation’s interests in the easement, relative to the original location; and, 2) whether to require the pre-existing dwelling to be demolished and totally obliterated from the site or not. Mr. Tassone was also concerned as to how to deal with requests to do something different with the pre-existing dwelling, for example, a request to convert to a historical building, because it has historical value, to an office for the farm operation and so on.

Mr. Nielsen commented that statute says that the new location should not interfere with any agricultural use. Whether or not the existing dwelling is to be torn down is subject to the Board’s approval. The Foundation can either require the existing dwelling be demolished or can deal with somewhat cryptic language for its conversion to a use integral to the farming operation. It is the Board’s decision. It can permanently convert the existing dwelling at its current location to use it as a non-residential structure. This can be addressed by having a recorded covenant that also applies to future owners or successors.

The other part of the statute says that, not only it should be non-residential, but it also must be integral to the farm operations. The question is, what does "integral" mean and what is the "farm operation?"

The literal meaning of "integral" as can be seen in a dictionary definition that indicates "to be a part of," "important to," or "necessary to" the farm operations. There is a variety of ways to look at this. Mr. Nielsen used as an example a hay operation; the farm is a hay operation and the original residence relocated elsewhere on the property is converted to a barn. It is a simple example, but it is important. The Foundation should take substantial steps to make sure that it is no longer a dwelling and cannot be used as a dwelling.

Mr. Conrad commented that he and Mr. Colhoun had specifically discussed the issues related to this agenda item for the last few days because Mr. Colhoun has been on the property and seen the particular structure. The digital photographs do not clearly represent the poor condition of the structure, but it is clear that it was built to be a farm structure, as opposed to converting to farm use a structure that was built to be a dwelling.

Mr. Conrad stated the request did not come from owner-operators of the farm. The greenhouse is clearly intended for the personal use of Mr. and Mrs. Briggs and does not support farming operation and is not integral to the farming operation.

Mr. Colhoun stated that he has seen the structure; it is a chicken house and currently it is less than a chicken house. The owners had used it for residential purposes, and they plan to move the residence elsewhere. Mr. Colhoun commented that he is not concerned about what exactly they do with this building as long as it does not house people. In the end, they may tear it down rather than refurbish it, given its poor condition; it is their own choice.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the statute gives the Board the authority to allow Mr. Briggs to keep his structure as a farm structure if he so chooses. The Foundation’s old policy was to require that any relocated structure be demolished as a condition of approval of relocation. The issue was why the Foundation should force someone to demolish the structure if that could be used for another purpose. The Foundation’s responsibility is that the structure is not used for a residential purpose. The statute now gives a degree of latitude that was not available earlier.

James Pelura, Board member, stated that he is comfortable with the vote passed for the agenda item, but believed it is a stretch to say that the greenhouse is integral to the farm operation. He wanted to know the intent of the legislature when it was passed.

Mr. Nielsen believed the word "integral" was used to provide a test in specific situations. The intent is to make sure the landowners use any surviving structure for a legitimate purpose.

Mr. Tassone commented that the phrase "integral to the farm operation" implies that the proposed use on the piece of ground where the pre-existing dwelling existed is integral to the activities on the farm that represents commercial production of agricultural commodities. In this particular situation, it has been seen the greenhouse is not integral to the existing farm operation. Mr. Tassone was concerned that it has to be restored to something that is either clearly going to be used for agricultural use now or can be used in the future.

Mr. Stahl believed that the Board could ensure that it is maintained as an agricultural building even if it is not necessarily integral to the farm operation.

III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS

A. Charles County

1. 08-07-03 Poplar Branch, LLC 95.2 acres

This is a 95.2-acre parcel located in the north of Liverpool Point Road in the town of Nanjemoy. It is contiguous to one MALPF district and to a DNR owned property. There are no dwellings. The farm has 95.2 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry. It has 82% qualifying soils. It is not part of the larger operation and is owner operated. The property has nine withheld acres and three development rights associated with it.

Staff recommends approval.

Charles Rice, Program Administrator, was present at the meeting. Mr. Rice stated that the owners wanted to develop some sort of shooting range in the withheld acreage area, and the withheld acreage is not for residential use. It has been configured as shown on the agenda material because of the topography and how the landowners wanted it to accommodate the shooting range. The landowner intends any residue will be going to County TDR program.

Mr. Doug Wilson was concerned with the configuration. He suggested withholding 10 acres and believed it will help the landowners to square off the corner.

Mr. Rice commented that he had advised the landowners to withhold 9 acres as he believed the withheld acres could not be more than 10 acres.

Motion #10: To approve the request of Poplar Branch, LLC, to establish agricultural land preservation district on the property subject to a revised description of the property.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

Mr. Rice asked if the Board wants 10 acres to be withheld or the Board would be comfortable with whatever acreage is required. Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the Board is fine with whatever acreage is required to square off the corner.

Mr. Stahl suggested the language “squared off with minimum amount of acreage possible.”

Amended Motion #10: To approve the request of Poplar Branch, LLC, to establish agricultural land preservation district on the property subject to a revised description of the property and squaring off the lot with minimum amount of acreage possible.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Robert Stahl

Status: Approved

2. 08-07-04 Albrittain, George E & Eleanor C. 34.0 acres

This is a 34-acre parcel located in the town of LaPlata. It is contiguous to one proposed MALPF district. There are no dwellings. The farm has 3.0 acres of pasture and 31 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry. It has 52% qualifying soils. It is part of the larger operation and is owner operated. The property has four withheld acres with one development rights associated with it.

Staff recommends owners to acquire a forest stewardship plan.

3. 08-07-05 Good, Raymond E. & Mary Alice 27.0 acres

This is a 27-acre parcel located in the town of LaPlata. It is contiguous to one proposed MALPF district. There are no dwellings. The farm has 13.0 acres of cropland and 14 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry. It has 71% qualifying soils. It is part of the larger operation and is owner operated. The property has seven withheld acres with two development rights associated with it.

Staff recommends approval.

Charles Rice, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting to answer any questions from the Board.

Motion #11: To approve the request of Eleanor C. and George E. Albrittain and Mary Alice and Raymond E. Good to establish agricultural land preservation districts on their respective properties.

Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

B. Queen Anne’s County

1. 17-07-02 Sheubrooks, Larry A. & Judith A. 106.00 acres

This is a 106.00-acre parcel located in the south of Centreville. It is located in close proximity to several MALPF easement properties. There is one dwelling. The farm has 98 acres of cropland and 7 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is row crops. It has 95% qualifying soils. It is part of the larger operation and is owner operated.

Staff recommends approval.

Donna Landis-Smith, Program Administrator, was available to answer questions from the Board members.

Motion #12: To approve the request of Judith A. and Larry A. Sheubrooks to establish agricultural land preservation districts on the property.

Motion: Judith Lynch Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

C. Caroline County

1. 05-07-01 Davis, John C., Sr. 76.50 acres

This is a 76.50-acre parcel located in the north of Preston. It is located in close proximity to several MALPF district and easement properties. There is one dwelling. The farm has 62 acres of cropland and 11.5 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is poultry and crops. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is part of the larger operation and is owner operated.

Staff recommends approval.

2. 05-07-02 McGinnis, Thomas & Donna 57.75 acres

This is a 57.75-acre parcel located in the north of Henderson. There is one dwelling. The farm has 6 acres of cropland, 18 acres of pasture, and 32.75 acres of woodland. (The woodland is not contiguous; there, no Forest Stewardship Plan is required.) The primary farming operation is horses, cows and hay. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is not part of the larger operation and is not owner operated.

Staff recommends approval.

3. 05-07-03 Novak, Kenneth & Frances Robinson 36.50 acres

This is a 36.50-acre parcel located in the north of Goldsboro. It is located in close proximity to several MALPF easement properties. There is no dwelling. The farm has 27.5 acres of cropland and 9 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is corn and soybeans. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is part of the larger operation and is not owner operated.

Staff recommends approval.

4. 05-07-04 White, Albert & Norma 22.10 acres

This is a 22.10-acre parcel located in the south east of Federalsburg. It is contiguous with one easement and one district property. There is no dwelling. The farm has 15 acres of cropland and 7.1 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is corn and hay. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is not part of the larger operation and is not owner operated.

Staff recommends approval.

5. 05-07-05 Williamson, Dorthea & Ernest 55.71 acres

This is a 55.71- acre parcel located in the community of Friendship. It is contiguous with several district and easement properties. There is one dwelling. The farm has 32 acres of cropland and 21.21 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is hay. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is not part of the larger operation and is owner operated.

Staff recommends approval.

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

Motion #13: To approve the request of John C. Davis, Donna S. and Thomas H. McGinnis, Frances F. and Kenneth F. Novak, Norma L. and Albert R. White, and Dorthea and Ernest Williamson to establish agricultural land preservation districts on their respective properties.

Motion: Shirley Pilchard Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

IV. PROGRAM POLICY

Wetland Mitigation Easements – an update by Mr. Joe Tassone, Chair, Wetland Mitigation Committee

Mr. Conrad commented that Mr. Tassone would be making a presentation on the final report on Wetland Mitigation Easements. The Board members and program administrators will have time to review and study the report. The report will also be sent to legal counsel for review and comments.

Mr. Colhoun reiterated Mr. Conrad’s comments and stated that the Board and the Program Administrators can have an open discussion session. The report will be reviewed by the attorneys general, and the issue will come back to the Board next month for its final action.

Mr. Tassone stated that the Wetland Mitigation Committee has come up with recommendations. Broadly speaking, the Wetland Mitigation Committee recommends that the Foundation generally discourage wetland mitigation on MALPF easements and districts, but consider wetland mitigation proposals from landowners on a case-by-case basis. To discourage mitigation, the committee recommended that developers be required to verify that a search for mitigation sites on non-easement properties has been conducted within the eligible geographic area, and that the search has not produced enough suitable sites. To evaluate proposals, the committee recommended a two-step procedure that would allow relatively small mitigation projects that will achieve legitimate resource conservation purposes, while ensuring that mitigation does not compromise a farm’s production potential for agriculture or forestry.

The first step in the recommended process is to screen applications for wetland mitigation by requiring that they pass several tests before consideration by the Board of Trustees. The second step would be consideration by the Board, using its judgment in combination with a set of appropriate criteria.

The same three criteria can be used for both steps in the process. Information about the criteria can be most effectively obtained through cooperative arrangements with sister state, federal and local agencies, to provide insights needed both for MALPF staff to screen applications and for the Board to then make its determinations. This will help make the process as effective and efficient as possible.

Mr. Tassone suggested the process that would work for each of the three criteria:

· The mitigation must serve a legitimate resource conservation purpose. Sister agencies would verify that the stated resource conservation purposes of the wetland mitigation project would be legitimately served by the proposal submitted. The Board can then consider if the resource conservation purposes complement the Foundation’s interest in the property, as a farm capable of supporting profitable production under sound resource stewardship.

· The size, extent, and effects on production potential must be appropriate. Sister agencies would verify that the size, extent of land converted, and soils affected by the proposed mitigation project are appropriate for the stated resource conservation purposes. The Board would then determine if the amount of land removed from production might compromise the Foundation’s interests in the property.

· The development project enabled by wetland mitigation must be compatible with the Foundation’s goals and objectives. Sister agencies would verify that the development project for which mitigation is required is consistent with state and local plans, policies, and programs. The Board would then determine if the project is in conflict with the Foundation’s goals and objectives.

When projects meet the above criteria and are then approved by the Board, the Committee recommended that the Foundation:

· Allow overlay wetland mitigation easements on approved acreage,

· Allow payments from developers to landowners for wetland mitigation easements to occur at market rates, i.e., rates determined by landowners and developers,

· Require landowners to pay the Foundation an overlay easement fee for acreage permanently converted to wetland, at a rate equal to the per acre rate at which the Foundation paid for the easement, and

· Continue to hold an easement on the mitigation acreage, with the terms adjusted to facilitate wetland mitigation.

The Committee reached consensus on most of recommendations, but in a few cases differing opinions remained.

Requiring Payment of an Overlay Easement Fee by the Landowner

Some committee members are concerned that requiring a payment for an overlay easement while maintaining the Foundation’s easement on the affected acreage might not be legal. The concerns appear to be largely based on the assumption that the rationale for payment is that the wetland mitigation devalues the Foundation’s interest in the property, by removing land from production. This rationale seems inconsistent with the fact that a MALPF landowner could establish a wetland as part of a soil conservation and water quality plan and, if it improved land and water stewardship, would enhance rather than reduce the value of the property. The committee’s recommendations are designed to ensure that approved mitigation projects would improve stewardship. The obvious question, then, is why should payment be required for overlay easements?

As noted above in the section, “Should wetland mitigation overlay easements be allowed,” taking land out of production was discussed as having the potential to compromise the Foundation’s interest in the easement, and the Committee’s recommendations are designed to ensure that this does not occur. However, it was also recognized that landowners will receive substantial amounts of money from developers for mitigation, and that it is impossible to guarantee that mitigation will not compromise the Foundation’s interests in all cases.

Clearly, if requiring payment but maintaining the Foundation’s easement is not legal, the Foundation won’t follow that recommendation. Should that be the case, it would appear that two alternatives would be to 1) simply not require payment, or 2) release the acreage for which payment is required. The Committee did not feel comfortable recommending release of the acreage, as discussed in the body of the report.

MALPF Lands as a Land Base for Developers’ Mitigation Projects

Some Committee members expressed concerns that, by allowing any mitigation at all, MALPF preserved land will wind up serving as the default supply of land for development mitigation projects. The subcommittee does not believe that this is the case, for several reasons.

Ultimately, much or most of the undeveloped land remaining in Maryland will be preserved in one way or another. Wetland mitigation, if implemented on preserved land in accord with the Committee’s guidelines, will improve the stewardship of the land. As more of Maryland’s developable land is developed, wetland mitigation is likely to increasingly become an option for rural landowners. Complete prohibition against mitigation on MALPF easements could become a factor discouraging landowners to enter the program.

In addition, the Committee has included in its recommendations a suggestion that developers be required to submit written verification that a search for mitigation sites on non-easement properties has been conducted within the eligible geographic area, and that the search has not produced enough suitable sites. If this is done, it should help preclude MALPF lands as the default sites for mitigation.

Taken collectively, these reasons suggest that limited wetland mitigation will not make the Foundation’s easements a land base for developers’ mitigation in a way that works against public objectives.

Development Activity as a Criterion for the Foundation’s Review and Approval

Some Committee members feel that the type of development activity facilitated by the mitigation project should not be a consideration by the Foundation in making its determination to approve or disapprove a proposal. One concern is that this could involve the Foundation in matters beyond the scope of its mission and areas of expertise. Another is that such consideration could be used to compromise the Foundation’s public image by publicizing that it is “for” or “against” a certain development or type of development. A third is that it could require a great deal of work and effort by the Foundation staff and/ or Board to examine an issue for which it is somewhat ill equipped.

For example, if mitigation were proposed for construction of a big box store that was the subject of public controversy, consideration of type of development could induce opponents or supporters to try to influence the Foundation or to make the Foundation look good or bad in the press, depending on its position relative to theirs. In addition, it could put the Foundation in the position of making a decision about whether a development project is “good” or “bad,” which is clearly not within the realm of the Foundation’s responsibility.

Due to these concerns, some subcommittee members feel that type of development activity should be eliminated as a criterion of the Foundation in considering wetland mitigation proposals.

Mr. Tassone concluded his presentation and encouraged everyone to study the report and decide how to adopt the guidelines or do something different.

Mr. Colhoun commented that the Board members and program administrators have not had time to study the report and encouraged everyone to study and make comments to the Committee on the report.

Mr. Stahl stated that he believed anytime anyone comes to the Foundation for a utility easement or road easement, the Foundation establishes a policy that the Foundation should be repaid any conservation value by that easement. Mr. Stahl believed this should be implemented not only in Wetland Mitigation cases but in other situations too. For example, when people come to Foundation for approval for an overlay easement to install a power line, they should be aware that the Foundation has a policy of requiring payback because that activity diminishes the agricultural value of the easement property.

Mr. Nielsen commented that to do this would require language in the statute.

Mr. Stahl believed that the Board should look into this and whatever is required should be done.

Jenny Plummer-Welker, Program Administrator, Calvert County, and also a member of the Wetland Committee, commented when a farmer wants to have an overlay easement for wetlands mitigation on the farm, he would go to his Soil Conservation Service which may consider wetland mitigation to be a best management practice. So it is the easement that is triggering the review by MALPF. She disagrees with the third criterion and feels it is beyond MALPF’s scope and suggested MALPF should focus only on the first two criteria.

Bill Clark, District Manager, Calvert Soil Conservation, commented that he has been with the district for the last 20 years. He has a farmer in the MALPF program. He has been trying to put some wetlands on the property. Soil Conservation did a survey and came up with a design that would cost him about a $150,000 to do what he wants to do. He cannot afford it. The County has approached Mr. Clark. The County is putting a road project and is looking for wetlands mitigation. Now the County is willing to pay to install this practice for him so that they can get meet mitigation requirements. The farmer is not going to receive any money, but he will able to get the practice put on his farm. It will improve the water quality of the farm and it is a kind of win-win situation. At some point Mr. Clark would like to come back to the Board with the plans for this installation and request the Board’s approval.

Chris Wilson, Board member, stated that he is in the Anne Arundel County Soil Conservation and seconded Mr. Clark’s opinion.

Mr. Colhoun thanked Mr. Clark for his inputs and commented the Wetlands Mitigation Committee was formed with the intent to arrive at a policy for such situations. Mr. Colhoun commented the next step will be for the attorneys general to review the report and, if they have changes, the report will be revised appropriately and come back to the Board for action.

Mr. Freedlander wanted to know whether the suggested guidelines would be applicable in situations involving mitigation on farms for public project like the construction of a bridge, etc. Mr. Tassone believed the same guidelines would apply.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that, in the cases of public agencies, they have a public purpose for what they are doing, and, if they need to do something, they have the right of eminent domain. Such a request is 180⁰ different from a mitigation request from a developer or for some other purpose. He was concerned when there is a request on a piece of preserved land. The critical issue is how much of land on a preserved piece of property can be mitigated and taken out of agriculture. The Foundation has a responsibility of preserving agricultural land and will have to evaluate when the request comes from public agency. The Foundation can suggest alternative locations. To the extent the Foundation is not convinced, the Board has the right to say "NO."

Mr. Colhoun pointed out the distinction between mitigation and best management practices that are considered a benefit for the landowners and for the farm where MALPF has an easement. Mitigation and BMPs may coincide, but may not.

Mr. Tassone commented that the Committee recognized the distinction and the recommendations are essentially to merge those two things and not consider allowing mitigation to take place on a MALPF easement property unless both are going to be true on the property.

Bill Amoss, Program Administrator, Harford County, wanted to know if the Committee considered release of an easement as an option.

Mr. Tassone stated that the Committee did not feel very comfortable with that option because the outcome that should result from this policy would be a best management practice. So the Committee felt that the affected area should not be released from the easement.

V. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION

Withdrawal of FY 2006 Additional Round One and Round Two Offers

On September 26, 2006 the Board approved additional Round One Offers and Round Two Offers. Staff is requesting approval to withdraw any FY 2006 Additional Round One and Round Two easement option contracts for applicants who have not responded with either an acceptance, rejection or a request for an extension. If this request is approved, a certified letter will be sent to each of the landowners notifying them that their offer must be accepted or rejected no later than close of business Wednesday, November 22, 2006.

Motion #14: To approve the request to withdraw any FY 2006 Round One and Round Two easement option contracts for which the landowners have not responded with either an acceptance, rejection or a request for an extension.

Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Judith Lynch

Status: Approved

Mr. Colhoun recommended a copy of the letters to the landowner be sent to the respective program administrators and they can follow up personally with the landowners.

Mr. Conrad wanted the Board to be aware of an issue that has come up recently. There is a requirement that the landowners having more than 25 acres of contiguous woodlands acquire a Forest Stewardship Plan prior to settlement. Unfortunately, the Foundation has become aware of one case where this has not been followed. The landowner has not paid attention to the information provided and has made financial commitments based on expectations of settlement. At the time of sending the option contracts, the Foundation explicitly tells the landowners not to make financial commitments. The landowner will not be able to get a Forest Stewardship Plan perhaps for another six months, but the landowner insists on settling on the easement now to meet personal commitments. There are also other landowners in the County who have not made this kind of commitment, but are also ready to settle, but need to get their forest stewardship plans certified.

The Forest Stewardship Plan is required by regulation. The Foundation may have to find a solution whereby the Foundation may go for settlement, but may have to withhold a certain amount of money sufficient to guarantee that the landowners follow through. The Foundation is proposing entering into an agreement with at least one landowner. The arrangement will be such that they will get a part of their settlement now, but they will get the remaining part of their settlement once they get their Forest Stewardship Plan certified.

The situation involves cost and involves lots of time, especially Ms. Forrester’s time. This arrangement will take place only this year and will be done only when it is absolutely necessary. Next year at the State level, the Foundation would be even more explicit about this requirement from the moment the option contracts are sent to the landowners.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that there are only three choices: (1) the landowners are informed that the Foundation will not go to settlement until they obtain the Forest Stewardship Plan; (2) the Foundation settles without the certificate, but it violates the rules and regulation; or (3) the State settles, but holds a retainer contingent on supplying the certified FSP.

Mr. Doug Wilson suggested withholding 10% of the easement. It has to be a substantial amount for any retainer to force completion of the task, even though the plan itself may cost only a couple of thousand dollars.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that it is a new requirement and the Foundation would not like to be harsh on the landowners, the program administrators, or the MALPF staff.

Responding to a question, Ms. Schultz commented that DNR, County foresters, or private consultant foresters have a backlog on Forest Stewardship Plans. Some of them may be willing to move up in the list for an additional fee. When the landowners have a plan written, the private consultant foresters can offer cost sharing up to 75% of the plan. DNR foresters have a certain fee, but cost sharing is not available. Ms. Schultz commented that, if landowners are willing to work with a private consultant forester, they might be able to fast track the process. Ms. Schultz invited the comments from the program administrators.

Mr. Rice commented that the program administrators and MALPF staff go through a lot of work negotiating a deal; a lot of money is spent by the Foundation and the County. It will be unfortunate if, after all this process, the Foundation withdraws the offers made to the landowners just because they do not have Forest Stewardship Plan. Mr. Rice believed the Foundation should maintain some flexibility.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the Foundation is not withdrawing the offers, but is only delaying the settlement. A couple of landowners have made obligations expecting they would settle by a particular time. The landowners got their offer five months back and should have started the process of acquiring a Forest Stewardship Plan. The landowners have not started the process at all.

Ms. Buckle believed that this requirement should be disseminated and every program administrator should be talking to the landowners about its importance at the time of establishing the district itself. The program administrator should be able to help the landowner in getting in touch with the local Department of Natural Resources (DNR) forester.

Mr. Rice commented that developers are competing with the preservation efforts. In a hypothetical case, the Foundation has made an offer to the landowner, but the landowner has the right to change his mind and reject the Foundation’s offer right to the day of settlement.

Mr. Colhoun commented that this problem is not an on-going issue. The Foundation is trying to correct this one instance, and, if the problem is really an issue, the Board will take up the issue for discussion and try to find a more permanent solution.

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

Motion #15: To adjourn regular session.

Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Chris Wilson

Status: Approved

The regular session of the Board meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:35 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

_____________________________________

Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary

__________________________________

James Conrad, Executive Director