MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION

MINUTES

November 28, 2006

TRUSTEES PRESENT:

Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman

Jerry Klasmeier, representing Comptroller Schaefer

Pat Langenfelder

Judith C. Lynch

Robert F. Stahl, Jr.

Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Department of Planning

Christopher H. Wilson

TRUSTEES ABSENT:

Daniel Colhoun, Chairman

Howard S. Freedlander, representing Treasurer Kopp

Dr. James Pelura

Shirley W. Pilchard

Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture

OTHERS PRESENT:

Bill Amoss, Harford County, Program Administrator

Anne Bradley, Frederick County, Agricultural Preservation Planner

Tammy Buckle, Caroline County, Program Administrator

Yates Clagett, Prince George’s County, Program Administrator

James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive Director

Carol Council, MALPF Administrative Officer

William Doane, Jr, Harford County, Program Assistant

Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary

S. Glen Elseroad, Landowner, Baltimore County

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services

Carmela Iacovelli, Baltimore County, Natural Resource Specialist

Tim Lessner, Landowner, Charles County

Joy Levy, Howard County, Program Administrator

Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture

Barbara Polito, Anne Arundel County, Program Administrator

Charles Rice, Charles County, Program Administrator

Jennifer Rhodes, Queen Anne’s County, Program Assistant

Ralph Robertson, Carroll County, Program Administrator

Daniel Rosen, Planner, Maryland Department of Planning

Faith Elliott Rossing, Landowner, Queen Anne’s County

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

James Stonesifer, Landowner, Carroll County

Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Administrative Officer

Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at approximately 9:30 a.m., at the Maryland Department of Agriculture building, Annapolis, Maryland. Mr. Colhoun, Chairman, was away to Montana and not able to attend the Board meeting.

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 OCTOBER 24, 2006

Motion #1: To defer the approval of minutes of October 24, 2006 to the next Board meeting.

Motion: Pat Langenfelder Second: Judith Lynch

Status: Approved

B. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:

Item II.E.1. Garrett County

11-91-02 Wilhelm, Gilbert, Sr. & Mary A. Postponed

Request to exchange equal area of easement property for non-easement property

James Conrad, Executive Director of the Foundation, informed the Board that several pending policy issues would be addressed in the new year in addition to those already under discussion. A very high priority issue to be addressed systematically is monitoring policy. The audit of the Foundation by the Department of Legislative Services for the last few years has noted that MALPF is not meeting its own policy guidelines of monitoring 10% of easements each year or the requirement in its cooperative agreements of monitoring 100% of federally-funded easements each year.

While MALPF has relied on its county partners to monitor its properties, the facts are as follows. First, some counties have been excellent at providing monitoring reports to the Foundation in a timely way. Other counties have not always been able to provide these reports when requested. Many county program administrators have multiple responsibilities, and it is difficult for them to keep on top of inspections in the way that MALPF would like. Ultimately, monitoring and stewardship more generally are the Foundation's responsibilities, because the Foundation owns the easements on the properties.

Second, the current Foundation policy was established in the 1980s, and national standards for monitoring have changed substantially since then. Today, according to the Land Trust Alliance's standards and practices, easements should be monitored at least annually. Generally in the field, the minimum acceptable monitoring is to inspect a property each three years. The Foundation's policy needs to be evaluated in light of current standards and practices in the field of land preservation.

Third, the current Foundation's staffing clearly does not provide adequate resources for ongoing easement monitoring, even under the current policy. In the long term, MALPF's responsibilities will be increasingly stewardship functions and decreasingly acquisition functions.

Jerry Klasmeier, representing Comptroller Schaefer, pointed out that the Foundation should not think of this evaluation just in terms of adding one staff member responsible for stewardship, but think about monitoring in view of the overall requirements for resources to meet the Foundation's responsibilities and to recognize that, in the long run, staff now acquiring easements will find more of their time devoted to stewardship issues and less to easement acquisition.

Mr. Conrad stated that a second policy that will be reviewed in the new year is the policy on the placement of cellular telephone towers. This issue is to some extent on the table because of the discussions over "use policy." More importantly, a new position at the Department of Natural Resources has been created whose responsibilities include the coordination of DNR land preservation policies with the policies of other land preservation agencies, such as MALPF and MET. Pam Bush, who will be assuming this position, would like to start the policy discussion among land preservation agencies with this issue. MALPF will be pleased to undertake its review of policies in a more coordinated manner with the other State agencies doing land preservation to be sure that we are working together.

The third general issue area to be addressed this coming year is the policy of MALPF on overlay easements. There are concerns about some overlay easements that have not been coming to MALPF for review, because the easements essentially are created to implement the development of approved lots on MALPF properties. Most overlay easements come to the Foundation for review and approval; however, these easements serving approved development have not been coming to the Foundation. The language in some may run contrary to MALPF's interests and may pose issues for the utility companies that are creating and recording them.

Ralph Robertson, Program Administrator, Carroll County, wanted to know if the discussion would also deal with the Health Department rules and regulations such as not approving any septic systems that are on easement property.

Mr. Conrad stated that this problem needs to be clarified with the Maryland Department of Environment because there seem to be different policies in different counties.

Citing a specific issue, Mr. Robertson stated that the Health Department in Carroll County would not approve any septic systems that fall outside the released acreage that is around a dwelling.

Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, Caroline County, stated that in Caroline County, the policy is in accordance with County’s ground water protection record and the County is the one that makes those changes in accordance with certain parameters.

Mr. Conrad noted that, given the lack of clarity on this issue, it would make sense to include it in the general review of overlay easement policies dealing with implementing the development of lots that have been approved by the Board of Trustees.

Mr. Conrad informed the Board members that the discussion on Wetland Mitigation Easements has been postponed to December 2006 Board meeting.

Mr. Conrad also informed the Board members that shortly MALPF is going to issue a RFP (Requests for Proposals) for experts to help MALPF evaluate any property whose owners request termination of the easement for the feasibility of such a property to be profitable. Mr. Conrad encouraged the Program Administrators and Board members to inform MALPF if they are aware of any individual or companies possessing the necessary skills. MALPF is building a database of companies and individuals with the necessary skills to whom the RFP can be sent, and any information that can be provided will be very useful.

MALPF is getting ready to advertise for the third position in the MALPF office at the same level as the existing MALPF staff: Elizabeth Weaver and Carol Council. The position is in the process of being reclassified, and the closing date for the advertisement will be probably December 22, 2006 [the actual closing date is January 5, 2007].

Finally, Mr. Conrad circulated the Report that came from the Governor’s Commission for Protecting the Chesapeake Bay through Sustainable Forestry. He wanted the Board members to be aware of the Report because they may receive questions on it. Mr. Conrad expressed his concern about the statement in the Report that there is: ”Virtually non-existent forestland conservation easement protection under the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) despite clear statutory intent to the contrary.” MALPF has been named in the Report as a primary threat to sustainable forestry in Maryland.

One of the recommendations of the report stated: “Encourage Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) to provide parity between agriculture and forestry in terms of land conservation – consistent with existing State law…." Mr. Conrad noted that, according to a conversation he had with Don van Hassent at DNR's Forestry Service, parity here means that for every acre of agricultural land preserved by MALPF, the Commission wants one acre of forested land preserved. When MALPF was updating its forestry policy, Ms. Vera Mae Schultz, Board member and forestry representative to the Board, looked at the data of districts entering the MALPF program in 2003 and determined that 30% of the new district acreage was forested.

A second recommendation was to "Rename the MALPF to the Maryland Agricultural and Forestry Land Preservation Foundation.” By statute, agriculture includes forestry, so the recommendation that MALPF changes its name does not make sense, because forestry is considered a subset of agriculture.

Mr. Conrad was not able to understand the basis for the conclusion that MALPF discriminates against forested land and provides no protection to forested land, but rather poses a threat to sustainable forestry. He is concerned that the way the Report addresses the role of MALPF in sustaining the forestry industry is based less on any data and, apparently, more on a preconception by some on the Commission that MALPF discriminates somehow against forested acreage.

Mr. Conrad made a presentation on MALPF forestry policy to the Sustainable Forestry Commission about a year ago, but the Report did not incorporate any of the data or policy information provided to the Commission. MALPF did not see any drafts of the report, and MALPF staff was given a copy of the Report indirectly by someone who was concerned with the way the Report dealt with the Foundation. Mr. Conrad is concerned about the likely legislation that will come out of the Report. He wanted the Board to be aware of the situation and that, if MALPF does not seek to address this now, MALPF will likely be addressing the conclusions and recommendations of the Report in hearings in front of the General Assembly during the coming legislative session.

Charles Rice, Program Administrator, Charles County, asked Mr. Conrad if MALPF would like to have the data from the individual counties. Mr. Rice stated that he is aware that Charles County district and easements are much more than 50% forested, and the recent data in the County’s recertification report might help.

Mr. Conrad said that any such help would be useful and commented that the data on forested acreage cannot be tracked from the database. When Ms. Schultz calculated forested acreage over one year, she had to get the data from the staff reports made during district application. Mr. Conrad believed the report was not based on any data but based on a pre-conception that forestry is being discriminated by MALPF.

Mr. Stahl commented that probably the major problem with the Report's recommendation of parity is that it would create a quota system that would soon lead to each agricultural sector demanding parity in preserved acreage, so eventually MALPF would have to preserve so many acres of forestry operations, so many acres of horse operations, so many dairy operations, so many acres devoted to chicken operations, etc. Mr. Conrad noted that the staff already has problems in trying to maintain the distribution of funds among funding sources and that to try to overlay another allocation requirement may be administratively impossible.

II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT AMENDMENTS

A. CARROLL COUNTY

1. 06-83-12 Stonesifer, James & Betty 233.2448 acres

Request to swap 1.0 acre of easement property for 4.0 acres of non-easement property

Mr. and Mrs. Stonesifer are the original owners of the easement property. The property contains no pre-existing dwellings and there have been no requests for the release of owner’s or children’s lots. The current request is to swap 1.0 acre of easement property for 4.0 acres of non-easement property.

On August 28, 1990 the Board of Trustees approved an agricultural subdivision of 13.24 acres at the request of the original owners of the district. This subdivision was never completed. After the property was conveyed to the Stonesifers, on July 15, 1997, prior to settlement of the easement, the Board approved a partial termination of a 5.0-acre parcel which contained all of the farm buildings, including three pre-existing dwellings. This partial termination was recorded in the land records and is not a part of the subject easement property.

Mr. and Mrs. Stonesifer are currently requesting to add into the easement 4.0 of the terminated acres in exchange for removing from the easement a 1.0-acre parcel on which a home can be built. The proposed 4.0-acre parcel to be added to the easement contains two of the three pre-existing dwellings – one tenant trailer and one residential dwelling. If this request is approved, the tenant trailer will be removed from the property and the residential dwelling will be converted to a farm office that will serve the farm operation. In exchange, the landowners are requesting approval to construct a new dwelling on the 1.0-acre parcel that is proposed to be taken out of the easement. This newly constructed dwelling will serve as the principal dwelling for the then 236.2448-acre easement, and the landowners will agree that it can never be subdivided or conveyed separately from the farm.

According to Carroll County, the 4.0 acres that would be added to the easement consists of cropland, pastureland and farm buildings and is 100% class II and III soils. The 1.0 acre that is proposed to be removed from the easement consists of pastureland and is 40% class III soils. Access to the proposed 1.0 acre to be removed from the easement will be right-of-way via an existing field road.

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

Foundation staff recommends approval of the request because it will have a positive impact on the easement property by providing a dwelling that, although it will not be located on the easement, will serve as the principal dwelling for the property and cannot ever be subdivided or conveyed separately. Also, the 4.0-acre parcel proposed to be added to the easement contains farm buildings that are integral to the overall farm operation and consists of more productive soils than the 1.0 acre that is proposed to be removed from the easement.

Mr. Stonesifer and Mr. Ralph Robertson, Program Administrator, were available at the Board meeting to answer questions from the Board members.

Mr. Robertson commented that when the farm was put under easement, there was a lot of discussion about what to do about the many dwellings and buildings that were on the farm. A determination was made at that time to exclude the acreage. This determination was made for many reasons.

Mr. Robertson believed a lot of positive outcomes may come out of the proposal. One of them is to put the buildings back with the farm and eliminate the possibility of a replacement for a pre-existing trailer and the converted dairy barn (which was also converted to a dwelling). If another owner would have an opportunity to construct a house, the two would be eliminated completely (this is required to satisfy the Carroll County rules).

Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Department of Planning, wanted to confirm the agricultural subdivision of 13.24 acres was never completed. Mr. Tassone believed that the 1.0-acre lot is not going to be subdivided. He wanted to know how this is going to be guaranteed.

Mr. Robertson stated that, as per the existing rules, the County will not allow another dwelling on the property, and a subdivision of the dwelling from the property is not allowed. These will also be incorporated in the amendment to the easement.

Mr. Conrad commented that any exchange or swap would be subject to a review by DGS. Staff also recommends before the swap occurs, landowners complete the title work. The swap may also require approval from Board of Public Works.

Judith Lynch, Board member, commented that she had visited the property and believed the lot location is a good choice of location.

Motion #2: To approve the request of James and Betty Stonesifer to swap 1.0 acre of easement property for 4.0 acres of non-easement property with staff’s recommendation that it cannot be subdivided.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Chris Wilson

Status: Approved

2. 06-90-55 Colburn, Jean E. 100.00 acres

Request to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot from district property

Ms. Colburn is the original owner of the 100.0-acre district property. There are no pre-existing dwellings. There have been no previous requests for lot exclusions. A 2.599-acre lot was withheld from the district. The current request is to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot from district property for Ms. Colburn’s daughter, Carol Colburn Hulver.

According to Carroll County, the proposed lot will be located in what is currently cropland. Access will be via an existing driveway.

The request has been approved by the local advisory board and meets planning and zoning regulations. There will be no required payback for the requested lot as this is district property.

Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus such minimum additional acreage as required by the County Health Department or other county regulation, not to exceed 2.0 acres total, 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 a maximum lot size of up to 2.0 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the county.

Ralph Robertson, Program Administrator, was available to answer questions from the Board. Ms. Colburn was not able to attend the Board meeting due to health reasons. It is a district property and is in the conservation zone.

Mrs. Schultz wanted to know about the statement made in Ms. Colburn’s letter, “At the time of the original contract this lot was one of four exempted from the agricultural district agreement.” Mr. Robertson commented that this statement is not correct. Ms. Colburn was under the notion that a child’s lot is automatically excluded. Mr. Robertson had spoken to her and clarified the matter.

Motion #3: To approve the request of Jean E. Colburn for the exclusion up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot from district property.

Motion: Pat Langenfelder Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

3. 06-00-05Ae Hahn, Jr., Charles & Elizabeth 40.53 acres

Request to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot from easement property

Mr. and Mrs. Hahn are the original owners of this easement property. The current request is to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot from easement property for their son, John R. Hahn.

The Hahns do not own any other district or easement properties and have not made any previous requests for lot exclusions. There is one pre-existing dwelling on this property.

According to Carroll County, the proposed lot is to be located in cropland. The lot will have direct access to Stone Road.

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 $1,800.00 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 or other county regulation, not to exceed 2.0 acres total, 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 a maximum lot size of up to 2.0 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the county.

Mr. Ralph Robertson was available at the meeting. Mr. Robertson informed the Board members that the proposed lot is right along the County road and complies with all the County requirements. One mitigating factor may be the ability to find a perc at that spot.

The other option will be closer to the corner of the property, but the Hahns wanted the house to be closer to their farm dwellings. The Hahns are elderly and wanted their son to be closer to their dwelling. A sand mound system may work in the location.

For any future requests on lot locations, Mr. Tassone suggested MALPF staff includes their comments in their staff recommendations as to whether the proposed lot location complies or does not comply with lot location guidelines.

Motion #4: To approve the request of Charles and Elizabeth Hahn to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot from easement property.

Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Joe Tassone

Status: Approved

B. HARFORD COUNTY

1. 12-81-01D Smith, Anna L. 141.33 acres

Request for approval of a child’s lot on easement property

Ms. Smith is the original grantor of the easement. The current request is for approval of the release of up to two acres for a child’s lot for the personal use of her son, Robert.

There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. No other lots have been approved on the property. Ms. Smith does not own any other district or easement properties.

The location follows the Foundation’s lot location guidelines. According to Harford County, the lot is located in a corner of the property and will be accessed directly from the road. The sliver of land located between the lot and the property boundary (see attached map) is used for farm 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 $1,400.00 per acre to the Foundation for the lot.

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.

Bill Amoss, Program Administrator, and Will Doane, Program Administrator Assistant, were available at the meeting to answer any questions from Board members.

Responding to a question, Mr. Doane provided clarification about a sliver of land located between the proposed lot and the property boundary. The sliver is about 30’ wide and is used for farm access by farm vehicles. Mr. Amoss added that farm vehicles access the property from the road.

Ms. Schultz wanted to know where the farm machinery is stored. Mr. Amoss stated that it is stored on a farm off Madonna Road. Like many of the farms in the area, this farm is leased.

Motion #5: To approve the request of Anna L. Smith for a child’s lot on easement property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Judith Lynch

Status: Approved

C. BALTIMORE COUNTY

1. 03-02-10 Elseroad, Samuel G. & Ruth L. 165.76 acres

Request for approval of a child’s lot on easement property

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

There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. No other lots have been approved on the property. The Elseroads do not own any other district or easement properties.

According to Baltimore County, the lot is located in a wooded area. The lot will be accessed by a right-of-way access using an existing farm lane. The proposed location of the lot is 600’ back from the road. The location does not follow the Foundation’s lot location guidelines because the land along the road does not perc. Much of the area where the lot is proposed to be located has steep slopes and, therefore, the proposed lot will not negatively impact the agricultural operation of the property (aerial including topographic overlay attached with staff memo).

The local advisory board visited the property and interviewed the landowner. The advisory board approved the request. The request conforms to local zoning regulations. If approved, there will be a required payback of $4,500.00 per acre to the Foundation for the lot.

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.

Mr. Elseroad and Carmela Iacovelli, Baltimore County, Natural Resource Specialist, were available at the meeting to answer any questions from the Board.

Mr. Elseroad provided the Board members with copies of photos showing the view of the farm from the lot location area and also the proposed location of the lot. Mr. Elseroad commented that he and his family had spent considerable time finding a good location for the lot as they did not want to disturb the productive farmland. He also wanted to have the ability to be able to monitor what is going on around the farm from the lot.

In response to a question from Ms. Schultz, Mr. Elseroad stated that there are three wooded parcels on the farm. The parcel where the proposed lot is located is approximately 12 to 14 acres. The topography of the land drops off rather quickly. A person would be able to look out and have a view of the farm and see if someone is coming in.

Mr. Elseroad stated that he lives on a different farm. Mr. and Mrs. Elseroad purchased this farm five years ago. The house and farm buildings have been more or less neglected for almost 30 years. The Elseroads had some Amish from the community help them construct some of the buildings. The Elseroads built the barns and had the roofs repaired. The current driveway goes to where the house is located. Currently Mr. Elseroad is using the house for storage. He expects his son to construct a home at a later date. Mr. and Mrs. Elseroads are currently living in a rancher, and they are comfortable in it.

Motion #6: To approve the request of Samuel G. and Ruth L. Elseroad for approval of a child’s lot on easement property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

D. QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY

1. 17-86-04s2 Green, Virginia E. 63.730 acres

Request for approval of a child’s lot on easement property

Ms. Green is the original grantor of the easement. The current request is for approval of a child’s lot of up to two acres for the personal use of her daughter, Faith.

There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. The original easement covered approximately 205 acres. On October 27, 1992, the Foundation approved a 10.994-acre agricultural subdivision (Joe Tassone opposed). Faith and her husband currently own the 10.993-acre parcel. On July 21, 1997, the Foundation approved a further subdivision of the remaining property into three parcels: two 65-acre parcels and a 63.73-acre parcel (the parcel currently under consideration for a child’s lot). Two child’s lots have been approved on the properties for Ms. Green’s other two children, Faren and Eugene. Eugene’s lot is located on the same parcel as the lot proposed for Faith. Faren’s lot is located on one of the 65-acre parcels. Both children built on the lots and have occupied the dwellings. Faren continues to live on the property; Eugene is deceased.

According to Queen Anne’s County, the lot proposed for Faith is located in cropland. The lot would be accessed by an existing driveway (map attached with staff memo). The county requires a 35’ access easement. The proposed location of the lot is 819’ back from the road. The location does not follow the Foundation’s lot location guidelines because the land along the road does not perc. Maps demonstrating the land along the road contains hydric soils were circulated at the Board meeting. The family chose to locate the lot on this parcel because it is concerned that Eugene’s lot would be sold during the settlement of his estate, leaving the parcel without a dwelling. Faith and her husband intend to move from the farm’s main dwelling, where they currently reside (located on the 10.99-acre subdivision approved in 1992), and construct a dwelling on the proposed child’s lot. It is their intention that Faith’s son will take over the operation of the farm at some point in the future.

The request was approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If approved, there will be a required payback of $419.36 per acre to the Foundation for the lot.

Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus such minimum additional acreage if required by the 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.

Faith Elliott Rossing and Donna Landis-Smith, Program Administrator, were available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board.

Ms. Rossing informed the Board members that her lot would have a 35-foot access easement immediately adjacent to Eugene’s lot. The Rossings are not anticipating constructing an access easement, but it is included because the county requires it. They do not want to disturb the farm and would like to use the existing access.

Ms. Rossing is the administrator of her brother’s estate. They are past the point of being concerned that they would have to sell the lot. If they sell it to the trust for Eugene’s three sons, as trustee she will be able to provide an access easement to the lot that is being created for the Rossings. It would be a shared easement over the existing right-of-way. There is also additional frontage along the road.

Mr. Tassone inquired if Queen Anne’s County would allow an easement access.

Ms. Rossing stated that Queen Anne’s County does allow easement access. Ms. Rossing has been with the County for 15 years. She believes the requirement for a 35-foot frontage was a problem for MALPF properties. The requirement was essentially put in place in the zoning ordinance for assurances that when someone subdivided a property and went in for a mortgage, they had full right access from a public or a private road.

MALPF allows a right-of-way to child’s lots or owner’s lots that were excluded. The County would provide an exception for MALPF district and easement properties that would allow them access through a right-of-way. Thus, the original landowner would maintain the ownership. This was being contemplated when the County was updating their Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance in 2001. The County now has this provision.

Motion #7: To approve the request of Virginia E. Green for approval of a child’s lot on easement property.

Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

F. CAROLINE COUNTY

1. 05-88-07Ae Grable, Sr., Gilbert W. and Doris A. 45.751 acres

Request to change the configuration of a lot released from easement

Mr. and Mrs. Grable are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is to change the configuration of a lot that was released from the easement in 1990.

The Foundation approved a child’s lot for Mr. and Mrs. Grable’s daughter, Brenda, on August 28, 1990. The lot was subsequently released from the easement. Brenda (the daughter) and her husband wish to construct a pole barn for agricultural equipment on the child’s lot. They are unable to locate the barn on the lot in its current configuration, due to the location of the septic reserve area, etc., and are therefore requesting approval to move the lot slightly north of its current location (map attached with staff memo).

According to Caroline County, the proposed relocation of the lot will not have a significant impact on the agricultural operation of the farm. The aerial indicates that the land to be removed is similar to that being added.

Foundation staff recommends approval. If the request is approved, Foundation staff will produce a corrective release indicating the new configuration of the lot to be recorded in the land records.

Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, was available at the Board meeting to answer any questions from the Board. She conveyed the landowners’ apology that they were not able to come to the meeting.

Ms. Buckle located the property and the Grables’ other property located to the north, on the aerial map provided with the staff memo. The chicken farm and the property in question are farmed together as one farming operation.

The reason the Grables are putting the pole barn on the acre lot is because it is the only thing they own right now, apart from the house. The Grables went to the Health Department to see if they could adjust their sewer system on the property. The Health Department stated they could do it, but the Grables would have to remove the pool. They did not want to remove the pool as they have invested money in it. The present request is the only way the Health Department has said it will work.

Motion #8: To approve the request of Gilbert W. Grable, Sr., and Doris A. Grable to change the configuration of a lot released from easement.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Judith Lynch

Status: Approved

Mr. Conrad commented that this request need not go to Board of Public Works for approval because the request is only a modification of the lot. However, a title search would be necessary and any lenders must subordinate.

III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS

A. Charles County

1. 08-07-06 Liverpool Pointe, LLC 205.45 acres

This is a 205.45-acre parcel located south of Plantation Drive in the town of Wicomico. It is contiguous to several MALPF district and easement properties. There are no dwellings. The farm has 30 acres of cropland, 72.8 acres of woodland and 102.65 acres of wetland. The primary farming operation is forestry and CREP. It has 50% qualifying soils. It is part of the larger operation and is owner operated. The property has 185 withheld acres. Remaining property has preliminary subdivision plan approval for 30 lots plus additional tidal marsh. The withheld acreage does not meet the Foundation’s guidelines for withheld acreage.

Staff notes that although this proposed withheld parcel does not meet the Foundation’s guidelines for withheld acreage, the subdivision plan for 30 lots was approved prior to the request to establish the district. Staff recommends that, if the district is approved, access be established to the proposed district.

Charles Rice, Program Administrator, was present at the meeting. He introduced Mr. Tim Lessner as one of the members of the Liverpool Pointe, LLC.

Mr. Rice stated that the property was configured in this particular way for a couple of reasons. One reason was the property had a subdivision plan approved for 30 lots on the northeast side of the property. The area to the southwest contains tidal marsh. There was enough tidal marsh included in the district to still meet 50% (Class I, II and III).

Mr. Conrad asked if the County would allow forest conservation. Mr. Rice answered in affirmative and commented that, if the forest conservation existed prior to certifying development rights, the County may not give them development rights on the existing portion.

Mr. Tassone wanted to know what is the triangle on the southeast of the property. Mr. Rice clarified that the triangle is actually part of the farm, but it is divided by a right-of-way fee simple. The configuration is done to keep the access to the tidal marsh. The idea was that they may bring in additional acreage to the district, and, if they do that on the north side, they also would be able to bring in an equal amount of tidal marsh from the south side.

Mr. Rice stated that the County has approved a preliminary plan for about 30 lots on the northeast side. Since then Mr. Lessner has submitted a revised plan.

Mr. Lessner introduced himself and stated that he is one of the three members of the LLC. Mr. Lessner displayed the blow up of the aerial map. The LLC currently has a preliminary plan for 30 lots. The County has density as AC; that is 3-acre density. The lots are clustered on the top of the hill, approximately 1 to 1½ acre each. In the current plan, the LLC has three big lots that cover the entire area (3 hundred acre lots). Since the plan was approved, the three owners have looked at the project in a different manner because all the three owners wanted to move in there. The LLC is in the process of revising its preliminary plan that is being submitted to the County. It plans to put in 18 lots instead of 30, and the plan is contingent upon getting some income from selling the TDRs on this property. In a nutshell, the LLC plans to cluster 18 lots and all the remaining lands will be contiguous parcels. The triangle piece is a separate parcel and theoretically is a separate buildable lot. One of the members is planning on building on this piece of land.

Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture, commented that it looked like a development project, and there are issues to be ironed out before MALPF can proceed.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know about the nature of the LLC. Mr. Lessner stated that he is a friend and the other two are brother and sister.

Mr. Conrad commented that, the way the LLC has been described, it will qualify only for one owner’s lot on the entire property. So legally it can either be an owner’s lot or an unrestricted lot.

Mr. Lessner stated that the triangle is a separate parcel that was subdivided in the early 1970s.

Mr. Nielsen was concerned and believed there is a need to have dialogue, to know the LLC’s expectations and MALPF’s requirements. MALPF’s requirements are statutory, and some of the expectations of the LLC may not fit.

Mr. Rice felt that the issues can be ironed out later, but wanted to know if the proposal fits the program for district establishment, the way it is laid out with withheld acreage.

Mr. Conrad wanted to make sure the owners understand that it is a five-year commitment.

Mr. Rice stated that the Liverpool Pointe, LLC’s intention is to transfer the development rights to become a permanent situation. The lots they want are going to be outside on the withheld acreage. Mr. Lessner added that the subdivision would not interfere in any way with the forest conservation. Forest Conservation requirements for subdivision will be met outside the district areas. So everything they are doing will be outside the district area. Everything within the district area will be perpetually maintained in its current status.

Mr. Nielsen commented that it is a complex scheme and wanted to make sure there is a meeting of the minds. The statute says for getting into a district the property has to be actively devoted to agriculture use, or the property does not qualify to be a district.

Mr. Lessner confirmed that the property is involved in active production. Until recently some of the property was in CREP. The property has been previously under a forest management program. In the past there has been corn grown, but not in the last two years. When the previous owner had the property, he took it out of agricultural production and put some of the fields under CREP. Since then the LLC has taken the field out of CREP and are trying to get the local farmers to come back to lease the land. The problem is that, when they farmed the fields, the farmers came into the property another way. The LLC’s current access cannot accommodate large machinery. The LLC is in contact with two or three local farmers who can potentially farm the property.

Mr. Nielsen wanted to know how the property is assessed. Mr. Lessner stated that it is assessed as an agricultural property.

Originally the LLC had plans to subdivide and create three 100-acre lots. The plan now is do 18 lots and all the remaining land will be one large parcel. The buildable site will not be within the area designated for MALPF district. The LLC is proposing that MALPF allows one house to be built on the triangular site. The LLC has no intention of subdividing the triangular piece.

Ms. Council commented about the remainder of the parcel (to the west of the property) that has been left out. The LLC can put all the wetlands into the district and still the total qualifying soils will be more than 50%. Wetland areas do not count.

Mr. Lessner commented that he would be glad to include more wetlands in the district.

Mr. Rice commented that, whatever acres are approved for the district, the County should be able to give TDRs. The County does not want to accept any more marshland than what is available upfront.

Ms. Council commented that marshland is excluded from MALPF’s calculation. In this particular case the property has 30 acres of cropland and 72.8 acres of woodland, so the property meets MALPF’s requirement of a minimum of 50 acres in size.

Mr. Stahl commented that, in this case, meeting the minimum requirement is not a problem because the property is contiguous to several MALPF district and easement properties.

Mr. Tassone wanted to know where the productive soils are located on the parcel.

Mr. Lessner located the large field located on top the hill. At one time it was in production. The dark area located in the map belongs to Class I, II and III.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know if Liverpool Pointe, LLC, was agreeable to sign a letter that it will not sell an easement if Liverpool Pointe, LLC, is accepted as a district by MALPF. Liverpool Pointe, LLC, cannot apply for State easement sale, but can participate in the County TDR program. This was agreeable to Mr. Lessner.

Mr. Tassone commented that the idea of excluding acreage to accommodate 18 development rights is very much out of sync with MALPF’s withheld acreage policy. Charles County uses the district establishment as an eligibility mechanism to County TDR programs, and Mr. Tassone felt comfortable with Mr. Conrad’s suggestion. This would safeguard MALPF’s interests.

Motion #9: To approve the request of Liverpool Pointe, LLC, to establish an agricultural land preservation district on the property subject to a proviso that an easement will not be bought by MALPF on this property. The district agreement is pending the resolution of possible failure of meeting of the minds between what the landowner wishes to accomplish and what the program allows.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

Mr. Nielsen commented that, if there is a meeting of minds, the district could be recorded with a proviso that an easement will not be bought on this property. This was agreeable to Mr. Lessner.

Currently there is no legal access and that issue needs to be worked out by the staff before finalizing the district agreement.

Mr. Conrad stated that Mr. Lessner may have to put in writing what he intends to do.

Mr. Lessner wanted to know the time frame for the district agreement to be finalized. Ms. Council commented that it is 4 weeks to 6 weeks. The first step will be to make a new district agreement because there are a few changes. It will be mailed to Liverpool Pointe, LLC, and the three owners will have to sign and send it back to MALPF. After the necessary signatures are obtained, the district agreement is sent to Mr. Rice for recording at the land records of the County.

2. 08-07-07 Reidy, Francis E. & Cheryl A. 60.75 acres

This is a 60.75-acre parcel located in the east of Faulkner Road in the town of Faulkner. It is contiguous to an area containing several MALPF district and easement properties. There are no dwellings. The farm has 3.0 acres of cropland and 57.7 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry. It has 52% qualifying soils. It is not part of the larger operation and is owner operated. The property has three withheld acres with one development rights associated with it.

Motion #10: To approve the request of Francis E. Reidy and Cheryl A. Reidy to establish an agricultural land preservation district on the property.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

3. 08-07-08 Posey, David H. 71.0 acres

This is a 71-acre parcel located on the north and south sides of Chicamuxen Road in the town of Chicamuxen. There are no dwellings. The farm has 51 acres of woodland and 20 acres of wetland. The primary farming operation is forestry. It has 80% qualifying soils. It is not part of the larger operation and is owner operated.

Staff recommends approval.

Motion #11: To approve the request of David H. Posey to establish agricultural land preservation district on the property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Robert Stahl

Status: Approved

4. 08-07-09 deLozier, Marie L. 153.0 acres

This is a 153-acre parcel located in the south of Rocks Point Road in the town of Newburg. There is one dwelling. The farm has 59.3 acres of cropland and 75.7 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry and grain. It has 97% qualifying soils. It is part of the larger operation and is owner operated. There are nine acres around the farmstead and dwelling that are withheld. There are three development rights associated with the withheld acreage. The landowner plans to sell Charles County TDRs and will not pursue a MALPF easement on the property.

Staff recommends approval.

Mr. Rice commented that the owner wanted to withhold the acres around the existing house and the farmstead.

Mr. Tassone was concerned about the location of the withheld acreage and believed the excluded acreage should be given the same consideration as MALPF deals with lot exclusions.

Motion #12: To approve the request of Marie L. deLozier to establish an agricultural land preservation district on the property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Opposed: Joe Tassone

Status: Approved

5. 08-07-10 deLozier, Henri C., et al. 35.0 acres

This is a 35-acre parcel located in south of Rocks Point Road in the town of Newburg. There are no dwellings. The farm has 35 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is part of the larger operation and is owner operated.

Staff recommends approval.

Motion #13: To approve the request of Henri C. deLozier to establish an agricultural land preservation district on the property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Judith Lynch

Status: Approved

6. 08-07-11 Wilson, Carmen W. 26.3773 acres

This is a 26.3773-acre parcel located in north of Liverpool Point Road in the town of Nanjemoy. There are no dwellings. The farm has 26.3773 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is not part of the larger operation and is owner operated.

Staff recommends approval.

Motion #14: To approve the request of Carmen W. Wilson to establish agricultural land preservation district on the property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

IV. PROGRAM POLICY

A. Water Recharge Easements – Update

Ms. Weaver informed the Board members that MALPF staff had applied for a grant from Agro-Ecology, Inc., and submitted a pre-proposal. The Foundation was notified that the pre-proposal has been accepted. She stated that a copy of the response to the pre-proposal has been distributed during the Board meeting.

The acceptance of the pre-proposal is not a guarantee that MALPF will receive funding. MALPF will submit a full proposal due on December 15, 2006. The funding request is for approximately $120,000. MALPF is working with Maryland Department of the Environment and Maryland Department of Planning on the grant proposal.

Ms. Weaver stated that the Foundation would need to know if it is possible to allow the sale of water recharge easements while protecting the agricultural viability of easement property. This involves extensive number crunching and data collection, etc. The announcement of funding will be made on January 22, 2007.

Mr. Conrad informed the Board members that MALPF staff would be contacting everyone about the Christmas luncheon shortly, once the arrangements are finalized.

With no further business, Mrs. Schultz asked for a motion for adjournment of the meeting.

Motion #15: To adjourn regular session.

Motion: Jerry Klasmeier Second: Robert Stahl

Status: Approved

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

Respectfully Submitted:

_____________________________________

Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary

__________________________________

James A. Conrad, Executive Director