MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION

MINUTES

December 12, 2006

TRUSTEES PRESENT:

Daniel Colhoun, Chairman

Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman

Howard S. Freedlander, representing Treasurer Kopp

Jerry Klasmeier, representing Comptroller Schaefer

Pat Langenfelder

Dr. James Pelura

Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Department of Planning

Christopher H. Wilson

Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture

TRUSTEES ABSENT:

Judith C. Lynch

Robert F. Stahl, Jr.,

Shirley W. Pilchard

OTHERS PRESENT:

Howard L. Alderman, Jr., Legal Representative, Howard County

Bill Amoss, Harford County, Program Administrator

Dr. John Brooks, Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of Agriculture

Tammy Buckle, Caroline 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

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services

Pattie Hicks, Landowner, Harford County

William J. Hicks, Jr., Landowner, Harford County

Lynn Kendle, Landowner, Washington County

Brian Kleback, Landowner, Harford County

Lisa Ledman, St. Mary’s County, County Staff

Joy Levy, Howard County, Program Administrator

Carla Martin, Kent County, Program Administrator

Timothy Maresh, Landowner, Harford County

Amanda Zapora, Landowner, Harford County

Mark Myers, Farm Worker, Garrett County

Barbara Polito, Anne Arundel County, Program Administrator

Secretary Riley, Maryland Department of Agriculture

Charles Rice, Charles County, Program Administrator

Jennifer Rhodes, Queen Anne’s County, Program Assistant

Daniel Rosen, Planner, Maryland Department of Planning

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

Eric Seifarth, Washington County, Program Administrator

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

Gloria Smith, Wicomico County, Program Administrator

Holly Thibault, Land Preservation, Washington County

Gilbert Wilhelm, Sr., Landowner, Garrett County

Brian Wilhelm, Landowner, Garrett County

Charles Wiles, Landowner, Washington County

Mr. and Mrs. Howard Wilson, Landowners, Frederick County

Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Administrative Officer

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 MEETINGS

Motion #1: To approve the minutes of October 23, 2006 with amendments.

Motion: Vera Mae Schultz Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

Motion #2: To approve the minutes of November 27, 2006 with amendments.

Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

B. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:

II.A Howard County

13-79-03Bce Idiot’s Delight Corp.; Sibbald Hereth Withdrawn

Request to exclude a 1.0-acre child’s lot from easement property for daughter, Ellen

V. Information and Discussion Added

Howard County Agricultural Land Preservation Program (informational only)

James Conrad, Executive Director of the Foundation, reminded the Board about the General Findings and Final Recommendation Report generated by the Governor’s Commission for Protecting the Chesapeake Bay through Sustainable Forestry. Board members and MALPF staff were concerned about the issues that were raised in the report and voiced their concerns during the November Board meeting. Subsequent to the November Board meeting, Mr. Dan Colhoun, Chairman, MALPF Board, had written a letter to the author of the report, Mr. David Sutherland. In this letter Mr. Colhoun sought an appointment to meet with the writer and the Chairman of the Governor’s Commission for Protecting the Chesapeake Bay through Sustainable Forestry. This letter was circulated to the Board members.

Mr. Colhoun informed the Board members that he was concerned about some of the comments on the report and wanted to meet with the Commission members.

Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Scott, Department of Planning, commented that, after the last month’s meeting, he contacted Ms. Linda Eisenberg at Department of Planning. Ms. Eisenberg is also a member of the Governor’s Commission. Ms. Eisenberg had received the full report of the Commission and commented that the statements outlined in the report were not mentioned in the full report. Mr. Tassone also looked at the full report and found that the problematic statements mentioned in the summary were not mentioned in the full report, and there seemed to be some discrepancy in the statements.

Mr. Conrad also received similar feedback from Mr. Russell Brinsfield, the agricultural representative to the Commission.

Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Riley, Department of Agriculture, was concerned that the statements in the full report and synopsis do not match. Generally people read synopsis and do not read the full report. Even if the report contained errors, it is critical that the Governor’s Commission proceeds to rectify the errors and communicate to the people who were initially sent the report.

Mr. Conrad distributed the draft cooperative agreement to establish a self-funded, installment purchase agreement program for the purchase of agricultural land preservation easements. MARBIDCO and MALPF staff will be working on the draft agreement, fine tune it, and will be bringing it to the Board for its approval next month. Mr. Conrad encouraged the Board members to give their comments on the draft. MARBIDCO staff has seen the draft and has given a provisional and tentative approval. The Governor’s office approved MARBIDCO to hire an external legal counsel. Due to the change in administration, MARBIDCO would like to ensure that the new administration also agrees with hiring of external counsel.

II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT AMENDMENTS

A. HOWARD COUNTY

1. 13-80-06Ce Covered Bridge Farm, Wayne Newsome 132.597 acres

a. Request to approve a tenant house on easement property

b. Request to extend the time for demolishing a pre-existing dwelling

Mr. and Mrs. Newsome are the subsequent owners of this easement property. There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. There were no exclusions for owner’s or child’s lots. The current requests are: a) to approve a tenant house on easement property; and b) to extend the time for demolishing a pre-existing dwelling.

History:

· January 31, 2002, the Howard County advisory board denied a request for a tenant house based on concerns about its location in regard to the agricultural operation of the farm.

· February 26, 2002, the MALPF Board approved the request for a tenant house conditional upon 1) meeting county requirements and regulations, and 2) requiring the landowner to demonstrate that the tenant was fully engaged in the farming operation. (Copy of minutes attached with staff memo.)

· September 24, 2002, the MALPF Board re-reviewed the request for a tenant house as neither condition had been met and because Foundation staff had been informed that the size of the tenant house did not meet local requirements for a tenant house. The building permit the Newsome applied for was for the construction of an almost 15,000 square foot home with four bedrooms and six full bathrooms. Howard County did not release the building permit. The Board voted to allow Foundation staff to work with Howard County in an attempt to correct the situation. (Copy of minutes attached with staff memo.)

· October 22, 2002, the MALPF Board was informed that the Newsome had filed a lawsuit against Howard County seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the County to release the building permit. MDA’s Office of the Attorney General filed a motion to intervene in the case in order to protect the State’s interests. The MALPF Board voted to rescind the February 26, 2002 approval to construct a tenant house on easement property due to concerns about the future occupant of the tenant house. (Copy of minutes attached with staff memo.)

· June 24, 2003, the MALPF Board approved a request to relocate the pre-existing dwelling with the condition that once the new house is built, the existing dwelling would be razed and the area returned to agriculture (approved as part of a proposed settlement of the pending litigation). This replacement dwelling is currently under construction. (Copy of minutes attached with staff memo.)

· May 15, 2006, the Howard County Advisory Board reviewed a request to construct a tenant house (as provided for in the litigation settlement agreement). The Advisory Board voted to deny the request based on their “determination that the MALPF criteria requiring that a tenant be fully engaged in the operation of the farm is not met.”

NOTE: The current request was first forwarded to MALPF staff at the end of May, 2006, for inclusion on the June, 2006, Board agenda. Due to scheduling difficulties of Mr. Newsome’s attorney and the landowners’ slow response in providing a complete Application for Tenant House explaining the nature of the tenant who will occupy the tenant house, the item has taken several months before it could be presented.

According to Mr. Newsome, Dean Saunders will be the tenant who will occupy the tenant house on this horse farm operation. Mr. Saunders will be responsible for general maintenance, fence repair, boarding/feeding of horses, stall maintenance, planting, irrigation, stabilization, seeding, herbicide/fungicide application, and mowing. Mr. Newsome also states that the existing farmhouse is dilapidated and will be completely torn down once the new/replacement is constructed. The tenant house will have access via an existing farm lane and will be located in proximity to other farm buildings.

According to Mr. Newsome, currently, Mr. Saunders is residing in the original pre-existing dwelling. Therefore, Mr. Newsome is also asking the Board to allow him to not raze the original pre-existing dwelling until after the proposed tenant house is constructed (not at the time he receives the occupancy permit for the replacement pre-existing dwelling) to cause minimal disturbance to Mr. Saunders.

Mr. Newsome’s request was denied by the local advisory board on May 15, 2006, because of a lack of information provided by the landowner. For MALPF to review the request, staff insisted that Mr. Newsome submit all necessary information, including a complete application detailing the duties of Dean Saunders. Upon receipt of the requested information, MALPF staff strongly recommended that Mr. Newsome re-appear before the local board to seek approval. The local advisory board re-reviewed the request on November 6, 2006, and recommended approval.

Given the extensive and controversial history of this property, Foundation staff is not making a recommendation to the Board.

On December 13, 2006, Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman, Carol Council, MALPF staff, and Joy Levy, Program Administrator, visited the property. Ms. Council took some pictures of the property, and they were circulated to the Board members.

Howard L. Alderman, Jr., legal representative of Mr. and Mrs. Newsome, and Joy Levy, Program Administrator, were at the Board meeting to answer questions from the Board members. Mr. Alderman informed the Board members that Mr. Newsome was not able to attend the meeting because he was out of town.

Ms. Levy stated that the local Board originally looked at the request in May, 2006, and, based on the limited information provided to them, denied the request. In the interim period, the tenant house application was completed by Mr. Newsome, the information provided was sufficient, and the request was approved for the tenant house.

Mr. Alderman stated that the Covered Bridge Farm property is 132.957 acres. The request is to replace the house which MALPF originally classified as a pre-existing dwelling. The existing house is in a state of disrepair. The former tenants did not maintain the house well.

The new structure will use the same well, septic, and access drive and will be predominantly at the same location as the existing structure with minimum impact on any agricultural activity.

The former tenant was involved with the Covered Bridge Farm’s earlier farming efforts. The venture failed. Mr. and Mrs. Newsome are now converting from general crops to a horse farm.

Mr. Saunders is the current tenant and has moved into the existing house. Mr. Saunders will be responsible for general maintenance, repair, fencing, caring and feeding of the horses, and also will be responsible for the seeding, re-seeding, mowing, and applications of herbicide/fungicide. As part of his compensation, Mr. Saunders will be compensated $50,000 in first year, comprised of his salary and his tenant house accommodation. Mr. Saunders will be directly responsible for payment of all his utilities and the cost of general maintenance and repairs associated with the new house (if permission is given to construct a new house). He is not required to make any immediate repairs to the existing house because of the extent to which repairs are needed. Covered Bridge Farms is responsible for current maintenance under the agreement. Covered Bridge Farms will also pay the real property taxes associated with the house (either existing or the tenant house that will be constructed). Once completed, the existing structure will be demolished completely. At the local advisory board meeting, a question was raised as to how the demolition can be assured.

Mr. Alderman commented the reason demolition is guaranteed is because the local zoning will not permit the house to remain, the easement will not permit it, and the well and the septic to be re-used for the new home will not permit it. Additionally, Covered Bridge Farms is willing to execute a written agreement, if MALPF finds it necessary.

Mr. Newsome travels extensively. He does not have time to maintain the horses, and, therefore, a tenant is needed.

Once Mr. Alderman got involved, he provided the initial information requested by Ms. Levy. The information required in the tenant house application and the additional information required was submitted.

Howard S. Freedlander, representing Treasurer Kopp, wanted to know if one person could run the horse farm. Mr. Alderman commented that the tenant is going to be primarily responsible. The Newsomes have children, and they will be helping out.

Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to confirm that Mr. Saunders lives in the house that is going to be torn down. Mr. Alderman confirmed this. The dwelling the Newsomes are proposing to build would not be allowed to be subdivided from the farm.

Mr. Alderman commented that the new principal residence of the Newsomes is currently going through a subdivision process. The house they are building is not a pre-existing dwelling. When the new dwelling was constructed, it became a dwelling replacing the pre-existing dwelling, and the house became a tenant house. The new dwelling will be a replacement tenant house. In simpler terms, the Newsomes are simply moving a tenant house. The other one is going to be demolished and not subdivided from the farm.

Mr. Conrad wanted to clarify that legally the house that currently exists is the primary residence on the property. It has never been a tenant house (by MALPF’s terminology). As per the agreement, it needs to be demolished upon the completion of the other house. Mr. Conrad wanted to know if the other house has an occupancy permit yet.

Mr. Alderman commented that the Newsome obtained an occupancy permit effective November 1, 2006.

Mr. Conrad commented that the material submitted to Howard County does not indicate the size of the proposed tenant house. One of the regulations governing MALPF requires MALPF to control the size of the tenant house. Mr. Conrad wanted to know the size of the proposed tenant house.

Mr. Alderman stated that he does not know the size and would be happy to get the information to the Board, but he can assure that the house is going to be truly a tenant house.

Mr. Conrad commented that one of the justifications for relocating the primary house was that the Newsomes could not get a perc and had septic issues at the site of the pre-existing dwelling. The new tenant house is going to use the same system. Mr. Conrad wanted to know about the septic situation at the site of the existing main house that was requested to be relocated.

Mr. Alderman stated that septic systems are designed relative to the number of bedrooms in the house. Given the fact that two years back the proposed dwelling had more bedrooms, “as many as 4 or 5 bedrooms,” the existing septic system was deemed to be insufficient. However, it has been deemed to be able to support a house with three bedrooms or less. The initial testing has been done. The existing septic system should work for three bedrooms or less.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know if there are any size restrictions on tenant houses in Howard County.

Ms. Levy responded in negative. At one point in time there were size restrictions on tenant houses, but they are no longer in effect.

Mr. Conrad commented that, in that case, the MALPF size regulations will prevail.

Mr. Colhoun asked Mrs. Schultz for her comments because she had visited the property with Ms. Council and Ms. Levy.

Mrs. Schultz commented that, when they arrived at the farm, a young man in a truck drove up. Ms. Levy introduced Mrs. Schultz and others and informed the young man that they were from MALPF and visiting the farm. The young man said that he was just visiting too. He introduced himself as J. Rushing and said that he was visiting his parents who lived in the house. Mrs. Schultz wanted to know if the young man was Mr. Dean Saunder’s son.

Mr. Alderman responded in the negative and commented that the Rushings had lived there. The Rushings were the former tenants. Mr. Saunders has already begun moving his things in. Mr. Alderman had spoken to Mr. Saunders a couple of weeks ago and was informed that Mr. Saunders has already spent a couple of nights in the house. Mr. Alderman was not sure if the Rushings are completely out of the house or not, but assured the Board members that the Rushings are on their way out. The arrangement between the Covered Bridge Farm and Mr. Rushing is over.

Mr. Tassone commented that the Newsomes are living in the new residence. Mr. Tassone wanted to confirm that the new residence is the relocated pre-existing dwelling approved by MALPF sometime back. Mr. Alderman confirmed in the affirmative.

Mr. Tassone asked Ms. Levy if the new tenant application form submitted to Howard County had some new information, or if the old tenant application submitted was an incomplete application. He wanted to know if the County had some concerns and asked for more information.

Ms. Levy stated that the County wanted additional information because the tenant application form submitted by Newsome had incomplete information.

As a part of a conversation Mr. Alderman had earlier stated that the tenant is going to look after the principal residence and that the tenant is going to help establish the horse business and the sod business. Mr. Colhoun wanted to know if the tenant is a horseman or a sod expert, or is he going to be a grounds keeper.

Mr. Alderman commented that when he stated “general maintenance,” he did not mean for the principal residence. He meant general maintenance of the farm: fences, etc, not general maintenance of the principal structure. Mr. Saunders will be responsible for the farming activities both horse and sod. He did not think Mr. Saunders is a sod expert. Mr. Saunders has been reading and studying and has taken courses on application of herbicides. He has not taken courses on fungicide yet. As he gets into the business, Mr. Saunders hopes to learn a lot of things on-the-job and with extensive courses. Mr. Saunders may not be a rider, but has definitely worked on horse farms before.

Quoting from the e-mail Mr. Newsome sent her on May 3, 2006, Ms. Levy stated, “As with most farms engaged in miscellaneous agricultural uses, we are also in need of a tenant family to assist us in managing the daily upkeep of our farm. My family and I are frequently out of State and are residing in our second home in Naples, Florida, and would like to ensure the property is properly maintained.”

Until the submission of a tenant house application, very little information was provided.

Mrs. Schultz wanted to know if the Board has a history of granting tenant houses based on demonstrated needs or projected needs. Mr. Conrad stated that the Foundation has not distinguished between the two.

Mr. Conrad commented that the farm is made of three parcels and two of the parcels switched some property: about half an acre moved from one parcel to another. Mr. Conrad was curious to know why the parcels have been reconfigured, and wondered if they were being prepared to be subdivided without MALPF’s permission.

Mr. Alderman was not aware of the reason.

For the last couple of years they have leased the cropland out to a farmer who has been cropping. Mr. Conrad wanted to know if that arrangement would be terminated.

Mr. Alderman confirmed that the lease would be terminated.

Mr. Conrad was of the understanding that there are only two horses on the property. Even if the stable is large enough for additional horses at this point, the farm is not a horse operation, but keeping horses for the family. Mr. Conrad wanted to know the intention: was it to develop the operation further with additional stables?

Mr. Alderman answered in affirmative. It is a time of transition; getting the Rushing family out, getting Mr. Dean Saunders in. Once Mr. Saunders is in and starts working, the horse operations can expand. The client’s desire is to expand the operation, and, if the business does well, he may construct additional barns. The initial plan for the first several years is to lease the equipment, and, if it is making money the way they expect, they can start making additional capital investment to move forward. The owner will be funding, and the tenant will be operating.

Mr. Colhoun asked Ms. Council if she had any comments, given that she had also visited the property.

Ms. Council stated that most of the issues have been addressed. Ms. Council wanted to remind the Board that there are two separate requests: 1) approval of a tenant house for Mr. Dean Saunders to live in, and 2) to allow the older pre-existing dwelling to remain until the new one has been constructed. The older pre-existing dwelling is already under an obligation to be demolished as part of the agreement to allow the larger house to have been constructed. They have 180 days from November 1, 2006, to demolish the pre-existing structure under the original contract and MALPF approval. The second part of the request is to allow the house to stand longer than the agreement.

Ms. Council reminded the Board that they are not looking at replacing a tenant house. It is not a tenant house by MALPF standards. It is a pre-existing dwelling, and the MALPF Board has earlier approved the relocation of the pre-existing dwelling.

Mr. Colhoun sought Mrs. Forrester’s opinion.

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services, commented that MALPF Board is going to consider approving a tenant house. The second point to be noted is whether MALPF Board is going to allow the pre-existing dwelling to remain until the tenant house has been completed. The Board may like to institute some parameters in regard to that and also the size of the tenant house to be constructed.

Mr. Alderman commented that the signed agreement with MALPF does say it is within 180 days after issuance of occupancy permit that the existing residence will be removed.

Mr. Doug Wilson recalled the conversation and stated that the agreement was simply their action about replacing an existing dwelling; it did not take away their rights to ask for tenant house sometime in the future.

Responding to a question from the Board member, Mr. Alderman informed the Board that the Newsomes owned the property since May 16, 2001.

Motion #3: To approve the request of Covered Bridge Farm to have a tenant house on the farm to assist its farm business.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

Mr. Conrad reminded the Board about the size guidelines.

Motion #3a: To approve the request of Covered Bridge Farm to have a tenant house on the farm to assist its farm business upon receipt of information from the owner that the size meets MALPF regulations for a tenant house.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Joe Tassone

Status: Approved

Mr. Conrad commented that MALPF guidelines are easement specific. Mr. Doug Wilson commented that MALPF has guidelines that help people making easement adjustments. The Newsomes should not be subject to any additional or fewer restrictions. Whatever staff is doing relating to others, should be applicable in this case.

On the second request, Mr. Doug Wilson found it reasonable to allow the existing tenant to utilize the existing structure and then it be demolished in 180 days after the occupancy permit for the tenant house. However, if Mr. Saunders leaves the farm operation any time before the other house is completed, then the existing dwelling has to be torn down and no other tenant can move in.

The deadline for the existing house to be torn down was decided as December 1, 2007.

Motion #3b: To approve the request of Covered Bridge Farm to have a tenant house on the farm to assist its farm business upon receipt of information from the owner that the size meets MALPF regulations for a tenant house. The existing house must be torn down by December 1, 2007.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Joe Tassone

Status: Approved

B. WASHINGTON COUNTY

1. 21-92-34 Murphy, Mary E. 309.5 acres

Request to re-locate a previously approved 3.0-acre partial termination

Mary Murphy is the original owner of this district property. There are two pre-existing dwellings on the property, and Ms. Murphy has received approval (December 16, 2003) for a 1.0-acre lot exclusion for her son, Arnold. There have been no other requests for lot exclusions, and Ms. Murphy does not own any other MALPF district or easement properties.

The current request is to re-locate the 3.0-acre parcel that was approved on July 25, 2006, for partial termination. This 3.0-acre parcel was to be added to the 1.0 acre already approved as a child’s lot for Ms. Murphy’s son, Arnold. During discussion at the July 25 meeting, the Board expressed some concerns about the location, configuration, and access of the 3.0 acres to be terminated. Although the Board approved the request, the landowner has decided to reconfigure the lot in a way that provides direct access to Dam #4 Road, which goes through the property.

According to Washington County, the revised configuration will have less impact on the farm operation as well as provide direct road access. The land being taken out of production is Class IV woodland. There will be no development rights associated with the 3.0-acre parcel. Staff notes that the 1.0-acre child’s lot was approved prior to the Foundation’s adoption of the Lot Location Guidelines.

Staff maintains a recommendation of approval of this request because it meets the Foundation’s withheld acreage policy and will not result in more than three development rights on the terminated acreage. The remainder of the farm continues to meet the Foundation’s criteria for district establishment.

Eric Seifarth, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Seifarth commented that the request is in response to the Foundation’s recommendations that it would be better to push the lot back on the property. The landowner agreed that it makes more sense and made the request to relocate.

Motion #4: To approve the request of Mary E. Murphy to relocate a previously approved 3.0-acre partial termination.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

2. 21-90-10e Wiles, Charles and Martha 186.88 acres

Review of request to exclude a 1.0-acre child’s lot from easement property for son, Jeffrey A. Wiles

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

Previous approvals on the property have included:

April 23, 1991 - tenant house

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

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

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

On July 25, 2006, the Board tabled the request to exclude the 1.0-acre child’s lot for Jeffrey because it did not meet the Foundation’s Lot Location Guidelines. The Board requested the item not be brought back until either the Wiles or Jeffrey could appear before the Board to explain the chosen location for the lot.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Clustered with farmstead dwellings and buildings; and/or

4. Other

From the aerial that was provided, it appears there would be less impact to the farm operation if the lot could be located closer to the property boundary or clustered with previously approved child’s lots.

Foundation staff maintains its recommendation that the landowner should attempt to locate the lot in an area that conforms to the Foundation’s Lot Location Policy, unless the landowner is able to provide an adequate explanation for the chosen location.

Mr. Wiles and Holly Thibault, Land Preservation Planfner, Washington County, were present at the meeting to answer questions from the Board members.

Mr. Wiles distributed a diagram to the Board members. Mr. Wiles commented that the lot was previously approved for Mr. and Mrs. Wiles and was designated to be the owner’s lot. Mrs. Wiles had health issues and was no longer able to reside on the farm. The smell of manure makes her sick, and, therefore, the couple bought a retirement house in a village. Therefore, the Wiles no longer desire the lot for themselves and would like to transfer it to their son. They have two sons, and the Wiles are entitled to five lots. Mr. Wiles commented that he has requested only three.

Mr. Wiles felt it might not be possible to cluster the lot with the others because it may not perc. Mr. Wiles reiterated that the area where he has designated lot #1 is the least desirable land on the farm.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that, when the request was reviewed last time, the Board was not aware that the Foundation has approved the owner’s lot earlier. The previous request was approved before the Foundation adopted its new Lot Location Policy.

Ms. Council commented that there was an original approval for the owner’s lot. It was prior to the Foundation adopting the new Lot Location Policy. Ms. Council said she was not aware how the owner’s lot came to be located as indicated on the map. However, the MALPF Board previously approved an owner’s lot in this location that has not been used.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the Foundation’s records show that the lot was approved by the MALPF Board in 2002.

Mr. Wiles stated that a preliminary release has been issued for one child’s lot listed here as lot #3.

Ms. Council stated that lot #2 is the approved lot for another child. The lot request for Jeffrey was approved as an owner’s lot years back. The reason why she did not bring up this point earlier was because now the Foundation has a new Lot Location Policy and the request was being treated as a new request.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that, if the owner had constructed a house and then the Foundation had done an inspection, we would have seen that house where the Foundation had approved. Normally, the Foundation would not require the client to relocate under the Foundation’s new guidelines because he has already been through the process.

Mr. Wiles stated that it is his owner’s lot, he is no longer able to use it, and that is the reason he wants to transfer the lot to his son.

Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know where Mr. Wiles currently resides. Mr. Wiles said that he lives in a retirement village and does not need an owner’s lot. He never built a new owner’s home on the property.

Mr. Doug Wilson suggested that Mr. Wiles could redesignate the prior approved lot location for one of his children. Mr. Wiles is entitled to do that. In that scenario, the request need not follow the Foundation’s new Lot Location guidelines.

Mr. Conrad asked Ms. Thibault if the County requires fee simple access or does it allow a right-of-way easement. Ms. Thibault stated that the County prefers to have right-of-way.

Motion #5: To approve the request of Martha and Charles Wiles for a redesignation of the prior-approved owner’s lot as a child’s lot. The farm owner will be allowed to cross the right-of-way driveway for farm operations.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

Mr. Joe Tassone suggested that, in future, when the requests seem not to be consistent with the Foundation’s Lot Location guidelines, Program Administrator, MALPF staff or a Board member should visit the property to review the location. Sometimes the difference may be superficial, and, in reality, they may not be different from the Foundation’s Lot Location guidelines.

3. 21-98-11e Kendle, Lynn B. and Paula A. 129.00 acres

Request to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot from easement property for son, Benjamin S. Kendle

Mr. and Mrs. Kendle are the original owners of the easement property. The property has one pre-existing dwelling. There have been no previous request for lot exclusions, and the Kendles do not own any other district or easement properties. The current request is for exclusion of a 1.0-acre child’s lot for their son, Benjamin.

According to Washington County, the proposed lot will be located in what is currently woodland and consists of group 2 woodland soils. Access will be by a panhandle to the county road. Impact to the overall farm operation will be minimal.

The request has been approved by the local advisory board and meets Planning and Zoning requirements. If the request is approved, payback will be $1,790.00.

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

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

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

3. Clustered with farmstead dwellings and buildings; and/or

4. Other

From the aerial that was provided, it appears there would be less impact to the farm operation if the lot could be located adjacent to the area containing the pre-existing dwelling and farm buildings, closer to the property boundary and Ruble Road, or clustered with developed lots located along the western and eastern borders of the property.

Foundation staff recommends that the landowner attempt to locate the lot in an area that conforms to the Foundation’s Lot Location Policy, unless an adequate explanation can be provided for the chosen location.

Mr. Kendle and Ms. Holly Thibault, Land Preservation Planner, Washington County, were present at the meeting to answer questions from the Board members.

Mr. Kendle informed the Board members that he purchased the farm in 1997 and does not have a farm operation on the farm. Soon they would like to establish one. Mr. Kendle lives on another farm and would like to build a house for Benjamin on this farm. The proposed location is on the edge of the woods, the driveway to the house follows the tree line, and nothing grows under the trees. Eventually they need to demolish the other buildings on the farm because they are not usable. No one lives in the house.

Motion #6: To approve the request of Lynn B. and Paula A. Kendle to exclude up to 2.0 acres for a child’s lot from easement property for son, Benjamin S. Kendle.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander

Status: Approved

C. ST. MARY’S COUNTY

1. 18-85-03e Magnani, Donald and Delores 123.122 acres

Request to exclude a 1.0-acre child’s lot from easement property for daughter, Adele Cristes Magnani

Mr. and Mrs. Magnani are the original owners of the easement property. The property has one pre-existing dwelling. There have been no previous requests for lot exclusions, and the Magnanis do not own any other district or easement properties. The current request is for exclusion of a 1.0-acre child’s lot for their daughter, Adele.

According to St. Mary’s County, the proposed lot will be located in what is currently cropland. Access will be via an existing farm road. Impact to the overall farm operation will be minimal.

The request was approved by the local advisory board, and Planning and Zoning approval is pending. If the request is approved, payback will be $500.00.

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

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

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

3. Clustered with farmstead dwellings and buildings; and/or

4. Other

From the aerial that was provided, it appears the lot will be located in an area near the pre-existing dwelling and along existing access roads.

Foundation staff recommends the request for a 1.0-acre child’s lot be approved because it conforms to the Foundation’s Lot Location Policy.

Donna Sasscer, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board members.

Motion #7: To approve the request of Donald and Delores Magnani to exclude a 1.0-acre child’s lot from easement property for daughter, Adele Cristes Magnani.

Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: James Pelura

Status: Approved

D. HARFORD COUNTY

1. 12-90-05 Sanborn, David L. and Mary L. 118.50 acres

Request for two child’s lots on easement property

Mr. and Mrs. Sanborn are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is for approval of the release of up to two acres for two child’s lots for the personal use of their daughters, Julia and Elizabeth.

There are two pre-existing dwellings on the property. No other lots have been approved on the property. The Sanborns do not own any other district or easement properties.

According to Harford County, the lots are located along the road with direct access to the road. The lots are clustered with existing lots on an adjacent property.

The request was approved by the advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If approved, there will be a required payback of $2,750.00 per acre to the Foundation for the lots.

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. The location of the lots is consistent with the Foundation’s lot location guidelines.

Mr. Sanborn and Bill Amoss, Program Administrator, were available at the Board meeting to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Amoss stated that it is a very straightforward request. The County board looked at the possibility of trying to preserve as much cropland as possible. However, after speaking with the engineers and the Health Department, it was clear that the location that the advisory board preferred would not perc, and, therefore, the board approved the two lot locations shown on the maps.

Mr. Colhoun stated that he appreciated Mr. Sanborn attending the meeting.

Motion #8: To approve the request of David L. Sanborn and Mary L. Sanborn for two child’s lots on easement property.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

2. 12-90-08 Hicks, William T. Jr., and Pattie L. 70.98 acres

Request for a child’s lot on easement property

Mr. and Mrs. Hicks 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 daughter, Kelly.

There are three pre-existing dwellings on the property. No other lots have been approved on the property. The Hicks do not own any other district or easement properties.

According to Harford County, two locations were chosen for the lot. Location #1 (aerial map attached with staff memo) is clustered with existing dwellings and farm structures and is located approximately 300’ back from the road. Location #2 is located along the road in a corner of the property (no clustering). The advisory board recommended location #1 because the dwellings are clustered and the visual integrity of the farm is maintained. The county requires a 25’ in fee access. Will Doane, Assistant Program Administrator, is checking with the county’s development review board to determine if the 25’ in fee strip could be waived.

Mr. Bill Amoss, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting and clarified that the 25’ fee strip cannot be waived because it is a subdivision regulation. However, the county’s development review board recommended looking at the private road agreement with farms so that they can use the same existing driveway.

The request was approved by the advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If approved, there will be a required payback of $2,291.71 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. The location of the lot is consistent with the Foundation’s lot location guidelines. If approved, and the in fee access is required, the plat should record an easement over the driveway to provide the operator of the farm the right to cross the driveway for agricultural use.

Mr. Conrad reminded the Board members about the two options: lot location #1 and lot location #2.

Mr. Hicks was available at the Board meeting to answer any questions from the Board members. Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know if there would be any impediment if lot location #1 doesn’t work for him. Mr. Hicks stated that the reason he chose two locations is because he has not perced either of the locations and wanted to have an alternative location in case the other one does not perc.

Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Amoss if the county advisory board approved just one location or both. Mr. Amoss confirmed that the county advisory board approved both locations. However the county advisory board preferred location #1.

Motion #9: To approve the request of William T., Jr., and Pattie L. Hicks for a child’s lot on easement property with lot location #1 as a primary choice. If lot location #1 does not perc, lot location #2 is approved.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Chris Wilson

Status: Approved

3. 12-85-06B Estate of Howard N. Harrison 76.38 acres

Request for the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling on easement property

Howard N. Harrison was the original grantor of the easement. The current request, made on behalf of the estate by Brenda Maresh, executrix of the estate, is to relocate an existing dwelling on the easement property.

The original pre-existing dwelling burned down in 2003. Ms. Maresh is requesting approval to relocate the lot to the back of the property and proposes to return the existing dwelling site to pasture.

Ms. Maresh states that the estate wants to move the dwelling from the existing site for the following reasons:

· The original dwelling is located on the edge of a bank

· Water runs off from the driveway to the yard

· Difficult to access in winter weather

· Difficult to get a fire truck to the site

· Location next to barn poses fire hazard (barn fire caused house fire in 2003)

· Steep terrain makes maintenance of a lawn difficult

According to Harford County, the current existing dwelling lot is located in close proximity to farm buildings. The proposed lot would be located in cropland along the property line at the rear of the property.

The current location contains a combination of class II (GnA) and class III (CcC2) soils (aerial map including a soils overlay attached with staff memo). The proposed location contains class II soils (CcB2).

A letter from the Soil Conservation District Conservationist regarding the feasibility of the landowner's plan to restore the site to agricultural use indicates that the land could be restored to pasture.

The proposed relocation site would be accessed through an existing farm lane. Staff has requested clarification from the county regarding the distance from the road and the proposed lot and the type of access that will be required by the county.

The Harford County Advisory Board recommended approval of the request because it found that the relocation of the dwelling “would have a minimal impact on the farming operation.” However, according to Bill Amoss, Program Administrator, the Department of Planning and Zoning “does have concern with the conversion of some of the best cropland on the farm to a home site and driveway, all of which already exists at the current site.”

Foundation staff has concerns about the proposed relocation because the replacement dwelling would be located in the rear of the property and the access would cut through the farm. While the proposed access is currently used as a farm lane, residential use could have a far more detrimental impact to the agricultural use of the property. Additionally, the soils on the proposed relocation site are superior to the soils at the existing site. If the Board approves the request, the approval should be conditional upon making the replacement dwelling lot non-subdividable from the easement property. Additionally, the approval should be conditional upon returning the original dwelling site to agricultural use, including the removal of all above ground debris from the site. If the Foundation approves the request, the Harrison estate 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.

Note: Foundation staff has communicated to Harford 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 asked the County staff to contact the landowners to ascertain if they would consider making the lot non-subdividable.

Ms. Brenda Maresh, executrix of the estate, was not able to attend the meeting due to health issues and was represented by her husband, Timothy Maresh, and daughter, Amanda Zapora. Mr. Bill Amoss, Program Administrator, was also available at the Board meeting.

Mr. Conrad wanted to know about the access required by the County, and whether the County would allow the house to be subdivided.

Mr. Amoss stated that, if it was to be subdivided, the owner has to have a fee strip from the public road.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that normally the MALPF Board does not approve pre-existing dwellings, because the owner has the right to subdivide the dwelling from the farm. In this case, if the client wants to retain the subdivision right, the access must be included in the acreage.

Mr. Amoss stated that the Department of Planning and Zoning had a concern with the request because the proposed relocation is in the middle of the field. The County Board reviewed the request and understood that there are some drainage problems. The county board did approve the relocation request. Harford County is very strict on requiring a 25-foot in-fee strip even with 2-acre lots.

Amanda Zapora informed the Board members that they would like to have a windmill and also a geothermal heating system for the new house, and the acre on the new location would provide an adequate layout for that.

Ms. Zapora and Mr. Maresh stated that the family would be willing to make the lot non-subdividable.

Motion #10: To approve the request of the Estate of Howard N. Harrison to relocate the pre-existing dwelling on easement property with a provision that it will not be subdivided.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

E. FREDERICK COUNTY

1. 10-97-01 Doody, Robert A. and Sherri 93.00 acres

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

The Doodys are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is to relocate a previously approved child’s lot.

On September 26, 2006, the Foundation approved two child’s lots and an owner’s lot on the property. The approved child’s lots were located immediately adjacent to one another in a corner along edge of the property. The owner’s lot was located in another corner of the property, adjacent to a subdivided lot. The landowners wish to relocate one of the child’s lots to a location immediately adjacent to the approved owner’s lot.

According to Frederick County, the request is being made because the proposed location will require fewer road improvements for which the landowners would bear the financial cost. It is anticipated that the other child will request a relocation of the remaining lot at some point in the future.

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

Foundation staff recommends the relocation of the lot because the new locations follow the Foundation’s lot location guidelines.

Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Staff, informed the Board members that Anne Bradley, Agricultural Preservation Planner, could not attend the meeting due to health issues. Tim Blaser, Program Administrator, could not attend the meeting because he had to attend the Frederick County Commissioners meeting.

Board members expressed concern about instances when lots have been approved by the Board and there are gaps in the sequences. There have been instances when lots have been approved which are adjacent to one another, but one lot is not executed.

Mr. Conrad stated that in this instance there is no orphan inaccessible property being created, and, therefore, he is not concerned.

Motion #11: To approve the request of Robert A. and Sherri Doody to relocate the child’s lot on easement property.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: James Pelura

Status: Approved

2. 10-86-01 Estate of Mary E. Wood 256.77 acres

Request for an agricultural subdivision of easement property

Ms. Wood (deceased) was the original grantor of the easement. The current request, made on behalf of the estate by Susan W. Wilson, daughter of Ms. Wood and personal representative, is for an agricultural subdivision of the farm. The request is being made to settle the estate. The property is being divided between Ms. Wilson and her brother into two 128-acre parcels.

Currently, 100 acres are tillable, 10 acres are pastureland, and approximately 150 acres are woodland. Ms. Wilson and her husband currently reside in the main dwelling on the property. Ms. Wilson’s brother owns a dwelling on the property that was subdivided from the main farm prior to sale of the easement.

Ms. Wilson and her husband, who have rented the property from her mother since 1998, currently operate a vineyard on the property. They have seven acres in grapes, employing two field workers in the spring and fall. Ms. Wilson intends to expand her vineyard because her research indicates it has the potential to generate the highest income of any crops in the area. Additionally, her son has indicated an interest in becoming involved in the management of the operation. Ms. Wilson’s brother intends to operate a separate livestock operation on his portion of the property. According to the Maryland Cooperative Extension, the average small beef cattle operation in Frederick County typically comprises 50 acres.

Ms. Wilson and her brother plan to follow the guidelines outlined in the property’s Forest Stewardship Plan and expect to timber the forest at some point in the future. Additionally, they intend to grow cover crops, establish forest buffers, and improve wetlands and stream banks.

The request indicates that the partition follows various natural boundaries. However, the boundaries are not obvious on the aerials provided with the request. There was insufficient time, due to the short lead time for this month’s agenda, to get clarification of the proposed boundaries.

Both parcels meet the minimum qualifying soils criteria. The Department of Assessments and Taxation has indicated that both parcels would continue to qualify for agricultural use assessment, provided at least 20% of the land is actively farmed.

There are a few unresolved access issues associated with the property. The farm is located adjacent to an interstate (I70), and legal access to the property has not been fully resolved. Ms. Wilson’s brother’s lot (indicated on the aerial as “Existing Subdivision Panhandle Lot Pre-easement”) cuts through the portion of the farm that Ms. Wilson will be retaining. County staff has indicated a concern that the proposed subdivision will not meet the county’s subdivision requirements. However, the subdivision regulations contain an exception for partition of lands by will or court action. The county attorney indicated that he believes that the county will need to review the will to make a determination. Foundation staff inquired about postponing the request until such issues may be resolved. However, Ms. Wilson indicated to county staff that she wants the Foundation request to move forward.

The request was approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations (with the possible exception of the access issues). The advisory board’s approval was contingent on the satisfactory resolution of the county subdivision issues.

Foundation staff recommends approval of the request based on meeting minimum soils and size criteria. Furthermore, both parcels have the ability to support viable farming operations. The approval should be contingent on the resolution of the issues associated with adequate access. Additionally, the approval should be contingent on the placement of an easement over Ms. Wilson’s brother’s driveway that would guarantee the ability of the operator of the farm to cross the driveway for agricultural use.

Susan W. Wilson and her husband, Howard Wilson, were present at the Board meeting to answer questions from the Board.

Ms. Wilson informed the Board members that the farm has been in the family for eight generations and gave an overview of the farming operations. Both Ms. Wilson and her brother want to configure the property so they can support viable agricultural operations on both parcels. Additionally, they want to have the ability to request tenant houses on both parcels.

In terms of other criteria, they considered strategic areas and aesthetic and environmental factors. Grapes have special microclimate requirements, such as the right soil, the right rain direction, etc. The farm has a forest stewardship plan which they intend to continue to implement.

Ms. Wilson located the outline of the property, of the farm, and the access road. The county also built an access road to the farm, and the road was upgraded in 1999. Ms. Wilson informed the Board members that the property has an underground AT&T line.

A Board member asked about the unresolved access issue.

Ms. Wilson stated that she realized what the issue was after talking with the County Attorney. If this subdivision were ever sold to someone else, it would not have adequate access. They have an existing farm road that is used to get to the back field. Ms. Wilson and her brother decided to shift the common line over so that the access issue would be resolved. Ms. Wilson demonstrated the revised configuration to the Board.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that Ms. Wilson’s brother’s lot is subdivided currently from the easement. It is not covered by the easement. If the Foundation approves the subdivision, there would be no housing rights associated with the southern portion of the property, with the exception of a tenant house. There would be no other homestead properties on that portion of the farm.

Mrs. Forrester stated that there is a second pre-existing dwelling adjacent to the brother’s house on the southern side. Ms. Wilson currently resides in the main house that is part of the farm and is on the northern part of the property. It is currently not subdivided, but could be in the future. Because the original owners of the easement did not convey child’s lots, there would be no other housing opportunities other than two pre-existing dwellings.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that, if Ms. Wilson came to the Foundation at a later date and wanted to subdivide the pre-existing dwellings on either property, the Foundation would approve them. At that time there would be no dwellings associated with the farm.

Mr. Conrad asked Ms. Wilson to locate her brother’s dwelling and the access on the map.

Mr. Colhoun commented that the aerial map displayed by Ms. Wilson clearly depicts their intention. Mr. Conrad asked Ms. Wilson to forward a copy of the revised map to the Foundation.

Mr. Joe Tassone commented that the boundary line on the map does not establish whether the second pre-existing dwelling is going to be part of the northern half or the southern half of the farm. Mr. Colhoun asked if MALPF staff would need to know where the second pre-existing dwelling is located. Mr. Conrad stated that, until the issue is resolved, it would be indicated as “unresolved” in the records of the Foundation. Resolving the issue will be to the benefit of Ms. Wilson and her brother. Neither one of them can claim it without the consent of the other.

Ms. Wilson stated that it would be determined with the final court order, when new metes and bounds are established.

Motion #12: To approve the request of the Estate of Mary E. Wood for an agricultural subdivision of easement property.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander

Status: Approved

F. GARRETT COUNTY

1. 11-91-02 Wilhelm, Gilbert, Sr. and Mary A. 270.49 acres

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

Mr. and Mrs. Wilhelm are the original grantors of easement. The current request is for approval to exchange 4 acres of easement property for 4 acres of non-easement property. (This item was originally scheduled for the September and November, 2006, meetings, but was tabled because no one was present to represent the landowner or county.)

The Wilhelms withheld three areas comprising 36.175 acres from the district/easement. The areas included a 4-acre parcel, an 8-acre parcel and a 24.175–acre parcel. Mr. and Mrs. Wilhelm are requesting approval to remove 4 acres surrounding barns and a riding arena from the easement. In exchange, they propose to add a 4-acre parcel (half of the 8-acre parcel withheld from the easement) to the easement.

Mr. and Mrs. Wilhelm are making the request because they are experiencing financial hardship due to heavy capital investment in the barn and arena. They are unable to pay the mortgage.

According to Garrett County, both the area to be removed and the area to be added contain Class III soils. The area that would be added back to the easement is woodland.

Mr. Wilhelm informed MALPF staff that he would use the barn and arena area for an animal clinic. Foundation staff informed Mr. Wilhelm that the Foundation’s Board would want further information about the proposed clinic prior to considering his request. Apart from the MALPF request, the county planning and zoning office has not been approached about Mr. Wilhelm’s proposed use of the property. Foundation staff asked John Nelson, Director, Garrett County Planning and Zoning, if access would be an issue for Mr. Wilhelm’s proposed use as a clinic. Mr. Nelson stated that there is no zoning in this area of the county, and, therefore, there are no specific requirements for access.

The acreage exchange was approved by the local advisory board and is consistent with local zoning regulations. A minority of the advisory board recommended that Mr. Wilhelm should add 6 acres to the easement.

Staff recommends that the Board request that Mr. Wilhelm provide more details about his plans for the barn and arena. The 4-acre area that would be removed is located in the center of the property; an undesirable use may negatively impact the future agricultural use of the easement property. The Board may wish to ask if Mr. Wilhelm would consider exchanging the entire 8-acre parcel as an exchange for the four acres. If approved, Foundation approval should be contingent on a satisfactory review by the Office of Real Estate, Department of General Services, for a determination of the impact of the proposed exchange on the value of the easement.

Mr. Gilbert Wilhelm and his son, Mr. Brian Wilhelm, were available at the Board meeting to answer questions from the Board members.

Mr. Gilbert Wilhelm stated that they are updating their arena. They would like to do that because they would like to have people stay there for a few days with their horses. They train and board horses from places such as Alabama, Maryland, etc. They would like to open clinics, have bull riding, training, etc.

Mr. Tassone wanted to know about the status of the uses committee. Mr. Doug Wilson asked if the uses proposed by Wilhelms fall under the guidelines. Mr. Freedlander, Chair, Equine Committee, stated that the report is not yet finalized.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the uses proposed by Mr. Wilhelm mostly looked like agricultural uses allowed on easement properties, except bull riding. Mr. Wilhelm is proposing a number of uses; some of them may not be purely related to agricultural activities. Mr. Doug Wilson believed there is a need to study the uses.

Mr. Colhoun commented that much of what Mr. Wilhelm described is under consideration by the Equine Committee, but some of the things described probably would not be permissible under a MALPF easement. Mr. Colhoun stated that Mr. Wilhelm has the opportunity to wait and see the proceedings of the Equine Committee. Mr. Wilhelm can compare his proposed uses with the Committee’s findings and then decide.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that Mr. Wilhelm had withheld 8 acres when he established the district. The withheld acreage is in the center of the farm. Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know about the activities undertaken in the withheld acres. Mr. Wilhelm stated that it is a wooded area and currently there are no activities. Mr. Wilhelm has 4 sons and 2 daughters and had reserved the area for his children, possibly as future lots for his children. He stated that he may subdivide the property in the future.

Mr. Conrad commented that it is very typical of Garrett County in the way it approaches child’s lots. Garrett County has a tradition of withholding acreage instead of asking for child’s lots.

Mr. Doug Wilson asked if Mr. Wilhelm is considering subdivision of the farm, where would his son’s house be located? Mr. Wilhelm stated that his son wants to have his house up to 200 feet from the arena.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that, as Mr. Wilhelm considers subdividing the farm and establishing 100 acres in his name, he needs to inform MALPF staff as to when he wants to give his son a child’s lot. Mr. Doug Wilson wanted Mr. Wilhelm to be in touch with MALPF staff and did not want him to do things out of sequence that might lose him his lot rights.

Mr. Tassone was concerned that the 4-acre area is in the middle of the property and can be under anyone’s control in the future.

Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Wilhelm if he would like to withdraw his request and come back at a later date. He can use this time to discuss alternative scenarios with the staff. MALPF staff could visit the farm. The Equine Committee will also be ready with its suggestions on allowable uses. This will help in coming up with a better plan, and Mr. Wilhelm can make a more informed decision.

Mr. Wilhelm agreed to withdraw the request.

Mr. Conrad stated that Mr. Wilhelm could be in touch with Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF staff, and John Nelson, Program Administrator, Garrett County, to discuss the details. Mr. Colhoun stated that MALPF staff would visit the farm.

III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS

A. Charles County

1. 08-07-12 Hill, James E. 62.395 acres

This is a 62.395-acre parcel located north of Poor House Farm Drive in the town of Port Tobacco. It is contiguous to a MALPF district property. There is one dwelling. The farm has 43.395 acres of cropland, 12 acres of woodland, and 7 acres of wetland. The primary farming operation is grain. It has 95% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated.

2. 08-07-13 Olson, Terry Lee and Kirstie Marie 119.75 acres

This is a 119.75-acre parcel located in the town of Nanjemoy. There is one dwelling. The farm has 55 acres of cropland, 50 acres of woodland, and 14.75 acres of wetland. The primary farming operation is grain and forestry. It has 81% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated. The property has forest stewardship plan.

3. 08-07-14 Golden, Walter M., et al. 96.0 acres

This is a 96-acre parcel located in the north of Ironsides Road in the town of Nanjemoy. There is one dwelling. The farm has 69 acres of cropland and 20 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry. It has 74% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated.

4. 08-07-15 Herbert, Sr., Charles Fred 33.032 acres

This is a 33.032-acre parcel located in the south of Ironsides Road in the town of Nanjemoy. There is no dwelling. The farm has 33.032 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry. It has 79% qualifying soils. It is part of a larger operation and is owner operated. The owner has withheld 6.75 acres representing two development rights. The property has forest stewardship plan.

5. 08-07-16 Herbert, Sr., Charles Fred 10.0 acres

This is a 10-acre parcel located in the west of Fire Tower Road in the town of Welcome. There is no dwelling. The farm has 10 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is part of a larger operation and is owner operated.

6. 08-07-17 Rice, Robert J., and Nancy D. 61.925 acres

This is a 61.925-acre parcel located in the west of Roland Road in the town of Rock Point. There is no dwelling. The farm has 61.925 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated. The property has a forest stewardship plan.

7. 08-07-18 Rice, Robert J. and Nancy D. 38.59 acres

This is a 38.59-acre parcel located in the west of Roland Road in the town of Rock Point. There is no dwelling. The farm has 18 acres of cropland and 20.59 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry and grain. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is part of a larger operation and is owner operated. The property has forest stewardship plan. 8.0 acres are being withheld, representing two development rights.

Staff recommends approval.

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

Mrs. Schultz had a question regarding the property of James E. Hill (08-07-15). Mrs. Schultz wanted to know about the flag stem lot. Mr. Rice stated that it encompasses the existing dwelling, and Charles County requires a 12½ feet right-of-way for access.

Mr. Colhoun left the room for a couple of minutes and requested Mrs. Schultz to take over as Chair.

Motion #13: To approve the request of James E. Hill, Terry Lee and Kirstie Marie Olson, Walter M. Golden et al., Charles F. Herbert, Sr., Robert J. and Nancy D. Rice to establish agricultural land preservation districts on their respective properties.

Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: Joe Tassone

Status: Approved

Mr. Colhoun returned to the meeting and took over as Chair.

B. Garrett County

1. 11-07-01 Kern, Charles E. and Heidi A. 121.55 acres

This is a 121.55-acre parcel located in Mason School Road in the community of Redhouse. It is contiguous with easement property. There is one dwelling. The farm has 35.2 acres of cropland, 27.3 acres of pasture, and 56.9 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is beef cattle and hay. It has 53.4% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated. The forest stewardship plan is in process. One acre is withheld for a future home site.

2. 11-07-02 Evans, Dale E. and Shirley J. 162.73 acres

This is a 162.73-acre parcel located in Deer Park Hotel Road in Deer Park. There is one dwelling. The farm has 45.5 acres of cropland, 55 acres of pasture, 52.5 acres of woodland, and 2.83 acres of wetland. The primary farming operation is beef cattle, hay and row crops. It has 94.57% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated. One acre has been withheld for school bus parking.

Staff recommends landowners acquire a forest stewardship plan.

3. 11-07-03 Devine Irrevocable Trust 114.6 acres

This is a 114.6-acre parcel located in Bear Creek Road in the community of Accident. There is no dwelling. The farm has 37 acres of cropland, 71.7 acres of woodland, and 5.9 acres of wetland. The primary farming operation is corn. It has 67.41% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated.

Staff recommends that the landowners acquire a forest stewardship plan.

4. 11-07-04 Broadwater, Gary E. and Virginia L. 260.57 acres

This is a 260.57-acre parcel located on Brobst Road in the community of Accident. There is one dwelling. The farm has 93 acres of cropland, 52.6 acres of pasture, and 109.6 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is beef cattle. It has 50.3% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated. One acre is withheld for a family cemetery.

Staff recommends landowners acquire a forest stewardship plan.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that he was concerned about the one acre withheld for school bus parking on the Dale E. and Shirley J. Evans property (11-07-02). He was concerned that, if there is a school bus operation, they may have shops, or they may just use the area for parking. In the event they did not exclude the acreage for the bus parking, and they came in for an easement, the Foundation would buy the easement subject to the bus operation already being there on the easement property. If the Foundation buys an easement with the current business already in place, and then they decide not to run the school buses, the property will have an excluded acreage in the middle of the farm.

Ms. Weaver stated that Mr. John Nelson, Program Administrator, Garrett County, asked how he should handle the bus operation. She advised that school bus parking is not currently recognized as an allowable use, and she had recommended that the landowners exclude the acreage. Mr. Doug Wilson agreed with the recommendation. He commented that once the landowners exclude acreage, they could sell the acreage to anybody for any purposes.

Mrs. Forrester was concerned about the location of the excluded acreage, as it was in the middle of the farm.

Mr. Tassone agreed that the Foundation should have a mechanism to deal with such situations.

Mr. Conrad commented that this is one of the areas where Rural Legacy has a better approach for handling such situations. They are referred to as building envelopes. There are certain types of certified restricted uses, and the area is still under the control of the easement. The Board may like to look at this option as an alternative in the future.

Motion #14: To approve the request of Charles E. and Heidi A. Kern, Dale E. and Shirley J. Evans, Devine Irrevocable Trust, and Gary E. and Virginia L. Broadwater to establish agricultural land preservation districts on their respective properties with appropriate recommendations.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Joe Tassone

Status: Approved

C. Wicomico County

1. 22-07-01 Calloway, William T., et al. 52.70 acres

This is a 52.70-acre parcel located on Athol Road in the community of Athol. There is no dwelling. The farm has 52.7 acres of cropland. The primary farming operation is grain. It has 80% qualifying soils. It is part of a larger operation and is owner operated.

Gloria Smith, Program Administrator, was available to answer questions from the Board members.

Motion #15: To approve the request of William T. Calloway to establish an agricultural land preservation district on his property.

Motion: Pat Langenfelder Second: Chris Wilson

Status: Approved

D. Queen Anne’s County

1. 17-07-03 Haines, Charles E., and Frances M. 353.65 acres

This is a 353.65-acre parcel located in Felton School Road, east of Sudlersville. There is one dwelling. The farm has 222.2 acres of cropland and 128.5 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is grain. It has 84.2% qualifying soils. It is part of a larger operation and is not owner operated.

Staff recommends landowners acquire a forest stewardship plan.

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

Motion #16: To approve the request of Charles E. and Frances M. Haines to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their property with the appropriate recommendation.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Howard Freedlander

Status: Approved

IV. PROGRAM POLICY

A. Wetland Mitigation Easement Policy

Due to paucity of time, this agenda item was deferred till January 2007.

V. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION

A. Presentation – Washington County Re-Certification

Mr. Conrad informed the Board that this is an informational item and is not ready for a vote. The Foundation is waiting for approval of its recommendations.

Mr. Seifarth, Program Administrator, briefed the Board members that the County completed its rural comprehensive rezoning and is working with Maryland Department of Planning to update its financial numbers.

Mr. Seifarth circulated a handout to the Board members outlining the County’s goal for its land preservation programs: MALPF, Rural Legacy, TEA-21, Farm Ranch Protection Program, Installment Payment Program, GreenPrint, Land Trusts, and a TDR Program under development.

Washington County does not bid competitively and is buying relatively high priced easements. It paid an average of $3,808 in FY 05, and this has more than doubled in FY 06 based on 16 appraisals.

The County had a significant downzoning in 2005. While County staff had initially suggested a 1:20 zoning, the County Commissioners decided on 3-tier system of 1:5, 1:20 and 1:30 with certain lot exemptions.

The County had about six cases related to its “Right to Farm” ordinance, but none of them had any merit; they were mainly property owner disputes. The County had not addressed one single legitimate “Right to Farm” case, though the ordinance has been in effect for the last two years.

Holly Thibault, Land Preservation Planner, informed the Board members about the recommendations of the County Commissioners:

Currently the County has 21000 acres as the overall county preserved areas with a goal of 57000 acres under permanent preservation.

1. The County has a timetable to achieve the goal of 50,000 acres in permanent easements by 2020. With easement values averaging $7,748 per acre in today’s dollars, and considering even modest inflation, nearly $1/4 Billion would be required to reach this goal. Either the date of completion will need to be moved back, or additional workable programs will need to be considered.

2. Continue to maximize all matching funds programs (MALPF, FRPP, TEA-21).

3. Complete priority ranking system with the Ag Board, implementing new LESA soils evaluation system and points system to allow for building large blocks of permanent preservation.

4. Continue to work with Land Trusts to acquire donated easements.

5. Finalize selection of consultant and then work with consultant, Ag Board, Real Estate community, landowners, developers, Water and Sewer Department, Planning staff and other counties to design a TDR program that will help to preserve prime agricultural land, and allow for adequate compensation for equity.

Mr. Seifarth stated that the County had ten times more applicants than the County had money available.

Mr. Conrad asked if the County has engaged in discussion about the most logical place to put priority preservation area. Mr. Seifarth responded in affirmative and said the County has been in discussion for more than a year. The priority ranking system is working effectively. The first ten on the list are contiguous to other blocks. So the County is trying to build around the priority preservation areas.

Mr. Colhoun thanked the County Administrators for their presentation.

B. Howard County – an update by Ms. Joy Levy, Program Administrator

Ms. Levy informed the Board members that a letter was sent to property owners eligible to enter the County program. The letter indicated the dates of the application period and informed the property owners that the County Council had recently approved increasing maximum offers to $40,000 per acre. The property owners were also informed about the County’s decision to offer alternatives to the 30-year installment purchase agreement (IPA) that the County has used exclusively since 1989. The County will be offering cash settlements and a shorter-term IPA as well. The County is trying to be competitive with what developers are offering.

The County received four solid applications. One farm in particular is a high priority for acquisition, being 170 acres and surrounded by other protected lands.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that consultants have always felt that, for IPAs to be worthwhile, they should have a 20- to 30-year time frame.

Ms. Levy stated that for many years, the 30-year IPA was very attractive to Howard County farmers. However, in recent conversations with targeted property owners, it was suggested that shortening the IPA time frame would make the County’s program more appealing.

Mr. Colhoun asked about the future compliance with the certification request.

Ms. Levy stated that one of the conditions was that the County takes measures to increase acquisition activity, which it has done. This will hopefully prove successful. The other suggestions were to make changes to the zoning in the Rural West, including enhancements to the density-sending program to increase its effectiveness at preserving land. The County attempted to make these changes, but there was not much support. Ms. Levy stated that she is unsure what direction the new administration will want to take regarding meeting the certification conditions.

Mr. Colhoun extended an offer of help from MALPF and asked Ms. Levy to let MALPF staff know if she needs any support.

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

Motion #17: To adjourn regular session.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Doug Wilson

Status: Approved

The regular session of the Board meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:30 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

_____________________________________

Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary

__________________________________

James A. Conrad, Executive Director