MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun,
Chairman
Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman
Howard S. Freedlander, representing Treasurer Nancy Kopp
Jerry Klasmeier,
representing Comptroller Peter Franchot
Robert F. Stahl, Jr.
Joe Tassone,
representing Secretary Richard E. Hall, Department of Planning
Christopher H. Wilson
Doug Wilson, representing Secretary
Roger L. Richardson, Department of Agriculture
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Pat Langenfelder
Judith C. Lynch
Dr. James Pelura
Shirley W. Pilchard
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bill Amoss,
John Boniface, Landowner,
Tammy Buckle,
Pam Bush, Department of Natural
Resources, senior Policy Analyst
Bill Clark, District Manager, Calvert
Soil Conservation District
James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive
Director
Carol Council, MALPF Administrator
William Doane,
Jr.,
Franklin Dill,
Rama Dilip,
MALPF Secretary
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of General Services
Sibbald C. Hereth,
Landowner,
Joy Levy,
Wally Lippincott,
Ed Lippy, Landowner,
Carla Martin,
Ellen S. Miller, Landowner,
Lynn Miller,
Wayne L. Morris, Director, Kent
County Department of Water and Wastewater Services
Craig Nielsen, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of Agriculture
Barbara Polito,
Mr. & Mrs. Richard
Price, Landowners,
Charles Rice,
Daniel Rosen, Planner, Maryland
Department of Planning
Donna Sasscer,
St. Mary's County, Program Administrator
Eric Shertz,
Martin Sokolich,
Donna K. Landis-Smith, Queen Anne's
County, Program Administrator
Gloria Smith,
Brian Tyson, Landowner,
Jenny Plummer-Welker,
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF
Administrator
Susan Wilson, Landowner,
Daniel Colhoun,
Chairman, called the meeting to order at approximately
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
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
Jerry Klasmeier,
representing Comptroller Peter Franchot, commented
that the preparation of minutes is a hard task and Ms. Rama
Dilip, Foundation Secretary, does a remarkable job.
B. ADDITIONS
OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
II.F.1
11-91-02
Wilhelm,
Gilbert, Sr., & Mary A.
03-81-07 Armacost,
Wayne L. & Page
(Hickory Hill Farms,
Inc.)
Request
for the exclusion of a child's lot on easement property.
James
Conrad, Executive Director of the Foundation,
announced the resignation of a Board member, Shirley Pilchard. The Foundation will be discussing the
potential successors and soliciting names from Board members and Program
Administrators.
Mr. Conrad gave a brief summary of the various bills
considered by the General Assembly in the current legislative session.
1.
SB
499 – Environment – Water Appropriation Permits – Groundwater Recharge Area
This bill alters requirements for
obtaining a permit for the appropriation and use of State groundwater requiring
the Department of the Environment to include specified lands, such as preserved
farmland, as lands considered to be under the control of a municipal corporation
for purposes of the calculation of a groundwater recharge area for a water
appropriation permit.
The bill is very important and is
directly applicable to MALPF's policy discussions on
water recharge easements. This piece of
legislation will remove any power the MALPF Board has to control water recharge
on preserved property. Such recharge
will be automatically included in the calculation of municipal water (their
rights to withdraw water from the water table).
The Foundation has submitted testimony opposing the bill. The bill is being proposed by Maryland
Municipal League and others. It is an
important issue and needs to be addressed; however, this bill takes water from
program participants without compensation.
The Department of Environment took the lead in testifying against this
bill.
2.
HB
974 – Agricultural Land Preservation – Easements – Future Dwelling House
This bill authorizes a landowner that owns a property on
which there is no existing dwelling house to reserve the right to construct a
future dwelling house that carries with the land.
This bill came from
This bill would authorize the
Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation to make grants to counties
from the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Fund for the IPA grant program
and to repay bonds taken out to purchase MALPF easements.
4. HB 319
-
This bill would allow the MALPF Board of Trustees to accept
easements on properties in Allegany and
Mr. Conrad believed that this could be useful
under certain circumstances, but overall it might not be a good idea.
II. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 03-82-07A Price, Richard F. 311.339
acres
Request for an agricultural subdivision of
easement property
Mr. Price is the original grantor of the easement. The current request is for an agricultural
subdivision of the farm.
According to
Mr. Price, who is 76, has no children who want to continue
farming and recognizes that he will not be able to farm indefinitely. The farm operation is predominantly corn and
soybean. Reducing the size of the farm
to 114+/- acres creates a more manageable size farm. Mr. Price's nephew is in the process of
selling the home located on the 5-acre parcel.
Mr. Price and his nephew believe it would be difficult to find a buyer
for the 5-acre parcel because it is located in close proximity to the farm
buildings of the main farm property.
They believe that combining the former homestead with the 196+/- acre
parcel would create a viable farming operation with a home and, therefore,
better attract buyers for the property.
The 196.88-acre parcel is comprised of 133 acres of
cropland, 32 acres of pasture, 30 acres of woodland, and two acres devoted to
supporting wildlife. The 114-acre parcel
is comprised of 88 acres of cropland and 26 acres of woodland.
Both parcels would continue to meet minimum qualifying soils
criteria. The portion proposed to be
subdivided contains 92% qualifying soils.
The remaining parcel contains 77% qualifying soils. An owner's lot was approved on the 114-acre
parcel. A child's lot approved for Mr.
Price's daughter, Jocelyn, located on the 196-acre parcel, and upon which a
dwelling has not been constructed, will be relinquished.
According to
Foundation staff recommends approval based on meeting
minimum size and soils criteria, and both resulting parcels have the ability to
support viable agricultural operations.
Mr. and Mrs. Price and Wally Lippincott,
Program Administrator, were available at the meeting.
Mr. Price stated that, as part of the settlement of his
father's estate, his nephew acquired the family house which is located on a
separate parcel.
Mr. Price did not have a house on the original 312
acres. Mr. and Mrs. Price needed a home,
and the MALPF Board approved the home on the 114 acres. In 1983, Mr. Price's nephew moved into the
house. The nephew's children have moved
out after their graduation, and so he has moved into a smaller house and put up
the property for sale.
Mr. Price believed that, with the farm buildings right at
the backyard, the house should remain part of the MALPF program. Mr. Price believed it will be a good
opportunity to add parcels 332 and 333 to his original 167.03-acre parcel
bought from his father. All the three
parcels encompass the 196 acres. The
barns are located at less than 100 feet from the house. Mr. Price believed that someone interested in
buying the property would also be interested in having the farming
operation. The 5-acre parcel is parcel 330
on the map.
Mr. Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Roger L. Richardson,
Department of Agriculture, wanted to confirm that the current request is a
simple subdivision of the two properties and has nothing to do with the house
and the 5-acre parcel.
Mr. Lippincott
confirmed this. The 114 acres stay with
Mr. Price. The 196.88 acres and the
owner's house are available to someone who may be interested in putting the
farm together.
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that that
is a different transaction, and currently there is no way to subdivide just the
house itself from the 5 acres.
Mr. Price agreed and stated that he
is not collecting any new lots and they are already separately deeded. Mr. Price's father had done deeds with the
gas lines.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know about the
tiny lots located between the driveways below the 114 acre parcel. They seem to be cut off from the remaining
parcels.
Mr. Price stated that they were the
five houses that were left by his father for his grandchildren, and they are
not under easement.
Mr. Tassone,
representing Secretary Richard E. Hall, Department of Planning, wanted to know
if Mr. Price was subsequently planning to add the 5-acre parcel to the 196-acre
parcel.
Mr. Price stated that the house is
up for sale for a million dollars.
Someone who is interested in buying the house for million dollars would
probably also be interested in having the farm operation with it. Mr. Price stated that he did have someone
interested, but because he could not say that the easement acreage can be
subdivided, the deal did not through. That's the reason Mr. Price is requesting
MALPF Board to have the option to subdivide this acreage. He hopes not to sell it separately, but, if
the opportunity comes, he would like to sell it to the individual buying the
house. Earlier he could not do so.
Motion
#2: To approve the request of Mr.
Richard F. Price for an agricultural subdivision of easement property.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Howard Freedlander
Status: Approved
2. 03-98-05C Lippy, Thomas E., Sr. (Lippy Bros. Inc) 102.00 acres
Request to re-assign a child's lot (to Thomas)
Lippy Bros., Inc., is the original grantor of the
easement. The current request is to
re-assign a previously approved child's lot.
On
According to
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 $4,800.00 per acre to the Foundation.
Staff recommends approval of the re-assignment of the lot to
Thomas E. Lippy, Jr., and 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.
Foundation staff has communicated to
Mr. Lippy and Mr. Lippincott were available at the meeting to answer
questions from the Board.
Mr. Lippincott
stated that the request was already approved and the Board did not change its
recommendations. The request is for a
reclassification of the lot.
Mr. Lippy stated that in
March 2006 he got bit by a tick and fell sick.
He was treated with a double dose of antibiotics for Lyme
disease. His daughter, Ms. Galletti, has a four year old son and was concerned about
his welfare. Mr. Lippy's
son was interested in using the lot, and Mr. Lippy was requesting that the lot
be redesignated for his son, Thomas E. Lippy, Jr.
Motion #3: To approve the request of Thomas E. Lippy, Sr., to re-assign
a child's lot from Mary Margaret Galletti to Thomas
E. Lippy, Jr.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
3. 03-98-06C Lippy, Thomas E., Sr. (Lippy Bros. Inc.) 128.00 acres
Request for the exclusion of up to 2 acres for a
child's lot on easement property
Lippy Bros., Inc., is the original grantor of the
easement. The current request is for the
release of up to two acres for a child's lot for the personal use of Mary
Margaret Galletti, daughter of Thomas E. Lippy, Sr.
Thomas E. Lippy was a member of the family-owned corporation
when the easement was acquired. Mr.
Lippy continues to be one of the members of the corporation and therefore
retains the right to request a child's lot.
There are no other dwellings on the property. A lot was approved for Ms. Galletti on another property, but that lot is being
re-assigned to Ms. Galletti's brother (Agenda Item
II.A.2). Three additional lots were
approved for the children of members of the Lippy Bros., Inc., on other
properties in
According to
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 $3,048.00 per acre to the Foundation.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus
such minimum additional acreage if required by the County Health Department,
not to exceed 2 acres total based on the provisions of the deed of easement and
in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b), Annotated Code of
Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of up to 2 acres if
required by regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the
county. While the location of the lot
does not conform to the Foundation's lot location guidelines, the landowner has
agreed to make the lot non-sub-dividable from the farm.
Mr. Lippy and Mr. Lippincott were available at the meeting to answer
questions from the Board.
Mr. Lippincott
stated that Board members may wonder why the proposed lot is located in the
middle of the field. A ledge is located
on the property, and Mr. Lippy is planning the house to be on the other side of
the ledge. The local advisory board
insisted that the request for a lot should only be approved provided Mr. Lippy
considers not subdividing the lot. There
is no other house on the farm.
Mr. Lippy stated that he
is agreeable to the restriction. Mr.
Lippy further added that the
Motion #4: To approve the request of Thomas E. Lippy for the exclusion
of up to 2 acres for a child's lot on easement property with a condition that
the lot will not be subdivided from the farm.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
Mr. Colhoun highlighted the fact that the request had come up
after the introduction of MALPF guidelines on lot location policy. Mr. Colhoun
commented that it is significant that the landowner considered the guidelines
and has expressed his willingness to have the condition run with the land. Mr. Colhoun
believed it to be a progressive achievement, not only for landowners and
B.
1. 12-86-02 Tyson, Celia M. 112.00
acres
Request for a tenant
house on district property
Ms. Tyson is the original owner of the district
property. The current request is for a
tenant house for the use of her son who is fully engaged in the operation of
the farm.
Ms. Tyson's son, Brian Tyson, runs the hay,
wheat, beans, rye straw, and vegetable operation. Mr. Tyson is engaged in the harvesting and
marketing of the crops and upkeep of the farm equipment.
Mr. Tyson is not applying for a child's lot because he expects to
occupy eventually the main dwelling on the farm.
According to
The request was approved by the local advisory board and
conforms to local zoning regulations.
Staff recommends approval based on
the provisions of the deed of easement and in accordance with Agricultural
Article, Section 2-513(b)(4), Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an
allowance of one tenant house per 100 acres for use of a tenant fully engaged
in the operation of the farm. However,
Foundation staff communicated to
Brian Tyson and Bill Amoss,
Program Administrator, were available at the meeting to answer questions from
the Board.
Mr. Amoss stated that it is a
district property. Mr. Brian Tyson works
on this farm as well as an adjoining larger operation and shares farm
equipment.
Mr. Tassone asked if Mr. Tyson had
considered Foundation staff's request concerning running the access along the
edge of the woodland, with a short cut-in at the end. Mr. Tyson stated that he did consider the
option. He has already been approved by
the county to run the access road and may start working on it very soon. It is going to come off from the road. The corner of the field is surrounded by the
woods, and the crops do not grow very well.
There is an old pipeline that came from
Mr. Conrad wanted to know about the size of the house. Mr. Tyson stated the size to be 31' by 62' and
is one storey.
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted the landowner to be aware that tenant
houses cannot be subdivided from the farm property.
Mr. Tyson stated that he was not aware of the
requirement. He has a brother and did
not know how things would work out after his mother's death, but he did
understand that he cannot subdivide the tenant house.
Mr. Doug Wilson encouraged Mr. Tyson to talk to Mr. Amoss about the other options Mr. Tyson can use to address
any family issues about living on the property.
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture,
commented that a tenant house can never be occupied by anybody other than a
tenant who is fully engaged in the operations of the farm.
Motion #5: To approve the request of Celia M. Tyson for a tenant house
on district property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander
Status: Approved
2.
Request for a tenant
house on district property
Mr. and Mrs. Archer are the original owners of
the district property. The current
request is for a tenant house for the use of their son who is engaged in the
operation of the farm.
The Archers have a 38-head beef cattle operation and a
vegetable operation. Additionally, they
own a 30-acre crop operation. Richard
Archer, son of Mr. and Mrs. Archer, is engaged in the feeding of the cattle,
the vegetable operation, and the crop operation.
Mr. Archer is not applying for a child's lot because he
expects to inherit the farm and eventually occupy the main dwelling. Once he occupies the main house, he expects
to hire a farm hand who will live in the tenant house.
According to
The request was approved by the local advisory board and
conforms to local zoning regulations.
Staff recommends approval in accordance with Agricultural
Article, Section 2-513(b)(4), Annotated Code of
Maryland, which provides for an exception to the one tenant house per 100 acres
restriction at the discretion of the Foundation's Board of Trustees when a
landowner can demonstrate a compelling need.
Mr. Conrad stated that the property
has an easement pending settlement. When
the easement settles, the landowners have chosen an unrestricted lot as their
option. Nancy Forrester, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of General Services, added that the landowners
cannot apply for a child's lot because they have already chosen an unrestricted
lot.
Bill Amoss,
Program Administrator, was available to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Amoss informed
the Board members that Mr. Archer could not attend the meeting due to health
issues.
Mr. Amoss
stated that the property is still a district property, but has a pending
easement. The landowners' operations
have expanded in terms of income. The
property backs up to
In the future, Mr. Archer would like
to move into value-added products and sell more direct to consumers. Even though the parcel is small in size
compared to some of the larger parcels in the County, it has lot of potential,
and the County would like to encourage the landowners in their enterprise.
Ms. Forrester stated that the site
plan seems to propose a house larger than 2,000 sq. feet. The easement requires the house to be less than
2,000 sq. feet. This restriction is
mentioned in the easement attached to the contract.
Mr. Amoss
was not sure of the size.
Motion #6: To approve the request of Alice A. and Winfield T. Archer
for a tenant house on district property with the condition that the tenant
house does not exceed MALPF's size allowances.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
Mr. Tassone wanted to know if there is a compelling need for
the landowners to have a tenant house.
Mr. Amoss stated that the landowner has opportunities to
increase the scale of his operations.
Mr. Archer has had health issues. However, he is much better. Also, Mr. Archer is getting ready to settle
on an easement with MALPF and wants to be sure he can have a tenant house once
under easement.
3. 12-86-06 Bonita Farm Partnership 387.00
acres
Request for approval to
construct and operate a winery on easement property
Bonita Farm Partnership is the original grantor of the
easement. The current request is for
approval to construct and operate a winery on easement property.
Bonita Farm is a thoroughbred horse operation. According to J. William Boniface, general
partner, the partnership is in the planning stages of planting vines and
eventually opening a winery on the farm.
However, MALPF's current regulations do not
permit wineries on district or easement properties.
Because the installation of the infrastructure for the
winery and the planting of the vines constitute a significant financial
investment, Mr. Boniface is seeking the Foundation's approval prior to
commitment of the capital investment.
Mr. Boniface is proposing to erect a steel structure approximately 150'
X 50' that would be used to house the wine as it ages. A small area in the corner of the building would
be used for retail sales and a tasting room.
MALPF staff informed
The proposed operation would be located in an unused area
adjacent to pastureland. The structure
would be accessed by an existing driveway.
Staff recommends that the
Foundation's Board of Trustees refer the request to the standing winery
committee.
John Boniface and Mr. Amoss were
available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board. Bonita Farm Partnership and many other horse
industry leaders are looking to diversify their operations.
Mr. Boniface introduced himself as a horse breeder and a
trainer. He and his three sons own the
farm operation. They were one of the
first ones in the county to enter the MALPF easement program (for $400 per
acre). The Boniface Farm has around 400
acres and is planning different ways to stay in farming and still stay in horse
business. Mr. Boniface stated that he
does not know much about wineries and started researching the subject about a
year ago. He spoke to most of the
Mr. Boniface wanted some directions from the Foundation on
how to expand his business and at the same time continue to stay in land
preservation.
Mr. Conrad stated that he would like to give an overview of
the current MALPF policy on winery operation and the limits of that
policy. Mr. Conrad would like Mr.
Boniface to respond how he perceives the investment is likely to develop or be
limited in the future in the light of this current policy.
Mr. Conrad did not believe there is any issue, and Mr.
Boniface could plan to have the entire property to grow grapes. If Mr. Boniface is building a winery and is
processing grapes that are grown on his property, there is no problem. It is an acceptable activity. If, as a part of the winery operation, Mr.
Boniface is purchasing grapes from a property that he does not control, through
ownership, lease, or contract, it could pose an issue. If Mr. Boniface is selling glasses, cork
pulls, and other wine related material in a retail operation, it could pose an
issue. Many wineries also host events,
encouraging people to come on the property who may also be interested in
purchasing wines. This is an issue area
that the Foundation has not resolved.
Mr. Conrad wanted Mr. Boniface to let the Board know what areas his
concept fits with the current policy of the Foundation and the areas it does
not.
Mr. Boniface stated that currently there are 25 wineries in
Mr. Colhoun thanked Mr. Boniface
for sharing his plan. Mr. Colhoun commented that MALPF Board is trying to have a
policy committee resolve grey areas of winery operations. Currently the policy will not give a blanket
approval to the development of all areas of the plan. The study committee may recommend allowing
some areas of the plan not now allowed.
He wanted to know if it will help Mr. Boniface to progress with and
establish the winery knowing that the MALPF Committee is going to look into the
issue in great detail. Mr. Colhoun wanted to encourage the wine industry and still
stay within the bounds of MALPF.
Mr. Boniface appreciated Mr. Colhoun's
comments and stated that he would like to proceed. He hoped the MALPF Board
would approve full scale winery operations in the future.
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the wine group has to make
room for wineries on MALPF properties.
When the original statutes were structured, wineries were never
envisioned. Mr. Doug Wilson believed,
going by what is happening in
Mr. Conrad stated that the Winery
Committee comprises of people from wine industry, such as Mr. Colhoun's son-in-law, Rob Deford,
who is in the winery business. Mr. Kevin
Atticks, Head of Winery Associations, is a member of
the Winery Committee. Mr. Conrad too has
some experience with winery operations in
Mr. Tassone
believed MALPF made provisions that people who produced wines from their grapes
often need supplemental grapes from other properties. Mr. Conrad stated that that such a provision
might pre-date his joining the Foundation.
He does not remember having this provision, but it has been a
fundamental point of discussion in the Winery Committee meetings.
Mr. Tassone
recollected the Foundation coming up with a provision that it has to be a
minority of the production, and what is produced on the farm has to represent a
majority.
Mr. Colhoun encouraged the Winery
Committee to study all the questions and come up with a recommendation for the
Board to adopt.
C. QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
1.
Request for a tenant
house on easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Dulin are
the original grantors of the easement.
The current request is for a tenant house for the use of a tenant, Jeff
Wheaton, who is fully engaged in the operation of the farm.
On
Mr. and Mrs. Dulin are
the owners of a poultry and grain operation.
They farm approximately 2,000 acres.
Three poultry houses are located on this easement property, housing approximately 75,000
birds. Mr. Wheaton will be fully engaged
in the poultry operation.
According to Queen Anne's County, the proposed tenant house
is to be located in an area currently in crops, along the wood line. Access will be through an existing lane,
which runs along the wood line.
The request was approved by the local advisory board and
conforms to local zoning regulations.
Staff recommends approval based on the provisions of the
deed of easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section
2-513(b)(4), Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of one
tenant house per 100 acres for use of a tenant fully engaged in the operation
of the farm.
Donna Landis-Smith, Program Administrator, was available to
answer questions from the Board. Ms.
Smith stated that there is no existing home on this parcel. Mr. and Mrs. Dulin
own an adjacent tract of 164 acres.
Motion #7: To approve the request of John R. and Betty L. Dulin for a tenant house on easement property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
D.
1. 05-92-01A Campbell, Charles C. and Patricia A. 202.366 acres
Request for approval of
an owner's lot on easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Campbell are the original grantors of the
easement. The current request is for
approval of an owner's lot of up to two acres for their personal use.
There are no pre-existing dwellings on the property. The Foundation approved a partial termination
(7.803 acres) when the property was in district status for the construction of
a dwelling for Thomas Campbell, son of Mr. and Mrs. Campbell.
According to
The request was approved by the local advisory board and
conforms to local zoning regulations. If
the lot is approved, there will be a required payback of $600.00 per acre to
the Foundation.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus
such minimum additional acreage if required by the County Health Department,
not to exceed 2 acres total based on the provisions of the deed of easement and
in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b), Annotated Code of
Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of up to 2 acres if
required by regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the
county. Additionally, the proposed
location follows the Foundation's lot location guidelines.
Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, was available at the
meeting to answer question from the Board members.
Motion #8: To approve the request of Charles C. and Patricia A.
Campbell for an owner's lot on easement property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander
Status: Approved
E.
1. 13-79-03Ace Idiot's Delight, Inc: Sibbald Hereth 192.55 acres*
Request for approval of
a child's lot on easement property for daughter, Ellen Hereth
Miller
Mrs. Hereth (Idiot's Delight) is the
original owner of the easement property.
The Hereth Family (mother and children)
comprise the membership of the corporation.
The property has no pre-existing dwellings. A 1.0-acre child's lot for her daughter, Mary
Jones, was approved
* Please note: This
192.55 acre easement is comprised of two separate parcels of record
EASEMENT COMPOSITION:
·
MALPF
easement 13-79-03Ace, Idiot's Delight, Inc., is 101.59 acres. It is located on the South side of
·
MALPF
easement 13-79-03Bce, Idiot's Delight Corporation II, is 90.96 acres. It is located on the North side of
BACKGROUND:
Joy Levy, Howard County Program Administrator, has done an
excellent job of highlighting the past history of this farm. This information is important to
understanding the property and is an example of how far the Foundation has come
in resolving its owner's and children's lot issues. Please see the attached Staff Report
‘Background' section.
FUTURE PLAN:
As the corporations are comprised of a parent and six
children, Foundation staff has requested they provide their future plan for the
requests of the owner's and child's lots.
The color aerial depicts the proposed location of each lot. The proposed owner's lot is located on
easement 13-79-03Bce, while all of the proposed child's lots will be located on
easement 13-79-03Ace. Three of the
proposed child's lots and the proposed owner's lot will have direct access onto
CURRENT REQUEST:
The current request is to locate Ellen's lot on 13-79-03Ace,
Idiot's Delight, Inc., property.
According to
The request has been approved by the local advisory board
and meets Planning and Zoning requirements.
There will be no payback for the 1.0 acre lot as the deed of easement
pre-dates the requirement for reimbursement of owner's and children's lots.
From the aerial that was provided, it appears the current
lot request meets the Foundation's Lot Location Policy because it is located in
a corner of the property and along an existing right-of-way access.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the 1.0 acre child's
lot as it conforms to the Foundation's Lot Location Policy.
Mrs. Hereth, her daughter, Ellen Hereth Miller, and Joy Levy, Program Administrator, were
available at the meeting. Ms. Levy
brought attention of the Board members to the aerial map provided with the
agenda memo. The map indicates the plan
of the family for future lots; all the proposed lots are clustered together,
either along the road or along the farm lane.
Mr. Conrad asked Ms. Levy to explain the previous lot
approval.
Ms. Levy stated that in 1996 the MALPF Board approved a
child's lot for another daughter, Mary Hereth Jones,
and that lot was never released from the easement or subdivided from the
farm. Mary currently owns one of the
pre-existing lots. There were three pre-existing
dwellings on the property, but on the deed of easement they actually were not
included.
Motion #9: To approve the request of Sibbald Hereth for a child's lot on easement property for daughter
Ellen Hereth Miller.
Motion: Vera Mae Schultz Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
Mr. Colhoun commented that the
site was visited by Ms. Schultz, Vice Chairman, and Ms. Council, MALPF Staff.
G.
1. 14-86-03 Dill, Franklin M. 194.626
acres
Request to allow
wastewater spray irrigation on easement property
Mr. Dill is the original grantor of the easement. The current request is for approval to allow
the application of treated wastewater from Worton's
wastewater treatment plant.
This request was heard by the Board during the January, 2007
meeting. The request was tabled because
the request included the construction of a pond on easement property, which
would have created a precedent for the Foundation. The Board assigned to an ad hoc committee the task of developing a revised policy that takes
into consideration the inclusion of a pond.
The committee has developed a revised policy. Mr. Stahl, Chair, Wastewater Spray Irrigation
Policy, shared the recommendations of the committee with the Board members.
Mr. Stahl stated that at the last Board meeting, the MALPF
Board considered Mr. Dill's proposal.
The question was whether or not MALPF Board should be promoting
development through the use of wastewater on MALPF properties. Mr. Stahl was concerned about using
wastewater for the benefit of the agricultural operations and not for the
benefit of the wastewater treatment plant.
The committee comprising of Tammy Buckle, Elizabeth Weaver and Mr. Stahl
discussed the issue and came up with a revised policy.
Mr. Stahl highlighted the point that a request that merely
provides an area for disposal of municipal wastewater, without providing a
significant benefit to the agricultural operation, should not be approved.
WASTEWATER SPRAY
IRRIGATION
REVISED POLICY
GENERAL PERSPECTIVE:
Property owners,
or their designated representatives, shall apply for approval from the
Foundation to use wastewater spray irrigation on MALPF district or easement
properties. An approval is not an
absolute right, but shall be reviewed by the Foundation on a case-by-case
basis. Each request will be reviewed to
determine the proposed operation's impact on the soils and agricultural
operation of the farm, and for consistency with State and local preservation
and Smart Growth goals. The Maryland
Department of the Environment shall appraise the Foundation of its
determination of the impact of the proposed project on the property's
soils. The Maryland Department of
Planning shall appraise the Foundation of its determination of the proposed
request's consistency with State and local preservation and Smart Growth
goals. In considering whether to approve
the request, the agricultural benefit that the project would provide to the
operation of the farm shall be the primary concern of the Foundation. A request that merely provides an area for
disposal of municipal wastewater, without providing a significant benefit to
the agricultural operation, should not be approved.
CRITERIA:
A.
The
wastewater spray irrigation shall not promote development in a way that is
inconsistent with the State's Smart Growth objectives, as determined by
Maryland Department of Planning.
B.
The
wastewater shall come from development in non-comment Priority Funding Areas
only. Any increased sewerage capacity
resulting from spray irrigation will enable growth and development consistent
with the orderly development pattern envisioned in the local comprehensive plan
and with smart growth principles.
C.
The
wastewater operation shall be part of a local water and sewer plan and shall
provide planned capacity in a defined service area.
D.
The
wastewater shall contain no significant pollutants that would adversely affect
the quality of the soils for future agricultural use, as determined by MDE.
E.
The
application shall be approved by the local Agricultural Land Preservation
Advisory Board.
F.
The
operation shall conform to local planning and zoning regulations.
G.
If
a pond is proposed to be located on the easement property, the following
guidelines shall apply:
i.
The
pond shall be located in an area not useable for production agriculture.
ii.
The
construction of the pond shall be subject to an updated, revised soil and water
quality conservation plan that takes into consideration the construction of the
pond.
iii.
The
pond shall be constructed in a manner to minimize negative impacts on current
crop production.
iv.
The
pond/reservoir should be no larger than that which would be required to provide
adequate storage capacity to meet production needs including during drought
periods. To determine appropriate
storage capacity, the Foundation will consider the recommendations of the
APPLICATION PROCEDURES:
Before the
Foundation will consider a request for the use of wastewater spray irrigation
on MALPF district or easement properties, all of the following information
shall be submitted:
A.
An application for the use of wastewater spray irrigation which has been fully
completed and signed by all titled landowners.
B.
An
unmarked copy of a tax map which outlines the entire district or easement
property and the affected area.
C.
A
written statement from the local Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board
indicating a recommendation of approval or denial.
D.
A
written statement from the local Planning and Zoning office or County Program
Administrator that the proposed use of wastewater spray irrigation is permitted
under current local regulations.
E.
Description
and map of the current and future planned sewer-shed (service area) of the
waste water treatment plant from which the effluent comes. The map should also show the relevant PFA
boundaries.
F.
A
written statement from the landowner indicating how the use
of wastewater spray irrigation will alter the operation of the
farm. The statement should address the
limitations placed on types of crops that can be grown.
G. A
summary of the wastewater characteristics, which includes source of wastewater,
flow rate, size of irrigation area, and concentrations of the following
elements in the wastewater: arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron,
lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, zinc, calcium, magnesium, sodium and
chloride.
H. If
a pond is to be constructed on the easement property, a detailed description of
the size and capacity of the proposed pond.
Mr. Stahl stated that
the municipalities and other government and non-government agencies operating
wastewater treatment plants throughout the State have tendency to be either
using farms or operating farms or buying farms for the use of wastewater. Mr. Stahl was concerned that the State fund
is to be used for the preservation of agriculture and not for trying to
increase wastewater discharge capacity.
If it benefits an agricultural operation that happens to be under
easement to use wastewater, it should probably be considered and allowed. Mr. Stahl recommended that the MALPF Board
approves the revised wastewater spray irrigation policy.
Mr. Colhoun asked Royden Powell,
Office of Resource Conservation, Maryland Department of Agriculture, to share
his thoughts.
Mr. Powell stated that
the relationship of irrigation to the agricultural activity is primary. The relationship spray irrigation has land
use policy and growth management is intangible, but it exists. The regulations are getting tighter with
respect to service discharged and the amount of nutrient content to the extent
that MALPF policies allows for spray irrigation as an indirect benefit focusing
on growth and development.
Mr. Powell stated
that, once we apply the core principle of the MALPF program and satisfy that
agricultural operations are being enhanced, other issues come into play with
respect to size of the storage facility.
MDE has the primary role of inspecting and permitting waste water spray
irrigation operations. Mr. Powell stated
that as a process is laid out, MALPF Board is going to consider the request on
a case-by-case basis. MALPF Board will
have an opportunity to review the particulars of each case.
Mr. Colhoun stated that one of the MALPF's
functions is to look after the land in the present and in the future. He wanted to know Mr. Powell's views on the
maintenance of a lagoon in the future.
Mr. Powell stated that
from the view of an agricultural best management practice, a landowner is
responsible for the maintenance of a practice on his property. Strictly from the view of wastewater disposal
perspective (as MDE would look at it), spray irrigation is going to play a more
and more important role looking at a direct and long term relationship between
the owner of the wastewater facility and the land; whether the ownership is fee
simple or it is a long term lease, something must clearly bind the farm and its
availability to wastewater facility.
Mr. Stahl commented
that, if the municipality or governmental agency suddenly becomes an owner of
the easement property, it changes the operation to a commercial operation,
because at that point it no longer remains an agricultural operation.
Mr. Powell believed
that Mr. Stahl's concerns are legitimate.
If the availability of the spray facility is the only way to dispose of
wastewater, disposal of water is going to be job #1 for that facility. Therefore, it is important to recognize that
agricultural considerations are first priority for MALPF. Only after the Board
is satisfied with the first requirement, will it move forward to consider the
other requirements.
Mr. Powell believed
that the policy is written appropriately to safeguard the Board's concerns.
Mr. Nielsen stated
that the deed of easement says that the landowner is responsible to maintain
good husbandry practices on the farm.
The Foundation can file a lawsuit against anybody who is engaged in
certain practices on the land that are not good husbandry practices. Mr. Nielsen wanted to know if the application
of wastewater to a farm is a good husbandry practice and when does it not
become a good husbandry practice.
Mr. Powell stated that the spray
irrigation operations are regulated by certain conditions of the discharge
permit administered by Maryland Department of Environment. Also there is a nutrient management plan that
regulates the amount and nature of nitrogen and phosphorus. There is a need for a clear communication and
understanding between an agricultural operator and a spray irrigation operator.
Mr. Colhoun
commented that MALPF Board wants to convey to the existing landowners and
future landowners the responsibility that a lagoon entails. The maintenance of
the lagoon in the future is the responsibility of the landowner, even though
the landowners' name may change.
Mr. Tassone
commented that in the general perspective of the policy, it was mentioned that
"the agricultural benefit that the project would provide to the operation
of the farm shall be the primary concern of the Foundation." But this statement is not reflected in the
criteria. Mr. Tassone
wanted to know if it is an omission or is that something to be dealt with
another time.
Mr. Stahl stated that it is a very
broad issue and he was not sure if he can pin it down to specific criteria.
Motion #10: To accept the revised Wastewater Spray Irrigation Policy.
Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
The Board proceeded to discuss the request from Mr. Franklin
M. Dill.
The Foundation approved a policy on wastewater spray
irrigation on
MALPF staff coordinated with the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE), Maryland Department of Planning (MDP), and
Engineers from
MDE requires a minimum buffer zone of 200 feet between the
wetted perimeter of spray irrigation areas and property lines, waterways,
roads, etc. The buffer area is the unwetted area around the perimeter of the spray area that
separates the spray area from surrounding uses.
However, there are no limitations on crops grown in the buffer
area. Additionally, MDE requires a
reserve area that is suitable for application of wastewater that is held in
reserve should a problem develop on a portion of the initial 81.14-acre spray
area. Wastewater will not be applied to
the reserve area unless a problem develops in the initial 81.14 acres. Should a problem occur, wastewater will be
applied to an acre of the reserve area for each acre taken out of the initial
wastewater application area.
In a letter to the Foundation, Mr. Dill states that the
application of the wastewater will increase the productivity of the land. Mr. Dill wanted to install an irrigation
system (standard, non-waste water) when he acquired the property in 1983;
however, tests revealed that the aquifers are incapable of producing the
required quantity of water. Mr. Dill's
letter states that he will be restricted from growing vegetables. However, Foundation staff's research
indicated that the spraying of the wastewater will prohibit growing crops that
are not processed prior to human consumption.
Mr. Dill currently grows corn, wheat and soybeans on the farm, which he
can continue to grow after the application of wastewater.
Dr. Tien, Division Chief, Water
Management Administration, Wastewater Permits Program, State Groundwater
Discharge Permits Division, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), has
analyzed the results of the test of the town's treated wastewater for the
presence of heavy metals or other elements that could have a negative impact on
the soil. Dr. Tien
found that the application of the wastewater will not have a long term negative
impact on the soils of the property.
However, Dr. Tien recommended that the sodium
concentration in the treated wastewater be reduced to less than 69 mg. of
sodium per liter of water to reduce the specific ion toxicity to field
crops. Dr. Tien
further recommended that any future industrial discharge to the system should
be reported to the Foundation and an impact analysis completed prior to
acceptance of the industrial wastewater.
(Currently, there is no industrial discharge to the wastewater system.)
Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) has reviewed the
application and determined that the Worton request
will not promote development in a way that is inconsistent with the State's
Smart Growth objectives. In
correspondence to the Foundation, MDP states that the Department's research
shows that the Worton Sewerage Service Area, existing
and planned, lies entirely within a Kent County Priority Funding Area
(PFA). Therefore MDP supports the
proposed wastewater spray irrigation project because it will support growth in
the PFA.
The request was approved by the local advisory board. The request is in compliance with local
zoning regulations because the application of wastewater is considered a normal
agricultural activity.
Foundation staff recommends approval based on the request's
consistency with the Foundation's revised policy. Should the Foundation approve the request,
approval should be contingent upon the following:
1.
MALPF
shall be a party to the agreement between the landowner and the County.
2.
Any
future industrial discharge to the system shall be reported to the Foundation
and an impact analysis completed prior to acceptance of the industrial
wastewater.
3.
The
sodium concentration in the treated wastewater shall be reduced to less than 69
mg of sodium per liter of water to reduce the specific ion toxicity to field
crops.
4.
If
it becomes necessary to use the reserve area,
5.
The
agreement shall have a provision for renewal as part of the MDE permitting
process, which is conducted every five years.
The renewal will be reviewed by MALPF staff. Any modifications to the agreement must be
agreed to by the Board of Trustees.
Should the County or the landowner be found to be in breach of the
agreement, MALPF may terminate the agreement.
6.
A
statement in the agreement which addresses repair of any damage to the soils as
a result of an accident or malfunction or other circumstances related to the
application of the wastewater. [Note: Wayne Morris, Director, Kent County
Department of Water and Wastewater Services, has indicated that the County
would like to alter this language. The
County will negotiate the language with the Foundation. Any substantive alteration to the language
will be brought back to the Board for approval.]
7.
A
statement in the agreement that the application of the wastewater shall be
conducted in such a manner as to prevent bodily injury or endangerment to human
health.
8.
Adoption
of a Water and Sewer Plan by
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Staff, stated that, with the
adoption of a revised policy of Wastewater Spray Irrigation, Mr. Dill's request
conforms to revised policy. Ms. Weaver
commented that there is one issue that needs to be addressed by the MALPF
Board.
"A statement in the agreement which addresses repair of
any damage to the soils as a result of an accident or malfunction or other
circumstances related to the application of the wastewater. [Note: Wayne Morris, Director, Kent County
Department of Water and Wastewater Services, has indicated that the County would
like to alter this language. The County will negotiate the language with the
Foundation. Any substantive alteration
to the language will be brought back to the Board for approval.]
Ms. Weaver suggested that the MALPF Board approve the
concept of what is being requested and make the approval conditional upon
satisfactory resolution of working out the language between
Ms. Weaver believed Mr. Morris is concerned that the
language is too broad and it leaves the County liable to eventualities beyond
its control.
Mr. Morris, Mr. Dill, and Carla Martin, Program
Administrator, were available at the meeting.
Mr. Morris stated that he found the suggested language very general.
Ms. Forrester stated that the County's proposal does not
address the issue of what happens if there is an accident. Should we ask the landowners to have
insurance or should we require the county to have insurance? Ms. Forrester agreed with Ms. Weaver's
proposal.
Mr. Colhoun asked the County to
draft language to be reviewed by the Attorney General's Office. Mr. Colhoun conveyed the consensus of the Board that the MALPF
Board is in support of the project and suggested that the decision be postponed
to the next Board meeting.
Added
1. 03-81-07 Armacost, Wayne L. & Page 346.07 acres
(Hickory Hill Farms,
Inc.)
Request for the
exclusion of a child's lot on easement property
[This item was added
after agenda was printed. This material was distributed at the meeting.]
Mr. and Mrs. Armacost, as members
of Hickory Hill Farms, Inc., a family-owned corporation, were owners, along
with parents and siblings, of the property when it was placed under
easement. They remain members of the
corporation. The current request is for
the release of up to two acres for a child's lot for the personal use of their
son, Wayne.
A child's lot was approved on this property for their
daughter, Page, in January, 2006. No
other family lots have been approved for the property. A tenant house was approved on the farm in
July, 2004. Hickory Hill Farms, Inc.
owns an additional easement property; however, no lots have been requested on
that property.
According to
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 $829.35 per acre amount
to the Foundation.
Mr. Armacost has been made aware
that, if the property is transferred out of the ownership of the immediate
family, the child's lot cannot be retained.
The aerial maps were provided by the
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.
Wally Lippincott, Program
Administrator, was available at the meeting and stated the proposed lot was
located on the corner of the woods, adjacent to the approved owner's lot. The farm has 346.07 acres and is in the
middle of the most successful agricultural area of the County. The County has 11,000 acres of contiguous
protected land.
Motion #11: To approve the request of Wayne L. and Page Armacost for a child's lot on easement property.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
Ms. Forrester stated that Mr. Armacost
may no longer own the property now or in the near future. If and when ownership is transferred, if not
released, his child's lot disappears.
Mr. Lippincott stated that the Armacosts are facing potential foreclosure. Mr. Lippincott has
already communicated to the landowner that the lot rights are available only as
long as the easement grantor owns the farm.
The foreclosure filing happened after the
Mr. Colhoun stated that there is a
possibility that the owner may be able to secure part of the property with a
consortium before the auction.
Mr. Doug Wilson wondered how Mr. Armacost
can retain the lot as a member of the consortium, because the ownership will be
different.
Mr. Nielsen stated that the issue is whether the personal
conveyance survives, and there may be a question of continued eligibility.
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the Program Administrator
needs to advise Mr. Armacost quickly about the
potential ramifications of the transaction as it might change the timing of
what he does.
Mr. Nielsen believed that Mr. Armacost
may still be the original owner even if he retains part of the property with a
consortium. MALPF will have to wait and
see how things progress.
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that he did not want a situation
in the future that Mr. Armacost's son goes to the
county for a building permit for the lot he believes he has, when in reality it
was undone because of the way his father changed the ownership of the property
after the Board approval. Mr. Doug
Wilson suggested keeping this point in mind when MALPF staff sends its response
to the landowner. It has to be expressly
clear that there are issues related to farm ownership to avoid any misunderstanding.
Motion #11a: To approve the request of Wayne L. and Page Armascost
for a child's lot on easement property.
MALPF staff will expressly communicate to the landowner that there are
issues related to farm ownership and the retention of lot rights.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
A.
1.
This is a 141.47 acre parcel
located in the
Gloria Smith, Program Administrator, was available at the
meeting to answer questions from the Board.
Motion #12: To approve the request of George Helfrich,
et al., to establish an agricultural land preservation
district on their property.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
IV. PROGRAM POLICY
A.
Certification
of
Charles Rice, Program Administrator,
and Dan Rosen, Maryland Department of Planning, were available at the meeting.
·
The
County continues to commit funding for the Agricultural Preservation Program,
allowing the County to participate in the MALPF matching funds program.
·
During
the reporting period, the County preserved 13,215 acres of agricultural land
and woodlands.
·
The
county has a goal of preserving 64,000 acres. In addition, the County Commissioners are
interested in protecting 50 percent of the County's land area (approximately
147,000 acres), including recreation land and preserved agricultural and
natural resource lands.
·
The County continues to demonstrate a very strong commitment to
preserving its agricultural lands.
The staff's review of
Ms. Council informed the Board members about the strengths
and weaknesses of the
·
Strengths:
·
Ongoing strong financial commitment to easement purchases through
the matching funds program.
·
Continued significant enrollment in the MALPF district program
(many of the county's new district properties sell TDRs
through the County program rather than pursuing permanent MALPF easements).
·
An increase in the per-acre amount paid for TDRs
has resulted in an increase in TDR acres preserved.
·
The County offers a 100% tax credit on land and agricultural
structures on properties in MALPF districts or easements ($90,320 in credits in
2006).
·
The County continues to have strong participation in the Rural
Legacy ($6.4 million to date).
·
The County has a Right-to-Farm Ordinance.
·
Weaknesses:
·
The County does not have protective rural zoning and there is a
lack of community and political support for down-zoning in the rural area.
·
There is a need for consistent dedicated local funding for
agricultural land preservation.
·
It will take approximately 70 years for the County to reach its
preservation goal of 64,000 acres at the current rate of preservation.
The Foundation staff recommends that
Mr. Rosen stated that Maryland
Department of Planning is also recommending certification for the next two
years and shares the same concerns as highlighted by Ms. Council. Maryland Department of Planning is also
communicating its concerns about the upcoming changes to the certification
program based on HB 2; the major component being priority preservation areas (PPAs) and land use tools being in place to support PPAs.
Mr. Rosen expressed the Department's
concern that the County will take approximately 70 years to reach its
preservation goal of 64,000 acres. The
Maryland Department of Planning recommended that the County downzones its rural
areas to 1 to 20, but the
Mr. Rosen stated that the County has
accomplished a lot through its TDR program.
Mr. Rosen informed the Board members that the
Maryland Department of Planning recommends recertification.
Mr. Rice stated this is a 5-year
certification report. One of the
highlights of the report is that the County still has a tremendous amount of
district participation amounting to approximately 20,000 acres. This is largely due to the tax credits given
by the County, and, also, because districts are tied to the County's TDR
program. The County's commitment to the
matching funds program has increased substantially over the years.
·
For FY 2002, the County committed $490,000 in MALPF matching
funds.
·
For FY 2003, the County committed $300,000 in MALPF matching
funds.
·
For FY 2005, the County committed $550,000 in MALPF matching
funds.
·
For FY 2006, the County committed $942,000 in MALPF matching
funds.
For FY 2007, the County has
committed $1,334,000, which is the maximum amount.
Mr. Stahl commented that he agreed
with Mr. Rosen's comments about the zoning issue. However, he believed, the problem in
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that both
Ms. Council and Mr. Rosen mentioned that the "County will take
approximately 70 years for the County to reach its preservation goal of 64,000
acres." He wanted to know if we
have a standard by which we want to accomplish goals. He was a little concerned about the focus on
a horizon which sounds too long. The
MALPF program is in perpetuity. If the
goal is to get everybody to meet their preservation goals in 10 years or 15 years,
(1) there will be nothing to preserve in the longer term and (2) the acreage
goals and time horizon may really say more about how aggressive a goal a
jurisdiction has set. He was concerned
about the focus on this issue.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that Mr. Rice
mentioned that it is a 5-year report. He wanted to know when the certification
of
Mr. Rosen stated that the County is
late.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that recently
the Legislative Auditors have finished their audit report. The auditors are critical of MALPF in its
interpretation of its own regulations and allowing someone to stay certified
until MALPF makes a judgment. The auditors
view is much more literal: you complete
two years, and if the jurisdiction has not gotten approved by second year, the
jurisdiction is out. This will have
financial consequences. Mr. Doug Wilson
believed MALPF's regulations would have to be
modified to be more specific and represent the actual process. At the same time, it fosters all concerned to
adhere to a time schedule.
Mr. Conrad commented that this
comment is not in specific to
Mr. Tassone
stated that he has spoken to people working on the regulations that Maryland
Department of Planning drafted to implement HB 2. He has received a commitment from them to
include language in the proposal that would deal with this difference in
perception between the legislative auditors and the Foundation in how the
certification process works or should work.
Referring to the comments made by
Mr. Doug Wilson about goals, Mr. Tassone stated that
provision of HB 2 provided some more guidance on acreage goals. HB 2 required that acreage goals be clearly
related to what is happening to farming, what is going to be accomplished with
regards to accommodating production, and how preservation is going to be
achieved in the long term. The bill also
articulates some specific requirement about growth, stabilizing the land base,
measuring tools, and acquiring easements at rates that are commensurate with
development pressure.
In the current round of
certification letters, Maryland Department of Planning is trying to review the
county program in the context of the requirements that become effective as of
Mr. Rice commented that the two year
certification period goes very fast, and there is not a lot of information to
work with in the two year time period.
Personally he would prefer to have a 5-year window to look at
certification as is the case with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the
County Land Preservation and Recreation Plan.
Mr. Tassone
commented that, as of
Motion #13: To accept the recommendations of the Maryland Department of
Planning and MALPF staff to recertify
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Vera Mae Schultz
Abstained: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
Mr. Rosen thanked
Mr. Stahl for pointing out that most of the time county program administrators
do an incredible job of working against great obstacles. When a program is being evaluated, comments
and criticisms are not a reflection of the program administrator.
B.
Certification
of
Ms. Council stated that Eric Seifarth,
Program Administrator,
·
The
County continues to commit funding for the Agricultural Preservation Program,
allowing the County to participate in the MALPF matching funds program.
·
During
the reporting period, the County preserved 2,679 acres of agricultural land and
woodlands.
·
The
County has a goal of preserving 50,000 acres by the
year 2021.
·
The County continues to demonstrate a very strong commitment to preserving
its agricultural lands.
·
For FY 2003, the County committed $477,000 in MALPF matching
funds.
·
For FY 2005, the County committed $667,000 in MALPF matching
funds.
·
For FY 2006, the County committed $989,550 in MALPF matching
funds.
Ms. Council stated that
During the four year reporting
period, FY 2002-2006, the County permanently preserved 2,679 acres of
agricultural land and woodlands through MALPF program. Its rate of conversion is slightly higher
than their rate of preservation. The
County has identified four possible Priority Preservation Areas.
The staff's review of
Ms. Council informed the Board members about the strengths
and weaknesses of the County program:
·
Strengths:
·
Updated zoning reduces development on rural land.
·
The County has made a significant commitment of local funds to the
local PDR program.
·
A TDR program is being designed.
·
The County utilizes federal funds (TEA-21) for the permanent
protection of farm land.
·
The County continues to have strong participation in the Rural
Legacy ($7.3 million to date).
·
The County has a Right-to-Farm Ordinance.
·
Weaknesses:
·
·
Newly created down-zoning allows extra units on each farm parcel.
·
There is a need for consistent/increased dedicated local funding
for agricultural land preservation.
·
It is unlikely the County will meet its goal of 50,000 acres by
2021.
Mr. Rosen stated that in
Mr. Rosen stated that
the Maryland Department of Planning recommends re-certification.
Motion #14: To accept the recommendations of the Maryland Department of
Planning and MALPF staff to recertify
Motion: Jerry Klasmeier Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
C.
Certification
of
Barbara Polito,
Program Administrator, Lynn Miller, Long Range Planning Administrator, and Dan
Rosen, Maryland Department of Planning, were available at the meeting.
·
The County's goal is to preserve 20,000 acres by 2010.
·
To date, the County has permanently preserved 12,000 acres of
farmland using MALPF, Rural Legacy, Program Open Space, and the
·
The County continues to demonstrate a very strong commitment to
preserving its agricultural lands.
The staff's review of
The Foundation staff recommends that
Ms. Council stated the County's goal
is to preserve 20,000 acres by 2010. The
County has a new adopted density,
Anne Arundel was one of the few counties that
was able to adhere to their certification period of two years and even provided
an interim report. During the reporting
period, FY 2005-2006, the County did not permanently preserve any agricultural
land or woodland through MALPF. It does
have an easement application for 2007.
The amount of land converted to non-agricultural use continues to far
outpace the amount of land permanently preserved.
Ms. Council informed the Board members about the strengths
and weaknesses of the County program:
·
Strengths:
·
Ongoing strong financial commitment to the County's IPA program.
·
The County offers a tax credit on agricultural land and wood land
in MALPF districts and easements.
·
The areas of Harwood, Lothian and
·
The County has a Right-to-Farm Ordinance.
·
Weaknesses:
·
Continued lack of participation and funding in the MALPF program.
·
There is a lack of aggressive pursuit and dissemination of
accurate funding and program information to the farming community.
Mr. Rosen
stated that the County has a level of land conversion that is probably the
lowest of the State's average which is good.
On the other hand, the County does not have a high level of easement
acquisition. The County's preservation
goal is 20,000 acres which many other counties have already surpassed.
Previously
the County had decided that it is not going to have a TDR Program. Mr. Rosen would like the County to reconsider
the decision. Mr. Rosen believed there
is going to be an increase in demand for land preservation.
Mr. Rosen stated that
the Maryland Department of Planning recommends re-certification and expressed
his concerns about the County meeting success on the new regulations.
Ms. Polito
introduced her new Supervisor, Lynn Miller.
Ms. Polito stated that the programs have been
moved to Planning and Zoning and are now part of Long Range Planning.
Ms. Polito
stated that the County is currently processing eight applications under the
County's program and one property is proceeding to settlement.
Ms. Polito
believed abolition of family conveyance lots was a good thing, but landowners
had opposed this policy change. The
County changed zoning regulations and subdivision regulations. The
Ms. Miller stated that
she is happy to have Ms. Polito in the program. Ms. Miller stated that her division does a
variety of things and is responsible for doing the County's Comprehensive Plan,
related functional plan, implementing the existing program, etc.; land
preservation is a big part of the division.
Ms. Miller believed the program runs very well. They are currently updating their
Comprehensive Plan, and Ms. Miller believed that it might take two years. She hopes by the end of 2008 a draft will be
ready for their County Council. In
addition to the new requirements under HB 1141 and HB 2, the County has some
new requirements related to growth management planning. The County Council has adopted them into the
County zoning codes. Currently the
County is in the process of releasing a RFP to hire a consultant. Ms. Miller believed this will help to put
more focus on the County's agricultural preservation program and tighten the
overall comprehensive planning.
Mr. Chris Wilson wanted
to emphasize that the elimination of family conveyances is a huge deal. The County Council overhauled the whole code
two years ago. Mr. Chris Wilson was on
the Advisory Committee for agricultural uses, and it was part of its
recommendation.
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted
to know if the
Ms. Polito
confirmed that the demand is being accommodated. Once the IPA program was established, it took
off (people were more interested in that program).
Mr. Conrad wanted to
have Ms. Polito's observation as to why do people
choose one versus the other program. He
wanted to know the dynamics that work in the decision making process of the
applicant.
Ms. Polito
stated that she believed factors such as the applicant's interest and the
estate planning affect the choice. The
County does not require district formation as a first step. If everything is aligned properly, the
applicant can settle in nine months from the date of application. The County has an easement valuation system
and is in the process of revising it because of land price increases. The County also has the IPA program.
Ms. Polito
asked if MALPF staff can attend the public meeting on
Mr. Colhoun agreed and also stated that, if the date is convenient
to any MALPF Board member he or she could also attend the meeting.
Mr. Tassone stated that, once the County Council terminated the
family conveyances, there was a window of opportunity for landowners to use
it. He wanted to know how long the window
of opportunity was available once the family conveyance was terminated.
Ms. Polito stated that the landowners had to apply by a certain
date. Ms. Miller added that any
application that had already been submitted would continue to completion.
Motion #15: To accept the recommendations of the Maryland Department of
Planning and MALPF staff to recertify
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Abstained: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
Added
[This item was added
after agenda was printed. This material
was distributed at the meeting.]
Baltimore County has notified the Foundation of a change to
its ranking system for applicants for the FY 2007 easement acquisition
cycle. The ranking system is used to
prioritize offers made to applicants.*
The Foundation's ranking guidelines require that each
county's ranking system assign a minimum of 20% of the total points to soil
quality; a minimum of 20% of total points must be assigned to farm quality and
potential (farm size, etc.); and 20% must be assigned to Priority Preservation
Area status or protection of surrounding area, or distance from a PFA, or
buffer considerations.
The Board of Trustees approval is required when a county's
ranking system diverges from the Foundation's guidelines.
Foundation staff was not able to determine from
Wally Lippincott, Baltimore County
Program Administrator, was available at the meeting to explain the County's
proposed ranking system to the Board.
* Statute:
(i) In consultation
with county governing bodies, the Foundation shall adopt guidelines to identify
easements for purchase that further the goals of the Maryland Agricultural Land
Preservation Program.
(ii) Guidelines adopted under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph shall include consideration of:
1. Location in a priority preservation area of
the county;
2. Soil and other land characteristics
associated with agricultural productivity;
3. Agricultural production and contribution to
the agricultural economy; and
4. Any other unique county considerations that
support the goals of the program.
(Agricultural Article, Section 2-510(e)(3),
Annotated Code of
Mr. Lippincott
stated that the County is doing the ranking a little differently than what is
generally permitted by the general approval of the MALPF Board. The
The County had 20 properties that
met MALPF eligibility requirements. The
minimum score had to be 60. Staff will
be given an estimate on how much money from the State and County is available
for this year. The funds available under
the State and County program will be, for example, 420 million dollars. It works out to 12 farms. These 12 farms will be the ones with the
highest score, but at a price that would fit within the budget constraints. If there are two farms that are roughly equal
in their resource characteristics; one is less than the other, it will be
identified as the priority acquisition.
The County is not really trading off the conservation values; this was
the problem with the other method. The
County was not able to figure out how to overcome matching the price with the
quality of the farms. The County can
also pull out farms that do not rank, properties that
are forested, and compete against cropland.
The County can also perhaps take the farm that has the best soils and
maybe doesn't have the some of the other attributes. We can really play with the various
parameters.
Once the County gets the farms approved,
the computer fits in the 12 farms to be ranked to select the best one. For some reason if all the funding that was
predicted was not there, we will still get the best farms.
Mr. Conrad stated that Board
approval is required as the proposed ranking differs from MALPF's
standard recommendations. Mr. Conrad
commented that he had attended some of the meetings and a lot of the ranking
procedure is based on GIS. He believed
MALPF staff is comfortable with the proposal, even though it is more complicated
than MALPF's adopted guidelines.
Mr. Lippincott
thanked the MALPF staff for its inputs and stated that the County solicited
public input at the beginning of the year.
Mr. Colhoun
stated that he has also attended few of the presentations, and he found it to
be fascinating. It is not perfect, but
it is moving in the right direction.
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to confirm
that all the parameters mentioned by Mr. Lippincott
are already set in the computer program, and we just need to plug in the farm
attributes from the application and the computer then makes ranking
recommendations. Mr. Lippincott
confirmed this.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that he does
not have a problem as long as the system is determined in advance and does not
allow manipulation. The County can
decide what is most important for it as long as the process does not get too
subjective.
Mr. Lippincott commented that
Mr. Doug
Wilson stated that the criteria for making the judgment are pre-set, and, if
somebody wanted to find out why a particular reviewer made an evaluation that
looks out of character, it can be pointed out on the record. If they did something bad, there is a way to
put them under microscopic review.
Mr. Klasmeier wanted to know if there is an appeal mechanism in
the process.
Mr. Lippincott stated that, after the County staff presents its
material, the recommendations go to County Council for approval. The rankings are mailed out, so landowners
can go to County Council work sessions and testify if they do not agree. Alternatively they can call the Board for
reconsideration. However, there is no
legal appeal process.
Mr. Klasmeier asked if the County Council has the right to
alter the sequence. Mr. Lippincott stated that the County Council has the right.
Mr. Doug
Wilson believed that, as long as there is a mechanism, the system is
accountable if they have made a mistake.
It is possible to correct a problem or a mistake as long as there is a
process set in advance.
Motion #16: To accept the
Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
Mr. Chris
Wilson requested if Mr. Lippincott can come back to
the MALPF Board in a year and give an update.
D.
Wetland
Mitigation Easements Policy: REPORT
As development pressure spreads throughout the State and
more land is converted to development, wetlands are increasingly impacted. Consequently, there are increasing needs to
mitigate for wetland impacts in locations away from development sites. The Foundation expects to receive increasing
numbers of requests from easement landowners to allow mitigation on their farms
for off-site wetland impacts.
The
Foundation's statutory goals are an important context for Board policy and
procedure for wetland mitigation. They
are:
To preserve
agricultural land and woodland in order to:
1.
provide
sources of agricultural products within the state for the citizens of the
state;
2.
control
the urban expansion which is consuming the agricultural land and woodland of the
state;
3.
curb
the spread of urban blight and deterioration; and
4.
protect agricultural land and woodland as open space.
Wetland
mitigation on land under MALPF easement can compromise or undermine the
Foundation's goals in two ways: by
prohibiting active agriculture and forestry in perpetuity on land under wetland
mitigation; and by facilitating and supporting more, rather than less,
development and associated impacts on farmland and farming, in areas designated
for agricultural land preservation, where the Foundation invests public money
to that end.
At the same
time, the Board recognizes that wetland mitigation can serve legitimate
resource enhancement and conservation purposes that are compatible with the
Foundation's goals and objectives; can provide MALPF easement landowners with
supplemental income to further that purpose; in appropriate circumstances, can
help landowners pay for good stewardship of their land and water resources, as
a legitimate part of a Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plan; and can
support development in planned areas designated for non-agricultural uses,
which supports the Foundation's goals.
Based on
these considerations, and the
The
Foundation discourages wetland mitigation on MALPF easements and districts, but
will consider mitigation proposals from landowners on a case-by-case
basis. The following procedures are
designed to be efficient for everyone involved, including landowners, staff,
sister agencies asked to provide assistance, and the Board; and ensure that,
when wetland mitigation is allowed, it will be a legitimate means to practice
good stewardship that complements the Foundation's interest in farm and forest
production, and will facilitate development that supports and does not
compromise the Foundation's goals.
Count Agricultural Advisory Board
Approval
A proposed mitigation project must be approved by the
appropriate county agricultural land preservation advisory board before it will
be considered by the Foundation's Board of Trustees. Advisory boards should consider the same
factors established in this policy and procedure statement, and should convey
to the Foundation the basis for their decision and the sources of information
on which it is based.
The Foundation will consider proposals for the following
wetland mitigation practices (as defined by the USDA NRCS) or their
equivalent: Wetland Restoration (NRCS
practice code 657), Wetland Creation (NRCS practice code 658), and Shallow
Water Area for Wildlife (NRCS practice code 646, if designed to meet the
criteria for wetlands (practice codes 657 and 658).
It is the policy of the Board that a
mitigation proposal must pass several screening tests with regards to the
proposed mitigation practice, its resource conservation purposes, its size, and
the soils it will affect, in order to be considered by the Board. The Board will depend on Foundation staff, in
coordination with the Soil Conservation district, to verify each of the
following:
The primary resource conservation
purpose of the proposed mitigation practice must be to reduce discharge of
sediment, nutrients, and/ or other pollutants from the farm. In addition, the proposed mitigation practice
must:
·
Be
an appropriate and necessary best management practice (BMP) to achieve the
resource conservation objectives for the farm, based on NRCS standards and
estimates.
·
Contribute
substantially to good land and environmental resource stewardship on the farm.
·
Treat discharge generated primarily from the farm, and include no more
than a minor percentage of treated drainage derived from neighboring land.
·
Be sized to manage discharge from a 25-year (or smaller) storm.
·
Be no larger than is necessary to achieve the stated resource
conservation purposes of the practice, particularly the desired hydrologic / water
quality functions of the wetland, based on the size of the drainage basin, and
the slopes, soils, and hydrology of the drainage basin.
·
Be included in the Soil Conservation and Water Quality Management Plan
and/or a Forest Stewardship Plan for the farm.
·
Not reduce the percentage of qualifying soils on the farm below the 50%
threshold for eligibility as a MALPF easement.
MDA's Resource Conservation
Operations (RCO) Program will be requested to review Soil Conservation District
findings on these matters, advise the Foundation if it agrees with them or nor,
and if not, explain why.
When it has received the
advice of Staff, the District, and RCO, the Board will consider the following
to determine if it approves of the resource conservation purposes and size and
soils implications of a proposed wetland mitigation project:
·
The wetland itself, exclusive of the vegetative buffer, must be no
larger than 5 acres or 5% of the total acreage of the farm, whichever is
smaller, and must be limited to land comprised of hydric
or other non-qualifying soils (according to the Foundation's soil eligibility
criteria).
·
The vegetative buffer must be limited to the 35-foot minimum required by
NRCS standards for Wetland Restoration, Wetland Creation, and Shallow Water Area
for Wildlife.
·
The total amount of land removed from production (wetland + buffer) must
not, in the opinion of the Board, compromise the capacity of the farm to
support sufficiently diverse forms of profitable production of food and fiber.
It is the policy of the Board that
the development project(s) facilitated by a mitigation proposal must pass
several screening tests to be considered by the Board. The Board will depend on Foundation staff, in
coordination with the developer seeking mitigation, local government, and the
Maryland Department of Planning, to verify each of the following:
·
The
developer must provide written verification that satisfies Foundation staff
that a search for mitigation sites on non-easement properties has been
conducted within the eligible geographic area, and that the search has not
produced sufficient suitable sites;
·
The
local government (program administrator or responsible party, at the discretion
of the county) must identify in writing the type of development activity for
which mitigation is required, inform the Foundation if the development activity
is subject to their approval and, if it is, verify that the county either has
approved the project or believes that the development project is consistent
with the plans, ordinances, and regulations governing its approval; and
·
The
Maryland Department of Planning must provide a written opinion stating that the
development project is in a Priority Funding Area recognized by the State, is
consistent with the local comprehensive plan and State Planning Policy, and is
not likely to encourage or support substantial further development in areas the
Foundation is attempting to preserve.
·
When
it has received the appropriate information, the Board will determine if the
development project facilitated by the proposed mitigation is compatible with
the Foundation's goals and objectives, and, in conjunction with the other
criteria recommended herein, approve or reject the mitigation proposal
accordingly.
Unless it determines that the
State's interest in the land is somehow compromised by the doing so, if the
Board approves a wetland mitigation proposal, it will generally:
·
Not
concern itself about mitigation payments from the developer to the landowner;
and
·
Maintain
the Foundation's easement on the mitigation acreage, making appropriate
adjustments in the easement as needed to facilitate the regulatory requirements
for mitigation.
Mr. Tassone,
Chair, Wetland Mitigation Easement Policy, stated that the flow charts outline
the sequence of considerations that would result in approval of a wetland
mitigation proposal by MALPF Board.
The first step is related to resource conservation purpose,
size and soils. Most of the real
wrestling with the details will be handled by Soil Conservation District and
then have a check off by the Office of Resource Conservation, Maryland
Department of Agriculture. The Office of
Resource Conservation at MDA will give the information to the Foundation as to
whether or not it meets the criteria. If
it is yes, the Foundation can move to the next step. If it is no, MALPF Board is advised of it.
The next step is how much land is removed from
production. The guidelines have specific
criteria, and they are 5% of the farm or 5 acres, whichever is less. Earlier there was a draft report indicating a
possibility of going up to 10 acres or 10% but at the last committee discussion;
the consensus was to drop that and stay with 5%.
The next step is to check if the developer has conducted
adequate search for non-easement mitigation sites or not. We judge if it is good enough or not. If it is, we move to the next steps as
outlined in the flow chart. The Board's
decision is based on inputs received from other entities.
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know who will be doing the
assessments at various steps outlined in the flow chart. Is MALPF staff responsible for doing such an
assessment?
Mr. Tassone
stated that in reality the assessment will be done either by the District,
Resource Conservation, Department of Planning, Local Advisory Board, and so
on. One or more of them have inputs in
each one of the boxes. In cases where the input is the result of a serious
technical deliberations or considerations the technical staff will confirm on
the technical basis. MALPF Board gets
their inputs, but it is not bound by them.
Mr. Colhoun
stated that Mr. Tassone has considered a level of
review and Resource Conservation at Maryland Department of Agriculture will
also review a project to evaluate many of the technical questions. Mr. Colhoun
believed the second level of review will be very helpful as MALPF Board does
not have the expertise for technical issues.
MALPF Board will be the recipient of this useful information.
Mr. Klasmeier
believed it will be a good idea to indicate a point of contact person who will
be responsible for coordinating the inputs at various levels on the flow
chart. This will help the Board to have
a kind of check list to ensure that the Board has got everybody's inputs.
Mr. Tassone
agreed to incorporate the suggestion.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that, as a
Board member, each trustee has a role to preserve what is already protected
under MALPF easement. MALPF Board's
decision about 5-acres maximum regardless of the size of the farm can resolve
the problem where a farmer can take his whole farm and put under wetland
mitigation. Some might argue that it is
not the purpose of the MALPF program.
Two years ago when the issue was discussed, the question was what the
Foundation says about our farmers getting dollars from someone for wetland
mitigation. The flowcharts developed by
the Wetland Committee clearly indicate that it does not have a dramatic impact
on the long term quality of the soil.
Mr. Doug Wilson further noted that
the report has mentioned, "Wetland must be no larger than 5 acres or 5% of
the total acreage of the farm..."
He wanted to know if someone comes with 6 acres, 240-acre farm, do we
reject it and limit it only to 5, or does the policy want to have some
provision for the individual analysis.
Mr. Doug Wilson raised the issue as the policy will eventually be
drafted into regulations.
Mr. Conrad commented that the
Foundation does run into such situations as in the case of agricultural
subdivision (50-acre policy). Every
three months Foundation gets requests from someone who wants something
different.
Mr. Klasmeier
believed the Board should have the flexibility to use its judgment by virtue of
members' service to the Board, rather than being worried about setting a
precedent every time a request is evaluated.
Mr. Tassone
stated that the language will be the same as in the earlier report. It will basically say the principle is 5% or
5-acres (maximum), except in certain circumstances.
Mr. Colhoun
asked Mr. Powell for his comments.
Mr. Powell commented that one of the
things he wrestled was how the Board would like to consider anything that goes
beyond 5% threshold. He believed he was
involved in developing "an administrative policy" that MALPF program
could use. This policy would clearly
define and allow the program administrators to move forward and administer some
criteria. That process is different than
a situation where the Board wants to deliberate the requests on a case-by-case
basis. Mr. Powell respected the fact
that the Board may want some flexibility.
If the Foundation has criteria, it will guide the Board in its
considerations.
Mr. Stahl believed that the MALPF
Board will always act in the best judgment of what is good for agriculture and
the preservation of agricultural land.
The only problem he foresees is that it forces the Board to make a
judgment about the project. In the
current situation the project is creating mitigation to a certain extent.
Mr. Tassone
stated that when he was framing the language "whether it serves the
legitimate public purpose," he was thinking about what the Soil
Conservation District does regarding legitimate soil conservation and water
quality planning. If a wetlands project
should be ‘x' acres or 8% of the farm, we can say the soil conservation
districts recommend it as it relates to the public interest on the farm.
Mr. Doug
Wilson commented that he has been convinced that since it is going to be our
own regulations, he is willing to go ahead with the policy as outlined. If the Foundation starts to get cases where
it starts to get different, the Foundation has the ability to change its own
regulations.
Mr. Colhoun commented that, in the end, the driving force is
going to be the landowners who are going to receive $20,000 on an acre of
wetlands mitigation. The Board will be
driven against the wall. Six acres are
another $20,000 in the landowner's pocket, and seven acres is better yet. The Board will be faced by such
situations. Mr. Colhoun
believed the Board is prudent to use its discretion.
Mr. Doug
Wilson commented that he would like to move forward with the 5 acre recommended
limit. In the future, if the Foundation receives several compelling cases, it
can change its regulations.
Motion #17: To recognize the good work of the Wetland Mitigation Committee
on a difficult issue and to approve the Committee Report as drafted.
Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Opposed: Jerry Klasmeier
Status: Approved
At
E.
Uses
Committee Report
Vera Mae Schultz, Chair, Uses
Committee, thanked the members of the Committee for their contribution. She recognized the work of Tammy Buckle, Joy
Levy, Charles Rice, Dan Rosen, Robert Stahl, Elizabeth Weaver, Carol Council,
and Judith Lynch. The Uses Committee
began its work in spring of 2006.
As the committee looked at secondary
uses of land in either MALPF district or an easement, it kept in mind the
regulations and statute under which MALPF operates. At the same time, the committee kept in mind
that it needs to make farming and forestry profitable for the persons who are
engaged in. The committee wanted to do
little to damage or interfere with the current operations and with future
operations and wanted to support the farm family also. The location of the activity was very
important.
The committee set up the following
conditions that would apply to secondary uses of land in the MALPF program:
1. All secondary uses are first subject to local
zoning.
2. All secondary uses must not interfere with
the primary agriculture or forestry operation.
3. All secondary uses must not affect the future
agriculture or forestry productivity of the land.
4. All parking related to the secondary uses
must be pervious.
5. The landowner must submit a letter detailing
his/her proposed secondary use to the county agricultural land preservation
program administrator and, if approved by the county, to MALPF. The administrator may refer the use request
to the county agricultural advisory board.
All secondary use requests require approval by the county agricultural program
administrator and by MALPF staff while others also
require the approval of the MALPF Board of Trustees. Upon review and approval, MALPF will send a
letter to the landowner detailing the proposed secondary use. In agreement, the
landowner will sign the letter and return it to MALPF for permanent placement
in his/her file.
Ms. Schultz commented that it can be
noticed in the chart distributed to the Board members and Program
Administrators that some activities listed are already accepted in the MALPF
program. The committee felt it necessary
to list them for clarity. The committee
desired to be consistent in the conditions placed on uses, but in some cases,
the committee found it reasonable to propose deviations. The committee noted that uses of land under
FRPP program have different restrictions that have to be complied with.
All uses of land in the MALPF
program are subject to 1) county zoning regulations, 2) conditions (to be)
listed in MALPF regulations, and 3) conditions that apply to secondary uses of
land.
Mr. Conrad
wanted to know if the committee tried to define the word `secondary.'
Ms.
Schultz stated that the committee did not define the word, but had in mind
that, once the land entered the program, the uses of the land at the time were
considered primary.
Mr. Rice
illustrated an example of a farm using most of its land for grain
production. The grain is considered as a
primary use though the farm may have agro-tourism on 1 acre and may earn three
times more money from that activity.
Ms. Weaver
commented that, when the committee started the work, it started with the word
"ancillary." Over time the
committee came up with the word "secondary." Ms. Weaver believed it is tough to determine
what is secondary. After some time if it
is successful, it could become primary.
Mr. Doug
Wilson commented that when the attorneys get to the point of drafting
regulations, they would have to define the term because it will be used
throughout the regulations.
Mr.
Nielsen stated statute may allow certain activities on MALPF easements, but
there has to be control by the
Foundation on what happens on the land in each case. As the staff gets more experienced with
handling such requests, some cases may receive less scrutiny than others. Mr. Nielsen believed that certain kinds of
activity have to be restricted. For
example, the Rural Legacy Program allows discreet activities. Mr. Nielsen felt the regulations should not
be specific, but they should have general criteria. The Foundation should look at things on a case-by-case
basis. There should be a contract
between the landowner and the Foundation with respect to allowable activities,
and that may also be recorded in the land records.
Mr.
Nielsen quoted land uses "slaughtering" and "veterinary
hospital" outlined in the chart and stated that the activity depends on
the scale. The Foundation is certainly
not going to allow a newly constructed veterinary building on a MALPF
property. There might be scenarios where
the Foundation may allow veterinary hospitals in an existing facility, but it
all must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Conrad
believed that it is very useful to have the contract on the allowable
uses. If a use on property is not
subject to explicit agreement, we can have people listing their plan and the
Foundation may receive 6 or 7 non-agricultural uses. It is possible that any one of the activities
may be allowed, but a cumulation of such activities
could pose difficult problems.
Mr.
Nielsen stated that the Foundation can have a basic information sheet that goes
to everybody. It can say that, if the
facts of the proposed activity are similar to what the Foundation approves, it
is likely to be approved. This protects
the Foundation because facts could change based on what landowners say and what
they actually do.
Ms.
Schultz stated that the committee intends the chart only for the use of MALPF
staff and by county program administrators, when it is finally approved. The chart is not for wide distribution.
Referring to
the specific example of a veterinary hospital by Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Doug Wilson
wondered if the committee envisioned that a person with a large enough farm
could allow the construction of a 3000 sq. foot hospital. If the landowner is a veterinarian, owns his
farm, and wants to build a hospital in the corner of the property, is it
possible. Mr. Doug Wilson believed as we
go through the process of looking at acceptable uses, our documents will
indicate the construction of a veterinary hospital meeting certain standards
would be allowed as related commercial use of MALPF property. The situation is different from using an
existing building for this purpose. The
intent was somebody could build a facility.
The issue of location will be no different than any kind of lot requests
received by the Foundation. If a
landowner wanted to build a facility for an agriculture-related activity,
general guidelines allow it. If a
landowner wants to build a barn and is planning to show horses and have
competitions, the committee allows him to do so, because it is treated as an
agriculture-related activity, even though it is purely commercial. If the landowner wants to build an exercise
barn as long, as it meets MALPF's standards and is
located properly, the committee's guidelines allow him to do so.
Mr. Colhoun commented that the situations described by Mr. Doug
Wilson are exactly the things that are currently taking place on MALPF
properties.
Mr. Doug
Wilson believed the Foundation is developing an inventory of what farmers can
do on MALPF properties. Previously the
Foundation restricted uses the legislative change now allows. The issue is, if someone wanted to build a
facility to carry out an agriculturally-related commercial enterprise, the
General Assembly allowed the Foundation to approve the use. The original legislation restricted it
completely, but now the General Assembly allows it. The Foundation has to figure out the
parameters. The uses committee has spent
time and tried to come up with guidelines. As an example, under the proposed guidelines,
the Foundation will allow a construction of a veterinary facility. However, the Foundation will not allow a
landowner to run a restaurant, even though it is selling food produced on the
property. The Foundation has recently received
requests for bull riding, school buses, etc. The uses committee has developed an inventory
for people as to what they can do.
Ms. Levy
believed that, once the list is approved, it should be available in a form that
everyone is comfortable with. It would
be very helpful for people to have the document.
Mr. Colhoun agreed and stated that, once the document is
approved by the MALPF Board, it is public information.
Mr.
Nielsen commented that the statute says the Foundation can approve uses on
easement properties, except as determined by Foundation, for farm- and forest-related
activities and home occupations. Mr.
Nielsen was not sure if a veterinary hospital could be considered a home
occupation.
Mr. Colhoun commented that veterinary facilities are becoming
more and more common on any large farm and could easily be considered a farm-related
activity.
Mr. Doug
Wilson said that, if in his house he wants to do a non-farm related activity,
the Foundation is allowing it. But if a
person comes to the Foundation and has a veterinary practice and wants to have
a clinic for cats, it is not allowed. If
it is going to be a mix of activities, the Board would like to look at it. If a person wants to open a beauty parlor in a
new building next to their barn, it would not be allowed because it is not a
farm-related activity. The uses
committee is suggesting an inventory list for approval.
Mr.
Nielsen believed that the statute does not say what Mr. Doug Wilson is saying. According to the statute, the Foundation can
approve farm- and forest-related uses and home occupations. It does not say that the home occupation has
to be related to a farm use.
Board
members proceeded to discuss the Commercial Services outlined on Page 5 of the
chart.
Referring
to the cottage industries issue, Mr. Doug Wilson stated the uses committee is
recommending that it needs to be contained within a subdivided one acre
residential lot or the equivalent curtilage.
Ms. Buckle
wanted to know if this would require a survey of the one acre area.
Mr. Conrad
asked Pam Bush, Department of Natural Resources, Senior Policy Analyst, about
the development envelope used by the Rural Legacy Program. Did the landowners have to provide a survey
description of the development envelope? How does the Rural Legacy Program establish
exactly where the landowners can do certain differential activities on the
properties?
Ms. Bush
stated that general Department of Natural Resources only surveys development envelopes
which propose new construction for residential structures. The monitoring is done with the help of aerial
photographs to confirm that it has not changed in terms of residences, but
there is really no control of where agricultural buildings go.
Mr. Doug
Wilson asked about "Bed and Breakfast" facility.
Ms. Bush
stated that it has to be in an existing structure, unless the Department of
Natural Resources specifically allows it in the new residential structure and
the new residential structure would be pre-located generally on the easement.
Mr. Rice
stated that the intention of the committee was to have the bed and breakfast in
the existing structure and related parking, etc., has to be within the 1-acre curtilage.
Going back
to the example of building a veterinary hospital, Mr. Nielsen stated, that the
veterinary doctor may decide to stop practicing and the property is left with the
veterinary hospital building. Under the
MALPF program, the landowner is paid to preserve the farm, and yet he is
allowed to develop on the farm. He
personally liked Rural Legacy's model. The
paint ball situation took place in an existing building. If the Foundation could have inspected what
they were doing inside the barn, it could have been a violation. The laws have now changed, and the Foundation
can allow limited commercial activities if they really do not have any effect
on the farm.
Board
members and program administrators discussed their concerns about the various
land uses such as livestock sales, greenhouses, private air strips, butcher
shops, hunting clubs and the other restrictions.
Ms. Weaver stated that we probably
have different impressions of what is allowed on MALPF properties depending on
the program administrators we talk to. Therefore,
one important part of the exercise is to get each one of us on the same page. Ms. Weaver believed that many program
administrators believe livestock sales are not allowable. Part of the current exercise is also
clarification.
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that, in
the end, the MALPF Board will be going through each issue and voting on the
practice and the conditions accompanying it.
Mr. Nielsen stated when we talk
about all these activities, it really depends on the scale of the activity and
where it is located. We will also need
to discuss enforcement.
Mr. Doug Wilson suggested making use
issues part of site inspections.
Mr. Colhoun
commented that the inventory is a great starting point for the discussion to
come and complimented the efforts of the Uses Committee.
Mr. Doug Wilson suggested everyone
take the list, think about the issues involved, and the questions relating to
them. He suggested scheduling another
meeting and working through the issues in a broader context at the committee
level. By end of June 2007, the list can
be ready and can be reviewed by Mr. Nielsen and Ms. Forrester.
Mr. Nielsen suggested having general
guidelines and a similar uses chart made available as an informational sheet
for the Counties dealing with generic use issues.
F.
Water
Recharge Easements – Agro-Ecology Grant Application Rejection Letter
Ms. Weaver updated the Board on the
outcome of the Agro-Ecology Grant Application.
MALPF staff, in cooperation with Maryland Department of Planning,
and Maryland Department of the Environment, applied for a research grant to
Agro-Ecology, Inc. The intent was to generate usable research for
a methodology to determine how much water should be retained to ensure the
protection of the future viability of agriculture on MALPF properties if the
Foundation approved the sale of water recharge easements. Unfortunately, the grant application was
denied. The letter from Agro-Ecology,
dated
Ms. Weaver believed that
Agro-Ecology felt that we do not have the resources to study this issue. The study would involve some complex research.
Pat Langenfelder, Committee Chair,
has indicated that she would like the WRE committee to meet soon to determine
the next steps. Ms. Weaver believed
that, if MALPF does not address the issue, there are other people in the
industry who would address the issue, and the outcome may not be desirable. She believed it would be good for MALPF to
take the lead in getting the necessary information, but the Foundation does not
have the resources to do it alone.
Mr. Colhoun
informed the Board that he had an opportunity to speak to the Secretary of
Agriculture on this issue. Mr. Roger L.
Richardson, Secretary, Maryland Department of Agriculture, also sits on the Board
of the Agro-Ecology, Inc.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that the
issue is bigger than MALPF, and it is about long-term agricultural viability in
Jenny Plummer-Welker, Program Administrator,
There being
no further business, Mr. Colhoun asked for a motion
for adjournment of the meeting.
Motion #18: To adjourn regular session.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
The regular
session of the Board meeting was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully
Submitted:
_____________________________________
Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary
__________________________________
James A. Conrad,
Executive Director