MINUTES
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun,
Chairman
Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman
Howard S. Freedlander, representing Treasurer Nancy Kopp
Jerry Klasmeier,
representing Comptroller Peter Franchot
Pat Langenfelder
Judith C. Lynch
Dr. James Pelura
Robert F. Stahl, Jr.
Joe Tassone,
representing Secretary Richard E. Hall, Department of Planning
Christopher H. Wilson
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Doug Wilson, representing Secretary
Roger L. Richardson, Department of Agriculture
OTHERS PRESENT:
Anne Bradley,
Tammy Buckle,
Pam Bush, Department of Natural
Resources, Senior Policy Analyst
Bill Clark, District Manager, Calvert
Soil Conservation District
Eddie Clark, Landowner,
Ray Clark, Landowner,
James A. Conrad, MALPF Executive
Director
Carol Council, MALPF Administrator
Aimee Dailey,
Karl Deugwillo,
Jr., Project Engineer,
Rama Dilip,
MALPF Secretary
William Doane,
Jr.,
Donald Gott,
Landowner,
Buddy F. Hance,
Richard Horsman,
Landowner,
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of General Services
Russell Johnson, Manager, Land and
Right of Way, Dominion Transmissions, Inc.
Joy Levy,
Wally Lippincott,
Carla Martin,
Randy McLing,
Engineer, Dominion Transmissions, Inc.
Stephanie Petway,
Contractor, Verizon Wireless,
Royden Powell III, Maryland
Department of Agriculture, Office of Resource Conservation
John A. Prouty, Landowner,
Charles Rice,
Daniel Rosen, Planner, Maryland
Department of Planning
Donna Sasscer,
St. Mary's County, Program Administrator
Larry Sommerville,
Lead Agent, Universal Field Services, Inc. (Dominion Contractor)
Jay Schapiro,
Contractor, Verizon Wireless,
Donna K. Landis-Smith, Queen Anne's
County, Program Administrator
Holly Thibault,
Land Preservation,
Jenny Plummer-Welker,
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF
Administrator
John Zawitoski,
Daniel Colhoun,
Chairman, called the meeting to order at
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: Jerry Klasmeier Second: Howard Freedlander
Status: Approved
B. ADDITIONS
OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
II.C
11-91-02
Wilhelm,
Gilbert, Sr., and Mary A.
Add
on
21-97-07
Request
to relocate 1.43 acres that were withheld from the district
Buddy Hance,
James Conrad,
Executive Director of the Foundation, announced that MALPF
has hired a third Administrator, Diane Chasse, to work alongside Elizabeth
Weaver and Carol Council. Diane has worked
with Maryland Environmental Trust in a similar position for approximately the
last 9 years. She was the Conservation
Easement Planner for
Mr. Conrad handed
out a brief summary of the various bills considered by the General Assembly in
the current legislative session.
Mr. Conrad
commented that MALPF planned to have a workshop during the summer for the
program administrators and will continue to make visits to the counties to promote
the funding that will be available.
Mr. Colhoun stated that he was able to meet with the Chairman
of American Farmland Trust. The American
Farmland Trust is working very hard on the new farm bill. Mr. Colhoun believed
the problem with federal funding is basically a problem of interpretation and
changing a few words in the law may well come about in the legislature. If there is a change in the legislation, the
whole picture changes.
II. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 04-86-05 Gott, Donald T. 85.7
acres
Request to allow a wetland mitigation easement
as on overlay on MALPF easement property
Mr. Gott is the grantor of the
easement. The current request is to
allow a wetland mitigation easement (WME) as an overlay easement on MALPF
easement property.
A WME is required to offset disturbance of wetlands for
activities associated with development, road construction, drainage,
excavation, etc. The WME site must be
located, if possible, within the same watershed as the disturbed area. The easement requires the landowner to grant
access to the site to Maryland Department of the Environment and the Army Corps
of Engineers. Sometimes landowners
receive monetary compensation for the WME from the owner or developer of the
site where wetland disturbance has occurred.
Occasionally, in lieu of direct compensation, the landowner benefits
from the installation of desirable water control projects that improve the soil
and/or water quality on his or her property.
Mr. Gott's proposed wetlands would
mitigate wetland destruction which occurred during construction of a one mile
section of roadway in
Mr. Gott is requesting Foundation
approval to place WMEs on three sites, covering a
total area of 4.3 acres. The sites are
described as follows:
Site 1 covers 2.4 acres; of this area, 1.7 acres is adjacent to an existing
wetland, and the remaining 0.7 acres is an eroding drainage way.
Site 2 covers 0.9 acres that is a predominantly shrub/scrub area used by
cattle as a resting area. The cattle are
currently disrupting the area.
Site 3 covers a 1-acre area that is located at the head of a drainage way,
adjacent to an existing wetland area.
According to
The proposed wetland is consistent with the Foundation's
Wetland Mitigation Easement Policy.
According to information provided by the Calvert County Soil
Conservation District:
·
The
primary resource conservation purpose of the proposed mitigation practice of
the wetlands being constructed on the property is to reduce discharge of
sediment, nutrients, and/ or other pollutants from the farm.
·
The
proposed mitigation practice is an appropriate and necessary best management
practice (BMP) to achieve the resource conservation objectives for the farm,
based on NRCS standards and estimates.
·
The
wetland is no larger than 5% or five acres of the property and is comprised of hydric or non-qualifying soils.
·
The
vegetative buffer conforms to the NRCS standards for Wetland Restoration,
Wetland Creation, and Shallow Water Area for Wildlife.
·
The proposed mitigation practice treats discharge generated from the Gott farm only. None of the treated drainage is derived
from neighboring lands.
·
The project is sized to manage discharge from a 25-year (or smaller)
storm.
·
The wetlands are sized to be no larger than necessary to achieve the
resource conservation purpose of improving water quality and reducing water
quantity (heavy flow events) in the
·
The wetlands are included in the Soil Conservation and Water Quality
Management Plan for the farm.
·
Construction of the wetlands will not reduce the percentage of
qualifying soils on the farm below the 50% threshold for eligibility as a MALPF
easement. Removal of the 4.3 acres would
leave a remaining total of 61 acres or 71% qualifying soils.
The Foundation's Wetland Mitigation
Easement Policy requires that the developer provide written verification that a
search for mitigation sites on non-easement properties has been conducted
within the eligible geographic area, and that the search has not produced
sufficient suitable sites. The developer
in this case is
The WME Policy requires that the
local government 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. A letter from Calvert County Department of
Public Works states that the project is a one mile road that will connect Patuxent High School with Maryland Route 765, which
provides a more direct and safe route for bus traffic. Because this is a
county-funded project, it is consistent with the plans, ordinances, and
regulations governing the project's approval.
As required by the WME Policy, the
Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) has provided a written opinion to the
Board stating the development project is consistent with the local
comprehensive plan and State Planning Policy, and that it is likely to
encourage or support substantial further development in areas the Foundation is
attempting to preserve.
Foundation staff recommends approval because the request
meets the qualifying criteria of and is consistent with the Foundation's
Wetland Mitigation Easement Policy. The
proposed project is a legitimate means to practice good stewardship that
complements the Foundation's interest in farm and forest production. The impact on the farm operation is minimal. The total amount of land removed from
production (wetland + buffer) does not compromise the capacity of the farm to
support sufficiently diverse forms of profitable production of food and
fiber. Additionally, the creation of the
wetland would reduce erosion on the overall farm and reduce nutrient loading
and sedimentation from runoff into the
Note: The WME policy requires Resource Conservation
Operations (RCO) review of the findings provided by the Soil Conservation
District (SCD). Royden
Powell will present the RCO findings during the MALPF board meeting and will
advise the Board whether, in his judgment, the proposed mitigation practice
contributes substantially to good land and environmental resource stewardship
on the farm.
Mr. Gott,
Bill Clark, Manager, Calvert County Soil Conservation District, and Jenny
Plummer-Welker, Calvert County MALPF Program Administrator, were available at
the meeting to answer questions from the Board. Royden Powell from
the Office of Resource Conservation was present to provide input to the Board.
Mr. Gott
had made his request to the
Mr. Gott
commented that if his request is approved, it will be good for his farm, the environment,
and the whole area.
Mr. Powell stated that he read the
request in the context of the policy adopted by the MALPF Board in February,
2007. One aspect of the policy was to
make sure that the proposed wetland mitigation would address resource
management concerns on a particular farm. Mr. Powell's review included a site visit, and
he believed the request is a textbook example of the things the MALPF Board
would want to approve. The areas
proposed for the wetland mitigation easement are not currently under production,
and the project would not impact any areas that are currently in
production. Mr. Powell believed that the
proposed wetland project is consistent with Resource Management Conservation
planning goals that are applied to agricultural land to address potential soil
and nutrient loss.
Motion #2: To approve the request of Mr. Donald T. Gott
to allow a wetland mitigation easement as an overlay on MALPF easement.
Motion: Chris Wilson Second:
Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
Jerry Klasmeier, representing Comptroller Peter Franchot,
brought the attention of the Board members to the recommendations mentioned by
Calvert Soil Conservation District in their letter dated
Mr. Clark confirmed that the recommendations
have been implemented.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know if the
non-subordination language will be included in the easement. Mr. Clark stated that the easement document to
be used is the one being provided by Maryland Department of Environment (MDE). MDE uses specific easement language, and it
does not specifically mention MALPF in the document.
Mr. Conrad asked if it would be
possible to include language to clarify relative positions. Mr. Clark confirmed that it should be
possible.
Mr. Colhoun
wanted to know whether the overall maintenance of the work will be borne by the
agency or by the property owner.
Mr. Powell stated that he is not
aware what the easement language provides for, but he believed that,
technically, the landowner will be responsible for maintaining the practices on
his farm.
Mr. Clark stated that for five years
Calvert County Government is required to maintain the wetland. If there is a problem in the first five years,
Calvert County Government will take care of the issues.
The Maryland Department of Planning
has also provided a written opinion to the Board stating the development
project is consistent with the local comprehensive plan and State planning policy,
and that it is not likely to encourage or support substantial further
development in areas the Foundation is attempting to preserve.
Ms. Plummer
recognized the efforts of Mr. Conrad and Ms. Weaver and thanked them for
visiting the County and participating in the land preservation workshop held in
the County.
Howard Freedlander, representing Treasurer Nancy Kopp, and Chair of the Equine
Committee, had to leave the meeting early. Therefore, the equine committee report was
moved forward.
IV. PROGRAM POLICY
A. Equine
Committee Report – No Action
Mr. Conrad
stated that MALPF committees have been discussing various policy issues. The Foundation initially has a general
presentation from the Committee and documentation is provided for everyone's
review and comments. The comments from
the equine committee can be sent to Mr. Freedlander. The comments will be incorporated by Mr. Freedlander and brought back for the Board's approval. Mr. Freedlander is
currently making an initial presentation and does not require the Board's
approval.
Mr. Freedlander, Chair, Equine Committee, thanked the members
of the committee and stated that the committee had representatives from the horse
industry. The equine committee tried to
be consistent with the uses committee and work in the context of the proposed Shawan Downs project.
Mr. Freedlander stated that he received a comment from
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Administrator, and the same was circulated at the
meeting.
Robert
Stahl, Board member, stated that we have to be careful about the size of the arenas
and indoor stables. They are very large
facilities and truly have agricultural uses.
Mr. Conrad
commented that the charts developed by Mr. Freedlander
will be circulated again and encouraged Board members and program
administrators to send their comments to Mr. Freedlander.
II. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
The Board resumes its
review of district and easement amendment requests.
A.
2.
04-80-04A Prouty, John
A. and Margaret G. 284.22
acres
04-80-04B
04-80-04C
04-80-01B Horsman, Richard and Phyllis 73.389 acres
Request for an overlay easement for installation of a
natural gas line on district and easement properties
Mr. and Mrs. Prouty own two
easement properties and one district property, for which they are the original
grantors (the easements and district together comprise one farm property). Mr. and Mrs. Horsman
are the original grantors of one easement property. The current request is for a 50' permanent
right-of-way overlay easement and a 50' temporary construction easement on the
properties.
Much of the pipeline parallels a right-of-way along an
existing natural gas transmission line; however, due to residential
development, the route has been diverted in certain areas to avoid dense
residential development. On the Prouty property, the proposed transmission line parallels
the existing line (the original transmission line right-of-way pre-dated the
MALPF easement). On the Horsman property, no existing transmission line exists
because the line was diverted to avoid residential development in the White
Sands area.
On the Horsman property, Dominion's
original route located the line along the edge of the crop fields and in
woodland. However, Mr. and Mrs. Horsman requested that the line be moved into the field to
avoid locating it next to a residential dwelling on the property. Additionally, the Horsmans
requested the current location because they did not want to locate the line in
the woods because they felt it would increase all-terrain vehicle traffic, which
is already a problem on their and surrounding farm properties.
Dominion has agreed to include, at the Foundation's request,
certain conditions in its right-of-way agreements with the landowners that
protect the future agricultural use of the property, including restoration of
original topsoil, etc. The conditions
are included as an exhibit to the right-of-way (copy attached with staff memo).
The construction is expected to begin during the summer. The farmers will be compensated for any crop
loss. The farmers will be able to farm
over the easement area when construction is complete. However, no structures, including barns, may
be placed in the right-of-way area. Additionally,
no large trees may be planted in the area.
The request is consistent with local zoning ordinances. The local advisory board voted to forward the
request for review by the Foundation; however, the advisory board noted that,
the location of the transmission line on the Horsman
property "is contrary to the County's policy to not disturb agricultural
land when there is an alternative route available that causes significantly
less disturbance."
Foundation staff recommends approval of the Prouty request because it is consistent with the Foundation's
Overlay Easement Policy (copy attached with staff memo). The right-of-way easement will not prohibit
any agricultural operation; it will have minimal interference on the overall
operation of the farm; the use is limited to the area defined in the overlay
easement. However, Foundation staff
shares the concern of the
The Proutys and the Horsmans, in addition to representatives from Dominion,
will be available during the meeting to address questions from the Board. The Horsmans are
aware of the concerns of the county advisory board and the Foundation staff and
are prepared to address those concerns during the meeting.
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of
General Services, has reviewed the right-of-way agreements and commented that
she did not see any issues.
Mr. Conrad stated that Pam Bush, Department
of Natural Resources, Senior Policy Analyst, was available at the meeting. Ms. Bush coordinates such policy issues with
State land preservation agencies.
John Prouty, Richard Horsman, and Jenny Plummer-Welker, Program Administrator,
were available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board.
Ms. Welker stated that the Dominion pipeline connects the
facility that is a mile away from the
Mr. Conrad pointed out that the Prouty
farm is the key to the whole project because it is the entry point where the
pipeline is being laid underneath the river. Mr. Conrad recognized Mr. Prouty
and his family for being prominent in land preservation in
Russell Johnson, Manager, Land and Right of Way, Dominion
Transmissions, Inc., stated that Dominion has made efforts to negotiate rights
of way agreements with Mr. Prouty and Mr. Horsman. Dominion
believes that the impact of pipelines in an agricultural area is not counter to
the intentions of agricultural preservation. Dominion project engineers were available at
the meeting to answer any questions or concerns from the Board.
Mr. Freedlander wanted to know who
will be monitoring the installation. Mr.
Johnson commented that they will have environmental inspectors on the project. Dominion will also have construction
inspectors who are usually company employees who oversee the construction of
pipelines. The project will also have an
on-site project supervisor, Dominion has enlisted an environmental consultant
who will coordinate all environmental inspections, and the project will be
under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Mr. Horsman stated that he was
concerned whether the ten inches of top soil will be put back, and Dominion has
guaranteed that, if Mr. Horsman is not satisfied,
Dominion will bring back more top soil and correct it.
Mr. Johnson agreed and stated that it is a standard
construction practice followed by Dominion. One of the first things they do is to move the
top soil off from the construction area and stockpile it. That allows the construction to proceed on the
subsoil area. There is heavy
construction equipment that operates on the property, but, after the pipeline
has been installed, they bring back the top soil and spread it over the
disturbed area. The last thing Dominion
does is to fertilize, lime, and mulch the disturbed area.
Mr. Colhoun asked if the property
owners have any other concerns.
Mr. Horsman stated that originally
Dominion was planning to build through his daughter's front yard which didn't
show up on the tax map. Mr. Horsman located the pipeline, parallel to his property, his
nursery and his daughter's house. The
plan was to lay out the pipeline right through the woods. Dominion was not aware of Mr. Horsman's plans; however, after discussions, Dominion
agreed to come straight across the farm.
Mr. Prouty stated that the
Dominion line will run adjacent to the other pipeline, and he has no problems
coming to agreement with Dominion. Dominion
came up with the same program they did before, and it is agreeable to him and
his wife.
Mr. Freedlander wanted to know the
time line for the project.
Mr. Johnson stated that the overall construction for the
pipeline is going to be done over the summer of 2007 and also in 2008. In 2007, Dominion plans to do all the
directional drilling. The actual
construction of the pipeline will take place in 2008. The whole facility will be in operation by the
fall of 2008.
Mr. Tassone was concerned about
the development facilitated by the project and if that is consistent with the
Foundation's goals and objectives.
Motion #3: To approve the request of Mr. and Mrs. John A. Prouty and Mr. and Mrs. Richard A. Horsman
for an overlay easement for installation of a natural gas line on district and
easement properties.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second:
Chris Wilson
Abstained: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
Mr. Tassone wanted to know if
Mr. Conrad
commented that Mr. Prouty has already had a gas line
on his property. He was not sure if Mr. Prouty farms over any other area because there is a long
tree line. Mr. Conrad wanted to know if
Mr. Prouty has farmed over any part of this and what
his experience was.
Mr. Prouty stated that he has farmed it, and he had Dominion
put three tons of lime on the land. The
land is rotated with corn, beans, and wheat. Mr. Prouty
stated that he has not faced any problems.
B.
1. 12-00-07A Milton, J. Bradley 41.96
acres
Request for approval of an owner's lot on
district property
Mr. Milton is the original owner of the district property. The current request is for approval of an
owner's lot for his personal use.
There are no pre-existing dwellings on the property. No
other lots have been approved on the property.
Mr. Milton does not own any other district or easement properties.
According to
The request was approved by the local advisory board and is
consistent with local zoning regulations.
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.
Note: Because the location does not follow the
Foundation's lot location guidelines, Foundation staff has requested that
Additionally,
Will Doane, Program Assistant, was
available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board members. Mr. Doane stated
that Mr. Milton's farm is an example of innovation
and value added service to agriculture.
Responding
to a question from a Board member, Mr. Doane
commented that the aerial map provided with the agenda memo is from 2004, and
Mr. Milton has added a couple of things. The red roofed building indicated on the
aerial map is operated as a shop that directly sells agricultural material
produced on the farm. Mr. Milton has
also built a shed and has greenhouses on one side. There are no dwellings on the property.
Mr. Colhoun asked if the house is sub-dividable. Mr. Doane confirmed
that it is. When Mr. Milton applied, he
applied only to build a house, and there was no mention of an interest in
subdivision.
Mr. Colhoun asked if Mr. Doane had a
conversation with Mr. Milton about the physical location of the proposed lot. Mr. Doane said that
he had not asked this question specifically.
Mr. Stahl
stated that he was concerned that the SRAs (Septic
Replacement Areas) are spread all around the farm and are not clustered. Mr. Stahl believed the farm was being set up
for permanent subdivision.
Mr. Colhoun pointed out that is the reason the Board prefers
that the landowner attend the meeting to discuss such issues with the Board
members.
Motion #4: To defer the request of Bradley J. Milton for an approval of
an owner's lot on district property.
Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: Pat Langenfelder
Status: Approved
D. QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
1. 17-99-10 Story, L. Sudler and Mary J. 152.96 acres
Request for approval of
an owner's lot on easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Story are the original grantors of the
easement. The current request is for
approval of an owners' lot for their personal use.
There are no pre-existing dwellings on the property. No other lots have been approved on the
property. They do not own any other
district or easement properties.
According to Queen Anne's County, the proposed lot is
located along the road and will be accessed directly from the road.
The request was approved by the local advisory board and
conforms to local zoning regulations. If
approved, the payback amount will be $690.00.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus
such minimum additional acreage if required by the County Health Department,
not to exceed 2 acres total based on the provisions of the deed of easement and
in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b), Annotated Code of
Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of up to 2 acres if
required by regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the
county.
Donna Landis-Smith, Program Administrator, was available to
answer questions from the Board. Ms. Landis-Smith
stated that she contacted the landowner about the location of the lot. Prior to the land being put under MALPF
easement, there was a house that had been knocked down and destroyed. Ms. Landis-Smith inquired about moving the lot
closer to the woods, but the soils were not suitable.
Mr. Conrad asked about the existing septic. Ms. Landis-Smith stated that it is very old
and is not suitable for use.
Motion #5: To approve the request of Sudler
L. and Mary J. Story for an owners' lot on easement property.
Motion: Robert Stahl Second:
Pat Langenfelder
Status: Approved
Mr. Conrad wanted to know if there are any agricultural
structures on the property. Ms. Smith
stated that there were none. The reason
the landowner is building a home on this property is because he lives directly
in front of the old Delmarva Sash and Door Company. The company has been sold, and they have built
a new 12-acre plant on the property.
E.
1. 06-90-52e Caple, Donna M. 169.9924 acres
Request for acknowledgment of an existing right-of-way
access for an adjoining property
Ms. Caple is the subsequent owner
of the easement property. There is one
pre-existing dwelling. On
The adjoining property, a 1.0-acre residential lot owned by
Timothy and Kimberly Colliflower, was off-conveyed
from the subject farm by deed dated
As the language of the deed grants a 'temporary'
right-of-way, and because, according to
COMAR 15.15.01.17F states the Foundation may not grant
right-of-way access on easement property unless it is to 1) service a lot
released from the easement, or 2) service a neighboring farm for the movement
of farm equipment. However, this
right-of-way access pre-existed the easement.
Approval of the request will simply make use of the right-of-way
permanent in nature.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the request as the
right-of-way existed by deed recorded in the land records prior to establishment
of the District (
Ms. Forrester commented they have a temporary easement. It is temporary until they build another
right-of-way into their property. They
never built another right-of-way to the property. This will clear up any future title issues for
getting financing. The lenders will want
to see a permanent right-of-way easement.
Ms. Council commented the right-of-way pre-existed the
easement.
Motion #6: To approve the request of Donna M. Caple
to acknowledge an existing right-of-access for an adjoining property.
Motion: Jerry Klasmeir Second: Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
F.
1. 21-91-44se Schultz, Vera Mae and
Request to exclude up to 2.0 acres for an owners'
lot from easement property
Ms. Schultz and Ms. Bauer are the original owners of the
easement property. The current request
is for up to 2.0 acres for an owner's lot.
There are no pre-existing dwellings on the property. No previous requests have been made for lot
exclusions.
Ms. Schultz and Ms. Bauer also jointly own one other MALPF
easement property. There have been no
requests for lot exclusions on this property.
According to
This request has been approved by the Washington County
Advisory Board and it meets with all Planning and& Zoning approvals. If the request is approved, payback will be
$1,991.83 per acre.
This request follows the Foundation's Lot Location
Guidelines because it will be located along natural boundaries and clustered
with farm buildings. The landowner will
attend the March 27, 2007, meeting.
Staff recommends approval of the release of one acre plus
such minimum additional acreage not to exceed 2.0 acres total based on the
provisions of the deed of easement and in accordance with Agricultural Article,
Section 2-513(b), Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of a
maximum lot size of up to 2.0 acres if required by regulations adopted by the
Department of the Environment or the county.
Mrs. Schultz abstained as a Board
member for this specific agenda item and attended the meeting as a landowner. Holly Thibault, Land
Preservation,
Mrs. Schultz stated that they were
requesting the lot for their own use and also to ensure that there is a
residence on the farm when the ownership of the farm changes. Currently there is no residence on the
property.
The topography is karst, which is limestone, and there is a closed depression
near
Mr. Conrad wanted to know to whom
would the lot be designated; Mrs. Schultz or Ms. Bauer. Mrs. Schultz stated the
lot will be designated to her and Ms. Bauer has agreed to that.
Motion #7: To approve the request of Vera Mae Schultz and Betty Ann
Bauer for an owner's lot from easement property.
Motion: Chris Wilson Second:
Howard Freedlander
Abstained: Vera Mae Schultz
Status: Approved
Added
1. 21-97-07
Request to relocate 1.43
acres that were withheld from the district
[This item was added after agenda was printed. This material was
distributed at the meeting.]
Mr. and Mrs. Clark are the original owners of the district
property. The current request is for the
relocation of 1.43 acres that were withheld from the district.
There are two pre-existing dwellings on the property. No requests have been made for lot
exclusions. The landowners do not own
any other district or easement properties.
When the district was created, a total of 8.6 acres were
withheld. Because it is the Foundation's
policy not to make changes to the districts while in the process of settling an
easement, the landowners withdrew their FY 2006 easement application to receive
approval on
According to
The request has been approved by the local Advisory Board
and meets with all Planning and Zoning requirements. If this request is approved, the District
Agreement will be amended to accurately locate the withheld 8.6 acres.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the request to
relocate the 1.43 acre lot and points out that, while the request does not fall
within the Foundation's Policy for Lot Exclusion, it is being located in an
area that is unsuitable for agriculture.
Mr. Ray Clark and Ms. Thibault
were present at the meeting to answer any questions from the Board members. Mr. Clark stated that his granddaughter lives
with them. The requested location is
desired by his granddaughter. The
requested area is not in the farm area.
Ms. Council located the original location of part of the 8.6
acres withheld on the map. The remainder
of the 8.6 acres is now parcel 188. The movement came from the three lots located along
the west. In March 2006, the MALPF Board
approved 5.82 acres which have become
Motion #8: To approve the request of Ray and Geneva Clark to relocate
1.43 acres withheld from the district.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Pat Langenfelder
Status: Approved
G.
1. 15-05-01e Shiloh LLC 73.093
acres
Request for an overlay forest
conservation easement on MALPF easement property
When the District was established on this property, the
landowners withheld two (2) 25.0 acre parcels.
Currently, Mr. Rubin is in the process of formally subdividing the
parcels from the parent tract in order to separately convey them as buildable lots (only one dwelling will be permitted on each
25.0 acre tract). To meet the forest
conservation law requirements, it is necessary for the landowner to obtain a
forest conservation easement. He is
requesting to locate this easement as an overlay onto the existing woodland of
his MALPF easement property. According
to the survey that was submitted, 50.48 acres of the forest conservation
easement would be located on the MALPF easement property, while the remainder,
9.83 acres, would be located on the wooded portion of the 25.0 acre parcels.
Attachment A to this item is a copy of the recorded standard
forest conservation easement used by the
This request has been approved by the Montgomery County
Advisory Board. This request, as amended
by the MNCPPC, conforms to the Foundation's Policy on Overlay Easements
(Attachment B attached with agenda memo).
Foundation staff recommends approval of the overlay forest
conservation easement conditional upon:
1) formal placement of the alternate language (as submitted in
Attachment A, Page 3 of 5, paragraph 2); and
2) insertion of the language approved by the Foundation for
inclusion in all overlay easement documents (Attachment C attached with agenda
memo).
John Zawitoski, Program
Administrator, was available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board.
Mr. Conrad reminded the Board about MALPF's
policy on withheld acres and the way it works on the development rights on the
property. The situation is unlike a
particular situation in
Mr. Zawitoski commented that the
County is trying to work with the landowner to fulfill his intent for coming
into the program. He was concerned about
how MNCPPC tries to implement Soil Conservation Planning in
Mr. Zawitoski hoped this would
enable Mr. Rubin to move forward with the conservation easement that he needs
to meet with Forest Conservation Law requirements.
Mr. Conrad commented looking at the map it is clear that Mr.
Rubin is not creating additional forests but is using the existing forest area
of the land.
Motion #9: To approve the request of
Motion: Robert Stahl Second:
Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
Ms.
Forrester was concerned about the easement document and suggested making some
changes in the language.
Motion #9a: To approve the request of
Motion: Robert Stahl Second:
Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Zawitoski to work with Ms. Forrester to draft an appropriate
and suitable language.
H.
1. 10-87-10 Hallein, Edward & Carolyn 156.00 acres
Request for approval to
place a communications antenna on a power transmission tower
Mr. and Mrs. Hallein are the
grantors of the easement. The current
request is for approval to place a communications antenna on a power
transmission tower located on their property.
The Foundation has approved communications antennae on
district and easement property on several occasions when the antennae were
located on existing agricultural structures, such as silos. The minutes from the most recent approval
(Herbert C. and Karen S. Worden,
According to
The request was approved by the local advisory board and is
consistent with local zoning regulations.
Foundation staff recommends approval based on precedent of
Board approval of similar requests for communications antennae. While this request differs from past approvals
which have involved location of antennae on existing farm buildings, approval
of this request would not have a negative impact on the farming operation
because the transmission tower is an existing structure, located along the edge
of the property. The request is
consistent with the general recommendations of the Uses Committee: the use is consistent with local zoning
regulations; it does not interfere with the primary agriculture or forestry
operation; it will not affect the future agriculture or forestry productivity
of the land; and parking related to the activity is pervious and covers less
than 2% or 2 acres of the property.
Note: the Uses Committee has not
made a specific recommendation for communications antennae.
Jay Schapiro,
Verizon Wireless Representative(VZW),
and Anne Bradley,
Mr. Schapiro
stated that the antennas on power transmission towers are common and handed out
pictures of them. The pictures were from
Mr. Colhoun
commented that, other than the transmission line, the building itself is a
commercial enterprise. He asked Ms.
Forrester if the MALPF Board would be allowing a commercial enterprise.
Ms. Forrester stated that the MALPF
Board is discussing allowing an expansion of uses and stated that the antennas
require a cabinet or a little building. MALPF
has similar existing structures on existing easement properties.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know if there
is a problem in locating the structure on the utility easement itself. Is there any interference?
Mr. Schapiro
commented that, for safety reasons, they require the structure to be outside of
the utility easement area.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know if the utility easement is so
narrow that it could not accommodate the structure.
Mr. Schapiro commented that he
would have to get a survey to confirm where the easement runs with Allegheny
Power Transmission (Allegheny). VZW has
an agreement with Allegheny Power Transmission. Allegheny allows VZW the use of a portion of
what they use. The easement itself is
not strong enough and that is the reason they are negotiating with the
landowner.
Mr. Colhoun asked if VZW has any
financial arrangements with the landowner.
Mr. Schapiro stated that they have
a long-term lease agreement with the landowner and so does Allegheny. In fact the two go hand in hand. VZW is building a road outside Allegheny's
right-of-way. The bulk of the road is
outside Allegheny's easement.
Mr. Stahl wanted to know why the access is not straight out
of
Mr. Conrad asked if the access is going to be an additional
part of the request. Mr. Schapiro confirmed that it was.
Mr. Colhoun asked if Allegheny
Power Company purchased the right-of-way that it uses for access. Mr. Schapiro stated
that Allegheny is unique. BGE is usually
much more defined as to how they access their lines, but Allegheny is not that
clear cut.
Mr. Colhoun wondered how far the
Foundation could open the door, how big a building it can allow, and under what
circumstances.
Mr. Schapiro mentioned that it is
a commercial venture and also is a utility. More counties are looking at it as a
necessity, as an emergency service and as a part of communication. VZW is also trying to maintain the intent and
spirit of the county's desire to use existing structures whenever possible.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know the nature of the proposed access.
Mr. Schapiro stated that they are
proposing to have a gravel mix. The
access construction would be very minimal.
Mr. Stahl mentioned that, in looking at the aerial map, the
access road appears to be probably close to 20 feet wide. Mr. Stahl believed that the towers are good in
the rural areas because it allows high speed internet. It is a positive thing in some aspects, but
there are some concerns too.
Donna Sasscer, Program
Administrator, St. Mary's County, stated that in St. Mary's County, they have a
landowner who has a cell tower on his property. Ms. Sasscer believed
that the MALPF Board needs to address the issue of additional roads; the county
has a lot of management issues. There
are issues related to impervious surfaces, storm water management issues, etc. There is a need to check with the counties.
Mr. Colhoun suggested that Mr. Schapiro re-look at the access road and come back to the
MALPF Board. He wanted to know how
Allegheny Power Company manages the access issue.
Mr. Schapiro stated that Allegheny
Power Company uses the existing owner's driveway. That is not an official use.
Mr. Conrad commented that if VZW located a structure
directly on the road, the road will become an access. Mr. Schapiro
believed that he could not do so because they need a place to pull off. It is a two lane road, and they cannot stop on
the road. Any type of access off the
county road will have to meet the requirements irrespective of the number of
times the access is used. The idea was
to make site setbacks and to address safety concerns.
Mr. Colhoun suggested that Mr. Schapiro convey the MALPF Board's concerns regarding the
access road to his engineers and come back.
Mr. Schapiro agreed to re-visit
the concerns regarding the access road.
Motion #10: To table the request of Edward and Carolyn Hallein
until they re-visit the access road.
Motion: James Pelura Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
Mr. Conrad also asked for a clear statement from the County.
2. 10-95-04 Smith, Larry & Sharon D. 185.00 acres
Request for an agricultural subdivision of
easement property
Mr. and Mrs. Smith are the original grantors of the
easement. The current request is for an
agricultural subdivision of the farm.
According to
The Smiths will continue to crop a portion of the parcel
they are retaining and may add a beef cattle operation on the remainder. The Grossnickles,
whose adjacent land is under a MALPF easement, intend to add the 110-acre
parcel to their existing 170-acre dairy operation. No dwellings or lots will be conveyed to the Grossnickles.
According to the
Both parcels would continue to meet minimum qualifying soils
criteria. The portion proposed to be
subdivided contains 100% qualifying soils.
The remaining parcel contains 93% qualifying soils.
The request was approved by the local advisory board and
conforms to local zoning regulations.
Foundation staff recommends approval based on meeting
minimum size and soils criteria, and both resulting parcels would have the
ability to support viable agricultural operations.
Anne Bradley,
Ms. Bradley stated that the Smiths
plan to crop his portion of the farm with hay and they may have beef cattle in
the future.
Ms. Bradley clarified that the Grossnickles have a county easement and not a MALPF
easement.
Motion #11: To approve the request for an agricultural subdivision of
easement property.
Motion: Chris Wilson Second:
Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS
A. St.
Mary's County
1.
This is a 53.2 acre parcel located
in the Southwest of Wathen Road in the town of
Foundation staff recommends the landowner acquire
a forest stewardship plan.
Donna Sasscer, Program
Administrator, was available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board.
Motion #12: To approve the request of Cecelia Ann Holley, et al., to
establish an agricultural land preservation district
on their property.
Motion: Vera Mae Schultz Second:
Chris Wilson
Status: Approved
B. Queen
Anne's County
1.
This is a 50.00 acre parcel
located southeast of Centreville. There
is one dwelling. The farm has 39 acres
of cropland and 10 acres of woodland. The
primary farming operation is corn, wheat, soybeans and hay. It has 94% qualifying soils. It is part of a larger operation and is owner
operated.
Mr. Conrad stated that if the survey comes in with less than
50 acres, there may be a concern about whether deeded open space will satisfy
the contiguity requirement.
Motion #13: To approve the request of Bruce T. and Dennis E. Ivins to establish an agricultural land preservation
district on their property pending determination of easement acreage.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Robert
Stahl
Status: Approved
There being
no further business, Mr. Colhoun asked for a motion for
adjournment of the meeting.
Motion #14: To adjourn regular session.
Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
The regular
session of the Board meeting was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully
Submitted:
_____________________________________
Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary
__________________________________
James A. Conrad,
Executive Director