MALPF Board Meeting minutes: April 24, 2007

MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION

MINUTES

April 24, 2007

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

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:

Dr. James Pelura

OTHERS PRESENT:

Bill Amoss, Harford County, Program Administrator

Anne Bradley, Frederick County, Ag. Preservation Planner

Tammy Buckle, Caroline County, Program Administrator

Edwin and Patricia Collins, Landowner, Caroline County

Carol Council, MALPF Administrator

Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary

William Doane, Jr., Harford County, Program Assistant

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services

Ronald Glime, Landowner, Caroline County

Jennifer Jackson Rhodes, Landowner, Queen Anne’s County

Joy Levy, Howard County, Program Administrator

Carla Martin, Kent County, Program Administrator

Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture

Charles Rice, Charles County, Program Administrator

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

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

Eric Shertz, Cecil County, Program Administrator

Martin Sokolich, Talbot County, Program Administrator

Pam Tressler, Landowner, Frederick County

Brian Wilhelm, Landowner, Garrett County

Gilbert Wilhelm, Sr., Landowner, Garrett County

Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Administrator

Daniel Colhoun, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m., at the Maryland Department of Agriculture building, Annapolis, Maryland.

The Chair asked the guests to introduce themselves.

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES/ADDITION OR DELETION OF AGENDA ITEMS:

A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS

Motion #1: To approve the minutes of March 27, 2007, with amendments.

Motion: Vera Mae Schultz Second: Howard Freedlander

Status: Approved

B. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:

NONE

V.A. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION - Wicomico County Re-certification – Item deferred

Mr. Colhoun stated that at the end of the regular session, Mr. Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Roger L. Richardson, Department of Agriculture, would brief the Board members about the legislative audit report.

Mr. Colhoun wanted to inform the Board about the American Farmland Trust and the new Farm Bill being introduced in Congress. Very specifically there is a re-write of FRPP that will drastically improve the ability of MALPF and other States (particularly in the Northeast) to participate in the program. Mr. Colhoun has been asked to put together further support for the bill. Part of the bill has a proposal that any money that is received from land preservation will not be subject to capital gains tax. There are a number of other incentives in the bill for greater participation in the FRPP program.

II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT AMENDMENTS

A. HARFORD COUNTY

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, which is for approval of an owner’s lot for his personal use, was tabled during the March meeting because Board members expressed concerns regarding the ability to subdivide the lot, which is located in the middle of the property, and wanted to ask Mr. Milton if he would consider making the lot non-sub-dividable. Mr. Milton was not present to address the Board members’ concerns.

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 Harford County, the proposed lot is located next to a steep slope that is used for miscellaneous storage related to the greenhouse business. The lot would be accessed by an existing driveway. In a letter submitted with the request, Mr. Milton states that the location was chosen because the site is expected to perc and “so as not to disturb (the) annual corn maze in the front field and (the) existing strawberry patches, future raspberry patch, and produce ground.”

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 requested that Harford County staff inform the landowner that the Board may place a condition to make the lot non-sub-dividable from the farm for approval of the lot in the requested location. However, Harford County points out that, while the lot is not located along the road or in a corner of the property, the lot is accessed by an existing driveway and the impact on the farming operation is minimal as the land is not conducive to farming.

Harford County staff further states that “the building area in the northeast section has expanded to include additional greenhouses. The field to the south of the greenhouses and shop is used for a fall corn maze. Lands to the north/northwest are in heavy production. The next logical position for a dwelling where it can view the property to maintain security is the proposed area. There are no locations that provide access directly on a major road that would not impact the operation. The proposed area is accessed by an existing drive.”

Additionally, Harford County states that: “Because the property is a term-expired District and currently has no Primary Dwelling we have not pressed to make it non-subdividable, but he has no plans to subdivide and he has been intensely developing the agricultural capabilities of the farm as a self-sustaining business.”

Bill Amoss, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Amoss apologized that Mr. Milton could not attend the meeting.

Mr. Amoss stated that Mr. Milton purchased 40 acres of farmland in Harford County and has been very successful in becoming an agricultural producer. Mr. Milton has greenhouses and several acres of strawberries under cover. The County would like to help him.

Mr. Milton does not have a home property. He is living in a development five miles away. The question was how to allow a home to be built on his property. Mr. Amoss recommended that the Board approve a partial termination. Mr. Amoss wanted to encourage the landowner to take the next step to sell a permanent easement in the future.

Joe Tassone, representing Secretary Richard E. Hall, Department of Planning, wanted to know if Mr. Amoss had discussed with Mr. Milton about not making it a sub-dividable lot.

Mr. Amoss stated that he did discuss the issue with Mr. Milton and there was no problem. However, since the district had completed the term, Mr. Amoss suggested a partial termination.

Pat Langenfelder, Board member, wanted to know if there were any other preservation districts in the area.

Mr. Amoss believed there was a district of 20 acres and located it on the aerial map.

Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman, wanted to know if it will be advantageous for MALPF to allow the house location without having the acreage terminated.

Mr. Tassone commented that the issue at the last meeting was allowing a location with a sub-dividable lot because the proposed location was in the middle of the farm.

Doug Wilson stated that the request is for an owner’s lot, and he could subdivide it anyway. The issue before the Board is if it would like to restrict the house.

Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Amoss if he had specifically asked the owner if he is willing to have the building as a part of the farm and that it would be non-sub-dividable.

Mr. Amoss stated that he did ask Mr. Milton, but he was not sure what the term non-sub-dividable lot meant. Mr. Amoss reiterated that the property is a district property and not an easement. Mr. Milton has completed five years and can terminate the district anytime.

Mr. Colhoun asked if Mr. Amoss explained the term to Mr. Milton. Mr. Amoss stated that he also was not sure about the term.

Mr. Doug Wilson clarified that Mr. Milton cannot sell it as an independent house. The house goes with the farm. The owner needs to sign an agreement.

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services, commented that the property is a district that has completed its term and can be terminated anytime.

Mr. Tassone commented that he hopes the property becomes an easement property. When the property comes into an easement with a sub-dividable lot in the middle of the farm, it is a much less desirable easement than it would be otherwise.

Mrs. Schultz stated that, if the acreage is terminated, the landowner still has an owner’s lot right on the remaining acreage.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that we have a district that has expired. We have a client who may or may not enter the program. The only issue in front of the MALPF Board is the location of the client’s lot. The landowner has explained why he considers the proposed location as the best location. If they so desire, the MALPF Board can put a restriction. As pointed out by Mr. Amoss, the landowner can terminate the district and come back later for an easement sale, and the property will just have a lot excluded.

Motion #2: To approve the request of Mr. Bradley J. Milton for approval of an owner’s lot on his district property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Robert Stahl

Status: Approved

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that he is satisfied with the location of the lot and the explanation provided. The motion is to approve the request of the landowner as originally requested.

B. GARRETT COUNTY

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

Request to exchange 4 acres of easement property for 8 acres of non-easement property

Mr. and Mrs. Wilhelm are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is for approval to exchange 4.1 acres of easement property for 8 acres of non-easement property.

This item was discussed at the December 12, 2006, Board meeting. The original request was for an equal exchange of four acres of non-easement for four acres of easement property. The item was withdrawn at the request of the landowner to allow more time to determine how much acreage was required and the exact location of the area to be excluded from the easement. Some Board members expressed an opinion that the uses Mr. Wilhelm proposed for the property may be allowable under the new use policy. Mr. Colhoun offered to have MALPF staff visit the property to discuss the various alternatives available to Mr. Wilhelm.

When the district was established in 1991, the Wilhelms withheld three areas comprising 36.175 acres from the district/easement. The areas included a 4-acre parcel, an 8-acre parcel and a 24.175–acre parcel. Mr. and Mrs. Wilhelm are requesting approval to remove 4.1 acres surrounding barns and a riding arena from the easement. In exchange, they propose to add an 8-acre parcel originally withheld from the easement.

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

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

MALPF staff visited the property with Mr. Colhoun. Mr. Wilhelm discussed his plans to use a portion of the arena as an animal clinic and to use an existing barn for temporary accommodations for visitors to the horse farm.

Foundation staff asked John Nelson, Director, Garrett County Planning and Zoning, if access would be an issue for Mr. Wilhelm’s proposed use as a clinic. Mr. Nelson stated that there is no zoning in this area of the county and therefore there are no specific requirements for access.

The acreage exchange was approved by the local advisory board and is consistent with local zoning regulations.

Foundation staff has informed Mr. Wilhelm that Mr. Colhoun would like the area proposed to be removed from the easement to be as small as possible and that he should be prepared to explain to the Board why 4.1 acres would be required for his proposed uses. If Mr. Wilhelm can adequately demonstrate to the Board that four acres will be required, staff recommends approval. If approved, Foundation approval should be contingent on a satisfactory review by the Office of Real Estate, Department of General Services, for a determination of the impact of the proposed exchange on the value of the easement.

Gilbert Wilhelm, Sr., and his son, Brian Wilhelm, were present at the meeting. Briefing the Board members about their farm operations, Mr. Brian Wilhelm stated that they are involved in breeding and training horses. They would like to put a tenant house and a septic system in place. They would like to have a public rest room. They are training the young people for their staff. The Wilhelms would like to have a stopover station for people bringing cattle to stopover and layover on their journey. They would like to make it a motel-like facility and planned to offer it at an economical rate.

Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know about the access to the commercial activity. He was interested to know about the traffic and whether it is going to have an adverse impact on their agricultural operations.

Mr. Brian Wilhelm stated that they have a very good engineer. The access road is gravel, which is 50-foot wide. The access is already available for trucks and trailers. People who sell sodas and chips are also using the same road.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that in December 2006, when the Wilhelms‘ request was discussed, the proposal was to swap 4-acres. The Foundation had expressed an interest about whether or not an entire 8-acre parcel (that was being split into half) could come into the program, and the Wilhelms are currently proposing this. He requested that the Board members re-examine that part of the equation.

Mr. Wilhelm agreed and distributed some photographs of the property.

Mr. Tassone recalled the previous discussions the Board had in December 2006. He stated that some of the Board members were interested in the option of being able to allow the uses and continue to keep the land under easement.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that uses like bull riding may be accepted under the umbrella of allowable uses, but the Wilhelms had openly conveyed what their interests were. The present request seemed to be the avenue the Board can explore.

Howard Freedlander, representing Treasurer Nancy Kopp, stated that the staff memo mentioned that the Wilhelms are making the request because they are experiencing financial hardship due to heavy capital investment in the barn and the arena. He wanted the Wilhelms to clarify because he believed the capital investments must be bringing in a return.

Mr. Brian Wilhelm stated that he was getting some help from the money earned from boarders. The breeding program has taken off. They thought they would make more money from boarders, but that was not the case. The Wilhelms had to get rid of them.

Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Wilhelm if, with the 4 acres, they would be able to do what they wanted, including parking for the people expected to come to a rodeo.

The Wilhelms stated that they were confident that they would be able to do so. They have had up to 100 horses, and there was enough space.

Mr. Colhoun had visited the site and stated that the Wilhelms have created a sort of plateau; it is somewhat limited as to what they could do within the 4-acres.

Mr. Wilhelm stated that he has been in the timber business for the last 17 years. He has been actively involved in agriculture and dairy for the last 7 years, and the property is also used for agriculture, including dairy and beef. He located the inside arena on the map. His son wants to take the small building and make it into another hotel for people who travel from coast to coast to spend the night with the horses.

Motion #3: To approve the request of Gilbert and Mary Wilhelm to exchange 4.1 acres of easement property for 8 acres of non-easement property. The approval is contingent on a satisfactory review by the Office of Real Estate, Department of General Services.

Motion: Vera Mae Schultz Second: Joseph Tassone

Status: Approved

Mr. Doug Wilson informed Mr. Wilhelm that the transaction is approved by the MALPF Board and is contingent upon a satisfactory review by the Office of Real Estate, Department of General Services (DGS), for a determination of the impact of the proposed exchange on the value of the easement.

C. FREDERICK COUNTY

1. 10-04-07 Grossnickle, Charles and Gerry 152.96 acres

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

Mr. and Mrs. Grossnickle are the original owners of the district property. The current request is for approval of a child’s lot for the personal use of their daughter, Pam.

There are two 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. This district property is preserved under the Frederick County easement program.

According to Frederick County, the proposed lot is located in close proximity to several farm structures. The proposed lot is located along the road and will be accessed directly from the road.

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 in accordance with Agricultural Article, Section 2-513(b), Annotated Code of Maryland, which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of up to 2 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the county. The lot location conforms to the Foundation’s lot location guidelines: it is located along the road, clustered with the farmstead.

Pam Tressler, daughter of Mr. Charles Grossnickle, and Anne Bradley, Agriculture Preservation Planner, were available at the meeting. Ms. Bradley stated that Charles and Gerry Grossnickle are brothers and co-owners of the farm.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that it is mentioned in the staff memo that the property, while a MALPF district, is preserved under the Frederick County easement program. He wanted to know if Frederick County also has jurisdiction over lots.

Ms. Council stated that Frederick County still needs the MALPF Board’s approval if it continues to be a MALPF district. Sometimes when the County or someone else puts an easement on the property they ignore the district. Ms. Council appreciated that Frederick County recognized that they still need the MALPF Board’s approval

Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know if Frederick County also has an administrative action to approve the lot and its location.

Ms. Bradley agreed and stated that the request is in front of the Board of Commissioners on the day of the Board meeting, and Tim Blaser, Program Administrator, is taking care of it.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the Foundation may like to look at the scenario that once a district reaches its five-year status and if the property is already permanently preserved using another method, there may be conflicts about the administration of the easement at various times. The Foundation may like to discuss this at a future point in time.

Motion #4: To approve the request of Charles and Gerry Grossnickle for a child’s lot on their district property.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander

Status: Approved

D. QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY

1. 17-02-08 Jackson, Charles E. and Mary A. 169.50 acres

Request for a partial termination of district property

Mr. and Mrs. Jackson are the original owners of the district property. The current request is for a partial termination of the district.

The Jacksons are requesting a partial termination of a 3-acre area of the district to enable the Jacksons to convey three acres to their daughter who owns an adjoining lot. There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property.

According to Queen Anne’s County, the area to be terminated is primarily woodland. Because the area is located in a corner of the property, adjacent to an existing lot, the impact on the agricultural operation of the farm will be minimal. Current zoning allows a maximum of one lot on the 3-acre area. However, the site does not perc. Additionally, once the 3-acre area is added to the daughter’s lot through the county’s subdivision process, the ability to construct a dwelling, even if a successful perc could be obtained, would be eliminated.

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

Staff recommends approval. The request falls within one of the allowable reasons for partial termination of land from districts under the Foundation’s partial termination policy. Specifically, the land requested to be terminated from the district would allow less than three lots (the maximum allowed under the partial termination policy). The district continues to meet the minimum size and soils criteria.

Jennifer Jackson Rhodes, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Jackson, and Donna Landis-Smith, Program Administrator, were available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board. Ms. Rhodes currently owns the lot where the house is located and wants to build a shed on the property. The County regulations require additional acreage to be able to build a shed on her property. Ms. Landis-Smith located on the aerial map the location where the house is located and the existing driveway.

Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know if the current action will preclude development rights opportunities for the district and lots (owners and children’s lots).

Ms. Council stated that she believed the action would not affect the lots because they are not asking for child’s lots. The landowner is asking for a partial termination, and so the landowner can come back even when they are in district and request a child’s lot for her.

Ms. Landis-Smith stated that Ms. Jackson’s home was built prior to the establishment of the district. The district was established in June 2002. As of June 2007, the district would complete its term of five years.

Motion #5: To approve the request of Charles and Mary Jackson for a partial termination of their district property.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

Mr. Tassone quoted from the staff memo that: “… once the 3-acre area is added to the daughter’s lot through the county’s subdivision process, the ability to construct a dwelling, even if a successful perc could be obtained, would be eliminated.” He wanted to know why this would be the case.

Ms. Landis-Smith stated that it would be so because of the size. The County regulations require a minimum of an acre for the SRA. Because of the size, the County Health Department will not approve it because it will not perc. The County Health Department will not approve the types of soil around the woodland.

E. ST. MARY’S COUNTY

1. 18-00-06e Long, Linda 204.15 acres

Request for approval of a 1.0-acre child’s lot for son, Brian Christopher Long

Ms. Long is the original grantor of the easement. The current request is for approval of a child’s lot for the use of her son, Brian Christopher Long.

There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. There have been no previous requests for lot exclusions. Ms. Long does not own any other MALPF district or easement property.

According to St. Mary’s County, the proposed lot is located in an unproductive field. Access for the proposed lot will be via an existing farm road. The landowner has stated that the lot is being located away from the public roadway and not clustered with the pre-existing dwelling or farm buildings because it would cause a disruption to the overall farm operation (the most productive fields). The chosen location is the least productive area of the farm, along a tree line and behind a pond.

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 $2,600.00 per acre to the Foundation.

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

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

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

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

4. Other.

From the aerial that was provided, it appears that the lot could be located along the roadway or clustered with the existing dwelling/farm buildings and, therefore the request would not conform to the Foundation’s Lot Location Policy. However, after speaking with the staff at St. Mary’s County, Ms. Council felt the landowner’s explanation of the chosen location was adequate.

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

Donna Sasscer, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting. Ms. Sasscer stated that she received e-mail from Mrs. Long stating that the landowner could not attend the meeting. Mrs. Long’s son is in the police academy and could not take leave. Ms. Sasscer stated that if there were any questions, she can be reach the landowner by phone.

Responding to a question, Ms. Sasscer stated that Mrs. Long’s son is involved in farming. The landowner raises grain on the farm and so he is not required to be full time on the farm.

Ms. Sasscer stated that Ms. Council had conveyed that there might be a question as to whether the landowners will be interested in having the lot stay as part of the farm. Ms. Sasscer commented that she was not aware of this question earlier and believed that it would be extremely difficult to arrange a loan. She can understand the question if the request were for an owner’s lot, but the current request is for a child’s lot.

Responding to a question, Ms. Sasscer located the county road on the aerial map.

Ms. Langenfelder agreed with Ms. Sasscer that the lot would be sub-dividable. However, Ms. Langenfelder stated that she does not like the location. She understands that the land is less productive, but the house is in a location that may be occupied in the future by someone who is not associated with farming. The MALPF Board has come up with a lot location guideline on how the Board would like the lots to be chosen. The current request is not complying with the guidelines; the lot is not clustered with other houses, and it is not against the road. The proposed lot is along a tree line, but is in the center of the farm.

Mr. Tassone agreed with Ms. Langenfelder’s concerns. In the preceding agenda item in Harford County, the landowner can enter the program to sell the easement in the next cycle. The MALPF Board may probably accept the easement. The Foundation will then have an easement with a sub-dividable lot in the middle of the farm. It is exactly like the one the Board does not want in the current request. In the case of Harford County, the Board did not want the property to drop out of the program.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the loan issue is a big issue. The proposed lot location does not follow the lot location guidelines.

Mr. Doug Wilson believed in this particular case, the MALPF Board should ask the landowner to re-evaluate or come back with some hard data on the productivity of the land. Mr. Doug Wilson stated that he would recommend the lot be moved more in line with lot location guidelines; clustering with others or closer to the road. We can compare the productivity of the acre being taken out versus the land along the road and make a value judgment. That way the Board can push the lot within the existing lot location guidelines.

Mr. Tassone was still concerned about the location of the lot in the middle of the easement.

Judith Lynch, Board member, asked the attorneys if the Board has ever restricted a child’s lot in the past to be not sub-dividable.

Ms. Forrester stated that restriction could not be put on a child’s lot. The child gets to own the lot. If, at the point of sub-dividing, the child owns the lot, it can be financed.

Robert Stahl, Board member, was concerned about the precedent the Board would be setting up if it approved the lot. If the request is approved, he wondered if the MALPF Board could restrict anyone again based on lot location guidelines. He understands that the landowner would like to have the children on the farm, but the reality is 50% of the marriages end up in divorce, and there could be a situation where the landowner is forced to sell it and the Foundation will have a third party right in the middle of the easement. The lot location guidelines were created keeping the realities in mind. Many farm owners do not understand what the MALPF Board sees on a very regular basis.

Mr. Colhoun commented that he understands the concerns of the Board and that is the reason he reiterates the need for the landowner to be present at the meeting to address the concerns of the Board. He asked if Ms. Sasscer believed that she was able to convey the seriousness of complying with the lot location guidelines to the landowner.

Ms. Sasscer stated the landowner was given the lot location guideline ahead of time. Her staff was able to personally convey the need to comply with the guidelines.

Mr. Colhoun wanted to make sure that the landowner truly understands that the MALPF Board requires the lot location guidelines to be followed. He asked if it would help the landowner to go back and re-look at the request.

Ms. Sasscer stated that, if the MALPF Board denies the request, the landowner will have to re-look at the request, but it would delay them by a year to construct a house due to the wet season in the County (perc season).

Motion #6: To defer the request of Linda Long for 1.0-acre child’s lot for son, Brian Christopher Long.

Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: Vera Mae Schultz

Opposed: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

Mr. Tassone commented that the request is deferred to the next meeting for the landowner to review the request with respect to lot location guidelines.

Mr. Chris Wilson suggested that Ms. Sasscer give the landowner an opportunity to provide the MALPF Board evidence on their soil types.

Mr. Doug Wilson recommended that, if a landowner is indicating a location that is clearly outside the guidelines, the program administrator should encourage the clients to have a second choice. The MALPF Board requires additional information justifying the current choice of location or a second location that will be more desirable related to the lot location guidelines.

Mr. Colhoun commented that the request is deferred, and the MALPF Board is asking the landowner to reweigh her request. The request is neither denied nor approved.

F. CAROLINE COUNTY

1. 05-89-30A Towers, Kenneth E. and Barbara C. 87.07 acres

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

Mr. and Mrs. Towers are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is for approval of a child’s lot for the personal use of their daughter, Kendra, for the construction of a dwelling for her personal use.

There is one pre-existing dwellings on the property. A child’s lot was approved on the property in 1991 for the Towers’s son, Kenneth. They do not own any other district or easement properties.

According to Caroline County, the proposed lot is located along the road, in a corner of the property, adjacent to the previously approved child’s lot. The lot has direct road access.

The request was approved by the local advisory board and conforms to local zoning regulations. If approved, the payback amount will be $712.07 per acre.

Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board. The landowners could not attend the meeting due to some commitments at work.

Motion #7: To approve the request of Kenneth and Barbara Towers for a child’s lot on easement property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

2. 05-95-05 Glime, Ronald & Joy 389.31 acres

Request for an increase in the size of an owner’s lot under the terms of HB 460

Mr. and Mrs. Glime are the original grantors of the easement. The current request is to increase a previously approved owner’s lot under the terms of a statutory change resulting from HB 460 (2006 legislative session), which increased the discretion provided to the Board of Trustees in determining maximum lot sizes.

On October 25, 2005, the Foundation approved an owner’s lot for the Glimes, which is the only lot request for the property. The approved lot was located in the farmstead area on the site of a former dwelling which had burned down. (The original dwelling lot location was not counted as an existing dwelling lot when the property entered the program.)

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

Under the terms of HB 460, the Foundation’s Board of Trustees may approve a lot size of up to two acres if the additional acreage were to be recommended by the local advisory board and the local planning and zoning authority. The legislation states that the Foundation must determine that a lot size of greater than one acre would not interfere significantly with the agricultural use of the property. The legislation was intended to avoid situations where the one-acre size restriction would result in lots with irregular shapes or where the lot creates small adjacent areas of land that remain under easement but are not farmable, and to generally provide discretion to the Board of Trustees to approve larger lot sizes in situations when the Board determines it appropriate.

According to Caroline County, the Health Department is not requiring a 2-acre lot size. However, the Glimes are requesting the additional acreage because the Health Department is requiring a 25’ compaction buffer around the 10,000 square foot sewage reserve area. The buffer requirement leaves a minimal building envelope for the construction of the house and additional accessory structures for future construction, including a detached garage and a swimming pool.

The local advisory board and the local department of planning and zoning recommend a lot size of two acres.

If the request is approved, the total payback to the Foundation will be $860.00 (2 acres at $430.00 per acre, which is the per acre amount the Foundation paid for this easement).

Staff recommends approval. The request is consistent with the waiver provided through HB 460. The negative impact of the proposed lot configuration on the agricultural operation is not significant because the lot is located on a site previously occupied by a dwelling.

Ronald Glime and Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, were available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board. Ms. Buckle stated that, not only the local advisory board recommended approval of 2 acres, but the zoning authorities of Caroline County have recommended approval of 2 acres. The County Health Department also has recommended, but does not require, that the lot be 2 acres. However, the Ground Water Protection Report says the minimum acreage is required. It is actually a flaw in the regulations, but it is something by which the landowner has to abide because it is recommended by the Ground Water Protection Report.

Motion #8: To approve the request of Ronald and Joy Glime to increase in the size of an owner’s lot under the terms of HB 460.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Judith Lynch

Status: Approved

3. 05-05-03 Collins, Edwin H., Sr., and Patricia 195.75 acres

Request for approval to 1) amend a district to add acreage to the district; 2) to construct a migratory farm laborer structure on district property; and 3) to classify a mobile home used for housing of migratory farm workers as a tenant house.

Mr. and Mrs. Collins are the original owners of the district property. The current request is for approval to amend a district to add 1.247 acres, to construct a farm laborer structure on the area to be added to the district property, to classify the proposed structure as a tenant house, and to classify a mobile home located on the area to be added to the district property as a tenant house.

The area that would be added to the district is occupied by a 924 sq. ft. mobile home housing migratory farm laborers. When the district was established in 2005, the landowner did not include a 1.24-acre parcel adjacent to the district property because the lot included a mobile home used to house seven migratory farm laborers. Since the district was established, the Collins have expanded their greenhouse/vegetable operation requiring an increase in farm labor. Mr. Collins is working with the Labor Board and other governmental agencies to facilitate the housing of five additional migratory laborers.

Mr. Collins intended to construct a structure adjacent to the mobile home to provide housing for the additional workers. The proposed location was 25’ behind the mobile home. While the Health Department would approve the location of the structure, Mr. Collins is required to provide an additional 1.9 acres to satisfy the septic requirements. The Health Department will not accept a septic easement; the area must be added to the lot. Mr. Collins initially requested the termination of 1.9 acres from the district to satisfy the Health Department requirement. However, because the district is less than five years old, the Foundation may not release the acreage. Mr. Collins is requesting approval to amend the district to add the 1.247-acre lot to the district and approval to place a farm laborer housing structure on the area to be added to the district. By joining the 1.247-acre parcel to the main farm parcel, he would satisfy the Health Department regulations.

According to Caroline County, the area that would be added to the district is located along the road and is primarily wooded. The property has 100% qualifying soils.

The size of the proposed farm laborer structure would be approximately 14’ X 30’ (420 sq. ft.). The structure is not considered a dwelling by the county. It would be a one-room structure that would be used for bedding purposes only. The laborers would use the bathroom and kitchen in the adjacent mobile home. Because the county regulations allow only six workers per unit, one of the farm workers may move from the mobile home to the proposed structure.

The farm workers will provide labor for two additional farms; a 138-acre MALPF easement property owned and operated by Mr. and Mrs. Collins; another 43-acre farm is owned and operated by the son of Mr. and Mrs. Collins. Mr. Collins’ father is also involved in the operation of the farms.

The request was reviewed and approved by the local advisory board on April 23. The board’s recommendation will be provided at the MALPF board meeting. Local zoning requires a Special Use Exception, which Caroline County planning and zoning representatives expect will be granted. A copy of the local regulations was attached with the staff memo.

Staff recommends approval of the request to amend the district to add the 1.247-acre area and to enable the construction of the proposed structure. According to Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Department of Agriculture, the proposed structure could be approved under the classification of tenant house. The statute grants the landowner, subject to the approval of the Foundation, the right to “construct housing for tenants fully engaged in operation of the farm” (Agricultural Article § 2-513 (b)(4)(i) Annotated Code of Maryland). (Note: MALPF’s current deed of easement allows a maximum tenant house size of 2,000 sq. ft. The combined area of both the mobile home and the proposed structure is 1,344 sq. ft.) However, the Foundation does not have precedent for approval of housing for multiple farm workers in one structure. Craig Nielsen and Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services, will provide legal guidance to the Board during the meeting regarding its discretion in approval of this request, including classification of both the proposed structure and the existing mobile home as tenant houses.

Normally, the Foundation approves tenant houses on a one-tenant-house-per-100-acres basis. However, the statute provides an exception to the 1 tenant house per 100 acres rule when the landowner can show a compelling need (Agricultural Article § 2-513 (b)(4)(ii) Annotated Code of Maryland). A vegetable operation is labor intensive. Approval of the structure on the property will enable the landowners to realize greater agricultural potential from their land.

If the request is approved, the approval should include a condition that the structure proposed to be constructed may not be modified, including the installation of kitchens or bathrooms, without the prior written approval of the Foundation. Additionally, when the structure is no longer used for the purpose for which it was approved, it should be converted to a farm structure or demolished. Similarly, if the mobile home is no longer used to house workers fully engaged in the operation of the farm, it should be removed from the property. A copy of the Foundation’s tenant house regulations was attached with the staff memo.

Mr. and Mrs. Collins, and Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, were available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board. It is a family operation, and Mr. Collins’ son and grandson are involved in farming. Mr. Collins has had seasonal migratory farm helpers on the property since 1961. The family has been farming for many years. Mr. Collins currently has a need to have additional workers. He has several agreements, including Acme, Giant, and some smaller operators, to provide vegetables in the area. Years back when he first obtained approval from the Health Department for the structure for the housing of the farm laborers, the Health Department required that they be on separate lots. Mr. and Mrs. Collins complied with this requirement. Currently, Mr. and Mrs. Collins want to enlarge it because they will have more people on the site. The Health Department, due to changes in its regulations, feels the best way would be to add it back to the farm. At first the Health Department said to take 1.9 acres and add the acreage to the lot, but the district has not completed its 5-year commitment period.

Ms. Buckle stated that Mr. Collins has been a long time, hard-working farmer in Caroline County, and the County hoped to resolve this problem so that his family operations can continue. Mr. Collins has a vegetable operation and also has a poultry operation on his farm.

Ms. Buckle showed the Board an enlarged version of the aerial maps provided with the agenda item. She located the structure to be used for housing of the additional workers, sized 14’ x 30’, and indicated that it will be located 25’ behind the mobile home.

Mr. Doug Wilson asked if the seasonal workers come and go depending on the crop seasons as opposed to tenant houses. Is the building vacant when the seasonal workers are not available?

Mr. Collins answered ‘yes.’

Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to confirm if the rules for the types of quarters, the size, and not having the bath facilities are governed by federal or state laws related to seasonal workers and migratory workers.

Ms. Buckle stated that the regulations include the county and health department.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that Mr. and Mrs. Collins are trying to meet the requirements of MALPF and also those requirements. In Western Maryland and Eastern Shore these kinds of structures were deemed farm structures as opposed to tenant houses.

Mr. Colhoun asked Mr. Collins if he would like to add anything.

Mr. Collins stated that they have increased yields. In order to meet the demand, they need more laborers. They have replaced the 6-wheelers with trailers to keep the family operations growing. Mr. Collins’s grandson has finished his education and wants to come home and farm.

Mr. Nielsen asked Mr. Collins if he would agree to the conditions outlined in the staff memo, if the MALPF Board approves the request.

Mr. Collins stated that he would agree. Ms. Buckle stated that she had asked Mr. Collins if he would be willing to add 1.24 acres into the district with the understanding that the mobile home will never be sub-dividable from that property and Mr. Collins has agreed.

Motion #9: To approve the request of Edwin and Patricia Collins as per the staff recommendations.

Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Chris Wilson

Status: Approved

Mrs. Schultz wanted to know, if it is designated as a tenant house, does that reserve the right for a tenant house later.

Mr. Nielsen commented ‘not necessarily.’ Mr. Nielsen stated that the thought of the tenant houses being farm structures is a ‘slippery slope.’ Mr. Nielsen stated that he did not believe that the Foundation has really approved migratory labor facilities as farm buildings. It is either a farm building or a dwelling, i.e., somebody has to live there. What Mr. Collins is requesting is for a tenant house; it is not a farm building. Otherwise he need not have come to the MALPF Board for approval. The landowner has to demonstrate that he has a compelling need for a second tenant house. This seems to be the case.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that he believed the structure does not have a bath and a kitchen. Therefore, it cannot be a house. In order to be classified as a house, it has to have certain things that meet the county definition of a residence. A building may have 6, 7 or 8 cots, but cannot be described as a tenant house because it does not meet the definition. Mr. Doug Wilson believed the Foundation would have to follow the rules set by the jurisdiction.

Mr. Nielsen believed the Foundation has the discretion to determine whether or not it is a dwelling in spite of what the local laws state. For the purpose of this program, it is a structure where people can possibly live. It would be reasonable for the Foundation to conclude that this is a dwelling regardless of whether it has closets or bathrooms, etc., because the easement says that residential development is not allowed.

Mr. Stahl believed that there are specific cases where it is not considered as a separate residence, but is considered as a guesthouse. The Board needs to be sensitive to the fact that migrant labor is a necessity in many operations. He agreed with Mr. Doug Wilson that they should be classified as a migrant type of housing or as a farm building, but there has to be some guidelines. It just cannot be occupied on a permanent basis.

Mr. Colhoun commented that the staff has made some recommendations in the staff memo.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that he is fine with the staff recommendations, but just wanted to point out that migratory labor is a different category. The request can be approved as per the staff recommendations; it does not injure anything. The only issue is, when the laborers are gone, there are a variety of things that go with a particular structure that is 14’ x 30’ on a farm. Mr. Collins need not tear it down; it clearly cannot be an everyday residence because it has no bathroom.

Mr. Colhoun asked Ms. Buckle if the approval satisfies the landowner’s request.

Ms. Buckle stated that the request that has come to the MALPF Board is as approved by the County Health Department. The County Health Department has given approval for the landowners to place a structure which would be a one room structure, no larger than 14’ x 30’, open structure, bedding purposes only. The occupants can use the facility in the mobile home for kitchen and bathroom purposes. The landowner and the County request what the Health Department has already approved.

Ms. Buckle wanted to confirm the approval is for two tenant houses.

Ms. Council confirmed that one is the mobile home, the other is the new structure to be constructed, and the approval is for two tenant houses.

III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS

A. Queen Anne’s County

1. 17-07-05 Clark, David M., III, et al. 150.00 acres

This is a 150-acre parcel located in the community of Church Hill. There is one dwelling. The farm has 98 acres of cropland and 52 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is grain and poultry. It has 93.3% qualifying soils. It is part of a larger operation and is owner operated.

Foundation staff recommends the landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan.

Donna Landis-Smith, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board. Ms. Landis-Smith stated the property is contiguous with already preserved land, and, when the district is approved, it will be a portion of a large preserved land.

Motion #10: To approve the request of David Clark III, et al., to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander

Status: Approved

2. 17-07-06 Smith, Ronald H. and Ola M. 33.275 acres

This is a 33.275-acre parcel located in the community of Sudlersville. There is no dwelling. The farm has 33.275 acres of cropland. The primary farming operation is grain and hay. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is part of a larger operation and is owner operated. While the property does not meet the minimum size criteria, it is contiguous with a MALPF district property.

Ms. Landis-Smith stated that the property belongs to her in-laws. She stated that 33 acres of the parcel of land is located in Delaware, and the family is in the process of pursuing an easement on the Delaware portion. The farm is split in the middle by the Maryland-Delaware line and is contiguous with poultry operations and dairy farms.

Motion #11: To approve the request of Ronald and Ola Smith to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their property.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Doug Wilson

Status: Approved

Ms. Council stated that the next six district applicants would be reviewed separately. Because the property is being brought in as multiple districts, Foundation staff advised the county staff that the Board may have questions concerning the owners’ intentions regarding lot rights. The landowners are partitioning the property into six districts to maximize the opportunity to receive an easement offer from the Foundation. The next six districts total 551.3 acres. They are all owned by the Marylor Corporation.

3. 17-07-07 Marylor Corp. 109.308 acres