MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION

MINUTES

May 22, 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

Dr. James Pelura

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

OTHERS PRESENT:

Anne Bradley, Frederick County, Agricultural Land Preservation Planner

Tammy Buckle, Caroline County, Program Administrator

Diane Chasse, MALPF Administrator

James Conrad, MALPF Executive Director

Carol Council, MALPF Administrator

Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary

Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services

Edward Hallein, Landowner, Frederick County

Dale Hutchins, Landowner, Calvert County

Joy Levy, Howard County, Program Administrator

Carla Martin, Kent County, Program Administrator

Barbara Polito, Anne Arundel County, Program Administrator

Ralph Robertson, Carroll County, Program Manager

Charles Rice, Charles County, Program Administrator

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

Jay Schapiro, Contractor, Verizon Wireless, Frederick County

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

Eric Shertz, Cecil County, Program Administrator

Marilee Tortorelli, Morris Ritchie Associates, Anne Arundel County

Cynthia Young, Landowner, Anne Arundel County

Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF Administrator

Jenny Plummer-Welker, Calvert County, Principal Planner

Daniel Colhoun, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m., at the Maryland Department of Agriculture building, Annapolis, Maryland.

The Chair asked the guests to introduce themselves.

Mr. Colhoun regretted that the Board members could not get the agenda and the minutes in time. To help the Board members, Mr. Colhoun had asked MALPF staff to electronically re-send the staff memos.

Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Roger L. Richardson, Department of Agriculture, commented that it was one of his group’s faults. With the post office changing its rates, the Department was prepared, but the servicing part of the machine was sold to a vendor. The machine had problems because one of its parts was not delivered in time. This lead to a delay, and subsequently the agenda material was not sent out.

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 April 24, 2007, with amendments.

Motion: Howard Freedlander Second: Chris Wilson

Status: Approved

B. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:

Add on Kent County Added

14-86-03 Dill, Franklin M. 194.626 acres

Request to allow wastewater spray irrigation on easement property

James Conrad, Executive Director of the Foundation, introduced Diane Chasse as the third MALPF Administrator. Ms. Chasse will be working alongside Elizabeth Weaver and Carol Council. With this change the county responsibilities among the program administrators will be divided three rather than two ways.

Mr. Conrad also informed the Board members about the permission received from the Exemption Committee, Department of Budget and Management Position, to hire the monitoring position on a contractual basis. The position description for the monitoring position is under review and the Foundation hopes to hire the person soon.

Mr. Conrad circulated a proposed letter from the MALPF Board to the House and the Senate Agricultural Committees. This letter addressed the on-going problems with federal funds. The Foundation is seeking to influence legislation to change the way the program works. On May 16, the Foundation learned that language as supported by the Foundation, other North Eastern States and the American Farmland Trust had been incorporated into two different farm bills. Within two days the same language showed up in the discussion draft to turn the Farm and Ranchland Protection into a grants program. Mr. Conrad stated that he would like the Board to sign the proposed letter supporting the language.

Mr. Conrad handed out the proposed letter, the Discussion Draft Language taken from the website of House Committee on Agriculture, a press release from the Committee, and a summary of Farm and Ranchland Land Protection Amendment Summary.

The proposed language would create qualified entities. The entities are government agencies or land trusts that have a track record as specified in the legislation dealing with conservation easements and have an accepted program after being reviewed by the Federal Government. Certification as a qualified entity will allow grant funds to be spent using the entity’s own ranking system, easement, and settlement process. If the entity does not meet the criteria (which is not the case with the Foundation), it can still participate, but under the old rules, transaction by transaction.

The language gets rid of appraisal and title reviews and all the unnecessary federal regulations. The Foundation would be the sole easement holder with no contingent interests. All the title reviews and the extra requirements, such as yellow-book appraisals, will no longer apply. The remainder of any offer still must be matched by State and/or local money.

Until now one can use the federal matching funds up to 50% of the value of the easement which can be matched up to 25% of the value with the landowner’s contribution in the form of a bargain sale. The remainder must be matched by state and/or local money. It now lets the landowner discount up to 50% and would let the state or local entity go to settlement based only on federal money and the remainder of the match as the landowner’s contribution. This does not affect the Foundation directly, but it is very important to some counties and land trusts.

The draft language clarifies the program’s legislative intent. Since the legislation had originally narrowly defined the protection of prime farmland, it puts lot of restrictions on what can be done on properties that are considered to be normal agricultural activity (building a green house, having an educational activity, or having other types of activity that may work with the MALPF program, but not with the federal government). FRPP would now be more flexible in its uses.

The draft language would increase annual funding from $100 million to $300 million, though this remains discretionary.

Mr. Conrad had spoken to the Governor’s Office a day before the Board meeting. Mr. Conrad asked if the Board of Trustees would be willing to sign the proposed letter in support of this part of the Farm Bill. The letter would be distributed by the end of the week to the legislative delegation. Mr. Conrad stated that he was also planning to send a similar letter to all the program administrators. The program administrators can either send a separate letter or sign off on a general letter, if they wish to support a more workable FRPP.

Mr. Colhoun stated that he intends to sign the letter unless any Board members have any corrections or objections.

Mr. Conrad commented that the farm bill being introduced is a bipartisan farm bill. The Foundation is not asking for the support of the entire marker bill or the entire farm bill. The Foundation is only seeking support for the part of the Conservation Title that deals with Farm and Ranchland Protection Program. The Draft Language would create what the Foundation has been asking for the last two years.

Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Roger L. Richardson, Maryland Department of Agriculture, stated that the Secretary of Agriculture is working with the Secretary of Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to draft a letter on the larger farm bill. In the farm bill there is an opportunity to use farm bill dollars for environmental programs. Everybody is happy about the independent funding available. The issue is only when Congress decides to take the funds from commodity support and put it into environmental support. The issue is being discussed by the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Natural Resources, and the Governor’s Office. They are discussing what kind of a letter the Governor will sign to support the farm bill.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the proposed letter circulated by Mr. Conrad comes from a different grassroots element and is not specific about the funding. It is a policy memo.

Mr. Colhoun agreed and stated that the letter specifically addresses the MALPF Board’s problems and does not go beyond it.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that it is a culmination of the efforts of MALPF staff, Board members, program administrators, and people committed to the preservation of agricultural land (in other words, everybody in the room) and complimented the efforts of everyone.

II. DISTRICT /EASEMENT AMENDMENTS

A. FREDERICK COUNTY

1. 10-87-10 Hallein, Edward and 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 for approval to place a communications antenna on a power transmission line and build access and equipment shelter was tabled during the March 27th meeting because Board members wanted more information on the access road. The March 27^th agenda item and minutes were attached with staff memo.

The attached topographic map showed a proposed 12-foot wide access road and a proposed 20-foot wide access road easement. The proposed road is on a steep slope. A road on this grade could cause erosion of productive soils.

The Allegheny Transmission lines are in pink. The green lines represent the width of the Allegheny right-of-way easement. The equipment shed is proposed to be within the Allegheny right-of-way easement. However, Allegheny Power has issues with placing the equipment shed under the transmission lines or the tower. An email from Allegheny Power was attached with the staff memo.

For placement of the communications antennae, Foundation staff maintains its recommendation of 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.

For a right-of-way easement and construction of an access road, Foundation staff finds a negative impact to the future agriculture productivity of the land in that a 20-foot wide area is taken out of production for an access road. In addition, it is unknown as to whether constructing this road will lead to other users of the right-of-way, bringing with them more equipment sheds or other structures.

Edward Hallein, Jay Schapiro, Verizon Wireless Representative (VZW), and Anne Bradley, Frederick County, Agricultural Land Preservation Planner, were present at the meeting.

Ms. Bradley stated that last month the local agricultural board had stated the county’s position on granting an access directly on Marker Road straight to the transmission tower. In a meeting with the County staff and the transmission engineer, it was found that the direct access was unlikely to be granted due to sight distances used which had been shown in the pictures submitted this month, particularly when other access is already available.

Mr. Hallein noted that someone had mentioned the potential negative impact and erosion. Mr. Hallein brought some photographs to show the Board members the proposed access. Mr. Hallein is currently using an old road as an access. He does not grow hay on the area, but it is being used for storing bales. He does not crop anything over there. There is a circular graveled drive up to the farmhouse. There is grass growing, and there is erosion. Mr. Hallein handed over photographs depicting them. The driveway has a very steep path. It is a very steep slope.

Mr. Hallein regretted that the photographs did not depict the angles of the actual slope. Rather than having a negative impact, Mr. Hallein stated that he believed there would be a positive impact to the operations.

Mr. Colhoun asked Ms. Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, Department of General Services, about the legal research she had done on the property.

Ms. Forrester stated that when she was looking at an alternative site for the shed, she found that there is an old pipeline agreement. Ms. Forrester wanted to know if there is a liquid natural gas pipeline along there because there is a pipeline agreement.

Mr. Hallein stated in affirmative and said that the gas line cuts in the corner.

Ms. Forrester stated that the pipeline easement is directly adjacent and covers the 50-foot width. Ms. Forrester was concerned that the shed may be prohibited because of the existing pipeline.

Mr. Colhoun wanted to know if Mr. Schapiro is aware of the existence of the pipeline.

Mr. Schapiro stated that any plans are subject to their having a title search. Mr. Schapiro was aware that there is a pipeline, but was not aware of the obligations. Those issues will be addressed during the title search process.

Mr. Conrad stated that he was concerned about the safety issues being raised. He has noticed the transmission tower that has a number of cell antennas on top of it. The support equipment that would be put into the shed is located underneath the tower. Mr. Conrad was surprised that Allegheny would do it but would not allow VZL for safety reasons.

Responding to a question, Mr. Schapiro stated that VZL have received some documentation from Allegheny Power Transmission. The Allegheny Power Transmission requests that VZL does not build any structures because of (1) its own maintenance reasons; and (2) safety reasons. If Verizon were to build there, it would have to sign off a waiver and indemnification for any damages that may arise to a Verizon worker. Verizon does not want to pursue that course knowing there might be legal issues. Mr. Schapiro stated that he is aware of other companies that do allow it, but Allegheny does not.

Mr. Conrad asked about co-location of equipment.

Mr. Schapiro stated that, typically, when one is co-locating on a utility line that Allegheny controls, it is Allegheny’s property. If another carrier wants to place equipment, it probably would have to come to the MALPF Board for approval. The shelter Verizon is building for its use may increase or decrease the equipment within the shelter itself, but would not change the equipment. If another carrier like T-Mobile or Cingular needs additional ground, it would have to approach the MALPF Board for approval.

Mr. Hallein stated that the other carriers also would be required to obtain his permission, and he was not keen on having more buildings on his property.

Motion #2: To approve the request of Edward and Carolyn Hallein to place a communications antenna subject to the approval of the other right-of-way easement holder that they can build a shed on that property. If that is not approved, the request has to come back to the Board with any other alternative site recommendations.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Chris Wilson

Status: Approved

Mr. Tassone wanted to know if Mr. Doug Wilson is satisfied that it will not affect soil erosion and the parking impact pointed out by the MALPF staff in their staff memo.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the landowner has explained how he uses the particular portion of the property, and how he moves the equipment around, sloping etc., and this may actually enhance his operations.

B. CALVERT COUNTY

1. 04-84-02 Hutchins, Raymond E., Sr. 202.109 acres

Request for approval of a child’s lot of up to 2 acres for son, William Mark Hutchins

Mr. Hutchins is the original grantor of the easement. The current request is for approval of a child’s lot for the use of his son, William Mark Hutchins.

There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. On 4-7-95, the Board approved a lot exclusion around a second pre-existing dwelling. On 9-22-92, the Board approved a child’s lot for Raymond, Jr. Mr. Hutchins does not own any other MALPF district or easement property.

According to Calvert County, the proposed lot is located directly on Buena Vista Road and is bordered on one side by an existing farm lane. Access for the proposed lot is Buena Vista Road. Wheat and grass are currently being grown on the property.

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 $1,484.35 per acre to the Foundation. The landowner will likely attend the Board meeting.

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.

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

2. 04-84-02 Hutchins, Raymond E., Sr. 202.109 acres

Request for approval of a child’s lot of up to 2 acres for son, Dale Hutchins

Mr. Hutchins is the original grantor of the easement. The current request is for approval of a child’s lot for the use of his son, Dale Hutchins.

There is one pre-existing dwelling on the property. On 4-7-95, the Board approved a lot exclusion around a second pre-existing dwelling. On 9-22-92, the Board approved a child’s lot for Raymond, Jr. Mr. Hutchins does not own any other MALPF district or easement property.

According to Calvert County, the proposed lot is located at a field’s edge. The field is in a bean and wheat rotation. 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 because the lot is to be part of a future agriculturally subdivided parcel that does not have any road frontage. It is not clustered with the pre-existing dwelling or farm buildings because of topography.

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 $1,484.35 per acre to the Foundation. The landowner will attend the Board meeting.

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.

Although the request does not meet the Foundation’s Lot Location Policy, Foundation staff recommends approval because it is the landowner’s intention to request an agricultural subdivision of which the proposed lot will be a part.

Dale Hutchins, representing the Hutchins family, and Jenny Plummer-Welker, Program Administrator, were available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board.

Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know when the family is planning the proposed subdivision.

Mr. Hutchins believed that the family wanted to have the lots approved first, and then he plans to work with his father to initiate the process on the sub-division process. His understanding was that he needs to approach the MALPF Board for the lots and then start the sub-division process. If the land is transferred to someone else, the lot rights are terminated.

Mr. Doug Wilson commented that, if the sub-division was done, the proposed lot for Dale Hutchins would clearly meet the guidelines because the MALPF Board will look at the request as an independent property.

Mr. Colhoun wanted to know if Mr. Dale Hutchins has read the lot location guidelines.

Mr. Dale Hutchins answered in affirmative and stated that the proposed lot is in the farm lane on an existing road; and it is not clustered with other buildings. The Hutchins are making sure that they maintain the highest value of land for planting and are trying to pick lots that would perc. They have picked up an area with the lowest yield in terms of crops. Mr. Dale Hutchins believed his proposed lot is in the best position even if his father does not subdivide the farm.

Regarding the proposed lot for Mr. Dale Hutchins, Mr. Colhoun commented that one of the lot location guidelines is not having a sub-dividable lot placed in the middle of the farm. That lot can be sold; it can be repossessed, and the MALPF Board is concerned that someone who is not sympathetic with farming may end up owning the lot.

Mr. Conrad stated that subdivision implies that the father has already passed on the farm operations to his children, but this may not be the intent. The intent may be that the children are currently living on the farm, and sometime in the future the farm may be subdivided among the children.

Robert Stahl, Board member, wondered if the landowner is willing to make it so that the lot cannot be subdivided from the remainder of the farm. Mr. Stahl was concerned about lots being approved in the middle of the farm. A house may be built in the middle of the farm, and, in the future, there might be a divorce, and the lot in the middle of the farm is sold to some third party.

Mr. Dale Hutchins stated that he has no issues with that. He was not aware of the mechanics that require the lot to be separated from the farm.

Mr. Colhoun stated that he believed it is very important for Mr. Dale Hutchins to understand the mechanics involved. Mr. Colhoun suggested that the Hutchins review their request and come back to the MALPF Board at a later date.

Mr. Tassone clarified that requests for children’s lots are requests for sub-dividable residential lots. After the child resides in it for five years, it can be sold to anyone. If the proposed children’s lots are to be for residences that go with agriculturally sub-dividable pieces of the farm, it is a different situation. In those cases the houses might not be sub-dividable as individual saleable lots.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that if Mr. Dale Hutchins commits today that he will not subdivide the lot because his father owns the farm, when he goes to get his house loan, he might face problems because he does not own the property. Mr. Doug Wilson suggested that Mr. Dale Hutchins discusses these issues with the family.

Mr. Conrad stated that if a landowner understands the issue and voluntarily agrees not to subdivide the house from the property it is fine, but legally the Foundation cannot make a requirement that the house will not be sub-dividable. Second, looking at the lot location policy, Mr. Conrad believed there are always going to be trade-offs that have to be taken into account. When the Board is looking at the impact on the farm operation, the Board can certainly attempt to remove the lot from the center or the back of the property to the extent possible to minimize the impact on the farm operations, should it come under a separate ownership. But there is also a trade-off with taking the most productive soil off in order to do that. If the most productive soil is in a location that is a part of the lot location policy guidelines, and the soil is percable, but is not particularly productive, the MALPF Board will have to consider such a trade-off. Mr. Conrad emphasized that at times a particular lot location request imposes a need for a trade off.

Mr. Colhoun suggested that Mr. Dale Hutchins discuss the issues with his family and come back to the Board.

Mr. Dale Hutchins stated that he is not sure if he will be better armed in the future. Mr. Dale Hutchins requested the MALPF Board disregard the possibility of subdivision and only look at the current request for child’s lot requests. A month from now his proposed location for the child’s lot will still remain the same.

Mr. Colhoun stated that when Mr. Dale Hutchins was asked if he would be willing to have the child’s lot be part of the farm and not sub-dividable, Mr. Dale Hutchins conveyed that he would be willing to do so.

Mr. Dale Hutchins stated that he would not like to make that decision if he doesn’t need to, especially if his decision would have implications on mortgages, etc.

Mr. Doug Wilson suggested that in the absence of a subdivision, Mr. Dale Hutchins’s lot could be put next to Mr. Mark Hutchins’s lot.

Mr. Dale Hutchins stated that it may be possible, but he prefers the proposed location. He believed the whole purpose of the agricultural preservation program is to keep the most valuable agricultural property for agricultural purposes.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that he understands the issue, but he believed 2 acres of prime land next to Mark Hutchins would be acceptable to him.

Diane Chasse, MALPF Administrator, brought the attention of the Board members to the aerial map provided with the agenda material and located Mr. Dale Hutchins’s proposed lot and access.

Mr. Stahl wanted to know if the County required fee simple access.

Ms. Plummer-Welker stated that it is not necessary. In a family transfer, the access is not required to be a right-of-way access.

Mr. Tassone wanted to know what happens if it is transferred again to someone outside the family.

Ms. Plummer-Welker stated that she is not aware, but there is a time stipulation.

Mr. Colhoun suggested that the Board take up the request for Mark Hutchins separately.

Motion #3: To approve the request of Raymond E. Hutchins, Sr. for approval of a child’s lot up to 2 acres for son, William Mark Hutchins.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Judith Lynch

Status: Approved

Mr. Tassone stated that if the MALPF Board considers and approves agricultural subdivision, then the other lot request for Dale Hutchins would be agreeable. In the absence of an agricultural subdivision, the proposed lot request is not acceptable.

Mr. Conrad commented that lot location guidelines are not as straightforward and simple as they might seem. In some cases it is absolutely clear that a request should or should not be approved. In some cases there are trade offs to be evaluated in terms of the impact on the farming operation. Illustrating an extreme example, Mr. Conrad stated that it is very possible that there is only one place where a property would perc – in the middle of a productive field. The MALPF Board would approve the lot, because the Board will not keep an owner from exercising a retained right to meet the proposed lot guidelines when there are no alternative locations on the property. Many less extreme hypothetical examples could be conceived, but generally, Mr. Conrad believes that the lot location guidelines are such that meeting one guideline in some cases may not be possible without creating problems with other of the guidelines.

Mr. Stahl was concerned about setting a precedent.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that the lot location guidelines are the staff guidelines. The MALPF Board has agreed that when a lot location request meeting the guidelines is made, there is a high probability that the request will be approved. When the landowner’s application does not meet the lot location guidelines, the applicant is aware that there is going to be some discussion. There is a reason for not approving the request. The primary goal is to try and adhere to the established lot location guidelines. However, there may be some cases where it may not be possible. The Foundation will have the reasons why the MALPF Board acted differently in its minutes. As long as there are reasons, when a similar case comes up with identical set of circumstances, we should treat them equitably. Mr. Doug Wilson stated that this is a reasonable approach.

In this situation, Mr. Doug Wilson stated that he was concerned because the proposed lot location is in the middle of the farm. Also, the Foundation is not currently considering an agricultural subdivision; there can be other locations, and that is what the Board would like the landowner to explore.

Mr. Dale Hutchins commented that he understands the Board’s concerns. He did read the lot location guidelines, but it did not state that 'not being in the middle of the property’ is one of the parameters.

Ms. Plummer-Welker stated that Calvert County has a Right to Farm Law; if there is any disagreement, it can be brought up in front of a reconciliation committee. She understands the Board’s concerns about having the house in the middle of the farm, but she also did not see in the guidelines where this has been mentioned. There are different options for the location in the lot location policy, but there is no mention about “not being in the middle of the farm.”

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that the policy does not expressly say that the lot should not be in the middle of the farm because, as pointed out by Mr. Conrad, there may be situations when other locations may not perc, or for any other reason. Mr. Dale Hutchins still has to confirm whether or not he needs a right-of-way. In thirty days, the landowner can come back to the MALPF Board with reasons as to why other locations that meet the lot location policy are not in the best interests of the program.

Mr. Dale Hutchins stated that he will be glad to come back to the MALPF Board in 30 days, after he has answered the Board’s question on right-of-way, although they have been advised by the subdivision staff that it would work. There are three different ways, and one of the ways would work. Other than that, Mr. Dale Hutchins did not believe he would have any additional information. One of the things that is mentioned in the lot location policy is that it has to have a positive impact on future farming operations. The proposed location will specifically fit because, as can be seen in the aerial, there are two little pasture areas. He is planning on having a goat milking operation there.

Mr. Colhoun stated that these are the things he would like Mr. Dale Hutchins to highlight in his letter to the MALPF Board.

Mr. Conrad suggested a site visit by a Board member and a MALPF staff member if the Board is not voting on the request.

Motion #4: To table the request of Raymond E. Hutchins for approval of a child’s lot of up to 2 acres for son, Dale Hutchins.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: James Pelura

Opposed: Jerry Klasmeier, Chris Wilson

Status: Approved

C. ST. MARY’S COUNTY

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

Review of 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.

Due to concerns about the location of the lot, the item was tabled from the April 24, 2007, meeting until such time as the landowner is able to attend the meeting.

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 by locating the lot in the most productive fields. The chosen location is the least productive area of the farm, with poorer soils and difficult to bring farm equipment in to work, along a tree line and behind an irrigation 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.

Foundation staff maintains its recommendation to approve the request for a 1.0-acre child’s lot if 1) the Board finds the landowner’s explanation for placement of the lot to be acceptable, or 2) the landowner is unable to find a workable location more suitable to the Board.

Mr. Conrad informed the Board that he visited the property; he circulated some pictures of the property. Mr. Conrad stated that, in his judgment if he were locating a lot, the location chosen by the Longs would be his choice.

Mr. and Mrs. Long, Donna Sasscer, Program Administrator, were available at the meeting.

Mr. Long informed the Board members that the proposed lot location is an area that is unproductive even in a good year. The area next to the highway is better land and produces better crops.

Mrs. Long stated that her son Brian is getting married next June. Her son and his wife-to-be have agreed to sign a notarized statement that, if a divorce does happen, the property will go back to Brian Long and his wife-to-be will not hold any title. They have agreed to sign a pre-nuptial agreement that the wife-to-be will not claim anything on the property.

Mrs. Long further stated that the farm dates back to 1600. It has been in her family at least for 200 years. Mrs. Long’s grandparents gave the farm to their two sons: Mrs. Long’s father and his brother. Mrs. Long’s father received 200 acres and the farmhouse. Currently Mr. and Mrs. Long live in the farmhouse. Her uncle inherited two separate pieces of the land, and he does not have any children. Since Mrs. Long’s uncle passed away, his wife sold the land.

Mrs. Long stated that both her children like farming and are both Deputy Sheriffs. Her younger child, Brian, loves farming and helps in farming operations. The proposed lot location is desirable because it provides privacy and security. Locating the lot on the main road would not be suitable. Brian will have a lot of farm equipment stored at his house. Because he works during the day, he is not on the farm all the time to watch over the equipment. He would like to avoid the interest of curious children and have more security for farm-related equipment.

Responding to a question from a Board member, Mrs. Long stated that there is a proposed subdivision across the road from the front of the property. Mrs. Long has seen other properties in St. Mary’s County where, when the subdivision was built, the farmers had many problems with equipment security and trespassing. Mrs. Long wants to avoid such problems to the extent that she can. Her farm has chemicals as well as farm equipment that could pose a danger to curious neighborhood children and a liability to her family once the subdivision is constructed.

Mr. Stahl stated that is the reason why the MALPF Board wants to discourage lots being placed in the middle of the farm. In the future, the lot can potentially be conveyed to a third party with no interest in the farming operation who could similarly pose ongoing problems to the farm.

Ms. Sasscer stated that the Longs have one lot they would like to establish on the farm versus a number of lots across the road that would result from the proposed subdivision. In this case the Longs are concerned about actual children in the near future, not an unknown third party owning the lot in the distant future.

Mr. Stahl stated that the farmers face such issues on a daily basis. Mr. Stahl wanted to know what the county rules are with regard to right-of-way.

Ms. Sasscer stated that the landowners are allowed to have a right-of-way; it does not need to be fee simple.

Mr. Colhoun asked if the Longs have considered restricting the proposed lot to convey with the farm.

Mrs. Long stated that their older son lives on the other end of the farm on the property Mrs. Long received from her grandparents before her marriage. It is a separate lot. The plan is that Brian will get the lot on the property he is farming now.

Mr. Colhoun asked if the Longs would be interested in restricting the lot so it conveys in the future with the rest of the farm. If in the future the Longs decide to divide the property, the MALPF Board would review and act on the request for the subdivision.

Mrs. Long was concerned how Brian can approach the Bank for finance if he does not own the property or that it conveys with the remainder of the farm.

Ms. Sasscer wanted to know how the request is being treated – whether it is no longer being treated as a child’s lot.

Mr. Conrad stated that, from the standpoint of the Foundation, the paperwork is the same whether or not any lot is formally subdivided from a property, but the Foundation is approving and releasing the lot from easement restrictions. Subdivision is ultimately a function of individual counties. Some counties require any lot released from the easement to be subdivided; but that is up to the individual county. He was not aware of the requirements in St. Mary’s County.

Mr. Colhoun stated that other program administrators are available at the meeting who can comment on this. There have been cases in other counties where the landowner has voluntarily decided not to subdivide a lot released from easement. There have been no complications.

Ms. Sasscer stated that she understands that it is possible for a lot not to be subdivided from the farm if it is an owner’s lot, but in this case the request is for a child’s lot.

Mr. Conrad stated that the only case he knows of a child's lot not being subdivided from the farm was in Anne Arundel County for the Pittman family. The County treated it as a tenant house, and the Foundation treated it as a child’s lot. The owner of the property, and therefore of the residence that was created, was the family-owned Dodon Land Trust. The child will never be able to own the residence separately from the family Trust.

Mr. Stahl stated that such actions actually help the landowner to ensure that it is not sold to a third party and helps the parents to keep control of the house situation to a certain extent. The question is if the landowner can go back to lenders and explore if a lender is willing to finance the construction of a house with such a stipulation.

Motion #5: To approve the request of Linda Long for a 1.0-acre child’s lot for son Brian Christopher Long.

Motion: Chris Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Opposed: Pat Langenfelder

Doug Wilson

Vera Mae Schultz

Joe Tassone

Robert Stahl

Howard Freedlander

Dan Colhoun

Favor: Chris Wilson

Jerry Klasmeier

Judith Lynch

James Pelura

Status: Denied

Mr. Doug Wilson suggested the Board approves the request subject to the condition that the lot cannot be subdivided.

Ms. Forrester stated that legally the Board cannot restrict a child’s lot. The landowner can do so voluntarily, but the Board cannot make it a condition of approval.

Mr. Conrad stated that he visited the site and believed the landowner’s request was a reasonable request. Mr. Conrad believed that at this point in time a Board member needs to be appointed to visit the site and work with the landowner to determine a workable location that meets both the landowner’s and the Board’s concerns.

Mr. Colhoun stated that he believed Mr. Conrad’s request was reasonable. Mr. Colhoun said that he would ask more than one Board member to visit the farm with the County administrator and MALPF staff. The location can be worked out, and the request can come back to the Board.

Mr. Colhoun stated that some of the Board members have to leave the meeting early due to their work schedule. The Board adjourned and proceeded to Executive Session at 10:45 a.m.

The Board reconvened at 11:40 a.m. to discuss the remaining agenda materials.

D. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

1. 02-90-06B Duvall, Weems and Cynthia Young 77.328 acres

Request for a 0.175-acre partial termination on district property

Mr. Duvall and Ms. Young are the original owners of this district property. The current request is for partial termination of 0.175 acre (7,650 square feet).

The district property has one pre-existing dwelling. There have been no requests for lot exclusions.

The landowners have been approached by a wireless communications company that would like to lease a 100’ X 100’ area of the property. Its intention is to construct a 140-foot monopole tower and equipment shelter, which will be located within a 7,650 square foot area. The landowners are not requesting the termination of the entire 10,000 square foot area. According to the landowners, the only area to be modified is the 50’ X 50’ compound area, the 20’ X 52’ access driveway, and the small gravel parking and turnaround area (approximately 7,650 square feet). The affected area would be accessed by an existing farm lane.

According to Anne Arundel, no development rights can be associated with this area as the county requires a minimum of 40,000 square feet for construction of a dwelling. The request was approved by the local advisory board. The request meets the Foundation’s Policy for Partial Termination (attached with the agenda memo).

Foundation staff recommends approval of the request for partial termination as the request meets the Foundation’s Policy for Partial Termination. However, the Foundation’s District Agreement prohibits the use of property for any commercial use, including right-of-way access. Therefore, staff also recommends the landowner include in the partial termination all of the acreage that will be affected by the lease (100’ X 100’) as well as access from the public roadway.

Cynthia Young and Barbara Polito, Program Administrator, were available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board.

Ms. Polito informed the Board that the local agriculture advisory board approved the request for partial termination. However, the landowner is required to go through a special exception process in Anne Arundel County, and the landowners are aware that they need to go through this process.

Ms. Young stated that they plan to include all the existing roadways on the farm in the partial termination agreement. The part of the half-mile roadway between the proposed site and the main highway is shared with other property. Also the roadways total probably two to three acres. The existing use of the road is for farm purposes. There are probably five to ten trips made in a day exclusively for farm purposes. At least once a month a service truck uses the road for the maintenance work required for the tower facility. There are approximately 300 trips a month exclusively for farm purposes versus once a month for a commercial purpose. The policy is to preserve farmland and to promote the character of farmland. The adjacent landowner does not have any objection. If the landowners try to put the tower and equipment shelter somewhere else on the farm, they get into the issues of wetlands, types of soil, critical area issues, etc. Also the road they will construct from the existing road to their facility will also be incorporated. The landowners have horses and a couple of boarders. They use the existing road as a farm road. This also will be incorporated as a farm use once they construct their right-of-way off the existing road.

If the landowners exempt 3 acres for the roadway, they probably would be looking at something like $6,000 to $8,000 in additional taxes. Therefore, it is not financially feasible to put up a tower and a service road.

Ms. Young stated that the commercial use of the property is 100’ x 100’ area. Beyond that, everything else is remaining in character, and nothing changes.

Ms. Young mentioned that she has three composite sites on the location, but by an oversight at their end, it was not given to the MALPF staff. Although three different sites have been proposed, the landowners have not gone through the rest of the due diligence with the County about where their preferred site is.

Ms. Young stated that she is seeking approval to exempt a 100’ x 100’ leased area and exclude that from the district.

Ms. Forrester stated that partial termination of the property is not an issue, but the issue is concerning the right-of-way.

Ms. Young stated that all the three sites suggested by her are 100’ x 100’ areas. One is directly behind the existing barn. It might be 150 – 200 feet from the driveway. Another suggested area is half way between the two sites off the existing roadway.

Ms. Young reiterated that, apart from the option available discussed so far with the MALPF staff and the Board, there are two other options. It depended on what the County would like them to do.

Mr. Colhoun asked if Ms. Council has any recommendations about the size of the area to be released.

Ms. Council stated that the original request was for a smaller area 50’ x 50’ to be terminated. But the Foundation would have to take out the entire area to release 100’ x 100’. Ms. Young is not agreeing to the recommendation to take out the area to provide for the access. The Foundation’s district agreement and easements do not provide access for commercial uses.

Ms. Young stated that the 100’ x 100’ area is the footprint for the compound. 50’ x 50’ is the actual area to be disturbed. The current existing farm road goes all the way past all three sides. The existing road on the left side of the aerial map provided goes down to a horse farm. The right side goes out and joins with a common driveway that the landowners use with another neighbor and that goes out to the main road. From any of the three sides, it will be closer than ½ mile to the main road.

Mr. Colhoun asked Ms. Forrester for her recommendation.

Ms. Forrester stated that the access has a very limited use. It is up to the Board’s discretion to make a decision. The present request is very similar to the Hallein property discussed by the Board earlier in the day. The Hallein request was an easement property. The Board was allowing them to have access through the farm to access their antenna.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that he would be concerned if the area were to be excluded for the McDonalds or something similar that is clearly a commercial use. The current request is excluding the area for a cell tower, and the property is a district property.

Motion #6: To approve the request of Weems Duvall and Cynthia Young for a 0.175-acre partial termination as submitted without exclusion of the access.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Joe Tassone

Status: Approved

E. CHARLES COUNTY

1. 08-06-06 Lloyd, Clarence and Nancy 50.87 acres

Request to amend the District Agreement to clarify the location of 9.0 acres withheld from the district

Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd are the original owners of the district property. The current request is to amend the District Agreement to clarify the location of 9.0 acres that were withheld from the district.

When the district petition was approved by the Board on November 22, 2005, there were 9.0 acres withheld (representing three development rights). Since that time, the landowners have decided to relocate the 9.0 area parcel to the back of the property. As this change was presented to Foundation staff prior to the landowners submitting an application for inclusion in the FY 2007 easement acquisition cycle, the new location was used for the easement application and the appraisal that was done for the property, with the understanding that the District Agreement would be amended. On March 27, 2007 the Foundation approved an easement offer to the landowners.

According to Charles County, the revised location is also mostly cropland. Access will be a panhandle fee simple strip located alongside an existing gravel road that leads to the rear of the property. The relocated area will continue to represent three (3) development rights. There are no pre-existing dwellings on the property, and, in their easement application, the Lloyds waived all future lot rights. Because the property is 100% Class II and III soils, the property will continue to meet the Foundation’s soils and size criteria for district establishment.

The request has been approved by the local advisory board. The landowners’ easement application reflects the 9.0-acre parcel at this location. Therefore, the appraisal and the easement offer will not be affected by the Board’s approval of the request.

Foundation staff recommends approval of the request because the relocated area meets the Foundation’s policy for withheld acreage.

Charles Rice, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting. Mr. Rice stated that the landowners filled out their easement application in May 2005, and the time was too close to the deadline for submission of easement applications. Therefore, Mr. Rice asked the landowners to fill out the easement application as though the configuration had changed so that the appraisals would not be affected. The current request is to rectify the situation.

Mr. Rice stated that the landowners knew that, if for some reasons the Board decided not to approve the request, the easement sale will not occur.

The landowners have accepted an easement offer.

Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to confirm that the landowners have three lot rights on the easement property.

Mr. Rice confirmed and stated that in this case the maximum will be three lots. There are other withheld areas; at least half of that is in the critical area. That will give them only one lot right within half of the withheld area. The other two will have to fit on the other half.

Mr. Stahl stated that he believed that there is a requirement of 20 acres for the critical area.

Mr. Rice stated that for family conveyances the requirement of 20 acres is not a necessity. Mr. Rice has spoken to the officials and understands that the landowners can get one dwelling within the critical area portion if it were for a family member.

Motion #7: To approve the request of Clarence and Nancy Lloyd to amend the District Agreement to clarify the location of 9.0 acres withheld from the district.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

F. CARROLL COUNTY

1. 06-82-13As3e Lippy Brothers, Inc. 119.14 acres

Request for approval of a Carroll County Forest Conservation Easement overlay onto MALPF easement property

Lippy Brothers, Inc., is the original owner of the easement property. The current request is for approval of a 1.534-acre Carroll County Forest Conservation Easement overlay onto a MALPF easement.

The property has no pre-existing dwellings. No child’s or owners’ lots have been approved on the easement. The subject property is a part of a 1,098-acre property that was approved to be separated into five (5) separate parcels for easement sale.

Lippy Brothers, Inc., also owns an adjoining 211.486 acre easement property (06-82-13As4e). On November 22, 2005 the Board approved two (2) child’s lots for Joseph and Kandi Jo Lippy on this parcel. Also, on January 24, 2006 the Board approved a child’s lot for J. Keith Lippy on this parcel. To meet the County’s requirement for approval and subdivision of the three child’s lots, the County requires a Forest Conservation Easement of up to 1.534 acres of existing forest land within the same property deed as the lots.

According to Carroll County, the forested area does currently exist and placement of the forest conservation easement onto the adjoining MALPF easement will meet the requirements because both parcels are covered by one property deed. According to the Carroll County Forest Conservation Technical Manual, Section 3.3.3 #2 (Attachment C attached with agenda memo), the overlay easement will “allow for selective harvests to be performed” within the guidelines set by a Forest Stewardship Management Plan. Any harvest must be performed under the supervision of a registered Forester.

This request has been approved by the local advisory board. The request meets the Foundation’s Policy for Overlay Easements (Attachment A attached with agenda memo).

Foundation staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the actual easement document must include language approved by MALPF (Attachment B attached with agenda memo) and be reviewed and approved by the DGS Assistant Attorney General.

Ralph Robertson, Program Administrator, was available at the Board meeting. Mr. Robertson stated that the Forest Mitigation Conservation Easement was required to be a part of the subdivision. They were not aware of this earlier and learned about it from the engineers. The County requires that one must provide some tree area, even though the lots are not taking out any trees. In Carroll County, any subdivision where there is a disturbance must allow for forested areas, whether trees are being taken out or not. This requirement needs to be strictly adhered to.

Motion #8: To approve the request of Lippy Brothers, Inc., for approval of a Carroll County Forest Conservation Easement overlay onto MALPF easement property.

Motion: Vera Mae Schultz Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT PETITIONS

A. Garrett County

1. 11-07-05 Margroff, James and Ruby 110.92 acres

This is a 110.92-acre parcel located on Cove road in Accident. There are no dwellings. The farm has 36.5 acres of cropland, 21.4 acres of pasture, and 49.8 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is beef and hay. It has 50.12% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated. The property has withheld 1 acre.

The property has two third part interests for the purpose of mineral extraction. One-half interest is reserved to Dennis and Kathleen Margroff, and the other half is reserved to Texas Eastern/Duke Energy-Gas.

Motion #9: To approve the request of James and Ruby Margroff to establish an agricultural land preservation district on their property.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: James Pelura

Status: Approved

B. Queen Anne’s County

1. 17-07-13 Boyle, Carlton Eugene 100.00 acres

This is a 100.00-acre parcel located on Charles Boyle Road in Queen Anne’s County. There is no dwelling. The farm has 91 acres of cropland and 9 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is grain. It has 98.8% qualifying soils. It is part of a larger operation and is owner operated. The property has 68.5 acres withheld, which will be in a separate District application with a 31.9 acre parcel for a total of 100 acres. The excluded acres have 8 development rights.

Foundation staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils criteria, conditional upon the landowner’s establishment of a district on the 68.5 acres.

Donna Landis-Smith, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting and stated that the landowner intends to preserve the entire farm. Mr. Boyle owns the 31.936-acre farm across Charles Boyle Road. He wants to make two 100-acre districts.

Mr. Conrad stated that, looking at the map and the location of the two parcels, it seemed logical that the landowner would like to have an agricultural subdivision based on the road, and that 31.936 acres is not enough to have an agricultural subdivision (given the fact that 31.936 acres is across the road). Mr. Conrad wanted to know if the landowner is aware of this.

Ms. Landis-Smith confirmed that the landowner is aware of the agricultural subdivision policy and had mentioned that, if the MALPF Board preferred to have two districts, one with 31.936 acres and one as 68.5 acres, it is agreeable to him.

Mr. Conrad stated that the decision is entirely up to the landowner, but he needs to be aware that it is going to pose an issue should he wish to subdivide in the future.

Ms. Landis-Smith stated that she had informed the landowner about this and also about the requirement that each parcel has to be 50 acres; she will reiterate the concerns to the landowner.

Motion #10: To approve the request of Carlton Eugene Boyle to establish agricultural land preservation district on his property.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Robert Stahl

Status: Approved

2. 17-07-14 Downes, Warren A., Jr. 211.1 acres

This is a 211.1-acre parcel located on Route 313 in Ingleside. There are no dwellings. The farm has 186 acres of cropland and 25.1 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is grain. It has 98% qualifying soils. It is part of a larger operation and is owner operated. The property has withheld 7.8 acres. There is one development right with this acreage. The withheld acreage falls within the guidelines of the Foundation’s withheld acreage policy.

Foundation staff recommends the landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan.

Motion #11: To approve the request of Warren A. Downes, Jr., to establish agricultural land preservation district on his property, with the appropriate recommendation.

Motion: Vera Mae Schultz Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

C. Kent County

1. 14-07-01 McGuire Brothers, Inc. 62.61 acres

This is a 62.61-acre parcel located on Kennedyville Road in the community of Kennedyville. There are no dwellings. The farm has 50 acres of cropland and 10 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is dairy and grain. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is part of a larger operation and is owner operated.

Carla Martin, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting.

Motion #12: To approve the request of McGuire Brothers, Inc., to establish agricultural land preservation district on the property.

Motion: Doug Wilson Second: Judith Lynch

Status: Approved

D. Charles County

1. 08-07-27 John W. Jarrett 169.239 acres

This is a 169.239-acre parcel located in the town of Nanjemoy. There are no dwellings. The farm has 169.239 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry. It has 100% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated.

2. 08-07-28 Vanni, Elizabeth P., Trustee of the 55.5 acres

Elizabeth P. Vanni Trust

This is a 55-acre parcel located on Cove road in the town of Bryantown. There is one dwelling. The farm has 39.75 acres of cropland and 14 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is grain. It has 66% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated.

3. 08-07-29 Spencer, Richard W. and Wally R. 58.749 acres

This is a 58.749-acre parcel located in the town of Bryans Road. There are no dwellings. The farm has 12 acres of cropland and 46.749 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry and grain. It has 87% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated.

4. 08-07-30 Blake, Paco and Linda A. 65.499 acres

This is a 65.499-acre parcel located in the town of Indian Head. There are no dwellings. The farm has 65.499 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry. It has 94% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated.

5. 08-07-31 Hancock, Douglass M., Sr. and Mary F. 52.9603 acres

This is a 52.9603-acre parcel located in the town of Nanjemoy. There is one dwelling. The farm has 4.0 acres of pasture and 47.9603 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry and hay. It has 76% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated. The property has withheld seven acres.

6. 08-07-32 Quade, James Wade 27.344 acres

This is a 27.344-acre parcel located in the town of La Plata. There are no dwellings. The farm has 12 acres of cropland and 15.344 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is forestry and grain. It has 77% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is not owner operated. The property is contiguous to a 152-acre MALPF district that has sold TDRs to the County.

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

Motion #13: To approve the request of John W. Jarrett, Elizabeth P. Vanni, Richard W. and Wally R. Spencer, Pack and Linda A. Blake, Douglass M., Sr. and Mary S. Hancock and James Wade Quade to establish agricultural land preservation districts on their respective properties.

Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Doug Wilson

Status: Approved

E. Cecil County

1. 07-07-11 The Knoll LLC; Samuel D. Willis 109.55 acres

This is a 109.5-acre parcel located in the town of Elkton. There are two dwellings. The farm has 26 acres of cropland, 34.1 acres of pasture, and 27.9 acres of woodland. The primary farming operation is horse boarding and training. 25% of land use is on grain. It has 56% qualifying soils. It is part of a larger operation and is owner operated.

Ms. Council recommended the landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan. Ms. Council stated that the County zoning regulations have changed and NAR is now 1 dwelling per 10 acres.

Eric Shertz, Program Administrator, was available at the meeting.

Motion #14: To approve the request of The Knoll LLC to establish agricultural land preservation district on their property with the appropriate recommendation.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

F. Washington County

1. 21-07-03 Martz, Robert and Christine 88.87 acres

This is an 88.87-acre parcel located in the town of Smithsburg. There is one dwelling. The farm has 72.77 acres of cropland and 14.53 acres of pasture. The primary farming operation is crop farm. It has 70% qualifying soils. It is not part of a larger operation and is owner operated.

Motion #15: To approve the request of Robert and Christine Martz to establish agricultural land preservation district on their property.

Motion: Judith Lynch Second: Vera Mae Schultz

Status: Approved

Added KENT COUNTY

1. 14-86-03 Dill, Franklin M. 194.626 acres

Request to allow wastewater spray irrigation on easement property

[This item was added after the agenda was printed. This material was distributed at the meeting.]

Ms. Weaver briefed the Board members about the agenda item. Mr. Dill’s request was heard by the Board during the January and February, 2007, meetings. The request was tabled in January because the request included the construction of a pond on easement property, which would have created a precedent for the Foundation. The Board assigned to an ad hoc committee the task of developing a revised policy that takes into consideration the inclusion of a pond. The committee developed a revised policy, which was presented to the Board and approved during the February, 2007, Board meeting (copy of the approved policy and February Board meeting minutes attached with agenda memo). However, the Board tabled Mr. Dill’s request pending an Assistant Attorney General’s review of the agreement between Kent County and the landowner. Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney General, DGS, and Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, MDA, have reviewed the draft agreement (copy attached with staff memo). Since that time Ms. Forrester and the County attorney have worked on the agreement.

The agreement takes into consideration the concerns of Board members, including the Foundation’s liability, the protection of the soils, and the outline of the responsibilities of the county and the landowner in the event of an accident. In addition to the protection of the Foundation’s interests, the Board would like the agreement to limit the landowner’s exposure to liability.

Ms. Forrester stated that the Foundation has not done such an agreement, and the County also had not done similar agreements. Ms. Forrester and the County Attorney worked on it for a substantial amount of time before arriving at the draft. Ms. Forrester believed that the draft has not yet been reviewed by the landowner’s attorney. The County has agreed to the draft. Both the County and the landowner are willing to indemnify with regard to any accident that may occur on the property.

Ms. Forrester stated that, provided the County and the landowner do everything that is supposed to be done with MDE permits, there should not be a problem. In case they do not comply with the MDE permit, MALPF can terminate the agreement. When the County goes to apply for the permit, it also has to present an alternative plan to MDE. The County has agreed to this.

Motion #16: To approve the request of Franklin M. Dill to allow wastewater spray irrigation on easement property based on the County and the landowner signing the agreement.

Motion: Robert Stahl Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

Mr. Colhoun complimented the efforts of Ms. Forrester and stated the work will protect the landowner as well as the Foundation. Ms. Forrester commented that there is a need to proceed cautiously as this is the first of its kind for the Foundation and for her.

IV. PROGRAM POLICY

A. Uses Committee Update – Vera Mae Schultz, Chair, Uses Committee

Mrs. Schultz stated that the full report on recommended uses of land in the MALPF Program in addition to standard agriculture and silviculture uses was made at the February Board meeting. The portion of the report dealing with (A.) Farm- and forest-related uses were discussed and approved at the April 24, Board meeting.

The committee presented at the May Board meeting two additional parts of the full report:

(D.) uses associated with standard agriculture and silvicultural operations, and

(E.) uses conducted in pre-existing dwellings.

The guidelines and the uses table were sent with the agenda memo.

The Foundation has received a letter from Ms. Caroline Prickett concerning animal rescue operations that was distributed for the information of the Board members.

Mrs. Schultz stated that she received a recommendation from Ms. Weaver suggesting replacing “standard” with “normal” to be consistent with existing statute.

Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to comment on the word “majority.” The table stated that “the majority of the products must be grown on site.” He wanted to know how to arrive at the majority figure; is it 50% or something else.

Mrs. Schultz stated that the uses committee intended it to be greater than 50%.

To avoid misinterpretation by anybody, Mr. Doug Wilson suggested the use of word “at least 50%.”

Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, Caroline County, and one of the committee member of uses committee, stated that the committee was advised by Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Agriculture, to remove percentages.

Ms. Forrester wondered what the measure is; is it by sales, by volume, etc. Mr. Conrad also stated that it raises a question as to how much is grown and sold over the year or is it at the one time of the year.

Mr. Doug Wilson stated that in general the recommendations made sense, but some needed more clarifications.

Ms. Weaver clarified that majority was taken as greater than 50% of the sales area. Mr. Rice stated that the intent of using the word was “the majority at any given moment of inspection.”

Ms. Buckle stated that the uses committee discussed that whether the 50% was to be on inventory or 50% by income, and how it is going to be actually monitored if the Board feels someone is not meeting the regulations. To meet such concerns upon the advice of Mr. Nielsen, the uses committee decided to use the word “majority.”

Mr. Conrad was informed by Ms. Forrester that the issue has been addressed in the regulations under “Use of Land on Which an Easement is Purchased.” He quoted (COMAR 15.15.01.17): ”..Normal agricultural operations performed in accordance with good husbandry practices, which do not cause bodily injury or directly endanger human health, are permitted, including sale of farm products produced on the farm where the sales are made, and may generally include up to 25% in gross sales of a farm products produced locally on other farms.” This language would need to be changed in the new regulations.

Mr. Klasmeier stated that the table states, ”Majority of the products must be grown on site; the remainder must be indigenous to Maryland.” He was concerned about the word “indigenous” in the context of the regulation quoted by Mr. Conrad.

Mrs. Schultz clarified that indigenous meant, “Grown or raised in the specified geographical area.”

Motion #17: To approve acceptance of the recommendations for Section D and E.

Motion: Vera Mae Schultz Second: Pat Langenfelder

Status: Approved

Mr. Conrad stated that he will be working on the winery and vineyard uses and will be presenting it once the Equine Committee makes its presentation to the MALPF Board.

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

Motion #18: To adjourn regular session.

Motion: Joe Tassone Second: Jerry Klasmeier

Status: Approved

The regular session of the Board meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:45 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

_____________________________________

Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary

__________________________________

James Conrad, Executive Director