Agricultural Preservation Work Group Meeting Minutes

February 21, 2007

2. Meeting Agenda:

I. Distribution of Materials on Information Requests List:

Tom Dernoga noted that the following items were included in packets distributed to members:

1. MALPF Annual Reports (2002, 2003, and 2004)
2. Handout on Allocation of funds for MALPF and Other Land Preservation Programs
3. Copy of Rural Legacy area application submitted by M-NCPPC

Tom Dernoga distributed a handout (Overview of 2002 General Plan and Rural Tier Chapter) and summarized the goals and policies for the Rural Tier as provided in the General Plan which was a result of a 53-member task force known as Commission 2000. Mr. Dernoga noted the objective to capture 1% of the County's dwelling unit growth by 2025 in the Rural Tier (66% in Developing and 33% in Developed). He also noted the following inconsistent goals in the plan: "Allow large-lot estate residences" and "Protect landowners' equity in their land".

William Moore inquired as to whether any studies have been done in the O-S, R-A and R-E Zones, specifically to determine the growth rate over the past few years.

It was noted that staff should follow-up with Park and Planning to obtain available data.

Torben Agesen questioned what would be a more appropriate growth rate for the Rural Tier at this time.

Fred Tutman expressed that maintaining a "sense of character" is important when discussing and considering appropriate growth rates.

III. Overview of the County’s Purchase of Development Rights
(PDR) Program

Yates Clagett of the Prince George’s Soil Conservation District gave an overview of the County’s PDR Program codified in CB-47-2006 and regulations contained in CR-82-2006. Mr. Clagett noted that funding for the first round of applications ended on January 31, 2007. In the first two months of the program, there is a potential of approximately 500 acres in easements to be purchased. Since the start of the program, the Soil Conservation District has received 30 applications for approximately 2,493 acres in easements. The cutoff for this year’s funding is October 2007.

At this time, the PDR program provides $9,000 per acre, and for the first three years of the program, a 10% bonus is included. Currently, the program provides for a lump sum payment, however, the potential for installment purchase is being considered and may be available in the future. A perpetual easement is recorded on the property, with no buy back option, and uses of the property are restricted.

Mr. Clagett noted that his office also encourages applicants to look at the MALPF program as another source of agricultural preservation for their properties.

Tom Dernoga indicated that he has spoken with his colleagues on the Council regarding discussion with the County Executive to increase this year's funding to $10 million, and adding another $5 million to next year's funding.

There was considerable discussion concerning the ranking system and allotment of points for PDR consideration as contained in CR-82-2006. Reminding the members that this is the first year of the program, Mr. Dernoga noted that any suggestions for changes to the ranking system should be forwarded to him and the staff for consideration.

Charles Renninger inquired about the tax implication of a lump sum payment. Margaret Addis from the County Attorney's Office responded that because the sale of a PDR easement to the County is actually a sale of interest in land, each landowner will be encouraged to get tax advice before they agree to sell an easement.

In response to Debra Naylor's question about how Soil Conservation District has been notifying property owners about the PDR program, Mr. Clagett indicated that it has been by word of mouth, postcard mailings, and presentation response to Richard Krueger's inquiry as to whether forest land is eligible, Mr. Clagett responded that it is eligible for consideration in the program as long at it is at least 35 acres and has development rights. on at the Farm Bureau meetings.

In response to Richard Krueger's inquiry as to whether forest land is eligible, Mr. Clagett responded that it is eligible for consideration in the program as long at it is at least 35 acres and has development rights.

Stephanie DeVille-Eugene asked what the requirements would be for smaller property owners joining together along to participate in the PDR program. For example, would they have to demonstrate development potential (e.g. percolation tests) or will it be based on the number of homes that could be placed on the property. Mr. Clagett responded that smaller property owners can join together; however, development density must be extinguished. For example, 7 property owners each of whom owns a 5-acre lot could join together to enroll in the program but there can only be one house based on the underlying program requirements.

Margaret Addis also commented that there is another program available for smaller property owners which is the woodland conservation program. The use of woodland conservation easements to satisfy woodland conservation off-site mitigation requirements offers the small landowner a very valuable dollar return with a potential per acre price of approximately $40,000.

Mike Martin inquired about how easements recorded through the PDR program will be enforced. Margaret Addis responded that easements will be enforced through both injunctive and declaratory actions and the easements will provide that the County is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and the costs associated with enforcing the easements.

Council Member Bland encouraged members to continue getting the word out about the efforts of the Work Group and that it would be helpful to have an outline of the facts and basic points presented at each meeting so that information is not miscommunicated or communicated in different ways which could cause confusion to those not familiar with the programs.

William Moore requested a map showing the zoning of all land located in the Rural Tier.

The Chairman indicated that every attempt will be made to send electronic versions of meeting agendas, minutes, and handouts one or two days before scheduled meeting dates.

To follow up with Council Member Bland's suggestion, the Chairman also requested that staff prepare a list of programs, public and private, that are currently available as well as the appropriate contact information.

IV. Overview of Agricultural Preservation Programs in other Maryland Counties:

Postponed until the next scheduled meeting.

Chair Dernoga opened the floor to comments from the public. Dorothy Troutman raised the issue of what steps the County was taking to promote local agriculture. Mrs. Troutman provided materials on an agricultural forum being hosted by one of the local counties and noted in particular that this County is doing nothing to promote its local horse industry.

5. Next Meeting:March 7, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.

6. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.