Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning met June 18.
Here is the agenda provided by the Board:
Attendance:
Board Members:
Ann Jones, Vice Chair
Jamie Brown
Abby Gibbon
Cathy Hudson
Savannah Kaiss
Staff:
Beth Burgess, Chief, Resource Conservation Division, DPZ
Joy Levy, Program Administrator, Agricultural Land Preservation Program
Lisa O'Brien, Senior Assistant County Solicitor
Guests: James Zoller, Agriculture Coordinator, Office of Community Sustainability
Public: Luigi Gino, No Guts No Gloiy Farm
Marisa Gino, No Guts No Glory Farm
Jason Jannati, Power 52 Energy
Nelson Machado, Machado Construction
Gina Robb, No Guts No Glory Farm
John Robb, No Guts No Glory Farm
Steve Sachs, Chair of the County Executive's Spending Affordability Committee
Teresa Stonesifer, Triple Creek Farm
Gary Stonesifer, Triple Creek Farm
Rob Vogel, Vogel Engineering
Ms. Jones called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and conducted introductions.
Action Items
1) Minutes from the meeting of May 21, 2018
Ms. Jones called for the approval of the May 21, 2018 meeting minutes. Mr. Brown moved to approve.
Ms. Hudson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously
Ill, and 71.3% would be Classes I-IV. These percentages exceed the minimum requirements of the ALPB
policy of 50% Classes I-III and 66% Classes I-IV.
Ms. Levy recommended approval based on consistency with the ALPB CSF policy.
Ms. Jones asked who reviews the ALPB recommendation. Ms. Levy stated that the Hearing Examiner receives the recommendation through the DPZ staff report. Ms. Stonesifer noted that the County Executive reviews and approves as well. Ms. Levy confirmed, noting that there is a separate, but concurrent track for the Executive's review for consistency with the easement.
Ms. Hudson asked for clarification about why other conditional uses have a maximum of 2% land coverage when CSFs are allowed up to 34% coverage. Ms. Levy noted that the legislation allowing CSFs on ag preservation land permits up to 75 acres, and It Is the Board's policy that provides for the 34% maximum property coverage.
Ms. O'Brien explained that the Zoning Regulations govern all conditional uses, adding that the ag easement gives the County a proprietary interest as well, which provide for the County Executive’sreview.
Ms. Hudson asked for clarification about the status of the IPA, the length of the term and what is allowed while the IPA is still in place. Ms. Levy stated that it's a 1989 easement with a 30-year term and they can go through the approval process while the IPA is still active, but there can be no construction until after maturation date.
Ms. Kaiss noted that the CSF is a large area and asked how the farming operation will be affected. Ms. Stonesifer said that she will still be able to graze her cattle and continue logging, adding that she's considering beekeeping within the CSF. There was additional discussion regarding different types of livestock that can be grazed within CSF areas.
Mr. Brown inquired about the length of the solar contract. Ms. Stonesifer stated that it is 25 years with two 5 year extensions. Mr. Brown asked what happens after the contract is up and Ms. Stonesifer indicated that the solar company will remove the panels and return the property to farmland. She added that there will be a bond in place to ensure the restoration.
Mr. Brown asked whether the electric hookup to the road is the same as the Board saw last fall, which would take it up the driveway and out to Rt. 144. Ms. Stonesifer said that it hasn't been decided yet whether it will be the original plan or if the connection will go through her woods to the Nixon Farm CSF.
Mr. Jannati noted that the original plan has been scaled back from 32 to 27.54 acres because they're using more efficient panels so they can get more output from a smaller area.
Mr. Brown stated his opinion that the required buffering isn't necessary due to the lack of visibility from neighboring properties. He said he'd rather have the fence closer to the panels to allow the cattle more room to graze. He stated that his recommendation to the County Executive would be to not have the buffering. There was discussion about whether it could be done away with entirely.
Ms. Hudson asked what happens if the owners stop farming. Ms. Stonesifer said when her father signed the ag preservation agreement it ensured the farm would always be in agricultural use. Ms. Levy clarified that the easement requires that the land be available for farming, not that it be actively farmed. Ms. Stonesifer noted that the land will always be farmed, detailing the sizable investments her family has made recently in barns and other improvements is mostly behind the barn, and the operator was not concerned about the fields proposed for the CSF, as she doesn't currently use them. Ms. Gibbon inquired where people ride, specifically asking about the outdoor arena, which is proposed to be within the CSF. Mr. Jannati stated that the outdoor arena is not used and the riding takes place in the indoor arena inside the barn.
Ms. O'Brien asked Mr. Vogel if the applicant is intending to merge the adjacent lot with the subject parcel, noting her concern that the plan shows the CSF area extending into the boundary of the lot. Mr. Vogel stated that they are not intending to merge the parcels and that he would revise the drawing to show the CSF pulled back 50' from the lot's parcel line, to correct the error and account for the 50-foot landscape buffer.
Ms. Jones expressed her concern that there wouldn't be much farmable land left if the CSF is approved. Mr. Brown stated that this applicant is within the criteria and it is the same scenario as the Triple Creek proposal. Ms. Kaiss stated that the CSF appears very large relative to the property. There was discussion about the Board's policy allowing up to 34% of the area to be used for this purpose. Mr. Jannati stated that they tried to use as little land as possible but there were some challenges with the topography that resulted in this configuration.
Ms. O'Brien asked if there is an access easement for the driveway that services the existing house on the separate lot, noting that the lot's pipe stem doesn't appear to be improved, so not actually used for access to the house. Mr. Jannati stated that he doesn't believe there is an easement. Ms. O'Brien noted her concern that the maps show solar panels covering the farm lane that is used for access to the house. There was confusion about the documents that were made available to the Board and what they depicted regarding the panels on the driveway. Mr. Jannati stated that the panels are not intended to cover the driveway.
Mr. Brown moved that the pipestem driveway for the lot be improved before the solar array can be built because they are two separate properties and currently they're using the farm lane to get to the house. Ms. Hudson seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Jones asked if there is a motion to approve the plan. Ms. Levy asked if the cleanup of the property line issue is included in Mr. Brown's motion. He indicated that was his intent. There was confusion as to whether Mr. Brown's motion was meant to recommend approval of the plan. Mr. Brown clarified his motion, stating that he recommends approval once the right of way is improved and the driveway is removed from the CSF. Ms. Hudson withdrew her second, stating that she doesn't like the plan. Ms. Kaiss seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.
Ms. Jones asked whether the County Executive's review for consistency with the easement was part of the process when the Board was deliberating their role. Ms. Levy stated that she believes the step for his review came after the Board created their policy. Ms. Jones agreed, stating her recollection that the CSF use was presented as inevitable because the Council passed legislation allowing it. She noted that the Board struggled to create the criteria given the legislation's provisions because some members felt that the use shouldn't be allowed on easement property. Mr. Brown stated that he was one of those members, but if the proposals fall within the criteria the Board developed, they need to recommend approval.
Ms. Hudson asked about the areas of the county that are suitable for CSFs. Mr. Jannati said he doesn't t know the specific locations, but they can be sited anywhere the infrastructure exists to support it. There was discussion about the approval process through BGE.
Mr. Sachs stated that during their meetings, the Committee frequently heard from various county departments regarding unmet capital projects. After careful deliberation, the Committee recommended that the County increase the transfer tax from 1.0% to 1.25% and submit the necessary legislation to the County's State Delegation for FY 2019 to meet unmet capital spending needs in the County. The increase in the tax will net approximately $6.5 million in annual revenue and can leverage approximately $80
million in capital over 20 years if using bond financing or fund $130 million of capital projects in 20 years if using cash funding. This will help relieve pressure on some of the critical needs.
He stated that the Committee also discussed the creation of a county task force every four years that will review the revenue and distribution of the transfer tax and recommend any changes to the formula as needed. The Committee recommended that this task force be comprised of representatives of all appropriate stakeholders including county and state officials, private citizens, and individuals from businesses that are directly impacted by the transfer tax formula. Currently, all changes to the transfer tax must be made at the state level. The Committee is strongly recommending that the County Executive, in collaboration with the County Council, submit legislation to the State Delegation to assign the management of the tax to the County.
Mr. Sachs noted that there isn't a large amount of land available for preservation, so the Committee should look at the transfer tax distribution in that context. Ms. Jones noted that there will be other agricultural needs into the future to be taken into consideration.
Mr. Brown asked if Mr. Sachs is looking for a recommendation for the farmer to be on the committee. Mr. Sachs indicated that the ALPB and the Farm Bureau should talk and come up with some names. He noted that the commitment is one morning a week from January through March.
2)Program Updates
a) The September meeting is tentatively rescheduled for Monday, October 1.
b) Mr. Brown asked about the email Ms. Levy sent out regarding the letter MALPF sent to Mark Mullinix and whether a new termination request has been submitted. Ms. Hudson asked for the context of the letter. Ms. Levy explained the background and stated that as far as she knows, a new request hasn't been submitted. She stated her understanding that Mr. Mullinix has been questioning the process that was used to review their 2012 request. Mr. Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General for MALPF, wrote the letter Ms. Levy distributed, in which he stated that the review process had been done correctly at both the county and state levels. Ms. Jones clarified that the State legislature passed a law this past session which changes the review process for the future, so that if the County denies the termination petition, it doesn't proceed to MALPF.
Mr. Brown moved to adjourn and Ms. Kaiss seconded. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 9:03 pm.
https://www.howardcountymd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=tWljzmiQ120%3d&portalid=0
Alerts Sign-up