HomeMy WebLinkAboutCEA 08-28-08 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Conservation Easement Authority
FROM: Amber Powers, Planning Technician 4T
RE: August Meeting
DATE: August 20, 2008
The Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority will be meeting on Thursday, August
28, 2008 at 8:00 a.m. in the Board of Supervisor's Executive Session Meeting Room in the
County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The
Conservation Easement Authority will discuss the following agenda items;
AGENDA
1. July 2008 Minutes.
2. Recap of the August 12'x' event at the Snapp Farm.
3. Review of all Subdnitted PDR Applications
4. Evaluation of the Applications Based on Possible Easeinent Conditions, Costs & Broader Vision
for the Area.
5. Local Easement Activity Updates
6. Other.
Please contact the Planning Department (665-5651 ) if you are unable to attend this meeting.
ALP/bad
Attachments
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
--DRAFT--
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY CONSERVATION EASEMENT AUTHORITY
Held in the Executive Session Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North
Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on July 24, 2008 at 8:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Diane Kearns, Chairman; Gene Fisher, Board of Supervisors Liaison; John Marker; John
Gavitt; and Todd Lodge
ABSENT: Ritchie Wilkins, Vice -Chairman; Jiro_ Lawrence, Treasurer; Cordell Watt, Planning
Commission Liaison; and Robert Solenberger
STAFF PRESENT: Amber Powers, Planner I
OTHERS PRESENT: Janelle Plummer from WINC
PUBLIC MEETING:
1. Minutes and Agenda
Diane noted that Phil Glaize's name needed to be removed from the members list. She also
suggested, and the group agreed that some additional language be included before the chart
clarifying that it represented issues discussed and did not represent a final outline of any kind.
Staff agreed to revise the minutes accordingly. John Marker then made the motion to approve
the minutes contingent upon those revisions, John Gavitt seconded it, and the group approved
unanimously.
2. Reappointment of Diane Kearns & John Gavitt to the CEA by the Board.
Staff clarified that no action was necessary and that the item was for informational purposes.
John Gavitt pointed out that he did not believe his former term had expired and thought there
may have been some confusion. Gene Fisher then asked staff to check to see if there had been a
mistake.
3. Timing for Snapp PDR Decision
Diane Kearns pointed out that the Snapps are facing a deadline of early to mid-October by which
time they would need to have gained Board of Supervisors approval for their participation in the
County's PDR program. After that point, they would need to look elsewhere for funding
otherwise they could be in jeopardy of losing the Federal PDR matching grant from the USDA's
Fain and Ranchland Protection program.
4. August 12t" event at Snapp Farm & PDR Press Release Information
Ms. Kearns also pointed out that in order to assure that the PDR program is well publicized and
that others have the chance to apply, that it will be important to reach out groups like the Farm
Bureau, (which she intends to do). Part of the effort to get the word out, she explained, was the
up -coming August 121h, fundraising / informational event. The event will highlight local foods
including donations from Garber Iee cream, and a local hog for the barbeque.
Diane Kearns pointed out that the PDR program announcement letter, (which the group would
need to look through and finalize during the meeting) would be ready for the event, and would
also be distributed to local easement organizations and farm and forestland related agencies
active in the County. In addition to the letter, Diane also mentioned that she would arrange to
meet with newspaper reports to try and get things in the paper about the program.
John Gavitt then asked if the Announcement letter that Diane had mentioned still needed to be
approved. Diane confirmed that it did, and John, along with the rest of the group then took time
to look at the letter's language. Minor typos were marked for revision, as well as some change to
the language explaining easements on the back side of the letter. In addition to these relatively
minor comments, the issues regarding the August 25"' cut-off for the first round of applications
was discussed in some language.
Diane asked the group if she thought anyone would take issue with the deadline being relatively
soon.
Group members were also concerned about how best to describe the two proposed rounds (the
first ending August 25"', and the second ending on December 31", 2008. Of particular note was
the use of the word "priority," and the question of how to appropriately explain that the presence
of a second round essentially relies on the availability of funds following the first round.
John Gavitt, taking as step back from the discussion, asked Diane to clarify the essential reasons
for having two separate deadlines, and what the impact might be of simply forgoing the august
date, and establishing December 31" as a single deadline. Diane pointed out that the August
deadline was an effort essentially to accommodate the Snapp easement applicant's needs.
Todd Lodge, in light of the discussion then asked if perhaps the CEA's timeline excluded the
group from accommodating the Snapp request. Diane clarified that if the August deadline is
kept, the proposal to the board, and their subsequent up or down vote could be received by
October, and thus the CEA could, if it acted quickly, accommodate the Snapp Request.
John Gavitt then reiterated his initial question, asking if, aside from the Snapp Applicant's needs,
there were any reasons to maintain the August deadline. Staff pointed out that there was in fact
no reason other than the Snapp application to have an August deadline. However, staff also
pointed out that should the CEA loose the Snapp easement opportunity, the County many not
find another PDR application with Federal or other grant dollars attached capable of meeting the
County's matching funds obligation. This would ultimately put the burden of funding the PDR
matching obligation of up to $265,000 back on the County and the CEA. Realistically, the CEA
would find it very difficult to raise enough funds through donations, and the County is,
unfortunately, not in a situation to contribute financially towards this program.
Diane also noted that if the County was not able to take advantage of the State grant due to the
lack of any Federal grant funding or local contributions, it could jeopardize the CFA's ability to
qualify for future State PDR and Conservation easement —related grant programs.
Ultimately, after the discussion the group determined that the August deadline should be kept,
and that any applications received prior to the deadline that were not selected for the first round,
would automatically be reconsidered for selection during the second round in December.
5. Fred Co Easement Priorities Meeting on July 29, 2008
Dine Kearns announced that members from the CEA, (no more than five) were invited to
participate in the Tuesday, July 29, 2008, from 10am to 2pm at Oakerest. The goal of the
meeting was explained by those coordinating the event, as a chance to share strategies, outreach,
etc. to determine how to greatly pick up the pace for donated and purchased easements in
Frederick County. CEA members expressed some reservation about the aggressive stance of the
meeting's participants in regards to conservation within the County, and were concerned that this
may scare -off interested landowners. The group decided to attend, and listen, but that they might
use the opportunity to warn against creating targeted landowner lists for distribution between
easement organizations. They also agreed that they should not use the meeting to promote the
PDR option for any specific property.
6. New Easement Application
John Gavitt pointed out that he had had the chance to look over the new format of the LEA's
easement application, and that while the format was greatly improved he had noticed that the
content itself might be in need of adjustment. Two major issues were:
• whether or not the applicant should be burdened with answering some of the more
complicated questions in the package, and
• whether or not it would be possible to include as section asking the applicant to express
their intentions regarding how the property might be used and not used under the
easement — (a specific example being the applicant's desire to reserve building rights, or
not).
With respect to the first issue, Diane pointed out that she thought it might be a good exercise for
landowners to fill out the application, as it might cause them to seek out and better understand
the importance of the those answers. CEA members also considered the fact that while the
application may be somewhat complicated, it was in fact a copy of the state model and was the
version approved by the state as a part of the LEA's PDR program certification. Thus, there was
some concern about the group's ability to alter the application.
Staff pointed out as a possible compromise, that the note indicating that the Planning
Department's staff was available to help with any question the applicant may have, or for help in
filling out the form, could be added to every page as a reminder. This suggestion was supported,
and the issues regarding the complexity of the question was set aside for the time being.
In regards to the second issue, Mr. Gavitt pointed out that the intentions of the land owner should
be known to CEA members before choosing an application for priority standing. CEA members
agreed that this did seem crucial; however, they were again concerned about deviating from the
approved application. It was also noted however, that applicants might feel pressured to give the
"right" answer to questions such as: hou-t, many building rights, if any }vould you like to reserve?
In response to this, staff suggested that, in order to remain relatively consistent with the current
application, it would probably be best not to include such sections as a part of the scored
application, but that perhaps a generalized question (iu,hat is your vision for your land; hobs,
1410111dyou like it to be used, or not used in the fixture?) might be a way to inform CEA members
about an applicant's general intentions, without significantly altering the application., or causing
landowners to feel pressured to respond a certain way.
Diane pointed out that, within the chart that was included in the .Tune minutes, the applicant's
vision is something that considered if the application scores highly initially. She also pointed out
that this discussion with the applicant would occur before a final decision about which property
the CEA would choose as a priority, and that no change to the application may really be
necessary.
After some discussion, members seemed to feel that the addition of the note offering Planning
department help to applicants should beaded to each page. They seemed to agree that including
a generalized question 61,hat is your vision_for your land, horn xr,ould you like it to be used, or not
used in the.future?) would be the best way to address Mr. Gavitt's concerns, which the group
confirmed as being valid.
7. )casement Updates
Diane mentioned that she and Amber had met with Marjorie Copenhaver, after Ms. Copenhaver
decided to move forward with the process of establishing a conservation casement on her
property. Diane noted Ms. Copenhaver would likely be held by the Department of Historic
Resources.
8. Next Meeting
Since the next meeting would need to be used to evaluate the applications received as a part of
the PDR program, the group confirmed that their normal meeting date of the fourth Thursday in
the month should be pushed back. The group agreed to meet on August 28, 2008, (the fifth
Thursday of August), at 8:00 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Kearns, Chairman
Amber Powers, Secretary
ITEM 3:
Review of all Submitted PDR Applications
Attached, please find the PDR Application for the Snapp Farm. This was the only application
received as of August 20, 2008. If there are additional applications, staff will email PDF
versions of applications to CEA members prior to the meeting on the 28`x', and will have paper
copies available at the meeting as well.
Additional information, including the property's plat and conservation plan for protecting the
spring, should be available at the time of the meeting. Other information, including an overview
of land values in the area and other details will also be available.
MAF° -31-2088 10:01 FIN
0 0
Frederick County
Conservation Easement Application
Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority
c/o Frederick County Planning Department
107 N. Dent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
540-665-5651
Other items to be submitted with application:
Deed- A copy of the original deed with the deed book and page number stamp, under
which the owner acquired the property.
SurveylPlat- A survey or plat must accompany the deed.
Deeds of Trust- If there are any deeds of trust (mortgages) on the property, a. copy of the
original deed of trust with deed book and page number stamp.
Owner f
Additional Owner(s)
Mailing Address
Phone Number
l
P. e2
0
0
tlfli --31--2003 10:02 All
IV
m
Property Information
Contact Planning Department if unknown
0
Property Identification Number (PIN)
Magisterial District
Frederick County Zoning Classification
Land Use
Parcel Acreage
Ownership Details
-11, 2icr
P. 03
e
Vic' , Cpzr�- ,
Type of Ownership (Salo Owrier, Husband and Wife, Partnership, Corporation, Limited
Liability Company, Etc.)
Idefitify all lien holders on the parcel, including, without limitation, holders of deed of
trust liens and judgment liens (attach separate sheet -if needed)
Lolk
I/We'hereby give permission to the Frederlclt County Conservation Easement Authority
Program Administrator to enter the above mentioned property after reasonable notice for
evaluation and for the County's assessor or an independent appraiser to appraise the
property.
Owner(s) f r i nI�. h;14f lj P iJ '/Jar, a �.
Print signatu
Print Signature
Print signature
0
Print
2
i
Signature
Frederick CountV Conversation Easement Application
Owner: Elizabeth D. Snapp
Property Information: PIN 72-A-12
District — Back Creek
Zoning— RA
Land Use —Pasture
Acreage — 89.75 Acres
Open Space
1. The parcel is adjacent to a 151 acre working farm protected by a conservation easement
held by the Potomac Conservancy, Virginia Outdoors Foundation & USDA.
2. According to Frederick County zoning regulations parcels zoned RA can be subdivided
into traditional 5 acre lots creating a minimum of 17 lots on this parcel.
Threat of Development
1. Parcel is zoned agricultural (RA)
2. No
Natural Cultural and Scenic Resources
1. Property joins two state maintained roads, Route 623-1172 ft and the
designated Virginia scenic byway Cedar Creek Grade (622) 3,110 ft.
2. No it does not adjoin public trail.
3. No it does not adjoin a historic park or' battlefield.
4. No it does not adjoin a Rural Landmark.
5. No archeological resources.
6. The parcel is located in the Cedar creek watershed it does not have direct
frontage but is one parcel removed from Cedar Creek. Parts of Cedar Creek are
listed as impaired by VADEQ.
7. No perennial streams.
8. Property is karsts topography.
9. One perennial spring is found on the property. Spring flows into Cedar Creek.
Page 1 of 2
M
NA -?-31--2088 10:02 All
P.04
Property Qualification
The following historical, geologic, environmental, and geographic questions need to
be answered to the best of your ability to complete the application. If you cannot
answer a particular question 'or you are not sure of the answer, please contact the
Planning Department to assist you in completing the application.
Else separate sheets of paper for more detailed descriptions.
Open Space
Identify any adjoining existing permanent conservation easement(s), or national, state or
l local park? If so, how long is the shared boundary?
What, if, any, are the usable development rights on the parcel?
Threat of Development
Is the parcel zoned for a nonagricultural use? If so, what is it zoned?
Can you identify if the parcel is deemed to be threatened due to it's proximity to the
2- County's Urban Developrnent Area or Sewer and eater Service Area boundary or to
property that has been developed for a nonagricultural use within the last three yeais?
Natural, Cultural, Recreational,. and Scenic Resources
Identify if the parcel adjoins a state maintained road, designated Virginia scenic
1 higkway/byway, or a nondesignated public road? How much road frontage, in feet?
P'
Does the parcel or adjoining pareel(s) front a public trail or is identified as part of a
planned trail network? Please identify.
3
PIAR-3I -2008 1.0:03 AP1
Is the. parcel within or adjoining a national or state historic park or Civil War battlefield,
listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places, or is subject to a permanent
easement protecting a historic resource? If yes, please explain.
Please identify if the parcel contains or adjoins a parcel with a historic structure identified
by the Frederick County Rural Landmark Survey or otherwise documented as being over
100oyears old. €'
Dees the parcel contain. identified archeological resources? Please list them.
Please identify if the parcel is within a watershed or subwatershed identified as impaired
on the Virginia Department of Envirozaxziental Quality's Impaired Waters List.
Please list any perennial strearn(s) identified by the USGS 7.5 minute series quad maps or
another reliable source, located on the parcel. If so, how many feet of stream frontage?
Can you identify if the parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area as
demonstrated by the presence of sinkholes or karst topography?
0 , €
Identify any perennial springs or wetlands on the parcel.
Farm or Forestland Protection
Identify any prime farmland as identified by the 1487 USDA Soil Survey of Frederick
County contained do the parcel. List acreage and soils.
Identify any agricultural or forestal districts or taxation related agricultural or forestal
land.
0 ,
lz. 4
P.05
MAR -31-2005 10:04 P.06
e
Identify any approved nutrient management plans and/or agricultural best management
practices as approved by the Lord Fairfax. Soil and Nater Conservation District or
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
! Can you demonstrate that you have in place a conservation plan or participate in a
7
reco gnized.pro gram that restores and/or protects stream channels, riparian zones, and
wetlands? If so, please describe.
r
Fund Leveraging
j Can you identify if nonfocal government funding will be used towards costs associated
with the conservation easement. If so, list the price.
0 .
p
5
r
Farm and Forest Protection
1. Statewide important spoils found on the property include: 34.4 acres of 13D
Frankstown; 22 acres of 14C Frederick; and 5.8 acres of 32C Oaklet.
2. The property is currently taxed at the agricultural land use rate. It is not located
in an official ag district.
3. The Snapp's work closely with Mike Liskey at MRCS and the LFSWCD to
implement best management practices on the farm. This includes the fencing off
and protection of the spring from cattle, installation of off stream watering
system for the pasture area, rotational grazing and nutrient management plan
and soil testing is used to determine and fertilizer need for the property.
4.. A conservation plan is in place for farming operations and spring has been
protected from cattle.
Fund Leveraging
1. Funding has been secured from the USDA Farm and Ranchland Protection
program for the purchase of a conversation easement on this property. FRPP has
awarded $260,000.00 towards the purchase. Estimated project cost for the
easement purchase is %520,000. $515,000 purchase price $5,000 appraisal fees.
1V9A Gk -C-- r�
Page 2 of 2
The Snapp Farm
A'�x �i�f+ r�/ sJ /fr �r `; f ,*=f,� - - T 4'st� I �l� +� t �S-:'~4
IN,
7f-
8, A1.1 ZL
F
--J
h,-6, L
- —7
Z
L
F
0.25
Legend Miles
W
SnappFarm
C* — conswOrmy
S May 2007
The, Snapp Farm- Soils
rr-14D
_
r�
14D
i� jj/'I �,�.J�€:Jfi ( i� r� r+t.•' '# _ 14D
Ij
13D
v-
31
+i^
ii
ii�f P _ — _ ', / P'_ �rt� _` ' `4 � � ,=fit � �"aE� � 1." tP�. J, �� • f � ,
li.
ff �f ,.� ��r .`` - �f/ fr•�f! 1 + �r J X��, �„ti _ •��-'fit _ f F,.' l _ df --
i } J}mss ( � .r}�! .+` � i F �'f ff 1 •� .�. 4 f .. - r i � 1r '�
-13C f�` J' , �r �j �"•`` .f �' - { J j 7 jr'a
TQC
f � � � Ec: i � 'rE• tom, E r• f � — f �, ;t � ,
14C
-� _ s � . �•: A ! � f . //{_ - - ; '�� .r�y, _ ` ,1� I ', ate;- -q - • _ - � -
s�
N
Legend 0.25
Mies _
5nappFarm
S