Loading...
CEA_07-24-08_Meeting_MinutesMEETING 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; Jim 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 Farm and Ranchland Protection program. 4. August 12"' 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 12 fundraising / informational event. The event will highlight local foods including donations from Garber Ice cream, and a local hog for the barbeque. Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority —71— Minutes of July 24, 2008 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 CEA'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. Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority —72— Minutes of July 24, 2008 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 loam to 2pm at Oakcrest. 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 Gavin pointed out that he had had the chance to look over the new format of the CEA'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 inot 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 CFA's PDR program certification. Thus, there was some concern about the group's ability to alter the application. I Staff pointed out as a possible compromise, that the note indicating that the Planning Depart'ment'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. Gavin 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: how many building rights, if any would 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 (what is your vision for your land; how would you like it to be used, or not used in the future ?) 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. • Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority Minutes of July 24, 2008 Diane pointed out that, within the chart that was included in the June 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 (what is your vision for your land; how would you like it to he used, or not used in the future?) would be the best way to address Mr. Gavin's concerns, which the group confirmed as being valid. 7. Easement 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 easement 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 • Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority Minutes of July 24, 2008