Loading...
CEA 10-23-08 Meeting AgendaMEMORANDUM TO: Conservation Easement Authority FROM: Amber Powers, Planner I x,117 1tE: October Meeting DATE: October 16, 2008 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority will be meeting on Thursday, October 23, 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. August & September 2008 Minutes 2. Snapp Easement 3. PR Insert for Tax Notices 4. Local Easement Activity updates S. Other. I was informed the last time that I should warn everyone the next time I planned to bring in snacks, so: There spifl be coffee and muffins! Please contact the Planning Department (665-5651) if you are unable to attend this meeting. ALP/bad Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 9 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 September 25, 2008 at 8:00 a.m. PRESENT: Diane Kearns, Chairman; Ritchie Wilkins, Vice -Chairman; Jim Lawrence, Treasurer; and Jolrrr Gavitt. ABSENT: Gene Fisher, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Cordell Watt, Planning Commission Liaison; Robert Solenberger; and John Marker. STAFF PRESENT: Amber Powers, Planner 1; and Bev Dellinger, Secretary III. OTHERS PRESENT: Kelly Watkinson, Potomac Conservancy. PUBLIC MEETING: The meeting began at 8:00 am. Ms. Kerns had attended the Board of Supervisors meeting the night before, September 24"', and she began updating members of the action taken by the Board of Supervisors concerning the Snapp property. The Board endorsed the Snapp property for use of the 2008 VDACS purchase of Development Rights Grant funds and approved the appropriation of $3,000 from the CEA line item to be used toward completing the necessary legal documentation for the Snapp easement. Ms. Kerns further stated that the total is about $538,500, with the County putting in $130,000, Federal fiords are $260,000, and $3,000 from CEA. That means that the Snapps will donate about $150,000 and Mrs. Snapp is all right with that. Ms. Kepis feels this is a grand opportunity for us as a County to now figure out how the process will go, because the Potomac Conservancy will basically be handling it, and they can lead us through it. Mr. Gavitt stated that as part of a learning process, even if Potomac Conservancy does go ahead with the first draft, he would like to make sure that we get it out to everybody so that people can be actively involved. Ms. Watkinson stated that she would be happy to go through the easement with anyone, or give people as much or as little information as they want. Mr. Gavitt suggested that Ms. Watkinson go ahead with the first draft because that would be appropriate. There's a leaning curve here and, from that standpoint, it would be great to get that out electronically and we can funnel our comments through Ms. Kerns. Mr. Wilkins asked about $3,000 coming from CEA donated funds - is that all right with the State, versus it coming from the County. Ms. Kerns replied it will look like it's coming from the County, because it is County money. Ms. Powers said it is County money, and when the CEA needs to disburse it, the Finance Committee will have to approve it. Ms. Watkinson said she'll order the appraisal today. Ms. Kerns stated that, according to the program, we have to have an offer to sell. Ms. Watkinson said she will get something written from the Snapps saying, "We offer to sell you this land". Mr. Gavitt thinks it should refer to the $130,000 as a County contribution through the State PDR. Ms. Watkinson said she can probably get an easement draft together today or tomorrow and get it to members. Ms. Kerns asked if Mrs. Snapp is reserving a dwelling and Ms. Watkinson responded yes, one dwelling. Ms. Kerns asked where they're going to put it. Ms. Watkinson stated she can ask them and it could be left floating, meaning they could determine where they want it in the future when they actually decide to build it. They don't have to pick a site now and if County regulations change, they might have to change the site. Ms. Watkinson stated if there's a particular area the CEA wants to exclude from where that site can be, there will be language in there for protection of the spring. Mr. Gavitt stated that as protection, there should be a clause of permission of the Grantee so that if the Grantees feel, meaning Potomac Conservancy and us, that it's going to hurt the conservation value of the property, we can deny the location. Mr. Gavitt's personal view is to avoid as much restrictive language and simply put that clause in because we don't know what's going to happen in that area in the future, and we need to make sure that we give them some flexibility. Ms. Watkinson stated we can always designate it and leave a clause that says in the future if this site is not appropriate because of unforeseen circumstances, we reserve the right to revise where the building is going to be. Mr. Gavitt asked if the existing house is in a building none and Ms. Watkinson replied there is no house, no structures on the entire property. Ms. Kerns commented that she thinks when they situate the house, they need to take into consideration the scenic value. What Ms. Kerns heard from some of the Supervisors is that even though it's reserved for agriculture, you might want to limit some of the uses in agriculture, such as funeral homes or chicken/pig farms. Ms. Watkinson said just because the County counts funeral homes as agriculture, the Potomac Conservancy will put in a definition for what is considered agriculture. Ms. Watkinson commented that you get into a tricky situation when you're defining out what ag you allow and what ag you don't allow. if you put a restriction that says no farm buildings over 4,000 square feet without prior approval, then if they're going to put a chicken house up, they'd have to get prior approval; but is a chicken house that bad? Ms. Watkinson said they have easements with chicken 2 houses, but the easements also have protection for streams, a conservation plan and they meet all their permits. Mr. Wilkins asked Ms. Watkinson if they use the VOF guidelines. She responded they do pretty much. Some thing's they're stricter on and some things a little more lax on. The template Ms. Watkinson will be using for this is the same template that they negotiated with USDA and VOF for the other easement. Ms. Kerns stated that she and Ms. Watkinson will start working on an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), which this Committee will review. Mr. Gavitt asked Ms. Watkinson about federal involvement in this. Ms. Watkinson stated that they're still up in the air on whether they want to be an official co -holder or if they want to be a third party beneficiary. Either way, they still use the sarne language; they still reserve the right to enforce if nobody else is enforcing and they're still a party to the easement. They require title insurance for their portion of the money, so that's something the Board will need to think about; if the County is going to want to purchase title insurance. The Feds pay for their own title insurance so if the County wants title insurance, the County will have to pay for it. Ms. Kerns stated there isn't a quorurn in order to approve the minutes of August 28, 2008. Ms. Kerns said that in the August 28"' minutes, the lady's name from DHR is Wendy Musameeky. Mr. Gavitt commented that an excellent job is being done with the minutes; they're very detailed and he really appreciates it. Mr. Kerns thanked Ms. Dellinger as well. Ms. Kerns stated that the outgrowth of all this is we've gotten somewhere and we need to let that be kriown. We need to reiterate there's some more money out there, so how do we want to continue with this. Ms. Kerns suggested that a mailer might be included with the tax bills. Mr. Gavitt feels that some people who donate easements definitely do not want to be written up in the paper, and others love it. The first step is in finding out where the Snapps are coming from when this becomes final. We need to be careful before we start advertising anything until we have a "done deal". Ms. Watkinson agrees with that, and if the CEA wants to publish something, she will contact the Snapps first and find out what their comfort level is. Mr. Gavitt likes the idea of putting something in the tax bills. Concerning fund raising, Ms. Kerns thinks the CEA would be better served in our efforts if we are requesting specific things. For example, saying we need $500 for this mailing. Mr. Gavitt feels that when we're advertising, we should be emphasizing that it's limited and it's specific and not everybody is going to qualify. There's got to be a balance on volunteer donations versus getting more PDR funds. It will be very difficult to get anything but Federal funding. Ms. Kerns agrees with that. Ms. Kerns pointed out that this is a long process and she would like to do whatever she can to see people get involved with this. 91 Mr. Lawrence stated that the mailing should include that we need donations, which are tax deductible, we should make people aware that PDR money is available and that tax credits are obtainable. Ms. Kerns stated that Marge Copenhaver is very close to establishing an easement. Ms. Copenhaver has sent her letter of intent but she missed the applicable Committee meeting; it will be on the next Committee meeting agenda for October. Ms. Kerns said this will probably be the CEA's next big event. Mr. Gavitt asked if that would be a pure donation and Ms. Kerns responded yes. Ms. Kerns stated that the Old Mill property owners, next to Ms. Copenhaver, are also donating an easement on their property. Ms. Kerns stated that the CPPS Subcommittee is reformatting the Comp Plan language and Ms. June Wilmot asked Ms. Kerns if she would re -write that in the new format. Ms. Powers stated she would talk with Ms. Kerns about this Iater. Mr. Gavitt expressed appreciation to Ms. Watkinson and Ms. Kerns for all the work they've been doing on the Snapp easement. Mr. Gavitt stated he also that he really liked the Memo that Ms. Powers wrote for the Board meeting last night. The next meeting will be held on Thursday; October 23, 2008 at 8:00 a.m. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Kearns, Chairman Amber Powers, Secretary C! ITEM 2: Snapp Easement Emails will be sent out as soon as the easement draft is available, (as of the time this was mailed, the draft wasn't quite ready). If you don't use email and would like a copy ahead of the meeting, contact Amber or Diane and we will make sure a copy gets to you. In other related news, Kevin Schmitt of the VDACS confirmed that the CEA's contribution towards the appraisal and other prep -work would fulfill the Intergovernmental Agreements requirement that the County contribute some funds. As lie interprets it, the contribution doesn't necessarily have to be towards the purchase price; instead it can be a financial contribution towards the acquisition project, and can include payments for appraisals and such. Also, Mr. Shickle has indicated that when the Board is ready to look at the final proposal, he, and other members would like to see a checklist of all the documents needed to assure that everything is order and that there is really no jeopardy of the State deciding not to allow the use of the grant funds. So, I've put together a list of all the things I think will be needed. This is for your Information only, (don't be overwhelmed). Some of them are formal documents and some of them could be as simple as a brief email comment, but here they are.- Key re: Key Documents: I. Easement Contract and the following support letters/email from the: a. FRPP Approving the Language of the Easement Contract b. VDACS Approving the Language of the Easement Contract c. County Attorney Approving the Language of the Easement Contract d. Potomac Conservancy Approving the Language of the Easement Contract 2. Letter- of Intent to Sell from Ms. Snapp 3. Formal Appraisal Document (or coversheet / summary) 4. The County's Title Insurance Documentation 5. Property Info: Recorded Plat, (if it exists) along with deed, and Land Survey 6. Data from the Original Snapp Application to the CEA 7. Memorandum of Understanding between Easement Holders a. (incl, IF This is Spelled Out as Necessary in the MOU, documentation of tine Finance Committee's Endorsement of a Line Item for Legal Enforcement of the Easement) S. Finance Committee Endorsement of the Easement acquisition with the use of VDAC and FRPP funds, (acknowledging that they understand that the County would be responsible for $130,000 if the state funds fall through (very unlikely), and that they endorse this commitment.) 9. Documentation of the VDACS's agreement to wire fiends directly to the closing. 10. A MEMO to the Board requesting the following actions: a. Approval of the County's acquisition of the Easement and of their status as a co -holder under the terms outlined in the Easement Contract b. Approval of the terms of the MOU which outlines the responsibilities of each co -holder of the easement c. (and, IF This is Spelled Out as Neeessa)3) in the A110U, a Decision to approve the restriction of County funds at an amount outlined in the MOU, to serve as a fund for the legal costs associated with the enforcing the Easement's terms). Other Info:. 11. Quick timeline of the County's FDR program history 12. Copy of BOS action endorsing Snapp Easement Acquisition 13. Quick explanation of each party's role in the process, either as a provider of funds, a holder or both. 14. Award letter from VDACS to the County for $265,000 in PDR funds 15. Award Letter- from FRPP to Potomac Conservancy for $260,000 towards tine Snapp Easement Purchase.