Loading...
CEA 09-25-08 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Conservation Easement Authority FROM: Amber Powers, Planner I RE: September Meeting �! DATE: September 16, 2008 The Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority will be meeting on Thursday, September 25, 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 2008 Minutes. 2. Recap of the September 24'x' Board of Supervisors' Decision on the Snapp Property 3. Review of next steps for Snapp Easement. 4. Planning for Press Coverage / Publicity of Second Cut -Off Date. 5. Local Easement Activity Updates. 6. Other. Please contact the Planning Department (665-5651) if you are unable to attend this meeting. ALP/bled 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 August 25, 2008 at 8:00 a.m. PRESENT: Diane Kearns, Chairman; Ritchie Wilkins, Vice -Chairman; Jiro Lawrence, Treasurer; John Gavitt; Robert Solenberger; and Todd Lodge ABSENT: Gene Fisher, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Cordell Watt, Planning Conunission Liaison; and John Marker. STAFF PRESENT: Amber Powers, Planner I; and Bev Dellinger, Secretary 111. OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick Felling, Potomac Conscivancy; and Kelly Watkinson, Potomac Conservancy. PUBLIC MEETING: 1. Minutes and Agenda. Ms. Kearns handed out a contact sheet from Preserve Frederick. Mr. Gavitt made a motion to approve the minutes and Mr. Lodge seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous to approve the July 28, 2008 minutes. 2. Recap of the August 12, 2008 event at the Snapp farm. Ms. Kearns stated that this event went really well; about 30 plus people attended and Conunittee members were able to talk to many people. It was good to see what the property looked like, Ms. Kearns stated that the area you drove through 'before you got to the house is the affected area. The Committee raised between $600 and $700 and there was about $300 in expenses. 3. Local Easement Activity Updates. Ms. Kearns gave a local easement activity update. Marjorie Coperihaver has been very interested and Ms. Kearns and Ms. Powers talked to her. Ms. Copenhaver's property is right next to the old mill by the Opequon Creek; her property surrounds the piece of property where the mill is located. Ms. Copenhaver has about 75 acres plus a home, the Miller house, that's already on the National Historic Register. A Department of historic Resources (DHR) lady was there to talk to the people who own the mill and Ms. Copenhaver, Ms. Kearns and Ms. Powers talked to her about Ms. Copenhaver's property. DHR believes they should be considered together, and DHR is interested in holding the easement. The DHR lady would get most of the information she needs from the Historic Register application, she took pictures, and with a letter of intent from Ms. Copenhaver, it will go before the Easement Committee who will make a recommendation to their Board. Ms. Kearns feels there's no reason why it couldn't be recorded this year. Mr. 1 Solenberger asked if they're looking for a financial benefit and Ms. Kearns responded no, that Ms. Copenhaver will probably donate the property. The only sticking point is that the property is in a Trust, but Ms. Kearns believes that Ms. Copenhaver has everything worked out. Mr. Gavitt asked if anyone has any written reports on the Rural Areas Study Committee. Ms. Powers stated she has attended the meetings. The County website has a link to the Study Committee which shows the agendas, minutes and the RA poweipoint presentation. The website is also seeking comments. Mr. Gavitt asked Ms. Powers if she had any perspective on how the Easement Authority can provide some input into where the study needs to go as far as an easement standpoint. Ms. Powers is putting together a brief explanation of what the PDR program is in Virginia. The RA Study Conunittee is looking at tools the State has enacted that might be used here to manage growth in the RA. Ms. Powers stated that everyone on the Easement Authority is welcome to attend the RA Study meetings and she feels the Study Committee would welcome comments. 4. Review of all Submitted PDR Applications; and 5. Evaluation of the Applications Based on Possible Easement Conditions, Costs & Broader Vision for the Area. Ms. Kearns stated that this Committee has to decide whether they want to ask the Board to co - hold the Snapp PDR and, if that decision is yes, do we want to consider purchase money for it. Ms. Kearns has a scoring sheet which, along with the program requirements, she used to determine that the Snapp application qualifies for a PDR easement. Ms. Kearns went through the scoring sheet to explain how she came up with the score. Ms. Powers noted that the blank scoring sheet came from her files for other scored properties. Ms. Kearns stated that the scoring sheet needs to be altered to go along with what's actually written in the program. Committee members discussed issues of soil and slope percentage on the Snapp property. Mr. Lodge questioned the scoring method they came up with a long time ago. Mr. Lodge doesn't understand why a property would get a bonus for being in the UDA and SWSA and for being zoned. To him, those should be negatives. Ms. Powers stated that's because the threat of development is very high. Mr. Lodge doesn't feel that's what the Committee came up with, but it's been so long ago, he doesn't remember. Mr. Gavitt asked what would be required to change this. Ms. Powers requested that it not be changed now. Mr. Lodge stated he believes the Snapp application should be approved and afterward, Authority members go through a discussion about the way properties are scored. Ms. Kearns stated that the Snapp application has come to us to ask that the CEA and the Board jointly hold the easement with them. The Potomac Conservancy has worked with the Snappy and they want to hold this easement. The Snapps came to the County and applied to our program to co -hold this easement. The real reason they did that is because the County has State monies for which this would qualify, but step #1 is that the County has to say that they would be willing to hold this. And if they're willing to hold this, will they purchase it, is the next step. Ms. Watkinson thinks that the Snapps are looking to have the casement purchased, not donate the casement. They (her organization) have some funding in hand so if the Easement Authority N couldn't put any money in, they would have to continue to look for money to match the Federal inoncy. Mr. Gavitt clarified with Ms. Watkinson that they've got some Federal money that requires matching; Mr. Gavitt asked what the amount is. Ms. Watkinson stated it's through the FRPP Program and the amount is $260,000. Mr. Gavitt asked if the Potomac Conservancy is willing to match some of that, and Ms. Watkinson responded that this amount is strictly for purchase price. Mr. Gavitt asked if the Snapps have given a bottom line and (Kelly) stated they have talked about that but in the end, it's all based upon the appraisal. The Snapps don't have a firm number. Ms. Kearns asked if Ms. Snapp would be willing to donate a portion of it to offset her tax liability. Ms. Watkinson replied they have pretty much always assumed that she's going to be donating a portion of it. Mr. Solenberger stated that with money for the purchase right of the development rights on this property coming from the State of Virginia and the Federal government, and maybe the Snapps would donate a little bit, it will cost the County no money. Ms. Kearns stated that technically the County has to put in some money if they're going to use the State money. The idea was to incentivize the County so they can't just do hands-off. But there is no set percentage that the County has to contribute. They can put in $3,000 that the Easement Authority has in their line item. The Easement Authority would have to put in some amount of money; 50% would come from Federal money, 50% minus whatever the CEA puts in would come from the County. if the appraisal makes it greater than what that would be, then Ms. Snapp hopefully would donate the other percentage which would generate tax credits for her and help offset the liability she'll have. Mr. Gavitt asked when the appraisal will be ready. Ms. Watkinson replied she's not plamring on ordering it until we need it because it's a couple thousand dollars. Ms. Powers stated that without the appraisal, that puts us in an awkward position going forward, because we have to ask the Board to express their comfort level with the estimate of the number and it won't be until the property is appraised that we'll know what the actual number is. Ms. Watkinson stated in the case of purchase easements, generally there are two appraisals. The purchaser would order an appraisal for them to evaluate the cost and the landowner would get an appraisal for themselves for their tax purposes and for any donated portion. Mr. Gavitt asked if we recommend half of the State money for this, $130,000, would this nix the whole deal because there are no other readily available sources of money for contributions. Mr. Gavitt expressed some apprehension, stating that this is one farin and we're potentially using the entire amount. Ms. Kearns stated that what Ms. Powers brought to her attention was that $515,000, the whole amount requested in the application, is high for the value of this property. The easement value probably won't come out to that. We want to be realistic for what we're asking for. We're talking about 89.75 acres, call it 90 acres. If the tax appraisal value right now is $269,300, that works out to be just about $3,000 an acre. So the question becomes, what's the market value of that and what's the value of it with an easement on it, because the difference will be the easement value. Ms. Kearns stated you generally take roughly 30% of the market value and that might be the easement value, depending on road frontage. Ms. Kearns talked to John Scully of Colony Realty and asked him to try to evaluate what the property is worth. Mr. Scully thinks the property is worth quite a bit because of the road frontage and the views that it has. He basically thinks that $6,000 to $7,000 per acre might be market value, closer to $7,000. With an easement and one home site, he believes $2,000 to $3,000 per acre is very buyable. Ms. Kearns said $7,000 per acre for 90 acres is $630,000 and if you take 30% of that, it's $189,000, but that's probably not valid for this property. Mr. Scully's value makes the easement worth $3,000 per acre and that makes the easement worth roughly 50% of the value of the property. You cut that in half, which would be our share, and that means we're not using the entire $265,000. Mr. Gavitt stated he would not want to use up or even offer the entire amount of the State money this year, and he'd like to get at least two properties under this. He'd like to at least consider half, which would be $130,000, for this particular property, with the understanding that if the appraisal for the Snapp property exceeds the sum of the Federal Grant plus the $130,000 from the State program, that it's not going to happen and that if it's under, the Snapps should make a donation. There's a tremendous advantage in donating conservation easements in Virginia as opposed to other states because of the tax credit. Mr. Gavitt asked Ms. Watkinson if she has a conunitment by the Federal goverment for $260,000 for one property, and Ms. Watkinson responded yes, $260,000 for one property. 50% of that amount has to be matched in order to use the entire $260,000. If we get less than $130,000, we can't use all of it. Ms. Kcams stated we can choose to reeonunend to the Board that the Easement Authority would like to hold this property and if we hold it, they've got to co -hold it with us. If we do that, do we want to suggest that they spend money? Ms. Powers pointed out those are two separate Board actions. Ms. Watkinson stated that the USDA may be a co -holder on this as well, if that gives the Board extra comfort. She has to double-check this, though. Ms. Powers stated it may be better to reverse the order of the requests; first to purchase the easement and if you think that's a good idea, we have to figure out what the burden of responsibility be for the County (who is maintaining the easement and who will enforce it if there's issues). Mr. Gavitt stated that we need assurance from Ms. Watkinson that Potomac Conservancy will work with us internally and Ms. Watkinson said yes. Mr. Gavitt doesn't want the Board to get the idea that the responsibility is all on Potomac Conservancy; we need to make sure that they understand that we are a valuable part of this partnership. .19 Mr. Solenberger stated they must have gotten an appraisal done on that property to get funding from USDA. Ms. Watkinson said they have committed that amount without all appraisal. The numbers were based on the value that was developed for a nearby easement she closed this year. Ms. Watkinson further stated that the appraisal for the Snapps would be done no more than 60 days before the closing. You can get a preliminary appraisal done; it costs about $700 to $800. That's a step that can be taken to give more assurance, but she hasn't really been trilling to order it at this point. Mr. Gavitt suggested we make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that the Easement Authority co -hold the Snapp farm with Potomac Conservancy and possibly the Department of Agriculture as appropriate. Second, we recommend that matching State funds up to $127,000 be appropriated for this particular property, with the understanding that matching funds will be coming from the Federal government through the Potornac Conservancy, and that the Easement Authority donate from its budget $3,000. Ms. Kearns commented that because the casement values have a lot of wiggle room, we could request $130,000 from the State funds, the CEA would put in their $3,000, and that would give them a little bit to help cover an appraisal fee. Ms. Kearns conunented further that if we decide to move forward with this, the County will need to get an appraisal, either a County appraiser or someone else. Ms. Watkinson stated it has to be an appraiser who can appraise conservation easements. Ms. Powers stated we're getting into a situation where we might have a timing issue. Any costs associated with a preliminary appraisal would require approval from the Finance Committee. Not only to use the CEA's own fiinds, but to tap into any of that $265,000 set-aside. Even if the County has the intent of being reimbursed, because it won't be able to be reimbursed until the easement is established, there is a window of time where the County is going to be responsible for a sum of money and Ms. Powers doesn't know if the County will be able to do that. Ms. Watkinson asked if the appraisal amount is the sum of money Ms. Powers is talking about, she's sure they could front the money, with an agreement. Ms. Powers stated that one of the discussions she had was to see what happens if the County can't financially pay for it without assurance that we will immediately be wired, because when it comes to purchasing easements, they could have the State wire directly to the purchaser. Before we go the Board, some of the things they're looking for are if we can arrange for the County, through contract, that an appraisal will be done, if we can have an agreement that the Conservancy or someone will pay if this falls through. The issue there is we will need the Finance Committee to see the proposal first. Ms. Watkinson commented that if the County is going to commit money for the purchase price and commit some or all the money to cover appraisal costs, they could cover it and get reimbursed at closing. 5 Ms. Pourers stated that in order to get reimbursed, the County has to be the one who is contracted for those costs and if the County is contracted as the responsible parr, regardless of who actually pays, we need to get Finance Cominittee approval. Mr. Gavitt stated he believes up -front costs need to be covered through a contract by the County. Ms. Powers said the initial response she's getting is that that won't work out. Ms. Kearns stated the State grant allows us to pay for one appraisal so it will snatch for one appraisal. We can say to the Finance Conunittee we've got $3,000, the money is there, and we just add $2,000 or $3,000 to the State request. Ms. Powers told Ms. Kearns that could work, but timing is the concern. That initial appraisal is really to ease the Board's mind, and since it won't meet the 60 day requirement, it probably won't be certified. Ms. Watkinson stated that a preliminary appraisal is basically just a sheet of paper that is an appraiser's educated guess. Ms. Powers said we could go to the Finance Committee and ask them to use funds in order to hire an appraiser to do an initial appraisal and hopefully, they will have the chance to do that appraisal within the time frame to allow us to get to the early October Board meeting with an educated guess of a purchase price. Mr. Gavitt stated we need to go to the Board stressing these points we are making, including the one about the Finance Committee making as rapid a decision as possible. If we need to move forward, as Ms. Powers is emphasizing, it would be better to have the Board know we want this done versus just going to the Finance Committee and wait until September. Mr. Gavitt made a motion that we recorrumend to the Board of Supervisors that the Conservation Basement Authority co -hold the Snapp farm property with the Potomac Conservancy and Department of Agriculture if appropriate, meaning whether the Agriculture is involved or not, that State funds up to $130,000 be provided toward this particular PDR purchase, and that the Basement Authority provide funds up to $3,000, riot part of the $130,000 match number, to help with any initial required funds for appraisal and other administrative details that are necessary in the initial process. if the funds that we are recommending do not meet the appraisal, there is a clear understanding that the amount we are asking for will be lowered, not to exceed the appraisal value. If the appraised value is over the funds that are being provided, it is an understanding that the owners of the Snapp farm will donate the remainder. Mr. Solenbcrger seconded the motion. Committee members discussed the motion and concluded that the motion is appropriate. The vote was unanimous to approve the Snapp farm PDR request. 6. Next Meeting Ms. Kearns stated that the next meeting is scheduled for September 25, 2008 at 8:00 am. 6 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Kearns, Chairman Amber Powers, Secretary ITEM 2: Icecap of the September 24th Board of Supervisors' Decision on the Snapp Property Attached, please find the memo sent to the Board for their September 24"' meeting. The memo outlines the LEA's request to acquire the Snapp property's development rights. At the time of this mailing and of the Board agenda mailing, information about the property's appraised value and title history was not yet available. This information will be incorporated into the presentation to the Board on the September 24 if it is available, and copies of the information will also be handed out at the meeting. Fi-edet•ick Counh' Conservation Easement Authority MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Amber Powers, Planner I�✓ RE: Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) Proposed use of State Grant Matching Funds to Acquire the Development Rights for an 89.75 Acre Parcel DATE: September 17, 2008 The County was awarded $265,000 in State matching funds through the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) in February of this year. These funds were made available to the County for the local Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program. In managing the County's PDR program, the Consevation Easement Authority (CEA) solicited property owners interested in participating in the 2008 PDR program. Subsequently, the CEA selected the 89.75 acre Snapp property for use of the awarded grant funds. The CEA is now seeking the Board of Supervisor's endorsement of the Betty Snapp property for use of $130,000 of the State grant PDR funds, the Board's endorsement at this point will allow the CEA to work further with Mrs. Snapp toward assembling the various required conservation easement documentation. A future, formal Board action will be necessary prior to securing the development rights for this property. Through the anticipated grant funding partnerships, no County funding will be necessary to secure this easement. Two Board of Supervisors actions are sought: 1) Endorsement of the Snapp property for use of the 2008 VDACS purchase of Development Rights Grant Funds. This endorsement will enable the CEA to proceed with the preparation of a final easement contract and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), and recognition that the Board would ultimately acquire and co -hold the easement. The CEA will return to the Board to seek its final approval once the easement contract and other documents have been finalized. C/O Frederick County Planning Department, 107 north Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 (540-66:+-56 1) Board of Supervisors Re: Snapp Property PDR September 17, 2008 Page 2 2) Appropriation of $3,000 (funds acquired through donations) to be used toward completing the necessary legal documentation for the Snapp easement. Background The Board of Supervisors allocated $265,000 and unanimously approved the Conservation Easement Authority's (CEA) request to participate in the State grant matching funds program on April 23, 2008. As a part of the request, the CEA also expressed its commitment to finding outside funding sources that would completely or partially meet the County's obligation to contribute matching funds toward the purchase of an easement. Following the Board's approval, the CEA announced a call for applications from local landowners interested in participating in the PDR program. The first cut-off was August 25th, and the second round cut-off has a deadline of December 31St of 2008. The CEA is now requesting the Board's approval of its proposal to acquire an easement on the 89.75 acre property owned by Ms. Betty Snapp for a total of up to, but no more than, $390,000. The VDACS Office of Farmland Preservation will provide $130,000 of this and the remaining $260,000 will come from the USDA's Federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). (The FRPP funds were sought by and awarded to the Potomac Conservancy on behalf of the property's owner.) The final purchase price may be less if the certified appraisal indicates a lower value. If the easement is appraised at more than $390,000, Ms. Snapp has agreed to sell the easement for this price with the difference between the selling price and market value considered as a donation. The CEA is also proposing to use $3,000 that it obtained through fundraising donations to help with preparatory costs such as a certified appraisal and title search, and will seek a 50% reimbursement of these expenses by the VDACS Office of Farmland Preservation once the easement is established. If approved, the easement will be held by both Frederick County and the Potomac Conservancy, and possibly by the USDA as well. Like the State funding, the Federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) grant requires a matching contribution of one dollar for every two that the agency provides. Board members should note that the State will count Federal dollars toward its matching requirement and vice versa, thus affording the County with an opportunity to acquire this easement without using any County funds. Should the Board approve of this proposal, the CEA is requesting a Board action endorsing the LEA's preparation of a final easement contract and Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), and a statement from the Board affirming its intention to ultimately acquire and co -hold the easement. The CEA will return to the Board to seek its final Board of Supervisors Re: Snapp Property PDR September 17, 2008 Page 3 approval once the easement contract and other documents have been finalized. Due to the substantial costs associated with preparing to establish an easement, the CEA is asking the Board to consider this proposal before it arranges for a formal certified appraisal, and before it finalizes the easement contract and Memorandum of Agreement between the future co-holder of the easement. Although the CEA will seek the Board's final blessing of the easement acquisition, it is important that the Board consider this current proposal as the appropriate opportunity to express their general support or disfavor of the County's role as a co-holder. Attached, you will find information about the Snapp property, and about Ms. Snapp's vision for protecting the land. This vision will become the foundation of the easement contract's language once it is finalized. Before it is established, the County Attorney will review the contract and adjust it if necessary and as appropriate. Once established, the easement on Ms. Snapp's property will be held in perpetuity by its co-holders, and these co-holders will be responsible for assuring that the terms of the easement are enforced over the years. This involves an annual inspection of the property which, based on information from the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and Potomac Conservancy, requires about two to four hours of staff time per year. Should an issue arise requiring that an easement's terms be enforced, the County would need to assist in the legal costs associated with such an enforcement, and would do so in partnership with its co-holders. The exact nature of this cooperation with co-holders in enforcing an easement will be outlined in an MOA between the easement holders. This contract will be available for Board to review and approve or turn down at the time that the CEA returns to the Board to request approval of the finalized easement contract and acquisition. It should be noted that the need to enforce a property's terms via legal action is vett' rare, but that it is important for the Board to be aware of this possibility in considering the acquisition of this property's development rights. Attached with this letter is additional information about the Snapp property and the proposed purchase price of the easement, as well as information about easement contracts, and Memorandum of Agreements. Should you have any questions about this request, please contact Ms. Diane Kearns, Chair of the CEA, or Mr. Eric Lawrence. Attachments: Various Snapp property application support materials. AMP/ERL/bad Board of Supervisors Re: Snapp Property PDR September 17, 2008 Page 4 Conservation Easement Purchase Proposal: The CEA is proposing the purchase of an easement on the Snapp Property for a total of up to, but no more than, $390,000. • $130,000 will come from the VDACS Office of Farmland Preservation ($130,000 of the $265,000 matching grant awarded to Frederick County in February of 2008.) $260,000 will come from the US Department of Agriculture's Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program (FRPP) The final purchase price may be less if the certified appraisal indicates a lower value. Even if the easement is appraised at more than $390,000, Ms. Snapp has agreed to sell the easement for this price with the difference between the selling price and market value being considered as a donation. The CEA is also proposing to use $3,000 of its own funds to help with preparatory costs such as a certified appraisal, and will seek a 50% reimbursement of these expenses by the VDACS Office of Farmland Preservation, once the easement is established. The easement will be held by both Frederick County and the Potomac Conservancy. Property Information Owner: Ms. Betty D. Snapp Acreage: 89.75 Property ID: 72-A-12 Zoned: RA Magisterial District: Back Creek Current Use: Pasture • Site is adjacent to a 151 acre working farm currently protected by a Conservation Easement held by the Potomac Conservancy, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and the USDA FRPP. 0 if subdivided as traditional five acre lots, the property could produce 17 lots based on current County Density. • The property joins two state maintained roads: Fromans Road and Cedar Creek Grade (designated Scenic Byway). Board of Supervisors Re; Snapp Property PDR September 17, 2008 Page 5 • The parcel is located within the Cedar Creek watershed, which is listed as impaired by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. • There is a perennial spring on the property that feeds into Cedar Creek. • The property is identified as having karst topography. • The property contains prime soils for farming. • The property qualifies for, and is currently in, agricultural Land Use • Owners have implemented best management practices on the farm as recommended by representatives from the Federal Natural Resources Conservation Service and Lord Fairfax Soil & Water Conservation District. Memorandum of Agreement A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is signed between the co -holders of a conservation easement outlining the shared responsibilities of the co -holders. The MOA for the Snapp easement would be between: Frederick County (The County must be a holder in order to take advantage of the State funding) Potomac Conservancy (The P.C. must be a holder in order to take advantage of the Federal funding) US Department of Agriculture's Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (PRPP) (They may choose to be holders, but this is still unconfirmed) The MOA must be signed at the time that an easement is established, thus the Board will need to review the MOA and consider it at the same time that they evaluate the easement contract and finalized proposal for acquisition. It is possible, however, to revise an MOA in the future provided all of the co -holders agree to the revisions. Purchase of Development Rights Under a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program, a landowner voluntarily sells his/her rights to develop a parcel of land to a public agency or qualified conservation Board of Supervisors Re: Snapp Property PDR September 17, 2008 Page 6 organization. The landowner retains all other ownership rights attached to the land, and a conservation easement is placed on the land and recorded on the title. In this case, the buyers of the easement f development rights are: Frederick County and the Potomac Conservancy with funding help from the Virginia Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services' (VDACS) Office of Farmland Preservation, and the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP). Once the buyers establish the conservation easement and purchase the right to develop the land, they essentially extinguish that right permanently, thereby assuring that development will not occur on that particular property. In placing such an easement on their farm and/or forest land, participating landowners often take the proceeds from the sale of the development rights to invest in their farming operations or retire from the business, and may allow another farmer to purchase the land at lower rates (i.e., rates devoid of development rights). Gy _m77 �623�, 913; 'n ti 72 A 12 SNAPP R. ROLAND & ELIZABETH A" , X 83 A 1C SNAPP R WAYNE'& SAUNDRA K., Y X, .......... 0 250 500 1,000 Feet 72 A 20A BURRIDWS ELLEN SHULL .0 Snapp Farm Request for PDR PIN: 72-A- 12 Acres: 89+/- Acres v 72 A 15 ALLIANCE BANK Buildings Streets % Snapp Farm - PDR Request Case Planner: Amber Map Document IF:%C;IS_PROJECI-S%.ZOOS—ProjectsSSri;ir,pr,.3rryi_PDR)Sria*pFanii]yPDR mxd) 911512OW — 12:11:50 PM Snapp Farm Request for PDR PIN: 72-A- 12 Acres: 89+/- Acres Snapp Farm - PDR Request S \\ A I Aug -25-200B 04:44 From—ALT SPEC 2127259122 T-651 x.005/005 F-153 0 r Betty Snapp 167 West Oaks Lane Winchester, VA 22602 May, 22, 2007 Potomac Conservancy; 14 I am writing this letter inn concern of placing my ninety acres of land, which. is Iocated in Frederick County, vA into an easement in order to see that my land is Open for many gears to coma. My father -law purchased the above said land in 1926. Since its purchase, my farmland is used for cattle gra u pwposes. Presently i live on land That Lard Fairfax deeded my in- laws in 1750 on Cedar Creep Orade, which is still used in farming today. My son and slaughter in-law are presently working in putting their 151 acres, which lies .ext to my land in an easement also. I would like to see may ninety acres placed into an casement to protect it from development. It is important to me to see my land continue open for cattle grazing purposos. Opcn land with its beauty is something we all need to preserve or all will be gone in time. Sincerely, Be' , OSnapp Aug -25-2008 04:44 Frum•-AIT SPEC 2127259122 T-651 P-002/005 F-153 wiRed States Departman2 of Agricultum N SCS Natural Resources Gonsarvatlon Service Sao Carriabrooko Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 (540)B68-1130, x3 FAX: (540)868-1135 May IS, 2007 John A. Bricker State Conservationist USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 209 Richmond, `J'A 23229-1691 Dear Mr. Bricker: 1 am writing this letter to support the purchase of an easement on property owned by I\fts. Elizabeth Snapp in the Marlboro area of Frederick County. 1 have worked with Mrs. Snapp and her family frequently during the past 19 years. Their very diverse operation (orchard, row crops, hay and pasture) utilizes land owned by the family and on rented land. First and foremost, their intention is to always do what is hest for the land, re;ardless of ownership. 1 have always found Mrs. Snapp and her family willing to listen to new ideas and methods, and implement pian), of these. 1 worked with Mrs. Snapp's son, Wayne, on Chis tract at Marlboro in 1989, planning a way to exclude cattle from a spring and to locate livestock water more centrally in the 70 acre pasture_ in 1991, a well was drilled, and a pipeline and waterer installed under the Agriculture Conservation Program. The spring was fenced and a grass buffer created after the denuded area around the spring was seeded. In 1992, phase two of this project was completed whorl a cross fence was constructed and a second trough was installed. While Mrs. Snapp does participate in cost share programs, she also takes care, of the land on her own. Soil samples are taken regularly to determine lime and fartili_zer. needs and pastures are oversccded with grass and clover when needed. Her pastures are clipped to control weeds, but with the well managed grazing program that has been established, frequent clipping is unnecessary. To close, let me say that monies spent to purchase an easement on this property will be well spent. Mrs. Snapp and her family mare their living farming, and understand that taking care of their land will result in the land taking care of them. Her willingness to place this tract under easement is further testimony to her commitment of caring for the land and our limited natural resources. Sincerely, �- D. Michael Liskey District Conservationist Helping People Help the Land An Equal opportunity Provrgor qnd Ernplegcr