MONTGOMERY COUNTY AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2013

Transcription

1 MONTGOMERY COUNTY AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 18, :30 P.M. Franconia Township Building 671 Allentown Road Telford, Pennsylvania ATTENDEES: Keith Freed Vice Chair John Corkum Board Member Harris Mosher Board Member MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Jody L. Holton Executive Director Brian O Leary Section Chief Elizabeth Emlen Farmland Preservation Administrator Dee Van Buskirk Planning Commission Josh Stein Asst. County Solicitor PRESS: PUBLIC: None David Oberkircher, preserved farm owner, Worcester Township Kathy Oberkircher, preserved farm owner, Worcester Township Mark Schmidt, preserved farm owner, New Hanover Township Mike Schmidt, New Hanover Township Tim Woodrow, Design Engineer for Mr. & Mrs. Oberkircher Joseph Kuhls, Attorney for Mr. & Mrs. Oberkircher Susan Caughlan, Supervisor, Worcester Township Farm Board members took a tour of 2013 new farm preservation applicants, along with short stops by the Mountain Mulch preserved farm, the Schmidt preserved farm, and the Clemens preserved farm. The public meeting was held following the tour and was called to order at 3:30 P.M. Introductions were made from all those in attendance. 1. Minutes of May 21, 2013 BOARD ACTION A motion was made by John Corkum and seconded by Harris Mosher that the minutes of May 21, 2013 be approved as presented. The motion was approved unanimously. 1

2 2. Status of Farmland Preservation Program Ms. Emlen updated the Board on the Farmland Preservation Program. There are 146 preserved farms in Montgomery County 8,638 acres. Statewide there are 4,426 preserved farms 475,000 acres. 3. Southfields Farm LLC (Worcester Township) David and Kathleen Oberkircher are owners of the 46-acre preserved Southfields Farm LLC (formerly the Schierenbeck horse farm) in Worcester Township. They have submitted an application with a detailed letter to the Montgomery County Agricultural Farm Preservation Program to construct one additional house on the property which is permitted by the agricultural easement. The new house will serve as the primary residence of the farm owners, the existing home will be occupied by an employee of the farm. Mr. Kuhls and Mr. Woodrow spoke on behalf of the farm owners and presented details and explanations of the plans and exhibits associated with the construction, to establish that the requirements of the Farm Preservation program will be met. Mr. Kuhls also explained the township s requirements of a lot-line change for the placement of a new home, and that the property will not be modified in any way by this change. He also noted that the property currently consists of two lots and ensured that there is no intent or desire to convey the two lots separately and the owners do not seek to enable any separate conveyance. Mr. Freed questioned how to prevent subdivision in the future if the property is sold with a dwelling on each lot. Mr. Kuhls suggested a deed restriction that the two lots would be bound by so they cannot be conveyed or subdivided. Mr. O Leary raised the question about the curtilage issue as it relates to the dwelling. Mr. Kuhls suggested a deed restriction indicating no activities related to this single family dwelling exceed what is depicted as the curtilage, which is less than the two-acre limit. Mr. O Leary wanted additional clarification by going over the Program s criteria that must be met for the proposed second dwelling to ensure minimal impact on the farming operation. He asked if the house could be moved towards the southwest. According to Mr. Woodrow it can be done with a few feet. This will minimize impacts on farm fields. Ms. Emlen asked if the whole curtilage included the driveway from the road. According to Mr. Woodrow it does. Along with the various issues discussed, several questions were posed to the Oberkirchers and their representatives that were answered to the satisfaction of the Board and staff. Mr. Freed recommended further review of the application by staff and the County Solicitor for possible action at the July Farm Board meeting. 2

3 Mr. Kuhls said Mr. & Mrs. Oberkircher must now work with Worcester Township and they understand that the Agricultural Farm Preservation program has 120 days to make a final decision on the house location. Mr. O Leary asked that staff be notified when knowledge of the location of the septic system becomes available, which will be helpful in the staff s review process. The applicants and/or their representatives agreed to do this. Ms. Emlen clarified the additional residence rule in the Program s guidelines that state the deed must indicate that this parcel may get an additional residence and the other parcel may not get an additional residence. Mr. Freed noted that the language discussed for the deed restrictions should be given to Mr. Stein for further review. 3. Mountain Mulch Sassamansville LLC Farm (Douglass Township) Ms. Emlen updated Board members on the Mountain Mulch issue. To date, no information on a decision has been forthcoming from Dwight Smith, Solicitor for the State Bureau of Farmland Preservation. 4. Schmidt Farm Violation (New Hanover Township) BOARD ACTION According to Ms. Emlen Mr. Schmidt assured her that the trash trucks parked on the Schmidt s preserved farm will be removed by the July 9, 2013 deadline. Mr. O Leary noticed today on the farm tour that there were trash dumpsters on the property. Ms. Emlen asked Mr. Schmidt if the dumpsters were for refuse or part of the farm operation. Mr. Schmidt said they were brought in the evening before because they were changing containers. It was not clear whether this would become an ongoing storage problem. Mr. Freed summarized the fact that there is currently a letter of violation and July 9 th is the date that Mr. & Mrs. Schmidt are going to comply by with the items in the letter and the Farm Board will be visiting the farm to verify compliance. No action is necessary until that date. Board members agreed. If the violation is resolved the Farm Board will send a letter to the owners. Mr. Freed asked Mr. Schmidt to notify the Board and staff if there are any changes to the situation prior to July 9 th so it can be addressed. Another issue arose that hadn t been part of the discussions with staff and Board members. According to Mark Schmidt, son of the preserved farm owners, there is a truck in the shop for repairs and are there throughout the day in case of breakdowns. The 14 trash trucks will all be off the property by July 9 th. 3

4 There were questions about the use of the onsite building for trash truck repairs, and Ms. Emlen said the building is also used for the farm equipment. Mr. Freed recommended that the on-site repairs of trash trucks be reviewed to ensure everyone is comfortable with this new issue and, if it is allowable under the program guidelines, determine whether certain parameters should be put in place to avoid possible future violations. Staff and Board members agreed that the Schmidts need to clarify what type of repair activities will be conducted in the building and how often, and that they will have to comply with any parameters the Board decides to set. 5. Montgomery County Farm Preservation Program Book Changes Mr. O Leary proposed some minor changes to the Agricultural Farmland Preservation program book. Proposed changes: 1. Add a section entitled Use of Farmland stating that the owner must continue to farm in accordance with the permitted acts listed in the easement and continue to have 50% of the preserved farm in cropland, pasture or grazing land; or 10 acres, whichever is greater. Suggest making this an ongoing requirement. This goes beyond the State rules. To be approved for the program a farm needs to be 50% cropland/pasture land, but continuation of this is not indicated in the actual easement. Points to ponder: The easement must follow the State wording it is not clear if this type of wording can be added to the easement The Board may add an attachment to the Offer Letter or Agreement of Sale The Board may add to the County s Farm Preservation program book with State approval Mr. Stein recommended proposing the idea to the State and Board members agreed. 2. Subdivision of Preserved Farms The program has two options: do a 2-acre lot or on farms bigger than 100 acres, the farm can be divided into 50 acre farms. The language needs to clearly indicate that only farms bigger than 100 acres can be divided. This is not changing the rule itself, just language clarification. 4

5 There are at least five preserved farms over 100 acres. There are 29 preserved farms in the County Farm Preservation program in which the subdivision guideline is not in their deeds of easement and the preserved farm owners do not have to follow the current rules. The new subdivision guidelines were established in It was noted that when a farm preserved under the old rules is sold the new owners are subject to the rules that were in place when the property entered the program. Mr. Stein recommended proposing this change to the State for their approval. The Board can take action once the State gives approval. Board members agreed Mr. O Leary remarked that these proposed changes will not affect any farms until Mr. Freed asked Ms. Emlen to research other counties who may have proposed similar changes to the State which may help in the process 3. Legislative Update A current list of current elected officials was handed out to Board members, staff and the public. Montgomery County has one less representative in Congress than in Update by Ms. Emlen As indicated on the chart there is no new information on the current bills introduced to the PA State Legislature. Mr. Freed commented on an article on the federal program for farm subsidies published in the Sunday Allentown Morning Call. The article listed all the farms and their subsidy amounts and indicates the prevailing opinion among Lehigh Valley farmers that they prefer a crop insurance program over the current direct subsidy payments. Ms. Emlen noted that a list of farms and their subsidy amounts is available on-line for every State. Over 50% USDA money goes to food stamps, which is now being debated by Congress. According to Ms. Caughlan, the issue passed through the House and is now in the Senate. 4. Other The Clemens Farm was cited by Lower Salford Township ZO for a violation because they are not following the Township rules. The Clemens farm owners have withdrawn their application to the Township for a variance on the use of their land. 5

6 Mr. Freed opined that he noticed on the tour today that it seems like the Clemens farm continues to have an active fill operation using turnpike fill and looks unfarmed, which was an issue brought up by Lower Salford Township s Solicitor, Mr. Garrity, at a previous Farm Board meeting. Ms. Emlen commented that the 50% farming rule is a much needed rule. She added that the Clemens farm has an NPDES permit from the previous owner. Ms. Emlen will be preparing for upcoming inspections and Board members are welcomed to participate. New farm signs will be installed with the help of a Planning Commission colleague, Beth Pilling. Board members and staff briefly discussed the Mountain Mulch issue. Ms. Caughlan commented on the Oberkircher s application presentation and the issue it raises regarding multiple parcels, dwelling rights, future property sales and what is allowable under the farm program and township regulations. She questioned whether a preserved farm owner needs to go through the Farm Board is they sell an already existing parcel on their farm. Ms. Emlen presented three examples of preserved farms that have already done this and were reviewed through the State office. Mr. O Leary noted that rules are in place now that consolidation is a requirement and should no longer be an issue for the future; however there are many grandfathered farms in the Farm program. Ms. Caughlan questions whether there will be conflicts in the future between the Farm program rules and the Township s zoning ordinances, and would the Township change their ordinances specifically for preserved farms so a precedence isn t created for more than one dwelling unit on a lot. Her opinion is that if the Farm Board approves the Oberkircher s application, it looks like they will be fine under the Township s requirements. Mr. Freed remarked that the Farm Board does not control the lot line change it only controls the second dwelling and location. He suggested that Ms. Caughlan pose her questions to her Township s solicitor. Ms. Caughlan clarified the statement that one once the farm board approves the second dwelling, and since consolidation into one parcel is necessary, then the Oberkirchers will have to apply to the township to subdivide, which is allowed under the farm program up to 2 acres. Mr. Freed said the Township would have to check if they would subdivide a 2 acre parcel does that 2 acres fit into the zoning where you have your farms. Ms. Caughlan said it does. 6

7 Mr. O Leary said according to the Farm Board rules it is not a subdivision and according to the township rules it is a subdivision. This is an issue that the Farm Board has to look into. According to Ms. Caughlan, it is a minor subdivision and the farm owners already have their two parcels 5. Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 3:30 P.M. on the 2 nd floor, One Montgomery Plaza, in the Montgomery Room, Norristown, PA. The public meeting was adjourned and Board members moved to executive session. Respectfully submitted, Denise VanBuskirk 7