Testimony on Bill 39-07
I am Margaret Chasson, chair of the Agriculture Study Committee of the League of Women Voters of Montgomery County, speaking for the League.
In addressing agricultural easements the League of Women Voters of Montgomery County are quite supportive of the County’s using this tool to preserve land for the purpose of producing food and fiber. We are concerned that the bill 39-07 would allow easements to be used to preserve recreational pursuits such as equestrian events and activities. Our position is that easements should be limited to agricultural uses as defined by the USDA and in the 2002 County Zoning Ordinance, not including equestrian activities.
The definitions in the bill are quite unclear. For example, principal residence is defined as the property’s primary residence. While primary residence may be defined for an individual, it is not clear how this relates to a property. And the relationship between tenant house and the principal dwelling as an accessory use arrangement seems quite obscure.
The term productive agricultural land defined as land eligible for easement is not well defined. While the state requires compliance with the criteria of the Foundation for land to be eligible, the county easements do not seem to consider a productivity factor. The requirements are size, soil type and location. It seems appropriate that some consideration of productivity be a part of the eligibility process. A requirement for the APAB to establish consistent criteria for identifying productive agricultural land would be consistent with state practice. The exceptions to the county criteria for purchase are so broad that a very small group has the decision making power as to eligibility for easement.
Under the guidelines for the county easements, does a TDR easement preclude further development if the TDRs have been severed? Or if some of them have been severed?
While the exception to the County easement requirements references Chapter 59 with regard to lot size, it appears to allow more lots for children than the zoning code. Would it not be better for county easements to simply restrict the size of lots for children and the number to no more than 3 subject to the zoning requirements in effect? As currently written, the bill seems to allow 3 lots on 51 acres even in the RDT zone.
The removal of a time line for the process to approve or terminate and repurchase an easement does not seem beneficial to the landowner, County or the public. An efficient and timely process is desirable.
Thank you for the opportunity to Comment.