Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff weighs narrow text amendment to allow limited reserve‑land releases for MALPF inclusion; council cautious
Summary
A citizen‑sponsored zoning text amendment would let property owners petition to release county reserve land areas so those acres could be included in Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation easements. The planning commission recommended a narrow, date‑limited window to address one existing contract; council members raised concerns about potential double compensation for conserved acres.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the council meeting on April 14, planning staff described a citizen‑sponsored zoning text amendment that would create a pathway for property owners to petition the council to release existing county reserve land areas so the acreage could be included in Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF/MAF) easements.
Planning Officer Brennan Tarlton explained the proposal was prompted by a specific case in which a property owner received an option contract from MAF after previously having county reserve land mapped on a parcel. MAF informed the county that, as a policy matter, it would not accept underlying local easements in conjunction with a MAF easement, prompting the applicant to seek release of the county reserve area before pursuing a MALPF easement.
"This application would allow a petitioner to come before council to request release of a reserve land area," Tarlton said. The planning commission recommended adding a narrow time window — properties with an option contract entered between April 1, 2024 and March 31, 2026 — so the change would apply to a single identified case rather than opening a general pathway.
Council members expressed unease about the possibility that land already protected by county reserve easements could be paid for again through a state MALPF payment if released first. Staff and commissioners emphasized the change would not automatically grant release; the council would still have discretion and the planning commission's recommended language would limit applicability to the identified case. No council member moved legislation forward at this meeting; staff were directed to consider the matter further if the council chooses to prepare formal legislation.

