[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  Harford
                                             oun y
                                  Coastal
                                  Zone
                                  Management
                                  Program
                                  1991




                              Deer Creek Protection Program



                    G B,
                    5' 6 5
                    .M3
                    D44
                    1991




















                                 Preparation of this report was funded in part by the
                    Coastal Resources Division of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
                     through a grant from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,
                                  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.









               Subtask A: Contacts with Landowners within Deer Creek Watershed:


               During the three-year term of this work, the program area has comprised a 2-mile-wide corridor
               of the watershed of Deer Creek within Harford County, with attention to all parcels of 20 acres
               or more. During the term of the present contract, Study Area #3 presently contains 127 parcels
               totaling. 10, 874 acres, from the Baltimore County and Pennsylvania borders to Rocks State Park.
               Study Area #2 contains 303 parcels totaling 23,496 acres, and Study Area #1 contains 178
               parcels totaling 17,580, or a total of 608 parcels of 20 acres or more totaling 51,950 acres
               within the 2-mile wide corridor.


               During the period of this contract, Miller has talked with the owners of 89 parcels totaling
               approximately 10,956 acres within the Deer Creek corridor.

               Spgcific Conservation Plans:

                      I .     PURCHASE OF 109-ACRE WOODLAND:


                      Pursuant to arrangements noted in the second quarterly report [A. 2], the Lower
                      Susquehanna Conservancy, Inc. (LSQ, an independent by-product of DCWA's rural
                      conservation program, on June 28, 1991 purchased the 109-acre property [27.130]
                      adjacent to Palmer State Park for $190,750. LSC recorded with Harford County a minor
                      subdivision plat ("Palmer's Initiative") consisting of 10 acres with all improvements and
                      a remainder of 99 acres.        On August 7, 1991, LSC sold the 10-acre lot and
                      improvements, plus a 5-year option to buy 30 acres to another party. LSC will offer to
                      sell the remaining 69 or 99 acres as soon as possible to DNR for addition to Palmer State
                      Park on lower Deer Creek.


                      2.      FORMATION OF LAND TRUST:


                      DCWA's project revealed the need for an organization willing and able to buy rural lands
                      at risk of development, to protect, re-convey or manage them for conservation purposes.
                      On April 5, 1991, five local citizens, one of whom is a vice president of DCWA,
                      incorporated the "Deer Creek Land Trust, Inc." [Md. Dept. of Assessments & Taxation
                      Number: D-3194073 and Federal-I.D. Number 52-17215531 for this purpose. Soon
                      afterwards, however, they enlarged the scope of the organization and officially renamed
                      it "Harford Land Trust, Inc."        Aided by the materials and advice of the Md.
                      Environmental Trust and the Maryland Land Trust Alliance, the Harford Land Trust
                      (HLT) made a cooperative agreement with MET to become a co-grantee of future
                      conservation easements in Harford County. HLT also has made an agreement with the
                      Forest Greens & Perryman Community Association (FGPA) for a project on the Bush
                      River to try to acquire a 125-acre "flatwoods" natural area and lake, platted in 1932 for








                      50-foot wide lots but never "built out," in order to try and protect it from development.
                      With the leadership of two FGPA residents, HLT has a contract to buy the property.
                      While raising money to buy this property, HLT needs to get a formal commitment of
                      Harford County to buy it from HLT within two years.

                      3.     POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF DEER CREEK FRONTAGE:


                      The three owners of the 50-acre property [27.119 & 27.355] adjacent to Deer Creek and
                      Palmer State Park, hope that DCWA will find a conservation buyer, if not DNR or
                      Harford County Dept. of Parks & Recreation, who will keep the land intact and not
                      develop it. Miller has had preliminary discussions with DNR about this; in view of the
                      financial problems of P.O. S., it may be a year or two before DNR will be able to offer
                      to purchase such land. Miller has proposed to the Harford Land Trust, Inc. that it try
                      to acquire this property and hold it until DNR can buy it for addition to Palmer State
                      Park.


                      4.     LONG-TERM CONCEPT PLANS IN WINTER'S RUN:


                      With regard to a conservation plan for "Solomon's Choice," the 125-acre historic farm
                      in the Winter's Run watershed described in previous reports, Miller completed concept
                      plans for this property with three scenarios: (1) permanent protection in its present
                      condition by conservation easements, (2) a limited development concept retaining the
                      present core and small clusters of new residences in two other parts of the property, (3)
                      a limited development concept with a cluster of structures for either residences or a
                      retreat-conference center. Although zoned Agricultural (I unit/10 acres), Harford
                      County's current zoning law will allow 12 lots, and its family conveyance ordinance an
                      additional 15 lots. These concept plans are meant to conserve the land, eliminate most
                      of the 27 development rights, and enable the owner to obtain a satisfactory financial
                      return from the property. The owner is open to the possibility of the Winter's Run
                      frontage of her property being acquired by the County Dept. of Parks & Recreation.

                      5.      CONCEPT PLAN IN COOL BRANCH OF DEER CREEK:


                      Miller has completed a conservation plan for the owners of a 73-acre property in the
                      Finney National Register Historic District, on Cool Branch, a tributary of Deer Creek
                      in Study Area #1. This concept plan includes a conservation easement for the entire
                      property, a preservation easement on the historic house, with a 32-acre preserve of a
                      mature deciduous forest, that may be conveyed eventually to a local land trust.








                                                              2








               Subtask B: Preparation of Sample Project #3

               After discussions with the Harford County Dept. of Planning & Zoning, DCWA decided not to
               use the 49-lot, 262-acre subdivision known as "St. Anne's," already platted and under
               construction, to be the site of this study. Belatedly, DCWA was able to obtain permission to
               use a 228.6 acre farm near Forest Hill whose owner in 1990 had refused to allow DCWA to use
               his farm for Sample Project #2. This is a far superior site for several reasons: It is an excellent
               farm, and the owner is a highly influential person in the farming community. The farm is highly
               visible from public roads, but, having just been platted for Rural Residential development (1

               unit/2 acres), a developer had decided not to exercise his option to buy and develop this
               property. Also, the owner is now interested in possible alternatives available to him. This
               change of site is well worth the loss of time spent on the "St. Anne's" site.

               The "product" of this study consists of five maps depicting: existing conditions, environmental
               conditions, and three options, "Conventional Subdivision," "Rural Residential Concentration,"
               and "Rural Village,"   which are attached to this report.


               Subtask C:             Publication #3: the manuscript of a "spreadsheet," or analysis of the
                                      possible financial effects of the three hypothetical options. After
                                      review by Harford County, this may be printed in a 11" x 17" tabloid
                                      format depicting photo-reductions of the maps of Sample Project #3
                                      and possible financial effects of Options #1, 2, and 3.

               This work is an appendix of this annual report.

               On February 25, 1991, DCWA held its annual public meeting at the Highland Community
               Center near Street, Md. to report on the rural conservation program; its keynote speaker was
               Leonard E. Lowry, chairman of the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation.
               Thirty-three persons signed the registration sheet.

               DCWA has a mailing list of 600 organizations and people and has published four issues of Deer
               Creek Notes: October, January, April and July, copies of which are an appendix of this report.


               Subtask D:             Ownership File and Map of Study Area #3 (1991) of the two-mile
                                      corridor between the Baltimore County and Pennsylvania lines and
                                      Rocks State Park.


               The Ownership File is essentially complete, and DCWA has produced the map of Study Area
               #3. A copy of this map and an I I" x 17" color-reduction of it are a part of this report.



                                                                3








               UPDATING OF FILE: As often as possible, Miller has updated the ownership file of the three
               Study Areas. These files are contained in a 3.5" diskette as a part of this annual report.

               A local volunteer committee, aided by Christopher Weeks, historic preservation planner for
               Harford County, is preparing the documentation of a Deer Creek Historic District, to be
               nominated. for the National Register of Historic Site . The proposed area stretches from Md.
               Route 543 (Ady Rd.) on the west to the Susquehanna River on the east and probably
               encompasses 500 historic buildings and 15,000 acres. DCWA's landownership file, developed
               with CRD support, is providing essential information for documenting the District's scope and
               character and communicating with hundreds of individual landowners in the proposed district.


               Subtask E: Implementation of Conservation Neighborhood concept with Specific
                              Landowners: Continuation of Previous Work and Initiation of New Areas.


               Conservation Neighborhood #1: Several of the owners within this area are among the 43 owners
               in Harford County who, because of MALPF's fiscal deficiencies, are still waiting for MALPF
               to respond to their offers in 1990 to sell conservation easements. At least one owner has
               reduced its bid to enhance its chances of selling an easement in 1991.

               Conservation Neighborhood #2, 1: As a result of the financial deficiencies of MALPF, three of
               the five landowners cited in the previous report [B.] actually proceeded with their plans to form
               an Agricultural District and offer to sell a conservation easement to the state. Miller prepared
               the forms for the three owners, whose lands total 190 acres.

               Conservation Neighborhood #2.2: Owners of 26.188 (71 acres) and of 26.051 & 26.052 (134
               acres) have joined Agricultural District #123 with the hope of selling conservation easements to
               MALPF.


               Conservation Neighborhood #3: The owner of 133 acres formed an Agricultural District, with
               Miller preparing the forms, and will offer to sell a conservation easement to MALPF. This
               owner is trying to get three of his neighbors [16.021, 16.117, 9.055, 9.148, 15.047] with to
               meet with Miller and him and consider some collective actions.

               Other Properties: Miller has had two meetings with the owner of a 192-acre farm [15.091 in
               Study Area #31 which lies across Deer Creek from a portion of Rocks State Park [8.12 1]. This
               owner wishes to avoid the development of her land, but may need the income from the sale of
               it for supporting herself during her lifetime. Miller is showing her ways she might accomplish
               both objectives, by selling a conservation easement either to DNR or MALPF.







                                                               4









             Other Activities:


             COUNTY LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM: DCWA's Directors actively are urging
             Harford County to establish its own farmland and open space preservation program relying on
             its own funds (currently $2 million), as Howard County has done using tax-exempt municipal
             bonds and a payment of principle in 30 years.

             RURAL ROADS PROTECTION: One of DCWA's volunteer directors, Monroe I. Duke, is
             working directly with the County Executive and the Director of Planning to improve the
             County's draft of regulatory and other measures to preserve the scenic amenities of its rural
             roads, most of which lie in the Deer Creek watershed. Consequently, the Department of
             Planning and Zoning's MAJOR ROAD PLAN (draft) contains "Guidelines/Legal Implications
             for Rural Roads" on pages 16-19, and the Department of Public Works has agreed postponed
             at least its plans to pave all remaining gravel roads in the County.































                                                           5








                                    DEER CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION, INC.
                                           RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM
                                            HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND
                                                    SAMPLE PROJECT #3
                                                              1991
                                                 Analysis of Financial Effects
                                                of Three Development Options

              INTRODUCTION


              THE PROPERTY is the 229-acre home farm of a dairy cattle operation on land zoned as Rural
              Residential (avg. d,ensity=l unit/2 acres). The owners of this property have made their land
              available for these hypothetical studies. They are in no way obligated to study, comment upon,
              approve, endorse, defend, adopt (or compensate DCWA for) these plans. Their willingness to
              let DCWA use their property is a service to DCWA's rural conservation program and to Harford
              County.

              THE PURPOSE of the maps and financial analysis is to estimate the probable land use and
              financial effects if an owner carried out any of these theoretical plans on this land. The
              hypothetical studies do not suggest that an owner can make as much income from conservation
              planning as from maximum permissible development. These studies are directed at landowners
              for whom money is not an exclusive goal, but who have several related objectives, such as
              financial security, continuation of farming and its way of life, conservation of the rural
              landscape, avoidance of federal estate tax, and transfer of their land intact and free-and-clear to
              their heirs.


              THE GOAL of this comparison is to show ways for landowners to keep their land open as
              farmland and natural land and also achieve their personal, estate, and financial objectives.

              THE PREMISE of Options #2 and 3 is that they could be superior to Option #1 in helping to
              achieve the following public and private benefits:

                      1.      Conservation of rural land, landscape, and lifestyle;
                      2.      Preservation of productive farmland;
                      3.      Preservation of natural lands and other open space;
                      4.      Protection of scenic amenities;
                      5.      Reduction of the public costs of residential development;
                      6.      Reduction of development costs;
                      7.      Make housing in rural areas affordable to more people;
                      8.      Reduction of land use conflicts between farming and non-farming residents;
                      9.      Avoidance of public sewage treatment facilities and discharge of effluents to
                              waterways;








                           10.      Ways for individual. farmland owners to obtain satisfactory financial return with
                                    development of less rural land;
                           11.      Community drainage fields or alternative treatment systems could enable Harford
                                    County to exercise better quality control over installation and maintenance of
                                    wastewater treatment systems.

                  LIMITATION: This is only a general study of a concept based on published information.
                  Obviously, the County and State would have to conduct a technical evaluation of the advantages
                  and disadvantages of Options #2 and 3 before suggesting that such alternatives be legislated.
                  That is the point of this exercise: to consider them as possible alternatives to conventional
                  development of rural land, not as policies or proposed legislation.

                  THESE HYPOTHETICAL OPTIONS are: (1) Conventional Subdivision, (2) Rural Residential
                  Concentration, and (3) Rural Village: An Independent Life Care Community. Option #1
                  conforms entirely to Harford County's current Development Regulations. By intention, Option
                  #2 and 3 conform to the requirements for average density but not for the size of individual lots
                  or the methods of domestic wastewater treatment.


                  ASSUMPTIONS:


                  I .      The owner would sell the property with an approved preliminary plat.
                  2.       The financial analysis applies only to the income-producing capability of the land and
                           buildings; it does not consider an owner's other sources of income, if any.
                  3.       Fair Market Value (FMV) of the raw land and improvements is based on estimates only,
                           not appraisals or the owners' records or opinion. The value of the Development Rights
                           as a Conservation Easement is also an estimate.
                  4.       For farmland within an Agricultural District but without sale of development rights
                           (easement) to the state, Harford County will grant to the owner a 50% tax credit per year
                           for five years for the local tax on farmland; if a member of an Agricultural District has
                           sold development rights to the state, Harford County will grant a 100% tax credit to this
                           owner.
                  5.       In Option #2 or #3 unutilized development rights could be sold to the state or county
                           agricultural land preservation program.
                  6.       The owner will invest all receipts of sales of real estate or development rights in tax-
                           exempt bonds with a 7% interest rate.
                  7.       ( ) means a cost to be subtracted, as opposed to revenue to be added.
                  8.       Federal estate tax liability could be less, because this analysis does not try to take
                           advantage of various legal methods of avoiding federal estate tax.

                                         DEFINITION OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT [25-6 (b)(1)]
                           "This district is intended to acknowledge and protect existing concentrations of residential development;
                           provide limited opportunities for low density residential uses where not in conflict with agricultural
                           activities; protect the open character of the land; and restrict piecemeal development in areas where public
                           services are not reasonably anticipated." Harford County Zoning Code (Effective Sept. 1, 1982, p. 81)



                                                                           2








              OPTION 1: FOR A CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION, THE OWNER HAS SUBDIVIDED
                             THE ENTIRE PROPERTY TO CREATE 66 LOTS, ONE OF WHICH IS THE
                             HOUSE, 38 ACRES AND FARM-RELATED BUILDINGS WHICH IF
                             DEVELOPED WOULD ALLOW 18 LOTS, AND SELLS 190.6 ACRES AND
                             THE COUNTY-APPROVED PLAT TO A DEVELOPER.


              DEVELOPER'S SITUATION:


                  Cost of Subdivision Plat                                  ($ 60,000)
                  Cost of land (191 acres x $3,500)                         ( 668,500)
                  Development Costs                                         ( 728,500)
                  Total Cost to Developer                                  ($1,457,000)

                  Gross Revenue of Sale of Lots @$50,000                    $3,300,000
                  Net-Revenue Before Taxes                                  $1,843,000
                  Less: Income Taxes (33%)                                  ( 608,190)
                  Net-Profit to Developer                                   $L234,810

              OWNERS' SITUATION:

                  Income from sale of land & plat                           $ 728,500
                  Less: Basis of land (190.6 X $500)                           (95,300)
                  Adjusted Taxable Income (1)                                  633,200
                  Less: Income Taxes (33%)                                     (208,956)
                  After-Tax Income                                             424,244
                  Plus: Value of basis                                           95,300
                  Net-Profit                                                $  519,544

                  Investment of Cash in Bonds                                  519,544
                  Annual Tax-free Income (7%)                                    36X0

                  Value of Estate:                                             709,544
                      House and 38 acres $190,000
                      Bonds                 519,544

                  Theoretical Federal Estate Tax Liability
                  of the Surviving Spouse                                      109,544









                                                             3








              OPTION 2:     FOR A RURAL RESIDENTIAL CONCENTRATION, THE OWNER HAS
                            SOLD 51.5 ACRES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 85 SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES
                            WITH COMMUNITY WASTEWATER DRAINAGE FIELDS OR AN
                            ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, BUT HAS
                            RETAINED 177.1 ACRES AS A FARM WHILE SELLING THE 29
                            UNUTILIZED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (114-85=29) TO THE MD.
                            AGRICCLTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION (MALPF) OR A
                            HARFORD COUNTY PROGRAM, IF ANY.

              OWNERS' SITUATION:


                  Income from Sale of Land (51.5 acres x $5,000)           $ 257,500
                  Less: Basis of land ($1000/acre)                             5L500
                  Adjusted Taxable Income (1)                                 206,000
                  Less: Income Taxes (33%)                                     67,980
                  After-Tax Income                                            138,020
                  Plus: Value of Basis                                         51,500
                  Disposable Income (1)                                       289,520

                  Income from Sale of Easement ($4,000 x 58 acres)         $  232,000
                  Less: Basis of land ($1,000 x 58 acres)                      58,000
                  Adjusted Taxable Income                                     174,000
                  Less: Income Taxes (33%)                                     57,420
                  Disposable Income (2)                                       116,580

                  Combined Disposable Incomes (I + 2)                      $  406,100
                  Possible Tax-free Income from Bonds (7%)                     28,427

                  Owners' Estate$                                             760,300
                     177.1 acres + house ($2,000/acre) $354,200
                     Bonds                                406.10
                                                         $760,300

                  Theoretical Federal Estate Tax Liability of
                  the Surviving Spouse                                     $ 160,300











                                                            4








               OPTION 3:      FOR A RURAL VILLAGE, THE OWNERS HAVE SOLD 113
                              DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND 51.5 ACRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
                              A MODERN VERSION OF A TRADITIONAL SMALL VILLAGE OF 113
                              RESIDENCES, WHILE KEEPING 177.1 AS A FARMING OPERATION AND
                              RESIDENCE. A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THE ENTIRE 228.6
                              ACRES WOULD PREVENT ANY FUTURE SUBDIVISION FOR NON-
                              FARMING PURPOSES AND WOULD PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENTAL
                              AMENITIES OF THE VILLAGE THAT, PRESUMABLY, WOULD ATTRACT
                              BUYERS OF DWELLINGS IN THE COUNTRY BUT WHICH UTILIZE
                              ONLY 25 ACRES FOR ALL STRUCTURES.


               This configuration could be a modem village of residential and commercial structures and
               activities modeled on the scale and mixture of the housing, age-groups, rural land uses and
               services produced by traditional rural villages, such as Darlington, which contains perhaps six
               times more residents than this hypothetical example of 113 dwellings that probably would house
               less than 200 people. For this option, however, we have suggested an "independent life
               community" for older citizens because none exists in Harford County and such an efficient use
               of land could fill a social need and provide an economically feasible alternative for both
               preserving rural land and for enabling a landowner to obtain a satisfactory financial return from
               land without having to see all of it developed as suburban subdivisions.

               WASTEWATER TREATMENT:


               Although U.S. E.P.A. has approved 24 alternative wastewater treatment systems, at present the
               State of Maryland will consider permitting four of them. For Options #2 and 3, instead of
               conventional septic tanks with community drainage fields, the alternative wastewater treatment
               system is assumed to achieve the following effects: (1) zero discharge of pollutants to surface
               or ground water; (2) pollutants are either recycled in the products of agriculture, silviculture and
               aquaculture, or are confined or contained so that they cannot migrate, (3) reclamation of water
               by utilizing a deep lake to provide a high degree of pretreatment (i.e., purification), (4)
               recycling of nutrients by application to land for production of crops only at rates the plants can
               recycle with pure water as a by-product, (5) community benefits such as conservation of water,
               groundwater recharge, revenue from recycling for crops, trees or turf, and no sludge odor or
               sludge removal problem, use of water for fire protection system. A rule-of-thumb for the area
               required for such a system is assumed to be I acre/10 units, or a 12-acre lake for a 113-unit
               development.









              OPTION 3:       RURAL VILLAGE


              OWNERS' SITUATION:


                  Income from Sale of Land ($5,000 x. 113)                  $ 565,000
                  Less: Basis of Land (51.5 x. $500)                            25,750
                  Adjusted Taxable Income                                     539,250
                  Less: Income Taxes (33%)                                    177,953
                  After Tax Income                                            361,297
                  Plus: Value of Basis                                          25,750
                  Net-Disposable Income                                       387,047

                  Investment of Cash in Bonds                                 197,047
                  Annual Tax-free Income (if 7%)                                27,093

                  Value of Owners' Estate:                                    742,047
                     House & 177.5 acres $355,000
                     Bonds                  387M7

                  Theoretical Federal Estate Tax Liability
                  of the Surviving Spouse                                   $ 142,047
























                                                            6







                                                                                                                         NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                         3 6668 14110166 9



                                                                                                                                                                        lwl




























                                                                                                                                                                       f