Developers are one step closer to building more than 20 new houses on upcounty land where animals graze and hay is harvested.

The controversial plan that opponents say will create a large suburban-style subdivision in the county's Agricultural Reserve was approved by the Planning Board at its meeting last week.

The proposed Barnesville Oak Farms development would add at least 21 houses on the largest remaining farm in the county. Hay is grown and horse and cattle now graze on the 840 acres, according to Planning Board documents.

The plan would create 21 residential lots, along with three outlots that have not passed percolation testing, all on 60 acres. The property owner initially proposed building 33 new houses.

"You either lose a little bit of wildlife or a little bit of farm so I think this is a good plan based on the alternatives we had," Commissioner Norman Dreyfuss said.

Opponents said the fact that this plan is better than the previous two is not sufficient reason for approval.

The remaining 780 acres will be divided into two large farm lots but will not be officially recorded in the county's land records, a change from previous plans submitted to the board. The applicant did not want the board to make a finding on whether nine existing houses on the farm lots could be counted against the maximum number of houses allowed on the site, planning staff said.

Planning staff had recommended approval.

"Twenty-four is a lot of subdivision in the reserve, but it's a function of the size of the farm," said Callum Murray, team leader of the Community-Based Planning Division for rural areas of the county.

The board approved the preliminary plan of subdivision by a vote of 4-1 following a four-hour public hearing July 22 that ended at midnight. Commissioner Amy Presley was opposed to the proposal.

"I have an extremely difficult time thinking this fulfills the goals of the master plan," said Presley, who said 24 homes was "an obscene number" and that the plan would be like putting another community within a community.

"It almost seems to violate every single thing that's in the master plan except for a technical notation that says you're allowed to have this many homes," Presley said.

A condition drafted after 11:30 p.m. stated that land records must reflect that the nine existing houses are included in the permitted density, a condition opposed by the owner.

"The prudent thing would've been to defer it until these questions are answered," said Dolores Milmoe of the Audubon Naturalist Society, which is considering an appeal. "I don't think it's appropriate to throw something together at the very end of the meeting that we don't know will address any of the issues."

The property is in the county's 93,000-acre Ag Reserve, where development is generally limited to one house for every 25 acres. Some residents said that the density limit is a maximum, not a guarantee, and cited case law provided by former Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson, who helped create the Reserve.

Current Chairwoman Francoise Carrier said the court would resolve the issue if the decision is appealed.

The Planning Board received more than 90 letters from the public about the project and 25 people, all but two opposed, spoke at the hearing. The subdivision is opposed by the League of Women Voters, Boyds Civic Association, Montgomery Countryside Alliance, Bethesda-Chevy Chase chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Sugarloaf Citizens Association, Dickerson Community Association, Audubon Naturalist Society and Montgomery County Sierra Club.

"At the end of the night, it felt like lip service. It was very disturbing," said adjacent property owner Kirk Mettam, who collected more than 200 signatures on a petition opposing the subdivision. "This decision honestly is the tipping point. It's the precedent that will kill the Ag Reserve."

Opponents' concerns included the impact of increased traffic on surrounding rustic roads, suburbanizing the Reserve, the impact on water resources, the removal of 35 acres of forest and the permanent loss of farmland.

Residents also said they were frustrated they could not reach the property owner. The Malsama Corp., an offshore company that buys land, bought the site in 1980, said D.C. attorney Katharine Sexton, the owner's authorized agent. Sexton would not answer questions after the meeting and did not return calls for comment.

According to a 2008 letter to the Planning Board from Balsamah Corp. N.V., the name of Malsama Corp. N.V. was changed to Balsamah. The letter was signed by the unnamed managing director of Curacao Corporation Company N.V. Curacao is the managing director of Balsamah, according to the letter.

All three corporations were formed in the Netherlands Antilles.