Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-2-16 AG COMMITTEE MINUTESTown of Ulysses Ag Committee Meeting Notes February 16, 2017 Meeting called to order at 6 PM. Present: Chaw Chang, Greg Reynolds, Krys Cail, John Gates, John Wertis, Monika Roth Excused: Nancy Zahler, Mark Ochs, Pam Kellogg I. 6 PM – Meeting called to order II. Announcements: David Diaz is willing to provide input on PDR but not planning to attend meetings regularly unless asked. Chaw shared info about proposed zoning with a realtor who felt there were too many unnecessary restrictions. Suggestion made that we get input from David Irish about real estate market in town. Krys and Chaw met with Michael Boggs, new on the zoning committee, to update him about the Ag ctte concerns. Monika announced – March 8, Ithaca Ramada, 10-2 Ag Summit – solar leasing will be covered. III. Approval of draft minutes from last meeting Greg asked if John Gates got a copy of grant application…Chaw said he would request this. Farmer meeting in early March – 9th? To be discussed at next meeting. Chaw moved to approve minutes, second Krys, all in favor. IV. Opening Issues a) Committee comments on Solar Project – Public Hearing will be on March 4. 1--Comments on proposed solar project: is there an ag impact? Soil impact? Also impact on nearby farmland. Are there concerns related to sheep grazing (any water implications)? Soils: John says about half of the site (4 acres) is good soil. 4-5 acres around barn, disturbed land that would not be useful for ag. Project proposal indicates this area may however be ok for sheep to wander around. CONCLUSIONS – RELATED TO SOLAR PROJECT [Who is sending the comments?] -The majority of the parcel would be a solar installation and no other ag land use or ag activity will be taking place except sheep grazing (so ag is not primary on parcel). Sheep grazing would be considered an accessary but not a primary use. -No major soil impact and the project does not have a negative impact on nearby agricultural fields. Barn is lost as an ag resource for hay & other storage. -Land is in ag district and currently receiving ag assessment. Conversion to solar would result in a penalty when converted, however, since there will be sheep grazing, there may not be a penalty. Penalty is paid by the entity that does the conversion. 2-Comments on solar ordinance changes is not as pressing as it may take time till the town gets around to suggesting changes. b) Zoning Update Draft Review Questions: -is there still a sect ion on sub-division? Original draft included subdivision review. No longer in this memo. Where is this section? Has it been dropped or are they still working on it. Check with Darby (Krys will ask) - Relevance to existing sub-division language? Reviewed the MEMO – which explains assumptions made in re-writing the plan. See notes in the attached memo…yellow highlight signifies something we discussed, red is comments from committee. Krys will summarize the comments on the memo. Sections to review/make comments/changes for next meeting: Definitions – Monika Purpose – Chaw Right to Farm – check Ag & Markets RTF language, Town has a RTF law (check on this) Permitted Uses – compare with prior ag ctte recommendations – Greg will review…212.-25, 26, 27, 28 and summarize 212-29 – lot area & yard requirement – Chaw Density –for everyone to discuss… V. New business a) New Water District Project – where?? Behind Shursave towards Falls Rd. Ag committee role is to document impact on agriculture. If public funding is used, and this is in the Ag District, there will be a formal NOTICE OF INTENT to file, which is also reviewed by the County AFPB. Krys recommends that when ag property goes out of ag use that there is a means by which development impacts are tracked. [not sure I have this right, Krys, reword as intended]. VI. Adjournment MEMO COMMENTS – SUMMARY attempt – Krys will write this up. First & Second Paragraph – GOALS/Process - Draft zoning is written in response to goals in the 2009 comp plan and 2013 Ag plan. However, the list of goals from these plans seems to have been selectively picked. For the Ag Plan, there was no effort made to check with the Ag committee to see which of the goals in the Ag plan they felt were important to address and which were not. Many of the goals in the ag plan were written by the consultant as “suggestions” or “options” but they were not endorsed or ranked by the ag committee. Hence the ag committee feels the process was flawed from the start by not asking the ag committee about zoning recommendations they would or would not endorse that are mentioned in the plan. The committee that developed the ag plan did a thorough and exhaustive review of the zoning code and made specific minor recommendations that do not seem to have been addressed in the changes being proposed. The ag committee continues to be disappointed by the process by which this zoning change was undertaken. Other process issues: -zoning committee was formed before the agriculture committee was appointed -the ag plan defines the role of the ag committee – review proposed zoning changes and make recommendations to the town on land use policy decisions (again, the feeling is the ag committee was not brought into the process from the beginning, and the committee should have been invited to have at least 1-2 members sitting in on the zoning committee. Why would your rewrite the regulations pertaining to the agriculture zone without farm ing involvement? It seems that agriculture was not the focus. Assumptions driving the changes with which the committee disagrees -Loss of rural character – is there evidence that the rural character in the town is being lost under current zoning? Zoning changes to attempting to protect agriculture – -concern is that there is a loss of land value when attempting to protect the land thru zoning. Farmers end up paying the price for maintaining open space and rural character without being compensated. -Land value for PDR – if the development value and the ag value are similar, then there is no incentive for PDR. -Studies cited that downsizing does not affect land value were from NJ and Maryland where land demand is considerably different than here. Changing Name from Ag Zone to a Ag Rural Zone. – The agriculture committee does not agree with this change as it diminishes the fact that agriculture is the dominant land use. In the purpose statement (next paragraph)…it states that Agriculture is the primary use so why change it! USES – This paragraph fails to recognize the scope of agriculture in the town, that crop land is the dominant land use and the specialty enterprises are secondary and take up much less land. Crop production does more to maintaining open space than do a variety of added value activities. Also, it suggests that profit is tied to adding value, this is an incorrect assertion. Profit is tied to a variety of factors…including prices paid for products and management. We would suggest that a diversity of enterprises is good for the town including a diversity of types and scale. Zoning changes – see prior ag committee comments. To be reviewed at next meeting.