Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-12-14Dryden Agriculture Advisory Committee December 14, 2016 Members Present: Kim LaMotte, Joe Osmeloski, Brian Magee, and Evan Carpenter (Chair) Liaisons Present: Craig Schutt (Conservation Board), John Kiefer (Planning Board) and Jason Leifer (Town Board) Review and approval of minutes from October 19 and November 9, 2016: J. Osmeloski moved to approve both sets of minutes as presented. B. Magee seconded the motion and the minutes were unanimously approved. Ag Protection Plan: The Committee has expressed concerns about the plan progress and about the lack of information that has been shared with the Committee. Specifically: - Not much progress has been made on the plan, the members feel the plan should be moving forward much faster. - There hasn’t been any information unique to Dryden presented. - The work done by G. Frantz is a positive. - D. Teeter has not responded well to suggestions or criticism from the Committee. - Most of the information is about Lansing and despite stating that she will substitute Dryden information, that is not the direction that the Committee envisioned. The narrative is all the same as the Lansing plan and the Committee was led to believe that would all be changed rather than simply substituting maps and adjusting figures. - Some of the information that she indicated was about Dryden is incorrect (ie, the number of farms in Dryden). - At the last meeting, some of the data was questioned (ie, the payroll amount) but Debbie insisted it was Dryden information. A comparison of the Lansing plan with the Dryden plan shows that several “facts” are exactly the same for both towns and led to questions regarding the rest of the information that is supposedly Dryden. - The last meeting was spent reviewing the plan but most of the information wasn’t about Dryden making the review very frustrating and a waste of time. - It is hard to comment or make suggestions without actually seeing the data that is being used. - The Committee has not seen the actual maps, the facts and figures, or the raw data so they are unable to determine whether what is being put in the plan is actually correct. - The plan doesn’t have a concise description of agriculture in Dryden: a definition of a farm, a history of local farming, what are the challenges, what is working, what is not. There isn’t a synopsis of where farming has been, where it appears to be going and where it is now. - The survey was incomplete and has not been summarized. The chart (providing results from the survey) is a great idea but it has become very confusing. The Committee expressed their frustration with the survey – they did not feel enough people were surveyed but, despite assurances of the opposite, no more out-reach was done. - How can they get to goals and objectives without having the basic background information? - What is best for Dryden agriculture? Dryden Ag Lands? - The Town of Dryden cannot prevent large farms from buying up all the available agriculture lands which diminishes some competition but at the same time, that means that ag land is staying in agriculture and maintaining open space. - The best soils, the best agricultural property needs to stay in ag. - What about the transportation network in Dryden versus Lansing? - Dryden has several small hamlets that are not properly identified in the plan. The Committee decided that they wish to use the NY Ag and Markets definition of farming for the sake of the plan, AML section 301 (11-17). See attached. The Committee has asked that Debbie disclose what information she currently has. The Committee has a lot of collective knowledge and wants their input included; they have offered information in the past that has not been included or was deemed unnecessary. Lands to be protected: - For the plan, certain segments of the land need to be identified to be protected for agriculture. - The Committee is not agreeable to using the ARFA designations. They feel that several properties have been left out of that designation. - There is only one small parcel in Dryden that is considered prime soil. E. Carpenter said that there are several small parcels along Fall Creek that could be considered prime soils but they are not necessarily workable with modern equipment and they are randomly located. - The Committee wants to see soil maps and other maps that will help them come up with the lands they wish to protect. They do not want to depend on other entities’ decisions. - What about the transportation network in Dryden versus Lansing? - Dryden has several small hamlets that are not properly identified in the plan. Right now, the Committee doesn’t feel that they have a plan to move forward with. Too much of what they have seen is about Lansing. Using the Lansing plan is a great idea but the Committee assumed that the structure of the plan would be used, not the narrative. There is also concern that Debbie is not in touch with what is happening in Dryden. She has mentioned and added to the plan that Dryden has room for several more CSAs but the CSA owners in Dryden have stated they are having trouble selling all of their shares. She has also suggested that a machinery dealership could be successful in Dryden but the Committee doesn’t believe that is possible – there are several that have left Dryden and several successful farm/machinery businesses are located within a short distance from Dryden. Both of these ideas were presented without supporting evidence and the Committee disagreed with Debbie’s assessment but the information is still in the plan. The Committee feels that the suggestions that they have made have not been incorporated or have been brushed aside. This is a Dryden Ag Plan and thus the Dryden Ag Committee should be heavily influencing the plan. The Committee also requested that they received updated material at least a week in advance of the meeting. Receiving the material at the meeting leads to a waste of time because the Committee ends up reading the document during the meeting which undermines the potential for discussion. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:52PM. Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk 8/31/15 Guidelines for Review of Local Laws That Define “Farm Operations”, “Farm”, “Agriculture”, “Farmland” or Any Similar Term Pursuant to Article 25-AA, the term “farm operation” is used to identify and define commercial enterprises, through the use of land, buildings, equipment and practices, to carry- out an agricultural enterprise. Over the years, the State Legislature has amended the Agriculture and Markets Law (AML) to enhance the breadth of what constitutes a farm operation, including the type of crops, livestock and livestock products considered to be part of an agricultural enterprise. In the administration of the AML regarding a municipalit y’s definition of “farm,” “agriculture,” “farmland” or any similar term used to describe an agricultural/farm operation in its zoning code, the Department compares the municipal definition to the State’s definition of “farm operation” as defined below. If a municipal definition does not encompass the breadth of crops, livestock, livestock products and farm enterprises identified in the AML, the local law may be deemed to be unreasonably restrictive and in violation of AML §305-a (1). When a municipality examines its local laws for consistency with the AML, it is important to take into consideration certain aspects of the State’s definition of “farm operation.” Under the AML, a farm operation includes the production, preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock products that are produced on land that is owned or rented, contiguous or non- contiguous to one another. Land can be owned or rented in another town or county and still be considered part of the farm operation. Furthermore, start-up farms may also be protected under the AML as long as the land is located within an agricultural district. Start-up farms will be described in another section of this document. Definition of Farm Operation in the AML 301(11). "Farm operation" means the land and on-farm buildings, equipment, manure processing and handling facilities, and practices which contribute to the production, preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock products as a commercial enterprise, including a “commercial horse boarding operation” as defined in subdivision thirteen of this section, a “timber operation” as defined in subdivision fourteen of this section, “compost, mulch or other biomass crops” as defined in subdivision sixteen of this section and “commercial equine operation” as defined in subdivision seventeen of this section. Such farm operation may consist of one or more parcels of owned or rented land, which parcels may be contiguous or noncontiguous to each other. 301(2). "Crops, livestock and livestock products" shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Field crops, including corn, wheat, oats, rye, barley, hay, potatoes and dry beans. b. Fruits, including apples, peaches, grapes, cherries and berries. c. Vegetables, including tomatoes, snap beans, cabbage, carrots, beets and onions. d. Horticultural specialties, including nursery stock, ornamental shrubs, ornamental trees and flowers. e. Livestock and livestock products, including cattle, sheep, hogs, goats, horses, poultry, ratites, such as ostriches, emus, rheas and kiwis, farmed deer, farmed 8/31/15 buffalo, fur bearing animals, wool bearing animals, such as alpacas and llamas, milk, eggs and furs. f. Maple sap. g. Christmas trees derived from a managed Christmas tree operation whether dug for transplanting or cut from the stump. h. Aquaculture products, including fish, fish products, water plants and shellfish. i. Woody biomass, which means short rotation woody crops raised for bioenergy, and shall not include farm woodland. j. Apiary products, including honey, beeswax, royal jelly, bee pollen, propolis, package bees, nucs and queens. For the purposes of this paragraph, “nucs” shall mean small honey bee colonies created from larger colonies including the nuc box, which is a smaller version of a beehive, designed to hold up to five frames from an existing colony. 301(13). "Commercial horse boarding operation" means an agricultural enterprise, consisting of at least seven acres and boarding at least ten horses, regardless of ownership, that receives ten thousand dollars or more in gross receipts annually from fees generated either through the boarding of horses or through the production for sale of crops, livestock, and livestock products, or through both such boarding and such production. Under no circumstances shall this subdivision be construed to include operations whose primary on site function is horse racing. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, a commercial horse boarding operation that is proposed or in its first or second year of operation may qualify as a farm operation if it is an agricultural enterprise, consisting of at least seven acres, and boarding at least ten horses, regardless of ownership, by the end of the first year of operation. 301(14). “Timber operation” means the on-farm production, management, harvesting, processing and marketing of timber grown on the farm operation into woodland products, including but not limited to logs, lumber, posts and firewood, provided that such farm operation consists of at least seven acres and produces for sale crops, livestock or livestock products of an annual gross sales value of ten thousand dollars or more and that the annual gross sales value of such processed woodland products does not exceed the annual gross sales value of such crops, livestock or livestock products. 301(16). “Compost, mulch or other organic biomass crops” means the on-farm processing, mixing, handling or marketing of organic matter that is grown or produced by such farm operation to rid such farm operation of its excess agricultural waste; and the on-farm processing, mixing or handling of off-farm generated organic matter that is transported to such farm operation and is necessary to facilitate the composting of such farm operation’s agricultural waste. This shall also include the on-farm processing, mixing or handling of off-farm generated organic matter for use only on that farm operation. Such organic matter shall include, but not be limited to, manure, hay, leaves, yard waste, silage, organic farm waste, vegetation, wood biomass or by-products of agricultural products that have been processed on such farm operation. The resulting products shall be converted into compost, mulch or other organic biomass crops that can be used as fertilizers, soil enhancers or supplements, or bedding materials. For purposes of this section, “compost” shall be processed by the aerobic, thermophilic decomposition of solid organic constituents of solid waste to produce a stable, humus-like material. 8/31/15 301(17). “Commercial equine operation” means an agricultural enterprise, consisting of at least seven acres and stabling at least ten horses, regardless of ownership, that receives ten thousand dollars of more in gross receipts annually from fees generated through the provision of commercial equine activities including, but not limited to riding lessons, trail riding activities or training of horses or through the production for sale of crops, livestock, and livestock products, or through both the provision of such commercial equine activities and such production. Under no circumstances shall this subdivision be construed to include operations whose primary on site function is horse racing, notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, an agricultural enterprise that is proposed or in its first or second year of operation may qualify as a commercial equine operation if it consists of at least seven acres and stables at least ten horses, regardless of ownership, by the end of the first year of operation. Start-Up Farm Periods In the administration of the AML, the Department has considered the needs of “start-up” farm operations when the land used for agricultural purposes is located within a county adopted, State certified agricultural district. The Department examines the activity to be conducted, level of investment and involvement in the farm; soil and topographic characteristics of the property; agricultural knowledge of the landowner; and other factors that may specifically apply to a proposed agricultural activity. Concerning protections afforded under AML §305-a to farm operations, including “start-up farms,” municipalities should allow a reasonable period of time to establish the farm operation and its production of crops/livestock/livestock products. The Department considers the following start-up periods to be reasonable for a farm to achieve the level of production of its own goods that may be required by a local government for certain processing and marketing activities conducted by the farm1: Crops: 2 years Hops: 3 years Livestock: 2 years Nurseries and Greenhouses: 2 years Aquaculture: 2 years Apiaries: 2 years Christmas Trees: 8-10 years Maple: 2 years Orchards and Berries: 3-5 years 1 Local governments may, of course, provide longer start-up periods in their discretion; and should consider weather, disease and other factors that may impact production. 8/31/15 Vineyards: 5 years Woody Biomass: 3 years Acreage and Gross Sales Requirements Under the AML, a “farm operation” must be a “commercial enterprise.” A “farm operation” is not required to be eligible for receipt of an agricultural assessment or meet the acreage and gross sales requirements to receive an agricultural assessment [AML §301(4) – Land Used in Agricultural Production]. In the absence of minimum acreage and gross sales requirements, the Department evaluates such factors as the acreage in production; capital investment and business assets; gross sales of crops, livestock and livestock products; the type of enterprise and number of years in operation. If needed, the Department also evaluates a number of other factors, including, but not limited to: 1) the landowner’s intent (especially for “start-up” farms); 2) whether the farm is operated in a businesslike manner; 3) time and effort spent on farming; 4) whether the landowner, or their advisors, have the knowledge needed to carry on the farming activity as a successful business; 5) whether the landowner was successful, or has experience with, similar activities in the past; 6) whether the landowner can expect future appreciation of the assets used in the business; and 7) whether the landowner’s investment is at risk. Leased and Owned Land If a farm leases land for inclusion into its operation, crops or livestock grown/raised on leased land are treated the same as crops/livestock grown/raised on owned land. In both instances, the farmer must be producing the crop or raising the livestock as part of their operation; i.e., the farmer must be at financial risk if the crop/livestock fails or succeeds. Farmers either plant themselves or hire custom operators to plant and harvest crops on owned and/or leased land. Farmers may also hire custom operators to raise their livestock. In both instances, however, it is the farmer that provides the seed/livestock, fertilizer, pesticide/herbicide, feed, etc. and pays for the labor and custom applicator to produce/harvest the crop or raise the livestock. In this manner, the harvested crop or livestock raised are the farmer’s, whether the crop yields or finished weight of livestock are successful or diminished. Conclusion If an agricultural operation is determined to be a farm operation as defined in AML §301(11), whether it is an existing or start-up agricultural enterprise, it may be afforded protections under the AML if the land is also located within a county adopted, State certified agricultural district.