HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC 2024-07-10AAC 2024-07-10
Draft
Page 1 of 3
AGRICULTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1
July 10, 2024 2
In-Person 3
4
Present: Evan Carpenter (chair), Doug Antczak, Kim LaMotte, Brian Magee 5
Absent: Austin Beck, Steve Foote 6
Liaisons: Jason Leifer (Town Board), Craig Schutt (Conservation Board) 7
Staff: Loren Sparling (Deputy Town Clerk) 8
9
The meeting was called to order at 7:41 p.m. 10
11
Review and Approval of Minutes from May 8, 2024 12
13
On motion made by K LaMotte, seconded by D Antczak, the minutes of May 8, 2024, 14
were unanimously approved as written. 15
16
Horse Manure Composting Facility at 1975 Dryden Rd 17
18
Margery Walker’s application for a horse manure composting facility at 1975 Dryden Rd 19
went before the Planning Board on June 27, 2024, as a sketch plan review. The property itself 20
is owned by Caroline Holman, her mother. Craig Anderson (Planning Board) looped in 21
Committee members on the discussion that took place, as the Agriculture Advisory Committee 22
was added to the email list at the last minute without any context. 23
24
C Anderson explained that the application came before the Planning Board because all 25
agriculture-related enterprises in the Town of Dryden have to go through site plan review. M 26
Walker wants to collect horse manure from various horse farms and bring it back to her site at 27
1975 Dryden Rd for composting; she has a plan outlined for the process and hopes eventually 28
to take over the entire farm (at 1975 Dryden Rd) from her mother. 29
30
C Anderson and two other Planning Board members felt that the operation falls solely 31
under the jurisdiction of the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, and that the Town’s 32
Code and Zoning should not apply. Without any follow -up questions, the Planning Board voted 33
4-3 to approve the operation and waive full site plan review. But what does the Town know 34
about composting? 35
36
J Leifer reasoned the alternate viewpoint, stating that because the operation collects 37
manure from multiple horse farms (and not just its own), Ag and Markets does not apply. Ag 38
and Markets pertains only to operations being undertaken on a single site. Once you act as a 39
regional processing facility, by bringing in material from other farms, you are not protected by 40
Ag and Markets law. He likened this to the laws governing the processing of hemp. 41
42
C Anderson referred to the Guidelines for Review of Local Laws Affecting On -Farm 43
Composting Facilities (https://agriculture.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2019/11/305-44
a_composting_guidelines.pdf), saying that you can bring in product from other farms to help 45
facilitate on-farm composting. J Leifer responded that it would be fine if that was for use solely 46
on that farm, but if you are composting for off-farm sale, that is where you run into a problem. 47
48
C Anderson still wondered why this came before the Planning Board, as it is an ag -49
related enterprise. J Leifer explained that an enterprise is “ag-related” only if it is limited to one 50
specific farm. 51
52
53
54
55
AAC 2024-07-10
Draft
Page 2 of 3
C Anderson questioned the level of farmer-friendliness regarding the Town’s procedure 1
to start-up such an enterprise, especially in terms of fees, wait time, and additional items. How 2
is this helping the farm? He saw the bigger issue as being all agriculture -related enterprises 3
requiring site plan review. If someone wants to start up a manure processing business, she 4
should be able to do so without Town interference. What does the Planning Department know 5
about composting manure? J Leifer rejoined that, as they do for any other business, the 6
Planning Department and Board review things like traffic flow, odors, and light. 7
8
C Anderson maintained that all businesses in ag districts are ag-related businesses. J 9
Leifer returned to the distinction between an agricultural business constrained to one farm 10
(which is protected by Ag & Markets and thus exempt from zoning) and an agricultural 11
business serving as a regional processing facility that sells product from multiple farms (which 12
is not protected by Ag & Markets and thus subject to zoning). He felt that its out-of-the-way 13
location should significantly reduce any potential complaints, and contrasted the equipment 14
that would be used to bring in off-farm manure with regular farm traffic. 15
16
C Anderson acknowledged that the Planning Department was precise in following the 17
protocol established by the Town in requiring the applicant to come before the Planning Board 18
but disagreed that the protocol should have been applied in the first place. Situations like this 19
will continue to crop up. Dryden’s zoning law is on track to get rewritten, and C Anderson 20
recommended that it be codified that agriculture-related enterprises not require special use 21
permits or site plan reviews. 22
23
E Carpenter wondered at what point do ag-related favors become a business. J Leifer 24
explained that businesses are enterprises in which money is exchanged for services and 25
reported on tax returns; businesses should be insured, have workers’ compensation for any 26
employees, and be in compliance with any pertinent regulations (e.g., oil storage, if a repair 27
shop). If this business is located on a farm site, it is not part of the farm. Ag-related favors on a 28
farm would fall under Ag & Markets, but once it becomes a full -fledged business, even though 29
located on the same site, Ag & Markets ceases to apply, and Town zoning goes into effect. 30
31
J Leifer also stated that the Town has been very receptive to new businesses over the 32
past 17 years. In that time, the Town Board has denied permits to proposed businesses on only 33
five occasions. 34
35
C Anderson and E Carpenter spelled out that an inconvenience factor is imposed on the 36
applicant by being “under the Town’s thumb” (e.g., filing permits, etc.). Everything will be 37
approved, but the applicant will invest a lot of time in doing the paperwork . 38
39
C Anderson observed that Dryden’s zoning law should be consistent with Ag & Markets 40
law, but it is not. To this, K LaMotte stated that the Committee worked on the reconciliation 41
last fall and submitted their recommendations on the zoning update to both the Planning 42
Board and the consultant. J Leifer encouraged Committee members to invite the consultant to 43
an Agriculture Advisory Committee meeting, so as to review their recommendations with her in 44
person; if distance is a factor, a meeting can be set up over Zoom. 45
46
J Leifer suggested updating the language in the zoning law such that the Planning 47
Department must pass along anything that has to do with agricultural activity to the 48
Agriculture Advisory Committee for their review before the matter reaches the Planning Board 49
or Town Board. C Anderson thought this was a good idea. 50
51
A dialogue was modeled to demonstrate whether an application was forwarded to the Ag 52
Committee. Upon presentation of the application, the Planner would ask if the enterprise was 53
contained to the applicant’s farm or utilized off-farm resources. A simple decision tree could be 54
made. 55
AAC 2024-07-10
Draft
Page 3 of 3
1
The conversation then turned to a topic that Committee members have debated for 2
years: what constitutes a farm and, and thus, who is considered a farmer? Haying is an ag 3
business, so people who hay are farmers. K LaMotte felt that M Walker did not meet the 4
qualifications of being a farmer, so how can the Town be farmer-friendly to someone who is not 5
a farmer? 6
7
C Anderson forewarned that the (state) government will begin to keep a more watchful 8
eye on businesses that compost more than 3,000 cubic yards of waste per year. Soil and Water 9
will kick in way before that. 10
11
C Schutt offered a different perspective on the proposed horse manure operation. The 12
enterprise will probably be more environmentally friendly because most horse farmers typically 13
do not have much acreage and their manure piles fall over the banks of waterways. M Walker 14
will be composting in a reasonable way and, as a result, the manure will not go into the water 15
courses. J Leifer reminded Committee members that such issues as water runoff would be 16
addressed at a site plan review. He added that just because a project requires a site plan review 17
does not mean that it will be denied. 18
19
There was consensus among Committee members that the Planning Department must 20
pass along anything that has to do with agricultural activity to the Agriculture Advisory 21
Committee for their review before the matter reaches the Planning Board or Town Board. This 22
will help guide the Planning Department (and by extension the Planning Board and/or Town 23
Board) in an ag-friendly direction. 24
25
C Schutt hoped that a similar process could be established for environmental matters 26
to come before the Conservation Board before going to the Planning Board and/or Town Board. 27
28
There being no further business, on motion made by K LaMotte and seconded by D 29
Antczak, the meeting was adjourned at 8.44 p.m. 30
31
Respectfully submitted, 32
33
Loren Sparling 34
Deputy Town Clerk 35