The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAAC 2026-05-13 ApprovedAAC 2026-05-13 Page 1 of 5 AGRICULTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 13, 2026 In-Person Present: Evan Carpenter (chair), Doug Antczak, Kim LaMotte Absent: Austin Beck, Steve Foote, Brian Magee Liaisons: Craig Schutt (Conservation Board) Guests: Craig Anderson The meeting was called to order at 7:43 p.m. 172 Ed Hill Subdivision Update At the center of this all is the possibility that the proposed conservation subdivision approach could effectively increase development intensity relative to the current baseline standard of approximately two acres per dwelling. Under clustered development provisions, smaller individual lots — potentially approaching one acre or less — could be permitted if a substantial percentage of the parcel is preserved as open space. Committee members agreed that without explicit formulas demonstrating how this redistribution works in practice, it is impossible to evaluate whether the proposal meaningfully preserves farmland or instead concentrates greater residential density into rural areas. Current Standard: Two acres per dwelling in rural/conservation areas. Proposed Requirement: Approximately 50% of land must be set aside for conservation purposes. Calculation Method: Density is currently calculated by subtracting constrained land (creeks, steep slopes, wetlands, ponds) from the total acreage. For example, a 100-acre parcel with 30 constrained acres leaves 70 acres for development. The Problem: The formula for how the remaining unconstrained land translates into buildable lots is currently undefined in the available drafts. Procedural recommendations The committee recommended extending the review timeline by approximately 90 days to allow for additional technical analysis and public understanding. Suggested next steps included: • Preparation of visual build-out models for representative farm parcels ranging from 50 to 300 acres. • Publication of clear density tables and formulas. • Inclusion of comprehensive definitions within the draft law before advancement toward adoption. Structural Changes to Subdivisions The proposed zoning aims to move away from larger land lot developments where parcels might range from 3 to 20 acres toward cluster subdivisions. C Anderson stated from his experience, he mentioned to the members. AAC 2026-05-13 Page 2 of 5 Internal Access, the planning board seeks to discourage building directly on public roads to maintain rural aesthetics. Development is encouraged along internal roads or cul-de-sacs. Lot Sizes, in cluster models, houses would be situated on smaller lots approximately one acre, leaving larger contiguous blocks of open space. Flag Lots, current and proposed laws allow up to four lots on a common driveway. A fifth lot would require the construction of a private road built to town specifications. Conservation Area Classifications The draft distinguishes between primary and secondary conservation areas, though there is noted confusion regarding where agricultural land fits into these categories. C Anderson read the definitions of from page 4 step 1. Primary Conservation Areas- an area delineated in the conservation subdivision to have priority resources areas to be conserved including but not limited to streams, wetlands, floodplains, critical habitats, steep slopes, rocky outcrops, and agricultural lands in some drafts. Secondary Conservation Area- shall be delineated in the conservation subdivision to have unique resources areas to be conserved including but not limited to healthy woodlands, ecological features, soil stabilization, hedgerows, historical structures, and visually prominent features knolls. Note: Committee members observed that agricultural land was previously listed in both categories, leading to confusion over its priority level. The committee expressed frustration that the 147-page document is being fast-tracked without adequate review by the agricultural community. Several members said the process is moving too quickly and questioned why planning is pushing it forward so rapidly. And it appears that this version that went out today doesn’t have the agriculture in both primary and secondary has been removed from this draft, D Antczak stated. Agricultural and Environmental Concerns The committee highlighted a disparity between the protection of environmental features and the protection of working farmland. Lack of "Teeth" for Agriculture: While wetlands and habitats are protected by state and federal mandates, agricultural preservation in these documents is viewed as suggestions rather than requirements. Suburban vs. Working Farm Models: There is a concern that conservation space in subdivisions often becomes suburban open space (e.g., horse pastures or meadows) rather than viable land for active farming. Impact on Large Tracts: Questions remain about whether a large farm of 300–400 acres could be incrementally subdivided via minor subdivisions to bypass major conservation requirements. AAC 2026-05-13 Page 3 of 5 Updates to Town Zoning and Conservation Subdivision Laws As several members emphasized, the unresolved “missing link” is the absence of finalized density tables and mathematical formulas for calculating allowable dwelling units. Until those calculations are transparent and tested, the practical effects on land consumption, agricultural viability, and rural character remain speculative. Density uncertainty. Members noted substantial ambiguity regarding how density bonuses or allowable unit counts would be calculated, especially when distinguishing between constrained land, active farmland, and permanently conserved open space. Questions remain about whether conserved acreage can still contribute toward total density calculations and how environmental constraints reduce or redistribute development rights. Transition toward cluster or conservation subdivision design. The proposed framework appears to move away from traditional large-lot subdivision patterns and toward clustered housing arrangements. Under this model, homes may be concentrated on smaller lots while larger portions of the parcel remain undeveloped as open space, agricultural land, or conservation areas. The intent is to preserve scenic character, reduce fragmentation, and minimize road-front visual impacts. Agricultural vulnerability. Committee members repeatedly distinguished between environmental conservation and agricultural preservation. Wetlands, streams, and steep slopes often receive protection through existing state and federal regulations, whereas farmland preservation relies much more heavily on local implementation. Members expressed concern that the proposed law may provide stronger protection mechanisms for ecological resources than for active agricultural operations. Skepticism from past enforcement failures. Several participants referenced prior subdivision experiences, including Bluebird (former Dryden Lake golf course) and Ellis Hollow, where setbacks, easements, or conservation requirements were perceived as inconsistently enforced over time. These examples contributed to concerns about the town’s administrative capacity to monitor and enforce more technically complex conservation subdivision regulations. Administrative Oversight and Enforcement Failures Members discussed revealed deep-seated distrust in the town's ability to enforce zoning laws based on past experiences: Instances were cited where houses were built within conservation easements or past setback lines because of builder error and lack of town oversight. Residents in previous subdivisions cut trees in protected areas or altered stormwater management systems without repercussions. Often, the burden of enforcement falls on Homeowners' Associations (HOAs) or individual neighbors rather than the town. A recommendation from C Anderson to require builders to pin the corners of a foundation and then have a survey conducted before construction proceeds to ensure compliance with setbacks. Density Bonus was brought up in an email from Tony and C Anderson knows from his experience the only one locally is in Varna. Density bonus reads the context of the town's AAC 2026-05-13 Page 4 of 5 zoning discussions; a density bonus is an incentive mechanism that allows developers to build at a higher density (more houses or units per acre) than standard zoning rules would typically permit. These bonuses are granted to encourage developers to meet specific community goals they might not otherwise prioritize. Current Proposal and Status A request was made to include a density bonus provision (as item number nine) in the updated conservation subdivision standards. However, Tony (a lead official/consultant on the project) did not include it in the recent update, stating: • The conservation subdivision standards section is not the appropriate place for the concept. • Density bonuses are better suited for water zoning purpose statements or as a standalone section of the code. • They should be addressed in a general context rather than being tied strictly to conservation subdivisions. How Density Bonuses Work C Anderson provided several examples of how these bonuses function as incentives: Rehabilitation: In Varna, developers can receive a bonus for rehabilitating old property, such as tearing down a dilapidated house to build something new. Energy Efficiency: Meeting LEED standards for energy efficiency can result in a bonus. In one mentioned case, this allowed for an additional two units per acre. Affordable Housing: A developer might be granted an extra lot or a fifth lot in a minor subdivision if they agree to set aside a unit for affordable housing at a lower price point (e.g., $30,000). Recreation: Bonuses can be offered if a builder agrees to build a park or provide other recreational amenities. While these incentives can significantly increase density—potentially raising it from four units per acre to fourteen units per acre in urban settings like Varna—they have not yet been used extensively in other parts of the town. Furthermore, the specific mathematical formulas for these bonuses are typically contained in density tables, which participants noted had not yet been released for public review. The committee intends to send their request to the Town Board and Planning Board emphasizing that agricultural land represents 25% of the town and requires a more measured, transparent review process. Formal Requests 90-Day Review Period: To allow committees and landowners sufficient time to analyze the document, especially given the demands of the planting season. There is a difference between the Agriculture and Conservation Districts. Build-Out Models: A request for Nan Stolzenburg (consultant) to provide visual models showing how a 50-acre, 100-acre, and 200-acre farm would be developed under the new rules. Density Tables: Immediate release of the finalized density formulas and tables. AAC 2026-05-13 Page 5 of 5 Clarification of Incentives: Understanding Density Bonuses incentives for developers to provide affordable housing or public parks in exchange for additional units. Integration of PDRs: Investigating whether Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) or existing conservation easements e.g., NRCS can satisfy the 50% open space requirement. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Allison Kjellander-Cantu Deputy Town Clerk