The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-02-17-AG & FARMLAND Ulysses Town Agriculture & Farmland Protection Planning Committee February 17, 2010 Meeting Minutes Present : Members : John Wertis/Chair, Chaw Chang , Ann Filley, Chuck Houghton , Bob Howarth , Mark Ochs , Tony Potenza , Allison Pritts , Bob Weatherby Excused : Bruce Austic Town Staff: Sue Poelvoorde Consultants : Debbie Teeter Meeting called to order at 7 : 00 PM Announcements : • John introduced , and the committee welcomed , new members Allison Pritts and Mark Ochs . - • • John circulated a letter from the American Farmland Trust concerning cuts to agriculture in the Governor's proposed budget , with a sample resolution for municipalities to consider and a sample letter to legislators for citizens to consider. [this actually came at the end of the meeting] Minutes of January 21 , 2010 meeting : Sue Poelvoorde 's name was misspelled ; motion by Tony to approve with this correction , seconded by Ann , approved without dissent . Old Business 1 . Additional Data for Development Section of Plan : John distributed information about single family home site selection and visibility from 2007-09 . There were 22 total housing starts : 15 were sited in the woods and 7 were sited in open fields . Of those sited in the woods , 3 were not visible , 7 were seasonally visible , and 5 had no front vegetative buffer. Of those sited in open fields , 5 had active agriculture in the front or rear and two were in non-active fields . 2 . AFT Farm Friendly Checklist Discussion , discussion , continued : Supporting Appropriate Tax Policies for Farmland and Buildings Q . 12 — N/A — we have County-wide assessment Q . 13 — No — there is no ag exemption for Fire Tax; has been considered previously, but amount is rather small and may be of little consequence Q . 14 — No — County level , but there is no information there Q . 15 — Working on it - through this committee and the Comprehensive Plan update Q . 16 — Possibly — in the Comprehensive Plan ? In progress I Q . 17 — Recognized as an issue — has been discussed , but has been controversial ; have recent water districts fostered development? Has lack of it fostered continuing agriculture? Q . 18 — Working on it — in Comprehensive Plan to identify it , this committee working on it Q . 19 — Doesn 't discourage — County Planning Department presented PDR information to Town Board last year; Tony wondered what Town could do : send information with tax bills? This is work for this committee under strategies Q . 20 — No Q . 21 — No Q . 22 — No Q . 23 — Yes? — Town has a Right to Farm Law, but only applies in NYS Ag District and Town Ag Zones Q . 24 — Yes? — Town has a Right to Farm Law, but no required ag disclosure statement 3 . Zoning Review: The committee began working through the Zoning Law with Sue and Ann noting on newsprint items members identified as positive or negative for agriculture . Article I : positive/neutral/negative: should go further, says nothing about: the importance of agriculture , its crucial role in the Town 's economy, the sustainability of agriculture , fiber, or innovation , such as energy production Article II : positive: no building permit required for agriculture buildings Article III : negative: no designated agriculture seat on the Planning Board Article IV : negatives: no definitions of compost , wind farms , CSA distribution , biomass production for energy, u-pick ; ag commerce not complete enough ; roadside stand is not defined as agriculture and specifies it must be tied to an active farm , need better definition , refer to Ag and Markets language ; why does document require 'A feed of a horse boarding operation come from off-farm? Ann suggested horse boarding operations are typically not large enough to grow all the feed they need . Possibly add something about gas wells to extraction section or have a separate section — Town may be able to regulate disposal in abandoned gas wells , also water well locations are not identified anywhere and my result in related problems . Article V: No mention of wind farms 5 . 2 : positive : Right to Farm — all good 5 . 3 : neutral?: flag lots , in Standards is a "Should " statement , perhaps should be stronger 5 . 3 : positive ?: roadside stands — Standards there 's no square foot requirement, which is good , but Standards are not ag specific 5 . 4 : positive ?: Farm Labor Housing mentions a simplified Site Plan Review, but process doesn 't exist 5 . 6 : negative: ag commerce should be an allowed use , should not require a permit; language unclear 5 . 6 : negative: animal processing shouldn 't need a special permit , incorporate pertinent law; can the Town require its own CAFO permits within the NYS ag district? 5 . 7 : negative ?: minimum 2 acre lot size is detrimental to agriculture — is that a Health Department minimum ? Road frontage requirements may be worth looking at, no buffer zone requirements (from streams , etc — and for residential development adjacent to farmland so ag practices are riot restricted ) Article VI : Zone for Fairgrounds : Fair definition and statement of purpose don 't agree Article VII : negative: Right to Farm Law does not apply in Rural Residential Zones ; should be in every zone where agriculture is allowed ; temporary buildings are permitted but this doesn 't include trailers , storage units , Pods ; might need to look at the Standards Start with Article VIII next time 4 . Landowner survey discussion : John said there had been some confusion in getting the draft survey circulated to subcommittee members . Bob H . said he thought the process identified at the last meeting was followed as well as it could be and he expressed frustration with lag times in getting the survey initially and then in hearing about problems with it . The first message he got indicated the draft looked fine , then later he heard it was too long ; he responded immediately with a shorter version , but at that point all subcommittee members were not available to review it. As a result the draft was not included in the meeting mailing , although Bob did e-mail it to those with e-mail addresses . Monika also sent an e-mail with comments on Bob 's version . Committee members asked the question : what is the motivation behind or reason for the survey? Debbie said that in order to write the Agriculture Profile for the plan , we need to know what is happening with agriculture right now and what is likely to happen in the future . This information is also pertinent in developing the Ag Plan . Several members asked why we needed names , indicating that might be a determent to people responding — especially the question about how happy people are with their current land rental arrangements . Debbie said she and Monika discussed this , and if the committee/Town agreed , surveys could be returned to CCE with guarantee of anonymity; CCE handles the Ag District review process , as well as similar surveys , under this type of guarantee without problem . CCE has a good reputation within the farm community. Motion by Ann to table action on the survey until the special meeting in early March , seconded by Bob W . , approved without dissent. Members asked Bob H . to work with the other subcommittee members , not present at this meeting , to get a better draft together for that meeting . 5 . Timeline review: Committee members reviewed the updated timeline and set a special meeting for Thursday, March 4th to finish reviewing the Zoning document and finalize the draft survey. New Business 1 . Introduction of other zoning examples : John handed out examples of other municipal zoning documents for members to review and draw from . Meeting Adjourned , 9 : 00 p . m . Next meeting : Thursday, March 4th , 7 : 00 p . m . O:\Debbie Teeter\Town Ag Plans\Ulysses\Minutes and Agendas\Minutes 02-17-10.doc