Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-08Page 1 of 8 Dryden Agriculture Advisory Commission Town of Dryden May 8, 2013 Members Present: Evan Carpenter (Chair), Kim LaMotte, Joe Osmeloski (late), Douglas Barton, and Steve Stuttle Staff Present: Mary Ann Sumner (Supervisor) and Dan Kwasnowski (Town Planner) Town Board Liaison: Jason Leifer Planning Board Liaison: Craig Anderson Conservation Board Liaison: Craig Schutt Guests: Nancy Munkenbeck Meeting was called to order at 7:38 by Chairman Carpenter 1. Review and approval of the minutes from April 10, 2013. C. Anderson requested clarification regarding the discussion about putting up fences across trials. It is not illegal to fence the trail but the issues a property owner could face, including liability for injuries sustained if someone runs into the fence, encourage caution when protecting personal property. If a person trespasses on your property and gets hurt, they may still be able to sue the land owner. Putting a fence up across an established trail could easily lead to problems. D Barton moved to accept the minutes with the recommended changes. K. LaMotte seconded the motion, all approved. S. Stuttle abstained. 2. Craig Schutt – The Conservation Board passed a resolution supporting the Agriculture Advisory Commission’s recommendation that the Town Board continue to consider applying for the Agriculture Farmland Protection grant. The wording was different but it is the same idea. E. Carpenter ensured that everyone had a copy of the information regarding the grant. While the Commission members were looking over the grant information, C. Schutt stated that the Conservation Board has discussed the grant and has considered how the money can be used. C. Schutt has spoken with Mike Smith from the Town of Ithaca; he said that the grant paid for his time. It was easy (he kept a spread sheet with his time) to keep track of the time and ag and markets reimbursed them. Mr. Smith also said the grant was quite easy to get and the program is great to work with. D. Kwasnowski stated that “we can definitely look into it” but then asked what the Agriculture Advisory Commission would work on while waiting for the grant? Even though it is open enrollment, it is not open funding. It has a pretty big turn around, 6-12 months. Every time they (Planning Department) have worked with Ag and Markets, it has taken at least 10 months to get the contract after they had gotten the award. E. Carpenter said any money that is spent prior to getting the contract, they cannot get back. C Schutt said that once you get a contract, we could probably get started. N. Munkenbeck pointed out that it has been discussed for 4 years and maybe it is time to actually apply. D Barton added that if they applied a year from now, it would take two years before they got the grant. D. Kwasnowski asked “what if they were done before the grant arrived?” The general consensus was that the work is never done and will always be on-going. M. Sumner said that there is certainly groundwork to do and the Commission could use the time to plan how they want to develop the Agriculture Open Space Plan. Supervisor Sumner believes that open space is asset to the Town and to the residents, for at least the following three reasons: agriculture, recreation, and conservation. D. Kwasnowski stated that the Comprehensive Plan is based on Open Space. Supervisor Sumner said that after the Comprehensive Plan was in place, they started working on a Recreation Master plan. The Planning Department and Conservation Board began to take on the Open Space Plan. They began to see how the three areas overlapped (Recreation, Conservation and Agriculture). Once we begin to look at the three parts as being part of a whole, it starts to make sense. Some open space will be for recreation with more parks and trails that are separate from farm land. She is not talking about existing farms or generations old farms or possibly new farms but largely about the soil and the terrain and the areas we know are irreplaceable. We don’t want to encourage development that will interfere with that land. It is really important to commit that to paper and she is really looking forward to this process. She is about to ask the Town Board to be more specific in what they are asking each board to do as part of this open space plan. But that should not take all of the Ag Commissions time, there are things that they want to look into and advise the Town Board on as well. She thinks the Town Board can be more specific about where we envision this plan going and what this committee’s role in that plan is. She is hoping that based on what she hears tonight that she can direct the Town Board to come back with some better direction for this task. D. Kwasnowski – the other piece to that (that’s going to be the motive, the why are we doing this) but more pragmatic piece is that in our recently passed zoning and subdivision law includes amenity zoning. It is a tool that you can use if you have planning (like an open space plan or a farmland protection plan), then you can say “look, we know that your business or product is going to have an impact on our community and we can account for that.” Amenity zoning is a system that is set up where you say “if you are going to locate in this area, we know you are going to have such and such an impact and you have to fulfill this part of the town plan”. We can’t just make it up as we go along, it has to be part of a plan. So the pragmatic part of this is, we know what we want to do. We have a strategic plan to get there. If the business doesn’t have an impact on the Town then they obviously don’t have to provide amenities. The Planning Board or Town Board or Supervisor can then say that they need to protect a piece of adjacent land or provide money for a park. Page 3 of 8 N. Munkenbeck – What is the plan to which he is referring? The comprehensive plan at this point or any town legislation that has “plan” in it. Currently we have the Comprehensive Plan (D. Kwasnowski added “and the Recreation Master Plan”) and when the Open Space Plan exists and has been accepted (approved by the Town Board) then that can also be applied. N. Munkenbeck continued with “In the Conservation Board, the way I understood the explanation of the Open Space Plan, was that it was going to be basically a plan of how to plan for things that would not be a plan for ultimat e use; it would be a plan for how to question ultimate use.” D. Kwasnowski – it will be strategic planning, so it will be more brief than your old fashion comprehensive plan and it will have specific objectives and targets that we want to accomplish, within a certain period of time. Let’s say 5-10 years. D. Kwasnowski is happy with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan; it is fairly brief, not as brief as he would have it but it is pretty brief. N. Munkenbeck responded with “but a Comprehensive Plan is a plan for how you see the community developing in the future. And the Open Space Plan, as it was explained earlier, was not going to be that but how to address questions to arrive at a new comprehensive plan. Are you now saying that in fact, this open Space Plan will actually define what we want to do instead of question what we want to do?” D. Kwasnowski responded that it would be some of both but mostly defining what you want to do. D. Kwasnowski had copies of a draft of the Open Space Plan that he offered to share with the group. It has been stripped down and is fairly open ended but it gives you at least the structure that the plan would look like. (this copy was created by a former intern named Megan who came up with the Agriculture, Conservation and Recreation scheme). What the plan will include, at least the Agriculture section, is up to “you guys” – the AAC. N. Munkenbeck made the comment that the structure is there but what is going to affect everyone is the pillars. D. Kwasnowski agreed. D. Kwasnowski is hoping to have 3-5 Goals with more objectives underneath. Right now the Comprehensive Plan only has 1 goal and 3 objectives for Agriculture. N. Munkenbeck – “If the farm community has an idea of how they would like to see the town proceed so that farming will be enable and enhanced and promoted for future generation then that is what you want in the Open Space Plan?” D. Kwasnowski responded “right” but Supervisor Sumner feels that might be much more than they are looking for in the Open Space Plan. D. Kwasnowski feels we can identify the issues in the plan and set a possible path forward, and then revisit the plan and say, that one didn’t work, that one didn’t come to fruition but this one did work. It becomes a guide to point the Boards toward solving part of the plan. C. Anderson made the point that while the Ag Commission had D. Kwasnowski and the Supervisor at the meeting, they should be asking some questions. At the last meeting they had a significant number of points and que stions and this meeting is their chance to get them answered. Supervisor Sumner said it is important to remember that your accountable to the Town Board. We communicate through Dan, a lot. Dan directs things like the Open Space Plan but at least in name, the Town Board directs Dan. I t’s not entirely that the Planning Department wants this plan, it’s that the Town wants this plan. Any place where you saw Planning Department in the minutes (last month) you might think, Town. D. Kwasnowski - Conservation Board- did an inventory which allowed them to elevate their status from a Conservation Advisory Council to a Conservation Board. This is based on State law. But the State law also says that Town’s should develop an open space plan, going so far as to target parcels or areas that you wa nt to protect. Either purchase or put an easement on it. In the storm water program, there was a call for a buffer law and he had assumed it had been…. It had been described to me that this was something the Conservation Board was ready to move forward on. They started working on the Storm Water buffer laws and they got quite a ways but then the Conservation Board started to ask “is this the only way to do this?” to which he said no. They had a long discussion about “shouldn’t we have some kind of plan first so we can discuss this as an option to purchase easements or planting trees?” D. Kwasnowski agreed that the plan was a good idea because they were getting frustrated and dispirited trying to get this law out there. One of the problems was the 100 foot setback. That was one of the reasons why they decided to put it in the context of an Open Space Plan. That is something in the conservation system that will be looked at; what benefits does a buffer offer, how will agriculture be affected, how would ag be exempted, how does it protect wetlands, all these different things and how can you achieve it without a law? What are the alternatives to get there? This was when Megan was brought in and together they came up with a draft plan which includes the three system thing because it seemed apparent that we have Conservation issues (natural areas, wetland, steep slopes, flood plains, Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, etc.), and then we have Agricultural concerns. We have a really good farmland protection plan, the bare bones, these are the farms, this how many acres we want to protect, this is how much it is going to cost. That is how we got a grant for Lew- Lin, Jerry Dell and WideAwake was based on that plan. If we didn’t have that in the comp plan, we would not have gotten the grant. It wouldn’t have been there. Recreation Department – we had a whole section on trails that got cut from the Comprehensive Plan right before it was adopted. He is not sure why but they had a trails committee and there was a recognition in the Comp plan that the town, based upon national standards, or even state wide standards, is woefully inadequate in terms of town owned park land. Based on the number of people in the town we don’t have enough park land to accommodate their needs. That is where we got with the three system approach. What that system is, and the key is to have a systematic approach, we should be clear about what we want to achieve, this is how we want to get there so that it is systematic and transparent. People don’t have to understand the theory behind open space. From last month, “why is agricultural land considered open space?”, it’s not and he thinks that is a misnomer and it should be open place – it has history, people have worked there, lived there, raised their kids there, have their animals there. It is not just a blank open space that you can do whatever you want on it, it is somebody’s living. Page 5 of 8 Define agriculture – the State and Ag and Markets has accepted agriculture as an open space resource. What we should dwell on is “what do you want to do, what do you want to spend the next 5 years, the next 10 years, planning. And how will you know if you are being successful? D. Kwasnowski thinks we have a strong Agricultural community based on the ease with which farm land is sold or leased. C. Anderson asked about the virtual farm site and who is going to maintain it. Joshua Bogdan (the Dryden Town GIS Technician) is going to be the one to update the site. The farmers can just email him with updates. The Commission and guests all agreed that we need to promote the website. E. Carpenter asked whether the town having a booth at dairy day? Supervisor Sumner indicated that the Town Board was going to discuss it. E. Carpenter clarified that what D. Kwasnowski and the Town Board want is a definition of what is agricultural land, what is farm land, and what is open space that we see as being beneficial to agriculture. That is where we became a little overwhelmed with the amount of time it was going to take to identify that “this” is farmland, “this” is brush and “this” is farmable land or the owner has no intention of it ever being farmed again. E. Carpenter pointed out that just in his life, he has seen prime, profitable farmland neglected until it turned to brush to trees - is that prime land or prime development and do we want to identify them? There are areas that were prime farmland that are now prime development land. How many parcels are there around town? Supervisor Sumner indicated that was exactly what they wanted to find out. E. Carpenter - The grant from AG and Markets can help the Agriculture Advisory Board complete an inventory of what is out there. If the Commission decided to focus on soil types, he has old 1940s maps which show areas as swamps that are now productive soils. Supervisor Sumner said that the DEC is updating wetland maps. D. Kwasnowski asked what the Commission is hoping to get out of the inventory? N. Munkenbeck responded “identification of possibly good ag lands, even those growing up to brush could still possibly be good ag lands.” E. Carpenter used the Bieber farm as an example of a hobby farm; even though it is not farmed, it is still open space and that ought to be counted as open farm land. It is not going to be developed for housing nor do the owners intend that it ever be used that way. C. Anderson believes the inventory will help identify the land is being farmed that is more suitable for development and the farmland that is close to infrastructure that might be more suitable for development. N. Munkenbeck brought up the 100 acres by B&B Farms that used to be farmland. She remembers that people seemed to want to see that area developed more and it is zoned for development. Is that where the planning department wants more housing because busses are going to be able to get there and they can tie into the sewer and water districts? C. Anderson pointed out that if the Commission was able to identify soil types then as parcels become available, a farmer might be interested in it. Having a g ood inventory will benefit the town and the farmers. D. Kwasnowski suggested that instead of looking at the entirety, look at the areas that the board feels are most important for agriculture. Pick and choose what areas you work on – for example, it doesn’t make much sense to analyze E. Carpenter’s farm if he is able to get an easement on it. C. Anderson suggested looking at the County Ag District. He pointed out the ag district is much greater than what is being farmed. N. Munkenbeck believes that there has to be 4 areas or layers consisting of soil types, agricultural districts, agricultural exemptions and actual use. D. Kwasnowski - Rural Agriculture Zoning districts could be split into several smaller districts to accommodate a greater number of farm types. N. Munkenbeck wondered what the benefits are of being in an Agriculture Zoning district? E. Carpenter pointed out that agriculture is permitted in any district. D. Barton said that there were several options that are available in an agricultural district that are not permitted in other districts. C. Anderson interjected that the farmers were talking about County Districts. N. Munkenbeck said she is wondering about Town Zoning. She asked how the AAC can ensure that farming continues in this town? E. Carpenter added that a lot of the land in the Town that is ag usable is not necessarily designed for large dairies. There is a lot of property that is ideal for all kinds of farms, like a U-Pick Apple Orchard. Hops, vineyards, blueberry, etc. W hat are the other types of farms that are going to be or could be here now. E. Carpenter feels we need to look at all of the parcels. N. Munkenbeck asked about the fact that many of the local farms that are protected are using almost 50% more land in rentals. So what about that land? N. Munkenbeck asked whether the goal was to have the committee identify Ag lands or…. D. Kwasnowski said that he and Josh Bogdan (GIS technician) will work on putting together a program that the Commission members can take home and play with. It will permit them to add layers and zoom in and out to help identify. He said that he would need to know more on soil types. He can display prime farm land easily. N. Munkenbeck – indicated that she does not know what the soil types are and how to determine them. D. Kwasnowski – said that the information is in the GIS data; definitions, etc are included. He asked if the Commission wanted to jump into the inventory? He can come next meeting with J. Bogdan to demonstrate the program they propose the AAC use. Page 7 of 8 N. Munkenbeck asked if the members would be given time to think on their own about things they think would promote agriculture? D. Kwasnowski responded that she could think about it as much as she wants to. D. Barton pointed out that if the Commission bases their decisions on the quality or value of the land, then his is going to be sub-marginal despite the fact that they have grown crops and farmed there for 175 years. Supervisor Sumner indicated that the Commission will get to help define the properties. D. Barton – “We talk about open land, farm land or otherwise, there’s a reason why around in this area there is so much open farm land because it has been a livelihood. It’s not something we did to attract other people; it is someth ing we do to survive.” Supervisor Sumner asked about the land along Etna road that used to be prime farm land. Should we identify that land in the Agriculture inventory? C. Anderson asked if the members of the Commission were familiar with the Town’s new zoning in the rural ag zoning. It will help the Commission members understand what is allowable. D. Kwasnowski – If we redefine that zone, if your property was zoned rural ag, then you could put tractor sales in there and there would not be any requirement for the Conservation Subdivision which doesn’t limit your development, it just guides, protecting the open space resources that are there. If we refine that rural ag district, then we would have to work with land owners like you and say listen, we wou ld like to change you from conservation to ag for these reasons, but it is going to have rural ag design guidelines that will have to be followed if they had a subdivision of over a certain number of lots. D. Kwasnowski - Some of the areas that are in the conservation districts are there to protect the ag land – to provide a buffer between the village and farm fields. Going back to the question earlier about the benefit of being in an Agriculture district in the Town; not much because it is not very well defined. He said that the AAC has the charge of redefining the zoning. He pointed to Johnson road which he thinks is a good place to have a pseudo agricultural commercial park for farming. A place specifically targeted to support ag/commercial businesses. Already there is a yogurt factory and Cortland Produce. N. Munkenbeck returned to the questionnaire included with Planning for Agriculture in New York and the question regarding Town support in preventing trespassing. That led to a discussion regarding designated hunters (people that have permission to hunt the land and help keep trespassers off the land). C. Anderson asked if anyone had challenged the reassessment of their property. D. Barton had and he got his assessment reduced. C. Anderson received a letter in reply that stated that his request was denied because his assessment is due to “the increase in the ag ceiling values determined by New York State.” He said he brought it up because there is no ag ceiling value at the State level. He has talked to Ag and Markets about it. NYS does not determine ag value or ceiling. He said his assessment was done on the value of the property. Ag assessment is determined by the product produced on the land, not the actual value of the property. As of 4 PM this af ternoon, Tompkins County Assessment had not yet returned a call to Ag and Markets regarding this issue. 5. E. Carpenter moved onto the point of business: Choosing a Vice Chair was put off until next meeting since no one was interested volunteering this meeting. There being no further business, D. Barton made a motion to adjourn. J. Osmeloski seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 PM. Respectfully submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk