Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-12Page 1 of 6 Draft Agriculture Advisory Committee Town of Dryden June 12, 2013, 7:30 PM Members present: Evan Carpenter, Kim LaMotte Town Board Liaison: Steve Stelick Staff Present: Dan Kwasnowski (Town Planner) Conservation Board Liaison: Craig Schutt (not present) Meeting was called to order at 7:45 by Chairman Carpenter 1. Review and approval of minutes from May 8, 2013. Approval of minutes was postponed until next month. 2. Steve Stelick, Dryden Town Board Member Mr. Stelick stated that he is attending the Ag Committee meetings to ensure they are up to speed and on par with the Conservation Board, Zoning Board, etc. He asked D. Kwasnowski what the Ag Committee needed to do to get started on the (Agriculture Farmland Protection) grant. D. Kwasnowski was under the impression after the last Ag Committee meeting that the grant was being left as an option until the Ag Committee had decided what they want to accomplish. E. Carpenter thought the goal of the Ag Committee was to use Ag and Markets to help identify the open space inventory. That they could do some of the legwork for the open space after we set up what we thought should count as ag land versus land that has been set aside for development. D. Kwasnowski said that the grant will pay for staff time. However, if we applied for it now, we wouldn’t have the contract until next summer, and he wonders what we will do in the meantime (Work previously done does not get covered by the grant). He brought some materials to help the Ag Committee understand what work has already been done. He distributed copies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Open Space Inventory, a map depicting soil types in Dryden, “Town of Dryden Comprehensive: Recommendations Related to Agriculture, May 21, 2004” by George Frantz and Associates, and notes from the Agricultural Committee meeting held in October 2004. (see attached) Mr. Stelick summarized that the grant has to be very specific with what we want to do ; the Ag Committee should get a charge and that is what the Town Board will go after the grant on. Mr. Stelick asked D. Kwasnowski what his view is of open space? What does he see in the big view? D. Kwasnowski: It is a strategic plan that lays out what the Town wants to accomplish. What do you want to accomplish and how do you want to get there? The Planning Department is going to provide the tools to meet the Ag Committee’s goals and objectives: is it a local law, is it a program, is it farm viability like the Virtual Farm Market Website? Our situation is unique in that the Town is already involved in the farm land protection program. D. Kwasnowski feels that needs to be refined because what is in the Comprehensive Plan and what was discussed 11 years ago are not the Page 2 of 6 Draft same as today, a lot of things have been accomplished or changed. The Comprehensive Plan was very Open Space and ag focused but now we need to refine it. One of the areas that could use work is the rural ag zoning district; it is ok but could be better. Mr. Stelick asked if that could be the Ag Committee’s charge, working on the rural ag zoning district.? He then asked D. Kwasnowski what he wants to give to the Town Board once everyone has had their input? D. Kwasnowski is hoping to have, at minimum, a draft of the Open Space Plan by the end of the year. It is a strategic plan and they already have documentation. Mr. Stelick asked what role the CEAs will play in the Open Space Plan? Are they a big part of the plan? D. Kwasnowski said that he just had a meeting with Charlie Smith and Bob Beck of the Conservation Board. He said the CEAs won’t be part of this plan. The CEA report is done. The Conservation Board has completed that analysis. When the Town Board sees fit to return to working on the CEAs, they will have to bring up one and work on it and then move onto another one. Each CEA has it’s own unique aspects that need to be addressed. Mr. Stelick is interested in seeing where the rest of the Conservation Board stands with the CEAs. They are a varied group with differing opinions. D. Kwasnowski indicated that Mr. Smith commented “either designate them all or just drop it.” D. Kwasnowski feels the CEAs are a tool to be used for other projects such as ag land and aquifer protection. The CEAs are there, the work has been done and there is no reason to ignore them. The Open Space Plan is a strategic plan in which we are going to lay out what we want to accomplish and how are we going to get there. Mr. Stelick asked where D. Kwasnowski sees the Ag Committee being able to help with the Open Space Plan and CEAs in terms of the big picture. D. Kwasnowski said that in the immediate future (in the next month) he wants the Ag Commission to read the materials he has provided, that will give them an idea of the issues other groups have dealt with and what has been accomplished already. It will provide the group with a starting point for discussion. As the Board members read, he is hoping they will come up with questions or discussion ideas for the next meeting. Mr. Stelick is concerned with the speed that the Planning Department is moving in terms of the Open Space plan and wants to ensure that everyone understands (everyone learns at a different level) and is on board. They don’t need to agree but they have to understand the reasons why the Plan is necessary. The largest stake holders in the Town are the farmers and thus better consultants than paid professionals (like the Frantz document). They need to be able to get their input. D. Kwasnowski agreed with Mr. Stelick but he made the point that paid consultants serve a purpose although in the end the Zoning guidelines are Dryden’s. Page 3 of 6 Draft He also said that B. Beck and C. Smith have asked the Planning Department to slow down a bit with the Open Space Plan. He is putting together a primer to explain a lot of the terms and policies (ways to protect farmland) so all of the Boards have a better understanding. It will be the same material given to the Conservation Board. C.Anderson asked what he thinks is lacking in zoning for ag land protection? D. Kwasnowski said that the map can be refined; he found it was easy to shift properties between conservation districts and rural ag districts. The districts are ok, the allowed uses are good and work for ag community. In our residential development design guidelines, developers are encouraged to cluster the housing which will allow the land owner to still produce on the farm land; especially in the Conservation Districts. K. LaMotte agreed with D. Kwasnowski on the idea – it makes sense to turn spots that are not agriculturally productive (ie. a poor draining area) into a housing space while maintaining the productive land but she questions why the Town would have that responsibility. Why can’t the land owner make their own decision in terms of what they sell for development? D. Kwasnowski said the decision was a collaborative effort in which the Planning Department, various boards and the land owner determine what spaces are critical (discretionary process) and what are open space (ie - steep slopes, wetlands, streams, areas adjacent to state forest). He believes a consensus of those affected is better. Mr. Stelick feels it is very important when looking at the conservation pieces, the Ag Committee needs to understand and their reasons for agreeing or disagreeing need to be expressed and put in the minutes. Ultimately, the Town Board (five members) are going to be the ones voting and they need all the information and input they can get. Everyone has their own definition of conservation and how it is going to affect their land use. Many of the farmers feel over regulated already and Mr. Stelick agrees with them. He wants to ensure the members understand in what manner Conservation is going to affect their land and be able to agree or disagree based on facts not on a perceived or potential affect. D. Kwasnowski pointed out that an Ag Conservation easement is different from a Conservation easement. A Conservation easement takes away all of the development rights but an Ag Conservation easement still permits agricultural uses. He also made the point that some of the people that are on the Conservation Board are farmers. They made a point to purposely add farmers. K. LaMotte feels as though those farmers are simply a punching bag and asked how often any of the other members vote with them? Mr. Stelick pointed out that their ideas and votes are on permanent record and thus beneficial. E. Carpenter explained the potential difference between the Ag Committee (Conservationists) and the Conservation Board (Preservationists). A Conservationist is some who goes out and picks an apple, eats it and plants the seeds. A Preservationist takes the apple and puts it on their mantel and doesn’t let anyone touch it because Page 4 of 6 Draft they don’t know how to take care of it. Instead, the Preservationist insists that they can take care of it better than the Conservationist. The face of agriculture has changed. Now we have community gardens, soybeans rather than the traditional farm crops, breweries, mushrooms, etc. It is a new perspective. K. LaMotte said some of the data the Conservation Board used was over twenty years old and they made decisions on other people’s property. They put her property in a CEA (put a big black X on it) without even knowing what was on her property. She doesn’t think their work was as thorough as D. Kwasnowski claims. D. Kwasnowski some of it was and some of it wasn’t. Based on the UNA (Unique Natural Areas) report, decisions were made. The CEAs are not designated, which, according to K. LaMotte, is because people were paying attention and reacted. She believes in maintenance versus saving. The tree is going to die so instead of letting it fall over and rot, why not harvest and use it? D. Kwasnowski wants everyone to remember that the big black X that you were told it was, isn’t the big black X that they were led to believe; and we are going to talk about CEAs. K. LaMotte argued that once it is there, how does she know what limitations are going to be put in place? D. Kwasnowski argued that as the process moves forward, we can determine what the limitations are. Mr. Stelick strongly encouraged members to participate and be involved, honest, sincere and brave. Everyone’s opinion is not going to agree but the bottom line is they have to understand why and what is part of this Open Space Plan. C. Anderson encouraged the members to remember that it isn’t an all or nothing proposition for zoning. For example: The Stuttle farm is in a PDR (Purchase of Developmental Rights) which is good for them but K. LaMotte might want to, eventually, sell her land and she should be able to do that. D. Barton wants to preserve his land within his family for another 150 years. K. LaMotte said she has talked to her neighbors, who agree that they simple want the town to stop telling them what they can or cannot do; more than the Zoning, the CEAs and all that goes with them are what got everyone involved. D. Kwasnowski believes that K. LaMotte (and many of those that are worried about CEAs) will wonder why they were so concerned once they understand the purpose and end result of CEAs. SEQR is structured to help preserve farm land. Agriculture is a Type II action, the CEA designation and SEQR don’t apply or at least don’t affect farming. Agriculture does not apply to SEQR laws which are designed to prevent development from affecting Ag. A SEQR review for a subdivision would require that the development not butt up to farmland. Agricultural applications are not affected in any way by SEQR. That is a major difference between the CEAs and SEQR versus a local law or ordinance. E. Carpenter’s interest is in letting everyone do what they need to do. Page 5 of 6 Draft K. LaMotte pointed out that if S. Stelick votes with the farmers, then come election cycle, he is gone and then the Ag community doesn’t have his support anymore. S. Stelick said it doesn’t matter, as long as the decision is based on significant input, then he is comfortable with making those decision. Municipal home rule allows the people to influence their lives. D. Kwasnowski agreed with Mr. Stelick and made the point that the County and the State would love to make some of the decisions for us. Mr. Stelick continually pointed out that this process is not going to be fast. He disagrees with the Planning Department about the timeline they are hoping for. D. Kwasnowski said that as he understands, the Agricultural section of the Open Space Plan is for the Ag Committee. And any changes to the Open Space Plan regarding the agricultural section would have to go back to the Ag Committee before changes can take place. He stressed that the Code of Ethics for Planners says that the Planning Department works for the people. He supports local government and feels that the process has to work. The Comprehensive Plan is a good example. The Town is revisiting the Comprehensive Plan to update it and make it work for today. Mr. Stelick voted for it and he is proud that the Board passed it; it gave the Town Board and the Planning Department something to work with and someplace to start. Mr. Stelick wants the Committee members to bring information that they hear out there, even if it isn’t true, we want to get rid of the rumors and get the knowledge out there. D. Kwasnowski: On the soils map of the Town: oranges and browns are good, they are the best soils, greens are not so good (probably steep slopes and wet lands), definitely not prime farm land. The yellow areas are prime farm land, Farmland of State-wide Importance (it is a USDA designation and it varies from state to state. It means that the land, if amended, drained or improved, can be prime farmland). Bottom line is the whole town is at least marginal farm land. The poorest soil in Dryden is the best soil in another area. It depends on where you are. Many of the lands that are used and viable today are different from 100 years ago when horses were doing the work versus large machinery. The footprint is different. If all the land in the town is marginal or better farmland then the question becomes policy. Mr. Stelick verified that the CEAs don’t apply to farmland. K. LaMotte can basically do whatever she wants with her property? The CEAs has no value in agricultural activity as defined in SEQR. Why would we put a CEA on an agricultural area when it doesn’t pertain? D. Kwasnowski responded that the CEA is often the thing that you want to preserve from outside influences. It forces buffers between areas that are special, that we want to protect, and development. If the property is designated a CEA based on Agricultural activity (as defined by SEQR), SEQR will force a 300 foot buffer. Without the CEA, the development can be right up next to the edge of the farmland. The SEQR cannot be Page 6 of 6 Draft avoided and you just have to get through it. SEQR can’t stop you from doing anything but it might mitigate the project to death. The CEA is a red flag for officials to look closer before approving a project. At the local level we don’t need CEAs, lands can be protected though local laws. The state doesn’t recognize local laws. CEAs were originally put on the UNAs but the UNAs would not trigger a closer look. C. Anderson pointed out that D. Kwasnowski is talking to farmers who really believe in personal property rights; that is theirs and their neighbors as well. They don’t want to create something on their own property that going to say no to their neighbor. D. Kwasnowski pointed out that SEQR cannot and does not say no to anyone (it doesn’t stop the development from going in next door) but it can mitigate the effects on the farmers. C. Anderson believes that a lot of farmers believe their own property rig hts are the same as the neighbors. They don’t want to affect other people’s rights. K. LaMotte prefers the “normal” way for things to happen. She doesn’t want the Town, State or County telling her or any other person what they can do with their land. If someone wants to sell, they should be able to sell to whomever they want and for whatever they want. In the CEAs, view sheds are discussed…. As far as she is concerned, if they like the view, they should buy it. Mr. Stelick said that the CEA means nothing up front but then it says when they map that property; they have to look at the property more closely. It makes the State or developers look at the property more closely. A local law won’t make them look. CEAs will force a public meeting. He is hoping that all the issues can be addressed and that people will understand the reasons why certain decisions are being made. C. Anderson sees the Open Space Plan as more of an agriculture protection plan. It is a way to preserve/protect farmland. At the next meeting, the Committee will discuss the handouts from this meeting and continue to discuss the Open Space Plan. There being no further business, and lacking a quorum, the meeting ended at 9:20 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk