Tables vote to reject additions to ag district
Putnam legislators may revise the guidelines for adding farms to its Agricultural District after a committee voted to reject recommendations to add properties in Philipstown and four other towns.
Established in 1971, the state program is intended to “conserve, protect and encourage the development and improvement” of farmland. The benefits to farmers include being exempt from “unreasonable” local laws that might restrict operations.
Nancy Montgomery, who represents Philipstown and part of Putnam Valley on the nine-member Legislature, joined four colleagues on Tuesday (Aug. 6) in voting to table a Physical Services Committee resolution that would have rejected George Whipple’s application to add Castle Rock and three other Philipstown properties to the district.
The Putnam Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board earlier had voted 9-2 to allow the designation. The Legislature’s vote also affected four other operations approved by the board: Big Red Barn Farm in Putnam Valley and Kascade Enterprises in Carmel, which board horses; and Lobster Hill Farm in Southeast and Ridge Ranch in Patterson, which breed livestock.
“There was a lengthy process that our expert volunteer board invested a lot of time and effort in,” said Montgomery. “This was a democratic process that was fair.”
Despite the farmland board’s support, one of its members, Neal Tomann, told the Physical Services Committee last month that the applicants failed to meet one or more of eight factors that the county determined in 2007 “shall be considered” for inclusion.
Those factors include an on-site assessment by the board, the absence of local, state or federal violations and adherence to best practices. Tomann said that none of the properties met another factor, despite not growing crops — that each must contain at least 50 percent of “prime farmland and/or statewide important soils” in one of the first six of the state’s 10 classifications for soils.
Montgomery was among several legislators who asked Tomann why the Legislature should reject applications supported by the farmland board.
“It’s the threshold question for anything: Do you have 50 percent of what are considered farm-grade soils?” said Tomann, who is a member of the Philipstown Planning Board and interim manager of the county’s Soil & Water Conservation District.
During a public hearing that preceded Tuesday’s full Legislature meeting, Jocelyn Apicello, a Philipstown farmer and chair of the farmland board, described its process. In addition, the owners of Lobster Hill Farm and supporters of the Big Red Barn Farm defended their eligibility.
Apicello noted that the county application to be included in the agricultural district does not mention soil types as an eligibility criteria, and that the 2007 resolution only directed that the board “consider” the eight factors.
In her five years on the board, Apicello said it has never denied an applicant based solely on soil type when applying Putnam’s eight criteria. “We did not feel as an ag board that one out of the eight was enough to deny all of the applicants,” she said.
Whipple, whose family owns Pine View Farm in Carmel, said he plans to raise Highland cattle in Philipstown. Jessica and Andrew Jarrett raise chickens, hogs and goats at Lobster Hill Farm in Brewster.
Jessica Jarrett said the farm began as a hobby but when the pandemic hit, demand exploded for her chickens and eggs. Her family bought a larger property, and the demand continues to expand, she told the Legislature on Tuesday.
Lobster Hill would benefit from agricultural district protections from some of the Town of Southeast’s zoning rules, including one that requires a minimum of 5 acres for each rooster and a limit of two birds, said Jarrett. “I have 75 acres and a flock of 200 hens,” she said. “Two roosters cannot protect 200 hens.”
Both Greg Ellner, who chairs the Physical Services Committee, and Paul Jonke, who chairs the Legislature, said the county’s guidelines gave them no choice but to vote against the applicants.
Both also said they support revisiting the 2007 resolution. “One thing that I will absolutely do going forward is review this resolution in the future to see if it needs to be modified, but today my hands are tied,” said Ellner.
The farmland board consists of six farmers and representatives from the Legislature; the Department of Planning, Development and Public Transportation; Real Property Tax Services Agency; Soil and Water Conservation District; and Cornell Cooperative Extension of Putnam County.
An Agricultural District designation is separate from the agricultural assessments that lower taxes for farmland, and exclusion from the voluntary program does not affect a farmer’s ability to operate.
In voting against the legal recognition of four Putnam County farms, Greg Ellner, who chairs the Physical Services Committee, and Paul Jonke, who chairs the Legislature, said the county’s guidelines gave them no choice but to vote against the applicants.
What an absurd thing to say. Of course they have a choice. The county guidelines are guidelines. At a time when local opportunities for youth employment, local sources for food and the preservation of choice open space have proven to be some of Putnam’s greatest assets, it is ludicrous for our Physical Services Committee to play politics with independent and legitimate farm enterprises.
Local farms are highly popular in Putnam, as they are in Westchester. Weekends find farmers markets in nearly every town that are well-attended and liked for the freshness and quality of their produce. The Legislature’s Physical Services Committee should encourage more farms, not refuse to allow them to operate.