Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFarmland Protection Strategy ELIZABETI-[ A. NEVILLE
TOWN' CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS
ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
HELD ON JANUARY 18. 2000:
RESOLVED that the .Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby adopts the
Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy as a Town Policy.
Southold Town Clerk
January 18. 2000
ELIZABETH A~ NEVILLE
TOWN CI,ERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1500
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
ALL CONCERNED
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE. TOWN CLERK
SOUTHOLD TOWN FARM AND FARMLAND PROTECTION STRATGEY
JANUARY 12. 2000
Please be advised that this "Final January 2000" copy of the Southold Town
Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy js intended to be added to the draft
copy. not to replace it.
Southold Town Farm and
Farmland Protection Strategy'
REC~IVF..D
JAN I ~ 2000
Final
January 2000
Town of Southold
Town Board
Supervisor Jean W. Cochran
Justice Louisa P. Evans
Councilman William D. Moore
Council.man Brian G. Murphy
Councilman Craig A. Richter
COuncilman John M. Romanelli
Addendum to Executive Summary
January 2000
In September of 1999, the SouthoM Town Farm and Farmland Protection
Strategy was delivered to the Town Board as a Draft for discussion purposes. The Final
report differs from the Draft in the following respects: a revised title page and an updated
list of Town Board members as of January 2000. This Addendum is intended to reflect
public input and discussion that took place after September 1999, specifically in
connection with the Roundtable Discussion.
On November. 17, 1999, Southold Town hosted a public forum or roundtable
discussion to explain and discuss this Strategy. The forum included an overview of
Goals and Objectives and a comparison of this Strategy to past and present land
preservation strategies within Southold Town. Preliminary public feedback prior to the
forum indicated that specific sections of the draft text needed clarification. Therefore, the
presentations by the Peconic Land Trust and myself were designed to provide more
information. Forthis reason, acopy ofthe presentation notes is attached.
There were a couple of critical comments directed at this Strategy. One was that
it did not pr6pose a target number of acres tO be preserved; nor did it set a target date for
those acquisitions. Another was that it did not discuss or propose certain regulatory
mechanisms such as transfer of development rights or eminent domain acquisitions. A
third was that the Town should not commit additional staff or resources to this effort.
In response, I suggest the following poims. First, agricultural land preservation
within Southold Town (as determined by popular vote, as well as by legislative policy) is
predicated on voluntary offers of the sale of development rights by landowners. While
there is a clear element of self-interest involved, the voluntary approach, at heart,
presumes an underlying collective will by individuals within the community to make
decisions in support of maintaining the character and economy of Southold Town. Given
the level of interest by property owners in preserving thek land, it appears that this
collective will is alive and kicking. Second, there presently is resistance amongst
citizenry to transferring density from agricultural land to elsewhere within the Town due
to deep concerns about loss of rural character, the potential for damage to the fragile
coastal environment and a general distrust of government. Third, imdeveloping the
Strategy, the underlying assumption was that. the Town wishes to protect most of the
unprotected acreage currently in agricultural production or support roles (about 8,000
acres). It follows then that Town leadership in forging constructive partnerships with
individual landowners to facilitate voluntary preservation and stewardship of that land is
of paramount importance. Finally, committing Town resources to this Strategy would
have the highly beneficial effect of establishing, as Town policy, a cost-effective process
and procedure that will continue to evolve in response to the changing needs of local
government and landowners.
That said, I also offer this observation. This Strategy is not and shouM not be
interpreted as the final word on the process of farm and farmland preseta,ation. As with
everything else in life, we, the people of Southold, will need to keep a close eye on our
progress by assessing the effectiveness of this strategy on an ongoing basis. If, at some
point in the future, we should find it necessary, we should not be afraid to revisit both
new and old ideas of land preservation to ascertain whether they might assist Us in
specific and significant situations. ·
In closing: the Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy appears to be supported
by key sectors of Town government, the agricultural industry and citizens. If adopted as
policy, the land acquisition process will be considerably improved, with the added perk
that both public and _private benefits of land preservation will be maximized. Further, this
Strategy has enormous potential to help us achieve our goals in a cost-effective.
affordable manner. I recommend moving forward with confidence and purpose because
the rate of change (development) is accelerating and there is much at stake.
Valerie Scopaz
Town Planner
January 11, 2000
Roundtable Discussion
on
Southold Town's Proposed
FARM AND FARMLAND PROTECTION STRATEGY
7:15 p.m.
November 17, 1999
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Brian Murphy, Councilman
OVERVIEW OF STRATEGY: GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
1N~NTORY & ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY IN
SOUTHOLD I
Marian Sumner, Director, Conservation programs, Pecordc Land
Trust
REVIEW OF PAST & PRESENT LAND PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
· Tim Caufield, Vice President, Peconic Land Trust
RECOMMENDATIONS
· Valerie Scopaz, Town of Southold
· Tim Caufield, Peconic Land Trust
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
· Brian Murphy, Councilman
0
C~
C
'6
0
0
0
-C
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
~.~'~ 0 ~0 0
0 ~
Itl
FOR IMMEDIATE RE EASE
To: Community Leaders
From: 3ean W. Cochran, Supervisor
On Wednesday, November 17th at 7::[5 PM, the Town will host a roundtable
discussion about the proposed $ou~QI¢l Town i:arm
I~otection Str~teg~,. The roundtable will be held at the Southold Town
Recreation Center on Peconic Lane. You and all interested Town residents are
invited to participate.
The purpose of this meeting is to give you the opportunity to take a closer look
at the contents of this report, to ask questions and to discuss the implementation
strategy. The feedback obtained in this meeting will be helpful to the Town
Board in its own review of the report next month. Please make every effort to
attend or to send a representative.
For your convenience, a copy of the DRAFT Executive Summary and the full
report has been delivered to each of the public libraries. Additional copies may
be obtained from the Town Clerk's office. ~
Southold Town Farm and
Farmland Protection Strategy
RECEIVED
SEP 2 8 i9~9
Soulhold Town Cler~
Draft Se.ptember, 1999
for di, cUS*ton purposes only
DRAFT
Town of Southold
Town Board
Supervisor Jean W. Cochran
Justice Louisa P. Evans
Councilwoman Alice J. Hussie
Councilman William D. Moore
Councilman Brian G. Murphy
Councilman John M. Romanelli
DRAFT
Town of Southold
Land Preservation Committee
Richard C. Ryan, Chairman
Raymond Huntington
Reed A. Jarvis, Jr.
Joseph Krukowski
Frederick A. Lee
Noreen McKenna
James H. Pim
iii
DRAFT
Southold Town Farm. and Farmland Protection Strategy
Prepared By
Peconic Land Trust
John v.H. Halsey, President
Timothy J. Caufield, Vice President
Marian P. Sumner, Director of Conservation Programs
Tiffany Liebling, Project Assistant
Kerri Searles, Project Intern
(516) 283-3195
and
Town of Southold
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Melissa Spiro, Senior Planner
John Sepenoski, Information Systems
(516) 765-1938
Steering Committee
Advisory Committee
and
~Brian Murphy
Richard Ryan
Valerie Scopaz
Marian Sumner
Joseph Gergela
Reed Jarvis, Jr.
Fred Lee
Robert Van Bourgondien
under the direction of Valerie SC opaz, Town Plan n er
DRAFT
SOUTHOLD TOWN FARM AND FARMLAND PROTECTION STRATEGY
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
A. Character of Town
B. Development Pressure
C. Need for Protection Strategy
Inventory and Analysis
A. Acreage Analysis
I Acreage in production
2. Acreage already protected
3. Acreage threatened
B. Composition of Agricultural Industry
1. Traditional Industry
2. Current Trends
3. Potential Future Trends
Page
1
10¸
I1
17
17
21
22
23
Planning Framework
A. Overview of recent and current Public strategies
B. Overview of Private and Public-Private Partnership Strategies
V. Recommendations
VI. Conclusion
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Bibliography
Inventory and Methodology
Conservation Options Brochure
$outhold Township 2000
Farmland Protection Strategy Map
25
27
36
40
DRAFT
Part I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction:
Increasing development pressures within the Town of Southold are presently
impacting the economic viability of its agricultural industry, as well as its rural character
and quality of life. In order to protect the agricultural industry and our quality of life
from the negative aspects of development, a proactive approach to preservation must be
taken now. The Town is at crossroads--it must choose whether to devote the rime and
resources necessary to implement a comprehensive protection strategy or risk losing its
agricultural industry, as well as the rural character of the Town.
The findings of this report are a direct result of focused discussions with farmers,
members of the Southold Town Agricultural Advisory and Land Preservation Advisory
committees, and organizations committed to farm and farmland preservation, such as the
Long Island Farm Bureau, the Peconic Land Trust and the North Fork Environmental
Council. This report sets forth a practical strategy for improving our present preservation
efforts. It also suggests a timeframe and administrative procedure for implementing the
strategy.
Purpose:
The threatened agricultural land base and the agricultural industry of Southold
Town are natural, economic and scenic resources that are unique, irreplaceable and
critical. As a step towards developing a comprehensive protection strategy, the following
goals and objectives were established:
Goal 1: To preserve land that is suitable for farming.
DRAFT
The objective is to make farmland preservation a viable and attractive option for
landowners (as opposed to residential development).
Goal 2: To ensure that farming remains an important part of the local economy.
The objective is to help farms and farm-related businesses remain economically viable in
the highly competitive agri-business market, and in the face of escalating residential
development.
Conclusions:
The ag~riculturat landscape is one of the most visible features of the Town's
landscape and economy. Approximately 28% of the Town's land is in active agricultural
production. However, there are many vacant properties that once were farmed, and could
be put back into production. Conservatively, more than 16% of the Town's economy is
estimated to be based on agriculture and related businesses.
Over the last twenty years, public and private efforts to conserve agricultural land
for the future have been successful in preserving over 2,400 acres of land. However, this
acreage represents less than one-fourth of the current farmland. During that same twenty-
year period, it is esthmated that the Town lost as much acreage to development as was
permanently protected.~
The analysis undertaken in this report suggests that some changes are needed if
the Town wants to meet its goals of maintaining a vibrant farm industry and preserving
farmland. ~
Recommendations:
The following strategies or actions are recommended to meet the above-
referenced goals: ..
· Identify farmland in need of protection,
DRAFT
· Reach out to owners of vulnerable parcels,
· Compile and maintain a listing of lands known to be for sale,
· Provide literature and resources on preservation options,
· Expedite the Conservation Opportunities Planning Process,
· Leverage public and private funds to the greatest extent possible,
· Encourage farm support services and farm-related businesses to thrive,
· Investigate creating a Town Agricultural Agreement Program,
· Encourage the use of Integrated Pest Management and other environmentally
friendly farming techniques,
· Streamline the regulatory process,
· Develop a stewardship program, and
· Assign responsibility for implementation of the above-referenced strategies and
actions by January 2000.
Epilogue:
In 1997, Southold Town's Supervisor, Jean W. Cochran, launched a growth
management initiative, Southold Township 2000, a copy of which is included as
Appendix C. The focus of Southold Township 2000 is to develop a series of strategic
action plans to guide Town actions in the. near future. The Southold Township 2000
program is supported by a $60,000 matching grant from the New York State Department
of State's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. This Farm an~l Famdand Protection
Strategy is a required and integral component of Southold Township 2000.
DRAFT
Part II
Introduction
A. Character of Town
The Town of Southold (the "Town") is the eastern-most township on the North
Fork of Long Island, New York, and is bordered to the west by the Town of Riverhead, to
the south by the Peconic Bay and to the north by the Long Island Sound. The Town is long
and narrow: its landmass is approximately 54 square miles in size, but stretched out over 21
linear miles. Originally, the Town developed as a series of small, discrete traditional
hamlets, including Laurel, Mattituck, Cutchogue, New Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, East
Marion and Orient, separated by expanses of agricultural land.
The Town has a unique heritage and a rich history dating back to the colonial
period. To this day, many historic structures and sites remain, providing an important
sense of place that links the Town with Native Americans, and the earliest English
settlers of the land. In addition to the numerous historical sites and landmarks, many early
farmhouses remain on working farms. These houses and the farms on which they exist are
strong conveyors of the Town's rural heritage.
The visual diversity of open farm fields, vineyards, open waters, sheltered creeks,
wetlands and woodlands, along with quaint historic hamlets make the Town tmique. This
scenic appeal has attracted and will continue to attract residents, businesses, and visitors.
Agriculture, in particular, with its bucolic fields, farmstands, wineries and tasting rooms, as
well as "u-pick" produce, is a major component of the local tourism industry.
DRAFT
B. Development Pressure
Residents and visitors to the Town enjoy and benefit from a wealth of natural
resources including farmland, sound and bay beaches, marine waters for boating, fishing
and swimming, historic sites, and scenic vistas. Thousands of years after Native
Americans first populated Long Island, and several Centuries after European settlers
arrived, the Town's fertile agricultural lands remain central to the character and economy
of the area. The sense of Southold as a rural, agricultural community is at the core of its
appeal for tourists and second homeowners. However, the high quality of life combined
with the Town's proximity to the metropolitan New York area, has resulted in continued
pressure to develop the remaining farmland. The loss of farmland not only threatens the
economic viability of agriculture; it diminishes the rural appeal of the Town thereby
threatening the Town's second home and tourism industries. Protecting a significant
percentage of the remaining acreage is critical to ma'mtaining a healthy local economy,
and the efforts of individual landowners are key to protecting this valuable resource.
Agricultural land is the most visible feature of the Town's landscape, occupying
approximately 10,232 acres of the Town's approximately 34,000 acres. In 1997, the Town
contained 22% of Suffolk County's remaining agricultural acreage, which was second only
to the Town of Riverhead's agricultural acreage. With over $250 million worth of market
value annually, .Suffolk County is New York State's leading producer of agricultural
products.2 To sustain the farming community, the Town and County have made substantial
investments in protecting the agricultural industry from development pressures since the
1970's. To date, the Town has protected 988 acres of farmland at a cost of approximately
$7.5 million and the County has protected 1,330 acres of farmland, also at a cost of
approximately $7.5 million. However, after over a decade of development rights
acquisition efforts, approximately 77% of the remaining Famlland is unprotected.
The following is more detailed discussion of keg impacts affecting farm and
-farmland:
DRAFT
· Farming Industry Shifts
The agriculture industry has undergone major changes within the past two decades.
For generations, Southold's farmers focused on potato crops, as they are well suited to the
region's sandy, yet fertile soils. Other vegetable crops and fruits were grown, but on a
smaller scale. During the 1970's, the nature of crop production changed due to a number
of factSrs including the ban on TEMIK, an effective pesticide against the Colorado potato
beetle. TEMIK was banned due to its propensity to contaminate the groundwater, which is
the Town's sole source of drinking water. Without TEMIK, potato yields and profits
plummeted. Many potato farmer,s were faced with either raising different crops, which
required learning new tilling methods and purchasing new equipment, or opting out of the
business and selling the land.
· Escalating Real Estate Market/Estate Issues
While the potato industry was in decline, real estate values were appreciating and
developers were buying farmland to subdivide. Since developers were able to sell
improved land at roughly four times their cost, they bid raw land prices up. For various
economic reasons, framers began to sell. Senior farmers with no family to continue the
tradition contemplated selling their land for retirement income and, in other instances,
heirs who inherited fanns were unable to pay the estate taxes and were forced to sell. As
a result, viable laud that had been farmed for generations was sold for development.
Given the high land prices, many farmers who needed additional acreage were forced to
either rent land or enhance productivity in order to remain profitable.
Development pressures have moved eastward in Suffolk County over the years due
to the availability and affordability of land and the desire of urban and subUrban residents
to live in a more rural, scenic and safe community. The establishment in 1992 of the Pine
Barrens Preserve in Brookhaven, Riverhead and Southampton towns resulted in
development pressure leapfi:ogging to the east. Today, a strong economy and stock market
are driving the development. Further, some of the newcomers desire large remote lots or
DRAFT
"mini famis." This trend poses a threat to commercial farming because farmers are forced
to compete with residential buyers for large lots. Again, there is a significant disparity in
purchasing ability between farmers and non-farm buyers who are willing to pay higher
prices for vacant land.
· Tourism Industry Impact
As the tourism/recreation industry has become a significant part of the Town's
economy, it has increased development pressures through a demand for more second
homes and related services. However, to sustain the tourism industry., care must be taken
to protect a significant part of the environmental base on which it heavily relies:
agriculture.
Regional Development Impact
The Town is also being impacted by the intensification of development within the
adjacent Town of R/verhead. The Tanger Mall shopping outlet arid Splish Splash Theme
Park have brought hundreds of thousands of visitors annually to the North Fork: In the
near future, the Town will also be impacted by the re-development of the former
Grumman/US Navy property in Calverton. The site has the potential of generating
thousands of direct and indirect jobs. The Town's already threatened agricultural lands are
likely to be impacted by development pressure to create more residential subdivisions for
employee housing.
Per the Town's Draft 1999 Local Waterfront Revitalization l?lan, "if the Town were
to continue growing at an average of 14.5 percent [per decade] as it has since the 1950s; if
two-acre zoning were to remain in effect; and if no additional land were protected from
development; the Town could expect to reach saturation population in less than 40 years".
Given the heightened development pressures, without proactive conservation efforts,
saturation could be reached even sooner.
DRAFT
C. Need for Protection Strategy
Development pressures are infringing upon the viability of the agricultural industry,
as well as the overall quality of life within the Town.
Since the mid-1950's, the percentage of land in farm use has been declining to the
point where the total acreage in non-agricultural uses is now far greater than the total in
agricultural use. Approximately 28% of Southold's total land area is in agricultural land
use compared with 30% in residential land use. (The remaining land area is used as
follows: 2% in commerciak/industriat use; 18% is vacant land; 11% in recreational
use/open space use; 6% in transportation use (roads, etc.); 4% in institutional use (e.g.
schools); and less than 1% in utilities and waste handling use)?
Privately owned and managed farmland generates far more in local tax revenues
than it costs in local services. It requires few public sen, ices unlike residential uses which
require schools, public safety'(police and fire protection), infrastructure, etc. According to a
national study by the American Farmland Trust, the median cost to provide public services
per $1.00 of revenue raised is only $0.31 for farm uses while it is $1.11 for residential uses.
4 Therefore, saving farmland saves taxpayer dollars.
DRAFT
Not only is residential development draining on the Town's tax base, it has also
created a variety o£problems for the farming community including:
· developers bidding land prices beyond what farmers can afford;
· increased complaints about farm-related activity i.e. chemical spraying;
smells, noise, dust, slow-moving equipment on roadways, etc;
· crop loss from trespass and stormwater m-off from developments;
· physical barriers to equipment moving from field to field;
· competition for water supply; and,
· the loss of necessary farm-related businesses.
While the Town has attempted to address some of these issues with its Farmland
Bill of Rights and the State has tried with its Agricultural District program, problems still
exist.
Federal and state tax policies also complicate the effort to preserve farmland.
Belie¥ing that their only choices are to sell their land now or let their heirs deal with it
and the tax consequences in the future, many landowners are unwittingly sacrificing their
land, as well as their equity in it. Many landowners can benefit substantially from a better
understanding of the range of options available to them with respect to the future use,
ownership, and management of their land.
As stated earlier, the agricultural land-base is shrinking. For Southold to retain its
rural heritage, a proactive, long-term strategy for farm and farmland-protection must be
adopted and implemented now. ~
9
DRAFT
Part III
AGRICULTURAL LAND INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
In order to develop an informed, proactive farm and farmland protection strategy, a
comprehensive inventory (the "Inventory") was taken of the remaining agricultural lands
within the Town. The Inventory provides baseline data for the Town's use in its future
planning and farmland protecnon efforts.
A. Acreage Analysis
In the spring of 1998, the Town of Southold's Planning Department prepared a
preliminary estimate of agricultural land based on aerial photographs and field
inspections. The 1998 inventory identified approximately 6,253 acres of active farmland
and an additional 811 acres of fallow land totaling 7,064 acres. At the Town's request,
the Peconic Land Trust undertook a more comprehensive analysis of the agricultural land
inventory in May of 1999. (The methodology and inventory results are detailed in
Appendix A).
The revised Inventory identified 488 parcels considered to be in agricultural use,
totaling 10,232 acres. Of this total acreage, 7,466 acres are actively fanned, 1,490 acres
are considered fallow or resting, and 1,276 acres are associated :support land.
In an effort to better understand the characteristics of the land included in the
agricultural land inventory and to define appropriate strategies for protection, the parcels
were grouped and analyzed into the following categories: Acreage in Production,
Acreage Protected, and Acreage Thre'atened.
10
DRAFT
1. Acreage in Production
Acreage by Crop
Approximately 7,466 acres of active farmland, 1,490 acres of fallow land and
1,276 acres of support land were identified'. The inventory classifies the active farmland
intoeleven categories--960 acres grain; 1,632 acres vegetable (including pumpkins and
sweet corn); 188 acres fruit/orchard/berries; 665 acres sod; 675 acres nursery; 161 acres
greenhouse; 856 acres potato; 353 acres field corn; 1,733 acres vineyard; 156 acres
horse farm/pasture; and, 88 acres Christmas trees. The following chart depicts the
farmland acreage:
Active Farmland Crop Ac*eages
1000'
6(3O
Grain Veg~able Fruits Sod Nurse~, Greenhs. Fallow P~ato FleEI Cern V'meyard Hoeles X-mas Tr.
Vegetable and Vineyard uses represent the highest percentage of crops grown in
o
the Town at 18 ¼ each; fallow land represents 17%, grain 11%, potato crops I0% and the
remaining uses represent less than 10% each.
I1
DRAFT
Crop Distribution
Crop distribution was analyzed in order to identify current agricultural trends and
determine the degree of crop diversity within the industry.
Grain is cultivated in all of the hamlets
except East Marion. Yet, only three of
the hamlets, Laurel, Mattituck, and
Cutchogue, contribute 70% of the grain
grown in the Town of Southold.
Vegetables, found in every hamlet,
are more evenly distributed. However.
Orient, has the most with 27% o£the
total vegetable acreage.
Fruit, orchard, and berries are
found in five of the seven
hamlets. Cutchogue contributes
84% of the total fruit, orchard, and
berry acreage.
12
DRAFT
In the Sod category, Cutchogue
contains 69% of the total acreage with
Southold and Peconic equally
contributing the remaining acreage.
Laurel and Cutchogue are the
main producers of Nursery
stock with 28% and 37%,
respectively.
Greenhouses, identified in all
the hamlets except Orient, are
located mainly in Laurel (21%),
Mattimck (21%), and Cutchogue (36%).
DRAFT
Half of the total Potato acreage is
grown in Cutchogue. Mattituck,
with 37%, is the only other major potato
producing hamlet.
31%
Field corn, grown in four of the seven
hamlets, is located mainly in
Mattimck (55%) and Cutchogue (35%).
Vineyard is fairly evenly distributed
among its main producing hamlets;
Mattituck comprises 23%, Cutchogue
30%, Peconic 30%, and Southold 16%.
14
DRAFT
Horse and animal farms/pastures
are found mainly in Mattituck (46%)
and Cutchogue (24%).
Christmas tree farms are found in
only three hamlets, Mattituck (19%),
Cutchogue (37%), and Southold (44%).
Approximately 87% of the Fallow land
is located within Mattituck, Cutchogue,
Peconic, and Southold.
DRAFT
Hamlet Composition
Hamlet composition was analyzed in order to determine the remaining farmland
acreage per hamlet and the degree of crop diversity within each hamlet, as well as to
identify any prominent industry preferences.
Orient consists of 742 acres of farmland and fallow land. Vegetables are the
dominant crop totaling approximately 436 acres. Fallow land is also prevalent, making
up 185 acres. East Marion also has a high proportion of vegetables with 82 of the total
96 farm acres devoted to that crop. Ail categories are represented in Southold's 1,434
agricultural acres, but the acreage is comprised mainly of four crops: vineyard (271
acres), vegetable (252 acres), grain (123), and nursery (124). It should also be noted that
fallow land makes up 360 of these acres. Peeonic's 1,242 agricultural acreage is
comprised primarily of vineyard (519 acres). The other predominate crops are:
vegetable (278), grain (110) and sod (106); fallow land comprises 190 acres. Cutchogue
has the most famdand of all the hamlets (2,939 acres) and each agricultural category is
represented. However, vineyard, sod, potato, and fallow make up most of this acreage
with 527, 461,432, and 351 acres, respectively. In Mattituck, all categories except sod
6OO
Farm Acreage Usa Par Locallt~
100
I6
DRAFT
were identified within its 2,077 acres of farmland. Of note are: 409 fallow acres; 392
vineyard acres; 315 potato acres; 288 vegetable acres; 233 grain acres and 183 field corn
acres. Laurel's 485 acres of farmland is comprised mostly of grain (200 acres) and
nursery (190 acres).
2. Acreage Already Protected
There are two types of farmland protection: public and private. The public sector
has permanently protected farmland through the County and Town Purchase of
Development Rights programs ("PDR"). As a function of the To~vn's clustered
subdivision open space requirements, additional acreage has been protected. The private
sector has also protected farmland through limited development projects and conservation
easements held by private conservation organizations.
The inventory shows that approximately 2,318 acres out of a total 10,232 acres of
-farmland are permanently protected by PDR. Approximately 113 additional acres are
protected by subdivision open space requirerhents and private conservation efforts. This
means that 24% o'f the total agricultural land in the Town is currently protected by these
conservation efforts, leaving 76% unprotected and, therefore, vulnerable to conversion
from agricultural production.
3. Acreage Threatened
There are several criteria that can be used to identify land threatened by
development. We have identified the following:
- Land not Protected by PubIic or Private Conservation Programs
- Land with Pending Subdivision Applications
- Land not Enrolled in State Agricultural Programs
- Land Owned by Non-Residents
- Laud Owned by Seniors
- Fallow Land
DRAFT
Land not Protected by Public or Private Conservation Programs
Land is vulnerable to development if is not permanently protected by public PDR or
private conservation efforts. Of the 10,232 acres of total farmland, 2,431 acres are
protected. This means that a total of 7,801 acres or about 76% of the land is not protected
through PDR's, easements or subdivision open space and are considered vulnerable to
conversion at this time. While the Town has a subdivision cluster provision which would
theoretically protect 50% of the current farmland acreage, there are no certainties that the
subdivided lands would remain in active farm use (especially given the di£ficulties in
maintaining viable farm operations in proximity to residential clusters).
Land with Pending Subdivision Applications
Development is an immediate threat to .land with pending subdivision applications.
Currently, nine parcels totaling 329 acres are in this category (see Inventory for details).
Land not Enrolled in the Agricultural Programs
Other levels of threat include parcels that are not enrolled in agricultural programs;
non-participation in such programs could indicate that farmland may soon be converted
to non-farm use. On the other hand, participation in such programs may indicate an
intent to continue agricultural production, at least for the short-term.
Landowners may enroll their property in New York State's Agricultural District
Program (the "District") and/or apply for an Agricultural Assessment. By enrolling their
land in the District, landowners are eligible for agricultural assessments and to receive
certain statutory protections against possible complaints made by residents about
necessary agricultural processes i.e. plowing, irrigation, spraying, etc. The total acreage
enrolled in the current District, which is an 8-year program expiring in 2003, is
approximately 5,255 acres. Of the acreage enrolled, 4,586 acres are in active agricultural
DRAFT
use; the remaining acreage is considered support land. (This number more than doubles
the total acreage enrolled in the previous 8-year District o£ approximately 2,800 acres.)
Landowners not enrolled in a District are eligible for agricultural assessment
through the State's Individual Commitment Program. Presently, the Town has a total of
840 acres in individual commitments. As with the District enrollment, individual
commitments run for eight years, but each year, the eight-year commitment is renewed.
Properties currently enrolled in the Individual Commitment Program can be converted to
the existing District when it is renewed in 2003.
In order to obtain tax reductions, landowners must apply for an Agricultural
Assessment annually and can realize property tax reductions of approximately 80% on
average. To qualify, the land must be at least ten acres in size and must be actively
farmed for at least two years with gross sales o£$10,000 annually. I£the acreage is part
of a larger farm operation that meets these standards, it may qualify even though it is less
than ten acres. Alternatively, fewer than ten acres of actively farmed land are eligible if
gross ar~ual sales exceed $50,000 for at least two years. Application for an agricultural
assessment is submitted to the Town Assessor prior tO the taxable status date of March
1st.
Landowners receiving tax benefits under this program are penalized for
converting t~om farming to other land uses. The penalty for converting:land is equal to
five times the taxes saved in the last year plus 6% :interest per year, compounded annually
for each year the agricultural assessment was granted (not exceeding 5 years).
Of the 10,232 agricultural acres, 4,089 acres or 40% are not within the District
nor are they enrolled in any kind of tax program. Those who own this acreage either
have made a conscious decision not to participate in such programs or they are unaware
of the programs and their benefits. In either case, these farmland acres are under a
greater threat of conversion than those enrolled in agricultural assessment programs.
19
DRAFT
Note: After eight years in the Agricultural District Program, the landowner is flee to
convert the farmland without penalty. So, while the farmland enrolled in an agricultural
assessment program may be indicative of a short-term commitment to agriculture, the
threat of conversion still exists. In addition, if the .difference in tax assessments between
participating and non-participating acreage is not substantial, the penalty may not be
significant enough to deter conversion. Also, as the penalty is not imposed until the land
is physically altered, land could be subdivided (but not built upon) without triggehng the
conversion penalty.
Land Owned by Non-Residents
Another potential threat to conversion of agricultural land is non-resident
ownership. Non-residents tend to have fewer ties to the land. Non-resldent owners of
active farmland are receiving relatively low rental income compared to the potential
income they could receive from sale or development of the land. Hence, non-resident
owners may be more easily enticed to convert or sell their land. At present, non-resident
ownership is estimated to encompass about 30% of the total acreage.
Land Owned by Seniors
Land owned by seniors is also considered at risk. Many senior farmers may have
no younger family members interested in farming or they:may not have properly
protected the land for future generations through proper estate planning. It is not
uncommon for heirs of farmland to face staggering inheritance taxes that necessitate the
sale of all or a large part of the farm in order to realize the cash necessary to pay such
taxes.
Fallow Land.
Fallow land is at risk for impending development. The fact that land is not in active
production means that it is either being rested for a limited time or being held available
20
DRAFT
for development or sale. The Inventory identifies a high percentage--approximately
15%-- of the Town's total farmland acreage as fallow.
B. Composition of Agricultural Industry
1. Traditional Industry
For generations, Southold's farmers focused on potato crops, as they are well
suited to the re~mon's sandy, yet fertile soils. Other vegetable crops and fruits were grown,
but on a smaller scale. During the 1970s, the nature of crop production changed due to a
number of factors. These include: an increased awareness of the potential for groundwater
contamination, the rising costs of farming (labor, as well as purchasing and using
fertilizers/pesticides) and the growing competition for agricultural land.
In the late 1970s, Suffolk County's Department of-Health Services began
documenting the leaching of chemicals from fertilizers and pesticides applied to cropland.
The find'rog of TEIvlIK, an aldicarb-based pesticide in private wells near farm fields led to
an intensive well-monitoring program throughout the East End. The public health concerns
over contamination converged on the agricultural industry, forcing the reduced usage of
fertilizers and pesticides and the banning of easily leached compounds.
As a result, Integrated Pest Management GPM) programs began to be promoted
wherever possible in order to reduce the need to apply fertilizers or pesticides. However,
the ban on aldicarb negatively affected the potato industry due to the immunity of the
Colorado Potato Beetle to other available pesticides. Without aldicarb, farmers saw yields
per acre drop to the point of unprofitability. Many faro,ers were faced with either planting
different crops, which required learning new tilling methods and acquiring new equipment,
or simply opting out of the farming business. Concurrently, an oil embargo pushed up the
prices of petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides and the fuel costs of applying them.6
Today, increased development pressures present an additional obstacle to farmers,
particularly those who need substantial acreage to be profitable. Long-time local farmers
21
DRAFT
are not only losing land to developers able to pay higher prices per acre, they are also
losing land to industry newcomers such as vineyard owners whose substantial resources
allow them to pay higher prices. The high land prices also exclude entry of new,
unestablished farmers into the market.
2. Current Trends
The agricultural industry has undergone a number of changes within the last two
decades on a national level. Where once the United States was full of smaller family
farms, the shift has been to consolidation of farms into corporate enterprises. However,
the farms existing at the local level differ greatly from this national trend. The inventory
shows that farmland parcels in the Town average, roughly, 17 acres in size. Due to the
shortage of affordable land for expansion, to remain profitable, many farmers have
moved towards specialized niche markets.
Much of the existing farrnland that was devoted to potatoes has either been
converted into development or is producing alternative crops. In recent years, the most
noticeable trend is the growing number of vineyards. The conditions on the Nor*& Fork
of Long Island are very favorable to the growing of grapes due to the well-drained soil
and the climate. The concept of owning a vineyard has become increasingly popular with
affluent entrepreneurs from outside of the region. Fourteen wineries are located in the
Town and several others are in the making. The Inventory identifies approximately 18%
of active farmland as vineyard.
Another important trend is the increase of nurseries and greenhouses. Nurseries
represent approximately 8% percent and greenhouses represent 2% of the total active
farmland acreage. While these numbers are relatively small, they are rising.
Greenhouses and nurseries afford greater yield and higher profits per acre than most other
crops grown in Town. The greenhouse trend is causing much controversy within the
Town. Many residents insist that the growing number of greenhouses is destroying the
open vistas that add to the beauty and attractiveness of the Town. However, given the
DRAFT
prohibitive cost of acquiring more land, greenhouses are becoming one o£the most
profitable ways for local farmers to make a living on existing holdings. Eventually, a
compromise will need to be reached to maintain the scenic character o£the Town while
allowing for the farmers' economic survival.
Sod farming has become more prominent within the Town and now represents
nearly 7% of the active farmland. The demand for sod, however, fluctuates with the
economy and the building industry.
Other crops such as vegetables remain stable and sell on a retail and local (farm
stand) level. Vegetable crops represent about 18% of the total active farmland. Berries
and tree fruits also are a stable crop that has not fluctuated much over the years. In total,
berries and tree fi'uits represent only about 2% of the total crop grown in Town.
It should be noted that fallow land represents approximately 15 % of the 10,232
total farmland acreage.
The current trends show that farmers have diversified their crops to remain
economically viable. Traditional crops with local retail outlets remaJ_n stable, while high-
yielding and specialized niche market crops are on the rise.
3. Potential Future Trends
As development pressures increase and the value of land e~calates, we can expect
farmers to continue to diversify and strengthen their market niches in order to remain
profitable. As noted earlier, one area that is experiencing an upsurge in growth is nurseries
and greenhouse production. The trend seems to be moving toward ornamentals, which
are extremely profitable in this strong economy. However, the traditional annual flower
market seems to remain strong even in a fiat economy. As noted in the previous section,
the number of greenhouses being installed has Increased noticeably, generating complaints
from residential neighbors who had assumed that land from which development rights had
DRAFT
been purchased could not be used for any type of agricultural structure. New York State's
Agriculture and Markets Law classifies greenhouses as a farm structure, hence exempt
fora New York State building and fire codes. Unless specifically noted in the contract, the
sale of development rights does not preclude a fro'met from installing greenhouses integral
to the farm-related business operation.
This situation is presently the subject of concentrated effort by the Town's Code
Committee, the Town Attorney, the 'Town's Agricultural Advisory Commit[ee, the
Planning Board and Planning staff to reach a compromise on proposed regulations for the
siting and screening of greenhouses. Tkis dialogue is illustrative of the difficulties the
Town faces in maintaining a balance between the needs of its agricultural industry in a
changing economy and the expectations of its residents, and second homeowners. At the
heart of this dilemma lies the fact that the very demand for open space vistas and traditional
farms by residents is forcing farmers to maximize production on the remaining land by
shifting from traditional crops to greenhouse production which can take place year-round.
Another trend that is likely to continue as the economy thrives, is vineyard
development. Vineyards represent a long-term investment in plant stock, as opposed to
the annual planting and harvesting of other crops. There are several years (and
significant financial investment) between planting and harvest. Many vineyards have
built wineries from which to manufacture and distribute their wines. These wineries have
become a significant tourist attraction in their own right.
The strong tourism/recreation industry also fuels the.profitability of local farm
stands, and hence, the growing of "truck crop" vegetables and berries will likely
continue.
Due to environmental concerns and the growing need for further ground water
protection, another likely increase will be in the production of organic produce and-
Community Supported Agriculture, as well as the overall increase of Integrated Pest
Management ([PM) systems in all aspects of farming to reduce the use of pesticides.7
DRAFT
Part IV
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
There is a significant history of farm and farmland protection within Southold
Town. As will be explained below, there are several methods whereby land is currently
being preserved. However, as also will be shown, these methods alone are not sufficient
to achieve the degree of protection that the Town wishes to attain.
A. Overview of recent and current Public strategies
Suffolk County and the Town have demonstrated a strong commitment to
preserving farm and farmland through a combination of purchase of development fights
programs, local zoning measures and matching funding.
Purchase of Development Rights
The County's purchase of development rights program has been in existence since
1974 and is responsible for the preservation of approximately 1,330 acres cf farmland
within the Town at a cost of approximately $7.5 million. Most recently, in November
1998, voters authorized a County bond issuance of $62-million-for conservation efforts.
Of this, $20 million is earmarked for farmland preservation within Suffolk County.
Since 1983, with the passage of its first local bond act to acquire the development
rights to farmland, the Town has spent approximately $7.5 million to purchase the rights
to more than 988 acres of prime agricultural land within the Town. Bond issues were
approved in 1983, 1987, 1994, 1996, 1997 and 1999.
Additional land protection measures were enacted when the Peconic Bay Region
Community Preservation Act (the "Act") was signed into law on June 22, 1998. This
DRAFT
legislation created a mechanism whereby the Town was able to establish a preservation
fund financed solely by revenue~ from a real estate tmns£er tax. The Act required the
development of the Community Preservation Project Plan ("CPPP"). The CPPP
identifies the properties the Town wishes to protect. It also describes many alternative
mechanisms the Town can use in cooperation with landowners to accomplish its goals. It
should be noted that properties listed are not prioritized and that landowners whose
properties are listed must voluntarily request acquisition by the Town under this program.
Town Zoning
Agricultural-Conservation
In the 1980's, the Town adopted a new zoning classification to identify and help
protect prime soils--Agricultural-Conservation (A-C). A-C is an important part of the
code in that it contains some restrictions against wholesale conversion of contiguous
areas of pr/me farmland to residential use. However, these restrictions have limited
impact as will be discussed in the next paragraph.
Cluster Development
The Clustering requirement encourages flexibility and innovation in residential
development design~ which would not necessarily be achiexredby_adhering Io. traditional
zoning and subdivision regulations. Clustering is required on lots of 10 or more acres in
the A-C, R40, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R400 Districts. The Town's codes require that
at least 50% of the land be preserved from development. Depending on the shape of the
lot and the subdivision layout, clustering can result in large contiguous areas of open
space or farmland. .
Properly used, clustering can result in preservation of fattnland. However, given
the average acreage of most farms in Town (17 acres) and the fact that many fa~,a lots are
shaped like elongated rectangles, it is very difficult to design a clustered subdivision that
also preserves a block of agricultural land that remains economically viable to farm.
DRAFT
Further, instead of limiting development, cluster zoning merely compacts it into restricted
Farmland Bill of Rights
The Farmland Bill of Rights was introduced into the Zoning Code in May of 1997
in order to protect farmers who were operating within applicable laws, from undue
interference from residents (e.g. complaints about farm-related activity including
chemical spraying, smells, noise, dust, etc.) As discussed earlier, while the bill provides
for advance notice to buyers of property adjacent to farmed land. and some legal
protection, farmers are still inundated with complaints.
Matching Funding
Since 1997, the Town's Land Preservation Advisory Committee has successfully
teveraged Town funds (acquired from the bond referendums) to obtain matching federal
and state funds dedicated for farmland preservation.
B. Overview of Private and Public-Private Partnership Strategies
In recent years, there has been a significant change in the Town's approach to
land preservation. Instead of relying on zoning and subdivision cluster techniques to
preserve farm acreage, the Town has been open to-establishing cooperative partnerships
with land conservation organizations and property owners.
Specifically, the Town Board, the Land Preservation Committee and the Planning
Board have worked closely with landowners on farmland preservation. The Peconic
Land Trust has helped to facilitate these efforts. This partnership has been very effective
in a number of projects whereby a purchase of development rights was combined with
limited (reduced-density) development and private conservation easements. This
DRAFT
approach has effectively leveraged the Town's limited financial resources so that more
land is preserved or protected at less cost to the Town.
The Town also has supported the Conservation Opportunities Planning process
(COP) whereby the Trust works with landowners on behalf of the Town. The goals of
COP are: 1) to make landowners aware of public and private conservation tools and
techniques that may be useful by providing them with a range of options that meets dual
goals: economic and environmental; 2) to provide landowners with basic information
about their land (soils, topography, natural features, etc.) so that they can make informed
decisions; and, 3) to define areas that may be suitable for public or private conservation,
Conservation tools can be blended together to create the greatest benefit for the
landowner. One example of a successful blending of public acquisition programs with
private conservation techniques resulted in the protection of prime agricultural acreage in
Mattituck. In this instance, the owner of 77 acres worked with Peconic Land Trust and a
local surveyor to design a limited development plan that provided the means for his
family to realize the equity they required from their property, while preserving the land's
most significant athibutes. More specifically, the Town purchased the development
fights to 34 acres of farmland adjacent to a 30-acre parcel of vineyard already protected
by a purchase of a development rights program. As a result, the integrity of a significant
agricultural unit remained intact, and scenic, agricultural views of the area were not
affected. The plan provided the following:
1. The sale of development rights on:the agricuttural~land to the municipality,
2. The donation ora conservation easement to the Peconic'Land Trust, with
potential charitable gift benefits, due to the reduction of development potential
on the balance of the property from 20 units to 6 units,
3: The sale of restricted farmland to an adjacent landowner,
4. The creation of 6residential sites of five acres each, and
5. The donation of 13 acres of land to the Peconic Land Trust for park purposes.
In the final analysis, this conservation effort was a "win-win" on all levels. The
landowner felt that the plan was financially and environmentally superior to full yield
development pl~n.q in that it met the family's investment goals while also protecting the
rural landscape of the area~ The Town was able to protect important farmland and to
significantly reduce density on the property.
The partuership strategy expands the preservation options of landowners and the
Town alike. A variety of land preservation options are available to owners by using one
or more conservation tools. TheSe are listed and described briefly below:
· Conservation Easements,
· Pm-chase of De~zelopment Rights,
· Transfer of Development Rights,
· Tax-Exempt Installment Sale,
29
DRAFT
· Bargain Sale,
· Like-Kind Exchange,
· Limited Development Plans,
· Family Limited Partnership,
· Charitable Remainder Trust, and
· Land Donation.
Conservation Easement
A Conservation Easement is a voluntary agreement between a landowner and a
charitable conservation organization or the Town to restrict the use of land in perpetuity.
This flexible tool protects land while leaving it in private ownership and can make a
critical difference in a family's ability to pass land from one generation to the next. It can
be very useful when used in combination with other tools. As such, easements convey a
portion of a property owner's "bundle of rights" to a qualified recipient. For example, an
easement may restrict land or a portion thereof from subdivision, construction, or other
alterations to the property in a specified manner. Such restrictions may protect sigrfificant
natural, agricultural, and/or historical features of the property.
Advantages to the landowner:.
1. The landowner retains ownership of the land and may continue to live on
it, sell it, or pass it on to heirs.
2. The easement is flexible and can be written to meet the particular needs of
landowner while protecting the property's resources.
The donation of a conservation easement is a tax-deductible charitable gift,
provided that the easement is perpetual and is donated "exclusively for
conservation purposes" to a qualified organiyation or Town.. The value
of the gift is equal to the difference between the fair market value of the land
before and after the imposition of the,easement restrictions:as determined
by a qualified appraiser. The before value is based on the potential
development yield and the after value is based on a conservation easement
plan that illustrates the open area and the development hrea.
An easement can significantly lower estate taxes--sometimes making the
difference between the ability of the heirs to keep land in the family and their
need to sell it. In addition, easements may provide the landowner with
property tax benefits since the assessed value of the land may be decreased.
Conservation easements do not permit public access. The public has no more
right to trespass on land covered by an easement than on any other private
property, unless the owner is willing to pemiit such access.
DRAFT
Note: Post-Mortem Election
In instances where comprehensive estate planning has not occurred, recent
changes in the IRS code, Section 2031C, allow the executor or beneficiaries of an
estate to donate a conservation easement within nine months after the landowner's
death, thereby reducing the potential estate tax liability.
Purchase of Development Rights
A development right is one of a property owner's "bundle of rights"; the one that
allows the construction of a residence on the property. Both the Town and Suffolk
County have Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) programs designed to protect
£arrnIand. Through these programs, landowners voluntarily agree to sell all or a portion
of their development fights to the govenunent. The landowner retains ownership of the
remainder of fights, which enable him/her to farm, to sell, and to pass the land on to
heirs.
Advantages to the landowner:
1. The landowner retains ownership of the land, and may continue to live on it,
farm it, sell it, or pass it on to heirs.
2. The landowner is paid for the development rights.
The sale of development fights can significantly lower estate taxes on the land
itself. However, the proceeds from the sale will be included in the
landowner's gross estate, unless spent. Also, the landowner may be subject to
capital gains tax.
4. The real estate tax assessment of the property is generally reduced.
Selling Development Rights
Since PDR programs are voluntary, participation in such programs is initiated by
a letter from the landowner to the Town or County expressing interest in selling
development rights. Assuming that there are funds available to purchase the
development rights and that the land fulfills the criteria of the program, the
municipality will order an appraisal of the development rights. Once the appraisal
is completed, an offer is made to the landowner. If there is agreement on the
purchase price, then a closing will be scheduled and the transaction will be
completed.
DRAFT
Tax-Exempt Installment Sale
Landowners who sell development rights or land are often confronted with a
capital gains tax that claims up to one-third of the sales price, depending on the owner's
basis. In September, t996, Governor Pataki signed into New York State Legislation a
law that provides landowners with some relief from capital gains tax through a tax-
exempt installment sale.
A tax-exempt installment sale is a long-term contract (up to 30 years) to
sell development rights or land to a municipality. During the contract period, tax-
exempt interest on the unpaid sales price is paid on a semiannual basis, with a
portion of the sales price paid each year until the end of the term. As such, both
the receipt of the sales price and payment of any capital gains tax are deferred. It
is important to note that, should the landowner want to realize ail of the sales
price prior to the end of the term, the installment-purchase contract itself can be
sold by the landowner or his/her heirs to municipal bond investors.
Advantages to the Landowner:
1. The landowner can spread the proceeds of the sale of development rights
or land over a number of years.
2. The landowner can receive tax-exempt interest at a more favorable rate by
deferring ire receipt of the sales price over time.
3. The payment of the capital gains tax can be deferred over as much as 30 years.
4. If inheritance tax is paid during the term of the installment sale, the heirs will
benefit ~om an increased basis.
5. The owner or the heirs may also sell the contract for cash.
Bargain Sale
A bargain sale is a conveyance of development rights Or land to a charitable
conservation organization or municipality at less than its fair market value. For the
conservation organization and the municipality, a bargain sale results in a savings of
limited acquisition funds.
Advantages to the Landowner:
The difference between the land's fair market value as determined by a
qualified appraisal and its bargain sale price is a charitable donation for the
landowner.
DRAFT
2. A bargain sale combines the income-producing benefit of a sale with the tax-
reducing benefit of a donation.
Like-Kind Exchange flRC 1031)
A like-kind exchange is a tax-free transaction in which a landowner's property is
exchanged for other qualified, like-kind property. Such an exchange can be fulfilled
through a sale of land or development rights'as long as the exchange property is
identified within 45 days after the sale of the initial property; the proceeds of the sale are
reinvested in qualified business or investment property and the actual closing takes place
within 180 days after the sale of the initial property.
Advantages to the landowner:
1. Landowners can defer capita[ gains tax on the sale of appreciated property
including development rights.
2. Landowners can use the gross proceeds of g sale to acquire additional land.
Limited Development
Limited development is the subdivision of land on a reduced-density basis in a
manne) that is both economically rewarding to the landowner and ecologically sensitive
to the land. It integrates the unique elements of an individual property (e.g. agricultural
soils, natural features) with the landowner's goals (e.g. estate planning, financial
objectives) and the real estate market of the local area to create an alternative to
traditional development.
Advantages to the landowner:
1. The recognition of the landownexqs right and need to make gainful use of the
land.
2. The ability to blend property sales with charitable gifts to offset potential
capital gains tax.
3. Regulatory agencies often expedite approvals on limited development plans
given the reduction in density.
4. Road improvements and other infrastructure costs are greatly reduced with
limited development.
DRAFT
Family Limited Partnership
A family limited partnership is a form of ownership that can be used to facilitate
the transfer of land and other assets from one generation to another. Depending upon
restrictions within the parmership agreement, the value of the land by the family limited
partnership can be discounted by as much as 25%-35% for estate tax purposes.
Advantages to the landowner:
1. The landowner, as general partner, retains control over the land.
If structured properly, assets held by the family limited partnership can be
discounted in value thereby enabling more of the assets to be conveyed to the
next generation, especially through the use of the unified credit and annual
exclusions ($10,000/recipienV/year).
Charitable Remainder Trust
A Charitable Remainder Trust is a mechanism through which a landowner can
achieve a stream of income during his/her hfetime or other specified time period by
donating an asset (cash, securities, land, etc.) for the benefit of a charitable organization.
The Charitable Remainder Trust manages the investment of the asset with the income
being distributed to the landowner donor. Upon the death of the landowner, the principal
is transferred to the charitable organization.
Advantages to the landowner:
If the asset donated to the charitable remainder trust is highly appreciated,
the proceeds of its sale will not be subject to capital gain tax and the income
distributed to the landowner will be based upon its full value.
2. The landowner realizes a charitable deduction, for~the donation ofthe asset to
the charitable remainder trust based on actuarial tables.
3. The assets donated are removed from the donor's estate thereby reducing tax
liability. ~
Land Donation
Under special circumstances, a landowner may want to consider an outfight
donation of land. Land donated to a conservation organization or Town may represent an
excellent legacy for future generations. Communities across the country are enjoying
nature preserves, recreation areas, and other open ~'pace today because of the foresight
and generosity of landowners who have made gifts of appropriate portions of their
holdings.
DRAFT
Advantages to the landowner:
1. The transaction is relatively simple and can be accomplished through a
conveyance by deed.
2. The donation may provide a substantial income tax deduction to the
landowner based on the fair market value of the land as determined by a
qualified appraisal.
3. The capital gains tax and real estate commission are avoided.
4. The value of the land is removed from the land0wner's estate thereby
reducing future estate taxes.
5. If the land donated is of significant conserv'ation valuel it wilt be
permanently protected.
Note: Some landowners prefer to continue to own and control their land during their
lifetimes, transferring the land by will at the time of death. While the donor receives no
income tax benefit from the gift and continues to be liable for property taxes, removing
the value of the property from the estate could significantly reduce estate taxes.
Although there has been a growing and highly successful use of the public/private
conservation strategies described above, they are not as well known as they should be.
Each of these strategies relies on the voluntary initiative and cooperation of the private
property owner. However, there is only limited community outreach and no coordinated
and ongoing education effort on the Town's part.
~5
DRAFT
Part V
RECOMMENDATIONS
The analysis found that while the Town has made progress in farmland
preservation, more than 76%of its agriculturaq acreage still is not protected from
conversion to residential development. In order for the Town to meet its goals of
preser¥ing farmland and maintaining a viable agricultural industry, it calmer rely on the
standard methods it has employed over the last two decades.
In general, the Town should first assume responsibility to make greater use of
partnership efforts in order to leverage its limited financial resources more effectively.
Second, it should exert greater leadership and take a more proactive role in coordinating
the public/private partnership efforts. Third, it should'maintain an.ongoing dialogue with
property owners about the financially viable and attractive options for fanning and
fmmland preservation. The following recommendations define a strategy to accomplish
these goals:
Identify critical farmland in need of protection
Identify contiguous'tracts of farmland that should be conserved in order to
maintain the viability of the industry and project adjoining, open vistas.
The Town should send literature (e.g. the attached Conservation Options
brochure) and/or meet with landowners in these corridors to explain programs and
determine interest.
Reach out to owners of vulnerable parcels
The Town should adopt a systematic, outreach program directed at owners of '
vulnerable familand parcels---unprotected properties. Owners of land within the
critical corridor areas should be a priority. Recommended steps include:
36
DRAFT
Contacting subdivision applicants to discuss conservation options and
limited development as potential components of pending development
plans.
Contacting owners of parcels not enrolled in the Agricultural District or
Agricultural Assessment Program to encourage participation.
Contacting non-resident landowners to identify potential sellers or donors
of development rights.
Contacting Senior owners and encourage participation in a Town-
sponsored estate planning seminar.
Contacting owners of fallow land to identify potential sellers or donors of
development rights.
Compile and maintain a listing of known lands for sale
Such a list should be created from the outreach described above and added to as
additional lands are identified. The list should be reviewed by the Town for
potential PDR participation and could be shared with farmers wishing to expand
or with farmers trying to enter tile market.
Provide easily accessible literature and resources on preservation options
The Town should provide landowners with easy access to the attached
Conservation Options brochure and any other relevant literature i.e. NYS
Agricultural Districts information, as welt as access to a knowledgeable person to
answer questions and/or meet with tandownem The Town should also sponsor a
series of free workshops'to explain the benefits of conservation options to
landowners. Workshop speakers could include estate planners, farmers who have
participated in the PDR program, representatives of conservation organizations,
etc. To do a more effective job of marketing these various public and private
conservation tools and techniques, an Options pamphlet was created and is
attached (Appendix B).
37
DRAFT
Expedite the Conservation Opportunities Planning (COP) Process
The COP Process is a valuable toot for the Town to help encourage landowners to
participate in conservation planning it provides landowners with a better
understanding of their land and their options while assisting the Town to identify
those portions of one's property that should be protected. It is also a valuable tool
for potentially leveraging funds through the public-private partnerships. If limited
development becomes a component of a conservation plan, the Town should
consider an expedited subdivision approval process, especially if the overall
density of the property is reduced by 755/0 or more through the sate or donation of
development fights. Expediting both the PDR acquisition process and the
approval process for limited development plans would provide greater incentives.
to landowners to voluntarily protect significant portions of their land and would
enhance the credibility of the land protection options.
Optimum use of the COP requires use of computer generated mapping
capabilities, which the Town possesses. In order to make maximum use ofthis
resource, however, the Town should continue to enhance the capabilities of its
Geographical Information System through the addition of staff, continued
training, updated sof~ware and expanded database development.
Leverage funds to the greatest extent possible
The Town should continue to be proactive in seeking Federal, State and County
grant funds to leverage Town funds, as welt as in actively supporting legislation
to enhance Federal, State and County funding programs. In'addition, the Town
should continue to forge public-private partnerships to leverage funds. As
mentioned above, partnerships, which can lead to leveraging fimds, can be
identified through the COP process, as well as through regular contact with local
conservation organizations, etc.
DRAFT
· Encourage farm support services and farm-related businesses to thrive
Retaining farming and its related businesses is good economic development
policy. Local land use and other policies should be examined to ensure that they
are not hindering these businesses; the Town should also investigate potential
incentives to encourage such businesses.
In addition; the Town should continue to support reasonable retail farming
initiatives and should consider conducting a proactive marketing campaign to
foster agri-tourism. By helping to make farming more profitable, farmers will
'want to continue farming and to expand farm operations within the Town.
Investigate creating a Town Agricultural Agreement Program
While the State has an Agricultural District Program, approximately 40% of the
farmland acreage is not enrolled in that program. By creating a Town
Agricultural Agreement Program with a shorter term, additional parcels may
become enrolled. Other Towns have implemented their own districts with various
enrollment terms and tax benefits (e.g. enrollment on an annual basis and tax
reduction of 50%). For landowners who do not want to participate in the eight-
year State program, a Town program that reduces property taxes on farmland may
provide a way to encourage landowners to hold land in farming, albeit for a
shorter term.
Encourage the use of IPM and environmentally friendly techniqUes.
By encouraging the use of more environmentally compatible farming techniques,
complaints about farm nuisances and drinking water conta~hination will be
curbed. The Town should consider incentives for green farming and support
Federal and State legislation for such incentives.
Streamline the regu!atory process.
By reducing burdensome regulatorY procedures, farmers should be able to
accomplish their objectives more easily. The Town should initiate discussions
DRAFT
with local farmrepresentatives to find out what procedures are perceived as
cumbersome and examine local policy to simplify the process.
Develop a Stewardship Program.
Work with the farm industry to determine effective ways to ensure the wise,
ongoing use of preserved farmland in accordance with the aims for which public
and private resources were committed.
Assign responsibility, for implementation of the-above referenced Strategies
and actions by January 2000.
The analysis of information gathered in this report clearly indicates that any
reasonable preservation goal set by the Town Board will require careful
professional oversight. With approximately 7,800 acres of farmland at risk, even
a modestly successful program over the course of the next five to ten years will
require a coordinated capital investment in the tens of millions of dollars.
Implementation of an effective preservation plan wkich minimizes the cost to the
Town and maximizes preservation efforts will clearly require a commitment of
staff and sufficient budgeted resources. A dedicated Land Preservation Program
Coordinator could knit together the greatest level of achievement of all of the
recommendations included in this report and ensure proper administration with
Town government,
Conclusion
The Town's agricultural resources are unique and irreplaceable. They
form the basis of the ToWn's aesthetic and economic character. The underlying
premise of this report and these recommendations is that the Town will have to
maximize all available public and private resources in order to accomplish its dual
goals of preserving farmland and maintaining a viable aga-icultural industry. It
also is clear that implementation of the recommendations will require a
commitment of administrative resources along with a more proactive policy of
4O
DRAFT
preservation and stewardship. And, finally, there is recognition that it is not
enough to create parmerships with private landowners and other entities to effect
preservation of prime farmland--the Town must take responsibility to exert
ongoing care or stewardship to ensure that the land remains in productive
farming, lest our individual and collective aims of conservation be thwarted.
ENDNOTES
~ Vaterie Scopaz, Town Ptanner, Town o[ Southold.
2 Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Document. Valerie Scopaz, Town Plarmer, Town of -
Southold, 1998/I999.
s Suffolk County's Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy (draft, April
1999). *Data includes F~shers Island and Plum Island
4 From studies conducted by the American Farmland Trust.
5 Information from the Town Assessor and Planning Depa~ tment.
s Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Document.
7 This section was completed by interviews with CornelI Cooperative Extension.
41
App '
endlx A
Ill,
Appendix B
Appendix C
A2q INVEST[vENT FOR TI-tX FUTLTdS:
A PROPOSAL FOR SOUTHOLD TOW~-N: 1997-I999
PROPOSAL:
To desi~zn, adopt and implement a series of straregc actions which
would identify specific goals to be achieved, describe ~eciffc actions
to be taken and recormmend specific potic~es to ~de ~e Tow:~'s
economic development and land use.
GOALS:
To position the Town to constractively manage anticipated gow%, while
simultaneously preservin$ its unique character and en~irom-nent.
To adopt clear, unambi~zous ~idelines, policies and procedures ~o ~aide the
various Boards and Depa uuents responsible for overseeing applications for
development.
To develop efficient, timely and cost-effective ways for the various Boards
and Departments to make decisions in accordance with established
~idel/nes, policies and procedures.
Yo protect for the future, the Town's unique, irrepiaceable and critical
resources: natural, scenic, economic~ architectural, cultural and historic.
To more fully implement the vision articulated in the t985 Master Plan
Update.
OBJECTIVES:
To accomodate growth and change witlfin the Town wkhout destroying
the following attributes:
~ the traditional economic base of fm'~ffng, marinme trades
fisheries, and tourism,
the superlative natural environment on which that base rests,
the unique character and way of Life that defines the
To adop~ an effective governmental operating and manaaement sn-a~e~
wid-zin the nexz t-~'o years
Appendix D
Methodology
In May of 1999, at the request of the Town, the Trust began a six week farmland
inventory. The Town's Planning Department prepared a rough estimate of the inventory
of agricultural land in the Spring of 1998. The 1998 inventory, based on aerial
photo~aphs and field inspections, identified approximately 6,253 aCres of active
farmland and an additional 8t 1 acres of fallow land.
To further these efforts, the Trust undertook a more comprehensive analysis of the
ag~cukuraI land inventor' by conducting extensive field inspections. The land was
observed to determine the type of planted crop, as well as the acreage of a~tive land,
support land and fallow land. Wherever possible, a farmer or owner was interviewed.
Through the Trust's analysis, 488 parcels were identified totaling 10,232 acres of which
7,466 acres were identified as active farmland, 1,490 as fallow and 1,276 as support land.
The identified parcels were cross-referenced with:
Information from the Town Assessor's Office to identify parcel enrollment in
the NYS Agricultural District and participation in the Agricultural
Assessment;
Updated records from the Town and County's Planning Departments to
identify parcels protected through public and private conservation efforts; and,
Information fiom the Town's Planning Department to identify pending
subdivision applications.
The completed inventory was provided to the Town's Division of Information
Systems to be digitized for new GIS maps.
Assumptions
While conducting the inventory certain assumptions were made for recording purposes:
The Fallow category includes land that was obviously farmed atlone time or land that
could easily be farmed with minor clearing of the area. This includes overgrown
land, some cover crop, and/or low growth trees/shrubbery (but not woodland).
Support land acreage was determined by the amount of land that accompanied an
active crop and' served the purpose of support, such as roads, agricultural structures,
open space to make farming purposes easier i.e. to separate different crops, provide a
road buffer, etc.
[n order to place into a category, land that was observed as being newty plowed
and/or planted was classified as vegetable unless other~vise specified by an available
farmer or owner.
This inventory does not account for double cropping.
While identifying greenhouse acreage, physical glass or plastic ~tructures, as well as
stock placed outside a greenhouse (having been grown in the structure) was included.
It is also important to note that on many of the green~, ouse parcels, owners or workers
were available for interview and the inventory reftects their information.
The nursery acreage is inclusive of stock still in ground and stock removed from the
ground and balled or containered for sale. It should be noted that greenhouse and
nursery coincide on several parcels.
Regarding corn, per the suggestion of Cornell Cooperative Extension, we
differentiated between sweet corn and field corn. Sweet corn was included in the
vegetable category while field corn was placed in a category by itself. Field corn was
identified by its quantity and planting in distinct rows of the same height, whereas,
sweet corn was generally in smaller quantities, not necessarily in rows segments of
differing heights and, very often, located in the same field with other crops.
There are four parcels that were identified as participating in th~ NYS Agricultural
District or Assessment Program, but that were unobserved due to their inaccessible
locations and for which crop type could not be identified from the aerial photographs.
These parcels are tax map numbers: 66-2-4 (.5 acres), 66-2-5 (.5 acres), 75-4-30 (1.8
acres), 83-2-13.6 (2.9 acres), 94-3-4.1 (10.1 acres), and 12141-1.6 (5 acres).
It should be noted that grains are often used as resting crops for potatoes and not as a
crop in and of itself; field corn, at times falls into this category, as well. Hence, the
potato crop may be under estimated overtime due to crop rotation.
The few farm parcels noted in New Suffolk were included within the hamlet of
Cutchogue for the purposes of the pie charts and graphs.
American Farmland Trust. Saving American Farmland WhatWorks. No,hampton, MA:
AFT, 1997.
Bowers. Deborah and Daniels. Tom. Holding Our Ground. Washington, D.C.:Island
Press. 1997.
Cornelt Cooperative Extension. Personal Interviews with Dale Mayer and William
Sanok. June, July, August 1999.
Daniels. Tom. When Cia, o.~d CounrO Collide. Washington~ D.C.: Island Press 1999.
Ferradmo & Associates, Inc., Hutton Associates. [nc.. and Cotfila Associates. Inc.
The Draft Scenic Sourhold Corridor Management Plan, 1998.
Kelley, Nancy Nagle (Editor). Blueprint for Our Future: Creating Jobs, Preserve the
Environ ment. The Report to Governor Marlo Cuomo by The East End Economic
& Environmental Task Force of Long Island. New York. New York: Newmarket
Press. 1994.
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. Agricultural Districts. Circular
1150-Article 25AA, November. 1992.
Peconic Land Trust and Town of Southampton Farmland Committee and Department.
of Land Management. Town qf Southampton Strategy for Farm and Farmland
Protection, 1998.
Russell, Scott. Town Assessor-Personal and telephone interviews. June, July, August
1999.
Scnpaz, Valerie. Town of Southold Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan,
1998/1999.
Suffolk County Planning Department. Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply
Management Strategy" Draft, April 1999
Suffolk County Planning Department. Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan -
the Economy of Agriculture, April 1996.
Town of Southold. Community ?reservation Project Plan, 1998.