Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFGEIS Vol. II,~?. ~? Fin~ Genedc Envkoment~ ~pact ~ ~ Statement SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Volume H of H Appendices F-I AUGUST 2003 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS APPENDIX F TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING Town Board July 15, 2003 · · · · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO~NBOA~D COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SO UTHO L D PUBLIC HEARING In the Matter of, THE DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT of SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIV~ IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York July 15, 2003 8:00 p.m. Board Members Present : JOSHUA Y. HORTON, Supervisor THOM3kS H. WICF/~AM, Councilman JOHN M. ROMANELLI, Councilman LOUISA EVANS, JusTice/Councilwoman WILLIA/M D. MOORE, Councilman CRAIG A. RICHTER, Councilman GREGORY F. YAF3%BOSKI, Town Attorney ELIZA~BETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk COLrRT REPORTING A~D TP~n/~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Public nearing I will offer the floor to members of the public that would like to address the Town Board to input and comment on the DGEIS. We've done this before, bun I'll introduce these folks. Starting from my left is Patrick Cleary, Chick Voorhis, Valerie Scopaz and Melissa Spiro, all of whom have which have worked with the Town Board in compiling the information and doing the technical work to comprise the DGEIS. So we']l again offer the floor anybody from the public that would care to address the Town Board to provide input on DGEIS. Yes, sir. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, name is Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting with offices zn Main Street, Bridgehampton. I'm here representing various property owners, farmers who will be affected by the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy if adopted. I'm also a resident of mhe town. I'm here in opposition of the Town and it is my belief that the plan should be rejected. Generally speaking, ~ find the study to be grossly unfair. I finG it fraught with error. I believe z[ will resui~ in a significant loss of equit~ to farmers an~ effective stakeholders and that those effects will be great enough to Se felt around the town with respect to the socioeconomic character of the town. I find significant contradictions throughout the s5udy. ~md the main areas of objection include your rural -- proposed rural incentive district, which purports to buy sime for properties in the AC zone to purchase development rights or to transfer development rights also in the towr~. I also object to the agricultural overla~' district and ehe proposal to upzone to five acres. I question whe~er the TDR ~s all workable from the standpoint cr the mechanics involved, the equ±cies ani aisc COURT REPORTING A~ID TR3~NSCRIPTION SERVICE ~631) 878-804~ 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the impacts to those folks that will be located in what's termed "receiving areas." I don't believe that the study is necessary in light of the preservation efforts that have been going on. And I feel that it is skewed in such a manner that will create undue fear among folks who are not knowledgeable as to the land use processes in this town. I'm going to go through some specific statements in the impact statement. I'm going to try to be brief, and I want to start with the statement on residential land use history, which is found at Page 2-36, which speaks about the general land use patterns characteristic of historic developmenu trends and states at the end of the final paragraph that it was not until the latter part of the last century when the town saw its first typical tract subdivision, and these tracts were generally limited to areas around the perimeter of the hamlets. It is, I believe, a true statement, an undeniable statement, that most of the development that you have seen within the past ten years have occurred within proximity of the existing hamlets, and that the development pressure in the subdivision process within what we call the farmland areas have been extraordinarily limited. I object to statements that occur on the following pages that say the traditional second homes apparently driving this real estate boom, that these new second home structures typified by very large dwellings often in excess of eight to ten thousand square feet in size, I challenge you to find homes of that size that are going up in chis town. There clearly are not. Large homes in this town are less than half that size, and we don't typically see the swimming pools and tennis courts that go with them. It is my belief that those statements are more characteristic of other areas in the east end of Long Island, specifically the town of East Hampton and eastern Southampton Town. That is simply an incorrect snatement. I note that when we speak of the! COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 F-1 2.3 F-2 2.3 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 loss of farmland, that your studies state that ~n the 35 year period, 16 percent of the tqw~'s farmland resources was lost. without getting into whether I believe that's an accurate statement or not, I would note that that is not a large loss. You're going back to early 1968 in the early days of zoning where you didn't have the land use controls that you have today, and when you average that out over the period from then till now, !e's a very small increase. The fact is that yc~ don't see a lot of agricultural subdivisions in this town. In my own practxce, we'-.,e done several, we're working on three now, and never done a subdivision that met full ~'ield. Yet, when we get to the build-out anal~-s]s, we're going to find that it is base~ on ever%' available piece of land being subdivided au the maximum extent permitted by zoning. That type of analysis from our point of view Is completely fictitious because it doesn't take into account a number of factors thau guide the development of this towr~. The assumptions that follow are equally questionable. Because, for example, when you speak of developed non-subdiv~dable property, and you speak of vacant non-subdividable property, and you look au parcels that are to be full7' developed, ~ou base that analysis only on the area of the land. And the reality is that a subdivision of land, in order for it to be approve~ as of right, has to comply not only with the area requirements but also Gimensiona] requirements. I show you just a couple of basic pictures, so that you can understand what I'm speaking about {indicating graphl . Consider properties that are long and narrow, we call them bowling alley lots. They are prolific along the North Road, and to see these all you have to look at a tax map. if you considere~ a lo5 that's 20 acres in size that has a width of 250, many of them have widths that are muck narrower than that, this stud~' and th~s analysis would purport 5o snow ~'ou that could be divi~ed zn n~s manner, creauzng F-3 9.1 COURT REPORTING ~ TR3~ISCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 875-804? · · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this case eight lots, using your 0.4 yield factor, but the reality is this can't be · created, why? Because the lot depth would be insufficient. And a whole host of properties that you see out there fall under this characteristic. So to use analysis solely dependant upon area, ignoring the dimensional and the geometry of the site, is not a fair analysis. When you consider this, you will see that the numbers and the projections you've made are all high. In fact, in every analysis presented in here, every single assumption pushes the number higher. That causes undue fear, and I feel that that type of analysis is unwarranted, particularly given your land use capability, your DGEIS capabilities which is throughout discussed in this document. The second example would be a flag lot, say up by the Long Island Sound. You have many of those. That flag lot might be five acres. From your analysis, that would suggest that you could create two parcels on it. But the reality is, you can't because you have the flag pole portion of it that would gobble up a significant area of land. This type of situation is not something the planning board has the authority to approve. The final scenario is just a simple rectangular lot with four acres with road frontage that could be subdivided in half; however, there's a house already sitting on it, and to subdivide it in half, one would have to remove the house. I challenge you to show me any examples where that has actually occurred. Again, by ignoring these types of physical features, what happens in your analysis is that you artificially increase the number of lots that can be created, thereby skewing the debate. The other central problems with this involve statements throughout that appear to contradict themselves. On the one hand, you regard your acquisition programs, whether it be purchase of development rights, fee acquisition, even conservasion subdivision plans as something that's uncertain and that F-4 4·.3 COURT REPORTING AND TPJ{NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 will somehow cease ~o happen tomorrow or by adoption of the plan or upon lack of adoption of the plan. Yet throughout this you also sa~' that the town, for example on Page 3 7, is continue to purchase development rights for land preservation programs, and when you g~ into your regional assessment models, you reenforce that position; you reenforce position over and over again. But, you talk about acquisition the future as being uncertain. You tell us that there are key funding options availaDle 5o the Town, but you leave them out of your' analysis. I submit to you that there is also another gross error that deals with the recent guidance issue that was issued bT' Vito Hunan of the health department, which is described in this document 5o say that under Art~cie of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, ian~ that is farmed is not permitted to be counted towards yield. That's a false statement. If that were true, you realize there would be no subdivision of farmland, and we wouldn'5 be here tonight. What that memo speaks to ~s a clustering approach that's implemented by the Count~,, for example, if you had a hundred acre parcel, but you're in a two acre zone. Let's sa}' for the sake of argument you were to cluster it down, without public water could conceivably get your 45 lo[~ or so; rna5 would be approved as-of-right, through the ~ealth department, even 5hough 5he hunGred acres is farm. If you had public water thai number of houses would be doubled Decause ~'ou could go to a half acre. The guidance memo, as [ understand it, was written in response to a specific case in Riverhead where the zoning was such high density the land was farmed and the resu±ting clusters resulted in lot sizes that were so small as not to be permitted by 5he sanitary code. But in this zoning environment here Southold, the rec~uirements of the sanftary code relative zo deductions on farmland simply don't apply because the zoning in place more limiting than the memoranaum that believe is relied upon in that stasement. F-5 4.7 COO-RT REPORTING DiN-D TPJtNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 The basic objection to all of this is that you're taking land from someone, you're basically taking -- you're selecting out a relatively few people in the town, and you're telling them that it's their responsibility to provide for the open space needs of the town. You say that when you do that that there is really not a significant impact on land values; you say a reduction in allowable density from two to five acre yield may affect property of one-quarter to one-third of the land, and it's my understanding that that relates to an opinion given by Gary Taylor who's president of Rogers and Taylor, a real estate appraisal firm. And the statement was made, as I understand it, not in contemplation of clustering. So when you went from a two acre standard to a five acre standard, what apparently wasn't understood, was once that happens you then. cluster back to a one acre standard. When that happens, I think I believe it was Mr. Taylor's impression that you would simply create five acre standard lots. And that is simply not the intent here. So these assumptions of value that you put in here to say that these lands will not be significantly impacted, I believe is clearly made in error and should be corrected. What follows from there is an opinion based on a fellow named Robert Egerton, which is a very, very misleading opinion which reads: "The most significant aspect of farmland preservation to a lender would be the use restrictions that would affect the value of the collateral. The sale of development rights is such a program, Farm Credit has had experience for several years financing land in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Long Island and Pennsylvania where development rights have been sold. In Lancaster County, PeDJasylvania approximately 25 percent of the land mortgaged to Farm Credit had some type of use restriction. Based upon our experience I can offer the following, that borrowing against land wizh restrictions on use is very common, in facE, encouraged as a vcluntarilQ, program. As a lender, we would be very F-6 7.1 F-7 7.1 COURT REPORTING AND TR3kNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 concerned about the confiscation of rights without due compensation. With the use restrictions, the maximum loan would be reduced commensurate with the agriculture± use only. This is not a problem, however, because loans are made in relationship to the earnings capacity to repay the loan. On agricultural land with high values resulting growth, alternative demand, the size of the loan will be limited to the earnings generated from The land long before the total value is reached. Lower land values based upon agricultural use only would result in smaller loans with no offsetting affect on the earnings potent±aL that land. This would likely enhance the farmer's repayment ability. You must understand that this double talk. It's double talk because wha~ they're saying is when you impose these restrictions and you devalue the land, won't be a problem to the lending institution because they're going to lend less mone~, thereby allowing the pa?ment to occur. That is precisely to the equity argument. And there is in your files a second study which was a study of the economic impact of land use regulasions cn 5he business of farming in Maryland. This one was prepared by Legg Mason Realty Group, Inc. Now, unfortunately in your files the final pages are missing. But what the group concludes that the ability to repay a farm loan is the key to the financzal institutions making of the loans to a farmer. This conclusion is confirmed in this case oy L~RG Research; however, the situation ~s not always clear as is implied by 5hat finding. In those instances where the ability to repay is marginal to the value of the land and its liquidity could result in a go o~ no go decision by the lender. The value can also be important where the borrower plans to use such funds to facilitate modest development of the property. The study notes tha~ the lenders provide loans that present a fa=r marnet value, while a percent loan -;aries wi~h [he institution and the farmer's abiiiu? t~ pa7, the fair market value provides the unaeriT,lng COURT REPORTING AAID TR3%NSCRIPTION SERVICE ~631) $78-804r · · · · · · · 1 2 3 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 28 basis of the loan. Since the market of the land is a function of its potential use, restricting the potential use negatively affects fair market values. ~-nd it goes on 5o show how these values can be affected. A~%d, if the goal here is truly to preserve agricultural, why would you bootstrap the farmer's ability to borrow money, particularly when the borrowing of money is what makes agriculture vital in this town. You've said over and over again in, this study that if not for agricultural we wouldn't be the place that we are. That agricultural is open space amenities provides the value elsewhere. Yet, zhe same zoning mechanism seeks to strip the farmer of his equicy, reducing his borrowing power so that he can no longer hold on to his farm. In some cases -- not all cases -- but eventually, every farmer, if you look through these studies that one time or another finds himself in a position zo be borrowing money. It could be for the construction o~ a greenhouse, operations, it could be for construction of a barn. So your policies will likely hamper farming thereby undermining the very purpose of your zoning regulations. I would suggest to you that when that happens, you will see a significant socioeconomic impact. And while the arguments that are made here relative to SEQP~A essentially say we don't have to really discuss economics unless the socioeconomic character is affected, if you consider putting farmers out of business because of your restrictive zoning policies and those farmers going out of business are the very same people that create this environment, well, I suggest to you that you must do a real fiscal analysis of farming operations and how this regulation will affect those operations. And I suggest to you to do otherwise will make your side deficient in any event. The question of TDRs, we've never known them to work. I've done an awful lot of business in the Town of Southampton over the years. We know they've had a TDR program for several decades. To cur knowledge only two F-8 7.1 F-9 4.2 coLrRT REPORTING D/gD TP~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 parcels have actually been transferred under that program. I think what you're going to find when you get to this transfer of development concept, that you're going to create such community conflict you'll wish you never proposed it. Because it's not just the sending areas, those people that are going to be stripped of their rights on their own !and that are affected, it's also going to be the receiving areas. Those people in the hamlets, where you have had ~he most development in fill lots are gomng 5o see yet greater denslt7' to offset the impacts caused by what is essentially the sterilization in the AC belt. You're going to finG if ~-ou enact t~at kind of proposal that it's going to cause tremendous community conflict, and I you no~ even to go in that directmon. Fundamentally the build-out analysis, the whole direction that ~his takes it's as if it was done in a vacuum because what it ignores are all the things that have been going on, particularly funding-wise, repeatedly states that the available fundmng is uncertain, and you need tb~s upzone, and you need to strip the £armers of their rights, and you need to transfer development, ~'ou need to do all of these things because you believe that at any time all acquisition processes will stop. Well, I've heard you hire~ a lawyer to negotiate acquisitions toda~ . I suspect if I came to every meeting I woui~ hear similar resolutions passed. Essentiall? %here is no indication that an%' of [his _s going to stop. In fact, the indzcaticn is quite the opposite. If you look at your exzsn~ng program to purchase development righes, you have at your disposal approximately $12 million. You have a $1.3 million grant already approved, of which you collected apparently $600,000. You have a two percent community preser%~ation fund, which can only be spent for the acquisim~on cf properties or transfer; that's all mt can be used ~r except for minor expenses involved ~n the administration of t~at process, cappe~ a[ ~en F-10 4.3 COURT REPORTI~;G ~;D TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE !631) ~75 8C47 · · · · · 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 percent, which should never be realized. It should never take ten percent of that money to effect the transaction. If you consider that last year you collected some $3.6 million through this fund, and you consider the fact that that fund has now been extended to year 2020, under present development pressures, which is causing all this, you can anticipate $57.6 million. How much farmland could 56 -- $57.6 million purchase? Quite a bit. On top of that, what you haven't considered are what other towns are considering right now, and that is that because 5he money stream has been relatively stable, there are lending institutions, major lending institutions, that would float bonds for the amount that you're expected to collect, which means you could actually get that money up front. There is no discussion in this as an alternative as to how that might be done. Yet, we all know it's legally permissible. It takes a little bit of creative financing, and it's completely absent in your study. If it were present and if that were shown to be a viable alternative, what would be the point of adopting such a study to hurt these farmers that created the environment you love so much? You kill the goose that laid the golden egg it would appear. This is really bad thinking. It's short-sighted, and if you go down this road my guess is that you'll do much more harm than good. Basically, faced with continually restricted zoning it discourages the farmers from farming, actually it makes them -- they get to a point where they say, beck with it, sell it, I've had enough. You are pushing' people to that level, and it is apparent to me that in drafting this up, you spent very little time, if any, really talking to the farmers. You seem disinterested as to their own economic situations. You've completely stepped -- avoided how they finance zheir operations, ongoing year after year and don't forget you have good years and you have bad F-11 7.1 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 25 years in the weather department. You don't show any of that in this study. You can't possibly adopt this study with the important regulations, the upzoning, your transfer of development rights, your AC zones and the rest of it, without going the extra measure to really bring in the affected people and reall'.' learn how they conduct their business. Your no-action alternanlve reads as follows: "The no-action alcernati'ze assumes that no pormion of the proposed action will take place and the status quo will prevail." Under 5tis alternative it can be projected that full build-out might be realized, 20,532 dwelling uni£s an~ tham saturation population reached 31,656. Well, we've shown you by examples like this that each and ever?' term you would ~ake every interpretation to exaggerate amount of development that would occur. skewing these numbers high. You woul~ also. by the way, by the same token, look at ~'our conse~;ation subdivisions and what's going on in terms of what people voluntarily do and lower the amount of land that's actually being preserved. So you've skewed it both wa},s, and both ways in the negative, both ways in a to hurt people that shouldn't be hurc. You, then in the next sentence, say existing land prese~ation programs w~ll continue out not indefinitely, and with no certainty as to the level of funding as individual property owner's willingness to participate in preservation efforts. That sentence appears to Connradict the sentence tha~ comes before it. ~knd under the no-action alternative, you only have these two sentences to rely upon. You simply cannot write a no-action alternative in that fashion. If you had considered the amount of money you've collected, the amount of money you have in the kitty, your ability to reach into the future and pull that money bac~ intc the present, and if you had added that to your no-action alternative, I believe each anG every one of you no matter where ~'ou stann on the issue, would conclude we don'% need shis, we don't need to hurt these people, we F-~2 3.6 COLrRT REPORTING ~krD TP~SCRIPTION SERVICE (6311 878-~04~ · · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 13 don't need to upset the character of the area,1 we don't need to upset the economy of the area. In light of these facts, I don't think you can deny them. I think a fact is a fact. I think it leaves you with two options. The first option, of course, is to simply rescind your prior resolution deeming this thing complete because it's obviously incomplete. Your second option is to say, well, we didn't think about it at the time, you're right, cause a supplemental environmental impact statement to be written that would include these factors. DO it because you want to be fair, you want to preserve the open space, you want to continue farming. You're trying to preserve the town, but you're not willing to look at the whole picture by which that preservation can occur. So, I am here to advise you, one of two things: Withdraw your prior resolution, take this thing back, work on it some more; or, two, require a supplemental that will really get into the fiscal realities of the farming operations to really get into what the development patterns have been, to really get into what the actual build-out is given the geometry of the lots, to really get into how could we amass a pot of money to solve this problem without hurting people? That is my advice. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Other comments from the floor? Mr. Meineke. Justice Evans just leaned over and made a recommendation to me, one second if you don't mind, sir. She brought something to light that I think is good as far as moving forward with the public hearing because there are so many different things that are said and things strike a nerve in some people one way or the other. And I'm going to just put this out there to you, and do with it as you may, but we will request -- perhaps we should have done this earlier -- that when people speak and they are finished, that we did not applaud and we not boo, or just to maintain a level of civility, if that's possible. It was an idea. F-13 2.~2 coLrRT REPORTING AND TR3%NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 9 ~0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 We're here together. MR. MEINE~: Thank you. My name is Howard Meineke. I'm the president of ~e North Fork Environmenta± Council. I ~iYe ±n Cutchogue. I just wanted to comment about previous speaker. You know, ~t's amazing w~a~ you can say when you don't 5ouch all 5he bases. ~ow the farms haven't been under development pressure because there's nc ~ood water under 5he farms, and when the water company brings good water, the equation clearly changes. Now, he talked about fun~ing options. Now, nobody really knows how going to work out, but we know tha~ ever~, municipality from town ~o county, t© slate ~c the federal government from here 5o California is in a red condition. And they have things they're going to fund tha~ proDa~l~ is higher on their priority list tkan lan~ prese~;ation. So to assume that there ~s ali sorts of money out there for land preservation if we 3ust ask for it, nobody really knows. but I think that's extremel}~ optimistic. He spoke to when Gary Taylor made his testimony in front of the Blue RiBBon Commission. Now I don't know whether ~e previous speaker was there, but I was, and ne started out Dy saying, when you go to fi~'e acre zoning there would be for some perio~ of time a 25 percent reduction in Yalue. Then ne spoke about the fact that this is on the ou[er perimeter of unlimited amounts of mone%' frDm Manhattan and west and that is a mosu desirable vacation area. And 5hat uhe RIB would take some land out of play, and that the fact that zoning went up to five acres as opposed to two acres, there would be less land to work with; that very quickly values would get back to where they were. Now I hear~ that. I don't know what the previous speake~ heard, but that's what I heard. He talks about land equity. the CPF, we spoke with the government gu)' from the south fork and I'm hav~ng a menual breakdown of his name -~ who said uhau uae can categorically be used to he a cre~=t F-14 10.6 F-15 4.3 F-16 7.1 F-17 7.1 COURT REPORTING ~ TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 8?8-8O47 · · · · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 back-up for land that was in trouble and that would, in other words, be money that would be a down pa,vment on either development rights or land. So ~he fact that an individual borrower might have a problem, the CPF could support tha~ loan, and then I come to worry that the farmers and the landowners and everybody, NFEC included, would like to see as much purchase of development rights as possible. Well, now, if the purchase of development rights is that desirable, it sounded that when we talked about this land equity thing, that when you give away some of your rights to land, you have given away some of your borrowing equity, now is the purchase of development rights going to sink the farmer? That's strange because the farmers are pushing that s[renuously. He talked about TDR, and made it sound as though that is in some way stealing ~o the owner. We all know that transfer of development rights pays the landowner the market rate for the rights that they transfer; so there is no loss-no foul on that one, if you can figure out a way to do it and make the community happy. And we have a history here of not being receptive to transfer of development rigkts. 'So he may very well be right that it may be a non-starter, but I think it should be a starter. I think we should be trying to work it out. I think it's important. He talked about the dollars needed for acquisition. For a long time the figure of $200 million is out there as what you would need today to buy the requisite land, and that's a big number. We were to bond that I have trouble believing that the citizens when they heard what this would do to the tax bill would accept bonding for $200 million. So I think you need a lot of money to do this, I think of speaking of $3.5 million in the community preservation fund, it sounds like a lot of money, but when you put it to development rights that are working at $30,000, $40,000 per acre, you don't buy a lot of land there, and the $200 million assumes that you did all probably some time ago, F-18 7.1 F-19 7.1 F-20 4.1 COURT REPORTING AND TP3%NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and every time you take land simultaneously, off the market, the rest of the land goes up in price, so the $200 million, reall% when s~hedule it, at some logical schedule of purchase, isn't going to be even close co what it takes to do it by purchasing it. He suggested that we hadn't talked to 5he farmers. There was a SlX month Blue Ribbon Commission when we talked to the farmers for six months, and there were times when it wasn't easy. So we did that. do. I think at this point we should accept the report, and I think we should act on and I think we should pass the conse~/at~on upzoning par5 of it; that is the most important part. I believe that the Plann~ng Department has said there's things ~n 5ne pipeline that are not living up to the one resident per ten or 15 acres uhau has been advertised for past performance. We w~!l get that if we don'5 do the upzoning now. I think we should follow that on. I think the ~ransfer cf develcpment r~ghts, albeit it's complicated and albeit it's been demonized from past discussions, is ve~t important, and it ~s a wa~' uo get the rest of the houses off the farms, and that that's the procedure I [hink we shomld go forward with, and I would support the Town Boards for doing just that. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank Mr. Meineke. Yes, sir. MR. STP~TTON: Hello, my name's John Stratton from Cutchogue. We met before, Josh. I don't represent an}' special interest group here. I just want to state a fact that I think a lot of people who think like me, who just don't show up for these meetings, and I like the first speaker who spoke. I think a lot of people like tnau speaker who don't agree with something, obviously the report must be flawed or the} F-21 10.1 COLrRT REPORTING ~ TP~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 acre zoning as the only possible way to go at this stage of the game. I don't see -- if somebody can come up with a better plan and make it viable, then I'm all for it. I don't want to see any farmers hurt, I really don't, especially the small farmers. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of small farmers left. I mean most of the farms out here, what do we really farm out here, we farm flowers, we farm grass; we have sod grass, grapes for wine. There aren't too many road farmers really left who grow crops. Nobody really wants to see them hurt, but according to everything that I've read, and all zhe people I've heard speak, that if we upzone, if they do get hurt, it's going to be for a very short period of time. If they get the rural incentive districts, they're not going to lose any equity, you know, to borrow. I'm more concerned about like the big farmers. The big vineyards, Pindar, people like that. There's this one farmer who, I think Gristina, was just selling out. He bought it for five million a few years ago and he's selling it for seven million and ke's going down to -- buying a villa in Italy or something. It's true. He's buying a villa in Italy. Now this person's been in this to~ for three years. You wonder how much he really cares about the town. You know, I've only been here a few years, and I don't pretend to be a local, but these people who buy, we have vineyards that are owned by movie directors or movie studios out west. We have a Chilean consortium that owns one of the vineyards. Do these people really care what happens when business goes bad? They're just going to sell the property. They don't care if condos go up. They don't care if houses go up. Like I said, I don't want to see anybody get hurt, but there are certain advantages to five acre zoning for most of the population. Obviously, taxes are going to stay lower. Less houses means less people, means less pressure on the school district. You know i~ costs each kid, it costs about 10 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1S 19 20 21 22 23 25 or $15,000 to put him through school each year. If you have four acres on a 20 acre piece of property as opposed to hen houses. you could assume Ehere's going to be less children, less taxes. Also, eve~,body talks about these McMansions, everybody's worried about somebody building these big, huge houses. I don't have a problem with these big, huge houses. They go ahead and Ehey spend a lot of money, and they pay a lot of taxes. Generall>- speaking, 5bey're out here just for the summer, weekend houses. They don't use ant' services. You know, they're using local landscapers. They're buying sod from Ene same sod farms. Generally people living in million dollar houses aren't drinking Pabs~ Blue Ribbon. They're out buying wine. this is good all around. I don't understand why everybody's got this aversion Eo quote/unquote these McMansions. I think it's a good thing. People want to go ahead and pun money into this to~ and not use any ser~?ices, think we should encourage that. Like I said before, I don't wane to see anybody hurt. I'd love Eo be able ~o see us do this in a voluntary wa~', but it doesn't seem to be working. Nobody seems be jumping on board. It would make me feel a lot better if I could see all the big landowners -- I think the biggest landowner in this town is Pindar -- I'd love to see these people be the first on line to say, ~'eah, I'm going to sell my development righ[s. I'm going to take the first step. Same thing with the nurseries and the sod farms. As far as people with - like that don't farm, that just have open land. These are land speculators. You know, just because you boughE 15 and 20 acres years ago~ doesn't give you the inalienable right nc make a huge, huge profit on it. It's a stock market. You're a speculator. You're talking a chance. You went ahead, and if I puE my mone~' in the stock market in '85, I made a lot of mcne~'. If I put m}' moneQ~ in the stock market zn I lost a lo~ of mone~'. It's the nature of COURT REPORTING AND TP3~NSCRIPTIO~I SERVICE (63!, 878-B04~ · · · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 game. You know, you win some, you lose some. Even those people, if they've had that land for two, three or four years with the rising prices of land, I don't think they're going to lose a penny either. In conclusion, I don't want anybody to get hurt and hopefully you guys can work together and think of something that wouldn't hurt either side and the farmers are happy with. But minus an agreement that everybody can come to terms with, I think you have no choice but to go ahead for the good of the community to enact the five acre zoning. It seems like that's the biggest contentious point of this report. That's about it. I hope you guys can work something out. Thank you very much for your time. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Rooney. MR. ROONEY: John Rooney from Southold. thunder. he said. This man just stole all of my agree with just about everything What I wanted to basically say, I'd like to add a few things, but I speak to Josh and John particularly, please, please, you guys, please don't let this get politicized. I have a tot of respect for both of you. Please don't let them do it. I also, I see Tom Wickham's family has been here for centuries, and I see the pained expression on his face sometimes when people talk about upzoning, and it bothers me to see that because I have a lot of respect for him, and he's done a lot for this town. On the other hand, in hearing and trying to listen to all of this, I look at this DGEIS, I even took out -- I didn't read the entire DGEIS. I couldn't get it out of the library. I sat in the library last Saturday. I worked on the internet at home, and I also looked at the local waterfront revitalization program, another three volume tome that came out recently. Valerie Scopaz, who to me is a consummate professional on this s~uff, has been working on this stuff for 15 years and when you look through that, you see many of F-22 10.1 coLrRT REPORTING B_ND TR3~$CRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 the same things -- this has been a fifteen year study -- says many of 5he same things 'that the DGEIS is saying. So clearly, issues are there. I don't think -- people have claimed there's some errors here and there, that may or may not be. I wish we could have had a dialogue here where zhe people on the committee could have responded to some of the objections, not to make gE into a free-for-all debate but rather to get some real education back and forth but I guess way in which it was done just doesn't allgw for chat. Bun going for the upzoning Goes appear 5o be the way to go. However, £ also feel because the farmers, if there is an~ ~lnd of hiE, I think it would be probabl~- temporary, but on the other hanS, we also m~ss do everything to go along with that, everything that we can 5o ease chat pain, no make it palatable to the people who dc grow the crops because I agree without viable farming what's the point. A~d so things like TDE, uhe RID, purchase of development rights, I think the rest of the taxpayers have to be able E~ share a load too. A/id while none of us enjo}' paying taxes, we have co come up with creamive ways of helping people understand thac purchasing also has to be a big part of it. We also have to come up with new ways to create in this town and in ~he east end -- I'm involved with S~E E-D S, wnzc~ is very much related Eo farming as well as transportation, but it's also aOoun a regional approach. It talks about consensus. Chris Baiz was up here the other night talking about -- ne and I may not see eye-to-eye on everything, b~n we're both on that, and we talked about the word "consensus" as he said ac one of the prior hearings. But we've got to come up with ways to encourage people to buy local. They cannon go and buy vegetables that aren't grown out here if aE all possible. I don't want to sound corn~-, but it's got co be ~one. The town has Es do something ~o encourage agrlcu_[ural markets. T~ere was and article in ~ewsda~- )'esuerda] F-23 10.1 F-24 10.1 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTIGN SERVICE (631; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 and it talked about a lot of the people out here, on the Terrys or the Lathams out east who have stayed according to that article because of this. We got to encourage not just going into Manhattan to sell, but doing it righ5 here. We got to go to IGA and King Kullen and say, hey, put in the local potatoes and the local vegetables. Don't buy French or california or German or Italian wine, only buy Long Island wine. Create an aura. The seafood, the same thing. We've got to get our ow~ people, even if it means spending a few extra pennies or bucks, you're going to get quality, you're going to support the local economy and the local farmer. We have to give the local farmer support, absolutely. And the town should t~l to regionally as well as town-wide come up with creative ways to do ~hat. Because if we do go to five acre, there is going to be some hurt. Well, we have to compensaze. Everybody has to play a part. There's no single bad guy here. We've all polluted the environment. Everybody who has an lawn probably, unless they have been totally organic, has put down some kind of chemicals. Everybody who drives has two and three cars per house. Every time we drive over to IGA instead of ~rying to walk and take a bike, we are creating oil and it runs off into the estuary, and the farmers of course, yes, they too have been polluting for years. It's unnecessary -- unfortunately been necessary. That's changing. But we've all done our part. So nobody is the good guy in the White hat, and nobody is the single bad guy. So, again, I go back to the guy who just spoke before me. I think he spoke beautifully. ~_nd I think that what he was saying: Stay calm, study all of this stuff, do what we have to do but do it where we are all participating. Everybody's going to pay a price because we are all going to benefit, and that's the key, okay. And once again, especially, John and Josh, but to ever/body, try to keep it as apolitical as possible. I don't want to sound naive, but, please, do that. It's your responsibility to all of us, CO~/RT REPORTING ~ TP3~NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ £5 22 and we're ail in this together. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Wlpf. MR. WIPF: I'm Alex Wipf. Z m president of Save Open Spaces Now, and I'm from Cutchogue. I've lived here 34 years off and on. I've been trying to figure out a way to kind of accommodaze a lot of 5he different currents that have been out there. both the five acre currents and the people want to preserve farmland without doing anything. And I'm wondering if anybody has thought about this construct that I'm going to throw out there, and that's why -- I've been also talking to Valerie and Melanie. I'~re been impressed by the way the moratorium has worked. And I think we've learned some things from the moratorium. One of the things that we've learned from the moratorium is that four and-a-half acre or a 75 percenu preservation component is not going to stop the development of AC farmland. It's going continue, and, if I'm not mistaken I read Bill Edwards' conunents on Montgomery County, Maryland last week, and he said they tried five acre as an interim step, and he dldn't effectively stop the development of farmland. And my organization is primarily interested in not lessening density on farmland but stopping the development on farmland. So I've come up with kind of a construct, and I wonder wha~ you think abouu it. What happens if we upzone all land to R-200, which is five acres, wzth the exception of AC farmland. Then we put a long-term, temporary building moratorium on all AC farmland say for a period of five years. Now, the exemption to that moratorIum might be anybody that might want to get into the farming business. And we could have a committee of farmers who would take a look an it, and we could set, oh, if this land didn'~ have a house on it, we could say, we would permin one dwelling per 20 acres, per 25 acres, whatever, you could get a farmer's commimtee to decide w~at woul~ be uhe most appropriate buildings. It cculd also F-25 3.7 COURT REPORTING ~;D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ~631} 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 23 establish a grace period for farms that do not have AC designation -- and there are aome out there -- they could apply for AC designation and farms that had AC land that was no longer viable could apply to lose its AC designation. You would establish a building pool of buildable land that would be basically our open space land at five acre zoning, and that's virtually what we have right now. Now the interesting feature of this of a [emporary building moratorium is that farmers can still negotiate their sale of development rights based on two acres. So they don't lose the true equity value they're losing, which is -- ask Tom Wickham. He sold a piece of property last spring, or the spring before that, if it had been valued at five acres, it would have been a hell of a lot less than what he got. A_nd that's just the reality of it. If you're going to have five acre zoning, you're going to get less value for your development rights sale. Now, the Supreme Court supporta long term moratorium, I ~hink we're safe in that question -- I mean in that area. There's a basic question that everybody's been asking, and they're absolutely right: Will we have enough money to buy all those development rights? A~d the fear is -- and I don't think it's an unjustified fear -- is we probably won't. Well, if you put everything on hold for five years and still give the farmers the right to sell development rights at two acres, you'll certainly get some real clear sense by that point whether or not we're going to have enough money. It also placed a very interesting pressure on the farmer. The farmer at that point is very well aware that everything that everybody says tonight has been only kind of put on hold, but no one is going to permit the development of farmland. we as a town do not want farmland to be developed. We do not want the development business. We want the farm business. So we're not hurting the farmer actually. We're not doing any of the things that everybody's talking about would huru the COLrRT REPORTING A/~D TP~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 lq 12 13 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 farmer. We're just prolonging it for an extended period of time to see how things wor~ out. Not only that, we could spend that time getting some more money. There are sources of money that we haven't zapped yet, and I think we're going to have to do something about that. I think you'd have to make some concessions to the farmers in terms of pressuring them to sell their development rights. They haven't sold their developmena rights probably because as Doug Cooper is always saying, it's much be~ter to have them intact if you want to get your loan, the amount of money you wane to get }-our loan, you got to have your development rights in,acc, Well, if there's a passion there to say, well, look fellas, if you don't get down to selling your development rights at this point - there are also farmers, by the way who sell 5near development rights and use it as part of ~heir business plan -- the town is going in a certain direction, if you don't sell ~our development rights and we run out 9f mcnek, buy them, you know, upzoning doesn't loo~ £1ke such a bad idea. It's the pressure that it p.aces on people, and I know that most of us have been unwilling to say that ~he pressure ~f five acre upzoning has in any way generase~ the amount of properties that are in the -- you know, being bought r~gh~ now, the development rights are being bought. But believe that there's more now than there was before the whole five acre issue came up and it's a nice dynamic that you have and i~ doesn't hurt the farmers. I think that's everything I have to say about it. I can't remeng~er what else, but I'd love to have somebody comment on it. It's an idea that's just kin~ of generated -- it's not against five acre upzoning. It's for accommodating the farmers and at the same time taking care of the what's that -- taking care of uhe open space land as best we probably can. Ycu nnow. Ali right, thank you Yery much. SUPERVISOR HORTO}I: T~an~ you COURT REPORTING A/qD TR3~NSCRIPTION SERVICE 1631) 878-804? · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 25 Mr. Wipf. Yes, ma'am. MS. DOMENICI: Good evening, my name is Marie Domenici, and I live in Matti~uck. I too agree zhat the farmers should not suffer the pains of what we consider an upzoning catastrophe, if you will. But there are many people sitting in this room who will speak tonighn, many people who will not speak tonight. I feel it's important that for those of us who want to be heard that we should come up and voice our opinions because it's the silent majority that is never heard. So I want to go on record as someone who supports upzoning. We can talk aboun all nhe pros and cons of upzoning, bun at the end of the day the clock is ticking and it's working against us. Route 58 is fast growing and spreading like a cancer howard this town. We have CVS trying to buy the bowling alley. We have too much activiny going on where that insidious movement eastward will eventually take us all. Currently we have a drug chain in nhe Waldbaums shopping center and we have a drug store on Love Lane, so why do we need'a drug snore chain that really won't be happy until they've built their last building probably somewhere on Shelter Island. What do we do about the small mom and pop shops who rely on being the only game in town? Do we want no continue no support the people who live and work in this community, or do we want ~o invite big business to sneam roll us by building bigger and better to excess? This community is nhe last frontier for rural living, and we must act now to preserve our community, upzoning needs to be addressed now. We no longer have the luxury of dragging our feet. Hicksville was once a farming community as was Hunnington. What do these towns look like today? Mini-Manhattans. Thirny years ago These communities didn't think they would be working hubs, and all zraces of farming are literally F-26 10.1 COURT REPORTING AND TR3%NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-804~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 12 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 gone from that landscape today. with growth of our communlt? comes increases in town se~ices, school taxes, traffic, not [o mention that LIPA is alwa-.,s looking to find an opportunity to build a power plant in our backyard. Our community's infrastructure cannot support any more growth without taxing the existin9 community out of their ho~es. I cannot support building new schools. Our current schools will be stretched beyond capacity. When you raise taxes to support this kind of growth, you tax your middle income community out of their homes. And also there is a lot of talk about, if, ~rou know, it we upzone we become elitist; well, }'ou become elitist when you tax your middle income people right out of your community. So my thought is let's come together as a community. Let's think preservation whether we call it upzoning or a rose by any other name. We need to act now or we're already lost. Thank 5rou for }'our consideration of this matter. SUPERVISOR HORT©N: Thank Mrs. Domenici. MS. TOLL: Good evening, ~'m Cath~- Toll from Greenport. I'm going no try no[ to wander far and wide with my comments. I've sat here through several hearings. Those than I couldn't attend, I watched when they were broadcast on TV with great interest. I'm Rere for the future of the town. Some of the remarks I'd like [o make is that the -- first of all I'm speaking in support of upzoning. But more importantly, I'm speaking in support of adopting the DGEIS. That's what we're here about; not just upzoning, not putting hotels in vineyards. we're talking about adopting a document that has been researched, done in an extraordinary manner in a condensed time frame. I'd like commend the people that are sitting at the mini-dais here because I cannot believe what they put together under the pressure than know that the)' were under. I've seen some host£1~t~' ! think F-27 10.1 COURT REPORTING AbrD TP~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 it's unfortunately the nauure of the game and I'm hoping that it passes; that we can all discuss this matter as it has been discussed b~ the last several speakers. This is not all about farmland. And that's something I think is being missed in this argument or in this discussion. It's about far more than farmland. It's about open spaces, and a grea~ deal of our open space is no~ actively farmed land. And I think I would be accurate in saying most of it is not. I have great respect for the Wickhams and the Van Bourgondiens and the Coopers and the others tha~ are out there toiling with their form of agricultural. I'm not so much worried about Doug and Tom and the other people who are out ~here. I'm worried about when they're gone. And that's what this is about. There are a lot of people not cueing up for transfer of development rights. For the purchase of development rights, for any of the other options that are there, and I think it's because -- I won't guess as to why it is, but it's not being done. So we are examining other options, and I'm glad the Town is doing that before the nibbling away at all of this open space gets to the point where there is no open space left. I happened to be in the trustee's office today, and I saw an aerial photo and I turned around and I said that's Massapequa. And they had house after house after house after house, and I encourage people to go look at it. I grew up in Seaford next to Massapequa. I rode on farm tractors as a kid 'cause our neighbors were farmers. I dare say there is not a farm, a nursery that actually grows product or anything or of its ilk left in Seaford, Massapequa, Hicksville -- I think, was mentioned, there might be one farm -- East Meadow, or any of the other places. I'm here and I so enjoy looking at what we have here, and I know that if we don't do something now we will be Hicksville, Massapequa, Seaford, East Meadow. And we will have crowded out the young people. There is no affordable housing now. There is just growth and an explosion of taxes, and I'm COURT REPORTING kND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 afraid of that being in our future if we do not substantially control growth. The first step is adoption of this document, next s%ep is to action based upon this document. Ama ask zhat the Town Board continue to do that. If we're worried about mansions, and I'm not quite sure why we are because don'z think that's really mn the future, we can limit the size of mansions. It's been done elsewhere, square footage of houses, we can't build anything taller than I think 25 feet. Well, you can limit a lot of things through zoning. We are not going to provide affordable housing with existing zoning We're not going to provide it with five acre zoning. We're going to provide it with otter remedies. But we have to take action. We have to take every step that's possible t© provide for all of these options. It is specious to connect one to the other. We are not going to address affordable housing in traditic~al ways out here. We have to think outside he box, and some of the things that might be proposed are good thinking outside of the box. But let's adopt this document and then start working on it. It's not perfect. I've heard speakers discuss Montgomery Count5, not comparing to our town. I dare say than nobody -- I tried to search online. ] called one or two people I know. I ~on't know there is a model for our community elsewhere that's done upzoning. I do believe than ~here were, these professionals up ~ere would have found it and would have presented il in a document. We can't wait for somebody else to do our work for us. Montgomery's as close as it comes. I know it's a community that's used by many planners to look at. I think many of the arguments are emotional, and I can understand it. It's ver5' personal to people. I would urge the Board nc act beyond the emotions of the moment, i'm concerned about the tax on people here. understanding of Ehls process is than th£s is a hearing where this side of the rscm is heard from, not this side is responding COURT REPORTING .~D TPO%NSCRIPTION SERVICE · · · · · · 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 (indicating). And I donrt know if you can respond to all the things that are thrown out to you. I suspect not, and, am I correct that this is not the forum where the planners and the preservationists and the consultants are permitted to respond? SUPERVISOR HORTON: That's correct, all the questions and ideas and general inpu~ that are derived from the hearing under law are required to be answered in writing in the drafting of the Final GEIS. MS. TOLL: I'm glad to have that clarified because it seems like -- SUPERVISOR HORTON: And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's correct, okay. MS. TOLL: We're concerned about the young people -- I've spoken with some of the people up here on the Town Board about it and affordable housing. I'm concerned about the seniors. I guess I'm closer to that end. I'm concerned about the effects on fixed income people such as seniors, such as retirees such as myself. I know what development does to taxes and it drives people from their homes. It's another reason why I want to see the growth and development within this town slowed. I'd like it done in almost any reasonable means because of the impact on especially senior citizens and their taxes. And, again, werve seen it elsewhere. We don't need an exact model. We've seen it everywhere where development blossoms, what happens is taxes increase, and the effect on seniors is substantial. Repeatedly people will vote to pay more to keep senior's taxes down. The STAR program, the advanced STAR program, any of that. I'm happy to pay more taxes for their benefit, and I'm concerned about long term effects on groups such as that. The effects on young homeowners would be tremendous. I believe that people on the lower dais here who contributed substantially to this report had the interest of the entire ~own at heart. I don't believe they went abou~ attacking farmers. I certainly don't. But I think that there has to be a way to COLrRT REPORTING ~ TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 guarantee the prese~;ation of all of our li'.~es and all of our ways of living with zt, and t~rowing out the baby with the bath water in this report is not the answer. I think we have ~o go and listen to these experts and look at the future and hopefully take action as soon as possible to adopt this, and, again, to take action after that, and I know all of this is going tc be rekindled and rekindled at that point, but please, push ahead with it. It's all of our futures here. Thank you for listening. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. in the back, sir, you've had your hand up quite bit, Mr. Penny. MR. PENNY: George Penn?', resident of Southold, former councilman and we passed a master plan and the planners who weren't here for my last discussion, I'm speaking snrlctl on this document, but my overall plea ms for a complete master plan, not what is being done here. I'd like 5o start with the scope because that's where things really start. And after reading the scope, which I 3ust got today, and going through a lo5 of the questions that were brought by people during that scoping session, I find that mose of the questions that were raised during the scoping session were complezely ignored or non answered at all, which is -- I'm sorry'. ~hat'~ insane. Starting with -- and I won'5 go into the legalese of Bill Esseks, Ouc Esseks continues which he says, "You must nake into account the economic consequences of wha[ you are proposing to do because those economic consequences are not only economic but show up in who's going to live here." Now that part and who is going to leave, and what the real estate taxes are going ~o be and so on. And that is from Bill Esseks. There are several calls at the beginning of this document for the socioeconomic consequences of this an~ there again, these have not been answered. There was a comment maOe in here by, I believe it was Dr. Samuels no, ~hJs F-28 10.23 F-29 7.1 COURT REPORTING AN~D TP~%NSCRIPTION SERVICE i63!> 878 8047 · · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 was Jay Schneiderman, East Hampton Supervisor. "Tha~ means that you basically need a family income of around $200,000 to buy a home. Ninety percent of the working people based on the 2000 Census figures are priced out of the housing market." That is serious because we can't get any nurses to live in the community. We can't get teachers, Town employees, things are unraveling, and we can't replace these people, and they can't live in the community. Whau does that say to a community? What does that impact when your kid's school teachers, they can't run into ~hem at the pizza parlor at night? What kind of commitment does a teacher have when they can't live in the community? And it's getting worse. And he continues, "upzoning could be a valuable tool, but look at it comprehensively." Master plan, comprehensively, don't do it without figuring out the affordable housing components. Supervisor Schneiderman again, "I think what the Town needed to do was to plan more comprehensively. It needed to include people in its definition of rural character." That is critical. Dr. Samuels: "There are two things that have ~o be done in this town, Number 1 is affordable housing, Number 2, affordable rental apartments." And again, affordable housing, that is what you have got to do. Dr. Samuels: "I want to see a socioeconomic impact analysis of what you are proposing to do because I think it is wrong. I think it is drastically wrong. I maybe haven't gotten that point across." He didn't get the point across to the planners because they didn't answer any of these questions; although they, in their document, call for socio and economic issues to be addressed. And if I went through all that and I think that's in my previous notes. What is -- this was Mr. Ssseks again, "What is proposed is to take the value of vacant land and transfer it to the houses that exist. That is the nauural progression CO%TRT REPORTING /LND TR/%NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 t8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that if you go forwar~ and -- go forward and do the rezoning, it is a movement of value negative to the farmer, positive to the homeowner. Is it right morally and is it right politically for }'ou to move that money? "Now when f go to my Wanermill office on Friday, I get up at 5:00 a.m. ant leave my home in Aquebogue by 5:30 because nine months out of the year a 20 minute trip becomes an hour trip. The people, the Town Mall in Southampton and East Eampton can't get people to work there because they can't get across the canal. The nurses can't get to work, the carpenter and tradespeople lea',e their homes in western Suffolk and in Riverhead and in Shirley at 4:30 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. and they are crowding me at 5:30. Add you either have to find out ways of getting the cars and trucks out here, or you have find a way To keep the people here. "As you restrict the number of houses, the ones left Go up in value, and someone has to pay those taxes. You have pay more money to Get your cops and your firemen, as you reduce density. Your values Go up and your taxes are goinG to Go up, and you have got to take that into account because you have a very high percentage of people on fixed incomes. Maybe they are higher fixed income than other places, but they are still all fixed incomes. "The forces in the state an~ county at the local level are not goinG to do that. Your farmlands are not Going to become commercial/industrial. So you're left with a residential or agrarian economy and a number of alternatives and some are limiteG. You could attempt in a different way to cap your population, but when you do that you must understand what is 9oing to happen. The prices are going to go up, the taxes are going to go up, the ser-~-ice industry is going to have to come out from somewhere else and the -- you are on a peninsula. There is no way in. You can't fly them out. You can't bring them in by boats. And nobody wants build a new road. So 2'ou have problems you ought ~o try to solve before you crea~e COURT REPORTING ANqD TP~SCRIPTION S~RVICE 1631! 878 804? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 this problem." I see transportation was one of the main goals of this document and yet I see absolutely none of the issues of transportation being discussed. And I don't believe that transportation means that people should ride their bicycles instead of -- or walk the town instead of using their cars. I believe that transportation is a very. important factor because if you try to get into this town or out of this town on a Sunday when the traffic flow is going, and there is an accident on the back road, all of the traffic funnels over to the main highway. And I tried to get up home from upstate New York Sunday when exactly that happened. There was a traffic jam all the way from the Riverhead lights all the way back into Mattituck because of it, because there is absolutely no way to get in and out of here. I think anybody that has tried to do a plan to move people out of here in an emergency, including the .State of New York and the federal government, has fallen far short of figuring out how to get people off of Long Island in general. Well, the north fork is probably the worst part. We just don't have the population and we don't have the traffic that the south fork has yet, but it's coming. This was Long Island Farm Bureau. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Penny, if I may, you're reading from the -- MR. PENNY: Scoping session. SUPERVISOR MORTON: Scope. kll of those comments are in the possession of the planning team. MR. PENNY: Yeah, but they didn't answer them. I'm calling for ~he answers again. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Perhaps what we could do so you can ge~ to your own comments, you can ask to have the entire scope reviewed by this team. MR. PENNY: Well, I just want to read because I think this is good. When it says the Town of Southampton's Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement, which states the Town understands tha~ maintaining the F-30 10.3 COURT REPORTING ~ TR3%NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 economics of farming is key to preset;lng farmland, the initiatives pursued by the Town are not strictly for the prese~;ation cf open space, but rather to preserve and protect farmland as a viable agricultural industry. So I will assume that all the questions that were raised in the scoping session will be addressed and I will not read them any further. SUPERVISOR HORTON~ Did you make specific marks of the questions ~'ou'd like answered on your copy? MR. PENNY: They're highlighted. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would ~n be possible for you to leave that with the team? MR. PENNY: Absolutely. SUPERVISOR HORTON: That will De helpful. MR. PENNY: Absolutel~~. Tables and charts on 3-1 are distorted and slanted. When you start off with a potential build-out, a build-out potential of 6,763 units and the goal is to reduce this b}' 40 percent. And that is the high figure because the figure -- I believe ~f you add the columns is 6,335, but there was a fudge factor brought in there which brought it up to So if you reduce it by 40 percent, you're bringin~ your proposed population increase down to 2,705 or is that a theoretical build-out figure? I have a little bit of difficulty in telling because we have some mixed metaphors in here. When you go into the AC zone, it's very clear. AC has 2,323 potential units. R-80 has 1,380, and we have a skewed f~gure here of 2,211 units coming out of R 40. That's a little tough to do when you only have 560 undeveloped lots or acres -- I'm sorrQ~, acres in the R-40. So one could on17~ guess that this is thrown in here because of a factor that's addressed a little later cn which said that the assumption is going to Se made that every one of ~he houses that is summer house is going to be populated ~'ear round. I don't know what tha~ has 5o F-31 9.1 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE !631! 878-B047 · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 with development, but there again it switches over to a population control, verses the goal which I thought was for build-out analysis. So, when you skew these figures by 2,211 development potential units, it throws all of your figures off. Also lacking from this is the fact that there is already in the town coffers today $13 million, six million in bonds, six million dollars from the two percent, one millio~ dollars in grants, $13 million. There is also coming in -- in 2002 there was $3.8 million from the two percent money. There is already $1.7 million taken 2003. By year end there will be another $2.1 million in the coffers. So if you're dealing with $15 million posential by the end of the year, that would take out 300 units. Take it off the total of the R-80 and AC; take it off any one of those figures you want to, but you have to reduce something by three hundred. And the reason that I know that this is in the works now is because the land preservation committee is about to approach the Town Board and ask for another four million dollar bond. Now why do they need more money in this year's voting if, in fact, the money is not being spent? So this document did not take any of these figures into account. Also, if you look at the figures in the AC zones and in the R-80'S, 750 units are on hold. They're being held in a bank by the wineries and the people that are doing the commercial farming; 750 poten[ial units are on hold. And what does that mean? Does that mean they're going to be sold as development rights? Does it mean that they're not going to be sold as development rights? At this point nobody knows. But that figure is flexible somewhere between zero and 750 is the answer. Yet there was no range of figures put into this document. Let me tell you when something goes into hold in the wineries, this is what happens: Vintner pulling up roots, $7.8 million. A~ 42 acres that is approximately $124,000 per acre including whatever buildings he has on the property. His selling price F-32 9.1 F-33 9.1 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ~6 seven and a half million dollars on the same 42 acres is $178,000 per acre including his buildings. Does anybody realistically feel that this man is going to go out of business and sell it to a developer, or 5~at another winery bigger than him, more affluent than his is going to come in and buy his propert}'? Amd I feel that there's no way that a developer can make s nickel by buying property az $178,000 an acre and trying to subdivide 15 into five acre lots. So ~ offer this [o the ~own (handing/ . None of these statistics, none of the current sales, I know there's other wineries, places that have Deen sold. £ ~now Lenz was sold a few years ago. I know ~Rac Hargraves was sold a few years ago. ha~rel Lake Vineyards was sold a few years ago and I'm sure there are more. None of them have been addresse~ on 5he economics as to uneir effect on the towu7. .a_nd not one oE u~em was sold to a developer because developers oanMoL afford to pay the price of developed acreage that's already committed to another project. It just doesn't happen. So I suggest that we use facts and figures that are not irrational and are illogical and your projections table, ~se some real figures. Take out that 1,600 number of the R~40, because that number does not exist for potential development. The houses are already there; that's a population explosion figure; that's all it One of the alternatives t~at was offered is maybe we should consider making Lne R-40s nonconforming by bouncing %hem ~p to R-60. Now, I don't know if anybody knows in town how the zonlng really works, but ~n the last master plan uhe lowest zoning density that you could find in this uown Dy looking au a map is R-40. If you nave a half acre, ~f you have three-quarters of an acre, or ~f have an acre, you are R-40. A~d also there are several laws that apply ~o non-conforming lots. As a matter of fact, this was picKeG by Mr. Steve Jones when ne did bls report which is one of 5he ~abled reports tha~ we d£scuss~ng here. He discusseG chat fz~ F-~4 9.1 COLrP. T REPORTING Di{D TR3~NSCRIPTION SERVICE 16~1~ ~8-804r · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 anybody to build on any of these nonconforming lots that they be forced to buy some more acreage, put it into a Tow~ fund, and move on from there. Well, that report obviously went nowhere. But I would like to show you on a zoning map which I have here from the last master plan from 1989, how many houses, how many districts and how many areas in this town are nonconforming. Because I just think that this is something that is either not understood or just totally unknown. (Whereupon, a large colored map was displayed.) There's a little key on the bottom. Those in green are protected parcels. They were protected in the last master plan. The yellow are nonconforming by the fact that they're in an R-40 zone and they are way less Than an R-40 in size. The orange are nonconforming by R-80 which means that they are less than R-80 and they're in an R-80 zone. R-200 are by five acre and by three acre are R-120. They're in different colors. So, what you can see is most of the housing stock in Southold Town is already on nonconforming parcels. So why anybody would want to consider to make more nonconforming in Sou~hold is beyond me; unless they're feeding some sort of a planning concept which was never explained to me back in 1989 when we passed the master plan. A~d I demanded zha~ the Town address this, but unfortunately, the maps were never changed. But the zoning code was changed so that they would be recognized for what they were when they were created and by bringing up the issue once again of let's make R-40s one R-60s, you're going to throw every one of those houses, which is in yellow, into a whole different set of nonconforming standards. And, because there is no exemptions mentioned in here, all of the areas in green would fall into the same standard, and that includes the whole of Nassau Point and several other subdivisions. So that's COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~8 where the R-60 would take you. That was not addressed as an action one way or another It's like nonconforming is a hidden little issue that someone wants to pull out of their pockez at a later time and make life a little bi~ tougher. COUNCILMAN ROMA~ELLI: Are ~ne/ done? MR. PENNY: Acnually you guys ought to have one of these. I don't know you can't get one in the To~. I tried. had to make my own. MR. BAIZ: Do you have any ,dea how many acres this represenes? MR. PENI~Ff: NO. You'd have to back to the -- MR. BAIZ: Is in a thousand acres? MR. PENi~Y: It's almost every built parcel in Southold Town. MR. BAIZ: Every area would Decome nonconforming? MR. PEN/~f: Yes. By taking Lhe the same effect will be by going into five acre zone, when you have already existing areas within the f~ve acre zone, everything within that five acre zone including a one acre lot would become nonconforming. So now it's going to be even more colorful than i5 already. And that is not addressed anywhere. How did I find this out? Very s~mply. I have a one acre lot in Southold that's unbuilt on. It's a one acre lot that was put in an R-80 zone. I~'s file~ subdivision. The electric ~s in; e-zerT'thing's been in place, and yet I am in an R 80 zone When I read the Jones report made a call and said, how am I affected by this? Do I have to now buy another acre so can build on this? I never got that answer. That answer has still not come out, but I was accused of being a developer and having real estate interests or something by any public official who is not within the Town of Southold. Actually you're doing a service the Town because this map is not available from what I'm told. COURT REPORTING ~/~D TRg~ISCRIPTION SERVICE (631., 878-8647 · · · · · 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 39 SUPERVISOR ~ORTON: Mr. Baiz -- MR. PENNY: The homeowners -- a~fone that's within the AC or the R-80 zone, by. the way that this is being approached on a town-wide approach is going to render many more parcels nonconforming, and that is not being addressed. Tax cost data, I've heard there's people going around town telling you we can't afford to buy these properties. We can't afford to keep buying development rights. We can't afford the average taxpayers cannot afford. The rate right now for the Town per thousand is $8.55. So if you have a house that's assessed at $10,000, that means that you're paying $85 a year towards preservation. I don't think that's a big price to pay. Those facts are right from John Cushman, the Town's accountant who, unfortunately, was not made part of this study. Two other things have come to light. One is the new plan by John Nickels when he approached the Town with a very interesting approach. Sometimes by going into the. past and trying to dredge things out of some old documents that have been around, you don't really get the newer concepts that are going on. John Nickels came up with one out of California which he presented to the Board, and more recently, as it appeared in the local paper, a plan for saving Riverhead farms. If it works for Riverhead, why can't it work for Southold? Group sat down, a compromise was reached, and I suggest that we call the young lady that negotiated this deal, Eve Kaplan, and ask her to come and take a shot a5 the Town of Southold. Basically that's where we're at. We've come a long way and gone nowhere. We've gone in circles. We have a report that is totally one-sided. And I can only find by digging back into my past how that could possibly happen. In the early '90s I ran a scoping session for the town. It was a Mr. Emanuel Kotakosti~ch change of zone. I was 5he deputy supervisor, Scott Harris was not present for F-35 7.2 COLrRT REPORTING ~/~D TP~ANSCRIPTIO~ SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4O that. We sat here in public and had a vet%~ very open public scoping session. Two days after that scoping session was over, I got a call from the consultant. And he said, Mr. Penny, which way do you wans this to go. My answer was: What do you mean? A~d I was sold we can come out in favor of it; we can gc against it, but it's your call. Which wa7, is it the Town leaning on this? An~ I said Mr. Voorhis, I want you to play it straight down the middle. Let the town make the decision. So sometimes when you're doing planning and you already have the answer, what you're doing is not planning. I suggest we go back out c[ We go to RPPW. We stars again and we update she master plan, whatever time it sakes. Thank you. MS. NEVILLE: Excuse me, Mr. Penny, would you please sign she attendance sheet on the clipboard, thank MR. PENNY: Gladly. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes, sir in the back. MR. GREENE: Thank you. Good evening, my name is Andy Greene, and [ liYe Mattituck. After considering a number of places in the northeast, my family and I so the north fork, and the natural beaus) of the area drew us here, as did the warm, friendly people we've encountered, and we've been extremely happy with our ~ecision. I~ wife's become involved in the Southold Mother's Club, and I'm planning to resume m~' career teaching social studies at ~he local school. Since moving here I've closely followed the efforts to prese~e Southold anm the debate on upzoning, knd I've made an earnest effort to try and understand sides of the issue. As I am deeply concerned about Southold's future, I've attended two of these hearings and watched others on television, and I',/e been struck b}~ a nu~er of things. First of ali, it seems ~ha% a number of the people who have spoken na~'u IF-36 10.23 COURT REPORTING ~ TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631; 87S-804- · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 41 really read much of the document, and this was just a forum to vent their feelings which were made up long ago. Personally, I was very impressed after reading the document with the thoroughness of it and with the effort made by the highly qualified members to provide forecast to help make the decision-making as well-informed as possible. I hope that the members of the Town Board will reflect on this fine work and not follow the example of letting it support whatever they previously thought. The second thing is I was dismayed by the high level of vitriol which has been . displayed at the hearings, although it's been absent tonight for the most part. Most everyone agrees that the goal is to preserve Southold. The disagreement is on how to achieve this aim. I'm a firm believer that reasonable people can disagree and nobody's position is so morally superior that they should act so reprehensibly toward whom they may disagree. We're neighbors trying to reach the same end; there must be middle ground. I have read the DGEIS to help assess the situation employing risk analysis. Would the risks be. greater if the upzoning were enacted, or if it were not. If upzoning were to be enacted there appears to be two risks according to my understanding of the arguments put forth by those opposing it. First there is a risk that lenders would deem the land less valuable and lend less money to farmers for their operations, putting the future of farming in doubt. Second is the issue of property rights, which essentially is don't tell me what to do with my land. The first argument I believe should carry the most weight if it is true. I would urge that no action be taken which would jeopardize the future of farming. However, if this is a primary reason why upzoning is being so virulently opposed, there would seem to be ample room to compromise. Surely the To~rn can come up with a mechanism to guarantee that farmers would COLrRT REPORTING ;kbrD TP~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1@ 19 ' 20 21 22 23 24 25 retain access to financing, particularl%, that the report states that the likelihood of a fall in the value of land if upzoning were enacted would be minimal and short term. So I pose the following question to farmers: If a way were found to guarantee that access to financing for farming operations were to remain unchanged from current levels, would you still oppose upzoning? Second argument concerns propert% rights, which in my opinion is far less persuasive, and there is certainly no precedent anywhere that allows a propert} owner to do whatever he likes with his land. Zoning provides many restrictions. If a farmer wishes to build a power plant, a shopping mall or a 50 story condominium on his land, these would not be allowed as these are not in the besu interest of the communitv'. Likewise, the community can decide that limiting ~he number of the houses on open land is in its best interest. Let's be honest, those making this argument are really striving to protect their money. Even the report states there's no evidence values will fall long term, and even though land values have soared since the last time there was upzoning in Souuhold, an~ even ~hough long term land prices have risen in Maryland and Napa Valley after upzonln~, there's clearly a fear of falllng prices. can't blame these landowners for trying to protect their interests, this ~s certa~nlv. their right. I'm assuming these families went into farming to farm and not to speculate on land. By good fortune their ancestors chose to farm a hundred miles from Manhattan instead of in Iowa. As a result, they are now multimillionaires; however, to ask the rest of the community to bear the risks enumerated below so ~hat their land may be worth a few m~llion dollars more than 5he millions ~t is already worth, is not a valid reason uc oppose upzcning. The other arguments ~".'e near~ against upzoning are disingenuous, as wel£ as COURT REPORTING AND TP3~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631~ 878 804~ · · · · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 43 utterly baffling. Given this five acre upzoning requires clustering on one acre lots and not five acre lots, the clammer against elitist McMansions seems false. Thus, their recent argument I heard regarding the influx of tradespeople causing traffic jams seems really spurious; and besides, this argument assumes prices will dramatically rise. I was under the impression that upzoning was being opposed because it would cause land prices to fall. And let's not confuse the affordable housing issue with upzoning. Southold clearly has an urgent need for affordable housing for young people in the community who wish 5o stay here. But whether we stay with two acre zoning or change to five acre zoning, the prices of the houses in new subdivisions are not at the level of scatter homes. Let's deal wi~h the affordable housing issue expediently but separately. The risks to not upzoning appear far more serious. Under the DGEIS maximum build-out scenario, there would be approximately 6,600 more housing units, which the document equates with an increase of about 10,000 of Southold's population. This number assumes only 1.5 persons per household, a probably low figure unless a large number of these are second homes. However, an increase of even 10,000 in population would dramatically increase population density, which would be seriously exacerbated in the summers. And let's be clear, it is population density increases that is Southold's enemy. If population density increases, the risks to the community are numerous. First there are fiscal risks. The demand for services will dramatically increase. The best example is education. The current facilities are already crowded and will inevitably prove inadequate. Taxes will soar to pay for new facilities and staff. Second there are environment risks. Pollution and trash will increase significantly with such a population increase. The scenery of Souzhold will be increasingly marred. Third, there is a risk to COURT REPORTING AND TRAIqSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 ~2 13 14 ~8 ~9 20 2~ 23 24 25 44 transportation efficiencies. Traffic will show a major increase, making in likely that we will frequently be sitting in summer traffic jams like those on the south fork. Has anybody tried to make a left turn on ~he Main Road on a recent weekend? Roads will wear out sooner from higher usage requiring more mainnenance. Finally, there's a rls~ to small businesses. Once there is sufficient population density, large national retailers believe it's viable to set up in Southold, squeezing out local businesses. I was very surprised ~o find Southold's business group opposing upzoning. Population increases wlil clearly put many of its member's businesses at risk. Having waded through the ~ocument and considered the arguments of both sides, the answer is clear. Upzoning has worke~ other areas. Voluntary measures have never stood much of a chance against the power of the profit motive. By all means De absolute±y certain that farmers will have the financial wherewithal to continue to farm. I personally spent 12 }'ears working in the arena of finance. I have no doubt that with the numerous financial wzzards in the New York area we can find a wa},. would happily volunteer to help this effort~ However, to risk all the damage from increased population density because ]and values might have a short term fail is protect the interest of the few instead of 5he many. Amy representative taking that position is recklessly gambling Southold's future. Once the problems associated with population density arrive, there is no going back. We just have to look to the west ~o see this. Perhaps our representatives can come up with another method that will guarantee that population density' will not destroy the character of Southold. If, however, you cannot, then as a responsible representative you must upzone. Thank you very much for consideration. SUPERVISOR HORTON: /hank F-37 10.1 COURT REPORTING AAYD TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631~ 878 8047 · · · · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 t6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 Mr. Greene. MS. NEVILLE: Excuse me, Mr. Greene, can you please sign the attendance sheet? Thank you. MR. EDWARDS: My name is Bill Edwards. I'm from Matcituck. Before you all start taking notes, I'm going co give you a written copy of what I say. Before I start, I would like to personally thank six very patient members of our Town Board, not to mention our Town Clerk and our Town Attorney. Someone made the comment to me today that everything's been said but nou everybody has said it. And I kind of feel that way a little bit here, buc my God, I came to say it and I'm going to say it. I'm here to address a number of questions to the DGEIS, which I understand is the procedure, so that it can be responded to. And make it a little easier, I've got i~ all on paper. On Page 3-3, I'd like to ask, while it may be true that revenues in future years are not predictable to the penny, it is a fact that the Town will receive over three and-a-half million in CPS funds in 2003 and can project as much or more in the out years; that being the case, why does the build-ou~ analysis no~ allow for any future preservation by the Town or County, especially in the AC and R-80 zones, we are, after all, dealing with our best guess of what's going to happen and not some certainty, and our best guess should include that revenue. On Page 3-22, the adverse primary impacts and implications listed for tool Number 4, which is five acre zoning, do not include the incremental cost to landowners to refinancing ~heir loans from the banks. For every parcel of land currently borrowed against by the landowner, these new expenses will include the cost of a new appraisal at $1,500 and up per parcel, mortgage filing fees, attorney costs and especially new title insurance policies which typicalli run about one percent of the face value of the mortgage. These expenses tied as they are to F-38 9.12 F-39 7.1 COURT REPORTING ~$D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 46 the size of the loans and t~ the landowners who have them will fall disproporzionately cn those landowners least able to afford them because they already owe money, and could easily top one million dollars in incremental expense to the landowners in this town. This is not good for farming. This is only good for tizle insurance companies and attorne)'s. Please review these expenses with an agricultural lender and I got those nun%bets from Steve Weir, and provide an estimate of their total impact on the farmers of Southold Town as an immediate consequence of implementing five acre zoning with cluste£1ng. Page 3-28, in the second paragraph, the report states that upzoning has not had any harmful effects in other parts cf the country and refer to several upzoning instances in California and Maryland, onl>, one of which, Montgomery County, Maryland, went from two acres to five. The rest were la£ger areas. You say that in quote, "In these cases there has been no documented negati~,e or adverse impact on the business of farming and land values stabilized over a short per±od of time." This raises several questions which ~ ask that you respond to. Number 1: What is your authority for saying that land values stabilized? Quantify it. Number 2: Do you mean that the values stabilized at the same rate before the rezoning or at a lower level? Number 3: Did you check with each of the counties you cite to determine if the rezoning included clustering, which any reasonable person would understand had as major an impact on valuations as the rezoning itself. Number 4: Why did you fail to uncover the fact that Montgomery County's move to five acre zoning did no~ include clustering, the primary cause of the loss 5n the land valuation? ~umber 5: please provide ~n example of a town or count), which ~;ent fr~m nwo acre to five acre zoning with clustering, F-40 6.4 COURT REPORTI}~G A/rD T ~RA~SCRIPTION SERVICE ~631~ ~78-S04- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 and supply a history of land valuations ~here before and after the change over. If no such example exists -- and it may not -- please provide a reasoned projection on the impact of~ land valuations of such rezoning in Southold which was quoted earlier this evening by Robert E~erton, Jr. from the Maryland State Planning Office, entitled "The Effects of Agricultural Zoning on the Value of Farmland." You quote as follows: "Lending instisutions parcel's development potential, but rather on the ability of the farm enterprise to repay its loans." And ~his was confirmed to me b~ Steve Weir as very typical in agricultural loans. This may have been true in 1991, but have you inquired in the year 2003 of any local lending officer dealing with local agriculture as to the potential impact of a change in zoning on their willingness to debt to equity. If so, what did you learn? If you didn't, why didn't you? On Page 8-13, with respect to a potential loss in land valuation as a consequence of upzoning, the second paragraph historical development rights sale data -- a subject of interest to me -- reveals that the 40 percent of the overall land value indicating the development rights of a given parcel account for approximately 60 percent of the total land value. rights made in the last year by Southold Town, the appraised value of the development rights percent, with the development rights running even higher than smaller parcels and in the reporc in light of sales data in Southold Finally in Page 1-6. Both the ! F-41 7.1 F-42 7.2 F-43 7.2 COURT REPORTING AND TR~2gSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 have provided a consistent level of support for the purchase of development rights and open space. Indeed I doubt that there exists in this entire country another municipality which has given so much per capita to protect the farmland and open space. And everyone in Southold should be proud of this ongoing achievement. Yet in Table 1-1 listing of the 43 implementation tools, there's no consideration given to enhancing the current level of PDR funding either through additional bonding or through bonding against the anticipated income of the two percent tax, which was just mentioned here. I don't understand whv that tool was no5 also proposed as part of th~s report. That's all I have to say. I u~an~ you very much, and here are copies of the comment questions (handing;. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes, ma'am. MS. CASE: I'm Tippy Case from Southcld, and I'm here to ask you to adopt the DGEIS. I'm just going back, there have been so many studies and so many reports going back ~o Stewardship Task Force, the Sueve Jones report, the Rou[e 48 study, the B~ue Ribbon Commission, and it seems uo me chat no action is ever taken, and we need to take action fast because Southold's disappearing right before our very eyes. A~d I just think ~u's important, and that's why I'm here to speak, Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you Mrs. Case. Yes, sir, Mr. Keith. MR. KEITH: Ri, Terry Keit~, Greenport. I would just l~ke to add a few comments to discussion on country inns which came up au some of the other hearings regarding the DGEIS. My family owns the Silver Sands Motel in Greenport. For those of 7'ou who aren't aware, in this document ~here's s proposal for counur~- inns be allowed on lane thas is zoned AC, R-200 or R-80, has!ceil" F-44 10.1 COURT REPORTING ~ TPJ~/~SCRIPTION SERVICE {6B1; 87~804~ · · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 meaning that country inns could potentially be allowed on agricultural land and other types of open space. These country inns would provide lodging for up to 20 rooms and also have food servmces, basically, I'm assuming being allowed to operate a restaurant because it wasn't specific. I'm quoting Page 1-28 from the document which says, "It is expected that a country inn will involve overnight accommodations and amenities, food service, parking, meeting, gathering facilities, outdoor recreation, et cetera." End quote. Now, the concept of country inns is not something that's new. Those of us in the lodging business have heard it here for a number of years now. And we know there's a number of people who are pushing for it. And I just want to state for the record that I think the creation of country inns is a very bad idea, and I'm going to give a couple of reasons why. The preexisting motels, hotels, bed and breakfasts and restaurants will first of all take a huge hit from the competition. Despite what many people think, the market of tourists looking to rent rooms is not that huge, and you'd be carving up what is already a very small pie. On Saturday night and the Fourth of the July and Labor Day, every hosel out here could rent another hundred rooms. It's a given. But on Wednesday night you can't. It's jus5 a fact. You can drive around and look at 11:00 and see how many cars are in everyone else's parking lot and their lots are half full, even in the middle of the summer right now. It's the midweek that keeps everybody in business, and the demand is simply not there. I would like to state also for the record that I'm not opposed to competition. Competition is good for the economy. There have been a number of new hotels and motels which have sprung up in the last few years, along with a number of bed and breakfasts, and there's about to be a new ho~el in Greenporz along with one on the North Road. Bu~ the playing field is level for us and I ~hink COURT REPORTING AND TRD2;SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5~ everyone else in competition with each other What you're talking about here will not be. Those of us who own hotels or motels pay a very high number of taxes every year, and we do it gladly because we know for the privilege of having such a unique business out here. But now, under this proposal, it would be possible for anyone with open space could -- excuse me could put a business competing with us on it and possi~l~ pay agricultural taxes. It was not specific, so I'm not sure exactly what was intende~ there. That simply is not fair if that's the case. It's not fair for us who have stuck out for ~enerations in the lodging business out here and made the appropriate sacrifice~ to do so. I would also like to say the term "country inn" is a very sly one. innocuous and sounds like something ~'ou w©uid see in the British countryside somewhere; and if chat was just a handful of rooms it miunt be the case. But what is proposed in this document is for up to 20 rooms to be alloweG, and with parkin~ and a potential restaurant and access roads, that's not a country inn, that's a resort. To ~ive you guys some frame of reference, the main motel at the Silver Sands is 22 rooms; ~hat is only two more 5~an what is potentially being proposed here. An~ it takes up quite a bit of space for the parkin~ lot. And it seems like wha[ you're talking about here is not a plan for prese~in~ the land, it's a plan for developin~ it. A/~d you can potentiail7, kave these structures all up and do~ what ~s now open space and farmland. The document on Page 1-41 has a section entitled "Economic Development Plan and Tourism." And there's a subsection beneath that headed "Tourism." The first item of action under the tourism headin~ ann I quote, it says "Introduca country inns." Enm quote. It's the first thing tha5's listed there. So I'm assuming the framers of the repor~ might be saying ~hat we really nee~ country inns out here, an~ ~ would like uc know their rationale why. F-45 10.15 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE · · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 t8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 Since this is the time to give queszions and input into what will be the final document, I would like to ask the planners with regards to country inns and this document to do the following: To remove the proposal for country inns from this document. If you're going to pursue this, please pursue it as a separate issue that we can have hearings on and vote on separately. If you're going to keep the proposals for country inns in this document, I'd like the following questions answered, please: How do you plan to make the playing field level economically for the rest of us who are out here zoned for hotels and motels. Specifically, what kind of taxes will zhese country inns be paying? If some properties like the ones my family own will no longer be so unique and hence potentially not as valuable due to the fact that there will De country inns potentially all over, will you be compensating those of us who own hotels, motels and bed and breakfasts for the potential loss of our land value? And lastly, please call these structures what ~hey are. They are resorts. They are micro-hotels. They're hotels. And I don't think'they're of the bed and breakfasts but country inns is a very. inaccurate term. It sounds like something from Lord of the Rings that Frodo Baggins will be standing outside. It sounds really cute, and I just imagine like a lit[le thatched hut with a lit~te fire going. It's not the case. Like I said, I'm not opposed to competition but I'm opposed to unfair competition. So, thanks a lot. MS. NEVILLE: Please state your name for the record, sir. MR. KEITH: Sure, Terry Keith from Greenport. MS. NEVILLE: Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anybody else care it to address the Town Board? You stole the show, Ron. MR. WACKER: My name is Ronnie Wacker from Cutcho~ue. And I am going to repeaz to some e×~ent from what Tippy Case has F-46 10.15 COI3RT REPORTING AN~D TR3~NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 said. Because here we are talking about yet another study on how to save our farmlan~ and open space, most of which is in the hands of speculators. It's the same problem that we have been studying for the past 20 years. How man~' studies have we had? I know for myself I've taken part in several over the years. There was the Stewardship Task Force, the US-UK week long study. I remember everybody's excitement when that report came in. We thought now we really have it made because the5, told us what was wrong. They told us if we wanted to save our open space we were doing it all wrong, sc we did talk. We seemed determined that nigh[ to follow their precepts. But I don't know what happened. I guess the report went into a bottom drawer in Town Hall someplace. Most recently there was a Blue Ribbon Commission, which finally set ~own goals. Now this seemed pretty realistic. Agreed to save and 80 percent of ~ne farmland and decreased development by 60 percent, well and good. We though[ they were practical guidelines. We have had the moratorium, which has been extended to give us more time to find a solution. Various proposals have been authored. The RID, TDRs, five acre zoning, John Nickels offered -- there have Peen man[, proposals. John Nickels offered his proposal. Tom suggested we follow Ri,?erhead's ideas. You know, we're all on [he same level. We're all concerned about sa,zing the open space gha[ we love around here. But some of us are afraid that upzoning will resui[ in loss of the property values. This, despite the fact that ever since we upzoned to acres back 1983, property values have increased exponentially. How many of us today could afford to buy our own house? I couldn't. The consultants they hired said that they don't see any reason that five acre zoning would result in decreased land I guess one problem [hat I can see wi~ ~naE is that we would need serious attent!on COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ~631; · · · · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 to affordable housing for young families. We're talking about extending moratorium again. Actually, I don't think that's such a bad idea if we decide that by the time the moratorium is finally ended we have -- you, the Town Board, have enacted a plan that will become law so that we know exactly what our parameters are. We know exactly what we can do and what we can't do. And we know, we have some idea of what our future will be. I hope that you will take this seriously. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Miss Wacker. Yes, sir. MR. KEIL: My name's Otto Keil. I've been coming out here for 44 years. I bought a farm in 1969. I've kept it open. I've rented it to people, other farmers. I brought my children out here. My father-in-law was a farmer out here. They were for generations farmers out here. My family came from Europe. We're farmers in Huntington. I own a house out here. I own a farm out here. My children have homes out here. Five acre zoning, going to five acre zoning, I just want to tell you, if land values dropped for everybody else that's here tonight and speaks with their homes, and you had legislation that would decrease their values, I don't know if they'd all be so happy. I think you'd probably have tons of people coming here saying, why are you doing that. The Blue Ribbon Commission went through; that's not good because it's probably easier just to go to five acre zoning, but you do affect our property values. It will go down. And nobody wants their property values to go down. We borrow money, the farmers borrow money; the farmers are now a minority. They have something to do say. Everybody wants to have something to say about what a farmer does, how he operates, and a lot of the farmers are sick of it because we know we're a minority, and we know we have nouhing to say. We feel we have nothing to say and nobody's COURT REPORTING ~ TPJtNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 54 listening. Oh, it's easy, lust go to five acre zoning. Well, five acre zoning to me I don't want to see any more development. come out here for 45 years. My fatner-in-iaw was a farmer for generations. I have no intentions of selling our farm. I want tc pass it on to our children. But in eventuality I died, and they nad to sell. >'ou say, oh, you're not going to die tomorrow, and you put five acre zoning, then it's not worth as much, that's agreed. Amd if people's tomes around here went down the same percentage you were doing some legislation and iu would cause that to go down, everybody would De here tonight in the whole town. Because the%' don't want to see their land values go town Farmers are greedy? I've been reading the letters while I'm home and it really turns me off. So, I mean, there's nothing I can say except to voice myself. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Cooper. MR. COOPER: Doug Cooper from Mautituck. I'm disappointed SUPERVISOR KORTON: Your name and place of residence for the record. MR. COOPER: Doug Cooper from Mattituck. I'm disappointed that pecple would come up here and encourage this Board to adopt this DGEIS when it's been pointed out how sloppy it's been done, how distorted, corrupt, I know these reports have been misleading completely. I find that very disheartening that people would still come up and encourage the Board to adopt this. All I can say is that they don't understand the depth of how bad a report it is. I've heard reports that five acre zoning will result in 60 percent fewer houses than what we are now doing under two acre zoning. This is crazy snuff. This ~s wrong. This is a blatant lie. What we are now doing under two acre zoning is ecfui'~alent of 1~ acre zoning. .Anybody pushing for five acre zonzng is pushing for more houses than w~at we are currently dozng under two acre zoning, because F-47 2.2 F-48 9.1 COURT REPORTING AND TgJkNSCRIPTION SERVICE i631} 878-8047 · · · · · · t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 we are preserving under two acre zoning. There's an incentive of preserving due to the equity of PDRs under two acre zoning, which will be lost under five acre zoning. / The build-out scenario on the AC, R-80 land, if built-out under five acre zoning, I figured would be around 1,400 or 1,450 new houses. What we are currently doing, under two acre zoning, if we continue the track record for the last six years, would give us six hundred new houses. This is a big difference. There's going to be more houses -- and people don't understand this -- there's going to be more houses under five acre zoning than what we are currently doing under two acre zoning, and that is because it has been economically advantageous to prese~/e with two acre zoning. I've heard questions about funding. It's going to cost two hundred million dollars, where is this two hundred million dollars going to come from? It's not going to come from the local taxpayer, very, very small part might. The County is paying a third, that's for that sales tax I do believe, par~ of their sales tax, and that ranges from 40 to 50 percent too, County participation. We have the two percent money; that will cover another third. We have charitable gifts money which is around another third. What is left for the local taxpayer is probably going to be nil, and I would not be ac all surprised -- because everybody talks about this CPF fund running out in 17 years -- I would fully expect that the government, the State will extend it for another ten years. It's too much money for the politicians, and it's doing a worthwhile project. So I think that funding will continue for a long time. There was comments that the Town has talked to the farmer in the BRC, in the Blue Ribbon Commission. Yes, we've talked. But what has come from that? You've taken the goals from the 60 and 80 percent density reduc[ions and run with that and the other recommendations from the BRC has been negated, done away with. There's talk of a RID, what will ne the RID that came from uhe BRC, I F-49 9.1 F-50 7.2 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 don't know, probably not. What we are doing today, there was a comment that voluntary preservation is not working. Voluntary preservation is working super. It is working very, very good. Every week there's more people coming into the land preservation committee offering to sell their development rights. There was a question as to why more people weren't selling their development rights. I'm going to tell you. Quite frankly, as a landowner, as a farmer, the sale of one's development rights is the absolute last thing you want to do. That is }-our back-up. If you need to ex, band if you have a bad year and need money, those development rights are what you have that you can cash in when you need to. ~_n~- businessman, in m? opinion, would be very hesitant to sell 5heir development rights until that point when either they need the money to expand, zney need the money to pay their bills, they nee~ the money to settle the estates and that's a great way to do it. The PDR money is a great way for farms to settle their estates, farm families to settle their estates. It's wrong for you to expect people to come in and sell it all at once, but they are~ people are coming in and selling, and that's a ~er~' good thing. I'm more, when I look at preservation and the build-out that we are doing, which, as I said, is equivalent of iS acre zoning, it makes me wonder why anybody would want to go to five acre zoning. ~u~d there's talk of guarantees. The landowners and farmers who have been working on :his have said time after time that we are willing 5o sit do~rn if the numbers go bad and look at upzoning. We have said time after time that put a monitoring process in. If the numbers go bad, we'll sit down. But why would anybody want to upzone now when we are doing so much better than five acre zoning? It makes no sense whatsoever. The only possibility' -- the only possibility that I can see ~s there's mone]' in there. There's money somewheres f~r people [ff F-51 4.3 COLrRT REPORTING DtgD TPJkNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 804~ · · · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ~ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 they upzone. Money in terms of selling fuel oil. Money in terms of -- SUPERVISOR HORTON: Please keep it to the DGEIS and the DGEIS only. MR. COOPER: There is a scenario -- there has to be money there somewheres because the concept of going to an upzone when we are doing so much better, makes no sense. The risks of going to an upzone, one gentleman said that it would be a hit on equity, there would be property rights, those are the two main risks. No, the real risk of going to an upzone is that higher build-out, and that is going to hit the taxpayer. If we had anywhere near that 1,400 houses that could take place under five acre upzoning, that's a whole lot more houses, traffic, school kids, schools, than what we are currently doing under two acre zoning. What we need is incentives. If you want to tweak it, and the Blue Ribbon Commission had some of these recommendations, we can tweak this PDR program. We can give more incentives, if it shows it's not working. That's the way to go. Why take a plan that is already working and throw it out, and put in something that has a lot of doubts, a lot of questions, may ve~t well give us two or three times more houses, more school kids, more taxes. Gentlemen, it makes no sense. Ladies, it makes no sense. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Cooper, do you have any specific comments to the DGEIS or something you'd like to add to it? MR. COOPER: That will do it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Anybody else care to address the Board concerning the DGEIS? Yes, sir. MR. MORICE: Hi, my name is Andrew Morice, and I'm from East Marion. I also want to touch base about the country inns, which really hasn't been really talked about, which only has a few paragraphs in this thing. A couple of things: Why are you ~ singling out count~t inns not to be more than F-52 7.1 F-53 10.15 COURT REPORTING AND TP3%NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 two miles apart from each other? Why is it just the country inns; what about preexisting · hotels, B & Bs and other things that fall under those parameters? And right now it's high season as the gentleman for Silver Sands says. All the hotels and motels have eight weeks to make things happen. Let's face it, it isn'[ happening right now. Hotels are not full during the week; some aren't even full on the weekends. How can you suggest to build mere rooms at that time? You say the five acre zoning is to preserve the farmland, so why would you let hotels or as you call them "countr~' inns" to be built on agricultural land? I know ~'ou say it's good for the farmers and wineries so the~~ can supp.ement their incomes with the ho~els, and I do mean country inns, as you do so say. You and I both k-~ow that farmers caruso[ afford to build an inn, nor have the time to run or maintain these hotels or "inns" as you want ~o call them. But, on the other hand, the wineries can afford to have the inns builu, and they do have the time to run and maintain them. I do feel that this DGEIS is not to preserve the farmland, but to allow the wineries to build their inns with meeting places and sea-ye food on their farmland and have weddings. Now that the wineries will make all the money for themselves e-zentuall~, you will find empty stores and restaurants with "for rent" signs in our towns. It wilt cause the ripple effect. The people will now come co the north fork for the weddings and the wineries and stay in their inns and eat in their restaurants, and then go home. The people came and did what they set out to do. What is to keep them here? Our farmlands, which will probably not be here anymore, which is what sets the north fork from any other place on Long Island. We touched base with the ho~eis and the businesses on Page 1-41. The ~ourlsm introduced to country iruas, ocher hotels should upgrade and diversify exisztng mete£s. F-54 10.15 F-55 10.15 F-56 10.15 F-57 10.15 COLrRT REPORTING ~ ~q~A/~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-B047 · · · · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 are you going to rezone the existing hotels so they can add more units or conference centers when their land is limited? But yet you are willing to put the mom and pop hotels on the side and willing to let these country inns be built when they have land that's a lot more than the other hotels and stuff do have, and eventually the mom and pops will not be able to compete with a three million dollar hotel. Why don't you give grants or low interest rate loans to the other hotel owners and other innkeepers to up and make things better? You did say on the last line why not do as you say on the last line of the economic plan which reads, "An economic development plan should capitalize on the town's unique historic character and encourage the preservation and rehabilitation and the reuse of those resources." Why not give the grants, as I just said, so the B & Bs and the hotels can continue to make a living without anybody stepping on anybody's toes? And let's leave farming to the farmers and the grape growing to the wineries, and restaurants to sell their food, and the hospitality business to the hotel and motel business. Let's not put all our grapes and vegetables in one basket, such as i~ seems you are trying to do. Let's all enjoy the way of life we've come to enjoy on the north fork. I said my piece. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Any other comments from the floor? Yes, sir. MR. OLMSTED: I am Sid Olmsted from Mattituck. First off, I watched two or three of these meetings on the cable, and the audio is terrible. You got that fan running over there. This is picking up the fan, and if someone tends to back away a little bit, somebody tweaks the power, we hear the fan getting louder. It's a problem. It's got to do with it because you can't hear some of the speakers. It almost seems like some of the speakers are being tuned down a little bit maybe. Matsi~uck Creek, there's a CO~-RT REPORTING ~ TP~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 F-58 10.16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposal for a park, I was just wondering where that might go. Table 3-3, in Book 1 has an icem about -- Item 7, Matzituck Creek provides for better land use pattern in sensitive and important areas of town, including -- Mattituck Creek is one of the mentioned areas, Route 25 west of Greenpor5 and Mattituck Creek -- changes land use designation on privately ow~/ed land; and it says proper land use is responsibility of the Town. And now they're saying more land use review in making additional marine zoning on Mattituck Creek may have negative impacts. Well there's not much land left to put marine szuff there; everything is privately owned; it's all residential. All right, I'm rambling. Farmer's rights, you know, we seem to be stepping on farmer's rights quite a bit here and where is the trend going to go? Who's going to be next? Book 1, Section 3, the list of agencies and bureaus who will be consulted for advice and consent on various items. ! did not see the Southold Trustees on that list, I was just wondering why. The farms, I think farming is a terrible wa?, to make a living, I should saQ- a difficult way. There's no 401K's, there's no health plan, you have the weather, you have the fickle market, all kinds of, you know, pestilents, they have all kinds of things. D~d, all right, we're going to improve on the wa}' we deal with the farms, we're going to cry to buy the rights and all that business and the rights are taxable. So there's not much incentive there so you get your farmer's rights money and they take the tax out of you. So it's not as good as it sounds ! ~uess. All right, people want farms but they really don't want farms. They want a picture of a farm. They don't want spraying; they don't want noise; they don't want ~ust; they don't want traffic. It's a dilemma, ~ guess. What if t~e farmers start a class action suit planning on unfair selection 'Dr discrimination, and the~' don't do an>.tn_ng F-59 10.18 coLrRT REPORTING ~ TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE 1631; 878~8047 · · · · · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 except just delay the whole thing. I'm almost done. There weren't always farms on Long Island. The woodlands were cut do~rn for either houses or firewood for New York City, and there were farms not too far from where I lived in Queens. I was born in Greenport, by the way. There were farms in Queens as late as the late '40s. It's just a trend it started there. It went to Hicksville and wherever else they were talking about tonight. It's coming here. You're going to march ~s right to sea. There's no place else for us to go. We're too close to a major metropolis. We're burning a lot of gas to get to work, and we like to live here, but we can't make any money out here. So we have to go some place to work. So that's it, thank you very much. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, sir. Any other comments on the DGEIS? If there are no other comments this evening, anyone want to make a motion? COUNCILMAI{ RICHTER: Move that we close the hearing tonight. COUNCILMAN WICK}{AM: Second. SUPERVISOR HORTON: All in favor. Oppose. AJDstain. The public hearing on zhe Southold Town Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement is now officially closed, starting tomorrow -- yes, I was checking to make sure it wasn't past midnight. Starting tomorrow there will be a ten day period of time where written comments can be sent in response or in addition to the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, and those should be addressed to Southold Town Clerk's office here at Town Hall, and it would probably be helpful if you noted on there "Written comment for DGEIS," so it gets right to the authors of the DGEIS, the people who are currently working in the text. I also just wanted to say that this process I think has been fruitful from all walks of life; all points of view have come out and participated in the pttblic. COURT REPORTING AND TR3~NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 process, and I think that's really a testimony to the Town of Southold, the residents that live here. And moving forward we look forwar~ to continued participation. So thank you all for coming cc these hearings, and thank you for your input and your words, and have a good evening. (Time ended: 10:31 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the State of New York, do hereb~~ certify: THAT the within transcript is a true record of the testimony given. I further certif}' that I am not related by blood or marriage, to an~' of Ehe parties to this action; and THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of July, 2003. Florence V. Wiles COURT REPORTING A~D TR~%NSCRIPTION SERVICE 1631) 878-8047 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS APPENDIX G WRITTEN COMMENTS Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-1 F.A.I.R. Growth Management Plan for a Rural Southold John J. Nickles, President, Southold Business Alliance undated · ;: ~ ~,ECEIVED JUN I 9 2003 · ;oulhold Town Chd, F.A.I.R. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR A RURAL SOUTHOLD _ (Foster Agriculture, Investment in guaranteed preservation & Responsible growth) The Blue Ribbon Commission of 2002 set a minimum preservation goal of at least 80% of the' 11,000 acres of undeveloped farmland and open space properties. Uncont~olled, accelerating or disorderly development of the remaining 11,000 acres of farmland and open space will permanently alter the rural character of the Town of Southold and put the business of agriculture in jeopardy. The good news is that the Town has experienced an extremely successful rate of preservation through voluntary means by farmers and other landowners that chose preservation over full-yield development. These programs have produced a record of preservation over development that far exceeds what five-acre zoning will give us! As far as we know, no other city or to~ in the United States has attempted or achieved this rate of voluntary preservation because of their reliance upon zoning as the solution to control growth. It is widely known that 2-acre zoning provides the economic benefit that enables the success of the voluntary preservation programs - a result of the dynamics that occur within the Town of Southold of all the private and government agencies in play. Of greater importance is the impact that zoning has upon the business of agriculture. Since density dictates land equity and development right equity it plays a major role in the financial leverage available to operate a farming business or to provide the necessary economic benefit to induce permanent preservation! It is an indisputable fact that under 5-acre zoning property owners will lose 60% of their real development fights that could be given, ieveraged or sold by individual landowners. The ultimate impact is a significant reduction of a landowners economic incentive and therefore motivation to preserve. If the residents of Southold Town want landowners to preserve, up-zoning is definitely not part of the answer. We should not "force the hand" of a property owner by taking away' available economic options and benefits viable under 2-acre zoning. A Rural Incentive District (RID) though well intentioned by the Blue Ribbon Commission should not be used to force landowners to make a choice about land equity while the Town of Southold threatens up-zoning. Requiring farmer's to make this choice while they are under duress is not the F.A.I.R. thing to do. Because of the immediate financial impact upon a property owner's land and development right equity, up-zoning will actually discourage preservation, discourage agriculture and accelerate development! Zoning does not preserve land permanently! Up-zoning and Down-zoning happen by the same legislative process. It is therefore possible that zoning measures can be reversed by a Town Board that executes the wants and needs of the electorate. Up-zoning provides no lasting guarantee for the preservation or build-out of the Town. This is not a risk the residents ot Southold Town should be willing to take. The only way to permanentl3 preserve land is by purchasing it or having it voluntarily sterilized by a deed that runs forever with the land! So, rather than up-zoning.., in order to guarantee that we meet that 80% minimum standard set by the Blue Ribbon Commission, the Town of Southold should establish a F.A.I.R. Growth Management Plan that controls the ultimate preservation and growth of Southold Town. Being within 100 miles of New York Ci .ty, recognized as a top location in the North East for tourism, vacationing and residential living - the Town wishes to mitigate the unpredictable nature and impacts of mass movements of people. In order to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the Town of Southold - the Town must allow for ample time and resources to plan the necessary public infrastructure (water mains, sewers, roads, fire departments, schools, police, etc.). The residents of the Town of Southold prize the local agricultural economy and the quality of life that a rural community provides. By definition, it is therefor a necessity that the residents and government of Southold Town embrace the fact that the business of agriculture is inextricably linked to our rural way of life - however it evolves and in whatever form it may take! This legislation recognizes that the best way to achieve preservation is to assure the success of the agricultural commtmity. The Town f'mds that the ownership, use and value of private property is integral to this stated purpose and therefor resolves the following facts, policies and measures: Foster the business of Agriculture in Southold Town. The best way to do this is by simply not placing new restrictions or regulations on their land... Regulating what type of farming is allowed in Southold Tox~m and using Scenic Overlay Districts to prevent expansion f indoor agriculture industries locks out more advanced, efficient, envnonmentatly friendly and evolving agriculture technologies that may very well assure agriculture's success well into the future. Therefore, we should create no new encumbrances that will impact the future of this vital industry. Unless there are scenic easements over land (that guarantee a view) - the business of agriculture should be promoted and encouraged in whateve~ G-1 3.2 form it takes to the greatest extent possible by the residents of Southotd Town and our government. Laws that limit the future of agriculture are incompatible with the long-term goals of the Town of Southold. Recognize the success of the voluntary, preservation efforts in Southold and create new incentives for landowners to choose preservation. Recognize that restrictive zoning and burdensome regulations have impacts upon the business of agriculture and business in general. Investment in the future ora rural Southold is the only way to guarantee permanent preservation! The pumhase of development rights and scenic easements are guaranteed investments in the preservation of farmland and open space properties. It should be clarified to the residents of Southold that the Purchase of Development Rights prevents residential development and the Purchase of Scenic Easements is what actually guarantees the rural view. First priority for the purchase of development rights should always be given to properties within the Rural Incentive District and to properties located within the Special Groundwater Protection Area. Create incentives to utilize Conservation Opportunity Subdivisions on all farmland and open space properties. Expedited review and approval would be guaranteed within one (1) year of application. Development rights along with the fee simple of the land remain intact to be sold or gifted to any public or private land preservation entity. Responsible Growth Rate Limitation (RGRL): Create legislation that restricts the total number of new house permits to be issued in any given calendar year. The RGRL should be derived both by the average new house permits over a 10-year bull/bear market cycle (to be fair to our local builders) and by what the Town of Southold believes is responsible and sustainable to meet our long-term goals. The Town could also consider limiting the number of new dwellings per school district to prevent development from occurring solely within one district to assure that the population growth is evenly spread. A balance must be found that respects the property rights of vacant property owners as well as the wants & needs of the community. Building Permit restrictions: Recognize that it is preferable for new homes to built on already existing in-fill lots (currently there are 2000+/- existing). Create a new policy for existing stock of single and separate vacant parcels - the Town reserves a fixed number of new house permits for these in-fill parcels until October 1,L of each calendar year. This number would be related to the annual RGRL and could be determined by how much development the Town wants to occur within existing developed areas as a preference to developing undeveloped areas. Set policies that inplement the goals of the Town of Southold. Responsible Development Rate Limitation (RDRL): Create legislation that restricts the total number of building lots that may be created in any given calendar year. This rate of development should be derived both by the statistical growth rate of the Town, the anticipated growth rate of the Town and by what the Town of Southoid believes is responsible and sustainable to achieve its long term goals. The Town could also consider limiting the number of new lots created per school district to prevent development from occurring solely within one district to assure that the population growth is evenly spread. A balance must be found that respects the property fights of undeveloped landowners as well as the wants & needs of the community. Recognize that subdivision of land within and near already developed areas of the town is preferable to subdivision of land within or near undeveloped areas. Set policies that implement goals of the Town of Southold. 10.Competitive Evaluation and Selection Process: Creation of this process would further provide the competitive incentive and framework for site plan applicants to meet or exceed Southold Town goals. The Southold Town Planning Board shall accept subdivision development applications at a prescribed time for each calendar year. First priority for the purchase of development rights should always .be given to properties within the Rural Incentive District and the Special Ground Water Protection Area. They shall competitively evaluate for quality in at least: proximity to developed neighborhoods, preservation of agricultural land or open space, level of affordability, density rating (only necessary if 1 acre lots are not mandatory), compatibility of tract density and design with adjacent properties. Guidelines for site plan applicants to achieve the long-term goals of the Town should be codified and a related scoring system for site plan applicants should be enumerated. EXEMI~TIONS TO RESPONSIBLE GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT LIMIIATIONS: 1. Exemptions can be made by a vote of the Southold Town Board whenever an application furthers the goals of the Town of Southold. 2. Whenever it can be proven that there is an individual or family financial hardship. 3. All residential setoffs from large lots, especially for farm families. All affordable housing opportunities (including higher density developments) where local people (as defined by graduating from one of the local high schools) essentially are new residences with no net increase in population. The local population is being priced out of the area by the demand of second homeowners who drive the real estate market. Up-zoning will only further tighten .the market creating a lock- out scenario for local residents. Southold Town should take action to create new oppommities for economic diversity within the town by providing a diverse range of housing opportunities for its residents. Some of these opportunities would include accessory apartments, multi- family dwellings, co-ops and townhouses. Since the cost of land is prohibitive, affordability requires more density. Properties that are zoned Hamlet Density are logical locations to be considered as well as Affordable Housing Districts made available. Policies must be implemented that encourage the stated goal of the Town to focus development within the Hamlet Centers and the existing residential areas to allow for that growth. The Town must amend the affordable housing requirements and screening process to ensure a fair selection process, ensure some level of permanent affordability and require the repayment of grant monies as a percentage of value to ensure appreciated funding for the affordable program. RURAL INCENTIVE DISTRICT: 1. A Rural Incentive District should be made available for landowners interested in land preservation and protection of development right equit2 should an up-zoning occur. Landowners within the R.I.D. would maintain their current development right density. Since land designated as protected by the R.I.D. is of the highest priori~~ to the residents of the Town of Southold - it would guarantee funding for the purchase of development right equiD' for all properties within this most valuable district. Priority for Conservation Opportunity Subdivisions shall be reflected in the Competitive Analysis and Selection Process for preservation, limited development and proximity to developed areas. CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITY SUBDIVISION (COS) ELEMENT: 1. The Town finds that large-scale tract housing developments are not compatible with agriculture or with the long-term goals of Southold Town. Guaranteed incentives must be offered to all landowners who elect to subdivide their property. The Responsible Growth Rate elements and the Competitive Evaluation and Selection Process will ensure that if development pressure increases in Southold Town there will also be increasing pressure on the developer to preserve or risk being locked out of the market by site plan applicants who will. The benefits ofa C.O.S. include (but are not limited to) 75-80% preservation is achieved, the economic benefits of selling development rights remains viable as well as the time and money saved guaranteed by expedited review of the site plan application. IN CONCLUSION: The F.A.I.R. Growth Management Plan allows a landowner to maintain all of the economic benefits of 2-acre zoning with a strong impetus to achieve 5-acre density or better because of the limited amount of development allowed on an annual basis and the competitive nature of site plan approval. Any landowner or developer would choose an option that seeks the maximum economic benefit in the shortest amount of time. Once again, if there were a strict limitation of the number of subdivision lots created and approved annually - subdivision applicants would not risk being passed over by another who will choose to go the expedited conservation route. If we implement annual Responsible Growth and Development Rate Limitations - we can guarantee managed growth! Preservation can be- achieved and growth can be managed without re-zoning land, without taking individuals land or development fight equity and without jeopardizing our successful voluntary preservation programs! THISPLANIS F.A.I.R. !!! It shows respect for the property rights of every $outhold resident while guaranteeing a manageable rate of growth combined with powerful incentives to preserve at a minimum 5-acre density or better and there are no limits imposed upon voluntary preservation! Members of the Town Board issued a challenge to the residents of Southold Town to find a better way to achieve preservation than 5-acre up-zoning. If this challenge was sincere - then the Southold Business Alliance presumes that you will look upon this plan and combination of tools most favorably. Does anyone believe that the North Fork will not be in demand at any time in the future? The doomsayers keep reminding us that the developers are coming, that they have no where else to go with their truckloads of money and it is a certainty that they will try to build out our Town. They keep telling us that we are at a crossroads; that we have to do something and do it before it's too late. With that in mind, the Southold Business Alliance offem the residents of Southold Town this program, conceived and designed to address the fears of the worst case scenarios that may arise from overwhelming demand and rapid or disorderly growth. The strength of this plan is that its success will actually increase as demand increases. We invite those individuals and groups who have been in favor of 5-acre up-zoning to join us in support of the F.A.I.R. plan.., specifically, the North Fork Environmental Council, Save Open Spaces Now, our Town Planners and especially the Southold Town Board. The demand for real estate on the North Fork and your support will guarantee the success of this combination of tools! I have master copies prepared for the Town Board, the planning group and the media. Thanks for listening! Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-2 Letters from Lending Institutions in Support of Comments from Steve Mudd June 13-15, 2003 ,, 86'12,,)/2881 20:1G 6317270E03 IrlR~T PIONEE~ FARM c Jo~ph M. Oergela, Executive Director Long Island Farm Bureau, Inc. 10,~ ~dwards Avenue Calver~on, NY 11933 PAC~ 01 Ju~e 14,:2001 RECEIVED JUN 1 9 2003 Dear Joe; Southold Town Ch.r[ In re. pome to the current local public policy conditiom afl. ting agriculture arid it's future on Long Island, [ wanted to pr~a~nt my position and experience for you and your boant to conaider. Fccl fi'cc to sharc this with whomever you fccl Most of the land m open apge on Long Island is owned by farmland owners, From an economic perspective, framers keep their land open and in farming for 2 reasons. R~ascn l: J_amd for farmers is used to produce farm product~ that m'e sold for profit. Farmers will koep fm'ning if they can reasonably expect that profits will continue in Eature year~. Reason 2; F~"mers rely on land as an investment that ~ey expect to appreciate in valu~ over time. All other f~rrn rcl~t~I investm~ts (tractors, ~pment, b~l~n~ cIc.) d~iate ~ value. Most of the f~en we~lh is ~ntam~ in real est., ~ey do not ~vc at.tricot oth~ inves~. ~e f~cn p~ccption of how ~e ~te of l~d app~ciation compm'es to alternative inves~ (like atoc~, bonds or c~h) dete~mes whe~cr a ~nv~ion out of f~fl~d is n~s$~. Lower exp~ct~ r~t~ t~d to triter converaions out of l~d. Simply stated, Long Island agriculture has access to prime soils, irrigation and good markets all of which tend to produce adequate profits for continued farming. Historically, Long Ighmd farmland h~s provided tm-mia.nd owners with appreciation rates that ~e ~lequate for eontinu~ fazming. It has been my exl~ri"nce that farm f~anilies who operata profitable operations on land th. at is expected to appreciate into the future stay in farming and encourage their oMldr~a to farm when they ~re gone. However, if farmers perceive future real estate appreciation being less than other alternative investments, th~ decisions to sell are considered. Public policte$ instituted by town government, clearly impact perceived appreciation rates. Zoning changes which upzozae and decrease the allowable intensity of futare use have a ckilhng affect o~ currant and future lav. d values. Our data strongly suggest that reducing the number of units allow~i on acreage (wluch is what upzoning does) decreases the value of that acreage. Arguments m~e today contend th. at thc market desires larger lots and that larger lots sell for more than smaller lots. Although true, the fmmland owner looses equity if the large lot sales price is not high enough to offsel the loss of acreage resulung fi.om the creation of the larger lots. Ir, other words, ifa buyer wants a 5 acre lot instead of a 2 acre lot thc fanmcr will have use up 3 additional acr,s to meet that need That ts ~ additional 150% ese of land Will the buyer pay an ~dmonal 150% m dolta~s° Both economic theor,, (lhe law' ofdtmtmshing ret~rns~ oar data sa)' no. Using the saJne ex~nple, I collected lot saiea fi'om i999 to present and ;bunc bat the average selling price for 2 acre lets in Southold ~s 5115.000 The average ~ot price for acre lots ia $193,090. only a 08% increase F~r the farmland owner to be no worse from 2 acres to 5 aCres ~ x [ 5¢'% in;reuse '.h s~ze ~ the 5 acre lot would have to scl3 at $25-.50(i ~ a 150% increase from ~; I 15.0001 The affects of lowered, land values on farmland owners ~s d.ramauc Real estate ts the cornerstone of all agnculn~ral enterprises Reducing real estaxe values mtemapts t>usmess structure and permanently damages the health of agriculture m many ways First. io'~'cred land values reduce farmers wealth or equity. Equity ofa borrox~er ~s a key component :n makang a loan decision. The higher the equil3, the more likely a loan approval can be granted Second, lower equity also reduces a farmland owners ability 1o survive bad years Agriculture has bastoncally been plagued by periodic and unpredictable yearn cf poor earnings or losses. Farmers use their l~ld to cover those loss years either by pleogmg real estate for loans or selling off non-essential parcels for cash. Third, lowered land values motivate farmers to switch wealth out of real estate into alternative mvestmems. This ~s especially true if the lowered land values resuit from conditions ~t a framer can not control, such as regulation and public policy. Changing public pohcy such a~ upzonmg is a double "whammy". It lowers hind values ~nd it increases the risks ot'holdmg real estate aa an inveatment. The addeq nsC: ~s the ability of the public sector to again upzene Increase{1 risk requires increased returns Upzomng lowers returns and presents increased risk Many farmers wi}l be mine likely to caah out of tend. Fourth, lowcrefl land valuc~ reduce the amount of collateral that a farmer ha~ ava~la0!e Farming is a capital intensive business w~th huge financial requirements. Debt h~ alwa),s beer, a necess~ component of r'a~ming a farm business. In ou~ agricultural economy, reduced iand ~alues will reduce farmers abthty to borrow for their business needs. The number one risk facing First Pioneer Farrn Credit's Long Island loan portfolio ~s the affect public policy will have on our collateral and agribusiness health. We are hcmg increased risks of doing business on Long Island which we can't control unless the process of pubhc pollc:. implementation is rnolp,'ated by ranonal thouggt and participateD' behavior Stephen R, We~r 'vhce President ~/1~/2B03 15:2i ~312982~B ~RTINSIDORFP~ P~GE 01 durte 13, 2003' RECEIVED JUN 19 Southold Town Cie.ri Dear Supervisor Herren, It has c,~me to my attentiC~ ~ once again. Sot'thoM Town h-a legislation pellcllng regercll~ up~g. I! il my b~l~ftat ~i upzonl~g wou~ cai one of~e b-,k: p~inoiple~ ~ our caun~y, Ihe ~g~t to p~vate a~ners~p of ~nd, to be For the farrier, hi-, land represent, his equity, his legacy, hie life; unjust to ~ Im~dow~ers. Should b~e znnln~ proceed ~ ~, not ~ lair ~n tm hm bnd ff he ~ ~ sea ~ ~e ~ b ~ ~e U~ ~ val~ of one n~, b~ mo~ ~ le~. O~ to ~n~rn f~ r~u~i~ of~. Additiormlly, the I~nclowner/farmer i~ not the only one impmXed by Ih~ propo~l, bc;t rather, it will take It~ toll on the neighboring bus~neaeee as well. Farming requires oapiml, with debt and collateral being vital componenls. Diminished land value lessem awilable collateral, thereby rem[ucJng his ability to borrow. In o~oeing, a& a member of the local bunine~ community, I respeotfully request ~e author~ of thi~ leqial~tlon to reconsider for the good o1' the.lencl~nmem, the peol~le w~o made 8ulfolk County anO $ou~old Town wh~t It Is today. BI DGEHAMPTON NATIONAL BANK .., Highw~y'~.~O,'Mx $005 · I~fidSe~mpton, NY 119.t2 · (~.11) f.l?-lO00 ' Fax (~31) 2001~,. '~',," ..~. .. June ! 5, ...... Joseph M. Oe4~.l~a.'Exeou~e~Di~or Long Isled P~u~i Do~Joe, ,.~ ,. ~,,, ,.,. ~ you ~w,~e~fi~p~a~o~l Bank h~s b~n ~vely.mvowed in p~moling ~no~ d~v~b~t ~;~vati~ initiatives on'.~ ~ ~. ~ ad~ly ~work with f~, v~3~ [~y~t~ vf th~ fi~ ~ ~ m~, ~ well ~ devclo~ la ~ ~kut ~ W4~o ~th the ri~t~ h~nt ~ ~ o~e~hip, n~d ~r p~ that ~s~ l~d Sm~ervafim~ m~d open z~z. We ~li~o ~ ~e lnte~ of . ~ ...... ..,.~.;, . . ~e B~k h~ wo?~ ~flx~y o~ groups rep~scnun8 ~ s~des of~ dbv~ion tv p~o~ di~o~ ~ ~mp~l~,'~ 111~ fl~rough u mevti~ of~e m~nds ~ offc~ effgtive ~lrate '~ ~ piing ~t'~ p~ss wlU ~ m~de Wv ~umge ~e diflogue Sou~old To~ ~e ~ ~ommunily. We urge ~ bo~ ~ To~ and thc lmt~e~ ~ tim~ ~ ~ ~ing this issue to a r~olutlon ~ is ~pmble sides. Ill ~'b,lp~l*in'~m~ ~ dialogue, ple~e f~l ~e ~o ~1 upon 8in~mly, '~ '~' .' ', ';~. '., ' T.~T/ex RECEIVED JUN 19 2003 Southold Town Cier[ THE SUFFOLK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK THOMAS S. KO}"IU~ANN RECEIVED June 15, 2001 Joseph M. Gergela, Executive Director Long island Farm Bureau, Inc. 104 Edwards Avenue Calverton, New York 11933 JUN 19 2003 Southold Town Clerl Dear Mr. Gergela, I em writing today regarding the pending legislation pertaining to upzonlng in Southold Town. One of the fundameMal premises of this count~/and its founders ia the right to private ownership of land. I believe that fight is being infringed upon. To a farmer, his land is his whole life and the economic value of that land affects his well-being and potentially the lives of generations to come. Often, for a farmer, the only wealth is in the land. Therefore, I believe that the upzoning from two acres to five acres is unjust to the landowners, If the zoning proceeds as pending, the farmer will not receive fair compensation for his land in the event of a sale. In fact, in my opinion, thts legislation as proposed actually forces the farmer to consider selling his land sooner due to fear of losing its value, In addition to affecting the landowners/farmer, this proposal will take its toll on the surrounding businesses as well. Farming requires capital, with debt and collateral being fundamental elements. Decreased land value reduces the amount of collateral that e farmer has available, and as a result diminishes his borrowing capacity. In c~osing, as a member of the local business community, I respectfully request the authors of this legislation to reoonsider for the good of the landowners, the people who 'ade Suffolk County and Southol~ Town what it is today. Ve~ truly your¥ Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-3 Letter from Krupski Family undated Dear Southold Town Board, JUN 16 Southold Tc The Krupski family objects to the use of our picture in the Drat~ Generic Environmental Impact Statement. This picture represents an endorsement of a document that seeks to destroy the rural character and agricultural heritage of Southold town. This document does not accurately portray agriculture, but instead would undermine and eliminate it, as it exists today. We, the undersigned, demand that all pictures, images and specific references to Krupski's Pumpkin Farm and Kmpski Farms be immediately removed from all drafts, including the DGEIS on the Town's website. In addition, we demand a signed apology from those responsible for using our image without our consent. If you want to know how this proposed document will negatively impact agriculture, Ask A Farmer! 10.8 G-2 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-4 Letter from Robert W. and Helen W. Keith June 19, 2003 RECEIVED ,JUN l g 2003 Sour%old To~n Cler~ Rs :rt W. Keith 99.5 Willis Creek Drive Mattituck, New York 11952 (631) '298-8508 G-3 0.1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-5 Letter from Mary Foster Morgan June 19, 2003 RECEIVED JIJN 2 0 2003 - June 19, 2003 SoutholdTownClerk Southold Town Board Members Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Members of the Town Board: As a resident of the Town of Southold, I have been trying to follow the complex and technical discussion on the important issue o four town's land use polices: limiting development to preserve our rural character and our farming heritage. I would like to have a say in this historic matter, as i~affects all of our futures, our property values, our quality of life. It is very important to me that one vital segment our community, om working farms, be treated equitably and fairly as we seek to find a wise and fair way to limit growth and its demands on our community resources and services, and to preserve our open space, natural habitats, and farmland. Therefore I respectfully request that the hearings for the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) to remain open past next Tuesday (June 24, 2003) to allow public discussion until all points are resolved through a community-wide consensus. Sincerely, ~ Ma~ Foster Morgan Orient, New York 2.1 G-4 2 $outhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-6 Letter from J.L. Conway Commissioner, Southold Park District undated G-5 2.7 Soffthold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-7 Letter from George W. Clark June 21, 2003 RECEIVED G-6 10.1 Sovthold Town Cleri / 19 59 $outhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-8 Letter from John C. Tuthill June 22, 2003 To Josh Hot, on et al Mat~ituck, Long Island, June 22, 2003. To the West of us is the Pine Barrons Preserv e, in Southold Town we have ~he Fort Chrchaug Preserve dedicated to tribal history and nature stud~v. So w~7 not have an Agricultural Preserve where the Good soils of Southold Town are reserved for aEicultural use and dedicated to th~memory of the kind of farming which~ gave us the rural scenes which we enjoy. A fitting memorial would be wooded area depicting how the country looked before the land was cleared for farming. Such a memorial m~7 be funded by donations. Nany farmers have made long term commitments tofarming by forming agricultural districts and by participating in the sale of develop,ement rights. Otherwise it takes a billionaire to farm on billionaire land. If this is ones idea of preser¢ing open space then I have recourse to selling my estate to the highest bidder and t,king the cash le. G-7 10.10 Tou,~s_ truly . JoHn C. Tuthill. octogenarian. PS · ~_ Sorry I could Not be with you. Nee ~ou in heaven or otherwise. · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-9 Comments from William W. Schriever June 19, 2003 % RECEIVED COMIvtENTS ON DGEIS SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATE~ _2 3 2003 MAY 2003 by Southold Town Uer[ William W. Schriever These comments are primarily intended to point out what I believe are some of the deficiencies in the preparation of this DGEIS' document. My goal here is to assist the Town Board in achieving its objectives as efficiently and as accurately as possible. I plan to submit my suggestions as to how this policy might be implemented in a separate document. Given the fact that I have had only 10 days to review this large document, I anticipate that I may have overlooked some of the material that I claim here I could not find and I want to apologize for such errors in advance. I hope that these comments will prove useful. I. Purpose of DGEIS is not well defined: As I interpret the material in this DGEIS, at least a majority of the members of the Town Board have already decided to reduce the density of development in the Town by exactly the amotmt which could be achieved by up-zoning the lands now under 2-acre zoning to 5-acre zoning, narnely those lands zoned AC and R-80. However, if this zoning were implemented, it would have some very deleterious effects including accelerate the destruction of our most productive farmland. Apparently some members view the farmland as simply open-space and are primarily focused on achieving the reduction in density by means of 5-acre zoning while other members are deeply concerned about the destruction of the farmland and are searching for other ways to achieve the same reduction in density without destroying the farmland. In addition, there appears to be a strong desire to compensate the land owners for the loss of their development fights rather than simply to rezone the land to prohibit residential development. Evidently the purpose of this DGEIS should be to propose a solution to this dilemma which will allow the farmland to be preserved and will provide compensation to the land owners for the loss of their development rights. Obviously, finding a way to pay for that compensation is one key element in achieving the solution. Maybe you can improve on this statement, but something like this story needs to be told in the opening paragraphs of the DGEIS document and in the Summary. 2. Coucept of 80%/60% is left undefined: The concept of"80% preservation and 60% density reduction" is not even mentioned in the Summary. It first appears in the text on page 3-8 and again on page 3-27, which is about two-thirds of the way through the main body of the text of the DGEIS document. The first time it is described is on page 8-4 in connection with one of the Alternatives. This description should appear in one of the opening paragraphs of the DGEIS document and in the Summary. The concept of 80%/60% appears to be a code name for 5-acre zoning. To demonstrate, if a parcel of land now subject to 2-acre zoning is up-zoned to 5oacre zoning and clustering is required using 1-acre lots there would be 4 acres left over for each 5 acres developed thereby preserving 80%. Also the density of development would be two-fifLhs as great as under 2-acre zoning thereby providing a density reduction of three-fifths or 60%. But that is not sufficient for a definition. There should be sample calculations showing how the concept would be applied to achieve the results desired. And once the implementation of the concept using 5-acre zoning has been clearly defined, then the definition should be expanded to include other means of implementation, particularly those based on the purchase or transfer of development rights. G-8 2.9 G-9 6.8 June [9, 2003 - ! - William W. Schriever COMMENTS ON DGEIS 3. Life after build-out is not anticipated: It was discovered recently in Ethiopia t-hat Homo sapiens like tis have been scratching out an existence on thts planet for more than 160,000 years. Recently modem famnng has become absolutely essential to supply the quantity of food needed to support our large population. As I remember, zomng ','ab implemented in the Town of Southold in 197 ',~itb ~-acre residenttal zoning. Theo thc zoning v`'as increased to [.,-acre. then to 1 -acre, then to 2-acre and no;x the Town Board ~s considenng 5-acre zoning. At first there ;','as a concern with the pollution of the private wells from nearby cesspools, then there was a concern with having enough water for the population and more recently there has been s~mply a desire to limit the population. During most of those years the Town discouraged the development of public water and public sewers believing that doing so would slow development and thus help to preserve our rural heritage. Now public water and public sewers have become essential if we are to preserve our rural heritage. The fact that we are even considering the results of build- out at the current density of zoning suggests that we should be anticipating the need for higher densities in the future, not planning for lower densities. Those who take th~s concept of build-out seriously simply don't understand politics. Development will continue as long as we live in a democracy. Each time development becomes hmited by the constraints of build-out, additional parcels will be down-zoned selectively to allow for their redevelopment at higher densities and life will continue, at least for another few generations. _Any attempt nov,' to shut off development is misguided and will prove fruitless. Instead we should be planning for the future. Land can be rezoned endlessly but once the fertile soil of the farmland is gone there is no practical way to replace it. So that part of this process is not reversible; we are playing for keeps. This DGEIS should anticipate what form future development will take depending on the choices which we make now. If the Town Board chooses 5-acre zoning in an attempt to reduce density, what does that portend for future? Similarly, if the Town Board chooses to protect the farmland from development and, instead, increases the density in other areas, especially by providing public water and public sewers to support development at that increased density, what does that portend for the future? In each case, at the current rate of development, how rapidly would the hrmland be destroyed? How many years v`'ould ~t be before down-zoning would be required? And what type of zoning would that be? Also, zoning restrictions can oe modified as needed whereas recorded covenants restricting development wilI be much more difficult to change and thus could interfere with orderly redevelopment in the future. This is especially a problem with the clustering of subdivisions and with the purchase of- development rights. This DGEIS should review the nature of the restrictions used to implement each chotcc and recommend for adoption those that v`'ill interfere the least with redevelopment. 4. Cost of compensating the farmers for development rights is not revealed: There appears to be a strong consensus in the community that farmers should be compensated for the loss of their development rights when the Town restricts their right to develop farmland into residential lots, which is really remarkable when you think about it Because of the efforts of a long-serving Chairman of the Planning Board, farmland was zoned initially for residential development and has been allowed to remain so. However. as land zoned for residential development has been up-zoned over the years from h-acre to the current 2-acres per dwelling unit, this farmland has lost 7 of every $ of the development rights it received initially and, as I remember, no compensation for the loss~ G-tO 6.9 G-11 7.5 June 19,2003 - 2 ,.,,~llla:~ v. Schr~ev,: COMM ENTS ON DGEIS of those development rights was even discussed at the time. An argument could be made~ that the up-zoning was necessary as a matter of public health, and perhaps that was true up to l-acre zoning. But the up-zoning beyond that was adopted simply as a means of limiting the overall density of development in the Town without incurring any responsibility to compensate the farmer for the further loss of development rights. And isn't that what makes the adoption of 5-acre zoning so attractive politically. Given this history, we have now established the principle that an3' restriction on development which is applied uniformly to an entire class of landowners is inherently fair and does not incur any responsibility to compensate those landowners. The best example of the application of this principle was in the taking of the wetlands by the State about three decades ago. In this case the DEC was given control not only over the wetlands but the upland within 300 feet of the wetlands including some of the most valuable waterfront real estate in the Town. The State seized not only the development rights but literally complete control of this land. And no compensation ever was paid to the landowners. As one of those who suffered through this indignity, I don't remember any significant public concern at that time about the loss of these development rights by the landowners. I assume that the State would argue that this land as a class was simply too valuable to be left in private hands and needed to be under the control of the State for the benefit of the people. Apparently, by not taking title to the property the State avoided the need to pay compensation. If the wetlands and the waterfront are so unique and valuable that they need to be preserved for the benefit of the people, certainly the same can be said for the farmland. I would argue that the farmland is even more valuable because it alone is irreplaceable. More wetlands can be created with a dragline and more open-space with a bulldozer but the fertile soil of farmland cannot be created by any machine. That being the case, I believe we should preserve all of the fertile farmland and not just some arbitrary fraction like 80%. I believe, as a matter of public policy, residential development of our fertile farmland should be prohibited by adopting the original concept of the AC zone. If that restriction were applied uniformly to all the fertile farmland in the Town then I believe it would be considered fair and no compensation would be required. Note that this proposal appears to be essentially the same as Alternative 8.5 on page 8-8 and compensation is not mentioned there. On the other hand, there is no practical reason why the landowners could not be compensated for the loss of their development rights if the Town Board wished to do so and I will explain in another document how that can be done at no direct cost to the taxpayers. Furthermore, it appears to me that residential development cannot be prohibited selectively to create open-space since there is nothing unique about such open-space to differentiate it as a class from any other undeveloped land in the Town so in that case I believe compensation would be required. This analysis leads directly to a very interesting conclusion: Zoning can be used to prohibit residential development on 100% of the farmland in the Town without any requirement to compensate the landor, mcr for the loss of the development rights; but once farmland is zoned for residential development and development rights are created then any further restriction or prohibition of residential development required to preserve the farmland would require compensation for the loss of those rights. This DGEIS mentions a number of tools designed to offer such compensation without providing any analysis of the cost or the source of the funds. Without such an analysis, there is no reason to believe that a plan to preserve farmland using those tools will be successful. · June 19, 2003 - 3 - William W. Schr~ever COM dENTS ON DGEIS 5. Need a plan to maintain farmland in agricultural production: Prohibiting res~denual development on farmland by itself is trot sufficient to maintain farmland in agricultural production. Obv~ot]sly the real estate tax assessment on the xacant land v,'~II decrease significantly once residential development is prohibited. Thus the cost of ownershq~ be much lower than it is now which will be especially beneficial to the fmTners [';u~ community ~s becoming more and more a playg~-ound t'o~ thc tach who ma'. Iin,:i attractive to purchase the farmland and to convert the land to recreational use :,nd provide open-space surrounding their big estates. For example, the construction of a golf course on farmland is one possible use we have observed in Riverhead Also thc purchase of farmland by the environmental organizations to preserve the land as open- space is another possibility. If the preservation of farmland in agricultural production our goal, then the use of the land for other purposes must be actively discouraged if it cannot be prohibited. Hopefully, this goal can be achieved by adopting additional zoning restrictions and by increasing the real estate tax assessment significantly for uses other than farming. This DGEIS should recommend the tools available to achieve this goal Also some land previously fanned has been converted to other uses such as open-space for cluster subdivisions or for land preservation and its current use may be restricted bx recorded covenants that are incompatible with the goal of maintaining farmland m agricultural production. This DGEIS should examine the possibility of restoring th~s former farmland to agricultural production. Can the zoning ordinance be used to require the landowner to restore the farmland to agricultural production? What other tools are available to achieve this goal? 6. Need an analysis of all of the zoning required to implement a zoning plan: Each plan to preserve farmland and open space and to limit residential density affects development throughout the Town, not just in the AC and R-80 zones. If development is pushed back in one place it will bulge out somewhere else. IfresidentiaI development is prohibited on farmland then it will occur in some other areas of the Town. Does a particular plan prepare for this new development by providing public water and public se:vets to limited area? Or does it accelerate the build-out by adopting 5-acre zoning and cause thc development to spread like a cancer over the remaining vacant land. This DGEIS should prepare an analysis of all of the zoning required to implement at least the following three plans: (1) The basic 80%/60% plan implemented with 5-acre zoning of the AC and zones; (2) The plan to continue with 2-acre zoning but to preserve farmland and open space by purchasing or transferring development rights and by the other means suggested in Section 1.0 of thc DGEIS; and (3) The plan to preserve the farmland and to provide open space by prohibiting residential development in the AC zone as proposed m Alternative 8.5. If other plans are being considered seriously then they should be included as well. Each plan should be defined by its advocates. 7. Need a comparison of the cost of installing private utilities versus public utilities: At a minimum, the transfer of development rights requires the availability of public water. And development at suburban densities requires the availability of both public water and public sewers. The decision to provide public utilities to a development must be made by the government in virtually all cases because the cost of installing such improvements must be spread over a large number of customers for the project to be practical. The Town Board is required to make the zoning decisions for the Town and having an estimate of the costs of residential development at any particular density in any particular G-12 8.7 G-13 6.10 G-14 7.6 June 19, 2003 - 4 - WiIham ~3, 3chrmxer COMMENTS ON DGEI5 June 19, 2003 area is essential in making such zoning decisions. This DGEIS should provid_e a, comparison of the typical costs of installing public water and of installing a private welI and water system for a residential lot based on the width of the house lots in a development or some other measure of the density. And similarly this DGEIS should provide a comparison of the typical costs of installing a public sewer and of mstalhng a pr/rate cesspool system for a residential lot. These costs may differ significantly in each area of the Town depending on the current availability of public water and public sewers in that area. Also. there may be local areas where private wells or cesspools are difficult if not impossible to install because of ground water pollution or impermeable soils. But it is these costs that are going to influence the selection by the Town Board of the land to be zoned for higher-density development. And that selection is far more important to the majority of the citizens than the selection of the land to be preserved because the higher- density development is where they will live! William W. Scnrie 'er P. O. Box 128 Orient, NY 11957 631-323-2456 June 19, 2003 - 5 - W~lliam W. Schrlever RECEIVED SAVING THE FARMLAND SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRA~{'23 20C3 MAY 2003 by $outhold Town Cler~ William W. Schriever The Blue Ribbon commission For A Rural Southold recommended a-~ z~ ?aJ "Y; preservatton and 60°'; density reduction" and that both £armtand and open-space be preser~ ed The achievement of this goal is apparently the basis For the action being anticipated tn ;h~s DGEIS. As discussed previously in my "Comments On DGEIS" the concept of the "809~ preservation and 60% density reduction" appears to be a code name for the substitution of 5-acre zoning for the existing 2-acre zoning in the AC and R-80 zones where the AC zone ts the code name for £annland and the R-80 zone is the code name for open-space. This is the definition of this goal that I have chosen to use in the absence of an_,,' de~nition being presented m the DGEIS. in my speech to the Town Board on Thursday, June 19. ! argued that tine only ,.,.'a~, to preserve farmland ;','as to zone it to prohibit residential development. The reasons can be summed up as follows: Preserving farmland by converting it into cluster subdivisiom- ma,, restrict development on 80% of the land but tt does not preserve the farms, ~t systematically destroys them. Preserving farmland one parcel at a time throngh the purchase of development rights is an extremely costly and very slow process that ts incapable of competing m the maraet with the rapidly accelerating demand for residential development. .amd preset'lng farm!and tlu-ough the conventional transfer of development r4ghts in which residential densn,,, i, actualli, transferred from the farmland to. undeveloped land in another area of the ]-okvn is extremel': unlikely to receive the approval of the Suffolk Comtty Department of Health Serxlces, particularly when an application is made to apply it to 5.659 acres of undeveloped t'armland, which is more than half of ail of the undeveloped land in the Town. I'See Appendix: <5 i 'I'h~5 DGEIS has failed to demonstrate that even one of these three plans is actually capable preserving tke farmland that is the primary environmental justification for this acnon To begin an evaluation of my plan. I calculate the actual density reduction , 'htch '~:. achieved by applying 5-acre zoning to the AC and R-80 zones. The chi5 vacant land ,.~hicl! ~,. affected by an upzoning is that which is subdividable. Using data based on the e.xistmg 2-acre zoning from fable 3-1, column 24, Net Subdividable Available To Develop t acres ~. the :'~eld ~ ,r the 5,195.91 acres of farmland in the AC zone under 2-acre zoning is 5,195.91 x 0.40 = 2078 Units Similarly the yield for the 2666.32 acres of open-space in the R-80 zone is 2666.32 x 0.40 = I066 Units Thus the combined >Seld under 2*acre zoning ~s 2078 + 1066 = 3144 Units G-15 9.10 June 23, 2003 - 1 - William W. Schnevet SAVING THE FARMLAND The theoretical reduction in housing units achieved by converting from 2-acre to 5-acre zonillg isl 3144 x 0.60 = 1886Units Actually it should be slightly larger than this because of breakage in forming the larger lots. So if the goal of "80%'60%" is achieved as I have defined it, 1886 housing units would be eliminated from build-out. My plan is to rezone only the farmland in the AC zone to prohibit residential development and then to compensate the farmers financially for the loss of their existingI development rights. Using data based on the existing 2-acre zoning from Table 3-1, column 26,[ Development Potential (units), 232l housing units can be developed on the ,,,~cant farmland inI the AC zone. Note that this can be computed approximately by adding the 20,8 units computed] for the subdividable land to the 259 parcels in column 14, Vacant Non-SubdMdable (parcels). This sum is 2337 which is slightly greater than 2321 because of adjustments made in the latter. The reduction in density' under my plan is 2321 : 3144 = 73.82% as compared with 60% under the plan based on 5-acre zoning. And, of course, the reduction in housing units achieved by prohibiting residential development in the AC zone is significantly greater than that achieved by converting the AC and R-80 zones to 5-acre zoning. The difference is 2321 - 1886 -- 435 Units To restore these 435 housing units to the build-out, some of the land in the R-80 zone, which still has the existing 2-acre zoning, can be down-zoned to 1-acre zoning and trapsferred to the R-40 zone. The area, A, in acres which is to be down-zoned can be calculated by soMng the following equation: (A x 0.80) - (A x 0.40) = 435 A = 435 / (0.80 - 0.40) = 1087.5 Acres So the subdividable land available for development in the R-80 zone would be reduced to 2666.32 - 1087.5 = 1578.82 Acres while the subdividable land available for developmem in the R-40 zone would be increased to 560.81 + 1087.5 = 1648.31 Acres In fact, a portion of this transfer could be made from the AC zone instead of the R-80 zone if that were considered essential to an orderly development plan. If fnlly implemented, my plan June 23. 2003 - 2 - Wilham W. Schriever SAVING THE FARMLAND provides a 100% preservation of the farmland and a 73.82% reduction in density, far exceeding the goal of "80%/60%" recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission For A Rural Southo~d. Using data based on the existing 2-acre zoning from Table 3-1, column 24. Ne~t Subdividable Available to Develop lacresI, and from column 13. Vacant Non-Subdividable (acres), the total farmland preserved by' my plan is 5195.91 ~ 46=... =5658.68Acres Using the Low Totals from the same columns, the total undeveloped land subject to development is 8945.72 + 2144.61 = I1090.33 Acres Thus the farmland on which development would be prohibited is 5658.68 .' 11090.33 = 51.02% which is more than half of all the undeveloped land subject to development in the Town. Given the fact that such farmland would remain open-space with the stewardship to maintain it, this would guarantee the preservation of an abundance of open-space regardless of any development that occurred elsewhere in the Town. Using data from Table 3-1, column 26, Development Potential (units), the number of housing units which can be built throughout the Town at build-out is reduced from 6335 housing units to for a reduction overall of 6335 - 2321 = 4014 Units 2321/ 6335 = 36.64% June 23, 2003 William W. Schriever P. O. Box 128 Orient, NY 11957 631-323-2456 June 23, 2003 -3- Wilham W. Schnever Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic Appendix G-10 Comments from Ray Huntington June 23, 2003 · / RECEIVED Ray Huntington, Cutchogue, DGEIS Hearing Testimony 6/23/03 JUI~ 2 3 2003 Earlier I talked about the importance of the Town Board resolving to establish an Action Plan in parallel with the Generic Environmental Impact 8tatement~l~li~fo~vn Cl~rtt most important .... But, testimony at this hearing seems to show some gaps in understanding that should be addressed: We need to define some terms so we can understand each other... We need to define ~PRESERVATION" To me it means: "land on which the Town, or other qualified government or trust, owns the development rights or title." G-16 8.4 We have to put more of a sense of timing into the picture. How fast shall we accomplish this thing called "preservation"? Many have said that the voluntary town program is working very well and yielding preservation equivalent to 10 acre zoning. Well, the Land Preservation Program is working well, but not well enough. Ask yourselves, which will be the hardest part of preservation - the first or the last. There is no question that all experience says the going gets tougher We see by the draft that we have an opportunity to effect the use on about 8000 acres (out of a township whole of 34,000 acres). It does not take fancy arithmetic to see that it would take 40 years to preserve that land at a preservation rate of 200 cares per year - a rate that we a currently not achieving. Or, if we said that the effort of others (the county, land trusts, etc.) will leave the tow~ with only 4000 acres to preserve, we are still talking about 20 years of effort .... Will the problem "keep" that long? I think not. We must move more rapidly than that. Those who counsel that the existing program is adequate, only seek to delay remedy. G-17 4.3 Another recurring myth seems to be that up-zoning will devalue properties. The GElS should directly examine this idea and seek proof of its validity. Too many good people seem to believe this. Since devalued property surely has a negative effect on the environment, is appropriate that it be addressed in the GELS. Professional advice from appraisers is that there may be a shod term loss in equity that will be soon recovered in a good market. And, that the economy has a much grater effect on land values than does transient controls-of-ad such as zoning. G-18 7.1 A surprising number of people one meets seem to think this is only about a zoning change - even that it is about griding-off the town into 5 acre house lots With even a superficial reading of the draft, it is hard to understand why, so I have no recommendation to the team - perhaps the newspapers can help While I am addressing myths and how fast we should go... it has been said in testimony that the town is sitting on requests to purchase 1500 acres - boy, I wish it were so! We need that kind of rate. But we are looking at much less. The LPC has made a cash-flow analysis that projects 250 acres per year and that may be the source of this confusion. But in actuality we are achieving much less at the moment (remember it's a voluntary program) - partly because of the lack of settlement of such issues as are the subject of this impact statement. All I can say is, All ahead full! G-19 6.5 G-20 4.3 $outhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-11 Letter from Joseph A. Lee June 23, 2003 1645 Meadow Beach Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RECEIVEO JUN 2 4 20E1 June 23, 2003 Southold Town Cie.ri Southold Town Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY Dear Town Board Members: I urge you to vote for 5-acre duster zoning. Voluntary preservation is cert_~jrdy not the answer due to the tremendous demand for the remaining North Fork land. A case in point-recently a farm in Matfituck was sold, and where crops once grew, there are now weeds. I fear for the future of this piece of land. If the moratorium must be extended, please do so. G-21 10.1 Sincel~e~ ly, _ Joseph A. Lee · Soufhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-12 Letter from Julie Amper June 23, 2003 1645 Meadow Beach Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 June 23, 2003 Southold Town Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY Dear Town Board Members: Having attended the Town Board meeting on Thursday, June 19, and subsequently reviewed the DGEIS report, I am convinced that you must enact 5- acre duster zoning if you are to achieve your stated goals for preserving open space. The report, the lat~st in a seeming endless series of studies, was prepared at great expense to the taxpayers, and I feel that the Board is duty and honor-bound to act on facts as presented in that report. The facts as I review them, do not support the farmers' claims that 5-acre cluster zoning will have long-range negative impact on the dollar value of their land. Indeed, basic economic principles of supply and demand indicate the direct opposite. I do not believe that voluntary preservation measures are sufficient. I support this belief with a recent example-the sale of uncultivated acreage lying between the Main Road and New Suffolk Avenue just east of Locust Avenue in Mattituck by the widow of a former judge (not a farmer) to Christina Lane, Inc. Evenif every working farmer on the North Fork agreed to voluntary preservation of their lands, I'm afraid far too much of the existing open space is owned by non- farming investors who may have no qualms about selling to developers. And there is no question that the developers will leave disaster in their wake-- suburban sprawl and sky-rocketing taxes. If, however, as has been the case in the six years I've lived out here, the Board cannot reach a decision at this point, I urge you to extend the moratorium until you can. Sincerely, Julie Amper G-22 10.1 G-23 7.1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-13 Letter from Leila & James McKay June 23, 2003 ? G-24 10.1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-14 Letter from Helen A. McPartland June 23, 2003 RECEIVED G-25 10.1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-15 Letter from R.L. Feger, et al June 23, 2003 T~,T~ · G-26 10.1 · $outhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-16 Letter from Ed Booth June 23, 2003 /3 Southold Town Board DGEIS Meeting 17235 Soundview Ave June 23, 2003 Dear Board Members; I hope to be able to make this statement in public either at this afternoon meeting or else tomorrow night. In any case this letter is an official request that my remarks and questions be included as part of the public hearing on the DGEIS. We own 41 acres on Soundview Ave just East of Horton Point. 13 acres (500 ~ront feet) is on the Sound. Over the past few years we have been studying the financial and aesthetic advantages of doing a Conservation Subdivision on a 28 Acre piece and an Easement along the Sound. In order to provide finacial security for our old age (lc, now) and a reasonable Estate for our four children, we have asked the Town to buy our development rights on the 28 acres, to create one new lot on the 28 acres and to provide a new offset lot on the shorefront. That enterprise has been progressing slowly since last Fall and we hope will be completed this Summer. We have been assisted in this effort by the ~r~Committee, Melissa Spiro and the Peeonic Land Trust. L o~ ~ V ~;~ ~ ~ ~ Over the last two or three years I have studied the financial aspects of what we are doing. The choice was between standard development and COS. After running many scenarios which varied according to assuraptions about the real estate market,, securities markets, tax law, our own needs for health care. and local development and zoning customs, we concluded that a COS/easement arangemant would be roughly equivalent financially to standard development. Moreover, it could be completed within a time span of a year or two instead of the usual 5 years. This is important to persons in their late seventies with health problems because we would like to provide for our ehildre in an equitable manner while we still live. Now to get to the points I want to make which relevant to the DGEIS. 1.We are carrying out this plan with its substantial conservation aspects because the Town has offered to buy our development rights. If this money were not available we would have filed for a full development at whatever zoning was operative. Our children would not have the pleasure of seeing the protected land; nor would our fellow citizens. Here is my question: ifs here zoning is instituted what guarantee is there that the Town would buy development rights at a fair appraised price? The Town could make a low bid or no bid and 5 acres building lots would result.. G-27 4.1 2.At the time of the Seoping Session I submitted a letter (Jan 30)in which I raised the issue of equity to land owners. I asked the writers of the DGEIS to work out the loss in land value in upzoning from 2 to 5 acres. I asked them to consider the particular hardship endured by people with modest acreage, between 5 and 12 acres, where the fraction of lost lots is most severe. Why did the DGEI~ not determine how may owners fall into this most injured category and estimate their financial losses? There are about 300 lots in the 5-10 acre category. They will suffer the largest fractional loss and mukltiplied by the many individuals concerned, that loss could equal or exceed the losses by the owners of large acreage. Moreover, why did the GEIS not estimate the total loss of equity occasioned by the institution ors acre zoning? G-28 7.1 3. Part of my study of the financial aspects of the COS which we were seeking to obtain involved & G-29 7.1 a study of the variation of land sale prices with the acreage of sales. This was needed to see what lot sizes we could ask for and how to divide these among our children if necessary. I obtained data on lot sales over a two year period from October 2000 -October 2002. After culling the cases of sales with houses, there were 121 cases. I averaged by I acre bins and found a strong pattern of decreasing price per acre with increasing lot area. I plotted these and extrapolated from 3.2 acres to 5 acres to find a loss of 40% +- 12% per acre for 2 acre vs 5 acre sales. There were too few sales in the 4-6 acre range to be statistically meaningful. This loss figure was comensurate with those I heard from the floor of the Blue Ribbon Committee. I attach the data average and a plot of the data. In the DGEIS pg 3.28-3.32 the writers quote a report from Maryland that there should be no loss of equity caused by upzoning. They refer to this as research. Why did the writers not perform a simple analysis of lot sale prices in Southoid as a function of lot size before concluding that there is no loss of equity from 2 to 5 acre upzoning? The answer to this question is key to the previous questions. Note that my study did not take into account the fur. her loss of equity expected if the purchasers cfa 5 acre lot are crowded into a cluster of 1 acre lots. · Sheet1 Lot price averages Oct 2000-Oct 2002 Number Avg acres S/lot S/Acm 52 sales 0.95 98.8K 104K 47 sales 1.15 105.5K 91.5K 16 sales 2.25 135K 55.0K 6 sales 3.2 145K 45.7K Price variation with lot size E. Booth 10/20/02 121 sales Conclusion: 5 acm lot value less than 4OK with lost value more than 37% from 2 acres. Sales price variation over period Dates # of tots S/Acm Acm/sale Acres sold Oct-Dec 2000 19 81.9K 1.35 25.7 Jan-Dec 2001 90 125K '1.33 119.7 Jan-Oct 2002 54 110K 1.41 76.14 Page 1 · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-17 Comments from Long Island Farm Bureau Rebecca Wiseman, Associate Director (see also Appendix G-40) June 24, 2003 tonc sl nO Ilapm BuReau, nc. 104 Edwards Avenue, Calverton, NY lf933 Phone: (631) 727-3777 Fax: (631) 727.372'1 COMMENTS ON DRAFt GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY June 24, 2003 To: Joshua Herren, Supervisor Southold Town Members of the Town Board Members of the Moratorium Planning Team From: Rabecca Wiseman, Associate Director Long Island Farm Bureau RECEIVED JIJN 2 4 Soutbold Town Cleft GENERAL COMMENTS: I learned a valuable lesson 25 years ago when I began my car~er in psychotherapy. That lesson has followed along with me throughout my professional life, and remains just as valuable today in my work as advocate for Long Island's Agricultural lmdustry, as it was 25 years ago. The lesson learned was titles, degrees, associations and positions ofanthority did not qualify me or any other individual the authority to dictate what is best for the future of an individual's life, their family's life or their livelihood. In fact it is titles and degrees that provide the foundation, knowledge base and tools to assist our clients through life- changing issues. After wading through much oftbe DGEIS, I was le~ with the impression that the proposed action plans for preservation is neither working with or for the entire community of Southold Town. The weight of the document's proposed action plans is centered directly on the Town's agricultural community. What appears to be a dash to the finish line to implement the suggested plans without giving time for the democratic process to unfold is in total opposition to the freedoms we have which are so coveted by other countries. Due process must be provided the constituents of this community. The decisions and laws enacted as a result of the DGEIS document will have profound affect on the future of Southold Town. Reference: ' SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT: DGEIS document page 3-32, third paragraph: "In summary, the potential socio-ecanomic impacts to the Town of an up-zoning are not anticipated to be significant. In addition, solely economic impauts are not required to be addressed under SEQRA and any land use initiative mast consider the general good of the Town. Up-zoning has been documented as a valid growth management/density reduction tool that has been widely used throughout the countD'. The actual impact on value is expected to be minimal given increasing land values, the fact that reported densities of recent projects are consistent with significant diminution of vaiue, and agricultural land value will remain intact. Given the consideration of this issue as documented herein, no significant socio-economic impacts are expected as a result of this action ...... According to: 2003 New York State ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW Statutory. authority: Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8: Sec. 8-0101. Purpose. #7. "It is the intent of the legislature that the protection and enhancement of the environment, human and community resources shall be given appropriate weight with social and economic considerations in public policy. Social, economic, and environmental factors shall be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed activities" Sec. 8-0109. Preparation of environmental impact statement. ltl. "Agencies shall use all practicable means to realize the policies and goals set forth in this article, and shall act and choose alternatives which, consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations. to the maximum extent practicable....." #8. "When an agency decides to carry out or approve an action which has been the subject of an environmental impact statement, it shall make an explicit finding that the requirements of this section have been met and that consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent :acticable..." Sec. 8-0113. Rules and regulations. it2. Co) "....taking into account social and economic factors to be considered in determining the significance of an environmental effect; g4. "Coordination with agricultural districts program. The commissioner, in consultation with the commissioner of agriculture and markets, (Nathan Rudgers) shall amend the regulation promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this section as necessary and appropriate to assure the advancement of public monies for non-farm development on lands used in agricultural production and unique and irreplaceable agricultural lands within agricultural districts in accordance with the provisions of subdivision four of section three hundred five of the agriculture and markets law." · Explain the use of the following subjective statements made in reference to the economic impact of an up-zone. "...not anticipated to be significant." "no significant socio-economic impacts are I G - 3 0 expe' ' d as a result of this action... ", in addition, identify the supporting documents that were 8.8 us. come to this conclusion · E~ n the gross discrepancy between the DGEIS documem and the 2003/lrticle 8 Eh' : onmental Quality Review on issue of need to access economic impact on the farming I G- 31 industry. 8.8 According to: LEGG MASON a document to study the effect of zoning on the business of agriculture: PEP, ACRE VALUES OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IN TYPICAL MARYLAND METROPOLITAN AND RURAL LOCATIONS Page/450, Section D. Summary: "In summary, it is naive and hms counter to all land economics experience to contend that zoning and other command and control, police power land use control techniques do not lower the value of land placed in more restrictive verses less restrictive land use categories" The summary goes on to state "Public policy that results in the application of low density development in rural areas must take into account the impact that such a zoning has on the ability of the farmer to maintain the farm business.." Question: · The summary of the LEGG Ivl~SON document indicates that an exhaustive review of the economic I impact of u, o.zoningfarmlandwas not conducted by the moratorium planning team. Please, G- 3 2 review and report on the significance of this document to the DGEIS. [ 8,8 SEQRA LOCAL LAW REVIEW/REVISION: Reference DGEIS page I-35, # i 6. Re: the recommendation that the Town adopt a specific Type I list that would identify actions that are likely to b. ave a significant impact on the environment. As stated in the document the suggested Type I actions inctude: · Critical Environmental Areas · Actions within Scenic Byways · Projects that remove significant acreage from agriculture use · Conventional subdivisions exceeding a specified number of lots · Actions involving a minimum threshold percentage of a significant feature, such as wetlands. steep slopes, beach, watershed protection areas, woodland, etc. Actions that generate more than a certain minimum threshold number of vehicle trips. It is important for the general public of Southold Town be informed on NYS Environmental Quality Review as it defines Type I Actions: "those actions and projects that are more likely to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) than unlisted action." The recommendation to the Town to adopt a specific Type I list, is a recommendation to tighten the regulatory arm of Southold Town government. Question: ...... t G-33 8.8 What s the defimtton of crtttcal envtronmental areas , How is 'Scenic Byways' defined? [ G- 3 4 8.8 What is the definition of 'projects' that remove significant acreage (quantif~ 'significant acreage '), and what actions would define 'agriculture use '? How many 'specified number of lots' is needed to exceed conventional subdivisions? ] G What is the 'minimum threshold percentage' of a significant natural feature? I G- 3 7 8.8 8.8 Define: 'minimum threshold number of vehicle trips '. Do 'vehicle trips' include soccer moms and [ G- 3 8 little league games? I 8.8 Conclusion: By no means does this cum/into the final generic environmental impact statement suggest there are no further questions. In fact, it is not possible to read and digest the full impact the proposed changes will have on the entire community of Southold Town. It should be noted, this is the busiest t/me of the year for most in the fanning community. Closing a public hearing while farmers are working night and day between severe rainstorms to get their crops in the ground is unconscionable. It is important that tonight's DGEIS public hearing be recessed until such time as question and answer period s comp eted. G-39 2.1 ARTICLE 8 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW Section 8-0101. Purpose. 8-0103. Legislative findings and declaration. 8-0105. Definitions. 8-0107. Agency implementation. 8-0109. Preparation of environmental impact statement. 8-0111. Coordination of reporting; limitations; lead agency. 8-0113. Rules and regulations. 8-0115. Severability. 8-0117. Phased implementation. Sec. 8-0101. Purpose. It is the purpose of this act to declare a state policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and enhance human and community resources; and to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems, natural, human and community resources important to the people of the state. Sec. 8-0103. Legislative findings and declaration. The legislature finds and declares that: 1. The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern. 2. Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the environment. 3. There is a need to understand the relationship between the maintenance of high-quality ecological systems and the general welfare of the people of the state, including their enjoyment of the natural resources of the state. 4. Enhancement of human and community resources depends on a quality physical environment. 5. The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the legislature tha~ the government of the s=ate take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds from being reached. ~6. It is the intent of the legislature that to the fullest extent possible the policies, statutes, regulations, and ordinances of the state and its political subdivisions should be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this article. However, the provisions of this article do not change the jurisdiction between or among state agencies and public corporations. 7. It is the intent of the legislature that the protection and enhancement of the environment, human and community resources · 7/23/2003 obligation to protect the environment for the use and enjot~enE Sec. 8-0105. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions ir. t~is section shall govern the construction of the following terms as used in this article: 1. "State agency" means any state department, agency, board, public benefit corporation, puOli~ authority or commisszon. 2. "Local agency" means any loTal agency, board, Jistri--, commission or governing body, including any c=ty, county, and other political subdivision of the state. 3. "Agency" means any state Dr local agency. 4. "Actions" include: (i) projects or activities directly undertaken by any agency; or projects or activities supported ~n whole or part through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms cf fundzng assistance from one or more agencies; or projects or activities involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use 9r permi£si~n to act by one or more agencies; iii} policy, reguiatlons, and procedure-ma~zng. 5. "Actions" ~o no~ include: (i: enforce~ent proceedings or the exerEise of prosecutcrial discretzon ~n determin_ng whether or not to institute such proceedings; {ii) official acts of a mznisterial nature, znvoiving n.z exercise of discretion; iiii) maintenance or repair involving no substantial changes in existing structure or facility. 6. "Environment" means the physJcai conditions which wzll affected by a proposed action, including land, air, wa~er, m~nerals, flora, fauna, ntise, o~jects of hlstoilc or aestne%_~ significance, existing patterns cf population concentration, distribution, or growth, anG existing community or neighborhood character. 7. "Environmental impacl statement" means u ~etaileo statement setting forth the matters specified in section 8-0109 sf this article, i~ includes an}, comments on a arafr environmental statemen~ which are received pursuant ~o se3t~F: 8-0109 of this artizle, an~ the agency's response zc adequately resolve~ in t~e draft environmental statement. preliminary statement prepare~ pursuant to section 6-~109 of article. Sec. B-OlOT. Agenc~ implementation. Page · Page 3 of 9 All agencies shall review their present statutory authority, administrative regulations, and current policies and procedures for Tee purpose cf determining whether there are any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which prohibit full compliance with the purposes and provisions of this article, and shall recommend or effect such measures as may be necessary to bring Their authority and policies into conformity wlth tee intent, purposes, and procedures set forth in This article. They shall carry out i~s terms with minimum procedural and a~lminisTrative delay, shall avoid unnecessary duplication of reporting and review requirements by providing, where feasible, for combined or consolidated proceeGings, and shall expedite all proceedings hereunder in the interests of prompt review. S 8-0109. Preparation of environmental impact statement. 1. Agencies shall use all practicable means 5o realize the policies and goals set forth in this article, and shall act and choose alterna- tives which, consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects, including effects revealed in the envi- ronmental impact statement process. 2. Ail agencies (or applicant as hereinafter provided) shall prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract or otherwise an environmental impact statement on any action they propose or approve which may have a signff- icant effect on the environment. Such a statement shall include a detailed s~atement setting forth the following: la) a description of the proposed action and its environmental setting; Ih) the environmental impact of The proposed action including short- term and long-term effects; ~c) any adverse environmental effects which cannot De avoided should tee proposal be implemented; Id) alternatives to the proposed action; le) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented; ~f! mitigation measures proposed to minimize the environmental impact; %g) %he growth-inducing aspects of the proposed action, where applica- ble and significant; (h) effects of the proposed action on the use and conservation of energy resources, where applicable and significant, provided 5hat in the case of an electric generating facility, the statement shall include a demonstration that the facility will satisfy electric generating capaci- Ty needs or other electric systems needs in a manner reasonably consist- ent with the most resent state energy plan; (1) effects of proposed action on solid waste management where appli- cable and signzficant; and {i) effects of any proposed action on, and its consistency with, the comprehensive management pla~ of the special groundwater protection area program, as implemented by the commissioner pursuant to article fifty- five of this chapter; and ~j) such other information consistent with the purposes of This arti- cle as may be prescribed in guidelines issued by the commissioner pursu- ant to section 8-0113 of this chapter. Such a statement snali also include copies or a sunYmary of the suDstantive comments received by the agency pursuan~ to subdivision four of this seceion, and the agency response to such comments. The purpose of an en?irorunental impact statement is to provide detailed information about tee effect which a proposed action is likely to have on the envi- ronment, to list ways in which any adverse effects of such an action might De minimizeO, and to suggest alternatives to such an action so as Page manner capable of being read anz understood Dy the public, shsuld deal with the specific significant er~vlronmen%ai impacts w~lch can E.e reas.o~ ably anticipated and should not contain more detail than is appropriate considering the nature and magnitude of the proposed action and significance ef its pouent~ai impacts. 2. An ageecy ma,=' require an applicant to submit an environmental report to assist tee agency in carrying out its responstbillztes, including the init~ai determination and, ~where the applilant Joes prepare the environmental impact statement}, ~ne preparation !~f aR en~ i ronmental Impact s~atement un,er t~is article. The agency may reques~ such other information from an applican~ necessary for the review: cf environmental impacts. Notwithstanding any use of outsioe resources r work, agencies shall make their own independent judgment of the conten~s and adequacy of an environmental impact statement. 4. As early as possible zn the formulation of a proposal fur action, the responsible agenc} shall make an ~nitial determination whether an environmental impact statement neeG be prepared for the action. When an action is ~o be carried out or approved by two cr more agencies, such determination shall be made as early as possihie the designation of the lead agency. With respect to actions inv£.ivin~ the issuance to an ~pp~l._an_ :~ permit or other entitlement, tee agency shall notify the applicant tn writing cf its initial determination specifying therein 5he basis fDr such determination. Notice of the initial determination along with appropriate supporting findings on agency actions shall be Kept on file in the main office of the agency for public inspectior~. If the agency determines that such statement is required, the agency or the applicant a5 its option shall prepare or cause Es be prepared a draft environmental impact statement. If the applicant does not exercise the option to prepare such statement, tee agency shall prepare it, £ause it to be prepared, or 5ermina5e its review of the proposed action. Such statement snali describe %he Eroposed action and reasonable alternatives te the action, and briefly discuss, on the basis of information the[, available, the remaining items required to be submitted by subdivision two of this section, the purpose Df a draft environmental statement to relate environmental considerations to the insepEion of the planning process, to inform the public ant other public agencies as early as possible about proposed actions that may significantly affect the quali- ty of the environment, and to solicit comments which will assist agency in the decision making process in determining the envlronmentsl consequences of the proposed action. The draft statement s~ouid resemble in form and content tee envirDnmental impact statement to ce prepazeo after comments have been received and considered pursuanE t.z subdivision, two of this sectioe; h~wever, the length and detail zf t~e craft env~ ronmentai statement will necessarliy reflect the preliminary r~at~lre the proposal and uhe earl}' stale at which it is preparel. not required and whic[~ wcuiS take place !n a spesiai ~roundwater protection area, as defined in section 5~-0107 of %his chapter, agency shall snow how such actio~ would or would no7 be sonszsten5 wzlh the comprehensive management plan of the special grounowaEer ~rT, terLzl, n program, as implemented by t~e cs~issicner pursuant ~? arlizle lift,. five of this chapter. The draft statement shall be filed with the department or other deszc- hated agencies and shall be circulated to federal, state, regional local agencies having an interest in the proposed action aec tz intel- eared members sf the public for comment, as may be prescribed ~-.. commissioner pursuant t£ section ~-011i. · Page 5 of 9 5. After the filing of a draft environmental impact statement the agency shall determine whether or no[ to conduct a public hearing on environmental impact of the proposed action. If the agency ~etermines to n~ld such a hearing, it shall comK~ence the hearing within sixty days of the filing and unless the proposed action is withdrawn from consider- aIion shall prepare t~e enviror~ental impact statement within forty-five days after the close of [he hearing, except as otherwise provided. The need for such a hearing shall be determined in accordance wi[h proce- dures adopted by the agency pursuant to section 8-0113 of this article. if no nearing is held, the agency shall prepare and make available the envir3r~ental impact statement within £1xty days after the filing of the ~raft, except as otherwise provided. Notwithstanding the specified time periods established by this arti- cle, an agency shall vary the times so established herein for prepara- tion, review and public hearings to coordinate the environmental review process with other procedures relating to review and approval of an action. A~q application for a permit or authorization for an action upon which a draft environmental impact statement is determined to be required snail not be complete until such draft statement has been filed and accepted by the agency as satisfactory with respect to scope, content and adequacy for purposes of paragraph four of this section. ,To~encing upon such acceptance, the environmental impact statement process shall run concurrently with other procedures relating to the review and approval of the action so long as reasonable time is provided for preparation, review and public hearings with respe, ct [c the draft environmental impact statemen[. 6. To the extent as may be prescribed by the commissioner pursuant to section 8-0113, the environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to subdivision two of this section [ogether with ~he comments of public and feaeral agencies and members of the public, shall be filed with [he co~tissioner and made available to the public prior to acting on the proposal which is the subject of the environmental kmpact statement. 7. a. An agency may charge a fee to an applicant in order to recover the costs incurred in preparing or causing to be prepared or reviewing a ~raft environmental impact statement or an enviror~entat impact state- ment on the action which ~he applicant requests from the agency; provided, however, that an applicant may not be charged a separate fee for both the preparation and revzew of such statements. The technical services of the department may be ma~e available on a fee basis reflect- ing the cos[s thereof, to a requesting agency, which fee or fees may appropriately be charged by the agency to the applicant under rules and regulations to be issued under section 8-0113. D. Such rules and regulations shall require the applicant to reimburse rne conservation fund, as established pursuant to subdivision !a) of section eighty-three of the state finance law, in order to recover all costs incurred in preparing or causing to be prepared or reviewing a araft envirorurtental impact statement or an envkronmental impact state- ment b~' employees of the department, whose salary and expenses are pakd, in whole or in part, from the conservation fund. 8. When an agency decides to carry out or approve an action which has Peen Ehe subject of an enviror~ental impact statement, it shall make an explicit finding that the requirements of this section have been met and tha5 consistent with social, economic and other essential consider- ations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects reveaieG in the environmental impact s[atement process will be minimized or avoided. 9. An environmental impact statement shall be prepared for any action found tc have a significant impa~t on the special groundwater protection area, as defined in section 55-0107 of this chapter. Such statement snail meet the requirements of the most detailed environlaental impact statement required D}' this section or f~ any sd.ch rule o~ regulat]c.n promulgated pursuant To unis section. S 8-0111. Coordination of reporting; l~mitations; lea~ age 1. Snare and federal reports coordinated. Where an aG 'y as nerez~ defined directly or ~ndirectiy participates in the preps ion ~ ~r prepares a statement or submits material relating u, a statement prepare~ pursuant to the requirements of The ~IaTzonai Environmental Policy Act of 1969, whether Dy itself or by another person or lirm, compliance with this article shall ~e £oordinaTe~ with and m~ne in conjunctzon with federal requlremenns _n a £zngie environmennal repot-- lng procedure. 2. Federal report. Where the agency does not participate, as above defineO, in the preparation of the federal environmental impact state- ment or zn preparation or submission of materials relating there~,~, further report under this article is required and the federal en~-zrDn- mental impact statement, duly prepared, shall suffice for the purpose cf this article. 3. State and local coordination. Necessary complzance Dy sta~e local agencies with the requirements of this article shall be coordi- nated in accordance with section 8-0107 and with other requirements law in the interests of expedited proceedings and prompt review. 4. Effective date of coordinateo retorting. The requirements of section with regard to coordinated pre ~raTion of federal =ti state impact materials and reporting shall not apply to statements prepared and filed prior no the effective date cf this arnicie. 5. Exclusions. The requirements of subdivision Two of sectzon ~-0109 of this article shall not apply to: ~a) Actions undertaken or approved prior to the effective ~ate .~f article, except: ti) In ~he case of an action where it is still practicable ortner nc moGify the action in such a way as to mitigate potentially aGverse enva-. ronmental effects or tc choose a feasible and less env~rorur~enta!il, damaging alternative, in which case the commissioner may, at EMe uequest of any person or on his own motion, in a particular case, or ~enera!lL in one or more classes of cases specifie~ in rules and regulations, require rhe preparation of an enviror~enLal impact statement Eursuant t th~s article; or ~ii) In the case of an action where the responsible agency proposes modification of the action and T~e modification may resalT in a =ign~I- leant adverse effect on the environment, in which Ease an environmennal impact statement shall be prepared with respect tc such modifilatzDn. (bi Actions subject to the provisions requiring a certlficaEe or environmental compatibility and public need in artzcies seven, =~gnt ~nci ten of the public service law; sr * NB Effective until January 1, 2003 (bi Actions subject to The provisions requiring a certificate environmental compatibility and puolic need in articles seven ann emgh% of the puhliz service law; or * NB Effective January 1, 2003 ~cl Actions subject To the class A or class B regional project furls- diction .Df the Adirondack park agency or a local government pursuan~ section eight hundred seven, eight hundred eight or eight nun~reG nine of the executive law, excep5 class B regional projects subject to review Dy local government pursuant to section eight hundred seven of The exec- utive law locsted within the La~e George park as def~neG Dy suoU~vzszon one of section 43-0103 of this chapter. 6. Lead Agency. W~en an action is ~o De Earrie~ ou5 ~>r approve~ r~ or more agencies, ~he ~etermlnation or whet~er the acT~cn may ~sYe Page 0 of'c) Page 7 of 9 having principal responsiPility for carrying out or approving such action and such agency shall prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract or otherwise, the environmental impact statement for the action if such a statement is required by this article. In the event that there is a question as to which is the lead agency, any agency ma3' submit the question to the comK~issioner and the commissioner shall designate the lead agency, giving due consideration Eo the capacity of such agency to fulfill adequately Ehe requirements of this article. S 8-0113. Rules and regulations. 1. After consultation with the other agencies subject to the provisions of this article, including state agencies and representatives of local governmehts and after conducting public hearings and review of any other comments submitted, the commissioner shall adopt rules and regulations implementing the provisions of this article within one hundred and twenty days after the effective date of this section. 2. The rules and regulations adopted by the commissioner specifically shall ~nclude: (a) Definition of terms used in this article; (b) Criteria for determining whether or not a proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment, taking into account social and economic factors to be considered in determining the signifizance of an environmental effect; ic) Identification on the basis of such criteria of: (i) Actions or classes of actions that are likely to require preparation of environmental impact statements; ~ii) Actions or classes of actions which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which do not require environmental impact statements under this article. In adopting the rules and regulations, the commissioner shall make a finding that each action or class of actions identified does not have a significant effect on the environment; (d) Typical associated environmental effects, and methods for assessing such effects, of actions determined to be likely to require preparation of environmental impact statements; (e) Categorization of actions which are or may be primarily of statewide, regional, or local concern, with provisions for technical assistance including the preparation or review of environmental impact statements, if requested, in connection with environmental impact review by local agencies. (f} Provision for the filing and circulation of draft environmental impact statements pursuant to subdivision four of section 8-0109, and environmental impact statements pursuant to subdivision six cf section 8-0109; {g; Scope, content, filing and availability of findings required to be made pursuant to subdivision eight of section 8-0109; (h) Form and content cf anG level of detail require~ for an environmental impact statement; and (i) Procedures for obtaining comments on draft environmental impact statements, holding hearings, providing public notice of agency decisions with respect to preparation of a draft enviroD/r~ental statement; and for such other matters as may be needed to assure effective participation by the public and efficient and expeditious aUminJstration of the article. ~j) Procedure for providing applicants with estimates, when requested, of the costs expected to be charged them pursuant to subdivision seven of section 8-0109 of this article. ~k) Appeals procedure for the settlement of disputed costs charged Dy £taEe agencies to applicants pursuant to subdivision seven of Page 8 of 9 section 8-0109 of this article. Such appeal procedure shall ncr znterfere or cause delay in the ~etermlna~lon of environment~ significance or prohibit an action from Oaing undertaken. ~1) A model assessment form to De used during the ±nltlal ray.aw assist 5n agency in its responszbiiitles under this article. 3. Within the time periods specified in section 8-0117 .cf article the agencies subsec~ to this article shall, after pu~lzc hearing, adopt and publish such additional procedures as ma]' necessary for the implementation ~,> them if this arzirie ]onszster/ wlt~ the rules and regulations aGop-e~ by the zoK~icsloner. ~a} Existing agency environmental procedures may De incorporates anG integrated with the procedures adopted under th~s article, variance in form alone shall constitute no objection tnerets. Surf. · ndividual agency procedures shall be no less protective environmental values, public partzciparlon, and agency and judicial review than the procedures herein mandated. AD; Such agency procedures shall s. rovide for zntersgenc~ wor~:~ng reiationships in cases where actions typically involve more than one agency, liaison with the puulic, and such other procedures as may be required to effect the efficient and expeditious ad//,inistration ct this article. 4. Coordination with agricultural districts program. The commissioner, in consulnation with the commissioner of agriculture an] markets, shall amend 5he regulations promulgated pursuant ts provisions of this sectzon as necessary and appropriate to assure the adequate consideration of ~mpacts of puDlic acquisitions, or the advancement of public monies for non-farm development.on lands use~ agricultural production and unique and irreplaceable agricultural lands within agricultural oistricts in accordance with the provisisns of subdivision four of s crier three hundred five of the agriculture and markers law. Sec. 8-0115. SeveraDil~ty. The provisions of 5his article shall De severable, an~ if any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision or part of this article shall ~)e adjudged by any tourt of competent jurisdiction to De invalid, such judg~aenr shall net affect, ~mpair or invalidate ~he remainder shereof, but shall be confined ~n its opera,ion to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. Sec. 8-0117. Phased implementation. 1. W15h respect to the actions directly undertaken Dy an}, state agency, the requirement of an environmental impact statement pursuan~ subdivision Cwo of section 8-0109 of this article shall take effect on the first Gay of September, nineteen hundred seventy-six. 2. Wl~h respect ~o actions or classes of actions iden~ifie~ ry ]ne deparYment as likely to require preparatzoa ,Df environmen%al impact statements pursuant to subparagraph ~!l of paragraph !c~ of subdivision two of section 8-0113 of this article directly undertaken by any agency, whether or not suc~ artions are supported in whole or zn parl through contracts, grants, suDsidzes, loans, or other forms oI IunCinc assistance from one or more state agency; and ~11 sther aztion~ .Dr classes of actions identifie~ by the department as likely so require preparaYion of environmental impact statements pursuant tc subparagraph ,'i! of paragrap~ {c) of subdivision two of section 8-0113 ~ arL1cie supported in whole or in part t~rough contrails, subsidies, loans, or other forms of funding assistance from one z.r sta~e a~ency, the requirement of an environmental impact st=lament · Page 9 of 9 purscant to subdivision two of section 8-0109 of this article shall take effe3t on the first day of June, nineteen hundred seventy-seven. 3. With respect to actions or classes of actions identifiea ty the department as likely to require preparation of environmental impact statements pursuant to subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c) of subdivision two zf section 8-0113 of uhis article supported in whole or in part through contracts, grants, .subsidies, loans, or other forms of funding assistance from one or more local agenzy; and with respect to actions or classes of actions identified by the department as likely to require preparation of environmental tmpact statements pursuant to subparagraph ,ii) Df paragraph (c) of subdivision two of section 8-0113 of 5his article involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, certzficate or other entitlement for use or permission to act by one or more state or local agency, the requirement of an environmental impact statement pursuant to subdivision two of section 8-0109 of this article shall take effect on the first day of September, nineteen hundred 4. With respect to all other actions not included in subdivision two or three of this section which are subject to this article, the requirement of an environmental impaut statement pursuant to subdivision two of section 8-0109 of this article shall take effect on the first day of November, nineteen hundred seventy-eight. 5. Agencies subject to this article shall adopt and publish t~e additional necessary procedures described in subdivision three of section 8-0113 of this article, as follows: (a) With respect to actions included within subdivision one of this section, no later than August 1, 1976. (b) With respect to actions included within subdivision two of this section, no later than April 1', 1977. (c) With respect to actions included within subdivision three of this section, no later than July 1, 1977. (di With respect to actions included within subdivision four of this section, no later than November 1, 1978. Any agency which has not adopted and published the additional neoessary procedures described in subdivisions two and three of section 8-0113 of this article according to the dates set forth in this section shall utilize those procedures found in Part 617 of title six (environmental conservation) of the official compilation of the codes, rules and r~gulations of the state of New York for purposes of implementing this article until such time as such agency ~as adopteG and published its own procedures. FINAL REPORT A STUDY OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LAND USE REGULATI ON-S ON THE BUSINESS OF FARMING IN MARYLAND Prepared for: MAR~ FARM BUREAU, llqC. Randallstown, Maryland Prepared by: I-,EGG MASON REALTY GROUP, INC. 7 E. Redwood Street, 2nd Floor Baltimore, Marylan'd 21202 January, 1993 BRC I008 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECYtION ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................ 1 I. Nature of the Problem ................................ I EL The Purpose of this Study .............................. 2 · HI. Work Undertaken 'by [.egg Mason R~alty Group, I_nc ............ 3 Fy'. Definition of Terms ................................. 4 V. Comments on Scope of the Study ............................ 5 VI. Organization of thi-5 Repor~ ............................... 6 SECTION TWO: KEY CONCLUSIONS ............................. 7 SECT[ON THREE: THE BUSINESS OF FARlvlING ................. 11 L Current Nature of the Industry ...................... 11 II. Farming As Land Use .......................... 13 IIi. Farming Az Business ....................... 13 IV. Financing Agriculture ............................... V. Farm Value and Debt ....................... 16 VI. Conclusions ..................................... SECTFION FOUR: THE PROCESS OF CREATING LAND VALUE .... 19 L Highest and Best Use .............................. 19 II. The La~d Development Process ............................ 20 HI. The Role of Farmland in the D~velopment Process ............. 24 SECTION FIVE: THE ROLE OF L-a2qD VALUE IN '][tEE BUSINESS OF FARMING ................................. 26 L Capital for the Farm Business ....................... 26 12. Supporting Farmer Equity and Welfare .............. 30 I12. Conclusions .............................. t2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTI2NnJED) SECTION SIX: TI-tE IM]:~A~ OF GROWTH CONTROLS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND VALUES ......................................... 34 I. The Growth Issue ........................................ 34 II. Techniques for ControLling Growth ........................... 37 Iii. Farmland Values ......................................... 41 IV. The Impact of Growth. ContTols on AgricuJmral Land Values ........ 44 APPENDIX Az BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: IiqTERVfEWS ....................................... B-1 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION The purpose of this LrfiUal section of the report ks to describe the background to the study undertaken by LEGG MASON REALTY GROUP, INC. (LM[RG) under contract to the Maryland Farm Bureau. This background is important becauae the study itserf is somewhat unusual and because one of the broad topic areas within which the study fits, establishing growth management policy, tends to be highly charged and to generate strong opirtions. Consequently, there is a need to place the study within the context of the interests of the Farm Bureau and the "growth management corrmqurtity." L NATU'REOFTHEPROBI~M Over the past couple of decades the dtizens of the state of Maryland, their elected representatives, and their administrative leaders, have become particularly sensitive to environmental concerns. This heightened awareness has led to the establishment of many programs having the goal of improving the state's environmental quality. Such programs are extremely wide ranging--fi.om testing of automobile emissions to recycling so/id waste; improving the quality of sewage treatment to controlling the nature, scale, and location of the development of land. Maryland's farming community is deeply involved in this envirom-neutal improvement effort. Farmers have addressed environmental concerns related to agricultural activity i_n many different ways, including those listed below. · Utilizing "no till" cultivation; · Changing the nature and amount of herbiddes and pesticides used in farming; · Reducing the application o[ nutrients; · Adhering to guidelines with regard to grazing and feed lot pi-actices; · Adhering to best management practices in environmentMly sensitive areas; Partidpating in the state's agricultural land preservation program; Adhering to local zoning and other regulatio~ affecting disposition of and development of ag'r/cultural land. As estimated in a study prepared for the Maryland Office of plarnnng, the amotmt of land in the State of Maryland in 1990 in agricultural use, exclusive of forestry, was 2,551,598 acres or 28.28 percent of the state's total land area. This agricultural land, along with land u~ed for forestry purposes, land in various statel federa2, local, and private parks and reserves, marsi:/land and other highly hydrous lands, and otherwise vacant and tmdeveloped lan& ~s generally regarded as "undeveloped." While this term as applied to farmland is inaccurate, since the land is actually 'developed" for fanning, there is general agreemeut that the land Ls essentially ".nimproved" (meaning that the bulk of it does not have structm-es on it) and that at some point in the furore it could be "developed." In general, farmland is the least expensive land that can be purchased wb. ich lends itself to non-agricultural development of one son or another. The soils are usually easy'to prepare for construction, roads probably exist in the area, and, given other necessary ingxedients such as the existence of a market, the land can be built upon relatively easily. Given this underlying fact, many of the various recently enacted local, state and federal regulatiorm aimed at controlling development have particularly affected Maryland's farmland because it is not already "developed" and typically includes areas of above average environmental character_ The agricultural community has tended to work closely with orgamzations establishing environmental policy and environmental programs. Nevertheless, farmers feet that recently enacted and proposed restrictive land use controls are working a hardship on them and on the business of farming that goes beyond the agricultural community's "fair share" of the burden of improving the state's environment. In particular, agricultural land owners are concerned that limitations on their abiliv] to sell land for development are begimmng to affect their ability to do business and, consequently, may be hurting the very existence of traditional farming, which most of the proposed regulations are designed to help, not hinder. Because of the vast amount of land involved, regulations affecting the use and disposition of agricultural land impact very large portions of the state of Maryland and large numbers of land owners. This fact is one of the more appealing with regard to thc application of growth controls from the standpoint of the environmental community, but the agricultural community feels that it unreasonably targets one land owner group -- fapmers THZE PURPOSE OF TI-[IS STUDY The Maryland Farm Bureau beheves that the interests and the land ownership rights of the farmer are not being given appropriate consideration in the process of establishing land use policy at the local and state levels. Specifically the officers, management, and members of the Farm Bureau believe that the agricultural commurfity's opposition to certain types of growth controls has been characterized too narrowly as simply "farmers trying to get the most for their land so they can get out of farm/ng and spend the money elsewhere." in Oomt ,f fact, members of the agr/cultural community believe, the situation/s qu/te different. It s their contention that there is a direct relationship between the value of agriculnLral la. nd md ~e f,ap. rre v/ability of Maryland's agricultural industry. The farm community believes hat agricultural land values play a more central and intricate role Ln the agricultural ndustry tha.u i5 generally recogn/zed. But farmers also know that th/s particular position ~as not been researched nor has it been well articulated to land use planners and ,,overnment officials. The purpose of LMnRG's study is to conduct research into the · :ta6onskip between land values and the business of farming and to determine the extent 3 wb./ch, as growth controls impact land values, they impact the v/ability of farm/ng. a essence, the study is intended to address some of the following questions. What is the role of the value of a farm's land in the business of farming? · What is the r~lationship of development to the value of agricultural land? · To what extent do growth controls impact agricultural land values7 · To what extent do growth controls impact the business of. farming? Lt- agricultural land values are important to the business of farm/ng, &nd ff grow-th controls negatively affect such values, how can farmers work with policy makers to gain more equitable consideration as land use policy is designed and implemented.'? WORK UNDERTAKEN BY LEGG lvlASON REALTY GROUP, l/qC_ In carrying out this study, LMRG performed the following work. Discussed the assignment w/th officers and members o[ the Farm Bureau, particularly its property rights subcorraninee. Discussed the assignment and various aspects of the relationship between growth controls and fanning with Maryland farmers at their armual convention in Ocean City. Inter,Aewed bankers at private banking institutions and at the region's Farm Credit Assoc/ations to establish the relationship between lending pohcies and the value of agricultural land. · 3 Interviewed developers who actively develop in rural/suburban areas to establish the role of farmland in development m such Interviewed real estate agents who sell farm land and who represent residential developments m rural and suburban area. Obtained information on the status of Maryland's agricultural industry from the Maryland Department of Agriculture, the Maryland Farm Bureau, and various published sources such as the Census of Agriculture. Obtained information on the subject matter fi-om the American Farm Bureau Federation and pursued sources of information at the United States Department of Agriculture and other national level sources. Obtained and rewiewed studies done by the Maryland Office of Planning and others with regard to the relationship between vahous types of development regulations and the value of agricultural land. Researched the specific experience, of the Maryland Agricultural Lanc~ Preservation Foundation with regard to purchase of development rights in Maryland's agricultural districts. Interviewed real estate appraisers who have been active in the appraisal of land in connection with the MALPF program. Interviewed senior planning officials in selected Maryland counties to establish the extent to which farmland is being converted to developed uses in those counties. · Prepared this report presenting the results of our research and analysis IV. DEFINITION OF TERMS Several terms related to farming and agriculture are used throughout this repo.q. Defia]ifions of these terms are set forth below. These definitions are those of LMRG and do. not necessarily reflect the way they .might be defined in other analyses. The terms that will be used-to most frequently iv- this study are farm (the physical facility) and farmer, which x/All imply ownership of the farm. Agriculture: Agriculture (the agricultural industry, agribusiness) is the industry that encompasses fartmng and the processing, distribution, and other aspects of handbag the products that result from farming. Farming: Farming is the activity of growing/raising crops and products. It may be la.ad inremive as with corn, or not, as with the raising of poultry, horticulture, or tobacco. For the most part, however, the assumption is that a relatively large mount of land is used in "farming" and that this activity is land dependent. There is a presumption that there is an unbreakable link between farming and the land. Farm: There are two definitions of a farm. One is a business center which aims to make a profit from farming. The other is the physical facility, comprised of land, buildings, fences, roads, and other improvements/investments, which accommodates the farm business and the activity of farramg. Farmer: The sen/or person/people involved in farming at any given farm_ This person/people may or may not own the farm but is the operator. A corporation, either owned by the farmer or by outside investors, is al~o considered a "farmer." The most sen/or person on a farm may be the farm manager. Less senior people working on the farm (paid hands, machinery operators, contract labor) are participating in farming and might generally be thought of as being farmers, but are not included in the definition of farmer for the purpose of this study. COMMENTS ON SCOPE THE STUDY Farming businesses .are impacted by an extremely wide range of regulations, most of which affect the use of land. This study focused exclusively on land use regulations that affect the nature of the development that can occur on the land and the density of such development. It does not address the impact on farming of regulations of a primarily environmental nature, such as those addressing wetlands preservation, sensitive areas, waste runoff and so forth. While the affect of both categories of regulation on the business of fa~q'n/ng may be similar, the scope of this work wa~ purposely limited to the land'use/density issue. The issue of land value tends to be related primarily to those far-ming operations that involve large amounts of land; i.e., are land intemive. While such farms account for the bulk of all land being farmed in Ma~,land, the number of smaller farm operations, many of which use relatively httle land, such as poultry farms, is significant. This study is most applicable, therefore, to the larger, land intensive farms, though it is relevant to all fawns. VI. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT This report consists of five sections in addition to the introduction_ Section Two [5 the · Executive Summary in which key conclusions are presented and the prmc~pat findings upon which those conclusions are based are summarized. In Section Three, the business of farming is described. An overview of how land value is created is the subject of Section Four. The role' of land value in the farming industry is presented in Section Five, while growth controls and their impact on agricultural land values comprise the concluding section. Sect/on Six. 6 SECI'ION TWO KEY CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this section of the report is to summarize the key conclusions established by LMRG on the basis of our work and to identify the prindpal findings derived fi.om the research and analysis that support those conclusions. CONCLUSION ONE 'The value of a farm rests primarily in the value of the land compr/.sing that farm_ Fmnms are basically sold 'by the acre'. The value is a m. ix of the agriculture earnings potential, development potential, and residential use Supporting Findings The success of farming operations, particularly those involving the growing of crops, can vary substantially over short periods of time. They are affected by weather, world markets, public polities, and many other factors. As a result, a fa.rrner's business can go from terrific to lousy in a very short per/od of time. In addition to the capability of the farmer himseLf/herself, and improvements built on the land, the only constant in this process is the land itself. The quality of a farm as a business enterprise is important, but the worth of that enterprise is best reflected in the value it imparts to the land. The value of the farm as a business, absent the land, is minimal because of the highly uncertain nature of the business and the fact that it is usually highly personalized to a spec/ftc farmer/farm family. CONCLUSION TWO The value of re.al estate, espedally the lane[, plays an important role in the ~nmacing of the farming business ufili~/ng that real estate. Supporting Findings Most agricultural businesses take on a substantial amount of debt in the course of annum operations and many carry mortgages. The loans that result Lr, that debt are made primarily on the ability of the agricultural enterprise to pay interest and repay phndpal from annual operations. Nevertheless, most finandal institutions require that the loans be collateralized using the borrower's equity in his/her real estate. Coasecluendy, the value of that real estate affects the willingness of the lender to make a loan and the size of that loan. CONCLUSION TH2KEE The value of land and the ability to sell it ha order to realize that value play a role in' the ability of an agricultural, enterprise to survive over the longer term_ Supporting Findings The value of a farmer's land and the ability to convert that land into cash helps to support the farmer's business in several ways. Selling off a portion of the land in a time of financial need can help to assure that a given farmer retains his/her property. The value of the farm and the ability to convert that value into cash plays a role in the ability of the farm family to meet gin and estate tax obhgatiom. The ability of the farmer to develop residences on the farm for members of the farm/rig family and tenant operators of the faaxn helps to assure the presence of a pool of individuals who are willing to work on the fazm_ The value of the farm and the ability to convert that value into cash constitutes the principal retirement fund for most farm families. CONCLUSION FOUR Growth controls and variou~ forms 0f development regulation affect the value of farmland, tending to lower the value relative to le~ regulated land in most Supporting Finding~ Most development regulations affecting farmland are aimed at making certain that the farmland remains in agricultural use, or is as lightly developed as possible. The agricultural use value of la.nd tends to be the lowest Hproducfive use" of land (in contrast to agricultural, woodlands, and other generally "unproductive~ uses of the lam&) In most instances the prindp~l non-farm development likely to occur on the land is residential, and the lower the density of the permitted residential development, the lower the vahe of the land on a land per unit basis. Consequently, the application of development regulations such as agricultural use zoning, or low-density permitted development (for example: one unit per 20 acres; one unit per 50 acres) tends to place farmland in the category, of lowest potential value relative to areas with fewer land use restrictions. CONCLUSION FIVE AppLication of growth controls and development regnlafiorm directly affects only a relatively srrmi1 amount of farmland acreage in a given year but all · fxrmla.ud as a class and every farmer in the long mn. Supporting Find~n~ The number of acres of farmland that is actually taken out of production amd converted to 'development" in a given year is only a small percentage of the state's total land being farmed. Thus, in a given year, only a few farmers would actually be denied access to the higher land values that might result fi-om less regulation. However, imposition of regulafiom h~ a ripple effect that impacts all of the state's farmland to some degree. In addition, there appears to be a strong negative psychological impact on all farmers as a class, even though most recognize that in any given yea.r, for any given property, thc likelihood of actually realizing the sale of land for development is mimmal. These two impacts tend to negatively affect the business outlook of farmers and their willingness to stick with a business that is not easy to begin with. CONCLUSION SIX The principal value of most farmland is related primarily to its agricultural productivity. Zoning, development regulations, and other government based ac-flora influence the non-agricultural value. Supporting Findings The great bulk of all farmland does not'fall w/thin a reasonable geographic definition of ,areas likely to be de'~eloped in the near term. Consequently, when a farmer moves to realize the value of his/her farm, that value is going to reflect primarily the ability of that land to support productive agricultural activity, plus the value of improvements such as buitdmgs,'fences, and so forth. Except. in certain spec~c and unusual instances, however, ali farmland has some Fort-agricultural value. Consequently, while land use controls tending to limit development may have relatively little net impact on the value of most [arms, they may have a more significant impact on the ability of a g/yen farmer to sell all or part of the farm in any given yeas for the maximum possibie value appropriate to that parUcular land. OVERAI ]' CONCLUSIONS Zoning and other forms of land use regulations and grourth control measttres reduce farmer's options with regard to disposition of his/her land at optimum value This actual/y what they are designed to do, but such actions afi.ect farmers and farming in severM ways. Farmers lose some amount of current value when subjected to restrictive zoning. Appradsals of farmland undertaken in connection w/th the Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation program support the fact that there is some development value m all agricultural land. That value i~ capable of being diminished by land use regulations when development optio~ are reduced. Restrictive land use regulations cause farmers to lose financial fle.'dbility, particularly with regard to the disposition of the land when required to generate funds to cover a short term farm business or personal need, or to settle a long term obligation such as gift. inheritance, and estate taxes. Options available to lenders w/th regard to provision of loans are reduced, particularly with regard to the size of loans. While the underlying rauonale for the loan is the agricultural business itsel[, the value of the farmer'~ land, including the development value of that land, can make the difference in the willingness of the lender to make the loan and/or the size of the loan On balance, therefore, those agencies undertaking programs that reduce the developabitity or potential development intemity of farmland can negatively affect the welfare of the state's farmers as a cia. ss over the longer term and the welfare of certain specific farmers, especially those close t6 developing areas and those needing to realize maximum cash value for the farmland, in any given year. These impacts should be taken into account in the course of preparing and implementing such regulations. !0 SECTION THREE THE BUSINESS OF FARMING The purpose of this section of the report is to provide a brief overview of the business of fax-ming and to introduce the relationship between that business and the land. L CURRENT NATURE OF TIlE INDUSTRY The overall size of the agricultural industry in Maryland, involving all of the many components of agribusiness, caxmot be determined from available data_ It is known to be laxge, however, and includes those firms that process agriculture 'products as well as those /.nvolved in transport, servicing farms, and other components. For many parts of the state agriculture is the principal driver of the local economy. The linkage between successful far.-ts and a healthy agricultural industry is clear. The latter cannot exist without the former. The agriculture industrY uses more land in the state of Maryland than any other industry. The business of farming takes place on approximately 28% of the state's land, and no other business comes close to using that much land as a factor in its oper3.tions. In fact, farmland comprises more of the state's land than all of its residential areas. As can be seen in Table i, farming in Maryland encompasses an estimated 15,200 farm operations. The Maryland Department of Agriculture estimates that 2,250,000 acres of the state's land is in farms, most of which is being actively farmed at the present time. This results in an average farm size of 148 acres. Gross farm income per farm was estimated at ~98,197 in 199l_ Dividing this by the average size of a farm results in gross income of $663.50 per acre. Farming continues to evolve in Maryland as farm products serve society's diverse interests and needs. Of necessity, farming today reflects the pragmatics of operating a business enterprise in the business, political, community, and governmental contexts that exist at the end of the 20th century. Farm ownership in Maryland remains strongly oriented toward the family, but the family farm may now be incorporated. There ~re some absentee owner farms, but the trend toward such operations peaked in the mid-1980's. There seems to be an increasing mount of land being farmed on a leased basis. The trend has been toward a greater number of acres being farmed per farmer, but not necessarily in bigger la.was. The impact of the poultry, industry and of the poultry industry and of such specialty farm operations as sod, horticulture, Christmas trees, oriental vegetables, garden vegetables, and so forth has tended to make some farms operations smaller. These kinds of operations reflect high value products of more intemive farming catering to urban markets. 1i TABLE 1 NUMBER OF FARMS AND ACREAGE MARYLAND AND THE UNITED STATES 1979-1991 Ma~land To[aJ Land # ol # of Av§. Acres in Farms Farms" Yea~ Farms' per Farm (Th. Acres) (~Fh. Farms) Un,ted States Avg. Acres per Farm Total Land in Farms (Mil. Acres) 1979 17,000 159 2,700 2.4-37 428 t ,042 1980 17,5013 157 2.750 2.440 426 t .039 1981 18,200 154 2,800 2.440 424 1 . (E.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.~4 1982 18.000 153 .2.750 2.407 427 1.028 1983 18.000 150 2,700 2,379 430 1.023 1984 17.800 152 2,700 2.334 436 1.01 8 1985 17.500 149 2.600 2.293 441 t ,012 1986 17,000 147 2,500 2,250 447 1,005 1987 16,500 148 2,450 2`213 451 999 1988 16,000 147 2.350 2.197 453 995 1989 15,600 147 2.300 2.171 457 99 ~ 1990 15.200 148 2,250 2.140 461 987 1991 '"" 15,400 1 '~6 2`250 2,105 467 983 * Prior to 1975 a farm was considered any place with tess than 10 acres having sales ot $250 or more or places of 10 acres or more with $50 o! sales. In 1975, the farm definition became a place that sells or normally would sell $1,000 of agricultural products '* P relimina~ Source: 'Maryland. Agricultural Statistics'-1991. !2 As ca~ be seen in Table 2, several counties stand out in terTrtS of ag~cultttral production. For seven identified agricultural commodities, Caroline County is ['~rst in three classes and sixth in another. Frederick is first in two classes and fifth in two others. Queen Anne's Ls second in three classes and third in another. Other high ranking counties in terms of production are Kent, Dorchester, Carroll, Washington, and Hat[ord. It is interesting that of the five counties involved in tobacco prodnction (St. Mary's, Charles, Calvert, Anne Arundel, and Prince George's--in order of production), none ranks in the top seven in any other commodity category. This is partly indicative of the kind of soils tobacco grows hq, with such soils generally being much less productive for other Idnds of crops, as welt as the fact that these counties tend to be in the vicinity of the expanding Washington metropolitan area_ Z[L FARMING AS ~ USE The description of agriculture set forth above emphasizes the business and operational nature of the industry. The typical resident of the state of Maryland however, of'ten has a very different vi. ew of "farming". With over two milhon acres of the state's land in farms, many state residents pass a farm in their everyday activities. To them the farm is, probably, an attractive area of primarily open land that, most of the time, looks unused. Farming as a land use is, therefore, important to the state's residents and to its pubLic of:fidals far beyond the level of economic activity that actually occurs on the farms. As a land use, farming generates a pleasant recollection of past times for ma_ny people. It is frequently regarded as "open space". This misnomer reflects a lack of understanding of the business use of the la-nd. One of the reasons there is conflict between farmers and government officials is that the role of the farm as a pleasant, ~open" land use may conflict with what the farmer wants to do with the land. Farming is a serious, large, important business in Maryland. At the same time, most of the state's citizens know bYttle about the business of farming and relate to it primarily as a land use. For most Maryland residents farming is viewed as a pleasant, open land u_se. It is important that the farm use of land be looked at in its true and accurate sense, as an asset underpinning a business, and n6t just as pleasant open space. FARMING AS BUS[NESS Fa. truing is a business. Farms are not "undeveloped". They are developed for the business of farming. Farming is a land use, not a substitute for open space. Farms may be classified in pla~s as a type of open space, but they are first and foremost, an operating business. ,aa noted earher in this report, the business of farming takes many different forms, but regardless of its form, it is a business activity the purpose of which is to make a profit. O0 CD C 0 x, gh/le profil is the objective of the farm operation, it is also clear that ma.ny people partidpate in farming because they enjoy the lifestyle. They gain positive "psyckic reward" from farming. There is no way to quantify such reward, and it is certainly no substitute for real money when it comes to hav/ng to buy the necessities of life. L/kew/se, farmers receive a certain "imputed income" fi.om occupy/ng their residences on the farm. This is recogmzed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in its armual tabulation of income. In 1989 a/l farmers in Maryland received I;152,818,000 as "imputed income and rent received" h-om theh- operations. Among other things, this indicated value by BEA illustrates the t/gbt intertwining of the personal and business fives of the farm family. IV'. FI2N'ANCING AGRICULTURE As with any industry, financing is critical to the success of agriculture. One of the most important facts to understand about financing agriculture is that agricultural loan3 are viewed as cornmercia/loans. Consequently, even the mortgage on a farm dwelling is l/kely to be regarded as a commercial credit by the lending institution_ This meam.s that commercial criteria are applied to the making of such loam. Loans to farmers are provided by a w/de range of lending institutions_ The most important, however, are the Farm Credit Associations associated w/th the Farm Credit Bank of Baltimore and the commerc/al banks located primarily in agricultural communities. The Farm Credit Bank provide credit to farm Bank borrowers in the five-state region of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. The Bank prov/des 44% of ali of the borrowing done by farmers in this area. The .proportion is believed to be slightly higher for Maryland itself. Commercial banks provide the remainder. The Farm Credit Bank makes loans primarily through the various agr/cultural credit asso~-iations hawing responsibility for specific counties in Maryland. The system of which the Farm Credit Bank and its associations are member was established by the Farm Credit Act of 1971_ Eligible borrowers of funds at the farm credit associations: Bona fide farmers and ranchers and producers or harvesters of aquatic products; Persons furnishing farmers ~nd ranchers with services directly related to theL,- on-farm operating needs; · Owners of rural homes: and · Rural residents. · 15 The Bank is authorized to make lo:ms to other banks engaged in Iending to farmer~; and to corporations engaged to lending to producers or harvester', of faun produc~. Awide variety of types of loazm axe made by banks lending to armero. These include: Production toam to enable the farmer to plant a crop or otherw/se produce products for sale, with such loans normally being secured primarily by thc crop/product being produced; Mortgages on farm property including land, dwellings, farm buildings, utility improvements, and such needed to operate the farm and enable farmer to Live on it, with such loam normally being secured by the value ot~ the land and improvementS; Equipment loans fnr large pieces of farm equipment needed to plant, grow, harvest, and on-site process crops. The distribution of loans made by the Maryland Farm Credit associations is set forth m Table.3. A~ noted previously, most farm loans are mortgages and are regarded az commercial in nature. That means that the lender assumes that the principal way of liquidating them is through earnings gained fi-om farm act/mty. However, essenualty ~ lenders requh-e that the farm operation provide additional collateral as security gains possible fa/lure of the crop or production of activity with the farm itself usually serving as that collateral. The trend has been toward slightly larger loans as individual farm operafiom grow and the corporate structure becomes more common. At the same time, while malmam the requirement for backup collateral, criteria for making a loan have tended to focu3 increasingly on the ability of the business to repay the loan out of income from operations V. FARM VALUE AND DEBT According to the 1987 Census of Agriculture, the average farm was worth 5366,788 in 1087, or $2,261 per acre. (ha 1992 dollars those values would be approximately $44,000 and $2,700.) The Census data indicate that 39.5 percent of all farms had interest ~ an erpen.se, meaning that about 60 percent were debt fl-ce. The interest paid by those farms w/th --_bt averaged $6,892 in 1987. While total debt is not indicated, assunung a 10 percent r~[e cfi interest, the average loan for farms v,,/th debt would be about $69.0r~0, or $83.000 Ln inflated 1992 dollars. The average farm with debt, therefore, was carryi? cbt equal to about 19 percent of its value. l c; -r-o 0o -JO 0 0 0 V[ CONCLUSIONS Farming ~ a major business activit,/ kg the state of MaD, land. While the mdus~D, goo; through relatively severe cycles based on weather a_nd markets, over the long term farming as a b~siness at the state level has grown during the past several decades The state has over 15,000 farms and over 2,000,000 acres of land La those farms. Fxrmir!g operations are financed through a relatively few banks that spedalize in agricultural loans. Over the past decade these banks have been tightening their criteria with regard to lending. The shift has been toward making certaJ, n that loaJas can be paid back out of operations v/ce requiring the sale of real estate. At the same tLme, regardless of how "production oriented" a loan might be, the lender usually requkres that collateral be posted and the farm real estate is thc collateral most frequently used. SECTION FOUR THE PROCESS OF CREATI2qG LAND VALUE The purpose of this section is to explore the process of creating land value. Given its breadth and complexity, the subject axea cannot be definitively covered in these few pages. We can, however, address those key points of land value creation that most directly affect the farmer. The farmer's concern is that land use regulatious negatively impact the value of his/her land. In order to be lost, however, that value has to get into the land in some way. This study is about the giving and taking of actual (cash) or unrealized value in agriculn.u-al land_ Understanding how that value gets there in the first place and how it can be removed, is essential tb exploring the impact that land use regulations have on the value of a farmer's land. L HIGHEST AND BEST USE In the best of all possible worlds a given piece of land will always be valued at its "highest and best use". This term has a well defined technical basis, being referred to and used in essentially every appraisal. Generally accepted reasonable definifiom of highest and best The reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value of vacant land or improved property; The reasonably probable and legal use of land or sites as though vacaat, found to be physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that resni{s in the highest present land value; 3. The most profitable use. In ascertaining the highest and best use of a given piece of farmland, as though available for development, it is necessary to analyze four [actors: the legality of the use, the physical adaptability of the site to the use, the marketability of the use, and the profitability of the use. The analytical process involves a careful study of both the impact and the relationship of each factor to the subject property. The best use conclusion reflects the optimal_ combination of them. Determination of value almost always entails knowledge of what business activities can occur on the land fi'om a market standpoint, as well as what the "legal" (regulatory) conditions will perm/t. Ia the past, highest and best use was essentially determined only through the economic viability of the activity occurring on the land. While still important, the }e~all~v p~rmitted use of the land, as determined by zoning and other land use regulations, is critical. 19 in the economic use context, the best use for most rural land is probnl;l~; agnc21ture. (Or it could be no "use" at all when the cost of making the land produ,~ve for a~o~nculture exceeds ~e potential return Bom it.) The value is then a fuucuon of agricultural productivity. But agriculture is riot always the highest and best use of rural land. If that land is located near a source of non-agricultural development, and parncalarly if it is near a town or other urban settlement, the highest and best use could easily be aon-agrictdmral. In these i~tstances, the agricultural use must be mandated via the land use regulatoD' process, the assmnpfion being that if the regulations were relaxed, then the land would probably be "converted" to non-agricultural use. [n snmmary, those who advocate the most free and open market for land believe that highest and best use should be a function of economics-the most economically productive we of the land; i.e., the value of the land in a competitive supply and demand environment_ in Maryland, however, essentially every jurisdiction has development regnlationr,. These regulations dramatically alter the highest and best use value of the land. In essence, the zoning of the land is the principal determinant of its value w/th the economic use of the land within that particular zone playing a secondary role. That is why most developers and builders try to work only with land that is already properly zoned for the permitted use they want to develop, preferring not to get involved in the zoning change process THZE LAMD DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The process of developing land establishes value and serves to cause highest and best use to be achieved on a given parcel. This land development process is analyzed here from two viewpoints-that of the broad contexq of market and public policy, and that ,of the more narrowly focused development of the land by, primarily, private interest~ The Role oft he Market Public policy as expressed through various types of land use, development, en~qronmentai, and other controls and regulations affects the location and, to some degree, the scale of development in a given area. But the actual volume of development is primarily a function of the market. One need only look at the real estate development situation in I992 m contrast to, say the situation six years ago. in the mid-1980's a market was perceived to ex&t in Maryland for large volumes of residential units and cormmercial space. In 1992 the situation was almost completely the reverse, with only a moderately active residential market providing any real life to the development business. The situations both six years ago and in 1992 are probably inaccurate. The market of six years ago was perceived as being more positive than was warranted, while today it is undoubtedly being viewed as less positive than it should be. The point is that the market establishes the broad framework for development. 2O Farmland is as affected by market forces as any other type of land. However, for most farmland the principal market is undoubtedly that for farrmng, not for some other use. Most farming activity on rural land establishes the highest and best use of that land and dictates its value. If the farmland is productive and alte;nafive uses for the land are minimal, then its value will be a function primacily of its agricultural productivity. In instances where the land is in the vicinity of non-agriculrm-al development, however, the market for housing or, possibly, for other uses may dictate its ultimate value. The market is governed by overall economic additions and the perception of individuals and businesses with regard to their furore economic health. If they are optimistic, then market pressures are likely to be greater. If they are pessimistic and investment in personal and business matters is minimal, then development pressures will be reduced. There is relatively little market generated pressure for development in areas where econornic conditions are poor, investment is minimal, and growth absent. On balance, therefore, the land development process is a function of these broad market forces translated into investment in private residential and commercial real estate. B. The Role of Public Policy In the State of Maryland public policy with regard to development has been expressed in a very wide range of land use, development, and environmental controls and regulations. In fact, Maryland is generally regarded as one of the most progressive states with regard to local and state level land use and environmental regulations. The State Land Use Act of 1974, the critical area legislation of 1984, and the Economic Gro,,ah, Resource Protection and Plamfing Act of 1992, with their attendant regulations and procedures, along with many other state level land use programx, tend to put Maryland in the iront rank of ten or so states (Florida, l',/ew Jersey, Oregon, California, and others) in implementing strong programs regulating land use. In Maryland these programs are carried out primarily at the local government level, especially the county level (including Baltimore City). Maryland is nearly unique in that it's counties have particularly strong powers. This permits pubhc programs to be central/zed and enables them to be large enough to have real power. Operating within guidelines established by the State, most Maryland counties have established extensive planning and development control programs using a very wide range of implementation techniques from zoning to purcliase of development rights. I2 essentially every Maryland jurisdicfiork development is a highly orchestrated process with the government being a panner nearly every step along the way. While much development iz permitted as a matter of right under loca~ zoning ordinances, even that development will Likely require a number of approvals before investment in construction occurs. 21 C. or~equently, government regulations dramatically influence the use that can be: made any given piece of real estate and, consequently, its developabihty. C- The Role of the Community La this instance commlmity is defined as residents and businesses living or operating La the vicinity of a proposed development. Even if market conditions are favorable and all regulatory requirements have been met. it is possible that development can be stopped. This occurs when communiB, activists, neighbors, and other groups express their displeasure at a particular development. The land development process tn the 1990's must take into accotmt community interests and concerto. It is not unusual in this decade for a developer's gu'st action to be to the adjacent community to test its reaction and to try to enlist its support for his project. D. The Owner The owner of land is a participant in the development process, whether or not he/she wants to be. In some instances the owner initiates the process of developrnem by petitioning the local govermmeot [or a zoning change that would permit a certain type of development_ In other in.stances, those changes are made without the active participation of the land owner. Land owners, including farmers, have also been known to approach developers to see whether that particular developer is interested in developing on the land owner's property. The property might or might not already have the appropriate zoning. On balance, however, most owners of buiidable land are not active pamcipants m the development process. They are usually pulled along by the various governmental, community, business, and market forces affecting their land. Numerous examples to the contrary exist, but we believe that the great majority of land owners including owners of farmland, woodland, vacant and unused 1 .a:nd, and other land generally outside of a commumty's already designated "envelope," fit the description of limited participants in the land development process. E. The Land Speculator Speculation is a term that tends to have a negative cormotation in our society. Speculators are quently regarded as people who make money without making a positive, CoustPdC'.JVe, yah dding contr/bution to a product. Nevertheless, La most markets speculators se.we a use. _, role. Speculators typically cormtitute the leading edge of the land development process_ They identify land that bas the potential for development at some t/me in the furore. That land might already have some of the approvals necessary to be developed, but it i:. more likely 22 to not have such approvals. Consequently, speculators frequently target fan'ffland for their activities. The process of obtaining appropriate approvals [or farmland can dramatically increase its value. This is how the speculator obtains his/her return. At the same time it might not'be possible to obtain the approvals and the increase in value might not occur. That is what makes speculation a risk,/business. Speculators are not necessary to the process of causing development to occur on agricultural land_ The presence of speculators probably causes some increase in land valises in various parts of the state. Of course the speculation does not have to be in connect/on w/th development Some speculation occurs in anticipation of other changes such as natural resource extraction (mining, petroleum drilling), building of a road, and so forth. In the case of otherwise undeveloped farmland, the speculator may serve as an intermediary between the land owner and the land developer. The speculator may or may not take an ownership interest in the properly. The mere interest of the speculator in a piece of land can cause some increase in its value, assuming that the speculator is not cloaked in the guise of another farmer or other person who would appear to be interested in the land only for its present use. The vast majority of farmers do not speculate in land. Rather, they use the land for agriculmral purposes. F. Tae I :and Developer The land developer "wholesales" the land. He/she buys it from the original owner or a land speculator, obtains the necessary approvals, and .sells it to one or more real estate developers_ This is a high risk/high reward business. Risk is diminished where the land developer is working in a context of public policy that has made it clear where various types of development are to occur over a ~ven period of time and has backed up these policies by inStaLling appropriate inlrastrucmre. Typically, however, the land developer must acquire the approvals necessary to cause real estate development to occur. The gain for the land developer is in purchasing the land at the lowest possible dost and selling it at the highest possible value after making such improvements as are necessary to permit real estate development to occur. The land developer is not always a participant in the process since some real estate development occurs on land purchased directly from the original owner. A significant amount of lin-ge development, however, occurs on land that has been prepared for such development by a land developer. G. Real Estate Developer The real estate developer completes the land value generating process. The value of the la. nd on which built projects sit is more valuable than vacant land, even when that vacant la. nd has all of its approvals. A built project generates a "supportable land value" that can be mathematically derived based on the sales price of the development on it and/of the rent · 23 stream generated by rental projects as related to time. Wh/le the real estate developer i:, frequently regarded negatively by those entities wanting to preserve land in its tmdeveloped state, the developer is probably not the pancipal reason land is actually built on_ I~ most instances, good real estate developers will work only w/th land that has already received most o~-its approvals. They are not land developers or land speculators. They make their money building, not anticipating future land value increases. In this regard, the developer is like a manufacturer; he/she "manutbactutes" built space on the la_nd. Since the real estate developer causes the most visible physical changes to occur on the [and, however, he/she is the most frequent target of those who oppose development. I4_ The Bottom I/ne An increase in laud value'iq likely to occur at each stage of the development process..As noted previously, because of the involvement of governmental entities in the process, there is usually extensive communication between developers and regulatory bodies In theory, a profitable return is generated at each stage of this process to the entrepreneur taking the risk_ The position w/th the least risk is that of the original land owner. This assumes that the opig/nal land owner is able to support his/her cost of the [and w/th the use occurring on the land when it was originally purchased. Some land owners become [and speculators when they perceive increased furore value and hope to receive that value by selling to a developer. Owners are truly play/.ng the speculation game when they borrow money on anticipated future value. At that point they become locked-in to having to sell the land for higher furore value. This has happened to some farmland owners, and the agricultural land preservation program has served as a means o[ generating ~uds for such owners. Losses in the land development process occur primarily when anticipated future value cannot be realized because the next higher level of development does not occur for whatever rea-son--market, community concerns, public approvals. While the land development business is o~ten associated with great gains and creation of a large amount o£ weal~, which is the case in some in.stances, for many other people it is simply another business that creates a reasonable return. In fact, at the present time it is a very difficult business to be in for many who entered it in the last decade or so. I3I_ TH2E ROI~E OF FARMJ._AND IN TH~ DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Farming is a business use of land, as is active forestry, and other far, intensive businesses. It is erroneous to think of agricultural land as "vacant" or unused or "open space" Because there is so much of it, and because farming use is a relatively low generator ot income t~ the land, farmland tends to comprise the bulk of the land that will ultimately be developed. It can be assumed that a number of farms are sold each year in anticiuafion of development. However, this does not mean that development occurs on all suc: -ms in the near tem~ or even in the long term. Where the farm is large, or has special attributes, or is considered particularly strategic fa'om the standpoint of its location/visibility, the "loss" of that farm to non-agricultural development is f:requenfly highly publicized and may create a significant negative reaction. Most such transfers, however, probably are not publicized a~d are considered by the revolved parties as simply a normal component of the process of urba~/subm-baaa growth. In many instances farming serves as an interim use in the development business. An actual case in Frederick County follows a classicpattern. An elderly farmer/landowner sold a farm to a speculator/land developer but continued to fm-m the land under contract. The land developer, with the concurrence of the County, which wanted to direct development to this general area, granted the land developer the necessary approvals. The land developer sold individual parcels to three different real estate developers for two residential projects and a commercial project. The farmer continued to farm the land throaghout the entire process until development actually occurred on the various parts of the project_ Consequently, the transition from farm to development was quick, clean, and acceptable to all of the parties involved_ Probably the biggest issue with regard to creation of land value is its psychological impact on the farmer/landow2er_ As that class of individual controlling the greatest amount of potentially developable land ha the State of Maryland, the attitudes of farmer/landowners with regard to development is critical. Given the ebullient development atmosphere of the 1980's, many farmers perceived the liketihood of being able to make a substantial mount of money selling their farms to developers. The dramatic downward shift in the marker, however, mad increasingly rigorous public policies, have altered the environment for development in rural areas. Consequently, the likelihood that in any given year many farmers will be able to obtai~ any sigrtificant value from their land other than its agricultural value is lira/ted. Farmers tend to react as ~ class, to these matters, h0vTever. Consequently, as a class, farmers are c4ncerned that increased regulations will dimirfish even further their oppornmity to obta/n non-agr/culturat value for their land by limiting the market supportable highest and best use of the land through intervention in the development process described above. These concerto affect their long term outlook on the business of farming and have caused some to exit the business "while we can" or to consider doing so. SECTION FIVE TI-EE ROLE OF LAND VALUE IN THE BUSDIES5 OF FAR_MLNG Discussion of the merits of various grow'th control techniques, particularly the grovat~ management program proposed by the governor to the Maug,,land General Assembly m 1991 and commonly referred to as the "2020 Legislation", generates very different views on the importance of the value of farmland to a farmer's operations. The purpose of thLs section ot5 the report is to evaluate that relationship. Farmers contend that they need reasonably high farmland values in order to support the business of fa-r'mang as well ~ to provide a reasonable return on investment to support their long term welfare. Consequently, they say, it is necessary to permit market forces, as unconstrained as possible by regulations, to dictate the value of their farms. Conversely, those who support a policy of strengthening land use regulations applicable to farmland and its development say that such policies won't have much affect on farmland to begin with and, even if they did, that value is not needed by the farmer to pursue his business. The purpose of this section of the report is to analyze the role that the value of farmland plays in supporting the fa2-m operation and the farmer's personal welfare, and thus the business of farming. In the following paragraphs, the various ways in which land values support farm businesses will be analyzed. The analysis covers the role of land value in providing capital to farms As w/Il be seen, the value of the land comes into play in two principal ways: · As an important part of the value of collateral posted to obtain loarts, As paid-in surplus to be extracted when necessary to support farrmng operations and/or the welfare of the farm operator. CAPITAL FOR TH~ FARM BUSINESS AS with any business, a farm needs capital. That capital is provided in the form of equity. invested by the fanner/farm family or stockholders of the corporation and in the form of bonowed funds from lending institutions. Most farms do not generate enough surplus armual income to create a pool of funds that can be used to expand eqmty. Maintenance of a successful famung operation will usually create "paid-in surplus" by increasing the total value of the property. Consequently, for initial purchase of the farm and for annual operations, borrowed funds constitute the principal source of capital. 26 Land value is a central element in many loa~s used to generate and support the brininess of farnU.ng. In fact, it is the prindpal "hard" asseL '~hat the fro-ruer can furnish to a ba~k in support of a loan. Various areas in the business of farming where land value plays a role are analyz_ed below. A_ The Farm Mortgage A farm mortgage is essentially the same as a mortgage on a home or commercial property. Regardless of whether or not the farm is the primavj residence of the farmer, however, banks providing farm mortgages consider these loans to be commercial in nature. T~ means that they assume that liquidation of the loan, the periodic payment of principal and interest, is directly related to an income stream generated from the property being mortgaged. Money borrowed through a mortgage can be used to purchase land to be farmed, with or without buildings and other improvements. It can be. used to fund the construction of improvements on the property. Because of its primarily commercial nature, the leading institution will tend to make certain that the funds are used primarily for business purposes. In Maxyland, about half of all farm mortgages are provided by the regional Fa. tm Credit Associatiom that axe pa~ of the Farm Credit System_ The composition of loans held by the Maryland Farm Credit Associatiorm is shown in Table 3 in Section Three. In 1991, over $366 million of these loam were for long-term farm mortgages, or 65% of the loans in the portfolio of the associations. The Farm Credit System is a cooperative system established by Congress but completely private in nature and owned by the farmers thenmelves. This accounts .for the high participation by the farmers in the loan programs of the farm credit banks. The other 50% or so of mortgage OmanL-ing provided to the farmers in Maryland is issued by private banks, prixnarily those in ~ural areas catering to faxrners. Private banks compete with the Farm Credit Associations and many have established working relationships w~th farmers in their local areas. Interviews with bankers at both the Farm Credit Associations and with the private bar3:~ revealed the importance of the value of land to the quality of collatera~ underpinning the loan_ ')Fhe banks undertake an appraisal of the land in order to establish its value. The appraisal look~ at comparable properties. The banks feel that tn essence every property ha~ some development value and that development value is reflected in the appra/sal and thus in the quality of collateral and in the amotmt of money that can be borrowed agai~t the collateral. It is interesting that for the most part, the house in a farm mortgage is incidental. The value of the land is in its agricultural productivity capability and its salability · 27 ha a highly publicized situation that developed in the early 1980's, many arid west fan:net:. were unable to pay off loans on their farms and had their properties foreclosed on b~ lenders. Most of the loans were supported by the agriculrmal value of the land. Farmland values grew steadily in the late 1970's a_nd into the 1980's. Then valises fell prcc~pitou, sly. Bankers in Maryland note that the drop in farmland values that occun-ed in many pas-ts oi the nation at that time was scarcely felt in Maryland. The b',mlc, ers believe that this was due to the fact that the potential for development exits on mucl~ of the land m Maryland, thus supporting its value. They also observed that many Maryland farmers can generate income by having one or more f~rnily members work off the farm. The bankers indicate that they lend primarily on market value as indicated in the appra/sal, and would usually lend 75% or so (a range of 70% to 85%) on this value..&ny development value h~ the land provides act. shion, although it is perceived as a difficult value to real/ze ff hquidation is necessary. Nevertheless, the bankers indicate that perhaps 75% or so of their loam a.re secured in some way or other by real estate_ In evaluating a loan, the bankers look first at the repayment capacity of the farmer, then at the collateral position_ This represents some change from the process of a decade or so ago. Now it is fairly common for the farmers to provide an income statement and for the land to ~erve ms collateral_ It is clear that current lending practices are more "business" oriented today than used to be the ca_se. Despite the efforts of bankers to move toward a primarily net operating income approach, however, it is not possible to isolate the [and factor from the fa-rrmng act/mW. The real estate rema/n.s an underlying asset. At the bottom line, the banks want to lend to viable businesses but to have the comfort of a strong collateral position, which is raked prmaarily to the value of the land. The bankers recognize that farmers see their real estate as trek primary asset and that they try to build the equity in that asset over the years. It is clear, therefore, that the value of land is of critical importance in establishing the quality of collateral for a farm mortgage and that may development value included in the total value helps to enhance the ac ;et. B. Operating/Production Activity As indicated in Table 3, the Ma~land Farm Credit .~sociatioas, Farm Credit Bank of Baltimore as of the end of 1991 had over $197 m/llion in short term loans outstanding Most of these are production type loans. A production loan is made to a farmer to enable him/her to purchase seed, fertilizers, pesticides, and other items needed to develop a crop for sale. Repayment of these loans is absolutely linked to the furore value of the crop. The Assodation will not usually require that a farmer collateralize his equity in his real estate to obtain an operating loan. At the same time, the .Association looks at the quality of that 28 real estate and is much more interested in providing the loan if there is some potentially realizable real value in that eqmty. ha fact, it is these loans that represent the biggest problem for the banks and for the farmers. The farming business is almost completely dependent on weather - and to a~ knportam degree on market values far beyond the control of the farmer. A bad growing year or a weak market can result in a default on a production loan. Since mogt farmers do not have enough liquidity to repay such a loan out of savings, they may have to sell some land to repay the bank. Bankers interviewed in connection with this study were able to cite nnrnerous ir~tances where this occurred. In some cases the farmers sold parcels to a neighboring farmer. In other instances parcels were sold for non farming purposes to individuals, or homebuilders developers. In such cases, while the loan is clearly one structured on the income generating merits of the funded farm act/vity, disposition of land to pay off notes has saved many farmers and kept them in business. In this way ail or most of the farm has been saved from possible sale for development. C.. Equ/pment Loans Most equipment loans are secured by the equipment itself, with a high proportion of the funding being made by manufactures and dealers. Equipment today is much more expensive and much more complicated then it used to be. It is not unusual to find a piece of farm equipment costing over $100,000. The loan on such machinery is multi-year in nature. It should be liquidated out of income earned from the more efficient operations contributed to by the new machinery_ That does not always happen, however. Consequently, as in the case of a production loan, tt.e ability of a farmer to realize some value for land that rn/ght have to be sold to pay off an equipment loan is important. It is not generally taken into consideration by the lender when making such a loan, but, as with any business debt, liquidating an unrelated ~set to generate cash to pay off the loan can save the business operation. D. Backup Funds For Operations The analysis above emphasizes borrowing funds to buy land, or produce a crop, or buy equipment. Some farmers will choose not to go into debt for these purposes. Instead, they might sell a portion of their farm. to raise the capital necessary to pursue their business operation. For instance, a farmer might sell 10 acres of land viewed as having some development potential and thus bringing a relatively high price, in order to buy 50 acres of land in another area that would be used entirely for farming. Land aright be sold to purchase a necessary piece of equipment, or to make improvements on the farm. This role of land as a source of backup capital is important to the famn business. Value from the land can be realized up front with the money being used to fund operatiop2, or, after the fact, to liquidale a loan that cannot be paid off out of operating income, or :;imply to veciuce deb; in gener,-d in order to make the business more viable. Smnm2ay [_ending practices to farmers have become increasingly smct. ,~ one bard<~er desoAbed it, they have moved out of the "good old boy" stage to one linked to operating statements and ' business acumen. In former times the reputation of the farmer and the value of Ms/her land were the principal elements underpisming the loan. blow it is the strength of the farm's operating statement and the performance of the farmer as a business-person. Even in this current euvirormaent, however, bankers and farmers both agree that practically every business move undertaken by the farmer la-an.slates into the value of the land and is supported by the value of the land. That value includes the agricultural use value as well as additional development value that results in its total fair market value. SUPPORTfiN'G FARMER EQUITY AND WELFARiE The items covered above are relatively easy to document. The value of land as a contributor to the welfare of the farmer is less documentable, but it is in this area that the farmer feels most strongly that anything that reduces land value impacts directly on his/her well?are. Cormmon to this concern is the fact that the farm business ia, for the most part, a sole proprietorship. Most small, closely held businesses create value over time by increasing profits and growing the value of their stock. There is no stock in the typical farm, and the level of business operation is constrained by the amount of acreage being farmed. To a farmer, the land essentially represents the stock in the business. Different ways that this value is used to enhance the welfare o[ the farmer and the [ann ~anfily are described below. To most people on a payroll, even entrepreneurs owning small companies, this particular form of personal economic survival .is almost completely unknown. Land As "Paid-La SurplusTM This ha~ been referred to prevaously. Bankers interviewed in connection with this study emphasized that farmers reinvest almost everything they earn in the farm operatiou in one way or another. They wi. Il buy more land, improve farm buildings and infrastructure, buy bigger/better equipment. Toe ~pical farm gets its operating value primarily bom the quality of the farm operation and thus the shin of the individual farmer, xarnen this farmer leaves the scene, to be replaced by a family member or a farmer from outside of the family, the only constant in the equation is the value of the farm's land, buildings, and stock. This is the operation's pr/.ncipai form of pa/d-in surplus. If the farm is sold to out_s/de interests, who will either farm it or groom it for development, what they pay essentially reimburses the farmer for that paid-in surplus. Consequently the value of the farmland serves as fie farmer's savthgs account. B. Payment Of Estate/G/fi: Taxes Preservation of a farm from generation to generation is made difficult by federal and state estate and g/ft taxes. This situation arises sometimes after the death of one spouse, but almost certainly after thc death of both spouses of a senior farm family. At this time the rest of the family is faced with a significant tax liability. That liability has to be paid off in cash, 'but the biggest asset generating it is probably the farm itseff. That means that the farm may have to be sold, in whole or in part, to satisfy the tax liability. At a recent Maryland Farm Bureau conference, it was shown how granting the development r/ghts to a farm to a land trust will sigrdiicantly lower its value for e~tate tax valuation purposes. This is one way to avoid the high tax liability. It also illustrates a recognition that there is probably some development value in all of these farm properties. Another approach would be to have the heirs to the estate sell a pgrfion o[ the property, iff that portion had relailvely high value as a result of its potential for development, then this would enable the family to pay off the estate taxes and continue to farm the remainder o[ the property. C. Providing for Retirement This particular role of land value in the farm seems to be regarded with derision by farmers. Yet, it is truly important. It goes back to the fact that for most farmers the value they build into their farm operation is their principal paid-in su~lus. Unlike selling stock for which there is a broad market, the market for farmland is relatively smaLl. When ti_me comes to sell that property to create money on which the husband and wife fax'met are going to live for the rest o[ their lives, they want to obtain the maximum amount possible. If that amount includes value created by potential development, so much the better. In any case, they at least want an open, competitive market and for a reasonable range of bidders to come forward to offer to purchase the farm_ This market will be broadened if there is a lack of encumbrances and the greatest range of opportunity value inherent in the real estate. By far the worst bring that can happen would be for the market to be limited because of constraints placed on either farming or the non-farm development of the property and for the value to be diminished because of overly restrictive land use regnlations. Since this is the termination of the farmer's use of the land, the business aspects are no longer a factor. This is the time to cash in based on past performance, and the cash comes almost entirely from the real estate. The crops have to be created over again each year by the new farmer and obviously cannot be transferred, in most instances, by the retiring farmer to the new farmer. The land represents the princip~ salable asset D. Maintaining The Farm Family And Labor Being able to build houses that would be occupied by farmly members and by the people working the farm can be very important to helping to maintain the farm. Ln this day fa.un f~rnity members tend to disperse very easily. Good labor is difficult to attract and reta~ Providing a residence on the farm can help keep the farm family together on the farm and working on the farm. Providing residences for the farm manager and/or other laborers is also important_ Money may not exchange hands in the development of such housing, but it is important to maintaining the viability of the farm. Businesses serving farmers note that farmers reinvest their income in their farms rather than in personal financial investments. Indicative of this is the fact that approximately 60 percent of Maryland farnm have no debt. They also note that farmers have a strong respect for the land and for sound business practices. Farmers recognize that there is little to their operation except the land once they are out of the picture--through death, or retirement, or simply a desire to exit the business. Most current farmers purchased their farms, or inherited them, in a'penod much less constrained by land use regulations than is currently the case. There is great concern that when the time comes for them to sell their property, there will be so many restrictions and limitations and conditions on it that the value will be diminished, or there will bc no ready market, or both. To these people the value of then farm, a value which reflects both its agricultural use and its use for other purposes, is critical to the welfare of the current farm operator and his/her family ltl CONCLUSIONS The value of the land comprising a farm plays a central rote in financing the business of farrmng. While bankers hope never to have to be repaid from funds generated by liquidating all or part of a farm,, they recognize that the land represents the ultimate collateral for loans, even those that are to be aznortised primarily [rom income_ Lenders don't care whether the value of the land is generated primarily through farming or through potential non-farm use; they are interested only in the quality of the collateral. The bottom line value of farmland is a composite of farm and non-farm use. Bankers have made it clem that regulations perceived as having the potential to reduce the value of land create problems for them, particularly in the short term when there might be a relatively shazp drop in values as new laws are applied. 32 Land value is also important tel the welfare of the farmer as an individual and thc farm family. The value of the farm constitmes the farmer's principal "savings account", ,~nd the value of this account, when liquidated, is used to support retirement, meet emergencies, and pay taxes. This is a situation nearly unique to the farming business. Almost all other types of small, closely held business operations create paid-in surplus by kqcreasing the value of the company's stock, good will, transferrable technology, and s~ forth. In the case of farming, land in essence constitutes the "stock" of the fan-net. Farmland values in Maryland are relatively easy to moo/tot through the Agricultural Land Preservation program. Appraisals undertaken in the course of this program dearly show that essentially every farm offering its development right~ for sale to the Foundation includes a su-ong component of non-agricuRural use value. Overall, for any given acre appraised m the program, the non-agricultural use value, the value of the "developmem rights," is roughly 40% ot5 the fair market value. Given the farmer's dependency on having a substantial land value as a basis for maintaining the farrmng business and protecting the weliare of the {arm farodly, this is a significant amount that needs to be taken into account in any public policy actions that might affect such values. · SECTION SIX THE IMPACT OF GROWTH CONTROLS ON AGR1CULTLFR X.L LAND VALUF_J; In previous sections various aspects of fanrung, development, and land value have been analyzed. That material provides a framework for assessing the ~mpact of growxh controls on aghcultural land values. The purpose of this section is to re,hew the broad subject of growth controls and to define the relationship between such controls, business aspects of fa. rrmng, and the development of farms. The section concludes w/th an assessment o1[ the impact that such controls have on the value of farmland. L TH~ GROV, rI'H ISSUE Following the conclusion of World War I/Americans went on a suburbanization binge. Prior to that time, we were a nation that undertook almost all of its development within does and towns. Our rural areas were in farms and woodland or otherwise simply unused. Beginning in the rnid-1940's, however, the socio-economic nature of the United States changed dramatically. Improved economic well being, affordable and reliable automobiles, major highways, more efficient housing production technologies, a greatly expanded econom/c base, the post war baby boom and a generally up-beat attitude toward life and living caused Americans to dramatically change their lifestyle objectives, thetr actual life styles, and the configuration of their cities and the areas' surrounding them. This was the period of the "tract house", the suburban shopping center, the interstate highway, large suburban schools and the realization of the "Amer/can Dream". As Americans pursued that dream and shaped their national economy, and as their nationa] economy shaped them, farm productivity increased dramatically and the need to actually maintain as much land in farms dropped significantly. At the same time, people were attracted from rural areas to urban centers where job growth was occurring at a dramatic pace requiting the need' for workers. The farms didn't need as many people to work them because they were much more efficient then they had been. In what could be viewed as a natural tramiuon~ farmland not required for the production of agx/culmral products was converted to residential use that was needed to house workers in m-ban and suburban business establishments. The greater efficiency of farming resulted in increased competition and caused farmers located on higher value land near expandi.:~g urban areas to become less competitive~ The option of selling the farm for development provided a "way out" for impacted farms and effectively decreased competition for the remaining farms. As one analyst at the American Fm-m Bureau Federation has pointed out, if all farms that had not been purchased for development were still in production, the farm economy could be a disaster 34 This process was regarded without particularly great concern by almost all parties through the Mid-lg00's. Beginning about t970, however, and probably heightened by energy issue concerns generated by the first oil crisis in 1973, many Americans began to react negatively to the emerging pattern of development. The term "suburban sprawl" became institutionalized and private organizafiom and governments began to implement more rigorous oversight of development activity toward the end of trying to control development. Farmers had bee~ whether willingly or unwillingly, principal players in the suburbartization of America. Much ot5 the nation's growth occurred on agricultural land in the vicinity of urban centers, and at some rural locations developed for recreational housing. Many farmers benefitted financially from the opportunity to sell property for development_ Others benefitted because of a generalincrease in the value of farmland generated by the expanded market for land to be used for development. The amount of land in farrns in Maryland, according to the Census of Agriculture and as shown in Table 4, dropped from 3,897,000 acres in 1959 to 2.634,000 in 1974. During the decade 1959 - 1969 the amount o15 land in fa_rm.s in the state dropped by about one-third. From 1974 to 1987 the rate of loss slowed dramatically to a total of 237,000 acres lost, or 9 percent of the 1974 total. The loss of 15arrnland led to efforts to slow development and to channel it to areas best suited to accommodate it. In 1974, for instance, the state of Maryland passed the State Land Use Act of 1974. This established the Maryland Department of State Planning and a state,a/de critical area program, required the development of planmng guidelines for the local subdivisions, prov/ded for state intervention in local planning and development matters, and generally strengthened the hand o[ the state with regard to development. In 1977 the state set up the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation program to help preserve agricultural land by establishing agricultural districts and providing for state purchase of development rights. In 1984 the state established the Chesapeake Bay critical area as part of a comprehensive set ot~ programs to restore the environmental quality .of the Chesapeake Bay. In 1991 legislation was introduced (the "2020 Bill") that would have set target densities for different parts of the state and required local jurisdictions to adhere to those densities in their regulation o[ development. Of particular concern to the agricultural community was the proposal that much of the state be placed in a 'rural and resource area" with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 20 acres. In 1992 the General A~sembly passed the Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act, which was signed by the Governor. These various prograx-ns document a growing interest on the part of the state, mirrored to a significant extent by most of the counties, in controlling growth_ One of the side effects o[ this process has been the identification of those responsible for generating this growth. Farmers are viewed as being among the principal beneficiaries of growth because they offer their land for development. Developers, politicians, bankers, and probably other classes of TABLE 4 TOTAL LAND IN FARMS STATE OF MARYLAND 1954-1987 Period Cha~qge Year Acres # % 1954 3,897.000 1959 3,453,00O (,4~,4,000) -11 4% 1964 3.181.000 (272.000) -7.9'% 1969 2. 80.3,000 (378.000) -11 _9'% 1974 2.634.000 (169.000) 1978 2,714.000 80,000 3.0% 1982 2.558,000 (156,000) 5.7% 1987 2,397,000 (161,000) ~.3% Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture; compiled by Legg Ma~on Realty Group, Inc. people are also viewed as 'pan of the problem for their contributions to growth on the urban f:rmge, in point of fact, however, it may well bc that none of these groups is to blame. For the most part, suburban expansion has been a function of supply and demand with the typical American household creating the demand for suburban homes and a suburban lifestyle and the providers of the homes and the space responding to that demand by building the appropriate structures. The State of Maryland and many of its jmisdictions are instituting increasingly rigorous land use control measures. Because farmland is usually relatively easy to develop, these prograxns aim to reduce the amount of farmland being converted to development_ The means for doing this have created problems for the farm community. One result of this concern is this smd}, to analyze how the various forms of land use regulations (growth controls) impact agricultural land values and farming operations. 11 TECI':INIQUES FOR COhrI~Ol I lNG GROWTH A wide variety of techniques are available for controlling growth. The focus in this study is on land use regulations_ One analysis of these techniques divides them into two broad categories -- command and control regulations and economic instruments. A_ Command And Control Regulatory Instruments Most "command and control" regulations are permitted under the police powers of a jurisdiction. Zoning is certainly the most prevalent such device. Subdivision regulations are another frequently applied police power, but it is zoning that has the most far-reaching impact on land values. Zoning absolutely governs the use and intensity of land. That converts directly into value. Simple economic formulations that establish "supportable land value" clearly document how more intensive development and development oriented toward the corm'nerdal end of th~: range of uses support higher land values. Agricultural zoning is prevalent in Maryland with 20 of the state's 23 counties having enacted a zordng district for the stated purpose of preserving agricultural land or offering priority 'to agricultural activities. The ch~acter of the a=m'iculmral zoning varies substantially, however, [rom the one dwelling unit per 50 acres permitted in Baltimore and Frederick counties to the one dwelling unit per half acre in Wicomico and Garrett counties. Consequently, agr/cultural zordng, per se, is too diverse to be covered by one deffmifion. Low density agricultural zoning, however, generally defined to include densities of-at least five acrei per unit and more likely 10 to 20 acres per unit, seems to have resulted in a reduced amount of residential development in rural areas. Counties with low density, zoning have tended to stick with it fairly aggressively and appear to have caused a reduction in the amount of residential development in areas so zoned. It also appears that, as the density · 37 petm'Utted in an agr{cultura] zone increases, the value of the zone a~ a way to "preserve" agriculture is lost. Some opponents of zoning that severely Ii_mit potential development have begun to pursue the possibility of receiving compensation for the lost value created by a change 15-om more permmsive to less perrmssive zoning. With regard to zoning, that course o[ action ha5 generally not been successful, although the number of cases involving this issue appears to be growing and the derisions, such as the recent one in connection w/th beach property in South Carolina are tending to favor the land owner. Traditionally, however, applicat/on of the police power (zoning) to land uses does not require compensation, and in our judgment it/~ unlikely that it will. B. F_.conomic Instrtmaents Another approach to land use control makes use of economic instruments rather than mandatory standards. The purpose economic instruments is to create monetary incentives so that land owners voluntarily give up their right to develop and the economic reward that might come [rom development in exchange for some other economic value. Principal economic instruments used in Maryland are purchase o[ development fights and transfer of development r/ghts. The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation program is a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. As shown in Table 5, the program has been responsible for preserving over 98,500 acres of farmland in the state through 1990. The state of Maryland has been a leader in using the PDR approach to preserving farmland Most Of the suburban and rural counties have participated actively in the program and have helped to contribute to its success. The Transfer of Development Rights ('IT)R) technique is also used in various locations Ua Maryland. ILs record ot5 success is less clear. Montgomery and Calvert counties have been pa-.rticularl7 strong proponents of TDR's and have used this technique to compensate farmers and rural land owners who permit the development rights appropriate to thetr [and to be transferred to receiving areas in other parts of the county and to be compensated for giving up their right to develop at the rural location. TDR and PDR programs are essentially the same, except that Ua the TDR case the amount of development within the implementing jurisdiction does not change -- just its location. The ao~ficultural community has been a strong supporter o[ the MJk.LPF program. [t feels that the program is an equitable way of compensating farmers for gMng up, forever, the development rights to their land. At the same time, those interested in pursuing "corrm-~az~d 38 and control regulation" of farmland feel that PDR programs are too e×perLsivc arid cover enough area to be effective. C. Comprehensive Plnnning Plannihg itself is an excellent technique for guiding growth. Plans serve as statements of public policy, and citizens will typically abide by the resultant public policy. This occurs because the plans are frequently followed by implementation techrdques, usually of the "command and control" type, but plans also direct infrastructure, which affects the location of development. The plan is important because for most jurisdictions it is derived as a result of communications between the affected parties - land owners, developers, community interests, political bodies. Plus it represents an approach that, while not necessarily particularly liked by anybody, is acceptable to everybody. Because it has its rooks in the political process, citizens have a say in the derivation of the plan. D. Infrastructure F. actensions lnf, rastmcture consists of roads, sewer and water facilities, schools, and other public services provided to the community.. To a greater extent than ever before, the extension of in.f:rastmcmre is being used guide development. Linkages between the availability of 'infrastructure and permitte¢ evelopment, frequently wrapped into "adequate facilities" ordinances, are beginning to fall into the command and control category of regulating development. Nevertheless, the rationale for linking development to public infrastructure is clear and tends to be reasonably well accepted by most parties. The problem from the standpoint of those desiring to restrict growth is that some development can occur vathout additions to public infrastructure. Septic systems can work La rural areas. Roads might already e,'dst. No new schools might be required. But where mose facilities are not adequate, development can be constrained, such as the building moratorium proposed by county executive Hayden of Baltimore County in the Perry Hall area. E. S~'lrnmary As Maryland and its constituent jurisdictions have increased the level of control exercised over the land, especially rural land, such controls have played a bigger role in rmal development activity. It is clear from the patten,, of development occurring in those counties with low density agricultural zoning, that there are fewer opporturuues for profitable development in those areas and that the pace of such development has cleckined It is not clear where the development that is not occurring in those rural areas is going. It might not be occurring at all or it might be going to iurisdictions w/th less resmct~ve rural zoning. The ase of economic instruments to limit growth in rural area ha been very successful in Maryland, especially the PDR program. 'I-DR's, while less widespread and somewhat less successfu~ have still made their mark om the pattern of development in Montgomery and Calvert counties. Comprehensive planning has been successful in creating an agreed-upon envirormaent for development in a number of jurisdicfiom. This has helped to channel development and growth to areas Where the community wants to see such growth and away from areas that it wants to protect_ This has been done after open and direct communication among the various parties. I i~kages between the extension of infrastructure and growth have increased and are now a major component of grow{h management poliky. For the most part, the infrastructure issue has had a minimal impact on farmland, most of which falls outside of development envelopes intended to guide infrastructure extensions. In the best of all possible worlds, communities plan for their growth through the comprehensive plann/ng process, extend the infrastructure to the agricultural areas in an orchestrated manner, and generate conu-olled conversion of farmland to development_ III. FAILMiLAMD VALUES As a group of businesspeople farmers are probably as sensitive to the value of land as any group. Only land speculators and developers might have more reason to be interested in the land. Farmers work w/th the same piece of land over an extended period of time, however, while developers make their money by possessing land for only a brief period of time. The purpose of this part of Section Six is to look at typical farmland values as a component of determining the impact that land use regulations might have on such values. Several caveats govern the value of land held in farms. Values can vary from year to year depending on the success or lack of success of farming in any given year. A poor growing season for whatever reason, particularly several poor grow/ng seasons in a row, can substantially depress the value of farmland. Likew/se, strong growing seasom can raise farmland values. Farmland values vary considerably in different parts of the state depending on the quality of soils, the ex/stence of an agricultural infrastructure in that area, the types of crops grown, as~d proximity to developing areas. It is nearly impossible to isolate a "pure farmland vaine" in a f~ur marker value appraisal because essentially every acre of farmland has an aitetnmtive tae that is potentially a more valuable use than agriculture Farmland value is closely monitored in the state of Maryland primarily because of the extensive program of development easement purchases adrmmstered by the Maryland Agriculture Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF). Before buying an easement, the state obtains appraisals on the property. A.s the system currently work& the appraisers estimate fair market value, which is the total value of the land for whatever use. It used to be that the appraiser also estimated the agricultural value. That was changed a couple of years ago so now the agricultural use value is calculated by the State and subtracted from the fair market value. In our judgment the formula used to determine the agricultural use value provides a good indication of the agriculture value of Maryland farmland. Table 6 provides a surmnary of the use-value of Maryland fazmland based on rents that farmers had to pay at the time of a study conducted in 1991. The resultant use-value shows that the aghcultural use valu~ of farmland in Maryland varies from $927.00 an acre on the high side (Kent County) to $307.00 at the low end (Allegany County) for farm use. The higher values tend to be on the Eastern Shore, moderate values in the central part of the state and lower values to the west. The MALPF easement acquisition program gives a good indication of the non-agricultural ',,alue of farmland_ For the life of the program, from 1977 to 1990, appraisals indicated that the fair market value of the land offered for easement sate averaged 52,480 per acre. ~f]xis figure has been very constant, rising to nearly $3,000 in 1989 and 52,700 in 1990, but otherwise being between I;2,100 and $2,350. Among other things, this rather constant ~air market value would seem to indicate that much of the land being offered for easement sale has not been impacted by development to any greater degree toward the end of the period than it was at the beginning of the period. (See Table 5 on page 38). Looking specifically at the value of the development casement as calculated by the appraisers, it can be seen that, in fact, the value of the development easement has changed very little until recent years. In those recent years, in 1990 in particular, the new agriculture use-value calculation was applied for the first time. This tended to raise the amount paid for the development rights. For the most part, however, appraisers estimated that the development fights were worth generally in the range of $850 to ';1,000 per acre. tn 1989 the calculated value was $l,426 and in cycle two of 1990 it rose to $1,866. For the life of the program the value of the development rights has averaged 51,105 per a:re There is enough demand for farms for whatever reason, to cause many to be sold at amounts beyond what the current agricultural activity itself can support. Th~ "extra wdue" TABLE 6 CALCULATED RENTS AND USE-VALUE OF FARMLAND, BY COUNTh' THE STATE OF MARYLAND Calculated Use-Value Rent 7% cap rate Count~ (S/Acre) (S/Acre) Allegany $22_ $,307. Anne Arundel $30 $433. Baltimore $36 $508. Calvert $27 $381 Carroll $37 $536 Caroline $60 $855 Cecil $51 $730 Chades $39 $557 Dorchester $34 $489 Frederick $37 $524 Garretl $27 $386 Hadord $44 $625 Howard $40 $567 Kent $65 $927 Montgomery $39 $561 Prince George's $-33 $465 Queen Anne's $57 $809 St. Mary's $4.4 $625 Somerset $36 $517 Talbot $56. $798 Washington $40. $572 Wicomico $53. $750. Worcester $52. $741 Source: University of Maryland Study of Farmland Use-Value 43 has tended to come down [n recent years a, a result of less interest by outsiders m purchasing land for farms as well as somewhat reduced interest by those speculating un fl~ture nonagricultural use value. It is also possible that imposition of mote .qrmgent las~d use and environmental controls in agricultural areas has impacted values Maryland Department of Agriculture data provides a long term perspecuve on agriculture values. Its 1991 statistical book provides data on farm real estate values. 'I'acse data are summariZed in Table 7. The average value per acre of land and buildings in Maryiand farms has remained fairly constant in a range of I;2,000 - $2,500 [or the last l0 years. On a constant dollar basis, which would reflect inflationary factors, and would tend to make recent values high relative to past values, 'real" values have tmdoubtedly dropped. The total value of land and buildings and farms has also remained relatively constant - between roughly $5.0 billion to $6.0 billion, and the average value of a farm operating unit hag tended to remain iq the range of $300,000 to $360,000 over this 10 year period Thc~e data show that there has been relatively little increase in the value of farm real estate m the state of Maryland over the past decade, and that there has probably been a drop in such values when inflation is taken into account_ W_ THE IMPACT OF GROW174 CONTROLS ON AGRICLFLTLJRAL LAND VALUES Growth controls constitute a mechanism for directing development to various parts of a jurisdiction. ,tu~y technique of this nature must, by its allocation technique, afl. ecl land values. To the extent that higher density residential or higher value commercial development is limited in a given area, land values in that area will be dirmnished relanve to areas that are not so restricted. This assumes that the other factors required 1o penni~ development, either existing infrastructure or the abilit~ to obtain building perrnitr,, exist in the area. A_ Value of Develdpable Land It is a generally understood fact that the value of land is a dLrect funcnon of the type and mount of development that can occur on that land. Land that ca~n be developed for commercial purposes and for higher demity residential is almo;t universally worth more per acre than la.nd that can only be used for low density residential uses. Consequently, zonthg or other control measures that restrict the use of land to Iow dep~;ty residential is likely to restrict the ability of that land to increase in value. Per ad-e values of developable land in typical Maryland metropolitan and rural locanons arc set forth in Table 8. These data were derived from the experience and records from Legs Ma_son Realty Group Appraisal Services Di'Asion and reflect the observanons of the appraisers who work in the division. Several points can be derived [rom the table Fizst. 44 TABLE 7 FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES MARYLAND 1 983-1 992 Year Total Value Value of Land & B.uildings of Farm Tod Avg. Dwellings (Millions) Per Acre (Millions) Avg. Value per Operating Unit 1983 $5,727 :$2.121 $1.151 $318,100 1984 $6.038 $2.236 $1,244 $339.190 1985 $5,711 $2.179 $1.319 $326,348 1986 $5,057 $2.023 $1,325 $2_97,446 1987 $4.921 $2.009 $1,363 $298,238 1988 $5.313 $2.261 $1,504 $332,08.4 1989 $5,663 $2,462 $1,557 $367_..987 1990 $5,445 $2,420 $1.391 $3.58,224 1991 $4,941 $2.198 $1,211 $320,8.44 1992 $5,073 $2.255 $1,258 $329,411 Source: 'Mar~lar~d AgricutturaJ St~istics'4991. TABLE 8 PER ACRE VALUES OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IN TYPICAL MARYLAND METROPOLITAN AND RURAL LOCATIO~'~S 1 992 Value per Acre Use Metropolitan Rural Industrial $100,000 + $50,000 Commerci~d (mixed) $200,000 $10o.000 Residential (20 U/A) $75.0OO $25.008 Residentia~ (10 U/A) $60.000 $20.000 Residential (5 U/A) $50.0OO $20,0OO Residential (2 U/A) $30,000 $I 5.000 Residential (1 U/A) $20,000 $t0,000 Resldential (1 U/SA) $10,000 $5,000 Residential (I U/20A) $7,500 22.500 Residential (1 U/SOA} $7,500 $~_.500 Agdoulture (100 A field crop far'm) $7,500 $2,500 Source: (U indicates number of units, A indicates number of acres) Note: These values were estimates under bhe following as.sumptiorLs: - Residential uses are physica]b/raw, unrecorded land. - Land is buildable Ior the indicated use. - Public se~er and water a~e available for ail uses except residentia] with a density of I unit per 2 acr~ or less, in which case sewer and water would be on-site. - The land is or can be zoned for the indicted use with no problerr~ - The land is currently not built upon. ~ Two Iocalion scenarios: a metropolitan county (Baltimore, Anne Arundel, Prince George's, etc _.) and a rura~ countt, (Kent, St Man/'s, Dorchester, etc...) The development sites are in 'suburban" Ioc~ions in each instance. This is near but not in 'urban(zed' area~. Legg IVl~son ReaJty Group, Inc -Appraisal Services DMsion land in metropolitan areas is worth more than land in rural areas [or the same use. Second. thc value of land that can be developed for a residential density greater than one unit per 20 acres is roughly the same as the per acrs value o[ agricultural land capable of supporting a field 'crop. These data make it clear that limiting the development of agricultural land significantly affects the value of that land. This farmland still has some developed value, but it is essentially fi'ozen by the low demity zon/ng. B. Development Values as Reflected ha MALPF data Maryland's agriculture land preservation program provides an excellent oversdew of development values in rural areas. In essentially every part of the state, no matter how rural, the appraisers working on the program have found that some potential development is possible at some reasonable time in the future. Farming simply does not support the highest value of the land. It is mathematically possible to demonstrate how higher density residential development or cormnercial development increases the value of the land on which that development occurs. This assumes that the resultant development product is marketable at market rates. These values are always higher than the agr/culmral use value. C. Agricultural Z~ning mad 1 and Values l.n 1990 the firm Resource Management Consultants. Inc. (RMCI) of Washington. D.C. was retained by the Maryland Office of Planning to study'the relationship between agricultural zoning and the value of farmland. RMCI presented its report, '~Fhe Effects of AgriculmrM Zoning on the Value of Farmland,~ in February, 1991. A major conclusion of that report was that the analysis of agricultural zoning showed "no evidence of decreases in land value as a result of. down. zoning over a period of 15 years? This was not to say there was not some decrease of value. Rather, the report concluded that "general economic trends and growth pressures affect land sale prices to a much greater degree "than the zoning." In our iudgment that study did not tell "the whole story." The study focused on four cqunfies, all in either the Baltimore or Washington metropolitan area, in which agricultural zoning was introduced in the late 1970's and early 1980's. A review of this report reveals, to our thinking, that the data a.re not conclusive. In CarroB County, where agh~ltural zordng has been in place f,~, a while, ,hr average sale pr/ce per acre has steadily declined since agricultural zon/ng was introduced. In three of the four counties analyzed, the number of transactiom (sales per year) as revealed through RMCI's research, dropped significantly indicating a less active market, possibly due to the new zoning. Only in Montgomery County did the number of transactions increase..&nd it is interesting that Montgomery County has one of the most effective programs for compensating farmers for trarmferrable development fights. ][n the other counties, the voJnnz of ~c~ion~ {~..nded to ~np ~ut 50 p~c~n~ ~om ~c pre-~ zo~ ~t ~cm ~e bo~ow~ p~ to ~ ~e ~ W ~tate mo~t d~¢lop~n~ of ~ p~. ~z lo~ ~ ~ ~ ~m~on ~d ~e~s ~ m pay, ~e ~ ~ue ~s ~e ,,~d~ b~ of ~ {o~ S~e ~e ~kel for ~e ~d ~te ~,r~ of ~e ~ 19~s ~d ~ ~es ~c mos~ ~o~ ~ some ~ of ~i~ ~ p~u~o~ ~. ~e f~g ,h.t does e~t m.~ of ~ f~ ~ of ~e ~er ~, more ~te~vety ~d ~e. tach ~ tobsc~ ~d veg~bl~. Throw, hour the period covered by the RMCI study it wo~d a~car ~at ~e ~d ~ue ~ ~ ~e fo~ ~ct c~% to ~e c~t ~at ~ o~ed at ~L ~y ~ not ~ c~ ~ do~ for M~l~d ~fl ~e ~ ~un~ re~ned ~ ~e ~ ~dy ~e ~t ~0~ below ~ Table 9, ~d ~o~ h ~'o of ~c ~ ~ore ~d ~ appe~ de~ly I~er ~er ~e ~uc6~ d ~e ~ zo~ h Mont~om"~ ~W ~ ~u~ ~e g~y 1~, ~e~ when ~ ~ a ~gh 1979 of ~e z~t. 48 · MD F6V~ 5L~En;3 PAG-~ 410-~22-687t TABL~ 9 TRENDS IN AGRICULTURAL LAND SALE VALUES IN CON~I'ANT 1987 DOLLARS BARVLAND AND SF-.LE~D COUNTIES . 1974-1990 ¥~ u~,~ ~ ~ cou=7 .. ce,~v . (1) 1:20 (1 ur~ per 2D acres) ~ zoning enacted ~ 198t (2) 1:20 ~]ric-~u~ zo4,ng en,~ted tn ~97S (4) (5) 1:25 eg~cuitumt ~ ~ in 1~ ~ on th~ VMue ~f F~mlar~' Ma~land dina from ~e .Nnedcan Fen~ Bureau Fede=6on; Inliatioddeltati=~ factors ~ imm U.S. Oal~,-,em ~f Lab~ CpH3 mpoc~ comp~ b~ t.egg $~,019 (~) 14:04 410-~2-G~71 MD Ffi;t~ IK~_~J P~ 0~ Maryland Agficaltural !-~d Pr~rvatioa ~oundmJou,'AnnualR~pbrt f0t Fmcal Y~ar 199i,' Maryland Daparmaem of Agicultam, (Th~ mnual repom for 191~2-1991 we. re also r~view~). Camdl~jn~vr.r,Jzy De--ut ofAgriofltursl Eoonomi~, 'Itdormation for Bwb,~fi-g l ~d Retcm/on Pro~"~r~ the Agricultural D/itt/ct Approach,' Ndaon I Bi!ls and Richard BoL~ext, July 198~. L~gg Maton Realty Group, Inc., 'A Cat~log of Grov~h Maua~ement Taehniques,' prepared for the Govemof~ Co,~m~ion on Grovah in the Che.mpeak~ Ba!~ Watershed. Dec~mber 1989. Thomas L. Daniels, 'Th& Ptucl~a~e of DeveloFlnl~tt Right~: Prcserv~ A.,~icultm, al and ~ Space.,' A. PA Jo~ Au~aw~n 1991. Dana E H~/be~, 'The Realit~ of TDR,' Urban I_.aad. Dec~nb~r 1991. Orlando E Delogu, 'Environmental Re,relations ~.d Land ~' Kamas Law R~iew vob~. 34. Maryland A.~:~iation of Cotmry plan~i.g OflkiaL% te~llmo~y belore th~ Joint Cornmkt~e on Growth Managem~trc preaentafion on the pmtsction of s~nd~ive lands, Oc~ber 1, 1991. Men'opolit:m Wash~vton Cmmcfl of Govemmeut~ .~&tropolitan Gro~rth Optfo~ - lg89~ Graft clta~), luly 28, David J. Broker et al, "Managing Development ia Sra~ll. Torres," Fla.uners Pre.~ Amefi~u ~l~..i~ ~tion, 1984. W. Pawiek Benton, 'Impact of Rural Open Space Zoning oa Property Valu~ ha the New Jersey Pineland~,' Rutge~ U~ivet',dipd, Augtat, 1988. flE/1.9/2~03 [4:84 ~.:10-922-$871 ND F~,.~'4 li~u,~E~lJ The Chesapeakq Bay C~d~J Area Com~iaion, Whe Prospects a_nd Problems of Economic lustrumens as Complements to the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area pro .gc~m~" August 19ff7. "I'relaaraxiun of 1990 Land Use/Lxud Cover Maps and Al~.C/iafo Digital Database.,' f:mal repor~ gmp.zred by Daft Mg(hmc-Walker Inc.. nd .~,--llbmltted to the Maq, lllld Ol]ie pl~nni,~ April 1.5, 199L Ma.~land Depas tment of Agriculture, Marfland Agricultural S,~,~i~ suv,ma~ies for 1990 imd 1991. Bttrv. a~ of the Cem~as, 198/Cem-~ of A~ic~iture, Mar/la~d State Md Coumy dam. ~nc F. ffect~ of Agricultural Z~nieg on the Value of Farming4," prepared by Resource Ma~gement Cor~altants Inc.. and m~bmittcd tn Maryla~ Office of planning; Februa~ 22, 199I. MaIyla~d O{Sce of Ha,mLug, "A SraOl~i$ 0f Agric'dtural Zoning M Mar]land," November, 1991. Stephen Su.ssm~ 'Doe~ Land-Use Regulation Protec~ Prope~o, Values?". Real Estate P,~i~w, Vob~,, 20, Number 3, fall 1990. Ralph E H~4,~lieh, 'Metropolitan Ag~icakure,. Farming in r. he Citys SMwdow,' APA lourm, L A.utum 1989. Mallard De--eat o[ State Planning, ~I ~4 Use or Abuse?,' December 5, '1.985. 'l:armem ~nd Gro-atth M~nagemeat: A Plamlng Con, mdrtun,' Watex~ed, Vohnne L Number 1. ~a~ O~c~ or l'tann~ '~latCs Land, i~3-1990, A c~,~g Resoarce,' Publication 9141 W. Patrick Benton et al. 'The Cost of Reguhdons, Volume 2, A Baseline Sttu!y for the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area,' Aagust 1988. Audezson, rreny L., 'A Lirtte l~ereSUroi]~a at Home, Private Owaemhip of Land and Water,' Farm Creait Bank of Baltimore, Report of Maaagemenk Febru~. 18, 19~1. R~ort on U~-Vsl~e Aplrraissl o[ 1:armll~,,,~ in ~'~t"~l,a,/~i, prepared by U~er~ity of [~'yhui/ Deparlmem oi Agriazltum ~nd P,~om-~ P~conom/~ and submittal to thc MmThn/Depa~u~t of A~riculture, l~ebru,~ In adc//don to reviewing ',he abov~ pubL/cafions' and ',,~ mat~'fi~ from most oi them, mmlorfms ~r articles rr..laling tO them to ~owr. h ma.nagcmenL Larmcr COncerns conC*rnlng grov~ manag~ent, t~peri~ce in other communities, and so forth we~ 410~~22~6871 APFENDIX B ~ Arm/nger, Premiden~, Ordmrd Devclopmem CompS, Co~bi~ ~t~d ~ ~ ~mzy,' ~c~ Taylor & Pr~% To~% ~d He~ B~ ~ce ~id~ ~ Peo~les B~ of ~I~ Dento~ ~ ~ B~ ~csidem C~ M~d ~ Cre~t ~ ~ F~, M~d F~ B~ ~r for H~O ~e ~, ~dcn~ ~ B. Taylor g~ ~ 0~, J. ~'~ Ho~ Ir. Admi-~ami, ~h~d F~ B~ · ~c K~ Pr~de~ ~n D~elopment Co~ · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-18 Data in Support of Comments from Joseph Gergela Executive Director, Long Island Farm Bureau June 23, 2003 _l I 0 ' Il F' 7-'1 l%-F-'-TT~----,L - ,',, ,,., ¢ ._ L, ~,.,,~ ~.,,,-, .--,,-, ~ ?.:,,,.,,,._ !._ ¢.--I = L-I ! I I ' I ] I , J I I o o o o o~~ oooooooooloo§ c 0 8 Town of Southold/Conservation Projects 2002 Completed Pollio 2002 * 19.7 McGunnigle 2002 * 28.5 Cullinane 2002 * 34.55 Schrieber 2002 * 47.4 Aliano 2002 * 12.25 Pirerra 2002 * 37.29 Lettieri 2002 * 14.99 Lettieri/Town 2002 * 0.54 DEC/7/8/02 2002 1.7 DEC/2/21/02 2002 4.75 Aurichio 2002 1.3 Wickham 2002 * 20.9 Damianos 2002 * 38 262 Acres 2002 In Contract/Legally Binding Kortsolakis Ciacia Axien Niamonitakis Adamowicz Wolfe, Lenore 2002 * 2002 2002 * 2002 * 2002 * 2002 * 2002 Pending Offer Stackler Dickerson Webber Osprey Dominion Shur Sawicki McFeely Rendell Waldron Posilico Simon Rutkoski 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 * 2002 * 2002 2002 2002 2002 * 2002 2002 Serious Application Adams Reese Ackerman Sameieski Schmidt Dubner Elak 2002 2002 2002 * 2002 * 2002 2002 * 2002 * 18.8 7.8 &9 17.2 71.4 24.3 38.2 13.45 9.9 2.87 17 27.6 3O 3.51 2.3 13.5 32.1 27.7 27.9 47.31 62.7 14.8 54.6 80.6 29 148 Acres 218 Acres Ernst Morion Wicks Dowd 2002 * 2002 * 2002 * 2002 80 17.4 68.4 7.3 490 Acres · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-19 Letter from Richard F. Lark June 24, 2003 RICHARD F. LARK 550 BIRCH LANE CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935 June 24, 2003 JUN 2.,~' 2003 $outholcl Town C]eri Mr. Joshua Y. Horton Southold Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Dear Mr. Horton: I am writing this letter to be included as part of the public's comments on the Draft Generic Environmental Information Statement (DGEIS) prepared for the Southold Town Board. thought it best to put in writing my comments because so many of the speakers at the public hearing like to hear themselves talk and hearing their views they obviously had their own agenda. Curiously, sitting there listening to the comments I couldn't. help but get the feeling it was really all about the money and not quality of life. Initially, it shou. ld be pointed out from an objective pointt of view no matter how it is cloaked, the DGEIS for some reason slanted to justify upzoning to five acres upzoning of a large portion of property between Mattituck Creek and the hamlet of Peconic. From a selfish point of view since I live right in the~ middle of this proposed upzoning at my stage in life if I adopt an Iron Curtain philosophy this is great. Why? Because it will keep everything basically the same in this area for the rest of my time on earth. However, from an unselfish point of view it is submitted the upzoning of this vast amount of acreage, is exclusionary and will be an indelible mistake. I am personally against it because in the long run it will prevent and drive out ordinary middle class people especially blue collar workers from being able to reside in the Town. Only the very wealthy will be able to afford to live here and Southold Town will have its own "trade parade" for the essential services such as elecuricians plumbers, yard maintenance, garbage removal, and house cleaners. You must understand in the long run individuals will have tc buy five acres in order to build a home. The economics of five acre zoning are simply not true. The Town Board should get input from mortgage brokers and appraisers and not planners to get a true picture. G-40 6.5 G-41 9.6 I do not believe that anyone can quarrel with the goals as set forth in paragraph 1.3.1 of the DGEIS. Interestingly enough the drafters of the document to sell their views of five acre upzoning set forth as the first item "to preserve land including farm land, open space and recreational landscape". Query, shouldn't quality of life be put first and therefore, the fourth listed goal be the most important, "to preserve and promote range of housing and business opportunities that support a social economic diverse community"? Of course, the drafters will tell you each one of the five goals stand by themselves and are equal, yet subliminally it is interesting the order in which they lisu them. The point I am trying to make in this letter is you have'to question why is there definitely a bias for five acre upzonlng 5o the point of just passing mention in the DGEIS of the other so called "tools", such as Rural Incentive Districus, Agricultural Overlay Districts, and transfer of development rights. It ms true the DGEIS does mention these tools as options for 5he Town Board to adopt but Ehey do not too much emphasis on them. i am suggesting to you the primary reason is the planners like regulations. They believe that government controlling property and property owners is a good thing because ordinary citizens will not come forth with voluntary programs. Again, the DGEIS condescending approach assumes that farmers and other large land owners of open space will not do the right thing that they will sell the developers for a quick profit. If this is true, then I submit to you are there large blocks of land still remaining on Oregon Road committed to agriculture? Anyone familiar with the economics of potato and other vegetable farming which has taken place in this area for generations knows it is not that profitable, but rather a way of life. New forms of agriculture such as grape growers and sod farms have been recently introduced and only time will tell as to whether they will be able to be economically feasible. One of the suggestions made to the Board at the public hearings is the Town Board should conduct more public hearings and informational meetings. The Board should prepare a condensed readable literature of the various "tools" that are available to see if some more input can be had for the residents. My suggestion is that three public hearings might not be enough on these important issues. Further, the Board has heard from the Supervisor of the Town of East Hampton and Thomas Daniels, both of whom told you from experience, that the five acre zoning by itself is not the answer. Neither, should their comments be ignored in your input, nor should the five acre upzoniny be considered in a vacuum. A comprehensive plan where 5he entire zoning ordinance is redrafted should take place. This uakes time, if the moratorium has to be extended six months, so be it! I do not believe you can do this "piece meal" mn order to achieve the goals which you desire. G-42 10.17 Lastly, I am submitting to you it is arrogant to rush into this five acre zoning especially in an election year. The prior administration disregarding the thoughts of the residents tried to do this, and the political results were obvious. Hopefully, history will not repeat itself. If the politicians want to battle it out to get votes, let them! Please, take your time, review all of the options, spend the time, and get competent people to do a comprehensive zoning plan by removing it from the political arena. Thank you for the taking the time to read this letter. I think more time should be given to the public to have the opportunity to read the entire DGEIS as it is informative and you should receive intelligent input from the residents. Hopefully, you will be able to achieve a consensus and compromise which is essential in the governmental process. Very truly yours, cc. John M. Romanelli Thomas H. Wickham Louis P. Evans William D. Moore Craig A. Richter Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-20 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. David L. Fisher June 25, 2003 Southold Town Board Box 1179 Southold,N Y 11971 June 25,2003 Re: Draft GEIS Thank you for sponsoring three meetings on the DGEIS recently.. It was i~teresting to spend nearly an hour on Monday listening to comments, but one speaker carried on too long and I thought it would be courti~ous to you just to have a brief written comment. We strongly support the adoption by the Board of 5 acre zoning. We also urge clustering in the Agricultural ~Conservation and R-80 zoning districts. We are certa.in that these steps will not reduce the value of farmland and will help to pre,serve open space. RECEIVED JUN 2 7 2003 Yours very j~ruly, (Mr/Mrs david L. Fisher,) Southold Town Clerk G-43 10.1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-21 e-mail to Town Clerk's Office from Ken Schneider June 26, 2003 Message Page 1 of 1 Neville, Elizabeth From: Woodhull, Ruthanne ~ent: Friday, June 27, 2003 11:08 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: FW: Save the Farms Betty, see below. Ruthanne ---Original Message---- From.' Hot'eon, ~shua .~nt:: Friday, June 27, 2003 11:0~ AM To: Woodhull, P, uthanne Subject.- FW: Save the Farms RECEIVED dUN 2 7 20O3 Southold 1'own Cie-ri please forward this as part of the public record from this gentleman. ---Original Message--- From: Ken Schneider [malltmkenwsL~ptonline.net] Sent: Thursday, 3une 26, 2003 7:22 PN To: .loshua. Horton@town.southold.ny.us Subject: Save the Farms Thank you for extending the public comment period. J have a few questions. Which I trust, you will forward to the dght department. 1. How many residential property tax paying parcels are there? And what are the sum of their payments? 2. How many commercial property tax paying parcels are there? And what are the sum of their payments? 3. How many "Other" property tax paying parcels are there? And what are the sum of their payments? 4. How many acres of each of the following, A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 which are being farmed or are open space still have their development rights? You probably see where I'm going with this. How much will it cost $? I will see you at the next hearing. Ken Schneider ' 1005 Mason Drive Cutchogue, NY 11935 734-2274 G-44 7.7 presentl 6/27/2003 $outhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-22 Letter from Elsie S. Bleimiller undated dUN 2 7 2O03 ~ ~/~Z.,~_.,~ ' Southold Town C!Grk G-45 10.1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-23 DGEIS Questions for Follow-Up, Bill Edwards 7/15/2003 DGEIS QUESTIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP Reference Question Page 3-3 Page 3-22 While it may be true that revenues in future years are not predictable to the penny, it is a fact that the town will receive over $3.5 million in CPF funds in 2003 and can project as much or more in the "out" years. That being the case, why does the Build Out Analysis not allow for any future preservation by the town or county, especially in the AC and R-80 zones? The "Adverse Primary Impacts and Implications" listed for Tool #4 (Five Acre Zoning) do not include the incremental cost to landowners for refinancing their loans from the banks; for every parcel of land currently borrowed against by the landowner, these new expenses will include the cost of a flesh apprisal ($1500 and up), mortgage filing fees, attorney costs, and especially new title insurance policies which will run I% of the(ace value of the loan. These expenses (tied as they are to the size of the loans and to the landowners who have them) will fall disproportionately on the landowners least able to afford them and could easily top one million dollars. Please review these expenses with an agricultural lender and provide an estimate of their total; impact on the farmers of Southold Town as an immediate consequence of implementing five acre zoning with clustering. G-45 9.12 G-46 7.1 Page 3-28 In the second paragraph the Report states that upzoning has not had harmful effects in other parts of the country and you refer to several upzoning histories in California and Maryland, only one of which (Montgomery County, Maryland) went from two acres to five. You say that "In these cases, there has been no documented negative or adverse impact on the business of farming, and land values stabilized over a short period of time." This raises several questions: What is your authority for saying that land values "stabilized"? Submitted by Bill Edwards, 7,"15/'2003 Page I of 3 G-47 6.4 DGEIS QUESTIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP Do you mean the values "stabilized" at the same rate as before the rezoning, or at a lower level? Did you check with each of the counties you cite to determine if the rezoning included clustering, which any reasonable person would understand has as major an impact on valuations as the rezoning itself?. Why did you fail to uncover the fact that Montgomery County's move to five acre zoning did aot include clustering, the prima~ cause of the loss in land valuation? Please provide an example ora town or county which went from 2-acre to 5-acre zoning with clustering and supply a history of land valuations before and after the changeover. If no such example exists, please provide a reasoned projection of the impact on land valuations of such a rezoning in Southold Town. Page 3-29 From a 1991 report by Robert E. Egerton Jr. for the Maryland State Planning Office entitled "The Effects of Agricultural Zoning on the Value of Farmland," you quote as follows: "Lending institutions do not make or deny loans on the basis of a parcel's development potential, but rather on the ability of the farm enterprise to repay its loans." This may have been true in 1991, but have you inquired in the year 2003 of any local lending officer dealing with agriculture as to the potential impact of a change in zoning on their willingness to extend loans to farmers? If so, what did you learn? If not, why not? G-48 7.1 Page 8-13 With respect to a potential loss in land valuation as a consequence of an upzoning, the second paragraph on this page states that "a review of historical development rights sale data reveals that the value of land alone accounts for approximately 40°,./o of the overall land value, indicating that the development rights of a given parcel account for approximately 60% of the total land value." Based on purchases of development rights made in the past year Submitted b), Bill Edwards, ~ '15,'2003 Page G-50 7.2 DGEIS QUESTIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP by Southold Town, the appraised val~of the development rights is running closer to 70% than 60%, with the development rights running even higher in smaller parcels and in parcels with extensive road frontage. Please review the accuracy of the 60% claim made in the Report in light of sales data in Southold Town over the past twelve months. Page 1-6 Over the past two decades both the Town Board and the voters of Southold Town have provided a consistent level of support for purchase of development rights and open space; indeed, I doubt that there exists in this entire country another municipality which has given so much per capita to protect its farmland and open space, and everyone in Southold should be proud of this ongoing achievement. Yet in Table 1-1 listing the 43 "Implementation Tools and Key Goals," why is no consideration given to enhancing the current level of PDR funding, either through additional bonding or through bonding against anticipated income from the 2% tax? G-50 7.2 Submitted by Bill Edwards, 7/15/2003 Page 3 of 3 Soufhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-24 Letter to Albert Krupski, President, Board of Trustees, from Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner June 19, 2003 VAT .~.~ ~. SCOPAZ TOWN PLANNER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southol~ New Yo~k~ 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED JUN 19 2003 Memorandum Southold Town Cierl To: Albert Krupski, President, Board of Trustees Members of the Board of Trustees From: Valede Scopaz, AICP, Town Planner Re: DGEIS Date: June 19, 2003 This morning Peggy Dickerson and Patdcia Finnegan informed me of specific concerns on the part of the Trustees regarding the DGEIS. To wit: delayed receipt of a copy of the document, insufficient numbers of copies and failure to mention the Trustees as a permitting agency and failure to allow the Trustees to review a copy in advance of printing. After speaking with Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk, it appears that a copy of the DGEIS was transmitted to your office on the 13th of June. It also appears that a misunderstanding contributed to this delay. I regret this oversight. With regard to the fact that only one copy was transmitted: eadier today I spoke with Lauren Standish, Trustee secretary, and explained that she could pdnt out black and white copies of the DGEIS document for the Trustees, which is what am doing for the Planning Board members since that Board also has only one copy. Lloyd Reisenberg agreed to explain to Lauren how to do this. It also is my understanding that the attorney providing legal assistance to your Board, Brownell Johnston, has requested and received a loaner copy from the Town Clerk's office. The Team welcomes the input of the Trustees on the document as a whole. Cc: Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Town Board G-51 2.1 Southold Comprehensive implementntion Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-25 Letter from John Barnes 6/30/03 John Barnes, Shorecrest ~d & Breakfast, 54300 Route 48, oouthold, NY I~9~ 1~. Questions & comeuts coucemng (DGEIS) Dra~ ~neHc En~ro~ntal hr,pac~C[~ ~ Statement - Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. 6/00/0. John Barnes $outhokl Tovi. Cleri I would recommend that the following concepts and questions be brought to the attention of the Board. COM~ENTS: o The Board is to be complimented for establishing and carrying out a comprehensive DEGIS wlfich appears to have done an excellent job of responding to the stated goals relative to LAND USE and to LAND WELL BEING. Tiffs massive compilation of data can and should be helpful to both the citizenry and the Board in its future planning. n The Board wisely establishes a goal (Page S-9) "To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that support a socio-econom/cally diverse conm~unity" - tom'ism being one of the traditional uses to be enhanced. o A key element that is suggested, but not adequately supported, is focus on the WELL BEING OF THE PEOPLE (rs land) and particularly the ECONOMIC WELL BEING of small business people in an envh'onment that is clearly seasonal for those involved in tourism. [] The Board is encouraged to study more in depth, those factors which can be predicted to impact upon the economic well being of local business people as we take steps to preserve the land. [] It should be noted that none of the local tourism business people, whnther they be restauranteurs, motel owners, bed and breakfast owners, winerie or. lets or snlall farm stand owners want to take action wl~ch is hurtful to their fellow business owners. We are in tiffs together, and action taken should benefit the larger good for all of us. QUESTIONS: As noted bn page 1-28 & 29 concerning Country Inns; While the goal of pro,noting land preservation is applauded, what will the economic in,pact of creation of such irms be upon existing small business in a seasonal economy? o In high season, everyone is fall, but what is the impact from September to May for those businesses that operate all year'? o If a small business (B & B or restaurant'} can not operate profitably ail }'ear, what is the probability that the:,' wiil be driven out of business Y o Do we imve m~y data showing room utilization rates for local motels. B & B's and kms? Don't you believe we need such data before promoting additional inn construction? G-52 10.15 .. ~ ~ If wineries become eligible to operate Country inns wl~ich can provide restaurant services, what is likely to be the impact of this upon visitors utilizing other small business services? Has any thought gone into the rmpact .~-TER the sumraer :,~ ~ season? ~ Exactly what data can be rapidly collected to help the Board gain a better insight into predictable economic impact of their development ptans'? o Room utilization: Total utilization for the yem'? Utilization by montl~s? Utilization by weekends vs weekdays'? o Restaurant capacity vs utilization: cn Same thne frames as above. MIGHT THE BOARD PROFIT BY SEEKING SUCH DATA FROM TlffE LOCAL NORTH FORK BUSINESSES AND .ASSOCIATIONS'? Thank you for >'our consideration. Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-26 Letter from Deanna Alpert and Elissa Rosner June 30, 2003 Deanna Alpert ~ Elissa Rosner 5050 Pequash Avenue Cuthogue, NY 11935 (631)734-2831 June 30,2003 RECEIVED JUL 1 2003 %uthold Town Clef! Memorandum to the Southold Town Board RE: UpzoninR to 5 acres We recently wrote an e-mail to Supervisor Josh Horton requesting preservation of all 8945 acres of developable land and stated our reasons for wishing thus. Bardng that, we do support the adoption of 5-acre zoning with clustering in the Agricultural Conservation and R-80 zoning districts. As the NFEC has asserted: "Don't let the most ,effective preservation tool be lost in a sea of recommendationsl We urge the Town Board to enact 5-acre upzoning NOW as the first and immediately effective step in achieving preservation goals. Deanna Alpert Elissa Rosner G-53 10.1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-27 Letter from Jeanne Genovese June 26, 2003 580 Skunk Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 (631) 734-2053 RECEIVED June 26, 2003 Town of Southold Att: Town Board PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Website: www.northfork, com/ViutageBnB Emil: Viutal~BnB@,aol.com JUL 1 ~ %uthold fown Cleft RE: DGEIS Dear Town Board, I respectfully submit this comment regarding DGEIS with regards to the part which will allow vineyards to go from agricultural zoning to commercial which would enable them to build 20+ room inns with restaurant facilities. If in fact this happens, we might as well put a "For Sale" sign on oar property right now- it would kill us! We came out here and designed our house not only to be our home, but a B&B as well, with 3 guest rooms (under the then current zoning) with the intention of using this income to put our 4 and 5 year old children through college one day, and so far it has been very successful. I don't want to cut my nose offto spite my face, as the vineyards have been very good to us in referring guests, but if they were to put up major Inns and restaurants ! believe it would just de~'oy us, as the main attra~tinn are our vineyards and guests I'm sure would just flock to a working Inn on a vineyard, and demand for our rooms would go south, as it currently is hard enough ttying to keep our rooms filled on a regular basis with the influx of all the other new B&B's. Without the income our B&B generates, this is not at all an affordable area or situation for my family & I. The other side of the coin, ifI understand this correctly, is that vineyards under agricultural zoning pay no property taxes and never have. We on the other hand pay well over $1,000 per month in Southold Town property taxes alone. If they go commercial, yes, the Town stands to make A LOT of money, but it would be at our expense and I don't think that's a fair ~rade-off. Can't we just keep the North Fork the way it is, or does it need to get crazy like the Hamptuns and other tourist traps? I have had many conversations with fellow B&B owners and local restaurant owners and the opinion expressed here in my letter is unanimous. I sincerely hope that much thought is given to this situation before a decision is made and that all of our voices are heard. We love the North Fork, plan to spend the rest of our lives here, watch our kids grow up here, play an active part in the community but if this goes through I don't see a future here and ourselves and many others will be forced to leave. Sincerely, .×'"'-~"A'//~ ~~'/~ Jeanne ~no~e~J6prietor ~ G-54 10.15 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-28 Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Domenick Congemi undated Members of the Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RECEIVED JUL 1 2003 $outhold Town Clefl~ Dear Members, We are members of the North Fork Environmental Council. We are writing you in support of the adoption of 5 acre zoning with clustering in the Agricultural Conservation and R-80 zoning districts. We are in favor of this in hopes that Southold will achieve it's goal of preserving 80% of our remaining farmland and open space and reducing potential density by 60%. Please donot wait any longer and adopt 5 acre zoning now. G-55 10.1 Sincerely, ~~. Mr. and Mrs. Domenick Cangemi 1475 Broadwaters Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-29 Letter from Fred and Joan Schwab June 28, 2003 June 2~[~003 Fred and Joan Schwab 3735 Deep Hole Drive- Mattituck, N.Y. 11952- MEMBERS of the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD Southold Town Hall P.O.Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: DGEIS or Saving Southold Dear Board Members; $outhold Town Cleri Inasmuch as we have not had the opportunity to review the subject DGEIS and do not have access to a computer much of the following comment is general in nature. However, we hasten to add that we viewed a good portion of the 6/19 "stacked deck" public hearing, were in attendance during the 6/23 event and through the printed media have kept abreast of the controversy over land preservation since moving to our 30 year old Mattituck home in 1996. Reportedly the DGEIS contains a laundry list of 43 recommendations or "tools" that could be applied to address the issue of land preserva- tion. While the ongoing purchase of development rights has proven to be a useful tool and should be continued, it is a slow process and dependent upon volunteerism and adequate funding. It is abundantly clear that because of inadequate funding and the ever growing need to act quickly the development rights program will not solve the problem of how to preserve some 80% of Southold's open space.and not yet subdivided farm- land. The Town of Southold is dealing with a crisis situation .......... the clock is ticking. Based on all that we have heard and witnessed over the years, commo~ G-56 sense tells us that upzoning IS the most effective and most immediate ~10.1 tool, to believe otherwise is illogical. We suspect that some of the nonfarmers who spoke against upzoning did so because of hidden agendas. A banker, a lawyer and some members of the business alliance, do they really have the farmers best interest at heart, we think not! Would upzoning really have a damaging economic impact on farmers? We think not! Upzoning does not take their land and it's value from them. Supply and demand will maintain and over time increase the value of their land. Land values on Long Island have steadily increased and will continue to do so in the years and decades ahead. And let us not overlook the fact that substantial acreage in Southold is owned by speculators or nonfarmers. Unlike some newcomers to the area we have absolutely no problem with farming activities. We love seeing the farms, seeing the crops mature and if we smell a spraying operation, or our car gets sandblasted during a windy fall or winter day...so be it. A slow piece of farm equipment on the road does not annoy us, in our opinion the farmer has the right-of- way. We want farming to continue and we do not want Southold to become another Nassau or western Suffolk. · My wife and I grew up in Nassau County, one in Oceanside the other To Southold Town Board % -2- 6/28/03 in Franklin Square. Our school years were the 1940's. During thos~ years farming was still an ongoing activity in those and surrounding communities. In Franklin Square there were at least 12 working farms, to the west in Elmont a similar number, and to the east in West Hemp- stead were several more. Prior to 1947/48 present day Levittown did not exist, as was the case for East Meadow, Bellmore,Plainview, Bethpage, Hicksville and others, it was farm country. About the time that development of Levittown began developers began gobbling up the farmland and remaining woodlands within the aforementioned areas. By the early 1950's the farms were gone and wildlife habitat totally eliminated. The two streams which flowed through Franklin Square ceased to exist along with their population of native trout. The swimming holes of our youth were now dry ditches or covered over. Wild strawberries, blackberries, cherries and elder- berries were no longer there to be picked. The few farms and open space in the Oceanside area also dis- appeared and because of greed, sleazy politicians, and the public's ignorance vast wetland areas were totally destroyed, being replaced by houses, shopping centers, and as was the case in Merrick, by a huge garbage dump. By the time (1959) we bought a home in Levittown the malignancy that some label as progress had spread to western Suffolk, places like Commack, Smithtown and Islip. Shortly thereafter Sunrise Highway, which east of Great River dwindled down to a very narrow two lane road ending at Patchogue's Phyllis Drive, underwent a widening and a series of extensions eastward. THis spurred the development of the Shirley and Mastic area. Needless to say the LIE gave rise to development further north and the resultant absolute mess along route 25 in Cer- tereach, Selden and elsewhere. And so it goes .... creeping ever eastward, through the Town of "Crookhaven", and lest we forget, the recent birth of a nightmare along route ~8 in the environmentally and governmentally dysfunctional Town of Riverhead. Beware Southold, so called progress...the destroyer of small towns...is at your doorstep! During the Board's 6/19 hearing an attorney named Essex claimed that upzoning was an effort to preserve scenic or public views. While upzoning would result in the preservation of scenic views it would preserve something far more significant. Specifically...quality of life...the reason for our moving to Mattituck. Levittown was a great place to raise a family, at least until t? late 1980's. By then vehicular traffic became a constant and ever gruwing problem- Because of the nearness of neighbors there was little privacy and for the same reason noise and light poll ~ion increased. Nearly every home had a power mower, power saw, pow~ edger, and worst of all a leaf blower. On clear nights you might see dozen stars and if you were patient and looked real hard you "might" find the big dipper. Traffic lights and stop signs, while necessary, were every- where, car horns, squealing brakes, automobile burglar alarms were repeated daily sounds. During summer months noise from parties several blocks away To Southold Town Board "~ -3- ] 6/28/03 saturated the area late into the night. The days and nights leading up to and for a time after the 4th of July sounded like a World War II aerial bombardment. At times being aggravated was routine. UFormer Levittown neighbors tell us that many houses are now rentals, that home burglaries are on the increase and walking the streets after dark is a growing concern. THese are things which d~l~m~g~ri~i'- to all communities. Because my father, born on Shelter Island, grew up in East Hampton and because of my love for fishing in the Montauk Surf, my family and I, going back over 5 decades, spent a countless amount of time on the south fork. Except for a visit or two during our childhood years we never ventured to the North Fork. In 1975 my brother in law bought a 250 year old farm house in Mattituck. On our first visit to his home we were amazed to see the still existing farmland and open space, it was hard .to believe that Southold had escaped the destruction to the west and at that time well underway in the ~amptons. Southold reminded us of what parts of Nassau County were like when we were children. While the plague that development is has arrived on the North Fork it still amazes us that some 60 miles to the west all open space was gone a half century ago. Folks out here complain about the ferry and summer time traffic, we do to. But if $outhold does not take action to halt and/or seriously control development present traffic problems will be magnified many times over within a very short period of time and that's a prediction not based on guesswork but rather on a lifetime of observation. On related concerns, the Town should address the question of size of homes. Bulkheads, particularly on the shores of the Peconic, within all the creeks and near any and all wetlands should be pro- hibited. Peconic Bay has it's problems and a major cause is bulk- heading the shoreline. On the question of affordable housing, forget about it! The real problem is il~rofitab/e e~ptoym~n~hU~ her~'s the~r~b, create.~dbs an'd you create the need for more housing. Young people leave the area for better employment opportunities. If the reader has read this submission to it's conclusion we sincerely thank you for your time and interest. QUESTION; If, as some farmers have publicly cl .imed they have no intention of selling their land and-intend to Continue farming'with the goal of passing that tradition and land on to future genera- tions, why are they so opposed to upzoning??? Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic Appendix G-30 Letter from Barbara & John Zaveski, et al 6.30.03 RECEIVED JUL 2 200~ $outhold Town Cledt G-57 10.1 $outhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-31 Letter from Linda Bertani Secretary/Treasurer, Southold Park District June 24, 2003 SOUTHOLD PARK DISTRICT P.O. BOX 959 JUL 2 ~00~ SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 631-765-3250 i;.....:. %uthold fo~n Cie.ri June 24, 2003 Re: Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Mr. Joshua Horton, Supervisor Tow~ Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Horton, On Thursday eve~ng, June 19, 2003 Commissione¢ John L. Conway spoke at your headng regarding the concems of the Park District Commissioners about the wording in the DGEIS where it relates to the Southold Park District. He posed a question regarding wording on page 3-41 (Item #27) under "Administer Parks of Town- W'~e Significance". The first sentence reads, "This toni would provide for Town administration of parks haWng Town-side significance." Commissioner Convcay asked the Supervisor and the Town Board members what wes the meaning of this sentence and no one was able to answer him at the time. The Commissioners would like a written explanation of this sentence prior to any vote on this study with ample time to review the explanation and question any other concerns they may have regarding its relevance to the park district. Attached is a copy of the presentation made at your hearing. Sincerely, Linda Bertani Secretary/Treasurer G-58 2.? Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-32 e-mail from Cristina and Joe Como July 10, 2003 Page 1 of 2 From: Harvestinnbandb@aoLcom J~ECEJ'VE~ Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 9:49 PM ,.~.~'-~ To: syivia@quintessentialsinc.com; daugusta@earthlink, net JUL 2 cc: joshhorton03@yahoo.com Subject: Re: DGEIS- Country Inns - Questions Hi, Sylvia Southold Town Clerj As agreed at the last NFBBA meeting, here are the qeustions that I would like to present to the Town Board in reference to the DGEIS and the establishment of Countrylnns: "1. Could you provide us with a detailed analysis of the number of acres and specific location available under A-C, R200 and RS0 zoning? What is the potential number of Country Inns that could be built? What is the total number that the Town would consider approving? Does this apply only to land with DRI (development rights intact)? If not, why would you apply this preservation concept on land already preserved (DRS)? 2. You restrict the distance between Country Inns to 1-2 miles "in order to limit the ultimate number possible." How about the distance from existing B&B's/motels/hotels/restaurants? Should you not consider the economic impact on other Iodgins/eating establishments when you establish this distance? 3. Quoting from the DGEIS: "the goal is to preserve a significant area of farmland....in a manner that does not burden natural or human resources." In relation to "the burden on human resources," these are my questions to the Board: Did you take into consideration the economic impact that all these inns will have on the existing B&B's, motel/hotels and restaurants and all related businesses in our town? Do you have accurate statistics on "occupancy rates"? Can you supply those statistics to us and include the source? Do you have similar statistics for the restaurant business? Did you know that last Sunday (a beautiful sunny day in June) one of our top restaurants in Greenport had many empty tables and was not able to pay their expenses that evening? Did you know that the Harvest Inn (an elegant country inn in the heart of Peconic featured in the NY Times, Mar31/2003) had three empty rooms for the 4th of July weekend? Do you realize that this is a seasonal-business area where a handfull of us struggle to make a living during the off-season? Have you called the existing lodging establishments to book a room during the off-season? Have you been denied a reservation at a restaurant during the off-season? Don't you understand that just ONE 20-room inn could place a tremendous burden on the existing establishments? Did you consider that the majority of vineyard owners, obviously the one business who would benefit the most from this change, are very wealthy individuals (often not full-time residents of the Town of Southold) who do not need the additional income that these inns will generate? Are you aware that the best business for vineyards at present Js the "large wedding receptions" that they host at their winneries from Spring to Fall? Are you aware that the B&B's, hotel/motels and restaurants are not competing for the "large wedding" business? Isn't it logical that if you allow the establishment of "20-room Country Inns" the distribution of income generated by weddings will concentrate on a limited few? Are you protecting land at the expense of those of us who are struggling to make ends meet while we provide needed services to the Town? Are you preserving land by changing agricultural land into commercial zoned areas? Can you use methods of conservation that would not adversely affect the livelihood of so many established local businesses? G-59 10.15 Why aren't we given more time to discuss these critical issues? Why did it take Southampton Town 18 mont,,hs to I come to an agreement over similar matters and we are forced to come to a resolution in a couple of weeks? I_G-~2_10 These are some of my questions. More will follow. 7/2/2003 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-33 Letter from Deanna Alpert and Elissa Rosner June 29, 2003 Message Liguori, Joanne From: Horton, Joshua Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 9:41 AM To: 'joshhorton03@yahoo.com' Subject: FW: Preservation of ALL Lands -- PLEASE! ..... Original Flessage ..... From: dalpert [maitto:dalpert@suffolk.lib.ny.us] Sent: Sunday, 3une 29, 2003 2:30 PM To: ]oshua. Horton@town.southold,ny.us Subject: Preservation of ALL Lands -- PLEASE! Deanna Alpert Elissa Rosner 5050 Pequash Avenue Cuthogue, NY '1'1935 (63t)734-283'1 RECEIVED JUL 2 2003 %uthold Town Cleri Page 1 of 2 3.~ June 29, 2003 Memorandum to the Southold Town Board ~,e: Preservation of All Lands - Please All preservation efforts are linked and non-farm open space, vistas, animal habitats, meadows, woods, beaches and tight little self contained hamlets etc. are all part of the total character of a continuing rural Southold. The magic of Southold surely is the mix of all these ingredients and that concentration only on preservation of working farms would be self-defeating. When we think about Southold and try to pinpoint what exactly is the "magic" it is difficult. Possibly a better approach would be to took at what is happening that grates on our senses and list these assaults on the quality of life that spell doom for our special place: - Traffic is an extremely noticeable invasion. The difficulty in nosing into the stream on Route 25, the hazardous dash out of the lot at King Kullen or Waldbaums is a symptom. - The ubiquitous sheen of new plywood and pressed wood as houses intrude onto yesterday's restful vista and filter the view of the farm that we always took for granted through a jumble of back yards, garages, above ground pools and patio furniture, -As we build and develop we wait with anxiety for the inevitable refrain, "This economic leap into prosperity and suburban nirvana has placed our water quality is at risk. our land can no longer absorb the byproducts of our growth, we need a waste treatment facility," which, among other things, then includes another increase in taxes. - The feeling of relaxed rural lifestyle, the visceral sensation of release from tension is slowly becoming harder to maintain. The push and shove of urban living intrudes more and more. - And last but not least, the unbidden but unavoidable enemy of the humongous schools that hold a humongous amount of students due to the incredible population boom, the necessary increases in traffic management (costly stop lights already witnessed at the corner of 48 and Cox La. as well as in other intersections, and even more costly police services), road enlargement and general municipal government growth have a proven bloating effect on Town taxes. And all this expense to fund the results of th~ngs we don't want to happen! Asthe~i~"m~nthdead~inef~rrec~mmendati~nsappr~aches~wehavet~c~nsiderde~e~~pmentdensityc~ntr~~ I G-61 and growth management. If the board doesn't, it's a disaster waiting not to long to happen. 1 0.1 Me~sage ~ -. Page 2 of 2 Please act in favor of the people that already live here and who have already staked their retirement -- we, two, for sure - on what has been up until recently the magic of Southold, Respectfully submitted, Deanna Alpert and Elissa Rosner Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strate~' Final Generic EIS Appendix Go34 e-mail from Ray Huntington July 7, 2003 Neville; Elizabeth From: Sent: To: Subject: Huntira~aol.com Monday, July 07, 2003 11:23 AM cvoorhieC~npmvp.c, om; Spiro, Melissa Action Extract; Southold DGEIS RECEIVED On the premise that an Environmental Impact Statement proposes an action and evaluates its impact, the action was extracted to allow focus on the action while considering the impact. Such focus on the action will allow simplification of the action thus reducing the impacting ramifications. A simpler action will be less expensive to consider and will most likely have swifter passage into law. The more the Town Board can winnow the possible action(s) early-on in the process, the better the likelihood of results. The extraction from the DGEIS was as follows: · Web~site posting release of 11/18/2002 (not part of the DGEIS}. · Table of Contents (pp. ii thru viii). · Table 1-1. · Section 1.3 Description of the Proposed Action (pp. 1-10 thru 1-55). · Section 8.0 Alternatives (pp. 8-1 thru 8-28). Some particularly interesting tables were omitted (e.g. 3-1, 3-2) to resist the temptation to start loading the "why" into the "what" - perhaps an extraction from the impact evaluation materials could also be useful. Perhaps the risk of oversimplifying the impact evaluation could be blunted with disclaimer footer on each page of the impact extraction. Regards, Ray Huntington JUL 7 Southold To~. G-62 2.4 · i Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-35 Letter from Cathy Craig July 2, 2003 RECEIYED JUL 7 3303 Southold Town Cleri July 2, 2003 Members of the Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Members of the Board: I am adding my voice to what I hope are hundreds of others. I urge you to adopt the 5- acre zoning proposal. What lruly drives the economy of the North Fork is its beauty and not the possibility of miles of suburbia. G-63 10.1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-36 Letter from Andrew Greene July 2, 2003 RECEIVED 7 Southold Town 1220 Sigsbee Road Mattituck, NY 11952 July 2, 2003 Supcrvisor Joshua [Iort,m & F~,wn Board Members Town Hall 53095 Route 25 PO Box i I *u S,.,uthokl NT I ~')'72 [),oar Dxcp~'csd~IL.U il \'c:,. \{'lcr coil.drier'inL, a ill. l~lt:,~:'~ I';,ILICCS il1 [he .~rcater Ne',,',, York metropolitan area, my I}tmily and I mo\ ,cd k, thc ','q~:!',~ Fork. Thc natural beauty of the area drew us here, as did tine warm, l~'lcnd!.v pcol)l~- x'. c crier;ti:itel cd. Wc are extremely happy with our decision. Mx.' wile I;a:~ bo:mhz inxol\'cd itl ibc Southold Mothers Club and I am planning ID I'eSLIlUC II17 tC;It, lltll~; C:~',.CI ,!, [!1~ total SC[IOO[S. Since moving hc~c, i ira\ c closd.v follo,.\'cd the cf£orts to preserve Southold and the debate on up/om%. I have made an cLu'~:cst cfi'orr to understand both sides of the issue. .Ns I am dccpIy c[m,_ct'l/cd ,l[Ioo[ .";outll,.y]d's t'utul'c, [ attended one of the recent public hearings on d]c I)GI'I"; .~l'tc~ rc~dmg thc document on the town's website I was struck h? :1 i1uillbcr oflhhigs First, it was very clear that thc \ a~t tn~kjo~ [fy o£ those making comments had not read the document...\ppa:'cutl5 lhcir m:~Ms xxcrc made up long ago and this was just another [bruin to \Chi their l~zch~i..z,:,. I ,vas vt..r) impressed with the thoroughness of the document and thc cf fort made b~, thc DGI:IS members to provide forecasts to help make the decision-making as ,k. cll i*~[brmt'd as pos~,ible. It is a shame that most did not bother to read this fine work ol'th¢4c c'q~.rtq and ~cllcct on it. I sincerely hope that the members of tllc -l'o\~l: Board ,~t,n'[ I,)llox, [I,,h .SLIt{ cxmuple. .%coud. I \~a~, dz>,n~,._,! h'. r;:~ :,;~d~ Ic',~i of vitriol displa~ed at the hearing. Most C', Ct'voile agl'OCb l[Itt[ {IlL ?,i,i ;- tn l)l'cxkrx c Southold. The disagreement is on how to ac}fie\ c this aim i .,u: ,t in,, ~,, :~,:~ ,:r [h.,t reasonable people can disagree and that this is -t CaSk' k~ }'CI'C I1DI3r;(I '. '~ l" '~,l:,'h r, SC, r~o:.t][2' superior that they should act so rqwdtom.ihl2, tow a,,;s t::,~ ,c ~,' ... h..)m d~cy disagree. We are neighbors trying to reach I have used the D(.;I .IS to assess thc situation employing risk analysis. Are the risks greater il' upzoni~g is emro ted el' il' it ,,vet'c not? If upzoning were to be enacted, there are 2 risks according tc~ nl2, tmdcrstalldillg {il' thc arguments put forth by those opposing it. First, thc~'c is a r,.q, that lcmlcl~ ,',otdd dccm the land less valuable and lend less money to the farmers for ll,~:i~ opc~':ttit)~,~., imttiug thc Future of farming in doubt. Second, there is thc issue of prop. ~i'.. g'i~?hls. ,::..'~,~tt~zdI,,. "Don't tell me what to do with my land." Thc first argumc~l[ :.,llottl,.I c;.u r', iht IlIOSt C~ eight if it is true. No action should be taken which wonld jeol~m di.<' tl~c ['t~t~ c of I~_mning. However, if this is the primary reason why upz:oning is bcit~g :;,~ ,. i~'tticl~II_x· oppuscd, there would seem to be ample room to conrpromisc. StH el) t}~c ltl,.', ,~ ,:.~l come up with a mechanism to guarantee that farmers retain access to >u(15ci._:~lt ;~t.l~ ct~l,__,,, ,act~c~,larly given that the DGEIS states that the likelihood ora l'~tll i~l tl~c value ,l(Iam. I il' up/:oning were enacted would be minimal and short-term. ['he scco~ld argumc~,t conco'~:, p~q)c~-t.x rights, which in my opinion is far less pcrsuasix c. Thc~ c is ccrtaml_x n~) precedent anywhere that allows a property owner to do whatever he likes ',x ich Ins kind. Z(mi~lg provides many restrictions. Ifa farmer wished to build a po,,ve~' 01:t~L ,./~ d 5,1 :,'.t)l5, c,m,5,mlinium on his land, it would not be allowed, as [hcsc arc nut ill l~ic b.::.( dl{,dlCqL>, t,l' [I~C '..ollllnunity. Those making this argument are really striving ct, i~ ,,~czt th,:ir',...:~c'. I' ':ch though the DGEIS states that there is no evidence values ,. ill ~':tl! l.)zl~: :. ::~..tilt[ ~,CCll though land values have soared since the last time there :,, ;s ~,l; 't,,,i%:. ~,:,1 ~... ~ Ihough land prices have risen in Maryland and Napa Valley aftc~ ttl//Omllg, thc~ c is ctcaH,,, a fear of falling prices. I can't blame these landowners For t~ ) ~l~g to protcu~ thci* interests; it is certainly their right. However, to ask thc rest oFthc COtlumwtiL, to I've.ti' [[/c ~'isks enumerated below so that their land rntght be x,.orth a few milho~, mu~,~ l',~.m d,,. milh~,r~2- at. is ,,vol~h is not a valid reason to oppose up/oning. The other arguments ,.tgaillSl ~q;/onittg arc disingenuous. Given that upzoning requires clustering on I acre lois. not 5 acre lots, the clamor against McMansions is false. Thus the argmncnt re:carding thc inllt,',, ul' tradespeople causing traffic jams is equally spurious. The risks in not tlp.,'OIllll~ itl~pU.;, l~_u' ,)~orc scrious. Under the DGEIS maximum buildout analysis, there ,,~,mld bc app,': ~,~n~ttcl', ~,600 more housing units, which the document cquatcs tc~ an adclltitmld I qUJ{~, ;;, bt~tHh~,ld's population. This number assumes only 1.5 persons pcr housch,,Id. ~t~ in,p,,,t~,tbI5 k>.,, figure unless a large number of these are ~cc ' J holnnes. :~.~1 H~c~casc ,',[ ' c~l I'¥>t~O in population, hey er. would dramatically [Fp tation dcl~:;itv incl'c~tsc~., tl~c risl, s to the community are dmerous. First, there are fisc~, risks. Currcm cdt~c.tt~o~, .] I~tcl!ltic.-, will inevitably prove inadequate and taxes ,.','ill soar to pay for nc xx l,.tciht~c~, a:,,i M:.tl'l. ?-;ceond, there are environrnental risks. Pollution and trash will inc~ c[~sc sigm [1cat,ti> xx ich such a population increase. The beautiful scenery oFSoutlk,M x~ ill i,c n]~:cztstngl3 marred. Third, there is a risk to transportation cfficicncy. Traffic /x ill shim ~ major increase, making it likely that we will be frequently sitting ill traffic j.m, h[,~_ tho:;~_ t)~l thc South Fork. Roads will wear out sooner from the higher usage, requt, :~.'. ,uot'c mztinlcaa~ul¢c Funds. Fourth, there are risks to small businesses. ()nc~ ti~,.~c ;, .-ullq~.~cnt p~pt~lation density, large, national retailers will believe it viable t,, .,~'t up ,~, b.,,~lhold, squeezing out local businesspeople. I laving waded thro~gh thc document and considered the arguments of both sides, the answer is clear. [Jp/oning has worked in other areas. Voluntary measures have never stood much ora cluulcc against Ibc power of the profit motive. By all means, be certain that farmers will Imvc thc lhmaciul wherewithal to continue to farm. I have no doubt that with thc numerous lil~amcizt[ xx izards in thc New York area, we can find a way. t Iov~cvcr, io l-isl, ul: thc ~ tm:~i:c lion., population density because land values might have a short-term fall is protect thc intcrcsts ol'the few instead of the many. Any representative takiu~,~ thut posmon is recklessly gambling Southold's future. Once the problems associmcd ~ ith popuhttinn density arrive, there is no going back. Perhaps you can come up with mlolhcr mclhod tlull will guarantee that population density will not destroy the character offS;outhold. Il' nol, then as a responsible representative, you must upzo~lc. Thank you for ),~m~ considcrati~m. G-64 10.1 Sincerely yours, Andrew Greene · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-37 Letter from Walter Gaipa July 6, 2003 Walter and Liner Gaipa PO Box 247 East Marion, NY 11939 July 6, 2003 RECEIVED Town Board Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 ,JUL 8 Southold Town Cleri Dear Town Board, I am writing to YOu to comment on the DGEIS for our town. While we are all trying to come to the same conclusion ofproteeting open space/farmland, I find it p,,~ling that the obvious solution is not in the forefront. I have been living here for thirty-two years and am in the agricultural community. So I am trying to view both sides of the issue. First, it is not fair to place the onus on preservation on the farmers by up zoning their property. Yes, their land has increased in value every year and it worth more than when they acquired it, but who would think it would be fair to have any real estate investment of any kind lessened in value because it seems to be the easiest solution. Think of a commercial property owner who has their property rezoned to agricultural. It is quite obvious that five acre zoning will only allow the wealthy to purchase the land. And they will The South Fork is overflowing and the availability of five acre zoning will invite them to invest. Realistically, the obvious preservation is to have all residents share in the cost of preservation. I think it is safe to assume that most people who either live here or have moved here have done so by choice. So let's all make an investment in keeping it the same. A combination of existing preservation program~ and tax assessments on all properties would accomlAish this. While politicians would shun anything that would raise taxes, especially in an election year, let us all invest in what we have and want to preserve. You, as Board members, will chart the future of our Town forever. Make a wise and sensible decision. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly Walter Gaipa G-65 7.2 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg~ Final Generic ElS Appendix G-38 Letter from Clare E. Brown July 11, 2003 RECEIVED JUL 1 Southold I'o~vn Clad Members of the Southold Town Board Southold TownllaH P.O. Box 1170 Sonthold, NY I1971 Suly 11, 2003 Subject: DGEIS Please e~act S-acre upz~ia~ as the first and most effective step in achieving Southolds' preservation goals. If there is any way that I can be of assistance do not hesitate to call upon me. Sincerely, Clare E Browne 685 Bayhavon Lane So.thold, NY 11971 G-66 10.1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-39 Letter from James H. McKay July 11, 2003 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-40 Letter from Stephen Weir June 25, 2003 First Pioneer Farm Credit, Your First Choice For financial $olut~on~ June 25, 2003 Joshua Y. Horton Supervisor Southold To~m Hall 53095 Main Rd. P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Mr. Supervisor; Please add the following document to the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement. It is the report I referred to in my public comments last nighi titled: "A Study of the Economic Impact of Land Use Regulations on the Business of Fannin~ in Mar~'land". This stud}, tells a different story on what the effects that upzoning had on farmland values in Maryland. The DGEIS in question referred to a study "The Effects of A~riculturaI Zonin~ on the Value of Farmland". The report I am submitting for reference and inclusion and comment in the FGEIS appears to contradict this study. Sincerely, Stephen Weir Vice President 1281 Route 58 ~. Riverheafl, NY 11901-2097 ® (800) 890-3028 4, (631) 727-2188 ~. FAX (631) 727-0603 FEx~A.L P, aEP O P~T A STUDY OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LA_ND USE REGULATIONS ON TI~_E BUSIB~SS OF FARMING Prepared for: M~d~2..AND FA-P.M BURF-~4.U, INC. Ra_ndalistov, m, Maryland by: I,EGG MASON REALTY GROUT, INC. 7 E. Redwood Street, 2nd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21202 January, 1993 BRC 100'8 TA. BLE OF CONTEN SECTION ON'E: ~FFRODUCTION .................................... I. Nature of the Probletu ...................................... ~. The Purpose of this Study ................................ 2 Eli_ Work Undertaken by Legg Ma_son P. eal~y Group, ~nc ............... 2 IT'. Definition of Terms ........................................ 4 V. Comments on Scope of the Smd), . ........................... \q. Organization of ~k5 Report .................................. 6 TWO: I-2EY coNCLusIONS ................................. 7 SECTION' TH~,.EE: THE BUS~_~S OF F4~,MiL-NG ....................... 11 L Cu_went Nature of the Induct,U,' . ..................... · ...... l 1 ti. Fa2-ming A_s Land Use .................................... 13 IlL Fazming .~ Business .................................... 13 17/. Financing Agriculture ..................................... 15 V. Farm \/alu: and Debt ..................................... 16 VI Condusion.5 ............................................ 16 SECTION' FOUE: TH~ PRO~,SS OF CT-,~EATING LAND VALUE ........... 19 I. Highest and Best Use ..................................... I9 H- The Land Development Process .............................. 20 iZL The Role of Farmland in the Development Process ............... 24 SECTION F'FvT: THEE ROLE OF L~' VA_LUE 124 TEE BUSE',rEE$ OF F/~U'd~/G ...................................... 26 Capka! for tee Farm Business ............................... 26 Supporting Farmer Equity and Welfare ...................... 30 Con lmsio ~? TABLE OF CONI'EHTS L.~qD VAL~q:~ ............... -'- The Growth Iasue ......................... Tecbn/ques fo~ Ccn. trai!Ln~ Grov,~A .............. -~ 7 A]PPENDE'4 A: BfBLIOGP~.~.PD~f . ....................... ~- i A_PPF~N]D1Z~[ B: ~,r'l?JP.~,rEEW~',~ ........................ F!- i SECTION O~ I2TFRODUCTION The purpose of this initial section of the report is to describe ~e back~ound to the study tmdertat:en by LEGG ~iASON RE.,LLT'{ GROUP, ]2',lC. (LN'[P.G) under contract to the Ma.9,1and Farm Bureau_ This background is Lmporta.at been.ute Re study itself is somewhat renu_suni and because one of the broad topic areas '~,dthin wkich the study fi~, establJ, sking ~-owth m.nr~agement policy., tends to be highly charged and to generate strong opinions. Consequently, there Ls a need to place the study 'aithin the context of the interests of abe Farm Btu'eau and the "growth management community.' L }IATLFRE (DF Tt-EE PROBLEM Over she past couple of decades the dt/ze~s of the state of t,{ar-yland, their elected representatives, and thek administrative leaders, have become particularly sensitive to envirom'nentaJ concerns. This heightened awareness has led to the establishment of many progranm having the goal of improving the state's enx4rommenra/quality.. Such programs are e.rrremely wide rang-lng--from testing of automobi/e ermssiorm to recg'cling solid waste; impro',4ag the quality of sewage treatment to controlling the nature, sca/e, and location of the development of land. ~¥laryiand's farming community is deeply involved ia this en','L-oarnental improvement effom. Farmers have addressed env/ronmental concerns related to ag~/culmral a.:ti'~dtS, [n ma~y different ways, including those listed below. · Utilizing "no till" cultivation; · Changing the nature and amount of herbicides mud pesticides used La [armx~lg; · Reducing the application of nutriena; · AdherSng to ~ideli~es ~dth regard to ~azing and feed lot pracucer; PardcSpating in the °tat._ s a~ncuIm al land pr,.~_F, aavn program; Adhering to local zoning and other regulatiosz affecting disposition of and development of agricultural land. m ~e State of Mm~l~d in 1990 in a~lmral u or 2828 percent of the state's tot~ l~d aram for forest' pu~osa:, l~d in v~ous state, feder~, toc~l, ~d marsh' l~d and other highly hydrous l~ds, ~d gener~y reg~ded ~s "undeveloped." ~e ~is s~ce ~e l~d is a~y "developed" for f~ng, theft La gen~r~ agreemem ~ essenfi~y "~proved' (me~nNg ~at ~e b~: of ~at at some po~t m Ge ~e it co~d be "developed." In general farmland is the lea~t expensive land that can be purchz~ed v.h/':_N lends iL, elf re non-agricultural development of one :ore or another. The s,;ih are u:;uaU)' :"~y to prepaxc for con_*,trudon, roads probably e;dst in the area, and. given ether necesrar~ itmredienC, such ~ the e,'dstence of a market, the land can be built upon r:lat:~el', ~fly. Giv~_n raq~: underlymg fact, many of the various recenriy enacted loc:d, state and tederzd re~fianort- Mmed at controlling development have particularly affected MaO'l:md'; farmland be.faun"_ it is not a/ready "developed" and r/picall'/ mdude: &re:z: ,of ab,r,','- :v.,erage -'ns'/rv:tmer:':l character. The age/culture2 corrmaunit7 h~ tended to work do;eiy with organ/zatior~; en'drommental poliq,, and en',irorune~t~A programs. Neverthele;% ta,'xner'_ fee! [hat enacted :md proposed r.zzt~ctive land use controls ares v, ortiog '~ hardship ,-,n them .~'~d the business of farming that goes beyond the agn~Iturai communiV'z "[.,Ar :hare' .f the burden of hnproving the state's en,nronment In particular, z~gri~lmral lan'] owne:: concerned that limitation; on their abi[i~'j to sell land for developmer:~ ;~r hc~i:amg affect thek ability to do business :md, consequently, ma7 bz hurting the '.er',' ex~zt~uce rxaditional farm/ag, whi,:h most of the proposed regulation; are designed to help, not hmde: Because of the vast amount of land im, oived, regulatior~ xffedng the ut;: and of agricultural land i~apact very. large poruons of [he state or M~/lan~ 3. r~d [:~r~e number, of land o'wners. This fact is erie of the more appealing ,.~'ith regard r. the zppikacion g:ro,;~'th controls from the :tandpomt of the em.droamental cc. mmumr/, r:ut d~e aommurdty feels that it unre~onably targets one lan,'t O',~T~e: gl0u? ~ f~er are not bemg Wen appropriate corsideration in ma pro.zees of c::ab[:zhing lmnd ~ policy, at the local ~d state levels Specifically the officers, management, ~d member; of · e F~ Bureau believe ~ar Oe agfi~lr~al co~umD'% opposition to .xH~ [~7es cf ~o~h controls h~ Deen ch~actehzed too narrowly ~ simply "[~ers m~ng to ge[ ~e most for their l~d 5o ~e',, can get out offa~ng and ;pond the mono7 ¢he'xher¢." btpo~t md ~ ~e ~5abiEty of Mao, l~d's a~mra indus.. ~e f~ co~u~W beNeves ~at a~Imr~ l~d values play a more ce~tr~ ~d in~ca~e role m ad~W ~ k genzraiy reco~:d. But la.ers ~so kmow ~at mB pmi~l~ position ~a not been rese~c~ed nor ha it been we~ ~lated to l~d use pliers ;overeat o~d~. ~a p~ona of L~W.G's study ~ to conduct rase~ch ~o ~e =lado~Np be~ecn l~d v~ues ~d the b~iness of f~g ~d to deta~ne ~ wNcb. ~ ~o~ con.ok impa~ l~d v~uea, ~ey impa~ ~e ~sabilf~ of f~ng. n essence, the study is Lqtended to address some of the following questions. V,Sat is ~e rcle of the vMue of a f=-wm's land in Cue business ,of retrainS'? · What is the relat/o~hip of development to Cue vaJue of aSr/cultural lm2d? - To ,;.'hat exxent do growth controls impact agricultured land values? , To what extent do growth controls impact the buom_o~-~' ~'- of farming? If ag'riculturxl land vMue: are impor'tant to the bu:inez2 of fawrn~ng, and grov4h controls nega!ively affza such v~ues, ho,.,., can ~armers work policy makers to gain more equ/tab[e consideration ~ land naa designed and implemented? ~_ WOR5i UNDERTAI-~N BY I..EGG/~.LASON REALTY GROLFF, Lu cxrqdng out this study, LMT. G performed the foHewing work:. Dis~ssed the assignment with o~cers and member; of ~e Farm Bureau, particularly ia property rights 5ubcomminec. Discu£zed the assigranent and various aspec< of dee reia~,oasNp k,e~,ecn th Oce~ Inter,,4ewed bankers at private b~m.~g msfiturion~ a.nd at the 0' '~ re,on o Farm Credi[ .~sociations to establish the relationship ber,,.,een lending policies a~nd the value o[ agricultural land. · 3 Later'hewed deveiopers who actively develop .¼ rarai/zuburb'~,m ~z.~ :. establish the role of farmland in devel,oum.et:t tn suzh area~. hater~iewed re,$ estate agents who sell farm land and who represent residential developments N rural and suburban r. ~ Obtained L,:formatioa nfl the status of Marjlancl's agricdlrurai iadustO' Dom the M~,laad Department of Agri~:lmre, the M:tp/land Farm Bureau, :tad various published sources such as the Cenzu5 of Agr/~-aJture. Obtained irrforxna~on on ~e subject matter' ia-om the .-.m~ncm:~ Farm Bureau Federation :Lad pursued sources of ~onnadon z~ ~e U~tzd ~' .... DeFerment of A~lmr: and o~cr national level ~6urcez Obtained and reviewed studies done by :he Maryland ,2, f~ice ,of Planning an,,5 others with regard to the relationship bet',~'eep. ,,'z.qlons D'pes of development reg'alatiovs and the value of agricultural land Researched the spe~fic experience of the Mxo, land Agp:cmltural ,Land Preservatio: Fou:dation wi[h regard to purch~e of development rights m Maryland's agricultural disuicts~ Ir. ter',dev,'ed real estate apprai:ers who hxv: been a.-_t:'.c in the appra/5~ cf land in corm=orion .,=.St& the M.a~LPF prc, grxn:. lnterv/~wed senior planning officials in selected MarTland counties to estabI_i:h the extent to which fa.,Tnland is being couver-ted to dzve[oped utes in tho:,e counties. · Prepared this report presenting the results ,7,[ our research and analysts. DEFINITION OF TERMS SeverM terms related :o farrrung and agm<.mlmre ::rt ',- '~ ~ .... = do not aecess~y reflect ~¢ way ~ey might be ._~:,_d in oGer encysts. : as te~ ~ be ~ed to mos: frequently in thb study are fa~ , me physical fa,51ip/~ and which ~ ~ply o~ership of me 4 A__tv'icultur__e: Agfi~mimre (the agricultural indus.,, agribusiness) is the industp/ that encompasses farming and the processing, distribution~ and ,other of handling abe products that result from fmmmng. Yarrning~ Farming is the acfi;dt,/ of ~o';dng/raising crops and products. It may be land ab'mr~ive as with corn. or not, ~ with the raising of poultry, hordcultare, of tobacco. For the most park however, the assumption is that a relatively large amotmt of land is used in "farming" and t2at this acti,AU is land dependent. There is a presumption that there is an unbrea.kable Lit& between fawning and the land. Farm: There are tv,'o definitiom of a fame. One is a business c~ntcr which aims to make a profit from farming. The ocher is the physical fazihp/, comprised of land, buildings, fences, road:, and other knprovements/i_nve:tmenra, which accommodates th~ farm business and the acti,Aty of [arrmmg. Fawn~r: The senior person/people [nvGlved Ln fa,To, lng at ~ny ~ven farm_ This person/people may or may not o',,,m the farm but is the operator..z. corporatiom either owned by the fen'net or by outside investors, is also considered a "farmer." The most semor person on z farm may be the fan:n manager. Le~s se.n.ior people ,,vorl, dng on th¢ farm (pald hands, machinery operator:, contract labor) are participating in fans, flag and might generally be thought of as being farmers, but are not ,.'ncluded in ,.he definition of f'~nmer for the purpose of this study. V. CQ/',fi',{ZENTS ON .~COPE ~ STUDY Farmiz, ng bu~inezses axe Lmp~zted by an extremely v,dde range of repletion, mo~t of which ~ect ~¢ use of l~d. ~is study [omsed exclusively on land us~ re~latiom that ~act ~ nature of the dev~Iopm¢nt ~at c~ oc~r on th~ l~d ~d ~e d~ip/of such devdopment. does not addr¢~ the impact on fa~ng of re~lat4o~ of a primely en'dronmemal aa~e, such ~ thos~ addrcszin~ w~tlands preze~,'axior~ ~n~fti','e ~'~a:, ,*'ast~ runoff and :o fo~&. V,~fi= the ~ffe,zt of both .tategofies of reFAation cz the business of fining ma',' be The i~sue of land value tends to be related primarily to those fa, ming operations that involve large amounts of [a2d; i.e., are lar~d intensive. While such fa.rrm accou2t for the bulk of all land being farmed in Mary[and, the number of smaller farm operations, ma.ay of which use relatively hrtle land, such as poultry farm_s, is significant. This study [s most applicable, therefore, to the larger, land intensive farms, though it ts relevant to ali fazTn_s. VI_ ORGANLT. A. TION OF THIS REPORT 'I'ais report consists of five sect/oas ia addition to the introducrior-~_ Section Two is the Execu'iSve Summary in which key conclusions ae presented ~d the principal ~nding5 up<ia which those conclu, sio~ aze ba~ed are s~mmarized. In Section T'm-ee, ~e b~Laes3 ot farm/ag ks described. Aa over;Se'.v of how land vaJue Ls ,~eated is the 5~tbi¢ct of ,Sect~oa Four. The role of land value ia the fan:n/rig Lnd~Lry. is presented ir[ Section Five, wkule grov,~zh controls and their impact ora agricultural la_nd ':dues comprise thc .:.5ncluding sectior,. Secfioa Six_ SECTION TWO ~,~Y CONC.~L. USION,.q The purpose of this section of the repor~ is to surmm~e the key conclusio~ establhhed b7 Liv[P,G on the basis of our work and to identify tzhe prindpa! findings derived fi-om the research and ~:dysis that support those conclusions. CONCLUSfON O~ Thc ',-alue of a farm re~tz prims~ly in the value of the land comprisang that ~Trm_ Farms are basically sold "by the n~'e"_ Thc vMue i.s a mix of the a_.~c-ulmre em-Nag~ potential development Poteatiak amd re.$~dendal use Supporing Fhxdings The success of farming operation, particularly those invol,ang the growing of crops, can vary s-ubxtaatiaily over short periods of tLme. They are affected by weather, world markets, public poi/des, and =zany other factors. A.5 a result, a farmer's business can go from terrific to iouD, i2 a very, short period of time. In addition to th: capability of the farmer hLm~eLf/herseif, and improvement~ buil.t on the land, the only constant m this process is ae land iueI£ The quality of a farm as a business enterprise iz important, but the worth of that enzerpfi_se k best reflected ia the value it La?arts to the land. The value of the farm as a b~inesz, absent the land, is minimal because of the highly unczrtMn n:imr: of the b~iness ~d the fact ti,at it is usually highly per~onalize5 to a r, pecific fazmer/fa,wn family. CONCLUSION TWO The ',2lue of rea/estate, espeda!ly the land, pia,:'s an Lmportant role in the ~.na.ncLng of the farming b~inexs uriliting that re~ ea-tate. Supporting Fh~dings i','~ogt agN~ltural businesses taka on a substzntial amotmt of debt ig the co~ze of opera6o~ ~d many c~ tuG.gages. ~e lo~ that razuk Un that debt ~'e made on ~e abiliw of ~e a~iC'almr~ :ntz~mc to ~ay m~eres[ ~,J repay p~ncip~ kom annu~ optra~o~. Ne'.,e~elesz, most ~ci~ i~fimdom reqmr: that ~: k)~ be coHater~ed ~g ~e bo~ower's equi~ ~ his/her real estate. Co~equenfly, the v~ue of ~at rem estate ~ec~ ~e x~Hn~ezs of ~e lender to m~e a Io~ ~d the sizz of'~at 1o~. · 7 CONCLUSION TI-mEE The value of l~md and the ab[liU to sell it in order to reahze that value pm)' in' the ab[Iiw, of ~m a~jdcult~t enterprise to ~r,4ve over the longer term_ SuFPordng Ftndin ~ the farmer's business in several ways. Selling off a port/on of the land in a dine of finandal need can heip to ~ur.z that a given fax'met r".tain~ Lis/her propert7. The value of the farm and the abiliU, to converz that value into :~h pins': a ro!e in the abi£itt of the farm f:mdly to meet gift a.nd estate tm~ ob. 15g2do~. The ability of the farmer to develop residences on the farm. for member: the farming family and tenant operator5 of the farm helps tv assure the presence of a pool of individuals who are w/lling to work on the f2_rT& The value of the farm and the ability to convert constitutes the p~ncip~ redremem fired for mo~t ~m CONCLUSION FOUR Gro~=h controls and various forms of development reguiadon affect me vaiue of f2rmland, tending to lower the walue relative ro lez~; reg~s2ated land in mc>st 5u.pporting Findings Most dev~_lopment regulations abTectmg farmland ~e aimed at malting certtun that [arrrda. nd remain.: in agricultural use, or is as Iighd'? developed az possible. The ~e vMue of!~d rend~ to be ~e lowest"producuve use" of l~d (m contr~t to woodl~ds, and o~er gener~y "unproductr:e" uzeu of the i~2., In mo:t p~dp.~ non-f~ development ~ely to oc~r on me [~td iz rezid~nti~, ~ti ~e de~i~ of ~e pe~tted residend~ development, ~e ~ower ~e vMue of~e [~d on per uNt b~is. Comequenfly, the application of development re~latio~ such ~ ~e zo~ng, or low-de~i~ pe~tted deveIopment ~,for example: one umt per 20 acres; ~t per 50 acres) tends to place la.and in the catego~ of lowest potenti~ vMue rdadve to ~e~ Mth fewer l~d use CONCLUSION FTVE Application of groan% consols md development regulatSom dixectly affect; oN), a relafivdy sraM1 amoum of fa.m:dand acreage La a Wen .',,ear but ail · f2rmland as a da. ss and every farmer in the long nm_ 5upporfi.ng Findings The number of acres of farmland that is actually ta&en out of production a~d converted to "development" in a given year is ordy a small percentage of the s:ate'z total land being farmed. Thus, in a given year, only a few farmers would actually be denied accezs to the higher land values that might remit from less regulation. However, ;znoosit. ion of regulations has a ripple effect that impacts all of the state's farraland to sorn: degree. In addition, there appeaz5 to be a strong negative psychological impact on all fa,wrier; as a class, even though most recogn/ze, that in any Wen '.,'e~, for an7 given proper17, the likelihood of acrually realizing the sale of land for development is ~mrmma2. These rxo impacts tend to negatively affect the business outlook: of farmers and their ,aSt2in=~nez: to stick_ ~s4th a business that is not eazy to be~n with. CONCLUSION SD(, The princ/pal v',due of most farmland i.s related primaAJy to its a~i.mlt"~a! producti,Aty. Zoning, development reguladom% and ,sther go:'errzment based act/om influence the non-agricultural value_ Supporting Findings The great bulk of all [armland does not fall within a reasonzble geographic deSr&ion of areas likely to be developed in the near term. Consequently, when a farmer moves tc reMi?e the value of his/her farrrk that value is going to reflect prim.:u-ily the abili(? of that land to support productive ag'd.,mlmral activity, plus the value of improvemenu such as bufldkngs,'fences, and so forth. Except, in certain specific and unusual instances, however, ali farmland has some non-agr/.~almrx.l value. Consequently, wNIe land use controis tending to lJwmit development mai,, ha-,'e rdadvely little net impact on the ;.'due of most farms, the5' may have a more zigmficamt impact on the ~bilit5' of a ~ve: [awmet to sell ali :r p~'m of tb, e farm ha azly given '.,':ar for the mzdmum possible ,,-alu: appropriate to that pm~'aTxiaz land. OV~t~KLL C · ' ~ ~ONaLU~ION~ Zoning and other forms of land use regulations and gro,~h control meaz~e: reduce: a farmeffs options with regard to disposition of his/her land al optimum vaiue. 'Fins L actually what the,/aze designed to ds, but such actiom~ affect farinon and farrnmz inov'~ve.-_~ ways. F:k,-mers lose some amount of current ';slue when zubjected to restF~cl, tve zoning. Appr~s~ of f~d unden~:en tn come.on '.~4~ ~e A~lmr~ izod Preze~adon Foundation pro~ ~uppon the fac: that ~ere is some ..tvelopmen~ v~ue ~ ~ a~culmral land. ~at v~ue a, capable of being di~shed by t~d use re~Iadom when development optio~ are reduced. Restrictive land use rega21atiom cause farmers to lo~e financial £Ie:ab£iit-,, particularly with regard to the disposition of the land when required v generate ~nds to cover a short term farm business or pc~sonaI need, or ~,; settle a long term obligation zuch as gift, inlnentanc:t, and ~state taxes. Opkions available to lender: '.~4th regard t,~ provision ,of loa~ are reduceJ particularly wkh regard to the size of [o~s. ~%%,ile the underl',dng vadona for the 1o~ is the agricultural business resell, thc value of the tmner': h; including the development value of that land, can make ~he d~erence in ~. '.~nll[ngne~: of the lender ~o make th: loan ~d/~Tz the ~z~ of Ih.~ !oan On balance, therefore, those agencie~ undermldng programs that ~edu:e the developabiht) or potential development intermipy of la.fiend can negadveI? affect state's f~ers ~ a cl~ over the longer ~e~ and th~ welfare of certain ~pecific espec{ally ~ose close tb developing ~eas and those needing to realize m~m,am cash for ~e fa~d, in any given year. ~ese ~mpac~s should be course of prepa~g ~d implementthg ~uch re~lationz. ~0 SECTION THiREE TH]E BUSINESS OF FA.RMING The purpose of this sect:on of the report h to provide a brief over, hew of the businea5 of farming a_nd to inuoduce the relationship bet~,veen that business and the la.nd. I_ CUPd{EaNT NATU-F.E OF ~ ~4DUSTRY The overall size of the agic'Mtur:d industrf in Ma<dan. d, mvol',i'~g ali of the many components of agribusiness, cannot be detems, ined from available data. It is lmo;t-n to be large, however, and includes those firms that process agxi_,mlmre producn as well as those involved in transport, servicing farms, and other componenu. For man,.' pa, ts of the state agriculture is the principal driver of the Ioca] economy. The ii~:age '[,et-,veen succe:,:~i f.ar~ and : healthy agricultural LndustG is c!e~. 2%m lat~er cure,o: cx~ without the former. Thc agricutlmre industry uses more la-nd in the stare of Maryland uh:m :my other industr/ The buziness of f~ng t~cs place on appro~mately 28% of the state's I~d. ~d no other bminezs comes close to asing that much land ~ a factor M iu oper~tiom. ~ fac~ fm~J~d comprises more of the state's land than all of iu re~idemhl 7rem As can be seen in Table 1, farming in Maryland encompas:e: an e;timateu i5,200 farm operatior~. The Marytand Department of Agriculture egthna~es that 2,250,000 acres of tZe state's land is in [,'~rn:, most of which i: being actively farmed a~ the oresent time. Thi~ results in an average ir:mm she of I48 acres. Gross farm in,eom': per f~T~ v,,~ e.;timared at $98,197 in 1991. Dividing this by the average size of a farm results in gross income of 5663_50 per a,n-e. Farming continues to evolve in Mar/land a~ farm producm serve diverse interests axed needs Of necessity, hrmiag today refleou Ge prag-matics of operating a b~iness enterpr/se in the business, political, communir/, and governznentat contexu t.hat e:hst at the end of the 20th cenmD'. Farm o~s~ership in Mauland remains strongly oriented toward the family, but the farrdly farm may' now be incorporated. There are some absentee evener f:~-m~, but the trend toward such operations pe~ed in the mid-19,?.0'5. There ;ceres t~ Be 2m increasing a.motmt of h~nd being fa~me~ on a Ie~ed basis. Th'-. er'end has been t.:.'.vi:2 a ~ea:er nmmber of acres be2g la.need per f'~,mner, but no: necezsan!7 in big~-er t~. The impact of ~e pouI~, in&sm/~d of th= poul~~ ~dus~/and of z~ch ;pe&~p/ f~ operadom ~ sod, ho~lmre, Chhstmas trees, oriental vegetable% garden vegeuble2, and so forth h~ tended to m~e some fa~ operatiom smaller. ~ese hn~ of operations reflect high vMue producu of more inte~ive faming catering to urban markeu. 1] TABLE 1 NUMBER OF FARMS AND ACREAGE MARYLAND Al'iD THE UIqlTED STATES 1979-1991 Ma¢¢aed Untied States ~ol~J Land # oJ # of Avg. Acres in F~s F~' A cO. Acres Year 1979 1 ;,OQ0 159 2.700 X4-37 428 1980 17,$00 157 9750 ~440 426 1981 18,200 1.54 2,800 2.440 424 1982 18,000 153 %750 ~,~ 407 427 1983 t 8.000 150 % 70O 2.379 430 1984 17,800 152 2.700 ~3J34 436 1985 17,50O 149 2,60'3 % 293 441 1985 17,000 147 2,500 2.250 447 1987 16,500 148 2,450 2.213 45 ~ 1988 16,000 147 2,350 2H97 453 1989 15,600 14T 2,300 ~. 171 457 1990 15.200 148 2,25O 2.140 45t 1991" 15..100 1:~5 2,250 %10~ 467 Total LzrM ~n Fa-mc (Mil Across) 1 i ,039 1 1,02i5 1,023 1,018 1,012 1.005 999 Prior to 1975 a farm was considered any piace .vith tess lh~,n 1 g ~cre5 having sales ot $250 er more or places of 10 acres or msre with 1,50 sales. In ~975, the fa~ definition became a place that sel's or normatl7 would sell $1,000 of agricubur at produ~s P teiiminap/ 'M~ylan~ Agncukural Stati~ics'-1991. ,~.s can be seen in Table 2, several counties stind out [n terms o.~ agricultural production. For seven identified agricuJmral commodities, Caroline Coun~f is f'~st in three clmsses and sixth in another. Frederick is ff~rst in two closes :md fifth i~n ~'o others. Queen .~ume's ff second in three classes and third in another. Other high ran?3ng counties in terms o[ produ~on are Kent, Dorchester, Ca~oll, Washingtor~ and Ha_fiord. It is interesting that o[ the five counties mvoB, ed in tobacco ?roduction (St. M~f's, Charles, CMvem Arms A_rundel, mod Prince George's--in order of production), none r~Jts in the top seven in s. n7 other commodi~, cate§ory. This is par*dy indicative of the kdnd of ~oils ~obacco grows ~ with such soils generally beLng much leas productive for other !.duds of crop-~, as well ~ the f~ct that the~e counties tend to be in the ¥icinity of the e~anding W~hLngton metropolitan IL FAI~[D,IG ,~S [_aaNI) USE The description of agnSculmre set forth above emph~izes the business and operational nature of the Lnduslry. The typical resident of the state o[ 1.4aryland however, often h~ a yep7' different ~"ie,~,, c.i ,,farming,,. With.over two mill.ion acres of the state's land in many state residents pa~s a farm in their everyday activities. To them the [arm is, probab[7, ma attractive asea of pfimaxily open Imnd that, most of the time, loo!.:~ unused. Farming as a land ~se is, therefore,' importam to the state's res/dents and to its public ofkqdals far beyond the level of economic acd',5~ that actually occurs on the farms. .~'~s a la_nd use, farramg generates a pleasant recollection of pa~t times for many people. It is frequently regazded a~ "open space". This m/snomer reflects a lack o[ understanding of [he business uSe of the land. One of the reason~ there is conflict bet',~,een farmers and gevermr, ent officials is that the role of the hrm as a pleasam, "open" [and use ma)' conflict ,Mth what the farmer wanu to do 'Mth the land. Farming is a serious, large, important business in Maryland. At the same date, most of the state's citizens lcnow lJ'ttle about the business of farrmng and relate to it primarily as a l.~nd use. For most Maryland residents fmrrning is viewed as a ple~ant, open land uSe. It is hnporta.nt that the farm use of land be looked at in its true and accurate sense, as an ~set uaderpimmng a business, and not just as ple~ant opes space. BUSINESS Fazrnmg [: a busuness. Farms aze not "undeveloped". They are develoced [or :h: t:u:inec: of farming. Farming is a land us!, not a substitute [or open space. Farms may be classified in pla~ as a type of open space, but they are first and foremost, a_n operating business. ,~ noted earlier in this report, the business of farming takes rna~y different £orrr~, but regardless of its form, it is a business activity the purpose of which is to make a profit. ~o ~.~ 0 V/bile profit iz tire ob]ecd;,e of the farm operatiop, ~t is also clem- that moony people partidpate ~ f~fng became ~e7 enjoy ~e lifezvfie. ~ey gan positive "p~,c~c from f~g. ~=re ~ no way to qu~ such rowed, ~d it m ce~y no subs~mte for re~ money when it comes to ha~ng to buy ~e necessities of life. Likex~dse, f~ers receive a cen~ "~puted ~come" ~om oc~D~g ~eir reaidences on ~e fa~. ~s ~s reco~ed by ~e Bureau of Econo~c.~ysisin iu ~u~ tabulation of Mcome. In 1989 ~i f~ers m M~l~d received $152,818,000 ~ "imputed mcsm~ and rent received" from ~e~ operation. .a~ong other ~, ~s N~cated vMue by BEA iEm:trates ~e 2Sbt mte~ng of &e person~ ~d b~ess Wes of the f~ D/. FTI';[.x24 CTNG AG!:~ICULTLrPJE .-:5 w/th any industr7, financing is cr/tical to ~e success of a~ioalrure. One of the most important facts to understand about ~qancing agriculture is that agriculmrai loa~ms a~-e -4owed as commercial loans. Consequently, even the mortgage on a farm dwelling is ILkely to be regarded as a commerciM credit by the lending irztitutiorL This mea~s that corn_inertial criteria are applied to the making of such loans. Loans.to farmers are provided by a wide range of !ending institutions. The most impor~ank however, are the Farm Credit Associations associated w4th the Fa_tm Credit Bard,: of Baltimore and the corm-nerdal bar~:s located primarily in agr/cultnral commurtities. The Farm Credit Bansz pro,ride credit to farm Ban5: borrowers in the five-state reS/on of Delaware, b.fa~/land, Pen_nsD, ivar,/a, Virginia and West Virgirda. The Bank pro'4des 4a% of ail of the borrov4ng done by farmers in this area. The proportion is believed to be slightly higher for Maryland itself. Corarnercial bar&z prowide the remainder. The Fa~rn Credit BarD: makes loam phruarily through the var/ons agd-~itural credit assodations ha.','/ng responzibili~' for specific counties in Ma~,land. The system of which the F:wm Credit Ban3: and its associafiorm ,'-=re ruember was established by the Farm Credit Act of 1971. Elis/bio bon-,owers of fimds at the firm credit associations: Bona fide farmers and ranchers and producers or harvesters of aquatic products; Persons furnishing farmers and ranchers ,,~5nh ser:izzo ,SirecCv related to m-~'? c n-rearm .:;p~rating '-' · Owners of rural homes; and · Rural residents. · 15 'Cae Bar& is authorized to ma~:e loam to other banks engaged in lending to tarmetJ ~n,n t, corporations engaged to lending to producers or haJ-,'ester5 of fawn pro,flute2 wide variety of rfpes of Ioaas are rands by banks lending t,? £arraerz The:_-- m,:iude Produc'd. on loan to enable the farmer to pD.m.t a flop or othep,'d£e produce products for sale, wifin such loans normally being secured primarily b7 hq: ~op/product being produced; Mortgages on farm properr/including land. dwellings, farm builcimgs, utZlir;' improvements, and such needed to operate the farm and enable farraer to livc on it, 'M. th such loans normally being secured by the value of the land and Lmprovemenu; Equipment loans far large pieces of farm equipment needed tc plamL ~,3',~' harvest, and on-site process crops. The distribution of loans made by the Mars,land Farm Credit associations ~s set forth tn Table 3. .as 'noted previously, most farm loans are mortgages and are regarded a_ commercial ia nature_ That means that the lender assumes that the pnndF "ay liquidating them is through earnings gained from farm acfi?ity. However, es2: ly lenders require that the farm operauon pro,,ide additional collateral as 5eeu. faire. possible failure of the crop er production of activity with the farm it.self u:ualI7 ;e,~,ing that collateral. The trend has been toward slightly larger loans as individual farm grow and the corporate structure becomes more common. At the hame time, '~*h~e maintain the requirement for bactmp collateral criteria for ma!ring a loan have [3n,Jed increasingly on the ability of fine busiaets to repay the loan out of income from c, peradon5 V. FAP,.M YA.LUE AMD DEBT According to the 1987 Ce~us of Agriculture. the average farm was worth $366,78& m 1.987, or $2.261 per acre. (Lq 1992 dollars those values would be appro;dmately $44,00cl and $2,7003 The Comus data indicate that 39.5 percent of all farrr~ had interest as aa e,rp. once, meaning that about 60 percent were debt ~ree The interest paid b7 thoze farms ,Mth deb: averaged $6,892 m 1987. WhSle total debt ~ not indicated. 25suming a interest, tine avero, ge loan for f-~.w:',~ '~'nh5 deb~ would be about ?i, 69,001'.", or 1.992 dollars. The average fa~._ 'Mth debt, therefore, ,-v~ c.~-EAng de[~t percent of ils value. I6 VT.. CToNCLUSIONS ~ou~ rda~vely sever~ ~cles b~ed o~ '~,ea~e~ ~d m~kcu, o','~r the k, ng ~ a bminess at ~e state level ha ~O~Tt during ~e p~t several decades The state over lfi,O00 f~ ~d over ~,000,000 a~e3 o[ l~d m ~e~ Fam'~g operaLion.~ are financed Lhrough a rdatively Jew b a,~<c that zpcdal~e m a~mtt~ lo~. ~er ~e past decade ~cse b~ have been ~te~g ~air ,~tcma ',~4~b reg~d u3 leadmg. ~e s~ h~ been ~ow~d m~g cca~ ~a~ io~ can be p~d back o~ of ~d ~e f~ re~ estate k ~e collater~ most hequenfly u;ed. SECTION FOUR 'I'H]E PROC-TES OF CREATING La&/D VALUE The pu~, ese of this section is to explore the process of creatJtg land value. Given breadth and complexJry, the subject area ca_froot be defirdtively covered in these few pages. We cae however, address those key points of land value creation that most directly the farmer. The farmer's concern k~'that land t~e regulauonz negatively impact the value of hL~/her land. In order to be lost, however, that value has to get mto the land in some way. This study is about O.e giving and taking of actual (c~sh) or unrealized value in agricultural l~:and. Understanding how that value gets there in the first place and how it can be removed, is; essential t6 exploring the impact that land use reg~Matiorts have on the value o£ a fzwmer'~ land. L HIGItE.ST .42,ID BEST USE Ln the best of M1 possible worlds a given piece of land .xdlI al'ways be valued at its "highest a~d best use". Tbss term bis a well defined tectzpJcal bais, berg rtfe~ed to ~d used in ess~nfi~y e'.'~ apprise. Gener~y accepted reasonable defi~tio~ of highest ~d best The reas,snable and probable use that support; the highest present value of vacant land or improved proserD' The reasonably probable and legxl usc of land or sites ~ though ;,acanr, found to be physically possible, appropriately supported financially feasible, and that results in the highest present land value; .,.~ The most profitable use. La ascertaining the highest and best use of a given piece of farmland, as though available for development, it is necessary to anal,.~e four factors: the legahry of the use, the physical adaptabLiJty of the site to the use, the marketability of the u~e, and the profitabLhty of the use. Toe anallmcM proczsz involves a careful study cf bcth the impa~ and the reladomk/p cf each tact,Dr to LEe, subjec~ prooerW., . The ~---'c, za, ,~.~. coaclxsion relie,;'tz~ mc ootima]. combinat2on of them. Determination of value almost always entails kmow!edge of what business actMties can occur on the land from a market standpoint, az well as what the "legal" (regulatory) condiuon5 will permit. [n the past, highest and best use was essentially determined only through the economic v'iabLlity of the ach'fity occurring on the [and While still important, the l~gally Permitted use of the land, az determined by zoning and other land use regulauous, is critical. 19 In the economic u~e context, the best use for most rural land [s probably a~m%:tdture. it could'be no 'h~" at ~l when the co~t of m~g ~ l~d preclusive f,~;r exceeds ~e potenti~ re~ from it.) The v~ue ~ ~ea a ~ncfion o~ a~cui~ produ~f. But s~lt~e i~ ~ot ~ways ~e hi,heat ~d best use of mr~ ~d. V mat l~d is located ne~ a source of non-a~mr~ developmen~ ~d p~l~ty a to~ or o~er urb~ setd~menL ~e hi,heat ~d beat ~e could e~ity be non ~ ~eae ~t~ces, ~e agficulmr~ ~e must be m~da~ed ~sa ~e l~d u~e re~lato~, precis, ~e ~s~pdon being that ff the re~ladop~ were rel~ed, then tn~ ~J w,)~..h~ probably be "conve~ed" to non-a~lt~ use. In sudramarT, those who advocate thc most free and open m~ket for land behave highest and best use should be a function of economics-the most economicaIl) pr~ducuv,: use of the land; i.e., the value of khe land in a competitive supply mud demand en-,nromment In Map~land, however, essentially ever5' jurisdiction has development reguiarmm,. Theoc regulations draraatically alter the highest and best use value el the land. Ln essence. zoning of the land is Ge principal dete,'minant of its value v~Sth the: econorrdc use ~;r land within that particular zone playing a secondary role That is why most developers ::22d builders try to work orfly v,4th [and that is already property zoned for the permitted use me' want to develop, preferring not to get involved in the zoning change proton, 711 TH[E L~',rD DEX, rEL.OPN[EI'CT PROCESS The process of developing land establisim: value and ;er,,ez to cause high,hr :md l:.~5, t to be achie, ved on a given parcel. This hind development pro.ze~; tz anxiTzed at:se fy: m v/ewToints--that of the broad conte.'ct of market and public poU. c;t ~d mat ..,( the narrowly focused development el t. he [and by, primarily, private interesu The Role of the Market Public policy ~ expressed through venous types of land use, development, en-,nronmentm, amd other controls and regulations affects the !ocation and, to some degree, fl~ cule development in a given area. But the acm,2 volume of development is pdmartly a fuacuou of the market. One need opny look at tn,. rea! estate development simauoa in ! ~:C ,:,:,ntr:mt to, say the simauon aL'( yez~: ~gc. in :he rm.fi~lgS0's a m~ket wz~ _"errt?.'t fl ,,-~ in Mar/land for large volumes of rend:ntioJ ,_,mt; and ._~orrunercial apace h: 1,'~2 th: situation was almost completely the reverse, ,~.4th only a moderately acti',e resi,JentiM m~ket providing any real lLfe to the development business. The situations both sex years ago in 1992 are probably inaccurate. The market of slx years ago was perceived ac being mere positive than was wan-anted, while today it is undoubtedly being v/owed as, less.Dosiuve man it should be. The point is that the market establishes the broad framework for revolt, pineaL Farmhnd is az aJ~'ected by maxket force: as any other type of land. However, for most ferruled the principal market iz undoubtedly that for fas-ming, not for some other use. Most farming acti,.dty on rural i~d establishes the highest and best use of that land and dictates ia value. If the farT, la. ad is productive and altemat/ve uses for the la.ad axe minima1, then its v~ue will be a function prima_ally of ia agricultural productivi .ry. In Lmtances where the land is La ~he 'dcm/p/of non-ag;ictdmral devei0pmenk, however, the ma~rket for hgusmg or, possibly, for other uses may dimate its uhLmate value. The market is governed by overa2] economic addidon.s and thc perception of kndivJ, duais and holinesses with regard to their futm-e economic health. Il they are optimistic, then market pressures are l/kely to be greater. If they are pessimistic and investment Ln personal and b~iness matters is m/rdmal, then developrnent pressures wiU be reduced. There is feint/rely little market generated pressure for developmem in areas where econcmic condido~ are poor, investment is minima/, :nad gro~ absent. On balance, therefore, the land development process is a function of these broad market forces u-auslated into investmem in private residential and commercial real estate. B. The Role of Publ/c Policy In the State of Maryland public policy with regard to development has been e.~ressed in a verb' wide range of land use, development, and emdron_mental controls and regulation. In fact, b'faryland is generally regarded as one of the most progressive states ,.,.4th regard to local and state level land use and en'dronmental regulations. The State Land Use Act of i974, the critical area legislation of 1984, and the Economic Groxeth, Resource Protection and Pin,ming Act of 1992, w4th their attendant re~m. tlations and procedures, along ,Mth many other state level Nad use programs, tend to put Maryland in the front rank of ten or so states (Florida, New Jersey, Oregon, California, and others) in implementing strong progrrwns regular/ns land use. In Maryl:md these programs are castled out primarily at the local gover-mment level, especially the county level (Lacludmg Badtirnore City). Maryland Ls nearly umque in that it's counties have particularly strong powers. This permits public programs to be cenrrakf.zed and enables them to be large enough Is have real power. Operating within guideLLnes estabhshed by the 5tare, most Maryland counties ha'se established exte~ive plan.rang and development control program.5 using a yepI 'aSde range of implementation :ec?~mques from zoning to purchase of development rights. In essentially every Maryland junsdic~ort, development is a highly orchestrated process ,Mth the government being a partner nearly every step along the way. While much development is permitted as a matter of right under Ioca2 zoning ordinances, even that development will ~ely require a number of approvals before investment in construction occ'm-s. · 21 Con~eq~ nt[?, go','emment regulzti,:,~m dram~ticzliv iraiue~n,::~ '.ne cz: ',~-, ~.' -:-m ?'.~ mad.~ ":.~ any given piece of real estate and, cotmequently, tu devdopabiti9, C. The Role of the Commtmit7 Lu thk in:stance commmmty is defined as rezidenta and busines:e; li'nag c.r optraun$ tn the vicine7 of a proposed development. Even if market condidorm ~.r~ fav~=rabie ~d ail regmlatopj requirements have been met it t~ possible that development czm be stopped. Th2s occurs when commumw activiata,: ghbor~, and other grot~pz e..~e.~3 thc¢r displeasure at a particular development. The lan ~:evelopmeat proces~ in die 1~90': muat t~:z into accotmt corm-hurtle7 interests altd concern. It is not unusuM kn this decade for a dzvehsper'z frost, action to be to the adiacent com.munffty to test it~ reT:,nEioa and t,':. ir,~ u; esJizt iu ~upport for his project. D. Thc C~"ae r The o,~aer of land is a p",.u~dpant ia tine development proce::z, whether ,',r not ae/:;hz wa2t~ to be. In som~ i~t~cez ~e o'a~cr i~tin~z the process of d~','~lopment :5 peduomng thc Ioc~ gove~ent far a zo~ng chang,: that wou~d pe~t a certain q,Te ~f .nevtlopmcnt. o~er ~tance;, those ch~gez are mad~ without ~D,~ ~cti've pamcipation ,~f ~a land ~d o~er~, including fa~er:, ha'.e also been kno~m to approach ,Je','doper; ~o whether that particular developer t~ interested in d:vdopiag ,on thc lami ,swnzr's, ~e properb, might c,r might not already ha'.'~ thc approp~a~e z,srang. ,u however, most o'aner5 of build~ble l~d are: n~t active pamcipant~ m ~ ,:dev~topmem process. Taey ~e uau:~ly pulled a[on.~ by th~ venous ~o'.'e~nen~at, ,:,ow~uuib, ~d m~ket forces ~ecdng thek l~d N~eroun examples to thc :or. iraU, cxizh but beheve that the great majoffpj of land o~er5 including o,xmzr: of fa~and, v.,oodl~d, yacht ~d un~ed l~:d, ~d other lad generally outside of <:o~umu"< desi~ated "envelope," fit the descripnon of li~ted ?~icipanm i: n~ land de,.,:topmant process. E. The Lxnd Speozlator Spoliation L5 a term thn~ tend~ to, ha'..'a a negative >:,rm3tau,t,a -.qu~nd: ,.~ ~_~ ~ De,.-ole v,ho m~'e monev v,qtn3ur ','~ue adding coutnbtmon to a [,roduct if~.tv~dc~L m mc, ti m~'~.zu Speculators typically constitute the leading edge of the land developmern process 'Fha,: identify land that has the potential for development at some nme ir, the future. That land might already have some of the approvah necezsar:,' to be d°velo~ . p~d~, but it it: more likel', · -) ) aczRddes. The process of obtaining appropriate approval: fer rain, and cazi cL,-araafi-_.aJly increase its value. This is how the speculator obtaim his/her return. At ~he sa_me nme it might not-be possible to obtain the approval:~ and the in,ease k value m_ight not occur. That i~' what makes specxlafion a risky busin&~a. Speculators are not necessa_ry to the process of causing devdopmem to occur o~ agfic'ulmral land. The presence of speculators probably' cause; some increase in land values in va-ions parts of the state. Of course the speculation does not have to be in cormecSon ,*5th development. Some speculation occurs in mat/cipation o~ other changes such as r~atu_ral resource extraction (mining, petroleum drilling), building of a road, and so forth. La ~e case of othem,hse tmdeveloped farmI~d, the speculator ma;,' ser-,'e :2_5 ~ mterrnedia-9' between the land owner :amd the land developer. The spemdator may or may not take aa ox~-nersh/p interest in the property. The mere [merest of the ;pe~lator in a piece of land can cause some kicremse i~ its value, assuming that the speculator is not cloaked in r_he ~m.tke of auother farmer or other person who would appear to kc inter:sted in the lamd orfly for its present use. The vast major/W., of fa_mints do not speculate in land. Rather, the}, use the la.nd for agr/culturaJ purposes. F_ The I' ~nd Developer z-'he laud developer "wholesales" the land. He/she buy; it from the or%duet o',~mer or a hind speculator, obtains the necessary approvals, and sells it to one or more real eatate develop-rs. This is a high risk/high re,,vard bus/ness. Risk b dirrdnished where the land developer is worldng in a context of public policy that has made it dear where various ~'pes of development are to occur over a ~vea per/od of rime and has backed up these policies by installing appropriate irdrastrucmre. T)?ic~ly, however, the land developer mu.~t acquire the approvals necessary to cause real estate development to occur. ~]e gain for the land developer iz in purchasing the land at .'.he lowest possible cos[ and selling ~t ar the h/f'hesr possible value after making such improvements as are necessary ro pernm~ real estate development to occur. The land developer is not aJways a panicipam in the process since some real estate development occurs on land purchased directly from the ori~n~ owner. A signLfieam amount of lkrge development, however, occurs on land that has been prepared for such development by a land developer. G_ Rea/Estate Developer The real estate developer completes ~e land v~ue generating process_ The value of land on which bulk projects sit is more vaJuable than vacant land, even when that vacant land bas all of its approvals. A bu/h project generates a "supportable land value" that can be mathematically derived based on the sales price of the development on it and/of the rent ~equen~y reg~dtd nsgafiv~iy by ~ose emmes 'x~mg ~o p:=:~,'~ i~d m ~z state, Ce developer h probably nor the p~cip:d re.on land c a~all)' buih ,~m ir imt~ces, good re~ estate developers x~ql work o~y ,~4G [u,d ~at h~ Mmady recer:ed most of i~ approvMs. ~ney are not l~d developers or [~d ~e~la~or;. '~mv m~:e money building, not ~pating ~m~e l~8 vaiue ~cremses. In thh reg~. the developer ~ ~e a m~u[acmrer; he/she "m~m[acmres" built space on ~e [~d. Sin:e the re~ developer causes ~e most ~sible physic~ changes to oc~ sn the land. however, ~ ~e most frequent t~get of those who oppose dcvelopmtm Bottom L/ne Pm hacrem~e in land value ia hkeIy to oc~r at each stag:. -,f :h: de',elopment t'r,~,:~]: "'., no[ed pra~onsly, because of the involvement of gove~meat~ enuues in [ne pro,res,;, ~ usu~ly ext:mive co~umcation bcex, ecn developers and re~la[oD' b%,die': ~n a profitable rcmm is generamd at each st~e of ~is procex: to ~e eatrcprsaeu~ tMfing ~k. ~e position ~th the le~t risk is ~at of the origin~ iand o~.mcr. ~i: ~sunms ~e !and when k w~ ofisn~y purebred. Some land c,':,mcr: become land spe~iators when ~ey perceive increased ~tur~ vMue and hope to receive that va[us by selling to ~ ~mre v~ue .qt that ?tnt Cey bec~mc locke,J-{n to ha'dh5 t,-, sdl th~ 2~i.2 iv: ~v~re value. ~ms h~ happened t', ~ome far.anti o'.~mcr~ ?m~ toe -~:'n.c~l~:-af Losses in the land development process occur pr[ma=ir/ w?,e.o whatever re~on--markei, comrnurJV concerr2, pubI]: development bun/ncaa is cffen :~sc, c~gtcJ aS~ great ga{re, and creauon o[ wealth, which m the cae ~ some ~mncez, for man)' '~tser business that creates a reportable remm In lack at thc present time business to be in for m~y who entered u in the l~t dera,5~ ~t_ '77,-~ ROLE OF FA_R. MJ~,ki'4To FmmXtng is a business use o[ land. a; [s active [orestr:', and other kind mte~ui'.,c bu:mes::~- It is erroneous to ffli~: of a~lmra[ [:mS is "vacam" or uriused or ":,per~ space bzcam, t' ·ere is so much of it, ~d because f~ing use is a rdativdy low generator of mcomc to ~e l~d. [~d tends to comprise the bulk ~f ~e land ~at ~11 ~atei)' be aeveloped It c~ be ~med ~at a number of [~ are sold each ye~ in anticipation o[ development. However, ~is does not me~ that devdopmtnt o,:cu;; cn Mi such farms m ~e ue~ te~ p~i~i~ly sh-ate~c from ~e st~dpoint of ~ location/5~ibiliV, ~e "ions" of ~at f~ to aon-a~mrM development is ffeque~fl)' highly publicized ~d may create a sigmfic~t negauve reason. Most such ~fers, however, probably ~e not publicized ~d ~e co~ider4d by the ~volved p~es a simply a no~ compoaem of the process of ~b~/sub~b~ ~'o~. L2 many iz~tances fa.m~ng setwes as an interim use in the development business. An acmad ca_se M Frederick Count7 follows a classic pattern. An elderly farmer/iando.,~er sold a farm to a speculator/lined developer but continued to farts the land under contract_ Th: land developer, ,ados the concUrrence of Lhe County, which warned to direct de:,elopment to 0aLs genera/~ea, gran. ted the la_nd developer the necessary approvals. The land developer sold mdi,AduM parcels to ~ree different real estate developers for t~vo residential projects :~nd a commercial project. The farmer continued to farm the land throaghout the entire process un~il development a.zmally occurred on the various parts of the project_ Copsequently, one t:rarLsition fi-om farm to development wE quick, clean, and acceptable to al1 of the pamies revolved. Probably the biggest issue with regm-d to creation of land value is its psychological impac~ on the farmer/la.ndowner. Ps that class of indiv/duaI controlling the greatest amount of potentially developable land La the State of Ma_ryland, the attitudes of farmer/landowners w/th regard to de;'e!opm~nt i~ critical. Given the ebullient development atmosphere of the 1980's. many farmers perceived the hke~mod of beLng able to make a sub;ta.nfial a~mount of money selling their farrr~ to developers. The dramatic dov,~nward shift in the ma~ker, bou. ever, and mcreasingly rigorous publix policies, have altered the env/romment for development in rural area& Consequently, the likelihood that in any given 7e3_r many farmers ,ML1 be able to obtain any sigrdficant value from their land other th~n its agricaltura.1 vMue ix l/m/ted. Farmers tend to react ~ ~ class, to these matters, b6we'ver. Co~equently, as a ciasa, farmers are concerned that increased regulations wit! dirrfimsh even further ff~eir opportuni%, to oblmn non~agricultural value for their land b.,' lirnitin.~ the m~ket supportable highest ,~md best use of the land through intel, out, on in the development process closer/bed above. These concerns affect their long rems outlook on the business of fa_truing amd have caused some to exit the business "while we can" or ro consider doing so. · 25 ROLE {i)P LA2FD VALUE IN ~ BUS~'f~33 OF P_~S'.L~{G Discussion of the merits of vai-lous gro,~ control tech~que~, pam~iari? the ~7owth management program proposed by the governor to the MapAand Genera] Fzsembly m t_99t and commonly referred to as the "2020 Legislation", generates ver}, different views on the fl:nportance of the vaJue of fnrn:ffaad to a farmer's operations. The purpose of the section of the report is to evaluate that relationship. Farmer: ,:omend that they need rea~onabl)' high fo_finland values in order to support the busines~ of farming :~; well :._, to pro-Ade a reasonable rcmm on investment to support their long term welfare Co~equenUb they it is neces.~a.r'~' to permit market forces, as unconstrained as po.~zib~e b7 re _;p~latiom, ~o al[state the value of their farms. Converzeb', those who support a pchc/ of strengthczJng !aml usc regulations applicable to farmland :md its development sa7 that such policteo won't ~ave much affect on farmland to begfin with and, even if they did, that value i~ not nzedeu b) the farmer to pursue his business. The purpose of this section of tb~ report i~ ~,:, :maI}xe the role that the value of farmland plays in supporting the f~'xn operation and th~_ fmyner personal welfare, and thu~ the budnezs of farming. In the follo,.ving paragraphs, the various waN ia which land value: rapport tarm· m,,ne ..... v,411 be anal).~ed The analysis covers the roIe of land vab:e in providing cants; k fzTmz .&~ ,4i[i be seen. th~ vllue of the land come~ into pla', in · As ~n important part of thc ,.,.Sue of collateral p~-.~d ..... to obi, tam lo2kP~ .~.~ p. aid-m surplus to be extracted v,'ner~ nzzez~aF,' t,, suppor1 h'uxmng operation~ and/or the welfare of the fazm operator L CA~IT~i FOP. TIZ[E FP. avS,[ BUollfTzf.._ ,ag with an}, businex, a [arm, needs capital '~at capital ts prom,Jed m the tcu~n cd eqmw invested by the [m~er./fa~ f~l), or sto,:ltolderz o[ the co~oradon and m th~ ro~ bo~owcd ~nds horn tending [mtimtion~ Most fa~z dc n:,t ~enert~tc enougu o[ a succe:s~l [~ng operation w~l usualI} ~eate 'pan-in suplu5' bi,, inc~e~mg the v~ue of ee prope~7. Comefiuently, for [mtial purch~e of the f~rm ~d for ~ual operation, bo~owed ~ds ,:o~titute ~e principal source ot casital. of fanm~nnm [n fac4 k is Ge p~mdp~ "ha~d" ~sa2 ~hat the ~anmer can [urmsh to a bauk [n support of a bmu. \:m~ous areas in the business of faznfing where land value plays a ~o[e are an~)med below. A_ The Farm Mortgage A- farm mortgage is essentially the same as a mortgage on a home or commerciM property. F. egardless of whether or not the farm is the primary residence of the farmer, however, banks pro'riding farm mortgages consider these loans to be commerdal in nature. This means that they as, sume that liquidation of the loewi, the periodic payment of principal and interest, is directly related to an income stream generated from the property being mortgaged. Money borrowed through a mortgage can be used to purchase land to be farmed, with or without buildings and other improvements. It can be used to fund the construction of kmprovements on the property. Because of its primarily commercial nature, the lending institution v4Ii tend to m~e certain that the funds are used primarily for business purposes. In Maz3-'land, about half of all farm mortgages are pro',dded by the regional Farm Credit Assodations that are pan of the Fas'm Credit System_ The composition of loans held by the L'faO'land Farm Credit A~sociations is shown in Table 3 in Section Three. In 1991, over I356 million of these ioans ',,,,ere for long-!efta farm mortgages, or 65% of the loans ix-. the por~Jolio of the association. 'Ilxe Farm Credit System is a cooperative system established by Congress but completely private in nature and owned by the farmers themselves. This accounts for the high p~id?ation by the farmers m the loan programs of the farm credit banks. The other 50% or so of mortgage finanbing pro.Aded to the feathers in Mawland is issued by private banl.~, prim-_nly those in rural are~ catering to farmers. Private bar3u compete v.dtb the Farm Credit A.ssociations and many have establizhed wor!-Sng relationships Mth farmers La their Io c'.:d areas. Interac'.v; with bankers at both the Farm Credit A~sociations and with the pr/vats bar'~ revealed the importa~nce of the value of l~d to th* quality of collateral underpinning the loa~. The b-~da undertake an appraisal of the la.ad in order to establish its vidue_ lie appraisal lool. ts at comparable properties. T~e banks feel that in essence every proper'o' has some development value and that development value is reflected in the appraisal and thus in the quality of collateral and in the mount of money that can be borrowed agaimt the collateral. It is interesting that for the most pas't, the house in a farm mortgage is incidental. The value of the la.nd is in its agricultural productivity capability and its salabilit),. · 27 in a hig, hiy publicized situation tn, at devei0pei m me t~i', !P~,Y~ maw ~rad-.~ez: z~en were unable to pa7 off io~ on their f~ ~d hzd mtir prop~hz forcc~ ,.~ o~ b'. lenders. ~ost of ~e 1o~ were suppon~dby ~e agfi~l~ v~ue of:he i~d. F~d v~ues ~ew ste~dfy ~ ee hie l~70's ~d fao ee 19~Ok. ~en v~ut~, fell przcipito,~lT. B~ers ~ M~,l~d note ~at ~e drop ~ f~d v~ues ~at oe~ed m m~7 p~m ~,~ ~e nanon at ~t ~e w~ stately felt m M~,l~d. ~e b~terz believe ~hat ~s w~ duc to ~e fact eat the poten~ for development e~iu on much of ee ~&nd m bk~,t~& ~m. suppo~$ iz v~ue. ~ey ~o obse~ed ~: m~i,' M~t~d f~er5 c~n ?::eratz income by ha~g one or more f~mily members work off ~e f~. The bankers indicate that the5, lend pr/mar/fy on market value a~ indicated in tn,~ ~ppratx~. and would usually lend 75% or so (a rang: o~ ruG, [o o> :.',:j on ~h vxlue..4n7 ,Jc.'zloFment vMue ~ the l~d proxddes a ~shio~ albhoug~ [t ~ percmved ~ a diffi~lt v~ae ff hquidation is necess~/. Never~eles:, the b~ters indicate ~ perhaps ,V'~'~: ~eff 1o~ ~e seared ~ some way or other by rem es:are, h evaluating x b~ers look freest at ~e repayment capaci~ of ~e framer, then 3t the collaterM ~h represents some change ~om ~e process of a decade or zc ago. Now ~ co~on for the f~er: to prox~de an income statement and fzr thc 12n,2 ': coliater~, h ~ clear that ~gent lending practices are more '%usin:sC z, HcnteJ t,~.xa',~ than ~ed to be ~e Despite the e~[o~ of bar&er; to mc,;,e t~'.~ard a .rrimanl,, aL' ?eratmz m:.:.m: however, it i; not possible to isolate the [~d factor from the fam~n5 ac[i'.nr, '~]~c rca[ estate rem~ ~ underl}dng ~set. At 5m bottom hne, ~e bam~ w~nt :~ ,emi businesses bu~ to have ~e co~ort of a :~ong collateral pasfuom, which iz L~m:e J .~u' tO the value of the land. ~e b~:ers recog~ze that farmer; see their ra~ ~;rat'z ~ then p~' ~aet and that ~ey ~ to bnild ~e equi~' in ~at ~set over the year ~erefore, ~at the value of l~d is of critical importance in e:ta~lirhing tc~z collater~ for a fa~ mortgage and that ~n)' development value mriud.'d m ?.,- helps to e~nce the ~set. C)peraring/Producdou Acti~:t'2' 42 in.ca:ed in Table 7, ff~e MarAa;,c~ Farm Credit .~sociatior~',, Fam~ ' ,-J~! bank ,' B~timore az of the end of 199t had c~'.'er I197 ~llion in shon term t,,c:~ -[dias: Mosx of these are produ~on ~e loans A production 1o~ is made to a farm= nabh- him/her to purchase seed, fe~ilizers, pesticides, and other items needed to, dsv:. a ~c~, for sale. Repayment or.ese loa~ zs absolutely linked [o the ~mre v ~e of me ,7op Th= .~sodafion ~I1 not usuMly reqmre ~at a fa~er collater~ize h~s e.: -w m N~E rr~ ezrate to obtm ~ operating lo~. At the ;me time, the )asociation looh at the ,4u~x} of eat reod estat~ and iz much more interested in providing the lomn if th:r: i: some porenfi~AJ.y re~Jizab]: r:sJ value in that equiV. In fact, it is these loans that represent the biggest problem for the banks and for the farmers. The farming business Ls almost completely dependent on weather - and to an Lmporta.nt degree on market values far beyond the control of the farmer. A bad gro'Mng year or a we~ m.arket can result in a default on a production loan. Since most farmers do not have enough liquidity to repay such a 1o~ out of saxdngs, they may have to sell some land to repay the bank. Bard:ers inter,dewed ~n connection with this study were able to rite nLu:nerouS instances ~,here thR oc~-n.trred. In some cutes the farmers sold parceB to a neighboring farmer. In other instal~ces parcels were sold for non farming purposes to indi'dduaJs, or homebuilders developers. In such cases, whLle ,h¢ loan is clearly one smacrurcd on the income generating merits of the funded farm acfixdry, disposition of land ;o pay off notes has saved many farm:rs and kept them in business. In tkiz way all or most of the farm has been saved from possfble sale for development. C. EqMpment Loans Most equipment loans axe secured by the equipment itself, w/th a high propor'don of the funding being made by manufactures and dealers. Equipment today/~ much more expen.sive az-~d much mort complicated then it used to be. It is not unusual to find a piece of equipment costing over 1;100,000. The loan on such machineD' is multi-year in nature. It should be liquidated out of income earned from the more efficient operations contributed to by the new machinery. That does not always happen, however. Consequently, as in the ca~e of a production loan, the ability of a farmer to realize some value for land that might have to be sold to pay off an equipment loan is important. It is not generally taken into cortsid:rat~on by thc lender when making such a loan, but, az ,.5th any busine:s debt, liquidating ~ un.related ~sset to generate cash to pay off the loan can sa',': the business operation. D. Bac3mp Ftmds For COp:rations The analysis above emphasizes borrowing funds to buy land. or produce a ~op, or buy equipment_ Som~ farmers 'odlI choose not to go into debt for these purposes. Irdtead, the)' might sell a portion of their farm., to raise the capital necessary to pursue r_heir business operatio.ns. For instance, a farmer might sell 10 acres of land viewed ~ having some development potential and thus bringing a relatively high price, in order to buy 50 acres of land in another area that would be used 9ntirely for farming. Land might be sold to purchase a necessary piece of equipment, or to make improvements on the farm. This role of la.nd as a source of backup capital is important to the farm business. Value from the land caxa be realized up front with the money being used to ~nd operations, or, after the fact, m g~n~,al m order to m~J:e Lending practices to farmers have become iacrea:ingly :~ct. A~, one bax2<c: cc'.cn,~oed :~ Wey have moved out of the "good old boy" stage to one [~ed [o oper~,~ng stammeam ~d b~ess aramco. In foyer ffmea the reputation of the [~ner ~d ~e ,,,~ue of Ms/her l~d were ~e pdndpM elemen~ unde~,~mg the 1o~. Now it ~ the sweng;h of ~e fm~fs operat~g stamment ~d the pe~o~ce of the f~er ~ a b~es~-person. Even ix: thL ~en1 en~o~enk however, b~ksr; ~d f~mers both a~ee that pracuz~7 eve:'/ busf~ez; move uade~G:en by eke fa~er ~a~Iatez into the v~ue of the ~mnd amd ~; supposed by ~e value of the land. ~at va!us include: tho ag~xc~h-ara~ use wdu:~ :~ ,;,,cl] 03 addfdon~ development value that resulu in im totrA fair m:~ket value. ~-L S'(II?POR.TLN-G .F.z.~U.,~R EQLqT/f AND 'ArELFAP~ The iterm coverzd above ~e rdativelv cosy ts, do:urnen: The value core,burst to the '.~.elf~ of thc f~er i~ iszs do:mmentab!e, but ~t is m tun. ezra that the [~er feels most swongJy that anuhing that reduces land va!ua mmpacu dizectlv mn his/her welf~e. Co~an to rut:, concern is tbs fact that the farm bm.metz ia: for [i2: sale proprietorship Mos~ imalL ok',sci'/held businesses create vaius over t:me hv increzrin~ profi~ and gro~ng the value of their :toc. k. E~crc is no su..ak m the D?ic~ f~er, the land essentiall7 represent; the stock in the businexz. Different wa','~ tgat t~:. vMue k ~ed to e~ce the welfare of the farme~ and the fa~ family ars ce:;zsbzd fo~ of personal economo ~um,,'al .is Mmost complettl,, .- ~ I md-m _mrpM.. Th/s has ¢,eeo referred t~ ~ x,- ...... way or ~other. Toe.:' '~,x~ bu7 more had, [morave fa~ btdldings mad quiP/of the fa~ operatios ~,J uhus ~s ~3!$ of ~e inaMdurd fa~er leave: ~e scene, to be rtplaced by a fa~ly member or ~ mrmer worn,, the o~y copztant in ~e equation is the value of the fa~ z ~and. bmld,ng~, is ~e opera2orfs p~cip~ fo~ of pMd-in su~luz I[ ~e fa~ ts sold who ~dll either f~ n or groom it for d_ ._lopm.m, what ~hey oay esssnfiaII7 tbs fa~ner for unat paid-in sumlu:. Comtc. uentk, the v?Jue n,_. r'm_- ta_-m/~nd-., ........ ...... - ~e I:k~5~eY~ ja','l~g~ &,2cohnt. Payment Of Estate/Gift Taxes Preservation of a farm fi'om generation to generation is made diff],_'mh by federal amd state estate and gift taxes. This situation arises sometimes after the death of one spouse, but almost certMnly after the death of both spouses of a senior farm family. At this time the rest of the family is faced with a sigr,Xficant tax liability. That Liability has to be paid cash, but the biggest asset generating it is probably the fa.sm itself. That mea~ that the fxrm may have to be sold, in whole or in pm, to satisfy the tax liability. At z recent M'aq;land F~m Bureau' conference, it ,*'as shov,m ho`*' granting the devdopmant Ngh~ to a f~ to a land treat ~i1 signi~c~y lower i~ v~e for e~tate t~ valuation pu~os:s ~n~ is one way to avoid the high ta~ liab[lk9', h also [liu;tratez a r:co~tion there is probabt7 som~ development v~ue in all of these fa~ properties. approach would be to have ~e heks to the estate sell a p.o~on of the prope~. vomon had rdauvdy high value a a resuh offu potentiM for devdopment, then ~is wo~d enable tbs f~ly ~o pay off ~e estate taxes and continue to fa~ the reminder of the C Provi4ing for Retirement This particular rc. le of land value in the farm seems to be regarded ,xdth der/sion by non- farmers. Tee, it i:; truly important. It goes back to the fact that for ~' mo., farmers the v~lut the7 build hato their farm operation is their principal paid-in su~lus. Un.like selling stock for which there is a broad market, the market for fan-nland is rehdvely ~m2il. When tLme comes to sell that propers' to create money on which the huzbaad and ',~it-e farmcr are going to i/ye for the rest of their iii'es, the)' want to obta~ the ma_¥amum anmunt pozzible. 1[ that anount includes vaJue created by potential developrnenk so much the better. In any case, they at least want aa open. competitive market and for a reasonable range of bidders to come fora, etd to offer to purchase the farm. This market will be broadened if mere is a lack'of encumbrances and the greatest range of oppormmty value mheren,, in the real estate. By far Ce wor2t thing that can happen would be for tim ma.rket to be limited because of constraints placed on either farming or the non-farm development of the properq, and for the value to be dim/n/shed because of overly restrictive land use regnladon:. Since this is the termination of the farmer's use of the land, the business aspects are no longer a factor. This is the time to cash in based on past performance, and the cash comes D. ~[aLn~ining Thc Farm Family ,amd Labor Being able to build house; ~aat would be ocmpied by family member; and by the [,eople working the farm can be very important to helping to maintaJm the fam-~. Ln tt~z f,~mily membera tend to disperse vet/esz[ty. Good labor is dif:fi~h t,) attrac: ',~J Providing a residence or: the farm can help keep the farm family together on the i2axn amd working on the fmxn. Pro~Sding residences for the farm manager and/or other iabc~e~; Mzo important. Money may not exrhangz h~ndz in d-t,: dr','ztc, pmenl o{ .z_h l:c,.:ing ;,,:: it Ls important to maintaJrfing the ,."iabilir), of thz farm E_ Sun~/ in p~rson~ fin~ci~ invesrmenm, ladd:afire of this ~; the fact that appro>fimat:iy of ' %s/land f~ have no debt. They ~so not: that f~er; ha,'e a strong h ~ ~d for sound business practice: F~zr; rteo~ize ¢,at there operation except the land once m%' aa out of the picmre--throu~ d~ath, or s~piy a d~sire r,:, e>fit the 'ou;in:.~ Most .m~:nt f:~mem ~cnted them, m a period much l::;z ,:orutralnt,J by land usc re~lati,_,m. ~: c~e. ~ere [s great concern ~at when thc time comzs for Gem Gate '~411 be so many rzs~ictionz and t[mitatiorm and conditfom on d~shed, or ~erc will be no read)' m~ket, or both. To tats: people thc f~, zvaiue which reflcc~ both iu agri~mr~luse a~d tm ube lOT t0 the welfare of the ~ent [~m opera,or ~nd bls/her fa~I) III_ CONCLLISIoIq£ The vMue of thc land comprising a farm pla),; a central role m financing thc business f~ng. ',;,~ni!e ba~cr~ hope nzver to have to be repmd from funcP :~r:::~eJ Uquida~ng ~ or pan of a f~ thev re:o~ze that thc l~d taste;eat :hr co~aterM lot lo~, even ffmsz that ~s to bz ~mrused primely [rom racom': don't c~e whe~er ~e value of ~e land is generated primely Grough fe~n~ ;.: ~ potenti~ non-f~ use; ~ey are ~tcrested o~y in thc qualiu of the collaterM Tnt bottom ~e v~ue of f~and [sa composite of fa~ and noa-[m~ use. B~erz have made it ~at re~latiom perceived ~ having the potenfi2 m reduce ~c v~ue of l~d probIe~ for ~e~ pa~l~ly in the short te~ whzn there ~ght bz z rdanveb' ;hard drop ~ v~ues ~ new laws ~e applkd. I~5 wJuc iz g~,; !.mr,~,nrm: :o abe waKare of ge fa~er ~ ~n ~ndixddu~ ~d ~e f~7. The v~uc o: tits f~z. :;r~:fmt=~ ~z f~e=': p~mc~p~2 'hz~ngs ~ccoum", ~td vMu~ of ~ ~ccoun~ '.vh~n hquidat~d, b used to support reur~mez~ m~et ~mer~endea, Fay t~s. ~s ~ a simauon nz~l)' u~que m ~e f~ing business..~mo~t ~I other of sm~, closely heid b~iness opera~o~ ~eat~ p~d-fn su~lus by m~z~m~ ~s v~ue ~e comp~y's stocl~ ~ood ~1~ tramf~abl~ tachnolo~, ~d so forth. ~ ~e c~e f~in$, l~d ~ essence zo~dmtes the "stock" of ~e [~er. Farml,~nd values in Maa-/land are relatively ea~o, to mort/tot through the Agri.-mJtural Land ?reservatio~2 program_ AppraisMs und:rtakeu in the course of this prograra dea~-i7 show thxr cssentialiy every, farm offering its development right~ for sale to the Foundat/ou includes a :;trong c:~mponent o[ non-a~m-icultural use '.'alue. ' Overall, *for an7 given acre apDrai.;ed ~ the program, the non-agricul~al use v~ue, the v~lue of the "develo~mem~ r/ghts," is tough~y 40% of the [air market value. Given th: farmer': dependeuc'j, c,n ha',Sng a sul:srar, tial land :'alue as a basis for malntain/ng the fasrmng busincz; and prc, t:cting Ge '0,,elZare of the fa'T2 famLl),, this is a significant amount that needs to be taken into accc. unt m ar.y public pei/,_-y actiorz that might :zS[ect sued va/ues. 33 Ia previo~ secfion.~ various ~pects of [a~fing, development, and [~d ','~uc have ~M)zed. %at material pro~ddes a framework for ~sessing ~e impact ot ~o~xh con.ob on a~lmrM l~d vMues. T ~ p~ose of ~is sectio~ is to re,dew ~e broad subject ~o~h conuols ~d to define . ,e re~afio~hip be~een such control;, business f~ng, ~d ~e development of f~. %e serene concludes Mt~ mn <;sessmenr ~pa~ that such consols have on the value of 7L THE GRO~,q-H ISSUE Prior to that ~e, we were a nation that unde~ooh Minos[ ail of ia; development '~dth~] dries ~d tox~. Om- rural areas were in ~an~ and woodian5 or othem'2e simply ~used. Be~mng in ~e ~d-t940's, however, the ;ocio-econo~c nature of ~ht U~ted C[ate~ ch~ged dr~adc~[y. Improved eco> ~c wall being, affordable and reliable automobdes, major highways, more e~cienr he. mg production technologic;, 2 ~reariy exp~ded economo b~e, the post w~ baby bocm ~d a generMl7 up-bear arurude toward life ~d ~mng caused )~encan; to dramatic~ly ,:h~ge cheer liiesr/le obje,zti~.e~, me[: ic:u~ lite sD'les, ~d ~c con.ration of their citi:; ~d ~e ~aas su~oundfng th:re. 'Fntr w~ ~ period of the "=act bou~c", thz suburban ;hoppin[ :enter, the Liner;tat:. h~dh'.va),, [aras .i.s .~n-,en :mns pursued that dream and ~,httoeJ their nat ,2 la ,:conom)', and -,~ econom~, shaped them, f~ producn'd(? incre~sd dramatically and the need maintain ~ much l~d in f~ dropped si~fic~dy. At the ;~ [imf, [ec,pl~ pans r~quiring th~ nzeJ'for v,:,"r~:ars ~nc [a~ ,Jidn': ne:J m~ man)' t,~:opl,: t,, work namr~ ~itiom f~d~d not required fsi the produ~on of a~cuimrM produch convened to residenual us: that war need:d to house v,,orktrz in mc. an and sub~b, aa business establtshment:. The_.. s.~aL,.,o ...... effddenm', of fanning resulted tn increased ,tornpztmnn ,~d _,m.,.d- ~- farmers located on h~gher value l~d ne~ e~dmg urb~, ~e~ to be,zorn: less competmvc ,~,z option of selling the f~ for development pro,dried a 'way out' tot impacmd far~: and effe~ively decre~ed competition for the rema[~ng [a~s..az one ~yst at the )~e~carx F~ B~eau Federation h~ pointed out, if MI fa~ that had not been purebred for development were still in production, the farm economy could be a did. aster. 34 ~e Mid-lg00'z. Eegi~ng abou~ I970, however, ~d probably aeightenz/b~' zne:~ izzu: conce~ generated by the first oil c~is in 19~3, m~y ~mefic~ began to react negatively to ~e emer~ng pattern of development. The te~ "suburban sprawl" beene ~timffonMized and pn~'ate ocg~zafiom and gove~enu beg~ to implement more rigorous overnight of development acfi~5~ to'.v~d ~e end of ~g to control development Farmers had been, whether willingly or un,~511ingly, principal players in the suburbamzation of America. Much of the nation's growth occurred on a~riculmral [and in the ,Acin/ry of urban center;, a.nd at some rural locations developed for recreational housing. Many £a_wmers benefitted ffn~ncially from the opportunirj' to sell propert5, for development. Others benethtt~d because of a genera/increase in the value of fan-friend generated by the expanded m~u'ket for hind to be used for development. The remount of land in farr~ in according to the Cereus of Agriculture and as shown m Table 4, dropped from 3,897,000 a~es in 1959 to 2,634,000 ia 1974. During the decade 1959 - 1969 the amount of land in f?~wnz in the state dropped by about one-third. From 1974 to I987 the rate of loss slowed dramatically to a total of 237,000 acres lost,.or 9 percent of the 1974 total. The Ions of f~rn.Iand led to e/fora to slow development and to channel it ro a~eas best suited to accommodate it. In 1974, for iz~stanze, the state of Mao. land passed the Stat: Land Use .qct of 1974. This established the Maryland Department of State Plarm2ng and a st'~tewide critical ~ea program, required the development of planmng guidelines for the local ;ubdi'.dzionz, proxhded for stare inte~eation in locM ptanrdng and development matters, and generally stren~htned the hand of the s~ate with regard to development. In 1977 the state set up the bfaryland Agri~-ultural Land Preservation Foundation program tn help preserve agriculmral land by establishing agricultural districu and pro'~hding for state purch~}e si de'~elopment fights. In 1984 the stare established the Chesapeake Bay criticM m-ex -,~ par~ of a compreher~ive set of progarss to restore the emdronmentxl quali~; o[ the Chcnapeal:e Bay in 1:99I legislation was introduced (the "2020 BilI".I that would h:::e, set tx:get dep~ities for different p~ru of the state and required locM jurisdictionr, to adhere to those densities in their regulation of de;'elopmeat. Of particular concerrt to the ag~ficulrural con,mau_rfi~, ,a'~ the proposal that much o~ the state be placed in a "rural and resource area" Mth a ma~2rnutu density of one dwell2ng unit per 20 a~res. In 1992 the General Assembly p~sed the E¢onorrfi. c Growth, Resource Protection and Plan-mag Act, which was signed by the Governor. These various program.s docutuent a growing interes~ on the par~ of the state, mirrored to a significant extent by tuost of the counties, in controlling growth. One of the side effects of this process has been the identificanon of those resporsibl¢ for generating this growth. Fa_truers are viewed as being among the pnncipal beneficiaries o[ growth because they offer their land for development. Developers, politic/ann, bankers, and probably other classes of TIBLE ~ TOTAL L~qD I~ FARMS STATE OF MARYL~IqD 1954-1987 Pedod Cha.n~e _ Year Acres # % 1954 3,E97.00(} 1959 3.4E3,000 (4-44,000) -11.4% 1964 :¢. 181.0C~3 (72~0OOI -7.9% 1969 ,2.803,000 (378.000) q 1.9% 1974 2634,000 (169.000) 5.0% 1978 °-,714,000 80,000 3_0% 1982 %558,000 (156,0OO) -5.7% 1987 %397,CO0 (161,000) q5.3% Source: U.S. Censu: of Agriculture, comp[le.d b~,, Legg ~'.,~a~,on Rea~t'¢ Group, In:. Fecpie a~-e als,. ',dewed ~ pz~ of the problem ~or their contr~butiorn to growth on the urbs_n k:mge. ~n poim~ of fact, ho,*,ev--r, it may w:!!bz that none ~f these groups i.~ to blame. For the most pa~, subuFsan ex-pension has been a funaion of supply and demand wi*.h the typioal American household creatirig the demand for suburban homes and a suburban Lifestyle an.d the providers of the homes and the space responding to that demand by building the appropriate sLrucrmres. The State of Maryland and many of its jurisdictions are i~stituting increasingly rigorous land use control measures. Because farmland is usually relatively easy to develop, these programs aim to reduce the amount of farmland being converted to development_ T'be means for doing this have created problems for the fa.nn community. One resnl~ of this concern is this study to analyze how the various forms of land use regulatio~ (growth co=trok) impact agricukm-al land values and farming operations. TECH~iqQLW_Lq FOR CONTROl J TI,lO GRO'OWH A wide variev~, of techniques are available for controlling gro'*q2. The focus in this study is on land use regulations_ One analysis of these techniques divides them into w~o broad categories -- command and control regnladons and economic ir~truments. Command And Control RegulatoU Iastrmments Most "command and control" regulatior,.s are permitted under the police powers of a juriscliction. Zoning is certainly the most prevalent such de'rice Subdi;ision regulations are another frequently applied police power, but it is zoning that has the most far-reaching impact on land values. Zoning absolutely governs the use a_nd intemit~, of land. That converts direc-tly Lgto value. Simple economic fonnulations that establish "supportabie land value" clearly domment how more intensive developmem and development oriented ~oward the commerdal end of th~ range of m~es support higher land values. Agricultural zoning is prevalent in Mars, land with 20 of the state'z Z3 countiez hav4mg enacted a zoning district for the stated purpose of prese~-dng agricultural laud or offering priority 'to agricuimral activities. The character of the agricultural zoning varies substantially, however, fzom the one dwelling unit per 50 acres pen-nltted in Baltimore and Frederick counties to the one dwelling unit per half acre in Wicomico and Garrett counties. Consequendy, agricultural zoning, per se, is too diverse to be covered by one deffadfion. Low density' agricultural zoning, however, generally defined to include densities of at least five a~e{ per unit and more likely 10 to 20 acres per unit, seems to have resulted in a reduced amount of residential development in rur~tl areas. Counties with low denzity zoning have tended to stick with it faJrl)' aggressively and appear to have caused a reduction in the amount of residential development in areas so zoned. It also appears that, as the density 3'7, Some opponents of zoning that severely l[rmt p,smnthu development havz ~e possib~ of r~cci~4ng compc~adon for thc lost value ,wonted b)' pe~sNe to less pe~ssive zoding. Wi~ ~eg~d to zomag, that courz,~ gen~r~y not b~en succ~s~, ~thou~ th~ number of c~e~ evolving be ~o~g ~d ~ derision, tach ~ the r~c~nt o2~ in come.on ~dth brach prop~/ Sou~ C~o~a ~t tending to favor ~ l~d o'~m~r. TradifionMly, howgveL ~e po~ powe~ (zo~ng) to l~d uses does not r~quire comp~ation, ~d in ou~ ~ud~em [t 2 ~kely ~at it Economic [n~umcnts Amother approach to la.nd we control makes use of econom2c instmmenu rather man, m~dator/~tand~dz. ~e pu~otc economo inst~men~ is to ,~cate moneta~' [nccntivcc so ~hat I~d o~ers volunt~ly We up ~air fight to devdop ~d the econoznic rev:~d ~ac ~t com~ floe development ~ exchange for some other economic v~ue. P~cipm ~cono~c ~tmments used in Ma./land are p2rch~e o[ development fights ~d tragic: o~ development fight~. Thc Maq,,land A. gnculmral [2nd Prezcr,'ation Foundation program ~ a ['urch~e Dzvelopment Righm (PDR~ program. /~ sho'.t~ m 'Fable 5, th= pro~m he: hsen respo~ibl: for presetting over 9S.500 acre5 of farmland in the stat,: mtough l~gt; state of M~l~d has b~cn a feeder ia using thc FDR approach to pr~sep,qng Most of thc suburban and mrat counties hs','e participated actively in the program and hdped to contffbute to its success. The Tra.nnfez of Dc','eloprnent P. ighu (TDR) technique is aJzo uxed m x~:ou5 v',_-atiom; is~ MaUrland. IU ['ccT~fd of .mcctrx i5 le..~ clear. ?,[ontgom~r7.' and ,Zal',,cn :ounue, ha,.w p~iy strong proponenn c;[ ~R's anJ have u~cfl thru tc:.hmquc u [~ers ~d ~ l~d owners who pc~t the development fighus appropnam Io be ~fe~ed to r~ceu.~g ~ ni o~er pans of the counp/~d ~g up aheir Eght to develop at ~e mrg location. '~E and PDE pro.ams arc cssend~!)' uhc s~me, except ma~ m thc ~R c~c ~e ~ount ,5[ development ~plcmentmg ju~sdicuon do~s not ch~ge - just i~ location. The agricultural cormmunlty has been a strong supporter of the MALPF pro.ash, it feces that the program is an equitabl~ way of compensating farmem for giving up, forever, thc development rights to their land. At the :;ama time, th,one interested in pumumg "cormnan0 5O r.~ cover :nou~h C~ Comprehenzive Fhnning Planting itself is an exce[lem technique for guiding growth. } 5 serve ~ statements public policy, and drizer~ will typically abide by the resultant _bile poliq,. 7%is occu,r.5 because the pl,qns are frequently followed by implementation techmques, tzua2i'.,' cf the "comma.ud and control" type, but plazns als0 direct hdzas~rucmre, which mffec't~ the location of development. The plan [s ~mporrant because for most jufisdicuon3 it result of commurdcations between the affected parties - land ov,mer:,, developer_, commani¢/ interests, politi,m[ bodies Plus it represents an approach tibet, wh2e neces.zmrily parricmlarly liked b)' anybody, is acceptable to ever'~.body. Because it m the political process, citizem have a sa> m the derivation of d~m plan. ID. ln[rastructttre ~-tens~ons lrff:rastrucrure consists of roads, sewer axe, *'stet fa-diities, schoob, and other t:ublic provided to the co~¢. To a greater extem than ever before, thc exte~ion of ~t~cmre ~ being used to ~/de d~veiopment. ~nk~ges be~een th~ avMiab[lit7 ~cmre and per,teed devel~,pmen~ [requent[y wrapped into "adequate ordnances, are begi~ing to f~l toro ~e co--and and control zategoo' of r~lx~g h cle~ and tend~ to be re~onabty w~[[ accepted by most panic_ ~,c problem ~om st~dpoint of ~ose desi~g to restrict ~o~h is that some development :&n c,c~r additiop~ to public [~rastmcmre. Septic syste~ can work ~ mrs[ ~e~ Y[oad3 might ~eady e:~t. 14o new school5 ~ght bt required. But where ~ose fac~d~3 ~e nor adequTre, development c~ be co~tr~ned, such ~ the b~ldmg moratorium proposed by count/ ezecmtive Hayden of EMdmor: Counu' in the Pew~, H~J] A.s MaD'land and its constituent jurisdictiom have increa,~ed [h~- [z','t! c,f :~,ntro! e,.erci:zed over the [and, especially rural land, such controls have pl%e,2 a b~gger role ,n rur:~ development actMp/. It iz clear from Ce patterr, of d~velopme;;t .a:cumng ,;~ those counties ~5th low de~iB, agn~tturM zo~ng, that there art tewer oppo~mues fo7 profitable development m ~osc ~e~ ~d that ~e pace of such development h~ ~e,:hned. It ~ not clzar where ~e development ~at is not occurring m ~ose rural arsm rs going, i: ~ght not be oc~ng at MI or it ~ght be going to jurisdiction; ',ruth text, fastnet:'< perm zo~ng. M~'l~d, ~specia[17 ~e PDP. proart_ ~P.'s, while less ~qdzsor~ad ~d somev, aat i~sz succzzsfl~k have z [~ made uhdr mark on the pattern of d~vdopmtnt in ],,,font~omtE~ ~d C~ven counties. Comprehensive planning ha been successful in creating an a~eed-upon envLromment for development in a number of jurisdictions. This has helped to cbnnnel development and growth to areas where th~ community wants to see such growth and away from, areas that it want~ to prote~_ This has been done after open and direct communication among the vawious parties. Linkages bere,'een the extension of i.,'ffrastmcmre and ~ov,~th have [ncr~-ased and are now a major component of growth management polio/. For the most part, the. ir&-asu-acrure i:~sue has bad a minimal impact on farmland, most of which falls outside of devdapment envelopes intended to guide infrastructure extensior~, in the best of ali possible worlds, communities plan for thai[ ~owth through the comprehensive planning process, extend the frff:rastrucmre to the agricultural areas in an orches'~rated rna.truer, and generate controlled conversion of farmland to development. VALUES .Rs a group of businesspeor,!e farmers are pro'babl':' as sensitive ta the value of land as ~oup. Only land ~peculator~ and developers might have more reason to be interested in the land. Fan-nero work vAth the same piece of land over am extended period of time, howev.':r, whiI= developers make their money by p6ssessing land for only a brief period time. The purpose of this part of Section SLx is to look at t'ypi_~al farmland values as a compontm of determining the impact that land use regulations might have on such values. ~ e, ~r'A :w,'eac g.:,vem the value of land htld in fann:z. Values can vary from year to year depending on the success or lath of success of farming in any Wen year. A poor growing se~oa for whatever pa2ximlazly zever~ poor ~oMng se~o~z in a row, c~ subzt~m~ly depress th= v~ue of f~and. Li',:e~se, strong ~o~ng se~am c~n r~ze f~d values. Farmland values vary considerably, in different parts of the state depending on the quality of soils, the existence of an agricultural infrastructure in that area, the types of crops grown, and proximity to developing areas. 41 Farmland vakte is closely monitored in the state o[ i,laps'l~d F~qman(, hecau eo[ the e.,',xsniive program of development e~ement purchases administered :. t_he t4an, l~d Agriculture Land Presen-ation Foundation [NL,LLPF). Before buying an e~ernenL the state obtains appraisals on the propen7. ,,ks the ?stem currentl7 works, the apprmserr, estimate fair market value, which is the total value of the land for whatever use. I~ u.ed er', b= that the appraiser also estimated the agricultural value. That was chamged ~ co,rote of )'e~s a~o so now ~he agricultural u~e value is escalated by the State and subtra~-t~-d fi'om the fmr market value. En our judgment the formula used to determirm the ag~noult!irai use value pro~.ddes a good indication of the agriculture v~ue ot Maz-.,land [~rmlan:i Table 6 provides a surrmaar/ of the use-value of Mao'land f~mland baztq cn rcnh. the' fan:nets had to pa), at me ume of a study conducted in 1991 -D~c rzzuhari: u ;t- value- 5h7,;5 ~at ~e ~oalmrat use value of fa~l~d in Man/l~d v~es from 5927 {20 an -?re c~ ~t high side (Kent Counu0 to I;307.00 at the low end (?21eg~y Counu) for fa~ use Tn=: ~er x'~uez tenfl to be on the Easte~ Shore, moderate v~uec ~ the central pa~ of ~e ztatg ~d lower values to the west The /,,,La ~_PF e~ement acquisition program gi,,'e5 a good mdi,:atioa 54 th~ ncr '/alu_eof f~and. For the life of th: program, from 1977 to lO90 appra[>~[:, indicated tha~ Ge fair m~ker value of the land offered for easement :-ale averaged S2.46o pc; 2':r: Tgi: fi~re has been veo' constant, rising to nearly 53,000 in 1929 ~d 22,700 ~n ~990. but othemSse berg beua'een 52,100 and 52,350..;~oag other things, this ram.z: :oi~t~ m~ket vMue would seem to indicate that much of the land being ogersd f:4 easement h~ not been impacted by development to an)'~eater degree to'.':~d th= end ( Looking :pecifi,z:dl7 at me value o2 zh~ devclcpmem c~ernt:n: z; :att ~L, te2 b'~' me appraserz, i~ can be seen that, b, fact, tlr value of the dcvel,opment easement b~ changer. veD' little until recent years. In ~ose recent '.,'ears, in 1990 in sarticuiar, the ne.~ use-vMue c~iation wm~ applied for the first t~c TnR tended ',s rMse th~ xmoum for ~e development right. For the moat part, h,:,;:,evc: appr~ser:, et~umztcc that development fight~ were v/o~h gznera[17 m the range c,f 5850 to 51,000 per acre. the pro.am the v~ue of ~e development ~ights has averaged 51.105 per acre There is enough deniand for fmm~s for whatever rea.5on, to cause man)' to be sold at amounts beyond what the current agricultural actJ','iv iuelf can support 'Fh,,~_: ' extra TABLE ~ CALCULATED RENTS AND USE-VALUE OF FARMLAND, BY COUN'Ff THE STATE OF MARYLAND Calculated Use-VaJue Rent 7% cap rme ($/Acr~) Allegarly $`22' $307. Anne Arundel .?-30 Baltimore $36 $508. Calvert $27 :,%381 Car'roll $37 $5.36 Caroline $80 $855 Cecil $.51 $730 Charles .%39 5557 Dorche~er .%34 $489 Frederick I;37 $524 Ga(rett ~27 $386 Harford :~,4 $625 Howard $40 $567 Kent $65 $92_7 Montgomery $39 $561 Prince George's $3~ $465 Q~Jeen Anne's $57 $809 St_ Maw's S44 $625 Somerset $.36 $517 Talbot $56 $798 Washln~~orl $40 $572 Wicomico $S3 $750 Worcester $52 $741 Source: Unive~it/of Mawland Study of Farmland Use-VaJue 43 Marylmd Depa~ment of Agriculture data pro~ddes a long term persp~cuve on v~ue~. I~ 1991 statistical book pro,des data on f~ re~ estat~ ','~uct. Thc~: data s~zed in Table 7. ~¢ av~rag¢ v~ue per a~¢ of land ~d buildings in f~ h~ remMntd f~iy co~t~t ~ a r~g~ of $2~000 - ~2.500 for ~ i~t 10 yc~s. a cor~t~t do~ b~, which would r¢fl~ ~afionap,' factors, and wo~d tend ~o m~ r~cen~ v~u~s ~gh rel~dw to p~t v~uss, "rc~" v~ues hays un~oubtcdi7 dropped, q~z tot~ v~uc of land and buildings and f~ hm~ also remained rclafivdy comtant - roughly ~5.0 bil~on to S6.0 bilHon, ~d ~ av~rags v~lu~ of a t~n operating umt h~ tended to rem~n in the r~ge of S300,00g to $360,00g o',,zr thL I0 re'ar pzr~ l, ', 'tics: a showtha~ there h~ been relativdy little increase in the valus of farm text estate m the of Mawiand over the p~t decade, and that there has prob:~blv been ¢ .JroE m :uch when i~ation i; tM:eh into account. THE Iav~ACT OF GRO'~%TH _OI,rI~Ol~ ON &GKIPlJ-LTLFR AZ I ~*.d-(["; V;SLL, FI~ Gro'*~th controls conntimte a mechamsm for directing development t,: ':anouz jurisdiction. Amy tech~que of this nature must, by iu silo:etlon ','slues. T: ~t extent that higher derzi~ resideat/M devdopment is limikd ia a given are~ land values in that xre2 to ~ea5 that are not so restricted. ~i:; ~s~me5 that lh~ oth~[ the area. ,~_ \"sJuc of De','elopz~bi,z Land mount of devdopment ~at c~ oc~ on that land. [2nd that c=n bt ~'.,sloped for co~ercia purposes and for higher demity residential is ~mo;~ um','trza[",' ',vo~, more a~e ~ I~d that can o~)'be used for low den:ir/re~ential srcz Co:seqntntl7, zomng, or other control measures that restrict the use of [and ts; il'= depmb:' rtildt:nl{M b Likely re,trice the abiliD, of that [and to increase in value Per acre values of developable land in typical Maryland metropolitan ~,mnd rura~ locauom set forth in Table 8. These data were derived from the experience and tetords from ldason Realty Group Appraisal Services Division and reflect the obser','zuon3 of the appraisers who work in the divi_sion. Several points can be dedved from the table FLrst. TABLE 7 FARM REAL ESTATE V~'.LLI-T_S M A RYLAI',[ D 1 9821992 Total VaJue Value of L,:~qd & Building~__ of Fa, tm Avg. Value Tot. a] Avg. Dwellings per Oper a~ing (Millions) Per Acre (Millions) Unit 1983 -$5,727 $2.121 $1,151 ~18,100 1984 $6?38 $2.,236 $1,244 $3.39,190 1985 $-5711 ~-z, 179 $1,319 1986 $5,057 $2_,0~.~d $1,32~5 ..$3_'~ 7,446 1987 :$4,921 $2.009 $1,363 $o,298 ,,~38 1988 ..%5,313 $,,~,261 $1.504 $33~084 1989 $5,66.3 $~462 $1,557 ,$362.987 1990 $5,445 $2,420 $1,391 $358.°.,32°4 1991 $4,941 $2,t 96 $1,21 I $320,844 1992 $5,073 $2,255 $1,258 $329,41 .~otJrce: "Maryiar~d Agr~cutturaJ St~ti%ics"-!991. -.% TABLE 8 PEP, ACP, E VALUES OF DEVELOPABLE LAND If,l TYPICAL M~RYLAh!D METROPOUTAhl AND RUFL~L LOCATIOf~S 1 992 Value per Acre Metropolka.n Rur~ Industri.~ $100,0OO + Commerci~t (mb~ ed'; $200,DO0 $1 ~3,0C~3 Resk]emi~ (20 UIA~ Reside~ti~ (10 U/A) $69,0~3 Residenti~ {5 UfA) ~0.~ ae~identi~ (2 U/A} ~0,~ $15.07) R~ide~ial (~ U/~.i Reside~i~ fl U/20~) $7.5~ Residen~ (1 U,'SOA) ~7.5~ .A,gdcu~ure (100 A crop f~) $7,5~ 5%50:) (U indicates number oi un,u, ,t,. ~ndica'[¢¢:, numb,::~ ::t acres~ These values were es'limae: under t~e followin.~ a.~sumpt~orm Residential users &re physics]b' ra~, unrecorded land Lrcd is, bulidable for the indicated Line. Publi,- sewer and .,,,~er aze a~aJlabie for ail ume.s r ~.sid~.,-~ti-.~ ¥.-~th 3. jerts~ly 31 1 unh per ~ ,3c.r~ or less l~e lar, d is or .7.an be zoned tof the indic.~Ced u::e The land is currently not built upon. Tv,,o location 2censrio~: a maropotkan courr~f .Anne Amndet Prince Gerge's, etc...) and a mr2J count¢ [?:.er,t, C~L Mart's. Oorch~'!Er, etc. ) The development si~es me in 'subu¢oa.o" Iooat;on5 instance. This is near but not in 'urb~ized" Legg Macon Re2Jty Group, Inc.-,~Ppr~:~'¢ Services g field ~op. ~se d~ m~k~ k cka- Aa H~g ~ d~vdopm~m of ~lmr~ l~d si~fic~y ~ccm ~e value 0f ~at l~d. ~is [~and s~l h~ some developed ','~uc, but it is csscnd~y kozen by ~c low demity zo~g. B. Development Values as Reflected ~ MALPF data Maryland's agriculture land preservation program pro',ddes an excellent o',,cpAew of development values m rural areas, tn essentially every pm of the state, no matter how r~-M, the appraisers working on the pro.am have fotmd that some potemiai development ks possible at some reasonable time in St furore. Farming s,Lmply does not support the highest value of the land. It is mathematically possible to demonstrate how higher der~iu' residential development or commerdal dcvelopment [ncreazes the value of the land on which that development occurs. ThJ. s assumes that the resultant development produa iz marketable at market rates. These value: are always higher than the agriculmraI use value. C. Agricultural Zoning and La.nd Values In 1990 the firm Resource Management Consultants, Inc. (RMCI) of Washingtork D.C. wa~ ret.°Aned by ~he Maryland O~ce of Pla~ng to study the relatio~hip bepseen agh~lmrM zo~ng ~d ~e value of fa~]and. RMCi presented i~ report, '%e Effec7 of AgriculmrM Zomng on ~e V~ue of FeCund," in FcbmaU, 199l. A major conclusion of ~at report w~ that the ~Mysis of a~culmral zo~ng showed "no e~ddence of decrease~ in l~d v~ue ~ a remit of do~o~ag over a period of 15 years." ~is was not to say ther~ w~ not some delete of value. Rather, the repo~ concluded ~at"general econo~c trends ~ov,~ pressur::s ~ect ]~d sMe prices to a much ~eater de~ee "~xn the :ordng." In jud~ent ~at study did not teB "Ce ,.,,'hole The study focused on four co.undes, all ia either ire Bahimore or Washin~on metropoi/tan area, in which agr/culmral zor22g was introduced in the late 1970': and early 1980.'s. A re,,Sew of this report reveal;, to our thip3dng, that the data are not conclusive. Ln CarroLl ~'-' ' '~- - ,~gn~rA zoning '-~' been m place for a acre has steadily dechned since agriculture] zoning was inuoduced, tn three of the four counties analyzed, the nurnber of tranzactiorrs (sales per yea-) as revealed through researc~h, dropped significamly indicating a less active market, possibly due to the new zoning. Only in Montgomery Coanh.' did the number of Lransaction: interesting that Montgomery County has one of the most effective prograras for compensating farmers for transferrabk development rights, in the other counties, the 47 · ' gr~/3.~/'20~3 14:04 4~1~-cJ22-597'L ~ F~ ~ p/~_ ~a~ i~ ~, ~ r~t ~ a ~o or no go d~o~ by ~ l=~d~r. ~e ~uc ~ ~o be ~t ~em ~ bo~ow~i pl~ to ~ ~ ~ to ~tat~ mod~t dcvelop~nt of pro~s ~ ~t~ b~ of ~e lo~ S~ ~e ~keI for ~e l~d ~ z ~on of i~ po~ ~, r~ ~e potcn~ ~ men,rely ~ fak m~ket v~uc~_ "~b~*~" ~'an~e~ ~e ~eea ~e's. %sSs ~a~es u~a~y do ~ot appa~ on ~s ~ ~aaefl by ~e ~ian of ~z ~b~ ~e~ ~fl ~y Of ~e e~e~ ~c ~ ~er~md ~ thek pro~ ~ ~ r~den~ ~ for ~1~ pf~u~om ~e ~ops r~ed o~ ~ of ~e f~ ~e of ~e ~gher v~ae, more ~te~Ne[y f~ed ~e. ~ch ~ tobacco ~d Throughout be period ecv~ezed by ~hs PJ~C[ study it wo~d z~ear ~at ~e ~d ~ue ~e~es ~ ~e fo~ :~ct courtly% to ~e ernest ~at ~ey 0~ed at ~L ~Y ~ p~el ~e ~sdc N~e~e ~ land ~a~ in genera, ~clud~ ~S ~tbout ~Iy w~t ~ ~er i~du~on d ~e zoninz. Tren~ ~ a~V~ ~ s~e ~ comet 1987 da~ for M~l~d md ~e D~ ~unfies reported on ~e RM~ m~' ~e set fo~ below N Table 9, ~d v~u~ · ~'~ of ~e ~fi~, ~ore md appe~ fle~0 l~ar ~er ~e N=~ucfio= of the ~ zom~ In Montgom~ ~rf ~e ~u~ ~e gena~y lower, ~sd~ when ~ed '~5~ i high 1979 wMch w~ probably ~ ~ ~ ~pa~on of ~e in~u~on of ~ ~y m ~ ~dcI ~Un~ ~vc pHce~, on a c~t do~ b~k ~en stea~y sM~ ~c ~t~ucfioc of ~e za~g. 410-9~2-687! MO FA':~ ~ PA~E_ ~ TABL~ 9 TR~J4DS IN AGRIOULTURAL L.kND SA.L~ VALU=~, IN C:ONSTANT 1!i87 DOLLARS I,&,~RYLAND AND S~I¢_C[i=D COUN'I']ES . 1 ~174.-199O ~ Y,e~' . M~p.~land (1) 1~3 0 un~ per2D ac~s) ~ z~'~g ~na~,~'d in 1981 (~ '1:2.0 ~u~Scult ~ra~ zor~.~ enacted In 11~'6 (4) · 49 14:84 ~1~-922-G871 b~D V~ ~31:~E~ :AC~[ ~ ~v~m~ ~60~ for ~hnd; ~a ~ of ~; ~d ~ ~ re~d ~ pote~ ~rl~ ~ ~ ~bl= to ~ ~y suce~y ~ f~ers be~c off ~ ~ l~mlt ~e~ ab~ to di~ of~ for developmem. Pab~c poH~ ~t r~ ~ ~e a~H~on o~ l~[ d~si~ development ~ ~ ~e~ m~t t~e ~m a~t ~e ~pac ~e of~ ia ~ ~v ~ ~uablas ~e ~ fa~ to g:t i~ eq~ ~t of ~e ~. 5O 410-~22-6~1 ~D FA[~ BLI~U . O~/'t 9/200~ l~:Ba Th~ follovdug publk~.fiom ~vere commtted in cmmectiott with the pr~p~rado~ of th~ study. N~,~'yLm~d Depar-,n/ent cf Agriculture. (Ill~ ~muaI repor~ for 1982-1991 ~,¢r~ milo Cornall Univanity Depm-'tmem of Agr[ofltm~ Economics, "Information for Evm1~a~ing Land Boisve~% 3u]y 198~_ L~gg Ma.~n K~alty Group, lac, "A Cam.log of Gr~h M~gement T~.~quc%' pr~ed ~r ~e Govamofs Comm~,siom on Oro~ ~ ~z ~ez~eake Bay Watzrshed. Dectm~r 1989. Thomas L. Dznleh, 'The Puzc~ of Developm~t Pdght~: PrcS~:viag ;~ca~mmi Land amti Ope= Space," Ap,a, 3oumat, Autumn 1991. Dana F~ IzfeibefF~ 'The Reality. of Ti)P.,' Urban Lan4, December 199t Orlando E Delogu~ 'Environmental Re~ulafio~ m~ I and LrS~ Conz~Qj&' }~-~ Law R~-d=w vol,m~- 34. hialy~d A,.~:~iation of C~mxry FDnni.g Officiala, testknony before th'.. Joint Committae Growth ~,la.nagemer~c i~rezemation on the pmt~on of sensitive Iaaa&s, October L 1991, (staff draft), Inly 28, 19J~9. David J. Brower et al, "},imaging Development m 5amll Towm}" Flaa.ners Pr*~ American PIa.rmi~ A_t.w~ation, 1984. W. Pa~ek Beaton. '%~mpaet of RUral Open Space Z. orgng on Prepcrr.,' Values u~ me IerS~ Piaelaa~,' Rutgen Uuiver~iry, Augu~ 1988. Iv~Ltnd Dep~ auent of Agrtcalrm'e, Maqdnnd Agrf, cuhlk'~l Sr~tk~cs, s~rnm~ries for 1990 1991. Bztreaa of the Cen.~s. 1987 Cer. sns of Agzicaitur¢, l'Zarylz, ad State ~md Co~ty dam- M[arfla. nd O~c.'- of Pla. uMD 'A Synopsis Of A.~Ticaltm-al Zoniag im Maryland,' .Novcmbgr, 1.091. Stephea Susm~, "D oe~ ! ,~cl-Use R~gulatio~ Prote~t lc~'Ol~:y Vm. Jue~?". R~al ]~tmtm l~vi~w. Voh~m~- 20, Number 3, fall 1990. Ralph F_ I'ielmlich, "Metropotitmn Agrkulmm,. Fta-~ i~ d~c Ci~s Shawdc~-,' APA $oum~L ,a..ut~ 1989. M~.a'),land Depm."'Rnant of State Planning. "Lmnd U$~ or Able?,' Dzcember 5, 1985. Warmers ~md Growrtb M~nagemeP. t: k Pfznning Commdrum," Watershed, Volmne L Nmber 1. Mzzyland Offi~ of PIa~dng, 'Marylamd's Land, 197~I990, A C~n~ng Resource,' l:hablication 91-8. W. Parr/ok Bemtoa et al. The Cost of Reguledom, Volu.me 2, A E, ase~:e Smd)' for to: C..he~pe. ak¢ Bay Cdficai Area,' Aug~ 1988. Amderso~, Terry I... ~A L/i~ie PereS~OL~ta at Home, private Ownership of I.and amd Water," presentation m the AmeriCan Farm Bu~au, Jmmary 7-8, !991. Credit Bank of Baltimore, Report of Ma~agemeat. February. 18, l~gL ~ Arminger. Presid~nn Orchard De~¢lopment Compzm7, ~ ~ ~mey, ~t~ Taylor & Pr~o~ Tow~ ~d ~1 ~ Pr~d~ M~ F~ Cre~t Hc~ B~ V~ee P;csidau% ~¢ Peoples B~ of ~d ~ B~ r~sidem Cen~ M~d F~ Cre~t ~a ~ F~er, M~d F~ B~e~ ~or for H~d Cowry ~e. ~, PreSd:n% C~ B. Taylor E~ Oc~ OW, ~la~d 5'~ Fred. E~no~:, .~ed~ F~ B~eae Fedem~on J~ H~ Sehor E~nom~ &mefi~ F~ B~mu F~adon ~¢ K~ Pr~de~ ~reu D~elopmcm ComF~ ~J~ ~c~, Dkecior cf H~n~ ~e Co~D., M~l~d Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-41 Fig. Four, Expansion of Metropolitan Coastal Areas undated RECEIVED ~ ~.,v. ~N 2 4 2003 C~outholcl Town Cie.ri FOUR Expansion of Metropolitan Coastal Areas Geographic Information Systems (GIS} technologY/ The developed ~ootprlnts" (burgundy} of many coastal re~om~ are expanding faster than the rational average. 11 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-42 Letter from Marie A. Domenici July 15, 2003 July 15, 2003 RECEIVED To: Southold Town Board From: Made Domenici JUL 15 2003 Southold Town Cie.ri I I want to go on record as someone who supports up zoning! We can talk a~bo~q_~t all the J G-67 prose and cons of up zoning, but at the end of the day, the clock is ticking'working [ 1 0.1 against us. Route 58 is fast spreading like a cancer toward this town. We have CVS raying to purchase the Bowling Ally. We have a drug chain in the Waldbaums shopping center and we have a drug store on Love Lane. Why then do we need a drag store chain that won't be happy until they have built the last CVS on Shelter Island? What about the small mom and pop shops that rely on being the only game in town? Do we want to continue to support people who live and work in their communities, or do we want to invite big business to steam mil us by building bigger and better to excess? This community is the last frontier for~rur_ _al living. We must act now to preserve our community. Up zoning needs to~a~ddressed now. We no longer have the luxury of dragging our feet. Hicksville was once a fanning community, as was Huntington. What do these towns look like today? Mini Manhattan's. Thirty years ago, these communities didn't think they would be working hubs. All traces of fanning are literally gone from the landscape.. With growth of our community come increases in town services, schools and traffic. Not to mention LIPA is always looking to fred an opportunity to build power plants in our back yards. Our community's infrastructure cannot support any more growth, without taxing the existing communities out of their homes. I cannot support building new schools because our current schools will be stretched beyond capacity. When you raise taxes to support this kind of growth, you tax your middle income community out of their homes. Let's come together as a community. Let's think preservation whether we call it up zoning or a rose by any other name! We need to act now or all will be lost!!! Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, 'rvmrte ~. oomemcl Mattituck 298 0211 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-43 Documents in Support of Comments from George Penny undated RECEIVED JIJL 15 20O3 Soulholcl ]'own CIKI NO. 422 ~UtJIHOL~ ~UPI-~(VI~UK~ JANUARY29,2003 PRESENT: Supervisor loshun Y. Horton, Councilman William D. Moore, Coundlman Craig A. Ri~htar, Cotmdlman John M. R. omanelli, Councilman Thomas H. Wic~sm. Town Clerk ~ A. lq~llls, To'wu Atiorn~y Oratory A. Yakahoski. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Good Evening and wdcom¢ lo the commencemmt of the Scop/ng Session for the SEQRA documenL Bde~e we a~mmeno~, would you please rise and Join with me in the Pledge to th~ Flag. I appreciate you all coming out tonii~at, we will corem,race, si~%o before mo is Patrick Clammy and Chick Voorhis. Bofh of who are members of the Town's moraf, oriom planning I~mup and I will im~. the mecth~ over to tho both of them end they will explain the SirRA process, the propose of tonight's Scoping Session and when there h~ been appmpriatc ,mci clem'direction from both Chick and Pauick, I will opcn ~he floor for publio c~mmeat. Ther~ are a number of people in the" room wni~ht, I would ask if we make an effort to keep our conunen~s to somewhcr~ in the i~ei~hbor hood of 5 m inntes. SO wiLh ~ being said, welcome Palrlck and Chick. CHICK VOORHIS: Thank you and good ~vmin~. My name is Chick Voodais ~ Iosh said. I am a member of the team and we are he~ to~gght to assist the Town Bo~d in oonduc~n for the purpose of detarminh, g the coment of a dra/t generic unv/ronmuntal lmpaot ~a.~. Of course, we will seek to conduct ~e meeting in an orderly fashion. We do have a sign up sheet that the Town Clerk has asked that you us~ so that you can be idenlified. The purpose of ih~ men(tug is that the Town Board is currently involv~ with consideration of implementation of planning tools that have been identified in past land use studie~. These have been inventoried and Patrick will speak a little bit about that b~oause that is essmtially what constltu~s tho proposed project that considering. So just in t~nns of overview, any Board that takes an action is reapomd'ole to consider the environmental consequences of thai action. Th/s is required under state law known as the State Environmental Quality Review ACt, also known as SEQEA. It essonllally requires that the Board take a hard look at the action that they may improve on, ~rant or implement. One of the best ways to do this is to use a draft generic environmental impact statement. A draft GEIS is a docmnent that will be prepared by the Town with the assistance of the planning team and it will be circulated for public comment, for the purpose of your input on the planning initiative that the Town Board is considering. So that the public will have additional opportunities to comment on the specific content of what the Board is contemplating. And we have included a graphic board, the one to your tar right, that specifically outlines the State Environmental Quality Review Act proc, ess. The fu'st step is to determine the content of the EIS and that is our purpose in being here tonight. The Town Board took a number of very important actions back on January ?, a! which time they determined themsel-~es to be the lead agency in reVieW ofth/s action, patrick will speak about that, and they required the p~-paration of a draft genetic envi~roun~ental impact statement. This evenings meeiin~ has been advea'tised in at least two local newspapers during two consecuiive weeks al least 15 days prior to tonights meeting. I 1/29/03 2 OEIS Seeping Session should point o~t ti,st s:~pi~ ia oplienal b~ the Boaal ~el~ that it was imperator to get the enmmuatties inptlt with regatd to the senpe of ~ es~rdtenmes~d impact sla~te~mt. The~e ate a numbe~ of ways th~ the scope has been made available, ~[~er )lmma'y 7 it was available here in Town Hail, it wa~ placed in several local ~e~, ii wits Iwath~o o~ the Town web slte and it was n~led mid ~ireninted to all of the ngenoies thai may ultimately be involved ~ fima'e de.ions that affect.lend us~ in the Town of Southold, as well as any patties of inta~ that were on record at that tim~ Now, aeopin~ which we are conducting tonight, is e~eniially deilned as the precis b~ which thc lead agenoy or the agency wlgch overse~ the project identifies the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts rdated to ~e aclion. And these are the itvn~ that would be addressed in the draft genelio ElS, So, I hope that you have b~ea able to look at the seeping document that has been izrepered, it goes rote the requimnmts of ~he Slate En,/m~nental Q-.tity R~iew Act and we will seek to ?i. your input on that iOnighL With that. Patrick/s go/ng to speak about a enuple of items pertaining to th~ lead agency role and the proposed action spastically. PATRICK CLEARY: Lead ageap~is the t~tm that C~iek has used tonight, itis a tem~ that desixlbes - ~he body ~at is ~mnln_~ thiaprooess, In this ease, the Town Board has de, lusted itself to serve in thnt theh-~ob is e~ec~vely to .drive this bus, to malce sure thai this prooe~ runs aeen~ M ~e ~. The lead a&ency will adopt the infonnstion that you b~ to us toniih~ in ~hi~ scope, will danide its enn~l, the lead a~enoy will de,ermine lhe sul~bility of this impa~ ataiement when it is prepim~ and will the lead agea~ ultimatellr will pi~od~ (is~a~la~ole) fuxli~s sad raske decisio,,, about the a~tin~s. The action ia really what we waut to ~l_~r abo~ ~ eau of el,c many thln~s ~at see want to talk about tooi~bt, it revolves a~ouad ~ ax~ion. The action in this case is somewhat unus~l, typi~lly the a~ion Ls a project. It ia a sulxlivision, a communal buildin&; in gals case, the action is 20 yoar~ worth of plaaai~s eiFo~a ~ the Town lass wodced on. The soopi~ document tl~ many of Imu have betb~ you toalsl~ list tho~e studies md they ~o hack to 1982 md we are talidag about 18 ~t stodies that have been produoed by the Tows over those years. Now of thuse studies the~ have been a number et'ideas, recommendalions, there have been policies, ther~ bare been goals and objeaives set t'otth. Our a~tioa in this 8eneri~ eavironmental impa~t ststement is to put all of thus~ together in a sin$1e pookage, see how they inie~te e~l to malta decisiens on bri~ing ~ho.~ a~tions forward, implementing tho~ a~ioas. Tlga table thai you ~obably eaa't see in front o£ you up there, but what that table does is list bom all those similes the 1bin~s that should be done. The varioas tools, tecl~iques, policies, obje~ive go,ds, all of those ~ articulated in di/~-~.al l~aguages, spelled out in diffesenl ways ate identified on that board and they range bom a coul01e of cate$oties there, what call planning pror, ess, zoning and zoning code issues, education and enforcern~ni issues, capital impmvemen: issues, direct town mana&emant issues, amd issues of son of inter-al~ency coordination, end imer-a~ency initiatives. Now there is a ra~e of the, se a~tiona and ~ 1 said earlier, the language used in describing these are a litlle bit different. Some of them are old and some ofth~m are retaiivel¥ new. Some et' them are wall aee, epted and some ~ coairovel'sial. It is our effort this evening in gaining your input i~ to how we ~eate etfectively the table ofconient$ for this exercise and Chi~k will talk about that in a secot'ld and if you son of let involved with us and we hope we are setting a hook into you lonight, if you ate inter~t~l in this process to get you to participate with us in this process because the process is itl its base, a very public p~oc. ess. And this ae, ti0n that we ate describing tonight, the nalure of the inpul we are seeking from Chis tonighL wUl come hack to you over the course of exercis~ a~l you will be asked for your inlet again aiad again. I tldnlc whal I would like m do know is 1t29/0~ 3 Ol~ Soaping Smalon have Chick go through tho moping dooum~t and effe~voly the &mit g~neri~ environmental impact ~ VOORHIS: The flzst section involves the proposed project and Patrick has indicated what tlmt con.stitutes and identifies here, the Town has had & number of polls, that they have (in~,,dibl¢) and put it to the test of how they envision Southold to look and this has been through many administrations and many studies and those goals a~ reflected on thc second page of the $coping outline, so lhat is esscutially the proposed actio~ The EIS consists of the exisiing environmental conditions and since ~bi~ is a town-wide initiative it is going to affect many areas of thc town, thc town environmental study will be broadly defined. (Inaudible) entire studies that inventor-It the To'wll ~ thee have been a ~ of new efforts tb~t we are vcry pleased to have been able to take place, with the ass/stance of pl~n,,in_~ slaty and the Town Board goi4sfloe, such as wetlands mappi~ m .,?ping of (inaudible) slope areas, and ass~nblin__, the Town's OIS data base into a v~ usable loan. Upgrading a lot of it that has already b~eu colleoted and es~ulially tasking it workable for the purpose of d~:ribing the Town's ~uvironment for tho envimumental setliug section. So there will ba some very usufcl tools oomin~ out as a result of tha~ that will I~ porlrayed both graphically and in ~xt form. Oho of the primal, sectiom is to ta~:e mar proposed action and look at thc en'6ronmental co~,..moes of it. How it will affect the Iowa, how it will affcc~ the land use and the decision makJ-~ asp~ts of the Town and this section will look at all of the wfrious rc~omces, scoloBl;, wate~ ~esousces, ecolo~ioal L'eSOUrcoS, transportation, air r~our~s, laud use owning end plans, demography of the town or population aspects, community services end various jurisdictions. 'II~e Town's i~istmcivr~ communit7 dm~ct~, enltwal resources which may include arohcolo~ical distofliom such as (inaudible) wad ~enal r~ourcus, economic and fiscal cimditious end co-,set'~atinn (inanch~ole) and these all will be e~duated in roms of each o{ the proposed initintiyes. Additional sections will be pFcpared includin~ oumvlative impacts and (inaudible) whether these arc prJmsr~ impacts or secondary imp&ets end in some ceses, 'Ion§ term impacts. Each of these will be reviewed to determine if thci'e are mitigation mcasor~ that are al~propriate to incmloomte or re~icw as part of th~ process. And then there are a couple ot' other requil~l so, ions, we arc really g~ifl~ into all of the more interesting topics of conversation and that is, are there alternatives that the Town could look at in order to achieve the goals or perhap~ no action at all. And that would essentially be to allow th~ Town to continue on the cet~e th0i it is currently in. We bare identified some framework £or considcratioa of alternatives and we have c~-~inly seet. in~ input to that extent tonisht. So we aie ~el'y near the time when w~ would be lcokin~ for p~blic comments, as the Stlpcrvlsor has indicated, we arc ver~ interbred in hearing those comments, please come ~p to the si~ up sheet, put your uam¢ on record, use the microphones at the two podi3m~s and pl'esent yotll' comments, speak clearly a~d slowly so that yoll call be ufldcrstood. Al~er the co~clu$1on of tuni~t's meeting, there will be a period of time for additional written comments but wc will be belgnnin~ to synthesize those comment~, review them and there will b~ a ~-anscript in the future (inaudible) and utilize that to revise the scope and issue a final scope that the Town Board will ultimately adopt. ~ will just point ovt that if an issu~ has been covered there is no need to r~cat it~ that we will make notaiions with re~ard to that comment. So, in closintt, the introdvction here tonight there has been no final decision, the Town Beard vltimat¢l¥ makes the final decision, this is the beginning of the process, the S~QRA process; there will be a~l official public bearing on thc Environmental Imp&ct Statement (insudibl¢) prepar~t based ot~ llle scope that you will be comm~t~ting on tonight und that is what we wanted to express to you, to ~ and frsme out how the meetin~ i~ intended To be conducted. So with that, I thir~k thc Supervisor would like to have the lmblic ~xpress thei~ comment~ to thc Board m2d we will be hcrc to clarify issu~ at thc Supcryisor's direction. 1/29/03 4 GEIS Scoping Session IVlIC CT.~-~RY: I would l/kc to add a poin(, the way that we are go~ to orsar~ze this toni~t so ~ it is as useful ~ cleat to us as possible) it' you would like to break down your commmt into ~ on ~tetlmivca, m you nmy mum to file podium three ~ t/mas to offer ooaaaems so that way we are able to keep our thoughts rdatively (dear throu~l the procoss. And agaill we are uot seeking substantive w~,i,,mt on the plan, we are seeking your input on what becomes son of the table of co~m~a of rigs study thai w/Il continue for a n~mber of months dowa the mad, The first area will be commeats em the project de~dp~o~ SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you, ~ntleme~ So easmt~ly, in t couple of short smtmce~, the p~vuse of~ m~ h m ~ n~w i~ ~ ~ ~ s~ or m ~ S~ ~ ~ To~ ~ ~t ~ ~m f~. So ~ ~ ~ I ~fl off~ ~e floor to m~ of ~c ~c ~ I ~i-~ w~ we ~ ~ b p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. W~~y ~ ~ ~s ~ STEPHI~I MUDD: I would like to ask for clarification flora the Town Board as to which clasaificlaion of zoai~8 that we are ~ki~ about vo~ible zone chansc that this mviromneatal impact siudy has beta put on. We have aueaded a to~ of meetin~ and I don't have it cle,~ in my mind as m the delinemion of what zoaiU& th~ you arc talking about coasid~atton of e. change o£ zone. don't imow/fyou have 8otlm to that level or is that s~m ap for fmaliza6oa but I would like t~., If COUHCR2dAFI ROMAN~LLI: I would like clarification on thaL too be. cause I would like to got us m a fmther discussion of ~ning but as thc two consul~*s havc said, we are looking for input on this meeting ofother altemati,'~s. That is what we are here for. All ahamatives. MIC MUDD: So as it ~tands fight now, it is & ,own wide cona/dersl/on for anything that is... COUNCK2/tAN ROMANELLI: From the way they explained it to mc, anything goes. MR.. VOOP, HI$: Wc have conducted a very detailed review of the 20-year history of studies. Patrick mentioned approximately 18 studies. So what was in those studies is essentially what is on the )ic for thc Board to consider to implement. There were a couple of areas thai involved change of z ,.es but that is c~udnly not the exclus/ve focus of this project, it goes beyond that looldng at econonuc development plans, affordable housing initialives and many avmues of techniques to make the Town a better place. The several specific areas that did/nvolve zone chan~es that come to mind are ones that the Town has considered in the past, five acre zone and that has been retlected in several reports and so thai is part of the consideration. The Town has also considered through reports, adoption of an ordinance that would allow to pisa zoning districts and this would create a planning tool that is being used not only on Long Island but throughout the cotmtry to look at incentives for venous types of m/xed use and appropriate uses tn the contemplated, for certmn areas of the Town. And there w~re some areas that had also been idemtified whore looking at the AC zoned lands and the R-80 zoned lands to make sure that they were m ~e appropriate locatior for what they are intended to do based on 1/29/03 $ GEIS Seeping Session the loginlafive intmt of those zoning districts. Those were a couple of tl~ roms, again, what I will call a matrix in the middle on the board which you ~ welcome to go up md Uske a look at. spelled out each of the (inaudible) that are being considered Imder th~ plan, yml may want to take a look at that - for areas flint involve zoning changes. :go effectively, how ~ works now, if your contra w~s the five-acre upzonk~, it is in the .nnlysis. It is in the mix to be explored, studied alxl eval,~,~,t, if you t~i,i~ it should bca tea-acre upzoning, let's say, a 50-acre upzoning, you should tell us that that shoutd be ~msideeed ss an alternative and the Bo~d will conside~ that ~s o~e of t~e altam~tives to an action that is already effectively on the table, that being the five-acre upzooin~ which is something that came out of a previous report. So that is how this system will work. This is mt action, it is desonTaed ss the ~llff that t:he Town has alloady doue and your job tonight is to say th.t 'y~0u have got it all, you have cove~ed all the bases' or you missed them, 'I really think you should do moro ox less or different'. That is what we er~ ~ about in terms of altemative~. IVI1C MUDD: If at some point ia time, I would a,~ume that through the input a~d cve~oody's focus .on this that the~ will be clarification of what zooing would be considered based, again, on this five- acre potential zone chan&e. Ate you going to stazt over at. that point and do · n~w Environmental lmpaot ~tudy on those particular zonss because what you ~ done, evet'~ is on the table for discussion, I ~mderstund that, but flit gets defined down to cc~miu types of zones wouldn't you have to do a different Environmental Impact Study based on thc zonings that ~re going to be considered for inclusion at that pelto. MR. VOORHI& What will happen tl~ouigaout thi~ proce~ is that we will move from a faidy Ioc~l approach tln~ohout cwluation to tndin~s wEero tlw Board makes some ]udlpn~ts. So thee is a dra~ environmmtal impact sta~emmt, fl~re ere public hear~ sssociat~ with tha~ amlag those publio hem~gs ~ov are able to say if we should refine, ohan~e, modify or reduce in size or enlarge in size. The Board will take those into cousiderat~on as comments s~d provide *~,wers to public cnvironm~uts] impact statemeut, so the nature of the beast is that these ideas will S~u focus as we move through the process. If there is no focus at the end of the day and there ia no conclusion ~nd the Board says 'I am not sure, you are absolutuly right' thc Board would then have to re-visit this issue if there is no conclusion to it. If they say up-zoning is good but we don't know wher~ ,nd that is their findhlg, then they would have to re-visit this if they chose to up-zone and do SEQRA ~4~sia, if they chose to up-zone a particular parcel of land. MR. MUDD: Thank-you. A point of information, the 18 studies that previously have becn made... MR. VOORHIS: Actu&llythere were20 MR. MUDD: 20 are they (inaudible) SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? JOSEPH LIZEWSKI: The fact that these studie~ are being used is very interesting to me simply because they are studies and they really should be put in the right perspective. The fac~ is that they w~re studies a~d they were not passed on by the Town Board's at that time, refleci that the pcopte at that time didn't feel that there was e~ough merit in some of those studies to adopt them. And I think that you have to rcalize that some of ~hese points that you may be picking oul of these studies aotoally 1/29/03 6 GE~ ~opin~ Session . toppled Town ~ovemmenls at that l~ne becau~ of the co~ove~w o~ or so~e or,he I~nnin~ tha~ wan done tn ~hose Town studie~. ~I~~d~m~~~~ ~ if~ w~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'t be ~t ~, ~ So ~ ~ ~ ~ ~se ~n ~ ~ ~ a v~, ~ b~ ~ of 1~ at ~e ~ ~y -.~~le~ve~ca~, ~~of~~~ ~'t ~w wb~ ~ey ~ ~ ~ ~ s~ w~ w~i ~ ~ ~l w~ ~ ~ ~ l~k at ~ at a ~t ~e ~ a ~t pl~ ~d ~t t~ ~ ~ ~ ~c ~ not ~ ~. ~e i$ a t~ ~y ~e s~ w~'t s~, ~ is a ~ why ~ not ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~u ~Md I~k ~ ~ 1~ ofwMt w~ ~ ~ pla~ md ~t ~ m~ of w~ ~ ~ ~t, R~ ~ ~ m do ~ ~ of ming. it ~ a ~m-y ~ ~ w~ ~u ~ 1~ ~ ~v~ we ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ff ~ ~ ~ on ~e To~ ~ ~e ~c m ~u ~d say, ~u ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~w. Wc ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h~ ~ ~ m~ ~ wo ~ ~ ~ ~:r~=;[,~n ~d ~ ~yit wo~d s~ ~ ~ l~ ~y~ ~ ~. ~mit ~ ~ ~ ~le ~, ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~it ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~b~ ~ it ~ ~ ~mp~, it ~oMd bc ~ ~ fcr ~u ~ ~ m ~ti~e ~ ~n ~ ~m ~ ~ ov~ h~. 8o [ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~d ~ l~k~ at M a m~ ~ ~t ~ w~t ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~di~ L~*t ~ ~ I m~ ~y ~ ~ ~ s~y ~ g~ ~ bm ~ ~ of~ m ~, ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ it m~ ~ ~ ~e ~ ~t on~ ~t ~ ~ ~y~ ~ s~. ~o w~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ a~ ~y ~u ~ 20 ~ ~ ~ ~ing ~ ~t~. ~ l~~l~~e ~ of~, ~j~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ bt of~ ~ a lot of~ · ~ ~ ~ b~ ~ ~u ~ ~ it om of~t ~ ~ ~c b~ ~ w~e done ~ ~. ~ ~e of ~ose ~ w~ ~y ~t bi~ st~, ~ w~e j~t a ~ M ~is ~I l~e ~ lon~ ~ ~d it w~ ~ for a ~ ~ p~od of ~c, ~d it w~ sono. So, wh~ ~u ~e loo~ at ~ ~ I ~ ~t ~u ~d ~ ~t ~ sm~ ~v~'t ~m ~pl~ for a v~ go~ re.on. BILL BSSEXS: My name is Bill Essexs, I am an attorney from Riverhend, I represent several farmers who are present and several who aren't here. They are land-ownerS in thc Town, they arc interested i~ this procoeding and I understand that I am going to have several opportunities to speak tonight because you am goin8 to have differant topics and thc first one somebody said was a project but I think it also fails under the definition of thc description of the action. My first comment deals with that because 1 do not believe that what you are doing is an action under SEQRA. If I m correct on that, you are investing time and a lot 0fmoney in a projeot that is not yet a pwject and you should see whether I am right or whether your advisors, if they are giving you this advice, are con'r, ct. The Envhonmental Conservation Law has re$ulations adopted pursuant to it a~d $ix-I hate to speak m shorthand bat where I am making a record-but 6 NYCRR section 617.21~ defines what an action is and in your re~olution, Towr~ Board resolution of lenuarv 7. 2003 ~vhlnh l thlnlr started this ~ caused ns to be here tonieht. 0/l~:lc¢ is a deacril~tion of the action and then they list 20 aiffe, r~t t~oincts or smdin~ done in the past_ llt~ fit~t one is 19119 and the last one is 2002, Exnmlnine tho$o matters is not a SEORA action, A 1129/03 7 GElS Scopiag Session _~,~__~v~ _,h-:~ .!~,~. a,m whic~ you have ~ me. ~ only ~ ~-t ~s m~ ~_,,,'~,~ mA m .,,~4m~ the a~encv to adefini~com~offunn~. That is not what is t,-...~,aning here. Som~lal, l~u may decide that you want to adopt a Local Law or amend your ~ede or do any numbe~, of things ttmt are specific. Sw/a new Town Halt, hire personnel, r~me somcti~ change some of ~ planning regulatinllS, there ar~ any number of things that you can do' that are actions and maybe you'are thinking about those thin~ but there are not pa~ of what you are doing today and if the comcrstone of what you are doing and how you are getting people involved and how you are putting people at risk for what they thf,,k is there future and their cconomics is something that you should set advice on ami I ~pectfiffiy request on behalf of my climts that you get a valtt~ opinion ~ your attorneys, sp~inl coonsd or regular ooonset, on this very issue. Because I am ~oin8 to ~ive an opinion to you and I believe that the opin/on ihet I am ~iving ~ be a COllect opinion mad I don't want to waste my ~¢ on that but I am ~oing do it but I am going to charge them and thoy are goin~ to pay me and we are going have wasted a lot of time and it may bc that this should not be a S N..QRA scoping s~ssion, this may be a ,discns~o~, it has po~ to do wjd~ SEOI~, b*Xm~e ~ i~'t'anv ~ yon c,m still do th~ I think that you have the heart and the course and the ca~ in the wrong direction. I want to touch on one othor tigris right now before we get into thc next part of what I think will be an ~xte~ive ~:mssion- And that is.in one of ~e~e ~i~e-s of mm~ ~hat I mana~xl t9 ~er over the last we~ th~m~ was some 'dis~qon by ~,~..~enn~'o~ ~~cs is not before you now. that is not ~ Ecmiomics are be~-e lmu, the Chi~s~ them wes a Court of Appe~ case iu 68 New Yo~k second that ~a&. ,,.'-'_' .... k', .'~'~' _ ...................... ~=l'a ~_ .~,~. -__-~--- .._ ~.~--.---m~J Ifvoll .... %7, .., goin~ at the end a fmc shot And don't waste thc taxpayers money and your time if in fact, I am eon'ecl and your ~onsultants are incorrect on that. ¥~ inuOt take into account the economic consequonces of what yon are moposin~ to do because those ~onomic cons~ueal~ ar~ not only. economic but they show up in who is ~oing to liv~ ~ere.. NOw, ~ p~ and who is ~ to leave *md what the real estate tax~s are goinl~ to be and so on, boi I think that is part of another part of dgs evaning and I will set to that. So, my first two statements are: you shouldn't be doing this now, please 5et legal advice in writit~ on the sub, act and [ will maybe w~ will cross on that and then respond b~t you should put that to rest, I think you owe it to thc taxpayers to put that to rest, you owe it to cv~oody, I think. And the other issue on this procedure issue is that you have to take economics into account and there are a lot of'cases on ~he subject, there ar~ treatises on the subject and I am willing to share those with y~r oou~sel and your consuliants. And I expect and hope that I get the opportunity to speak on the alternatives and also on ~e impacts because I think that if you are going to go ahead, over my objection, I want a list of what the impacts are so they can be discussed. Thank-you. AY'ruG UNALDI: My nmne is A!aug Unaldi. I would like to statl with quoting from President Bush from his speech last night. "Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country while dramatically improving the enviromnem, I I~ve (inaudible) comprehensive ~ergy plan to promote enerEY efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology and to produce mom energy at 1/'~/0~ GF. IS Scopi~ ~ ~e~~,,~ ~i~ or ~~l~o~but ~1o~ ~'~" ~ I ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ of m~ ~, ~y ~ ~c ~, ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ · ~ ~fl~. ~, l~y ~ ~ ~le ~ ~m~ ~t is w~t we 1o~ m~. ~t~ we ~ ~ ~ o~ go~ m~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~e ~dd ~ we live~~~r~n~~i~~ 1~ f~ ~n is ~ p~ ~? ~ 1o~ ~d l~-U ~ ~t ~fit ~m ~c f~ ~on m~ ~ ~ ~. For ~e ~ we ~ ~ ~on ~ ~, ~ i~ ~ ~, ~ ~m~ u~ ~k ~ ~ ~g s~f- ~, ~ s~ ~mtg, m ~c ~d ~ a ~ ~, ~ ~ ~d, ~e (~b) for ~pl, ~ mint ~d ~ ~ Jt ~ b* do~ by m~ ~ ~ ~ ~le ~d ~w~. It ~ save w~ on. W* ~t so~ time on i~ but it is not suffiaimt, of ~*, ~ il n~ to t~l~ ~d d~, we n~ l~d for ~ e~l~ proj~-Hke 1~ a~ ~d, ~al zol~, o~ic fa~ commu~lity. ~al wa~ ~e tim point, I have mo mor~. I have a as well, (o d~e lhe pollution and to s~ply ~c on~ ~ffici~gy. Il is a p~sive ~d active solar ~ ssv~ ~, (in~d~l*), ~li~ ~ md ex~ ~ ~m~, fo~z ~ ~plc for z~i~ ~u~ ~d bm~ ~ dm on the in~.for ~1~ *o 1~ what is happe~g in a solar home, how ~ it ~ve ~l m~7 As ~ ~x~ple w ~at I ~u~t wi~ me a ~o~ ho~v complex, bruit ~ 195~ in M~achusens ~d ifs ~s~g 93% of its a~ili~ h~at needs. I can you would like. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes, if you would leave that with ~e g~tlanaa up front for t~ ·JUL. 15.200~ 9:26AM SOUTHOLD SUPERVISORS NO. 422 P, 9/28 1/29/03 9 GElS $coping Session MI~ UNALDI: It wn~ possible in 1958, it is pos~'ole ~lay nnd wi~ tho existing information ang_ t~4~olo~as we ha;e, we can do betty' than flint. It just needs some curiosity and some support to - implcm~t. And th~ University, 8UNY Farm/ngdale, lh'ofe~r D~/~y is va~ mu~ interasted in bu/lding and sponsoring such a proj~:t. He is ready to do the pmjsot and e~loulafiom, through me, he told me to conve~ this massage to you as well. The Department of Solar Enemy is suppm~g our requast for a solar home project, we just need to reqtmst from him. And th~ th/rd is ~t solar powered garage and workshop, tt is a simple two-ca~ garage, which can produce hi 20 yea~ let's put it Lhet way, it saves us 163,000 pound.~ of carbon dioxkle, 1,100 sulfur tilex/da, 420 potmds ofnitro~m ox/de, it produces 150,000 kilowatts of electridty, which ia woflh $110,000. And with the thermal culieoturs, it produces 35,000,000 btu's per year. Tiffs is a tiny project, it is not res/dent/al, it is not heated, it is s space which can be located in gte hac. k!rard and it is very co~t effective and effident proj~/in't~'ms of using dean energy. And if anyone is inte~ted/n the details, I cnn supply you w/th the deta/ls of this project, as well. Thank-you very much. (Soinr Townhonse/nformntion ,wallable in file) SUPERVISOR HORTON: Supervisor $chneidennan is here f~m East Ha~hm, he is here to announce that the fen~ .... JAY SCttl~II/IDERMAN, EAST HAMPTON SUPERVISOR: It is good to be here. Good even/nE, Town Board members, Supervisor Herren. Actually, I had a little bit of uovble finding Town Hall in tho snow in pazticular, I stoppexi st the fu~house and I Euass a lot of the firemen ar= involved with the anew removal, and they were out front and they s~/d it is t/~ht before Hurlon Avenue, so I thi~k it/s vec] nice~that they have n,reed a strut after you, losit, they hsven't done that for me )~t in East Hampt~L Aotoally, riel only am I the Supervisor in the Town of F~st H~mpl~u, I am also the Chalrmm of the East End Supc~so~s and Ma~v,m Association. All of*.he ~ ~r~ ~'tpp[ing with similar i~llas. We ~ all thtn~n_v about our ~ alld trying to figure ant w'bat m do in light of incredl'ole-dovelopm~t prcssu~ over the hst f~v years. In · convc~tion with Supen~_sor Ho~n, we wei-e talking casually about the upzoains thai thc Town is conddar/~ and I was ~ a little bit about East Hampton's exp~icaca with upzoning, which the gentleman who spoke before mentioned some of the problems. I was reading through, and i am not familia~ with the lel/isletion that you are proposing, I take it it is a moratorium over large sections of land, as you study what the proper zoning et' thc land should be but as I looked at the intent h~'e, wat~ supply, agricultural lands, ope~ space, recreation space, rural character, nanual resource and transportation, I thought I would comment on some of those things. Becau~ sometimes you don't get exactly what you think and there arc some benefits to upzoninl/, in P_~st Hampton upzoning largely came out of the 208 Study, which Dr. Koppalman conducted. And it was to prelect ~round water and there was a belief that at five-acre zoning and even le~s in D~. Koppiemans report, it would bring the nitrate levels down to a point where you could protect your ground waler. So it i~ Unportant to figure out what the purpose of that upzoning is. Now, a~ I go through this, in terms of water supply-that misht b~ perfectly valid but at the same time, this is a heavy agricultural area and I know everybody wants to pre~erve your asr/culture and agriculture is water depend, it is also, and I support the efforts for organic fanning but agriculture as an indusiry can't always be organic. So there is a lot of'nitrogen, there are oflm a/ri-chemicals used and that does have an impact on ground water. So you have to think ahead and figure out how are you going to constantly be able to rely into the future on your aquila' here or will you have to reach out possibly into the Pine Bah'ells or other ar~ and if ~e main goal is water proteclioe, you really need to think about wh~ther that is really going to bc the dominant reason, if that is going to hold out for you. I am going to ~et in a moment to a/~othcr impact on agriculture that is not entirely positive· Open 1/2~103 10 OF. IS 8eoping Session .sl~a~ ~on, it ia a tool ~0r ol~t spa~ lm~Servation ha~ it tmds, in East Hampton w~ have carved up ou~ landse, ape. W~ haw dSOl~ i~ up in~o ~so fiv~am'n blocks so imtg~l of 1~ large, contt~uous blocks of opm space we traded ~o s~gment it. So u ~r ~~ tnol~ it also hs.sa ~. ~m__~_ whlah I will at~',,**in i *,,*,~-a mn. ]~t f3rom the enviromnmts] prospective, I pre'er a model that you identL~q] 1he IssUe m~as ttttt 5~u wear to preserve and then you concenuate your density where it should go rather than just carving up your landscape, geaeati(m, if you mean recroation in tmns of playin~ fieMs, I ~ink you have 8or to identify whe~-c those praying .char~eta~ is the ,~, th~ .~_~ u well as the ~ What has ~_~,~ b my ,rammer ~'.n~ den,*~a services, Pex~ielmve to td~ ea~e of~s.--*-- nad *~'~e-~ i~v¢ to- they are leavina town ~nd there is ~ Ii~ ho~e. Thee WhO have lm~--~ .~ ~I'~ .~ mvi~q and some of thmn ate cashitm out. They can't believe the prices fhat thny are ~ttinR fur d~ir homes. They are moving to North Carolina or Florida, places where there are more opportxmjfies and those hames then become summer hom~, those ~unmer homes demand more servic~ and you end up with this domino effoct, whe,[~ it u~q warm ~ut wnr~e. So, what appears as a good environmental initiative, may not actually be that. In terms of the tran,~ortation, as you bring your density down you behcvc that you are chang/ag your tr~.s])ormt/on, but once a~aln if you make everything go ou~ide our your hamlet ce~ter~, ~erybody needs a car, every meraber of the family needs a ca~, you have all these additional vohicle ir/ps and then if the working l~ople can't live in the community, they arc commuting back and forth and the people th&t exc living there are living 20 to a house because That is the only way they can afford to live is by splitt/ng the rent 20 ways, you elld up with more people th~m you thought you were going to h~ve so it really, you really have ~o study these things. [ ~ I ern really here to say, don't make ~hc same mistake we've made. ~ny~/na c~n be a Vahmh~e tool but look a! it comprehensiv~l},. Don't do it without ~i~urin,o, out ~e ~le housm~ comoone~ fi~ure out- dug. ~b. ~UU~ 9:27AM $OLIYNOLD SUPERVIgOR$ NO. 422 P. )1/28 I/29/O3 11 OEIS Scopin~ Sea,ion maybe trans~r some of ycmr demity ~m ~w h~ ~, ~ om ~ wh~ d~ ~ ~ ~ it ~ ~ ~ p~ ~ ~1 b~ b~ it is m~ ~d m~ a ~ ~ b~ w~ ~e ~'t ~ve ~. You ~ ~d ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ no i~ ~ ~u ~ ~ to ~ ~ ~w, I ~ ~ to ~ ~ We ~ ~u~t ~ ~e ~y g~ p)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ ~c ~lufi~s b~ we ~ w~ at a ~s~ta~ b~a~e most of ~e 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~. So just ~i~ ~ut it ~e~lly ~d I ~U ~w~ my ~o~. ~e m~ ~ s~e go~ m~t ~ it ~ do it ~mp~ively. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI' Do you have in Es,st Hampton, clustering with your upzoning to five SUPIL~.VISOR SCHN~.~DERMAN: yes. COUlqCN.,MAN P.,OMANELEI: You did. Do you think the town would have been betlm- off today, if SUPERVISOR $CFINEIDERMAN: I think ~he town needed m do affordable housinE, 20 years aEo. I0~ affordable housing,. So I thinl~ that a cel~ain amount of upzoning would have made sense but I think that it is a shame fiat so many of the sm_nil lots have been taken away. Because tho~e were the Iols lhat working people c~n afford sad thex'e is trolly ~othirtg fight now for work~ peopl©. COUNC~ RO~: Did East ltamp~on do an upzone sct'oss the board on eve~ lot? Or did they do it on spedfic disuicts? SUPER.VISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Not eve~ lot bm much of our land rrmss is in the SGPA which is the special groundwater protection area, that area was larEely upzon~xl to five acr~. COUNCKJvL4J4 ROMANELLI: Right SUPERVISOR SCHN~IDNRMAN: A~d that is abig chunk of the landmass. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: But as a whole... SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN~ The area that is outside of it is mostly coastal, so you end up with high property values lo b~in with. ~OUNCII..MAN ROMANELLI: Right But as a whole do ~,ou think the town would hav~ bee~l better SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDI~RMAN: I think what the town needed to do was. ~01an more comprehensivel¥~ it ~ieeded to include people in its definition of rural chmacter. That is crnical. SUPERVISOR HORTOlq: Thank you, Supervisor. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? 1/29/03 12 GELS Seoping Se~ion TOM-qAMDI~: TomSamals, tmaCuixtml~amithaaks, JayfornufldngthefmYfid~ History has a way of va~iag itsalf. My ~,:.,,ary busia~s is in $ot~,,~. a and Fast IOmptoa ~i I have You ~ ta~ almt what ia in tho ~lng dooam~nt all you want What y~ j~t h~d i~ th~ r~tlt of fiv~ ~ zoni~, Five ~ zo~in~ ,~clual0aa~y ~onln_~ is amoral. It is bad ~ I had a m~tiag, this af~raoon with the latg,~si I~iklia~ mnlzaoto~ ia ~ou~told Town. Not one of his ~npiayees eau affmd to own a home in th~ town. Most of them have to have the/r rent ~u~idiz=d by tl~ oontmotor in order to stay in town. You have got fir~ depanm~ata, you have voltmt~ at thc hospital, you have voluntena~ at the blood bank all alone. It is a ~ situation and ! hate to ~ what ~ to East Hampton happen in Southold. /md I have said it for y~ars, not ia just this ama, the aaimal maoumas p~nnqa am another area of complaint that I have. And you have s~rv~d on flint Boani as Chairman of th~ Zoning Board of Appeals. The ~ reality of what you as~ cont~mplaling and that is what ligs heating is all about, it is not about other solutions, it is about five acre zo,,in~. That is why I am hare. I wouldn't have c~me for any oth~z masoa. B~g:aa~ tho meetings and the h~rings and the decisions, l~t's go back to the US-UK study. You zero, tier that one., Tom. That one was to have all the new what ~ Ev~ proposition that came for housing amumi tho ~mt~s, m~t NIMBY ia the haml~s. It was predictable. /t was pr~l/~table. And it was pr~k!___,~_ aad it happan~d. Now, all the olher studies that Mr. Clan] was ~ about was drivm by a n~rtow constitu~cy. They wexe in r~pon~ to appeals made to the Town Board to solve various l~bl~ms. Number one was let's k~p the town the way it i~ how can we do tt~ So you had a n~n'ow coustitnancy ~ to eleotod omctals who falt they had to r~l:n~xl, l~'sdoastudy. What did Bob W~gtw. rsayinth~oity? lt'youhavea problem, do a study. By l'ha lime you ~ tl~ slady do~ the problem will not be ~,p,a'~m. So that is what happaa~xl since 1982. To use those studies as aa outliae for five a~'e zouin~ is patmtly ridiculous. Now, you have some docisious to make, it is true. And I, for the life of me, John; I know you ~ driving this but I don't u~darstand it. B~aase you have ~mploy~ea, do they live in the Town? COU'NCK3vLAN ROMANELLI: Yes, some ofth~m do. I just want to clarify, are you saYa~ that the 20 y~ars of studies, all those adminiztrators over ~hc last 20 years, we zhouidn't look at any of them? Discount tham? SAMUELS: Well, you can look at the=ri. COUNCILMAN ROMANELL[: Is your alternativ~ to do nothh~g? Is that, what yot~ are saying is your alternative is to do absolutely nothing and ... MR. SAMUELS: There are Iwo thin~s that have to be done in this Town. Number one is affurdabl, e.'.. .hou~ag. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Okay. MR. SAMUELS: Okay, number one, before you do the five aore zoning, give these kids some hope. Number two, affordable realal aparlmeats. So they caa live in them reasonably ea~ough to get some equity to buy a house. God forbid thoy are going to be at $400,000 in this town. Bm what !n~u are 1/29/03 1 ~ GElS Seopin~ Session doing to theso kids ia tolling them thai we don't want you he~, It is like tho old g~ at ,~mthoM High Sottool, pump ou~ Sas, cut our l~'ess and get out of town by 5:00. 'that is wtmt the kids say. MR. SAMUBLS: My alternati~ is, lcaYc the farmers alone. If they want to ¢~ter into an agree~nent with you like they did in Soudutmpton, well and good. That is not a bad plan or an alternative for it. COU~C]LM_A~ I~O~U: But if t~y don't want to enter thc plan, just leave zo-ln~ alone and leave the density potential 21nne? IvlJR. SAMU'EI~: Absolutely. You cannot take the~ land away f~om them. It is all they have got. They have bm sorewed for y~ars, it ~oes back fo~ at least to 1959 when I moved he~e. COUN~ RO]VLAI'~T-! ? So your alteInutive is to leave thc ZOntn~ ~ del~ity potential alone? ~ SAMI.rELS: Un~il you have addr~sed the real probleras in the T°wn. COUN~ ROMANALLI: Affordable housing7 ~ SAMIJF_,LS: Affordable housin~ That i~ w]lat Y0~ have eot to do.. MIL SAMUELS: Well, let's s~,wl~ li~ans. I read abo~, the sea~ tnc~j~'s that am repeated and repeated ,,,,~ repeated. L~e~g~l'4~q~k~ ~ most ludicro~ tiC. Steve .lon~(~of.t~e Water Authotity . says here you don't have.c~oh.$kwat~'-for-~outl~M Towh/ We-can't gi~e. everybody water. You come ~ with a fi~c~ecre zotfing plan. What does~mve jofl~ say-'we have got wale' for 100,000 years'. Now what does tht tell you about what has gone ou here7 'It is a joke: Thc only reesou he smd that was to push the five-acre zoning iltitiativc. Tl~a~ is whyhe did it. That is hypocriay of the grandest order from a public official. That is teal hypocrisy. That is shMn~ful. If you arc going to, leave the town slone. Now, the actual popular/on iflcrea-qe in Southold Town, since the lest time I looked, is about 800, of full-time residents. Of course, they can't, you can't live here. It is uo coincidence that we have so many very good Latin-American people because thc town can't e~ist without them. The restaurants, the fan'ns, thc nu~eries, the landscapers. I don't know how many plumbers there are but you probably, I have Latin wo~er~ and they arc great. But they are going to want to live someplace. R~ht now, they arc 20 to a mom. Where the hell are they?. I don't know. But we have got to atidrcss this. The se~,ice~ that this town requires are tremendous. People that are tooving into town aren't self-reliant. They need a plumbc~ to chan~e a w~het, they need smnebody to fix the screen. That is the problem, you are not addressing those problems, you are pushing them aside and saying, well, if we have less people, ~c will have less problem3. I don't know that we are a~sured of that. I remember Charlie l-loro-w~tz' five-ac~'e zoning in Orient that waS forced on him. And he finally accepted it, a~er years. To date, there are three houses and there m~t bc 14 sites loft. Five- acres [s too much land to buy. 'Now, if yov are ~oing to cluster thegn, you ~re ~omg to h~ve trouble V~L. I~. ZUV~ ~.ZM, ~Ulu~LY bUFL~IbUKb !~u. ~tz '~ zo 1/29/03 14 GEI2 Scop/n~ Session s~lt~.~he lo~s. B~e ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ 1~ w~ fi~ ~ ~ ~ ~, or ~1~. ~~~it~w. At~me~I~'t~w w~~gtodo~y~t~ld~id~on~o~. You~'t. Iris n~ ~i~ ~ ~. ~ fi~t ~ ~e ~ of ~u~M ~ ~ ~ ~ on ~e ~ of ~e ~ or ~ S~? ~ ~ ~m~ ~ I li~ ~ a v~, v~ ~ ho~, I ~u~t it ~ 1959. ~ow it is w~ 1.~ mi~ ~m, Don't m~ a ~sh ~ ~. It ~ m~ s ~ ~htn2. B~ ~ is no pla~ ~ mc ~ ~ ~t ~ ~y m~ ~e pl~'~. For ~ ofm~ lo~ I ~t~d~ ~w ~gon. ~ ~ow, I... COUNCIII/AN i~OMANELIi But, Tom, ~ I k~p on questioning your ~ternative, basically is, we are okay. MIL SAMUELS: We at, okay. COUNCILMAN ROMANBLLI: Address affordable housing and the demity and ~he ~rovah of the town is okay and we don't have to wony about it and ~ll the 20 years of studies are over with but they are a waste of time, Tha~ is really what ~u are sa~. SUPI!RVISOR HORTON: I a~ ~ to emi fll~ c~o~s tslk now. Io1~ Dr. Sammgs, do you have any SAMUELS: I want Ihe ~-~, if in fac~ you are ~oiu~ ~o isuore ~ I w~d l~e To~ ~mofl to ~m~ ~ ~. ~ ~. B~ ~ ~e ~t ~ ~ ~ to ~t or ~ ~e ~ we COUNCILMAN MOORB: Tom, o~e thiu8 for you ~o ~hi,,l~ about-and that is: set aside upzoning for a second, but for evc~y acre of d~elopment fights that y~u buy are you not having d~c same kind of impact when reducing the availabili~.-6~tang ~housing stock? You don't need to answer it, just chew on it. MR. SAMUELS: No, I warn to answer it. COUNCILMAN MOORE: No, that is okay, ~ SAIvlTJBLS: No, I Want to....let me answer the question. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We are not going to...please, sir. MR. SAMUELS: May I answer the question? Pig, ~LL ~'. 1/29/03 15 GLO; Seeping Senion SUPI~VISOR HORTOlq: Yon may answe~ the querdon but ~ I ask of the Board, is tl~i$ tho oppox'tm~y for the pul)HO to ~Idross the BM. This isn't a m tzlk or an exohanl~ or a z~,,,,tive MIL SAMUELS: The town population has a~ain and a~/n and asaia ~arovcd re/em~dt,~ for bonds for 9urd~,-,i,,i I~. Wickham is'ri~t ia th/s case. If tho publiC, the towmpeople, want to buy development r/gMs, want W buy the farmen~ fights-fine. But how can yon tell the farmer he has to sell the rights, Why should hi: if he doesn't waut to? Thc question is if the development tights are purchased or if you buy the land and the density is less, then the town h~ w/Bed that to happm. But don't r~mlate the guys land away from him. That is what I am saying. Thank-you. MILESSI~.8: I have brought an outline, which I am going to leave here with many of my cbm~ents. I would like for everybody in Town government to have one. lust thi~k about it for a moment, I I/ye in Aqucbosue and I sp~_d a lot of my p~taclice in .~o~bsrr, p. tun and ~ast Hampton and I am a.stoulldod thai the Sup~vis~ in ~ Hampton ~,eos me or I asree with him on so many th~n?. I have been fir, hl;~ with them dne~ 1959. I want to talk about this iasu~ of fi~-.~ ~oninE. whinh is I think a reanon why we ~re here tonight The town i~ really, the tows consists o f property that is gov~rllmeatal, indusUial, agrionltoral, commercial and ~idemial. Those ar~ tho zoni~ ~ that you haveha~ And what is going to happe~ in thc future? The government land can get later or .~mstler based on government fiat, You guys choose that and you probably aren't going to mak'~ it too much larger. You have some schools, you have some govemmerit buildil~s, you have some parks. Tho~ ~ are populace is controll~! ia that area The industrial md the commercial ar~$ doll't {:ai}ll~'ibute to to ~ 6nose a little bit becau~ ti~ adjacent property that was vacant is now being developed and people don't wmt comm~'cisl induskisl there, so you ~ probably go/n~ to give into some of that more. What is there is there, units it is oh~ug~d. And then you have the residential, the residential pmperti~ that are ia ~ingle and separate oweership are protect~l. That is what really is dflvin~ these meetinss and dr/viag people getting elected or not gott/nd elected. And the hou~i~ stock is going to go up in value wilh the passes of time and a lack of new housing acl~ge hoing available. But what is in play, the only thix~ that is in play are ~he large, vacant residential ttaw, ks and the agricultural properties. And that is Why I am here. People like to look at the agriculhual pwperties as long as the wind doesn't blow dirt in their face~ and people like the farming area for its ambience. However, the value~ that keep the farmers in business an: the potential borrowing power and the future ability that they know that they can convert that vacant land into housing stock if they need to or if they want to. The ones thai are there, the thousands of acres that are still there reflect an interest in that investment, in that/htu~e, and also in the farming profossinn. What is vrovosed is. to take the v~Jue offthe vacant farmland and Irans.f.~, it to the hours that exist. Thai is the natmal protOn:salon if you ~o forward and a,~ th,- ~ Ti ~,t s ~,~v~-~,~t ~f vsh,~, ne?sties t~ the C,,-,~, md ~osifive to the ~wnet,. There is a lot at risk and spinnmg around that you guys need to consider if you are going to make that value judgment because you ere making it in ~-esponse, at I~ast in part, to the voters who have these houses, summer or year-round, who waist the status quo mahltained as long as possible. ~aorall¥ and is it rifiht politically br ~u to mo'~e that moal~,? And if you are going to move that money, you should at least aoknowledgc that you arc doing it because hypocrisy shouldn't be involwd in this. NOw, when I no to ny Watermill office on ~rida~s, I ~u-,t up at $:00 AM md I leave m}~ hem, · 1/2~/03 16 ~ ~ a ~d~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~y s~ ~ ~ d~ ~. You ~o ha~ ~ ~ ~e ~o~ of... So~d b ~ of ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~e d~ ~. You d~'t ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~o~ ~'t ~, it ~ ofw ~. ~~w~~t~ ~ t~ a~ofw~~t~a~ ~~ AM~~is a ~y~ ~m~~ ~ ~ U~ m ~ to~ ~, w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ by ~ ~y ~~ 8o h~e m ~ o~y Ohm m play. ~ ~u do ~ ~ ~e ~u ~? You n~ to ~ ~, lose ~ vdu~ ~ it w~ a~y or you ~e n~8 go ~elop. You ~d~ ~ ~ is it ~ate for ~u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~d if ~u ~e goi~ m ~ ~a~ ~u ~d i~ at ~o ~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b~e ~u ~y not Uke ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m fo~. ~ ~ ~ ~on h~, I ~ ~o~ ~u~ ~e of m~i~ ~n~acts ~ ~ sn~ tht i~ ~u ~ c~n thin~ todsy, ~ur ~, your two 2oning will ~tiH be lhe~ ~, 10,15 o~ 20 yc~. ~ is not legal IF ~m~ne tells you it i~ le~uJ, they ar~ not telling you ~e ~th. i say ~ut cnte~ily. C~ot m~e a ~n~act wi~ ~g~d to ~u writ to ~et the Le~lafion to ~d ~e Stnte ~mtion, ~t. It ~ould be done, it shoed be tool ~e ~ ~ ~ one T~n Bo~, one Vill~e ~, o~ ~ B~ ~ot d~i~on tht b~fl~ ~e h~ ~ ~ n~t lo~s18~. ~at is g~ ~v~t b~nu~ ~c histo~ · i~ ~ on~ ~ · w~t~ ~ ~ some ~on, not on ~ Lon8 ~d but in o~ · e ~rld ~ h~ be~ co~on ~ the Stye Isw is ~eq~v~, ~u ~'t m~c a ~n~cmaI b~ to give somebody ~t zoni~ in the ~. _. ~d if mmebody tells you to the ~n~, let's have ~ ~ange of lett~s and let's go ~d ~ to put that to b~. B~use if you are going to ~ead md m~ ~o~ b~ u~n ~n~a~ ~at ~e non-~r~ie, you ~ ei&~ ~w~ly ~ing c- ne~bly doi~ i~ ~u shoul~'t do iL ~ isme of what you do ia ~e ~t~ it is a ~ffi~t ~sue ~ be addre~ in p~icul~, dimout zo~ng pro~s t~t ~ f~ 1 c~ se~, have nora 1/29/03 17 O]~S Scopin~ ~ion yet and are ~ot on the table, I, ~a b,'~_ e~f of my clients, will be,,,,¥i%~ smn~ proposal~ I don't think that is. my positinn to d~l wtlh it tont~t I will try to do it es soc~ as I ~ ~ ~ ~Mm is ~ _ waterfront propeffies ~re for tho most part zoned residangal and no on~ is about to ohsnse ~ TI~ : to try to solve b~Rn'e you a~te ~e problem; As the Supervisor from East Hampton w~ m ye enough to say, his predece~o~s ~.ated me pmbl~ ~ ~w ~ ~'t ~ ~d of it. You ~ . ~. ~ Is ~m~ly, from ~ ~ ~ J~ ~ ~ of l~ ~u ~'t ~ ~ H~ V~e, d~t ~ ~ ~ ~t a ~. ~ ~~ do~~ ~ pwj~ ~ ~e fo~ ~ ~, ~ ~e ~ i$ de~ ~ we ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ u Io~ ~ Se dm~ ~t mo ~1~ l ~ ~lli~ W t~e ~ ~d hdp move it ~t I don't ~t ~ ~on ~, if ~u ~o~ it ia fiv~ ~ ~ I ~w ~at ~e ~on ~. B~ ~d m ~u~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~? If it ~, ~u ~t ~ ad~ it $ m~ ~u o~ ~ fo~. Bm I don't ~ ~u ~ $~ ~i~ ~$t ~d I ho~ ~ ~y ~B ~e SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anyone care to address the Town Board? SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDER.MAN: Just very bfidly, listening to some of thc c, otth-hents. PsxtioOarly, 3ohn, some of your questiom. It ia clear that one of thc major drivins conoems here is populallon growth and one Ogn8 1 might suggest, is for you guys to do a f~ll fold-out analysis. Figme om what the population will be if you didn't change anything and also fi~re out thc carrying capacity of your environment arid your in~estructurc. $o you know, if you are going to bring your population, where you should be-you know, how much you need to Bring it down and then look at cv~-y tool that is out there. Look at TDP,'s, h'mlsfer dev¢lop~nant rights, look a! upzonings, maybe they do make sense in certain cases. But look at all the impacts of those things, too. $o if you want to protect agriculture and you are creating largc homes around your farmland, you may run into problems with people complain/nE about the noise of farms, the smelts of farms and those kinds of thin~s. You might be better off having large sections of farmlands without all the big mansions around those houses. It might make sense, we have that problem otit in Montauk, we have great commeroial fi.shinS industry and we zoned around it all residential and now all of the houses are complaining about the smell of fish. It hurts the com:}~arelaJ fishermen when that happens. $o just be smart about it. To me, when you try to atop growth you cud up with uncontrolled growth. You end up with all these things happening that you weren't antic/paring. The better approach is to manage growth and to manage growth wisely. Figure out what the carrying capacity is, figure out how to l~et Acre and how to address I/2,9/03 (lEIS Seopia$ Session some ofthose impaots and I think you will do fine. East Hamp~0n. for all t~at has bma ~dd negati~ ~ still 8beamttblpieco. Webawdonzatmnendm~job~o~mvjmnmeut. V/careinson~ ~ viol, of ot~ own succcse. Lots of peopl~ went to liv~ tlaxe, the propett~ values n~e high bezamettis such abeautifulpla~. So it kind of~ocs band in l~nd but ltlgnkthmzfs tiumhereto do a lot of great ideas st~e~ they have thdr useful a~catiom but there is a lot of oth~r ~ntyn to get to where you want SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you, Sg~-visor. Would anyone care to addr~ the Town Board? BOB VAh'BOUROONDIEN: Good even/nS, evorylx~y. I just wanted to r~d a qulok ~ from one of yo~ moratorium psI~S. 'Why is Ihe morat0/iam team looklmt at ~o many ~ ,%me of our problems resulted from decision b~ made out of conte~t: in erbar won~, one problem may hove peas/bio negative iml~cts that the ~olufions to tl~ l~'oblcms would have On other,issue~' It is j~ not Eoing ~o bz ~ n~live ~p~t. From what I have h~xl lm~ th~ is ~oi~g to b~ ms~, n~atix, e nS~ to an ul~one. And I ~ going lo mad you SOla~hln~a fi~t just ~ in one of my trade mngazinee, 'Adams Cmmty, Pennsylvania h=s ~ e~parie~__o~_ the unimen0ed cons~quenc~ of local tawn~hips fn~t hand. Az new ~ownships lmve come into being, they quickly they quickly put mendatmy density reductions imo place. This has caused many farmers and nurserymen ~o sell their ag land more quiekly, ~s ~-y know it will become nt~ost wox~le~s without devedopment x~..' I/RIC KHIL: Good eveai~g. The fifths h~et I would like to say is, both John sad Bill ,~annad, should w~ do nothing mr, hould we iust a~pt what b haVponin~ now? The f-~t is thai the Town has reslfltod il~ the Tow~ ~k%'l~iall¥ h~ the ~lUiV~le~.t of l l--~c~a ztmin~. Bill menltoued that wouldll't the development lights lmrdmse progr~n bare the $~ne ncg~live imp~ ~s an upzone. Tho fact is that it wouldn't. The reason fo~ ~IS is bec~v,~ we have be~s purchas/n~ development rights over decade~ and probably w/Il congnue to purcimse them ove~ decades to oomo. $o that the impacts of thc Inm:ha~ of de~lopmcot rights program are mili~at=d ov~ a sight/leant ammmt of ~ime. Also, the x~ults of the, the 1 l-ac~e density re/~ult, hasn't be~n that all the lois increase in prizz essentially, what hapless is some farms er~ complexly or needy completely Mmervzd while other tra~s of land have been developed. Those have been developed have the same coats th~ they do today, so ~hat the expense of those lots is not going to be as high as if they were five-acre subdivision lots. Essentially. we are not doin$ nolhing, we are doing really well right now and I think that the Town ought to corridor what the impacts will be on the success that we have now of any action that they consider. That is all I want to say. Thank-you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you. Would anyone care to address the Town Board? BECKY WISEMAN, LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU: Good evening, Supervisor Herren, Town Board, Mr. Voorhis. I am Becky Weismam~, from Long Island Farm Bm~eau And I am really glad we have decided to, everyone chip in here because l am not quite sure where my comments fit in to that atmomre of three diff~r~t areas we were to speak at. But what I do want lo say is ~ai Long Island Farm Bureau, our mission sta~emeut so to speak, is thai we really are the voice of commercial JU.L. tS. 2003 9:31AM SOIJTHOLD SUPERVISORS N0.4~2 P. 19/28 1/29/03 19 atgionlmrg. And o~ of ow ~ ~m ~ to ~ ~d 1~ ~ ~ ~ aery ~ ~ ~ ~. i~ ~ ov~ 2 b~io~ &H~ ~ ~ ~y. Of ~ve ~n~ to me ~ to ~ Isl~ ~ But ~fion b~eTo~~f~ To~ ~ ~t m ~ ~ pm ~ ~ ~U~ ~~ ~ ~ To~'~ ~ml~ ~ve ~pl~fi~ ~t~. I. ~ &e evmt of · ~ ~ ~n~ w~t ~ ~e ~o~c ~ 1. on ~e ~ of ~, on ~e ~on of~ 2. Yo~ S~o A~ ~ ~k~ ~w ~ 301 ~ ~ 4. ~ ~ ~ ~ d~. ~g ~ F~ B~ ~s~ ~y md~ ~ a ~y ~ ~y ~ ~e poli~ ~d ~s s~ fo~ in ~is ~e ~d ~ not ~nably fc~ e~. ~ MI n~ tools ~d no~ ~ of ~e f~ Mobflo h~e hom~ ~e Long bl~d F~ B~u ~u~ that ~ wo~ housing b~ ~nsid~ ~d~ ~e affo~able ho~ ~li~ ~at the d~mt h~ s~ ~d. 6. ~e monitofinS pm~- As the m~ inc~fivc di~tfi~ is ~vi~wed and codifi~, a monJto~ng p~m d~vclopm~t mu~t b~ incl~. I wo~d like ~u ~1 to note that that w~ F~ B~u ~u~ ~d in f~t, I w~ the one who r~u~t~ it at ~e moratorium h~. ~at a m~i~g s~t~ be set ~ place, c~plot~ ~d p~m~ to ~e Town ~ ~e end of the t~ of mona. ~ ~ d~sio~ ~ made by &o Town of Southold to ~pl~t policy that ~ ~e ~w~ ~li~ to ~pa~ a~lmte for ~c ~en~fio~, it b~oov~ the public and el~t~ o~s to ~ to o~ cx~pl~ and ~so~ces for ~. ~d in ~ncl~ion, i have four reso~ that I would l~ke to refer to. ~e fi~t one is ~e Town of Sou~pton's fl~ai g~n~c ~viro~tal impact stat~enl whi~ ~tat~, "~c Tow~ undo-stands that ~in~ining th~ economics of ~ is k~ ~ p~i~ ~land. ~e inifiafiv~ ~ by ~ndu~.'~ ~af w~ Sou~un's final st~t. ~c Cato Rc~ of Busings in ~v~t 1/19/03 20 OEIS Seeping Se~ion Fatl2002, tl~tolRcnfthat arlicl~wns'Fmzoainghu~affordabl, housin~.' md Cato's s,.~ons, to i,,a-~motur~ofrgs~ll~m~soawhid~itdq~nds. Dospiteallofourn~wnl~dmmls, wemmtdo -. mot~" And ffmally, Naiha~ RutSm vtho is th~ Commissioner of New York Stst~ Do~i~mt of in uctio~ 'Viable fmms uudmain mm/mu '~ inceuttve eppmech~ m pmt~-_,_ fm~lmul. ~ ~,,~ flu: ~ ~ ~ ~ Fsnn Bureau unders~-a, tim according to page 7 that ~ ~Ond~ SBQRA ~e eeonamio nnahnds . ofb-_~,,ees olnmimm is not aplnVla~formaly~isinanenvL,'onmen~iml~ct stal, sneat." Butm, x SUPi~RVISOR HORTON: Thank-you. Would anyone else car~ to ad&~s the Town Board? DOUO (X~OPI~R: Doug Cooper 6~n ~ [ th~l~ ~ of my ~ ~ ~ h~ ~I~w~m~~ ~ or ~u~~ ~~ of my of ~pl~ ~~d~ ~y~ ~'~ ~e ~ of~ ~ ~d~ is a~ ~w~~ ~ a~ 11~ ~ ~b~ n~ve ~t on ~s. I ~ ~t ~u k~ ~ in ~nd. Will ~u M~ ~ ~g ~ ~11 ~u have ~y ~ on ~ ~tive eff~ m ~e ~ ~e ~n~ ~y ~c ~ of ~ ~e b~ way is ~ ~t~ ~ ~ by not h~ ~m. AM whm I r~ in yo~ ~ ~e · e fa~. ~e ~nomi~ to ~t~ ~e m~o~t f~ls to a 1~ ~t~t wi& ~e l~down~ ~d if ~u pmt~t bis ri~ and his investm~t, he ~ help pmt~t the ~vironm~t ~k-you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you, Would enyonc else care to address the Town Board? B~R=NEY SIDER: This ha~ been goin~ on for two years now. l was involved in this in this Town with upzonin~ issue~ in 1991. I did not think [ would have to comeback twio~ in one lifetime to doled my ri~h~s, It would be a sad commen~'y for this Town thai the only way to preserve its rural heritage would be through regulation. I have heard From Town Board members that we can't do anything. Twenty years or' Io~1 government burying their heads in the smd and they come up with the idea and it is nothing more th~n five acre zoning on the table. There are no new conc~pta here and by the w-fy rmture that we ere still ~itfng here today ~iscussing how to pr~ve open slyace and flumlend says something is working. So instend of toming every~ng around and looking for this gt~md plan of five- ~UIJIHUL~ ~UPEHVI~UK~ ~beteplacx~L Yauhavef~examtde, tiu:eoneepiofduste~zone. Exa~yinvmtoty~hatformeand.- merit have gi,~ea you the eonserv~on echdivision, which ~ town still does not h~ve on code. And also, wilh no disrespect to Melis~ ever/body is so concerned with the n:sponm~lity to thc taxpayers'- whm they come up with the~e bonds, t~e ~ver~e of that ia that if a bond was passed in 1995 and d~ere still is money sit~ng in that account that should have been already used to pre~erve the fsnnland at a much c~apcr lnice, then you need to look in a Commille~ ~o f~d out why is the~e a [og~m? What is lhe problem and don't gi~e mc that nonsense, it is the farmc~ You need to look at some of thc~e th;n? '~"'a[ be.~o~ yon ~ at ~s. John, I am looking straight at you M~canse you wcr~ the one who gave me thc best stot~ out of all of Ibis, shout the elnotiOn of private prope~y, on your ride~ on a Sunday afternoon with your gran~the~ or father and he took you out of the c~ end put his hand in ~he soil end ~--d how special this was. Okay? COUlqCILMAN ROMANEIJA: Marry, I nm ~gng to oomment to that in the effeot of, you said there is Bomi money from 1995... ~ SIDOR: Whateve~ the bonds were. COUNC'K,MAN ROMAN~LI: That iz not being used. The money ia there and we want to talk about )nna preservation. Come to the table, Marry. Come to the table. MR. SIDOR: Let's look at the program. COUNCILMA.,NT ROMANELLI: Themoneyis there. MR. SIDOR: Okay. Come take a look at the program. Why is there a logjam? It is too easy to say it is the farmers problem. COUNCILMAN ROMAN~LLh There is no logjam. There is no logjam, Marry. ~R. SIDOR: Melissa, $10million approximatelf. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It is not because we don't want to spend it. MR. SIDOR: But don't jump from that to five-acre zoning. That is not doing your homework. COUIqCILMAN ROMANELLh Marry, again... IVtR. $IDOR: I am asking' ple~-e, look at the progr-~m, John. That is all I am saying. Okay. if there is a problem there, then I w/il be the fiat one to say okay, what is the next step? SUPERVISOR HORTON: This is not an opportunity for cross talk. Marty, Mr. Sidor you are more than welcome to give input and again, Town Board, this is not a debate and we are not here to cross Scol~ Session axe ~ to take input ~ tl~ publ~. And ~ you have mote to add, ~/h*. Sider, please MR. SIX)OR: Okay,, let me finish ~ by saying that fl~ eonm~ts 1lint we izave in pi~e to get us to tl~s point, ifthe~ have to be fiu~ Umed and looked over, I would apMecla~ ff you would do ~ ~ SUPHRVISOR HORTON: Would anym~ else c~ to address the Town Board? COLTNCIX~N ROIv~I.T: I would like to add into the x'e~:~'d, ~ments in advet~semc~ts made by the Farm B~ th&t says, "& Caun]m~d on the East End s _e,~?n to be disappearin~" These a~c ~ ne~ a~ and plant ads, "Faste~ than a n~nuto and tlmt any housin5 on thc £~.,afland is no h~oOd for fanning.' Tlte~are'd~irquotesf~ntheFat-mBurmm~xtheir ads. They shou~d be added into the record, also, for f-atu~e decisions. IVlR, SIX)OR: I have s~m some of' these conservation subdivisions and the fle~a"oility of what the flexibility of th~ land Trust is finding and reek/rig this veo' appreciable to both the eonmmnity end is SUPF:~.VISOR HORT01~: So the overall alternative here, so we can eln~ for the record, is ~o in addition to what you have oon~nented on thus far, is Chic. k-the additio~ of conso'vafion su~divts/on, is that eon'oct? d~. 12. gUU~ Y:qqR~ bUUtUULU 1/29103 23 Gm.R SOopins Searion that ate soe, Jo-eo0~ in nature to the Town must be atuaied sad will be studied. Those m'e a couple MR. CLEARY: And to further eisrif~, the point that you just rai~xi, cluster subdivi~on and on~etvafion subdivisions ate l~t of the notion that is be/n~ studied, 80 tlmt ia, that is tho reason this whole exerdse is eacoura&ing, to bring it ~ ia thn~,~h this ~ oflmblio evaluation. 8UPILRVISOR HORTON: Moving forward, would anyon~ else care to address the Town Board? Chick, Pa/r/& the eanount of time that this will be the scoping session or the imblic iuput portion of the seoping session will be left open if I am not mistaken, will be February 10e. Is eat oon~? So commeots should be addressed to Southold To~n Hall via the Town Clerks Office, specific to the moraturium pl-,~,~S 8m~. The Town Clerk's Or,ce until February .10 will be taking cornmeal on sltema~vea and other t~ugs that members of the public fed shovld be addressed in the scope of the mviromneutal impact statament. Address your co--santa to the Town Clerk's Office, as well, the Town Clerk reckoned that e-msil is au appropriate communication as well as fi~x. The e-mall address is ~ follows... TOWN ~ NEVILLE: I ~ g~ve you my canL SUP~VISOR HORTON: We have those long govenunmt e.~nsil i~. ~ ~SS~: (~ble) to de~ ~ ~ ~e ofwh~ ~ ~ ~c'~op~ ~fio~ l ~ ~ to ~ ~t (~&~le) SUPERVISOR. HORTON: I agree with you. Actually, I will take that up tomorrow with legal counsel. I appreciate that, lv~. Esscr, s. Here is the e-mall address to the Town Clerk, it is e.neville~own.~outhold.~y,m and for any fuzther information you om call my office a~ far as how to deliver things to Town Hall. That is 765-1889. Thank-you for coming out and we appredate your input. Comments sa/omitted prior to Scoping meeting by OvO~n Sclux)eder, on behalf of the No~h Fork Env/ronmental Council: Dear Members of the Board, One of the most telling statements made by the Town's consultants during a preliminary disr. ussio~ on the work plan for the moratorium was that although the Town had wonderful goals for preserving Southold, the curren! Town Code would never meet those goals. Inherent in th~ observation is the need for the Town to proactively take charge of it's own destiny and act accordingly. Through the SEQRA process and utilizing the tool of DO~[S, an optimum outcome can be achieved. Many hours of p~ofessional and volunteer time. as well as ten of thousands of taxpayer dollars, have been spent over the years to develop plans that would preserve our valued farmland, open space, end threstaned natural envirot~.menL The fail~ ha~ been that many the most effective and proven iools recommended in these various studies and reports were never .a~ce the Town has revisited the numerous plans through the DOEI$, public input is considered and the findings are presenteiL it w/Il be up to you to act on those findings. At the end of this process it will be your responsibility to act in the best interest of all the residents of the Town. We cannot afford to monitor the pace of development, conduct Rtrther studies or to rely on unproven 1129103 24 a~.l~ $coph~ Session I:X3EI$. ~ ' of t~ ilhe This r~pon offws umuamus exJnq, le~ of prem~-v~io~ succmscs the oountry in which zon~ wes ~fftJi,~xi as & tool. Th~ ~ of s ~ ~ve Southold Town Clerk TOWN OF $OUTHOLD COMeI~EH]~I$IV~ IMPLgMY~qTATION STRATEGY GENERIC ENVIRONI~_a'qTAL IMPACT 8COPING b'~I~SION AGglq'DA 1. Welcome - 8up~'vlsor ltorton 2. SBQR Overview - Cleary~Voothis ~, Role o f Lead Agency - Cleary/~/oorbis 4, Desodpfioa of Acgon - Cieary/Voorbis 5. DGEIS Format - ClearyfVoorlls 6. Pub~cCo~mx~- · Comments on the Descfilm'on of the Action Involved A~ea~i. · Comments on ln~a~t Are~ · Water Eoolog~ · Tran~ortation · Air Soathold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EI$ Appendix G-44 e-mail from Doris McGreevey July 18, 2003 Neville, Elizabeth ~ent: To: Cc: Subject: Scopaz, Valerie Friday, July 18, 2003 1:15 PM Neville, Elizabeth 'McGreeveyl~aol.com*; Horton, Joshua FVV: DGEIS RECEIVED dUL 18 3 03 Betty, I am referring this e-message to you, as the official record-keeper of all public comments on this matter, to be included with other written comments from the public during the 10 comment period after ~he close of the DGEIS hearing on July 15th. Valerie ..... Original Message ..... From: McGreevyl@aol.com [mailto:McGreevyl@aol.com] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 9:47 AM To: Valerie. Scopaz@town.southold.ny.us Cc: joshhorton03@yahoo.com Subject: DGEIS fouthold Town Cleri Dear Valerie, I attended the meetings on DGEIS and would like to have the following observations included in the study if possible: 1. DGEIS 1-13 One of the enhancements recommended is the creation of a park in Mattituck. I could not find the rationale for this project. Mattituck has the most parkland in the Town of Southold with 71 acres of park land. Why is it necessary to create another park in Mattituck? 2.DGEIS 2-57 The second listing of Bailie Beach states that a Mattituck Park District permit is required for parking. Can you change that to a Southold Parking Permit is required for parking. 3. DGEIS 2-67 "T~e Town of Southold is uniquely defined by a series of nine hamlets, including Laurel, Mattituck, Cutchogue, New Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, Greenport, East Marion, and Orient." "---The hamlets are more fully described in Section 2.10.3 ". I feel there is an omission of the 10th hamlet which is Fishers Island. There is no mention of them in section 2.10.3 either. It is important to include Fishers Island in the description of our Town in its entirety. The photo section does not include it as well. 4. 2-68 Mattituck/Cutchogue Library should be changed to Matti~uck/Laurel Library. 5. DGEIS 2-68 Could you rethink the short description of Mattituck hamlet. As it reads, it does not include Rte. 25, but I think the hamlet has grown to include it as well as the Library, churches, shopping center etc. ! G-68 10.16 G-69 10.16 G-70 10.16 C---71 10.16 C--72 10.16 6. DGEIS 2-27 "Route 25 traverses the hamlets of ........... ". Please change East Moriches to East Marion. 7. DGEIS 2-48 Can you check table 2-137 It contains census numbers of each hamlet, but lists Fishers Island as having 289 people. The Housing and Needs Assessment for the Town in the Appendix has all information the same except it lists Fishers Island with 622 people. If that is correct the numbers may have to be changed. 8. The Town of $outhold Conceptual Vision does not include the 10th hamlet, Fishers Island. It would be more complete to list this hamlet as well since it is part of Southold Town. 9. Also, the CCA lumber used in bulkheading and other marine applications (a justifiable concern) are pointed out but there is an omission of all the CCA posts holding up the grape vines throughout Southold. For balance and fairness mention of this situation would best serve all residents since we see the vineyards everywhere in our vista. Thank you for allowing me to add these additional thoughts. Sincerely, Doris McGreevy G-73 10.16 G-74 10.16 G-75 10.16 G-76 10.16 2 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-45 Letter from William W. Esseks July 21, 2003 PUBLIC COMMENT DGEIS/SCIS E$SEk$, HeftEr & ANGEL Jul5, 21. 2003 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS /Town Board Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 blain Road Southold, NY 11971 NELSOk ? Re' Draft Generic Impact Statement Hearines Dear Town Board Members and Town Clerk: I understand that at the end of the meeting held by the Town Board. the public was given a 10 day period to submit comments l enclose a memorapdum of my comments presented at the Draft Generic Impact Statement ("DGEIS') Hearing I ask that it be mnde a part of the DGEIS record. Separately, I enclose a list of the property owners who have authorized me to state that our office represents them in opposing the proposed 5 acre rezoning sought to be reviewed in the DGEIS. /mi Enclosures Very truly yours, William W. Esseks FARMERS - DGEIS. 6/19/O3 1. ISSUE: A dominant purpose of the DGEIS and of the proposal to re-zone ~e AC and R- 80 Districts to 5-acre zoning with a mandatory 80% cluster ~d the owners' ability only to use for non-farming purposes 20% of'tile property is to guarm~ty to the public views across the farmers' property. By the Town Board adopting by local law zoning changes to imPlemeot the 80%/60% goal, it will establish and perpetuate a perceived public benefit to those people wht) will have permanent views across fartnlands to the detriment of the farmers who own those to be burdened agricultural lands. However, there is an established constitutional principle that where the municipality exacts a benefit for tile public, the public in a reciprocal fashion, must bear the bmden of paying for that benefit to be enjoyed by the general public. Is that constitutional principle being respected in the 80/60 alternatives? The Town Board bas certain choices as to how the Town can acquire this view easement across our clients' property for the benefit of the public, i.e.,: I. Paying for it through negotiation and purchase with tile owners of the farmland 2. Paying for it through condenmation and the Court fixing the costs to be paid by the Town 3 Paying for it by setting up an improvement district so that everyone benefited by the view easement pays for it through their individual tax bills, i.e., it is similar to a highway district, water district, park district, etc. 4. Or, as appears from this public hearing, the Town can attempt to use its zoning powers to, over the farmers' objection, unilaterally take away from the farmers' property the right to use 80% of the land by in effect placing an agricultural easement on 80% of the farmers' property without any form of compensation therefore to be determined by a Court. C--77 8,1 The farmers intend to fight this "taking" of all non-agricultural use of 80°~b of their land mid the zoning yield reduction in every way that is available to them: l. at the ballot box 2. by protests pursuant to 'foxvn Law 3. and a notice of claim against the Town and pursuing a claim for damages as a result of an abuse of the SEQRA process and a denial of the constitutional right to equal protection, in which event if the farmers are successful, tbe taxpayers, all of them, wilt be required to pay for tile costs ol' the btigation and any damages that a,e proven 2. SEQRA. The DGEIS, ;ve submit, does not include a meaningful analysis of the effects of. t. The alternative of a condemnation or purchase of an easement over 80% the farmers' property. If the Town Board and the voters want to acquire an easement over 80% of each farmer's property, they should consider paying for it. Tbose alternatives ha;e not been reviewed, i.e., purchase or condenmation of an agricultural easement 2 Tile alternati:'e to establish a farm d~strict or scenic ~mprovement d~strict whereby monies would be raised fromthose properties m the Town benefited by the perpetual views over the farmers' property, which views the Town Board is apparently attempting to acqmre. This tax burden could be directly paid for by taxes upon the benefited properties whose lots, vacant and ummproved, would increase m value as a result of tile 8000 easement, and therefore~ more parties should bave to pay for tbat benefit 3 The effect of the requirement for (i) 80% open space and (ii) 5-acre lot minimum upon the voluntary sale of development rights. The existing program is successful What effect will there be upon this successfid program that has lead to the retirement of thousands of acres by voluntary sale of the proposed requirement of 80% open space and a minimum of 5-acre lots. 4. Moving value off the farmers' property - by requiring 80% open space - and the resultant increase in value in nearby properties, espectally those bordering on farmland whose properties will thereby increase in value. What effect wdl that have on tile ability of those people who live in those homes to pay increased taxes caused by the transfer of wealth from the farmers' property to the neighboring properties. c.--78 4.3 G-79 4.4 2 5. What will be the effect ou the future of the farming industry as a result of~_ the change in zoning to require a minimum of 5-acre lots and require 80% open space in a [ clustered subdivision? Is it going to keep people in fro'ming or drive them out of farming? ! 6. What will be the effects of prohibiting the farmers from putting greeuhouses along road frontage7 Who wins? Can the farmer choose where he builds his greenhouse, fences or barns, or where be parks his equipment? Will the farmers win or do the Town residents who want to look across the farm win? Is the Town the best choice to tell the farmers bow to farm and r.nanage their propeay? 7. ls the~'e a future for farming where tile Town takes away the economic benefits of owning land? A usual expectation is that land will - over 10-20 years - increase in value. Will the farmers' 80% open space be the only land in the Town uot to increase in value? Not to increase at the same rate? Why should they be treated differently from other lauds? 8. The change of these thousands of acres fi'om AC and R-80 to a one-unit per, 5-acre density and the additional reduction by the limitation of 20% for development will diminish the potential for future housing units tbereby necessarily increasing the value of the existing lots and houses. Tbis, in the experience of Souflmmpton and East Hampton, will result in dramatic increases itt the costs of the housiug stock and attract people with higher incomes aud with the passage of time, remove fi'om the comrnumty the middle class who are our small business owners, clerks, school teachers, town employees and make it even mo,'e difficult for the service/trade people to be able to live in the Southold community. I do not find an examination of the consequences of the decre~e itt the potential nt, mber of housing units and the resultant chm~ge in the pattern of who will be able to live in Southold ea~d who will be forced to leave Southold, and the conclusions derived therefore must be made available in this DGEIS process. 9. An examihation of the likelihood and effects that the actions of this Town Board, in proposing 5-acre zoning and the 80% open spaces, will result in petitions pursuant to Article 2 of the Village Law to establish one or more new villages within the Town, a remedy that irate property owners in Southampton are no,v completing a,~d which they show can be effected. C--80 10.2 G-81 4.4 G-82 10.3 G-83 10.4 William Lindsay Jr 2695 Cox Neck Road .Mattituck, NY Y 11952-0280 Robert Samolewski 7800 Alvahs Lane Cntchogue, NY 11935q014 Mill Creek Preserve 60875 Private Road Southold, NY 11971 More Realty Management Corp Cutchogue, NY 11935 Schmitt Bros Realty 36 Crestwood Bird Farmingdale. NY 11735 Emest Schneider Greenhouse 7645 Alvahs Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935-1054 CJ Van Bonrgondien Inc. PO Box 2 Peconic, NY 11958-0002 Robelt Schreiber GalleL', 6175 Oregon Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 McCarthy Management 46520 Route 48 Southold, NY 11971 Felix Deerkoski Grand Avenue Mattituck, NY 11952 Northeast Nnrsery PO Box 1158 Cntchogue, NY I 1935-0874 Olto Keil Florist 4615 New Suffblk Av Mattituck, NY 11952 Capt. H.W. Drum 2615 E. Mill Road Mattituck, NY 11952 North Fork Nursery Herrick Lane - PO Box 645 Jamespon, NY 11947 Howard Wolbert PO Box 280 Mattituck, NY 11952-0280 Wickham Fruit Farm C.'o Tom Wick&am PO Box 928 Cmchogue, NY 11935-0928 Laurel Greenhouses PO Box 1442. Edv, ard C. Booth 17235 Soundview Avenue Southold, Nh" 11971 Kmpski Farm Albe~Krupski Sr. 38030 Route 25 Peconic, NY t1958-1500 Ja3 Gmld 36400 County Road 48 Peconic, NY 11958-1429 Martin Sidor 2010 Oregon Road Mattituck, N Y '1 [ ~5~: Harbes Farm C/o Ed Harbes III PO Box 1524 Mattituck, NY 11952- Half Hollow Nursery 624 Deer Park Road Dix Hills, NY and Laurel Lane 8: Main Road Laurel, NY 11948 Bedell North Fork LLC 36625 Main Road Cutchogu¢, NY 11935-1357 John C. Tuthill 3310 Elijahs Lane Matti[uck, NY 11952-2405 Landcrai~ Environmenmls 1200 E Mill Road Mattituck, NY 11952 Pindar Vineyards Main Road - Rt 25 PO Box 332 Peconic, NY 11958 Briarcliff Sod 43635 Rt 25 Peconic, NY 11958 Leander Olover Jr. Glover Perennials LLC PO Box 1587 Ma~tituck, NY 11952-0903?? Steve Doroski Nursery Inc. North Road Southold, NY 11971 Mary Kirwin RR I, Box 4955 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Lew Edson/Santa Christmas Tree Farm 30105 Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Lieb Cellars PO Box 907 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Mudd Vineyards Ltd C/o Steve Mudd 39695 Cry Road 48 Southold, NY 11971-5002 N&J Norman Keil 38A Fif~ Acre Road St. James, NY 11780 Pinewood Prennials Gardens Main Road PO Box 915 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Doug Cooper Farms PO Box 16 Mattituck, NY 11952-0016 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-46 Letter from D.J. Gray July 21, 2003 PUBLIC COMMENT ON DGEIS/~SCIS Application for Extension of Time oM, Your namels (see ins ~ons) ~ ~ ~ ~ity, Iown or posl off.e, stale, and ZiP c~e ~ ~ ~ 4 Spouse s so¢~ securi~ no. b ~nouo[ you I request an automatic 4-mo~th extension ol ~ to August 15, 1996, to I~le my ;n~rwdual tax re[urn gor Ine calendar year 1995 or to , 1~ , for ~ fiscal tax year ending , 19 Individual Income Tax--See instructions. ,.' Gift or GST Tax Relurn(s)--See mslruct~ons. $~~ ~ Check here ONLY if hlin~ a gt,t or GgT } Yourself- Total tax lia~lily for 1995 ..... ~ tax return ......... Spouse ~ Totalpayments for 1995 ...... $~. ~.~,~ d Amountofgi~orGSTtaxyouarepaymg $ Balance due. Subtract 6b from 6a . . $ ~'~ e Your spouse's gi~/GST tax~9~Zn~_ ~ GRAY & WA~R~ T~ ~E ~,. ~ 8~ WEST ~ ST ~3 ~ ~-, N~ YORK. N.Y, 1~19 '~ ~ 7/7/03 OPEN LETTER TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD A letter from James Miller (copy enclosed) in the 5/22 issue of The Suffolk Times gave you a beautiful compromise on the upzoning sub~ett I'm not even going to tell you my own position because this has turned into a face-saving ego tr~p on the part of all concerned and personal positions--for whatever reason--are beside the point. ~either faction has moved one inch toward the other and the time for compromise is long past. PLEASE3 implement the suggestions :3. in Mr. Miller's '- ..... letter ~.'~ let's Donna~-J6nes Gray~ Southoid get on with it! 765-1217 G-84 10.1 ,o... 8271 I (Rev. March 1993} //--D ~G~/,:. <r- ,/, ,?,-/d; Investor Reporting of Tax~ter Registration Number ~' Attach to y~r tax return. instructions. 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 JMB Incomm Properties, Ltd.-XIII General Instructions Paperwork Reduction Act Notice We ask for the information on this form to carry out the rnterna~ Revenue laws of the United States. You are mouired to grve us the information. We need it to ensure that you are complymg with these laws and to allow us to figure and collect the right amount of tax. The hme needed to compete and this form will vary depending on mdividual circumstances. The estimated average time Recordkeeping ...... 7 min. Learning about the law or the form .... 15 mm Preparing the form .... 17 mm. Copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS ........ 14 min. If you have commenls concerning the accuracy of these time estimates or suggestions for making this form more s~mple, we would be happy to hear from you. You can write to both the IRS and the Office o! Management and Budget at the addresses listed in the instructior~s for the tax return wrth which thrs form is filed. Purpose of Form Use Form 8271 to report the tax shelter registration number the iRS assigns to certam tax shelters required to be registered under sechon 6111 of the Internal Revenue Code ("registration-required tax ehelters") and tO report the name and ~denefying number of the tax shelter. This idformabon must be reported even if the particular interest ~$ producing net income for the flier of Form 8271. Use additional forms to report more than lO tax shelter registraben numbers. Note: A t~.¢zelter regtstrat/on number does notional/cate that the tax shelter or ~ts cla/rne~ tax benefits have beer~ reviewed, examined, or approved by the /RS. Who M~4st' File Any per, son clarmrng or reportmg any deductilpn, loss, credit, or other tax benefit, ~r reporting any income on any lax retur~ from an interest purchased or otherwise'~cquired in a ' shelter must file Form I you are an investor m a S corporation, look at G, Schedule K-1 IForm 1065). or Schedule K-I (Form t t20S). It a tax: number or the ppear there, then the ulred tax purchased or acquired by a pass-through entlb gh enhty and ~ts ~: areholders, or st file Form 8271. A h enbty that is the 1-required tax shelter does not have to pr~are Form 8271 and give copies to it~._s.~artners, shareholders, or benefi)~f~nes unless the pass-through entlty~tself has ~nvested ,n a reg~str~n-requned tax shelten tn cectah~..cases, a tax shelter that does not exist to reduce the cumulal~'Cta.x~bihty of any rnvestor dunn9 tl~ 5-year period ending after the date the fi~yestment ts first offered for sale may be'~ons~dered a "prolected rncome Such a tax shelter register, and thus not ~ to furnish a tax shelter registration mvestors, unless and until it [o be a projected *ncome ~t. It is possible, therefore, that be furnished a tax shelter humber, and not have to it, for several years after you nme NO. ~545-08S; Exu~res 3-3 I~g6 ' _Sequence No. 71 86232000207 36-3426137 Gal NO 6192dF tol~ow these )nstruchons. However, you must file Form 8271 only for tax years endmg on or aRer the date ~he tax shelter ceases to be a prelected ~ncome Note: Even if you have gn interest ~n a registration-required tax shelte~ you do not have to file Form 8271 if you did not claim or report any deduction, loss. credff, or other tax benefit, or report any ~nterest ~n the reg~stration-re~u~red tax for a particular year you are unable to claim any ~ortion of a loss because of the pass~ve achwty loss fim~tat~ons, and that loss ~s the only tax ttem reported to you from the shelter: Fo,tn 8271 ree~ 3-93) Filing Form 8271 Attach Form 8271 to any return on which a deduction, loss, credit, or other tax benefit is claimed or reported, or any raceme reported, from an mterest in a registration-reQuired tax shelter· These returns mclude applications for tentabve refunds (Forms 1045 and 1139) and amended returns (Forms 1040X and 112OX). Furnishing Copies of Form 8271 to Investors A pass-through entity that has mvested ,n a registration-required tax shelter must furnish Copies of its Form 8271 to ~ts padners, shareholders, or beneficiaries. However, m the case where (al the pass-through enbty acquired at least a .............................. ~'~ L~':. '~: ~ ~ '~ .~ ~'~at~ 1040-ES (OCR) ~f)/I Payment ' " 138327573 TV GESN 30 0 9412 43~3 19 19 138-32-7573 TV 9412 CLARK GESNER Amount of payments 87 REMSEN ST APT 5F B R 0 0 K L Y N N Y 112 01- 3 q 2 3 Change name or SSN if incorrecl and not corrected. Cross out name and SSN of deceased divorced soouse. Get Form 8822, Change of Adctress, x to renont a new address (see instructions). ~;~ ' ~ : ~" ~ ' ~',; ~ .C ~- ~ ~ -. ' '..'"', .,' ~ ~'*..: =...-~' ~'~'~ '~, .-?~' ;. ~':"? . ~ _ . · '. , . . . ...,. ., : , · . ~, r, ~ ~.~,.2 "'" ' ' - ~/,: /~ ~ ~,~ te. 0~. ~., ~.~ ..T~.~:.~,.~.~,.,.,~,....- .~,.,~. ,;~ .... ...... - ..... , ~ ..... =~., = ......... , ~,.~,~.~+ r .%:r.,~= ~,...~ ~ . . . .~ ........... . .... ~./~ /~ .~/./~ . .. ~.~ . . ~ . . ...... ..., .. /~ Estimated Income Tax Payment Voucher IT-2105-MN " "' ~".,~ ,N,~., Yor~ State · Cra/ct N~ ~,~ · ~ ot~n~ ~ ~l~ar flier due da~: ~ffi I~ I~ J~ ~ 1~, ~m~r ~1~ ~ ~ 17, 1~ Enter ~lJ~Ue 8~u~s) ~ ~ ~l ~ P~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ nu~ and I~ I~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~fe ~ N~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '- ........ V_5 L. ' . I r i /~,_~_ ..... NEW * YoRK pm 0, Typ* · ~ ~ Or FII=I Yelr ending . ., 1~ (VW~ ~ ' ~ I ~ I~ I~_1 [ t ~ L I u u · I ........ I II}l~i~ ~ ~il1[,~,lnjrl/4Olli~lb ................. ~. ~,. I I(1I~ i I Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-47 Memo from Town Agricultural Advisory Board July 22, 2003 PUBLIC COMMENT ON DGEIS1SCIS CLERK'S OFFICE~ SOUTHOLD TOWN MEMORANDUM TO I~E INCLUDED IN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TO: SOUTHOLD TOWN SUPERVISOR JOSHUA HORTON RECEIVED MEMBERS OF THE TOWN BOARD MEMBERS OF THE MORATORIUM PLANNING TEAM FROM: SOUTHOLD TOWN AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY BOARD JUL 2 4~n' BOB VANBOURGOND1EN, CHAIR DATE: JULY 22, 2003 RE: DRAFF GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, $oothold Tovtn ....cte,a SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY General Comment: The Southold Town Agricultural Advisory Board (appointed by Southold Town Board) respectfully refers the Town and its consultants to the following comments on the Draft Generic Environmental lmpact Statement. 1. F.A.I.IL (Foster Agriculture, Investment in guaranteed preservation and Responsible growth) We request that this Growth Management Plan for a Rural Southold written by John Nichols, President Southold Business Alliance, be included and seriously reviewed in the DGEIS, as there are many applications favorable to agriculture. Copy of F.A.I.R. plan is included in this packet. 2. DGEIS Build-Out Analysis is deficient in that it makes the following assumptions: · Southold Town will not spend approximately $12 mil. currently being held for farmland preservation · Southold Town will never spend any of the 2% Tax money fi-om the Community Preservation Fund. (fund extends until 2020 and generates approximately $3 mil/year · Southold Town will never apply for another grant for preservation · Suffolk County's 30 year old farmland preservation program (PDR) will cease to exist, and the Count)' will never again purchase development rights. · Peconic Land Trust terminates all farmland preservation programs · Nature Conservancy terminates all farmland preservation programs · New York State terminates all farmland preservation programs · The Federal Government terminates all funding contributed toward farmland preservation · There will never again be a charitable gift of land easements · Southotd Community facilities (schools, churches, fire departments, parks, water utilities. etc.) will never expand · Every. landowner in Southold Town will develop their propen~ to the maximum extent under the current zoning. 3. Southold Town Ag Advisory Board respectfully requests the following Build-Out scenarios be included in the DGEIS documenL ,e" · a reasonable no-action build-out scenario ' · a no-action build-out scenario be included using the Town's last 5 )'ear preservation track record · a build-out scenario be included that does not include up-zoning, instead uses the preservation tools available as mentioned in the 2000-2001 Farmland Protection Strategy and the Blue Ribbon Committee Report. 4. Southold Town Ag Advisory Board respectfully requests the (COP) Conservation Opportunity Subdivision plan be enhanced and codified. G-85 3.2 G-86 9.1 C--B7 3.5 · [ G-88 10.26 F.A.I.R. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR A RURAL SOUTHOLD (Foster Agriculture, Investment in guaranteed preservation & Responsible grow~th) The Blue Ribbon Commission of 2002 set a minimum preservation goal of at least 80% of the 11,000 acres of undeveloped farmland and open space properties. Uncontrolled, accelerating or disorderly development of the remaining 11,000 acres of farmland and open space will permanently alter the rural character of the Town of Southold and put the business of agriculture in jeopardy. The good news is that the Town has experienced an extremely successful rate of preservation through voluntary means by farmers and other landowners that chose preservation over full-yield development. These programs have produced a 20 to 1 record of preservation over development! As far as we know, no other city or town in the United States has attempted or achieved this rate of voluntary preservation because of their reliance upon zoning as the solution to control growth. It is widely known that 2-acre zoning provides the economic benefit that enables the success of the voluntary preservation programs - a result of the dynamics that occur within the Town of Southold of all the private and government agencies in play. Of greater importance is the impact that zoning has upon the business of agriculture. Since density dictates land equity and development right equity it plays a major role in the financial leverage available to operate a farming business or to provide the necessary economic benefit to induce permanem preservation! It is an indisputable fact that under 5-acre zoning property owners will lose 60% of their real development rights that could be given, leveraged or sold by individual landowners. The ultimate impact is a significant reduction ora landowners economic incentive and therefore motivation to preserve. If the residents of Southold Town want landowners to preserve, up-zoning is definitely not part of the answer. We should not "force the hand" of a property owner by taking away available economic options and benefits viable under 2-acre zoning. A Rural Incentive District (RID) though well intentioned by the Blue Ribbon Commission forces landowners to make a choice about land equity with while the Town of Southold holds an up-zoning gun to their heads. Requiring farmer's to make this choice while they are under duress is not the F.A.I.R. thing to do. Because of the immediate financial impact upon a property owner's land and development right equity, up-zoning will actually discourage preservation, discourage agriculture and accelerate development! Zoning does not preserve land permanently! Up-zoning and Down-zoning happen by the same legislative process. It is therefore possible that zoning measures can be reversed by a Town Board that executes the wants and needs of the electorate. Up-zoning provides no lasting guarantee for the preservation or build-out of the Town. This is not a risk the residents of Southold Town should be willing to take. The only way to permanently preserve land is by purchasing it or having it voluntarily sterilized by a deed that runs forever with the land! So, rather than up-zoning.., in order to guarantee that we meet that 80% minimum standard set by the Blue Ribbon Commission, the Town of Southold should establish a F.A.I.R. Growth Management Plan that controls the ultimate preservation and growth of Southold Town. Being within 100 miles of New York City, recognized as a top location in the North East for tourism, vacationing and residential living - the Town wishes to mitigate the unpredictable nature and impacts of mass movements of people. In order to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the Town of Southold - the Town must allow for ample time and resources to plan the necessax3' public infrastructure (water mains, sewers, roads, fire departments, schools, police, etc.). The residents of the Town of Southold prize the local agricultural economy and the quality of life that a rural community provides. By definition, it is therefor a necessity that the residents and government of Southold Town embrace the fact that the business of agriculture is inextricably linked to our rural way of life - however it evolves and in whatever form it may take! This legislation recognizes that the best way to achieve preservation is to assure the success of the agricultural community.. The Town finds that the ownership, use and value of private property is integral to this stated purpose and therefor resolves the following facts, policies and measures: 1. Recognize the success of the voluntary preservation efforts in Southold and create new incentives for landowners to choose preservation. 2. Recognize that restrictive zoning and burdensome regulations have impacts upon the business of agriculture and business in general. 3. Foster the business of agriculture in Southold Town. The best way to do this is by simply not placing new restrictions or regulations on their land. Regulating what type of farming is acceptable in Southold Tox~m and using scenic overlay districts to prevem expansion of indoor agriculture industries locks out more advanced, efficient, environmentally friendly and evolving agriculture technologies that may very well assure agriculture's success well into the future. Therefore, we should create no new encumbrances that will impact the future of this vital industry. Investment in the future of a rural Southold is the only way to guarantee permanent preservation! The purchase of development rights and scenic easements are guaranteed investments in the preservation of farmland and open space properties. It should be clarified to the residents of Southold that the Purchase of Development Rights prevents residential development and the Purchase of Scenic Easements is what actually guarantees the rural view. First priority for the purchase of development rights shall always be given to properties within the Rural Incentive District. As a policy for the Land Preservation Department - the Town of Southold should forbid the purchase of all wetland and wasteland properties that are already environmentally protected and not developable - a bad investment. Ifa portion of land is actually developable - only that portion should be purchased to assure protection of the environment. Unless there are scenic easements over land (that guarantee a view) - the business of agriculture should be promoted and encouraged in whatever form it takes to the greatest extent possible by the residents of Southold Town and our government. Laws that limit the future of agriculture are incompatible with the long-term goals of the Town of Southold. Create incentives to utilize Conservation Opportunity, Subdivisions on all farmland and open space properties. Expedited review and approval would be guaranteed within one (1) year of application. Development rights along with the fee simple of the land remain intact to be sold or gifted to any public or private land preservation entity. Responsible Growth Rate Limitation (RGRL): Either by law or by public referendum enacted allows a maximum of 150 (or x number) of new houses per year or as a percentage (maybe 2%) of the total households in Southold Iown. The RGRL should be derived both by the average new house permits over a 10-year bull/bear market cycle (to be fair to our local builders) and by what the Town of Southold believes is responsible and sustainable to meet our long-term goals. The Town could also consider limiting the number of new dwellings per school district to assure that the population is evenly spread. A balance must be found that respects the property rights of vacant property, owners as well as the wants & needs of the community. 7. Building Permit restrictions: Recognize that it is preferable for new homes to built on already existing infill lots (currently there are 2000+/- existing). Create a new policy for existing stock of single and separate vacant parcels - the Town reserves 50 new house permits for these infill parcels until October l"t of each calendar year. Implement policies that reflect the goals of the Town. 8. Responsible Development Rate Limitation (RDRL): Either by law or by public referendum enacted allows a maximum of 150 (or x number) of lots created per year. This rate of development should be derived both by the statistical growth rate of the Town, the anticipated growth rate of the Town and by what the Town of Southold believes is responsible and sustainable to achieve its long term goals. The Town could also consider limiting the number of new dwellings per school district to assure that the population is evenly spread. A balance must be found that respects the property rights of undeveloped landowners as well as the wants & needs of the community. 9. Recognize that subdivision of land within and near already developed areas of the town is preferable to subdivision of land within or near undeveloped areas. Set policies that reflect the stated goals of the Town of Southold. 10.Competitive Evaluation and Selection Process: The Southold Town Planning Board shall accept subdivision development applications at a prescribed time for each calendar year. First priority for the purchase of development rights shall always be given to properties within the farmbelt and the Special Ground Water Protection Area. They shall competitively evaluate for quality, in at least: proximity, to developed neighborhoods, preservation of agricultural land or open space, level of affordability, density rating (only necessary if 1 acre lots are not mandatory), compatibility of tract density and design with adjacent properties. EXEMPTIONS TO RESPONSIBLE GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS: Exceptions to the rules can be made by a vote of the Southold Town Board whenever an application furthers the goals of the Town of Southold. 2. Whenever it can be proven that there is an individual or family financial hardship. 3. All residential setoffs from large lots, especially for farm families. All affordable housing opportunities (including higher density developments) where local people (as defined by graduating from one of the local high schools) essentially are new residences with no net increase in population. The local population is being priced out of the area by the demand of second homeowners who drive the real estate market. Up-zoning will only further tighten the market creating a lock- out scenario for local residents. Every effort should be made to create new opportunities for economic diversity within the town including accessory apartments in residential areas as well as the development of properties zoned Hamlet Density and a mandatory affordable element in all major subdivisions. Policies must be implemented that encourage the stated goal of the Town to focus development within the Hamlet Centers and the existing residential areas to allow for that growth. The Town must amend the affordable housing requirements and screening process to ensure a fair selection process, ensure permanent affordabiliw and require the repayment of grant monies as a percentage of value to ensure appreciated funding for the affordable program. RURAL INCENTIVE DISTRICT: The RID shall include all properties located within the Farm Belt and the Special Ground Water Protection Area and shall be considered to exist as an overlay district where conservation is of the highest priorit3r within the Town of Southold. Since land designated as protected by the R.I.D. is of the highest priority to the residents of the Town of Southold - it would guarantee funding for the purchase of development right equity for all properties xvithin this most valuable district. The estimated cost per household is $516 per year for 30-year bonds. Priority for Conservation Opportunity Subdivisions shall be reflected in the Competitive Analysis and Selection Process for preservation and limited development. CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITY SUBDIVISION (COS) ELEMENT: 1. The Town finds that large-scale tract housing developments are not compatible with agriculture or with the long-term goals of Southold Town. Guaranteed incentives must be offered to all landowners who elect to subdivide their property. In concert with the Growth Rate elements and the Competitive Evaluation and Selection Process - it will ensure that if development pressure increases in Southold Town there will also be increasing pressure on the developer to preserve or risk being locked out of the market by site plan applicants who will. The benefits ora COS include (but are not limited to) 75-80% preservation is achieved, the economic benefits of selling development rights remains viable as well as the time and money saved guaranteed by expedited review of the site plan application. IN CONCLUSION: With a F.A.I.R. Growth Management Plan that allows for all the economic benefits of 2-acre densit" there ' m impetus to try to achieve 5- acre density or better because of t} timiteu amount of development allowed on an annual basis and the competmve nature of site plan approval. Any landowner or developer would choose an option that seeks the maximum economic benefit in the shortest mount of time. Disincentives already exist on an unspoken policy level for major subdivisions and full yield development within the Southold Town Planning Board (another reason wh, people continue to choose preservation over full yield development). Once again, if there were a cap of 150 subdivision lots created and approved annually - subdivision applicants would not risk being passed over by another who will choose to go the expedited conservation route. The Town has been developing at a 20-acre density for the last 6 years during a very tight and bullish real estate market. Over this period of time - the average new house permits was approximately 235 houses per year. Over the past 10 years which is more indicative of a real estate market cycle - the average # of new house permits was approximately 150 houses per year. A reasonable limitation can be established for responsible development in Southold Town if it is based upon an average that represents a range of inactivity and activity of new-construction in bull and bear markets or by what is determined to be sustainable for our communit3'. If there is an annual limit on the number of lots that could be created by subdivision and an annual limit of new houses that could be built in each calendar year - we have effectively managed growth! Preservation can be achieved and Growth can be managed without re-zoning land, without taking individuals land or development right equity and without jeopardizing the successful voluntary preservation programs that has produced an 20-acre density rate of preservation! THIS PLAN IS F.A.I.R. !!: It shows respect fbr the property rights of every Southold resident while guaranteeing a manageable rate of growth combined with powerful incentives to preserve at a minimum 5-acre density or better and there are no limits imposed upon voluntary preservation! If the Town Board's challenge to the residents of Southold Town to find a better way to achieve preservation was sincere - then the Southold Business Alliance presumes that the Town Board will look upon this plan and combination of tools most favorably. This plan employs an incentive-based approach that will be driven by the demand of the market. It's genius is in it's simplicity.. It actually uses market forces to achieve conservation. The more the market demands supply the more lando~mers or developers will try to meet or exceed the long-term goals of the Town of Southold or risk being passed by another who will. To put it more simply.., as demand rises because of a limited annual supply, the rate of preservation will rise with it. The only way this plan will not induce preservation is by the lack of demand. Hardly anyone seems to believe that the North Fork will not be in demand. And since the North Fork Environmental Council assures us that overwhelming demand is there and is only increasing - that guarantees the success of this combination of tools! Thanks for listening! Soufhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-48 Memo from Joseph Gergela, Executive Director, Long Island Farm Bureau July 23, 2003 COMMEN'I' O_.~.N OGEIS/SCI~S ~ tonq stanb Farm u eau, mc. 1~ ~wards Avenue, Calv~non, NY 11933 Phone. (631) 727-3777 Fax. (63f) 727-3721 MEMORANDUM RECEIVED TO: CLERK'S OFFICE, SOUTHOLD TOWN SUPERVISOR JOSHUA HORTON MEMBERS OF THE TOWN BOARD MEMBERS OF THE MORATORIUM PLANNING TEAM JUL .2 4 2003 Southold To~n Cleri FROM: LONG ISLAND FARM JOSEPH GERGELA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATE: JULY 23s 2003 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY As the Executive Director of Long Island Farm Bureau, I am requesting the enclosed letter addressed to me from Nelson Bills, Professor, Depm hnent of Applied Economics and Management, Comell University be included and seriously reviewed in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Deparm~ent of Applied Economic~ and Management Nelson L, BilLs Professor Come//Umversity 453 War~n Hall Ithaca, NY 14853-7801 Telephone: 607 255-7734 Fax: 607 Z55-9984 E-ma//: nlb4~co~ell.edu Web: www.ae~e~ co fneJLedu July 21, 2003 Joseph Gergela, Executive Director Long Island Farm Bureau 104 Edwards Ave Calverton, NY 11933 Dear Joe: In 1997, I wrote you a letter commenting on the interplay between zoning rules and farmland values in Suffolk County. The subject addressed in the letter was the prospect of upzoning in the town of Riverhead, and the likely impact such zoning change might have on the value of raw farmland. My understanding is that the Town of Southhold's recently published a Draft Genedc Envimnmenfal Impact Statement for the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy includes an upzone on all farmland from 2 to 5 acres. I have been asked to reiterate my perspective on such movement in zoning rules. My reference point is the farming industry in the Town and the equity position of active farmers in the community. These farm businesses are a focal point for open space concerns on Long Island and throughout New York State. In my 1997 letter, I stressed that we do not understand the ramifications of zoning changes for land values in a quantitative way. Unfortunately, the same situation pertains today. The research community is intensely interested in these matters, but definitive empirical work is usually not possible because we do not have research-quality data that allows measurement of the land market response to a change in zoning rules. This situation exists today in communities throughout New York State. There are a few published studies on zoning and farmland values in other states, but all suffer to one degree or another from these nagging data issues. These data and information concerns are on full display in the Southhold draft and its extensive reference to a 1991 study by a consulting firm entitled "The Effects of Agricultural Zoning on the Value of Farmland". This study looked at land value trends in seven Maryland counties in an effort to ".....identify a relationship between restrictive zoning and land prices" (pp. 3). However, the authors note that the data they examined ". ..... does not separate actual land pdces and the cost of other improvements on the land in the sales price". Similarly, the. authors did not know if the land sales were at arms length (pp. 3). To counter these problems, the authors arbitrarily excluded sales with sale prices that looked too "high" or to "iow". These data shortcomings and the research procedures used to help remedy the situation can generate fatal study flaws. In fact, my take on this out-of-date 12-year old study simply is that farmland prices in these Maryland counties changed but the authors don't know why. G-89 7.1 W~hout hard evidence, by necessity, we fall back on the economic rationale that links zoning, -. and changes in zoning rutes, to the transaction price of open farmland. The economic principles are simply that the transaction price of farmland is largely determined by expectations about future income stemming from owning/controlling the land asset. This is the familiar income theory of asset value. Higher future expected incomes run up the price of an asset, other things equal, while lower expected incomes depress the transaction pdce of an asset. All players in local land markets, especially in sophisticated markets under severe development pressure in places like Suffolk County, can certainly be expected to understand these principles. The net result for an upzone as dramatic as the one proposed in the Draft ElS is reduced values for open, developable land. It is helpful to remember that farm real estate generates two types of expected incomes for its owner. The first is expected income in use--the net income derived from farm and food production. The second is the expected salvage or sale value of the land and the end of the current owner's holding period. Any upzoning for farmland is expected to have a very direct effect on the latter- the real estate's salvage value-because the zoning signals lower housing densities and hence reduced returns from developing the land parcel. As noted above, quantifying these impacts is very difficult and predicting just how much transaction prices will be affected is almost impossible. From a farmland preservation perspective, the womj is the impact any chilling effects on land transaction prices, due to upzoning, will have on the morale and economic vibrancy of the local farming industry. It will be important that discussions of the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy fully air concerns of local farm interests and carefully consider the Strategy's likely effects on the farming community, in this light, it is surprising to see Maryland counties like Baltimore and Montgomery touted in the Draft ElS as examples of successful efforts to upzone and simultaneously '. ........ maintain farming, farmland, and rural character~ (pp. 3-28). Both of these Maryland counties, under intense development pressure, are losing farms and farmland at a faster rate than Suffolk County, NY and growing farm product sales at a significantly slower rate. Talbot County, Maryland is also mentioned in the ElS but zoning outcomes in this rural county (population about 33,000) on Maryland's eastern shore hardly seem relevant to any discussion of upzoning in Suffolk County, NY. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Nelson Bills Professor Southold Comprehensive Implementation StTategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-49 Letter from Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. July 25, 2003 Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Main Street, RO. Box 2003, Bridgehampron, New York 11932- 1631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5198 Bruce Anderson. M.S., President Hand Delivered July 25, 2003 Southold Town Board Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Supervisor, Hon. Joshua Honon Justice Louisa P. Evans Councilman Craig Richter Councilman William D Moore Councilman Thomas Wickham Councilman John M. Romanelli Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York May, 2003 Dear Members of the Board, This Firm represents C. J. Van Bourgondien, Inc., Doug Cooper Farms and Martin Sidor Farms, who own property that is the subject of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement: Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, dated May, 2003 (hereinafter "Comprehensive Implementation Strategy"). This correspondence is submitted in opposition to the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. Description of Proposed Actions The description of proposed action that it has been prepared for and accepted by the Town Board, "to analyze the potential impacts ora set of amendments to the SouthoM Town Code and various Town regulations, procedures, policies, planning and management initiatives being considered." The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that the proposed action, "involves primarily legislative changes," however, no proposed regulations or legislative changes are included in the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. What are the specific legislative changes proposed? G-90 2.4 It is our position and opinion that the Town must specifically define the actions it proposes to undertake. That position was clearly expressed during the Town's Public Scoping Session of January 29, 2003 by William Esseks, Esq. who represents several effected farmers/stakeholders The testimony given by IVlr. Esseks, Esq. appears in the minutes of the January 29, 2003 Scoping Session. The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy should be rejected as incomplete and inadequate for public and agency review due to its failure to describe and specifically state the action (s) being considered bv this Board. Rather than specifically state the action (s) being considered by this Board, the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy lists forty-three (43) implementation tools. Of the forty-three (43) implememation tools, seventeen (17) are grouped within the general heading, "Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning Code", eight (8) are grouped within the general heading, "EducanDmEnforcement", four (4) are grouped within the general heading, "Capital Improvements/Expenditures", ten are grouped under the general heading, "Direct Town Management", and four (4) fall under the general heading, "Inter- Agency/Quasi-Agency Imt~atives." It is quite clear that the proposed action as loosely defined in the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy goes well beyond, "various legislative changes." It is of critical importance that the proposed action include a full disclosure of all pending legislative changes, educational, management and proposed capital improvements and expenditures so that later on in this study, the potential environmental and economic impacts and alternatives may be fairly evaluated as a whole and on an individual basis. The proposed action considers the implementation of previous planning studies undertaken by the Town over the past twenty (20) years, page 1-4 of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy lists nineteen (19) such studies. The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy fails to discuss the status vis a vis adoption of each prior Plan or Study even though required in the Town's adopted scoping outline. Other than the Town Master Plan Update (1985) and the Farmland Protection Plan, which studies were actually adopted by the Town as part of its Comprehensive Land Use Plan? If not adopted by the Town, on what basis does the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy consider the various study recommendations to constitute an official policy of this Board? It is our position that the authors' reliance on the seventeen of nineteen studies listed in the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy does not constitute official planning and zoning policies of the Town. Furthermore, the studies actually adopted by the Town are limited to the Town's official Master Plan, as updated in 1985 and the Farmland Protection Plan (2000). The Town's Master Plan Update is the Town's official master plan. The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy seeks to undermine and o~ ~rwise cause and end-mn around the Town's Master Plan by relying on previous sm s never adopted by the Town. Therefore, the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy ~s not only deficient by falling to describe with specificity the proposed actions to be undertaken, but is also G-91 6.3 G-92 6.3 misleading in characterizing the general actions as consistent with previous policies of ~ the Town that were never adopted by the Town. ! The strategy overview contains a Town wide goal that seeks to preserve 80% of the Town's remaining open spaces with a concomitant 60% reduction in the future density of the Town. To accomplish this, the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy advocates amendments to the planning process and zoning code to include the creation of the Rural Incentive District, a 5 acre up-zoning of R-80 and AC zones, a transfer of development rights program and the creation cfa Planned Development District. The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy describes an on-going development pattern as devastating to the Town's natural resources and dissimilar and askew fi.om traditional growth patterns also devastating to the farmland quality of the Town. Page 1- 15 of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that the current levels of development have already placed natural resources in jeopardy. Which natural resources are in current jeopardy? At what point does a development jeopardize the natural resources of the Town both individually and collectively? At what point does the farmland quality of the Town become devastated? Existing Environmental Conditions At page 2-79, the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that, "by some ' estimates, farmland is being lost in the County at a rate of approximately 1,000 acres per year." What is meant by lost? That is, to what extent is farmland developed in residential uses versus abandoned and left fallow or converted to other passive or active recreational spaces and open spaces? For example, Jean Cochran Park at Peconic was previously a farm. Who made such estimates? How do these estimates relate to farmland in Southold? How much farmland was lost to standard and clustered housing developments? The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states at page 2-79 that since 1968 (35 years) 16% of the Town's farmland resource was lost The loss of 16% of farmland equates to an annual loss of farmland of approximately 0.4%. The Master Plan Update states at page 9, "gr'hile the amount of land used for farming has declined very little (approximately 6%) since the 1967 master plan, the nature of agriculture in the Town has changed a great deal." The loss of 6% farmland equates to an annual loss of approximately 0.3%. By what accepted technical method could a perceived acceleration in loss of farmland of 0.1% per year over a 36 year period be considered significant given the inherent error involved in the formulation of such estimates? How many subdivisions are currently proposed on farmland within the R-80 and AC zones? Of the present number of filed subdivision applications in the R-80 and AC zones, how many request approval for the maximum yield? How many filed subdivision applications request approval for reduced density? How many reduced density subdivisions have been proposed and/or have been approved which feature covenants precluding further subdivision? It is our position that that such questions require accurate G-93 2.2 G-94 2.2 response so that the threat to the character of Town can be appropriately described and - ~ analyzed. The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that the Town "saw its.first typical suburban tract style subdivision in the later part of the last century" (p 2-36 ~. How many suburban tract style subdivisions are proposed in the AC and R-80 zoning districts? How many were approved? What was the subdivision yield proposed and approved in these suburban tract style subdivisions? The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that "new second home construction is typified by very large dwellings, often in excess of 8, 000-1 O, 000 square feet" (p. 2-37). Later in the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy it is stated that "there remains a significant demand for housing of all types... "(p.3-18) How many 8,000-10,000 square foot homes have been recently built? How many 8,000-10,000 square foot homes have been built in the R-80 and AC zoning districts? What percentage of new second homes is of this size as compared to the whole? On what basis do the authors consider an 8,000-10,000 square foot home typical? Is the demand for all types of housing solely limited to the Towns of Brookhaven and Riverhead to the exclusion of Southold? If not, why would the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy attempt to address affordable housing? The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that "the impacts of these second homes and their associated site improvements such as swimmmg pools and tennis courts combined with occupation much longer than the traditional summer season has distinct and evolving impact on the residential character of the Town" (p.2-37). How many second homes feature swimming pools and tennis courts? How does the number of these homes compare to the existing homes in the Town? What specific knowledge do the authors have as to the occupation of these second homes over extended periods of time? An objective and satisfactory analysis and explanation relating the disappearance of farndand and the purported nature in which these lands are re-developed is required in this SEQRA Process. In fact, the adopted scoping outline at Appendix A-6 directs analysis of these factors under the category Background, Need and Benefits of the Proposed Action. The scoping outline directs the authors "to discuss the forces art&or conditions that have caused this effort to be proposed at the present time." The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy fails to adequately address or accurately characterize such forces and conditions that purportedly lead to the land use tools advocated. Potentially Si-niticant Imnacts Section 3.0 of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy entitled, Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts, seeks to determine the potentially significant impacts of the planning initiative. This section relies upon a build-out analysis which is summarized in Table 3-1, followed by a Regional Impact Assessment for Build-Out G-95 2.2 G-96 2.2 G-97 2.2 G-98 2.2 G-99 2.2 Conditions ("RIAM") followed by discussions of potential impacts not qualified or substantiated in the data presented. The Build-Out Analyses utilizes a matrix format for which the reported build-out is "based solely upon the zoning of the land, considering only permanent protection measures and legal mechaniSrns that wouM restrict growth" (p. 3-1). It is apparent that the area of the land multiplied by the yield factor (described at p. 34) is the primmy mechanism by which maximum build-out is determined. However, dimensional requirements are written into each zoning district including lot width and lot depth that ultimately determines potential subdivision yield. For example, the R-80 Zoning District requires a lot width and lot depth of 175 feet and 250 feet, respectively. A mere review of the tax maps for the Town reveal numerous "bowling alley lots" with insufficient lot widths and depths. Thus, the zoning of the land precludes subdivision in these instances. How many parcels in all are precluded from subdivision due to lot geometry (lot width and lot depth)? How many parcels are constrained due to lot geometry? An analysis of build-out based solely upon lot area is an irrational analysis. It is irrational because the authors fail to apply the Town Zoning Code that also regulates lot geometry. The analysis of developed subdividable parcels does not apparently consider the siting of structures on parcels. Apparently, only the area of the parcels is in consideration. However, such analysis is irrational given the criterion that a parcel may only be subdivided if compliant with the Town's Zoning Law. The Town's Zoning Law precludes subdivision of many such improved parcels due to the location of existing structures that preclude the drawing of lot lines that comply with the dimensional restrictions for each zone. How does the placement of existing structures effect the potential build-ont of oversized parcels already improved? How many oversized and improved parcels exist in the Town that can not be further subdivided due to such limitations? Please specify by providing the tax map numbers for all lots falling into this category. The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy does not consider ont-parcels or parcels 'with insufficient access pursuant to Town Law Section 280-a. Such parcels may not be considered buildable or subdividable pursuant to the Town's Zoning Law. For example, the former Krukowski Farm between Route 25 and 48 in the western portion of Cutchogue totaling approximately 60 acres can not be subdivided due to access limitations. Them are numerous other parcels in the Town with similar access limitations. How many out-parcels exist in the Town? How many parcels have insufficient access? When removed from the build-out analyses (due to the Town's Zoning Law) what becomes the theoretical build-ont of the Town? Why do all commercial zones figure into a build-out analyses to address the purported open space goals and needs given that the Town's Zoning Law does not regulate such uses and zones in terms of open space and density? If the underlying premise in constructing a build-out analysis in commemial properties is the Town's Zoning Law, what is the nexus of commercial build-out relative to the purported open space and density reduction goals expressed in the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy? Undoubtedly, the Build-Ont Analysis is based upon the data entry, exercises of the authors. There is inherent error in data entry, and the errors pointed out above establish that fact. To assess such error, it is essential that the data be placed into the study Usually, there is an effort to proof the data, the result being the detection of error. What numbers changed from the initial compilation of data to the final data set that was loaded into the analysis? On which parcels did these corrections take place? All data sets must be disclosed in this regulatory process. Does the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy consider North Fork Country Club and Island End Country Club subdividable land? Where are all of the well sites for Suffolk County Water Authority ("SCWA") in the Town of Southold located? Does the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy consider the well sites owned by SCWA subdividable acreage? The Build-Out is based upon zoning and legal mechanisms that would restrict growth. What are the legal mechanisms restricting growth on these lands? At page 8-4 of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy it is stated, "Given the nature of control of land on Fisher's Island by the Fisher's Island Development Corporation, it is unlikely that extensive unanticipated development pressures will threaten the character of the island" Given the control of land in Southold by the North Fork Country Club, Island End Country Club and SCWA which is apparently similar to the control exercised by Fisher's Island Development Corporation in Fisher's Island, why is there an assumption made in this study that the character of the Town would change while the character of Fisher's Island would not? Considering the underlying criterion for assessing build-out that include zoning permanent protection measures and legal mechanisms that restrict growth, the statemem, "Southold has over 8,945 acres of developable land~" (p. 3-5) is inaccurate and irrational because the stated criterion were never applied to the analysis. Therefore, the analysis must be rejected. What is the actual acreage of truly developable land? The potential environmental impacts of the theoretical build-out analysis is assessed via the Regional Impact Assessment for Build-Out Conditions ("RIAM"). Apparently data input sheets are prepared and analyzed through the RIAM Model. In doing so, another source of error is introduced into the Comprehensive Impact Strategy. What inconsistencies occur from the initial data entry sheets prepared in connection with the Build-Out Analysis now introduced into the RIAM Model7 What parameters, definitions and methodologies were used in the RIAM Model? What is meant by farm coverage reported in Table 3-2? Why does Table 3-2 rate farm coverage at 0 in all zones except commercial zones? Why does Table 3-4 rate farm coverage rate farm coverage at 0 in all zones except commercial zones and the R-80 zone? What methods were employed in generating both tables that would explain the discrepancies relating to farm coverage7 G-lO0 2.2 G-101 2.2 G-102 2.2 Table 3-4 reports total water usage at 621 million gallons per day for 929 lots in the AC Zone. Table 3-4 also repons total water usage at 165,543 gallons per day for 552- - lots in the R-80 Zone. What were the underlying assumptions in generating both estimates? How were the estimates calculated7 At page 3-7, the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that the Build- Out Analysis and RIAM are speculative based upon the findings that (lJ the Town contains some number of seasonal homes (not occupied on a yectr round basis), (2J The Town is expected to continue to ~trchase development rights; and (3,) the Town contains a number of undocumented illegal apartments estimated to rcmge from 1,500 to 3, 000 units. What are the sources for the estimates of seasonal homes and the sources that determine over what duration they are occupied? The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy should not rely on "work in progress" unless the true extent of work in progress can be documented. If the Town is expected to continue the purchase of development rights, why are such efforts left out of the Build-Out Analysis resulting in an impact analysis skewed towards a much greater degree of development than would actually occur? Elsewhere in the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, it is stated that the funding sources are by no means guaranteed. However, as raised during the Public Hearing of July 15, 2003, a total of $12 million is presently on hand for the purchase of development rights. A Town grant for the purchase of development rights has already been approved in the amount of $1.3 million. The 2% Community Preservation Tax resulted in the collection of approximately $3.6 million in calendar year 2002 that by law must be spent for the preservation of land. Meanwhile, the 2% Real Estate Transfer Tax has already been extended to calendar year 2020. Thus, at present levels, the 2% Real Estate Transfer Tax would be expected to generate $64.8 million, in constant dollars, over the life of the tax program. These funds must by law be used for the purchase of development fights or fee title. At a minimum, the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy should recognize the funding levels already secured by the Town that must be dedicated for land purchase or purchase of development rights, utilize present per acre value and subtract these amounts from the Build-Out Analysis and resulting RIAM so that a rational assessment of potential environmental impact may be arrived at. What documentation is relied upon in estimating the number of illegal apartments in the Town? Ir'the Town has direct knowledge as to the location and extent of illegal apartments, what resources are being devoted to enforcing this problem? How many property owners have been cited for having illegal apartments7 How does the number of citations compare to the estimate of number of illegal apartments Town wide? The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy restates the protection of 80% of [ developable lands with a concomitant density reduction of 60% as the purported goals of the Town. As previously stated, there appears to be no study or stated goal adopted by the Town consistent with the numbers above. The resolution adopting the scoping G-103 2.2 G-104 2.2 G-105 2.2 G-106 2.2 G-107 2.2 outline makes no mention of these goals. Who instructed the authors of the srady to --{ analyze potential environmental impacts in accordance with the protection goals of 80% of all remaining vacant land with 60% density reduction? How does the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy treat property owners who have acted to preserve their lands? By way of example, a landowner owns 50 acres of farmland and sells the development fights for 25 acres leaving a balance of 25 acres of "unprotected land". The study seems to analyze the remaining 25 acres as unprotected. thereby warranting draconian zoning measures such as up-zoning to 5 acres even though the purported protection goals can be achieved on this parcel by subdivision cluster under present zoning How does the purchase of development rights effect the purported preservation goal on a parcel by parcel basis? The Comprehensive lmpl,-mentation Strategy states that "the cleamng ofnatura' vegetation for this amount of de pment will reduce the acreage of natural habitat for many species of wildlife, which, , contribute to the overall reduction in the Town's rural aesthetics" (p. 3-10). What ~s the Town's Planning Policy for protection of natural vegetation when confronted with a parcel that contains both farmland and woodland? It has been our experience that efforts to protect of farmland trump efforts to protect natural vegetation. How would Town Policy change relative to farmland protection versus woodland protection if lands were up-zoned to 5 acres with a corresponding cluster of residential home sites down to 1 acre? The answers to these questions are critical given that numerous parcels exist in the Town that feature both farmland and woodland. Review of the Town's Zoning Map in connection with aerial photography and wetland maps reveals the R-40 Zones to be concentrated in the southern portion of the Town and the AC Zones to be concentrated in the northern portion of the Town. How does the proposed 5-acre up-zone in the AC Zoning Districts comport with protection of woodlands and wetlands that are concentrated in the R-40 Zoning Distficts7 The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that "the geographical distribution of this development may not contribute to the strengthening of the hamlet centers of the hamlets (in terms of economic support for business located therein, or to the rural residential aesthetic of these centers)" (p. 3-10). How does the purported goal of 60% density reduction result in greater commerce than the potential future density under the present Zoning Code? Would not more people create more commerce in the hamlet center and generate more economic support for business? What does the geographic distribution of residential property and farmland have to do with the aestheuc value of a hamlet center elsewhere? The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that "the remaining agricultural ltmds protected from development may be insufficient in bulk to support a viable agrtcultural-support service industry" (p.3-10). What does protection from development have to do with viable agricultural support industry? Isn't it true that it is the act of farming that requires some level of support service industry rather than the status of the land as protected versus unprotected? Can the Town force a farmer to farm G-108 2.2 G-109 2.2 G-110 2.2 G-11t 2.2 against his will? Does the study seek to force farmers to farm? If not, by what accepted economic theory might this conclusion be upheld? The Comprehensive ][mplememation Strategy states that "Build-out under current zoning would result tn a 76% populatton mcreaxe (p. 3-13). As previously pointed out, the Build-om analysis is fatally flawed because (1) it fails to fully apply the zoning and subdivision code for purposes of yield for vacant and improved properties, and (2) it fails to apply the land acquisition efforts on-going and into the future. What would be the population increase given these well-established factors? The majority of development that has occurred in the Town over the last ten years has been the development of in-fill properties that can not be impacted upon by these or. any other zoning amendments. The enactment of restrictive zoning can only create pre-existing non-conforming parcels. How much of this purported population increase is attributed to in-fill development? The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that "a full-build-out scenario would lead to tax difficulties relating to school districts due to the number and costs to educate school aged children... "(p.3-15). How many seasonal homes exist in the Town? How many homes are occupied by senior citizens? What is the tax contribution of these groups that do not place children in the school system? How does the tax subsidy provided by these groups compare to the proposed zoning tools as combined with efforts to create affordable housing that would be expected to result in higher school enrollment? The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states at page 3-16 that the overall density for the classifications of R-80 and AC land is 83.6% with the preservation component being 73.39% ..under nresent zoning. This statement relies upon tracking data from 1997 to 2002. It appears that the preservation component is well within range of the purported goal of 80% and significantly exceeds the purported goal of density reduction of 60%. The study fails to acknowledge the affect to open space and density created by in-fill properties that no zoning amendment could preclude. Thus, it is apparent that the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy advocates a subsidy demanded of the property owners in the AC and R-80 zones to off-set the density increases and open space considerations within in-fill lots. Given the present rate of preservation and density reduction that has already occurred, what is the potential to develop R-80 and AC zoned lands in the future as to off-set the expected development of in-fill lots that no zoning amendment can preclude? How much of the anticipated density increases are attributed to in-fill lots? The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states at pages 3-18 through 3-19 that "the availability of Town bonding, continuation of the 2 percent real estate trot fund and State and Federal Grants are by no means guaranteed" It is further stated that "inflation does not necessarily keep pace with real estate values." Continuation of the 2% real estate transfer tax is guaranteed until calendar year 2020. Since the 2% real estate transfer tax is indexed to the value of real property at dosing, the amount of funds generated by the 2% real estate transfer tax would directly increase with increasing G-112 2.2 G-113 2.2 G--1~4 2.2 G-115 2.2 property values. Therefore, how does the pace of inflation relate to real estate values within the comext of land preservation techniques? Table 3-3 in the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that with respect to five-acre up-zoning, the number of development fights that a landowner can sell would be reduced. We agree and point out that the reduction of development fights would be substantial. However, page l- 11 states that the RID provides the landowner a guarantee that development rights would be purchased based upon a current 80,000 square foot zoning equivalent. Notwithstanding the fact that no one could guarantee the purchase of development rights at the 80,000 square foot equivalent for property already up-zoned to 5 acres, these two statements appear to contradict one another. Under the assumption used through-out the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, that no acquisitions occur in the future, that no voluntary open space preservation occurs and that no density reductions occur in the future, what is the value of a development right? Under such assumptions, a glut of'available development fights is realized in the sending areas that can be sold only in limited receiving areas thereby creating the economic condition whereby the purchaser rather than the seller controls the costs of a development fight. How much value is lost from the sending parcels given the assumptions utilized in this analysis? The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states at page 3-28 that "a rectuct~on in allowable density from a 2-acre to a 5-acre yieM, may effect the value of ';, to Li3 of the land" and later, "A potential impact with regard to equity in the land, is the continued ability of farm owners to borrow money necessary to improve equipment, expand operations, purchase more land and fund other related farrn needs. Farm lenders have indicated that the primary consi~,, ration is the farm owners ability to repay a lone, and to a lesser extent the land equity. ' Fkst, the stated devaluation of land by 'A to 1/3 of: the land is not qualified in the study nor documented in any way. Nevertheless, a land valuation reduction of 25% to 33% is highly significant. It is our understanding that this statement relates to a conversation/meeting held before the Blue Ribbon Commission and Gary Taylor, President of Rogers and Taylor, Estate Appraisals. That statement was not made in contemplation ora zoning scenario whereby land is up-zoned to 5 acres followed by a clustering of residential lots down to 1-acre. Furthermore, when queried about the effect clustering would have on land valuation for lands already up-zoned, the reduction in valuation was much greater than reported in the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. What is the source of this statement relative to valuation? What was the set of conditions/assumptions offered in connection with this opinion? What is the loss in valuation under the assumption that the value of land relates to a Transfer of Developmem Right? The quotes lifted from Resource Management Consultants, Inc. which appear on page 3-29 of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. are contradictory, misleading and invalid. The first and second sentence read, "The m t significant aspect of farmland preservation to a lender wouM be use restricti that wouM effect the value of collateral. The sale of development rights is such a prog n. " These two sentences underscore the importance of collateral in the securing of a loan. However, value lost by G-116 2.2 G-117 2.2 G-118 2.2 a farmer's sale of development rights is of lesser importance than the value lost by up- zoning because the farme[,, is paid in the underlying transaction for sale of development rights. Later it is stated, ,ts a lender we would be very concerned about the confiscation of rights without due compensation." This statement relates to a 5-acre up-zone rather than a purchase of development rights and indicates significant financial impact to the borrower. The stated adverse environmental impact for 5-acre zoning at table 3-3 is that there would be a reduction in land value after up-zoning, that this would complicate the purchase of development rights program and that the up-zoning would reduce the number of development rights that could be sold. It is clear that Resource Management Consultants would view the five-acre up-zone as confiscatory thereby causing lender concern. Accordingly, these statements do not support the authors' statement at page 3- 28 that "Farm lenders have indicated that the primary consideration is the fctrm owners ability to repay a loan, and to a lesser extent the land equity" Later, Resource Management Consultants, Inc. state, "Lower land values, based upon agricultural use only, would result in smaller loans with no offsetting effect on the earnings potential of that land This would likely enhance the farmers' repayment ability." This statement can refer only to the scenario whereby development rights have been sold and the farmer has been paid for such rights. Obviously, a small loan is easier to pay back than a larger loan. However, this statement does not address the question of the 5-acre up-zoning akhough it is used in the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy to side step a critical potential impact of the recommendation to up-zone. Resource Management, Inc. is quoted to say, "Based upon our findings we can conclude that zoning ordinances that restrict non-farm development on agricultural larut do not lower landprtces or negatively effect farm equity. Fluctuations in farmland prices are more influenced by general economic trends, such as interest rates and prices for agricultural products. In addition, lending institutions do not make or deny loans on the basis ofa parcel's development potential, but rather on the ability of the farm enterprise to repay its loans." Such statements are (1) self-contradictory, (2) contradicted by the authors of the Comprehensive Implementation Study (3) taken out of context, and (4) irrationally applied to analysis of potential environmental impact. These statements contradict the earlier statement wherein the Resource Management Consultants express lender concern for the confiscation of rights without compensation. The statement is contradicted by the authors of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy who state at Table 3-2 that the 5-acre zoning would result in a reduction in land value and a reduction in development rights that can be sold. The statement is also contradicted by the authors of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy in stating that "a reduction in allowable yield may effect the value of ~ to 1/3 of the land." The last sentence, that lenders make loans based upon the ability of the farmer to repay its loans is taken out of context and appears to relate to the earlier finding that a smaller loan is easier to repay than a larger loan. Finally, these statements are taken out of context as the fluctuation in farmland prices refers to the continued use of the land as farmland (ignoring the zoning tools proposed to reduce future density and sterilize 80 percent of the land area by mandatory clusteting.) Thus, these statements are not rationally applied to a discussion or analysis of environmental impact. G-119 2.2 G-120 2.2 Attached herewith at Exhibit A is Final Report: A Study of the Economic Impact of Land Use Regulations on the Business of Farming in Mar3,_ land prepared by Legg Mason Realty Group, Inc. (1993). At page 48, it is stated that while the ability to repay, a loan is the key to a financial institutions making such a loan to a farmer, fair market of the land provides the underlying basis of the loan. The report further states that the introduction of zoning resulted in a decrease in furtnland values. Both the Resources Management Consultants, Inc. study and the Legg Mason Realty Group, Inc. study were conducted in the early 1990's and centered on farmland in Maryland. Taken in the proper context, how could these two studies' findings be so divergent? The statement, "ShouM the Town adopt the RID... there would be no loss in equity as the landowner would be compensated with a denStty incentive of 2-acre equivalent yield, in exchange for continued maintenance of the land in open space or farm use" ts clearly false and contradicted elsewhere in the Comprehensive Implementation Study Clearly, there would be a loss in equity as a guarantee to purchase development rights at a 2 acre equivalent when the property is in fact zoned for 5 acre density could not be realized in a free market economy. The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states the up-zoning may effect ~A to 1/3 of the land (p. 3-28). The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy repeatedly identifies farmland to be the defining characteristic of the Town. The study recognizes to a limited degree, the role that lending institutions play in the continued viability of active farmland use. If the equity of privately held farms is significantly decreased as a result of restrictive zoning, how will the business of farming be impacted? What are the social and economic consequences of decreased farm activity brought about by implementation of restrictive zoning? Alternatives The No Action Alternative is describes a scenario limited to a full build-om analysis resulting a saturation build out of 20,532 dwelling units with a corresponding saturation population of 31,656. Notwithstanding the fact that the saturation density is significantly overstated in the Build-Out Analysis as previously pointed out herein, it is recognized that preservation programs will continue. Cdven existing funding available to the Town (approximately $12 million) with a funding expectation of an additional $64.8 million relating to anticipated revenue from the 2% real estate transfer tax that must be used for land purchase, how could the stated maximum build out and associated population saturation be realized? The Comprehensive Implantation Strategy falls to examine the most obvious alternative available to'the Town - purchase of development fights and fee title. As previously pointed out, the Town collected $3.6 million in calendar year 2002 and under such collection rate an additional $64.8 million is anticipated to be collected over the life of the program. The 2% real estate has been in effect for 4 to 5 years. What is the average tax collected on an annual basis7 A viable alternative available to the Town includes the immediate acquisition of - fee title and development rights based upon anticipated revenues. The mechanisms in place to do this are generally described as follows: (1) a financial institution (Citigroup, for example) capitalizes the amount to be lent; (2) the lending institution is paid back in accordance with an amortization schedule negotiated by the Town; (3) monies are withdrawn and used for purchase of land on an as needed basis; and (4) the loan is repaid through money collected from the 2% real estate transfer tax. In addition, the Town has the ability to collateralize the faith and credit of the County of Suffolk and State of New York. The Town is not bound to use a private lending institution as options can be provided to the Town through New York State and the Environmental Facilities Corporation. The Town of Southampton is presently engaged in securing monies (approximately $200 million) using this technique for the purpose of preserving land. Preliminary estimates indicate that lending rates of less than 3% will be available to the Town. Importantly, there is no impact to the resident taxpayer because the principle and interest paid on the loan is funded by the 2% real estate transfer tax. Acquisition of fee title and development fights is the most viable alternative in terms of obtaining a preservation goal or density goal as it is a permanent solution to a perceived problem, and avoids all adverse environmental impacts and the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources discussed in Sections 5 and 6 of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. In addition it avoids the soeio-economic impact to the Town's farming industry that is anticipated to occur as a result of implementing the land use tools examined in the Comprehensive Implantation Strategy. In summary, it is our position that the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy should be rejected by this Board for the following masons: (1) It fails to specifically define the actions to be undertaken. (2) It fails to accurately portray the patter and extent of development that has already taken place in the Town. (3) The data and general information presented is inaccurate. (4) The Build-Out analysis is fatally flawed as the assumptions made are invalid and the underlying criterion including the present zoning code, legal impediments and permanent preservation were not applied to the model. (5) The density build-out is incorrect. (6) The analysis of potential environmental impacts contradict the Build-Out analysis and its underlying data and descriptions. G-1 21 3.1 (7) It fails to address the economic impacts resulting from proposed land use tools even though their implementation would significantly effect the socio-economic character of the Town; (8) It fails to adequately address alternatives particularly with respect to the No Action Alternative (9) It fails to address the acquisition alternative. Based upon the reasons presented herein, this Board should either reject the study and its recommendations, rescind its prior resolution deeming the study complete and adequate for public review as it is clearly incomplete and inadequate for public review, or direct the preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement as a means of addressing the numerous errors and omissions in the study. ..Respectfully spIb mitt e~ G-122 2.2 CC. C. J. Vanl:lourgondien, Inc. Doug Cooper Farms Martin Sidor Farms W. Esseks, Esq. Lc/(_ Exhibit A HNA-L REPORT A STUDY OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LAND USE REGULATIONS ON THE BUSINESS OF FARMING IN MARYIAND Prepared for: MARYIAJqD FARM BUREAU, INC. Ra.nda/Istown, Maryland Prepared by: LEGG MASON REALTY GROUP, INC. 7 E. Redwood Street, 2nd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21202 January, 1993 BRC 1008 TABLE OF CONTENTS .Pag~ SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION .......................... I. Nature of t_he Problem .......................... ri'. The Purpose of this Study ...................... Ifil. Work Undertaken by Legg Mason Realty Group, Inc ....... IV. Definition of Terms ................................... V. Comments .on Scope of the Study ........................... 5 VI. Organization of this Report SECTION TWO: KEY CONCLUSIONS ............................... " SECIION THREE: THE BUSINESS OF FARMING ..................... 1 '~ I. Current Nature of the Industry ......................... II. Fa_mai. ag As Land Use ................................. t3 HI. Farming As Business ................................. ITV. Financing Agr4culmre .................................... 3.5 V. Farm Value and Debt ................................... 16 Yq. Conclusions ........................................ SECTION FOUR: THE PROCESS OF CREATING LAND VALUE ........ ia Highest and Best Use .............................. t9 The Land Development Process ............................ 20 The Role of Farmland in the Development Process .......... 24 SECTION FIVE: TI-IE ROI .F OF LAND VALUE IN THE BUSINESS OF FARMING ................................... 26 I. Capital for the Farm Business ......................... 2~ E. Supporting Farmer Equity and Welfare ......... 3 LII. Conclusions .......................... 32 TABt P. OF CONTENTS (CONTINLFED) Page SECTION SIX: THE IlVI?ACT OF GROWTH CONTROLS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND VALUF_.S ......................................... 34 I. The Growth Issue ........................................ 34 II. Techniques for Controlling Growth ........................... 37 III. Farmland Values ......................................... 41 IV. The Impact of Growth Controls on Agricu/tural Land Values ........ 44 APPENDIX Az BIBLIOGRAPI--I'Y .................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: I/qTERVIEWS ....................................... SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION The purpose of this initial semion of the report g to desire'be the backyound to the study under:akea by LEGG NL~XSON RE.a&TY GROUP, INC. ~'L?,~RG) unde: contrac: to the Maryland Farm Bureau. Thb background is impona, nt became the smd5, itself is somewhat unusual and because one of the broad topic areas within which the study fits, establishing ~owth management poliql, tends to be highly charged a. nd to generate strong opimonz. Co~equenfly, there is a need to place the study within the context of :he interests of the Farm Bm-ean and the "growth management community." L NATURE OF TH]E PROBLEM Over the past couple of decades the mtizeus of the state of Maryland, theu- elected representatives, and their administrative leaders, have become particula~Iy sensitive to environmental concerns. This heightened awareness has led to the establishment of many programs having the goal of improving the state's environmental quality. Such programs are extremely vide ranging--fi-om testing of automobile emissions to rec/ciing solid waste; improving the quality of sewage treatment to controlling the nature, scale, and location of the development of land. Maryland's farming community is deeply involved in this envirorurrrental improvement effort. Farmers have addressed enviranmental concerns related to agricultural activtty in man), different ways, including those listed below. · Utilizing "no till" cultivation; · Changing the nature and m'nount of herbicides amd pesticides used in farnUng; · Reducing the application of nutrients; · Adhering to guidelines with regard to gra:ing and feed lot practices; · Adhering to best management practices in envirommentally sensitive Pa_n:icipating in the state's agricultural land preservation program; Adhering to local zomng and other regulations affecting disposition of and development of agricultural land. As estimated in a study prepared for the Maryland Office of Planning, the amount of laud in the State of Maryland in 1990 in agricultural use, exclusive of forestry, was 2,.551,598 acres or 28.28 percent of the state's total [and area. This agricultural land, along with land used for forestry purposes, land in various state, federal, local, and private parks and reserves, marsh' land and other highly hydrous lands, and otherwise vacant and undeveloped lan& ~s generally regarded as "undevdoped," While this term as applied to farmland is inaccurate, since the land is actually "developed" for farming, there is general agreement that the land is essentially "unimproved'.' (tueaning that the bulk of it does not have swactu.res on it) and that at some point in the future it could be "developed." In general, fa_m-da.nd is the least expensive land that can be purchased wki~h lends itself to non-agricultural development of one sort or another. The soils are usually eafy to prepare for construction, roads probably exist in the area, and, given other necessary ingredients such as the existence of a tuarke:, the land can be built upon relatively easily. Given this underlying fact, many of the various recently enacted local, state and federal regulations ~imed at controlling development have particularly affected Maryland's farmland because it is not already "developed" and typically includes areas of above average environmental character. The agricultural corrmauaity has tended to work closely w/th organizations establishing environmental policy and environmental programs. Nevertheless, farmers feel that recently enacted and proposed restrictive land use controls are working a hardship on them and on the business of farming that goes beyond the agricultural community's "fair share" of the burden of improving the state's environment. In particular, agricultural [and owners are concerned that limitations on their ability to sell land for development are beginrdng to affect their ability to do business and, consequently, may be hurting the very existence of traditional farming, which most of the proposed regulations are designed to help, not hinder. Because of the vast amount of land involved, regulations affecting the use and disposition of agricultural land impact very large portions of the state of Maryland and large numbers of land owners. This fact is one of the more appealing w/th regard to the application of growth controls from the standpoint of the environmental community, but the agricultural corm-nunity feels that it unreasonably targets one land owner group -- farmers. U_ THY_ PLrR.POSE OF TH:IS STUDY The Maryland Farm Bureau bdieves that the interests and the land ownership rights of the farmer are not being given appropriate consideration in the process of establishing land we poli6y at the local and state levels. Specifically the officers, management, and members of the Farm Bureau believe that the agricultural community's opposition to certain types of growth controls has been characterized too narrowly as situply "farmers tDSng to get the most for their land so they can get out of {arming and spend the money elsewhere." tn point ~f fac'~, members of the agricultural community believe, the simat4on [s qu/te different. 12 s rhetr content/on that there ii a direct relationship between th: 'u~ of agricultural ia2¢1 md the furare v/ability of Mar/land's agricultural industry. The 7 commun/ty believes hat agnculmral land values play a more central and in~cat~ ~_ in the agricultura~ ad~/than is generally recog'mzed. But farmers also know thaz ~',~s pa.rricular posidon ~as not been researched nor has it been well articulated to lmad use pla.aners and :overament offidais. The purpose of LMRG's study is to conduct research into the slafionsh/p between land values and the business of farming and to dete:rCUne the e.,rtent ~ wh/ci2, as grow-dh controls impact land values, they h:npacr the v/abil/ty of farming. a essence, the study is intended to address some of the following questions. ,, \¥qaat is the role of the value of a farm's land in the business of farramg'? · What is the relat/o~h:to of development to the value of agric-tdturaJ land'? · To what extent do growth controls impact agricultural land values* · To what extent do growth controls impact the business of farrmngO If agrS~culmral land values are important to the business of farrrung, and 2- growth controls negatively affect such values, how can farmers work with policy makers to gain more equitable consideration az land use pol/cy ~s designed and implemented? [L WORK UNDERTAKEN BY LEGG MASON REALTY GROUP, [NC_ I2 carrying out this study, LlvfRO performed the following work. Discussed the assignment with officers and members of the Farm Bureau, particularly its property rights subcommittee. Discussed the assignment and various aspects of the relationship between growth controls and farming with Maryland fa~nners at their annual convention in Ocean City. interviewed bankers at private banking institutions and at the region's Farm Credit Associations to establish the relationship bep,veen lending policies and the value of agricultural land. Interviewed developers who actively develop in rural/suburban areas to establish· the role of farmland in development in such areas. Nterv/ewed rea/ estate agents who sell farm land and who represent residential developments in rural and suburban area. Obtained information on the status of Maryland's agricultural industry from the Maryland Department of Agriculture, the Maryland Farm Bm'eau, and various published sources such ms the Census of Agriculture. Obtained information on the subject matter from the Axnerican Farm Bureau Federation and pursued sources of information at the United States Department of Agriculture and other national level sources. Obtained and reviewed studies done by the Mary[and Office of P[ann/.ng and others w/th regard to the relationship between var/ous types of development regulations and the value of agr/cultural land. Researched the specific experience of the Maryland Agricultural Lanc~ Preservation Foundation with regard to purchase of development rights Maryland's agr/cultura/districts. Interviewed real estate appraisers who have been active in the appraisal of land in connection with the MALPF program. Interviewed senior planning officials in selected Maryland counties to establish the extent to which farmland is being converted to developed uses in those counties. · Prepared this repor~ presenting the results of our research and analysis. DEFI2CFFION OF TERblS Several terms related to farming and agriculture are used throughout this report. Definitions of these terms are set forth below. These definitions are those of LM1RG and do·not necessarily reflect the way they might be deft. ned in other analyses. The terms that will be used to most frequently in this study are farm (the physical facility) and farmer, which W/il imply ownership of the farm. A?Sculmre: Agriculture (the agricultural indusw/ agribusiness ~ is the ~ndust~-, that encompasses fam-ung and the processing, distributiom and outer aspec~ of handling the ?roducts that result from farming. Farming: Farming is the activity, of g:o~Sng/raising crops and pr,~duc:s. may be la_ad intensive as with cora or not, as w/th the raising horticulture, or tobacco. For the most part, however, the assumption is that a relatively large amount of land is used in "farming" and that ~is land dependent. There is a presumption that there is an unbreai~:able between farming and the land. Farm: There are two definitions of a farm. One is a business center which aims to make a profit from farming. The other is the ?hysicai faciht'y, comprised of land, buildings, fences, roads, an,:. other improvements/investments, which accommodates the farm business and the activity of farm/rig. Farmer: E-P,e senior person/people involved in farming at any g/yen farm_ This person/people may or may not own the farm but is tlne operator. A corporation, either owned by the farmer or by outside investors, is also considered a "farmer." The most sen/or person on a farm may be the farm manager. Less sen/or people working on tlne farm (paid bands, machinery operators, contract labor) are participating in farming and might generally be thought of as being farmers, but are not included in the definition of fazmer for the purpose of this study. V. COM3vI~NTS ON SCOPE TH~ STUDY Farming businesses are Lmpacted by an extremely v, fde range of regulations, most of which affect the use of land. This study focused exclusively on Jand u~e regulations that affect the nature of the development that ca~ occur on the land and the density of such development. It does not address the impact on farm/ng of regulations of a primarily env/r0nmental nature, such as those addressing wetlands preservation, sensitive areas, waste runoff and so forth. While the affect of both categories of regulation on the business of farming may be similar, the scope of this work was purposely limited to the land use/density issue. The ~ssue of land value tends to be related pr/maNly to those farmfng operations that involve large amounts of land; i.e., are land intensive. While sach farms accou.at for the bu/k of all land being farmed in Maryland, the number of smaller farm operations, many of which use relatively Little [and, such as poultry, farms, is significant. This study is most applicable, therefore, to the larger, land intensive farms, though i: is re!even.', to all farms. VL ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT This report consists of five sections in addition to the introduction. Section Two ia the F_.xecui:ive Summary in which key conclusions are presented a_nd the principal findings upon which those conclusioxs ar~ based ~e summarized. In Section Tl~ee, thc basinea of farming i~ described. An overview of how la.nd value is created is the subjecx of Section Four. The role of la_nd value La the farming industz5, is presented in Section Five, while grovah controls and their impact on agricultural la_nd values comprise the concluding section, Section Six. 6 SECTION TWO KEY CONCLUSIONS T~e purpose of reis section of fie report is to summarize the key conc[usio~ estab~hed by LM2RG on fine basis of our work and to identify the princ/pal findings derived from the research and analysis that suppor~ those conclusions. CONCLUSION ONE The value of a farm rests primarily/m the value of the land compri.sing that farm. Farms are basically sold "by the acre". The value is a mix of the agrictdmre ea. rninp potential, development potenfiah and resident/al use value. Supporting The success of farming operations, partimlarly those involving tae growing of crops, can var;, substantially over short periods of time. They are affected by weather, world markets, public poi/des, and many other factors..As a result, a farmer's bmsmess can go from terrific to lousy in a very short period of time. In addition to de capability of the farmer l:mxmseLf/herself, and improvements built on the land, the oNy constant in this process is the land itself. The quality, of a farm as a business enterprise is important, but the worth of that enterprise is best reflected in the value it imparts to the land. The value of the farm as a business, absent the land, is minimal because of the highly uncertain namr: of the business and the fact that it is usually highly persona!.ized to a specific farmer/farm family'. CONCLUSION TWO The value of real estate, especially the land, plays a~ important role in the ff.nanc'ing of the farming bus/mess ur/li:,'/ng that real estate. Supporting FLud/~gs Most agricultural businesses take on a substantial amount of debt in the course of azmual operations and many carry mortgages. The loans that result m that debt ~re made primarily on the ability, of Ce agricultural enterprise to pay interest a.nd repay principal from a.rmual operations. Nevertheless, most financial institutions require that the loans be co[laterali?ed using the borrower's equity in his/her real estate. Consequent/y, the value of that real estate affects the willingness of the leader to make a loan and the size of ~ar loan. CONCLUSION THP,.EE The value of land and the abilky to sell it in order to renl{ze that value play a role in the ability of an agricu~mr~l enterprise to sm-vive over the longer term_ SuFporgug Findings The value of a farmer's land and the ability to convert that land into cash helps to support the farmer's business in several ways. Selling off a portion of the land in a time of financial need can help to assure that a given farmer retain.~ his/her property. The value of the farm and the ability to convert that value into cash plays a role in the ability of the farm family to meet gif~ and estate tax obligations. The ability of the farmer to develop residences on the farm for members of the farming family and tenant operators, of the farm helps to assure the presence of a pool of individuals who are willing to work on the farm. The value of the farm and the ability to convert that value into cash constitutes the principal retirement fund for most farm families. CONCLUSION FOUR Growth controls amd vario~ forms of development regulation affect the value of farmland, tending to lower the value relative to les~ regulated land in most Supporting Findings Most d~velopment regulations affecting farmland are aimed at making certain that the farmland remains in agricultural use, or is as lightly developed az possible. The agricultural use value of land tends to be the lowest "productive use" of lamd (in contrast to agricultural, woodlands, amd other generally "unproductive" uses of the land.) In most instances the princip31 non-farm development likely to occur on the land is residential, and the lower the density of the permitted residential development, the lower the value of the land on a la. mci per unit basis. Consequently, the application ofdevelopmem regulations such as agricultural use zoning, or iow-density permitted development (for example: one unit per 20 acres; one unit per 50 acres) tends to place farmland in the category of lowest potential value relative to areas with fewer land use restrictions. 8 CONCLUSION FTV'E AppLication of growth controls ad development regulations directiy affecz only a relatively smzdl amotmt of farmland acreage La a given year but ail . f2rmland as a class a.nd every farmer ba the long rzm_ Supporting Findings Tlae m~mber of acres of fa_wnland that is actua/iy taken out of product/on and converted to "development" in a given year is orfly a small percentage of the state's total lazad being farmed. Tlxns, in a given year, only a few farmers would acraally be denied access to the higher la.nd values that might result from less regulation. However, h:nposition of regulations has a ripple effect that impacts all of the state's farmland to some degree. In addition, there appears to be a strong negative psychological impam on all farmers as a class, even though most recognize that in a_ny ~ven year, for any given property, Likelihood of actually realiz/ng the sale of land for development is minJmai. These impac',~ tend to negatively affect the business outlook of farmers and their 'MSingn=~s to stick w/th a business that is not easy to begin with. CONCLUSION SEX The principal value of most farmDnd is related primari/y to its ag;r/culmrM productiwity. Z, onin~ development regulations, and other goverrunent based actions influence the non-agr/cultural, value. Supporting Fhadings The great bulk of all farmland does not fall within a reasonable geographic definition of areas 1Lkely to be developed in the near term. Consequently, when a farmer meres to realize the value of his/her farm, that value is going to reflect primarily me al~ilir, v of that land to support productive agr/culturai activ/ty, plus the value of improvements such as buildmgs,'fences, and so forth. Except, in certain speciEc :md unusual instances, however, all farmland has some non-agricultural value. Consequently, while la.nd use controls tending to lirrdt development may have relatively little net impact on the vaJ. ue of most farms, they may have a more sigrfificant impact on the ability of a given farmer to sell all or part of the farm in any given year for the maximum possible value appropriate to that particular land. 9 O¥~R~T .T. CONCLUSIONS Zozfing and other forms of land use regulations and grow'th control measures reduce a farmer's options Mth regard to disposition of his/her land at optimum value. This is ac'really what they are designed to do, but such actions affect farmers and farming in several ways. Farmers lose some amount of current value when subjected to restrictive zoning. Appraisals of far. amd undertaken in cormec'tion with the Agricultural La_nd Preset/etlon Foundation program support the fact that there is some development value i2 all agricultural land. That value is capable of being diminished by land use regulations when development options are reduced. Restrictive land use regulations cause farmers to lose financial flexibility, particularly ~,Sth regard to the disposition of the land when required to generate funds to cover a short term farm business or personal need, or to settle a long term obligation such as gift, inheritance, and estate taxes. Options available to lenders with regard to provision of loans are reduced, paaxicularly with regard to the size of loans. While the underlying rationale for the loan is the agricultural business itself, the value of the farmer's land, including the development value of that land, can make the difference in the willingness of the lender to make the loan and/or the size of the loan. On balance, therefore, those agencies undertaking programs that reduce the developability or potential development intensity of farmland can negatively affect the welfare of the state's farmers as a class over the longer term and the welfare of certain specific farmers, especially those close tb developing areas and those needing to realize maximum cash value for the farmland, in any given year. These impacts should be taken into account in the course of preparing and implementing such regulations. SECTION TH]LEE TIKE BUSINESS OF FAF2vfI2~G The purpose of this section of the report is to provide a brief overview of the business of fartn~ ing and to introduce the relationship between that business and tine land. L CURREF~ NATL~RE OF THE INDUSTRY The overall size of the agricultural industry in Maryland, revolving ali of the many components of agribusiness, cannot be determdned from avaJlable data. It ts known to be large, however, and includes those fim'm that process agriculture products as ,~,'e~3 as those involved in transport, servicing farm.s, and other components. For many gaffs of the state agriculture is the principal driver of the local economy. The linkage between successful far~zs and a healthy agficuhurz! industry is clear. The latter cannot exist '~dthout the former. The agriculture industry uses more land in the state of Maryland than any other industr!. The business of farming takes place on approximately 28% of the state's land, and no other business comes close to using that much land as a factor in irs operation. [n fac,., farmland comprises more of the state's land than all of its residential areas. As can be seen in Table 1, farm/rig in Maryland encompasses mr: estimated 15,200 farm operations. The Maryland Deparmaent of Agriculture estimates that 2,250,000 acres of r.he state's land is in farms, most of which is being actively farmed at the present rime. This results in an average farm size of ).48 acres. Gross farm income per farm was estimated at $98,197 in 1991. Div/ding this by the average size of a farm results in gross income of I;663.50 per acre. Farming continues to evolve in Maryland as farm products serve society's diverse interests and needs. Of necessity, farming today reflecu the pragmatics of operating a business enterprise in the business, political, communi~, and governmental contexts that ex/st at the end of the 20th century. Farm ownership in Maryland remains strongly oriented toward the farmly, but the family farm may now be incorporated. There are some absentee owner f~u~s, but the trend toward such operations peaked in the mid-1980's. There seems to be az increasing mount of land being farmed on a leased basis. The trend l~as been toward a greater number of acres being farmed per farmer, but not necessarily in bigger farm.s. The impact of the poultry, industry and of the poultry industry and of such spec/aJW farm operations as sod, horticulture, Christmas trees, oriental vegetables, garden vegetables, and so forth has tended to make some farms operations smaller. These Idnds of operations reflect high value products of more intensive farming catering to urban markera. 11 TABLE 1 NUMBER OF FARMS AND ACREAGE MARYLAND AND THE UNITED STATES 1979-1991 Ma~,land Total La~d # of # ef Avg. Acres in Farms Farms' Yea~ Farms" per Farm (Th. Acres) fTh. Farms) United States Avg. Acres per Farm Total Land in Farms (Mit. Acres) 1979 17,000 159 2,700 24.37 428 1,042 1980 17,50~) 157 2,750 2,4.40 426 1,039 1981 18,200 154 2,800 2,440 424 1,0,34 1982 18,000 153 2,750 2, 407 427 1,028 1983 18,000 150 2,700 2,379 430 1,023 1984 17,800 152 2,700 2,2334 436 1,018 1985 17,500 149 2,600 2,293 441 1,012 1986 17,000 147 2,500 2,250 447 1,005 1987 16,500 148 2,450 2.213 451 999 1988 16,000 147 2,350 2,197 453 995 1989 15,600 147 2.300 2.171 457 991 1990 15,200 148 2,250 2.14.0 461 987 1991 "" 15,400 146 2,250 2,105 4,67 983 Prior to 1975 a farm was considered any place wfth less than 10 acres having sales of $250 or more or places of 10 acres or more with $50 of sales. In 1975, the farm definition became a place that sells or normally would sell $1,000 of agricultur,~l products "'~ Preliminary Source: 'Maryland, Agricultural Stadstics'-1991. A~ can be seen in Table £, several counties stand out in terms of agrim[mrai ?roducTon. For seven id~n~ed a~mrM co~odities, Caro[Me Counv is [=s~ in three s~ m ~other. Frederick is ~st ~ ~o closes ~d ~f~ m ~,o others. Que~n s~cond tn three closes ~d ~ird m another. Ot~er high ran~ng countn~s m produ~on ~ Kenk Dorchester, Ca~oll. W~hington, and H~ord. k is interesting of ~e five co~¢s revolved ia tobacco production tsp. M~/s, Charte~, CMvem ,~ndd, ~d Pdnce George's-in brd~r of production), none r~ ~n &e ~op seven o~r co~odi~ eatego~. ~is is partly indicative of the ~nd of soils tobacco gows M~ such soils gener~y berg much less productive for other ~nds of crops, as well fa~ ~st ~ese counties tend to be in the ~ci~ of the e~d~g W~hm~on metropo[k~ IL FARM:lNG AS La. ND USE The description of a_wriculmre set forth above emphasizes the business ann operationa2 nature of the industry. The tTpical resident of the state of Maryland however, oken kas a very different view of "farming". With over two million acres of the state's land in farmz, many state residents pass a farm in their everyday activities. To them the farm is, probably. an attractive area of primarily open land that, most of the time, looks unused. Farming as a land use is, therefore, important to the state's residents and to its public of:rituals far beyond the level of economic activity that actually occurs on the farms. .~ a land use, farming generates a pleasant recollection of past times for many people. It is frequently regarded as "open space". This misnomer reflects a lack of understanding of the businesz use of the land. One of the reasons there is conflict between farmers and government officials is that the role of the farm as a pleasant, "open" land use ma5, conflict with what the farmer wants to do with the land. Farming is a serious, large, important business in Maryland. At the same time, most of the state's citizens know li'ttle about the business of farming and relate to it primarily as a land use. For most Maryland residents farming is viewed as a pleasant, open land use. It is important that the farm use of land be looked at in its r_me and accurate sense, as an asses underpinning a business, and not just as pleasant open space. IlL F.~RMI:NG AS BUSINESS Farming is a business. Farms are not "undeveloped". They are developed for the business of farming. Farming is a land use, not a substitute for open space. Farms may be classified ha plums as a type of open space, but they are first and foremost, an operating business..4 noted earlier in this report, the business of farming takes many different forms, but regardless of its form, it is a business activity the purpose of ,Maich is to make a profit. 13 d ¥~%iie profit is the objecdve of the farm operatiom it is also deaz that ma~7 participate in farming because ~ey enjoy the lifestyle. They gain positive "psychic from farmzng. There is no way to quantify such reward, and it ks certainly no substitute real money when it comes to having to buy ~e necessities of [iie. Like,~,-ise, farmers a certa-m "imputed income" from occupying their residences on the r.arm. Th.is is reco~,~ by t~e Bureau of Economic Analysis in its annual tabulation or- income, ta 1989 all in Marsqand received $152,8i8,000 as "imputed income and rent received" Dom operations. Among other things, ti:ds indicated value by BEA illustrates the interrvaNng o£ the personal and bu. siness lives of the faz-m farni/y. IV. FIN.~A'qCING AGRICUrLTURJE As with any industry, financing is ,.q-itical to the success of agri~lmre. One of the mos: important facu to understand about financing agriculture ks that agricultural loans a.re vSewed as commercial loans. Consequently, even the molxgage on a farm dwelling is l/keF,' to be regarded as a commercial credit by the lending institution. This meaz~s iha= commercial criteria are applied to the making of such ioa~. Loans to farmers a_re provided by a w/de range of lending institution. The most maporrant, however, are the Farm Credit Associations associated with the Fawn Credit Bank of Baltimore and the commercial banks located primarily in agricultural communities. The Farm Credit Bank provide credit to farm Bank borrowers in the five-sta~e region of Delaware, Marylanc, Peon.sylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. The Bank prov/des ~% of ali of the borrowing done by farmers in this area. The proportion is believed to be slightly higher for Maryland itself. Commercial banks provide the remainder. The Farm Credit Bank makes loans primarily through the various agricultural credit associations having responsibility for specific counties in Maryland. The system of which the Faz-m Credit Bank and its associations are member was established by the Farm Credit Act of 1~71. Eligible borrowers of funds at the faz'm credit associations: Bona fide farmers and ranchers and producers or harvesters of aquatic products; Persons furnishing farmers and ranchers with services direcd':' rela~et_ . on-farm operating needs; · Owners of rural homes; and · Rural residents. 15 The Bank {s authorized to make loans to other banks engaged in lending to farmers and to corporations engaged to lending to producers or harvesters of farm products. A wide variety of r,)pes of ioaaz ye made by banks lending to fa_r-reefs. These i~clude: Production loans to enable the farmer to plant a crop or other'w/se produce products for sale, with such loans normally being secured primarily by the crop/product being produced; Mortgages on farm property including land, dwellings, facto buildings, utility improvements, and such needed to operate the farm and enable faz-rner to on it, with such loans normally being secured by the value of the la.nd and improvements; Equipment loans fr~r large pieces of farm equipment needed to plant, grow, harvest, and on-site process crops. The distribution of loans made by the Maryland Farm Credit associations is set forth in Table 3. .~ noted prev-iously, most farm loans are mortgages and are regarded as commercial in nature. That means that the lender assumes that the pr/nc/pa/ way of liqu/dafing them is through earnings gained from farm activity. However, essentially all lenders require that the farm operation provide additional collateral as security gains possible fa/lure of the crop or production of activity with the farm itself usually ser,,4ng as that collateral. The trend has been toward slightly larger loanz as individual farm operat/oms grow and the corporate structure becomes more common. At the same time, while maintain the requirement for backup collateral, criteria for making a loan have tended to locus increasingly on the ability of the business to repay the loan out of income from operations. V. FAILM VALUE AND DEBT According to the 1987 Census of Agriculture, the average fazrn was worth $366,788 in 1987, or S2,261 per acre. (In 1992 dollars those values would be approximately $4a,000 and $2,700.) The Census data indicate that 39.5 percent of all farms had interest as a.n empense, meaning that about 60 percent were debt free. The interest paid by those farms with debt averaged $6,892 in 1987. While total debt is not indicated, assum/ng a 10 percent rate of interest, the average lomu for farms with debt woo. id be about $69,000, or $83,000 in inflated 1992 dollars. The average farm with debt, therefore, was carrying debt equal to about 19 perce.nt of its value. 16 UJ ~--, O(3 -JO 0~ o~- c 17 V'L CONCLUSIONS Farrn~ lng is a major business activity in the state of Maryland. While the indu_swy goes throu~ reIafively severe e/cles based on weather and markets, over the long term farming a.s a business at the state level has ~own during the past several decades. The state ham over 15,000 farms and over 2,000,000 acres of land in those farms. Farming operatioas are financed through a relatively few bamkz that specialize in agricultural loams. Over the past decade these banks have been tightening their criteria with regard to lending. The shift has beea toward making certain that loams can be pa/d back out of operafiom vice requiring the sale of real estate. At the sa.me time, regardless of how "producrioa or/ented" a loan might be, the lender usually requires that collateral be posted amd the farm red estate is the collateral most frequently used. 18 SECIION FOUR PROCESS OF CREATING LAND VALUE The purpose of t.hs sect/on is to explore the process of ,wearing land value. Given ~ts breadth and comple;d~,, the subject area cannot be definitively covered in mese few pages. We can, however, address those key points of land value creation that most directly affect the farmer. The farmer's concern is that land u.se regulatiom negatively impact the value of his/her land. In order to be lost, however, that value has to get into tine land La some way. This study is about the giving and taking of actual (cash) or unrealized value ~ agriculmrM land. Understanding how that value gem there in the first place and how it can be removed, is essential to explor/ng the impact that land use regulations have on the value of a farmer's land. L HIG~ .AND BEST USE In the best of ali possible worlds a given piece of land ,Mil always be valued at irs "highest and best use". TNs term has a well delined technical basis, being referred to and used in essentially evers' appraisal. Generally accepted reasonable definitions of highest and best use are: The reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value of vacant land or improved property; The reasonably probable and legal use of land or sites as though vacant. found to be physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest present land value; 3. The most profitable use. In ascertaining the highest a. nd best use of a given piece of farmland, az though available for development, it is necessary to analyze four factors: the legality, of the use, the physica/ adapt.abi].i .ty of the site to the use, the marketability of the use, and the profitability of the use. The analytical process involves a careful study of both the impact and the relationship of each factor to the subject property. The best use conclusion reflects the optimal combination of them. Determination of value almost always entails know[edge of what business acti,Afies can occ,~ on the land ~om a market standpoint, as well as what the "legal" (regulatory,) conditions ,~4Jd permit. In the past, highest and best use was essentially deterrmned only through the econom/c v/abLiity of the acti,,4ty occurr/ng on the land. While stilt important, the legall,_: permitted use of the land, as deterrained by zoning and other land use r%~21atioas, is critical. 19 In the economic use context, the best use for most rural land is probably agrictdmre. (Or it could be no "use" at ail when the cost of ma'ldng the land productive for agrioalmre exceeds the potential return from it.) The value Ls then a function of agricultu, ral productR4ty. But agriculture is not always the highest and best use of rural ia_nd. If that land is located near a source of non-agricazltural development, and particularly if it ks near a town or other urban settlement, the highest and best use could eazily be non-agricultural. in these instances, the agricultural use must be mandated via the land use regulatory. process, the assumption being that if the reguiatious were relaxed, then the la_nd would probably be "conver~ed" to non-agricultural use. in snmma..W, those who advocate the most free and open market for land believe that highest and best use should be a function of economics-the most economically productive use of the land; i.e., the value of the land in a competitive supply and demand environment. In Maryland, however, essentially every jurisdiction has development regnlatioas. These · regulations dramatically alter the highest and best use value of the land. In essence, the zonZng of the land is the principal determinant of its value with the economic use of the [a. nd within that particular zone playing a secondary role. 1"nat is why most developers and builders try to work only Mth land that is already properly zoned for the permitted use they want to develop, preferring not to get involved in the zoning change process. II. TIlE I_,:MND DEVF. IOPMENT PROCESS The process of developing land establishes value and serves to cause highest and best use to be achieved on a given parcel. This land development process is a.na/yzed here from two viewpoints--that of the broad context of market and public policy, and that of the more narrowly focused deveiopment of the [and by, primarily, private interests. A. The Role of the Market Public policy as expressed through vahous .types of land use, development, environmental, and other controls and regulations affects the location and, to some degree, the scale of development in a given area. But the actual volume of development is primarily a function of the market. One need only look at the real estate development situation in 1992 in contrast to, say the situation six yea. rs ago. In the mid-1980's a market was perceived to exist La Maryland for large volumes of residential units and commercial space, la 1992 the situation was almost completely the reverse, w/th only a moderately active resident/al market providing any real life to the development business. The situations both six years ago and in 1992 are probably inaccurate. The market of six years ago was perceived aa being more positive than was warranted, while today it is undoubtedly being mewed as less positive than it should be. The point is that the market establishes the broad framework for development- 20 Farmland is as a~ected bv market forces as any other 7.,'po of iaad. However, for most farmland the p~ncipzd market L~ undoubtedly that for fa2-rmng, not for some other use. Most farming activity on rural land establishes the highest and best use of that land :md d~ctates its value. [f the farrrdand is productive and alternat]ve uses for t~e Land are minimal, then its value will be a ~nction primarily of its agri~ltural producti¼rf. Ln i2stances where the land is Ln the 'dcinity of non-agri,mlmrzd developmenk however, the market for housing or, possibly, for other uses may dictate its ultimate value. The market is governed by overal] economic additions and the perception of indMdusis anc~ businesses with regard to their futm'e economic health. ~' they are optimistic, then m~rket pressures are likely to be greater. If they are pessimistic mad investment in personal and business matters is miMmal, then development pressures will be reduced. There is t-elat~vely Little market generated pressure for development in areas where ~conomic condiuc,~s are poor, investment is minimal, amd gro,~72 absent. On balance, therefore, tn". land development process is a function of these broad market forces translated into invest:neat in private residential and commercial real estate. B. The Role of PubLic Pohcy In the State of MarTland pub[/c policy with regard to development has been expressed in a very wide range of land use, development, and env/rorunental controls and regulations. In fact, Maryland is generally regarded as one of the most progressive states with regard to local and state level land use and en,Arom'nental regulations. The State Land Use Act of 1974, the critical area legislation of t984, and the Econonfic Growth, Resource Prote~xSon and Plarming Act of 1992, w/th their attendant regulations and procedures, along with many other state level farm use prograrn~, tend to put Mary[and in the front rank or' ten or so states (Florida, New Jersey, Oregon, California, and others) in impiemenring strong progra.rns regulating land use. In Maryland these programs are carried out primarily at the local govermnent level, especially the county level (including Baltimore City). Mar/land is nearly un/que th that counties have particularly strong powers. This perm/ts public programs to be centraLized and enables them to be large enough to have real power. Operating within guidelines established by the State, most Maryland counties have established extensive pla-rLmng mad deve.opment control programs using avepy w/de range of implementation techniques from zoning to purchase of development rights. In essentially every Maryland jurisdicfiork development is a highly orchestrated process the govern.meat being a pa2-mer nearly every, step along the way. While much development is permitted as a matter of r/ght reader local zoning ordinance-s, even that development will likely require a number of approvals before investment in co~truction occurs. 21 Comequentiy, government regulations dramatically infl. uence the use that can be made of any given piece of real estate and, consequently, its developabiHry. The Role of the Community h this instance community is defined a~ residents and businesses living or operating in the vicinity of a proposed developm~m. Even if market conditions are favorable and all regulatory requirements have been met, it is possible that development can be stopped. This occurs when community activists, neighbors, and other groups express their displeasure at a particular development. The land development process in the 1990's must take into account community, interests and concerns. It is not unusual in this decade for a developer's first action to be to the adjacent community to test its reaction and to try to enlist its support for his project. D. The Owner The owner of land is a pm-tic/pant in the development process, whether or not he/she wants to be. In some instances the owner initiates the process of development by petitioning the local government for a zordng change that would permit a certain type of development. In other instances, those changes are made without the active participation of the land owner. Land owners, including farmers, have also been known to approach developers to see whether that particular developer is interested in devetoping on the land owner's proper'ry. The property might or might not already have the appropriate zoning. On balance, however, most owners of buildable land are not active participants in the development process. They are usually pulled along by the various governmental, community, business, and market forces affecting their land. Numerous examples to the contrary exist, but we beheve that the great majority of land owners including owners of farmland, woodland, vacant and unused I ,and, and other la_nd generally outside of a community's already designated "envelope," fit the description of limited participants in the land development process. E. The I nnd Speculator Speculation is a term that tends to have a negative connotation in our society. Speculators are fi-equently regarded as people who make money without making a positive, constructive, value adding contribution to a product. Nevertheless, in most markets speculators serve a useful role. Speculators typically constitute the leading edge of the land development process. They identify land that has the potential for development at some t/me in the furore. That land might already have some of the approvals necessary to he developed, but it is more likely to not have such approvals. Consequently, speculators frequently target farmland for activities. The process of obtaining appropriate approvals for farraland can 4rzmaricaiiy increase its value. This is how the speculator obtams h/s/her return..At the same fi.me it m/ght not be possible to obtain me approvals and the increase in value might not occur. That is what makes speculation a risk-/ business. Speculators are not necessary to the process of causing development to occur on agn~-mlmral land. The presence of speculators probably causes some increase in land values in parts of the state. Of course the speculation does not have to be in cormection ~th development. Some speculation occurs in anticipation of other changes such as natural resource ex,'action (mining, petroleum drilling), building of a road, and so forth, in ',.he case of otherwise undeveloped farmland, the speculator may se~,'e as an intermedfar7 between the land owner and the land developer. The speculator may' or may not take an ownerskip interest in the property.. The mere interest of the speculator in a piece of ia.nd can cause some increase in its value, assuming that the speculator is not cloaked in the guise of another farmer or other person who would appear to be interested in the land ord,? for its present use. The vast majority of farmers do not speculate in land. Rather, they' p$~e the land for agricultural purposes. F. The l~nd Developer The land developer "wholesales" the land. He/she buys it from the original owner or a land speculator, obtains the necessar/ approvals, and sells it to one or more real estate developers. This is a high risk/high reward business. Risk is diminished where the land developer is working in a context of public polk)' that has made it clear where various types of development are to occur over a ~ven period of time and has backed up these policies by in~talling appropriate infrastructure. Typically, however, the land developer must acquire the approvals necessary to cause rea/estate development to occur. The gain for the land developer is in purchasing the land at the lowest possible cost and selling it at the highest possible value after malting such improvements as are necessary ro permit real estate development to occur. The land developer is not always a participant in the process since some real estate development oc~rs on land purchased direct!5.' fi.om the original owner A significant amount of large development, however, occurs on land that has been prepazet for such development by a land developer. G. Real Estate Developer The real estate developer completes the land value generating process. The value r;,~ the land on which built projects sit is more valuable than vacant land, even when that vacant land has ail of its approvals. A built project generates a "supportable land value" that cam be mathematically derived based on the sales price of the development on it anc,/or the rent 23 stream generated by rental projecu as related to time. V~Uie the real estate developer is frequently regarded negatively by those entities warning to preserve land in its undeveloped state, the developer is probably not the principal reason laud ks actually built on. In most instances, good real estate developers w/il work only ,4dth la. nd that ha5 already received most of its approvals. They are not land developers or land ~eculators. They make their money building, not anticipating furore land value increases, in this regard, the developer b Like a manufacturer; he/she "manufactures" built space on the land. Since the real estate developer causes the most visible physical changes to occur on the land, however, he/she is the most frequent target of those who oppose development. I-L .The Bottom Line An increase in land value' ii likely to occur at each stage of the development process..-ks noted previously, because of the involvement of governmental entities in the process, there is usually extensive communication between developers and regulator./bodies. In theory, a profitable return is generated at each stage of this process to the entrepreneur taking the risk. The position with the least risk is that of the original land owner_ This assumes that the original land owner is able to support his/her cost of the land with the use occurring on the land when it was originally purchased. Some land owners become land speculators when they perceive increased future value and hope to receive that value by selling to a developer. Owners are truly playing the speculation game when they borrow money on anticipated future value. At that point they become locked-in to having to sell the land for higher furore value. This has happened to some farmland owners, and the agricultural lazd preservation program has served as a means of generating funds for such owners. Losses in the land development process occur primarily when anticipated future value cannot be realized because the next higher level of development does not occur for whatever reason-market' cornmurdty concerns, public approvals. While the land development business is often associated w/th great gains and creation of a large amount of wealth, which is the case in some i2stances, for many other people it is simply another busLuess that creates a reasonable return. In fact, at the present time it is a very difficult business to be in for many who entered it in the Ia.st decade or so. THE ROLE OF FARlvlJ_AND EN' THE DEVELOPM]ENT PROCESS Farming is a business use of land, as is active forestr.,', and other land intensive businesses. it is erroneous to thir& of agricultural land as "vacant" or unused or "open space". Because there is so much of it, and because farming use is a relatively low generator of income to the land, farmland tends to comprise the bulk of the land that ,Mil udtimately be developed. It can be assumed that a number of farnu are sold each year in anticipation of development. However, this does not mean that development occurs on ail such farms Ln the near term 24 or even in the long term. ~¢,'here the farm is large, or hms special attributes, or is considerec particularly su-ategic from the standpoint of ins Iocation/visibilirf, me "loss" of that farm non-agriculmra/ development is frequentiy highly publicized and may create a negative reaction. Most such rrar~fers, however, probably :h-e not publicized and considered by the involved parties as simply a normaJ componeni of the process urba.n/suburban ~ow'th. In many instances farming serves as a~ interim use in the development business. ,Axe actuax case in FrederSck County follows a classic pattern..An elderly fmpmer/lando,.maer sold a farm to a speculator/land developer but continued to farm the land under contras. The land developer, w/th the concurrence of the County, which wanted to direct development to this general area, granted the !and developer the necessary approvals. The land developer sold individual parcels to three different real estate developers for two residential projects and a corn_mercia/project. The farmer continued to farm the land throughout the entire process until development acmaJly oc~rred on the various parrs of the project. Consequently, the transition fi.om farm to development was quick, clean, and acceptable to all of the p-~_rr, ies involved. Probably the biggest issue w/th regard to creation of land value is its psychological impact on the farmer/landowner..As that class of indiv/dual controlling the greatest amount of potentially developable land ha the State of Maryland, the attitudes of farmer/landowners with regard to development is critical. Given the eballient de'~'elopment atmosphere of the 1980's, many farmers perceived the likelJ, hood of being able to make a substantial amount of money selling their farms to developers. The dramatic downward shift in the marker. however, and increasingly rigorous public policies, have altered the en,Aronrnent for development in rural areas. Consequently, the likelihood that in any given year man) farmers will be able to obtain any significant value from their land other than its apr/cultural value is limited. Farmers tend to react as a class, to these matters, b0-.vever. Consequently, as a class, farmers are concerned that increased regulations will diminish even further the~ opportunity to obtain non-agricultural value for their [and by lirrdting the rnazke: supportable highest and best use of the land through intervention in the deveiopmen: process described above. These concerns affect their long term outlook on the business of farming and have caused some to exit the business "while we can" or to, consider doing s,> SECTION FIVE THE ROLE OF La24D VALUE IN TH]E BUSINESS OF FARM]iWG Discussion of the merits of various growth control techniques, partimlarly the grow-da mmnagement program proposed by the governor to the Mzu'yland General Assembly in i991 and commordy referred to as the "2020 Legislation", generates very different ',dews on the importance of the value of ferruled to a farmer's operations. T'ne purpose of this section of the report is to evaluate that relationship. Farmers contend that they need reasonably high farm2and vatues in order to support the business of farming as well as to provide a reasonable return on investment to support their long term welfare. Consequendy, they say, it is necessary to permit market forces, ms unconstrained as possible by regulations, to dictate the value of their farms. Conversely, those who support a policy, of strengthening land u.se regulations applicable to farmland and its development say that such policies won't have much affect on far-roland to beg~n with and, even if they did, that value is not needed by the farmer to pursue his business. The purpose of this section of the report is to analTze the role that the vadue of farmland plays in supporting the farm operation and the farmer's personal welfare, and thus the business of farming. In the following paragraphs, the various ways in which land values support farm businesses will be analyzed. The analysis covers the role of land value in providing capital to farad. As will be seem the value of the land comes into play in two principal ways: · As an important part of the value of collateral posted to obtain loans; .As paid-in surplus to be extracted when necessary to support farming operations and/or the welfare of the farm operator. CAi>IT.AL FOR THE F.~Klv[ BUSINESS Az w/th any business, a farm needs capital. That capital is provided in the form of equity invested by the farmer/farm fa_m/ly or stockholders of the corporation and in the form of borrowed funds from lending institutions. Most farms do not generate enough surplus annual income to create a pool of funds that can be used to expand equity. Maintenance of a successful fa_rrrdng operation will usually create "paid-in surplus" by increasing, the total value of the property. Consequently, for initial purchase of the farm and for armual operauions, borrowed funds constitute the principal source of capital. 26 [.,and value Ls a central element in man)' loans used to generate ~d suppo~ ~c busmasz of f~g. ~ fam~ it is ~e p~dpM "h~d" ~sat, [ha~ ~he f~er can ~sh [oa b~ m support of a 1o~. V~ous =~ in the business of f~ng where [~d v~ue plays a :oic ~e ~F~ed below. The Pm~n Mortg~c A farm mortgage is essentially the same as a mortgage on a home or cormmercfal properq,. Regardless of whet_her or not the farm is the primary residence of the farmer, however, banks providing farm mortgages cousider these loans to be commercial in nature. T~ means that they assume that Liquidation of the loan, the periodic payment of principal and interest, is directly related to an income stream generated from the property being mortgaged. Money borrowed through a mortgage can be used to purchase land to be farmed, wis or without buildings and other improvements, it can be used to fund the comstruc:ioa of improvements on the property.. Because of its primarily coramerciai nature, the leading institution will tend to make certain that the funds are used primarily for business purposes. In Maryland, about half of ali farm mortgages are provided by the regional Farm Credit Associador~ that are part of the Farm Credit System. The composition of loans held by the Maryland Farm Credit .Associations is shown in Table 3 in Section Three. In 1997., over $366 million of these loans were for long-term farm mortgages, or 65% of the toa~ m :he portfolio of the associations. The Farm Credit System is a cooperative system established by Congress but completely private in nature and owued by the farmers themselves. This accounts for the high participation by the farmers in the loan programs of the farm credit bar~s. The other 50% or so of mortgage financing provided to the farmers in Maryland is issued by private banks. primarily those in rural areas catering to farmers. Private banks compete with the Farm Credit Associations and many have established working relationships with farmers in their local areas. Interviews with bankers at both the Farm Credit Associations and with the pnva:e bardcs revealed the importance of the value of land to the quality of collateral underpia:a;xg the loan. The banks undertake an appraisal of the land in order to establish its value. The appraisal looks at comparable properties. The banks feel that in essence ever/property has some development value and that development value is reflected in the appraisal and thus in the quality of collateral amd in the aa-notmt of money that can be borrowed again, st the collateral. It is interesting that for the most part, the house in a farm mortgage is incidental. The value of the land is ia its agricultural productivity, capabiliu' and its saiabiiit', in a highly publicized sima~on that developed in the early 1980%, many m/d-west farmers were unable to pay off loam on their farrm and had their properties foreclosed on by leaders. Most of the loans were supported by the agricultural ','alue of the land. Farmland values grew stead/.!y in the late 1970's and into the 1980's. Then values fell precipitously. Banksrs in Mao'Iand note that the drop ha farmland values uhat oc~-~trred in many parts of the nation at that time was scarcely felt in Mary. land. The bankers believe that th.is was due to the fact that the potenriai for development exSts on much of the land in Maqfland, thus supporting its value. They also observed that many Maryland farmers can generate income by having one or more family members work off the fa_rm. The bankers indicate that they lend primarily on marker value as indicated in the appraisal, and would usually lend 75% or so (a range of 70% to 85%) on this value. Any development value in the [and provides a c't:shion, although ir is perceived ~ a difficult value to realiTe i~ liquidation is neces'sary. Nevertheless, the bankers indicate mar perhaps 759'0 or so of their loans are secured in some way or other by real estate. In evaluating a loan, the bank. ers look first at the repayment capacity of the farmer, rhea at the co[lateral position. This represents some change from the process of a decade or so ago. Now it is fairly common for the farmers ro provide an income statement and for the land to ser'/e as collateral. It is clear that current lending practices are more '~business" oriented today than used to be the case. Despite the efforts of bankers to move toward a primarily net operating income approach, however, ir is not possible to isolate the land factor [rom the farming activity. The real estate remains an underlying asset. Ar the bottom line, the banks want to lend to viable businesses but to have the comfort of a strong collateral position, which is raked primarily to the value of the land. The bankers recognize that farmers see their real estate as their primary asset and that they try to build the equity in that asset over the years. It is clear, therefore, that the value of land is of critical importance in establishing the quality of collateral for a farm mortgage and that any development value included in the total value helps to enhance the asset. B. Operating/Production Activity As indicated in Table 3, the Maryland Farm Credit Associations, Farm Credit Bank of Baltimore as of the end of 1991 had over $197 million in shor~ term loans outstanding. Most of these are production type loans. A production loan is made to a farmer to enable him/her ro purchase seed, fertilizers, pesticides, and other items needed to develop a crop for sale. Repayment of these loans is absolutely linked to the furore value of the crop. The Association will not usually require that a farmer collateralize his equity in his real estate to obtain an operating loan. At the same time, the Association looks at the quality of that 28 real estate and is much more interested in providing ~e loan if :here is some ootent/ailv renliyable real va/ne in that equity. La fact. ir is these loans that represent the biggest problem for the ba~% and for the farmers. The farrtung business is almost completely dependent on weather - and to ~ important degree on market values far beyond the control of the farmer. A bad growing year or a weak m.arket can result in a default on a production loan. Since most f~-rners do not have enough LiquidiD, to repay such a loan out of savings, they may have to sea some land to repay the bank. Bankers inter,,/ewed in connection with th/s study were able ro ,are numerous instances where this occun-ed. In sotue cases the fan:ners sold parcels to a neighboring farmer. In other instances parcels were sold for non farming purposes to individuals, or homebuflders developers. In such cases, while the loan is clearly one structured on the income generating rner/ts of the funded farm act/v/r,,, disposition of larval to pay off notes has saved many farmers and kept them in business· In ti'ds way al/or most of the farm has been saved from possible sale for development. C. F_,qu/prnent Loans Most equipment loans are secured by the equipment itself, vath a Nigh proportion of the funding being made by manufactures and dealers· Equipment today is much more e;cpensive and much more complicated then it used to be. It is not unusual to find a piece of fax-rn equipment costing over I;100,000. The loan on such machinery is multi-year in nature, l: should be liquidated out of income earned from the more efficient operations contributed to by the new machinery.. That does not always happen, however. Consequently, az in the case of a production loan, the ability, of a farmer to realize some value for land that might have to be sold to pay off an equipment loan is important, it is not generally taken into consideration by the lender when making such a loam but, az with any business debt, liquidating an un.feinted ksset to generate cash to pay off the loan can save the business operation. D. Backup Funds For Operations The analysis above emphasizes borrowing funds to buy iand, or produce a crop, or bu? equipment. Some farmers MIl choose not to go into debt for these purposes. Instead, the'., might sell a portion of their farm to raise the capitai necessary, to pursue their business operations. For instance, a farmer might sell 10 acres of land ~4ewed as having some development potential and thus bringing a relatively high price, in order to 'ouy 50 acres of land in another area that would be used entirely for iarm. mg. Land rn.ight be sold to purchase a necessary piece of equipment, or to make improvements on the farm. This role of land as a source of backup capital is important to the farm business· VaSue h'om the ia. nd can be real/zed up front with tine rnone?' being used to fund operations, or, after the iac:. to liquidate a loan that cannot be paid off out of operating income, or simply to reduce debt in general in order to make the business more viable. E- S~,.mr,~ry Lending practices to farmers have become increasingly s~ct. As one banker described it, they have moved out of the "good old boy" stage to one linked to operating statements and business acumen. In former times the reputation of the farmer and the value of his/her land were the principal elements underpinning the loan. Now it is the strength of the farm's operating statement and the performance of the farmer as a business-person. Even in this current environment, however, bankers and farmers both agree that practically every business move undertaken by the farmer translates into the value of the land and is supported by the value of the land. That value includes the agricultural use value as well as additional development value that results in its total fair market value. SUPPORTING FARM]ER EQUITY ANT) WELFARE The itetns covered above are relatively easy to document. The value of land as a contributor to the welfare of the farmer is less documentable, but it is in this area that the farmer feels most strongly that anything that reduces tend value impacts directly on his/her welfare. Common to this concern is the fact that the farm business is, for the most part a sole proprietorship. Most small, closely held businesses create value over time by increasing profits and growing the value of their stock. There is no stock in the typical farm, and the level of business operation is constrained by the amount of acreage being farmed. To a farmer, the land essentially represents the stock in the business. Different ways that' this value is used to enhance the Welfare of the farmer and the farm family are described below. To most people on a payroll, even entrepreneurs owning small companies, this particular form of personal economic survival is almost completely unknown. A. l~nd As "Paid-In Surplus' This has been referred to previously. Bankers interviewed in connection with this study emphasized that farmers reinvest almost everything they earn in the farm operation in one way or another. They will buy more land, improve farm buildings and infrastructure, buy bigger/bener equipment. The typical farm gets its operating value primarily from the quality of the farm operation a.nd thus the skills of the individual farmer. When this farmer leaves the scene, to be replaced by a family member or a farmer from outside of the family, the orfly constant in the equation is the value of the farm's land, buildings, and stock. This is the operation's principal form of paid-in surplus. If the farm is sold to outside interests, who will either farm it or groom it for development, what they pay essentially reimburses 3O the farmer for that paid-in surplus. Consequently the value of the farmland se.wes az :2: farmer's so,Sags account. Payment Of Estate/Gift Taxes Preser-,'ation of a farm from generation to generation is made diffic-alt by federal and stoic estate and gift taxes. This situation arises sometimes r~ter the death of one spouse, but almost certainly 'Mter the death of both spouses of a senior farm farailv. At this time me rest of the family is faced with a significant tax Liability. That i2ability gas to be paid off ia cash, but the bi,est asset generating it is probably the farm itself. That means that the farm may have to be sold, in whole or in part, to satisfy the tax Iiabiii .ry. At a recent Maryland Farm Bureau conference, it was shown how granting the development rights to a farm to a land trust ,,viii significantly lower its value for estate tax valuation purposes. This is one way to avoid ~'ne high tax liability. It also illustrates a recogmtion that there is probably some development value in ail of these farm properties. .42other approach would be to have the heirs to the estate sell a p.ortion of the properv7. Lf that port/on had relatively high value as a result of its potential for development, then this wou.ld enable the family to pay off the estate taxes and continue to farm the remainder of the property.. C. Providing for Retirement This particular role of land value in the farm seems to be regarded ,.*,5th dertsion by aon- fa.r'mers. Yet, it is truly important. It goes back to the fact that for most farmers the value they build into their farm operation is their principal paid-in surplus. Unlike selling stock for which there is a broad market, the market for farmiand is relarSvely small. When th-ne comes to sell that property to create mono7 on which the husba.ad and wi.fo farmer are going to live for the rest of their lives, the)' want to obtain the ma.x/mum amount possible. If that amount includes value created by potential development, so much the better. In any case, they at least want an operk competitive market and for a reasonable range of bidders to come forward to offer to purchase the farm. Weis market ,,'ii2 be broadened if there is a lack of encumbrances and the greatest range of oppormni~' value Ln. herent in the real estate. By far the worst thing that eau happen would be for the market to be limited because of constraints placed on either farming or the non-farm development of the propervy, and for the value to be diminished because of overly restrictive la~'ld use re~lations. Since this is the termination of the farmer's use of the land, the business aspects are no longer a factor. This is the time to cash in based on past performance, and the cash comes almost entirely from the real estate. The crops have to be created over again each year by the new farmer and obviously cannot be transferred, in most instances, by the ret/ring farmer to the new farmer. The land represents the pr/nc/pM salable asset. D. I¢[ainraini..g The Farm Family A~d Labor Being able to build houses that would be occupied by family members and by the people working the farm can be very important to helping to maintain the farm. In this day farm family members tend to disperse very easily. Good labor is difficult to attract and ret. a/n. Prov/ding a residerice on the farm can help keep the farm fa.rally together on the farm and working on the farm. Providing residences for the farm manager and/or other laborers is also important. Money may not exchange hands in the development of such housing, but it is important to maintaining the viability, of the farm. Summary Businesses serving farmers note that farmers reinvest their income in their farms rather than in personal financial investments. Indicative of this is the fact that appro,rimately 60 percent of Maryland farrrm have no debt. They also note that farmers have a strong respect for the land and for sound business practices. Farmers recognize that there is little to their operation except the land once they are out of the picture--through death, or retirement, or simply a desire to exit the business. Most current farmers purchased their farm.s, or imherired them, in aperiod much less constrained by [and use regulations than is currently the case. There is great concern that when the time comes for them to sell their property., there will be so many restrictions and limitations and conditions on it that the value wi//be dLmirfished, or there will be no ready market, or both. To thes= people the value of their farm, a value which reflects both its agricultural use and its use for other purposes, is critical to the welfare of the cu.rrent farm operator and his/her family. CONCLUSIONS The value of the land comprising a farm plays a central role in financing the business of farming. While bankers hope never to have to be repaid from funds generated by l/quidating all or part of a farm, they recognize that the land represents the ultimate collateral for loans, even those that are to be mortised pr/madly from income. Lenders don't care whether the value of the land is generated primahly through farming or through potential non-farm use; they are interested only in the quality of the collateral. The bottom Line value of farmland is a composite of farm and non-farm use. Bankers have made it clear that regulations perceived as having the potential to reduce the value of land ~eate problems for them, particularly in the short term when there n-fight be a relatively sharp drop Lq values az new laws are applied. '49 Land value is alas [mnortant to the weffare of the farmer as an indi,,4dual and the farm family. The value of the farm constitutes the farmer's principal "savings account", and thc value of this account, when liquidated, is used to support reurement, meet emergencies, and pay taxes. This is a situation nearly unique to the farming business. Almost all other t'.qpe~ of sma/l, closely held business operations create paid-in surplus by increasing the value of the company's stock, good will, transferrable technology., and so forth. I2 the case oi farrn4ng, land La essence constitutes the "stock" of the farmer. Farmland values in Maryland are relatively easy to monitor through the Agrim. do_tral Land Preservation program. Appraisals undertaken in the course of this program clearly show that essentially every farm offering its development right~ for sale to the Foundation Lnciudes a strong component of non-agricultural use value. Overall, for an}, given ate appraised in the program, the non-agricultural use value, the value of the "development rights," is roughly 40% of the fair market value. Given the farmer's dependency on having a substantial land value as a basis for maintaining the farrmng business and protecting the welfare of the farm family, this is a significant amount that needs to be tak:n into account La any public policy actions that might affect such values. 33 SECTION SLX THE IAfPACT OF GROWTH CONTROLS ON AGRICULTUR.4.L L~ND VALUE5 Ia previous sec:ions various aapects of farming, deve!opmep, t, and land value have been analyzed. That material provides a framework for assessing the impact of grovah controls on agricultural land values. The pm-pose of this sect/on is to re'dew the broad subject of grov, xh controls and to define the relationship betxveen such controis, business aspects of farming, and the development of fa_m~. The section concludes with an assessment of the impact that such controls have on the value of farmland. L ~ GROWTH ISSUE Following the conclusion of World War II .americans went on a suburbanization binge. Prior to that time, we were a nation that undemook almost ail of its development within dries and towns. Our rural areas were in farms and woodland or otherwise simply unused. Begirming in the mid-1940's, however, the socio-economic nature of the United States changed dramatically. Improved economic well being, affordable and reliable automobiles, major highways, more efficient housing production technologies, a greatly e×panded economic base, the post war baby boom and a generally up-beat attitude toward life and Living caused Americans to dramatically change their lifestyle objectives, their actual life styles, and thc configuration of their cities and the areas surrounding them. This was the period of the "tract house", the suburban shopping center, the interstate highway, large suburban schools and the realization of the ".american Dream". As Americans pursued that dream and shaped their national economy, and as their national economy shaped them, farm productivity increased dramatically and the need to actually maintain as much land in farms dropped significantly. At the same time, people were attracted fi.om rural areas to urban centers where job growth was occurring at a dramatic pace requiring the need'for workers. The farms didn't need as many people to work them because they were much more efficient then they had been. In what could be viewed as a natural transition, farmland not required for the production of a=~ricultural products was convened to residential use that was needed to house workers in m-ban and suburban business establishments. The greater effic/ency of farming resulted in increased competition and caused farmers located on higher value land near expanding urban areas to become less competitive. The option of selling the farm for development provided a "way out" for impacted farr~ and effectively decreased competition for the remain/ng farms. As one analyst at the American Farm Bureau Federation has pointed out, if all farms that had not been purchased for development were still in production, the farm economy could be a disaster. 34 This process was regarded ~'hhout particularly great concern by almost all pazz,~es t.~rouga the Mid-1900's. Begim-'~ng about 1970, however, and probably heightened bv energy issue concerto generated by the first oil cr:~is in 19,73, many America_ns began to react negauvei'_, to the emerg/ng pattern or' development. The term "suburban sprawl" became institutionalized and private organizations and governments began to implement more rigorous oversight of development acfi~Sty toward the end of m~Sng to contrei development. Farmers had been, whether w/iEngly or unwillingly, principal players in the suburbanization of ,Z~nerica. Much of the natioffs grow~ occurred on agricultural iand in the ¼cimr~, of urban centers, and at some rural locations developed for recreational housing. Many farmers benefitted finandally from the opporranity to sell property [or development. Others benefitted because of a general increase in the value of farm/and generated by the expanded market for land to be used for development. The amount of land in farms in Ma~,-yla.nd, according to the Census of Agriculture and as shown ha Table 4, dropped fi-om 3,897,000 acres in 1959 to 2,634,000 in 1974. During the decade 1959 - 1969 the amount of land ha farms ha the state dropped by about one-third. From 1974 to 1987 the rare of loss slowed dramatically to a total of 237,000 acres lost, or 9 percent of the 1974 total. The loss of fro-roland led to efforts to slow development and to channel it to areas nest suited to accormrnodare it. In 1974, for instance, the state of Maryland passed the State Land Use Act of 1974 "his established the Maryland Deparrrnem of State Planning and a statew/de cr/tical area program, required the development of planning guidelines for the local subdiv/sions, provided for state intervention in local planning and development matters, and generally strengthened the hand of the state with regard to development. In 1977 the state set up the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation program to help preserve agricultural land by establishing agricultural districts and pro¼ding for state purchase of development rights. In I984 the state established the Chesapeake Bay critical area as part of a comprehensive set of progra.ms to restore the environmental quality o[ the Chesapeake Bay. In [991 legislation was introduced (the "2020 Bill") that would have set target densities for different parts of the state and required local jurisdictions to adhere rc those densities in their regulation of development. Of particular concern to the agricultural commun/ty was the proposal that much of the state be placed La a "rural and resource area" w/th a maximum density of one dwelling un/t per 20 acres. I~ 1992 the General Assembly passed the Econom/c Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act, which wa signed by the Governor. These various prograrns document a growing interest on the part of the state, rmrrored to a sigaxificant extent by most of the counties, in controlling growth. One of the side effecu of this process has been the identification of those responsible for generating this growth. Farmers are viewed as being among the principal beneficiaries of growth because they offer their [and for development. Developers, politicians, bankers, and probably other closes of 35 TABLE 4 TOTAL I_AND IN FARMS STATE OF MARYLAND 1954-1987 Pedod Change Ye~' Acres # % 1954 1959 3,453,000 (444,000) -11.4% 1964 3,181,000 (2~'z.,O00) -7.9% 1969 2,803,000 (378,000) -11.9% 1974 2,834,000 (169,000) 1978 2,714,000 80,000 3.0% 1982 2,558,000 (156,0~0) -5.7% 1987 2,397,000 (161,000) -6.3% Source; U.S. Census of Agriculture; compiled by Legg Mason ReaCt7 Group, Inc. 36 people are also ,,~iewed az par~ of the problem for their contributions to _zro~p. on the urban firmge. In point of fact, however, it may ','ell be that none of these groups is to blame. the mos[ part, suburban expansion has been a function of supply and demand ~¢ith the .typical American household creating the demand for suburban homes and a suburban Lifestyle and the pro·riders of the homes and the space responding to that demand b,., bu.flding the appropriate structures. The Stats of Maryland and many of its jurisdictions are h:tstituting mcreazmgl¥ rigorous land use control measures. Because farm]a.nd is nsually reladvei:,, easy to develop, these programs aim to reduce the amount of farmland being converted to development. The men.as for doLng this have created problems for the farm communit-:,. One result of thzs concern is this study to analyze how the various forms of land use regulations (gr~v. th controls) impact agricultural land values and farming operatiOrLS. TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROI.r ING GRO~,~'TH A w/de va.r/ety of techniques are available for controlling gro,~,Mq. The focus in this stud:,. is on land use regulations. One analysis of these techniques d£v/des them into ~'o broad categories -- command and control regulations and economic instruments. Comma. ad Amd Control Regulatory Lnstm~rnents Most "command and control" regulations are permitted under the police powers or' a jurisdiction. Zoning is certalray the most prevalent such de'Ace. Subdi',dsiorz formulations are a.~other frequently applied police power, but it is zordng that has fine most far-reaching impact on l~.nd values. Zoning absolutely governs the use ahd intensir'/ of land. 'Flhat converts directly into value. Simple economic formulations that establish "supportable land value" clearly document how more intensive development and development oriented toward the commercial end of the range of uses support higher land values. Agricultural zoning is prevalent La Mar/land with 20 of the state's 23 counties having enacted a zoning district for the stated purpose of preset'ring agricultural land or offering priority to agricultural activities. The character of the agricultural zoning varies substantially, however, from the one dwelling unit per 50 acres permitted in Baltimore and Freder/ck counties to the one dwelling unit per half acre in Wicomico and Garretr counties. Coasequendy, agnculmrai zoning, per se, is too diverse to be covered by one defih'tition. Low density agricultural zoning, however, generally defined to include densities of at least five acre~ per arfit and more likely I0 to 20 acres per unit, seems to have resulted in a reduced amount of residential development in rural areas. Counties ,adth low density, zoning have tended to stick with it fairly aggressively and appear co have caused a reduction in the amount of residential development tn areas so zoned. It ai~o appears that, as the density. 37 permitted in an agricultural zone increases, the value of the zone as a way to "preserve" agriculture is lost. Some opponents of zoning that severely limit potential development have begun to pursue the possibility, of recei,,Sng compensation for the lost value created by a change from more permissive to less permissive zon/ng. With regard to zoning, that course of action has generally not been successful, although the number of cases involving this issue appears to be growing and the decisions, such as the recent one in connection with beach property, in South Carolina are tending to favor the land owner. Traditionally, however, application of r. he police power (zoning) to land uses does not require compensation, and in our jud~mment it ks unlikely that it will. B. Economic Instrzm~ents Aznother approach to land use control makes use of economic instruments rather than mandatory standards. The purpose economic instruments is to create monetary incentives so that land owners voluntarily give up their right to develop and the economic reward that might come from development in exchange for some other economic value. Principal economic instruments used in Maryland are purchase of development rights and transfer of development rights. The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation program is a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. Az sho,a,-n in Table 5, the program has been responsible for preserving over 98,500 acres of farmland in the state through 1990. The state of Maryland has been a leader in using the PDR approach to preserving farmland. Most of the suburban and rural counties have participated actively in the program and have helped to contribute to its success. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) technique is also used in various locations in Maryland. Its record of success is less clear. Montgomery and Calvert counties have been particularly strong proponents of TDR's and have used this technique to compensate farmers and tm-al la. nd owners who permit the development fights appropriate to their land to be transferred to receiving areas in other parts of the county and to be compensated for giving up their r/ght to develop at the rural location. TDR and PDR programs are essentially the same, except that in the TDR case the amount of development within the implementing jurisdiction does not change -- just its location. The agricultural community has been a strong supporter of the MALPF program. It feels that the program is an equitable way of compensating farmers for giving up, forever, the development rights to their land. At the same time, those interested in pursuing "command 38 znd control regulation" of [annl~d feel that PDR programs ~e too expensive mhd do not cover enough area to be effective. Comprehensive Pl~nning Plann/Jng itseff ks mn excellent techrfique for ~iding growth. P!ar~ serve aa statements of public poi/q, and c/mens Mil typically abide by the resultmnt public policy. This occurs because the pr_ns are fa-equentiy followed by implementation techniques, usually of the "command and control" type, but plans also direct infraatmcmre, which affects the [denton of development. The plan is important because for most l'urisdictions it is. derived aa a result of communications between the affected parties - land owners, developers, community interests, political bodies. Ptus it represents an approach that, while not necessar/Iy particularly liked by anybody, is acceptable to everybody. Because it has its room La the political process, citizens have a say La the dehvation of the plan. D. Infrastructure Extensions rnffaatmcmre consists of roads, sewer and water facilities, schook, and other public services prov/ded rd the corrunun/ty. To a greater extent than ever before, the extension of infrastructure is being used to guide development. Linkages between the availability of inirastrucmre and permitted development, frequently wrapped into "adequate facilities" ordinances, are beginning to fall into the command and control category of regulating development. Nevertheless, the rationale for linking development to public Lafrastrucmre i~ clear and tends to be reasonably well accepted by most parries. The problem from the standpoint of those desiring to restrict growth is that some development can occur without additions to public infrastructure. Septic systerrm can work in rural areas. Roads might already exist. No new schools might be required. But where mose facilities are not adequate, development can be constrained, such as the building moratorium proposed by county executive Hayden of Baltimore County in the Perry H~Ii area. 'F.. $.rnmary As Maryland and its constituent jurisdictions have increased the level of control exercised over the land, especially rural land, such controls have played a bigger role in rural development activ/ty. It is clear from the pattern of development occurring in those counties with low density agricultural zoning, that there are fewer opportunities for profitabie development in those areas and that the pace of such development has declined. It ks nqt clear where the development that is not occurring in those rural arena is going. It m./ght not be occurring at all or it might be going to jurisdictions w/th less restr/ctive rural zoning. ~0 The use of economic Lasumments to limit ~o~vth in rural ar~az has been ye(; successful tn Marfiand, especially the PDR program. T'DR's, while less '~.Sdesaread. a. nd ~,~me~. wha, [ess successful, have still made their mark on the pattern of development in Montgomer'/and Ca2ver~ counties. Comprehensive planning has been successf-u/ in ,'rearing an a~eed-upon en,Arom'aenr for development La a number of jurisdictions. This nas helped to channel development and growth to areas where the community wants to see such gro,,',"~.h ~md away fi-om areas that it wants to protect. This has been done after open and direct communication among the var/ous parties. l.inkages between the extension of infrastructure and grow-th have increased and are now a maior component of growth management polic,:,. For the most part, the irt:restructure issue has had a minimal impact on farmland, most of which fails outside of development envelopes intended to ~m. zide infrastructure extensions. In the best of all possible worlds, corranunides plan for their growth through the comprehensive plarming process, extend the h-ti:restructure to the agricultural areas in an orchestrated manner, and generate controlled conversion of farmland to development. m. FARMiLAND VALUES As a group of businesspeople farmers are probably as sensitive to the value of land as any group. Only land speculators and developers might have more reason to be interested in the land. Farmers work w/th the same piece of land over an extended period of time, however, while developers make their money by possessing land for only a bt/el period of time. The purpose of this part of Section Six is to look at typical farmland values as a component of determining the impact that laud use regulations might have on such values. Several caveats govern the value of land held in farms. Values can vary from year to year depending on the success or lack of success of farming i_n any given year..4, poor growing season for whatever reason. particularly several poor growing seasons in a row, can substantially depress the value of farmland. Like<se, strong growing seasons can fa/se farmland values. Farmland values vary considerably in di::-erent oats of the state depending on the quality, of soils, the existence of an agn._ulrural infi-astmcmre in that area, the .types of crops grown, and prox/mity to developing areas. it is nearly impossible to isolate a "pure farmland value" in a fair market value appraisgl because essentially every acre of farrrdand has ~ alternative uae that is potentially a more valuable use than agriculture. Farn,Jand value is closely monitored in the state of Ma_rT!and primarily because of the e~e~ive program of development easement purchases adrrdmstered by the Mary. la.nd Agr/culmre Land Preservation Foundation (MA..LPF). Before buying an easement, the state obtaim appraisals on the property. ,Ks the system currently works, the appraisers estimate fair market value, which is the total value of the land for whatever use. [t used to be that the appraiser also estimated the agricultural value. That wa changed a couple of years ago so now tine aghcultural use value is calculated by the State and subtracted from the far market value, tn our judgment the formula used to determine the agricultural use value prov/des a good indication of the agficulture value of Maryland farmland. Table 6 provides a summaz-/ of the use-value of Maryland fax-rnland based on rents that farmers had to pay at the time of a study conducted in 1991. The resultant use-value shows that the a~r/cultural use value of farmland in Maryland var/es from $927.00 an acre oa the high side (Kent County) to $307.00 at the low end (Allegany Count'/) for farm use. The higher values tend to be on the Eastern Shore, moderate values La the central parr of the state and lower values to the west. The MALPF easement acquisition program gives a good indication of the non-aft/cultural value of farmland. For the life of the program, from 1977 to 1990, appraisals indicated that the fair market value of the land offered for easement sale averaged $2,480 per acre. This figure has been very constant, rising to nearly $3,000 in 1989 and 52,700 in 1990, but otherwise being between $2,100 and :$2,350. Among other things, this rather constant fair market value would seem to indicate that much of the land being offered for easement sale ha~ not been impacted by development to any greater de~ee toward the end of the period than it was at the begirming of the per/od. (See Table 5 on page 38). Looking specifically at the value of the development easement as calculated by the appraisers, it can be seen that, in fact, the value of the development easement has changed very little until recent years. In those recent years, in 1990 in particular, the new agriculture use-value calculation was applied for the first time. This tended to raise the amount paid for the development rights. For the most part, however, appraisers estimated that the development fights were worth generally tn the range of $850 to $I,000 per acre. la 1989 the calculated value was $1,426 and in cycle two of 1990 it rose to $1,866. For the Life of the program the value of the development rights has averaged ~1,105 per acre. There is enough demand for fro'ms for whatever reason, to cause many to be sold at amounts beyond what the curreot agricultural activity itself can support. This "extra v~ue'' 42 TABLE 8 CALCULATED RENTS AND USE-VALUE OF FARMLAND, BY COUNTY THE STATE OF MARYLAND CaJculated Use-VaJue Rent 7% cap r~e (S/Acre/ (S/Acre) Allegany $2~ $307 Anne Arundel $30 $4.?.,3 Baltimore $36 $5C8 Calvert $27 $.381 Carroll $37 $536 Caroline $60 $855 Cecil $51 $730 Charles $39 $557 Dorchester $34 $489 Frederick $,37 $524 Garrett $27 $386 Harford $44 $625 Howard $40 $567 Ken[ $65 $927 Montgomery $39 $661 Prince George's $33 $465 Q~Jeen Anne's $57 $809 St. MarT's $44 $625 Somerset $36 $517 Talbot $56 $798 Washington $40. $572 Wicomico $53 $750 Worcester $5& $74'~ Source: Universk'y of Maryland Study of F~mland Use-VaJue has tended to come down in recent years as a result of less interest by ou~iders in purchasing land for farms as well as somewhat reduced interest by those speculating on furore nonagricultural use value. It is also possible that imposition of more stringent land use and environ_mental controls in agricultural areas has impacted values. Mar/land Department of Agriculture data provides a long te,nn perspect/ve on agriculture values. Its 1991 statistical book provides data on farm real estate values. These data are su.m_marized in Table 7. The average value per acre of land and buildings in Maryland farms has remained fairly constant in a range of :I;2,000 - $2,500 for the last I0 years. On a constant dollar basis, which would reflect inflationary factors, and would tend to make recent values high relative to past values, "real' values have undoubtedly dropped. The total value of land and buildings and farms has also remained relatively constant -- bew,'een roughly $5.0 billion to I;6.0 bill/on, and the average value of a farm operating unit has tended to remain in the range of $300,000 to I;360,000 over this 10 year period. These data show that there has been re[atively[ittleincrease in the value of farm real estate in the state cf Maryland over the past decade, and that there has probably been a drop in such values when iru'lation is taken into account. 1~'. THE INfl::~ACT OF GROWTH CONTROLS ON AGRICULTURAL LKND VALUES Group'th controls constitute a mechanism for directing development to various pa.r~s of a jurisdiction. Any technique of this nature must, by its allocation technique, affect land values. To the extent that higher density residential or higher value commercial development is limited in a given area, land values in that area will be diminished relative to areas that are not so restricted. This assumes that the other factors required to permit development, either existing infrastructure or the ability to obtain building permits, exist in the area. Value of Devel6pable l,and It is a generally understood fact that the value of land is a direct function of the type and amount of development that can occur on that land. Land that can be developed commercial purposes and for higher density residential is almost universally worth more per acre than land that can only be used for low density residential uses. Consequently, zoning or other control measures that restrict the use of land to low densi~ residential is Likely to restrict the ability of that land to increase in value. Per acre values of developable land in typical Maryland metropolitan and rural locations are set forth in Table 8. These data were derived from the experience and records from Legg Mason Realty Group Appraisal Serdces Division and reflect the obsep,,atioas of the appraisers who work in the division. Several points can be der/red fi-om the table. First., 44 TABLE 7 FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES MARYLAND 1983--1992 Total VaJue VaJue of La~d & Buildings of F~uTn Avg. VaJue Total Avg. Dwellings per Operming (Millions) Per Acre (Millions) Unit 1983 $5,7Z7 $~,121 1984 $6,038 $?_,235 1985 $5,711 $2,179 1986 $5,057 $2,023 1987 $4,921 $2,009 1988 $5,313 $2,261 1989 $5,5F_.3 $2,462 1990 $5,445 $2,420 1991 $4,941 $2,196 1992 $5,073 $2,255 $1,151 $318,100 $1,24-4 $339,190 $1,319 $326,348 $1,3~5 $297,4.46 $1136~ $2.98,238 $1,504 $332,O84 $1,557 $362_,987 $1,391 $358,224 $1,211 $320,~,4 $1,2.58 $329,411 Source: 'Maryla~td AgricuituraJ Statistics'-1991. TABLE 8 PER ACRE VALUES OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IN TYPICAL MARYLAND METROPOUTAN AND RURAL LOCATIONS 1992 Value per Acre Use Metropolitan RuraJ Industrial $100,000 + $50,000 Commercial (mixed) $200,000 $1 Residential (20 U/A) $75,000 $25,000 Residential (10 U/A) $60,000 $20,000 Residential (5 U/A) $50,000 $20,000 ResidentiaJ (2 U/A} $30,000 $15,000 Residential (1 U/A) $20,000 $10,000 Residential (1 U/SA) $10,000 $5,000 Residential (1 U/20A) $7,500 $2,500 Residential {1 U/50A) $7,500 $2,500 Agriculture (100 A field crop farm) $7,500 $2,500 Note: o Source; (U indicates number of units, A indicates number of acres) These valueS were estimateS under the following assumptions: Residential uses are physically raw, unrecorded [and. Land is buildable for the indicated use. Public sewer ~nd weter axe available for ail uses except residential with a density of 1 unit per 2 acres or less, in which case sewer and water would be on-site. The la. nd is or can be zoned for the indic, z~ted use with no problems. The land is curTently not built upon. Two location scenarios: a metropolitan county (Baltimore, Anne Arundel, Pdnce George's, etc...) and a ru[al county (Kent, SL Ma~y's, Dorchester, etc...) The development sites are in 'suburban' locations in each instance, This is near but nat in 'urban[zed' area~. Legg Ma.son ReaJ~ Group, Inc.-AppraJsaJ Services Division. land in metropolitan are~ is worth more than land in rural areas for the same use. '.~cconcL the value of land that can be developed for a residential density greater than one t~'ut per 20 acres [s rou~mhly the same as the per acre value of agricultural land capable of supporttng a field crop. These data make it clear that limiting the development of agriculmr~ land sig-Jficanfly affects the value of that land. This farmland s~l has some developed value. but it is essentially frozen by the low density, zoning. B. Development Valuas ~s Reflected in lkLKL.PF dam Maryland's agriculture land preservation program provides an excellent ove~-,q=w of development values in rural areas. In essentially every part of the state, no matter how' rural, the appraisers working on the program have found that some potential development is possible at some reasonable time in the future. Farming sgmply does not support the highest value of the land. It is mathematically possible to demonstrate how higher dens~D' residential development or corm'nercial development increases the value of the land on which that development occurs. This assumes that the resultant development product ~s marketable at market rates. These values are always higher than the agricultural use value. C. Agrict.dtural Zoning and land Values In 1990 the firm Resource Management Consultants, Inc. (RMC[) of Washington, D.C. was retained by the Maryland Office of Plarming to study the relationship between agricultural zoning and the value of farmland. RMCI presented its report, 'The Effects of Agricultural Zoning on the Value of Farmland," in February, 1991. A major conclusion of that report was that the analysis of agriculmrai zoning showed "no evidence of decreases in land value as a result of down.zoning over a per/od of 15 years." This was not to say there was not some decrease of value. Rather, the report concluded that "general economic trends and growth pressures affect land sale prices to a much greater degree "than the zoning." tn ct~TM judgment that study did not tell "the whole story." The study focused on four count/es, all in either the Baltimore or Washington metropolitan area, in which agricultural zoning was introduced in the late 1970% and early 1980%. A review of this report reveals, to our thinking, that the data are not conclusive, ha Carol] Count-j, where ag'r/cultural zoning has been in place for a while, the average sale price, per acre has steadily declined since agricultural zoning was introduced. In three of the four counties analyzed, the nttmber of transactions (sales per yea_r) as revealed through RMCI's research, dropped significantly indicating a less active market, possibly due to the zoning. Only in Montgomer/ County did the number of transactions increase. And it interesting that Montgomev/ Count'/ has one of the most effective prograras for compensating farmers for transferrable development rights, tn the other counties, fine .......... LIF~ period. Ia its conclusionf, the RMCI stu~ notes that the "ability to r~pay (a farm loan) f5 the key to a tiaa=teal imdtution's maJd~g a loan to a farmer." This conclusion i~ coalh'med by .[.M~RG's resear¢l~ H~uev~, the sittmtiOn ii ~.ot alw~.ys as clear a5 ia implied by that fli~l~g. In those instances where the abilt~ to repay is mar~]; the value of the la~d, it~ liquidity, ~ r~'ult in a go or no ~o decision by the lender. The valuc ca= a.Wo be important where the borrower pla~ to ~e the ~ to intel/tare modest development of The stu~ notes t~at lend,rs provide loe~ts as a percent of £air markeI value. While the per¢~t loan vari~ with ~e Institution and d~e h,.-m~s ~iiity to pey, the/ak raarket value provides the undedyin~ basis of ~ loa~ Since the rnzrke~ [or the land Lq A fuuclion of its potential use, restricti~ the potcndal use negatively affectS fair m~ket values. The examples ased in the RMCI smd7 ~re couuties ia mea'opolttzlt O. re~. ~e s~O~ teal ~ate ~ke~ of ~e late lgfl~s ~c~ed ~e ~undes fl~c mos~ ~Ong ~ some. "mb~" ~'aa~ ~ ~eefl ~e's. ~ese co.tics usury do ~ot ~ of major ~1~ pr~u~on muddy. ~e ~g ~at does exist ~ m~ of h ~ed by ~e ~ion oi ~c :~b~ ~eM ~d ~y of ~e o~ea ~c ~ ~erested ~ ~e~ ~ro~ ~ ~N residen~ ~ for agfi~k~ pr~.u~om ~e ~ops r~ed ~ ot ~e~ f~ ~e Of ~e Mgher ~gue, more intensively f~med t~e. s~ch ~ tobacco ~d resemble. Throu~out the l~riod covered by the RMCI smd,/it wotfld appear that the land value Sucres,es ha the four target cou,~tici, to the er~ent that they occurred at all, cer~inly did not parallel the dr, m*~/c in~rease in land ~al~cs in general, Includt~ co..~ witl~ut zoning. When inflation is taken into a~couat, farmland values in three o~ the four counti~ d~arly went down after i~uduct/on of ~he zoni~. Trends in agricultural ~ s~le values in comtant 19~7 dolla~ for Marylazld and the four counties reported on the RMCI sludy arc ~et forth below in Table 9, I ,,-ct valueS in t~'~ of thc counties, Baltimore a,ud Ca~oll, appear dearly lower alter the introduction of the a~ricultural zonir~. In Montgomery County the values are Se~e~lly lower, especially when compared with a high 1979 which was probably run tip la ~utidpation of the introduction of zo-t-g, Only in A~ue Anmdet C.~unty have price~, on a co,rant dollar b~[s, risen steadily since the introduc[io~ of the zouing. :5 I'A~LE 6 TRENDS IN AGRICULTURAL LAND 9AILE VALUF.~ IN CON..%'TANT 1987 DOU..AP.S MARYLAND AND SEMiCTED COUNTIES 1974-1990 ~r~ ~ ~c ~lt to ~ ~ed~y succ~y ~ ~m bede ~ ~ PAGE ~ ~ ~ L~F~ 85/!9/2003 I~:;17 Tl~ fo)lowing ~bIi~dCm were com'uked ~ ~n ~ ~e ~ of '~ ~. r~ed). ~r ~e O~cmo~s Co--ion on O~ ~ ~e ~e~e~ B~ Washed, ~cem~ t~9. 1~,~* E. HeO~erg, "The R~tT. of TDEL' Urban LaacL December Orlando ~ Delo~ 'Emi~ Rel,,u/at~om azxi ~ ~' before thc Joint Comm/t~ee David J. Btower et al "Maz~L~ Develot~ment Lu Small Towns,' F~annem Pre~ Ame~caa lm,,-.f.$ Asso~at~on, 1984. W. Patrick Beatoa, 'Impac~ of Rt/ral Open Space Zoming oa Property Values ia the New JerSey Pfaelands,' Rutgers U~'~i~7, Au&q~ 1988, L-mrrumenr~ as C~mplcmen!s ko the Chesa~ske Bay Critical Arc-, Program," Aulp.:st 1987; ~a'~n of I990 L~ud U~e/l-.and C~,ar Maps and A.RC/k~o D~zal Dat. ab~e.," F.,.~ report, p~T~zed by Daf~, McCun~-Waiker Ine_ and mthmi~d ~ ~e ~%;mz~la~d O~ce ~mam~ ap~ ~, ~991. M~-'~bu~l D~anem o~ A~cul. mm, M~zyiam:f .e~rtaflms~al .Sta~'~:i~ su_'~,~,'/es for 1990 ~ 1991. ~'ho B.~c,.s of A~tc~l~u-~l ZanJ~ on the Vs.l~e of F~J~"~." prepared by Resour~ l~m ¢ous~lt~n~ I~. aha mbmiu~d m Ma~lm~ O~lce o~ PI~,~.& ~e~nmry 22, 199I. Mai/land Ot~ce of Plant, trig, "A Smcpsis o~ Agricultm-al Zonin~ i. Mar/l--4;' November, Smphea $-_~,~a. 'Doe~ l-augUs¢ R~,gulation Protect Prop,.ny Vmlues?". Real B~m~e Review. Volu~ac 20. Number 3. f~ll 1990. P.~lph E. Heia~ch, "Merropolita~ Agrkuimre, Fm'miag ia me Cirfs $I~wdow; .%PA $ourml. ~tu~ 1989. Ma~land Depanlneat of Stat~ ?lannin~, W_.and Use or Abuse?,' December ~, 1985, 'Farme~ and ~.rowth lvm..gemem: A Plann~ Co-,-drum." Watershed, Vo},~m, L Number 1. ~tar~la~d ORl~ of Ptam~ 'Mav/~d's Lind, I~/'~0, A Cha.uiing Re~our~,' Publication 914. Beat.on et nk 'lac Ccm of Rc~a~/om, volm~.e 2, ,4. Baseline ~ru~, ~o~ me Andar~n, Tew/.f.. "A I. irde Peres~roi~,a at Home, Private Ov~ership of Land and Water," presentation to t~e American Farm Bureau, J'anua~ 7-8, 199l. Farm Credit Baak of Bait/marc, Relmn of Management, February 18, 1991, ~/!B/2DO% 1S:-~ 16217'273721 I~ sdditio,, to re'dew~.§ the above publicsiio~' and ,,a.; matert~l from mo~ of tb~ mimerot~ aevapaper anicte~ rel~ti~ to them to tlrowth ma..~ment, first ~ reviewed. e AFF~qDIX B INTI~VI~WS Count7 Grow. h Fom~ ~/pt,~icipar~l i~ two cot32~rences sFomonsd b~ ~ F~n ~r~au on ~c ~me of ~e b~l,~m:~n~ resou.rc, s-b*w~tfi~. Earl Ar~, PreSident, Oretm'd Devclopmenc Company, Columbia, lvlaryland ~cott BLq~lht Atlora~y,' Wbile./ord, TayLor & Pre.~to~ Towson, MaD, Land J. Robert lhrm~ Farm Repr~enmfl~ C-.nn'~','ille National Bank Centre~le, Ma~yhmd g~I Bo.,m, Pr~/d~v,, ~ F~-~ Cr~dlt As,~x:~.tion Eebomh Bowe~ E/iitor a~d PuM/sh~ of F~r~_ l=~d Pr~en, a~oa Hcur~ lhand~ Vice P~id~; T.: PeopLes ~ of M,~land, D~ton, Marflmd Ronald ~,~ ~ l~r~sident C~2tr'dl Maa-Tt~ad l=ann Crcdit A~odafioo Mat-d~ ~ F~r, M~d F~ 3~e~ ~r [or H~d ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ Taylor g~ O~ ~, ~h~ 2~ F~ ~no~ ~ F~ Bu~au Fe~on ' $outhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Fina! Generic ElS Appendix G-50 Memo from Edward C. Booth July 17, 2003 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2003 Southold Town Board 17235 Soundview Ave Written Questions and Comments on DOEIS July 17, 2003 Soethold ~'own Clerk Dear Board Members; I attended most of the Town Hall meetings of the BRC and subsequent S¢oping Session and other planning meetings. My family l~s an Easement/COS proposal for 41 acres before the Planning Board. I have studied the DGEIS Draft document and spent many hours eonf~,iag with other land owners. I am knowledgeable about conservation efforts to date. QUESTIONS l.We are carrying out our personal development plan with its substantial conservation aspects because the Town has offered to buy our development rights. If this money were not available we would have filed for a full development at whatever zoning was operative.. Here is my question: ifs acre zoning ia instituted what guarantee ia there that the Town would buy open space development rights at a fair appraised price? The Town could make a low bid or no bid and $ acres building lots would result. In our plan we are asking for two new lots on 36 acres ofopen space. G-123 4.1 2.At the time of the Scoping Session I submitted a letter (Jan 30)in which I raised the issue of equity to land owners. I asked the writers oftbe DGEIS to work out the loss in lnnd value to land owners in up-zoning from 2 to 5 acres. I asked them to co,sider the particular hard~h~ endured by people with modest acreage, between 5 and 12 acres, where the fraction of lost lots is most severe. Why did the DGEIS not determine how moy owners fall into this most injured category and estimate their financial losses? There are about 300 lots in the 5-10 acre many indlvidtla]~ colic/ruled, that loss could equal or exceed the losses by the owaers of large acreage. Moreover, why did the DGEIS not estimate the total loss of equity occasioned by the institution of5 aere zoning.* G-124 7.1 3.. I obtained dam on lot sales over a two year period from October 2000 -October 2002. After culling the cases of sales with houses, there were 121 cases. I averaged by 1 acre bins and found a strong pattern'of decreasing price per acre with increasing lot area, I plotted these and extrapolated to find a loss of 40% +- 12% per acre for 2 acre vs 5 acre sal~. This loss figure was commensurate with those I heard from the floor of the Blue Ribbon Comm'~ee. The data are at the end of this paragraph. In the DGEIS pg 3.28-3.32 the writers quote a report from Marylsnd that there should be no loss of equity caused by up-zoning. They refer to this as research. Why did the writers of the DGEIS not perform an analysis of lot sale prieee in $outkold as a function of bt size before eoneinding that there is no loss of equily from 2 to 5 acre npzoning? Note that my study did not take into account the further loss of equity expected if the purc/~zers ora ~ acre lot are cromted into a cluster o£1 acre lots. G-125 7.1 Lot price data table. 121 sales in period of 2 years: Oct 2000-Oct 2002. Lot acre bin # of Sales Avg. Acreage Avg. Price/Lot Avg Price/Acre 0-1 52 0.95 $98.8K $104K 1-2 47 1.15 $105.5K $91.5K 2-3 16 2.25 $135.0K $55.0K 3-4 6 3.2 $145.0K $45.7K 4. In section 8.1.1 of the DGEIS, the report describes a NO ACTION scenario which is unrealistic and marred by bad English. I can understand that after writing an "Action" report of 1000 pages the authors are likely to decide that "No Action" is a bad choice. However, many of us think it is the best choice for the moment. This section makes unrea!i~tic assumptions about the results of no action, and describes the results [fall of the good conservation work now in progress should suddenly cease. That result clearly would be bad for conservation but the premises are absurd. The whole section is skewed to an extremely unlikely worst case analysis. Why did the authors present a "stop action" instead of a "no action"scenario without presenting the much more likely scenario that the preservation efforts now operating will continue to operate? Allow me to point out that the last sentence in the paragraph 8.1,1 is bad English and lacks sense. Is part of the sentence missing? Why should not the pFesent hnd pFeseFvution programs continue indefinitely? The authors say that if no action is taken the status quo will prevail. If the status quo prevaih does this not mean that the present conservation programs will continue? Why then reverse this statement and say they will stop? In section 8.1.2 the authors write '* Reliaige on existing purchase etc results in long term cost to taxpayers and continuation of sales tax" Why do you not estimate the long term cost to taxpayers over a 20 year period? You will find it amounts to $100-$/200 year/hoasehold, hardly a crushing tax burden. What is wrong with continuing the the sales tax on real estat~ trransactions? In this way the new comers can share in the cost of preservation._ns they buy up those many small lots established years ago. In fact many of the transactions will be by long-term residents as I found when I bought a house last montk I was happy to pay the 2% tax since I knew it was going to preservation. 5. In the section on the RID, why did.the authors decide to use the version of the exit strategy written by Vincent Laroeca instead of that approved by the large majority of the Blue Ribbon Commission? Larocca's version is a plan which guts the safeguard of the RID, namely the option to develop at 2 acre zoning [fthe Town fails to purchase the land or the fights at appraised value. 6. In the operation of the Land Preservation Committee it is the custom to have an appraisal made of the land value and offer a fiaction of that to the owner when purchasing development rights.(PDR) The owner is not told the appraisal value or the ~action offered. Why not have a transparent negotiation in the PDR by telling the G-126 3.6 G-127 2.2 G-128 8.3 G-129 7.2 G-1 30 10.27 G-131 4.10 Tree Preservation Local Law. pgs 1-34 and 3-39. I have read the dralt version of the proposed local law and find it to be seriously flawed. I question the wisdom of the Tree Committee recommendations. It sounds good to protect trees but the proposal is draconian in its overkill. The proposed law involves intrusive regulation of private property. My view is that property owner owns the ground and what grows on the ground. If the owner wishes to improve his/her view, thin trees to prevent overcrowding, destroy exotic or trash trees, ha/she should be able to do so with paying a Town official and waiting for approval to do so.. I present the DGEIS writers with the following questions about the Tree Preservation part of the document. 1. Why is there no mention of a study to determine whether a Tree Law is needed? An axial map will show the tree acreage in Southoid and could be used to compare with earlier maps, for example a 1938 map, to see if there has a loss or increase in trees over the past 65 years. This is a period of time wherein most trees have reached full maturity. I assume that if the tree coverage is increasing we need not have a tree law. 2. What will be the effect of inereased wooded areas on the burgeoning deer population with the attendant Lyme Disease? Deer are a constant source of auto accidents, destruction of plantings, and part of the Lyme Disease cycle. If the plannt~l clustedag of building lots goes into effect, the second growth areas will expand along with the pesky deer pop,,lmiom 3. Why was a sapling of 2 inch diameter called a tree (1-34) in the definition of what one can't cut without a permit? This definition causes one to wonder about the competence of the Tree Committee. A mature tree (saw timber) is typically I 0-12 inches diameter at breast height.. 4.Why was no mention made of the need to eliminate trash or exotic trees with any permit requirements? Mulberry, wild cherry, "lanthus", and Norway maples are trash tree and mostly exotic as well. Locusts also might be included as trash. People should he encouraged to eliminate these trees and not require approval from yet another regulatory committee at Town Hall 5. Will the growers of tree for eommeroial purposes, either for timber, pulp [ wood, fire wood or transplanting also be required to obtain a permit to cut a tree down? What will be legal under Ag and Markets law?. A tree law could have a chilling effect on nursery business and wood lot owners. G-132 8.30 G-133 8.10 G-134 8.10 G-135 8.10 G-136 8.10 G-137 8.10 owner the amount of the appraisal as well as the Town offer? We must assure that Town is operating in good faith and has no wish to take unthir advantage of the land ovqrleI'. · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-51 Letter from The Jurzenia Family July 25, 2003 Box 285 Silvermere Road Greenport, N.Y. 11944 (516) 477-0011 Fax (516) 477-0922 RECEIVED - 2 5 July 25, 2003 Southold Town Clerk Dear DGEIS Planners' Although we have presented at the Tewn Hall heatings some questiuns regarding the "Country hms" section of the DGEIS report, we have some additional questmns that we request be answered. We are thus submitting them in writing. Thank you ['or your lime and consideration in this matter and ['or all your hard work on the report. We feel that the creation et' "Country inns" would be a very. bad thing for Southold Town. The competition is already great amongst the existing lodging businesses in town and this proposal will put many long existing lodging businesses in financial peril. The creation of Country Inns will impact greatly a large segment of our !ocal economy, not just the pre-existing lodging businesses but also the restaurants. It will also have a negative environmental impact, as well as a quality-of- life impact. Development will increase as well as traffic Now onto our questions: 1 This first point is more ora request than a question. We ask that the subject of"Country Inns" be removed f?om the final DGEIS report entirely, as it is a subject which needs to have separate hearings. [F~vou include the subj~ck of "Country Inns" in the final ye~2ort_~ve £e__qucst that the following questions be answered: 2. How cio you plan to make the playing field level econormcally tbr the other hotels, motels, and B&B's, as they face the new' competition of thc Country. inns? 3~ Wha! types of taxes will the Country Inns be paying'? 4. lfthe Country Inns are allowed to pay agricultural taxes, will existing Iod~ng businesses tike ours also be allowed to pay agricultural taxes? 5 Since propertie.g like the one we own will no longer be so unique and hence not as valuable due to the fact Ihat there will be Country lnns all over, will you be compensating lhose of us who own hotels and mt~tels and beds and breakfasts for the k)ss in our land vahm'.' 6 Will ye. :41so provide compensation Ibr all the high taxes businesses like ours have paid tbr over ~; decades, believing tha~ il was w.rth i~ becaus~ ().r p~ operly was utfique? 7 Will ~hc C~mntry into: be allowed to ~peralc a rcstaur;ml <~* ba~'~ [1'~{~. please be specific a~ io thc size restncti(ms on such a facility 8 Please be spccilic as 1o how many rectus will be allowed lx:r acre m I he Country Inns G-138 10.15 G-139 10.15 G-140 10.15 9. Can a Country Inn be placed on any open space or Farmland or will there he :estrictmns' Whm wnuld those restnctionn 10. What restriclkmS would be Fro! ~m the Country Inns in terms of ~chilectural cles~gn'* I 1 What impact do y()n feel lhe Country Inns will have visually {m the landscape ()f Southold Town? 12. Wh8! impact do you fbel the Countw Inns will have on the trat'fic of Southold [.own~ 13. How much parking per room will be required at the Country Inns'? 14. Will you call these atructures Mini. ~hey arc n~olels or hotels, and i~ol "(:OLil/[rv Inns'"' Thank y(m ['or ~/onr time and ccmsidcratio~ in thc~;c matters Sincerely, ~Fa.mily · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-52 Letter from Ray Huntington July 25, 2003 631-734-4227 Ray Huntington 985 WestCreek Cutchogue, New York 11935 huntira@aol.com fax 631-734-7681 RECEIVED 25 July 2003 Town Board, Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 J[~L 2 5 ~ Subject: Comment on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the SCIS Ladies and Gentlemen: G-141 The document falls to present a concise and definitive Action Plan. The Town I 2.5 Goals are not clearly stated. Objectives with respect to the Town Goals are not I stated. As a result, the evaluation of impact upon land preservation is difficult, perhaps impossible. The main Action Plan Items (APl) significant with respect to land preservation are: · Up-zoning · Conservation Subdivision (CS or COS) · Rural Incentive District (RID) · Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) · Preservation Tax Reduction Incentives (PTRI) To be effective, Up-zoning needs to be significant (say 25 acres applied as broadly as possible). Such zoning will result in a temporary loss in value as much as 50%, falling most heavily on the smaller parcels. Over time, the temporary loss will be mitigated, but different time horizons for different people are real and will be significant. To fairly and equitably distribute the burden of community re-planing, other code changes (to mitigate the impact on equity) should be simultaneously made. (A quid pro quo, if you will.) The main Action Plan Items in this regard are: · Establishment of a Conservation Subdivision (CS or COS) mechanism · Establishment of a Rural Incentive District (RID) mechanism · Establishment of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program · Creation of additional tax incentives for landowners to preserve their open space and agricultural usage. Continued (over)... The existing Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) and Land Purchase programs sham the re-planning burden between the non-large landowner and the large landowner by buying out future value ~d removing the property from the tax rolls. But, the sudden loss in value cau~ .1 by significant up-zoning deserves recognition in terms of code provisions fairly offsetting the potential loss in value for as long as that loss appears significant. The DGEIS should: · Better define Goals, Objectives and candidate Mechanisms. · Develop understanding of the up-zoning's effect on values · Develop mechanisms for establishment of the CS, RID, TDR and PTRI. Once such mechanisms am developed and defined, their impact can be evaluated. G-142 2.2 Sincerely, Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-53 Letter from Abigail A. Wickham July 25, 2003 ERIC J. BRESSLER ABIGAIL A. WICKHANI LYNNE M. GORDON JANET GEASA WILLIAM WICKHAM 106-021 LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, BRESSLER, GORDON & GEASA, P.C. 13015 MAIN ROAD~ P.O. BOX 1424 MAT~ITUCK, LONG ISLAND NEW YORK 11952 631-298-8353 TELEFAX NO 631-298-8565 wwblaw[~aol.corn MELVILLE OFFICE 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD SUITE 111 MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 631-249-9480 TELEFAX NO. 631-249-9484 July 25. 2003 Southold Town Board Town of Southold Post Office Box 1179 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RECEIVED dlJL 2 § ~outhold Town Cler~ Re: DEIS Comments Dear Sirs: My comments to the DEIS are as follows: 1. The full build out analysis does not account for a) voluntary preservation through sale of development rights and open space or b) a margin of error resulting from Health Department, wetlands proximity, and other building constraints. These two factors could have a significant impact on density, trader full buildout. The Report does not adequately reflect this, but rather portrays a greatly exaggerated worse case scenario. 2. The Report does not adequately justify the conclusion that 5 acre zoning will not have an adverse impact on agriculture from a financial point of view. While you do reveal that the direct financial impact analysis is beyond the scope of the review, the societal/socioeconomic impact is within the scope of the Report and is not dealt with in any substantive way. Further, the density increase is projected due to farms going out of production in favor of development, so the issue of financial impact on farming is relevant to your analysis. Specifically, the Report merely slates that the Town has seen an increase in PDR prices over the years, leading to the conclusion that the reduced density will not result in a net loss. Please address: a. The figures on ~vhich this statement was based; b. The relative increase in prices of non-A-C zoned properties over the same period. c. If the density reduction is not expected to adversely affect the farm parcels, how will it affect the remaining residential parcels? G-143 9.1 G-144 7.1 3. Of the forty-some tools considered, please provide recommendations for implementatio~n of the tools in priority, order. Very truly yours, Abigail A. Wickham .4A ~'/dm 30/shd~ck Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-54 Memo from Town Land Preservation Committee July 25, 2003 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: LAND PRESERVATION COMMITTEE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765- 6 ! q5 Telephone (.~3~ 765-1800 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2003 Southold Town Board Southold Land Preservation Committee Southold Town Clerk July 25, 2003 Comments from the Land Preservation Committee on the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic Enviro- mental Impact Statement. Members of the Town Board: The Land Preservation Committee members have reviewed the DGEIS and the Cornmittee wishes to make the eight comments that are attached. Respectfully, Attachment: Eight SCIS DGEIS Comments Dated 7/25/03 cc - Melissa Spiro, LPC Members 24 July 2003 Land Preservation Committee (LPC) comments concerning the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. _ (1) Action Plan Not Sufficiently Specific. The DGEIS is quite vague and does not sufficiently describe an action plan. The LPC requests a concise but meaningful action plan in the GEIS. If this process involves working groups or committees the LPC requests that at least one spot be reserved for an LPC member. Land preservation has been and will continue to be a very important aspect of Town operations so direct input from the LPC is extremely important to the success of any action plans. · Should not the DGEIS contain a concise description of the proposed action and describe the mechanisms that will impact? (2) Prerequisite Understandings are Not Adequately Presented. Some basic terms such as "Preserved" and "Open Space" are not defined. Goals are assumed from community dialog but are not authoritatively stated. Many terms mean different things to different people. Terms should be clarified to understand impact and avoid future conflicts and problems. · Is the goal to "preserve 80% of the R-80 and AC land and hold potential population density to 60% of current potential"? · Do these goals apply to all vacant AC and R-80 properties? Or only to subdividable properties? Or to AC and R-80 open space only? · What is considered open space? Is the last vacant parcel in a 2 acre subdivision fi.om 10 years ago open space? Is an approved but completely undeveloped subdivision open space? · Do the goals apply to the "HALO" zones? Or will these zones count towards the goals even though Town-wide they do not reduce density assuming they are designated as TDR areas? What exactly are the "HALO" zones and where are they located? If the HALO zones are designated as TDR areas how many of the landowners in the HALO zones would be willing to participate in a TDR program? (3) Up-zoning and the application of 5-acre up-zoning are not adequately specified in the DGEIS. Within the AC and R-80 zones it is also unclear exactly what is covered by the up-zoning proposal. Based on past up-zones and the general discussions that have been held it appears the up-zoning will apply to subdividable lands only, that is any approved subdivisions at the current 2 acre level or previous levels will be "grandfathered" and can still be developed at their approved level However, the analysis included in the DGEIS assumes that these approved lots will be subject to the up-zoning. For instance, according to the build-out table there are 1380 potential new units in the R-80 zone. The proposed action states that the 5-acre up-zoning will eliminate 828 of these units. 828 is 60% of 1380. However, the 1380 units includes 336 non- subdividable parcels. If these parcels are not subject to the up-zoning this means that only (1380- 336)*60% = 626 units will be eliminated. So, the up-zoning must be defined in detail. I. fit will in fact apply to non-subdividable parcels the mechanics of this must be worked out. For G-145 2.5 iG-146 2.2 G-147 2.2 inst?.nce, it would appear that an owner of 2 acres of R-80 would have to sterilize 3 more acres of R-80 in order to develop. How will this work? Can the owner deposit money into a development fights fund? Must they outright pumhase the additional acreage? Vv'hat would the impact of this concept applied to R-40 be'? If the up-zoning was not intended to apply to non- subdividable parcels then the impact analysis must be redone because the R-80 impact is exaggerated by over 30% and the AC impact is exaggerated by over 10%. The main document states that it will apply to the AC and R-80 zones but also implies that other areas may be changed to AC or R-80. · What other areas may be changed to AC or R-80? · Will any existing AC & R-80 be rezoned or not up-zoned? · Should not these areas be enumerated in the DGEIS? · How would these changes Unpact the bnild-out and RIAM analyses'? · Should not the DGEIS present accurate analyses of data and plans that include better defined up-zoning application? Five acre zoning may accelerate development. 5 acre subdivisions are much easier to get approvals for because of the less stringent Health Department regulations at the 5 acre density and the fact that 5 acre subdivisions do not involve as many lots. This may have the negative impact of moving potential development rights and open space sellers towards development rather than preservation. Equity clearly will be a factor here and with a hit on equity due to up- zoning, even if this hit is temporary as is suggested in the DGEIS, the fact that a 5 acre subdivision is easier may cause owners to proceed with development because it is financially a better choice and many of the fi'ustrations and delays fi'om typical 2 acre subdivisions will disappear. So, while 5 acre zoning will decrease theoretical units it very well may increase actual units meaning that we did not do as well as we could have in our preservation efforts. · What is the impact of up-zoning on the rate that farmland and open space is offered for development or is developed? · What is the impact of up-zoning on the rate that farmland is converted to non- agricultural open space through the subdivision process? · What is the impact of up-zoning on the proportion of public versus private open space created? · What system changes are required to meet the change in system demand? The DGEIS does not consider the potential impact of an up-zoning on projects currently being negotiated. · What will happen to projects that have begun the preservation pmceas should thore be an up-zoning? · Will these projects have to be put on hold while new appraisals are ordered? Or do they proceed as normal? Do all projects proceed as normal or only ones that have reached a certain point in the process? · Should not the DGEIS address the potential loss of preservation projects currently being processed should an up-zoning be adopted? (4) Up-zoning and the Application of Up-zoning is not Linked to Changes In Land Val~.e. The DGEIS should directly examine the relationship between up-zoning and land valuation. This could be investigated using expert opinion and by modeling the relationship under various market conditions. The impact on value is important because extent of the impact should determine the extent of the mitigating tools. The equity discussion presented in the DGEIS omits very important, factual information presented to the BRC and included in other reports referenced in the DGEIS that indicated substantial impact on equity under the up-zoning proposal. The DGEIS should present an objective, even-handed summary of the facts. Several speakers at the Public Hearings discussed this so the LPC will not repeat the details here. We request that the information omitted be restored to the discussion, all parameters related to up-zonings in other communities be listed for comparison to Southold (e.g. average farm size, level of up-zoning, types of agriculture, land values, etc.) and that the Town's up-zoning in the 1980s be analyzed to determine its impact on the rate of development and conversion of farmland to other uses as well as equity. The LPC also wishes to point out that it is very clear that appraisals for both open space and PDR projects are directly proportional to the number of residential units that can be created on the parcels indicating an effect on value and equity. (5) Conservation Opportunities Subdivision (COS) Mechanism Not Defined. The Conservation Opportunity Subdivision approach to encouraging preservation has been successfully used in various forms, but it also failed in various forms. Evaluation of impact requires specification of the terms of such a process since the terms will drive its effect and value. Definition should include the percentage of the pareet to be preserved, the proportional effect would it have on potential residential density, expediting mechanisms, applicable zoning categories and other features. · Should not the COS mechanism be defined so that its impact can be evaluated? (6) Rural Incentive District (RID) Mechanism Not Del'med. The DGEIS lists the RID as a mitigation measure to minimize the impact of 5-acre up-zoding. However, a detailed description of the RID mechanism is not included in the DGEIS document. Several different versions of the RID were proposed during the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) and these versions included some that very few, if any landowners would be willing to join. If the Town ends up implementing one of these versions of the RID it will not be a valid mitigation measure. · Should not the DGEIS contain a detailed description of the RID mechanism so that its true impact can be analyzed? G-148 7.1 G-149 10.26 G-150 10.27 (7) "No Action" Scenario is Improperly Projected as a "Zero Action" Scenario. [~tl } If there are no changes to Town code there will still be noteworthy land preservation. The No 51 Action scenario assumes an ongoing preservation program and states that "full build-out might be realized" under the No Action scenario. The LPC must point out that this is not true. If land preservation continues, full build-out will NOT be realized, this is the point ol' the Town's land preservation efforts. While it is tree that we cannot be certain about the preservation levels we can be certain that for the foreseeable future the preservation rate will not be zero. The Tow~has achieved the equivalent of 18 acre zoning in the AC & R-80 zones over the past 5 years and the equivalent of 25 acre zoning on farmland over the same period despite the dramatic increase in public water infrastructure and development pressure from the west during this period. Currently there are over 900 acres of land in the preservation pipeline and this number is currently increasing faster than deals are closing. There is approximately $12 million currently in the Town's preservation coffers; the Town is currently entitled to approximately $1.5 million in grants and will continue to seek additional grants; future CPF income will be substantial; other agencies (e.g. County, Peconic Land Trust, etc.) will continue preservation efforts and private girls will continue. These are all factors that should be accounted for in a realistic "No Action" scenario. · Should not a realistic "No Action" scenario replace the one in the DGEIS? (8) Additional Tools and Concepts are Neglected. One of the concepts discussed during the Blue Ribbon Commission (BR.C) was for the Town to monitor preservation and development and adjust its plan accordingly. This is not discussed in thc DGEIS and the LPC requests that it be added to the analysis. In short, this concept was a "conditional up-zoning", one where development/preservation would be measured continuously and mitigation measures applied as necessary to meet goal driven objectives. Up-zoning would only be used as a last resort should all other efforts fail. Given the recent track record the LPC believes this concept has merit, will far exceed the results of 5 acre zoning and should be given full consideration in the GEIS. Certain other documented action ideas and tools are neglected. These include: * Installment PDR sales * Like-kind exchanges * Establishing a land bank where the Town could purchase farmland for eventual resale to a farmer * Bonding against future CPF income * Points based appraisals * Building permit quotas * New lot quotas * Competitive subdivision/site plan processes All can have very positive impact on current land preservation efforts. · Could not these tools be considered in the GElS and the most promising tools further defined and evaluated for their impact on build-out and RIAM? G-152 3.5 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-55 Memo from Jane V. Burger July 25, 2003 RL~"ElV'ED ~) G-153 2.1 G-154 10.28 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-56 Letter from The Peconic Land Trust July 24, 2003 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 ~03 Southold Town Clerk July 24, 2003 Southold Town Board Members C/O Town Clerk Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Written Comments on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) that is being prepared in connection with the Town's Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Dear Members of the Town Board: The Peconic Land Trust appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the DGEIS review process that the Town of Southold is undertaking to develop its Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. We feel that we can contribute to the work of the Moratorium Planning Team and the Town of Southold in this process based on the Trust's nearly 20 years of experience in working with the five East End towns and landowners in realizing their conservation goals. Much of that experience is expressed in several of the studies under review, which were prepared with the assistance of the Peconic Land Trust including: the Southold Town Farm and Farmland Preservation Strategy, the Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, and the Community Preservation Project Plan. Our written comments relate primarily to the stated goal in the DGEIS of preserving at least 80% of the town's undeveloped land and reducing residential density on that undeveloped land by at least 60%. We strongly support that goal. However, we have very. serious concerns about the conclusions drawn in the document and the methods suggested to achieve the "stated and widely accepted goals". In particular, the recommendations which suggest as primary tools to achieve the preservation goals, the change of the R-80 and AC zoning districts to a 5- acre zoning district with an 80% cluster provision. The only objective data we found in the DGEIS with regard to the upzoning recommendations were the developmentJpreservation tracking data. This data clearl3 indicates that current regulations and preservation programs have yielded the equivalent - of nearly 20-acre zoning in the R-80 and AC zoning districts o~'er the past 0-7 years. This objective data does not support the conclusion to upzone at this time. While some opinions, perceptions, and speculation were offered with regard to future trenas, no reasonable, objective analysis was offered to support the recommendation for upzoning. As has been discussed at length in the public heatings and as is referenced in the DGEIS itself, upzoning may create adverse impacts to landowners, the farming industo', and a whole range of public and private conservation programs. These adverse impacts could result in a significant adverse socio-economic impact on the community at-large. Therefore, we believe it would be prudent to provide additional objective analysis in this regard and offer the following comments and recommendations: G-155 3.6 1) The Moratorium Planning Team should revise the "No Action" alternative to include reasonable estimates of the amount of preservation that is likely to take place in the R-80 and AC zoning districts given current resources available and current trends. This section of the DGEIS is incomplete at best and misleading at worst. While it may be unreasonable to advocate for no action, it would be very reasonable and prudent to detail out for the public what would happen in a "stares quo" scenario. How much land could reasonably be preserved in the R-80 and AC zoning districts given all the current funds available for preservation, all the anticipated 2% revenue and the recent trends/rates of preservation? We have good data which tracks back at least five years. There is no reason why we can't forecast reasonable estimates of preservation at least over the next five or so years. This will give thc town and the public a better idea of what our true stating point is and how much land is truly at risk. 2) The Moratorium Team should address the "Equity Issue" more directly and with objective data which is pertinent to Southoid Town. We have heard a lot about the potential adverse impacts on landowner equity, and the subsequent impacts on the agricultural industry. It is very important for the community to understand this well. While it has been interesting to read about what's going on in Maryland and Napa Valley, we believe that it is critical that local landowners know more about how an upzone might affect them and the community needs to know more about how an upzone might affect our public preservation programs and private conservation efforts. We would like to request that the Moratorium Committee, as a part of this DGEIS, hire a qualified, independent appraiser to prepare a simple Appraisal Review Report of the last 5 PDR preservation projects completed in R-80 and AC zoning districts. The town already has appraisal reports prepared for each of those completed projects. The Appraisal Review Report can compare the fair market value of the land and the FMV of the development rights under current zoning to the FMV o t' each specific parcel subject to the proposed 5-acre zoning and 80% cluster provision. Such G-156 3.6 G-157 7.~ 3) a report should be simple to prepare and will provide landowners and the community with vital information with which we can better determine the potential impacts. The Moratorium Committee should provide more specific parameters for the proposed Rural Incentive District. There seem to bca number of conflicting references to RID concept that must be clarified: On p. 1-11 the document reads "The RID provides the landowner a guarantee that development rights will be purchased based on a current 80,000 square foot zoning equivalent, in exchange for maintaining that land in agricultural use". On p. 1-22 "A landowner may not wish to sell development fights to the town, or negotiations may be unsuccessful. Under these scenarios, the program would provide the mechanism for termination of the easement and return of the property to whatever zoning is in place at the time". On p. 3-25 Potential Adverse Impacts - "Should the Town not be able to purchase the development rights or structure a conservation subdivision within the term of the RID participation, the original zoning is restored in the event an upzoning occurs during the period of participation. These are seemingly conflicting statements. As you are aware, this concept was discussed at length during Blue Ribbon Commission effort. It is very important to the farmers and landowners that the language is precise! We recommend that the Moratorium Committee simply reference the final recommendation of the BRC report as the specific action to be considered in the DGEIS. 4) The Moratorium Committee should consider adding to the alternative section a Modified and Updated Version of the Southold Town Farm and Farmland Preservation Strategy. We were very surprised that there was very little mention in the DGEIS of the Farm and Farmland Preservation Strategy that was unanimously adopted by the town a few years ago. Much of the recent success in preservation, which is well documented in the DGEIS, has been due to the efforts of the Town Board, Planning Board, Planning Department, and Land Preservation Committee in following through on thc basic strategies outlined in the Farm and Farmland Preservation Strategy. The Farm and Farmland Preservation Strategy has been very effective because it is based on principles of fairness and respect. It is our opinion that most landowners and farmers view the strategy as a reasonable and practical alternative to traditional development. A number of the recommendations in that strategy have yet to be implemented. The strategy could be updated to reflect current community needs and to address current concerns. It could also include specific recommendations for mandatory preservation of farmland in traditional development plans (i.e. 60-65% clustering provisions) as well as other new strategies appropriate to the current circumstances. G-158 10.27 G-159 3.5 Finally, on a general note, during the public comment period there have been man~ assertions that there is no community within 100 miles of a major metropolitan area that has achieved its preservation goals without resorting to more restrictive zoning. are only assertions and have no basis in fact. I attach for your review, and for the record, a survey report from Prof. Tom Daniels at SUNY xvho has researched a number of communities in the region that have less restrictive zoning in place and hax e been x er'/ successful in farmland preservation. Some examples include: Chester County in PA, which is only 15 miles outside of Philadelphia tthe ? largest city in the U.S.) and, like Southold, faces intense development pressure. It has preserved over 44,000 acres of farmland with 2-acre zoning. Kent County in Delaware is also facing strong development pressure from its proximity to Wilmington. They have preserved over 35,000 acres of farmland with I - acre zoning. These 2 counties are among the Top 10 counties nationwide in farmland preservation. The State of Massachusetts has mostly 2-acre zoning and has preserved over 50.01)0 farmland acres. G-160 6.4 Thank you for your efforts and consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Vice Pr'~sideiSt 4 Communities That Have Successfully Preserved Farmland While Having Zoning of One, Two, or Three Acre Minimum Lot Sizes. By Professor Tom Daniels Dept. of Geography and Planning SUNY-Albany Albany, NY 12222 March 26, 2003 Introduction. Several communities have been able to preserve Jarge amounts ol farmland even with underlying zoning that could allow a significant amount of development. The reasons for this include a strong local agricultural industry, well-funded farmland preservation programs, and landowner preferences. Development pressure appears to be less of a factor as communities with light, moderate, and heavy development pressure have been able to preserve large amounts of farmland (see Table One). Table One. Communities, Zoning, and Farmland Acres Preserved Community Kent County, Delaware Zoning 1-acre minimum lot size Farmland Acres Preserved 35,000 + Burlington County, New Jersey Chester County, Pennsylvania 3-acre minimum 31,000 + lot size Nearly all townships have 2-acre minimum lot sizes 44,000 + Town of Shoreham, Vermont Town of Swanton, Vermont State of Massachusetts 2-acre minimum 4,000+ lot size 3-acre minimum 6,000 + lot size 2-acre minimum 50,000 + lot size Government structure. Delaware, unlike New York or the other states in this study, does not have a town form of government. Kent County, Delaware is a single government, except for the incorporated cities within the county. Land outside of cities in Kent County is under the planning and zoning powers of the county. The Delaware farmland preservation program is administered by the Delaware Department of Agriculture. There is not yet a separate or complementary county-level program. Vermont and Massachusetts also operate only state-level farmland preservation programs. Burlington County, New Jersey and Chester County, Pennsylvania also have town-level governments, which have control over planning and zoning. The farmland preservation efforts in these two counties feature a county-level program which cooperates with a state-level program. Vermont and Massachusetts have little county government; planning and zoning are controlled by town governments. Agricultural strength. Most of these communities have major agricultural industries. Kent County, Delaware is the state's second leading agricultural county with $135 million in gross farm sales in 1997.Burlington County, New Jersey is the state's leading agricultural county with $88 million in gross farm sales in 1997. Chester County, Pennsylvania is that state's second leading agricultural county with more than $300 million in gross farm sales in 1997. The Towns of Shoreham and Swanton.in Vermont are located in Addison and Franklin Counties, respectively. These are the two leading agricultural counties in Vermont; each county had around $100 million in gross sales in 1997. The State of Massachusetts had over $400 million in farm product sales in 1997. Development pressure. The levels of development pressure in the profiled communities range from heavy to light. Chester County, Pennsylvania is located about 15 miles from Philadelphia, the nation's fifth largest city. Much of northern Chester County has already been developed. Burlington County, New Jersey is located between Philadelphia and New York City in the most urbanized state in the nation. Kent County, Delaware is experiencing growth moving south from the greater Wilmington area. The Towns of Shoreham and Swanton in Vermont are under light to moderate development pressure. Central sewer and water services are not nearby, and they am beyond the commuting shed of the City of Burlington, the major population center in northwestern Vermont. Development pressure in Massachusetts ranges from heavy near greater Boston to moderate in the western part of the state. Interestingly, the Department of Food and Agriculture has introduced a right-of-first refusal policy to keep the re-sale of preserved farmland affordable for farming. This is an attempt to keep preserved farmland from turning into rural residential estates. Acres preserved. Chester County, Pennsylvania, and Kent County, Delaware are among the top ten counties nationwide in acres preserved. Franklin County, Vermont where the Town of Swanton is located has almost as many preserved acres as Kent County (about 35,000 acres). The Town of Swanton has more preserved farmland than any other town in the United States (6,000+ acres). Addison County, Vermont, where the Town of Shoreham is located has preserved more than 25,000 acres. Both Addison County and Burlington County, New Jersey (28,000 acres preserved) rank in the top 20 counties nationwide for farmland acres preserved. Massachusetts has preserved more than 50,000 acres statewide. Farmland preservation program funding and partnerships. Two key ingredients to the success of the farmland preservation efforts in these communities have been well-funded farmland preservation programs and partnerships with non-profit land trusts and the federal farmland protection program. The State of Delaware has spent nearly $70 million on farmland preservation since the eady 1990s. Chester County has participated in the State of Pennsylvania's farmland preservation program since 1990. The County has spent about $45 million to preserve farmland, and has received an equal amount in state funding. The county has also received grants from the federal farmland protection program. Still, the majority of farmland preserved in the county has been done by the Brandywine Conservancy, a non-profit land trust. Burlington County, New Jersey has participated in the State of New Jersey's farmland preservation program since the late 1980s. The county has also received grants from the federal farmland protection program. The State of New Jersey has spent about $300 million on farmland preservation statewide. The State of Vermont began a statewide farmland preservation program in 1988 and has spent more than $40 million. Local governments have not provided matching funds, unlike Chester County in Pennsylvania and Burlington County in New Jersey. The Vermont Land Trust has provided a several million dollars to augment state farmland preservation funding. Often, development rights will be purchased in a joint agreement among the Vermont Department of Agriculture, the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, and the Vermont Land Trust. The State of Vermont has received several million dollars in grants from the federal farmland protection program. The State of Massachusetts has spent more than $126 million on farmland preservation since its program began in 1977. Contacts: Deborah Bowers, Editor and Publisher, Farmland Preservation Program, Street, Maryland Susan Craft, Director of Farmland Preservation, Burlington County, New Jersey Rich Hubbard, Director of Farmland Preservation, Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture Allen Kamatz, Vermont Land Trust Mike McGrath, Director of Farmland Preservation, Delaware Department of Agriculture Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-57 Memo from Eric D. Keii undated RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2003 Southold Town Clerk Comments and Questions on the Draft Environmental impact Statement for the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Page S-5 discussion of a RID - the report states that the RID provides landowners with a guarantee that development rights will be purchased based on the current zoning. Does it guarantee a fair price for the development rights? What happens if the Town does not offer a fair price or decides to not purchase the development rights at all? Can the landowner leave the RID with their original zoning intact? If not what impact would this have on landowners' desire to join the RID in the first place? Can a landowner do any development while in the RID? For example a set off for a family member? Can agricultural structures (bazns, greenhouses, fences, etc.) be built while in the RID? Page S-6 Conservation Subdivision method - What exactly constitutes a "conservation subdivision"? What are the techniques that would be used to achieve the 80% land preservation goal? Would this mean that landowners that choose to subdivide their land would have to either do a full yield subdivision or one with 80% land preservation but nothing else? What are the clearer guidance measures, improvements in cluster provisions, more concise zoning code and subdivision regulations that are referenced? Page S-6 recreational resources discussion - What park is being created in Mattituck? What are the key parcels from the CPPP that will be purchased? Assuming these actions happen what impact would they have on the buildout and RIAM analyses included in the DGEIS? Page S-8 protection of environment discussion - this references tree preservation mechanisms. Will clear cutting be allowed for agricultural purposes? Page S-12 Additional approvals listing - Is this the current status quo or a proposal? Currently the Town Trustees handle all freshwater wetlands permits, this table has the Planning Board handling them. Page S-13 Water Resources - This references a 35% reduction in residential units. Where did this number come from? Is this based on a specific tool recommended in the strategy or the current preservation record? If the former, what is the reduction based on the latter? If the latter what is the reduction based on the former? Page 1-9 Location of the Proposed Action - Does the action apply to Fishers Island or not? Fishers Island is not listed as a hamlet or fire district but is listed as a school district. Page 1-11 states "The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy has resulted in the collection of facts and information to assist the Town in reaching appropriate decisions with regard to land preservation and how development in the Town will unfold under various scenarios." It goes on to mention a OlS system and the benefits this provides including "a better understanding of the consequences of land use decision-making', However, there is very little of this analysis in the document itself. The only scenarios provided in detail with numbers are the current "full buildout' scenario, which assumes all preservation stops immediately and a S-acre zoning scenario done as a comparison to the "full bufldout' scenario. Other alternative scenarios are mentioned in Section 8 but very little detailed analysis is provided. The "full bufldout" scenario, which assumes no more preservation is clearly flawed because of this assumption. There is absolutely no evidence to support no more preservation occurring therefore there is no reason to assume no more preservation. Since the 5-acre zoning scenario is analyzed in comparison to this flawed scenario it too is flawed since the impact it will have is based on a scenario that clearly will never happen. This request is for the two scenarios G-161 2.2 G-162 2.2 G-163 2.2 G-164 2.2 G-165 2.2 G-166 2.2 G-167 2.2 G-168 2.2 mentioned in the report to be redone based on reasonable assumptions, all alternatives from section 8 to also be analyzed in detail using reasonable assumptions, and for scenarios involving individual tools only (that is each tool individually and not as an all or nothing packagel and combinations of tools to be analyzed to measure their impac~'~ on the current situation. Reasonable assumptions for these scenarios would include the preservation track record from the past 5 years continuing a_nd adjusting this record based on the impacts the proposed tools are designed to have. All of this in keeping with the statements mentioned above from the report. Page 1-51 more discussion of GIS - This seems to imply that GIS is a very powerful tool for analyzing data, which is consistent with the statements mentioned above. It mentions that GIS was reviewed a_nd updated as part of the CIS. However, as mentioned above it appears that very little of this analysis was done for this report. If this tool is so powerful then it should have been used as much as possible for the analysis in the DGEIS. This request is for it to be used in this manner. Page 2-1 "parcel level zoning" - What is parcel level zoning? What does it mean to "receive' parcel level zoning? Page 2-36 Table 2-8b - What are the definitions of Iow, medium and high density residential land use? Figure B-22 depicts Peconic Landing, a development consisting of hundreds of units as "low density". Is this correct? If not is Table 2-8b correct? What impact on the buildout and RiAM calculations would errors in this table have? G-169 2.2 G-170 2.2 G-171 2.2 Buildout Methodology - Please provide a detailed explanation of how all numbers were [ G- 1 7 2 generated from this table. [ 2.2 Page 3-2 Build-Out Methodology point 2 - How was "All existing development~ accounted for? Page 3-4 Land Area by Zoning - Why were most roads and Trustees land excluded? Page 3-4 Community Facilities - Tables 3-1 & F-1 indicate that 'Community Facilities" total somewhat over 1000 acres. Table 2-16 indicates that "Community Facilities' total over 4000 acres. An independent review of Town tax records indicates a total of 1500 acres. Which number is correct? If the number in the matrix is not correct how does this impact the buildout and RIAM calculations? Page 3-5 Developed Part of Subdividable - Why is the balance of land remaining after the minimum lot area in a given zoning district is deducted from the parcel sise being deducted from the land available for development? Isn% this land available for development? Page 3-5 Tidal/Freshwater Wetlands, Beach & Bluff, >15% Slope - How were the acreages for these categories determined? Why were they subtracted from the reduced acreages in the table? How were these categories handled for cases where they occurred on "Protected', "Community Facilities' and "Developed* lands? General questions on bufldout analysis - What is the accuracy of this analysis? Is it +/- a percentage or number of units? Is it high? Is it low? Please include a detailed description of how this analysis was performed so that its accuracy can be determined. Were typical subdivision analyses done for the subdividable parcels? If so, please provide any working materials including maps used for this so that they can be reviewed. If not, what impact on the accuracy of the bufldout does this have? G-175 2.2 G-176 2.2 G-177 2.2 IG-178 2.2 G-179 2.2 Were combined parcels {that is parcels that were combined in order to obtain a building [ G-180 permit) accounted for in the analysis? If so, how were they accounted for? If not, what[ 2.2 impact did this have on the accuracy of the buildout? Were minimum set backs accounted for in the analysis of the subdividable lands? If so, [ G- 1 8 1 how was this done? If not, what impact did this have on the accuracy of the buildout?[ 2.2 Were odd shaped parcels accounted for in the buildout? For instance, ver~, thin parcels originally intended to be roads that are now abandoned, or small parcels with very long driveways. If so, how were they accounted for? If not, what impact did this have on the accuracy of the bufldout? Many parcels contain multiple zones on them, especially parcels along Route 48. How were these accounted for in the bulldout analysis? What impact does this have on the accuracy of the buildout? G-182 2.2 G-183 2.2 In what time frame would it be expected that the Town would reach the full buildout [ G-184 discussed?[ 2.2 RIAM analysis - please include a detailed explanation of how this analysis works and any assumptions and formulas that were used for calculating the various tables in appendix F so that the work can be checked. Please state how each cell in the tables was entered, for instance an assumption based on a study or a calculation based on other cells. In the "General Use Parameters" table for the AC district why is the "Acres Farm" listed as "0.00'? Does this mean that under full buildout no more land will be farmed? If so how was this conclusion reached? Why is this analysis run on the subdividable acres only? In the SONIR table for the AC district how was "Acreage of Lawn" computed? Why is farmed area zero? The same questions apply to the rest of the tables in appendix F. Tables 3-2 /~ 3-4 - Why is "Farm Coverage" zero for ail but certain commercial zones? What units are the columns from "Farm Coverage" on in? Please list all methodologies, formulas and assumptions that these tables are based on so that they can be proofed. Table 3-3 - "Administer Parks of Town-wide significance" - does this mean that the Town would control the various parks now controlled by the park districts? The "Beneficial Primary Impacts and Implications" for this tool states "Increases Town control of and quality of public parks; better services and facilities for residents.' Historically the park districts do a much better job of maintaining the quality of their parks compared to the Town. If this tool does mean that the Town would take over these parks this must be acknowledged and Town procedures changed for the beneficial impact listed here to actually be a beneficial impact. Otherwise it will end up being a negative impact. How would this potential change impact the communities that currently have exclusive access to the park district parks? "Improve Waterfront Access' - the Mitigation measure for this mentions grant funding, open space funds or bonds for acquisitions. What impact would acquisitions from the implementation of this tool have on the buildout and RIAM analyses? G-185 2.2 G-186 2.2 G-187 2.2 G-188 2.2 Equity discussion - It is clear that evidence supporting substantial loss of equity due to [ G-189 upzoning has been omitted from the DGEIS. All such evidence should be restored toI 2.2 the GELS. What impact did past upzonings in Southold have on equity? What impact did they have on the agricultural businesses? How did they impact the residential development rate? Tracking discussion and tables - The table in appendix F3 contains two columns (8a & 8b) that compute residential density of the projects. 8a computes this based on total residential lots while 8b computes it based on new residential lots. Why would this b~ computed both ways? Do the numbers in 8a indicate that the density reduction goals' include existing dwellings? The buildout matrix states that it subtracts developed acreages from parcels in order to compute the land that is developable. This results in the totals that the goals' are applied to for the RIAM analysis, upzoning discussion, etc. Column 8a in the tracking table computes the tracking record including this existing development. Why was it done this way? Shouldn't the tracking be consistent with the buildout and compute the numbers as in column 8b? Does column 8a indicate that the Town's goal is to preserve developed property? Does the Town do this for development rights farms that have existing houses on them? This means that the goals have been set using the assumptions of the buildout matrix but the tracking record computed in 8a is computed differently and in a way that makes it appear the tracking record isn't as good as it really is. In the text from section 3 the only numbers for residential density from the table listed are those from column Sa, which happen to be the LOWEST and therefore "worst" numbers for each case. Since the goals have been set based on the bufldout matrix the tracking statistics should remove existing development in the same way as it was done for the buildout matrix and therefore the numbers in column 8b should be the ones discussed in the text. G-190 2.2 What does column 2, "Land within project with potential for further subdivision" indicate? Are these figures land that has been subdivided or developed? The title would imply this is not the case. If these lands have not been developed does that G- 1 9 ~ mean they can still be preserved? If so, what does column 1 1, "Land Area Preserved 2.2 percent" indicate? Does column 1 1 indicate that the percentages are what has been preserved %0 far* and there is still the potential for these numbers to increase? Does column 1 1 assume that coluran 2 is developed9 If so, why was this assumption made? If column 2 has not been developed shouldn't column 11 have been computed as [10/(1-2]) instead of [10/1]? This appears to be the most objective way to compute column 11 and it results in the numbers increasing in each case. When computed this way the 80/60 for AC & R-80 goal is in fact being met and the text should be adjusted accordingly. I G-192 What are the tracking numbers for active farmland during this same period? 2.2 Future Trends - this discussion mentions that development pressure is increasing in Brookhaven and R/verhead and that the SCWA may be extending their ma/ns in the future and ends up concluding that the past tracking h/story is "liable to be G-~93 invalidated". Was development pressure increasing in Brookhaven and Riverhead during the 5 year tracking period discussed in the DGEIS? Did the SCWA extend any of 2.2 their water mains during the 5 year tracking period discussed in the DGEIS? Did telecommuting become more prevalent during the 5 year tracking period? Given that it is obvious that the answers to these questions are all "yes", at what point will the development pressure and extension of water mains decrease the 5 year tracking record to where it will fall below the 80/60 goals? . Is there a definite timetable for the extension of water mains? If so, what is it and where will the mains be installed? Will they be installed in AC & R-80 areas? If so, would this be ali at once or over an extended period of time? How much is the development pressure increasing compared to the 5 year period of the tracking record? Is it in fact increasing compared to the 5 year period? If so, please present tracking statistics that indicate this aa this section of the document seems to argue that a factual (albeit flawed} historical tracking record is no longer valid because of conditions that were a/so present during the tracking period. If, as is impl/ed in this section, lack of publ/c water is constraining development can the Town plan and control the installation of new water mains to undeveloped areas of the Town in an effort to control development? Would the lack of public water be a constraint on subdivisions at a 5 acre density since the health requirements are less a'~ this level? If so, would a 5 acre upzoning make it easier to develoo areas that are not currently serviced by the SCWA? Would this accelerate developme::: due to landowners realizing they can no longer develop or sell development rights at ~ 2 acre density and that FinanciaLly it now makes the most sense to proceed w/th a 5 acre subdivision? Zoning Map - there is a zoning map included in the report. However, according to the Town Cler ' ~ office there is currently no zoning map available for the public to obtain copies of ~lat is the zoning map in the report? Is it the official zoning map? If not, exactly w is it? Does it match the one that the Building Department uses? G-194 2.2 Many of the maps included in the report are very hard to read. These include B-S, B-6, t G- 1 9 5 B-7, B-g, B-22, B-24, B-25, B-26 & B-27. This is at least partially due to the s/ze of the I 2 2 maps. These maps should be enlarged so that they are more readable and made ' available to the public for viewing at least at Town Hall. R-40 zones - The zoning map included in the report is hard to read but it appears to indicate that most of the R-40 zones are located in areas that are typically more environmentally sensitive than the bulk of the AC and R-80 zones. R-40 tends to be located around the creeks, ay, bluffs, etc. The RIAM analysis models impacts based on units "~ it would appoa- '_hat the number of vehicle trips, ch/ldren, senior citizen.~ taxes, e~ is ultiInately based on residential units and not where they are locate,t Based o~ ~rhere the R-40 zones are located it would appear that a typical R-40 avmil-ble for development would have more of an environmental impact ii' developec than a typical R-80 or AC lot and result in the same non-environmental impacts. Wa~ this factored into the DGEIS? On average would development in the R-40 zone impact the environment more than development in the AC and/or R-80 zones per dwelling unit? Since this is an environmental issue should it be modeled and presented/n the DGEIS? It would appear that eliminating residential units from the R-40 areas would result in the same non-environmental impacts but greater environmental impacts. How would this impact the creeks and bay? Would eliminating density from R-40 provide positive impacts on the health of the creeks and bay? How would this impact community character and shell fishing? Clustered subdivisions - What is the track record of open space created by clustered subdivisions remaining in farmland as opposed to becoming non-farmed open space? How much subdivision open space farmland was abandoned after development occurred on the clustered portion of the subdivision? How much more active farmland is currently in danger of the same fate? An upzoning to 5 acres will make subdivia/on much easier, will this increase the rate of subdivision and creation of subdivision open space? If so how much of this subdivision open space will remain as active farmland based on past hisWry? How will this impact agribusiness and community character? Hamlet centers - the DGEIS discusses HALO zones for the hamlets. Have these been de£med? If so, how were they defined? Where exactly are they? Are maps available? Were landowners within the HALO zones consulted? Will preservation within these zones still be allowed? If these zones are used as receiving sites for TDR and happen to be AC or R-80 will they still be expected to meet the 80/60 goals or will they be rezoned? G-196 2.2 G-197 2.2 G--~ 98 2.2 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-58 Memo from William W. Schriever July 25, 2003 BLUE-RIBBON COMMISSION IIi:¢I:I~THOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY MAY 2003 dUL 2 5 2003 by William W. Schriever Southold Town.f~eer~EQRA Positive Declaration authorizing this DGEIS includes the "Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold," July 14, 2002, among a list of 20 planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years the recommendations of which are to be evaluated in the DGEIS. (See Appendix A-5) Note that the SEQRA Positive Declaration includes a list of 5 goals adopted for this study and that none of these goals explicitly mentions the preservation targets of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) often referred to as "80% preservation and 60% density reduction" or "the 80%/60% goal." (See pages 8-2, 8-3 and 8-4) Because the text of the Final Report of the BRC was not included in the DGEIS itself, I have attached a copy of the official text that I obtained fi.om the Southold Town Clerk so the text will appear in the Final GEIS. My discussion here will be limited to the text of the Final Report of the BRC and its impact on the DGEIS. The report of the BRC is listed in the text of the DGEIS on page 1-4 and is summarized on page 2-46. The primary reference to the report of the BRC in the DGEIS is to the following section quoted fi.om the middle of page I: A. Targets The BRC adopted these preservation targets: The permanent preservation of at least 80% of unprotected land currently in the Town's agricultural inventory, some 6,900 acres, most but not all of it in the AC zone [1]; · The permanent preservation of at least 80% of unprotected open space, some 3,900 acres [2]; A reduction in potential density of housing units of at least 60 pement, relative to what would be permitted with full buildout at current zoning [3]. The BRC also agreed to attain these targets with no substantial loss in landowner equity. The text of the DGEIS is not consistent in reporting whether these three preservation targets recommended by the BRC have been adopted as official goals of the Town of Southold. The references on pages 1-4 and 2-46 would suggest not. And on page 3-8 its says, "... where 80 percent of unprotected open space is preserved, in combination with a 60 percent density reduction, consistent with several goals established by the Town." That statement lacks the clarity needed to resolve the question. Then on page 3-27 it says, "... ensures conformance with the Town goals of 80 percent land preservation, and 60 percent density reduction." I see no G-199 .2 July 25, 2003 William W. Schriever BLUE-RIBBON COMMISSION ambiguity there. Finally, on page 8-4, it says, "Through the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC), the Town has established a goal of the prese~'ation of 80% of its remaining unprotected agricultural land in the Towns farmland inventoc/ (identified by BRC as approximately 6,900 acres), and 80% of the remaining unprotected open space (identified by BRC as approximately 3,900 acres), combined with a 60% reduction tn residential density." Here the authors of the DGEIS are reporting that the preservation targets in the Final Report of the BRC are official goals of the Town. At my request, the Town Clerk's Office reviewed the minutes of the meetings of the Town B'bard since the Final Report of the BRC was issued on July 14, 2002, and found that neither the Final Report of the BRC nor the specific targets of 80% preservation and 60% density reduction have been adopted as official goals by the Town Board. The authors need to be reminded that the official goals of the Town for this DGEIS are those listed in the SEQRA Resolution of January 7, 2003, and repeated in the SEQRA Positive Declaration of the same date. And furthermore, by treating the preservation targets recommended by the BRC as official goals of the Town, the authors have defeated the whole purpose of this DGEIS which was to evaluate the recommendations of the BRC. In the second item of my "Comments On DGEIS" dated June 19, 2003, I wrote that the "Concept of 80%/60% is left undefined." In the first paragraph of my "Saving The Farmland" dated June 23, 2003, I explicitly chose a definition of the concept of 80%/60% which is consistent with the substitution of 5-acre zoning for the existing 2-acre zoning in just the AC and R-80 zones. This is the only definition that makes any sense i_f 5-acre zoning is to be effective in achieving the preservation targets of the BRC. However, this is not the definition recommended in the Final Report of the BRC. That defn'fition makes no sense in the context of 5-acre zoning. There is one clue in the Final Report of the BRC which can be used to decipher the definition which the authors of that Report must have had in mind. They ask for the permanent preservation of 6900 acres of unprotected farmland and 3900 acres of unprotected open space. At the present time there is no definition of farmland nor is there a definition of open space. And frankly, there is no need here to differentiate between the two since they are treated the same in the Final Report of the BRC. Adding these two figures together, the total amount of unprotected residential land which is to be included in the preservation effort is 10800 acres. 6900 + 3900 -- 10800 Acres Compare this with all of the land available for residential development throughout the Town (except for Fishers Island) in any residential zone. Using data in Table 3-1 based on the existing 2-acre zoning from column 24, Net Subdividable Avgilable To Develop (acres), sum of all 11 residential zones, 8682.23 acres plus fi.om column 13, Vacant Non-Subdividable (acres), sum of all 11 residential zones, 2107.52 acres. 8682.23 + 2107.52 = 10789.75 Acres These areas agree to within I part in 1000! This shows that the authors of the Final Report of the BRC intended to preserve 80% of all of the unprotected vacant residential land in the Town. G-200 2.2 G-201 6.8 July 25, 2003 - 2 - William W. Schnever BLUE-RIBBON COMMISSION Can this goal of the BRC be achieved? Preserving 80% of the 10789.75 acres of unprotected vacant residential land in the Town would require preserving 10789.75 x 0.80 = 8631.80 Acres Referring to the previous page for the data from Table 3-1, column 24, Net Subdividable Available To Develop (acres), the sum of all 11 residential zones was 8682.23 acres. These two areas differ by only 50.43 acres or less than 1 part in 170. Thus to achieve the goal of 80% preservation of 10800 acres as recommended by the BRC would require protecting all of the remaining subdividable residential land in the Town from development. The subdivision of land in any residential zone would have to be prohibited and the development of any land capable of being subdivided under the existing zoning would have to be prohibited. The only developable residential land that would be permitted to remain in the Town would be that from column 13, Vacant Non-Subdividable (acres), the sum of all 11 residential zones is 2107.52 acres. The yield can be determined from column 14, Vacant Non-Subdividable (parcels), the sum of all 11 residential zones is 2501 parcels and each could be used for one house. Under the existing 2-acre zoning, from column 26, Development Potential (units), the sum of all 11 residential zones is 6300 units. So the new development potential of 2501 units provides a density reduction of (6300 - 2501) / 6300 = 60.3% Thus the BRC goal of 80% preservation and 60% density reduction can be achieved, but to do so the Town would be required to prohibit all residential subdivision. No longer would there be any need for l-acre, 2-acre or even 5-acre zoning. In the future, the only house lots available for development would be the 2501 existing small parcels. Another way 8631.80 acres could be preserved is by prohibiting the development of all the unprotected land including the small parcels within several residential zones. For example, for the AC zone if the areas from column 24, Net Subdividable Available To Develop (acres), and from column 13, Vacant Non-Subdividable (acres) are added, the total unprotected land available for development in the AC zone is 5658.68 acres. Similarly, for the R-80 zone the total is 3198.39 acres. Combining the AC and R-80 zones the total unprotected land available for development is 5658.68 + 3198.39 = 8857.07 Acres This is 225.27 acres or 2.61% larger than necessary to achieve the goal of 80% preservation. From column 26, Development Potential (units), under existing zoning the AC zone will yield 2321 units and the R-80 zone will yield 1380 units. So the total reduction in the yield would be 2321 + 1380 = 3701 Units and the density reduction would be 3701 / 6300 = 58.75% Although this is not exactly a 60% density reduction it is not far from it. July 25, 2003 - 3 - William W. Schriever BLUE-RIBBON COMMISSION I have suggested and then evaluated two ways to achieve the preservation targets published in the "Final Report of the Blue-Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold." The_first is to prohibit the subdivision and development of any unprotected subdividable vacant land. in any residential zone. The second is to prohibit the development of any unprotected vacant land in both the AC and R-80 zones. In either case development of the unprotected subdividable vacant land in both the AC and R-80 zones would be prohibited. There would be no residential land left subject to 2-acre zoning and therefore there would be no residential land to upzone to 5- acre zoning, whether subject to mandatory clustering or not. The preset'anon targets of the BRC cannot be achieved without prohibiting all residential development of the unprotected subdividable vacant land in the AC and R-80 zones. And therefore 5-acre zoning cannot possibly be used as a tool to achieve the preservation targets of the Blue-Ribbon Commission. If the purpose of the BRC was to provide political support for 5-acre zoning, then it has failed. And if the purpose of 5-acre zoning is to achieve the preservation targets of the BRC. then it will fail. These two concepts are absolutely incompatible. The stated purpose of this DGEIS is to evaluate the recommendations of the Blue-Ribbon Commission as well as of those who advocate 5-acre zoning. I don't believe the preservation targets of the BRC can be achieve-' politically. Nor do I believe that such severe preservation targets are needed to maintain rural character of the Town. Also, I don't believe that 5-acre zoning will achieve preservation of either farmland or farmers. As I have stated in my speeches during the Public Hearings, 1 believe that the only way to preserve farmland in this Town is to prohibit the residential development of the particular farmland you wish to preserve. My recommendation to the politicians would be for them to adopt a compromise between the severn preservation targets recommended by the Blue-Ribbon Commission and the relatively ineffective preservation achievable with 5-acre zoning. In my "Saving The Farmland" dated June 23, 2003, I proposed prohibiting development on about half of the farmland. And in my speech I proposed using some of the proceeds from the sale of the remaining residential lots to compensate the farmers for the loss of their development rights. Achieving a proper balance between preservation and development is important to fund the compensation adequately. In round numbers, I recommend that farmland sufficient to yield about 2000 lots be preserved which leaves about 4000 lots to be sold to fund the compensation. So two lots are to be sold for each lot to be preserved as farmland. In my "Saving The Farmland" about 5600 acres of farmland were to be preserved which would have .vielded about 2300 lots. That left about 4000 lots to be sold to fund the compensation. By carefully selecting the farmland to be preserved this plan should be quite effectv/e in maintaining the rural character of the Town. Also, don't forget, this is not the only farmlanO that is being preserved. The current programs to purchase development rights have already preserved some farmland and will continue to preserve even more. But the advantage of my proposal is that it preserves all of the farmland immediately. For the farmer, it eliminates the risk of losing the development rights before they can be sold. For the advocates of open space, it eliminates the possibility of losing more of the farmland to development in the future. An, vr the taxpayer, because the compensation for the development rights is paid out only as the fi .~s from the sale of the lots accumulate in the trust fund, there will be no expense to the ordinary taxpayer. G-202 3.~ July 25, 2003 - 4 - William W. Schrtever BLUE-RIBBON COMMISSION Mr. Howard Meineke, President of the North Fork Environmental Council, appears to be the primary source of most of the misinformation about the Blue-Ribbon Commission and here is just one example. In his speech at the Public Hearing on June 19, 2002, he said, "... and'the report said that the no action alternative will not achieve the entire desired goal. And this is your 80 percent, 60 percent, and this is the goal that's been unanimously approved by the Blue- Ribbon Commission..." And in his speech at the Public Heating on July 8, 2003, he said, "I want to repeat just one more time what we would like to see when we come out of the DGEIS discussion: The clustered conservation upzoning currently under discussion, it will achieve 80 percent land preservation and 60 percent reduction in density, which was what the Blue-Ribbon Commission unanimously agreed we wanted to accomplish." I have already shown that 5-acre zoning with mandatory clustering cannot possibly achieve the preservation targets of the BRC so he is certainly wrong about that and he probably doesn't even realize it. What concerns me here is Mr. Meineke's repeated claim that the preservation targets were "unanimously approved" or "unanimously agreed" by the Blue-Ribbon Commission. I have attached a copy of the "Final Report of the Blue-Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold," July 14, 2002, and I refer to the second paragraph where it says, "Numbers enclosed within brackets in this report refer to votes taken by the Commission on each section of the report. The key to those votes is included as Appendix B." Note that the first three votes are those on the preservation targets. As shown in Appendix A, the BRC had 16 members. On the first and second votes, of the 13 votes cast, 12 members or their proxies voted in favor. While that is not a unanimous vote even of the members voting, at least it shows that a substantial majority supported the goal of 80% preservation as they understood it. But on the third vote, of the 13 votes cast, only 7 members or their proxies voted in favor. That is barely a majority of those voting but it is not a rnajotity of the 16 members of the BRC. It shows that not even a majority of the members of the BRC supported the goal ora 60% reduction in density. There appears to be a lack of integrity in this Final Report of the BRC. If the third of the three preservation targets did not even have the support of a majority of the members of the BRC, why is it included in the Final Report? Apparently the Final Report of the BRC was written by those on one side of the issue and jammed down the throats of those on the other side. And maybe the same thing is occurring with the DGEIS. Why is it that Mr. Meineke finds nothing in either of these two documents to criticize? ~..~~ July 25, 2003 Wflham W Schiiever P. O. Box 128 Orient, NY 11957 631-323-2456 July 25, 2003 - 5 - William W. Schriever RECEIVED The Eighty-Plus Preservation Action Plan: ~oelbold 'byre ~'le~k Final Report of the Blue-Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold Jul 14 2002 The Blue~Ribbon Commission (BRC) was charged by the Southold Town Board to malce specific and detailed reconunendations for preserving a rural Southold Town. The charge included establishing quantifiable targets and the tools needed to attain those targets, and to do so by June 30 2002. Commission members and the charge appear as Appendix A. This is the £mal report of the BRC. It is a slightly revised version of the Draft Final Report dated Jun 12 with appendices added. Numbers enclosed within brackets in this report refer to votes taken by the Commission on each section of the report. The key to those votes is included as Appendix B. A. Targets The BRC adopted these preservation targets: · The permanent preservation of at least 80% of unprotected land currently in the Town's agricultural inventory, some 6,900 acres, most but not all of it in the AC zone [I]; · The permanent preservation of at least 80% of unprotected open space, some 3,900 acres [2]; · A reduction in potential density of housing units of at least 60 percent, relative to what would be permitted with full bnildout at current zoning [3]. The BRC also agreed to attain these targets with no substantial loss in landowner equity. B. Tools The BRC recommends a combination of tools to achieve the abovementioned targets. Some are tools that have already been used here successfully; some are current tools with significant modification; and some are new tools. They are: 1. Conservation subdivisions The BRC recommends conservation subdivisions that give priority to preserving land rather than to creation of house lots [4]. They must have a significant and permanent conservation (preservation) element and a reduction in density of 60 percem or more on the entire acreage, relative to current zoning [5]. included as Appendix C. 2 A fuller discussion of conservation subdivisi~_ns is 2. The Rural Incentive District The BRC proposes [6] a new planned development district (PDD) which we call a Rural Incentive District (RID). Its purpose is to facilitate the orderly preservation of farmland and open space over many years, to promote active fanning for the long term, and to maintaia the equity of the land over time. The following provisions are proposed for the RID: The owner of any parcel of unprotected farmland or open space of miniraum specified acreage may participate ia the RID simply by applying [7]. The instrument of participation is an easement contract executed by the Town and the landowner. Once admitted, the land must be enrolled for a minimum period of eight years [8]. Participants remain enrolled indefinitely unless they give notice to the Town of their intention to withdraw, under guidelines described below. While enrolled in the RID, land carries the zoning density it had when it entered the district irrespective of zone changes that may occur throughout the Town [9]. Land enrolled in the ,RID may not be subdivided by conventional processes, but it may be subdivided by Conservation Subdivisions and it may be acquired as open space or its development rights acquired [10]. Other preservation techniques financed by the private sector are also available at any time for land enrolled in the district. The BRC has considered several options in the event of a default in the Town and landowner agreeing on the purchase of development rights when landowners opt out of the district. Tttree of these options are presented below. Other options may be considered. Option A [11] If a landowner elects to withdraw land enrolled in the district, he/she may do so by filing notice of intention to withdraw not less than seven years after enrolling, subject to these terms: Waiting period of one year after filing notice; During that year .the Town is obliged to negotiate the purchase of the land, or the purchase of its deyelopment rights, based on fair appraised value, in coordination with other purchase opportunities (County and private); and In the event that the Town and landowner default in completing the property sales described above, the land may be withdrawn fi'om the district one year after notice was given to the Town. Upon withdrawal, the land still carries the zoning it previously had when enrolled, except for the first three years immediately after withdrawal, when it will carry a zoning density of 5 acres or current outside zoning, whichever is the lower number. Option B [12] If a landowner elects m withdraw land enrolled in the district, he/she may do so by f'fling notice of intention to withdraw not less than seven years after enrolling, subject to these terms: Waiting period of one year after filing notice; Town has right of first refusal to purchase land during that year; Landowner has right to pursue development outside the district but with original zoning from within the district for a two year period after withdrawing; and Land is rezoned to whatever outside zoning has become two years after withdrawal. Option C [13] If a landowner elects to withdraw land enrolled in the district, he/she may do so by filing notice of intention to withdraw not less than seven years after enrolling, subject to these terms: Minimum period of one year notice of wish to withdraw, during which Town and - owner to negotiate preservation options based on owner's written offer to sell; Town must respond to owner's offer to sell with a response within three months. If the Town does not wish to purchase the land or its development rights, the owner is free to leave the district and entertain other offers. If the Town does wish to purchase, these steps follow: Town to order an appraisal and make counteroffer to owner within six months; Within nine months of giving notice to withdraw, owner and Town to negotiate sale. Owner may order separate appraisal. ff this negotiation period fails to produce a sale to the Town within twelve months, the land is held back in the RID for an additional period of four years, starting with the date the owner gave notice. 4 If at the end of this period the Town and owner are still unable to agree,_ the land may leave the RID, with the zoning it had while in the district for a period of three years. The Commission spem considerable time working on these "exit strategies" for owners who may seek to remove their land from the district. There was broad agreement that the district should not be used by owners as a device to protect a preferred zoning that could be reactivated at some future point for development without preservation. But members also felt that some exit provisions are necessary to keep the Town's attention on preservation, and to maintain value of the properties. Though this discussion was protracted, it should be kept in perspective. We fully expect the Town to come forward with realistic offers to preserve land, for owners to respond positively to them, and for the district to serve a vital preservation pmnpose. 3. Purchase of development rights and of open space · Current Dro~ram [14] The Town and County have purchased development fights to about twenty pemant of farmland in Southold Town, and have also bought many acres of open space. The program is permanent and voluntary, subject to prices based on appraised values and ha~ established the principle of fair compensation for giving up the right to develop farmland. The development rights thus acquired are permanently retired (extinguished) under current Town law. Open space purchases, which involve the purchase of fee title, are similar. The Town's Land Preservation Committee coordinates the negotiations between Town and landowner and recommends purchases to the Town Board. · Proposed modification to the PDR nro~ram. The BRC proposes modifying the current PDR program to permit some of the development rights to be rejoined to the land, under carefully constructed guidelines. To do that, the Town would keep a registry of all PDRs and decide how many could be rejoined and on what terms. The Town Would issue one Preservation Credit for each unit of density reduction resulting from a specific PDR. The Town Board could call on its Land Preservation Committee to recommend specific projects. We believe Community Preservation Funds could be used for such acquisitions. Kmong other things, the Town would benefit from private funding of PDRs under this program. Some examples of its use are: · The Town Board and ZI~A could require developers to purchase preservation credits from the Town commensurate with the downzoning they seek for more intensive development [15]. A certain number of preservation credits could be required according to a formula and applied to enable landowners to have a country inn or housing for farm workers [16]. Once the program becomes successful and a market established for preservation credits, sales and purchases could be made directly between willing buyers and sellers under overall Town oversight [17]. · The Town could reward longevity in the Rural Incemive District with preservation credits according to formula [18]. 4. Zone changes The BRC heard from a number of authorities on the effect of zone changes on preservation, and it does not have a strong prevailing view on the suitability of that tool in achieving our targets at the present time. Some BRC members cite the long-term benefits of density reduction expected from a change from two-a to five-a zoning; others are concerned that that change would slow the .momentum in the Town's current preservation efforts. The BRC also noted that zone changes, or the likelihood of such, would influence appraisal values, owners' interest in joining file RID and other preservation options. In conclusion, the BRC considered (a) an upzoning recommendation linked to the inception of the RID, but with provision for those entering the district, and Co) the recommendation that the Town Board consider possible zone changes in the light of many factors and based on the progress towards the preservation targets. The BRC endorses the second approach [191. In addition, the Commission recommends That there be no general upzoning of the agricultural and open space lands until at least one year after the inception of the RID, to give landowners time to participate in the district at their original zoning density [20]; That the Planning Staff institute a detailed monitoring and quarterly reporting system providing a current breakdown of the preservation and development processes (see below) [21]; and · That the Town Board review those reports on a regular basis and consider possible zone changes on the basis of the reviews [22]. C. Strengthenin~ the Tow.,n's nlannine and preservation canacitv. The BRC notes that Soufiaold Town officials concerned with land preservation and related planning are hardworking and dedicated but that the demands of the current work are substantially greater than is generally appreciated. If the Town embarks on the RID and/or other innovations reconunended here, it will have an immediate and substantial impact on the workload in the offices of Land Preservation, the Planning Department and Town Attorney. In particular the BRC strongly recommends a systematic monitoring of all development in the Town [23]. At a minimum Town officials should have quarterly reports stating the number of (1) applications received for the various categories of subdivision/developmem, (2) acres involved, (3) acreage preserved through the various tools, and (4) the financial cost of that preservation. This will not only require significantly more people; it will also call for an unprecedented ability for the various Town departments to work closely together. The BRC notes that preierviag land almost always involves decisions made jointly by landowners and the Town. Many of those decisions are particularly difficult for families that have ;little experience working with the Town. The role of conservation advisors in reaching out to .those families has been important in maintaining the pace of current preservation, and it will be even greater when these proposals are taken up. Specific proposals for the monitoring program and staff strengthening are in Appendix D. D. Are the targets attainable and at what costs? It is not enough to set planning targets and list several ways to reach them. There needs to be some assurance that the tools will achieve the desired objective within a reasonable time and at reasonable cost. In this section we analyze the contribution that each preservation tool can be expected to make. We begin with the following assumptions: · The analysis covers a ten-year time frame, that is, the 80% preservation targets are met within ten years from the adoption of the recommendations. All dollar costs are:in.constant year-2002 dollars. Inflation is certain to drive up the per-acre cost of acquiring development rights, but it will also increase the revenues available from.the Community Preservation Fund (2% transfer tax). We therefore assume that using constant year-2002 dollars is a fair basis for analyzing costs and returns. · For farmland, we assume that the total at-risk acreage is 6,900 a; that the owners of ten percent of it (690 a) will never develop it under any condition; that 50 percent 0t' the remaining land is enrolled in the RID, and that at the end of ten years four out of every five acres enrolled will remain in the RID. For open space, the comparable figures are 3,900 at-risk acreS. 50% of the land will be enrolled in the RID, half of it permanently. Summary of farmland acres preserved, ten year period 2002 - 2012: Acres · Owners who will never develop (10%) · 50% of balance enrolled m RID, of which 4/5 is permanently enrolled: · PDR of 1,600 a - Country Inns and related One acre per room above four rooms - Business expansion, accessary apts etc - Private transfers Total TDPS · Conservation easements due to expedited reviews and other incentives 100 250 250 69O 2,484 1,600 600 300 Total acres preserved 5,674 82% Summary of open space acres preserved, 2002 - 2012, based on 3,900 at-risk acres: Acres · Owners who will never develop (10%) · PDPS or outright purchase of 400 a · 50% of balance enr.lled in RID, of which half is permanently enrolled · TDRs Country Inns and related One acre per room ,.above four rooms Business expansion; accessary apts etc Private transfers Total TDPs · Conservation easements due to expedited reviews and other incentives · Clnsterillg on remainin~ 990 acres · Land from farmland 50 50 250 390 400 777 350 390 6OO 260 Total acres preserved 3,167 81% 8 The Commission reviewed these numbers carefully and concluded that they are realistic and based on conservative estimates; actual preservation may be higher [24]. D. Information meetings The BRC was charged with holding information meetings in several parts of the Town to communicate with the public regarding our conclusions. We have been unable to do that within the six month time frame because we have still not agreed on the specifics of our plan. We therefore propose to hold those information meetings after the Town Board has received our report and recommended it as a basis for those meetings [25]. E. Code amendments The BRC has made progress in drafting proposed Town Code amendments on various parts of our proposals (Appendix E). These drafts have been circulated to BRC members and may be taken 'up when the basic provisions of the program have been agreed upon. We have identified additional legal support to assist the Town in drafting Code amendments after the BRCs term has expired. Jul 14 2002 TW APPENDIX A. Membership of the Blue-Ribbon Commission for the Preservation of a Rural Southold Rey Blum Timothy Caufield David Cichanowicz Douglas Cooper Laury Dowd Louisa Hargrave John Holzapfel Joshua Horton Eric Keil Vincem LaRocca Ritchie Latham William Moore Martin Sidor Melissa Spiro Ronnie Wacker Thomas Wickham Char£e to the Blue-Ribbon Commission for the Preservation of a Rural Southold The broad charge is to preserve operating farmland in the context of overall plavning in the Town, which includes issues of environmental quality, open space, potential population density, affordable housing, public water and others. Specifically, the commission is charged to: · Recommend specific preservation targets; · Recommend feasible steps to achieve those targets; and · Seek a consensus in the Town regarding both the targets and the steps. Complete its work by lune 30 2002. 2LO APPENDLX B. Members of the BRC were furnished with a first draft of this report and were asked to affirm or reject its key recommendations. In meetings on Jun 17 and Jun 24 we voted on twenty five points forming the core of the report. Alternate members (proxies) voted in place of some members who were unable to attend. Each section of this report on which a vote was taken is followed by a number enclosed within square brackets designating the vote. The results of these votes are listed below. Recommendation Affirm Reject Abstain [1] 12 0 1 [2] 12 0 ; [31 7 4 2 [41 ;3 o 0 [5] 8 5 0 [6] ;2 ; o [7] .14 ; 1 [8] 12 0 1 [9] 13 0 0 [10] 12 1 0 [111 4 8 ; [12] 7 6 0 [13] 12 1 '2 [14] 11 0 2 [;51 ;2 1 0 [16] 11 2 0 [17] 12 1 0 [18] 10 3 0 [191 9 4 0 [201 7 4 2 [2U ;3 o o [22] 11 1 1 [23] 13 0 0 [24] 8 4 1 [251 13 0 0 · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic ElS Appendix G-59 Letter from North Fork Environmental Council, Inc. July 25, 2003 FROM : NORTH FORK ENUIRONMENTAL CH£L£ FAX NO. : S]~.-298-4649 Jul. 25 2005 O~:O1PM P1 · OR?H',FORK-E:IIyIRONME:)ITAL COUNCiL , 'INC. ~ ~ R~. 25.a~ Lo~e'~nei'Po.Box ?gg. Tvlattl~ck ~Y 1~ .T~L: 6~l-298-888Q Fax: 65~-;~8-~649 · ,..... Memb~' Off'[~ Southotd Town B~a~d ,RECEIVED. Southold Town'Clerk p~.ese~aQOn goals: ' B~.:~c~g.:52acm:6lus~cd ~oni~, ~ To~ ~l~'~t ~e BI~ Ribbon Co~ssfon;s ': '" "~gc~0mo~T~'BV~d.' ":.' · ".'... "~ · · '. . ' .... · .' . · ' ' , ;.;-~.. . ..~...... .-..:.:. ;,.. >' ~':' :.. '".';;..':;....., (.':::.~ .....,., '......... ~. ::..:"-,; ...:.:......:....'?...,. '.... , s~d~ ~s 0~'iw:~ '~ '" ' ' .' ' '" · · · S~rely,.' · i'qFEC Southold'COqrdinator' '-.' . , · ' ....,: .. _:2 ~i.'f'- .?'"' . G~203 10.1 a nonqaroflt'ocganlgation f~r the preservation' of land. ges,alr a~d: quallt~ o¢ !i~ · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-60 Letter from Town Planning Board July 25, 2003 PLANNING BOARD N[EMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman RICHARD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN $IDOR , 3095 State P~oute 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3-136 PLANNING ]BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED July 25, 2003 JUL 2 § ~003 Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 SR 25 Southold, NY 11971 SoulholdTown Clerk Re: Comments, Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mrs. Neville: Please accept the following comments on the DGEIS on behalf of the Planning Board. The Board members have reviewed the document. They have engaged in several conversations at work sessions. The comments are listed in two separate categories; the first of which is editorial in nature. The second category involves more conceptual and procedural questions. Editorial: Page 1-12, Para.2. Last Line. Change interesting to interested, as in "....not every property owner is interested in preserving..." Page 1-16, Para.5. First sentence. The intent of this sentence is not clear. For example, it would be more accurate to say: "Development densities of half-acre or greater are permitted only when public water and sewage treatment facilities are present." Page 1o27, Para.1. The text in this paragraph should be revised as follows: · B&B's are permitted by Special Exception within the A-C and R*40 zoning districts. · Site plans are not required for any B&B in any of the residential zones, including HD. · B&Bs are a permitted use as of right within the RR zone and site plans are not required. · B&Bs are a permitted use as of right within the RO zone, but site plans are required. G-204 2.2 G-205 2.2 G-206 2.2 · B&Bs are required in the commercial zones, specifically B, HB and LB and site plans are not required. Page 1-27, Para.5. The discussion of flag lots should include mention of the Suffolk County Planning Commission's requirements that flag lots fronting on SR 25 and CR 48 should have at least 50 feet of road frontage. Twenty feet of road frontage is permitted only where there will be only one or two flag lots using the right-of-way. Subdivisions containing more than two flag lots should have at 50 feet of road frontage for the Right- of-Way. G-207 2.2 Page 1-34. Para.2. Last sentence. Delete words "in size" from the sentence. G-208 2.2 Page 1-35. Para. 2. The second sentence suggests an action that propedy lies within Trustee Board jurisdiction. "The Town may wish to consider empowering the Planning Board to vary these requirements when no other alternative exists and specific and effective mitigation measures can be used and enforced." The Sentence should be revised to delete those circumstances within Trustee jurisdiction. G-205 2.2 Page 1-35. Para.6. First Bullet should read "Action within Critical Environmental Areas". j G-212.2 (' waterPage 1-54.permits.BUllet #5. The Town Board of Trustees has jurisdiction over Fresh and Salt l (;-212.2 1 Page 1-55. The Suffolk County Planning Commission has review power over subdivision and site plan applications as well as change of zone petitions. (;-21 2.2 Page2-18. Para. 3. The woodland map (FigureB-21) has only one color. Themap I (;-213 does not show separate delineations for natural woodlands and woodlands around I 2.2 residences. Page 2-37. Para. 4. Sentence 5 should be revised to say "...902 homes were sold fora j (;-21 4 total of...."I 2.2 Page 2-38. Para. 5. Add Southold as a base of madtime facilities. Change Orient-by- I (;- 2 t 5 the-Sea, which is the name of a business, to Odent Point, which is the location, t 2.2 Page 2-58. Bullet #6 from top of page. The first sentence should be amended to sayI (;- 21 6 "Hortons ...... and three quarter acre site...." I 2.2 Page 2-68. Para. 3. The first sentence should be revised to be consistent with theI (;-21 7 location names used in Para. 5 on Page 38, as noted above. I 2.2 Page 2-68. Para. 4. Aquebogue is mis-spelled. Page 2-68. Para. 5. McDonald's Restaurant is located in Laurel not Mattituck. I (;-21 9 The eastern terminus of Mattituck is not defined by the Mattituck/Cutchogue publicI 2.2 library. Cutchogue has its own library. Page 3-11. Table 3-2. The Footnotes should be added to the bottom of the Table. I (;-220 I 2.2 3 G-22~ Page 8-4. Para. 2. Sentence 21 The second mention of "R-120 district" should be 2.2 revised to read "R-200 district". Page 8-5. Para. 2. There are no HD districts actually located within Mattituck. Orient is I ~22 not considered a major hamlet center. I Page 8-13. Para. 1 (carryover from previous page). Since the PB requires all new subdivisions to underground electrical, phone and cable service, it is incorrect to say that upzoning will result in "fewer telephone poles". Page 8-19. The discussion on mandatory clustering should reflect the fact that clustering that creates one large lot with a building envelope is an option that is currently used by the Planning Board. Appendix E. The ~hurch noted in Southold actually is located in Mattituck. The Candy Man is actually located in Odent. G-223 2.2 G-224 2.2 G-225 2.2 General Comments: The DGEIS should clarify the fact that the discussion on HALOs does not contain precise boundaries for these districts. It should state that the definition of the HALO boundaries would be the subject of future public hearings should the Town Board decide to define those boundaries. G-226 2.2 Track preservation sales over the past 17 years since the start of the development rights preservation program. Extrapolate potential earnings under the 2 % tax through the year 2020. IG-227 2.2 IG-228 2.2 Using specific and identified assumptions about unknown variables (such as inflation, economic conditions, etc.) extrapolate the potential cost to the tax-payer (in tax dollars/rate of assessment) of continuing the voluntary development dghts program through the year 2020. Show how a decline in land valuation (of upzoned land) would affect taxation. G-229 2.2 G-230 2.2 Explain the impact or potential conflict of the Scenic Byways designation of SR 25 and CR 48 on agricultural operations, and with Ag and Markets regulations. G-231 2.2 The TDR tool should not be portrayed as a significant saver of land within the Town of Southold. It should be described as a tool that is available to the Town to permit small transfers in discrete situations. G-232 2.2 What is meant by the phrase "specialty crop"? Does it include the average row crop, I G-233 such as potatoes, broccoli, etc.? I 2.2 Crop diversity is important for a healthy agricultural industry. The agriculture business suffered from the monoculture of potatoes in the 1970s. Care should be taken not to encourage a trend towards another monoculture. G-234 2.2 The discussion of agricultural businesses should note that not all agribusinesses are treated equally under Town zoning regulations. Vineyard growers are permitted lanc'l uses that other crop growers are not. Are greenhouse operations considered traditional farming? Should they be treated as such or differently from vineyards/wineries? Do greenhouses need to be located on prime agricultural land or could they be sited elsewhere? Does the general perception of "farmland preservation" connect in people's minds with massive glass buildings? The DGEIS should note that the rising cost of farmland is making it difficult for many local farmers to finance the acquisition of more farmland to improve their property base. Southold School has two soccer fields, but no football field. Sincerely, Bennett Odowski, Jr. / Chairman G-235 2.2 G-236 2.2 G-237 2.2 G-238 2.2 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS Appendix G-61 Memo from Thomas Wickham July 24, 2003 To: Copies to: From: Date: Re.: Southold ·Town Clerk Supervisor and Town Bd Planning Bd Moratorium Plannings,Group . Jul 24 03 Comments on DGEIS' RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2003 Soothold Town Clerk Substance · Proposed action It isn't clear what the proposed action is. Is proposed to move ahead with all 43 implementation tools or only selected ones? Are all 43 really found as recommendations in past reports? A brief citation showing where each one was proposed would help deal with the impression that the list of 43 was drawn up selectively. Are there other recommendations that. are not included? There is no discussion of this, leading to an impression of selectivity. In particular, since the report goes to such length to support implementation tool #4, we need to know the specifics and context of the original report in which .it was found. · Interplay of multiple tools An EIS is supposed to take a hard look at the environmental imp~/ct of the proposed action. The report fails to meet this requiremem by not. identifying what the action actually is. As stated earlier, it could be one or forty three single and separate fictions. It is therefore very weak on the interaction of the "actions" and on mitigation measures that should be considered if one or only some of the tools were to be taken up. I believe this weakness will be a serious inadequacy when the Town is challenged on the report. · Treatment of "No-action" scenario For purposes of calculating full ~heoretical buildout the report assumes a complete halt to all land preservation steps. As an exemise in estimating a hypothetical case, this calculation may have some merit. However, the quality of the report is seriously compromised throughout by the treatment it gives the no~action scenario. While providing footnoted disclaimers .stating that the' no-action scenario may not ever be reached ("or if it is, only after many years"), the report clearly and willfully uses ~e full buildout numbers in extensive discussion of alternatives and tools. Despite the disclaimer, the report uses the zero-preservation no-action scenario to create the impression that this outcome can be expected. This is intellectually dishonest, and we saw G-239 2.'4 G-240 3.6 an example of it in the first slide of the power-point presentation made to the' Town Board. 1 can only conclude, sadly, that the authors of the report are intentionally trying to create an impression through this report which they know wilt not occur and which cannot be supported ILv [he past and present progress of land preservation. The no-action alternative must co~isider taking no hction from what is actually the current situation -- not some hypothetically worst case. This, like not definitely stating what the action is, is so glaring a problem that simply editing the DGEIS into final form will not repair the damage; I believe it has to be restructured to treat the no-action scenario responsibly. · Consideration of past and present preservation strategies Several of the implementation tools, e.g.. #2, #12, #13. build on the Town's existing preservation strategy, but the report does not take up as a central theme extending and strengthening the current, program, which again should have been described as current conditions in the no-action alternative. The report clearly tries to create the impression that the existing program is insufficient and therefore new steps such as more. restrictive zoning are needed immediately, without an analysis of the current program. Without arguing the relative merits of more restrictive zoning, I regard this treatment of the Town's current preservation program as deceptive, prejudicial and dismissive. The report pays lip ~ervice to the role of farming and our past experience in preserving land, but in the crucial sections dealing with implementation tools and potential environmental impacts, relying on that experience in furore is essentially written off as irrelevant. To illustrate this point, I am attaching to this memo section 3-8 from the report dealing with purchase of development rights. Beneath it I have redrafted the section to provide a more accurate and precise statement that takes our PDR program seriously. Note that it calls for a new buildout table based on realistic assumptions. · Montgomery Co experience In light of recent information about Montgomery Co, the entire section of the report dealing with that county needs to be rewritten. It appears that the authors of that section simply accepted what they were told by Montgomery Co people without digging below the surface of the issue. It has been reported that Montgomery Co lost farmland to development at a rate greater than Suffolk County has. If the report is to include a section designed to support implementation tool #4, it must provide' a balanced discussion of experience from a range of places. I am ~ertain that such a discussion Would not provide unqualified support for implementation tool #4. The report must be honest in its treatment of such experience.. G-241 8.3 G-242 6.4 3 Extraneous material The DGEIS promotes two legal interpretations that are uncalled for in this report. The first is an effort tO define the extent anti types of agricultural support structures that would be allowed on preserved land. This is an important issue that the Town should address. I am not aware of any of the earlier reports recommending we deal with it as a priority, and consequently it does not belong in this DGEIS. The second issue is the attempt to define agricultural land as a subset of open space. I think we should continue to maintain the distinction between operating farmland and open space (mostly non-farmed meadows, wetlands, woodlands etc). I believe, both are important for quite different reasons and merging them into one category will damage the prospects of preserving the maximum extent of both. The Blue-Ribbon report clearly set separate standards for preserving both farmland and open space. Although the target figure for each was the same (80%), they were set separately so that preservation of one would not come at the expense of the other. I point this out because increased reliance on clustered subdivision of farmland, as proposed in implementation tool #4, would.almost certainly result in a more ?apid conversion of farmland to non-farmed open space. That outcome, which I did not see discussed in the report, would seriously compromise the future of the Town and does not represem what I think most Town residents want. Process Apart from the substantive comments above, I have these recommendations on process: · Openness Despite tt/e references to an open process 'with participation from townspeople, the DGEIS process has been notable for the lack of that input. In fact, the DGEIS process abruptly stopped an open process involving, among others, the Blue-Ribbon Commission deliberations. The DGEIS process has even stopped development and discussion of the Rural Incentive District proposal. The hearings on the DGEIS were overwhelming negative about the report. Besides the substantive defects raised, this ~tlso reflects the fact that stakeholders, including but not limited to landowners, had no input into the process. In addition, neither the Planning Board nor Town Board had more than a passing involvement in the preparation of the report, and it is the Town that is ultimately responsible to comply with SEQRA. G£243 2.4 G-244 10.29 4 · Consensus Durable. progressive planning calls for consensus amortg groups of people with different objectives. There are steps that improve the climate of consensus and steps that make consensus harder to achieve. Timing the report to coincide with an election cycle increases the polarization and the tendency to identify and more deeply divide winners and losers. Long-range planning should not be hostage to a political campaign. Recommendation The primary benefit of this DGEIS is the collection and presentation of planning data for the Town. This is the first tflne much of this information has been presented, and for the most part I believe it is reliable. Unfortunately, the report reads as if it was hurriedly drafted to meet a deadline after the lengthy data collection process was completed late in May. What is needed now is reflection on what we have, an unbiased review of the comments made at the hearings, and greater and more open input from oui' Planning and Town Boards I.believe these goals could best be reached by asking an outside group to write the final EI$. It would add a month or two to the process, but would probably not add much to the cost. Firms specializing in such work are available to do it and there is precedent to such an arrangement. G-24'5 2.8 Jul 15 03 3.1 Future Conditions without the Proposed Action Buildout analysis: Section 3-8 [DGEIS text] An additional variable that could affect the Buildout results is the purchase of development rights. The Town has had a history of purchasing development rights for land preservation. The availability of funds, from Town, County, State and Federal sources for such purposes is not known or guaranteed. Therefore the projection of full build conditions does not factor in such efforts. However, additional analyses are provided in Section 3.2.2 to determine the relative change in impacts under conditions where 80 percem, of unprotected open space is ' preserved, in combination with a 60 percent density reduction, consistent with several goals established by the Town. Shc~uld read: [my redraft] The purchase of development rights to farmland, and the outright purchase of open space, has been since 1974 the primary means by which those lands have been preserved and potential density reduced. These programs enjoy broad public support. An assured funding stream (the C .ommuhigy Preservation Fund) is now in place generating in 2002 $3.5 million for PDR and open space acquisitions in the Town. Revenues from the CPF are likely to increase as the prices of land transfers increase. The CPF program has recently' been reauthorized to the year 2020. Therefore, our analysis of full buildout takes into account our best estimate of land preserved through PDR and Open Space acquisition. The rate of these acquisitions varies from year to year. Acquisitions by the Town of Southold alone currently average about 240 acres/year. There is in July 2003 a pipeline of 957 acres of Town and County acquisitions that the Town's Land Preservation Office expects will close. Figures for acquisitions' through private sales, charitable gifts, etc are unknown, although they have been growing steadily in recent years. Therefore our projection of full buildout must take into account these acres of protected farmland and open space. A conservative estimate of the rate is 350 acres per year. Wi{h additional incentives such as a Rural Incentive District and related programs detailed later in this report, it could be much higher. Additional analyses are presented in Section 3.2.2 to determine the relative change in · impacts based on different rates of land acquisition. I~GIONAL E~fl~ACT ANALYSIS MODEL IRIAM'I PROPOSED PROJECT ~-acre Upzonlng/A-C and R-80 Districts Impact Summary NP&V Microcomputer Model RIAM RO l? 6.3% 4. t~ 46 '.2 16 $123,~ 4J4,7~2 0.2 N MH 69 ?,4% 1.14 150 12 ~ S5~,7~ Sl~ 0.~ 5~ .... AC !i ~4~ ; rca q; _____)32 f-4O ~ 80 rc'a ~03 " tva R-t20 ; 0 27 ,i rf~ , )Or) : ~'% 0 -Cf rL/a S8595 ~, :.263 R-206 ] 0 16 ' r,.'a I ~)3 ~ :." O'l'! n"~ lll.tO0 $'.-.2~,3 ...... 225 2.!" AMD 2 70 r.'a r/~ ~ ~ t b0 m'a , .~,}) 1 HD-= 2.T~ ~'a O.Id~ ~/t, ~,~, ~13.263 ~ 1.{0 ~z 393 J[O } fda ' { 3,>) 2.71 O.VC5 ~ "' MI 0.80 ~a }~0 2.17 0 16g ~a S7,3 lO $1~,163 M~ ).[O ~a 100 2.17 0 MU* ~ 1.66 ~ )~ 2.l ~ r;a 20,0% U.~ B__ ~'a 24.1% , O.D4 039 , ~, 2.~5 S2.90 $0 L;O ~-' ~ 2u.~ { ¢06 , o.3o ,, U[, ~'a 27.~ { o.~ 030 } (' I A-C DISTRICT EM?ACT ~IALY$I$ AC l)i~trlct Total Acres NP&V .Microcomputer Model RIAM Acr~ F~rm Ars. t~ ,At,, l" P,~. Water $00 30~,7~ I Ni~og~n (~l~,) 0.~3 Ni~o$~n is ~d on }¢F&V 50NIK mc<icl I -'Tm To~ ~p. 2,705 ~ 2,T12 ".-.".e-.' "~- S' ~ ~,' ',, ",,. ' ' ' "' ' Lib~ 42.7~ ~% S5~5~76 S24,~3 $4,929 ~n only SC, NWS Policc ~ ~ ; % $~,$~ ~3,~$$ ~I $1 To~ ~d ~h~oI T~ So~d W~ 8.11 ~ 1% S80,~92 S4,67~ ~5 Sl T~ps,q~ o.?? rJa t A~d ~4ur~d p~mt of lan~t 242 l'omd l~qmlstlo~ {., c*~ta/0wcltin6 Tax ill,nut .,wnl~ ., ~ ~ ...... ....-~,~,.~ ,. w~ :,, ~"'.i' " " ..:~:::.::~...., . .............. ...oF~',r .~t~: ~i'tS~.'l~!",~::~ " '""":'" I:::T"~e:'. ='i'":':"~:' 'i .... ' r T~nit S~.JlO ~ T~ I 17 3~ 2% $~ ~ ~ ~ $0 ~doz, {B ~ I~u Tax 167.m~7 2~ ~98~ ~' ~ $3 No~: ~ D{~c, ~ 4~ ~ ~75,363 ~ S0 ~ Tg~,fl Pc~ ,~ S~79.~84 R,~O Omr'lct'foul Acres ~{ 213] :)6 A~d a~urr~l pm, g~ i~ ,,',4. 151~t,,/F. xemp,?DS. : IbL~L'N, '"OPE · LLP ~&¥ Microcomputer Mo~d 520 Add ~ p~'cem Add assuzmd T~ce~t al'is, nd farme~ Rcs. W~ MOY ~m'~pn iu ba~xl on NP&V SONIR Tax { ? 30~ ~ 2% ~ SD ~ SO Po~ Tax 6.69 1% ~ ~ ~ SO Solid [ , ' '~;'"~:~Dm '=' *:".T . .:'' Total y~p. n/a 0 #/dly tva O Toe.,e'd ltv ~,'l 0.0 Tr~VD~m O.~r ./, ~..ld~l DI~'FRTCI' ~IPAL"I !~.-21111 Z)im'id 'T~lll G~n,l~l ~H Plkr~ NP&¥ ~lcre~*mpm~4r Med~l R~s. wirer $~0 I 0,22,1 FL~I Wwm' $.J"~r O WG~ MGY 78~ ~y/JM _D_W~lJhxgs t~: Ocn]. Usc 34 Total ?op To~l P~pulafion ~ capita/¢-uellin~ Chfld ix~p~la~m~ ~ o~.ildraa per d,~llin$ S~ior ?opulmior: i,, o**~ ~ yom ofil¢ Co~VChild $11,2;4 nil School T~ ~,'l S~3,680 R-400 DLq'IRICT IMPACT AI~, ALY$I$ R-400 I~triet Total Acres · ::.::; ~,,, r ,~ Acres ~"~ i (mC) NP&V .Microcomputer Model R1AM wv-n~,lion ~8.50~ To~-a T~ { 67327 2~ S2,776 ~3 S0 S0 ~DW~ {/1~ $c~o~T~ 528787 No~; FW DiG~ct 44.452 B~uon ~ly SC, ~'S Poh~ 'r~ 6.6~ I ~ S111 S0 ~ 30 To~l 120,GIG TOL ~ u~i POPE, LLp AHD DISTRIC, T I~PACT ANALYSIS AHD Dl~wlct Total Av~ L~: Ac, Cover&{~ Aaalysb ,~d~ ~um~ p~r~cul; ofl~d fmacd NP&V Microcomputer Model To,mi Dwellin~ 0 TnpVD~ o.? Add m~a:J p~r.~t m AS. DisL/Excrn~'DS. Add ~um~ pG"~m of land farmed ........ -... ,;(~,~:~,,~;'. Child ~jl&b(~ ~l chiidm~ ~ ~l~lhnl I~ ~27 20% S 1~f910 SO ~ ] ~ 42.769 S~. ~i,~ SS ~ S0 NP,a"¢ MJcrec~mpater Model ! e-'C~p m 7 ~ Trip Gmer~tm Analysl~ De~Iha~ 159 a/a D~llhil~ ~,2~. ArS. L,~ AC 0.5 ~;.::~',.i?'.~ i,,;:':-:.:. :.~: ~;., ~.':':',':...'.. : ~I~'.., , ~it'" ~ }8,~ Town T~ 16T,52e [ P "rm. Add assumed pe~ce~g tn NELSON, PGF'E, LLP Ftm~ 0~ O.O To!~l Fop, Child. Pop. O.?OJ 12 Sr. FOp- Jl~ o/c~re 16 Total Pepulabon ii mpi~'dwmllin$ Child population is children Ira., dv*ellmg 501id Wu~* Farm 9~o O,O Rogd P~ 6.0 R.O.W P~; 6.0 R~,;. Wirer Jd~ 36,555 'Io,,,] p,.F. n/G 2~11~912 ~Cz?ia ? a/~ AVE. Yield I.~t O.a '4~L -'=,Df i, FLT~E, LLP 516 ,:-25 225"' P, le ~ldendai ws~r~ssni~7 is Pm* rt~hk A~ ,....;::: ::..:,: :.i: ,:,(~'.,~ Pup 22 ~ Po~. 3~o~c~lm 21~ T~ ~evenue ~ Di~rl~:T Tetal Atr~ 13Jiv"ul~m fion 28.60~ Town T*a .J 167527 2~. ,S344t068 ~0. $0 I~DI~'~I~ .{ILO School l'~ { S28 767 ~4% S 1,056,025 $0 SO T~ ~ Sc~ol T~. Sohd Wu~, 8.115 [ I% S16~7 r~' dlO,610 I 100% 0.2 Am,~i~ m TI% ~vm~ A~llJmlm Anal T~m~t~' O. 77 ntt Fan*~ 0~ 0.0 ~ ~ 0 6 F~Ii~ ~ : 3.6 I Chik! populsllo~ ~1 {Mldmn pet dwellin8 __ ~ :],,~-~!:.: ;.. ::'.d; , _Total Pop. f~'a 1~0.3031~ Toy. Tri~ r~a ~3 Fam~ ~"~ 0.0 R~ad ..o~; 712 -- R-O-V,, 9~ 7.2 l~s. lVme~ $09 45,058 W~ MOY J6b ~/iM 16 Reiideritiil wtte~'if~itl~ is Ni~vsL'n lg ~ on NP&'¢ SON~ Oemo~rapk~&na~sb Add ~-med p~cn! In A~' Dlr,,/Exernp~DR Tota' Popuiafier~ il Tax mid; aver~ = ! .~% "rc,~l Po~. n/a $~5.~11g9 516 W~tsr R~r~ ~ Nifo{sim ii b~i on NP&V SONIR -accel Dwcllin~ ~ (3cai. Use 0 ~.7~7 fa% ~G2,0~6 SO ~ To~ a~6 5chooi T~es, Sofld W~m 8.11~ 1% $3~10~ S0 ~ S0 Tot 'l'ri~ 2,3 Ni:ro~e is bas~l ~ NI~.C'V $ONI~ n~dc] D.*,~Ii.~ ae~ ~1. Use j i~eludes a~ a~d: Jvem~ = t ~. kauare Fe~ 266,018 r.',~ ~ a~d ~=~t in A~. OJit. I,ExeTn.p/~DR. Add ~sum~l p~re~t ofleed fe~n~d Wa~, ~u~ Aamlyds C~n. wa I~'T 0.0~ 48,242 Rcsi~t~a) ~ev'~aty is ~u~it ,O~cllin~ I~e Geol. Use 0 Cliii~, ~, 0 0 Jow 2. JO 1;689 ~-xet/bg~ t, ! ~2 SC Tax :? 30~ 2% T~0,702 SO So ~ Coral Sg ./a Tz~p~az 0,45 e/& Ac. AI. Land ~..~ AC. F, xrnW. ¢,,~-; 3uilfiia$ 27,0% T8212y'/ *-- Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Final Generic EIS APPENDIX I SCDHS LETTER Division of Environmental Quality August 5, 2003 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Robert J. Gaffney DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICE8 LINDA ~ERMELSTEiN, M.D., M.P.H. Ac:ting Comml~lor~r August 5, 2003 Stephen M. Jones, Chairman Suffolk County Water Authority 4060 Sunrise Highway Oakdale, NY 11769-0901 Dear Mr. Jones: Subject: Findings Statement For the Southold Five-Year Water Supply Plan The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has reviewed the Findings Statement for the Suffolk County Water Authority's (SCWA's) Five -Year Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold, and strongly agree with the plan's basic goal of providing public water to all high priority areas, as identified on the Water Service Area Map, over the next five years. We commend the SCWA on its efforts to that end. We are also certain that the SCWA shares the overarching goal of the SCDHS to provide public water to all those residents of Southold Town who may eventually need it. The SCDHS will be plea.w~ to work with the SCWA to accomplish this goal. The upcoming Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan is one study which may assist in this regard. It should be noted that while the Water Service Area Map was developed using information provided by the SCDHS, this agency has not formally adopted the map. Nevertheless, the SCDHS agrees that the map shouM be used to guide short-term decisions on water main extensions based on housing densities and known contamination issues. The SCDHS also recognizes, however, that the groundwater contamination picture is constantly evolving in Southold as new potential problems, such as perchlorate and herbicide metabolite$, are idemified; therefore, the map will require amending from time to time in order to accurately reflect the prioritization ofneeds. Regardless of the map's status, it remains the SCDHS' position that all areas with contaminated wells should be served by public water supplies in as timely s fashion as possible. DIVJ$IOfl OF ENWRONMENTAL QU~LI'rY 220 RI~BRO HAUPPAUGE, NY I 'r788 (S3';) 853-2251 Fax (631) 853-2307 z{~o~ !;~tDIA~IiES IiL'IV:~iH fl0 ,[d:~(I ~L0~' g~ 9I!; X'Vzl ~';g:60 I~zI g0/ZI/60 Stephen M. Jones, Chairman Page 2 August5, 2003 In terms of the specific findIngs, the SCDHS has the following comments: The SCDHS agrees that a sufficient quantity of fresh groundwater underlies Sonthold Town to supply the projected ultimate population, but that the quality of much of this resource has been degraded to the point that, in the absence of better supply sources, treatment must be provided. The SCDHS agrees that the purchase of water from the Riverhcad Water District is a viable option, and that significant regional environmental impacts should not result .from such action. However, the SCDHS cannot make any detailed comments until a formal application has been made to the NYSDEC. Co As with B above, The SCDHS agrees that the development of 2 wells at Hallockville is a viable opt/on, and that significant environmental impacts should not result from such action (based on a preliminary review of CDM's modeling analysis). However, the SCDHS cannot make any detailed comments until a formal application has been made to the NYSDEC. Do The SCDHS concurs that the maintenance of pumping capacity within the Town of Southold is desirable, since it would pwvide greater management flexibility. We continue to be greatly encouraged by the SCWA's knowledge and ready application of treatment innovations, which could improve the merits of this alternative in the future. The SCDHS also concurs that a certain amount of groundwater should be able to be pumped from the Central Pine Barrens to serve Southold Town and other East End communities, but the potential impacts of such withdrawals on the Peconic River and Estuary will need to be reviewed as part of the formal application process. These issues will also be addressed during the SCDHS' upcoming Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. In terms o£mitigation, the SCDHS agrees with the SCWA that municipalities should take all necessary steps to mitigate the potentially undeshab[e impacts of water supply development and water main extension. Concerns about growth-inducement may have some validity. However, those concerns should never be allowed to deny citizens access to a safe supply of drinking water. ffyou wish to discuss these comments, please do not hesitate to call me at (63 i) 853-3082. 7V~--u.. ly yours, Vito Minei, P.E., Director Division of Environmental Quality VM/lr Cc: Linda Mermelstein, M.D., M.P.H., Acting Commissioner GZO~ ggg 9IG XVd SZ:60 IHd