Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DGEIS Public Comments
Updated: 7/24/0;5 PUBLIC COMMENTS DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTION STRATEGY Date Received Name& Addr~s 3. 4. 5. 6. 6/19/03 7. 6/19/03 8. 6/20/03 9. 6/23/03 10. 6/23/03 1 I. 6/23/03 12. 6/23/03 13, 6/23/03 14. 6/24/03 15. 6/24/03 16. 6/24/03 6/16/03 Albert J. Krupski, Sr., Helen A. Krupski, Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Mary F. Krupski, Rtg3, 38030 Main Road, Peconic, NY 11958 6/19/03 Robert W. Keith, 995 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck, NY 11952 6/19/03 William W. Schriever, PO Box 128, Orient, NY 1 IS157 6/19/03 John Nickles, Jr., Southold, NY 11971 - President, Southold Business Alliance 6/19/03 John L. Conway, Hortons Lane, Sonthold, NY 11971 -Commissioner of Southold Park District Steve Mudd, County Road 48, Southold, NY11971 Albert Krupski, President, Board of Trustees, Town of Southnld Mary Foster Morgan, Orient, NY 11957 John C. Tuthill, Mattituck, NY 11952 William W. Schriever, PO Box 128, Orient. NY 119:)7 Joseph Gergela, Executive Director, L.I. Farm Bureau, Riverhead, NY 11901 Ray Huntington, Cutchogue, NY 11935, Member Southold Land Preservation Committee Ed Booth, 17235 Sotmdview Avenue. Southold, NY 11971 Rebecca Wiseman, Associate Director, Long Island Farm Bureau, Fig. Four Expansion of Metropolitan Coastal Areas (received at public hearing) Leila & James McKay, Mattituck, NY 11952 2 17. 6/24/03 18. 6/24/03 19. 6/24/03 20. 6/25/03 21.6/25/03 22.6/25/03 23.6/27/03 24. 6/27/03 25. 6/27/03 26. 6/30/03 27. 6/30/03 28. 7/1/03 29. 7/1/03 30. 7/1/03 31.7/1/03 32. 7/2/03 33.7/2/03 34. 7/2/03 35.7/2/03 36. 7/7/03 37. 7/7/03 38. 7/703 39. 7/8/03 40. 7/14/03 41.7/15/03 42. 7/15/03 43.7/15/03 Joseph A. Lee. 1645 Meadow Beach Lane. Mattituck, NY 11952 George W. Clark, 30 Dogwood Lane, East Marion, NY 11939 Julie Amper, 1645 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 Robert Feger & Teresa Taylor, 5370 Nassau Pt. Rd., Cutchogue, NY 11935 Eugene & Helen McPartland, 705 Koke Drive, Soutllold, NY 11971 Richard F. Lark, 550 Birch Lane, Cutchogue, NY 11971 Ken Schneider, 1005 Mason Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935 (e-mail) David & Dorothy Fisher, 1500 Brecknock Road, Apt 318, Greenport, NY 11944 Elsie S. Bleimiller, 1232 Lupton's Pt. Road, Mattituck, NY 11952 Stephen Weir, Vice-President, First Pioneer Farm Credit, 1281 Rt. 58, Riverhead, NY 11901 John Barnes, Shorecrest B & B, 54300 Rt. 48, Southold, NY 11971 Deanna AIpert & Elissa Rosner, 5050 Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Jeanne Genovese, Proprietor Vintage B & B, 580 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Mr. & Mrs. Domenick Cangemi, 1475 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue, NY 11935 Fred & Jean Schwab, 3735 Deep Hole Dr., Mattitack, NY 11952 Barbara, John, Jillian, Erin, and Stephen Zaveski. Southold, NY 11971 Linda Bertani, Sec/Treas Southold Park District, PO Box 959, Southold, NY 11971 Cristina & Joe Como, Harves Inn B & B, Southold, NY 11971 Deanna Alpert & Elissa Rosner, 5050 Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Ray Huntington, Cutchogue, NY, Member Southold Land Preservation Committee Cathy Craig, t I 0 East End Avenue, Apt. 11 k, New York, NY 10028 Andrew Greene, 1220 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck, NY 11952 Walter & Linell Gaipa, PO Box 247, East Marion, NY 11939 Clare E. Browne, 685 Bayhaven Lane, Southold, NY 11971 James H. McKay, Mattituck, NY 11952 Marie A. Domenici, Mattituck, NY 11952 George L. Penny IV, Southold, NY 11971 3 44. 7/15/03 George L. Penny IV, Southold, NY 11971 45. 7/15/03 Bill Edwards, Cutchogue, NY 11935 46. 7/15/03 George L. Penny IV, Southold, NY 1197l 47. 7/18/03 Doris McGreevey, Mattituck, NY 11952 e-mail 48. 7/22/03 William W. Esseks, Riverhead, NY 11901 49. 7/22/03 D.J. Gray, Southold, NY 1197t 50. 7/24/03 Southold Town Agricultural Advisory Board 51.7/24/03 Long Island Farm Bureau, Riverhead, NY 11901 PUBLIC COMMENT DGEISISCIS Esse~s. HEFTeR ~ ANGEL July~'* l, 2003 RECEIVED JUL 2 2 2003 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS '/Town Board Tmvn Clerk To~vn of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Draft Generic Impact Statement Hearing5 Dear Town Board Members and Town Clerk; I understand that at the end of the meeting held by tile Town Board, tile public was given a 10 day period to submit comments. l enclose a memorandum of my comments presented at tile Draft: Generic Impact Statement ( DGEIS ) Hear n=. I ask that it be made a part of the DGEIS record. Separately, 1 enclose a list of the property owners ,.',.'Ilo have authorized me to state that our office represents them in opposing the proposed 5 acre rezoning sought to be reviewed in the DGEIS. Very truly ),ours, \¥illiam W. Esseks /mi Enclosures FAI~IERS - DGEIS 6/19/0 3 1. ISSUE: A dominant purpose of the DGEIS and of the proposal to re-zone file AC and R- 80 Districts to 5-acre zoning with a mandatory 80% cluster and the owners' ability only to use for non-farming purposes 20% of the property is to guaranty to the public views across the farmers' property. By the Town Board adopling by local law zoning changes to implement the 80%/60% goal, it will establish and perpetuate a perceived public benefit to those people who will have permanent views across farmlands to tile 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 the public, the public in a reciprocal fashion, must bear the burden 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 has 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 the owners of the farmland 2. Paying for it lhrough condemnation 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 frown tile farmers' property the right to use 80% of tile land by in effect placing an agricultural easement on 80% of the farmers' property without any form of compensation therefore to he determined by a Court. The farmers intend to fight this "taking" of all non-agricultural use of 80% of their laad tu~d the zoning yield ,'eduction in every way that is available to them: 1. at the ballot box 2. by protests pursum~t to Town Law 3. and a notice of claim against the Town and pursuing a claim for dmnages 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, tile taxpayers, all of them, will be required to pay tbr the costs of the litigation aud any damages that are proven. 2. SEQRA: Tile DGEIS, we submit, does not include a meaningful analysis of the effects of: 1. Tile alternative ora condemnation or purchase of an easement over 80% the farmers' property. If the Town Board and the voters want to acquire mi ease~nent over 80% of each farmer's property, they should consider paying for il. Those alteraatives bare not beea reviewed, i.e., purchase or condemnation of an agricultural easement. 2. The alternative to establish a farm district or scenic improvement district whereby monies would be raised from those properties in the Town beoefited by the perpetual views over the farmers' property, which views the Town Board is apparently attempting to acquire. Tiffs tax burden could be directly paid for by taxes upon the benefited properties whose lots, vacant and unimproved, would increase in value as a result of the 80% easement, and therefore, more parties should have to pay for that benefit. 3. The effect of the requirement for (i) 80% open space and (ii) 5-acre lot nmmnmn upon tile voluntary sale of development rights. The existing program is successful. What effect will there be upon this successful program that has lead to the retirement of thousands of acres by voluntary sale of tile proposed requirement of 80% open space and a minimum of 5-acre lots. 4. Moving value off the farmers' property - by requiring $0% open space - and the resultant increase io value m nearby properties, especially those bordering on farmland whose properties will thereby increase in value. What effect will that have on the ability of those people who live in those homes to pay increased taxes caused by the transfer of wealth from the farmers' property to the neighboring properties. 2 5. What will be the effect on the future of the farming industry as a result of the change in zoning to require a minimum of 5-acre lots and require 80% open space in a clustered subdivision? Is it going to keep people in farming or drive them out of farming? 6. What will be tile effects of prohibiting the farmers from putting greeuhouses along road fi'ontage? Who wins? Can the farmer choose where lie builds his greenhouse, fences or barns, or where he parks his equipment? Will the farmers wm or do the Town resideuts who want to look across the farm win? Is the Town the best choice to tell the farmers how to farm and manage their property? 7. Is there a future for farming where the Town lakes ~way the economic benefits of owuing land7 A usual expectation is that land will - over 10-20 years - increase m value. Will the farmers' 80°~$ opeu space be the only land iii the Town not to increase in value? Not to increase at the sanle rate? Wily should they be treated differeutly from other lands? 8. The change of these thousands of acres from 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 file potential for future housing units thereby necessarily increasing the value of the existing lots ~uld }louses. This, iu tire experieuee of Southampton and East Hampton, will result in dramatic increases in the costs of the housing stock and attract people with higher incomes m~d with the passage of time, remove from tile community the middle ~lass who are our small business owners, clerks, school teachers, town employees mid make it even more difficult for the service/trade people to be able to live in tile Southold communily. I do not find an examination of the consequences of the decrease iu tile potential number of housing units and tile resultant change iii tile pattern of who will be able to live in Southold mid who will be forced to leave Southold, and the conclusions derived therefore must be made available in this DGEIS process. 9. All examihation of the likelihood and effects that the actions of this Town Board, in proposing 5-acre zoning and tile 80% open spaces, will result in petitions pursuaut to Article 2 of the Village Law to establish one or more new villages within the Town, a remedy that irate property owners m $outhamptou are now completing and which they show can be effected. 3 William Lindsay Jr 2695 Cox Neck Road 'Mattituck, NY Y 11952~0280 Robert Smnolewski 7800 Alvahs Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935-1014 Mill Creek Preserve 60875 Private Road Southold, NY 11971 More Realty Management Corp Cutchogue, NY 11935 Schmitt Bros Realty 36 Crestwood Blvd Farmingdale. NY I 1735 Ernest Schneider Greenhouse 7645 Alvahs Lane- Cutchogue~ NY 11935-1054 CJ Van Bourgondien Inc. PO Box 2 Pecnnic, NY I 1958-00(}2 Robert Schreiber Gallery 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 Cutchogue, NY I 19354}874 Otto Keil Florist 4615 New Suffblk Ay Mattitnck. NY 11952 Capt. H.W. Drum 2615 E. Mill Road Mattituck, NY 11952 North Fork Nursery Herrick Lane - PO Box 645 Jamesport, NY 11947 Howard Wolbert PO Box 280 Mattiluck, NY 11952~0280 C/o Tom Wickham Cutchogue, NY 11935-0928 Laurel Greenhouses PO.Bgx 1442. Mhtt tuck,:x[qy. Edward C. Booth 17235 Soundview Avenue Southold, NY 11971 Kmpski Farm Albe~Krupski Sr. 38030 Route 25 Peconic, NY 11958-1500 Jay Guild 36400 County Road 48 Peconic, NY 11958-1429 Martin Sidor 2010 Oregon Rqad Mattituck, NY '1 [~5~'- I Harbes Farm C/o Ed Harbes Il! PO Box 1524 Mattituck, NY I 1952-151 I Half Hollow Nursery 624 Deer Park Road Dix HiUs, NY and Laure~ Lane & Main Road Laurel NY 11948 Bedell North Fork LLC 36625 Main Road Cutchogne, NY 11935-1357 John C. Tuthill 3310 Elijahs Lane Mattituck, NY 11952-2405 Landcrafl Environmentals 1200 E Mill Road Mattitack, NY' 11952 Pindar Vineyards Main Road - Rt 25 PO Box 332 Peconic, NY 11958 BriamliffSod 43635 Rt25 Peconic, NY 11958 Leander Glover Jr. Glover Perennials LLC PO Box 1587 Ma~ituck, NY 11952-090377 Steve Doroski Nursery Inc. North Road Southold, NY 11971 Mary Kirwin RR 1, [lox 4955 Cutchogue, NY I 1935 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 Fifty 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 Updated: 7/25/03 PUBLIC COMMENTS DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTION STRATEGY Date Received Name & Address 1. 6/16/03 2. 6/19/03 3. 6/19/03 4. 6/19/03 5. 6/19/03 6. 6/19/03 7. 6/19/03 8. 6/20/03 9. 6/23/03 10. 6/23/03 1l. 6/23/03 12.6/23/03 13.6/23/03 14.6/24/03 15.6/24/03 16.6/24/03 17.6/24/03 Albert J. Krupski, Sr., Helen A. Krupski, Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Mary F. Krupski, Rt#3, 38030 Main Road, Peconic, NY 11958 Robert W. Keith, 995 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck, NY 11952 William W. Schriever, PO Box 128, Orient, NY 11S157 John Nickles, Jr., Southold, NY 11971 - President, Southnld Business Alliance John L. Conway, Hortons Lane, Southold, NY 11971 -Commissioner of Southold Park District Steve Mudd, County Road 48, Southold, NY 11971 Albert Krupski, President, Board of Trustees, Town of Southold Mary Foster Morgan, Orient, NY 11957 John C. Tuthill, Mattituck, NY 11952 William W. Schriever, PO Box 128, Orient. NY 119:)7 Joseph Gergela, Executive Director, L.I. Farm Bureau, Riverhead, NY 11901 Ray Huntington, Cutchogue, NY 11935, Member Southold Land Preservation Committee Ed Booth, 17235 Soundview Avenue. Southold, NY 11971 Rebecca Wiseman, Associate Director, Long Island Farm Bureau, Fig. Four Expansion of Metropolitan Coastal Areas (received at public hearing) Leila & James McKay, Mattituck, NY 11952 Joseph A. Lee. 1645 Meadow Beach Lane. Mattituck, NY 11952 2 18.6/24/03 19. 6/24/03 20.6/25/03 21.6/25/03 22.6/25/03 23.6/27/03 24. 6/27/03 25.6/27/03 26.6/30/03 27.6/30/03 28.7/1/03 29. 7/1/03 30. 7/1/03 31.7/1/03 32.7/2/03 33.7/2/03 34. 7/2/03 35.7/2/O3 36.7/7/03 37.7/7/03 38.7/703 39. 7/8/03 40. 7/14/03 41.7/15/03 42.7/15/03 43.7/15/03 44. 7/15/03 George W. Clark, 30 Dogwood Lane, East Marion, NY 11939 Julie Amper, 1645 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 Robert Feger & Teresa Taylor, 5370 Nassau Pt. Rd., Cutchogue, NY 11935 Eugene & Helen McPartland, 705 Koke Drive, Soutll o 1 d, NY 1197 l Richard F. Lark, 550 Birch Lane, Cutchogue, NY 11971 Ken Schneider, 1005 Mason Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935 (e-mail) David & Dorothy Fisher, 1500 Brecknock Road, Apt. 318, Greenport, NY 11944 Elsie S. Bleimiller, 1232 Lupton's Pt. Road, Mattituck, NY 11952 Stephen Weir, Vice-President, First Pioneer Farm Credit, 1281 Rt. 58, Riverhead, NY 11901 John Barnes, Shorecrest B & B, 54300 Rt. 48, Southold, NY 11971 Deanna Alpert & Elissa Rosner, 5050 Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Jeanne Genovese, Proprietor Vintage B & B, 580 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Mr. & Mrs. Domenick Cangemi, 1475 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue, NY 11935 Fred & Jean Schwab, 3735 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck, NY 11952 Barbara, John, Jillian, Erin, and Stephen Zaveski. Southold, NY 11971 Linda Bertani, Sec/Treas Southold Park District, PO Box 959, Southold, NY 11971 Cristina & Joe Como, Harves Inn B & B, Southold, NY 11971 Deanna Alpert & Elissa Rosner, 5050 Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Ray Huntington, Cutchogue, NY, Member Southold Land Preservation Committee Cathy Craig, 110 East End Avenue, Apt. llk, New York, NY 10028 Andrew Greene, 1220 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck, NY 11952 Walter & Linell Gaipa, PO Box 247, East Marion, NY 11939 Clare E. Browne, 685 Bayhaven Lane, Southold, NY 11971 James H. McKay, Mattituck, NY 11952 Marie A. Domenici, Mattituck, NY 11952 George L. Penny IV, Southold, NY 11971 George L. Penny IV, Southold, NY 11971 45. 7/15/03 Bill Edwards, Cutchogue, NY 11935 46. 7/15/03 George L. Permy IV, Southold, NY 11971 47.7/18/03 Doris McGreevey, Mattituck, NY 11952 e-mail 48.7/22/03 William W. Esseks, Riverhead, NY 11901 49. 7/22/03 D. J. Gray, Southold < NY 11971 50.7/24/03 Southold Town Agricultural Advisory Board 51.7/24/03 Long Island Frm Bureau, Riverhead, NY 11901 52.7/25/03 Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting Inc, Bridgehampton, NY 11932 53.7/25/03 Edxvard C. Booth 54. 7/25/03 The Jurzenia Family, Silver Sand Motel, Greenport, NY 11944 55.7/25/03 Ray Huntington, Cutchogue, NY 11935 56.7/25/03 Abigail Wickham, Mattituck, NY 11952 57. 7/25/03 Land Preservation Committee 58.7/25/03 Jane V. Burger, Cutehogue, NY 11935 59. 7/25/03 Peconic Land Trust, Southampton, NY 11968 60. 7/25/03 Eric D. Keil, Mattituck, NY 11952 61.7/25/03 William W. Schriever, Orient, NY 11957 62.7/25/03 North Fork Environmental Council, Inc., Mattituck, NY 11952 63.7/25/03 Southold Town Planning Board 64. 7/25/03 Councilman Wickham To: Copies to: Date: Re.: Southold 'Town Clerk Supervisor and Town Bd Planning Bd Moratorium Planning,Group Thomas Wickham ~ ~,~./~ Jul 24 03 Commems on DGEIS' RECEIVED JUL 2 § 2003 $outhold Town Clerk Substance · Proposed action It isn't clear what the proposed action is. Is it 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~ict of the proposed action. The report fails to meet this requirement by not. identifying what the action actually is. As stated earlier, it could be one or forty three single and separate actions. 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 th~ report. · Treatment of "No-action" scenario For purposes of calculating tull iheoretical buildout the report assumes a complete halt to all land preservation steps. As an exercise 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 ~he 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 2 an example of it in the first slide of the power-point presentation made to the Town Board. I can only conclude, sadly, that the authors of the report 'are intentionally trying to create an impression through this report which they know will not occur and which cannot be supported by the past and present progress of land preservation. The no-action alternative must cofisider 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; [ 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 currant 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 future 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. · Montgqmery 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 mutt be honest in its treatment of such experience.. 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 and 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 bbth 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 rapid conversion of farmland to non-fanned open space. That outcome, which I did not see discussed in the report, would seriously compromise the future of the Town and does not represent what I think most Town residents want. Process Apart from the substantive comments above, I have these recommendations on process: · Openness Despite the references to an open process 'with participation from townspe6ple, the DGEIS process has been notable for the lack of that input. In tact, 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 also 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. 4 · Consensus Durable, progressive planning calls for consensus among 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 time 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 ~1o it and there is precedent to such an arrangement. Jul 15 03 3.1 Furore 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 developmem 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 proposes 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 percent, 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 Community Preservation Fund) is now in place generating in 2002 $3.5 million for PDR and open space acquisitions in the Tmvn. 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. Wiih 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. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman RICHARD CAGGLM'40 WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS M.~RTIN SIDOR Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED July 25, 2003 JUL 2 5 20O3 Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 SR 25 Southold, NY 11971 Soulhold?ownClerk 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 interestinq 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 1-27, 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. 2 · B&Bs are required in the commemial 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. Page 1-34. Para.2. Last sentence. Delete words "in size" from the sentence. Page 1-35. Para. 2. The second sentence suggests an action that properly 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. Page 1-35. Para.6. First Bullet should read "Action within Critical Environmental Areas". Page 1-54. Bullet #5. The Town Board of Trustees has jurisdiction over Fresh and Salt water permits. Page 1-55. The Suffolk County Planning Commission has review power over subdivision and site plan applications as well as change of zone petitions. Page 2-18. Para. 3. The woodland map (FigureB-21) has only one color. The map does not show separate delineations for natural woodlands and woodlands around residences. Page 2-37. Para. 4. Sentence 5 should be revised to say "...902 homes were sold for a total of...." Page 2-38. Para. 5. Add Southold as a base of maritime facilities. Change Orient-by- the-Sea, which is the name of a business, to Orient Point, which is the location. Page 2-58. Bullet #6 from top of page. The first sentence should be amended to say "Hortons ...... and three quarter acre site...." Page 2-68. Para. 3. The first sentence should be revised to be consistent with the location names used in Para. 5 on Page 38, as noted above. Page 2-68. Para. 4. Aquebogue is mis-spelled. Page 2-68. Para. 5. McDonald's Restaurant is located in Laurel not Mattituck. The eastern terminus of Mattituck is not defined by the Mattituck/Cutchogue public library. Cutchogue has its own library. Page 3-11. Table 3-2. The Footnotes should be added to the bottom of the Table. 3 Page 8-4. Para. 2. Sentence 2. The second mention of "R-120 district" should be revised to read "R-200 district". Page 8-5. Para. 2. There are no HD districts actually located within Mattituck. Orient is not considered a major hamlet center. 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 church noted in Southold actually is located in Mattituck. The Candy Man is actually located in Orient. 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. 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. 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 rights program through the year 2020. Show how a decline in land valuation (of upzoned land) would affect taxation. 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. 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. What is meant by the phrase "specialty crop"? Does it include the average row crop, such as potatoes, broccoli, etc.? 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. 4 The discussion of agricultural businesses should note that not all agribusinesses are treated equally under Town zoning regulations. Vineyard growers are permitted land 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 pemeption 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. Sincer_~ely, ~... Bennett Orlows~i, Jr.-'~,,7 ( Chairman FROM : NORTH FORK ENUIRONMENTFIL CNCLC FaX NO. : C~1-2¢98-4549 Jul. 125 200G 0~:01PM P1 Metal;er of the~ Southotd Town Board ' '.SoUt~({td. ...'~wn'Hall .~ . . . · P.O. Box i.t79 · Southold, New Yo~k '11971 · ' :;. :: ......i,R CrlUEr .. JUL 2'5 20O3 .Southold ToWn Clerk " .on I~haif of. thc '~l°rth l%rklE~, vi~on~tal Cotmeit, I subniit me mllO, Wing'~o~..~,ei{is. on'thc',Diafi Geacric :. ;~_,nvko/Tme, i~al .in{i~ii~.t.s .h~'!ement For Souihold"s Comprehensiv~.~iplemc~. tation~Strategy'. . - i ~ould lik~ to:.'co~nmend tl'/e Morat~!,ium W.°rk.c-toup for :doing ~ thorougl} and p~o£aaional job. The . d0qu[q?it dt!~lines.'the'Town~ goilg and.' analyses sound pl~mingprin~iplcS'tha~ have be~n utilized across · "the co'unity. 'By inaiyzidg.ov~r 40. poSsible initiatives, the Town i,s.'.~vcm'a roadrnap, for'~eserving the bulk Of bur:0pen' spa, ce an~,fan'nlands While.ac .c-orhmodatitlg r~eW ;~o~th, dke~tir~ this. additiohal ncw growth to - al~prOpri~tC pl~ccs, mid prOtect/rig habitat and.'~at~i~al res0}~r~s ~hfl,.e provl~li~g the opportunity fo~;'. · .... . affordable h0us, i~,, g diversity in the population..' Thc rePort .states 'that ih~ "no. acfion attemative'"Wo~ld ·result iff the 'failure of the T~,vn~;to meet lis own weservati~n, goals:. By.:enacting.5 -ache Slustered {oning,. thc Townwili.~cct tl~e Blue RiBbon comml{s{on's goal 9fp[ct¢~ng.'80% of o~ ope~ la, ds anit d~reasing potenU.'al' aehsit!/o~ tho~e landh by 60%. By. ado?io~ of the P4ural 'Incmtive.Di~trict c~ncurrently,' laf/do~im~s v~itl'be given the'oppot'{Unit~ '~o retain their · currc,nt' ~i~g' m_ exchange..£o~ their dommi~rnent .to preserve their ]~nc[ Th~se iirgt step, s are critical to c'n§ia~it~g Southold'{r~-~ma~ins' a rilrai 8~mi~'unity, imt by no means shouM they be :}he. Frnal steps I'.believe that · . · /..~ve.car~.d~e¥~nb~tter~:`~.Th6T~wnmu~tiv~i~tb:estab~ishHam~ctB~tmdirrie~df~tcr.aTransfcr~f ' ....'" ' '!De~/eloprn~.Ri~h/s Pr~gr~'. ~e nlUs~,ithi/ik Creatively and'thii pro~es~!will r~fluit, e ~l~jecti~/ty vibion and . . · :l'~neDGR'lS. outline~}roPbsed':k~ot~'.thati£,ubili~cd:Iogether, Will.rcsult.lnh:S0uth0idthat we can all bc proud of: B'~t many o~'.the.tbbls'~,ilt no} p!ease:al[congti~uents oftt{e Tbw~. ImtidoWner, h w/ll.re~ist upzonlng and ...£e~idents in',~l~¢ Ha~l~-t,~ .rnay.resi,!t a TD~ progr~m.'but it is'the responsibility otth~, T~w!~ Board ~o take the - !o/ig vi~,~ and to ict in.thb best i/~te~ests.0f the Town as a Whok and in the interest of futUre generations. ,.' '¥ou~h~i~'~ an.:~ppo~ni~ ib db;.soniet'"",hing~reafly wonderful fOr'the Town of gduthol~ and'l urg~ you not to · . NFgC $~uth~id C~rdi'nator ' ' · "· BLUE-RIBBON COMMISSION RI:¢I:I~THOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY MAY 2003 JUL 2 5 2003 by William W. Schriever Southold Town-~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) ot~en 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 from 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 from the middle of page 1: A. Targets The BRC adopted these preservation targets: The permanent presetwation 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 [31. 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 July 25, 2003 - 1 - 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 preservation of 80% of its remaining unprotected agricultural land in the Towns farmland inventory (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 in 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~ard 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 xvith 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 no~t the definition recommended in the Final Report of the BRC. That definition makes no sense in the context of 5-acre zoning. There is one clue in the Final Report of the BRC xvhich 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 Available To Develop (acres), sam of all 11 residential zones, 8682.23 acres plus from column 13, Vacant Non-Subdividable (acres), sum of all I 1 residential zones, 2107.52 acres. 8682.23 + 2107.52 = 10789.75 Acres These areas agree to within 1 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. July 25, 2003 - 2 - William W. Schriever 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 -- 8631.80Acres Referring to the previous page for the data from Table 3~l, 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 1 l 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 - 250l)/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 andthe 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 preservation 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 ~vho advocate 5-acre zoning. I don't believe the preservation targets of the BRC can be achieved politically. Nor do I believe that such severe preservation targets am needed to maintain the rural character of the Town. Also, I don't believe that 5~acre zoning will achieve the preservation of either farmland or farmers. As I have stated in my speeches during the Public Heatings, I 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 severe 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 fired 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 yielded 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 effective in maintaining the rural character of the Town. Also, don't forget, this is not the only farmland 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 itnmediately. 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. And for the taxpayer, because the compensation for the development rights is paid out only as the funds from the sale of the lots accumulate in the trust fund, there will be no expense to the ordinary taxpayer. July 25, 2003 - 4 - William W. Schriever 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 Hearing 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 concems 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 majority of the 16 members of the BRC. It shows that not even a majority of the members of the BRC supported the goal of a 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? (~/t f~~] ~ ~ July 25, 2003 Wdham W Schriever P. O. Box 128 Orient, NY 11957 631-323-2456 July 25, 2003 - 5 - William W. Schriever RECEIVED The Eighty-Plus Preservation Action Plan: Southold Town Clerk Final Report of the Blue-Ribbon ¢onuuissiou ~or a Rural $outhold Jul 14 2002 The Blue-Ribbon commission (BRC) was charged by the Southold Town Board to make specific and detailed recommendations 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 f'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 [1]; · The permanent preservation of at least 80% of unprotected open space, :~ome 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 buildout 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 percent or more on the entire acreage, relative to current zoning [5]. included as Appendix C. 2 A fuller discussion of conservation subdivisions 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 farming for the long term, and to maintain 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 minimum specified acreage may participate in 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. Three 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 pumhase of the land, or the purchase of its de_velopment 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 from 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 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; 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 tlu'ee 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. If 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 spent 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 purpose. 3. Purchase of developmem rights and of onen space · Current oro~ram [14] The Town and County have pumhased development rights to about twent3' percent 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 has 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 program. 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. Among other things, the Town would benefit from private funding of PDRs under this program. Some examples of its use are: · The Town Board and ZBA could require developers to purchase preservation credits from the Town commensurate with the downzordng 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 izm 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 Incentive 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 the 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 (b) 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 Conmaission 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]. 6 C. Strengthening the Town's planning and preservation capacity. The BRC notes that Southold 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 recommended 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/development, (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 preserving 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 of 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 in 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 TDRs · Conservation easements due to expedited reviews and other incentives 100 250 250 690 2,484 1,6O0 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%) · PDRs or outright purchase of 400 a · 50% of balance enrolled 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 TDRs · Conservation easements due to expedited reviews and other incentives · Clustering on remaining 990 acres · Land from farmland 50 50 250 390 400 777 350 390 60O 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 9 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 Vincent LaRocca Ritchie Latham William Moore Martin Sidor Melissa Spiro Ronnie Wacker Thomas Wickham Charge to the Blue-Ribbon Commission for the Preservation of a Rural Southold The broad charge is m preserve operating farmland in the context of overall planning 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 June 30 2002. 3.O APPENDIX B. Members of the BRC were furnished with a first draft of this report and were asked to affn'm or reject its key recommendatiom. 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 [21 12 0 1 [3] 7 4 2 [4] 13 0 0 [5] 8 5 o [6] 12 1 0 [7] }1 1 1 [8] · 12 0 1 [9] 13 0 0 [101 12 1 0 [111 4 8 1 [12] 7 6 0 [131 12 1 2 [14] 11 0 2 [15] 12 1 0 [16] 11 2 0 [17] 12 i o [181 10 3 0 [191 9 4 0 [201 7 4 2 [211 13 0 0 [22] 11 1 1 [23] 13 0 0 [24] 8 4 1 [251 13 o o RECEIVED JUL ~_ 5 200] Southold ?own 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 (barns, 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 GIS 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 5-acre zoning scenario done as a comparison to the "full buildout" scenario. Other alternative scenarios are mentioned in Section 8 but very little detailed analysis is provided. The "full buildout" 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 mentioned in the report to be redone based on reasonable assumptions, all altematives 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 package) and combinations of tools to be analyzed to measure their impacts on the current situation. Reasonable assumptions for these scenarios would include the preservation track record from the past 5 years continuing and 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 and 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 low, 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? Buildout Methodology - Please provide a detailed explanation of how all numbers were generated from this table. 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 2-1§ 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 size being deducted from the land available for development? Isn't 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 buildout 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 ax~alyses 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 buildout does this have? Were combined parcels (that is parcels that were combined in order to obtain a building permit} accounted for in the analysis? If so, how were they accounted for? If not, what 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, how was this done? If not, what impact did this have on the accuracy of the buildout? Were odd shaped parcels accounted for in the buildout? For instance, very 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 buildout? Many parcels contain multiple zones on them, especially parcels along Route 48. How were these accounted for in the buildout analysis? What impact does this have on the accuracy of the buildout? In what time frame would it be expected that the Town would reach the full buildout discussed? 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 all 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? Equity discussion - It is clear that evidence supporting substantial loss of equity due to upzoning has been omitted from the DGEIS. All such evidence should be restored to 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 be 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 buildout 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. 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 mean they can still be preserved? If so, what does column 11, "Land Area Preserved percent" indicate? Does column 11 indicate that the percentages are what has been preserved "so far" and there is still the potential for these numbers to increase? Does column 11 assume that column 2 is developed? 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. What are the tracking numbers for active farmland during this same period? Future Trends - this discussion mentions that development pressure is increasing in Brookhaven and Riverhead and that the SCWA may be extending their mains in the future and ends up concluding that the past tracking history is "liable to be 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 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 all 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 as 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 also present during the tracking period. If, as is implied in this section, lack of public 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 $ acre density since the health requirements are less at this level? If so, would a S acre upzoning make it easier to develop areas that are not currently serviced by the SCWA? Would this accelerate development due to landowners real/zing they can no longer develop or sell development rights at a 2 acre density and that financially it now makes the most sense to proceed with a $ acre subdivision? Zoning Map - there is a zoning map included in the report. However, according to the Town Clerk's office there is currently no zoning map available for the public to obtain copies of. What is the zoning map in the report? Is it the official zoning map? If not, exactly what is it? Does it match the one that the 13uilding Department uses? Many of the maps included in the report are very hard to read. These include B-5, 13-7, 13-9, 13-22, 13-24, B-25, 13-26 & B-27. This is at least partially due to the size of the 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, bay, bluffs, etc. The RIAM analysis models impacts based on units so it would appear that the number of vehicle trips, children, senior citizens, taxes, etc. is ultimately based on residential units and not where they are located. Based on where the R-40 zones are located it would appear that a typical R-40 lot available for development would have more of an environmental impact if developed than a typical R-80 or AC lot and result in the same non-environmental impacts. Was 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 in 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 space9 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 subdivision 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 history? How will this impact agribusiness and community character? Hamlet centers - the DGEIS discusses HALO zones for the hamlets. Have these been defined? 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? LUST2Otb RECEIVED Southold Town Clerk July 24, 2003 Southold Town Board Members C/O Toxvn Clerk Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Written Comments on the Draft Genetic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) that is being prepared in connection xvith the Town's Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Dear Members of the Town Board: The Peconic Land Trust appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the l)GEIS review process that the Town of Southold is undertaking to develop its Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. We feel that we can contribute to the xvork of the Moratorium Planning Team and the Town of Southold in this process based on the Trust's nearly 20 years of experience in xvorking 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, xvhich 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°,/o. We strongly support that goal. However, we have very serious concerus 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. 296 Hampton Rodd , PO Box 1776 Sot, th2rnpton, NYt1969 631-283-3195 Fax. 631283-023S , ,~,wwpeconicLanduust.org The only objective data we found in the DGEIS with regard to the upzoning recommendations were the development/preservation tracking data. This data clearly indicates that current regulations and preservation programs have yielded the equivalent of nearly 20-acm zoning in the R-80 and AC zoning districts over the past 6-7 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 trends, no reasonable, objective analysis was offered to support the recommendation for upzoning. As has been discussed at length in the public hearings and as is referenced in the DGEIS itself, upzoning may create adverse impacts to landowners, the fanning industry, 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 xvould be prudent to provide additional objective analysis in this regard and offer the following comments and recommendations: 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 "status 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 xve can't forecast reasonable estimates of preservation at least over the next five or so years. This will give the town and the public a better idea of what our tree stating point is and how much land is truly at risk. The Moratorium Team should address the "Equity Issue" more directly and with objective data which is pertinent to Southold Town. Wc have heard a lot about thc potential adverse impacts on landowner equity and thc subsequent impacts on thc agricultural industry. It is very important for thc community to understand this well. While it has been interesting to read about xvhat'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 hoxv an upzone might affect our public preservation programs and private conservation efforts. We would like to request that the Moratorium Committee, as a part ofttfis DGEIS, hire a qualified, independent appraiser to prepare a simple Appraisal Review Report of the last 5 PDR presen'ation 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 of each specific parcel subject to the proposed 5-acre zoning and 80% cluster provision. Such 2 3) 4~ a report should be simple to prepare and will provide landowners and the conununity 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 bc clarified: On p. 1-l 1 the document reads "The RID provides the landowner a guarantee that development rights will be pumhased 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 rights to the toxvn, or negotiations may be unsuccessfill. 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. 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 the 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 ahemative 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. Finally, on a general note, during the public comment period there have been many 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. These are only assertions and have no basis in fact. l attach for your review, and for the record, a survey report from Prof. Tom Daniels at SUNY who has researched a number of communities in the region that have less restrictive zoning in place and have been very successful in farmland preservation. Some examples include: Chester County in PA, which is only 15 miles outside of Philadelphia (the 5th 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 1- acre zoning. These 2 counties are among the Top 10 counties nationMde in farmland preservation. The State of Massachusetts has mostly 2-acre zoning and has preserved over 50,000 farmland acres. Thank you for your efforts and consideration of these comments. Sincerelb,, Vice Pr'~tdeiSt 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-AIbany Albany, NY 12222 March 26, 2003 '- 2 Introduction. Several communities have been able to preserve large amounts of 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 44,000 + have 2-acre minimum lot sizes 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 are 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 neady $70 million on farmland preservation since the early 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 Karnatz, Vermont Land Trust Mike McGrath, Director of Farmland Preservation, Delaware Department of Agriculture RE'CE'I~ D ,~ LAND PRESERVATION COMMITr£E TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (65'{) 765- 61 q5 Telephone (.~{ 765-1800 RECEIVED TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Southold Town Board Southold Land Preservation Committee ,JUL ~ 5 2(~? Southold Town Cle~ July 25, 2003 Comments fi'om the Land Preservation Committee on the Southold Comprehensive hnplementation Strategy Draft Generic Enviro- mental Impact Statement. Members of the Town Board: The Land Preservation Committee members have reviewed the DGEIS and the Comn'dttee wishes to make the eight comments that are attached. Respectfully, Attaclunent: Eight SCIS DGEIS Comments Dated 7/25/03 cc Melissa Spiro, LPC Members 24 July 2003 Land Preservation Committee (LPC) comments concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. Generic (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 fi.om 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 from 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 arc 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. If it will in fact apply to non-subdividable parcels the mechanics of this must be worked out. For instance, 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 rights fund? Must they outfight purchase the additional acreage? What 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-807 · 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 impact the build-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 frustrations and delays from 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 process should there 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 currgntly being processed should an up-zoning be adopted? (4) Up-zoning and the Application of Up-zoning is not Linked to Changes In Land Value. The DCEI$ 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 Heatings 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 pementage of the parcel 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 Defined. The DGEIS lists the RID as a mitigation measure to minimize the impact of 5-acre up-zoning. 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? (7) "No Action" Scenario is Improperly Projected as a "Zero Action" Scenario. If there are no changes to Town code there will still be noteworthy land preservation. The No 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 tree. If land preservation continues, full build-out will NOT be realized, this is the point of the Town's land preservation efforts. While it is true 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 Town 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 gifts 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 Conunission (BRC) was for thc Town to monitor preservation and development and adjust its plan accordingly. This is not discussed in the DGEIS and thc 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 GEIS and the most promising tools further defined and evaluated for their impact on build-out and RIAM? ERIC J. BRESSLER ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM LYNNE M. GORDON JANET GEASA WILEIAM WICKHAiVl (06-02) LAW OFFICES WICKHAM BRESSLER, GORDON & OEASA. P.C. 13015 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND NEW YORK 11952 631-298-8353 TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565 wwblaw, ~iao corn MELVILLE OEF1CE 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD SUITE l I I 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 Re: DEIS Comments RECE/VED d~JL 2 § Southold To~t~ Clef& Dear Sirs: IX{3' conunents to the DEIS are as follows: I. The full build out analysis does not account tbr 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 under 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 xx4thin 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 states 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 which 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? 3. Of the forty-some tools considered, please provide recommendations for implementation of the tools in priority order. 30 shdtck Very truly yours, Abigail A. Wic ~kham 631-734-4227 Ray Huntington 985 WestCreek Cutchogue, New York 11935 huntira@aol.com fax 631-734-7681 25 July 2003 Town Board, Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RECEIVED JUL Subject: Comment on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the SCIS Ladies and Gentlemen: The document fails to present a concise and definitive Action Plan. The Town Goals are not clearly stated. Objectives with respect to the Town Goals are not 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 quidpro 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 share the re-planning burden between the non-large landowner and the large landowner by buying out future value and removing the property from the tax rolls. But, ~e:~udden loss in value caused by significant up-zoning deserves recognitton' ~n terms of code provisions fairly offsetting the potential loss in value for as long as that loss appears significant. The DGEIS should: · Better ~iet' .~r~. Goals, Objectives and candidate Mechanisms. · Develop understanding of the up-zoning's effect on values · Develop mech@nisms for establishment of the CS, RID, TDR and PTRI. Once such mechanisms are developed and defined, their impact can be evaluated. Sincerely, ~/'~ , Box 285 Silvermere Road Greenport,?..Y. 11944 (516) 4,7-0011 Fax (516) 477-0922 RECEIVED JIlL 2 5 2003 .luly 2% 2003 Dear D(;I';I,R Planners. So.thold Town Clerk Although wc have presented at the Town I lall hearings some questions regarding the "Country inns" section of'the I)Gt';IS report, we have some additional questions that we request he answered We are Ihus submitting then] in writing. Thank you for yom' time and consideration in this matter and frJr all VC, L~r hard work on lbo report We lbel that thc creal~on of "(:(Junto, Inns" woukt be a reD, bad thing fbr Southold Town The competition is already greal amongst thc existing lodging businesses in town and this proposal will put Jnany krug existing lodging businesses in financial peril. The creation of Country hms will impacl greatly a large segment of our local economy, no1 just the prc-exisling lodging businesses tm) aisc thc reslaurants. II will also have a ncgalive environmental impact, as x*,¢ll as a qLmlity-ot: litb nnpact Development will increase as well as lrafllc NOW 01110 OUF questions: I I his fi)si point ~s mine ol'a requesl than a question We ask that thc subject ol'"Country Inns" be removed ii'om Iht fhml I)(;EIS rcporl entirdy, as ~l ts a st]biccl which needs to have separate hearings I1' you tach)dc the subjecl oF '!Country Inns'! in thc fina! report, we requcsl thai the lblhw,,ipg questions he answered ?, I Io~.,, do you plan Io make iht: playing IMd Jcvel economically Rjr thc other holcls, motels, and B& B's. as they f~cc Ibc m~w competilion el'thc (',ount~. Inns? 3 Whal lVpcs oflaxcs will thc Country Inns be paying? 4. IFlhc Country Inns are allowed lo pay agriculiura[ faxes, will existing lodging businesses like ours also be allowed Io pay agricultural taxes? q Smcc properties iikc Iht one we own will no longer be so tmJquc and hence not as valuable due to the l}lcl Ihal Iherc will he (?cnn)fy hms all o,ct., wi)) you he compensating those oFus who own hotels and molcls and beds and breaklhsts lb) the loss in our land value" 6 W~I! you also provide c(m~l)cnsatirm lbr all the high laxcs businesses like mtrs have paid for ever $ decades believing flint il was worth il bPe;mnt' oltr properly was uni(fue9 '7 Will fl'~e (:o~lrllry ~nns IlL' allox~od lo o[>eFal~t ~l leslatlralll Ol- hal9 I~' so. please be specific as ~o the si/t' restrictions ,.m ~tlch a l~ac:ilitv. g Please be spccilic as m hou, many rooms will be allowed poi acre in Iht Count~' hms o Can a Cotmtry Inn be placed on any open space or farmland tlr will ~herc bc restrictions? What would Ihosc restrictions be? 10. What restrictions would he put on the Counlry Inns Jn terms ofarchilectura[ design'? I]. Wbal impact do you fbe] lbo CountD, Inns will have visually on the landscape of Southold 'l 'own~ 12 Wha~ impact do you feel Ihe Count~' Inns will have on l}~e tra~c of Southold Town? 13 Ho~ much parking per room will be required al lhe Counl~5, Inns? 14 W~II you call these slructtlre~ whal lbey arc - molels or horels~ and no~ "Coum~, Imm?" '['hank you I%~ your time and consideration in fl~t'se matters. Si~ccrely., ~;amil5 Southold Town Board Written Questions and Comments on DGEIS 17235 Soundview Ave July 17, 2O03 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2003 Southold Town Clerk Dear Board Members; I attended most of the Town Hall meetings of the BRC and subsequent Scoping Session and other planning meetings. My family has an Easement/COS proposal for 41 acres before the Planning Board. I have studied the DGEIS Draft document and spent many hours conferring with other land owners. I am knowledgeable about conservation efforts to date. QUESTIONS l.We are carrying om 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: if5 acre zoning is instituted what guarantee is there that the Town would buy open space development rights at a fair appraised price? The Town could make a low hid or no bid and 5 acres building lots would result. In our plan we are asking for two new lots on 36 acres of open space. 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 of the DGEIS to work out the loss in land value to land owners in up-zoning 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 DGEIS not determine how may owners fall into this most injured category and estimate their flnaneial losses? There are about 300 lots in the 5-10 acre category. They will suffer the largest fractional loss. Multiplying their losses by the many individuals concerned, that loss could equal or exceed the losses by the owners of large acreage. Moreover, why did the DGEIS not estimate the total loss of equity occasioned by the institution of 5 acre zon/ng? 3.. 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 1 acre bins and found a strong pattern ofdecreaning 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 sales. This loss figure was commensurate with those I heard from the floor of the Blue Rt"obon Committee. The data are at the end of this paragrapl~ 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 up-zoning. They refer to this as research. Why did the writers of the DGEIS not perform an analysis of lot sale prices in $outkoidas a function of lot size before concluding that there is no loss of equity IYom 2 to 5 acre upzoning? Note that my study did not take into account the further loss of equity expected if the lmrcha~ers of a 5 acre lot are crowded into a cluster of I acre lots. 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 had English. I can understand that after writing an "Action" report of 1000 pages the authors are likely to decide that "No Action" is a had choice. However, many of us think it is the best choice for the moment. This section makes unrealistic assumptions about the results of no action, and describes the results if all of the good conservation work now in progress should suddenly cease. That result clearly would be bad for conservation bm 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 present land preservation programs continue indefinitely? The authors say that if no action is taken the status quo will prevail. If the status quo prevails 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" Reliance 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/household, hardly a crushing tax burden. What is wrong with continuing the the sales tax on re~l estat~ transactions? In this way the new comers can share in the cost of preservation~as 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 month. 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 Larocca 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 if the Town fails to purchase the land or the rights 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 fraction of that to the owner when purchasing development fights.(PDR) The owner is not told the appraisal value or the fi'action offered. Why not have a transparent negotiation in the PDR by telling the 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 unfai~ advantage o£the land owIlel'. 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, he/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 arial map will show the tree acreage in Southold 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 increasin4; we need not have a tree law. 2. What will be the effect of increased 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 planned clustering of building lots goes into effect, the second growth areas will expand along with the pesky deer population. 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 10-12 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 be encouraged to eliminate these trees and not require approval from yet another regulatory committee at Town Hall. 5. Will the growers of tree for commercial purposes, either for timber, pulp wood, fire wood or transplanting also be required to obtain a permit to cut a tree down? What will he legal under Ag and Markets law? A tree law could have a chilling effect on nursery business and wood lot owners. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village. Main Street, P.O. Box 2003. Bridgehampton. New York 11932-2003 1631 ~ 537-5160 Fax: 16311 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 Horton Justice Louisa P. Evans Councilman Craig Richter Councilman William D. Moore Councilman Thomas Wickham Councilman John M Romanelli RECE!V,7:D dUL o ...... , ,. ~,: To,~,,~ r..!erk Re: 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 Drat~ 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 of a 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, "mvolvesprimarily legislative changes," however, no proposed regulations or legislative changes are included in the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. What are the specific legislative changes proposed? 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 Mr. 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 by 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) implementation tools, seventeen (17) are grouped within the general heading, "Plann#tg Process, Zoning attcl Zoning Code", eight (8) are grouped within the general heading, "Education'Enforcement", four (4) are grouped within the general heading, "Capital ImprovementsExpenditures", ten are grouped under the general heading, "Direct Town Managemeng', and four (4) fall under the general heading, "Inter- Agency Quasi-Agency Initiatives." 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? lfnot 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 otherwise cause and end-run around the Town's Master Plan by relying on previous studies never adopted by the Town. Therefore, the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy is not only deficient by failing to describe with specificity the proposed actions to be undertaken, but is also 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 of a 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 from 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, "While 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 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 ~)'pical 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 secondhome construction is typified by vet3' 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 stgnificant demcmd 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 swimming 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 emended periods of time? An objective and satisfactory analysis and explanation relating the disappearance of farmland 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 andor 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 Significant Impacts 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 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 lat~ considering only permanent protection measures and legal mechanisms that would restrict growth" (p. 3-1). It is apparent that the area of the land multiplied by the yield factor (described at p. 3-4) is the primary 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 fi.om 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-out 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 out-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. There 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-out 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 commercial 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-Out 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, them 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 Fi sher'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 statement, "SouthoM has over8, 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 Model? What parameters, definitions and methodologies were used in the RIAM Model? What is meant by farm coverage reported in Table 3-27 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 coverage? Table 3-4 reports total water usage at 621 million gallons per day for 929 lots in the AC Zone. Table 3-4 also reports 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 calculated? At page 3-7, the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that the Build- Out Analysis and RIAM are speculative based upon the findings that (1) the Town contains some number of seasonal homes (not occupied on a year round basis), (2) The Town is expected to continue to purchase development rights; and (3) the Town contains a number of undocumented illegal apartments estimated to range from 1,500 to 3, 000 ut#ts. 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 pumhase 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 rights 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? If 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 apartments? 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 outline makes no mention of these goals. Who instructed the authors of the study 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 pamel basis? The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that "the clearing of natural vegetation for this amount of development will reduce the acreage of natural habitat for maety species of wildhjfe, which also contribute to the overall reduction in the Town's ruralaesthetics" (p. 3-10). What is 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 I 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 Districts? 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 (m terms of ecom)mic 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 commeme 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 aesthetic value of a hamlet center elsewhere? The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy states that "the remaining agricultural lands protected from development ma), be insu. lSqcient m bulk to support a viable agricultural-support service industry" (p.3-10). What does protection fi.om 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 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 Implementation Strategy states that "Build-out ututer current zoning wouM result itt a 76°/3 pol~dation increase" (p. 3-13 ). As previously pointed out, the Build-out 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 orR-80 and AC land is 83.6% with the preservation component being 73.39% under present 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. Cfiven 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 availabilio, of Town bonding, continuation of the 2 percent real estate tax fimd and State attd Federal Grants are by no means guarcmteed " 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 closing, the amount of funds generated by the 2% real estate transfer tax would directly increase with increasing property values. Therefore, how does the pace of inflation relate to real estate values within the context 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 rights that a landowner can sell would be reduced. We agree and point out that the reduction of development rights would be substantial. However, page 1-11 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 ora development right? Under such assumptions, a glut of available development rights 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 right. 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 reduction in allowable density from a 2-acre to a 5-acre yield, may effect the value of ( ~ to 1. 3 of the land" and later, "A potential impact with regard to equity in the lan~, is the continued ability of farm owners to borrow money necessary to improve equipment, expand operations, purchase more land attd fund other related farm needs. Farm lenders have indicated that the primary cot~sideration is the farm owners ability to repay a lone, andto a lesser extent the land equity. " First, the stated devaluation of land by ¼ 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 Development 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 most significant aspect of farmland preservation to a lender would be use restrictions that would effect the value of collateral. The sale of development rt~hts is .ruch a program. " These two sentences underscore the importance of collateral in the securing ora loan. However, value lost by a farmer's sale of development rights is of lesser importance than the value lost by up- zoning because the farmer is paid in the underlying transaction for sale of development rights. Later it is stated, "As a lender we wouM 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 fights and indicates significant financial impact to the borrower. The stated adverse environmental impact for 5-acm 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 fights 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-acm 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 farm owners ability to repay a loan, and to a lesser extent the land equity" Later, Resource Management Consultants, Inc. state, "Lrm,er land values, based upon agricultural use only, wouM 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 fights 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-acm up-zoning although 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 land do not lower land prices or negatively effect farm equity. Fluctuations in farmlcmd prices are more influenced by general economic trends, such as interest rates and prlces for agricultural products. In addition, lending restitutions 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-acm 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 yieM may effect the value of t,~ 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 clustering.) Thus, these statements are not rationally applied to a discussion or analysis of environmental impact. Attached herewith at Exhibit A is Final Report: A Study of the Economic Impact of Land Use Regulations on the Business of Farming in Maryland 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 Ioalt tO a farmer, fair market qf the land provides the underlying basis of the loan. The report further states that the introduction of zoning resulted in a decrease in farmland 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 wouM be no loss in equity as the landowner would be compensated with a density incentive of 2-acre equivalent yieM, in exchange for continued maintenance of the land in open space or farm use" is 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 proper~y 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 % 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-out 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. Given 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 fails to examine the most obvious alternative available to the Town - purchase of development rights 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 basis? 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: (l) 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 rights 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 reasons: (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. (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 s~bmitte~ CC. C. J. VanBourgondien, Inc. Doug Cooper Farms Martin Sidor Farms W. Esseks, Esq. Exhibit A FINAL REPORT A STUDY OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF l_g2X,rD USE REGULATIONS ON THE BUSINESS OF FAI~'IING IN MARY[AND Prepared for: TI~ I~{ARYLAND FARM BUREAU, [NC. Randallstown, Maryland Prepared by: 1 ,EGG MASON REALTY GROUP, [NC. 7 E. Redwood Street, 2nd Floor Baltimore, IVlaryland 21202 Januars,, 1993 BRC 1008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................... I. Nature of the Problem ...................................... 1 11. The Purpose of this Study ................................. 2 1211. Work Undertaken by Legg Mason Realty Group, l. nc ............... 3 IV. Definition of Terms ........................................ 4 V. Comments on Scope of the Study ............................. 5 VI. Organization of this Report .................................. 6 SECTION TWO: KEY CONCLUSIONS .................................. 7 SECTION THI:>dEE: TH]E BUSINESS OF FARMING ....................... 11 I. Cra-rent Nature of the Industry .............................. 11 1I. Farming A~ Land Use ..................................... 13 III. Farming .,ks Business ...................................... 13 IV. Financing Agriculture ..................................... 15 V. Farm Value and Debt ..................................... 16 VI. Conclusions ............................................. 16 SECTION FOUR: Tf-IE PROCESS OF CREATING LA.ND VALUE ........... 19 I. Highest and Best Use ..................................... 1:9 I1. The Land Development Process .............................. 20 III. The Role of Farmland in the Development Process ............... 24 SECTION FIVE: ~ ROLE OF LAND VALUE IN THE BUSINESS OF FARMING ....................................... 26 Capital for the Farm Business ............................... 26 Supporting Farmer Equity and Welfare ....................... 30 Conclusions ............................................. 32 · TABLE OF co~rm',n~s (CONT~,~rED) Page SECTION SIXz TH]E IMPACT 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 Controls on Agricultural Land Values ........ 44 APPF_aNDIX Az BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEWS ....................................... B-1 SECTION ONE 12NTRODUCTION The purpose of th2s initial section of the report is to describe the background to the study undertaken by I.EGG NL-~SON REALTY GROUP, INC. (L~fl~.G) under contract to the Maryland Farm Bureau. This background is important because the study itself 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 opinions. Comequently, there is a need to place the study within the context of the interests of the Farm Bureau and the "growth management community." L NATURE OF ~ PROBLEM Cwer the past couple of decades the dtizens of the state of Marc, land, 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 hav/ng the goal of improving the state's environmental quality. Such programs are extremely wide rang/rig--from testing of automobile emissions to recycling 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 environmental improvement effort. Farmers have addressed environmental concerns related to agricultural activity in man)' different ways, including those listed below. · Utilizing "no till" cultivation; · Changing the nature and amount of herbicides and pesticides used in farming; · Reducing the application of nutrients; · Adhering to guidelines with regard to grazing and feed lot practices; · Adhering to best management practices in en~dronmentally sensitive areas; · Partidpat./ng in the state's agricultural land preserCation program; Adhering to local zoning and other regulations affecting disposition of and development of agricultural land. As estimated in a study prepared for the Maryland Office of Pin. nmng, the amount 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 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& is generally regarded as "undeveloped." While this term as applied to farrrdand is inaccurate, since the land is acraally "developed" for farming, there is general agreement that the land is essentially ",mimproved" (meaning that the bulk of it does not have structures on it) and that at some point in the future it could be "developed." In general, farmland is the least expensive land that can be purchased w?rich lends itself to non-agricultural development of one sort or another. The soils are usually easy to prepare for construction, roads probably exist in the area, and, given other necessary ingredients 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 regulations aimed at controlling development have particularly affected blaryland'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 Mth organizations establishing environmental policy and envi.ronmental programs. Nevertheless, farmers feel that recently enacted and proposed restrictive land use controls are work/ng 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 abihty to sell land for development are beginning 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 the application of growth controls from the standpoint of the environmental community, but the agricultural community feels that it unreasonably targets one land o~,'ner group -- farmers. THE PURPOSE OF TI-frS STUDY The Maryland Farm Bureau believes that the interests and the land ownership rights of the farmer are not being g/yen 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 agricultm-al community's opposition to certain types of growth controls has been characterized too narrowIy as simply "farmers trying to get the most for their land so they can get out of farming and spend the money elsewh,.re. Ln point 2 ~f fact, members of the agricultural community believe, the situation is quite different. It s their contention that there is a direct relationship between the value of agricultural land md the future v/abilit3' of Maryland's agricultural industry. The farm community believes hat agriculmral land values play a more central and intricate role [n the agricultural ndusu'y than is generally recograzed. But farmers also know that this particular position ~as not been researched nor has it been well articulated to la.nd use planners and :overnment official, s. The purpose of LMRG's study is to conduct research into the slafioaship between land values and the business of farming and to determine the extent > wh/ch, as growth controls impact land values, they impact the viability of farm/ng. a essence, the study is intended to address some of the folloMng questions. · What is the role of the value of a farm's la_nd in the business of farming? · What is the relationship of development to the value of agricultural land? · To what extent do growth controls impact agricultural land values? · To what extent do growth controls impact the business of farming? If aghculmral land values are important to the business of farrrfing, and if growth controls negatively affect such values, how can farmers work w/th policy, makers to gain more equitable consideration as land use policy is designed and implemented? WORK UNDERTAKEN BY I_.EGG MASON REALTY GROUP, INC. In carrying out this study, LMRG 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 farm/ng w/th Maryland farmers at their annual convention in Ocean City. Inter~ewed bankers at private barddng institutions and at the region's Farm Credit .Associations to establish the relationship bet',~een lending policies and the value of agricultural land. 3 Interviewed developers who actively develop in rural/suburban areas to establish the role of farmland in development in such areas. Interviewed real estate agents who sell farm land and who represent residential developments in rural and suburban area. Obtained information on the status of blaryland'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 from the American 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 Maryland Office of Planning and others ~4th regard to the relationship between various .types of development regulations and the value of agriculmraI land. Researched the spedfic experience of the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation with regard to purchase of development fights in Maryland's agricultural districts. Interviewed real estate appraisers who have been active in the appraisal of land in connection with the MALPF program. Lntervi~wed 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 tb. roughout this report. Definitions 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 in this study are farm (the physical fadlity) and farmer, which 4411 imply ownership of the farm. A_&griculmre: Agriculture (the agricultural industry, agribusiness) is the industry. that encompasses farming and the processing, distribution, and other aspects of handhng the products that result from farming. Farming: Farming is the activity of growing/raising crops and products. It may be land intensive as with corn, or not, as with the raising of poultry., horticulture, or tobacco. For the most park 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 1/nk between farming and the land. Farm: There are two defirdtions of a farm. One is a business center which a/ms to make a profit from farming. The other is the physical facil/ry, comprised of land, buildings, fences, roads, and other knprovements/investments, which accommodates the farm business and the activin, of farming. Farmer: The senior person/people involved in farming at any g/yen farrm 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 also considered a "farmer." The most senior 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. V. COMMENTS ON SCOPE THE STUDY Farm/rig businesses are knpacted by an extremely wide range of regulation.s, most of which affect the use of land. This study focused exclusively on land. u~e 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 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 skmilar, the scope of this work was purposely limited to the [and use/density issue. The issue of land value tends to be related primarily to those farming operations that involve large amounts of rand; i.e., are land intensive. 5Vhile such farms account for the bulk of all land being farmed in Maryland, the number of smaller farm operations, many of which use relatively little land. such as poultry, farms, is significant. This study is most appticabte, therefore, to the larger, land intensive farms, though it is relevant to all farms. 5 VI. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT This report consists of five se~ons in addition to the introduction_ Section Two is the Execui:ive Summary in which key conclusions are presented and the principal findings upon wNch 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, Section SLx. SECTION TWO KEY CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this section of the report is to summarize the key conclusions establ/shed by LMRG on the basis of our work and to identify the principal findings der/ved fa-om the research and analysis that support those conclusions. CONCLUSION ONE The value of a farm rests primarily in the value of the land comprising that farm. Farms are basically sold 'by the acre'. The value is a mix of the agriculture earnings potentiaL, development potentiaL, and residential use value. Supporting Findings The success of farming operations, particularly those invoMng the growing of crops, can vary substantially over short periods of time. They are affected by weather, world markets, public pol/des, and man3, other factors..Ks a result, a farmer's business can go from terrific to lousy in a very short period of time. In addition to the capability of the farmer himself/herself, and knprovernents 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 bus/ness, absent the land, is rain/real because of the highly uncertain nature of the business and the fact that it is usualIy highly personalized to a specific farmer/farm family. CONCLUSION TWO The value of real estate, espedally the land, plays an important role in the fixtancing of the farming business urili:,qng that real estate. Supporting Findings Most agricultural businesses take on a substantial amount of debt in the course of armual operat/ons and many carry mortgages. The loans that result in that debt are made primarily on the ability of the agricultural enterprise to pay interest and repay principal from annual operations. Nevertheless, most financial institutions require that the loans be collateralized using the borrower's equity La his/her real estate. Consequently, the value of that real estate affects the willingness of the lender to make a loan and the size of that loan. CONCLUSION THREE The value of land and the ability to sell it in order to renli?e 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 t. he 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 gift and estate tax obhgations. 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 wSlling 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 lam/lies. CONCLUSION FOLrR Growth controls and various forms of development regulation affect the value of farmland, tending to lower the value relative to less regulated land in most 01LSe$. Supporting Findin~ 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 land tends to be the lowest "product/ye use" of land (in contrast to aga'icultural, woodlands, and other generally "unproductive" uses of the land.) In most instances the principal non-fanta development 1Lkely 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 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 trait 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 regulations directly affects only a relatively small mount of farmland acreage ha a given year but all hrmland as a class and every farmer in the long rum Supporting Findings The number of acres of farmland that is actually taken out of production and converted to "development" in a g/ven 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 den/ed access to the higher land values that might result from less regulation. However, imposition of regulations has a ripple effect that impacts ail 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 year, for any given property, the 1LkelLhood of acmally realizing the sale of land for development is minimal. These t~'o hmpacts tend to negatively affect the business outlook of farmers and their w/Ilingness to stick w/th a business that is not easy to begin w/th. CONCLUSION SLX The principal value of most farmland is related primarily to its agricultural productiv/ty. Zoning development regulations, and other government based actions 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 developed in the near term. Consequent/y, when a farmer moves to renliTe the value of his/her farm, that value is going to reflect primarily the ability, of that land to support productive agricultural actMty, plus the value of improvements such as buildings,'fences, and so forth. Except, in certain speckfic and unusual instances, however, all farmland has some non-agricultural value. Consequently, while land use controis tending to hmit development may have relatively little net impact on the value of most farms, they may have a more significant impact on the ability of a g/yen farmer to sel] all or part of the farm in any ~ven year for the ma.mum possible value appropriate to that particular land. 9 OVERAT.T. CONCLUSIONS Zoning and other forms of land use regulations and g2'ow~th control measures reduce a farmer's options with regard to disposition of his/her land at optimum value. This is actually what they a2-e designed to do, but such actions affect farmers and farrmng in several ways. Farmers lose some amount of current value when subjected to restrictive zoning. Appraisals of farmland undertaken in connect/on wSth the Agr/cultural Land Preservation Foundation program support the fact that there is some development value in all agricultural land. That value Ls capable of being dirainished by land use regulations when development options are reduced. Restrictive land use regulations cause farmers to lose financial fiexibilin.,, particularly w/th 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 pro,,4sion of loans are reduced, particularly w/th regard to the size of loans. While the underl.'dng rat./ona2e 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 undertaldng 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 tO developing areas and those needing to realize max/mum 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. tO SECI'ION THiREE THE BUSINESS OF FARMING The purpose of this section of the report is to provide a brief overview of the business of farming and to introduce the relat/onship between that business and the land. L CURRENT NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY The overall size of the agricultural industry in Ma_r'yland, involving aH of the many components of agribusiness, carmot be determined from available data. It is knou, m to be large, however, and includes those firms that process agriculmre products as well as those involved in transport, serv/cing farms, and other components. For many parts of the state agriculture is the principal driver of the iocal economy. The linkage between successful far,~ and a healthy agricultural industry is clear. The latter cannot exist without the former. The agriculture industry uses more land in the state of Mary[and than any other industry.. The business of farrn/ng 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 operations~ In fact, farmland comprises more of the state's land than all of its residential areas. .4 can be seen in Table 1, 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 1991. Di,,Sding 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 ex/st at the end of the 20th century. Farm ownership in Maryland remains strongly oriented toward the family, but the fam/Iy farm may now be incorporated. There are some absentee owner farms, but the trend toward such operations peaked in the mid-1980's. There seems to be an increasing azaounr of land being farmed on a leased basis. The trend has been toward a greater number of acres being farmed per farmer, but not necessadly in bigger farms. 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 intensive farming catering to urban markets. 11 TABLE 1 NUMBER OF FARMS AND ACREAGE MARYLAND AND THE UNITED STATES 1979-1991 Maryland United States Tota~ Land # of Total Land # of Avg. Acres in Farms Farms" Avg. Acres in Fan-ns Year Farms" per Farm ~Th. Acres) (Th. Farms/ per Farm (Mil. Acres) 1979 17,000 159 2,700 2,437 428 1,042 1980 17,509 157 2,750 2, 440 426 1,039 1981 18,200 154 2,800 2,440 424 1,034 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 2,3.34 436 1,018 1985 17,800 149 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 2,140 461 987 1991 ** 15,400 14~ 2,250 2,105 467 983 * Prior to 1975 a farm was considered any place with less than 10 acres having sales of $280 or more or places of 10 acres or more with $50 of sa]es. In 1975, the farm definition became a place that sells or normally would sell $1,000 of agricultural products ** Preliminan/ Source: 'Ma~,land Agricultural Statistics'-1991. .az can be seen in Table 2, several counties stand out in terms of ag'riculmrai production. For seven identified agricultural commodities, Caroline County is f'u'st in three classes and s£xth in another. Frederick is fi2-st in m'o classes and fifth in two others. Queen Arme's ts second in three classes and third in another. Other high ranking counties in terms of production are Kent, Dorchester, Carroll, Washington, and Harford. [t is interesting that of the five count/es involved in tobacco production (St. Map/s, Charles, Calvert, Anne .4cundei, and Prince George's--in order of production), none ranJcs in the top seven in an>' other com_modity category. This is partly indicative of the kind of soils tobacco grows in, with such soils generally being much less productive for other kinds of crops, as well as the fact that these counties tend to be in the vicinity of the expanding Washington metropolitan ri FARNffNG AS LAND USE The description of agriculture set forth above emphasizes the business and operational nature of the industry. The typical resident of the state of Mar?qand however, often has a very different view of "farming". With over t~vo mill/on 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. Farm/rig as a land use is, therefore, important to the state's residents and to its public officials far beyond the level of economic activ/ty that actually occurs on the farms. .Ks 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 business 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 may conflict with what the farmer wants to do with the land. Farming is a serious, large, important business in Maryland. At the same dine, most of the state's citizens know liltle 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 true and accurate sense, as an asset underpinning a business, and not just as pleasant open space. B:L FARMXNG ,aS BUSINESS F~g is a business. Farms are not "undeveloped". They are developed for the business of farming. Farming is a land us{, not a substitute for open space. Farms may be classified in plakzs as a type of open space, but they are first and foremost, an operating business. As 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 ,~&ich is to make a profit. I-- Z 0 C) 0~ Oo © ~5 o ~ -, ~ ~ o ooa~o~ V,,%ile profit is the objective of the farm operation, it is also clear that many people partidpate in farming because they enjoy the lifestyle. They gain positive "psychic reward" fi.om farming. There is no way to quantifv such reward, and it is certainly no substitute for real money when it cotues to having to buy the necessities of life. Likewise, farmers receive a certain "imputed/ncotue"/rotu occupy/ng their residences on the farm. Th/s is recognized by the Bureau of Econom/c A. nalysis in its annual tabulat/on of incotue. In 1989 all farmers in Ma-u'land received $152,818,000 as "imputed incotue and rent received" fi.om their operations. .-~:nong other things, this indicated value by BEA illustrates the tight interw4ning of the personal and business byes of the farm family. W. FINANCING AGRICULTUP,.E .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 loans are viewed as commercial loans. Consequently, even the mortgage on a farm dwelling is [/kely to be regarded as a commercial credit by the lending institution. This means that commercial criteria are applied to the making of such loans. Loans.to farmers are provided by a wide range of lending institutions. The most irr. portam. however, are the Farm Credit Associations associated with the Farm Credit Bar~ of Bait/more and the commercial banks located primarily in agricultural communities. The Farm Credit Bank provide credit to farm Bank borrowers in the five-state re,on of Delaware, Ma.ryland, Pemmsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. The Bank provides 44% of all 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 asso,'iat/ons having responsibility for specific counties in Maryland. The system of which the Farm Credit Bank and its associations are member was estabIished by the Farm Credit Act of 1971. Elig/ble borrowers of funds at the farm credit associations: Bona fide farmers and ranchers and producers or harvesters of aquatic products; Persons furnishing farmers and ranchers with services directly related to their on-farm operating needs; · Ourners of rural homes; and · Rural residents. I5 The Bank is authorized to make loans to other banks engaged in lending to farmers and to corporat/ons engaged to lending to producers or harvesters of farm products. A wide var/ety of types of loans are made by banks lending to farmers. These include: Production loans to enable the farmer to plant a crop or otherwise produce products for sale, with such loans normally being secured primaxily by the 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 hve on it, with such loans normally being secured by the value of the land and knprovements; Equipment loans far 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. .4 noted previously, most farm loans are mortgages and are regarded as commercial in nature. That means that the lender assumes that the principal way of liquidating them is through earnings gained from farm activity. However, essentially all lenders require that the farm operation provide additional collateral as security, gains possible failure 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 operations grow and the corporate structure becomes more common. At the same time, whi/e maintain the requirement for backup collateral, criteria for making a loan have tended to focus 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 $366,788 in 1987, or $2,261 per acre. (In 1992 dollars those values would be approximately $44,000 and $2,700.) The Census data indicate that 39.5 percent of all farrr~ had interest as an expense, meaning that about 60 percent were debt free. The interest paid by those farms with debt averaged $6,892/n 1987. Wlsie total debt is not indicated, assun-fing a 10 percent rate of interest, the average loan for farms with debt would be about $69,000, or $83,000 in inflated 1992 dollars. The average farm with debt, therefore, was carrying debt equal to about 19 percent of its value. 16 o ~ 17 VI. CONCLUSIONS Farming is a major business acti,,St7 in the state of Mar,land. '~,~ile the industry goes th. rough relatively severe cycles based on weather and markets, over the long term farming as a business 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 in those farms. Farming operations are financed through a relatively few bank~ that specialize ia agricultural loans. Over the past decade these banks have been tightening their criteria w/th regard to lending. The shift has been toward making certain that loans can be paid back out of operations v/ce requ/ring the sale of real estate. At the sa. me time, regardless of how "production oriented" a loan m/ght be, the lender usually requires that collateral be posted and the farm real estate ks the collateral most frequently used. 18 SECTION FOUR TF[E PROCESS OF CRF~TI~G LAND VALUE The purpose of th/s section is to explore the process of creating land value. Given its breadth and comple.~ity, the subject zrea 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 regulations 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. TNs study is about the giv/ng and taking of actual (cash) or unrealized value La agricultural land. Understanding how that value gets there in the first place and how it can be removed, is essential to exploring the impact that land use regulations have on the value of a farmer's land. L HIG~ 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 techn.ical basis, being referred to and used La essentially every appraisal. Generally accepted reasonable defirfitions 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 and best use of a given piece of farmland, as though available for development, it is necessary to analyze four factors: 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 relat/onship 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 h'om a market standpoint, as well as what the "legal" (regulator3.') conditions vdll permit. In the past, highest and best use was essentially determined only through the econom/c viabi/it7 of the actMty occurring on the land. While still important, the legally p. ermitted use of the lanci, 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 probably agriculture. (Or [t could be no "use" at all when the cost of rna'Icing the land productive for agriculture exceeds the potential return from it.) The value is then a function of agricultural producfivi .ry. But agriculture is not always the highest and best use of rural land. If that ia_nd is located near a source of nomagidcultural development, and particularly if it is near a town or other urban setdement, the highest and best use couid easily be non-agricultural. In these instances, the agricultural use must be mandated wia the land use regulatory process, the assumption being that ff the regulat/ons were relaxed, then the land would probably be "converted" to non-agricultural use. In snmmaI'y, those who advocate the most free and open market for land believe that h/~est and best use should be a function of economics-the most econom/cally productive use of the land; i.e., the value of the land in a competitive supply and demand environment. ha IVlaryland, however, essentially every jurisdiction has development regulations. 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 w/th land that is already properly zoned for the permitted use they want to develop, preferring not to get involved in the zoning change process. lJ_ THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The process of developing land establishes value and serves to cause highest and best use to be achieved on a g/yen parcel This land development process is analyzed here from two v/ewpoints--that of the broad context of market and public policy, and that of the more narrowly focused development of the land by, primarily, private interests. The Role of the Market Public policy as expressed through various .types of land use, development, en'~hronmental, 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 primariiy a function of the market. One need only look at the real estate development situation in I992 La contrast to, sa), the situation sir years ago. In the mid-1980's a market was perceived to exist in Maryland for large volumes of residential units and commercial space. In 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 /n 1992 are probably inaccurate. The market of slx 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 Lq undoubtedly that for farming, not for some other use. Most farming activity on r~al land establishes the highest and best use of that land and dictates its value. If the farmland is productive and alternative uses for the land are mtn/mai, then its value wSLl be a function primarily of its agri~ltural productivity.. In instances where the land is Lq the v/cin/ry of non-agricultural 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 Mth regard to their future 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. T~ere is relat/vely Little market generated pressure for development in areas where economic conditions are poor, investment is m/nima/, and gro,a~ absent. On balance, therefore, the land development process is a function of these broad market forces translated into investment Lq private residential and commercial real estate. B. The Role of PubLic Policy in the State of Maryland public poticy Mth regard to development has been expressed in a very. w/de range of land use, development, and envirorunental controls and reg~latious. In fact, Maryland is generally regarded as one of the most progressive states Mth regard to local and state level land use and env/ronmental regulations. The State Land Use Act of 1974, the critical area legislation of 1984, and the Economic Gro'~rth, Resource Protection and Plarimng Act of 1992, with their attendant regulations and procedures, along with many other state level laid use programs, tend to put MaD, land in the front rank of ten or so states (Florida, New Jersey, Oregor~ California, and others) in implementing strong programs regulating land use. In Mao'land 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 public programs to be centralized and enables them to be large enough to have real power. Operating within guidelines established by the State, most MaO.'land counties have established extensive planning and development control programs using a yep/vide range of implementation techniques from zoning to purchase of development rights. In essentially every Mary. land jurisdiction, development is a highly orchestrated process 'aSth the government being a partner nearly every step along the way. %~ile much development Ls permitted as a matter of right under local zoning ordinances, even that development will likely require a number of approvals before investment in construction occurs. 21 Cortsequently, government regulations dramatically intJ. uence the use that can be made of any given piece of real estate and, consequently, its developability. C. The Role of the Corrtm~mity In this instance community is defined as residents and businesses living or operating in the vicinity of a proposed development. Even if market conditions are favorable and ali regulatory requixements have been met, it is possible that development can be stopped. This occurs when corm~uM~ activists, neighbors, and other groups express their displeasure at a particular development. The land development process in the 1990's must take into account cormmunity interests and concerns. It is not unusual in this decade for a developer's Erst 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 parridpant in the development process, whether or not he/she wants to be. In some instances the owner in/tiates the process of development by petitioning the local government for a zordng change that would permit a certain type of development. I2 other instances, those changes are made without the active participation of the land owner. Land ourners, including farmers, have also been known to approach developers to see whether that particular developer is interested in developing on the land owner's properzy. 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. The3,' 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 lan. d, and other land generally outside of a community's already designated "envelope," fit the description of limited participants in the land development process. E. The ! ~nd Speculator Speculation is a term that tends to have a negative connotation in our society. Speculators are frequently regarded as people who make money wSthout 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 be developed, but it is more likely to not have such approvals. Consequently, speculators frequently target farmland for their activities. The process of obtaining appropr/ate approvals for farm/and can dramatically increase its value. This is how the speculator obtains his/her return. At the same rime it might not be possible to obtain the approvals and the increase in value might not occur. That is what makes speculation a hslc), business. Spec~alators are not necessary to the process of causing development to occur on agr/culmral land. The presence of speculators probably causes some increase in land values in var/om parts of the state. Of course the speculation does not have to be in cormection w/th development. Some speculation occurs in anticipation of other changes such as natural resource extraction (m/xing, petroleum dr/lling), building of a road, and so forth. In the case of otherwise undeveloped farmland, the speculator ma)' serve as an intermediary between the land owner and the land developer. The speculator may or may not take an ow'nersl:fip interest in the property. 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/n land. Rather, the)' use the land for agricultural purposes. F. The Land Developer The land developer "wholesales" the land. He/she buys it from the ori~nal owner or a land speculator, obtains the necessaU approvals, and sells it to one or more real estate developers. This is a high risk/high reward business. Risk is dirainished where the land developer is wor~ng in a context of public policy that has made it clear where various types of development are to occur over a g/yen period of time and has hacked up these policies by installing appropriate infrastracture. 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 large development, however, occurs on land that has been prepared for such development by a land developer. G. Rea/Est.qte Developer The real estate developer completes the land value generating process. The value of the land on which built projects sit is more valuable than vacant land, even when that vacant land 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/or the rent 23 stream generated by rental projects as related to time. While the real estate developer is frequently regarded negatively by those entities wanting to preserve land in its undeveloped state, the developer is probably not the principal reason land is actually built on. In most instances, good real estate developers wii1 work only with land that has already received most of its approvals. They are not lazd developers or land spe~lators. They make their money building, not antidpating furore [and value increases. In this regard, the developer is 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. tL The Bottom line An increase in land value i~ likely to occur at each stage of the development process..ks noted previously, because of the involvement of goverm~ental 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 talcing the risk. The position Mth the least r/sk is that of the original land owner. This assumes that the original land o,amer 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 plating the speculation game when they borrow money on anticipated furore value. At that point they become locked-in to ha~,ing to sell the land for higher furore value. Th/s has happened to some farmland owners, and the agricultural land prese~'ation program has served as a means of generating funds for such owners. Losses in the land development process occur primarily when anticipated furore value cannot be realized because the next higher level of development does not occur for whatever reason--market, community concerns, public approvals. While the land development business is often associated with great gains and creation of a large amount of wealth, which is the case in some instances, for many other people it is simply another business that creates a reasonable return. In fact, at the present time ir is a very dff:ficult business to be in for many who entered it in the last decade or so. TH~ ROLE OF F,ad:~M:LAND IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Farming is a business use of land, as is active forestry, and other land intensive businesses. It is erroneous to think of a=m'iculmral 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 compr/se the bulk of the land that will u/timately be developed. It can be assumed that a number of farms are sold each year in anticipation of development. However, this does not mean that development occurs on all such farms in the near term 24 or even in the long term. Where the farm is large, or has special attributes, or is considered particularly strategic from the sta2dpoim of its location/visibility, the "loss' of that farm to non-agriculmral development is fl'equently highly publicized and may create a significant negative reaction. Most such transfers, however, probably are not publicized and are considered by the i2volved parties as simply a normal component of the process of u.rban/suburban grov, xh. Irt many instances farming serves as an interim use in the development business. An actual case in Frederick County follows a classic pattern. An elderly farmer/landowner sold a farm to a speculator/land developer but continued to farm the land under contract. The land developer, uAth 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 man.sit/on 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/landowner..As that class of indi'ddual controlling the greatest amount of potentially developable land in the State of Maryland, the attitudes of farmer/landowners w/th regard to development is cr/tical. Given the ebullient development atmosphere of the 1980's, many farmers perceived the likelihood of being able to make a substantial amount of money selling their farms to developers. The dramatic downward shift in the market, however, and increasingly rigorous public policies, have altered the environment for development in rural areas. Consequently, the likelihood that in any given year many farmers Mi1 be able to obta/.n any significant value from their land other than its agricultural value is I/m/ted. Farmers tend to react as :~ class, to these matters, h0,;gever. Consequently, as a class, farmers are concerned that increased regulations will diminish even further their oppornmity to obtain non-agricultural 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 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 so. 25 SECTION FIVE THE ROLE OF LAND VALUE IN THE BUSINESS OF FARIvfI:NG Discussion of the merits of various growth control techniques, particularly the grov, xh management program proposed by the governor to the Maz?Iand General Assembly in 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 this section of the report is to evaluate that relationship. Farmers contend that they need reasonably high farmland values in order to support the business of farming as well as 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 w4th 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 farm operation and the farmer's personal welfare, and thus the business of farming. In the follo,Mng 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 vdl/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 loans; As paid-in surplus to be extracted when necessary, to support farming operations and/or the welfare of the farm operator. L CAPUFAL FOR THE FAR5{ BUSINESS .4 ,Mth any business, a farm needs capital. That capital is provided in the form of equity. invested by the farmer/farm family 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 farming operation Mll 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 fi.rods constitute the principal source of capital. 26 Land value is a central element in many loans used to generate and support the business of farmMg. Ia fact, it is the principal "hard" asset, ~hat the farmer can furnish to a bank in support of a loan. Various areas in the business of farming where land value plays a role are analyzed below. A. Wne Farm Mortgage A farm mortgage is essentially the same as a mortgage on a home or commercial propervy. Regardless of whether or not the farm is the prima~ residence of the farmer, however, banks providing farm mortgages consider these loans to be commerdal in nature. Th5~ means that they assume that hquidation of the loan, the periodic payment of prindpal 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 ~und the construction of improvements on the proper'ry. Because of its primarily corranercial nature, the lending institution will tend to make certain that the funds are used pr/marily for business purposes. In Ma_Dqand, about half of all farm mortgages are provided by the regional Farm Credit .~sociations 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 1991, over $366 million of these loans 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 themselves. This accounts for the high partidpation by the farmers in the loan programs of the farm credit banks. The other 50,% or so of mortgage ffman~/ng 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 .~ssociations and many have established working reiationships with farmers i.n their local areas. Interv/ews w/th bankers ar both the Farm Credit Associations and with the private banks revealed the knportance of the value of land to the quality of collateral underpinning 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 every property has some development value and that development value is reflected in the appraisal and thus in the qua/it)., of collateral and in the amount of money that can be borrowed against the co[lateral. It is interesting that for the most part, the house in a farm mortgage is incidental. The value of the land is in its agric'ulmra/productivity capability, and its salabiliD'. 27 1.2 a highly publicized situation that developed in the early 1980's, many mid-west farmers were unable to pay off loans on their farms and had their properties foreclosed on by lenders. Most of the loans were supported by the agricultural value of the land. Farmland values grew steadily in the late 1970's and into the 1980's. Then values fell predpitously. Bankers in Maryland note that the drop in farmland values that occurred in many part~ of the nation at that th'ne was scarcely felt kn Maryland. The bankers believe that this was due to the fact that the potential for development exits on much of the land in Mar/land, thus supporting its value. They also observed that many Maryland farmers can generate income by ha,,Sng one or more family members work off the farm. The bankers indicate that they lend primarily on market 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 land provides a cushion, although it is perceived as a difficult value to re~qlize if liquidation is necessary. Nevertheless, the bankers indicate that perhaps 75% or so of their loans are secured in some way or other by real estate. I.n 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 iz is fairly common for the farmers to pro~,dde aa income statement and for the land to serve as collateral. It is clear that current lending practices are more '%nsiness" oriented today than used to be the case. Despite the efforts of bankers to move toward a primarily net operating income approach, however, it is not possible to isolate the land factor from the farming activity. The real estate remains 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 linked primarily to the value of the land. The bankers recognize that farmers see their real estate as their primary asset and that they t~ 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 Mary[and Farm Credit .Associations, Farm Credit Bank of Baltimore as of the end of 199I had over ~197 million 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 roans is absolutely linked to the future value of the crop. The .kssociadon Mil not usually require that a farmer collateralize his equiD' in his real estate to obtain an operating loan. At the same time, the Association looks at the qualit-y of that 28 real estate and is much more interested in providing the loan if there is some potentially realizable real value in that equity. I2 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 important 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 most 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 interv/ewed in connection with thLs study were able to c/re numerous instances where thi~ occurred, ~ some cases the farmers sold parcels to a neighboring farmer, lm other instances parcels were sold [or non farming purposes to individuals, or homebu/lders developers. In such cases, while the loan is clearly one structured on the income generating merits of the funded farm activity, disposition of land to pay off notes has saved many farmers and kept them in business. In this way all or most of the farm has been saved from possible sale for development. Equipment Loans Most equipment loans are secured by the equipment itself, ~-ith 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. [t is not unusual to find a piece of farm equipment costing over $100,000. The loan on such machineo' 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, the ability of a farmer to realize some value for land that m/ght have to be sold to pay off an equipment loan is important. It is not generally taken into consideration by the lender when malting such a loan, but, as vdth any business debt, liquidating an unrelated hsset 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 necessa-w' to pursue their business operatiops. For instance, a farmer might sell 10 acres of land v/ewed as ha~,Sng 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 might 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. Value from the land can be realized up front with the money being used to fund operations, or, after the fact, 29 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. $11mmal~ Lending practices to farmers have become increasingly strict..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. IL SUPPORTING FARM:ER EQLTi~ AND WELFARE The items covered above are relatively easy to document. The value of la_nd 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 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 rime 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 thaf 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. Land As '~Pald-ln 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/better equipment. The .typical farm gets its operating value primarily fi-om the quality, of the farm operation and thus the skills of the Individual farmer. When this farmer leaves the scene, to be replaced by a farn/ly 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 principal form of pa/d-in surplus. If the farm is sold to outside interests, who 'Mll 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 serves as the farmer's savings account. B. Payment Of Estate/Gift Taxes Presets, etlon of a farm from generation to generation ~s made difficult by federal and state estate and gib taxes. This situation arises sometimes after the death of one spouse, but almost certainly after the death of both spouses of a senior farm family. At this time the rest of the family is faced with a significant tax hability. That liability has to be paid off Ln cash, but the biggest 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 tar liability. At a recent Maryland Farm Bureau conference, it was shown how' granting the development fights to a farm to a land trust will significantly lower its value for estate tax valuation purposes. This is one way to avoid the high tar liability. It also illustrates a recognition that there is probably some development value in ail of these farm properties. Another approach would be to have the heirs to the estate sell a p. onion of the property. If that portion had relatively high value as a result of its potential for development, then this would enable the fam/ly to pay off the estate tmxes and continue to fa,Tn the remainder of the property.. C. Prov/ding for Retirement This particular role of land value in the farm seems to be regarded with derision by non- 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 surplus. Unlike selling stock for which there is a broad market, the market for farmland is relatively small. When time comes to sell that property, to create money on which the husband and wSfe farmer are going to i/ye for the rest of their lives, they want to obtain the max/mum amount possible. If that amount includes va/ne created by potential development, so much the better. Irt 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 ~f there is a lack of encumbrances and the greatest range of opporrun/~' value inherent in the real estate. By far the worst thing 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 regulations. Since this is the termination of the farmer's use of the Land, the business aspects ~e no longer a factor. This is the time to cash in based on past performance, and the cash comes 3I almost entirely from the real estate. The crops have to be created over again each year by the new farmer and obv/ously carmot be transferred, in most instances, by the retiring farmer to the new farmer. The land represents the principal salable asset. D. MainmSning The Farm Family And Labor Being able to build houses that would be occupied by fam/ly 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 retain. 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 ks important to maintaining the viability of the farm. Snmma. ry Businesses serving farmers note that farmers reinvest their income in their farrr~ rather than in personal financial investments. Indicative of this is the fact that approximately 60 percent of Maryland farms 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'period much less constrained by land use regulations than i.s 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 wiI1 be no ready market, or both. To these people the value of theLr farm, a value which reflects both/ts agricultural use and its use for other purposes, is cr/tical to the welfare of the current farm operator and his/her family. ffL CONCLUSIONS The value of the land comprising a farm plays a central role in financing the business of farm/ng. ~ile 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 coi/ateral for loans, even those that are to be mortised primarily from income. Lenders don't care whether the value of the land is generated primarily through farming or through potentigfl non-farm use; they are interested orfly 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 ha,,ing the potent/al to reduce the value of land create problems for them, particularly in the sholq term when there might be a relatively sharp drop in ~'alues as new Iaws are applied. 32 La~d value is also important to the welfare of the farmer as an indivSdual and the farm family. The value of the [arm constitutes the farmer's principal "savings account", and the value of th/s 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 t'~es of small, closely held business operations create paid-in surplus by increasing the value of the company's stock, good will, transferrable technology,, a.nd so forth. In the case of farming, land in essence constitutes the "stock" of the farmer. Farmland values in Maryland are relatively easy to monitor through the Agricultm'al Land Preservation program. Appraisals undertaken in the course of this program clearly show that essentially every farm offering its development rights for sale to the Foundation includes a strong component of non-agricultural use value. C~,'erall, for any given acre appraised in the program, the non-agricultural use value, the value of the "development fights," is roughly 40% of the fair market value. Given the farmer's dependency on having a substantial land value as a basis for maJ. ntalning the farming business and protecting the welfare of the farm family, this is a significant amount that needs to be taken into account in any public policy, actions that might affect such values. 33 SECTION SEX THJE IMPACT OF GROWTH CONTROLS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND VALUES In previous sections various aspects of farming, development, and land value have been analyzed, That material provides a framework for assessing the impact of growth controls on agr/cultural land values. The purpose of this section is to review the broad subject of growth controls and to define the relationship between such controls, business aspects of fanning, and the development of farms. The section concludes v, Sth an assessment of the impaa that such controls have on the value of farmland. L THIE GROWTH ISSUE Following the conclusion of World War Fi Americans went on a suburbanization binge. Prior to that time, we were a nation that undertook almost all of its development within dales and to~.2s. Our rural areas were in farms and woodland or otherwise simply unused. Beginning 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 expanded 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 the cordSiguration 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 from 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 v/ewed as a natural transition, farmland not required for the product/on of agTicultural products was converted to residential use that was needed to house workers in urban and suburban business establishruents. The greater efficiency 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 farms and effectively decreased competition for the remaining farms. As one analyst at the American Farm Bureau Federation has pointed out, if ali farms that had not been purchased for development were still in production, the farm economy could be a disaster. 34 T~is process was regarded ~dthout particularly great concern by almost all parties through the Mid-1900's. Beginning about 1970, however, and probably heightened by ener~ 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 organizations and govermments began to implement more rigorous oversight of development activity toward the end of trying to control development. Farmers had been, whether willSngly or unwillingly, principal players in the suburbanization of .America. Much of 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 general increase in the value of farmland generated by the expanded market for land to be used for development. The amount of land in farms in Maryland, according to the Census of Agriculture and as shown in Table 4, dropped fi.om 3,897,000 acres in 1959 to 2,634,000 in 1974. During the decade I959 - 1969 the arnoum of land in farms in the state dropped by about one-third. From I974 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 farmland led to efforts to slow development and to channel it to areas best suited to accommodate it. In 1974, for instance, the state of iMaryland passed the State Land Use Act of 1974. This established the Maryland Department of State Planning and a stateMde critical area program, required the development of planning guidelines for the local subdivisions, provided for state intervention in local plann/ng and development matters, and generally strengthened the hand of the state with regard to development. In 1977 the state set up the MaD, land 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 cr/tical area as part of a comprehensive set of programs to restore the environmental quality of 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 to those densities in their re~lation of development. Of particular concern to the agricultural community was the proposal that much of the state be placed in a "rural and resource area" vdth a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 20 acres. In 1992 the General .~sembly passed the Econom/c Growth, Resource Protection and Plannmg Act, which was signed by the Governor. T~ese various programs document a grow/ng 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 of this process has been the identification of those responsible for generating this growS. 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 35 TABLE 4 TOTAL LAND IN FARMS STATE OF MARYLAND 1954-1987 Pedod Chancje Year Acres # 1954 3,897,000 1959 3,453,000 (~ ~ ~.,000) -11.4% 1964 3,181,000 (272.000) -7.9% 1969 2,803,000 (378,000) -11.9% 1974 ?,634,000 (169,000) -6.0% 1978 ?,714,000 80,000 3.0% 1982 ?,558,000 (156,000) -5.7% 1987 2.397,000 (161,000) -6.3% Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture; compiled by Legg Mason Realty Group, Inc. people are also viewed as part of the problem for their contributions to growth on the urban fringe. En point of fact, however, it may well be 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 jm-isdictioas are instituting 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. The means for doing this have created problems for the farm community. One result of this concern is this study to analyze how the various forms of land use regulations (grow-th controls) impact agricultural land values and farming operations. TEC'HNIQUES FOR CONTROr r.rNG 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 r.vo broad categories -- command and control re~lations 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 commercial end of the range of uses support higher land values. Agricultural zoning is prevalent in Maryland with 20 of the state's Z3 counties hay'Lng enacted a zoning district for the stated purpose of preserving agricultural land or offering pr/or/ty to agricultural activities. The character of the agricultural zoning varies substantially, however, from 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 count/es. Consequent/y, agricultura[ zoning, per se, is too diverse to be covered by one defi.nifion. Low density agricultural zoning, however, generally defined to include densities of at 1east Eve 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 w/th 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 permitted in an agricultural zone increases, the value of the zone as a way to "preserve" agriculmre is lost. Some opponents of zordng that severely limit potential development have begun to pursue the possibility of receMng compensation for the Iost value created by a change h-om more permissive to less permissive zoning. With regard to zoning, that course of action has generally not been successful, although the number of cases involving this issue appears to be grow/ng 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, application of the pol/ce power (zoning) to land uses does not require compensation, and in our judgment it is unlikely that it Mll. B. Economic Insttm merits 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 la. nd 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. .4 shown in Table 5, the program has been respomsible 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 th/s technique to compensate farmers and rural land owners who permit the development rights appropriate to their land to be transferred to recei,Ang areas in other parts of the county and to be compensated for gi,Ang up their right to develop at the rural location. TDR and PDR programs are essentially the same, except that in the TDR case the amount of development v, Sthin the implementing jurisdiction does not change -- just its location. The agri~lmral community has been a strong supporter of the MAJ_PF 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 and control regulation" of farmland feel that PDR programs are too expensive and do not cover enough area to be effective. C. Compreherks£ve Planning Planning itseL5 is mn excellent tech~que for guiding growth. Plans se.we as statements of public poi/?, and d~;../zens vdll .typically abide by the resulta~nt public policy. This ocears because the pItu~s are frequently fol2owed by implementation techniques, usually of the "command and control" type, but plans also d/rect Lnfrastpacture, which affects the location of development. The pla_a is importam because for most jurisdictions it is der/ved as a result of commun/cat/ons between the affected parties - land owners, developers, corrmaunity interests, political bodies. Pins it represents an approach that, while not necessar/ly particularly liked by anybody, is acceptable to everybody. Because it has its roots in the polit/cai process, citizens have a say in the derivation of the plan. D. Infrastructure Ertemionq Ir~astrucmre consists of roads, sewer and water facilities, schools, and other public ser~Sces pro,Stied to the corrm~uni.ty. To a greater extent than ever before, the extension of infrastructure is being used to guide development. Linkages between the availability of infrastructure and permitted development, frequently wrapped into "adequate fadi/ties" ordinances, are beginning to fail 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 Mthout additions to public irtfrastpacture. Septic systems 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. Hall area. .Ks Mars'land and [ts constituent jurisdictions have increased tl~e level of control exercised over the land, especially para[ land, such controls have pIayed a bigger role in rural development actM~,. It is dear from the pattern of development occurring in those counties with low densit3, agriculturai zoning, that there are fewer oppormn/ties for profitable development in those areas and that the pace of such development has declLned. It/s not clear where the development Sat ts not occurring in those rural areas is going. It might not be ack.w/rig at ail or it might be going to jurisdictions w4rh less restr/ctive rtLrai zoning. The use of economic instruments to limit growth in rural area has been very successful in Maryland, especially the PDR program. TDR's, while less Mdespread and somewhat less successful, have still made their mark on the pattern of development in Montgomery and Calvert counties. Comprehensive planning has been successful in creating an agreed-upon en,Arorument for development in a number of jurisdictions. This has helped to channel development and growth to areas where the corrtmunity 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. Linkages between the extension of infrastructure and growth have increased and are now a major component of growth management policy.. For the most part, the imirastrucmre issue has had a m/n/mai 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 planning process, extend the infrastructure to the agr/culmral areas in an orchestrated mariner, and generate controlled conversion of farm/and to development. IlL FARMI AND 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 with 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 farm/rig in any g/ven year. A poor growing season for whatever reason, particularly several poor growing seasons in a row, can substantially depress the value of farmland. Likewise, strong gro~4ng seasons can raise farmland values. Farm/and values vary considerably in different parts of the state depending on the quality of soils, the existence of an agr/culmral infrastructure in that area, the types of crops grown, and proximity to developing areas. 41 It is nearly impossible to isolate a "pure farm/and value" ha a fair market value appraisal because essentially every acre of farmland has an alternative use that is potentially a more valuable use than agr/culmre. Farmland value is closely monitored in the stare of Man.,land pr/mar/l:,, because of the e.rtensive program of development easement purchases adrrfirt/stered by the Mao'land Agricuiture Land Preservation Foundation (NLKLPF). Before buying an easement, the state obtains appraisals on the property. As the system currently warks, 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 agric'altural use value is calculated by the State and subtracted from the fair market value. Ln our judgment the formula used to determine the agricultural use value pro~ddes a good indication of the agriculture value of Mau, land farmland. Table 6 prov/des a summary of the use-value of Maryland farmland based on rears that farmers had to pay at the time of a study conducted in 1991. The resultant use-value shows that the agrS.-ulmral use value of farmland in Maryland varies from 5927.00 an acre on the high side (Kent County) to $307.00 at the Iow end (A/legany County) for farm use. The higher values tend to be on the Eastern Shore, moderate values ha the central part of the state and lower values to the west. The N£4J_.PF easement acquisition program gives a good indication of the non-agricultural value of farmland. For the life of the program, from 1977 to t990, appraisals indicated that the fair market value of the land offered for easement sale averaged 52,480 per acre. This fi~re has been ~'eu, constant, rising to nearly $3,000 in 1989 and $2,700 in 1990, but other~,4se being be~'een $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 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 specificaliy 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 ag'r/culture 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 rights were worth generally in the range of $850 to $1,000 per acre. In 1989 the calculated value was $1,426 and in cS, cie two of 1990 it rose to $I,866. For the life of the pro,am the value of the development rights has averaged 51,105 per acre. There is enough demand for farms for whatever reason, to cause many to be sold at amounts beyond what the current agricultural actMty itself can support. This "extra value'' 42 TABLE 6 CALCULATED RENTS AND USE-VALUE OF FARMLAND, BY COUNTY THE STATE OF MARYLAND Source: Count~ CaJculated Use-VaJue Rent 7% cap rate (S/Acre) (S/Acre) Al[egany $22 $307. Anne Arundel $30 $4.33. Baltimore $36 $508 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 Kent $65 $927 Montgomery $39 $561 Prince George's $,33 $465 Queen Anne's $57 $809 St. Mary's $44 $625 Somerset $36 $517 Talbot $56 $798 Washington $40 $572 Wicomico $53 $750 Worcester $52. $741 University of Mar/land Study of Farmland Use-VaJue hms tended to come dowm in recent years a.s a result of less interest by outsiders in purchasing land for farms as well as somewhat reduced interest by those speculating on future nonagricultural use value. It is also possible that imposition of more stringent land use and en,rironmental controls in agri~itural areas has impacted values. Mar,'land Department of Agriculture data prov/des a long term perspective on agri~lture values. Its 1991 statistical book provides data on farm real estate values. These data aze summarized in Table 7. The average value per acre of land and buildings in Marflaxtd farms has remained fairly constant in a range of $2,000 - $2,500 for the last i0 years. On a constant dollar basis, which would reflect i.rffiatS, onary 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 -- bem'een roughly $5.0 billion to 56.0 billion, and the average value of a farm operating unit has tended to remain in the range of $300,000 to $360,000 over this 10 year period. These data show that there has been relatively little increase in the value of farm real estate in the state of Maq:'land over the past decade, and that there has probably been a drop in such values when irU-lation is taken into account. IV. TH~ II,,fPACT OF GRO'&'I'H CONTROLS ON AGRICULTUR~AL LAND VALUES Growth controls constitute a mechanism for directing development to various parts 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 comanercial development is limited in a given area, land values in that area will be dim/nished 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, ex/st in the area. A. Value of Devel6pable I nnd 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 for 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 densit'/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 Services Division and reflect the observations of the appraisers who work in the dMsion. Several points can be derived fi-om the table. First, 44 TABLE 7 FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES MARYLAND 1983-1992 Value of La~d & Buildin~rs TotaJ Avg. Year (Millions) Per Acre TotaJ VaJue of Farm Dwellings (Millions) Avg. VaJue per Operating Unit 1983 $5,727 $2.,121 $1,151 $318,100 1984 $6,038 $2`'Z36 $1,244 :$339,190 1985 $5,711 $2,179 $1,319 $326,348 1986 $5,057 $2,023 $1,325 $297,446 1987 $4,921 $2,009 $1,363 $298,238 1988 $5,313 $2,261 $1,504 $332,094 1989 $5,66.3 $2,462 $1,557 $362,987 1990 $5,4.45 $2`420 $1,391 $358,224 1991 $4,941 $2,196 $1,211 $320,844 1992 $5,073 $2,255 $1,258 $329,411 Source: 'Maryland AgriculturaJ Statlstics'-1991. TABLE 8 PER ACRE VALUES OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IN TYPICAL MARYLAND METROPOLITAN AND RURAL LOCATIONS 1992 Value per Acre Use Metropolitan Rural Industrial $100,000 + $50,000 Commercial (mixed) $200,000 $100,000 Residential (20 U/A) $75,000 $25,000 Residential (10 U/A) $60,000 $20,000 Residential (5 U/A) $50,000 $20,000 Residential (2 U/A) $30,000 $15,000 Residential (1 U/A) $20,000 $10,000 Residential (1 U/5A) $10,000 $5,000 Residential (1 U/20A) $7,500 $~500 Residential (1 U/50A) $7,500 $2,500 Agriculture (100 A field crop farm) $7,500 $2,500 Source: (U indicates number of units, A indicates number of acres) Note: These values were estimates under the following assumptions: - Residential uses are physically raw, unrecorded land. - L.and is buildable for the indicated use. - Public sewer and water ~re available for all 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 land is or ca~ be zoned for the indicated use with no problems. - The land is currently not buitt upon. - Two location scenarios: a metropolitan county (Ba}timore, Anne Arundel, Pdnce George's, etc...) and a rural count7 (Kent, SL Mary's, Dorchester, etc...) The development sites are in 'suburban' locations in each instance. This is near but not in 'urbanized' areas. Legg Mason ReaA'y Group, Inc..Appraisal Services Division. land in metropolitan areas is worth more than land in rural areas for the same use. Second, the 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 acre value of 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 frozen by the low density zoning. B. Development Values as Reflected in MALPF data Maryland's agriculture land preservation program prov/des an excellent overview of development values in rural areas. In essentially every part of the state, no matter how rural, the appraisers wortdng 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 commercial 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 agricultural use value. C. Agricultural Zoning and I'.qnd Values In 1990 the firm Resource Management Consultants, Inc. (RMC[) of Washington, D.C. was retained by the MaD'land Office of Plarming to study'the relationship between agricultural zoning and the value of farmland. RMCI presented its report, "The Effects of Agricultura/ 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 do,~T~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 pr/ces to a much greater degree "than the zoning." In our judgment that study did not tell "the whole story." The study focused on four cqundes, 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 are not conclusive. In Carroll County., where agr/culturaI zoning has been in place for a while, the 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 transactions (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 Count)' did the number of transactions increase. And it is interesting that Montgomery Count' has one of the most effective programs for compensating farmers for transferrable development rights. In the other counties, the 47 06/19/20B3 14:§4 d10-922-6871 ~ F~RM BJ~U P~ Oq volttme of tram~ctinns tended to drop about 50 percent from the pre-ssrieultura] zo.tn~ period. ht its ~nclnsiou~, the RMCI study notes that the "ability to repay (a t'arm loa~) ts the key to s tinaaci. I institution's m~king a loa~ to a tarm~." Th/s conclusion is co~'m~d by t3~RG's researcI~ However, the simatlon is not always as clear as is implied by that 8noting. ~ those instructs whe:o the ability to repay is mar§inal, the value of the Land, a~d its liquidity, can result fa a So or ~o go decision by the lender. The value can also be important Where the borrower plans to u.~e the fttmis i;o facilitate modest development of tl~ prol~ny. The study r~tes that lenders pro~ide loans as a percent of fair market value, While the percent loan varies with :he i~titution and the farmer's ~biilty to pay, the fair market value provides the underlying basts of the loan. Since the market for the land is a function of its potential use, restrictiz~ the lootcnflal use negatively affects fair market values. The examples USed in the RMCI study are counties in metropolitan areas. The strong real estate marke~s of the late 1980's affected these counties thc most, along with. som~ "suburbaui~iug" ~o,a~rics like ~een Anne's. Th:se counties usually do not appear on the LLrc o~ major ~gtieuimral produciion counties. The f~ming that does exist .in many of them ts lapse:ecl by the expar~sion of the urban areas and _many of the owners are as in:crusted i~ ~heir properties as rt~al residences as for agricultural product~oo- The c~ops raised o~ many oi these farms arc of the higher vahe, more imensive[~ farmed type. such as tobacco and vegetables. Througllout the period covered by file RMCI study it would appear that tile land value inexeases in the four target counties, to the extent that they occ~rred at all, certainly did not parallel the dramatic increase in land values in general, including counties without such zonin8. When inflation is taken into account, farmland values in three of the four counties dearly went down after introduction of the zoning, 'fi'en~ ia a~cul~Jrsl land sale values Ln constant 19117 donar~ for Maryland and the four counties reported on the RMCI study are set forth below in Table 9. Ltnd val~es in m'o of the counties, Baltimore and Carroll, appear clearly lower after the introduction of the agricultural zoning. In Mont~omeff County the values are generally lower, especially when compared with a high 1979 figme, which wu probably run up in anticipation of the introduction of zoning. O~ly in Aline Anmdel COunty have prices, on a eot~tant dollar ba3i~, risen steadily since the introduction o[ the zoning. ¢8 ~19/2003 14:B~ 410-g22-687~ ND FA,~4 ~LRE~U P~ 05 TRENDS IN AGRICULTURAL LAND gAl~ VALUES IN CQNS'TANT lg87 DOLLARS MARYLAND AND SEI.~CTED COUN'I3E$ . lg74-1990 Yea:. - k~te~ dam no~ ava3at~e (1) 1:20(1 u~ll~r20a~ms) ag~uil~aJzm~gena~md~,1961 (2) ~ ..20 ag~ultural ~,~g em~cted m t gT~ (4) 1'.~ e~'ict~'tumJ zm~ing e~lact~l ~11 ~78 (5) 1;2'~ ag~icu~'-al zm~g ~ed in 1~0 F~E BE ......... LIF~ 13:17 ].b:..Tz : ~- lower the value ~ la.nd pla. ced in mor~ restrictive veto-, less restrictive l~ud use categories, Con~',equently, to the cxtenl tbs! ~dous growth control techaJqu~ result hi reduced devetopmeitt op~m tot farm!~,cl, ~he value of that ~ will be reduced with negative lmp~c~t~ons for the fatnt bnsJ~eases so a~cctad. The v~.lue of ~and that Mih to be~in with. it i~ highe~ ~n metropol~l~.u azea.q, a d/feet function of development pre~u'es. The sams c~w,~c~ ate low o~ thc ]/~t of the state'~ prim:ipaJ ~cuhural prodnct court,es. ~s a re.~t, ~ in these cou~R~cs may be ex~erie:~c~z~g :he Worst of both worlds. They we urmble tO bc e,~ec~al]~, succetdully aa farmers because iz~ucnces, but extremely low density 'agriculturaJ' zoaJn8 and other d~velopmen: rcguiation~ ~reatly ILmit ~eir ab~t7 to 8ispose of land for development. Public poli~ t~t the application of 10w dcnstt~ development in rural areas must.cake ~to accoumt the impact d~sp~ of fanoJaz~ in a wa7 tha~ enables the f~ann family to Set it~ cqu/ty out of thc lam:I. $0 86/1S.'?~02 1:._ lb;,l. 7~1 LZF~ PAGE OT 06/~9/20~ 14:04 415-922-6~?1 ~ FAR~ Itt.IRE. AU PA61~ ~? ~_,._...p.~;. q -~ *o LiFB PAGE 08 3b/id,-:=- 13;17 16_l'~.z.,-1 06/19/200~ 14:~4 4~-922-~$7~ MD F~F~I ~ P~ ~ ~IX A Tag following p~bli~tiom were ¢Oasultecl ia co~ect~on w~,h the preparalto~ of this atudT. Marfla~d A~rl~tltural La~d Pr~'vation Foundstio~L 'Amlual Report for F~sesl Year 1991," l~t~71aad D~panmen~ of A~iculture, ('[%e ar~tal repons fo~ Ig82-lg~l w,'re a~o rev/ewed). Legg Mason Realty ~roup, l~c, "A Catalog of Growth Ma.~,~emcnt TeehniqueL' prepared for the God,roofs Commission on Groeab ~ the Chesapeake Ray Watershed. December 1989. Tl~o~s L. Daniels, 'The Pu~ase of Developmen: Righu: Preservi~ A~icultursl La, M a~ ~ Space,* APA ]oumal, Auturm~ I~91.. D~-~ E. Heiberg, 'The Re',dit~ of TI)IL' Urban Land, December 1~1. Orlando E. Delos, "E~viromn~atal Regular/om ,.d.. Land ~lr,~t~o ' Kamas Law Review volume 34. Maryland A.~sociatioil of Cotmty Pianni,g Ot~ciE.% testimony before the loire Committee on Growth Ma~a&emeat: pre~entazion on the protection of scasitive la. ads, October L 19~1. Metropolita~ Waslaington Comlcil ~' Govemmen~ "Metropotita~ Growth Optlon~ - 1~$9' (~tatf draft), .fuly 28, 19~9. David .f. Broker et al, "Maz~t~ Developmeat in $m~.ll Towns," Plam~:s Press, Amerie~a ~".!"~g Association, 1984. Patrick Be~toa, 'Impaa: oi R~ral Open Space Zon/ng oa Property Values ia ~e New ~'ersey ,P~nelan~," Rutgcrs Un/varsity, August, 1988. LiFB ~]~./[~..'~O~31: l~:Z7 Z PAGE The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Co:mmSSion, 'q'ne Pro~l~ and ?roblemJ oI I~co~ni¢ l.~tmments as Complements ~o the Ches~eahe Bay Critical Arcs lh'o~-am,' August Maryland D~anment ot Agriculture, Mar/land Aipt~Itural Sta~i~i~ ~umm~rics for 1990 a~d 1~1. Bureau of the Ce~us, 1987 Cenaus of Asriculture, Maryhtud State and County ~"a~ Effec:s of Agricultural Z~n/~g on the Value of Farmland," prepared by Resource Maaagemeut Cons~alt~nts ~ at~ subm/tred to Matylagd Office of Planing, Febnmzy 22, MaiTland O~qce of PlanrJ=g, "A Synopsis of Agricultural Zoe/ag ia Ma~ltncl,' November, 1991. Stephen S~a, 'Doe~ I.~d-Use ReguJat/o~ Protect Prow. rT Va.ltte$?", Real Estate Reviaw, Volttm~ 20, Number 3, fall 1990. Ralph E. He/mi/ch, "Metropolitan Agriculture, Fro'm/ag in the Ci~s Sl~wdow," gPA Jottr~aL A.~tum t989. Department o[' $~ate ptam~$, 'Lane[ Use or Abuse?," December $, 1985. "Farraen ~nd Growth Mazegemen:: A Plamin~ Conandmm," Watershed. Vol~ L Nttmber 1. Maryland Ot~c~ of ~ "M, arjl~d's Land, 19'73-I990, A C'han//ng Resourct,' l~bllcat/o~ 91-8. W. Pa~'ick Benton et al, 'T~¢ Cost of Regulations, Volume 2, A Baselina Study for the ch~ l~ Cat/c~l ~r~,' ~ t988. Anderson, Ten7 L, "A L/rd¢ Peres~o/Ita at Home, Private Owue~hip of l. and ~nd Water," presentagon to the Amer/car~ Fa, rm Bureau, January 7-~, 1991. Farm Credit Bank oi Bal~nore, Relmrr of Manageraent. February 18, 1991, PAGE LO ~n addition to reVicv4ng the above public.ions and ,,an., material from ~ of ~hem, numerous newspaper articles rct.~ng to them to ~ s~na&emant, ha'mcr concerns' co~cern~g growth m~n~ement, e~pcrien~ in other commua/~/es, and so ~orth ~ reviewed. 86/1~'200~ 13:i7 i631727372i LIFE PAGE e6/19/2e~3 14:84 410-925-6871 the Maryland Farm Bureaul a m~c~ng of thc board of directors of thc M,~yland Farm B~teatt; a meeting of the You~ Farmers Of ]~dtlmote Cotmt,fi, a mcctta$ of the Howard Cottu~ Grova. h Forum ami participated in two ¢oat'ere~es Slmmored by tt~ Farm Burea~ on thc ~e of Earl Arminger. Prcsidem, O~ch~rd Devclopmeat Company, Co~bi~ ~d ~ ~t ~me~,'~iefo~ Taylor & Pr~t~ Tow~ ~d J. Ro~ ~ F~ Rc~esaa~v~ C~e~e Nafio~ ~ ~e~le, M~d ' $~I ~ Pr~d~ M~a F~m Great ~a~on ~ ~ E~o~ and ~b~h~ of F~d Hc~ B~ Vice ~ide~ ~e P~oples B~ of ~I~, ~am~ M~l~d k~e ~, PreValent C~ B. Taylor B~ ~ F~ ~n~ ~eff~ F~ Bureau Fed~on ~. ~n Ho~/r. Ad~amr, ~l~d F~ B~e~u J~ H~ S~or E~u~ ~ F~ Bur~u Pederafion ~e K~ P~ide~ ~ren D~elapmcut ~6/19/2~g$ ~:84 4~0~ ~.'~-6~?~ ND F,~C~4gljl~ ~ 12 COMMEN'r ON DGEIS/SCI~S (~~ tonc l:a m u eau, mc. ~04 Edwards Avenue, Calve~on, NY 1~933 Phone: (631) 727-3777 Fax: (631) 727-3721 MEMORANDUM RECEIVED TO: CLERK'S OFFICE, SOUTHOLD TOWN SUPERVISOR JOSHUA HORTON MEMBERS OF THE TOWN BOARD MEMBERS OF THE MORATORIUM PLANNING TEAM FROM: LONG ISLAND FARM BU.R~ JOSEPH GERGELA Ill EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATE: JULY 23, 2003 RE: DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT~ SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY JUL 2 4 2003 Southold Town Cleri As the Executive Director of Long Island Farm Bureau, I am requesting the enclosed letter addressed to me from Nelson Bills, Professor, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University be included and seriously reviewed in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Department of Applied Economics and Management Nelson L. Bil~ l'rof~ssor CorneH University 453 Warren Hall Ithaca, NY 14853-7801 Telephone: 607 255-77.M Fax: 607 255-9984 E-mail: ~b4t~cornell.edu Web: www.aen~comell.edu 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 Generic Environmental 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 prices 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 "low". 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. Without hard evidence, by necessity, we fall back on the economic rationale that links zoning, and changes in zoning rules, 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 price 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 worry 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 tonc stanO farm u eau, mc. 104 Edwards Avenue, Calverton, NY 11933 Phone: (631) 727.3777 Fax: (631) 727.3721 COMMENTS ON DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY June 24, 2003 To: Joshua Horton. Supervisor Southold Tov,~ Members of the Town Board Members of the Moratorium Planning Team From: Rebecca Wiseman, Associate Director Long Island Farm Bureau GENERAL COMMENTS: 1 learned a valuable lesson 25 years ago when [ began my career 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 [ndusus., as it was 25 years ago. The lesson learned was titles. degrees, associations and positions of authority 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. Al~er wading through much of the DGEIS. [ was lefi 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 communiB.. 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-economic impacts to the Town of an up-zoning are not anticipated to be significant. In addition, solely economic impacts are not required to be addressed under SEQRA and any land use initiative must consider the general good of the Town. Up-zoning has been documented as a valid growth management/density reduction Iool that has been widely used throughout the counttT. 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 value, and agricultural land value will remain intact. Given the consideration of this issue as documented herein, no significant socio-ecnnomic impacts are expected as a result of this action ...... ' Reference: According to: 2003 New York State ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW StatutoD' authority: Environmental Conservation [.aw, Article 8: Sec. 8-010 l. Purpose. #7. "It is the intent of the legislature that the protection and enhancement of the environmem, 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. gl. "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. "%2ten 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 practicable..." Sec. 8-0113. Rules and regulations. /*2. (bi "....raking into account social and economic factors to be considered in determining the significance of an environmental effect; #4. "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 necessatT 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." · Ex'plain the use of'the following subjective statements made in reference to the economic impact qf an up-zone. "... not anticipated to be significant." "ha significant socio-economic impacts are expected as a result of this action... ", in addition, identify the supporting documents that were used to come to this conclusion. · Explain the gross discrepancy beiween the DGEIS document and the 2003 Article 8 Environmental QualiO, Review on issue qf need to access economic impact on the fi~rming industo,. Reference: According to: LEGG MASON a document to study the effect of zoning on the business of agriculture: PER ACRE VALUES OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IN TYPICAL MARYLAND METROPOLITAN AND RLrlLA[. LOCATIONS Page #50. Section D. SummatT: "In summaD', it is naive and runs counter to all land economics experience to comend 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.." · The summary of the LEGG ~4SON document indicates that an exhaustive review of the economic impact of up-zoning farmland was not conducted t~v the moratorium plann#~g team. Please, review and report on the sign!/icance of this document to the DGE1S. Reference: SEQRA LOCAL LAW REVIEW/REVISION: Reference DGEIS page 1-35, :,16. Re: the recommendation that the Town adopt a specific Type I list that would identi~, actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment. As stated in the document the suggested Type I actions include: · 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 1 Actions: "those actions and projects that are more likely to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) than unlisted action." The recommendation to the Town to adopt a specific Type I list. is a recommendation to tighten the regulator3.' arm of Southold Town government. · S[hat is the definition of 'critical environmental areas '? · How is 'Scenic B)3va3's' defined.> · }['hat is the definition of 'projects' that remove significant acreage (quantify 'significant acreage '). and what actions would define 'agriculture use '? · How man3' 'specified number of lots' is needed to exceed conventional subdivisions? · What is the 'minimum thresholdpercentage' of a significant natural feature? · Define: 'minimum threshold number of vehicle trips '. Do 'vehicle trips' include soccer moms and little league games? Conclusion: By no means does this entt? 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 Itave on the entire community of Southold Town. It should be noted, this is the busiest time of the 5'ear for most in the farming 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 is completed. 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 that the government of the state 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 Page 2 of 9 shall be ~iven appropriate weight with social and economio Eonsi~erations in puolic policy. Social, economic, and environmental factors shall be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed activities. 8. It is the intent of the legislature that all agencies conduct their affairs with an awareness that they are stewards of the air, water, land, and [ivin~ resources, and that they have an obligation to protect the environment for the use and enjoyment o6 this and all future generations. 9. It is the intent of the legislature tha~ ali agencies which regulate activities of individuals, corporations, public agencies which a~e foun~ to affect the quality of the environment stall regulate such activities so that due consideration is given to preventing environmental damage. Sec. 8-0105. Definitions. Unless the contex~ otherwise requires, the definitions in this section shall govern the construction of the following terms as useO in this article: 1. "State agency" means any state ~epartment, agency, board, public bene£it corporation, public authority or commission. 2. "Local agensy" means any local agency, board, district, coE~issLon or governing body, including any city, county, and other Ealitical subdivision of the state. 3. "A~ency" means any state or lccal agency. 4. "Aztions" include: iii projects or activities d~rectly undertaken by any agency; .Dr projects or activities su~porte~ in whole or part through contraots, grants, subsidies, Loans, or other forms of fundin~ 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 or permission to act: bf one or more agencies; {izi policy, regulations, ant procedure-making. 5. "Astions" do not incluOe: {i} enforcement proueedings or the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in tetermining whether or not to institute such proceedings; iii! official acts of a ministerial nature, involving no exercise of ciscretion; (iii~ maintenance or repair involving no substantial changes in existing structure or' facility. 6. "Environment" means the physical conditions which will De affected oy a proposed action, including lan~, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance, existing patterns of population concentraticn, distribution, or ]r©wth, and existing co~unity or neighborhoo~ uharacter. "Environmental impact statement" means a detailed statement setting forth Ehe matters specified in section 8-0109 .Df th~s artiule, it inEludes ~ny comments on a draft environmental statement which are received pursuant to section 8-0109 cf this article, and the agency's response to sus~ co~ents, to the extent that such co~ents raise issues not adequately resolveG in the draft environmental statement. 8. "Oraft environmental imp~ct statement" means a prelzmin~rv statement prepared pursuant to section 8-0109 of this article. Sea. 8-C, 107. A~encv implementation. 7/23/2003 Page 3 of 9 All agencies shall review their present statutory authority, azhr~in=strative regulations, and current policies and procedures for the purpose of determining whether there are any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which prohibit full compliance with the purposes and provisions of this article, end shall recommend er effect such measures as may be necessary to bring their authority and policies into conformity with the intent, purposes, and procedures set forth in this article. They shall carry its terms with minimum procedural and ac~r~inistrative delay, shall avoid unnecessary duplication of reporting and review requirements by providing, where feasible, for combined or consol/dated proceedings, 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 to realize the policies and qoals 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- ranmenta£ impact statement process. 2. Ail agencies ior applicant as hereinafter provided) shall prepare, or cause to De prepared by contract or otherwise an environmental impact statement on any action they propose or approve which ma>' have a signif- icant effect on the environment. Such a statement shall include a detailed statement setting forth the following: la~ a ~escription of t~e proposed action and its environmental setting; {D} the environmental impact of the proposed action including short- term and long-term effects; (ci an5' adverse environmental e~fects which cannot De avoided s~ould the prsposal be implemented; idi alternatives to the proposeO action; ~e) an5 irreversible and irretrievable commitments ~}f resources which would be involved in toe proposed action should it be implemented; {f! mitigation measures proposed to minimize the environmental impact; ig) the growth-inducing aspects of t~e proposed action, where applica- ble ani significant; (h) effects of the proposed astion cn the use and conservation of energy resources, where applicable and significant, provided that in the case cf an electric generating facilit5', the statement shall include a demonstration that {2ne facility ~ill satisfy electric generating capaci- ti' needs or ctner electric systems needs in a manner reasonably consist- ent ~ith toe most recent state energy plan; (i! effects of proposet action on solid waste management where appli- cable and significant; and /ii effects of an}' proposed action on, and its consistency with, the comprehensive management plan of toe special groundwater protection area program, as implemented by toe commissioner pursuant to article fifty- five of tRis chapter; and {j} such ot~er information consistent with ~he purposes of this arti- cle as may De prescribed in guLdel~nes issued by the commissioner pursu- ant to section 8-0113 of this chapter. Suuh a statement shall also in.Elude copies Dr a summary of the suDstan~ive coE~ents received by the agencV pursuant ts subdivision four Df t~is sectio~, and uhe agency response to such co~ents. The purpose of an environmental impact statement is to provide detailed information about the effect which a proposed act±on is likely to have on the envi- roument, to list ways in which any adverse effects of such an action might De minimized, and to suggest alternatives to such an action so as 7/23/2003 Page 4 of 9 Es term the basis for a decision whether or not to undertake or approve such action. Such statement shzul~ be clearly written in a concise manner capable of being read and understood by the public, should deal wmth the specific significant environmental impacts which can be reason- ably anticipates aaa should not contain more detail than is appropriate considering the nature and magnitude Df E~e proposed action and tRe significance of its potential impacts. 3. An agencf may require an applicant to submit an environment=l report to assist t:Re agency in carrying out its responsibilities, inuluding the initial determination and, iwhere the applicant does not preFare the environmental impact statement), the preparation of an envi- ronmentel impact statement under tRis article. The agency may request sucR cther information from an applicant necessary for the review of environmental impacts. Notwithstanding any use of outside resources or worK, agencies shall ma~e their own independent juagment of the scope, Tontents and adequacy of an environmental impact statement. 4. As early as possible in the formulation of a proposal for an action, the responsible agency shall make an initial aetermination whether an environmental impact statement need be prepared for ~he action. What an action is to be carried out or approved by two or more agenuies, such determination shall be made as early as possible after the des±~nation of the lead agency. With respect to actions invo£ving the issuance to an applicant of a permi~ or o~gher entitlement, the agency shall notify the applicant in writing Df zts initial determination specifying therein the basis fcr such ~e~ermination. Notice of t~e initial ~etermination along with approprzate supporting findings on agenry actions shall be kept on file in E~e main office of the asency for public inspection. If the agency determines that such statement is required, the agency or the applicant at its option shall prepare or cause to be prepare~ a drazt enuironmen%al impact statement. If the applicant does not exercise the opt/on tD prepare such statement, the agency shall prepare it, cause it to De prepared, or terE, inate its review of the proposed action. Such statement shall Gescrioe the proposed action and reasonable alternatives to uMe action, and briefly discuss, on the basis of information then availa~±e, tRe remaining items required to be submitted by suOdivision two o£ this section. The purpose of a draft environmental statement is Es relsue envirenmental considerations to the incepthon of the planning process, tr. inform the public and other public agencies as early as possible shout proposed actions that ma}' significantly affec~ the quali- ty ~f the environment, and tD sol,cdt co~ents which will assis~ ti~e agency in the UecisiDn making process ~n determining the environmental consequences of the proposed action. The draft statement should resemkle in form and content the environmental impact statement to De prepare~ after cs~e~ts Rave been reseived ant considered pursuant to suOdivision Ewe Df this section; however, the length and ~etail of the draft envi- ronmental statement will necessarily refles~ the preliminary, nature of the propusal and the earl]' stage at which it is prepared. For an: action for w~ich the a}ency Cetermines that such statement is not required and which would take place in a special grounawa~er proteetion area, as de£ined in sestion ~5-0107 sf this chapter, the agency shall sRow how such action would or would nov be consisuenu with uhe comprehensive management plan of the special groundwater protection program, as zmplemented by the commissioner pursuant to article fifty- five of this chapter. The draft statement shall be filed wit~ the Oepar~ment or other Oesig- nateO agenries and shall De circulated to federal, state, regisnal and lcsal a~encies havin~ an interest in ERe proposed as5ion and to inter- eared members of tMe public for csm~ent, as m~5' be prescribed by tRe ros~issioner pursuant to section 8-0113. 7/23/2003 h. After the filing of a Graft environmental impact statement the agency shall ~etermine whether or not to sonduct a public hearing on the environmental impact of the proposed action. If the agency determines to held such a hearing, it shall commence the hearing within sixty days of the filing and unless the proposed action is withdrawn from consider- atica shall prepare the environmental impact statement within forty-five days after the close of the hearing, except as otherwise previewed. The need for such a hearing shall be determined in accordance with proce- dures adopted b~ the agency pursuant to section 8-0113 of this article. I~ no hearing is held, the agency s~all prepare and make available the en~zironmen~al impact statement within sixty days after the filing of the draft, 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 ~earings to coordinate the environmental review process wit~ other procedures relating to review and approval of an action. An application for a permit or authorization for an action upon whish a draft environmental impact statement is determined ts be required shall not be complete un~il such draft statement has been filed and a~uepte~ by the agency as satisfactory with respect to scope, content and adequacy Jot purposes of paragraph four of this section. Cc~enuing upon such acceptance, the environmental impact statement process shall run concurrently with otter procedures relating to the revzew ~n~ approval of the action so long as reasonable time is proviOed for prep=ration, review and public hearings with respect tc the ~raft environmental impact statement. 6. To the extent as may be prescribe~ by the ca~issioner pursuant to section 8-0113, the environmental impact statement prepare~ pursuant to subdivision two of this section together with the co~ents of public and federal agencies and members of the puolio, shall be filed with the co~issioner an¢~ made available to the public prior to acting on the prcposa] ~hich is the suOject of the environmental impact statement. u. a. An agengy may charge a fee to an applicant in order to recover the costs incurre~ in preparin~ or causing to be prepared or reviewing a Graft environmental impact statement or an environmental impact state- ment on the action which the applicant requests from the a~ency; proviteo, hog, ever, that an applicant may not be charged a separate fee rsr ooth t~e preparation and review of such statements. The technical services of the department may be made available on a fee basis reflect- ing the costs thereof, to a requestin~ a~ency, which fee or fees may appropr=ately be charged by the agensy to the applicant unOer rules and regulations Eo he issued under section 8-,3113. b. Such rules and regulations snell require the applisant to reimburse the Eonservation fund, as establis~e~ pursuant to subdivision {a) of seution eighty-three of the state finance law, in order to recover all costs incurred in preparing or causing to De prepared or reviewing ~ draft environmental impacu statement or an environmental impact state- ment Oy emplcyees of the ~epartment, whose salary and expenses are paid, in ~hole cr zn part, from t~e conservation fund. 8. When an ~qency decides to carry' out or approve an action which has been the subjest of an environmental impact statement, it shall make an explisit fin~inq ~hat the requirements of this sestion have been met and ations, £o the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the e~uironmemtal impact statement process will be minimize~ 9. An environmehtal ~mpact statement shall De prepareO for an5 action £oun~ to Nave a significant impact on the special groundwater protection area, as defined in section 55-0107 of this shapter. Such statement shall meet the requirements of the most Oetailed environmental impact Page 5 of 9 7/23/2003 Page 6 of 9 statemen~ required by this section or ~y an}' such rule or regulation promui~ated pursuant to this section. S 8-0111. Coordination of reporting; limitations; lead agency. 1. State and federal reports coordinated. Where an agency as herezn definet directly or indirectly participates in the preparation of or prepares a statement or submits material relating to a statement prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, whether by itself or by another person or firm, compliance with this article shall be coordinated with ano made in conjunctisn with federal requiremem~s in a single environmental report- ing procedure. 2. ~ederal report. Where the agency does not participate, as above define~, in the preparation of the federal environmental impact state- ment or in preparation or submission of materi~ls relating thereto, ns further report un,er this article ~s required and the federal environ- men~al impact statement, duly preparen, shall suffice for the purpose of this article. 3. STate and local coordination. Necessary compliance by state or local agencies with the requirements of this article stall be ooorti- hated in accordance with section 8-0107 and with otter requirements of law in ~he interests of expeoiteo proceedings and prompt review. 4. Effective date cf coordinated reporting. T~e requirements of this seotzon with regard Es coordinated preparation of federal and state impact materials and reporting shall not apply to statements preparet anO filed prior to the effective date of this article. 5. Exclusions. The requirements of subdivision two of section 8-0109 of this article shall not apply Es: {a; Actions undertaken or approved prior to the effective date of this article, except: {i) [n the sase of an action where i~ is still practicable either to modify the action in such a way as to mitigate potentially adverse envi- ronmental effects or to c~oose a feasible and less environmentally damagin~ alternative, in which case the commissioner may, at the request or any ~erson or on his own motion, in a particular case, or generally in ~ne or more classes of cases specifieo in rules and regulatisns, require the preparation ~f an environmental impact statement pursuant to ,ii} In the case of an action where t~e responsiOle agency proposes a modification cf the action and the mooification may result in a signif- icant alverse effect on the environment, in which case an environmental impact statement shall be ~repareo with respect to such modification. * ~) Actions s~Oject to ~he provisions requiring a certificate if environmental compatibility and publlc noes in articles seven, eight and ten of t~e public service law; or * NB Effective until January 1, 2003 {~ Actions subject Ec the provisions requiring a certificate ef environmental compatibility and public need in articles seven and eight of the publ%c service law; or ~ NB Effective Januarp 1, 2003 ,71 Actions subject ts the class A or class B regional project juris- clarion o£ ~he Adirondack park agency or a local governme~lt pursuant to section eight hundred seven, eight hundred eigMt or ezght hundred nine cr the executive law, exsept class B reglona£ projects suDject to review by local government pursuant to section eight hundred seven of the exes- u~:ive law located witRin the Lake George park as oefined by subdivision one cz sectzon 43-0103 of this chapter. 6. Lead A~ency. Wheil an action is to be carried out or approved bi' fwd or more agencies, the determination of whether the action ma}' have a significant effect on the environment shall be made bi' the lead agency 7/23/20O3 ~aving prinsipal responsibility far carrying out or approving such action and such agency shall prepare, or zause to be prepared by conTrauT or otherwise, the environmental impact statement for the action if such a statement is require~ by This article, lin The event that there is a question as te which is the lead agency, any agency may submit the question to The commissioner and the co~issioner shall designate the lead agency, giving due consideration to the capacity of such agency to fulfill adequately The 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 governments and after conducting public hearings and review of any other conur~ents submitted, the commissioner shall adcpt rules and regulations implementing the provisions of t~is article within one hundred and Twenty days after the effective date of this section. 2. The rules an~ regulations adopted by the com~r~issioner specificall} snail =nslude: {a', ~e~in[tion of terms used in This article; !~ Criteria for determining ~heTher or not a proposed action may have a significant eftect on the en~{ronment, takin] into account social[ an~ economic factors tc be considered in determining The significance of an environmental effort; (c} ldentifisation on the basis of such criteria of: {ii Actions or classes of actions that are likel}' to require preparation ef environmental impact statements; ~ii} Artists or classes of actions which have been determined not Es have a signifzcant effect on the environment and whish do not require environmental impact statements under nhis article. In adopting the rules and re}ulaTions, The commissioner shall make a finding that each ~cTicn or class of actions itentified does not have a significant ~d) T~'pisal associated environmental effects, and methods for assessin~ rush e~fects, of actions determined to be likely to require (e~ Categorization of actions which are or may be primarily' of statewi.le, re~ional, or local concern, with provisions for technisal assistance including the preparation cr review of environmental impact review by local agencies. ~f! Pro~rision for the filing and circulation of draft environmental ~mpact statements pursuant tc subdivision four of section 8-0109, and ~-0109; !g~ Sec/e, content, filing ant availability of finoings requireO To be made pursuant to suOdivision eight of section 8-0109; (h~ form aha content of and le,~el sf detail required for an (~) Procedures for obtaining comments on draft environmental impact statements, holding hearings, ~roviding public notice of agenz5 e[fect[ve participaT[on by The puolic and efficient an~ expeditious ~chr~inisEration of Ehe article. {j~ Procedure for providing applicants with estimates, when suodi,~is£on seven o£ section 8-0109 of this article. ~k} Appeals proceaure for the setElement of disputed costs charged Page 7 of 9 7/23/2OO3 Page 8 of 9 section ~-0109 of this article· Such appeal procedure shall not interfere or cause delay in the ~etermination of environmental signizisance er prohimit an action from being undertaken. (l} A model assessment form to me used auring the initial review to assist an ageng~ in its responsibilities under this article. 3. Within the time perioas speczfied in section 8-0117 of this article the agencies subject to this article shall, after public hearing, adapt and publish such additional procedures as may be necessary for the implementation by them of this article cons[stent with the rules and regulations adopted by the commissioner. !a) mxlsting agency environmental procedures may be incorporate~ in and integrated with the procedures adopted under this article, an~ variance in form alone shall constitute no objection thereto. Such individual agency procedures shall be no less protective of environmental values, public participation, and agency and judicial review than the procedures ~erein mandated. {bi S~ch agency procedures shall provide for interagency working relationships in cases where actions typisally involve more than one agency, liaison with the public, and such other procedures as ma5' be required to effect the efficient and expeditious administration of this article. 4. Coordination with a~ricul~ural districts program. The sommissioner, in consultation with the co~issioner of agriculture and markets, shall amend the regulations promulgateO pursuant to the provisions of this section as necessary and appropriate to assure the adequate consideration of impacts of public acquisitions, or the aOvancement of puolic monies for non-farm development on lands used in agricultural production an~ unique and irreplaceable agricultural lands within agricultural districts in acsordance with the provisions cf subdivision four of section three hundred five of the agriculture eno malkets law. Sec. 8-,i, 115. Severability. The provisions of this article snail be severable, ant if any clause, sentence, paragraph, suOdivision or part of this article shall be aojuaged bi' any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, Out shall Se canfineO in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision or part thereof directl]' invslveO in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. Sec. 8-0117. Phased implementation. 1. With respect to the actions directly undertaken by an5' state agency, the requirement of an environmental impact statement pursuant to subdivision tws of sottish 8-0109 of this artisle shall ta~e effect on the first day of September, nineteen hundred seventy-six. 2. With respect to actions or classes of actions identified by the department as likel= to require preparation of environmental impact statements pursuant to subparagraph !i) of paragraph (c) of subdivision two of sesticn ~-0113 of this article tireztly undertaken by any local agency, whether or nut such actions are supported in whole or in part through contracts, grants, subsidzes, loans, or other forms o£ funding assistance from one or more state agency; and all other actions or classes of actions identified by the department as likely to require preparatisn of environmental impact statements pursuant to subparagraph {i) of paragraph (c} cf subdivision two of section 8-0113 of tmis article supportea in whole or in part through zontracts, ~rants, subsiaies, loans, or other forms of funding assistance from one or mere state a~ency, the requirement of an environmental impast s~atement 7/23/2003 ~ursuant to subdivision two of section 8-0109 of this article shall take effect on the first day of June, nineteen hundreo seventy-seven. 3. With respect to actisns or classes of actions identified Dy the tepartment as likely to require preparation of environmental impact statements pursuant to subparagraph ii) of paragraph (c) of subdivision two of section 8-0113 of this article supported in whole Dr in part through contracts, gran~s, subsidies, loans, or o~her forms of funding assistance from one or more local agency; and with respecY to actions or classes .Df actions identified by the department as likely to require preparation of environmental impart statements pursuant to subparagraph {i~ of paragraph (c) of subdivision two of section 8-0113 of this article involving t~e issuance to a person of a lease, permit, oertificate or other entitlement for use or permission to a~ by one or more state or local agency, the requirement of an environmental zmpact statement pursuant to su6division two of section 8-0109 of this art=cle shall ta~e effect on the firs5 day of September, nineteen hunCre~ seventy-seven. 4. Wi~h respest to all other actions not included in subdivision two or three of this sestion which are subject to ~his article, the ~equirement of an environmental impact statemen~ pursuant to subdivision two of section 8-0109 of this article shall take effect on the first day of HovemOer, nineteen hundred seventy-eight. 5. Agencies subjec~ to this article shall adopt and publish the additional necessary procedures described in subdivision three of section 8-0113 of this article, as follows: <a! with respect ~c actions include~ within subdivision one of this section, no later Than August 1, 1976. (b) with respect to aotions included within subdivision two of this sestion, no later than April 1, 19/7. to} With respect to actions insluOed within subOivision three of this section, ns later than July 1, 1977. {d! WitR respect to actions incluOed within subdivision four oz this sesticn, no later than ~Iovemker 1, 19/8. Any a~ency which has not adopted and published the additional necessary procedures described in subdivisions two and three of section 9-,3113 of this article aczording to the dates set forth in ~hzs sect]on s~all utilize t~ose procedures found in Part 617 of title six ~environmental conservation) of the official compilation of the coGes, rules and regulations of the state of New York for purposes of implementing this article until such time as suzh agency has adopteG and suOlis~ed its own procedures. Page 9 of 9 7/23/2003 LC/( FIN?& REPORT A STUDY OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LAND USE REGULATIONS ON THE BUSINESS OF FARMING IN MARYLAND Prepared for: MARYLAND FARM BUREAU, INC. Randallstowrk Maryland Prepared by: LEGG MASON REALTY GROUP, INC. 7 E. Redwood Street, 2nd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Januarj, t993 BRC 1008 TABLE OF CON'I~NTS Page SECT[ON ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1 I. Nature of the Problem ...................................... 1 IL The Purpose of this Study ....... i ......................... 2 -ITl. Work Undertaken by Legg Mason Realty Group, Inc ............... 3 IV. Definition of Terms ........................................ 4 V. Coxnments on Scope of the Study ............................. 5 VI. Organization of this Report .................................. 6 SECTION TWO: KEY CONCLUSIONS .................................. 7 SECTION THREE: THE BUSIlqESS OF FARldlNG ....................... 11 I. Current Nature of the Industry .............................. 11 II. Farming As Land Use ..................................... 13 HI. Farming As Business ...................................... 13 IV. Financing Agriculture ..................................... 15 V_ Farm Value and Debt ..................................... 16 VI. Conclusions ............................................. 16 SECTION FOUR: THE PROCESS OF CREATING LAND VALUE ........... 19 I. Highest and Best Use ..................................... !:9 II. The Land Development Process .............................. 20 15I. The Role of Farmland in the Development Process ............... 24 sECTIoN FIVE: ~ ROLE OF LAND VALUE IN THE BUSI2NESS OF FAP, M]NG ....................................... 26 L Capital for the Farm Business ............................... 26 11. Supporting Farmer Equity and Welfare ....................... 30 III. Conclusions ............................................. 32 -TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) P~ SECTION SlX: THE 12M2PACT OF GROWIId[ CONTROLS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND VALUF~ ......................................... 34 I. The Growth Issue ........................................ 34 I/. Techniques for Controlling Growth ........................... 37 III. Farmland Values ......................................... 41 IV. The Impact of Growth Controls on Agricultural Land Values ........ 44 APPENDIX A: BIIILIOGRAPHSf .................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEWS ....................................... B-1 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION The purpose of this initial section of the report ks to describe the background to the study undertaken by I_EGG MASON REALTY GROUP, INC. (LMRG) under contract to the Maryland Farm Bureau_ This background is important because the study itself is somewhat unusual and because one of the broad topic areas within which the study fits, establishing growth management pol/cy, tends to be highly charged and to generate strong opinions. Consequently, there is a need to place the study within the context of the interests of the Farm Bttrean and the "growth management community." L NATURE OF TI-BE PROBLEM Over the past couple of decades the citizens of the state of Maryland, their elected representatives, and their administrative leaders, have become particularly sensi6ve to environmental concerns. This heightened awareness has led to the establishment of many programs having the goat of improving the state's environmental quality. Such programs are extremely wide ranging--from testing of automobile emissions to recycling 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 envirorarrental improvement effort. Farmers have addressed environmental concerns related to agricultural activity in many different ways, including those listed below. · Utilizing "no till" cultivation; · Changing the nature and amount of herbicides and pesticides used in [arming; · Reducing the application o[ nutrients; · Adher/ng to guidelines w/th regard to grazing and feed lot practices; · Adhering to best management practices in enviromnentally sensitive areas; Parlidpating in the state's agricultural land preservation program; Adhering to local zoning and other regulations affecting disposition of and development of agricultural land. As estimated in a sm. dy prepared for the Maryland Office of Planning, the amount 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 la_nd 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 land, is generally regarded as "undeveloped." WNIe this term as applied to farmland is inaccurate, since the land is actually "developed" for farming, there is general agreement that the land ~ essentially "unimproved" (meamng that the bulk of it does not have structures on it) and that at some point in the future it could be "developed." In general, farmland is the least expensive land that can be purchased which lends itself to non-agricultural development of one sort or another. The soils are usually easy to prepare for construction, roads probably exist in the area, and, given other necessary ingredients 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 regulations 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 organizations establishing envirommental policy and enviromnental 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 land owners are concerned that limitations on their ability to sell land for development are beginning 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 iflapact very large portions of the state of MaD'land and large nnmbers of land owners. This fact is one of the more appealing with regard to the application of growth controls from the standpoint of the enviromaqental community, but the agricultural community feels that it unreasonably targets one land owner group - farmers. I][. TH~ PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY The Maryland Farm Bureau believes that the interests and the land ownership rights of the farmer are not being given appropriate consideration in the process of establishing [arid use policy 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 simply "farmers trying to get the most for their land so they can get out of farming and spend the money elsewhere." h~ point 2 ~f tact, members of the agricultural community believe, the situation is quite different_ It s their contention that there is a direct relationship between the value of asr/cultured l~nd md the futm-e xriabitig,' of Maryland's agric~tltur~ industry. The farm community believes hat agricultural land values play a more central and intricate role in the agricultural ndustry than is generally recogrtized. But farmers also know that this particular position ~as not been researched nor has it been well articulated to land use planners and ,,overnment officials. The purpose of LMRG's study is to conduct research into the elat/onship between land values and the business of farming and to determine the extent ~ which, as growth controls impact land values, they impact the v/ability of farm[ns. n essence, the study ks 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 rc. lationship of development to the value of agricultural land? To what extent do growth controls impact agricultural land values? · To what extent do growth controls impact the business of farming7 Lf agricultural land values are important to the business of farm/ng, and ff growth controls negatively affect such values, how can farmers work with policy makers to gain more equ/table consideration as land use policy is designed and implemented? rL WORK UNDERTAECEN BY LEGG MASON REALTY GROUP, INC. In carry/ng out this study, LMRG performed the following work. Discussed the assignment with officers and members o£ the Farm Bm-eau, particularly its property rights subcommittee. Discussed the assignment and various aspects of the relationship between growth controls and farming with Maryland farmers at their zu-mual convention in Ocean City. Interviewed bankers at private banking instittttions and at the region's Farm Credit Associations to establish the relationship between 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 axeas. Interviewed rea/ estate agents who sell farm land and who represent residential developments in rural and suburban area. Obtained information on the stares of Maryland's agricultural industry from the Maryland Department of Agriculture, the Maryland Farm Bureau, and various published sources such as the Census of Agr/ctdture. Obta/ned informat/on on the subJ'ect matter from the American 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 Maryland Office of Plarufing and others with regard to the relationship between various types of development regulations and the value of agricultural land. Researched the specific experience, of the Maryland Agricultural Land' Preservation Foundation with regard to purchase of development r/ghts in Maryland's agr/culmral districts. Interq/ewed 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 count/es 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. DEFINrllON OF TERMS Several terms related to fann/ng and agriculture are used throughout this report. Definitions of these ternu are set forth below. These definitions are those of LIV[RG and do. not necessarily reflect the way they .might be defined in other analyses. The terms that will be used- to most frequently in this study are farm (the physical facility) and farmer, which ,,¢ill imply ownership of the farm. A~riculture: Agriculture (the agricultural industry, agribusiness) is the industry that encompasses farnung 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 land intensive as with corn, or not, as with the raising of poulu~, 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 prestzmption 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 thc physical faci[/ty, comprised of land, buildings, fences, roads, and other improvements/investments, which accommodates the farm business ~nd the acdvity of fanmng. Farmer: The senior person/people involved in farming at any given farm_ This person/people may or may not own the farm but is the operator. A corp9ration, either owned by the farmer or by outside investors, is also considered a "farmer." The most senior 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. V. COMMENTS ON SCOPE TI-iE STUDY Farming businesses are impacted hy 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 env/ronmental 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 fawning may be similar, the scope of this work was purposely limited to the land 'use/density issue. The issue of land value tends to be related primarily to those fasming operations that involve large amounts of land; i.e., axe land intensive. While such farms account for the bulk of all land being farmed in Maryland, the number of smaller farm operations, many of which use relatively little 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 farnm. VI. ORGANIZATION OF Tills REPORT This report consists of five sections in addition to the introduction_ Section Two is the F~,recui:ive Summary in which key conclusions are presented and the principal findings upon which those conclusions are based are summar/zed. In Section Three, the business of farming is described. An overview of how land value ks created is the subject of Section Four. The role of land value in the farming industry is presented in Section Five, while growth conta-ols and their impact on agricultural land values comprise the concluding sect/on, Sect/on Six_ 6 SECTION 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 princ/pal findings derived from the research and analysis that support those conclusions. CONCLUSION ONE The value of a farm rests pr/marily in the value of the land comprLsing that farm. Farms are basically sold 'by the acreM. The value is a mix of the agriculture earnings potential, development potential, and residential use Supporting Findings The success of farrmng operations, particularly those involving the growing of crops, cma vary substantially over short periods of time. They are affected by weather, world markets, public policies, and many other factors. As a result, a farmer's business can go from tenSfic to lousy in a very short period of time. In addition to the capability of the farmer h_inuelf/herself, and h'nprovements 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 busLaess, absent the land, is mirfimal because of the highly uncertain nature of the business and the fact that it is usually highly personalized to a specific farmer/farm fatally. CONCLUSION TWO The value of real estate, espedally the land, plays an important role ha the financing of the farming business ufiliv/ng that real estate_ Supporting Findhags Most agriculmr,"d businesses take on a substantial amount of debt in the course of annual operations and many carry, mortgages. The loans that result ha that debt are made prknarily on the ability o[- the agricultural enterprise to pay interest and repay principal fi.om armual operations. Nevertheless, most financial institutions reqtfire that the loans be collateral/zed using the borrower's equity in his/her real estate. Consequently, the value of that real estate affects the willingness of the lender to make a loan and the size of that loan. CONCLUSION THREE The value of land and the ability to sell it in 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 abihty to convert that value into cash plays a role in the ability of the farm family to meet gift 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 o[ 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 retrement fund for most farm families. CONCLUSION FOUR Growth controls and various forms of development regulation affect the value of farmland, tending to lower the value relative to le~s regulated land in most Supporting Findings 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 land tends to be the lowest "product/ye use" of land (in contrast to agricultural, woodlands, and other generally *'unproductive" uses of the land.) In most in.stances the princip31 non-farm development likely to occur on the land is residential, and the lower the density o£ the permitted residential development, the lower the value of th6 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 trait 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 regmlafions directly affects only a relatively sm.qll amount of farmland acreage in a given year but all · farmland as a class and every farmer in the long mm Supporting Findings Thc number of acres of farmland that is actually taken out of production and 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 regulations has a ripple effect that/mpacts all of the state's farmland to some degree_ In add/lion, there appears to be a strong negative psychological impact on all farmers as a class, even though mos[ recognize that in any given year, for any g/yen property, the tikelShood of actually realizing the sale of land for development is m/n/mM. These two impacts tend to negatively affect the business outlook of faxmers and their willingness to stick with a business that is not easy to begin with. CONCLUSION SIX The pr/ncipal value of most farmland is related primarily to its agricultural productiv/ty. Zoning, development regulations, and other government based actions influence the non-agricultural value. Supporting Find/~gs The great bulk of all farmland does not'fall within a reasonable geographic definition of areas likely to be developed 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 buildings/fences, and so forth. Except, in certain specific and unusual instances, however, all farmland has some non-agricnlttual value. Consequently, while land use controls tending to limit development may have relatively little net impact on the value of most farms, they may have a more significant impact on the ability of a given farmer to sell all or part of the farm m any given year for the maxfinum possible value appropriate to that particular land. 9 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS Zoning and other forms of land use regulations and growth control measttres reduce a farmer's options with regard to disposition of his/her land at optimum value. This ts actually 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 farmland undertaken in connection with the Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation program support the fact that there is some development value in al/ 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 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 with regard to provision of loans are reduced, particularly 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 rednce the developability or potential development intensity of farmland can negatively affect the welfm'-e of the state's farmers as a class over the longer term and the welfare of certain specific farmers, especially those close tb developing m-eas and those needing to realize max/mum 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. 10 SECTION TITREE THE BUSINESS OF FARMING The purpose of this section of the report is to provide a brief overview oF the business of farming and to introduce the relationship between that business and the land_ CURtLENT NATUtCE OF TFiE INDUSTRY The overall size of the agricultural industry in Maryland, involving alt of the many components of agribusiness, ca.not be determined from available data_ It is known to be large, however, and includes those firms that process agriculture products as well as those involved 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=~ and a healthy agricultural industry is clear. The latter cannot exist without the former. The agriculture industry uses more land in the state of Mary[and 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 operb, tions. In fact, farmland comprises more of the state's land than all of its residential areas. As can be seen in Table l, 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 1991. 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 reflecks 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 are 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 [a~,~ns. 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. The~e kinds of operations reflect high value products of more intensive farming catering to urban markets. ll TABLE 1 NUMBER OF FARMS AND ACREAGE MARYLAND AND THE UNITED STATES 1979-1991 Maryland United States Total La~d # of # of Avg. Acres in Farms Farms" Avg. Acres Year Farms" per Fan~ ('Eh. Acres) (Th. Farms) per Farm 1979 17,000 159 2,700 2.437 428 1980 17,500 157 ~750 ~440 426 1981 18,200 ~5.4 2,800 ~440 424 1982 18.000 153 .~?S0 ~407 427 1983 18,000 ~ 50 ~700 2.379 430 1984 1 '7.B00 152 2.700 ~ [z.34 436 1985 17.500 149 2600 ~293 441 1986 17,000 147 2.500 ~250 447 1987 16.500 148 2,450 ~213 451 1988 16,000 147 2.350 ~197 453 1989 15,600 147 2,300 ~171 457 1990 15,200 148 2,250 2,140 461 1991'* 15.400 146 2,250 ~105 467 Total Land ia Fa'ms (Mil: Acres) 1,042 1.039 1. ~034 1.028 1.023 1,018 1,012 1,005 999 998 991 987 98-3 Prior to 1975 a farm was considered any place with less than 10 acres having sales of $250 or more or places of 10 acres or more with $50 of sa[es. In 1975, the farm definition became a place that sells or normally would sell $1.000 of agricultural products '"" Preliminary Source: 'Maryland. Agricultural Statistics'-1991_ 12 As can be seen in Table 7_, several counties stand out in ten'ns of agricultural production. For seven identified agricultural commodities, CarolLne County is first in three classes and sixth in another. Frederick is first in two classes and fifth in two others. Queen Anne's is second in three classes and third in another. Other high ranking counties in terms of production are Kent, Dorchester, Carroll, Washington, and Harford. It is interesting that of the five counties involved in tobacco production (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 irt, with such soils generally being much less productive for other kinds of crops, as well as the fact that these counties tend to be in the vicinity of the expanding Washington metropolitan area. IlL FAnG AS LAND USE The description of a~iculmre set forth above emphasizes the business and operational nature of the industry. The typical resident of the state of lvlaryland however, oN_eh has a very different view of "farming". With over two million 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 aud to its public officials far beyond the level of economic activity that actually occurs on the farms. As a land use, farming generates a pleasant recotlection of past times for many people. It is frequently regarded as "open space". This misnomer reflects a lack of understanding of the business 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 may conflict vAth what the farmer wants to dn with the land. Farming is a serious, large, important business in Maryland. At the same time, most of the state's citizens lmow 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 la_nd ~me. It is important that the [arm 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. ~ FARM~G AS BUSINESS Fawrning is a business. Farats 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. As 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 which is to make a profit. 13 Z 0 .-1 I.-- 0 Z ~° O0 p- I 0 While profit is the objective of the farm operation, it is also clear that many people partidpate in farming because they enjoy the lifestyle. They gain positive "psychic reward" from farming. There is no way to quantify such reward, and it is certainly no substitute for real money when it comes to having to buy the necessities of life. Likewise, farmers receive a certain "imputed income" from occupying their residences on the farm. This is recograZed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in its annual tabulation of income. In 1989 all farmers in Maryland received $152,818,000 as "imputed income and rent received" from their operations. Among other things, this indicated value by BEA illustrates the tight intertw/rfing of the personal and business lives of the farm family. IV. FINANCING 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 loans are vSewed as comsnercial loans. Consequently, even the mortgage on a farm dwelling is hkely to be regarded as a corru'nercial credit by the lending institution. This means that commercial criteria are applied to the making of such loans. Loans to farmers ~e provided by a wide range of lending institutions. The most important, however, are the Farm Credit Associations associated with the Farm Credit Bank of Baltimore mad the commercial banks located primarily in agricultural communities_ The Farm Credit Bank provide credit to fam~ Bank borrowers in the five-state region of Delaware, Maryland, Pemmylvadia, Virgin/a and West Virginia. 'Fne Bank provides 04% of all of the borrowing done by farmers in this area. The proportion is believed to be sl/ghtly higher for Maryland itself. Commercial banks provide the remainder. The Farm Credit Bank makes loans primahly through the radons agricultural credit associations having 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 and ranchers with services directly related to their on-farm operating needs; · Ov, mers of rural homes; and · Rural residents. 15 The Bank is 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 types of loans are made by banks lending to farmers. These include: Production loans to enable the farmer to plant a crop or otherwise produce products for sale, with such loans normally being secured primarily by the crop/product being produced; Mortgages on farm property including land, dwellings, farm bnildings, utility improvements, and such needed to operate the farm and enable farmer to live on it, with such loans normally being secured by the value of the land and improvement.s; Equipment loans far large pieces of farm equipment needed to plant, grow, hawest, and on-site process crops. The distribution of loans made by the Maryland Farm Credit associations is set forth in Table 3. As noted previously, most farm loans are mortgages and are regarded as commercial in nature. That means that the lender assumes that the principal way of liquidating them is through earnings gained fi-om farm activity. However, essentially all lenders require that the farm operation provide additional collateral as secmity gains possible failure of the crop or production of activity with the farm itself usually serving as that collateral. The trend has been toward slightly larger loans ms individual farm operations grow and the corporate structure becomes more common. At the same time, while maintain the requ/rement for backup collateral, criteria for making a loan have tended to focus 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 $366,788 in 1987, or $2,261 per acre. (In 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 as an expense, meaning that about 60 percent were debt free. The interest paid by those farms with debt averaged $6,892 in t987. While total debt is not indicated, assuming a 10 percent rate of interest, the average loan for farms with debt would be about $69,000, or $83,000 in inflated 1992 dollars. The average farm w/th debt, therefore, was carrying debt equal to about 19 percent of its value. 16 To O0 ~0 ¢" I.IJ c o ~ 000 oo~ oo 0 o 0 < 17 VL CONCLUSIONS Farming is a major business activity in the state of Maryland. While the indu_slaV goes through relatively severe cycles based on weather and markets, over the long term fazrr~ng as a business at the state level has grown during the past several decades. The state has over 15,000 fazms and over 2,000,000 acres of land in those farms. Farming operafiorm are financed through a relatively Jew banks that spedalize in agricultural loa_as. Over the past decade these banks have been tightening their criteria w/th regard to leading. The shift has been toward making certain that loans can be paid back out of opera6ons vice requiring the sale of real estate. At the same time, regardless of how "production oriented" a loan might be, the lender usually requkes that collateral be posted and the farm real estate is the collateral most frequently used. 18 SECTION FOUR TH~ PROCESS OF CREATING LAND VALUE The purpose of this section is to explore the process of creating land value. Given its breadth and complexity, tile subject area 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 regulations negatively impact the value of hE/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 agricultural land. Understanding how that value gets there in the first place and how it can be removed, is essential t0 exploring the impact that land use regulations have on the value of a farmer's land. HIOHE_vr AND BEST USE Ln the best of all possible worlds a given piece of land w/Il always be valued at its "highest and best use". This term has a well deft_ned technical basis, being referred to and used in essentially every appraisal. Generally accepted reasonable definitions of highest and best Thc 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 and best use of a given piece of farmland, as though available for development, it is necessary to analyze four factors: 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. Detemfination of value almost always entails lmowledge of what business activities can occux on the land from a market standpoint, as well as what the "legal" (regulatory) conditions will permit. In 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 Legally 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 probably agriculture. (Or it could be no "use" at ali when the cost of making the land productive for a~mdculture exceeds the potential return fi-om it.) The value ts then a function of agricultural productivity. But agriculture is not always the highest and best use of rural land. If that land is [ocated near a source of non-agricultural development, and particularly ff it is near a town or other urban settlement, the highest and best use could easily be non-agricultural. In these instances, the agricultural use must be mandated via the land use regulatory process, the assumption being that ff the regulations were relaxed, then the land would probably be "converted" to non-agricultmal use. In summary, those who advocate the mosi 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 envirorzment_ In Maryland, however, essentially every judsddctioa has development regtdations. 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 with 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. l/_ T~E LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The process of developing land establishes value and se~es to cause highest and best use to be achidved on a given parcel. This land development process is analyzed here from v/ewpoints--that of the broad contex~ of market and public policy, and that of the more narrowly focused development of the land by, primarily, private interests. The Role of the Market Public policy as expressed through various types of land use, development, enwironmental, 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 years ago. In the mid-1980's a market was perceived to exist in Maryland for large volumes of residential units and commercial 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 simatious both six years ago and in !.992 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_ 20 Farmland is as affected by market forces as any other type of land. However, for most farmland the principal market /5 undoubtedly that for farming, not for some other use. Most farming activity on rural land establishes the highest and best use of that land and dictates its value. It' the farmland is productive and alternative uses for the land are minimal, then its value will be a function primarily of its agricultural productivity. In instances where the land is in the vicinity of non-agricultural 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 future economic health_ If they are optimistic, then market pressures are hkefy 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 economic conditions are poor, investment /.s minimal, and growth absent. On balance, therefore, the lar~d development process is a function of these broad market forces u-anslated into investmem in private residential and commercial real estate. B. The Role of Public Policy In the State of Maryland pubhc policy w/th 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 t974, the critical area legislation of 1984, and the Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act of 1992, with their attendant regulations and procedures, along with many other state level land use program~, tend to put Maryland in the front rank of ten or so states (Florida, New Jersey, Oregon, California, and others) ia implementing strong programs regulating land use. In Maryland these programs are carried out primar/ly at the local government level, especially the county level (including Baltimore City). Maryland/5 nearly unique in that it's counties have particularly strong powers. This permits public programs to be centralLz, ed and enables them to be large enough to have real power. Operating within guidelines established by the State, most t/laG, land counties have established extensive planning and development control programs using a very wide range of implementation techniques from zoning to purchase of development rights. In essentially every Maryland jurisdiction, development is a highly orchestrated process with the government being a partner nearly every step 'along the way. While much development is permitted as a matter of right under local zoning ordinances, even that development will hkely require a number of approvals before investment in construction' occurs. 21 Consequently, government regulations dramatically influence the use that can be made of any given piece of real estate and, consequently, its developability. The Role of the Community In this instance community is defined as residents and businesses living or operating in the viduity 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 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 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 [and is a participant in the deveiopment process, whether or not he/she wants to be. In some instances the owner initiates the process of development by petitioning the local government [or a zoning change that would perrmt a certain type of development, tn 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 developing on the land owner's property. 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 affectir~g 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 lan. d, and other land generally outside of a community'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 connotation in our society. Speculators are fi'equendy regarded as people who make money without making a positive, constructive, value adding contribution to a product. Nevertheless, in most markets speculators se.we a useful role. Speculators typically const/mte 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 be developed, but it is more likely 22 to not have such approvals. Consequently, speculators frequently target farmland for their activities. The process of obtaining appropriate approvals for 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 i{ what a~akes specudation a mb/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 values in various parts ot5 the state. Of course the speculation does not have to be in connection with 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 property. 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 nnly for its present use. The vast majority of farmers do not speculate in land. Rather, they nse the land for agricultural purposes. F. The l_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 ~vert period of time and has backed up these policies by installing appropriate i~rastmcture. Typically, however, the land developer must acquire the approvals necessary to cause real estate development to occur. The gain for the land developer i~ 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 large development, however, occurs on land that has been prepared for such development by a land developer. G. Real F~tate Developer The real estate developer completes the land value generating process. The value of the land on which built projects sit is more valuable than vacant land, even when that vacant land 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/or the rent 23 stream generated by rental projec'~s as related to time. While the real estate developer is [~equently regarded negatively by those entities wanting to preserve land in its undeveloped state, the developer is probably not the principal reason land is actually built on. In most instances, good real estate developers will work only with land that has already received most of its approvals. They are not land developers or land speculators. They make their money bui/ding, not antidpating future land value increases. In this regard, the developer is Like a manufacturer; he/she "manufactures" built space on the land. Since the real estate developer causes the most visible physical changes to occus on the land, however, he/she is the most t'~requent target of those who oppose development. I-L The Bottom Line An increase in land value'i~ 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 with the least risk is that of the original la-nd owner. This assumes that the original laud 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 land preservation progran~ has served as a means of generating funds for such owners. Losses in the land development process occur primarily when anticipated furore value cannot be realized because the next higher level of development does not occur for whatever reason--market, community concerns, public approvals. While the land development business is often associated with great gains and creation of a large amount of wealth, which ks the case in some instances, 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. THE ROLE OF FARMLAND IN TI~ DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Farming is a business use of land, as is active forestry, 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 kind, farmland tends to comprise the bulk ot- the land that will ultimately be developed. It can be assumed that a number of farms are sold each year in anticipation o[ development. However, this does not mean that development occurs on all such farms in the near te~ 24 or even in the long tenn. Where the farm is large, or has special attributes, or is considered particularly strategic ~rom the standpoint of its location/v/sibility, the "loss" of that farm to non-agricultural development is fequently highly publicized a~d may create a sign/ficant negative reaction. Most such transfers, however, probably are not publicized and are considered by the involved parties as simply a normal componeni of the process of urban/subLtrban growth. In many instances farming serves as an interim use in the development business. An actual case in Frederick County follows a classic pattern. An elderly farmer/landowner sold a farm to a speculator/land developer but continued to farm the land under contract. The land developer, with the concurrence of the County, which wanted to direct development to thLs 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 thrc, aghout 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 parries involved. Probably the biggest issue with regard to creation of land value is its psychological impact on the farmer/landowner. As that class of individual controlling th~ greatest amount of potentially developable land gu the State of Maryland, the attitudes of farmer/landowners with regard to development is cr/tical. Given the ebullient development atmosphere of the 1980's, many farmers perceived the likehhood of being able to make a substantial amount of money selling their fann.s to developers. The dramatic downward shift in the marker, however, and increasingly rigorous public policies, have altered the enviro~maent for development in rural areas. Consequently, the likelihood that in any given year many farmers will be able to obtain any significant value from their land other than its agpicultm-al value is limited. Farmers tend to react as ~. class, to these matters, h0vYever. Comequently, as a class, farmers are concerned that increased regulations will diminish even further their opporrtmity to obtain non-agricultural value for their land by limiting the market supportable highest and best use of the land through intervenhon in the development 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 so. SECTION FIVE THE ROLE OF LAND VALUE IN THE BUSINESS OF FARMING Discuasioa of the merits of various growth control techniques, particularly the growth management program proposed by the governor to the Maryland General Assembly in 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 this section of the report is to evaluate that relationship. Farmers contend that they need reasonably high farmland values ha order to support the business of farming as well as to prov/de 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 regulatioua, to dictate the value of their farms. Conversely, those who support a policy of strengthening land uae 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 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 w/il be analyzed. The analysis covers the role of land value in providing capital to farms. As ,Mil 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 loans; As paid-in surplus to be extracted when necessary to support farming operations and/or the welfare of the farm operator. I_ CAPITAL FOR THE FARM BUSIJqF~S As with any business, a farm needs capital. That capital is provided in the form of eqttity invested by the farmer/farm fanfily or stockholders of the corporation and in the form of borrowed funds fi.om lending institutions. Most farms do not generate enough surplus azmual income to create a pool of funds that can be used to expand equity. Maintenance of a successful farming 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 couatitute the principal source of capital. 26 Land value is a central element in many loans used to generate a~d support the business of farming, ia [act, it is the prindpal "hard" asset, ~hat the farmer can furnish to a bank in support of a loan. Various areas in the business of farming where land value plays a role are analyzed 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 fa-m is the pr/mary residence of the farmer, however, banks providing fawm mortgages consider these loans to be commercSal in nature. This means that they assume that hquidafion 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 lending restitution will tend to make certain that the funds are used primarily for business purposes. In Maryland, about half of all farm mortgages are provided by the regional Farm Credit A~sociafiom that are part of the Farm Credit System. The composition of loam held by the Maryland Farm Credit Associations is shown in Table 3 in Section Three. In 1991, over $366 million of these loans 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 themselves. This accounts for the high participation by the farmers in the loan programs of the fa_wa credit banks. The other 50°70 or so of mortgage financing provided to the farmers in Maryland is issued by private banks, pr/madly those in rural areas catering to [ar-mers. Private bardcs compete with the Farm Credit Associations and many have established working relationships with farmers in their local area.;. Interviews with bankers at both the Farm Credit Associations and with the p~Svate banks revealed the importance of the value of land to the quality of collateral underpinnLug 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 every property 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 against 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 In a highly publicized situation that developed in the early 1980's, many mid-west farmers were unable to pay off loans on their farms and had their properties foreck)sed on by lenders. Most of the loam were supported by the agricultural value of the land. Farmland values grew steadily .in the late 1970's and into the 1980's. Then values fell precipitously. Bankers in Maryland note that thc drop in farmland values that occurred in many parts of the nation at that time was scarcely felt in Maryland. The bankers believe that this was due to the fact that the potential for development exits on much of the land in Maryland, thus supporting its value. They also observed that many Maryland farmers can generate income by having one or more family members work off the farm. The bankers indicate that they lend pr/mar/ly on market 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 land provides a cLshion, although it is perceived as a difficult value to realize if hqnidatinn is necessary. Nevertheless, the bankers indicate that perhaps 75% or so of their lo:ms are 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 serve 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, it is not possible to isolate the land factor from the farming activity. The real estate remains 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 [inked 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/Product/on Activity As indicated in Table 3, the Ma~land Farm Credit Associations, Farm Credit Bank of Baltimore as of the end of 1991 had over $197 million in shor~ term loam outstanding Most of these are product/on 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 Association xwitl not usually require that a farmer coltateralize 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 rea2izable real value in that equity. Ln fact, it is these loans that represent the biggest problem for the banks and for the farmers. The fanning business is almost completely dependent on weather - and to an Lmportant 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 most 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 rte nurnerous instances 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 homebullders developers. In such cases, while the loan is clearly one structured on the income generating merits of the funded farm activity, disposition of land' to pay off notes has saved many farmers and kept them in business. In this way all or most of the farm has been saved from possible sale for development. C~ Equipment 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, tLe 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 loan. but, as with any business debt, liquidating an unrelated 'asset 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 operatiofts. 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 might 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_ Value from the land can be realized up front with the money being used to fund operations, or, after the fact, 29 to Liquidate a loan that cammt be paid off out of operating income, or simply to reduce debt in general in order to make the business more viable. Lend/ns practices to fara~ers have become increasingly strict. A_s one b:mkcr descri,~bed it, they have moved out of the "good old boy" stage to one [inked to operating statements and btrsiness acumen. In former times the reputation of the farmer amd the value of his/her land were the principal elements underpirming the loan. Now it is the strength of the farm's operating statement and the performance of the farmer as a business-person. Even irt this current environment, however, bankers and farmers both agree that practically every bnsiness move undertaken by the farmer translates into the value of the land a~d i~ supported by the value of the land. That value includes the agricultural use value ~ well as additional development value that result~ in its total fair market value. SUPPORT12qG FARMER EQUTIYY AND WELFARJE The items covered above are relatively easy to document. The value of hind as a contr/butor to the welfare of the fammr is less documentable, but it is in this area that the farmer feels most strongly that anything that rednces land value impacts directly on his/her welfare. Common to this concern is the hct 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 faun, ~nd the level of business operation is constrained by the amount of acreage being farmed. 'Fo a fax-met, the land essentially represents the stock in the business. Different ways that' thJ. s 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. Land As "Paid-In Surplus" This has been referred to prev/ously. Bankers interviewed in connection with this study emphasized that fasmers reinvest almost everything they earn itl the farm operation in one way or another_ They w/Il buy more land, Lmprove farm buildings and infrastructure, buy bigger/better equipment. The .~'pical farm gets its operafng value primarily fi-om the quality of the farm operatio~ and thus the skills of the individual farmer. When tthis farmer leaves the scene, to be replaced by a family member or a farmer fi-om outside of the family, the only coustant in ffm equation is the value of the farm's land, buildings, and st{icE. 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 reimb~ses 50 the farmer for that paid-in surplus. Consequently the value of thc farmland serves as the farmer's savings acconnt. B. Payment Of Estate/Gift Taxes Preservation of a farm from generation to generation is made difficult by federal and state estate mad gift taxes. Thks situation arises somet/mes after the death of one spouse, but almost certainly after the death of both spouses of a senior farm farmly. At this time the rest of the family ks faced with a significant tax liability. That liab/]ity has to be paid offm cash, but the biggest ~LSSet generat/ng it is probably the farm itself. That ~nearts t_hat the farm may have to be sold, in whole or in part, to satisfy the tax liability. At a recent Maryland Fa_nm Bureau conference, it was shown how granting the development rights to a farm to a la_nd trust will sign/ficanfly lower its v~ue for estate tax valuation purposes. This is one way to avoid the high tax liability. It also illustrates a recogn/tion 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 port/on of the property. If that port/on had relatively 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 of the property. C- Providing for Retirement This particular role of land value in the farm seems to be regarded with derision by non- farmers. Yet, it is truly important. It goes back to the fact that for most farmers the value they bu/Id into their farm operation is their principal paid-in surplus. Unlike selling stock for which there is a broad market, the market for farmland is relatively small. When t/me comes to sell that property to create money on which the husband and vale farmer are going to live for the rest of their lives, they want to obtain the maximum amount possible, ff 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 thing that can happen would be for the market to be lira/ted because of constraints placed on either farming or the non-farm development of the property and for the value to be dimin/shed because of overly restrictive land use regulations. Since this is the termination of the farmer's use of the land, the business aspects are r~o longer a factor. This is the time to cash in based on past performance, and the c~h comes 31 aknost entirely from the real estate. The crops have to be created over aga-m 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 principal salable ~set. D. ~aintaining The Farm Family And Labor Being able to build houses that would be occupied by farrdly 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 d/fficult to attract and retain_ Prov/ding a residence on the farm can help keep the farm family together on the farm and working or~ 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. E. 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 approximately 60 percent of Maryland farms 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 fi. tek operation except the land once they are out of tim picture--through death, or retirement, or simply a desire to exit the business. Most current farmers purchased their farms, or inherited them, in aperiod 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 w/It be so many restrictions and limitations and conditions on it that the value will be diminished, or there will be no ready market, or both_ To these 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. HL 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 h-om 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 he mortised primarily from 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 clear 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 sharp drop in values as new laws are applied. land value is also important to the welfare o~ the farmer as an individual and the farm family. The value of the farm constitutes the farmer's principal "savings account", and the value of this accounk when liquidated, is used to support retirement, meet emcrgencic, s, and pay tares. This is a situation nearly uniqne to the farming business. Almost all other types of small, closely held business operations create paid-in surplus by increasing the value of the company's stock, good Mit, transferrable technology, and srl forth, h the case of farming, la.nd in essence constitutes the "stock" of the farmer. Farmland values in Maryland are relatively easy to m~nitor through the Agricultural I2_nd Preservation program. Appraisals undertaken in the course of this program clearly show that essentially every farm offering its deveiopment rights for sale to the Foundat/on includes a strong component of non-agricultural use value. ' Overall, for any given acre appraised in the program, the non-agricultural use value, the value of the "development rights," is rouglily 40% of the fair market value. Given the farmer's dependency on having a substantial land vMue ms a basis for maintaining the farming business and protecting the welfare of the farm family, this is a significant amount that needs to be taken into account in any public policy actiom; that might affect such values. 33 SECTION SIX TtlJE IMPACT OF GROWTH CONTROLS ON AGRICULTUtLad~ LAND VALUES In previous sections various aspects of framing, development, and land value have been analyzed. That mater/al provides a framework for assessing the impact of growth controls on agr/culmral land values. The purpose of this section is to review the broad subject of growth controls and to define the relationship between such controls, business aspects of farrmng, and the development of farms. The section concludes with an assessment of the impact that such controls have on the value of farmland. L THE GROWTH ISSUE Follow/ng the conclusion of World War II Araerica~ went on a suburbanization binge. Prior to that time, we were a nation that undertook almost all of its development w/thin dries and towns. Our rural areas were in farms and woodland or otherwise simply unused. Beginmng in the mid-1940's, however, the socio-economic nature of the Un/ted States changed dramatically. Improved economic well being, affordable and reliable automobiles, majo~ highways, more e~cient housing production technologies, a greatly expanded economic base, the post war baby boom and a generally up-beat attitude toward life and riving caused Americans to dramatically cha~ge their lifestyle objectives, their 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 "American Dream". As Americans pursued that dreanr 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 farn~ dropped significantly. At the same time, people were attracted Rom 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 efxqcient then they had been_ In what could be viewed as a natural transition, farmland not required for the production of aom4culmral products was converted to residential use that was needed to house workers in urban and suburban business establishments. .The greater efSidency of farming resulted in incre~ed competition and caused farmers located on higher value land near expanding urban m-eas to become tess competitive. The option of selling the farm for development provided a "way out" for impacted farms and effectively decreased competition for the remain/rig farms. As one analyst at the American Farm Bureau Federation has pointed out, if all farnts that had not been purchased for development were still in production, the farm economy could be a disaster. 34 This process was regarded without parti,~arly great concern by almost all parties through the Mid-l~00's. Beginning about 1970, 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 nrganizatiom and governments began to implement more rigorous oversight of development activity toward the end of trying to controt development. Farmers had been, whether willingly or unwillingly, principal players in the suburbanization of America. Much of the nation's growth occurred on agricultural land in the vicinity of nrban centers, and at some raral locations developed for recreational housing. Many farmers benefitted financially from the opportunity to sell property for development. Others benefitted because of a general increase in the value of farmland generated by the expanded market for land to be used for development. The amount of land in farms 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 ia 1974. During the decade 1959 - 1969 the amount of land in farn~s in the state dropped by about one-third. From I974 to 1987 the rate of loss slowed dramatically to a total of 237,000 acres lost, or 9 percent of tire 1974 total. The loss of [axrnland led to efforts to slow development and to channel it to areas best suited to accommodate it. in 1974, [or instance, the state of Maryland passed the State Land Use Act of I974. This established the Maryland Department of State Plamting and a state,vide critical area program, required the development of planning guidelines for the local subdivisions, 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 Agficulmral Land Preservation Foundation program to help preserve agricultural land by establishing agricultural districts and providing for state purchase of development fights. In 1984 the state established the Chesapeake Bay critical area as part of a comprehensive set of programs to restore the environmental quality .o[ 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 com_munity 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 Assembly passed the Econorrfic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act, which was signed by the Governor. These various programs 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 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 land for development. Developers, politicians, bankers, and probably other classes of 35 TABLE 4 TOTAL LAND IN FARMS STATE OF MARYLAND 1954-1987 Period C ha.qc~e Year Acres # % 1954 3,897,000 1959 3,453.000 (444,000) -11 4% 1964 3,181.000 (272.000) -7.9% 1969 2,803,000 (378,0OO) 1974 2'634,000 (169.0OO) q5.0% 1978 2,714,000 80,000 3.0% 1982 2,558,000 (158,000) -5.7% 1987 2,397.000 (161,000) Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture; compiled by Legg Ma~on ReaJty Group. Inc. people we also ,,dewed as part of the problem for their contributions to growth on the urban fringe. In point of fact, however, it may well be that none of these groups is to blame. For the most park suburban expansion has been a function of supply and dem~md w~th the typical American household creating the demand for suburban homes and a suburb~ 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 jurisdictions are instituting increasingly rigorous land use control measures. Because farmland is usually relatively easy to develop, these programs nlm 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 study to analyze how the various forms of land use regulations (growth controls) impact agricultural land values and farming operations. TECHNIQUES FOR CONqq~OI lING GROX,V'FH A wide variety of techniques are available for controlling growth. The focus in this study is on land use regulations_ One analysi~ of these techniques divides them into two broad categories -- command and control regulations and economic instruments. A_ C. ommand 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 axlother 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 or/ented toward the commercial end of thk range of uses support higher land values. Agricultural zoning is prevalent in Maryland with 20 of the state's 23 counties having enacted a zoning district for the stated purpose of preserving agricultural land or offering priority lo agricultural activities. The character of the agricultural zoning varies substantially, however, from the one dwelling unit per 50 acres permitted in Baltimore and Frederick counties to the one dwelling unit per h0_lf acre in Wicomico and Garrett counties. Consequently, agricultural zoning, per se, is too diverse to be covered by one definition. 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 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 receiving compensation for the lost value created by a change from more permissive to less permissive zoning, x, Vith regard to zoning, that course of action has generally not been successful, although the number of cases involving chis issue appears to be growing and the derisions, such as the recent one in cormection with beach property in South Carolina are tending to favor the land owner. Traditionally, however, application of the police power (zoning) to land uses does not require compensation, and in our judgment it is unl/kely that it will. B. Econon~clnstru2~en~ Another approach to land use control makes use of economic insm~ments rather than mandatory standards. The purpose economic instruments is to create monetary Lacentives so that land owners voluntarily give up their right to develop and the economic reward that might come fi-om 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_ As sho,m~ in Table 5, the prograra has been responsible for preserving over 98,500 acres of farmland in the state through I990. The state of Maryland has been a leader in using the PDR approach to preserving farndand. Most Of the suburban and rural counties have participated actively in the program and have helped to contribute to its success. The Transfer o[ Development Rights (TDR) technique is also used in various locations ha Maryland. Its record of success is less dear. Montgomery and Calve~x counties have been particularly strong proponents of TDR's and have used this technique to compensate farmers and rural land owners who permit the development fights appropriate to thek land 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 essent/ally ~e same, except that ha the TDR case the mount of development within the implementing jurisdiction does not change -- just its location. The agricultural community has been a strong supporter of the MAi. PF 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 m pursuing command 38 .~ and control regulation" of farmland feel tbat PDR programs are too expensive and do not cover enougli area to be effective. C. Comprehensive Plarm/ng plannihg itself is an excellent technique for guiding growth. Plans serve as statements of public policy, and dfizens will typically abide by the resultant public policy. This occurs because the pt:ms are frequently followed by implementation techniques, usually of the "command and control" type, but plans also direct infi-astructure, 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 roots in the political process, citizens have a say in the derivation of the plan. Infrastructure l~xtensious lnh-astmcture 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 infrastructure is being used to guide development. Linkages between th~ availability of infrastructure and permitted development, frequently wrapped into "adequate facilities" ordinances, are bcgirming to fall into the command and control category of regulating development. Nevertheless, the rationale for lin-king development to public inf:rnstrucmre is clear and tends to be reaSonably well accepted by most parties. The problem fi-om the standpoint of those desiring to restrict growth is that some development can occur without additions to public infrastructure. Septic systems 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 Haydcn of Baltimore County in the Perry Hall area. E_ Summary As Ma:ryland 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 developmep, t activity. It is clear from the pattern, of development occurring in those counties with low density agricultural zoning, that there are fewer opportunities for profitable development ia those areas and that the pace of such development has declined. 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 jurisdictions with less restrictive rural zoning. 40 The use of economic instruments to limit growth in rural areas has been very successful in Maryland, especially the PDR program. TDR's, while less widespread and somewhat less successful, have still made their mark on the pattern of developtuent in Montgomery and Calvert counties. Comprehensive planning has been successful in creating an agreed-upon envirommem 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 inkages between the extension of infrastructure and growth have increased and are now a major component of growth management poli~y. For the most park the infrastructure issue has had a minimal impact on farmland, most of which falls outside o[ development envelopes intended to guide infrastructure extensions. [n the best of all possible worlds, communities plan for their growth through the comprehensive plam~ing process, extend the infrastructure to the agricultural areas in an orchestrated manner, and generate controlled conversion of farmland to development. ITL F~ 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 with 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 SLx is to look at typical farmland values as a component of determirting the impact that land use reg~flations might have on such values. Several caveats govern the value of land held in fasrrm. 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 growing seasons in a row, can substantially depress the value of farmland. Likewise, strong growing seasons can raise farmland values. Farmland values vary considerably in different pans of the state depending on the quality of soils, the existence of an agricultural infrastructure in that area, the types of crops grovm, and proximity to developing areas. 41 It is nearly impossible to isolate a "pure farmland value" in a fair market value appraisal because essentially every acre of farmland has an alternative use that is potentially a more valuable use than agriculture. Farmland value is closely momtored in the state of Maryland primarily because of the extensive program of development easement purchases adntinistered by the Maryland Agri,mlture Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF). Before buying an easement, the suite obtains appraisals on the property. As the system currently works, 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 wflue is calculated by the State and subtracted from the fair market valne. Lq 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 summary of the use-value of Maryland farmland based on rents that farmers had to pay at the time of a study cooducted in 1991. The resultant use-value shows that the a~n'cultural use value of farmland in Maryland varies from $927.00 an acre on the high side (Kent County) to $307.00 at the iow 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 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 52,480 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 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 easement as calculated by the appraisers, it can be seen that, in fact, the value of the development easemeut 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 ia the range of $850 to 51,000 per acre. Lq 1989 the calculated value was $l,426 and in cycle two of 1990 it rose to $I,866. For the lile of the program the value of the development rights has averaged 51,105 per acre. 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. This "extra value" 42 TABLE 6 CALCULATED RENTS AND USE-VALUE OF FARMLAND, BY COUNTY THE STATE OF MARYLAND Calculated Use-Value Rent 7% cap r~e Allegany $22 $307. Anne Arundel $30 $433 Baltimore $36 $508 Calvert $27 $381 Can'oll $37 $536. Caroline $60 $855 Cecil $51 $730 Charles $39 $557 Dorchester $34 $489 Frededck $37 $524 Garrett $27 $.386 Hafford $44 $625 Howard $40 $567 Kent $65 $927 Montgome~, $39 $561 Prince George's $.33 $465 Queen Anne's $57 $809 St. Mary's $44 $625 Somerset $36. $517 Talbot $56. $79B Washington $40. $572 Wicomico $53 $750 Worcester $52_ $741 Source: University of Maryland Study of Farmland Use-Value has tended to come do,an in recent years as a result of les:; interest by outsiders in purchasing land [or farms as well as somewhat reduced interest by those spectdafing on future nonagr/cultural use value. It is also possible that [tnposition of more stringent land use and enviromnental controls in agricultural areas has impacted values. Maryland Department of Agriculture data provides a long term perspective on agriculture values. Its I99I statistical book provides data on farm real estate values. These data awe surnmarized in Table 7. The average value per acre of land and buildings in Maryland farms has remained fairly constant in a range of $2,000 - $2,500 [or the last 10 years. On a constant dollar basis, which would reflect Lnflationary 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 cormtant -- between roughly $5.0 billion to $6.0 billion, and the average value of a farm operating unit has tended to remain iq the range of $300,000 to 5360,000 over this 10 year period. These data show that there has been relatively little increase in the value of farm real estate in 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. IV_ THE I'M2PACT OF GROWTH CON'[~OLS ON AGRICULTLFR.AL [_AND VAEUES Growth controls constitute a mechanism for directing development to various parts 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 bnilding permits, ex/st in the area. A_ Value of Devel~)pable Land It is a generally understood fact that the value of land is a direct function of the type and mount of development that can occur on that land. Land that can be developed for commercial purposes and for higher density residential is almost universally worth more per acre titan land that can only be used for Iow density residential uses. Consequently, zoning or other control measures that restrict the use of land to iow dep_qity residential is likely to restrict the ability of that land to increase in value. Per aci-e values of developable land in typical Maryland metropolitan and rural locations arc set forth in Table 8. These data were derived from the experience and records ['rom Legg Mason Realty Group Appraisal Services Division and reflect the observatior~s of the appraisers who work in the division. Several points can be derived [rom the table. First, 44 TABLE 7 FARI~I REAL ESTATE VALUES MARYLAND 1983-1992 Tdtal Value Value of Land & B_ uildincjs__ ~ Farm Avg. VaJue Tot~l Avg. Dwellings i:~er Operating [Mili!on~ Per Acre (Millions) Unit 19~ $.5,727 $2.121 $1,151 1984 $6,038 $2,236 $1,244 1985 $.5,711 $~J79 $i,319 1986 $5,057 $2,023 $1,32_5 1987 $4,92I $2.009 $1.3~ 1988 -$5.313 $2,261 $1.504 1989 .$.5,66.3 $2.462 $1,557 1990 $5,445 $2`420 $1.391 1991 $4,941 $2,196 $1.211 1992 $5,073 $2.255 $1,258 $318 100 $G39 190 $326 34~ $297 446 $298 238 $3G2 0~4 $362 987 $3-58 $320 844 $329 411 Source: 'Maryland A§dcultural TABLE 8 PER ACRE VALUES OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IN TYPICAL MARYLAND METROPOLITAN AND RURAL LOCATIONS 1 992 Yalue per Acre Use M~ropolitan Rural Industrial $100,000 4- $50,000 Commercial (mixed) $200,000 $100,000 Residential (20 U/A) $75,000 $2_5,000 Residential (t 0 U/A) $60,000 $20,000 ResidentiaJ (5 ti/A) .$50,0OO Residential (2 U/A) .$30,000 $15,000 Residential (1 U/A) $20,000 $10,000 Residential (1 U/SA) $10,0oO $5.000 Residential (1 U/20A) $7,500 $2,50O Residential (1 U/50A) $7,500 Agriculture (100 A crop farm) $7,500 $2,500 (U indicates number of un,s, A indicates number of acres) Note: These values were estimates under the following assumptions: - Residential uses are physically raw, unrecorded land. Lax]d is buiidable for the indicated use. Publie sewer and water a~e available for all uses except residential with a density of 1 unit per 2 acres or [ess, in which case sewer and water would be on-site. The land is or can be zoned for the indicated use with no problems The land is currently not buitt upon. - Two location scenarios: a metropolitan county 03aJtimore, Anne Arunde[, Pdnce Georcje's, etc...) and a ru~'al coumy (Kent, St_ Mew's, Dorchester, otc_..) 'R~e development sites are in 'suburban" locations in each instance. This is near but not in 'u~anized" areas. Leg9 Mason Realty Group, Inc.-Appraisal Services Division. 46 land in metropolitan areas is worth more than land in rural areas [or the sa. me use. Second, the value of land that can be devetoped for a rcsidential density greater than one mst per 20 acres ~s roughly the saute as the per acre value of agricultural land capable of supporting ~ 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 frozen by the low der~ity zoning. B. Development Values as Reflected in MALPF data Maryland's agriculture land preservation program provides an excellent overview of development values in rural areas. In essentially every part of the state, no matter how rural, the appraisers working on the program have fomad that some potential development ks possible at some reasonable time in the future. Farming s/reply does not support the highest value of the lax~d. It is mathematically possible to demonstrate how higher density resident/al development or commercial development increases the value of the land on which that development occurs. This assumes that the resultant development product ~ marketable at market rates. These values are always higher than the agricultural use value. C. Alsricultural Zoning ;md Land Values lm 1990 the firm Resource Management C0multants, Inc. (RMCD of Washington, D.C. was retained by the Maryland Office of Plamfing to study'the relationship between agricultural zoning and the value of farmland. RMC1 presented its report, 'Whe Effects of Agricultural Zoning on the Value of Farmland,~ in February, I991_. A major conclusion of that report was that the analysis of agricultural zoning showed "no evidence of decreases in l~nd value ns a result of dowazoaing over a period of 15 years." This was uot 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." [n our judgment ~at study did not tel1 "the whole story." The study focused on four co.unties, ail in either the Baltimore or Washington metropolitan area, in which agricultural zoning was introduced in the late ~970's and early 1980's. A review of th/s report reveals, to our thinking, that the data axe not conclusive. [n Carroll County, where agricultural zoning has been 'kn place for a while, the average sa!e price per acre has steadily declined since agricultural zoning was introduced. In three of the four counties analyzed, the number of transactions (sales per year) as revealed through RMC]['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. And it is interesting that Montgomery County has one of the most effective programs for compensating farmers for transferrable (levelopment rights. In the other counties, the 47 volmme' of tramactiom tended to &op about 50 percent from the pre-agricultural zoning In its conclu~iom, thc RMCI study notes l~at flee "ability to repay (a farm Ion.a) is the key m a E:uandal i~fit~tion's m.lei~ a loan to a farmer." This conclnsion is eou~a'med by LIv~RG's researcl~ Plcwever, the ~imation is not alvmya as clear as is implied by that ~a~iag. In those instauc~ where the ~billty to repay is margiml, ~e value of ~e ~ and in liquidity, can resul~ in a go or no go de.ion by the lender The value can also be important ~bere ihe borrower p!a~s to use the ~ to facilitate modest development of The study, notes that lenders provide loa~s as a percent et' air market value. While ttte · percent loan varies with ~e i~timdon and the fm'me.r's ability to p~y, ~e f:~ m~'ket v~lue ptovldes the underlying basis of the loam Since the raarke~ for the land is a function of its potential use, re~trlcting the potcnrlal use ~xegafively affects fait racket vzlues. 'I;he examples used in the RMCI smd)' axe cmunties i~ metropoLitazt areas. 'Fac e~rm:g real e~tate maxket~ of the late 1980'~ affected these coteries the mo~t al~P.g with some "suburbanizing" co'antics like Q~eea Azme'S. Th~s~ coteries us'amity do not appeax on the ~ o~ major agrieulmrul production coteries. The farming that doe~ exist in ma~y of them is impacted bt' the expa~sion of the urban areas and many of the ovtnet~ arc as interested ia their prope~es as rarat reMder~ces as for ~xicultural production. The c~ops raised on many of these farms age Of the laigher value, more Lnteasiveiy farmed type, ~uch as tobacco and vagetable& Throughout t~e period covered by the RMCI study it would appear that the land value incxea~e~ in the fo~ target cotmti~--~, to the cxtem that ~D' occurred at ill, certainly did not parallel ~e &~fic inerease ia land walucs ia gene,'al, including counties without su~ zoning Wtteu inflation is talceu i~to account, farmland values in three of the four counties dearly went dow~ after iatrucluctioa of the zoning. Tren~ in agricultural ~ sale ~aia~s in constxnt t987 flnllars for Maryland and the four counties reported on the RMCI study are ~et forth below in Table ~. Land values in two o£ the counties. Bahimore and Carroll, appear clearly Iower after the introcluetioa of the ag~cohural zoz~iaFr Ia Montgomep] County ~e values ~e generally lower, especiflly when ~ompared with a high :1.979 figure, ~ch was p~obabty run ap/n aufidpa~on of the inm~ductio~ of zoning. Only in Aame AnmdeI C~unty have paces, on ~ co.tent dollar basis, risen steadily since ~e introdu~on of the zOning. 14:04 410-9~'~-6871 N~ Ft~q~'l ~L~EAU P.~'~ ~5 TkSLE 9 TRENDS iN AGRICULTURAL LAND SALE VALUES IN COHSTANT 1987 DOLLARS MARYLAND Al, ID SELECTED COUNTIES 1974-1 9~:JO Yea~ Mm,/lana co~a~/ ~ -- c.,ou~y Cou.~y_ 1976 1978 ~.osO M~ ~.1~ (4~ (1) 1:20(1 u~per2~c'ms),agdc,..a~z.o,-~g enac"ted~1981 (4) {5) 1'.~ ~ict~oxa~ ~ ~ed in 1~ ~4.,019 (5) . :~3,:312 In ~zumary, it is nE, ye and ram c~tmt~r ~o all ~d w~ ~ ~ ~d ~ c~ol, ~ power ~d ~[opme~ ~6om for ~ ~ ~ d ~at ~d ~ ~ re~d ~ pete~ n~e ~om for ~e ~ ~ ~o ~e~ ~t tach a zo~g h~ an ~a ~Ui~ of ~c ~ to The followiug public.t/om ~e[e con.mired in mnnection w/th the preparal/o~ of this study. Maxyland Agricultural Land Prmerv~tioaFoundstimh'AnnualRepbrt [or Fmc-al Y~ar 199I," M,a~land Department of Agdcultm~. frhe annual repom for 1D8'2-1991 were abe Cornetll lJniversity DeirarUnet~ of Agricultm'al E~ouomics, "Irfformation for Evalu/ting Lamt Retention Programs: the Agricultural D/striet Apprvach." Nelson L Bills and Richard axtd Bo/svert. July 1988. l_egg ~ Realty Crronl~, lac., ~A Catalog of Growth Management T,~chniques,' prepsxed for the Governors Commixqion on Gm,,~h/r, the Chesapeake Ba)' Watershed, December 1989. Thomas L. Daniels, 'The Pur~ase of Development Rights: Preserving A.~icultnral. Land Open Space,' A.PA Journal, A. ulunm 1991. Dana E He/beig, '"/'he Reality, of TDP.,' Urban Land. Dec. tuber 1991_ . Orlaudo E. Delogu, 'F. nvimameutal Regulations *nd [ ~d L[~¢ Co tn~zlh? Kamas Law volume 34. Maryland ~a~/on of County ptanni~g OfficiaLs, test/mob{/before the Joint Committee on Growth Management: presentation on the protection of scn.sh/ve Izads, et'whet 1, 1~91, Metropolitan Wa~hiugton Coundt of Governmeats, _~gctrc. p~I/~a~ Growth Opt/o~s - 1989' (~taff draft), luly 28, 1989. David J. Br0wer et al, "Managing Development in Small Towns,' Fla.uners ~ Ameriam Rural Open Space Zoning oa Property V'aluo~ in the Neu, Uuiv~rfiry, August, 1988. The Chesapeake Bay C~idcal Area ConU-m~ion, 'The Prusl~cis and Problen~ of Economic Instruments as C~aplcmanta to thc Chesapeake Bay Critical Arc~ Proof'an," A~..~ 1987. "Preparation of' I990 Land Ug/V,~.ud Cowr Maps and ARC/kdo Digital Datab~a~,' F:tual report, prepared by D:dt Mc-Omc-Walker [ua aud submitted to the Maryland Maryland DeparUnent of Agrlculvare, Maryland Agricultural Statistics, sunnn~'ies for 1990 and 1991. Bttreaa of thc Censu_% 1987 Census of Agriculture, Maryl~ad State and County dam- "Thc Effects of Agzicultutal Z~oJng on the Value of F~" prepared by Resource Man~§emeut Cou.valtants Inc. ~ncl submktcd to Mallard Office of Plandng, Febnm~ 22, 199I. Maryland O~c~ of Planning, 'A Syriop~ Of Agricultural Zoning ~n Maryland." November, 1991. Stephea $,,stna. 'Doe~ L~md-Usc Regulation Protect ~o~ V~u~?". Vol~ 20, Number 3, f~l ~. R~ph E ~, "Me~opo~ ~,. F~;-g ~ ~e Ci~s S~,' ~A 5o~ ~ 1989. Maryland Department o[ State Plannin~ ~mcl Use or Able?," December 5, 1985. "Farmen and Grc.,vth Msaaagcme~ A Planning Commdrum," Watershed, Vohune ~, Number 1. M.s~-Iand Office of PIanrd. u~ 'Ma~l~ad'$ Land, 19'23-1990, A Ch}-Siag Resottrce,' Pablkation W. Pan~ek Beamn et at, ~"he Cost of Regulations, Volume 2, A Baseiine Stu~ for the Chesapeake B~ Critical Ar~a," Angug 1988. Anderson, Terry L, "A Little Perest~o~.a at Home. Private Ownership of Land and Water,' presentation to the American Faa'fa Bureau, ~anua~ 7-8. I991. Farm Credit Bank of Baltimore, Report of Management. February. 18, 1991. un Use-V.I,m Appr'ais~ of Farmlm~l i. lv~-yl~nd, prc'~red by Un~ex'sity of Department of A~culturc ~ltd Resource ~.conomics and sttbr-lt~d ~:o thc DeI~X-~acnt of A~ricultttre, Fcbrm~/1990.. addition to reviewing the show public.ions' and ,,~ng m~ri~ from mos~ of thc'm, .,,mero~s nc~l~ artides rel.d.~ to them to ~'owth manz~¢ment~ ~cr ¢~nccn~ ~B/19/28t~3 14:04 410-922-~871 MD FA~ Bi. AU p~_ 11 ~IX B ]F. arl Armlng~, l~cSideI~, O~cbard ~clopmnt CompS. Co~b[~ ~d J. Ro~ ~ F~ Rc~esen~v~ ~e~e Naflo~ B~ ~e~le, M~d Hc~ B~ Vice ~csida~ ~c Peoples B~ of ~l~ Dcnto~ M~d ~d ~ B~ ~esidem C~ M~d F~ Cte~t ~a ~ F~er, M~d F~m B~e~ ~or Mr H~d ~e ~, PmMdenq C~ B. Taylor ~ O~ ~, ~laad T~ Fro4 B~o~ Mg~m F= B~eau Fedem~oa ' J~ H~nn. SeMor E~ao~ ~fi~ F~ B~u Fcd~afion ~e K~ Pr~de~ ~r~ D~elopmem Co~ PUBLIC COMMENT ON DGEISISCIS CLERK'S OFFICE~ SOUTHOLD TOWN MEMORANDUM TO BE INCLUDED IN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TO: SOUTHOLD TOWN SUPERVISOR JOSHUA HORTON RECI: ED MEMBERS OF THE TOWN BOARD MEMBERS OF THE MO~ATOmUM PLANNING TEAM FROM: SOUTHOLD TOWN AGmCULTU~L ADVISORY BOA~ $~ ~ 4 ~ ~ BOB VANBOURGONDIEN, CHAIR DATE: JULY 22, 2003 ~: oRAr~ at~Emc tNVmOSMENXAL ~MPnCT S~AXEMENT, ~fiold ~o~ Cirri SOUXaOLO COMPaEStSSWE I~PLEMESTAT~OS SXRA~EG~ General Comment: The Southold Town Agricultural Advisor' Board (appointed by Southold Town Board) respectfully refers the Town and its consultants to the following comments on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. 1. F.A.I.R. (Foster Agriculture, Investment in guaranteed preservation and Responsible growth) We request that this Growth Management Plan for a Rural Southold ~witlen by John Nichols, President Southold Business Alliance, be included and seriously reviewed in the DGEIS, as there are many applications favorable to agriculture. Cop)' 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 from the Community Preservation Fund. (fund extends until 2020 and generates approximately $3 mil/year · Southold To~n will never apply for another grant for preservation · Suffolk CountS's 30 year old farmland preservation program (PDR) will cease to exist, and the County' will never again purchase development rights. · Peconic Land Trust terminates all farmland preservation pro,ams · Nature Conservancy terminates all farmland preservation programs · Ne~ York State terminates all farmland preservation programs · The Federal Government terminates all funding contributed toward farmland preservation · [here will never again be a churitable gift of land easements · Southold Community facilities (schools, churches, fire departments, parks, water utilities, etc.) will never expand · Ever~ landowner in Sonthold Town will develop their property' 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 document. · a reasonable no-action build-out sceoario ' · a no-action build-out scenario be included using the Town's last 5 year 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 2000-200l Farmland Protection Strategy and the Blue Ribbon CommiUee Report. 4. Southold Town Ag Advisor)' Board respectfully requests the (COP) Conservation Opportunity Subdivision plan be enhanced and codified. F.A.I.R. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR A RURAL SOUTHOLD (Foster Agriculture, Investment in guaranteed preserx, ation & Responsible gro~xh) 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 Toxvn 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 econom, ic benefit to induce permanent 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 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" ora 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 xvill actually discourage preservation, discourage agriculture and accelerate development! Zoning does not preserve land permanently! Up-zoning and Do,va-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 tbrever 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.LR. 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 Noah 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 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 tbr landowners to choose preservation. 2. Recognize that restrictive zoning and burdensome regulations have impacts upon the business of agriculture and business in general. 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 Town and using scenic overlay districts to prevent 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. 4. 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 xvetland and wasteland properties that are already environmentally protected and not developable - a bad investment. If a 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 Town. The RGRL should be derived both by the average new house permits over a 1 O-year bull/bear market cycle (to be thir 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 inflll 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 inflll parcels until October 1~t of each calendar year. Implement policies that reflect the goals of the 'gown. 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 I acre lots are not mandatory), compatibility of tract density and design with adjacent properties. EXEMPTIONS TO RESPONSIBLE GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS: 1. 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. 4. 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 To~vn 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 affordability 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 priority 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 within this most valuable district. The estimated cost per household is $516 per year for 30-year bonds. Priority tbr 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 density there is an impetus to tN' 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 lando~vner or developer would choose an option that seeks the maximum economic benefit in the shortest amount 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 why 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 )'ears 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 inactMty and activity of new-construction in bull and bear markets or by what is determined to be sustainable tbr our community. 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.LR. !!! It shows respect for the property rights of every SouthoM 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 landowners or developers will try to meet or exceed the long-te~n goals of the Town of Southold or risk being passed by another who will. To put it more simply.., as demand rises because ora 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! PUBLIC COMMENT ON DGEI~/SCIS 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~ct~ 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. Neither faction has moved one inch toward the other and the time for compromise is long past. PLEASE3implement the suggestions ~ in Mr. Miller's .... letter ~2 let's Donna~-J6nes Gra~,~ Southold get on with it! 765-1217 cur~etau3 -' $4o,0( · · ,ma~ . fe~ ~at it~ ~eate an c~nomc. ~)~f:,'~y ~Ot't'l~ase~,t~e ~ge~opment n ~ifi rights ~ tKe~f~ers'f6ffa'specifie ~ ~ Caime~meCsuch as 10 ye~s,'at a dis- i~' ~hted' 5Aftet~ih~:sp~eifi~d timeRame a.nth& t0~:coglO pm~h~e th~grbpe~ty re:based oh::~C:~u~cff~alue.~ith' this: v~ c system of [~ragin~2communitY- ~ol-. ~:a sma~,.p~'~ag0tBf the[cost;for the 5 P~ch~'of devel?meat rights and,: ~Wopld.be[tied t&~' m~nd/t~'.that the ' farmer maint~i t~prBp~rty as a ~working' fa[m~I~¢turn~e.t ownm~ ¢ Would-agree to*:moratonum on zon- '"'J},,a~:", ;:,~ ~';'~:,." ': .. , ',' ..: _. ~.. ~,.~.._.~..~ ......... ,, . S ...... ,.r.~., ~ ...~.. ,, Neville, Elizabeth From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Scopaz, Valerie Friday, July 18, 2003 1:15 PM Neville, Elizabeth 'McGreeveyl~aol.com'; Horton, Joshua FW: DGEIS RECEIVED 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 the 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 %uthold Town ClerJ 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 "The 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 Mattituck/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. ! 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 Southold Conceptual Vision does not include the 10th hamlet, Fishers Island. It would be more complete to list this hamlet as well 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 After close of PH 7/1603- Moratorium Group Distribution of Public Comments Received from 7/16/03 to 7/26/03: Upon receipt comments will be distributed in house to: TB, TA, V. Scopaz, M. Terry, Melissa Spiro, at the end oftbe comment period, packets will be send to everyone else. //47 Doris McGreevey e-mail ESSEKS, HEFTeR & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT Law P. O. Box 279 I~IVERHEAD, N.Y. I~901-0279 (63I) 3~9-1700 July 21, 2003 WATER MILL OFFICE ~ONTAUK HIGHWAY P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Town Board Jlrown Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Soutbold, NY 11971 Re: Draft Generic Impact Statement Hearings_ 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. I enclose a memorandum of my comments presented at the Draft Generic Impact Statement ("DGEIS") Hearing. I ask that it be made a part of the DGEIS record. Separately, I enclose a list of the property owners who bave authorized me to state that our office represents them in opposing the proposed 5 acre rezoning sought to be reviewed in the DGEIS. Very truly yours, William W. Esseks /mi Enclosures FARMERS - DGEIS 6/| 9/03 1, ISSUE: A dominant purpose of the DGE1S and of the proposal to re-zone fire AC and R- 80 Districts to 5-acre zoning with a mandatory 80% cluster and the owners' ability only to use for uon-farming purposes 20% of the property is to guaranty to tile public views across the farmers' property." By the TOWn Board adopting by local law zoning changes to !mplement the 80%/60% goal, it will establish and perpetuate a perceived public benefit to those people who will have permanent views across farmlands 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 the public, the public in a reciprocal fashion, must bear the burden of paying for that benefit to be enjoyed by the general public. ls that constitutional principle being respected in the 80/60 alternatives? The Town Board bas certain choices as to bow the Town can acquire this view easement across our clients' property for the benefit of the public, i.e.,: 1. Paying for it through negotiation and purchase with the owners of the farmland 2. Paying for it through condemnation 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 heariug, 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 cmnpensation therefore to be determined by a Court. The farmers intend to. fight this "taking" of all non-agricultural use of 80% of their land mid the zoning yield reduction in every way that is available to them: 1. at the ballot box 2. by protests pursuant to Town Law 3. mid a notice of claim against the Town and pursuing a claim for dmnages as a result of an abuse of the SEQRA process and a denial of tire constitutional tight to equal protection, in which event if the farmers are successful, tim taxpayers, all of them, will be required to pay for the costs of the litigation and any damages that are proven. 2. SEQRA: The DGEIS, we submit, does not include a meaningful analysis of the effects of: 1. The alternative of a condemnation or purchase of'an easement over 80% the farmers' pt'opetty. If the Town Board aud the voters want to acquire mi easement over 80% of each farnmr's property, they should consider paying for it. Those alternatives have not been reviewed, i.e., purchase or condemnation of an agricultural easement. 2. The alternative to establish a farm district or scenic improvement district whereby monies would be raised fi-om those properties in the Town benefited by the perpetual views over the farmers' property, which views the Town Board is apparently attempting to acquire. This tax burden could be directly paid for by taxes upon the benefited properties whose lots, vacant and unimproved, would increase in value as a result of the 80% easement, and therefore, more parties should have to pay for that benefit. 3. The effect of the requirement for (i) 80% open space and (ii) 5-acre lot minimum upon tile voluntary sale of development rights. Tile existing program is successful. What effect will there be upon this successful progrmu that has lead to the retiremant of thousands of acres by voluotary sale of the proposed requitemeut of 80% open space and a minimum of 5~acre lots. 4. Moviug value off tile farmers' property - by requiring 80% op~en space - mid the resultant increase io value ia nearby properties, especially those bordering on farmland whose properties will thereby increase in value. What effect will that have on tile ability of those people who live in those homes to pay iocreased taxes caused by the transfer of wealth from tile farmers' property to the neighboring properties. 5. What will be the effect on the future of,be farming industry as a result of the change in zoning to require a minimum of 5-acre lots mid require 80% open space in a clustered subdivision? Is it goi,~g to keep people in farlning or drive them out of farming? 6. What will be the effects of prohibiting the farmers from putting greenhouses along toad frontage7 Who wins7 Cml the farmer choose where lie builds his greenhouse, fences or barns, or where lie parks his equipment7 Will the farmers win or do the Town residents who want to look across the farm win7 Is the Town the best choice to tell the farmers how to farm and manage their property? 7. Is there a futu,e for fa,miog where the Tow,1 takes away the economic benefits of owning land? A usual expectation is that la,id will - over 10-20 years - increase in value. Will the farmers' 80% open space be the only land in the Town not to increase in value7 Not to increase at the same rate? Why should they be treated differently from other lands? 8. The change of these thousands of acres from AC and R-gO to a one-unit pet 5-acre density mid the additional reduction by the limitation of 20% for development will diminish the potential for future housing units thereby necessarily increasing the value of the existing lots mid houses. This, in the experience of Southampton and East Hampton, will result in dramatic increases in the costs of the housing stock and attract people with higher incomes and with the passage of time, remove from the community the middle class who are our small business owners, clerks, school teachers, town employees mid make it even more difficult for the service/trade people to be able to live in the Southold community. I do not find an examination of the consecluences of the decrease m the potential nutnber of housing units and the resultant change in the pattern of who will be able to live in Southold al~d who will be forced to leave Southold, and the conclusions derived ther6fote must be made available in this DGE1S process. 9. An examihation of the likelihood and effects that the actions o~f this Town Board, in proposiag 5-acre zotting and the 80% open spaces, will result in petitions pursuant to Article 2 of the Village Law to establish ooe or ,note new villages within the Town, a remedy that irate propert, y owners in Southampton are now completing mid which they show can be effected. William Lindsay Jr 2695 Cox Neck Road . Mattituck, NY Y 11952-0280 Robert Samolewski 7800 Alvahs Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935-10[4 Mill Creek Preserve 60875 Private Road Southold, NY t 1971 More Realty Management Corp Cutchogue, NY 11935 Schmitt Bros Realty 36 Crestwood Blvd Farntingdale, NY 11735 Ernest Schneider ~enhouse 7645 Alvah~ Lane' Cutchoguei NY I [935-1054 CJ Van Bourgoudlen Inc.. PO.Bo×2 ~ f Peconlc+ NY 11958-0002 Robert Schreibet Oallcry 6175 Oregon Road Cutchogue, NY ! 1935 McCarthy Managetuent 46520 Route 48 Southol& NY 11971 Felix Deerkoski Grand Avenue Mattituck, NY 11952 Northeast Nursery. PO BoX I 158 Cntchogue, NY 11935-0874 Olto Keil Florist ' 4615 New Stfffbik AY Mattimck, NY 11952 Capt. H.W. Drum 2615 E. Mill Road Mattltuck, NY 11952 North Fork Nursery Herrick Lane - PO Box 645 Jatuesport, NY 11947 Howard Wolbert PO Box 280 Mattituck, NY 11952-0280 Wickham Fruit Fartu C/o Tom Wickham PO Box 928 Cutchogue, NY 11935-0928 Laurel Greenhouses pqBgx 1442; .~ .-..~,., ,~dwa~d C. Booth t 7235 $oundvlew .Avent~ SoUthold, NY 11971 Kmpski Farm. Albe8 Krupski St'. 38030 RoUte 25 Peconlc, NY 11958-1500 Jay Guild 36400 County Road 48 Peconic, NY 11958-1~2~9: Martin Sidor .2010 Oregon Rqad. ~ .. Mauituck, fly e,.jf A.dQ. ttarbes Farm C/o Ed I-larbcs Ill PO Box 1524 Matiituck, NY 11952-1511 Bedell North Fork LLC 36625 Main Road Cutchogne, NY 11935-1357 John C. Tuthill 3310 Elijahs Lane MaRttuck, NY 11952-2405 Landcrafl Environmentnls 1200 E Mill Road Mattituck, NY 11952 pindar Vineyards Main Road - Rt 25 PO Box 332 Peconic, NY 11958 Briareliff Sod 43635 Rt 25 Peconic, NY 11958 Leander ~31over Jr. Glover Perennials LLC pO Box 1587 Mattituck, NY 11952-090377 Steve Doroski Nursery Inc. North Road Southold, NY 11971 Half Hollow Nursery 624 Deer Park Road Dix Hills, NY and Laurel Lane & Main Road Laurel, NY 11948 Mary Kirwin RR I, Box 4955 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Lew Edson/Santa Christmas Tree Farm 30105 Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Lieb Cellars PO Box 907 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Mudd Vineyards Ltd C/o Steve Mudd 39695 Cry Road 48 Southold, NY 11971-5002 N&J Norman Keil 38A Fifty Acre Road St. James, NY 11780 Pinewood Prennials Gardens Main Road PO Box 915 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Doug Cooper Farms PO Box 16 Mattituck, NY 11952-0016 RECEIVED JUL 1 § 2OO3 Southold Town Clerj .qOQ OLP S JP V!$OL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPRFJ-~NSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEOY GEN'ERIC ENVIRONMENTAL ][~VIPACT STATEML:HWT SCOPING SEgSION JANUARY 29,2003 PRESENT: Supervisor Joshua Y. Herren, Councilman William D. Moore, Councilman Craig A. Richter, Councilman John M. Romanelli, Councilman Thomas H. Wickham, Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Attorney C~regoty A. Yakaboski. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Good Evcoing and welcome ~o the commencement of the Senplng Session for the SEQRA document. B~ore we commence, would you please dso and join with me in the Pledge to the Flag. [ appree/ate you all coming out tonight, we will co~uuenco, sitting befor~ mo ia Palrick Cleary and Ckick Voorh/s. Both of who are m~mbers of thc Town's moratorium plain'ring gxo~p and I will mm the m~tin8 over to the botk of them md they will explain the SEQRA process, the purpose of ton/ght's Scoping Session and when there hss bea~ appropriat~ and dear direction from both Chick and Patriolq I will open the floor for public comment. There are a number of ti~ople in the room tonight, I would ask if we make an effort to keep our cogunents to somewha'e in the ne/ghbur hood of $ minutes. So with that being said, welcome Patrick and Chick. CHICK VOORHIS: Thank you and good evening. My name is Chick Voorhis as Iosh ssid. I am a member of the team and we are here tonight to assist the Town Board in conducting a seeping session for the purpose of determining the content of a draft genetic environmental impact statement. Of course, we will seek to conduct the meeting in an orderly fashion. We do have a sign up sheet that the Town Clerk has asked that you use so that you can be identified. The purpose of this meeting is that the Town Board is cm-rently involved with consideration of implementation orphaning tools that have been identified in past land use studies. These have been inventoried end Patrick will speak a little bit about that be~anse that is essentially what constitul~s thc proposed project that the Board is considering. So just in terms of overview, any Board that takes an action is responsible Io consider the environmental consequences of that action. This is required trader state law known as the State Environmental Quality Review Act, also known as SEQRA. It essentially requires that the Board take a hard look at the action that they may improve on, grant or implement. One of the best ways to do this is to use a draft generic environmental impact statement. A draft GEIS is a document 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 corament on the specific content of what the Board is contemplating. And we have included a graphic board; the one to your far right, that specifically outlines the State Environmenlai Quality Review Act process. The first 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 impoxtant actions back on January 7, at which time they detenmned themselves to be the lead agettcy in review of this action, Patrick will speak about that, end they reqmred the preparataon of a drai~ genetic environmental impact statement. This evenings meeting has been advertised in at least two local newspapers during twO consecutive weeks at least 15 days prior to tonights meeting. I JUL. 15. 2003 9:22AM $OUTNOLD SUPERVISORS NO. 422 : 2.,'28 1/29/03 2 GElS Seopiag Session should point out that ~:oping is optional but the Board felt that it was important to get the communities input with regard to tiaa scope of the envinmmeatal impact statement. There are a number of ways that the ,scope has been made ava/labia, after ]enuary 7 it was available here in Town Hall, it was placed in several local l~nuies, it was available on the Town web site and it was mailed sad circulated to all of the agencies thai may ul~naiely be involved with furore dec, ions that affect.land ,,se in the Town of Southold, as well as any parties of interest that were on record at that time. Now, seeping, which we are conducting tonight, is essentially defined as the process by which the lead agency or the agency which oversees the project identifies the potentially significant adverse enviwamental hripacts related to be action. And these are the items that would be addressed in the draft generic EIS. So, I hope that you have been able to look at the seeping document that has been prepared, it goes into the requirements of the State Envi~omuental Quality Review Act and we will seek to gain your input on that tonight. With that, Patrick is going to speak about a couple of items pertaining to the lead agency role and the proposed action specifically. PATRICK CLEARY: Lead agency is the term that Chick has used ~onigh~, it is a te~'m that describes the body that is nmning ~ process. In this case, the Town Board has designated itself to serve iu that capacity. The Town Board will make certain critical decisions a.s we move through this process but the/r job is ~ffect/vely to dr/ye this bus, w make sure thai th/s process hms according to the regulations. The lead agency will ado]pi the information that you bring to us tomght in this scope, will decide its content, the lead agency will deternfine the sul~ability of this impact statement when it is prepared and will the lead agency ~ltimately will produce (ivauaible) findings and make decisions about the actions. The act/on is really what we want to talk about tonight, one of thc many thin~s that we want to talk about tonight, it revolves around the act/on. The action in this case is somewhat unusual, typically the action is a project. It is a subdivision, a commercial building; in th/s case, the action is 20 years worth of planning efforts that the Town has worked on. The scoping document that many of you have before you tonight list those stud/es and they go back to 1982 and we are talking about 18 different smd/es that have been produced by the Town over those years. Now of those studies there have been a number or' ideas, recommendations, there have been po]ides, there have been goals and objectives set forth. Our action in this generic environmental impact statement is to put all of those Wgether in a single package, see how they /ntegrate and to make decisions on bringing those actions forward, implementing those actions. This table that you probably can't see in front o£you up there, but what that table do~ is list from all those stndies the things that should be done. The various tools, techniques, poi/des, objective goals, all of those things articulated in different languages, spelled out in different ways are identified on that board and they range from a couple of categories there, what we call planning proces~ zoning and zen/nE code issues, education and enforcement issues, capital improvement issues, direct town management issues, and issues of sor~ of interoa§ancy coordination, and inter-agency initiatives. Now there is a range of these actions and as I said earlier, the language used in describing these are a little bit diff~ent. Some of them are old and some of them are relatively new. Some et' them are well accepted and some are controversial. It is o~r effort this evening in ga/ninE your input in to how we create effectively the table of contents for this exercise and Chick will talk about that in a secol~d and if you sort of get involved with us and we hope we are &etung a hook into you tonight, if you are interested in this proce~.~ to get you to participate with us in this process because the process is at its ba~e, a very public process. And ~,is action that we are describing tonight, the nalure of the input we are seelang from this tonight, will come back to you ove~ the course o£ exercise and you will be asked for your input again and again. I th/ok what I would like to do know is JUL, 2003 :23AM SOUTHOL ) SUPErVISOrS 422 P. 1/29/03 3 GElS Sa)ping Session have Ch/ok go through the scoping document and effectively the draft gmeri¢ environment~d impact statement content, MR. VOORI-IIS: The Rr~ section involves the proposed project and Patrick has iud/cared what that constitutes and idani/fie$ here~ the Town has had a number of polls, that th~,y have (inaudil01e) and put it to ~he t~st o£how they envision Southold to look and th/s has been through many lu/mini.~tration$ ~nd many studies and those goals are reflected on thc second page of the scoping outline, so that is essentially the proposexl action. The EIb consist~ of the existh~ environmental conditions and since this is a town-wide initiativ~ it is ~oin~ to affect many areas of the to~'n, thc town environmental study will be broadly defined. (Inaud~le) entire studies that inventoD' the Town and there have been a number of new efforts that we are very pleased to have been able to take place, with the ass/stance of pls~nlng staff and the Town Board ~uidance, such as wetlands mapping, mapping of (inaudible) slope areas, and assembling the Town's GIb data base into a w~y usable forts. Upgrading a lot of it that ha~ alrendy been collected and essentially making it workable for the purpose of describing the Town's environraent for the environmental setting section. So there will be some ver~ useful tools coming out as a result of that that will be portrayed both ~raphically ~nd in text form. One of' the pfima~ sections is to take lbat proposed action and look at the cuvimraneutal consequences of it. How it will affect the Town, how it will affect the land use and the dec/s/on malting aspects of the Town and ~ section will look at all of the waious resources, geology, water resources, ecological ~esou~ces, b:ansponatio~ air resource~ land use owning and plans, d~mography of the town or population aspects, community services and var/ous jurisdictions. The Town's infrasuuctor~ community character, cultural resources which may include archeological distortions such as (inaudible) and visual r~ourcos, economic and fiscal conditions and conservation (inaudible) and these all will be evaluated in terms of each of the proposal /nitiaQye~. Additional sections will be protruded including cumulative impacts and (inaudible) whether these are pr/mary impacts or secondary impacts and in some cases, long hnpacts. Each of these will be reviewed to determine if there are miQgation measures thai are appropriate ~o incorporate or review as part of the process. And then there are a couple of other r~quired sec~ona, we ~re really §att/nd into all of the more interesting topics of conversation and that is, are there alternatives that the Town could look at in ord~ to achieve the l~oals or perhaps no action at all. And that would essentially be to allow the Town to cont/uue on thc co~e that it is currently in. We have identified some framework for coasideraQon of alternslivas and we have certainly seeking input to that extent tomght. So we are very near the time when we would be looking for public comments, as the Supervisor has indicated, we are very interested i~ hearing those comments, please come ~p to the S/~,~ up sheet, put },our name on record, ~se the microphones at tl~e lwo podiums and present your commenis, ~'peak clearly a~ld slowly so iha~ you car~ be undcr~tood. After the conclusion o/' tonight's meeting, there will be a period of time for additional written comments bu! we will be beginnin/~ to synthesize those commentS, review them and there will be a transcript in the future (inaudible) and utilize that to revise the scope and issue a final scope that the Town Board will ultimately adopt. I will just point out tha~ i£an issue has been covered there is no need to repeat i~ that we will make notations with regard to that comment. ~o, in closing, the introduction here tonight there has been no 15nat decision, the Town Board ~|timately md~es the final decision, this is the beginnin$ of the process, the SEQP,.A process; there will be al~ official public bearing on the Environmental Impact Statement (inaudible) prepared based on the scope thai you will be commeutiug o~ toai~h~ and that is what wc wmtted to express to you, to try and frame ou~ how the meeting is intended to be conducted. So with that, I think the Supervisor would like to have the public express their comments to the Board and we will be here to clarif}'issues at the Supervisor's direction. JUL. 1~. 1/29/03 GEI~ S~ping Session SOUTHOLD SUPERVISORS 4 NO. 422 P 4/28 ~ CI'.RtRY: I would like to add a point, the way that we ire going to organize this tonight so that it /s as useful and olea~ to us as possible, if yon would like to break down your commit into three groups: the first is ff you could ask your comments on the project desciipt/on; the second group is to comment on those impact areas that Chick described in some detail sod finally we ask you to comment on alter~t/ves, so you may return to thc pod/urn three different times to offer comments so that way we are able to keep our thoughts relatively clear through the process. And agaila we are not seeking substantive comment on the plan, we are seeking your input on what becomes son of the table of contents of th/s smd)' that will continue for a number of months down the road, The firSt area will be commcnis on tho project description. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you, gentlemen. So essentially, in a couple of short scmences, the purpose of this meeting is to introduce new ideas, alteamatives to the seeping or to the SEQRA process that the Town has not incorporated thus far. So at that point, I will offer the floor to members of the publio and I think what wc will do is put this down at thc podium. Would somebody care to address the Town Board7 Bas/tally, we want the name ired address as a matter of record so we know who has participated. STEPHEN MUDD: I would like to ask for clarification fi.om thc Town Board as to which classifioation of zoning that we are talking about possible zone change that this eavironmcotal impact study has been put on. We have attended a lot of meetings and I don't have it clear in my mind as to the delineation of what zoning that you are t~l~r~g about cen~ideration of a change of zone. And I don't know if you have gotten to that level or is that still up for finalization but I would like to, if possible, get clarification on that. COUNCILMAN ROMANBLLI: I would like clarification on that, too because I would l/kc to get us ~o a further discussion of zoning but as thc two consultants have said, wc are looking for input on this meeting of other alternatives. That is what we are h~re for. All alternatives. MIL MUDD: So as it stands right now, it is a town wide consideratton foz anything that is... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLh From the way they explained it to mc, anything goes. MR. VOORHIS: We have conducted a very detailed review of the 20-year history of studies. Patrick mentioned approximately 18 studio. So what was in those st'tidies is essentially what is on the table for the Board to consider to implement. There were a couple of areas that involved change of zones but that is certainly not the exclusive focus of tiffs project, it goes beyond that looking at economic development plans, affordable housing initiatives and many avenues of techniques to make the Town a better place. The several specific areas that did involve zone changes that come to mind are ones that the Town has considered in the past, five acre zone and thai has been reflected in severai reports and so that is part of the consideration. The Town has also considexed through reports, adoption of in ordinance that would allow to plan zoning districts and this would create a planning tool that is being used not only on Long Island but throughout the country to look at incentives for vano,,s types of mixed usc and appropriate uses in the contemplated, for certarn areas of thc Town. And there were some areas that had also been identified where looking at the AC zoned lands and the R.-80 zoned lands to make sure that they were in the appropriate locations for what they are int~mded to do based on JUL. 15. 200.1 9:24AM SOLJ'rHO{.O SUPERVISORS '~0. ,~22 : ~,?o 1/29/03 5 GEIS Seeping Session the legislative intent of those zoning districts. Those were a couple of the areas, again, what I will call a matrix in the middle on the board which you are welcome to go up and take a look at, spelled o~t each of the (inauth'ble) that are boing considered under this plan, you may want to take a look at that for areas that involve zoning changes. So effectively, how this works now, if your concern was the five-acre upzoning, it is in thc ~n_~lysis. It is in the mix to be explored, studied and evaluated, if you think it should be a ten-acre upzoning, let's .say, a SO-acre upzoninff, you should tell us that that should be considered as an alternative and the Board will consider that as oue of the alternatives to an action that is already effectively on the table, that being the five-acre upzorgng, which is something that camo out of a previous report. So that is how this system will wink. This is an action, it is described as the stuff that the Town has already done and your job tonight is to say that 'you have got it all, you have covexed all the bases' or you missed them, 'I really think you shoullt do more ox less or different'. That is what we are talking about in terms of eltcmattves. MR.. MUDD: If at some point in time, I would ass~e that through the input and everybody's focus on this that there will be clarification of what zoning would be couside~ed based, again, on this five- acre potential zone change. Are you going to start over a,t that point and do a new Environmental Impact Study on those particular zones because what you have done, everything is on the table for discussion, I understand that, bat if it gets defined dorm to ccrt~/.u types of zones wouldn't you have to do a diff~ent Enviromllental Impact Study based on the zonings that are going to be considered for inclusion at that point. MR. VOORHIS: What will happen throughout th/s process is that we will move ~om a fa/dy local appxoach tl-mmghout evaluation to findings wh~e the Board makes some judgments. So there is a draft environmental impact statement, there are public hearings associated with that, during those public hearings you sre able to say if we should refine, change, modify or reduce in s/ze or enlarge in size. The Board will take those into consideration as commcnt~ and pwvide answers to that dining the public environmental impact statement, so the nature of the beast is that these ideas will gain focus as we move through the process. If there is no focus at the end of the day and there is no conclusion and the Board says 'I am not sure, you are absolutely fight' 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 where and that is their finding, then they would have to re-visit this if they chose to up-zone and do SEQRA again, if they chose to up-zone a particulm parcel of land. MR. MUDD: Thank-you. A point of information, the 18 studies that previously have been made... MR. VOORHIS: Actually there were 20. MR. MUDD: 20 are they (inaudible) SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? JOSEPH LIZEWSKI: The fact that these studies are being used is very interesting to me simply because they are studies and they really should be put in the right perspective. The fact is that they were studies and they were not passed on by the Town Board's at that time, reflect that the people at that time didn't feel that there was enoagh merit in some of those studies to adopt them. And I think thai you have to realize that some of these points that you may be pickiag out of these studies actually JdL. 15,2003 ~:24^M $OL~THOED SUPE~¥ISORS NO. 42; F 6/2~ 1/29/03 6 GElS Scoping Session · toppled Town goveramants at that time because of the conixoversy of, or some of the plarmin~ that was done hi those Town studies. So ! ~ that you should statt to reflac~ ou really what is there and not on the studies that are there because those studies were not passed or were not all adopted for a reason. And if they were all good studies, you wouldn't be here right now, correct? $o taking those studies and taking those studies apart seems E_~e a very, very backwards way of looking at the future, simply -.because peoplc have already made a judgmem. That is like saying all of the governments before us didn't know what they were doing. All these studies were wonderful and they all wer~ no good because they didn't pass on these studies, now we are going to reopen these studies and we are going to look at them at a different time an-d a different place ~ud not xeali~e the reasons for these studies not being adopted. There is a reason why those studies weren't adopted, there is a reason why chose studies weren't adopted and the governments at the time either wisely oF m~wiseiy may have decided not to adopt them so I think you should look at the legality of what was put in place and not so much of what the studies represent. If you are going to do that kind of th. lng, it is a funny thin~ t~t when you are looking at government, we always looked at govemmant in, if you are sitting on the Town Board people come to you and say, you lmow in East Hampton they just passed this wonderful, regulatory l~w. We are behind, we need that over here, about six mouths later we would go to Southampton and then finally it would sta~ to work its way into our agendas. When it comes to this whole study, when y~u look at Esst Hampton a~d tho way that it is going with its upzoning and be problems that it has and Southampton, it should be very easy fcr you to start to realize the direction that your stodies are talcing you because it has alxeady been done and the problem.s that they have, we are going to have over here. So I think that the studies should be looked at in a much different light than what is reality and find out what are the legal thin~ that we have really done and what did we really put on the book.s, not just the atudies that were done. I mean, study after study al~er study always gets done but the ~xuth of the matter is, when the study is not adopted it means that the people that sit on that ben, ch at that time are not happy with that study. So when you are looking at all these ~aldies, there is a reason why you have 20 studies and not everything was adopted. So I think that you have to look at the negative side of this, not just the positive side and realize that there are an awful lot of thin~ and a lot of issues that came to bear and you are taking it out of context at this time becaus~ they were done y~ars ago. And rome of those studies were r~ally not big studies, they were just a meeting in this hall like the /ones study and it was presented for a very short pcu-iod of time and it was gone. So, when you are looking at this stuff ~ ~ that yo~ should realize that these studies haven't bee~ implemented for a very good reason. BILL ESSEXS: My name is Bill Essexs, I am an attorney from Riverhead, I represent several fa~w~ers who are present and several who aren't here, They are ]and-owners in the Town, '~hey arc interested in this proceeding and ! understand that I am going to have several ol0portunitjes to speak tonight because you are going to have different topics and the first one somebody said was a project but I think it also falls under the definition of the doscnption of the action. My first comment deals with that because 1 do not believe ~hat what you are doing is an action under SEQRA. If I am correct on that, you are investing time and a lot of money in a project that is not yet a project and you should see whether I am right Or whether your advisors, if they are giving you this advice, are eo~eet. The Envitoumentul Conservation Law has regulations adopted pursua,at to it and six-I hate to speak in shorthand but where I am making a record-but 6 NYCRR section 617.2b defines what an action is and in your resohilion~ Town Board resolution of January 7. 2003 which I think started this and caused us to be here toniv, ht, there i~ a descfiotion of the action and then they list 20 different t*roieets or studies done in the past. the first one is 19~2 and tho last one is 2002. Exattlir~tn~ those matters is not a SEQRA aetioo. A JUL, 15.200~ 9:25^M SOUTHOLD SUPERV!SORS N0.422 : 7./2S 1129/03 7 GEIS $coping Session positive a_~!~,.~.~ w]~ch you have ~ fl~ ~ o~v ~e ~ m ~ of ~ ~on ~ m a~on ~s defi~ ~ ~c S~ ~d~ ~d ~ one clo~ to ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~li~ · e a~ to a ~ ~ of ~ de~. ~t ~ mt w~t is ~en~ ~. S~ay ~u may d~de ~t you w~t W ~opt a ~ ~w or ~ ~ ~e or ~ ~y nmb~ of ~ ~ s~fic. Buy a new To~ H~, ~ p~o~el, ~o~ s~, chmge m~ of ~ m~afions, ~ ~ ~y n~ber of~n~ ~at ~u c~ do ~at ~ ac6o~ ~d mayM you ~e ~g a~ut ~se ~ but ~ ~e not p~ of what you me doing today ~d if~e ~m~t~e ofwh~ ~u ~e do~g md how ~u ~ g~g ~ple ~volved ~d how you ~ pu~g people at risk for w~t · ey ~ is ~e ~ md ~eir econ~cs is som~ ~at ~u shovld g~ a~ on ~d re~e~ly r~est on beMffof my cli~ts ~at ~u g~ a wd~ op~on ~m ~ a~omeys, ~l or re~ ~sel, on ~s v~ issue. Be~c I ~ gong to ~ve ~ o~on to ~u ~d bdi~e ~at ~e op~ ~ I ~ ~g wi~ bo a ~t ~on ~d I ~n't w~ W wm~ my ~e on ~ b~ I ~ ~ do it but I ~ go~ W ~e ~ ~d ~ ~ gong W p~ me ~d we ~ ~ ha~ ~st~ a lot of~e ~ it may be ~at ~s shoed not be a SEQ~ ~pi~ se~o~ ~s maybe thi~ ~d you ~l s~ ~ SEQ~ ~ ~e ~e wh~ ~u h~e ~ ~fion ~ ~u o~t to I ~i~ ~at you have ~e h~ ~d ~e ~e ~d ~e ~ ~ ~e ~ng dir~on. I ',~t to touch on one o~ ~ng fi~t now b~ we get ~W ~e next p~ of what I ~ ~ ho ~ ext~ive dis~siou. ~ ~t ~ ~ ~e of~e ~i~ of~ ~at I m~ ~o ~et ov~ ~e l~t we~ ~ w~ ~me ~s~ ~ s~ ~ ~ff~ e~n~ics is not ~o~ ~u now, ~ is not ~o~ ~ bef~o ~% ~ ~ th~ ~ a ~ offs ~e ~ 68 New York ~nd ~ eooaomies'tme~y~ ¥ ' doing at the end a free shot. And don't waste the taxpayers money and your time if in fact, I am conect and your cor~sultants are incorrect on that. You must take i~to accotmt the economic .cons~q.~,~e-..$ of what you are proposing to do because those economic consequenoes ar~ not only economic but they show up in who is ~oin~ to live here. Now~ that par~ and who is goin~ to leave and ,what thc real e~tate taxes are ,~oin~ to be and so on? but I think that is part of another part of this evening and I will get to that. $o, my first two statements are: you shouldn't be doing this now, please get legal advice in writing on the subject and I will maybe we will cross on that and then respond but you should put that to rest, I think you owe it to the taxpayers to put that to re~t, yon owe it to everybody, I think. And the other issue on this proceziure issue is that you have to take economics into accouter and there are a lot of cases on the subject, there are treatises on the subject and I ~,:a willing to share those with your counsel and your consuRant$. And I expect and hope that I get the opportunity to speak on the alternatives and also on the impacts because I think that if you are going to go ahead, over my objection, I want a list of what the impacts ate so they can be discussed. Thank-you. AYTUG UNALDI: My name is Aytug Unaldi. I would like to start with quoting from President Bush fi.om his speech last night. "Oui- third goal is ta promote energy independence for our country whtle dramatically improving the enviro~'xrnent. I have (inaudible') comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology and to produce more energy at JUL. ~5. 200~ 9:25^M SOU'rHOL~ SUPERVISORS ~0. 422 ?'. 9,"2~. 1/29/03 GElS Seeping Session home. I have scut you clear skies legislation that mandates a 70% cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. I urge you to test these measures fur the good of both our enviromnant and our economy, c-yen more I ask you to take a crucial step and protect our environment in ways that geuerations before us could not have imagined. In this centmy the ~reatest cuvimnmental l~ogress will come about stat Q~ough endless lawsuits or command and control v~,ulations but through technology and-innovation." And I am grateful to hear that from our President, that is a sign of a changing world and the world is not going to be the same from now on, Being here, we have our vision of energy proration, economy and income gme~ation, we are here to providc solutions for those titles. Energy, locally produced, clean, renewable and efficient, that is what we look for in energy. Protection, we need to protect our global environment, wc need to protect the world that we live in, we necd to protect our farmland, we need t~ protect our soils and aqui£er and we need to protect our health. Economy, in th~ existing economical situation of Southold Town, affordable housing is an issue and synergetic community living is kind of lacirin,~ and local production, to lo~als, local farm production is not going di~ctly to locals and locals can not benefit ~om thc f~rm protection but we are having a produce which is pm~ hi California or Florida and with conventional methods, with a~ificial fc~ili~ers. For income generation, we have energy production fioro produce, food procossh~ tourism income, homeopathic medicin% stayizlg hca]thy and fit and local arts and crafts in mind. So we would like to propose a project for covering all of these at once. It is a sol,r, organic, community farm. It ia a farm corrunurdty, it is affonlable, it is clean, it is protecting farmland and it is protecting soil and aquifer, protecting our health, saving energy and water, c£eating and l~ue~atmg its own energy, generating income, utilizing renewable energy resources, being self- sufficient, activating clean tourism, ~ucatln~ society, forming a global ~xample, supportiz~ local a~ts, artists and crafis, creating synergy by community living, developing social relations, activafinff local economy and promoting ow town. This is an organic farm, it is just a sketch, if we consider this page, it is about 90 acre piece of land a~d it is, thc occupied place part of the land is 15% or 20% in this page and it is possible to build affordable, it is possible to farm organic, it is possible to activate the c~mmtmity, th~ group of p~ople with some income generating measures or let's say a hall, or a sports center, an activity center, an organic food rcstaurant, a ~ra~ center, an artist guild, some (inaudible) for people to meet and talk and it can be done by using all solar and renewable wind powers. It can save us watcr, it can collect water, it can re-Use thc used water, it can clean itsehe up and it can do farming organically in a clean way, so that kids can walk in th~ t'am~, riel being afzaid of the pesticides being used there. This is an idea, I don't know what you think about lhat. We can work on it, it needs to be worked on. We spent some time on it but it is not sufficient, of course, and it needs to be put on the table and designed, we need land for an example project-like 100 acre land, that we oan convert to solar, organic farm comll~unity. That was the first point, I have two more. I have a solar house project as well, to decrease the pollution and to supply the energy efficiency. It is a pass,ye and active solar heating, it is passive and active cooling, it retains the teroperature-arnbient temperature, produces its own el¢¢txicity, it saves at Ica.St 90% of' its own energy needs. It generates minimal waste, it collects and saves water, (inaudible), complies with and exceeds code requirements, forms an example for social education and broadcasts the data on the intemet for people to learn what is happening in a solar house, how can it save that touch? As an example to that, 1 brought with roe a town hoUse complex, built in 19Si in Massachusetts and it's saving 9~% ofita auxiliary heat needs. I can ~ive you you would like. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes, if you would Ir, ave that with the geotleman up froro for the record. 200? 9:26AM $OU~HOLD SUNRVISORS N0.422 P, 9/28 1/29103 9 GElS Seeping Session MP.. UNALDI: It was possible in 1958, it is poss~'ole today and with the existing information and technologies we have, we can do better th~ that. It just ncecls some curiosity and some support to implement. And the Univcxsity, SUNY Farmingdale, Professor Datarty is very much intereaed in build/ag and spon.~ing such a project. He is reedy to do the project and calculations, through me., he told me to convey this message to you as well. The Department of ~olar Energy is supporting our request for a solar home project, we just nc'cd to request from ~ And the third is a solar powered garage and workshop. It is a simple two-car garage, which can produce in 20 years let's put it that way, it saves us 163,000 pounds of carbon d/oxide, I,100 sulfur dioxide, 420 pounds of nitrogen oxide., it produces 150,000 kilowatts of electricity, which is worth $20,000. And with the thcratal collectors, it produces 35,000,000 btu's per year. Th/s is a tiny project, it is not resident/al, it is not honied, it is a space which can be located in the backyard and it is vc~y cost effective and efficient project in terms of usin~ clean c~er~. And if anyone is interest-,d in the details, I can Supply you with the details et'this project, sswelL Thank-youve~much. (Solar Townhouseinfonnationavalla'oleinfile) SUPIiRVISOR HORTON: Supervisor $ohneiderman is here from East Hampton, he is here to announce that the fcn'y .... JAY gCHNEIDERMAN, EAST HAMPTON SUPERVISOR: It is good to be here. Good evening, Town Board members, Supervisor Honon. Actually, I had a little bit of t~ouble finding Town Hall in tho snow in pa~icular, I stopped at the firehouse and I guess a lot of the firemen are involved with the snow removal, and they wore out front trod they said it is right before Herren Avenue, so I think it is ve~-y nice. that they hav~ named a strut af~ you, ;ush, the/have~x't done that for me yet in East Hampton. Actually, not on/y am I the Supervisor in the Town of Bast Hampton, I ara also the Chairmen of the East End Supervisors and Mayors Association. Ail of the towns arc grappling with similar issues. We are all thinking about our future and ~ying W figure out what to do in light of' incredible development pressures over the last few years. In a conversation with Supervisor Honorg we were talldng casually about thc upzoning that thc Town is considering and I was talking a little bit about East Hampton's experience with upzoning, which thc gentleman who spoke before mentioned some of the problems. I was reading through, and I am not familiar with the legislation that you are proposing, I take it it is a moratorium over large sections of land, as you study what thc proper zoning of the land should be hut as I look. ed at the intent here, water supply, agricultural lands, open space, recreation space, rural character, natural resource and transportation, 1 thought I would commont on some of those things. Because sometimes you don't get exactly what you think and there axe some benefits to upzoning, in East Hampton upzoning largely came out of the 208 Study, which Dr. Koppelman conducted. And it was to protect ground water and there was a belief that at five-acre zoning and even less in Dr. Kopplemaus report, il would bring the nitrate levels down to a point where you could protect your ground water. So it is important to figure eat what the purpose of that upzoning is. Now, as I go through this, in terms of water supply-that might be perfectly valid but at the same time, this is a heavy agricultural area and I know evet3~body wants to presente your agriculture and agriculture is water depend, it is also, and I support the efforts for organic farming but agriculture as an industry can't always be organic. So thexe ts a lot of nitrogen, there are often agxi-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 aquifer here or will you have to reach out possibly into the Pine Barrens or oth¢~ a~eas and if the main goal is water protection, you really need to think about whether that is really going to be the dominant reason, if that is going to hold out for you. I am going to get in a moment to another impact on agriculture that is not entirely positive Open J~1.15.2005 9:2§AM SOUTHOLD SUPERVISORS 1129/03 10 (}EIS Seeping Session space presea~ion, it is a tool for opm spao~ preservation but it tends, in East Hampton we have carved up our landscape. We have chopped it up into these five-sere blocks so instead of preserving la, ge, contiguous blocks of open space we leaded to segment it. So as an environmental tool, it also has its down sidet~ It forces everybody to use their ca~ because you have ~ot th~ bi~ gnaw, els that at~n't near auythi~ so cvei~rbod¥ has to ~t i~o their cars~ so you have ¥ou~ mms~oz~ation issues, it has. an economic impact, which I will discuss in a second, urn. But from the environmental prospective, I prefer a model that you identif~ the large areas that you want to preserve and then you concentrate your deasiW where it should go rather than just carving up your landscape. Recreation, if you mean recreation in terms of playing fields, I think you have got to ideati~ where those playing fields are going to be because what wc find with five-ac~e zonin~ You end ui~ with very bi~ homcs~ not the kind that tho average pert, on can afford~ so you end up with the mansians and the mansions seem in mv exoeri~ace seem to be v~'v vocal against ~lavin~ fields anywhere near th~n because there is ~oin~ to be a lot a noise and you knowt w~ have an incrcasil~ Lafino po~0ulation and it seems to raise a lot of flags for people~ so our efforts lately to provide for pla]/in~ fields has b~ca met with vet)' staunch and wcl]-~ded opposition. ]~nd character~ you have to d~fino what rural character is because to me rural ,chatanter is the community~ the people aa well aa the ~avironmeat. What has happened in my. co~m~mity is bt' upzoain~ evar~ we have taken away' all the lots that wofl~in] people can And with ~ a lot of p~ple have let~ the town and a tot of these big houses ar~ become summc~ homest because workin~ poe. pie can't buy thegn so they ~d up being summer uomes ann mose~ summer homes demand servtce~ People have to take care of those homes ~nd those people have to live somcwh~e. So either they are living in basen~ents~ we actual/y haven't had thc dmsity reduction~ ~ reduction we hoped for becau.~ we end up with all these people that now have to sor~ce those he,es or p~ople commu0n~ into the area because the]t can'l live there. And what has hapl~eoed in my town, is the price has gone up so high that tho bottom of the .housing market is now $400,000. That is the bottom, $400,000. That means that you need basically a familt' income of around $200,000 to buy a home. 98% of the workiz~ ]people, based on the 2000 census figures ate ~niced out of the housin~ market, That is serious. B~:auso wc can't get nurses to live ~ the community, we can't ~et teachers, town empIo}rccs~ thin~s are umavelin~ and we can't tel)lace these people and they can't l~ve in the community. And what does that say to a community? What is that impact wKen your kids school teseher~ they can't run into them at the pizza parlor at ni~? What~d o~ co:rnmil~mant does that teacher have when thc,/can't live in the commv.uit~. And it is I~cttin~ worse and worse in that direction. I would say every we~k~ a YOung person comes to me and tells me that ~ey are leavin~ town and there is really no ho~. ~nose who have house, some of them arc staving and some of them are cashi~ out. They can't believe the prices that they are 8ettin~ for their homes They are ~i~oving to North Carolina or Florida, places where there are more opportunities and those homes then become summer homos, those summer homes dcmm]d more services and you end up witl~ this domino effect, ,w, here it eets worse ancO, ~orse. So, what appears as a good environmental initiative, may not actually be that. In tenus of the transportation, as you bring your density down you beheve that you are changing your transportation, but once again if you make everything go outside our your hamlet centers, ~erybody needs a car~ every member of the family ueeds a car, you have all these additional vehicle trips and then Jf the working people can't live in the commumty, they are commuting heel( and forth and the people that are living there are riving 20 to a house because that is the only way they can afford to li~e is by splitting the rent 20 ways, you end up with more people than you thought you were going to have so it really, you really have to s~udy these things. [ guess I ara really here to say, don't make thc same mistake we've made. Ut~z~nirte can be a valuable tool but look at it comDrehcnsiv~ly. Don't do it without figuring out the affordable housing componeax, figure out- JUL. 15, 2003 9:27AM SOUTHOD SUPEqVISORS 1/29/03 11 GEIS Scoping Session maybe transfer some of your density into your hamlet ce~crs, figure out a~-as where dcveiopmem can occur. Because ff you don't, you are going to find that it is vexy hard to cortect the~e things. You will find thai it is hard to pass your school budgets because it is mote and mote a summc~ community because working people can't live there. You will find all these impacts that you had no idea tha~ you were going to face ~ud now, I am try/ng to face shat. We have brought in some really good planners g'ho have donc affordable housing in Nantucket, in Aspen, Colorado and other affluent communities and we arc trying to find these ~olutioos but we are working at a disadvantage because most o£the land has boca carved up. So just think about it carefully and ! will answer any questions. There may be some good merit to it but do it comprehensively. COUNCILMAN ROMANBLLI: Do you have in East Hampton, clustering with your upzoning to five acres? SUPERVISOR $CHNBIDERMAN: Yes. COUNCILMAN P..OMANELLI: You did. Do you think the town would have been better offtoday, if they d~dn't upzune? SUPERVISOR SCI-IITEIDBRMAN: I think the town needed to do affordable housing, 20 years ago. Keal affordable housing. So I think that a certain amount of ugzoning would have made sense but I think that it is a shamc that so many of the small lots have been taken away. B~causc tho~e wcte the Io~ that wofldng people can afford and gaere is really nothing fight now for working people. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Did East Hampton do an upwne across the board on every lot? Or did they do it on specific dis~cts? SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Not every lot but much of our land ma~s is in thc SOPA wh/ch is thc special groundwater protection area, that area was largely upzoned to five acte~ COUNCILMAN KOMANELLI: Right SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And that is a big chunk of the landmass. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: But a~ a whole... SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: The area that is outside of it is mostly coastal, so you end tip with high property values to bogin with. ,COUNCII.2vIAN ROMANELLI: Right. But as a whole do you think the town would have been better ... off doin~ ngthin~,? SUPERVI[SOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think what the [own need~l to do was plan more ,,,. comprehensively, it x'~er~ded to inctade people in its definition of rural character. That is critical. SUPERVISOR. HOKTON: Thank you, Supervisor. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? JUL 15, 2003 9:27AM SOUTHOLD SL]PERV]SORS NO. 422 P !2/29 1/29/03 ! 2 GEIS Scoping Session TOM SAMUELS; Tom Samuels, icom Cutchogue and than~, Jay for m~.ldng the ferry fide. Histo~ has a way of t~penting itself. My primer/business is in Soutlmmpton and E~st Hampton and I have seen this progression as it has happ~med in those two towns ami it will hlq~ea here. It is predictable. You can talk about what is itl the scoplng document ali you want. What yotl just heard is the result of five acre zoning. Five acre zoning, exclusionary zoning is amoral. It is bad stuff. ! had · mcetingthis afternoon with the lsxgest bulidiug contractor in Southold Towu. Not oue of his employees can afford to own a home in thc town. Mos! of them have to haw their rent subsidized by the contractor in order to stay in town. You have got fire departments, you have volunteers at the hospital, you have volunteers at the blood bank all alone. It is a real situstJon and I hate to s~c what hsppen~l to East Hampton happen in Southold. And I have said it for years, not in just this ~ the natx~al resources permits are anoth~ area of complaint that I have. And you have served on that Board as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The reaxl reality of what you arc contemplating and that is what this hearing is all about, it is not about other solutions, it is about five acre zoning. That is why ! am here. I wouldn't have come for any other reason. Because thc meetings ~d the hearings and thc decisions, l~'s go back to the US-UK study. You ~amembcr tlmt one, Tom. That one was to have all the new housing around the hamlet~. Save the open space out in the farm fields and so on and so forth. But what happened~ Every proposition that came for housing ~round the hamlets, met NIMBY in the hamlets. It was predictable. It was predictable. And it was predicted and it happened. Now, all the other studies that Mr. Cleary was t~king about was driven by a nan'ow constituency. They were itt response to appeals made to the Town Board to solve various probletus. Number one was let's keep the town the way it ks, how ~ we do it? So you had a narrow constituency coming to elected officials who felt they had to respond, let's do a ~:udy. What did Bob Wag~er say in the city? If you have a problem, do a study. By the time you get the study done, the problem will not be app~Lrent. SO that is whet happened since 1952. To use those studies as an outline for five acre zoning is patently ridiculous. Now, you have some decisions to make, it is true. And I, for the life of me, $ohn; I know you arc driving this but I don't nuderstand it. Because you have employees, do they live in the Town? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yes, some of them do. I just want to olarify, are you saying that the 20 years of studies, all those administrators over the last 20 years, we shouldn't look at any of them? Discount them?. MR. SAMUELS: Well, you can look at them. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Is ym~r alternative to do nothing? Is that, what you are saying is your alternative is to do absolutely nothing and ... MR. SAMUELS: There are two thinss that have to be done in this Town. Number one is affordable housing. ~ COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Okay, MR. SAMUELS; Okay, numbe~ one, before you do the five acre zoning, give these kids some hope. Number two, affordable rental apartments. So they can live in them reasonably ea~ough to get some equity to buy a house. God forbid they are going to be at $400,000 in this town. But what you are JU, L, 15,2003 9:28AM SOUTHOL9 SdP£RVISORS N0.422 F, 1~z28 1/29/03 13 GElS Seeping Session doing to the~o kids ia telling them that we don't want you hero, It is like tho old 8~g at Southold High School, pump our g~, cut our gra~a and get out of town by 5:00. That is what the kids say, COUNCILMAN ROMANt~LLI: So, your alternative is to address affordable housing but to leave density and zoning alone. It is okay? I wanted to clari~ that. % MR. SAMUELS: My alternative is, l~ave the farmers alone. If they v~ant to enter into an with you like they did in Southampton, well and good. That is not a bad phm or aa alternative for it. COUNCILMAN I~OMAN'~_J~LI: But if they don't want to enter thc plan, just leave zoning alone and leave the d~ns/ty potent/al alone? MR. SAMU~S: Absolutely. You cannot take thei~ land away from them. It is all they have got. They have been screwed for years, it goes back for at least to 1959 when I moved here. COUNCIl,MAN ROMAHE!-II: So yom' alternative is to leave thc zoning and density potential alone? MR. SAMUELS: Until you have addr~sed the real problems in the T°wn. COUNCILMAN ROMANALLI: Affordable housing? MR. SAMUELS: Affordable housing. That b what you have ~ot to do.. '? "' ..... MR. S~ELS: W~I, l~'s seelwh~ ~. I r~d ~o~, ~e so~e ta~ ~ ~ repe~ ~d r~t~ ~ ~. ~-~.'~ mo~t ludicro~ ~ S~ve Zon~of.~ W~ Au~o~W sa~ hem you don't have ~qh~ water foc~ld- To~. We--c~'~ ~e ~ody wat~. You ~m~ up ~ a ~e*acre zoni~ pl~. ~at does '~teve Jone~ say-'we have got wat~ for 1~,000 y~s'. Now w~t does ~at tell ~ou about wh~ h~ gone on h~m? h is a jo~. ~e o~ re,on he smd tha was to p~h ~e fiv~acr~ zo~g im~a~ve. ~al is why he did il. ~t is h~z~sy of ~e ~d~t ord~ kern a public official. ~a~ is ~al ~oc~sy. ~at is sh~:~l. If you ~e leave the ~ alone. Now, the ac~al popula6on increase in Soa~old To~, since ~e 1~ time I looked, is about 800, of ~]l-~me resideals. Of course, they can't, you c~'t live here. It is no coincidence that we have so m~y ve~ good Latin-American people because the town c~'t exist wi~out them. The restaurants, ~e f~, the nurseri~, ~e l~dse~e~. I don't ~ow how m~y pliers ~e ~e but you probably, I have Latin wo~ers ~d ~ey ~e ~eat. But th~ me going to wa~t to live ~m~lace. Right now, ~ey are 20 to a room. Where ~e hell ~e ~ey? I don't ~ow. But we have got to ~dress this. ~e se~i~s ~a~ ~is town requi~ ~e tr~dous. P~ple moving into town m~'t self-~li~t. They need a pl~ber to chmge a w~h~, ~ey ne~ some~y to fix ~e screw. That is the probl~, ~u are not addressing those problems, you ~e pushing ~ aside and saying, well, if we have less people, ~e will have less problems. I don't know that we are a~sured of ~at. I r~ber Ch~lie Horowi~' five-ac~'e zoning in Onant ~ai w~ forc~ on him. ~d h~ fi~ly acc~t~ it, a~ yc~. To ~to, ~ere ~e ~ houses ~d there m~t be 14 sites le~. Fiv~ acrm is too much l~d to buy. Now. if you ~c 8oing to cluster ~, you ~e going to have ~oublc - ~',L~L, 15,2003 g:28AM SOUTHOLD SL'PERVISORS NO, 422 F, D29/03 14 GElS Seeping Seasion selling.the lots. Because somdoody who pay~ for a fiw-ac~¢ lot, wants fiv~ acres, or two acr~, or three acre~. But if you are going to stick them in one ac~e, he is not going to bo happy. You can't have all the swimming pools and the tennis courts and the thr~ o~ garages because that is what they are going to want. So let, here is the alternative, lohn. Forty acres zoning, nothing but invesiment bank,s living in the town, a paid fire department, no nutse~ living in the town, no EMS, that is the altt~-naiive that yo~are looking at. The town as got to grow as fast a~ it will grow. At some point, I don't kn~w what you arc going to do but to say thai South~ld can avoid change or, it is ridiculous. You can't. It is not going to happen. What fight have thc citizens of $outhold to turn their back on the fast of the Countyor the State? Or thc American people, lli,~einavcry,-~er,ynicchou~e. I bonght it in1959. I know it is welch 1.5 million dollars. Doesn't mean a gosh dam thing. It do~n~.t mean a gosh dam thing. Because there is no plac, c for mc to go except spend funny money some place else. For thc life of me, loire, I cannot understand your position. As you know, I... COUNCILMAN KOMANELLI: But, Tom, again I keep on questioning your alternative, basically is, we are okay. MIL SAMUELS: We are okay. COUNCILMAN ROMAN~LLI: Address affordable housing and the density and the growth of the town is okay and we don't have to won~ aboul it and all the 20 years of studies arc over with but they are a waste of time. That is really what you are saying? SUPERVISOR HORTON: I am going to end the cross talk now. John. Dr. Samuels, do you have any oth~r altegtativ~ that you would like to offer, sir? MR. SAMUELS: I want the ElS, ifin fact you are going to ignore and I would like Town Council to comment on Mi'. F..ssexs contention. But in the event you choose not to comment or in the event we o~arlook M,. Essexs comments, I want to ~ee a so~io-economic impact analysis of what you are , vrooosinig to do. Because I think it i~ wrong. I thinlc it is dramatically wron~. I mange haven't I/Otten that point a~ss. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Tom, one thing for you to think ahout-and that is: sot ~ide upzoning for a second, but for evc~ acre of development rights that you buy are you not having the same kind of impact when reducing thc availabilitj' 0/."land f~housing stock? You don't need to answer it, just chew on it. MR. SAMUELS: No, I want to answer it. COUNCILMAN MOORE: No, that is okay. MR. SAMUELS: No, I want to....lei me answer the question. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We are not going to...pleaSe, sir. MR. SAMUELS: May I answer the question? JUL. 15.200~ 9:2~^M SOU~HOLD SUPERViSOrS N0.~22 F, 15,"28 1/29/03 I $ GEIB Seoping Session SLrPBKVISOR HORTON: You may answer the question but what I ask of the Board, is ~i~'is the opportunity for the public to add~ess the Board. This isn't a e~ss talk or an exchange or a ~a'~atiYe from file Board. Thank-you. MR. SAMUBLS: The town population has a~ain and again and agsin approved referendums for bonds for !:~-eb_~i-~ M~. Wiel~am is 'right in tl~ ease. If the public, the townsl~oplc, want to buy development rights, want ~o buy the famae~ fights-fine. But how ca~ you tell the farmer he has to sell the fights, Why should he if he doesn't want to? The question is if the development fights are purchased or if you buy the land and the density is less, then the town has willed that to happen. But don't rcgulate the luys land away from him. That is what I am saying. Thank-you. MtLF_~SEXS: I have brough~ an outline, which I am going to leave here with many of my comments. I would like for everybody in Town government ~o have one. lust think about it for a moment, I live in · ~luebogue and I spend a lot of my pracQce in Southampton and East Hampton and I am es~ounded that the Supervisor in Bast Hampton agrees me or I ~ with him on so many thln~.. I ha¥c beel~ fighting with them since 1959. I want to talk about this issue of five-acre zoning, which is I think a reason why we are here tonight. The town is really, thc town consists of property that is govctmmantM, industrial, agricultural, commercial and residential. Those arc the ZOrfin~ B3~3 thai you ~ll~¥e here. And what ia going to happen in thc future? The goventment land can get larger or smaller ~ased on government fiat. You guy~ choose that and you probably aren't going to mak~ it too much larger. You have some schools, you have some government bu/Idings, you have some parle. Those things are probably static or they arn ~oing to grow, And as they grow, nobody is going to live there. So your population is controlled in that ares. The industrial and the commercial areas don't ccnlribute to population and probably if they are like the other ]~ast End towns, except for Rivethead, you are going to reduce those & little bit because the adjacent property that was vacant is now being developed and people don't want commcrcial indushial there, so you are probably going to give into some of that and not allow rezonings for commercial indusl~i.~l. The agricultural areas, you are not going to create any more. What is there is there, unless it is changed. And then you have the residential, the residential properties that are in single and separate ownership are prolected. That ia what really is driving these meetin~ and driving people getting elected or not get~/ng elected. And the housing stock is going to go up in value with the passage of time and a lack of new housing acreage being available. But what is in play, the only thing that is in play are the large, vacant reside~£ial tracks and the agricultural properties. And that is why I am here. People like to look at the agricultural properties as long as the wind doesn't blow di~l in their faces and people like the farming area for its ambience. However, the values that keep the farmers in business arc the potential bon'owing power and the future ability that they know that they can convert that vacant ]and into housint~ stock ~f they need to or if they want to. The ones that are there, thc thousands of acres that are still there reflect ma interest in that investment, in that ~turc, and also in the fanning profession. Wl~t is propose~ i~, to take the value off the vacant farmland and Irensfer it to the houses that exist. That is the natural progression if you go forward and dr~ t~e rl~mir~'~ It i~ s ~l~ve, rr~t~nt ~f value, ne~atlve to the farmer and nositivc to the homeowner. There is a lot at risk and spinning around that you guys need to consider if you are going to make that value judgment because you are making it in response, at least in part, to the voters wM have these houses, summer or year-round, who waist tl~e status quo maintained as long as possible. I.~ i~ ri?bt ,morally and is it right politically for you to move that money? And if you are goin~ to move that money, you should at least acknowledge that you ~rc doing it because hypocrisy shouldn't be involved in this. Now, when I oo to my Watermill office on Fridays~ I ~et up at 5:00 AM and I leave m), hom, e JUL, 15, 2003 9:29^M SOUTHOLD SUPERVISORS ~0,422 ~, 16/28 1/29/03 16 GEIS Scoping Session ht Aquebogue by 5:30 AM bee. nme 9 months out of the y~ar~ ff I don't do that~ a 20-mlnute trip heex~m~.nn hour tri~_ The _neonJe. the Town Hall in So~ahnmm0n and East M ,nml~on can't get people t~ work there he~.~ th~ c~'t I~ across the e~}. The nm~es can't ~ m wox~ the carp~ and rh~ m~'!~?_ le l~ve their homes in Wesiem Sut~ll~ md in Ri~e~l, and ill Shirl~] at 4:30 AM ~and 5:05 AM and tlmv ar~ crowdir~ me at 5:30 AM. Where else do you have anlahing like that? We are becoming a lidiculous situation where thc houses are getting larger, as somebody said, nobody ca~ do anything. You have to h,~ve five people se~ing every hous~ that is ~mt here. It is happening here, it is even happcaxing in Riverhcad, of all places. And you either have to find other ways to getting thc cars and trucks out here or you have to find a way to k--cp people here. But what thc Supervisor of East Hampton said md what Tom said is absolutely true. We have this canundrum thai we have to deal with. You also have to consider the situation of... Southold is so~ of unique, you have a large retired middlc class and upper middle class group. Yon don't have as many of the billionair~ as they have in Southampton and East Hampton and I say that not sarcastically. However, in East Hampton and Southampton you can jack the taxes up to any amount of money and the people don't car~. Just don't c.~e, it is of no cons~ue~ce. I have clients paying $100,000 a year in rcai estate taxes, do not care. That won't fly here. ~ you re. stria the number of houses~ the ones that are left go up in value apd somebody has ~ot to pay ~ tax~. You have to pay more monelt to get your cops and yom firemen, as you reduce Vow density, your values lo up and your *~_~ are go~ to go up. Maybe not as much as they have in some places but you are going to have increased taxes. And you have goI to take that into account because you have F. pt a very hip.~a perccntai~e of people ~n fixed in~mes .they arc hil~her tixed income than other places, but the,/are still fixed incomes. It is not East Hampton or Southampton where they don't care, Is a resorting and a transfer of wealth going ~o ~sult in a town wide reszsessment? A town wide rcuss,-~_~nent is a great way to fred out where your voters arc because nobody likes it. You arc going to find people showing up at public meetings that you didn't know lived m the town. Also, when you in effect, threaten farmers by saying somebody has got to give and you are the only ones left. Because that ~s what. the politest way you can say this, somebody has got to help us and there is nobody else around because the housing stock can't be touched, it is grandfsthered. So here are the only ones in play. When you do that, what arc you doing? You arc saying to thc farmer, lose your value, let it whither away or you are saying go develop. You are prodding them and is it appropriate for you to go and put that stick in their eye. And if you are going to do that, you should look at the consequences of putting thc stick ~ their eye because you may not like the rush that you are going to force. There has been discussion here, I have gone through some of your records and seen some of the advice that you have gotten from some of your counsel, about making contracts with farmers saying that if you do certain things today, your zoning, your two acre zoning will stilt be Ihere 5. 10,15 or 20 years. That is not legal. If someone tells you it is legal, they are not telling you the truth. I say that categorically. Cannot make a contract with regard to zoning. If you want tO get the Legislation to amend the State Constitution, great. It should be done, it should be tool. The theo~ is tMt one Town Board, one Village Board, one County Board cannot make d~clsion that binds the hands of the next legislature. That is good government because the history this, every once and a whii~ there is some corruption, not on Eastern Long Island but in other par'ts of the world there has been corruption ~d the State law is unequivocal, you can't make a contractual bargain to give somebody their zoning in the future. And if somebody tells you to the contrary, have an exchange of letters sad let's go and try to put that to bed. Because if you are going to ahead and make rezonings based upon contrac~ that are non-enforceable, you arc either knowingly doing it or negligibly doing it, you shouldn't do it. The issue of what you do in the future, it is a difficult issue that ha~ be addressed in particular, discreet zoning proposals that as far I can see, have no~ come out JUL.~5.2003 9:~OAM SOUIHOLD SUPERVISORS NU. 422 1/29/03 GEIS Scopiag Scs.sion yet and are not on the table. I, on behalf of my clients, will be making some proposals. I don't that is. my position ~o deal with it tonight, I will t~, to do it as soo~ as I can but your problem is your waterfront properties are for tho most part zoned rc~idenfivJ and no one is about to chanEe that. The [9~ces in the Statc~ County and the loca~ level ate not ~oin/; to allow ~ Your fib,~ lands am not going to becom~ ¢~r~_'al ~d i-dus~ so you are I~-'R with a residential c~ a/Fz~4~m economy an~ the umber of all. mm'ives are somewl~. Iiirnlt~4 YOB ~ s~m~' in di~[~'~llt wa~ to c~o popula~on but when you do that~ you must unde~stend what is ~o/ng to happen. The prices arc ~oing to L,o u~. the ~es arc ~oing to go up and the s~vice i~us~ry is ~o/z~ to have to come o~ from somewhere else imc[ you arc on a lmfinsuia~ thc~c is no way in, ~,ou c~n't fly them in, you can t bring there in b~, bom. And nobody w~,~ to build a new ro~d, so ~u have ~ome probkms that ~u to try to ~olve before you create the problem. A,s the Supervisor from Hast H~a~pton was turret/ye enough to say, his predoce~ors erestecL me pwblem and now they can't get rid of it. You mot get an arabulsnco from East Hampton to Souttuunpton duriu~ the summer, They use helicopters. There is g/dlock. You don't have to worry about walking aooss the s~'e~ because you just walk between the cars. There is absolutely, f~om the middle of Jm~e, the end of ]uno you can't in East Hampton Village, you can't get a plutSng place. Starting in March until the end of October, Those problems should be dealt with befu~e you adopt are, zoulng. Otherwise, you m'e going to do what they d/d in Southm~pton and East Hampton, you are go/n~ to create the probit-m. I anticipate that if you go forward with th/s p~oject in one form or another, once the project is defined, that we are go/rig to have a back md forth, as lone ~ the clients want me involved, I am willing to take part and help move it but I don't yet see what your act/on is, if you announce it is five-acre zoning, then I know what the action is. But no one has announced that And I wonder why, E it pussyfoot/cng? Is there another action and no one has told me about? Or is that the act/on? If it is, you ought to advertise it as mc, h, you ought to ch~culate who is goin~ to b~ the le~d agency, elect a lead agenCy, m~ke s positive declaration, scope it and go forward. But I don't think you are seeping anything tonight and I hope that somebody will take me up on it, having au exchauge of letters on eithc~ of these issues. Thank-y~u very much. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anyone care to address the Town Boa~d? SUPERVISOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Just very briefly, listening to some of thc comments. Pax'ticularly, John, some of your questions. It is dear that one of thc major driving concerns here is population growth sad one thing I might suggest, is for you guys to do a full fold-out analysis. Figure due what the poputation will be if you didn't change anything and also figure out the car,tying capacity of your environment and your infrastructure. So you know, if' you are going w bring your population, where you should be-you know, how much you need to bring it down and then look at every tool that is out there. Look at TDR's, transfer development rights, look a! upzonings, maybe they do make sense in certain cases. But look at all the impacts of those things, too. So if you want to p~ot¢ct agriculture and you are creating large homes around your farmland, you may run into problems with people complaining about the noise of farms, the smells of farms and those kinds of things. 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 out in Momank, we have great commercial fishing industry and we zoned around it all residential and now all of the houses are complaining about the smell of fish. It huns the commercial fishem~en when lhat happens. So just be smart about it. To me, when you try to stop g~owth you end up with uncontrolled growth. You end up with all these things happening that you weren't anticipating. The better approach is to msaa~ growth and to manage growth wisely. Figure out what the cartbnng capacity ~s, figure out how to get there and how to address ,IU.L, 15,200~ 9:30AM SOUTHOLD SUPERVISORS 1/29/03 1 $ GEIS Scoping Session some of those impacts and I think you will do fine. East Hampton, for all tha~ has beeo said ne/ative, is still a beauriihl place. We have done a tremendous job prote~ting our environment. We ar~ in some ways victims of our own succ~s, Lots of people want to live there, the propen'y values are high because it is such a beauliful place. $o it kind of goes hand in hand but I thin_Ir there is lime here to do this fighi, lust take your time. Talk to people who are doing this all throughout the counh~j. The~e are a lot of great ideas emerging and some of these strategies; five acre zoning and up'zoning are old strategies, they have their useful applications but there is a lot of othcr ways to get to where you want to get to. And just look at all the impact. Thank-you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you, Supervisor. Would anyone care to address the Town Board? BOB VANBOURGONDIEN: Good evening, everybody, lj~t wanted to read a quick passage from one of your moratorium papers. 'Why is the moratorium team looking at so many issues? Some of our problems resulted from decision being made out of context: in other words, one problem may have been solved but another one was c~ealed because due thought was not given to inter-relationships and posm'ble negative impacts that the solutions to the problems would have on other issues.' It is jus~ not going to be one negative espeO.. From what I have he.~i ~might, ther~ is going to be many negative aspects to an upzone. And I am going to read you something that jast came in one of my trade magazines, 'Adanls County, Pennsylvania h~ already experienced ~he unintended censerluences of local town~hips first hand. As new townships have come inlo [~ing, they quickly they quickly put mandato~/density xeductions into place. This has caused many farmers and nurserymen to sell their ag land more quickly, as they know it will become almost wortkle~s without development fights.' ERIC KEIL: Good evening. The thing that I would like to say is, both John and Bill m~ntioned, should we do nothing or should we just accept what is happening now? The fact is that the Town hasn't been doing nothing, we have a very successful development rights purchase program that to date has resulted in the Town essentially having the equivalent of l l-ac~e zoning, Bill menUoned that wouldrl't the development rights purchase program have the same negative impact as an upzone, Thc fact is that it wouldn't. The rca.son for this is because we have been purchasing development rights over decades and probably will continue to purchase them over decades to corec. So that the impacts of the purchase of development fights program are mitigated over a significant amo~mt of lime. Also, the results of the, the 1 l-acre density result, hasn't been that all thc lots increase m price essentially, what happens is some farms are compleicly or nearly completely preserved while other tracts of land have been developed. Those have bccn developed have the same costs that they do today, so that the expense of those lots is not going to be as high as if they were five-acre subdivision lots. Essentially, wc are not duing noihmg, we are doing really well fish! now and I think ~hat the Town ought re con~ider what the impacts will be on thc success that we have now of any action that they consider. That is all I want to say. Think-you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you. Would anyone care to address the Town Bored? BECKY WISEMAN, LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU: Good evening, Supervisor Horton, Town Bom'd, Mr. Voorh~s. I mn Becky W~ismann, from Long Island Farm Bureau. And I am really glad we have decid~ to, everyone chip in here because I m'n not quite sure where my comments fit in to that structure of three different ar~as we were to streak at. But what I do want to say is that Long Island Farm Bureau, our mission statement so ~o speak, is that we really are the voice of commercial JLJL, 15. 2003 9:~IAM SOUTHOLD SUPERVISORS N0.422 P. }9/29 1129/03 19 OEIS $copmg Session agdaflture. And o~ of o~ f~o~ To~'s ~ G~c ~o~ ~pa~ St~m~t ~i=e ~e ~no~c ~a~ of ~e ~ m~k~ v~ue of a~c~ p~u~ sold. ~ well ~ ~1o~ or= 10,~ peopl~ a~ ~o~dcs~ [~c~ ~ ~ ~c ~ ~ m~ to~m h~ on ~ hl~d in ~e 1~ ind~ wi~ ov~ 2 bffiion doN~s in ~u~ ~u~ly. Of ~ave ~n~ to me ~d to ~ng Isled F~ B~ is w~t ~ to be a d~id~ ~ ~ ~e gou~ld To~'s go~s. ~c To~'s anted go~ is to pr~e~c [~d ~cludmg f~d, op~ ~acg r~afion ~d wo~g ~s s~pe. But o~ p~fion ~ ~e To~ w~ to ~e f~d only for i~ o~ ~, ~fio~ ~ a~c v~uc. We ~c deeply ~n~med ~al ~e fo~da~on of ~c f~g ~d~ is a ~e. M&c b~n~s of f~g is m~fic~ to ~ ~, ~ So~ld To~'s ~ ~e~W ~ be lost for~. ~c ~s~c ~d ~1~ ~on of v~ few pl~ in o~ ~ &a ~uld ~vc ~s ~c ~d ~la~le ~. We ~ge ~ ~c To~ B~ not ~ ~a~on ~ p~ p~cip~s ~d ~licy ~ts ~ ~e To~'s ~1~ ~dus~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~ ~ ~e 20 do~ ~ have b~ re~ by ~o momtofi~ te~ ~ ~l~d F~ B~u's ~at ~e fo~o~ ~u~ ~~ lmpa~ S~, ~ ~e To~ of Sou&old moves come, ye impl~ta2on s~t~. 1. M ~e ev~t of a ch~e in zonal, w~t ~ ~e economic ~: 1. on ~e ~u~ of~, on ~e production ofa~cul~; 2. t~ I~d v~ ~d ~ty ~d ~ly ~e f~ b~s~. 2. ~ ~p~ on e~g ~v~e ~d public p~a~on pm~ us~ ~ou~out ~e s~ d~p~on. We York S~o A~e ~d M~ket Law se~on 301 ~ ~d~. 4. B~dings on PDR 1~, ~so m~fio~d ~ ~e &~ do~t. ~ng Isled F~ B~u ~s~ ~y ~de,,r~g of~e p~e of ~elo~t fi~ ~. We wo~d ask ~e To~ to con~d~ ~e Stat~ Ag ~d M~ke~ 305- ala w~ ~at~ "~ ~v~, ~en ex,casing ~eir ~w~ to ~a~ comp~h~ive pl~s ~d Io~ laws, ord~c~, roles or re~lafions shall ex,case such a m~y ~ ~y r~ize ~e policy ~d go~s s~ fo~h in ~is ~cle ~d shall not u~onably r~ ~ ~ate f~ o~a~ions within ~e ~cul~ ~s~ct ~ ~nUavention of ~e p~oses of ~s ~cle ~ it ~ bc ~o~ ~at ~e p~lic h~& or safe~ is ~. ~e~o~. fcnc~g e~. ~e all ne~ss~ tools ~d no~ Mobile home housing. ~ ~ng Isled F~ B~u ~u~ts that f~ work~ housing b~ ~nsidered ~d~ ~e affordable ho~i~ ~li~ ~at the do~m~i has set fo~d. 6_ ~e monito~ug pm~. As the rural incenfiv~ dist~ct is revicwed and codified, a monitoring program of land preservation and d~vclopment must be included. I would like you all to ~ot~ that tha~ was ong of goals that Lon~ Isled F~ B~eau r~uest~ ~d in fact, I was the on~ who r~u~st~ it at ~e moratorium hc~ng. ~ut a moni~fing syst~ be set M place, compl~ed ~d presented to ~e Town at ~e end of the tc~ of mo~tofia. As ~e de~slo~ ~e made by ~ Town of Southold to impl~en~ policy that h~ the pow~ abili~ to ~paci a~lmr~ for ~ 8eneratlon~, it behoov~ the public and elated officios lo ~ to o~ gx~pl~ and rejoices for ~idan~. And in ~ncl~ion, I have four re~ourc~ that I ~ould like to refer io. ~e firsl one is ~e Town of Sou~h~pton's fi~tal g~n~c cnviro~eatal impact statemenl whi~ slates, "~c Town uudct-staMs tha ~intaining tho economics of f~in~ is ke~ ~ pr~in~ ~land. The ini~ativ~ pursuM by ~c To~ ~e ~ot s~ctly for pr~aRon of ~ ~e b~ ~ to ~e ~d wot~ f~l~d ~ g viable a~cultur~ _mdu~.' ~at w~ South~pton's final s~at~t ~e Cato Renew of Business in Go~,~ng JUL. 15. 2003 ~:]IAM $OUTHOLD SUPERVISORS NO. 422 P, 20/28 1/29103 20 GElS Scoping Session Fall 2002, tile topic of that article was 'Has zOnln$ hurt affordable housing?.' mud Cato'S response m that question was, in the nations tightest housing mag~ts, land usa tegulalion comn'butes h~aviiy to high housing cost~ And on page 30 at the conclusion, it stated 'ffpolicy advo~atc~ are interested in reducing house costs, they would do well to start with zoning reform.' Michael Carraciela, who is our Suffolk County Legislator stat~ "Farming requires a critical mass of activity to sustain thc infrastructm-~ of related business on which it depends. Despite all of out accomplishments, we must do more." And finally, Nathan Rutgers who is the Commissioner of blew York State Department of Agx/cultur, and Markets states, "Suffolk Cguntv leaders understand that profitable farme~ keep land , in production. Viable farms maintain op,m space, protected open ~pace sustains a healthy envirenme~ and a ~und cllvironraent with a balance of rural and urban uses maintains the hi~[hest ~ralitev of lif, e. In~ incentive based approaches to prote~tin8 farmlands can help stmugtlnm these ke7 relationships." The key words to that statement from the Farm Bureaus p~-rspective is innovative and incelltive ~ approaches to protecting farmland. In reading thc seeping document, Long Island Farm Bureau understands that according to page 7 that states, "Under gEQRA the economic analysis of business operations is not appropriate for analysis in an environmental impact statement." But our temmns¢ to that is. uncler~-andin~ that this is a oublic oolicv ~oal. we feel that the economic impact 0P consider~dr a~ it relates to that industxv. Thank-!tou for the o~nortunitv to nrovide this commenL I da have cog. ies of this and I will leave it. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you. Would anyonc else care to address the Town Board? DOUG COOPER: Doug Cooper From Mattituck. [ think most of my questions ware addressed here also but I just would like to reiterate them, Have you or arc you considering the negative effects of any of thoso plans or recommendations that you may be making oil the effects of current, private conscrvalion efforts which is now in this Town numing al 25% to 35% of the total preservation effort~ and which is a major reason for us now preserving on an averag~ over 11 -acres for eveW new building lot that is created. It is my fear that any upzoning efforts or perhaps any other plans may have a negative effect on this, I hope that you keep tlmt in mind. Will you al.so be studying and will you have any c~timates on the negative effects to agriculture and the business, particularly thc business of farming that may result from futme plans and recommendations? I hear that you wish to protect farmland the best way is to protect thc farmer by not hurting him. And when I read in your dra.q scope here, just as Beclcy before me mentioned that economic analysis is not appropriate, I find this a slap in the face. The economics to protect the environment falls to a large extent with the landowner and if you protect his rights and his investment, he can help protect the environment Thank-you SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank-you. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? BARNEY SIDER: This has been going on for two years now. I was involved in this in this Town with upzoning issues in 1991. I did not think I would have to come back twice in one lifetime to defend my rights, It would be a sad comment, ax3t for this Town that 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. Twemy years of local government burying their heads in the sand and they come up with the idea and it is nothing more than five acre zoning on the table. There are no sew conccpt~ here and by the very nature that we arc still sitting here today discussing how to preserve open space and farmland says something is working. So instead of turning cverything around and looking for this grand plan of five- a~e zlmi,~, why don't you go th~u~h some of the details thai have lead us ~ ~ ~ ~m ~ ov~ a ua~ ~ a ~ I do ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ to ~d out it w~ si~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ be r~ Y~ ~vo ~ ~pl~ ~ ~l of ci~ ~ E~y ~v~o~ ~ for me ~ tell me ~w ~ ~ h~ ~ p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 13 ~? We on o~ o~ m~t have ~v~ ~u ~e ~on ~on, w~ ~e to~ s~ll do~ not have on ~de. ~d ~, ~ ~ ~ m M~ ~y is so ~n~ ~ ~ ~ibili~ ~ ~ wh~ ~ey come up wi~ ~e bon~, ~e ~ev~e of ~at is ~ if a bond w~ p~s~ ~ 1995 ~d ~ere sill ~ money si~ng in ~a a~t ~at shoed have ~ ~e~ ~M to p~s~e ~e f~md at a mu& ~ea~ ~ce, th~ ~u n~ W look ~ a ~cc to find out wh~ is ~ a 1o~? ~at is · e ~obl~ ~d don't ~ve m~ ~t nons~se, it is ~c f~ You ~ to l~k at some of ~e tbjn~ ~t before you j~p at ~s. Io~, I ~ l~g s~t a yon b~a~ you ~e ~e one w~ ~vc me ~c beg now out of ~1 of ~s, abo~ the ~ofion of pfiv~e ~, on ~ fid~ ~ a S~ay ~oon ~ yoW ~ or ~ ~d he t~k you out of ~e c~ md put his h~d h ~e so~ md s~d how ~g~ thig was. Oh~ COUI'ICILMAlq ROMAI, aV.I II: Marry, I am going to ~ommant to that in the effect of, you said there is Bond money from 1995.,. MR. S[DOR: Whatever the bonds were. COUNC'ILMAN ROMANI~LLI: That is not being used. The money is there and we want to talk about laud preservation. Come to the table, Marry. Come to the table. MR. SIDOR: Let's look at the program. COUNCILMAN 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 fanners problem. COUNCILMAN ROMAN~LLI: There is no logjam. There is no logjam, Many. M'R. SIDOR: Melissa, $10 million approximately?. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It is not because we don't wmat to spend it. MR. SIDOR: But don't jump from that to five-acre zoning. That is not doing your homework. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Marry, again... IvlR. SIDOR: I am askin8, pluase, look al the program, John. That ia all I am saying. Okay. If there is a problem there, then I will be ~hc first one to say okay, what is the next step? SUPERVISOR HORTON: This is not an opportumty for cross talk. Many, l~c. Sidor you are more than welcome to give input and again, Town Board, this i~ not a debate and we are not here to cross JUL. 15.200~ 9:~2AM $OUTHOLD SUPERVISORS N©,422 P, 22/28 1/29/03 29- GElS Seeping Session talk, we are hcre to take input from the public. And it' you have more Iv add, Mr. Sider, pica.se coniinue. MR. SIDOR: Okay, let me finish up by saying that the concepts that we have in place to g~t us to this point, if they haw to be fine tuned and looked over, I would app~eciat~ if you would do that first. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I would like to add into the record, comments in advertisements made by the Farm Bureau that says, "A farmland on the East End seems to be disappearing." These arc/n new~paper ads and print ads, "Faster than a minutv/md that any housing on thc farmland is no good for farming." These me their quotes from the Farm Bureau in their ads. They should be added into thc record, also, for future decisions. MR. SIDER: I have seen some of these consarvalion subdivisions and the fleyd'bility of what the f*.u~er is giving you is he is selling his development righLs on a major piece of that parcel and with thc flex/bilily of tho Land Trust is finding and mal~g th/~ ver~ appredable to both the community and is preserving famfland. SUPBI~VISOR HORTON: So the overall alternative here, so we can clarify for thc record, is to in addition to what you have commented on thus far, is Chick-the addition of conscrvation subdivision~ is that ~orrect? JUL. 15.200] 9:44AM SOUTHOLD SUPERVISORS 1/29/03 23 GElS Seeping Session thst are socio-economic in naha'e to the Town mu,si be studied and will be studied, Those are a couple of the points that I thought would be helpful to clarify. MR. CLBARY: And to furth~ clarify, the point timt you just rais~l, clnst~r subdivision md conservation subdivisions ate pm of the action that is being stndied. So that is, that is the reason this whole excrclse is encouraging, to bring it all h flmaush this proc~stng of public evaluation. SUPF. RVISOR HOP, TON: Moving forward, would anyone else es. re to address the Town Board? Chick, Patrick thc amount of time that this will be the seeping session or the public input portion of the seeping session will be left open if I am not mistake, will be February 10~. Is that correct? So comments should be addressed to Southold Town Hall via thc Town C}.exk~ Office, specific to the moratorium planning group. The Town Cleatc's Office until February .I0 will be talcing comment on all,natives and othe~ things that meanber$ of the public feel should 'tm addressed in the scope of the environmental impa~t statement. Address your comments to the Town Clerk's Office, as well, the Town Clerk mentioned that e-msil is an appropriate communication as well as fax. The e-mail address is as follows... TOWN CLERK I~VILLE: I will give you my cani. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We have those long government e-mail issues. MR. E$SF:~XS: (inaudible) to deal with the issue of whether we have the proper action, I am going to address that (ina~ch'ble) SUPERVISOR HORTON: I agree with you. Actually, I will take that up tomorrow with legal counsel. I appre~'iat~ that, I~. E~ra~s. Here is the e-mall address to the Town Clerk, it is e.nevill~wn, sonthold.~v, us and for any further information you van call my office as far as how to deliver thing~ to Town Hall. That is 765-1889. Thank-you for coming out and we appreciate your input. Comments mbmitted prior to Seeping meeting by Owynn Schroeder, on behalf of the North Fork En,,Sronmental Council: Dcm- Members of the Board, One of the most telling statements made by the Town's consultants during a preliminary discussion on thc work plan for the moratorium was that although the Town had wonderful goals for preserving Southold, the current Town Code would never meet those goals. Inherent in that observation is the need for the Town to proa~ively toke charge of it's own destiny and act accordingly. Through the SEQRA process and utilizing the tool of DGI~IS, an optimum outcome can be achieved. Many hours of professional and volunteer time, as v~ell as ten of thousands of taxpayer dollars, have been spent over the years to develop plans that would prese~'¢ our valued farmland, open space, and threatened natural environment. ~'11~ f-ailm~ has been that many of the most effective and proven tools recommended in these various studies and reports were never adooted. Once the Town has revisited the numerou~ plans through the DGEIS, public input is considered and the findings are presented, it will 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 residants of the Town. We cannot afford to monitor the pace of develol~nent, conduct further studies or to rely on unproven ,JUL, 15.2003 9:44AM SOUTHOLD SUPERVISORS N0.422 F. 24/28 1/29/03 24 OEIS $coping Session preservation tools to meet ou~ goals. Specifically, NI~C requests fixat ~e followin~ be inoluded in ~e DGEIS. The Minority Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission~ also known as th~ CAP ~ signed , -I~z two .m..,~mbers and two alternate membar~ of ~e BP.C, should bo ~ncluded as one of the reviewed in the DGEIS~ rather than as sn altemat/vo, The Minority Repor~ calls for the adopflpn of gl~ 5-acre _u!~onin_~ in the A/C and the R-80 zones in coniunciion with the f~malion of a Rural Incest/ye Distd~ .continued ¢lusterin~ regulations and the continuation of the current Purchase of evelopment Rights Program Tlfis will guarantee th,e Town me. ts ibc minimum preservation set zonn in the ~.~ ma]omy ~-port. This r~port offers ttum~ouS example~ of preservat/on su¢cess~ throughout the country/n wh/ch zon/ng was utihze, d as a tool. The formatloti of a Rural Incentive Disir/ct and thc potential outcomes must be considered in the context of a concm'~ut upzoning, as well as compared ~o the RID w/thout upzon/ng. When cxarmned as a stand alone preservation lool, we would ask that spec/tic examples of success be offerexl as proof ofth~ effica~ of such a plan. Possible exit s~ateg/es f~om the RID, both those which reward fanllel's w/th an hwreased development fights and those which guarantee preservation minded landowne~ that the Town will purch~¢ development rip. hts on their time frame and at the ~ur~ent zonin§ de.si~on**ion mu~t also b~ evaluated for potoniial outcome and landowller part/oipation, $outhold Town Clerk JUL. 15.2003 ~:45AM SOfT,OLD SUPERVISORS N0.422 TOWN OF SOUTItOLD COMPREILRNSIVR IMPLRMYdq'I'A'I'IOlq STRATEGY GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING SESSION AGENDA l. Welcome - Supervisor Hot, on 2. SEQR Overview - ClearyNoorhis 3. Rol~ of Lead Agency- Cleary/Voorhis 4. Description o f Action - ClearyNoorhis 5. DOEIS Format - Cleary/Voorhls Public Comracnt ~ · Commits on the I~scription of the Action Involved Age~xies later~ted Ag~ies Public · Con,ar~n~ onlmpact Areas · O~gy · Water · Ecology · Trampotxation · Air · Laud Use & Zoning · Demography · Conmmunky Services · Community Character · Cultural Ke~ourc~ · Economi¢/Fisc~ Conditions Involved Agencies Interested ~gcncies Public · Con'lment$ otl Alternatives Involved Agencies Interested Agencies Public Wrap-Up, Establkshmem of Wfitteu Comment Period - V. Scopaz DGEIS QUESTIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2003 Reference Page 3-3 Question ~outholc? Town Cleft 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 count).,, especially in the AC and R-80 zones? Page 3-22 The "Adverse Primary Impacts and Implications" listed for Tool #4 (Five Acre Zoning) do not include the incremental cost to landowners tbr refinancing their loans from the banks; for every parcel of land currently borrowed against by the landoxxmer, these new expenses will include the cost of a fresh apprisal ($1500 and up), mortgage filing fees, attorney costs, and especially new title insurance policies which xvill mn 1% of the ~Cace value of the loan. These expenses (tied as they are to the size of the loans and to the landowners xvho have them) will fall disproportionately on the landowners least able to afford theni 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 xvith clustering. 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 (Montgomei3r Count)'. MaD'land) 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"? 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 not include clustering, the primary cause of the loss in land valuation? Submitted b)' Bill EaSvards, 2'15.2003 Page I of 2 DGEIS QUESTIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP Please provide an example of a 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 ora change in zoning on their willingness to extend loans to farmers? If so, what did you learn? If not, xvhy not? 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% 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 by Southold Town, the appraised valu~f 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 l-6 Over the past txvo decades both the Tox~m 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 xvhich 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? Submitted by Bill Edwards, 2'15.'2003 Page 2 of 2 July 15, 2003 RFCEIVED 8: oo To: Southold Town Board From: Made Domenici JUL 15 2003 Southold Town ChrJ. I want to go on record as someone who supports up zoning! We can talk a~bo,~t all the prose and cons of up zoning, but at the end ot the day, the clock ts ttckmg workmg against us. Route 58 is fast spreading like a cancer toward this town. We have CVS t~'ing to purchase the Bowling All)'. 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 drug 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 w'e want to continue to support people who live and work in their communities, or do we want to invite big business to steam roll us by building bigger and better to excess? This community is the last frontier thick,rural living. We must act now to preserve our communi~,. Up zoning needs to'addressed now. We no longer have the luxury of dragging our feet. Hicksville was once a farming comrnunity, as was Huntington. What do these towns look like today? Mini Manhattan's. ThirtT 5'ears ago. these communities didn't think the5' would be working hubs. All traces of farming are literally gone from the landscape. With growth of oar community come increases in town services, schools and traffic. Not to mention LIPA is always looking to find an opportunity to build power plants in our back yards. Our community's infrastructure cannot support an5, 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 .,,'our consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ~-~ Mattituck 298 0211 RECEIVED dUL 14 a 03 Southold Town Cle~[ Members of the Southold Town Board Somhold Town'Il P.O. Box 1170 Southold, NY 11971 July 11, 2003 Subject: DGEIS Please e~act 5-acre upzoning 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 Bayhaven Lane Southold, NY 11971 -, ., 3a' RECEIVED Sou hold Tow,, 1220 Sigsbee Road Mattituck, NY 11952 July 2, 2003 )cai [ i. Llll '~.I'i[~l)~ D.)(3l:cJ ~_ ,l~Jl,~_!![ ~,11 thc \I~c[' t;Ollqid,.q'[ll: LL 'l[~lJLI '':' III i'l.t~ Ce, ill Ibc ?'CdlCI' NeW York metropolitan area, my Ii,drill.', aud I nlO' .'d I~. t~: xo~ L[L I el I,. thc ~tatural beatify ortho area drew us here, as did thc xxal'n~. Fl'~,.~l,H/ [,~,1,1.. ~ c~lct,u:ltc~:d. \Vt arc extremely happy with our decision. %1\ (\ ilo h,- h.. · IrLD. ill\ Ot\ Cd 111 Lhc 5;outhold Mothers Club and I am planning Since n~ox'ing h~ ~_. i ha\ c ch,'~,_ Ix (olloxx cd Thc efforts to presen, e Southold and the ,[~batC Oil up/oilHlS', i Ii,ix c Ill.~dc ~lll C[II ~lCql cFlbrt to understand both sides of the issue. .xs I am dccpl3 ~;,H, c.~',~,l dhot~L N~tHhold's I'ttltn'c, I attended one of the recent public [IC[Ll'illgS [)11 thc l;~ ;'. F, .LILCt tk' q ~all~ Ink ,k~CUlllC]lt OI1 thc town's website, l was strack J)% d lltllll[)Cl' oFT[ ihL~. I:irst. it \\as ,.ur) ct~.t~' lhal [h~: ', a.,I tu4iorily o£those making comlneFits had not read the docttlncni..Xpp:tJ'~'Hll, Ih,:h ~[, t,[q ,,. ~'~ mddc ttp long ago and this was just another l~ltttll to ~cllL Inch i~CIH~.:b. I ,~Ltb xul2. ir~q*rcsscd with tho thoroughness of the doctiment a~d thc cFlbrt m4dc hx th~ t)t il IN ,Hcml*cr~ to provide Forecasts to help make the decision-talkies; ,I- .~ll E,3rb, t~,c,l d, po.,siblc. II is a shame that most did not bother to rcacl this t]nc x~t~ k, q' ~l, .... d ,:,t- ar] I :'~'tlcct on it. I sincerely hope that the members of thc 'J ox\ u Igoar'd ...,~4CL I,.JJ,~.= J:ll, 5dtJ ~ xd/llpJc. 5, ccond, I \\.124 d[.,li :. ,.d [3x ih./ i:,:~,l~ lc, ~_1 t,l'\ itriol displayed al the hearing. IX,lost c\ cryonc agt'ces th.,t IHt .,ell i'- ,,) p,c~c~ x c Southold. ]'he disagreement is on bow to achicx c this ail, [ ~,~, , 15~ in l,c[icx,~r that rcasonablc people can disagree and that this is d CaSe \vl'tel'C ilol~t)d'. '-, l~3~,,l'[t,i, ~'~ Ho iiit~i.i[[) superior that they should act so rcprchcn.~ihl?, to'..t: d.. tl.o..c , ,, h .,., h,,,., they disagrec. We are ncighbors trying to reach haxc used thc 19t d 15, Io as>,c-,', thc ,,itt,alert employing risk analysis. Are the risks greater if up/om~q4 ~:, ,.'~,tctc,I ,,~ [I ~t ,x ,:~c not'.) If up/cuing werc to be enacted, there are risks l. lccordini. [,~ m!. ttl, l,,'l ,-' tndlltL, x,l IIiC arguments put forth by those opposing it. Iqrst, thc~c ~s a n ,t. ti*at U~,dd- ,, ,t&~,l ,l..c,n [[ac land less vahtable and lend less money to Ibc I'armcr.~ li.~r tl,~ l~ , ,ix ~'.~1 ion- pt:Il m: i;1,: I'uturc of l~u-mmg in doubt. Second, there is th,:isst~c }l'})t'op,,i ~:.[,[ .... :~,,l~.tli... ,),m'ltcllmcxxhattodowithmyland.' ['he [irst argtunct~[ -h,,td,I calr', tit,_' ~,~:,t ~cight if it is true. No action should be taken xx hich ~.~,t,uld jct>l*,tl dl,,,, t}l,' r'l,t a~ c t*l' larnmlg, llowever, if this is the primary reason xx h_v tq*/t,ning is I~cit~:: :,' ', n tt]~ iai!, oppo~,cd, there would seem to be ample room to compromise. Sm clx thc trax ~ ,',m come up v, ith a mechanism to guarantee that Parmers tdain i~cco,., to >lcl'tEcicnt ]ii.t, L Il ,!!. '.Li tik .dar(,' given that th:: DGE1S states that the likelihood t.,l'a I~lll it, thc '. dluc o1' Idnd II tq*/oning ,.',ere enacted wonld be minimal and ~horl-tCl-Ul. I'hc second :_u'gtlnlclit coIlccm-. I>),,i,crt.~ ]'ights, which in my opinion is far less pcrsuasi,, c. Th,:~ c ~ cd tamlx ~,~ p~'cccdclll anyx% here that allows a property owner to do x~ hatcxcr hc like- xx i~h h~ land ~,mi~i7:,. prox ides many restrictions. Ifa fa~er wished c,~ bttih[ il poxxc~ .4.,,,[ ,,, , n,, [,d ..',~,i,,mitfium on his land, it would not be allowed, as [IICSC ill'C IIO[ ill ,r..< [ ,~ti~l'~-,t:, ,)1 hie . ,,~r~)mtuit5. Those making this argument are real[5 stri~ lng Io [~I~,i~'CL llsct~ ;~ ,.~c. ~ ,cn lhough the [)GELS states that there is no c, idcncc ~alttcs. ill ~.t]~ [,~. [.', t~ .Htr{ ~., ,Jn though land values have soared since the last time there xx .... t' ,'~"%. - :d c,, :t, ~r~t,ugh land prices have risen in Maryland and Napa X alley aftc~ d~,'t,~i~;, there ~s ~ lc~ I~ a fear of falliog prices. I can't blame these landowners lbr 1~ i. i~tb' ti, I~F,~lc~l thci~ mtd'csts; it is certainly their right. However, to ask thc rest el'thc Ctl~,i~nklhd ', ~O bc~tl' [11~ I I~[xs enumerated below so that their land might be ~orth aiL. xx milli,m iIitll. [l/Jh [I,t lltl[lit,ll~ it is x~orth is not a valid reason to oppose upAoning. Iht other argum,:t~l:, ,tg,m~:4 tq,,,oni~5 mc disingeoLlOUS. Given that upzoning requires clustering on I acre lots. not 5 at're lots, thc clamor agai]'~st McMansions is false. Thus thc argumcnL l-c~ .ti t[]l~:: mt' {mh,x ,~I mdc:,pcoplc causing traffic jams is equally spurious. Ibc risks in not tq,. ,,u%: .cl~l,~,~ I.u m,)~v scm)us. [[ndcr thc DGEIS maximum buildout anal,,, sis, there xx ~,ttld [',,_. ~q~p~',, m l4b.'l', ti(all{} more housing units, which the document c,quatcs l,~ all ad,ira, qLtl Ir L~*~ i~, ,h h~,~tli,~ld's population, fhis cumber assumes only 1.5 personas per houacl~t,ltl, all mll~n,bJhl5 I,,xx figure tmlcss a large number of these are second homes.. \n i~c rc,,:4c t,l' .'x ,:~ I 'L~ I~ .I ii1 population, however, would dramatically increase pOl~U]al~,,~ ,Icn>,l,...\~,l t}l.,I i~. :qoutllold's enemy. If popLllatitm den,it, tiic~ ,a:,~:,. [},._ i~-,/,s to thc comnltmity are nnmerous. First, there are Iiscal risks. (Turlcl~[ cdt~,acit,,t.d I:tc:tltic- ,,.ill incvitably prove inadequate and taxes will :,,oar to pay for al,_ ,,. ;a,:iht&:-, at~,[ -,uti 1~ .'.,:tend, there are environmental risks. Pollution and tntsh will ha,:l'c:tsc :,itznilSc41itl,. o. illl .quch il population increase. The beautiful >,cnct'3 ,,['Soutl,, [,., ,11 ,~ ~,t , .~, l'. i~at-rcd. Third, there is a risk to trar~sportation c['ficicncy. ['l'al'L;C ,.x ill -ll,~xx., '1~,~1,~, ],,ci'calsc, making it likely that we will be frequently ~lting i~ traffic :.. !,;.. ,,,,,-.. ,,~ ~;. '~,,, Lib [:ork. I),t~ads x,.ill ,,',ear out sooner from the haghcr us;igc, rc~ , . ...... ;, .,,,tl~ :..,,..' ['rinds. [:ourth, tbc['e arc risks to small l~t:sitlt:sscs. On,~= [.,:;: , t:. [ . ,,: , , t,,.,:zlion dcnsit_v, large, national retailers will bclicxc it viable: , . t {~:~ ,,~ -, ::,,,i , ~,~.,:c/iuM out local busincsspeople. [ [a~'ing waded tl,rt,%l, t'~tc d,,,_ t*~c~l ~md considered tile arguments of both sides, the a~swcr is clear, t '[',,'oni~,.t I,~ts ,, orl,~cd i~ olbcr areas. Voluntary nleasures have never stood much ofa ~ h.,~cc ,~sti~l.~t tilt: p,~xx ¢1 el'thc profit motive. By all means, be certain that fimncrs will l~z~x c t1~,: lh~:mci:~l ..x I~c~cx:ilbal to continue to farm. I have no doubt that xx itb thc i1tlnlcroLt.~ [;Il,ii,,_ i~,J x,, i 31tJ.~ [11 tl~c Nc,,,. York area. we can find a way. a short-total Fall ,,, [,iolccl i}lc l~llt:;c,-t~, el thc lux;' instead of the many. Any rcprcscntatixc tLil.~, . Iltdl i,,~-.~,, ,1~ i.~ [cc[,l~_'ssl> gambling Southold's f'uture. Once the problcnls assoei,~t~'d ~', ilh i,t~l~ttt,tt~o~ ,l~:~itx' arrive, there is rte going back. Perhaps you can come up x,. itl: .~.~, ,II~, ~,:, Il,, ,t[ tl~.~t ?. ill guarantee that population density will not destroy tllc chal'd~ I.. r t,[' '~o~ll[~, ,i~i. I[ ileal, thell as a responsible representative, you must I'hanl,. xott for .x,. Sincerely yours, Andrew Greene 37 RECEIVED JUL 7 200~ SoutholdTown ClerJ 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 ! hope are hundreds of others. I urge you to adopt the 5- acre zoning proposal. What truly drives the economy of the North Fork is its beauty and not the possibility of miles of suburbia. Thank you, Cathy Craig/ Neville, Elizabeth From: Sent: To: Subject: Huntira@aol.com Monday, July 07, 2003 11:23 AM cvoorhis@np-nvp.com; 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, 5he 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 Town Cleri Message Liguori, Joanne Page 1 of 2 ~ From: Horton, Joshua Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 9:41 AM To: 'joshhorton03@yahoo,com' Subject: FW: Preservation of ALL Lands -- PLEASE! ..... Original Message ..... From: dalpert [mailto:dalpert@suffolk.lib.ny.us] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 2:30 PH To: .]oshua. Horton@town.southold.ny.us Subject: Preservation of ALL Lands -- PLEASE! Deanna Alpert Elissa Rosner 5050 Pequash Avenue Cuthogue, NY 11935 (631)734-2831 RECEIVED JUL 2 2OO3 $outhold ]'own Cler! June 29, 2003 Memorandum to the Southold Town Board Re: 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 look 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 things we don't want to happen! As the six-month deadline for recommendations approaches, we have to consider development density control and growth management. If the board doesn't, it's a disaster waiting not to long to happen. 7/2/2003 Message 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 Alper~ and Elissa Rosner 7/2/2003 Liguori, Joanne Page 1 of 2 From: Harvestinnbandb@aoLcom Sent: Tuesday, July 01,2003 9:49 PM To: sylvia@quintessentialsinc,com; daugusta@earthlink,net Cc: joshhorton03@yahoo.com Subject: Re: DGEIS- Country Inns - Questions Hi, Sylvia RECEIVED ', JUL 2 200,t ' %uthold Town Cleri 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 Country Inns: "1. Could you provide us with a detailed analysis of the number of acres and specific location available under A-C, R200 and R80 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 is 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? Why aren't we given more time to discuss these critical issues? Why did it take Southampton Town 18 months to come to an agreement over similar matters and we are forced to come to a resolution in a couple of weeks?" These are some of my questions. More will follow. 7/2/'2003 Page 2 of 2 Harvest Inn B & B Cristina & Joe Como www. northfork, com/harvestinn (631) 765-9412 7/2/2003 RECa, ,O_ SOUTHOLD PARK DISTRICT RO. BOX 959 JUL 2 2003 SOUTHOLD, LI.,N.Y. 11971 631-765-3250 ~,., Town Clerl June 24, 2003 Re: Draft Genedc Environmental Impact Statement Mr. Joshua Hc~ton, Supe~sor Town of Southold Town Half Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. H(:~ton, On Thumday evening, June 19, 2003 Commissioner John L Conway spoke at your hearing regarding the concems of the Park Distdct 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- Wide Significance". The first sentence reads, "TI3is tool would provide for Town administration of parks having Town-side s~gnificance." Commissioner Conway asked the supe~nsor and the Town Board members what was 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 pder to any vote on this study with ample time to review the explanation and question any other con(ems they may have regarding its relevance to the park disthct. Attached is a copy of the presentation made at your headng. Linda Bertani Sec~'etary/Treasurer JUN 2 5 2003 Southold Town Board RECEIVED JUL 2 200,t C jachertu4, / June 2~003 ~1 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 RECEIVED JUL 1 200 Dear Board Members; Southold Town 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, common sense tells us that upzoning IS the most effective and most immediate 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 those 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 Cen- 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 58 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 the late 1980's. By then vehicular traffic became a constant and ever growing problem- Because of the nearness of neighbors there was little privacy and for the same reason noise and light pollution increased. Nearly every home had a power mower, power saw, power edger, and worst of all a leaf blower. On clear nights you might see a 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.~Former 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~vel6~nt~b~hg~-~-~ 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 Southold 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 profitable employmen~ but here's the rub, create jobs and 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. Sincerely, QUESTION; If, as some farmers have publicly claimed 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??? 3O Members of the Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RECEIVED JUL 1 2003 Southold Town Cleft 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 donor wait any longer and adopt 5 acre zoning now. Sincerely, /'- ' ' Mr. and Mrs. Domenick Cangemi 1475 Broadwaters Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Walter and Linell Gaipa PO Box 247 East Marion, NY 11939 July 6, 2003 RECEIVED Town Board Town of Southold PO Box 1 ! 79 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 JUL 8 003 Southold 1'own Cie.ri Dear Town Board, [ am writing to you to comment on the DGEIS for our town. While we are all trying to come to the same conclusion of protecting open space/farmland, I find it p, zzling that the obvious solution is not in the forefi'ont. 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 ora 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 programs and tax assessments on all properties would accomplish 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. Walter Gaipa 580 Skunk Lane Cutchogue, N~ 11935 (631) 734-2053 RECEIVED Jtme 26, 2003 Town of Southold Att: Town Board PO Box I 179 Southold, NY 11971 Website: ~w.ngrthfork. com/VintageBnB Email: VintageBnB~aol.com JUL 1 2003 %uthold l'o~v. Cleri 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 our 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 I believe it would just destroy us, as the main attraction 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 trying 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, if I 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, ffthey 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 trade-off. Can't we just keep the North Fork the way it is, or does it need to get crazy like the Hamptons 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 pan 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, "~/(/j /~")~ Deanna Alpert Elissa Rosner 5050 Pequash Avenue Cuthogue, NY 11935 (631)734-2831 June 30,2003 RECEIVED JUL 1 2003 C;outholcl Town ~:le.ri Memorandum to the Southold Town Board RE: Upzonin.q 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 Barnes, Shorecrestl~d John $ Breakfast, $~,300 Route u, 8,~outhold, NY 1~n71 Questions & co~ents concerning (DGEIS) Draft Generic Environmental Statement - Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. 6/30/03 John Barnes Southold Town ClerJ I would reconmlend that the following concepts and questions be brought to the attention of the Board. COMMENTS: n The Board is to be complimented for establishing and carrying out a comprehensive DEGIS which appears to have done an excellent job of responding to the stated goals relative to LAND USE and to LAND WELL BEING. This massive compilation of data can and should be helpful to both the citizenry and the Board in its future platming. ,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-economically diverse cotmnunity" - tourism being one of the traditional uses to be en/mnced. A key element that is suggested, but not adequately supported, is focus on the WELL BEING OF THE PEOPLE (vs land) and particularly the ECONOMIC WELL BEING of small business people in an enviromnent that is clearly seasonal for those involved in tourisn~ t2 The Board is encouraged to study more in depth, those factors wlfich can be predicted to impact upon the economic well being of local business people as we take steps to preserve tile land. [] It should be noted that none of the local tourism business people, whether they be restauranteurs, motel owners, bed and breakfast owners, winerie owners or small farm stand owners want to take action wtfich is hurtful to their fellow business owners. We are in tlfis together, and action taken should benefit the larger good lbr all of us. QUESTIONS: As noted bn page 1-28 & 29 concerning Comitry Inns; While the goal of promoting land preservation is applauded, what will the economic impact of creation of such inns be upon existing small business in a seasonal economy? o In tfigh season, everyone is full, 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 all year, what is the probability that they will be driven out of business'? o Do we have any data showing room utilization rates fbr local inotels, B & B's and Inns'? Don't you believe we need such data before promoting additional inn construction? · . ~ If wineries become eligible to operate Country Inns wlfich czu~ provide restaurant services, what is likely to be the in,pact of this upon visitors utilizing other small business services? Has any thought gone into the impact AFTER the summer ~ [l~Jb season? c~ Exactly what data can be rapidly collected to help the Board gain a better insight into predictable econonfic impact of their development plans'? o Room utilization: Total utilization for the year? Utilization by months? [Jtilization by weekends vs weekdays? o Restaurant capacity vs utilization: rn Same time frames as above. MIGHT THE BOARD PROFIT BY SEEKING SUCH DATA FROM THE LOCAL NORTH FORK BUSINESSES AND ASSOCIATIONS? Thank you for your consideration. JOSHUA Y. HORTON SUPERVISOR Town Hall, 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-1823 Telephone (631) 765-1889 OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED DATE: NOTE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 30, 2003 Town Clerk Supervisor Horton Comments for DGEIS JUN'JO Soulhohl 10~ts~ Oeri Betty, please incorporate these 2 documents into the comments for the DGEIS ,, Richard F. Lark · First Pioneer Farm Credit In addition, please be sure that these are also distributed to the proper people. ~o2n of the above documents had already been previously received by the Clerk's Office. j o, r!gnE [or arm Credit,^ June 25, 2003 Joshua Y. Horton Supervisor Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Rd. P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 $oulhold Town C/er! 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 night titled: "A Smd,/of the Economic Impact of Land Use Regulations on the Business of Farming in Maryland". This study 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~ricultural Zoning 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 · Riverhead, NY 11901-2097 · (800) 890-3028 · (631) 727-2188 · FAX (631) 727-0603 lhe Farm Credit System Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employ'er M/F/H/V · Visit us at www. FirstPioneer. com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION ()NE: INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1 I. Nature of the Problem ...................................... 1 II. The Purpose of this Study ................................. 2 · Ill_ Work Undertaken by Legg Mason Realty Group, Inc ............... 3 IV. Definition of Terms ........................................ 4 V. Corm-nents on Scope of the Study ............................. 5 VI. Organization of this. Report .................................. 6 SECTION TWO: KEY cONCLUSIONS .................................. 7 SECIION TH1/t:_E: THE BUSINESS OF FARMING ....................... 11 L Current Nature of the Industry .............................. 11 Fi. Farming As Land Use ..................................... 13 [II. Farming As Business ...................................... 13 IV. Financing Agriculture ..................................... 15 V. Farm Value and Debt ..................................... 16 VI. Conclusions ............................................. 16 SECTION FOUR: TE[E PROCESS OF CREATING LAND VALUE ........... 19 I. Highest and Best Use ..................................... t9 Fi. The Land Development Process .............................. 20 III. The Role of Farmland in the Development Process ............... 24 SECTION FIVE: ~ ROLE OF LAND VALUE DI THE BUSINESS OF FARMING ....................................... 26 I. Capital for the Farm Business ............................... 26 Il. Supporting Farmer Equity and Welfare ...................... 30 II~. Conclusions.. ........................................... 32 TABIJE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION SLX: Tilt:. 'I2vhPACF OF GROWTH CONTROLS ON AGRI£.IJL'1131/A& LAND VALUES .................................... ~4 I_ The Growth Issue ................................... 34 H. Techniques for Controlling Growth .......................... 31 l-fi[. Farmland Values ................................... 41 IX,'. The Impact of Growth Controls on Agricxdtural L~nd Values ..... -b4 APPENDIX Az BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... A- 1 APPENDIX B: II',rlYERVItEWS .................................... B- I SEC[10N ONE IN'I~ODUCTION The purpose of this initial section of the report is to describe the background to the study undertaken by LEGG MASON REALTY GROUP, 12'.1C. (LMRG) under contract to the Maryland Farm Bureau. This background is important because the study itseff 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 opinions. Consequently, there is a need to place the study within the context of the interests of the Farm Burean and the "growth management community?' L NATURE OF 11-[E PROBLEM Over the past couple o[ decades the dtizens of the state of Maryland, their elected representatives, and their administrative leaders, have become particularly sensifve 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--Erom testing of automobile emissiorts to recycling 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 environraeatal improvement effort. Farmers have addressed environmental concerns related to agricultural activity in many different ways, including those listed below. · Utilizing "no till" cultivation; · Changing the nature and amount of herbicides and pesticides used in farrm-ng; · Reducing the application o[ nutrients; · Adhering to guidelines with regard to grazing and feed lot practices; · Adhering to best management practices in envu'onmentally sensitive areas; Participating in the state's agricultural land presep~at/on program; Adhering to local zoning and other regulations affecting disposition of a~d development of agricultural land. As estimated in a study prepared for thc Maryiaml Office of Pi:nming, thc am~)cmt of land in the State of Maryland in 1990 in agricultural usc, exclusive of forestry, ,.,,'as 2,551,59g acres or 28.28 percent of the state's total land area rlhis agriculmr~ land, along ~mth land used for forestry purposes, land in various state, federal, local, and private parlcs and resct,,'e:,, marsli land and other highly hy.drons lands, and otherwise vat,nit and undeveloped land, i~ generally regarded as "undeveloped." While this term as applied to farmland is inaccurutc, since the land is actually ~developed" for farming, there is general agreement that the land Ls essentially "unimproved" (menning that the bulk of it does not have structures 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 which lends itselt to non-agricultural development of one sort or anothe[ The soils are usually easy to prepazc for construction, roads probably exist in the area, and, given other neces:;ary ingredients sncb ms the existence of a market, the land can be built upon relatively e. miily. Given underlying fact, many of the various recently enacted local, state a2d tederal regulation~ aimed at controlling development have particularly affected Maryland's famdand because it is not already "developed" and P/pically includes azeas of above average enviromnental character. The agricultural community has tended to work closely with organizations estahlish2ng environmental policy mad envizonmental p~ograms. Nevertheless, farmers feel that recently enacted and proposed restrictive land use controls are working a hardship ou them and on the business of farming that goes beyond the agricultural community's "lal. r share" of the burden of improving the state's environment. In particular, agricultural land owners are concerned that linfitations on their ability to sell land for development :~re begin~dng to affect their ability lo do business .tad, consequently, may be hurting the very exastence ot 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 az~d disposition of agricultural land i~npact very large portions of the state of Maxylaad and large number~, of land owners. This fact is one of thc more appealing wdth regard to the :tpplicauon ot growth controls from the standpoint of the env/ronmental co~mmhit'/, but the agricultural community feels that it nnreasonably targets one land owner group farmer,;. EL THE PURPOSE OF TFUS STI IDY The Maryland Fatal Bureau believes that the interes~ and the land ownership rights t)f the farmer are not being given appropriate consideration in the process of establishing land use policy at the local and stale levels. Specifically the officers, management, and members of the Farm Bureau believe that the agricuharal community's opposition to certam types of growth controls has been characterized too nanowly as simply "farmers t[ying to get the most for their land so the,,, can get out of farming and spend the money elsewhere." [n point ~f fact, members of the agricultural community believe, the situation is quite different. It s their contention that there is a direct relationship between the value of agricultural land md the future viability of Maryland's agricultural industry. The farm community believes hat agricultural land values play a more central and intricate role in the agricultural ndnstry than is generally recognized. But farmers also know that this particular position ~as not been rese~u-ched nor has it been well articulated to land use planners and ,,overnment offidals. The purpose of LlV[RG's study is to conduct research into the elafionship between land values and the business of farming and to determine the extent ~ wkich, as growth controls impact land values, they impact the viability of farm/ng. n essence, the study is intended to address some of the following questions. · ",'ghat is be role of the value of a farm's land in the business of farming? · Wliat is the r~lationship of development to the value of agr/culmral land? · To what extent do growth controls impact agricultural land values? · To what extent do growth controls impact the business of farming? If agricultural land values are important to the business of farming, and 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? [1_ WORK UNDERTAICEN BY LEGO MA~ON REALTY GROUP, INC_ In carry/ng out this study, LMRG performed the following work. Discussed the assignment w/th officers and members of the Farm Bureau, particularly its property rights subcommiuee. Discussed the assignment and various aspects of the relationship between growth controls and farmSng with Maryland farmers at their armu~l convention in Ocean City. Interviewed bankers at private banking institutions and at the region's Fm-m Credit Associations to establish the relationship between lending policies and the value of agricultural land. Interviewed developers who actively develop in rural/suburban areas establish the role of farmland in development in such areas. Interviewed real estate agents who sell farm land and who repre:,ent residential developments ia rural and suburban area. Obtained information on the status of Maryland's agficnnltural industD, from the Maryland Depawtment of Agriculture, the iVlaryiand Farm Bureau, and various published sources such as the Census of Agriculture. Obtained information on the subject matter from the .American Farm Bureau Federation and pursued sources of information at the United State:; Department of Agriculture and other national level sources. Obtained and reviewed studies done by the Maryland Office of Planning and others x~4th regard to the relationship between vafious types of development regulations and the valne of agricultural land Researched the spedfic experience of the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation with regard to purchase of development fights in Maryland's agricultural districts. Interviewed real estate appraisers who have been active in the appraSsal of land in connection v,Sth the MALPF program. Interviewed settlor planning officials in selected Maryland counties to establish the extent to which farmland is being converted to developed trees in those counties. · Prepared this report presenting the results of our research and analysis. IV. DEFINI'I~ON OF TERMS Several terms related to farrrdng and agriculture arc used throughout this Definitions of these temts are set forth below. These definitions are those of LMP..G and do not necessarily reflect the way they .,night be defined in other analyses. The terms that will be used to most f~equently in this study are farm (the physical facility) and farmer, which 4rill imply ownership of the farm. A_x-riculture: Agriculture (the agricultural indttstry, agribusiness) is the industry that encompasses farrrdng and the processing, distribution, and other aspects of handling the products that resort from fa~nning. Farming: Farming is the activ/ty of growing/raising crops mad products. It may be land intensive as with conk or not, a_s with the raising of poultry, horticulture, or tobacco. For the most part, however, the nssu_mption is that a relatively large mount of land is used in "farming" and that this activity is land dependent. There is a presxmnption 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 ainTs to make a profit from farming. The other is the physical facil/ty, comprised of land, buildings, fences, roads, and other improvements/investments, which accommodates the farm business and the activity of farming. Farmer: The senior person/people involved in farming at amy given farm_ This person/people may or ma), not own the farm but is the operator. A corporation, either owned by the farmer or by outside investors, is also considered a "farmer." The most senior person on a farm may be the farm manager. Less senior people working on the farm (paid hands, machLnery 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. V. COMMENTS ON SCOPE THE STUDY FarmLng businesses axe inrpacted 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 de,~elopmem that can occur on the land and the density of such development. It doe5 not address the impact on farming of regniatio~ of a primarily e_nv/ro.nmental nature, such as those addressing wetlands preservation, sensitive a~reas, waste runoff and so forth. While the affect of both categohes of regulation on the business of fawning may be shrdlar, the scope of this work was purposely limited to the land use/density issue. The issue of land value tends to be related primarily to those farming operations that involve large amounts of land; i.e., ~re land intensive. While such farms accmmt for the bulk of all land being farmed in Maryland, the number of smaller farm operations, many of which use relatively tittle land, such as poultry farms, is significant. This study is most applicable, therefore, to the larger, land inte~tsive farms, though it is relevant to 'all farrrus. ORGANLTA~ON OF THIS REPORT This report consists of five sections in addition to the introduction_ Section Two is the F. xecu{Sve Summary in which key conclusions ztrc pre:;ented ~ld the principal findings ti[it)it which those conclusions are based ~e snmmahzed. In Section Three, the bnsme~ farming is described. An overview of how land value is created is the subject of Section Four. The rote of land value in the farming industry is presented in Section Five, Wowth controls and their impact on agricultural land values comp~e the concludh~g Section Six_ SECTION 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 prhqdpal findings derived fi.om the research and analysis that suppoct those conclusions CONCLUSION ONE The value of a farm rests primarily in the value of thc land comprising that faxm_ Farms axe basically sold "by the acre". The value is a mix of the agricultttre 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 policies, and many other factors. As a result, a farmer's business can go from terrific to lousy in a very short period of time. In addition to the capability of the farmer him~eff/herself, and improvements built on the land, the only constant in this process is the land i~self. The qualit,] 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 specific farmer/farm family. CONCLUSION TWO The value of re.al estate, espedally the land, plays an important role in the financing of the farming business utilizing that real e.vtate. Supporting Findings Most agricultural businesses take on a substantial amount of debt in the couxse of annual operations and many carry mortgages. The loans that result in that debt are made primarily ou the ability of the agricultural enterprise to pay interest and repay pbincipal fi.om annual operations. Nevertheless, most financial institutions reqtfire that the loans be collaterMi?ed using the borrower's equity in his/her real estate. Consequently, the value of that real estate affects the willingness of the lender to make a loan :md the size of'that loan. CONCLUSION THREE The value of land and the ability to sell it [n order to realize that valm: play a tom in' the ability of an ,~gricultural enterprise to survive over the longer term Supporting Finding; The value of a farmer's land and th,: ab/JiB' to convert that land into cash helps to :,uppor t the farmer's business in several ways. Selling off a portion of the land in a time of finandal need can help to assure that a given farmer retains bis/her propetXy. The value o£ the farm and the abihty to convert that value into cash play:; a role in the ability of the farm family to meet gift and estate tax obl/gatioas. The ability of the farine{ to develop residences on the farm for members ot the farming family and tenant operators of the farm helps to nssme the presence of a pool of individuals who are willing to work on the f,'wm. The value of the [a~m and the ability to convert that value into cash constitutes the principal retirement fund for most farm families. CONCLUSION FOUR Growth controls and various forms of development regulation affect the value of farmland, tending to lower the value relative to lc~s regulated land in most Supporiiag Findings Most development regulations affecting [~nrdand are aimed at making certa/_n that the farmland remains in agricultural use, or is as lightly developed as possible. The agricultural use value of land tends to be the lowest "productive use" of land (in contrast to agricultural, woodlands, and other generally "unproductive" uses of the land.) [n most inst:mces the prindp.al non-farm development L/kely to occur on the land is residential, and the lower the density of the perm/tted residential development, the lower the value of the land on a kind per unit basis. Consequently, the application of development regulations such as a..mcxtltural use zoning, or low,density permitted development (for example: one unit per 20 acres; ouc unit per 50 acres) tends to place farmland in the categm¥ of lowest potential value relative to areas with fewer land use restrictions. CONCLUSION FIVE Application of ~owth controls and deCelopment regulafiom directly affects only a relatively small amount of farmland acreage in a given year but all fiarmland as a da.ss and every farmer in the long rum Supporting Findings 'Fne number ot~ acres of farmland that is actually taken out of production and converted to "developmem" in a given year is only a small percentage of the state's total land being fanned. Tings, in a given yea, only a few farmers would actually be den/ed access to the higher land values that might result from less regulation. However, imposition 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 impact on ~ farmers as a class, even though most recognize that in any given yeas, for any given property, the lJkekihood of actuail7 realizing the sale of land for development is minimal. These two impacts tend to negatively affect the business outlook of farmers and their Mllingness to stick with a bt~siness that is not easy to beg/n with. CONCLUSION SIX The principal value of most farmland is related primarily to its agricultural productivity. 7_.ouing, development regulations, and other govermnent based actions influence the non-agricultural value. Supporting Find/rigs The great bulk o[ all farmland does not fall within a reasonable geographic definition of areas likely to be developed 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 bmldings,'fences, and so forth. Except, in certain specific and unusual instances, however, all farmland has some non-agricultural value. Consequently, while land use controls tending to limit development may have relatively little net impact on the value of most farms, they may have a more significam impact on the ability of a given [axmer to sell all or part of the farm in any given year [or the maximum possible value appropriate to that particular land_ OVEt:LAI .I. CONCLUSIONS Zoning and other forms of land use regulations and growth contzo[ measm'ns reduce farmer's options with regard to disposition of his/her land at opt/mum vahm This actually what they axe designed to df), but ach action_s affect farmers and t'arming m sew:tel ways. Farmers lose some amount of current value when subjected to testlq, ctive zoning. Appraisals oI~ farmland undertaken in commction with thc Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation progra~n support the fact that there is some development value in ~1 agricultural land. That value capable of being diminished by land use regulations when development optiom are reduced. Restrictive land use regulations cause faauer<., to lo~e tinanci,-'d fle:dbilit?', parti~mlarly with regard to the disposition of the land when required to generate funds to cover a short term farm business or personal need, or t,} settle a long term obligation such ~ gift, irtheritance, and estate tares. Options available to lenders with regard to provision of loarm are reduced, particularly with regard to lhe size of loans. While the underlying rattonMe for the loan is the agricultnral business itself, the value of the fawmer'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 sire 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 vMm' for the farmland, in any given year. These impacts should be taken into account m thc course of preparing and implementing such regulations. SECTION THILEE TI-[E BUSINESS OF FARIvlING '['he purpose of this section of the report is to provide a brief over~4ew of the business of farming and to introduce the relationskip between that business and the land. L C2JRRF2xlT NATURE OF ~Dtl:::. INDUSTRY The overall size of the agricultural industry in Maryland, involving all of the many components of agribusiness, carmot be determined fi.om available data. It is known to be large, however, and includes those firms that process agriculture products as well as those involved 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=~s and a healthy agricultural industu is clear. 'Fine latter cannot exist without the former. The agr/culture industP] 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 oper~itions. In fact, farmland comprises more of the state's land than all of its residential areas. As can be seen in Table l, faming in Maryland encompasses an estimated 15,200 farm operations_ The Maryland Department o[ Agriculture estimates that 2,250,000 acres of the state's land is in farrrm, 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 598,197 in 1991. Dividing this by the average ¢ize 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 bnsiness enterprise in the business, political, commnnit¥, and governmental context~ that exist at the end of the 20th century. Farm ownership in ivlaryland remains strongly oriented toward the family, but the family farm may now be incorporated. There are some absentee owner farms, but the trend toward such operations peaked in the mid-1980's. There seems to be an increasing amount 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 fad,'was. The impact of the poultry, industry and of the poultry industry and of such spedalty farm operations as sod, horticulture, Christmas trees, oriental vegetables, garden vegetables, and so forth has tended to make some [arms operations smaller. These kin& of operations reflect high value products of more intensive farming catering to urban markets. 11 TABLE 1 i NUMBER OF FARMS AND ACREAGE MARYLAND AND THE UNITED STATES 1979-1991 Ma~,_lar, d Tot~ ~d # of # al Avrj. Ac~es in Farms Farms' Year Fam~s" ~o_er Farm__ O'f}._A_cres') ~'~:~_Farms~ United States Total Land Ay9. Acre'.; in Farms per Farm {Mil. Acle~ 979 17.000 159 2,700 2,4-37 428 1,042 980 17.50D 157 ~750 2.440 426 1.039 981 18,200 'i 54 2,800 2.440 424 1. 034 982 1B.O00 $ 53 ~750 2,407 427 1.028 983 18,000 1 S0 Z. 700 2.379 430 ! .023 984 17,800 1 SE 2.700 2.334 435 1,018 985 17,500 149 ~600 2.293 441 1.012 986 17,000 147 2,500 2,250 447 1,005 987 16,500 148 2,450 2,213 451 999 988 16.000 147 2,350 2.197 453 995 989 1 £. 600 147 2,300 2.171 4.57 99 I 990 1.5,200 1,18 2.250 2.140 461 987 991 ' * t S.400 146 2.2£,0 2,105 467 98Zt .CSouroe: Prior to 1975 alarrn was considered any place wkh less than 10 acres having sales of $250 er more or places of 10 acres or mere with $50 of sates In 1975, the farm definition became a place that selfs or normally would sell $1,000 of a§ricuitur al products Preliminary 'Mawlan~t Agricultural Statistics'-1991. 12 As can be seen in Table 2, several counties stand out in terms of agricuttusal production_ For seven identified agricultural commodities, Caroline County is ~st in three classes and s/xth in another. Frederick ts first in two classes amd fifth in two others. Queen Anne's is second in three classes and third in another. Other high ranking counties La terms of production are Kent, Dorchester, Cam)il, Washington, and Hafford. It is interesting that o[ the five counties involved in tobacco production (St. Mary's, Charles, Calvert, Anne ArundeI, amd 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 in, ,Mth such soils generally bebag much less productive for other Idnds of crops, as well as the fact that these counties tend to be in the vicinity of the expanding Washington metropolitan IL FARlvI2[NG AS LAND USE The description of agziculture set forth above emphasizes the business and operational nature of the ~dustry. The typical resident of the state of Maryland however, o~ten has a very different view of "farming". With over two mill/on acres of the state's land !n farms, many state residents pass a farm in their everyday activities. To them the farm is, probably, am 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 offidals f~r beyond the level of economic activity that actually occurs on the farms. .t~s a land use, farrmng 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 business 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 may conflict with what the farmer wants to do with the land. Farming is a serious, laxge, important business in Me.land. At the same time, most of the state's citizens know hhttle about the business o[ fan-rfing 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 true and accurate sense, as an asset underpinning a business, and not just as pleasant open space. FARMING AS BUSINESS Farming is a business. Farms are not "undeveloped". They are developed for the business of farming. Farming is a land u_~, not a substitute for open space. Farms may be classified in plains as a type of open space, but they are first and foremost, an operating business. As noted earl/er 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_ k- O 0 ._J 1.1_ Itl §~o --I--'CB 0 ~°c~e~° Wh/le profit ks the objective of the farm operatiotk it is also cleaz that many people partidpate in farming because they enjoy the lifestyle. They gain positive "psychic rewazd" fi.om farming. There is no way to quantify such reward, and it is certainly no substitute for real money when it comes to having to buy the necessities of life. Likewise, farmers receive a certain "imputed income" fi.om occupying their residences on the farm. This is recognized by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in its annual tabulation of income, tn 1989 all farmers in Maryland received $152,818,000 as "imputed kncome a_nd rent received" h-om theJ. r operations. Among other things, this ind/cated value by BEA illustrates the fight intertwhaing of the personal and business [ives of the farm family. IV. FINANCING AGRICULTURE As with any industry, ffmancing is critical to the success of agriculture. One of the most important facts to tmderstand about financing agriculture is that agricultural loans a~e ,,dewed a.s commercial loans. Consequently, even the mortgage on a farm dwelling is likely to be rega2-ded as a commercial credit by the lending institution. This means that commercial criteria are applied to the making of such loam. Loans.to [a2-rners are provided by a wide range of lending innstimtions. The most important, however, are the Farm Credit Associations associated with the Fa_ma Credit Bank of Baltimore and the corm'nerd, 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 provides 44% of all 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 Farm Credit Bank and its associations are member was established by the Farm Credit Act of 1971. Eligible borrowers of funds at the fax-m credit associations: Bona fide farmers and ranchers and producers or harvesters of aquatic products; Persom furnishing farmers and ranchers with services directly related to their on-farm operating needs; · Owners of rural homes; and · Rural residents. 15 The Bank is authorized to make loans to other banks engaged in lending ti; fenner,; icad corporations engaged to lending to producers or harvesters of (ann product'o. A wide variety of types of loans are made by banks lending to farmers. I]~e2,e include. Production loam to enable the farmer to plant a crop or othep,vi~e prodm,: products for sale, with such loa2s normally being secured primarily by thc cxop/product being produced; Mortgages on farm properly including Iand, dwellings, farm buildings, improvements, and such needed to operate the farm a_nd enable fa~qmer to on it, with such loans normally being secured by the value of the laxad and improvementS; Equipment loans fur large pieces of farm equipment needed to plant, gq-ow. bar:est, and on-site process crops. The distribmion of loans made by the Maryland Farm Credtt associations is set [oith in Table .3. .,-Us noted previously, most farm loans are mortgages and are regarded as commercial in nature. That means that the lender assumes that the principal way liquidating them is through eanfings gained fi'om farm activity. However, essentially aid lenders require that the farm operation provide additional collateral :ts securit~ gain:, possible failure of the crop or production of activity with ~he farm itself usually se~',sng its that collateral. The trend has been toward slightly larger loans a_s individual farm operauon~ grow and the corporate structure becomes more common. At the same time, while maintain the requireme~t for backup collateral, criteria for making a loan have tended to increasingly on the ability of the business to repa,, the loan out of income from operations. V. FARM VALUE AND DEBT According to the 1987 Census of Agriculture, the average farm was worth 1;360,788 in 15)87, or $2,261 per acre_ (in t992 dollars those values would be appro×imatel7 $44,000 and $2,700.) The Certsus data indicate that 39.5 percent of ;ti farms had interest as an expense, meaning that about 60 percent were debt fl'ee. The interest paid by those farm~; with debt averaged $6,89'2 in 1987. While total debt is not indicated, xssuming a l0 percent rate of interest, the average loan for farms ',~4th debt would be about $69,000, or $83,000 in inflated 1992 dollars. The average farm with debt, therefore, was carrying debt equal to about 19 percent of its value 16 C~ >- ~> >- rw m ~ W7 0o ~0 0o~ I---- UJ 0 0 0 0 0 z~ c ~ ~ ¥ 17 VL CONCLUSIONS Fa~qX~mg ks a maior business act/v/k/ in t~e state of Maryland. While through relatively severe ~cles b~ed on wca~er ~d m~'kc~, ~,,'c[ the l~mg tc~n f~nmg ~ a b~iness at the state level h~ ~o~ during ~e p~t ~evcral decades. over 15,000 f~ ~d over 2,000,000 a~es of [~d in ~a¢;e faruu;. Farming operations are financed through a relatively few banks that specialize in agricultural loa~us. Over the past decade these banks have been tightening thei~ cTiteria wSth regard to lending. The shift has been toward making certain that loans can be paid back out of operations vice requiring the sale of real estate. At the same time, regardless of how "production oriented" a loan might be, the lender asually rectui;es that collateral be posted and the farm real estate is the collateral most frequently used. SECTION FOUR Tlt~E PROCESS OF CREA~G I~XND VALUE The ptuloose of this section is to explore the process of creating land value_ Giveu its breadth and complexity, the subject area cannot be definitively covered in these few pages. We can, however, address those key points of land value creation that mnst directly affect the farmer. The farmer's concern is that land use regulatioas negatively impact the value of bLs/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 agricultural land. 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 regulations have on the value of a farmer's land. L HIG~ AND BEST USE in the best of all possible worlds a given piece of land will Mways be valued at its "highest and best use". This terra has a well defined technical basis, being referred to and used in essentially every appraisal. Generally accepted reasonable definitions 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 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 and best use o[ a given piece of farmland, as though available for development, it is necessary to analyze four factors: the legakity of the use, the physical adaptability of the site to the use, the marketability of the use, and the profitabi.1/ty 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. In the past, highest and best use was essentially determined only through the economic v/abLlity of the activity occurring on the land. While still important, the l_e~ally permitted 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 probably agriculture. it could be no "use" at :zll when the cost of makin_g the land productive f,~r exceeds the potential return ~om itl The value ks then a hmctioa of agricultural productivity. But agriculture is not always the highest and best use of rural land It that land is located near a source of aon-aghcultural development, and particularly if it is ne:ti a town or other urban settlement, the highest and best tLse could easily be non-agdctrltural. In these Lustances, the agricultural ~e must be mandated via the land use regulatohv process, the assumption being that if the regulations were relaxed, then the land would probably be "converted" to non-agricultural use. In summary, those who advocate the most free and open market for land bebeve that highest and best use should be a function o£ economics--the most economically productive use of the land; i.e., the value of the land in a competitive supply and demand enviromzter~t In Maryland, however, essentially every jurisdiction has development regulations. 'Fnesc regulations dramatically alter the highest and best use value o[ the land In essence:, th,.' zoning of the laud is the principal determinant ot5 its value with the economic use ~>f tile 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 15or the permitted use they want to develop, preferring not to get involved in the zoning change process. IL THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The process of developing land establishes value and serves to canse highest and best usc to be achieved on a given parcel. This land development process is analyzed bern from viewpoints--that al the broad context of market and public pdiic/, and that of the more nax-rowly focused development of the land by, primarily, private interests. A. The Role of the Market Public policy as expressed through various types of land nee, development, en~mnmnental, and other controls and regulations affects the location and, to some degree, the .,cAe ~.,~ development in a given area. But the actual volume of development is primarily a t~ncriou of the market. One need only look at the real estate development situation in 1992 in contrast to, say the situation s£r years ago. In the mid-1980's a market was perceived to ex,st in Maryland for large volumes of residential units and commercial space ht 1~)92 the situation was almost completely the reverse, with only a moderately active i esidentml market providing any real life to the development business. The situations both slx yeas 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 't Farmland is as affected by market forces as any other type of land. However, for most farmland the principal market ks undoubtedly that for fanning, not for some other use_ Most farming activity on rural land establishes the highest and best use of that land and d/crates its value. If the farmland is productive and alternative use~ for the land are minimal, then its value will be a function primarily of its agricultural productivity. In instances where the land is in the vicSnity of non-agriculnn-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 thc perception of individuals and businesses with regard to their future economic health, ff they are optimistic, then market pressttres are Likely to be greater. If they are pessim/stic and investment in personal and business matters is minimal, then development pressures will be reduced. There is rela6vely little market generated pressure for development in areas where economic 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 Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act of 1992, with their attendant regulations and procedures, along with many other state level land 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 programs regulating land use. In Maryland these programs are carried out pfimadly at the local government level, especially the county level (including Baltimore City). Maryland ks nearly unique in that it's counties have particularly strong powers. This perm/ts public programs to be centraL{zed and enables them to be large enough to have real power. Operating within guidelJ_nes established by the State, most Maryland counties have established extensive planmng and development control programs using a very wide range of implementation techniques from zoning to purchase of development rights. In essentially every Maryland jurisdiction, development is a highly orchestrated process w/th the government being a partner nearly every step along the way. While much development is permitted as a matter of fight under local zoning ordinances, even that development will likely require a number of approvals before investment in construction occurs. 2l Consequemly, government regulations dr~natically itrt'luenc:~: th~: ~J>.e that c:tn Itt: [nude ,t any given piece of real estate and, consequently, its developal~iltty. The Role of the Commmfity [n this i~stance corrmxtmity is defined as residents ;md bus/nes~ie.~ Ii'aug r,r operating in the viciait7 of a proposed developmenL Even if market condinons arc- l'avorablc and all regtttatop./ requirements have been met, it is possible that develupment can be stopped. This occurs when community activists, neighbors, and other group., expre% their displeasttre at a part/cular development. The land development process in the 1990's must t:xk.e intu accmmt com_munity interests and concerns. It is riot unusual in this decade for a developer's first, action to be to the adjacent corruntmity to test its reaction and to try to enL6;t its support for his project. D. The Owner The owner of land is a partidpant in the development process, whethe~ or not he/she wlmt>. to be. In some iv_stances the owner initiates the process o~ developme~t by petitiomng the local government for a zoning change that wonhl permit a certain t.ope of developmeut~ [n other instances, those changes are made without the active participation ol the land owner. Iand owners, including farmers, have also been known to approach developers to sec whether that particmlar developer is interested in developing on the land owner's property. The properg~ migbt or might not already have the approprmte zonh3g. On balance, however, most o'~aaers of buildable land are not active participants m the development process. They are usually pulled along by the various governmental, ,:ormmmits', business, amd market forces affecting their land. Numerous examples to thc contrary exist, but we believe that the great majority of land owners including owners of farmland, woodland, vacant and unused la~d, and other land generally outs/de of a cunmaumty's already desig~ated "envelope," fit tile description r~f limited participartts in the land development process. E. The La~d Speculator Speculation is a term that tends to have a negattve comlotation in oui :;oriel,/..~pt. cxllatot, are ~equently regarded as people who make money without making a po.,itive, constructive, value adding contr/bution to a product. Neve~heless, i~ most market:; :,pecnlatt~rs serve .a useful role. Specular(irs typicaliy constitute the leading edge of the land development process. 'I]my identify land that has the potential for development at some time in thc furore. ~lt~at land might already haw: some ct[ the approvals necessaD, to be developed, but tt ir, more likely to not have such approvals. Consequently, speculators frequently target fa. ruff.and for their ac6vit/ei. The process of obtaining appropriate approvals for farmland can dramatically krcrease its value. This is how the spemlator obtains his/her return. At the same time it aright not'be possible to obtain the approvals and the increase in value might not occur. That is what makes speculation a risky business. Speculators are not necessa-ry to the process of causing development to occur on agricultural land. The presence of speculators probably causes some increase in land values in various parts of the state. Of course the speculation does not have to be in connection with development Some speculation occurs in anticipation of other changes such as natural resource extraction (mining, petroleum drilling), btfilding of a road, and so forth. La the case of otherwise undeveloped farmland, the speculator may serve as aaa intermediary between the land owner and the land developer. The speculator may or may not take an ovraerskip interest in the property. 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 agricultural purposes. F. The Land Developer The land developer "wholesales" the land. He/she buys it from the original owner or a lax~d speculator, obtains the necessary approvals, and sells it to one or more real estate developers. This is a high r/sk/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 imtalling appropriate infrastructure. Typically, however, the land developer must acquire the approvals necessary to cause real estate development to occur. The gain ['or the land developer is in purchasing the land at the lowest possible cost and selling it at the highest possible value after making such improvements as are necessary to pemtit 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 signLficant amount of lhrge development, however, occurs on land that has been prepared for such development by a land developer. G. Real Estate Dev~loper The real estate developer completes the land value generating process_ The value of the land 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/o~: the rent 23 stream generated by rental projects as related to time. Wkile the real estate developer frequently regarded negatively by those entities wanting to preset-re land in its ~mdew:ioped state, the developer is probably not the principal reason land is actually built instances, good rea[ estate developers wilt work only with land that has already received most of its approvals. They arc no~ l~xud developers or [and speculator;. 'Fney make thciz money building, not antidpating furore land value increases. In this regard, the developer is like a ma-nufacmrer; he/she "manufacn~res" built space on the land. 5;ince the real est:~te developer causes the most ,,risible physical changes to occur on the land, howl:vet, he/she is the most frequent target of those who oppose development. FL The Bottom Line Am ixxcrease iir land value i~ likely ti) occur at each stage of the developmem prnce,_,; .As noted previously, because of the involvement of governmental entities in the proce~;s, ch~:r~' ks usually extensive conumunication between developer.'; and regulatory bridles, lu then[7, a profitable return is generated at each stage of this process to the entrepreneur tarns the risk_ The position with the least risk is that o[ the original land o,xmer Thks assumes th:~t the original land owner is able to support his/her cost of the land w/th the use occurring on the land when it was originally purchased. Some land owners become land spermlators 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 uroney on anticSpated future value At that point they become lockecl-in tn having to sell ,he land for higlne[ furore value. Thi~ has happened to some farmland owners, and th*: agvicn~ltur:d lzu~d prese~'ation program hms served as a rnea~ts of generating funds tot 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, community concerns, public approvals. While the [and development business is often associated with great gains and creation of a large ~mrount of wealth, whicli i_s the case in some i.nstances, for many other people it is simply anointer busine~';s that creates a reasonable return. [n fact, at the pre3ent time it is a ve~7 diffic~t business to be in for many who entered it in the last decade o~ so IIL TIffE RO][.E OF F~4,RiVLLAND 1N THE DEVELOPME/TF Farrmng is a business use of land, ms is active forestry, and other land intensive bu'_,messe.; It is erroneous to think of agricultural land as "vacant" or unused o~ "open :;pace". Becatt~e there is so much of it, and because farming use is a relatively low generator of mcomc t,a the land, farmland tends to comprise the bulk of the land that will ulumately be developed It can be assumed that a number of farms are sold each year in anticipation of development. However, this does not mean that development occurs on all such farms in the near tenxt or even in the long term. Where the farm is large, or has special attributes, x0r is considered particularly strategic from the standpoint of its location/visibility, the "loss" of that farm to non-agricultural development is frequently highly publicized and may create a significant negative reaction. Most such transfers, however, probably are not publicized and are considered by the involved parties as simply a normal componeni of the process of ctrb an/subu_rban growth. [n many instances farUUng serves as an interim use in the development business. An actual case in Frederick County follows a classic pattern. An elderly farmer/landowner sold a farm to a speculator/land developer but continued to farm the land under contract. The land developer, with the concurrence of tile County, which wanted to direct development to thLs general area, granted the land developer the necessary approvals_ The land developer sold individual parcels to three different real estate developers for t-:,,o residential projects and a commercial project. The farmer continued to farm the land throaghout the entire process untii development actually occurred on the various parts of the proiect_ Consequently, the u-a~sitlon 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/landowner. As that class of indMdual controlling the greatest amount of potentially developable land in the State of Maryland, the attitudes o[ farmer/landowners with regard to de~,elopment is critical. Given the ebullient development atmosphere of the 1980's, many farmers perceived the likelihood of being able to make a substantial amount of money selling their farms to developers. The dramatic doumward shift in the market, however, and increasingly rigorous public policies, have altered the en¼ronment for development in rural areas. Consequently, the likelihood that in any given year many farmers will be able to obtain any significant value from their land other than its agricultural value is limited. Farmers tend to react as a class, to these matters, hO,vex, er. Consequently, as a class, farmers are concerned that increased regulations will diminish even further their oppommity to obtain nomagricuhural value for their land by limiting the market supportable highest and best use of the land through interx, ention in the development 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 so_ 25 SECTION FIVE THE ROI' .F. OF LAND VALUE IN THE BUSINE'S5 OF FARMING Discussion of the merits of various growth control techtzique::, partt,ntlarly the g-rowth management program proposed by the governor to the Marylam:i General Assembly in 199l and commonly' referred to as the "2020 Legislation", generates vt%, different view~, on the importance of the value of farmland to a farmer's operation,s. "fhe purpose of this section of the report is to evaluate that relationship. Farmers contend that they need reasonably kigh farmland values in order to support the business of farming tls well :~_s 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 poli~-7¢ 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: repor~ is to :malyze the role that the value of farmland plays in supporting the fawm operation and the farmer's persona/welfare, and thus the business of farming. In the following paragraphs, the various ways in which land values support fam~ businesses will be analyzed. The analysis covers the role of land value in providing capital to faints. A~ will be seerk the value of the land comes into play in two principal ways: · As an irnportant part of the value of collateral posted to obtain loans; As paid-in surplus to be extracted when necessaU' to support farming operations and/or the welfare of the farm operator CAPITAL FOR '['H~ FARM BUSINF~';S .As with any business, a farm needs capital. That capital is provided irt the form ot eqtdty invested by the farmer/farm family or stockholders of th~_ corporation and in the form of borrowed funds from leudi~tg institutions. Most farms do not gencntte enough su~plu~ azmual income to cteatc' a pool of funds that can be used to expand eqttity Maintenance of a successful farming operation will usually create "paid-in surplus" by increasing the total value of the property. Consequently, for initial purchase of th~ farm and for annual operations, borrowed Bands constitute the principal source of capital. Land value is a central element in many loans.used to generate and support the business of [arming. I2 fact, it is the prmdpal "hard" asset, 1fiat the farmer can furnish to a bank in support of a loan. Various areas in the business of farming where land value plays a role are analyzed below. Thc 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 primary residence of the farmer, however, banks providing farm mortgages consider these loans to be commerdal in nature. Tiffs means that they assume that hquidafion of the loan, the periodic payment of princ/pal 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 vrithout buildings and other improvements. It can be used to fund the construction of hmprovements on the property. Because of its primarily commercial nature, the lending institution will tend to make certain that the funds are used primarily for business purposes. Ln Maryland, about half of all farm mortgages are provided by the regional Farm Credit Associations that are pan 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 1991, over $366 million of these loans 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 ha nature and owned by the farmers themselves. This accounts for the high parric/pation by the farmers in the loan programs of the farm credit banks. The other 50% or so of mortgage ffman~ing prov/ded to the farmers in Maryland is issued by private bank.s, primarily those in rural areas catering to farmers. Private banks compete with the Farm Credit Associations and many have established working relationships w/th farmers La their local areas. Interviews w/th bankers at both the Farm Credit Associations and with the private bank~ revealed the importance of the value of land to the quality of collateral undenpirmmg 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 every property has some development value and that development value is reflected in the appraisal and thus in the quality of collateral and in the amount of money that can be borrowed against 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/ts agr/culmral productivity capability and its salability 27 In a highly publicized situation that developed in the early 1980's, many mid-west farmen, were unable to pay off loa~ts on their [arms and had their properties forecl(,sed on by lenders. Most of the loam; were supported by thc agricultural value of the [and. I'armland values grew steadily .in the late 19V0's and into the 1980's. 'I]2en valu~:s fell precnpitot~ly. Bankers in Maryland note that the drop in farmland values that occtured in many parts ot the nation at that time wa:; scarcely felt in Maryland. The bard~ers believe that this wa~ duc to the fact that the potential for development erits on much o[ the land in Maryland, thus supporting its value. They also observed that many Maryland farmers eau generate incomt- by having one or more family members work off the farm. The bartkers indicate that they lend primarily on market value as indicated in the appraisal, and would usually lend 75% or so (a range of 70% to 85%) on this value. An~' development value in the land provides act. shion, although it is perceived as a difficult v;duc to re~ize ff hquidation is necessary_ Nevertheless, the bankers indicate that perhaps 75qt'o or so their loans are secured ia 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 serve az, collateral. It is clear that current lending practices are more '"oasiness" oriented today than used to be the case. Despite the efforts of bankers to move toward a primarily net operating income approach, however, it is not possible to isolate the kind factor from the f~ming activity. The real estate remains an underlying asset. At the bottom line, the barut~, w:mt to [end to viable businesses but to have the comfort of a strong collateral position, which is linked primaril7 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. [t 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 Ma~land Farm Credit Associatious, l--a~m Baltimore as of the end of 199l had over $197 million in short term toa~ 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 loam is absolutely linked to the future value o[ thc r:rop. 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 real estate and is much more interested in providing the loan if there is some potentially reMizable real value in that equity. Im fact, it is these loans that represent the biggest problem for the banks and for the farmers. The farming business ks almost completely dependent on weather - and to an important degree oa 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 most 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 rite nnmerons instances where thi~ 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 homebuflders developers. In such cases, while the loan is cle~ly one structured on the income generating merits of the funded farm activity, disposition of land to pay off notes has saved many farmers and kept them in business. In tkis way all or most of the farm has been saved from possible sale for development. Equipment Loans Most equipment loans ~re 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, ff, e 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 malting such a loan, but, as with any business debt, liquidating an unrelated ~set to generate cash to pay off the loan can save thc 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 operatiops. 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 fanning. Land might 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. Value from the land can be realized up front with the money being used to fund operations, or, after the fact, 29 to liquidate a loan that cannot be paid off out of operating income, in general in order to make the business more v/able. E- Stmmaary Lending practices tt) farmers have become iiicreasingly su-~cu ,:.~, ,~ne banke[ they have moved out of the "good old boy" s~age '~o one linked Io operating xtatements :lad business acumen. In former times the reputat:ion of the fal-tnc~ and the v:~_lne Of laxad were the principal elements underpinning the loan. Now it is the svrength of the farm's operating statement and the performance of the farmer ms a buziness-person t4.ven current environment, however, bankers ~md farmers both agree that practic~lly every business move undertaken by the farmer tra~lates into the value of the land supported by the value of the land. That value includes the agricultural use value as well as additional development value that resulu in iLS total f~ir market vahle. [L SUPPO'R~[TNG FAtLMER EQUI~f AND WELFAt~£ The items covered above are relatively easy to document 'the vahm t~f land ;~; a contributor to the weif~e of the farmer is }ess documentable, but it is in this are~t that thc farmer feels most strongly that anything that reduces land value impacts dire,:ll¥ on his/her welfare. Common to this concern is the ~act that the farm business is, fur thc tnost pa~rt, a sole proprietorship. Most small, closely held businesses create val. ut: over time by increasing profits a~nd growing the value of their stock. ~flaerc is no s'~t¢ck ur thc typical farm, and the level of business operation is constrained by the amoum of acreage being farmed. 'l't~ a lamer, the land essentially represents the stock kn the business. Different ways that thts value/s used to enhance the Welfare of the farmer and the [arm family are described below. To most people o~ a payroll, even entrepreneurs owning small companies, this part[cuhu form of personal econom/c snrvival is ahnost completely ankuown. A_ [:md As ~l>:fid-Ln Surplus' Th/s h:u, been re[erred to prevmusl7 Bankers interviewed m connection with tbs:, emphasized that farmer; reinve:;t almost everything they earn m the falx~ operation in one way or another They will buy more land, improve farm buildings omd inlrastrucIme, buy bigger/better equipment. The rflpical farm gets its operating value primarily [rom the quality of the farm operation and thns the skills o[ the individual [arme~. When th~, farmer leave~ the scene, to be replaced by a family member or ~ farmer [zorn outside o[ the family, the onl7 constant in the equation is the value o[ the farm's land, buildings, arid stock. This is the operat/on's principal form of paid in surplus. If the ~arm is sold to outside interests, who will either farm ~t or groom it for development, what they pay essentially reimburse.~ the farmer for that paid-in surplus. Consequently the value of the farmland se~x, es as the farmer's savings account_ Payment Of 'Estate/Gift Taxes Preservation of a farm from generation to generation is made difficult by federal and state estate and g/fl tm:es. This situation arises sometimes after the death of {)ne spouse, but fiJmost certainly after the death of both spouses of a senior farm fami[y. At this time the rest of the family is f~ced w/th a significant tax liability. That liability has to be pa/d off in cash, but the biggest asset generating it is probably the farm iuelf. That means that the fa_ma 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 rights to a farm to a land trust will sign/ficantly lower its value for estate tax valuation purposes. This is one way to avoid the high tar 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 pgrtion of the property. If that portion had relatively 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 of the property. C_ Prov/ding for Retirement This particular role of land value in the farm seems to be regarded with derision by non- fan-nets. 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 farmland is relatively small. When time comes to sell that property to create money on which the husband and w4fe farmer are going to live for the rest of their lives, they want to obtain the maximum amount possible, ff that mount includes v,'due 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 thing 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 regulations. Since this is the termination of the farmer's use o£ 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 rem estate. 'I~ne crops have to be created over ag,fin each ye;ir by the new fammr and obviously ca,mot be: transferred, in most instances, by the retirm.~; farmer to the new farmer. The land represents the principal salable ~set D. ~aintaining "['he F:mat Family And Labor Being able to build houses; that would be oco. tpied by farmly members and by th,' people work/ag the farm can be very important to helping to maintain the tanr~. [n thu; day farm family members tend to disperse very easily. Good labor is d/fficult to attract a_nd retain_ Pro,Ading a residence on the farm can help keep the farm fanfi, ly together on the tawm and worldng on the farm. Providing residences for the farm manager and/or other laboret~; i5 also important. Money may not exchange hands in the developmem ~of such housing, but it is important to maintaining the xiability of the farm. F._ S~mnmary Businesses serving farmers note that farmers reinvest their income m their farnm rather than in personal financial investments. Indicative of this is the fact that approximately r)0 percent of Maryland farms have no debt. They also note that farmers have a strong respe,:t ~or the land and for sound busine.is practices. Farmers recognize that there is little: to their operation except the land once they are out of the picture--through death, or retirement, of simply a desire to exit the business. Most current farmers purchased their farmS, or inherited them, in a'period much less constrained by land nsc regulation'., than ts cmTently the case. There is lc-eat concern that when the time comes for them to sell their properV/, there will be so many restrictions and limitations and conditions on it that the value will bc dimLrfished, or there will be no re~idy market, or both. To these t)eople the value of their farm, a value which reflects both its agricultural use arid its use for other purlioscs, is critical to the welfare of the current farm operator and his/he~ family. ltl_ CON(~L[JSIONS The value of the land comprising a farm plays a central :ole in ~nancing the businei;~. ~t farrmng. While bant:ers hope never to have to be repaid ~om fund; ge~mrated by liquidating all or part of a far~ they recognize that the land iepresents the nidmarc collateral for loans, even those that are to be mortised primarily [ram ira:omc Lender.; don't care wheflrer the value of the land is generated pt/madly through far~mng or through potentiial non-farm use; they are interested only in the quality of the crfllateral. The bottom line value of farmland is a composite of farm and non-fas-m use. Bankers ha~,e made it clea~ that regulations perceived as having the potential to reduce the value of laud treate problems for thera, partica~larly in the short term when there might br :t relatively sharp drop in v~ues as new laws are applied. ~2 Land value is dso important to the weffare of the farmer as an individual and the farm fami/y. The value of the farm constitutes the farmer's principal "sav/ngs account", and the value of th~ 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 bmsiness operations create paid-in surplus by incx'easing the value of the company's stock, good will transferrable, technology, axed so forth. In the case of farming, land in essence constitutes the "stock" of the farmer. Farmland values in Marytand are relatively easy to mon/tor through the Agricxdtural Land Preservatiou program_ Appraisals undertaken in the course of this program clearly show that essentially every farm offering its development rights for sale to the Foundation includes a strong component of non-agricultural use value. Overall, for any given acre 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 v,'due as a basis for maintaining the farnting business and protecting the welfare of the fa~za family, this is a sigrdficant amount that needs to be taken into account in any public policy actions that might affect such values. 33 SECTION SIX THE I191]?ACT OF GROWTH CONTROLS ON AGRIC~[JLTIJ~I*.A[. [~MxI17) VAI.UliS; In previous sections various aspects of fanmng, development, and land value have been an-dy-zed. That material provides a framework for ~sessing thc ~mpact ot grov,~h control~ on agricultural land values. The ptgpose 0f this section is to re¼ev,' ~e bruad subject ol growth controls ,'md to define the relationship betxveen such controls, business aspects ol far[rang, and the development of farms. The section concludes with art assessment of the impact that such controls have on the value of farmla~nd. GROWTH ISSUE Following the conclusion nf World War [1 ~Mmericans went on ~ suburbanizatioa binge Prior to that t/me, we were a nation that undertook Minos[ all ot its development within cities and towns. Our rural areas were in farms and woodland or otherwise simply unused Beg/[ming in the rmd-1940's, however, the socio-economic nature of the [Jifited changed dramatically. Improved econo[Nc well being, affordable and reliable automobiles, major highways, more efficient housing production technologic>., a greatly expanded economic base, the post war baby boom and a generally up-beat attitude toward life and living caused Amer/cans to dramatically change their lifestyle obNctiw:s, their actual life styles, and the configuration of their cities and the areas surrounding them. This was thc period of the "tract house", the suburban shopping center, thc inters[ate highway, larg~' suburban schools and the realization of the "American Dream" ~ ,'M-nericans pursued that dream and shaped their national economy, and ~Ls their national economy shaped them, farm productivity increased dramatically and the need to actually maintain as much land in farms dropped significantly. At the sa_me time, people were attracted fi-om rural areas to urban centers where job growth wa:4 occurring at a dranratic pace requiring the need' for workers. The farms didn't need as many people to work them becau:;e they were ranch more efficient then they had been [n what c~uld be viewed as a natural transitior~ taxmltmd not required for the p~t)ductiou or agricultnral products was converted to residential usc that was needed to house wort:er:, in urban and suburban business establishments. The greater efffici~ncy of farnfing resulted in increased competition anti caused farmers located on higher value land near expanding urban areas to become less competitive. option of selling the farm for development prov/ded a "way out" for impacted farms and effectively decreased competition for the remaining farms As one analyst at the American Farm Bureau Federation has pointed out, if all farms that had not been purchnsed 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 Mid21~00's. Beginning about 1970, however, and probably heightened by energy issue concerns generated by the first oil crisis in I973, many Americans began to react negatively to the emerging pattern or' development. The term "suburban sprawl" became institutionalized and private organizafiom and governments began to implement more rigorous oversight of development act/vie] toward the end of trying to control development. Farmers had been, whether willingly or unwillingly, principal players in the suburbanization of America. Much of 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 general increase in the value ot5 farm/and generated by the expanded market [or land to be used for development. The amount of land in farms in Maryland, according to the Census of Agricult~re and as shown in Table 4, dropped f:rom 3,897,000 acres in 1959 to 2,634,000 in 1974. During the decade 1959 - 1969 the amount of land [n fa_rTns 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 it)st, or 9 percent of the 1974 total. The loss of f~rmland led to efforts to slow development and to channel it to aseas best suited to accormnodate it. In I974, for instance, the state of Maryland passed the State Land Use Act of 1974. This established the Maryland Department of State Planning and a statewide critical area program, required the development of planning guidelines for the local subdivisions, provided for state intervention in local planning and development matters, and generally strengthened the hand ot5 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 fights. In 1984 the state established the Chesapeake Bay critical area as part of a comprehensive set of programs to restore the environmental quality ~£ the Chesapeake Bay. In 1:991. legislation was introduced (the "2020 Bill") that would have set target dens/t/es for different parts of the state and required local jurisdictions to adhere to those den.~{ties in their regulation of development. Of particular concern to the agriculma-al cormmttnit¥ 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 Assembly passed the Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act, which was signed by the Governor. These various programs 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 of this process has been the identification of those responsible for generating this growth. Faxxners are viewed as being among the principal beneficiaries of growth because they offer their land for development. Developers, politidans, bankers, and probably other classes of TABLE 4 TOTAL LAND IN FARMS STATE OF MARYLAND 1954-1987 Period Change Year Acres # % 1954 3,897,00t') 1959 3,453,000 (444,000) -1t 4% 1964 3,181,000 (272.000) 7.9% 1969 ~803,000 (378,000) -11.9% 1974 ~634,000 (169,000) 1978 ~714,000 80,000 3_0% 1982 2,558,000 (156,000) -5.7% 1987 ~397,000 (161,000) ~.3% Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture; compiled by Legg Masou Realty Group, Inc. people are also viewed as part of the problem for their contributions to growth on the urban fiinge, ha point of fact, however, it may well be 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 jurisdictions are instituting 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_ The means for doing this have created problems for the farm cormmmfity. One result of this concern is this smd7 to analyze how the various fopms of land use regulations (growth controls) impact agricultural land values and farming operations. IL TECHNIQUES FOR CON'I~OII lNG GROWTH A wide variety of techniques are available for controlling grovah. The focus in this study is oa land use regulations_ One analysis of these techniques divides them into two broad categories -- command and control regulations and economic instruments. Command And Control Regulatory Inst-ruments Most "command and control" regulations are permitted under the police powers of a jurisdiction. Zoning is certainly the most prevalent such device. Subdiv/sion 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 ~d 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 commercial end of thk range of uses support higher land values. Agricultural zoning is prevalent in Maryland with 20 of the state's 23 counties having enacted a zoning district for the stated purpose of preserving agr/cnltural 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 Frederick counties to the one dwelling unit per half acre in Wicomico and Garrett counties. Consequently, agricultural zoning, per se, is too diverse to be covered by one definition. Low density agricultural zoning, however, generally defined to include densities of at least five acre{ per unit and more likely 10 to 20 acres per unit, seems to have resulted in a reduced amount of residential development in rurgl areas. Counties with low density zoning have tended to stick with it fairly aggressively and appear to have caused a reduction in the amount ot5 residential development in areas so zoned. It also appears that, as the density 37 permitted in au agricultural zone increases, the v:due of the zone a5 agricultare is lost. Some opponents of zoning that ~evetely limit potential development have begnut t,~ pursue the possibility of receiv/ng compensation for the [nsf value created by a change fi'om more permissive to less perrmssive zo~ng. With regard to zoning, that course: o~ action generally not been SUCCeSSfLtl, although the number of cases involving thi~ i5,ate appeax,, be growing and the decisions, such as the recent o~e itl conmectioa with beach property m South Carolina are tending to favor the land owner. Trndit/onally, however, app[icat/ou ot the police power (zoning) to land uses does not require comperLsation, and in our judgment it is unlikely that it will. B_ Economic lmstrmncnts Another approach to land use control makes use of economic iu'.,truments rather than mandatory standards. The purpose economic iustmments is to cTeate monetary incentives so that land owners voluntarily give up their right to develop and the economic r,':ward that might come from development in exchange for some other economic vMue. Principal economic instruments us4d in Maryland are purchase of development rights, and traust/er of development rights. The Maryland Agricultural Land P~eservation Foundation program is a Purchase of Development Rights (.PDR) program ,as shovm m Table 5, the program has been responsible for preserving over 98,500 acres of farmland in the state through 1990. state of Map/laud has been a leader in using the PDR approach to preserviug farmland Most Of the suburban and rural counties have participated actively in the program and haw: helped to contribute to its success. The Transfer of Development Rights (IT}R) technique is :dso used in various locations in Maryland. its record of success is lc% dear. Montgomery and Calvert counties have been particularly strong proponents of TOg's and have used thts technique tt~ compensate farmers and n~ral land owners who permit the development rights appropriate tn their land to be transferred to recei,dmg areas in other parts of the county and to be compensated fox giving up their right to develop at the rural location. TDR and PDR programs ;irc essentially the szLme, except that Ltl the TDR case the amount of development within thc implementing jurisdiction does not chauge -- just its location. The agricultural community has been a strong supporter of the MAI.PF prograu~. It feels that the program is an equitable way of compensating farmers for gixdng np, forever, the development rights to their land. At the same time, those interested in pursning "co[ILrnand and control regmlation" of farmland feel that PDR programs a~e too cxpe~tsive and do not cover enough area to be effective. Comprehensive Planning Plmrnihg itself is art excellent techaiqm: for gmiding gro~t~&. Plans sep~c as statements of public po[icy, ,2md citizens va. ll typic~dly abide by the resultant public polio/. This occurs because the plans are frequently fo[lowed by implementation techniques, mt[ally of thc "command and control" type, but plans also direct inffnstmcmre, which a/~ects the location of development_ The plan is important because for most jurisdictions it is derived a~; a result of corrmnunications between the aflected parties - land owners, developer_';, commtmity interests, political bodies. Pln~; it represents an approach that, while not necessarily particularly liked by anybody, is acceptable to everybody. Because it has its roots in the political process, citizens have a say in the derivation of the plan. D. Inffasm.t cture Extensions Infrastructure consists of roads, sewer and water facilities, schools, and other public services provided to the community. To a greater extent than ever before, the extep, sion of infrastructure is being used to guide development. Linkages between the availability of infrnstrucmre 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 infrastructure is clear and tends to be reasonably well accepted by most parties. The problem I2om the standpoint of those desiring to restrict growth is that some development can occur without additions to public infrnstrucmre. Septic systems can work in rural areas. Roads might already exist. No new schools might be required. But where mos¢ 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. Smnmary As Maryland and its consfintent jurisdictions have increased the level ot control exercised over the land, especially rural land, such controls have played a bigger rote in rural development activity. It is clear from the patte~ of developme:~t occuinng iii those counties with low density agricultural zoning, that there are fewer oppormmties for profitable development in those areas and that the pace of such development has dec[med. It is npt clear where the development that is not occurring in those rural areas is going. It might not be occumng at all or it might be going to jurisdictions with les~ ~cstrictive rmal zon/ng. 4O The use of econonfic instruments to limit growth in rural areas has beeu very successful in Maryland, especially the PDR program. TDR's, while less widespread and somewhat less successful, have still made their mark on the pattern of development in Montgomery and Calvert counties. Comprehensive planning has been successful in creating ar~ agreed-upon environraent for development in a number of jurisdictiom. This has helped to channel development and growth to areas where the community want~ to see such growth and away h-om areas that it wants to protect. This has been done after open and direct communication among the vahons parties. 1 .inkages between the extension of infrastructure and growth have increased and are now a major component of growth management poli'cy. For the most part, the infrastrncmre 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 planning process, extend the infrastructure to the agriculmra] areas in an orchestrated mariner, and generate controlled conversion of farmland to development_ m. FARMLAND VALUES As a group of bnsinesspeople farmers are probably as sensitive to the value of land as an,/ group. Only land speculators and developers might have more reason to be interested in the land. Farmers work with the same piece of land over an extended period of time, however, while developers make their money by possessing land for only a brief per/od of time. The purpose of this part of Section S/x is to look at typical farm[and 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 £rom year to year depending on the success or lack of success of farming in any given year. A poor gro'~fing season for whatever reason, particularly several poor growing seasons in a row, can substantially depress the value of farmland. Likewise, strong growing seasons can raise farmland values. Farmland values vary considerably in different parts of the state depending on the quality of soils, the existence ot5 an agricultural infrastructure iu that area, the types of crops grown, and prox/mity to developing areas. 41 [t is nearly impossible to isolate a "pure [antilabor vahm" tn d iair market value appraisal because essentially every acre of fazmland has :m altenqative that is poteutially a more valuable use than agriculture Farmland value is closely monitored in the state ~f Map/land primanl'..,, bccans,' of the extensive program of development e~ement pnrcbascs xdutimstered b'r' the hlaqr, land Agriculture Land Preservation Foundation (MA_LPF) Before buying an ,~.nement, the state obtains appraisals on tim property. As the system currently work_',, the appraisers estimate fab- market value, which is the total value of the land for whatever use. h used tu be that the appraiser also estimated the agricultural value. That ,,vas changed a couple of yercrs ago so now the agricultural use value is calmlated by /he State ~nd subnacted [rom the market value. In our judgment the formula used to determine the agricultural use value provides a good indication of the agriculture value of Maryland fartuland. Table 6 provides a surmmary of the use-vahie of Maryland t~-Lnnland ba!;cd em rcnt~ that farmers had to pay at the time of a study conducted in 1991. The re;nltant use v~due shows that the aq'ricultural use value of farmland in Maryl,°md varies from I;927.{30 an acre on the high side (Kent Count'y) to $307.00 at the iow end (Allegmay County) for farm use. Thc higher values tend to be on the Eastern Shore, moderate values in the central parr of the state and lower values to the ,.vest. The IvIALPF easement acquisition program gives a good indication of the non-a~ricultural value of farmland. For the life of the program, from 1.977 to lqgl), appraisalx indicated that the fair market value of the land offered for easement sate averaged $2,480 per acre. 'Ibis figure has been very constant, rising to nearly $3,000 in 1989 and $2,700 in 1990, but other,v/se being between $2,100 and $2,350. Among other things, this lather' constant fai~ market value would seem to indicate that much of the land being offered ['or 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. (Sec Table 5 on page 38) Looking specifically at the value of the development casement :u~ c:xlculated by the appraisers, it can be seen that, in fact, the value of the development easemeat has changed very little until recent years, tn those recent years, in 1990 in particular, thc new agriculture use-value calculation was applied for the first time. This tended t~ r:tise the amount paid for the development rights. For the most part, however, appra~serb estimated that the development fights were won. h generally in the range of~ $850 to S 1,001) pc~ :,crc. In 1989 the calculated value was $1,426 and in cycle two of 1990 it rose to $1,86tx For the life of the program the value of the development rights has avera~oed $l,105 pe~ :~cre There is enough demand for farms fo~ whatever reason, to cause many to be sold at amounts beyond what the current agricultural activity itself can support. Thi:~ "extra value" 4." TABLE 6 CALCULATED RENTS AND USE-VALUE OF FARMLAND, BY COUNTY THE STATE QF MARYLAND C~Jculated Use-Value Rent 7% cap r~te Allegany $22_ $307 Anne Arunde[ $30 $433 Baltimore $,36 $5D8 Calvert $27 $381. Carroll $37 $536 Caroline $60 $855 Cecil $81 $730 Charles $39 5557 Dorchester $34 $489 Frederick $37 $524 Ga~:rett $27 $386 Ha~ford $44 5625 t~owa,rd 540 $567 Kent $65 5927 Montgomery ,$39 $561 Prince George's $33 $465 Q~een Anne's $57 5809 St. Mary's $44 $625 Somerset $36 $517 Talbot $56 $798 Washington $40. $572 Wicomico SF% $75() Worcester $52_ $74~ Source: University of Maryland Study of Farmland UseWalue 43 has tended to come down in recent year5 as a resul[ o~ less inter¢:.t by out,sidcrs irt purchasing land [or [arms as well as somewhat reduced interest by th~se specnlaung mt furore nonagri~mlmral use value. It is dso possible that/mposition of mote ::tnngcnt laml use and e~vironmental controls in agrienlmr:d areas has unpacted value:~ Marylzmd Department of Agr/culture data pro',sdes a long te~m perspecuve on value';. Its 1991 statistical book provides data on [ann re~d ~state values. These data smnrnarized in -Fable 7. 'H~e aw:rage value per acre of land and buildings m [amm has remained fairly co~tant in a range of $2,000 - $2,500 lot tile last t0 yeazs. a constant dollar basis, which would reflect irfflationary factors, and would rend to recent values high relative to past values, "real" values have undoubtedly dropped. ~Ft~e total value of land and buildings and farms has also remained relatively constant - bern, eeo roughly $5.0 billion to $6.0 billion, and the average value nta farm operating unit ha, tended to remain in the range ot5 $300,000 to $360,000 over this 10 year petSod 'Fimse data show that there ha~ beer[ relatively little increase in the valt~e of tarm real estate iu the stat~' of Maryland over the past decade, and that there has probal)ly been a drop in 5, uch value:. when inflation is taken into account. IYV. T14-E IMI>ACF OF GROW"Fi4 CO?G-ROES ON AGRICULTURAL [XdSlD VALUES Growth controls cotmtimte a mechanism for directing development to vadom, parts ota jurisdiction. Any techmque of this nature must, by it:~ allocation techrfique, affect land values. To the extent that higher density residenti,":d or hight:r valtm corrmaercial development is limited in a given area, land values in tidal area will be dinfinished relative to areas that are not so restricted. This assumes that the other factor:; required to permit development, either existing infrastructure or the abilit7 to obtain buildnig permits, e~st m the area. Value of Devel{bpable I nnd it is a generally understood fact that the value of laxtd i', a disect function o~ the type and anaount of development that c?m occm on that land. [~ud that can be developed for commercial purposes and for higher density residential is almost umversally worth more pet' acre thzm land that can only be used for Iow density residential usc~.. Cot~_sequeatly, zoning or other control measures that restric! the use of land :c: Iow de.n_siry rttsidential is kikei~ to restrict the ability o[ that land to increase in value. Per aci-e values of developable land in typical Maryland melt opolitan and reval locations arc set forth in Table $. These data were derived from the exper/ence and records from Legg Mason Realty Group Appratsal Services Division and reflect tim obser,'ations of the appraisers who work in the division. Several poinu can bc derived from the table First. 44 TABLE 7 FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES MARYLAND 1983-1992 Total Value Value of L:~nd & Buildinc~s_ of Farm Total Avg. Dwellings 1983 .$5,727 $~,12'1 $1,151 1984 $6,038 $2,236 $1,244 1985 $5,711 $2,179 $1,31g 1986 $5,057 $2,023 $1,325 1987 $4,921 $2.009 $1,363 1988 $5,313 $2,261 $1,504 1989 $.5,663 $2,462 $1.557 1990 $5,445 $2,420 $1,391 1991 $4,941 $2,196 $1,211 1992 $5,073 $2,255 $1,258 Avg. Value per Operating Unit $318 100 $339 190 $326 ~ $~97 446 $298 238 $332 084 .$362 987 $358 224 $320 844 $329 411 Source: 'Maryland A§ricuttura~ Statistics'-1991. 45 TABLE 8 PER ACRE VALUES OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IN TYPICAL MARYLAND METROPOLITAN AND RURAL LOCATIONS 1992 Source: Value p%A_c_r%_ M et r o~3 ol~ a,'~ RoraJ Indurdal $10Q,0OO ~, Commercial (mixed) $200,000 Residential (20 U/A) $75,0OO $25,00~ Residential (I0 U/A) $60,000 Residential (5 U/A} $50,000 Residential (2 U/A) $30.0OO $15,0OO Resider~ial (1 U/A) $20,000 $1o.000 Residential (1 U/SA} $~0.0OO $.5.0OO Residential (1 U/'2OA) $7.500 $2,500 Residential (1 UISOA) $7,500 ~2,F,00 Agriculture (100 A field crop faxm) $7.500 (U indicates number of units, A indicates number of acres) Note: These values were es~tim~tes under the following - Residential uses are physically raw, unrecorded land. - Land is buitdable [or the indicated c~e. - PubliC sewer and water are available for all uses except residential with a densky o( 1 unit per 2 acres or in which c~se sewer and water would b~ oR-site. The land is or can be zonc~-J for the indicated use with no problem~ - The land is currently not buitt upon. - Two location scenarios: a metropolitan county ¢34Jtimo~ e, Anne ArundeJ. Prince George's, etc...) and 'a mraJ courrb/ (Kev, t, St Mary's, Darchester, etc.. ) The development sites are in 'suburban' Ioc;¢ions ~n each instance. 'Fhis is near but not in 'urbanized' Leqg Mason Realty Group, Inc.-Appraisal Services Dk. ision land in metropolitan areas is worth more than land in rural areas [or the same use. Second, the value of land that can be developed for a residential density greater than one uz6t per 20 acres is roughly the same as the per acre value of agricult,aral 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 fx'ozen by the low densit'/zoning. B. Development Values as Reflected in MALPF data Maryland's agriculture land preservation program provides an excellent overv/ew of development values [n rural areas. In essentially every part of thc state, no matter how tm-al, 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 comxnercial 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 agricultural use value. C. Agricultm-al Z,oning and Land Values N 1.990 the firm Resource Management Consultants, [nc. (RMCt) of Washington, D.C. was retained by the Maryland Office of Planning to study'the relationship between agricultural zoning and the value of farm/and. RMCI presented its report, 'The Effects of Agricultural Zoning on the Value of Farmland," in February, 199l. 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 downzonlng 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 judgment that study did not tell "the whole story." The study focused on four cQundes, all in either the Baltimore or Washington metropolitan area, in which agricultural zoning was introduced in the late f970's and early I980's. A review of this report reveals, to our thinking, that the data are not conclusive. In Carroll County, where agricultural 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 number of transactions (sales per year) as revealed through RMCI's researdh, dropped significantly indicating a less active market, possibly due to the new zoning. Only in Montgomery County did the number of transactions increase. And it is interesting that Montgomery County has one of the most effective programs for compensating farmers for transferrable development fights, in the other counties, the 47 ~11~t20~a [4:04 ~10-~22-~87l i~0 Ft~l,1BJ~L . P~ 04 volume of trams'tiara tended to &ap about 50 percent fi.om the pre-agrk~ltm'al z~ni~ Ia its conclusion, the P. MCI stady not~ that ~h~ "abi~ l~ repay (a f~a~a loan) is the k¢:f to a faaanci~ imtim~on's mnleh~ a 1~ m a ~? ~ c~nct~ioa ~ ~ ~ ~G's ~ea~ H~er, ~= ~on ~ not ~ ~ cle~ ~ a ~ ~ ~t [~ ~W, ~ ~t ~ a go or no go de~o~ by ~e lender. ~e v~uc ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ere ~e bo~ower p!an~ to ~e ~e ~ to ~tato ~od~t develop~nt of The study, aotes that lenOe~s provide loans afa percent of fair market value. White the pereeat loan varies with the imtiu~tioa and the farmees ability to pay, the fak ra~rket value provides the underlying basis of the loan. Since the markex for the land is a f~mction of its potential use, r~trietlr~ the potential use ~atively affects fair c~arkct values. T~e ~amples us'ed in the RMCI smd)' ar~ e~ttuties ~te murk~ of ~e l~e 198~s ~e~ed ~e co,des ~e mosk ~o~ ~ some "~b~nMug" ~'aafi~ ~e ~eea ~e'S. ~ o~ maior ~ pr~a~ou eo~fl~ ~ ~pa~ed by ~e ~on Of ~c ~b~ ~ ~d ~y of ~e o~e~ ~c ~ ~ter~ted M the~ pro~ = ~ r~den~ ~ for m~ of ~e f~ ~e of ~e M~er v~ae, more ~t~iveiy ~ed ~e. ~eh ~ tobacco and ~agembl~. '[~roughout the period covered by the RMCI study it would ~ppear that the land value fiaat'eaie$ in the foul' target couatle% to the extent that ~e~ Occurred at all, certainly did not p~raliel the dr~r~ti¢ Luere~e in lartd values i~ general, includLt~g counties witb~t~t ~h zou/u~ Wizen inflation ia taker into account, ~rmland valu~ in three of the four cOunties dearly went down after iat, uduction of the zonln~ Trend~ La a~n'iculv~l land sale values ia constant 1987 dolla~ for Ma,,land and the four c~uati~ reported on the RMCI study are ~et forth below in Table 9. 1 ~,-d values i~ ~'o of thc counties. Baltiraore ired Carroll, appeac cleax!y lawer after the iutroduetioa of the agricultural zo~mg. Ia Montgomeq' County th~ values are generally lower, e~. ecially whea c~mpared '~itk a high 1979 figttte. '~hich w~s p~ohably rue up ia anticipation d the introdu~ou o~ zonia~ Oaly in A~ue Aruaflel County have l~iCe~, on a cm~-ta~t dollar basis, risen steadily sinc~ the introductioe of the zea[ug. ¢8 TABLE 9 TRENDS IN AGRICULTURAL LAND SALE VALUES IN CONSTANT 1987 DOLLAR~ MARYLAND AND SELECTED COUN'RES. 1974-1990 1974 $2..E~0 - ~,4,,.54~ - 1975 $2..5~0 .~t,171 .- - $2..7.~.. ~ ~7~ ~qoo ~ s2.7~o 197B $3,0'50 ~t.~ $3.17'5 (.4). 19~3 $3,750 1981 $:3,800 - $2.811 - 19~. s~.3ao 1987 ' ~.,37~ - - 1.988 $?..,S.~0 1990 $~_~00 -- S6,769' Z~nlng on the Value of Fam~iar, d:" Mmyla~d da~,a frm'a ~e ,'~nedcan Farm BurL-m* Feder'al~:m; Ir~latioo/del~.io~ tactars e~..,tated ~ U.~. Depa~'n,m~t ~f lJb<X CPI-U mp~s; c~,piled by Legg ~v~ ~fiom for ~an~; ~cc~ but ~mely 1~ g~ ~t ~e~ ~ to di~ of~ ~or development. ~b~c ~t mob a zo~g h~ on ~e ~ili~ of ~c f~ to ~t~ ~e f~ b~ ~d to ~e o[~ iu ~ ~y 0611~/200~ 14:84 41B-922 07 APP~I',IIIICJF_,S Maryland Al~iculmral Land Pr~va~ioa Founds~o~ 'A~m~l R~pori for F'tfc-al Y~ar I99I,' Maryland Departmem of Agrkultur~. (Th~ ~ reports fo~ 1982-1991 were also reviewed). Comell University De~rartment of AgriculturalEoonomics. "Information for Evah~ng La~d R~tent/ou P~o~ams; the P~cultural Dist~ct Approach.~ Nelson L. Bills and Richard and Boisvert. July 198g. Legg Mason Realty Group, Inc., "A Catalog of Growth Management Techniques,' prepared for the Governor's Commission on Gro~ ~ the Che~peake Bay Watershed. December 1989. Thomas L Danleh, ~"he Ptu-~a~e of Development Rights: preserving A.~iculUn'al Land aad Open Space,' A.PA JouraM, Autumn 1991. Dana E ~fbeig, 'The Reality. of TDR,' Urban Land, Dec~mber 1991_ Orlando E Delogu, ~Envh'onmental Regula~i0~s ~ Land ~C~t331~' Kansas LaW Review vobrm*. 34. Malyland Association ot~ County Planning Officials, testimony before the Joint Committae ora Growth Managemeat: pre~en',a.tion on the prot~ction of sensitive lands, Ocwber 1. 1991. Metropolitan Washfiagton Coundt o[ Governments, ~etmpolhan Oro~h Opt/om - 1989~ (staff t ft), Jtay zs, David J. Brower et al, "Managing Development in Small Town~," Flanner; k;~'ess, American Pl~uning Assodafio~ 1984, W. Patrick Beaton, qmpaot of Rural Opcu Space Zoning ua Proper~ Valu~ io the N~v, Jersey l~nehtads,' l~utge~ University. August, 19gg. TI~ Ghesapeak~ Bay Critical Area Commi~ivn, 'The Prospects a~d Problem~ of Economic "l~eparaxioa of 1990 Laad Use/l-a. ud Cover Maps a~d ARC/iafa Digital Database,' Fanal repoa prepared by D~ M~une-Walker Iae_. aaa submitted to the Marylaxtd Offi~ Plslmk~ April 15, 1991. Me.land Deparanent of Agrlculvara, Miw/land Agricullmal S~fi~ics, rammer/es for 1990 and 1991. }{urelm of the Can.sm, 1987 CensUs of Agricuiture, Marylaad State and Comxty dam- ~'hc Effects of Agricultural Zta~ieg on thc Value of Fm-mhx~d," preloared by Resource M~n~gement Cons'altan~s lac.. and n.~bmittcd t~ Maryland Office o:[ Planning, Febram3t 22, 199I. Maryland O~ce of Planr. ing, "A Synopsis ~f ggriculmral Zoning in Maryland,' November, 1991. Stephea Susma, 'I)o~ LaadUse Regulation Protect Pmperry values?'. Real F..staze Rev~w. Volume 20, Number 3, fall 1990. Ralph E hleim!ich, "Metropolitan Agriculture,. 'Farming in tJae City's Stmwdow,' APA Journal A. utum 1989. Ma~lartd Department of Stale Planning, ~utd Use or Abuse?,' Dee:ember 5, 1985. ~Farmer~ a~d Growth Managemeta: k Plamllng Coauadrum,' Watershed. Vohtme L Number I. IVxaryland Offic~ of Plarm~g, "Maryland's Land, 19"/3-1990, A Cheung Resource,' lhJblication 91.8. W. Patrick Beatoa et al. Wl~e Cost of Regulations, Volume 2, A. Baselin~ Study for ~e Chesapeake Bay Critical Area,' August 1988. Anderson, Terzy L, "A L/ttle Perestroflta at Home, Private Ownership of Land and Water,' p.rcaentat~on to the American Farm Bureau, 4'anuary 7-8, I991. Farm Credit Bark ~f Baltimore, Report of Maaagemeat, Februa.~, 18, 1991. O$/1B/2083 14;~q- ,,10-92~,-6871 MD FAF.~ B1J~L p~.,~_ 1~ Report on U~-V.h,e Appr~dml of Fannlmxd in tVh~land, prepared by Unive~ity of Maw/lan8 Department of Agriculture and Resource l~.conomics and submitted to the Ma.tylanfl Dal:v~:me~t of Agriculture. F~bruar/1990. In add/tioa to ~eviewing the above publications' and u~al mater/al from mo~t of them, aamc:rous ncwspape~ a~cles r~latlng to the. n~ to grov,,th management, ~tmcr COncerns conc~ralag growth naana.~L e,.~p~niea~ in other communities, aad so t'orth F~ B~ a ~¢~g of ~c Pr~den~ M~ F~ Cre~t ~Qon Vice ~id~ ~e Peoples B~ Pre~de~, ~r~ D~elopmcnt Comp~