Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgricultural & Farmland Protection PlanAGRICULTURAL and FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN The Economy of Agriculture Speasomt by: '1996 ' Robert J. Gaffney ~ounty Executive Su/folk County Pl~nn;ng Department I SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN AGRICULTURAL AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN The Economy of Agriculture SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN AGRICULTUtLkL AND FAR1Wf,~ PROTECTION PLAN The Economy of A~mSculture Stephen M. Jones, AICP Project Director Roy Fedelem Project Coordinator June, 1996 Suffolk County Planning Department 220 Rabro Drive Hauppauge, New York 11788 Sponsored by: Suffolk County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Boaxd III Suffolk Coun Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board c/o Corneil Cooperative Extension - SuffeJk C0unt~ 346 Gritting Avenue, Riverheac~, NY 11901-3086 Hon. Donald Blydenburg Presiding Officer Members of the Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Dear Mr. Blydanburg and Legislators: We are transmitting, herewith, our plan for the protection of agriculture in Suffolk County, and request that you approve the plan and forward it to the Comm~ioner of Agricultur-- and Markets in Albany for filing and acceptance. The plan contains numerous suggestions and recomraerdatlons to help protect and sust~i~ agriculture as an indust~ in our county. While the growth and development of flowers, fi'uits and vegetables may seem distinct and different ~'om the manufacture of"widgets", the economic spin-offs, jobs and other benefits, are similar in structure and, therefore, deserving of the same level of government-sponsored economic development support afforded to other industr/es ~n Suffolk County. The County Planning Department and Fan'nland Protection Board have collaborated with local government, farmers, agricultural service organizations, and interested citizens and civic gxoups to produce a plan wltich is reflective of the current st~t~ of affa/m in agriculture and horticulture and reflective of our be~t thinking az to whel~ we need to go for the future. We urge you to support this plan. Sincerely youm, Ken Schmitt, Suffolk County ~grieu/tural And Farmland Protection Board / Suffolk County Planning Deparanent V SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL AND FARMLAND PROTECTION BOARD Ken Schmitt Chairman Lee Foster Harry Hanley Steve Mudd Lyle Wells John Halsey Bruce Collins Michael Caracciolo V~rrlliam Sanok Penny Wells LaValle Stephen Jones Farme~MelviHe Farmer, Bridgehampton Plantsman, East Moriches Vlticulturalist, Southold Farmer, Riverhead Peconic Land Trust Chairman, Soil & Water Conservation District Suffolk County Legislator Cornell Cooperative ExtensionAgent Director, Real Proper~y Tax Service Agency County Planning Director VII SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION PLAN Stephen M. Jones, ~-[CP Project Director Roy Fedelem Project Coordinator PARTICIPATING STAFF Professional Staff Frank Dowling Peter Lamber: Elizabeth C. Gallagher Harold J. Withers Support St~f~ Accounting Lucille Gardella Cartographic/Publishing Carl G. L/nd James A. Daly V'mcent LeogTande Lia Ladoro Thomas Frisenda Rona/d Green Word Processing Barbara Horoski Penny Kohler ACKNOWLEDGE- MENT VIII We wish to acknowledge the assistance of the following people and organizations in the wr/ting, reviewing, mending and editing of the plan: Vfflliam Sanok*, Corneal Cooperative Extension Joseph Gergela HI*, Long Island Farm Bureau Nancy Graboski Peconic Land Trust Southampton Agr/cultura/Advisory Committee Southampton Planning Department Group for the South Fork Natural Resources Conservation Service* Long Island Convention and Visitors Bureau *Provided photographs u~ed/n this report SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN III Table of Contents Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Page Executive Summary .................. : . ~[ Background ............................................... 1 Statement of Plan,~ing Goals .............. 5 Statement of Objectives ............... 7 Inventory andAnalysis ........... 9 1992 Census of Agriculture ...... : .....13 Economic An~!ysis of Farming ....... 15 Development Pressure ...................... 17 Trends inAgricultural Districts ............. 21 Consequences of Conversion ............... 23 Loss of Market Value ................................. 23 Loss of Jobs ................................................ 23 Increase in Land Use Conflicts ................ 24 Right to Farm ............................................ 24 Cost of Services to Farms Versus Other Uses ................................... 25 Loss of Sceuic Vistas .................................. 26 Loss of Tourism ........................................... 28 Conflicts and Impediments to Far~b~g. 31 Zoning and Subdiv/sion Regulations ........ 31 Building Permits ........................................ 31 Health Dep~u tment Regulations ............... 32 New York State Legislation Pesticides .................................................. 32 Agriculture In-igation Wells - NYSDEC ... 34 Animal Nuisances ...................................... 34 11 Location of Land to be Preserved .... 37 Land in or near Agr/cuitural Districts .......37 Location Relative to Development Pressure .............................. 37 Location Relative to Pr/me Farm Soils ...... 37 Value of Land ............................................... 38 Agricultural Land Use ................................ 39 Paring System ............................................. 39 SUFFOLK. COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN Chapter Table of Contents (Cont.) Page Activities, Programs, Strategies to Promote Agricultural Uses ......................41 Farmland Development Rights Purchase .... Installment Purchase .................................... 41 Bargain Sales ................................................. 42 Voter Referendum .......................................... 43 State Agricultural Districts ........................... 43 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ........ 43 Donation of Conservation Easements ........... 44 Clustering ....................................................... 45 Agricultural Tax Assessment/Land Value Assessment ................................................... 46 Reducing Farm Operating Costs ..................47 Estate Planning ............................................. 47 Marketing ....................................................... 48 Zoning ............................................................. 49 Conservation Planning/Limited Development ................................................. 50 Right of First Refusal .................................... 50 Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) ... 50 Farm Link/Farm on Programs ...................... 51 Composting ..................................................... 51 Manure ............................................................ 52 Wine Industry ................................................. 52 Research Laboratory ...................................... 53 Responsible Farming Practices ..................... 54 Best Management Practices (BMP) .............. 55 Integrated Pest Management (rPM) ............ 56 Academic and Technology Cormections ........ 57 13 Legislation to Help in the Continuation of Farmlng ................................................. $9 Estate Tax ....................................................... 59 Property Taxes ................................................ 59 State Aid Formula for Education .................. 59 New York State Farmland Preservation Program .................................. 59 Cost Benefit Analysis and Risk Assessment. 60 Land Subdivision and Deed Notification ...... 60 Appendix Tables .............................................. A-1 X SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Suffolk County continues to see a rapid decline in furmland acreage despite its longstanding conservation efforts. From 123,000 acres in 1950, the num- ber of farm acres is now reduced to approximately 31,000, only 7,000 of which is protected by easement. At the current rate of conversion and the current rate of development rights acquisition, only 10,000 acres of farms will remain in 2012. To achieve the goal of 20,000 acres of protected farmland, preservation efforts must be accelerated. The goals of the plan are as follows: · Preserve agriculture as an important Suffolk County indust~. · Ensure public policy is protecting, promoting and sustain/rig agriculture. · Preserve farmland as an important natural resour~. · Preserve the cultural continuity of farms and farm families. · Preserve 20,000 acres o£productive farmland through the purchase of development Suffolk County still leads New York State in market value of crops, two- thirds of which is in nursery and greenhouse products. Because Suffolk County has one-third of all the irrigated farmland in New York State, the .farming industry is able to sustain itself in droughts, such as the 1995 grow- mg season. Economicall~ the farm industry generates 8,000 jobs and contributes a quarter of a billion dollars to the local economy. Upzonlng to larger loc sizes over the years has act, nlly been d~maging to farm preservation because it is based on a suburban sprawl model of single fgmily detached homes and requires more land, more roads, more uniform development. It has also promoted sterile, cookie-cutter development and discouraged rural, farm-based commercial and industrial development as alternatives to single-family homes. Development pressure on farms has increased, and conflicts between farming practice and rural residential lifestyle has grown with each new residential incursion into farmland blocks. The municipal finance effects of farm conversion are apparenC and nega- five. For every dollar an acre farmland pays in property tax, it uses $.30 cents in services. For every dollar an acre homesite pays, it uses $1.23 in services. Loss of farms, farm jobs, economic activity and favorable property tax ratios to more homes, more traffic, less open space, puts a drain on municipal services and accelerates a decline in the quality of life. Agricultural districts (8 year property tax reductions), better mapping of parcels, soils and parcel characteristics are helping decision-makers in the preservation of large blocks of farmland. Future program~ for instsllment purchases, increases in public funding, both locally and on the state and national level for the purchase of development rights and other techniques hold great premise that the goal of preserving 20,000 acres can be met. Impovements in agriculture practices, marketing of produce, community involvement, estate planning, government and institutional support are all helping to support and sustain farming and raise the level of interest in agriculture as an important element in the overall economy of Suffolk County. SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION PLAN IN MEMORIUM This report is dedicated to the memory of John Wickham, a farmer who taught me thirty years ago that the soil sustains not only plants, but families and businesses as well. S.M.J. XII SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN BACKGROUND Suffolk County has had a large decline in the amount of farmland over the last several decades and continues to see a rapid decline in farmland today in spite of conservation efforts. From 1950 to 1992 the acreage of farmland in the County declined from 123,346 acres to only 35,353 acres and contin- ues to decline at a rate of 1,289 acres per year. The number of farms also is declining rapidlM From 1950 to 1992 the number of farms in the County declined from 2,187 to 587 and over the last ten years the County has lost an average of 21 farms per year. Development continues to put pressure on farmland for conversion. Al- though there are a relatively Iow 3,000 or so new residential units built in Suffolk County each year this represents a demand for 3,000 or more acres annually, partially due to up-zoning which requires larger minimum lot sizes. Many areas are zoned for five acre minimum lot sizes which puts added pressure on those areas that are zoned one acre, as is much of the farmland in the Town of Riverhead. Farmland is also desirable to developers because it is mostly cleared and flat. With the passage of the Pine Barrens Law there is a 50,000 acre area primarily in the Towns of Brookhaven and Southampton where residential development is not permitted. Although some of the lost potential can be transferred to other designated areas, some of these are farmed, putting added development pressure on them. The urbanized area as defined in the 1990 U. S. Census covers up to and crosses Brsokhaven's border with Riverhead and Southampton. This area is defined as being closely settled territorM The urbanized area covers one Agricultural District and is on the fringe of two others. What this me~n.~ is that heavy development has reached the gateway to eastern Suffolk County and is already beginning to push into the thousands of acres of rich farm- land in the Town of Riverhead. While Suffolk County, the eastern towns, and several non-profit agencies are actively involved in farmland preservation, there is not enough money, available to preserve the 20,000 acres of farmland suggested as a goal in this plan. Although there has already been nearly 7,000 acres of farmland development rights acquired to date the additional 13,000 acres called for by the plan would cost in excess of $100 million. At the current rate of $1.5 million dollars per year it will take 16 years and $24 million dollars to add another 3,000 acres of preserved farmland, by the year 2012. If conversion rates continue at their present rate there will be only 10,000 acres of farm- land le~ in Suffolk County by that time and the goal of 20,000 acres would be only half met. It is obvious that $1.5 million dollars per year is not only insufficient but would lead to the loss of mast of our valuable farmland and the loss of any chance of saving a sizable m~.~s of it for furors generations. To save a total of 20,000 acres from the onslaught of development would take a $15 million expenditure per year for the nex~ seven years or less money if enough land could be preserved using a combination of other pres- ervation techniques (SeeAppendix Table 3 ). Under both of these scenarios there would come a point where the County is preserving the few remaining pieces of farmland which are not necessarily the most desirable pieces to preserve. The longer the time frame the smaller the chance of presenrmg large contiguous blocks of farmland without residential intrusions. SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN Large lot zoning accelerates the disappearance of farm acreage 2 On June 21, 1994, County Executive Gaf~ey si~ned Resolution 468-1994 authorizing, empowering and directing the Suffolk County Planning De- partment to apply for Farmland Protection Funding from the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets for financ/al assistance in the preparation of this agricultural preservation plan. In early 1995, a grant to Suffolk County in the amount of $50,000 was awarded by the State to be matched by county funds. The County Legislature directed that the plan be developed in conjunction with the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Sug- folk County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board. There have been re,ny opportunities for input into the Farmland Protection Plan, both pub- lic and governmental. The County Planning Department has been openly seeking input into the plan. Var/ous Town officials and other agencies have been contacted asking for input. These include the Towns of Riverhead, Southampton and Southold and Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, Long Island Farm Bureau, Group for the South Fork and the Long Island Convention and Visitors Bureau. Public meetings where the plan waa mentioned include the Long Island Agriculture Forum in January of 1995 and 1996, meet-Lugs for the renewal of Agricnltural Districts No. 1 & 7 and two public hearings held in Riverhead and Southampton in November, 1995 specifically devoted to plan input. (See Appendix Table 11). The public meetings in Southampton and Riverhead were attended by 27 and 10 people respectively. The Southampton meeting had a wider range of people and therefore had moro comments. The Riverhead meeting was small enough to allow for a group discussion. Many of the comments addressed what were considered unfair health depa~ tment regulations. These included underground and above ground fuel tanks, n/trogen management and mi- grant camp permit fees. It was also suggested that there be better policing of land already in purchase of development rights progrsm,. Another group of comments at the public hearing dealt with taxes. One tax was the so-called Cuomo Tax on real estate transfers. It was said that PDR properties should be exempt because the County still owned the develop- SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN ment rights. Property taxes were a concern and a proposal for a circuit breaker tax was proposed. One of the biggest nuisances farmers are now facing is the large unchecked deer population. They are hard to control and do quite a bit of crop damage. A critical mass of fatu~and is very impor- tant. At least another 10,000 acres of farmland needs to be preserved. ~'~ATE M ENT OF pLANNING GOALS SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN · Preserve agriculture as an important industry in Suffolk County as it provides fresh food, fiber and horticultural prod- ucts for our residents. Agriculture preserves and protects im- portant environmental resources, wildlife habitat and aesthet- ics that contribute to our quality of life. · To ensure public policy that will protect, encourage, promote, and sustain agriculture as an industry for future generations. Public policy should recognize the changes as they occur. Agri- culture is a dynamic industry that constantly evolves. Farm- ing is a way of life that strenfthens our quality of life and cohe- siveness of communities. · To preserve farmland as an important natural resource. Farmland preservation is essential for Suffolk County to retain its critical mass of land necessary to sustain a viable agricul- ture industry. Agriculture as an industry represents 5% of Long Island's GNP and is an important economic contributor. Fax'm- land contributes to our historical fabric, community identity, Suffolk's value as a destination for tourism and provides tax paying open space. · To preserve the cultural continuity of faxming as a link to the historical development of Suffolk County and Long Island's ag- riculture as a direct link between the farm f~ml]ies and the land from which they live and derive sustenance. SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN · To develop an economic analysis of Suffolk County's agricul- ture industry including property tax implications, job reten- tion and creation, statistical information as to commodities pro- duced, economic development potential, impact on tourism, etc. · The Nassau-Suffolk Comprehensive Plan Summary in 1970 recommended the preservation of 30,000 acres of productive farmlanck In 1975 Suffolk County received bids to buy the de- velopment rights to 17,949 acres at a cost of $116,566,770. Of those 13,819 acres were recommended at a cost of $82,318,654. To date, half that amount has been preserved through the County and Town purchase of development rights programs. Having achieved the purchase of 6,617 acres, an interim goal of 13,000 acres seems very attainable. While 30,000 acres may slil] be desirable, a more realistic goal of 20,000 acres should be set considering speculation and the rate of farmland conver- sion, the $100 million price tag to get to 20,000 acres and the voluntary nature of acquisition programs. 6 SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN 7 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES · Identify County and local government rules, reg-ulations and policies that hinder the economic development potential of ag- riculture. Public policy should protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community without unreasonably restrict- ing normal farming practices, hindering the farm economy or discouraging agricultural operations. · Continue public investment in farming by adjustments to assessment practices, estate taxes and inheritance, clustering techniques, conservation easements, income and property tax planning and consultation and purchase of development rights. · Provide a nurturing environment of public/private interest in diversification of produce, organic farm practice, nontradi- tional techn/ques, educational and scientific support, recycling, technologic innovation and experimentation. SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION PLAN INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN A number of information sources were researched and analyzed for the plan. One of the outgrowths of the plan has been the development of a Geographi- cal Information System (GIS) and specifically the creation ofnumereus cov- erages or layers for this computer-based mapping and property data sys- tem. The GIS maps were a result of some cooperation between the County and Towns. Maps will be given to each Town for their use and hopefully this will lead to a partnership between the Towns and County to maintain and improve the inventories. The following is a sample of GIS maps created as part of this plan. Since the maps are large in their extent and some por- tions of the maps are still under construction, only a smmple is shown here for publication format. GIS mapping can as- sist decision makers by showing areas already permanently protected, tempo- rarily protected and vulnerable to con. version N 9 The following is an analysis of farmland in Suffolk County by Town. It compares the acreage of farmland in each Town in 1968 and 1996. The 1968 figures were from the Long Island Comprehensive Plan and are close to the 1969 Census of Agriculture figure of 61,520 acres. The'1996 figures were from a combination of the assessor's records, aerial photographs and field surveys. In 1996 farmland totaled 46,141 acres in Suffolk County which is significantly above the 1992 U.S. Census of Agriculture figure of 35,353. The difference may be in how farmland is defined, including what is done with fallow land. For the 1996 numbers a land was considered fallow farm- land if it had been recently farmed and did not show signs of shrubs or trees in it. Also included in the 1996 figures are woodland or wetlands tho*. is part of a large parcel that is mostly farmed. There are also several hundred acres which are owned by LILCO or New York State which are leased to farmers. From 1968 to 1996, 18,260 acres were lost to farming for an annual average of 652 acres per year. This is a conservative figure because the U.S. Census ~f Agriculture numbers show an even greater loss of farmland and land recently taken out of farming may still be counted as farmland. SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN Changes in the amount of farmland vary on a Town by Town basis. Babylon has lost all but 7 acres of its farmland but did not have much farmland to begin with. Huntington, Islip and Smithtown have all lost ever two-thirds of their farmland and Brookhaven has lost almost half of theirs. Of the remaining 1,775 acres of farmland in SmTolk's four western Towns 73% is in the Town of Huntington which still has 1,294 acres. The eastern Towns of East Hampton and Southampton have both lost close to a third of their farmland since 1968. Southampton now ranks third among Suffolk County Towns with a total of 8,617 acres of farmland. This sizable amount is under heavy development pressure as evidenced by a Town of Southampton repor~ stating that 588 acres or 11.5% of the Town's remaining, unsubdivided farm- land is in some stage of subdivision review. The Town of Southold rank~ second among Suffolk County Towns with 9,820 acres of farmland which is 22% of the County total. This moved Southold ahead of Southampton be- cause of more extensive conversion of farmland in Southampton. The Town of Riverhead has 17,662 acres or 40% of ail the farmland in the County and INVENTORY OF FA1LMI.AND IN SUFFOLK COUNTY by Town (In Acres) 10 Decline 1968-1996 Decline Per Year Town 1968 1996 No. Percent in Acres Babylon 370 7 363 98.10 13.00 6rookhaven 11,560 6,439 5,121 44.30 183 East Hampton 2,420 1,672 748 30.90 26.70 Huntington 4,170 1,294 2,876 69.00 102.70 Islip 640 136 504 78.80 18.00 Riverhead 19,550 17,662 1,888 9.70 67.40 Shelter Island 80 156 -76 -95.00 -2.70 Smithtown 1,240 338 902 72.70 32.20 Southampton 12,450 8,617 3,833 30.80 136.90 Southold 11,920 9,820 2,100 17.60 75.00 Suffolk County Total 64,400 46,141 18,260 28.40 652.1 11 SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN has only lost 10% of its farmland in the last 28 years. In spite of this rela- tively small loss, vistas which once contained farmland as far as the eye could see are now broken up by residential subdivisions. The variation in the loss of farmland on the South Fork as compared to the smaller loss on the North Fork denote fundamental differences between the two. The South Fork has the appeal of being called the Hamptons, which makes it attractive to year-reund and to just as great an extent develop- ment for seasonal homes. Riverhead attracts mainly year-round residents so it does not get very much development that is seasonal. Riverhaad now has twice as much farmland as Southampton, so the percentage loss for the same amount of acreage will be half as much as in Southampton. Zoning in Riverhead is pred0minately one acre, where most other East End towns are generally two acrs minimum or more. This leads to less land being con- verted per home in Riverhead. This has the effect of slowing the conversion of farmland but will not stop it and the end result ~ be development at twice the density of the other towns. The Town of Southold does attract year-round and, to a lesser extent, seasonal housing. More farmland has been lost in Southold than in Riverhead because Southold does have more of a seasonal market and outholds predominantly two acre zoning. '!992 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN Statistics from the 1992 .~ricultural Census show some startling things about Suffolk Coun~ Farmland. A rapid decline in farm acreage occurred between 1950 and 1974. From 1974 to 1982 the conversion of farm]and declined due to a slowdown in new housing starts as well as the initiation of the Suffolk County Farmland Preservation Program. Ia the last ten years the loss of farmland has accelerated to an average annual decline of 1,454 acres. At this rate farmland preservation programs are failing to keep pace with conversion and cannot hope to do so unless large amounts of money are made available. Not surprisingly, Suffolk County still leads all New York State counties in many areas. One area Suffolk continues to lead in is the market value of agricultural products sold. Suffolk's reported total market value for crops in 1992 was $133,762,000 of which two thirds was from Nursery and green- house products. Nursery and greenhouse product sales in Suffolk County accounted for 41.4% of the state total which was over five times more than the second highest county in the state. Other Suffolk County crops preemi- nent in the state are: Irish potatoes, rye for grain, cauiLflower, broccoli, pumpkins and spinach. Suffolk County leads all New York State counties with an average sales per farm figure of $227,874, almost three times the state average. During droughts such as 1995, Suffolk County has one ad- vantage in that it contains one third of all the irrigated farrniand in New York State. Suffolk County con- tains one-third of all the irrigated farm- land in New York State,keeping drought related crop problems to a mini- mum. 13 Property taxes are a major cost to Suffolk farmland owners. Suffolk farms pay $3.4 million dollars in property taxes ann~lly. This works out to $96 per acre, the third highest per acre tax in New York State. Property taxes per acre in Suffolk County are 5.7 times the state average and 25.8 times the United States average. In spite of these high taxes Suffolk County spends the smallest percentage of its farm expenses on property taxes than any other county in New York State. In Suffolk 3.4% of farm expenses goes to SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN pay property tax compared to an average of 5.8% in New York State and 2.7% in the United States. The largest production expense for Suffolk County farms is hired labor which totals $34.4 million dollars or one th/rd of faro production expenses. The average for New York State was less than haft the rate for Suffolk County. Suffolk County has the second highest state percentage of farmland which is rented at 15%. This is nearly three times the farmland rental rate in New York State, and may be an indicator of pressure to develop farmland. 14 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FARMING SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN The 1992 Census of Agriculture total market value figure of $134 million for Suffolk County in 1992 was put into an input-output model. The result indicated that the economic impact of farming in Suffolk County generates 8,000 jobs and adds another $241 million to the economy.. Half of this ira. pact is directly attributable to the nursery and greenhouse industry. This economic impact is clearly understated with some indicators pointing to agriculture having a far greater impact. The horse industry alone is said to be a $1 billion industry.. Favorable changes to tax investment laws and state agri- culture laws have fostered expansion of horse farms in the county 15 The wine industry contributes $30 million to the economy. Suffolk County now has the largest premium wine industry of any county in the United States outside of California. With about sixteen hundred acres ofviniferous grapes (wine grapes) the wine industry is still looking for further expan- sion. Suffolk County wines have earned a good reputation and have won m~ny awards in the wine industry. Suffolk County has a huge market nearby for wine, nursery and greenhouse products and other agricultural products. Within a 75 mile radius of the end of the Long Island Expressway in Calverten there are 15.7 million people with a median household income of $41,000 in 1989. This location is near the center of the Town of Riverhead's agricultural area~ This provides a large market with easy access for '~he many roadside farmstands and U-pick farms. A major attraction for this market is strawberry picking in the early s,,m~ner and pumpkin picking in the fall. SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN The wine industry continues to de- velop in product, reputation, and quality as well as cachet and tourist attraction The wine industry is concentrated near the western portion of the Town of Southold. The population within 75 miles of that location is 11.6 million with a 1989 median household income of $43,000. This compares very fa- vorably to the wine area near Hammondsport in upstate New York'where there are only 2.6 million people with a median household income of $30,000 within 75 miles. A local study on the wine industry shewed that a vineyard with a winery is two and one half times more profitable than a vineyard by itself. Add to this the massive tourism industry on Suffolk's eas~ end, the symbiotic relationship between tourism and wine tasting tours and farmstands, and it is easy to see why Suffolk County has become so desir- able for the wine industry and tourism. 16 DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN The Central Pine Barrens Plan was adopted in June 1995. This plan effec- tively eliminates development in the 50,000 acre core area of the Pine Bar- rens, which is pr/manly the eastern middle of Brookhaven Town, the north- western part of Southampton Town and the extreme southwestern part of Riverhead Town. Some density will be allowed to be transferred to areas outside the core. Therefore, development pressure will be increased outside the core area. Adjacent to the core are farms in Agricultural Districts 2,3 and 5. Within five miles of the core are farms in Agricultural District 7. Both Riverhead and Brookhaven have designated farm areas as so-called receiving areas for Pine Barrens development credits. Clearly the Pine Bar- rens Law will have the impact of increasing development pressure on farm- land. In the Town of Southampton, clustering has been used to create 778 acres of agriculture reserves. This approach has the advantage of costing the mu- nicipality nothing but the drawback is the creation of many five, ten and fi~een acre farms while the rest of the farmland is residentially developed causing a potential for land use conflicts between homeowners and farmers and farmland parcels too small to be farmed efficiently. Farm land can be preserved through clustering, but small reserves can be difficult to farm and heavily invested neighbors are not always supportive 17 The number of building permits being issued seems to have some correla- tion to the conversion of farm acreage. When building activity, as measured by building permits issued, is high the amount of farm acreage lost over the same time period is also high. During the 1950's and 1960's when Suffolk County averaged 11,398 building permits per year there was an average annual loss of 3,254 acres of farmland per year. By 1970 most of the farm- land in western Suffolk County had already been converted to residential uses. During the early 1970's most of the building activity was in the Town of Breokhaven, and most of that was on wooded land rather than farmland. For those reasons the rate of farmland conversion dropped to 1,225 acres per year in spite of an average annual figure of 11,597 housing units autho- rized by building permits. SUFFOLK CO UN ~Fy AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN From the early 1970's to the 1974-78 period, there was a 43% drop in build- lng permits to 6,573 per year and a similar decline of 38% in farmland con- version which averaged 886 acres per year. For the 1978-82 time period, building permits dropped to their lowest level since World War II at 2,875 units per year. Farmland conversion also declined to the lowest level since World War II with an average of 489 acres per year being converted. From the 1978-1982 period to the 198241987 period building permits more than doubled while farmland conversion more than tripled. Building per- mits averaged 6,868 while the loss of farmland amounted to an average of 1,620 acres per year. One reason for this jump in farmland conversion is the countywide increase in residential building activity from 1982-1987. Another reason is the escalation in building activity on the east end of Suf- folk County, where most of the farms are located. From 1958 to 1981 the eastern five towns of Suffolk County accounted for an annual average of 1,169 building permits. From 1982 to 1988 building activity on the east end jumped to 1,715 units per year. (See Appendix Table 10) Cleared flat farm- land is easy to convert to residen- tial development and places addi- tional conversion pressure on adja- cent remaining farms 18 One factor that is causing more land, and also more farmland, to be devel- oped relative to the number of neW housing units is changes in zoning and health depeuCu~ent regulations which require larger lot sizes. During the 1960's and the 1970's many areas were subdivided into quarter acre or third acre lots. By the mid 1980% half acre tots were the min~mum, and in the 1990's one acre lots are the norm, with many areas going to two acre rn~ni. mt~m~ The effective result is that as time passes a smaller number ofhous- lng umts consume a greater amount of land. Building permits and the loss of farm acreage both declined from 1987 to 1992. Building permits aver- aged 4,902 units per year while the loss in farm acreage averaged 1,289 acres per year. Building activity on the east end was more than cut in half from 1990 to 1993 relative to where it was from 1983 through 1988. SUFFOLK CO UN rY A G RICU f. TURA L P,~O ~-ECTION PLAN Conversion of nu- merous farms to residential develop- ment requires widen- lng of historical farm roads, sewer, water and utility expan- sions and loss of roadside vistas SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN TRENDS IN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS Suffolk County has six StateAgricultural Districts. AnAgriculture District is a loosely conglomerated area within a local taxing jurisdiction where prop- erty owners voluntarily agree to farm theft lands for an eight-year period. In return, they receive a reduced assessed value for their land (and result- ing property taxes), exemption from special district levies based on frontage and protection via right to farm laws. Owners must pay penalties to re- move themselves from the district prior to its eight-year term. Agricultural District #1, in Southold was renewed in 1995 for the second time, five dis- tricts have been renewed once and Agricultural District #7 has just under- gone its first renewal. The trends have been declining acreage in the two Brook.haven Agricultural Districts and significant increases in the recently renewed districts in Southold and Southampton and Riverhead (seeAppen- dix Table 9). Agricultural District #1 doubled in size at its renewal in 1995, going from 2,937 acres to 5,869 acres. Agricultural District No. 7 is incorporatingAgricultural District No. 6, with both districts totaling originally 2,608 acres. The renewed district more than tripled in size to 9,192 acres. This is very positive for continued farm- ing because Riverhead sits at the threshold of residential and cornmeroial development progressing from the west. Agricultural Districts have been greatly expanded in the last year in Suf- folk County. Last year there was a total of 13,217 acres in agr/cultural districts. WhenAgricultural District #7 is fimallzed there will be over 22,000 acres. The reasons for the increased participation in the program has been a combination of several factors. One reason is the outstanding cooperation the program received from the Town Assessors in Riverhead, Southold and Southampton, the Cooperative Extension, the Long Island Farm Bureau and members of the Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board. Another reason is that farmers put aside any mistrust of government and recog- nized that joining the Agricultural District was to theft great advantage. Other reasons farmers have cited include lowering their taxes which will help them Financially to be able to continue farming, protection from nui- sance complaints and an acknowledgment of theft Right to Farm. Of specific concern is the amount of protection agricultural districts afford in protecting farndand from conversion to non-farming uses, predominately residential. Agricultural District #2, La the northern part of the Town of Brookhaven, has gone from 1,000 acres down to 321 acres and is in danger of disappearing altogether, District #3 in the southeastern part of Breokhaven h~ declined from 1,085 acres to 883 and the East Hampton portion of Dis- trict #5 has declined from 368 acres to 200 acres. It is clear that agricultural districts do not preserve farmland but only tem- porurily protect it from development pressure. Although other me~-~ of preservation need to be used the agricultural districts are valuable in help- ing farmers to continue to farm through lower taxes and protection from many complaints and government regulations. In addition, the districts help bridge the gap to eventual permanent protection and preservation. 21 SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN LOSS OF .MARKET VALUE CONSEQUENCES 0 F C 0 N V E R S ]O U In recent years there has been a shift from low value crops such as potatoes to high value crops like grapes, nursery and greenhouse products, resulting /n an increase in market value while the amount of farmland decreases. This will continue as long as high value crops replace Iow value crops. At some point, when th/s trend stops, the loss of farmland will translate into a loss of market value. Nursery stock along with other horticul- tural products, have helped to keep Suffolk County the number one farming county in New York State in market value 23 Nursery and greenhouse products increased in market value from $67.3 rnilJfon in 1987 to $90.3 million in 1992 for an increase of 34.2%,While mar- ket value of other agricultural products sold, declined by $4.4 million or 9.2%. If not for the increased sales in nursery and greenhouse products Suffolk County would have had a net decline in market value. LOSS OFJOBS Accurate figures on farm employment are hard to come by. Several sources of statistics on farming occupations and the agriculture industry can be misleading. According to the United States decennial census in 1990 and 1980 the number of people employed in farm occupations and the number employed in the farming industry have both increased significantly in Suf- folk County. The Towns having the greatest numerical increase were Breokhaven, Islip and Southampton while the Towns of Riverhead and Southald, where most of the farm acreage is, had declines. The reason for this is that agr/calture is defined as including landscape and horticultural services such as lawn and garden services and tree services. As Suffolk County development continues to sprawl and the population ages there is a greater market for those types of services. For this reason suburban areas may see increases in agricultural employment which overshadow the de- crease in actual farm workers. 24 SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN According the New York State Department of Labor there has been a large decrease in estimated seasonal agricultural employment on Long Island from 1989 to 1995. At the end of August 1989 Long Island had 2,211 sea- sonal workers which was 21% of the New York State total. At the end of August 1995 Long Island had an estimated seasonal employmen~ of 805 which was a decline of 64% from 1989 and now only accounts for 8% of the New York State total. The 1992 Census of Agriculture, conducted by the U. S. Census Bureau has information on hired farm labor. In 1992, 352 farms in Suffolk County had hired farm labor, down from 400 farms in 1987. In 1992 there were 3,637 hired farm workers in Suffolk County with an annual payroll of $34,380,000. The 1987 Census does not include a number of hired farm workers but it does have the annual payroll which was $25,986,000. Another way to look at the loss of farm jobs is to look at the change in foam ownership. Over half of the decline in farms and farm acreage between 1987 and 1992 has been due to losses in farms where the operator is also the full owner. Farms operated by full owners declined from 406 in 1987 to 346 in 1992 while the corresponding acreage declined from 13,325 to 9,904. This means Suffolk County lost 25% of all the farmland operated by full owners. The comparable decline in farm acreage in New York State was 19% for full owners. A similar situation is found when looking at part owners and the acreage they own. In Suffolk County this declined from 10,081 acres in 1987 to 7,919 acres in 1992 for a loss of 21%. From 1987 to 1992 there was an increase of 902 acres in the amount of farmland rented by part owners. This may be due to the renting of land which was previously owned by the full owner or part owner. Ten~,~ts farmed one fourth less acreage in 1992 than they did in 1987. This amounted to a decline of 1,765 acres in this category which was 27% of the total loss in farmland. INCREASE IN LAND USE CONFLICTS As subdivision of previously farmed land or land adjacent to farmland oc- curs there is a greater potential for conflicts between residences and farms. This is because farmers engage in activities such as plowing, /m/gating, fertilizing and spraying which may be deemed annoying to the homeowners but are necessary for farming. These activities sometimes lead to nuisance complaints about noise, dust and pesticide use. RIGHT TO FARM A local law entitled Right to Farm was approved by the Suffolk County Legislature on May 10, 1982. This law declares an official County policy to conserve, protect and encourage the use of its agricultural land for the pro- duction of food and other agricultural products. The law says that agricnl- rural activity such as irrigating, spraying, fertilizing and tractor use does not constitute a nuisance flit is consistent with good agricultural practices and was established prior to surrounding nonagricultural activities. If it is possible for Towns to adopt local laws within their police powers, right to farm laws should be encouraged for passage on the local level as well. SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN Long Island ducks, once preeminent in quality and reputa- tion, have had their numbers dramati- cally reduced due to more strict surface water pollution laws and the high costs associated with regu. latory compliance 25 COST OF SERVICES TO FARMS VERSUS OTH ~:P,. USES The American Farmland Trust has done many studies on this topic. The .unanim. ous conclusion is that farmland pays more in taxes than it requires in sermces. It is therefore cost effective for local governments to keep land i~. farming rather than residential development which requires more in ser- vices than it pays in taxes. The studies show consistently that for every dollar they paid in taxes, resi- dential development demanded in excess of one dollar in services. Farm- land on the other hand always paid more in taxes than it required in set- vices. In almost all studies farmland received less than 50 cents worth of services for every dollar it paid in taxes and in many studies the serv/ces amounted to one third of what was paid in taxes. A series of n/ne community studies were done in the New York counties of Dutchess and Schuyler by the American Farmland Trust. The median fa- rios of revenue versus cost of community services was 1:1.23 for residential, 1:0.27 for commercial/industrial and 1:029 for farm/forest/open land (See Appendix Table 7). Other studies in Massachusetts, l~Sinnesota and Ohio made similar findings. Commercial and industrial properties are similar to farmland in that they pay more in taxes than they receive in services. Some- t~nes their ratio of taxes to services was higher than farmland sometimes it was lower but generally it was fairly sirnflan The difference is that com- mercial and industrial development generate more jobs which in turn gen- erate more demand for residential development. Thus, residential develop- merit will consume more open space, including farmland while it demands more in services than it pays in taxes. Other costs of commercial and industrial development include traffic con- gestion, pollution and infrastructure improvements. Also lost is the rural character, the open space and the views. SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN Often times, residen- tial intrusion into farmland force farms to go fallow, because they can no longer be farmed in large blocks The home owner fan- tasy of living in farm country sometimes results in the reality of noise, dust, and spray all of which are nesseary results of farm practice. One new homeowner complained that the seven foot high corn stalks ruined this view of the fields In addition to a positive revenue flow, farmland provides jobs, a fresh food supply, open space and vistas that remind us of the rural character that is all but gone in most urbanized areas. It is clear from extensive study that one of the most cost-effective uses of land from a municipal point of view is to use it for farmland. LOSS OF SCENIC VISTAS It is evident from looking at aerial photographs and tax maps showing sub- divisions of farmland that scen/c vistas have been lost and are in jeopardy of being lost due to subdivision. These scenic vistas help make eastern SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN Ironically, one of the strong markets for nursery stock is the new home sites carved out of un- wooded farmland Suffolk County an attractive destination for tourism. Farms are a part of the rural character of the east end that is attractive to tourists. From the inception of the automobile, people from New York City drove out on Long Island to enjoy the rural atmosphere and sometimes even purchase farm lots. Today people from Nassau County and western Suffolk County drive out east for some of the same reasons. Remove the scenic vistas, and there- fore the rural character, and this segment of teurism would decrease. From field observations it can be seen that what used to be large exp~,~es of farmland are now interrupted by more and more houses. It is almost as if the farms are now growing houses instead of crops. In some places, homes are sprouting faster than crops 27 SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN LOSS OF TOURISM As housing densities have increased tourism has tended to decrease or move to a new location. Tourism is accommodated by second homes, hotels and day-trippers. Tourism has declined in many areas of Suffolk County like Lake Ronkonkoma, the south shore of the Town of Islip and the north and south shore of the Town of Brookhaven. Tourism in these areas is little more than a memory of olden days. The resort hotels are all gone or con- verted and all but a few of the second homes have been converted to year- round use. According to an update of the Southampton Comprehensive Plan, the ocean is the number one destination for tourists but ranked number three is rural destinations. An important component of tourism is second homes of which there were 35,953 in 1990, in Suffolk County. These second homes can accommodate over 150,000 people which is eight times the number which can be accam- inodated by all hotels in eastern Suffolk and seasonal hotels in western Suffolk. As development pushed eastward in Suffolk County second homes were pushed eastward as well. In 1960 the other vacant category, which is about 90% second homes, had 45,419 housing units in it and 63% of these were in western Suffolk. By 1970 this category dropped 10,554 units or 23% and eastern SuffoLk then accounted for 51% of the other vacant category. The Towns of Babylon, Huntington and Smithtown all declined by over 50% in the other vacant category from 1960 to 1970. Local farm stands provide a seasonal outlet for local pro. duc. e, contribute to the tourist attraction of the area, and boost farm income 28 During the 1970's and the 1980's there was a continued decline in western SuffoLk's second homes while eastern SuffoLk was increasing in the number of second homes. From 1970 to 1990 the number of seasonal homes in west- ern SuffoLk was cut in half, going from 14,537urdts to 7,592 units. Eastern Suffolk more than offset the decline in western Suffolk by increasing the SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN number of seasonal homes there by 11,613 un/ts or 69%. Mastic Beach sea- sonal units declined 82% from 1970 to 1990 and the Sound Beach area de- clined by 66%. The Town of Riverhead is the only east end Town to lose seasonal housing un/ts, probably due to suburban sprawl creeping into that Town. Seasonal units in Wading River declined by 57% from 1980 to 1990. It is evident from this data that extensive subdivision of farmland will lead to a decrease in the number of seasonal homes and therefore a decrease in tourism. Furthermore, extensive subdivision would lead to a depreciat/on of the rural character of the area which is an important attraction for tourists. Although there are no studies to support it, seasonal homes are probably similar to farmland in that they pay more in taxes than they require in services. This is supported by the fact that most of the property taxes go to schools, and seasonal homes do not generate school students. CONFLICTS AND IMPEDIMENTS TO FARMING SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN ZONING AND SUBDMSION REGLrL,A~IONS Zoning can in some cases be detrimental to the goal of continued farming. Some zoning laws present restrictions on farmstands. Restrictions on what can and cannot be sold at farmstands can cut into farm revenues. However, if too much leeway is allowed in what is sold, this could give some farmstands a competitive advantage over farmstands that only sell their own produce or stores which must pay taxes, rent and overhead. In the extreme, farmstands can become retail establisbaments which may cause them to be regulated through commercial zoning. Another concern, as pointed out in the section on the trends in building permits, is that increasing rn~ulmum building lot sizes has led to greater conversion of farmland acreage per new residential unit. This concern has been expressed in a study that found large lot zoning led not to the conser- vation of farmland but, to the creation of m~ni-estates which were on over- sized lots for the housing, yet too srnnl! to be effectively farmed. Subdiv/sion regulations can act as a detriment to farming by allowing resi- dences to be built right up to the edge of farmland without buffers. This causes a land use conflict because people may now complain about the noise, dust and spraying of the adjacent farm. To mitigate this, deed notifications could be used and buffers could be created. The problem with densely planted buffers is that in most cases, the trees would block the bucolic vistas that some homeowners find attractive. BUIILmllNG PERMITS Undue regulations or delays in obtnin(ng the permits can lead to hardships for the farmen Sometimes buildings or greenhouses have to be built quickly to allow farmers to fill orders or contr:a~ cts. There are certain times of the year when farmers are very busy such as at planting and harvesting times. Clustering can pre- serve large blocks of farmland, but houses stretched out along farm fields without buffers, instead of grouped in more compact configura- tions, can spell trouble for the farm- ers in the form of neighbor complaints 31 SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN If delays push the timing of a project into those times it can create a hard- ship for the farmer. Rq~ALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS Many regulations proposed or adopted in the past have generated animos- ity from the farm community. These include regulations on pesticide use, discharge regulations such as those now threatening the remsln~ng duck farms, and regulations of gasoline and chemical storage. The specific regu- lations that have caused problems for farmers areArticles 6, 7 and 12 of the county health code and New York State Environmental Conservation Law. These regulations can cause additional burdens in time and money on farm- ers. Farmers have said they would much rather spend their time farming than doing paperwork. Article 6 regulates density through subdivision control. This article goner- ally requires a minimum of one half to one acre lots when land is subdi- vided, regardless of the zoning. It is said that this reduces the value of the farm property with the adverse effect that it reduces the amount of collar- eral a farmer has for loan purposes. Since most open areas have been re- zoned to one and two acre lot minimums this article does not have the nega- five impact it once had. Article 7 institutes certain nitrogen loading restric- tions based on land use. A house, for example, will be allowed a certain amount of nitrogen loading presumably to support their lawn while a farm is allowed similar nitrogen loading on a per acre basis to produce a useful and marketable commodity. A problem arises when a subdivision is clns- tered and an agricultural reserve is created as to how nitrogen loading is allocated between the two uses. Article 12 is an example of a regulation that was poorly instituted but has since been corrected. Initially farmers and others with underground fuel storage tanks were required to remove and replace them without benefit of approved replacement specifications. Today specifications are not only clearly defined but new tanks are generically accepted upon submission of the m~nufacturers specifications to the Commissioner of the SuffoLk County Department of Health Services. Portable containers are now also permit- ted with some restrictions. In addition there is now a defined regulation outlining the Certificate of Test Completion that expedites the process. Migrant housing is another sore spot for farmers because the fee the County health department has charged had been raised. At the same time the num- ber of inspections have been reduced. Upon receiving complaints, the Health department lowered the fees part way but still did not increase inspections. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services receives complaints from the general public about certain agricultural practices. Unfortunately there is not any centralized complaint processing or a good record of complaints they have received. Each complaint is routed to the division that handles that specific area and once the complaint is resolved the record disappears. NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATION - PESTICIDES Apasticide registry law has been adopted by NewYork State. This new law requires pesticide sales and use reports to NYSDEC. The s,,ramaries are to be made available to the public and some specific information may be made available to health researchers. Reporting requirements will not be dis- similar to current reporting requirements for commercially certified appli- 33 SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN cators. Basically the bills would require farmers to report all or only the restricted use pesticides that they use. On the positive side, the law will create information which will assist in breast cancer research, and provide information on trends and the use of pesticides by certified applicators. However, the law will not insure a reduction in breast cancer rates. There are other known risk factors which may have a greater impact. Further, the law does not regulate homeowners and non-certified applicators who use pesticides and who may account for up to half of all pesticide use on Long Island. No funds have been provided for the adequate collecting, handling and summarizing of the information to be collected. In Nassau County where the breast cancer rats is highest, housing develop- ments were built on farmland prior to the widespread use of pesticides. In eastern Suffolk County where pesticides were extensively used, breast can- car rates were not any higher than other areas. In a December 19, 1995 story in Newsch~y on breast cancer it was said that Few, if any, scientists believe that environmental contaminants are the sole or even the dominant cause of breast cancer. .In issues such as breast cancer and its rela~iouship to pesticides more study m needed. Additional research is also needed, especially regarding on-farm use of synthetic compounds and use of chemicals by the landscaping and lawn care businesses. The way pesticides have been and are being used has changed greatly in the last decade or so. Much has been done to protsct people who handle large quantities of toxic hazardous chemicals both on farms and in other workplaces. Farmers who purchase restricted uze pesticides must be certified and Li- censed by the New York State Department of Envirenmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and must keep extensive records regarding its purchase and use. The NYSDEC has the authority to set its own standards and to subject all chemicals approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to its own set of requirements. There are chemicals approved by the EPA that are not approved by the NYSDEC for use in New York State. It is the position of the agricultural COmmUnity that regulation of chemicals is best lei~ to state and federal authorities, not to local entities. There are a host of reasons for this. Different municipalities could have different start- dards and what might be labeled in one town might not be approved in another. This might have serious ramifications for what crops might be grown where, seriously affecting the viability of agriculture. Such tssting and evaluation is costly and must be accomplished by a designated agency that has the facilities and necessary funding to accurately carry out that responsibility. Pesticides are sometimes feared by the public because of past practices and a perception that because these chemicals kill insects and other small animals, they are d~n~erous to large ~nlmals and people. Pesticides are much safer today and be~er controlled. Farmers have to live and work on the land they are using pesticides on, so they are as concerned as anyone about any potsntial harmful effects on them, their f~rn~lles and their employees. The Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County works very hard in tssting, and educating farmers about pesticides and Best Management Prnc- SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL P,r~OTECTION PLAN 34 rices (BMP). At their research farm on Sound Avenue in Riverhead they test different pesticides for use and effectiveness. Apopular term today is Integrated Pest M~nagement (IPM). This entails a comprehensive approach to pest management inchiding crop rotation, pest resistant varieties, and proper pesticide application. According to the Cooperative Extension pesti- tide use has been reduced by about 50% overell since 1985, and by much greater percentages for many crops. Pesticides today have a much better Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ). The EIQ is measured with stan- dards for the following. · soil half-life · leaching potential to groundwater · plant surface half-life · surface loss potential · farm worker, consumer & ecological effects It is apparent that, governmental regulations not withstanding, pesticide usage today is better controlled and safer than it has been in decades. AGRICULTURE IRRIGATION W~LI,~ - NYSDEC Historically agriculture irt/garCon wells were exempt from Environmental Conservation Laws (ECL). However, in 1986 well permits were required for identification pm'poses in ECL 15-1527.(3). Over the next six years op- position tn the permitting of wells grew among farmers because of the length of time it took to obtain well permits. Farmers cJ~imed that crops were being destroyed while permits were being processed. In 1992 ECL 15- 1527.(3) was repealed and replaced with ECL 15-1527.(7) which allows NYSDEC to define well permits as an emergency procedure dux~ug the grow- ANIMAL NULSANCES As odd as it may seem, deer have become a major problem in Suffolk County. The number of deer have so overpopulated that there is now an estimated 10,000 deer in Suffolk County. Areas, including farm areas are so overrun with deer that these ~nimnl~ are destroying landscaping and crops. Annual ~m~ge estimates are put at between $500,000 and $1,000,000. Some farm- ere are being forced to abandon fields because of deer ~=m~e. Iron~r~lly, the Central Pine Barrens Core Preservation area permits agriculture as one of only a hn~dful of permitted uses. However, few farms in these areas can sustain agriculture because of the crop desecration caused by the deer in this newly protected habitat. The New York State Depa~ ~ent of Environmental Conservation h~ been helping by issul-g nuisance permits to farmers so they can shoot deer but thi~ has ne~ been without problems. Once deer are shot the carcasses have to be disposed of. In some cases the deer problem is so bad it would not mean shooting only a couple of deer but a ~m~]] herd. There is also a great deal of opposition to killln~ deer from people who think the deer have a right to live or people who are ag-i-~t the disehs~ge of firearms in a popu- lated area. Whether a farmer shoots deer or builds expensive fenc~g to protect crops there is a cos~ to the farmer in time and money, which would preferably be spent on farming. Deer repellents have proven ineffective. SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN It is clear that the State needs to implement a deer management policy and assist communities with this burgeoning problem. This could take the form of permitting more extensive deer hunting or sterilization of part of the herd. Laws against gun and bow hunting within 500 feet of homes have increased the refuge area for deer and improved their food supply with suc- culent gardens and residential garbage. Canada Geese have been doing an increasing amount of damage on Suffolk County farms. Rather than migrating through Suffolk County, they have been taking up permanent residence here. To deal with the smaller migrat- ing populations, the Federal government has instituted a hunting ban on them for the last several years which has added to the overpopulation in Suffolk County. Canada Geese have been destroying young field crops and w~nter cover crops. The destruction of cover crops increase erosion and decrease the fertility of the soil, thus, requiring the use of additional fertilizers or reducing crop yield. To deal with this overpopulation of Canada Geese, hunting should be al- lowed to resume, at least in areas where there is an overpopulation. Per- haps the State DEC could issued nuisance permits for Canada Geese like they do for deer. 35 SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN LOCATION OF LAND TO BE PRESERVED It is not this studfs intention to restrict preservation efforts to the eastern Suffolk towns or preclude preservation in any western Suffolk towns. The study concentrates on the eastern towns because that is where most of the remaining farmland is and where land with undeveloped prime soil is. That is where a critical mass of farmland can be created which will preserve farming as a way of life and the rural character of the area. Preservation efforts in western Suffolk will have to be exarnlued on their individual mer- its. The selection criteria for Suffolk's first PDR program are st/il valid today. Efforts were to be concentrated in three areas: Riverhead, the North Fork and the South Fork. The criteria to be used were as follows: · soil suitability · present land use · contiguity of farms · development pressure .price of land 37 LAND IN OR NEAR AGRICULTIFRAL DISTRICTS Farmers with land in agricultural districts have already made a commi~,- ment to cont/nue farming. This should be reinforced by g/ving them a high priority for preservation. Preserving the land adjacent to agricultural dis- tricts will also help by ruinlmi~ing potent/al land use conflicts and creat:in~ a large contiguous block of farmland. This will also maintain attractive vis- fas which are very attractive to the tourist population. LOCATION RELATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE HistoricaLly there has been a west to east development trend in Suffolk County with the strongest pressure to develop in the western part of the County. For year-round resident/al development this is still the case. With a conversion rate of 1,454 acres per year over the last ten years all Suffolk County farmland is under some pressure to develop. High taxes are also exerting pressure on farmers to sell out. LOCATION RELAI'IVE TO PRIME FARM SOILS It is simple logic that you want to preserve the best soils for farming. People, having a certain measure oflntelligence, have already found and have farmed the majority of the best soils. These we have mapped and identified. Much of the best farm soils, especially in western Suffolk, have already been lost to development. This makes the conservation of the remaining prime farm soil imperative. As development consumes more and more of the prime farm soils it forces farmers into using less productive soils that require heavier fertilization and produces less thus cutting into the farmers' pro.qt- abili~. Soil is classified into Capability Classes and firrther broken down into Ca- pability Units within sub-classes. Class I soils are the best soils for farm- lng. In this group are the following soil types, which are nearly level: Bridgehampton silt loam, Haven loam and Montauk silt loam. Class I soils have few limitat/ons that restrict their use and are well suited to all crops SUFFOLK COUNTY A G RI C U LTU RA~. PROTECTION PLAN commonly grown in the County. Class II soils, which are prime farm soils, include the same soil types as Class I but are gently sloping. Class II also includes Plymouth loamy sand and Riverhead sandy loam soil types which axe abundant and classified as prime farm soils. It also includes Scio and Sudbury Series, but ail of these total only about 3,000 acres countywide. Class II soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. The following table summarizes the soil types which will be considered prime farm soils for the purpose of preservation efforts. Some Class HI soils are used for farming but were not included as prime farm soils because they can have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require special con- servation practices, or both. PRIME FARM SOILS IN SUFFOLK COLrNTY Capability Symbol Soil Type Slope Unit BgA Bridgehampton silt loam 0-2% I-1 BgB Bridgehampton silt loam 2-6% IIe-1 BbB Bridgehampton silt loam/ 2-6% IIe-1 till substratum HaA Haven loam HaB Haven loam He Haven loam, thick surface MfA Montauk frae sandy loam M_fB Montauk fine sandy loam MkA Montauk silt loam MkB Montauk silt loam RdA Riverhead sandy loam RdB Riverhead sandy loam ScB Scio silt loam SdA Scio silt loam SdB Scio silt loam Su Sudbury sandy loam 0-2% I-1 2-6% He-1 <3% Hw-2 0-3% Hs-1 3-8% IIe-2 0-3% I-1 3-8% IIe-1 0-3% Hs-1 3-8% He-2 2-6% IIe-1 0-2% Hw- i 2-6% He-1 llw-1 Capability Unit - for more detail refer to the I-1 He-1 He-2 Hw-I Hw-2 Hs-1 Soil Survey Suitable to all crops commonly grown in Suffolk County Suitable for forage, grain, vegetables and nursery stock (except where erosion is a hazard). Suitable for forage, grain, vegetables and nursery stock (not suited to continuous cultivation) Suitable to all crops commonly grown in Suffolk County Suitable to all crops commonly grown in Suffolk County Suitable to all crops commonly grown in Suffolk County (irrigation required) Source: Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York - U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,April 1975. 38 VALUE OF LAND Strong development pressure is being exerted on farmers by the high price of land. Farmers choose to sell for a variety of reasons. When the decision to sell has been made, the price may be too high for other farmers to compete with developers or speculators to buy the farm. The greenhouse in. dustry has surged after the energy cri- sis of the 1970's, to became a major source of high value crops, which keeps Suffolk County num- ber one in agricul- tural market value in New York State. Fur- ther, the greenhouse industry has been a major center of tech- nological innovation SUFFOLK C 0 UN~FY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN 39 Cost may unfortunately be a factor in which farms are to be preserved. Farms in western Suffolk and the south fork may carry a significantly higher per acre price tag than farms in Riverhead and Southold. When Suffolk County started its purchase of development rights program cost was one of the factors which was considered in evaluating which parcels would be pre- served. While it may be a difficult concept to get across to people who look only at how much can be bought with limited funds there are reasons for preserving farmland that is more expensive per acre. One reason is to pre- serve the last remnant of farming in an urbanized area that used to be extensively farmed. Farming was part of the history of many Suffolk County communities and to lose all the farms would be to lose a part of their histori- cal heritage. AGRICULTURAL LAND USE To be eligible for the program parcels should meet the same criteria as Ag- ricultural District parcels. That is they have to be in farm use, presently and for the last two years. Parcels should be at least 10 acres in size to allow enough space for a v/able agricultural operation. With smaller par- cels, the amount of development precluded by purchasing the development rights would be minimal. Rating System A rating system was developed to use in the evaluation of potential proper- ties for the purchase of development rights (PDR) program. The system takes into account five major factors. The first two factors are related :n that they both seek to reflect the desire to preserve a large block of farm- land and thus protect vistas and the land itself from nonagricultural intru- sions. While most of the farms considered for PDR Contain prime farm soil there are some farm soft, such as Bridgehampton and Haven associations which are clearly better for far~ng. Slope also plays a part in the soil type and desirability of farmland. Other factors include the estimated price of the farmland and development pressure. Bonuses were also given for land SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN 40 in Agricultural Districts, and a negative point or two could be Dven for negative impacts such as excavations or problems with ownership. The rating system was designed to serve as a guide by which arbitrary deci- sions could be avoided. In a test of this system at the April 1996 meeting of the Suffolk County Farmland Committee, the system was well received. In many cases the system confirmed what were intuitively the best parcels to be preserved, and the worst parcels to preserve. Rating System Point 5 4 3 2 1 0 Contiguity: Proximity to preserved farm properties PDR properties on three sides PDR properties on two sides PDR properties on one side large mount of protected farmland nearby some protected farmland nearby no protected farmland nearby V~stas 5 long road frontage and part of a large block of farmland (100 + acres) 4 small road frontage and part of a large block of farmland 3 long road frontage and part of a small block of farmland 2 small road frontage and part of a small block of farmland 1 less than 100' of road frontage and part of a large block of farmland 0 less than i00' of road frontage and part of a small block of farmland Approx'/rnate Development Rights Value Per Acre 5 less than $10,000 4 $10,000-$19,999 3 $20,000-$29,999 2 $30,000-$49,999 i $50,000-$99,999 0 $100,000 or more Development Pressure 5 subdivision pending and two adjacent subdivisions 4 subdivision pending or two adjacent subdivisions 3 one adjacent subdivision or considering subdivision 2 subdivisions in area 1 no subdivision activity nearby Adjustments 2 bonus for being in an Agricultural District -2 other negative factors SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL P,~OTECTION PLAN ACTIVITIES, PROGRAMS, STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE AGRI- CULTURAL USES 41 F~ DEVELOPM]~NT RIGHTS PI.FRCHASE This seems to be the most effective but the most costly method of farmland preservation. To date Suffolk County and the Towns of East Hampton, Southampton and Southold have spent about $40 million to purchase de- velopment rights to 6,941 acres. At the current rate of County spending of $1.5 million per year and the current rate of conversion of farmland in Suf- folk County, it may be 16 more years before Suffolk only has a total of 10,000 acres of farmland lef~ with almost all of that having the development rights purchased. While the current expenditures for purchase of development rights is a step in the right direction it is clear that it will resuit in reaching only about half the plan goal of preserving 20,000 acres. To meet the goal of 20,000 acres before all but that much farmland has been converted to other uses would take an estimated $15 million dollars per year for the next seven years. One problem with the county purchase of development rights program is the procedure moves very slowly. It can take two years or more to close even on parcels at the top of the waiting list. It would take three to four years at the present rate of funding to reach parcels at the end of the list. When the County is competing with developers for specific farms the developer has a big advantage because he can close much quicker than the County can. Even if the farmer would rather sell to the County, and many do, they are some- times forced by timing to sell to a developer. This is where not-for-profit organizations like the Pecouic Land Trust and the Nature Conservancy can play an important role. They have the resources and the ability to close a purchase quicker than the County and can work with the County, as they have in the past preserving open space, to preserve farmland under severe development pressure. INSTALT,MIgNT PURCHASE There are two problems apparent with any expansion of the County Pur- chase of Development Rights (PDR) Program. The first is that the pur- chaser, in this case Suffolk County, must have appropriations amounting to perhaps tens of millions of dollars to acquire the development rights to large amounts of acreage. Generating these s,ma in one or two budget cycles is impossible without a substantial tax bite. The second involves timing. The County can continue to acquire acreage through a yearly capital appropriation of $1.5 million, but as the comps.ri- son graph inAppendix Table 2 show, this acquisition rate will not keep pace with the rate at which farmland is disappearing. To achieve the goal of 20,000 acres of protected and preserved farms, a method must be found to accelerate the rate of preservation without over burdening the taxpayers or straining municipal budgets. One such method is installment purchase known more formally as Securitizable Tax-Exempt Installment Purchase Open Space Financing. The advantages of this program are many. The government can now ap- proach farmers with offers that can successfully compete with developers. Accumulated and future dedicated revenue can be combined to preserve farms now and pay for them over time. Farm owners receive tax benefits which in the aggregate exceed the benefit of a cash sale to the government or a developer. Specifically, these involve yearly interest income which is tax exempt and deferral of taxes on capital gains until payment of princi- SUFFOLK CO UN rY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN One goal of the p/an is to preserve large unbroken blocks of farmland pal. In addition to the tax benefits, farm owners can securitize the agree- ment and sell all or parts of it to others. They can realize charitable deduc- tions against their operating income by gifting portions of the agreement or for estate planning, can place all or portions of the agreement into trust account~. In th_is way, estate heirs can cash out theft' portion of the agree- ment, instead of dividing up the land itself. The bottom line is that, hypothetically, the government can acquire the de- velopment rights to an acre of farmland for $4,500 as compared to $13,000! The identification of the source or sources of funding to undertake install- ment purchases is obviously crucial. The government must pledge a rev- enue source for 30 years to pay the interest payments and purchase of com- parable maturing treasury bonds (zeros) to pay the principal at the end. Currently, installment purchases are not structured in New York State due to a lack of specific State enabling statues. The NewYork State Legislature has taken the matter up in the 1996 session due to the high level of interest in this technique for pine barrens preservation and passage appears likely. With the inclusion, by New York State, of mashing funds for development rights acquisition to farms the possibility of specific and dedicated funds from an extended quarter cent sales tax program,; other potential tourist- related taxes or fees; participation by towns, the inst~llment purchase con- cept should definitely be pursued as a mechanism to sharply accelerate pres- ervation of farms in Suffolk County. BARGAIN SAI.P,S A bargain sale is the sale of land, conservation easements, or development rights to a unit of government or private, nonprofit conservation organiza- tion at less than fair market value. The difference between the fair market value and the bargain sale price is a potential charitable gift for the seller. Ifa purchase is structured as a bargain sale, the seller may be able to shel- ter a portion of the capital gain or other income from taxation. Thus, Sug- SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN folk County could potentially purchase development rights at 50% of their value if the seller could use the difference between the reduced purchase price and the fair market value as a charitable gift. A seller can shelter 30% of his/her adjusted gross income through a bargain sale involving appreci- ated property. The unused portion of the gii~ can be carried forward for up to five additional years. VO'r ~:R REFERENDUM It is apparent that to save a significant mount of farmland in Suffolk County it will take a large amount of capital and the best way to get support for ~ expenditure would be through a voter referendum. It is also the proper way to consider a major expenditure of public funds. If the people support farm- land preservation they are the ones who should send that message through their vote. · People, knowing the importance of farmland, have repeatedly, and gladly, voted in favor of funding farmland protection programs. John Klein, Suf- folk County Executive and a driving force behind the first purchase of de- velopment rights program in the countrM, said public reaction was 95% fa- vorable. In New Jersey three $50 million bonds have been approved by the voters for purchase of development rights since 1981. In Rhode Island $2 million has been placed on the ballot every two years since 1982, except for 1994. These referenda have always been pa~sed. Locally, the towns of Southold, East Hampton and Southampton have proposed and had approved a number of bond issues that acquire development rights to farms. On a county-wide level, a pubLic referendum might be offered to extend the quar- ter-cent sales tax program (Drinking Water Protection) to make it a Quality of Life Conservation program. This program could create three separate and dedicated funds: one for farmland development rights acquisition, one for pine barrens acquisition and one for county parks acquisition and opera- tions throughout Suffolk County. Farmland and parks programs are cur- rently funded through the property tax so shiedng then to a sales tax base will help to stabilize property taxes. Each program could be funded for a ten year period and generate sufficient money for specific and dedicated trust funds to operate in accordance with voter approvals. STATE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS These are valuable for helping farmers through reduced property taxes and protection from nuisance complaints and government intervention. This may be the deciding factor in whether or not a farm is sold and is a good interim method of protecting farmland. With local interest and assessor support, agriculture districts can be increased in size and buy t/me for long- term preservation efforts. As has been seen in the Town of Brook.haven, agr/cultural districts do not protect farmland over an extended period of time. While these ddstricts ~e a valuable tool, other alternatives to preserve farms need to be used in con- junction with agricultural districts. 43 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPIV[ENT RIGHTS (TI)R) Transfer of development rights programs to protect farmland have been set up in the Town of Riverhead and are being set up in the Towns of Southold SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN Because of stricter regulation or elimina- tion of certain pesti- cides, farmers are turning to practices requiring Iow or infre- quent use of chemi- cals. Also farmers are trained and li- censed for pesticides use, while wide- spread use of chemi. cals in nonfarm areas remains unregulated or unlicensed 44 and Southampton. They are still too new to see what impacts they will have on preserving farmland. The impacts may tend to be small because of several reasons. One is they generally require the transfer to occur between parcels in the same school district. In Riverhead most of the Town of Riverhead is in one school dis- trict but efforts to upzone in the late 1980's failed. This leaves most of the Town land zoned to allow one unit per acre. Suffolk County Health Depart- merit regulations also require one acre lots in a large area of Riverhead. This all points to very little potential farmland preservation in the Town of Riverhead being able to be accomplished though TDR or clustering. A final deterrent to TDR is local opposition to any increased deasity in neigh- borhood areas. The phrase Not In My Backyard is used to describe the all too common opposition to anything local people consider undesirable. Fur- ther, transferring density from farms and increasing it in built-up but still low-deasity areas, in/lames new residents, especially those who moved into the area because of its rural qualities. TI)R is still attractive because it preserves farmland at no cost. Consider- ing the limited funding available for farmland preservation all types of pres- ervation methods will have to be utilized. DONATION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS A conservation easement is a voluntary agreement between a landowner and a governmental agency or a conservation organization such as the Peconic Laud Trust to restrict the use of land in perpetuity. As such, ease- ments convey a portion of a property owner's bundle of rights to the quali- fled recipient. For example, a farmer may restrict all or a portion of kis/her property from subdivision, residential structures, etc. Such restrictions may protect significant agricultural soils or ether natural features, yet the farmer is entitled to all other retained rights including agricultural production. Conservation easements do not permit public access. The public has no SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN 45 more right to trespass on land covered by an easement than on any other private property, unless the owner perm/ts such access. The recipient of the easement is empowered to enforce the restrictions on the land, yet the prop- erty is retained in private ownership as is the case when development rights have been sold. As the ownership of the protected property changes, it re- mains subject to the restrictions of the easement. Easements benefit both the landowner and the community at large. Since easements keep land in private ownership, it remains on the tax rolls. At the same time, the diminished value of the property due to the imposed restrictions may provide the landowner with the potential for a reduction in property taxes if the property is not enrolled in an agricultural district. A conservation easement is a tax-deductible charitable gift, provided that the easement is perpetual and is donated exclusively for conservation pur- poses to a qualified organization or governmental agencM The value of the charitable gift is equal to the difference between the fair market value of the land before and after the imposition of the easement restrictions as determined by a qualified appraisen If the donor of the easement owns property immediately contiguous to the protected properVz, the charitable gift may be reduced by the enhancement in value of the contiguous prop- erty, The Internal Revenue Code allows an itemized deduction of up to 30 percent of an individual's adjusted gross income for ~ on appreciated property and 50% of unappreciated property. Amounts in excess of these limitations may be carried forward for five addit/onal years. A conservat/on easement may also substantially reduce the value of land for estate tax purposes. Federal estate taxes are levied on the highest and best use of land rather than its current use. This is particularly problematic for farn~ fmmflles who wish to pass their land on to the nex~ generation. Given the appreciated values of land on Eastern Long Island, large land- owners are often forced to sell their land in order to pay ~ederal and state estate taxes. Land subject to a conservation easement will be limited to its restricted value for estate tax purposes. CLUSTERING New subdivisions on farmland can be laid out so the houses are clustered on part of the property while part of it is put in an agricultural reserve which allows the continued farming of that part of the property. The Town of Southampton has made extensive use of clustering to create agricultural reserves. To date 778 acres of agricultural reserves have been saved through clnstermg in the Town of Southampton. This exceeds the amount of land in either the Town or the County farmland preservation programs within the Town and was achieved at no cost to the taxpayer. Another 170 acres of agricultural reserves is now pending in the subdivision process. One reason so much land has been preserved is the predominant two acre zoning unlike Riverhead's one acre zoning. Clastermg does have a number of drawbacks in terms of preserving farm- land. First if you are preserving farmland through clustering you are con- ceding that as much as haft, and sometimes more, of the farmland win be lost to development. Secondly, as much as half, maybe more, of the agricul- rural reserve land created by clustering is not subsequently being farmed. The reasons for this include, lots being too small or too irregular in shape to be efficiently farmed and confusion over who owns the land and how a farmer SUFFOLK The use of clustering can preserve farming areas at no cost to the taxpayer, but if not property coordi- nated, can also cre- ate checkerboarded land use and elimi- nate large blocks of farmland COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN 46 can rent it for farming. Thirdly, clustering can intensify the conflicts be- tween houses and farms by surrounding the farm with houses whose resi- dents do not went the noise, smells and spraying associated with many farm uses. Nitrogen loading standards need to be applied evenly to insure the houses do not take the majority of the allocatian and leave the farm with less than is needed for an economic enterprise. Cluster subdivision design is crucial to mivlmi~e the farm/residence confficts. Clustering ben- efits the developer by reducing the amount of roads and utilities they must put in. Th_is also reduces the future costs for maintenance and snow re- moval whether the read is private or dedicated to the town. AGRICULTURAL TAXASSESSMENTS (LAND VALUE ASSESSMENT) Considering that farms pay more taxes than they require in services it is easy to justify why taxes should be lower on farmland. Lower taxes can be achieved through join/ng a State agricultural distric~ when it is renewed every eight years or by filing an individual commitment with the Town Assessor's ozC~ce. While agricultural tax assessments lower a farmer's costs and make it more economical for them to continue farming it may also encourage speculation. The State of Maryland was the pioneer in agriculb~ral assessment in 1956 and quickly found out that without penalt/es or paying back taxes their program was a boon for developers. Speculators can lease the land for farm- ing and apply for agricultural assessments while waiting for development to reach the area. A penalty is associated with conversion of farmland getting an agricultural assessment to discourage speculation. Further dis- incentives like a monetary penalty upon conversion could be used. Another method to discourage speculation would be to restrict benefits to bono. fide farmers. This might be counter-productive as it increases carrying costs for speculators who in turn may pass it on to tenants. Two studies, Untaxing Open Space by the LT. S. Council on Environmental Quality andFarrnland Retention in the Wnshing~on Metro Area by the Wash- SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN ing~on Area Council of Governments, have shown agricultural assessment to be an inadequate preservation tool. In areas with strong development pressure tax savings and conversion penalties are likely to be too small relative to the land price to affect a decision to convert the land. These studies recommended that programs be based on a commitment to farming, otherwise a large public revenue loss would yield nothing in return. Agri- cultural related improvements should be considered for the Suffolk County Strategic Industry Program. These tax abatements are for industries that benefit the economy and since farmland pays more in taxes than it requires in services while it provides jobs and an essential marketable product, it should qualify. REDUCING FARM OPERATING COSTS Part of this is already being done through agricultural assessments for prop- erty taxes. Other direct operating costs should be addressed by means such as labor cost-sharing or energy costs. Joining a gasoline buyer's coop could save money much like the Fuel Buyers Coop, run by NYPIRG, which saves homeowners 20-25 cents per gallon on home heating fuel. ESTATE PLANNING Estate planning is a critical element in facilitating the conveyance of farm- land from one generation to the next. Given the appreciation in value of farmland in Eastern Suffolk over the past 20 years, land cannot be con- veyed without adverse estate tax consequences unless careful pla, ni~g is done. The fundamental problem is the fact that farmland is valued at its highest and best use for federal and state estate tax purposes. Thus, it is the devel- opment potential of land that governs its value. On the federal level, there is a provision for taxation based on an agricultural use under Section 2032A, but the conditions for such valuation are often difficult for farm families to meet and there is a limitation of $750,000 by which a gross estate can be reduced through this election. Farm familles, then, are often put in a position of identif~ng ways to re- duce the value of their estates to a point that the nexZ generation can afford to inherit the land while retaining enough equity to support the fmanciul viability of the farm operation. There are a variety of tools that are being used to facilitate the transfer of land including, but not limited to, the fol- lowing: 47 · Conveyance of land and individual interests thereof to the next gen- eration by using the unified life time credit of $600,000 per parent and annual contributions of $10,000 to children, grandchildren, etc. · F~mily limited partnerships through which land is discounted due to restrictions within the partnership agreement. · Sale of development rights and/or donatious of conservation ease- ments that Hm~t the development potential and value of farmland or portions thereof. Such conveyances may reduce both future estate taxes and current property taxes. SUFFOLK COUNTy AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN · Purchase of Iife insurance to prov/de heirs with funds to pay estate taxes. These tools and others can be used in combination to construct estate plans that enable the conveyance of farmland to future generations. Infor- mation and counseling on different aspects of estate planning can be ob- tained from the American Farmland Trust, Peconic Land Trust, and Farm F~m~!y Insurance. MARKETING Marketing is essential to any business and farming is no exception. Efforts by the Long Island Tourism and Convention Commission, Peconic Land Trust, the Group For the South Fork and the Long Island Farm Bureau help in- form people of the diversity and availability of farm products. The farm community is joining with com- munity based organ/. zations to bring pro. duce to people - a farmstand with legs/ Community markets are now active from Manhattan to Riverhead 48 To assist farmers in selling produce on Long Island, the Pecouic Land Trust h~ sponsored the Long Island Commtn~ity Markets Program funded by both private and public funds including a grant from Suffolk County. Farm- ers markets are currently operating in Port Jefferson, Patchogue, Islip, Lo- cnst Valley and Riverhead. In 1995, twenty-five growers and vendors par- t~c/pated in the markets. The markets included a variety of educational events and programs as well. Farmers have the opportunity to make money selling their produce and provide a visual reminder that farming is still a way of life and support for people on Long Island. These markets enhance community quality of life and bring revitalization to downtowns by bringing in more pedestrian t~¢. The concept of a Long Island Regional Food Market was exam/ned during the 1960's, 1970's and early 1980's. Intuitively it seemed like a good idea SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN 49 and one that could easily be supported by Suffolk being the leading agricul- tural county in New York State coupled with a regional population of 2.6 million people. A 1984 report titled The Long Island Regional Food Market Feasibility Study was released by the Long Island Regional Planning Board. In the report the feasibility of a regional food market was examined. It was the conclusion of the report that existing markets were adequate and a regional food market was not feasible. Conditions and crops have changed since that report was done. While the idea of a regional food market is an old one it should not be discarded if shown to be beneficial to farmers. This could work well with the Farm Bureau's Grown on Long Island Campaign. If a market were established more restaurants, supermarkets and censure- ers might be willing and able to take advantage of local produce. Surplus refrigerated storage warehouses at Pilgrim State Hospital in Brentweod present just such an opportunity. Marketing can also be viewed in terms of its impact on imports and exports. Long Island, as an econom/c unit, is similar to a small country with its balance of trade. As the amount of farmland is reduced Long Island exports less and imports more. Increasing trade imbalance means we lose the ben- efit of spending our money locally and end up exporting our money else- where. For these reasons programs like the Long Island Farm Bureau's Grown on Long fsland campaign are very important. Agr/culture is in essence economic development. It creates jobs, purchases high tech equipment and hopefully makes a profit, which is spent in the local economy. Suffolk should help promote and provide assistance in re- searching market development for the agricultural industries. ZONING This subject will raise the hackles of farmers faster than any other but it is a regular/on that applies to all private land, farms included. Large lot lng has been successful in other parts of the country in preserving vast amounts of farmland at very little cost to the taxpayers. In Napa Valley, California zouing was changed from one acre lots to 20 acre lots in 1968 and later to 40 acre lots. In Lancaster County, Pennsylvania almost all the towns have adopted large lot zoning. Minimum lot size requirements aver- age 25 acres and have been responsible for the preservation of 310,000 acres. McHenry Count'y, Illinois moved much of its farmland from a 5 acre mini. mum lot size to a 160 acre minim~zm lot size in 1979. Last spring they went in the other direction lowering the rninin~o.m lot size to 40 acres. Most of the farmland in Suffolk County is zoned for one or two acre lot minirnums. The Town of Santhampton has had some success with cluster- ing mostly two acre zoned areas and thus preserving 778 acres at no cost to the taxpayer. Most of the Town of Southald's farm acreage is zoned for two acre minimums and most of Riverhead's is zoned one acre. In 1988 a Town of Riverhead committee came out with a Farmland Preservation Plan that called for two acre zoning in agricultural areas. That Committee rejected suggestions that a 10 acre zone be implemented and recommended instead to go to two-acre zoning. Due to fierce opposition,plans for upzoning were never approved. Opposition of this sort can be expected m~klng any at- tempt to upzone farms very difficult in Suffolk County. T.n,-ge lot zoning can in some cases run counter to preservation goals be- cause it consumes more farmland per dwelling unit. In some areas this bus SUFFOLK COUNTY A G RICUL'FU RA L PROTECTION PLAN led to mini-estates that were too large to easily mow and landscape and too small to farm. The Michigan Subdivision Control Act of I967 allowed sub- division of land into i0 acre lots without local review. This resulted in many 10 acre country, estates. Changes in zoning can negatively impact farming by reducing the value of farmland used as collateral for loans. Farmers' abiIity to continue viable agricultural operations depend on their capability to borrow money for a variety of purposes including cash-flow loans to run operations until crops can be marketed, loans to purchase or repair equipment or capital improve- ment loans to build needed farm structures such as barns or greenhouses. If'the value of farmland is lowered by upzoning, the amount of money which can be borrowed is also lowered. An uncollaterized loan, if a farmer could get it, would carry a higher interest rate and therefore cost the farmer more. A more radical zoning approach would be to designate an agricultural zon- ing category which would only allow agricultural uses. This might achieve the goal of protecting farmland through zoning, but might represent an unconstitutional taking of the property. Zoning may end up being a temporary form of protection. A decision by the Town Board, a~er following certain procedures like a public hearing is all that is needed, to reverse a previous zonkng decision. McHenry County, nlinois is one example where zonlug has been changed to allow smaller lot sizes and some people are even trying to get lot sizes reduced to the original minimum of 5 acre lots. CONSERVATION PLANNING/LIMx'rED DEVELOPMENT Farmers should take advantage of organizations which offer assistance to farmers in planning the future of their farmland. The Peconic Land Trust employs conservation planning and limited development techniques in its work with farmers and other landowners. The Trust's planning process begins with several questions. What are the goals and objectives of the farm family? Can the next generation pay the estate taxes necessary to keep the property? By discussing these and other questions, the Trust as- sists farm families in understanding the range of options available to meet their goals. The Long Island Farm Bureau, Cooperative Extension and the American Farmland Trust may also be of assistance in providing farmers with options. Publications can also be obtained from the Land Trust Alii- ance in Washington, D.C. and the Estate P]~nniug Press in Boston. 50 RIGHT OF Fn~T REFUSAL This is a signed guarantee that owners will first offer their property to the County before they can sell it to anyone else. In Westchester County, two private golf courses signedRights offirst refusal in exchange for a tax break. The savings here were two-fold. An immediate cash outlay was avoided and the property continued to pay property tax. The same principle can be ap- plied to farmland so money can be targeted to sites under immediate pres- sure, rather than spending money on a property that might never have been sold. COI~ILrNI~ SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE (CSA) ,This is a new concept that was pioneered in Massachusetts. A farmer calcu- SUFFOI. K COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN Non-farmers can be- came equity partners on the farm, buying shares and sharing the crops. Commu- nity supported agri- culture (CSA) can also allow non.farm- ers to reduce their cash investment each year by pitching in 51 lares the £arm's expenses, including salaries .nj sells shares to the number of fumilies the farm can support. The farmer benefits by having the income guaranteed up ~ront without waiting for the harvest and the risk of crop failure is spread among all the shareholders. The shareholders benefit by having a supply of fresh vegetables at wholesale prices. They do not have to pay the middleman and they are protected from price fluctuations due to market conditions. The Pecoaic Land Trust has operated a CSA project at its Quail Hill Preserve in Amagansett for the past 5 years. FARM LINKAND FARM ON PROGRAMS This program matches retiring farmers with people who would like to own a farm. In many cases new farmers cannot afford the expenses of buying an operating farm. This program gives them a chance to work a farm and learn from an expert as they build up enough equity in the farm to eventu- ally buy it. The farmers create a market for their farm and they get to sell it knowing someone will farm it and take good care of it in the future. Penn- sylvania had 38 retiring farmers in the program and 250 people in the pro- gram to own a farm. COMPOSTI]NG Composting has been evolving into something that may be of value to the farm community. In the past composting has been predominantly a back- yard gardener's activity. Mom recently composting has been seen as a financiaily advantageous way of disposing of yard waste for municipalities who can remove it from their waste stream. For farmers this may me;~n a low cost source of natural fertilizer. Municipal compost has been used in the production of sod with excellent results. At present, the greatest inter- est and participation has been in municipal yard waste disposal on farms. There are some major concerns with heavy metals, plastics and glass in municipal solid waste (MSW) compost which will require more research, controls or regulation before MSW can become viable compost for these uses. SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN On farm composting can provide a ready source of soil supple- ment, cut down on fertilizer use and aid local government in the disposal of yard waste 52 The On-Farm Composting Program was started in 1995 by the Cornell Co- operative Extension and the Town of Riverhead Highway DeparLment. It was able to divert 5,000 cubic yards of leaves from the Town la~d~t! to grow- ers willing to accept them. This program was beneficial to both the Town and the grower. Similar progrsm.~ should be instituted for all towns. MANURE Manure is one of the byproducts of livestock requiring disposal or recycling. This represents a problem and a cost to farmers to get rid of it. M~king it available to the public is an effective way of getting rid of it as there are plenty of people willing to use it for fertilizer. The Cooperative Extension keeps a list of horse farms that are willing to let the public come and take it away. wINE INDUSTRY The tremendous growth and development of the wine grape vineyards, es- pecially in the Town of Southold, have provided new far--lng enterprises on land which was once struggling to survive economically on potatoes. The wine grape industry, the vineyards, the processing facilities have all com- bined to add a new direction to tourism as well, bringing a world-class ca- chet to the North Fork to rival the reputation of the once thriving Long Island duck industry, and the Hamptons in renown. The nature of the wine industry is one of long-term investment and high capital costs. The purchase of Development Rights programs have assisted the industry in its infancy by providing inexpensive land for the vineyard plantings. The industry has begun to organize to promote its interests on the state level, seeking research funding, modifications to State law, and promotion of Long Island wines to constrmers and especially restaurants. The East End Economic and Environmental Task Force in 1994 convened a The wine industry has emerged, partly due to the /ow land prices created by the PDR programs, to be a major replacement for the struggling Long Island potato SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN 53 group to make recommendations to the governor as to how the State could assist the wine industry. The task force publication, Blueprint for our ture provides a good overview of the wine industry and details various rec- ommandations, all worthy of support. RESEARCH LABORATORY The Long Island Horticultural Research Laboratory is a valuable asset in promoting the continuation of farming and best mznagement practices in SuffoLk County The lab works in close relationship with the farmers and the Cornell Cooperative Extension of SuffoLk County on pest management recommendations and alternatives in all aspects of agricultural production. The lab researches up-to-date and cutting edge methods to m~ntain eco- nomically feasible enterprises. The research lab is an educational unit of Cornell University whose mission is to discover, integrate, disseminate, and apply knowledge about agriculture and environment and natural resousces as a basis for the sustainable improvement in the lives of people. Their primary emphasis is on producers and cousnmers of horticultural products on Long Island and residents of the region. Developments in Integrated Pest Management (IPM), Best M~n~gement Practices, new cultural practices, new and alternative crops and many other methods have been identified through applied research conducted on Long Island. Many IPM programs have been developed at the lab, which are not only used on Long Island but across NewYork State. This has been a major asset to the industry and will play an increasingly important role as the industry evolves. Various products have been researched and tested at the Lab. These in- clude: fungicides, pesticides, herbicides and alternatives to using any of these. In general, the lab tries to find the most efficient, cost effective and environmentally sensitive method of dealing with numerous farm related problems such as pest control, weed control and disease control. Through the research that has been done, there are many publications farmers can obtain to help them maximize their efficiency. There are annually or bi- Long Island Horticul- tural Lab, on Sound Ave. in Riverhead, provides a working resource for farmers to view the latest techniques for crop and pest control SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN annually updated recommendations concerning both chemical and non- chemical weed, insect and disease control which are published by the lab. A diagnostic lab also exists at the site. Plant, insect and tick samples can be mailed to or dropped off at that lab for identification or diagnosis. If a farmer is losing a large amount of crops to a blight, the lab can help him identify it and recommend an effective way to deal with it. The lab also tests soil samples for pH and nutrients and will issue recommendations on fertilizer and linaestene use. Considering the important work the Horticultural Lab is doing, it's funding should be increased as recommended in a 1994 report to the Governor titled Blueprint for Our Future by the East End Economic & Environmental Task Force of Long Island, New York. The report recommends increasing the funding formula which would increase state funding for the Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County from $45,000 to $109,000. This would allow the lab to do an even better job in the future. RESPONSIBLE FARMING PRACTICES A number of factors have led farmers in Suffolk County to incorporate some new techniques and renew some abandoned, but time-honored traditions into their operations. Land values and resultant property taxes, new neigh- bors whose abstract fantasy of farming does not square with reality, in- creased awareness and concern about synthetic chemical compounds and the high cost of these products have all joined to put farming in a spotlight as never before. Farmers and farming organizations have responded both in the field and in the press. Public awareness and education have increased dramatically, sponsored chiefly by the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County and the Long Island Farm Bureau. At fairs, demonstrations and tours of private farms and the Suffolk County Farm in Yaphank, school groups and SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN visitors can see current farming practice in action and can see the ways in which farmers are caring for their land. Two principal techniques of stewardship for farms include Best Manage- ment Practices (BMP) and Integrated Pest ~YIanagement ([PM). Best Management Practices (BMP) can include the selection of areas for farming based on soil types and topography, which would influence surface nm-off, transmission of compounds into the soil and groundwater and soil characteristics which might relate to wind erosion and fugitive dust. There are numerous practices many of which can minimi~.e the travel of chemicals down into the soil (leaching) or the flushing of these chemicals off the land via surface run-offinto adjacent water bodies or onto adjacent prop- erties. These practices include: · Selection of crop hybrids which might be genetically more pest or drought resistant. · Use ofsoit amendments to improve tilth - the soils texture, nutrients and ability tohold water. · Proper calibration and m~uten~nce of application equipment. · Proper training of farm personnel in the handling and application of fertilizers and pesticides. · Proper and minimal storage of tozic and hazardous materials. · Minimizing the use of wettable powders, dusts and micro granulee more likely to runoff or leach. · Max~m{~e the use, where possible, of biological agents for pest control. · Matching the types of chemicals, their ~/ming of application and spacial extent of use with anticipated rainfalls, irrigation cycles and soft characteristics. · Spot apphcations of pesticides where needed rather than blanket application as a preventive measure. The timing of planting, harvesting and growth of cover crop have a great A plastic-lined trench can appear as wide as the Grand Canyon and as difficult to cross for the potato beetle who has spent the winter in the woods and is ready to move back to the field for summer sus. tenance and repro. duction. No chemi. cals needed here SUFFOLK CO U N ~Fy A G RI CULI'U RA L PROTECTION PLAN impact on soil erosion. The planting of nitrogen-£ming crops, crop rotation, and tilling can have beneficial effects on soil tilth. Some cover crops can provide beneficial habitat for insects which prey on destructive bugs, and cover crops can also be used to hinder growth of weeds and the need for herbicides. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a systematic program of pest man- agement that uses a variety of cultural, biological and chemical strategies. Rather than an extreme approach which might attempt to eliminate all pests, IPM is a contained strategy to manage pests at acceptable levels. Crop loss from pests is estimated nationally by Cornell University to be 37%. That is the current level, wkich is higher than crop loss levels before the advent of chemical pesticides. IPM has therefore become more popular as an approach to peet conn'ol because it does not have the high social and economic costs associated with saturation bombing of crops. Under IPM practice, pesticides are a last resort and not a first strike measure. IPM programs choose the best alternative to pest control which pose the least threat to humans, animals and non-targeted plants. These programs make use of a deep understanding of pest life cycles and the relationship between these life cycles and action levels. The action level is the key; when is it necessary to take action based on impending economic damage which is deemed unacceptable? Scientific research and farming practices are continually seeking ways to economically deal with pests with least harmful results to the environment, and those efforts should be encouraged and continued. Responsible farm practices have in recent years opened up public policy discussions on what some people characterize as sustainable agriculture. This term is still without precise definition, but goes to the heart of what changed farm policy with the advent of petrochemicals: Farming became a production-oriented industry like manufacturing. Fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides were hailed for most of this century as man-made miracle compounds which were capable of dramatically increasing crop yields. Scientific evidence continues to build that the indiscriminate use of synthetic compounds can have great negative environmental impacts. Hence the growth of BMP and 1-PM. Scientific research and testing continues to show a natural selection pro- cess for insects which results in an upward spiral of dependency on new chemical compounds to battle the continuing procreation of pests resistant to last year's chemical compounds. Farmers are turning consequently to BMP and IPM as principal ways to become less chemically dependent, less y~eld-oriented and more oriented towards responsible farming practices which seek to balance economic vi- ability, environmental soundness and social acceptability. ,SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN ACADEMIC AND TECHNOLOGY CONNECTIONS In 1994, the East End Economic and Environmental Task Force of Long Island recommended the creation of an .~-ricology Institute to assist the farnnng and fishing industry with applied research and the establishment of new commercial enterprises for agriculture, l~shmg and environment tech- nology. Much in the same way that the University of California at Davis provides academic support, research and technology investigation for the California Wine Industry, so too could an academic/research center build on the work of the Long Island Hort/cultural Research Lab, the NewYork State Agriculture Experiment Station, Cornell Cooperative Extension, the Long Island Research Institute, the Laboratories at Brookh~ven and Cold Spring Harbor. As with any evolving industry, training in agricultural tech- niques and the use of new technology (and some not so new) is an important part of successful farming practice The farming community needs assistance to respond to rapidly changing environmental concerns which are leading to further regulatory initiatives. Scientific inquiry, technological innovation, applied research, environmen- tal monitoring all are needs of the farm community which could be helped immensely by coordinated academic and technological support. 57 · SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PLAN LEGISLATION TO HELP IN THE CONTINUATION OF FARMING ESTATE TAX The continuation of farming can be assisted by changing the way farmland is taxed as it passes from one generation to the next in a decedent's estate. While there is a provision in the Internal Revenue Code (Section 2032A) to tax farmland at a lower rate than other real property, it is very difficult to meet the current requirements under this section of the Code. In addition, there is a limit of $750,000 by which an adjusted gross estate can be re- duced under this election. Given the h~gh 'value of real estate in Eastern Suffolk, this limitation hampers the effectiveness of Section 2032A. New legislation could be initiated to improve Section 2032A. Alternatively, farmland could be made exempt from the payment of estate tax unless or until it is sold. Estate taxes could also be considered a Lien ag~u~t farm property to be satisfied only upon the sale of the farm. This would allow the farm to be inherited without forcing it~ sale to pay estate taxes or severely draining a farmer's financial resources to hold onto it. However, this type of lien must be structured in such a way that it will not affect the credit wor- thiness of collateralized farm loans or [uterfere with potential purchase of development rights. PROPERTY TAXES Since property taxes for funding public education have become so onerous to both homeowners and farm owners a replacement for property taxes such as a local income tax, sales tax or a real estate transfer tax shonld be stud- led. This was supported by a resolution of the Long Island Farm Bureau_ In 1994 the State of Michigan restructured their tax code to shif~ education from property taxes to sales tax. The Long Island Farm Bureau has proposed circuit breaker legislation that would help mitigate the high property taxes farmers are now forced to pay in Suffolk County. In this proposal property taxes would be allowed as an income tax credit. This deserves research and consideration. STATE AID FORMULA FOR EDUCATION EducationAid formulas need to be corrected because state aid is calculated based on assessed value without considering the impact of agricultural as- sessment. State aid is lower th2n it should be in the Tow-as of Rivarhead and Southold where a large amount of property pays property taxes based on agricultural use rather than the assessed value used in the state for- mula. NEW YORK STATE FARM/,A.ND PRESERVATION PROGRAM Considering the economic and aesthetic value of farming in New York State and the large amount of money that needs to be raised to protect the ben- efite of farmland for ali New York State residents, a State matching funds program should be instituted to help Counties in their preservation efforts. 59 SUFFOLK C 0 U N rY A G RI C ~J LTU RA L P R O'FECTIO N PLAN COST BENEFIT A2qALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSIV[ENT The Long Island Farm Bureau believes these should be embodied into Suf- folk Countfs regulatory agencies. Duplication of existing laws and re~-mla- tions result in unreasonable and costly standards. LAND SUBDMSION AND DEED NO'r~'ICATION In an effort to preempt compiaints about farming activities, a deed notifica- tion system can be put in place. The justification for this already exists in the Suffolk Countfs 1982 Right to Farm law. The deed notification could be applied to aLI new bu~tding lots created within 500 feet of ex~sting farmland. This would inform owners of the nearby farm and its rights under the Suffolk County Right to Farm law to engage in certain agricultural activities such as plowing, irrigating, spraying, fer~liz- lng and hsawesting. Such notification would educate new residents about farming and hopefully lead to fewer complaints about farm operations. Upon approval of the plan this should be presented for approval and implementation to the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The Commission would recommend deed notification on new binlding lots within their jurisdiction which include lo- cations within 500 feet of a County or State road, a County or State park, a municipality boundary or the shoreline. For areas outside that jurisdiction, the individual towns would have to adopt the deed notification po[icy. Even without formal right to farm policies much of the potential conflict between farmers and neighbors could be averted by a pro-agriculture atti- rude by local government and a general sense that farming was there first and has to engage in some activities neighbors might find objectionable. Farmers themselves have tried to be good neighbors by taking into account that they do have neighbors and trying to avoid practices which might cause a conflict. 6O Appendix Table 1 SUFFOLK COUNTY DECLINES IN FARM ACREAGE Year No. Acres 1950 2187 123,346 1959 1,258 89,776 1969 743 61,520 1974 737 55,397 1978 777 51,853 1982 797 49,898 1987 696 41,799 1992 587 35,353 Farm~nd Years Lost as a % of between Lost acres afl ~nd Figures Acres peryear 21.2 15.4 9 33,570 3,730 10.5 10 28,256 2,826 9.5 5 6,123 1,225 8.9 4 3,544 886 8.6 4 1,955 489 7.2 5 8,099 1,620 6.1 5 6,446 1,289 Bu#ding permi~ per year 10,736 12,210 11,597 6,573 2,875 6,868 4,902 PROJECTED LOSS OF FARMLAND Projected PDR acres spending $1.5 million per year 5O 4O 3O 2O 10 0 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2112 [iFaml Acres ==POR Acres ] W Ta~e 3 PROJECTED LOSS OF FARMLAND Projected PDR acres spending $15 million per year Thousands 6O 5O 4O 30 2O 10 0 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 I~mFarmAcres --Sedes2 I 2012 Appendix Table 4 ,SUFFOLK COUNTY CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE .1987 - - 1992 - Rank in Rank in New York % of New New York Data State York State State 115,150,000 1 4.7 165,445 1 97,541,000 I 13.9 219 2 7.8 12,853,000 4 8.1 67,299,000 1 40 15,811,000 1 17.5 9,506,908 1 39.7 10,358 1 29 2,110 1 34.3 1,296 11 2.6 1,245 7 3.4 874 7 5.8 749 1 48.3 667 1 52.9 645 1 20.8 413 1 22.1 item Market Value of Agricultural Products Solci Average Market Value Per Farm Crops Including Nursery & Greenhouse Crops Vegetables, Sweet Corn, Melons No. of Farms Market Value Market Value: Nursery & Greenhouse Products Market Value: Poultry & Pouitn/Products Square Footage Under Glass or Other Protection ~dsh Potatoes in Acres Rye for Grain Acres Sweet Corn In Acres Grapes in Acres Head Cabbage in Acres Cauliflower in Acres Broccoli in Acres Pumpkins in Acres Spinach in Acres Source: U.S. Census of Aericulmre 1987 & 1992. Suffolk County Plannine Deuartment Data 133,762,000 227,874 119,715,000 % of New S~m 5.1 14.8 172 2 6.2 13,319,000 4 7.4 90,306,000 1 41.4 12,694,000 1 15.7 9,199,823 1 36.6 7,032 I 24.4 1,377 1 14 1,446 11 2.8 987 7 2.9 1,038 6 7.5 394 1 37.7 154 I 23.8 634 1 13.9 289 1 17.5 Change 1987-1992 No.(in Dollars) Percent 18,612,000 16.2. 62,429 37.7 22,174,000 22.7 -47 -21.5 466,000 3.6 23,007,000 34.2 -3,117,000 -19.7 -307,085 -3.2 -3,326 -32.1 -733 -34.7 150 11.6 -258 -20.7 164 18.8 -355 ..47.4 -513 -76.9 -11 -1.7 -124 -30 Appendix Table 5 FARM ACREAGE nY TENURE IN NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES RANKED BY PERCENT OF ACREAGE RENTED IN 1992 Rank NEW YORK STATE 1 ORANGE le,7'zo 14,510 19,471 3 ORLEANS 1&3~4 13,519 8,4911 4 SENECA 13.~40 9.678 5 SCHUYLER e,e~2 8,~ 10..11~ 6 GENESEE m,es~ ~e.2s~ 7 PUTNAM 1~o 475 8 MONROE m,~m' 7,s3a e.2~ 9 NIAGARA 12.~0 ~,ao~ 7,eTe 10 MADISON le.a~ s,o~ 11CORTLAND i1,1~? re.sas 12 ERIE 10,~ ~1,3~ 13 DELAWARE 1~,301 I$.(X)~ ~5,414 14 U¥1NGSTON 14,.0 ~4.~ Tenants, Part owners, Full owners, (acres) (acres) (acres) 1992 1987 1982 1992 1987 19821 1992 1987 1982 Total Percent (acres) Rente~ 1992 1887 1982 1992 1987 1982 Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) Tenants, (acres) Rank 1992 1987 1982 15 GREENE 3.10e 3.09~ 3.5t3 16 ONTARIO rh9~ ~..~, ~.5~ 17 WYOMING 18 CHENANGO 19 DUTCHESS s~ ~ ~.~; ~ SCHOHARIE 21 ~NY ~1~ 4.a~ 4,~ ~WASHINGTON ~.~ ~3 ~4.~ ~ ~LTON 24 MONTGOMERY ~.~ ~ COLUMBIA 26 CAYUGA ~.~ 9~ ~o.~ ~ CA~ARAUGUS ~ SCH~ECTADY ~ ~'~ ;'~ ~ OTSEGO ~o.~ ~ ONEIDA 31 ~IS 7,~ 4.~ 3.~ ~ ULTER J3ar~ owrlers, (acres) 1992 1987 198; Full owners, Total Percent (acres) (acres) Rented 1992 1987 1982 1992 1987 I982 1992 1987' 1982 Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) Tenants, Part owners, Full owners, (acres) (acres) (acres) Ranl~ 33 SULLJVAN 2,324 ~.e39 34 TOMPKINS 3,743 35 TTOGA 4.e~ 3.9~ 36 HERKIMER ~o 37CHAUTAUQUA m,~ ~tTos ~2.7~ ~ WAYNE ~41~ e,~ e,2~ ~ RENSSE~ER ~ ONONDA~ 41J~RSON ~0,~1 42 OSWEGO ~ YATES ~ CHEMUNG ~ ~ ~'~ ~ A~EGANY 4~ s,~ 7.~ 47 S~UB~ 1~747 ~o5t4 ~ FRANK~N 4,~ 4.~ 3,~ 49 SARATO~ ~ WESTCHESTER ~ ~ ~'2~ 1992 1987 19821 1992 1987 1982i 1992 1987 198; Total Percent (acres) Reined 1992 1987 19821 1992 1987 1982 ,Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) Rank 51 CLINTON 52 ESSEX 53 ST LAWRENCE ~.s~ 9.~ 6.74; 54 WARREN (D) 55 ROCKLANO (o) (D) (o 56 NASSAU Tenants, Part owners, Full owners, (acres) (acres) (acres) 1982 i= 1992 1987 1992 1987 1982: 1992 1987 1982 (acres) 1992 1987 1982 Percent Rentect 1992 1987 1982 (D)-DATA SUPPEE3$ED Source: 1902 Cen~u~ of Agriculture. Suffolk Cou~7 Pl~ning Depanmem A-8 Appendix Table 6 1992 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE New York State (by CounW) YORK STATE GANY BRONX o o , BROOME ~aee ~ls'/,~ ~5s7 ~22, CATTAR 2m-/04 ~34~ 2ss3 AUGUS CAYUGA 2.~02 2~45~ 3734 CHE- saaea s4~s~ ~ MUNG ~GO ~D A-9 o o (PI $17.77 1O353 63~ t2:37 993 794 647 7.2% Appendix Table 6 (Cont.) AWARE ESS FRANKLIN 13a~ ~5718' 18~4 1435i FULTON 35343 3~7~ GR~NE 4~ ~ HAMILTON (O) (O) ~N ~NGS ~ MADISON t~ 2128~ (D) / / A-10 Appendix Table 6 (Cont.) MONTGOM:3S822 ~s63~ 2753 ERY NASSAU Ia9O ~47 NEW o YORK NIAGARA ~3s494 ~4~: ONEIDA ~¢~3z ~1 ONON ~4s32g 15827~ OAGA ONTARIO ~alS24 ~c~04e ORLEANS t33as4 OSWEGO ~72334 ~22c~ 1843 14~ (BI 24 I03 OTSEGO 21a3~ 2s4~ PUTNAM 3a~ sos; QUEENS (0) RENSSE- ~ te~s5 LAER RICHMOND (0) ROCK LANO o $123.95 $84,0! ¢?,5' 1412 21511 9.9% 6.3% e I 0 38491 3273~ 6.3% 5.7 6.8% 5.6% 411 6~ o o 5/4 (o) (O) (0) o 47.5% Appendix Table 6 (Cont.) ST LAW RENCE SARA TOGA SCHENEC ~9~9~ ~76 TADY SCHUYLER~323 7.7~ SENECA STEUBEN SUFFOLK SULLIVAN TOMPKINS 9~a~ .~ ULSTER s~.3 ;*saw WARREN WASHING TON 19414 197TI A-12 Appendix Table 6 (Cont.) WESTCHE ~ ~ STER WYOMING ~o~ ~o~9~ YATES ~02~4 11392~ 586 4~81 SI0~6~ SS~.~ e~.e~a ~6 505~ ~.4% 9,3~, (D) Withheld to avoid dj*closing data for individual farine (X) Not applicable. Less tha~ half of the unit shown. (HA) Not avadable. ...Unpublished [BI Plot available due to brackztz. A-13 Appendix Table 7 SUMMARY OF COST OF SERVICES RATIOS FOR STUDY AREAS NEW YORK STATE (in dollars) Commercial/ Farm/Forest Study Area County Residential Industrial Open Land Amenia Dutchess 1: 1.23 1: 0.17 1: 0.25 Beekman Dutchess 1: 1.05 1: 0.44 1: 0.31 Dix Schuyler I: 1.51 1: 0.27 1: 0,31 Fishkill Dutchess 1: 1.23 1: 0.31 1: 0.74 Hector Schuyler 1: 1.30 1: 0.15 1: 0.28 Montour Schuyler 1: 1.50 1: 0.28 1: 0.29 North East Dutchess 1: 1.36 1: 0.29 1: 0.21 Reading Schuyler 1: 1.08 1: 0.26 I: 0.32 Red Hook Dutchess 1: 1.11 1: 0.20 1: 0.22 Median 1: 1.23 1: 0.27 1: 0.29 Source: American Farmland Trust in cooperation wilh the Dutches$ CouaW Cooperative Exl~sion A-14 Appendix Table 8 SEASONAL POPULATION IN SUFFOLK COUNTY Major Municipality Babylon Brookhaven East Hampton Huntington Islip Riverhead Shelter Island Smithtown Southampton Southold Seasonal & Seasonal & Other Other Occass- Other Occass- Vacant Vacant ional Use Total Vacant ional Use 1960 1970 1970 1970 1980 1980 2,691 330 818 1,148 655 510 16,524 1,164 10,053 11.217 2,319 6,373 2.965 254 3,709 3,963 335 6,418 2,525 385 793 1,178 461 465 5,070 539 2.505 3,044 1,163 2,383 2,016 133 1,611 1,744 270 1,117 741 18 775 793 285 602 1,671 175 368 543 240 262 7,791 427 7,993 8,420 584 10,172 3,425 155 2,660 2,815 219 3,185 Seasonal & Other Occass- Total Vacant ional Use Total 1980 1990 1990 1990 1,165 336 324 660 8,692 1,679 4,683 6,562 6,753 537 8,886 9,423 926 389 272 661 3,546 488 2,153 2,641 1,387 225 1,334 1,559 887 29 1,018 1.047 502 177 160 337 10,75 731 12,971 13,702 3,404 186 4,152 4,338 Suffolk 45,419 3,580 31,285 34,865 6,531 31,487 38,01 4,977 County 35,953 40,930 Eastern 16,938 987 16,748 17,735 1,693 21,494 23,18 1,708 Suffolk Western 26,481 2,593 14,537 17,130 4,638 9,993 14,83 3,269 Suffolk 28,361 30,069 7,592 10,861 Source: U.S. Census Bu~:au 1960, 19'/0, 1980, 1990, Long Island Regional Planning Board A-15 Appendix Table 9 NEW YORK STATE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS in Suffolk County April 4, 1996 NO. First Second First Second Creation Renewal Renewal Original Renweal Renweai Present Date Date Date Acreage Acreage Acreage Acreage Town 10/9/79 10/7/87 10/7/95 3,004 2,937 5,850 5,850 Southold 3/17/81 3/17/89 1,000 321 321 Brookhaven 3 8/26/82 8/26/90 1,085 883 883 Brookhaven 8/22/83 8/22/91 3,300 3,300 3,300 Southampton 8/18/85 8/18/93 2,455 3,168 3,168 Total 2,087 2,968 2,968 Southampton 8/18/85 8/18/93 368 200 200 East Hampton 545 545 0 Riverhead 7 3~27~88 3/23/96 2,063 9,192 9,192 Riverhead Total 13,452 22714 * - includes non-t'atm parcels ** - Agricultural District ~6 was merged with Agricultural Dis~¢t #7 Source: Suffolk County Planning Department A-16 Appendix Table 10 SUFFOLK COUNTY FARMLAND (in Acres) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 A-17 Thousands 1940 1950 1959 1969 1974 1978 1982 1987 1992 Year Appendix Table 11 SUFFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL AND FARMLAND PROTECTION BOARD The Suffolk County Planning Department is at work on a Farmland Protection Plan. Th/s plan is funded by Suffolk County and the State Department of Agriculture and Markets. Who better to give advice on the plan than the farming community? Some Considerations: Public policy should support and sustain agriculture as an industry, aot discourage it. The economy of farming needs to be better understood The taxes farms pay; the connection to tourism and to other businesses; the jobs farrmng sustains. · Financial, regulatory and development pressures need to be identified. Please help out by: Attending one of the public meetings or sending your comments to. The Cornell Cooperative Extension c/o W'dl/am Sanolc, or The Long Island Farm Bureau c/o Joseph Gergela rll Public Meetings are scheduled for: Monday, November 27, 1995 Southampton Town Hall 7:00PM Wednesday, November 29, 1995 Rive~ead Town Hall 7:00PM Please join us in assuring Suffolk County's farming future. A-18