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