Southwestern Agricultural District #2 Monroe County, New York 2006 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ...

99 Pages·2007·12.83 MB·English

Southwestern Agricultural District #2
Monroe County, New York

2006 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT REVIEW

May 2007

Prepared for: The Monroe County Legislature
Prepared by: The Monroe County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board
and the
Monroe County Planning Board

Southwestern Agricultural District #2, Monroe County, New York
2006 Agricultural District Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets Letter of District Certification .................................i

1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1

2.0 REVIEW PROCESS...............................................................................................1

3.0 DISTRICT REVIEW...............................................................................................2

3.1 Proposed District Boundary Modifications...................................................2
3.2 Consideration of Review Factors...................................................................3

3.2.1 Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board Factors.......................3
3.2.2 County Planning Board Factors........................................................4

4.0 RECOMMENDATION...........................................................................................7

Tables
Table Page
1. Southwestern Agricultural District #2 Acreage.................................................................2
2. Water Mains Installed Between 1998 and 2006................................................................9

Maps

Map
Monroe County Agricultural Districts.....................................................................................10
Updated Southwestern Agricultural District #2.......................................................................11

Appendices
(following maps)

A. List of Parcels Comprising Existing District
B. Affidavits of Publication of 30-Day Review and Public Hearing Legal Notices and Public Hearing
Record Summary
C. Modifications to District: Parcels to be Added to and Removed from the District
D. Agricultural District Review Profile (RA-114)
E. Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board and County Planning Board Recommendations
F. Short Environmental Assessment Form and Negative Declaration
G. Monroe County Legislature Resolution

For information concerning this report, contact
Rochelle Bell, Monroe County Department of Planning and Development, [phone]; or
Robert King, Monroe Community College, Agriculture and Life Science Institute, [phone]
Southwestern Agricultural District #2, Monroe County, New York
2006 Agricultural District Review

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Article 25AA of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law, titled Agricultural Districts, provides
counties with the opportunity to create agricultural districts for the purpose of protecting and promoting
the agriculture industry. Once created, the law requires that each district must be reviewed on an 8, 10, or
12-year basis to see if it is still achieving its intended purpose. In Monroe County, districts must be
reviewed every eight years.

Monroe County’s Southwestern Agricultural District #2 was created in 1974 as the County’s second of
five agricultural districts. The District is located in the Towns of Chili, Riga and Wheatland. Its general
location within Monroe County is shown in Map 1. A list of parcels comprising the existing district is
included as Appendix A.

The report contains an overview of the review process, a listing of proposed district modifications, a
discussion of the review factors that are required in Article 25AA for district reviews and the
recommendation to continue the District with modifications.

2.0 REVIEW PROCESS

The agricultural district review process is prescribed in Sections 303-a of Article 25AA. The process
calls for the agricultural and farmland protection board and the county planning board to prepare a report
concerning various factors and make a recommendation to the county legislative body regarding the
district. The review is a participatory process that also includes citizens within and adjacent to the district
and encourages landowners to review and to provide direct input in the final makeup of the district. It is
during this review process that a landowner may request to add land to or remove land from a district.
Adding land to and/or removing land from a district results in a modified district. Finally, input is also
solicited from town leaders, core farmers, local agribusiness experts and interested citizens.

Agricultural and farmland protection boards are established pursuant to Section 302 of Article 25AA.
One of the board’s responsibilities is to ensure that agricultural interests are considered during the review
process. County planning boards are responsible for representing county and local governments in the
review process. The combined expertise of these two boards ensures that a thorough review of the district
is undertaken. The knowledge of these boards on the review factors prescribed in Section 303-a enables
them to advise the county legislative body on the benefits associated with agriculture, both as a land use
and as an integral part of the county’s economy.

In summary, participation by all of these various groups enables a thorough examination of the complex
and dynamic considerations that must be balanced to allow continued non-farm economic growth while
also protecting a valuable, nonrenewable natural and economic resource.

Generally, the process is as follows:
• After receiving notification from the state that the review should be undertaken, the county legislative
body publishes a legal notice announcing that the review is underway and that the municipalities in
the district and the public have 30 days to submit requests for district modification to the county
legislative body.

• Review the needs of the farmers in this area, the development goals and objectives of the
municipalities within the agricultural district, and the county’s development goals and objectives for
the area of the county in which the district is located.

1 September, 2006
Southwestern Agricultural District #2, Monroe County, New York
2006 Agricultural District Review

• At the end of the 30-day period, the requests received by the county legislative body are forwarded to
the agricultural and farmland protection board and the planning board for review. These two boards
use these communications along with the other information gathered to develop a joint
recommendation on the district. This recommendation is then forwarded to the county legislative
body for action.

• The county legislative body holds a public hearing at a location in the agricultural district to present
the joint recommendation and to obtain any final comments. If necessary, the legislative body revises
the recommendation following the public hearing and typically acts to modify and continue the
district. This recommendation is then forwarded to the New York State Department of Agriculture
and Markets (NYS A&M) for district certification. The review process ends when the county
receives a district certification notice from the NYS A&M.

Appendix B includes affidavits of publication of the 30-day review Legal Notice, the public Hearing
Legal Notice and the public hearing record summary associated with this review process.

3.0 DISTRICT REVIEW

3.1 Proposed District Boundary Modifications

The Southwestern Agricultural District is shown in detail on Map 2; the proposed modifications are
highlighted. Parcels that were requested to be added to and removed from the Southwestern Agricultural
District are highlighted on Map 2 and summarized in Appendix C.

Upon the completion of the last review of the Southwestern District in 1998, its size was listed as 35,794
acres. The way in which agricultural district parcels are compiled changed often over the past eight years
with new directives from the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets and as the municipalities, the
county and the state came to rely more heavily on computerized data and mapping. In addition, 76.7 acres
have been added since 1998 as part of the annual addition process described in Section 303-b of Article
25AA, initiated in 2003. Therefore, the size of the Southwestern Agricultural District under consideration
for this review is 36,662.8 acres.

The Clerk of the Monroe County Legislature received requests to add a total of 327.8 acres in four parcels
to the District and to remove a total of 134.5 acres in three parcels from the District. The modifications
result in a net increase of 193.3 acres to the Southwestern Agricultural District for a total of 36,856.1
acres. Table 1 summarizes these modifications.

Table 1. Southwestern Agricultural District #2 Acreage

Proposed Modification Acreage
Municipality (acres)
Add Remove Current Modification Proposed
Town of Chili 0 0 6,033.1 0 6,033.1
Town of Riga 239.9 -124.0 14,694.0 115.9 14,809.9
Town of Wheatland 87.9 -10.5 15,935.7 77.4 16,013.1
TOTAL: 327.8 -134.5 36,662.8 193.3 36,856.1

2 September, 2006
Southwestern Agricultural District #2, Monroe County, New York
2006 Agricultural District Review

3.2 Consideration of Review Factors

During the month of August, 2006, the Monroe County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board
(AFPB) and the Monroe County Planning Board (CPB) met to consider the proposed district boundary
modifications and the factors in Section 303-a that are required to be included in the review process.
The following text represents the results of the consideration of these factors as they relate to the review
of the Southwestern Agricultural District.

3.2.1 Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board Factors

1. The Nature of Farming and Farm Resources within the District

The Southwestern Agricultural District Profile is included as Appendix D. As proposed, the agricultural
district is mostly field crop operations (corn for grain, forage, hay, wheat, oats and soybeans) and
processing vegetables. There are several dairy operations and some horticulture specialty type operations
including organic, Christmas trees, garlic, greenhouses, and small fruit; however, these are on a small
scale and tend to be either secondary or supplemental forms of support to a farm operator’s income.
Approximately 80% of the soils found in this district are either prime or unique and well drained as
defined by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS.)
However, drainage continues to be a concern within the area due to an annual precipitation rate of almost
37 inches, which provides for ample soil moisture for consistent yields. A large tiling and ditching
network exists and continues to be improved upon and requires maintenance.

Large, contiguous and nearby parcels lend themselves readily to production efficiencies and
implementation of municipal policy.

2. The Overall Status of Farming, the Farm Economy, and Farm Investment as Evidenced by
Information Provided by Farmers

Since the Freedom to Farm Act, several operations have expanded with the result of more acreage put into
grain and forage production. A large majority of working farmland is utilized to support dairy operations
located within the county and in adjacent counties. A significant number of retired farm families and
landowners that inherited farmland continue to rent ground to active agricultural operations within the
District. A significant reason for this is to be eligible for agricultural value assessments in order to
continue viable ownership of the land. All farmed acreage is farmed by farm families with most families
relying on the farm as a primary source of income. Several farmers have either bought land to farm or
have made significant improvements to their drainage systems since the last renewal.

3. The Extent to which the Number of Farms and Farm Acres in District Furthers the Purposes
for which the District was Originally Created

Agriculture continues to be a predominant and viable land use throughout the municipalities in the
District. Quantitative and qualitative data collected through meetings, observations, and interviews with
farmers and landowners indicate that the area contains viable farming both within the existing district and
in the areas that are proposed for inclusion. Landowners requesting annexation to the district include

3 September, 2006
Southwestern Agricultural District #2, Monroe County, New York
2006 Agricultural District Review

active, viable, and support farm land.

4. The Extent to which the District has Achieved its Original Objectives

Development pressure in the form of changes to zoning, sale of single family homes and proposals for
extension of water and sewer lines in Riga, Chili and Wheatland are evidenced both in comprehensive
plan updates and notice of intents. Since the last agricultural district renewal, nuisance complaints have
declined concerning farming operations and have been readily resolved. Farming remains a viable land
use as measured by acreage, income, and principle operations within the district. The proposed Thruway
interchange as noted in the previous 1998 renewal report was withdrawn with the Agricultural District
being identified as a primary reason for its rejection.

5. County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Planning or Implementation Efforts Pursuant to
Article 25AA

A proposed county-wide farmland protection plan was adopted by the County Legislature in 1999. This
plan includes an inventory, analysis, and recommendations concerning the disposition of agricultural
lands throughout the County as well as within the District. The Town of Chili continues to work on an
open space inventory in which agriculture is promoted as a use. Chili has also worked with several farm
markets to encourage their viability and outreach to the community. The Town of Riga has been engaged
in meetings with the agricultural community and interested citizens on promoting and protecting
agriculture as a use. The Town of Wheatland has recently updated its comprehensive plan promoting
agriculture as a desired land use.

6. Recommendations to Continue, Terminate or Modify District

Based on the strong viability of the current agriculture within the proposed District and continued
development pressure, a need still exists to ensure that a favorable climate continues so that land
speculation and adverse impacts due to development are minimized or mitigated. Therefore, the Monroe
County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board strongly recommends the renewal and modification
of the Southwestern Agricultural District. A copy of the AFPB letter of recommendation is included in
Appendix E.

3.2.2 County Planning Board Factors

1. The Effect of District on County and Local Comprehensive Plans, Policies, and Objectives

Each of the towns in the Southwestern Agricultural District -- Chili, Riga and Wheatland -- adopted
municipal comprehensive plans in which agriculture is a recommended land use within the District. The
intent of the District is both complementary to and consistent with the municipal comprehensive plans. In
addition, the District renewal process provides citizens, the agriculture community and local officials the
opportunity to discuss and strengthen the impact that the District offers to each municipality.

County Comprehensive Plan

The conceptual plan for the County's development pattern is contained in the Land Use Element of the
adopted Monroe County Comprehensive Development Plan. The Element recommends that with the

4 September, 2006
Southwestern Agricultural District #2, Monroe County, New York
2006 Agricultural District Review

exception of a limited amount of growth around the Villages of Churchville and Scottsville, the remainder
of the area included in the District should be used for farming and rural, non-farm development.

District Capital Improvements

Based on a review of the Monroe County’s annual capital improvement programs since 1998, the last
time the Southwestern Agricultural District was reviewed, it appears that four capital improvement
projects were undertaken by Monroe County and the Monroe County Water Authority in the
Southwestern Agricultural District. They were:

Monroe County Department of Environmental Services, Pure Waters
• Pure Waters' Churchville/Mill Seat pump stations and force main: the six-inch diameter Mill Seat
force main runs along Interstate I-490 to Churchville and the ten-inc diameter Churchville force
main runs along Savage Road and the active railroad tracks to Attridge Road, crossing some
District properties.

Monroe County Department of Transportation
• Attridge Road Culvert replacement (BIN 3361670), completed 2002
• Attridge Road Bridge replacement (BIN 3317880), scheduled completion 2008

Monroe County Water Authority
• Water mains installed in or adjacent to the District since 1998 are summarized in Table 2. Two
lines, totaling 9,725 feet, were Monroe County Water Authority projects. The New York State
Department of Conservation had three projects, developers had two projects and Genesee County
had one project; however, the majority of linear feet of water line added to the District were the
result of town sponsored projects.

The following projects are proposed to be undertaken in or adjacent to the District during the next eight
years:

Monroe County Department of Environmental Services, Pure Waters
• Village of Scottsville potential pump station and force main project: the conceptual project
includes a 14-inch diameter force main running along Route 253 across District properties (to the
Genesee River) to Pure Waters' Riverton pump station.

• Town of Chili sewers on Scottsville Road: the Town and a developer have expressed interest in
installing sewers south of the existing Pure Waters District along Scottsville Road within District.

Monroe County Department of Transportation
• The Monroe County Department of Transportation currently has no projects planned within the
District as per the proposed 2007-2012 Monroe County Capital Improvement Program

Monroe County Water Authority
• The Monroe County Water Authority is not planning to build any new facilities in the District in
the next eight years; however, it is likely that there will still be water districts forming and
developers extending mains.

5 September, 2006
Southwestern Agricultural District #2, Monroe County, New York
2006 Agricultural District Review

Municipal Comprehensive Plans

The comprehensive plans of Chili, Riga and Wheatland were discussed and reviewed with personnel from
each municipality regarding their consistency with the purpose and intent of the District. All plans
recommend that the vast majority of land included in the District as well as the proposed additions,
remain rural with agriculture and low density residential as the preferred land uses. Additionally, each
plan contains policies designed to retain and support agriculture as the principal land use in the District.

Although Wheatland’s plan recommends the continuation of farming and maintenance of the rural
character throughout the vast majority of the District located in the town, the plan takes into account the
possibility of development within the District and indicates that if it were to occur, that it would be a
business/industrial mix.

The Town of Chili is doing a very brief update to its plan. Currently, the Chili update supports the
continuation of agriculture in the District. The Town of Riga is also updating its plan but anticipates no
changes to the plan’s current recommendation that the area involving the District remain rural and
agricultural in nature.

The district has had a positive and mitigating influence on municipal and county comprehensive plans,
rules, regulations, ordinances and laws as they relate to land use recommendations and implementation of
municipal policy.

When public road, sewer, and water projects traverse farmland, the District’s regulations encourage
oversight and tend to place limitations and conditions on these projects that help mitigate adverse impacts
on affected lands. Thus, in this context and from an agricultural perspective, the District has had a
significant and positive influence on capital improvement projects.

Although public water projects continue in the District, historically, the presence of public water has not
been a significant impetus of development in the County and this District. However, sanitary sewer is
much more likely to attract and influence the nature of development, especially if the sewer line is a
gravity line versus a force main line. Thus, the expansion and nature of sewer lines within the Town of
Chili is likely to have an adverse impact on nearby farmlands. However, nearby farms may be able to
capture the potential demand for locally grown agricultural products that these expected developed uses
may bring.
.
The presence of the District and active farm operations has resulted in agriculture being a recommended
land use in each of the municipal comprehensive plans and, in this context, the District has had a positive
influence on these plans. And although agricultural district regulations call for municipal planning to be
consistent with the intent of the agricultural districts program, at times, municipalities plan and zone land
for nonagricultural uses in districts.

2. The Impacts of Non-Agricultural Development in District

In all towns, the prevailing non-farm development pattern in the District has been predominantly single
family homes along road frontage. This pattern tends to be prevalent in all other districts in Monroe
County and is associated with an increased likelihood of nonfarm neighbor complaints about farming
practices. As noted above, there have been several complaints but they have been resolved based on

6 September, 2006
Southwestern Agricultural District #2, Monroe County, New York
2006 Agricultural District Review

mediation and reference to agricultural districts law and opinions. Riga continues to require a disclosure
notice which helps to provide early notification to nonfarm neighbors that they are likely to experience
effects from farming operations, thereby, helping to minimize complaints.

The Town of Chili anticipates expansion of water and sewer lines along Scottsville Road and into areas
within or adjacent to the District is likely to exacerbate and influence the nature of development and
potential conflicts and threats to nearby farm lands. Several horse farms within the Town of Chili are for
sale at the time of this report with intentions for development.

The Town of Wheatland anticipates additional single-family residents, however, the rate and level of
development has been well below that of adjacent towns and counties. Wheatland is exploring extending
sewer lines from the Village of Scottsville sanitary system. Scottsville is in the process of considering
improvements and possible expansion to its wastewater treatment facility or merging with Monroe
County Department of Environmental Services, Pure Waters Division.

There have been a total of 21 rollback penalties affecting 340.10 acres in the Southwestern Agricultural
District since 1998:
6 rollback penalties in the District in Chili totaling 50.17 acres;
14 rollback penalties in the District in Riga totaling 168.93 acres; and
1 rollback penalty for two parcels in the District in Wheatland totaling 121 acres.

Although the level and rate of nonfarm development has been “low” when compared to other agricultural
districts, nonfarm development continues to impact and threaten the viability of farming within the
District. Nonfarm development in agricultural districts should be monitored and opportunities for
mitigation should be identified as part of the implementation and update process for farmland protection
plans and municipal comprehensive plans.

3. The Degree of Coordination between Local Laws, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations that
Apply to Farm Operations in District and their Influence on Farming

With one exception, all of the zoning districts that apply to land in the District permit farming. The
exception is the Mobile Home Park district in Riga but it only encompasses the fully developed mobile
home park and, thus, does not include any land that could otherwise be farmed. Riga is actively seeking
community input though meetings and ad hoc committees regarding consistent and reasonable policy
regarding farmland protection and promotion. The town is in the midst of updating its comprehensive
plan, with agricultural being emphasized as a viable use. Consequently a right to farm law and several
other supportive ordinances and laws are expected to be considered over the next several years.

Municipalities have indicated that they continue to use the Agriculture Data Statement (ADS) to assess
the impacts of potential nonfarm development proposed on land which is part of an active farm in the
District or is proposed for land within 500 feet of an active farm in the District. The municipal board
reviewing the proposed nonfarm development must determine, based on information provided in the ADS
and by adjacent farmers, whether the proposed development will conflict with present and future farming
operations and if so, determine appropriate mitigation measures.

4. Recommendations to Continue, Terminate or Modify District

The District continues to provide benefits to member farmers who wish to continue farming. Therefore,

7 September, 2006