Fill - Free fillable - Erie County AFPP Draft 11-1-12 Dbh (New York State) PDF form

Erie County, New York

Agricultural and

Farmland Protection Plan

Prepared by the Erie County

Department of Environment and

Planning in conjunction with the

Erie County Agricultural and

Farmland Protection Board

With assistance from

Erie County Agricultural and

Farmland Protection Plan

October 24, 2012

Prepared by the Erie County Department of Environment

and Planning in conjunction with the Erie County

Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board

with assistance from:

Acknowledgements

The Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan was funded by a Planning Grant

from the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, and the Federal Department of

Housing and Urban Development through the Erie County Community Development Block

Grant Program. Thank you to the following individuals and groups for input and assistance in

the planning process:

Erie County

Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board:

Brett Kreher

Earl Gingerich, Jr.

Hon. Terrence McCracken

Mark Gaston

Deb Roberts

Diane Held

Bryant Zilke

Daniel Henry

Bruce Luno

Jason Engel

Don Spoth

Thomas Dearing

Mark Poloncarz, Erie County Executive

Erie County Legislature:

District #1 Hon. Timothy R. Hogues

District #2 Hon. Betty Jean Grant, Chair

District #3 Hon. Lynn M. Marinelli

District #4 Hon. Kevin R. Hardwick

District #5 Hon. Thomas A. Loughran

District #6 Hon. Edward A. Rath, III

District #7 Hon. Thomas J. Mazur, Majority Leader

District #8 Hon. Terrence D. McCracken

District #9 Hon. Lynne M. Dixon

District #10 Hon. Joseph C. Lorigo

District #11 Hon. John J. Mills, Minority Leader

Department of Environment and Planning:

Maria Whyte, Commissioner

Tom Dearing, Deputy Commissioner

Mark Rountree, Planner

Rachel Chrostowski, Planner

Dale Morris, Director of Geographic Information Services

Interviewees:

Carmen Vacco, Vacco Farms

Carolyn and Marty Rosiek, MCR Farm

Dan Gerhardt, GC Acres

Hans Kunze, Steuben Trust

John Cappelino, Erie County IDA

Carolyn Powell, Buffalo Niagara Enterprise

Tim Harner, Upstate Milk Cooperative

Jodi Smith, Upstate Milk Cooperative

Norb and Lynn Gabel, Gabel’s Maple Syrup

Kevin Komendat, Wegmans Markets

Paul Zittel, Eden Valley Growers

George and Pat Castle, Castle Farms

Jerry Mammoser, Mammoser Farms

Bill Holmes, dairy farm

David Phillips, Phillips Family Farm

Marty Wendel, Wendel’s Poultry Farm

Bob and Jason Engel, Shamel Milling

Lloyd Lamb, Lamb and Webster

Southtowns Community Enhancement Coalition

Ryan and Liz Donovan, Sweet Harvest Farm

Wayne and Gerald Aldinger, Aldinger’s Farm

Ginny Wolski, horse farm

Others:

David Haight, New York State Director, American Farmland Trust

Diane Held, Senior New York Field Manager, American Farmland Trust

Tammey Holtby, New York Operations Coordinator, American Farmland Trust

Doris Mittasch, Program Manager, American Farmland Trust

Sarah Risley, New York Intern, American Famland Trust

Holly Rippon-Butler, New York Intern, American Farmland Trust

Barbara Johnston, Senior Planner, Stuart Brown Associates, Inc.

Phil Gottwals, Principal, Agricultural and Community Development Services, LLC

John Whitney, District Conservationist, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Department of Agriculture and Markets, State of New York

University of Buffalo, Department of Urban and Regional Planning Students and Faculty:

Taylor Hawes, Jonathan Falk, Naoka Takahashi, Tamara Wright, Brian Conley, Jonathan

Falk, Taylor Hawes, Yoon Hee Jung, Gun Hyoung Kim, Tony Maggiotto Jr., Naoka

Takahashi, Tamara Wright, Dr. Samina Raja

Citizens of Erie County

Photographs taken by Diane Held and Marty Yagle

Table of Contents

Section I: Executive Summary.....................................................................................1

Section II: Introduction .................................................................................................7

Section III: Analysis of Local Conditions.......................................................................9

Section IV: Public Participation....................................................................................15

Section V: Recommendations from Relevant Agricultural Planning Documents

in Erie County............................................................................................22

Section VI: Planning for Agriculture in Erie County....................................................26

• Map 1 - Land in Erie County Agricultural Districts

• Map 2 - Agricultural Parcels and Cropland Coverage

• Map 3 - Agricultural Soils Rating

• Map 4 - Natural Resources Rating

• Map 5 - Natural Resources Rating Features

• Map 6 - Proximity to Protected Land

• Map 7 - Framework for Regional Growth Policy Areas

• Map 8 - Clusters of Parcels with High Agricultural Soils Values

Section VII: Strategies, Goals, Actions..........................................................................47

• Implementation Matrix

Section VIII: Appendix ...................................................................................................64

• Endnotes

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 1

Executive Summary

Too often the production of our food is taken for granted – a process that happens somewhere,

somehow, by someone. But food is essential to our very survival. In Erie County we are

fortunate to have diverse, productive, vital farms near a sizable population. We have prime soils,

a climate moderated by a large body of water, and farmers with years of experience as well as

new farmers eager to take on the challenge of growing food. And in recent years, an emerging

interest in local farms and local foods has boosted agriculture’s visibility as an economic driver

creating new opportunities for farmers in both rural and urban areas of the County. As we look

ahead to a rapidly increasing world population with limited additional arable land, we can be

grateful for the resources we have in our backyard and take seriously our responsibility to use,

care for, and protect those resources to the best of our collective abilities.

In 2010 Erie County embarked on a process to develop a new

Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan to guide County

efforts to support local farms and protect farmland. The New

York State Department of Agriculture and Markets and the

Erie County Community Development Block Grant program

provided key funding for the project, and the Erie County

Department of Environment and Planning led the local effort

to gather and assess public input with guidance from the Erie

County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board.

American Farmland Trust, assisted by Agricultural and

Community Development Services, and Stuart I. Brown

Associates were the hired consultants who facilitated the

public process, developed maps, assembled information, and

compiled the written Plan.

The result of this almost two year process is an Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan

intended to direct Erie County’s agricultural planning for the next decade. The Plan provides a

picture of agriculture as it is today, and outlines the loss of farmland over the last few decades.

There were substantial opportunities for public input as the Plan was developed – in total eight

public meetings were offered, and recommended actions from the Plan, and later the entire Plan,

were viewable on the County website.

Public support for agriculture and for the planning process was strong. While agriculture has

many challenges – during this 20-month planning timeframe county farms experienced very

damaging frosts and a significant drought – farmers and consumers alike see opportunities in

Erie County to improve farm profitability and connect farms with the consuming public by

addressing interest in local farms and local food.

Included in the Plan are:

• an analysis of agriculture and development pressure in the County,

• summaries of the various public meetings and individual interviews that were conducted

as part of the process,

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 2

• summaries of other planning documents specific to agriculture that are currently being

used in the County,

• information about the “tools in the toolbox” that Erie County does, and can, use to

support farms and protect farmland,

• and, a set of strategies with goals and recommended actions for implementation.

Erie County lost substantial farmland since the early 1970s when the population of the county

peaked. Sprawling development pushed out from the City of Buffalo – first into the inner ring

suburbs, and in the past decade or two, into the second ring suburbs. Agriculture continues to be

a significant contributor to the County economy, providing $117 million in agricultural sales in

2007, but much of the farmland is now located in an outer ring of land adjacent to neighboring

agricultural counties: Niagara, Genesee, Wyoming, Cattaraugus, and Chautauqua.

The eight public meetings held throughout the planning process and twenty one interviews of

farmers, agribusiness owners, and economic development staff elicited input about the strengths,

opportunities, weaknesses, and threats to agriculture in the County. While there were challenges

to farm viability shared during this process, the defining tone was one of opportunity –

opportunities to strengthen agricultural markets, to bring new consumers to local agriculture, to

improve agricultural land use planning, to encourage a next generation to farm and to work on

farms.

The Erie Niagara Framework for Regional Growth and the municipal Agricultural and Farmland

Protection Plans for the Towns of Brant, Evans, and North Collins jointly, along with Eden and

Clarence separately, build on each other and share many common goals and recommendations

including using a variety of tools to slow conversion of farmland to other uses and to improve

farm profitability. Planning for agriculture in the County is happening in some areas. The

County Plan supports these current town Plans and provides opportunities to support other towns

in Erie County. A study done by the University of Buffalo Department of Urban and Regional

Planning students, “Room at the Table,” informed food system discussions during development

of the Plan. Eight maps produced as part of the planning process will be used to guide

agricultural planning efforts by the Department of Environment and Planning, including

upcoming phases of the Erie Niagara Framework for Regional Growth.

In addition to these formal agricultural plans, other efforts to protect farmland and support farms

have occurred throughout the County. Over 3,000 acres of farmland in the County is

permanently protected with agricultural conservation easements held by local land trusts,

allowing farming but no development on the land. A few towns also offer term easements that

reduce property taxes in exchange for a term conservation easement to limit development on the

land. Erie County has the tenth highest number of acres in state-certified, county-approved

agricultural districts among the state’s 62 counties – no small feat for an urban county. And 23

of the 25 towns in the county adopted Right to Farm Laws. Lastly, a group of Southtowns

municipalities established an agritourism trail that is continuing to expand and develop.

Focusing on agricultural economic development holds significant promise for Erie County farms,

particularly with regard to direct marketing opportunities. While efforts have been small and

dispersed throughout the county, opportunities abound to improve farm viability and profitability

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 3

with coordinated economic development efforts. Direct marketing of local farm products to City

of Buffalo and suburban consumers is growing but untapped markets exist.

The final section of the Plan outlines two main

strategies with specific goals and actions for

implementation. This is the culmination of the

planning process designed to address

agriculture’s challenges and opportunities as

documented through the public process. The

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland

Protection Board, with guidance from the

Department of Environment and Planning,

reviewed public input and drafted the

strategies, goals, and actions. The final step

will be implementing the actions documented

here. A general timeline for addressing various

actions is incorporated into this section.

Strategy I: Keep land in agricultural production by protecting farmland, helping a new

generation to farm, and improving the viability of all farms in the County.

Goal A: Retain 95% of the 149,356 acres in the county in agricultural production as

reported by the 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture.

Priority Action to protect farmland and stabilize the land base:

• Determine the feasibility of developing an Erie County purchase of development rights

program.

Support Actions to protect farmland and stabilize the land base:

• Support the state-certified agricultural district program with right-to-farm provisions.

• Collect agricultural assessment data by town in order to inform agricultural planning

efforts.

• Assist towns that wish to adopt term and/or permanent easement programs.

• Develop a ditch maintenance program which supports preservation of prime agricultural

land.

Goal B: Retain 95% of the 1215 farms in the county as reported by the USDA 2007

Census of Agriculture. (Note: The Census of Agriculture defines a farm as

producing and selling $1,000 of agricultural products in a year.)

Priority Action to help a next generation to become established on new and existing farms

through training programs, promotion, education, and incentives:

• Determine the feasibility of developing a community college agricultural training

program for workforce development.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 4

Support Actions to help a next generation become established on new and existing farms

through training programs, promotion, education, and incentives:

• Research and develop programs that will help to build an educated and trained workforce

for local farms by:

o encouraging BOCES to include agricultural workforce training;

o developing a formal county apprenticeship and internship program;

o researching the institution of a farm workforce development program that

could benefit new immigrant populations and farms;

o supporting all youth agriculture programs;

o and, encouraging agriculture programs in city, suburban, and rural school

districts.

• Urban agriculture:

o Support Buffalo’s Green Code zoning update in order to expand urban farming

opportunities.

• New farmers:

o Determine the feasibility of developing a property tax abatement program for new

farmers.

o Promote western New York as a place to farm.

o Promote existing training programs that are targeted to small and beginning

farmers.

Goal C: Establish five new agricultural programs (from the list below or others) that can

improve the viability of farms in Erie County.

Priority Action to improve farm viability and increase investment in agricultural economic

development projects:

• Incorporate agritourism into countywide tourism efforts.

Support Actions to improve farm viability and increase investment in agricultural economic

development projects:

• Establish a shovel-ready Agribusiness Park in the county to attract food and agricultural

processing businesses.

• Capital:

o Create an IDA Agricultural Specialist position.

• Aggregation and Distribution:

o Research the feasibility of creating a food hub in the region for farm

product aggregation and distribution.

o Identify a coordinating agency to issue a request for proposals to provide

aggregation and distribution services.

Research development of an innovation center for the western New York

region

• Marketing:

o Develop a county program to help farmers market their agricultural

products and to assist with identifying new market opportunities.

o Develop a regional agricultural brand.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 5

Strategy II Inform the public, local leaders, and elected officials about the benefits that

agriculture provides and support policy and legislative changes that will

improve farm viability.

Goal A: Fifty percent of the towns in Erie County will document the importance of

agriculture to the local community either in their comprehensive plan or through

other local planning efforts.

Priority Actions to educate local leaders and elected officials about the benefits that farms

provide to local economies and to the quality of life of county residents:

• Erie County will calculate the value of agriculture to the local and regional economy as

part of a complete economic analysis of agriculture and its multiplier effects.

• Erie County Dept. of Environment and Planning will offer regular trainings for local

leaders and volunteers.

Support Actions to educate local leaders and elected officials about the benefits that farms

provide to local economies and to the quality of life of county residents:

• Periodically host farm tours for local officials and leaders.

• Encourage towns to use Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) to expand regional

planning for agriculture.

Goal B: Twenty percent of food products purchased by county institutions will come from

local and regional farmers.

Priority Action to support policies that will help farms to provide affordable, local food to

county residents:

• Develop a county Food Policy Council that includes a formal role for the Agriculture and

Farmland Protection Board.

Support Actions to support policies that will help farms to provide affordable, local food to

county residents:

• Work with the Food Policy Council to develop a local food procurement policy for

county institutions.

• Promote local food purchasing by schools.

• Promote farmers markets in the city and county to attract more people to existing

markets.

Goal C: Establish an annual county-wide, agricultural event.

Priority Action to educate and inform the public about farms and food production:

• Celebrate Erie County farms with a county-wide agricultural event for the general public.

Support Actions to educate and inform the public about farms and food production:

• Work with the Erie County Agricultural Society to promote the Farm2Table school

program.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 6

• Provide support for Erie County Farm Bureau’s efforts to encourage Agriculture in the

Classroom.

Goal D: Implement at least four new public policies, or support ongoing policies, that

protect farmland and support the viability of farms in Erie County.

Priority Action to support partner agricultural organizations, such as Farm Bureau, American

Farmland Trust, and others, with advocacy efforts that focus on:

• Adequate county funding for Cornell Cooperative Extension and the Soil and Water

Conservation District.

Support Actions to support partner agricultural organizations, such as Farm Bureau,

American Farmland Trust, and others, with advocacy efforts that focus on:

• Increasing the penalty for termination of agricultural assessment.

• Regional planning, especially between Erie and Niagara Counties.

• Identifying, drafting when appropriate, and advocating for county, state, and federal

agricultural policy and legislative changes.

General Priority Actions:

• At five-year intervals, formally review progress in implementing the Agricultural and

Farmland Protection Plan.

• Develop an interactive, web based application of the Erie County Agricultural and

Farmland Protection Plan.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 7

Introduction

In 2010, the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets awarded an agricultural

planning grant to Erie County. This grant enabled the creation of a new Agricultural and

Farmland Protection Plan through a public process led by the county Department of Environment

and Planning and the county Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board. This document

provides a snapshot of agriculture in 2012, and identifies actions for the county and others to act

upon in order to protect farmland, support the viability of farms, and boost economic

development in the next decade.

Erie County’s first Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan (AFPP) was developed in 1996.

While much in the world has changed in the past 16 years, there is also plenty that has stayed the

same. Consider a sample of the topics of concern and interest that were generated by the county

Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board over 16 years ago:

• The decreasing farmer share of the consumer food dollar due to:

o consumer expectation of low food prices,

o disproportionate marketing, packaging, and middleman cuts,

o off-season and outside market competition.

• Local marketing problems:

o lack of specific markets and outlets,

o dated brokering system,

o lack of maintenance of food terminal in the City of Buffalo,

o mixed messages from major grocer operations.

• Local farm trends:

o aging farm population,

o increasing education levels required for success,

o shortage of workers with farm experience, lifestyle competitions.

• Temptations and pressure exerted on farmers and agricultural landowners from

unsolicited speculators, developers, and realtors interested in purchasing farms and farm

parcels.

• Environmental regulatory pressures will continue to increase in the foreseeable future;

compliance costs are high and financial assistance for environmental compliance is

scarce.

• Federal and state labor laws are greatly increasing hired labor costs; compliance is

complicated and time consuming.

• There are a number of municipal ordinances which are counterproductive to right-to-

farm laws and agricultural activities in the County. A number of these ordinances list

agriculture as a permitted use with a host of other developments within the same zoning

district.

Excerpt from Farms for the Future

Many of these issues are mentioned today when local farmers are asked to identify areas of need

for agriculture. But there has been progress.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 8

Beginning in 1998 and continuing today, the Towns of Marilla, Amherst, Elma, and Clarence

partnered with the Western New York Land Conservancy to permanently protect over 2,000

acres of farmland by placing agricultural conservation easements on the land to keep it available

in perpetuity for farming. In 1999, Erie County passed a Right-to-Farm Law (located in the

Appendix) and later, the county Farm Bureau undertook an effort to encourage adoption of

municipal right-to-farm laws in every town in the county. To date, 23 of 25 towns have these

laws in place. The towns of Brant, Evans, and North Collins jointly, and Eden and Clarence

separately, developed Municipal Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plans (Marilla is in the

process of doing so). In 1992, 145,679 acres in the county were actively farmed

and 235,000

acres were in state-approved, county-adopted agricultural districts.

In 2007, 149,356 acres were

actively farmed

and 258,689 acres were in state-approved, county-adopted agricultural

districts.

A resurgence of interest in farms and local food has also changed the nature of agricultural

planning since the last county AFPP was developed. No longer is farming viewed as just a rural

business. Now many cities, including Buffalo, have urban farms. Sixteen farmers’ markets in

the county offer local farm produce to city, suburban, and rural consumers who are eager to have

access to farm products grown nearby. More restaurants and institutions are buying produce

directly from farmers. And growing recognition of the value of agriculture to local economies

and the state economy has changed the nature of discussions about economic development.

Agriculture has a seat on Governor Cuomo’s Regional Economic Development Council with the

hope that funding for agricultural projects in the region will follow.

So why develop this plan? While there are bright

spots in county agriculture, there are also unmet

needs. Supporting farm business viability and

protecting the land base needed to farm provides a

host of benefits. Farms contribute to the local

economy – in 2007 the market value of

agricultural products sold in Erie County was over

$117 million.

Farms also provide jobs, use less

in services than they pay in property taxes,

maintain wildlife habitat and water quality when

well managed, create beautiful scenic vistas,

highlight the cultural heritage of many rural areas

in the county, and offer fresh, local food to county

residents. But farming can fall prey to the variability of markets and weather, regulations, and

low profit margins, all of which may contribute to a decision to sell the farm for development.

Strengthening land tenure, improving profitability, and building support among consumers and

elected officials will ensure that agriculture remains viable in Erie County, and contributes to the

well being of all county residents. This plan is intended to guide efforts to that end.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 9

Analysis of Local Conditions

Agriculture in Erie County

Erie County is an urban county – close to one third of the county population resides in the City

of Buffalo – but also has a substantial agricultural base. This is not unusual, given that farms

have historically been located within easy access of population centers. Today, because of the

steady push outward from cities, 70% of the vegetables, fruit, milk, and eggs in the United States

are grown in urban-edge areas like Erie County.

Value of Agriculture to the County Economy and Open Space Value

Farms in the county are diverse and include: dairy, vegetable, greenhouse, fruit, cash crops,

horse, maple syrup, poultry, a variety of livestock, Christmas tree, and aquaculture. Table 1

highlights farm sales by grouping. Dairy farm sales top the list with nursery and greenhouse

sales second, and vegetables third. In total, Erie County farm sales were just over $117 million

in 2007.

Table 1: Farm Sales, Erie County

$1,000

% of

Total

Livestock & poultry* 75,404 64.43

Milk & dairy 51,451 43.96

Cattle & calves 6,302 5.38

Other animals & products 968 0.83

Hogs & Pigs 210 0.18

Sheep, goats & products 84 0.07

Aquaculture 23 0.02

Crops, including

nursery & greenhouse* 41,627 35.57

Nursery, greenhouse,

floriculture & sod 17,690 15.12

Vegetables & melons 9,590 8.19

Fruits, tree nuts & berries 6,317 5.40

grains, seeds, dry beans

& dry peas 5,322 4.55

Corn 3,434 2.93

Total Sales*

117,031 100.00

Products sold directly

to individuals

1,703 1.46

Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture (adapted from report: Room At the Table)

*due to data suppression, not all sales figures are represented

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 10

The 2007 Census of Agriculture reported that Erie County had 1,215 farms with 149,356 acres in

production covering 22% of the county’s land base. The number of farms decreased by 6% from

2002 to 2007 (although Erie County has ranked consistently in the top five counties with the

highest number of farms in the state), and there was an 8% loss of farmland in the county (Table

2).

Most of the farms in Erie County are small – 62% of the farms grossed less than $10,000, and

almost half of the farms work less than 50 acres. All of these farms as a group contribute

substantially to the county economy and agricultural landscape. But if just a few of the larger

farms are lost to development, there is a considerable impact too: 38 farms in the county worked

500-999 acres; 16 farms worked 1,000 acres or more; and 49 farms grossed $500,000 or more

(Table 2 and Chart 1).

Table 2: Agricultural Statistics, Erie County

Source: 2002 and 2007 Census of Agriculture

2002 2007

Percent

Change

2002-2007

# of Farms

1,289 1,215 -6%

Land in Farms (acres)

161,747 149,356 -8%

Market Value of Products Sold

(average per farm)

$71,654 $96,322 34%

# of Farms by Value of Sales

less than $10,000 828 756 -9%

$10,000- $99,999 298 271 -9%

$100,000-$499,999 127 139 9%

$500,000 or more 36 49 36%

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 11

Chart 1: Farms by Size, Erie County

Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture

100

200

300

400

500

1-9 10-49 50-179 180-499 500-999 1,000+

Acres/Farm

Farms

Conversion Pressure and Consequences

Decades of a spreading, sprawling population leaving the City of Buffalo and moving to the

suburbs has had a profound effect on the agricultural landscape of Erie County. At one time,

numerous farms were within easy reach of the city of Buffalo, located in what are now the inner

ring towns of Amherst, West Seneca, Cheektowaga, and Tonawanda. As the population of the

County grew, and moved out from the city, these farms were in the direct path of development

and these towns now have few to no farms remaining. The second ring towns of Lancaster,

Clarence, Elma, Hamburg, and Orchard Park were once active farming towns but the lure of

open space with tracts of developable land also made them appealing as residential communities.

Much of the land converted to housing in these towns was once farmland.

In the 2003 Brookings Institute report, Sprawl Without Growth: The Upstate Paradox, Cornell

University’s Dr. Rolf Pendall reported that urbanized land in upstate New York, including Erie

County, increased by 30 % in the 15 years from 1982 to 1997 but the population only grew by

2.6 % in that same time period.

Even in the most recent decade from 2000 to 2010, which

includes a significant recession and decrease in home building, the housing density in the second

ring towns increased at a faster rate than the growth in population (Chart 1). The Town of

Orchard Park’s population grew by 5.1 % while the housing density increased by 10.9 % the

Town of Hamburg had a population increase of 1.2 % and a housing density increase of 6.6 %,

and the Town of Elma saw no growth in population yet housing density increased by 6.5 %.

Notably, the City of Buffalo had a 10.7 % drop in population while the Towns of Clarence,

Lancaster, and Orchard Park all added residents. These statistics can indicate development

patterns that equate to sprawl without growth.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 12

Table 3: Population and Housing Changes, Erie County

Source: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census

County/Town Population

Population

% Change

Housing

Density %

Change

Housing Density

(occupied houses

per square mile)

Erie

2010 919,040 -3.30% 0.60% 367.48

2000 950,265 365.28

City of Buffalo

2010 261,310 -10.70% -8.30% 2,771.82

2000 292,648 3,022.66

Hamburg

2010 56,936 1.20% 6.60% 567.72

2000 56,259 532.66

Clarence

2010 30,673 17.40% 23.20% 211.27

2000 26,123 171.42

Lancaster

2010 41,604 6.60% 10.00% 438.07

2000 39,019 398.23

Elma

2010 11,317 0.00% 6.50% 129.28

2000 11,304 121.33

Orchard Park

2010 29,054 5.10% 10.90% 296.05

2000 27,637 266.94

Too often farmers are faced with the choice to keep land in agricultural production or to sell it

for development. When agriculture is not profitable, farmland is at risk of being sold and

converted to other uses. Farmland conversion may occur when an entire farm is sold, or when a

farmer chooses to sell lots in order to raise needed cash. This is not a sustainable method to

remain in business but may fill a temporary need. Selling a portion of a farm’s land can be

accompanied by unwanted long term consequences. New neighbors arrive, who may not be well

versed in what to expect when living near a farm, and the potential for farmer-neighbor conflicts

grows substantially under these circumstances. Road frontage is sold first leaving back fields

that can be hard to access with large farm equipment. Land values rise, making it difficult for

remaining farmers or new farmers to afford to purchase farmland in the area. And, the ‘swiss

cheese’ effect of smaller, separated farm fields creates farm management challenges.

While farmland owned by working farms in Erie County is susceptible to conversion due to

sprawling development, farmland owned by rental landowners is at even greater risk. Generally,

a non-farm landowner does not have a farmer’s motivation to keep land in agricultural use.

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, 31 % of the farmland in Erie County is rented,

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 13

totaling approximately 46,000 acres. This is the least stable farmland and most at risk of

conversion.

As noted in the Introduction, land in agricultural production increased in the County from 1992

to 2007, but that does not fully represent the trend. Graph 1 depicts the trend in farmland acres

from 1969 to 2007.

Chart 2: Farmland Acres, Erie County

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1969 1974 1978 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007

Census Year

Farmland Acres

Farmland steadily decreased in the County from 1969 until 1992 after which there was an

upward trend for the next decade. But from 2002 to 2007, the land in farms dropped

significantly by 8 %, nearing the 1992 lowest documented level. This is cause for concern and

warrants a focus on protecting the remaining farmland in the County.

Changes in Erie County Agriculture

Protecting farmland becomes open space protection without farmers and farm businesses to work

the land. The number of farms in the County peaked in 2002 at 1,289 dropping to 1,215 in 2007,

according to the Census of Agriculture, but Erie County remains in the top handful of counties

statewide for number of farms. It has been well reported that the farmer population in this

country is aging and statistics for Erie County reflect that. The need for a next generation to farm

in the County is apparent when considering Census of Agriculture reported data: the number of

farmers under the age of 35 in the County in 1997 was 101 and in 2007 was 52, while the

number of farmers over the age of 65 in 1997 was 254 and in 2007 was 372. Spreading to

western New York from other areas of the country and the state, like the Hudson Valley, is a

growing interest in farming as a career among young people and also as a second career among

retirees. Encouraging this interest can provide the County with new farms and farmers to work

the land and grow food, and to enhance the well established farms that comprise the backbone of

Erie County agriculture.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 14

With this renewed interest in farming comes different ways to farm and to market farm products.

While many Erie County farms market agricultural products through wholesale avenues, more

farms are choosing to sell some or all of their farm products directly to the consumer. Sixteen

farmers’ markets operate in the county, with new markets added each year. Local companies

have established some of these markets for their employees’ shopping convenience and to

encourage healthy food purchases. There are now at least four Community Supported

Agriculture (CSA)* farms in the county and additional CSAs located outside county borders,

with members in Erie County. Additionally, a few farms in the County market directly to school

food service directors and restaurant chefs.

*Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm: Farm owners sell member shares prior to the growing season.

Members receive an allotment of vegetables, fruit, eggs, meat, milk, cheese or any combination of those, each week

during the season. Because members purchase shares up front, farmers have capital to invest for the growing season

and everyone, the farmer and the members, shares in the risks that can affect crop yields – such as weather and

pests. In part because the investment needed to begin a CSA can be significantly less than other types of farms, this

is a popular model for beginning farmers.

Urban agriculture has also taken root in the City of Buffalo: from the Massachusetts Avenue

Project (MAP), where youth are growing, marketing and distributing produce on the west side; to

Queen City Farms, a three-acre farm growing and distributing locally grown food to families in

need; to the Community Action Organization’s Green Entrepreneurial Center, where food and

jobs are grown; to Wilson Street Farm, a family-run operation on over forty vacant lots providing

fresh, local produce to east side residents. These urban farms not only provide local food to city

residents, but they also connect the consumer and the farmer, and help to create an appreciation

for where food comes from.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 15

Public Participation

The process for developing an Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan is guided by statute in

Article 25 AAA, Section 324 of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. It is a public

process and as such Erie County held an initial public meeting (attended by 56 people) to explain

the planning process and to gather input for a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,

Threats) analysis. Twenty one individual interviews of farmers, agribusiness owners, and

economic development personnel provided direct input into the Plan. Six focus group meetings

held in various locations of the County (attended by over 100 people and held twice in the City

of Buffalo, and once in each of the Towns of Eden, Alden, Newstead, and Concord), captured

public input on key questions posed to a cross section of County residents. Input and ideas from

farmers, landowners, urban and rural residents, organizations, and elected leaders were critical to

this planning process. Opportunities for comments on the written Plan included online posting of

the draft strategies, followed by online posting of the entire Plan with a 30-day comment period

culminating in a public hearing.

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) Analysis

To begin the process of developing an Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan for Erie

County, an initial public meeting was held. At that meeting, attendees shared their thoughts

about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to agriculture in the county. This list

was a starting point for the Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board to assess Erie County’s

agricultural needs. The strategies and actions listed later in this Plan directly address the needs

that were generated through public input identified here and in later sections. The complete

SWOT chart is available in the appendix. Following is a summary of the SWOT analysis.

Strengths

The tie to local food production in Erie County is visible. With many small, direct market farms,

consumers have a variety of options to purchase farm products from the farmer. Agritourism

venues can be found throughout the county as well, and offer opportunities for the public to

connect directly to local farms. Planning efforts that promote the many benefits provided by

farms help bolster farm viability. Education offerings from Cornell Cooperative Extension, ease

of farm product transportation, and availability of business capital round out identified strengths

of Erie County agriculture.

Weaknesses

In general, children, consumers, and local officials lack a complete understanding of agriculture

and the numerous ways that farms positively affect quality of life and the economic strength of

the communities in which we live. Policies in both rural and urban locales often do not

adequately address the needs of farming as a land and business use. Poor food choices and the

perception that low cost is best are key factors in what farm and food products are purchased and

from whom. Farmers in general, and beginning farmers in particular, often struggle with debt

management, as well as marketing and distribution needs.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 16

Opportunities

In this SWOT process, participants were extremely positive about the opportunities available to

grow, support, and build a strong, vibrant farming economy in the County. There were vastly

more comments in the ‘opportunities’ section of the SWOT chart than in any of the other three

sections.

Expanding local food purchases and consumption were cited in a variety of ways. This was

considered a win-win for the consumer and the farmer. Building marketing and promotion

efforts for farm products from Erie County and Western New York is key to making this happen.

Developing a workforce for farms through apprenticeships and internships as well as more

traditional educational avenues was mentioned frequently along with attracting and training new

populations to work on farms. Keeping land in agriculture with tax incentives and farm friendly

land use policies, and increasing renewable energy production led to discussion of opportunities

to focus economic development efforts on agriculture. Attracting new food processors, growing

agritourism, and assisting farmers with grant and loan applications can boost farm viability.

Instituting food policies that promote local food purchasing and consumption, and developing

aggregation and distribution processes to better connect farmers with institutional buyers will

also help keep farms in business. Opportunities to farm in the City of Buffalo are blossoming

and Erie County is beginning to attract new farmers - people new to farming who are choosing

western New York as the location for their farm business. Promoting this area as a place to farm

and clearly outlining the economic benefits to having farms in local communities will help local

leaders make decisions that support farm viability and by extension improve their communities

and respond to growing interest in availability of local foods.

Threats

Viability is the overarching threat to farms and most of the remaining threats fit somewhere

beneath that: sprawling development and poor planning that consume prime farmland;

regulations and restrictions that make it difficult and expensive to operate a farm business; and

the need for a next generation to operate existing farms, start new farms, and provide a

workforce for local farms. Funding to address these threats and concerns is difficult to attract,

particularly because the benefits that communities reap by having farms located nearby are not

well publicized or understood.

Focus Group Sessions

Six focus group sessions, open to the public, were held throughout the planning process. In the

first three sessions, participants were asked to share their thoughts about the opportunities and

barriers for agriculture in Erie County as well as what issues were most significant for food and

farming in the county. The second set of meetings elicited input from attendees on topics related

to a draft set of recommendations being considered by the Agricultural and Farmland Protection

Board. The compiled notes from these sessions are available in the Appendix.

Questions posed to attendees and their responses fell into six main areas for action: protecting

farmland, encouraging a next generation to farm, supporting farm viability, increasing the

availability of local food, educating leaders, and educating the public. The main themes and

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 17

Healthy Kids, Healthy

Communities youth

representatives from the

Massachusetts Avenue Project

(MAP) participated in the

November 2011 focus group

session in Buffalo. Following are

their responses to specific

questions posed to them about

their involvement in the

MAP farm:

What do you like about farming?

What is great about being on a farm?

“You can eat good food on the farm”

“Food tastes different than the food at

the stores, food tastes better”

“I like the chicken on the farms, it

tastes really good”

“I can make money on the farm”

“I like playing in the dirt”

“You can learn as you go”

“It’s a better job than one my friends

do, a lot of my friends work at

McDonalds, and their food is nasty”

“McDonalds is not real”

“The farm is real, I know where my

food comes from”

“You know where your food comes

from”

“I feel like I have a real connection to

the land”

“I get a country experience”

“It’s like a new community, doing this

with my friends”

What do your friends think about

you working on a farm?

“Some of them think it’s weird, I say

farm and they’re like there are not any

farms in Buffalo”

“When I say it’s my job, they don’t

really think it’s a job”

comments mirror the themes captured in the SWOT analysis and are

incorporated into the strategies and actions of the Plan.

Individual Interviews

Twenty one farmers, agribusiness owners, and government and

agency representatives were interviewed in the summer and fall of

2011. Interviewees were asked to share suggestions of how the

county could support agriculture, as well as to give input on current

challenges and opportunities for local farms. As a group, the

interviewees were positive about the future for agriculture in the

county but there were also areas of concern.

Summary of General Interview Highlights

Regulations of all types – environmental, labor, food safety, and

transportation – were by far the most mentioned challenges to

agriculture and were mentioned by all categories of interviewees.

The shared sentiment was that current regulations are burdensome

for farmers and that continuing to add new regulations will

negatively affect farm profitability. Specific regulatory areas

mentioned included Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), federal

immigration policy, over-the-road equipment size restrictions, North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), tort reform, nutrient

management, and wetlands. Trainings to help farmers understand

and address regulations would be useful particularly for smaller

farms. Larger farms identified regulatory relief as pertinent to their

ability to continue in business. High taxes were also cited as a

burden for farms. There was interest in establishing a program to

further reduce property taxes on agricultural land.

“Regulations are too oppressive and expensive.”

Educating a variety of audiences was identified as a need almost as

frequently as regulatory relief. Helping the public understand

agricultural practices and the production of food was considered

essential to growing an informed consumer base for local farms and

essential for the long term success of agriculture in Erie County.

Opportunities to educate local officials and farmers on agricultural

topics pertinent to each audience were mentioned as another

educational avenue. Farmers could benefit from trainings on farm

management, technology, and neighbor relations. Cornell

Cooperative Extension (CCE) was identified as an existing entity

charged with educating both the public and farmers. Providing

adequate county funding for CCE was deemed important in order to

capitalize on an organization that already exists to deliver programs.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 18

Educating youth, in order to train a next generation of farmers and farm workers, was considered

to be critical. FFA (Future Farmers of America) and 4-H were directly cited as valuable

programs that need to receive more focus in Erie County. Additionally, instituting formal

internship and apprenticeship programs could help to provide the hands-on education needed in

farming.

“Education is key to help people understand where the farmer is coming from.”

“4-H to me is very important – through Cooperative Extension – and it needs funding”

Cultivating a next generation of farm owners and workers is critical to the future of agriculture

locally. While some of the farm interviewees were already incorporating a next generation into

the business, others had not yet identified who would “take over” the farm and this was

mentioned as an area of concern. Assistance with helping a next generation and beginning

farmers with locating land, capital, and/or farms to work into via ‘sweat equity’ was deemed

important. It was pointed out that farms are often multigenerational businesses with a tie to the

land and therefore will remain in their current location – they are not businesses that will readily

move out of state or offshore. It is important for the county to support the business of farming

with that in mind. Related to this was frustration with finding and keeping a local labor force and

the burden of onerous labor regulations. Attracting new populations, the Amish were

specifically mentioned, for a domestic labor force deserves consideration.

“Farm succession is going to be an issue in the next ten years.”

“Farms need to be profitable in order to have a next generation.”

Concern for availability and affordability of farmland was cited as an ongoing challenge for

county farmers. The continued sprawl and spread of the population from the city of Buffalo and

inner ring suburbs has decreased the quantity of available farmland as well as increased the price

of the land that is available. This is a barrier to entry for beginning farmers and creates added

pressure for existing farms that are looking for additional land for crop rotations or expansion.

In a few county locations, competition for land among farms is intense and creates frustration

among the farmers. In other areas with significant development pressure, non-farm landowners

are reluctant to agree to long-term leases with farmers because they wish to maintain the option

to sell the land to the highest bidder. Some of the farmers interviewed chose to purchase

farmland in these areas in order to ‘protect’ the highest quality land from development.

“Some of our best land has gone to houses. Once the ag land is lost, it’s lost.”

“Purchase of development rights could help Erie County a lot.”

Erie County farmers are embracing new business opportunities. Some have adapted their farms

to capitalize on the growing consumer interest in purchasing local foods. Others have diversified

their businesses while a number have specialized and expanded their operations. A few farmers

were looking ahead to opportunities that may come with alternative energy development. And, it

was noted that recognition should be given to the value of having a core group of farms to

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 19

support the variety of agricultural service providers located in the county. The ripple affect when

farms go out of business is often acutely felt in rural areas that also lose these agricultural

support businesses.

“Look at investment as part of doing business because there is too much emphasis on success

just being tied to the number of jobs created.”

Summary of Agricultural Economic Development Interview Highlights

Access to a skilled and ready labor force is key to the future of agriculture and a major concern

for many farmers. Since many laborers are immigrants or new citizens from agrarian

backgrounds, they tend to have a basic understanding of farming. Concerns regarding this labor

force revolve around language and communications, ability to attract and maintain labor given

shifting federal immigration policy, and the development of advanced skills (including

acquisition of driver’s licenses, chemical applicator’s licenses, etc.). Despite a generally high

level of contentment with the labor force, farmers remain concerned that a significant upturn in

the economy will draw down the labor pool as highly mobile, entry-level labor turns to landscape

and building trades, which often pay higher wages.

Market access refers to the ability to reach the real or potential

marketplace for farm or agribusiness products. It assumes a fit

between what is produced and what consumers want to buy, but

it is essentially the system of connections from farmer to

consumer. An area with good market access has a mixture of

market outlets from retail to wholesale and the means to supply

them. Presence of retailers such as Wegmans and Tops does

offer development opportunities.

Erie County is close to large population centers but lacks the

level of integration with retailers and the consuming public that

has been achieved in other large marketplaces. Complicating

this, local consumers tend to favor cheaper food products than

markets in eastern New York and New England, making it

difficult to achieve significantly higher price margins for local

foods across the board.

A weak U.S. dollar is shifting the balance of agricultural trade particularly with Canada and

creating an opportunity for Erie County to serve as an aggregation, processing, and

manufacturing center for export oriented activities into Canada. A weak dollar offers the

opportunity for Erie County to proactively recruit farm, food processing, biotechnology, and

food distribution activities from the nearby Province of Ontario.

Competitiveness in the food industry is often predicated on being a leader in product and market

development. The dairy industry is the most recent agricultural sector to aggressively pursue

product development to grow market share. Given the importance of the dairy industry to the

region, it would be important to support research and development activities as a means to both

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 20

attract new entrants to the manufacturing sector as well as to enhance demand for locally sourced

milk. As a centerpiece of such a strategy, the region may consider the creation of a dairy center

modeled after the Wisconsin Dairy Center.

Generally speaking, credit access is strong across all agricultural production sectors,

particularly for operators with strong credit histories. Where project finance becomes an

impediment is where operators have limited credit history, no management experience, or the

operator is entering into an untested marketplace. In these cases farm operators have difficulty

securing financing or do not understand where/how to access grants and economic development

funds. For limited resource organizations additional needs include grant writing and match

support.

There are many economic development and finance organizations in the region and all seem

supportive of agriculture and food development. However, none of these organizations offer

direct support for agriculture and allied industries nor do they house the necessary expertise to

fully implement a program of work in this field.

Direct market retail and wholesale activities are on the rise both locally and nationally and

anchor local business operations such as Eden Valley Growers. Having marketing and

aggregation facilities in-place also enhances the ability to achieve better market access and a

larger share of the local and/or regional product market. Certain agricultural subsectors, such as

beef and other meat animals, lack a true aggregation and marketing support structure which

forces players in these sectors to seek such activities outside of the area. This limits profit taking

potential and shifts the economic gains from industry development to other areas.

The region, particularly the southern towns, supports agritourism activities. This approach has

been well received by farmers, consumers, and tourism officials and offers room for expansion

and growth. In particular, development of seasonal events, agritourism trails, and creation of

destination venues are all considered viable means to expand tourism and direct market

opportunity.

Summary of Agricultural Economic Development

Interview Recommendations

Interviewees were interested in having the county work

directly with farmers and farm organizations in a

number of capacities:

• Expanding microenterprise loan opportunities

and funding.

• Marketing and promotion of local agriculture and

local foods.

• Marketing training for farmers.

• Helping to navigate the IDA process and

assistance with understanding and negotiating a

variety of contracts.

• Providing small grants and cost-share funding for

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 21

on-farm projects.

• Funding and support for municipal and intermunicipal projects such as agritourism

efforts.

• Infrastructure planning and improvements. Working with municipalities to discourage

growth in agricultural areas and to encourage road and ditch maintenance.

• Facilitating farmer meetings with state and federal elected officials. For example,

scheduling annual roundtable meetings as was done in the past with Congressman Jack

Quinn.

• Celebrating agriculture in the county with a public event.

*Note: All quotes are from interviewees.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 22

Recommendations from Relevant Agricultural Planning

Documents in Erie County

This Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan (AFPP) has not been developed in a vacuum – it

is connected and has relevance to planning efforts undertaken at other times and other places in

the County. The Erie Niagara Framework for Regional Growth is a regional planning document

that identifies agricultural land use as a key component to consider in regional planning efforts.

The AFPP will inform further phases of work that develop from the Framework for Regional

Growth.

Three town planning documents guide agricultural planning in the County as well. The Towns

of Brant, Evans, and North Collins (jointly) were the first municipalities in the County to

develop a town level agricultural and farmland protection plan, followed by the Town of Eden

and the Town of Clarence. These plans are specific to the towns but mesh well with identified

goals and actions in the County AFPP.

Room at the Table: Food System Assessment of Erie County is a recent report developed by a

group of students in the University of Buffalo Urban and Regional Planning Department as a

graduate degree project and done under the direction of Dr. Samina Raja. The report examines

the County food system from farm fields to waste products and all the steps in between and

concludes with recommendations for improving the system.

Following are summaries of the aforementioned planning documents.

Erie Niagara Framework for Regional Growth

The Erie Niagara Framework for Regional Growth, completed in 2006 by Erie and Niagara

Counties, establishes basic policies and principles to guide the future growth and development of

the region. The Framework delineates Developed Areas, Developing Areas and Rural Areas, as

well as Regional Centers, Growth Corridors and Rural Centers (see map). Polices and strategies

address the goals for these areas.

The conservation of agricultural land is a key policy for the Developing Areas. Relevant

strategies include:

• Support local planning that designates areas appropriate for development and

conservation, minimizes conversion of agricultural lands and avoids “leap frog” patterns

of development.

• Minimize conversion of significant agricultural lands.

• Channel growth to areas with existing sewer and water service.

• Where extensions of public sewer and water service are needed to address health issues,

restrict tap-ins for new development in areas designated for agricultural use.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 23

Strategies for Rural Areas include:

• Expand efforts to strengthen the rural economy, including the conservation of agricultural

lands and rural economic development initiatives.

• Identify and conserve agricultural lands; support zoning that reduces permitted

development densities, require cluster development to maintain rural character and

protect resources, and discourage continued subdivision of rural road frontages.

• Encourage the contraction of sewer district boundaries that extend into areas designated

for agricultural use.

The Framework directs that Erie County’s capital project review policies encourage investments

that support agriculture and open space preservation, and discourage investments that would

hinder agricultural or open space protection. It recommends

that the counties develop Type 1 Action lists pursuant to the

New York State Environmental Quality Review Act

(SEQRA) that include major subdivisions or developments in

Agricultural Districts in Developing or Rural Areas. It

recommends additional scrutiny in Erie County reviews of

subdivisions of three to five or more lots of any size in

unsewered areas. Subdivisions with lots larger than 20-25

acres and soils that are suitable for agricultural production

would be exempt from this review.

The Framework for Regional Growth also states that County

policies regarding sewer and water districts should limit

sewer district expansions in agricultural districts; contract

sewer districts where there is no actual service in agricultural

districts; limit water district expansion in agricultural

districts; and apply strict restrictions to tie-ins where water

districts are extended to address health issues.

Framework for Regional Growth recommended actions to preserve agricultural lands include:

• Establish priorities for the conservation of lands that are under development pressure

and have high quality agricultural soils.

• Coordinate the activities of Niagara and Erie County Farmland Protection Boards.

• Identify priority agricultural lands based on agricultural value.

• Establish a Purchase of Development Rights program/ Participate in New York State

and Federal programs.

• Increase coordination among agencies active in agriculture and land conservation

• Strengthen the economic viability of farms through financial incentives, marketing

assistance, model legislation to support agricultural activities, public education and

technical assistance. Publicize the economic benefits of agriculture to the economy,

in addition to its value for open space protection.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 24

• Prepare model zoning regulations to encourage conservation subdivisions and the

conservation of agricultural lands.

A Regional Farmland Protection Plan for the Towns of Brant, Evans, and North Collins

The Regional Farmland Protection Plan for the Towns of Brant, Evans, and North Collins was

developed in 2000 and includes regional goals and actions. This three-town planning effort

recognized that a regional approach to support farms could have more impact than a town-by-

town planning process. Since development of the plan, a group of nine municipalities in the

southern portion of the county, the Southtowns Community Enhancement Coalition, have

worked together to develop an agritourism trail.

Regional Goal 1: Foster Collaboration

Regional Goal 2: Promote Understanding of Agriculture

Regional Goal 3: Encourage Policies that Protect Productive Farmland

Regional Goal 4: Cultivate a Viable Agricultural Economy

Town of Eden Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan

Eden is a rural farming town located in the Southtowns of Erie County. It is one of Erie

County’s medium sized towns (population) but is a major contributor to the county’s $117

million in agricultural sales. The Town of Eden Agricultural & Farmland Protection Plan,

completed by the Town in 2010, includes an analysis of local conditions, a parcel rating system

to prioritize farmland protection parcels, and recommendations to support agriculture and protect

farmland. The Plan also includes an assessment of its land use regulations and recommends

modifications to improve support for agriculture.

Recommendation 1: Stabilize the town agricultural land base and maintain land in active

agricultural use. Maintain 95 % of the current active agricultural land in

production through the next ten years. Support Eden farmers as stewards

of the land and other natural resources.

Recommendation 2: Maintain a supportive business environment for farm operations.

Recommendation 3: Educate the non-farm public about agriculture. Facilitate an ongoing

dialogue between the farm community and other Eden residents.

Encourage appreciation of the agricultural resources located in the Town.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 25

Town of Clarence Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan

The Town of Clarence was developing an Agricultural Plan at the same time as Erie County,

with plan approval in 2012. Clarence is located in the northeastern portion of the county and has

had significant residential growth in the last few decades. With a population increase of 17 %

from 2000 to 2010, community commitment to support farms and protect farmland was needed if

farming was to remain in the town. In 2002, a $12.5 million bond was passed by public

referendum to fund the Greenprint Program to permanently protect farmland and open space in

Clarence.

Strategy A: Protect farmland: Sustain no net loss of farmland in the Town of Clarence during

the next decade, from 2012 to 2022. The number of farmland acres in the town in

2012 totaled 4,344.

Strategy B: Plan for infrastructure: Institute infrastructure planning that formally and

routinely considers the needs of agriculture with regard to drainage, roads, utility

lines, water, and sewer in any town zoning districts that allow farms.

Strategy C: Promote agriculture: Inform the public about the variety of contributions farms

make to the town, and what agricultural practices to expect in a farm community.

Include youth and youth agricultural programs in town efforts to promote farms

and agricultural events.

Room at the Table: Food System Assessment of Erie County

This assessment estimated that Erie County’s food system generated $9.9 billion in sales in 2009

and provided 82,000 jobs in the county. Building this system has enormous implications for

everyone in the County. Assessing opportunities to improve the food system resulted in a set of

recommendations summarized in the Appendix.

Plan Goals

1. Ensure economically viable and sustainable

agriculture in Erie County.

2. Promote access to local food in the county.

3. Ensure lasting food security in the county.

4. Promote overall health and wellness of Erie

County residents.

5. Educate the general public about the Erie County

food system.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 26

Planning for Agriculture in Erie County

County and town planning can have a significant impact on agriculture by strengthening

economic opportunities for farms, protecting farmland, encouraging appreciation for agriculture,

and building support among local leaders. This section describes some of the tools that, when

used to proactively plan for agriculture, help protect valuable farmland and support the viability

of local farms.

Agricultural Economic Development

Agricultural economic development helps keep land in agriculture by encouraging region-wide

economic development activities that support local farm profitability. Agriculture contributes to

communities through job and tax base creation as well as to the farmer and agribusiness industry

through wealth creation. Without economic balance, liquidity, and profitability, agriculture

cannot exist. Understanding that this economic balance must be maintained to keep agriculture in

the community is critical to any agricultural land protection effort.

In Erie County, this balance is even more delicate given the urban nature of the county which

requires a jobs-driven economic development strategy and the transitional requirements of its

rural, agricultural sector as it adapts to changes in agricultural markets. These agriculturally

related transitional requirements have three primary drivers. This first is supporting continued

growth of agricultural entrepreneurship. The second is to provide assistance to intergenerational

land transfer in the face of rising farmland costs. The third is a change in international trade

flows which offer investment and development opportunities across western New York’s food

and agriculture sectors.

Agriculture is a significant economic contributor to Erie County’s rural economy. Because of

this, it is increasingly important to advocate for agriculture’s economic and business

development needs. This is particularly true given the high multiplier effects* (1.54 in output

and 1.8 for employment

) associated with agriculture within the County and the region, which

highlight the need to leverage upstream and downstream activities such as crop protection

services and food manufacturing.

*Multiplier effect: Every time there is an addition to employment or sales in an industry it can create a circular flow

in the local economy whereby additional sales and employment are created. This is a multiplier effect. The size of

the multiplier effect depends upon the regional economy’s inter-relationships, or each household’s decisions to

spend or save. When income is spent, this spending becomes someone else’s income, and so on. Households

decisions to spend this income often get allocated outside of the economy and are thus lost for re-circulation. Many

in the economic development world seek to attract and retain companies with high multipliers, in order to maximize

the income, sale, and employment effects that these businesses have on a locality.

Articulating the needs of agriculture in this plan will help to develop Erie County’s agricultural

economy. This is not to say that agriculture is unrepresented in planning documents, as it is

clearly a target industry for Buffalo Niagara Enterprise and has a role in the Western New York

Regional Economic Development Strategic Plan

. However, the effect of these plans is limited

by poor implementation due to external influences such as regulatory structure, environmental

management needs, financial conditions, and land-use trends. Having diverse plans that split the

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 27

interests of agriculture and its partners does not serve agriculture

well. A coordinated approach to agricultural economic

development in the county and the region is necessary in order

for the concerted efforts of industry, government, and the

community to have an effect.

It is also important to recognize that the industry’s development

needs do not impact all sectors in the same manner. High

development pressure tends to be good for equine and nursery

farm businesses while it often has direct negative impacts on

livestock and dairy farms. Interviews were conducted across a

range of sectors to understand how local conditions were

influencing economic success. Highlights of expressed concerns

and needs are presented below:

• Development pressure, land fragmentation, and competition for land with non-operating uses

put a premium on agricultural land that makes it less profitable to farm and difficult to

expand. As a result, there is direct pressure for farmers – particularly new and expanding

farmers – to grow their operations elsewhere.

• For agriculture to expand over the long term, workforce conditions must improve. This can

begin with educating and training agricultural entrepreneurs and the agricultural workforce.

• Buffalo is increasingly being targeted to the relocation of transportation, marketing, and

manufacturing opportunities for agriculture, but farmers have not been active participants in

recruitment.

• Increased intermixing of residences within agricultural production areas fuels the possibility

of nuisance claims against farmers, which can have negative impacts on earnings and farmer

retention. Increasing communication and understanding of agricultural practices, as well as

adoption of farm-friendly local ordinances, are pressing needs.

• Marketing infrastructure needs to be improved. It should include a combination of economic

development attraction efforts with on-site development, modernization, processing, product

development, and scale-up of existing operations.

• Tax policies at the local, state, and federal levels influence landowner decision making

significantly, particularly during intergenerational succession planning and during investment

decision making. For many local farms, this results in a short-term planning horizon or

increased pressure to transition out of the industry.

• Regulatory structures need to improve to be more farm-friendly and to include:

o Better integration of local, state, and federal regulatory policies to encourage on-

farm and off-farm value added production and distribution.

o Standards for road signage to link agritourism venues in a manner similar to wine

trails.

o Agricultural practices protections in town-level land use codes.

• Agricultural finance, though not currently a limiting factor for commodity agriculture, must

become more adaptive in order to meet the needs of new and beginning farms.

The previous list of economic development issues has many solutions already within the grasp of

industry and government programs at the local, regional, and state levels. These solutions are

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 28

not often applied to agriculture or fail to be fully implemented in support of agriculture. Many

times this is the result of the regional nature of western New York’s agricultural sectors because

there is no clear lead jurisdiction. This is not an uncommon phenomenon in agriculture, which

has led some regions to coordinate agricultural development efforts across multiple political

jurisdictions.

The need for economic development cooperation to support agriculture is not new in most rural

areas. Successful rural responses, however, are few. Notable among these are Hudson Valley

Agribusiness Development Corporation (HVADC) in Hudson, New York

and 3CORE in

Chico, California

. Both of these organizations offer regionally supported business

development and finance programs as well as regional planning and policy coordination.

With a limited budget, HVADC’s Agribusiness Incubator Without Walls has serviced more than

50 agribusinesses in 4 counties, with a technical assistance budget of just $50,000. These

businesses have invested more than $3 million in the local economy over the last three years.

One start-up business in the program added nearly 40 new employees in its first year of

operations and still relies on HVADC to assist with growth and development. HVADC supports

this growth by augmenting its internal staff with outside experts to ensure that this high growth

business get the resources it needs.

3CORE is known best for its innovative financing programs which have supported the growth

and development of nationally famous brands such as Sierra Nevada Brewing and Sierra Nevada

Cheese through programs like equipment purchase-leaseback*, purchase order finance*, and

industrial development bonding*. 3CORE also runs a recognized business incubation program

that targets very small companies with less then 5 employees, with the hope to spur wealth

creation in unincorporated, rural areas.

*Purchase leaseback is a financial arrangement by which the purchaser of equipment enters into a lease

agreement with the seller who is still able to use the equipment but no longer owns it.

*Purchase order finance is a financial arrangement whereby a purchase order is used to secure short-term credit

in order to fulfill the order.

*Industrial development bonding is a means by which the revenue expected from a development activity is used

to secure construction financing.

A sample of HVADC and 3CORE programs can be found in the following table:

Table 4: Sample HVADC and 3 CORE programs

Program Areas 3CORE HVADC

Finance Programs

X X

Community Planning – CEDS

X X

Planning - Other

X X

Business Coaching

X X

Business Planning

X X

Business Incubation

X X

Marketing Support

X X

Regional Branding

Business Resource Center

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 29

The programs offered by both organizations were in direct response to community identified

needs. Each of these organizations works collaboratively with other community and economic

development organizations on an annual basis through what is known as a Comprehensive

Economic Development Strategy update to ensure that they are responsive to community needs.

The best land protection, regulatory, and legislative strategies will fail without a viable

marketing component to agriculture. Erie County is well positioned to create strong market

opportunities utilizing its agricultural resources. These resources are in proximity to a large

population with strong food markets, an existing tourism industry, and a role as a transportation

hub for regional and international trade. Erie County needs to commit to improving farm

viability since most of the tools are already in place: an active Industrial Development Agency, a

robust regional business alliance in the form of the Buffalo Niagara Enterprise, and communities

committed to protecting farmland and supporting farm profitability.

What is missing from the economic and business development sector, as it relates to agriculture,

is a consolidated voice and a mechanism that ensures that the interests represented by this voice

find their way into policy and program implementation. When communities in the Hudson

Valley reached this same conclusion in 2001, they started a multi-year process that lead to the

creation of HVADC in 2006. Erie County can certainly lead western New York down a similar

path.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 30

Hudson Valley Agribusiness Development Corporation

The Hudson Valley Agribusiness Development Corporation (HVADC) was formed in 2006 to promote

balanced, market-based solutions leading to enhanced agricultural entrepreneurship, rural economic growth,

and community development within the member Counties of Washington, Columbia, Ulster, Dutchess,

Orange, and Sullivan.

HVADC is uniquely positioned in the Hudson Valley to improve the viability of agribusinesses given its

flexible program design, focus on individual business development activities, and broad membership. Its

members include the Counties outlined above, as well as local financial institutions, farmland protection

boards, philanthropies, and individuals. HVADC was created to enhance agriculturally related economic

activity to create jobs, increase investment, and promote the integration of agriculture within the broader

economy.

HVADC’s menu of services are carefully designed to promote the Hudson Valley as an attractive, viable

region for agriculture while fostering growth and development in the agricultural sector through creative

programming, marketing, promotion, and the provision and coordination of financial and other resources.

Specific services offered include:

• Agricultural Development Support for Communities

• Agribusiness Technical and Professional Services

• Agribusiness Incubation

• Project Planning and Development Services

• Capital Access Services and Programs

While these services are all well defined on HVADC’s website, they are perhaps best understood through

brief case descriptions:

Farm To Table Co-Packers

– HVADC, in cooperation with Ulster County IDA, assisted Farm-to-Table Co-

packers with the development of their processing facilities in Kingston New York. Project assistance included

accessing private, state, and federal grants and loans to equip the company’s new facilities. HVADC also

created a purchase-leaseback financing program for Farm to Table Co-Packers to install an “Individual Quick

Freeze” line (IQF). The IQF line has been used extensively by local farmers to process high quality frozen

vegetables and fruits for use in winter sales.

Farm to Table Co-Packers is currently working with farmers in the Black Dirt region of Orange County to

develop a branded line of IQF vegetables for the wholesale trade. HVADC has also entered into a license

agreement with Farm to Table Co-Packers to provide facilities and technical assistance to HVADC’s

incubator clients. HVADC is currently working with Farm to Table Co-Packers to redesign the IQF line to

increase efficiency and profitability.

Through the support of HVADC, FTC has created 30 new jobs and invested nearly $1.8 million dollars in its

new operations.

Wholesale Distributor

– HVADC raised funds for the relocation of a family owned food distribution business

and the adaptive re-use of its former facilities. Portions of the original facilities were of interest to several

local entrepreneurs and the town for their adaptive re-use potential as a center for local food processing and

distribution. HVADC completed the adaptive re-use study for the facility and created a re-development

strategy linking the needs of the town, farmers, and the food industry.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 31

3-CORE

3-Core is an economic development planning agency for three counties, Butte, Tehama, and Glenn, in the

Northern Central Valley of California, created to support the development of entrepreneurial businesses in the

region. 3-Core’s primary mission is to provide financing, counseling, and community development through

direct support programs.

Project financing that is customized to the needs of local entrepreneurs is a centerpiece of 3-Core’s

programming. 3-Core uses a combination of existing federal and state lending programs as well as privately

financed loan programs, such as Community Reinvestment Act funds, and equity instruments to achieve its

goals.

Managing such a complex set of programs requires a streamlined partnership to keep deals moving quickly.

Among 3-Core’s many partners are the Small Business Administration, the Golden Capital Network,

Wavepoint Venture, the North Valley Community Fund, and the Capital Access Program of the California

State Treasurers Office.

From 1996 to 2009, 3-Core loaned more than $30 million and facilitated direct equity investments through a

20 percent California State tax credit. Since 2009, significant challenges arose in keeping the financing

programs open in large part due to the faltering economic conditions in the U.S. and California. Small

businesses in the region were hit hardest, causing 3-core to aggressively seek to increase both funding

availability and flexibility for this sector.

The solution came in the form of the 3-Core Loan Confidence Fund (LCF). The LCF is a loan guarantee fund

that is created by a partnership

of 3-Core, its borrowers, the California State Treasurer, local donors, and the North Valley Community

Foundation.

The fund uses a credit enhancement to encourage commercial lenders to participate in small business and

agricultural loans by funding a loan loss reserve to reduce the banks’ exposure in non-performing loans. The

LCF is funded as follows:

1. 3-Core sets aside 2 percent of the face value of every loan it makes in the LCF.

2. Each 3-Core borrower also contributes 2 percent of the face value of 3-Core loans in the LCF.

3. The State of California matches the borrower’s contribution 1:1.

4. The North Valley Community Foundation raises private funds from private donors to fund the LCF.

Qualified donors can treat certain LCF investments as a program-related investment (PRI).

5. The North Valley Community Foundation holds the LCF funds in qualified investments (predominately

CD’s).

6. North Valley Community Foundation donors may elect to receive interest payments from the

investments or reinvest in the LCF.

7. As the LCF fund grows, 3-Core is able to provide a greater level of credit enhancement thereby

stimulating loan growth.

Using the LCF, 3-Core has been able to finance four agriculturally related businesses. These are: Sierra

Nevada Cheese, Orland Meat Products, Mill Creek Veterinary Hospital, and Maisie Jane’s (dried fruit and

nuts).

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 32

Purchase of Development Rights: Stimulating Local Economies and Protecting Farmland

Purchase of development rights (PDR), or purchase of agricultural conservation easements

(PACE), permanently protects farmland from development by placing a deed restriction, called

an agricultural conservation easement, on the land. The land remains in private ownership and

can be sold to a buyer or passed on to a next generation. This voluntary process compensates the

farmer for the value of the development rights and limits the use of the land to farming in

perpetuity (forever).

In 1996, New York State started the Farmland Protection Program and instituted a competitive

application process to annually award grants to counties and municipalities to assist in the

purchase of development rights on farmland. These grants funded 75 % of the purchase and the

county/municipality funded the remaining 25 %, or the farmer/landowner donated that value.

Since its inception, the Farmland Protection Program has saved 303 farms in 29 counties

(including Erie County), protecting 73,000 acres of farmland in New York. Since 2009, no new

state grants have been awarded but open projects have been reviewed and ushered through the

real estate closing process. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) also

annually awards PDR grants, through the Federal Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program

(FRPP), that fund up to 50 % of the development rights purchase.

Survey results, reported by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets in 2009,

found that 72 % of the time farmer respondents who received funds from grants to purchase

development rights, invested the money in the farm business, into retirement savings, or paid off

debt.

Farmland was purchased, barns were built, and money was circulated through local

economies. This was farm viability, agricultural economic development, and farmland

protection all rolled into one effort.

Since New York’s program began, four towns

in Erie County permanently protected over

2,000 acres of farmland with conservation

easements held by the Western New York

Land Conservancy. The Town of Marilla

began a local PACE program in 1999, and

over seven years protected 880 acres of

farmland. One year earlier, the Town of

Amherst began protecting 860 acres of

farmland as part of a larger planning process

that also saw the formation of Nature View

Park with 1200 acres adjacent to the protected

farmland. Later, the Town of Elma purchased

the development rights on 60 acres owned by a Marilla farmer who had other protected farmland.

An additional 715 acres of farmland are permanently protected in Elma through the USDA

Grassland Reserve Program. And, in 2002 the Town of Clarence passed a $12.5 million bond,

by public referendum, to purchase development rights on farm and natural lands. To date the

town has permanently protected or purchased 1,025 acres of farmland.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 33

Most of the agricultural conservation easements placed on the farmland are co-held by each town

and the Western New York Land Conservancy (WNYLC). WNYLC monitors the properties, in

collaboration with the towns and the landowners, in perpetuity to ensure that the purpose of the

agricultural conservation easement is upheld. There is also additional farmland in the county

protected with permanent conservation easements that are held by the Genesee Valley

Conservancy, a land trust located in Geneseo, New York. With this land the total protected

farmland in Erie County is 3,888 acres.

County PDR Program:

While four towns in Erie County have proactively protected farmland by purchasing the

development rights on the land, there is value in approaching land protection on a county level.

Agricultural resources are not defined by political boundaries and a broader planning view can

better assess the resource value and protection needs. The county also has a staffed planning

department to assist with the complicated real estate transactions that result from PDR awards.

Some counties in New York State have PDR programs - Livingston and Wayne Counties have

active programs in western New York. The following is required for Erie County to develop a

PDR program:

• Identify an entity to oversee the program. The Department of Environment and

Planning, with assistance from the county Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board,

could manage a county program.

• Establish program goals. How much farmland should be protected? Where are priority

areas for protection in the county? Who will steward the easements?

• Determine the cost of the program to the county. Identify how the program will be

funded.

• Develop a county pre-application.

• Hold a required annual meeting for farmers and landowners interested in completing a

pre-application.

• Rank pre-applications.

• If applicable, complete and submit applications to the state and/or federal program.

• Manage the closing process for any awarded projects.

Term Easements

Two towns in the County have programs that give landowners the option of protecting their land

for a term or permanently. Orchard Park has had a program since the 1990s and the Town of

Elma is close to finalizing a program. In both cases, landowners agree to not develop their land

for a set number of years in exchange for a percentage decrease in property taxes on the land

during the term; the longer the term, the greater the decrease in property taxes.

Agricultural Districts and Right to Farm Protections

Article 25-AA of New York State’s Agriculture and Markets Law was enacted in 1971 to

establish county agricultural districts in order to help keep land in active agricultural use. The

County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board, in conjunction with the County Department

of Environment and Planning, is responsible for local administration of the agricultural districts.

Erie County has 14 state-certified, county-approved agricultural districts encompassing 258,717

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 34

acres – the tenth highest number of county-approved Agricultural District acres in the state.

Farmers and rural landowners enrolled in these agricultural districts receive important “right-to-

farm” protections:

• Definition of agriculture: the commissioner of the New York State Department of

Agricultural and Markets has authority to determine what constitutes an

agricultural land use.

• Local ordinance provision: provides protection against unreasonably restrictive

zoning code and ordinances regarding farm practices.

• Agricultural data statements: requires that an agricultural data statement be filed

with the local board for certain land uses located within 500 feet of a farm in an

agricultural district.

• Notice of intent:

an NOI filing on proposed public projects in an agricultural

district identifies potential impacts on agriculture and is reviewed by the County

Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board and the New York State Department of

Agriculture and Markets.

• Sound agriculture practices:

gives authority to the New York State Commissioner

of Agriculture and Markets to review specific cases and issue an opinion regarding

whether an agricultural practice is “sound”.

• Disclosure notices: requires that landowners in agricultural districts provide a

notice to a prospective buyer at the time that a purchase contract is signed, advising

the purchaser that agricultural practices occur in the area.

Erie County as a whole, as well as 23 of the 25 towns

in the county have adopted “Right-to-Farm” laws.

These local laws complement the state law, publicize

county and town support for local farms, and, in many

of the municipal laws, establish a town process for

dispute resolution involving farms. While Agricultural

Districts and Right to Farm Laws cannot keep land in

farming nor ensure farm profitability, they have served

as the cornerstone for agricultural planning and have

helped to stabilize the farmland base.

Local Property Tax Program

Many cost of community services studies (COCS) have been conducted across the country that

show that farms use less in services than they pay in taxes while the reverse is true for residences

(Chart 3). Farmland can help to lower demand and expense for public services in a town.

Balancing working farms with other land uses makes fiscal sense for municipalities.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 35

Chart 3. Cost per dollar of revenue raised to provide public

services to different land uses.

Agricultural assessment is a state program that recognizes that farmland should be valued and

assessed at its use value for farming. Agricultural assessment is applicable to land in or outside

of an agricultural district that meets the following criteria. Eligible farmland parcels must be at

least seven acres and worked by a farm that grossed at least $10,000 annually in agricultural

sales for the preceding two years. Or, if the land is less than seven acres, the farm working the

land must have an average gross sales value of at least $50,000 annually for the preceding two

years. Landowners who rent their land to farmers can qualify for agricultural assessment if they

provide a minimum five-year lease to the farmer and the farmer’s operation meets the criteria for

eligibility. Converting land to a non-agricultural use will end agricultural assessment and will

result in a computed penalty. Farmers and landowners wishing to enroll in agricultural

assessment must visit the Erie County Soil and Water Conservation District office to determine

the soil types on the farm parcels (agricultural use assessment values are set by the state and vary

by soil type), then visit the town assessor to complete and file state form RP-305 (in Appendix).

Agricultural assessment does not guarantee that land will remain in agriculture but, as with

agricultural districts, it has a stabilizing affect on the land base, and can incentivize farmland

leasing by non-farm landowners.

Land Use and Infrastructure Planning

While towns in New York State have jurisdiction for land use regulations, the County does have

the responsibility to assist municipalities with land use and infrastructure planning. In developing

this plan, a number of maps were created to aid land use planning on both the county and the

town level. Following is a basic description of each map with associated suggestions for use as a

planning tool.

$0.00

$0.25

$0.50

$0.75

$1.00

$1.25

$1.50

Farm, Forest

and Open Land

$0.29/$1

Commerc ial

$0.26/$1

Residential

$1.27/$1

Chart 3:

Cost per dollar of revenue raised to provide

public services to different land uses.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 36

Maps

1. Land in Erie County Agricultural Districts: identifies the 14 state-certified, county-

approved agricultural districts in the county. (Note: there are agricultural districts

numbered greater than 14 due to district consolidation of lower number districts.)

Farms within the county’s agricultural districts receive the Right to Farm protections

outlined previously. It is important for the county to know which farm parcels are

located in agricultural districts, and is also important for individual towns to have maps

of the agricultural district(s) that fall within town boundaries. The county currently

provides this information to the towns.

2. Agricultural Parcels and Cropland Coverage: identifies active agricultural land within

agricultural parcels (some land in parcels may be woodland or scrub land and is not

tilled).

This map is most useful for informative purposes, providing a consolidated view of active

agricultural land in the towns.

3. Agricultural Soils Rating: identifies parcels with the greatest amount of high quality

soils. Soils with USDA soils classifications of prime received a rating of 2; prime when

drained rated 1.5; and soils of statewide importance rated 1. The number of acres in each

category in a parcel was multiplied by those weighting factors then the totals were added

together.

This should be one of the most used maps by both the county and towns. It very clearly

shows locations of the largest acreages of high quality soils. While all of the farmland in

the county should receive the benefit of effective planning so that it is not converted, it is

valuable to note which parcels and areas of the county contain the best soils and greatest

quantities of quality farmland. Particular care must be taken to protect these areas from

conversion. New water and sewer extensions should not be placed in these areas, and tap

ins for existing lines should not be allowed. Towns should create zoning districts that

encompass these areas and support farming as the primary use in those districts.

4. Natural Resources Rating: identifies and values parcels with particular natural resources

features. The number of acres in each of three categories was added together to

determine the Natural Resource Value Rating for a parcel: state or federally-regulated

wetland, including a 100 foot buffer from wetlands regulated by the NYS Department of

Environmental Conservation; land within 75 feet of a mapped stream or lake; land within

500 feet of the Lake Erie shoreline.

This map is useful when considering the value that well-managed farms can have in

protecting wildlife habitat and water quality. Cost share funding to adopt conservation

practices on parcels receiving a high natural resource ranking should be prioritized for

these farms.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 37

5. Natural Resources Rating Features: identifies DEC and federal wetlands, streams, and

agricultural parcels.

This map depicts the natural resources features used in the rating map but is also useful

for viewing the actual location of key natural resources features in relation to critical

farmland parcels.

6. Proximity to Protected Lands: identifies parcels located within 500 feet of protected

farmland (land that is restricted from development due to a conservation easement or

owned by a municipality and leased for farm use), a public park, or other preserved land.

Protecting a critical mass of farmland in a given area can be vital for farm viability and

ease of overall planning. This map identifies parcels of protected farmland, as well as

other public and protected land. Since public funds are often invested in protecting land,

locating newly protected farmland nearby maximizes the public investment in land

protection. Any towns that have protected land should use this map when considering

land use projects, and the county should consider the locations of protected land in

developing a PDR program and prioritizing land to be protected.

7. Framework for Regional Growth Policy Areas: identifies agricultural parcels in relation

to regional growth policy areas from the Erie Niagara Framework for Regional Growth.

The Framework delineates Developed, Developing, and Rural areas as well as

Development Centers and Corridors.

This is another key map for use in both county and town agricultural planning. The

Framework has already identified areas of the county that have high development

pressure and are therefore at increased risk of farmland conversion. Farms in any of the

three areas have value to their communities and the County and need supportive planning

in order to remain viable. Farms located in the Developing area are often at high risk of

conversion. These farms are in areas that have experienced sprawling development.

When prioritizing farms for protection, this map should always be consulted and other

factors and other maps used in conjunction with it. Reiterating and upholding the

Framework policies regarding farmland in the Developing and Rural areas is critical to

alleviating development pressure on farms in the county, and to stopping sprawling

development from reaching the Rural areas of the county.

As outlined previously in this plan:

The conservation of agricultural land is a key policy for the Developing Areas. Relevant

strategies include:

• Support local planning that designates areas appropriate for development and

conservation, minimizes conversion of agricultural lands and avoids “leap

frog” patterns of development

• Minimize conversion of significant agricultural lands

• Channel growth to areas with existing sewer and water service

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 38

• Where extensions of public sewer and water service are needed to address

health issues, restrict tap-ins for new development in areas designated for

agricultural use

Strategies for Rural Areas include:

• Expand efforts to strengthen the rural economy, including the conservation of

agricultural lands and rural economic development initiatives

• Identify and conserve agricultural lands, support zoning that reduces

permitted development densities, require cluster development to maintain

rural character and protect resources, and discourage continued subdivision

of rural road frontages

• Encourage the contraction of sewer district boundaries that extend into areas

designated for agricultural use

8. Clusters of Parcels with High Agricultural Soils Values: identifies areas in the county

that have groupings of farmland parcels with excellent soils.

The identified areas are generalized and have value when using planning tools to protect

areas of farmland with the best soils in the county. These clustered areas do not take into

consideration development pressure, but do depict places where non-farm development

should not occur. Water and sewer extensions should not be placed in these areas and if

they already exist, tap ins should not be allowed. These are excellent areas in the county

for farming – the best soils, largest parcels, and highest quantity of adjacent farmland.

Finally, no single map is designed to be used independently for agricultural planning – referring

to a number of the maps will yield the best analysis and decisions. The county should ensure

that all towns have copies of these maps with the associated methodology (in the Appendix) and

text descriptions, and should encourage their use by town planning boards and town boards.

Trainings offered to town volunteers and staff should include opportunities to learn how to use

these maps to plan for agriculture in local towns.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 47

Strategies, Goals, and Actions

The Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board, after collecting and reviewing

public and farmer input, developed a plan of action to address identified agricultural needs in

Erie County over the next decade, from 2012 to 2022. Following are two main strategies with

specific measurable goals for each. Each goal has a list of actions that can be taken. This is a

comprehensive list of goals and actions and requires input and assistance from a myriad of

partners. No partner listed or entity mentioned is required to assist but will hopefully choose to

support the process of improving and supporting Erie County’s farm viability. Priority actions

are highlighted and these are the actions that the Erie County Department of Environment and

Planning and the Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board will prioritize for

implementation. All other support actions will be prioritized, executed, and evaluated for action

periodically throughout the ten year implementation phase.

Strategy I: Keep land in agricultural production by protecting farmland, helping a new

generation to farm, and improving the viability of all farms in the County.

Goal A: Retain 95% of the 149,356 acres in the county in agricultural production as

reported by the 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture.

Priority Action to protect farmland and stabilize the land base:

Determine the feasibility of developing an Erie County purchase of development rights

program. A county program will use maps developed as part of this planning process that

identify important farmland protection criteria such as soil quality, development pressure, and

location in relation to public natural resources and other permanently protected land, to inform a

voluntary, pre-application process, which will identify farmers and landowners interested in

protecting their land. Review of maps, farmland protection criteria, and pre-applications will

culminate in a ranking of potential projects. New York State (www.agriculture.ny.gov) and the

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/farmranch have

had programs to supplement the local cost of purchasing development rights on farmland. New

York’s program has not funded any new projects since 2009. In order to institute a county

program, a local funding source will be needed to match the federal or state program funding, or

to fully fund the county program.

Implementation:

Timeline: Immediate action (1-2 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning; Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board

Partners: Western New York Land Conservancy; American Farmland Trust; U.S. Dept. of

Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

Potential Funding Sources: County funds; Natural Resources Conservation Service Farm and

Ranch Land Protection Program; New York State Farmland Protection Program.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 48

Support Actions to protect farmland and stabilize the land base:

Support the state-certified agricultural district program with right-to-farm provisions.

New York Agricultural Districts Law, Article 25AA

(http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AP/agservices/25-AA.pdf

) of the Agricultural and Markets Law,

provides ‘right-to-farm’ protections for farms in state-certified, county-adopted agricultural

districts. These include protection against unreasonably restrictive local ordinances, the ability

to undertake sound (as determined by the NYS Commissioner of Agriculture) agricultural

practices, agricultural data statements for certain land uses within 500 feet of a farm, and notice

of intent filings on proposed public projects that may impact farms.

Continue to consolidate the 14 county-approved, state-certified agricultural districts in the

County with an ultimate goal of four districts for the County.

Implementation:

Timeline: ongoing

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning; Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board

Partners: Towns in Erie County

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Collect agricultural assessment data by town in order to

inform agricultural planning efforts. The Erie County

Department of Environment and Planning administers the

state agricultural districts program for the county and staffs

the Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board.

Agricultural assessment data is collected by individual

municipalities but not necessarily shared with the county

Dept. of Environment and Planning. Understanding

exactly what land in the county is in active agricultural

production is necessary for the Dept. of Environment and

Planning and the Agricultural and Farmland Protection

Board to effectively plan for agriculture in the county.

This data will inform a Purchase of Development Rights

Program as well as all other actions outlined in this Plan.

Implementation:

Timeline: Immediate Action (1-2 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning

Partners: Towns in Erie County; Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Assist towns that wish to adopt term and/or permanent easement programs. Currently the

towns of Orchard Park and Elma have term easement programs with permanent conservation

easement options. These programs reduce the property tax assessment on a minimum acreage

and place a deed restriction for a specified term on that land. Farmland is unavailable for

development during the term. Because the town’s legal authority to establish such a program

was questioned, Orchard Park and Elma sought state authorizing legislation in order to proceed

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 49

with the program. Determining the parameters of a term easement program, and requesting state

authorization can be daunting tasks for a town. DEP assistance can facilitate the process.

Providing support to towns that have permanently protected farmland is important as well. This

includes the towns of Amherst, Marilla, Elma, and Clarence.

Implementation:

Timeline: Intermediate Action (3-5 years)

Lead: Towns in Erie County

Partners: Dept. of Environment and Planning; Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board

Potential Funding Sources: Town funds

Develop a ditch maintenance program which supports preservation of prime agricultural

land. Poor ditch maintenance affects good agricultural land when plant growth clogs ditches and

pipes reducing their effectiveness and contributing to water soaked farm fields that become

difficult to impossible to till. In wet areas of the County, particularly the northern portion of Erie

County, this has become an increasingly frustrating situation for farmers. Regular ditch

maintenance performed with input from the farm community will help to alleviate this situation.

Implementation:

Timeline: Intermediate

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning in coordination with Department of Public Works

Partners: Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board; Towns

Potential Funding Sources: County and Town funds

Goal B: Retain 95% of the 1,215 farms in the county as reported by the USDA 2007 Census

of Agriculture. (Note: The Census of Agriculture defines a farm as producing and

selling $1,000 of agricultural products in a year.)

Priority Action to help a next generation to become established on new and existing farms

through training programs, promotion, education, and incentives.

Determine the feasibility of developing a community college agricultural training program

for workforce development. Niagara County Community College has a horticulture degree

program(http://catalog.niagaracc.suny.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=6&poid=247&returnto

=132) for students interested in careers with nurseries, landscapers, golf courses, or florists.

Genesee Community College offers an exploratory agriculture course to help students better

understand agriculture in the region

(http://www.genesee.edu/content/academics/programs/MathSci/Environ/AGR190_factsheet.pdf

And Monroe Community College has an Agriculture and Life Sciences Institute

(http://www.monroecc.edu/depts/Agriculture/

) designed to prepare students for farm and food

production careers. Erie County can use these courses and programs as models to create a

community college agriculture degree program that trains students for work on farms.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 50

Implementation:

Timeline: Immediate Action (1-2 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning

Partners: Erie Community College; Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board

Potential Funding Sources: Erie Community College program funds; Erie County

Support Actions to help a next generation become established on new and existing farms through

training programs, promotion, education, and incentives:

Research and develop programs that will help to build an educated and trained workforce

for local farms by:

• Encouraging BOCES to include agricultural workforce training. BOCES offers

career training for high school students and workforce development for adults.

Expanding these programs to include hands-on training for farm work will help to

provide a local workforce for Erie County farms.

http://www.boces.org/wps/portal/BOCESofNYS http://www.e1b.org/wps/portal/Erie1

• Developing a formal county apprenticeship and internship program. Create a

comprehensive program package that farms can use when offering apprenticeships and

internships. Farms sometimes hire students or young adults who continue to work on the

farm throughout their high school and college years. A small number of these students

become permanent employees on a farm or begin to farm on their own. Generally, this

has happened informally in Erie County; Cornell Cooperative Extension of Erie County

can facilitate these work arrangements by documenting and sharing opportunities for

apprenticeships and internships on local farms.

• Researching the institution of a farm workforce development program that could

benefit new immigrant populations and farms. Diverse immigrant and refugee

populations from around the world are located in Erie County. Many immigrants come

to the U.S. with farm backgrounds and knowledge. Using these farming skills and

helping individuals to secure jobs benefits the immigrants and local farmers. The New

Farmer Development Program in New York City

(http://www.grownyc.org/greenmarket/nfdp) supports and trains immigrants to become

farm owners.

• Supporting all youth agriculture programs: 4-H is part of Cornell Cooperative

Extension (including programming at the Belle Center in Buffalo

http://www.thebellecenter.org/

) and provides hands-on learning opportunities for youth in

a variety of areas including agriculture (http://cceeriecounty.shutterfly.com/4-

hyouthdevelopment); Future Farmers of America (FFA) is a high school and college

agricultural career and leadership program (http://www.nysffa.org/); and Agriculture in

the Classroom is a curriculum based education program for primary and secondary

students that uses agricultural lessons to teach required competencies

(http://www.agclassroom.org/ny/)

• Encouraging agriculture programs in city, suburban, and rural school districts.

McKinley High School in Buffalo

(http://www.buffaloschools.org/McKinley.cfm?subpage=46912) offers a horticulture

program for students and hosts a chapter of the FFA. Supporting and enhancing this

program to include training in other agricultural careers and urban farming can create

new opportunities for city youth and may help to provide a trained workforce for county

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 51

farms. John Bowne High School in New York City is a model for an extensive internship

component in a school agriculture program.

(http://www.johnbowne.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=65010&type=d.)

Implementation:

Timeline: Immediate Action (1-2 years) for the apprenticeship program; Ongoing Action for

the support of youth education programs; Intermediate Action for all others (3-5 years)

Lead: Cornell Cooperative Extension for the apprenticeship program; Erie County Farm

Bureau for the youth and school agriculture programs; Dept. of Environment and Planning

for all others

Partners: Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board; Cornell Cooperative Extension; Erie

County Farm Bureau; Dept. of Environment and Planning

Potential Funding Sources: Grants for the apprenticeship program and the workforce

development training program for immigrants

Urban agriculture:

Support Buffalo’s Green Code zoning update in order to expand urban farming

opportunities. The City of Buffalo is part way through a two year process to update its 60 year

old zoning code to be ‘place-based’ with emphasis on enhancing the quality of life and character

of the city. Urban farming is prevalent in many large U.S. cities, and has become rooted in

Buffalo’s neighborhoods as well. Zoning code that reflects the interests and needs of urban

agriculture will help these farms to flourish – farms such as the Massachusetts Avenue Project

(MAP) http://mass-ave.org/, Community Action Organization Green Entrepreneurial Center

http://www.caoec.org/html/gec.html, Wilson Street Farm

http://wilsonstreeturbanfarm.wordpress.com/, and others.

Implementation:

Timeline: Immediate Action (1-2 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning; Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board

Partners: Massachusetts Avenue Project; Grassroots Gardens of Buffalo

Potential Funding Sources: NA

New farmers:

a. Determine the feasibility of developing

a property tax abatement program for

new farmers. Similar to a payment in

lieu of taxes (PILOT), new farmers

could receive an exemption from

property taxes for a specified time

period, for instance five years, on land

that is used for agricultural production.

Town IDAs could function as the

primary program provider. The PILOT

could require that a new farmer

participate in a training program offered

by Cornell Cooperative Extension,

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 52

Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA NY), Northeast

Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (NESAWG), or others in order to qualify for the

exemption. The state of Nebraska has a beginning farmer tax credit program for personal

property used in agricultural production that operates in a similar manner.

(http://www.agr.state.ne.us/beg_farmer/index.html.)

Implementation:

Timeline: Intermediate Action (3-5 years)

Lead: Town Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs)

Partners: DEP; AFPB

Potential Funding Sources: As determined by Town IDAs

b. Promote western New York as a place to farm. Erie County will lead a western New

York effort to promote the region to new farmers and to help transition farms that are at

particular risk of being lost to development. Promotional efforts will focus on niche,

value added, and direct market farm enterprises that operate on smaller acreages in urban-

edge areas. Jefferson County developed a promotional program, Come Farm With Us,

which eventually expanded to encompass 8 northern New York counties and led to the

transfer of well over 65 farms in the North Country. (http://www.comefarmwithus.org/.)

Implementation:

Timeline: Long Term Action (6-10 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning

Partners: Erie County Farm Bureau; Cornell Cooperative Extension; Northeast Organic

Farming Association of New York other western NY county organizations

Potential Funding Sources: Foundation grants

c. Promote existing training programs that are targeted to small and beginning

farmers. Organizations that offer such programs include Cornell Cooperative Extension

of Erie County http://cceeriecounty.shutterfly.com/agriculture,

Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York http://www.nofany.org/

Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (NESAWG) http://www.nefood.org/,

and others.

Implementation:

Timeline: Ongoing Action

Lead: Cornell Cooperative Extension

Partners: Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York; Northeast Sustainable

Agriculture Working Group; Dept. of Environment and Planning

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 53

Goal C: Establish five new agricultural programs (from the list below or others) that can

improve the viability of farms in Erie County.

Priority Action to improve farm viability and increase investment in agricultural economic

development projects.

Incorporate agritourism into countywide tourism efforts.

Hay rides, corn mazes, u-pick, and farm trails have popped up around the region, and are helping

farmers to supplement traditional farm income and to keep farms in business. Coordinating

agritourism efforts and promotion allows farms to share costs, and can help market the county as

place to visit. Erie County agriculture is diverse and has something for everyone. The scenic

beauty of farm country, and consumer interest in local farm products will draw tourists to the

county’s rural areas. The Southtowns Community Enhancement Coalition partnered with the

University of Buffalo Regional Institute to develop a farm market brochure after surveying area

farmers http://www.regional-

institute.buffalo.edu/Includes/UserDownloads/sowing_finalreport.pdf. The Buffalo Niagara

Convention and Visitors Bureau recommends the Lake Erie and Niagara wine trails as something

to do when in the region. http://www.visitbuffaloniagara.com/food-and-dining/vineyards-wine-

trails/.

Implementation:

Timeline: Ongoing

Lead: Southtowns Community Enhancement Coalition

Partners: Buffalo Niagara Convention and Visitors Bureau

Potential Funding Sources: Grants

Support Actions to improve farm viability and increase investment in agricultural economic

development projects:

Establish a shovel-ready Agribusiness Park in the county to attract food and agricultural

processing businesses. Processing facilities for raw agricultural products can create an added

market for local farms.

Implementation:

Timeline: Immediate Action (1-2 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning

Partners: Buffalo Niagara Enterprise; Erie County Industrial Development Agency; Town(s)

with potential sites

Potential Funding Sources: Regional Economic Development Council

Capital:

Create an Industrial Development Agency (IDA) Agricultural Specialist position. This

position would be the coordinator of all county agricultural economic development initiatives.

Responsibilities would include developing and managing a U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

microenterprise loan fund / rural microenterprise technical assistance; researching and applying

to funding sources for agricultural economic development projects in the County; assisting with

agricultural business attraction efforts (production, processing, wholesale, retail); exploring

innovative financing options for agricultural businesses as well as for implementation of actions

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 54

in this Plan; and, generally supporting all county efforts that seek to improve farm viability. This

position would also have a seat on the Agricultural Working Group of the Western New York

Regional Economic Development Council. Instituting a “funders forum” to creatively pitch

county and regional agricultural economic development projects to public (Empire State

Development; Rural Development, others) and private funders (local foundations, others) would

be a key implementation action for this position.

Implementation:

Timeline: Intermediate Action (3-5 years)

Lead: Erie County IDA

Partners: Dept. of Environment and Planning

Potential Funding Sources: Erie County IDA funds

Aggregation and Distribution:

a. Research the feasibility of creating a food hub in the region for farm product

aggregation and distribution with the following elements:

• Co-packing facilities

• Public cold storage

• Branded, community marketing

initiatives

• Partnerships with upstream and

downstream industries

• Global GAP certification capability

designed into the operating and

management systems

• USDA inspected facilities

• Shared-use processing facilities with

business support systems; e.g.,

business incubation services

• Best practice research on food hubs can be found at http://wallacecenter.org/our-

work/current-initiatives/food-hub-collaboration

Implementation:

Timeline: Immediate Action (1-2 years)

Lead: Field and Fork Network

Partners: Dept. of Environment and Planning; Erie County Farm Bureau

Potential Funding Sources: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, grants

b. Identify a coordinating agency to issue a request for proposals to provide

aggregation and distribution services for local farmers and food processors seeking to

develop external markets.

Implementation:

Timeline: Long term actions (5-10 years)

Lead: Field and Fork Network

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 55

Partners: Erie County IDA; Buffalo Niagara Enterprise; Dept. of Environment and

Planning

Potential Funding Sources: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture; Regional Economic Development

Council

c. Research development of an innovation center for the western New York region (for

new food product development and value-added) www.cdr.wisc.edu.

The center should be focused on key regional sectors such as dairy, livestock, and

vegetables. Attract private sector participation and investment. Seek affiliations with

national and international research institutions with a proven record of success.

Implementation:

Timeline: Long term (5-10 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning

Partners: Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board; Cornell Cooperative Extension;

other western New York county planning departments and other agricultural

organizations

Potential Funding Sources: Regional Economic Development Council

Marketing:

a. Develop a county program to help farmers market their agricultural products and

to assist with identifying new market opportunities. This program should focus on

virtual services and include a more rigorous transaction based system than is currently

offered by Market Maker; for example, a program similar to the Fresh Fork Market

www.freshforkmarket.com.

Implementation:

Timeline: Long term

Lead: Cornell Cooperative Extension

Partners: Erie County Farm Bureau

Potential Funding Sources: Grants

b. Develop a regional agricultural brand. It can be difficult for consumers who want to

purchase local agricultural products, to identify which products are actually produced in

western New York. A regional brand provides a quick, visible indication of where the

product comes from. New York State has a state brand for agricultural products grown,

and foods processed, in the state. http://www.prideofny.com/

Implementation:

Timeline: Immediate Action (1-2 years)

Lead: Field and Fork Network

Partners: Cornell Cooperative Extension

Potential Funding Sources: New York State Dept. of Agriculture and Markets

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 56

Strategy II Inform the public, local leaders, and elected officials about the benefits that

agriculture provides and support policy and legislative changes that will

improve farm viability.

Goal A: Fifty percent of the towns in Erie County will document the importance of

agriculture to the local community either in their comprehensive plan or through

other local planning efforts.

Priority Actions to educate local leaders and elected officials about the benefits that farms

provide to local economies and to the quality of life of county residents:

Erie County will calculate the value of agriculture to the local and regional economy as

part of a complete economic analysis of agriculture and its multiplier effects. Local officials

need information on the many benefits that farms provide to communities, but in order to be

fiscally responsive to residents concerns, economic information is particularly useful. A

complete analysis of the local and regional agriculture economy can provide this needed

information. It will also be useful for the county to share cost of community services studies that

American Farmland Trust and others have done in many areas of the country. These studies

show that farms contribute more in property taxes than they use in services.

(http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/38422/COCS_08-2010.pdf

This economic information will also help to inform a Purchase of Development Rights Program

as well as all other actions in this Plan.

Implementation:

Timeline: Intermediate Action (3-5 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning

Partners: University of Buffalo; Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board; Erie County towns

Potential Funding Sources: To be determined by Dept. of Environment and Planning

Erie County Dept. of Environment and Planning will offer trainings for local

leaders and volunteers about:

• agricultural friendly zoning;

• the economic benefits of farms and buying local farm products;

• the value of agriculture to the local community including cost of community service

studies;

• agricultural assessment requirements and enforcement;

• incorporating agriculture into comprehensive plans and, developing and implementing

agricultural and farmland protection plans;

• use of plan maps, especially soils maps, for local planning purposes;

• assessing and coding farmland and easement protected land; and

• addressing water line restrictions, drainage, and other infrastructure concerns that impact

farms.

In New York State, towns are responsible for land use decisions. Yet, agricultural resources are

not defined by political boundaries and are often better served by regional planning. Erie County

can provide training to municipal leaders and volunteers to assist them in making educated land

use decisions that support agriculture and help farms remain in business.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 57

Implementation:

Timeline: Ongoing and Immediate Action (1-2 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning

Partners: Towns in Erie County; Cornell Cooperative Extension; Soil and Water Conservation

District; Natural Resources Conservation Service; American Farmland Trust; Erie County Dept.

of Real Property Tax Services

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Support Actions to educate local leaders and elected officials about the benefits that farms

provide to local economies and to the quality of life of county residents:

Periodically host farm tours for local officials and leaders.

Many elected officials have never visited a working farm and doing so can be quite informative.

In past years, Erie County hosted local leaders on tours of farms during the renewal period for a

state-certified agricultural district. This was an ideal opportunity to engage local officials in

planning for agriculture in their community. For 22 years, Genesee County has annually hosted

a countywide bus tour of farms and agribusinesses for officials and leaders, the Local Decision

Makers Tour. (http://www.co.genesee.ny.us/docs/planning/ag_tour_rsvp_form_2011.pdf.)

Implementation:

Timeline: Ongoing

Lead: Cornell Cooperative Extension

Partners: Dept. of Environment and Planning; Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board; Erie

County Farm Bureau; Natural Resources Conservation Service; Soil and Water Conservation

District, American Farmland Trust

Potential Funding Sources: To be determined by collaborating organizations.

Encourage towns to use Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) to expand regional

planning for agriculture, and to recognize that farms are land based businesses that are not

always well served when defined by political boundaries. Towns in the county already use

MOUs for specific multi-town planning purposes. For example the towns of Amherst and

Clarence have an MOU for the shared Transit Road transportation corridor. The Southtowns

Community Enhancement Coalition is a group of nine municipalities in the southern portion of

the county who are working together to support agriculture. Formalizing that support to include

planning for agriculture would be a natural next step. Another example is in 2000, the towns of

Brant, Evans, and North Collins developed a joint Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan to

coordinate agricultural planning efforts.

Implementation:

Timeline: Long Term (6-10 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning

Partners: towns in Erie County

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 58

Goal B: Twenty percent of food products purchased by county institutions will come from

local and regional farmers.

Priority Action to support policies that will help farms to provide affordable, local food to

county residents:

Develop a county Food Policy Council that includes a formal role for the Agriculture and

Farmland Protection Board so that farmland is recognized as a critical component of local

food production, and farm and food issues are not decoupled. Food Policy Councils typically

influence policies directly related to food issues. It is

less typical that they address land policies as they

relate to farms and food production. Erie County has

an ideal opportunity to create a Food Policy Council

that does both and includes representation from the

county Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board.

Missoula County, Montana established a food and

agriculture coalition http://www.missoulacfac.org/ to

serve as an umbrella organization for two committees

addressing land use and agricultural viability as well

as food access and consumption issues.

Implementation:

Timeline: Immediate Action (1-2 years)

Lead: Healthy Kids Healthy Communities

Partners: Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board; American Farmland Trust

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Support Actions to support policies that will help farms to provide affordable, local food to

county residents:

Work with the Food Policy Council to develop a local food procurement policy for county

institutions. Expanding local purchasing from area farmers can improve farm profitability while

consumers receive a fresh product that is grown nearby. In 2009, Albany County passed the first

local food procurement policy in the state.

http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/37953/Buy_Local_Law_Albany_County_(3).pdf.

In 2010, the New York City Council released a report, FoodWorks, with associated food policy

recommendations http://www.council.nyc.gov/html/action_center/food.shtml.

And in 2011, students in the University of Buffalo Department of Urban and Regional Planning,

under the direction of Dr. Samina Raja, developed a food system assessment for Erie County:

Room at the Table. http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/39106/Room_at_the_Table_-

_Food_System_Assessment_of_Erie_County-FINAL.pdf

Implementation:

Timeline: Intermediate Action (3-5 years)

Lead: Food Policy Council

Partners: Healthy Kids Healthy Communities; Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board; Erie

County Farm Bureau; Cornell Cooperative Extension

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 59

Promote local food purchasing by schools. Concern about the nutritional quality of food

served in school lunches has been well publicized. Connecting schools with local farmers to

improve food quality is a win-win for school children and farmers but is not necessarily an easy

process. Assisting county school districts with efforts to work with farmers and procure local

food can facilitate these partnerships. http://www.farmtoschool.org/state-home.php?id=17

Implementation:

Timeline: Intermediate Action (3-5 years)

Lead: Cornell Cooperative Extension

Partners: Erie County school districts; Erie County Farm Bureau; Field and Fork Network

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Promote farmers markets in the city and county to attract more people to existing markets.

Nationally, the number of farmers markets has quadrupled since 1994 and grew by 17% from

2010 to 2011. Farmers have benefited from an increase in direct market opportunities where

they capture more of the retail dollar while consumers appreciate a local stop to purchase local

farm products. Erie County has 16 farmers markets with additional markets opening each

season, including some that are sponsored by companies to provide a convenient, healthy food

shopping option for employees. A number of Erie County farmers markets offer entertainment,

making them a destination as well as a place to purchase good food. Erie County can encourage

the establishment of new farmers markets in underserved locations in the county so that residents

have a source of fresh, local produce.

Implementation:

Timeline: Intermediate (3-5 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning

Partners: Farmers Markets; Cornell Cooperative Extension

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Goal C: Establish an annual county-wide, agricultural event.

Priority Action to educate and inform the public about farms and food production:

Celebrate Erie County farms with a county-wide agricultural event for the general public.

Annually from 1996 to 2003, the Erie County Family, Food, and Farm Tour bused up to 500

adults and children to area farms on a Saturday in September. This farm tour was sponsored by a

collaboration of county agricultural organizations and was well supported by county farms.

Every Father’s Day for 16 years, Saratoga County hosts a public event on a local farm.

http://www.saratogafarms.com/sundae2011page.html Attendance is always over 1,000 people.

Erie County can hold a public event on an annual basis that will showcase what farms in the

county have to offer. The County can also assist towns by publicizing the variety of agricultural

events that occur throughout the County.

Implementation:

Timeline: Immediate (1-2 years)

Lead: Cornell Cooperative Extension; Erie County Farm Bureau

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 60

Partners: Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board; Soil and Water Conservation District;

Natural Resources Conservation Service; American Farmland Trust; Western New York Land

Conservancy; Dept. of Environment and Planning; Erie County Agricultural Society

Potential Funding Sources: Local grants; farm organizations; attendance fees

Support Actions to educate and inform the public about farms and food production:

Work with the Erie County Agricultural Society to promote the Farm2Table school

program. http://www.the-fairgrounds.com/farm2table

The Farm2Table program, sponsored by

the Erie County Agricultural Society and held at the Erie County Fairgrounds, is a free, hands-on

educational field trip for third and fourth graders. Students learn about agriculture to better

understand how food comes from farms to their tables. Advertising and promoting the

Farm2Table field trip to schools can help educate youth about local agriculture.

Implementation:

Timeline: Ongoing

Lead: Erie County Farm Bureau

Partners: Dept. of Environment and Planning; Cornell Cooperative Extension

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Provide support for Erie County Farm Bureau’s efforts to encourage Agriculture in the

classroom curriculum use in Erie County schools. www.agclassroom.org/ny/ Erie County Farm

Bureau also donates a book to area schools and reads in classrooms during Ag Literacy Week

each March.

Implementation:

Timeline: Ongoing

Lead: Erie County Farm Bureau

Partners: Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Goal D: Implement at least four new public policies, or support ongoing policies, that

protect farmland and support the viability of farms in Erie County.

Priority Action to support partner agricultural

organizations, such as Farm Bureau, American

Farmland Trust, and others, with advocacy efforts

that focus on:

Adequate county funding for Cornell Cooperative

Extension http://cceeriecounty.shutterfly.com/, and

the Soil and Water Conservation District

http://www.ecswcd.org/

. Receive regular updates

about county agriculture programs and support these

organizations and programs in the annual county

budget process.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 61

Implementation:

Timeline: Ongoing

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning

Partners: Cornell Cooperative Extension; Soil and Water Conservation District; Erie County

Farm Bureau

Potential Funding Sources: County budget

Support Actions to support partner agricultural organizations, such as Farm Bureau, American

Farmland Trust, and others, with advocacy efforts that focus on:

Increasing the penalty for termination of agricultural assessment. Current penalties often do

not deter removal of farmland from agricultural assessment when a landowner chooses to sell or

develop the land. Additionally, consistent enforcement of agricultural assessment requirements

and penalties is needed. http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AP/agservices/25-AA.pdf

Implementation:

Timeline: Intermediate Action (3-5 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning; Erie County Legislature

Partners: Erie County towns

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Regional planning, especially between Erie and Niagara Counties. The Erie Niagara

Framework for Regional Growth identifies opportunities for shared agricultural planning

between the two counties. Formalizing shared agricultural planning and including other western

New York counties will strengthen farmland protection and farm viability work throughout the

region. Elements from the Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan should be

used in developing the Farmland Protection Policy component to the Framework for Regional

Growth. This will be one of six policy specific components prepared by Erie County as part of

the upcoming phase of the Framework for Regional Growth (2006) document.

http://www2.erie.gov/regionalframework/index.php?q=FrameworkPlan

Adhering to Framework for Regional Growth polices including maintaining growth in areas that

have infrastructure, such as water and sewer lines, rather than extending this infrastructure into

rural areas, will help to protect productive farmland. The DEP has a county policy that limits

sewer extensions outside of Framework for Regional Growth developed areas.

Implementation:

Timeline: Immediate (1-2 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning

Partners: Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board; Erie County Legislature

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Identifying, drafting when appropriate, and advocating for county, state, and federal

agricultural policy and legislative changes. Coordinate state and federal advocacy work with

other counties in the region with shared agricultural interests. Engage state and federal elected

officials to advocate as a western New York coalition for these changes.

Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan pg 62

Implementation:

Timeline: Ongoing

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning; Erie County Legislature

Partners: State and federal legislators; Erie County Farm Bureau; Agricultural and Farmland

Protection Board

Potential Funding Sources: NA

General:

Priority Actions

At five year intervals, formally review progress in implementing the Agricultural and

Farmland Protection Plan. Evaluate progress based on the identified goals in each strategy and

update goals as needed. Develop a new county Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan at the

ten-year mark.

Implementation:

Timeline: Intermediate (3-5 years) and Long Term (6-10 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning; Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board

Partners: Cornell Cooperative Extension; Soil and Water Conservation District; Natural

Resources Conservation District; Erie County Farm Bureau; American Farmland Trust; Western

New York Land Conservancy

Potential Funding Sources: NA

Develop an interactive, web based application of the Erie County Agricultural and

Farmland Protection Plan. Post the Plan on the county website and incorporate links to

examples and websites of interest. Maintain the site as a clearinghouse for agricultural

information and post current items of interest for farmers and county residents.

Implementation:

Timeline: Immediate (1-2 years)

Lead: Dept. of Environment and Planning

Partners: NA

Potential Funding Sources: Dept. of Environment and Planning staff time

Lead Partners Potential Funding Sources

PRIORITY ACTIONS: ONGOING

Incorporate agritourism into countywide

tourism efforts.

Southtowns

Community

Enhancement

Coalition

Buffalo Niagara Convention and

Visitors Bureau Grants

Support adequate county funding for Cornell

Cooperative Extension and the Soil and

Water Conservation District. DEP CCE, SWCD, Erie County FB County budget

Erie County Dept. of Environment and

Planning will offer trainings for local leaders

and volunteers about planning for

agriculture. DEP

Town, CCE, SWCD, NRCS, AFT,

Erie County Dept. of Real Property

Tax Services NA

PRIORITY ACTIONS: IMMEDIATE

Determine the feasibilty of developing an

Erie County purchase of development rights

program. DEP, AFPB WNYLC, AFT, NRCS

County Funds. USDA NRCS Farm and

Ranch Land Protection Program. New

York State Farmland Protection

Program(possibly)

Erie County Dept. of Environment and

Planning will offer trainings for local leaders

and volunteers about planning for

agriculture. DEP

Town, CCE, SWCD, NRCS, AFT,

Erie County Dept. of Real Property

Tax Services NA

Determine the feasibility of developing a

community college agricultural training

program for workforce development. DEP Erie Community College, AFPB ECC, Erie County

Develop a county Food Policy Council that

includes a formal role for the Agricultural

and Farmland Protection Board.

Healthy Kids Healthy

Communities AFPB, AFT NA

Celebrate Erie County farms with a county

wide agricultural event for the general

public. CCE, Erie County FB

FPB, SWCD, NRCS, AFT,

WNYLC, DEP, Erie County

Agricultural Society

Local grants, farm organizations,

attendance fees

Develop an interactive, web-based

application of the Erie County Agricultural

and Farmland Protection Plan. DEP NA DEP staff time

Table 4: Erie County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan Implementation Matrix

Lead Partners Potential Funding Sources

PRIORITY ACTIONS: INTERMEDIATE

Erie County will calculate the value of

agriculture to the local and regional

economy as part of a complete economic

analysis of agriculture and its multiplier

effects. DEP

University of Buffalo, AFPB, Erie

County Towns As determined by DEP

At five year intervals, formally review

progress in implementing the Agricultural

and Farmland Protection Plan. DEP, AFPB

CCE, SWCD, Erie County FB, AFT,

WNYLC NA

PRIORITY ACTIONS: LONG TERM

At five year intervals, formally review

progress in implementing the Agricultural

and Farmland Protection Plan. DEP, AFPB

CCE, SWCD, Erie County FB, AFT,

WNYLC NA

SUPPORT ACTIONS:ONGOING

Support the agricultural district program. DEP, AFPB Towns NA

Research & develop programs to build an

educated & trained local farm workforce.

CCE, Erie County FB,

DEP AFPB, CCE, Erie County FB, DEP Grants

Promote existing training programs for small

and beginning farmers. CCE NOFA NY, NESAWG, DEP NA

Host farm tours for local officials and

leaders. CCE

DEP, AFPB, Erie County FB, NRCS,

SWCD, AFT

As determined by collaborating

organizations

Help to promote the Erie County Agricultural

Society Farm2Table program Erie County FB DEP, CCE NA

Support Erie County Farm Bureau's Ag in

the Classroom curriculum Erie County FB AFPB NA

Identify, draft, & advocate for county, state,

federal ag policy & legislative changes

DEP, Erie County

Legislature

State and federal legislators, Erie

County FB, AFPB NA

SUPPORT ACTIONS: IMMEDIATE

Collect ag assessment data by town. DEP Towns NA

Support Buffalo's Green Code zoning

update. DEP, AFPB

Massachusetts Avenue Project,

Grassroots Gardens of Buffalo NA

Research & develop programs to build an

educated & trained local farm workforce.

CCE, Erie County FB,

DEP AFPB, CCE, Erie County FB, DEP Grants

Lead Partners Potential Funding Sources

Establish a shovel ready agribusiness park. DEP

BNE, Erie County IDA, Town(s) with

potential sites REDC

Research the feasibility of creating a food

hub for the region.

Field and Fork

Network DEP, Erie County FB USDA, grants

Develop a regional agricultural brand.

Field and Fork

Network CCE NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets

Support regional planning especially

between Erie and Niagara Counties DEP AFPB, Erie County Legislature NA

SUPPORT ACTIONS: INTERMEDIATE

Assist towns with term and/or permanent

easement programs. Towns in Erie County DEP, AFPB Town funds.

Develop a ditch maintenance program

topreserve prime farmland

DEP with Dept. of

Public Works AFPB, Towns County and Town funds.

Determine feasibility of a property tax

abatement program for new farmers. Town IDAs DEP, AFPB As determined by Town IDAs

Research & develop programs to build an

educated & trained local farm workforce.

CCE, Erie County FB,

DEP AFPB, CCE, Erie County FB, DEP Grants

Create an IDA Agricultural Specialist

position. Erie County IDA DEP Erie County IDA funds

Work with Food Policy Council to develop a

local food procurement policy. Food Policy Council

Healthy Kids Healthy Communities,

AFPB, Erie County FB, CCE NA

Promote local food purchasing by schools. CCE

Erie County school districts, Erie

County FB, Field & Fork Network NA

Promote farmers markets. DEP Farmers Markets, CCE NA

dvocacy support to increase the penalty for

early termination of ag assessment.

DEP, Erie County

Legislature Towns NA

SUPPORT ACTIONS: LONG TERM

Promote western NY as a place to farm. DEP

Erie County FB, CCE, NOFA NY,

western NY organizations Foundation grants

Coordinating agency to issue request for

proposals for aggregation & distribution

Field and Fork

Network Erie County IDA, BNE, DEP USDA, REDC

Research development of an innovation

center for western NY. DEP

AFPB, CCE, other western NY

county planning depts. & ag orgs REDC

Lead Partners Potential Funding Sources

Develop a county program to help farmers

market their agricultural products. CCE Erie County FB Grants

Encourage towns to use Memorandums of

Understanding. DEP Towns NA

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

Ongoing: Throughout the 10-year

implementation period.

Immediate: 1-2 years

Intermediate: 3-5 years

Long Term: 5-10 years

ABBREVIATIONS

AFPB: Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board

AFT:American Farmland Trust

BNE: Buffalo Niagara Enterprise

CCE: Cornell Cooperative Extension

DEP: Erie County Dept. of Environment and Planning

Erie County FB: Erie County Farm Bureau

IDA: Industrial Development Agency

NESAWG: Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Working Group

NOFA NY: Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service

REDC: Regional Economic Development Council

SWCD: Soil and Water Conservation District

USDA: United States Dept. of Agriculture

WNYLC: Western New York Land Conservancy

APPENDIX

Appendix

• Funding Sources Chart

• Map methodology

• Erie County Right to Farm Law

• RP-305 Agricultural Assessment Application

• American Farmland Trust:

o Is Your County Planning a Future for Farms checklist

o Cost of Community Services factsheet

• Agricultural Districts Law Article 25-AA

• AEM Tier 1 Agriculture Interest Links

• SWOT Chart

• Focus Group Session Summary Notes

• Public Hearing Notes

• Interviewees

• Summaries of Agricultural Planning Documents:

o Town of Eden Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan

o Town of Clarence Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan

o Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan summaries: Towns of Brant, Evans,

and North Collins Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan

o Room at the Table: Food System Assessment of Erie County summary

Web Links:

• Farmland Information Center: http://www.farmlandinfo.org/

o Eden Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan

o Clarence Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan

o Brant/Evans/North Collins Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan

o Room at the Table: Food System Assessment of Erie County.

• Sowing the Seeds of Southtowns Agribusiness

http://www.regional-

institute.buffalo.edu/Includes/UserDownloads/sowing_finalreport.pdf

• NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets: Guidance documents

http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AP/agservices/agdistricts.html

• Erie Niagara Framework for Regional Growth

http://www2.erie.gov/regionalframework/index.php?q=FrameworkPlan

Funding Sources

Program Name Program

Description

Eligible

Applicants

Capital

Equipment

Working

Capital

Technical

Assistance

Expected

Due Date

Value-Added

Producer Grant

(USDA):

www.rurdev.usda.go

v/BCP_VAPG_Grant

s.html

This grant program

can be used directly

by farmers and some

intermediaries in the

food system to

support the working

capital finance needs

related to changes in

the market or product

development.

Farmers and

agribusinesses with

risks in production

who are seeking to

change marketing

and/or manufacturing

practices.

No Yes Yes August 2013

Rural Business

Enterprise Grant

(USDA):

www.rurdev.usda.go

v/BCP_rbeg.html

This program can be

accessed by qualified

not-for-profit and

government agencies

to support market

feasibility studies,

business planning,

and other enterprise

development

activities related to

profit making

businesses.

Public bodies and

qualified Exempt

Organizations that

have been through

USDA

Microenterprise

training in

communities with a

population less than

50,000.

Yes Yes Yes April 2013

Rural Business

Opportunity Grant

(USDA):

www.rurdev.usda.go

v/BCP_RBOG.html

This program

provides financial

support to

community level

business assistance

programs.

Public bodies and

qualified Exempt

Organizations that

have been through

USDA

Microenterprise

training in

communities with a

population less than

50,000.

No No Yes July 2013

Community Facility

Grant (USDA):

www.rurdev.usda.go

v/HAD-

RCDI_Grants.html

Communities can

access funds through

this program to

develop community

infrastructure such as

water and sewer

systems to support

economic growth.

Public bodies and

qualified Exempt

Organizations that

have been through

USDA

Microenterprise

training in

communities with a

population less than

50,000.

Yes No No On-going

Specialty Crop Grant

(USDA/NY):

http://www.agricultur

e.ny.gov/AP/slide/Sp

ecialtyCrop.html

www.agriculture.ny.g

ov/RFPS.html

This program is

administered by the

NY Department of

Agriculture and

Markets and is used

to support business

growth,

development,

marketing, and

research in support of

non-program crops.

For-profit and

Exempt

Organizations with a

mission to support

growth in the

specialty crop sector.

Yes Yes Yes April 2013

Program Name Program

Description

Eligible

Applicants

Capital

Equipment

Working

Capital

Technical

Assistance

Expected

Due Date

Rural

Microenterprise

Assistance Program

(USDA):

www.rurdev.usda.go

v/BCP_RMAP.html

This program

provides funding for

government agencies

and not-for-profits

that provide direct

technical and funding

support for

microenterprises.

Public bodies and

qualified Exempt

Organizations that

have been through

USDA

Microenterprise

training in

communities with a

population less than

50,000.

Yes

Ongoing

Farmers’ Market

Promotion Grant

(USDA):

www.ams.usda.gov/

AMSv1.0/FMPP

This program

provides funds to

support direct market

expansion and

market access. Often

used to encourage

greater access to

farmers’ markets by

underserved

populations.

Public bodies and

qualified Exempt

Organizations.

Yes Yes Yes May 2013

Economic

Adjustment

Assistance and

Community Trade

Adjustment

Assistance Grants

(EDA):

http://www.grants.go

v/search/search.do;js

essionid=XfMNPyL

VtKZGfvLW3JwvdS

K5pPRLXhYfvGW9

cMTxNhDKM5Qzm

Z6x%21545677704?

oppId=131493&mod

e=VIEW

Communities

covered by a

Comprehensive

Economic

Development

Strategy, like Erie

County, can access

these funds to

support industrial

and entrepreneurial

development

projects.

Public bodies and

Exempt

Organizations with a

compliant

Comprehensive

Economic

Development

Strategy on file with

EDA.

Yes No Yes Quarterly

New York Buy Local

Campaign:

www.agriculture.ny.g

ov/RFPS.html

This program

supports the

development of

regional branding

programs through

small grants.

Public bodies,

Tourism Boards, and

Exempt

Organizations.

Yes No Yes February

2013

Good Agricultural

Practices (GAP)

Certification

Assistance Program:

www.agriculture.ny.g

ov/RFPS.html

This program

provides financial

assistance to farmers

seeking to develop

GAP plans.

Farmers. No No Yes Ongoing

Program Name Program

Description

Eligible

Applicants

Capital

Equipment

Working

Capital

Technical

Assistance

Expected

Due Date

NY Fresh Connect

Program:

www.agriculture.ny.g

ov/RFPS.html

This program is

designed to fund

projects that increase

access to NY State

grown agricultural

products to low

income and

underserved

communities.

ublic bodies, Ma

ket

Authorities, Public

Benefit

Corporations, and

Exempt

Organizations.

No Yes Yes April 2013

Northeast Sustainable

Agriculture Research

Education:

Sustainable

Community Grants

http://www.nesare.or

g/Grants/Get-a-

Grant/Sustainable-

Community-Grant

Projects that

strengthen the

position of

sustainable

agriculture as it

affects community

economic

development. Key

issues: finance,

marketing, land use,

water use, enterprise

development, value-

added activities,

labor.

griculture oriente

organizations and

local governments

with expertise in

sustainable

agriculture enterprise

development.

No Yes Yes October

2013

USDA Natural

Resources

Conservation

Service: Farm and

Ranch Land

Protection Program

http://www.nrcs.usda

.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/

main/national/progra

ms/easements/farmra

nch

Provides matching

funds to help

purchase

development rights

to keep productive

farm and ranchland

in agricultural uses.

Government or non-

governmental entity.

No No No April 2013

2/8/2012

ErieCountyAgricultural&

FldPiPl

arm



rotect

on

MethodologyforDetermining

AgriculturalSoils andNatural

Resource Ratings

Resource



Ratings

Thisdocumentdemonstrates

howtheratingsystem

methodologyappliestoasmall

area within Erie County Due

area



within



Erie



County

.

Due



toconfidentialityofthe

croplanddata,the areaisnot

identified.

2/8/2012

Thecroplandshapefiles

providedbyNRCSveryclosely

followtheoutlinesoffieldsand

pastures that are visible from

pastures



that



are



visible



from



aerialphotographs.

Parcelsthatincludelessthan

oneacreofcropland/pasture

weredeletedfromthe

Agricultural Parcels list and

Thisparcelcontainscroplandand

isincludedinthelistofAgriculturalParcels

Agricultural



Parcels



list



and



shapefile

Theseparcelswereexcluded

fromthelist.

2/8/2012

GISsoftwarecalculatedthe

numberofacresofeach

agriculturalsoilstypewithin

the cropland in each parcel

Prime Soils

Prime Soils if Drained

Soils of Statewide Importanc

Agricultural Parcels

Cropland

the



cropland



each



parcel

9 10

TheAgriculturalSoilsRatingforeach

parcelwasbasedonthetotalacreageof

croplandineachsoilscategorymultiplied

by a weighting factor:

gricultural Parcel



weighting



factor:



PrimeSoils:2

PrimeWhenDrained:1.5

SoilsofStatewideImportance:1

Thehighestratingswereforparcelswith

largeareasofcroplandorpasture.

Soils Rating

0.00 - 10.00

10.01 - 40.00

40.01 - 80.00

80.01 - 120.00

120.01 - 400.00

128

2/8/2012

TheNaturalResourcesRatingwasbased

onthenumberofacreswithineachparcel

ofthefollowingnaturalresourcefeatures:



Within 75 feet of a mapped stream



Within



feet



mapped



stream

 FederalorStateWetland,including

100'bufferfromNYSwetlands

 Within500feetofLakeErieshoreline

State or Federal Wetland + 100' Buffer, within Agricultural Parcel

DEC Wetlands

DEC

Wetlands

Federal Wetlands

75' Stream Buffer within Agricultural Parcels

Streams

Agricultural Parcels

Thesumoftheacreagewithineach

naturalfeature(wetlands,stream

corridor,LakeEriebuffer)constitutesthe

Natura l Resources Rating. No weighting

0 00

Needtoupdatetoinclude

Federalwetlandinfo

Natura l



Resources



Rating.





weighting



factorswereused.

ParcelswithhigherNaturalResources

ratingshavemorelandwithinastream

corridororwetland.Inareasoutsideof

theoneshown,highlyrankedparcelsare

locatednearLakeErie.

Agricultural Parcels

Natural Resources Rating

0.00 - 4.00

4.01 - 8.00

8.01 - 20.00

20.01 - 40.00

40.01 - 600.00

Erie County right to farm law

COUNTY OF ERIE

LOCAL LAW NO. 1- 1999

A LOCAL LAW in relation to the right to farm in the county of Erie.

Section 1. Title. This local law shall be known as the "Erie county right to farm

law".

Section 2. Legislative policy. The Erie county legislature hereby finds, declares,

and determines that farming is important to Erie county because it is a major

occupation within the county, providing a livelihood and employment for

thousands of residents; farming remains the single-largest industry in New York

state; farming provides locally produced, fresh commodities; agricultural

diversity promotes economic stability; agriculture promotes open space and

promotes environmental quality; agricultural land does not increase the demand

for services provided by county or local governments. In order to maintain a

viable agricultural economy in Erie county, farmers must be afforded protection

allowing them the right to farm. When non-agricultural land uses extend into

agricultural areas, agricultural operations may become the subject of nuisance

lawsuits. As a result, agricultural operations are sometimes forced to cease

operations or are discouraged from making investments in farm improvements.

It is the policy of the county to reduce the loss of agricultural resources by

limiting the circumstances under which agricultural and residential purposes

may conflict and to allow agricultural practices inherent to and necessary for the

business of farming to proceed and be undertaken free of unreasonable and

unwarranted interference or restriction.

The county legislature finds, declares and determines that chapter 797 of the

laws of 1992 provides an important foundation for achieving the right to farm

protection sought in Erie county and that in order to address the unique

circumstances facing agriculture in Erie county, it is necessary to provide for

more comprehensive local right to farm protection.

Section 3. Definitions. As used in this local law, the following terms shall have

the following meanings:

"Agricultural practices" shall mean all activities conducted by a farmer on a

farm to produce agricultural products and which are inherent and necessary to

the operation of a farm including, but not limited to, the collection,

transportation, distribution, storage and land application of animal wastes;

storage, transportation and use of equipment for tillage, planting, harvesting,

irrigation, fertilization and pesticide application; storage and use of legally

permitted fertilizers, limes and pesticides all in accordance with local, state and

federal law and regulations and in accordance with manufacturers' instructions

and warnings; storage, use and application of animal feed and foodstuffs;

construction and use of farm structures and facilities for the storage of animal

wastes, farm equipment, pesticides, fertilizers, agricultural products and

livestock, for the processing of animal wastes and agricultural products, for the

sale of agricultural products, and for the use of farm labor, as permitted by local

and state building codes and regulations; including construction and

maintenance of fences and lanes;

"Agricultural products" shall mean those products as defined in subdivision 2 of

section 301 of the agriculture and markets law;

"Farm" shall mean the land, buildings and machinery usable in the production,

whether for profit or otherwise, of agricultural products;

"Farmer" shall mean any person, organization, entity, association, partnership or

corporation engaged in the raising of crops, or the raising of livestock or livestock

products as defined in subdivision 2 of section 301 of the agriculture and markets

law, or the business of agriculture, whether for profit or otherwise, including the

cultivation of land, the raising of poultry, fish, or fur-bearing animals, the

harvesting of timber or the practice of horticulture, aquaculture, apiculture or

viticulture; "Generally accepted agricultural practices" shall mean those practices

which are lawful, customary, reasonable, safe and necessary to the industry as

they pertain to the practices listed in subdivision a of section 3 of this local law.

Section 4. Right to farm declaration.

Farmers, as well as those employed, retained or otherwise authorized to act on

behalf of farmers, may lawfully engage in agricultural practices within Erie

county at all such times and all such locations as are reasonably necessary to

conduct the business of agriculture. For any agricultural practice, in determining

the reasonableness of the time, place and methodology of such practice, due

weight and consideration shall be given both to traditional customs and

procedures in the farming industry as well as to advances resulting from

increased knowledge and improved technologies.

Agricultural practices conducted on farmland shall not violate the public policy

of Erie county if such agricultural practices are: (i) reasonable and necessary to

the particular farm or farm operation; (ii) conducted in a manner which is not

negligent or reckless; (iii) conducted in conformity with generally accepted

agricultural practices; (iv) conducted in conformity with all local, state and

federal laws, ordinances and regulations; (v) conducted in a manner which does

not constitute a threat to public health and safety or cause injury to health and

safety of any person; and (vi) conducted in a manner which does not

unreasonably obstruct the free passage or use of navigable waters or public

roadways.

Nothing in this local law shall be construed to prohibit an aggrieved party from

recovering damages for bodily injury or wrongful death due to negligence or

recklessness.

Section 5. Real Property Sale Disclosure Notice.

When any purchase and sale contract is presented for the sale, purchase, or

exchange of residential real property located within the county of Erie, the

contract of sale shall include a disclosure notice, which states the following:

It is the policy of Erie county to conserve, protect and encourage the

development and improvement of agricultural land for the production of food

and other products, and also for its natural and ecological value. This disclosure

notice is to inform prospective residents that farming activities occur within Erie

county. Such farming activities may include, but not be limited to, activities that

cause noise, dust, fumes, odors, smoke, insects, operation of machinery during

any hour of the day or evening, storage and disposal of plant and animal waste

products, and the application of fertilizers, soil amendments, and pesticides by

ground or aerial spraying or other method. Property owners and residents of Erie

county should be aware that farmers have the right to undertake generally

accepted practices and one should expect such conditions as a normal and

necessary aspect of living in an agricultural area.

The failure to include such disclosure notice shall not affect the validity of such

purchase and sale contract.

Section 6. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this

local law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,

such adjudication shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof,

but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or

section thereof directly involved in the proceeding or action in which such

adjudication has been rendered.

Section 7. Review committee. No later than December 31, 2000, the chairman

of the Erie county legislature shall appoint and convene a review committee to

evaluate this local law. The review committee shall be comprised of a cross-

section of the community that will include, but not be limited to representatives

of the legislature and other appropriate representatives. The review committee

shall provide the legislature with its findings and recommendations with respect

to this local law no later than the first day of July 2001.

Section 8. This local law shall be effective the first day of January 2000.

CHARLES M. SWANICK

FREDERICK J. MARSHALL

WILLIAM A. PAULY

JEANNE Z. CHASE

JUDITH P. FISHER

BARRY A. WEINSTEIN, MD

MICHAEL H. RANZENHOFER

GEORGE A. HOLT, JR.

ALBERT DEBENEDETTI

CRYSTAL D. PEOPLES

GREGORY B. OLMA

LYNN M. MARINELLI

JOHN W. GREENAN

DALE W. LARSON

RAYMOND K. DUSZA

MICHAEL A. FITZPATRICK

EDWARD J. KUWIK

RP-305 (12/11) (Update)

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION & FINANCE

OFFICE OF REAL PROPERTY TAX SERVICES

AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

UPDATE

Notice: To Landowners applying for an Agricultural Assessment

By filing this application, the landowner agrees that the lands that benefit from an agricultural assessment

will be liable for payment in the event that the land is converted to a nonagricultural use. This provision is

explained below.

CONSEQUENCE OF CONVERTING LAND TO A NONAGRICULTURAL USE:

The consequence of a conversion is a payment based on five times the taxes saved in the most recent year of

benefit. The payment also includes a six percent interest charge compounded annually for each year during

the last five, in which the land received an agricultural assessment. An encumbrance for this potential

payment runs with the land from the last time the parcel benefited for five years in an Agricultural District

and for eight years outside a district.

For land located outside an agricultural district the obligation to make a payment for conversion creates a lien

against the entire parcel, even if only a portion of the parcel benefited from the agricultural assessment.

Recent Program Changes

The land under an “agricultural amusement” such as a corn maze or a hay bale maze may be eligible for

an agricultural assessment if the maze is produced from crops grown on the farm and those crops are

harvested and marketed in the same manner as other crops that are produced on the farm.

“Commercial equine operations” have been included in the definition of “farm operations” for purposes

of the Agricultural Districts Law. Such a change now enables such enterprises to receive agricultural

assessments and gain agricultural district protections. To be a commercial equine operation for this

purpose, the enterprise must consist of at least seven acres, must stable at least 10 horses, regardless of

ownership, and must receive at least $10,000 in gross receipts annually from fees generated through (1)

commercial equine activities including, but not limited to riding lessons, trail riding activities or training

of horses – but not horse racing – or through (2) the production for sale of crops, livestock, and

livestock products, or through both (1) and (2). An otherwise eligible enterprise that is proposed or in its

first or second year of operation may qualify as a commercial equine operation if it consists of at least

seven acres and stables at least 10 horses, regardless of ownership, by the end of the first year of

operation.

This brief explanation of major provisions of the amended agricultural districts law should be fully

understood by you prior to application. If you do not understand, contact your attorney.

RP-305 (12/11)

NYS DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION & FINANCE

OFFICE OF REAL PROPERTY TAX SERVICES

AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT APPLICATION

FOR THE 20__ ASSESSMENT ROLL

Renewal Form RP-305-r may be filed with the Assessor for each year hereafter if this application is approved and there are no changes

in any

information entered on this application form.

TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSOR

Application Date Tax Map Number Exemption Amount

Exemption Code

41720-County Formed Ag. Dist.

41730-Outside Ag. District

41750-New orchard/vineyard

Soil maps filed on ____/____/____

Soil group worksheet filed on ____/____/____

Soil map or soil worksheet modification (use RP-305-d) ____/____/____ ____/____/____

Sent Received

Property located in an established agricultural district? Yes No

Form RP-305-a sent

_______________________________________________________________________________ _____/_____/_____

Assessor’s Signature Date

INFORMATION TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT

Tax Map Number Acres Is parcel in an agricultural district? Yes No

If Yes, provide County District Number _____________________

Mailing Address Property Location

Landowner Name

Number and Street

City State ZIP Code

Telephone: Day No. __________________

Evening No. __________________

Email address (optional) __________________

Same as Mailing Address (check)

Number and Street

City State ZIP Code

County Town Village

CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANT

I, __________________________________ certify that the information entered on this application constitutes a true

statement of facts to the best of my knowledge and that all lands described are used for the purposes stated herein. I have

read the notice page explaining the consequences for converting land to a nonagricultural use and understand that conversion

of this parcel may subject it to payments based upon the amount of taxes saved.

_______________________________________ _________________________________________

Date Signature of Owner

PENALTY FOR FALSE STATEMENTS: A person making false statements on an application for exemption is guilty of an offense

punishable by law.

(Continued on next page)

RP-305 (12/11) Page 2

General information can be found on pages 6 and 7. Instructions for the completion of Parts 1 though 9 can be found on pages 7, 8

and 9 of this form. All applicants must complete Parts 1 and 9. Applicants seeking an agricultural assessment for land used to support

a commercial horse boarding operation must complete Part 5. Applicants seeking similar benefits on land used to support a

commercial equine operation must complete Part 6. Applicants whose land was rented and used in the preceding two years to produce

for sale crops, livestock or livestock products, but which does not independently satisfy the gross sales value requirement of the

Agriculture and Markets Law, must complete Part 8. Complete all other Parts that apply.

Part 1. Use of Land: Refer to Soil Group Worksheet (APD-1) to complete Part 1.

(1) Agricultural Land

a. Land used to produce crops, livestock or livestock products. Amount of land actually used to produce for

sale crops, livestock or livestock products (not including woodland products) in the preceding two years.

Acres

b. Land used to support a commercial horse boarding operation. Amount of land used to support a

commercial horse boarding operation during the past two years.

Acres

c. Land used to support a commercial equine operation. Amount of land used to support a commercial

equine operation equine operation during the past two years.

Acres

d. Support Land. Amount of land which was not used to produce crops, livestock or livestock products but was

used in support of the farm operation or in support of land used to produce crops, livestock or livestock

products. (Does not include land used under agricultural amusements – see instructions).

Acres

e. Land participating in federal conservation program. Amount of land set aside through participation in a

U.S. government conservation program established pursuant to Title 1 of the Federal Food Security Act of

1985 or any subsequent federal program. (Assessor will need Farm Service Agency documentation.)

Acres

f. Land under a structure in which crops, livestock or livestock products are produced. Amount of land

located under a structure in which crops, livestock or livestock products have been produced during the

preceding two years.

Acres

TOTAL acres in agricultural land (sum of a, b, c, d, e, f)

(1)

Acres

(2) Farm Woodland (up to 50 acres) Amount of land used for the production for sale of woodland products in the

preceding two years. Acreage consisting of sugarbush or Christmas tree cultivation should be included in Part

(1)a above.

(2)

Acres

(3) Excess Farm Woodland (woodland exceeding 50 acre limit on any parcel)

(3)

Acres

(4) Newly planted orchards, vineyards or Christmas trees of a newly established farm operation.

(4)

Acres

(5) Nonagricultural land. Include any land in the parcel which is not included above

(5)

Acres

TOTAL acres in parcel (The figure entered in this box should equal the sum of the amounts entered in the boxes 1, 2,

3, 4, and 5 above.)

Acres

Part 2. Other agricultural land owned by the applicant: Identify any other land owned by the applicant which is used in conjunction

with land identified in Part 1 above to produce crops, livestock or livestock products or to support a commercial horse boarding or

commercial equine operation. Use additional sheets if necessary.

Tax Map No.____________________________ Location __________________________________ No. of Acres ________________

Part 3. Other agricultural property rented by applicant: Identify any other land rented from another and used to produce crops,

livestock or livestock products in conjunction with the land described in Part 1 above. Use additional sheets if necessary.

Tax Map No.____________________________ Location __________________________________ No. of Acres ________________

(Continued on next page)

RP-305 (12/11) Page 3

Part 4. Average gross sales value:

Note: Newly established farm operations should enter annual gross sales only for the first or second year of production.

Year One

Year Two

a. Enter the gross sales value of any agricultural products (not including woodland products) produced for sale in the

preceding two years on land owned by the applicant (see Part (1) a and Part (2). For land rented by the applicant

from another see Part 3. (Include federal farm program payments if applicable.)

a $ $

b. Enter the gross sales value up to a maximum annual amount of $2,000 of any woodland products produced for sale

in the preceding two years on land owned by the applicant (see Part 1 (2) and Part 2). Note: The gross sales value

of maple syrup/sap and Christmas trees produced on the applicant’s land should be included in Part 4a above.

c. Enter the market value of crops in their unprocessed state which were produced during the preceding two years on

land owned by the applicant or rented by the appli

cant from another which were not sold unprocessed but were

processed on the farm to make other products and thereafter sold.

Enter the gross sales value up to a maximum of $5,000 of the farm operation’s annual gross sales value derived

from the operation’s sale of its compost, mulch or other organic biomass crops.

TOTAL GROSS SALES VALUE FOR TWO YEAR PERIOD

TWO YEAR AVERAGE GROSS SALES VALUE

Part 5. Land used to support a commercial horse boarding operation:

(a) Number of acres in parcel used to support a horse boarding operation: ________________ acres.

If the number of acres is less than seven, Part 2 above must be completed to establish eligibility for an agricultural assessment.

(b) Did the boarding operation board ten or more horses throughout the preceding two years? Yes No

Note: Newly established farm operations should enter annual gross sales only for the first or second year of production.

Year one

Year two

Fees generated through boarding of horses

Fees generated through production of sale of crops, livestock and livestock products

TOTALS

$ $

Part 6. Land used to support a commercial equine operation

(a) Number of acres in parcel used to support an equine operation: _____________ acres.

If the number of acres is less than seven, Part 2 above must be completed to establish eligibility for an agricultural assessment.

(b) Did the equine operation stable ten or more horses throughout the preceding two years? Yes No

Note: Newly established farm operations should enter annual gross sales only for the first or second year of production.

Year one

Year two

Fees generated through equine operations

Fees generated through production of sale of crops, livestock and livestock products

TOTALS

$ $

Part 7. Land under a structure within which crops, livestock or livestock products are produced:

Note: Newly established farm operations should enter annual gross sales only for the first or second year of production.

Year one

Year two

(a) Gross sales value of the crops, livestock or livestock products produced in the

structure(s) in the preceding two years

(b)

(c)

(d) Total gross sales value for two year period (b) + (c)

(d)

(e) Average gross sales value for preceding two years (d / 2) (e)

(Continued on next page)

RP-305 (12/11) Page 4

Part 8: Land rented to others:

(a) Is any portion of the parcel rented to another party? Yes No (If the answer is No, proceed to Part 9 on page 4.)

(b) Has the land been used during the preceding two years to produce crops, livestock or livestock products exclusive of woodland

products and is such production continuing during the current year?

Yes No

Note: Newly established farm operations should enter annual gross sales only for the first or second year of production.

Year one

Year two

1. Gross sales value of the crops, livestock or livestock products (exclusive of woodland

products) produced on the rented land which can be independently verified

(a)

(b)

2. Total gross sales value for two year period (a) + (b) (c)

3. Average gross sales value for preceding two years (c / 2) (d)

If amount is less than $10,000 or cannot be independently verified, complete items d, e, f and g of Part 8 below.

(d) Name and mailing address of party to whom land is rented:

(e) Number of acres rented to party identified in Part 8d and used in agricultural production: ______________ (acres).

(f) Is the land leased pursuant to a written rental arrangement? Yes No

Period of time for which lease is in effect: ______ years

Attach a copy of the lease or an affidavit (Form RP-305-c) attesting to the existence of the lease.

(g) Does the party to whom the land is rented own or operate other land that is used in conjunction with this rented land and which

qualifies for an agricultural assessment?

Yes No

If the answer is Yes, provide the following information for the other land being used in conjunction with the land which is the

subject of this application.

Owner: ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Location of property: __________________________________________ Tax Map No.: ___________________________

If the other land is located in a different town or assessing unit, enter the date that an application for an agricultural assessment was

submitted to the local assessor: ___________________________________________

(Continued on next page)

RP-305 (12/11) Page 5

Part 9. Certified Value on Eligible Agricultural Lands:

The applicant must complete column 2 below of the chart “CERTIFIED VALUE ON ELIGIBLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS.” The

number of acres in each mineral or organic soil group is to be copied from the soil group worksheet APD-1 prepared by the Soil and

Water Conservation District Office. Note: The number of acres of qualified farm woodland is given on the soil group worksheet. The

maximum number of acres of farm woodland eligible for an agricultural assessment is 50 acres per parcel. Where the applicant

completes Part 8d through 8g on page 3, the total number of acres in the mineral and organic soil groups may not exceed the number

of acres indicated in Part 8e, and the number of acres of farm woodland must be zero.

CERTIFIED VALUE ON ELIGIBLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS

Applicant, please fill in shaded area of column 2.

APPLICANT

ASSESSOR’S USE ONLY

MINERAL SOIL GROUP ACRES

ACRE/RATING

MODIFICATIONS

CERTIFIED

VALUE PER ACRE

COL. 2 OR 3

TIMES COL. 4

ORGANIC SOIL GROUP

(MUCK)

SOIL GROUP TOTAL

ELIGIBLE

FARM WOODLAND

50 ACRES MAXIMUM

Newly Planted Orchards,

Vineyards or Christmas Trees

TOTAL ELIGIBLE ACRES

TOTAL CERTIFIED VALUE

ASSESSOR’S USE ONLY

Assessor’s agricultural assessment calculation on eligible agricultural lands

Total Certified Value x Equalization Rate = Total Agricultural Assessment

_________________ x ______________ = _________________________

Additional Calculations:

RP-305 (12/11) Page 6

ASSESSOR’S USE ONLY

WORKSHEET FOR APPORTIONMENT OF FARM ASSESSMENT

Assessor may use RPS 4 to complete these calculations.

ACRES

LAND

IMPROVEMENTS

TOTAL

A. Total Assessment

$ $ $

B. Assessed Value of Parcel Excluding Eligible

Agricultural Land

1. Owner’s residence and associated land

2. Farm structures (barns and other farm

improvements including fruit tree/vine

support structures) not qualified for

RPTL Sec. 483 exemption...........................

3. Other structures (processing plant, retail

store, etc.)

4. Ineligible land

(include excess woodland acreage)

5. Total (lines 1, 2, 3 and 4)

________

…….….

________

$____________

…………………

____________

$____________

$_______________

$_____________

C. Agricultural Assessment of Parcel

1. Assessed value of eligible land before

agricultural assessment (line A minus line B5)

2. Assessed value of fruit tree/vine support

structures on eligible land not qualified for

RPTL Sec. 483 exemption

3. Total lines C1 and C2

4. Total agricultural assessment on eligible

land (from page 4)

5. Excess value, if any (line 3 minus line 4)

$_____________

D. Total Taxable Assessment Before Adjustment

for Other Exemptions (line B5 plus line C1 or

B5 plus line C4, whichever is lower)

$_____________

E. Other Exemptions

1. Veterans

2. RPTL Sec. 483 New Construction

3. RPTL Sec. 483-a

4. Other

5. Total

$_____________

F. Total Taxable Assessed Value

(line D minus line E5)

$_____________

G. 1. Application Approved

2. Approved as Modified

3. Disapproved

Reason for Modification or Disapproval _______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Amount of Exemption (from line C5 of Apportionment Worksheet above)

Enter this amount in exempt column of assessment roll, and on top of page 1, $_______________

Clear Form

RP-305 (12/11) Page 7

GENERAL INFORMATION AND FILING REQUIREMENTS

Extent of exemption. The agricultural assessment value per

acre certified by the Office of Real Property Tax Services

when equalized by the assessor becomes an agricultural

assessment. If the application is approved, the portion of the

assessed value of eligible agricultural lands which exceeds the

agricultural assessment, if any, will be exempt. No exemption

results unless the assessed value of land described in the

application exceeds its agricultural assessment.

Application. To qualify agricultural land for an agricultural

assessment, the landowner must annually file an application

for each separately assessed parcel with the local assessor. If

an initial application is approved and an agricultural

assessment granted, renewal Form RP-305-r may be filed in

succeeding years to renew the application provided no

changes regarding the parcel have occurred since the last

submission of Form RP-305. A soil group worksheet and soil

map prepared by the Soil and Water Conservation District

Office must be filed as part of the application, unless as a

result of a prior application, the assessor has a soil group

worksheet and soil map on file which accurately describes the

parcel. A landowner may exclude from the applications any

portion of a parcel which is capable of being separately

identified.

Place of filing application. The application must be filed

with the city, town or village assessor (if the village assesses).

If the property is located in a village that assesses, an

application must be filed with both the town and the village

assessor. In Nassau and Tompkins Counties, the application

must be filed with the county assessors.

Time of filing application. The application must be filed on

or before the taxable status date of the city, town or village (if

the village assesses). EXCEPTIONS: In year of a

revaluation or update of assessments, the application may be

filed with the assessor no later than the thirtieth day prior to

the day by which the tentative assessment roll is required to be

filed by law. In the case of land located within an agricultural

district, the application may be filed with the assessor no later

than the last date on which an assessment complaint may be

filed when (1) a licensed physician certifies that the failure to

file the application by taxable status date resulted from the

death of the applicant’s spouse, child, parent, brother or sister,

or the illness of the applicant or the applicant’s spouse, child,

parent, brother or sister; or (2) the failure to file the

application by taxable status date resulted from the occurrence

of a natural disaster, including, but not limited to, a flood, or

the destruction of the applicant’s residence, barn or other farm

building by wind, fire or flood.

Notice of approval, denial or modification of application.

The applicant must provide the assessor with a stamped, self-

addressed envelope at the time of application in order to

receive notice of the approval, denial or modification of the

application.

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT

1. Agricultural land is eligible for an agricultural assessment

if it satisfies all the requirements set forth in any one of the

following alternatives:

(A) The land consists of at least seven acres which have

been used to produce crops, livestock or livestock products for

sale in the preceding two years.

The crops, livestock or livestock products produced on

such land, including land rented by the applicant from another

and used in conjunction with agricultural land owned by the

applicant, must have an average gross sales value of at least

$10,000 for the two years preceding the application.

Whenever a crop is processed prior to sale, average gross sales

value shall be based upon the market value of the crop in its

unprocessed state.

(B) The land consists of less than seven acres which have

been used to produce crops, livestock or livestock products for

sale in the preceding two years.

The crops, livestock or livestock products produced

on such land, and on any land rented by the applicant from

another and used in conjunction with the applicant’s land to

produce for sale crops, livestock or livestock products, must

have an average gross sales value of at least $50,000 for the

two years preceding the application. For a crop processed

prior to sale, the average gross sales value shall be based upon

the market value of the crop in its unprocessed state.

used during the preceding two years to support a commercial

horse boarding operation with annual gross receipts of

$10,000 or more.

A commercial horse boarding operation is defined as

an agricultural enterprise consisting of at least seven acres and

boarding at least ten horses, regardless of ownership, which

receives $10,000 or more in gross receipts annually from fees

generated through the boarding of horses, the production for

sale of crops, livestock or livestock products, or both such

boarding and such production.

(D) The land consists of at least seven acres of which all

or part has been set aside through participation in a U.S.

government conservation program established pursuant to

Title 1 of the Federal Food Security Act of 1985 or any

subsequent federal farm program. No minimum gross sales is

required for the participating lands. Non-participating lands

still must meet the $10,000 gross sales minimum and federal

program payments may be applied to establish the minimum

gross sales value.

(E) The land used in agricultural production is a newly

established farm operation and has annual gross sales of

$10,000 and seven or more acres in agricultural production, or

annual gross sales of $50,000 and less than seven such acres,

in the first or second year of production, and meets the other

RP-305 (12/11) Page 8

eligibility requirements of A, B, or C above. If the newly

established farm is a commercial horse boarding operation, no

less than seven acres must be used to support the horse

boarding operation, at least ten horses must be boarded, and

the operation must have annual gross receipts of $10,000 or

more.

(F) The land used in agricultural production consists of at

least seven acres, is owned or rented by a newly established

farm operation, and is used solely for the production for sale

of orchard or vineyard crops or Christmas trees. Such land

may be eligible for an agricultural assessment, not-

withstanding the fact that the new orchard or vineyard does

not produce crops for sale for four years after planting or the

Christmas trees are not harvested for sale for five years after

planting.

(G) The land used in agricultural production supports an

apiary products operation, is owned by the operation, and

consists of not less than seven and not more than ten acres

with an average gross sales value of $10,000 or more, or

comprises less than seven acres with an average gross sales

value of $50,000 or more.

(H) Rented land located within an agricultural district

used by a not for profit institution for agricultural research

intended to improve the quality or quantity of crops, livestock

or livestock products.

(I) The land consists of at least seven acres and has been

used during the preceding two years to support a commercial

equine operation with annual receipts of $10,000 or more. A

commercial equine operation is defined as an agricultural

enterprise consisting of at least seven acres and stabling at

least ten horses, regardless of ownership that receives $10,000

or more in gross receipts annually from fees generated through

1) the provisions of commercial equine activities including but

not limited to riding lessons, trail riding activities or training

horses (but not horse racing), 2) production for the sale of

crops, livestock and livestock products, or through both 1) and

2). An otherwise eligible operation proposed in its first or

second year of operation may qualify as a commercial

operation if it consists of at least seven acres and stables at

least ten horses, regardless of ownership, by the end of the

first year of operation.

2. Agricultural land rented to another and used during the

preceding two years to produce for sale crops, livestock or

livestock products, but which does not independently satisfy

the gross sales value of the Agriculture and Markets Law, may

nevertheless be eligible for an agricultural assessment, if the

following conditions are satisfied:

- The land must consist of at least seven acres and be used

as part of a single operation to produce crops, livestock

or livestock products (exclusive of woodland products)

in the preceding two years;

- The land must currently be used to produce crops,

livestock or livestock products (exclusive of woodland

products) under a written rental arrangement of five or

more years; and

- The land must be used in conjunction with other land

which qualifies for an agricultural assessment.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANT

For Questions on page 2

Part 1 Use of Land

For Part 1, the data from the Soil Group Worksheet

(APD-1) should be used. Further breakdowns of the

“(1) Agricultural Land” category by land use should be

shown in (1) a through (1) f explained below.

(1) a. Land actually used to produce crops, livestock or

livestock products may include cropland, muck, orchards,

vineyards and pasture. For this purpose crops, livestock and

livestock products include, but are not limited to, the

following: field crops, fruits, vegetables, horticultural

specialties, Christmas trees, cattle, horses, poultry, ratites,

wool bearing animals such as alpacas and llamas, milk, eggs,

furs, maple sap or syrup, honey, beeswax, royal jelly, bee

pollen, propolis, package bees, nucs, queens, aquacultural

products and woody biomass.

(1) b. Land used to support a commercial horse boarding

operation. Amount of land used to support a commercial

horse boarding operation during the past two years.

(1) c. Land used to support a commercial equine

operation. Amount of land used to support a

commercial equine operation during the past two years.

(1) d. Support land may include farm ponds, swamps used

for drainage, land used for erosion control, hedgerows,

access roads, land under farm buildings, dikes and levies

used for flood protection, drainage ditches and land used

for farm waste management. Support land may also

include any other minor acreage that is located amid,

between or on the perimeter of cropland, orchards,

vineyards and land used to pasture livestock, so long as

the land is not farm woodland or nonagricultural land

(see instructions below for line (1) e.). Support land

further may include a buffer area owned and maintained

by an apiary products operation between the operation

and adjacent landowners. (The total area of an apiary

products operation, including support land, may not

exceed ten acres. (Support land does not include land

used under agricultural amusements).

RP-305 (12/11)

(1) e. Land participating in federal conservation program.

Amount of land set aside through participation in a U.S.

government conservation program established pursuant to

Title 1 of the Federal Food Security Act of 1985 or any

subsequent federal program.

(1) f. Land under a structure in which crops, livestock or

livestock products are produced. Amount of land located

under a structure in which crops, livestock or livestock

products have been produced during the preceding two years.

(1) Agricultural Land - total from Soil Group

Worksheet.

(2) Farm woodland means land, primarily used for the

production for sale of woodland products (logs, lumber, posts,

firewood, etc.), where such land is used as a single operation

and is contiguous with cropland, orchards, vineyards or land

used to pasture livestock. Lands divided by state, county or

town roads, railroads or energy transmission corridors will be

considered contiguous. Woodland acreage exceeding 50 acres

on any parcel should be in Part 1 (3), excess farm woodland.

Enter number of acres from section D (2) of the Soil Group

Worksheet.

(3) Excess Farm Woodland (over 50 acres) - enter

number of acres from section D (3) of the Soil Group

Worksheet.

(4) Newly Planted Orchards, Vineyards or Christmas

Trees of a Newly Established Farm Operation. Land of not

less than seven acres used solely by a newly established farm

operation for new orchards or vineyards may qualify for an

agricultural assessment for four years after planting,

notwithstanding the fact that no crops are produced for sale.

Land of not less than seven acres used solely by such a farm

operation for new Christmas trees may qualify for an

agricultural assessment for five years after planting,

notwithstanding the fact that no trees are harvested for sale.

Eligible fruit trees, grape vines or Christmas trees may be

planted in the new farm’s first or second year of operation.

(5) Nonagricultural land - Ineligible land uses,

including but not limited to the following: landowner’s

residence and lot, gravel quarry or other mineral, oil or natural

gas extraction, commercial hunting and game preserves as

well as any other commercial recreational uses such as

camping and athletic facilities and parks, retail establishments

of any kind including restaurants, lodging facilities and

roadside stands used for sale of crops, livestock, or livestock

products, processing facilities, sawmills, and fertilizer plants.

Nonagricultural land does not include qualified farm

woodland or support land. Also, any acreage withheld from

the agricultural assessment program by the landowner should

be entered in the nonagricultural category.

Page 9

Part 2. Other agricultural land owned by the applicant.

Land contained within separately assessed parcels owned by

the applicant and used for agricultural production in

conjunction with the subject parcel is considered part of the

applicant’s farm unit for purposes of satisfying any minimum

acreage or gross sales requirements.

Part 3. Other agricultural land rented by the applicant.

The gross sales value of agricultural products produced on

land rented by the applicant from another person and used in

conjunction with the subject parcel may be included when

determining whether the gross sales requirement is satisfied.

Note: For parts 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 newly established farm

operations should enter annual gross sales only for the first

or second year of production.

Part 4. Average Gross Sales Value. To qualify for an

agricultural assessment, an applicant must show that the crops,

livestock or livestock products produced for sale in the

preceding two years on the land for which application is being

made had an average gross sales value of at least $10,000.

Gross sales value may include sales of agricultural products or

market value of crops

processed prior to sale in their

unprocessed state produced on (1) agricultural land described

in this application; (2) other parcels owned by the applicant

and used in conjunction with the subject parcel; and (3) land

rented by the applicant from another person and used in

conjunction with the subject parcel. Also, certain federal farm

program and thoroughbred breeder payments may be included.

To calculate average gross sales value for the preceding two

years the applicant should add the actual gross receipts derived

from the sale, or, where applicable, the market value of

agricultural products produced on the land described above,

and divide the sum by two. Sales are to be reported on the

basis of the most recent two income tax years prior to the date

of the application. Market value should be based on the value

at time of harvest in the preceding two years. The assessor

may ask for substantiation of gross sales value, which may be

made by bookkeeping records, income tax returns, types of

crops used for processing, etc.

NOTE: If an Act of God, natural disaster or continued

adverse weather conditions results in the destruction of a

significant portion of the agricultural production on any of the

property for which application is being made such that the

average gross sales value of the two preceding years is less

than $10,000, the applicant is advised to submit with this

application a completed Form RP-305-b: Application for

Exception From Minimum Average Gross Sales Value

Requirement, of Article 25AA of the Agricultural and Markets

Law.

RP-305 (12/11)

For Questions on Page 3

Part 5. Land used to support a commercial horse

boarding operation. “Commercial horse boarding operation”

means an agricultural enterprise, consisting of at least seven

acres and boarding at least ten horses regardless of ownership,

that receives ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more in gross

receipts annually from fees generated either through the

boarding of horses, the production for sale of crops, livestock,

and livestock products, or both such boarding and such

production. Such operations shall not include operations

whose primary on site function is horse racing.

Part 6. Land used to support a commercial equine

operation. “Commercial equine operation” means an

agricultural enterprise, consisting of at least seven acres and

stabling at least ten horses regardless of ownership that

receives $10,000 or more in gross receipts annually from fees

generated through 1) the provisions of commercial equine

activities including, but not limited to, riding lessons, trail

riding or training of horses (but not horse racing), 2)

production for sale of crops, livestock or livestock products, or

through both 1) and 2). An otherwise eligible operation

proposed or in its first or second year of operation may qualify

as a commercial equine operation if it consists of at least seven

acres and stables at least ten horses, regardless of ownership,

by the end of the first year of operation.

Page 10

Part 8. Land rented to others. Land that the applicant rents

to another person, used as a single operation for the production

for sale of crops, livestock or livestock products (exclusive of

woodland products) in the preceding two years with an

average gross sales value of less than $10,000 may be eligible

to receive an agricultural assessment if certain requirements

are satisfied. To qualify for an agricultural assessment the

applicant must rent to another person at least seven acres of

land used to produce crops, livestock or livestock products,

exclusive of woodland products. Land actually used to

produce crops, livestock or livestock products may include

cropland, muck, orchards, vineyards and pasture.

8f. To qualify for an agricultural assessment the rented

land must be used in agricultural production under a five year

written rental arrangement. NOTE: Rental arrangement is

defined as a “written lease signed by both of the parties to the

agreement.” The applicant must provide documentation

concerning the existence and term of the rental arrangement (a

copy of the lease or an affidavit attesting to the existence of

such a lease (Form RP-305-c).

8g. To qualify for an agricultural assessment the rented

land must be used in conjunction with other land which

qualifies for an agricultural assessment. The applicant should

indicate the owner, tax map number and location of this other

land. The assessor may require substantiation of the fact that

the other land qualifies for an agricultural assessment. Use

side 2 of Form RP-305-c.

Part 7. Land under a structure within which crops,

livestock or livestock products are produced.

For Questions on Page 4

Part 9. Certified value on eligible agricultural lands.

Applicants must complete column 2 of Part 9 on page 4. See

instructions on page 4.

CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT

The applicant must complete the certification on the bottom of page 1.

10 A F T’ Planning for Agriculture in New York

Is Your COUNTY Planning a Future for Farms?



Encourage Public Appreciation

for Agriculture

Does your county…

YES NO





Most New Yorkers did not grow up on

a farm, and many have never visited a farm. Giving

people a chance to learn about farming and celebrate

local farms is an important, and enjoyable, learning

experience!

YES NO





Public oﬃcials are key players

in deciding the future of farming in New York. It’s

important that these leaders have the chance to

learn about agriculture and better understand how

they can support farming in their role as community

leaders.

YES NO



e media is a key ally

in educating the public about the importance of

agriculture and issues facing local farmers. Providing

statistics, perspectives and resources to local media

can generate informed coverage of agricultural issues.

YES NO



Educating kids about

eating healthy food is critical to solving many public

health problems and ensuring that future generations

appreciate the importance of local farms.

YES NO

e

contributions made by farmers to the local economy,

environment and community are often overlooked.

Awards, media events and other eﬀorts to recognize

these contributions help encourage local farmers,

while reinforcing the many beneﬁts that agriculture

provides to New York communities.

YES NO



Counties can provide important

data, maps and other information to towns that

are looking for information. Cost of Community

Services studies, economic reports, land use maps

and other resources that are provided by counties can

help municipalities make informed decisions.

Strengthen Economic

Opportunities for Farmers and

Related Businesses

Does your county…

YES NO

Agriculture supports

thousands of jobs across New York. Food processors

and other agribusinesses are also critical parts of

the state’s economy. ese farm and food businesses

should be treated like other sectors of the economy

and provided with business planning services,

ﬁnancing and other incentives to retain and expand

jobs in these industries.

YES NO





Consumers can have a big

impact on the bottom line of many farmers by

choosing to buy local farm products. Buy local

marketing campaigns can educate people about

the beneﬁts of local products and how they can be

purchased.

YES NO





Public and private institutions that

A F T’ Planning for Agriculture in New York 11

purchase local farm products can make a real

diﬀerence in the farm economy due to the scale of

their purchasing power. Encouraging, or requiring,

local food purchasing by institutions can help keep

food dollars in a community and magnify the impact

of this spending.

YES NO



Farms are not only a beautiful part of

New York’s scenic landscape, many also oﬀer enjoyable

experiences for families and tourists. U-pick farms,

corn mazes, pumpkin patches, horse riding, wine

tasting and other on-farm experiences should be

marketed along with other area tourism activities.

Encourage Long-term

Viability of Farming and Food

Production

Does your county…

YES NO





Such

programs not only teach young people important

leadership skills, they ensure a skilled workforce for

area farms and related businesses.

YES NO



Too often,

agriculture is overlooked as a major component of the

economy in New York. Local and regional economic

development strategies should make farm and food

jobs a priority and identify strategies for retaining

existing jobs and expanding new jobs in these sectors.

YES NO







Farmers manage roughly seven million acres of

land in New York—roughly 25 percent of the land

in the state. Encouraging environmentally sound

stewardship of soil, water and other natural resources

will encourage a healthy environment and better

opportunities for future generations of farmers.

YES NO







Currently, 50 New York counties have developed

agricultural and farmland protection plans to

direct county action in support of local farms and

protecting irreplaceable farmland. However, these

plans shouldn’t sit on a shelf! Counties should keep

them up-to-date and make an ongoing commitment

of time and resources to implementing them.

Support Positive Relationships

Between Farmers and Others in

Your Community

Does your county…

YES NO







Farming

has unique circumstances that frequently require

alternative rules, regulations or approaches than

other businesses and land uses. Public oﬃcials need

to understand these unique circumstances and

applicable regulations and apply them fairly to farm

businesses.

YES NO





e Agricultural Districts program is one of New

York’s oldest farmland protection tools, and it

provides important right-to-farm protections to New

York farmers. Counties should keep districts current

and use the renewal process as an opportunity to

engage local oﬃcials about issues facing farmers in

these districts.

YES NO







New York’s

Agricultural Districts law requires that local

governments not be unreasonably restrictive

12 A F T’ Planning for Agriculture in New York

in regulating farmers operating in state-

certiﬁed agricultural districts. e New York

State Department of Agriculture and Markets

(NYSDAM) has developed guidance for local

governments about how this standard applies to

a variety of topics related to agriculture. Local

governments are well-advised to use these guidance

documents and contact NYSDAM prior to adopting

new regulations that could impact agriculture.

YES NO







oughtful siting of new houses and

developments, buﬀers between new houses and

neighboring farms, and other planning measures can

help prevent future conﬂicts between farmers and

neighbors.

YES NO

Local right-to-farm

laws can be an important statement in support of

agriculture, while also establishing strategies for

preventing and addressing conﬂicts between farmers

and non-farm neighbors. ese laws can reinforce

protections provided by New York’s Agricultural

Districts program, while oﬀering additional planning

and dispute resolution measures that can prevent

misunderstandings from becoming expensive

conﬂicts.

Protect Agricultural Land and

Keep It Actively Farmed

Does your county…

YES NO



e process of

transferring a farm from one generation to another

is a complicated endeavor. Without proper planning,

the transfer process can result in unnecessary taxes,

family conﬂict or other complications that can push

a farm into being developed.

YES NO







Building such infrastructure in farming areas sends

a strong signal that farming has a limited future

and that new non-farm development is expected.

If infrastructure expansions are necessary, be sure

to establish mitigation measures, such as lateral

restrictions, to limit the spread of development on

productive farmland.

YES NO



Since the 1970s,

New York counties have played an important role

in protecting farms from being lost to development.

Some counties have provided funding to purchase

conservation easements on farms, while others have

facilitated such projects in partnership with local

land trusts and municipalities. While the approach

may diﬀer, all county governments can help ensure

that farmland is protected for future generations.

YES NO



County governments can be a key ally for

municipal governments that are considering zoning,

subdivision or other codes related to agriculture.

Counties can provide maps, statistics and other

resources to support informed decision-making at a

local level.

Total Your Score!

Your results…



Congratulations! You’ve accomplished a great deal

in supporting local farms. But, don’t stop now.

Issues facing agriculture are always changing—stay

diligent!



Your county has made important progress. Keep

engaging farmers and others in doing more to

support local agriculture.



You clearly value local farms but haven’t done

everything necessary to support them. Look again

at the beneﬁts farms provide to your county and

redouble your eﬀorts to support agriculture.



It’s time to get going! Your county has many

opportunities to do more in support of farming.



Your county has a long way to go in supporting

agriculture. But, it’s better to start now than never at

all! Engage local farmers and begin to take action.

A F T’ Planning for Agriculture in New York 13

The FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER (FIC) is a clearinghouse for information about farmland protection and stewardship.

The FIC is a public/private partnership between the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and American Farmland Trust.

American farmland trust · Farmland information center

FACT

SHEET

COST OF

COMMUNITY

SERVICES

STUDIES

DESCRIPTION

Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies are

a case study approach used to determine the

fiscal contribution of existing local land uses.

A subset of the much larger field of fiscal analysis,

COCS studies have emerged as an inexpensive

and reliable tool to measure direct fiscal relation-

ships. Their particular niche is to evaluate working

and open lands on equal ground with residential,

commercial and industrial land uses.

COCS studies are a snapshot in time of costs

versus revenues for each type of land use. They

do not predict future costs or revenues or the

impact of future growth. They do provide a

baseline of current information to help local

officials and citizens make informed land use

and policy decisions.

METHODOLOGY

In a COCS study, researchers organize financial

records to assign the cost of municipal services

to working and open lands, as well as to resi-

dential, commercial and industrial development.

Researchers meet with local sponsors to define

the scope of the project and identify land use

categories to study. For example, working lands

may include farm, forest and/or ranch lands.

Residential development includes all housing,

including rentals, but if there is a migrant agri-

cultural work force, temporary housing for these

workers would be considered part of agricultural

land use. Often in rural communities, commercial

and industrial land uses are combined. COCS

studies findings are displayed as a set of ratios

that compare annual revenues to annual expendi-

tures for a community’s unique mix of land uses.

COCS studies involve three basic steps:

1. Collect data on local revenues and expenditures.

2. Group revenues and expenditures and allocate

them to the community’s major land use

categories.

3. Analyze the data and calculate revenue-to-

expenditure ratios for each land use category.

The process is straightforward, but ensuring

reliable figures requires local oversight. The

most complicated task is interpreting existing

records to reflect COCS land use categories.

Allocating revenues and expenses requires a

significant amount of research, including exten-

sive interviews with financial officers and

public administrators.

HISTORY

Communities often evaluate the impact of growth

on local budgets by conducting or commissioning

fiscal impact analyses. Fiscal impact studies proj-

ect public costs and revenues from different land

development patterns. They generally show that

residential development is a net fiscal loss for

communities and recommend commercial and

industrial development as a strategy to balance

local budgets.

Rural towns and counties that would benefit

from fiscal impact analysis may not have the

expertise or resources to conduct a study. Also,

fiscal impact analyses rarely consider the contri-

bution of working and other open lands, which

is very important to rural economies.

American Farmland Trust (AFT) developed

COCS studies in the mid-1980s to provide

communities with a straightforward and in-

expensive way to measure the contribution of

agricultural lands to the local tax base. Since

then, COCS studies have been conducted in

at least 151 communities in the United States.

FUNCTIONS & PURPOSES

Communities pay a high price for unplanned

growth. Scattered development frequently causes

traffic congestion, air and water pollution, loss

of open space and increased demand for costly

public services. This is why it is important for

citizens and local leaders to understand the rela-

tionships between residential and commercial

growth, agricultural land use, conservation and

their community’s bottom line.

COCS studies help address three misperceptions

that are commonly made in rural or suburban

communities facing growth pressures:

1. Open lands—including productive farms and

forests—are an interim land use that should

be developed to their “highest and best use.”

2. Agricultural land gets an unfair tax break

when it is assessed at its current use value

for farming or ranching instead of at its

potential use value for residential or com-

mercial development.

3. Residential development will lower property

taxes by increasing the tax base.

While it is true that an acre of land with a new

house generates more total revenue than an

acre of hay or corn, this tells us little about

ARMLAND

NFORMATION

CENTER

FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER

(800) 370-4879

www.farmlandinfo.org

MERI

FARMLA

T  FARMLA

RMATI

TER

SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS

Community

Residential

including

farm houses

Commercial

& Industrial

Working &

Open Land Source

Colorado

Custer County 1 : 1.16 1 : 0.71 1 : 0.54 Haggerty, 2000

Sagauche County 1 : 1.17 1 : 0.53 1 : 0.35 Dirt, Inc., 2001

Connecticut

Bolton 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.23 1 : 0.50 Geisler, 1998

Brooklyn 1 : 1.09 1 : 0.17 1 : 0.30 Green Valley Institute, 2002

Durham 1 : 1.07 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.23 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995

Farmington 1 : 1.33 1 : 0.32 1 : 0.31 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995

Hebron 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.47 1 : 0.43 American Farmland Trust, 1986

Lebanon 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.16 1 : 0.17 Green Valley Institute, 2007

Litchfield 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.34 1 : 0.34 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995

Pomfret 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.86 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995

Windham 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.24 1 : 0.19 Green Valley Institute, 2002

Florida

Leon County 1 : 1.39 1 : 0.36 1 : 0.42 Dorfman, 2004

Georgia

Appling County 1 : 2.27 1 : 0.17 1 : 0.35 Dorfman, 2004

Athens-Clarke County 1 : 1.39 1 : 0.41 1 : 2.04 Dorfman, 2004

Brooks County 1 : 1.56 1 : 0.42 1 : 0.39 Dorfman, 2004

Carroll County 1 : 1.29 1 : 0.37 1 : 0.55 Dorfman and Black, 2002

Cherokee County 1 : 1.59 1 : 0.12 1 : 0.20 Dorfman, 2004

Colquitt County 1 : 1.28 1 : 0.45 1 : 0.80 Dorfman, 2004

Columbia County 1 : 1.16 1 : 0.48 1 : 0.52 Dorfman, 2006

Dooly County 1 : 2.04 1 : 0.50 1 : 0.27 Dorfman, 2004

Grady County 1 : 1.72 1 : 0.10 1 : 0.38 Dorfman, 2003

Hall County 1 : 1.25 1 : 0.66 1 : 0.22 Dorfman, 2004

Jackson County 1 : 1.28 1 : 0.58 1 : 0.15 Dorfman, 2008

Jones County 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.65 1 : 0.35 Dorfman, 2004

Miller County 1 : 1.54 1 : 0.52 1 : 0.53 Dorfman, 2004

Mitchell County 1 : 1.39 1 : 0.46 1 : 0.60 Dorfman, 2004

Morgan County 1 : 1.42 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.38 Dorfman, 2008

Thomas County 1 : 1.64 1 : 0.38 1 : 0.67 Dorfman, 2003

Union County 1 : 1.13 1 : 0.43 1 : 0.72 Dorfman and Lavigno, 2006

Idaho

Booneville County 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.84 1 : 0.23 Hartmans and Meyer, 1997

Canyon County 1 : 1.08 1 : 0.79 1 : 0.54 Hartmans and Meyer, 1997

Cassia County 1 : 1.19 1 : 0.87 1 : 0.41 Hartmans and Meyer, 1997

Kootenai County 1 : 1.09 1 : 0.86 1 : 0.28 Hartmans and Meyer, 1997

Kentucky

Campbell County 1 : 1.21 1 : 0.30 1 : 0.38 American Farmland Trust, 2005

Kenton County 1 : 1.19 1 : 0.19 1 : 0.51 American Farmland Trust, 2005

Lexington-Fayette County 1 : 1.64 1 : 0.22 1 : 0.93 American Farmland Trust, 1999

Oldham County 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.29 1 : 0.44 American Farmland Trust, 2003

Shelby County 1 : 1.21 1 : 0.24 1 : 0.41 American Farmland Trust, 2005

MERI

FARMLA

T  FARMLA

RMATI

TER

SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS

Community

Residential

including

farm houses

Commercial

& Industrial

Working &

Open Land Source

Maine

Bethel 1: 1.29 1 : 0.59 1 : 0.06 Good, 1994

Maryland

Carroll County 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.48 1 : 0.45 Carroll County Dept. of Management & Budget, 1994

Cecil County 1 : 1.17 1 : 0.34 1 : 0.66 American Farmland Trust, 2001

Cecil County 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.28 1 : 0.37 Cecil County Office of Economic Development, 1994

Frederick County 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.50 1 : 0.53 American Farmland Trust, 1997

Harford County 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.40 1 : 0.91 American Farmland Trust, 2003

Kent County 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.64 1 : 0.42 American Farmland Trust, 2002

Wicomico County 1 : 1.21 1 : 0.33 1 : 0.96 American Farmland Trust, 2001

Massachusetts

Agawam 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.44 1 : 0.31 American Farmland Trust, 1992

Becket 1 : 1.02 1 : 0.83 1 : 0.72 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995

Dartmouth 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.51 1 : 0.26 American Farmland Trust, 2009

Deerfield 1 : 1.16 1 : 0.38 1 : 0.29 American Farmland Trust, 1992

Deerfield 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.51 1 : 0.33 American Farmland Trust, 2009

Franklin 1 : 1.02 1 : 0.58 1 : 0.40 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995

Gill 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.43 1 : 0.38 American Farmland Trust, 1992

Leverett 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.29 1 : 0.25 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995

Middleboro 1 : 1.08 1 : 0.47 1 : 0.70 American Farmland Trust, 2001

Southborough 1 : 1.03 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.45 Adams and Hines, 1997

Sterling 1 : 1.09 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.34 American Farmland Trust, 2009

Westford 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.53 1 : 0.39 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995

Williamstown 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.34 1 : 0.40 Hazler et al., 1992

Michigan

Marshall Twp., Calhoun County 1 : 1.47 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.27 American Farmland Trust, 2001

Newton Twp., Calhoun County 1 : 1.20 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.24 American Farmland Trust, 2001

Scio Twp., Washtenaw County 1 : 1.40 1 : 0.28 1 : 0.62 University of Michigan, 1994

Minnesota

Farmington 1 : 1.02 1 : 0.79 1 : 0.77 American Farmland Trust, 1994

Independence 1 : 1.03 1 : 0.19 1 : 0.47 American Farmland Trust, 1994

Lake Elmo 1 : 1.07 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.27 American Farmland Trust, 1994

Montana

Carbon County 1 : 1.60 1 : 0.21 1 : 0.34 Prinzing, 1997

Flathead County 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.34 Citizens for a Better Flathead, 1999

Gallatin County 1 : 1.45 1 : 0.16 1 : 0.25 Haggerty, 1996

New Hampshire

Brentwood 1 : 1:17 1 : 0.24 1 : 0.83 Brentwood Open Space Task Force, 2002

Deerfield 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.22 1 : 0.35 Auger, 1994

Dover 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.63 1 : 0.94 Kingsley, et al., 1993

Exeter 1 : 1.07 1 : 0.40 1 : 0.82 Niebling, 1997

Fremont 1 : 1.04 1 : 0.94 1 : 0.36 Auger, 1994

Groton 1 : 1.01 1 : 0.12 1 : 0.88 New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, 2001

Hookset 1 : 1.16 1 : 0.43 1 : 0.55 Innovative Natural Resource Solutions, 2008

Lyme 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.28 1 : 0.23 Pickard, 2000

Milton 1 : 1:30 1 : 0.35 1 : 0.72 Innovative Natural Resource Solutions, 2005

AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST  FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER

SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS

Community

Residential

including

farm houses

Commercial &

Industrial

Working &

Open Land Source

New Hampshire (continued)

Mont Vernon 1 : 1.03 1 : 0.04 1 : 0.08 Innovative Natural Resource Solutions, 2002

Stratham 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.19 1 : 0.40 Auger, 1994

New Jersey

Freehold Township 1 : 1.51 1 : 0.17 1 : 0.33 American Farmland Trust, 1998

Holmdel Township 1 : 1.38 1 : 0.21 1 : 0.66 American Farmland Trust, 1998

Middletown Township 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.34 1 : 0.36 American Farmland Trust, 1998

Upper Freehold Township 1 : 1.18 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.35 American Farmland Trust, 1998

Wall Township 1 : 1.28 1 : 0.30 1 : 0.54 American Farmland Trust, 1998

New York

Amenia 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.17 Bucknall, 1989

Beekman 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.18 1 : 0.48 American Farmland Trust, 1989

Dix 1 : 1.51 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.31 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1993

Farmington 1 : 1.22 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.72 Kinsman et al., 1991

Fishkill 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.31 1 : 0.74 Bucknall, 1989

Hector 1 : 1.30 1 : 0.15 1 : 0.28 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1993

Kinderhook 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.21 1 : 0.17 Concerned Citizens of Kinderhook, 1996

Montour 1 : 1.50 1 : 0.28 1 : 0.29 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1992

North East 1 : 1.36 1 : 0.29 1 : 0.21 American Farmland Trust, 1989

Reading 1 : 1.88 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.32 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1992

Red Hook 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.22 Bucknall, 1989

Rochester 1 : 1.27 1 : 0.18 1 : 0.18 Bonner and Gray, 2005

North Carolina

Alamance County 1 : 1.46 1 : 0.23 1 : 0.59 Renkow, 2006

Chatham County 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.33 1 : 0.58 Renkow, 2007

Henderson County 1 : 1.16 1 : 0.40 1 : 0.97 Renkow, 2008

Orange County 1 : 1.31 1 : 0.24 1 : 0.72 Renkow, 2006

Union County 1 : 1.30 1 : 0.41 1 : 0.24 Dorfman, 2004

Wake County 1 : 1.54 1 : 0.18 1 : 0.49 Renkow, 2001

Ohio

Butler County 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.45 1 : 0.49 American Farmland Trust, 2003

Clark County 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.38 1 : 0.30 American Farmland Trust, 2003

Hocking Township 1 : 1.10 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.17 Prindle, 2002

Knox County 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.38 1 : 0.29 American Farmland Trust, 2003

Liberty Township 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.51 1 : 0.05 Prindle, 2002

Madison Village, Lake County 1 : 1.67 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.38 American Farmland Trust, 1993

Madison Twp., Lake County 1 : 1.40 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.30 American Farmland Trust, 1993

Madison Village, Lake County 1 : 1.16 1 : 0.32 1 : 0.37 American Farmland Trust, 2008

Madison Twp., Lake County 1 : 1.24 1 : 0.33 1 : .030 American Farmland Trust, 2008

Shalersville Township 1 : 1.58 1 : 0.17 1 : 0.31 Portage County Regional Planning Commission, 1997

Pennsylvania

Allegheny Twp., Westmoreland County 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.14 1 : 0.13 Kelsey, 1997

Bedminster Twp., Bucks County 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.05 1 : 0.04 Kelsey, 1997

Bethel Twp., Lebanon County 1 : 1.08 1 : 0.17 1 : 0.06 Kelsey, 1992

Bingham Twp., Potter County 1 : 1.56 1 : 0.16 1 : 0.15 Kelsey, 1994

Buckingham Twp., Bucks County 1 : 1.04 1 : 0.15 1 : 0.08 Kelsey, 1996

AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST  FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER

SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS

Community

Residential

including

farm houses

Commercial &

Industrial

Working &

Open Land Source

Pennsylvania (continued)

Carroll Twp., Perry County 1 : 1.03 1 : 0.06 1 : 0.02 Kelsey, 1992

Hopewell Twp., York County 1 : 1.27 1 : 0.32 1 : 0.59 The South Central Assembly for Effective Governance, 2002

Kelly Twp., Union County 1 : 1.48 1 : 0.07 1 : 0.07 Kelsey, 2006

Lehman Twp., Pike County 1 : 0.94 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.27 Kelsey, 2006

Maiden Creek Twp., Berks County 1 : 1.28 1 : 0.11 1 : 0.06 Kelsey, 1998

Richmond Twp., Berks County 1 : 1.24 1 : 0.09 1 : 0.04 Kelsey, 1998

Shrewsbury Twp., York County 1 : 1.22 1 : 0.15 1 : 0.17 The South Central Assembly for Effective Governance, 2002

Stewardson Twp., Potter County 1 : 2.11 1 : 0.23 1 : 0.31 Kelsey, 1994

Straban Twp., Adams County 1 : 1.10 1 : 0.16 1 : 0.06 Kelsey, 1992

Sweden Twp., Potter County 1 : 1.38 1 : 0.07 1 : 0.08 Kelsey, 1994

Rhode Island

Hopkinton 1 : 1.08 1 : 0.31 1 : 0.31 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995

Little Compton 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.56 1 : 0.37 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995

West Greenwich 1 : 1.46 1 : 0.40 1 : 0.46 Southern New En

land Forest Consortium, 1995

Tennessee

Blount County 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.41 American Farmland Trust, 2006

Robertson County 1 : 1.13 1 : 0.22 1 : 0.26 American Farmland Trust, 2006

Tipton County 1 : 1.07 1 : 0.32 1 : 0.57 American Farmland Trust, 2006

Texas

Bandera County 1 : 1.10 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.26 American Farmland Trust, 2002

Bexar County 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.18 American Farmland Trust, 2004

Hays County 1 : 1.26 1 : 0.30 1 : 0.33 American Farmland Trust, 2000

Utah

Cache County 1 : 1.27 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.57 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994

Sevier County 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.31 1 : 0.99 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994

Utah County 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.82 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994

Virginia

Augusta County 1 : 1.22 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.80 Valley Conservation Council, 1997

Bedford County 1 : 1.07 1 : 0.40 1 : 0.25 American Farmland Trust, 2005

Clarke County 1 : 1.26 1 : 0.21 1 : 0.15 Piedmont Environmental Council, 1994

Culpepper County 1 : 1.22 1 : 0.41 1 : 0.32 American Farmland Trust, 2003

Frederick County 1 : 1.19 1 : 0.23 1 : 0.33 American Farmland Trust, 2003

Northampton County 1 : 1.13 1 : 0.97 1 : 0.23 American Farmland Trust, 1999

Washington

Okanogan County 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.59 1 : 0.56 American Farmland Trust, 2007

Skagit County 1 : 1.25 1 : 0.30 1 : 0.51 American Farmland Trust, 1999

Wisconsin

Dunn 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.29 1 : 0.18 Town of Dunn, 1994

Dunn 1 : 1.02 1 : 0.55 1 : 0.15 Wisconsin Land Use Research Program, 1999

Perry 1 : 1.20 1 : 1.04 1 : 0.41 Wisconsin Land Use Research Program, 1999

Westport 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.31 1 : 0.13 Wisconsin Land Use Research Program, 1999

Note: Some studies break out land uses into more than three distinct categories. For these studies, AFT requested data from the researcher and recalculated the

final ratios for the land use categories listed in this table. The Okanogan County, Wash., study is unique in that it analyzed the fiscal contribution of tax-exem

state, federal and tribal lands.

American Farmland Trust’s Farmland Information Center acts as a clearinghouse for information about Cost of Community Services studies.

Inclusion in this table does not necessarily signify review or endorsement by American Farmland Trust.

American farmland trust · Farmland information center

COST OF

COMMUNITY

SERVICES

STUDIES

For additional information

on farmland protection and

stewardship contact the

Farmland Information Center.

The FIC offers a staffed answer

service and online library with

fact sheets, laws, sample documents

and other educational materials.

a community’s bottom line. In areas where

agriculture or forestry are major industries, it

is especially important to consider the real prop-

erty tax contribution of privately owned work-

ing lands. Working and other open lands may

generate less revenue than residential, commer-

cial or industrial properties, but they require

little public infrastructure and few services.

COCS studies conducted over the last 20 years

show working lands generate more public rev-

enues than they receive back in public services.

Their impact on community coffers is similar to

that of other commercial and industrial land

uses. On average, because residential land uses

do not cover their costs, they must be subsidized

by other community land uses. Converting agri-

cultural land to residential land use should not

be seen as a way to balance local budgets.

The findings of COCS studies are consistent with

those of conventional fiscal impact analyses,

which document the high cost of residential

development and recommend commercial and

industrial development to help balance local

budgets. What is unique about COCS studies is

that they show that agricultural land is similar

to other commercial and industrial uses. In

nearly every community studied, farmland has

generated a fiscal surplus to help offset the

shortfall created by residential demand for

public services. This is true even when the land

is assessed at its current, agricultural use.

However as more communities invest in agri-

culture this tendency may change. For example,

if a community establishes a purchase of agricul-

tural conservation easement program, working

and open lands may generate a net negative.

Communities need reliable information to help

them see the full picture of their land uses.

COCS studies are an inexpensive way to evalu-

ate the net contribution of working and open

lands. They can help local leaders discard the

notion that natural resources must be converted

to other uses to ensure fiscal stability. They also

dispel the myths that residential development

leads to lower taxes, that differential assessment

programs give landowners an “unfair” tax break

and that farmland is an interim land use just

waiting around for development.

One type of land use is not intrinsically better

than another, and COCS studies are not meant

to judge the overall public good or long-term

merits of any land use or taxing structure. It is

up to communities to balance goals such as

maintaining affordable housing, creating jobs and

conserving land. With good planning, these goals

can complement rather than compete with each

other. COCS studies give communities another

tool to make decisions about their futures.

$0.29

$0.35

$1.16

www.farmlandinfo.org

(800) 370-4879

Median cost per dollar of revenue raised to

provide public services to different land uses.

Commercial

& Industrial

Working &

Open Land

Residential

Median COCS Results

AFT N

ATIONAL OFFICE

1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 331-7300

www.farmland.org

The FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER (FIC) is a clearinghouse for information about farmland protection and stewardship.

The FIC is a public/private partnership between the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and American Farmland Trust.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New York State

Department of Agriculture and Markets

10B Airline Drive

Albany, New York 12235

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CIRCULAR 1150

ARTICLE 25AA -- AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS

AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW

(AS AMENDED THROUGH October 1, 2011)

AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS LAW

Page | 2



Summary of 1999 Amendments to the Agricultural Districts Law

Section Amended: §301(4)(e) and §301(9)(e)

Description: Provides that land set aside through participation in a

federal conservation program, regardless of the income

derived from the land, shall be eligible for an

agricultural assessment.

Effective Date:

9/7/99

Section Amended: §301(9)(e)

Description: Adds a new paragraph (e) to allow payments received for

land set aside under a federal conservation reserve program

to be included in calculating the average gross sales value

of products produced in determining whether land used as a

single farm operation qualifies as “land used in

agricultural production.”

Effective Date:

9/7/99

Section Amended: §303-a(4)

Description: Renumbers subdivision (4) to subdivision (5)

Effective Date:

7/20/99

Section Amended: §303-a(4)

Description: Adds a new subdivision (4) that states that if the county

legislative body does not review a district upon its

anniversary date, the agricultural district remains as

originally constituted or until such time that the

agricultural district is modified or terminated.

Effective Date:

7/20/99

Section Amended: §305(7)

Description: Provides that the real property tax exemption for

agricultural land which is used solely for the purpose of

replanting or crop expansion as part of an orchard or

vineyard may be greater than 20% of the total acreage of

such orchard or vineyard when such orchard or vineyard is

located within an area declared by the Governor to be a

disaster emergency.

Effective Date:

9/7/99 and shall apply to assessment rolls prepared on the

basis of taxable status dates occurring on or after 9/7/99.

Page | 3



Section Amended: §308(3)

Description: Renumbers subdivision (3), which was added by Chapter 362

of the Laws of 1998, to subdivision (4)

Effective Date:

4/6/99

Section Repealed: §309(8) & (9)

Description: Repeals the two subdivisions

Effective Date:

7/20/99

Section Amended: §309(10)

Description: Renumbers subdivision (10) to subdivision (8)

Effective Date:

7/20/99

Section Amended §310(1)

Description: Adds language to the agricultural district disclosure

statement to notify a prospective buyer of land within an

agricultural district that under certain circumstances, the

availability of water and sewer services may be limited.

Effective Date:

7/1/00

Summary of 2000 Amendments to the Agricultural Districts Law

Section Amended: §305(1)(d)(v) and §306(2)(b)(iii)

Description: Revises reporting requirement of assessors to the State

Board of Real Property Services when land receiving an

agricultural assessment is converted to non-agricultural

uses.

Effective Date:

7/11/00

Section Amended: §308(1)(b)

Description: Requires the Commissioner to give consideration to a

practice conducted under the Agricultural Environmental

Management (AEM) Program when making a sound agricultural

practice determination.

Effective Date:

11/8/00

Page | 4



Summary of 2001 Amendments to the Agricultural Districts Law

Section Amended: §301(11)

Description: Includes manure processing and handling facilities as part

of a “farm operation” for purposes of administering the

Agricultural Districts Law.

Effective Date:

10/23/01

Section Amended: §301(11)

Description: Includes “commercial horse boarding operations” as part of

a “farm operation” for purposes of administering the

Agricultural Districts Law.

Effective Date:

10/31/01

Summary of 2002 Amendments to the Agricultural Districts Law

Section Amended: §301(4)

Description: Eliminates county legislative body approval for the

designation of eligible horse boarding operations as land

used in agricultural production.

Effective Date:

1/30/03

Sections Amended: §301(4), §301(4)(b), and §301(4)(f)

Description: Reduces the number of acres needed to qualify for

agricultural real property assessment from ten acres to 7

or more acres as long as the value of crops produced

exceeds $10,000 on average in the preceding two years. The

size of rented land eligible for an agricultural assessment

is reduced from 10 acres to 7 acres as long as the smaller

parcel yields at least $10,000 in average annual gross

sales independently or in conjunction with land owned by

the farmer renting the parcel. The amendment also reduces

the number of acres needed to qualify as land used in

agricultural production from not less than ten acres to

seven or more acres and average gross sales of $10,000 or

more in the preceding two years or less than seven acres

and average gross sales $50,000 or more in the preceding

two years.

Effective Date:

1/1/03

Page | 5



Section Added: §301(9)(f)

Description: Allows payments received by thoroughbred breeders pursuant

to Section 247 of the racing pari-mutuel wagering and

breeding law to be included in the definition of “gross

sales value” for agricultural assessment purposes.

Effective Date:

9/17/02

Section Amended: §301(11)

Description: Amends the definition of farm operation to indicate that

such operation may consist of one or more parcels of owned

or rented land and such parcels may or may not be

contiguous to each other.

Effective Date:

1/1/03

Section Amended: §301(13)

Description: Reduces the minimum acreage required for a commercial horse

boarding operation from ten to seven acres.

Effective Date:

1/1/03

Sections Amended: §303(2)(a)(1), §303(4), §303(5)(a) and (b), §303(6)(a) and

(b), §303(7) and §303(8)

Description: Amends various sections of the law to allow a landowner to

include viable agricultural land within a certified

agricultural district prior to its eight, twelve or twenty

year review period.

Effective Date:

12/20/02

Summary of 2003 Amendments to the Agricultural Districts Law

Section Added: §301(4)(h)

Description: Adds a new paragraph (h) to allow first year farmers to

receive an agricultural assessment if they meet the gross

sales value requirements during their first year of

operation.

Effective Date:

9/9/03

Sections Amended: §301(5), §305(1)(d)(iv), and §306(2)(c)

Description: Amends various sections of the law so that conversion

penalties are not assessed on farmland that is being used

in agricultural production and receives an agricultural

Page | 6



assessment when such land is converted to wind energy

generation facilities.

Effective Date:

9/22/03

Sections Amended: §303-b, §303(2)(a)(1) and §303(4)

Description: Adds a new section 303-b to establish an annual 30-day

period during which a farmer can submit proposals to

include viable land within a certified agricultural

district.

Effective Date:

9/17/03

Sections Amended: §303(5)(b), §303(6)(b) and §303(8)

Description: Repeals various sections of the law to conform with the

provisions of a new section 303-b.

Effective Date:

9/17/03

Summary of 2004 Amendment to the Agricultural Districts Law

Section Amended: §301(4)(h)

Description: Amends paragraph (h) to allow a farm operation to receive

an agricultural assessment if it meets the acreage and

gross sales value requirements during its first or second

year of agricultural production.

Effective Date:

2/24/04

Section Amended: §301(4)(i)

Description: Adds a new paragraph (i) to allow start-up farm operations

that plant orchard or vineyard crops to immediately become

eligible to receive an agricultural assessment in its

first, second, third or fourth year of production.

Effective Date:

1/1/05

Summary of 2005 Amendments to the Agricultural Districts Law

Section Amended: §301(2)(e)

Description: Amends paragraph (e) by adding wool bearing animals, such

as alpacas and llamas, to the definition of “livestock and

livestock products.”

Page | 7



Effective Date: 7/12/05

Section Amended: §301(4)(h) and §301(13)

Description: Amends paragraph (h) to allow a “commercial horse boarding

operation” to receive an agricultural assessment if it

meets the acreage and gross sales value requirements during

its first or second year of agricultural production. The

definition of “commercial horse boarding operation” is

amended by stating that such operations may qualify as a

“farm operation” in its first or second year of operation

if it meets the acreage and number of horse requirements.

Effective Date:

8/23/05

Section Amended: §301(11) and §301(14)

Description: Includes “timber processing” as part of a “farm operation”

for purposes of administering the Agricultural Districts

Law and adds a new section by defining the term “timber

processing.”

Effective Date:

8/23/05

Section Amended: §305-b

Description: Adds a new section that authorizes the Commissioner to

review and comment upon the proposed rules and regulations

of other State agencies which may have an adverse impact on

agriculture and farming operations in the State.

Effective Date:

10/4/05 (Shall apply to proposed rules and regulations

publicly noticed 60 or more days following the effective

date.)

Summary of 2006 Amendments to the Agricultural Districts Law

Section Amended: §301(4)

Description: Adds a new section (j) to allow newly planted Christmas

tree farms to be eligible for agricultural assessment in

their first through fifth years of agricultural production.

Effective Date:

1/1/07 and applies to assessment rolls prepared on the

basis of taxable status dates occurring on or after such

date.

Section Amended: §§301 and 308(1)

Description: Adds a new subdivision (15) to §301 to define “agricultural

tourism” and amends §308(1) to add “agricultural tourism”

Page | 8



to the list of examples of activities which entail

practices the Commissioner may consider for sound

agricultural practice opinions.

Effective Date:

8/16/06

Section Amended: §305(1)(a)

Description: Amends paragraph (1)(a) to allow filing of an application

after taxable status date where failure to timely file

resulted from a death of applicant’s spouse, child, parent,

brother or sister or illness of the applicant or

applicant’s spouse, child, parent, brother or sister which

prevents timely filing, as certified by a licensed

physician.

Effective Date:

9/13/06 and applies to assessment rolls prepared on the

basis of a taxable status date occurring on or after such

date.

Section Amended: §305(7)

Description: Amends paragraph (7) to extend the 100% exemption for newly

planted orchards and vineyards from 4 to 6 years.

Effective Date:

9/13/06 and applies to assessment rolls prepared on the

basis of a taxable status date occurring on or after

1/1/06.

Section Amended: §310(1), §308(5)

Description: Amends AML §§310(1), 308(5) and RPL §333-c(1) relative to

the disclosure notice required for prospective purchasers

of property within an agricultural district.

Effective Date:

7/26/06

Summary of 2007 Amendments to the Agricultural Districts Law

Section Amended: §§303, 303-a & 304-b, repeals §303-a(2)(b) and (c)

Description: Amends AML §§303, 303-a and 304-b concerning the review of

agricultural districts and the reporting of agricultural

district data and repeals certain provisions of such law

relating thereto.

Effective Date:

7/3/07

Section Amended: §304-a

Page | 9



Description: Amends AML §304-a to limit an increase in the base

agricultural assessment values for any given year to 10

percent or less of the assessment value of the preceding

year.

Effective Date:

6/4/07

Section Amended: §305(1)(a)

Description: Amends AML §305(1)(a) in relation to authorizing the filing

of an application for an agricultural assessment after the

taxable status date in the event of a natural disaster or

destruction of farm structures.

Effective Date:

8/15/07

Summary of 2008 Amendments to the Agricultural Districts Law

Section Amended: §§301(2)(j), 301(4)(k) and 301(16)

Description: Adds a new paragraph (j) to §301(2) to add “apiary

products” to the definition of “crops, livestock and

livestock products,” adds a new paragraph (k) to §301(4) to

independently qualify apiaries for an agricultural

assessment and adds a new subdivision (16) to define

“apiary products operation.”

Effective Date:

7/21/08 and applies to assessment rolls prepared on the

basis of a taxable status date occurring on or after

7/21/08

Section Amended: §301(4)(a-1)

Description: Adds a new paragraph (a-1) to §301(4) to allow a not-for-

profit institution to qualify rented land for an

agricultural assessment if the property is used for

agricultural research which is intended to improve the

quality or quantity of crops, livestock or livestock

products.

Effective Date:

9/25/08

Section Amended: §§301(11) and 308(1)(b)

Description: Amends subdivision (11) of §301 to add the “production,

management and harvesting of ‘farm woodland’” to the

definition of “farm operation” and amends §308(1)(b) to add

the “production, management and harvesting of ‘farm

woodland’” to the list of examples of activities which

entail practices the Commissioner may consider for sound

agricultural practice opinions.

Page | 10



Effective Date: 9/4/08

Section Amended: §§301(9), 301(11), and 301(16)

Description: Adds a new paragraph (g) to §301(9) to allow up to $5,000

from the sale of “compost, mulch or other organic biomass

crops” to help meet the eligibility requirements for an

agricultural assessment; amends subdivision (11) of §301 to

add “compost, mulch or other biomass crops” to the

definition of “farm operation” and adds a new subdivision

(16) to define “compost, mulch or other organic biomass

crops.”

Effective Date:

9/4/08

Summary of 2010 Amendments to the Agricultural Districts Law

Section Amended: §§301(11), 301(14) and 308(1)

Description: Amends subdivision (11) of §301 to substitute “timber

operation” for “timber processing” and remove the reference

to “farm woodland”, which is a term used for agricultural

assessment. In addition, amends the definition of “timber

processing” [§301(14)] and renames that section “timber

operation”. Amends definition to remove a reference to

“readily moveable, nonpermanent saw mill” and adds

“production, management, harvesting,...and marketing” to

the definition. Amends §308(1) to substitute “timber

operation” for “farm woodland” and removes a reference to

the “production, management and harvesting of ‘farm

woodland.’

Effective Date:

6/15/10

Section Amended: §301(15)

Description: Amends the definition of “agricultural tourism” to add

maple sap and pure maple products.

Effective Date:

5/18/10

Section Amended: §303-a(5)

Description: Amends subdivision (5) of §303-a to add “correction of any

errors” to a list of procedures as described in §303(5),

(6) and (7).

Effective Date:

6/15/10

Section Amended: §305(7)

Page | 11



Description: Amends an existing property tax exemption for reinvestment

in orchards and vineyards by establishing a more

streamlined process to implement the exemption.

Effective Date:

7/30/10

Summary of 2011 Amendments to the Agricultural Districts Law

Section Amended: §301(4)(c)

Description: Amends AML §301(4)(c)to include agricultural amusements as

support land to farm operations or land used in

agricultural production.

Effective Date:

6/8/11

Section Amended: §§301(11), 301(17), 301(4)(l)

Description: Amends AML §301(11) to add “commercial equine operation” to

the definition of farm operation, adds a new paragraph 17

to §301 to define the term “commercial equine operation,”

and adds a new paragraph (l) to AML §301(4) to

independently qualify “commercial equine operation” for an

agricultural assessment.

Effective Date:

8/3/11

Section Amended: §302(1)(a)

Description: Amends AML §302(1)(a)to allow an employee of the county

soil and water conservation district, as designated by the

chairperson, to become the voting member on the county

AFPB.

Effective Date:

7/20/11

Section Amended: §§305-a(1)(b), 308(1)(b)

Description: Adds a new paragraph (b) to AML §305-a (1) to require the

commissioner to render an opinion on whether farm

operations would be unreasonably restricted or regulated by

proposed changes in local laws and amends AML §308(1)(b) to

require the commissioner to provide certain consultation

information to the municipality where the agricultural

practice was evaluated.

Effective Date:

9/23/11

Page | 12



ARTICLE 25-AA

AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS

Section 300. Declaration of legislative findings and intent.

301. Definitions.

302. County agricultural and farmland protection board.

303. Agricultural districts; creation.

303-a. Agricultural districts; review.

303-b. Agricultural districts; inclusion of viable agricultural

land.

304. Unique and irreplaceable agricultural lands; creation of

districts.

304-a. Agricultural assessment values.

304-b. Agricultural district data reporting.

305. Agricultural districts; effects.

305-a. Coordination of local planning and land use

decision-making with the agricultural districts

program.

305-b. Review of proposed rules and regulations of state

agencies affecting the agricultural industry.

306. Agricultural lands outside of districts; agricultural

assessments.

307. Promulgation of rules and regulations.

308. Right to farm.

308-a. Fees and expenses in certain private nuisance actions.

309. Advisory council on agriculture.

310. Disclosure.

§ 300. Declaration of legislative findings and intent. It is hereby

found and declared that many of the agricultural lands in New York state

are in jeopardy of being lost for any agricultural purposes. When

nonagricultural development extends into farm areas, competition for

limited land resources results. Ordinances inhibiting farming tend to

follow, farm taxes rise, and hopes for speculative gains discourage

investments in farm improvements, often leading to the idling or

conversion of potentially productive agricultural land.

The socio-economic vitality of agriculture in this state is essential

to the economic stability and growth of many local communities and the

state as a whole. It is, therefore, the declared policy of the state to

conserve, protect and encourage the development and improvement of its

agricultural land for production of food and other agricultural

products. It is also the declared policy of the state to conserve and

protect agricultural lands as valued natural and ecological resources

which provide needed open spaces for clean air sheds, as well as for

aesthetic purposes.

The constitution of the state of New York directs the legislature to

provide for the protection of agricultural lands. It is the purpose of

this article to provide a locally-initiated mechanism for the protection

and enhancement of New York state's agricultural land as a viable

segment of the local and state economies and as an economic and

environmental resource of major importance.



Page | 13



§ 301. Definitions. When used in this article:

1. "Agricultural assessment value" means the value per acre assigned

to land for assessment purposes determined pursuant to the capitalized

value of production procedure prescribed by section three hundred four-a

of this article.

2. "Crops, livestock and livestock products" shall include but not be

limited to the following:

a. Field crops, including corn, wheat, oats, rye, barley, hay,

potatoes and dry beans.

b. Fruits, including apples, peaches, grapes, cherries and berries.

c. Vegetables, including tomatoes, snap beans, cabbage, carrots, beets

and onions.

d. Horticultural specialties, including nursery stock, ornamental

shrubs, ornamental trees and flowers.

e. Livestock and livestock products, including cattle, sheep, hogs,

goats, horses, poultry, ratites, such as ostriches, emus, rheas and

kiwis, farmed deer, farmed buffalo, fur bearing animals, wool bearing

animals, such as alpacas and llamas, milk, eggs and furs.

f. Maple sap.

g. Christmas trees derived from a managed Christmas tree operation

whether dug for transplanting or cut from the stump.

h. Aquaculture products, including fish, fish products, water plants

and shellfish.

i. Woody biomass, which means short rotation woody crops raised for

bioenergy, and shall not include farm woodland.

j. Apiary products, including honey, beeswax, royal jelly, bee pollen,

propolis, package bees, nucs and queens. For the purposes of this

paragraph, "nucs" shall mean small honey bee colonies created from

larger colonies including the nuc box, which is a smaller version of a

beehive, designed to hold up to five frames from an existing colony.

3. "Farm woodland" means land used for the production for sale of

woodland products, including but not limited to logs, lumber, posts and

firewood. Farm woodland shall not include land used to produce Christmas

trees or land used for the processing or retail merchandising of

woodland products.

4. "Land used in agricultural production" means not less than seven

acres of land used as a single operation in the preceding two years for

the production for sale of crops, livestock or livestock products of an

average gross sales value of ten thousand dollars or more; or, not less

than seven acres of land used in the preceding two years to support a

commercial horse boarding operation with annual gross receipts of ten

thousand dollars or more. Land used in agricultural production shall not

include land or portions thereof used for processing or retail

merchandising of such crops, livestock or livestock products. Land used

in agricultural production shall also include:

a. Rented land which otherwise satisfies the requirements for

eligibility for an agricultural assessment.

a-1. Land used by a not-for-profit institution for the purposes of

agricultural research that is intended to improve the quality or

quantity of crops, livestock or livestock products. Such land shall

qualify for an agricultural assessment upon application made pursuant to

paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section three hundred five of this

article, except that no minimum gross sales value shall be required.

b. Land of not less than seven acres used as a single operation for

the production for sale of crops, livestock or livestock products,

exclusive of woodland products, which does not independently satisfy the

Page | 14



gross sales value requirement, where such land was used in such

production for the preceding two years and currently is being so used

under a written rental arrangement of five or more years in conjunction

with land which is eligible for an agricultural assessment.

c. Land used in support of a farm operation or land used in

agricultural production, constituting a portion of a parcel, as

identified on the assessment roll, which also contains land qualified

for an agricultural assessment. Such land shall include land used for

agricultural amusements which are produced from crops grown or produced

on the farm, provided that such crops are harvested and marketed in the

same manner as other crops produced on such farm. Such agricultural

amusements shall include, but not be limited to, so-called ”corn mazes”

or ”hay bale mazes.”

d. Farm woodland which is part of land which is qualified for an

agricultural assessment, provided, however, that such farm woodland

attributable to any separately described and assessed parcel shall not

exceed fifty acres.

e. Land set aside through participation in a federal conservation

program pursuant to title one of the federal food security act of

nineteen hundred eighty-five or any subsequent federal programs

established for the purposes of replenishing highly erodible land which

has been depleted by continuous tilling or reducing national surpluses

of agricultural commodities and such land shall qualify for agricultural

assessment upon application made pursuant to paragraph a of subdivision

one of section three hundred five of this article, except that no

minimum gross sales value shall be required.

f. Land of not less than seven acres used as a single operation in the

preceding two years for the production for sale of crops, livestock or

livestock products of an average gross sales value of ten thousand

dollars or more, or land of less than seven acres used as a single

operation in the preceding two years for the production for sale of

crops, livestock or livestock products of an average gross sales value

of fifty thousand dollars or more.

g. Land under a structure within which crops, livestock or livestock

products are produced, provided that the sales of such crops, livestock

or livestock products meet the gross sales requirements of paragraph f

of this subdivision.

h. Land that is owned or rented by a farm operation in its first or

second year of agricultural production, or, in the case of a commercial

horse boarding operation in its first or second year of operation, that

consists of (1) not less than seven acres used as a single operation for

the production for sale of crops, livestock or livestock products of an

annual gross sales value of ten thousand dollars or more; or (2) less

than seven acres used as a single operation for the production for sale

of crops, livestock or livestock products of an annual gross sales value

of fifty thousand dollars or more; or (3) land situated under a

structure within which crops, livestock or livestock products are

produced, provided that such crops, livestock or livestock products have

an annual gross sales value of (i) ten thousand dollars or more, if the

farm operation uses seven or more acres in agricultural production, or

(ii) fifty thousand dollars or more, if the farm operation uses less

than seven acres in agricultural production; or (4) not less than seven

acres used as a single operation to support a commercial horse boarding

operation with annual gross receipts of ten thousand dollars or more.

i. Land of not less than seven acres used as a single operation for

the production for sale of orchard or vineyard crops when such land is

Page | 15



used solely for the purpose of planting a new orchard or vineyard and

when such land is also owned or rented by a newly established farm

operation in its first, second, third or fourth year of agricultural

production.

j. Land of not less than seven acres used as a single operation for

the production and sale of Christmas trees when such land is used solely

for the purpose of planting Christmas trees that will be made available

for sale, whether dug for transplanting or cut from the stump and when

such land is owned or rented by a newly established farm operation in

its first, second, third, fourth or fifth year of agricultural

production.

k. Land used to support an apiary products operation which is owned by

the operation and consists of (i) not less than seven acres nor more

than ten acres used as a single operation in the preceding two years for

the production for sale of crops, livestock or livestock products of an

average gross sales value of ten thousand dollars or more or (ii) less

than seven acres used as a single operation in the preceding two years

for the production for sale of crops, livestock or livestock products of

an average gross sales value of fifty thousand dollars or more. The land

used to support an apiary products operation shall include, but not be

limited to, the land under a structure within which apiary products are

produced, harvested and stored for sale; and a buffer area maintained by

the operation between the operation and adjacent landowners.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, rented land

associated with an apiary products operation is not eligible for an

agricultural assessment based on this paragraph.

l. Land that is owned or rented by a farm operation in its first or

second year of agricultural production or in the case of a commercial

equine operation, in its first or second year of operation, that

consists of not less than seven acres and stabling at least ten horses,

regardless of ownership, that receives ten thousand dollars or more in

gross receipts annually from fees generated through the provision of

commercial equine activities including, but not limited to riding

lessons, trail riding activities or training of horses or through the

production for sale of crops, livestock, and livestock products, or

through both the provision of such commercial equine activities and

such production. Under no circumstances shall this subdivision be

construed to include operations whose primary on site function is horse

racing.

5. "Oil, gas or wind exploration, development or extraction

activities" means the installation and use of fixtures and equipment

which are necessary for the exploration, development or extraction of

oil, natural gas or wind energy, including access roads, drilling

apparatus, pumping facilities, pipelines, and wind turbines.

6. "Unique and irreplaceable agricultural land" means land which is

uniquely suited for the production of high value crops, including, but

not limited to fruits, vegetables and horticultural specialties.

7. "Viable agricultural land" means land highly suitable for

agricultural production and which will continue to be economically

feasible for such use if real property taxes, farm use restrictions, and

speculative activities are limited to levels approximating those in

commercial agricultural areas not influenced by the proximity of

non-agricultural development.

8. "Conversion" means an outward or affirmative act changing the use

of agricultural land and shall not mean the nonuse or idling of such

land.

Page | 16



9. "Gross sales value" means the proceeds from the sale of:

a. Crops, livestock and livestock products produced on land used in

agricultural production provided, however, that whenever a crop is

processed before sale, the proceeds shall be based upon the market value

of such crop in its unprocessed state;

b. Woodland products from farm woodland eligible to receive an

agricultural assessment, not to exceed two thousand dollars annually;

c. Honey and beeswax produced by bees in hives located on an otherwise

qualified farm operation but which does not independently satisfy the

gross sales requirement;

d. Maple syrup processed from maple sap produced on land used in

agricultural production in conjunction with the same or an otherwise

qualified farm operation;

e. Or payments received by reason of land set aside pursuant to

paragraph e of subdivision four of this section;

f. Or payments received by thoroughbred breeders pursuant to section

two hundred fifty-four of the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding

law; and

g. Compost, mulch or other organic biomass crops as defined in

subdivision sixteen of this section produced on land used in

agricultural production, not to exceed five thousand dollars annually.

11. "Farm operation" means the land and on-farm buildings, equipment,

manure processing and handling facilities, and practices which

contribute to the production, preparation and marketing of crops,

livestock and livestock products as a commercial enterprise, including a

"commercial horse boarding operation" as defined in subdivision thirteen

of this section, a "timber operation" as defined in subdivision fourteen

of this section and "compost, mulch or other biomass crops" as defined

in subdivision sixteen of this section and ”commercial equine operation”

as defined in subdivision seventeen of this section. Such farm

operation may consist of one or more parcels of owned or rented

land, which parcels may be contiguous or noncontiguous to each other.

12. "Agricultural data statement" means an identification of farm

operations within an agricultural district located within five hundred

feet of the boundary of property upon which an action requiring

municipal review and approval by the planning board, zoning board of

appeals, town board, or village board of trustees pursuant to article

sixteen of the town law or article seven of the village law is proposed,

as provided in section three hundred five-a of this article.

13. "Commercial horse boarding operation" means an agricultural

enterprise, consisting of at least seven acres and boarding at least ten

horses, regardless of ownership, that receives ten thousand dollars or

more in gross receipts annually from fees generated either through the

boarding of horses or through the production for sale of crops,

livestock, and livestock products, or through both such boarding and

such production. Under no circumstances shall this subdivision be

construed to include operations whose primary on site function is horse

racing. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, a

commercial horse boarding operation that is proposed or in its first or

second year of operation may qualify as a farm operation if it is an

agricultural enterprise, consisting of at least seven acres, and

boarding at least ten horses, regardless of ownership, by the end of the

first year of operation.

14. "Timber operation" means the on-farm production, management,

harvesting, processing and marketing of timber grown on the farm

operation into woodland products, including but not limited to logs,

Page | 17



lumber, posts and firewood, provided that such farm operation consists

of at least seven acres and produces for sale crops, livestock or

livestock products of an annual gross sales value of ten thousand

dollars or more and that the annual gross sales value of such processed

woodland products does not exceed the annual gross sales value of such

crops, livestock or livestock products.

15. "Agricultural tourism" means activities, including the production

of maple sap and pure maple products made therefrom, conducted by a

farmer on-farm for the enjoyment and/or education of the public, which

primarily promote the sale, marketing, production, harvesting or use of

the products of the farm and enhance the public's understanding and

awareness of farming and farm life.

* 16. "Apiary products operation" means an agricultural enterprise,

consisting of land owned by the operation, upon which bee hives are

located and maintained for the purpose of producing, harvesting and

storing apiary products for sale.

* NB There are 2 subd. 16's

* 16. "Compost, mulch or other organic biomass crops" means the

on-farm processing, mixing, handling or marketing of organic matter that

is grown or produced by such farm operation to rid such farm operation

of its excess agricultural waste; and the on-farm processing, mixing or

handling of off-farm generated organic matter that is transported to

such farm operation and is necessary to facilitate the composting of

such farm operation's agricultural waste. This shall also include the

on-farm processing, mixing or handling of off-farm generated organic

matter for use only on that farm operation. Such organic matter shall

include, but not be limited to, manure, hay, leaves, yard waste, silage,

organic farm waste, vegetation, wood biomass or by-products of

agricultural products that have been processed on such farm operation.

The resulting products shall be converted into compost, mulch or other

organic biomass crops that can be used as fertilizers, soil enhancers or

supplements, or bedding materials. For purposes of this section,

"compost" shall be processed by the aerobic, thermophilic decomposition

of solid organic constituents of solid waste to produce a stable,

humus-like material.

17. “Commercial equine operation” means an agricultural enterprise,

consisting of at least seven acres and stabling at least ten horses,