SCHENECTADY COUNTY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT NO. 1

Transcription

1 SCHENECTADY COUNTY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT NO. 1 Towns of Duanesburg, Glenville, Niskayuna, Princetown and Rotterdam Third Eight-Year Review Report Prepared For: Schenectady County Legislature Prepared By: Schenectady County Department of Economic Development & Planning Schenectady County Agricultural & Farmland Protection Board December 2013

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i Agricultural District Law... i Schenectady County Agricultural District No i Recommendation... ii INTRODUCTION... 1 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS... 1 Property Eligibility... 1 What Constitutes a Farm?... 2 Agricultural District Landowner Survey... 3 Annual Review Period... 3 OVERALL STATUS OF FARMING, THE FARM ECONOMY AND FARM INVESTMENT... 4 Agricultural District No. 1 Profile (2012)... 4 Viable Agricultural Land... 5 Landowner Applications ( )... 6 Properties Proposed for Removal... 7 VIABILITY OF FARMING WITHIN THE DISTRICT... 7 The Extent to Which the Number of Farms and Farm Acres Furthers the Purposes of the Agricultural District... 7 The Extent to Which the District Has Achieved Its Original Objectives... 8 LAND USE POLICIES/ACTIONS AND THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT... 8 County Agricultural & Farmland Protection Plan... 8 The Impacts of Nonagricultural Development... 9 Local Laws, Ordinances and Objectives and Their Influence on Farming... 9 Town of Duanesburg... 9 Town of Glenville Town of Niskayuna Town of Princetown Town of Rotterdam The Schenectady Aquifer RECOMMENDATION... 12

3 List of Tables Table 1. Profile of Agricultural District No. 1 ( )... ii Table 2. Agricultural District No. 1 Review Profile... 5 Table 3. Proposed Agricultural District Acreage Classification... 6 Table 4. Number of Parcels and Breakdown of New Applications... 7 Table 5. Parcels Proposed for Removal by Municipality... 7 List of Figures Figure 1. Percent of Agricultural District by Town... i Figure 2. Percent of Agricultural District by Municipality... 4 Maps Map 1. Proposed Agricultural District No. 1 Appendices A. NYS Agricultural District Law B. List of Properties Proposed for Removal from the District C. Agricultural District Review Worksheet/Profile D. Environmental Assessment Form E. Worksheet Request Letters F. Legal Notice G. List of Properties Included in the Proposed District

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Agricultural District Law New York State's Agricultural District Law (Article 25AA of the Agriculture and Markets Law) authorizes the creation of county agricultural districts. Agricultural districts are legally recognized geographical areas, predominantly comprised of viable agricultural lands, conforming to tax parcel boundaries. Districts must be approved by the county legislative body and the NYS Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets. The purpose of the agricultural district program is to encourage the continued use of farmland for agricultural production by creating an economic and regulatory climate supportive of farming. The agricultural district program is based on a combination of landowner incentives and protections, all of which are designed to forestall the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Included in these benefits are preferential real property tax treatment (agricultural assessment and special benefit assessment), and protections against overly restrictive local laws, government funded acquisition or construction projects, and private nuisance suits involving agricultural practices. While the law does not provide complete protection for farming and farmers, it is an important mechanism to support agriculture and maintain farmland. A more complete summary of the Agricultural District Law can be found in Appendix A herein and at: The Schenectady County Agricultural District was created in 1988 and must be reviewed every eight years. The review process presents an opportunity to analyze the County's agricultural base and offers the County Legislature the opportunity to alter the boundaries of the district in recognition of changing land uses. The primary goal of the review is to ensure that the agricultural district consists predominantly of viable agricultural land. Schenectady County Agricultural District No. 1 The proposed Schenectady County Agricultural District No. 1 consists of 18,764 acres comprised of 333 tax parcels, or approximately 13 percent of the County land area (see Map 1). This is an increase of approximately 13 percent (2,159 acres) since the last review in 2004 and includes 68 parcels (2,519 acres) added during the annual review periods between 2004 and The majority of the proposed agricultural district is located within the Town of Duanesburg (57%), followed by Princetown (17%), Glenville (14%), Rotterdam (11%), and Niskayuna (1%). Generally, the proposed district is consistent with economic and land use conditions in each community and the agricultural properties proposed for inclusion in the district conform to local zoning. Figure 1. Percent of Agricultural District by Town Princetown 17% Niskayuna 1% Glenville 14% Rotterdam 11% Duanesburg 57% i

5 The conversion of farmland does not appear to be occurring at a fast rate in most of the County with the possible exception of the inner suburban areas where some farms have ceased operations. The western portion of Rotterdam and the towns of Duanesburg, Princetown and much of Glenville remain rural in character. Encroaching residential subdivision and commercial development has resulted in the conversion of some former farmlands and is impacting parts of the proposed agricultural district. However, most of the loss of farmland in the County over the past 20 years can be attributed more to other factors such as low profitability than conversion pressure from encroaching development. Table 1. Profile of Agricultural District No. 1 ( ) Proposed (2012) No. of Acres in District 14,675 16,595 18,764 No. of Acres Cropped 7,057 6,135 6,392 Number of Farms by Principal Farm Enterprise Dairy Cash Crop (Grain & Vegetable) Livestock (Other than Dairy) Horticultural Specialties Hay Number of Farms According to Annual Gross Farm Sales Below $10, $10,000 to $39, $40,000 to $99, $100,000 to $199, Over $200, Number of Farms According to Total Capital Investments Over Past 7 Years $10,000 to $49, $50,000 to $99, $100,000 to $199, Over $200, Source: Schenectady County Department of Economic Development and Planning (Agricultural District Worksheets). Recommendation Based on this review, the Schenectady County Department of Economic Development and Planning and the Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board find that the continuance of Agricultural District No. 1 with the proposed modifications is consistent with the provisions and intent of Article 25AA of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. The district as proposed and depicted on Map 1 herein, furthers the purposes for which it was created and achieves the objectives of protecting and enhancing agriculture in Schenectady County. In addition, we find that the proposed district is made up of predominantly viable, active farmland and related adjacent areas, and is consistent with community economic and land use conditions. ii

6 INTRODUCTION This report to the Schenectady County Legislature is a joint effort of the County Department of Economic Development and Planning and the County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board (AFPB). The primary objective of the report is to advise the County Legislature regarding the modification and continuation of Schenectady County's Agricultural District No. 1 and to satisfy statutory requirements of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. Besides containing recommendations concerning proposed modifications to Agricultural District No. 1, this report describes the factors that must be taken into account when reviewing an Agricultural District and discusses the rationale used for determining which properties are eligible for inclusion. Additionally, the report depicts the extent of farming in the County, develops a profile of land use in the proposed district and gives a background on the New York State Agricultural District Law. AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS The Agricultural District Law requires that each district be reviewed on a regular basis. In Schenectady County the review is undertaken on an eight-year cycle. The review presents an opportunity to analyze the vitality of the County's agricultural base, the extent to which the district has achieved its original objectives, and its effect on local government policies regarding community development, environmental protection, and preservation of the agricultural economy. The primary goal is to ensure that the agricultural district consists predominantly of viable agricultural land and will serve the public interest by assisting in maintaining a viable agricultural industry within the County. According to the Agriculture and Markets Law, when forming/reviewing an Agricultural District the following factors shall be considered: i. the viability of active farming within the proposed district and in areas adjacent thereto; ii. the presence of any viable farm lands within the proposed district and adjacent thereto that are not now in active farming; iii. the nature and extent of land uses other than active farming within the proposed district and adjacent thereto; iv. county developmental patterns and needs; and, v. any other matters which may be relevant. Property Eligibility One of the difficulties associated with administering the agricultural district program is deciding what properties are eligible for inclusion. According to the Law, agricultural districts must consist predominantly of viable agricultural land. The phrase "viable agricultural land" is defined under Article 25AA of the Agriculture and Markets Law as: "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." While determining what constitutes "viable agricultural land" is difficult, according to the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, the generally accepted threshold is that an agricultural 1

7 district must have more than 50 percent land in farms. On average, districts statewide contain approximately 70 percent farmland. While the agricultural district must have more than 50 percent land in farms, presumably 49 percent of land is not required to be in active farms. Consequently, there is a great deal of local discretion in determining what properties are eligible for inclusion. Although the County Department of Economic Development and Planning and AFPB try to predominantly include lands that are currently in active agricultural production, a small percentage of inactive or fallow farm lands that were part of the existing district are proposed for continuation under this eightyear review. It is felt that retaining such lands in the district may encourage their reintroduction into active agriculture. When deciding whether to include such fallow properties, consideration is given to the surrounding land use and character of the area as well as the zoning of the property and general plans the municipality has discussed in its Comprehensive Plan. What Constitutes a Farm? As with the difficulty in determining what constitutes viable agricultural land, it is not clearly defined in the Law what constitutes a farm. While there is a minimum annual gross farm sales threshold in the Law for agricultural properties to qualify for preferential property tax treatment, there is no such minimum established to be considered a farm. It is the position of the Schenectady County Department of Economic Development and Planning and the AFPB that if a property owner conducts some sort of farm enterprise on their land the property can be considered a farm for purposes of this review, regardless of farm income. While this policy results in many small part-time farms being included in the district, these farms contribute significantly to the local agricultural industry and may help the continuance of agriculture in Schenectady County. Small part-time farms, although providing limited gross farm sales, help neighboring large farmers use their land to its best advantage by reducing the incidence of adjoining incompatible uses and by providing access to additional useable lands. They also help preserve open space and play an important role in the continuance of agriculture in suburbanizing situations. In attempting to discern what constitutes a farm, another consideration was to try and be consistent with definitions contained in local zoning laws. A review of local zoning ordinances reveals that the term "farm" is defined very similarly in each town. A common theme in the definitions is that a farm must contain a minimum acreage, ranging from one acre in the Town of Niskayuna to seven acres in the Town of Princetown, and certain uses are excluded such as the raising of fur-bearing animals, dog kennels, etc. Furthermore, the definitions require no minimum gross farm sales to qualify as a farm. Therefore, the properties considered as farms in this review are consistent with local zoning ordinances. Although many small farms are included in the agricultural district, it should be noted that many of the benefits and protections available under the Law might only apply to actively operating larger farms or "land used in agricultural production" as defined under Article 25AA. Consequently, while a property may be included in the agricultural district, it may not be eligible to receive all the benefits and protections available under Article 25AA. 2

8 Agricultural District Landowner Survey For this eight-year review, all landowners in the agricultural district were mailed the Agricultural District Review Worksheet provided by the Department of Agriculture and Markets accompanied by a letter from the Chair of the County AFPB encouraging landowners to complete the worksheet and return it to the County Department of Economic Development and Planning (see Appendix E). A follow-up letter was sent approximately two months later to those landowners who did not respond to the first request. Additionally, a legal notice was published in the Gazette newspaper indicating the agricultural district was under review (see Appendix F). Of the 252 property owners who were mailed a worksheet survey, 171 responded for a return rate of 68 percent. The returned worksheets represent over 13,304 acres (71 percent) of the proposed agricultural district. The data received from the returned worksheets form the basis for this report. For properties for which worksheets were not returned staff reviewed aerial photos and other data to identify whether agricultural activities were occurring on the property. Of the 101 properties (81 landowners) for which there were no response, 21 properties (506 acres) have been recommended for removal from the district. Annual Review Period A new Section 303-B was added to the Agriculture & Markets Law in 2003 requiring the legislative body of any county containing a certified agricultural district to designate an annual 30-day period in which a landowner may submit a request for inclusion of land within an agricultural district. In Schenectady County, the month of December has been established as the annual 30-day review period. Any requests received by the County Department of Economic Development and Planning within the 30-day period are referred to the AFPB for review and recommendation. Prior to this amendment, agricultural property owners were only able to enroll property into the district once every eight years. Since 2004 a total of 70 parcels comprising 2,695 acres were added to the district during the annual review periods. Of these 70 parcels added over this time period, 5 (255 acres) are being recommended for removal as part of the 8-year review. For this report, the County merged the 2011, 2012 and 2013 annual review process with the eight-year review. A total of 17 parcels (628 acres) are included from the annual review period for these two years. 3

9 OVERALL STATUS OF FARMING, THE FARM ECONOMY AND FARM INVESTMENT Agricultural District No. 1 Profile (2012) The proposed Schenectady County Agricultural District No. 1 consists of 18,764 acres comprised of 333 tax parcels, or approximately 13 percent of the County land area (see Map 1). This is an increase of 2,159 acres, or approximately 13 percent, from the district's current 16,595 acres and includes the 68 parcels (2,519 acres) added during the annual review periods between 2004 and Most of the additional acreage (42%) since 2004 includes farmlands in the Town of Rotterdam, followed by Glenville (23%) and Princetown (22%). A total of 29 tax parcels comprising 807 acres, or 5 percent of the 2004 district, is proposed for removal from the district due to residential subdivisions, commercial development, lack of any agricultural activity or at the request of the landowner. Figure 2. Percent of Agricultural District by Municipality Rotterdam 11% Princetown 17% Niskayuna 1% Duanesburg 57% Glenville 14% The majority of the proposed district (57 percent) is located within the Town of Duanesburg. Seventeen percent of the district is located in Princetown, 14 percent in Glenville, 11 percent in Rotterdam and less than 1 percent in Niskayuna. According to landowner responses, there are 105 farms in the proposed Agricultural District. Most farms are small non-commercial operations with 44 percent reporting gross annual sales less than $10,000. Seven percent of farms have sales greater than $100,000 and farmers own 50 percent of lands in the district. 4

10 Table 2. Agricultural District No. 1 Review Profile No. Acres in District No. Acres in Farms No. Acres Cropped No. Acres Owned by Farmers No. Acres Rented by Farmers 18,764 12,711 6,392 9,756 2,955 Number of Farms by Principal Enterprise 1 Number of Farms According to Number of Farms According Dairy 6 Annual Gross Farm Sales to Total Capital Investment Over Past 7 Years (2012) Over Past 7 Years (2012) Cash Crop (Grain) 8 Below $10, Below $10, Cash Crop (Vegetable) 14 $10,000 to $39, $10,000 to $49, Orchard 1 $40,000 to $99,999 8 $50,000 to $99, Vineyard 0 $100,000 to $199,999 1 $100,000 to $199,999 6 Livestock (other than dairy) 37 $200,000 to $499,999 4 Over $200,000 2 Poultry 0 Over $500,000 2 Horticultural Specialties 3 Sugarbush 1 Christmas Trees 3 Aquaculture 0 Other* 32 1 Although many applicants listed more than one farm enterprise, each applicant was assigned one principal enterprise based on their application. TOTAL 105 *Includes Hay Viable Agricultural Land While the vast majority of properties within the district are being farmed in some manner, a twofold approach is taken herein to try and determine the percentage of the proposed district composed of viable agricultural land as defined in the Agriculture and Markets Law. First, the property class data collected annually by the NYS Division of Equalization and Assessment is utilized to determine the percentage of property within the district classified as "Agriculture" according to local property assessors. Second, the Agricultural District Review Worksheets (see Appendix C) submitted by landowners during the course of the district review process are used to identify those farms, and lands rented by those farms, that meet the minimum gross farm sales to be considered "land used in agricultural production" as defined the Agriculture and Markets Law. According to the NYS Division of Equalization and Assessment property class data, 5,973 acres, or 32 percent of the proposed agricultural district is classified as "Agriculture." As shown in Table 3 below, the Town of Duanesburg has the highest percentage of properties within the proposed agricultural district with an "Agriculture" property class (43 percent). The property class data seems to indicate that the area to be districted does not consist predominantly of viable agricultural land. However, a closer examination of this data indicates that it does not accurately portray the extent of agriculture in many instances due in part to inconsistencies in assigning property class. For example, there is a farm operation within the proposed Agricultural District with gross farm sales in excess of $100,000 with an assigned "Residential" property class. Therefore, relying entirely on property class data to identify agricultural uses can be misleading. 5

11 A total of 103 parcels consisting of 4,393 acres are assigned a vacant land (300s) property type classification. This represents 23 percent of the District. Based on the submitted landowner worksheets, owners of 46 of these 108 parcels identified themselves as farmers and 24 of the parcels have been added to the District since A review of the landowner worksheets submitted during this review also indicates that 55 percent of the area to be included in the District is part of a farm operation with gross annual sales exceeding $10,000 and therefore meets the Agriculture & Markets Law definition of "land used in agricultural production. As shown in Table 3 below, such characterized farmland ranges from a low of 45 percent in Glenville to a high of 71 percent in the Town of Niskayuna. Table 3. Proposed Agricultural District Acreage Classification Proposed Ag. District Acreage Land Classified as Agriculture (100) s Land Classified as Land Used in Agricultural Production 2 Town Acres Percent Acres Percent Duanesburg 10,635 4,536 43% 6,193 58% Glenville 2, % 1,177 45% Niskayuna % % Princetown 3, % 1,701 53% Rotterdam 2, % 1,096 49% TOTAL 18,764 5,973 32% 10,267 55% 1 Source: NYS Division of Equalization & Assessment. Refers to the property class assigned by the local tax assessor. 2 Source: Schenectady County Department of Economic Development and Planning. Refers to land used in agricultural production as defined in the NYS Agriculture & Markets Law-part of a farm operation with reported annual gross sales over $10,000. Landowner Applications ( ) In accordance with Agriculture and Markets Law, a legal notice was published in the Daily Gazette newspaper on October 6, 2012 announcing the eight-year review of the district boundaries (see Appendix E). In an attempt to further publicize the County Agricultural District program and the eight-year review, a news release was issued in January 2013 and an article subsequently appeared in the Daily Gazette discussing the agricultural district review process. A draft copy of the Agricultural District Map was mailed to each town planner to provide an opportunity for review and comment in an attempt to assure that no obvious properties were excluded or inappropriate properties included. As discussed above (Annual Review Period), landowners now have an annual opportunity to enroll property in the Agricultural District and the need to publicize the eight-year review is no longer as critical. However, in addition to the news release and legal notice, the County Soil and Water Conservation District identified some additional landowners to specifically notify of the opportunity to enroll property. Table 4 below identifies any proposed new applications received under the 2011, 2012 and 2013 annual review periods. Since the annual enrollment period began in 2004, a total of 73 parcels (2,774 acres) have been added to the district, 5 (255 acres) of which are proposed for removal as part of this review. 6

12 Table 4. Number of Parcels and Breakdown of New Applications by Municipality (2011 & 2012) Municipality No. of Parcels Acreage Percent of Total New Acreage Duanesburg % Glenville % Princetown 1 9 1% Rotterdam % TOTAL Source: Schenectady County Department of Economic Development and Planning Properties Proposed for Removal A total of 29 parcels (782 acres) are proposed for removal from the District. The decision to remove properties is generally based on residential subdivision activity, commercial development, or at the request of the landowner. If a landowner within the district failed to respond to the Agricultural District Review Sheet request, a field investigation was conducted to determine whether the property was still in agricultural use. If the property is still in agricultural use, there are not any plans or proposals to develop the land, and local zoning is consistent with agricultural uses, the property was left in the proposed district. Table 5. Parcels Proposed for Removal by Municipality Municipality No. of Parcels Acreage Percent of Total Acreage Removed Duanesburg % Glenville % Niskayuna % Princetown % Rotterdam % TOTAL Source: Schenectady County Department of Economic Development and Planning VIABILITY OF FARMING WITHIN THE DISTRICT The Extent to Which the Number of Farms and Farm Acres Furthers the Purposes of the Agricultural District The total acreage of Agricultural District No. 1 as currently proposed is 18,764 acres and represents an increase of 2,159 acres or 13 percent since This increase is probably more attributable to better awareness of the program and an increase in small farm or support property enrollment than an increase in farming activity over this period. In fact, the number of farms in the district actually decreased 17 percent from 127 to 105 and the number of acres in farms decreased 21 percent from 16,019 acres to 12,711. Despite these decreases in farms and acreage in farms there is a significant amount of farming activity within the proposed district and the district remains important to support their continuance. As discussed above, while small farms might not contribute significant acreage, these farms contribute significantly to the local agricultural industry and may hold the key to the continuance of agriculture in Schenectady County. 7

13 While the vast majority of farms have annual gross sales of less than $39,999, there are 8 farms with sales between $40,000 and $99,999 and 7 farms with sales over $100,000. The fact that 55 percent of the proposed district meets the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law threshold of "land used in agricultural production" is affirmation that the number of farms and farm acres furthers the purposes for which the district was originally created. The Extent to Which the District Has Achieved Its Original Objectives The original objective of Agricultural District No. 1, as with any agricultural district, was to promote and encourage the continued use of land for farming. Toward that end, the number of acres proposed for inclusion in the district has increased 13 percent from 16,595 acres in 2004 to 18,764 acres in A total of 29 parcels, comprising 807 acres, or 5 percent of the 2004 district, are proposed for removal from the district due to residential subdivision activity, commercial development, lack of agricultural activity or at the request of the landowner. However, the property deletions are offset by the 70 parcels (2,695 acres) that have been added during the annual review periods since 2004 including this 8-year review. While Schenectady County farms face increasing challenges and the number of farms and farm acreage has been declining in recent years, the conversion of farmland does not appear to be occurring at a fast rate in most of the County with the possible exception of the inner suburban areas. Conversion pressure will continue to be higher in these areas due to property values and commercial/residential development opportunities. Utilities Encroaching on Farmlands Despite encroaching residential and commercial development impacting parts of the proposed agricultural district, the western portions of Rotterdam and Glenville and most of Duanesburg and Princetown remain rural in character and farming continues to be a viable activity within Schenectady County Agricultural District No. 1. In areas where development has been encroaching on farmlands, the presence of the district continues to provide protections for necessary farming activities and relief from restrictive local zoning laws. LAND USE POLICIES/ACTIONS AND THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT County Agricultural & Farmland Protection Plan A goal of the County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan (2002) was to retain the viable agricultural land resource or more specifically the prime farmland. One recommended action is to encourage owners of farmland to enroll properties into the agricultural district. Consistent with this recommendation, additions to the agricultural district since 2004 include 70 parcels and 2,695 acres. 8

14 The Agricultural District Review process is also helping to provide an updated mailing list of agricultural producers and additional data on the status of farming in the County. The Impacts of Nonagricultural Development Encroaching residential subdivision and commercial development have impacted parts of the proposed agricultural district and a small percentage of the district is located in areas that could be described as urban in character. As shown on Map 1, in these areas farms have become more isolated over the years as development has continued to encroach. While these properties may appear to have little relationship to the bulk of the agricultural district, this situation is typical of agricultural districts located in more densely developed areas such as Schenectady County. Despite the relatively low development pressure, the expanding presence of community water supplies may begin to encourage increased residential subdivision activity and a subsequent increase in land use conflicts. The Town of Princetown formed its first water district in 1999 and the Town of Glenville's water service area has expanded significantly in recent years. However, most of the loss of farmland in the County over the past 20 years can probably be attributed more to other factors such as low profitability and farmer retirements than conversion pressure from encroaching development. A substantial amount of former farmland remains idle and undeveloped. Local Laws, Ordinances and Objectives and Their Influence on Farming To a large extent, the boundaries of the proposed district are consistent with community land use policies and conditions. Generally, properties proposed for inclusion in the agricultural district conform to local zoning and comprehensive plans and are consistent with the definition of farm established in municipal zoning ordinances. Due to the lack of clarity and some inconsistencies within local zoning ordinances, discerning the treatment of agricultural uses in the more urban areas is difficult. However, continuuance of the agricultural district should not be in direct conflict with community economic and land use conditions, should help protect farm operations and assist in preserving the remaining farmlands. At this time no local government policies specific to Agricultural District No. 1 exist in the represented Towns of Duanesburg, Glenville, Niskayuna, Princetown, and Rotterdam. While the Comprehensive Plans of the Towns of Duanesburg and Princetown recognize the contribution agricultural areas make to the towns' quality of life, they are silent with respect to the agricultural district. While the presence of the district may heighten the awareness of agricultural uses it has not had a discernable impact on local government policies. Town of Duanesburg The Town of Duanesburg is a rural community with traditional rural hamlets that serve as centers of residential and limited commercial development. There is limited public sewer and water service available within the Town. While the Town is separated into six zoning districts, the Rural Residential (R-100) Zoning District comprises the majority of the Town. As stated in the Town's Comprehensive Plan, "The Town of Duanesburg encourages the preservation and protection of the economic health of the agricultural community and the prime and important agricultural soils." The town adopted a right to farm law in

15 A total of 10,635 acres or approximately 23 percent of the Town of Duanesburg is proposed for inclusion in Agricultural District No. 1. This is a small increase of 393 acres (4 percent) since The proposed district lies predominantly in the Town's Agricultural & Residential (R-2) zoning district. Principally permitted uses in the R-2 District include customary agricultural uses and roadside stands for the sale of products grown on-premises. Recent non-farm development in and adjacent to the proposed agricultural district appears to be limited to modest large lot residential subdivision activity. A total of 13 parcels (419 acres) are proposed for removal from the district as a result of this review. One large commercial development (Hannaford Grocery) resulted in the removal of a 58 acre parcel from the district. Town of Glenville A total of 2,646 acres or approximately 9 percent of the Town of Glenville is proposed for inclusion in the agricultural district. This is a small increase of 86 acres since While most of the proposed district lies within the Rural Residential and Agricultural (RA) zoning district, 214 acres are located within the Suburban Residential (SR) District, 43 acres in the Riverfront Recreation/Commercial (RR) District and 42 acres in the Research/Development/Technology District. The Town's Comprehensive Plan is largely silent with respect to the preservation of agricultural uses. However, according to the Town Zoning Ordinance, the stated purpose of the RA District is "To maintain low-density residential and agricultural development in areas that are considered rural, and to accommodate outdoor recreation facilities and other land uses which are dependent on a rural setting. The Supplemental Regulations in the Town s Zoning Ordinance also specifically lists Agricultural-related Uses where the stated intent is that an atmosphere of acceptance be maintained for agricultural activities within the Town of Glenville. Agriculture is recognized as an important part of the Town s economy, culture and rural atmosphere. The principal permitted uses in the RA District include: agricultural activities/farms, roadside produce stands, single-family dwellings, and commercial logging. Agriculture is not a permitted use in the Suburban Residential District. Consequently, existing farms would be considered preexisting nonconforming uses. Such uses are sometimes referred to as "grandfathered," and are permitted to continue with certain restrictions placed on any future expansion of the use. One issue is the Town s definition of farm excludes riding academies and livery or boarding stables. The NYS Agriculture and Markets Law recognizes commercial horse boarding and equine operations as land used in agricultural production and both uses are eligible for the protections available under the law. A total of 313 acres of the agricultural district is located within a recently expanded municipal water district (District 11). The presence of a community water supply may begin to encourage residential subdivision activity. However, the underlying zoning has remained RA which is compatible with agricultural uses. 10

16 Town of Niskayuna The Town of Niskayuna is a developed suburban community with only 20 percent of its land area classified as vacant and two parcels with a land use classification of agricultural according to their 2003 Comprehensive Plan. Neither the Town's Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance discusses the preservation of remaining agricultural uses. Only 141 acres or approximately 1 percent of the Town of Niskayuna are proposed for inclusion in the agricultural district. Approximately 34 acres of the proposed district lie within the Land Conservation (LC) Zoning District, 35 acres within the Rural Residential (RR) District, and 71 acres lie within the Low-Density (R-1) Residential Zone. The remaining 9 acres are within the Residential (R-2) Zone. There are no principal permitted uses allowed in the LC Zone. However, agricultural operations, single family dwellings, and recreational uses are allowed by special permit in the LC Zone. The LC Zone boundary largely corresponds with the statedesignated wetlands, the aquifer, and the floodplain of the Mohawk River. While the presence of the agricultural district may heighten the awareness of farming in the area and provide some right-to-farm protections, the NYS Agricultural District Law still requires farmers to follow best management practices when farming in these environmentally sensitive areas. The R-1 Zone allows commercial agriculture as a principal permitted use. Commercial agriculture includes nurseries and greenhouses, orchards, and growing other field crops. However, "truck gardening and farming" are allowed only by special permit in the R-1 Zone. Allowing commercial agriculture as a principal permitted use while requiring truck gardening and farming to obtain a special permit does not appear to be consistent. Since none of these agricultural terms are defined in the Zoning Ordinance, discerning the treatment of agricultural uses is difficult. The R-2 zoning district does not permit farming. Consequently, the presence of the agricultural district may help preserve the remaining farmland uses in these areas of Town. Town of Princetown While farms no longer dominate the landscape, portions of Princetown remain largely undeveloped and retain a quiet rural character. Currently there is no public sewer system available in the Town. However, a public water district was formed in 1999 and has expanded to include portions of the Agricultural District. The presence of a community water supply may begin to encourage residential subdivision activity. The agricultural district should help maintain the viability of farming despite encroaching non-compatible uses. A total of 3,195 acres or approximately 19 percent of the Town of Princetown is proposed for inclusion in the agricultural district. This represents a small increase since 2004 due to the proposed removal of 246 acres (7 parcels). A majority of the acreage located in the agricultural district is in the General Residential (GR) Zoning District. A small percentage of the agricultural district is located in the Multiple Family (MF) and Commercial (C-1/C-2) Zoning Districts. However, farm operations are a principal permitted use in all zoning districts in the Town. According to the Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan, the stated goal regarding agriculture is to Remain farm friendly by preserving farmlands and encouraging agricultural opportunities. The recommended strategies include: 11

17 A. Amend zoning, subdivision, and site plan regulations in town to be more farm friendly and to preserve potential and existing farmlands during development. B. Establish policies and programs that promote agriculture. Town of Rotterdam A total of 2,148 acres of the proposed agricultural district are located in the Town of Rotterdam. This represents a significant increase of 1,025 acres (91 percent) since This increase is more in response to recognition of the agricultural district program than an increase in agricultural activity. The proposed agricultural district is located entirely within the town s Agricultural (A-1) zoning district. In the Agricultural zone customary agricultural operations are principally permitted uses. The Town s Comprehensive Plan is silent in regard to Agriculture. The Schenectady Aquifer Residents of Schenectady County are beneficiaries of a unique natural resource, the Schenectady Aquifer. This groundwater supply yields over 25 million gallons of water per day to the City of Schenectady, Village of Scotia, and the Towns of Rotterdam, Glenville, and Niskayuna. The Aquifer is the sole source of water for a population estimated to exceed 150,000 people. In an effort to preserve this vital community water supply, the five communities that depend on this resource joined together in 1985 to enact a uniform groundwater protection plan, the Intermunicipal Watershed Rules and Regulations. The regulations include four separate protection zones depending upon the vulnerability of contamination. They include, from least restrictive to most restrictive, Zone IV (Tributary Watershed Zone), Zone III (General Aquifer Recharge Zone), Zone II (Primary Recharge Area), and Zone I (Wellhead Protection Zone). Of the 18,367 acre proposed agricultural district, approximately 320 acres (14 parcels) are located within Zones II, or III of the Aquifer area. One 34 acre parcel within the Town of Niskayuna is located within Zone 1, the most restrictive Zone, of the aquifer. Formation of the agricultural district will not supersede the Intermunicipal Watershed Rules and Regulations. Consequently, any farm operations must still comply with the applicable Intermunicipal Watershed Rules and Regulations. RECOMMENDATION Based on this review, the Schenectady County Department of Economic Development and Planning and the Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board find that the continuance of Agricultural District No. 1 with the proposed modifications is consistent with the provisions and intent of Article 25AA of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. Specifically, the district as proposed, and depicted on Map 1 herein, furthers the purposes for which it was created and achieves the objectives of protecting and enhancing agriculture in Schenectady County. In addition, we find that the proposed district is made up of predominantly viable, active farmland and related adjacent areas, and is consistent with community economic and land use conditions. 12

18 1

19 APPENDIX A NYS Agricultural District Law Summary

20 THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT LAW Enacted in 1971, New York State's Agricultural District Law (Article 25AA of the Agriculture and Markets Law) seeks to create an economic and regulatory climate which will encourage farmers to continue farming. The Law recognizes that agricultural lands are an important and irreplaceable resource, and that they are being lost due to development, high costs of doing business, and regulatory restraints. It is the declared purpose of the Law to provide a locallyinitiated 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. A summary document describing the law can be found at Relying primarily on the initiative of landowners and county governments with state oversight, the Law provides agricultural landowners with a number of benefits and protections without burdening a landowner with additional restrictions. Contrary to a common misconception, land in an agricultural district is not subject to additional land use restrictions, nor is the sale of land within the district restricted. A landowner's right to sell his or her land for whatever purpose is fully protected under the Law. As more fully described below, the benefits and protections available to agricultural landowners within an agricultural district include: limitation on local regulation; limitation on the exercise of eminent domain and other public acquisitions or advancement of funds; limitation on local benefit assessments; right to farm protections; coordination of local planning and land use decision-making; and, a required disclosure statement for transfers of real property. However, it should be noted that many of the benefits and protections available under the Law apply only to actively operated farms or "land used in agricultural production" as defined under Article 25AA (see Appendix 1). Consequently, while a property may be included in the agricultural district, it may not be eligible to receive all the benefits and protections available under Article 25AA detailed below. Limitation on Local Regulation The Law prohibits enactment of laws or ordinances by local governments which would unreasonably restrict or regulate farm structures or farming practices within an agricultural district, unless the regulations directly affect public health or safety. This prohibition applies only in the case where the land affected was included within the agricultural district prior to the enactment of the local regulation. The Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets may independently initiate a review of a proposed or existing local law or ordinance or proceed upon the complaint of a district landowner. The Commissioner is authorized to bring an action to enforce the Agricultural District Law, if necessary. Limitation on the Exercise of Eminent Domain and Other Public Acquisitions or Advancement of Funds The Law requires that any state agency, public benefit corporation, or local government which intends to acquire more than one acre of land from any farm within an agricultural district or A-1

21 more than 10 acres in total from a district, must file a notice of intent to that effect with the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets at least 30 days prior to taking the action. Similarly, a notice must be filed for all actions wherein the government sponsor intends to advance a grant, loan, interest subsidy or other form of public funding for the construction of dwellings, commercial or industrial facilities, or water or sewer facilities to serve nonfarm structures within an agricultural district. The purpose of the notice requirement is to assure a full evaluation of the potential effects of a government sponsored acquisition or construction project on farms and farm resources, and to determine whether any reasonable alternative exists which would minimize or avoid the adverse impact on agricultural enterprises within the district. The Commissioner's findings and recommendations are only advisory. The Commissioner has no authority to disapprove, alter, or otherwise mitigate expected adverse impacts to agriculture. Limitations on Local Benefit Assessment Benefit assessments or special ad valorem levies for local improvements are generally calculated on the basis of the value, acreage, or frontage of the properties benefited. Since agricultural operations generally involve large tracts of land and multiple structures, they are usually subject to higher assessments. The Law, therefore, restricts assessments for local improvements, such as water and sewer, to a lot not exceeding one-half acre surrounding any dwelling or nonfarm structure located on land used in agricultural production in an agricultural district, and to farm structures which are directly benefited. This limitation on benefit assessment is available only in those instances where the agricultural district was formed prior to the improvement district or benefit area. Right to Farm Protections On any land in an agricultural district, an agricultural practice shall not constitute a private nuisance provided such agricultural practice constitutes a sound agricultural practice pursuant to an opinion issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets upon request. Sound agricultural practices refer to those practices necessary for the on-farm production, preparation and marketing of agricultural commodities. Examples of practices include, but are not limited to, operation of farm equipment; proper use of agricultural chemicals and other crop protection methods; and, construction and use of farm structures. Coordination of Local Planning and Land Use Decision-Making Any application for a special use permit, site plan approval, use variance, or subdivision approval requiring municipal review that would occur on property within an agricultural district containing a farm operation or on property within 500 feet of a farm operation located in an agricultural district, shall include an agricultural data statement. An agricultural data statement must include a description of the proposed project and a map showing the site of the proposed project relative to the location of nearby farm operations within the district. The municipality shall consider the agricultural data statement in its review of the possible impacts of the proposed project upon the functioning of farm operations within the agricultural A-2

22 district. Notice of the project must be mailed to any owner of land within the agricultural district located within 500 feet of the project. Disclosure Statement for Real Property Transfers Prior to the sale, purchase, or exchange of real property located partially or wholly within an agricultural district, the prospective grantor shall deliver to the prospective grantee a notice or disclosure statement. Such disclosure statement shall be recorded on a property transfer report form prescribed by the state board of real property services as provided for in the real property law. The notice must state the following: "It is the policy of this state and this community 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 notice is to inform prospective residents that the property they are about to acquire lies partially or wholly within an agricultural district and that farming activities occur within the district. Such farming activities may include, but not be limited to, activities that cause noise, dust and odors." A-3

23 APPENDIX B List of Properties Removed from the District

24 Properties to be removed (By Town) Tax I.D. Acres Class Prop. Address Owner Town Comment OLD DARE RD CUOMO, JOSHUA Duanesburg House piece of Koontz farm EATON CORNERS RD DECKER, ARTHUR J. Duanesburg Vacant wooded property No Ag. Use SHELDON RD DRAKE, DAVID Duanesburg Sliver of property No Ag. Use GALLUPVILLE RD EDWARDS, ALLEN C. Duanesburg House no response SCHOHARIE TPKE FREDRICKS, PAULA C. Duanesburg Nonfarmer rear lot now Nat. Cons MILLERS CORNERS RD HEARTHSTONE HOMES LLC, Duanesburg House minor subd HILLMAN RD HSIA, JIAO MING Duanesburg No ag. activity/minor subd WEAVER RD MURPHY, GENE A. JR Duanesburg No activity no response MCGUIRE SCHOOL RD ROMANSKI, DARREN P. Duanesburg House on lot YOUNGS RD RYBICKI, CHESTER L. Duanesburg No activity nonfarmer SCHOHARIE TPKE THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, INC., Duanesburg Conservation lands CHADWICK RD TOWN OF DUANESBURG, Duanesburg Town Owned WESTERN TPKE VENTURA DUANESBURG LLC, Duanesburg Development Hannaford Acres Percent 54% LINCOLN DR BK/LAND BUHRMASTER, DONALD L. LE Glenville Apartment development WAGNER RD VIETA, PATRICIA A. Glenville No response isolated parcel SACANDAGA RD WILCOCK, DONALD E & MICHELE J Glenville response non farmer Acres Percent 7% CONSAUL RD GINIECKI, WILLIAM Niskayuna developed ACORN DR LAVASH, JOHN C. Niskayuna house lot non farmer response PEARSE RD LUCZKA, JOHN L. Niskayuna non farmer isolated parcel Acres Percent 2% PANGBURN RD MCCLAINE, DOUGLAS Princetowm subdivided house lot MCCLAINE LN MCCLAINE, ROBERT E. Princetown subdivided house lot MCCLAINE, ROJER Princetown subdivided house lot PITTMAN, JODY Princetown subdivided house lot HOUGHTON RD PRICE, BARBARA J. Princetown isolated parcel P.O. BOX 3428 THORPE, DOUGLAS Princetown not in production no response PUTNAM RD TOUCHETTE, TERRY G. Princetown house parcel Acres Percent 31% COUNTY LINE RD DELUKE, GARY A. Rotterdam former nursery business KEATOR DR RAUCCI, JOSEPH M. Rotterdam paper street former Browns CRAWFORD ROAD CAMPBELL, ROBERT J. Rotterdam rural house lot no ag. Activity Acres Percent 6% Total Acres

25 APPENDIX C Agricultural District Review Worksheet/Profile

26 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT REVIEW PROFILE DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION County: Schenectady District No.: 1 Town(s) in District: Duanesburg, Glenville, Niskayuna, Princetown and Rotterdam No. acres in district: 18,764 No. acres in farms: 1 12,711 No. acres cropped: 6,392 No. acres owned by farmers: 9,756 No. acres rented by farmers: 2,955 AGRICULTURAL DATA Number Farms by Principal Enterprise Dairy 6 Cash Crop (Grain) 8 Cash Crop (Vegetable) 14 Orchard 1 Vineyard 0 Livestock (Other than Dairy) 37 Poultry 0 Horticulture Specialties 2 Sugarbush 1 Christmas Tree 3 Aquaculture 0 Other* 31 *Includes Hay Number Farms According to Annual Gross Farm Sales Below $10, $10,000 to $39, $40,000 to $99,999 8 $100,000 to $199,999 1 $200,000 to $499,999 4 Over $500,000 2 Number Farms According to Total Capital Investments (Land, Buildings, Livestock, Trees, etc.) Over Past Seven Years Below $10, $10,000 to $49, $50,000 to $99, $100,000 to $199,999 6 Over $200,000 2 AGRICULTURAL DATA ANALYSIS A. Since last review, number of acres in District Added: 2,1692 Deleted: B. Since last review, number of acres in farms: Increased: Decreased: 3,308 C. Since last review, number of farms: Increased: Decreased 22 D. Since last review, number of farms with gross sales over $100,000: Increased: Decreased: 4 E. Since last review, number of farms with Capital Investments over $100,000: Increased: Decreased: 3 1 Number of acres in farms represents the sum of acres owned by farmers and rented by farmers.

27 APPENDIX D Environmental Assessment Form

28 PART 1 PROJECT INFORMATION NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only 1. The proposed action is located in the County of Schenectady and the Towns of Duanesburg, Glenville, Niskayuna, Princetown and Rotterdam 2. The agency responsible for preparing this Short Environmental Assessment Form and determining environmental significance is the County Legislative Body of Schenectady County. 3. The name and address for the Clerk of the above named County is John Woodward 4. Is this an application to modify an existing agricultural district? X Yes No If yes, what is the total number of acres comprising the district as it exists prior to modification? 16,595 acres 5. If this application involves a modification, will such modification result in a change in the size of the district? X Yes No If yes, how many acres are involved in the change? 1,772 acres Does this represent an X Increase decrease 6. Zoning and Planning Information Does the agricultural district correspond with a town(s) zoning district(s) X Yes No If yes, please cite the applicable zoning district(s): Agricultural/Rural Residential, Commercial, General Residential Is/are the zoned district(s) within the modified agricultural district compatible with the goals and objectives of the Agricultural District Law, as set forth in Article 25 AA of the Agriculture and Markets Law? X Yes No If yes, please cite the applicable language: Rural Residential maintain low density residential and agricultural development in areas that are considered rural Agricultural/Residential Assure proper environment for continued agricultural use of land. 7. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed modification? Residential Industrial Commercial X Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space

29 Describe: The area is a mix of rural, large lot residential and agricultural uses. 8. Is there a public controversy related to this district proposal? Yes X No If yes, describe below: 9. Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify the proposed action. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Authorized signature: Date: PART II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT General Information In providing responses to each of the questions, the reviewer should keep in mind that the action proposed is the modification or termination of an agricultural district or districts. The action is not the land use or activity which will, or may, take place in the district(s). For example, it is not appropriate to consider the effects of management action that may be taken by individual operators in conducting farming. Agricultural farm management practices, including construction, maintenance and repair of farm buildings, and land use changes consistent with generally accepted principles of farming are listed as Type II actions in 6 NYCRR (3), and these actions have been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment. A. Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.4? Yes X No If Yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF B. Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.5? Yes X No If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. C. Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: No. The action is a recertification of an existing district and does not involve a specific land use or activity. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: No. The action is a recertification of an existing district and does not involve a specific land use or activity. The purpose of the agricultural district program is to encourage the continued use

30 of farmland for agricultural production and forestall the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: No. The action is a recertification of an existing district and does not involve a specific land use or activity. C4. A community s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: No. To a large extent, the boundaries of the proposed district are consistent with community land use policies and conditions. Generally, properties proposed for inclusion in the agricultural district conform to local zoning and comprehensive plans and are consistent with the definition of farm established in municipal zoning ordinances. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: No. The purpose of the agricultural district program is to encourage the continued use of farmland for agricultural production and forestall the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 C5? Explain briefly: No. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: No. D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA? Yes X No E. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Yes X No. If yes, explain briefly: PART III DESIGNATION OF LEAD AGENCY Please indicate desire for lead agency status by checking the appropriate box below: X Since the proposed action will be undertaken by this County Legislative Body and since any adverse environmental impacts will be primarily of local significance, it is hereby recommended that this County Legislative Body serve as lead agency to ensure compliance with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. It has been determined that the only other agency required to undertake an action in this case is the Department of Agriculture and Markets. The County Legislative Body does not choose to nominate itself to serve as lead agency.

31 PART IV DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be addressed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e., urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question D of Part II was checked yes, the determination and significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. X Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination: County of Schenectady Name of Lead Agency Kathleen Rooney Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency County Manager Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from Responsible Officer) Date

32 APPENDIX E Worksheet Request Letters

33 Agricultural & Farmland Protection Board Schaffer Heights 107 Nott Terrace Suite 303 Schenectady, New York (518) Fax: (518) October 11, 2011 Dear Agricultural Landowner: Schenectady County's Agricultural District #1, originally formed in 1988, is currently being reviewed as required by the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. As a landowner with property in the Agricultural District, you are being asked to complete the enclosed worksheet. It is very important that we receive completed worksheets for all properties in the Agricultural District so that an accurate determination of the significance and viability of the agricultural industry in Schenectady County can be made. The information you provide is confidential and will only be used for building a profile of the District. Once the profile is completed, the information you provided on your particular property will be destroyed. If your property is no longer in agricultural production, please note that on the worksheet. If you have any questions or would like more information on the Agricultural District program, please contact Stephen Feeney at the Schenectady County Department of Economic Development and Planning between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ( ) or at steve.feeney@schenectadycounty.com. The Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board is requesting that the enclosed Agricultural District Review Worksheet be submitted by November 18, The worksheets can be faxed to the County Planning Department ( ), mailed or ed to Mr. Feeney as indicated above. Thank you for assisting in the review process. Sincerely, enc. William E. Ruther Chairman

34 Agricultural & Farmland Protection Board Schaffer Heights 107 Nott Terrace Suite 303 Schenectady, New York (518) Fax: (518) December 9, 2011 Re: Schenectady County Agricultural District Review Worksheet Request Reminder Dear Agricultural Landowner: Schenectady County's Agricultural District #1, originally formed in 1988, is currently being reviewed as required by the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. Response to our first mailing in October has been very good. However, it is very important that we receive completed worksheets for all properties, even if the property is no longer in production, so that an accurate determination of the significance and viability of the agricultural industry in Schenectady County can be made. The information you provide is confidential and will only be used for building a profile of the District. Once the profile is completed, the information you provided on your particular property will be destroyed. If you have any questions or would like more information on the Agricultural District program, please contact Stephen Feeney at the Schenectady County Department of Economic Development and Planning between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ( ) or at steve.feeney@schenectadycounty.com. The worksheets can be faxed to the County Planning Department ( ), mailed or ed to Mr. Feeney as indicated above. Thank you for assisting in the review process and Happy Holidays! Sincerely, enc. William E. Ruther Chairman

35 APPENDIX F Legal Notice

36