Right to Farm Law public hearing

[Lee Chowaniec]

This past Monday evening, the Lancaster Town Board held a public hearing on the Right to Farm Law it is intending to adopt in the near future.

It was presented to the public as a local law that will be established to maintain and preserve the rural traditions and character of the Town, to permit the continuation of agricultural practices, to protect the existence and ownership of farms, to encourage the initiation of farms and agribusinesses, and to promote new ways to resolve disputes concerning agricultural practices and farm operations.

In order to maintain a viable farming economy in Lancaster it is necessary to limit the circumstances under which farming may be deemed a nuisance and 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.

Hans Mobius, Chairman of the Erie County Right to Farm committee informed the town board that Lancaster would be the 23rd municipality in Erie County to pass the Right to Farm bill. “We will probably be the only county in New York and possibly the nation to do so. We started in the year 2006 and have worked with other towns to get this approved. We hope you do so this evening.”

Supervisor Dino Fudoli interjected that this was merely a public hearing on the proposal and that there was no intent to pass the bill this evening.

Mobius declared that the board could possibly approve the bill this vey evening as they did in Grand Island where there was no objection to the proposal. “We appreciate if you consider doing that tonight, especially if there is no objection presented by the public.”

Fudoli declared that there was no resolution in place, but that there would be one based on public hearing comments. Town Attorney John Dudziak interjected that he was of like mind, holding off drafting a resolution until after the public made their comments.

Public comments

Twelve residents spoke on proposed law, all in favor and support.

Lee Chowaniec addressed the board and stated he thought it appropriate that the board waited until after the public had their say before drafting a resolution. “In reading the drafted Right to Farm law draft I would have to ask what constitutes ‘farmland’. It does not state size of property.” An individual stated it was 5 acres. “Yet in the State Agriculture and Markets Law, Section 301 of Article 25AA, 7 acres is the number used. Will this law protect people who farm less than 5 acres?”

Councilman Ronald Ruffino interjected that the proposed law protects people that are currently farming. “For example, if a development moved next to a farm and people moving in started complaining about things that were being done (on the farm) under normal hours. If a development already existed and a party came in and wanted to farm, it does not protect them.”

Chowaniec: “I am just asking the board to take a hard look at what is being proposed, at some of the nuances. There is a distinction between working farms and non working farms. Where some farms may not have been worked for awhile, where adjacent subdivision developments take place, and then the farm becomes active and the subdivision residents complain. This is a god bill to pass. The farms were here first and are deserving of protection. At the same time consider all nuances and protect all farms.

Jack Dolman: Lancaster is but one of a few towns left that does not have a Right to Farm Law. It is about time. Farms produce valuable crops and are good for the environment.

Dolman neighbor: Reiterated what Dolman said, in particular on farmland that is no longer actively worked and where garbage litters the brush. “Lancaster has very few active farms but what it has promoted is people coming in from Clarence and other locales and renting land and running a clean operation; a positive.

Robert D.: “We have a large parcel of property in Lancaster, over 50 acres. I bought the house and some property, but I was not able to get 5 acres. Am I going to have a problem getting grandfathered in with what I have? We have two horses and I raise a couple of pigs a year. That’s all we do. Now, am I going to have issues, am I going to have people complaining when I eventually have a development built behind me?

Supervisor Fudoli related there were similar issues brought forward when he served on the county farmland bureau. “We did have certain cases where we did grandfather such exceptions in. I don’t know the technicalities or legal implications here, but we will look into it. There are guidelines that will be put in to protect smaller parcels; parcels that have been separated out from larger ones.”

Resident: “I was born on a farm so I have to ask who was here first, the farmers or the subdivisions. I support this bill.”

Donna Lukowski: “I was here a few meetings ago and spoke on my concern for my horses. I applaud the board for the work you have done and in trying to get this passed. I get my hay from the same people who are here this evening and farm. They need some form of protection. I have lived in my present home all my life and I am going to have $300,000 homes in my back yard in the near future. You know that someone from the new subdivision is going to complain. I want no hassles, just to come home and do my own thing, just like the rest of the farmers are saying here tonight. What some may see as non working farms, they are farms that have animal, and that’s their livelihood. I am in favor of this law.”

Cemetery Road resident: “Mr. Fudoli, we have a 60 acre farm that my husband still works. We also do not want to see development in our backyard. For many years people have knocked on our door wanting to stop it. The north-south corridor, they wanted to run that through it. A trail now runs along side of it – which is beautiful and which I walk. I would like to not see development, but do want to see a law that protects farms like mine that has been in the family for over 100 years. For a lot of people here tonight, this is their livelihood and legacy. Please consider to pass this law.”

Shaun B. “I moved to Lancaster because I like the community. I picked my house because of the back yard. There are no houses behind and that is the view I was looking for. I would like to see the full verbiage of the law. I believe there are pro and cons. No one wants to look at a raggedy field. It needs to be plowed under and farmed. We all need agriculture and I am in favor of this law.”

Resident (?): “The Right to Farm Law is not to stop development but to protect the people who are already there from being pestered for unjust reasons. Isn’t there a real estate clause in the law before the people purchase the property that the people have to be informed?”

Supervisor Fudoli: “That is correct. That is for protection for the farmers from people who constantly come before the town board complaining about certain things that were already in place.”

Resident (?): “This would help resolve problems before some people came before the board. There are some people who don’t like animals and would just complain for any reason. My neighbor complains about the noise when I run my tractor.”

Town Attorney John Dudziak: The law is being put in place to address nuisances. If people buy a house next door to a farm common sense would dictate you do due diligence to know what you are moving next to. It isn’t right for someone to move in and decry what has been taking place next to them for years.”

Councilman Ruffino: “I have had numerous conversations with the people who farm and we do not want to keep losing farms. We need the produce and the commerce farms provide. Certainly we have to also consider the jobs they provide, and many farms have been in existence for over 100 years. Some speak about not wanting development to come next to them. That is the one thing that the town does not control, that is, where development will go when developers meet all rules and regulations. So you can’t come to the town board to stop development and say it is in the town board’s power to stop development; it is not... But this law is to ensure when development does occur farmers will be protected against unjust nuisance charges.”

Jerry A.: “As a former resident of Ransom Road, my father and his father before him owned and farmed the property. A lot of people should know that it is part of our operation in making our living. Someone mentioned hogs and we probably had somewhere between 300-400 pig on the property. People would come and purchase produce and the children would love to see the animals. It still carries on a tradition and plays a very important part in the community. You should g on and approve this.”

John Phillips: “My parents and I have a small farm. We have cattle and pigs. Farms provide a useful service. Change is coming in with new developments and farms need protection.”

A farm supporter in the audience proffered that he had subdivisions all around him. “Do you know where they throw their garbage? On our property, that’s where.”

Other

It should be noted that supporters were from diverse locations throughout the town.

To have heard that this law was being promoted throughout the county since 2006 and that Lancaster is just now considering it is disturbing – one of the last towns; 23rd out of 25.

[Frank Broughton]

Good reporting Lee. That law is needed in Lancaster for sure.

[gorja]

I am impressed by the amount of supporters that came out. It looks like not one naysayer. This is a good law. As far as the real estate sale disclosure statement, didn't that already go into effect when Erie County became a "Right to Farm" county?

One may assume that Lancaster will be the 23rd town to jump on the Right to Farm bandwagon due to the previous administration's "Right to Develop" attitude. Not that development is bad but to them development was above anything else in the priority chain.

Great job, Supervisor Fudoli and town board.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Good reporting Lee. That law is needed in Lancaster for sure.

Thanks Frank. The law is indeed needed to protect the farmers.

Gorja is spot on when she commends both the supervisor and the board for their efforts in bringing this law to Lancaster. Unfortunately, this law should have been put in place several years ago.

In the past three months since Fudoli became supervisor I have seen more positive change regarding community/taxpayer best interests than in the past ten years. Development has been the number one priority with no definitive infrastructure plan in place to accommodate for the growth.

As the saying goes, "'You have to break eggs to make omelets." Perhaps behind the scenes some eggs are being broken, but the results favor the community. The supervisor and board members are to be equally commended - in my opinion.

[Fritzie]

Would this apply to the house on Bowen across from the Como Park exit where they now have goats that they are housing under the deck? I drive down Bowen every day and suddenly this house that sat vacant for so long has now become quite an eyesore with tractor trailers, large barrels sometimes all over the yard. And now I see goats in a chicken wire fenced area and ply wood enclosing the deck where (I guess) they are housed.

Is that allowed under the codes? Have no idea how large of a property that is but I didn't think you could have farm animals just because you wanted to.

[Frank Broughton]

Have no idea how large of a property that is but I didn't think you could have farm animals just because you wanted to.

Why not, this is America the land of the free - no? or is it - America the land of snobs and busy bodies?

[shortstuff]

I am thrilled that there will be put to resolution-the new law- Right to Farm. I have always felt that our farming community in the future will be top priority. The decrease in farming has lead to international trade which is our demise in the long run. We need to be self sustaining both with energy and agriculturally.

That being said, we need to also view the regulatory guidelines set in place in each municipality. If we were to take zoning out of the picture to allow the "anything" goes mentality--heck we might as well take the speed limits away and drive as fast as we can. Face it, people need to be pragmatic we are a society of law and order.....

IMO--I love farming and this law it well over due.

[gshowell]

Perfect timing. It's Chick Days at TSC. Straight run chicks are $1.99, Cornish Rocks are $1.99, Pullets are $2.69, and bantams (you know, the fighting cocks) are $2.69 ea. I'm going to get me some. This is my tongue in cheek way of saying, pass the Right to Farm bill, even though I think it's 40 years too late.

[WNYresident]

Which chicks look tastier?

[gorja]

Would this apply to the house on Bowen across from the Como Park exit where they now have goats that they are housing under the deck? I drive down Bowen every day and suddenly this house that sat vacant for so long has now become quite an eyesore with tractor trailers, large barrels sometimes all over the yard. And now I see goats in a chicken wire fenced area and ply wood enclosing the deck where (I guess) they are housed.

Is that allowed under the codes? Have no idea how large of a property that is but I didn't think you could have farm animals just because you wanted to.

I don't know if this is the same property but the parcel directly across from the park entrance is 10.1 acres. Do not know the zoning.

[4248]

Just a questions/observations: The land now held by Uniland at Walden & Pavement Roads used to be one of Lancasters bigger active farms. Would this new law have stopped them from rezoning it commercial?

With the fact that almost all the past farmland in Lancaster already rezoned - what farms now "Active" will benefit from this law?

"Councilman Ronald Ruffino interjected that the proposed law protects people that are currently farming."

I believe theres one active farm on the south end of Bowen Rd. What other land or areas will this law protect?

It just seems that even though this sounds all good and nice feeling - yet isn't this a little late? Also if land has already been stuffed in Giza's "Pipeline" - will this actually change any prior undeveloped rezoned land?

Its a great law - but what will be the direct tangible effect here in Lancaster?

Thanks

[gorja]

Just a questions/observations: The land now held by Uniland at Walden & Pavement Roads used to be one of Lancasters bigger active farms. Would this new law have stopped them from rezoning it commercial?

With the fact that almost all the past farmland in Lancaster already rezoned - what farms now "Active" will benefit from this law?

"Councilman Ronald Ruffino interjected that the proposed law protects people that are currently farming."

I believe theres one active farm on the south end of Bowen Rd. What other land or areas will this law protect?

It just seems that even though this sounds all good and nice feeling - yet isn't this a little late? Also if land has already been stuffed in Giza's "Pipeline" - will this actually change any prior undeveloped rezoned land?

Its a great law - but what will be the direct tangible effect here in Lancaster?

Thanks

Good questions, 4248. In Lee's first post, there's a reference to a Cemetery Rd resident who has a 60 acre farm that they still work. But Ruffino's statement makes one wonder if any large parcels of land that are presently not zoned agricultural would be prevented from re-zoning to agricultural for commercial farming purposes or land presently zoned agricultural not presently used as a farm could commence farming and be covered under this law.

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
There are three or four working farms in Lancaster.

There are 26 other active farms that are either being farmed for personal use or leased to others to farm. They as well as the working farms receive AG exemptions based on several conditions regulated by the state.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Just a questions/observations: The land now held by Uniland at Walden & Pavement Roads used to be one of Lancasters bigger active farms. Would this new law have stopped them from rezoning it commercial?

With the fact that almost all the past farmland in Lancaster already rezoned - what farms now "Active" will benefit from this law?

"Councilman Ronald Ruffino interjected that the proposed law protects people that are currently farming."

I believe theres one active farm on the south end of Bowen Rd. What other land or areas will this law protect?

It just seems that even though this sounds all good and nice feeling - yet isn't this a little late? Also if land has already been stuffed in Giza's "Pipeline" - will this actually change any prior undeveloped rezoned land?

Its a great law - but what will be the direct tangible effect here in Lancaster?

Thanks

The proposed resolution/ordinance reads:

A local law that will be established to maintain and preserve the rural traditions and character of the Town, to permit the continuation of agricultural practices, to protect the existence and ownership of farms, to encourage the initiation of farms and agribusinesses, and to promote new ways to resolve disputes concerning agricultural practices and farm operations.

In order to maintain a viable farming economy in Lancaster it is necessary to limit the circumstances under which farming may be deemed a nuisance and 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.


This has nothing to with ensuring that farm property could never be sold and rezoned. It has been done many times in the past. In fact the town under the last admnistration rezoned rezones on numerous occasions.

In my mind, this law protects farms in the manner the law was written. Farmers have taken enough crap from residents who have moved into developments next to them.

[Lancaster Resident]

The Right to Farm Law is a great idea, and I am pro on it---we need working farms spread across the US for our food supply and for employment. I do think, however, that it could use some deeper thought on the "undertaken free of unreasonable and unwarranted interference and restriction" statement. For example imagine a working farm that mainly produces corn and other vegetables, and has some cows, chickens, and horses. Then several subdivisions are built next to it. All is good and the subdivision residents not only know the working farm is there of course, but also happily support it by buying fresh produce from the farmer, bring the kids there to see the livestock on occasion, etc. Then the farm decides to change its business to a huge pig farm. There are many hundreds of pigs there, huge amounts of pig excrement, enormous swarms of flies, and the air smells EXTREMELY bad. Those happy neighbors in the adjacent subdivisions now find that they can't take a breath without gaging, they can't go into their yards without being swarmed by horse flies and feeling like they are going to vomit, they children can no longer play outside, and they can't sell their house to move away. Now what? The neighboring farm made a major change in its business that very negatively affected the neighbors property and their right to be able continue to live there with a decent quality of lfe. So now the "farmer's rights" have seriously damaged the "neighbor's rights" because the farmer changed the game. So these types of farming changes need to be considered in the new law as well, IMHO.....

[gorja]

The Right to Farm Law is a great idea, and I am pro on it---we need working farms spread across the US for our food supply and for employment. I do think, however, that it could use some deeper thought on the "undertaken free of unreasonable and unwarranted interference and restriction" statement. For example imagine a working farm that mainly produces corn and other vegetables, and has some cows, chickens, and horses. Then several subdivisions are built next to it. All is good and the subdivision residents not only know the working farm is there of course, but also happily support it by buying fresh produce from the farmer, bring the kids there to see the livestock on occasion, etc. Then the farm decides to change its business to a huge pig farm. There are many hundreds of pigs there, huge amounts of pig excrement, enormous swarms of flies, and the air smells EXTREMELY bad. Those happy neighbors in the adjacent subdivisions now find that they can't take a breath without gaging, they can't go into their yards without being swarmed by horse flies and feeling like they are going to vomit, they children can no longer play outside, and they can't sell their house to move away. Now what? The neighboring farm made a major change in its business that very negatively affected the neighbors property and their right to be able continue to live there with a decent quality of lfe. So now the "farmer's rights" have seriously damaged the "neighbor's rights" because the farmer changed the game. So these types of farming changes need to be considered in the new law as well, IMHO.....

That's an interesting query. What if that same farmer finds the beef and chicken prices remain stagnant but pork prices skyrocket? He finds he can't make a decent living raising cows and chickens and opts to raise pigs due to the prices he can get. The farmer's rights have damaged the neighbor's rights as far as air quality and insects but the farmer has a right to make a living. I wonder whose rights would hold the trump card? Nuisance vs making a living.

In the disclosure statement does it specifically describe the type of farming in the neighborhood?