Right to Farm Law approved by Lancaster

[Lee Chowaniec]

This past Monday, the Lancaster Town Board unanimously approved a Right to Farm Law resolution.

It is defined as:
A local law to maintain and preserve the rural traditions and character of the town, to permit the continuation of agricultural practices, to protect the existence and operation of farms, to encourage the initiation and expansion 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 agriculture practices inherent to and necessary for the business of farming to proceed and be undertaken free of unreasonable and unwarranted interference or restriction.

Work session

Unlike the State Agriculture and Markets Law, where farmland is defined in subdivision four of Section 301 of Article 25AA, and includes livestock and livestock products, the Town of Lancaster law does not include, and this law does not extend, to

1) Livestock and livestock products, including cattle, sheep, hogs, goats, horses, poultry, farmed deer, farmed buffalo, fur bearing animals, milk, eggs and furs, and

2) Aquaculture products, including fish, fish products, water plants and shellfish.

At the work session that precedes the regular meeting, Supervisor Dino Fudoli asked Council member Ronald Ruffino, sponsor of the resolution, whether the difference in language from the town’s bill and that of the state would offer protection to the farmers and an individual who addressed the board at a public hearing on the matter. Fudoli declared that the public appeared to understand that livestock and livestock products were included in the Right to Farm law being presented, as is stated in the Right to Farm state law.

Fudoli asked whether Brunck Road resident Donna Lukowski would be protected under the law. “She told us that former Supervisor Robert Giza had grandfathered her when she brought concerns before him regarding the residential development that was occurring around her and the complaints some neighbors were making about her having two horses.

Council member John Abraham reiterated what the board told her at the public hearing, that if she merged her two lots and met the town code in place on raising/having animals, she would be alright. “This law is just to protect the farms that are already in existence in the town and county. Agriculture products in this law do not include livestock, livestock products etc. There are other town codes in place that define requirements for raising/maintaining livestock; including having 5 acres or more of property. The law is written to protect working farms. It is not applicable to livestock.

Fudoli voiced that the farmers who were in attendance and addressed the board at the public hearing were under the impression that this law did apply to their livestock, animals, etc.

Council member Donna Stempniak asked if the language of the law protects a dairy farm, or not?

Ruffino answered that it does not, just working agriculture farms.

Stempniak: “But they are a working farm and there will be odors, noise, etc.” Stempniak was told that the dairy farm would be held to the same standards as a working farm and should a dispute occur from an unusual situation, the code could be changed.

It was voiced that phone calls were coming in asking whether it will now be okay to raise some chickens for eggs, etc. It was answered that that is not what this law is about. If subdivision is built next to a farm, the residents in that subdivision cannot complain that there is livestock, farm odors, noises, etc, that are impacting their quality of life. There are other codes and requirements that relate to the raising of livestock, poultry, bees, etc.

It was also discussed that there is also a notice given to prospective homebuyers by realtors that farming will be taking place adjacent to their subdivision. “If one is not already in place, it should be," someone declared.

[gorja]

I understand what they're saying that there are presently codes on the books for raising livestock. But I think, gshowell mentioned a hog farm in Cheektowaga which was run out of business due to neighbors complaints. I'm sure that hog farm was abiding by the regulations and codes in place at that time. That hog farmer didn't have the protection of a Right to Farm law. The same situation could occur with the existing dairy farm, since Ruffino said it is not a working agricultural farm and not covered in the new law. Yet, someone else stated that if a dispute occurred the code could be changed. Isn't that like closing the barn door after the horse got out?

[Lee Chowaniec]

I understand what they're saying that there are presently codes on the books for raising livestock. But I think, gshowell mentioned a hog farm in Cheektowaga which was run out of business due to neighbors complaints. I'm sure that hog farm was abiding by the regulations and codes in place at that time. That hog farmer didn't have the protection of a Right to Farm law. The same situation could occur with the existing dairy farm, since Ruffino said it is not a working agricultural farm and not covered in the new law. Yet, someone else stated that if a dispute occurred the code could be changed. Isn't that like closing the barn door after the horse got out?

I can't remember reading anything about a hog farm in Cheektowaga being run out of business, and we are talking about Lancaster.

I would have thought the language in the Lancaster Right to Farm Law would have been the same a in the state law; that seems to make sense and fortifies the AG-R code regarding livestock, etc.

The board felt they had what they needed and only made the comment on amending the law should some extraordinary event come along, most likely from someone being a pork, should such event take place - and most likely it will happen and be someone who doesn't have any understanding of codes.

[gshowell]

I did mention a hog farm. I was in Cheektowaga, behind the tree pickle factory. I think it's Borden and Losson.

[4248]

Given the inflated price of realestate/land in Lancaster - which is mainly due to the majority of our past "Farmlands" being bought cheap and rezoned - the limited number of "working Farms" that might actually have a minuscule chance of this law/resolution ever protecting anyone - its a redundant partial repeat of the State version.

They would have accomplished just as much writing a resolution memorializing the state law. Other than a few moments of feel good stuff - maybe some campaign fodder - this seems like much to do about nothing.

It basically stops anyone from starting a small family style farm or doing what many people are starting to do - grow and raise food to feed their families. Will this code cover the trout farm on gennessee - near Harris Hill??????

I think theres many other issues in Lancaster Councilman Ruffino can tackle - so far the man has put some tax funded clocks in Town and now he wants to actually pass more restrictions if you actually read this resolution and consider what it limits.

[Lee Chowaniec]

The Town of Lancaster was the 23rd town to approve such resolution (should have happened long ago).

I have to agree that confusion and concern could have been avoided had the town accepted and adopted the state version. The only change required would have been Lancaster's recognition of 5 acres of land required for farming and raising of livestock, not the seven acres as referred to in the state law.

The law enacted by the town does:

• Protect farmlands from nuisance complaints from surrounding dveloped/developing subdivisions,
• Does prevent family style farming on postage sized lots - a nuisance to the great majority of surrounding families and potential rodent harborage.

Codes are in place that define 'farmland' size requirements and conditions to be be met for the raising of livestock, livestock products, bees, etc.

Is any law ever so-written that is unchallengeable? I don't think so.

[gorja]

They also could have adopted the Erie county version. It looks like only the rural or semi-rural Erie county towns adopted the livestock protection section to their code. IMHO, the urban towns like Lancaster and West Seneca will protect the newbies over the livestock farmer that follows codes.

[reformthi$]

the lady on brunck rd
why did she get a violation fine
if she was grandfathered in


also it is about time this issue had
a final outcome
it has been lingering for years

[granpabob]

let me see if I under stand this if you have 5 or more acres you can grow vegetables does that mean you can't grow pumpkins or tomatoes if you don't have a five acre yard,

[4248]

Again - we have restrictions created/altered by the few - to control many. We have people like Councilman Ruffino who helped rezone land (farm land included),fill wetlands and destroy rare bird breeding grounds - now he wants to grand stand.

They give him a no show position with the Soccer Club - so now Lancaster needs Soccer Fields. Come on folks - see it for what it is - the privileged banker helping the little people control their ability to raise home grown food - Wouldn't want Tops to loose any sales now would we?

[Lee Chowaniec]

let me see if I under stand this if you have 5 or more acres you can grow vegetables does that mean you can't grow pumpkins or tomatoes if you don't have a five acre yard,

You can have a garden and plant vegetables, etc. on any size lot.

This law is about existing working farms and there is a distinction.

When you hear and read of people saying they want to raise livestock, poultry, bess, etc., there is another ordinance in place where there is a five acre minimum limit to do so and there are other conditions that are set in place as well.

This law will not correct past town bad practices , but it sets the tone for the future to protect what's left.

[granpabob]

if this law does not regulate farms with animals just agricultural farms then it does regulate the family garden. from what I have read the existing laws regulate farms with animals this law was designed to protect farms with plants. By stating that if they are over 5 acres the law will protect them. to me says if your land is under five acres and you have planted something you are not protected. If a neighbor complains about the smell of your garden because you use natural fertilizer or have smelly plants then you can't have it because you are under five acres

[granpabob]

when you plant fruit vegetables or flowers you are farming. which means you land is now a farm and this law can be applied to regulate what and how much you plant. unless you are over five acres and apply to be a farm

[Lee Chowaniec]

if this law does not regulate farms with animals just agricultural farms then it does regulate the family garden. from what I have read the existing laws regulate farms with animals this law was designed to protect farms with plants. By stating that if they are over 5 acres the law will protect them. to me says if your land is under five acres and you have planted something you are not protected. If a neighbor complains about the smell of your garden because you use natural fertilizer or have smelly plants then you can't have it because you are under five acres

Very interesting. Take this before the town board and let us know their answer. They said they had everything covered.

[4248]

While its easy to see why the Town Board passed this resolution. Its just so hypocritical of Councilman Stempniak and Council member Ruffino - neither one of them ever voted to stop the rezone of any past farmlands - neither one of them ever had a no vote that stopped a sewer line from being placed in a "Federally Protected Wetlands/Creek bed - neither one of them ever actually sided with resident tax payers over developers - neither one of them has ever fought for infra structure planning.

Yes Councilman Stempniak ran on a "Smart Growth" platform/campaign propaganda - yet never DId much more than argue for light placement and Dumpster locations.

When ever these people get behind some thing its usually good for one thing - fodder for their up coming campaign literature.