Genesee County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan

Genesee County, New York
INTERVIEW RESULTS
WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY THINKING?
More than sixty-four members of the agricultural community were interviewed to poll the extent
of knowledge of current farmland protection tools as well as to gather opinions about their
effectiveness and measure the degree of openness to new or modified approaches to keeping the
land base available to the industry. The range of topics covered taxes, zoning, purchase of
development rights, agricultural districts, transfer of development rights and how to prioritize
farms for protection.
A number of themes run through the majority of the interview answers with regard to land use
and farmland protection. Almost universally mentioned was the need for better public education
about the importance of agriculture to the community and about the practical aspects of farming
that often results in conflicts between production agriculture and its residential neighbors.
Worries about land fragmentation and beginnings of residential growth pressures in the
agricultural districts were on most peoples’ minds. Large-scale threat of farmland conversion
seemed to be on the horizon but land base fragmentation was already seen as a problem for
operation expansion. For many that translated into the need for better comprehensive planning by
the towns, training of town officials in implementation of growth management tools, and
controlling access to water and sewer lines.
There was a general familiarity with tools such ag districts, purchase of development rights
(PDR), zoning, transfer of development rights (TDR), right-to-farm laws, and estate planning.
Agricultural districts were considered a fairly weak method of protecting the land base and rightto-farm
laws were felt to have little effect on actual land conversion to non-agricultural use. Most
of the interviewees indicated that they had transition plans for passing on their farms. Opinions
about agricultural zoning seemed related to the size of the operation. Owners of the largest farms
tended to be the most receptive to agricultural protective zoning (i.e. low residential density
combined with greater flexibility for agricultural uses), mid-sized farms less so, and small farm
owners were often opposed to residential restrictions.
The idea of a purchase of development rights program generally got a positive response,
especially if it was tied to better town planning and to targeting the highest quality resources.
When asked what makes a farm a top priority for protection many people pointed out that it is as
much the skill of the operator as the prime soils that increases a farm’s chances of remaining a
viable operation. The ability to step in and protect a farm at the critical point when it is changing
hands was also viewed as a needed tool in the coming years. Connecting some form of additional
tax relief with mid-term (15-20 years) farmland protection measures got the nod from most
interviewees.
30
Agriculture and Community Development Services, Inc.