Ulster County committee removes contested parcel from ag‑district additions after neighbor complaints

The Economic Development committee on Aug. 5 voted to remove a single contested parcel from a proposed set of additions to Ulster County agricultural districts after neighbors described ongoing odors, insect problems and animals straying onto adjacent properties. The committee then voted to adopt the Farmland Protection Board’s recommendations as amended, approving the other parcel additions while excluding the disputed land.

Planning staff explained the county’s annual process for agricultural‑district additions: applications arrive during a 30‑day filing window, the Farmland Protection Board conducts site visits with staff from Cornell Cooperative Extension and the Soil & Water Conservation District, and the board votes to recommend additions to the legislature. If the legislature approves additions, the Department of Agriculture’s commissioner may certify the changes; certified additions are then incorporated into the district maps and subject to the statutory requirements of ag‑district law.

Neighbors who testified said the contested parcel — roughly 2 acres in the Town of Shawangunk that adjoins a 57‑acre parcel already in the district — generated persistent flies, offensive odors and multiple animals that have come onto nearby yards and decks. One resident said the fence between properties sits about 10 feet from the neighbor’s property line and that the conditions made yard use and property sale difficult. The applicant was not present at the committee meeting, and committee members said they had not received direct responses from the landowner.

Committee members discussed the balance of protecting viable agricultural land against legitimate neighbor concerns. Several legislators and planning staff noted that ag‑district designation provides protections for farm operations — including an administrative process under the Commissioner of Agriculture to determine whether local enforcement of zoning may be preempted when the farm is following “good agricultural practices” — and that site‑specific nuisance complaints can be addressed through that process or through local public‑health and zoning enforcement when health and safety thresholds are implicated.

Legislator Nolan proposed, and the committee adopted, removing the contested parcel from the Farmland Protection Board’s recommendation while allowing other parcel additions to proceed. The committee instructed planning staff to provide the applicant with explanatory feedback and to encourage further local engagement; the Farmland Protection Board has historically used such outreach when neighbors raise operational complaints. The amended resolution was adopted by voice vote.

Planning staff said the legislature will provide written feedback to the applicant and that the owner may reapply in a subsequent addition period. Planning staff emphasized that inclusion in an agricultural district does not eliminate all municipal permitting or health‑and‑safety reviews and that farmland operators are expected to follow accepted agricultural and environmental management practices.