Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agricultural Classification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board votes 4-1 to change small farms classification; members expect county or state review
Summary
Patrick Brinton, a small-market farmer, asked the Local Board of Appeals to change the classification of his roughly 9-acre parcel to agricultural and the board voted 4-1 to do so.
Patrick Brinton, a small-scale market farmer, asked the Local Board of Appeals to reclassify his roughly 9-acre property as agricultural for tax purposes, citing ongoing fruit and vegetable production and sales to farmers markets and local producers.
Brinton told the board he grows apples and other fruits and vegetables and sells at local farmers markets and to a winery and brewery. "The statute in question is for properties under 11 acres selling intensive market farming," Brinton said. He told the board he has been increasing production each year and offered to provide a map of planted areas.
Assessor's staff explained the county applies the statute differently depending on parcel size and presence of buildings. For parcels under 11 acres, staff said they remove one acre for the house/garage area and other nonproductive acreage such as wetlands before measuring production acreage. In Brintons case assessors reported about 9.02 acres total, removed roughly 1.3 acres for shoreline/wetland and 1 acre for house/yard, and calculated about 2 acres in production.
"We do not feel that he is up to the intensive use that he needs to be," the assessor's representative said, adding the Department of Revenue had agreed with that view. Board members and Brinton discussed that the statute is not explicit about the meaning of "intensive" and that proposed state legislative fixes are pending that could add a per-acre income minimum or clarify definitions.
Board members said Brinton appears to be increasing production year to year and that, if he continued to expand production, he may clearly meet the assessors standard in the future. Nonetheless, one board member moved to change the parcels classification to agricultural and another seconded the motion. When the board voted, the motion carried 4 to 1.
Board members acknowledged that a local favorable vote may be overridden at the county-board or Department of Revenue level. The board recorded the motion and advised Brinton that the county board remains available if he chooses to continue appeal, and that the legislative changes under consideration could alter statewide application of the rule going forward.
The board did not record detailed vote-by-name in the transcript; it recorded the tally as 4 in favor and 1 opposed.
