Committee recommends adding seven parcels to Ag District 2, debates town notification

At its March meeting, the Saratoga County Trails and Open Space Committee voted to recommend amendments that would add seven parcels — from five landowners and totaling a little over 400 acres — to Agricultural District 2 and to recommend a negative declaration as part of environmental review, sending the package on for a public hearing before the county board.

The recommended additions were compiled in the committee’s February packet, which included aerial photos and soil maps for each application. Jason, a county staff member, said the Saratoga County Farmland Protection Board reviewed petitions in December and forwarded its recommendations to the county for the supervisor-level action. “We have seven properties, five different landowners, and a little over 400 acres,” Jason said, and all seven properties are proposed for inclusion in Ag District 2.

The discussion centered on whether the current state-driven process provides adequate notice to municipalities and nearby residents. Supervisor Conley and other members said several callers raised concerns this year about very small parcels that sit adjacent to residential subdivisions. Conley said town officials and neighbors sometimes learn about inclusion requests only at the public hearing stage, which he and others said can be too late to address potential conflicts between “right to farm” protections and local land-use expectations.

Committee members noted that New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (Ag & Markets) sets eligibility and that inclusion in an agricultural district provides certain protections for farming operations but does not supersede local zoning or building codes. Jason and other staff reiterated that towns are typically given a heads-up as a courtesy but that the statutory process is administered by the county and then by Ag & Markets at the state level.

Some supervisors proposed additional steps — such as a meeting with Ag & Markets and the Farmland Protection Board, or forming a subcommittee to review notification practices — but several members cautioned that delaying the process could remove parcels from this year’s intake because of statutory timelines. The committee ultimately agreed to proceed to the scheduled public hearing and allow towns and residents to offer comments there, while staff was asked to research whether a more formal town-notification procedure could be added in future cycles.

Action: A motion to approve the recommended Ag District amendments and to recommend a negative declaration carried by voice vote (recorded as “ayes have it”).

The matter will go to the county finance committee public hearing; if opposition is raised there, the board of supervisors will decide whether to move forward. Jason said that after the county process is complete, the package is forwarded to Ag & Markets for final certification.

Ending: Committee members agreed the issue is likely to recur as the county grows and asked staff to report back with statutory timelines and options for increasing municipal notice ahead of future Ag District cycles.