Putnam committee forwards contested agricultural-district inclusions, debates start-up criteria

Putnam County’s committee accepted the Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board’s recommendations for seven properties and moved them to the full legislature, and it also heard contested applications from several startup farms that the ag board had recommended against.

Christine Nastasi, representing the Ag and Farmland Protection Board, told the committee the board reviewed 11 applications and recommended inclusion for seven properties but declined three because the board judged those parcels did not yet meet the board’s criteria for inclusion. Nastasi said the board revised and resubmitted its report and that a final version was submitted on June 10.

Committee members and applicants debated how to treat start-up farms, beneficial ownership and evidence of active agricultural operations. The Barn Dog Farm application prompted questions about ownership structure: a county official said the parcels were in two separate LLCs while applicant counsel said the “beneficial ownership” — the individual member who controls the LLCs — is the same person. Counsel for the applicant argued that beneficial ownership should be considered when a landowner uses different entities for liability reasons and said the parcel includes haying revenue that meets thresholds: “They're making that in the hay in and of itself without the horses without even including horse operation on-site,” counsel said.

Rainmaker Farm and a small orchard and apiary (Clara Petunga Farm) had been denied by the ag board. Rainmaker Farm’s counsel said the owner has an established farm history and that the site had new construction footings placed after the ag-board site visits. Rainmaker counsel asked the committee to refer the parcel to the full legislature for public hearing and review; a motion to move Rainmaker Farm to the full passed. On the Clara Petunga Farm application, Crystal Stowell of Putnam Valley Grange urged the legislature to accept startup farms into the district and allow multi-year establishment periods for orchards, berries and apiaries; the committee similarly moved that parcel to the full for a public hearing.

Committee members repeatedly asked about consistency and precedent. Several said they would defer to the expertise of the Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board while others said the legislature has discretion to admit start-ups and that the county must improve written criteria so applicants and reviewers have consistent standards. One applicant, a start-up producer of fruit and honey, told the committee she had limited production in the current year and that the ag board’s site vote had been 2 yes, 7 no and 1 abstention.

Formal committee action: the committee voted to accept the ag board’s recommendations for seven properties and to forward the two contested start-up applications (Rainmaker Farm and Clara Petunga Farm) to the full legislature for public hearing and final decision. The committee noted it will conduct the statutory two‑year review process after inclusion to verify continued agricultural use.