East Granby planners debate how much to name local farms in agriculture chapter, request zoning and cultivation data

The Plan of Conservation and Development commission on June 13 reviewed a draft agriculture chapter and debated whether to list individual farms and product details in the town's 10‑year plan.

The presenter opened the session by sharing the chapter and asking members to provide section‑by‑section feedback; Jeremy, a staff member, will take notes for the document. The draft relies on Census of Agriculture figures and maps; the presenter said the natural‑resources portion is still being completed.

Commissioners raised three recurring requests: include an explicit date so readers know the chapter reflects current conditions (members suggested “as of summer 2026”), add a map showing PA 490 properties, and compute how much land is zoned agricultural versus how much is actively cultivated. "If we have a count on what is zoned agricultural and the percentage of the community that represents, we'll let it go at that," one committee member said.

On listing farms, members were split. Some said naming long‑standing operations helps justify preservation goals and action items; others worried product‑level descriptions and photos make a decade‑long planning document read like an advertisement. The presenter agreed to pare back granular product details while preserving informational listings that show farming contributes to town character.

The draft lists Oxen Hill and other farms; participants corrected some figures during the meeting (one member said a Griffin family holding totals roughly 125 acres across East Granby and neighboring Southfield, with much of the acreage wetland). The presenter committed to confirm sizes, correct links and photos (including replacing an incorrect photo attributed to Young Farms), and verify whether small "micro" farms should be included.

Members also discussed policy references. The chapter notes that more than 122 tax lots are listed under PA 490 in the current draft; the commission asked staff to produce a PA 490 map and to clarify that separate tax lots do not necessarily equal 122 distinct farms. A participant summarized Connecticut's state right‑to‑farm law (Conn. Gen. Stat. §19a‑341) and members agreed to explain the statute in plain language rather than implying local inaction. One commissioner asked the text referencing "the current zoning regulations are not farm friendly" be softened; the group agreed to replace that sentence with a recommendation to review regulations with the Connecticut Farm Bureau to ensure they facilitate farm operations.

The meeting also highlighted programs the chapter will mention: CT Grown, the Farm Link program (which helps transition farms between generations), and the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP); the presenter agreed to add explanatory notes for each acronym.

Next steps: staff will confirm acreages and photo attributions, prepare a PA 490 map, attempt to calculate zoned vs. cultivated acreage (noting cultivated acreage may be difficult to measure), and incorporate suggested edits submitted by the Traprock Ridge Land Trust (Amanda Thompson) after Michelle circulates them. The commission will continue edits at the next meeting and then move to the public‑infrastructure chapter.

The meeting also approved the minutes from the May 12 meeting by voice vote before taking up the chapter review.