Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agricultural Districts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orange County recommends adding six properties to Agricultural District No. 1; public hearing set for June 4
Summary
County planning staff reported that eight applications were received to join Agricultural District No. 1, with the Ag and Farmland Protection Board recommending inclusion of six; one Town of New Windsor property drew concern because it sits amid single-family homes. A public hearing is scheduled for June 4, 2026 at 3:15 p.m.
Get email alerts on the Agricultural Districts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alan Sorensen, Commissioner of the Planning Department, told the Education and Economic Development Committee on May 18 that eight applications were submitted for inclusion in Orange County Agricultural District No. 1 and that the Ag and Farmland Protection Board recommends adding six of those eight properties.
"A number of members of the Ag and Farmland Protection Board went out and spent the day out in the field on April 14th, to visit each one of the properties. After that, the Ag and Farmland Protection Board convened and the recommendation is to include six of those eight applications into Agricultural District No. 1," Sorensen said. He also announced a public hearing on the annual review for June 4, 2026, at 3:15 p.m.
Committee members asked whether there had been pushback from town supervisors or neighbors. Sorensen identified one property in the Town of New Windsor as "very unique," saying it is seven acres and sits in an area surrounded by single-family residences and includes vegetable gardens and a hoop house. He emphasized that inclusion in an agricultural district confers the "right to farm"—protection from nuisance complaints such as dust or odors—but does not automatically grant an agricultural assessment; a separate application and income/acreage thresholds apply for assessment eligibility.
Virginia Scott noted the site is in a "highly congested residential neighborhood," and Sorensen said the town's letter reflects a misunderstanding between the benefits of district inclusion and the stricter eligibility rules for assessment. The committee did not vote on inclusion at the May 18 meeting; the public hearing is the next formal step.
