Legislation Aims To Bolster Suffolk's Purchase Of Development Rights Program

Growers and agricultural activists were out in full force last week to support legislation that aims to bolster the county’s floundering farmland preservation program.

Designed as a mechanism to keep land in agricultural production, the Purchase of Development Rights, or PDR, program was established in 1974 and has since been replicated across the United States. The innovative legal framework allowed growers to sell their development rights to a municipality, diminishing their tax burden in exchange for giving up the ability to ever build houses on the land.

In Suffolk County, 20,000 acres of farmland have been preserved since the 1970s, thanks in large part to the PDR program.

However, the program was called into question this fall when a court ruling ified recent amendments, preventing growers from constructing barns, greenhouses, fencing and even irrigation on preserved county land. The ruling was in response to a lawsuit brought against the county and farm advocacy agencies by the Pine Barrens Society.

Since the October ruling, Suffolk has not issued building permits for any type of structure on preserved county land. With 10,636 acres in the county’s preservation program, the ruling has affected dozens of farmers, according to estimates by the Peconic Land Trust.

“You are talking about people not having the ability to do row cropping. What are they going to do?” asked Lee Foster, a Sagaponack farmer who serves on the county’s farmland committee. “If they can’t protect their crop or water it, they aren’t going to plant it. That is a terrible.”

Many fear that if the uncertainty continues much longer, growers will be reticent to protect their land. Without the ability to build agricultural structures, the value of preserved land is called into question. According to the Long Island Farm Bureau, a few deals have already fallen through, as farmers are now unable to value and use their preserved land as collateral.

“There is fallout that is impacting the end user and the farmer,” said Melanie Cirillo, the director of conservation planning at the Peconic Land Trust, sharing a story about a North Fork grower who was denied a grant for deer fencing, when it was discovered part of the fence would be on preserved county land. “These agricultural structures are integral to having a successful farmer.”

It could take years for an appeal to go through. In the meantime, farmers’ hands are tied and the growing season is fast approaching.

Developed by Legislators Bridget Fleming and Al Krupski, the proposed law clarifies the definition of agriculture, thereby allowing the construction of essential farm structures.

The bill “outlines the basic reasonable, appropriate practices that any farmer needs to be able to undertake in order to have a farm operation that is successful,” said Ms. Fleming in a phone call after the public hearing.

If it is passed, growers could erect deer fencing, create irrigation pumps or build barns while the legal ramifications of the lawsuit are sorted out. Growers would still need to abide by local zoning ordinances and follow land coverage limitations. At the hearing, 17 agricultural advocates shared their support for the law.

The Long Island Pine Barrens Society, which brought the original suit against the county, alleges that the court ruling only applies to nonagricultural structures, like wine tasting rooms or cement greenhouses. Dick Amper, the executive director of the Pine Barrens Society, said lawmakers are having “pretend confusion” around the lawsuit’s ramifications, and that edifices like deer fencing or hoop houses are still allowed.

The original suit challenged 2010 and 2013 amendments that expanded the uses of PDR-protected farmland to include newer forms of agriculture, like corn mazes, solar farms or pumpkin picking. Although these modern uses are allowed under the state’s definition of agriculture, the suit claimed that the amendments should have been voted upon by the public in a referendum.

“The Pine Barrens Society isn’t trying to decide what farmers can and can’t do. We just want to make sure that referenda are sacrosanct,” said Mr. Amper in a phone call following the hearing. He is against the proposed law, as he said it runs into the same legal issues as the ified amendments.

“We will not have any successful preservation programs for land and water unless the public trusts what they voted for stays the law,” Mr. Amper said. “I feel bad that farmers were victimized. But they were victimized by their own lobby and the government.”

A referendum, which would cost taxpayers anywhere between $200,000 to $300,000 according to a legislator at the recent hearing, cannot happen until the fall, a delay that would destroy a farmer’s entire season.

“My hope in the long run is that this whole issue will be clarified so that owners of farmland who have not yet sold their development rights still have the incentive to do so,” said Sagaponack farmer James Pike at the hearing. “Every dollar spent on development rights by Suffolk County is a dollar not spent on a sewer system.”

This week, Assemblyman Fred Thiele and State Senator Kenneth LaValle also announced that they are working to draft state legislation that would clarify what agricultural use is permitted on protected land. Mr. Thiele said he hopes to propose and pass the legislation during the 2017 legislative session, saying, “there is an immediacy to this issue.”

“There were people who were in contract with the county to sell development rights,” said Mr. Pike, who owns and operates on protected land. “Now those projects are on hold.”