8 Farms Added to Putnam Ag District

By Rob Sample

The Putnam County Legislature recently approved the addition of eight farms from five towns to the countywide agricultural district – which aims to help preserve the local agricultural industry and protect farmland from non-agricultural development.

The Legislature’s approval came after a public hearing July 7 and followed a robust series of public comments for and against the proposals, as well as similar discussion by the legislators during a subsequent meeting. The county’s Agricultural & Farmland Protection Board had recommended 10 parcels for approval, of which two were rejected by the Legislature.

The projects approved for the agricultural district were: Ferguson’s Farm in Kent, 7 acres; Crooked Fence Farm in Kent and Carmel, 7.66 acres; Teakettle Farm in Carmel, 4.37 acres; High Point Equestrian in Patterson, 75 acres; Hidden Hope Farm in Patterson, 18.61 acres; CQW, Inc., in Southeast, 20.69 acres; Dingle Ridge Pollinator Farm in Southeast, 16.67 acres; and Twin Oak Ventures in Southeast, 48.88 acres.

A farmstand proposed at 84 Ludingtonville Road in Holmes, within the Town of Patterson, was among the projects that elicited the most comment – and which was ultimately voted down by the Legislature.

John Holtzapfel lives adjacent to the 1.19-acre parcel and was the first to speak in opposition to its inclusion in the district. The proposal would include a new greenhouse, and he said the lot is too small to house that along with the multicar garage, a three-apartment building, and pond already onsite.

“I’m not against farms – it’s just this lot is not suitable for, from what I understand, is a 3,000-square-foot greenhouse,” said Holtzapfel. “And there’s a daycare right next door. The speed limit is 40 miles an hour on that road. If people start slowing up to go to a fruit stand, we’re going to have more problems and more accidents.”

Christine Ravetto of Ludingtonville Road raised wastewater concerns – chiefly with respect to any pesticides and fertilizer the proposed greenhouse might use.

“And where does all that water go?” she asked. “We do not have commercial septic there – it’s a residential area and we all have septic fields. Will the wastewater taint any of our wells? If so, what sort of recourse do we have on that?”

Cassandra Roth of Pawling said the Agricultural & Farmland Protection Board needs to do a better job of communicating its mission and how it operates, because public comments indicated a variety of misconceptions about it. She also noted that not being admitted into the countywide agricultural district does not prevent anyone from farming.

“They’re misplaced concerns with this program,” said Roth, who is also chairperson of the board for the Putnam County Soil & Water Conservation District. “All farms must follow all local laws all the time. It is a town’s responsibility – for their constituents, for their neighbors – to enforce their zoning.”

The farm stand proposal on Ludingtonville Road also elicited the most comment from the Legislature, with Amy Sayegh, R-Mahopac Falls, saying the parcel owner’s application was too preliminary.

“I would like to preface this by saying that whether you get voted in or you’re not voted in, you can still farm, you can still grow your crops, you can still build your greenhouse,” she said. “It all has to be done within the code and the zoning of the town. I think they have a great dream, but in my opinion, it wasn’t a farm yet. I don’t want to discourage anyone from farming, but I’m not going to support this one.”

Legislator Laura Russo, R-Patterson, also voted no, explaining that she had visited the property multiple times and suggested the agricultural board should not have included it among the 10 parcels for approval.

“I’m honestly very disappointed,” she said. “I don’t think the property’s large enough. It’s too close to the neighbor. It’s too close to the road. If they were to put a greenhouse in, it would be right up against the neighbor.”

Russo said an existing building – a four-car garage to which the proposed greenhouse would be attached – would require total demolition as it likely would not sustain the added weight.

She also criticized the proposal for a farm stand. “There’s no place for cars to pull over,” Russo pointed out. “They would have to pull into the driveway, which is a shared driveway with the neighbor.”

Ultimately, the proposal gained the support of just two legislators – Nancy Montgomery, D-Philipstown, and Bill Gouldman, R-Putnam Valley. The remaining six voted “no.”

The Legislature also voted down a proposal to include Clara Patunga Farm of Putnam Valley in the agricultural district. Legislator Erin Crowley, R-Mahopac, whose district encompasses Putnam Valley, noted that she had previously been a booster of the farm but would be changing her vote.

“I do wish them much success and I hope they continue to farm… and they continue to do wonderful things over there, but over the past three years I haven’t seen or heard much development,” she said. “So I will not be in support of it this year.”

Montgomery voted in favor of the proposal. “I’d just like to say, farming takes a long time and I know this farmer has done a lot of trying and failing and that’s what farming is,” she said. “I’m glad that he’s still trying.”

Legislative Counsel Heather Abissi noted that because the farm is younger than 5 years old, it is still considered under the agricultural code to be a starter operation. Thus, it could still reapply in the future.

Legislature Chairman Dan Birmingham, R-Brewster, explained that a countywide review of all agricultural parcels will take place in 2027.

“Some have been in the in the district for eight years and some that we’ve approved tonight will come up for review next year,” he said. “Having said that, I think it’s a lot harder to take something out than it is to put something in.”