Source: https://www.farrellfritz.com/balancing-n-y-s-agricultural-law-with-local-zoning-rights/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:14:15+00:00

Document:
Balancing N.Y.'s Agricultural Law With Local Zoning Rights - Farrell Fritz, P.C.
Reprinted with permission from New York Law Journal, Volume 253-No. 100, Wednesday, May 27, 2015 issue.
The new law gave county legislative bodies the power to create “agricultural districts.”3 Significantly, lands falling within agricultural districts may be entitled to statutory protections and benefits, including with respect to local zoning laws. More specifically, AML §305-a prohibits local governments from enacting and administering comprehensive plans, laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations that unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations within an agricultural district, unless it can be shown that the public health or safety is threatened.
The law also authorizes the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets (currently, Richard A. Ball)4 to bring an action against a municipality whose laws or actions are deemed to unreasonably interfere with farming operations within an agricultural district.
This column explores the relationship between the AML’s objective of promoting farming and a local government’s right to control land uses through zoning.
Local governments, when exercising their powers to enact and administer comprehensive plans and local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations, shall exercise these powers in such manner as may realize the policy and goals set forth in [AML Article 25-AA], and shall not unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations within agricultural districts in contravention of the purposes of this article unless it can be shown that the public health or safety is threatened.
land and on-farm buildings, equipment, manure processing and handling facilities, and practices which contribute to the production, preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock products as a commercial enterprise.
a. Field crops, including corn, wheat, oats, rye, barley, hay, potatoes and dry beans.
c. Vegetables, including tomatoes, snap beans, cabbage, carrots, beets and onions.
d. Horticultural specialties, including nursery stock, ornamental shrubs, ornamental trees and flowers.
e. Livestock and livestock products, including cattle, sheep, hogs, goats, horses, poultry, ratites, such as ostriches, emus, rheas and kiwis, farmed deer, farmed buffalo, fur bearing animals, milk, eggs and furs.
g. Christmas trees derived from a managed Christmas tree operation whether dug for transplanting or cut from the stump.
i. Woody biomass, which means short rotation woody crops raised for bioenergy, and shall not include farm woodland.
j. Apiary products, including honey, beeswax, royal jelly, bee pollen, propolis, package bees, nucs and queens. For the purposes of this paragraph, “nucs” shall mean small honey bee colonies created from larger colonies including the nuc box, which is a smaller version of a beehive, designed to hold up to five frames from an existing colony.
The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (the department) is available to review proposed or existing local laws or ordinances to determine whether, in the department’s view, they violate Section 305-a.5 Indeed, the department encourages municipalities to seek its guidance prior to drafting and adopting laws that may restrict farming operations so that it can provide an informal determination regarding the law’s enforceability.
The department performs AML §305-a reviews on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific facts of a situation. Department staff initially determine whether the land involved is located within a state certified, county adopted agricultural district and if the land use and activity constitute a “farm operation” as defined by AML §301(11). In determining whether the operation constitutes a farm operation, the department evaluates such factors as the acreage in production; capital investment; gross sales of crops, livestock, and livestock products; the type of enterprise; and the number of years in operation.
Although local regulations that unreasonably restrict farm operations are likely to be scrutinized under AML Section 305-a, the department may choose not to object to them if it finds that they are necessary to protect the public health and safety. If it makes such a finding, the limitations of Section 305-a do not apply.
If the department decides that a local law or ordinance unreasonably restricts or regulates farm operations in an agricultural district, and that public health or safety is not threatened by the regulated activity, the department will notify the local municipality and attempt to resolve its concerns while addressing the local government’s interests. If consensus is not reached, the commissioner may bring an action in New York State Supreme Court to enforce the provisions of Section 305-a or may issue an order to comply pursuant to AML §36.
Since its enactment in 1971, AML §305-a has been the subject of few court decisions. One significant decision, however, was rendered in 2001 by the New York Court of Appeals. In Town of Lysander v. Hafner,10 the court was faced with deciding whether AML §305-a superseded a zoning ordinance in the upstate town of Lysander as applied to the owners and operators of a commercial farm in an agricultural district in the town.
The case arose when the farmers sought to install several single-wide mobile homes for housing migrant workers on the farm. The mobile homes did not comply with the town zoning ordinance that provided that “all one-story single family dwellings” had to have a minimum living area of 1,100 square feet.
In 1998, the town initially granted the farmers a temporary building permit for two mobile homes, but refused to extend the permit in 1999 and disapproved their permit application to site additional mobile homes on the farm, relying on the town’s zoning code. The town then commenced an action for an injunction precluding the farmers from using the mobile homes to house migrant workers and directing removal of the structures unless they obtained the necessary building permits.
The farmers alleged, as an affirmative defense, that the zoning ordinance unreasonably restricted farm operations within the meaning of AML §305-a and that the town failed to show that its restriction on mobile homes was necessary to protect the public health or safety. They also sought an order directing the town to issue building permits and certificates of occupancy for the mobile homes.
The farmers moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of their motion, they submitted a letter addressed to the town from the department that stated that the “department has consistently viewed mobile homes used for farmworker residences as protected ‘on-farm buildings'” and that it viewed application of the town’s zoning code in the farmers’ case as an unreasonable restriction on farm operations.
The Supreme Court, Onondaga County, granted summary judgment to the town, permanently enjoining the farmers from using mobile homes without building permits and certificates of occupancy. The court reasoned that AML §305-a did not “create an exemption from local zoning authorities or ordinances for all ‘farm operations'” and, specifically, that the statute did not provide any protection to “farm residential buildings,” including mobile homes. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed, and the case reached the Court of Appeals.
The court reversed. In its decision, it pointed out that the department, which appeared amicus curiae on the farmers’ behalf, had concluded that mobile homes used for farmworker residences were protected “on-farm buildings.” Moreover, the court noted, the department had decided that the town’s zoning code, insofar as it prohibited the siting of mobile homes having an area of less than 1,100 square feet for farm labor housing on farm operations, unreasonably restricted such farm operations.
Therefore, the court concluded, it agreed with the farmers and the department that the farmers were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the town’s complaint.
A few years later, and in reliance upon the Court of Appeals’ decision, the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Inter-Lakes Health v. Town of Ticonderoga Town Board,11 held that where a municipality seeks to administer a zoning ordinance that is in conflict with the policy objectives of the Agriculture and Markets Law, the inconsistent zoning law is superseded by AML §305-a(1).
Still, the reach of AML §305-a is quite broad. At least one court13 has ruled that use of property to raise, train, and sell polo ponies constituted “agricultural production” within the meaning of AML §301. Local governments, property owners, and neighbors of farmland, therefore, should carefully consider the implications of AML §305-a when proposing, adopting, or applying local property regulations to farm operations in designated agricultural districts.
1. L 1971, ch 479, §1.
5. See, New York State Departments of State and Agriculture and Markets, “Local Laws and Agricultural Districts: How Do They Relate?” (hereinafter, Local Laws and Agricultural Districts), available at http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Local_Laws_and_Agricultural_Districts.pdf.
6. See, “Local Laws and Agricultural Districts: Guidance for Local Governments and Farmers,” available at http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AP/agservices/new305/guidance.pdf.
7. Local Laws and Agricultural Districts, supra n. 4.
10. 96 N.Y.2d 558 (2001).
11. 13 A.D.3d 846 (3d Dept. 2004).
12. Local Laws and Agricultural Districts, supra n. 4.
13. Town of Southampton v. Equus Associates, 201 A.D.2d 210 (2d Dept. 1994).

References: §305
 §305
 §301
 §36
 §305
 v. 
 §305
 §305
 §305
 v. 
 §305
 §305
 §301
 §305
 §1
 v.