ENFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION
March 11, 2008
Town Hall – Enfield Room
820 Enfield Street
Enfield, CT 06082
The Enfield Conservation Commission hosted a joint presentation by the CT Department of Agriculture and the CT Farmland Trust regarding the acquisition of development rights to farmland. A number of interested property owners and residents attended (the guest sign-up sheet is attached to the end of these minutes). A Regular Meeting of the commission was held after the presentation and question and answer section. The meeting was brought to order at 7:04 PM by Chairman Dynia, with a welcome and introductions by Commissioner McGuire, who had arranged for the speakers.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall took roll call. The following commissioners were in attendance:
Michael Dynia, Chairman
Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Secretary
Natalie George
Timothy McGuire
Richard Szewczak
Karen LaPlante
Kathleen Vose, Alternate
Everett Gamble, Alternate
Joanne Kneiss, Alternate
Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner / Staff Liaison
PUBLIC INPUT: PRESENTATIONS
Commissioner Dynia welcomed the audience noting his appreciation for their attendance when many people have so many other things going on in their lives requiring attention. He introduced the guest speakers and made note of Councilman Joseph Bosco’s presence. The guest speakers from the CT Department of Agriculture were Jay Dipple, Director, and Lance Shannon. Henry Talmage was present to represent the CT Farmland Trust.
The CT DOA presentation was shown first, with the following subject matter discussed:
· The program is meant to preserve and protect productive farmland, notably food or fiber production.
· A 148 acre apple orchard project in the Town of Ashford was noted as a representation of the program.
· 234 farms totaling 32,300 acres in 68 towns make up the current expanse of the program.
· 30 Farms totaling 2995 acres are pending; 15-20 farms are projected for inclusion this year/
· The Town of Woodstock was discussed, and the process explained for purchase detailed including the town, the USDA, the State, and the Trust for Public Land. The Trust bought and held the land until the previous agencies put together a plan.
· Development right acquisition is negotiated.
· An appraisal is done on a property.
· A deed covenant is prepared stipulating the property may not be subdivided or used for other than a farm.
· The application process is always voluntary. It is submitted by the farmer to the Commissioner (DOA, Jay Dipple); and scored per DOA program criteria. (The process is explained in the literature provided by the presenters at the meeting.)
· The appraisal process looks at market value and agricultural value. Sometimes there is a full monetary purchase of rights, but it may also be a mixed-gift format or full gift donation.
· Some of the funding sources were discussed.
· An A-2 survey is undertaken once agreements are reached, followed by a check request and issuance of the check. The documents are signed and recorded; at this point the development rights are officially purchased.
· The deed covenant remains in perpetuity, but the property remains in private hands and can be transferred.
· The Osier and Collins Farms in Enfield were discussed, as well as several in Suffield.
· A common 25% town / 75% state and federal funding structure was discussed.
· The CT map was displayed; the majority of potential farmland for inclusion in the program was located in the eastern and northwest regions of the state (soil distribution). Other clusters were noted, and ‘clustering’ was described as the preferred goal for acquisition. This policy is part of the State Plan of Conservation and Development. It involved a plan of the potential farm lands, designating the funding sources, and production of a qualifying farm application form.
· Other DOA and State resources were discussed. 50/50 cost sharing grants noted; about $500, 000 is available annually.
· The Farm Reinvestment Act was discussed. Farm tourism potential was highlighted, noting maps and promotion of farms and services.
· PA05-228 was discussed explaining the $30 document land records recording fee. Approximately 25% of the funds generated goes to the DOA, or @ 25 millions. Approx. 5 millions goes to the acquisition program.
The CT Farmland Trust presentation was then shown by Mr. Talmage, with the following subject matter discussed:
· The Trust is a private sector non-profit whose mission is to protect working farmland.
· Funds come from individuals and foundations
· Members of the Trust include agencies, banks, attorneys, members of the agricultural community, and others who understand the agricultural community’s situation.
· The Trust has been in existence since 2002 and has preserved 14 farms with around 1000 acres.
· It talks with interested groups outside the agricultural community to solicit their help, and deals with the smaller farms that don’t fit the state program criteria or areas of high land value where there is a gap.
A question and answer period followed the presentations:
· What is the minimum amount of land for an application to the state? 30 acres of prime, important crop land. The amount was established by legislation and cannot be waived.
· Can you combine with a neighbor’s land to reach the minimum amount required? Yes, but the parcels must be combined by deed to function as one parcel owned by multiple parties.
Commissioner LaPlante commented at this point that the commission had intended to try to determine whether there was interest in options such as these, and whether the commission could then make recommendations to the Town Council.
It was mentioned that the programs had developed first to preserve the larger farms, but had evolved to consider and include smaller farms and other composition options. Programs are now crafted for the needs of individual communities.
· If the development rights for a property have been purchased earlier without the right to build a house in the covenant, can the land be sold back? No. The covenants are written in perpetuity and designed never to change. The concept requires the owner to decide what lands to include or not to include up front. It is meant to preserve agricultural viability for the future. Details of an agreement are currently arranged to be up front in the process to avoid misunderstanding or misuse of the property. It doesn’t mean, however, that future needs to sustain agricultural viability might not change.
· Are farm buildings allowed under the covenants Usually but not on more than 5% of the crop land, and the location would be at the discretion of the commissioner. The use and the viability of use must be maintained. They would most normally be located in areas that are not prime for crop growth
· Will there be restrictions if the farm is sold in the future? If it was set up as one piece it must be sold as one piece. But if it was structured up front that way it could be done (i.e. if you had 200 acres and structured the future dispersal of two 100-acre parcels conforming to the minimum and any other requirements it could occur in those circumstances.
· Is the money received taxed? The IRS will recognize it as a sale, so one should consult their tax advisor.
· Can you comment on the fact that the southeast part of Enfield seems to show on the map where most of the potential acquisition land is located? The map reflects the state and local Plans of Development. Route 190 appears to have the potential for future development, so the southeast section of town seems to have the least development potential according to zoning intent. Other parts of town could be considered. (It was noted by staff that farming is allowed in every zone locally.)
· How many farms in Enfield will have development rights purchased? That isn’t currently known. The reason for this meeting and presentations was to begin the process to gauge the interest that might exist locally before pushing to both spend money to develop a local program and to get participation at the state and federal level programs. The Enfield potential is probably around equal that of Windsor or Suffield, or around or over 100 farms (most would be in the eastern sections – 47 parcels exist with > 30 acres in one name; many more with < 30 acres that might meet with Trust criteria or by combining lands.) Again, it is important to note the economic benefit that the farming industry contributes to the town as well as the owners, and to include these concepts in the Plan of Conservation and Development.
· Comments of participating farm owners, Mavis & Jack Collins: Enfield has a large percentage of the prime farm land in the central river valley. They are happy to hear about the inclusion of the small independents and the strengthening of the agricultural community. They urge owners to look at the program. Commissioner LaPlante asked Mr. Collins how long the process took and how difficult was it? It took a couple of years to get to that point – maybe more. DOA: The process usually takes between 1 and 1 ½ years. The survey alone can take up to 4-6 months depending on the topography and existing data. Mrs. Collins stated she was happy they decided to participate. She also looks forward to the surrounding owners to do it – she wouldn’t like to be an open space island surrounded by a city. Trust: Starting is the hardest part. Owners need to figure their needs and any family obstructions. Help that the Trust can provide can be the mechanism to get to that point.
· Commissioner LaPlante asked Mr. Talmage if the Trust covenants covering small farms are the same as for those covering larger farms. Yes, but there are different criteria to fit individual situations – for both large and small farms. Funds being made available for the individual project to proceed are the bottom line.
· Does the existing use or crop have to remain as the use or crop? Not restricted to the existing type as long as it is agricultural. The DOA and Trust are both willing to discuss things for as long as it takes for the individual to become comfortable with the proposition, and is willing to deal with unique issues.
The audience was thanked for a nice turnout and was told that this helps to determine the interest that exists locally for these programs. Four hands were raised when asked who attending held properties under 30 acres in size. The commission stated that they supported the local agricultural industry, and not only for aesthetic reasons. They understand costs are rising such as fuel, and that local communities and the region need to support local farmers.
When asked if they had read about the presentation in the newspaper, only 2 people raised their hands. Chairman Dynia added his thanks and reminded people that the commission meets the second Tuesday of the month at 7 P.M. if anyone wants to discuss things. He also thanked the folks from the State Department of Agriculture and the Farmland Preservation Trust. Commissioner George reminded everyone that there were several handouts about preserving older barns and the new CT Trust Barn Preservation grants. She noted that there are Shaker barns and other types in Enfield, and that the grants are not just for public trusts or nonprofits but also for private property owners.
This portion of the program was closed at 8:05 P.M. A half hour break began where audience members, the guest presenters, and the commission spoke in small groups about the information from the presentations.
The Regular Meeting was called to order at 8:35 P.M. The Roll Call indicated all members of the commission were still present.
PUBLIC INPUT: See above
Chairman Dynia thanked Commissioner McGuire for his work in arranging the speakers for this evening. A reference was also made to the sacrifice of front row seats at the basketball game...
The Chairman commented again on the good turn out this evening. Commissioner LaPlante pointed out the need for a microphone in the future as several guests had problems hearing the presentations. She was aware that a couple people had hearing aids.
The new staff liaison, Mr. Alsbaugh was welcomed aboard. He pointed out this would be a learning experience for him and that there was an expected learning curve to be overcome. He asked for the commission’s patience as he became more accustomed to the process.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall referred to the latest update of the Open Space map revised to 1-22-2008. The Commission requested a smaller version for all the members; staff will have these for the next meeting (rolled, per request).
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Copies of the minutes from joint session with the HDC were passed out. A motion was made to place approval of both sections of the 2/12/08 minutes (joint session and Regular Meeting) on the next agenda to give ECC & HDC members time to review the joint session minutes. The motion was approved (9-0-0).
CORRESPONDENCE: Commissioner George made sure everyone had a folder she had prepared for the members. It contained copies of the current goals and objectives, the commission by-laws, and the enabling legislation.
Commissioner LaPlante pointed out that she is a Regular Member, not an Alternate. Staff had inadvertently listed her as an Alternate on the member list. This will be corrected for the next meeting. Commissioner affiliations and term expirations will also be added per the request of the commission.
The commission requested staff to send a memo to the Town Manager stating the commission’s recommendation that Alternate Vose be appointed to the Regular Member vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Bernstein (term expiration June 30, 2008, Town Manager appoints commission members).
EXECUTIVE SESSION: The commission entered Executive Session at 8:50 P.M. to discuss real estate matters. Executive Session was closed at 8:58 P.M. No motions were made or votes taken; no decisions were made.
The Regular Meeting began again at 8:59 P.M.
Staff was directed to consult with the Town Manager and determine the current appraisal process the ECC is expected to follow, and how, if at all, it may have changed from the previous procedure. This was in reference to a parcel that had been discussed with the Town Manager and a property owner.
OPEN SPACE: Commissioner Pfeifer Hall read the 2/20/08 follow-up letter from Representative Jarmoc concerning the meeting she hosted with the ECC on the DEP’s access plan to the Scantic River Park via 464 Hazard Avenue. In short, it stated “some initial steps would be taken – on a trial basis – to include: 1) a wooden gate placed below the property, closer to the Scantic River Park blocking motor vehicle access from that point; 2) a gravel parking area for not more than four cars, and; 3) the planting of small evergreen trees to serve as a buffer to the gravel area.” The DEP has also assured that the property will “be regularly mowed, maintained, and supervised by DEP conservation officers”.
The draft of the joint ECC & HDC letter to the DEP concerning the Scantic River Greenway & State Park was also discussed. Several edits were requested. The final version will be delivered to Mr. Dynia and Mr. Tatoian for signing; copies will be sent to Representative Jarmoc, Senator Kissel, the Town Manager & Town Council, the ECC & HDC, the ERSC, and the Planning & Zoning Commission.
FARMLAND PRESERVATION: The Chairman thanked Commissioners George and McGuire again for organizing the presentations, and staff for supporting documentation. A request was made for an item on the next agenda to discuss preservation programs for smaller farmers that are available or efforts that have occurred in other towns such as Suffield. A suggestion was made to approach Suffield to have someone come and speak with this commission on the subject.
ARCHEOLOGICAL PROTECTION: Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall discussed an e-mail she had received from Liz Madden from Senator Kissel’s office regarding updates on the Shaker property. A brief mention was made about an underground wood water pipe that is known to exist on the site.
SPECIAL PROJECTS: Comm. George spoke to Chris at Tarnow Nursery and Henry Dutcher. After that discussion she is recommending the commission purchase an 8’-9’ red bud tree. She should know within two weeks if one will be available for Arbor Day activities on the last Friday in April. The variety likes wet soils and the location on the Library site Natalie has discussed with Henry appears to be satisfactory. She also recommends Tarnow Nursery plant the tree rather than Public Works as there are specific soil needs to consider. The total cost would be between $250 and $300 to plant the tree, which requires approval to go forward. A motion was made and unanimously approved to spend up to $350 to purchase a tree and have it planted during an Arbor Day planting ceremony. It was noted that Mr. Dutcher would like to have a little ceremony and publicize the fact the tree is to be in memory of Mary Lou Strom. The commission also needs to request the Town Council issue an Arbor Day Proclamation to officially recognize the event locally. A motion was made by Joanne Kneiss and seconded by Edward Gamble to so do. It was passed unanimously.
Application Referral, Sidor, South Road: As the application lacks complete plans for review, the subject was tabled. Commissioner George made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Kneiss. The vote was 7-0-0.
STAFF REPORT: No report was made as this is the first meeting for staff.
Liaison Report – N. Connecticut Land Trust: Comm. McGuire noted there would be a presentation on mountain lions in CT this coming Sunday (3/16/08) at the Somers Town Hall from 7 PM to 9 PM. He also noted the Trust would sponsor a hike in June.
Liaison Report – Scantic River Watershed Association: Chairman Dynia noted the SRWA meeting was held last night, 3/10/08. He also reminded the commission that the Scantic River Spring Splash was coming up on March 29th, mentioning that there were some parking issues to be worked out. Anyone wanting to volunteer should contact Karen LaPlante or Kathleen Vose.
Chairman Dynia stated that nothing further has been found around the dam below Broad Brook Road. The research team will be back in the spring more testing with hand borers.
The Chairman also informed the commission that the Springfield Naturalist Club has donated $1,000 to the SRWA to use on development. Their next meeting is on March 19 in Springfield near the museum complex. They are known for sponsoring hikes, canoeing and kayaking. The Connecticut River Trails is sponsoring a float on the Connecticut River on June 14th this year.
Mr. Dynia also mentioned that East Windsor is preparing a reservoir study on pollution.
A motion was made to add new business to the agenda. The motion was passed unanimously.
ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES: Commissioner George reminded the commission that there are a number of new members. The agency needs to go back and look at how it came into being, and what it needs to do – i.e. discussing present and new goals, what has been accomplished and what remains to be done, reviewing and updating the by-laws where necessary (reviewing the CT General Statutes relevant to the creation and duties of a conservation commission), etc.
She noted in particular the new budget. She asked for a print-out of the current budget and expenditure levels to date for the next meeting. There will need to be funds to cover a natural resource inventory (soils, ground and tree cover, movement of wildlife (movement corridors, locations, dimensions, etc.), major specimen trees, historic resources (with the HDC?), and rivers and streams (with the IW&WA?). All that planning and research may require hiring a consultant to provide a suitable document and all the mapping that would be included. Commissioner George noted that such an inventory is a state requirement for conservation commissions; she will supply staff with copies of the relevant legislation.
ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Dynia stated the next meeting is April 8, 2008. A motion was made to adjourn at 10:10 PM by Comm. George and seconded by Comm. Vose and So Voted.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall
Secretary
rwa
Guest List / 3/11/2008:
Joseph Bosco, Enfield Town Council 49 Steele Road
Gary J. Raffia 113 Raffia Road
Mitch M. Raffia 212 Raffia Road
Richard Chmura 39 Middle Road
Audrey Szczesiol 43 Fletcher Road
Jim Manning 45 Sandpiper Road
Art Mullen 80 Mullen Road
W. J. Szykula 90Mullen Road
Dan Stocker 56 Abbe Road
Charlie Conlin 13 Abbe Road
Joe Nitch, Jr. 94 Parsons Road
Mitchell Wojnar 237 Post Office Road
Daniel Nitch 107 Post Road
Mavis Collins 9 Powder Hill Road
Jack Collins 9 Powder Hill Road
Linda Philips 19 Lake Road
John Shlatz 42 South Road
Henry Talmage, Ct Farmland trust 77 Buckingham St., Htfd., CT 06106
Tim Phelan 4 Windmill Road
Michael Smyth 4 Oliver Road