Jones PDR - CtPost Nov3 Orazietti concerns

Today's CtPost had an article expressing concerns that A) the public wasn't aware of the details of the referendum, and B) that maybe the City should buy the property so we could "use it". As the CtPost online does not retain continuous hyperlinks for their archive, I cut/paste here with my comments in red.

http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4596345
CtPost, Nov3, Caution urged on Jones Farm bond vote

SHELTON — As a bar owner, Danny Orazietti is used to listening to people talk, but what he has been hearing lately concerns him. Orazietti, who is also a Planning and Zoning Commission member, said some patrons at his Danny O's establishments do not understand the proposal for the city to buy development rights from the Jones Family Farm.

"A lot of people are asking me about it," Orazietti said of the referendum question on Tuesday's ballot, asking for residents' approval of bonding $4.2 million to buy development rights to 132 acres of the popular farm. "A lot of people think we are purchasing the land as open space," he said.

** I too had concern that people are not aware of the upcoming question on the ballot. Unfortunately, that is a statement on our society today that we can recite details of Tom Cruise's upcoming nuptial to Katie Holmes wearing an Armani wedding dress - yet do not know about a school vote or referendum question that directly affects our lives. This is due to A) lack of controversy regarding this subject and B) lack of in-depth reporting by local media outlets. I have done as much as I can or am allowed to do to promote the referendum (being restricted by State Election laws is a difficulty) both privately with a blog, and in my role as chairman of the ConsComm via a press conference.

But, if approved next week, the money will not buy the actual property, but instead a caveat protecting the 132 acres surrounding the Jones homestead from development.
The Jones family would continue to own the land, pay property taxes on it and work it as a farm.
"There are a lot of people who don't realize that we are just buying the building rights," Orazietti said. "I think the community should be informed a bit more on what we are doing."

** It should be outlined what development rights are, and how they are valued. When someone owns a property "in-fee" you own it entirely. There are portions of that value which you can legally define and transfer to another party. Some areas of the country have mineral or oil rights when those are under the ground. Places like NYC may value "air-rights" and allow a billboard company to span over the top of their building. In the Jones Family Farms example, as with other previous Shelton successes at farm preservation, the "development rights" are being purchased by the City which prevent the land from ever being developed and thus ensuring they continue forever remaining agricultural. In a suburban Fairfield County community, that is understandably the bulk of the value to the land.

Orazietti said he supports putting off the vote in order to hold meetings with residents to discuss the issue. "It needs to be spelled out better — that is a lot of money to be giving someone for building rights," he said.

** There have been numerous meetings held by the Conservation Commission, 1 meeting from Planning & Zoning, and 3 meetings of the Board of Alderman. Every single month since March this has been on at least one group/committee/commission agenda. The value of the purchase is above question. The appraisal for the property had to be done to a "Yellow Book" standard, and the appraiser had to also be a "yellow book" standard appraisor. These are the high standards required by the Federal Government grant we applied for. While considerably more costly to pay for such an appraisal because it is that much more thorough and certified, it is money well spent in light of the grant award of $910k which contributes toward the purchase.

Proponents of the action say that by preventing sale of the land to a housing developer, it would save the city money. Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson also said that purchasing the development rights is part of the city's Farm and Forest Protection Program, which has preserved thousands of acres citywide.

"The city is at a crossroads right now," Harbinson said. "Does it value the agricultural segment of the community?" If it does, it has to show its support through efforts such as the purchase of development rights, Harbinson said, or else live with the consequences.

** This vote is as I say, at a crossroads. Will the community illustrate its support for the next generation of farmers that are starting wineries (JamieJones), cidermills and orchards (DanBeardsly), and organic local grown vegetables (TomMonaghan). If they don't, the alternative is a final crop ala the FieldViewFarm in Orange. From my perspective as commissioner, this is about the Farm and Forest Protection Program. Will this vote be a statement that there is a future for that program? If it is not a direction valued by the community, that future generations of farming is not welcomed here - then it will accelerate any potential pace of development on the remaining unprotected lands as they depart from the agricultural facet to our community, and embark on contributing to our school system.

"Houses are the last crop the farm will give," he said, pointing to the example of Field View Farm in Orange. That town declined to purchase development rights for Field View, one of the longest continuously operating farms in the country, and now homes are being built there.

** It should be said that this process is not something new for Shelton to utilize. The Shelton Family Farm was purchased just a few years ago using the same process and grant program. The Stockmal farm and Beardsley Organic farm, and Pumpkinseed Hill were all farms protected via this mechanism with Shelton's involvement. Shelton serves as a model of success to the State.

Rejecting the purchase of development rights at Jones Farm equals the loss of about $2.6 million, Harbinson said. This is because the Jones family has taken $1.7 million off the property's assessed purchase price, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is contributing $910,000 toward the purchase.

While Orazietti said he has always supported preserving open space, he said that he questions the wisdom of the proposal. "I think the town should outright purchase it," he said. "In my opinion, we should buy it and let them continue to farm it."

** While a typical initial reaction, such a suggestion is short sighted for several reasons. First is financial. The City can preserve 130 acres as agricultural land via conservation easement for $4.3million in resident's taxpaying dollars, or follow Danny's suggestion of purchasing it "outright" which would mean the City of Shelton, on its own, spending the full value of $6.8million for development rights, plus it's residual agricultural value (another couple of milion) for a total FAR in excess of what is being asked for in this ballot. The outcome being the same of Danny's statement "let them continue to farm it". I would suggest it more prudent to follow the current path (vote YES) in comparison to "outright purchase it". The fiscal authority (Board of Alderman) have agreed on that subject (unanimously on 3 separate votes). A 2nd reason it is short sighted is the "continue to farm it" comment. A Christmas tree seedling planted this summer will not be harvested as a 7ft tall tree until 9 years from today. A strawberry field requires underground tiles and irrigation pipes to allow drainage and the ability to prevent freezing of buds in spring. What kind of lease could be suggested to encourage such investment and commitment long term to an eventual crop? A 3rd reason is that the USDA NRCS grant does not make awards to applications where municipalities are purchasing property outright. They have learned that a property under care and ownership of the person who has a long term interest in such care is where money is better spent. Thus, we would and could not use a grant program to participate with us if we sought to purchase the property outright.

While buying the development rights means the property stays open, it is not land that city residents can use, Orazietti said. "For that amount of money, we should be able to use it," he said."

** Now I get confused: "We should let them continue to farm it" from the previous paragraph, or "We should be able to use it" from this one? I'll start with noting that buying the development rights means the property stays undeveloped. The word "open" has ambiguous meaning. A wooded area or forest can act as a buffer to residential properties, or provide filter to allow rainwater to better percolate into the streams, brooks and acquifers. Some people may think of farm as only open fields or meadows, and that is poor land management, (our Grant to the US Dept of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service notes the land management plan for the farm's soil conservation). Next is the notion that city residents can't use the land. The Jones Family has always allowed public access to their lands for walking, even outside of the pick-your-own harvesting times, though with written agreement so an understanding exists as to a working farms activities and care that should be taken by visitors.

Residents need to know the facts before deciding, Orazietti said. "People need to realize what they are voting on," he said. "They look at it as buying open space, which it is not. "It should be open space, but we should purchase it so we have some control."

** I don't understand Danny's change of heart. Dan Orazietti is a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission. He was present at their meeting of 2006/May/9. He seconded the motion and voted in favor of, along with every other commissioner to make it unanimous, that this was the proper planning direction for the community. I cut/paste the following off the City's website:

The Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission held a Regular Meeting on May 9, 2006 in the Shelton City Hall, Room 303, 54 Hill Street, Shelton, CT.
……..
8-24 REFERRAL: JONES FARM USDA GRANT (HOMESTEAD ACRES/JONES FAMILY FARM) ISRAEL HILL RD.
Chairman Cribbins stated that this next item is a piece of the Jones Farm and through the grant they will have development rights. It is 140 acres and it is what is called for in the plan of development. We did the Shelton Family Farm right next-door, stated Richard Schultz.
Tom Harbinson stated that this is 140 acres and it will be called Homestead Acres. There will be a barn.
The activity could still be on going, stated Anthony Panico.
Richard Schultz stated that we are going to say that you found the approval consistent with the Open Space Plan and you authorized Staff to send a letter to the USDA.
On a motion made by Jason Perillo seconded by Daniel Orazietti it was unanimously voted to report favorably on the 8-24 Referral: Jones Farm USDA Grant (Homestead Acres/Jones Family Farm) Israel Hill Road.