Troy farmers: Are they now chained to their land?

By Katie Chaffee

It finally happened. New subdivision regulations and a development rights buy-out program have become law in the town of Troy.

Town supervisors voted 4-1 to pass both measures at Monday night's Town Board meeting, with only Supervisor Fritz Anding voting against it.

The proposal to establish a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program passed by the same margin, with Anding voting "no" again.

Action was not taken on instituting a .5mil tax to fund the PDR program.

Chairman Dean Albert said a small amount will probably be added to next year's budget to show state and federal government's "good faith" on the part of the town.

State and federal money may be available for the program. There is an item in the state budget giving Troy $500,000 for that purpose now, but that budget has not been signed by the governor.

Residents will have an opportunity to vote on the yearly budget at a town meeting held in conjunction with the monthly Board meeting on Nov. 14, Albert said.

Albert said the .5 mil tax increase, which will raise around $132,000 a year for the buyout, will likely come before voters at a referendum in the spring.

The play by play

In a very polite and closely regulated public hearing, both sides presented arguments supporting their views. Residents were limited to 3 minutes to make their point.

Attorney Steve Goff, representing former farmer Bert Day, said he probably represented the opinion of most owners of large tracts of land.

Goff called the law unfair and proposed a flexible program that would allow development on up to 75% of the land, depending on the circumstances.

Labeling the proposal a "taking" in legal terms, Goff said the board was taking away the rights of property owners without compensation.

Not so, said Town Attorney Gwen Kuchevar.

"The 'taking' argument will fail since people have no automatic, vested right to rezone," she said.

The town has veto power on all rezoning requests, Kuchevar said. But one goal of the new program is to make it easier to rezone exclusive ag land for development, according to Kuchevar.

Randy Anding, who succeeded his father, Fritz, on the family farm, said "forever" was just too long in his opinion. He was referring to setting aside acreage for farming "in perpetuity."

"Twenty years ago we had no idea what would be happening now," Anding said. "I'm scared by the weight of making decisions for those far in the future."

But Jill Berke spoke in favor of assuming the burden of land stewardship.

"Troy has some of the country's best farmland. Let's protect it for our children," she said.

John Scherf countered Anding's argument against the permanence of setting aside land for farming, maintaining that development is equally permanent.

"Do you know of any development turned back into a farm?" he asked.

"When farm land it gone, it's gone," Scherf said. "We will have no second chance to rethink this."

Kuchevar told the group there is a procedure for canceling a conservation easement, but it is complicated. Nevertheless, it can be done, she said.

Some wanted even more stringent regulation. Others thought the new rules a fair compromise.

Marv Nelson objected to any kind of zoning regulation.

"In my opinion, zoning laws are unconstitutional," he said.

Residents objected to the complexity of the new zoning, and lamented the loss of tax dollars from pricey new houses.

Kent Bahner, who is on the Plan Board in Troy, said there is evidence that development leads to higher, not lower, taxes. This plan will keep the tax burden down while preserving Troy's rural atmosphere, he said.

Each side was given a total of one half hour to make their point and then discussion was closed.

Board supervisors then made their case, both for and against the proposal.

Fritz Anding, who has farmed what he described as one of the poorest farms in Troy since 1939, spoke strongly against the plan.

"It's the farmers who are losing - the rest of you are gaining," he said. "If you want open space, why don't you buy the land!"

Anding was bitter about money to be taken out of his pocket to pay for development rights too.

"My land will never qualify (for PDR purchase), but Dan's will," he said in reference to Supervisor Dan Pearson's Mann Valley farm. "I'll pay $250 a year to pay for Dan's rights. He'll receive a good amount of my money," Anding said.

Pearson described the plan his Farmland Preservation Committee came up with as "a fair compromise." One of the chief objectives of the committee was to give the farmers their equity, Pearson said.

Supervisor Heidi Helgeson called the proposal "a good tool for a fair compromise."

Following the short discussion among board members, the vote was taken.

The aftermath

There was a lot of discussion from those in the crowd. More than 225 people attended.

Most of the conversation was civil, but at least one shoving match reportedly broke out.

In the parking lot, Goff expressed his disappointment. He supported the principles of the plan, he said, but called the new laws unfair to those whose land was not top-quality farmland and wouldn't qualify for the buyout program.

Goff admitted farmers have brought this situation on themselves, to some degree.

He said in the 1980s, farmers were anxious to have their land designated as "exclusive agriculture." This protected them from nuisance claims by non-farming neighbors. It also allowed them to qualify for state tax credit programs under the Farmland Preservation Program.

Now that same land is caught under the exclusive ag zoning limitation and only one house per 35 acres is allowed.

Farmers who sell development rights to the town will fare far better financially than those who develop, since they must give up 40 percent of their land, Goff said.

"Preserving land is just words - it doesn't pay my people anything," he said.