County Support for Putnam County Farms Lacking

Farms are essential to Putnam County’s identity and environmental health. As noted in Putnam County’s own 2004 Agricultural Protection Plan, farms contribute to the county’s distinctive character and cultural history. Agriculture has played a major role in the development of the county’s economic and cultural fabric. Active farms add to the county’s unique community character, which is a powerful advantage in maintaining a high-quality, economically vibrant region.

The Jarrett Family of Lobster Hill Farm in Brewster at a recent Farmers Market.

Agriculture is also the preferred land use for watersheds and protects water quality. Compared to developed land—which brings paved areas, septic systems, and roads—farmland has far less negative long-term impact on water quality. Farms that follow Best Management Practices can even have a positive effect on local watersheds, making them vital for water conservation.

At a time when New York State has launched its 30×30 initiative, aimed at conserving 30% of the state’s lands and waters by 2030, Putnam County should recognize that supporting existing small, family-owned farms is a much more effective (and cost effective) path to real conservation. 

By ensuring that private farms receive the protections of the Agricultural District, we can contribute meaningfully to the state’s conservation goals without the need for further development restrictions or land acquisitions, and at ZERO cost to taxpayers.

These farms already preserve open spaces, protect watersheds, and enhance biodiversity, all while maintaining the county’s unique cultural and historical character. By ensuring that private farms receive the protections of the Agricultural District, we can contribute meaningfully to the state’s conservation goals without the need for further development restrictions or land acquisitions, and at ZERO cost to taxpayers. How many county and state programs offer such impactful benefits at no financial burden to taxpayers? Then why are we road blocking it? 

Inclusion in an Agricultural District in New York provides farmers with critical protections that help sustain long-term agricultural use. These districts shield farms from overly restrictive and burdensome building code requirements, zoning laws, and associated fees, allowing small, family-run farms to remain economically viable. Importantly, these exemptions from local zoning and building codes only apply if they do not present a public safety issue for those outside of the farm itself, ensuring a balance between agricultural operations and community safety. 

By eliminating unnecessary compliance costs, farms can save tens of thousands of dollars, directly contributing to their financial stability. Additionally, the district ensures that nearby developments do not negatively impact farmland, as any project within 500 feet of a district parcel must complete a SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) environmental impact review.

It’s important to note that the Agricultural District program is separate from New York’s agricultural tax assessment program, which involves its own distinct application process. While the tax assessment provides financial relief by lowering property taxes, it does not offer the same land-use protections that an Agricultural District does.

Despite these clear benefits, over the past four years Putnam County has failed to approve any privately owned farm for inclusion in the Agricultural District, while public lands like Tilly Foster Farm and others have remained redundantly protected. These public lands have long benefited from Agricultural District protections, despite not facing the same development pressures, regulations or financial challenges as private farms. 

During this time, 10 out of 14 legitimate farm applications have been recommended for approval by the county’s Agricultural Board, but each recommendation has been ignored or overridden by the county legislature and denied year after year.

One of the most troubling tactics discovered during this process has been the weaponization of local building code enforcement officers. County Resolution 139, passed in 2003, requires that an “applicant’s property be free of active local, state, or federal violations” in order to be considered for district inclusion. In numerous cases, violations have been suddenly issued mere days or hours before the final vote, leaving farmers with no opportunity to rectify or clear the issues. These violations often concern conditions and practices that existed long before their applications were submitted, raising serious questions about why they are flagged only at the last moment. 

Given that the application process includes a 30-day review, site visits from the Agricultural Board, and early notification to local municipalities, these last-minute disqualifications appear to be deliberate efforts to block farm inclusion.

Farmers are routinely left with empty reassurances, such as “It doesn’t mean you can’t farm,” “You can apply again next year,” or “We’ll review our resolution because we support farming in Putnam County.” But without access to the Agricultural District’s protections, these reassurances offer little real help. The benefits of Agricultural District inclusion are vital for protecting farms from unnecessary regulatory burdens, and being denied year after year leaves farmers vulnerable to challenges that the district is specifically designed to address.

It is especially frustrating that public lands like Tilly Foster Farm continue to receive these protections when they are largely unnecessary. Public lands are already governed by county-controlled zoning and land-use regulations, and many, like Tilly Foster, are further safeguarded by conservation easements or watershed protection programs. The inclusion of these lands in the Agricultural District is redundant and detracts from the program’s true purpose—protecting privately owned farmland from development pressures and excessive government interference.

Putnam County must stop obstructing local farmers with arbitrary denials, last-minute violations, and empty promises. These small, family-run farms are the backbone of our agricultural community and play a crucial role in conservation efforts. Supporting them is not just a benefit to the farms themselves, but a critical step toward preserving the environment and the distinctive character of Putnam County. If the county is truly committed to both agriculture and conservation, it must take meaningful action to include private farms in the Agricultural District, rather than allowing public lands to remain redundantly protected. The future of our local farming community, as well as the health of our land and water, depends on it.

Editor’s note: Since this piece was written, the Highlands Current reported on December 27 that the owners of Ridge Ranch Farm in Putnam Valley filed a lawsuit against Putnam County over the Legislature’s decision to reject his farm from the Agricultural District.

In addition, the Current reported on January 10 that Jocelyn Apicello was removed from the Agriculture & Farmland Protection Board. The Philipstown farmer had recently spoken out against the Putnam County Legislature’s rejection of farms to a special district.

You can lend your support to our Putnam County farmers by writing to the County Legislature about their agricultural district policy and practices at [email protected].