Prime Agricultural Land Use Discussion
Chronological
Notes from the Meeting:
Rod Humphrey – Chairman,
Introduced Planning Commission
members: Lucy Curran, Monty Strouse,
Jake Tanis, Mark Fortney, Dave Henning, and Dick Decker. Introduced Bob Jacobs, Director of the
Stated
that the Planning Commission is a voluntary function. Objective of the meeting is to listen to the
landowner’s ideas, comments, and suggestions on the current Prime Ag Farmland
zoning. Written comments are also
welcome until the Nov. 7 and can be sent to Rod Humphrey, Potter Township
Planning Commission Chairman,
235
letters were sent out inviting
Dick Decker – Secretary,
Reviewed Prime Ag Farming Land Use as it relates to 1) the current zoning, 2) the Penns Valley Comprehensive Plan, and 3) the Clean and Green requirements. The goal of this presentation is to create a baseline of understanding.
Existing Prime Ag zoning (light
green color on the
|
Parcel
Size (Acres) |
Maximum
Number of Lots |
|
9 – 19 |
3 |
|
20 – 39 |
5 |
|
40 – 79 |
7 |
|
80 – 119 |
10 |
|
120 – 159 |
13 |
|
160 - 199 |
16 |
|
200+ |
20 + 1 per 50 acre >200 |
3) For calculating parcel size, fraction of an acre is rounded off to the next lowest acre. 4) When possible, use land less suited for agriculture. The remaining tract shall be a single lot used for tilling, livestock, horticultural use, usual farm structures and single detached farm operator’s dwelling, conservation/open space, or park/recreation. Each lot needs to be perk tested, have water needs met, and meet sewage requirements.
The Penns Valley Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use Chapter, Section A) states that the Prime Ag land use designation is intended to protect agricultural soils and valuable farming operations and provide an unobtrusive approach to farms conducting farming operations. (These statements are consistent with our current zoning.) The fixed ratio of permitted residential density determined by local officials restricts development potential to as little as is politically acceptable, but consistent with the Clean and Green Law.
Clean and Green. Land can be separated under the Clean and Green law into two or more tracts, each of which must meet the qualified use of the program. If the qualified use changes, the owner must pay rollback taxes on the separated track and the original track if made within 7 years of entering the program. Roll-back taxes (the difference between taxes in paid in the Clean and Green program vs. those if not enrolled in the program) are based on the year taken out of the program, plus the 6 previous years and 6% interest. If greater than 7 years, rollback taxes only apply to the separated portion. When the spilt-off track meets the following criteria, roll-back taxes and interest are only due on the spit-off portion: 1) The track split-off is less that 2 acres annually, however, a maximum of the minimum lot size may be spilt of annually if local government requires 2 to 3 acre lots. 2) The track is used for agricultural purposes, agricultural or forest preserve, or for construction of a residential dwelling to be occupied by the person who owns the land is conveyed. 3) The total track split offs do not exceed the lesser of 10 acres or 10% of the entire track at the time it was enrolled.
Rod
Humphrey – Chairman,
This meeting is primarily intended
for large land owners, if you want to comment, and you are not a large land
owner, please wait until the end of the meeting. Please state your name and limit comments to
5 or 10 minutes.
John Ishler – Landowner
The statement under “no further subdivision is permitted” under the current zoning is a hindrance. I interpret that to mean, if I sell off one lot, I’m done.
Dick Decker – Secretary,
In response to John Ishler’s comment, I believe the intent of that statement was to not permit someone subdividing a 50-acre lot into 20-acre lots, and later subdividing the 20-acre lots in an effort to obtain more lots.
John Ishler – Landowner
Do I have to do a subdivision plan for each two or three acre parcel I spit off? It’s quite expensive to do these plans. We need to make rules that are favorable to the farmer, rather than penalizing them. You have to be on our side. This is a bad rule.
Dick Decker – Secretary, Potter Township Planning Commission
In response to John Ishler’s comment, yes, you would have to do a subdivision each time you spilt off a lot. We should look at that rule.
Allen Decker – Landowner
The previous Potter Township Zoning Officer told me that state law says that he rules. His interpretation cannot be overruled by the Supervisors or the Planning Commissioners.
Bob Jacobs – Director, Centre County Planning Commission
Yes, the Zoning Officer does interpret the ordinance and makes the final call, but the property owner can appeal the decision to the Zoning Hearing Board. I recommend that the Planning Commission modify the A section of the current zoning – particularly the 3 acre restriction. Splitting off 3 acres should not constitute rollback taxes on the entire parcel. Bringing it back to a 2-acre minimum would be consistent with Clean and Green. There is not set standard on how a township establishes zoning. There should be provisions made to let the farmers make profit off of selling lots. This is a good opportunity to get dialog going back and forth.
Mark Fortney – Potter Township Planning Commission member
It’s my understanding that the intention of the ag zoning was to allow subdivision, but preserve ag land. That is, retain a large enough portion to be use for agricultural use. I’d like to open that thought to comment.
Mark Traband – Landowner
How much of the type B zoning as been done? Under my experience, all I see is the 3 acre.
Mark Fortney – Potter Township Planning Commission member
Also most of the time it is the 3 acres, we do see some 10-acre subdivisions for tax purposes. The intent is to leave enough acreage for ag purposes; the 10-acre subdivisions don’t accomplish this.
Dave Coopey – Landowner
I think the Planning Commission is feeling out if it’s okay to tell farmers that they can only sell part of their land. I think a lot of people feel that this is my land, I paid for it, and I don’t want to be restricted in what I can do with it. If you don’t want your ground restricted, you’d better tell us.
Bill Heald – Landowner
I’m concerned that my farm is listed as prime ag and I don’t understand how it could be classified that way. On the north side of me I have 16 houses. On the south side there is land that has been subdivided into 5 or 6 lots. I’m surrounded by development on two sides and there is no way that you could make a living farming off of the quality of my land. I’m all in favor or keeping open land and trying to contribute to the community, but it seems that these rules you’ve imposed on us are onerous when it’s not even good farmland. Is there some definition of prime ag land?
Norm Lathbury – Ag Land Preservation Program Coordinator
By definition, Prime Agricultural soils are Capability Classes 1 through 4. In this part of the county, the prime ag soils are Hagerstown, Hublersburg, Nowlin, and Burles and some lesser know varieties. Generally, the areas are at lower elevations. The soil classification information was complied by the USDA.
Dave Coopey – Landowner
Currently the USDA is looking at my farm for a riparian buffer that would take most of my land out of farming. It doesn’t make sense that it’s listed as prime ag. How do I get my land reclassified?
Monty Strouse – Potter Township Planning Commission member and Supervisor
You’d have submitted a written
request to the Supervisors to get that changed.
The process would probably take 6 months to 1 year. We realized that some reclassification needs
to be done. 40 years ago all that ground
around you was farmed, regardless of the soil type. Things have changed. It’s going to be a long
process to get things in order.
Lucille Fuller – Landowner
I’m a neighbor of Dave Coopey. It may be the water retention of our soft loams that lead to the prime ag classification. I’m also surprised that we’re classified as prime ag land.
John Ishler – Landowner
Monty made that comment that we don’t have to follow the Comprehensive Plan exactly – it’s just a guideline. The plan says that a riparian buffer is a requirement in one location and in another place it’s says that it is a recommendation.
Monty Strouse – Potter Township Planning Commission member and Supervisor
The state law says that we need to parallel the Comprehensive Plan.
Bob Jacobs – Director, Centre County Planning Commission
The Comprehensive Plan is a guideline, not a legally binding document that’s updated every 20 years. You cannot require a riparian buffer based on the plan. There has to be something in the zoning to make it a requirement. The Municipalities Planning Code states that the Comprehensive Plan and zoning should be generally consistent.
Craig Weidensaul – Landowner
I served on the Planning Commission. No township is required to supercede an existing plan with the Penns Valley Comprehensive Plan. Potter Township is one of the few townships in the area with its own Comprehensive Plan. Ours is a good plan that can be interpreted in today’s world just as well as the day it was written. There is a section in our Township Plan on water quality/quantity and wells. The plan was predicated on the nature of our soils and other townships should take a look at that plan for guidance. Zoning should support the comprehensive plan and not conflict with it. Over the past 20 years township surveys have indicated that taxpayers are willing to support moderate development. We need to keep that in mind. Farmers are probably the best stewards of natural resources. Don’t sell the farmer short in thinking that they need regulations to preserve the environment.
John Ishler – Landowner
Can someone sell lots and build houses in an Industrial zone? What is the township doing to encourage industry to come to the area? Additional industry would help relieve the tax burden to farmers and homeowners.
Monty Strouse – Potter Township Planning Commission member and Supervisor
You would need to have an industrial park authority set up to do what you’re asking. You probably have to encourage industry on a tax-free basis. So it won’t help with taxes in the short run. Often businesses shut down after their tax exemption expires.
Jake Tanis – Potter Township Planning Commission member
I agree that we need to bring in more business. The business corridor along Rt. 322 looks a lot better than it used to. The new buildings, Scott’s and the furniture store, are well done. The tax dollars that those businesses bring in is significant: the Harley shop pays about $100,000 per year in taxes, the Dotterer pays about $15,000. Best Line, Scott’s and the furniture store will probably also be paying about $15,000. In addition, these businesses employ 50 – 100 people. None of those buildings send kids to school, so they don’t cost much in to the taxpayers. If you want to keep the farmers in the area, we’ve got to get the taxes more in line. I own 90 acres in New Jersey and pay $600 a year in taxes. I bet it would be three times that much here.
Allen Decker – Landowner
The Potter Township Comprehensive Plan basically states that businesses should be encouraged to go to Bellefonte and State College. Seven years ago my wife and I started a zoning request. We had a piece of ag property that had 8 acres zoned commercial. Six or 8 local businessmen came to us regarding the property. We went to the Township Supervisors for a zoning change and we were ignored repeatedly. It took 3 years, 3 months, and 3 days to get the approval and by then the business opportunity was gone. This community could have had a 40,000 sq. ft. grocery store and three health care facilities. This community is suffering because we were ignored. The Comprehensive Plan needs to be changed tremendously. The Township Supervisors need to remember that there pension and stock investment and other investments is the farmers’ ground. Maybe we should take control of their pensions? Maybe we should get their cash and put it on a table and take control of it. Let them use 10% of it and keep the other 90% like one of the zoning rules on the farmers. Remember how farmers sacrifice. They eat the cheapest stuff so that they can survive and make their mortgage payment and their taxes and their liability insurance. I’m not for building everything up, but then again, I’m the one who is paying for it. For any other citizen to tell me and my wife what I can’t do with my property that benefits me and the community is wrong.
Amy Herberg – Landowner
You expect your land to be there
for you when you retire. The farmer
works harder than anyone else in this world.
He puts food on 90% of the country’s tables. When a farmer gets to an old age he’s not
going to have a pension to fall back on.
The last thing we want is a development on our land. We live around developments and all we get is
Christmas trees thrown over our fence.
We want to reserve the right to do what we want with our property. That’s why we bought it. We don’t want surprises. I feel that what is going on here is
infringing on our rights and offering us nothing in return. If anyone else feels the way I do say
something. (Clapping.)
Craig Weidensaul – Landowner
Where does Potter Township stand in its endorsement of the Penns Valley Comprehensive Plan? Have the Township Supervisors bought into the Plan to the point where we will have to start to change our zoning ordinances?
Rod Humphrey – Chairman, Potter Township Planning Commission
The Supervisors have signed off on the Penns Valley Comprehensive Plan – so the Potter Township Comprehensive Plan is not longer valid. The new Comp Plan is not perfect and that’s why we’re here tonight getting your input. The comment was made that the Planning Commission members are not large landowners. Both Jake and Monty have farms. I come from a farm family that gone through hardship and I can relate to your issues although I don’t own a farm. I want to make this process less complicate and easier to understand. I’ve read the Penns Valley Comp Plan from cover to cover and still don’t understand it. You shouldn’t have to stand in front of the Township Supervisors for three years to make a few dollars on land that you’ve invested your whole life in. We’re on your side and we want your help. We want to take your input to the Supervisors. The Planning Commission is only an advisory board appointed by the Supervisors. We don’t have any power without your suggestions and you following up on those suggestions. If you’re not happy with the way the Supervisors vote, run for office or support some who stands for your beliefs.
Mark Fortney – Potter Township Planning Commission member
I want to challenge the comment that these restrictions are happening to you. The zoning regulations that Dick went through have been on the books for 10 to 20 years. That’s what we’re living with today. What do you want to live with tomorrow? There are choices. The Planning Commission is charged with looking at the future and how we should develop as a community 20 years down the road. And that’s the way we’re looking at these zoning regulations. Are they doing what they’ve intended? Are they allowing development as intended? Are they balancing the rights of the property owners and providing flexibility? These laws were put into place prior to the Ag Preservation program. We need your input to know where we should be going in the future – we don’t want this happening “to you.” We want to be doing this in concert.
Mark Traband – Landowner
People are concerned about more restrictions. Most people are against additional restrictions. That’s a given. From the new Comp Plan; “The fixed ratio of permitted residential density determined by local officials restricts development potential to as little as is politically acceptable” means no more than we have now. In thinking about the future, we should try to increase purchasing development rights. I grew up in Hartford County Maryland. They buy development rights to 20 – 25 farms per year. That’s a lot more than we do here. Buying development rights is a good option for the farmer to keep their land. Currently, we don’t have the resources in Centre County to increase the purchase of development rights. In Maryland, they can do it through a transfer tax. I think it would be beneficial to do the same here. The other important issue is tax relief for the farmer. There is a great deal of development pressure. I feel the best way to save farmland from this is to put in water and sewer and make developments in proximity to it.
Jake Tanis – Potter Township Planning Commission member
Another issue is the age of farmers. There are a few people here in their forties that farm, but there are very few in their twenties and thirties. The Supervisors need to look into the fact that not many farmers have a good pension or estate plan. We need to have an open mind towards passing down farms to children. I’d much rather see 20 acres sold in this situation to pay the estate taxes rather than lose the whole farm.
John Ishler – Landowner
Farmland preservation is a part of the Penns Valley Comprehensive Plan. On page 203, preservation was put in to assist the farmer. Maybe we should take some of Mark’s ideas to enhance the program. What does “commercial dairy” mean in the current ordinance (Ordinance 2 of 2001)? Is commercial dairy a conditional use?
Rod Humphrey – Chairman, Potter Township Planning Commission
Yes, commercial dairy is a conditional use, and is not restricted.
Norm Lathbury – Ag Land Preservation Program Coordinator
The Ag Land Preservation Board has a $5,000 per acre cap on the program. We can’t pay any more than that unless the Board decides to change it. When you’re preserving farms of 150+ acres it doesn’t take long to burn that up. The last couple of years we’ve been able to garner a little over $1,000,000 to help get more funding. It’s going to be difficult to raise any more money. Under the current rules, if a farm owner donates an easement or excepts a bargain sale, and we can give him $6,000 per acre for the development right, he can deduct the at least a portion of the $1,000 difference from his income tax at 100% of his adjusted gross income over a period of 15 years until that amount is used up. This assumes all your income is from the farm. If you were to derive 50% of your income off of the farm, 50% of your adjusted gross income would be available for the deduction. This stands until the end of 2007. We’re hoping for an extension until 2010. It can take 18 months to preserve a farm.
Jake Tanis – Potter Township Planning Commission member
If there were a piece of property close to town that was appraised for $10,000 per acre, would they have a $5,000 per acre gift?
Norm Lathbury – Ag Land Preservation Program Coordinator
The appraisal establishes two prices, market value and agricultural value. The difference between the two is the easement value and that is what is used for the basis of the deduction. There are other financial factors involved, but yes, in theory, you can take a portion of that $5,000 as a charitable gift. Farmland Trust has over 2,000 acres waiting to be eased and we’re not going to have enough time by the end of 2007 to get it done.
Rod Humphrey – Chairman, Potter Township Planning Commission
Correction to the agenda: No meeting on Nov. 7 because of voting. But there will be another meeting here at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, Nov. 1.
Craig Weidensaul – Landowner
I get the feeling that a lot of us are concerned about something we don’t need to be. As Dick Decker indicated, there seems to be one significant between the Potter Township Plan and the Penns Valley Plan. It doesn’t appear that the difference would justify any change of code in our ordinances. Is that true?
Rod Humphrey – Chairman, Potter Township Planning Commission
Yes, that is our initial impression too. We’re here to try to make the ordinances better or make conditional uses available so that the ordinances are compliant with Clean and Green.
Carl Homan – Landowner
The letter that went out stated that we’re trying to get the Potter Township Plan in line with the Penns Valley Plan. But are you telling me that you’re currently operating under the Penns Valley Plan?
Monty Strouse – Potter Township Planning Commission member and Supervisor
Yes, that’s correct. Our current zoning map is not in line with the land use map in the Penns Valley Plan. According to the County, we need to get the two closer, without causing an undue burden on the township. What we’re doing here tonight trying to get your input as far as what you really want and what you can live with regarding prime ag land ordinances. We met with landowner after the public hearing on the Penns Valley Comp Plan and we were able to get the 20-acre rule eliminated. Your input is important.
Carl Homan – Landowner
How often is the Comp Plan updated?
Bob Jacobs – Director, Centre County Planning Commission
Every 10 to 20 years.
Unidentified female – Landowner
You’re saying that we need to get Potter Township closer to the Penns Valley Plan. Can you say what direction that is? Can you describe the difference between the current land use map and the one in the Penns Valley Plan?
Monty Strouse – Potter Township Planning Commission member and Supervisor
We don’t have copy of the Potter Township zoning map here. You can see it at the township building. If you compare the two, we have more of some districts than we should have. We have to get our zoning map closer to the Penns Valley Comp Plan map. It’s going to take a year or a year and a half to do that -- to get everyone to agree on the districts. There will be public hearings to do this.
Dennis Fallon – Landowner
Apparently, we’re going towards the Penns Valley Comprehensive, but not necessarily. It sounds like we all need to get a copy of the Plan and read and study it and understand it and tell them what we want. We need to get unified and find a position and push it. I’d like to see the least amount of restriction possible. I have no retirement. The ground is my retirement. Let’s make this as friendly to the landowners as possible. It sounds like the Planning Commission is receptive to that.
Rod Humphrey – Chairman, Potter Township Planning Commission
I’d say less restrictive is the objective. I don’t think anyone wants more.
Mark Fortney – Potter Township Planning Commission member
Let me add one point that we’re trying to balance. I’ve been on the Planning Commission for over 6 years. We have the large landowners saying that they need the maximum amount of flexibility, and I respect that. At the other end of that, we have the majority of the people in the township saying that they want to preserve the agricultural feel of our community. We’re also trying to balance that. It’s more along the lines of ag preservation.
Dennis Fallon – Landowner
Farmers like rural America more than most people or we wouldn’t live on a farm. I’m about as green as you can get. If everybody wants everything green, they need to get out their wallets and buy it. (Clapping.) That’s what I did. We appreciate your need to see the trees and the bushes and the bunnies, but you have to appreciate our need to survive. I have no intention of doing anything, but the more talk of restriction, the more talk of regulation, drives me in the direction to subdivide as soon as possible and liquidate and run like hell.
Mark Fortney – Potter Township Planning Commission member
And that’s a problem. What I’m saying here is that we have two groups and we only invited the large landowners here so you guys have a voice in this process. But at the other side of that is the pressure we’re getting from the population at large. We need to balance that.
Unidentified female – Landowner
Are those other people landowners or renters?
Mark Fortney – Potter Township Planning Commission member
They are people who live in the township. I looked at the survey results from the initial Comp Plan and updated other surveys (3 to 5) and they’ve been very consistent.
John Ishler – Landowner
I took a look at what I believe is the same survey and they asked how many people were interested in preserving farm land and about 85% to 90% said yes. When asked how many of you are interested in paying for that, it was about 25%.
Bob Jacobs – Director, Centre County Planning Commission
I don’t think we need to get hung up on how close the zoning map is to the one in the Penns Valley Comp Plan. In my opinion, they are fairly close. The major issue is what other concerns are there with the zoning ordinances to meet your needs.
Mark Fortney – Potter Township Planning Commission member
Is it possible to get the ag zoning posted on the website? Supervisors? The Penns Valley Comp Plan is on the county website (www.co.centre.pa.us).
Lucy Curran – Potter Township Planning Commission member
As the official note taker, I’d like to hit some of the highlights to make sure that we’re accurately representing your thoughts. This is being tape-recorded and we will have very thorough notes to distribute at the next meeting. The bottom line is no additional restrictions. Specifically, John Ishler made a couple of comments related to the current zoning that are inconsistent with Clean and Green. It seems that most people are comfortable with the Clean and Green rules regarding subdivision. The “no further subdivision” statement in the current zoning needs better clarification. Craig Weidensaul mentioned that we need to review and pay more attention to the water quality and quantity zoning. Enhancing the ag preservation program was mentioned. I’m not certain what jurisdiction we have over that, but we can look into it. Although we were here to talk about prime ag, increased emphasis on developing the industrial and business districts seems to be a area to examine in alleviating the tax burden.
Craig Weidensaul – Landowner
I got nervous when you talked about tweaking the currently zoning map. Unless our code of ordinances has changed, and I don’t think they have, if a piece of prime ag land was zoned commercial, you could not build houses on it. (The Planning Commission said that statement was correct.) That’s something to keep in mind since there is a lot more demand for housing lots than for commercial development.
John Ishler – Landowner
Do you have the authority to change zoning without permission of the landowner? A lot people don’t attend public meetings where they would have a say in such changes. The only place where you advertise public hearings is in the newspaper and a lot of us don’t see those. If you’re going to have an important public hearing, the landowners involved need to be directly informed.
Rod Humphrey – Chairman, Potter Township Planning Commission
Adjourned the meeting and invited everyone back for next Wednesday’s meeting.
MINUTES POSTED HERE ARE NOT OFFICIAL. THE MINUTES ARE POSTED ON THIS SITE AS A CONVENIENCE
TO TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS. THE OFFICIAL
MINUTES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TOWNSHIP OFFICE FOR REVIEW.