A proposal by members of East Hampton Town’s agricultural advisory committee to create a new way to review building projects at farms gained traction last week when it was presented to the East Hampton Town Board and town planning director.
“We took a cursory look at other codes in the area, and they are more permissive towards farming practices than ours,” Tina Vavilis LaGarenne, the planning director, said at the town board’s Dec. 2 work session. “Looking at ours, we regulate practices quite particularly through the site plan process. I think that there is room to improve on this.”
The town board, citing a full agenda, decided to put off its members’ comments until the work session coming up on Tuesday.
At present, if farmers want to erect a barn or some other structure, the project is reviewed through the lens of a residential or commercial site plan application.
“We’d like to introduce a third category, to split down the middle between residential and commercial,” said Amanda Merrow of Amber Waves Farm, the secretary of the agriculture committee. “So, it’s very clear to the Planning Department and the planning board that this is an agricultural project, neither residential nor commercial.”
“I strongly agree with this concept,” Ms. Vavilis LaGarenne told the board.
The planning director was more cautious about other recommendations made by the committee such as exempting site plan review for agricultural structures less than 600 square feet; codifying that temporary season-extending crop covers were not structures; lowering fees for less intense temporary farm structures, and increasing the maximum total lot coverage on a farm to from 10 to 15 percent.
“The general theme of our comments is that while the recommendations are appropriate, they do need further discussion to work out the details,” she said.
Embedded in the overarching recommendations was a suggestion to differentiate among three categories of agricultural structures.
Alex Balsam, the chairman of the agricultural committee, and co-owner of Balsam Farms with Councilman Ian Calder-Piedmonte, the board’s liaison to the committee, detailed the differences between the structures.
First there is what he called a “full-scale farm structure”: a place that is open to the public and where commerce is conducted. There would likely be bathrooms and parking. For those types of farm buildings, his committee said, “the fee structure and review process is appropriate.”
The second would be permanent structures, such as a traditional barn. They might contain septic but would be for farm workers and would not be open to the public. Mr. Balsam said these should be exempt from the architectural review board’s screening guidelines and should benefit from an altered fee structure. “These aren’t high-intense-use structures,” he argued, adding that when his farm built one, “the fee was quite burdensome to us.”
Finally, and most important to the committee, was the temporary farm structure category. These are structures with no foundation, often covered by plastic or polyurethane. “These can be removed, taken down, and relocated fairly easily without professional help,” said Mr. Balsam.
Both he and Ms. Merrow raised the issue of climate change and said the temporary structures are necessary to improve crop consistency.
“They’re not expensive to build. They don’t take a lot of time to build, but the approval process sure is expensive, and takes a lot of time,” Mr. Balsam said.
Part of what adds to the expense is that whole field surveys are often required, even for the placement of a temporary structure. “We’ve had quotes for whole field surveys ranging from $7,500 to $28,000. That’s not sustainable for the farmers out here,” he said. “A more reasonable approach would be to either be able to use an existing survey, if it has the relevant information on it, or to do partial surveys where you’re just looking at the development area.”
They also believe temporary structures should not need review by the A.R.B. “These don’t come in different colors. There’s nothing architecturally to review and approve,” he said.
Ms. Vavilis LaGarenne asked the committee to come back with a strong definition of what it wanted to exempt, and what would be clearly regulated. “Defining a period of time that qualifies as temporary might also be something we want to think about,” she said.
The town’s comprehensive plan specifically called out the importance of agriculture to the town’s character, she said, and the agricultural committee was created to bridge the gap between the farmers and town board.
“At a high level, I think their proposed recommendations make good sense and would help us better address agricultural land use within the town,” she said.
However, not everyone agrees that a relaxed review is a good idea. During the public portion of the Dec. 2 meeting, Rona Klopman, chairwoman of the Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee, said strong reviews of agricultural lands were necessary.
“According to historical records,” she said, “there are approximately 366 acres of farming property throughout the town. Before any decisions are made regarding changes to site plan review process, I think there should be a comprehensive document detailing these properties, including the names of the owners, the addresses, the restrictions, easements, and development rights associated with each of the farms.”
“The absence of a site plan review can significantly impact neighborhoods and properties adjacent to these agricultural sites,” she continued. “How can we allow unknown information regarding agricultural lands to proceed without proper review, especially if we don’t have any listing of the development rights restrictions and easements for each of these properties?”
The town board agreed to discuss the suggestions next week. Any changes to the code would ultimately require a public hearing and the town board would likely solicit comments from both the planning board and the A.R.B.
