Majority Says It Favors Preservation

Efforts to preserve farming in East Hampton, and the outcome of previous preservation efforts, were at the root of wide-ranging opinions expressed at Town Hall last Thursday during a hearing on whether the town should buy what are known as enhanced development rights on the Dankowski farm in Wainscott.

The Dankowski farm and other farmland in the town has been protected from development by the purchase, with public money, of development rights. Those rights allow anything state law classifies as agriculture to take place on the land — more intensive uses than apparently were envisioned when the first development rights programs were adopted.

Now, both East Hampton and Southampton Towns are beginning to use community preservation fund money to buy enhanced development rights — the right to restrict more narrowly what occurs or is built on a farm.

The proposed purchase for $4 million of the enhanced rights of the 29.5-acre Dankowski farm would bar its use for anything but food crops, which Peter Dankowski, who farms the property, wants on his farm in the future. The Dankowski agreement would prevent the construction of new barns or other permanent structures, limit the extent and location of temporary structures like hoophouses, and call for at least 92 percent of the land to be used for food crops.

Several speakers at the hearing thanked Mr. Dankowski for maintaining the farm and working the land. One voiced concern, however, over the proposed restriction against a horse farm on the Dankowski land. 

“I would like to see my farm stay in row crops. This is what I chose, and talked to the town board about. I don’t personally care to have horses,” Mr. Dankowski said. “It means a lot to me, for what Wainscott is, and East Hampton as well,” the longtime farmer said.  “There’s no better land in the world, believe me. I’ve been in a lot of places, thought about leaving, but my heart is here.”

“Peter could sell those acres for hundreds of thousands of dollars an acre, but that’s not what’s in his soul,” MaryAnn Dankowski, his wife, said. “His soul is to see it continued on from generation to generation.”

Betty Dankowski, his daughter, described how her father had wanted to farm since he was a young boy. “As long as my sister and I are on this lovely earth, we plan to keep the farming going.”

 Others, such as Vicki Littman and her mother, Elaine Jones, who grow vegetables and have a farm stand in Amagansett, addressed the overall concept of the town’s purchase of enhanced development rights.

All agricultural uses as defined under state law should be allowed, Ms. Littman said. Before finalizing the Dankowski deal, the town board should put legislation or a policy in place outlining East Hampton Town’s enhanced development rights program, she said. “I don’t think you should proceed until the town has a full hearing on the scope of such a program.”

She went on to say the town should decide “what should be the extent that C.P.F. funds are used to pay farmers who have already been paid for development rights — because it’s not going to be just this one property. This is the tip of the iceberg.” A second rights purchase over a tract of land would set a precedent, she said.

Reg Cornelia, the chairman of the East Hampton Town Republican Committee, agreed. “You have to be very careful,” he said, “. . . in terms of what the parameters will be in terms of using this kind of money.”

Kim Quarty of the Peconic Land Trust, which developed and promoted enhanced rights, said that purchasing those rights was not paying twice for the same protection, but paying a landowner for the right to put new, additional restrictions on a property. The original development rights purchase agreements “were loosely written,” she said, resulting in uses of farmland that were not intended. “We didn’t foresee these problems,” she said.

Ms. Littman argued that the town’s agricultural advisory committee “has been discussing this for two years, and hasn’t listened to any concerns that have been brought to them.” In addition to considering the recommendations of that committee, which was appointed by the town board and is largely made up of farmers, she said the board should seek the opinions of its various citizens advisory committees on farmland preservation.

The agricultural committee, Ms. Jones said, should not be “so self-serving,” and should include representatives of the equestrian and business communities. If the group is to draft proposed revisions to the town code, a town attorney should participate, she said. Pat Mansir, a former town councilwoman, echoed that opinion this week in a letter to the editor of The Star.

“This program . . . is needed if we’re going to preserve farming in East Hampton, “ William Babinksi, another Wainscott farmer and a member of the town’s agricultural advisory committee, said.

John v.H. Halsey, the president of the Peconic Land Trust, agreed. “If we don’t do this, we’re going to lose food production farming. The problem is that non-farmers are buying this land for astronomical prices. . . . This is about preserving a heritage industry — food production — food to feed us.”

The outcome of a lawsuit regarding the county’s development rights purchases could have an impact on restrictions East Hampton might seek to place on farmland, David Buda, another speaker, suggested.

  Of the 1,464 acres of farmland in the Town of East Hampton, 1,054 acres have been protected through the purchase of development rights or by placing the farms in an agricultural reserve, Scott Wilson, the town’s director of land acquisition and management, said at the hearing last week.

East Hampton’s community preservation fund program, he said, which makes protection of farmland a priority, has been successful at preserving farmland itself, “but not in the preservation of farming, or the business of farming.” A recent study found that agricultural production does not play a significant role in the town’s economy, but has the potential to do so.

Mr. Wilson pointed out that the Dankowski enhanced development rights purchase would reduce “the value of the farm so a resale to a qualified farmer is even possible.” The Dankowski parcel would be valued at $25,000 an acre, plus the value of any physical improvements after the purchase of enhanced development rights. In contrast, he said, farmland over which development rights have been purchased, but with no agreement to limit its future value or sale price, has recently been sold at prices ranging from $171,000 to $384,000 an acre.

Two years ago, Mr. Wilson said, his department inspected all the farmland in town in an effort to determine how it was being used. The majority, 665 acres, was being used for row crops. Nursery stock, including trees, was being grown on 150 acres, while 140 acres were devoted to a combination of nursery and crop cultivation. Active horse farms were on 113 acres, 70 acres appeared to be pastureland with no horses, and 107 acres were fallow, scenic land.

Sixty-four acres were “mostly open,” Mr. Wilson said, with some wild vegetation growing in the fields, 72 acres were overgrown, and 58 acres were being used by private property owners for pools, houses, or as part of their lawns. There were 15 acres that could not be accessed or viewed, Mr. Wilson said, and 10 acres were devoted to chicken farms or other agricultural uses.

According to the analysis, Mr. Wilson said, there are 70 parcels of agricultural land comprising some 316 to 386 acres “that do not appear to be farmed. But for more than 100 of those acres, he said, efforts had been made to preserve the land for farming, either through placing the tracts in an agricultural reserve or by purchasing development rights.

Under the Dankowski agreement, if the land remains fallow for two years, the town could step in and lease it to a qualified farmer. If the land is to be sold, it must be to an approved bona fide farmer.

Town board members will consider the comments made at the hearing before acting, Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell promised. “It’s really a historic farm,” he said to the Dankowkis. “It’s really the heart of Wainscott, in many ways — important to the community, not just to you and your family.”