Meeting Minutes

Canterbury Agricultural Study Committee

Thursday February 25, 2010

CanterburyCommunity Center

  1. Call to order:
  2. Dawn Pindell called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM
  3. Roll call:
  4. Members: Steve Sadlowski, Lee Wrigley, Mark Christensen, Dawn Pindell, Kevin Lindell, John Baldwin
  5. Others: Jennifer Kauffman, Mark Merzejewski, Lou Pecoraro, Marvin Schutt, Rich Curtis (EDC)
  6. Review of minutes from January 7, 2010:
  7. A motion was made by Lee Wrigley to accept the minutes as written. This was seconded by John Baldwin and passed unanimously.
  8. Old Business: Website Update
  9. Steve Sadlowski made a general request for links to the website and mentionedthat he would be very willing to relinquish his post in regards to the website
  10. Old Business: EDC Coordination
  11. Rich Curtis discussed the Canterbury Agricultural Brochure and the “Welcome to Canterbury Package”. He suggested ASG task EDC with any issues they felt pertinent. John Baldwin asked if there would be any benefit to an ASG member attending EDC meetings. Dawn Pindell suggested comprising a list of ideas to present to the EDC at the next ASG meeting.
  12. Old Business: Agricultural Commission Ordinances
  13. Jennifer Kauffman presenteda general review of Ag Comm ordinances and outlined how there was very little variation from town to town other than format. Jennifer suggested modifying the Mansfield ordinance to accommodate Canterbury.
  14. Rich Curtis asked why an Ag Commission was necessary. Mark Christensen responded by discussing the value of promoting farmland preservation from a tax base stabilization standpoint, how people moving into town needed to be aware of the town’s position regarding agriculture, and how an Ag commission can provide a system of checks and balances in regard to new development. Mark Christensen also mentioned how, in regards to the POCD, 90% of townspeople stated that they valued the presence of agriculture.
  15. Lee Wrigley outlined the advisory roll an Ag commission would play in relation to POCD and discussed the potential number of members and length of term. He also mentioned how staggered terms maintained continuity within a commission. A general discussion followed on differences from town to town regarding Ag commissions and number of members. Dawn Pindell suggested that 5 regular members and 3 alternates made the most sense.
  16. John Baldwin inquired if it would be possible to approve an Ag commission document as soon as the next meeting and Jennifer stated that she would email a proposed ordinance for members to review before the next meeting.
  17. Lou Pecoraro expressed concerns that the ASG, as constituted, was not a true representation of the farming community in the town and asked how the proposed Ag commission would impact ordinances pertaining to agriculture. A general discussion followed on the role of an Ag commission and how to best represent the farming community. John Baldwin explained how an Ag commission would primarily serve to make recommendations to P&Z regarding agricultural issues and ordinances.
  18. Old Business: Review of draft of Right to Farm Ordinance
  19. Jennifer Kauffman reviewed different RTFO’s from several different towns and John Baldwin asked how a RTFO would be implemented. Lee Wrigley explained that it followed the same channels as any ordinance and that it had to go to a town meeting and could go to a referendum if necessary.
  20. John Baldwin inquired why the town needed a RTFO if the state already had one in place. Jennifer Kauffman reiterated a statement put forth by Joan Nichols explaining the benefits of a local RTFO and how it preempts one on the state level. Dawn Pindell asked the group to review the Lebanon RTFO
  21. Rich Curtis asked for an explanation of prima facie evidence in regards to the inspection by the Commissioner of Agriculture as stated in most RTFO’s. Steve Sadlowski explained how the Commissioner of Agriculture is the accepted authority on recognizing farming practices as self evident or “prima facie”
  22. Mark Merzejewski inquired as to how agricultural complaints would be handled within the town from a procedural standpoint and whether such procedures should be included in a RTFO. Steve Sadlowski and Dawn Pindell explained how steps were in place to handle agricultural complaints and how the RTFO might not be the proper place to list such procedures. A general discussion followed on what the role of the proposed Ag commission would be in regards to agricultural complaints and Kevin Lindell stated that the RTFO was the wrong venue to outline procedural items and should serve as a much broader statement defining the town’s support of agricultural activities.
  23. Kevin Lindell made a motion to model Canterbury’s RTFO after the Lebanon document. Lee Wrigley seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
  24. John Baldwin suggested adding “Connecticut” to the first sentence of the last paragraph of the Lebanon RTFO
  25. New Business:
  26. There was no new business
  1. Next Steps:
  2. Coordinate with EDC on pertinent issues – Rich Curtis will take information back to EDC.
  3. Website- table until RTFO and AG commission issues are settled.
  4. Consider press release once RTFO and Ag commission decided upon – include information on the website.
  5. Other:
  6. Jennifer Kauffman announced March 31st Ag-Vocate workshop and the speakers that would be attending
  7. Mark Christensen suggested adding space for public participation/comment in the next agenda
  8. Lee Wrigley made a motion to adjourn the meeting. This was seconded by Kevin Lindell and passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:23 PM.