If a New York county misses the eight-, twelve-, or twenty-year deadline for reviewing an agricultural district, does the district just expire on its own?

Plain-English summary

Two Seneca County agricultural districts covered parts of the Town of Varick. The existence of those districts directly affected the Town's zoning power, because agricultural districts limit local regulation of farm activities. The Town Attorney noticed that the deadline for the county to conduct a periodic review under Agriculture and Markets Law § 303-a had passed several months earlier on one district, and another was approaching its review. He asked the AG: did the missed review automatically end the district?

The AG said no. Agriculture and Markets Law Article 25-AA governs the creation, operation, and termination of agricultural districts. Section 303(4) and § 303-a(1) require the county legislative body to review each district eight, twelve, or twenty years after creation (depending on the review period set in the original plan), and at the end of every eight-, twelve-, or twenty-year period thereafter. The county can apply to the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets for an extension.

The review process under § 303-a(2) and (3) requires the county to obtain reports from the county agricultural and farmland protection board and the county planning board, hold a public hearing on notice, and then determine whether the district should be continued, terminated, or modified. If the county decides to continue or modify, it submits a review plan to the Commissioner. If the county decides to terminate, the statute is explicit: "[i]f the county legislative body finds that the district should be terminated, it may do so at the end of such eight, twelve or twenty year period, whichever may be applicable, by filing a notice of termination with the county clerk and the commissioner."

The AG read those provisions as requiring affirmative action. The statute contemplates continued existence of the district until the review is completed and a termination notice is filed. The opposite reading (automatic termination on missed review) would frustrate the statutory aim of giving affected and interested parties input through the public-hearing and reporting process. Under the AG's reading, the district lives on until the review is held and a termination notice is filed. A missed review is a procedural violation but it does not change the district's legal status.

For the Town of Varick, that meant the two existing agricultural districts continued in force, and the Town's zoning power continued to be constrained by them, even though the county had not done its review on schedule. The Town's remedy was to press the county to complete the review or to seek extension and then completion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What is an agricultural district?

An agricultural district under Agriculture and Markets Law Article 25-AA is a geographic area designated by the county to preserve farming. Inside an agricultural district, certain local regulations of farm operations are limited, and assessment treatment can be more favorable. The point is to protect agricultural land from being lost to non-farm uses.

How long does a district last before review?

It depends on the period set in the creation plan: eight, twelve, or twenty years, and then the same period repeating. The county must conduct the periodic review and then either continue, modify, or terminate the district at the end of each period.

What does the county have to do during a review?

Under § 303-a(2), the county legislative body must seek reports from the county agricultural and farmland protection board and the county planning board, conduct a public hearing on notice, and then make a continue/terminate/modify decision.

Can a town force the county to do its review?

The opinion does not address compulsion. The statute places the obligation on the county; whether a town has standing to sue to enforce that obligation is a separate question. In practice, towns affected by an agricultural district can pressure the county politically and through the public-hearing process when the county does conduct a review.

What happens to existing farmland tax assessments if the review is missed?

The opinion does not address tax assessments directly. Because the district continues to exist (per this opinion), the assessment benefits associated with the district presumably also continue. The county's procedural lapse does not retroactively unwind the district's effects.

Background and statutory framework

Agriculture and Markets Law Article 25-AA was enacted in the 1970s to address farmland loss to suburban development. The agricultural district designation is a recognition that the area is committed to agriculture and that local regulators should defer to that commitment in zoning, land use, and assessment.

The eight-, twelve-, or twenty-year review periods balance continuity (long enough that farmers can make capital investments without worrying about year-to-year status changes) with adaptability (allowing the county to reassess based on changing conditions). The review process is procedure-heavy because the stakes are high: terminating a district affects landowners' assessment status and exposes farmland to a different regulatory regime.

The AG's textualist reading in this opinion fits its general approach to statutes that prescribe specific procedures: when the Legislature has laid out how a thing is to be done, missing the deadline is a violation to be remedied, not a self-executing rule that produces the result of termination without any of the required steps.

Citations

• Agriculture and Markets Law § 303 (agricultural district creation and modification framework).
• Agriculture and Markets Law § 303(4) (periodic review requirement).
• Agriculture and Markets Law § 303-a (periodic review procedure).
• Agriculture and Markets Law § 303-a(1) (eight-, twelve-, or twenty-year review periods; extension procedure).
• Agriculture and Markets Law § 303-a(2) (reports, public hearing, continue/terminate/modify decision).
• Agriculture and Markets Law § 303-a(3) (notice of termination filing requirement).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_98-49_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW §§ 303, 303-a.
Under the terms of the Agriculture and Markets Law,
affirmative action by the county legislative body is required to
terminate an agricultural district.
November 3, 1998

John M. Sipos, Esq.
Town Attorney
Town of Varick
54 Johnston Street
Seneca Falls, NY 13148-1235

Informal Opinion
No. 98-49

Dear Mr. Sipos:
You have asked whether an agricultural district terminates
by operation of law if the county in which it is located fails to
conduct the periodic review required by Agriculture and Markets
Law § 303-a. You have advised us that two districts created by
Seneca County cover parts of the Town of Varick and that the
existence of the districts directly affects the zoning powers of
the Town. You state that the time for review of one of the
districts passed several months ago and that the other district
is due for review.
Article 25-AA of the Agriculture and Markets Law governs the
creation, operation and termination of agricultural districts.
It provides that the county legislative body shall review any
district eight, twelve or twenty years after its creation, in
accord with the review period established in the plan creating
the district, and at the end of every eight, twelve or twentyyear period thereafter. Agriculture and Markets Law §§ 303(4),
303-a(1). The county legislative body may apply to the
Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets for an extension of time
in which to conduct the review. Id., § 303-a(1).
When it conducts a review, the county legislative body is
required to seek reports from the county agricultural and
farmland protection board and the county planning board on the
operation of the agricultural district and other relevant
factors. The county also must conduct a public hearing on
notice. Id., § 303-a(2). After reviewing the reports, any
proposed modifications, and comments presented at the public
hearing, the county legislative body must determine whether the
district should be continued, terminated or modified.
If the

2
county finds that the district should be continued or modified,
it is to submit a review plan to the Commissioner. Id.,
§ 303-a(3). The statute goes on to state that "[i]f the county
legislative body finds that the district should be terminated, it
may do so at the end of such eight, twelve or twenty year period,
whichever may be applicable, by filing a notice of termination
with the county clerk and the commissioner." Id.
Under the terms of the statute, the county legislative body
is required at set times to solicit input from affected parties
and others regarding operation of an agricultural district.
Based on information received, the legislative body is to
evaluate whether that district should be continued, terminated or
modified. Under these provisions, the review is required and is
the basis for modification or termination.
In our view, failure to conduct a timely review has no
effect on continued existence of the district. To the contrary,
the statute contemplates continued existence of the district
until the review is completed and a notice of termination is
filed. Termination of a district upon failure of the legislative
body to conduct the review would frustrate statutory intent that
affected and interested parties provide input to the county for
consideration in making a determination regarding the future of
the district.
We conclude that an agricultural district does not terminate
by operation of law if the county in which it is located fails to
conduct the periodic review required by the Agriculture and
Markets Law.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to
officers and departments of State government. This perforce is
an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this
office.
Very truly yours,

SIOBHAN S. CRARY
Assistant Attorney General