Judge: County Erred in Denying Ag. Dist. Application

Daniel and Arielle Honovich operate Ridge Ranch in Patterson.

By Holly Crocco

Supreme Court Judge Victor Grossman ruled April 16 that the Putnam Legislature’s denial of Patterson resident Daniel Honovich’s 2024 application for the inclusion of Ridge Ranch in the county’s agriculture district was “irrational, arbitrary and capricious, and affected by an error of law,” and that the determination must be vacated and annulled and the matter be remanded back to the Legislature for reconsideration.

Honovich brought Article 78 proceedings against Putnam County and the County Legislature last year after his farm was denied inclusion into the district, saying, among other arguments, that New York State Agriculture & Markets Law’s land/soil classification system – which the county accused his farm as being in violation of – relates to crop production, not livestock operations like Ridge Ranch.

The state allows for the creation of agricultural districts by county legislative bodies based on several criteria, and Putnam County created its agricultural district in 2003 with several of its own conditions.

In April 2024, Honovich applied for Ridge Ranch to be included in the district. Nine of the 11 members of the Putnam County Agricultural & Farmland Protection Board inspected the ranch, and nine members voted to approve the request.

Neal Tomann, then-interim director of the Putnam County Soil & Water Conservation District, was one of the members who voted against the application, on two grounds: that Ridge Ranch did not meet the requirement that it contain at least 50 percent of prime farmland and/or “statewide important soils,” and that it did not have a site plan or stormwater protection plan in place to meet alleged environmental concerns over potential runoff from steep slopes into adjacent wetlands – thereby not meeting State Environmental Quality Review Act requirements.

The application went before the county Legislature’s Physical Services Committee last April, where Tomann stated: “They don’t have … the requisite soil composition. We did get some feedback from Rich Williams, the supervisor from Patterson, who expressed some concerns over ancillary uses, some of these other functions that were going on, parties, and events. It came up. It is adjacent to a wetland… We don’t have a site plan, we don’t have a stormwater protection plan…”

However, Honovich’s attorney argued: “I’d like to point out that items such as an EAF (Environmental Assessment Form) or a site plan, those are town-imposed regulations. And if there’s no reason for my client to have required an EAF or a site plan, then it wouldn’t be done. It’s not part of the county’s agricultural district application; it doesn’t ask for that… I don’t think it’s fair to have it held against an applicant that they haven’t had an EAF done because the town hasn’t required it while noting that an EAF will be done when being referred to the state…”

The Physical Services Committee unanimously denied moving the application forward. Then, during an August special meeting of the full Legislature, the application was again denied.

Last week’s supreme court ruling stated that disqualification of Ridge Ranch for inclusion in the district based on the soils requirement was “clearly violative” of the state’s agriculture and markets law.

The ruling noted that having “50 percent of prime farmland and/or statewide important soils” would be desirable for a farm operation devoted to the production, preparation, and marketing of crops. However, the soils requirement was utilized in this case to disqualify a ranch – “that is, a farm operation devoted to livestock and livestock products as a commercial enterprise” – from inclusion in the district.

Further, the ruling states: “Mr. Tomann’s suggestion to the members of the Legislature that site plans and stormwater protection plans are needed for the Legislature to carry out its obligations under SEQRA in this context is clearly erroneous, for those items having nothing whatever to do with the SEQRA inquiry that must be conducted in connection with legislative approval for the inclusion of land in an agricultural district. If in fact the Legislature denied petitioner’s application on that ground, then its determination was affected by yet another error of law.”

During last week’s Patterson Town Board meeting – which took place the same day the decision was released – Honovich said he felt vindicated that the county’s rejection of his farm into the agricultural district was denied. “To me that’s a win, because what it was denied for was wrong and I’m glad to see (the Legislature) vote on it again.”

Putnam County Executive Byrne issued a statement noting that, with the court rendering a legal decision in the matter, the county has an opportunity to modify its criteria for entry into the county’s agricultural district – which is based on a nearly 20-year-old farming protection plan that was inherited by the current Legislature and administration.

“I have asked our county attorney not to seek an appeal, even while I recognize and applaud our law department’s hard work on this case,” he said. “I believe this is the most appropriate course of action and consistent with the compromise our administration has endeavored to find amidst the controversy involving the board and County Legislature. It’s time to turn the page.”

Also during last week’s meeting, the board was criticized for issuing a public letter declaring its support for farming, despite the lawsuit and accusations. Williams defended the town’s concerns regarding operations at the farm, saying he’s looking out for all residents and making sure that what happens on that property is not disruptive to neighbors or unsafe for visitors.

Ridge Ranch, located at 276 Quaker Road, encompasses 113.52 acres of land where cows, mini-donkeys, chickens, goats, and rabbits are bred and raised for sale. The farm also hosts groups and visitors for events – a practice recognized in the Agriculture & Markets Law as “agricultural tourism.”

Williams expressed concern over these “entertainment-based” activities – such as “donuts with a donkey,” goat yoga, and “coffee with the cows” – and explained that a year ago when Ridge Ranch applied for inclusion into the district, he sent a letter to the county outlining his concerns.

“When you are inviting the public onto your property, that is certainly a health and safety concern for the town,” he said. “These are clearly not activities permitted within our zoning code.”

Williams said he takes issue with the agricultural district allowing certain landowners to be exempt from town zoning codes.

“My problem with the ag district is this: that we’re not all working together to have reasonable requirements so that neighbors can live with neighbors,” he said. “We’re saying that certain people are exempt, and it creates a problem… That letter was prompted by the fact that the farming community in Putnam County is saying that all towns are bad because we don’t like farming, and that’s not true.”

Town Board member Joseph Esposito said the letter was “more in the style of conversation” and not an official statement. “The message is still there, that we support farming,” he said. “But I think that there’s some differences.”

Fellow board member Shawn Rogan added, “The official stance of the town is our zoning code” – which the farm operations are not in-line with.

Ridge Ranch employee Casandra Roth said the animals on the farm are used for rotational grazing, pasture management, and even land conservancy.

“The court document today, from the judge, just obliterates explicitly that soils have anything to do with anything besides a tax assessment,” she said, noting that the requirement is for operations that grow plants, not manage livestock.

“I’m not saying there aren’t bad actors… But when you say things the way you did, that does not come from a place of education, clearly,” she continued. “To say that on a public record… These people are good people. I’m here for these people. I cannot speak to any other farmer.”

Williams said his concerns aren’t with soils or having “pet breeds” on the farm, but with public health and safety.

“Breeding and raising animals… I think that’s legitimate farm practices,” he said. “My concern is when you’re inviting the public onto a piece of property, I believe their needs to be adequate controls,” including proper parking, EMS access, potable water, and a septic system. “We need to make sure the public is safe when they’re going out to a site… They are acting outside the zoning.”

Further, he noted that the town has taken no enforcement action against the farm. “I’ve sat on this thing for 11 months now, hoping that somehow we can come together to work things out,” said Williams.

Roth then asked why the town hasn’t reached out, which led to a disagreement as to which party has been less communicative and forthcoming.

“I’ve spent six figures defending farms – including my own – against Putnam County, based on things that you were feeding them, all to defend myself into a district that I still have to work with Patterson (to get into),” Honovich told Williams. “My goal is still to work with Patterson. I understand ag districts better than anyone in this room, and it does not protect me from not working with you guys.”

The town attorney noted that the town has no authority over admission into the county’s agricultural district.

To view last week’s ruling, visit law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2025/2025-ny-slip-op-25093.html.