CHENANGO COUNTY – Local farmers and agricultural organizations say new property maintenance provisions in the state’s Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code Act were ill-conceived and could create unnecessary hurdles for the farming industry.
Under the new regulations in the property maintenance section of the uniform code act – which became effective Jan. 1 – farms are required to adhere to the same regulations as all other non-residential structures, which some say is unfair and inappropriate considering the logistical and geographical differences between farms and office buildings.
At a county Agriculture, Buildings, and Grounds Committee meeting last Tuesday, Oxford farmer George Frank, on behalf of Chenango County Farm Bureau, asked that the committee carry a resolution to the full Board of Supervisors May 14 to support an amendment that exempts farms from the codes.
“It (new code) keeps your neighbor from having a junk yard next door,” said Frank, who has been throughout the county and to Albany gaining support for the amendment. “It doesn’t work for farms or farm structures.”
The codes in question includes regulations on grass height, rodent existence and the opening and closing of gates. It also states:
• That all driveways be maintained in a proper state of repair and free from hazardous conditions.
• That all exterior wood surfaces will be protected from the elements via painting or protective coating.
• That all metal subject to rust or corrosion be coated to inhibit rust.
• Roof drains shall be maintained in good repair and free from obstructions.
• That every window, skylight, door and frame be in good condition and weather tight.
• Removal of large quantities of dry vegetation that could pose a fire hazard to buildings.
“These codes are designed to ensure upkeep of certain types of buildings, such as commercial office spaces, which are very different from dairy barns,” states the amendment introduced Feb. 2 by Assemblyman Bill Magee (D-Nelson) that would exempt farms from the new standards. “The result is that farm compliance with these new inappropriate codes will be a substantial cost to the farm business.”
The amendment requests that the term “building” in the uniform code law not pertain to permanent structures used in farm operations. The change is also being sponsored in the state Senate by Senator Jim Seward (R-Milford). Both alterations have been referred to respective committees and are awaiting approval.
While farms are clear of the state’s uniform building codes, they are currently subject to its property maintenance codes and separate laws guided by the New York state Department of Agriculture and Markets.
“This is classic New York state,” said Supervisor Dennis Brown (D-Pharsalia). “Where does NYS come in telling Chenango County how to look?”
Brown questioned why the state would look to override local code enforcement, which he said has a better grasp on the local needs and specific circumstances of local operations.
“It’s appalling that NYS thinks it has that power,” he said.
Farm Bureau President Bradd Vickers said such sweeping regulations, if not interpreted or applied practically, could create unreasonable expectations for farmers.
“There are regulations in there that are just ridiculous,” Vickers said. “A code inspector, if unfamiliar with agriculture, could make life miserable for anybody and everybody.”
Both the Chenango County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board and the Chenango County Agriculture Development Council sent letters to the Board of Supervisors supporting the amendment.
“The new property maintenance code could have a very negative effect on new and existing farm business in Chenango County and across New York state,” states Ag Development Council chair Rebecca Hargrave. “We encourage the advancement of these bills in the New York Senate and Assembly.”
County and municipal code enforcement offices will be responsible for implementing the new codes. All non-residential buildings will have to be inspected every three years.
A representative of the county codes department was not available by press time to comment on whether or not the new provisions had been adopted and had an effect on local farmers.