The Putnam County Legislature approved a stipulation settling litigation and adding Rainmaker Farm East LLC to the county agricultural district on Aug. 25, 2025, following closed-door review and public comment.
The action resolved a pending lawsuit about the parcel's eligibility and was advanced after the county law department told legislators a settlement was the legally prudent course. "I cannot recall one instance where we have... gone against the advice of our county attorney," Legislator Birmingham said during floor debate as he explained his vote to support the stipulation.
Why it matters: inclusion in the agricultural district can affect how the parcel and similar farms are regulated, and the decision followed months of contested hearings this year that left some farmers and residents saying they wanted a clearer, more consistent process.
How the meeting unfolded: the legislature first adopted the required SEQR action to allow formal consideration, then debated the settlement language that had been negotiated by county counsel. Several citizens and farmers urged the body to stick to the advisory recommendations of the County Agricultural Board; others warned that overturning prior committee recommendations would create a bad precedent.
Citizen reaction and process concerns: Cassandra Roth of Patterson told the legislature, "Make no mistake, a yes vote tonight will be perceived as yielding to pressure," and urged adherence to consistent procedures. Christina Stasi, chair of the county agricultural board, said the board had not been notified of the special session and reiterated the board's earlier position about how start-ups and equine operations should be treated under state guidance.
What the law department said: senior county attorneys advised that, under the applicable state framework, a farm can be considered a "start-up" during its first two years of operation and may qualify for district inclusion if it meets the statutory and regulatory criteria. Counsel told legislators that certification by the state Department of Agriculture and Markets is a separate administrative step and that the commissioner has discretion to deny certification even after local inclusion.
Outcome and next steps: the motion to approve the stipulation passed in a roll-call vote. No further action was taken in open session other than noting that the matter had been settled. The agricultural board and county staff will continue to coordinate with the Department of Agriculture and Markets on any certification that may follow.
Taper: Several legislators said they want to revisit the county's procedures and suggested clarifying timelines and documentation requirements for future ag-district applications, but no specific procedural amendment was adopted at the Aug. 25 session.