Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Landuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clinton County Legislature approves inclusion of parcels in Putnam County Agricultural District
Summary
The Clinton County Legislature voted to approve resolution 4A to include parcels at Rich Ranch in the Putnam County Agricultural District after discussion about an outdated soil requirement struck down by the courts.
The Clinton County Legislature on April 28 approved resolution 4A to include parcels at Rich Ranch in the Putnam County Agricultural District, a measure the body said corrects the effects of an older local requirement struck down by the courts.
Legislators voted on the inclusion after a motion from the chair to approve resolution 4A. The roll-call returned affirmative votes from Legislators Admizia, Birmingham, Crowley, Elmer, Goldman, Montgomery, Russo and Chairwoman Sage; the chair announced the motion carries.
The vote follows a recent court ruling that the county’s nearly 20‑year‑old soil‑quality requirement for agricultural district applications was “arbitrary and capricious,” according to remarks read at the meeting referencing Justice Grossman’s finding. Several legislators said the requirement had created unnecessary barriers for farmers and that the court decision cleared the way for them to act.
Legislators who spoke in favor framed the vote as corrective and pledged to revisit the 2007 county law to prevent similar problems in future. One legislator apologized to affected farm owners for delays and said the legislature had “a lot of work to do … to make this right.” Another noted earlier advice from the law department to avoid committee action while litigation was pending.
The measure amends the county’s agricultural‑district inclusion list to add parcels at Rich Ranch in the town of Paterson. The resolution text and parcel identifiers were on the meeting agenda; the legislature did not discuss a change to the inclusion criteria itself beyond removing the earlier soil restriction that the court found unlawful.
No additional conditions or amendments to the resolution were recorded at the time of the vote. The chair said staff will carry out the administrative steps to effect the inclusion and noted a future substantive review of the older 2007 ordinance may follow.
Supporters said the decision should speed applications for farmers and restore parity in county agricultural policy; several members urged a broader review of other older ordinances. There was no public comment recorded opposing the inclusion.
