The Putnam County Legislature voted on multiple applications to include parcels in the Putnam County Agricultural District during its meeting, approving most of the packages while separating several contested parcels for individual consideration.

The issue matters because inclusion in an agricultural district confers eligibility for certain program benefits and review protections for farms; several legislators said they were deferring to the Agricultural District board’s site visits and expertise when casting votes. Chairwoman Sage led the session and Legislator Elmer presented the agriculture board recommendations.

Legislator Elmer, speaking for the committee, read the parcels that the agricultural board recommended and asked the Legislature to approve them. Several legislators asked to “divide the question” and take subsets of parcels separately so the Legislature could vote on the seven parcels recommended by the Ag Board first and vote on the remainder individually.

Discussion focused on previous practice and on the Ag Board’s on-site reviews. Legislator Goldman and other members said they had voted in prior years to follow the Ag Board’s recommendations. Several legislators said they supported a one-year delay for a few parcels that the Ag Board did not recommend, urging owners to reapply after meeting the board’s criteria.

For one parcel that was not recommended, a roll-call vote produced bipartisan, split votes; multiple legislators said they were voting with the Ag Board’s recommendation even where they otherwise wished to support the applicant. At one point a legislator summarized: “This doesn’t mean that Rainmaker Farm cannot farm. They can farm,” and added that the Legislature’s role was to follow the appointed board’s recommendations.

After debate, the recommended parcels the Ag Board had approved were accepted by voice vote. The Legislature then moved to individual consideration of the parcels that had not been recommended by the Ag Board; those items drew longer debate and recorded roll-call votes.

Legislators thanked the Ag Board volunteers for their site visits and deliberations. Several members urged applicants that were denied or deferred to use the coming year to address the board’s concerns and reapply.

The session then moved on to other agenda items, including appointments and budgetary amendments.