Red Hook trustees decline to pursue immediate amendment to animal husbandry law after narrow request

The Village of Red Hook Board of Trustees on Jan. 9 decided not to proceed with drafting an amendment to the village's animal husbandry law following discussion about scope, precedent and affected parcels.

The item arose from a request to adjust how the law treats fractional acreage when calculating allowable livestock. The current law, adopted about a year and a half ago, requires a minimum parcel size of 2 acres and a minimum of 1.5 acres of "available" land (land not covered by buildings, driveways, etc.) to qualify for animal husbandry. Under that rule, one large animal (defined in the code as an animal 250 pounds or more at maturity) is allowed per 1.5 acres, or two smaller animals under the same acreage.

Meeting discussion included a staff review of parcel counts in the village. The trustees were told there are 28 parcels over 2 acres in the village (out of roughly 760–763 parcels), 18 of which lie within residential zoning districts that permit animal husbandry; 15 of those residential parcels exceed 4 acres. The mayor noted those parcels include school and town-owned properties as well as private residential lots.

Trustees repeatedly framed the request as coming from a single residence. "This is 1 request for 1 person that has... 1 residence right now," one trustee said. Several trustees and the mayor cautioned against changing the law for a single case and cited the time, cost and precedent of directing the village attorney to draft code amendments. "We are not supposed to be doing zoning laws as spot zoning," the mayor said.

Members noted the zoning board of appeals remains the formal avenue for special cases; trustees said an owner could seek a variance if circumstances warrant. The meeting record also shows a previously granted variance for five goats that no longer applies, according to staff, because the specific animals or circumstances that formed the basis for that variance have changed.

After discussion, the mayor said he would take the absence of a motion as a decision not to move forward now: "I will take that as that we will not proceed with making an amendment to the animal husband to be law at this point." No formal motion to amend was made.

Trustees asked that any future requests include broader supporting evidence — for example, letters from multiple residents or data showing the issue affects many parcels — before directing staff to prepare a code amendment.