Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boat Club Zoning And Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Red Hook Town Board to halt zoning changes they say enable boat‑club takings; hearings extended
Summary
Dozens of residents told the Red Hook Town Board at its Nov. 19 special meeting that proposed zoning changes and a related plan amendment signal an effort to take the Red Hook Boat Club by eminent domain. The board extended public hearings on the zoning proposals to Dec. 9 and said it will refile earlier legislation to address a court ruling.
Dozens of residents packed the Red Hook Town Hall on Nov. 19 to oppose zoning changes and warn the Town Board against taking the Red Hook Boat Club by eminent domain, arguing the board has not been transparent about costs, legal strategy or the substance of the proposed laws.
Speakers at the public‑hearing portion — including Bob Ross of Long Term Tenants and Rowan Page — said the town’s ongoing legal work, multiple law firms and thousands of petition signatures demonstrate broad public opposition and an unwillingness by the board to answer concrete questions about spending. "We cannot trust you or your motives," Bob Ross said, objecting to a draft that he said would permit the town to use Community Preservation Fund (CPF) proceeds to retire debt on town‑owned parcels.
The meeting’s central flashpoint was the board’s resubmission of zoning measures originally adopted in early 2025 and later struck down by a judge as improperly segmented from related actions. The board told the public it is re‑filing the measures as local laws B and C in a form the supervisor said isolates contested provisions and addresses the court’s segmentation concerns.
Several speakers cited planning‑board and waterfront advisory findings. "The proposed acquisition of the Red Hook Boat Club property is inconsistent with several LWRP policies," Robert Singleton read from the planning board’s consistency determination, urging the board to drop the acquisitions and zoning changes tied to them. Other residents urged naming the planning board — not the town board — as lead agency to ensure an independent SEQR/consistency review; Linda Stoddard told the board it could not be objective because it is pursuing acquisition on an expedited timeline.
Board members repeatedly told the public the CPF amendment they were considering (local law A) and the resubmitted B/C zoning package are separate actions and that prior eminent‑domain action was decided in July. The chair said the town would continue litigation where appropriate but was attempting to reduce future legal costs by re‑filing the zoning measures in discrete parts and by conducting the environmental review the court required.
After hours of public comment the board voted to continue the public hearings. Local law A’s hearing was continued to Feb. 2, 2026 at 7:35 p.m. for updated appraisal information; local laws B and C were continued to Dec. 9, 2025 at 7:35 p.m. for further public input and consolidated review.
What happens next: The board will accept additional written comments and remands planning‑board recommendations for further consideration; Dec. 9 will be the next scheduled opportunity for the public to testify on local laws B and C.
