The Town of Red Hook secured a decisive legal victory this week in its protracted effort to acquire the Red Hook Boat Club via eminent domain. On Wednesday, a state appellate court unanimously affirmed the Town Board’s determination to seize the club’s Hudson River property, clearing a major hurdle for the creation of a proposed public waterfront park.
The ruling by the Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the boat club’s challenge to the acquisition. The court found that the Town successfully established a legitimate public purpose for the land, adhered to state environmental review mandates, and sufficiently justified how the project aligns with local waterfront policies. The decision upholds a resolution passed by the Town Board on July 15, 2025, to move forward with the taking of the private property.
In their decision, the four-justice panel emphasized the latitude granted to local governments in land-use decisions. “Developing parkland and recreational space, as well as maintaining open space, are legitimate public uses,” the court wrote, adding that the Town Board possesses broad discretion to determine which specific parcels are necessary to achieve its stated public goals. The court further noted that the boat club provided no valid legal grounds to annul the town’s determination.
Town Supervisor Robert McKeon expressed satisfaction with the court’s findings, stating that the unanimous ruling confirms the town performed its due diligence in identifying the site as the only viable location for a waterfront park. With the court’s approval, the town now faces a three-year window under state eminent domain law to finalize the purchase of the property. While the two adjoining parcels at 256 Dock Road are currently assessed at a combined market value of approximately $1.3 million, the court’s ruling did not set a final acquisition price or formally transfer the title.
The decision marks a significant blow to the Red Hook Boat Club, a long-standing local institution. Commodore Richie Ross voiced frustration following the ruling, criticizing the town for using the “extraordinary power of eminent domain” without what he described as a finalized site plan. Ross warned that the move would likely deepen divisions within the community and noted that the club is exploring further legal avenues to block the town’s plans. He also reiterated previous intentions to politically oppose Town Supervisor McKeon and Board members Bill Hamel and Jacob Testa, who have been the primary drivers of the acquisition.
The eminent domain push has been a flashpoint in Red Hook for months, drawing intense public scrutiny. A 2025 public meeting regarding the proposal saw an attendance of over 500 people, with nearly 100 residents speaking out against the plan. Critics have raised concerns over the total cost to taxpayers, environmental feasibility, and the ethics of displacing a non-profit organization. Board members Kristina Dousharm and Ken Migliorelli have consistently voted against the acquisition since joining the board in late 2025. Dousharm recently attempted to force a public referendum on the matter, but the motion was defeated by the board’s majority.
Technical aspects of the case centered heavily on the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The appellate court rejected the boat club’s argument that the environmental review had been improperly segmented or conducted prematurely. Although the town classified the acquisition as an “Unlisted” action, the justices noted that the town’s review process met the higher standards typically reserved for “Type I” actions, which require more rigorous scrutiny. The court also found that the Town Board adequately addressed objections from the Waterfront Advisory Committee, which had previously questioned whether the park was consistent with local revitalization policies.
Despite this victory for the town, the legal landscape remains complex. This appellate ruling is distinct from separate litigation in June, where Dutchess County Supreme Court Justice Maria Rosa annulled two local laws and their associated environmental determinations related to the park. That earlier ruling found that the town record lacked a sufficient assessment of environmental effects for specific zoning changes. The appellate court’s Wednesday decision did not reinstate those invalidated zoning laws, focusing instead on the narrow legal validity of the eminent domain determination itself.
For opponents like club member Roxanne Fischer, the battle is not over. Fischer argued that the town is committing taxpayers to “enormous legal expenses” and future liabilities for a “deeply problematic parcel.” While the town’s path toward a waterfront park is now clearer, the final cost of the land and the outcome of the remaining legal challenges remain unresolved.
