An Undisclosed Relationship, a Quiet Recusal, and the Meeting That Put Chatham's Town Board and Columbia County's Supervisors in a Corner
Chatham's Town Supervisor recuses himself in a public meeting, admits a conflict of interest, and exposes a process that failed the town, the county, and the public.
Writer’s Notebook: My original plan was straightforward: examine the pesticide load that a commercial vineyard in the Northeast would impose on 509 Bashford Road and the surrounding area, a parcel perched on a steep hill next to a DEC-designated wetland, and ask what an agriculturally zoned property can actually get away with in terms of tasting rooms, weddings, and live bands. I also wanted to explore what happened just a mile from the Columbia County border on Jefferson Hill Road in Rensselaer County, where residents are already living through a strikingly similar situation after the Sanford farm transformed into S and S Brewery.
Those stories are still here. But events at last week’s Chatham Town Board meeting blew the scope wide open. What Supervisor Collins disclosed about his own conduct at the county level, and his use of official email to assert that agricultural zoning would not strip the Town of its authority, turned a story about land use into something far more troubling. This article is now about the details that residents of Chatham need to understand: how a small-government apparatus of back-scratching, procedural shortcuts, and selective silence produced a decision that may be legally indefensible.
Understanding How the Columbia County Board of Supervisors Works
The Columbia County Board of Supervisors (CCBS) is not a body of separately elected county officials. Each seat belongs to whoever holds an elected position in one of the county’s towns, along with representatives from the City of Hudson’s elected leadership. Nobody runs for a board seat on the County Board of Supervisors. They inherit the role. And crucially, not every vote carries the same weight. Each member’s vote is weighted by population. Like Orwell’s Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". The supervisors from larger towns aren’t just participants in county decisions. They’re gatekeepers.
Why the county is involved and what they decided are two horns on the same bull. First, the Town of Chatham cannot create an Agricultural District: the legal mechanism does not exist; it is a NY State designation generated and recommended by the county. While the Town can issue a variance for "accessory use," that's a minor accommodation compared to inclusion in a NYS Agricultural District, which comes loaded with sweeping state-backed protections. Weddings, live music, festivals, crop spraying, all of it becomes permissible under the ag umbrella. That's why the county's decision to include a property in an Agricultural District is not a bureaucratic formality. It's a seismic shift in what a landowner can do and what neighbors have to live with.
In January 2026, the CCBS voted to include 509 Bashford Road, located in the Town of Chatham, in Agricultural District 10. It is now awaiting approval from the NYS Department of Agriculture. The state has 30 days to sign off on the property's inclusion from the date of submission. It may have also included the Williams property on Richmond Road. It's difficult to know for certain, because the county posted only a vague notice that an application had been filed for properties in District 10.
The second reason is that the Williams applied to have their property to be included as agricultural quietly in October while most of the residents opposed to the project assumed it was a town issue, not just because there was a continuing legal battle in front of the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals; Supervisor Collins had represented officially that the town would retain jurisdiction. This is not a small detail. Those who knew were told the change was meaningless.
But to fully appreciate these details, and the profoundly troubling decision-making on the county's part, including issuing a determination that SEQR, the mandatory environmental review, should be waived because of no environmental impact, and disregarding the fact that commercial enterprises of this nature typically lower neighboring property values and erode the local tax base, you have to know what happened at the February 19th Chatham Town Board meeting.
February 19th, 2026: The Chatham Town Board Meeting
The meeting started much like a trip to my grandmother's after one of her exotic trips: with a slide show of various and random visits to places that seemed relevant, I suppose, but unimportant. As Mr. Collins clicked through slide after slide of activities he'd been involved in over the prior month, I couldn’t help but feel as if he was running the clock, hoping the two-hour session would expire before the inevitable subject arose: 509 Bashford Road. But to his credit, or perhaps his miscalculation, Collins acknowledged at the top of his "Town and County" report that he'd get to that topic and to public statements.
It was during this portion that he slipped in a pivotal piece of information, almost in passing: Columbia County was looking at better ways to provide public notice. One sentence. That was it. But it was a startling admission, and here’s why. I had previously approached the county about their notice policies specific to the agricultural zoning change of 509 Bashford, questioning whether the Register Star’s circulation met the legal standard. The county replied that they were in compliance and left it there. I then submitted a FOIL request that effectively put Columbia County on notice that there may be an issue of inadequate notice. So when Collins casually mentioned the county was rethinking its notice procedures, it amounted to a concession by a sitting member of the Board of Supervisors that the county’s notice practices are questionable.
It's also not the only notice provision that the county was required to satisfy. By law, the county, when making this change, must provide written notice to the affected municipality, in this case the Town of Chatham. Who received this notice? I contacted the county, and they promptly replied that they had followed all legal procedures. If they did, someone at the town had to know about this matter.
In early January, the CCCB held a public hearing to include 509 Bashford into a NYS Agricultural District. It is not clear if Collins was at this hearing. Later in the month, the CCBS met again and passed the motion. Collins was not in attendance.
At the Chatham Town Board meeting on February 19th, Collins claimed that he had recused himself and had not attended the Columbia County Board of Supervisors meeting where 509 Bashford was voted on for inclusion in an Ag District. Only then did he acknowledge what many on Bashford Road already knew and I had reported: he has a relationship with Dr. Williams. Collins uses Williams' land at 509 Bashford to grow hay. He also uses Williams' other parcel, at the corner of Richmond and Bashford, for his cattle. On its face, the timing of the admission is stunning. Collins did not, however, disclose the terms of this arrangement or how long it has been in place. Is it a formal lease? A handshake deal? A paid arrangement? Something else entirely? The public doesn't know, because Collins didn't say.
When a fellow board member asked why Collins had never disclosed his recusal from the county vote, Collins responded: “I don’t have to.” On one narrow, technical level, that is correct. The Town of Chatham would need a resolution in its own rules requiring such disclosure. Collins’ answer appeared informed by legal counsel or recent personal research on this specific point. It was defensive and absolute, but delivered with a speed and precision that suggested he had anticipated the question. Collins knew the “right” answer.
But what his analysis conveniently omits is state law, which supersedes town rules and local ethics codes. Collins’ recusal stems from a conflict of interest, and that conflict did not materialize on the day of the county vote to include the property in an Agricultural District. The conflict existed from the moment the matter first arose, requiring him to recuse himself not just from that single meeting, but from all involvement going back to at least October, when the application to include 509 Bashford Road in an Agricultural District was first brought before the county. That application would have come across Collins’ desk in his capacity as a member of the county’s Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board (AFPB), the body required by law to review the application and make recommendations on environmental impact to the Columbia County Board of Supervisors. The AFPB review and recommendation is not discretionary. It is a legal requirement.
And what about Collins’ legal disclosure requirements that may have gone unmet? It’s a two-pronged issue.
At the state level, General Municipal Law Section 803 requires that a municipal officer who has an interest in any actual or proposed contract publicly disclose the nature and extent of that interest in writing to his immediate supervisor and to the governing body of the municipality. That written disclosure must be included in the official record of the governing body’s proceedings. Based on what was disclosed at the February 19th town meeting, Collins’ acknowledgment was verbal, partial, and did not include the terms or duration of his arrangement with Dr. Williams. Whether that satisfies Section 803’s written disclosure requirement is a legal question, but the statute is clear on its face: the disclosure must be in writing and entered into the record. If no such written disclosure exists in the county’s records, the deficiency is not merely procedural—under Section 805 of the General Municipal Law, any municipal officer or employee who willfully and knowingly violates the provisions of Article 18 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
At the local level, General Municipal Law Section 803 applies as well. Moreover, the Town of Chatham has its own Code of Ethics, adopted in 2012 under Chapter 9 of the town code, requiring that any member of the Town Board or officer or employee of the Town who participates in discussion or gives an official opinion on any germane legislation publicly disclose on the official record the nature and extent of any direct or indirect financial or other private interest in that matter.
Collins’ legal two-step may have done more than just shoot himself in the foot. It jeopardizes the Town Board’s position that the inclusion of 509 Bashford in an Agricultural District was not a Town Board matter. His unprompted recusal prompted a fellow board member to ask why they had never been notified, and the implication was clear: the Town Board has oversight responsibility, and that oversight was never triggered. How could it have been? They knew nothing about Collins’ recusal. In fact, the Town Board requested that in the future Collins inform them of such matters. That request, even made casually, is an implicit acknowledgment of their oversight role. Second, by recusing himself from the county’s deliberations without securing a surrogate, the responsibility for representing Chatham’s interests at the county level defaulted to the Town Board itself. The same board that claims the matter is not its concern is the board that inherited the duty to act when its supervisor stepped aside, once again without telling anyone, thus depriving the town and its residents of a voice in this consequential decision.
It was stunning to watch. But the slow-motion wreck wasn’t over.
The board then raised the subject of a pending FOIL request, noting there was “one” outstanding and acknowledging that the town had some “compliance issues” with FOIL. I assumed they were talking about my request. Where I got confused was the board’s discussion of whether “committees” were subject to FOIL. I never asked for committee records. I asked for Town and Zoning Board of Appeals records, a distinction that matters enormously, because case law on FOIL and municipal bodies is well settled. I knew the town had received my request because Beth Anne Rippel, the Town Clerk, had acknowledged it.
It was later confirmed to me that the FOIL request the board was discussing that evening was not mine at all. It was related to the Finance Committee, and was apparently significant enough to prompt the town to consult other municipalities, including New Lebanon, about their FOIL practices. Beth Anne Rippel, the Town Clerk, acknowledged receipt of my FOIL request on February 13, 2026. Yet at the February 19th meeting, the board discussed only one outstanding FOIL request. Did the board know that there was another?
The implications of these developments are head-spinning, and their consequences for the town and county are significant. But before I lay those out, you need to understand the real environmental stakes of Fox Hill Vineyards and the land itself.
The Environmental Impact of Vineyards in the Northeast
A 5,000-vine commercial vineyard in the Northeast, the kind proposed for 509 Bashford Road in Columbia County, typically occupies three to five acres at standard vine spacing. The region’s humidity and rainfall create relentless disease pressure: downy mildew, powdery mildew, black rot, phomopsis, and botrytis. To keep these at bay, conventional operations spray 10 to 15 times per season, every 7 to 14 days from bud break through veraison. The chemical load is staggering.
Fungicides make up the bulk of it. The workhorses are captan, mancozeb (Dithane), myclobutanil (Rally), and mefenoxam (Ridomil), delivering roughly 3 to 6 pounds of active ingredient per acre per season, totaling 12 to 30 pounds across the vineyard each year. On top of that come insecticides: two to four targeted sprays for Japanese beetles, grape berry moth, leafhoppers, and spotted lanternfly, adding another 2 to 6 pounds of active ingredient. Neonicotinoids like imidacloprid and dinotefuran are the chemicals of choice for spotted lanternfly. Then there are the herbicides: glyphosate or paraquat applied under the vines for weed control, once or twice a season, contributing 2 to 5 more pounds. All told, a conventional Northeast vineyard puts approximately 15 to 40 pounds of active chemical ingredient into the environment every single season. The Williams have been clear: this is a legitimate “farming” enterprise needing commercial farm protection, and with a legitimate vineyard, pesticides are a given.
The risks of water contamination are well known. Broad-spectrum fungicides, particularly mancozeb, which contains manganese and zinc, accumulate in soil and leach into groundwater. Captan is toxic to aquatic organisms at low concentrations, even though it degrades relatively quickly. Copper-based fungicides, including those used in organic vineyards, never break down. They accumulate in topsoil for years, eventually reaching concentrations toxic to soil microorganisms before leaching into waterways. Glyphosate is increasingly detected in Northeast watersheds and well water near agricultural operations. The region’s proximity to streams, wetlands, and shallow aquifers amplifies every contamination pathway. With 10 to 15 spray applications per season, cumulative runoff is significant, especially during heavy rain events shortly after application.
Then there are the pollinators. Neonicotinoids used for spotted lanternfly and Japanese beetle control are devastating to bee populations, even at sublethal doses. These chemicals are systemic. They enter pollen and nectar, so even vineyards not directly spraying over hives contribute through drift. Fungicides including boscalid and pyraclostrobin impair bee health by disrupting gut microbiomes and increasing susceptibility to parasites and pathogens. The synergistic effects are particularly alarming. Fungicide-insecticide combinations are more toxic together than either chemical alone. Boscalid doubles the toxicity of clothianidin and thiamethoxam to honeybees. DMI (azole) fungicides block bee detoxification enzyme pathways, amplifying the lethality of pyrethroids and neonicotinoids. Cornell’s McArt Lab is currently investigating what may be the largest honeybee colony die-off in U.S. history, with early indicators suggesting neonicotinoid exposure as a possible cause.
All of this becomes dramatically worse when you factor in the site itself. A slope exceeding 15 degrees, roughly a 27% grade, accelerates runoff velocity and erosion to dangerous levels. Erosion rates on cultivated slopes above 15% without adequate ground cover can exceed 5 to 10 tons of soil per acre per year. Under-vine herbicide strips create bare-soil corridors that act as express lanes for contaminated runoff. Standard vineyard row orientation, running up and down the slope for tractor access, creates channels that funnel chemicals directly downhill. On a slope this steep, contaminated runoff can travel significant distances.
And at the bottom of that slope sits a DEC-designated wetland. Fungicides like mancozeb and captan are highly toxic to amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, and fish at parts-per-billion concentrations. Copper and manganese from fungicide applications accumulate permanently in wetland sediments. Glyphosate runoff disrupts the plant communities that define and sustain the ecosystem. Neonicotinoids are water-soluble and persistent, detected in wetlands near agricultural land at concentrations harmful to aquatic insects.
Research in the EU found that vineyards situated within 500 meters of a river act as point sources of contamination. The vineyard proposed for 509 Bashford Road wouldn’t be 500 meters from a wetland. It would be right on top of one, on a slope steep enough to deliver every drop of chemical runoff straight into protected waters. Under New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), any government agency taking a discretionary action must assess its potential environmental impact. If the action may cause significant adverse effects, an Environmental Impact Statement is required before approval. SEQR exists precisely for situations like this, where a government decision could inflict measurable harm on sensitive ecosystems, and where the public deserves a transparent accounting of those risks before anything is approved. Yet somehow, the county determined that no such review was warranted.
Let that sink in. A proposed 5,000-vine commercial vineyard on a slope exceeding 15% grade, surrounded by DEC-designated wetlands, and the county concluded there would be no meaningful environmental or community impact. A conclusion arrived at in November by the AFPB and referenced on the record by the Columbia County Attorney at the February 11, 2026, Board of Supervisors meeting.
Courts have established that the threshold for requiring an Environmental Impact Statement is deliberately low. The resolution adopted by the Columbia County Board of Supervisors, based on the AFPB recommendation, could be vulnerable on two fronts: it may have been issued despite evidence meeting that low threshold for significant impact, and it may not satisfy the "hard look" doctrine, the judicially established standard requiring lead agencies to meaningfully engage with environmental evidence before making a SEQR determination.
Missing in Action
Collins was not the only one absent from the Columbia County Board of Supervisors meeting that added 509 Bashford to an Agricultural District. Kinderhook Town Supervisor Tim Ooms was also missing. Their committee assignments at the county level are directly relevant. Collins chairs the Health & Human Services committee and serves on Public Works. Ooms is Deputy Chair of Economic Development, which oversees agriculture, Soil & Water, and the Cornell Cooperative Extension. Together, their weighted votes comprise 20% of the board’s decision-making power. While their presence alone might not have been enough to block the inclusion, it would have signaled concern to the rest of the board. Collins, who sits on the AFPB, could have challenged the faulty determination that this project would have no environmental impact. Given their respective committee work, it is difficult to believe that neither would have recognized the dangers this decision posed to the community and the environment.
The notice the county posted concerning additions to Agricultural District 10 was vague, and what remains unknown is whether the inclusion extends to Williams’ other parcel of land at the corner of Richmond and Bashford Roads, a parcel Collins also uses. If it does, the impact on Richmond Road residents deepens considerably, compounding the problem for those living at the very intersection. That section of land could host bands, hayrides, day camp activities, and even temporary structures like glamping tents, the kind of boutique agritourism operation already operating at Liberty Farms in Ghent, just miles away, where agricultural district protections shield such uses from local zoning restrictions.
What is known is that both men were absent for a consequential county decision that, if allowed to stand, will permanently alter a community of historic value. Columbia County is one of the epicenters of dirt roads in New York State and has a volunteer preservation group dedicated to protecting them. The significance of these roads has been covered in detail by the New York Times.
Due Diligence: the Problem up the Road
What has become clear is that Mr. Collins did nothing to foster discussions about the matter of 509 Bashford Road with any of the residents on Bashford, Brown, Richmond, and Reed roads. If he had, he surely would have known that there is no one on the record supporting the Williams’ project. Of course he can claim he didn't know about the controversy. Sure, the matter predated his term, and yes there was an ongoing legal dispute with representation against the original Town's decision to grant accessory use to the Williams. That matter is now pending before the Chatham Zoning Board of Appeals. And of course he does "farming" business with Dr. Williams, and of course he eventually recused himself from the matter without anyone in town knowing about it. The claim of ignorance seems flimsy. But if it were the only property that has used the Ag and Markets regulations to open a commercial entertainment venue, it might be understandable, though difficult to accept. But it is not the first of its kind locally.
On Jefferson Hill Road, just a mile from the Columbia County border in Rensselaer County, this very scenario has already played out. Like the proposed Fox Hill Vineyard, S & S Brewery, owned by the Sanford family, sits on a dirt road. Unlike 509 Bashford, the Sanfords’ property has been agriculturally zoned for decades. The Sanfords reinvented their struggling farm into what many told me on background has become a local nightmare.
I spoke with three homeowners who were initially supportive when the family started a GoFundMe page to repair their aging barn. Donations poured in. No one knew the fundraising was actually meant to finance a brewery, bar, wedding destination, live music venue, and visiting food truck operation. It was, according to residents, a shock.
“What’s been happening on Jefferson Hill is like watching a movie preview before the feature,” one resident on Bashford Road shared with me.
According to multiple residents who spoke on background, traffic on the dirt road has exploded. Visitors have parked on the road and on private property. The Sanfords have used crime tape to divert traffic. Residents described fights and public lewdness, including urination, that they say resulted in police visits. The New York State Liquor Authority has also been contacted. According to these residents, the SLA was called in part because the Sanfords had a Budweiser tap, which is not permitted under their licensing requirements; products must be farm-produced or sourced from other New York State craft breweries. Residents say the Sanfords told the SLA the tap was for water, an account independently confirmed by an SLA contact who wishes to remain anonymous. Frustrated, residents went to the town seeking answers. The town claimed ignorance. Residents filed FOIL requests to understand how any of this could have happened. It was all futile. The town could do little. Every activity advertised on the Sanfords’ website is permitted under the Agriculture and Markets Law.
It is hard to believe that someone who claims to know the New York State Agriculture Commissioner, as Collins stated at the last town meeting, would not know about the law or the controversy right up the road. Collins is very active in local farm-related activities. I learned about the S & S situation from a website called Nextdoor, in a warning thread to Chatham residents.
But of course, Mr. Collins can claim he didn’t know. Far-fetched, but he can claim it. What he cannot claim, however, is ignorance of the concerns raised by the people who voted him into office. Residents contacted him about the issue, and he assured them that nothing would change. He put that assurance in writing using his official town email, telling a resident that the town would continue to have jurisdiction. This is not true.
Accessory Use, Good Faith, and the Zoning Board of Appeals
The Williams have been dogged in their pursuit to remake their property into a commercial enterprise and have used both the town and the county to do so. On Thursday, a decision is expected from the Chatham Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on whether to allow their detached garage to be used as a “tasting” room. It’s been an odd process to say the least.
The Williams’ desire to host events at their residential property is well documented. Their applications and a website posted years ago first raised the neighborhood’s concerns. What is not clear from the applications, their lawyers’ and engineers’ public arguments, or Dr. Williams’ own written statements is what this accessory use is actually for and the full scope of its impact on the neighborhood.
The decision before the ZBA, based on what has been made public, is a tasting room for a product that does not exist, on a property that lacks handicapped access, parking, restrooms, and alcohol permits. The property itself is in violation of state law and safety ordinances, with an unfenced pool in close proximity to the proposed tasting room.
In his December letter, Dr. Williams claimed he is always in compliance with the law. He alluded to expertise in farming, citing his attendance at Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and after-school work on farms. He suggested there is no environmental risk and claimed to be working with Cornell Cooperative Extension specifically on this project, citing the quality of the soil.
Color this any way you want, but Dr. Williams is planning to sell a known carcinogen to the public. Alcohol is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The cancers it causes are treated by otolaryngology. Dr. Williams is a board-certified otolaryngologist.
Cornell University and the Cornell Cooperative Extension have been at the forefront of vineyard research and have raised red flags on soil erosion and pesticide use, including associated pollution affecting beehives, other pollinators, waterways, and wetlands, specifically in the Northeast and New York. They are clear about the erosion risks associated with steep gradients, as detailed in county maps and reports bearing Donal Collins’ name.
Dr. Williams, according to an appearance on his wife’s podcast, studied chemistry. It is hard to imagine he does not understand the implications of common pesticides used in commercial vineyards.
Given all of this, from the county to the Town of Chatham to the ZBA to the Williams themselves, there are so many shadows, irregular actions, failures to disclose, and a constantly shifting undisclosed plan for 509 Bashford that no governing body can make or has made an informed or transparent decision.
Article 18 of the General Municipal Law is not the only legal exposure at play. Beyond the conflict-of-interest provisions already discussed, New York courts have long held that public officers owe a fiduciary duty of loyalty and good faith to the communities they serve. That duty is not a mere ethical aspiration; it is a judicially enforceable standard. Courts have invalidated the actions of municipal boards where members’ conduct, even absent a literal violation of Article 18 or a local code of ethics, violated the spirit and intent of the statute, ran counter to public policy, or suggested self-interest, partiality, or economic impropriety.
The conduct documented here, the undisclosed financial relationship, the selective recusal, the county’s waiver of environmental review, the questionable notice practices, does not exist in a single legal silo. It invites challenge under the conflict-of-interest statutes, under SEQR, under Article 24’s wetland protections, and under the common-law fiduciary duty that every elected official in this process accepted when taking office. The path to legal action, including an Article 78 proceeding against the town and county, now looks less like a narrow lane and more like a highway. And all of these costs will be borne by taxpayers, not Dr. Williams.
Set aside the laws, the process, and the good-faith issues for a minute. Does anyone really think 509 Bashford Road is a legitimate farm? Over 53 acres, a mansion, a pool house, a non-commercial greenhouse, an extra garage, and 400 immature grape vines occupying less than one percent of the property. No barn. No valuable farm equipment. No livestock. No crop. The intended product is not food but alcohol. And for all the headache, bad blood, and questions, the Williams get a tax break. Their neighbors, meanwhile, fear their property values and quality of life will decline.
Given everything that is now known, how are the fiduciary, environmental, oversight, and ethical obligations of all the elected officials involved being met?
Why Your Subscription Matters
Independent journalism answers to readers—not advertisers, corporations, or access-hungry editors. No story gets killed because it upsets a sponsor. No punch gets pulled because someone important made a phone call.
Your support makes possible sharp commentary, fearless satire, and reporting that follows the story wherever it leads. In an era of manufactured narratives and algorithmic blandness, that independence isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity.
Subscribe to The Powell House Press. Or settle for content that tells you what someone else wants you to hear.
©2026 The Powell House Press | josh@thepowellhousepress.com