Developers present 12-unit Shore Farm townhome plan; board raises zoning and open-space questions

Natalie Quinn, a planner with KARC Planning Consultants, presented a sketch plan on Aug. 4 for a clustered multifamily project the Shore family is proposing on a 70-acre parcel off the Taconic and Clinton Corners Road. Quinn said the plan would add 12 townhouse-style units in three buildings on one lot, with four units per building, and would preserve the farm's agricultural operations while providing a modest rental option.

Quinn described the site as "just off of the Taconic, off of Clinton Corners Road," and said the eastern property boundary abuts the municipal line with the Town of Washington. She told the planning board the parcel is in the town's CR-1 zoning district and that "one of the intents of the district is to provide diverse housing while also preserving agriculture," which she said motivated the concept.

The planning board's discussion centered on how the town's multifamily supplemental regulations would apply. Town staff flagged provisions in the zoning code that require an open area equal to 40% of the gross lot area for tenant use (noted in reviewers' comments as "250-62.B.10" in the application materials) and a minimum lot size for multifamily development (the board referenced a 12-acre minimum). Staff said those sections are written so that on a 70-acre parcel a strict reading would require roughly 28 acres of tenant open space. Board members and applicants discussed interpretations including whether the open-space obligation could be applied to a subdivided 12-acre parcel, handled as a note on plans, or secured through a deed restriction.

Town staff and the applicant also discussed whether the multifamily supplemental regulations apply to a non-subdivided development on a single large parcel. Quinn said the team had not previously expected those subregulations to apply and asked for the town's zoning guidance. Planning staff asked the applicant to coordinate with town planners and legal staff to request zoning determinations and to consider whether the developer might create a separate 12-acre parcel for the development to reduce ambiguity about the open-space calculation.

On environmental and site-constraint items, Quinn said a small southern portion of the property falls within the floodplain overlay and the site contains DEC informational and delineated wetlands. The team reported they plan to use an existing farm access and an existing wetland crossing for tractors rather than build a second crossing. She said the proposed limits of disturbance for the project's footprint are about 3.58 acres (including the access road), and the team had prepared a short-form EAF initially but was advised by staff that because the parcel is in an agricultural district and the proposal converts agricultural use to nonagricultural use in part, the project qualifies as a SEQR Type I action and requires a full EAF and circulation.

Board direction and next steps: the planning board did not vote on the sketch plan. Staff asked the applicants to obtain formal written zoning determinations (the applicant agreed to work with town staff, including Pete and Adriana, and to provide additional requested materials). The board recommended the applicant consider a subdivision or deed-based approach that would isolate a 12-acre development parcel to reduce ambiguity on the 40% open-space requirement. The board also recommended starting DEC wetland jurisdictional-determination (JD) steps and confirmed that a full EAF will be required. The applicant and staff agreed to schedule a site visit after some of the zoning clarifications and additional submittals are completed.

The applicants on the record at the meeting were Natalie Quinn (KARC Planning Consultants); Jocelyn (presentation assistant); and Ashley Borza (MJ Engineering). Town staff and board participants who spoke on regulatory and site questions included Adriana (town planning staff), Jeff (board member), Jim (board member) and Brandon (staff/technical support). No formal approvals were taken.

Why this matters: The Shore family described the proposal as a means to generate modest income to keep their agricultural land in the family while maintaining active haying and beekeeping operations. The outcome of the town's zoning interpretation could determine whether the development needs to be subdivided, whether the 40% open-space requirement is applied to the full 70 acres or to a smaller parcel, and whether variances or a different plan will be necessary for the project to move forward.

Planning staff requested the applicant return with the written zoning memos and any additional wetlands/JD documentation. The board and applicants agreed to coordinate with consultants before a formal submission.