Clinton holds public hearing on proposed zoning revision articles 1–3; residents seek clearer changes and protections for Brown's Pond

The Town of Clinton held a public hearing April 8 at town hall to receive comment on proposed revisions to Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the town zoning law. Town officials said the revision project began in 2013 and the draft before the board reflects work by a zoning revision committee, the town planner and the town attorney.

Residents and stakeholders used the hearing to press for clearer documentation of what changed in the draft, to request explicit conservation protections for Brown's Pond, and to ask for technical clarifications on definitions and standards in the draft text.

The draft is the result of a multi‑year process, Supervisor Elliot said, and the version on the table includes edits from the town attorney that do not show track changes. “If you really want to get into the weeds ... go on the town website, pull up the code, and compare the two,” Elliot said, describing the 13‑year process that produced the draft.

Several speakers said the town should provide a tracked‑changes or side‑by‑side file so residents can see how the proposed law differs from the current code. “I am sad, distressed, and vehemently opposed to presenting the document without a way for readers to understand how this iteration ... is different,” Cynthia Cook, a Willow Lane resident, said.

Speakers raised specific substantive concerns:

- Brown's Pond and conservation designation: Steven (last name unclear) asked that Brown's Pond be included in the town's Conservation Agricultural Residential (CAR) district because of its hydrologic connections to nearby streams. Town staff member Catherine said the pond is large enough to be covered by a 100‑foot buffer under the town’s wetlands approach, but that Brown's Pond's geology and upstream watershed differ from the CAR area around Silver Lake and Long Pond; a biologist consulted by staff did not support adding Brown's Pond to the CAR district as a unique area, Catherine said.

- “Shall” vs. “should”: Multiple commenters noted that language in the draft appears to change mandatory requirements (“shall”) from earlier drafts or the existing code to permissive language (“should” or “may”), particularly for pedestrian access, street trees, sidewalks and interconnection of parking. Charlie Cannon, a member of the zoning board of appeals, said he has relied on the zoning law in appeals and prefers clearer standards in the code.

- Tracked changes and versioning: Ray Overly and others asked that the town produce a machine comparison of the existing code and proposed draft so residents and reviewers can identify edits. Elliot and others confirmed only an early planner mark‑up (2014) contained tracked changes and later drafts were provided without change tracking.

- Wetlands definitions and distances: Commenters asked whether the draft refers to town, state or federal wetlands and requested consistent, specific citations. Ray Overly also noted a change in a ridgeline/scenic standard that reduced a numerical buffer from 3,000 feet to 2,000 feet in the draft and asked the board to restore or clarify the intended distance.

- Design details: Concerns included proposed fencing requirements (a resident advised against widespread use of white plastic fencing as inconsistent with rural character), rules requiring windows on particular façades, and the use of “rhythm” versus “spacing” for hamlet design standards.

- Small‑scale farm structures and measurement questions: Ray asked that the code explicitly allow walk‑in sheds common in farm areas and sought clarification on whether a 3,000 square‑foot threshold applies to a primary residence alone or to the combined area of residence plus accessory buildings.

The board opened the floor to the public at the start of the hearing and permitted speakers to make brief remarks. After public comment the town board voted to keep the public hearing open and scheduled the next hearing of articles 4–6 at 6 p.m. on May 13, 2025; that motion passed. The board subsequently adjourned the public hearing and proceeded to regular business.

Documents: Town officials said complete copies of the proposed local law are available for inspection on the town website and at the town clerk's office. Multiple residents urged the town to post a tracked‑changes comparison or a clear changelog so the public can identify how the draft differs from the existing zoning law.

Next steps: The board will continue public hearings on the remaining articles; the next session to accept comments on articles 4–6 is scheduled for May 13, 2025.