Clinton planning board hears Shore Farm site plan; open-space calculation, subdivision vs. variance remain unresolved

Natalie Quinn, project representative with KARC, told the Town of Clinton planning board that the Shore Farm proposal has advanced since a pre-submission conference in August: soil testing has been completed, stormwater and septic locations refined, a partial jurisdictional determination request was filed with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and the applicant prepared a full site-plan and stormwater prevention plan. "We were able to kind of do all the soil testing on-site to kinda of verify the location of our stormwater management, septic, and things like that," Quinn said.

The project as presented would place three buildings with four apartments each (12 units total) on a portion of a larger, active 70-acre agricultural parcel used for hay farming. The applicant said the unit mix would include one- and three-bedroom apartments and that Dutchess County's agricultural coordinator and the town assessor are involved to address the parcel's continued participation in the county agricultural district and tax-exemption implications for the residential portion.

The meeting centered on one unresolved legal interpretation: how to calculate the zoning code's open-space requirement. Jeff (town planning official) advised the board that Section 250-62 of the town code contains two clauses relevant to multifamily development, and that the text raises ambiguity about which land area to use. "Section 250-62, usable open space, excluding parking, must be available for tenants. This open area shall be a minimum of 150 square feet per bedroom for adaptation ... but in this case, it's at least 40% of the gross lot area for new structures," Jeff said, describing the competing readings of the language and noting that the phrase "available for tenants" suggests tenant access is required.

Applicant representatives said they designed the site as if the on-site wetlands were claimed and built 100-foot buffers into the plan. They told the board they could reasonably dedicate 40% of the roughly 12 acres associated with the residential development (about five acres) through a deed restriction or easement, but that dedicating 40% of the entire 70-acre parcel would be significantly more difficult for the owner. Board members also reported that the town attorney, Shane, advised that any large open-space dedication should be incorporated into an enforceable instrument such as a deed restriction.

Board and staff discussed two procedural routes forward: (1) subdivide the residential portion off the larger parcel and calculate required open space on that resulting lot, or (2) keep the parcel intact and apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance or an interpretation of the code. The applicant requested a written, formal determination of the town's interpretation to guide whether to prepare a subdivision application or to list the ZBA as an involved agency for circulation. Staff said the board needs that clear determination before circulating materials to involved agencies, but that if the applicant notifies staff two weeks before the Nov. 17 planning-board meeting that it intends to pursue an area-variance route, lead-agency circulation might proceed with the ZBA listed as an involved agency.

Staff and the applicant also discussed non-code technical issues raised in consultant letters: updated landscaping and lighting plans (county reviewers prefer dark-sky-compliant fixtures under 3,000 Kelvin), supplemental screening between the proposed units and adjacent properties, construction staging and designated contractor/material storage areas, parking supply and layout (the plan currently shows two spaces per unit), options for resident storage (basements or attached storage), and the need to refer the plan to the fire department to confirm emergency access and any requirement for secondary access.

Pete, a planner who prepared a comment letter, flagged Certificate-of-Occupancy sequencing as a practical detail to address on the plan if the developer intends to seek occupancy for buildings staged individually rather than all at once. The applicant said it will discuss phasing with the client and show required common-space and access items on the construction drawings.

Timeline and next steps identified at the meeting: the applicant will refine landscaping and lighting responses and decide whether to file a subdivision application or list the ZBA as an involved agency for an area variance. Staff advised that the planning-board submission deadline is two weeks prior to the board meeting and noted upcoming dates (planning-board meetings Nov. 17 and Dec. 2; a Dec. 4 CBA meeting was mentioned for zoning appeals). The applicant agreed to circulate dates for a site visit and to return with responses and any necessary applications.