Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Revision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coeymans planning board flags conflicts in proposed law defining 'local contractor yard,' urges full zoning review
Summary
At its June 4 meeting the Coeymans Planning Board reviewed a referred local law that would remove 'transportation terminal' as an RA accessory use and add a 'local contractor yard.' Members said the draft creates internal conflicts and recommended a concise advisory that urges a town-wide zoning code review instead of approving the law as written.
The Coeymans Planning Board reviewed a referred proposed local law (Local Law No. 1 of 2026) and told town officials the draft, as written, should not be recommended in its current form.
Board members focused on the law's core changes: removing "transportation terminal" as an accessory use in the residential-agricultural (RA) district, adding a narrowly defined "agriculture-related transportation terminal," and creating a new "local contractor yard" definition that links allowed use to residence or common beneficial ownership of adjacent lots. "That's the crux of it. That's the heart of the whole thing," a board adviser said while summarizing the amendment's effects.
Why it matters: members argued the contractor-yard language could create a zoning nonconformity by allowing an accessory use on an adjacent parcel that lacks a principal use, a conflict with the schedule of district regulations and the chapter's purpose. One member said, "the proposed definition of local contractor yard creates a nonconformity within [the] schedule of zoning regulations allowing for an accessory use on a contiguous parcel with a principal use, but there is no principal use on that contiguous parcel." The board raised concerns about enforceability when ownership or residency changes.
Board members repeatedly emphasized the panel's limited role: the advisory opinion must apply the criteria in town code section 165-15 (consistency with the chapter's intent and the comprehensive plan) rather than act as a legislative body. Several members urged avoiding piecemeal fixes to an older code and recommended a comprehensive rewrite. A member suggested the advisory response could be brief — "not recommended in this form," followed by specific reasons and a general recommendation for a comprehensive zoning review tied to the town's 2021 comprehensive plan update.
Next steps: the board agreed to draft a concise advisory opinion documenting the significant concerns and recommending a town-wide code review. Members designated the chair to prepare the draft and circulate it so the board could meet the 30-day referral timeline.
The board did not take a formal vote to approve or reject the law; instead, it reached consensus to transmit a critical advisory and suggested substantive clarifications before the town board considers adoption.
