Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union Vale board votes to retain counsel to defend zoning change in Article 78 challenge
Summary
The Town Board unanimously adopted Resolution 46 authorizing retention of counsel to defend a hybrid Article 78 and declaratory judgment action (Hardesty et al. v. Union Vale Town Board, index 2026‑52983) challenging local zoning amendments in the RD10 district; the resolution addresses a potential conflict with the town’s regular zoning attorney.
The Union Vale Town Board voted unanimously on June 17 to authorize legal steps to defend a recently filed hybrid Article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment challenging amendments to the town zoning code.
Town attorney Jim told the board there is a pending action captioned "Hans Hardesty et al. v. Union Vale Town Board," indexed 2026‑52983 in Dutchess County Supreme Court, which challenges adoption of Local Law No. 1 of 2026 that amended zoning provisions in the RD10 district. Jim summarized that the Martin petitioners have historically been represented by Vanderwater & Vanderwater, the town's zoning and planning attorneys in other matters, creating a conflict that would preclude their representing the town in this action unless conflicts are mutually waived.
Resolution 46 directs that, if the Martin petitioners consent and waive any conflict, Vanderwater & Vanderwater may represent the town on municipal litigation rates; if the conflict is not waived, the resolution authorizes Vanderwater & Vanderwater to seek an adjournment sufficient for the town to retain defense counsel and to make limited appearances as needed, including applying to the court for a court‑directed adjournment. The resolution also authorizes the firm to accept service on behalf of the town and to take other necessary actions to protect town interests.
After the reading of the resolution, the board conducted a roll-call vote: Councilman Harrington, Councilman Redinger, Supervisor Frazier, Councilman McGivney and Councilman Durland each voted "Aye." The resolution passed. The board did not allocate funds during the public meeting; next steps include retaining outside counsel if the conflict cannot be waived and negotiating timelines with plaintiffs' counsel.
The action challenges zoning changes that establish a special permit for catering facilities with temporary lodging in RD10 and remove conference centers as a permitted use; the resolution lists affected zoning sections and identifies the need to address conflicts of interest before finalizing representation.
