Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Law Continuous Frontage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pembroke Town Board adopts local law requiring continuous road frontage
Summary
The Pembroke Town Board adopted Local Law No. 1 of 2026 on June 11, changing the zoning code to require continuous road frontage for building lots; the board issued a SEQR negative declaration and noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals will retain variance authority.
The Pembroke Town Board voted unanimously on June 11 to adopt Local Law No. 1 of 2026, amending the town’s zoning code to require continuous road frontage for building lots.
Board members first opened a public hearing on the change at the meeting; Supervisor Thomas Schneider said he briefly contemplated tabling the amendment so the board could discuss possible repercussions, but the board proceeded after deliberation. The Genesee County Planning Board had reviewed and approved the amendment, and the Town Board issued a SEQR negative declaration finding the change to be a paper amendment to the zoning text.
The board emphasized that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) would continue to have final authority to consider variances for lots that are not contiguous. The local law, as adopted, will become effective once the Town Clerk files it with the New York State Department of State.
The adoption was approved by a unanimous roll-call vote: Supervisor Thomas Schneider and Council members Thomas Dix and Kathleen Manne voted yes. The record shows no dissenting votes. Supervisor Schneider moved the adoption, Councilman Dix seconded, and the motion carried 3–0.
The change alters the formal frontage requirement for building-lot eligibility under the Town of Pembroke Zoning Law. Property owners or prospective developers who believe they cannot meet the continuous-frontage requirement would need to pursue a variance through the ZBA, which the board said would retain discretion over such requests.
Procedural follow-up includes filing the local law with the New York Secretary of State. No additional implementation timeline or special administrative steps were recorded in the minutes; the board treated the action as a zoning text amendment rather than a site-specific approval.
