Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeal Concrete Batch Plant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clifton Park ZBA says appeal of proposed concrete batch plant is premature
Summary
The Clifton Park Zoning Board of Appeals declined to hear an appeal challenging the zoning administrator's review of a proposed concrete batch plant, saying the administrator has requested additional technical information and has not issued a final determination; attorneys for both sides and public commenters disputed that procedural finding and raised due-process and environmental concerns.
The Clifton Park Zoning Board of Appeals said on the record that it would not hear an appeal of a proposed concrete batch plant because the town’s zoning administrator has not issued a final determination and is still requesting additional technical documentation.
The chair, speaking for the volunteer board after an executive session, said the town is awaiting information from the applicant that the zoning administrator has asked for and that “you can't appeal a decision that has not been made,” a point the board relied on in declining to consider the appeal tonight. The board also noted that one alternate (Mr. Schuth) had been designated to sit for an absent member for this meeting.
Why it matters: The dispute pits the applicant, who says the administrator already issued a final, appealable determination, against town counsel and staff, who say the January 13 written determination was explicitly contingent on the applicant providing additional technical data. The disagreement has paused the planning-board process for the project and prompted public comments about procedure and environmental risk.
What the zoning administrator put on the record: The administrator (referred to in the meeting as “Mister Reese”) read a January 13, 2026 review that listed four comments. One was resolved; remaining concerns included the absence of technical documentation showing the plant would not discharge toxic or noxious matter outside the industrial zone (town code ch. 208-64(f)(2)) and a noise-impact assessment (dated 09/25/2025) that showed sound levels at a nearby receptor exceeding the town's 65-decibel guideline.
The applicant's view: TJ Ruane, attorney for 1910 Group 9 Clifton Park LLC, told the board the zoning administrator had made an interpretive determination that the proposed use was permitted and that the appeal filed on May 29 was therefore timely. “The zoning administrator is the one who was tasked with taking a look at our project, seeing if it complies, if it meets the definition of one of the permitted uses in the industrial district, which he did,” Ruane said, arguing that further performance-standards review belongs before the planning board, not as a condition that voids a zoning determination.
Appellant's due-process objection: Colleen Pearson, attorney for the appellant, told the board that postponing the appeal after it was filed sets “a very, very bad precedent” and risks denying timely due process because the board appeared to be telling the applicant what additional materials to submit instead of adjudicating whether the appeal was timely.
Public concerns: David Miller, volunteer chair of the Milken Space Trails and Riverfront Committee, said the project's Environmental Assessment Form was incomplete and warned of harm to brook trout habitat near the proposed site. “Brook trout swim. They go right up to his place where the habitat's gonna be impacted by this,” Miller said, arguing the EAF could lead to a positive declaration if completed and reviewed.
A dissenting board view: One board member said on the record that they believed a final zoning determination had been made and that confusion stemmed from whether the use was classified as light or heavy industrial; the chair said he would follow the town attorney's advice and treat the determination as contingent on receiving the additional technical information.
No formal decision on the appeal: The board did not vote on the appeal. Instead, it limited action to allowing public privilege comments and routine procedural votes (approving minutes, scheduling the next meeting for July 6) and then adjourned. The chair said that once the zoning administrator receives and evaluates the requested technical materials, a final determination can be issued and an appeal may then be filed if a party chooses.
Next steps: The town awaits the applicant’s submission of technical documentation identified in the zoning-administrator’s letter; the record indicates that any right to appeal will depend on whether and when the zoning administrator issues a final, unconditional determination.
