Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albany Planning Board continues zoning-ordinance revisions; members raise concerns about Route 16 and ADU parking
Summary
Board members reviewed proposed zoning ordinance edits but took no formal votes, citing the need for clearer definitions, better-organized drafting and review access. Members raised concerns about Route 16's mixed residential-commercial designation and whether local ADU parking language aligns with a referenced state standard of 1.5 spaces.
The Albany Planning Board continued work on proposed revisions to its zoning ordinance during the same meeting, but tabled formal action and agreed to resume detailed review at the next meeting when more members are present. Members spent substantial time discussing wording, document access and definitions that they said could produce unintended consequences.
"The word 'only' in one spot makes it read as if home occupation would not be allowed," Vice Chair Morris West said, urging clearer phrasing. Several members emphasized that definitions should appear early in the ordinance text to avoid repetition and confusion; one member described the current draft as difficult to navigate and proposed compiling definitions in Chapter 1.
Members also discussed Route 16's dual designation. A committee member noted that Route 16 is treated as both residential and commercial ("the voters voted it that way some time ago"), and expressed concern that a homeowner could be followed by a commercial use that creates noise or nuisance impacts for neighbors. The board agreed the ordinance needs clearer boundaries or definitions to manage potential conflicts.
Board members raised questions about parking requirements for accessory dwelling units and multifamily projects. Members referenced a "state level" parking standard of 1.5 spaces and debated whether the local draft could be read to change required parking counts; they agreed to pull state guidance and examine distinctions between private residential lots and commercial multifamily development before taking action.
Separately, several members reported trouble opening the emailed draft ordinance. Joe Harris (Audio Technician) and others helped troubleshoot links and a direct docx link to Google Drive; board members agreed to continue collaborative editing using shared documents and webinars and to resume ordinance review at the next scheduled meeting when the full board is expected to attend.
No formal votes were taken on ordinance language; the board adjourned at 7:20 p.m. and set its next meeting for August 11.
