Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Highland Falls board directs staff to revise zoning law, adopts 2010 Orange County map as basis
Summary
The Highland Falls Village Board voted to direct staff to prepare a revised local law that would roll parts of the village back to the 2010 Orange County zoning map, change minimum lot/dwelling sizes and set parking and height rules; the board also required county review and SEQRA steps before final adoption.
The Highland Falls Village Board voted to direct the village attorney, engineer and clerk to prepare a revised local law that would return the village to the 2010 Orange County zoning map for parts of the B‑1 business district and change lot‑ and dwelling‑size requirements.
Monique read the motion and the draft provisions, which would remove minimum lot‑area requirements in the B‑1 district, set minimum livable floor areas for mixed‑use residential units (625 square feet for efficiency units; 725 for one‑bedroom; 900 for two‑bedroom; 1,200 for three‑bedroom-plus), and set parking ratios of one off‑street space for efficiencies/one‑bedroom units, two for two‑bedroom units and two for three‑bedroom-plus units. The reading also directs the village attorney to circulate a revised draft to the board and post it on the village website.
"The village clerk shall post the revised local law on the village website," Monique read during the motion (read aloud as part of the draft language). The motion instructs staff to circulate the revised draft to the Orange County Planning Department under General Municipal Law 239‑m and to prepare a notice of lead agency and a full environmental assessment form under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) before any final action is taken.
Trustees debated where the 2010 map would change zoning labels; one trustee asked whether the map makes areas between Walker and Pelwood residential, and the presiding official and other board members confirmed areas would be designated R‑3 in the 2010 map and that some existing uses (for example, a motel) would be nonconforming if the map is adopted.
Board members voted on the motion by roll call; four trustees voted in favor and one opposed, and the motion carried. The board did not adopt the local law at the meeting; the motion directs staff to prepare the revised law, circulate it for county review and complete SEQRA compliance before a future vote.
