Kids’ Corner

By Melanie Lekocevic

Capital Region Independent Media

COEYMANS — A public hearing over a proposed new town law governing properties that have multiple zones within them drew pushback from the LafargeHolcim cement plant.

A public hearing was held by the town board May 11 to consider an amendment to the zoning code that would create a new provision for properties that fall within several zoning districts, requiring those property owners to adhere to the most restrictive zone.

For instance, if a property has some land that falls in the industrial zone and other acres that fall within a residential zone, the entire property would have to abide by the residential zoning restrictions.

Attorney Javid Afzali, from the law firm Harris Beach, PLLC, said the new amendment that is under consideration would be too restrictive and would reverse the current code.

“What this means now is if you own an industrial parcel and perhaps a small sliver of that falls under a residential [zone], all of a sudden your industrial parcel is going to be subject to more restrictive — the most restrictive — zoning and land-use standards,” Afzali said.

If that were to happen, it would impact more than 100 property owners in the town and would affect how they are able to utilize their land, he added.

“Certainly it is going to impact Lafarge’s property,” Afzali said. “As you know, Lafarge is probably one of the largest property owners in the town, holding something over 3,300 acres comprised largely of one parcel that is 3,200 acres and that falls within several different zones, primarily and mostly in the industrial district, but there is a portion of the property, a small sliver, in an R1, a residential district.”

“So the impact of what this will have on Lafarge’s property is that it’s going to take what is now an industrial parcel for use with industrial purposes, it’s now going to become subject to residential zoning districts if this local law is adopted as the language stands,” Afzali said.

The amendment would be inconsistent with the town’s comprehensive plan, which seeks to preserve both the residential and industrial districts, the attorney said, and would also impact property rights.

“Owners certainly have a vested interest in their rights and they’ve got constitutional due process rights,” Afzali said. “This would in essence be a regulatory taking if, for example, when you effectuate this change, the property owner can no longer do the things that it intended to do with the property.”

The amendment would also cause other issues, including parcels that have PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) agreements and the assessed value of properties, he added.

He called on the town to put the issue on hold while the details and impacts are worked out.

Town Supervisor George McHugh said the local law was proposed to address a specific issue.

“Right now, if I have a 200-acre piece and 20 of those acres are industrial and 180 is residential, I can right now, with the code the way we have it, I can treat that entire 200 acres as industrial. That’s the problem,” McHugh said.

McHugh asked if Afzali was calling for the town to put a moratorium on projects that would be affected by the amendment and then rework the zoning map.

“I think while imposing a moratorium is within your discretion to do so, it’s not necessarily something that is recommended or one that is a necessary step before you fix your zoning,” Afzali responded. If you have pending applications before the planning board or the zoning board that might impact that, then maybe you want to consider a moratorium, but certainly that’s not a prerequisite for that.”

McHugh offered another suggestion.

“Maybe we just take that part of the law out and we don’t say ‘the least,’ we don’t say ‘the most’ either. We just say nothing,” McHugh said. “So that if the current map says it’s zoned industrial or commercial, then that’s what you can do on just that portion of the land and if the rest of the land is residential, that’s what you can do on that portion of the land.”

There are no pending applications before the town with multiple zones that would be affected by the issue at this time, McHugh said.

Property owner Ten Eyck Powell said the law currently on the books has been in place for 60 years, and the amendment currently under consideration would affect property he owns.

“The modification of this law would directly impact me and my property,” Powell said. “I am one of the over 100 properties that’s affected.”

Much of Powell’s property has been utilized for industrial uses for many years, including as a mine, he said. Balancing the needs of both industrial and residential property owners is possible, he added.

“We can do industrial change. We can live and coexist with residential and environmental aspects. I encourage the board to consider that,” Powell said. “And while I know you have the ability to make these changes, I would offer that I don’t agree with the change.”

The public hearing was adjourned and will resume at the town board’s June 22 meeting at 6 p.m. at town hall, McHugh said. Comments on the proposed amendment will continue to be accepted by the board until that time, and there will again be a public comment period during the meeting.

“Don’t be surprised if Local Law No. 4 shows some revisions,” McHugh said, adding that any changes will be posted on the town website.