The Stanford Town Board voted unanimously Thursday, May 14, not to adopt a proposed zoning code rewrite after residents raised concerns that the draft went beyond a reorganization of the town code and could affect how property uses are regulated.
The vote effectively pauses the current version of the rewrite and sends the town back into a broader review of how to update its zoning code, which officials say has not undergone a comprehensive structural revision in decades.
In a follow-up interview, Town Supervisor Julia Descoteaux said the process had revealed gaps in the draft and in the way the town communicated the work to residents. She said recently adopted short-term rental and accessory dwelling unit laws had not been fully integrated into the proposed reorganization, creating inconsistencies between the town’s current code and the draft that had been under consideration.
“There were blind spots in local laws that were passed last year that were not integrated into this reorganization that should have been that were brought up by the members of the public,” Descoteaux said.
The proposal centered on Chapter 164 of the town code, which contains much of Stanford’s zoning law. Town officials had described the draft as an effort to make the code easier to read, update, and understand after years of piecemeal amendments.
“The intention of the zoning code rewrite was to make it more clear and easy to understand,” Descoteaux said at the meeting.
The draft had been worked on for more than a year by the Zoning Commission and the town’s zoning consultant, Nina Peek. Town board member Charlie Cunningham said the proposal would have reorganized the zoning code from 14 sections to six, and that the Planning Board had already reviewed the draft and sent recommended text changes to the Town Board.
But during the public hearing, residents said the draft needed more review before adoption, arguing that some changes could have practical consequences for property owners.
Kathryn Zeyher said she attended the April 30 Zoning Commission meeting and believed the proposal was not simply a matter of reformatting or reorganizing existing law.
“This is not just a reorganization of the zoning code,” Zeyher said. “There are changes throughout the code that are not reorganizations. They’re additions, subtractions, and modifications.”
Zeyher said the proposal incorrectly modified the use table, which she described as one of the central issues in the town’s zoning code. She said the draft could affect whether uses are treated as principal or accessory uses, potentially creating confusion for residents who use their properties for more than one purpose.
Marc Burdick also raised a series of concerns about the draft, citing missing or changed definitions, use-table designations, and references to mobile homes, short-term rentals, telecommunications towers, logging permits, convenience stores, and recreation areas.
Burdick questioned why certain uses appeared to have been removed or changed and asked how corrections would be incorporated into the final document.
Descoteaux said at the meeting that the town did not want to rush the process.
“This zoning code rewrite has been ongoing for more than a year. We want to get this right,” Descoteaux said.
After closing the hearing, the board voted unanimously not to adopt the law.
Descoteaux later said the town now expects to “do a reset on our process” and focus more on public education before moving ahead with any substantial zoning changes. She said the next step is a June 18 Zoning Commission meeting, where other planning groups are expected to speak with town officials about possible approaches to the rewrite.
The town is also looking at other zoning consultants and planning firms, Descoteaux said, which would help determine any future timeline.
The broader goal, she said, remains to make Stanford’s zoning code more user-friendly, update outdated definitions, and make clearer what residents can do with their properties. She said the structure of the code dates largely to the 1980s, though parts of it have been amended over time.
The zoning review followed the town’s recent update to its comprehensive plan, which Descoteaux described as a necessary first step. The plan calls for maintaining Stanford’s rural character while promoting economic vitality, but Descoteaux said the town’s zoning code does not fully reflect that goal.
For example, she said, Stanford has many home-based businesses, but some of the code’s definitions are outdated or unclear. The comprehensive plan also raises the possibility of expanding the town’s rural center district, where much of Stanford’s commerce is concentrated. Such a change has not been proposed as part of the current draft, Descoteaux said, and would require additional public engagement, a public hearing, and a Town Board vote.
“We’re sort of restarting the process and hopefully getting it more in a place where it’s clearer to the community about like what, why and how it’s going to be done,” Descoteaux said.
She said the public feedback made clear that the town’s process had been easier for officials and boards to follow than for residents.
“The fact that there were people there that didn’t understand what was going on and didn’t understand what the changes were like, that underscores to me that the process was probably not as clear as it could have been and should have been,” Descoteaux said.
After voting to not advance the zoning update, the board moved to other business including the adoption of the Dutchess County Greenway Compact, a planning framework that officials said could give Stanford access to technical assistance, grant funding, and opportunities to work with neighboring municipalities on broader planning projects.
Board member Ted Secor said Stanford joined the Greenway program in 1998 but had not fully used its benefits.
“We have not taken advantage of it in the entire time that we have been a member,” Secor said.
Officials said Stanford was the last municipality in Dutchess County that was not a full compact member. Cunningham said participation could make the town eligible for funding tied to projects already underway and could allow Stanford to collaborate with other Greenway communities on larger initiatives.
Descoteaux said she spoke with eight other town supervisors about the compact and that each reported no loss of home rule authority, no outside interference in zoning decisions, and no drawbacks to participation. Several, she said, described the planning benefits as valuable.
The board also declared June as Pride Month in Stanford and approved raising the Pride flag at Town Hall for two days beginning Friday, June 5, ahead of local Pride celebrations scheduled for Saturday, June 6.
The board unanimously approved a local law allowing the Conservation Advisory Commission to expand from seven voting members to as many as nine. The two additional members may be appointed to full two-year terms.
Several personnel changes were also announced. Carlyn Harkelrode resigned as court clerk, effective May 28, and the town is seeking to fill the 25-hour-a-week position. Dennis Wedlick was appointed chair of the Water Quality Committee, and Eileen Guilfoyle and Carola Friedman were appointed as committee members. Wedlick also stepped down from the Climate Smart Communities Task Force, which is seeking a new coordinator and member. Eric Haims was appointed liaison to the Historic Preservation Committee.
Descoteaux also updated the board on emergency medical services, saying Stanford and other northern Dutchess municipalities are exploring regional partnerships as ambulance costs continue to rise.
The town received 21 EMS calls in April, Descoteaux said. She said Stanford’s ambulance costs were $750,000 last year, negotiated to $780,000 this year, and are projected to rise to $846,000 next year.
“We are considering all options when it comes to consolidation and efficiency of resources,” Descoteaux said.
The board also approved a $6,600 budget transfer for a town website redesign, a $2,057.94 purchase of a buddy bench for the playground in honor of the late Buddy Weber, and a $28,790 trailer for the Highway Department.