The Town of Clinton Zoning Board of Appeals on Dec. 4 heard extensive testimony and public comment on a proposal by Andy and Sam Shore to develop 12 rental units on a 70-acre farm in Clinton Corners and to reduce the zoning code's open-space requirement accordingly.

Natalie Quinn of KRC Planning Consultants presented the application and argued that the code's 40% open-space requirement should be applied proportionally to the area proposed for residential use (12 acres → 4.8 acres of open space) rather than to the entire 70-acre parcel (which would require about 28 acres). Quinn said the development would use 3.36 acres for buildings and preserve most of the farm, and that wetlands and existing forested areas would remain protected.

Board members, however, questioned that reading. One member — referencing the town attorney's interpretation — said the 40% requirement applies to the gross lot area for new multifamily structures and therefore to the 70 acres as a whole. Several board members noted an available alternative: subdivide 12 acres so the open-space obligation would apply only to that new parcel. Planning-board members and some ZBA members urged the applicants to consider subdivision and easements as mechanisms to meet the code's intent.

Neighbors and residents offered sustained public comment. Speakers raised concerns about precedent (allowing a reduced open-space requirement could encourage piecemeal development across Clinton Corners), potential impacts on rural character and roads, and the importance of securing permanent protections (conservation easements) if open space is to be preserved.

Sam Shore, speaking for the owners, said the family has farmed the land for years and that their intent is to maintain agricultural use; he said requiring a 28-acre encumbrance would hamper farm operations and that the family would prefer flexibility rather than a permanent restriction. Shore said subdivision was not a preferred option.

Because the planning board's recommendation was not yet complete and given the volume of public input and divergent legal readings, the ZBA tabled the application to its next meeting so the planning board can issue its recommendation and the ZBA can consider any additional materials.

The board did not take a vote on the substantive variance request at the Dec. 4 meeting.