Clifton Park board adopts 180‑day moratorium on concrete batching plants after contested hearing

The Clifton Park Town Board adopted a 180‑day moratorium on permitting concrete batch‑mixing plants on June 16 after a heated continuation of a public hearing that drew residents, environmental volunteers and attorneys on both sides.

The measure, adopted as Resolution 195 of 2026 on a 4–1 roll‑call vote, immediately suspends acceptance, review and approval of applications for concrete batching facilities while staff and consultants prepare recommended amendments to zoning, buffering and operational performance standards. “We will prepare any recommended amendments for the town board’s consideration during the moratorium period,” the resolution directs.

Supporters of the moratorium told the board the pause is needed to protect groundwater, reduce traffic and control dust and noise from heavy industrial operations. Christine Matthews of Residents for Responsible Development told the board the town’s current light‑industrial zoning had not been updated to address heavy‑use operations and urged a cautious, evidence‑based approach.

Opponents, including legal counsel for a pending applicant, said the moratorium was targeted at a single project and raised procedural objections. TJ, who identified himself as counsel for 19109 Park LLC, told the board that the amended local law had been changed from the draft considered in April and argued that the town’s actions—pausing planning board review and adopting a moratorium that exempts on‑site portable plants—would invite litigation if the board proceeded without re‑referral and re‑notice.

Attorney Linda Mandal Clemente, representing property owners who filed a protest petition, likewise told the board the posted draft differed materially from the earlier draft and said those changes “exempt any batch plant that’s located on site for…construction projects,” which she said would leave some large projects unaffected while targeting the smaller applicant. She warned that the board’s actions could be challenged in court.

Town staff read the Saratoga County Planning Board’s reply into the record: the county disapproved the referral and warned the moratorium could be construed as targeting a specific applicant and place both town and county in a precarious position. Town counsel advised that because of the county’s negative reply the moratorium would require a supermajority (four of five) to pass.

Supervisor Barrett voted against the moratorium and repeatedly urged following careful legal and procedural steps, saying the town should manage risk by ensuring an exhaustive environmental review rather than creating additional process vulnerability. Barrett warned that missteps could leave the town exposed to successful legal challenges.

The moratorium resolution includes a SEQR negative declaration as drafted in the packet and directs staff to review zoning districts, permanent uses, buffering, siting requirements, environmental and operational performance standards, and intermunicipal/infrastructure considerations during the 180‑day pause.

The board also scheduled follow‑up work: town staff and consultants are to prepare recommended text changes to be returned to the town board and to lay the county referral and county reply across the public‑hearing minutes as part of the record.

Next steps: the moratorium takes effect immediately and staff will begin the directed review and drafting work; the board may return with proposed ordinance language for another public hearing and consideration during the 180‑day period.

(At the public hearing, dozens of residents, two attorneys and several town boards and commissions provided written and oral comments; those remarks are part of the official public record.)