Coxsackie passes mobile home park law; developer says they will sue
Jan 16, 2018 3:33 pm
Kaitlin Lembo in Columbia-Greene Media reports that the Coxsackie Village Board voted 4-1 Jan. 11 to approve Local Law No. 6-A, and United Mobile Homes says it will sue the village, as they believe the law targets their housing proposal. The new law repeals Local Law No. 4 of 2008, replacing the “manufactured home park” category in section 155 of the town code with “mobile home park.” UMH says that vote affects their efforts that date back 13 years to build homes on a 110-acre parcel at 25 Van Dyke St. In 2006, a year after buying the property, UMH proposed building 260 manufactured homes on what they call Mountain View Estates. But the village placed a moratorium in 2006 on any major projects that would require a sewer hookup. Coxsackie's sewer problems may be solved soon, and the new law restricts the size and scale of UMH's proposal. Instead of its current proposal to build 160 homes on 47 acres, UMH would only be allowed to construct 80 homes on 110 acres. UMH President and CEO Sam Landy says that means the project is economically impossible. “We will file suit and go from there,” Landy told the paper Jan. 12. “Local Law 6-A of 2017 is clearly intended for UMH because there are no other properties around that are an MDR-3 [Medium Density Residential] zone and 20 acres or greater,” Engel said. “The law is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of 2008, which allowed for the appropriate development of a mobile home park.” Landy complained that Mayor Mark Evans even voted on the law. “The mayor should have recused himself from the vote due to the State Telephone Company’s adjacent property with our land,” Landy said. The mayor would not comment on whether he should have recused himself. “This process that we are following has been methodical, carefully thought out and is fully documented in the minutes of the planning board and village board,” Evans said in an emailed statement Friday. “The job and responsibility of the planning board and the elected village board is to protect the charm, character and make-up of the village.” Village Trustee Donald Daoust was the only board member voting against the law. “I’ve listened to the concerns of residents in town and those of UMH,” Daoust said. “At this time, there are not enough answers to the questions that have been posed, so I’m going to vote no.” Read the full story in HudsonValley360.com.