Planning Board, Work Session on Proposed Zoning Amendment

1. 3:39I think we'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. I'll let you call the role >> here. here. >> Here >> Michael Black. >> So we are in order. Um we have a special kind of workshop approach to the first part of the meeting tonight where we're going to be hearing from Kenda uh in the connection to u proposed amendment to the planning board pursuant to city code 325-40 parentheses a before we enter into this conversation I'd like to make some general comments to kind of frame our discussion um and I've I've I've actually committed this to writing because I wanted to select my words very carefully on this particular topic. Um, welcome.
2. 4:44Um, so forgive me if I if I read from my my notes. The common council referred proposed zoning code amendment to the planning board pursuant to city code 325-40A and requested an advisory opinion. Over the past several weeks, we've received substantial material from a variety of perspectives, including common council, interested citizens, and the applicant. Uh, also, we've also reviewed recommendations from the Columbia County Planning Board. I appreciate the time and effort that each party has devoted to helping us understand the issues. I would also note that public comments are not a part of the regular meetings for the planning board and uh and usually reserved uh for the public hearing period during the application review process. So there won't be public comments tonight in association with this agenda item. I think everyone recognizes that this matter is significant and so much so
3. 5:47that that's why I've committed my thoughts to writing. The issues are complex, the stakes are high, and it is likely that the city will continue addressing the questions surrounding the waterfront and this section of zoning code for years to come. One thing I've learned over many years of public service is that communities are best served when they invest in strong decision-making infrastructure. Clear rules, clear procedures, clear standards tend to produce better decisions over time than focusing solely on the controversy that happens to be in our face today. And I believe that's where our opportunity uh is in this discussion tonight. Our task is not to resolve the broader controversy. Hi Sarah. Sorry. Others have those responsibilities, including the common council in its legislative role and where appropriate, the courts in their judicial role. Our opportunity is narrower, but I believe equally important.
4. 6:49We can help strengthen the city's decision-making process by remaining disciplined in our role and providing constructive advice from the perspective of the municipal body, that is the planning board, the municipal body that will ultimately administer uh this section of the zoning code. With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that we focus our discussion after Kim's presentation that we focus our discussion on the question that I believe is uniquely within our board's remitt. And here's the question. Does the proposed amendment provide clear, objective, and administrable standards that future planning boards can apply fairly, consistently, and predictably? I don't believe that our discussion today should become a reconsideration of the conditional use permit, the pending article 78 proceeding, or the broader policy debate surrounding the waterfront. Nor do I believe that we've been asked to determine what occurred at the dock in 2011, or to resolve the competing legal interpretations that may
5. 7:53ultimately be addressed elsewhere. Instead, I hope we focus on questions such as, does the proposed language provide sufficient clarity for future administration? Are the standards objective and capable of consistent application? Would future applications and planning boards understand what evidence and findings would be required? And are there provisions that would benefit from additional clarification or definition? If we can answer those questions thoughtfully, I believe that we'll provide the common council with something that this vote only this board can provide practical advice from the body that will be responsible for administering whatever legislation the council ultimately chooses to adopt. Before I ask Ken to begin his presentation, I just want to kind of poll the board. Is everyone comfortable containing our discussion within the parameters that I've defined? Is that something that we're comfortable with? I understand what you're saying and I
6. 9:02think in other situations that may be applicable. Um but here um I don't know if we can put our blinders on and only look at the new code. Um because you're saying don't look at it thinking about the past or the future past litigation or future litigation when to me this seems a direct consequence of [clears throat] past and present litigation and planning for. So >> I just don't I I don't see how you could do how you could do what you what you asked um when I think this is a direct consequence of that. It's not like the the city was just reviewing and said, "Oh, wow. This part is made." I mean, they're specifically doing this in response to that. >> Yeah. >> So, may I respond? >> Yeah. >> Um, I've asked that question, too. How do you separate the process from the content? And the difficulty I'm having is not each of us as citizens has a
7. 10:07point of view and maybe in some cases strong points of view but when we put our planning board hat on what is what is the scope of our lane and much of the issues that are addressed in the content are really not a part of the planning board's lane. It's not a part of our rem not a part of our assigned responsibility. uh we are not convened to have an opinion about job opportunities in in Columbia County. We may care deeply about that as persons and as citizens, but it's really not a part of the voice of the planning board. So that's that's where I'm headed all beyond this. >> The G code wouldn't have anything to do about employment. I mean what you've said doesn't make sense to me because if this is adopted and Calarus does come back to us, we will then be taking it and applying it to Karus. So what what you said is like the exact opposite of what will happen. >> I I'm not following >> other comments. Um I just had like a rather narrow one
8. 11:10which is that we're being asked to consider something that we narrow the planning for authority to find that I think along with what you said that's part of our whether we should recommend not. Yeah, I mean I feel like um I keep returning to a moment maybe one of the last meetings Andrew or conversation we had about the authority that the planning board has and you know I try to keep it all uh in the comprehensive plan. You know what I mean? So when I think about how I might be useful with my planned board hat on with regards to a local law, I think about the ways in which the comprehensive plan either creates permission for this kind of law or the law align with the comprehensive plan or does not. So that's the way that I'm addressing it. Is the local law um something that um uh is oriented with the shared vision for the city of Hudson that's encoded in
9. 12:14the plan. Um and so and I feel like that what you said that there's there is a north star for the planning board and it's in the comprehensive plan and the details are you know misdefined um and maybe for the common council to unpack but directionally um I guess I'm just referring to the comprehensive plan and the shared vision. One thought I'm having Veronica is that the concerns that you might express because you have already expressed them in our last meeting. You're starting to express them. Those views are being expressed elsewhere. The county has kind of gone into a lot of detail about about their concerns. So the come council will hear those those very concerns that you might want to personally express yourself. But when I look at the at the language in the in the proposal, you know, I I find c certain things to be kind of ambiguous. And how would a planning board verify certain requirements? You know, um they talk about truck trips. Well, what is a truck trip? Is that one way or is that two
10. 13:16ways? Is that empty? Is that only loaded? So in my view, if a future planning board has this law, I would want it to be more articulate in terms of expressing quantitative measurements rather than qualitative judgments. So that's that's what led me to conclude since since your concerns are being voiced elsewhere, let's concentrate on the I had trouble with administrative ability to manage whatever they bring to us as legislation and we're not a legislative body. So that's the other reason I was thinking we'll I'm not even sure why they're asking us, but they've asked for our opinion. So, shall we just jump in with Ken and then we can pick up the discussion? I just add a footnote, we have an already finish at 6, so it's going to be a pretty tight discussion. Um, and uh because we do have a public hearing scheduled with the with another applicant. So, thanks for coming tonight.
11. 14:18>> Great. Well, me right there. Okay. Um, first thing I want to say, Veronica, I think you're completely on target with one very important point is this proposed law is entirely in response to the current situation where they plan for it did issue a condition use permit that is being litigated. And in all likelihood, the only time this would come into effect would be if the court determines the attorney should favor the petitioners. the likely remedy would be to remand it back to the planning board for further consideration. So it that's exactly what it is designed to do. So the situation as said there was a the planning board issued a conditional refused permit in relation to the dock back in the fall. Um and there's litigation commenced afterwards and it it really hinges on a particular phrase in the zoning code which is in the definition and in
12. 15:2232517D1 the definition it goes on it says that the conditional use permit may be issued for quote continuation of continuation of existing commercial dock operations for the transport and shipment of goods and raw materials. Then it continues on and it concludes in the last part of that long sentence describing it such commercial dock operations as such uses existed on the effective date of this local bot in 2011. That is the whole thing that the litigation hinges on is that the code has a very specific piece of language in it referring to as such existed in 2011. the planning board's conditional use permit made made no reference whatsoever to the past and um the litigation argues that that was an invalid there there was no conditional use permit the the litigation there's no conditional use permit there it's authorized by New York by the city of Hudson code for dock operations what it is is
13. 16:25an authorization for a conditional use permit for dock operations as such use so that's the litigation plan if the court rules against the petitioners. This law will never have any effect whatsoever because the existing permit would have been issued and the bill will have been sent back and just won't have any bearing on anything and not come up again because the permit has been given. But if the court agrees with the petitioners and sends it back, they're going to send it back to the planning board in all likelihood and say you need to address this part of the code that says as such use existed in 2011. So, it's entirely the common council could just do nothing. That is certainly an option that may well happen. Um, in that case, it would just get sent back to the planning board and the question would come before you. Presumably, the court would direct you to address that clause and it would be up to you to to do that. Um so the the issue is already there and whether it comes back to the planning
14. 17:30board or not is beyond anybody's authority and power here. It's in the hands of the court. So this is such a contingency. If the court sends it back, the question is going to be addressed. And the question is, is it going to be put in your laps to address on your own or is the common council going to take some initiative to try to make that a clearer perhaps similar task for the planning order? And it could go either way. I honestly don't know whether they're going to proceed with it or not. But I think it's really important to understand that it's not creating a new problem. It's not creating a new question. All those things are in the past. If the question is posed back to the planning board, it's basically you're going going to have to deal with it on your own or with this additional guidance by amending the code. Um, so um, yeah, and that's an open question. So, but I do want to it's not like this is coming up and putting new things in there. It's it's addressing a question that may come before you. it's going to have to be an answer on your own or
15. 18:32value with this additional um coding provision. And that's really what it's all about. Um and what happened is that members of the public collect a lot of information, submit a lot of historical data from a number of sources which if it were to come to you, you would want to review on their original. you, you know, you would go want to reference these documents, do the verification of all this on your own, but um members of the public presented a lot of information about um information they were able to gather in the time period before 2011. Um but also this is not starting from scratch just coming up with a with a a new idea or a new plan or a new set of anything. The entire point of it is to only to work with what is already set out in the code. It's not someone coming and saying we need to expand things, we
16. 19:36need to restrict things, we need to do things. It's how do we answer the question and the provisions that are already in the code in objective [clears throat] factbased um irrational manner and that's the point of this law. So um a lot of it section one the legislative findment and purpose is observations information that's been accumulated references to existing code. It's just laying the groundwork for why this might be something to be done. Um, and you know, again, it it's based on a couple of provisions that are they're just blitz [clears throat] use existed. The second one that is an element of it is section 325929 which has to do with non-informing uses because um all these laws predate the color so acquisition parallel. So they're long-standing laws. They were just there. Section 3 and and when um section 32517D
17. 20:42was enacted in 2011, um it was a few years before Columbus purchased the property, the doc was designated that time a non-conforming use. There isn't that's clear. It's in the law. It's and is a non-conforming use. Section 32529 has provisions. It says um it limits not to formal uses to no expansion but also nor shall any external evidence of such use becreased by any means whatsoever. So these are things that are already there and they're all just laid out in the finds and purpose. It's like this is the rationale for where we are. So with that background um how what's the rational factbased means of of answering that question? Um and the council is proposing one, you know, and and it's laid out at some length some of their rationale and thinking behind it, but it is not create there's no intention there to put any
18. 21:46new restrictions in place. Yeah. They've said that a few times. Um but it says, you know, here specifically that um any type of non-conforming use shall not be enlarged, extended or placed on a different portion of the lot and parcel of land occupied by such use on the effective date of this chapter. Nor shall any external evidence of such be used to increase by any means whatsoever. And then it also talks about the number of trips allowed and the tonnage of material per year. So I mean I think at last meeting we quickly ran the numbers and 10,000 truck trips would limit them to what they're doing now. We broke that down into less than a month. So how is that not restricting? Um first of all because the restriction that has been in place since 2000 since prior to 2011 is no external evidence can be increased beyond what existed at
19. 22:50that time. So the rationale is that at that time what was and this you know this is all laid out in the ring of recent the view that things coming and going and and such as evidence of the activity that that was already restricted as a nonconforming use um to the tax that what were those numbers? always the evidence of food that public venues the public put in was that it was about 5,000 and something annually. And so the argument is that that is already what was in place and that that since he couldn't expand the you couldn't have any external evidence beyond that that that was the restriction in at the time and this is trying to articulate that in actual numbers not not in concept in concept it's already there >> at you keep saying at the time what time
20. 23:53>> 2011 >> Veronica I hope you understand how this question is relevant within the scope of the planning where it's perviewed. This is a legislative question I think. >> Well, but it is, but the thing is in a way it's not that legislative because the point is it's not try it is not trying to do new things. It [snorts] said the the restrictions are in black and white and were there have been there since 2011 or earlier. And so what this is trying to do is put meat on those bones when it said it cannot you cannot increase the external evidence between beyond what existed at the time. Well, what was that? And this is trying to you know make it rational termination. Um it's not it can't be perfect because there's perfect information but it's to avoid being arbitrary. We want it to be to be fact-based, numbers based and and they have, you know, the public put in a bunch of data that arguably allows an inference or a good faith rationally based
21. 24:55estimate as of 2011. That's and that in this part isn't even really part of law. This is background that would be in front of you whether or not this law is is is an act if those provisions are already there. The data on the truck traffic I'm sure that the public will present to you. So none of this is actually new. This is not being imposed. It is not new. It's all data and it's all law. It's all written in the code already. And the point of the law really begins with it's section two which is what would the actual changes be? All of this other stuff is really just an analysis of looking at the history, you know, citing express parts of the code and and referring to actual data that the public has put in, but it is not creating that stuff and it was not actually imposing it. So, it's beyond that. >> Ken, can we open this up to a more general discussion with the board? I'm just I'm just >> I just want to wrap up really quickly.
22. 25:57So the idea is you're you would have that same information whether or not this law is passed. That what this law does do though is it gives you specific numbers that would have the information of the common council. You could reach these numbers on your own or you could come with other the other ones but they should be factbased if you're going in this direction. >> We wouldn't be able to come up with others though. Well, I don't know. I mean, if this were to pass, right? Like those are the numbers that we would have to use as I understand the intent is or not >> if the the part that actually is would go into the code. um is >> is actually does not say that it what it says is the authority with include this is the part a the authority to issues permit means authority to approve commercial doc operations equivalent to nature nature not exceeding the scope and external evidence of dog including the annual truck trips etc
23. 27:00but it doesn't have any numbers >> it doesn't part B though >> it does in part B and what part B does because part A it does not dictate any numbers. There is data. It says you can use this data and you may use this data to cover these numbers. Does not say you must because you may find different things. But what it also says is trying to accommodate changes and the fact that they they have um done mitigating acts. It says notwithstanding all those numbers from the past, you can go up to 10,000 round trips a year, which is about twice what the historical data was. >> Where is how was that number determined that that would be like an appropriate the 10,2 >> that is kind of an estimate. I mean that's that is a >> estimate. >> It was trying to accommodate >> an increase that would perhaps be justified by the fact that they have put in some mitigating things without it.
24. 28:02there isn't any that actually is the thing that we would perhaps allow them to again get it if it comes before you you we don't know what you do but it's possible based on the data that you would conclude a low number the number of trucks up to like 5,000 it's possible it's not dictated the law doesn't tell you that but there's data that you might find compelling and use and if that were the case if you found that you would have no choice but to limit them to that what this does though is it's actually an opportunity to look but they've also done mitigating things. So even though we found all the data even though we believe this is what the law would tell us to do this was saying well we're going to let them go to 10,000 anyway because they they've done mitigating >> but it would not allow us to as a finding fact determine that in 2011 they did 50,000 for example. I'm just like matter of like I'm just like curious what >> it would because a just says use these things if you found it was 50,000. Yeah. >> No, the first one does not give any it
25. 29:08does not dictate anything. It says because in the in the explanation is like well how do you how do you judge as such youths existed in 2011 trying to find things that are actually measurable yeah >> that are that you can apply objectively and one and these are the things that came to light there could be other there could be other ways to to even evaluate as such uses existed but we're trying to find an objective measurable thing and and in light of the you know external evidence then this and The truck traffic seemed to be something that was one seemed clearly to be external evidence of the activity which is referred to in section 32529 and it's measurable. So it's something that both comports with the you know the part of the law talks about external evidence and it's something that can be counted and objectively measured. So it seemed again this see this is what the council if the council adopts it say look this is a way that actually makes sense that it can be measured and come to courts and it's
26. 30:11consistent with the existing things that are in the law um and that's what it would do and so that that's just saying well these are things that are objective they're measurable and this is what we would the council would say that you ought to look at the numbers would be based on what you come up with if that's what you go with it could be what was found here if you have evidence it actually refers If there's evidence for other numbers, those are fine too. But it does say this is um what the you know if they were to pass the council at least things that you can actually measure. We have some data on and it allows for a somewhat reasonably objective standard as opposed to other things that might be more difficult. Um and that's what it's what the point of it is. Otherwise the question will come before you and have to figure out how to apply it, what to apply and then also the objective components of that. So this says here's how to measure it and leaves it up to you to to come up with the measure. But it also is no notwithstanding
27. 31:13whatever you come up with you can still go up to 10,000 otherwise it will come back to you and you say well we have to find both not just to figure out what the standards of it are and then find the facts to fit them. So this you know goes part way to filling those those things >> pause the discussion for just a minute we're up at 6:00. We did post public hearing at 6. Uh so I just want to pull the citizens that are here. Are there folks here that are to speak in the public hearing for the Edwards Elementary School project? Want to uh Linda, have you got sign up sheet? Yes. >> So, I just need to ask, would you give us permission to continue this discussion for 15 minutes? Uh and then we'll move into the public hearing. >> Sure. >> Okay, great. Thanks. So, let's put a 6:15 stop time on this. And u >> Yeah. And so, I that's that's really kind of where it stands is that um you this lays out reasons you said
28. 32:19starting going back to the beginning if the court sends it back you're going to have the question they will because the the relief has been requested is to come back as such use existed in 2000 you're going to have to feel that question if you don't have it you're going to say well what does that mean and in the sort of the findings and purpose this lays out an approach to to that question. What does that mean? And it tries to look at the existing code, look at the references, look at the things that that already existed and work with those. Um, if it those, you know, are rational reasons perhaps to do it, but you might come to, you know, you might come to the same conclusion on your own. this is just this is the way it's being looked at by the council. Um whether they adopt the law or not, you may come to look at the same thing. So, yeah, that actually makes sense and this is this is what it should be and maybe you don't find that. Um
29. 33:24but then when it's determined how you evaluate it, then you need to find facts, data, measurable things that you can apply to that brand. Let's see if we have any more questions or comments from the board. >> No. [clears throat] So I mean my quick take on this is that we have a journey ahead of us as a city and that journey is going to be a challenge. It's going to challenge our individual and our institutional abilities to conduct complicated business and anywhere we have an opportunity to clarify uh where there's ambiguity that just helps clean the process going forward. But the process is going to happen. Um, I sort of have a Rodney King hybrid philosophy here. Not can we all get along, but can we find a common ground that maybe we're not all happy with, but we survive a process that we can uh not be damaged by or injured by in the pro
30. 34:28in the in the process. So, wherever we can reduce ambiguity, we should try to do that. So specificity uh measurable uh and not qualitative uh judgments. So that future planning board whether it's us or some other group one of the things I observed as a citizen last year was there did seem to be a lot of ambiguity about certain aspects of this. So I view this as a incremental step forward to create a more constructive environment for us to follow for this process than we have advised. Certainly uh Veronica the issues that you may wish to raise and that have been raised by the county will be raised in abundance going forward in the process. So I guess my point of view is can the planning can this planning board contribute to reducing ambiguity by creating more specificity and when and when if we're revisited by this this application in the future uh some of these questions have been resolved.
31. 35:32So, so basically I guess what I'm doing is is compartmentalizing a little bit, Veronica, and saying we can't solve the whole issue tonight, but maybe we can address some individual details that will help make future meetings and future hearings uh easier to deal with. >> I I don't know why you said that to me. I'm not >> Well, it's just that statement. >> This isn't that this is not supposed to be creating new restrictions. That's we actually don't think that would be appropriate. It's that what does the law already say and how can you actually put that into measurable objective terms where there is information to verify it. So that's what its purpose is. So the the council is asking for advisory an advisory opinion. Um they are not asking us necessarily to vote it up to vote it down. And one thought that I've had is that we offer an advisory opinion and
32. 36:35that based on this discussion and perhaps other discussions that we might have, we construct a letter and send it to the common council uh with our point of view. It's not a vote it up, vote it down. It's simply you ask for our advice on this. Here are some of our thoughts that we had. Um, I'd be happy with the board's uh authorization to draft based on this discussion um to draft a letter for us to look at at our next meeting and for amendments, changes, and approval and then um we can move on to other business. If that seems like a reasonable step, I'd be interested in your reactions. >> Seems again that seems reasonable. Um but you know based on um the presentation sir well my my concern was that they were going to use like they're trying to make amendments to the laws that we have to they're basically going to revisit like you know permit but through you know certain amendments but that doesn't seem to be the case based
33. 37:38on the present >> there this would have no effect and will never have any effect unless the court sends it back and says you need to answer this question because if it doesn't send it back the existing permits in effect and it's in perpetuity and they can't I mean you can't af start changing around saying this or the other but it's all it is about that if the court sends it back how are you going to answer the question right >> um and so it's a responsive thing is doing it based on existing not necessarily any >> I know I know there's talks about trying to make changes it's not going to be >> that isn't that is not within the the question the words are already there. You know that's when it says when it's has the words in the existing code about has such existed things about you know no external evidence those are already there. This is like put meat on those bones. It is not well we also we think we should they should do this we think they should do that. That's off the table. It says how do you answer the existing questions?
34. 38:40It may happen. It may just and if it doesn't if the question come back to you it's it's all in your report the entire thing you achieve. >> So that's that's the key thing is that the question comes back it's not we aren't we don't common anyway for whether or not the question comes back to you if the report sends it back it does. If they don't, it doesn't. What happens when it gets here? That's what this is. >> Other discussion questions. >> I have one very narrow technical bit of feedback, which is that the tall road um permit has a trips per day number. I think that's actually a better requirement in terms of the number if you're actually looking into that impact because um there's a good part of the year when the dock is not in operation and so if you actually are looking at trying to minimize impact it's less per day during the summer well that's I wish to answer I would say a couple things one that's a great but secondly >> this law is not intending to limit
35. 39:42impacts it is attempting to define define what the code already says that's why it's it isn't trying to do that and it's it's it's trying to think how can we measure what was already there and that's so but I that's a comment that's the kind of thing you know you want to put in there but it is important to understand that it's not trying to essentially achieve new things or it is trying to just answer the question what's already there >> and I have just like one like I think I disagree that your assertion that quantitative is better than qualitative in terms of the code in that like the job of the planning board as I understand it is to in a semi-judicial way interpret the code using evidence that we find out and that anytime there's like a restriction in that or narrowing I know I share your assertion that's a good thing um versus like allowing the board to open the facts of own interpretations of reality rather than that being narrowly construct
36. 40:48So that's why I hit your statement. Jane, any comments? So we have a couple of options. We can we can move to reject, we can move to approve, or we can simply say uh I'll conclude this discussion and do nothing. or uh you can authorize me to craft a letter that that accepts some of these u comments to bring back to the board to review and approve uh in the next meeting. Is there a point of view that someone would like to I would also just it's referred to you if there's no agreement I mean you can say yeah we have looked at it but don't advantage that happens that happens too. So I mean it's you can write whatever you want. You can reflect individual members say some members thought this some members thought that if there's a consensus you want to do it but you have a lot of flexibility to to respond to this. It's just um there's a period of time in
37. 41:50which to do it. So it's up it's a totally in your court as to how you want it. So an alternative strategy would be that I draft something sooner and distribute it right away so that if anybody wants to add feedback before the next meeting that would give you an opportunity to do that. So with just a few minutes to go on this topic uh just there is a time period just so you time it was sent to you actually six days whether it be back or else you are >> you saying you wouldn't receive a letter from the planning board it send a letter >> no no I'm just saying you know it's supposed to be I don't remember exactly when >> 30 days 30 days you can't sit for three months after 30 whatever because there's a time. >> So, the scenario that I'm suggesting is that the board doesn't vote to approve or disapprove. We write a letter that expresses some of our advisory opinions and we send it after the board approves
38. 42:53and we send it to council. We're not taking comments tonight. Margaret, >> when you say advisory opinions, where are those are those our opinions or someone else's definition? >> I think through the lens of your your opinions through the lens of your planning board respect again us >> not everyone has has spoken. I mean like I I don't really know however this is going to be a letter that without voting or without us discussing. It sounds like it's going to be kind of the perspective of a few people. What I'm hearing is that Ryan's going to draft letter we will discuss it and approve it at the next meeting and hopefully you could circulate it well in advance so that we could board style both speak as a board and speak. >> Yeah, I think you can include you don't have to include just consensus. I mean they can include all other say couple members raised this >> so it doesn't have to be they both it's trying to get feedback constructive feedback is and and it's supposed to go
39. 43:57to the board discuss >> so I think I don't know whether your 30-day limit anticipates the action that we're discussing but if we write a letter but it exceeds the 30-day time limit uh what are the implications of that >> it's just that under the code, the common council can't vote on the local law until that time period has run. >> So when it's when there's a zoning proposed zoning law has to go to the planning board, common council has to sit for that period until either the time period runs out or the board responds. So it would just mean that if the plan if the common council got to the point where they prepared to vote on it um they need to either heard back from the planning board or the 30-day time period for referral if if this goes on for few more couple you know few more months or whatever and you were outside the time period you sent a letter it would still be reviewed and valuable. But just in the same way when something is sent to the county planning
40. 44:59board, there's a statutory thing that is a 30-day period that has to you have to wait 30 days of sending it before you can act. So that's what it takes and I don't the date is but it would still be considered if the law hasn't been act but the private common council cannot act until that time is passed. So, uh, chair would entertain a motion that that I be authorized to draft a responsive letter to the common council. I'm framing it as an advisory opinion, picking up on the discussion we've had tonight, distribute it to you individually for your review and additional comments before the next meeting. I'll incorporate those into the letter so that when you see the letter, it will reflect your comments. I'm not suggesting we attribute comments to individuals, but that we're speaking as a board and I think that it can be a balanced uh statement that that represents a variety of points of view.
41. 46:01Uh and that we have satisfied the request. So a motion along those lines would be helpful. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Sarah. um draft the letter. We're going to review it as p the board as to whether or not they're ready to move on to take a vote to approve this or not approve it. So you don't waste your time. Don't waste our time drafting the letter. Is the question whether it's forward would be ready to >> say yes we approve this no we're going to >> or you take the board >> well first you're not voting to approve it's a feedback and guidance so it's not you don't vote you're not voting on whether to approve or disapprove the law it's you could do that I suppose that's not primarily it is your comments and thought and guidance it's an advisory opinion on
42. 47:04what you think of it And um so you know it's only you can have a lot of different opinions. You can you can do whatever you want but it's it's not a there's no requirement for any kind of up or down. >> Got it. So we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second roll please. >> Are we okay? Are we taking into consideration voting if we're recommending not recommending? I don't. No. Okay. Yeah. Then yes. >> Yeah. I don't think you're recommending for or against it. You're you want to express your concerns. So maybe you want to add to that every member give your concerns to Ron for him to draft and then then it goes out to so then the letter going to the common council can be here's the concerns, here's our thoughts and concerns. you know, this is what we might find confusing or what we might find good about it or I think that's what what they're looking >> I think at one point there has to be
43. 48:07either we recommend, we don't recommend or or no opinion or or whatever say other municipalities we do these all the time and the responses vary tremendously. Sometimes they'll just say we don't really have an opinion and do what you want. Other times it will be just a very limited technical thing. It's like you know this sentence here maybe should be clarified other thing times it will be really substantive. It's like well this is going to affect you know the farmland and blah blah blah or you know how is this going to you know it may be a really substantive response. So, every case is different, but it's what are things that come to mind that you think the the legislative body ought to think about? Whether that's flat, don't do it, do do it, or we are concerned about this. We think this isn't clear. We think it may have this impact that you should think about. You know, it's a very open point. We're in
44. 49:10the middle of a vote. This discussion is ceased. So, we need to get back to the London. Uh yes, >> yes. >> Jetski, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Michael, >> yes. Motion to pass. Thank you, Ken. Really appreciate you being here. I know there are a number of other folks in the audience tonight. They have a deep interest in this and I'm sorry we don't have public comments at our regular meetings, but thank you for being with us tonight. Um, with that we move uh directly into the next order of

Timestamps link to the corresponding moment on YouTube. Auto-transcribed, contains speech-recognition errors. Not an official record.