SOMERS, N.Y. - Following feedback on the public notification process, the Somers Town Board is considering requiring applicants for zoning ordinance and map changes to post signs and send written notices in a way that mirrors current rules for site plan and subdivision approvals.
A public hearing on the proposed zoning code amendment is set for 7 p.m. on Thursday, July 9.
It is also weighing mandating that folks seeking site plan or subdivision approvals for properties that do not front town, county, or state roads post signs on public roadways.
The issue of “transparency” arose recently when several residents complained they had not initially been made aware – through signs or mailings – of requests for zoning changes made by two housing projects in Baldwin Place.
One of the developers, North Edge Realty, is proposing to build 70 units on about 15 acres of land near the intersection of Routes 6 and Mahopac Avenue.
In order to do that, it needed the site’s zoning to be changed from R-40 (single-family residential) and R-80 (single-family residential) to MRF-BP (Multifamily Residence – Baldwin Place).
The second project, Trailside Estates, calls for 76 market-rate townhouses and five affordable units on 56.8 acres – also off Route 6. A recreation center and dog park are also planned.
Trailside got its zoning changed from R-40 (single-family residential) and R-80 (single-family residential) and PH (Planned Hamlet) to MRF-BP.
David Smith, the town’s planning consultant, explained during presentations before both the Town Board and the Planning Board that the public hearing and noticing process for zoning map amendments is different from the requirements for site plans and subdivisions.
For site plans and subdivisions, town code requires publication in the newspaper of record about public hearings and also the posting of signs and mailings to all owners of properties within a certain radius of the project in question. That is not currently required in zoning map amendment cases.
During the public hearing process before the Town Board on the North Edge Realty project, folks appeared to be erroneously “conflating” the two, Smith said.
Town boards, if they’ve declared themselves lead agencies for SEQRA purposes, handle the legal stuff, such as zoning changes. Planning boards are in charge of approving things like site plans and subdivisions.
Smith reassured both the Town Board and the Planning Board that each had “followed the letter of the law.”
If the new requirements are enacted, they will not affect either Trailside or North Edge because the two projects are well past that point in the process, he said.
There’s another little wrinkle that needs ironing out.
Veolia Water, the entity that operates water and sewage systems in the Heritage Hills condominium complex, is planning to upgrade a filtration facility there to deal with its PFAs contamination problems.
The plant is located on a parcel carved out of the privately owned Rhinoceros Creek Reservation, which lies over a major aquifer and provides water – via a long-standing easement – to Heritage Hills.
Recently, Veolia was required to post signs about the upcoming project. And it did, along a public accessway into the preserve.
The trouble was, nobody driving past on Route 100 could see them.
It was all totally legit but still raised the question of transparency.
So, part of the proposed changes in the public notification rules include mandating that even landlocked properties such as Veolia’s have to post signs relative to zoning changes, etc., on public roads.
In a March 27 memo to the Town Board, Smith attached for its consideration sections from both the Mount Pleasant and North Castle zoning codes addressing criteria for public notification of zoning map amendments.
These included “enhanced” posting of signs on the subject property prior to the holding of a public hearing and specifications for the mailing of notices to adjacent property owners in a way similar to the site plan and subdivision approval process.
According to Mount Pleasant’s rules, for instance, signs need to be posted at intervals of not more than 200 feet along the frontage of the property for a period of at least 10 days before any public hearing.
A “minimum” of two signs must be posted and remain in place until the day after the hearing is closed and can’t be removed until more than a week after the final vote of the applicable board, according to that town’s code.
The cost of posting signs and notifying nearby property owners by mail have to be paid by the applicant, Smith said.
If final action is not taken upon an application on the date shown on the sign, the sign must be updated to show the next date, time, and place when the application will appear on the agenda, according to Mount Pleasant’s rules.
There are also rules for the color, material, size, and content of signs and for sending written notices by certified mail to relevant property owners.
Councilman Anthony Cirieco asked if the Town Board had any “discretion” when it came to requiring noticing for zoning map amendments.
Yes, there was, responded Smith, explaining that if the Town Board is considering an amendment “on its own motion” or upon the recommendation of the Planning Board, AND “the proposed action is in accord with the town’s adopted comprehensive plan,” the Town Board itself can “determine whether additional notice is necessary.”
“It’s your call,” he told town officials.
In the end everyone seemed to agree, as Councilman Richard Clinchy put it, “more information is always better," and that anything that encourages public participation in the zoning process is a good thing.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here