|
Comprehensive Plan
Background
After the board adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 2006,
several property owners sued the town on the grounds that it had not properly
followed SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act). The property owners
won their case and the town as advised by an outside law firm that it did not
have a case for appeal.
Which means the portions of the Plan has to be
redone in order to comply with SEQRA.
12/18/2007
The board approved request from planning department for $120,000 to do
new environmental study on comprehensive plan as a result of the lawsuit.
(Note: the amount of the request was only stated in response to a question
from Susan Siegel. When Siegel asked the board if the town would not have had
to approve the $120,000 had the proper procedures been followed initially, Campisi said: “We felt we were doing things
correctly."
October 14, 2008, work session
Planning Director John Tegeder advised the board
that the revised comprehensive plan should be ready for publication and a
public hearing in November. He is currently putting the finishing touches to
his comments. The revised plan is being written by an outside planning
consultant. In general, the board expressed impatience at the delay in
finalizing the plan. Councilman Metz said that the final plan had to happen
by the end of the year.
December 9, 2008, work session
Planning Director John Tegeder told the board that
he would have copies of the Supplement to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan after
the first of the year. Prior to the consultant putting the final touches to
the report, he asked the board if it wanted the report to include a
discussion of alternative zoning for the Wilkens
and Wallach properties. The acreage of both property owners was upzoned in the previous plan as part of the overall goal
of reducing density, and both property owners successfully sued the town on
procedural grounds when the town passed approved the Comprehensive Plan in
2006.
Mr. Tegeder said that studying an alternative
zoning approach (that upzoned
only portions of each property owners' land, instead of all of it),
would not commit the board to accepting that option; it would just show, for
the record, that the town considered it. After some discussion, the board
gave Mr. Tegeder the green light to include the
additional alternative in the report as long as it didn't delay getting the
final report. The merits of the alternative proposal will be discussed at the
public hearing that the board hopes will be held in January.
The supplementary report was originally scheduled to be completed in August
but was delayed.
March 24, 2009, work session
Planning Director John Tegeder gave the board
copies of the draft SGEIS (Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact
Statement). He said the document was confidential as it included attorney's
comments related to the earlier litigation. After the board has reviewed the
document and if it feels it is complete, then the document, minus the special
comments, can be published and a public hearing scheduled, probably for May.
He anticipates that there can be a discussion on the document at the board's
April 14th work session, although the discussion may be part closed and part
open.
Town Clerk Alice
Roker advised the board that they could email their comments prior to the
April 14th meeting.
March 24, 2009, work session
Chamber of Commerce comments on Comprehensive Plan
Aaron Bock, chairman of the Chamber of Commerce and eight other Chamber
members presented the board with a statement that summarized the group's
concerns regarding the town's comprehensive plan. The statement incorporated
many of the comments the Chamber had made during the 2005 public hearings and
it highlighted the group's major concerns regarding the town's business
community.
a. Hotel. Pointing out that the lack of any good meeting space for
conferences and seminars, the group supports zoning that would permit a
hi-end conference center, either on Route 6 at Barger St or along Route 202
in the vicinity of the Bear Mountain Parkway triangle. It was pointed out that a recent
Chamber Expo event had to be held in Mt.
Kisco
because there was no facility large enough in Yorktown.
Mr. Bock expressed concern that the proposed zoning would only allow for a
smaller “country inn” type facility. In response, Planning
Director John Tegeder said that the proposed new
zoning could accommodate the larger type facility the Chamber supported.
Councilman Metz agreed that the town could use such a facility but said that
the town had been told by the owner of the Barger St site that the town could
not support such a facility. A Chamber member said that the group had been
unable to contact the site's owner. Councilman Bianco
pointed out that the Route 6 site was 80% wetlands.
b. Affordable housing. The group said that the town needed to do more
to provide affordable rental housing for the employees of Chamber members who
cannot afford to live in town as well as young people who grew up in town but
can't afford to live here as young adults. This type of housing, the group
explained was vital for the economic long term health of the town.
c. Mohegan Business District. The
group supports a more pedestrian friendly environment in this area and
supports measures to reduce traffic problems.
Summarizing the statement, Mr. Bock urged the board not be to
motivated by short term interests when it reconsidered the comprehensive
plan.
April 21, 2009
Based on the tentative board agenda that had been circulated online, a
resident asked about the status of the comprehensive plan. In response, it
was explained that the item had been removed from the agenda at the last
minute because the board still had to review some issues and that there was
“one more hoop” to go through. It will be on the agenda for next
week's work session. (During the pre-session meeting, Town Clerk Alice Roker
indicated that the public hearing on the plan would likely be scheduled for
June 2nd.)
May 5, 2009
Hotel/Route 6
Mr. Bianco addressed a recent call from the Yorktown Chamber
of Commerce for a hotel/convention center in Yorktown
and the Chamber's opinion that the Town Board is unreceptive to the
idea. Mr. Bianco cited a feasibility study
done when an applicant was considering reviving the Yorktown Motor Court on
Route 202 at the Taconic State
Parkway. The study was not a public
document and was not part of an official review process. The study, carried
out by potential lenders for the project, concluded that the area could not
provide the occupancy rate necessary to sustain a hotel/convention
center. Mr. Bianco arranged for Mr. Visconti,
a member of the board of directors of the Chamber of Commerce, to have access
to this study, and according to Mr. Bianco, Mr.
Visconti then realized that economics, not
Town Board resistance, preclude Yorktown having this type of facility.
During the Courtesy of the Floor portion of the agenda Nick DiTomaso questioned whether Yorktown could support a
hotel/convention center complex and maintained that applicants should study
the issue and make the information available to the public. At the
second courtesy of the floor, he urged the town to get a hotel complex and if
it couldn't survive, the building should be converted to a senior citizen
center.
Also during Courtesy of the Floor, Ed Killeen, a former Planning Board
member, said that the town tried to get a hotel in the 1980's on Route 6 at Barger St., and
at that time the major hotel chains concluded Yorktown
couldn't support a hotel because it does not have a major truck route.
Supervisor Peters said the town is pro “smart business” and
Councilman Martorano said it is the town's
responsibility to provide zoning which allows a hotel in the appropriate location,
and the town has done this, but evidence shows a hotel is not feasible.
Comp Plan Update
On the request of the Planning Department the board accepted the Draft
Supplemental Generic Impact Statement as complete. A public hearing on the
plan will be scheduled.
(Note: Although not announced at the meeting, the Planning Board page on the
town's web site states that the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan will
be held on June 2nd. Also, the Supplemental Generic Impact Statement is
available online at Comp
Plan
May 26, 2009,
work session
Town Clerk Alice Roker advised the board that due to the omission of some
language in the recently advertised June 2nd public hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan, the notice has to be readvertised for June 9th when the board was already schedule to meet in a work
session.
The board will, however, open the hearing on June 2nd and a stenographer will
be present to record statements. The public will be able to provide comments
on both dates.
June 2, 2009
Planning Director John Tegeder explained that the first public notice advertising
the public hearing was a “false start” because it did not include
notice that there would be simultaneous hearings for the 2009 Comprehensive
Plan as well as the SDGEIS. He said the error was made by the Planning
Department. When the hearing was re-advertised for June 9th, notices were
sent to the approximately 1,000 affected property owners.
However, for the convenience of those attending the meeting, the hearing was
convened and testimony taken. When the “official” hearing is
opened on June 9th, any comments made this evening will be read into the
record.
Geri Schwalb and Ray Arnold asked why the hearing
notice (for both the June 2nd and June 9th hearings) said that they were
“reconvening” the hearing. They pointed out that the hearings
held in 2005 had been closed prior to the board's taking action on zoning
changes. In response Mr. Tegeder said that the new
hearings were not a “reconvening” and that he wasn't aware that
that language had been used in the public notice.
Mr. Arnold also asked why the board was considering zoning changes pursuant
to the 2009 comprehensive plan even before the plan was officially adopted.
It's “all scrambled up,” he said. In response, Mr. Tegeder said that this was the same procedure the board
had followed in 2005, that the town's lawyers said
it could be done this way, and that it was done this way across the country.
Howard Frank suggested that a map showing the zoning changes be available on
the wall during the public hearing.
Ed Ciffone asked about the cost of plan and whether
the board thought the plan was a good idea.
The hearing was closed and a new hearing will be opened on June 9th.
June 9, 2009
Public Hearing on the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, Draft SEIS, and associated
zoning amendments.
Supervisor Peters read a lengthy introduction giving background information
on the adoption of the Plan in 2005, the subsequent lawsuit and the court
ruling that stated that the town had not followed the SEQR law and had to
prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). He then
explained the process the town would be following in the coming weeks: After
tonight's hearing on the draft SEIS, the hearing would be adjourned and
reopened at an unspecified future date. After that future hearing was held
and closed, the town would review the written comments for a specified period
of time. The town would then prepare and circulate a final
SEIS that would reflect the comments made during the public hearing process.
It would be up to the town board to decide if a public hearing should be held
on the final SEIS. After adopting the final SEIS, the board would then vote
to adopt the 2009 Comprehensive Plan.
The hearings this evening were on the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, the draft SEIS
and the associated zoning amendments that would implement the changes
contained in the Plan.
Copies of the above documents are available online at the town's web site, www.yorktownny.org.
Copies can also be reviewed at the John C. Hart Library, the town clerk's
office and the Planning Department which is located in the YCCC.
The hearing attracted a large standing room crowd, and additional chairs were
set up in the entrance lobby of town hall where a TV monitor was on the wall.
Public comments during the hearing were limited to 5 minutes, but after every
person who wanted to speak had had an opportunity to address the board, the
public was given a second and third opportunity to speak. The board did not
offer a response to any of the comments. The only comment from town staff
dealt with the Winery at St. George and is noted below.
What follows is a summary of the major themes addressed by the speakers. To
the extent possible, comments dealing with the same general issue are grouped
together.
Overall, while some speakers had some positive comments to make about
specifics of the plan, for the most part, the comments were in opposition to
different sections of the plan.
Changes in commercial zones
Several speakers whose property is currently zoned commercial, objected to
proposed changes to a different commercial classification which they felt
would lower the value of their property and/or limit its use/or rentability. The owner of the former Mohegan Electric
Company site on Route 6 and Lakeland
Ave. said that his property was proposed to be
rezoned for office use, but that he hadn't been able to attract any clients
for such as use.
A chiropractor on the northern end of Route 132 approaching the Shrub Oak hamlet, objected to the proposed rezoning of his property
from commercial to residential arguing that the rezoning did not make any
sense. He asked the board to explain what rationale the town had used to come
up with the rezoning. He said that when he spoke to the town planner, the
planner had said that the line separating commercial from residential was
“subjective.”
The owner of a store in Underhill
Plaza (the stores are
owned as co-ops) questioned whether the proposed change of zone for the
shopping center site would lead to any tax increase for the owners. He also
asked why the town has ignored fixing the sidewalks along the section of Commerce St in
front of the shops while it has replaced the sidewalks along other parts of Commerce St three
times.
John Kincart, a property owner and professional
real estate appraiser and broker suggested that the town have a commercial
overlay zone along Route 202 that would permit professional office use in the
residential properties by permit on a case by case basis. He explained that
when the property is only zoned commercial, potential buyers can't get
business loans to make the necessary changes in the property.
(See also “non conforming uses” below)
Bear Mountain Triangle
Attorney Al Capellini, representing the owners
of the former Yorktown Motel site, said that the plan should have a clearly
defined zone so that potential developers would know how and what to plan for
the site. If the zoning is not there, he said, it makes it difficult for a
developer to know what can be done with the site. The proposed zone, he
added, creastes problems and puts a potential
developer “behind the 8 ball.”
Zoning changes that create non conforming uses
A residential property owner on Old
Crompond Rd was
concerned that the rezoning of her property from ½ acre to one acre
would make her lot non conforming and would create a
burden on her. She suggested that the zone only be changed if and why the
property changed hands.
Aaron Bock, speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce made a similar
comment about some of the commercial zone changes which he said would zone
some businesses out of existence because they wouldn't be able to grow or
expand at their current location.
Upzoning
“Hill” property between Lee and Hill
Boulevards. The granddaughter of Ted Hill, a former supervisor of Yorktown, and her attorney both spoke in opposition to
the proposed rezoning of this site from half acre to one acre. The property
owner was one of the three litigants who successfully challenged the adoption
of the 2005 Plan. They both pointed out that the parcel was surrounded on
three sides by commercial uses and rezoning it to one acre residential made
no sense. They stated that multi family development for the site, which was
included in the 2004 draft of the Plan was more
suitable and would help strengthen the Jefferson Valley
business area. They also questioned several statements in the proposed new
Plan which they said made little sense, including one which called for the
preservation of the farm-like quality of the site, or which didn't adequately
address issues that had been raised in the court case. Stating that the
current plan would not be sustainable in court, he asked the board not to
waste another four years in litigation.
The owner of 12 acre site that is proposed to be rezoned from 1 acre to 4
acre said that there was no way that he could sell his property with a 4 acre
zoning and asked the board how it could help him. Another property owner
whose 24 acre parcel is slated to be upzoned from
half acre to one acre called the rezoning a “taking.” He pointed
out that the large lot zoning actually created more environmental damage
because it required more road frontage and was likely will result in a larger
amount of impervious coverage which would increase stormwater
runoff. Ken Belfer of the Community Housing Board
called the upzoning “counterintuitive”
and said that by reducing density (one of the stated goals of the Plan) would
actually reduce the diversity of housing. Instead, he said, the town should
follow a “smart growth” model.
Another speaker noted the upzoning increased the
cost of housing and exacerbated the affordable housing issue. She also
thought that some parts of the Plan were anti stimulus and “mind
boggling.”
Barbara Wilkens of Wilkens
Farm (one of the 2006 litigants) said that the proposed 2009 Comp Plan
changes for her property made no sense given the one acre lots of the
adjacent property owners. She said that her family still planned to continue
operating a farm on the property but that she did not want to see options for
her decendents “zoned out.” The Plan
would rezone her property to 4 acre zoning; currently it's a mix of half acre
and one acre.
Attorney Larry Praga representing the Wallach
family which owns 150 acres south of Jacob Rd (the family was one of the
2006 litigants) again questioned the proposed upzoning
of the site to R1-60. He noted that when the town tried to upzone the property to R1-60, the owner was successful in
challenging the upzoning in court. He said that the
zoning dispute over the property, dating back to the early 190s had probably
cost the town half a million dollars in planning and other associated fees.
He added that the property owner was close to a settlement that would have
altered the proposed rezoning but that the case was decided before the
settlement could be completed. Mark Wallach said that the town needed a
master plan for the 21st century and asked the board to work
together with his family to revise and correct the plan.
Procedural Issues
Ray Arnold, the town's former planning director raised a series of
procedural problems and issues, including whether the Planning Board had been
asked to comment on the 2009 Plan, how the 2009 Plan different from the 2005
Plan, and whether the public hearing had been properly noticed. He also said
that the 2009 Plan never analyzed how the 2009 Plan differed from the earlier
1982 Plan. He also called attention to the fact that there was no current
zoning map of the town.
Winery at St. George.
Several people spoke up in support of the winery and two people spoke against
it citing traffic, parking and wetlands issues. It was noted the early draft
the Plan in 2003-2004 proposed rezoning the property from residential to commercial.
When the plan was adopted in 2005, however, the zoning was kept residential.
One speaker said he hoped that both the town and the property owner could
“rise above” their differenaces and do
something that would benefit the town.
The Chamber of Commerce supported the rezoning of the winery site to
commercial use, noting that the Plan called for the adaptive reuse of the
building – but that such reuse was meaningless without rezoning. He
called upon the board for leadership and vision to get beyond the current
dispute.
After the first speaker addressed the winery issue, Town Attorney John
Buckley, reminded the public that the hearing was about the Comprehensive
Plan and not the operation of any specific business use of the building. He
noted that the current owner had not filed any applications for the
commercial use of the property.
Housing
Several speakers, including several from the town's Community Housing
Board and Aaron Bock, speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in
support of the need for greater diversity of housing, both in type of housing
and price for different population groups. In general they supported the
concept of having apartments over stores, a concept that was included for all
hamlet areas in the draft plan but restricted only to the Yorktown Heights
hamlet in the 2005 version. They also supported a multi family use for the
“Hill” property between Lee and Hill Boulevards that is proposed
to be upzoned from half acre residential to one
acre residential.
A member of the board of Freedom
Gardens, a housing
complex for disabled people in Mohegan that has been in existence for over 40
years pointed out that there has never been a problem with the housing or
problems with adjoining neighbors.
Ken Belfer, chairman of the Community Housing Board
called the statement in the 2009 Plan that the Plan would likely result in
286 affordable housing units misleading. The actual number, he said, would be
a fraction of that number. He pointed out that the 10% affordable housing set
aside in the town's regulations used by the planner only applied to
subdivision with 10 or more units and that most of the new subdivisions are
smaller.
Hotel/Conference Center
Aaron Bock, speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, asked that the
Plan include an appropriate zone and overlay that would attract a
hotel/retail combination. He said that the combination of the two uses was
needed in order to make a future project economically attractive. The current
zone, he noted, did not permit for dual use.
June 16, 2009
Advertise Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan
Supervisor Don Peters said that in light of the extraordinary interest in the
Comprehensive Plan at the June 9th meeting, the town would hold a second
hearing on July 7th. That meeting will be at the lakeside at Osceola Beach. After the hearing, written comments will be
accepted until July 21, 2009.
July 7, 2009
The board reconvened the public hearings on the SDGEIS, the 2009
Comprehensive Plan and the related zoning changes.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the board closed the hearing but will
receive written comments through July 23rd. It will be up to the town board
to decide if a public hearing should be held on the final SEIS. After adopting
the final SEIS, the board would then vote to adopt the 2009 Comprehensive
Plan..
After reviewing all the comments, the board will prepare a Final SGEIS.
Many of the comments repeated or expanded on comments made at the June 9th
public hearing.
Ray Arnold said that the Plan was contrary to the wishes of the community,
that there was no support for it in the community, that
it would hurt moderate income households, and that if adopted it would lead
to inevitable litigation. He asked the board to form a new committee and
begin the process over again. He added that the plan and related zoning
amendments would rezone 1,610 parcels, more than 10% of the parcels in town,
and that the board was mistaken if it didn't think that the rezonings were going to hurt property owners. He also
said that the board was not differentiating between the Comprehensive Plan
– which was a plan – and the Zoning Ordinance which was a law and
that the board was “putting the cart before the horse.”
A realtor from Yonkers
representing several Mohegan area property owners echoed Mr. Arnold's
comments adding that upzoning properties did not
make sense in the current economic climate. She added that her clients were
opposed to the Plan's proposed Mohegan bypass and would fight it. She also
questioned the wisdom of sidewalks in the area and felt that four traffic
lanes, plus a turning lane would be a better solution for traffic in the
area.
Lawrence Praga, the attorney representing the
Wallach family, owners of 150 acres south of Jacob Road again questioned to upzoning for the Wallach parcel to mostly 4 acre zoning.
He said that his client and the town were close to a compromise settlement
before the judge ruled on their lawsuit in 2006 but that the current Plan
would revert to the original zone change that precipitated the lawsuit.
He added that the SDGEIS was deficient in several areas and did not comply in
any substantive way with the judge's order. Adding that that the SGEIS did
not explain why the town board overruled the suggestions of its own planners,
he said that the Plan was based on political considerations rather than
environmental ones.
Mark Wallach asked the board to take a “hard look” at the current
economic situation which was very different from conditions in the 1990s. He
asked the board to consider the long term needs of the town and more
effectively address the needs of those who would be adversely impacted by the
proposed Plan.
Linda Clemenza said she had been overwhelmed with
calls from property owners over the past two weeks who could not afford to
have an attorney represent them at the hearing. Seeing potential lawsuits
ahead, she asked the board to protect residents from losing a portion of
their investment.
Adam Wekstein, an attorney representing the Hill property
on Route 6 between Lee and Hill Boulevards repeated his earlier comments
about the inappropriateness of the proposed one acre zoning for his client's
site. He called the upzoning inconsistent with the
Plan's own vision and inappropriate from a land use perspective. He also
noted that the 1997 data on retail sales used to justify the Plan's findings
was outdated and that more and newer empirical data was needed, that the
SDGEIS did not include an analysis of suburban sprawl, and that there was no discussion
of the impacts of the different proposed zoning changes. He also said that
the Plan did not adequately address the differences between housing
“diversity” and housing “affordability.”
Additional property owners spoke about how the proposed zoning changes would
negatively impact their investments and their future.
Joe Adrian, whose property fronting on Route 202, told the board that the
plan to upzone his property from C3 to C2 , but
leave a small parcel still C3, amounted to spot zoning. The change for his
property does not include his current use.
Tony Grasso cited a recent article that had appeared in the Journal News
indicating that commercial properties were paying 9% less in taxes than they
had paid 11 years ago while over the same period of time residential property
taxes had more than doubled.
At the close
of the hearing, Councilman Matt Metz said that the board would carefully
evaluate all the comments that had been made, including the current economic
situation.
October 6,
2009 During Courtesy of the Floor, Ray Arnold advised the board that he
hadn't gotten a response from the board to his request to discuss general
concepts associated with the Comprehensive Plan at a work session. He wanted
to know if he “had a shot” at getting such a meeting.
November 10,
2009, work session
Planning Director John Tegeder walked board members through a loose leaf binder that
contained documents relating to specific parcels where the owners had
objected to the proposed zoning change incorporated into the plan. He briefly
described the reason for the proposing rezoning and answered a few questions
from board members but for the most part there was no discussion as to the
pros or cons of the proposed change. In general Mr. Tegeder
advised the board that the documents hightlighted
issues for them to look at and that in general, “you all know the
issues.”
Several of the parcels involved upzoning from
½ acre to one acre.
RE the Berardis parcel on Route 132 proposed to be
rezoned from commercial to residential, the board did seem inclined to retain
the existing commercial zoning.
Commenting on the rezoning for the “Bear Mountain Triangle”
parcel, Councilman Nick Bianco said that it wasn't
suited for the type of hotel that the Chamber of Commerce was trying to
attract into Yorktown.
A second section of the binder contained documents relating to comments made
at the two public hearings. There were no comments regarding this section of
the book.
The contents of the binder was not made available to
the public which was not invited to participate in the discussion.
No indication was given as to when the next meeting on the Plan would be
scheduled.
November 17, 2009
Supervisor Peters and Councilmen Jim Martorano and Matt Metz indicated that they did not want to proceed with the
Comp Plan and preferred to have the new board take it over.
Councilmen Nick Bianco and Lou Campisi
pronounced the plan dead and in opposinig the
decision, stated that the current board did not have the will power to
complete the plan.
Councilman Metz said that the plan was not dead but would be dealt with by
the next board. He felt that the tentative 45 day schedule to adopt the plan
by the end of 2009 was too tight; that it would be more respectful to give
the three new people coming on to the board an opportunity to tweak the plan;
that the board couldn't ignore the fact that the world today is different
from 2002-2003 when the outlines of the current plan were developed and that
the board has heard the pain from the from the community; and that the new
board has too consider the cost implications of the thousands of dollars
spent on legal fees. He said the vast majority of the plan was good and
suggested that possibly the rezonings be handled in
smaller chunks in order to get better feedback.
Councilman Campisi said he respected Mr. Metz's
opinion but felt that the board had a fiduciary responsibility to the town.
He thought that the new board would have to start at zero.
Supervisor Peters agreed with Mr. Metz and said he didn't want to rush
through the plan; he saw the need for more than 45 days to complete the plan.
Councilman Martorano noted that things changed
since the comp plan had been adopted and that people were hurting. He felt
confident that he would work with the new board members.
During the final courtesy of the floor, Ray Arnold reminded the board that in
2005 when they adopted the plan and the associated zoning changes, the zoning
changes were placed online. However, when the town lost the lawsuit and the
zoning changes were thrown out, the “new” zoning changes were
never removed from the online zoning code; the only “official”
code is the book that's in the clerk's office.
Tony Grasso said he supported the position of Councilmen Bianco
and Campisi and felt that the town had been done an
injustice by postponing action on the plan. He cited the learning curve for
the new board members, some of whom he said do not understand the issues.
January
5, 2010
The Town Board expects
to schedule a public hearing at the next Town Board meeting, with a target
for adoption of the plan in April or May.
January
19, 2010
Tentative timetable for adoption was announced.
Overview
1.
Town Board will separate the Comprehensive Plan from zoning changes
2.
Plan will be completed without any additional studies
3.
Goal is to adopt Plan by May 11th
4.
Remaining steps
a)
Formally adopt FSGEIS as complete
b)
Hold public hearing on FSGEIS
c)
Hold public hearing on SEQRA findings
d)
Adopt Plan
Specific steps leading to adoption
Jan 1
New Town Board members given copy of preliminary FSGEIS to review
Jan 12
Town Board reviews threatened litigation associated with draft
Comprehensive Plan.
Jan 13-Jan 19 Town Board provides input to
staff, planners and attorneys regarding changes in the Comprehensive Plan
Feb 2
Town Board reviews draft of revised Comprehensive Plan
Feb 16
Town Board reviews preliminary FSGEIS that incorporates proposed
revisions to the Comprehensive Plan
Feb 23
Town Board accepts preliminary FSGEIS as complete and sets public
hearing for Mar 2 on preliminary
FSGEIS
Copies
of preliminary FSGEIS made available to public and online
30 day public comment period begins
Mar 2
Public hearing on preliminary FSGEIS.
Close hearing and leave comment period open for 10 days for submission
of written comments until Mar 26
Mar 3-Apr 5 Staff, lawyers and
planners draft SEQRA Findings Statement
Apr 6
Town Board receives draft SEQRA Findings Statement
Apr 7-19
Staff, lawyers and planners make changes in draft SEQRA Findings
Statement
Apr 27
Revised draft SEQRA Findings Statement made available to public
May 4
Town Board holds public hearing on the revised draft SEQRA Findings
Statement
May 11
Town Board adopts final SEQRA Findings Statement
Town Board adopts Comprehensive Plan
May-July
Staff reviews zoning changes associated with newly-adopted
Comprehensive Plan
|