HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1989-11-14;F
J
e�
Special Meeting
PRESENT:
Mayor Gutenberger
Alderpersons (9) -
1
COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
8:00 A.M.
Common Council
November 14, 1989
November 14, 1989
Cummings, Hoffman, Killeen, Peterson,
Lytel, Romanowski, Schlather, Nichols, Booth
ABSENT:
Alderperson Johnson (excused)
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk - Paolangeli
City Attorney - Nash
Deputy Planning and Development Director - Mazzarella
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Gutenberger led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the American flag.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Planning and Development Committee - Industrial Zone
Amendment /Negative Declaration Resolution
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
WHEREAS, the matter of amending the regulations pertaining to the
I -1 Zoning District is currently being considered by this
Common Council, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted,
including the preparation of a Short Environmental
(Woo� Assessment Form (SEAF), and
WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action is an "unlisted"
action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQR), including the Part 617 regulations thereunder, and
may be a Type I action under the City Environmental Quality
Review Act (EQR Section 36.5 (B) (5)), and
WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the environment within the City of
Ithaca; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this
matter, be and it hereby does adopt as its own the findings
and conclusions as set forth on the Short Environmental
Assessment Form dated September 28, 1989, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency be and it
hereby does determine that the proposed action will not have
a significant effect on the environment within the City of
Ithaca, and that further environmental review is unnecessary
under the circumstances, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution shall constitute notice of this
(400'el negative declaration and the City Clerk be and she is hereby
directed to file a copy of the same, together with the
attachment, in the City Clerk's office and forward the same
to any other parties as required by law.
Alderperson Cummings expressed her thanks to the Conservation
Advisory Council for reviewing this document, on request by
Common Council on such short notice. The following document
prepared by the CAC was entered into the record:
231
2
Common Council
November 14, 1989
CAC REVIEW OF EAF AND LEAF
FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING (SECTIONS 30.25 AND 30.26
OF CHAPTER 30 ENTITLED 'ZONING' OF THE
CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE
I. Comments on the proposed ordinance:
1. The proposed
amendments will put the Board
of Zoning
Appeals and
the Common Council in the process
of
"permitting " .......
they may, in the future,
approve a
project of
"significant harmful impact ",
possibly
without the requirement
of an EAF or EIS.
2. Is there a need to "grandfather" existing operations
within the zoning areas affected?
3. The proposed amendments appear to be "friendly" to the
environment.
II. Comments on the EAF and LEAF
1. The forms used do not seem to be appropriate for a
review of this kind.... zoning changes.
2. There are some inconsistencies between the LEAF, Part I
and LEAF, Part 2, For example, in the Part I -B -2 there
is a comment that "large amounts of (soil) material may
be removed or added (in the future), while in the Part
2 -1, "NO" is checked in response to the question of
physical change to the project site. "NO" was also
checked in the same question on the SEAF.
3. On Part 2 of the LEAF, "SMALL TO MODERATE IMPACT" was
checked by the preparer for Items 4,5,6, and 7 and
comments were made as to "benefits possibly to be
derived ". While we agree with this, we felt the form
is designed to be used to identify negative impacts.
4. In the LEAF, Part 2, Items 18 and 19 were checked "NO ".
Item 18, section 5 questions whether the "project will
set an important precedent for future projects" and
Item 19 questions whether there is "public controversy"
concerning the project. We felt that both items should
have been checked "YES" and if this is done, then it
appears as if an LEAF, Part 3 is in order.
Respectfully: Roger Farrell
Judy Jones
John Wertis
Discussion
comments.
followed on
the review process and on the CAC
Alderperson Peterson questioned how comments were handled and
referred to comment 4 on the CAC report.
Deputy Planner Mazzarella responded that when they receive
comments from the CAC they do not always make changes as the
review is already complete. He further stated that it is up to
Council to decide whether to make those changes or not.
Alderperson Cummings stated that the Planning staff was involved
in reading and evaluating the review itself. Her personal
response to 4 of the CAC review was that the public controversy
concerning the project was one of those confusions between the
generic and the specific. The public controversy is the CPF
0
i i�lr
01
rather than the zoning change.
Common Council
November 14, 1989
Alderperson Killeen stated for the record that Council should
answer question #2• "Is there a need to 'grandfather' existing
operations within the zoning areas affected ?"
Alderperson Cummings stated that existing operations are always
grandfathered. She further stated that it would be a good idea,
(4wel given the strong importance of this, to have the answers to these
questions included in a follow -up sheet and filed for the
record.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Amendment to Zoning Ordinance
4, Resolution
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 30.25 AND 30.26
OF CHAPTER 30 ENTITLED "ZONING" OF THE
CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca, New York, as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDING SECTION 30.25 OF CHAPTER 30.
1. That Column 2, Permitted Primary Uses, is hereby amended to
(moo", read as follows under the "I -1" use district:
1. Any use permitted in B -5 district, except that
dwelling units are prohibited.
2. Industrial, warehousing, storage and handling of bulk
goods (not including rubbish as defined in Chapter 69,
Section 69.1 N), lumberyards, and agriculture except
that no animals may be kept within 50 ft. of any
property line.
3. Any use not permitted in any other zoning
district, subject to the issuance of a special
permit of the Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance
with Section 30.26 and concurrence by the Common
Council.
4. All uses must conform to special performance
standards governing establishment of
industrial uses (See Section 30.41).
SECTION 2. AMENDING SECTION 30.26(C) OF CHAPTER 30.
1. That Section 30.26(C)(1) is hereby amended to add the
following:
p. Any use not permitted as of right in the I -1 zoning
district.
SECTION 3. AMENDING SECTION 30.26(C) OF CHAPTER 30.
1. That Section 30.26(C) is hereby amended to add Subsection 5
as follows:
r � S1 1
-4-
5. In the I -1 zone, uses other than those permitted under
Section 30.25 may be permitted by special permit upon a finding
by the Board of Zoning Appeals and concurrence by the Common
Council that such use shall have no negative impact by reason of
noise, fumes, odors, vibration, noxious or toxic release, or
other conditions injurious to the health or general welfare.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance
with law upon publication of a notice as provided in Section
3.11(B) of the Ithaca City Charter.
Alderperson Cummings stated for the record that it is the
understanding of the Planning and Development Committee that this
zoning change was a clarification, a making more explicit of what
we believed to be the intent, the implicit content of the
ordinance. She further stated that P & D wanted to make very
clear that rubbish was a use which was not an automatic permitted
use but rather a use which would be rubbish handling or storage
as something which would have to comply with special
performance standards. The intent of this ordinance is to make
the application of the special performance standards clearly
necessary in the case of rubbish and indeed to make the
application of the special performance standard something which
is carefully and cautiously done subject to the scrutiny of the
Board of Zoning Appeals and Common Council, as well of course, as
any City type 1 action subject to environmental review.
Mayor Gutenberger asked Alderperson Cummings to clarify for the
record the meaning of this zoning change.
Alderperson Cummings stated that the way the zoning chart works
is accumulative, this is not a permitted use in any of the
preceding sections of the zoning chart. This is the first time
in which this use is mentioned, and is mentioned as something
which is not permitted as a matter of right but only under
compliance with the special performance standards. It is not a
use that will be permitted in the other preceding zones.
Alderperson Booth stated for the record: 1) If every municipality
tried to do this we wouldn't be able to handle the garbage
anywhere and he does not think that's wise. He thinks this is a
mistake. 2) Whatever the stated intention, this is being done
with the intention of barring the County from placing a baling
station in the City, and he seriously doubts that this will have
any legal effect on the County's operations. He finds it hard to
believe that a Court in this State would not allow the County to
locate a garbage facility that serves the larger public interest.
3) If those of you who are going to vote for this, and he
assumes that it's going to pass, believe that this is going to
protect the environment, he would urge that you read what is
allowed in industrial uses. Many kinds of uses that involve the
storage of use of chemicals continue to be allowed. Simply by
making it either very difficult or impossible to locate a baling
station isn't going to protect the environment the way some of
you have claimed. 4) A number of Council members have made the
argument that the City's land is too precious to utilize for a
baling station and he thinks that doesn't hold water. There are
numerous uses of City land that do not serve the broader public
interest, they serve very narrow private interest. He stated he
was not arguing for a moment that a baling station might not have
some negative impacts, but there are many uses of City land that
would not serve broader public interest to nearly a degree that a
baling station would. Alderperson Booth further stated that
every municipality outside the City will respond to a proposal to
place a baling station there with a comment "we don't generate
the garbage, why should a baling station be located in our
community, or we generate only a very small percentage of the
D
It
-5-
garbage ". The fact of the matter is, Ithaca is far and away the
largest generator of solid waste in the County and it is
irresponsible for the City to try to turn our back on dealing
with garbage issues in this County. Finally, to make Common
Council a decision maker on a permit is simply a foolish action
and he would vote against it for that reason alone.
Mayor Gutenberger asked City Attorney Nash if State law permits
Common Council veto power over the Board of Zoning Appeals?
Attorney Nash responded that the City can establish this type of
procedure. If there were no Board of Zoning Appeals then Common
Council would act as the reviewing power for granting variances
under the zoning ordinance. If the City wanted they could set up
a two tier decision making process.
Mayor Gutenberger asked City Attorney Nash if a decision of the
BZA can be vetoed by Common Council.
City Attorney Nash responded "No, not normally. Common Council
pursuant to its ordinances has set up a Board of Zoning Appeals
to hear appeals and has set up a procedure for appeal. Normally
Common Council does not review BZA decisions."
Discussion followed on the veto power of Common Council.
Alderperson Cummings responded that in regard to the question of
having a dual system in place the Planning and Development
Committee was most careful about this. She referred to a memo
from Attorney Nash dated September 6, 1989 which concludes as
follows:
"Should the BZA attach certain conditions for issuing a special
permit Council may modify these conditions and grant approval
without referring the modifications to the BZA for their review.
She stated that there was concern regarding the working
relationship between the two and she was satisfied that it is a
legal. and working system.
Mayor Gutenberger asked if the BZA attaches conditions to their
granting of the permit, can Common Council without further action
by BZA, alter those conditions?
Alderperson Cummings answered "yes ".
Mayor Gutenberger stated he believes this is a dangerous
precedent.
Alderperson Schlather stated that he wished to respond to
Alderperson Booth's remarks. He thinks that it is incumbent upon
any municipality to protect its citizenry. The question of
disposal of waste certainly is a legitimate question. The
question of disposing of a region's waste is another question
altogether. He does not find this any more offensive than he
would a resolution that might establish Ithaca as a nuclear free
zone or decide that we are not going to allow the location of a
power generating facility in the City. There are certain
planning considerations that would preclude the establishment of
such an operation that is either so large in size or so offensive
in character that it would be contrary to the interests of its
citizens. Alderperson Schlather stated that even though,
perhaps, this ordinance was catalyzed by a problem on Commercial
Avenue he thinks its salutory affect will be known throughout the
City in all Industrial Zones to the extent that the City will in
effect be taking a, closer role in establishing controls over
uses of this property.
Alderperson Booth responded that in terms of establishing
nuclear free zones, the federal government has preempted that
area and does not allow local governments to do it. With regard
to establishing power plants the State of New York has
absolutely preempted that area and does not allow municipalities
to make those decisions.
Mayor Gutenberger stated to Common Council once again that he has
real concerns with the fact that Common Council has opened the
door to veto the action of BZA and that Common Council can take
actions without the input of the Board they established to do
what the Charter empowers them to do. The Mayor also stated that
in his opinion this was bad legislation.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (7) - Schlather, Romanowski, Lytel, Cummings, Nichols,
Killeen, Peterson
Nays (2) - Booth, Hoffman
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 8:30 a.m.
llCallista F. Paolangel3
City Clerk
Carried
i
G
h Gutenberger
ayor
FM
;F
J
e�
Special Meeting
PRESENT:
Mayor Gutenberger
Alderpersons (9) -
1
COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
8:00 A.M.
Common Council
November 14, 1989
November 14, 1989
Cummings, Hoffman, Killeen, Peterson,
Lytel, Romanowski, Schlather, Nichols, Booth
ABSENT:
Alderperson Johnson (excused)
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk - Paolangeli
City Attorney - Nash
Deputy Planning and Development Director - Mazzarella
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Gutenberger led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the American flag.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Planning and Development Committee - Industrial Zone
Amendment /Negative Declaration Resolution
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
WHEREAS, the matter of amending the regulations pertaining to the
I -1 Zoning District is currently being considered by this
Common Council, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted,
including the preparation of a Short Environmental
(Woo� Assessment Form (SEAF), and
WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action is an "unlisted"
action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQR), including the Part 617 regulations thereunder, and
may be a Type I action under the City Environmental Quality
Review Act (EQR Section 36.5 (B) (5)), and
WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the environment within the City of
Ithaca; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this
matter, be and it hereby does adopt as its own the findings
and conclusions as set forth on the Short Environmental
Assessment Form dated September 28, 1989, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency be and it
hereby does determine that the proposed action will not have
a significant effect on the environment within the City of
Ithaca, and that further environmental review is unnecessary
under the circumstances, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution shall constitute notice of this
(400'el negative declaration and the City Clerk be and she is hereby
directed to file a copy of the same, together with the
attachment, in the City Clerk's office and forward the same
to any other parties as required by law.
Alderperson Cummings expressed her thanks to the Conservation
Advisory Council for reviewing this document, on request by
Common Council on such short notice. The following document
prepared by the CAC was entered into the record:
231
2
Common Council
November 14, 1989
CAC REVIEW OF EAF AND LEAF
FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING (SECTIONS 30.25 AND 30.26
OF CHAPTER 30 ENTITLED 'ZONING' OF THE
CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE
I. Comments on the proposed ordinance:
1. The proposed
amendments will put the Board
of Zoning
Appeals and
the Common Council in the process
of
"permitting " .......
they may, in the future,
approve a
project of
"significant harmful impact ",
possibly
without the requirement
of an EAF or EIS.
2. Is there a need to "grandfather" existing operations
within the zoning areas affected?
3. The proposed amendments appear to be "friendly" to the
environment.
II. Comments on the EAF and LEAF
1. The forms used do not seem to be appropriate for a
review of this kind.... zoning changes.
2. There are some inconsistencies between the LEAF, Part I
and LEAF, Part 2, For example, in the Part I -B -2 there
is a comment that "large amounts of (soil) material may
be removed or added (in the future), while in the Part
2 -1, "NO" is checked in response to the question of
physical change to the project site. "NO" was also
checked in the same question on the SEAF.
3. On Part 2 of the LEAF, "SMALL TO MODERATE IMPACT" was
checked by the preparer for Items 4,5,6, and 7 and
comments were made as to "benefits possibly to be
derived ". While we agree with this, we felt the form
is designed to be used to identify negative impacts.
4. In the LEAF, Part 2, Items 18 and 19 were checked "NO ".
Item 18, section 5 questions whether the "project will
set an important precedent for future projects" and
Item 19 questions whether there is "public controversy"
concerning the project. We felt that both items should
have been checked "YES" and if this is done, then it
appears as if an LEAF, Part 3 is in order.
Respectfully: Roger Farrell
Judy Jones
John Wertis
Discussion
comments.
followed on
the review process and on the CAC
Alderperson Peterson questioned how comments were handled and
referred to comment 4 on the CAC report.
Deputy Planner Mazzarella responded that when they receive
comments from the CAC they do not always make changes as the
review is already complete. He further stated that it is up to
Council to decide whether to make those changes or not.
Alderperson Cummings stated that the Planning staff was involved
in reading and evaluating the review itself. Her personal
response to 4 of the CAC review was that the public controversy
concerning the project was one of those confusions between the
generic and the specific. The public controversy is the CPF
0
i i�lr
01
rather than the zoning change.
Common Council
November 14, 1989
Alderperson Killeen stated for the record that Council should
answer question #2• "Is there a need to 'grandfather' existing
operations within the zoning areas affected ?"
Alderperson Cummings stated that existing operations are always
grandfathered. She further stated that it would be a good idea,
(4wel given the strong importance of this, to have the answers to these
questions included in a follow -up sheet and filed for the
record.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Amendment to Zoning Ordinance
4, Resolution
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 30.25 AND 30.26
OF CHAPTER 30 ENTITLED "ZONING" OF THE
CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca, New York, as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDING SECTION 30.25 OF CHAPTER 30.
1. That Column 2, Permitted Primary Uses, is hereby amended to
(moo", read as follows under the "I -1" use district:
1. Any use permitted in B -5 district, except that
dwelling units are prohibited.
2. Industrial, warehousing, storage and handling of bulk
goods (not including rubbish as defined in Chapter 69,
Section 69.1 N), lumberyards, and agriculture except
that no animals may be kept within 50 ft. of any
property line.
3. Any use not permitted in any other zoning
district, subject to the issuance of a special
permit of the Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance
with Section 30.26 and concurrence by the Common
Council.
4. All uses must conform to special performance
standards governing establishment of
industrial uses (See Section 30.41).
SECTION 2. AMENDING SECTION 30.26(C) OF CHAPTER 30.
1. That Section 30.26(C)(1) is hereby amended to add the
following:
p. Any use not permitted as of right in the I -1 zoning
district.
SECTION 3. AMENDING SECTION 30.26(C) OF CHAPTER 30.
1. That Section 30.26(C) is hereby amended to add Subsection 5
as follows:
r � S1 1
-4-
5. In the I -1 zone, uses other than those permitted under
Section 30.25 may be permitted by special permit upon a finding
by the Board of Zoning Appeals and concurrence by the Common
Council that such use shall have no negative impact by reason of
noise, fumes, odors, vibration, noxious or toxic release, or
other conditions injurious to the health or general welfare.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance
with law upon publication of a notice as provided in Section
3.11(B) of the Ithaca City Charter.
Alderperson Cummings stated for the record that it is the
understanding of the Planning and Development Committee that this
zoning change was a clarification, a making more explicit of what
we believed to be the intent, the implicit content of the
ordinance. She further stated that P & D wanted to make very
clear that rubbish was a use which was not an automatic permitted
use but rather a use which would be rubbish handling or storage
as something which would have to comply with special
performance standards. The intent of this ordinance is to make
the application of the special performance standards clearly
necessary in the case of rubbish and indeed to make the
application of the special performance standard something which
is carefully and cautiously done subject to the scrutiny of the
Board of Zoning Appeals and Common Council, as well of course, as
any City type 1 action subject to environmental review.
Mayor Gutenberger asked Alderperson Cummings to clarify for the
record the meaning of this zoning change.
Alderperson Cummings stated that the way the zoning chart works
is accumulative, this is not a permitted use in any of the
preceding sections of the zoning chart. This is the first time
in which this use is mentioned, and is mentioned as something
which is not permitted as a matter of right but only under
compliance with the special performance standards. It is not a
use that will be permitted in the other preceding zones.
Alderperson Booth stated for the record: 1) If every municipality
tried to do this we wouldn't be able to handle the garbage
anywhere and he does not think that's wise. He thinks this is a
mistake. 2) Whatever the stated intention, this is being done
with the intention of barring the County from placing a baling
station in the City, and he seriously doubts that this will have
any legal effect on the County's operations. He finds it hard to
believe that a Court in this State would not allow the County to
locate a garbage facility that serves the larger public interest.
3) If those of you who are going to vote for this, and he
assumes that it's going to pass, believe that this is going to
protect the environment, he would urge that you read what is
allowed in industrial uses. Many kinds of uses that involve the
storage of use of chemicals continue to be allowed. Simply by
making it either very difficult or impossible to locate a baling
station isn't going to protect the environment the way some of
you have claimed. 4) A number of Council members have made the
argument that the City's land is too precious to utilize for a
baling station and he thinks that doesn't hold water. There are
numerous uses of City land that do not serve the broader public
interest, they serve very narrow private interest. He stated he
was not arguing for a moment that a baling station might not have
some negative impacts, but there are many uses of City land that
would not serve broader public interest to nearly a degree that a
baling station would. Alderperson Booth further stated that
every municipality outside the City will respond to a proposal to
place a baling station there with a comment "we don't generate
the garbage, why should a baling station be located in our
community, or we generate only a very small percentage of the
D
It
-5-
garbage ". The fact of the matter is, Ithaca is far and away the
largest generator of solid waste in the County and it is
irresponsible for the City to try to turn our back on dealing
with garbage issues in this County. Finally, to make Common
Council a decision maker on a permit is simply a foolish action
and he would vote against it for that reason alone.
Mayor Gutenberger asked City Attorney Nash if State law permits
Common Council veto power over the Board of Zoning Appeals?
Attorney Nash responded that the City can establish this type of
procedure. If there were no Board of Zoning Appeals then Common
Council would act as the reviewing power for granting variances
under the zoning ordinance. If the City wanted they could set up
a two tier decision making process.
Mayor Gutenberger asked City Attorney Nash if a decision of the
BZA can be vetoed by Common Council.
City Attorney Nash responded "No, not normally. Common Council
pursuant to its ordinances has set up a Board of Zoning Appeals
to hear appeals and has set up a procedure for appeal. Normally
Common Council does not review BZA decisions."
Discussion followed on the veto power of Common Council.
Alderperson Cummings responded that in regard to the question of
having a dual system in place the Planning and Development
Committee was most careful about this. She referred to a memo
from Attorney Nash dated September 6, 1989 which concludes as
follows:
"Should the BZA attach certain conditions for issuing a special
permit Council may modify these conditions and grant approval
without referring the modifications to the BZA for their review.
She stated that there was concern regarding the working
relationship between the two and she was satisfied that it is a
legal. and working system.
Mayor Gutenberger asked if the BZA attaches conditions to their
granting of the permit, can Common Council without further action
by BZA, alter those conditions?
Alderperson Cummings answered "yes ".
Mayor Gutenberger stated he believes this is a dangerous
precedent.
Alderperson Schlather stated that he wished to respond to
Alderperson Booth's remarks. He thinks that it is incumbent upon
any municipality to protect its citizenry. The question of
disposal of waste certainly is a legitimate question. The
question of disposing of a region's waste is another question
altogether. He does not find this any more offensive than he
would a resolution that might establish Ithaca as a nuclear free
zone or decide that we are not going to allow the location of a
power generating facility in the City. There are certain
planning considerations that would preclude the establishment of
such an operation that is either so large in size or so offensive
in character that it would be contrary to the interests of its
citizens. Alderperson Schlather stated that even though,
perhaps, this ordinance was catalyzed by a problem on Commercial
Avenue he thinks its salutory affect will be known throughout the
City in all Industrial Zones to the extent that the City will in
effect be taking a, closer role in establishing controls over
uses of this property.
Alderperson Booth responded that in terms of establishing
nuclear free zones, the federal government has preempted that
area and does not allow local governments to do it. With regard
to establishing power plants the State of New York has
absolutely preempted that area and does not allow municipalities
to make those decisions.
Mayor Gutenberger stated to Common Council once again that he has
real concerns with the fact that Common Council has opened the
door to veto the action of BZA and that Common Council can take
actions without the input of the Board they established to do
what the Charter empowers them to do. The Mayor also stated that
in his opinion this was bad legislation.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (7) - Schlather, Romanowski, Lytel, Cummings, Nichols,
Killeen, Peterson
Nays (2) - Booth, Hoffman
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 8:30 a.m.
llCallista F. Paolangel3
City Clerk
Carried
i
G
h Gutenberger
ayor
FM