Rotterdam Town Board debates repealing Critical Impact Permits
The proposed 248-unit apartment complex off North Thompson Street in Rotterdam might see an expedited approval process if the Town Board decides to repeal a town code article.
During their meeting on Wednesday, July 13, board members discussed two public hearings, scheduled for the Aug. 10 meeting, regarding the proposed apartment complex and commercial strip by property owners William Larned and Sons, Inc. and Maria Esposito. Last summer, the board approved the initial zoning change for the project, which included 71.8 acres of land zoned for heavy industrial and general business to planned residential development and general business. The first public hearing is to create a new sewer district comprised solely of the property, but the second public hearing is to repeal Article XXVIII of the town code titled Critical Impact Uses and Critical Impact Permits.
The law, passed in 2006, gives the Town Board final say over proposed development projects that include buildings of at least 100,000 square feet and residential developments of at least 75 buildings.
Andrew Brick, attorney representing the property owners, said the permit application process adds another layer of paperwork and approval to the process. Deputy Supervisor Robert Godlewski was hesitant of a hasty repeal of the town code and urged board members to seek a recommendation from the town Planning Commission before making a decision.
`I will move this resolution forward but only if it calls to ask the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to this body. That has been the practice, it is in Town Code I don’t want anybody to think that I am in favor of this critical impact stuff that is in the town code.`
Godlewski formerly served on the Planning Commission when the code passed five years ago and he said he didn’t agree with the change since it took away the power of the Planning Commission. The Town Board was granted authority of approval of the permit.
`I find no need at this time to expedite getting rid of this and going outside the normal process. It is not going to hold up any project,` said Godlewski. `It makes no sense to call for a public hearing if the public has nothing to see or review.`
Letting the public have information to understand what it is being proposed is important, said Godlewski, and wanted to call for the public hearing at the Aug. 10 meeting and not at the current July 13 meeting. He only wanted to ask for the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Brick said he met with Supervisor Frank Del Gallo and other town officials on Monday, July 11, regarding the proposed sewer district.
`The discussion became the fact that it has never been utilized, people didn’t even know it was there. It never came up during the Planning Commission process. It kind of got completely overlooked,` said Brick.
According to Brick, head of the Public Works Department Michael Griesemer eventually asked why the permit is even in the town code and suggested getting rid of it. Without the public hearing called for at the July 13 meeting the project would be delayed by a month, said Brick.
Del Gallo said the permit could be deterrence for large projects or companies to develop in the town.
`Contractors of any kind, any big company, come into the area and want to build `they spend a ton of money on this whole project to get passed through the Planning Commission and then come to the (Town Board) and get shot down,` said Del Gallo.
Brick echoed Del Gallo’s sentiment and said companies spend thousands of dollars for their site plan approval and then in certain projects have to come to the Town Board for additional approval.
`There is absolutely no standard or requirements or thresholds in this it is completely up to the discretion of the Town Board,` said Brick. `I can guarantee you that developers out there when they are looking to locate somewhere, when they find this in your town code people are telling them, ‘Don’t go near that town.’`
Del Gallo said Planning Commission Chairman Tom Yuille supported the abolishment of the code. Councilman Wayne Calder confirmed Yuille said the code undermines their expertise and ability to review projects successfully.
Godlewski insisted again the resolution at least include the commission’s recommendation. Also, he noted the permit isn’t required until a company starts to build and he said there hasn’t been any permits field for such activity.
`I can’t believe that 30 days’ difference is going to make a difference,` said Godlewski.
DiLeva said in the first paragraph of the packet board members had regarding the public hearing, it stated a recommendation from the Planning Commission would be obtained.
Councilman Matthew Martin was absent from meeting and the board voted to amend the resolution 3-1 and then passed the resolution 3-1. The board amended the resolution to explicitly state the hearing hinged on the commission’s recommendation being received beforehand by the board. Godlewski was the opposing vote in both instances.“