[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6133321,"mediaKeyId","5704770-53a825b58d8ae4c85c879f80b36c9af3","parentId",5704770,"title","Council approves rezoning of former city dump site from land conservation to industrial","audioSeconds",4696,"startMs",1781000,"endMs",6477000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5704770-53a825b58d8ae4c85c879f80b36c9af3&start=1781&end=6477","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5704770-53a825b58d8ae4c85c879f80b36c9af3/thumbnail_1781000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6133321/Utica/Oneida-County/New-York/Council-approves-rezoning-of-former-city-dump-site-from-land-conservation-to-industrial","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6133321-fb0528b8bbcda094a2ae4f7f0ec77168/orig.mp4?Expires=1773684670&Signature=FOJRcUbsPLByDKDAlK~fjDPOS866zmxK95Y1leQuHp5in7Izwk0msY9xHonIgrMghSAGQ3KedNXooLEao1yw7Dw6tdAdlk8SH~kBsxxHzMbY34L6HU89hTdmIbKoAJm3lVzv7KZV4LlVDu1lfzjuEy00TC21am4gJgIGueTsjTjr~bVD-g6n8KZA8QMpwe63r9Jp2l4w1cXXFKlMwjuADbDEM6jFHlZmja5mrNisAOgnPEgTHBASqYdwXcosSXl27y9Is0cBYQPJ8aZLncarWct4KpUW2rlqZKRINUaRN6A9mZwv8dWMRPoPjW1nTIj~mHXopbxBCFFAT21PaYAgQA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Utica","date","2025-08-28T12:10:57Z","article","The Utica Common Council voted to rezone the former city dump property from land-conservation (LC) to industrial zoning. Council discussion referenced environmental review and remediation planning; a staff member reported that the Department of Environmental Conservation had responded and “didn't have any comment.”

Council members discussed whether prior industrial activities or nearby uses would make the site appropriate for industrial zoning and whether remediation requirements or Army Corps restrictions related to nearby creeks would constrain development. One council member said the project proposals near North Utica included multiple phases and that a larger project bordering North Utica was not yet fully designed.

The nut graf: The rezoning clears the way for industrial use of the former dump site but does not itself approve any specific development; project proponents will still be subject to environmental review and any remediation conditions set by state or federal agencies. The council adopted the rezoning ordinance by recorded vote.

Formal action: the ordinance amending the zoning of the former city dump from land conservation to industrial was adopted (roll-call recorded as approved). Staff noted remediation and environmental permitting remain part of future steps; one council member referenced Army Corps of Engineers oversight for downstream water-flow requirements.

Next steps: project plans, remediation work and any required permits must be completed before development proceeds.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Common Council Meeting August 27th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Common Council adopted an ordinance rezoning the former city dump from land conservation to industrial; staff noted DEC had no comment and remediation/removal work was part of project considerations.","taxTitle","Utica, Oneida County, New York","taxId",3680,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6133326,"Residents urge independent review after public comments allege retaliation by Utica Police Department",246,4984000,5230000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5704770-53a825b58d8ae4c85c879f80b36c9af3&start=4984&end=5230","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5704770-53a825b58d8ae4c85c879f80b36c9af3/thumbnail_4984000.jpg","/articles/6133326/Utica/Oneida-County/New-York/Residents-urge-independent-review-after-public-comments-allege-retaliation-by-Utica-Police-Department","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6133326-c4f57aea311e8be09d5b7d136f972862/orig.mp4?Expires=1773684670&Signature=TtT2r3OnyTCd7vS58u1LXtb6Ix4cx1IHjkqbjYHCCTo9RLkaZVfdMfdPluO2Ag0R7YWVLhRfEBi4cPy79hnKILYubYZRDRsU29zQlMx055b7vEfbxBMHKwwsWuFWXEmZP3hxMkrrwxMV8E5aLW9RXnJfGOW2PdgD85YrQaQQ1BF~9eTl1xHwm~LR8LciLkl-hp3hqLYdKYi32xDA6v9t9WkNzJKellNfe-H671vqbqrIHNZ8qDXKdDZtPgcjYsgCXXL0MHXINc8NbumtmEbM8V~eV7yLCZiZ2dwYd6RLA8ZXLp4tVbpngF5xYMExLb74Wf4f8sLxqluFDPHgv2DvOA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During the public comment period, two speakers alleged retaliation and excessive force by members of the Utica Police Department and asked the Common Council to support investigations and accountability measures.

Eugene Henderson told the council: “I am compelled to speak out against the blatant retaliation being carried out by the Utica Police Department against me and my family.” He said the alleged retaliation began after his wife filed a complaint about civil-rights violations by department officers and that subsequent charges against family members were “frivolous” and intended to intimidate. Henderson called for “a full in-depth investigation into these retaliated actions.”

The council president read a statement on behalf of Charice Henderson in which she described an incident on July 4 and said she attempted to file a complaint for excessive force after being grabbed by an officer. The written statement says she learned by mail of a warrant charging her with resisting arrest after she filed the complaint and that she had to turn herself in and plead not guilty. The statement requested preservation and review of body-camera and surveillance footage, that charges be dropped and that disciplinary and legal accountability follow if the allegations are substantiated.

The council president responded on the record: “I did send this letter to one of the captains, and they are looking into it.” The meeting record does not show any formal referral to an independent investigator or any binding council action; the comments were recorded during public comment and not accompanied by a motion or vote.

The nut graf: The speakers sought independent review and evidence preservation; the council acknowledged receipt and said department leadership had been notified, but no formal council-led investigation or discipline was recorded in the meeting minutes.

Next steps: Speakers requested an independent investigation and preservation of camera footage; the transcript records the statement being forwarded to an UPD captain for review. The council did not set a formal deadline or next procedural steps during the meeting.","Two residents told the council they and family members faced alleged retaliation and excessive force by Utica Police Department officers and requested independent investigations; the council president said a captain was asked to look into one written complaint.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6133332,"Council sends proposed nuisance-code updates and graffiti-removal ordinance to committee",394,742000,1136000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5704770-53a825b58d8ae4c85c879f80b36c9af3&start=742&end=1136","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5704770-53a825b58d8ae4c85c879f80b36c9af3/thumbnail_742000.jpg","/articles/6133332/Utica/Oneida-County/New-York/Council-sends-proposed-nuisance-code-updates-and-graffiti-removal-ordinance-to-committee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6133332-8b2268bb841d5460d3e7db59e5940565/orig.mp4?Expires=1773684670&Signature=TQ9UY-CufS1Cnfa1-qc04xjjP-1gJ8Y5COW7GhfoWDkwVer60N2LQVB8NQy8kntUL54i3MnFPR938oDrDPwQlI-0YnNVjiBXUDdgbx86mdpXRa~iG1tsfRRRmnMhovfFcs-o0X-NpiieFZdbf0sKNq6cy3603ynsAKrDZzJ13e-UIeqlBLC4aNs9fGDrpcWeSCHXUABr0Q0pfmkEUpqkt3AHpPeOkossBu1DLnRGOtr5rzXhPuNUJ6mvnL7BzkhaB04JV56YefsMuKNn7BA2cud3YaM9XAr9v2lZXCZDnrSApJLyxssKieZ~jftG6g2QZk2fzWWFjurFv1KUSCDeLw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City council members reviewed several proposed changes to the municipal code intended to strengthen nuisance abatement and to create a city-administered graffiti notification and removal program. A council member who introduced the items said the revisions were prepared “based on recommendations of the chiefs, the public safety commissioner, sat down with the mayor, law,” and that “this piece needs to be updated, moving forward with nuisance abatement inside the city.”

The proposals discussed included an ordinance to amend section 2-17 (nuisances), a replacement of section 2-15-45, and an ordinance adding section 2-15-11 to require a graffiti notification and removal program. The introducer told the council the only change to the graffiti measure was adding “a definition to what graffiti is.” The council member also discussed practical issues: that DPW and parks staff currently remove graffiti from both public and some private property, and that removal from private residences would require a signed waiver from property owners. “There would be a waiver that they would sign,” the introducer said.

The nut graf: Council members said they wanted to test changes and refine language through committee rather than rush adoption. The meeting record shows the council voted to place the proposed ordinances in committee for further review. The introducer also said two other proposed items (agenda items 5 and 6) were not ready and would be pulled from consideration; the transcript records the introducer saying, “both 5 and 6, I'm gonna pull.”

Council action recorded the committee referrals: proposed ordinance amending section 2-17 and the proposed replacement of 2-15-45 were committed to committee, as was the graffiti ordinance. No final policy or budget decision on funding for graffiti removal was made at the meeting; the introducer noted that adding a budget line for removal was one of the components the council could consider.

Next steps: staff will circulate revised draft language and meet with the clerk’s office and public safety committee; committee review will determine whether any of the items return to the full council for final vote.","Council members discussed proposed updates to the nuisance code, a replacement of Section 2-15-45, and a new graffiti-notification and removal program; the ordinances were placed in committee and two later-drafted items were pulled from consideration.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6133337,"Utica enacts moratorium on new billboards to allow rewrite of sign rules",5071,1304000,6375000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5704770-53a825b58d8ae4c85c879f80b36c9af3&start=1304&end=6375","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5704770-53a825b58d8ae4c85c879f80b36c9af3/thumbnail_1304000.jpg","/articles/6133337/Utica/Oneida-County/New-York/Utica-enacts-moratorium-on-new-billboards-to-allow-rewrite-of-sign-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6133337-4e58a92c20ea150856881c544c227def/orig.mp4?Expires=1773684670&Signature=RoH-RQPYgWIicYfYShsZwKcdKlQ66PGEcFg0xL2ZqIKpWohPT8T3durXDcPhNi-s0casXjDtbp68YxldB6ToxE2RhI1nrk1hwSPJS8ofIVWBlkEG8BEtqkCswcRx6qE2NG1BzgqH4o8e5kfvN8QdJ~EGRwlkz6lNq1C0PmsxutDiFv5N~CTU7Vjoaqd-cFLHrQIkk~kFTS4uxliZ9WxpyOZ7Scpc4PpoBVkDreeklcew1cCTM67vTnsc~72HtktgSE4WRbc2RO6K-lfbvCUFNPsTpcL6mZMySXWPelvXd4F9BktUB~P8DZCoIHod~HOHttpMAs9A1YWyUhlkMDoeBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utica Common Council voted unanimously to enact a moratorium on billboards in the city while staff review and update sign and zoning rules. Council members said the decision followed three recent billboard approvals and a new application received the same day.

A planning staff member (referred to in the meeting as “Brian”) and council members discussed whether the city’s design guidelines for the harbor or for scenic and historic districts could be used as models for updated billboard rules. The council member who raised the issue asked, “I just don't understand the moratorium. Like, what will this 6 months get us?” A planning staff member replied: “Would it gives us time to look into strengthening our ordinances so that it's not at the will of the zoning.”

The nut graf: The moratorium is intended to pause new approvals so staff can draft clearer local standards — for example, whether digital or LED billboards are allowed, where billboards can be sited, and what design controls should apply. Council discussion noted that applications already approved or submitted before the moratorium would be grandfathered through the process.

Council members noted the harbor design guidelines and scenic/historic rules as possible templates, while acknowledging those guidelines apply to different parts of the city than the locations where recent billboard proposals had been filed. The council adopted the moratorium by recorded vote (roll call recorded as 8 yays). Staff will return with proposed ordinance language for committee review.

No legal challenge or free-speech issue was raised in the meeting record; a staff member explicitly asked, “There's no free speech issues involved in this. Right?” and received no contrary position on the record.

Formal action: council introduced and adopted an ordinance enacting a moratorium on billboards; vote recorded as 8-0. The moratorium will apply to new billboard applications pending drafting of updated zoning language.","After three recent approvals and a new application, the council approved a moratorium on billboards to give staff time to update zoning and align rules with local design guidelines; existing and pending applications will be grandfathered.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6133341,"Utica council adopts moratorium on large battery storage facilities while zoning and safety rules drafted",5172,1194000,6366000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5704770-53a825b58d8ae4c85c879f80b36c9af3&start=1194&end=6366","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5704770-53a825b58d8ae4c85c879f80b36c9af3/thumbnail_1194000.jpg","/articles/6133341/Utica/Oneida-County/New-York/Utica-council-adopts-moratorium-on-large-battery-storage-facilities-while-zoning-and-safety-rules-drafted","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6133341-5254162c8eeec17d71b4880c9b48e55b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773684670&Signature=WQwzYS6xRhl-Pj9pRKg6Nc8BmvPaCpRQkC4BcJXGQ~INu93sJNJMbPr7HApcOfi~jXSyEfYvCVaUVolO45dYl6uK-fQSvIWPgL1BZhT7M2-NyOJGHvxbNQwouV4Zh3lTq-PPQN3FBmauXsOJHounG1IgsA7AtQRv1rr3fmDUOMHktPFZJKIySOL0b1CTmDRBFJ7Nd0JfYiYnON1xqw-CmpaxtbkEynCQ1zFCdXmvb7MVCjHYDwsazaWwtjVtrpvjG0uTkNuaPYNnuVk8nL~QtqlOu1KSxZYOpptQNOOFU1LEZ~isCK1ykk-wiInFVclQ2XosDUX9N7KxWBTngx3TNA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utica Common Council on Monday adopted a moratorium on large battery storage facilities in the city while staff draft zoning and safety regulations. A representative from the city Law Department told the council the department had been approached “3 separate times within the last few months, by developers looking to establish battery storage facilities, on vacant lots throughout the city, in different zoning districts.”

The moratorium, approved by an 8-0 roll call, pauses new applications for what staff described as large “bulk storage” installations made from shipping-container-like units that store electricity and discharge it during peak demand. The Law Department representative said the city’s zoning code is currently “silent on this kind of usage” and recommended a moratorium while the council considers where such facilities would be allowed and what public-safety requirements would apply. “NYSERDA does have a model law which we’ll largely use principally for this,” the Law Department representative said.

The nut graf: Council members said the pause is intended to give staff time to craft clear local rules rather than address proposals piecemeal through hearings or ad hoc approvals. The moratorium allows the city to define the appropriate zoning districts for large battery systems and to prescribe safety, inspection and setback standards before additional projects proceed.

Council discussion (questions and brief comments recorded in the transcript) emphasized two points: the installations described by staff are distinct from rooftop batteries for individual buildings and resemble consolidated, freight-containerized battery banks on vacant lots; and state-level incentives and support for battery storage have increased developer interest. The Law Department representative summarized the likely local approach: put the moratorium in place, draft zoning and safety language (largely based on the NYSERDA model), then return to council for review and a future vote.

Formal action: the council voted to introduce and adopt the moratorium ordinance; the roll call recorded “8 yays adopted.” The moratorium’s duration and next steps will be set when council and staff return with draft zoning text and any proposed safety standards. No specific timeline for those drafts was provided in the meeting.

What happened next: the council’s clerk recorded the ordinance’s adoption on the meeting minutes; staff will prepare draft regulations for committee review and for later action by the council.","The Common Council voted unanimously to impose a temporary moratorium on battery storage facilities citywide while staff draft zoning language and public-safety requirements, citing gaps in the current zoning code and safety concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves rezoning of former city dump site from land conservation to industrial

Residents urge independent review after public comments allege retaliation by Utica Police Department

Council sends proposed nuisance-code updates and graffiti-removal ordinance to committee

Utica enacts moratorium on new billboards to allow rewrite of sign rules

Utica council adopts moratorium on large battery storage facilities while zoning and safety rules drafted