Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Local Regulation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council introduces notice-of-defect and cannabis-related ordinances; public hearings set

2767659 · January 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council introduced two ordinances — one revising how defect notices must be presented to the city and a second updating local rules on cannabis-related, smoke shop and vape businesses — and scheduled public hearings to gather public comment.

The Amsterdam Common Council on Jan. 7 introduced two ordinances and scheduled public hearings: a local law to codify written notice procedures for defects and an amendment to the city code addressing cannabis-related businesses, smoke shops and tobacco/vape consumption businesses.

City staff said the notice-of-defect ordinance responds to a recent New York State Court of Appeals decision (Calabrese v. City of Albany) and recommendations from municipal groups. The proposed local law would require written, paper notice filed with the city clerk to constitute official notice of a defect; postings on social media or electronic messages would not be sufficient to trigger the city’s liability or repair obligations, staff said. A public hearing was scheduled; the council indicated the hearing would be set for a meeting at 5:50 p.m. on a forthcoming agenda.

Separately, the council introduced an ordinance amending chapter 250 of the city code to add definitions and special-use permit requirements for licensed adult-use cannabis microbusinesses, smoke shops, and tobacco or vape consumption businesses. The amendment also would codify buffering and spacing restrictions, revise penalties for violations and update distance requirements consistent with state rules, council members said. Council staff recommended staggering public hearing times because both matters were likely to draw multiple speakers.

Both ordinances were introduced (first reading) and will return for public hearings; the council did not take final votes on either ordinance at the organizational meeting.