Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Upzoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Environment commission, residents urge council to reject citywide upzoning proposal (RL 24-162)
Summary
Members of the Commission for Conservation of the Environment and several residents told the City of Binghamton council that RL 24-162’s citywide upzoning lacks evidence it will create affordable housing, risks flood‑prone areas, and should be replaced with targeted rezonings and protections such as green infrastructure and limited‑equity co‑ops.
The City of Binghamton heard hours of public comment opposing RL 24‑162, a proposed ordinance to amend the city charter and zoning code to allow denser, multiunit development citywide.
Richard Giannaccio, speaking for the Commission for Conservation of the Environment, said the commission “voted unanimously on November 21, 2024 to recommend that the City Council of the City of Binghamton vote nay on RL 24‑162.” He told council members the Planning Department provided “no evidence that such upzoning is needed citywide” and that the proposal’s environmental review under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) is incomplete. Giannaccio warned the draft “allows for upzoning in unknown flood prone areas” and lacks language requiring green infrastructure.
Luke Day of the environmental commission urged a targeted approach rather than a citywide change, proposing an R4 designation for areas with relatively low flood risk, proximity to bus stops and contextual zoning. Day said the plan, as drafted, would increase impervious surface and flood risk without green infrastructure and noted the city’s limited transit network compared with cities that have used upzoning to increase housing near frequent transit.
South Side resident Diamond Mulcay told council she prefers single‑family neighborhoods and urged stronger code enforcement and higher fines for negligent out‑of‑town landlords. An emailed submission from former municipal official Thomas F. Costello asked council to document whether the proposed amendments conform to the comprehensive plan, to supply written rationales and definitions (for terms such as “principal dwelling” and “senior housing”), and to show whether staffing exists to enforce new rules.
Speakers recommended alternatives and safeguards if the council pursues zoning changes: targeted rezoning rather than citywide upzoning, mandatory green infrastructure to address flood risk, consideration of walkability and transit access before reducing parking requirements, and promotion of limited‑equity cooperatives to increase homeownership rather than produce additional rental units.
No formal action on RL 24‑162 was taken at this meeting; the public hearing was closed after the council received testimony. Council members said they would review comments and provide written responses prior to any final vote.
The council closed the first public hearing and proceeded with other agenda items; no ordinance adoption on RL 24‑162 was announced at the meeting.
