Chenango board denies rezoning application as incomplete after residents raise water, notice and traffic concerns

The Town Board of Chenango closed a continuation of a public hearing and voted to deny a planned development district (PDD) rezoning application for three parcels on New York State Route 12, concluding the filing was incomplete and should be resubmitted with the full documentation required by the town’s procedures.

Board members began by reviewing the procedural history and asked staff to summarize where the matter stood. Planning and code staff explained that although parts of the application had been routed and a 239 county review initiated, the package lacked required elements and should not have advanced to this stage without a complete submission or a pre‑application review with staff. Several board members said the process had “slipped through the cracks,” with personnel transitions and timing contributing to the confusion.

Dozens of residents who attended the hearing said neighborhood notice was inadequate and raised environmental and infrastructure concerns. One resident told the board that neighbors within the 500‑foot notification radius had not received mailed notice. Others cited potential impacts on wells and the aquifer, erosion at higher elevations, additional sewer capacity demands, and the loss of tree cover. Several callers asked for a clearer public engagement process and for the town to update its comprehensive plan to provide clearer expectations for area development.

Applicant Chris Bodic addressed the board and said he intended to complete the missing parts of the application and welcomed conversations with neighbors. Still, the board majority concluded the application as filed was not complete and that the proper path was to deny the current filing and allow the applicant to resubmit a complete package. Counsel and staff explained that a refiled application would follow the same public‑process steps — planning board review, a refreshed public hearing, and county 239 review — and that reapplication requires paying the application fee again, which is nonrefundable.

MOTION AND VOTE: A board member moved to deny the application as incomplete; the motion was seconded and carried on roll call with one member recused (Mr. Lson). The clerk noted that an applicant who receives an administrative completeness notice typically can correct deficiencies through a pre‑application meeting and avoid refiling, but denial closes the current file and requires a new application and fee if the applicant chooses to restart the process.

Next steps: The applicant may refile with a complete package; staff and the planning board will use the town’s procedural checklist to confirm completeness before the matter returns to the town board. Residents asked for improved notice and suggested the town review its public‑engagement tools.