Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pompey board adopts local law to clarify zoning enforcement after public hearing
Summary
After a public hearing in which residents pressed for clearer complaint tracking and appeal routes, the Pompey Town Board voted 3–1 to adopt a local law amending Article 8, Chapter 165 to explicitly extend enforcement remedies to site‑plan violations and require written complaints to be filed with the code enforcement officer.
The Pompey Town Board voted 3–1 to adopt a local law amending Article 8, Chapter 165 of the town code to clarify the code enforcement officer’s authority to enforce site‑plan and other zoning provisions.
The vote followed a lengthy public hearing in which residents urged clearer procedures for filing and tracking complaints, written follow‑up to complainants, and an accessible appeal path for property owners who dispute enforcement decisions. Supervisor Carpenter, Councilor Angela and Councilor Lumis voted to approve the amendment; Councilor Delmore voted no.
Town attorney Dave told the board the change does not rewrite the town’s enumerated violations but “gives [the code enforcement officer] the tool and clarity to say if you violate this…he has the ability to write a fine or…use other remedies that are in there.” The amendment adds explicit language bringing site‑plan infractions under those enforcement remedies and requires complaints to be submitted in writing to the zoning enforcement officer.
Several residents said enforcement has been inconsistent in recent years and asked whether penalties in the town code could include criminal consequences. The board and counsel said incarceration language cited by residents predates the amendment and that the local law clarifies civil enforcement tools rather than creating new crimes. Deputy town clerk Elma Hartnett told the board that the code enforcement officer is part‑time and handles a large volume of inquiries: “Tim is part‑time. He’s not here all the time. And the amount of people that come to him and call him…is tremendous,” she said.
Residents also pushed for administrative improvements: Jim Goers urged that complaint reports be more detailed and publicly available, saying, “This information should be available to the public.” Several speakers asked for an explicit requirement that complainants receive written acknowledgement and a brief written disposition (for example, within 30–60 days); board members said they had taken notes and would confer with staff about whether to set a statutory response deadline or handle it by policy.
The board’s formal motion, brought by Bill, approved the draft local law as presented. A roll‑call vote recorded Supervisor Carpenter: yes; Angela: yes; Councilor Delmore: no; Councilor Lumis: yes. The board instructed staff to complete the filings with the Department of State. The law clarifies enforcement procedures but leaves existing enumerations of violations in other sections of the code unchanged.
The public hearing and board discussion made clear two ongoing tensions: residents who want more consistent enforcement and transparency, and others who worry that expanded enforcement language could be applied too broadly. The town indicated it will pursue administrative steps to improve complaint receipts and follow‑up and reiterated that appeal options remain available through the zoning board of appeals.
Next steps: the town will file the adopted local law with the Department of State and staff said further targeted amendments or procedural policies could follow to address written‑response timelines and complaint tracking.
