Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referral Timing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board reviews city—s proposed change to referral timing for land-use hearings
Summary
The planning board discussed a city council draft local law that would let public hearings open while county and planning-board referrals are pending and give the planning board 60 days to respond. Staff and counsel said the change is intended to align city code with state referral practice; the board offered minor clarifying edits.
The City of Beacon planning board reviewed a draft local law that would change when the city and County Planning Board receive referrals tied to zoning and subdivision public hearings. Board counsel explained the measure would allow the city council to open a public hearing while a 30- or 60-day county or planning-board review is still pending, but would bar final action until the county—s 30 days expire or the planning board returns its report.
"This amends the code to be more in line with that to allow a public hearing to open while that 30 days is pending," said Board counsel (Speaker 3), describing the change as a procedural alignment with New York State General Municipal Law. Counsel added that referrals from the council to the planning board would still have to happen before the public hearing is closed and proposed a 60-day response window for the planning board unless the council shortens it.
Board members asked how often county referrals occur and what triggers county review; counsel and staff pointed to the statutory 500-foot triggers (adjacency to county roads, county buildings or parks) and cited recent referrals for 1064 Wolcott and 291 Main Street. Several members signaled support for the flexibility the proposal would give the council and planning board to coordinate their reviews and recommended minor clarifying language to avoid implying the board would lose any review authority.
The planning board agreed to send generally positive comments back to the city council, asking that the revised code language explicitly preserve the planning board—s ability to issue a report before the council takes final action and to spell out the 60-day timing in the local law language. The board—s referral comments will be forwarded to the council for its public hearing on the local law.
