Someone really got away with one when they came up with that acronym....seriously? I can see Peter Griffin giggling as he reads this article.
Hearing tonight in Le Roy Village Hall to change voting requirement for PUD zoning
Submitted by Billie Owens on September 26, 2012 - 3:56pm
A proposed local law to change how voting is done regarding zoning amendments is the subject of a public hearing tonight at the meeting of the Village of Le Roy Board of Trustees.
No vote will be made this evening on the proposed legal change, but public input is sought and encouraged. The meeting is at 7 in the Village Hall at 3 W. Main St.
Called "Proposed Local Law #4 of 2012," it would amend Chapter 215 of the Village Zoning Code, sections 215-18, by adding a new subsection -- "F."
This addition would make it possible for a simple majority of the board of trustees, rather than a super majority (4/5), to approve a planned unit development (PUD) and the land use regulations, restrictions, zoning, boundaries, etc., pertaining to it.
Also, a simple majority vote in favor would "adopt and enact" the zoning changes regardless of whether the proposal has been the subject of a protest petition signed by 20 percent of the affected nearby property owners.
Of course, this proposal is directly related to the controversial Robbins Nest project -- contractor and lifelong Le Royan Pete McQuillen's plan to build 26 "patio homes" for people 55 and older on 13.1 acres east of Robbins Road and south of Filmore Street. His plans are not popular with many residents near the Robbins Nest site, who have signed a petition against PUD zoning. Others welcome the idea because, if built, it would help boost the tax base for sorely needed public services.
But to accommodate it, PUD zoning -- which is not currently in the village code -- would need to be approved, in order to establish a homeowners' association, walking trails and to permit the developer to retain ownership of the land but not the houses, among other particulars.
The proposed subsection was prompted by the voluntary abstentions of two of the board's five village trustees -- Robert Taylor and Michael Tucci. Both cite personal conflicts of interest. The village lawyer says it's entirely their prerogative to do so. Thus, there is no way under current configurations to vote on McQuillen's plans.
In the written legal proposal, the "legislative findings" of the village board, noted before the language of Subsection F, say that:
From time to time the board receives applications to amend, modify or take action on Chapter 215 of the zoning code. And "being a small village...members may often find themselves in situations where their business, social and/or family relationships present conflicts" that make it necessary or advisable to recuse themselves from voting on certain proposals.
And that the state Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law provide separate legislative authority to adopt zoning laws, rules and regulations and the village board "finds it advisable to provide an alternate means of dealing with zoning law changes."
Subsection F itself reads as follows:
Pursuant to the New York State Constitution Article IX (2)(b)(3) and the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law (10)(1)(ii)(e)(3), that any land use regulation, restriction or zoning district classification or boundary, or any application for the designation or siting of a planned unit development, whether applied for or proposed pursuant to this Local Law or Chapter 215 of the Village Code of the Village of Le Roy, may be adopted, amended, sited, changed, modified or repealed by the said Village Board by adoption of a local law, and such local law shall be deemed to have been approved and adopted by a favorable vote of a simple majority of the entire Village Board, and shall then take full force and effect as provided in the State Law, regardless of whether or not the same has been the subject of a protest petition signed by the owners of twenty per centum or more, either of the area of the land included in or affected by such action, or of that directly opposite thereto extending one hundred feet therefrom, or of that directly opposite thereto extending one hundred feet from the street frontage of such opposite land, or any similar protest or petition.