The recent City Planning Board meeting didn't go quite like City Council, the Mayor or his administration had hoped or expected. Thankfully they are familiar with the procedures and rules required for changing the City Council unanimous vote requirement if/when the County and City Planning Boards do not approve something brought before them. It was also uncovered that since that requirement was put in place in 2009 there has only been one instance where the County and City Planning Boards have both not approved an item which triggered the unanimous vote rule. You guessed it - it was the Mayor's short term rental ordinance that failed to pass last year. Here's the local Niagara Gazette report on Wednesday meeting.

City planning Board refuses to act

NIAGARA FALLS: Says public hearing request on voting requirement changes from city council is “incomplete.”

BY RICK PFEIFFER

rick.pfeiffer@niagara-gazette.com

The Niagara Falls Planning Board refused, during its meeting Wednesday night, to schedule a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the city’s zoning code.

The amendment would repeal a requirement that all changes to the ordinance, not approved by either the city Planning or Zoning boards, could only be adopted by a unanimous vote of the city council. The decision touched off a free-wheeling, sometimes contentious, and largely chaotic debate between members of the planning board, City Council Member Frank Soda, who has championed the change, and members of the public who are opposed to changes in the city’s short-term rental rules and see removing the unanimous vote requirement as a way to push new rules into law.

The voting requirement has been tucked away in an obscure section (Section 1302.4.2 (D)) of the voluminous zoning code. It became a flash point in September when the council failed to approve amendments to the zoning code, proposed by Mayor Robert Restaino, that would have changed the way the city regulates shortterm, vacation and transient rental properties (STRs).

While a 4-1 majority of the council agreed to approve the new STR ordinance, them easure failed because a unanimous council vote was required to overrule an earlier decision by the Niagara County and Falls planning boards, which rejected the changes.

Council Member William Kennedy cast the negative and deciding vote on the ordinance amendments which had been vigorously opposed by a large number of short-term rental unit owners and operators and the association that represents them.

Planning Board Chair Tony Palmer said it was the only time in his memory that the unanimous council vote requirement has come into play. He said the change being proposed now by the council was unnecessary.

“Why are we changing this? Because (the council) can’t agree,” Palmer asked. “That burden that they can’t pass something is being put back on us.”

Palmer also said that the planning board would only consider the proposed voting change by “follow(ing) the amendment process that is designed to be thoughtful and takes the time to avoid making decisions in the heat of the moment.”

Time, however, is not on the side of the city council which, at a special meeting on June 2, imposed a moratorium on new STR operating permits. Council members said the moratorium was necessary because they were again preparing to try to change the city’s zoning requirements for transient rentals.

That new STR ordinance was approved by the council at its July 7 meeting and must now be submitted to both the county and city planning boards for review and recommendation.

If the new ordinance is recommended by both planning boards, it would be returned to the council for a public hearing and a final vote on approval. Neither the city planning board nor the council have scheduled meetings in August and the STR permit moratorium is set to expire on Sept. 16.

Soda clashed with Palmer over the planning board chair’s insistence that changing the voting requirement in the zoning code would require a State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) in addition to an environmental assessment, both usually lengthy processes.

“A SEQR has to be performed in order to accomplish a language change,” Soda asked.

“By requiring a unanimous vote, you have given yourself regulatory authority over the city council.”

Soda insisted no such authority exists in either the City Charter or New York’s General Municipal Code.

The council member also battled with Palmer and board Member Michael Murphy over questions of what the appropriate procedures for making amendments to the zoning code were and what state and local laws come into play when making those changes. Murphy said he had asked for representatives from the city Corporation Counsel’s office to attend the meeting, but none were present.

“I suggest you attend an Amherst Planning Board meeting,” Murphy told Soda. “Their
corporation counsel and their building inspectors are always there. We have people who
have questions and they should be here.”
Palmer said the request to schedule a planning board public hearing on the voting change
amendment was “incomplete” and should not be considered. On a 6-2 vote, the board
removed the item from it’s agenda. The future of the proposal now appears to be in limbo.

Copyright (c)2021 Niagara Gazette, Edition Niagara Gazette Powered by TECNA