ABANDONMENT: Dunn Road ABSTRACTS: GENERAL FUND ...

'^yy6kyi^MMimBsi^&
L
sSrSS^
"1
J
]
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
TOWN HALL
7:30 P.M.
Supervisor Kennedy convened tho Public Hearing and asked Town
Attorney Perley to explain the provision ot section 265 of the
Town LaH and its implications or applications for the proposed
zoning application. This is a section of the Town Law that is
applicable to certain projects.
Town Attorney Perley: Section 265 of the Town Law pertains to
among other things changes in the Zoning Law or the Zoning Hap.
Whenever, there is application to change the zoning law certain
people that bear a relationship or live within a certain
proximity of the property that will be affected by the zoning
change may file a toning protest. if the requisite number,
proper number or sufficient number of people do that the zoning
protest then requires the Town Board to cast the change by an
extraordinary majority. By that the Law requires that at least
three-fourths of the members of the Town Board, affirmatively
vote to pass the law. An abstention in this case is considered
a no vote. With a five person Board this would require four
affirmative votes to pass the zoning amendment application, as
opposed to three, which would constitute a simple majority. I
have had faxad to me by the Town Clerk a petition containing
five signatures together with information on the location of
these signatories to the Seamon property ' based upon the
information provided to me by the Clerk it appears to me at this
time that there has been a valid zoning protest filed. Under
those circumstances, subject to any change within that petition
and further subject to verification by me to personally review
the SBL numbers and make certain of the information provided to
me by the Town Clerk. At the present time an affirmative vote
of four members of the Board in my opinion will be required to
pass the Seamon application.
Supervisor Kennedy asked the Town Attorney for the benefit of
those gathered here today to explain condition rezoning, as
some people may believe that once this property were rezoned, if
in fact, that were the consensus of this Board that it would
remain zoned M-2 which is the lowest classification of zoning
that we have in the Town of Boston.
Town Attorney Perley: The Town Code provides and this was done
in response to an amendment to the Environmental Conservation
Law, that mining shall only be permitted in an M-2 zone. The
reason for the amendment to the zoning law is purely defensive.
It is defensive to the point of requiring anyone who wishes to
mine in the Town of Boston to have to come before the Town
Board. And for the Board to be able to consider whether or not
they consider that appropriate or whether they consider the
restoration plan appropriate. Here this not the case the
Environmental Conservation Law and the D.E.C. would have total
and complete jurisdiction over mining and the town would not be
able to prevent mining, prohibit mining or control mining in any
fashion throughout the town. Also, bear in mind that when we
adopted the Zoning Law we adopted a concept of provisional or
conditional rezoning, which allows rezoning for a specified
purpose. However, the Town Board in my opinion has the power to
rezone the Seamon property or a portion of the Seamon property
depending on how it sees fit, if it so sees fit, for the
specific purpose of fulfilling the terms of the mining permit
for which there has already been an application filed by Cold
Springs Construction. At the completion of that mining
application or the termination of that mining application the
property would then revert to its original zoning which is
Residential-Agricultural (R-A). Therefore, were the Town Board
to act upon this it would have the power and has the ability
under the zoning law to allow this project and this project only
within that and not to open that land up under M-2 zoning to
other uses that are not appropriate in what is otherwise and
i^yy^nysyxfK
J
1
J