michaelgoldberg said:
It is my understanding that this is a resurrection (and expansion) of the "spot-zoning" Ordinance for the retail spaces in The Avenue that was rejected back in 2012.
At that time, the minutes of the June 12, 2012 meeting reflect that one of the owners, Mr Katz "further commented that his company drafted the proposed ordinance to allow the use of medical offices on the ground floor in the Central Business District Redevelopment Area."
michaelgoldberg said:
The original Redevelopment Plan, adopted in 1996, prohibited medical offices on the GROUND FLOOR, in order to foster a walkable downtown for retail businesses.
In 1999, the Redevelopment Plan was amended to allow Medical offices on the ground floor on Taylor, Vose and Scotland . (Although, I am sure it was only a complete coincidence that the Village President at the time owned a Pharmacy that was bounded by those same streets.)
In 2008, the BOT (with concurrence by the Planning Board) rescinded that amendment since it was contrary to the notion of walkable streets and a vibrant downtown.
In 2011, the BOT learned that Sterling wanted to rent their ground floor space on Vose Ave to a doctor for a medical office, despite being prohibited by the zoning, and despite their building being approved by the Planning Board for retail use on the ground floor.
At the June 20, 2012 Planning & Zoning Committee Meeting, the Committee agreed that medical offices at that location were not appropriate or consistent with the zoning. At that same meeting, a representative from the Avenue shared a 3+ page listing of viable businesses that have expressed interest in renting the space, but were rejected by the landlord.
Last night (October 1, 2012), at the Planning & Zoning Committee Meeting, a representative of Overlook Hospital came to sell his proposal for a DOCTOR'S OFFICE at the Avenue. Once again, the Committee agreed that medical offices at that location were not appropriate or consistent with the zoning.
We encouraged Overlook Hospital to work with Main Street/the SID to identify space in the many many locations in town where medical offices are already permitted by the zoning.
Rob_Sandow said:
Maybe you can figure out a way to force the landlord to lower their rent so that a retail establishment could afford to move into the space, which by the way is off the main drag and unlikely to get a ton of foot traffic, but that is doubtful.
cramer said:
There are two issues - one procedural, and the other substantive. The OP was discussing the procedure issue, i.e, Ordinance 2013-20 is on the agenda for Second Reading without the attachment, which is the revised Central Business District Redevelopment Plan itself.
I had followed this for several months, since it had been tabled, and there never was the attachment, which is the crucial document. Was there an attachment when the BOT approved the ordinance on First Reading at the Jan. 13 meeting?
michaelgoldberg said:
cramer said:
There are two issues - one procedural, and the other substantive. The OP was discussing the procedure issue, i.e, Ordinance 2013-20 is on the agenda for Second Reading without the attachment, which is the revised Central Business District Redevelopment Plan itself.
I had followed this for several months, since it had been tabled, and there never was the attachment, which is the crucial document. Was there an attachment when the BOT approved the ordinance on First Reading at the Jan. 13 meeting?
Minor correction - this was approved on First Reading at the December 23, 2013 meeting. However, to answer your question, the attachment was not posted then either. Although, since the Second Reading requires a PUBLIC HEARING, it is far more important to have it posted now. How else can the public provide commentary at the public hearing on Monday?
mod said:
Doesn't Public Speaks always come after action items on the SO BOT meetings? If so then actually having the attachment available at 1st reading is essential for public input. Even if attachment were included with the ordinance agenda before second reading then the public would have no opportunity to speak before the vote. Am I correct?
cramer said:
Michael - I agree that the revised Central Business District Redevlopment Plan should be posted so that the the public can provide comments. What I'm questioning is whether the BOT had the revised CDB Redevolpment Plan for review when they approved it on First Reading Dec. 23, or did they just have the wording of the ordinance without the attachment, and knew what it was supposed to say. Procedurally, things have been sloppy recently, e.g., constant revisions of the agenda, posting the draft agenda online, posting proposed ordinances and resolutions online without the necessary attachments, and so on.
Rob_Sandow said:
Do I want a medical office? It's not preferable, no. But we have every other type of personal service available downtown from 6 dry cleaners to nail salons, martial arts teachers, day spas, music lessons, etc. all taking up traditional retail spaces. No offense to the owners of those establishments. They are simply following profitable business models. I would love it if our downtown was mostly retail stores that sell actual things, but if the demographics and business conditions (everything from parking availability to rents) aren't there to support it, then no amount of zoning will make it so. I prefer 100% occupancy to papered-over windows. We should probably try to accommodate businesses that want to move here, within reason.
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
GARAGE SALE Sale Date: Oct 12, 2024
More info
http://47.23.117.154/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=125666&dbid=0
The ordinance states: “The attached amended Central Business District Redevelopment Plan prepared by Heyer Gruel & Associates, dated October 2013, is hereby adopted.” But surprise, surprise, there’s no attachment!
According to the posted ordinance, the 1996 plan was amended in 2002 and 2008. Doesn’t the public have a right to know about contemplated changes before the Board adopts them as law? Isn't that the entire point of holding a public hearing before the Board votes?
Since VP Torpey sets and promulgates the Board of Trustees’ agenda, could Village governance get any less transparent than this?