City seeks input on zoning board changes

City lawmakers are seeking input regarding proposed amendments to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

City lawmakers are seeking input from the county Planning Board and others regarding proposed amendments to the regulations governing Kingston’s Zoning Board of Appeals.

During an Aug. 1 meeting, the Common Council adopted a resolution forwarding proposed changes regarding the city Zoning Board of Appeals to the Ulster County Planning Board and to the city’s Planning Board and its Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission. Such amendments must be referred to the three other boards, the resolution states.

The council also set a public hearing on the proposed changes for Sept. 21 at City Hall, 420 Broadway.

The time the hearing will start has not yet been established, the City Clerk’s Office said Monday.

Among the amendments being considered is a move to reduce the size of the Zoning Board of Appeals from seven members to five.

Other changes include “creating a process whereby members can be removed for cause,” Assistant Corporation Counsel Daniel Gartenstein said Monday. He said the changes also create a process for there to be alternate members of the board, which currently does not exist.

Alternates can be used when a regular member of the board cannot participate on a matter due to a conflict of interest or when a regular member is absent from a meeting, according to the proposed amendment. The proposal states that the mayor can appoint up to three alternates.

The proposed amendments also change the language of the city’s code to bring the standards for use variances more in accord with the state’s General City Law, Gartenstein said.

Use variances give the Zoning Board of Appeals the power to authorize the use of land in a way that otherwise would not be allowed or would be prohibited. The applicant must prove the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused an unnecessary hardship to obtain the use variance.

Gartenstein added that the city’s code is not currently consistent with the General City Law, which prompted the proposed changes.