Wednesday, April 17, 2024 | St. Lawrence County, NY
By JIMMY LAWTON OGDENSBURG -- Ogdensburg has until April 20 to approve Step By Step Inc.’s zoning request, but Judge David N. Hurd says city’s reasoning for the delay is lacking and no …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
By JIMMY LAWTON
OGDENSBURG -- Ogdensburg has until April 20 to approve Step By Step Inc.’s zoning request, but Judge David N. Hurd says city’s reasoning for the delay is lacking and no further extensions will be granted.
Step by Step, a non-profit mental health service provider at 103 Ford St. filed suit in July claiming the city has discriminated against its clients by denying a zoning change for a former school building they wanted to use.
The non-profit had petitioned city lawmakers to rezone the parcel from single family residential to a planned development district, but the request was denied.
Hurd ordered the zoning change be approved by city April 15, after he approved an injunction request from Step By Step’s attorney.
The city sought to extend the approval to April 25, but Hurd ruled it must be filed by April 20.
In his decision Hurd said city received the order to approve the application on April 5, and “very well could have added such approval to the agenda of its regularly scheduled April 11, 2016 meeting.”
He added that the city could have held a special meeting at any time prior to April 15 to approve the application.
“However, the City failed to hold such a special meeting. As plaintiff notes in its opposition, plaintiff’s application was denied at a special City Council meeting on May 28, 2015, two days after its regularly scheduled May 26, 2015 meeting,” Hurd wrote. “Therefore, the City is aware of its ability to hold special meetings and the public notice requirements associated with such meetings. The same process could have been utilized to approve plaintiff’s application and comply with the April 5, 2016 Memorandum, Decision & Order.”
Hurd said the city’s argument that the complexity of the case is causing defendant’s delay is “specious.” “The April 5, 2016 Memorandum, Decision & Order is clear and unambiguous in its directive. The City Council was to approve plaintiff’s application on or before April 15, 2016. Nothing could be simpler,” he wrote.
Hurd ordered the city grant approval of the request by noon on April 20.
