The City Council Committee on Ordinances met on Monday, May 11, 2026, at 7:02 PM. The meeting, chaired by Councillor Pereira, covered six agenda items including zoning amendments, a fireworks ordinance, recall procedures, parental leave, electronic tax billing, and asphalt plant regulations. No public comments were recorded.
1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Public Buildings (Item 1)
2. Fireworks Ordinance (Item 2)
3. Recall of Elected Officers (Items 3A and 3B)
4. Parental Paid Leave Ordinance (Item 4)
5. Electronic Tax Bill Delivery (Item 5)
6. Zoning Amendment for Batch/Asphalt/Concrete Plants (Item 6)
The meeting adjourned at 8:19 PM.
It is 7 02 PM on Monday, May 11th. I want to note that this meeting is being live streamed and recorded. City Council and Committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Brefort's homepage under quick links, then meetings. I'll ask the clerk if there's anything to read into the record. All right. Any opposed, the ayes have it. Is it assistant director Laurel? I think I see her hiding. Okay, there you are. Sorry, I didn't just meant. I didn't see you at first, and then I saw your head poke out behind the chair there. Uh Chair and Members. Ian Lauro, Assistant City Planner. Um I'm here to answer any questions relative to this ordinance. I will briefly tell you that the reason why we've put it forth is that quite simply we do have quite a bit of city um facilities that often come before this body for um procurement purposes and disposition and changing the zoning ordinance to allow for expedited um review and um a lot and allowances of uses um would be helpful in that disposition. A lot of the uh the public buildings that the city has, such as schools and police and fire stations are often not zoned in the the manner in which we probably want to be able to dispose of them, particularly from multi-housing. So that's that's the purpose of of why we're making this change. Any questions from the uh body? Chair recognize counselor loops on his first. Thank you, Chairman. Ann, I think this is a great idea. Did we calculate how much time we think will free up in the process to go from conception to potentially an RFP going out and then a developer moving forward? Well, that that process still remains the same, but there's a couple of things that happen. It makes the RFP uh a little bit more uh likable for a developer because there's no unforeseen circumstances like having to go before a zoning board um for some type of zoning change or ask for a zoning change, which often can end up being spot zoning. So it makes the RFP a little bit um you know palatable. Um the time frame won't change except for the fact that the disposition disposition for development will be quicker because they won't have to they'll still have most likely have to go through some site plan review, but they wouldn't have to seek some type of nonconformity or zoning change. Okay. And then my last question you hit on it. So none of this would be spot zoning? No. So that's what this is this is eliminating the spot zoning. Perfect. That those are my two questions. Thank you for answering them both. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councillor Aber on us first. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Ann. Good evening. Good to see you. Um at this explanation here in my notes, um, the planning board recommended here, as you says here in your description, changing the language to require a property to have been used for public purposes for at least 20 years. Um just wondering, what was the rationale behind a 20-year threshold? Why not 15? Why not 25? I'm just curious. How was it settled on 20? So the change really wasn't for the 20 years.