[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6561749,"mediaKeyId","3287520-9861533c1eb2cf713651bc095c3883d2","parentId",3287520,"title","Residents urge town to include pending applications in moratorium on 6 Senses/IHG project","audioSeconds",322,"startMs",3369000,"endMs",3691000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3287520-9861533c1eb2cf713651bc095c3883d2&start=3369&end=3691","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3287520-9861533c1eb2cf713651bc095c3883d2/thumbnail_3369000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6561749/Clinton/Oneida-County/New-York/Residents-urge-town-to-include-pending-applications-in-moratorium-on-6-SensesIHG-project","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6561749-dceb2b1b19bbcc0ad49cb482d91023b3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771189664&Signature=ECj~hc97j~Ool3XCaSVI8YyKD20HnraGrXPB~rnz8sP8Q3cWX4Oe0w2eFx~rlP2Jswm0aMyPEdX6z0dv0bO8RjYdEHulZbn03bVuCsSOypMFl1J-3BSv6IYd2MZXL7PtmJPrzL8UX7ITk-dptEOGJHw5NX8eq5PuWekAarsgZF-ztn2h8VMeSemyjE8ShaJ-JmxxJ6fpTkWVsXJ-sNgF9fCWGMKw6dQb4bNfN7a-KTUM~ApoVgV1BRApUz4nlzBGpdAlIQqXj3tT5FItwl9FBgYPhUEK~CtwRl01oocrKnqz3lyGdYxDJRFqPdlnAYjKsXfBBEFcvkZmOTjsb0UfDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Clinton, NY","date","2025-05-13T22:00:12Z","article","Two residents used the public‑comment period to press the Town of Clinton board to apply a moratorium to the controversial 6 Senses project and to ensure that any moratorium covers pending applications rather than only new filings.

Michael Fastman, a Pumpkin Lane resident, said the town should include pending applications in any moratorium for proposals related to the 6 Senses project. \"The area is really, you know, the the...we're very involved,\" Fastman said, arguing that pending applications should not proceed while the town revises its zoning law.

Nick Cesar Dote also urged the board to consider a moratorium. Dote said the draft law contains loopholes that a company such as IHG could exploit and recommended that the board pause action on pending applications while the town completes its review.

Why it matters: both speakers asked the board to ensure that developers cannot rely on pending applications to proceed while the town is changing zoning rules; including pending applications in a moratorium would temporarily halt active applications until the town completes revisions.

Board response

Board members acknowledged the comments; the supervisor reiterated the public‑hearing continuation and advisories about where to find information. No formal motion to impose a moratorium was made at the meeting; public comment was recorded for the board’s consideration.

Public note

Members of the public also raised other concerns during the comments period, including assessment increases and an informational meeting and vote on a proposed East Clinton firehouse; those items were recorded as public comment but were not debated by the board during this session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","5 13 2025 Regular Town Board Meeting & Public Hearing, Town of Clinton, NY","oneSentenceSummary","Two residents urged the Town of Clinton board to apply a moratorium to pending applications related to the proposed 6 Senses (IHG) project and to include already-filed applications in any moratorium; speakers said the law as drafted contains loopholes that would allow a developer to proceed while revisions are considered.","taxTitle","Clinton, Oneida County, New York","taxId",54267,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6561754,"Town board rejects Franmark park staining bids, approves Omega settlement and routine resolutions",182,2724000,2906000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3287520-9861533c1eb2cf713651bc095c3883d2&start=2724&end=2906","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3287520-9861533c1eb2cf713651bc095c3883d2/thumbnail_2724000.jpg","/articles/6561754/Clinton/Oneida-County/New-York/Town-board-rejects-Franmark-park-staining-bids-approves-Omega-settlement-and-routine-resolutions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6561754-512823e5909d85ecef128323e217e163/orig.mp4?Expires=1771189664&Signature=IXWLstpkdHTjKBiKJODPCJBRODxbDIDqpVZVihEWFFXsoSn58ZY60uIFBNydOCB0EgzccAvsuoVWDmWnSlVkakxvoNmhkOIoz-c~yBBPAfDlfbZ0w73ipi7EPpeAjWz8F4L7lmu9toCA7HkHZfBp0KXP~Xt455lGN-~wMKgK0ubDMmXlt6jkTqYeXdYkXI3RtCYMZvjC2sYhEDUchb1ElqjePv~FudOFY4~P0CbOAcExiLDH3pOQRjFn~Wxb6qp6tJaUCvVNAK6KeXwgsfExOPGhIW~IMMgcgVA8KEtFzCpzD3GT5UwVUJLd239G0K3oOK01rJmsppNik-RQVrBbvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Town of Clinton board voted on a series of resolutions and motions at its May meeting, including the rejection of bids for staining at Franmark Park, adoption of a settlement with the Omega Institute related to the Long Pond campground, and several routine proclamations and administrative approvals. All items below carried on voice votes recorded as \"Aye. Motion carried.\" unless noted otherwise.

Key votes and outcomes

- Rejection of bids for Franmark Park staining: The board voted to reject all bids for staining Franmark Park because proposals exceeded the budgeted amount. Motion carried. (Outcome: rejected)

- Resolution No. 20 of 2025 — Omega Institute deed agreement and stipulation of settlement: The board approved a revised and amended deed agreement, dissolving a 1991 agreement and replacing it with a new stipulation intended to bring the campground into compliance with Chapter 218 (trailers and trailer parks). Discussion clarified that the change formalizes paperwork and does not change current campground operations. (Outcome: approved)

- Resolution No. 21 of 2025 — Proclaiming May as Mental Health Awareness Month: Approved. (Outcome: approved)

- Resolution No. 22 of 2025 — Supporting EMS Week (May 18): Approved. Board members recognized volunteer EMS service and training. (Outcome: approved)

- Resolution No. 23 of 2025 — Appointing seasonal workers: Approved. (Outcome: approved)

- Filming insurance and indemnification agreement for a production on Schulzville Road: The board authorized the supervisor to sign a conditional filming insurance and indemnification agreement, subject to the producer’s signature and insurance arrangements; the board discussed traffic-control arrangements and that production will use state police for intermittent traffic control rather than a sheriff contract. (Outcome: approved, conditional)

- Financial warrants and motions: The board approved May general fund warrant vouchers #165–234 totaling $98,570.25; May Highway Fund vouchers #132–168 totaling $131,182.47; May Capital Fund vouchers #6–7 totaling $392.50. The board also approved a motion to move funds and accepted the supervisor’s report for April 2025. (Outcome: approved)

Votes and recording: votes were recorded by voice as \"Aye\" and motions were carried by consensus. Individual roll-call tallies were not recorded in the transcript for these items.

What the board said

Supervisor and board members framed the Omega resolution as an administrative modernization of a longstanding agreement from 1991. On the Franmark Park staining bids, the board stated the bid proposals exceeded budgeted amounts and moved to reject and pursue an alternate plan. Regarding the filming agreement, the board confirmed production dates and noted nearby residents would receive notices in their mailboxes.

Next steps

The board will proceed with drafting alternate plans for Franmark Park work and will implement the Omega agreement as approved. The filming approval is conditional on the production providing required insurance and the supervisor executing the agreement.","At the May meeting the Town of Clinton board rejected bids for staining Franmark Park, approved a revised deed agreement with the Omega Institute for the Long Pond campground, and passed routine resolutions including proclamations and appointments; several routine financial warrants and a filming indemnity agreement were also approved.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6561756,"Town board debates limit on small accessory structures in setbacks, keeps public hearing open",1271,243000,1514000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3287520-9861533c1eb2cf713651bc095c3883d2&start=243&end=1514","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3287520-9861533c1eb2cf713651bc095c3883d2/thumbnail_243000.jpg","/articles/6561756/Clinton/Oneida-County/New-York/Town-board-debates-limit-on-small-accessory-structures-in-setbacks-keeps-public-hearing-open","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6561756-d09f70873d98b7088a6673d31258fb80/orig.mp4?Expires=1771189664&Signature=QTDYGMaTcts6g8WysJIVakUFw8SV1q1q9A6eShWPHDMWT9nwWIwPy0f1XiammaSyOukXoGZwv088l86AqGzNxK2TL~wZJ5LXBAg7TrSeI401-7F1a8EVj1Jeo7~umSaz5l0yXvzFcuZBhw1w7Pig~KquLaARVwAK-UFx6I~L4ixR0XrB7imkFvh5t9~SIUnFahh2ehyLxl5wLQvC-hGYNIxQGGmUKuoCBpOCNVRPwsgCRK5OvBfeSt7W6tZ~8IJEqmoxGleUmllubF33np8M5Zjwd~K4P5Ve9HUs-7EiXprQoHdg8bmS25liBipx04cg-YWxrF2Vuc20mp8ymO--uw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Town of Clinton board on Tuesday debated how proposed revisions to the zoning code will treat small nonpermanent accessory structures — playhouses, bus shelters, garden tool houses and similar items under 50 square feet — when those items are placed in required setbacks and whether they should count toward a property’s limit of accessory structures.

The discussion focused on draft language in Chapter 250, section 23 (setbacks) and how it interacts with section 22 (accessory-structure limits). Board members and attendees disagreed on whether the draft would permit an unlimited number of small structures in a setback as currently worded, and whether the board should instead explicitly cap how many such structures may be placed in a setback.

Why it matters: the change would affect what homeowners may put close to property lines and could force choices between a small structure (for example, a bus shelter at the end of a driveway) and larger permitted accessory structures such as a detached garage or pool building.

Discussion highlights

Arlene (board member) flagged the drafting problem and said the current phrasing in 250-23 d(6) appears to exclude small nonpermanent items from the maximum number permitted under 250-22, meaning, she warned, “you could have an unlimited number.” Elliot (board member) and others pressed staff and colleagues on where the existing one‑without‑permit allowance is located in the code, noting that 250-22(B) allows one small accessory structure without a permit and otherwise limits total accessory structures on a lot.

Catherine (board member) and Jen (board member) suggested the simplest fix is to keep the exception in 250-23 but add a numeric limit for items in the setback; multiple speakers proposed capping the number at two. Jeff (board member) described the trade-off: if the setback exception does not count against 250-22, homeowners could have multiple small structures in the setback but would effectively lose capacity for another larger accessory structure elsewhere on the lot. Paul (board member) pointed out that eliminating the subsection entirely would move any request to place such a structure in a setback into the area‑variance process.

Board members debated three options: (1) remove the exception so setback items count against the general accessory limit in 250-22; (2) keep the exception and specify a numeric cap (suggested number: two); or (3) delete subsection d(6) and require an area variance for any setback structure. Several members favored retaining an exception for narrow cases (for example, a bus shelter for children at the end of a driveway) while setting a small numeric limit to avoid “a bunch of stuff” appearing at the roadside.

Clarifications offered during the meeting

- Size threshold under discussion: 50 square feet (structures under 50 sq ft were the examples discussed). (source: multiple board comments)
- Existing accessory-structure limits discussed: 250-22 was cited as limiting the number of permitted accessory structures (speakers noted a general rule of no more than three permitted accessory structures, and one small accessory structure without a permit, as the existing framework referenced by the board). (source: board discussion)
- Suggested resolution in the draft: retain the sentence that excludes small nonpermanent accessory structures from the maximum number in 250-22 but add a numeric cap “no more than two” for items located within the setback. (source: board consensus during discussion)

Process and next steps

The board left the public hearing on the zoning revisions open and voted to continue receiving comments; a motion to keep the public hearing open was approved, with the hearing to remain open until 6 p.m. on Tuesday, June 10, 2025, when the board will again hear public comment on articles 7, 8 and 9 of the revised zoning law. Board members asked staff to draft alternative text that either (a) keeps the exception and sets a numeric limit for setback items, or (b) removes the exception and treats these structures under 250-22, so residents and the board can review specific language before a final vote.

The board also discussed related cleanup to the storage-in-setback language in 250-23(c). Several members recommended removing the enumerated examples (merchandise, equipment, building materials, junk, vehicles) and replacing them with a shorter rule such as “setbacks shall not be used for storage except as otherwise specifically permitted,” to avoid overbroad interpretations that could, for example, prohibit temporary items such as ladders.

Board members said they will circulate proposed alternate wording by email and will take further action after public comment at the continued hearing.

","Clinton Town Board discussed proposed zoning changes to Chapter 250 regarding small nonpermanent accessory structures (under 50 sq ft), whether they count toward accessory-structure limits, and whether to set a numeric cap in setbacks; board left public hearing open until June 10 for further comment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Residents urge town to include pending applications in moratorium on 6 Senses/IHG project

Town board rejects Franmark park staining bids, approves Omega settlement and routine resolutions

Town board debates limit on small accessory structures in setbacks, keeps public hearing open