PUBLIC HEARING
The Council for the City of Corning, New York held a public hearing at 6:15 p.m. at
Council Chambers, Civic Center Plaza, Corning, New York. All Councilmembers attended the hearing. Counting City of Corning employees, 42 members of the public attended. The purpose of the public hearing is to obtain views of the citizenry on Proposed
Public Law #8 of 2023 to amend Chapter 91 of the Code of the City of Corning
entitled Cannabis.
For Background:
Almost two years ago, on December 6, 2021, on a divided vote, the Council allowed
adult-use retail cannabis dispensaries within the City of Corning.
On May 1, 2023, The Council adopted Local Law #6 of 2023 adding to and revising
Chapter 91 of the City Code. At the May 1, 2023, Council meeting it was
acknowledged that Local Law #6 of 2023 was produced in haste, but in necessary
and understandable haste, because there was then an application for a dispensary
before the City’s Planning Commission. Without guidance provided by a local law
for the regulation of cannabis-related activities, the Planning Commission would
have had no choice but to approve the application, even knowing that the City
intended to promulgate reasonable and non-discriminatory rules pertaining to such
businesses. At the May 2023 meeting, Mayor Boland stated, in his opinion as chair
of the Council’s Code Committee, that Local Law #6 of 2023 should be considered
only a beginning point which needs further discernment and refinement, particularly
in view of an uneven roll-out of state rules and regulations which would otherwise
guide the formulation of local laws.
In September of 2023, changes to Part 119 of the New York State Code of Rules
and Regulations were finalized. These provide guidance to cities seeking to enact
local laws that, among other things, may affect the time, place, and manner of
locating and approving operation of dispensaries within its jurisdiction. After
finalization, the Council’s Code Committee met promptly and made its
recommendations to the Council, which is in the form of proposed Local Law #8 of
2023.
Local Law #8 of 2023, if adopted, will amend portions of Chapter 91 of the City
Code. In part, it will provide that no dispensary shall be located (as measured in a
straight line from the center of the nearest entrance of the dispensary):
• On the same road and within 200 feet of the nearest entrance of a building
occupied exclusively as a house of worship; nor
• On the same road and within 500 feet of the nearest entrance of a building
occupied exclusively as a school; nor
• On the same road and within 500 feet of the nearest entrance of the nearest
building occupied exclusively as a public youth facility (the law provides
clarification if there is no entrance, or no building, but only equipment
reasonably expected to be used by children seventeen years of age or
younger); nor
• Within a 500-foot radius of the nearest entrance of another cannabis
dispensary or microbusiness.
The hearing was opened for public comments. Three spoke in favor of the
proposed local law. Five spoke against. The following claims, among others, were made by citizens for and against the law:
For | Against |
Cannabis is a legal product to be sold by regulated dispensaries within the State of New York. Regulated dispensaries reasonably assure the safety of products and the propriety of distribution, neither of which occurs where regulated dispensaries are not permitted. | The proposed local law is inadequate to effectively control placement of retail cannabis dispensaries. Particularly, basing distance measurements “on the same road” may have the effect of eliminating any distance requirement if the proposed dispensary is merely on a different street than a protected facility but otherwise immediately adjacent. |
The proposed local law provides regulation similar to that applying to liquor establishments. | The proposed local law would be among the most liberal in the nation. In support of this argument a multi-state and multi country review of distance requirements, without reference sources, was provided orally. |
The proposed local law allows cannabis to be among the economic drivers of the area, utilizing now vacant buildings and adding to the tax base. | The proposed local law will result in loss of local control over retail dispensary locations having, for all practical purposes, ceded that authority to the state’s Office of Cannabis Management. |
Corning should be a trailblazer in allowing cannabis retail dispensaries and encouraging public education about responsible and beneficial use of cannabis. | The proposed local law does not protect the safety of Corning’s youth, encouraging bad habits at a younger age. |
Regulating the sale of cannabis, like regulation of sale of other goods and provision of other services, is for the good of the community. | The location of cannabis retail dispensaries in Corning will diminish the overall quality of life within the City. |
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
The Council for the City of Corning, New York held its regular meeting at 6:40 p.m.
at Council Chambers, Civic Center Plaza, Corning, New York.
All Councilmembers attended the meeting. Counting City of Corning employees, 33
members of the public attended.
Visitor’s Comments on Agenda Items:
A member of the public who had previously spoken in opposition to proposed Public
Law #8 of 2023 expanded his comments. He asserted that there is no reason why
the City of Corning needs to amend it current law regulating retail cannabis
dispensaries. Any argument, the speaker asserted, that relies on the premise that
the Office of Cannabis Management’s final rule requires an amendment to current
Corning law is erroneous. He articulated a belief, with oral references to the final
regulations, that the existing Code of Corning could be challenged by aggrieved
applicants for local licenses but would be superseded only if the Office of Cannabis
Management found the Code to unreasonably impair the operation of retail
cannabis facilities within the City.
Old Business - Public Law #8 of 2023 – Cannabis
Mayor Boland spoke in favor of the proposed public law. He stated that the
proposed public law presents only one question to the Council: will the City of
Corning bring its code into compliance with state law and the office of Cannabis
Management’s final regulations? The proposed public law does not ask the council
to permit sales. That was done in 2021 when the Council voted to permit licensed
retail dispensaries within the City limits. The proposed law does not ask the Council
to endorse use of cannabis. The proposed public law doesn’t require anyone to
agree with the state law, but it is the law. State law preempts and controls the
actions of the City. Further, the Office of Cannabis Management’s regulations carry
the force of law. The only question before the Council is whether the City of Corning
will comply.
Mayor Boland stated that it has been suggested that the Council push back; that it
lobby for repeal or extensive change of state law and the final regulations. After
reviewing the history of public engagement with the law and the regulations, Mayor
Boland argued that the push-back train has long left the station.
Mayor Boland suggested that the failure of the Council to bring the City into
compliance with state law and regulation could have expensive consequences for
the City and its tax-paying residents. He asked that councilmembers put aside
their opinions on matters not in issue tonight and to act instead on their oath to
preserve and protect the Constitution of the State of New York and laws made in
compliance therewith.
Councilmember Coccho spoke against the proposed public law. She decried that
there were only seven Councilmembers voting two years ago when the City allowed
dispensaries. Her husband, the former Councilmember for her ward, had died
before the vote and another Councilmember was absent. She asked whether the
Councilmembers for the four southside wards would vote for the proposed public
law if a dispensary was to be placed in their backyards, next to their schools and
their churches, as will be the case, she feels, on the northside. She asked the
Councilmembers to do the right thing: to vote their conscience and not their
pocketbooks.
Councilmember ReSue spoke against the proposed public law. He complained
about the way in which the state law has been rolled out. Cities were given only a
brief period of time, with no meaningful regulatory guidance, to decide whether to
allow or disallow retail dispensaries. It has taken the Office of Cannabis
Management and the state five years to produce final regulations. Now, once
again, the state wants cities to comply promptly, taking away from local control the
definition of the “place” these shops can operate.
Councilmember ReSue expressed his view that the laws of the United States, which
currently make the sale, possession, and use of cannabis illegal, preempt state and
local law. If the federal government banned all assault weapons, he argued, would
Governor Hochul claim that a state law could make them legal? Of course not, he
said. In his opinion, saying that state law overrides federal cannabis law is simply a
politician choosing which laws she likes and which she doesn’t. It doesn’t make the
choice right, he concluded.
Councilmember Hunt spoke against the proposed public law. She asked the Council
to recall, two years ago, that those voting in favor of allowing retail dispensaries in
the City relied also upon the roll-out of fair and meaningful regulations. That hasn’t
happened. She asked Councilmembers to ask themselves if it is the right thing to
do to have the Corning Leader building become a dispensary virtually next door to a
school and a daycare? Don’t we want to do the best we can for our community, she
asked? Is this going to be a positive change, she asked?
Councilmember Clark admitted to mixed feelings about the proposed public law. He
doesn’t agree with the distance and spacing regulations that are embodied in the
final regulations and, therefore, in the proposed public law. He can also relate to
some of the comments about the law, the regulations and the roll-out that have
been made.
However, Corning’s code is not in alignment with state requirements If left that
way it could increase the risk of liability to the City. Further, the proposed public law
does address the time and manner of sale, which is important. The proposed law
restricts hours of operation, signage, advertising, requires compliance with zoning,
and imposes liability for branches of these requirements. This allows for important
local control.
Finally, Councilmember Clark said, it is important, as in all relationships between
the City and the community at large, that there be a positive relationship
established at the outset with the owners and operators of retail cannabis
dispensaries doing business in Corning. Getting the cannabis trade out of the
shadows and into the hands of responsible, regulated businesses who can work with
the City well is a good thing. Consequently, he will vote in favor of the proposed
public law.
Councilmember Paterson spoke in favor of the proposed public law. She stated that
she has always acted and voted with the best interest of the city. She is familiar,
she said, with the retail cannabis operations in other states and believes that they
have not caused community decline, an outcome which is feared by the opponents
of the proposed public law. She sees no reason retail cannabis sales should have
an untoward effect here.
Councilmember Hyde spoke in favor of the proposed law. He expressed the wish
that the state law’s implementation had been smoother. Still, cannabis has been
regularly available without any control over source or safety. Creating rules that
allow for control of time, place, manner of sale in a manner roughly similar to the
control of alcohol make sense. The public law will create a useable mechanism to
make sure that Corning’s dispensaries comply.
Thereafter on a vote of five in favor (Boland, Hyde, Telehany, Paterson, Clark) and
four opposed (Hunt, Coccho, Muccini and ReSue) Public Law #8 of 2023 was
approved.
New Business - the Council Unanimously:
• Authorized transfer of $32,439 from the Contingency line item to the Medical
Insurance line item to cover health insurance premiums in the Buildings and
Grounds Division.
• Accepted a grant in the amount of $150,000 from Community Impact and
Investment for green infrastructure engineering and design of Denison Park
($75,000 to Planning Consultants line) for purchase of Community Planning GIS
Software ($45,000 to Planning Contract Services line) and for upgrades to the
City’s drone program ($30,000 to Police Department Equipment line).
At this point, a motion was adopted for the Council to enter executive session to
discuss proposed or current litigation. The public, including the writer of this
report, were required to leave.
The resolution to be discussed during the executive session would authorize
the City Manager to enter into a contract for legal services with the Law
Office of Robert King PLLC and Stag Liuzza LLC for AFFF/PFAS litigation.
From brief unofficial conversations with persons allowed to stay in the executive
session, it is believed that the resolution passed and that the following can be
provided For Background:
The lawyers to be engaged are:
Robert King PLLC. Mr. King advertises as King Law serving the greater Rochester,
Syracuse, Geneva, and Finger Lakes regions. https://www.robertkinglawfirm.com/
Stag Liuzza LLC. This is an environment and complex litigation law firm based in
New Orleans, LA https://stagliuzza.com/
AFFF stands for Aqueous Film-Forming Foam. PFAS stands for per- or
polyfluoroalkyl substance. AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades in
suppressing fires or in fire suppression training. State Attorneys General,
municipalities, and water utility entities as well as individuals have brought court
claims against the product manufacturers, most prominently 3M and Dupont, which
involve allegations of harm to water supplies, the environment, and firefighting
personnel due pollution from or exposure to PFAS-containing AFFF. Claims include
requests for medical monitoring, property damage and other economic loss. Some
claims involve allegations that exposure to PFAS-containing AFFF causes certain
types of cancer.as well as other diseases.
There are many thousands of current lawsuits involving PFAS-containing AFFF. With
so many cases pending in federal court, each lawsuit has been consolidated into
one multidistrict litigation (MDL). Judge Richard M. Gergel in the United States
Federal Court for the District of South Carolina is presiding as the judge in charge of
the MDL.
All municipal and local water authority plaintiffs that have already brought suit
against the manufacturers of PFAS-containing AFFF for contaminating public water
sources reached a global settlement in October 2023. 3M and Dupont, among other
defendants, have agreed to pay $10.3 billion to resolve all municipality cases.
However, questions have been raised regarding whether the settlements will cover
the true costs needed by water utilities and, if not, what the impact will be on other
entities.
It is believed that the City of Corning is engaging counsel to protect its interests in
the MDL or to pursue other relief,
The Council entered Executive Session at 7:20 p.m. and adjourned later in the
evening.
NOTES
The writer of this report has presented items in an order different than that
in which they occurred at the meeting.
The writer has, except as specifically noted, amended, or eliminated
comments and attribution for them. Unless quotation marks are used, the
comments reported are summaries and not verbatim.
For brevity, the writer has not included all items on the agenda of the
meeting.
Some material has been added by the writer for context or clarity and where
it is extensive, is labeled “For Background”.
Comments