Reporting from Monday, June 2, 2008 :

Committee on Open Government Advisory (COOG) Opinion

From the June 2 Regular Meeting of the Town Council (TC)

Councilperson Edwards asked about an Advisory Opinion from the NYS Committee on Open Government and a letter from the town attorney relating to a long-pending FOIL request.  She asked why the town attorney was being asked to assist with FOIL requests.  The town clerk reported that the FOIL requesters had been allowed, as a courtesy, to review the files and make copies with a personal copier with the understanding that any copies would be made available so duplicate copies could be made for the town clerk and town attorney.  Since they refused to provide the copies, they were told they could not review the files and the ZEO, according to the town clerk, is now spending “many hours” pulling all of the responsive records.  The ZEO, town clerk and town attorney will meet to review those records.  [Note: the COOG opinion is that the town may not condition the right to copy records on providing the town with copies or an indication of the records copied.] Audience member Ardith Truhan commented that if FOIL requesters weren’t allowed to review the records unless they made the copies available, it wasn’t a courtesy at all but a requirement.  The town clerk said this is how she has handled all FOIL requests; she needs to have a record of what was provided to each person in case “Joe” FOILs something and then “Terry” comes in and wants to FOIL what “Joe” FOILed.  Ms. Edwards asked the town clerk why she does this?  The town clerk said “…I would like to know what was given out in a FOIL…” and “…I would like to know what the copies were and I have to do that.” The town clerk said every FOIL request is reviewed by the town attorney to determine if it’s valid so the clerk has to have those copies on hand.  The clerk also reported that this particular request for ZEO records was large and that ZEO Dennis Callahan (who was hired in 2002) did not know how former ZEO Ed Waldron filed his records and was waiting for him to be able to come in to assist.

Zoning Commission (ZC)

From the June 2 Regular Meeting of the Town Council (TC)

Supervisor Young, responding to changes proposed by Councilperson Edwards to the ZC section of the draft May 5 Town Board meeting minutes said “You also remember I told you at that time that Tony and Richard would be the ones from the Board that would be on the committee.” Supervisor Young also reminded Ms. Edwards that “I said the structure will be 2 members from the Town Board, 2 members from the Planning Board, 2 members from the Zoning Board and…3 citizens so we have an odd number.” Ms. Edwards felt that the TC as a whole should vote on this and expressed concern about having 2 TC members serving as voting members of a ZC whose recommendations they will ultimately have to vote on.  Supervisor Young said she’d inquired of other towns and this was their suggestion.  Councilperson Skoda reported that a ZBA member had contacted a representative of the Pace Land Use Training Institute.  From the audience, ZBA member Robert Rochler identified himself as the person who had made the call and said the Pace representative recommended there be 2 people from each board.  According to Mr. Rochler, Pace didn’t necessarily recommend a TC member be on the ZC but did recommend that a member familiar with the zoning laws (Mr. Rochler said he had immediately thought of Councilperson Skoda) serve as chair and the Pace representative recommended that he be appointed.  Mr. Rochler also reported the Pace representative said that the more people on the ZC from the ZBA, not from the PB, the better since it’s the zoning code that’s being re-done.  Mr. Rochler said Pace also recommended the addition of members of the public.  Another ZBA member in the audience, Moisha Blechman, said that Ancram expected members of its Comprehensive Plan Committee to participate with zoning revisions.  Mr. Rochler said that he “completely disagree[d] with that; that she [the Pace representative] recommended 2 people from Comp Plan but no more than that because they’re going to be biased towards the Comprehensive Plan.” [Note: New York State Town Law Section 272-a (11) provides that all town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to the provisions of that section.] After further discussion about the need to hire a land use planning or law firm to assist the ZC, the need to put out a request for proposals, discussion of how zoning revisions had been done in the past (by the full TC, PB and ZBA), etc., the TC felt that further thought should be given before deciding on the ZC’s structure and seeking letters of interest, and tabled the issue.

Park and Ride Revisited

From the June 2 Regular Meeting of the Town Council (TC)

Matthew Griesemer, lawyer for the property owner, was a guest speaker along with David Markowitz, DOT’s representative.  It turns out that the 10-year state contract the town had rejected out of hand at its last meeting was actually “malleable.” New offers include: (1) town input into the design of the lot; (2) maintenance of the lot by the property owners; (3) owner-provided liability insurance for the town; (4) payment of an administrative fee covering hours town personnel spend on paperwork; (5) an option for the town to stop participating after 5 years without being obligated to reimburse the state for any part of the construction cost as long as the town is willing to have the lot remain in place.  If, at any point between 5 and 10 years, the town is unwilling to have the lot remain, it would be liable for a portion of the lot’s construction cost.  Other issues raised include linking town participation to DOT’s reducing the speed limit on Route 82 (already rejected once and not likely to be approved, according to Mr. Markowitz) and the ability of the town to increase the assessed value of the parcel to reflect the value of improvements (something the state prefers towns agree not to do).  Asked why the state couldn’t lease the site itself from its owner, leaving Taghkanic out of it, Mr. Markowitz said that legally it could but his region never had and they “strongly prefer” not to. Regarding the state’s buying the property and building the lot itself, without town input, he said “we do that all over the place” but “we won’t do that here because there’s not a compelling state interest to take that property and have a Park and Ride there.”

After assurances that the town would have input into the design and operation of the lot through its Planning Board approval process, with the deal not going through if the town’s requirements aren’t met, the TC agreed to review a revised contract to be provided by DOT.

Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing

From the June 2 Regular Meeting of the Town Council (TC)

TC conducted its first official public hearing on the draft plan.  The hearing was continued until July 11, 2008.  In addition to the draft plan posted on the town website, a copy showing changes from the last prior draft will be added.

Reporting from Monday, May 5, 2008 :

Memorial Day Dedication of New DOT Plantings at Taconic Parkway Ramps

From the May 5 Regular Meeting of the Town Council (TC)

Supervisor Young said she had asked Barbara Roemer and Mary Udell to arrange a dedication ceremony on site for 9 am on May 24.  Audience members expressed concern about pedestrian safety.  Ms. Udell recommended the site of the smaller garden, the one next to the diner, as being the safer of the two.  It is state property and ZEO Dennis Callahan recommended obtaining written DOT approval for the event, which Ms. Udell said she will try to get.

Zoning Commission (ZC)

From the May 5 Regular Meeting of the Town Council (TC)

TC discussed setting up a committee to work on revisions to the Town’s land use laws.  Councilperson Edwards felt this project was too large to add to the PB workload.  ZEO Dennis Callahan said he understood it would not be proper for the ZBA to assume that role.  Supervisor Young said it should be a separate committee with no more than five to seven members and that letters of interest would be sought.  The town attorney advised caution about delegating the TC’s authority; he recommended two TC members serve on the ZC.  Alice Platt, chair of the Comprehensive Plan Committee, said she understood that a planning or law firm was normally hired to work with the zoning committee and asked whether a Request for Proposals should be used.  The town attorney concurred about the drafting of any changes but said it would be a professional services contract so it could be deemed exempt from the procurement policy.  He said that he’d done revisions as town attorney for Livingston, Claverack and Philmont, and that the town was free to use whoever it would like.  After further discussion, the TC felt that the committee should be set up and have an opportunity to consider this before making any decisions.  Councilperson Edwards recommended that Elan Planning and Design, the Town’s Comprehensive Plan consultant, also be asked about recommended procedures for revising zoning.  Audience member Loretta Carley asked whether “there really would be an honest effort to make [the ZC] a diverse board or would it turn out like the Planning and Zoning Board where only people who really backed the Republican Party in the last election….” At that point, Supervisor Young banged her gavel and told the questioner “that’s enough.” She started to comment that when it was “the other side…,” at which point, several audience and TC members interrupted and said there was a lot of diversity then; that “…they had added diversity where it didn’t exist but now it’s all been reversed.”

Park and Ride

From the May 5 Regular Meeting of the Town Council (TC)

The town attorney summarized a contract received from NYS DOT for the proposed commuter lot on Route 82 next to the diner.  He said the state could lease the property directly from the owner but preferred not to, instead offering a contract requiring the Town to lease the property and front all the costs with state/federal reimbursement following.  It does not include any provisions for maintenance of the lot or for input from the Town into its design.  In addition, if the lot is not operated for 10 years, the Town would have to reimburse the state for a prorated share of the construction costs.  For these and other reasons, including a significant recordkeeping burden, TC determined it was not interested in pursuing the lot on the terms outlined.

Records Retention and Access Policy

From the May 5 Regular Meeting of the Town Council (TC)

The original draft was prepared by the town attorney along with the town clerk.  The town attorney e-mailed additional material which the town clerk forwarded to the TC members on April 30 but she learned two days later that no one had received it.  The clerk provided paper copies to the TC members at the meeting but this, combined with the town attorney’s recommendation that the TC assume the policy-making role (he’d understood they might be setting up a committee), resulted in its being tabled again.