Interesting, Informative, Noteworthy, Nice to hear, Necessary and Congested all in one meeting..... Our November 19th, Planning Board Meeting

Steve Laifer, thanks for recording our recent Planning Board meeting!

Great feature with the dual cameras!

Click here to view.

Interesting:  The Planning Board prepared concerted comments to explain and clarify their September 17th 'surprise & frustration' at being told they have no authority of mass & scale during Site Plan Review of the Butterfield Development.

Informative:  The Planning Board has been concerned with mass & scale since they first took up the State Environmental Quality Review process on the B4A Zoning Amendment and its attached Concept Plan in September of 2013.

Noteworthy:  There was a strong turn out of community support including: statements from seniors who look forward to a Senior Center and a Post Office at Butterfield; endorsements from County Legislator Barbara Scucciamara and news of County Executive Odell talking to the Ailes about their financial support, recollections of success at the waterfront - as constructed by Paul Guillaro!

Nice to hear:  Expressions of appreciation for the hard work of the Planning Board from Applicant's Attorney, Steve Barshov, Chestnut Ridge resident Shirley Norton and Paulding Avenue resident John Cronin.

Necessary: Corrections to the record by former Trustee Matt Francisco and Trustee Stephanie Hawkins.

Congested: A jury box of more amateur videographers including, Garrison resident and Nelsonville Church Pastor/PCN&R columnist, Tim Greco, Greco-church-member and Nelsonville resident Bridget Villetto, and former Cold Spring Village resident, Catherine Square.

....the facts of this issue... with hotlinks!

***

On June 27^, 2013, the Special Board discussed funding needs for completion of our Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, its suspension of further work on the LWRP, and it voted to notify the Village Board of available funding thru the New York State Consolidated Funding Application process  - deadline for which was August 12. (Minutes of that meeting are here.)

At the Village Board Monthly Meeting on July 9, 2013,  Mike Armstrong, Chair of the Special Board pointed out that funding to draft land use laws is available through the Consolidated Funding Application. Armstrong reported to the Village Board that Ted Fink of GreenPlan offered his services in preparation of that application.  IMPORTANT NOTE:  If he believed at the time the Village Board should not accept Fink’s offer, Armstrong remained silent.  (Minutes of that meeting are here.)

At its workshop on July 25, 2013, the Village Board voted unanimously (including Mayor Falloon & Trustee Campbell) to hire GreenPlan to work on the Code Update Project if GreenPlan's application for the $75,000 NYSERDA grant was successful.   (Minutes of that meeting are here.)  

The grant application was successful.  The Village was awarded the funding.

Both NYSERDA and the Village Attorney confirmed for the Village that an RFP is not required for the hiring of a consultant on this project. 

On a telephone conference call with NYSERDA on July 1, 2014, NYSERDA confirmed again, that an RFP for consulting services is not required for hiring of a consultant on this project.

However, Trustees Bowman & Fadde insisted the Village draw up an RFP for consulting services to replace GreenPlan.   (Minutes of that meeting are here!)

GreenPlan applied.  AKRF applied.  Barton & Logiudice applied.

On October 7, 2014 the Village Board voted 4-1 ( I dissented. ) to hire Molloy's preferred planning consultant, Barton & Logiudice, to replace GreenPlan – again, the professional consultant who had been unanimously voted on by the Village Board in July of 2013. (Minutes of that meeting are here.)

***

It looks like Fadde, Bowman and their friend Molloy have risked taxpayers over $7,500 through poor contract management and an inability to manage money, and yep! You guessed it, they want to blame me for it.

It appears Trustee Bowman & the PCN&R would have you believe that financial consequences of the Village Board’s change in consulting services are mine to pay.   

They would be wrong.

I have no personal liability for Trustee Bowman’s or Trustee Fadde's questionable financial initiatives that appear to be in service to their personal and political agendas.

Unfortunately, the Village as a whole appears to bear that burden.

We should all be watching closely as they continue to sponsor actions that can cost our Village time, money and quality service, and continue to oppose initiatives that represent real savings, meaningful service, real revenues & efficiencies!

***

As a consequence of replacing planning consultant, GreenPlan, with Barton & Logiudice for work on the NYSERDA grant / Code Update project, the Village received a bill from GreenPlan for more than $7,500 for the work involved in preparing the grant application.  

At last night's meeting the Village Board took advice of counsel on the matter.

(Watch the video of last night's meeting here.)

Thereafter, the Village Board voted to table the matter so the Village Attorney can reach out to GreenPlan in an effort to settle the dispute.

Unhappy with the consequences of his and Trustee Fadde's initiative to replace GreenPlan  (the professional consultant unanimously voted on by the Village Board in July of 2013) with the now-discredited Barton & Logiudice, and unhappy with the legal advice from the Village attorney,  BUT unwilling to take responsibility for those consequences, Trustee Bowman voted against settling the dispute ....

….but not before clumsily attempting to shift blame away from himself and Trustee Faddee –  and onto me – by asking for  Mike Armstrong’s well-known opinion of a funding opportunity he and his colleagues on the Special Board asked the Village Board to secure in service to their continued work.

…and not before suggesting I should ‘get out my checkbook’ and pay for GreenPlan’s bill myself. 

Our Village doesn’t have time or money to indulge anyone’s squandering of our Village’s limited resources:  our taxes , our staff’s time, our real property or the hard work of our volunteers.

Of course, I responded.  Dumbass:  Not as precise a word as it might have been – but it sufficiently conveys my opinion of Trustee Bowman’s financial acumen relative to this matter.

***

On June 27^, 2013, the Special Board discussed funding needs for completion of our Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, its suspension of further work on the LWRP, and it voted to notify the Village Board of available funding thru the New York State Consolidated Funding Application process  - deadline for which was August 12. (Minutes of that meeting are here.)

At the Village Board Monthly Meeting on July 9, 2013,  Mike Armstrong, Chair of the Special Board pointed out that funding to draft land use laws is available through the Consolidated Funding Application. Armstrong reported to the Village Board that Ted Fink of GreenPlan offered his services in preparation of that application.  IMPORTANT NOTE:  If he believed at the time the Village Board should not accept Fink’s offer, Armstrong remained silent.  (Minutes of that meeting are here.)

At its workshop on July 25, 2013, the Village Board voted unanimously (including Mayor Falloon & Trustee Campbell) to hire GreenPlan to work on the Code Update Project if GreenPlan's application for the $75,000 NYSERDA grant was successful.   (Minutes of that meeting are here.)  

The grant application was successful.  The Village was awarded the funding.

Both NYSERDA and the Village Attorney confirmed for the Village that an RFP is not required for the hiring of a consultant on this project. 

On a telephone conference call with NYSERDA on July 1, 2014, NYSERDA confirmed again, that an RFP for consulting services is not required for hiring of a consultant on this project.

However, Trustees Bowman & Fadde insisted the Village draw up an RFP for consulting services to replace GreenPlan.   (Minutes of that meeting are here!)

GreenPlan applied.  AKRF applied.  Barton & Logiudice applied.

On October 7, 2014 the Village Board voted 4-1 ( I dissented. ) to hire Molloy's preferred planning consultant, Barton & Logiudice, to replace GreenPlan – again, the professional consultant who had been unanimously voted on by the Village Board in July of 2013. (Minutes of that meeting are here.)

***

If the current composition of the Village Board believes the $75,000 NYSERDA grant for the Code Update project should be declined, the Village Board should vote to do so.  

I am one of 5 votes on the Village Board and Trustee Campbell and Mayor Falloon have demonstrated their openness to persuasion on less critical issues than those that currently serve as political football for Trustees Bowman and Fadde and those around them with similar interests.

Resident Video of the 11-13-2014 Code Update Committee Meeting :: 2nd & 4th Thursdays @ Village Hall 7PM (Meeting #2)

Many thanks (again) to resident videographer Steve Laifer for taking the time to record the 

second meeting of the Code Update Committee on November 13th, 2014

Clear Here to Watch!

Information about the Code Update Committee can be found on the Village of Cold Spring website at:

http://coldspringny.gov/Pages/ColdSpringNY_CodeUpdate/index

Resident Video of the 11-12-2014 Historic District Review Board Meeting .... updated designs for Butterfield....

Many thanks (again) to resident videographer Steve Laifer for taking the time to record the 

> November 12th meeting of the Historic District Review Board. <

Interesting proposed designs! 

Click to see the updated designs and hear discussion about them!

Resident Video of the 10-22-2014 Historic District Review Board Meeting ....Butterfield! Butterfield! Butterfield!

Many thanks to resident videographer Steve Laifer for taking the time to record the October 22nd meeting of the Historic District Review Board.  

 The designs for Butterfield should be of interest to us all!  

Click Here to Watch!

"I write with grave concerns about recent events concerning the Planning Board...."

Greg Porter Miller reads John Plummer's contribution to public comment at last's night's Monthly Village Board meeting.

It is worth watching -- Click here to View!

"Four Extremely Dedicated...Dedicated Public Servants...who are doing it for the Love of this Village!"

Michael Robinson's contribution to last night's Public Comment period is eloquent!

It is worth watching -- Click Here to Watch!    

Resident Video of the 11-10-2014 Monthly Meeting of the Cold Spring Village Board

Many thanks to Steve Laifer for recording last night's meeting of the Village Board.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW!

ANIMAL FARM, or "That is your receipt for your husband..." -- Public Comment at a Planning Board Meeting, 11-5-2014

Pursuant to Karn Dunn's attendance at the October 21st Village Board meeting, and her invitation to people to come and ask questions of the Planning Board, I brought with me to last Wednesday's Planning Board Workshop several questions from Village residents, as well as one of my own.

Audio of the entire meeting can be heard AUDIO OF ENTIRE MEETING!

Consistent with what I've observed at previous Planning Board meetings, the Chair protested that during the public comment portion of the meeting questions are not permitted or simply refused an answer.  Absurdly, on Wednesday evening Barney Molloy argued with me in an effort to control what I spoke into the public record and tried to prevent me from asking questions.  This interest in stifling public comment and prohibiting reasonable questions from residents comes across as hostile, suspicious and very basically conflicts with our community's rights to and interest in open and accessible government.

Audio of Public Comment can be heard here:  AUDIO OF PUBLIC COMMENT!

I'm not the only person who feels this way. Read here what other village residents have to say about this kind of conduct.

A transcript of the Public Comment period of this meeting follows:

STEPHANIE HAWKINS:  I have public comment. I’m Stephanie Hawkins. I’m a  Trustee on the Village Board. Many of you here know me.  A couple people who couldnt be here this evening asked me to bring…

ARNE SAARI:  I’m sorry. I can’t hear you.

STEPHANIE HAWKINS:  A couple people who couldnt be here this evening asked me to bring some questions to you.

BARNEY MOLLOY:  Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me.  Public comment is just that:  Public comment. You may read…

STEPHANIE HAWKINS:  Oh, now that’s interesting. Karn attended the October 21^st….let me finish…

BARNEY MOLLOY: You may read a statement.

STEPHANIE HAWKINS:  No. Let me finish, Barney.

BARNEY MOLLOY: You may read a statement and make a comment.

STEPHANIE HAWKINS: Karn Dunn attended the October 21st Village Board workshop.   It was a Tuesday, you (Barney) were not present. And it was a meeting at which we discussed the question of confusion that 4 out of 5 planning board members expressed in September.

BARNEY MOLLOY: Except for the fact of the matter that is not public comment about anything that was on the agenda or discussed here this evening.

STEPHANIE HAWKINS: This evening Arne Saari raised the point that the footprints of the concept plan were a question to be addressed.  That came up in a discussion and that’s what this is about so …

BARNEY MOLLOY: And the majority of the board in minutes where amended to reflect that

STEPHANIE HAWKINS: I’m going to proceed with the comments that were given to me.

BARNEY: You may make a comment.

STEPHANIE HAWKINS:  On September 17th, Karn Dunn and Anne Impellizieri and James Pergamo and Arne Saari all said that thy were told that they could address the mass and scale of the development that that they wanted to reduce – at Site Plan Review. This is a matter of public record. This was reported in Philipstown 

A question for all of you but perhaps Chuck (Voss) can answer this questions because he’s the paid professional here.  If we accept the consistent recollection of these four (4) planning board members, why would Chuck (Voss) or Anna (Georgiou) or Barney ever have advised them that on a condition zoning change such as you were reviewing during SEQR why would they ever have been advised that they could go back and reduce mass & scale during site plan review when we know the proposed law as drafted removed that possibility?

Second, what was the purpose of completing a SEQR review (at great expense to the developer) issuing a negative declaration that publicly informed the developer he could build without impact and THEN sending a memo to raise the mass and scale issue with among other things as part of an environmental impact to be concerned about?

During SEQR then trustee Matt Francisco who was the liaison to the PB asked the PB if along with this memo of recommendations  you would be including alternate concept plans. When he asked that question he said that Barney Molloy refused to answer – quite similar to this evening.  

So, those are questions that Matt Francisco asked me to bring to you.

Another resident asked me to bring questions that on consideration of the role of the Chair in the SEQR process and the fact that questions like that were refused and the fact that 4 out of 5 planning board members were surprised and frustrate to learn that they apparently misunderstood what it was they were issuing a negative dec on.   This resident asks – or remarks that the Planning Board Chair  appears to be working for an out of town developer and that this is a problem that deserves scrutiny.

And he also asks the question – and it’s a question for the Village Board also -  When there is the appearance of a breach of client confidentiality by an attorney (and he’s not saying that a bona fide breach did occur, but certainly he says there’s an appearance of a breach – this is related to the letter that was shared with you, but then also shared with the PCNR – the letter from Anna Georgiou).  He suggest – he asks if there’s a reason Village would not refer this matter to a New York State court disciplinary authority? 

And that’s Evan Hudson. He’s a resident of High Street.

And my own question – and this is for you, this evening, Chuck – Why would you have lead the planning board to issue a negative declaration knowing full well that the adopted law would render mass and scale - the issue our planning board repeatedly raised during SEQR as a concern of theirs - that would place mass & scale beyond their authority?

And so those are my questions and it would be great if someone would answer them.

BARNEY MOLLOY: Is there any other public comment?  May I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? 

[SILENCE]

BARNEY MOLLOY: ……..or not….

STEPHANIE HAWKINS: Would anybody like to offer some contributions to this discussion? Because this is a problem… You seem reticent to adjourn. You seem reticent to speak publicly when asked. This is a huge issue here.

BARNEY MOLLOY: ….we’re in the middle of site plan review. We’ll continue with site plan review as is our obligation under the law of New York state. Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting this evening? Public comment is concluded  ............   

[SILENCE]

BARNEY MOLLOY: Okay. we can just sit here then….

ARNE SAARI:  Do we want to talk about what she brought up?.........

BARNEY MOLLOY: first of all we have a standing practice of public comment. There are other boards in the village that don’t even permit public comment.

ARNE SAARI: I‘m asking a question do we want to discuss what she brought up? You’re saying no?

BARNEY MOLLOY: If you want to discuss what she brought up, we adjourn the meeting first. You’re free to stay here, have any conversation with whomever you want but it is not an agenda item. It is not a matter of business before us this evening.

STEPHANIE HAWKINS: There’s no requirement that you adjourn the meeting before discussing this. This is a matter of the board…this is a matter of the Village.

BARNEY MOLLOY: this is also not a village board meeting where we’re just going to deviate from an agenda, deviate from the matter that is before us. This is the planning board.

STEPHANIE HAWKINS: That’s clear.

BARNEY MOLLOY: yes that’s clear. We have a specific charge. We have a specific application that we are required to follow a specific process on. The fact of the matter is that if there are members of the public who do not understand, do not share in our desire….

STEPHANIE HAWKINS: You don’t need to patronize me. I understand what you’re trying to do here. If you're board would -

BARNEY MOLLOY: Stephanie, if I was needing… if I was attempting to patronize you it would be clear.

STEPHANIE HAWKINS: I’d be happy to hear from any members of the board what they have to say.

BARNEY MOLLOY: Any members of the board may need to discuss with Stephanie Hawkins whatever they so choose, but our meeting in terms of our agenda and our business has been concluded. I would like a motion to conclude.

ANNE IMPELLIZIERI:  I…I…move that we adjourn and continue that discussion -

BARNEY MOLLOY: May I have a second?

ANNE IMPELLIZIERI: ...at some other time.

BARNEY MOLLOY: Is there a second?

JAMES PERGAMO: Second.

BARNEY MOLLOY: All those in favor

KARN DUNN: Aye

JAMES PERGAMO: Aye

ANNE IMPELLIZIERI:  [INAUDIBLE]

BARNEY MOLLOY: Any opposed

ARNE SAARI:  Opposed

BARNEY MOLLOY: 4-1, thank you. our meeting is concluded. Our next meeting is the 19^th.

Letter: “Open Government” Only an Election Slogan? October 29, 2014, written by Michael Robinson, including comments to-date, reprinted here from Philipstown.info / The Paper

Letter: “Open Government” Only an Election Slogan?

October 29, 2014

In their Sept. 17 meeting, four members of the Planning Board discovered they had no authority over the size of the buildings of Butterfield. They expressed surprise to learn they had missed the opportunity to secure that authority. Each said they had been told they could make the development smaller later. Certain that the Village Board had intended for them to have this authority, they said they wanted to review the matter with the Village Board.

Instead of taking their discussion to an open meeting with the Village Board, or continuing discussion among themselves in an open meeting, Planning Board Chairman Barney Molloy announced an executive session with Special Counsel Anna Georgiou, away from public scrutiny.

Where four clearly confused, frustrated but diligent volunteers went into that closed meeting looking to reclaim their authority, three came out quietly agreeing to not go to the Village Board, instead ceding authority over the size and scale of these buildings, which they deemed too large for our village.

“Open government” seemed very important to Barney Molloy and his candidates Bowman and Fadde during our last village election. They demanded immediate posting of meeting minutes and videotaping of all meetings. They accused then Trustee Matt Francisco of “unprecedented” and “illegal” use of executive session.

(It should be noted that in their first six months as trustees, Bowman and Fadde have invoked executive sessions four and six times respectively, more than Francisco requested in two years, and still there are no videotaped Village Board workshops, and no videotaped meetings of our standing boards and committees. Five weeks have passed since the Planning Board’s Sept. 17 meeting and still there are no minutes posted.)

Francisco’s board invoked executive session for interviewing village job applicants in service of the interviewee’s privacy. For some reason, it was important to Bowman, Fadde and Molloy that the public have access to such interviews. Is it not equally important for the public to have access to a meeting where they might understand how our Planning Board came to cede its authority over the size of the largest development in Cold Spring’s history?

One board member said at that Sept. 17 meeting, before going into the closed session: “I have grave doubts that the community understands the mass of this project … and I think will be surprised at the result.” “Open government” should be an active principle rather than a banner to be waved at opponents during an election. We need to put it into practice at once, if we don’t want to be unhappily surprised down the road.

Michael Robinson
Cold Spring

Comment Policy

Please see our comment policy before posting.