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.