The planning board does not operate in a vacuum. The public hearing portion was closed by a majority (4 to 3) as a normal course of events. Regardless of what Ms. Ciarlante thinks this is how the process works and it is part of the requirements of the planning board members as articulated in Article VII of the Town ofSaugerties Zoninglaw. Again available on the Town’s website and/or a quick google search.
I believe there is a misconception by the public, and exacerbated by Ms. Ciarlante’s letter, that by closing the public hearing the planning board sent a signal that the project is ‘a done deal’. Nothing could be further from the truth and especially when former planning and zoning members are in the audience and voicing some very valid concerns. But to keep the public hearing open would have continued the debate that appeared already well voiced and duly noted by the recording secretary. We appreciate the comments and the past service of Joe Roberti, Sr., Gabe DaPaola and Henry Rua.
So please do not allow the distrust of the project to translate into distrust of the Planning Board. That is not why we are here. We know the project has more significant impacts now than we did prior to the public hearing…..that is why in section 7.1.8 B “the town board may seek input from the planning board where their input would help the board make a more informed decision”…..further the planning board must refer the application to the county planning board as per section 7.1.9 of Town zoning.
The review by Dan Shuster of Shuster Associates in C (1-a,b,c) clearly gave the planning board direction prior to the public hearing and stressed that the board weigh the options when deliberating the outcome by stating: “the primary change to the project relates to the ownership of the units rather than physical factors which would affect the determination of significance regarding impacts due to traffic, sewer/water usage, schools, etc” Again, I hardly see where the planning board or town planner can be accused of not considering ALL the impacts.
However I do take exception to the veiled accusation that the planning board, and in particular myself as chairman, endorsed the tax breaks as a non-issue. As a matter of fact the public hearing of August 16th was the first time any of us learned of the tax agreements reached between the Town Board and the developer. We do intend to consider all socio-economic impacts as Ms. Ciarlante has stressed in her letter to the editor. We’re not ignoring anyone.
But keep in mind it took a public hearing to gather all the issues and concerns of the citizenry. That’s why the applicant gets to propose and the public gets to comment and the planning board gets to listen……it would serve no further purpose to leave the public hearing open…it does however serve a purpose to review all the facts, documents and comments so that the planning board can deliberate from an informed base…..And this is the type of information we need to review closer as it was brought to us by the public in a public meeting.
