I'm glad you asked, because this little video from last week's Planning Board meeting is pretty magnificent. In it, Dara Trahan, town planning specialist, puts a question to RUPCO attorney Michael Moriello, who looked up from his Quickbooks tutorial (not really) to answer: NO.
The question? Dara asked if the town of Woodstock, represented by the Planning Board, could have the authority to limit the use of the Woodstock Commons housing project to affordable housing. What other use is there, you ask. The other use is of course non-affordable housing. It is market rate housing, owned by RUPCO, or perhaps RUPCO will sell to somebody else, which is well within their right, and then the housing could be sold, for profit, and the housing could be chopped up and sold, for profit.
Watch the video. Everybody is very uncomfortable. Dara starts to discuss case law on special use permits. What she is trying to say when she discussing restaurants with drive-thru windows is that sometimes courts allow the business to run the window because it is a business, but sometimes courts restrict the use of the window because it interferes with the neighborhood quality of life. Her point, I think, is that the courts are split on who gets to limit the use of the land that has a special use permit. The courts are not supposed to regulate "the business" through land use regulation. Watch as Moriello says "business," because RUPCO is the business we are talking about. RUPCO is not a housing authority here. RUPCO is not answerable to Woodstock. RUPCO is going to take possession of the ball, start running, and won't look back, and we will be here with more housing stock, not affordable housing, and the need for affordable housing will remain.
Folks, if RUPCO wanted to provide Woodstock and Ulster County with affordable housing, why oh why would RUPCO say NO to making Woodstock Commons affordable for a long period of time, such as fifty years, or even twenty years, like the other affordable housing in town.
Oh yeah, that other "successful" affordable housing project, Woodstock Meadows, has almost timed out.
The devil is in the details, and this video shows a very very big detail. Just look at Moriello's body language. He can't even look up, he's so embarrassed.
Why is the TOWN'S attorney not present? Why does the PB allow itself to be put in a position of having only the applicant's attorney present, who clearly provides only the Applicant's side of the argument? Throughout the SEQRA documents, the Applicant goes through great pains to state the project is consistent with the AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE's recommendations, and "we worked with the Committee to select an AFFORDABLE HOUSING site". If the PB wants to restrict the development to affordable housing, IT CAN.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment, Anonymous. Whenever I tell the town board anything about RUPCO, Moran says "Robin, you know that the planning board is lead agency." OK fine, but they also refer to the planning board lawyer as the town's land use lawyer, as though anything to do with land is ONLY a land-use issue. Can't the town board speak with its own land-use lawyer without the planning board? I'm asking, I don't know.
ReplyDeleteI think the video shows that whatever the planning board could do in theory is no longer relevant since the application for the housing, at least the ownership part of it, has already been approved by the planning board. The Final Environmental Impact Statement includes impacts such as taxes, traffic, town services, everything except water and sewer, which come later. The only thing left before the planning board is the site review. So, while the planning had leverage in the past, it voted it away already.
Hi - As Dara stated, PB can require conditions to the special use permit requiring affordability via preparation of an enforceable document to be filed in County Clerk's office. Rupco needs to put their money where their mouth is. Requiring affordability flows from the SEQRA process and findings statement - throughout these documents the project is stated as being affordable. And could someone specifically recite the "case law" Moriello uses as support for his opinion? Often times, they are NOT on point....just because he says so doesn't make it so!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your additional comment. Something tells me you are not the same anonymous who usually writes in. Perhaps you should ask these questions in a forum other than this blog.
ReplyDelete