►
Description
The Committee reviewed Resolution 90.122.19R (MC) authorize and direct the City of Albany Corporation Counsel to enforce the declaration of covenants and restrictions dated May 1. 2017 for 20 parcels located on New Scotland Avenue, South Allen Street, and Onderdonk Avenue.
A
A
Okay,
we
are
here
tonight
to
discuss
resolution
ninety
one
twenty
two,
nineteen,
our
resolution
of
the
Common
Council
authorizing
and
directing
the
City
Council
to
enforce
the
declaration.
If
everyone
who
could
please
move
out
into
the
hallway
Thank
You
resolution,
the
Common
Council
authorizing
and
directing
Citicorp
council
to
enforce
the
Declaration
of
covenants
and
restrictions,
dated
May
1,
2017
420
parcels
located
on
New
Scotland,
Avenue,
south
Allen
Street
and
under
dock
Avenue.
A
B
A
A
D
It
just
gives
a
brief
overview
of
what
has
happened.
This
is
a
short
version
of
the
sewer
engineer's
report,
which
Hirschberg
and
Hirshberg
falsified
the
identification
of
the
description
of
the
project.
This
is
the
second
version
of
the
restrictive
covenant
that
they
and
cut
off
the
parts
of
three
buildings
and
left
the
fourth
one.
This
is
a
illustration
from
their
site
plan,
four
Lots,
one
two
and
three
two
buildings
around
a
lot
and
only
one
is
allowed
allowed.
Three
does
not
stand
alone.
D
A
C
F
F
F
Phase
two
or
another
proposed
increased
height
allowed
for
buildings,
and
as
a
result
of
that,
the
the
USD
you
know,
as
a
number
of
you
participating
you
well
aware
of
this,
but
I
think
bears
repeating
the
ability
was
obviously
the
issue
and
the
S
proposed.
The
USDA
was
proposed
to
I
have
another
moment,
so
any
classification
that
would
allow
three
three-story
apartment
buildings
that
would
be
acceptable
to
residents
and
economy.
F
So
that
was
there
was
an
impasse
back
in
and
of
course,
was
in
2017,
and
the
next
two
key
causes
are
what's
really
important
here
and
effort
to
address
these
concerns.
Your
planning
and
development,
Chris
Spencer
recommended
that
have
done
promontory
track
executors
speak
of
the
continent
to
address
the
concerns
and
objections.
That
would
also
allow
the
20
parcels
listed
to
be
resold
to
allow
only
three
and
a
half
stories.
That
is
the
issue
and
Chris
Spencer
would,
as
Commissioner
of
planning
participated
in
and
he
talked
to
come
out
of
the
County
Council.
F
Recommendations
at
the
parameter
capital
executed
in
five,
the
Declaration
of
covenants
and
restrictions
that
you
have
a
copy
of
the
new
in
your
information,
and
one
last
thing
from
this
is
this:
where
is
this
declaration?
Is
shelby
team
become
professional
under
the
land
and
shall
be
binding
about
all
future
orders
of
the
20
parcels
that
shall
provide
that
the
owner
has
successors
and
it's
nice
consent
to
enforcement
by
the
City
of
Norfolk?
So
you
know
this
is
just
not
a
paper
game.
F
This
whole
thing
I
mean
there
are
people
who
made
decisions
to
live
in
this
neighborhood
and
if
you're
thinking
about
living
in
here
who's
got
an
Avenue
near
this
project.
At
that
time,
you're
gonna
look
at
your
in
your
real
estate
broker
and
your
attorney.
If
they're
doing
their
due-diligence
like
they
typically
do
or
know
about
this
restrictive
continent
and
saying
yeah,
you
know
they
were
talking
about
five-story
building
a
district
stricted
continent,
basically
cash-in
covered,
and
so
it
was
based.
H
F
That
people
very
likely
made
decisions
to
move
there
like
the
Cruz
family,
like
you
know,
on
West
Lawrence
and
on
the
streets,
and
so
this
is
just
like
I
just
want
to
repeat.
This
is
not
a
paper
game.
This
is
this
thing.
He
has
real
real
consequences
for
people.
It
had
consequences
back
then
does
now
and
then,
because
it's
unborn
I,
don't
think
the
planning
board
should
be
a
man.
F
F
Allowed
to
just
undo
that
it's
morally,
it
is
morally
wrong.
You
know
I'm
I'm,
not
an
attorney,
so
I
don't
know
about
the
legalistic
of
it,
but
I
mean
I
got
I.
Think
if,
if
the
city,
if
this
person
just
made
this
comment
just
by
himself
like
like
it's
like
it's
being
proposed
like
then
you
know
maybe,
but
with
the
help
of
the
city
with
the
cooperation
or
a
nation
of
commission
or
a
planet,
you
know
that's
implemented
that
it
should
be
a
pretty
solid,
long
standing
doctor.
So.
H
F
Pullback
deep
restriction
and
let
this
get
to
the
Common
Council
like
let
the
Common
Council
figure
out
what
to
do
with
this
and
if
I
could
say,
I
could
add.
Last
thing:
I
think
the
Common
Council
should
kind
of
study
this
and
see
if
this
has
been
used
before
or
what's
if
it's
been
used
in
other
jurisdictions
and
she's
studying
the
legality
of
the
Declaration
of
especially
being
put
in
place
and
then.
D
G
Committee
to
resolution
91,
22
19,
you
are
to
come
out
of
this
committee
and
to
be
placed
with
the
Common
Council
to
be
voted
on,
as
other
people
have
said.
This
is
an
extremely
important
issue
to
the
neighbors
and
citizens
that
live
around
that
area
and
as
the
College
Council
is
the
body
that
represents
those
citizens.
I
think
that
the
entire
council
should
be
allowed
to
talk
about
this
issue
and
vote
on
it.
G
It's
a
really
important
issue
and
as
long
I
was
to
say,
I
was
at
that
meeting
about
a
month
ago,
down
from
Cal
Avenue
dan
Hershberger
got
another
meeting
with
the
residents
to
talk
about
another
apartment
building,
that's
proposed
down
there
and
he
stood
up
and
said
somebody
was
upset
about
the
height
issues
and
he
said
Oh.
What
would
a
restrictive
covenant
on
that?
So
there
won't
be
a
problem
and
everybody
just
you
know,
people
just
laughed
it
because
they
know
that
it's
not
true.
H
G
Of
this,
their
own
planning
Commissioner
was
involved
with
regard
to
placing
that
restrictive
covenant
there,
because
of
the
fact
that
there
were
and
issues
and
as
my
husband
Ian
was
just
saying,
you
know
if
that
city
can
then
or
whoever
just
say
well,
it
doesn't
matter
anymore
and
how
he
got
what
he
wanted.
It.
G
K
A
E
E
We
need
to
protect
and
preserve
our
neighborhoods,
that's
where
people
live
and
there's
a
real,
important
quality
of
life
that
we
need
to
be
looking
at
and
making
sure
that
we
protect
and
preserve,
and
so
you
know
people
buy
in
to
people
invest
in
their
homes.
They
live
in
apartments,
they
decide
to
live
a
certain
place
and
it
has
a
lot
to
do
with
the
size
of
the
buildings.
E
E
These
particular
Lots
the
majority
of
the
letter
now
zoned
R,
and
previously
they
we
had
a
sequence
of
residential
multi,
multi
family,
and
these
were
zoned,
our
3a,
which
would
have
allowed
single
family
to
family
to
family.
That
would
be
two
and
a
half
stories,
tall
and
garden
apartments
at
two
and
a
half
stories
tall
and
and
then
some
other,
you
know,
churches
and
that
kind
of
thing
that's
what
was
allowed
and
when
people
bought
into
this
neighborhood
and
had
their
properties
of
joining
this.
E
E
It
did
not
have
anything
that
was
in
that
kind
of
category.
Instead,
it
went
from
two
family
which
would
allow
two
in
half
story
buildings
to
RM.
The
other
possibilities
are
residential
village
and
town
house.
Those
were
sort
of
other
kinds
of
apartment,
buildings
that
could
be
built
and
then
and
then
there
were
larger
ones
beyond
that
in
different
other
areas.
E
But
so
there
was
a
gap
and
we
realized
that,
as
people
were
talking
to
us
and
I,
there
was
one
resident
in
particular
West
Lawrence
I
was
at
a
gathering
of
a
variety
of
people
and
Chris
Spencer.
He
was
talking
to
me
and
Chris.
Spencer
came
over
and
said
essentially
well.
We
think
we
can
resolve
that
concern
by
having
them
fire
restrictive
covenant
and
I
was
a
little
skeptical,
but
then
that's
what
was
done
and
seth
rogen
bloom,
who
was
part
of
that
conversation
said
well.
E
If
it
essentially
restricts
it
to
three
stories
in
the
rme
area
and
restricts
it
to
the
nunc,
then
I
wouldn't
have
a
problem
with
it.
So
these
people
were
lobbying
members
of
the
Common
Council,
as
other
you
know
in
your
neighborhood
people
were
lobbying,
and
you
know
throughout
the
city
before
lobbying,
the
representatives
to
say
I'm,
not
quite
comfortable
with
this
I.
Don't
think
that
this
is
appropriate
and
I
think
there
was
general
agreement
and
without
any
restrictions,
was
excessive
for
that
particular
location.
E
It
says
and
in
addition
to
keeping
the
height
of
the
buildings,
for
these
particular
lots
that
are
identified
in
this
restrictive
covenant
to
three
stories
and
three
and
a
half
stories.
It
also
talks
about
the
minimum
offset
and
north
or
easterly
boundaries
shall
be
15
feet
if
it's
more
than
two
storeys
tall
and
that
would
not
otherwise
exist
as
a
prohibition.
Our
restriction
on
this.
Without
this
restrictive
covenant,
it
says
it
shall
be
binding
on
all
future
owners
of
New
Scotland
village.
E
New
Scotland
village
is
identified
as
the
20
parcels
that
are
listed
on
the
first
page,
so
it
lists
specifically
those
parcels,
and
it
says
together
to
be
known
as
New
Scotland
village,
so
she'll
be
binding
on
future.
All
future
owners
of
New,
Scotland,
village
and
she'll
provide
that
the
owners
and
its
successors
and
assigns
consent
to
enforcement
by
the
city
of
Albany.
E
E
So
it's
clear
that
this
was
contingent
upon
it
basically
saying
it's
a
quid
pro
quo,
saying
if
you
pass
this
zoning
for
this,
then
I
am
willing
to
abide
by
these
terms
of
restrictive
covenants
what
was
discussed
and
what
the
concern
was.
Is
that
indeed
we
might
zone
it
for
something
else,
such
as
r2.
E
So
what
my
resolution
is
asking
is
we
enforce
us?
This
was
passed.
This
was
filed
in
order
to
induce
us
to
pass
the
u.s.
do,
as
is
with
this
particular
zoning,
and
indeed
we
did
pass
it
and
therefore
the
condition
precedent
has
been
met
that
the
ordinance
was
passed
and
now
it's
a
fnu
and
therefore
it
went
into
effect.
The
resolution
simply
asked
that
this
be
enforced.
E
M
A
M
Wasn't
here
in
2017
when
the
USDA
was
packed
so
I
can't
I
can't
speak
to
the
factual
situation
and
what
promises
were
made
or
weren't
made
by
who
and
to
who.
But
what
I
can
speak
to
is
the
Olivo
situation
that
exists
now
and,
and
the
legality
and
validity
of
you
know
asking
corporation
counsel
to
take
this
kind
of
action.
There
are
two
basic
points
that
I
want
to
make
that
that
I
believe
are
fairly
serious
legal
issues
that
you
should
consider.
M
The
first
is
that
the
Covenant
itself
is
not
enforceable,
I'm
fairly
sure
by
anybody
to
begin
with.
It
has
been
revoked
by
FM
/
Monterey
capital.
They
filed
the
second
covenant
in
September,
I
believe
which
revoked
the
first
one
and
the
other
issue
is
that
it.
It
was
only
signed
and
executed
by
the
property
owner,
FM
/
Monterey
Capital.
M
A
covenant
is
some
like
a
contract
and
in
the
law
there's
a
very
basic
requirement
for
any
contract
to
be
valid,
which
is
that
there
have
to
be
two
parties.
There
has
to
be
an
offer
and
an
acceptance,
and
in
this
case
we
only
have
the
property
owner.
There's
no
there's
no
give-and-take
between
two
parties.
It's
basically
a
promise
which,
as
opposed
to
a
contract,
is
not
something
that
is
enforceable
in
courts
of
law.
M
There
are
some
other
aspects
that
are
more
specific
to
covenants.
That
made
me
believe
that
the
covenant
is
not
enforceable
in
the
sunset
and
I
go
into
that
in
more
detail
for
anybody
who's
interested
in
the
legalities
of
it
that
this
sort
of
integrating
property
law
which
can
be
but
essentially
they're
the
covenant.
The
covenant
doesn't
identify
any
particular
people
who
are
supposed
to
be
benefited
by
this
covenant
and
that's
one
of
the
things
that
is
required
for
a
covenant
to
be
valid
and
enforceable
AHA.
M
The
second
point
that
I
want
to
bring
up
is
is
that
covenants
are
by
their
nature.
They
are
private
contractual
arrangements
between
private
parties
and
when
you
start
to
have
the
city
come
in
and
say
you
know
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna
start
enforcing
other
people's
private
property
restrictions
that
they've
negotiated
with
each
other
there's
an
issue
there,
which
can,
in
some
cases,
lead
to
what's
called
contract
zoning.
M
So
this
is
essentially
if,
when
a
municipality
zones
by
a
contract,
they
go
around,
what's
actually
been
enacted
in
the
zoning,
ordinance
and
planning
ordinances
and
instead
they
zone
by
contract
with
particular
parties.
It's
not
looked
upon
favorably
by
the
court.
It's
usually
it's
usually
deemed
invalid.
Well,
I'm,
not
sure
that
this
case
would
definitely
be
an
instance
of
contracts
and
again
I
think
it
raises
a
lot
of
the
same
issues
in
the
sense
that
you
know
works.
M
We're
moving
away
from
the
us
do,
which
is
supposed
to
be
applied
uniformly
to
all
people
within
the
city
and
you're
also
you're
also
binding
future
legislators.
It's
something
that
the
courts
talk
about
this.
They
talk
about
bargaining
away,
the
legislative
power
which
is
essentially
of
what
this
would
be
doing
when
you
start
to
give
a
contract
like
this
legal
authority
and
make
the
city
the
you
know,
the
policeman
in
charge
of
enforcing
it
I
will.
M
H
N
Before
the
us
do
and
previous
to
the
RM
I'm,
sorry
the
yet
the
RM
zoning,
the
zoning
should
have
been
our
three-day,
so
doesn't
that
that
covenant
was
signed
or
executed
during
that
point
before
the
us
do
came
in,
it
would
allow
the
higher
building.
Doesn't
that
we,
the
court
and
say
you
know
this
was
passed
when
it
was
still
zoned
r38.
N
M
Yes,
there
is
a
theory
called
municipal
estoppel
when
you
can
essentially
say
this
government
official
made
a
promise
to
me
and
I
relied
upon
it.
Hence
you
should
make
them.
You
know,
go
forward
with
it
to
to
have
a
case
for
municipal
estoppel.
However,
the
reliance
on
the
government
officials
word.
It
has
to
be
reasonable
for
one
thing,
and
then
there
also
has
to
be
proof
of
Reliance.
N
N
M
O
M
O
Advice
managed
to
counsel
at
the
time
again,
I
wasn't
here,
2017
either
so
we'll
both
people
who
are
dealing
with
something
after
the
match,
man,
but
that's
to
do
these
that
we
have
I
want
to
actually
twist
for
second
questions
the
first.
The
second
question
is:
if
the
Common
Council
passes
this
on
Monday,
what
action
is
what
what
counsel
going
to
take
I'm,
not
a
point
on.
M
Yet
my
office
I
believe
still
has
a
certain
amount
of
executive
discretion
when
it
comes
to
bringing
lawsuits
and
taking
various
actions.
I
can't
say
what
my
office
will
do
in
particular,
but
considering
that
the
Covenant
is
not
binding
and
enforceable
legal
instrument.
I
think
that
there
would
be
some
hesitancy
question
to.
O
O
H
O
O
Okay,
but
I,
don't
agree
with
the
fact
that
they
would
then
used
in
your
legal
document
and
in
the
earthbound
as
a
reason
why
little
bit
of
discomfort
between
the
Planning
Board,
who
they
were
cited
for
the
Zoning
Board,
saying
that
this
government
shouldn't
be
enforced
because
the
city
said
it
was
okay,
but
now
the
plenty
one
Lily
said
me
and
now
identity
those
meetings
that
they
didn't
have
to
exit
the
authority.
To
do
that.
So
I
disagree
with
the
fact
that
they're
cited
up
and
I
actually
do
put
it
back
to
the
town
council.
O
E
But
just
because
she
calls
that
a
private
agreement
I
mean
that's
a
nice
way
to
you,
know,
pray
frame,
the
argument
to
observe
the
city
of
responsibilities.
It's
actually
a
public
agreement,
it's
a
public
agreement
and
and
it's
a
public
agreement
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
it
contains
this
requirement
in
here,
essentially
that,
essentially
it's
not
effective
unless
we
pass
the
USDA
and
that
would
not
exist
under
any
private
agreement.
It's
a
public
agreement.
It
is
an
and
contracts
101,
so
you
have
an
offer
and
acceptance
and
consideration.
So
this
could
be
an
offer.
E
A
document
legally
binding
offer
we
accepted
by
going
ahead
and
passing
the
ordinance
without
making
changes
to
the
to
the
to
the
map
or
to
the
US
do,
and
the
consideration
is
that
they've
agreed
not
to
build
taller
than
three
stories
and
we've
agreed
to.
Let
them
build
up
to
three
stories
essentially
by
allowing
this
particular
zoning.
So.
E
E
Well,
but
I
did
ask
Chris
a
if
it
was
filed
and
B.
If
legal
had
looked
at
it
now,
I
can't
you
know
he
said
yes,
it
was
filed
and
that
there
was
language
put
in
it.
That
says
that
the
city
has
the
ability
to
enforce
it,
so
that
that
language,
my
recollection,
is
that
language,
the
first
time
I,
saw
the
draft
of
this
at
that
language
was
not
in
there.
So
how
did
that
awesome
in
there?
If
there
wasn't
some
negotiation,
I
I.
J
J
22
hours
and
advocates
really
did
happen
and
I
don't
hear
anybody
from
the
professional
help
to
say
what
they're
talking
is
not
true.
Chris
Spencer
didn't
get
up
in
these
public
meetings
and
suggest,
if
that's
a
solution
and
the
city
of
Albany
wasn't
recited
without
the
knowledge
of
the
city
of
Albany
attorney.
What.
J
First
of
all,
Brian
Chris
whomever
we
invited
for
plaintiff
Sofia
because
they
have
direct
knowledge
and
we
would
seek
the
municipal
estoppel
not
apply
if
a
particular
machine
is
turned
on
and
the
government
bind
when
the
head
of
the
planning
department
making
this
offer
advocating
this
very
addictive,
confident,
wouldn't
that
have
some
charming
estoppel
effect
he's
got
one
hour
and
these
days
far
it's
expired.
Most
people
think
these
tough
planning
out
for
the
city
of
Albany
and
they're
never
contradicted
whether
it
was
David
Gonzalez
of
our
Marisa
I,
never
heard
the
committee
dr.
Hector
and.
M
Asking
my
office
to
do
and
to
that
extent
you
know,
I,
do
think
that
it's
not.
It
was
not
as
important
for
him
to
be
here
and,
while
I
do
understand
that
there
are
a
lot
of
questions
and
concerns
about
the
process
in
2017.
That
I
can't
speak
to
what
I
can
speak
to
is
the
legal
situation.
That
is
this
now,
and
the
authority
and
legality
of
my
office
going
forward
with
this
type
of
action,
which
is
what
I
believe
I
have
been
speaking
to
you
about,
and
that's
the
same,
regardless
of
what
happened.
J
J
So
he
seems
to
me
that,
oh
this
is
the
way
we
were
interpreted
today.
It
not
that
guy
I,
don't
think
you
can
just
commit
and
apply
this
and
call
everybody.
It's
crazy
to
me,
because
we
don't
have
an
operation
opportunity,
8:15
community,
that
that
invites
a
stop,
because
the
whole
thing
seems
to
me
you're.
J
M
Is
part
of
the
issue
with
contract
zoning,
so
this
is
part
of
the
problem
that
arises
when
you
have
a
municipality,
that's
going
away
from
the
adopted
official
zone
and
complaining
regulations,
and
you
know,
sort
of
carving
out
unique
ways
of
dealing
with
particular
properties,
the
particular
regulations
and
zoning
by
contract.
This
is
part
of
the
issue
because,
two
years
later,
then
you
have
new
people
who
weren't
there.
You
don't
understand,
you
know
what
happened
and
who
aren't
you
know
weren't
there
negotiating
at
the
time
and.
O
With
your
zone
for
that
development
to
be
forward
new
song,
it
had
its
own
place
and
without
this
contract
this
body
may
melt
I,
don't
know
what
I'll
just
cover
this
body
may
have
not
voted
with
that
new
zone.
So
that's
why
you
have
four
spaceship
from
Council
members
that
were
here
in
the
past
that
you
know
you
know
and.
I
I
M
The
Court
of
Appeals
has
said
pretty
clearly
that,
when
local
governments
are
applying
to
their
land
use
regulations
that
need
to
apply
the
land
use
regulations
rather
than
any
restrictive
covenants
that
may
exist
on
the
property.
So
the
loading
is
what
you
know.
The
planning
borders
were
supposed
to
follow
now,
because
waiting
word
has
a
significant
amount
of
discretion.
M
P
P
You
know
I
look
at
this
issue
separate
from
how
I
might
feel
about
the
project
itself
versus
you
might
say,
a
commitment
that
was
made
at
the
time
to
the
maithwaite
property
owners
and
members
of
the
council
that
concern,
and
it
being
almost
a
promise
me
in
terms
of
how
we
move
forward,
to
address
those
concerns
moving
through
this
execution
of
the
Covenant.
That
would
have
impacted
future
projects.
A
M
You
know
I
didn't
go
into
it
too
much
in
my
memo,
because
that's
a
it's
a
it's
speculation
that
it
would
even
get
that
far,
but
if
the
city
did
try
to
step
in
and
enforce
this
covenant,
I
think
that
you
would
see
us
being
challenged
on
a
variety
of
different
basis.
First,
you
know,
in
addition
to
the
covenant
not
being
an
enforceable
document
and
the
city
engaging
in
contract.
M
Zoning
I
think
that
I
mean
if,
if
I
was
the
property
owner
or
property
owners
attorney,
I
certainly
would
throw
a
whole
range
of
claims
at
the
City
College,
a
taking
the
taking
the
taking,
probably
wouldn't
wouldn't
get
very
far
in
court,
but
that's
no
reason
why
people
don't
assert
those
claims
and
what
is
then
I'm,
sorry
take
it
a
taking
is
when
the
government
essentially
takes
the
property
without
without
just
compensation.
So
you
know
there
are
times
when
you
know
like.
M
If,
if
you
zone
something
as
like
all
open
space
is
something
that
would
prevent
all
development
that
would
be
a
taking
but
they're
very
common
claims.
They
get
brought
up
in
court
constantly
when
people
believe
that
the
value
of
their
property
has
diminished.
It
has
in
most
cases
as
long
as
there's
some
reasonable
use
of
the
property
left.
The
courts
will
say
it's
not
a
taking,
but
a
substantive
due
process
claim
or
procedural
due
process
claim.
Would.
H
M
E
M
Of
evidentiary
issues
that
it
would
that
this
would
all
turn
on.
You
know
how
good
are
the
witnesses.
You
know,
what
are
they
gonna
say:
I,
think
that
a
lot
of
this
would
be
would
depend
on.
You
know
how
it
unfolds
and
that's
part
of
the
reason
that
I
didn't
get
into
a
lot
of
that
stuff,
because
I
I
do
really
feel
like
these.
These
two
issues,
the
fact
that
the
contract
is
enforceable
and
that
it's
it's
contracts,
learning
I,
think
that
these
things
can
be
said
about
this.
M
A
M
Q
Q
Well,
we're
used
to
that,
so
it's
totally
fine
but
I
I
do
think
historical
context,
matters
so
I
know,
although
I
don't
have
a
vote
in
the
committee.
I
do
have
a
vote
on
the
floor
and
not
being
able
to
have
those
answers
of
historical
context,
but
not
be
able
to
have
those
questions
answered
is
really
very
significant,
because
this
is,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
a
broken
prompt,
I
promise.
It
seems
it
just
seems
yucky
like
I
know,
there's
probably
a
better
term
for
it,
but
just
to
put
it
out
there,
like
I.
Q
Q
And
I
understand
what
you're
saying
in
terms
of
the
legality
of
it,
but
that
does
not
change
what
happened
historically
and
the
different
things
that
you
know.
We
have
to
deal
with
the
people
that
live
in
the
different
communities
and
if
we
have
a
developer
that
talks
to
the
people
and
says
one
thing,
and
this
does
something
else-
we're
the
ones
that
have
to
deal
with
that
we're
the
ones
on
the
frontlines
and
we're
the
ones
that
have
to
say
no,
that's
not
okay,
so
I
mean
that's.
Q
The
thing
is
it's:
without
that
historical
context,
we
can't
gauge
that
I
mean
well.
Actually
we
can
because
we're
gauging
it
without
without
anybody
that
was
actually
part
of
the
decision-making
process,
and
so
I
mean
to
me
it's,
it
seems
pretty
clear
cut
and
dry
and
I.
Just
I
am
echoing
this.
That
I
am
seeing
this
in
the
meeting,
because
I
think
that's
really
important
to
get
back
to
the
planning
department,
because
I
think
this
happens
a
lot
with
them
that
they're,
not
necessarily
where
they
need
to
be
to
talk
about
the
process.
A
R
To
the
issue
of
a
promise
this
is,
it
was
a
promise
of
it,
but
it
wasn't
Chris
Spencer
the
man,
mr.
Spencer
it
was
Chris
Spencer,
director
of
planning
or
commissioners
planning
that
made
this
agreement
and
put
this
out
there
yet
for
I
was
a
council
member
at
the
time
that
was
a
solution
to
help
us
maintain
a
little
bit
of
control
over
this
whole
process.
So
I
would
argue
that,
with
that
being
said,
didn't
he
have
some
kind
of
responsibility
to
make
sure,
because
you're
saying
this
wasn't
filed
properly
something's
legally
missing.
R
Did
he
not
have
a
responsibility
to
make
sure
that
you
know
eyes
got
that
that
UT's
got
cross
cuz
this?
You
know
this.
We
use
this
in
our
decision-making
back
then,
and
for
us
to
be
where
we
are
right
now,
it's
really
problematic
and
I
understand
you
from
the
legal
standpoint
and
protecting
the
city
and
what
we
all
of
that
stuff
I
get
that,
but
this
distinct.
It
absolutely
stinks.
M
N
M
O
N
O
M
M
I
will
say
that
if
the
council,
if
this
is
something
that
the
council
truly
feels
very
strongly
about,
I,
think
that
the
appropriate
action
here
is
not
to
try
and
you
know,
force
my
office
to
enforce
a
private
agreement
that
isn't
finding
on
anybody.
But
I
think
the
answer
is
to
amend
the
zoning
law,
but.
H
J
J
A
Just
it
seems
like
there's
two
separate
they
two
separate.
You
had
intertwine
things
here,
I
mean
we
have
what
happened
in
the
past
and
that
piece
is
missing
here
at
this
table
really
because
we
really
need
to
hear
from
Chris
Spencer
to
get
some
of
the
background.
Oh
you
know.
We
also
have
to
deal
with
what
you
know.
The
legality
is
at
the
present
too
so
I,
don't
know
how
we
could
move
forward.
A
E
E
C
E
Background,
that's
what
we're
asking
for.
So
we
can.
We
can,
you
know,
talk
about
the
facts,
the
fact
it's
not
up
to
us
to
decide
whether
or
not
this
is
legally
enforceable
and
what
the
and
what
the
background
is
on
it
other
than
this
is
what
this
document
says.
This
was
filed
before
the
USDA
was
passed.
E
A
Q
Wanted
to
say
in
terms
of
additional
information,
the
Planning
Department
was
asked
to
be
here
and-
and
they
chose
not
to
be
here
so
I
feel
like
that's,
not
our
problem,
that's
their
problem,
and
if
they
are
not
given
the
opportunity
to
share
the
information,
then
it's
not
I,
don't
think
it's
fair
on
our
end
to
expect
us
to
say:
oh
well,
you
weren't
here.
So,
let's
give
you
another
chance.
They
have
her
a
chance.
They
didn't
take
it.
So
if
I,
if
I
can
now.
A
To
Jenni,
Jenni
I
think
these.
You
know
the
the
ramifications
of
decisions
made
on
this
resolution.
I
think
they're
very
serious
ones.
So
I
would
like
to
have
the
planning
department
here,
Dickie
and
I.
Don't
I,
don't
know
that
they
even
know
the
actual
staff
knows
the
you
know
how
serious
some
of
the
ramifications
of
this
discussion
could
be.
I
mean
if
the
council
came
out
in
favor
of
this
resolution,
I
mean
and
in
powers
I,
don't
know
there
could
be
legal
action,
it
could
cost
the
city
quite
a
bit
of
money.
E
E
E
Restrictive
covenants
has
seemingly
become
widespread,
cited
cases
and
we
also
talked.
Then
they
talked
about
the
fact
that
that
the
the
plaintiffs
expressly
concede
that
this
was
a
case
in
which
people
sued,
because
they
didn't
like
how
a
particular
piece
of
property
was
zoned.
And
then
there
were
things
imposed
upon
conditions
and
Poe
these
restrictive
covenants.
E
The
ten
that,
as
a
condition
for
rezoning,
required
the
town
board,
required
the
owners
to
execute
and
record
restrictive
covenants
as
to
maximum
area
to
be
occupied
by
the
buildings
into
offense
to
Strawberry.
Surely
these
conditions
were
intended
to
be
and
are
for
the
benefit
of
the
neighbors,
since
the
owners
have
accepted
them
the
restrictions,
the
owners
of
the
property?
There
is
no
one
in
a
position
to
contesse
them,
so
essentially
what
this
is.
It
is
simply
implicitly
recognizing
that
these
types
of
restrictive
covenants
are
a
mechanism.
E
Frankly,
when
Chris
mentioned
first
mentioned
the
restrictive
covenants
to
me,
incest,
Rosenbaum's
presents
somebody
in
your
neighborhood
would
was
condensed
confessing
this.
He
essentially
made
it
sound
like
restrictive.
Covenants
are
now
something
that
municipalities
rely
on
in
order
to
help
address
and
neighbors
concerns,
I
thought.
E
M
E
M
There
are
two
cases
that
I
found
are
noted
in
a
footnote
in
my
memo,
in
which
the
court
found
granted
standing
to
neighboring
residents
in
one
case
and
a
homeowners
association
in
another
case
when
it
was
clearly
evident
on
the
face
of
the
restrictive
covenant
that
they
were
intended
to
be
third
party
beneficiaries.
I
do
think
that
this
case
is
somewhat
different.
I
don't
see
evidence
on
the
face
of
the
Covenant
itself.
M
E
I'm
sorry
I
know
it's
not
your
fault,
but
I
feel
like
this.
Is
you
know,
rather
than
looking
at
what
was
done
and
looking
at
the
case
law
and
building
an
argument
that
says
yes,
I
think
that
there's
an
argument
that
can
be
enforceable
instead,
what
we
have
is
a
memo
that
is
an
excuse
for
why
we're
not
going
to
act
on
this
and
I
am
bothered
by
that
and
I.
E
E
H
A
Know
I'd
like
everyone
to
keep
in
mind
that
this
you
know
when
the
council
is
putting
forth
the
resolution
like
this
and
if
a
resolution
like
this
passes,
you're
really
you're
negating
a
lot
of
the
efforts
and
work
that
the
city
has
has
put
forth
in
terms
of
the
Planning
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals,
and
you
know
the
work
by
our
staff
here
in
the
planning
department.
It's
a
lot
of
effort
and
thought
that's
going
into
every
decision
here
and
I.
A
O
Today
tell
them
that
having
open
mind
and
listen
to
both
sides,
because
I
only
had
in
one
side,
I
wanted
here
for
both
sides,
how
you
know
this
contract.
This
is
not
a
surprise
promise.
You
know
today,
the
old
days.
You
know
you
promise
with
the
bond
and
chicken
those
gone.
We
don't
know
that
this
was
a
contract.
So
why
going
to
go
against
a
crack
and
I
want
to
hear
from
the
other
side
the
told
us
this
is
the
way
to
go.
We.
A
I
I
I
I
R
I
To
come
with
you-
and
you
gave
me
a
choice,
but
that
that
was
the
choice
that
wasn't
a
choice
that
was
a
door
that
he
should
have
been.
That
was
a
choice
for
him.
This
these
we'd
stay
up
late,
just
to
be
down
here,
so
we
sort
of
people
could
come
in
and
discuss
the
issues
like
this
wait.
This
this
maybe
see
but
I
think
that
he
should
be
here.
But
my.
I
N
We
represent
I
have
not
heard
one
person
come
up
in
in
favor
of
you
know
that
we
should
you
know
let
this
project
move
forward
and
ignore
that
restrictive
covenant,
not
one
person,
came
up
and
taught
so
I
feel
my
conscience
is
good
and
what
they
do.
The
planning
department
can
talk
to
the
general
counter
to
the
whole
council,
and
then
you
know,
get
get
the
word
out,
but
I
think
it
sends
a
message
that
this
committee,
you
know
we
were
here,
we're
listening,
and
we
feel
that
this
isn't
right.
That's
okay,.
O
H
O
E
Think
about
this,
all
of
us
have
residential
properties,
single-family
homes,
family
homes,
we're
putting
the
four-story
building
on
the
property
line
would
be
completely
unacceptable
and
you
would
come
forward
and
you
would
defend
your
constituents
under
those
circumstances.
Think
about
that
occurring
in
your
backyard,
make
it
personal
that
all
sudden
there's
going
to
be
a
four-story
building
on
the
property
line.
In
this
particular
case,
it's
not
right
on
the
property
line,
but
basically
by
saying
the
script
a
prevalent
does
not
apply.
E
Anything
goes
because
that's
what
the
USDA
allows,
so
it
could
be
property
line,
and
so
that
is
what
I
heard
when
people
were
talking
about
this
and
their
concerns
and
I
understood
it
and
and
I.
You
know.
Frankly,
it
was
part
of
the
people.
That
then
said
you
know
the
restrictive
covenant
has
been
fired
and
people
backed
off
their
opposition
in
reliance
on
that,
and
we
shouldn't
be
here.