►
Description
The Committee reviewed Ordinance 8.41.20 that continue the suspension of the application of the USDO incentive that allows developers to increase the height of the primary building on a site by one story or reduce setbacks if the developer incorporates into design plans a green roof or other building or site features that are designed so that off-site flow of the first one inch of rainfall during the first 24 hours after rainfall ends is reduced by at least 50 percent shall receive the following benefits for applications submitted through June 30, 2021. The Committee also reviewed Ordinance 15.81.19 that amend the Unified Development Ordinance of the City of Albany to ensure that no building permit or demolition permit is issued prior to any condition precedent set by a City, County, State or Federal agency or department, is met.
B
A
B
B
Councilmember
DOJ's
ordinance,
AEDT
4120,
an
ordinance
amending
chapter
375
of
the
code
of
the
city
of
Albany
in
relation
to
incentives
for
developers
to
use
energy
efficient
and
low
impact
designs.
I'd
like
to
start
by
seeing,
if
there's
anyone
who
wanted
to
give
public
comment
on
this
specific
ordinance.
B
E
B
B
F
F
B
F
Name
it,
my
name
is
Peter
Shan
and
I
live
at
32,
Buckingham,
Drive,
and
so
in
regards
to
ordinance
number
eight
41
gas
20.
You
know
we're
low
in
this
we're
low
impact
development
measures.
First
of
all,
I
think
these
low
impact
development
measures
that
they
list
in
the
you
know
that
are
part
of
the
code.
Now
she
had
just
become
part
of
the
building
code
and
had
nothing
to
do
with
any
of
the
trade-offs.
F
You
know
that
are
currently
involved
in
it
and
I
mean
just
say:
you
know
the
sustainability
advisory
council,
you
know,
is
working
on
potentially
a
drop,
adopting
the
stretch
code
and
with
the
you
know,
community
leadership
and
climate
protection
act
that
CL
CTA
more
efficient
energy
efficiency
standards
are
going
to
be
coming
our
way,
so
we
should
be
doing
this
anyways,
and
so
that's
my
first
point,
and
my
second
point
is
that
these
trade-offs
I
think
are
just
bad
public
policy.
You
know
in
which
the
zoning
regulations
and
what
I
would
call
the
district
fundamentals.
F
You
know
the
fundamentals
of
your
residential
district
or
you
know
whatever
district
you're
in
you
know
what
they
are.
You
know
the
building
heights,
you
know
the
setbacks
and
everybody
can
plan
for
that
and
be
prepared,
and
so
those
you
know,
and
through
this
process
end
up
being
modified
and
the
zoning
you
know
the
zoning
districts.
Basically,
you
end
up
getting
infringed
upon,
which
I
think
is
bad.
F
Public
policy
and
I
would
cite
a
couple
of
examples
of
1121,
Western,
Avenue
and
563
New
Scotland
Avenue,
where
you
know
where
the
community
didn't
expect
it,
because
you
know
they
knew
what
the
regs
were.
They
knew
what
the
US
do
was
and
they
didn't.
They
certainly
didn't
expect
these
trade
offs.
You
know
which,
which
resulted
in
you
know
higher
density
apartment
complexes,
and
you
know
more,
you
know,
concentrated
impacts
and
that's
not
what
was
you
know?
F
That's
not
what
it
was
respect
expected
and
and
of
course
I
think
you
know,
but
it
repairs
repeating
quickly,
that
for
563,
New,
Scotland
and
and
with
1121,
but
but
starting
with
516
in
Scotland,
because
it's
closest
to
me,
you
know
the
the
community
when
they
found
out
that
the
proposed
development,
if
it
goes
through,
was
going
to
be
five
storeys
instead
of
the
regular
three
storeys.
You
know
in
place,
yeah
right
there,
and
so
once
again
the
this.
F
This
ordinance,
you
know,
infringed
upon
I,
didn't
for
lack
of
a
better
term,
infringed
upon
the
communities
right
to
know
what
what's
being
impacted.
So
that's
why
I'm
I
think
the
you
know,
I
think
that
that
ordinance,
you
know
that
ordinance.
That
needs
to
be
changed
and
so
I'm
glad
to
see
Judy's
I
support,
Judy's
ordinance
here,
obviously
840,
120,
okay
and
now,
if
I
could
I
just
have
very
brief
comments
on
the
other
one.
If
I
could
oh
isn't
that
time
for
that,
yeah.
B
G
B
G
Your
council
members,
as
you
well
know
when
someone
mentions
to
where
government
the
standard
response
is
often
not
positive
as
people
who
work
in
government
at
the
state
level.
We
are
not
surprised
by
this,
and
in
some
cases
we
unfortunately
have
to
agree.
One
of
the
key
things
that
leads
to
this
negative
public
view
is
that
the
way
decisions
are
made
and,
of
course,
some
of
this
decisions
themselves
are
often
confounded
to
common
sense.
But
I
understand
that
this
is
often
due
to
the
lack
of
information.
G
Communication
is
generally
not
a
great
trait
of
government,
whether
purposely
or
inadvertently,
and
it's
easy
to
understand
why
the
public
gets
confused
and
frustrated
about
the
process.
The
good
news
is
that
it
doesn't
have
to
be
this
way
and
with
action
to
support
she
talks
about
councilmember
Hoey's
a
little
bit,
but
then
she
goes
on
to
stress
that
she
is
in
support
of
the
green
roof.
I'll
retain
the
rest
of
her
comments
because
they
tie
in
directly
with
councilmember
hoies
ordinance.
That's
also
in
the
agenda
for
the
evening.
All.
B
E
You
first
of
all,
I,
do
want
to
respond
to
mr.
shins
comment
that
I
agree
with
that.
Really
we
should
be
dealing
with.
We
should
be
requiring
green
roofs
of
everybody
whenever
and
I
had
actually
thought
early
on
in
the
process
and
the
discussion
of
the
u.s.
do
when
we're
talking
about
sustainability,
that
that
was
something
that
could
very
well
come
out
of
the
whole
us
do
process
so
I,
just
I.
Don't
want
to
dismiss
that
particular
or
have
us
overlook
that
particular
comment.
E
As
we
look
at
this
particular
requirement,
this
particular
ordinance
excuse
me:
I
got
to
turn
down
my
phone.
This
particular
ordinance
would
simply
take
what
we
did
last
year
with
regard
to
the
suspension
of
the
incentive
for
having
a
green
roof
and
suspended
for
another
year.
We
passed
that
suspension
fairly
late
last
year,
and
it
was
expected
at
that
time
that
we
would
be
looking
into
things.
E
The
establishment
of
clear
standards
sure
that
when
we
are
giving
people
the
incentive
of
either
a
greater
setback
or
an
additional
story
to
make
sure
that
the
green
growth
that
is
being
established
is
actually
needing
some
significant
environmental
wreath
or
reaping
some
significant
environmental
benefits
from
that
and
without
standards.
Regarding
how
many
inches
of
soil,
how
much
of
the
roof
needs
to
be
green
roof,
etc.
E
We're
not
really
clear
as
to
what
are
the
trade-offs
benefits
in
exchange
for
the
setback
or
additional
story.
The
other
thing
is
at
that
particular
point
in
time.
We
are
not
having
any
developers
apply
for
the
incentive
for
affordable
housing
and,
as
we
all
know,
that's
been
a
significant
issue
in
the
city
of
Albany.
E
Essentially-
and
you
know
most
of
my
constituents
welcome
a
greater
diversity
of
people
and
housing
options
in
my
neighborhood,
so
those
two
things
were
things
that
we
were
going
to
look
at:
how
to
be
incentivize
developers
to
utilize
the
affordable
housing
development
incentive
and
also
looking
at
strengthening
and
developing
actual
standards
for
green
roof.
We
did
not
have
an
opportunity
to
do
that
around
the
time.
Last
year,
Brad
was
working
fast
and
furiously
on
massive
changes
to
the
u.s.
E
and
I
did
not
want
to
bug
them
about
this
particular
provision
and
and
study
that
we
needed
to
do
during
that
time
and
then
round
about
the
time
that
I
realized
that
he
may
be
freed
up.
We
started
dealing
with
Kovac
crisis,
so
I
think
it's
appropriate
to
continue
the
suspension
for
years,
so
we
do
have
an
opportunity
to
fulfill
the
goals.
Studying
those
two
particular
issues.
B
B
C
Not
not
a
lot
of
comment.
I
did
just
want
to
speak
to
some
piece
comments.
You
know,
I,
think
if
you
go
back
to
the
comprehensive
plan
and
spoke
pretty
clearly
there
about
using
incentives
when
we
did
go
forward
to
rewrite
the
code,
the
code
was
funded
by
NYSERDA,
so
obviously
a
lot
of
the
incentives
that
came
out
of
that
were
related
to
energy
and
environment.
C
As
far
as
whether
incentives
are
a
good
thing
or
a
bad
thing,
I
mean
it's
a
policy
debate.
We
can
have
another
time,
but
I
think
that,
as
far
as
your
audience
is
concerned,
we
support
that
the
Planning
Board
way
and
favorably,
and
you
know
we
appreciate
you-
know
that
other
people
are
looking
at
the
code
and
I'm
catching
some
things.
C
C
I
believe
we
looked
and
there
were
seven
projects
that
have
used
the
incentive,
one
of
the
incentives
and
I
think
six
of
those
seven
at
the
time
were
either
the
green
or
the
blue
roof.
We
haven't
seen
anyone
used
the
the
affordable
housing
incentive
or
the
other
incentive,
which
I
believe
is
for
a
LEED
certified
building
sense
we
have,
in
you
know,
put
this
suspension
into
place,
so
I
think
it's
something
that
we
need
to
look
at.
C
You
know
whether
we
need
to
strengthen
that
or
how
we
can
you
know
make
make
a
provision
that
works
is
my
thing.
My
feeling
is
that
the
20%
particular
with
the
deed
restriction
may
be
too
onerous,
or
you
know
incorporating
that
much
affordable
housing
a
new
project,
but
it
also
depends.
You
know
the
the
incentive
really
depends
upon
the
size
of
the
building
as
well.
B
H
I'm,
just
gonna
be
quick
same
same
issues:
I
have
with
support
of
I
supported
for
the
same
reasons
as
last
year.
I
think
we
really
need
to
we're.
Gonna
have
incentives
for
additional
affordability,
I'm,
a
big
supporter
of
mixed
income
units
I
am
NOT
a
big
supporter
of
just
having
affordable
housing
in
some
sectors.
That
is
a
way
of
78
in
our
communities
and
they've.
You
know
hurdles.
H
You
saw
the
PPE
report,
you
know
it's
something
that
we
have,
unfortunately
done
in
the
city
for
too
long
or
missed
mixed
income
projects
allow
for
there
to
be
a
diversity
of
communities,
but
also
for
building
to
actually
lift
a
community
up
versus
you
have
just
concentration
of
poverty,
you've
seen
disinvestment
arm
in
internal
community,
so
I
I
I
support
this
I
I
do
hope.
We
find
creative
ways
to
get
developers
to
use
the
incentive.
I.
H
Don't
I
wouldn't
want
to
twinkle
too
much
for
that
20%
be
honest
because
I
think
20%
is
fair,
I!
Think
if
you
get
below
20%
now
you
really
are
having
a
situation
where
you
don't
have
to
impact
that
you
want
with
these
new
developments.
So
I
would
want
to
be
a
little
more
cautious
about
going
in
that
direction.
Thank.
I
B
D
B
We
will
move
forward
now
with
councilmember
Elise,
ordinance,
1580
119
and
that's
an
ordinance
amending
chapter
375
of
the
code
of
the
city
of
Albany
by
repealing
subdivide
three,
which
is
waivers
subsection,
B
procedure
of
section
375
514,
which
is
the
major
development
plan
review
and
requiring
that
any
permit
for
the
purposes
of
demolition
or
building
be
approved.
Only
if
relevant,
prior
approvals
or
conditions
by
city,
county
state
or
federal
departments
or
agencies
are
met.
G
B
G
A
For
gue
so
who's
in
there,
but
Julia
Turner,
v,
Tudor
Road,
Albany,
New,
York
1
to
203
I,
live
onto
the
road
in
Albany
and
I'm
writing
to
urge
the
Common
Council
to
support
the
amendment
to
us.
Do
section
375,
as
proposed
by
council
member
tom
hollie,
to
preserve
and
expand
the
parts
of
a
city
that
attract
residents
and
businesses
who
will
control
you
too
strong
and
appropriate
growth.
A
city
needs
to
guide
and
control
that
growth
through
a
system
of
procedures
to
be
applied
when
new
development
is
proposed.
A
These
procedures
must,
however,
be
open
to
amendment
as
conditions
alter
or,
as
in
the
case
with
the
u.s.
Co.
It
is
recognized
that
some
Corrections
need
to
be
made
to
ensure
that
the
original
goals
of
the
document
are
realized
needed
changes
to
the
US
Co
to
clarify
levels
of
authority
and
review
have
been
discussed
for
years
and
will
only
become
more
necessary
as
so
many
aspects
of
city
living
are
under
changes.
An
immediate
example
would
be
the
difference
that
the
current
pandemic
will
inevitably
make
and
the
way
we
live
in
our
cities.
The
u.s.
A
EO
should
be
flexible.
Making
these
adaptations
and
the
Common
Council
representing
the
residents
of
the
city,
is
the
entity
best
suited
to
ensure
that
the
terms
of
the
ordinance
keep
current.
Specifically
the
present
situation,
where
the
city
of
Albany
Planning
Board
can
override
the
USD
deal
makes
no
logical
sense.
What
does
make
logical
sense
is
the
proposed
amendment
that
ensures
that
all
conditions
placed
upon
approval
of
a
project
must
be
met
before
a
building.
A
A
When
the
US
do
was
established
and
passed
by
the
Common
Council,
there
was
a
provision
that,
after
six
months,
the
US
do
would
be
revisited
and
tweaked
that
never
happened.
The
Planning
Board
had
many
excuses
here.
We
are
almost
two
to
three
years
and
still
nothing.
Now
after
many
months
passing
many
more
council
members
have
their
own
problems
with
the
u.s.
CEO.
So
when
do
we
tweak
a
200-300,
24
page
document
that
was
put
together
on
the
fly,
our
representatives,
the
Common
Council,
that
represents
the
residents
of
Albany,
all
98
thousand
people?
A
They,
the
council,
are
the
ears
and
mouths
of
the
residents,
not
the
Planning
Board,
the
Planning
Board
hears
nothing
when
we
have
a
problem.
We
go
to
the
our
ears
and
mouth
the
council
and
they
should
have
the
ability
to
hear
our
problems
and
make
changes
to
fix
any
problems
that
needs
fixing.
The
Planning
Board
currently
has
the
ability
to
override
the
regulations
and
laws
of
the
u.s.
do.
A
The
Planning
Board
is
is
an
appointed
body
by
the
mayor,
but
the
Common
Council
is
an
elected
body
of
approximately
seven
to
seventy
five
hundred
eight
thousand
residents
and
the
Common
Council
representatives,
the
taxpayers
of
Albany
Vince
Ragusa,
thirteen
Beach
Avenue
Albany
New
York,
one
to
two.
Oh
three.
G
Have
additional
comments?
We
have
a
comment
from
sue
Swartz,
there's
also
Albany
resident
154
homes,
Dale
I,
oppose
Tom
wholly
proposed
us.
Do
amendment
as
I
believe
this
is
merely
an
attempt
to
delay
the
construction
of
Western
Ave,
which
I
think
should
go
forward
ASAP.
This
needed
development
has
been
subjected
to
these
delays
in
part,
because
a
small
vocal
group
has
been
successful
in
having
their
way
despite
the
presumed
majority,
support
of
the
construction.
A
Peter
and
Wendy
Gibson
Kahn
status
of
six
Tudor
Road
Albany
New
York,
dear
councilmembers,
as
you
well
know,
when
someone
mentions
the
word
government,
the
standard
response
is
often
not
positive
as
people
who
work
in
government
at
the
state
level.
We
are
not
surprised
by
this,
and
in
some
cases
we
unfortunately
have
to
agree.
One
of
the
key
things
that
leads
to
this
negative
public
view
is
the
way
decisions
are
made
and,
of
course,
some
of
the
decisions
themselves
are
often
confounding
to
common
sense.
A
But
I
understand
that
this
is
often
due
to
lack
of
information.
Communication
is
generally
not
a
great
take
trait
of
government,
whether
purposefully
or
inadvertently,
and
it
is
easy
to
understand
why
the
public
gets
confused
and
frustrated
about
the
process.
The
good
news
is
that
it
doesn't
have
to
be
this
way
and
with
action
to
support
council
wholly
councilman
Hoey's
proposed
us
do
amendment
you
can
help
ensure
the
process
is
not
only
more
transparent,
which
has
rightly
or
wrongly,
in
people's
views
has
traditionally
been
to
government
at
all
levels,
but
also
more
sensible.
A
We
have
tried
to
understand
how
a
project
could
be
allowed
to
move
forward
without
first
feeding
all
conditions
for
that
project
imposed
by
the
Planning
Board
and
are
their
city
of
requirements.
Government
action
must
be
made
an
open
process,
not
behind
closed
doors
or
in
backrooms,
regardless
of
their
merits.
It
is
the
only
way
to
ensure
that
the
city
retains
authority
over
the
project
and
just
as
importantly,
and
possibly,
more
importantly,
to
ensure
accountability
to
the
city,
including
its
residents,
while
we
certainly
have
opinions
on
certain
projects
in
the
city
and
kit.
A
In
this
case,
that
is
mu
here,
whether
we
support
or
oppose
a
project.
It
is
vital
that
the
project
follows
every
condition
imposed
by
the
city
yeah.
If
there
is
no
requirement
that
conditions
be
met
before
work
begins,
the
city
has
conceded
all
its
control
and
responsibility,
and
potentially
open
itself
and
community
and
residents
to
unintended
consequences,
some
of
which
may
have
lasting
effects.
Again.
We
want
to
stress
that
the
basic
facts
behind
our
views,
which
we
see
as
vital
to
our
city's
future
development,
we
can
only
imagine
the
city's
response
should
be.
A
Should
a
resident
family
decide
that
they
do
not,
they
do
not
need
to
adhere
to
Planning
Board
requirements.
Clearly
that
would
not
be
allowed.
So
why
has
a
Planning
Board
opposed
to
a
u.s.
CEO
amendment
that
would
insurance
requirements
are
met
before
a
project
begins?
Do
they
believe
they
or
someone
in
the
city
would
be
able
to
deal
with
errors
after
a
project
is
underway?
And
what
happens
if
the
city
finds
the
developer
did
not
follow
guidelines,
especially
in
certain
times
like
this?
A
If
you
like
an
example,
look
at
the
history
of
the
Uncle
Sam,
Mall
and
Troy,
where
small
businesses
were
forced
to
relocate
for
a
major
project
that
project
stopped
path.
Wait,
though,
leaving
the
city
with
massive
hole
in
the
core
of
its
downtown
for
years,
as
well
as
a
well
deserved
reputation
of
incompetence.
We
have
always
believed
that
Albany
cares
about
its
neighborhoods.
When
we
lived
in
Center
Square
Hudson
Park
years
ago,
we
could
not
even
paint
our
house
without
city
approval
to
allow
a
developer
to
begin
a
project
with
no
legal
share
insurance.
A
It
will
meet.
City
conditions
is
an
insult
to
all
homeowners
who
have
who
meet
city
wear
conditions
and
sadly
the
Planning
Board
apparently
does
not
care.
Optimism
is
usually
a
great
trait,
but
it
doesn't
mean
that
you
can
or
should
abdicate
responsibility.
The
Planning
Board
decisions
must
be
a
held.
If
not,
what
is
it?
What
is
its
purpose?
A
We
encourage
the
City
Council
to
take
action
to
ensure
that
I
say
as
a
fair,
transparent,
responsible
and
accountable
process
for
the
future
of
this
city,
and
that
requires
the
all
development
commercial
residential
meet
the
basic
standards
set
by
the
city.
You
have
a
chance
now
to
do
that
as
government
workers.
We
recognize
that
people,
often
don't
trust
government.
You
have
a
chance
to
show
the
government
is
open,
transparent
and
responsive.
Please
do
not
let
all
that
work
that
went
into
reviewing
this
process
be
jeopardized
jeopardized
by
enforcing
key
protections
by
not
enforcing
key
protections.
A
G
Next
comment,
madam
chair
is
from
George
Robinson
and
Tryon
Street
following
my
previous
submission,
which
was
sent
incomplete
regarding
ordinance,
1581
19
Kathy,
chair
of
the
Albany
comment,
Council's
planning
economic
development
and
land-use
committee,
I
support
council
member
Howie's
amendment
to
chapter
375,
which
will
limit
the
abuse.
The
abuse
of
waivers
by
the
Albany,
Planning
Board
public
health,
safety
and
rights
to
a
democratic
process
are
all
challenged
under
the
current
system
of
decision-making,
which
places
more
emphasis
on
expedition
than
on
greater
public.
G
Good
I
have
read
the
Planning
Board's
recommendation
in
response
to
the
amendment
and
do
not
find
it
convincing
as
a
27
year
resident
of
the
same
Albany.
Neighborhood
I'm,
also
not
convinced
that
the
Planning
Board
considers
the
best
interest
of
Albany
citizens
in
its
decision-making.
The
elected
members
of
the
Common
Council
operate
with
greater
transparency
and
have
a
better
grasp
of
public
needs,
including
our
need
to
escape
the
social
and
economic
costs
of
poor
planning
decisions.
I
urge
your
committee
to
approve
this
ordinance.
A
Take
seriously
my
responsibility
to
be
a
good
steward
of
my
nearly
90
year
old
house
and
its
surrounding
property
and
I'm.
In
fulfilling
my
pledge
to
leave
my
home
sight
in
better
condition
than
when
I
purchased
it
living
here
has
had
its
challenges
and
stressors.
The
last
eight
years
have
been
fraught
with
battles
against
approaching
development,
and
our
comments
have
fallen
upon
deaf
ears
to
an
unresponsive.
A
Planning
Board
I
have
been
a
frequent
attendee
of
Albin
at
Albany
Common
Council
meetings
since
2012,
and
have
attended
several
meetings
of
the
Albany
City
Planning
Board
I
have
noted
that
there
is
a
strong
depth
of
connection
and
respect
between
elected
members
of
the
City
Council
and
the
city
residents.
This
is
in
sharp
contrast
to
the
minimal
connection
possessed
by
the
appointed
members
of
the
insular
and
isolated
Planning
Board
I
am
here
to
support
Tom
Hoey's
amendment
to
the
US.
Oh
I
believe
that
now
more
than
ever,
the
u.s.
A
do
must
be
a
living
document
that
can
be
easily
updated
at
times
and
circumstances
changes
and
when
facts
which
support
its
revision
are
presented.
We
have
become
painfully
aware
of
the
extreme
relevance
and
importance
of
this
flexibility
as
we
endure
the
pandemic
and
its
unknown
aftermath,
which
may
have
significant
ramification
on
citizens.
Lifestyle
choices,
for
example,
the
Planning
Board,
supported
by
the
city's
leadership,
believes
that
high-rise
high-density
buildings
are
the
answer
to
the
future
housing
needs
of
the
city.
A
Even
before
this
pandemic,
which
will
likely
decrease
the
demand
for
dense
living,
Corey,
Ellis
and
I,
discuss
how
the
need
and
the
demand
for
buildings
of
this
type
and
quantity
had
not
been
substantiated
by
the
Planning
Board
as
members
of
the
Common
Council,
your
role
is
to
represent
the
best
interests
of
the
residents
of
the
city.
Therefore,
you
must
have
the
ability
to
adjust
the
u.s.
CEO
swiftly
to
meet
residents
need
this
ability
should
be
yours
and
yours
alone.
The
USDA
was
created
in
2017,
as
the
roadmap
for
development
in
the
city
of
Albany.
A
I
have
noted
with
great
dismay
that
non-elected
city
of
Albany,
Planning
Board
currently
has
the
ability
to
override
the
regulations
and
laws
of
the
u.s.
EO.
My
first
request,
therefore,
is
that
the
Common
Council
repeal
section
375,
5
e
14
Roman
numeral
3
of
the
u.s..
Do
this
nonsensical
last-minute
addition
to
the
u.s.
CEO
defeats
and
threatens
the
ordinances
very
purpose
of
being
it
allows
the
non
elected
planning
world
or
to
override
the
conditions
of
an
ordinance
created
by
a
duly
elected
body.
A
The
Common
Council
on
behalf
of
the
citizens
of
the
city
at
will,
in
essence,
a
law
was
created
which
includes
a
clause
allowing
the
Planning
Board
to
nullify
the
very
law
at
will.
This
provision
has
been
used
three
times
since
2017
I
strongly
hold
that
only
an
elected
body
such
as
the
Common
Council,
whose
members
have
their
fingers
in
the
pulse
of
the
city
and
its
residents,
should
have
this
right
repealing
the
section
would
prevent
the
Planning
Board
from
overriding
the
provisions
in
the
u.s.
do.
A
Secondly,
I
am
asking
that
the
issuance
of
building
or
demolition
permits
within
the
city
of
Albany
be
prohibited
unless
all
relevant
prior
approvals
or
conditions
in
pole,
imposed
by
a
city,
county,
state
or
federal
agency
or
department
have
been
met.
The
requirements
that
all
conditions
set
by
staff
of
these
agencies,
who
are
experts
in
their
respective
field
must
be
met
before
a
building
permit
is
issued,
makes
good
common
sense.
However,
it
is
also
essential
to
ensure
Public,
Health
and
Safety.
It
provides
safeguards
against
mistakes
that
could
cost
human
life.
A
This
proposed
building
permit
procedure
process
would
provide
a
safeguard
for
human
error
and
ensure
that
developers
do
not
start
construction
or
demolition
without
this
assurance.
Thank
you
for
your
support
in
the
interests
of
the
citizens
of
the
city
in
these
important
matters.
Lastly,
I
support.
Also
Councilwoman
Judy
do
Shay's
moratorium
extension
of
the
green
roof
provision.
B
How
about
we
I
think,
given
that
we've
already
spent
quite
a
bit
of
time
on
public
comment?
Maybe
we
should
hold
the
rest
till
later
in
the
meeting,
so
why
don't
we
do
that
so
we're
here,
we've
got
this
ordinance
has
to
the
two
parts
and
we'll
start
with
a
discussion
of
the
waiver
provision
that
pertains
to
the
u.s..
Do
major
development
plan
review
and
just
I
want
to
read
waivers
an
applicant
may
request
in
writing:
a
waiver
modification
of
any
of
the
development
plan
review
development
standards
and
the
Planning
Board.
This
is
current
law.
B
The
plan
Planning
Board
reserves
the
right
to
waive
or
otherwise
modify
such
standards
upon
a
finding
that
such
action
is
necessary
to
eliminate
practical
difficulties
associated
with
strict
interpretation
of
these
provisions
and
that
the
result
will
not
violate
the
spirit
and
intent
of
these
provisions.
Such
requests
shall
set
forth
the
specific
relief
sought
and
the
reasons
the
same
are
necessary.
So
why
don't
we
start
Tom
with
you
and
and
discuss
why
you
brought
your
as
part
of
the
ordinance
for
us.
We
will
turn
to
Planning
Department
to
have
a
club
get
their
input
as
well.
B
I
You
I
felt
bad
because
my
son
Max
had
put
in
a
comment
today's
his
13th
birthday,
I'm,
not
supposed
to
say
how
old
he
is
and
I
missed
the
they
just
did
the
cake
with
the
candles,
but
this
is
more
important
right
now,
okay,
so
this
waiver
was
actually
came
after
the
second
court.
I
had
discussions
with
council
members
on
the
second
part
of
this
ordinance
I'm
working
on,
and
then
they
pointed
out
that
there
is
waiver
in
there
that
allows
the
final
board
to
override
anything.
I
I
Think
it's
it's
just
in
my
mind,
common
sense
that
you
don't
allow
somebody
to
be
above
the
law
and
that's
what
we're
allowing
with
this
waiver
in
there
that
the
Planning
Board
can
override
something
that's
written
down
as
law
and
I
bought
you
this
that
it's
the
legislative
body,
the
Common
Council
that
passes
ordinances,
not
the
Planning
Board,
not
the
filing
department,
but
the
Common
Council
itself.
The
legislative
body
of
the
city
of
Albany
and
pretty
much
I
mean
that's
it's
common
sense
to
me.
I
Why
would
you
give
something
the
right
to
override
a
written
law
now
gone
to
the
meetings?
I've
heard
the
arguments
back
and
forth?
Well,
you
know
to
slow
the
process
down.
If
there's
a
problem
with
the
us
do
where
you
have
to
offer
a
waiver,
why
don't
we
just
change
the
us,
do
and
fix
it?
It
just
doesn't
make
sense
to
allow
waivers
to
allow
an
unelected
body
to
allow
them
to
have
that
power
to
do
it
and
they
make
mistakes.
I
B
You
Tom
so
I'm
going
to
turn
now
to
planning
department,
Brad
I,
don't
know
if
you
were
in
yet.
You
know
just
want
to
point
out.
I
hope
that
committee
members
did
have
a
chance
to
read
through
a
pretty
extensive
recommendation
by
the
Planning
Board.
Taking
a
look
at
this
provision
about
waivers
so
Brandi.
B
C
E
E
G
E
C
That
that's
the
way
that
we've
done
that
board
drafting
of
all
the
decisions
for
the
thirteen
years
since
I've
worked
for
the
city,
so
I
understand
now
that
that's
apparently
not
the
common
way
of
doing
it,
but
that's
the
way
that
we've
instructed
our
staff
to
do
it
and
that's
the
way
that
you
know
I
was
always
trained
to
do
it
as
long
as
I've
been
here.
So
I
was
not
of
the
opinion
that
there's
anything
and
never
been
advised
by
counsel
that
there's
anything
wrong
with
that.
That
means
of
doing
things.
C
So
it's
respect
to
the
ordinance.
There
are
two
things,
I
think
there's
some
terminology
and
some
wording
that
you
know
we
felt
was
poorly
worded
or
things
that
weren't
put
in
the
proper
place
in
the
ordinance
and
I
will
get
to
that.
That's
that's
one
of
the
reasons
we
you
know.
We
do
ask
that
you
know
these
things
are
shared
and
it's
a
process
between
the
parties
working
going
forward,
because
sometimes
we
can
point
out
that
you
know
whether
or
not
we
just
we
have
the
content.
C
We
might
know
where
it's
most
apt
to
be
placed
within
the
ordinance.
With
respect
to
the
waivers,
you
know
the
the
goal
as
as
was
stated
by
councilmember
Hoey's
ordnance
was
to
reduce
ambiguities
among
others.
So
if
a
waiver
doesn't
go
to
the
Planning
Board,
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
has
the
power
to
grant
an
area
variance.
Really.
This
is
a
you
know:
it's
a
it's.
Their
standards
by
state
law
that
are
applied
and
it's
for
practical
difficulties
related
to
develop
in.
C
The
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
already
has
the
power,
through
an
area,
variance
to
waive
the
provisions
of
the
USD
L.
They
are
subject
to
articulated
standards,
which
is
slightly
different
than
the
waiver
provision
in
our
code,
and
that's
one
area
where
we
do
agree
with
the
councilmen
is
that
you
know
we
could
substitute
those
same
standards
into
the
Planning
Board
process.
So
there
are
coherent
standards
that
they're
applying,
but
really
what
this
allows
the
Planning
Board
to
do-
and
this
was
you
know,
as
was
researched
by
our
council
in
general
city
law.
C
The
reason
that
the
legislature,
as
far
as
we
could
find
you
know,
allowed
the
Planning
Board
to
adopt
these
waiver
provisions
are,
you
know,
related
to
streamlining
the
process,
so
you
don't
necessarily
have
to
go
to
two
boards
and
that's
not
just
for
us
and
for
the
board
members,
but
that's
for
the
members
of
the
public
too.
If
the
Planning
Board
already
has
an
application
before
it
for
a
development
that
may
require
varying
some
standards,
rather
than
also
sending
that
application
to
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals.
C
C
F
C
Ever
be
waiving
those
are
things
that
should
go
to
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
and
we
clear
work
to
distinguish
those
from
other
elements,
but
there
are
landscaping
provisions.
There
are
lighting
provisions,
there
are
qualitative
standards.
You
know
the
only
board
is
usually
looking
at
quantitative
standards.
So
you
know
something
you
know:
you're
proposing
a
20
foot
setback
1
to
25
foot
is
required
when
it
says
you
know
this
lighting
needs
to
cast
light
on
a
building
in
a
certain
way.
Yes
or
no
question
from
the
variance.
It's
not
always
the
way
to
go.
C
We
had
maybe
four
pages
of
development
standards
related
to
the
Pine
Bush
and
one
other
area
of
the
city.
In
the
prior
zoning
code,
there
were
over
40
pages
now,
I
believe
of
development
standards
that
apply
to
each
development,
lighting,
landscaping,
access
and
circulation,
building
and
streetscape
design,
many
of
which
were
never
articulated
in
codified
form.
That
means
the
Planning
Board
literally
on
a
whim.
Each
time
it
got
a
project
may
have
applied
them
differently.
That's
not
the
case
anymore.
That
said,
there
are
certain
provisions
such
as,
for
example,
a
a
curb
cut.
C
Is
maximum
of
20
20
feet
width
in
the
in
the
US?
Do
that's
the
allowance?
Actually,
our
Traffic
Division
for
first
twenty
four
feet
as
a
base
standard,
so
I
mean.
Is
it?
Would
it
be
reasonable
for
an
applicant
in
that
case,
to
ask
for
a
waiver
to
allow
a
24
foot
curb
cut
rather
than
a
20
foot
curb
cut,
and
would
that
really
be
warranting
of
a
completely
separate
hearing
before
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals?
For
that
matter,
and
maybe
any
number
of
other
matters
within
those
40
pages
of
document?
C
You
know
that
might
need
to
be
tweaked.
A
little
I
mean
the
Planning
Board
does
have
to
have
some
authority
to
conduct
its
role.
Otherwise,
you
know
to
some
degree
we
might
just
make
these
as
of
right
projects,
because
you
know
I
mean
again
they're
applying
the
standards,
and
you
know
they
have
a
functional
role
to
make
discretionary
decisions
where
we're
appropriate
I
think
I'm
gonna
leave
it
at
that
for
the
waiver
provision,
but
I
did
want
to
get
into
and
actually
when
I
first
read
the
ordinance.
C
B
C
J
Myself,
you
know,
from
the
legal
perspective
on
this
I
looked
through
the
Bill
jacket
for
this
law,
as
well
as
Bill
jacket
for
a
law
that
was
passed
a
year
earlier
for
towns
and
villages
that
essentially
did
the
same
thing
there.
There
was
not
a
lot
of
legislative
history
in
terms
of
this
specific
waiver
provision,
but
from
what
I
can
tell
it
was
really
you
know
it
was
intended
for
it
wasn't
intended
to
allow
the
Planning
Board
to
grant
a
waiver
from
anything
in
the
USDA.
That's
clear.
J
It
was
intended
to
allow
waivers
from
a
limited
set
of
site
plan
and
special
permit
procedures
would
which
would
be
separated
out
into
a
different
section
of
the
ordinance,
especially
at
that
time
around
the
you
know
the
late
80s
and
early
90s.
So
you
know
to
the
extent
that
things
like
you
know,
a
limits
and
area
restrictions
are
included
in
the
general
development
standards
in
the
US
do
in
the
general
district
standard,
sorry,
the
waiver
provision
wouldn't
apply,
and
so
it
wouldn't
just
allow
the
board
to
you
know,
grant
any
waiver
from
anything
council.
J
Member
who
we
mentioned
that
he
thought
that
this
was
you
know
taking
over
at
the
City
Council's
legislative
function
and
I
would
just
mention
on
that
and
that
you
know
this.
This
argument
has
been
made
in
various
places
across
the
country.
Some
states
have
found
that
provisions
like
this
are
you
know
they
go
too
far,
but
New
York
is
not
New.
York
sports
have
upheld
the
waiver
provision.
B
B
C
C
J
Want
to
emphasize
to
you
that
this
really
I
mean
it
would
really
just
shift
the
ambiguity
in
the
process
over
to
the
variance
side
of
things
as
opposed
to
removing
it.
You
know
so
to
me
extended
that
the
goal
is
to
reduce
the
ambiguity
in
the
u.s..
Do
I
think
that
there
are
ways
that
that
could
be
done,
certainly
by
by
really
looking
at,
which
which
provisions
of
the
development
standards
you
know
should
be
allowed
to
have
this
kind
of
waiver
versus
you
know?
C
And
used
to
to
underscore
is
you
know,
we're
not
looking
to
solely
dismiss
the
point
that
the
council
members
making
I
mean
I
think
there
are
ways
to
improve
the
provision
to
have
more
clearly
articulated
standards
that
the
board
can
assess,
and
the
public
can
feel
comfortable
that
they're
weighing
in
the
context
of
these
applications,
but
just
to
move
remove
it
entirely
to
me
doesn't
make
sense.
Did.
I
At
this
point
I,
you
know
I
could
throw
back
the
thing,
let's
put
it
in
and
if
we
find
from
those
problems
we
can
always
adjust
a
us
do,
and
hopefully
it
would
be
better.
You
know
it's
in
being
a
year
in
July
that
this
ordinance
came
up.
So
maybe
we
can
work
out
a
way
we
can
get
changes
in
the
u.s.
do
done
in
a
much
timely
or
fashion
way.
E
You
so,
with
regard
to
a
couple
of
comments
here,
the
idea
of
taking
first
of
all
I
want
to
say.
On
the
one
hand,
there
is
some
commentary
here
that
also
we're
gonna
have
so
many
more
variances
going
to
the
PCA
because
we're
not
allowing
waivers.
On
the
other
hand,
we've
identified
three
in
three
years
since
the
adoption
where
the
waiver
provision
has
been
used.
That's
number
one,
so
I
don't
see
this
creating
a
huge
influx
of
work
for
Brittany
for
the
BCA.
E
With
regard
to
the
parking
lot
analysis
that
was
provided
I,
do
wonder
why
we
don't
look
at
changing
the
provisions
in
the
u.s.
geo?
What's
good,
for
the
goose
is
good
for
the
gander
with
regard
to?
Why
did
we
make
a
waiver
exception
for
that
particular
person,
and
is
it
possible
to
incorporate
standards
that
would
allow
that
kind
of
flexibility
for
other
developers?
E
And
you
know,
and
why
not
put
that
in
the
u.s.
geo
I'm
just
responding
to
that
as
one
particular
example
bred
and
also
mentioned,
curb
cuts
and
the
length
of
a
curb
cut,
Cathy
you
and
I,
you
don't
have
had
conversations
about
the
mobile
station
and
the
length
of
the
curb
cut.
They
are
creating
problem
for
pedestrians
and
safety
issues
and
the
beauty
of
referring
something
to
the
BCA
is
there's.
E
B
E
Is
from
that,
when,
when
you
delegate
the
ability
to
waive
a
provision,
I'm
really
not
sure
where
the
public
gets
to
weigh
in
and
what
that
appeal
process
is
so
I
think
that
this
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
We
have
a
process.
We've
only
had
three
cases
in
which
maybe
it
would
have
gone
too
easy
eh.
Why
not
have
those
go
to
the
BCA?
E
D
Well,
a
couple
of
things:
I
agree
with
tom
hollie
I
think
it's
sensible
argument
that
you
know
the
waivers
seem
to
have
not
been
something
that
we
really
contemplated.
It
seems
to
me
at
all
sensible
that
the
council
basically
intended
to
leave
that
authority
for
itself
I
very
much
agree
with
what
Judy
said
on
several
points.
I
think
Judy
correctly
pointed
out
that
this
decision,
this
multipage
decision,
as
far
as
we
know,
was
never
formally
ratified
by
the
Planning
Board
and
probably
reflects
far
more
than
they
absolutely
discussed
in
their
public
meeting.
D
This
was
a
similar
problem
to
what
we
had
with
the
Zoning
Board
back
in
February
when
they
had
a
very
loose
discussion
about
blood
plasma
and
then
that
got
spun
up
into
a
multi
page
decision
which
they
never
reconvened
to
ratify.
So
I
think
you
had
the
same
problem
here.
Whether
this
really
is
the
thinking
of
the
Planning
Board
or
just
the
thinking
of
the
administration
and
I
agree
with
Judy's
point
to
that
there
is
nothing
in
New,
York,
state
law.
D
D
The
Planning
Department
approved
an
application
as
complete
at
the
same
time
that
sixty
carbon,
a
veto
appears
on
our
2013
as
a
potential
brownfield
and
that
application
doesn't
say
one
damn
word
about
it
being
a
brownfield.
So
it
to
me
it
seems
like
kind
of
a
tacit
waiver
of
a
really
significant
thing.
Are
they
going
to
pay
heed
to
how
brownfields
are
supposed
to
be
mitigated
or
are
they
just
gonna?
D
Let
a
developer
submit
whatever
you
want,
saying
that
the
ground
is
clean
and
not
even
acknowledge
that
the
city's
master
planning
document
identified
it
as
a,
and
so
so
that
seems
to
me
that
this
whole
waiver
practice
is
kind
of
getting
rampant
and
I.
Think
it's
a
very
sensible,
I,
think
Tom's
purpose
and
the
simplicity
of
the
amendment
seems
to
me
to
make
exquisite
sense
and
that's
all
I
have
to
say
thank.
B
But
as
far
as
the
the
ideas
put
forth
here
about
you
know,
some
some
of
the
problems
with
the
ordinance
I
tend
to
agree
with
I'm
concerned
that
this
you
know
that
you
do
make
things
more
complicated.
There
are
some
situations
that
can
be
remedied
easily
without
having
to
go
through
them
to
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
it
just
lengthens
lengthens.
The
whole
process
makes
it
difficult
for
our
staffs
and
also
impacts
how
developers
feel
about
doing
business
in
the
city
of
Albany.
B
We
want
to
see
that
to
see
development
here
in
the
city
of
Amami,
we're
all
going
to
benefit
from
that.
As
far
as
our
budget
increased
revenue,
increased
quality
of
life,
I
think
we
have
you,
no
development
proposals
and
projects
and
I
I
like
to
think
that
we
should
be
able
to
give
our
chief
planning
our
planning
board
that
ability
to
make
those
decisions
when
needed.
B
It's
the
whole
idea
of
reducing
red
tape
and
I'm
concerned
that
we've
had
an
offer
by
our
planning
department
to
take
a
look
at.
You
know
this
with
this
process
the
waiver
process
and
tighten
tighten
up,
tighten
it
up
and
I.
Think
I'd
like
to
see
council
member
Hoey
that
I
sit
down
with
the
planning
department
and
and
maybe
there's
situations
where
we
shouldn't
be
using
a
waiver
and
some
we
should.
That
should
be
reflected
in
the
ordinance.
G
B
I
E
The
things
I
make
sure
that
we're
all
aware
of
is
that
the
u.s.
CEO
does
have
some
section
where
the
chief
planning
officer
has
extensive
authority
to
waive
very
specific
requirements
to
a
modest
amount.
You
know
so
maybe
reducing
the
setback
requirement
by
five
percent
or
something
you
know,
I
forget
what
the
whole
list
is,
but
I
believe
that
there's
like
15
or
20
things
in
the
u.s.
do
where
we
have
spelled
out
modifications
in
order
to
eliminate
some
of
the
red
tape.
E
If
you
look
at
the
memo
that
was
drafted
up
for
us,
there's
a
list
of
about
eight
things
that,
where
waivers
and
other
municipalities
have
been,
have
been
used
for
things
about
what
otherwise
think
would
be
appropriate
for
for
a
variance
and
have
been
used
for
variance,
whether
it's
a
fencing
requirements
or
setbacks
or
parking
requirements,
etc.
So
this
is
currently
far
too
extensive.
E
I
also
want
to
say
that
it
is
my
belief
that
the
administration
is
also
granting
waivers
outside
of
this
particular
requirement,
or
this
particular
provision,
without
providing
the
full
justification
by
novel
interpretations
of
the
u.s.
do
that
are
not
supported
by
the
language
in
the
USDA.
So
part
of
the
problem
here
is
having
a
faith
that
the
waiver
we
are
going
to
be
narrowly
construed.
E
Finally,
with
regard
to
the
idea
of
further
discussions
etc,
with
regard
to
this
particular
provision,
this
has
been
around
for
over
10
months.
It
was
introduced
over
nine
months
ago
and
there's
been
ample
opportunity
for
the
administration
to
engage
and
submit
to
us
alternative
language
submit
their
own
ordinance.
That
would
correct
this
kind
of
issue
and
so
I
think
that
they've
had
ample
opportunity,
especially
when
we
look
at
what
happened
three
years
ago,
where
we
were
given
over
a
three
hundred
page
document
and
expected
to
essentially
rubber
stamp
it.
E
We
worked
fast
and
furiously
at
getting
additional
community
input
into
things
that
were
of
concern
when
we
finally
saw
the
actual
language
that
they
were
proposing
for
adoption,
and
we
adopted
that
within
three
months.
So
for
us
to
now
grant
the
administration
on
this
small
little
ordinance,
some
extension
of
time,
I
I,
just
don't
see
the
necessity.
We've
had
three
waivers
in
three
years
and
there
is
an
opportunity
to
amend
the
u.s.
you
to
address,
to
learn
from
those
and
to
amend
the
US.
E
C
I
just
wanted
to
submit,
we
did
have
an
alternate
version
of
the
ordinance
that
we
provided
to
Tom
as
the
suggested
alternative.
So
we
did,
we
tried
a
couple
different
versions.
It
does
get
difficult
again
we're
talking
about
forty
or
some
web
pages
to
identify
each
one.
That's
can
be
applied
for
a
waiver
and
each
one
that
cannot
be
applied
for
a
waiver
and
trying
in
several
different
ways.
C
We
concluded
upon
taking
away
the
ability
to
grant
waivers
for
dimensional
standards,
parking
regulations
and
signs
I
believe
with
the
three
that
we
felt
should
be
solely
the
jurisdiction
and
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals.
It
was
the
other
sections
like
landscaping
lighting
those
sorts
of
things
that
we
felt
were
after
the
Planning
Board
approval.
Judy
spoke
to
the
achievement
council.
Council
negotiates
go
to
be
the
administrative
adjustments
that
the
chief
planning
official
can
grant
for
small
amounts
related
to
those
are
very
principally
related
to
dimensional
standards.
C
There
may
be
a
handful
of
others
that
are
not
dimensional
standards,
but
again,
dimensional
standards
is
one
of
those
eight
chapters
they'll
dedicate
it
to
development
standards
within
the
code.
So
there's
other
seven
chapters.
There's
no
provision,
given
that
she
planning
official
to
waive
any
of
those.
B
H
B
I
B
G
Madam
chair,
this
next
comment
is
from
Lawrence
Whitner
as
a
resident
of
the
city
of
Albany
for
more
than
four
decades
I'm
writing
to
urge
support
by
the
common
councils
planning
committee
of
the
amendments
to
the
unified
sustainable
development
ordinance
proposed
by
helm,
Common
Council
member
tom
hollie.
In
my
opinion,
these
amendments
are
sensible,
for
they
clarify
what
is
expected
of
landowners
developers
and
residents,
thus
removing
the
ambiguities
introduced
by
the
Planning
Board's
ability
to
provide
a
waiver
from
you
SEO
standards
on
the
basis
of
vague
practical
difficulties.
G
A
Next,
one
is
from
Nancy
Harrigan
I
want
to
let
you
know
of
my
interest
in
support
for
the
Council's
approval
of
the
proposed
amendment
to
the
Albanese
unified,
sustainable
development,
ordinance
regarding
waivers
of
development
standards
by
the
Albany
Planning
Board
I'm.
Sorry,
the
current
permission
for
the
board
to
grant
waivers
is
too
broad
and
undefined.
The
development
standards
now
spelled
out
in
the
u.s.
steel
are
in
danger
of
being
ignored
or
roted
by
unlimited
waivers
and
thereby
defeating
a
major
purpose
of
the
u.s.
do.
A
Furthermore,
the
always
important
in
public
trust
in
fair
and
even-handed
application
of
the
u.s.
do
is
on
shaky
grounds
when
no
measures
are
in
place
to
guide
or
circumscribes,
where
a
waiver
grants
and
no
oversight
is
available
to
the
Common,
Council
or
other
body
to
assure
proper
and
lawful
compliance.
I
am
frequently
reminded
of
the
enormous
and
unchecked
power
of
the
APB
when
I
recall
during
discussions
of
1211
Western
Avenue,
the
clear
expressions
by
Department
personnel
that
comments
from
the
public
and
council
members
carry
no
weight
or
influence
for
the
board.
A
That
attitude
should
not
be
allowed
to
drive
execution
of
the
u.s.
EO.
It
seems
the
Common
Council
has
given
up
a
lot
of
authority
when
it
adopted
the
u.s.
Co
but
I
think
it's
unwise
and
wrong
that
it
and
therefore
the
public
and
residents
be
shut
up
and
be
shut
out
and
up
in
favour
of
limitless
power
and
in
a
minister
panel
I
hope.
These
comments
will
be
helpful
to
you
and
others.
Considering
next
steps,
please
feel
free
to
share,
as
you
think
advisable,
the.
G
Next
comment
is
from
Stephen
Burke
of
11th
Clarendon
Road,
which
reads
the
voices
of
residents
have
been
ignored
or
dismissed
without
due
consideration,
since
at
least
2013
City
Planning
Board
officials
and
the
city
administration
officials
are
employed
by
the
residents
to
represent
them,
not
developers
or
outside
investors.
The
APB
has,
and
continues
to
conduct
development
activities
and
has
conducted
its
planning
duties
to
the
detriment
of
established
residential
neighborhoods.
Outside
developers
are
favorite
over
City
residents.
The
APB
has
overwritten
basic
criteria
and
essential
conditions
made
by
various
city
departments
without
justification
or
sound
planning.
G
/
economic
rationales
under
the
current
US
do
375
5e
provision.
It
is
imperative
that
the
Common
Council
find
in
favor
of
this
amendment
to
assure
the
u.s.
do
is
implemented.
Parents
intent
to
foster
the
restoration
of
the
residents,
serious
loss
of
trust
and
the
integrity
of
the
planning
process.
In
the
city,
rebuttal
of
APB's
unfavorable
recommendation
dated
April
21st
of
2020.
A
major
development
plan
review
applicant
may
request
waiver
of
review
of
any
standards.
Why
have
standards
that
can
be
arbitrarily
dismissed
hint?
G
Why
have
a
Planning,
Board
Planning
Board
seeks
to
reserve
the
current
ability
to
waive
or
modify
any
standards
to
eliminate
practical
difficulties?
All
proposals
must
address
all
codes,
standards
and
other
provisions
of
the
us
do.
Nys,
federal
and
international
codes,
proper
design
and
engineering
of
project.
Specific
challenges
is
fundamental
to
the
design
process.
It
should
be
necessary
for
the
city
agencies
to
issue
allowances,
to
enable
developers
to
correct
design
deficiencies
by
circumventing
us.
G
Do
standards
and
criteria
section
one
items:
1,
3,
4,
5,
project
proposal,
issues
that
are
considered
by
developers
to
be
burdensome
or
that
present
practical
difficulties
are
simply
the
result
of
design,
defects
or
aspects
design
standards
of
the
US.
Do
they
dislike
maintaining
the
current
waiver
language
defeats,
the
intent
of
having
its
owning
development
ordinance
at
its
most
fundamental
level.
The
provision
and
it's
as
it
currently
exists
and
employed
allows
unlimited
discretion
by
the
APD.
It
allows
continued
violations
of
the
spirit
of
the
code
and
overrides
sound
technical
objectives
voiced
and
public
input.
G
In
addition
and
the
subject
of
future
action,
the
amendment
should
be
expanded
to
prevent
any
such
practical
difficulties
from
being
simply
converted
and
waived
under
a
variance
relief
action.
The
suggestion
that
variance
or
relief
would
be
the
APB's
course
is
a
clear
indication
that
the
spirit
of
planning
and
acceptance
of
public
input
is
a
subject
of
no
interest
to
the
APB's
review
process.
G
Experience
reflects
that
the
APB
relies
on
numerous
variations
to
authorize
inappropriate
developments.
This
is
not
a
matter
of
a
single
issue,
but
rather
of
allowing
a
one-star
review
to
bypass
numerous
major
variations,
resulting
in
the
approval
of
highly
controversial
and
inappropriate
development.
The
reliance
on
carryover
provision
from
the
city's
previous
owning
ordinance
is
not
relevant.
The
u.s.
do
is
by
design
intended
to
be
a
living
document.
Its
core
provisions
must
be
implemented.
G
This
amendment
seeks
to
correct
a
clear
and
primary
abuse
of
authority
in
the
planning
stages
and
approval
substandard,
dangerous
and
irresponsible
development
issues
contained
in
APB
recommendations
at
sections.
2
&
3
are
not
relevant
to
this
core
objection
to
retain
waiver
Authority
in
the
u.s.
do
leading
to
proposed
proposal
approval
disapproval.
Actions
summary
the
APB
seeks
support
in
the
waiver
of
ambiguities
argument
as
justification
for
retaining
the
provisions
in
the
USDA
do
not
be
misled.
G
The
waiver
is
characteristically
granted
by
the
APB
concern
basic
fundamental
and
critical
review
criteria
and
have
solid
technical,
architectural
engineering,
economic
and
social
implications.
There
is
clearly
nothing
ambiguous
related
to
applicable
standards
for
high-density
apartments,
sanitary
and
storm
water
flows,
state
and
federal
water
quality
issues,
fire
codes,
public
safety
density
violations,
etc.
Please
vote
in
support
of
this
amendment
to
the
u.s.
do
in
furtherance
of
correction
of
the
issue
of
concern
presented
in
item
1,
there's
also
a
comment
provided
by
Nancy
creamin
of
8
Clarendon
Road
in
the
city
of
Albany
good
evening.
G
My
name
is
Nancy
cream
and
I
live
at
8
Clarendon
Road
Albany
I
have
lived
here
for
the
last
five
years.
I
enjoyed
my
quiet
neighborhood,
yet
in
close
proximity
to
the
heart
of
the
city.
In
the
time
I've
lived
here,
I've
dealt
with
numerous
traffic
tie-ups
during
rush
hour.
Two
that
have
resulted
in
two
to
three
car
pileup
zone.
Western,
Avenue
I,
can
only
imagine
this
continuing.
Should
the
product
at
1211
Western
be
given
the
final
green
light.
G
That
being
said,
please
consider
the
following
in
preventing
this
unwanted
unneccesary
and
not
well
thought
out
project
to
be
given
the
go-ahead.
The
US
CEO
should
be
a
living
document
and
updated
as
times
change
a
particularly
relevant
issue.
Under
our
present
existence
during
the
pandemic,
the
common
council
represents
the
residents
of
this
city
and
should
have
the
ability
to
adjust.
The
us
do
more
swiftly
to
meet.
Residents
needs
the
city
of
Albany
planning.
More
currently
has
the
ability
to
override
the
regulations
and
laws
of
the
u.s.
G
do
which
defeats
the
purpose
of
presenting
a
plan
that
is
fair
and
transparent
for
all
those
affected.
It
is
a
requirement
that
all
conditions
set
by
governmental
agencies,
who
are
experts
in
their
respective
fields,
must
be
met
before
a
building.
Permit
is
issue.
This
is
just
common
sense
and
provides
safeguards
against
a
mistake
that
could
cost
human
life
high
tension.
Power
lines
on
Western
are
an
example
of
the
potential
for
a
dangerous
error.
At
12:11
I
stand
in
support
of
Councilwoman
Judy
doe
shets
moratorium
extension
of
the
green
roof
provision.
G
Next
comment
is
from
Katina
moe
botanist.
My
name
is
Katina
madonna's
and
I
live
at
59
Melrose
Avenue
I
am
speaking
to
you
in
support
of
ordinance
1580
119,
as
I
have
mentioned
on
previous
occasions.
There
needs
to
be
legislative
oversight
of
an
unelected
municipal
body.
This
ordinance
provides
this
necessary
provision.
It
restores
the
necessary
system
of
checks
and
balances,
as
required
by
law.
In
addition,
the
Common
Council
represents
the
citizens
needs
and
the
us
do
has
to
be
ultimately
responsive
to
the
citizens
concerns.
Unfortunately,
as
of
late,
the
stakeholders.
G
Interest
in
this
city
have
been
sadly
overlooked.
Again.
This
ordinance
furnishes
the
required
correction
to
this
continuing
problem.
Finally,
in
the
planning
process,
unintended
errors
can
occur.
There
has
to
be
a
way
to
catch
these
problems
before
they
cause
significant
liability
and
safety
issues.
This
ordinance
gives
the
protection
which
is
important
since
these
errors,
if
not
caught,
could
cost
the
city
dearly.
The
next
comment
is
from
max
Howie
of
the
city
of
Albany.
G
My
name
is
Matt
OE,
and
today
is
my
13th
birthday
and
I
know
my
dad
will
be
late
for
my
party
because
of
this
legislation
you
were
hearing
about
tonight.
My
dad
is
very
concerned
about
the
us
do
that
the
city
passed
many
years
ago
and
he
feels
that
my
safety
and
the
safety
of
my
friends
are
in
danger
because
it
needs
to
be
updated,
I'm
planning
on
studying,
to
be
an
architect
as
I
like
to
build
things.
G
My
dad
has
friends
who
are
architects
and
engineers
and
have
heard
the
discussions
that
have
they
have
had
about
certain
standards
that
are
based
on
cost
savings
and
not
on
safety.
When
I
see
the
buildings
that
Albany
has
put
up
over
the
past
300
years,
I
marvel
at
their
uniqueness
and
solid
construction.
I
am
born
and
bred
in
Albany,
and
this
is
my
town
as
well
as
my
friends.
What
you
do
today
will
end
hacked
us
for
the
next
century.
Let
us
not
lose
sight
that
this
is
Albany
and
is
not
New.
G
A
I'll
read
the
next
one.
This
one
is
from
picket
companies,
Nancy
E,
Kerry,
Cassidy
executive
vice
president
and
chief
operating
officer.
Dear
president,
Ellis
I
write
on
behalf
of
the
picket
companies
to
express
our
strong
support
for
proposed
ordinance
number
15,
eight
1.19
sponsored
by
councilmember
Thomas
Hwy,
to
amend
section
three.
Seventy
five
of
the
unified
sustainable
development
ordinance
us
do
of
the
city
of
Albany.
A
We
understand
that
the
proposed
amendment
would
repeal
375
a
fourteen
Roman
numeral
three,
which
would
presently
authorizes
the
Planning
Board
to
waive
or
modify
development
plan
review
development
standards
under
certain
circumstances
and
be
prohibits
the
issuance
of
a
building
permit
or
demolition
permit
unless
all
relevant
prior
approvals
or
conditions
imposed
by
a
city,
county,
state
or
federal
agency
or
department
have
first
been
met.
The
picket
companies
believe
that
the
proposed
amendment
served
to
both
promote
consistency
in
the
application
of
the
u.s.
A
do
as
written
and
to
protect
the
public
health
safety
and
welfare
by
ensuring
that
all
government
requirements
and
conditions
are
met
before
building
or
demolition
can
begin.
For
this
reason,
the
picket
company
respectfully
urges
the
Common
Council
to
adopt
proposed
ordinance,
15.8
1.19.
The
address
is
20
corporate
woods,
Boulevard
Albany,
New,
York,
1,
2,
2,
1
1,
and
then
the
last
one
that
I
have
here
is
from
Amy
lowlich
of
23
Tudor
Road,
Albany,
New,
York
1
to
203.
I
am
writing
today
in
support
of
amendments
to
the
us.
A
Do
375
proposed
by
Councilman
Tom
Hoey.
Please
enter
these
comments
on
record
and
share
them
to
council
members
during
the
June
8th
council
meeting.
According
to
the
city's
website,
Albany's
us
CEO
is
quoted
a
modernized
zoning
or
which
incentivizes
the
interests
of
our
community
with
protecting
our
natural
environment.
My
understanding
of
the
ordinance
as
it
was
presented
upon
its
inception
as
a
living
document
has
hardly
proved
to
be
the
case
after
attending
numerous
Common
Council
meetings.
In
anticipation
of
any
proposed
amendments,
the
u.s.
EO
I
remain
increasingly
frustrated.
A
The
intent
that
the
language
of
the
u.s.
EO
would
not
remain
static
is
further
reflected
in
the
statement
on
the
city's
website.
It
is
necessary
to
periodically
review
and
revise
the
u.s.
do
in
order
to
provide
the
best
suit
to
best
suited
regulations
for
new
and
changing
conditions
as
they
arise
without
revision
ability,
your
constituent
contribution
to
the
ordinance
remains
anemic
and
frail.
The
proposed
amendment
are
perfectly
aligned
with
the
intent
of
the
us,
do:
safeguarding
community
interests
and
natural
environmental
concerns,
while
simultaneously
avoiding
subjective
interpretation
of
local
state
and
federal
regulations.
I
This
one
really
made
the
other
one
come
out
to
first
I
want
to
talk
about.
B
cot
is
one
of
the
major
developers
in
their
area.
Beit
own
corporate
woods.
In
many
buildings
in
the
city
of
Albany,
major
developer
and
their
lawyers
looked
at
my
ordinance,
and
you
saw
the
letter.
I
want
to
talk
about
12,
11
and
that's
come
up
a
lot
and
a
lot
of
people.
Who've
comment
tonight
are
being
impacted
by
12
11.
They
were
opposed
to
the
development
and
in
fact
the
mayor
was
opposed
to
it.
I
I
We
went
to
the
Planning
Board
many
many
times
and
we
did
a
lot
of
the
work
for
the
developer
there,
where
there
was
defects
and
that
they
got
you
know
corrected
because
we
brought
them
up.
One
of
the
departments
was
the
fire
department.
This
development
is
going
to
have
post-its
270
close
to
300
people
in
the
building,
there's
only
one
way
in
and
out,
and
that's
on,
Western
Avenue
and
there's
no
way
to
fight
a
fire
there.
I
I
That
letter
went
to
the
Planning
Board
with
the
bread,
glass
would
say:
Chris
Spencer
and
the
Planning
Board
decision
was,
you
can
tear
down
the
building.
You
can
put
up
the
new
building,
but
we're
not
gonna
give
you
a
CEO
until
the
lines
are
buried
now
I'm
concerned
about
the
workers
who
work
on
this
building.
These
buildings
have
a
tendency,
because
they're
totally
made
out
of
wood
and
I
sent
the
members
of
the
committee.
I
The
pictures
of
what
happens
there's
been
over
30
of
these
fires
with
these
buildings,
while
they're
being
constructed
the
only
way
to
fight
that
fire
is
from
Western
Avenue.
Do
we
want
to
put
on
our
fire
department
in
danger
with
a
metal
ladder
going
up
trying
to
fight
a
fire
with
with
that
high
tension
electric
now?
I
I
B
I
Buried
and
I-
oh
okay,
good,
send
me.
The
changes
well
took
three
almost
three
months
to
get
you
the
changes,
but
in
the
meantime,
I
heard
that
Chris
Spencer
was
down
at
National
Grid,
arguing
with
the
developer
that
they
should
just
get
the
letter.
So
they
can
start
the
work
and
in
fact,
Rick
Lovejoy
was
ready
to
issue
a
permit
to
start
the
work
on
this
site
without
the
lines
being
buried
without
the
letter
from
the
actual
bridge.
I
call
the
mayor's
office
that
been
put
on
hold
that
project.
I
I
They
want
to
put
the
building
on
a
brownfield
and
it
slipped
through
the
cracks.
This
is
like
a
circuit
breaker.
It
will
prevent.
If
something
comes
up,
it
will
prevent
danger
or
something
that's
dangerous
or
not.
Not
shouldn't
go
through
now
at
the
Planning
Board
meeting
I
kept
hearing.
Well,
you
know
this
is
putting
more
regulation.
Morla.
All
we're
saying
is
that
if
a
condition
is
there,
let's
get
it
fixed
before
we
issue
a
permit,
it's
not
extra
work
for
Rick
Lajoie.
You
know
finding
board
to
tell
him.
I
I
And
I'm
very
passionate
about
it,
because
I
don't
want
to
go
through
my
life
if
this
building
goes
up
and
somebody
gets
killed
because
we
did
not
look
at
it,
we're
more
worried
about
getting
tax
revenue,
we're
more
worried
about
putting
up
buildings
that
you
know
it's
for
the
money
come
on.
Let's,
let's
be
honest,
I
don't
want
that
on
my
conscience
that
I
didn't
fight
to
the
end
to
get
this
in
there
to
save
people's
lives,
and
this
just
for
every
more.
I
This
isn't
just
my
project
up
here
at
12:11
and
I'm,
not
against
the
building
if
they
bury
those
lines
and
get
them
in
there
like
they're
supposed
to
what
can
I
that's
the
decision?
That's
the
law!
That's
what's
supposed
to
happen,
but
to
totally
ignore
what
the
fire
department
said
and
I
send
it
to
the
members
on
this
committee.
You've
got
the
fire
department.
Slider
you've
got
the
lawyers
lighter,
who
appealed
to
Chris
Spencer
right
after
the
decision
that
you
need
to
fix
this.
He
never
heard
back
from
Chris
okay.
I
B
B
B
C
Mean
I
think
a
lot
of
it
comes
down
to
to
the
wording
of
it.
In
a
sense
there
are
some,
for
instance,
you
know
the
with
respect
to
demolition
permits.
It
seeks
to
amend
section
375
e
17
C,
which
is
the
review
criteria
for
demolition
review.
It's
a
separate
process.
The
language
relevant
to
demolition
permits
is
in
Chapter
133
of
the
code.
So
that's
really.
The
that
should
be
amended
and
I'd
also
add
that
the
review
criteria,
if
this
were
to
be
under
demolition
review,
you
know
its
selective,
it's
not
prohibitive.
C
C
You
know
there
already
are
a
number
of
sections
in
the
ordinance
that
speak
to
or
say,
essentially
the
same
thing.
I
guess,
I
understand
a
little
bit
more
now
Tom's
motivation
for
this.
You
know
you
know
our
concern
is
putting
a
you
know
and
it's
it's
a
very
practical
concern,
because
you
know
we
get.
You
know
gotcha
stuff,
all
the
time
we
get.
You
know
accused
of
doing
things
that
are
honestly.
C
I
C
I
C
C
I
It
didn't
happen,
I'm,
sorry
and
those
lines
cannot
be
buried.
I'm
telling
you
now,
but
let's,
let's
just
we'll,
leave
it
at
that
I
mean.
But
why
didn't
you
address
the
Planning
Board
that
night
and
say
guys
you
got
this
wrong,
I
mean
you
didn't
and
then
you've
got
a
letter
from
an
attorney
and
you
totally
ignored
it.
I
mean.
I
B
I
think
that's!
You
know.
That
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
but
I
guess
when
I
read
through
and
I'll
just
say
what
I
think
when
I
read
through
this
police
recommendations
this
here
from
the
Planning
Department
they're,
saying
that
a
lot
of
what
you're
asking
for
is
already
in
the
US
do
so
I'm
concerned
about
that
kind
of
redundancy
here.
Well,.
B
I
For
safety
to
save
somebody's
life,
to
save
a
fire
department's,
fine
to
say
people
living
in
that
apartment
houses
lives,
let's
get
stuff
done
right!
Okay,
this
is
what
it's
about.
That's
why
I
was
elected
to
represent
the
people
in
my
area
and
they're,
worried.
You've
heard
it
tonight
that
was
1516.
One
person
was
against
it.
I
mean
I'm,
for
this
building
go
up,
I'm,
not
trying
to
slow
it
down.
I
just
want
the
law
follow,
and
it's
not
blanks.
B
B
E
Don't
reject
yeah!
Thank
you.
Sometimes
it
takes
a
couple
times
for
my
idea
to
respond.
Well,
I'm
supportive
of
this
I'm
a
little
confused
as
to
why
there
is
such
opposition.
If,
essentially,
people
are
saying
it
is
already
addressed
in
the
code
and
some
of
the
opposition,
a
you
know,
I
read
with
interest
this
1975
Court
of
Appeals
case
it's
a
five
year
old
case
that
appears
to
be
talking
about
an
old
statute.
E
Having
worked
for
the
Department
of
there
was
never
any
issue
with
regard
to
the
approval
of
various
nursing
homes
and
hospitals
very
important
public
policy.
They
do
not
want
scarce
health
care
dollars
being
expended
on
the
building
of
a
building
that
is
intended
to
use
for
a
nursing
home
or
a
hospital
if
it's
not
going
to
be
approved
for
that
particular
purpose.
So
we
have
that
agency
and
again
this
is
one
of
the
boards
or
councils
that
I
was
an
adviser
to
we
always
put
decisions
before
them.
E
So
it's
very
important
for
something
like
that
to
have
the
prior
rule
of
the
State
Hospital
planning
and
review
Council
in
terms
of
what
is
going
to
be
built
and
where
it's
going
to
be
built
and
where
it's
going
to
serve
and
in
general
I
am
concerned.
Very
there
is
a
provision
in
this
also
includes
the
the
chief
planning
officer
from
waving
these
provisions.
E
So
this
is
not
only
about
having
the
planning
board
being
able
to
raise
solutions,
but
also,
potentially
the
chief
planning
officer
to
make
clear
that
he
does
not
have
the
ability
to
waive
or
modify
provisions
that
where
there
is
a
clear
requirement
for
some
sort
of
permit
or
other
Department
approval.
One
of
the
places
where
we
had
issues
in
the
city
of
Albany
is
lack
of
lack
of
requirement.
E
Compliance
with
the
88
and
certainly
early
on
in
my
tenure,
heard
from
a
lot
of
people
who
are
concerned
about
a
couple
things
that
were
put
up
without
there
being
any
of
compliance
or
accessibility
for
disabled
to
individuals,
and
that
indeed,
was
unfortunate.
So
people
need
to
be
cognizant
of
the
fact
that
various
developments,
various
projects
are
gonna
touch
on
other
issues
and
if
we
remember
requiring
every,
as
is
suggested
here,
every
single
building
inspected
become
cognizant
of
every
single
requirement.
E
What
we
are
requiring
is
that
globally,
the
Planning
Department
be
aware
when
something
may
require
approval
from
the
Department
of
Health.
Something
may
require
a
rule:
Oklahoma
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation,
making
sure
that
there's
compliance
with
ad
any
kinds
of
requirements
generally
and
then
have
the
appropriate
agencies,
chime
in
and
review
those
plans
and
make
sure
that
they
plans
are
acceptable
to
the
agencies
that
go
richie-poo.
E
B
H
Whenever
there's
a
complain
about
certain
aspects
of
a
region,
it
always
falls
back
to
the
process
of
how
we
went
about
it
that
there
was
meetings.
There
was
multiple
meetings
and
there
was
an
opportunity
for
people
to
have
to
input
at
those
meetings
before
it
went
on
before
the
council
in
2017.
Now
we
can
have
a
discussion
about
whether
that
process
was
reached.
Everybody
that
that
off
or
not-
but
that's
not
the
special
will
happen
today.
H
The
fact
that
there's
a
waiver
after
all
of
death
creates
even
more
frustration
with
residents
that
have
concerns
about
what's
occurring,
because
if
this
is
the
document
that
we
all
read,
Arnold
actually
I
wasn't
on
the
council
back
in
2017.
But
if
this
is
what
was
agreed
upon
in
2017,
then
you
know
now.
H
What
are
these
waivers
that
were
not
agreed
on
so
I
understand
the
frustrations
from
residents
and
I
understand
the
frustration
from
council
members
as
far
as
the
safety
issues
I
think
we
should
be
making
sure
that
all
these
buildings
are
safe
as
possible
before
we
move
them
forward.
You
know,
there's
a
lot
of
issues
that
can
occur.
Twelve
constructions
are
in
these
projects.
H
I
know
I've
had
several
the
team
that
I've
done
started
and
my
ward,
one
that
has
done
I've,
got
a
phone
call
regarding
vibrations
and
and
and
other
issues
that
come
up
with
these
buildings
when
it's
being
constructed,
I
think
it's
it.
It
is
good
and
sound
measures
to
make
sure
that
you're
checking
our
personalities
and
dinah
eyes
before
you
know.
Well,
we
have
anything
way
crown
it's
just
gonna
say
to
everyone
involved,
as
well
as
the
resins
that
live
in
those
areas.
Thank
you.
A
Want
to
just
touch
on
real
quick
on
the
relevant
prior
approvals.
I
know
right.
I
may
mention
that
this
is
probably
imposing
on
them
to
start
looking
at
like
county
health
stuff,
and
it's
really
not
it's.
For
example,
with
a
restaurant
when
it
comes
to
the
county,
help
that's
after
a
building
permit
has
been
issued
because
the
way
the
law
is
written,
it
says
all
relevant
prior
approvals.
I
mean
just
from
what
I've
learned
with
a
lot
of
the
USD.
A
All
amendments
is
that
some
of
this
stuff
has
to
get
approval
from
County
Planning
Board
if
it's
within
500
feet
of
a
state,
highway
or
state
property,
there's
a
lot
of
relevant
prior
approvals
that
need
to
be
done
anyway,
and
this
just
the
point
of
this
from
what
talks
with
councilmen
wholly
on
this
is
just
the
relevant
prior
approvals.
I,
don't
see
how
a
you
know,
a
county
health
for
a
restaurant,
that's
unique!
That's
asked
that
it
needs
prior
approval
that
require
is
after
it's
been
built.
A
I
mean
we're
not
trying
to
overburden
the
planning
and
buildings
department
with
things
it's
just
putting
it
in
code
that
this
needs
to
be
followed
and
then
just
watching
planning
board
meetings.
I
see
plenty
of
times
all
the
time,
but
they
make
referrals
to,
for
example,
the
water
department
or
another
entity
prior
to
any
approvals
being
done
when
it
comes
to
a
building.
So
I
don't
see
how
this
makes
it
any
more
burdensome
than
when
it's
already
done.
B
C
J
Agree
with
that,
no
it's!
You
know,
insofar
as
you
guys
keep
talking
about
relevant
prior
approvals.
If
you,
if
you
know
what
those
relevant
prior
approvals
are
I,
think
that
you
know
it
would
it
would
make
more
sense
to
specify
those
as
opposed
to
you
know,
making
it
out
of
the
whole
entire
universe
of
you
know,
regulations
that
may
apply.
C
Yeah
I
merely
suggested
an
example
because
of
other
examples
that
were
being
made
that
were
far
less
concerning
of
things
you
know
related
to
health
in
the
environment
that
we,
why
would
we
not
want
to
enforce
them?
That
was
how
it
was
posed.
So
I
responded
with
practical
example
of
something
that
may
pose
a
conflict
for
a
staff
member.
B
Okay,
well
one
of
the
concerns
that
was
raised
that
some
of
this
is
already
in
the
u.s..
Do
it's
already
required
to
have
have
the
approval
license
or
permit,
in
effect
at
the
time
that
an
application
is
submitted
for
a
permit
or
approval
and
at
all
times
when
they
use
is
operating?
Failure
to
do
so
is
a
violation
of
the
USDA.
Oh
it's
already
in
the
US
do
so.
Why
are
we
repeating
that?
It's
one
question.
B
I
J
Imeem
I,
didn't
research
and
I.
Think
you
know
part
of
the
issue
is
that
that
there
may
be
these
situations
where
there
are
other
relevant
approvals,
but
it's
because
it's
kind
of
catch-22,
because
that
approval
requires
local
approval.
First,
and
you
know,
an
approval
is
requiring
you
know
the
other,
and
how
is
anybody
supposed
to
actually
get
the
permit
issued?
So
that's
an
issue.
J
I
also
think
you
know,
there's
perhaps
a
problem
where,
if
the,
if
the
building
inspector
was
given
authority
to
essentially
you
know,
deny
a
permit
based
on
you
know
the
possible
ultimate
denial
of
some
other
agency,
you
then
have
the
building
inspector
enforcing
some
other.
Some
other
regulation,
which
may
not
even
be
local
in
nature,
find
like
EPA
rules
or
something
like
that,
and
that
would
you
know,
go
beyond
what
the
building
inspector
really
has
authority
to
do.
J
You
know
I
think
again,
as
Brad
said
with
the
waiver
provision,
you
know
we're
not
saying
that
we
object
to
you
know
your
intent
here
and
I
think
that
we
we
want
to
work
with
the
council
to
try
and
come
up
with
some
type
of
language.
That
makes
sense
where
you
know
the
issue
that
you're
trying
to
address
is
a
little
bit
better
tailored
to
you
know
what
the
what
the
ordinance
it's
gonna
say.
E
I'm
having
some
difficulty
with
the
administration
taking
apart
in
detail
this
ordinance
in
the
way
that
they're
doing
when
I
would
have
liked
the
opportunity
to
have
this
kind
of
dialogue
regarding
a
lot
of
the
usgo
and
the
in
300
plus
pages,
and
also
we're
still
waiting
for
our
six-month
review,
and
we
know
there
are
a
lot
of
problems
with
the
existing
us.
Do
so.
I
think
that
there's
a
double
standard
here
and
I
think
that
it
is
designed
to
defeat
mr.
E
F
E
Obtaining
all
appropriate
development
permits
and
approvals
and
complying
with
the
terms
and
conditions.
So
why
is
that
not
listed?
Why
not
missed
out
everything
that
they
put
in
the
us
do
again,
a
double
standard
is
at
play
that
I
think
that
is
just
sort
of
a
filibuster
with
regard
to
mr.
Howe
ease,
ordinance
and
finally,
I
want
to
say
that,
with
regard
to
the
argument,
there's
catch-22
in
terms
of
may
have
a
situation
in
which
you
need.
The
local
accrual
would
be
more.
E
Trying
to
you
know
address
these
comments.
The
the
provisions
are
reasonable,
they're
common
sense,
and
you
know,
and
I
and
I,
don't
really
see
why
we
should
be
wordsmithing
this
to
death
when
we
have
other
provisions
of
the
u.s..
Do
that
really
should
be
should
have
been
corrected
a
long
time
ago
with
regard
to
citations,
wording,
ambiguities,
internal
inconsistencies,
etc.
B
C
I,
just
the
the
idea
that
this
is
the
administration
doing
some,
you
know
having
some
goal
or
objective.
These
are
the
staff.
These
are
the
people
that
administer
laws
on
a
daily
basis,
pointing
out
concerns
with
a
piece
of
legislation
and
the
way
that
it's
written
and
I
just
feel
like
it's
falling
on
deaf
ears.
C
It's
very
frustrating,
but
you
know
I,
you
know
I'm
all
I'm
asked
is
we
take
a
step
back
and
we
make
us
we,
you
know
and
I,
don't
want
there
to
be
a
perception
that
I'm
asking
people
to
to
wait
or
whatever
that's
fine
we'll
put
in.
If
you
want
to
pass
this
we'll
put
in
a
separate
ordinance.
That
is
a
preferred
version.
The
ordinance
and
you
can
debate
that,
but
I
just
feel,
like
you
know,
we're
rushing
this
through
four
four
I.
C
Don't
underst
I,
don't
understand
it's
a
poorly
worded
ordinance
in
my
opinion,
and
you
know
I
just
think
it
it
could
be
better.
It
could
accomplish
something,
but
it's
it's
not
really
accomplishing.
You
know.
I
know
it's
just
related
to
I'm
gonna
leave
it
at
that.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
having
me.
J
H
I
understand
the
frustrations
with
the
planning
department.
I
hope
you
understand,
then
we
have
a
lot
of
that
same
frustration
as
well,
especially
for
new
council
members
that
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
u.s..
You
know
a
UFP.
We
never
got
opportunity
to
vote
on
it
or
were
submitted
at
all.
So
we
only
have
this
new
300
plus
page
documents
that
we
have
had
a
lot
of
frustration
with
that.
We
have
a
little
saying
question:
what
our
residents
of
a
asking
for,
or
some
changes
in
some
of
these
developments.
We
have
no
say
we
have.
H
We
come
to
your
Planning
Board
and
we
beg
we
beg
for
small
changes
and
we
are
are
not
hurt.
So
if
you
feel
some
frustration,
we
have
had
this
frustration
for
over
two
and
a
half
years,
and
you
know
this
has
been
on
the
plate
for
10
months.
I
understand
Mike,
my
council,
my
colleagues,
frustration
with
this
I
understand
your
frustration,
but
at
this
point
I
would
say:
let's
dis,
be
a
starting
point
of
us
trying
to
improve
our
relationships.
H
H
Let's
bring
the
whole
document
to
us
from
the
Planning
Board
I
am
a
little
frustrated
with
reading
something
in
one
article
that
somebody
was
quoted
as
if
they
were
holding
that
because
they
were
afraid
of
Common
Council
would
change
more
and
I'm,
not
sure
if
that
was
from
the
planning
department
or
elsewhere,
but
that
shouldn't
be
the
case.
It
shouldn't
be
the
case,
so
I
am
staying
infestation.
H
D
I
B
Discussion,
I
had
well
I'll
I'll
begin
the
discussion,
I
I'm,
disappointed
with
this
committee.
I
think
that
you
have
a
planning
department
with
professionals.
You
have
a
Planning
Board
with
people
who
have
backgrounds
that
give
them
the
ability
to
evaluate
our
planning
needs
here
in
the
city
of
Albany
and
I
feel
like
honestly,
that
they
haven't,
they
haven't
been
respected
and
I
understand
that
the
council
does
have
final
authority
on
a
lot
of
these
decisions
and,
and
they
should
but
I,
don't
think
it
should
come
be
taken.
B
What
I
think
is
cavalierly
when
you
have
professionals
that
are
making
suggestions
to
you
on
complicated
issues,
I
think
that
they
deserve
a
great
deal
of
consideration
and
I.
Don't
see
that
happening
here
and
I
have
to
say
I'm
really
disappointed.
So
those
are
my
comments.
Anybody
else
want
to
make.