►
From YouTube: Beacon Zoning Board Training 2-15-22
Description
City of Beacon Zoning Board training session on open meetings and ethics.
A
A
The
only
update
I
want
to
give
is
that
the
state
legislature
has
adopted
new
legislation
that
says
that
virtual
meetings
can
continue
for
as
long
as
the
state
of
emergency
continues,
so
that
doesn't
really
impact
us
we've
been
meeting
in
person,
but
it
does
mean
that
virtual
meetings
can
continue
through
March
16th,
which
I
think
is
interesting,
and
virtual
meetings
can
continue,
regardless
of
the
executive
order.
It
just
means
that
you
have
to
notice
the
location
of
any
board
member
attending
virtually
the
state
legislation.
That's
out.
A
Point
it
applied.
It
applies
to
any
public
board
member,
so
I
as
the
City
attorney
I
can
attend
virtually
no
matter
what
the
situation
is
exactly
executive
order,
no
executive
order
and
I
don't
ever
have
to
notice
my
location,
I'm,
not
a
board
member,
but
for
any
of
you
to
attend
virtually
you
have
to
notice
your
location
and
then
invite
the
public
to
attend
that
location.
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
Again,
it
doesn't
really
impact
this
board
because
we've
been
meeting
in
person
and
our
meetings
aren't
even
hybrid
style,
so
I
just
think
it's
an
interesting
fact
and
helpful
to
kind
of
know
what's
going
on
so
that
brings
us
to
ethics
today,
so
I
handed
out
everybody,
the
city
of
Beacon
ethics
code,
I,
think
it's
always
important
to
give
it
a
read.
If
you've
read
it
before,
read
it
again,
refresh
yourself
know
the
rules.
Questions
of
conflicts
of
interest
require
a
case-by-case
analysis
of
the
facts
and
circumstances.
A
If
there's
ever
a
situation
that
comes
up
where
you're
concerned
that
there
might
be
a
conflict,
you
might
have
a
conflict
of
interest
with
an
application
make
sure
you
reach
out
to
our
office.
We
can
talk
through
the
facts
and
see
whether
or
not
you
have
to
recuse
yourself
or
if
you
simply
have
to
disclose
that
you
have
a
connection
to
somebody
who's
presenting
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
or
the
applicant
themselves.
A
So
something
like
that
conflicts
are
governed
by
the
New
York
state,
general
Municipal
law,
article
18
and
the
City
of
Beacon
ethics
code,
chapter
29,
which
is
what
you
have
in
front
of
you.
This
is
available
on
e-codes,
so
if
you
just
type
in
city
of
Beacon,
E
Codes,
you
can
find
it
super
easily,
along
with
every
other
provision
of
the
city
code,
public
officials,
which
includes
zba
Mama
hand,
gestures,
hit
the
mic
zba
board
members
should
avoid
even
the
appearance
of
impropriety
in
order
to
maintain
public
confidence
in
the
entire
Integrity
of
government.
A
So
we
don't
want
to
do
anything
that
would
cause
someone
to
think
that
you
are
being
influenced
in
any
way,
which
is
why
we
always
want
to
be
transparent
and
make
sure
we're.
You
know
stating
potential
conflicts
on
the
record.
A
disqualifying
conflict
of
interest
is
one
that
is
substantial,
direct
and
non-speculative.
The
test
to
be
applied
is
not
whether
there
is
a
conflict,
but
whether
there
might
be
one
so
you
want
to
get
ahead
of
it.
A
A
mere
social
relationship
is
not
deemed
a
substantial
interest,
so
Beacon's,
not
that
big,
you
might
know
somebody
who's
presenting.
You
may
have
worked
with
an
applicant
before
that
is
not
considered
a
substantial
interest.
We
might
want
to
disclose
and
say
you
know
last
year
that
guy
did
my
fence
as
well.
I
I
can
sit
here
and
be
impartial
in
my
decision
making
done
not
a
conflict,
but
you've
disclosed
that
you
might
have
a
closer
relationship
than
other
members
of
the
board
to
that
individual.
A
As
a
matter
of
public
policy
courts
recognize
that
public
officials
inevitably
will
have
pre-existing
social
relationships
and
other
social
ties
to
their
community.
Your
active
members
are
here
again
Beacon's,
not
that
big.
So
you
know
it's
not
about
any
potential
connection
to
someone.
It
really
is
about
their
substantial
interests.
A
strict
rule
that
would
require
close
scrutiny
of
relationships
is
neither
realistic
or
just
or
desirable.
So
the
courts
recognize
that,
which
is
why
we
evaluate
these
things
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
board
members
have
an
obligation
to
do
the
job
for
which
they
were
appointed.
A
It
is
common,
particularly
in
smaller
communities
that
board
members
have
familiar
familiarity
with
many
of
the
applicants.
There
is
not
and
cannot
be
a
basis
for
recusal
unless
there
is
something
about
the
relationship
that
would
cause
the
board
member
to
be
unable
to
review
the
application
objectively.
In
that
case,
you
should
recuse
yourself,
but
this
should
be
in
a
rare
occurrence.
Otherwise
it
is
doing
a
disservice
to
the
applicant
due
to
a
frequent
inability
to
have
a
full
membership
of
the
Board
review
and
decide
the
application.
A
A
So
let's
talk
about
article
18.,
so
New
York,
state,
general
Municipal
law,
article
18
prohibits
Municipal
officers
and
employees
from
having
interest
in
contracts
with
the
municipality
for
which
they
serve,
but
only
under
certain
circumstances,
so
to
have
a
prohibited
interest
in
a
contract.
Four
conditions
must
be
met.
There
must
be
a
contract.
The
individual
must
have
an
interest
in
that
contract.
The
individual
must
have
certain
powers
or
duties
with
respect
to
the
contract
and
the
situation
must
not
fit
within
any
of
the
exceptions
listed
in
the
law.
A
So
a
contract
for
purposes
of
article
18
is
any
claim
account
or
demand
against,
or
agreement
with,
a
municipality
Express
or
imply
it's
very
interesting.
There
is
case
law
out
there
that
says
a
building
permit
is
a
contract.
There
is
no
case
law
out
there.
That
says
whether
or
not
a
variance
resolution
is
a
contract
or
whether
a
site
plan
resolution
is
a
contract.
The
committee
on
open
government
has
frequently
opined
that,
in
their
opinion,
a
land
use
approval
is
not
a
contract,
but
the
states
have
not.
A
You
know.
So
we
would
advise
so
it
might
not
be
a
conflict
under
article
18,
but
again,
if
you're
going
to
benefit
in
any
way
from
an
approval
resolution.
Maybe
we
approve
a
fence,
approve
a
setback
that
would
allow
offense
and
then
you're
going
to
be
the
one
to
install
the
fence.
That
would
be
not
great.
We
would
definitely
want
to
recuse
ourselves
in
that
situation.
A
A
Disclosure
of
interest
is
required
if
you
have
any
financial
interest,
direct
or
indirect
in
any
contract
with
the
city
or
the
sale
of
any
land,
materials,
supplies
or
services
to
the
city
or
in
any
contractor
supplying
the
city,
and
you
have
to
make
that
interest
known
in
writing
to
the
city
council
and
the
board
of
Ethics.
The
conflicted
person
shall
not
in
any
way
participate
in
any
discussions
of
the
contract.
Again,
this
is
more
than
just
this
really
impacts.
A
A
A
A
I
was
like
what
is
happening.
The
mere
social
relationship
between
the
applicant
and
a
zoning
Board
member
does
not,
in
and
of
itself
create
a
conflict
of
interest
sufficient
to
require
that
members
recusal
I.
Think
if
somebody
is
your
spouse,
or
you
know
your
close
family
member,
we
might
want
to
look
at
that
a
little
closer.
If
someone
is,
you
know,
your
friend
I
think
that
would
be
okay.
There
is
no
conflict
of
interest
right
board.
Member
was
employed
by
opponents
to
a
project
because
the
conflict
is
too
attenuated
and
speculative.
A
A
Another
example:
I
have,
from
the
from
a
case
from
Putnam
County
in
2019.,
the
town
of
Kent
Supervisor
was
a
homeowner
in
an
HOA
that
was
suing
the
town's
EBA
to
overturn
a
decision
to
permit
concrete
production
at
nearby
property.
The
supervisor
stated
that
she
would
recuse
herself
from
voting
on
a
related
matter
before
the
town
board
involving
a
zoning
Amendment,
which
would
prohibit
concrete
production
in
the
zoning
District
adjacent
to
the
HOA.
While
the
supervisor
did
not
vote
on
the
amendment,
she
nonetheless
continued
to
participate
in
discussions
and
the
public
hearing.
A
This
had
the
potential
to
influence
board
members.
So
if
you're
going
to
recuse
yourself,
you
just
step
away
from
the
table
and
sit
in
the
audience
or
even
sit
outside
that
way,
it
can't
be
perceived
that
you're
staring
at
the
board
members
and
influencing
them
in
any
way.
So
a
recusal
is
complete
separation
from
the
discussion
and
from
the
meeting.
A
Another
example:
ownership
of
real
property
in
an
area
that
will
be
financially
affected
by
a
board's
decision
does
not
require
disqualification
if
other
property
owners
will
be
similarly
affected.
So
if
it's
not
just
your
property
being
signaled
out
and
it's
a
larger
group,
you
don't
have
to
recuse
yourself
again,
especially
if
the
impact
is
speculative.
Are
you
even
going
to
benefit
that's
a
question?
A
recusal
is
not
necessary
again,
maybe
disclosure,
but
we
can
look
at
the
the
facts
in
that
situation.
A
A
A
So
courts
also
recognize
that
public
policy
should
not
discourage
Municipal
officials
from
being
Property
Owners,
you,
obviously
own
property
in
the
city.
You
might
be
impacted
by
you
know
a
decision
that
doesn't
disqualify
you
from
participating
in
discussions
necessarily
again
we'd
have
to
look
at
what
the
impact
is.
A
C
A
So
here's
the
chair
of
the
ethics
board
and,
if
there's
ever,
a
a
potential
violation
of
the
ethics
code
that
goes
to
the
ethics
board
and
they
can
review
and
issue
a
determination.
There's
a
process
for
informal
and
formal
determinations
from
the
board
of
Ethics
to
help
guide
the
process
as
to
whether
indeed
Step
One
is,
is
a
conflict
actually
alleged
in
the
complaint
and
then
they'll
go
in
to
investigate
whether
that
arises
to
the
by
a
violation
of
the
ethics
code.
I've.
C
C
What
actually
is
the
standard?
We're
working
from
there
or
I?
Didn't
really
I
didn't
see
one
in
the
ethics
chapter
you
hand
it
out
and
it
what
you
said
definitely
peaked
an
eyebrow
with
me,
because
I
know
that,
in
the
context
of
administrative
law,
which
is
probably
the
closest
analog,
we've
gotten
to
what
we
do
here,
the
standard
for
a
decision
maker
with
regard
to
past
statements
about
political
or
policy
matters
that
might
have
some
bearing
of
what's
going
on
is
I.
Think
the
exact
language
is
unalterably
closed.
A
Yeah
so
I
can
circulate.
This
comes
mostly
from
the
committee
on
open
government
and
their
advisory
opinion,
so
I
can
find
that
and
I'll
circulate
it
to
all
the
members
of
the
board.
Unfortunately,
I
did
not
print
it
out
with
me
tonight,
but
you
know
I
think
the
the
biggest
thing
is,
for
example,
let's
say:
there's
an
application
before
the
planning
board
and
a
member
of
the
zba
has
gone
on.
I,
don't
know
Twitter
and
said
this
project
is
terrible
for
the
community
there's
no
way
the
planning
board
should
approve
this.
A
A
A
I
think
that
would
be
a
different
situation
and
you
know
we
we
can
talk.
We
could
talk
about
it.
You
know,
maybe
you'd
want
to
show
us
what
the
Tweet
said
or
the
post
said,
or
whatever
it
may
be,
but
that's
more
of
a
general
statement
and
I
would
say
that
that
would
not
necessarily
rise
to
the
level
of
recusal.
We're
really
thinking
about
the
clear
objections
to
specific
projects
that
have
come
before
this.
This
board.
Okay,.
C
A
Right
and
that's
not
what
the
courts
want.
Court
wants.
That's
not
what
the
municipality
wants
in
any
situation.
You
don't
want
recusal.
You
want
your
board
members
to
to
be
the
ones
making
decisions
on
these
projects,
and
you
know
you're
entitled
to
opinions.
You
know,
and
you
weren't,
you
might
not
even
thought
that
you'd
be.
You
might
not
have
been
on
the
zba
at
the
time
you
made
a
general,
a
general
post
so
that
something
a
general
statement
like
that
about
you
know
or
what,
if
you
say
like
Beacon,
needs
more
Parks.
A
You
know
like
that's,
not
the
same
thing
where
the
example
I
was
thinking
that
would
rise
to
the
level
of
recusal,
something
very
specific
about
clear
objections
or
favoritism
on
a
project.
You
know
if
you
were,
if
planning
boards
reviewing
something
in
our
city,
council
and
you're
like
this,
must
be
adopted
without
a
doubt.
This
is
perfect
the
way
it
is,
and
then
it
comes
you
know
before
the
zba,
because
it
needs
a
variance
or
an
appeal
happens.
A
You
know
that
could
rise
to
the
level
of
being
a
concern
again.
It
would
be
evaluated
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
but
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
specific
project
has
not
been
prejudged
before
the
zba
went
through
the
five
factors,
and
that
doesn't
mean
post
and
be
like
well.
This
is
clearly
self-created,
and
this
is
clearly
environment
going
to
impact
the
environment
and
impact
of
the
community.
You
know
you'd
want
to
have
that
the
express
those
opinions
at
the
zba
meeting
based
on.
A
What's
before
you
and
you,
you
know
it
could
be
the
same
information
that's
coming
over
from
the
planning
board.
But
again
your
job
is
to
make
those
opinions
here
in
public
at
the
meeting,
but
your
your
general
statements
are
are
fine
again.
My
example
is
just
about
specific
projects
that
you
know
everything
has
a
potential
to
come
to
the
zba
needing
a
variance
or
you
know
it
could
be
appealed
in
some
way
or
an
interpretation
about
the
code.
A
So
you
know,
even
if
you
think,
a
project
doesn't
have
a
chance
of
coming
before
you,
if
it's
in
the
queue
being
reviewed
by
the
city
council
or
by
the
planning
board
best
not
to
opine
specifically
on
that
project,
because
it
could
come
to
you
and
we
don't
want
anyone
to
have
to
recuse
themselves
in
any
way
and
also
always
be
careful.
What
you're
saying
on
social
media?
Because
you
never
know
who,
when
that
might
come
back
up
or
how
that
could
be
misinterpreted.
A
A
A
I
knew
I
should
add
multiple
choice.
Next
time,
I
think
the
next
training
is
going
to
be
a
case.
Law
update
on
I'm
gonna
do
some
research
to
find
some
interesting
happenings
that
have
come
down
from
the
court
or
unless
anyone
else
has
something
you
know
some
burning
topic
they
really
want
to
hear
about.
Could
research
that
instead?