NORTH EAST — The July 8 Town Board meeting kicked off with a shocker, when, during the public comments, resident Dave Shufelt announced that affordable housing applicant Housing Resources of Columbia County had “withdrawn from the process.�
“That couldn’t be further from the truth,� said Housing Resources Executive Director Kevin O’Neill the following day. “There’s no basis for that rumor.�
“That was Mr. Shufelt’s spin,� town Supervisor Dave Sherman said on Friday.
Further, Shufelt charged the town of North East with conducting a “secret meeting� with its attorney, Housing Resources and members of the county’s planning department at the Salisbury Bank & Trust on June 18.
“He had the same spin that we were having a secret meeting, that everybody knew about. He used a pejorative term to try to characterize an otherwise perfectly good meeting set up by the town with folks from the county and Housing Resources,� Sherman said.
The village Planning Board, Village Board
and the boards’ attorneys were also invited to that meeting, but declined to
attend, according to Sherman.
“They did not seem to be prepared to cover the expense of having counsel there to participate in the meeting,� the supervisor said.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the expected development schedule, and “to understand where the process was,� according to Sherman. It was also to gauge if Housing Resources’ application was close to concluding its environmental review and to ask the county for input on a reasonable time frame for the development of the Millerton Overlook project.
That’s an important point, because as of this time, Housing Resources has spent upward of $700,000 on the Millerton Overlook project, and that’s before getting final approval. More than $90,000 of that money has been spent just in reimbursing the village Planning Board for legal and consulting expenses.
In fact, the not-for-profit group has investing so much time and money, that in May its attorney, Scott Longstreet, sent a letter to the village Planning Board stating it would no longer replenish the $5,000 escrow account. According to Housing Resources, funding an escrow account is not required by law.
“It is abundantly clear that the board’s and the project opposition’s game plan has been to drag the permitting process out until the applicant is financially drained to death,� Longstreet wrote. “There is no indication whatsoever that there is any end in sight to this game other than the death of the project and so we decline to further facilitate our own demise.
“Unless and until we are given reliable assurances that the board will cease its abuse of the administrative process and will promptly bring both the SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] determination and special use permit application to a vote, no further payments into the escrow are forthcoming.�
Since that letter was penned Housing Resources has taken further action. It is now in the midst of preparing a complaint under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Justice Department against the village Planning Board.
“We advised them of this and gave them plenty of chances to respond more reasonably, but they gave us no choice,� O’Neill said. “There were thousands of dollars in attorneys’ and consultants’ fees they required us to pay them when by law they are not allowed to. They backed us into a corner; we have no other choice. We expected approvals would be coming, but it’s clear the Planning Board is not acting in good faith.�
O’Neill gave an example of bog turtles, which were addressed last year. Now the Planning Board is requesting new studies, when he said the issue has been resolved. That means more money.
“We agreed to assume the turtles are there and we talked about measures to take to mitigate any impact to them, and we’re happy to do it,� O’Neill said. “That was all resolved last summer. It’s still being talked about now and we’re still incurring consultant fees.
“We’ve been involved since 2003, we bought the property in 2004 and submitted applications in April of 2005. It’s now 2010,� he said. “It never should have taken this long. It never should have cost as much as it has. There’s an element driving up cost and time, but we’re so far into it we can’t walk away. We can’t walk away from a $700,000 investment.�
But Housing Resources has walked away, at least temporarily, from the application process with the village Planning Board, according to its chairman, Lance Middlebrook. He said the applicant’s last appearance was made with its last payment to the escrow fund, back in May.
“Since they have not come back to the meetings I have not heard anything. There has been no correspondence whatever,� Middlebrook said, adding Housing Resources was not on the agenda for the Wednesday, July 14 Planning Board meeting. “I don’t know anything, we just go on about our business.�
Middlebrook said the process had been progressing, despite the applicant’s charges. The board had gotten to the final stage of the SEQRA review, which it was most recently in the midst of.
“I don’t think the review is repeating itself,� he said, negating O’Neill’s complaint that the Planning Board repeatedly requested the same reviews and studies for the project. “But until we get all the information in we can’t make any determinations, and information was still coming in.�
As far as Housing Resources decision to pursue legal action against the Planning Board, Middlebrook said it was news to him.
“I’ve not heard of any lawsuit,� he said. “So I’m not going to comment on anything.�
Millerton Overlook is proposed as a “workforce housing� complex, with nine senior apartments and 11 family apartments in a total of seven buildings. Rents would range from $750 all the way up to $1,200. The site for the development is at the intersection of routes 22 and 44, at the entrance to the village.
O’Neill said if there’s one thing he would like the community to keep in mind when considering the project, it’s that Housing Resources was invited by the town to come and create affordable housing for its residents. Housing Resources did not seek out the opportunity.
“We were asked here,� he said. “It’s so kids could afford to live here and seniors could afford to retire here. I don’t know people’s incomes, but I would bet the super majority of those so opposed to it would actually qualify to live there.�
Submitted
