Peekskill Planning Commission Chairman Dwight Douglas presided over his last meeting Wednesday.
Douglas said he resigned in response to the Common Council’s ‘ill-advised and misdirected’ move to file an article 78 challenging the commission’s approval of a methadone clinic on 3 Corporate Dr.
The Planning Commission approved the site plan during its Oct. 10 meeting.
“Finally, my decision to resign is based solely on my own thoughts and objections to the course of action the Common Council has pursued and to at least partially lift the cloud that hangs over the Commission from the Council’s resolution describing our actions as 'arbitrary and capricious',” Douglas wrote in his resignation letter. "My decision is in no way intended to reflect the views of the other Commission members. The Commission, as presently constituted, consists of a highly qualified and capable membership well able to carry on without me and make up their own minds as to their willingness to continue to serve the City in this important and, seemingly, unappreciated role.’’
The Renaissance Project proposes to combine the outpatient therapy program it currently runs at the Jan Peek House with Hudson Valley Hospital Center’s methadone maintenance center into one facility at 3 Corporate Dr. The facility could serve as many as 275 clients, but it’s not expected that the facility will have that many people at any one time.
The Planning Commission gave the project site plan approval in June, but had to redo the process after it was determined that the commission failed to notify the Town of Cortlandt as interested part in the state environmental review process.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, the law firm representing the Common Council, contends that the project is incompatible with the current zoning at the proposed site. Although the zoning allows for professional offices, the scope and usage for the proposed clinic doesn’t fit the city’s definition of a professional office, according to attorneys.
But Douglas said the city’s staff had already viewed the plan and determined that it fit the zoning criteria for the site before the Planning Commission began its review.
“Many residents and citizens signed petitions in opposition to the proposed application,” Douglas wrote. “Generalized community opposition is not an appropriate factor for consideration in site plan review, nor, for that matter, for any decision that contravenes the laws and ordinances we are sworn to uphold.”
A copy of the resignation letter is available in the PDF attached to this story.
What does this teach us today about how to act in the world? Dorothy encountered a cowardly lion on the yellow brick road. Today our cowardly lions are lawyers who refuse to take the moral stance that Lincoln did when he challenged the Supreme Court for the greater good of our country. Our leaders can challenge any cowardly lion's reading of the City Charter and summarily resolve to disallow this clinic. The fact that it is done in Manhattan regularly is precedent. Lincoln had the courage to act for the moral good of the country. We need leaders who will similarly act for the good of Peekskill. To hell with small minded lawyers who refuse to act boldly. Morality can triumph narrow minded lawyers if people of good will act together. This will take Peekskill somewhere over the rainbow, which should be a pot of gold for all.
Point 1: Section 28-a 2(b) “Among the most important powers and duties granted by the legislature to a city government is the authority and responsibility to undertake city comprehensive planning and to regulate land use for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens.” A meth clinic in a residential neighborhood is contrary to the safety and general welfare of our City. Point 2: Section 27-13 “The planning board may recommend to the City legislative body regulations relating to any subject matter over which the planning board has jurisdiction under this or any other statute, or under local law or ordinance of the city. ADOPTION OF ANY SUCH RECOMMENDATION BY THE CITY LEGISLATIVE BODY SHALL BE BY LOCAL LAW OR ORDINANCE” Thus the PC is merely advisory. The CC can veto the PC’s determination by resolution. This matter is not an example of the PB applying well settled law. THE COUNCIL HAD THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THE LAW BEFORE THIS BEGAN. Finally, GML envisions Art 78's as a tool for individuals with grievances, not city governments who can easily remedy these situations by courageous legislative action. No ambitious lawyer would tell you otherwise.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/10/02/news/midcoast/firm-drops-plans-for-methadone-clinic-pursues-lawsuit-against-warren/
As for the substance of the issue, if compassion for those in need of potentially life-saving help doesn’t move those who are determined to fight against establishment of a methadone clinic, pure self-interest should. Federal Law (the Americans with Disabilities Act) explicitly forbids discrimination aimed at protected groups - and individuals seeking or receiving treatment for addiction are indeed protected. Cities in Maine (settlement paid to clinic developers: $320,000) and Illinois (settlement: $620,000) have learned the hard – and costly! – way. So have cities in Florida, Pennsylvania, Maryland and elsewhere who have had to settle for sums that were not disclosed. And on top of the penalties, the legal fees incurred by taxpayers in these communities. Sobering precedents for Peekskill to contemplate.
Wendy Kelly
To those that have stated that the Planning Commission's duties are only advisory, this is simply not true. While most of the PC's duties in City Charter Section C198b are advisory, everyone is overlooking Item b6: "To exercise all the powers enumerated in Article 3 of the General City Law, as amended." With respect to GCL Article 3, Section 27, Subsection 14b states, "the planning board shall have the full power and authority to make investigations, maps, reports, and recommendations in connection therewith relating to the planning and development of the city as it deems desirable." This is further clarified in Section 575-56A of the City's Zoning Ordinance: "It is the purpose of this section to promote safe, healthy, good, orderly and appropriate development throughout the City of Peekskill. For that purpose, pursuant to the authority set forth in Peekskill City Charter §C198 and General City Law §27-a, the Planning Commission is hereby authorized to review and approve, approve with modifications or disapprove site plans." People have the right to question whether the purpose of 575-56A was upheld, (cont'd)
As a matter of full disclosure, I worked with most of the current Commission members, including Dwight Douglas and Ruth Wells, for a number of years. While I'm sure that people will comment that I'm biased, I can attest that the Commmission members are intelligent, diligent, insightful, and above all, professional. For those that may not know, Dwight was the former Director of Planning and Development for the City in the early to mid 1990's (when I was first appointed to the PC) and was a planner by profession, so in my opinion I do not feel that anyone has the right to question his credentials and ability to serve as PC Chairman. Based on my experience and knowledge, I know that everything stated by Dwight in his resignation letter (which I hope everyone reads) is factual. Yes, the Renaissance application is a controversial and emotional, and I'm sure that those who spoke at the public hearings raised valid concerns and issues. But the bottom line is that the PC had to act as they did (I believe the vote was unanimous) based on the data from City Planning staff and Corp Counsel stated in the resignation letter.
I do agree that the Mayor and Council were fully aware of the application, and that they could have done more to work with City staff and the Renaissnace applicant either "behind the scenes" or within public channels, such as find a more appropriate location, before it ever became a PC agenda item. The Article 78 is the Council's way of covering their butts and making the PC and City staff scapegoats. To Tina's points - the applcant, not the City, fills out the EAF. It's valid to say that the City/PC should have better checked those items, but I'm not sure that it would throw the application into a DEIS.
It will be interesting to see how the Article 78 plays out - in my opinion, it is going to come down to whether or not the applcation is determined to be a permitted use. Whatever the outcome, there needs to be changes to the zoning ordinance to better define and include proposed uses and applications like Renaissance as "special permit uses" in all districts, especially in residential and those districts adjacent to residential areas.
When applications are for a permitted use, the PC review for conformance with the zoning ordinance has to be, for the most part, objective in nature. The PC has a little more latitude whwen they look at the application's conformance with SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act), but it is a very fine line between hazy and clear. The review of Special Permit applications can be more subjective in terms of health, safety and welfare, but as has been pointed out, there's good and bad - it's not perfect.
Much appreciated Wendy