Tonight (2019-09-09) was a meeting of the Honeoye Falls Zoning Board.
The meeting was a bit of a surprise. Last week was a holiday, so I guess I should have expected it. Worked out because the Town Board moved their meeting to next week. Of course, that means I have two meetings at the same time then, but that’s a problem for another day.
The topic of the evening was the subdivision of the Saint John’s Episcopal Church, and the two variances that required. They separated the former nursery school build from the church ‘campus’, and plan to sell it as a house. Would need one variance as the rear setback would be at 5 feet (instead of 20?) and another as the square footage would be at ~8000 (instead of 10000?). Seemed both straightforward and reasonable enough, as it has been used for an apartment on and off for the past while, thus nothing of significance should actually be changing.
It was in the details that things got interesting.
Ann Bailey chaired the meeting, instead of the normal Brian Hoose. I have a vague memory of her having done this in the past, but if so it’s infrequent enough I can’t be sure. In any case, she did the job well enough, so all was well. And as she said, anyone on the ZBA should be able to do the job if needed.
Mark Donahoe was not at the table, he was the applicant, on behalf of the church. A bit unusual, but it made sense in the situation. And while we don’t get to know what someone is thinking, everything did appear above board to me. Although I didn’t hear it stated that he would normally be on this Board. Likely an oversight, as I expect everyone in the room already knew that.
Sounds like the driveway from Monroe to Episcopal will be closed off as part of this. I thought I heard mention of a fence, but wasn’t clear if that would be at the end of the driveway or a modification of what is around the playground.
SEQR was even more absurd then usual. This case seemed to fit pretty well under a Type II Action, which means nothing more needs to be done (apart from making that determination). Looks to fit pretty firmly under 617.5(c)(16). And 17 or 25 at a stretch. But as the Board seems to still be flustered from Muffy’s denial, and as she was in the room, an overabundance of caution is to be expected.
Which points towards how this board has become flustered as to motion wordings at various times in the past, and again tonight. So I suggested they draft motions in advance, to make everyone’s life easier. While surprises are always possible, and they can’t (and shouldn’t) predict their decision in advance, there are really only three options.
1) Motion to table this topic until X (likely next month).
2) Motion to deny the request to X (insert details about request and maybe why it is being denied).
3) Motion to approval the request to X, because of Y (any relevant details), and on condition of Z (any conditions that may need to be added).
While that doesn’t sound like much here, as there is too much XYZ, it shouldn’t be hard for anyone on the Board to draft something ahead of time. After all, the bulk of that information should be available to them when they receive the application. And I know from experience, it’s alot easier to add a few words to a draft motion during a meeting, then to create something from scratch.
Mind you, I’m not a lawyer, so who knows where this idea will go.
And the last thing that stood out to me was that they appeared to roll the subdivision and two variances into one motion. As the lawyers present didn’t object, I’ll assume this was technically legal, but it felt procedurally wrong. A bit too rushed. I expected something about how ‘we are approving A, on condition of approving B and C’ and then ‘we are approving B’, followed by ‘we are approving C’. End result would be the same, I just expected to see the steps.
That I’m sure the result would be the same is why I don’t think it really matters. If it was ‘technically wrong’, then learn from it, but carry on. If it was right, well then good job on streamlining things. ‘Process crimes‘ always remind me of the quote about “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime“. If it wouldn’t make any difference in the end result, and nothing ‘wrong’ was actually done (ie ‘Fruit of the poisonous tree‘) then don’t worry about it. After all, we are all flawed and imperfect beings.
As an aside, while that quote is apparently from some Russian, I am sure I read about someone in US law enforcement saying something similar. I want to say an FBI Director, which probably means Hoover. Yet I can’t find anything linking such a statement to him. Massive conspiracy (and cover up) or flaw in my memory? You decide.
And those are my Observations From Audience Land for the September 9, 2019 meeting of the Honeoye Falls Zoning Board.
Agenda was not available anywhere I could find. Perhaps it will be on the Village’s website in the future, perhaps not…