Common Council Legal Committee Meeting

1. 0:02Do we have anybody online? >> All right. So, this is the first meeting of the legal committee for 2026. Um, I'm going to do roll call first. Jenny. >> Hi. >> Hi, Jason Morris. Yes. Um, Claire is not yet here. um at the first meeting of every committee uh although I know you both have already been to a committee so far this month I am going over the rules of order um specifically these rules apply pretty much to all of the committees most of them are specifically through the um to the women council meetings formal and informal um however I do want to draw everyone's attention to ruin Number eight relating to public comment um at the discretion of the chair whether that's committee chair or
2. 1:05council chairs the floor may be open to comment from non-members of the council on a question before the council or new business at the new business portion of the meeting non-members may make one comment no more than two minutes on any given question and by question we mean issue question or issues and chair may set a reasonable time frame for such public comments that's in the aggregate comments must addressed to the council and not to other members of the public. As with council members, non-members must first be recognized by the clair. Any non-member seeking to speak must do so in an orderly fashion and shall not engage in conduct which disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting. If any person continues to engage in disorderly conduct after being warned by the chair to cease such behavior, the chair may order the removal of said person from the meeting. Um I don't since we've all been through this more than once I don't think we have any questions and that is posted on the city website so public. Um
3. 2:09so we have a couple of old business items. Jenny, you're familiar with these because you were on this committee last year. Um the first one is the short-term rentals. Um, so Logan, if you want to just pull up the short-term rental with the highlights. So, currently the short-term rental rules um have a provision, which is highlighted here, that any person who owns a dwelling unit in the city of Hudson and resides in it at least 50 days a year may operate it as a short-term rental unit for up to a maximum of 60 days per calendar year. This was put in place for people who not necessarily just people who are here on weekends, but if you are going away on vacation, couple of times a year, etc., that you can rent out your property. Um, allowing folks to do this has zero impact in availability of long-term rentals because obviously the person lives here, so they're not going to be renting their home out as long-term peace. A number of members of the
4. 3:13community have came up to me over the past year or so asking to have this revised to increase the maximum number of days to 120 >> which I think is perfectly reasonable. Um and this will go unless I want to hear your comments but um I know you were part of this discussion in October. Do you have any questions about that Jason? >> Um don't think I have any questions about that. Do you think there's going to be days a year of living here? Is that I guess that's because of weekenders. >> I think that's probably why it was written that way. Um, so it's people who might be here. Yeah, I think it's really intended for weekenders, but you know, the more likely scenario is somebody who's going away a couple of times a year and they want to rent out their home. >> Um, I have a question about the the prior one. >> I have many questions about other things here. >> Okay. just it was the previous >> Yes. >> Can I ask a question about that very? >> Yeah, of course you can. >> So, about the may operate up to three
5. 4:16short-term rental unions if they live on the property. Does that happen? Do we know if that's >> uh I could ask I could ask Michelle. I very much doubt that it does. It sounds like Do you know Do you know anybody? >> I personally know someone in my neighborhood who has I think three short-term rentals or he did at one point. >> Two. Two is definitely not unusual. >> Um I think he sold one. So now he probably has two. He had a family member living in one of the homes and he lived in the other. >> That was that was two separate parcels. Yeah, >> this is on one part >> like a forplex would be live in one and just >> rent out in like what's the difference between that between a regular BV or >> I do know someone who does that too. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I >> that that's it caught my eye. Yeah,
6. 5:18>> sound like a scenario that >> in fact I when I was looking for a home, I rented from her several times. >> I'll find out how often they have a price. >> Yeah. Uh I I know of I know of a couple of people who have two in their home >> cuz some of the homes are are larger and they can have two in their home. >> I guess I was picturing a building that's specifically like a sped up built to be like a forplex. It may have that may have been the intent. >> Seems like something that >> Yeah. >> is not in the um spirit of our law >> is that something like that that's set up like a four points. You'd want to >> rent it. >> Yeah. >> Living people, >> right? Exactly. This the particular scenario that I'm thinking of is not like that. They've just divided a very large home into spaces where people can stay >> like a shared house and then Yeah. get a room. >> Yeah. They all have their own bathroom. >> That's nice.
7. 6:20>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, I think there are other illusions that we could make to this, but right now the only one that's really seems to me to be fairly straightforward. I think it wouldn't hurt us to take a reook at that old law, but for now I think just increasing this to 120 days would be reasonable. >> I also got emails about that from members of our communities. >> We we got several requests in place. >> Okay, that's that uh I'm going to send this to the informal uh to we're going through everything for the informal tomorrow. So I'll make sure that's posted for the informant and then we can hopefully vote on this month. The next piece of old business which we discussed in October, if you want to pull up um the memo. Yes. So um little history here, Jason. Um we have an issue with uh ebikes and scooters.
8. 7:22>> Yeah. Um so we've had a couple of accidents. Um the two areas in the Chan where most of the activity seems to occur is down towards the riverfront and then in the pix near the school. Um there are uh you know teenagers probably under the age of 16. Uh there's a lot of speeding. there's not observing um uh rules of the road. Uh and so we looked at Jenny had done some research on this and um our previous council uh posted and in the October in in the documents from October if you read those we're going to you know bring this back up uh ordinances in other cities. So the memorandum that you gave us as well that there are three categories of of ebike or uh assisted bikes um the first category uh requires that the um cyclist be actively pedaling
9. 8:26for the assist to engage. Uh the other two do not require that. Uh and the third the highest category can go up to 25 miles an hour. Um, in all of these categories, no person under the age of 16, this is New York State law, no person under the age of 16 shall operate a bicycle with electric assist. Um, it's very difficult for the police observationally to determine just looking at a bike which category A, B, or C it belongs to, but certainly nobody under the age of 16 should be operating. Um, additionally, the uh, by law in New York only applies to people under the age of 14. Um, right now, New York does allow municipalities to adopt stricter or ordinances. And so, I'm just bringing this back up again for us to uh, divy up who can who should work on which pieces. When we talked about it last time,
10. 9:29um we talked about taking a kind of a three-prong approach. Uh having a safety education campaign and this came up in the services meeting um as well where we were talking about um uh bike safety and perhaps doing some training at the at the youth department. Um we could also do it at uh Blue Towers and at the school. That's something I think that you were interested in, Jenny, in looking at some safety progress. >> Yeah. And also, >> uh, Dominic also brought up that >> he had found um some existing >> literature that he could get a hold of and we could distribute. Um, I think it's really important. >> Yeah. uh the the issue with the helmets. I think we can you know we could try to put it in that everybody has to be wearing that you are required to wear a helmet in class 3 in the class C the one that can go to 25 miles an hour. Um but I I I think we need to talk to the
11. 10:34police about that and how to enforce that. Um I do know that they have been uh pulling people over. So we had the accident that we had um it was like the very the day after we brought up this issue in one of our meetings. There was an accident uh I think down near it was down near Front Street um with head injuries. I believe >> at first >> yeah it was down it was down there um that happened the day after we had been discussing this at one of our meetings. I think there was a >> there was there was there have been more than one but the root cause of that accident was that the cyclist did not stop at a stop sign. Exactly. >> So I think you know when I've talked to Captain Miller about this um looking at enforcement of uh cyclists following the rules of the road that's really critical. It's it's brought, you know, I do think helmets are a good idea, but it's very very difficult um to force that when New York State does not
12. 11:38require helmets for people over the age of 16. >> Well, maybe we should draft a law that for our community, you should be wearing a helmet if you're under 18 years old. It's your choice if you're over 18, >> but we should strongly encourage it. Are you suggesting or all bikes. >> All bikes. >> And scooters. >> Yes, scooters are definitely a problem. >> So, I can I can work on local ordinances, local laws. Um, I think this is something that would be good to have in the safety committee. Um, so maybe the enforcement part of it ought to go over to the safety committee to work with the police department to come up with uh an enforcement program. Do you feel that the education piece ought to also be routed to the safety committee? >> Sure. Yes. Both.
13. 12:41>> I don't think it's I don't think it's really good legal unless someone's just interested. >> I mean, >> there's no reason that anyone who wants to work on it can't work on it. Yeah, >> but it's >> safety to me seems to be the right place to send it. >> Yeah. >> In the meantime, I can work on the local ordinances piece and this committee can look at, you know, I'll review what's out there if you all just review the other ordinances and then we can come up with our own ordinance regarding this um and then send that up to um the full council for review. But the safety the first two items when we started discussing it we decided to break it into components and that's why it is the way it is. So okay so we'll send those to safety. Um I think practically not a huge difference between the the classes. We have a 25 mile speed limit here anyway. >> Right. That's correct. >> There's not a huge difference observationally between
14. 13:43>> Yeah. >> going 20 and going 25. It's it's from what I've observed it's really just reckless riding. >> It's which is probably already a lot. I mean it it is a lot. >> I think it's something that should be really emphasized at the schools. >> Yes. because um just attacking it from you know Bliss Towers or at um the youth club you know they could do a second round but >> I think it should be the school is the right place to do the thing and just you know emphasizing to the students that you know if you're going 25 miles an hour and somebody else is going 25 miles an hour when you hit >> the impact is incredible and the amount amount of damage you can do to your body is um devastating. So yeah, >> yeah, I agree. The schools would be appropriate for >> Yeah, >> there is there is an adult >> component to the issue. The man who
15. 14:47>> Yeah. >> ran in ran the stop sign on >> Yeah, that was an adult. >> Yes. >> And I definitely see >> there was a very serious accident >> right outside my house a couple of years ago. or an adult uh was cycling the wrong way on fifth and um a car coming out of the alley turning right to go go south on fifth obviously was looking for things coming on the left I didn't see this guy cycling on the right >> and that was a very serious fist >> well and that was an adult and that wasn't an ebike that was a bike in general I think we need enforcement of rules of the roads where people on bikes regardless of whether they eat bikes or not. >> And and that's something that I think we could put on the hub too. Here's here are new here are our new rules and suggestions and you know just so that everyone knows um as you know I I had a friend die like
16. 15:49that. So >> I think that I think that you're correct about the schools and you know where Captain Miller is saying that they do see issues is around the schools up in uh you know that hill coming down uh that's >> my house going on a blind corner. >> Yep. Okay. So I'll work on for next month I'll bring some stuff with uh suggested ormances. send me suggestions that you have and we can move forward on that and I will route the other two components over to safety. Okay, new business. So, put that over there. Um I worked on a document with Ken uh regarding use of video conferencing So this does not really change what we're currently doing. However, the background here is that New York state
17. 16:53uh after co um New York state law requires that uh municipalities, if they're not just doing exactly what is in New York state law, that you must have a written uh policy and law related to video conferencing. Um so uh their definitions of extraordinary circumstances um are narrower than the definitions that we're putting in here. So the purpose here is to put this on the books. It will require a public hearing u before we can vote on it and enact it. Um so if you go down to um members to be physically present. Um, one thing in general that I will point out that the issue of quorum, um, if you are absent because of a disability, New York state law allows that person to be counted as part of the quorum. They do not have to be in the room. Uh, pretty much every other case, you have to be in the room. Um
18. 17:56for paragraph two for purposes of these procedures the term extraordinary circumstances and this is where we have latitude to put our definitions includes disability illness caregiving responsibilities bereavement travel all of those are state law unusual uh and necessary work obligations outside the member's ordinary work schedule that was something that Ken and I put in that's not we're allowed to to put that in. So if you for some reason you're told you need to do a late shift whatever then that would be an extraordinary circumstance or any other significant or unexpected factor or event which precludes the member's physical attendance of the meeting. Determination that's kind of a a catchall for some circumstance that we haven't thought of. Determination of whether any event or condition qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance authorizing absence from a council meeting shall be made by the council president. So if somebody is calling in uh or they let me know right before the meeting some particular situation I can say okay I was allowed that as extraordinary but that is
19. 18:58subject to um the the council six members of the council could reject that as a as a reason we put that in simply to make sure that we have if something comes up that we haven't that addressed um in addition to extraordinary circumstances um in addition extraordinary circumstance may be invoked by a member uh on not more than uh two occasions during the calendar year um and this is further regular and informal meetings um or special meetings due to absence resulting from business or personal travel or vacation. So the state doesn't treat those as extraordinary because that's something that's scheduled unpredictable, right? Um we wanted to put that in because people do take vacation, they're absent. So that up to two um absences relating to travel. The the important piece here is uh we don't vote in the informal meeting. We do vote in the formal meeting. So what this allows for is that somebody who is
20. 20:00absent because they are traveling will still be able to vote and that would be in the formal meeting. Um so if you're absent on a third or additional occasion then you can participate for discussion but you cannot vote. Um and obviously if you fail to uh you're attend a meeting uh in the absence of any qualifying circumstance or the ones we've listed above um they will not be able to participate in the meeting other than as a member of the public. I I don't think in the four years I've been here that's ever happened. Um, so one of the things we also have to do under New York State law is post if we if video video conferencing may be used and we do we have hybrid meetings but this is notifying the public that uh members of the council may be using video conferencing. And so the most straightforward way to deal with that rather than having to uh you know a law that you say you have to notify me 4
21. 21:03days in advance. Well, you don't know you're going to be sick 4 days in advance, right? So I think posting something um generic for all of our meetings that say that says uh members of the of the committee uh or of the council may be participating by video conferencing. And that way we don't have to update it. don't have to change it. Um so the quorum piece is addressed under um 8. Um someone by video conferencing has a disability as defined in section 209 the executive law. That's all laid out including pregnancy. That's all state law. They can count as as a quorum. And uh documentation of disability is just a good faith claim by the individual that they have uh a qualifying disability. Uh public notice piece I've just commented on. We'll do that generically that um you can uh that we may have members of the committee attending virtually. Um
22. 22:08we've also put in um oh when you're video conferencing you have to be uh audible and visible to the public that and that we have always done. Um let me see. We did put something in here that you should notify the chair of the meeting um ahead of time uh if you're going to be absent. That could be if it's something that just comes up. It could be right before the meeting. could be you know a couple of days before but you should notify uh the chair of the meeting that you will be doing uh video conferencing and what uh the minutes of the meetings um I think you already do this uh the minutes have to reflect uh whoever is attending remotely um this is in effect until such time as New York State New York State updates the law uh fairly regularly so this is in effect until such time as New York State changes the law. So, any questions on that?
23. 23:12It should be given this time scale that we have to do a public hearing. Uh I think that we won't have it fully in place until March. Um but that's okay. Until then, um we will not be allowing um other than what is explicitly allowed under New York state law, we will not be allowing remote participation with a vote um between now and when we get this in place in March, but I don't think that's going to be this is really just a bit of tidying up. Not an issue maybe for this we're on this topic. How do we feel about video conferencing of committees and throughout the city? Not there's not a consistent not all committees are doing it. Do we feel like >> I think all should be >> all the subcommittees of the common council are >> raise your hand. There's the thing to raise it. >> Well, I won't try.
24. 24:14>> Sorry. We need >> so I guess I'm going to go over that. I don't know what the >> I'm sorry. Sorry. Can you hold on a second prop? Um I want to hear the rest of what Jason was saying. I guess the the one board I say that I think about that I could be I'd like to see more often without always attending would be the sub fields. >> That's the >> is there anything >> planning sometimes? No. No, but now they're going to be doing they have switched >> like maybe as a whole question, but since I'm here talking about this, I just wanted >> Yeah, I think too >> housing. >> I was just going to say that. >> Yes, I think the board room number eight. I'll come to you in a moment. Um yeah I
25. 25:18think so part of the issue there I mean they can raise it the housing authority is a separate entity over which we have no authority right zoning board of appeals is something we can bring up with the mayor um are there any others I don't think there are any others that are participated okay so we're going to go to Ron and then I'm going to come back to you so Ron you had your hand raised It's mic off. I don't know if you did. >> I I think you're muted. >> Oh, Claire's online. >> Yeah, >> go ahead. >> Sorry. Um, I missed the first part of the meeting. I heard Jason's comment. Um, I personally think that uh having streaming available but having
26. 26:20participation in person makes sense to me. Um, that's just my opinion. I'm home with the flu right now or I would be there um struggling to breathe. Sorry. >> Yeah, that was my comment just about the my preference of live streaming and participating in person. >> Okay. Uh, and so Claire, that that's fine. We're just getting this put in place and we don't we're not voting here. So there's no issue. Um, but just heads up, uh, text me, whatever. Or or any the chair of any committee if you're not going to be able to make it because we would have waited for you if we'd known you were joining remotely. Um, anyway, so Ron does not appear to have a comment. Is that correct, Elen? >> Yeah. No, hand. >> Okay. You had a comment. I thought the house in authority, but I could be wrong. I don't replay, so I don't generally know from recordings, but I'm a big fan of being real life, but
27. 27:23that's it. >> Well, correct. Yeah, we you it during co what we found was that it really increased the ability of people in the public to uh listen to meetings without having to come over and sit off. >> You know, I wish the library would do a video recording, but that's another separate issue. >> It's a separate issue. Okay. Um, so I'll get this to we'll post this for the informal. Uh, Ken will be at the informal meeting. So any other questions that anyone has or ask the council has regarding any issues within it, we can discuss there and then he will walk us through what the process is to move it forward. Um, last item that I have is public works board. This is justformational. Um the current makeup of the public works board has the commissioner for um DPW.
28. 28:27The membership is defined a representative uh from the council which is Gary a uh person appointed by the council which is David Mars right now and he's going to renew his term. That resolution will be um at the informal meeting. Um there is uh let me see there is also someone appointed by the mayor uh who else who am I coordinator and the ADA coordinator correct um so after some discussion um with Rob Perry um it would be beneficial to have Rob Perry on that because much of what they do they need to go back to him to get clarification and so forth. So >> but commissioner is also one. Would that >> commissioner >> replacing or >> No, I think we will simply add >> unless you know we could we could switch it. I haven't spoken to the commissioner. Um that's a good suggestion actually. >> Yeah, I I would be fine either way. I just thought give them the option. >> Uh what what I was writing up was um just adding the the superintendent. But
29. 29:33what I can do is check with both of them and if the commissioner thinks okay you know it's fine just to have the superintendent on we could do that. Um but I give them the option. >> Um there there there's a sense in which that might actually be preferable uh because it doesn't change the number of members of the board. >> Right. Um anyway, I'm working on writing something up on that. I hope to get it out for the informal. Um I don't have anything for tonight. I just wanted to let you know that that's going to be coming up. >> It might be legal related to the public works board. Is are crosswalks part of silence? That's a good question >> because they have a they're tasked with fixing sidewalks and they want money to fix sidewalks. If they do a ramp on one corner and a ramp on the other corner,
30. 30:39could it be written into their bylaws to connect them with the crosswalk or that their money can be used for cross in the areas that they're working working? I wouldn't say they go out looking for it, but if they are working on an area that could benefit from crossing adjacent to some sidewalks, >> I can I will look at their their >> Yeah, it's not in the by now. >> No reference. lower. >> I guess I wouldn't want it to get out of control. just >> maybe ones that have not had a crosswalk in the past is the first that you start with and identifying the spots that are most hazardous that have
31. 31:41>> I think at that point you're beginning to get into you I think you're getting beyond what the responsible >> they they can maybe talk about uh giving them almost like giving them the permission, >> right? >> If we >> I think probably where I would begin with that was because the the order in which the sidewalks had to be repaired, the priority order that was set out was based upon the DOJ uh checklist of things that had to be fixed. And so I think probably I'd begin with that checklist and say of the ones that we have been working through for the DOJ priorities um do we need to look at sidewalks or crosswalks? >> Where did we find that list? Um it it existed back when we were putting this together before the board was formed when Michael Hoffman was working with us on this and legal and Michael Hoffman worked on the whole law. So it definitely exists.
32. 32:43>> There's I came up with an easy way to think of it. >> So it's going to all of the major municipal buildings, >> right? Okay. So if you think of going to the department, >> they have to go to the blogger. >> Yeah. They go to the fire station, which is odd because they go there both sixth and seventh, >> right? >> Um and then >> city hall and to the uh police department. >> Okay. But there was there were a list of ones that we had to cure. >> Okay. And I I think I I'll get a >> Have they started a list of the others that the others all of the others >> I I have not attended their meetings in a while. So I do not >> Okay. Thanks, Linda. >> A lot of that is being spirited by Ryan Lock proper. I don't know exactly how you pronounce his last name, but it's >> I can
33. 33:49I had a question for >> Is it Is it a new topic? >> It is new topic. >> Okay. So, we're done with what we got now. Now, new topics. >> Okay. I have two um the the amendment to the budget that um for the youth department that we talked about in December so that they can have um at least an assistant to the director. Is that going to be worked on in finance or is that going to be here? >> So, um that would not be worked on here. >> Okay. Um there is a hiring agreement in place and what we voted to approve in December was to correct the error that was made where um the youth department was budgeted for six full-time positions because the spreadsheet indicated that
34. 34:53two of the positions were vacant. Every department had a hiring person. And so the problem was that actually one of those people, one of those positions was actually filled. So the resolution that came to us was requiring an amendment to put back in place funding for both positions. But because of the fact that this there was a hiring increase in place, we put back the position that we go into amending the budget to cut back the position that was currently held. And then I think discussion of any further hiring in the youth department is probably going to have to go through the mayor and through the BEA. >> I don't I the way that I understood it is that there wasn't an assistant but that that position already existed. >> Well, the position exists but it was vacancy. The hiring fees was for was it wasn't just you can't create new positions. It was we are was the discussion at the BEA was do we need to start you know is this situation where we need to start cutting positions
35. 35:57um and what was agreed to was that across the board um all of the vacancies would there'd be a hiring freeze on vacancies there I believe there is language that if it's a critical position that the mayor can go ahead and fill so for example the uh code enforcement officer that position was vacant when Craig retired or left. That's a critical position. It has to be filled. So that that is a situation where it's exempt. So that is a judgment I think that probably the mayor in consultation with the BEA would need to make. The way I understood that conversation in December was that the assistant position would be filled and we had this whole thing about or I what I remember and maybe I'm remembering incorrectly is that um you know we would try and work on that before March because they are going to um need help or or Calvin would need help um as they began to um talk about
36. 37:03and plan for um summer. So I I don't know and maybe I'm misremembering. >> Well, no, I don't think you are. That was the that was indeed the discussion. But the thing is that when you have a hiring increase in place, it's not really up to the council. The way that decision was made was that if a position was considered to be a critical position, the decision could be made to fill it. But I think that decision would have to be from the mayor's office and then also in consultation with the BDA. >> Yeah. Well, mayor is part of the BDA >> and maybe eventual approval, >> right, >> by the council, >> right? So that what the what the council has to approve then if you know we didn't approve anything for example for um the code enforcement officer and that one was fairly straightforward because uh the budget for 2026 already had funds uh appropriated for co-imp important and
37. 38:09also clearly an essential position that we have to fill right in this situation we have a position which is not funded for 2026 in the budget So a decision can be made that this is essential and needs to be fulfilled at which point the common council will have to approve we have to authorize uh amending the budget to allow that's how that process. I was just wondering who was going to >> I'll I'll talk to the mayor's office and see what's wonderful there. What stats we need to go through on >> Yeah. >> And the second >> Sorry, hang on. There's somebody has >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I was just I was just going to ask if we need clarification, is it something we we go through you to get the clarification from the mayor or is that a conversation that we're supposed to have with Elena? Just for any hiring questions, I'm curious what the process is. If it's to go through you, that's great. I just am not sure. >> It's not a discussion with Elena. Um, so since the hiring fees was a BEA decision, um, what I would like to do is
38. 39:12as a member of the BA, I would like to meet with Heather and Joe and uh, ask them, okay, what process are we going to have here? Um if we have situations where we have a position this this one is kind of um it it's it's kind of a unique situation where it is not funded and there may be a determination that it this is an essential position but the process that it will have to go through will eventually be one that we did to put back the to revise the budget to uh allow for the person who is actually employed. Uh but it's not a question for >> Okay. Okay. And then would you bring that information back to services committee or would you give that to the full council? >> I will I will bring that that back to the full commit the full council. >> Okay. Thank you. >> No problem. Any other hands up? Okay. Okay. You had another issue you wanted to bring up? Um, I just wanted to see you h, you know how I feel about parking
39. 40:19minimums and and I've brought it up several times and I think it's important. Um, I don't want to turn the whole town into a parking lot, but when developers build something new or take something that's old and make something new of it and they have 200 people coming to their space for whatever reason, >> we need adequate parking. And I think that if we were to charge the developer for each parking spot that they are lacking, then we could eventually put that into a fund by itself and eventually have enough money to maybe start building up in some of the existing parking lots. >> Sure. >> I have some thoughts on that. when the when the law that deliminated parking requirements was >> blanket
40. 41:20>> and I I think what you're talking about I feel is that residential developments are different if someone is building a restaurant and that's traffic that comes and goes it's one thing we could I almost want to separate the two issues and discuss them separately but the residential and the planning board has struggled with this and the only tool that they've used is SRA to >> to address it. Um I also happen to have good conversations. Do you remember the good talk by Middletown? Um did a lot of work with additional housing developments and uh >> oh yeah >> they they dropped down to 1.5 units per um >> per spot >> per or spots per per unit. Okay. >> And then they're considering going down as low as 1.25. And I said, "Well, aren't some places considering zero?" He said, "Yeah,
41. 42:22Kingston." And he said he thinks they're really going to regret it. >> And I said, "But they haven't built it yet." So they have a development that's coming along. >> That's the one has zero parking requirements. >> So hang on. One of the documents that we looked at last year, well, I think was Red Hook. And so what Red Hook put in place is not a minimum but a maximum. So what they were trying to protect was the uh character of the village. And so they put in maximum thresholds for parking spaces for new developments because they didn't want large parking lots. So I think we I think putting this on the agenda to discuss and to look at and to look because what simply eliminating all requirements uh I think has created a lot of problems for the >> created huge problems uh and it's it's I I agree with you that we should take a look at that what we had on the books
42. 43:24was unworkable >> um and there were constantly waiverss. So to your point about commercial um it was requiring a certain numbers per table uh in restaurants and that's just you know on a on a >> and that was where you know it had too many issues so the idea was well we'll just eliminate it and then the planning board will address it. Um but you but they have to be given some kind of >> you know guidelines. >> Yeah. >> So no I I agree I think they should put it on the agenda. I I know that there are two two spots in town. One is in the fourth ward and and could be exacerbated um by other things that might happen. And then the other is down on Front Street. I think those are two stress points. Um >> are you talking about the pocketbook factory? >> I'm talking about Yeah. pocketbook factory plus the fact that now we have
43. 44:26the Galvin um project that is now open by >> Loft which one >> Oh yeah what's on Front Street? Well, on Front Street, you're going to have Ben Feain's projects. You're going to have um uh 11 Warren, which has totally inadequate parking. Um and yeah, I mean there those are going to be stress points on two ends of town. And there are places there that we could build up if we wanted to on both that are not going to bother the community too much. So I don't know. Um the argument came up with the HHA's presentation to the planning board this week >> and they said they studied Bliss Towers I think is what they studied and they came up with like 60% what they're using currently is 60%
44. 45:28parking space is the number of units and so they >> took that and extrapolated it to the new development which I I wasn't sure was fair comparison. >> Yeah. >> But um it's coming up all the time. Yes, it is. >> Um the boulevards was that was a big thing at the boulevards >> with the the apartment building. >> Yeah. >> The one on the fair. >> The one that they just demoed. Yeah. >> We're you know we're a town that or city that's that was built before there were cars. So now we're having I mean this is this is a very special circumstance. And when you start looking at other communities and what they've done, it it may not actually work here. So, I don't know. >> We'll put it on the It'll be on the agenda for next month if you want to start doing some research on it and we can talk about that. >> Yeah, I've already pulled some >> Yes, that's good. >> Logan, any hands up? >> No.
45. 46:29>> Okay, we have hand up in the room. >> Yeah, boy. getting your voice that year. So, I got to bring you back and reintroduce myself. So, I agree kind of what uh Mr. Foster was saying. I mean, the Boulevard and 11 Warren were two examples where they over they put they tried to cram too much in and didn't allow for adequate parking. Now, I would hope that they would provide for adequate parking. I if they I don't know where did Bart wind up with 26 units if they had done 20 would they have adequate parking they need that extra six units you know and then same thing same story with county and 11 um so and I don't know that creating a fund and I I understand that's your thinking and that Jennifer's thinking on this and I understand that don't really need to get into a debate but I think they just need to have adequate parking
46. 47:32period, you know, and then not count on the city later on, years later, a decade later making enough money to provide for their shortfall. So I would look again is their shortfall and require that they you know if it's a new development if it's a new development particularly like you know you had with people lost was given some sort of an exclusion pocketbook was given some sort of a special treatment you know so I don't know the story behind all that anyway um different subject are you finished on the parking >> I am >> I think you're getting close to your two answer. >> No question. We have heard your comment on parking. Did you >> I don't think there's much else to say. I think >> that's just a moment. Just >> pretty straightforward. >> Just a moment. >> Yeah. >> Did you say that you had a comment on another topic? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> I have two more. I don't think I can remember.
47. 48:35So, and this is probably perhaps not pertinent to anything here, but uh I was just curious with the house and housing trust fund um because they cancelled the meeting yesterday. I don't know what the particular I was hoping some resolution on what was happening there with the uh with the members. I know that most of the members have a term that expires in December of 2026, but the housing justice chief is also an executive of the trust, which is a particular position. Okay. So, I I think Michelle was under the impression she was going to December 26. It's >> not an appropriate I'm just throwing it out. >> It's not an appropriate topic for this team. >> Okay. It was legal. That's kind of my HCDPA overseas has trust fund. You could bring it up there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Did you have another topic? >> I don't remember what it was. Did we have a second for my senior Paul here?
48. 49:38>> We have a hand up. Go ahead. Logan >> Ronald has his hand up. >> Go ahead. >> Uh hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. >> Okay. Uh there was a question raised at the meeting of the uh public works board which just preceded this meeting about sidewalks and the ownership and responsibility uh thereof. And Mr. Weaver, the former mayor aid, had said that he had discussions uh before the end of last year with Miss Peek, the former council to the council and Mr. Perry of the public works department and they had concluded that depending on what a type whatever type of accident might occur on the sidewalk that there might be different areas of responsibility for the city versus individual owners. And I I think and he and he was of the opinion that the charter is unclear on this and it the
49. 50:41issue needed clarification. And I wanted to bring this to your attention in the hopes that perhaps the legal the legal committee would be the area uh to clarify this matter >> and Ron did this come up in the meeting this meeting today that just preceded this >> yeah today. >> Okay. So I I'll go back and listen to the discussion and then I will follow up with um with our current council and see what what the issue is. But thank you very much for bringing that. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I I came in at 6 PM early and I heard the discussion. >> Okay. >> So, that's where it is on the >> Oh, good. Thank you. >> All right. Uh, any other new business? Claire, do you have anything? I can't I can't see you, so I don't know. >> No, I don't. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, can we have a motion to adjourn? >> I think I removed that. >> Second. >> We're adjourned. You can vote any of us after.
50. 51:43>> Okay. So, I think we're done.

Timestamps link to the corresponding moment on YouTube. Auto-transcribed, contains speech-recognition errors. Not an official record.