WPCNR
Commissioner of Planning, Susan Habel Explains it All at September 23 Common Council Work Session. Ms. Habel has advised WPCNR she was misquoted and explains. Photo by WPCNR News
No Knowledge of Conservation Board Position Going In.
WPCNR asked if Ms. Habel knew what that response was at the time she conducted the meeting. She said she knew the next day (Friday morning). “I saw it (the Conservation Board Letter) the next day.”
WPCNR asked if, going into the Thursday evening meeting if she had any idea of the Conservation Board’s position. Ms. Habel said, “No.”
Ms. Habel was quoted by WPCNR in the article covering the Thursday evening Common Council Work Session meeting as saying: “With respect to any changes (in the conditions), the Planning Department, Traffic Department, Conservation Board, Planning Board found no impacts and changes in circumstances that would affect this extension.”
WPCNR asked if Rod Johnson her Deputy Commissioner of Planning, Secretary to the Conservation Board had told her of the Conservation Board position as it was reported in the Board letter to the Planning Department prior to the Thursday evening Council meeting.
Reparations with Roston
Ms. Habel said, “No. I didn’t know of it. I was very concerned because when I saw you said I said they approved it, I was very concerned. I spoke to Rod. And I called Roston. Rod had brought me that morning (Friday A.M.) he brought me in the letter and I read the letter and I immediately called Roston and I told Roston I didn’t want him in any way to think that I was trying to say (what) the Conservation Board was (doing), because we have a personal and professional relationship and I wasn’t about to let Bob think that I would make a misrepresentation of the Board. I told him I had called and left a message for you to request that information be corrected. If you want to verify that with Bob, please feel free to do so.”
How “Staff” and “Board” Comments Reach Council.
Ms. Habel explained the document tango as official comments are disseminated to the Common Council and the choreography of the comment in question:
“Then it (the letter) is worked on between Rod (Johnson), and Bob (Roston) and the staff then it gets submitted up to the council. I frequently do not see their letters until they go in for the Council agenda. It was not a meeting that I was going to comment on. There was no reason for me to comment on the Conservation Board. The Conservation Board is perfectly capable of commenting itself.
“The only reason I commented on the others was I was at those meetings. I was a participant. I’m a member of the Traffic Commission. I worked with Tom Soyck. And I’m staff to the Planning Board, so I can comment on meetings I was at. I would never comment on a board’s action I was not present at. It would be inappropriate. Because then a Councilmember could ask well, what did they mean, and I have no idea what they mean. Their letter will explain what they mean. It is not appropriate for me to comment on other boards and commissions.”
Rod Johnson off duty.
Ms. Habel also reported that Rod Johnson was not at the Conservation Board meeting Monday evening (September 20) when the Board position was finalized (the 20th is the date of the highly critical Conservation Board letter) according to Mr. Roston:
“You can check with him. Rod was not there that night,” she said.
WPCNR asked why wouldn’t Mr. Johnson discuss the letter with her, since the Roston letter was dated September 20?
Habel replied, “There’s no reason for Rod to discuss it with me. It’s the Conservation Board’s letter. It’s from the Conservation Board to the Council. I asked for it after the fact. But, there’s no reason for him to have to discuss the Conservation Board’s letter with me. I don’t run the Conservation Board. If they ask for information from the Planning Department and it’s appropriate, we prepare it for them. Rod is perfectly qualified to staff that Board.”
Asked why Mr. Johnson would not relay how the Board felt about the extension since the Work Session was coming up, Habel explained, “Rod was not at the Monday meeting.”
WPCNR mused, wouldn’t he be interested at all, since he’s Secretary to the Conservation Board. Habel responded, “He gets the communications when Mr. Roston has them completed and then he speaks with Mr. Roston about them which they did.”
WPCNR asked if Mr. Johnson was out of the office all last week:
Habel said, “No, he was not out all last week. How could he have given it (the letter) to me last Friday if he was out all week? He was out Monday night. He was not at the Conservation Board’s meeting. I can’t tell you what day Mr. Roston got the draft letter to the Planning Department. I have no idea.”
Roston Letter from Conservation Board Delivered Wednesday.
WPCNR informed Ms. Habel that the letter, according to Mr. Roston was delivered personally by him to the Planning Department Wednesday, the day before the Thursday night Council Work Session.
There was a three second pause before she answered, Habel said, “Oh, you know that?”
There was another quiet pause, “Then you know something I didn’t know. We have a lot of work we do around here. We each do our jobs. I have huge respect for my staff. I don’t watch over them, and I don’t second guess them.”
Board and Department Positions Not the Issue of the Meeting.
WPCNR expressed puzzlement, saying, “I don’t understand why you ( Ms. Habel) didn’t just say that the Conservation Board, we don’t how they feel about it, or something like that.”
(Ms. Habel, to other observers in the meeting had indicated strongly that to her knowledge the boards and departments felt that the changes in the city since the approval should not effect the NYPH site plan extension.)
“John, if I’d known you wanted me to say that, I would have. It didn’t come up as anything that any of the members of the Council seemed to be concerned about. None of them asked me. That wasn’t really what our discussion was about. Our discussion was about whether or not the one year rule (requiring substantial construction on a site after approval for an extension after one year ), did or did not apply. I was making the argument, stating the case, maybe poorly maybe well, I don’t know, you’ll have to ask the council, that it did not apply because there were other conditions necessary to be fulfilled before they could even get that point (starting actual construction). That’s what my purpose was to say, not to talk about other boards or anything else, so you got my point, that’s what my point was. That was reported accurately. The only thing that was reportedly inaccurately was that I said that the Conservation Board recommended approval, and I did not say that.”
Not ambiguous
WPCNR suggested her comment at the meeting as quoted, though denied, was ambiguous.
Habel said, “No, I wasn’t ambiguous, I said there would be a communication from the Conservation Board to the council, from the Traffic Commission, from the Planning Board. And I said I know the Planning Board and the Traffic Commission have recommended granting the extension. I don’t consider that ambiguous. If you do, I’m sorry. But I don’t.”
WPCNR thanks Ms. Habel for this clarification.
Roston Notes Johnson Should Have Known Conservation Board Was All Over It.
WPCNR checked back with Robert Roston, Chair of the Conservation Board. Mr. Roston said Monday that the position of the Conservation Board on recommending the site plan permit not be extended was discussed at length at previous meetings prior to Monday evening’s meeting when Mr. Johnson was present. Roston said Johnson knew full well the Board was going to recommend against the approval.
For the Record:
Ms. Habel at the request of WPCNR quoted the ordinance spelling out the one year rule regarding the substantial construction requirement: unless other provisions are specifically provided in the approval of a site plan, then the one year of substantial construction applies.
Habel explained why, in her opinion, the hospital is entitled to yet a second extension of the site plan under this ordinance proviso: “In this case there were specific conditions precedent that the hospital has been diligently pursuing and fulfilling (that prevented substantial construction from starting).”
