The Town of Milan has been well served by a 5 member Planning Board (PB) for nearly forty years. A change to a 7 member Board should not be made lightly. Although it can take only moments to establish a larger Board and a few moments more to appoint two new members, these actions can not be easily undone if they prove to be unsatisfactory. Board members can only be removed for cause. After a decision to revert to a smaller Board, the expanded Board will exist for at least two more years until the terms of two established and experienced members expire.

Concerns with the proposed law: Given the potential significant impacts this law will have on the PB’s operation and considering that the changes can not be reversed for at least two years after a decision to revert to 5 members, the proposed law requires a hard look to document the problems the law is intended to address and justify specifically how the law will address and solve these
problems. The proposed law should be accompanied by Legislative Findings that describe in detail the perceived problems and how they will be solved. There are no accompanying findings to support the claims in the LEGISLATIVE INTENT (LI).

The LI claims that increasing the membership to 7 will result in “more expertise in analyzing the projects and applications.” It does not explain what is meant by “expertise”. The Town of Milan Code does not define “expertise” and contains no minimum “expertise” qualifications for a candidate to meet before being nominated for the PB. In reality, the Town Board can appoint any Town resident of legal age without regard to qualifications or “expertise.” This claim is not supported by any facts. This legislation can not, and does not, guarantee that the PB will have “more expertise.” The LI claims “the volume, level, and complexity of applications will be better served by increasing the number of members of the Planning Board which will facilitate the overall function of the Planning Board.” The current PB processes are lean and efficient. The LI fails to establish that any
process problems exist, fails to enumerate the potential solutions to the perceived problems, and fails to explain how two additional members are the best solution for the perceived problems. The LI does not explain how the applications will be “better served” or how two additional members will “facilitate the overall function of the Planning Board.” A change of this magnitude deserves a detailed accounting of the perceived problems and the proposed solution.

Tactical vs. the Strategic: It is my understanding that this law is being proposed with two specific individuals in mind as the new members. It is laudable for the Town Board to propose this approach considering there are currently several large planning applications that could conceivably benefit from their involvement. However, this will not provide any tactical advantage to the PB because NYS Town Law §271.6 states “No such additional member shall take part in the consideration of any matter for which an application was on file with the planning board at the time of his or her appointment.” This means the new members can not participate in any discussion with the other Board members, the applicant, the consultants, or any other individual connected to the current applications. They also can not vote on the applications.

The Town Board should consider the strategic long term implications of this change. I believe it would be ill-advised to make this change without the requisite evaluation of the potential benefits and impacts.

Recommendation:
The new PB Chair has been in his position for barely six weeks. The Board members and the Chair are establishing a professional working relationship and the Board is moving the larger projects forward. An increase in Board membership can not benefit the existing applications and, with the current real estate slump, new applications have been few and limited to lot line adjustments and minor subdivisions.

I recommend that any decision regarding a 7 member Board be postponed until 4Q08. By that time the Chair and the Board will have established a solid working relationship and the major projects should all be resolved. If a problem is still perceived, an effort can be made to take a hard look at the problem and determine what options are available. The Chair and the Board members should participate in the evaluation and advice should be sought from the Town Planner, DC Planning, Association of Towns and the NY Planning Federation. If the consensus is that a problem exists, that the best solution is expansion of the Board to 7 members, and that the benefits outweigh the consequences, then the legislation can be proposed at that time. The due diligence will have been
completed, a detailed set of findings can be documented, and the proposed legislation can accurately reflect the findings.

Given the significance of this change and the fact that a future decision to reverse it will take two years to be realized in fact, I strongly urge the Town Board to reconsider moving this legislation forward at this time.

Respectfully submitted,
Lauren C. Kingman III

Phone: 845.758.1027
Fax: 845.758.333

Back to Milan Insider Home Page