Tree removal fee set for June 2 discussion

The Monroe Town Board debated whether an additional $250 fee for the planning board to review tree removal plans would discourage applicants from going before that board.

At the May 19 town board meeting, Councilmember Mary Bingham said Planning Board Chairwoman Bonnie Franson suggested the $250 fee for those required to come before her board under the provisions of the new tree code. Bingham shared her view that this was not a “money making opportunity,” as the planning board would be reviewing maps and proposals and deciding based on the code.

Dennis Fordham Chairperson of the town’s Conservation Commission clarified that property owners only need to go before the Planning Board if they are looking to remove more than 10 trees or if they’re seeking to remove a landmark tree or other high-value tree. He explained if someone was looking to remove up to three trees from their property, presuming none were landmark or otherwise high-value in nature, they would just need to submit a form notifying the town of their plans to remove the trees. If the owner desired to move three to ten trees, they would have to go to the building inspector, pay the appropriate permit fee along with any in-lieu costs for trees they are not replacing.

Councilmembers Dorey Houle and Maureen Richardson voiced their concern over the fee deterring people from coming before the planning board. Fordham agreed, saying he also felt the fee was a little high.

Richardson commented on the potential burden on residents, pointing to her own experience of having to remove several trees from her property. She said it was already a huge financial burden without having the $250 fee for having to go before the planning board.

Richardson asked Town Attorney Brian Nugent if these fees would go toward the parkland fund. He responded they would go to the town’s general fund.

The town agreed to table the discussion until June 2.

With a vote of two for and three against, the town failed to approve a resolution requesting state legislature enable the town to enact a 5% hotel-motel occupancy tax, which would also apply to short-term rentals.

Houle, who voted against the resolution along with Town Supervisor Anthony Cardone and Councilmember Sal Scancarello, said she thought five percent was too high for the town because it wasn’t as much of a tourist draw as neighboring communities and the additional tax would hurt short-term rental businesses in the community. She suggested the town wait to consider the tax until after the short-term rental market in Monroe is well established. Cardone agreed, claiming the state is working with AirBnB and VRBO to create taxing guidelines, and said he had met with an AirBnB executive to discuss this matter on behalf of the town.

Bingham said she felt the town’s short-term rental market was quite active and pointed to an applicant who came before the board seeking approval for another short-term rental. She shared her belief that the short-term rental market could absorb the 5% tax, given the average nightly rate for these rentals.

Richardson, who brought the resolution before the board, agreed with Bingham and claimed the surrounding municipalities already had the 5% hotel-motel tax in place. She said she was disappointed by the town’s decision not to pursue the tax increase, which she felt could be used to alleviate the financial burden of code enforcement.

She further claimed that by being the lone municipality in the area without the 5% tax and other fees for short-term rentals, the town will become a hot spot for bad actors.

Monroe resident Cristina Kiesel used the meeting’s public comment period to claim Richardson was in violation of the town’s Code of Ethics. Kiesel claimed that another town resident, who preferred to remain anonymous, made a comment on social media in support of a candidate for Monroe Town Supervisor.

Kiesel claimed Richardson reached out to this person via private messages in response to this social media comment, criticizing her for being influenced by supporters of State Senator James Skoufis rather than thinking for herself.

Kiesel read a social media message allegedly from Richardson saying the Democratic candidates can’t win the general election by harassing someone after they suffered a stroke.

Kiesel further alleged Richardson assumed this resident was Autistic and, as an advocate for Autistic rights, should refrain from commenting on other’s lack of people skills. She called on Richardson to apologise for that statement. Kiesel acknowledged the supervisor’s race is contentious but said that is no reason for a sitting councilperson to abuse her position in an attempt to silence a private citizen.

Richardson attempted several times to have Nugent and the board limit Kiesel from making what Richardson claimed were political statements in violation of meeting laws. Richardson also claimed the meeting was not a forum to speak about personal grievances and she was not an elected official when speaking from her political social account.

Nugent said Kiesel’s comments weren’t a campaign speech and appeared to be about statements Richardson made that involve town business. He also said Kiesel claiming Richardson referred to her position as a town councilperson in those messages, made it appropriate to discuss at the meeting. He added that he was leaning on the First Amendment in allowing Kiesel to continue speaking.

Richardson said she is Autistic herself and believed the person she was speaking with was also on the spectrum based on social media posts and prior discussion. She objected to Kiesel’s claims that she was being “ableist” for asking this resident to stop talking about a person’s people’s skills, claiming a nasty comment was made about her in this regard. She said her message was a plea from one person on the spectrum to another.

Richardson claimed Kiesel and her associates have been bullying her and that her intentions in speaking at the board meeting were political in nature and against the town’s code of conduct for public meetings. She said if she wants to message someone to tell them to “cut it out,” she will do so. Richardson also claimed Kiesel made many allegations over the years about public officials stealing grant money and using it for an illegal gazebo, but only just came before the town board for the first time in many years just to speak about an election and a private message.

“I’m not going to apologize for that because the comments made were petty and inappropriate,” she said.

Cardone claimed the town board had allowed Richardson herself to speak politically against Scancarello at prior meetings, which she denied. He also advised Kiesel to file a complaint with the town’s ethics board.

Commenting on Richardson’s reaction to Kiesel, Houle said she needed “thicker skin” and as a public official must be able to accept people will say unkind things about her on social media.