continued “I was not notified of the meeting,” said resident Alice Stark. “If you can’t get letters out to people then how can you possibly run an organization?”
There were some members of the crowd that tried to express their empathy for the developer and his need to have a return on his investment. Sharon Bright Holub, former president of the Greater Loudonville Association, said she was involved in the process in 2007 and said she had attended several meetings where the developer explained what the project would look like.
She asked the residents to give the developer a chance to finish the project correctly and how it was agreed upon back in 2007.
“I agree with the lady who said ‘let’s finish it,’” she said. “Let’s do it right. The developer has already said he won’t do apartments and would like to go back to the original proposal. I believe that is reasonable and a sound idea.”
At the end of the Planning Board public hearing for the Loudon House project in September, Benson tried to withdraw his application for an amendment to the local law. He did this after hearing three hours worth of concerns brought forward by residents, which is one of the reasons why Town Attorney Mike Magguilli would not allow it.
Still, Benson’s attorney, Bob Sweeney of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna LLP, tried to clarify during the meeting that the application had been withdrawn and that it was unnecessary to vote on anything that evening. Magguilli countered and said that the request to withdraw was never accepted.
“The town has spent a considerable amount of time and effort on this,” he said, adding that the town is following the code and acting on the recommendation from the Planning Board. “We’re not going to hear it again after this.”