Local planning boards are living in interesting times, it seems. The town's planning board lost its chairman and deputy recently (albeit in a much more sedate way than Lloyd's chairman, who was forcibly removed), and joins the village's planning board in being short members.
Chairman Paul Brown was given praise by those he worked with, and I agree with that assessment. Paul tried hard to find agreements among differing parties, and did his best to separate his role of facilitating the meeting from his vote as a member. He implemented a series of checks, balances, and systems which have long prevented the town's planning board of being the victim of the administrative errors and uninformed votes which have plagued the village's planning board. He was also careful to recuse himself from discussions of the so-called Pyramind-Benanti project, a development which proposed a new connector road off Eugene L. Brown drive on land his family once owned.
Pity the chairman of Lloyd's planning board didn't understand conflict of interest rules as well; he was removed from his position because he crossed the line between his municipal volunteer actions and his role as a real estate agent looking to make a living. It's going to be a little bit harder for real estate agents to be appointed to planning-related positions until memory of this incident fades. I wish they had actually removed him entirely from the planning board, but it seems local governments are extremely fearful of preventing the "people's business" from being done if they lack a quorum on that board.
I doubt the village would have taken such a strong stance if it had discovered ethical violations in its own planning board - they've been struggling to maintain a quorum on it for years, and that fear is much stronger than anything but the loudest of public outcries. Instead, the planning board administration seems hellbent on getting projects approved regardless of the rule of law, and there's no attempt to stop it. Take the hookah bar application, for example. I voted for it when I was a member, but at the time I didn't know that mayor Terry Dungan considered "four and three-quarters days" to be close enough to the legally-required five days' notice to be sufficient, nor did I know that even now chairman Ray Curran has not produced any proof that the notices were even mailed out for that public hearing.
I was personally stonewalled to the point of throwing in the towel and resigning from the planning board because I couldn't find out what I needed to know to make informed votes, and I was tired of fighting for the right to make my several hours a month of volunteer time remotely productive. I know that for every case which is public shown to be deficient, there are probably many more which nobody has noticed yet. For fear of losing its quorum, the village board is allowing its planning board to be run in such a cloak-and-dagger manner that its remaining members are not even aware of how much they do not know. Chairman Ray Curran has repeatedly thwarted any attempts to shed more light on the proceedings, threatening to resign if the meetings are televised and denying without good cause my repeated requests for a public comment period at planning board meetings - something which Paul Brown had on the agenda for his entire tenure, and something I hope his successor continues.
I don't believe the village is going to find and retain qualified planning board members as long as the board itself is run in secrecy. The mayor tells me that there is very little that the village board can do; it cannot force a public comment period or demand that planning board members have the right to participate in off-line discussions, for example, because the planning board's independence is protected by law. He has yet to explain why the village board took the weasel-like non-action of simply not bothering to renew the chair's term of office last June. They could have either reappointed Mr. Curran (if they support his methods) or removed him (if they did not), but instead they chose to simply abdicate their responsibility.
Until the village learns some lessons from nearby towns, planning is going to continue down a dark, mysterious road that is fraught with bungled projects and uninformed votes. How much longer will the village board permit this miscarriage of planning to continue?
.png)
Showing posts with label Ray Curran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ray Curran. Show all posts
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Woodland Ponds: A view from the Table
I haven't read the live blogging that went on during the Village Planning Board meeting last night, because I want to articulate my thoughts without being distracted by whatever excellent points my esteemed coblogger may have made.
Last night's meeting was long, hot, and complex. I'm grateful as many people showed up as did, and that as many of them stayed for the duration as did. I'm glad that Bill Mulcahy recorded most of it before he had to go, and that three Village Board members were in attendance.
I'm particularly thrilled with my colleague Linda Welles for doing such a fine job of expressing our frustrations. She told the Woodland Pond representatives that it's completely unfair to come to us for solutions to problems that were out there from day one, screaming about urgencey because they need to get people moved in next month or their funding will dry up. It's not only unfair to the Planning Board, it's terribly unfair to the people who have been planning on moving in to the facility.
I have found that the more aggressively an applicant wants to push forward with an agenda item, the more it makes me want to slow down and look more carefully at the information. Why are you pushing me to judgment? Is it because you just realized we meant it when we made you agree to these conditions, or is it because you're afraid if I look too closely that I will see things that may sway my decision in a direction you don't care for? Like Linda, I'm going to make my decision on the facts; but I for one won't be bullied into making that decision before I think the facts are all before me.
I found it incredibly refreshing that so many senior citizens were in attendance, but I regret that we don't have a public comment period at our meetings, because I really would have liked to have heard what they had to say. There were also many environmentalists in attendance, but they're quite good at making their views known to me. Since we don't have a public comment period, I would like to extend an invitation to people to comment here, email me, or call me to share their views. I want to know what people think, because that's my job. I won't put my full number here on the internet, but 9947 is all you really need to know to find me.
The chairman, Ray Curran, did a spectacular job of reminding the applicant that this urgency was created by circumstances unrelated to the Planning Board, and that the urgency doesn't mean we won't look at the issues as thoroughly as we would any other matter. In fact, I would go so far as to say he held their feet to the fire. He also controlled the meeting like a pro, keeping myself, the other members, and the applicant's representatives on point.
I wish the Woodland Pond Board would show up to the next meeting so I can meet these local folks and make sure that they know we aren't doing anything to hold up their approvals, and that any delays are simply related to the fact that the Planning Board has a job to do, and we owe it to the community to do the best job we can.
Last night's meeting was long, hot, and complex. I'm grateful as many people showed up as did, and that as many of them stayed for the duration as did. I'm glad that Bill Mulcahy recorded most of it before he had to go, and that three Village Board members were in attendance.
I'm particularly thrilled with my colleague Linda Welles for doing such a fine job of expressing our frustrations. She told the Woodland Pond representatives that it's completely unfair to come to us for solutions to problems that were out there from day one, screaming about urgencey because they need to get people moved in next month or their funding will dry up. It's not only unfair to the Planning Board, it's terribly unfair to the people who have been planning on moving in to the facility.
I have found that the more aggressively an applicant wants to push forward with an agenda item, the more it makes me want to slow down and look more carefully at the information. Why are you pushing me to judgment? Is it because you just realized we meant it when we made you agree to these conditions, or is it because you're afraid if I look too closely that I will see things that may sway my decision in a direction you don't care for? Like Linda, I'm going to make my decision on the facts; but I for one won't be bullied into making that decision before I think the facts are all before me.
I found it incredibly refreshing that so many senior citizens were in attendance, but I regret that we don't have a public comment period at our meetings, because I really would have liked to have heard what they had to say. There were also many environmentalists in attendance, but they're quite good at making their views known to me. Since we don't have a public comment period, I would like to extend an invitation to people to comment here, email me, or call me to share their views. I want to know what people think, because that's my job. I won't put my full number here on the internet, but 9947 is all you really need to know to find me.
The chairman, Ray Curran, did a spectacular job of reminding the applicant that this urgency was created by circumstances unrelated to the Planning Board, and that the urgency doesn't mean we won't look at the issues as thoroughly as we would any other matter. In fact, I would go so far as to say he held their feet to the fire. He also controlled the meeting like a pro, keeping myself, the other members, and the applicant's representatives on point.
I wish the Woodland Pond Board would show up to the next meeting so I can meet these local folks and make sure that they know we aren't doing anything to hold up their approvals, and that any delays are simply related to the fact that the Planning Board has a job to do, and we owe it to the community to do the best job we can.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Main Course Mayhem on Millrock Road
Butch Dener isn't very happy with the Village Planning Board.
He's angry that Bruce and Vicki Kazan have had "stumbling blocks" placed in front of their project on the corner of Millrock and Main. In part I agree with his letter (which I won't bother linking to, due to Ulster Publishing's mysterious policy of taking stories down from the website after a period of time, a policy that bespeaks a lack of understanding of the internet . . . but, I digress), but not entirely. Let's look at some facts:
I also happen to agree with Butch that the meetings are a bit . . . inconsistent. He makes particular reference to my fellow member Marion Dubois and her interest in the project:
Now let's talk about this back-and-forth at meetings. I've had that type of dialog at Town Board meetings when I have submitted public comment, so it's not exactly unprecedented, whether or not it's good practice. I would prefer to have a formal public comment period at Planning Board meetings, because it would give community members an opportunity to weigh in on matters that are not set for a public hearing, but when I have suggested that all I get are blank stares. I've had to call people on my own time to ask them their opinions on various matters in the past, just because I really want to know what New Paltz is thinking.
A public comment period would not only allow community members to share their views at each and every meeting, it would allow the Chairman to refuse comment during the remainder of the meeting without being perceived as unfair or arbitrary. Ray Curran tries very hard to balance community input with running an orderly meeting, but I don't know if it's possible without using all the tools available to him.
Traffic
Butch also remarks, " Do these Millrock Road geniuses really think that cars will turn down their street from Henry W. DuBois Drive to get to Bruce's business? Gimme a break. No! They won't."
Butch, I don't know which New Paltz you're living in, but my New Paltz includes a Main Street that is all but undriveable for many hours each day. As I stated at the meeting, I have avoided Main Street for years by using Henry Dubois, and most other residents do as well. The traffic and land use study, best-known for recommending a one-way Main Street, pointed out what we are all doing this. Take North Putt Corners to Henry Dubois, and make whatever turn will bring you closest to your Main Street destination.
The neighborhood is concerned that there will be additional traffic, putting their eighteen children at risk. Honestly I'm not sure if they're right, but Bruce's figures, pulled from a standard (but generic) traffic study manual, simply don't address how much of that traffic will be taking that shortcut.
I wish there was a middle ground between Bruce's figures and hiring a traffic consultant. I'm hoping that consultant doesn't have to do much work to tell us what we need to know, because if it costs too much it may mean we lose a tasty tenant for this location. But I can't make a decision that doesn't weigh all the factors.
Increased development in the village core is preferred to paving over more former farms and untouched natural areas. This building is already approved and nothing that we do is going to change that, no matter how badly Marion Dubois and the other residents of Millrock Road may want that. Barring any really scary information about traffic, I'm going to support the special use permit - as long as it won't open the door to a QuickieMart-type place, which I think would be a very bad idea.
If Bruce is on the agenda for December 16, I hope many people come to the meeting. I'd like to see a show of support for a good project like this.
He's angry that Bruce and Vicki Kazan have had "stumbling blocks" placed in front of their project on the corner of Millrock and Main. In part I agree with his letter (which I won't bother linking to, due to Ulster Publishing's mysterious policy of taking stories down from the website after a period of time, a policy that bespeaks a lack of understanding of the internet . . . but, I digress), but not entirely. Let's look at some facts:
- The Kazans had their project approved some time ago, and it's just about complete. Butch could have written his letter of praise regardless of the most recent PB meeting.
- Bruce came back because he's looking to get a special use permit - essentially, change the agreement he made with the Village - to allow a tenant that will be selling artisinal breads.
- Residents of Millrock Road, long opposed to this building, believe that a business that falls into the "grocery" definition of the code would increase the shortcut traffic along Henry W. Dubois and down Millrock.
I also happen to agree with Butch that the meetings are a bit . . . inconsistent. He makes particular reference to my fellow member Marion Dubois and her interest in the project:
"She (and the chairman) allows the residents to address her during the meetings, which is against all known policies and procedures. That alone is a conflict. But she, herself, lives on that street! Another conflict. No wonder she listens to these folks, she is their neighbor and friend."Comment from the public
Now let's talk about this back-and-forth at meetings. I've had that type of dialog at Town Board meetings when I have submitted public comment, so it's not exactly unprecedented, whether or not it's good practice. I would prefer to have a formal public comment period at Planning Board meetings, because it would give community members an opportunity to weigh in on matters that are not set for a public hearing, but when I have suggested that all I get are blank stares. I've had to call people on my own time to ask them their opinions on various matters in the past, just because I really want to know what New Paltz is thinking.
A public comment period would not only allow community members to share their views at each and every meeting, it would allow the Chairman to refuse comment during the remainder of the meeting without being perceived as unfair or arbitrary. Ray Curran tries very hard to balance community input with running an orderly meeting, but I don't know if it's possible without using all the tools available to him.
Traffic
Butch also remarks, " Do these Millrock Road geniuses really think that cars will turn down their street from Henry W. DuBois Drive to get to Bruce's business? Gimme a break. No! They won't."
Butch, I don't know which New Paltz you're living in, but my New Paltz includes a Main Street that is all but undriveable for many hours each day. As I stated at the meeting, I have avoided Main Street for years by using Henry Dubois, and most other residents do as well. The traffic and land use study, best-known for recommending a one-way Main Street, pointed out what we are all doing this. Take North Putt Corners to Henry Dubois, and make whatever turn will bring you closest to your Main Street destination.
The neighborhood is concerned that there will be additional traffic, putting their eighteen children at risk. Honestly I'm not sure if they're right, but Bruce's figures, pulled from a standard (but generic) traffic study manual, simply don't address how much of that traffic will be taking that shortcut.
I wish there was a middle ground between Bruce's figures and hiring a traffic consultant. I'm hoping that consultant doesn't have to do much work to tell us what we need to know, because if it costs too much it may mean we lose a tasty tenant for this location. But I can't make a decision that doesn't weigh all the factors.
Increased development in the village core is preferred to paving over more former farms and untouched natural areas. This building is already approved and nothing that we do is going to change that, no matter how badly Marion Dubois and the other residents of Millrock Road may want that. Barring any really scary information about traffic, I'm going to support the special use permit - as long as it won't open the door to a QuickieMart-type place, which I think would be a very bad idea.
If Bruce is on the agenda for December 16, I hope many people come to the meeting. I'd like to see a show of support for a good project like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)