Planning lessons for the Village are all around us

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?

When Democracy Fails - What's Next?

Two hundred and thirty four years ago, our fledgling republic was founded on the democratic principles of government of the people, by the people, for the people with liberty and justice for all.

The word 'Democracy' is of Greek origin (dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule') and ancient Greece itself was, perhaps, the best known example of a civilization governed by 'direct' or 'pure' democracy - where, quite literally, the country was run by those who chose show up and get involved.

In the United States, like most other democratic societies, a system of 'representative' democracy is employed - where elected officials are charged with the duty of government and entrusted to make decisions in the best interests of the people.

To aid in the administration of government, it is normal for some of these elected representatives to appoint certain executive responsibilities to unelected individuals in the form of cabinets, panels, boards and committees.

Examples of this model can be seen at all levels of government - from the President right down to the local village level.

And it's at the local level of the Village of New Paltz, specifically in the elected office of Mayor and his appointed Planning Board, where I feel that democracy is currently failing.

My concerns center on the approval, by the Village Planning Board, of a special use permit for a Hookah Bar & Oxygen lounge and the plethora of administrative errors surrounding it.

Mistakes will always be made - what matters is that those mistakes are corrected. However, when an administration, rather than acknowledging that errors were made and working to rectify the problem, instead does absolutely nothing to remedy the situation and even goes so far as to suppress information and obfuscate the issue in an attempt to deflect the rising tide of awkward questions and publicity, it's time for this particular Gadfly to cry Foul!

As a citizen and neighbor of the proposed hookah /oxygen bar I will admit to being vehemently opposed to it for a number of reasons. But, for this installment, rather than focus on emotive and subjective issues, I felt I should be objective and deal with the failure of our administration to do its job properly.

Rather than spend a great deal of time re-telling the discussions I've had with various members of the Village administration, allow me to simply quote the most recent letter I sent to Ray Curran, Chair of the Village Planning Board:

Dear Mr Curran,

Thank you so much for the time and courtesy you afforded to me when we met at the close of the Village Planning meeting on Tuesday 16th February.

If you recall, we spoke briefly about the proposed Hookah Bar & Oxygen Lounge at 184 Main St., New Paltz and, although you indicated to me that you felt there was no reason to revisit the granting of a special use permit, you did promise me that you would speak with the building inspector to see if new information has come to light which was not available at the time the board made their determination.

I fully appreciate that the board is under no legal obligation to reconsider this issue at the behest of members of the public, or even acknowledge their concerns, but I do feel that the board arrived at their decision without being aware of several key facts which would undoubtedly have had a bearing on the board's decision had they been aware of them at the time. As such, I implore you to reconsider your position and allow this unfortunate situation to be revisited, thoroughly examined and properly resolved.

I am aware of your concerns that the village may be subject to litigation if you should elect to withdraw or modify a special use permit that has already been granted. However, Section 212-39 B(3) of the Village Code states: "In all cases the Planning Board shall retain continuing jurisdiction" over any special use permit that is granted. As such the board is legally entitled to revisit this issue at any time.

Moreover, it could be reasonably argued that the board is in dereliction of its duty to "protect and promote public health, (and) safety", as detailed in Section 212-2 of the Village Code and § 7-700 of the Village Law, if they fail to review any special use permit which potentially presents a risk to public health as soon as they become aware that such a risk exists.

From careful review of the circumstances surrounding this case and the documentary evidence available, it is apparent that the Planning Board were not in possession of certain key facts at the time they rendered their decision. To wit:

1) The board was unaware that proper notice of the public hearing had not been given. Section 212-39 B(2) states that, "Public notice of said hearing shall be printed in a newspaper of general circulation in the Village at least five days prior to the date thereof." At the time the meeting was held on August 4th, 2009, the board was not made aware that Legal Notice of the meeting had not been published until July 30th, less than five full days prior.

Additionally, the board had no knowledge that legal notice of the meeting was not mailed to the owners of adjoining properties as is the established practice. Even as late as January 26th this year, assurances were still being made by the board's clerk that these notices had indeed been sent out - although a Freedom Of Information Law (FOIL) request made by us failed to produce the required copies of the stamped, addressed envelopes used to send the notices and it is the testimony of all adjoining property owners that no notice was ever received.

Had the board been aware of this fact on the evening of August 4th, 2009, I am certain that, as Chair, you would have moved that the public hearing be postponed and adequate notice given of the rescheduled hearing in order that any public concerns might be properly considered.

It is my opinion that this fact, in isolation, is reason enough for the board to revisit the approval of the special use permit.

2) Having listened to the audio recording of the Planning Board meeting on August 4th, 2009, it is apparent that the board were misled by the applicants as to the significant risk of fire caused by smoking in the presence of an oxygen enriched atmosphere. The applicants led the board to believe that, as there were no oxygen tanks on the premises and the hookahs would be prepared in a part of the building separated by a fire resistant door, there would be no risk of fire. Indeed, members of the board went to great pains to ensure that the special use permit required that the fire resistant door may not be removed from the building as an ongoing condition of the permit.

However, the applicants neglected to inform the board that hookah smoking and oxygen delivery would actually occur within the same room in close proximity of each other.

As a matter of course, smoking is normally strictly prohibited where oxygen is in use. This is not because oxygen is flammable itself, but because it is one of the three requirements for a fire to begin and, as an accelerant, oxygen dramatically increases the speed at which things burn once a fire starts.

The oxygen concentrators which the applicants were proposing to use are still capable of producing 90% to 95% pure oxygen. Even at an output as low as 2 liters per minute, the oxygen delivered will saturate clothing, fabric, hair, beards and anything in the area. Even normally flame-retardant clothing can burn fiercely when the oxygen content is increased - all that is required is a source of ignition, for which the smoldering charcoal/tobacco mixture in a hookah would definitely suffice.

Add to this the fact that the building utilizes propane for heating stored in a 500 gallon above-ground tank (again, not known to the board at the time of the meeting) and the potential for disaster is immense.

As it is now clear that a very real and present danger to public safety may have been inadvertently created by the granting of this special use permit, it is essential that the board suspend or revoke the permit with immediate effect and that the hookah and oxygen bar not be allowed to operate until the board is able to fully satisfy themselves that it poses absolutely no risk to public safety - drawing upon the expertise of a suitably qualified fire prevention officer or the New York State Fire Marshal should it deem necessary.

3) At the time the board approved the special use permit they were not made aware of the nature or quantity of the emissions the proposed hookah bar is likely to produce.

The smoke produced by just one gram of Hookah Tobacco contains levels of the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Phenanthrene, Fluranthracene and Chrysene, far in excess of the recommended maximum exposure level. The typical amount of Shisha (Tobacco Mixture) smoked in a hookah is in the region of 2 ounces (50 grams) and, by its very nature, the proposed hookah bar will have several hookahs in operation simultaneously.

The substances detailed above are known by the US Department of Health & Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to be carcinogenic (cancer causing) and their emission by a commercial entity is strictly regulated under New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC's) Air Permitting and Registration Program.

Although the board did require that the applicants install a filtration system rather than just vent residual smoke from the building into the open air, they were not aware of research, commissioned by both the US Surgeon General and US Center for Disease Control, that has determined there is no ventilation or filtration system currently in existence which can effectively remove these carcinogenic contaminants from secondhand smoke.

As such, by approving a special use permit which allows a business to produce noxious and toxic fumes, the board has, in effect, granted a variance to the applicants, allowing them to operate without compliance to Section 60-3 of the Village Code which states, "The emission from any stack or premises within the Village into the open air of such quantities of dust, soot, cinders, fly ash, noxious acids, fumes or gases so as to cause injury or detriment to persons or to the public, or to endanger the comfort, health or safety of any person or the public or in such manner as to cause injury or damage to business or property is prohibited."

The Village Planning board is not authorized to grant a variance. Therefore the special use permit should be revoked and the matter referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

In summary I would just like to add that I have concentrated solely on facts that I believe were not available to the board at the time the permit was approved. I have purposefully not mentioned the emotive issues of the nature of the business itself and the proximity to the New Paltz Middle School although, in hindsight, these really should have been discussed by the board during their deliberations.

I appreciate that the board is under no legal obligation to act upon or even respond to my request, although as Chair of a body authorized and tasked in Section 212-2 of the Village Code "to protect and promote public health, safety, morals, comfort and the general welfare", I believe you have a moral obligation to address this issue.

You are certainly aware that this is not the first time I have written to you regarding this matter, nor I am the only person to have done so. As such I implore you to reconsider your position and allow myself, along with other concerned members of our community, to address the planning board at the next scheduled meeting.

In closing, I must impress upon you the need to act swiftly, as the new owners have been working on the building virtually round the clock in an effort to get open as soon as possible - quite possibly believing that you would be less inclined to revoke their permit and close them down than you would be to prevent them from opening in the first place.

I thank you for your kind attentions to this matter and very much look forward to receiving your prompt reply.

Sincerely yours,

Anton Stewart

To be continued....

Where there's smoke . . .

About a month ago, the Village Planning Board reviewed an application for an unusual special use permit: two entrepreneurs want to turn the old Peak Performance building into a hookah and oxygen bar, combining the upscale tobacco scene of New York City with the purified oxygen venues popular in Los Angeles. A public hearing was set more than enough time in advance, and notice of the hearing was published in the local paper. The applicants didn't spring any last-minute information on the Board, and one could practically hear the crickets chirping at the meeting.

Last week the local paper covered the business, Zikibiki's, again as controvery finally stirred up.

Even with ventilator units, opponents of the hookah and oxygen bar are will worried about secondhand smoke, Prevention Connections Associate Director Heather Ohlson said.

Pity opponents weren't worried enough to show up at the public hearing, a vehicle designed to ensure that public concerns are addressed. In fact, member Thomas Rocco was very concerned about ventilation, and the Board required installation of a system which will be much more expensive than what the prevailing laws require.
Opponents are also suddenly concerned about the proximity to the Middle School - it's just a block away, and they feel this could encourage tobacco use among these impressionable youngsters in a way that the deli which sells cigarettes between the two locations doesn't.

On Zikibiki's Facebook group page, there are only a handful of comments. However, one comes from a teenage boy who asks "will this be the open to people of all ages, I would be very interested, but I'm 14."
For [Shari] Kanner that post alone proves that their point has merit. "There really is a concern about a 14-year-old smoking from a hookah."

Kanner may have been mollified if she spoken to the boy, like I did. Aaron Rudder is a New Paltz High School sophomore who speaks and writes eloquently, and plays several musical instruments. I asked Aaron about his comments on Zikibiki's page and his interest in the business. Turns out that Aaron has zero interest in using tobacco, ladies; he was asking because he's curious about the purified oxygen. Aaron points out on Zikibiki's group page that "according to New York State law, the only laws relating to tobacco, are that you cannot smoke indoors, and you must be 18 to purchase it" as opposed to an age restriction for admission, like bars use. His arguments are entirely in support of his interest in trying out the oxygen, something which took me about five minutes of work to determine.

When one puts together all the available information on this business, it's interesting to note that it appears the cart is driving the horse. A special use permit was approved, but the building itself still has a "for lease" sign in the window. This might be because there's no money yet to fund the project, as evidenced on the Facebook page, which is essentially a request for venture capital. A business selling tobacco near a school, but which doesn't have any money to mount a meaningful legal defense, is pretty low-hanging fruit to grab. Maybe if Susan Zimet had paid a fraction of that much of her attention to Woodland Pond, we'd have a senior community that wasn't a gigantic eyesore from ridge that draws most of New Paltz' tourist traffic.

People are asking why this went through so easily. Simply put, they followed the rules and didn't have a bunch of people lined up against them like the Main Course did. Public participation is vital to ensuring that a planning board makes the right decision for the community and within existing laws, and if no one raises a question it's much harder for the Planning Board to answer it.

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.

Who says Bruce Kazan can't build?

Rosario Agostaro of Gardiner wrote a letter to this week's issue of That Paper expressing frustration for Bruce Kazan, owner of the Main Course, in his quest to develop the property at 175 Main Street.  Rosario says:

As of this date, Mr. Kazan, a business owner for over 19 years in our community, has had to invest over $18,000 in legal fees to try to navigate through what appears as an endless nightmare of bureaucracy.  Should a respected member of the local business community be expected to support his vision at 5 separate Planning Board meetings, supported by an architect and lawyer on hand, to keep the discussion focused on the real issues of the project? Is it possible that we have a lack of communication between members of local government?

I'm not sure what Rosario is complaining about, actually.  Mr. Kazan received approval for his project months ago.  Then, he and his architect changed the plans significantly from what was approved, moving the loading from inside to outside, moving the kitchen to another location in the building, and making several windows into doors.  That all should have been included in an amended site plan application before the work started, but despite the fact that the work was well underway, the Planning Board then went ahead and approved the amended site plan.

So Bruce Kazan got his approval, built something much different than what he agreed to, and then got retroactive approval to use the new plan.  I myself was conflicted; I've stated both at public meetings and in this blog that I supported his idea, but ultimately I voted against the amended site plan because I felt that the modifications (particularly the outside loading) did not reflect the original compromise with the neighbors.  Even if the amended site plan had not been approved, Bruce would have be entitled to go ahead with his original plan.  (At that point it would have meant a lot of expensive changes to the building, but I have to think that this is the risk of making the business decision of building it before you get approval, instead of following the rules.)

The five planning board meetings Bruce attended, the time he spent drawing up plans, and the delays in getting his building to turn a profit could have been significantly reduced if he had elected to simply build what was approved in the first place.  Nobody has discouraged Bruce to act on his ideas, as Rosario claims - he's just spent a lot more time and money because he or his consultants didn't do things in the proper order.  And his plan is approved, so I don't know why this letter comes now.

Yes, there is pending litigation regarding the application (about which I will do my best not to comment), but it was brought by Mr. Kazan and any delays that result from it will be his choice.  He still is completely within his rights to finish his building and open for business.  If one of his tenants sells artisinal bread as he hopes, I will certainly patronize that business as well.  At the time, the neighbors weren't happy that I expressed a fondness for such bread, but all was forgiven when I voted against the amended site plan.  I just wish Bruce would go ahead and finish building according to his approved plan.

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:

• 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.

Like Butch, I love the design of the building and applaud the Kazans' interest in keeping business local. I also happen to love the kind of bread that this potential new business wants to sell and will probably frequent it as often as my wallet and waistline allow, as I stated for the record.

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.

Good isn't always good enough

Last night I found myself in the uncomfortable position of voting "no" on a good project. The Jewett Family Farm was seeking to get a lot line revision approved by both Town and Village planning boards (something that, as I remarked at an earlier meeting, is one of the best arguments for unification that I've heard all year). They will be giving some land to the Historical Huguenot Society and taking some back in return, more or less formalizing how the land has been used for some time anyway.

Most of the land involved is encumbered by a conservation easement which was created as part of the well-publicized Two Farms Campaign back in 2007. That easement permitted two home sites, and this modification would be transferring one of those between landowners. The easement isn't ready for review yet, and I didn't think it was particularly good planning to approve an application without knowing all the details. I was cast the only "no" vote.

Not the only lone "no" in November
My former colleagues at the Town Planning Board were asked to recommend a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals with virtually no information. This is again a case where the application could very well prove to be a good idea; Hampton Inn wants to build a hotel at the old Frito-Lay site, and is looking to go one story taller than code allows. They provided a few pictures, but no formally prepared drawings or analysis. Jonathan Wright was the dissenter in that case, feeling that it's madness (my word, not his) to recommend a variance from our laws if we don't know whether or not they could make a go of it under existing zoning, especially when we're talking about the gateway to New Paltz.

The New Paltz Times also provided sketchy details about chairman Paul Brown's lone dissenting vote in the case of Dawn Brown's application to turn one lot into three on Springtown Road. Neighbors have been mighty concerned about the increased flood potential that new buildings would represent in this area, which probably should never have been developed in the first place for that reason alone - building on a flood plain is a common form of human stupidity, though, so we can't fault our forebears for not having foresight. My prior conversations with Paul Brown don't shed much light on his reasoning - he is generally in support of development, but has expressed an interest in finding ways to keep more development out of this sensitive area through a "transfer of development rights." If I had to guess, I would think that he justified being the only member voting to approve the site plan because he feels that an individual's right to choose the destiny of one's own land should not be influenced by, well, anything at all.