a not-for-profit corporation   
PO Box 424    Kinderhook NY  12106    518 758-2646   

 
ABOUT KNGG MEMBERSHIP CURRENT ISSUES ANNEXATION/SUBDIVISION ENEWS Media KINDERHOOK KNGG MEETINGS
& EVENTS
OTHER MEETINGS
& EVENTS
GOOD GROWTH PAST ISSUES Home Page
 
eNEWS
 
 
eNEWS
2004
JANUARY thru JUNE
 
KNGG e-mail bulletins
THE LATEST BULLETIN WILL ALWAYS
APPEAR ON TOP
The contents of eNEWS is the property of KNGG.
eNEWS may not be copied or reproduced in part or full
without consent of KNGG.
ALL KNGG E-MAIL IS SCANNED BY A NORTON ANTI-VIRUS PROGRAM


JUNE 29, 2004                                                                                                             
TO:  All KNGG Members
 
This week:
 
Wednesday night June 30th - Town Hall - 6:30 PM
Planning Board meets with Town Board to discuss Town Zoning Code changes.
 
Wednesday night June 30th -  Town Hall - 8:00 PM
The Planning Board meets with Widewaters to discus and check the amendments to the latest amended FDEIS (Final Draft Environmental Impact Statement).
 
Thursday night - July 1st - Town Hall - 7:30 PM
At The ZBA
Widewaters is expected to ask for a variance for an additional curb cut.
They are entitled to two, one for each road, US9 and NY 9H.  They want and additional one.
Still on the burner for them at the ZBA is their roof variance - they are suppose to get back to the ZBA with new information which they have not done.
 
Dunkin' Donuts - The Public Hearing continues
The Town has hired a traffic engineer to evaluate the Dunkin' Donuts traffic study.
It is complete and will be on the agenda.  A determination may be made.
 
Our attorney, Jeff Baker, will be attending the Thursday ZBA meeting.
 
Both meetings are open to the public.  Please join us.
The public is invited to speak during the Public Hearing only.
 
Please remember to send in your tax deductible contribution.
 
 
June 25, 2004      

TO:  All  KNGG  Members

 

Thank you. 

More checks have been arriving!  If you haven't sent yours in, please do.

Let's keep KNGG healthy!

Regarding roundabout experts: 

"The whimsical definition of an 'expert' is a guy from out of town. Let’s not neglect to hear what the guys in town have to say." -- The Plattsburg Press-Republican November 9, 2003 - regarding a DOT traffic engineer who does not drive, yet had been recommending a roundabout for Plattsburgh.

 

Goodbye, Bad Ideas

This time backing up is a good thing. The City of Plattsburgh's common council has finally come to its senses...the council decided to get rid of the ridiculous Rugar Street roundabout.

--The Plattsburgh Press-Republican, Wednesday, May 12, 2004

To read more about the Plattsburgh roundabout controversy visit the KNGG on the web at www.kngg.org - go to ROUNDABOUT and click on “Plattsburgh.”

You have influence too…
Did you know that local planning boards in some smaller towns have been persuaded by the residents as to how to vote on a given project? At times the vote has turned into a popularity contest.  You can bet that Widewaters knows this.  They have been down this road many times before with Home Depot, Wall-Mart and others.  Soon you'll be seeing those green signs popping up around town again. 

 

We must show the Planning Board members that we are still here and they will need to answer to us as well.  We need to get our "SAFETY YES" signs up again.  KNGG does have a supply on hand. 

Let's get those signs up again and let 'em know we're still here!

Let 'em know we don't want that strip mall blocking our Catskill views

And we don't want that experimental roundabout either!

 

To get a free KNGG lawn sign for you and your friends, relatives and neighbors, call:

Abbey Cash   758-7588 - Daily

John Picket    758-7520 - Daily

Sue Chiafullo 758-2944 - Weekends only

Let's show them we are not asleep and that we still care.  Put out a lawn sign or two today!

 

Special Planning Board meeting set for June 30

The meeting will commence at 6:30 PM at the Town Hall. 

First on the agenda:  A discussion of “Code Book housekeeping”

The Town Board has been invited to participate.

If Widewaters has its act together, they will be back with the revised FDEIS (Final Draft Environmental Impact Statement).  This document will need to be checked/reviewed to see that all changes and amendments the Planning Board has requested have actually been done. Once this is completed, a vote will be taken to determine if the FDEIS will be accepted as the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement).

Lafarge: Expert hired to review tire-burn plan
With support from members in Greene, Albany, Rensselaer and northern
Columbia County, Friends of Hudson has retained engineer Paul Supple of
Solid Environmental Consulting in Glenmont (NY) to review the Lafarge
cement plant in Ravena's proposal to burn 6-8 million tires every year. If
you would like to get involved with this initiative, please email Susan Falzon (
falzon@mhcable.com).

The big box we all love to hate is up to no good making big bucks by cheating their staff. These are people whose salary is so low that they qualify for food stamps. We saw it in the PBS documentary we showed in 2002, "Store Wars," and now someone is doing something about it. Please see the article below.



June 22, 2004         
TO:  All KNGG Members        
 

The Register-Star Editorial

Monday June 21, 2004

The roundabout is the best way to go

It’s beginning to seem famous – or infamous – roundabout is the correct solution to the traffic increase expected if the Widewaters development-project is approved.

Widewaters, Inc. is the Syracuse firm seeking to build a strip shopping center in Kinderhook near (at) the intersection of Routes 9 and 9H.  The center’s anchor retail is to be a Hannaford Bros. Grocery store.

It’s been two years since the project was first brought to the Town Board (Planning Board) and has stirred much controversy.  Some residents don’t want a big box grocery store in bucolic Kinderhook.  Others dislike the clutter of a strip center on land with a view of the Catskills that has been farmed for centuries.  Still others fear the traffic increase the grocery store (restaurant and other shops) will create so near the Ichabod Crane Central School.

The state Department of Transportation looked into this last concern and proposed a traffic roundabout for the intersection.  This solution itself has generated controversy, with much resident skepticism that a roundabout would be a safe solution.

But the Town Planning Board recently hired a traffic engineer to study the intersection.  Peter Faith, of the firm of Edwards and Kelcey, was asked to assess the value of a roundabout not only for traffic projected for the Widewaters project, but for additional traffic expected to be generated by a proposed Dunkin’ Donuts store nearby (at the same intersection).  Faith’s conclusion mirror’s that of the DOT.

Faith pointed out, if the Dunkin’ Donuts project is approved, 35 to 40 vehicles heading north each morning during the peak traffic hour would seek to turn left into the Dunkin’ Donut’s shop.  The engineer concluded rightly (?) we believe, those vehicles would have difficulty seeing on-coming traffic (especially, we might add, at the speed the traffic currently runs).  His conclusion was a roundabout would slow traffic and allow those who want coffee and a donut to circle into the Dunkin Donuts lot without danger from oncoming cars.  

Neither the DOT nor Faith have been asked to pass judgment on either of the proposed retail establishments, of course.  That’s not their function, nor their areas of expertise.  But it seems reasonable to conclude from two sets of independent opinions that if these projects are approved by the planning board, a roundabout is the best method for controlling traffic at the intersection.

We encourage the Kinderhook Planning Board to come to the same conclusion so it may move on to other issues in its long running study of the Widewaters project. 

KNGG Responds:

We respond to the above non-researched editorial with a quote from a letter written just this week to Diane Whelton from Mr. Burns, a man with experience, of the United Kingdom.

 

From: RDLBurns

To: 'Diane Whelton'

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:59 AM

Subject: RE: Ewenny Roundabout

I was recently elected to our major Council and will be looking into the matter (a roundabout) on behalf of our constituents.

It seems to me that our roundabout issues are not comparable to yours to a great extent.  What is common is the belief by traffic engineers that they know better, that their computer modelling is superior to common sense.  I have yet to find a computer modelling system with the 'common sense' variable in the program!

Regards, 

Bob Burns

Councillor Bob Burns

Bridgend County Borough Council

01656 647060

KNGG could not say it better.  Please take a look at the ROUNDABOUT section of our web site at www.kngg.org.  The page titled “Road Show” is our criticism of DOT engineer, Howard McCulloch’s favorable roundabout proposal.

 

Our ROUNDABOUT chapter will enlighten you and frighten you with many scary facts,  the ones Widewaters doesn't want you to know.

Please wrire write a rebuttal letter to the editor.

We must comment on irresponsible editorials.

Please send it to editorial@registerstar.com

It’s really frightening that this Howard McCulloch may be allowed to stick us with a roundabout, having never looked at the US9/NY 9H corridor and what effect a roundabout would have on it. 

 

When asked this question by planning board member Gerald Minot-Scheureman at a recent Planning Board meeting, McCulloch’s answer was, “I don’t know. My job was to design a roundabout.”  McCulloch was not even aware of the intersection of NY 9H and Keegan Road and that is signaled and within view of the proposed roundabout site.

THANK YOU:

I would like to thank you for answering our call for help.  Contributions to KNGG have been coming in daily since our letter went out to you.  If you have not replied with a check, please do.  It’s important that we should be able to continue out fight for safe and rural Kinderhook. 



June 14, 2004      
 

Dear KNGG Member:
 
Widewaters Commons is not “a done deal.” KNGG and you, its members, still have lots of work to do. We still need members to speak, telephone, and write to the Planning Board members encouraging them to turn down the Widewaters’ application. We need to legally investigate two additional variance requests by Widewaters that will soon come before the Town ZBA.
And additionally we are now actively fighting the Dunkin’ Donuts’ application to put a fast foods drive thru at US9 and NY 9H.


KNGG urges the Planning Board to require Widewaters to put all green space (land not built upon) into a conservation easement.  Widewaters has annotated their site plan that no green space may be built upon. But laws can change as well as Planning Board membership.  Notes on site plans can be changed with a vote. KNGG wants an easement so the green space is guaranteed to remain permanently green for future generations.

We are fighting legal and engineering battles. Involved are legal nuances and technicalities of which most of us are not informed. Widewaters are super experts in the field and know how to use these to their advantage. Our success so far is due to professional legal and engineering representation and the fact that we have been able to pay these consultants. If it had not been for our diligent work, the strip mall would be up and running including a likely unsafe experimental roundabout.  


Back when the Kinderhook Town Planning Board accepted the Widewaters DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) as complete almost two years ago, (August 22, 2002) by a 4 to 3 vote, it was our attorney, Jeff Baker, who insisted that the strip mall developer provide a SDEIS (Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement).

Environmental attorney Jeff Baker, representing KNGG, told the Planning Board, "This document (the DEIS) does not have the basic information that allows you to go forward. The Town is opening itself up to a lawsuit if the Planning Board does not conduct the SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) review process properly. The Board is asking the public and involved agencies to comment on a document that its own consultants conclude is inadequate."

At the time, the Planning Board was advised that the requirement of a SDEIS was not necessary to continue the process. Largely because of Baker’s statements, the Town fortunately realized it was out of its depth with Widewaters. It then retained its own environmental attorney, Marc Gerstman.

Mr. Baker advised KNGG that it needed to present independent expert engineering studies of water, soil, architecture, lighting, landscaping and especially traffic to refute many of Widewaters’ claims.  The KNGG studies opened many eyes to the fact that Widewaters was providing the Planning Board with biased information.


None of what we have accomplished could have been done without your financial support. Now is NOT the time to give up. Without your financial support we cannot continue and our efforts will need to come to a halt.

Looking to the future, we have made a formal request in May to Supervisor McGivney and the Town Board to implement a moratorium on all commercial development on Routes US9 and NY 9H until a corridor study could be completed. The Board has not acted on this significant request.

To be able to continue our work, we will still need to be able to pay for legal and engineering consultation.

Now we need to call on you to be generous once more. Today we ask those of you who have generously contributed to KNGG in the past, to please dig deep once again. 

And we ask all of you who have not given previously, who have thought, “Let George do it,” to please make a generous contribution at this crucial moment.  You see, there is no George but, if we all pitch in, we can continue to make a stand.

Please give generously so we can continue to advocate the preservation of the town we all love and prevent the planning disasters and mistakes that would destroy Kinderhook. Your contribution to KNGG is tax deductible as allowed by law.

Yours truly,
The Board of Directors

Allen Schaefer, President

Mark Litteken, Treasurer

Deirdre Leland Secretary
Margaret Moran

Alexandra Anderson Spivy

The Advisory Board of Directors

Roderic Blackburn

Jean-Paul Courtens

Jeremiah P. Cosgrove

Jane Ehrlich

Fayal Greene

Sara Johns Griffen

Judy Grunberg

William P. Palmer

Ruth Piwonka

Sam Pratt

Sara Potter Richards

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Please check appropriate category: 

(   ) Renewal of Membership – (   ) New Membership – (   ) Additional Contribution

Name_________________________________

Address________________________________

City, State, Zip Code______________________________

Day telephone_____________ Evening telephone_____________

E-mail address_________________________________

Membership Categories

Individual $25____

Family $50____

Sponsor $100____

Benefactor $200____

Other _________

Please make your check payable to KNGG and send it with this form to KNGG, P O Box 424, Kinderhook NY 12106

KNGG is a not-for-profit corporation.

Your contribution is tax deductible as allowed by law.

Thank you!



June 4, 2004      

TO:  ALL KNGG Members
 
WE ARE BACK IN BUSINESS!    
 
RECENT KNGG ATTACHMENTS NOT DANGEROUS   
We have discovered that the attachments going out with KNGG eNEWS were a form of e-mail "business card" that was automatically attaching itself to outgoing mail.  There were no viruses involved and this has been sorted out so it will not happen in future.  It's still a good idea to be cautious and not open any attachment you are not expecting
                                                                                                  

WIDEWATERS REQUIRED TO GET MORE VARIANCES

Wednesday June 2, 2004

At the special Planning Board meeting Wednesday evening, called especially to deal with Widewaters’ business, the Planning Board determined that Widewaters would need additional variances.  In addition to the one for which they have applied, they will need one for setback of the restaurant and one for an additional curb cut.

Other items discussed were the language of the matrix and preamble of the FDEIS (Final Draft Environmental Impact Statement).

ZBA TO RETAIN MARC GERSTMAN

Thursday June 3, 2004

Although Dunkin’ Donuts was on the ZBA agenda, their representatives were asked by attorney Marc Gold not to appear as the traffic evaluation by the Town was not complete.  The Dunkin Donuts Public Hearing is rescheduled for July 1st.

At the regular ZBA (Zoning Board of Appeals) meeting Thursday evening, board member Richard Wetmore, having brought up the issue earlier with Town Supervisor Doug McGivney, proposed that the ZBA retain environmental attorney, Marc Gerstman for any matters dealing with Widewaters.  Wetmore clarified that Gerstman's appointment has nothing to do with Marc Gold’s capabilities as an attorney.

Chairman Sean Eagan pointed out that Widewaters Commons is the largest project by far to be considered in Kinderhook. The application process is complicated and expert help in the environmental field would be beneficial.  Board member Kelly Nicoletta stated, “Widewaters has a variance application in for roof pitch and I have the feeling that they’ll want more.”  Margaret Litteken, although recused from Widewaters, was allowed to point out that the previous night the Planning Board found that Widewaters would need two additional variances. But one alternate member argued that this would be an additional expense to the Town.

 

KNGG believes what may be an additional expense to the Town today will probably save it a great deal in future legal fees.

  

A motion was made by Richard Wetmore and seconded by Sean Egan to retain Marc Gerstman.  A vote was taken and the result was unanimous to retain Gerstman.

Marc Gerstman had been retained by the Town for the Planning Board because of the legal environmental complications of the Widewaters application.  Gerstman has dealt often with the environmental parts of the law that most attorneys around here have not.  It is generally felt that he has worked well in advising the Planning Board in the complications of environmental law and the SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) process. The continuity of having Gerstman retained buy the Town for the ZBA is the ideal situation.  The ZBA made a wise choice.

Mobil jealous of SUNOCO in KINDERHOOK?

You may remember that the Sunoco gas station, on Route 9 north of Valatie almost at the Kinderhook Town line, has been cited for installing signage larger than is allowed by the code. The Sunoco franchise is now in litigation with the Town.

At Thursday’s ZBA meeting, a representative of the Mobil franchise directly across from the Sunoco station, requested to place an application for a variance for larger signage than allowed by code.

The representative advised the ZBA that most franchise stations of all oil companies are “peddling” larger logo signage to their franchises.  Therefore, if one station has a larger sized sign, that station has an advantage over the others in capturing “pass by traffic.”

Board member Kelly Nicoletta asked the representative if the ZBA should expect many more requests for larger signage variances down the line because of this new policy.  The representative replied yes.

Sean Egan requested that the representative present a letter from the oil company to the effect that the oil company is requiring their franchises to put up larger signs.

This is getting off the track. The oil companies do not write the Town’s code. Nor do they make the ZBA determinations.  It certainly wouldn’t look good for the Town if we give Mobil a variance for larger signs especially if we are fighting Sunoco in court on a similar issue.  In the near future Gulf and Getty will want larger signage and soon we’ll be hearing from McDonald’s, Stewarts and Dunkin’ Donuts, whose signage size has just been bargained down.

It’s only fair that if we give in to one, we should treat all as equal.  If not careful, we’ll be lit up as bright as East Greenbush.  If the Mobil variance happens to be granted before the SUNOCO case is settled, the Town attorney will have a difficult time explaining it to the judge.

Just because an oil company wants its franchise to put out larger signage is no reason to give a variance. It brings up the issue of how we are to treat our code.  Will the ZBA be allowed to rewrite the code, or will they be expected enforce it? 

Variances should be given only in extreme circumstances.  Wanting larger signs is not a reason for a variance. 

As ZBA member Richard Wetmore was quoted recently by the Register-Star, “The purpose of the ZBA is to right unanticipated, egregious wrongs to individuals that were engendered by the Town in enacting its codes.”

“I get the feeling sometimes we are looking for a way to grant a variance,” he continued.  “We should look for egregious harm in exceptional circumstances.  I don’t always get the impression that the Town’s good is foremost in our minds.” 

One can only conclude that because a Town has a good zoning code, does not ensure the community that it will be enforced, especially if exceptions to the code are the norm and not the enforcement of the code. 



 June 3, 2004                                                             

TO:  All KNGG Members    
 
DUNKIN DONUTS HEARING POSTPONED         
 
We have just been advised by our attorneys, who have been in touch with ZBA Attorney Marc Gold, that the Dunkin' Donuts' Public Hearing at the ZBA scheduled for tonight  has been postponed till next month's ZBA meeting. 
 
This is due to the fact the Town's traffic engineer has not completed an evaluation of the Dunkin' Donuts traffic study.  The Public Hearing was held open because the ZBA wanted the Town to evaluate the traffic study.     
 
This now gives us another month to get more letters in to the ZBA:     

PUBLIC HEARING AT ZBA

The Public Hearing for Dunkin' Donuts was declared "open" and will now resume July 2nd.  Letters from the public are still being accepted:

Write to Sean Egan, Chairman, Town of Kinderhook ZBA, PO Box P, Niverville NY 12130

Be sure to send a copy of your letter to Letters to the Editor:

 
THE CHATHAM COURIER
24 Park Row, Chatham NY 12037
phone 518 392-5151
outside area 800 836-4069
fax 518 392- 7322
 
THE INDEPENDENT
P O Box 360, Hillsdale NY 12529
phone 518 325-4400 Hillsdale
phone 518 392-4400 Chatham
phone 518 828-4300 Hudson
fax 518 325-4497
 
THE REGISTER-STAR
364 Warren Street, Hudson NY 12534
Mail: PO Box 635, Hudson NY 12534
phone 518 828-1616
fax 518 828-3870
 
SUMMARY:
 
Thursday July 2nd - 7:30 PM - Town Hall - Niverville
Dunkin' Donuts has applied for three variances. 
1.   One for double the signage area allowed by code.
2.   One for a much larger setback not allowed by code..
3.   One for a much larger lot coverage not allowed by code.. They wish to cover 65% of the property.  The code allows 50%.
 
LOCATION: the apex Junction of Routes US9 and NY 9H directly opposite the Widewaters proposed project on one side and the school district campus (2000 plus students) on the other side.  The plot is too small for what they want to do and the location will only make the intersection more dangerous.
 
The ZBA should not give variances on this project but must stick to the code. If a variance is given to Dunkin' Donuts, it would set a dangerous precedent for this new code.
  Please send in your letter as soon as possible.


Your contribution to KNGG is Tax deductible as allowed by law.


 
JUNE 2, 2004
TO:  All KNGG Members               
 
IF YOU RECEIVE ANY E-MAIL FROM KNGG WITH AN ATTACHMENT . . .
DO  NO  OPEN  THE  ATTACHMENT!
 
We are still experiencing some computer problems and we may be "down" for a few days. 
Today we noticed an attachment self fixing itself to our out going e-mail.  We found it
to be a "temporary internet" file and we have deleted from our system.
 
At this time we'd like to remind you of:
Dunkin' Donuts' hearing for 3 variances Thursday evening 6/3 7:30 at Townhall, Niverville
PLEASE COME OUT TO SHOW YOU SUPPORT OUR STAND
 
To be able to provide you with up to the minute news, this e-mail bulletin and web site operation cost us approximately $178.00 per month (inclusive of the web driver).
We are a not-for-profit organization and dependent on your generosity for funding.  Won't you help us to continue what we are doing in Kinderhook by sending a contribution?
Your contribution to KNGG is tax deductible as allowed by law.
 
The Planning Board Workshop is Thursday June 10th at 7:00 PM - Town Hall, Niverville
     Agenda not available at this time
 
The Town Board meets Monday June 14that 7:00 PM - Town Hall, Niverville
     Agenda not available at this time
 
The Planning Board meets Thursday June 17th - Town Hall Niverville
     Agenda not available at this time
 
KNGG encourages our members to attend as many municipal meetings as possible.


                                                                                
JUNE 1, 2004                                                                                                              
TO:  All KNGG Members

Wednesday June 2nd - Town Hall - Niverville - 7:00 PM

The Planning Board has completed it's review of the Final Draft Environmental Impact Statement with Widewaters.  The June 2nd meeting will be short, only for going over the matrix and preamble of the FDEIS.  The review may be complete but the Planning Board has not voted to accept the document.  This is planned for when they have seen the new document and have proofed it.



 

It is important at a hearing to show the board

that we have support for our point of view. 

This often swings the vote.

We need you to come out in full force this Thursday.

Please make it a point to be there.

 

DUNKIN' DONUTS PUBLIC HEARING AT ZBA

Thursday June 3rd - 7:30 PM - Town Hall - Niverville

Dunkin' Donuts has applied for three variances. 

1.   One for double the signage area allowed by code.

2.   One for much less setback.

3.   One for lot less coverage. They wish to cover 65% of the property.  The code allows 50%.

LOCATION: the apex Junction of Routes US9 and NY 9H directly opposite the Widewaters proposed project on one side and the school district campus (2000 plus students) on the other side.  The plot is too small for what they want to do and the location will only make the intersection more dangerous.

The ZBA should not give variances on this project but must stick to the code. If a variance is given to Dunkin' Donuts, it would set a dangerous precedent.

 

Please show your support.

     Please come to this hearing and tell the ZBA “NO variances.”

          We look forward to seeing you there.



* Your contribution to KNGG is tax deductible as allowed by law. *



We appreciate your previous support. 

And hope you will continue to support good growth for Kinderhook today and tomorrow.

  



Be sure to mark your calendar:

Monday July 26 - 7:30 PM

Quarterly Membership Meeting

The McNary Center - Sylvester Street - Village of Kinderhook

 



MAY 30, 2004                            
TO:  All KNGG Members
 
Widewaters Provokes Bad Feelings at Planning Board
 Excerpts from the May 30th Register-Star editorial:

“Widewaters should let the process work”

A sure sign that the Widewaters Group is becoming restless over the length of time it’s taking to acquire Kinderhook Planning Board approval for its construction project is the action taken recently by Widewaters legal council Thomas Fucillo.  . . .

Last week the company allowed one of its lawyers to send a somewhat offensive letter to the very board  from which it’s seeking approval.  The letter petulantly, and we think foolishly, asked the board to accept at its meeting last Thursday the company’s draft (final) environmental impact statement as complete, subject to some changes still to be completed.

We certainly can understand Widewaters’ impatience: This project has been kicking around for a couple of years.  The (final) draft environmental impact statement has been in front of the Planning Board since December.  And at this point there’s no reason to think a decision by the Planning Board is imminent.

However, there been a case of “the slows” on both sides during this process.  Widewaters has often come before the board with incomplete documentation; the board, for its part, has often avoided taking actions that it could take on parts of the application.

At this point, however, we think a letter such as this one, that the members of the Planning Board deemed to be insulting to be insulting, is far from the best vehicle for propelling the project along. …

…But there are concerns by many in the community that this project might be the harbinger of change that would turn Kinderhook’s Route 9 corridor into a twin to East Greenbush’s Route 9(/20) corridor.  We share those concerns.

We encourage the Widewaters company to send fewer lawyers and enlist more engineers.  Certainly the Planning Board can’t possibly approve an incomplete plan.  Once the development company has all its ducks in a row then, maybe, it will be time for chiding letters.   

 

Planning Board Member Gerry Minot-Scheuerman responds to Widewaters Letter 

 

The following is a copy of the letter written and read into the minutes of the Town of Kinderhook Planning Board on May 27, 2004 by Gerald Minot-Scheuerman.

 

FACTS AND DETAILS  MISSING FROM

THOMAS FUCILLO’S 5-25-04 LETTER

  1. Paragraph 2 “On the other hand, from our vantage point, the review has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.” 

My opinion, based on this letter, is the past activities of the applicant (my having attended almost, if not every meeting on Widewaters since my appointment as an Alternate member) has taken us from the ridiculous to insulting.

  1. “At this stage, there is no indication it will be completed any time soon.”

I find it interesting that applicant’s lawyer’s letter was dated 5-25 and the Planning Board just happened to receive its first set of documents, sent by overnight mail, from Barbara Beall with a cover letter that was dated 5-24-04.  For those of you who were not at our first special Saturday meeting to review the Draft FEIS, Barbara Beall, a Widewaters contract employee, volunteered to take the Planning Board’s revisions and incorporate the Board’s revisions to the Draft FEIS.  This offer was accepted because Barbara prepared the original Draft and she should have been able to make the edits the quickest.  The package we just received included the Preamble and Matrix (to provide a roadmap for the changes) 

Please note that none of the materials are the substantive changes we made to the Executive Summary or the first part of the detail sections of the Draft FEIS. 

So for me, the answer to your implied question as to what the first indication that we are in the Home Stretch will be, is when the applicant’s consultants submits the revised documents.  Then, unlike some legislative bodies that will go unmentioned, the Planning Board will need to at least read through the document before voting.  This is to ensure all the edits have been appropriately made and nothing accidentally got added or omitted. 

I believe, to use a sport’s metaphor, not only is the ball in your court but it has been since the first Special meeting we had where edits were produced.  Perhaps you should have directed the May 25, 2004 letter to your client and their hired consultants.

 

Paragraph 3 “ As you know, this application has been pending for well over two years.”

At the beginning of the SEQR process, the Planning Board discussed with the applicant the benefits of engaging in scoping and how it could avoid delays in the future and would actually be to the applicant’s advantage, since if it were done, it would greatly limit the ability to add new issues at a later date.  Not only did Widewaters’ representative state their wish not to do scoping, but also made a point that if the Planning Board were to require it, he would see it as a needless waste of time. Also, repeatedly members of the Planning Board over the first year of this project asked the applicant whether they really, really wanted the project evaluated based on the old Town Code.  Repeatedly we were told YES!!!  The applicant went so far as to approach the Town’s ZBA to affirm that the Old Code should be used. 

 

Then suddenly, some might think after someone actually finally looked at the old code, the new code, the project and the comments coming from the public, the applicant decided NO NO I meant New Code. That flip-flop contributed in a large measure to the two-year processing delay time mentioned in the 5-25 letter.

  

  1. Paragraph 4, 5 and 6 mention several items, which the applicant did agree to and were made by the applicant for no “ business purpose”.

However, the Roundabout change was made because without it, DOT had made it clear the project would not receive its required approvals.  The Planning Board got notified and involved in the roundabout discussions only after NYDOT and the applicant had “worked things out”.  This, notwithstanding the fact that the Planning Board and NYDOT both have approval roles to play in terms of roadways and access, also added significantly to the processing time. 

 

As for the building design features, trees and the decision to remove a building, these were all based on the Town Code, which the Planning Board is required to implement, and were pursued by the Board in terms of this applicant in the same manner as it has for other applicant.  One would think that the applicant’s position now seems to be that the Planning Board should have ignored its obligations and the Town Code and just accept what the applicant submitted.  Sorry but in the USA that is not how it works!

 

5.      Paragraph 6 mentions a “ vocal minority of Board Members” 

With the exception of the vote to accept as complete the DEIS, I believe a check of the records will show that the Board votes near unanimously every time it votes.  In my time on this Board, I can only think of fewer than 5 votes that haven’t been unanimous. 

 

Also, at the applicants request, we agreed early on to try and deal with both SEQR and site plan review somewhat together.  This was to help reduce time.  I remember specifically a period about a year or more ago, where we had been trying to move forward on site plan review and finally had, after several months of being told the revised plans were almost ready, extracted a promise from the Widewaters representative, that we would finally get copies of the revised site plan at our next meeting.  A month later, the day of the big unveiling was here.  However, the applicant brought up another issue and just happened to have a motion that he wanted the Board to approve first.  When we refused, he literally packed up everything, including these long awaited plans, and left. 

I hadn’t seen that since I was 10 years old and a playmate didn’t get the do-over he wanted, and so he took “his ball and his bat” and went home.  How much of the 2 year delay was the result of the Planning Board having to wait months for the new site plans to be produced and then wait even longer for them to actually reappear and be given to us?

 

6.      Paragraph 7, 8 and 9 states in terms of the cross access issue, “Section 81-18” which is headed :Off-street parking and loading regulations”

 

I strongly suggest, as members of this Planning Board have done repeatedly with both this applicant and other applicants, that you get a copy of the code and you read the whole thing.  Specifically the topic of cross access and the Site Plan review process. I suggest you ponder section 81-47 Zoning permits; site plan approval.  Specifically subdivision C -Site Plan Review, (b) (2) Review Standards, (a) and b).

I personally believe that these are the portions of the code, along with our Comprehensive Plan, that should be looked at when it comes to deciding issues of cross access.  This has already been done with another applicant; an applicant whose words and actions towards the planning process I would characterize as being “LETS WORK TOGETHER. As OPPOSED to a good cop-bad cop approach that culminates with OUR WAY OR THE HIGH WAY!”

 

7.      Paragraph 10  “oversight fees”

 

Earlier in this process, the applicant allowed their required escrow account to dip below zero; the Board raised the issue and said that based on our fiduciary responsibilities, we could not permit unfunded planning costs to be incurred. We enacted a motion to automatically remove any project from our agenda if its escrow account is in arrears.  The WideWaters representative then asked that we ensure that they be notified in the future so as to prevent this from happening again. 

 

In the spirit of cooperation and ignoring the fact that Widewaters is a multi-million dollar corporation with many highly paid employees, as compared to the Town, we agreed.  Still WideWaters has again allowed this situation to re-occur. 

8.      Paragraph 11 We respectfully request that the Board complete its review at the May 27 meeting and accept the document as complete (subject to changes identified by the Board), so it can issue its findings and render its final decision thereafter ”

I for one might be willing to do this, but only after the applicant has produced the revised, edited sections which they have supposedly been working on for several months.  Trust but verify is a pretty good motto to follow, given the hot-cold approach this applicant has adopted towards this Board.

 

In addition, when this Board voted to hold this meeting tonight, we members and the public were told that the purpose of this meeting was to “continue our review and editing of the Draft FEIS”.  No mention was made of holding a vote!

So now, hours before the meeting is to be held, and I am sure purely by accident, on the same night as this project just happens to also be on the agenda of the County Planning Board.  The applicant’s lawyer is asking us to vote on the completeness of the FEIS.  I for one have seen enough of these coincidences that just seem to happen whenever this project is involved. 

 

I do not believe this is how government bodies in the USA should conduct themselves.  Maybe this is how things are done in Onondaga County but this Planning Board has not acted this way as long as I have been a member.

KNGG says, "Congratulations Gerry!"


April Quarterly Membership Meeting Minutes

Minutes

KNGG Quarterly Meeting

McNary Center, Kinderhook NY 12106

April 26, 2004

At 7:40 PM Allen Schaefer, KNGG President called the meeting to order and welcomed a group of about 25 people to the quarterly meeting and second anniversary celebration.

Attorney Jeff Baker spoke first because he had to leave early.  In the update of the Widewaters project he stated that the big issue is the roundabout.  Jeff feels that the developer should put up a bond for future study and improvement of the roundabout. The Planning Board wants a conservation easement to protect the property at the rear of the proposed mall.  Widewaters had not yet agreed.  According to Jeff the Planning Board can turn down the application for a variety of reasons including traffic, view shed, site plan and the inappropriateness of the development for the Town.

Allen Schaefer gave the Treasurer’s report for Mark Litteken who was out of town.  Deirdre Leland read the minutes of the December 8, 2003 annual meeting. They were accepted by the membership.

Allen Schaefer thanked several KNGG members for their dedicated help and support in KNGG’s first two years. They include John Pickett, Sue Chiafullo, Abby and Larry Cash, Diane Whelton, Meg Moran, Muriel Gibbons and Mark Litteken.

Alexandra Anderson Spivy introduced the guest speaker, Seth McKee, Director of Policy and Programs, Scenic Hudson Land Trust.  Mr. McKee spoke of Scenic Hudson’s efforts in the Hudson Valley to support agriculture. They have helped to protect 20,000 acres between Albany and New York City. The land base needs to be stabilized.  To do this people are asked to contact legislators and the governor about supporting development rights for farmers.  Support of local farmers through Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) and institutional buying for schools, hospitals etc. and influencing local supermarkets to buy local produce should be encouraged.  Most importantly we need to be proactive to save farmland.  Don’t wait until it is too late.

Several Scenic Hudson pamphlets and maps were shared with the audience.

Ally Spivy requested volunteers for a corporate fund raising effort.

A musical fundraiser with West Point musicians and music by Robert Baksa may be scheduled in August or September.

Discussion was raised about the future direction of KNGG.

Frank Rhyner suggested reviewing the Town’s Economic Development Plan drawn up in 1997 for ideas of positive commercial development.

Marcia Anderson mentioned the need for grants to support the Town Rail/Trail study. Support of the Corridor Study was strongly advocated.

Jerry Cosgrove stated that the community must be willing to invest in its future and that money was what was needed.  He offered to work with a subcommittee on this. 

A grant writer for the Town was suggested.

Diane Whelton feels that we should connect with the NY Preservation League. Dick Morrill emphasized that there should be a greater KNGG presence at all ZBA and Planning Board meetings.

Seth McKee suggested that KNGG support local initiatives for development rights and ways to create open space.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:30.  Guests joined in a reception to celebrate the second anniversary of KNGG.

Deirdre Leland, Secretary May 2004



                                                                            

TWO BOARDS MEET ABOUT WIDEWATERS

The Columbia County Planning Board hosted a special meeting with DOT at 5:00 PM Thursday night in Hudson.  County Planning Board Chairman James Guzzi and his board met “to evaluate the Widewaters proposal’s intercommunity and countryside impact.”  However ten days ago when we attended the county meeting, the only part of the project the board seemed to be interested in was the roundabout.  At that time they felt that they had many roundabout questions and could not make a determination until speaking with the DOT. 

 

Our general feeling that night was that the board members looked upon the DOT with adulation. So, whatever DOT says should be OK.

Representing the DOT was roundabout “expert” Howard McCulloch who gave a shortened presentation of roundabouts and answered the board’s questions.  Howard is still comparing apples to oranges by using Montpelier VT as a comparison to Kinderhook.  Representing Widewaters was consultant Barbara Beale and attorney Tom Fucillo.

Attorney Jim Muscato (pinch hitting for Jeff Baker) and KNGG Treasurer Mark Litteken represented KNGG.  Diane Whelton was present in support of KNGG.

 

McCulloch, Beale and Fucillo gave their presentations, all of which we have heard many times before at Town Planning Board meetings.

Surprisingly, the public was given 3 minutes each to speak to the board.  Mark Litteken addressed several safety factors of the roundabout while Jim Muscato spoke of the roundabout and the importance of the green space.  Widewaters had put a note on the site plan stating that the green space could not be black topped or build on in future.  KNGG attorney, Jeff Baker advises that future boards can change notes on si