|
|
|
|
|
eNEWS
eNEWS
2004
JULY thru SEPTEMBR
KNGG e-mail bulletins appear here
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
SEPTEMBER 27,
2004
Dear Member:
The following KNGG letter to the editor was sent today
(September 27, 2004) to the Chatham Courier, The
Independent and the Register-Star. This letter in part is a response to
The Register Star's 9/21/04 attact on KNGG and to
Chairman Ed Simonsen's attack on KNGG on 9/23/04.
To the
Editor: In its September 21 editorial, the Register-Star suggested that it’s fine for Columbia County residents to attend local planning meetings and town/village board meetings, as long as they are careful to not get overly involved, especially if they have moved here from another area. Unlike the Register-Star, we
take seriously our rights to express opinions regarding our government and the
performance of public officials.
Those who do not share our views have the same rights. We think better government comes from
public discussion and debate. We object when some public officials opt to use
the platform of their office to admonish citizens for presuming to criticize
them rather than respond and engage on the issues.
We believe the Widewaters shopping center will have significant adverse impacts on the safety of our community and our quality of life, and that the plan approved by the Planning Board failed to mitigate these impacts. We believe, therefore, that a correct application of the facts and the law required the Planning Board to deny the application. The decision of the Planning Board does not change this view. Engaging competent expert assistance from the beginning on issues such as traffic, landscape and building architecture, lighting, and noise abatement, would have given the Board an objective basis from which to assess the claims of Widewaters’ experts. KNGG and others urged the board to obtain such assistance. The assistance that the Board ultimately engaged made recommendations that even members of the Board criticized as unreliable and inadequate in various ways, yet the Board did not discount the reports of these experts accordingly. The building design issue provides the most recent example of the Board’s shortcomings. Relying on the advice of a then-unlicensed architect retained by the developer, the Planning Board wrongly asserted that it is not possible for the buildings to comply with the Town Code, thus necessitating a variance. Even though a licensed, experienced architect (and a member of our own community) demonstrated how compliance could be achieved without a variance, the Board inexplicably embraced the developer's position in its recommendation to the ZBA. Our letter referred to in the Register-Star editorial attacked no one personally. We expressed our disappointment, and disagreement, with the Planning Board's decision and the manner in which it was made. We criticized the Planning Board and our elected and appointed town officials, but the letter was in no way uncivil. Many of KNGG’s members currently serve (or have in the past devoted countless hours to) the Town of Kinderhook, the Village of Valatie, the Ichabod Crane School District, the libraries, the fire and rescue squads, and other community boards and organizations. We are mindful of the commitment of time and effort our elected and appointed officials make, but we do not agree that this renders them immune from criticism or challenge. We express gratitude to the Board, and especially to Ed Simonsen, for their commitment to this difficult work. We must decline, however, the
Register-Star's suggestion that we applaud the Board for a job well done
simply because the Board thinks it has done a good job. We note the irony of
having -- of all institutions -- a newspaper in America advocating such
obsequiousness. We cherish our right to challenge our government, and our
involvement in KNGG stems from our sense of civic duty. We are not trying to drive anyone
away.
We will continue to challenge our
public officials and our neighbors to demand a better vision and future for
Kinderhook. That's our
mission. We will pursue it, and
would like to see the Register-Star attend to its own journalistic
mission. Too often, the newspaper
parrots the positions of local officials on issues affecting our community
without challenge, in-depth reporting, or analysis. Whether this is the result of laziness
or bias, it makes the need for organizations such as ours all the greater. Very truly yours,
KNGG Board of
Directors Allen
Schaefer Mark Litteken
Alexandra Anderson
Spivy
CC: Mr.
Edward Simonsen, chairman And Members of the Town of Kinderhook Planning Board SEPTEMBER 26,
2004
EGAN HAS NO PROBLEM WITH OPENING
HEARING??? For those of you that
managed to get a copy of the 9/25/04 Register-Star, to read the front page
article on the ZBA meeting, you’ll notice that ZBA Chairman Sean Egan was
reported saying that, “he was not opposed to reopening the hearing, but that it
was the responsibility of the board to do so if they felt it
necessary.” “As chair I was open (to it),” he said.” “They could have opened it. No one made a motion to reopen the hearing so we dealt with what was in front of us.” “Not entirely true,” wrote the Register-Star reporter, “Wetmore did make a motion to reopen the hearing but it was not seconded or voted on.”
KNGG eNEWS reported yesterday: Richard Wetmore moved to reopen the Public Hearing so new renderings could be submitted and reviewed. There were newly revised renderings by architect Alvin Knoll ready for presentation to further KNGG’s position that Widewaters could build in compliance to the code and that no variance should have been required.
No one seconded the motion, which lead us to believe that
the ZBA was telling us that it did not want to review any further evidence, no
matter how relevant it could be.
EDITORIAL And now Egan says, “As chair I was open,” If Egan was open as he told the R-S, why didn’t he second the motion to open the hearing? I’m sure that had Wetmore and Egan both voted to open the hearing, one more ZBA member would have joined the vote and the hearing could have opened. I had a preconception that the ZBA, like the Planning Board, would be open to accepting new evidence. I was wrong. Egan went on to say, “No one made the motion to reopen the hearing so we dealt with what was in front of us.” Not at all true. Why is Eagan trying to gloss over the fact that the motion made by Richard Wetmore was ignored? Is he afraid of the implications?
KNGG believes the hearing should have been opened. The ZBA has a responsibility to evaluate all information before making a determination. In not opening the hearing, the ZBA is telling us that it didn’t want any further input from the public or KNGG. Could this mean that 3 out 5 ZBA members had made a decision before the meeting began and felt there was no point in hearing more testimony since nothing was about to change their mind?
ZBA member Richard Wetmore exclaimed, “This is a precedent-making decision and probably one of the most important decisions that’s ever been made by this board.”
The R-S reported Wetmore saying “he feared that granting a variance to a developer who had made no effort to conform to town code simply to push a project through was a slippery slope.”
There are many questions to be answered about Thursday’s ZBA process and its conclusion. KNGG intends to get to the bottom of it.
Is it worth going through this work for a roof design? Yes, if the design lessens the impact of Widewaters’ big box architecture and helps to preserve the community character. And above all, we must stand on principle. Our public officials need to learn that we have a zoning code that must be enforced. Our public officials need to understand and appreciate that Kinderhook is a very special rural town with its historic sites, rolling farmland and, prior to Widewaters, a bucolic view of the Catskill Mountains from our Town Gateway. Kinderhook is not only
part of this country’s heritage, but has several historic attractions likely to
bring more tourists to town. Let’s
not kill the goose that lays the golden egg in exchange for suburban
sprawl. KNGG believes in good
growth. We offered Widewaters good
alternatives but they refused to listen. We can have good growth if our
officials and we persist and cooperate by following the intent of the
code. Allen Schaefer SEPTEMBER 25, 2004 Register-Star
ZBA Grants Widewaters Roof Variance KINDERHOOK -- The Kinderhook Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3-2 in favor of granting the developers of Widewaters Commons a zoning variance for the project's roof at Thursday's meeting. The decision was the last before the board pertaining to the project, and as the Planning Board has already finished their proceedings with Widewaters, the shopping center will now go forward barring any legal action. There may be some, though. The group responsible for proposing an alternative design to the Widewaters roof that would have conformed to the zoning code, Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth, will consider legal action for what they consider a faulty process and decision. "We're currently evaluating the legal case for an Article 78 lawsuit," said KNGG President Allen Schaefer. "We feel it's very important because there's a principle at stake: The ZBA is supposed to follow the law and the intent of the code." Schaefer said that the developers made no effort to have their roof -- a flat roof, which is not allowed under town code -- conform to code, and that ZBA members failed to adequately consider an alternative design proposed by KNGG that would have conformed. The question the ZBA ultimately had to answer with their vote was whether or not granting the variance would adversely affect the health, character and visual beauty of the community. Two thought it would, three thought it would not. To get the rest of the story see today's the Register-Star. Letters There are two letters of interest in today's Register-Star on page A4. One by Mary R. Meyer of Niverville criticizing KNGG's letter. One by Frank Moses criticizing the Register-Star editorial that
criticized KNGG's right to speak out when officials do not live up to their
duties.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2004
ZBA MAKES HASTY DETERMINATION ZBA members present at last night’s specially called ZBA meeting were Chairman Sean Egan, Wendy Bopp, Kelly Nicoletta, James Waterhouse, Richard Wetmore, attorney Marc Gold and Alternate Tom Neufeld. Alternate Margaret Litteken was present although recused from the Widewaters application.
At the beginning of the meeting the findings statement, usually prepared by the developer was given to the board to read and comprehend. They were given only 20-30 minutes to digest it and understand its content and its meanings.
After looking at the findings, Kelly Nicolletta immediately moved to approve the variance. Richard Wetmore questioned her jumping in and requested that he make a motion. Granted, Richard Wetmore moved to reopen the Public Hearing so new renderings could be submitted and reviewed. There were new renderings by architect Alvin Knoll ready for presentation to further KNGG’s position that Widewaters could build in compliance to the code and that no variance was needed.
No one seconded the motion, which lead us to believe that the ZBA was telling us that it did not want to review any further evidence, no matter how relevant it could be.
A motion was made by Richard Wetmore to deny the variance. No one seconded it. Kelly Nicoletta then moved that the variance be approved. Jim Waterhouse seconded the motion. Wetmore remarked, “It is the duty of the ZBA to uphold the Town Zoning Code and not approve all applications for variances. Approving too many variances will weaken the code.”
Nicolletta replied, "But we are a board of appeals and should be looking at appeals."
Wetmore responded, "A board of appeals doesn't mean that everything that comes in the door should be approved.”
This is why there is an application process. Otherwise there would be no ZBA. We’d need only one person to sit in Town Hall rubber stamping variance requests.
Nicoletta read a statement that basically paraphrased Marco Marzocchi’s letter to the editor in Tuesday’s Independent.
A vote was taken, 3 –2 to approve the variance with Sean Egan, Kelly Nicoletta and James Waterhouse voting for approval. Wendy Bopp and Richard Wetmore voted against approval.
In haste, Chairman Sean Egan, suggested the ZBA vote on the findings statement. We realized that in its rush to approve the variance, the ZBA neglected to discuss and vote on the findings that should have come first. In reviewing the findings statement, the ZBA’s understanding of it is supposed to help the ZBA members make their determination on the variance. In fact they put the cart before the horse and took the vote without considering the findings.
Usually the findings statement is presented to the planners by the developer. The planners should be given time, at least till the next meeting, to study it. At the next meeting the planners would then rewrite the document, taking out any biased statements, anything that is not objective and add their own findings that could include statements by their unbiased retained experts. A vote should be taken by the planners to accept or deny the statement as amended. If accepted, the document then becomes the document of that board, not of the developer. In this case it should have become The Town of Kinderhook ZBA Findings Statement” It should then be the basis upon which the board makes a determination. This did not happen.
Richard Wetmore brought to the attention of the chair and attorney Gold that he felt strongly that the board should have more time to study this important and complex document. After given reasonable time (not 30 minutes) the findings statement should be read aloud by the board and evaluated by board members as they go along. Wetmore questioned if it was even legal for them to “take a vote in a moment’s notice.” Chairman Egan quipped, “Maybe you should have your own counsel to ask.” Gold apologized for the lack of time but did not offer an alternative.
Richard Wetmore also brought to the attention of the ZBA that the document was not objective and definitely slanted in Widewaters’ favor. This would be expected especially if written by Widewaters. It should have been evaluated, corrected and rewritten by the ZBA in committee.
After minimal discussion and minimal amendments, the ZBA voted to accept the findings statement with the few amendments as is. The vote was 3-2 with Wetmore and Bopp voting against acceptance. KNGG was not given a chance to view the findings statement before the meeting, during or after. The ZBA approved this document although it contained factual errors.
So here we have a situation where the ZBA voted to approve a variance based upon a findings statement that they changed after the vote on the variance was taken. The final findings statement was not the document upon which their determination to approve the variance was based. Their determination was based on the developer's finding statemen which Gold participated in and not on the amended one.
The ZBA then approved the “SEQRA Findings Statement” by a vote of 3 – 2 with Wetmore and Bopp voting against its acceptance. There was no discussion of this document before a vote was taken. In conclusion the ZBA clearly misapplied the law. Two ZBA members, Richard Wetmore and Thomas Neufeld, actually pointed out that the ZBA was not following the law. Self created hardship by Widewaters and other reasonable alternatives were not considered. Jeff Baker identified numerous flaws in the decision. KNGG had advocated the retention of an unbiased architect and this did not happen.
The work of experienced architect Alvin Knolls refuted Widewaters claim, of the then unlicensed “architect” Michael O’Shea provided by Widewaters. O'Shea who only got his NYS license on August 30. 2004, has been presented by Widewaters to the ZBA since November 2003 and prior that to the Planning Board. The ZBA was advised on September 2nd that O’Shea was not licensed but preferred to accept his word rather than that of a licensed experienced professional. (See www.nysed.gov/coms/op001opscr2?profcd=03&plicno=030261 )
The KNGG Board of Directors is currently evaluating the possibility of pursuing the legal case for an Article 78 (law suit). This would be the only way we could object to this determination that could have any effect. If you have any input on this consideration, please let us know by this Sunday. It was a pleasure see so many KNGG members at this meeting. Thank you. Allen Schaefer SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 KNGG and
DEMOCRACY ATTACKED
The
Register-Star Page A4 –
Editorial – Good Government Requires Civility - Attacks KNGG's right to respond
to irresponsible decisions of public officials.
I don’t
think I am over reacting by stating this editorial is promoting a non-democratic
process. Please read it and most importantly,
please reply. Allen Schaefer
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hang in there, Alan and KNGG... I can see
nothing in your letter-to-the-editor, which
The
message of the latest Register editorial
Sam Pratt, Director
of Friends of Hudson, KNGG Advisory Board Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The IndependentPage 7: Photo of Alvin
Knoll’s rendering of Widewaters’ Building 4/4A with a short story. Page 8: Letter -Plaza Roof Fits Kinderhook’s Heritage by Marco Marzocchi SEPTEMBER 20, 2004
"PLANNING BOARD ANGERED BY KNGG LETTER"
This
is the top front page headline of today's Register-Star.
This
action and statements by Ed Simonsen, Chairman and some members of the Town
Planning Board is being seriously looked into at this time by KNGG. An
appropriate response will be forthcoming.
At
this time we wish to stress that our letter was not a personal attack on Ed
Simonsen or any member of the Planning Board. It was a criticism on the
Planning Board's decision to approve the Widewaters project and nothing more
should be read into it.
We'll
Keep you updated.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2004 PLANNING BOARD ATTACKS KNGG
Dear Member: We have been advised that Ed Simonsen, Chairman, and a few members of the Kinderhook Town Planning Board made an “unprofessional and outrageous” attack on KNGG at last Thursday’s meeting. This apparently occurred as a response to a letter the KNGG Board of Directors wrote in disagreement with the PB's decision to approve the Widewaters application. This letter was published in last Tuesday’s Independent. (A copy of this letter is copied below for your convenience.)
Other sourses at the meeting report that Mr Simonsen was angry at KNGG because he believed parts of the letter to be a personal attack on him. Let me assure Mr. Simonsen, Members of the Planning Board and KNGG Members that this was not the intent nor do we believe that this is the meaning of what we said. We believe that Mr. Simonsed misintreperted the content
(Because of serious illness, I have not been able to attend any recent public meetings. However I expect to be back in full swing sometime next week.)
However, our Treasurer, Mark Litteken, was at this meeting. He is out of town for compassionate reasons. KNGG did have legal representation at this meeting as well and we are expecting a report on Monday. In the meantime, we will be gathering information on what happened. Once all the information is gathered and analyzed, KNGG will make an appropriate response.
Please stay calm and we will keep you informed. Respectfully yours, Allen Schaefer,
President The letter in question was sent to the local papers on August 30. The Independ and Register-Star printed it in their September 16th edditions.
To view this letter, please move down to the August 31, 2004 eNEWS Bulletin. SEPTEMBER 17, 2004 ALVIN
KNOLL DRAWINGS FOR KNGG NOW ON THE NET
YOU CAN NOW VIEW:
Six of several drawings Alvin Knoll made to show the ZBA that
Widewaters can place a traditional hip roof on their big box and still comply with the code. The building will
appear much less harsh than Widewaters wants to force on us. The KNGG Renderings
can now be seen on the KNGG web site! These drawings are being presented
to the ZBA Thursday evening.
The first
illustration on the home page is the Widewaters flat roof drawing.
Look to the
INDEX to your left.
Move down
till you reach WIDEWATERS ARCHITECTURE
click on KNGG
Renderings
and have
fun!
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
Yes, Widewaters Commons is conditionally approved.
BUT WE INTEND TO
STOP
the BIG
BOX FLAT
ROOF
ZBA Determination to be made
Thursday - September 23rd
Town Hall - 7:00 PM
Please attend. Our numbers count!
NO
DETERMINATION THIS THURSDAY
KNGG has
learned that the Planning Board does not plan to make a determination on the
Dunkin' Donuts application to place a fast food outlet at the congested
intersection of Routes 9/9H. It is expected that Dunkin' Donuts will
present another new site plan to the board at Thursday night's Public
Hearing. Since the public will have had no chance to see the plans prior
to the hearing, the hearing should be kept open. KNGG will have legal
representation at this meeting.
IN TODAY'S
REGISTER-STAR
Van Allen seeks grant to preserve
farmland
KINDERHOOK -- Kent Van Allen and his sister Gail Santimaw are planning to pursue a grant that will help them keep their land forever farmable. Van Allen made a presentation with Renee Bouplon of the Columbia Land Conservancy (CLC) before the Town Board on Monday night. Van Allen and Santimaw own two parcels of a combined 70 acres along Route 9 near previously preserved land by St. Joseph's Center. With the help of the CLC, the two property owners would be indefinitely selling their rights to develop the property for anything other than agriculture. The grant, if approved by the state, covers 75 percent of the anticipated value. When explaining details related to the St. Joseph's purchase in January, CLC Executive Director Judy Anderson said basically, the value for the buyout is determined by calculating what the parcel could receive for full development minus the value of the land if it stays a farm. The anticipated value for the 70 acres wasn't discussed at the meeting. Bouplon told the Town Board that the town itself would not be required to pay any money to see the two parcels stay as farmland. The Town Board needs only to formally adopt a resolution for the grant application. The rest of the paper work gets handled by the CLC and the other affiliated parties. Bouplon also told the board that supporting the land deal is congruous with ideals in the town's master plan. Van Allen said the land in question is still being farmed, under an agreement with a farmer who rents use of the land. "It's been good farm land for a number of years," Van Allen told the board. Such agreements don't regulate what farmers farm on the property, nor do they guarantee that the land will be farmed forever. Bouplon said the agreement only leaves the land available for farming, with no other development. Council woman Mary Kramarchyk joined other Town Board members in voicing support for the project. "we're happy this is taking place," she said, pointing out the benefits preservation has on neighbors. Van Allen said the saved land will be nestled between several housing developments, providing the neighbors a view of something other than houses. Once the town applies for the grant, the state has to review the proposal with other applicants around the state. The deadline for submittal is early October. SEPTEMBER 14,
2004
3 KNGG ITEMS IN TODAY'S
PAPERS The letter to the editor
we e-mailed on August 30, finally made it in the Independent and the
Register-Star. The news relelease we
sent out previously was used by Matt Sheehey as a basis of an article he
wrote for Tuesday's Independent.
Be sure to watch Friday's
Independent for more KNGG news.
ANOTHER KNGG NEWS
RELEASE
Below is a copy of a
letter by our attorneys to the Kinderhook Town ZBA. This is part of a
packet that Young Sommer has produced which also includes a letter from
architect Alvin Knoll with more additional drawings he has made to
illustrate Widewaters' lack of need for a variance.
NEWS RELEASE
September 14, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Allen Schaefer - Home Office 758-8337
The following letter was written by attorneys Jeff
Baker and Jim Muscato on behalf of KNGG and
has been sent to the Kinderhook Town ZBA
members for their consideration of Widewaters request for a roof
variance. As you may know, the ZBA has called a "special hearing" for September
23, 7:00 PM, Kinderhook Town Hall.
Young, Sommer ... LLC
Young, Sommer, Ward, Ritzenberg, Baker &
Moore, LLC COUNSELORS AT
LAW
ALL WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO: Executive
Woods, Five
Palisades
Drive, Albany, NY 12205 Phone: 518-438-9907 • Fax:
518-438-9914
)))))))))))))
September 14, 2004 Town of Kinderhook Zoning Board of Appeals P.O. Box P Niverville, NY 12130 RE: Widewaters Commons - Application for Area Variance
Dear Members of the Kinderhook ZBA: We represent Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth (“KNGG”) and submit the attached revised drawings by our architect, Alvin Knoll, to address the questions raised by the ZBA at the previous Zoning Board meeting. We have received notice that the ZBA has scheduled a “special hearing” for September 23, 2004 and appreciate the opportunity to provide you this information prior to the hearing. The attached drawings show, despite the ridiculous claims by the applicant to the contrary, that the roof for building 4/4a can be designed to meet each of the Town Code’s design requirements. Given that the Board specifically permitted KNGG to provide an example of a roof plan that complies with the Town Code, and since KNGG has done so, under the law, the Board must deny the area variance requested by the applicant. It would be arbitrary and capricious for the Board, at this point, after KNGG has gone to significant time and expense to provide multiple examples of a design that complies with the Code, to ignore the Code compliant alternative and grant the variance. Especially in light of the alternatives provided by KNGG, the applicant has offered no basis to this Board to justify the granting of the variance.
It was clear from the last Zoning Board meeting that the primary concern with the design provided by KNGG was the size of the cupola structure. In response to a question by Marc Gold, Mr. Knoll indicated that the cupola probably could not be reduced. However, upon further review of the plans, Mr. Knoll’s revisions to the roof design have significantly reduced the size of the cupola structure to 400 sq. ft. and a total of 9 ft. in height. Thus the building, including the cupola which is exempt from the height requirements, is only 49 ft. in height. In addition, Mr. Knoll has submitted an alternative design which includes a cupola that is only 128 sq. ft. In any event, each of these cupola are significantly reduced and are considerably smaller than the 4719 sq. ft. cupola allowed under the Code. (Even assuming, for the sake of argument that the structure is two distinct buildings.). Widewaters has continually refused to alter their design to try to meet the requirements of the Code. Widewaters has repeatedly stated to this Board that compliance with the Code is impossible or would require the construction of the equivalent of an 8-story building. The disingenuous nature of this contention is exacerbated by the reasonable Code compliant alternatives provided by KNGG. Courts have held that where an applicant is unwilling to alter their plans to comply with the zoning regulation or to need a less substantial variance, a denial by the ZBA is not an abuse of discretion. See Robbins v. Seife 215 A.D.2d 665 (2d Dept. 1995)(Petitioners application was denied because they did not attempt to comply with the zoning requirements and their difficulty was self-created.).
Contrary to the statements of Michael O’Shea, Widewaters’ consultant, who stretches logic when discussing the restrictions on the design under the Code, KNGG has come up with an alternative that Widewaters has ignored, casting doubt on whether Widewaters considered alternatives in the first place. Why was KNGG forced to come up with a design that complied with the Code? Further impairing the credibility of Mr. O’Shea and his statements regarding the design were his responses to the questions regarding his licensing as an architect. Initially, when questioned, Mr. O’Shea indicated that he received his license within the last year. However, when pressed further, Mr. O’Shea admitted that he, in fact, just passed his licensing test this past month. It turns out that from documents obtained from the State Education Department, Mr. O’Shea was licensed as an architect on August 30, 2004. (See Attached). The fact that Mr. O’Shea has been licensed as an architect for mere days may explain why Widewaters seems to be incapable of coming up with a design that meets the Code and why they proposed an alternative that was so outrageous. Since KNGG has provided this Board with an alternative that complies with the Code, it obviates any need for the variance and Widewaters fails to meet their burden under the Code. See Gottlieb v. City of Rye, 139 A.D.2d 617 (2d Dept. 1988); Goldstein v. Orbon, 65 A.D.2d 782 (2d Dept. 1978)(Board was correct in denying variance were there were viable alternatives available to the petitioners not requiring the granting of a variance.). Widewaters has not established that any “hardship” would occur if it were to build the roof in compliance with the Town Code. At best, Widewaters has offered in passing that the code compliant roof would be more expensive. However, Widewaters has submitted nothing in the record to substantiate this claim. Mere inconvenience is insufficient to establish that the applicant is entitled to a variance from the zoning code. See Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441 (1978). Further, any “hardship” claimed by Widewaters is entirely self-created. As has been submitted by KNGG many times, Widewaters knew that by applying under the new Town Code, it would be subject to the design requirements. The Zoning Board should not be placed in the position of having to guarantee the investment of a careless developer. See Stengel v. Town of Woodstock, 155 A.D.2d 854 (3d Dept. 1989). In any event, any financial hardship alone is insufficient to justify the granting of the variance.
Finally, in contrast with the flat-roof design proposed by the applicant, the design proposed by KNGG is entirely consistent with the character of the community as it is expressed in the new Town Code. The Town Code sets forth in a clear fashion its vision for maintaining the rural character of Kinderhook. The vision set forth in the Code accepts that commercial development in Kinderhook is inevitable. But the Code takes the necessary steps to ensure that despite the commercial development, the Town will protect the rural character of the community by imposing design standards which avoid the standard “big-box” development. This Board should not ignore the delicate balance sought to be maintained by the Code on this initial application under the new Code and eviscerate the design standards for all future large development projects by granting the variance. In conclusion, Widewaters has shown nothing that would indicate that the area variance is necessary. They face no impossibility regarding the roof design, rather just an option that they do not prefer because it may be more expensive. Again, we should emphasize that we are not trying to dictate building design but are merely pointing out that Widewaters' compliance with the Code is not impossible and a variance is not necessary.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey S. Baker James A. Muscato II
cc: ZBA Members Marc Gold, Esq. John Hoggan Jr., Esq.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2004
The following rebuttal has been sent to the 3 local
papers:
To the Editor: Appropriate Design Should Mitigate Massive
Big Box The Independent has written a badly informed editorial ("Lower is Better in Widewaters Plaza" 9/10/2004). In advocating an industrial strength flat roof for the big box store, the Independent actively promotes the kind of outdated sprawl that has ruined so much of rural and suburban America. Many design decisions
already allowed by the Kinderhook Town Planning Board: a huge parking lot,
building setbacks, massive structure not broken up into smaller units,
industrial strength lighting, and minimal landscaping are permitting this
developer to install what is a ghastly prototype for future development. A
throwback flat roof only further exacerbates the old-fashioned cheap shot
strip mall character of this shopping center. It was KNGG that proposed the enactment of a conservation
easement on the back nine acres and the small green area at the entrance, which
is now in the improved site plan. KNGG urges the Planning Board and the ZBA to
exercise some muscle and require appropriate signage rather than allowing the
developer to install the usual ugly, lit-from-interior branded signs. Signs
should be small, wooden, and lit with directed spotlights that can be extinguished at closing. Anyone who has seen the Hannaford’s store in Red Hook knows
that a hipped roofline is far preferable to a flat roof on a structure that is
already far too big.
This because the hip roof design softens the harshness of the big box. Now that the project has gotten the green light, if Widewaters is as concerned about the view as they would have the ZBA believe, they should change the plan. We suggest putting building 4/4A (Hannaford) on the north side of the plot where it wouldn’t block any view. Put the restaurant in the southeast corner and the remaining building in the southwest.
Allen Schaefer, President Mark Litteken, Treasurer Deirdre Leland, Secretary Margaret Moran Alexandra Spivy
SEPTEMBER 9,
2004
IMPORTANT MEETING SEPTEMBER 23rd
Please
plan to attend the special ZBA meeting on Thursday, September 23rd at 7:00 PM at Town Hall. We have reason to
believe this meeting will be very important for KNGG.
In is expected that the ZBA will make a determination on a variance for a flat roof requested by Widewaters. Because another breakthrough has occurred we ask you attend the 9/23 meeting. We will be able to give you more details in a few days.
DUNKIN’
DONUTS 2 of 3 Variance requests DENIED! Planning Board Public Hearing declared still
"open" and to resume on September 16th with the good possibility of the Planning Board
making a determination on the project. NEW KNGG PROJECT: THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
There are many historic sites in the Town of
Kinderhook including Niverville, Valatie and the Village of Kinderhook that are
not listed on the National Register. In order to preserve our rural small town
character, KNGG will be working to have these sites placed on the Register. This will not only
protect the site from developmental exploitation, but will help preserve some of
the surroundings as well. We
will be working closely with historian Ruth Piwonka on this project. If you would like
to get involved, please send us an e-mail. We will advise you in the near future
of a briefing date and how you can help make this project succeede.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
A MATTER OF POST MEETING DECEPTION AT ZBA?
At the end of July ZBA meeting, but before it
was adjourned, John Hoggan, attorney for Widewaters, requested that Widewaters
be given a special meeting by the ZBA to “expedite the process.” Sean Egan, ZBA
Chairman, strongly but politely replied, “The ZBA meets next on September 2nd. We’ll see you then.” Thursday night’s ZBA meeting adjourned at
approximately 11:00 PM. After the meet adjourned and after our
attorney, Jeff Baker, and others left the building, Widewaters’ attorney John
Hoggan approached ZBA attorney Marc Gold asking that Widewaters be given a
“special” meeting so the ZBA could make a sooner determination on their variance
for a flat roof.
Knowing of Widewaters’ manipulative ways,
this comes as no surprise. What does come as a surprise is that
subsequently Sean Egan asked members of the ZBA, as they were their belongings
to leave, to agree to set a special meeting to make a determination on
Widewaters variance.
ZBA member Richard Wetmore opposed any special treatment for Widewaters
explaining that he felt they have been given too many privileges already. After Wetmore left
the room the date of September 23rd was agreed
upon. What is unprecedented here is what they did
and it is probably illegal that this “special” arrangement was made after the meeting had adjourned and not all the members
were present.
The press had departed and we found out by accident. Now is the time to ask why. We have asked our
attorney to look into this matter for us.
This not the first time we’ve seen
questionable dealings at the ZBA favoring Widewaters. Just last month the
ZBA sent architect Alvin Knoll’s rendering (of how Widewaters could put a roof
on the building in question and be in compliance with the code) to Jim Green
(Town engineer during the Widewaters application) at Spectra engineering. Jim had one of
Spectra’s architects evaluate the rendering for safety. The evaluation was
sent in advance to Widewaters, to Widewaters attorney and to the ZBA. The evaluation was
not sent to KNGG or our attorney. A mere oversight we are told. Or was it? Green claims he sent a copy of the evaluation
to everyone in the cc list. Jeff Baker and KNGG are on the cc list. We did not receive
one. Why? “SPECIAL” ZBA MEETING SET FOR THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 23rd - 7:00 PM – TOWN HALL
AGENDA: Intention to make a determination on
Widewaters variance for a flat roof. SPECIAL ACTION: Please attend. SEPTEMBER 3, 2004
TO:
All KNGG Members
KNGG FIGHTS IT OUT AT ZBA
Tempers flew between attorneys on
both sides Thursday night as KNGG fought tooth and nail with Widewaters. Widewaters is still
insisting they cannot build their building 4/4A to comply with the code. The only way they
want to build it is with a flat roof. Flat roofs are not in compliance with
Kinderhook Town code so Widewaters filed for a variance back in November of
2003. The Planning Board made the grave
mistake of taking Widewaters word for their instance that only a flat roof was
possible and sent the ZBA a recommendation for the variance. Right here is where the Town needs
to do some rethinking. 1.
Widewaters knew the rules of the game when they applied to
the Planning Board and when they decided they wanted to be evaluated under the
new code. 2.
So Widewaters designed a footprint for a building knowing
they had no intention in complying with the code because they intended to fit it
with a flat roof. 3.
When Widewaters showed up at the Planning Board to work on
design, the Planning Board should have told them right there and then that the
building was not in compliance. They should have been given the choice THEN
to redesign it so it would be in compliance or go for a variance. 4.
Instead they were invited to stay and work with the
Planning Board and design with
the Planning Board a building that everyone concerned knew was not in compliance with the
code.
WHY?
Was the Planning Board not putting the cart before the horse? Now Widewaters wants a variance from
the ZBA to build using a flat roof. KNGG emphatically says, “NO!” Last night’s ZBA Public Hearing
turned into a battle of wits between our attorney, Jeff Baker and Widewaters’
attorney, John Hoagan. Architect Alvin Knoll showed the ZBA
and explained his new design proving that a historic-type roof (under 40 feet
tall) could be built on Widewaters footprint using a cupola. Widewaters’ Hoahan asked to question
Al Knoll but the questions turned into a grilling session which Jeff Baler
promptly put a stop to.
Jeff Baker asked Widewaters’ architect,
Michael O’Shea if he was licensed to practice in New York State. O’Shea hedged the
question.
Baker persisted. O’Shea admitted to having a license for only
two weeks. Here we have Widewaters presenting an architect with no license to the Planning Board who accepted his word that buildings 4/4A could be built only with a flat roof. Last month Al Knoll submitted an
architectural drawing with measurements to the ZBA proving that Widewaters was
wrong. Marc
Gold, ZBA attorney, sent the plans to Jim Green at Spectra Engineering for
evaluation. Green had his people evaluate our
plans and sent a copy of the evaluation to everyone on the copy list, including
Marco Marzocchi at Widewaters, EXCEPT KNGG. For this reason and because the ZBA
wanted a chance to look over Knoll’s new plan and his structural plan, no
determination was made. It is expected that a determination will be
made Thursday evening October 7th. KNGG wishes to thank everyone who
has turned out and participated at these flat roof hearings since last
November. We wish to thank Frank Moses,
Deirdre Leland and Mark Litteken for their informed comments Thursday night. We wish a special thanks to Al Knoll for all the professional time he has donated to KNGG in the making of these excellent designs and drawings to prove our point.
IMPORTANT MEETING TO
ATTEND
Thursday - September 16th - Town Hall 7:00 PM
PLANNING BOARD EXPECTED TO MAKE DETERMINATION ON
DUNKIN' DONUTS APPLICATION to put
a fast foods outlet at Route 9/9H intersection IMPORTANT MEETING TO
ATTEND
Thursday - October 7th - Town Hall - 7:30
PM
ZBA to make determination on Widewaters roof variance application
KNGG --- We're at work for YOU! WIDEWATERS SITE PLAN
APPROVED
AUGUST 20, 2004 Dear KNGG Members and Friends: At approximately 10:20 last night, after much clarification of details of the Widewaters site plan, the Kinderhook Town Planning Board voted six to zero to approve the site plan, thus giving Widewaters approval to go ahead with their project subject to outstanding variances and of course special permits. Planning Board members in attendance were Gerald Minot-Scheuerman, Mary Ellen Hearn, Don Gaylord, Ed Simonsen (Chairman), Richard Anderson and Jim Egnasher. a This vote may not finish the Planning Board’s work on Widewaters Commons. There is a little matter of a roof variance application for the approval of a flat roof for buildings 4 and 4A, for which a Public Hearing at the ZBA will be held on September 2. aa And now another variance may also be needed. According
to the Planning Board’s calculations, Widewaters is over its signage
allotment.
Widewaters claims they are not. A motion was made to the effect that if
the code were interpreted as the Planning Board sees it, Widewaters would need a
variance. Therefore Widewaters has been instructed to apply to the ZBA for an
interpretation of the code and depending on the ZBA decision, Widewaters
will most likely need another variance. a Immediately following the vote, Ed Simonsen thanked all Planning Board members and other related Town staff for all the extra time they spent at special meetings given to Widewaters during the process. He also thanked members of the public both pro and con for their contributions to the process. Marc Gerstman told KNGG attorney, Jim Muscato, and myself that because KNGG put up such a real good fight, Kinderhook will have a much better shopping center. a KNGG believes if it had not monitored all the Planning Board and ZBA meetings, construction would have started more than a year ago and some of the process may have been skipped, such as the SDEIS that our attorney respectfully demanded. KNGG was there to see that Widewaters did all required
testing and made required changes. KNGG retained an environmental attorney, Jeff
Baker, to see that the SEQRA process, the Comprehensive Plan and the Town
Code were followed. KNGG retained a geologist to check soil conditions,
percolation rates and water testing. KNGG retained traffic experts to check
traffic mitigation. For all this, we will have a safer, better-built and
better-designed shopping center in Kinderhook. a For example, our traffic engineer pointed out that only the west side of the roundabout has two lanes. Land should have been put aside for the future expansion of the roundabout to become totally two lanes when demand requires it. aa KNGG attorney, Jeff baker, pointed out to the Planning
Board that there was no room for its expansion unless they took land from local
merchants or unless Widewaters gave up land. (Since this is not a state project, but a
private project, the state would not take land from local owners.) Baker insisted that Widewaters give up land. In order to
give up land, Widewaters would have to delete one building from their plan and
move the restaurant into its place. Surprisingly Widewaters agreed, making the
mall 12 percent smaller.
a Conditions KNGG
requested: Approved: Widewaters fair share of a traffic light for Main Street Valatie and US Route 9 (when the DOT gets its act together). If the DOT does not start work within 13 years Widewaters would not be required to pay its fair share. a Approved: The Easement for the 8 + acres of green space at the rear of the project and an Easement of green space along the front. Because of the Easements, this land will not be able to be developed any further in the future. a On September 2nd the ZBA will review architect Al Knoll's new submission. If the ZBA determines that Knoll’s plans show that a hip roof can be built on Widewaters’ buildings 4/4A without changing the footprint, it will prove that a variance would not be needed and Widewaters would be required to comply with the code and build a hip or gabled roof to retain the historic type architecture now required. a We still believe very
much that, “This is the wrong project for the wrong place.” But as long as we
are forced to put up with the roundabout and the additional traffic that has not
been mitigated to KNGG’s satisfaction, the Town should be given something decent
by Widewaters to look at. There is an important message in all of this for the Town Board. The Town Code is not strong enough to keep out sprawl. The 80,000 square foot limit in the Town Code will only induce more sprawl. At the last minute, as the Town Board was to vote to approve the “new” code, there was dissention from one board member. The code would have limited commercial buildings to 40,000 sq. ft. But Francis Vecillio, we have been told, hijacked the code by refusing to vote in favor of the “new” code unless the square footage allowed was increased to 80,000 sq. ft. a The Town should have learned an important lesson last night. This is the time to change the code back to the 40,000 sq. ft. limit for commercial buildings. Now is the time, before those developers waiting in the wings knock on the Planning Board’s door and file applications. On September 2nd, let's all get out to support Al Knoll. As a professional architect, licensed to practice in New York State, he has been most generous with his time working on an alternative design and proof of structure for KNGG. Al's design will show that a classic gabled or hip roof can be built on Widewaters' footprint. Widewaters claim this is impossible without going up 8 stories. Al can design it for forty feet and he will present it to the ZBA on September 2.
If the ZBA denies the variance, we will not have to look at a big box. We will get a more classic style building. The Planning Board would have to amend their approved site plan to include the new design that Widewaters would be required to submit. a It's been a long two years. We have accomplished a great deal in forming this organization so it will continue working for good growth. We have our new historic places program to be implemented in the near future and other projects to look forward to. a Yesterday's Register-Star stated that Ed Simonsen “heard rumors that other large developers are being considered for proposals in this area.” If Simonsen knows of a rumor of this nature, you can bet that it has some validity.
This is our Town. We will need to continue fighting sprawl to save it. We are now much better prepared to fight sprawl than ever before. We have learned a great deal and are now better equipped for the next battle. a Respectfully, Allen Schaefer, President DUNKIN’
DONUTS
Peter Faith, the Towns’ traffic consultant was on hand to
answer questions of the board regarding the poor location of the site because of
traffic concerns. Dunkin’ Donuts has once more altered their site plan by decreasing the internal customer floor space so less spaces for cars in the parking lot would be required. Peter Faith noted that Dunkin’ Donuts in a similar structure require 6 to 7 employees. If the new parking lot design would be for only 14 cars, ½ would be used by staff. Lorraine Muller of Old Post Road which intersects with
Route NY 9H near the proposed site complained of tractor trailer trucks parking
illegally (sometimes 2-3 at a time) on the west side of NY 9H to use McDonald’s
or Stewarts.
Quite rightly she asked if Dunkin’ Donuts was prepared to offer off
street parking for these trailers. She explained the danger of these parked
trucks to people trying to enter NY 9H from Old Post Road. The trucks block
the view of on coming traffic. Others have stated these concerns at previous
meetings. Pat Prendergast, Town Engineer, asked if the parking lot
would need to be excavated for repaving. At the January 15, 2004 Planning Board
meeting, Prendergast advised the board that before being a computer shop and a bank, this site was
occupied by a gasoline station. Prendergast spoke of the time when he was on the
property while the parking area was torn up after the gasoline station
closed. He told of strong odors of oil and gasoline coming from the opened
ground. This needs investigation to check any toxic waste, especially if
the parking area is to be moved or repaved. KNGG attorney, Jim Muscato, stated, “There appears to be a
problem with this board in allowing new plans to be submitted to the board at
the last minute, especially during a Public Hearing when the public has not had
a chance to view them. For this reason, KNGG requests to keep the Public Hearing
open to allow us to study the new plans.” Jim restated Jeff Baker’s concern that Dunkin’ Donuts is
not providing for future expansion of their business if they build on this
site. When
they open, they will be at capacity. As the business grows, it will cause backups
on Routes US9 and NY 9H. This is not good planning. No
conclusions were made about Dunkin’ Donuts application and the Public Hearing
has been held open as requested by KNGG. KNGG . . . We’re at work for you. AUGUST 19, 2004 TO: All KNGG Members Dunkin' Donuts Public Hearing continues
tonight at 7:30. A determination may be made.
You can still make comments and turn in letters. The Widewaters circus, continues tonight at 8:30. Site Plan approval is
expected. Although no variance has been granted by the ZBA for a flat
roof, the site plan can be conditionally
approved. If the ZBA denies the variance, the portion of the
site plan dealing with building
4/4A will have to be redesigned because the elevations are part of the
approved plan. The WIDEWATERS
STRIP MALL
proposal This development will beget more development.
Already we've seen a new Stewarts' and a proposal for
a Dunkin
Donuts at this intersection. March 5, 2004 - Sara Richards, Attorney and Member of the
KNGG Board of Directors TO BACK THIS STATEMENT UP . . . Town Board members speculated that once the Hannaford
(WIDEWATERS?) project is done, the workload for the Planning Board will
decrease. (Ed) Simonsen (chairman) said he's heard rumors that other large
developments are being considered for proposal in this
area.
(Thus the workload is
expected continue as Kinderhook is once more
threatened.) Register-Star - August 19, 2004 KNGG has been advising the Planning Board and the ZBA for
two years that if the Widewaters' project is approved, there is more sprawl
waiting in the wings. They are watching and expecting to get the same
approval as Widewaters. It's
called precedence. What's
next?
LOWES? TARGET? WAL-MART? HOME DEPOT?
WENDY'S? BURGER KING? How about another DOLLAR STORE? …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 corridor. We share those
concerns. Register-Star Editorial, May 30, 2003 KNGG's attorney has supplied the Planning Board with
findings that it could use to turn the project down. KNGG FINDINGS ON THIS
PROJECT MAY BE SEEN BY GOING TO "KNGG
FINDINGS"
at www.KNGG.org The addition of a roundabout to mitigate traffic for
Widewaters will
further degrade this gateway into our community. Despite the fact
that DOT says that it may technically be "safe," four of the five legs are
within 180 degrees at its southern half and large trucks require two lanes
to navigate the turns and could cut off traffic in the other lane. This
roundabout is not in keeping with the character of The Town of
Kinderhook. May 28,2004, Allen Schaefer, President of
KNGG Be sure to visit our ROUNDABOUT Chapter See "ROUNDABOUT" at www.kngg.org KNGG - We're at work for you. August 14, 2004 TO: All KNGG Members The Register-Star - August 13, 2004
reports: Planning Board OKs Widewaters environmental
plan (NOT SO – SAYS KNGG. Once again, the Register-Star gives us a
misleading headline. – THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVED ITS OWN FINDINGS STATEMENT –
nothing more – at this time, it is unclear what was in that statement. Here’s what the
Register-Star had to say.) By Joe
Prout NIVERVILLE -- The town Planning Board, in a split vote
Thursday, decided Widewaters had done all it could to mitigate the environmental
impacts of its proposed shopping center. However,
sticking to tradition, the Kinderhook Planning Board decided not to vote on the
Widewaters site plan at its voting workshop meeting, instead choosing to wait a
week so its special project engineer can review the last of expected wording
changes in Widewaters’ plan. At
Thursday's meeting, the board approved the findings in relation to the
environmental impact statement. In a motion moved by Don Gaylord and seconded by
Tim Ooms, the board agreed that the developer has mitigated as many project
impacts as possible to the maximum extent possible. The vote
on the findings was 6 to 1, with Richard Anderson voting against the proposal.
Board member Gerry Minot-Scheuermann supported the resolution but blamed the
state Department of Transportation for failing to take into account the
project's impact on traffic conditions in Valatie. Minot-Scheuermann said the applicant has mitigated many of
the impacts, but the problem at the Valatie intersection still remains. The
project is expected to add to traffic and worsen delays for certain turns in the
village, and he said the DOT was responsible for proposing a change since it
knows the intersection has unacceptable delay limits. He said the DOT didn't do
anything about it, even though The Widewaters Group offered to pay its fair
share of associated costs. The
Planning Board still has to approve the site plan for the three-building
shopping center proposal, located at the intersection of Routes 9, 9H and State
Farm Road. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals still has to decide if it
will grant the applicant a variance for the flat roof proposed on the larger
structures in the center. The
Planning Board had the option to conditionally approve the site plan but opted
not to. The members agreed that they would like time to review changes to
details they made at the meeting. Additionally, the board noted that it never
conditionally approves proposals under these circumstances. While
early indications at the last ZBA meeting suggested the board is leaning toward
approving the variance (for a flat roof), it would review the alternate roof
design submitted by Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth --a critic of this
project-- that reportedly comply with the Town Code (where the Widewaters flat
roof does not.) The ZBA
will take up the matter at its September 2nd
meeting. Planning Board special attorney, Marc Gerstman, said the outcome of
that vote could significantly change the design of the
proposal. (If the KNGG submission by architect Alvin Knoll to the ZBA
is accepted because it works under the Town Code, then building 4/4A where
Hannaford would be located would have to be redesigned and the site plan would
have to be amended.) In the
meantime, the board reviewed final details, including sign designs for the
associated Hannaford grocery store. The board also evaluated a note from the
Columbia County Department of Health that suggested additional testing on the
parcel’s wells may be needed in the future. The
health department also recommended having the shopping center connect to
Valatie’s municipal water system if the village installs a new well in the
future. The
board discussed ways to make that happen with the applicant. Valatie
officials previously expressed no interest in having the developer attach to the
village water system. COMMENTARY by Allen Schaefer: I was unable to be in attendance at this meeting. However, I do not
understand why the Planning Board is handing Kinderhook to Widewaters on a
silver platter.
Are there great tax revenues to be gained? NO! At the last Planning Board meeting, Chairman, Ed Simonsen
brought out the fact, (KNGG has stated all along) that this 10 million dollar
project was expected to give the Town only 65 thousand dollars per year in
school taxes. To be blunt, but honest, Simonsen went on to state that this would
hardly pay the salary for one teacher. It is only common sense that if this Planning Board cannot
find a way to keep Widewaters and all of its ADVERSE IMPACTS out of Kinderhook,
even when KNGG, with its independent studies, has provided many valid reasons to
do so, the Planning Board should demand some amenities from this exploiter to
make up for the adverse IRREVERSIBLE impacts it is creating.
In this respect, we praise Gerry Minot-Scheuerman for
trying to persuade his fellow board members to insist that Widewaters put in a
traffic signal (or pay its fair share as Widewaters had proposed) at the already
“failing” intersection of US9 and Main Street in Valatie. At this time it is
almost impossible to make a left turn on to Route 9 from Main
Street. However we find it difficult to understand why, in the end,
Gerry voted to accept the Findings. A brave Richard Anderson was the only member
to vote against the Findings and to find them inadequate. We have seen that most of the members of this board
are concerned for the future of Kinderhook and how it will look to future
generations.
However, it was no surprise to hear that Don Gaylord, who has all along
been pushing to get Widewaters approved, made the motion to accept the findings
which was seconded by Tim Ooms. It is beyond my comprehension to understand why the others,
especially Ed Simonsen and Mary Ellen Hearn, agreed to this as well. They both
seem to pride themselves in wanting what is environmentally good for
Kinderhook. It
can’t be good for Kinderhook to approve the beginnings of sprawl in this
historic rural community. It can't be good to lose what we have and
follow most of the nation down the path to sprawl. It can't be good
for Kinderhook to lose its views to the Catskills to a Hannaford super market,
no matter how it is designed. It is time for the Planning Board to take a good look at
the adverse impacts of this project before it is too late. YOUR PRESENCE IS NEEDED AT THESE
MEETINGS August 19
– 7:00 PM – Planning Board meets to determine Conditions to accept
the Widewaters project. Dunkin’
Donuts – Public Hearing Concludes – Possible determination to be
made September
2 – 7:30 PM – ZBA Meets – Will review Al Knoll’s drawings and make a
determination on Widewaters’ flat roof variance JULY 30, 2004 TO: All KNGG Members IMPORTANT MEETINGS FOR THE COMING
WEEK Monday -
Aug 2 - Town Hall 7:00 PM - PB -Special meeting for Widewaters
Work on PB Findings Statement continues. Thursday -
Aug 5 - Town Hall 7:30 PM - ZBA - public hearing - Widewaters roof
pitch If you haven't spoken at public
hearings or even if you have, please come out to support KNGG at the ZBA against
Widewaters' request not to comply with our zoning code with their
big box roof. Written comments being accepted by the ZBA till Aug
5. AT THE LAST KNGG MEMBERSHIP MEETING KNGG Quarterly Meeting July 26, 2004-7:30 PM, McNary Center, Kinderhook NY
12106 After the opening and short business meeting, KNGG
attorney, Jeff Baker briefed the membership in detail on Widewaters and
Dunkin' Donuts. The outstanding issues on Widewaters are: 1. There is a good chance that the Widewaters project could be turned
down. (We, the membership will need to work at
it.) 2. To mitigate the destruction by Widewaters of the
natural habitat the Planning Board
should and can require Widewaters to make a conservation easement for the rear 9 acre parcel on the
Widewaters property.
There needs to be a true measure of protection through a designated
conservation easement. Widewaters’ proposal for a note on
the site plan could be changed at a later date but an easement could
not. Jeff
suggested that the Columbia County Land Conservancy or similar organization take
over the easement if it is granted. 3. The traffic light at Routes 9 and Main Street,
Valatie should be installed before Widewaters is granted a
Certificate of Occupancy. The intersection is failing now according to DOT
and will be much worse if the proposed mall is approved. 4. The roof design of the Hannaford building in the mall is before the Town ZBA. Widewaters does not
want to conform to our code and seeks a variance. The public hearing at the ZBA is August 5 at
7:30 PM Jeff feels these issues could cause Widewaters to withdraw
its application if the Planning Board is insistent on them being corrected
and/or accepted.
Or the lack of mitigation on these issues would be grounds for the Board
to deny the project. Dunkin’ Donuts was denied two variances at the ZBA. They were not
allowed expanded signage or change in lot coverage. Jeff feels the
Planning Board is concerned about this project because it is too big for the
available space.
The Dunkin’ Donuts data shows that they would be at maximum
capacity upon opening with no option for growth.
This would create gridlock within and outside the site. There were several questions from members to clarify points
that Jeff made. Action points for the members to pursue were then
discussed.
It was asked that KNGG members call Planning Board
members about the issues discussed. (The calls should be based on KNGG Findings
now available on our web site. Attendance at Planning Board and ZBA meetings
was also encouraged. Future plans for KNGG include: 1. Involvement in the Town Tree Board to provide more trees
throughout the Town. 2. Education for the community about moratoriums on
commercial building and subdivisions and the need for a corridor
study of Routes 9/9H. 3. Active involvement in historic preservation in the Town
using Ruth Piwonka’s Historic Resources in the Town of Kinderhook publication as
a guide. Many
historic properties have been identified by Ms. Piwonka but have not been
designated as landmarks or put on the List of National Historic Places. Ms
Piwonka has volunteered to help with this effort. Monday Night's meeting was "up" and there was healthy
dialogue between the membeship and Jeff Baker. We wish to thank Deirdre
Leland and Frank Rheiner for their help arranging for the McNary Center, setting
up and providing refreshments. Thank you. TO PERSUADE THE PLANNING BOARD TO DENY THE WIDEWATERS
PROJECT . . . WE NEED YOUR HELP. 1.
Call Planning Board
members. Let them know that you want the project denied and why. Your call
should be based on KNGG Findings at www.kngg.org. We prefer that you
be assertive rather than aggressive. Planning Board members are
our appointed representatives and they will listen. Please remember that
they are volunteers as well. Planning Board Members: Ed Simonsen, Chairman-392-9216 Richard Anderson-758-6433 Gerry Minot-Scheuerman-758-1893/7632 Mary Ellen Hern-784-2322 Don Gaylord-758-6926 Mike Leiser-758-6975 Tim Ooms-758-7296 2.
Put out a lawn
sign. To get your sign, please call: John Picket- 758-7520 DAILY Sue Chiafullo- 758-2944 WEEKENDS Muriel Gibbons- 758-9296 DAILY 3.
Write: The Independent
The
Register-Star THE CHATHAM
COURIER Let us
know how you make out with your calls and what you think the reaction
was. JULY 21, 2004 Dear KNGG
Member: I would like to thank all of you who have mailed in your
check to either renew your KNGG membership for 2004 or for an additional
contribution.
Support for KNGG is critical at this time as we get nearer to the day of
the final Planning Board vote on Widewaters and Dunkin’ Donuts. WE know you are with us. But some
decision makers do not. It is vital, if you want to defeat
Widewaters, that you put your lawn sign out, showing the Planning Board and
other Town officials that you support KNGG. NO MALL! NO ROUNDABOUT! A lawn sign could
swing the vote!
Some Town Officials believe there is little support for KNGG’s strategy.
We need to prove to them that they are wrong. We have lots of support, but we
must show it. We haven’t much time left. If you would like a sign for your lawn or for a neighbor,
please call: John Picket -
758-7520
Ally Spivey –
758-1426 Muriel Gibbons –
758-9296 Sue Chiafullo –
758-2944 (Saturday and Sundays only) These good people will arrange for you to have a sign. And they’re
free! Please remember our MEMBERSHIP MEETING. Monday, July 26th – 7:30 PM
– The McNary Center, Sylvester St., Village of Kinderhook Jeff Baker will be on hand to update and explain recent
happenings.
He’ll also take questions. Please introduce a friend or neighbor to
KNGG. I look
forward to seeing you there. Allen Schaefer, President IN TODAY’S INDEPENDENT Holes Seen in Donuts Data
By Matthew Sheehey “When you have traffic queued up, you’ll actually have a
mini-roundabout within a roundabout.” Diane Whelton KNGG For the full story, see page one of today's
Independent. JULY 18, 2004 TO: All KNGG Members It is important for
all members attend the next KNGG Quarterly Meeting On July 26th. Important
information will be discussed regarding the Widewaters and Dunkin’ Donuts
application.
We’ll be announcing our new focus to commence this autumn.
We look forward to
seeing you July 26th.
Please bring a friend who is interested in saving rural and historic
Kinderhook.
IMPORTANT EVENTS - COMING SOON
Monday, July 26th – 7:30 PM – KNGG Quarterly Meeting
McNary Center, Village of Kinderhook Environmental
attorney, Jeff Baker will explain recent Widewaters and
Dunkin’ Donuts’ developments and take questions.
New focus Monday, Aug. 2nd – Planning Board special voting meeting for
Widewaters Proposed Agenda – to work on findings statement Aug. 12th – address complete file from ZBA – Possible
determination on Widewaters’ site plan. Accept ZBA file on Dunkin Donuts
Thursday, Aug. 5th – ZBA Public Hearing on Widewaters’ roof pitch Thursday, Aug. 12th –Planning Board Voting Workshop Proposed agenda - If Ww findings statement complete, will vote
on it Thursday,
Aug. 19th – Planning Board Meeting – Agenda dependant
upon what happened at previous meetings with Ww
REGISTER-STAR EVALUATES THURS. PB MEETING Widewaters asked to dot I's, cross T's By Joe Prout
Hudson Valley Newspapers, July 17, 2004 KINDERHOOK -- With an eye toward cleaning up details in the
paperwork handed in for the Widewaters shopping center proposal, the Planning
Board recently reviewed some required site plan changes. Some of what Jim Green, the Planning Board's special
engineer, found during his review of the site plan for the center, to be located
at the intersection of Route 9, 9H, and State Farm Road, was that details agreed
to by the applicant -- some written on previous plans and some that were omitted
-- had to be on the most recent plan for the project lest they be forgotten and
potentially skipped. Green read a list of plan updates that he advised the board
should be certain are included on the final site plan for
Widewaters. Green started his presentation by noting that there was a
discrepancy in what the Planning Board expected and what the applicant wrote for
cross access.
This access – a matter that the applicant was not in favor of – was to be
included to provide a place for neighboring parcels to connect if they were
developed. The
correct wording was found elsewhere in the record on this project, and it
appeared is was just a matter of having the site plan updated to reflect
it. The most heated exchange of the evening was about whether
Widewaters would agree to set aside a conservation easement for a section of
property in the southwestern corner dubbed “forever wild.’ Planning Board
Chairman, Ed Simonsen, requested that language on the plan notes read that “no
additional buildings/structures or building additions shall be added to this
site.” Widewaters representative, Marco Marzocchi, said he felt
that language was restrictive enough on future development, but the board noted
that anyone could request a site plan amendment in the future, which could allow
for more development at this location. A conservation easement would lock a section
of undeveloped land as permanently undevelopable. Marzocchi said he
would refuse to allow a conservation easement because some unforeseen future
event may require additional construction on that area anyway.
Marzocchi also said he felt the board was “holding (him)
over a barrel”
on this matter and that it was late in the game to be making such a
request. (KNGG Note: Marc Gerstman, PB attorney, reminded Marzocchi
that at the March 25, 2004 meeting, Marzocchi promised an easement, which has
not been concluded. Gerstman offered Marzocchi a copy of the
minutes.) Most of the other issues were deemed less worrisome by
Green. He said
there’s no drainage shown on the plans for the proposed roundabout … The board
believed that the water would likely continue to drain as it does
now. Green said he questioned whether the generator for the
proposed Hannaford Bros. Store could be moved to a space blocked by a berm, so
noise from its use (total use during peak electric hours, meaning most of the
summer) would be less noticeable to neighbors. Marzocchi said it had to be where it was
designed to coincide with mechanics inside the building. Green noted that that the plans incorporated 20 foot-tall
trees along the western edge of the proposal. He said the trees would likely block the view
of the Catskill mountains, which was a concern listed by some opponents (KNGG
members) to the project. On the other hand, the trees act as a
screening buffer for neighbors. Marzocchi said Widewaters would agree to trim
the trees to maintain the view. After being questioned by Green on low light levels,
Marzocchi produced an updated light output chart for a dark area …
The board questioned what the proposed pump house would
look like . . . . . . The board requested additions to the site plan that
would include diagrams with dimensions for the pump house and clear images on
how the buildings were suppose to look. Benches and sidewalks on
the western end of the property were not drawn on the site plan. Green advised the
board to make certain they appear on the final
plans.
JULY 17, 2004 TO: All KNGG Members Planning Board Meeting of July 15, 2004
DUNKIN’ DONUTS The Dunkin’ Donuts Public Hearing began with their attorney
presenting a new site plan based on the ZBA variance denials for double the
signage allowed and set backs. They were allowed a variance for lot
coverage. This was the first viewing of the revised site plans. Neither the
Planning Board nor KNGG had time to analyze the site plan to determine if it now
complies with the code. For this reason, Jeff Baker requested that the hearing be
held open until the board and KNGG’s experts have time to study the new
plans. The Planning Board voted to hold the hearing open until the
August 19th meeting. Because the hearing is still open, the Planning Board is
still accepting written comments on this project. If you haven’t written, now is your
chance. If you
need some ideas, please visit www.KNGG.org. Go to CURRENT
ISSUES and click on Dunkin’ Donuts. WIDEWATERS
The Planning Board’s primary chore was to begin to generate
a findings statement.
This is the balance sheet that the Planning Board will use to determine
denial or approval of the project. It can be used as a legal document in court
to prove that the PB had reason to deny or approve. It is very important for KNGG to give input at this
stage.
Although this was not a Public Hearing and public comments were no longer
being accepted, letters may still be accepted that will not be part of the FEIS.
Planning Board Attorney, Marc Gerstman, made it very
clear that this Planning Board has been open and accepting of public comment
throughout the Widewaters application process. PB Chairman, Ed Simonsen
agreed.
Gerstman
introduced The KNGG Findings and Conditions Statement to the board. (This statement can
be used a guideline for board members to use in creating the PB’s Statement.)
Also introduced was a statement created by Widewaters. A draft statement was also created for the PB by Marc
Gerstman (Town Environmental Attorney), Jim Green (Town Engineer) and Shelly
Johnston (Town Traffic Engineer) and introduced as well. The focal point of the evening arrived when Marc
Gerstman, in discussing unresolved mitigations, explained to the PB how it could
require Widewaters to put the “green space” at the southwest corner of the
project under a conservation easement. This should be mitigation for the loss of
habitat. The conservation easement would prohibit Widewaters from
putting any structures on it forever. Gerstman explained that Marco Marzocchi
offered to put a note on the site plan to the effect that the green space could
not be built upon.
A future request by Widewaters (or any other future management) could
request that the Planning Board or ZBA remove the note. Gerstman stressed
that the note is not permanent and recommended a conservation easement that
could be held by the Town, the Columbia Land Conservancy or
OSI. Marco emphatically refused to comply. Since Marco offered
the note in the first place, it is now obvious that he has no intention of
complying with his own offer. The Planning Board must realize that this is not
Marco’s call.
It is the PB’s call. Should the PB require this condition and if
Marco does not comply, there will be no mall and no
roundabout. There was no conclusion or vote taken at this time on the
easement. The
vote is planned for a special PB meeting set for August 2nd when it is expected the PB Findings Statement will
be completed.
CRAMER, A THORN IN
THE PLANNING BOARD’S SIDE
Serving on the board Thursday night was Ed Simonsen,
Chairman, Jerry Minot Scheuerman, Jim Egnasher (alternate), Mary Ellen Hern,
Richard Anderson and Tim Ooms. Robert Cramer (president of Kinderhook
Neighbors in Favor of Hannaford Plaza) had served as an alternate earlier in the
evening.
Robert was appointed board alternate in January 2004. At this time he
recused himself because of a conflict of interest due to his public support of
the Widewaters project. When Widewaters’ portion of the meeting began, he
took a seat in the audience. At the end of the meeting, just after Marc
Gerstman left for the evening, Mr. Cramer made an opportunity for himself to
address the Planning Board. In a loud intrusive voice, he asked the board
members, “How could you stoop so low as to accept the KNGG
document?” He continued lecturing the board members for some time,
emphasising that the comment period was closed, etc. When Cramer's energy ran
down, Jerry Minot Scheuerman quickly moved that the meeting be
adjourned. The motion was seconded and the meeting was adjourned.
Cramer had heard Marc Gerstman explain earlier about the PB
being open and the acceptance of the KNGG document as a possible guideling but
Cramer conveniently waited till Gerstman was out of the room before he started
his performance. Since Cramer recused himself from the Widewaters
application process, he had no right to sit at his temporary planning board seat
and address the board about anything to do with the Widewaters application. (He may do so as a
member of the public in a public forum as he has done many times in the
past.) Robert
Cramer should be cited and reprimanded for his unorthodox action and
inexcusable poor judgement. KNGG is a not-for-profit corporation. Your contribution to KNGG is tax deductible as provided by
law. If you haven’t
renewed your membership, please do so by sending your check to KNGG. Please consider an
additional contribution to help our continuing efforts. KNGG – We’re at
work for you.
JULY 15, 2004 FYI This
KNGG e-mail is informational
only. It is
too early for KNGG to make any decision or comment on this issue. It is
being sent so that our members who reside in the Village of Kinderhook can
be made aware of the situation. Reister-Star today 7/15/04 Faso first to test historic review
decision Hudson Valley Newspapers It is hard to imagine a better test of the controversial
landmarks and historic districts law than to have the first person to appeal it
be a prominent community resident and to have the primary issue be what, on the
very surface, looks like something minor. In this case, the
prominent community resident is the former state Assembly Minority Leader John
Faso, a key Republican voice in the assembly who came close to winning a
statewide race for the position of New York's comptroller. Faso, with his wife
Mary Frances, came before the Village Board to appeal a recent decision by the
historic review commission that related to Faso's house at 14 Sylvester
St. Simply stating the
case, Faso wants to change three wooden steps on the house's front to stone. The
commission said no. According to the law,
the Village Board has been designated to review appeals. Reviews shall be
conducted based on the same record that was before the commission and shall use
the same criteria. Commission chairman
Rod Blackburn, reached after the meeting, said the Village Board should have a
transcript of their proceedings, which he said will stand as the opinion of the
commission. During the initial review of this case before the board, it wasn't
immediately apparent if such a transcript was available. The board started its
address of this matter by stating a decision wouldn't be rendered at Wednesday's
meeting. Village Attorney Burns Barford did not attend the meeting but requested
the exchange between Faso and the board be taped. Faso told the board
he felt the decision to deny the proposal for three blue stone stairs with stone
facing was wrong. He said for the last 21 years, they have been trying to
restore this house. In that time, they have thrice replaced the wooden steps. He
said the stone steps are more practical and there are similar examples in the
village and abroad for his type of house. Faso told the board
that the commission's reason for denial was to retain the historic character,
and noted that form, texture and material need consistency. Faso said the
commission's decision was "arbitrary and capricious," he said he doubted the
importance of such a small modification in the grand scheme of historic
preservation, and this diminutive change does not change the building's overall
historic features. One of the first
criteria established within the landmarks and historic districts law deals with
alterations. The law states: "Buildings and structures which contribute to the
character of the Historic District shall be retained, with their historic
features altered as little as possible." When addressing
compatibility, Blackburn noted that the law states the commission should
consider: "Form, texture, material and their relation to the features of the
buildings and structures and to similar features of other buildings and
structures in the neighborhood." For Faso's building,
trustee Ruth Piwonka noted that it has an architecturally noteworthy deck. Faso
and Piwonka have similarly styled buildings, but her house has a smaller version
of the same type of deck. The stairs that Faso wants to change lead to that
deck. Piwonka's house has wooden steps. Faso told the board
that he has found similarly aged homes in the village and abroad that have stone
steps such as the ones he proposes. He pointed out that the church next to his
property has similar steps to what he's proposed and they're made of the same
material. He said this establishes that such steps exist in the immediate
community. As an example, Faso
noted a building in Maine that is on the national historic register has similar
steps. He acknowledged it was hard to say who -- if anyone -- approved the local
examples he provided, but said it does establish that his proposal would be
compatible. Blackburn said other
buildings built or modified before the commission was put in place are
immaterial. "Other examples in the village do not constitute precedent," he
said, noting that they hadn't been reviewed for appropriateness by the
commission. Blackburn said this
commission was established to set what the appropriate, official historic
preservation should be for proposed changes to historically significant
structures within the village's Historic District. At one point, Faso
questioned whether the law was meant to be this specific, in relation to
preservation of certain minor details for the village. "It is not a museum. It
is not supposed to be preserved exactly as it was." He later added: "This is not
colonial Williamsburg. This is not a village under glass." He said he doubted
the law was designed to micromanage every single change a resident wants to
make. A note about glass:
Prior to the commission, the village Planning Board often requested that
applicants who were changing windows or walls with windows use as much of the
existing window materials as possible in new construction. The law states that
the commission members are to have "a significant interest in historic
preservation and architecture as evidenced by personal and/or professional
involvement, or similar evidence of interest in local history or historic
preservation organizations, employment in the field of historic preservation
(such as architecture, building trades, or history), and/or education and
training in the field of architecture, history, archaeology, historic
preservation or related fields." The current
commission members were approved by the Village Board, with their credentials
announced at the meeting in which the members were set. During her time
before the commission, Mary Frances said he wasn't provided a copy of the law.
Faso said guidelines for appropriateness weren't ready. Blackburn said the
commission uses guidelines, Piwonka said they are in the process of being
released. This version of the
law is less strict than what some board members desired. Earlier versions of the
law included regulations on paint colors and included commission regulation over
proposed changes for all sides of a house and other details. The current version
dropped the paint requirements and instead only regulates sides visible from a
public way. Faso said the board
has to consider whether there will be more appeals on similarly small details if
reviews focus on such small details. He questioned whether every wooden house
built in this period of time had to have wooden steps. That's what the
commission decided, Blackburn said. "For a wooden house of this type -- that has
always appeared to have wooden steps of this type -- it should continue to have
that." Does Blackburn feel
the commission's decision is solid? "Very solid. It was not a difficult
decision. As I recall, it was unanimous." He later added, "If
that is the style that is appropriate tot he architecture, we would expect it to
remain the same. The material -- the steps -- relate to the material of the
building. That was on our mind." JULY 13, 2004 TO: All KNGG Members Widewaters nears final round
By Matthew Sheehey, The Independent, July 13,
2004 NIVERVILLE—The Kinderhook Planning Board meets Thursday,
July 15 (7:00PM) to begin what might be the final chapter of the nearly
three-year review of the shopping center proposed by the Widewaters
Group. The board is expected to start work on the findings
statement, which determines whether the applicant has proven it can mitigate
potential impacts. Thursday’s meeting, which begins at 7 P.M. at Town Hall,
also includes scrutiny of minor adjustments to the site plan, said Chairman Ed
Simonsen. The adjustments include the addition of cross access
provisions, giving adjacent property owners and their guests the right to cut
through if need be . . . . . . The Planning Board, lead agency for the review, will
develop the findings statement with the assistance of consultants. It could take several workshops, said Mr. Simonsen, but
there isn’t much time. Widewaters was planning to file its Final Environmental
Impact Statement with the state Department on Environmental Conservation this
week, giving the planners 30 days to reach their final decision on the
project. “(But) our consultants are working on (their findings), so
it’s not like we’re starting this from scratch,” said Mr. Simonsen. The consultants, engineers Jim Green, Shelly Johnston and
attorney Marc Gerstman, hadn’t submitted their findings as of
yesterday. Should they find that something in the Environmental Impact
Statement fails to mitigate certain concerns, it could mean trouble for
Widewaters. “If they (the planning board’s experts) made a negative
finding and the applicant can’t say why it will work, it could lead to
non-approval, said Mr. Simonsen. “But that’s not a decision that can be based
on emotions—it has to be grounded in fact and scientific opinion.” Opponents of Widewaters believe the $10 million plaza
clashes with Kinderhook’s semi-rural character. They also fear the applicant’s plan to build a roundabout
at the 9/9H intersection creates serious traffic safety threats for drivers and
pedestrians, especially students from nearby Ichabod Crane schools. Fans of the project want a second grocery store in town and
point to the need for new jobs and tax revenue. But like any controversial proposal, opponents have been
much more vocal throughout the long review process. Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth, a local citizens’
group formed in 2002, paid for its own experts to scrutinize Widewaters’
plans. Comments from KNGG, and dozens of townspeople from both
sides, are included in the Planning Board’s official record. Now its up to the planners to wade through it all and
decide whether (if) Widewaters meets all the standards in the Town
Code. The final decision could come as early as next
month. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE A GOOD SHOW OF SUPPORT AT
THURSDAY'S PLANNING BOARD MEETING, 7:00 PM - TOWN
HALL
JULY 9, 2004 TO: All KNGG Members IMPORTANT Planning Board Meeting this Thursday - July 15 - 7:00 PM - Town Hall The Planning Board will generate its "findings statement"
on the Widewaters proposals. Showing your support for our efforts is most important at
this stage in the process. This meeting is so important that we have asked Jeff Baker
to attend. We look forward to seeing you there. JOIN CAMPAIGN SIGN-OUT! LAWN SIGNS ARE AVAILABLE and they are FREE! PUT ONE OUT FRONT SHOW THE PLANNING BOARD YOU STILL SUPPORT NO MALL, NO ROUNDABOUT Planning boards do not
like to feel they are out in left field by themselves, especially on
BIG ISSUES like Widewaters. Lawn signs have been known to show planning boards
that residents still care. The Planning Board is
getting closer to a final vote on Widewaters. We need you to show them
there is still opposition to the mall and its questionable experimental
roundabout. Visibility is
important. Please help by joining your neighbor and put out a
sign. If you don't have a
KNGG lawn sign, please call. If you can't get to us, we'll get to
you! To get your FREE sign, please call: Abbey Cash -758-7588 DAILY (leave
message) Ally Spivy -758-1426 DAILY (leave
message) Sue Chiafullo - 758-2944 WEEKENDS (leave
message) On SIDE ONE: WIDEWATERS . NO! On REVERSE SIDE: SAFETY YES! ROUNDABOUT NO!
JOIN WITH OUR MEMBERS GET INVOLVED - PUT OUT A SIGN! JOIN CAMPAIGN SIGN-OUT TODAY!
JULY 8, 2004 TO: All KNGG Members
The following "NO ROUNDABOUT, PLEASE" letter appeared in: The Chatham Courier - July 1, 2004 The Independent - July 6, 2004 The Register-Star - July 6, 2004 To the
Editor: July 3,
2004 It's bad
enough that the Widewaters land exploitation group chose the most visually
beautiful open-to-the-public viewshed in Columbia County (NY) to construct its
"new commercial center of Kinderhook," which is in essence a strip mall with
outbuildings.
But Widewaters disgraceful defense of their choice -- that those who pass
by on Route 9 only see this spectacular view for eleven seconds anyway -- shows
even less respect and concern for our people and community. In response
to a comprehensive plan questionnaire some years ago, the overwhelming majority
of Kinderhookers recommended that the town preserve this very special location
as open space.
The people of our town well understand that this site helps to define
Kinderhook's unique place in Hudson Valley history. They know it's an
important visual resource for our tourist economy, the "unmatchable asset we
should be promoting," in the words of Walter Kulash, nationally recognized and
reform-minded traffic engineer. Tech Valley
Magazine, a publication of the Albany-Colonie Chamber of Commerce, with which
Columbia County is affiliated, is luring the best businesses it can find to our
area. The
Chamber notes that "while the aggressive marketing, tax incentives and diversity
of businesses are getting high-tech companies to notice Tech Valley, it is the
quality of life that gets them to locate to this area of "natural beauty and
recreational opportunities." Are we to remain a positive part of this
program or not?
If so, Kinderhook’s planners must do the planning and not leave it to
developers. Because the
planned strip mall’s buildings would be placed close to Route 9, which in turn
would be twisted into a don't-stop roundabout, this site will be visually stolen
from us forever.
Why won't Widewaters choose another developable site on Rte. 9 and make
those of us who love it here happy? The name of our town is Kinderhook, not
Widewatersville. Frankly,
I'd rather stop at a traffic light and take in a wonderful view of the Catskill
Mountain for 30 seconds than thread my way through a roundabout. I do not consider
that wait to be a "level of service" failure; I consider it to be the reason we
stay in this gorgeous area. Urban
roundabouts are generally thought of by state DOTs and the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety, as not appropriate for urban areas because of their high
volume of auto and pedestrian traffic. And make no mistake about it, when
development takes off, this will be an urban area. Think
Greenport. Think East Greenbush, routes 4 and 20. Christchurch, New Zealand, as reported in its City
Manager's Office Report, vetoed a roundabout because it was felt that the number
of accidents would be the same, as it would increase the volume of through
traffic on local neighborhood side streets, resulting in no net decrease in the
number of accidents; it would simply relocate the problem. Who is planning for
Maple Lane traffic? Remember
winter? The
8/19/02 Anchorage Daily News reports the removal of a roundabout because some
vehicles spun out of control as they exited, resulting in accidents which caused
the loss of five light poles in one year at $4-5,000 a pop. Davis, CA,
turned down a roundabout because of problems which reduced the effective
capacity of the intersection, including acute angles of entry, just like 9H,
which would only accommodate large trucks if the center island were small and
completely mountable, "not a desirable condition as it will eliminate the use of
(directional) signs in the center of the island, adding to driver confusion,"
and "would eliminate all landscaping." Other similar problems were "long, straight
sections of roadway leading into deceptively sharp curves and odd-shaped
islands;"
"sharp turning radii into exits;" "poor sight distance at the entry
point."
Emergency
vehicles?
Kansas State Firefighters Assoc. reports that Kansas won't put
roundabouts on major routes because the large emergency vehicles, whose turning
radii are wide, forces drivers to "take the left side of the circle and drive
against traffic to make a 90 degree turn." TheChamplainChannel.com, 4/28/04, reports, "One
problem: Some
vehicles...like this ambulance we watched, couldn't make it through the first
time around.
Fire trucks might not make it at all...But city engineers say 'not to
worry...We didn't landscape the center circle, so that if a very large truck
does come down through here he can jump the curb...' Now that's
logical. Build
something they can't use, and then say it doesn't matter." A rather
scary tight squeeze for the other vehicles in the circle, too. They can't they
pull over to get out of the way, and trucks will have the right of way in the
circle, according to NYSDOT. Who is
liable for an accident caused by bad design? A 6/02 study for the Santa Barbara Taxpayers
Association points out the problems of legality: "...as un-regulated
intersection, accident responsibility is difficult to assign. This difficulty
exists because vehicles are not required to stop. Right of way determination is at best
difficult to determine. Accident rates often increase after
installation of a roundabout...no reports are made unless there are injuries or
at least one vehicle (is) damaged so badly it was un-drivable and had to be
towed."
The study
concludes, "It appears that a common tactic by those in favor of roundabouts is
to dismiss the expense and other objectionable factors related to them. They then pick an
intersection that is in need of long overdue maintenance, and possibly has other
factors contributing to hazardous traffic operation such as improper
signalization.
Multiple options are then presented, all of which include a variation of
what they want and leave out other reasonable alternatives...Traffic volume and
relative speeds are more important factors in the likelihood of accidents than
any other element...The paramount problem with the current intersection analysis
is that it is pre-occupied with time delays. "The level
of service (LOS) approach grades intersections on an A through F scale based
entirely on delay, i.e., whether queues develop, and at signalized intersections
whether all waiting vehicles 'clear' the intersection in one or more signal
cycles, and how many seconds they must wait. This approach fails to consider safety,
comfort and convenience factors, non-reported accidents, new accidents, fear and
road rage incidents." Who do you
trust when DOT seems to answer a question two ways? One lane is safer,
but you have to plan for two lanes for future growth? And the entrances
and exits from a single-lane roundabout must be wide enough for two lanes, which
immediately maximizes the points of conflict within the circle? People will drive
courteously, obey the striped markings on the pavement and will stay in their
correct lane, yet they can't be trusted to slow down for a traffic light? Roundabout
"expert" Georges Jacquemart says in his 8/16/02 "Draft Guidelines on Accessible
Public Rights-of-Way," Safety versus Ease of Use, "(R)oundabouts…do not lull
users into an exaggerated sense of security as traffic lights do. At traffic
lights users get very simple messages (walk, don't walk, green, red), and
unfortunately users associate this simplicity with safety. At roundabouts all
users are asked to pay attention and often users perceive this as
unsafe." Drivers,
we're told, won't gun out of a roundabout exit because they're "not supposed
to," yet half the pedestrian crosswalks would be at the point just beyond the
roundabout exit, exactly where your foot comes down hard to accelerate back to
the speed limit. When so
many traffic engineers warn us that a roundabout is not always the best answer
for every intersection, that is the information Kinderhook should be listening
to.
Diane
Whelton Kinderhook,
NY
12106 Thank you Diane,
for working on this well researched letter. One can easily see the time it
took to prepare. There are some good ideas here! We hope this letter
will jog your thoughts and anger and motivate you to write
too. E-mail addresses of
the press are listed on our web site. Click on "Press Contacts" at bottom
left of the home page. And if you haven't
sent in your check for out late spring fundraiser, we still need
help. Your contribution
to KNGG is tax deductible as allowed by law. JULY 7, 2004 TO: All KNGG Members The following KNGG letter went out to the media late
last week. So far it has been published in the Independent on July 2
and the Register-Star as an editorial on July 7.
The
Widewaters Group wants to build a strip mall at the very busy four-legged
intersection of US9/NY 9H, which is currently signalized. The unsignalized
roundabout has been proposed by DOT as a “mitigation measure” for the extra
traffic this commercial development will generate. In addition the mall’s
entrance would necessitate a fifth leg for roundabout. The town of Kinderhook
can turn down this roundabout. The determination is in its hands, not the hands
of DOT.
Allen
Schafer, President Please join me in sending in your letter to the
press: THE CHATHAM COURIER e-mail ccourier@localnet.com THE INDEPENDENT e-mail letters@indenews.com THE REGISTER-STAR e-mail editorial@registerstar.com
JULY 7, 2004 TO: All KNGG Members THURSDAY ZBA MEETING - WIDEWATERS Marco showed up with his attorney, without advance
notice, who presented the ZBA with a letter condemning the KNGG
architectural studies we had presented to the ZBA. They still claim
their big box of 80,000 sq. ft. although allowed by code, cannot comply with the
code's "no flat roof" provision. Jeff Baker told the ZBA that Widewaters did not provide
them with more than one alternate design which is not acceptable with a
development of this size. ZBA member, Jim Waterhouse, told Widewaters that
a proper roof could be built with same footage if they change the footprint
layout. This did not go down very well with Widewaters. Jeff Baker told the ZBA that KNGG will
return next month with further support of the hypothetical design we
submitted to prove the code roof could work. And this hardship they claim
is one of their own making. Widewaters also presented their variance application for an
additional curb cut. Please get your letters in to the ZBA, deadline is Aug. 5,
re Widewaters flat roof not being unacceptable. Write to Sean Egan, chairman, Kinderhook Town ZBA, PO Box
P, Niverville NY 12130.
JULY 6, 2004 TO: All KNGG Members DUNKIN' DONUTS VARIANCE REQUEST RESULTS from ZBA Public Hearing
Thursday July 1st 1. Signage (Additional, not allowed by code.)
DENIED 5 to 0 2. Lot coverage. DENIED 3 to 2 (Wanted to cover 65% of the property. The code allows
50%.) 3. Setback. APPROVED 3
to 2 What does this mean? If they conform with the code on
signage, it may be possible to redesign the site to allow for lot coverage
as allowed by code. Eliminate the parking??? or the drive-thru ??? We shall see. KNGG is 66 & 2/3 happy with these results. COMING KINDERHOOK TOWN PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS With Widewaters: Thursday - July 8 - Town Hall 7:00 PM WORKSHOP &
OFFICIAL VOTING MEETING To Review revised revisions
to Planning Board FEIS re Widewaters To vote on approval of
revisions Thursday - July 15 - Town Hall 7:00 PM OFFICIAL
VOTING MEETING To review new Widewaters' site
plans for approval To generate findings statement on
Widewaters Commons Thursday - Aug 12 - Town Hall 7:00 PM WORKSHOP Uncertain - However, may turn
meeting into an OFFICIAL VOTING MEETING as Aug 14 is deadline for
findings statement Thursday - Aug 19 - Town Hall 7:00 PM OFFICIAL
VOTING MEETING Agenda is uncertain
JULY 2, 2004 TO: All KNGG Members DUNKIN' DONUTS VARIANCE REQUEST RESULTS from ZBA Public Hearing
Thursday July 1st 1. Signage (Additional, not allowed by code.)
DENIED 5 to 0 2. Lot coverage. DENIED 3 to 2 (Wanted to cover 65% of the property. The code allows
50%.) 3. Setback. APPROVED 3
to 2 What does this mean? If they conform with the code on
signage, it may be possible to redesign the site to allow for lot coverage
as allowed by code. Eliminate the parking??? or the drive-thru ??? We shall see. COMING KINDERHOOK TOWN PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS With Widewaters: Thursday - July 8 - Town Hall 7:00 PM WORKSHOP &
OFFICIAL VOTING MEETING To Review revised revisions
to Planning Board FEIS re Widewaters To vote on approval of
revisions Thursday - July 15 - Town Hall 7:00 PM OFFICIAL
VOTING MEETING To review new Widewaters' site
plans for approval To generate findings statement on
Widewaters Commons Thursday - Aug 12 - Town Hall 7:00 PM WORKSHOP Uncertain - However, may turn
meeting into an OFFICIAL VOTING MEETING as Aug 14 is deadline for
findings statement Thursday - Aug 19 - Town Hall 7:00 PM OFFICIAL
VOTING MEETING Agenda is
uncertain
JULY 1, 2004 TO: All KNGG Members PLANNING BOARD MET WITH TOWN
BOARD ABOUT NEEDED CODE CHANGES June 30, 2004 The two boards met tonight at 6:30 at
Town Hall and agreed to changes in the Town Code. Town Board members present: Doug McGivney,
Supervisor; Frances Vecellio, Deputy Supervisor; Mary Kramarchyk and Keith
Stack. The Planning Board was made up of Ed
Simonsen, Chairman, Richard Anderson, Bob Cramer, Jim Egnasher, Cheryl Gilbert,
Mary Ellen Hern, Gerry Minot- Scheuerman and Tim Ooms. Changes were made and accepted by the
Town Board to put to a vote at their next meeting on Cross access, Curb Cuts,
Density Control Schedule, absence of Index, Rural Road Standards, Town Houses,
Typos and Inconsistencies and the Use Table AMENDMENTS FOR THE FDEIS (FINAL
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT) REVIEWED The Planning Board was made up of Ed
Simonsen, Chairman, Richard Anderson, Jim Egnasher, Mary Ellen Hern, Gerry
Minot- Scheuerman and Tim Ooms. Kathleen Martens sat in for Marc
Gertsman, attorney. At the June 11, 2004 meeting, the
Planning Board agreed that amendments to the FDEIS must be made by Widewaters in
order for the Planning Board to be able to accept the FDEIS as complete. Subsequently the
changes were made by consultant Barbara Beale. Town Engineer, Jim Green and Town Traffic
Engineer, Shelly Johnston reviewed the amendments. Most of them had
been done as advised however some amendments were still in order. The changes were checked tonight by
the board. Attorney Kathleen Martens found several places where wording needed
to be changed. The board agreed to these new changes, most of which was language
clarification and language changes to make Widewaters’ statements more
neutral.
NO TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR VALATIE
An issue that has been up in the air
for 2 years with the Widewaters project is the traffic signal for Main Street
and US9 in Valatie.
Marco Marzocchi, Widewaters’ council, has previously agreed to pay their
“fair share” for the signal, which someone had determined to be 15 per cent.
This week the Planning Board
received a letter from Richard Dillman of the DOT saying, “it is our
recommendation that no improvements be done under this project. This intersection
currently operates at a level of service F (failure) and it is the
responsibility of this department to correct. We will need to investigate it in detail
before deciding on an appropriate course of action and it would be unreasonable
to delay the development until our investigation is complete. Although the
proposed development will increase delays at this intersection, the increased
delays are not considered significant.” EDITORIAL It is a very stupid move on behalf of
the state by the DOT to throw our tax dollars away when offered a gift. We know the state
does not have funds for this project. This is a good time to ask why the State of
New York is making such a significant contribution to the Widewaters Group’s
coffer. In times like this, many developers are willing to help a community
out. If the
DOT was responsible it could have worked with the Planning Board and Widewaters
to get them to pay better than “fair share” on the signal and “volunteer” them
to pay for the sidewalk as well. We’ve been waiting years for a
sidewalk between this intersection and the Ichabod Crane School System along
heavily trafficked route US9 where Valatie students are often seen walking in
gutter to the Ichabod Crane School. Making a left turn off Main Street onto US9
is dangerous because it is difficult to see if traffic is coming from around the
bend and trees obstruct much of the view. Also when making a left from US9 onto Main
Street, it is extremely difficult for the same reasons. A left turn only
signal is needed here. As the traffic gets heavier, people will get
more impatient and take more risks. It would be bad enough, if the mall
were to be approved, for the shops in Valatie to loose their businesses to the
mall shops.
But it is a slap in the face for the DOT and the State of New York to
deny them a partially paid traffic signal that would help the Valatie shop
owners get their customers in and out.
PLANNING BOARD VOTES ON ACCEPTANCE OF FDEIS
Once all new amendments were agreed
upon, Ed Simonsen asked attorney Kathleen Martens, “What’s next?” “Move to vote on
acceptance,” she replied. Tim Ooms moved to accept the FDEIS as
complete provided tonight’s amendments were reviewed and seen to be correct as
voted upon.
The board voted to accept the FDEIS as complete, 6 to 0. With this vote, the
FDEIS became the FEIS. A committee was made up of Gerry
Minot-Scheuerman, Jim Green, Shelly Johnston and attorney Kathleen Martins,
acting for Marc Gerstman. The four will review the document to see that
it is completed as directed by the Planning Board tonight. The approval of the FDEIS was expected
this evening because Widewaters did submit what was asked of them.
FINDINGS STATEMENT IS NEXT
It is anticipated that Barbara Beale
will file the FEIS with EMB, a part of the DEC, on July 14.
The Planning Board then has 30 days to generate its “Findings
Statement,” vote on it and accept the site plan. At the July 15 meeting of the
Planning Board, the mandated FIES revisions and site plan revisions will be
checked. A vote of acceptance of the Findings
Statement will be taken at the August 19 meeting. Simultaneously, the Planning Board has
advised Widewaters that it wants to see the revised site plan showing the
deletion of one building and the change of location of the “restaurant” and the
“cross access easements.” It will do this at the July 14 meeting and if
it is acceptable the board will take a vote to accept it as
complete. THURSDAY NIGHT ZBA
MEETING – 7:30 PM – Town Hall
WIDEWATERS Widewaters is expected to present an
application for a variance for one additional curb cut. They will need a
set back variance for the restaurant but nothing had been heard about it yet.
Their variance for a flat roof is still in limbo, as they have not gotten back
to the ZBA with additional information requested by the ZBA. Our attorney, Jeff
Baker will be present. All are welcome.
DUNKIN’ DONUTS
The Public
Hearing is still open and the ZBA has received Dunkin’ Donuts traffic
study. It is
expected that the ZBA will discuss the traffic study and the variances will be
voted upon at the August 5 meeting. Stay tuned
. . . Thank
you. Your
checks have been arriving steadily. We do need more members and nonmembers to
participate in this fund drive for KNGG. Your check
to KNGG is tax deductible as allowed by law.
|
