ABOUT KNGG
MEMBERSHIP
CURRENT ISSUES
ANNEXATION/SUBDIVISION
ENEWS
Media
KINDERHOOK
KNGG MEETINGS & EVENTS
OTHER MEETINGS & EVENTS
GOOD GROWTH
PAST ISSUES
Home Page
|
|
eNEWS
eNEWS
2004
OCTOBER thru
DECEMBER
KNGG e-NEWS bulletins will appear here.
THE LATEST BULLETIN WILL ALWAYS APPEAR ON
TOP
eNEWS is a news bulletin written specifically for KNGG
Members.
The
contents of eNEWS are 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
Parts of eNEWS Bulletins re: ART78 will now
appear under
"ARTICLE
78"
DECEMBER 31,
2004
We regret to inform you that Mark
Litteken will relinquish his position as KNGG Treasurer effective January 1,
2005.
A
As a founding
member of KNGG, Mark’s motivation helped drive the organization in its
beginnings. He has put in a tremendous amount of time behind the
scenes. In 2 ½ years, Mark never missed a public hearing and missed only one
KNGG meeting.
a
Mark’s work as treasurer and the extra reports he volunteered to
the board have been of great value to KNGG. Mark set up our books in a logical
system for this nonprofit organization.
There is more to Mark than numbers.
Besides having a good comprehension of accounting and computer skills,
Mark is an environmentalist at heart and is very concerned about Kinderhook’s
future.
Mark has also
proven himself to be a professional orator at KNGG meetings and at all the
Widewaters’ and Dunkin’ Donuts’ public hearings. Many of his letters to the
press and to the Planning Board may be seen on the KNGG web
site.
a
The Board
of Directors will greatly miss Mark Litteken’s valued input. We have
been fortunate to have his volunteered services. We all wish Mark the best
in the future.
Allen Schaefer,
President
And the KNGG Board of
Directors
The KNGG Board of Directors
would like
to wish you and your
family
A HAPPY NEW
YEAR!
DECEMBER 22,
2001
THIS
CHRISTMAS GIVE THE GIFT of MUSIC
Chamber Music Gala
Music by Robert Baksa
“He
can write a beautiful tune, cloak it in a warm accompaniment,
and
orchestrate it to perfection.” - The
Double Reed Magazine
Hosted by
the Composer
THE ARTISTS
Michael Clement, Piano;Yvonne
Chavez Hannsbrough, Flute;
Sten Yngvar Isachisen,
Guitar; Steven Marking, Baritone;
Vladimir Pleshakov and Elena
Winther, Duo Pianists
Sunday Afternoon, January 23, 2005, 3:00
PM
North Pointe Cultural Arts
Center
Route US9
(66 Chatham Street) Village of Kinderhook
Gala
After the Concert Reception
at
Fox Point
The Home of Alexandra & Jock
Spivy
To Benefit
Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth
BENEFACTOR: $150
Priority Concert Seating
and Reception
SPONSOR: $100
Concert Seating and
Reception
Supporter: $35
Concert Seating
AVOID DISAPPOINTMENT – ORDER
EARLY
Please indicate your choice, How many, & mail your check to
KNGG - PO Box 424 - Kinderhook NY
12106
Tickets will be held at the
door.
KNGG
is a 501 (c) (3) not-for-profit corporation.
Your
contribution to KNGG is tax deductible as allowed by
law.
Kinderhook Neighbors for Good
Growth
www.KNGG.org 518
758-2646 - KNGG@berk.com
NO
NEED TO REINVENT WHEEL
Ancram and now Copake and hundreds of
communities around the country are waking up to the fact that if they do not
take measures now to protect their community from unsightly over development –
no one else will. There is no need
for Kinderhook to reinvent the wheel.
It’s already been done and there are many who’ve been through the
experience who would be willing to give a helping
hand.
Ancram has implemented a scenic
overlay from its southern boarder to its northern boarder with Copake along
Route 22. Copake plans something
similar to pick up at its southern boarder and run it north to Hillsdale. The
idea is spreading. Hopefully,
Kinderhook will have its plan in place by this time next
year.
There is only one major obstacle –
The Kinderhook Town Board has not appropriated funds for the committee to hire a
planning expert such as the ones used in East Greenbush, Ancram and Copake. When
will they wake up to importance of this
issue?
Scenic
overlay district unveiled to packed house
By John
Mason –
Register-Star December 21,
2004
COPAKE --
A standing-room-only crowd of more than 80 heard about plans for preserving the
scenic beauty on the eastern edge of town Saturday at Town
Hall.
The
proposed scenic corridor overlay district is about two miles wide, running west
from the Massachusetts border to 1,500 feet west of Route 22, and about eight
miles north to south from Copake's border with Hillsdale to its southern border
with Ancram.
Although
only a small proportion of Copake residents live in this corridor, Strategic
Planning Committee Chairman Edgar Masters said, "We believe this will benefit
the town as a whole -- it protects its open space and rural
character."
Town
officials were spurred to action by a threat posed by a gravel mine proposed for
the area south of Copake Falls in spring 2003, he said.
In
addition, a survey of town property owners revealed support for protecting
resources and using zoning to protect open space, Masters said. The survey had
an impressive response total of 38 percent of 2,260 surveys sent out, he
said.
If
adopted, the district would lead to a number of zoning changes in the
corridor.
Five
types of businesses that are now permitted under certain conditions would be
totally prohibited:
any extractive operations or soil mining requiring review by the state
Department of Environmental Conservation, telecommunications towers, radio and
television stations and towers, bus stations and mobile home
parks.
Other
businesses that are now subject to a special use permit would be "strictly
regulated," including hospitals or nursing homes, public utility structures and
buildings, recreation uses of mountain land, schools and nursery schools,
convenience stores, farm machinery and equipment, motels, theaters and concert
halls, animal care businesses, government buildings, clubs, produce stands,
summer camps and retreats, gift and antique shops and
restaurants.
Many
types of businesses that are already prohibited would continue to be
prohibited.
Design guidelines were also
developed by the committee to protect the visual sightlines of the area within
the overlay, Masters said.
General design guidelines for the corridor, applicable to
subdivisions and businesses but not to agriculture, would include: preservation
of vegetation and topography, mitigation of air pollution from dust, smoke and
condensation, buffering using natural vegetation, underground utilities, a
35-foot-height limit and mitigated visual impact for buildings, minimal glare
from outdoor lighting, screening of mechanical equipment, loading docks, garbage
containers, control of soil erosion and a limit on the footprints of
buildings of 7,500 square feet (and more?).
In response to a question, Masters said there is not a no-build
zone in the district. When asked
whether colors of houses and siding would be regulated, he said the town would
want to protect the visual aspect of the area from anything that was “garish or
out of place.”
Copake’s proposed scenic corridor district
would be the same width as Ancram’s.
Leah Wilcox of Ancram’s Planning Board was on
hand to talk about her town’s experience with such a corridor. It took them a
year, and several public hearings, she said. “We took what our residents had to say to
heart, and modified our proposal.” One change they made was to exempt
single-family homes from the restrictions.
Mining was prohibited.
“By prohibiting
mining, we’ve taken control out of the hands of the
bureaucrats in Albany,” she said. Otherwise it’s DEC that tells you what’s
going to happen in the town, not you.”
And she said,
they’ve taken the control out of the hands of the wealthy developers.
“Everybody seems to be happy with the scenic
corridor,” she said. The only bump worked out well – a Citgo service station
sited at Columbia County Route 22 and 3 submitted to modifications that made it
acceptable. A
bright red roof was changed to earth colors, and a red, orange and blue banner
on the canopy was changed to white.
A 500-acre parcel was recently sold for $5
million, a price that wouldn’t have been achieved if there were a gravel mine
next door, she said.
One citizen asked Masters whether cutting off
commercial development from the corridor would open up the balance of the town
to commercial development.
“We aren’t cutting off commercial development
for scenic overlay,” Master’s said. “We’re regulating it.” Only five types of
businesses are being added to the prohibited uses, he said – the amount of
development is not cut off.
“If what this committee is doing had been in
place, we wouldn’t have that rubble on 22,” said one man. “So I salute what
you’re doing.”
The reaction to the proposal seemed to be
positive. No
one spoke directly against it, and when Masters asked the audience, “Are we on
the right track?” the audible response was “Yes.”
Copake Councilman Carl Ritchie said the
committee is “doing a wonderful job. I think the strategic overlay is going to
preserve the beauty of Copake for generations to come and we should support it
and the committee any way we can. I settled in a beautiful, beautiful place,
and it would be a shame not to recognize it.”
Masters said the committee is also
considering a proposed zoning change for the town as a whole. Currently, most of
the residential portion of the town has three acre zoning. He said the
committee is looking at raising that number in some areas of the town and
lowering it to one in others.
The Strategic Planning Committee will now
fine-tune the proposal for the overlay district, fleshing it out with
details. A
public hearing for comments on their changes will be conducted February 12. The committee will
revise the documents following that hearing, and another public hearing will
then be held.
Then the proposal will go to the Town Board.
The KNGG
Board of Directors wishes you and your family
Happy Holidays.
DECEMBER 17,
2004
OPENINGS ON ZBA, PLANNING BOARD AND CORRIDOR
COMMITTEE
Letters are being accepted at Town Hall from those
interested in applying for volunteer positions available on these boards. We hope you are
interested and will apply because the town needs people on these boards that
have no agenda except what is best for the community.
Please
send a letter expressing why you’d like to serve and any possible associated
experience and your past business experience before the first of the year. Appointees will be
announced at the Town Board Meeting on January 10, 2005.
Kinderhook Town Clerk
PO Box P
Niverville NY 12130
Widewaters
Cries for Dismissal
see ARTICLE
78 - Updates (On this site)
DECEMBER 15,
2004
Widewaters'
supporter appointed Co-Chair to 9/9H corridor committee
By Joe Prout, Register-Star, Wednesday, December 15,
2004
KINDERHOOK -- One of the
newest town Planning Board members now has an augmented
role, being chosen by the Town Board to co-chair the committee looking into the future of Routes 9 and 9H.
The Town Board on Monday unanimously appointed Bob Cramer
to head up the
committee with Joanne
Gans.
Cramer was appointed to
the Planning Board with Cheryl Gilbert in January,
filling openings left by
outgoing members. He was in the public eye a great deal in 2003
as a member of Kinderhook
Residents In Support of the Hannaford's Plaza, being
vocal at public hearings
related to the Widewaters proposal for a shopping center.
The Widewaters project, proposed at the intersection of
Routes 9 and 9H, highlighted areas of architectural
design within the town code that could benefit from more
details. One of the corridor committee's early goals was to evaluate architectural design and other visual elements,
such as landscaping, for proposals along the two state
roads. Some of those topics have already been reviewed
by the Planning Board after Cramer's appointment.
Cramer and (Cheryl) Gilbert had different views on the
Widewaters, as Gilbert was said at the time to be
aligned with the views of the Widewaters opposition group Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth. Cramer will
chair the committee with Gans, who reportedly shares
views akin to KNGG.
On Monday, the Town Board
again supported Cramer. Councilman Francis Vecellio said
he hopes the group will have members with a variety of viewpoints, and said he believes Cramer will be a good
co-chair with Gans.
Councilwoman Mary Kramarchyk spoke positively of Cramer,
whom she said is an imaginative person and a dedicated
worker.
During the meeting,
Cramer thanked the board for its support. He said he has reached out to prominent KNGG members in hopes of
incorporating their views in the committee.
Kramarchyk said the decision had little to do with Cramer's
past community activism. "We're not trying to put titles
on people," she said, adding that the Town Board just
wants volunteers.
Councilwoman
Debbie Johnson then added that Cramer is open-minded and has good ideas. She said she expects Cramer and other committee
members will look at each topic for its individual
merits and detriments.
Town
Supervisor Doug McGivney said it's important for a committee like this to have a self-starting chairman, and he said Cramer will
get things going. Johnson then added that the position
also requires a good deal of free time, and noted that
Cramer is retired.
When asked if Cramer's appointment could be seen as
a move to make the corridor study pro-development,
McGivney said Cramer's past stances on community
development weren't that much of a factor.
Kramarchyk then added that the study is meant to create a
"better development" guideline, which will aid
developers and the Planning Board.
ARTICLE 78
UPDATE
The Widewaters/Town of
Kinderhook response to the KNGG filing of November 1st was to request that the
case be dismissed. Attorney Jeff Baker's December 3rd
response Memorandum of Law In Opposition is on the KNGG website
www.kngg.org
On December 6th Widewaters and the Town of Kinderhook filed
an Affidavit with the court, once more asking that the case be
dismissed. In Response the "Affirmation of Jeffrey S. Baker, Esq.," dated
December 7, 2004 in reply to the Affidavit of John Hoggan dated December 6, 2004
was filed. It may be seen on our web site www.kngg.org
December 10: Widewaters' attorney
John Hoggan requested "oral argument."
December
13: KNGG attorney Jeff Baker replied agreeing to "oral argument" and
requested a court date. To see Baker reply: www.kngg.org.
Once you have reached the KNGG web
site, go to ARTICLE 78, move down and click on "The Filing.
DECEMBER 4,
2004
JOINT MEETING WITH
PLANNING BOARD & TOWN BOARD HELD
Board
members look at conservation subdivisions, code revision procedures
(12/01/04)
By Joe Prout
- The Register-Star – December 2, 2004
KINDERHOOK --
A push by the Planning Board to update the town's
conservation subdivision regulations has the Town Board also looking at ways it
could fast track proposed modification to the Town Code.
Both subjects were on a Planning Board wish list for
discussion, brought up at a joint board meeting held Wednesday night. The
conservation subdivision option is starting to see use from developers and has
the Planning Board looking at key details in the law. Throughout the year the
Town Board has been looking at Town Code changes, and conservation subdivisions
may be one of the next topics tackled.
Proposals for conservation subdivisions with potential
housing developments have come forth recently from developers Steve Bean and
Anthony Buono. Both proposals had the Planning Board reviewing the previously
infrequently used subdivision option to gain a more in-depth understanding of
the law.
The discussion Wednesday night started with a call for
mandated conservation subdivisions for any residential proposal. Planning Board
member Jim Egnasher said he feared residential over-development in Kinderhook.
"Our schools, our road, our economy and our water are all threatened by
over-development," Egnasher said.
It was noted during the meeting that conservation easements
wouldn't necessarily reduce the number of proposed buildable
parcels.
The current law basically states that, in order to preserve
Kinderhook's open spaces, a subdivision may have numerous parcels that are
smaller than what is usually allowed, if the developer also permanently sets
aside key farmable areas for future agricultural use. The conserved area must
preserve at least 50 percent of the total acreage in a proposed
subdivision.
The end
result can be a large farmable field situated next to a cluster of houses
instead of the same number of houses spread across a parcel with no
farmland.
Planning
Board members noted that the language in the conservation subdivision law could
use tightening.
“The developers are trying to work around it,” member Bob Kramer
noted.
One noted
the flaw is that language in the Town Code does not specifically forbid
developers from including normally undevelopable land in the preserved
acreage.
Developers can lump wetland areas with farmland to meet the 50 percent
requirement, and the members said the town’s Comprehensive Plan states that it
shouldn’t be included because nothing could be built on wetlands anyway. Without
the distinction, less usable farmland is preserved.
While there
are noted flaws with this law, similar code changes have been proposed over the
summer, which were either recently adopted by the Town Board or have yet to be
approved.
Members of the Planning Board asked for a manageable way to prevent their
proposals for making changes to the Town Code in future.
“There’s
no sense of us swamping you,” member Gerry Minot-Scheuerman said, noting if the
Planning Board sent too much work it may not get addressed in a timely
manner...
Councilman Francis Vecellio said the
town could use an outside planning professional to research a law modification
ahead of time ...
McGivney
noted that money for a professional planner wasn’t in the town’s budget.
Both boards
discussed using a limited moratorium during a redesigning of the conservation
easement law, which as presented could allow developers to start a proposal
under the understanding they may be required to adhere to the law when it is
finished. . . .
By the
conclusion of meeting, there was no resolution of these issues. The subjects may
come up again at the December 13 Town Board meeting.
THE MEETING AS SEEN THRU EYES OF A KNGG MEMBER
I
attended the subject meeting tonight. There were some interesting tidbits that
came out.
Ed Simonsen (Planning Board Chair) stated that he
was interested in having the code reviewed by experts to see if all the
requirements were realistic. In order to do this he has sent letters to colleges
(RPI) to see if there would be any students willing to work with the board to do
this.
First of all I have nothing against RPI students but I
believe they need experienced engineers, each disciplined, to get the best job
done for our town. This also smacks of possibly watering down the code.
I overheard
some words between planning board members indicating that a hip roof on
Widewaters was possible but the refrigeration equipment installation was the
real problem.
Simonsen praised
the unlicensed architect from Widewaters for helping design some buildings that
were more attractive than they started out.
Simonsen said that there was standing room only at the
public hearing on the development on Garrigan Road. Most of the people had
concerns with the visibility for traffic as they exited Garrigan Road onto Route
203. Simonsen stated that he told them they should petition the Town Board. (I
don't know what the town board will be able to do. I thought it was the job of
the planning board to work these things out before they approved the
project.)
Doug McGivney (Town
Supervisor) made a snide remark about KNGG. They were discussing having some
of the county
planning seminars held locally and trying to see how the facility to hold them
could be paid for. Someone made the comment, "Maybe KNGG would pay for it since
they want all this good planning done." Doug McGivney then responded, "I wouldn't
want to accept anything from such a partisan group."
Frank Moses, December 1, 2004
ART 78 - The LATEST
Because of the disregard of proper legal procedures by the
Kinderhook Town ZBA in approving the variance for Widewaters, KNGG filed an Article 78
Action against The Town ZBA and Widewaters on November 1st in NY State Supreme Court, Albany
County. We are not just pursuing legal technicalities, but are
objecting to a process that was significantly and fundamentally flawed. If
the variance is granted, because of precedence, this will forever weaken the
architectural design standards of our new zoning code and give developers the
chance to put up big box structures without challenge.
a
Now, the Town of Kinderhook and Widewaters have asked the
Supreme Court to dismiss our Article 78 filing based on the grounds of: 1.) Lack
of standing, 2.) Failure to exhaust administrative remedies, 3.) Failure to name
a necessary party.
a
Jeff Baker: “The respondents’ (TOK and Widewaters) motions
have no basis in law and are wholly without merit.”
Attorneys Jeff Baker and Jim Muscato submitted a Memorandum
of Law on December 3, 2004 in opposition to The Town and Widewaters’ motion to
dismiss the Article 78 action for KNGG.
a
Our
attorneys believe the Town and Widewaters have no sound basis on which to
stand. They
are either worried that the case we have is too good and/or they are trying to
bleed KNGG, a not-for-profit group, dry of funding for additional legal fees
needed because of this dismissal
tactic.
a
Stay tuned! It could get dirtier, we suppose.
In the meantime, we need money to keep this court
case going.
Please contribute to save the zoning code.
Contributions to KNGG are tax deductible as allowed
by law.
Remember to save 1/23 for
KNGG!
DECEMBER 2,
2004
ANNOUNCING OUR GALA EVENT
TO:
All KNGG
Members
On Sunday, January 23, 2005, Kinderhook Neighbors for Good
Growth is holding a special benefit chamber music concert and gala reception,
“CHAMBER MUSIC GALA.” The concert will be at North Pointe Cultural Arts
Center on Sunday afternoon at 3 pm. This concert offers an unusual opportunity
to experience the exceptional talents of musicians who live and work in the
Albany and Columbia County region.
Distinguished composer and local Kinderhook resident,
Robert Baksa, will present a group of his works. Chamber music has been his main
focus for the last three decades. During that time Mr. Baksa has written close
to 100 pieces of music for various combinations of instruments as well as solo
keyboard music. The Bronx Arts Ensemble, The American Accordion Association, The
West Point Concert Band and Harpsichord Unlimited have commissioned his works.
His one act opera, “Red Carnations,” was commissioned by Lincoln Center for use
by the Metropolitan Opera to perform for students. The Orchestra of St. Luke’s
has made the opera a regular part of its repertory and most recently it has been
the touring opera for the Santa Fe Opera's 2004 Spring Season.
As an
exception to the “modern music rule” Robert Baksa prefers to write melodic
music, his favorite composers being Mozart and Handel. Double Reed Magazine
said, "He can write a beautiful tune, cloak it in a warm accompaniment, and
orchestrate it to perfection." As
one of America’s most prolific composers, Baksa tells us, “I don’t believe
that music has to be difficult to understand in order to be good. Traditional
harmony is still the best way to communicate with people.”
Mr. Baksa, acting
as host for the concert, will introduce his compositions. The program will
include his “Aria for Flute (1957) and a new work, “Sonata for Flute and Guitar”
(written in 2004) as well as “Three Portraits” (Words by Fenton Johnson),
“Sonata No. 1 for Flute and Piano (1976),” and “Spring Games, a Sonata for Piano
Four-hands (2002).
Performing
these compositions will be pianist Michael Clement, flutist Yvonne Chavez
Hannsbrough, and baritone, Steven Marking, with Sten Yngvar Isachsen
playing guitar and Vladimir Plesakov and Elena Winther as duo pianists.
A Gala Reception
after the concert, hosted by Alexandra and Samuel Spivy will be held at Fox
Point, their home on Albany Avenue in Kinderhook.. All proceeds will benefit
Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth.
Tickets for the concert alone are $35. Sponsor tickets for
the concert and the reception are $100 each. Benefactor tickets, which include
special priority seating, will cost $150.00.
To place your order, send your check
to KNGG with a note indicating the number of places you wish to reserve and at
which price.
Tickets will be held to be given out at the door on day on the
concert.
NOVEMBER 10,
2004
SAVE OUR CODE!
BY SUPPORTING KNGG
and ARTICLE 78
McGIVNEY NOMINATES KRISHP LEADER to
CHAIR CORRIDOR STUDY
At Monday night’s Town Board meeting Supervisor Doug
McGivney tried to appoint Bob Cramer KRISHP (Kinderhook Neighbors in Support of
Hannaford Plaza) leader to the new post of Chairman of the Corridor Study
Committee.
(This is like putting the fox into the hen house!) For a reason
unknown to us, the Town Board tabled the
appointment.
It now
appears as though McGivney wishes to give the corridor away along with our town
code. Cramer
has no credentials for this post except to push hard campaigning to get
Widewaters approved and sit on the Planning Board for nine months as an alternate. (We
add that Cramer
was asked and has recused himself along
with KNGG member Cheryl Gilbert re Widewaters.) It’s beginning to look more and more like
Widewaters is getting more than the 19 Acres originally sought.
The
US9/NY9H Corridor Study was born at KNGG meetings in September of 2002 when
Marilyn Kaplan and Meg Moran presented detailed plans for a corridor study to
the members. Some KNGG members attended corridor study seminars in E. Greenbush.
The Membership decided that this would be an important step the Town should take
and voted unanimously to make the corridor study a KNGG priority. Marilyn Kaplan and
Joanne Gans presented a proposal to the Town Board and it was passed, but
tabled. The Town tried for a state grant to fund the study but it was
turned down.
OPENINGS ON CORRIDOR STUDY COMMITTEE
If you are
interested in serving as chair or committee member, please drop a line to
Supervisor McGivney and include a brief resume. Send to Town Hall, PO Box P,
Niverville NY 12130.
Be sure to let us know you did so we can follow up.
NO LONGER a QUESTION of FLAT ROOF vs. HIP
ROOF
It is NOW a question of
SAVING OUR CODE.
KNGG challenges this ZBA variance determination because of
precedence. The ZBA would have to give the same variance to all big box entities
in future. This will weaken our zoning code forever. By law, precedence rules on ZBA area variance
determinations. The ZBA will be reduced to rubber-stamping variances
approvals on architectural design.
HELP US SAVE OUR ZONING CODE!
We need
your support in this effort to be sure that our planners carry out the process
as set down by law and in a just manner.
We need
your support TO SAVE OUR CODE.
To save Kinderhook from additional sprawl, we urge you to
contribute to the Article 78 action today.
Your donation
to KNGG is tax deductible as allowed by law.
KNGG is a 501(C)(3) not-for-profit
corporation.
HELP US SAVE OUR ZONING CODE. . .
PLEASE CONTRIBUTE
TODAY!
OCTOBER 27,
2004
TO
All Members:
Parking is prohibited on Route 9H from Keegan Rd. North to
the US9 Intersection.
This was done because
many residents complained tractor-trailers were parked on that stretch making it
dangerous and difficult to enter 9H from Old Post Road or from Stewart's and
McDonalds.
Trucks have now been seen parking in the center turn
lane near Stewart's and McDonalds. This makes for a stronger case
against Dunkin' Donuts. None of these facilities are equipped to handle
the large trucks, yet are becomming more and more of a truck
stop.
If you are passing the area and you see large trucks
illegally parked
anywhere on 9H between
Keegan Road and the Intersection of US9 . . .
please note exactly
where,
the time of day and date
you saw this.
Please e-mail this
information to us.
It's not necessary
to get plate numbers.
We are keeping a
tab on the frequency the violations to make our case even
stronger.
The following
letter letter was sent yesterday to Supervisor McGivney
and
Chairman Simonsen of the
Town Planning Board.
Via email and Hand Delivery
October 27, 2004
Hon. Douglas McGivney,
Supervisor
Ed Simonsen, Chairman Town
Planning Board
Members of the Planning
Board
Town of Kinderhook
P. O. Box P
Niverville NY
12130
RE: New place for illegal
tractor-trailer parking near Stewart’s and McDonald’s
Dear Supervisor McGivney and
Chairman Simonsen:
At approximately 11:15 Monday
morning, while driving north on NY 9H just prior to the US9 intersection, I
noticed that the “No Parking” signs have been replaced by “No Stopping” signs. I
believe that “No Standing” signs were asked for because they would be more
restrictive. Which would be the more restrictive “No Stopping” or “No Standing?”
I understand the danger posed
by trailer trucks parking on this stretch of road causing difficulty
entering/exiting McDonald’s and Stewart’s. A similar situation exists on the
west side of NY 9H for people exiting Old Post Rd. Today I noticed
that the “No Parking” signs on the west side of NY 9H have been removed and not
replaced.
On Monday, much to my dismay,
I saw two south bound tractor-trailers parked, with their flashing lights on, in
the center turn lane near McDonald’s and Stewarts. The drivers could
not be seen and it obviously wasn’t an accident or a blown tire. Two drivers had
illegally parked their trailer trucks to take advantage of the fast food and/or
bank amenities.
This is most likely a police
problem and I suggest Supervisor McGivney to ask the local police to keep a
closer watch on the area. One truck illegally parked here will give
others ideas.
I see no place for these big
trucks to park while using the facilities of McDonald’s, Trustco Bank and
Stewarts. Like
water seeking its level, so will these trucks. We prohibit them from parking on
the shoulders and they go to the center turn lane.
Both US9 and NY9H are
heavily trafficked by these large trucks. Their drivers find these facilities
attractive for a rest stop and will continue to do so. This problem will
not go away.
It will increase as the traffic will and the police cannot be there at
all times.
There seems to have been no
foresight by our traffic engineers who advised approval of McDonald’s and
Stewarts where parking space is lacking, not only for tractor-trailers, but for
automobiles as well.
What disturbs me even more is
the proposed Dunkin’ Donuts site next to McDonald’s. As a fast food vendor, they
will attract additional truckers. Where will they park their rigs? Illegally in
the center turn lane as well? The Dunkin’ Donuts’ parking area, as planned,
has hardly enough room for cars, never mind a tractor-trailer or two.
I recently stopped for gas
and a donut at the Mobil Station at the NY9H and Route 66 intersection in
Ghent. There
was a large tractor-trailer unloading goods (many cartons, etc) for Dunkin’
Donuts. It
appears that there is no room planned at the proposed Kinderhook facility for
tractor-trailer deliveries. Will they be expected to park illegally and
so close to the planned roundabout on NY 9H while they unload?
We cannot discriminate
against the trucker. Before this gets out of hand and we start getting law suits
from truckers and from vendors that may claim we are keeping their customers
away, I ask Mr. Simonsen and the Planning Board to please take a good look at
the Dunkin’ Donuts situation. The donut shop will have outgrown its parking
spaces soon after opening. If approved, more tractor-trailers will park
dangerously in the NY9H center turn lane.
We already have a dangerous
situation as vehicles try to maneuver in and out of Stewart’s, Trustco and
McDonald’s into the north and southbound traffic on NY 9H.
Adding another fast food
restaurant to this grouping will only add to the current dangers. And with the
reality of the area being used more and more as a truck stop, it would be most
advisable for Dunkin’ Donuts to find a more suitable location. To avoid
compounding the parking issues for this area, I ask the Planning Board to turn
the Dunkin' Donuts' project down.
Sincerely,
Allen Schaefer,
President
cc: Jeff
Baker
PLEASE KEEP YOU EYE OPEN FOR
ILLEGALLY PARKED TRUCKS ON 9H
Thanks to all who have contributed so far in our current
fundraising campaign.
It isn't over yet, so if it slipped your mind, please send
in your check today.
Rejoin NOW for 2005!
OCTOBER 25, 2004
ENCOURAGED!
Dear
Member:
We are encouraged by the contribution
response we are receiving from you for the Article 78 fundraiser and the
new membership enrollments that have been attracted to the KNGG
Mission. The
Board of Directors has voted to go ahead and we have advised our attorney, Jeff
Baker at Young Sommer…LLC to proceed with Article 78.
A big THANK YOU to all of you who have
given to this just cause so far and to those who are giving time to make it
work.
However the amount we received is not enough to complete
the action. We
still need more contributions to continue. If you forgot to drop your check in
to the preaddressed envelope, please do it today. Every check
counts. Every check adds up.
KNGG is a
501(C) (3) not-for-profit corporation.
Your contribution to KNGG is tax
deductible as allowed by law.
We will
have some exciting events news coming soon! If you would like to join the Events
Committee, please send us an e-mail or leave a message at 518 758-2646.
Allen
Schaefer, President
FUNDRAISER UPDATE
If you
haven’t mailed in your check, there’s still time! Please do so soon.
The KNGG
flyer is in today’s mail with a return envelope. Please take advantage of
it.
Perhaps
you’d prefer to give something now and pledge an additional amount to keep the
action going to be paid in one month's time. - For example
we have received checks for $XX.00 with a pledge for an additional $XX.00 after
the first of the month.
Whatever
you choose, please put your contribution to Article 78 in the mail today. We
need to have it soon. We need to know we can count on
it.
THE REGISTER
STAR TODAY
“Officials Denounce KNGG.”
Mary Kramarchyk, Town Board member and liaison to the ZBA
commented, “There was no way to make a Widewaters project please
everyone.”
This is just the point. Code enforcement is not a popularity
contest. Good
planning not a question of pleasing. It starts with enforcing the code
that has been designed to protect our town. The ZBA did not do its job in that
respect.
Doug McGivney, Town Supervisor, is quoted as saying, “They
sent some nasty letters to some awfully good
people…”
Letters
sent out by the KNGG Board of Directors, all of which have been printed in these
pages, have criticized the actions of some Town Officials. Town Officials
should expect their actions, especially if not responsible, to be open to
criticism. Is
McGivney saying that if we write something that is not agreeable to him and some
other officials it is “nasty?”
However this ZBA did not do its job. If the application
in front of them did not comply with the code it should simply be
denied. Then
the applicant has a choice, come back with plans in compliance to the code or
drop the project.
This ZBA had no right to make this determination
without the advice of a qualified architect that was not in the developer’s
pocket.
KNGG and Alvin Knoll tried to help the ZBA by submitting
alternate plans for Widewaters’ roof and showed them that a traditional-type
roof could be built using Widewaters’ footprint and could be built in compliance
with the code. Instead of taking a good look, the ZBA kept the hearing closed
and gave in to Widewaters demands, which hadn’t changed since day one. There was never any
negotiation between the ZBA and Widewaters. The variance was simply rubber stamped by
three out of the five ZBA members.
This is not responsible planning for Kinderhook.
The Register-Star quotes the ZBA Resolution on the matter
of the variance as saying, “We are not a legislative body. We have no
authority to change zoning laws, to make new zoning or to change the boundaries
of districts.
We have no authority to modify an application that is in front of
us.”
This ZBA did not do its job.
If the application in front of them does not comply with the code it
should simply be “variance denied.” Then the applicant has a choice, come back
with plans in compliance to the code or drop the project. Sometimes a
compromise can benefit both parties. There was none. Widewaters was
given exactly what it wanted.
In
actuality, KNGG and Alvin Knoll tried to help the ZBA by submitting alternate
plans for Widewaters’ roof and showed them that a traditional-type roof could be
built using Widewaters’ footprint and could be built in compliance with the
code. Instead
of taking a good look, the ZBA kept the hearing closed and gave in to Widewaters
demands, which hadn’t changed since day one. There was never any negotiation between the
ZBA and Widewaters.
The variance was simply rubber stamped by three out of the five ZBA
members.
KNGG stands behind Alvin Knoll and his designs.
These renderings can be seen on our web site – go to
“ARTICLE 78” and click on “KNGG Renderings.”
To see Knoll’s letter referred to in this article, click on
“Knoll Speaks Out.”
To see what other local architects have said about this
project, click on, “Architecture Evaluation.”
KNGG is a
501[C][3] not-for profit corporation.
Your contribution
to KNGG is tax deductible as allowed by law.
"Over many years of my
architectural practice I have appeared before a number of ZBAs and architectural
review boards in different communities. Their focus was always on meeting the
requirements of their code rather than being quick to grant a variance and
ignore professional advice and proofs that indicated the variance was uncalled
for.
Kinderhook deserves better.” – Alvin Knoll, Architect – Valatie NY –
10/14/04
OCTOBER 17, 2004
RE: ARTICLE 78
WE NEED TO BEAT THE CLOCK!
The Statute of Limitations is running out . .
.
PLEASE CONTRIBUTE GENEROUSLY
TODAY
SO WE MAY
CONTINUE TO PROCEED.
KNGG is a 501[C] [3] not-for-profit
Corporation.
Your contribution is tax deductible as allowed by
law.
Your contribution to KNGG will help us continue to fight
badly planned
development, and to work with our local officials to
succeede in our mission.
THIS IS NO LONGER A QUESTION OF A FLAT ROOF
Vs. A HIP
ROOF ON A BIG BOX.
It is a question of
whether or not our public boards are following
SEQRA
and obeying the law.
It is a question of
justice and integrity.
It is a question of
precedence in zoning.
It is a question of not
weakening our zoning code.
It's a question of standing up for our
rights and justice.
INDEPENDENT EDITORIAL IN POOR TASTE
The Editor
of the Independent says, “The wiser path for KNGG lies in restraint and positive
action.”
For 2½ years KNGG HAS taken positive
action. But we are now being closed out of the process. It becomes
suspicious when the ZBA keeps a hearing closed and does not want to hear
additional evidence prior to the making of their decision.
KNGG Board
Member Meg Moran was on the Comprehensive Plan Committee, served on the Planning
Board, is a member of the Kinderhook Democratic Committee and is a practicing
attorney. Meg
was at the ZBA “Special Meeting for Widewaters” on the night of September 23rd when the ZBA made their determination.
Meg tells
us, “There were several problems that occurred that night, procedurally and
otherwise. We
are not just pursuing legal technicalities, but we are strongly objecting to a
process that was significantly and fundamentally flawed.”
Knowing
this, KNGG would not be fulfill its mission if we stepped aside and allowed it
to nicely slide by.
Our public elected and appointed officials must learn to be accountable
for what they do and how they proceed.
Unfortunately, in New York State there is no other appeals
process for us.
We must pursue an Article 78. We cannot let ourselves be pressured into
silence because it would be the “nice” and “friendly” to go. This is not
personal attack of any kind. It is an appeal of the way in which the ZBA
arrived at irs decision.
We do find
it interesting that the Editor of the Independent found room for Kinderhook Town
Board Member, Mary Kramarchyk’s letter also telling us to not disturb the status
quo, but did not find room to print KNGG’s complaint of its misquote.
MARY
KRAMARCHYK’S LETTER
Mary
Kramarchyk, Kinderhook Town Board Member, says KNGG will go to court because
they are disappointed in the outcome. One doesn’t go to court over “disappointment”
of a decision.
The reason
for KNGG’s decision to go to court is that we strongly object to a process that
was significantly and fundamentally flawed as Meg Moran stated above.
Kramarchyk
is misquoting our web site. We are not “going to court to block the
project.” We
are going to court for a reversal in the ZBA determination.
“Turning to the courts in an attempt to
overturn the decisions of our town leaders will be counter productive,”
Kramarchyk says.
Counter productive to whom? The courts were set up for this reason. Unfortunately there
is no other appeals process. We are going to court to seek justice on a
process that was significantly and fundamentally
flawed.
This is not
a, “my way or no way” action by KNGG. Nor is it a “rear guard attempt to overturn
valid and thoughtful conclusions reached by these two boards.” This is our way of
seeking justice.
To be clear, KNGG is NOT suing the
Planning Board.
Article78 is to be filed against he Town ZBA and Widewaters. We want to
work with our “leaders” but we also expect them to follow prescribed legal
procedures in making these determinations.
Ms
Kramarchyk's letter is nothing more than a false argument to try to make
people feel unjustified guilt for standing up and encouraging good government
and responsible action of the leaders of our community.
Your contribution is tax deductible as allowed by
law.
Your
contribution to KNGG will help us continue to fight badly
planned
development, and to work with our local officials to
succeede in our mission.
Thank you!
KNGG is a 501(C) (3) not-for-profit Corporation
OCTOBER 13, 2004
INDEPENDENT - “WE DO NOT PRINT RETRACTIONS”
The editor of the Independent, Parry Teasdale, told me
today on the telephone that the Independent stands by their reporter’s notes and
do not print retractions. He has agreed to publish our letter in full. The following
is our letter to the editor of the Independent regarding their
misquote.
KNGG DOES NOT “HATE”
To the Editor:
I strongly take exception to the front-page
article of the October 13 edition of the Independent where I was grossly
misquoted. I
never used the word “hate.” KNGG does not “hate” anyone and we do not condone
the use of such language in civic affairs. Nor do I believe that those that disagree
with us hate us. We strive for dialogue with reasonable
discourse.
We advocate educating the community to weigh
the consequences of poorly planned development and by presenting information and
alternative approaches to support public officials in making sound decisions
that guide the Town’s development. This can only be accomplished with
understanding, not hate.
KNGG will be seeking judicial review of the
ZBA’s decision, because we believe that it was a legally indefensible
action.
However, our legal actions are without malice and are not intended to
divide the community.
I am extremely saddened that the
Independent’s reporter so clearly misquoted me and that the Independent has not
seen fit to print a retraction.
We all make mistakes at times and I would
hope the Independent is not so imbued with self-appointed infallibility to
refuse to recognize that its reporters could make a
mistake.
To the residents of Kinderhook, I apologize
for the Independent’s careless reporting and wish to assure you that KNGG does
not hate and will continue to work with everyone for the benefit of the Town we
love.
Allen Schaefer,
President
Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth
"HATE" RETRACTION REQUESTED OF THE
INDEPENDENT
Dear KNGG Member:
In
today’s Independent Reporter Matt Sheehey misquoted me regarding KNGG members’
feelings about the recent ZBA determination of Widewaters’ flat roof variance. I
was quoted as having said, "There's an awful lot of anger -there's an awful lot
of hate."
I did not use the word “hate.” From the very
beginning of KNGG we were all aware that Kinderhook is not just a small town,
but a neighborhood.
We have briefed our membership from the beginning on the understanding of
others opinions and right they have to them. We advocated educating the community to weigh
the consequences of poorly planned development and by presenting information and
alternative approaches to support public officials in making sound decisions
that guide the Town’s development. There is no option for hate at
KNGG.
We understand that in
Kinderhook we have our disagreements. With regards to the recent ZBA determination,
there is no hate from this group for anyone on the ZBA or for those who
supported this decision.
Yes, there is
much anger and lack of understanding of how this decision could possibly have
been determined. There is disappointment in the way the process was handled and
proceeded. It
could even be called unbelievable. But the word “hate,” does not enter into
the picture for any KNGG member.
In time, our
disagreements over the mall will pass as we all move
forward. KNGG will move forward to fulfill its
mission. For a better
understanding, we are arranging more seminars about planning with good
growth for our community. We invite all our neighbors to join us.
Allen Schaefer,
President
PLEASE SUPPORT ARTICLE
78
This is
the other alternative open to KNGG. There is no other appeals process available
for us to challenge the recent ZBA determination. The determination process is legally
flawed.
It is our right to ask for justice and if the court is the
only way, so be it.
We need
to be strong and show that we can no longer accept “business as usual.” We must go through
with this action to show our officials that we are serious. We want our code
enforced and we want to see justice done.
CONTRIBUTIONS to KNGG
are TAX DEDUCTIBLE
as allowed by law.
Please
make your check payable to KNGG
and mail
to KNGG, PO Box 424, Kinderhook NY 12106
If you wish the total amount of your check to go towards
the Article 78 Action, please write “ART78” in the lower left of the
check. Thank you.
OCTOBER 9, 2004
CITIZEN PRESSURE AND PARTICIPATION ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE
TOOLS
IN THIS ONGOING FIGHT.
Dear Member:
In August the Town of Kinderhook
Planning Board unwisely approved the application for Widewaters Commons without
considering several adverse impacts.
For over two years, KNGG members attended all board
meetings, wrote countless letters, and argued repeatedly that the proposed
development was unsafe and would harm community character. We believe that the Planning Board should have turned the
project application down when it became clear that the well-documented
significant adverse impacts of the development could not be adequately
mitigated. Instead the board
relied on recommendations by experts that several of its own members
criticized as variously unreliable and inadequate. The board passed the buck and
approved the project. Nevertheless, KNGG’s efforts did make a
difference to the outcome:
1. The
organization advocated successfully for the placement of a conservation easement
on the back 9 acres of the parcel, limiting the development to the front 10
acres only. BUT THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT MAY BE IN DANGER. (KNGG is certain
that Widewaters intends to increase the size of the shopping mall in a second
stage.)
2. Reports by KNGG’s lighting and landscaping experts
helped to improve the specifications put forward by the developer.
3. Under pressure
from KNGG, Widewaters dropped one 15,000 square foot building from its plan.
There is still a battle to fight. And we must fight it to
show our appointed boards and elected officials that they can no longer ignore
procedure and bow to the pressure of outside corporate muscle or anything
else.
On September 23, in spite of the
designs architect Alvin Knoll provided illustrating that a peaked roofline could be built in compliance with the
Town Code,
the Kinderhook Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3-2 to grant
Widewaters’ roofline variance so its 62,192 ft south building could have a flat
roof.
Because the ZBA failed
to meet the legal standards required to grant an area variance, KNGG must pursue
an Article 78 action against that board and Widewaters. This suit will show that
citizens will no longer accept such sloppy and prejudiced actions on the part of
its appointed boards. KNGG is suing to have the determination
reversed.
If we do not demonstrate strength now, we
imperil future effective dissent.
This action is
actually part of a bigger ongoing struggle. We are in the midst of an escalating
countywide battle to preserve the character of our communities. Consider recent
local newspaper headlines such as: “Residents Concerned Over Land
Development; Still Want a Moratorium” (Chatham); “Residents Fear Creeping
Development” (Ghent).
The battle to challenge the ZBA decision will
take money. To mount the
Article 78 against the Town ZBA and Widewaters, we must raise $15,000 to $20,000. Those funds are essential to pay for research
and legal fees. And we also need
funds to keep KNGG operational.
This is the time to give as generously as you can to KNGG.
Please renew your membership for 2005 now so that the organization may continue
to fight badly planned development and commercial and residential sprawl that
threatens to overwhelm our rural communities.
BECAUSE OF A 30 DAY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, OUR TIME TO
RAISE FUNDS IS SHORT.
FOR A BETTER KINDERHOOK, WE URGE YOU TO SEND IN YOUR TAX
DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTION TODAY.
PLEASE HELP US MEET
OUR GOAL BEFORE OCTOBER 21st.
Sincerely,
Allen Schaefer, President
Mark Litteken, Treasurer
Alexander Anderson Spivy, Secretary
Abbey Cash
Margaret Moran
Jayne Zinke
The KNGG Board of
Directors
OCTOBER 8,
2004
KNGG BOARD
SAY’S "GO FOR IT!"
At last night’s special KNGG Membership
Meeting called by the Board of Directors, President Allen Schaefer announced
that at it’s recent Board of Directors meeting the Board voted unanimously to
file an Article 78 Action against the Town ZBA and the Widewaters Group in New
York State Supreme Court.
“I would like to
point out that KNGG was never to have been a one-issue organization. We understand that
Kinderhook is a growing town. We also understand that it can grow and keep
its rural and historic character and qualities. That is why the Town Board instituted the New
Code with architectural restrictions,” stated KNGG president Allen Schaefer
shortly after opening the meeting.
A
Schaefer said that with the exception of
Friends of Hudson, KNGG is the only grass roots group of this nature in Columbia
County and especially in Kinderhook that has come so far in advocating for good
growth. “Now that the Town
Board has given the community the tool of the New Code, we must see that it is
enforced. We
sincerely believe that the ZBA did not do its job.”
a
Treasurer Mark Litteken noted that many
of the members in attendance were at the September 23 ZBA meeting and that
most everyone there understood what was happening. Litteken expressed that he felt
anger because the variance approval was simply pushed through too quickly
without seemingly following legal procedures and that and the ZBA shouldn’t
be allowed to do business in this manner.
Many of the membership present at the ZBA on
September 23 were dismayed by the way in which the ZBA proceedings
were conducted and were angry and hurt that this type of "railroading" was
being allowed to happen right here in Kinderhook. Terms such as, "sham,
immoral and railroading" came up in conversation throughout the meeting
regarding the decision.
One KNGG member even objected to Mark Gold,
the ZBA attorney, having left his position on the podium numerous times to
confer with Widewaters' attorneys at the back of the room. The member felt
it appeared questionable that the ZBA would listen to Widewaters attorneys and
not reopen the hearing to hear the KNGG attorney.
Schaefer stated, “For KNGG to
maintain its reputation of strength that we cannot give in on this. As a member in good
standing put it to me recently, ‘If we do not take this Article 78 Action, we
will be perceived as a paper tiger.’”
A
Board Member Meg Moran emphasized, “This action (Article 78) will lay the foundation not only
for KNGG but for the Town. We must pursue this action. It will send a
strong message to our officials that we are serious and that we intend to
continue to follow our mission. We would not be persuing just legal
technicalities, but we are objecting to a process that was significantlyand
fundamentally flawed."
A
Schaefer stated, “Public officials should be aware that they are expected to
be held accountable for their actions as well as their non-actions. Part of our mission
is to educate and we will be happy to work with our officials in this way so
they could have a better understanding of this in the future. This is the only
course of action open to us. We must go forward with
it!”
A
KNGG’s environmental attorney Jeff Baker gave
the membership a review of how the Article 78 Action works. “We will file with
New York State Supreme Court. Because of a statue of limitations the time
frame is important.
We will need to file by the end of this month. Most of the work on
this type of action is paper work and investigation that needs to be done in
advance and to be handed in when we file. There were several legal technicalities in
the ZBA’s procedure and we have a good chance of
winning. Baker estimated cost for the action for KNGG would be
approximately $15,000 to $20,000.
A
Meg Moran pointed out, “Even if we don’t win, it’s important to get our statement
out that we are here, we will continue to watch and we will act appropriately.
We have every intention of seeing that our code is enforced. This not only a
question of architecture, it’s a question of precedence. This is the first
large development to apply under the New Code. If it is not enforced now, it will be
difficult to enforce it in the future. It is not fair to our smaller local
developers to have to honor our code and let the big ones muscle their way in as
they please.”
A
There were many intelligent observations and
questions by the members asked of Jeff Baker and the Board.
Baker explained that most of the charges are
billed as the work continues but that we must remember that most of the work is
the preparation prior to the filing. The court procedure usually has no
appearances by any of the attorneys. It is usually all paperwork reviewed by a
judge.
A
99.5 percent of those present supported the
KNGG Board's decision enthusiastically. However there were questions and doubts as to
whether KNGG could raise the funds.
A
Meg Moran reminded the group, “Early on we raised $10,000 in eight days to support what
we were doing.
We now have a good reputation among many residents and we should be able
to do this.”
A
Schaefer pointed out, “We got some pledges before the board made its
decision. Ally
Spivey pledged $1000 towards the Article 78. All we need are 20 Allys! But to be honest,
Kinderhook is a diverse community and I certainly understand that we cannot all
give as much as we’d like, but what we can afford. With this in mind,
we went forward in the past and it worked for us.”
A
Schaefer continued, “Tonight I have filled out an application form for a $50.00
2005 Family membership. This will help keep KNGG operational. I am also giving
$200 towards the article 78.” Schaefer presented a check for $250 to
Treasurer Mark Litteken with an additional pledge or $250 due in one week’s
time.
John Corrigan explained how important it is
that everyone feel included no matter what the amount of their donation. All
agreed.
A
Schaefer explained that once most of the
money is in, and once we feel we can estimate how much we can earn, based on the
in coming checks, we can make a final determination to go this route. If you want your
check designated for Article 78 only, please indicate it in the lower left
corner of the check with "ART 78."
Schaefer exclaimed, "I know we can raise these
funds. We just have an urgency of doing so much more quickly than in the
past.”
A
Understanding the urgency, John Picket and a
few others offered to call everyone they knew to ask them to send in
checks. If
anyone else would like to join in doing the same, please e-mail or
call.
A
In closing Schaefer said, “We have all worked
hard to get KNGG to where we are today, recognized and respected. I am optimistic
that we can raise the funds we need. And reminded all that that contributions are tax deductible as
allowed by law.
A
OTHER NEWS
Allen Schaefer announced, “It gives me great
pleasure to welcome Jayne Zinke as a new member to the Board of Directors. “We
are delighted to have Jayne, an outstanding life long citizen of the Town of
Kinderhook, with us.”
“Unfortunately, for health reasons, Deirdre
Leland, has had to give up her position as Secretary. We will miss
Deirdre very much and hope to welcome her back in the future.”
The Board has appointed Ally Spivey as
Secretary until the board is reorganized. Ally graciously accepted.
STAY TUNED FOR
MORE INFORMATION ON ART78.
OCTOBER 2, 2004
SIMONSEN and SCHAEFER
EVALUATE WIDEWATERS
Recommended
reading for KNGG Members:
In an article in
today’s Register-Star, Ed Simonsen Town Planning Board Chairman and Allen
Schaefer KNGG President give their opinion on the evaluation of the Widewaters
application process.
THURSDAY - OCTOBER 7thSPECIAL KNGG MEETING CALLED
McNary Center at
St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Village of Kinderhook
This will be the
most important information meeting we have given to date.
This meeting for
all KNGG Members has been called to keep you informed on the feasibility of
an Article 78 Action against the ZBA.
The ZBA
determination process is legally flawed. We will explain more at the
meeting. Our
attorney Jeff Baker will be here to answer your
questions.
One of the
important reasons why we are considering an Article 78, is that we must show our
public officials that they need to enforce our zoning code and to recognize that
the bucolic, rural and historic beauties of Kinderhook are an asset to our Town
that need to be preserved. As we already understand, there is room for
growth, but it must be good growth, smart growth, growth that makes a good
fit.
This is the only
way we have of showing our public officials that the ZBA was incorrect in their
determination and that KNGG stands firm on principle.
We need to make
this stand to show our elected officials, our appointed officials and the
community that KNGG is here to stay and we expect fair play and a concern for
the community.
A consideration we
must look at is the cost factor. Already, without solicitation, we have
received pledges to help us out. We will need to increase the amount of the
pledges and we will need your help.
This meeting is
very important. We look
forward to seeing you there.
We believe "good
growth" can be accomplished in Kinderhook. We believe we cannot close our
eyes to the way our public officials are misshandling our local government.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
SPECIAL ARTICLE
78 MEETING CALLED FOR OCTOBER 7th
Dear Member:
Please save
the date! October 7th, 7:30 PM at the McNary
Center.
A
special informational meeting has been set for all KNGG Members for Thursday
October 7th. This would ordinarily be our October Quarterly
Meeting.
We
have called this meeting to keep you informed on The Article 78 Action against
the ZBA. The feasibility of this action is seriously being
considered by your board of directors.
Numerous legal considerations and procedures
were avoided by the ZBA in their approval of Widewaters’ variance on roof
design, which we will explain to you at the meeting. Our attorney Jeff
Baker will be here to answer your questions.
One of the important reasons we are
considering an Article 78, besides the fact that KNGG must show its strength to
our public officials, is the fact that they must begin to understand that they
need to enforce our zoning code and to recognize that the bucolic, rural and
historic beauties of Kinderhook are an asset to our Town that need to be
preserved. As
you already understand, there is room for growth, but it must be good growth,
smart growth.
This is the only way we have of showing our
public officials that the ZBA was incorrect in their determination and that KNGG
stands firm on principle.
A
Another serious consideration is the cost
factor.
Already, without solicitation, we have received pledges to help us
out. We will
need to increase the amount of the pledges and we will need your help in
this.
The Board of Directors will be having
meetings this week to discuss this matter in depth. Whichever road we
choose, it must be the best road for KNGG and the
community.
A
This meeting is important to the continuation
of our mission.
Please mark your calendar for October 7th. I look forward to seeing you there.
Respectfully yours,
Allen Schaefer, President
IN THE
PRESS
Monday, September 27th – for the second time a week the Register-Star has
attacked KNGG policy and this time made legal statements they couldn’t
substantiate. Tuesday, The Independent covered the last ZBA determination
in considerable depth.
AUGUST 31, 2004
TO: All KNGG
Members
The politicians, your elected representatives
on the Town Board,
believe you either don't care about
Widewaters and its controversial roundabout
or
that you changed your mind and
want it.
SHOW THEM .
. .
THEY MUST
EARN YOUR
VOTE!
TURN OUT AT
THE ZBA HEARING
THURSDAY NIGHT
7:30 pm, TOWN HALL
SUPPORT AL
KNOLL'S CLASSIC ROOF DESIGN!
SHOW THE
ZBA AND THOSE THAT APPOINTED THEM
THAT YOU DO
CARE
AND THAT YOU
ARE
WATCHING!
DON'T GIVE YOUR VOTE TO
SPRAWL!
The following
Letter to the Editor went out Monday
morning:
PLANNING BOARD SADDLED K'HOOK WITH A BIG BOX
BUT ROOFLINE CAN STILL BE ALTERED To The Editor: On August 19th the
Kinderhook Town Planning Board voted unanimously to accept the Widewaters site plan. The elevations (what the
buildings are to look like) are part of this site plan.
It is surprisingly odd that this
vote, probably the most important vote ever taken by this board, was not a roll
call vote. It is also discouraging that Town Board Member Francis Vecellio,
appointed by the Town Board as its liaison with the Planning Board, was not at
this all important meeting. Vecellio has rarely attended any of the Planning
Board meetings since he was appointed in January 2004.
Somehow,
in the end, the Planning Board got lost in the trees of developer detail and
forgot to step back and consider the whole forest. Hopefully, next time a
big-time developer appears in Kinderhook, the board will avail itself of
appropriate expert help before it becomes embroiled in the trade-offs and
co-opting tactics such developers are so expert in forcing on volunteer boards
in small communities.
Diligent attention to detail is
praiseworthy, but in this case, the Kinderhook Planning Board forgot the big
picture and failed to acknowledge the substantial negative impact on future
community character that its decision has now made possible if not inevitable.
Now that Widewaters Commons has been
given the green light, we will begin seeing other developers lining up at the
door to build more and more big boxes in Kinderhook. Ed Simonsen has already
been quoted as saying. "There are rumors of other big
developers” waiting in the wings.
There are still things we
citizens can do to make the Widewaters mall a bit better than it is. Buildings
4/4A, one of which is to contain a Hannaford Brothers’ supermarket, is currently
designed with no imagination to look like the biggest and most ugly warehouse in
Columbia County. These buildings (4/4A) have been designed to be covered
by a flat roof. The flat roof design does not comply with the Kinderhook Town
Code. Therefore, we must ask why the Planning Board, lead by Ed Simonsen,
spent several months helping Widewaters' General Counsel, Marco Marzocchi,
design a facade to fit below a flat roof which would not be in compliance with
our Town Code?
The vast
mass and size of the building cannot be changed. However the roofline can be
changed. The people of Kinderhook must come out on Thursday evening, Sept 2, to
the ZBA meeting, 7:30, at Town Hall to push for a better roof design. We must
explain, once more, that the character of Kinderhook is important to us. We do
not want the character of this rural historic town changed to one of sprawl and
"the geography of nowhere" that has infected so many other places in our state
and our region. We must demand an appropriate roof design that meets the code
and does not require a variance. Widewaters wants a
variance from the ZBA so they can build their cheaper flat roof, claiming that no appropriately designed roof could be built
on this building without raising it at least 55 or more
feet. To grant this variance would substantially weaken our Town
Code.
Kinderhook-based Architect Alvin Knoll, will present a
design to prove that Widewaters is wrong in saying no such roof can be
built. Mr. Knoll will prove that the building can be built with a hip
roof, similar to the other roofs in the complex. Mr. Knoll will be at the ZBA
meeting Thursday night to explain his design.
Now before us we have the important
matter of precedence.
If the ZBA approves this variance, it would be setting itself up to do so
for other big box developers lining up for approval to build in Kinderhook. The
Planning Board virtually gave our Town away to big development. We ask the ZBA to
save what we have left by not approving this variance.
Respectfully yours,
The Kinderhook Neighbors for Good
Growth Board of Directors
Allen Schaefer, President
Mark Litteken, Treasurer
Deirdre Leland, Secretary
Margaret Moran
Alexandra Spivy
AUGUST 29, 2004
TO: All KNGG
Members
Will the roundabout with its several unsafe
and unresolved issues drive you out of town?
Is Widewaters Commons and
its traffic jams with all the other adverse impacts we know of, giving you
second thoughts about living in a once tranquil and rural
Kinderhook.
Before you make your decision, please read
the article below. Besides good information, it will give you some
insight into what's going wrong in Kinderhook.
See
HOUSE September 2004
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
By Joe Prout
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 Register-Star editorial of June 21, “The roundabout is
the best way to go,” is simply the opinion of the editor and is in no way based
on research or facts. In fact what the editor says is wrong and misleading.
Apparently he is not familiar with the Kinderhook intersection under discussion.
If he were, he would recognize there are grave safety and traffic congestion
issues that make this roundabout the wrong thing for the town and its
residents.
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.
While New York State DOT appears currently to be infatuated
with the concept of roundabouts as a one-size-fits-all, flavor of-the month
solution, roundabouts in no way are the answer for every intersection.
Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth (KNGG) have carefully scrutinized the
impact of the proposed roundabout, sponsoring two separate expert evaluations of
it from the reputable traffic-engineering firms, Vollmer Associates of Albany
and CDM of Wethersfield, Connecticut. These studies show that the roundabout is
a bad idea for this site. (See the results of those studies on our web site, www.kngg.org under “ROUNDABOUT.”) Roundabouts can work when they are in the right place. But
this one cannot be justified as workable, safe or having the longevity the
developer has claimed. [The Kinderhook Town Planning Board must require
Widewaters to post an appropriate bond to be used to restudy growing traffic
conditions and also to put money aside to rebuild the roundabout if
necessary. (For longevity issues see www.kngg.org ROUNDABOUT “Moran Evaluation.”)]
The dangers and hazards posed by
the proposed roundabout cannot be overstated. The Ichabod Crane School System
with 2,500 students, plus faculty and support staff, is almost opposite the
strip mall’s proposed site. The students will be attracted to the mall all day
every day. They and other pedestrians will try to cross the two major highways
and four lanes of traffic. But the traffic exiting the roundabout has no yield signs as it accelerates to higher speeds,
thus making conditions for pedestrians more hazardous than previously
recognized. The safety factor of the school is an extremely important issue and
still has not been adequately addressed.
If this roundabout should be built, yield signs at its five
different entrances will replace the existing traffic signals. This means there will be no breaks in the
moving traffic. . DOT’s only concern appears to be how to keep
vehicular traffic moving. But the school busses entering and exiting
school grounds will have a hard time navigating. How will the school busses
enter and exit the school grounds, for example?
At a
special meeting for Widewaters on April 21, Kinderhook Planning Board member
Gerald Minot-Scheuerman pointed out to DOT engineer Howard McCulloch that
existing traffic already makes it hard to turn left from Maple Lane South, Maple
Lane North or Herrick Road on to US9 northbound. Drivers need the signal to
change at the US9/9H intersection to find a break in the traffic in order to
make a left turn. The proposed roundabout will make
it almost impossible to turn on to US9 from the side roads because when the
traffic signals are removed from the US9/NY 9H intersection, the essential break
in the traffic will not occur. If the roundabout works as DOT predicts, it will
keep traffic moving constantly. Since there would be a similar situation will
exist at the US9 and Main Street intersection in Valatie, Scheuerman asked
McCulloch how he planned to solve such problems.
McCulloch, who as designer, is vested in the
project, replied: "I
don’t know. My focus is on the roundabout." But it is McCulloch’s responsibility as designer of this roundabout,
and DOT’s responsibility, to make absolutely sure that all five legs of the
roundabout will work. We believe that McCulloch’s answer is simply irresponsible
to the public. All parties must stringently analyze The US9/NY 9H corridor as a
whole, not just as one intersection. McCulloch has not examined anything
beyond the immediate US9/NY 9H intersection to prepare his roundabout design. He
did not know where the nearby Keegan Road intersection is, nor did he know that
it is signalized. If it is so important to the DOT to see this roundabout
built, this agency should provide the Town of Kinderhook with a detailed
corridor study.
At the
April 21 Planning Board meeting McCulloch theorized that large trucks, oversized
loads (and school busses) traveling south on US9 to enter the roundabout would
bear left into the new left lane and yield just before entering. At this point,
cars and other vehicles headed for the mall or NY 9H south would bear into the
right lane. As the vehicles in both left and right lanes determine the coast is
clear they would follow the road lane stripes into their destined lanes.
But
McCulloch explained that the trailer truck in the left lane would not be able to navigate
the turn through the roundabout toUS9 southbound without using the two
lanes. The inner apron, designed to help larger vehicles navigate
the circle, has been removed to accommodate the new second lane.
Most
drivers assume that if the lines on the road are painted to define the two
parallel lanes, one should be able to travel safely within his or her chosen
lane, driving south to NY 9H. BUT if people do this, the truck driver in the
left lane, due to his blind spots, will probably not see the vehicle in the
right lane and would collide with it as the truck swings over the line into the
right lane. McCulloch says that the truck would have the right of way. This
dangerous situation is caused by the two-lane part of the roundabout for the
developer’s purpose.
To serve
the best interests of our citizens and to protect children, teachers, and
drivers, the Planning Board must put the best interests of the Town at heart and
turn down this roundabout. It would change the character of the Town and
is not what is intended by the Comprehensive Plan.
Allen Schafer, President Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth
Please join me in sending in your letter to the press:
THE CHATHAM
COURIER
THE INDEPENDENT
THE
REGISTER-STAR
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.
|
Times Union
yesterday front page feature - photo
featured the KNGG SAFETY YES - ROUNDABOUT NO lawn
sign.
If you don't have a sign out, please
call:
Abbey Cash 758-7588
John Pickett 758-7520
Sue Chiafuello 758-2944
Roundabout
becomes a traffic pattern
Colonie-- DOT
using design more to improve road safety, but hasn't convinced the public it's a good
idea |
| |
By
CATHY WOODRUFF, Staff writer First published: Tuesday, July
6, 2004 |
| It's a word that stirs trepidation and terror
in motorists throughout New York.
Roundabout.
Nonetheless,
the circular intersections are all the rage these days at the state
Department of Transportation, which expects to add about 15 each
year to the state's streetscapes.
One opened last year at routes 155 and 85A in
Voorheesville. Another in Greenwich, Washington County, began
welcoming cars last month. A handful of others are on the way,
including a string of five along Route 67 in Malta.
Sound scary? Fear not, say DOT engineers who
hope to soothe suspicious motorists and dispel the myths they say
abound around roundabouts.
"It is the safest at-grade intersection
possible," DOT roundabout designer Howard McCullough assured some
skeptical members of the Capital District Transportation Committee
recently.
DOT officials say they managed to cut accidents
in half with a $260,000 makeover of Latham Circle two years ago
using roundabout principles. Technically, the spot at routes 2 and 9
remains a traffic circle because of its larger size and higher
traffic speeds, but new signs, pavement markings and other slight
adjustments give it some roundabout qualities -- chiefly greater
clarity for motorists on how to proceed.
So confident is McCullough of the benefits of
roundabouts that he says: "I would love to see roundabouts replacing
all the lights up and down Wolf Road."
Still, doubters remain.
"The greatest obstacle we have is overcoming
the idea of the traffic circle," said Tom Kligerman, supervisor of
DOT's Roundabout Design Unit. "The Northeast is completely
sensitized because of the rotaries in Massachusetts. People say, 'I
went to Cape Cod, and I almost died!' Whenever they think of a
circular intersection, they think of a rotary."
Some 500 wary residents signed a
petition opposing the Voorheesville roundabout two years ago. And
now, a Kinderhook group against construction of a supermarket and
strip mall at routes 9 and 9H has built much of its opposition
campaign around the prospect of a roundabout.
"While New York state DOT appears
currently to be infatuated with the concept of roundabouts as a
one-size-fits-all, flavor-of-the-month solution, roundabouts in no
way are the answer for every intersection," said Allen Schaefer,
president of Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth.
Schaefer says there are several
features of the Columbia County location that make it a poor
candidate for a roundabout, including a nearby school. He also says
left turns at another intersection would be foiled by the constant
flow of cars from a roundabout at routes 9 and 9H.
"This is a corridor, so when
you're designing a roundabout, you have to focus on the whole thing,
and they have not done that," Schaefer said.
However, the safety statistics for roundabouts
have been persuasive for federal and state highway officials, who
now actively encourage planners to consider roundabouts when they
embark on reconstruction of an intersection.
A recent Maryland State Highway Administration
study found that installation of single-lane roundabouts cut total
accident rates by 68 percent and injury accidents by 86
percent.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a
nonprofit research organization funded by auto insurers, found that
roundabouts reduced total crashes by 39 percent and injury crashes
by 76 percent. Fatal and "incapacitating" crashes were reduced by 89
percent, according to the institute's research.
If you want to know the difference between a
roundabout and a traffic circle, also known as a rotary, look first
at the size.
A roundabout is much smaller, with curved
entrances that force motorists to slow down to navigate the tight
circle smoothly. Vehicles must yield as they enter, waiting for a
gap in the circulating traffic before joining the counterclockwise
flow.
A key feature of the roundabouts that
McCullough and his partner Richard Schell design is the pavement
markings, directing drivers into the proper lane for their intended
turns and destinations.
Unlike traffic circles, cars in a roundabout
generally stay in one lane, rather than weaving from right to left
and back again.
"The old rotaries and traffic circles were
designed with a freeway-type mentality," with high-speed entrances,
lane changes and exits on the right, Schell explained, but
roundabouts work more like a standard intersection.
The Voorheesville roundabout, which opened last
fall, appears to be overcoming at least some of its initial
opposition.
"It seems to be working," said William
Hotaling, a village trustee and former public works superintendent.
"It does move traffic and the workmanship is very nice."
While evidence may be stacking up in favor of
the roundabouts' relative traffic safety, the political perils for
local elected officials in New York still inspire caution. At the
recent Transportation Committee meeting, Colonie Supervisor Mary
Brizzell predicted that town officials will feel the heat if DOT
moves forward with a roundabout that residents don't want.
But Kligerman says his staff stands ready to
help local officials rehabilitate the image of roundabouts.
"It's not just a traffic signal or nothing," he
said. "Really, the roundabout should be the preferred intersection.
I think we'll have no problem once we have a few more on the ground.
Seeing is believing." | |
|
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.
* * *
|