|
|
|
|
|
eNEWS eNEWS 2005 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. eNEWS is a KNGG Membership Service. KNGG e-NEWS Membership Bulletins will appear below. ___________________________________ Parts of eNEWS Bulletins re: ART78 now appear under "ARTICLE 78" March
31, 2005 First of all I would like to thank all of you that were able to attended tonight’s meeting on such short notice. To explain the process, the Town Board is the body that can make and change the laws. Parts of the zoning code can be changed by resolution. Other parts could only be changed after a public hearing. And possibly another part of the code could be amended only after the Comprehensive Plan is changed to the same. The Planning Board’s role is to oversee, review and approve or deny project applications. These are the people that come in contact with the code most frequently. They determine if the developer’s project plans meet code requirements. In some instances they have found conflicting language, lack of definition, lack of clarification, etc. The Planning Board approached the Town Board with recommendations to amend the code to give them authority by clarification, etc. This is the third such meeting and I believe we are near to the amendments becoming law. Jumping to the end of the meeting, Supervisor Doug McGivney announced that Councilwoman Mary Kramarchyk wanted to discuss something which was not on the agenda. Kramarchyk suggested a discussion on removing the restrictions on commercial roof design regarding pitch from the code. She said that this had caused the Widewaters project unnecessary delay. KNGG understands that had Widewaters complied with the code, there wouldn’t have been any delay or problems in the approval process. KNGG also understands that had the ZBA done its job, the Town, Widewaters and KNGG wouldn’t be in litigation today. (See Article 78 on this web site.) None-the-less, Ms Kramarchyk pursued her suggestion, which if approved, would give the go ahead for big box flat top roofs in Kinderhook. She said she believed this would be a way to get our code in tune with the Comprehensive Plan. At this point Councilman Francis Vecellio explained that if the Town reduced the maximum permitted square footage from 80,000 sq. feet to 40,000 sq. feet, there would be no need to contradict the comprehensive Plan. Mr.Vecellio explained that the 80,000 number appears in the Comprehensive Plan so another large supermarket could come in for purposes of competition and that this was meant to be a temporary measure. “As long as this has been accomplished, there is no reason why we shouldn’t go to 40,000.” Ms Kramarchyk thought this to be unnecessary because of what Wal-Mart has been doing to overcome the max footage restrictions in other communities by building two 40,000 Sq. ft. buildings next to each other. Supervisor McGivney stated that the code could be reworded to prevent this sort of thing. Kramarchyk thought this to be unnecessary because of what Wal-Mart has been doing to overcome the max footage restrictions in other communities by building two 40,000 Sq. ft. buildings next to each other. Supervisor McGivney stated that the code could be reworded to prevent this. Kramarchyk agreed with the 40,000 sq. ft. maximum concept. Vecellio added, “It’s not the vision of Kinderhook to have large big boxes up and down our corridor.” Vecellio added that it’s not the vision of Kinderhook to have large big boxes up and down our highways. Town attorney Ed McConville was asked by Supervisor McGivney to determine if State Law required the Town to change the maximum permitted square feet in the Comprehensive Plan before the code could be changed. If so, this will be put into motion. Then a resolution will be made by the Town Board to call a hearing for changing the code to 40,000 sq. feet. Once the hearing is complete, the Town Board will vote. Below is a copy of tonight’s agenda that lists all issues covered. It was agreeable that most of what was on the agenda presented by the Planning Board be accepted to be on the next Town Board agenda for a resolution to put it to a public hearing. Once the hearing is over the Town Board will vote. This is where you can greatly help out. We will need you to speak at the public hearing in favor of the changes, especially for the changing of the maximum sq. footage allowed to 40,000. We can only avoid another Widewaters by changing the law and we need your support to do this. The footwork has been done. Now we need to have the laws passed. I will keep you up to date on hearing times and will try to get copies of the actual proposed changes to you as soon as possible. Allen Schaefer TO VIEW PLANNING BOARD PROPOSED CODE CHANGES – GO TO “CURRENT ISSUES” on THIS SITE and click on“TOWN CODE CHANGES” March
28, 2005 KRAMARCHYK EXPECTED TO PUSH FOR DELETION OF ROOF PITCH REGULATIONS In addition to the positive changes the Planning Board has recommended for the Zoning Code, Councilwoman Mary Kramarchyk will propose a serious and damaging change to the design standards regarding roof pitch in the current code. Ms Kramarchyk wants the roof pitch restrictions deleted. If so any developer who wishes to build a big box with a flat roof can do so without a variance from the ZBA. We believe that the watering down of our code will do nothing more than promote sprawl and make it easy for the big box stores to conquer the green fields, orchards and rural setting of Kinderhook. This is not in the spirit of our code. One can’t help but wonder who’s about to get in line after Widewaters. All of us need to become involved is this important issue. We must all get out to these meetings to show the officials that we are interested in preserving the code, not depleting it. Please join us Wednesday evening at Town Hall at 7:00 PM. Allen Schaefer, President March 11, 2005 WIDEWATERS ACTS COWARDLY KNGG attorney Jeff Baker advised KNGG late Friday afternoon that Widewaters has filed a notice of appeal against the decision and order of Judge Thomas McNamara dated February 23, 2005. After having had a motion to dismiss our Article 78 turned down, Widewaters is trying again, only this time with a notice of appeal on Judge Thomas McNamara's February 23 decision. Because Widewaters is unwilling to admit the truth and deal with the merits of the case, they are acting like cowards. They are trying to stall and delay the procedure so they won’t have to deal with the facts of the ZBA decision. They are also trying to dry up KNGG’s funding TO GET US TO GIVE UP. We will keep you informed as we learn what’s happening. WE WILL NEED MORE FINANCIAL HELP To continue to fight Widewaters and most importantly save our zoning code we will need additional funds. This law suit in costing the Town nothing. Widewaters is handling the legal work. If you have not renewed your membership for 2005, this is the time to do it. 2005 KNGG MEMBERSHIP LEVELS Individual $25 Family $50 Sponsor $100 Benefactor $250 Join with us in pursuit of a sprawl-free KINDERHOOK! Contributions to KNGG are tax deductible as allowed by law. Mail you check to KNGG PO Box 424, Kinderhook NY 12106
March 11, 2005 Widewaters shopping center construction to begin; late summer goal FOR THIS STORY - GO TO ARTICLE 78 click on "Articles"A March 7, 2005 KINDERHOOK CODE REVISION NEEDED It’s time for Kinderhook to look ahead. In doing so, the Town must give the Corridor Study it’s 100% support by adopting a moratorium on commercial building. Once done, we must take a good look at our Comprehensive Plan and our current Town Code. For example, on page 75 of the Comprehensive Plan is Table 15: Comparison of Current and Proposed Zoning. Under “Proposed Zoning” (prior to the adoption of the CP), look down to Non-Residential Uses. It tells us that in the B-1 zone, a Maximum building size of 80,000 Sq. Ft. is proposed. Yet in the B-1A the maximum building the size is 20,000 or 30,000 depending on its use. Here is where we, the Town, went wrong. This part of the Comprehensive Plan slipped by the Town Board without question and was included into the Town Code. To begin with, it should have been required that a proposed increase of this size should have had a traffic analysis before approval. This was not done. Now we must realize that the Wal-Marts, the Home Depots, the Loews, the CVSs etc have their eye on Kinderhook. The Planning Board approved Widewaters site plan application because it felt the code did note give it the regulations it needed to turn it down. Before we find ourselves in the same predicament as Dunkirk Maryland, I propose that to protect our community, we must reduce the maximum size of 80,000 Sq. Ft. to 40,000 Sq. Ft. Now we see that Wal-Mart can put up two 40,000 Sq. Ft. buildings. Isn’t that better than two 80,000 Sq. Ft. buildings? We need to employ someone in tune to these environmental legal problems to write a law that will prohibit developers from putting up multiple buildings to overcome our code’s intentions. There is no better time to do this than now, when the Planning Board’s recommendations for code revision are being considered by the Town Board Allen Schaefer, President HAVE YOU REJOINED KNGG FOR 2005? March
1, 2005 In pitched roof battle, judge rules for KNGG By John Mason KINDERHOOK -- For Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth, the roof question is not just about roofs at the newly approved Widewaters shopping center, but about setting a good precedent for the town's new zoning code. The citizens' group won a skirmish in that battle last week. A state Supreme Court judge has given Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth and Madeline Zinke the OK to challenge the Zoning Board of Appeals' approval of two flat roofs for the Widewaters Commons shopping center. The full story is available on this site - Got ARTICLE 78 - Click on "Articles."
2005 KNGG ANNUAL MEETING MONDAY MAY 16TH - 7:30 PM the McNary Center at St. Paul's Episcopal Church Village of Kinderhook NY Agenda to be advised February 25, 2005 DECISION on MOTIONS to DISMISS Today the NY State Supreme Court, Albany County notified our Attorney Jeff Baker of a decision on motions to dismiss our Article 78. The Town of Kinderhook and Widewaters presented the motions to the court when KNGG filed an Article 78. In short, the motions to dismiss are denied. WE WON! The DECISION and ORDER can be viewed on our web sitewww.KNGG.org - Go to ARTICLE 78 – Click on “Ruling.” February 20, 2005 The Times Union Sprawl defies region's static growth Report says nearsighted planning risks the loss of green spaces By KENNETH AARON, Staff writer First published: Friday, February 18, 2005 ALBANY -- Slowly -- but not necessarily inexorably -- sprawl is threatening the way of life Capital Region residents have grown accustomed to, according to a report set for release today. While the region's population has increased only slightly over the past 20 years, towns outside the region's larger cities are booming. The result has been haphazard, car-dependent communities that swallow open lands, according to the report by the Open Space Institute, a nonprofit land conservation group. "You don't need growth to have sprawl," said David Sampson, a Troy attorney who helped prepare the study. "You just need somebody to move out of the city and live in the country." Since 1980, there's been plenty of that. The area's population rose 7.1 percent, and Albany, Rensselaer and Schenectady counties grew slightly or shrank. But Saratoga County boomed, growing 30.5 percent. The 79-page report suggests reasons for the sprawl and identifies ways communities can work together on the problem. A big part of the problem: Many towns lack the resources to tackle the issue individually. And New York's strong home-rule can discourage cooperation. "Local governments are very reluctant to get into it because it costs too much money," said Joe Martens, the Open Space Institute's president. Even communities with planning departments acknowledge they often are forced to react, rather than plan ahead. Jason Kemper, Clifton Park's director of planning, agreed that many towns don't have the resources to plan adequately. He gets three calls a week from other communities, he said, about open space preservation. Some of those callers simply don't know whom they can turn to for help. "There is not one entity that oversees open space, that's for sure," he said. When sprawl results, the group found a variety of effects, including loss of farmland, shrinking wetlands, more traffic and higher taxes. None of which, the report said, is cause for nixing development. "It's not about not having growth," Martens said. "It's about where the growth occurs." The study, in the works for two years, included a survey of 79 Capital Region mayors and supervisors about how they handle development and open space. The report fulfills several purposes: It's a Yellow Pages of conservation resources; it's an atlas of the region's natural assets; it's a chronicle of a community changing slowly over time. "Communities lose things all the time without even knowing it," Martens said. Such slow change makes it hard to react, said Rocco Ferraro, executive director of the Capital District Regional Planning Commission. "It's harder when we're dealing with incremental growth," said Ferraro, who applauded the report. "A transformation is taking place that we don't readily see or understand." In places such as New Jersey, the threat has become so visible that the state and communities are spending millions to save remaining spaces. Locally, communities such as Clifton Park and Bethlehem have been pushed to confront the issue as well. But what was once an isolated concern has spread in recent months as several local communities have faced burning development issues. Often, building halts have become a stopgap measure. The latest one on the table, in Ballston Spa, is in response to a proposed Wal-Mart. "Once a moratorium is put in place, it may already be too late," Martens said. "You're operating at the fringe at the tail end of the process." KNGG NOTE: There is still hope in Kinderhook. We need to get our moratorium in place before we get Wall-mart or any other of the big boxes snooping around looking for loopholes in our code. Since the Widewaters application was submitted, we’ve already seen another Stewarts sprout up with a Trusco Bank and on the other side of McDonalds we can look forward to another fast food establishment which will only draw more illegal parking of the large trailer trucks along Route 9H. ("It's not about not having growth," Martens said. "It's about where the growth occurs.") KNGG has feared that Widewaters would draw more sprawl. (“Sprawl begets more sprawl,” said Sara Richards at a recent hearing.) If the Town acts now, it could kill that fear. In early 2004, The KNGG recommendation for a moratorium was
thoroughly researched by Board Member Meg Moran who presented it to the Town
Board. Ms Moran, an attorney, served on the Comprehensive Plan Committee and
the Town Planning Board. "Supervisor McGivney and others have observed that professional guidance regarding traffic considerations would have been helpful at the time of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the related zoning amendments." A quick look at the numbers illustrates the inevitable short-term failure of the proposed roundabout, which DOT has recommended to mitigate the traffic problems for the Widewaters project which would include a Hannaford supermarket and other stores. But the 30-year lifetime for the roundabout projected by DOT’s Howard McCulloch is based on a 2% growth factor. That number is nowhere near reality. The effect of an error in the growth rate can be significant because we are talking about compounded growth. Based on figures presented to the Planning Board with the Dunkin’ Donuts application, in all probability, US9 will fail in approximately five years and NY 9H will fail in approximately 10 years and not in 30 years as McCulloch claims having used the DOT’s 2% growth factor. KNGG president Allen Schaefer stated, "Ms. Moran’s comments make a very strong case for the Town’s need to step back and look at how future development complements our Comprehensive Plan. If a corridor study is implemented today without a moratorium, the study will be based on today and will not include new projects yet to be built. The study would be inaccurate. We must put a halt to commercial development until the study is finished. Once the study is finished and the Town determines how to move on it, development could continue under the new plan." Schaefer concluded, "We have given the Town Board more than sufficient facts needed for this moratorium to work well for Kinderhook. Now is the time for the Town Board to act, before we begin to look like Greenport." In January of 2005, the Town Board reorganized the Corridor
Study Committee. Once again it was not funded. Once more KNGG requests a
moratorium on commercial development until the study is complete and the
Town has time to put into effect. FEBRUARY 18, 2005 KINDERHOOK VILLAGE ELECTIONS On March 1, the Village of Kinderhook will hold its local election for positions on the Board of Trustees. The candidates are Dale Leiser, Frank Madsen, and KNGG Member Susan O'Brien. URGENT - REGISTER TO VOTE SATURDAY Anyone living in the Village of Kinderhook who has not registered to vote may do so this Saturday February 19th at The Village Hall on Chatham Street (Rt.9) next to the State Police Station, from noon to 5 pm. And closer than Bennington - Subdivision - Claverack Register-Star-Saturday, January 29, 2005 ZBA considers proposed 48-home development By Claire Sandberg-Bernard CLAVERACK -- The Claverack Zoning Board of Appeals met with developers and residents earlier this week in a public comment session regarding a proposed 48-home, 234-acre housing development near the intersection of Orchard and Millbrook Roads. Development company Claverack Housing Ventures submitted a revised Proposal to the ZBA after residents raised concerns about the effect of the Planned subdivision on the existing community. In written comments received prior to the ZBA meeting, residents asked Claverack Housing Ventures to clarify its plans for minimizing environmental consequences, providing town services to the development and preserving the rural character of Claverack. At the ZBA meeting, resident Diedre Carson said she was concerned about potential noise and pollution during construction, and questioned the ability of the town to absorb an influx of new residents. Carson, who lives adjacent to the planned development site, said she feared the subdivision would increase public service costs, lower property values and alter the rural, agricultural character of the town. In a Draft Scoping Document revised to reflect public comments, Claverack Housing Ventures said it would investigate how to minimize negative environmental and economic impacts from the development. Andrew Gilchrist, a lawyer for Claverack Housing Ventures, said that the upcoming environmental impact survey would comprehensively assess ecological issues. Developers also said that they would make adjustments to plans to reduce impositions on current residents. Board members said that, while the written comment period has ended, there would be future opportunities for residents to respond to the planned development. February 8, 2005 And Even closer to home. . . January 27, 2005 Bennington, Vermont, Adopts Big-Box Ordinance BENNINGTON-In late January, the Select Board in Bennington, Vermont, voted unanimously to ban stores over 75,000 square feet and to require retail development projects larger than 30,000 square feet to pass a community impact review. Town officials said the measure was needed to ensure adequate review of the economic and community impacts of large-scale retail development, protect the viability of Bennington's existing commercial areas, and maintain competition by preventing a single retailer from dominating the local market. The Select Board began discussing a big-box ordinance last summer when Wal-Mart expressed interest in building a 150,000-square-foot supercenter in this town of 9,200 people in the southwest corner of the state. Bennington already has a 50,000 square foot Wal-Mart, which would have been vacated had the supercenter, slated for a site about a mile away, been approved. (A football field is roughly 50,000 square feet. The entire GU Plaza inclusive of all stores is 47,000 Sq. Ft. The Kinderhook Town Code allows up to 80,000 sq. ft. WHY?) Citizens turned out in large numbers to voice opposition to the Wal-Mart proposal at a public hearing and at a community forum sponsored by the Bennington County Regional Commission and the Vermont Smart Growth Collaborative. Soon afterwards, the Select Board enacted a temporary moratorium on construction of big-box stores, effectively blocking Wal-Mart's plans, and began working on a big-box ordinance. The new ordinance limits stores to no more than 75,000
square feet in one commercial district and 50,000 square feet in the rest of
the town. The review will weigh the number of jobs created by the
store versus jobs lost at existing businesses, the store's impact on the
cost of public services, and any tax revenue losses resulting from a decline
in the economic viability of the downtown or other established commercial
areas. Under the ordinance, city officials may approve stores only
if the review determines that they will not have an undue adverse impact on
local wages, housing costs, or the ability of the city to provide services.
More about good/smart growth at www.KNGG.org Look for GOOD GROWTH In the INDEX your left What is It? Terminology Links to Other Web Sites Articles TO SAVE KINDERHOOK: WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAWS. WE NEED TO TEACH OUR BOARDS TO HONOR THE LAW. WE MUST RETURN TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR GUIDANCE WITH OUR CODE. If Vermont can do it, so can we! More to come . . . KNGG – We’re at work for you. February 6, 2005 Why Homer, Alaska and Bakersfield California in eNEWS? If it can be done in Alaska and California, it can be done right here in Columbia County. More to come. Here’s how public funding has been promoting sprawl a little closer to home and how government wised up: Follow The Money Citizens pay heavy price for state’s sprawl subsidies By Keith Schneider and Mac McClelland Great Lakes Bulletin News Service January 17, 2005 The Michigan Land Use Institute and United Cerebral Palsy of Michigan began this project believing that state spending was the most important cause of Michigan’s sprawling patterns of development and its many ugly side effects — urban decay, environmental degradation, poor public transportation services, and increased hardships for people in general and those with disabilities in particular. Our findings, the culmination of a peculiar sort of fiscal archaeology, confirm that conviction. Sifting through dozens of local and state spending accounts, we found that a significant portion of the billion the state spends each year in taxpayer-supported economic development programs — a system of grants, subsidies, tax abatements and incentives, loans, bonds, and direct outlays — is giving Michigan one of the nation’s worst cases of sprawl. Follow The Money documents a pervasive pattern of public investments for roads, jobs, government offices, and business development that encourages runaway sprawl. In almost every category of state economic development spending, cities and older suburbs lose and new suburbs win. And while it is the residents of older cities and suburbs who must dig deep into their own pockets to keep their communities afloat as needed state money flows elsewhere, every Michigan citizen ultimately pays. Once-rural Garfield Township, in northern Michigan’s Grand Traverse County, received more than $20 million in state and federal support to execute a business development strategy that encouraged sprawl. This has triggered an expensive traffic congestion problem and forced the township to double its sewer rates to keep up with growth. Residents of Grand Rapids, in contrast, used only modest amounts of state support for its $2 billion redevelopment program, which has revived business, housing, jobs, the arts, and the civic spirit of Michigan’s second largest city. Daimler Chrysler and two Japanese partners are building two new engine plants, worth $700 million and employing 600 people, in a 245-acre field in rural Monroe County. Michigan kicked in $53.65 million in business tax credits and property tax abatements, plus job training, community development, and road construction grants. Governor Jennifer Granholm heralded the plants as “great news” at a time of severe manufacturing sector job losses. Michigan did try to promote some urban sites, but the companies were not interested. At $90,000 per job, state spending is better directed to small businesses and suppliers ready to locate in cities. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments directs more than $600 million annually to the Detroit region for transportation, much of it to modernize and maintain roads in the outer suburbs, where half of the seven-county region’s residents live. Meanwhile, the 2.4 million people in Detroit and its inner suburbs cope with substandard streets and public transportation that limit their mobility and job prospects. Richard Bernstein, a Wayne State University trustee who has been blind from birth, says: “If you can’t drive, and you can’t afford someone to drive for you, you don’t have a life here.” Follow The Money informs citizens about how public
investments accelerate sprawl and provides state lawmakers with a new way to
look at pro-suburban spending decisions: They exacerbate state and local
budget deficits, harm Michigan’s overall economic competitiveness, and make
communities less, not more, supportive of people in general and people with
disabilities in particular. The state’s failure to use public dollars to encourage smarter economic development hurts every Michigan resident. Traffic congestion is increasing, even though Michigan is among the nation’s slowest-growing states. Water pollution from sewage treatment plants, overwhelmed by sprawl’s heavy stormwater runoff, threatens public health in dozens of cities. Michigan residents spend 20 percent more for school construction than they did 10 years ago, even though the student population increased by less than 4 percent. And state and local budget deficits continue to grow, due to the exploding cost of building and maintaining public infrastructure and services across a spread-out domain.During her 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Jennifer Granholm called for ending subsidies that cause sprawl. After her election Governor Granholm said she would strengthen cities. Follow The Money is a valuable tool for helping her accomplish both goals. This report documents a profoundly misguided investment strategy that harms Michigan’s quality of life by subsidizing sprawl. Only when that strategy improves will Michigan be able to conserve its natural resources, produce more job opportunities, enjoy great cities, and restore our rapidly diminishing sense of community — bedrock necessities for competing successfully in the 21stcentury. http://www.mlui.org/index.asp February 4, 2005 Below, a community group brings suit against city project approvals: Dec. 15, 2004 California court voids approvals for two big-box projects In a ruling that could have broad implications, a California appeals court this week nullified zoning approvals given to two big-box shopping centers by the city of Bakersfield. The court held that the environmental impact reports (EIRs) prepared for the projects were insufficient and did not adequately address the potential for urban decay and associated ecological effects that could be caused by extensive new retail development. The ruling orders the city to complete new impact studies
and public hearings, and reconsider the projects. The lawsuit against the city and the developers was filed in March 2003 by a local citizens group, the Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control (BCLC). They won a partial victory from a lower court in February. The appeals court awarded them legal fees and court costs. The court determined that the EIRs certified as complete by the city failed to consider the projects' "potential to indirectly cause urban/suburban decay by precipitating a downward spiral of store closures and long-term vacancies in existing shopping centers." The developers asserted that economic and social impacts are outside of the scope of an environmental review as mandated by California state law. But ample case law by state courts has concluded that the potential for a project to cause deterioration of a community's downtown or other existing shopping districts is an indirect environmental impact that must be analyzed. In its effort to block the two projects, BCLC commissioned an analysis by San Francisco State University economist C. Daniel Vencill. He found that four existing shopping centers and malls would be adversely impacted by the new big-box developments. This could lead to store closures, persistent vacancies, and blight. The appeals court further ruled that the reviews had not weighed the cumulative impacts of both projects. Each project was analyzed in isolation without reference to the other.* The EIRs, the court wrote, "are defective because they did not treat the other shopping center as a relevant project or consider the combined environmental impacts of the two shopping centers." The court concluded that the inadequacy of the EIRs "cannot be dismissed as harmless or insignificant defects. As a result of these omissions, meaningful assessment of the true scope of numerous potentially serious adverse environmental effects was thwarted. . . These deficiencies precluded informed public participation and decision making." Once new EIRs have been completed, the city may choose not to re-approve the projects, in which case they will be torn down. It may also opt to impose mitigation measures, including requirements that some completed portions of the projects be altered or removed. The ruling will likely affect a similar case involving a Wal-Mart supercenter in the town of Lodi. The citizens group there, Lodi First, contends the city also accepted an incomplete EIR. They are represented by the same firm, Herum Crabtree Brown, that argued the Bakersfield case. Copyright 1999-2004 - Institute for Local Self-Reliance The New Rules Project - http://www.newrules.org/ Reprinted with permission from The Hometown Advantage Bulletin Issue #24 - February 2005 at http://www.newrules.org/retail/news_slug.php?slugid=277 * This is what KNGG tried to show the Planning Board - Widewaters plus Stewarts plus Dunkin Donuts equals cumulative impacts and sprawl. Have you renewed your KNGG Membership for 2005? February 3, 2005 We reprint the following to let you know how other communities are dealing with projected sprawl and excessive footprints allowed by their code. If it can be done elsewhere, it can be done here. Dec. 23, 2004 Homer, Alaska, Restricts Large Retail Stores After two years of consideration---including a review by a city council-appointed task force, numerous public hearings, and a voter referendum---the town of Homer, Alaska, has adopted an ordinance that limits stores to no more than 45,000square feet and requires retail development projects larger than 15,000 square feet to undergo a community impact review. Homer has a population of about 5,000 and is located on the Kenai Peninsula. Retail development projects larger than 15,000 square feet must undergo a community impact review and obtain a conditional use permit. "Large retail and wholesale development can result in substantial impacts to the community, such as, but not limited to, noise, traffic, community character, environment, and the local economy," the ordinance notes. "The purpose of this section is to address these impacts and provide for detailed review of such uses." In addition to traffic, site design, and architectural requirements, the impact review considers the proposed store's impact on employment and wages; the cost of municipal services; and the health of the downtown. It also weighs any change in the volume of "locally retained profits" resulting from the development and its impact on existing businesses. * The cost of all independent studies and investigations required to complete the review are to be paid by the developer. The new rules were originally prompted by the supermarket chain Kroger's interest in building a 94,000-square-foot Fred Meyer superstore in Homer. Concerned that a store of that size could drive all competing grocery stores out of business, harming the local economy and leading to higher consumer prices, the city council enacted a temporary moratorium on large-scale retail stores in 2003. Kroger has now proposed a 45,000-square-foot Fred Meyer store, which would be the smallest in the chain. The proposal will be the first project subject to Homer's new community impact review process.
Although the size has been reduced, many believe that the proposed
store is still too large for a town the size of Homer and, if approved, will
absorb a dominant share of local spending. "It is going to take a sizable
part of my business," said Scott Ulmer, owner of Ulmer's Drug & Hardware. "I
am fighting to retain and preserve the uniqueness of the economy of this
community."
Reprinted by permission from
Have you renewed your membership for 2005?
Light fixtures should be traditional in design.
January 30, 2005 On November 1, 2004, KNGG filed an Article 78 Action against the Widewaters Group and the Town of Kinderhook ZBA (Zoning Board of Appeals) because of the ZBA’s disregard of proper legal procedures in approving the variance Widewaters requested. We are not just pursuing legal technicalities, but we are objecting to a process that was significantly and fundamentally flawed. Article 78 is the only course of appeal open to us. We told the ZBA at hearings that if they do not turn down Widewaters application to put a flat roof on a big box, which is against our Zoning Code, PRECEDENCE will become a serious factor. This means that in future, any developer applying to build a big box in Kinderhook would have to be given the OK because the ZBA let Widewaters do it. Since Widewaters’ attorney is doing the legal work, there should be no cost to the Town. More information regarding KNGG's Article 78 is available on our web site at www.KNGG.org - go to Article 78 in the index to the left. QUESTION OF A HEARING The court (judge) has determined that there will be no court hearing as requested by KNGG and Widewaters. The judge will make his determination solely upon papers submitted by KNGG, Widewaters and the Town. Nothing else is settled and we will most likely hear no more until the ruling comes down from the court. EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT AT SITE Many of you have expressed your feelings in seeing equipment at the site. On his trip to Kinderhook for the Gala, our attorney Jeff Baker was also concerned to see equipment on the Widewaters' site as well. It is our understanding that Widewaters cannot begin site work until the roundabout is approved by the DOT. Jeff is checking into this for us.
January 25,
2005 * * *
|
