JUNE 27, 2005

We need your monetary support
To continue . . .

The following article from the Register-Star disputes the developer’s ploy that development adds to the tax base and demonstrates how the opposite is true.

Development: A taxing subject
Published June 22, 2005
By Kate Kirschenheiter

GHENT—As development encroaches on what remains of the vast open spaces in Columbia County, some residents are inquiring about the financial and psychological implications of these developments.

Some of their questions were addressed in a packed meeting room at the Ghent Town Hall Sunday when investment guru James Sheldon and New York Times editorial board member Verlyn Klinkenborg regaled them with a feast of information and opinions on both financial and psychological impacts of development.

The forum was hosted by Claverack and Ghent Democratic committees.

Sheldon stuck to what he knew—namely finances.

“I’m going to focus on the pocketbook,” Sheldon told the group. “What will it (development) mean to your taxes as landowners and renters?”

To Sheldon, proper and careful planning is key to successful developments and avoiding damage to areas where it is being undertaken.

“Without thoughtful planning,” he said, “you are being deprived of your property rights.”

He also sought to debunk some common misconceptions about development that perhaps some in the development business want people to remain unaware of.

Sheldon argued against the notion of needing new growth, like new housing developments, to increase the tax base and thus lower taxes.

It doesn’t work like that, he told the audience. “The more growth they bring to an area, places like this, the more your taxes are going to go up.”

Using the impact on school taxes a proposed 1,300-home development in Pine Plains could have as an example, Sheldon explained how taxes could go up.

“The Pine Plains school district has 1,200 homes in the town and about 5,000 in the district,” he explained. “The Planning Board is reviewing a proposed new 1,300 houses.

That adds 20 to 30 percent to the district. The cost of educating a student is $15,000 to $16,000 a year.”

Using this figure he calculated, after state aid, that local taxpayers would be responsible for $9,000 to $10,000 of that cost.

“When new homes come in, and it depends on the kind of homes, if you look at towns south of Pine Plains, each new home brought in 1.3 or 1.4 new students.”

He calculated the cost to local taxpayers for each new home to be about $12,000 to $13,000 just in school taxes. Of course, the new homes would pay a portion of that, what he figured to be about $5,000.

But according to Sheldon, the financial implications don’t end there. “If you have so many students coming into the district, you have to build new schools,” he said.

Other cost incurred could arise from needing increased firefighting capacity, emergency medical services and highway maintenance.

According to Sheldon, the homes in Pine Plains could lead to an increase in school taxes of approximately 75 percent, should they be built.

On the other hand, like one woman in the audience pointed out, there is always the chance that the housing developments would draw mostly second-home buyers or retirees, thus not adding to school enrollment.

But as Sheldon acknowledged—you never know.

“You could easily see your taxes double, on top of inflation, if you get that kind of development,” he said, referring to the Pine Plains proposal. “This is something that developers will not talk about, and it is starting to ring bells in people’s heads.”

Sheldon went on to explain the importance of leaving land undeveloped. “Open space is cheap,” he said simply. “I’m not saying put a block on all development, you can’t do that, but keep as much open space as you can.”

But he also acknowledged that purchasing this land to preserve it is not cheap. Some towns, he explained, purchase it through bonds, but to do this need to raise taxes.

“Some states and counties have a transfer tax on homes sold,” he also said. “In the state Legislature now, there is a bill that would allow towns to levy up to 2 percent of the value of a sale as long as that money will be used to buy or preserve open space.”

Klinkenborg’s perspective on the issue of development was not based on economics. Instead, he spoke to the psychological impacts the loss of open spaces can have on members of a community.

“I often get accused of trying to bring back the past or that I’m being nostalgic,” he said. “But I try to get people to think about their impression of the future. People tend to assume in places like Ghent, Claverack and Austerlitz, that it is a vacuum that needs to be filled.”

Klinkenborg, whose family is well versed in old farming traditions, knows the value of land better than some.

“What is so hard to keep alive is not just the financial value, but the psychological value of open land,” he said. “James Madison said humans have no right to appropriate for themselves all the resources of the land around them.”

Yet, he said, people are of the mind that they do have that right.

Klinkenborg added that many people feel there is no way they can control the change cropping up around them.

“America’s reaction to its own past is dismissal,” he said. “I saw so many people over the last six months who felt they have lost any ability to take control of the future.”

Sheldon spoke briefly about why Columbia County currently faces this situation.. “The reason we’re in this pickle today is because everyone wants to live here,” he said. “The people who suffer the most are the people who can’t afford to keep up with the rising costs.”

KNGG NOTE: Not mentioned in this article is the important issue as to whether or not Columbia County Supervisors and the Columbia County Planning Board could be educated to buy in to this formula and how this could be accomplished.

SUPPORT KNGG TODAY!

By sending a contribution to

KNGG, PO Box 424, Kinderhook NY 12106

Your contribution is TAX DEDUCTIBLE as allowed by law.
 

JUNE 23, 2005

Court Rules on Article 78

We have been advised this evening by our attorney, Jeff Baker that the Supreme Court in Albany County has ruled against KNGG in the matter of the Article 78 filed against Widewaters and the Town of Kinderhook. We have no other details at this time.

The following statement went to the press tonight:

Naturally we are disappointed. However we still believe that filing the Article 78 was the right thing for KNGG to do.

The standard for overturning a ZBA decision is extremely high. We always recognized that it would be difficult for us to prevail in this challenge even though we believe the ZBA erred in its application of the law.

This decision only reinforces the need to amend our zoning code to correct poorly drafted provisions and ambiguities. The Planning Board and other town officials have identified many problems in our code as written. Until the problems such as these are corrected we may continue to see buildings constructed within the Town in a way that satisfies the developers’ interests and budgets and not what’s best for our community.

# # #

We find it ironic that we should receive this news on the same day the United States Supreme Court in Washington ruled that the seizure of private property for development is now legal in this country.

The New York Times

Published: June 23, 2005

Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Private Property for Development

By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, June 23 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in a deeply emotional case weighing the rights of property owners and the good of the community, that local governments can sometimes seize homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers.

In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.

The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales.

Justice Stevens noted that city officials had been addressing New London's sagging economic fortunes for years, and he said their decisions on how best to cope with them were entitled to wide deference.

Of course, he wrote, the city would be barred from taking one's property and transferring it to another private owner strictly for the latter's benefit. But in this instance, he said, the city is promoting a variety of commercial, residential and recreational land uses "with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts" and bring economic benefits to the general community.

In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

Justice Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice O'Connor's fellow dissenters were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Justice Stevens noted that the homes in question could not be considered a slum area, and that indeed some of the people have lived in their homes for decades. Rather, he said, the properties "were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area."

"In affirming the city's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation," Justice Stevens wrote, adding that local governments have the authority to refine their condemnation policies, and curb them if they wish.

The case is Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108. Susette Kelo is one of the property owners who petitioned the courts to block the condemnation of their homes in the Fort Trumbull area of New London.

"She has made extensive improvements to her house, which she prizes for its water view," Justice Stevens noted. Another petitioner, Wilhelmina Dery, "was born in her Fort Trumbull house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life," the justice wrote. "Her husband, Charles (also a petitioner), has lived in the house since they married some 60 years ago."

Some of the affected homeowners were dismayed. "It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," Bill Von Winkle said in an interview with The Associated Press. He said he would not leave even if he sees the bulldozers coming.

Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the Institute of Justice, which represented the families, was bitterly disappointed. "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today," he said in an A.P. interview. "Our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

But New London officials said the overall good that will come from private development in the Fort Trumbull area outweighs the rights of the individual homeowners. "We're pleased," Edward O'Connell, attorney for the New London Development Corporation, told The A.P.

The seven private property owners at the center of the New London case won an order in New London Superior Court blocking the takeover of their homes, but the Connecticut Supreme Court overruled the lower court, holding that the proposed seizures were lawful under the state's municipal-development law.

When the case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on Feb. 22, Mr. Bullock maintained - unsuccessfully, as it turned out - that fostering private economic development is not a legitimate "public" use, despite incidental public benefits like a better tax base.

But Wesley W. Horton, a Hartford lawyer who represented New London before the justices, contended that economic development was indeed an appropriate public use, and that the court should not overrule the judgment of local officials.

Justice Stevens and the rest of the majority agreed. "The disposition of this case, therefore, turns on the question whether the city's development plan serves a 'public purpose,' " he wrote. "Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."

The Cato Institute, a nonpartisan public policy research foundation that describes itself as dedicated to "traditional American principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace," was deeply disappointed. "With today's decision, no one's property is safe," said Roger Pilon, director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies.

JUNE 18, 2005

Planning Forum - Free and Open to All

Sunday June 19, 2005 - 2:00 - 4:00 pm

Ghent Town Hall (Route 66 and Garage Place Road)

James Sheldon, journalist, financial writer and analyst, and Gallatin resident, on the impact of sprawl on school and town taxes, escalating land values, and affordability of housing.

Verlyn Klinkenborg, author of "Making Hay," "The Last Fine Time," and "The Rural Life." He is amember of the editorial board of The New York Times, and writes about on the impact of sprawl on the rural psyche, and the true value of land. Klinkenborg is a resident of Austerlitz.

For further information, call 518 392-7707 x 201
or Christopher Reed at 518 672-7743.

JUNE 14, 2005

DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS RESULTS

The Democrats held their caucus this past Friday evening. The following won nominations for candidate:

Town Supervisor – Incumbent Doug McGivney

Town Board – Incumbent Debbie Johnson

Town Board – Helen Schneider

Town Justice – Natalie Kolb

As you may remember, Doug McGivney strongly opposed the KNGG position on Widewaters and Article 78. However more recently, Dough strongly supported the moratorium on commercial development over 40,000 square feet and has been cooperative with the Town Planning Board in proposing the implementation of code changes that would be protective of green space by proposing a new law requiring cluster housing on all larger parcels being converted into sub divisions. Debbie Johnson has supported Dough McGivney and Francis Vecellio in these matters.

As you know from reading these pages for three years, Helen Schneider campaigned strongly for approval of the Widewaters project. In her acceptance speech she acknowledged that she has differences on some issues with some people but is willing to discuss these differences with them.

All the candidates spoke Sunday afternoon at the Democratic Fundraiser. Doug McGivney mentioned the cooperation between Ed Simonsen, the Planning Board and the Town Board on code change issues, some of which have been implemented and others are currently being worked out. Ms Schneider clearly declared that she was in favor of the moratorium and preserving the Code and the Comprehensive Plan.

FINANCIAL STATUS

Quite honestly, we are in poor financial shape. We are in serious need on more funding. Besides our regular monthly operating bills, we are expecting a heavy accounting bill for filing our yearly federal and state tax returns. Our legal bills are almost as high as usual. If we win this case as we hope, there is a possibility that we may have to fight an appeal by the Town and Widewaters.

If you have any ideas on how to raise money and are willing to volunteer in seeing it through, please let us know.

In the meantime, what ever you can possibly donate to keep us up and running would be gratefully accepted. Please send your contribution to KNGG, PO Box 424, Kinderhook NY 12106. Your contribution is tax deductible as allowed by law.

JUNE 9.2005

Computer crashes

The KNGG computer crashed last Tuesday. About 10 percent of our e-mail list was lost. Those lost are of members that joined within the past six months or changed their e-mail address in the past six months. If you have friends that may be in this category, please forward this e-mail to them and ask them to send us their e-mail address.

Kinderhook Town Caucuses for November 2005 Election

Unfortunately we had no advance notice of the Republican Caucus. However the results are below.

The Republican Caucus was held Tuesday day night to choose candidates.

Supervisor:

Mary Kramarchyk lost to Walt Simonsmeier

Winners for or Town Board:

Jeff Pinkowski & Tim Riley

For Town Judge:

Jim Haggerty

On the other side of the spectrum:

The Democratic Committee will hold its Caucus this Friday June 10th at Kinderhook Town Hall in Niverville at 6:30 PM.

ENDORSEMENTS

Supervisor:

Incumbent Supervisor Doug McGivney is the committee’s choice for candidate for Supervisor.

Town Board (Two Openings):

Incumbent Debbie Johnson, an Independence Party member, who won an endorsement of the Working Family’s Party, earned the Democratic Committee’s endorsement for Town Board. Ms Johnson voted in favor of the moratorium along with Doug McGivney.

Marilyn Ryan, an honorary member of the Valatie Rescue Squad for 17 years, a member of the Columbia Memorial Hospital Auxiliary for over ten years, and a Democratic Representative of the Board of Elections for several years has voiced her opinion against the Widewaters project and the roundabout. Marilyn wants to work for an improved Kinderhook and senior housing.

Helen Schneider, also endorsed by the Working Family’s Party joins Johnson and Ryan in vying for the two Town Board positions.

Schneider has been known as an active supporter of KRISHP (Kinderhook Residents In Support of Hannaford Plaza, AKA Widewaters’ Commons) and campaigned strongly for the project. She is one of two or three people that spoke out in favor of the Widewaters project at the public hearings. She does not agree with KNGG’s vision for Kinderhook.

All Democrats registered to vote in the Town of Kinderhook are asked to come to Town Hall Friday night to hear the candidates and take part in the secret ballot election.

This is when we the people, can tell our public officials what we want.

JUNE 7, 2005

AN INVITATION TO ALL INTERESTED IN PLANNING

Democratic committees in Ghent and Claverack have joined forces to present a series of public workshops on various town planning issues.

Upcoming forums in Philmont and Ghent are open to all county residents and are free.

The first will be held 2 to 4 p.m. this Sunday at the Philmont Village Hall, Maple Avenue and Main Street (above the firehouse).

The second forum will be held 2 to 4 p.m. June 19 at the Ghent Town Hall, Route 66 and Garage Place Road.

The purpose of the forums is to educate the public about how planning is
done and about different planning and zoning options. The hope is to also
spur residents' interest in helping plan the future of their towns, said
Claverack Democratic Chairman George Rodenhausen and Ghent Democratic
Chairman John Mesevage.

"The reason we're doing this is really as a public service," Rodenhausen
said.

Both Ghent and Claverack have recently begun the process of re-evaluating
their town comprehensive plans. Comprehensive plans, or master plans as they
are also known, map out a community's vision for future development and
other land-use and cultural aspects of a town. The town of Chatham is in the
midst of its own comprehensive plan revision.

In recent years, the towns of New Lebanon and Austerlitz have revised their
comprehensive plans. Many local towns' plans were last revised in the 1970s
or earlier. They did not take into account the rapid growth most Columbia
County towns are now experiencing.

Ghent attempted to revise its comprehensive plan about 12 years ago,
Mesevage said. The revision was never approved by the Town Board. In the
past year, Ghent, like surrounding towns, has been dealing with more
development issues. The Town Board issued a six-month moratorium on mining
so it could revisit its mining overlay zones, and most recently issued a
six-month moratorium on new subdivisions so it could initiate the
comprehensive plan process Chatham also passed a six-month subdivision
moratorium last year.

The Ghent Democrats are thankful to the Town Board for taking these steps,
Mesevage said. "It's just time for Ghent to respond to development pressure
in a proactive, loving, caring way," he added.

JUNE 5, 2005

It is with the deepest concern of a Congressional threat to land conservation that we reproduce here a bulletin from the Columbia Land Conservancy web site. We do so because we believe it is our duty to help conserve our farmland and open spaces. You can help by voicing your opinion in a letter. Please see below.
Allen Schaefer

Threats to Land Conservation

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation recently issued a report that recommends reducing, and in some cases eliminating, tax deductions for landowners who voluntarily conserve their land. Specifically, the Committee proposes:

Forbidding any charitable deduction for donating a conservation easement if the landowner continues to live on the land. This will be particularly disastrous regarding our farmland protection work, where landowners usually live on the farms they wish to protect.
Only allowing the landowner to deduct 1/3 of the value of their charitable donation from protecting their land with a conservation easement, rather than the current 100 percent, over six years against their federal and state income taxes. This would make it economically unfeasible for the majority of landowners and families to protect their lands; and
Limiting deductions for donations or bargain sales (less than fair market value) of land to the price the landowner originally paid for the property (the “basis”). If this change to the tax law were to occur, it would make it extremely difficult for families and landowners, who have owned the land for decades, to protect their land.
As the use of conservation easements has expanded it has become clear, on a national level, that reforms are needed to prevent abuses of the existing tax incentives. However, the measures proposed by the Joint Committee on Taxation do not target abusers. Instead, they decrease tax deductions for all conservation donors, fail to identify abusers, and actively discourage legitimate voluntary conservation at a time when it is needed more than ever.

How you can help:
Contact your members of Congress as soon as possible and urge them to reject the Joint Committee on Taxation’s recommendations and instead support sensible reforms where there have been abuses without harming the tax incentives that have been so effective for almost 30 years.

To download or link to the following:

Download sample letter to Senators and Representatives

Link to Fact Sheet from the Land Trust Alliance

Download contact sheet for key Senators and Representatives.

Click below:

http://www.clctrust.org/JntCmteTaxation.htm

If you would like to discuss this matter in person, please call Tony Colyer-Pendás or email him at tony@clctrust.org.

It is recommended that letters be emailed or faxed before mailing.

Timing is critical:

Congress is currently considering how, if at all, these proposals will be modified. Your input can make a difference. At a time when development pressure threatens much of what makes our communities livable—clean air and water, farms and forests, parkland and wildlife habitat—we believe that more incentives (not less) are needed to encourage voluntary conservation. With your help, we can protect the essential tools of land conservation and continue to save Columbia County’s rural character for future generations.

Columbia Land Conservancy · P.O. Box 299 · 49 Main Street · Chatham, NY 12037 · (518) 392-5252

May 28, 2005
To see the Times Union May 26th article, ENVIRONMENTAL BATTLES CAN BE WON written by Ned Sullivan, Sam Pratt and Sara Griffen - Go to GOOD GROWTH on this site, and click on Articles.
 

May 24, 2005
COMING SOON
To help defray expenses, you will soon be seeing a little commercial advertising on these eNEWS pages. eNEWS advertising is being implemented because of a suggestion made by Christopher Keating at our KNGG meeting on May 16th. We'll need some help setting up rates etc. and we hope to implement this within the month.

If you have a favorite nonprofit organization you'd like to promote or a business, think of KNGG eNEWS. By the way, if you haven't rejoined for 2005, please do so today. KNGG needs your support.

MAY 16TH MEETING
The May 16th meeting went well. Although there is always room for more, we had a good turn out.

President Allen Schaefer welcomed all and made the announcement , “It is with deep sadness that I tell you of the resignation of Alexandra Anderson Spivy from our board of directors. Upon resigning from the board of directors Ms Spivey has accepted appointment to the KNGG Board of Advisors and will be chairing the Committee on Community Group Relations. There will be more exciting news about this post and its responsibilities in the near future.”

Schaefer introduced new board members to the membership. Joining the board is Jayne Zinke, Columbia County born whose parents founded Golden Harvest Farms. Also joining the board is longtime resident and educator, Abbey Cash. Phyllis Teal has accepted the appointment of Treasurer, taking over from Mark Litteken. Phyllis is also a long time resident as well and is employed by the State of New York in the investments department.

Thank you Mark Litteken for a very informative overview of what's happening with the US9/NY 9H Corridor Study Committee. Mark is a member of the committee.

Thank you Anne Patman and Tom Neufeld for letting us know what's happening with the Town Historic Committee.

SURPRISE SPEAKER
Sam Pratt Executive Director of Friends of Hudson and member of the KNGG Advisory Board made a surprize visit and spoke some words of praise for what KNGG is doing and encouragement to continue our work. Thanks, Sam. It is most appreciated.

The future outlook for KNGG was presented at the meeting.

KNGG - Our Outlook for theFuture

Traffic Concerns to be addressed:

No cumulative traffic analysis has been done - We need this.

No traffic study was required of Widewaters for the morning rush hour. We still need this.

A Focus on Educating our Public Officials and the Public

Regular Informational Gatherings

Guest speakers

Films on Smart Growth & Planning with popcorn for all

Informal informational socials

Reaching out to our neighbors:

Chatham, Claverack, Gent, Hudson, Pine Plains and more

Continue our Support of Friends of Hudson - NOW against LaFarge Cement

To Develop Our Own Expertise on Overdevelopment

o Architecture

o Local Farming

o Conservation Easements

o Traffic patterns and signalization

Planned Monitoring and Reporting of Planning Board, ZBA and Town Board Meetings

Alternative Ways to Raise Funds

GROW the Membership

Increase Membership Participation

WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE INTERSECTION?

We don't know. No signs of a roundabout. You may remember from Planning Board meetings and Public Hearings that the building on south boarder of Widewaters Commons is called 4/4A. We have been told by the developer that the smaller part will contain various retail shops. Attached to it would be the Hannaford building. The smaller section with the retail shops is to be the closest to the road. The larger building planned next to it is supposed to house Hannaford.

Driving south on US9, one sees the skeleton of the smaller structure with its roof. The building to house Hannaford is not there. Nothing, no skeleton. One wonders how Hannaford expects to open this fall if they haven't started building. Hannaford, Hannaford . . . Wherefore art thou?

Be prepared for some of the worse traffic jamsever seen in this are as construction begins on the Widewaters roundabout.

May 20, 2005
Questions about the new conservation subdivision law answered:

The Register-Star – May 17, 2005

By Joe Prout

Board prepares to vote on proposed conservation law

With public approval voiced for mandatory conservation subdivisions at a recent Town Board meeting, there will likely be a vote on the matter at next month’s regular meeting.

The proposal that would require all divisions of parcels of at least 20 acres to have at least half the land preserved as open space garnered public support during a public hearing last week.

Town Councilwoman Mary Kramarchyk asked to have the public hearing extended another month so that a landowner who contacted her could get more information on the proposal, but the board felt that additional delays could result in a subdivision proposal before the law was on the books.

A member of the audience questioned how segmentation would be addressed by the law. This concern isn’t new to the Planning Board because segmentation, the process of slowly dividing a large parcel into smaller pieces to spread the overall impact over time, is already considered when subdivision proposals are reviewed.

Planning Board Chairman Ed Simonsen said he felt it wasn’t an issue with the law because the current version, which requires conservation subdivisions of parcels of at least 12 acres in agricultural zones, also requires seeing a fully proposed built-out of the land in question. He said once the land is split, there are provisions that state it cannot be split further.

Town Supervisor Doug McGivney said the board would review the concerns on segmentation before the next meeting.

The law would not restrict the number of structures that can be built, because it allows for cluster housing of buildings and smaller-than-typically permitted parcel sizes.

KNGG NOTE:

IS THE NEW CONSERVATION LAW SUFFICIENT?

Although KNGG supports a new subdivision conservation law, is it really necessary to increase the minimum acreage from the current 12 acres to 20 acres? We are happy that the proposed law is being amended to take segmentation into consideration. But why wasn’t the original 12 acre law amended instead to include ALL plots above 12 acres? Also, it wasn't clear that the new law requires a set percentage of acreage to be put aside for conservation.

ARE YOU OUTRAGED?

Coming south on US9 or down State Farm Road, you see that the Catskill vistas totally blocked by the “Hannaford Building” at the construction site of Widewaters Commons and you see this building is much closer to the street than the Widewaters conceptional drawings would have you believe. Soon you will see Dunkin Donuts with its high volume of rush hour traffic going up at this very intersection to replace OK Computer. And soon you will see a roundabout being constructed and the traffic lights being removed from that intersection. We already see illegally parked trailer trucks along Route 9H near Stewart’s and McDonald’s which block views of drivers entering and exiting these establishments as well as the intersection of Old Post Road at 9H.

This should anger you because our public officials did not have the foresight to see what is actually happening and the results of this on our community.

There is a lot here that makes us boil over. We ask that you harness your anger; make it useful. This is the time to sit down and write a letter to the editor of our papers. Because this ill advised project has been approved, there is no reason why we should sit back and take it. We can still protest, and protest we should.

Please take time out this weekend to write to the papers. This is a good time to voice your protest once more. Let our public officials know we are not forgetting their mistake.

Are you happy with the way some Town Board members have been voting and the pro big box development stance they are taking? Please write.

Send your letter to:

Chatham Courier ccourier@localnet.com

The Independent letters@indenews.com

The Register-Star editorial@registerstar.com

Be sure to copy in KNGG.

MAY 15, 2004
A MORATORIUM RECAP - SCHEDULED FOR THE
2005 KNGG ANNUAL MEETING
MONDAY MAY 16TH - 7:30 PM

the McNary Center at St. Paul's Episcopal Church

Village of Kinderhook NY

The Independent

May 13 2005

KINDERHOOK STOPS BIG BOX STORES

By Richard Roth

KINDERHOOK-The Kinderhook Town Board passed a local law Monday imposing a 120-day moratorium on the construction of commercial buildings in excess of 40,000 square feet.

Under current law, the maximum allowable size for a commercial building is 80,000 square feet. But the Board is in the process of proposing an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that will permanently limit building size to 40,000 square feet, or slightly less than one acre.

To the best of his knowledge, said Planning Board Chairman Ed Simonsen, there are only two buildings in the town with a floor area larger than that: the Empire building on Route 9 near Golden Harvest Farm, with 85,220 square feet; and Grand Union Plaza in Valatie, with 72,255.

The Town of Greenport , on the other hand, has at least three: Wal-Mart, with approximately 120,000 square feet; Price Chopper, with 63,000; and Shop-Rite, with 55,000.

The Widewaters development at the intersection of Routes 9 and 9H and State Farm Road , recently approved by the Town Planning Board but still subject to litigation, would have a total of just over 70,000 square feet in three buildings. The Hannaford's supermarket component, Mr. Simonsen said, amounts to 42,000 square feet.

"We're pleased by the Town Board adoption of the moratorium, and we believe it's the right direction for the town to be headed in," said attorney Meg Moran on behalf of Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth. She said the citizens' group, which opposed the Widewaters development, hoped the town would now include "cumulative impacts" in considering zoning changes and new applications for commercial development. *

Mr. Simonsen said he believed the Planning Board had done that with Widewaters. "You can look at the impact of an individual project," he said, "but to determine the impact on the community, you have to look at all the other impacts of all the other similar uses in the community." **

The Town of Kinderhook 's Comprehensive Plan has the stated goals of protecting the rural and historic character of the town and minimizing obstructions to the town's scenic vistas, open spaces, mountains, waterways, and historic sites. Design standards for new building projects are expected to further those goals.

"Recent experience has shown that some of the design standards [in the Comprehensive Plan], such as roof pitch and building height requirements, cannot be accomplished in buildings over 40,000 square feet in area," says a section of the building moratorium law explaining its purpose and intent.

The moratorium's 120-day time limitation was arrived at, Supervisor Doug McGivney explained, because the town wanted to avoid legal challenges.

Courts have held that the moratorium's advantages to a municipality must outweigh the potential hardships to landowners, according to the Department of State (DOS). And the courts have required that, during a moratorium, the community must be actively engaged in the development of a comprehensive plan or new regulations.

A 1999 DOS publication on land use moratoria specifies that a moratorium must be no longer than necessary to effect a permanent solution. "The courts will look carefully to see that the terms of a moratorium express a relatively short, but specific duration, and that such a duration is closely related to the municipal actions necessary to address the underlying issues," according to the publication.

"[The 120-day limit] will put pressure on ourselves to come up with the changes we desire," Mr. McGivney told the board before urging them to vote for the law. "We don't want to delay, and it would be wise to adopt the moratorium as proposed."

Councilwoman Mary Kramarchyk voted against the moratorium. When Mr. Simonsen asked her to explain, she replied that she believed the town should be encouraging commercial development to expand the tax base. "I don't think a moratorium on commercial building is something I'd ever favor," she said.

Mr. Simonsen said after the meeting that the benefits of commercial projects to the tax base are often misunderstood and overstated. "The entire Widewaters site would probably support one teacher in the Ichabod Crane school system," he said. ***

State law mandates a process the town must carry out before the Comprehensive Plan can be amended, and the moratorium will prevent larger projects from being approved before the process is complete.

"This process requires review of the proposed [Comprehensive] Plan amendment by the Town Planning Board, at least two public hearings, review by the Columbia County Planning Department, adoption of a Plan amendment and, ultimately, the passage of an amendment to the Zoning Law which requires the same review as the Plan amendment," says Section 2 of the moratorium law.

There is a possibility that the moratorium could be extended, if necessary. "Moratoria of six months as well as one year have been upheld by the courts," says the DOS publication. "It is unclear whether a moratorium lasting longer than a year would be considered reasonable, but that may depend, to an extent, on the subject matter addressed by the moratorium."

The courts have held that any enactment affecting private property rights must "bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare," according to the DOS. And the text of the Kinderhook law specifically refers to the town's responsibility to "protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents."

During the effective period of the moratorium, no town entity-Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Building Inspector, or Code Enforcement Officer-can grant any approvals or permits for any building or structure in excess of 40,000 square feet. New applications will not be considered, and the Town Board reserves the right to revoke any building permit or certificate of occupancy issued in violation of the law.

The law does not apply to applications already approved or construction that began prior to the law's adoption.

A property owner may apply to the Town Board in writing for a variation from compliance from the law upon proof of hardship. But, says the law, "hardship shall not be the mere delay in being permitted to make an application or waiting for the decision on the application for a variance."

To contact reporter Richard Roth e-mail rroth@indenews.com.

KNGG REPLIES:

By Allen Schaefer

* OMITTED from Meg Moran’s statement to the Independent was KNGG's concern for the need of a cumulative traffic impact study. The town did not have this done at the time of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan nor was it done at the time the zoning was changed at the Widewaters site from the ½ business, ½ agricultural/residential zone to a100% business zone. Moran stated that during this moratorium the Town should take advantage of the time and do a cumulative traffic study in addition to working on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code changes.

** "You can look at the impact of an individual project, but to determine the impact on the community, you have to look at all the other impacts of all the other similar uses in the community."

Ed Simonsen’s above statement is the correct thought process when applying “good growth” or “smart growth” to any project. However during the recent application review KNGG had asked the Planning Board to take this into consideration but it was not done. Upon approving four projects in the same area, Widewaters, the roundabout, Dunkin Donuts, and Stewart’s within a short period, it is obvious that the cumulative impact on the community was ignored.

*** "The entire Widewaters site would probably support one teacher in the Ichabod Crane school system," Simonsen said in reply to Kramarchyk’s statement that “she believed the town should be encouraging commercial development to expand the tax base.”

We agree with Ed Simonsen. KNGG had repeatedly brought this economic fact to the attention of the Planning Board and the Town Board for nearly three years of the Widewaters review process. It is time that ALL public officials who don’t see the facts but insist on holding on to their agendas are held responsible for their actions. The perception that these officials hold on to is the sort of thing that will cause our taxes to rise even more. One has only to take a look at communities in Westchester and Putnam counties to see what has happened to their taxes with the advent of the big boxes. It is well know that the infrastructures suffer when the big boxes come to town. Who pays for improving the infrastructure? The taxpayer pays. The tax money taken in from the big boxes is not enough to cover needed infrastructure improvements. Take a look at the KNGG web site, www.KNGG.org – move down to WIDEWATERS COMMONS and click on “No New Job Revenue” and “Police Costs Rise.” All of our Town Officials need to understand these economic impacts as well as the environmental impacts.

WHERE DID THE CATSKILLS GO?

Have you driven down State Farm Road toward Route 9 recently? The skeleton of the eastern most part of Widewaters building4/4A is pretty well up. It is much closer to the street in reality than the conceptual drawings would have us believe. When you drive down State Farm Road toward the project, take a good look at the Catskill Mountain vista. It is behind the structure and when it is filled in, the view will be gone whether or not there is a flat roof or pitched roof. Widewaters claim that the pitched roof would kill the view is inaccurate. At least a pitched roof would break the harsh big box lines. The Catskills are in hiding behind the Widewaters structure never to be seen again from State Farm Road or Route US9.

PLEASE ATTEND

2005 KNGG ANNUAL MEETING
MONDAY MAY 16TH - 7:30 PM

The McNary Center at St. Paul's Episcopal Church

Village of Kinderhook NY

We will be presenting an outline our future plans.

also

A Moratorium Recap

and

Guest Speakers

Mark Litteken, US9/9H Corridor Study Committee

Tom Neufeld, Anne Patman of the Town Historic Commission

KNGG 3rd Birthday Celebration will follow the meeting

MAY 13, 2005
Matacchiero, age 11, Speaks Up
Samuel Matacchiero, a fifth grader at Martin Van Buren School, decided it was time to tell it to The Town Board. Samuel and his older brother have been following the Widewaters’ application process in the news papers and on KNGG eNEWS. Samuel believes that we can all make a difference if we become involved and speak up for what we believe to be right.
At the crowded Town Hall on Monday evening, Samuel walked proudly to the podium, told the Town Board that he believed we need the moratorium and asked the Board to vote for it.
Thank you Samuel Matacchiero for helping the democratic process by speaking up for what you believe.

KNGG predicted that Councilwoman Mary Kramarchyk would do exactly what she did do. She voted against the moratorium. (See Below) After the Planning Board/Town Board meeting, she denied that she “proposed” that the commercial roof restrictions be removed from the current zoning code and then called KNGG and told us that she was for a better looking Kinderhook. I don’t think so. We know she supported Widewaters and we had hoped that through the Widewaters’ application process she would have learned that the BIG BOX does not mix with Kinderhook’s rural and small town character. This is Kinderhook, not East Greenbush, Colonie or Latham Circle . Kinderhook is unique and through “good growth” we hope to be able to promote business that fits and maintain Kinderhook’s charm for future generations.

The Register-Star Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Town Board adopts moratorium on large buildings
By Joe Prout
Kinderhook - The Town Board decided Monday it would temporarily put a halt to proposals for any commercial structure larger than 40,000 square feet.

The Moratorium will give the Town Board time to propose changes to the sections of the Town Code that regulate large buildings.

The approved moratorium will last at least 120 days once the resolution gets properly filed. Councilwoman Mary Kramarchyk voted against the proposal, citing economic growth ramifications and residents’ concerns as her reasons.

Several residents spoke in favor of the moratorium, some of whom called for the removal of language that provides developers an out if there was a perceived hardship. Others in the audience said it was a proper step back to the old numbers in the town’s comprehensive plan.

Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth President Allen Schaefer and KNGG affiliate Alvin Knoll were among the supporters. Knoll disagreed with proposal wording that suggested it’s impossible to build large buildings that comply with the current architectural standards spelled out in the Town Code.

Questions about large buildings surfaced when the Widewaters Group, a development firm, proposed its shopping center at the intersections of Routes 9 and 9H. During the town’s review of its project, Widewaters representatives said they couldn’t build a code-compliant building and requested a variance from town regulations prohibiting flat roofs. KNGG argued that Widewaters could have built a compliant structure and pointed to designs provided by Knoll. A KNGG-initiated Article 78 lawsuit opposing the ZBA approval of the variance remains outstanding.

Kramarchyk previously suggested to other Town Board members that the town should get definitive answers on whether there was anything wrong with current code language. *

The councilwoman also said she doesn’t believe there’s a right time to stop commercial development. She said the moratorium is “depriving the people an increased tax base.” She later added: “We will be sending the wrong message to developers.”*

Kramarchyk additionally said there are no plans before the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals that this moratorium would affect. She said if results aren’t achieved in the next 120 days the moratorium could be extended and new 40,000-squar-foot or larger developments couldn’t be proposed.*

Town Supervisor Doug McGivney said the real issue created by Widewaters was whether the architectural standards in the code should supplant open space provided by flat roofs. Opponents to the Widewaters proposal requested the developer take steps to preserve the view to the Catskill Mountains.

McGivney said the town’s tax base has already been increased by new, smaller businesses. He pointed to the recently built Stewart’s store, a bank on the same lot and an approved Dunkin Donuts that are all very close to the same proposal. The same intersection now sports McDonalds.

Planning Board Chairman Ed Simonsen said the moratorium only stops proposals larger than 40,000 square feet. He said any proposal for a structure under that size would be reviewed as normal.

Without the moratorium, the Town Code allows developers to propose 80,000-square-foot structures. The Town Board will likely shrink that number in the future.

A more in depth article appears on today’s front page of the Independent.

MAY 9, 2005
TOWN BOARD APPROVES MORATORIUM

The hearing for a moratorium was held tonight at 6:45 at Town Hall. We wish to thank the many KNGG members that came out to speak in favor of the moratorium. The Town Hall was full to the extent that extra seats were placed in the rear. All those who spoke, spoke in favor of the moratorium.

The Agenda of the Board meeting was changed at the last minute because towards the end of the hearing, Board member Frances Vecellio arrived on his way from the hospital with his new babe, born only yesterday, in hand. Mrs. Vecellio and older daughter were also present. By moving the moratorium up on the agenda for a vote, Vecellio could take part before departing early with his family.

Vecellio made the resolution to pass the 120 day moratorium on commercial space over 40,000 square feet.

The vote was taken:

Mary Kramarchyk – NO

Debbie Johnson – YES

Supervisor Doug McGivney – YES

Frances Vecellio - YES

Keith Stack – Absent

The board passed the resolution. The moratorium is in!

At the writing of this bulletin, the law to amend the code on subdivisions for open space had not voted upon. This law would mandate all parcels over 20 acres that would become subdivisions, would be required to have “cluster housing” and most of the acreage would be under a conservation easement to preserve open spaces, woodland, wet land, etc. It wasn’t clear if the vote would take place later in the evening. However Mary Kramarchyk stated that she wanted it “tabled.” More on this tomorrow.

The Public Hearing for this law was held earlier this evening. Like the moratorium law, all who spoke, spoke in favor of passing it.

It was a very positive evening for most and we are overjoyed, to say the least. As Allen Schaefer said at the hearing, “It’s good to see two branches of government such as the Planning Board and the Town Board working together for the good of the community.”

We sincerely believe that KNGG has made an impact on this community and it’s good to see it at work.

Also on the agenda was a resolution called for to put a resolution on the ballot in November to extend the term of supervisor from two to four years, effective as of the next election. This passed unanimously.

MAY 6, 2005

PUBLIC HEARING for a MORATORIUM? YOU BET!
BACKGROUND
“Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth representative Meg Moran came before the Town Board recently proposing just that -- starting with at least a 90-day moratorium during which no approvals could be issued for commercials development proposals along the 9/9H corridor. The moratorium would give the town time to develop a traffic analysis to consider the impacts of traffic in the area from full commercial buildout of the corridor.
Moran called for computer program modeling, maybe taking advantage of utilities available from the state Department of Transportation. She said the Town Board could take results from a study and consider its results -- possibly using the information to re-evaluate the town's zoning ordinance.
Councilman Francis Vecellio said Moran tied the proposal for a large shopping center and one for Dunkin Donuts together to drive home her point, that all this proposed construction with potential high traffic flows will create a burden on an intersection that's already near failing, based on DOT admissions.”
-The Register-Star, May 14, 2004
CURRENT
A moratorium is on the Town Boards agenda once more. Only this time a public hearing has been scheduled. Things have been happening around the county and the learned members of our town board have been watching. It’s time to take another look.
On Monday evening May 9, 2005 at 7:00 PM, Town Hall, Niverville
Town Board will hold a public hearing on a moratorium.
The board is proposing a moratorium on all commercial space over 40,000 square feet. The Town Board is asking you for your input at this meeting. The board wants to know if you believe this moratorium should go through.
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT KNGG HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN. We proposed a moratorium in May of 2004. We are now involved in changing the law to better our community.
AND WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT.
PLEASE COME OUT MONDAY NIGHT AND TELL THE TOWN BOARD THAT THEY ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. TELL THEM HOW MUCH WE NEED THIS MORATORIUM.
You can be sure that the opposition is rallying for supporters to tell the board that the people do not want this moratorium. - - -
We need to come out in numbers to show them the people want it. We need to speak up at this hearing. THIS IS OUR CHANCE! It’s one in a million and we must take advantage of it on Monday night.
The Town Board will meet at 7:00 PM Monday night at the Town Hall in Niverville.
THIS IS HOW WE CAN SAVE KINDERHOOK from LOEW’S, HOME DEPOT, WAL-MART --- FROM THE BIG BOX!

April 25, 2005

The bank in the article below is not “Widewaters bank” but the National Union Bank of Kinderhook.
The Register-Star
April 25, 2005

Board addresses snags, approves Widewaters bank

By Joe Prout

NIVERVILLE – Whenever the word Widewaters comes up, there’s always a ripple in the typically placid pond that is the Town Planning Board.

A National Union Bank proposed by Zandri Construction Corporation had its share of typical design compliance issues the board raised and a special set of Widewaters-specific issues that made some on the board somewhat agitated.

The board attempted to resolve the bank representative's concerns while sticking to the approved plans for the shopping center at the intersection of Routes 9 and 9H.

The bank itself has been praised as a well-designed structure. It’s described as a colonial-style brick structure with a functioning cupola, decorated with low-wattage ornamental lighting around the building and landscaping. The structure with a functioning cupola, decorated with low-wattage ornamental lighting around the building and landscaping. The structure is proposed at 3,200 square feet and would have a drive-through. It’s proposed for the northeast corner of the plaza, where the restaurant was drawn in.

At Thursday’s meeting, the board had issues with traffic flow and dumpster placement but it conditionally approved the proposal without changing the plans. The board did make the applicant install a handicap access button for the bank’s main entrance and noted the business couldn’t receive a certificate of occupancy until the state Department of Transportation built the planned roundabout for the shopping center.

Board member Gerry Minot-Scheuerman raised strong concerns on the idea that the bank concerns on the idea that the bank considered applying for a signage variance. After the board negotiated the subject with Widewaters, each retail space was left with a small portion of its total allowed signage. The bank’s portion left them with one small sign that will face Route 9.

Minot-Scheuerman didn’t like the idea that Widewaters couldn’t work out a more amiable solution for the bank, and didn’t want all future applicants who couldn’t get more signage to apply for variances. He also told the bank representatives that they knew how much square footage was allowed when they were designing the plans.

KNGG NOTE: Thank you Gerry!
Least Brilliant QUOTE FOR THE DAY: Hudson Mayor Richard E. Scalera said the new plant would have meant more jobs for his city. Scalera said a new plant would have been cleaner than the old one and would not have hurt other efforts to develop the waterfront.
(For over five years this man has not taken the time to look at SLC’s own DEIS and understand its meanings for his city.)

"I thought it could fit in. I really did," Scalera said.

from The Times Union April 25, 2005

A MORE BRILLIANT QUOTE:

Opponents feared the larger plant would have spoiled the view of the river, stymied residential and commercial development and added pollution.

"It's such a clear, decisive victory (that shows) American historical landmarks are worth fighting for," said Sara Griffen, president of Olana Partnership, which oversees the state historic site that was the home of Frederic Church, a major figure in the Hudson River School of landscape painting.

Built on a hill high above the river, Olana offers visitors majestic views of the river, and the state had warned the plant would have obstructed the view.

"It would have destroyed it," Griffen said.

from The Times Union April 25, 2005

POLITICS & SUBDIVISIONS
You’ve seen the Independent’s rather glossed over article dated April 15, 2005 on the subdivision flooding. Register-Star reporter, Joe Prout, has done some investigative reporting.

Thanks to one of our investigative members, the story is not lost. It’s a little late – but here it is:

The Register-Star
April 14, 2005

Political ties noted in flooding situation

By Joe Prout

KINDERHOOK -- Members of the town's Republican Party said they recognized that developer Marcel St. Onge and GOP town officials had connections, but they also question the significance of those ties.

At last Monday's Town Board meeting, many residents from Quail Run and Bonnie Lea housing developments came to complain about their basements flooding with water, among other concerns.

Residents in Quail Run levied multiple allegations against developer Marcel St. Onge and questioned how the subdivision that finished in 2003 was constructed when a very similar project proposed in the mid-1980s reportedly showed engineering data that suggested water would be a problem. Residents in Bonnie Lea questioned whether the new development changed the area's water table, since several previously dry properties now have water.

One property in particular, belonging to John and Donna Zimmerman on Columbia County Route 28, went up in spite of protests made about the location by the family and an independent engineering report from soon-to-be Town Engineer Pat Prendergast that spoke against construction. The Zimmermans now have three strong sump pumps working around the clock, pumping ground water out of their basement. The water created a large pond, flooding the neighbor's backyard and extending the body of water to other parcels.

Two years ago, St. Onge made the largest individual donation -- reportedly $1,000 -- to the Republican Party during the campaign that pit Building Inspector Walt Simonsmeier, a Republican, against McGivney. McGivney would go on to beat Simonsmeier.

Simonsmeier was the building inspector when the Zimmerman house was built. Town records reportedly show that Simonsmeier signed off on all but one aspect of the project. The house's certificate of occupancy was signed by Sean Jennings, who was reportedly in training to become a building inspector at the time. Jennings is also Simonsmeier's son-in-law. Simonsmeier said Jennings was certified at the time, but Town Supervisor Doug McGivney said the town records indicate otherwise.

Simonsmeier knew of several problems during construction of the Zimmerman home. When Zimmerman found out, he requested independent engineering reports from Prendergast. Zimmerman said he showed a condemning letter from Prendergast to Simonsmeier.

Simonsmeier denied ever seeing the letter. While McGivney said Simonsmeier approached him with the letter to question appointing Prendergast as town engineer, Simonsmeier said that never happened. “He’s lying,” Simonsmeier said. “He’s wrong, I don’t remember that at all.”

Zimmerman’s house was constructed in the first phase of Quail Run, which was completed in October, 2001. Prendergast would later become an engineer for the town in February, 2002.

While Simonsmeier believes Prendergast was the town’s engineer for the whole project, McGivney said Prendergast replaced former engineer Jim Green later on.

Prendergast’s letter details a course of action Zimmerman said never was followed.

Prendergast recommended routing water to an area of land with a lower groundwater table. He suggested installing a drain that would route the water below the cellar slab, and recommended the slab be built 12 inches above the high water table. It additionally states: “In no event should the groundwater be in contact with the slab as this will result in a damp basement.”

Zimmerman said his house’s footing drains feed into his sump pit.

There were questions raised on how a C of O could be issued with known engineering concerns still unaddressed. When the C of O was written, Jennings said: “There wasn’t any water in the basement.” Jennings said he never saw the Prendergast letter.

Zimmerman said the C of O was issued in the summer during a period without water. He said his problems started in September, with great quantities of water being seen in December, 2003.

When asked about issuing the C of O with problems reported earlier during construction, Jennings said: “I didn’t know anything previous to that – the other inspections.”

Jennings declined to comment on how Zimmerman’s situation came to be. He declined to say how he felt about having his name on the Zimmerman C of O.

Simonsmeier acknowledged there were problems found during construction, but said he had an engineering report that addressed them. He said Zimmerman’s engineer at the time and an attorney for the town approved the project.

Simonsmeier said he felt he was misidentified by McGivney and Democratic Councilman Francis Vecellio as the person who signed the C of O. He feels they are trying to scapegoat him since he’s considering another run at the town supervisor position.

Simonsmeier said he couldn’t restrict who contributed funds to the Republican Party.

Town GOP Party Chairman Tim Reilly agreed that something may look odd to an outsider. “Does it appear there are obvious problems? You bet,” Reilly said outside on Monday’s meeting.

Reilly said he was unaware of any behind-the-scenes ties to Simonsmeier and St.Onge. “It could appear that way, but I have no knowledge of it,” Reilly said. “Whether those conclusions are right has yet to be seen.”

In another Republican connection, Highway Superintendent Mark Irish was recently scolded by the Town Board for having the town Highway Department plow snow from Pheasant Lane, the road in St. Onge’s Quail Run development. The road is private and hasn’t been designated as an official town road. Without the designation, it is illegal for the Highway Department to work on the road.

While Irish said the practice was done in the past, he agreed to discontinue work in the area. Irish is up for re-election this year.

Reilly would go on to say that any public official who is swayed by campaign financing should not be a public official. He didn’t speak specifically about any one person. “Am I concerned? Let me just say I’m going to hold my final opinion until everyone speaks,” Reilly said.

Speaking generally on campaign finance, Reilly supports making finance records known to the public. He said it would help public officials consider appearances when making decisions.

St.Onge didn’t respond to phone calls requesting comment.

APRIL 24, 2005 – SLC QUITS FOR GOOD!

SLC officially withdraws project!

A week or so ago we were overjoyed with the news that the State turned down SLC’s waterfront permit. That is, until we read the editorial in Friday’s Independent.

TODAY - ONCE MORE WE ARE OVERJOYED!

Below is a news release issued today by Friends of Hudson.

But first, we gratefully thank Sam Pratt and all his dedicated workers and volunteers at Friends of Hudson for all they have given to our community. Their dedicated long hours of work has been rewarded. Like KNGG, FoH will not disappear. There is still lots of work to do in this area to secure our environment.

Sam Pratt and his people have led the way. They are a great inspiration to groups like KNGG. We have learned much from them. Friends of Hudson gives the motivation for all of us to keep going. We can win. More and more our government leaders are beginning to listen, learn and understand what we are saying about our environment and our rural historic character.

Allen Schaefer, President KNGG

FRIENDS OF HUDSON

P.O. Box 326 Hudson NY 12534
http://www.friendsofhudson.org/donate

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

24 APRIL 2005

In wake of denial by the State, St. Lawrence Cement officially withdraws applications to build coal-fired plant in Hudson Valley

HUDSON, NEW YORK AND MONT ROYAL, QUEBEC – in a release issued late Sunday afternoon, the Canadian-based and Swiss-owned St. Lawrence Cement company officially announced that it is abandoning its six-and-a-half-year quest to build a massive new coal-fired cement plant in Hudson and Greenport, New York, along the majestic Hudson River.

The SLC release states that "Following careful review of the impacts of the DOS decision, the Board of Directors of St. Lawrence Cement has decided not to appeal the DOS decision and to withdraw the proposed replacement cement plant in Greenport, New York, from the permitting process." A copy of the full release can be found at the company's website,
http://www.stlawrencecement.com.

"St. Lawrence Cement has finally made a smart move by recognizing that this out-of-scale and out-of-place project would never meet regulatory approval," said Sam Pratt, executive director of the 4,100-member citizens group Friends of Hudson, which began challenging the sprawling project in early 1999.

"This outcome comes as a tremendous relief to not only the Hudson community, but to the tens of thousands of downwind residents in New York and New England who have opposed the plant," Pratt added. "Thanks to a courageous stance taken last week by the Pataki administration, our communities can now put this controversy behind us. We will redouble our efforts to build a greener, more sustainable regional economy that all can participate in, without risking anyone's health or quality of life. Now is a time to bring residents back together, healing the divisions that SLC tried to sow among us, and looking forward to making the Hudson Valley a model for regional revitalization."

Last Tuesday night, New York Secretary of State Randy Daniels issued a strongly-worded decision which declared the SLC project inconsistent with eight key State policies designed to protect the Hudson River from inappropriate development. Without New York's approval, which came after extensive review of the project by the state's Division of Coastal Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could not issue permits for the project, and the chances of winning an appeal were slim.

In its 2004 Annual Report, St. Lawrence disclosed $57.9 million in capital expenditures on the Greenport project. Sunday's news release also states an intention to invest $10 million in upgrading its existing, and much smaller plant in Catskill (Greene County). "While it is premature to comment on any such plans, residents downwind of the Catskill plant can count on opponents to take as much interest in Catskill as we have in Greenport. Any substantial changes to SLC's Greene County facility would be likely to trigger the same type of review it underwent in Hudson and Greenport, and our group has recently asked the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation for records of the existing plant's performance with an eye to keeping them honest there, too."

# # #

For more information, contact:
FRIENDS OF HUDSON
(518) 822-0334 tel
(518) 822-9435 fax
sam@friendsofhudson.org

April 18, 2005
The following article deals with an unfortunate subdivision problem brought up at Monday's Town Board meeting. We'll bring you other issues of that meeting shortly.

The Independent April 15, 2005

BY RICHARD ROTH

Owners boil over rising water

KINDERHOOK-The Town Board had to move its monthly meeting to the Niverville Firehouse Monday, April 11, to accommodate a large crowd of angry residents from two flooded subdivisions near the intersection of Route 28 and State Farm Road.

While the board was willing to listen to complaints for nearly three hours and pledged to do everything it could to alleviate the immediate problem, the cause of the flooding may be a gradual rise in the groundwater level that is beyond anyone's control.

The Village of Kinderhook is grappling with a similar situation in the James Lane area.
Several homeowners in the Bonny Lea subdivision said they have been forced to pump water out of their basements for the first time in 30 years. And in neighboring Quail Run, one resident has been pumping his basement at the rate of 500 gallons per minute. The pond he has thus created extends hundreds of yards; and in some places backyard sheds, playground equipment, and trees are standing in water three or four feet deep.
Several speakers placed the blame on Quail Run developer Marcel St. Onge and on the Town of Kinderhook itself, which they say should never have approved the development.

Mr. St. Onge originally tried to subdivide the property in 1986, but he declined to carry out the plan when the town recommended that he install dry wells in several locations because of the area's high water table. When he came back to the town in 2001, he was able to get his plans approved without any such requirement.
"Why didn't the Planning Board and the Town Board follow those recommendations?" asked Bonny Lea resident Janie Felix.

Planning Board Chairman Ed Simonsen said he remembered looking at plans for the previous subdivision when Mr. St. Onge re-applied in 2001, but did not recall looking at anything else in the file.

"That may have been a mistake," said Mr. Simonsen. "Should we have looked through the entire file? Absolutely. Did we? I don't think so."

Subdivision plans are reviewed by Planning Board members, who serve as volunteers; the town Building Department; engineers for the town and the applicant, and the county Department of Health.
Several residents suggested that the town had an obligation to residents of the two subdivisions. But Town Attorney Ed McConville said there are a number of legal issues that come into play.

First, the town's ability to act is limited by Town Law. "The town can do flood control projects that benefit all citizens," said Mr. McConville. "But this is not a town-wide problem." The same law would apply to draining the water in Valatie Kill by drawing it under State Farm Road and channeling it along Route 28.
"We need a study by someone, quickly, as to the cause of the problem," Mr. McConville said. "If [the flooding] is shown to be a potential cause of health problems or if it's shown to be undermining structures and roads, the town can take action and spend money."

Potential health problems include West Nile virus or encephalitis, which could be spread by mosquitoes breeding in the standing water, or the compromising of septic systems.
On the other hand, the town does have a right to take legal action against anyone who violates local statutes. "We will look into violations by St. Onge," said Mr. McConville.

Mr. McGivney said he knew of no past violations by Mr. St. Onge. But for now, the town has stopped issuing building permits or certificates of occupancy in Quail Run, and that has caused problems for at least one couple.
"I don't reside in Kinderhook, but I'd like to," said Mark Saxby, who explained that he and his wife were expecting to move into their house only to be told that they were legally prohibited from doing so in the absence of a certificate of occupancy. Meanwhile, he said, there are mortgage payments to be made.

Another resident said she had moved in on March 28 and discovered water in the basement two days later. Others complained of septic smells seeping into their homes. The county Department of Health is testing wells in the neighborhood this week.

John North, who has lived in Bonny Lea since 1978, said he has water in his basement for the very first time. "We had some major damage to clothing and household goods in moving boxes my son shipped back from China," he