eNEWS
2005
JULY - DECEMBER
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.

NOVEMBER 12, 2005

The Annexation of Town land into Valatie

ANNEXATION INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS NOW SET:
Nov. 16 - Anthony Buono parcel - Niverville Firehouse 7:00 PM

Nov. 21 – Tim Holk - The Fire House in Niverville - 7:00 PM

KNGG COMMENTS:

RE: Register-Star ANNEXATION Article of October 28, “Buono modifies annexation project request, from 35-acre parcel to only 14.6”

In this article we have learned that what was once a Town of Kinderhook subdivision/housing project application of Anthony & Michael Buono, has evolved into a Village of Valatie annexation project. Two other projects are going the same route.

FOR THE ENTIRE EDITORIAL, SEE OUR NEW CHAPTER "ANNEXATION/SUBDIVISION" Click on "Background"

NOVEMBER 6, 2005

You’ve seen the signs.  VOTE YES ON LIBRARY PROPOSITION.

What do they mean?  

Why does the Kinderhook/Valatie Library need your support for the library ballot referendum?  

For the first time in six years the libraries are seeking an increase. During those six years, prices of everything have soared, - including operating costs, utility bills, the cost of books and materials for the libraries. 

In addition to covering increased costs, the libraries would like to extend library hours and provide additional services to the community.  

Q.  How much additional will my tax bill be?

A.  This translates to a tax bill of  $21.50 a year for a $100,000 assessment.

Library members ask you to support these efforts and Vote YES on Tuesday. 

For additional information: Visit www.kngg.org

Go to CURRENT ISSUES -  Click on URGENT ACTION

POLLS ARE OPEN FROM 6 AM TO 9 PM TUES NOV 8^th

The Independent

 November 4, 2004

Sharp differences mark Kinderhook contest

By: RICHARD ROTH

KINDERHOOK-This fall's race for Town Supervisor is a re-match between former Town Building Inspector Walt Simonsmeier, who has the Republican and Conservative ballot lines, and three-term incumbent Doug McGivney, a Democrat who has also been endorsed by the Independence and Working Families parties.

       Mr. McGivney points out that Kinderhook taxes have remained stable throughout his term in office. At $0.84 per $1,000 of assessed value they are third lowest in the county.

       Mr. Simonsmeier says steps should be taken to ensure that individual assessments are fair and accurate. "You can't sit behind a desk and raise assessments across the board," says Mr. Simonsmeier.

       "Is he running for supervisor or assessor?" says Mr. McGivney. The town assessor does view all properties from the public right-of-way as required by law, he says, and new software will allow the photographs she takes to be included in the Town Hall database.

       Moreover, Mr. McGivney says, the current town building inspector follows up on building permits to make sure the assessor is notified when a certificate of occupancy (C of O) is issued, something he says Mr. Simonsmeier did not always do. "There's no taxing until a C of O is issued," said Mr. McGivney. He said Mr. Simonsmeier had failed to track close to 100 building permits during his time as building inspector.

       Relations between the Town Board and Highway Superintendent Mark Irish have often been strained, and Mr. Simonsmeier says he will be better able to deal with the situation than Mr. McGivney. "The Highway Department situation is political," says Mr. Simonsmeier. "The town attorney has told the board they have no authority over the highway superintendent, and if the voters don't like him they can vote him out."

       Mr. McGivney said he is aware of Mr. Simonsmeier's position highway superintendent's autonomy, but he does not completely agree. "He said at the League of Women Voters forum that he would approve the budget and get out of the way," said Mr. McGivney. "But there are areas where the law specifically puts the burden on the town supervisor."

       For example, said Mr. McGivney, the Town Board would have been held responsible for disturbing the wetlands on Hennett Road, where Mr. Irish was directed to restore an area that had filled in when the road was rebuilt. And the town would have to answer to the state comptroller for purchases made without proper documentation. "It's the duty of the supervisor to see that everybody complies with the law," said Mr. McGivney.

       Mr. Simonsmeier says the town needs to do more for its senior citizens. He would set up a phone line so that they can get help with household tasks such as snow shoveling and leaf raking. And he would see to it that the town builds affordable housing for those above retirement age.

       "The last house of that kind was built 10 years ago in Valatie, and there was a waiting list from day one," says Mr. Simonsmeier.

       Mr. McGivney says the town has done as much as it can given the political situation in Washington. "We have done as much as we can legally do at this point, we have done a density bonus," said Mr. McGivney. "The major current problem is the lack of HUD [federal Department of Housing and Urban Development] funds. Without HUD it's hard to have senior housing. You can do upper-class senior housing, but that's not what we're after."

       Flooding problems in houses at Quail Run subdivision, which was developed by Marcel St. Onge of Advantage Builders, have been blamed on Mr. Simonsmeier, who granted building permits there during his tenure as building inspector. But Mr. Simonsmeier says the Planning Board and the Town Board are at fault for having approved the subdivision and for failing to stop construction of new houses once water problems became apparent.

       Quail Run resident John Zimmerman "started pumping water in December of 2003," said Mr. Simonsmeier. "When they got water, why didn't McGivney and [town engineer Pat] Pendergast put a halt to all buildings at that time? If I was supervisor in December of 2003, I would have halted all construction."

       Mr. McGivney says the problem was that Mr. Simonsmeier allowed Mr. St. Onge to continue building, even after it became apparent that basements in Quail Run were below the water table.

       "The Zimmermans have photos that showed water in the basement, and he allowed them to keep building," said Mr. McGivney. "The state code requires that the footings and basement floor be two feet above the highest water table measurements, and [Mr. Simonsmeier] should have picked that up."

       Mr. Simonsmeier says that he did, in fact, send violation notices to Mr. St. Onge, and that construction on the Zimmerman house was stopped at one point. "[Mr. St. Onge] came back with corrective measures, and raised the house about a foot," said Mr. Simonsmeier. "The engineer and the supervisor saw the report, and I told Marcel to proceed."

       An earlier application by Mr. St. Onge for a subdivision at the Quail Run property had been denied because of the area's high water table, but Mr. St. Onge "misled" the current Planning Board when he re-applied, according to Mr. McGivney.

       "Most Planning Board members were not on the board when the previous application had been made," said Mr. McGivney. "We had a new Planning Board and a new attorney; the only congruity was Marcel [St. Onge], and he came in with different data."

       Just how long the winner of this election will be in office will not be known until after Election Day. A separate ballot provision approved by the Town Board earlier this year allows voters to determine whether the successful candidate serves for two years or four.

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

VOTE TUESDAY! POLLS ARE OPEN FROM 6 AM TO 9 PM TUES NOV 8^th

November 4, 2005
 
THE ELECTION & KNGG
As usual prior to an election, our membership ask for guidance and wish to know how the candidates stand on issues of interest to KNGG.  The following list hopefully answers this as best as possible.  This is not meant to be an endorsement for any one one candidate.
 
KINDERHOOK CANDIDATES
 
SUPERVISOR – Doug McGivney
On Widewaters, McGivney proclaimed to be pro-development, but anti-roundabout and wanted a smaller project.
 
KNGG proposed the Corridor Study Committee – McGivney supported it.
McGivney supported and was involved in getting land easements in town.
McGivney supported the KNGG proposal for a moratorium on big development
McGivney initiated the zoning change changed to restrict big box development to 40,000 Sq. ft. as opposed to 100,000 Sq. Ft.

With Francis Vecellio and Debby Johnson, he initiated cluster housing into the zoning code.
McGivney came out against LaFarge Cement application to DEC to burn tires as an alternate fuel
 
McGivney voted YES on the moratorium.
McGivney voted YES on the zoning code amendments against big development.
McGivney voted YES on the corridor study committee.
 
SUPERVISOR– Walt Simonsmeier
August 16, 2002 - Code Enforcement Officer, Walt Simonsmeier, wrote a letter to Marco Marzocchi, General Counsel for Widewaters giving a determination on their questions regarding zoning. Simonsmeier was incorrect on the two counts:
1. He advised Marzocchi that Widewaters’ project did not exceed the Density Control Schedule of the Town Zoning Code.
2. He advised that the septic systems for a shopping center could be characterized as an accessory use and be located in that portion of the lot located in the Ag/Residential District where retail uses are prohibited.
 
Simonsmeier did not have jurisdiction. On September 11, 2002, KNGG attorney, Jeff Baker, filed for appeal with Town Zoning Board of Appeals citing CEO Walt Simonsmeier’s determination re: zoning requirements for Widewaters’ Commons.

On November 25, 2002 the ZBA determined that Simonsmeier’s letter was not an official "determination" and thus could not be appealed. Attorney Jeff Baker insisted the ZBA designate that the letter cannot have any legal effect in future. Accordingly, ZBA stated Walt Simonsmeier’s letter could have no legal effect.
 
Simonsmeier has recently tried to take credit for the formation of the Corridor Study Committee when in fact it was first suggested at KNGG meetings by Marilyn Kaplan and Meg Moran and later proposed at a Town Board meeting by KNGG members. Simonsmeier never had anything to do with its formation or adoption.
 
When Simonsmeier was asked how he stood on the LaFarge application to burn tires as an alternate fuel, he wasn't aware of the dispute & healthcare for the town.
 
TOWN COUNCIL: Debbie Johnson.
As an experienced Town Councilwoman, Johnson has planned, supported and promoted the new town park.  She has been instrumental in supporting McGivney and Vecellio on conservation issues including the moratorium, zoning code changes and the Corridor Study Committee.
 
Debbie Johnson voted YES on the moratorium.
Debbie Johnson voted YES on the zoning code amendments against big development.
Debbie Johnson voted YES on the corridor study committee.
 
TOWN COUNCIL: Helen Schneider
Although Helen Schneider spoke up for Widewaters at numerous hearings in the past, she has promised to support the corridor study, the zoning code and the comprehensive plan. “I have concrete plans to improve, preserve and expand our green spaces.   Helen serves on the Village of Valatie ZBA. 
 
TOWN COUNCIL – Mary Kramarchyk
On Dec. 2,  2003, Councilwoman, Mary Kramarchyk sent "Memorandum" to Kinderhook Town Board with Marzocchi’s letter and a copy of the DOT letter Marzocchi sent her. Kramarchyk wrote, "Widewaters has made substantial progress in addressing our concerns until the planning board voted to require a
supplemental EIS." "It would be in the interest of all citizens and the Town of Kinderhook if the planning board would continue to be open-minded and communicate more fully with Widewaters as to their concerns, especially if additional issues should arise."
 
December 12, 2002 – KNGG President Schaefer was quoted in the Register-Star, "It is unethical that a Town Board member (Mary Kramarchyk) is communicating with this developer." Ed Simonsen, Planning Board Chairman, "I find it troubling that an applicant with a proposal in front of the Planning Board, is
communicating with an elected official.” Dec.13, 2003 The Independent: Schaefer stated that Mary Kramarchyk wrote to the Planning Board strongly supporting Widewaters. This letter coming from a Town councilwoman to the Planning Board with her instructions for support of the developer, suggests to KNGG that Widewaters is orchestrating a pressured approval through council member Mary Kramarchyk.. The Town Board needed to remain neutral and not show partiality and should not allow the project to become a political issue as Mary Kramarchyk had tried to do.
 
Kramarchyk voted NO on the moratorium.
Kramarchyk voted NO on the zoning code amendments against big development.
Kramarchyk voted NO on the corridor study committee.
 
TOWN COUNCIL: Jeff Pinkowski – Front page, Register-Star, October 28, 2005:
“Building inspector says Pinkowski violated law for building without a permit.”  The
building is at 73 Chatham Street in Kinderhook Village. Walt Simonsmeier, Building Inspector for the Village of Valatie issued the building permit. Glenn Smith, Village of Kinderhook Building Inspector says the building is in Village of Kinderhook.

Valatie Information Officer Donna Schneider Stated: “There is no assessment information for the (Valatie portion of the) parcel on file in the village office.” She also stated: “There is no taxation/billing documents on file in the village office. We at KNGG know little about Pinkowski except that this is not a good beginning for him or Simonsmeier. 
 
CONCLUSION:   The ELECTION and KNGG
The outcome of Tuesday's election will determine not only how the future Kinderhook will look but how our quality of life will be affected.  This rural town's character versus suburban sprawl and whether or not additional traffic congestion on 9/9H will drastically increase causing air pollution from idling cars and trucks caused by developers of planned subdivisions in the town asking for annexatio in to Valatie.  
Simonsmeier is calling Routes 9/9H Kinderhook's  "BUSINESS" CORRIDOR. That's scary! 

If you believe GOOD GROWTH is important, and I'm sure you do, please get to
the polls this Tuesday, November 8th.
 
KNGG Would like to see responsible officials elected who have the best interests of the town at heart.

KNGG has weighed what the candidates have done and what they tell us. Walt Simonsmeier and Mary Kramarchyk were strongly in favor of the Widewaters project, roundabout and big development no matter what the cost.  They will probably misinterpret the Comprehensive Plan to suit their agenda.  Pinkowski is a developer of subdivisions.  With the annexation vote coming, we consider this a conflict of interest. 
 
Doug McGivney, Debbie Johnson and Helen Schneider support the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code in the way it was intended. 
We believe if there should be any amendments, they would reflect GOOD GROWTH.  Doug McGivney has promoted and been involved in land conservation in Kinderhook and saved much land for farming, open space and the Town Park.
  
It's important for all of us to get out and vote this Tuesday, November 8th. 

Vote for GOOD GROWTH!
 
E X T R A
Pick up Friday's Independent tonight or tomorrow morning.
Front page,
“Sharp differences mark K’hook contest”
Quail Run: flooding of homes discussed
 
You can access past KNGG eNEWS
By visiting www.kngg.org . 
Go to E-NEWS and just click on the year you want.
 
To learn more about the annexation of lands within the Town of Kinderhook into
the Village of Valatie, visit www.kngg.org.  
Go to CURRENT ISSUES, click on “Annexation.”

OCTOBER 6, 2005

NEW KNGG E-MAIL ADDRESS NOW IN EFFECT:
ON UPPER LEFT OF THIS PAGE - CLICK ON - CONTACT US
In order to avoid the high numbers of junk mail we've been receiving, we have followed the advice of "Consumers Report" and changed our address.Please remember to update your e-mail address book.

10/04/2005 From the Independent
Kinderhook corridor study set to expand
By: RICHARD ROTH

KINDERHOOK-Town Supervisor Doug McGivney hopes to see the 9-9H Corridor
Committee broaden its mission to take on a full review of the town's
Comprehensive Plan.

The proposal was listed on the agenda for the regular monthly meeting of the
Town Board last night, Monday, October 3.
"Our problem has been with commercial design standards, which are part of
the Comprehensive Plan," said Mr. McGivney. "And in a sense the corridor study
is so entwined with the Comprehensive Plan. It just had its five-year anniversary,
and it's time for a review." Their experience over the past several months, he said,
makes members of the Corridor Committee "best suited to do that."
There are 13 members on the committee, which is co-chaired by Robert
Cramer and Joanne Gans. Meetings are held at Town Hall at 7 p.m. the second
Wednesday of the month, and they are open to all residents.
The committee intends to look at the entire 9-9H corridor, according to Mr.
Cramer, but he said "the first couple of miles from the train bridge is the first
objective." The loop through the villages of Valatie and Kinderhook is being
focused on, he said.
"We hope to get the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the right people
aware that the mile strip between the villages is the main connector," said Mr.
Cramer. "A piece of sidewalk from Four Brothers [restaurant] to Valatie is also
important. Kids use it a lot and so do workers at Stewart's and McDonald's."
Mr. Cramer said committee members hoped to walk business sections of the
9-9H corridor with representatives from DOT, and that they wanted to discuss a
possible reduction in the speed limit between County Route 28 and the
roundabout at the intersection of Routes 9 and 9H with State Farm Road.
Problems adapting to the recently completed roundabout also need to be
discussed with DOT, he said.
"The Fire Department anticipates problems with the roundabout," said Mr.
Cramer. "It's still up to the driver to stop when they see the red lights on a fire
engine."
The committee has applied for a grant of $52,000 from the State of New York
Quality Communities Program. The money would be used to hire a consultant to
analyze the potential build-out along the corridor.
Meanwhile, a questionnaire is being prepared for all town residents, based
on a poll of community members to determine what they considered the most
important areas of study.
The corridor committee's original mandate, Supervisor McGivney said last
winter, was to speed the review process for potential developers, to clear hurdles
for responsible development, and to improve relationships among town residents,
commercial tenants, and real estate developers.
"We've been making pretty good progress," said Mr. Cramer.
To contact reporter Richard Roth, e-mail rroth@indenews.com.

KNGG Speaks Up 
It is important to have the community involved in the corridor study. But more
importantly, we need professional planners to take a good look and make
suggestions to the committee by submitting various plans incorporating feedback
from the public. Not long ago East Greenbush went through this process.
Unfortunately the EGB Town Board did not have foresight enough to adopt the
final plans made during several meetings of professional planners and the public.
The process beautifully and they came up with some superb plans. We need
those professional planners or we will flounder.
A.S.

OCTOBER 1, 2005

IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR HEALTH, PLEASE E-MAIL THE D.E.C. THIS
WEEK END RE LAFARGE TIRE BURNING. This is not about a shopping center. It's about
the air you breathe and the foods you eat. It's about all our lives!
Issues you may want to discuss may be found on our web site, www.kngg.org &
go to LaFarge Cement Plant. Also much is covered in yesterday's e-NEWS. The
letter need not be complicated. it can be as simple as, "Please do not approve
the LaFarge permit to burn millions of tires yearly in Ravena. I do not believe that
putting tons of toxins in the air yearly can be safe and not have an adverse effect
on my family's health."

Here is a copy of one member's letter:

Dear Mr. Clarke,
I live only a few miles east of the La Farge Cement Plant. As someone who
suffered from severe asthma as a child, I am more concerned about potential
sources of pollution than others might be. And I feel that the DEC granted a
negative declaration to the La Farge proposal to burn tires rather too quickly.
Most of the data that the company presented in the application process was
based on shredded tires which produce far less toxic by products than whole
tires. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how whole tires break down more
slowly and potentially cool the burning chamber before optimal heat is reached
thereby allowing more unburned toxic matter to be released into the atmosphere.
Yet La Farge has made application to be allowed to burn whole tires. They are
not interested in bearing the cost of shredding those tires. And they were not, as
far as I can see, even required to provide an Environmental Impact Statement.
How long must we succumb to the attitude that human health is less important
than corporations making as much money as possible? And in this case, not
even an American owned company?
Robert Baksa
Kinderhook, NY 12106

KINDERHOOK SUPERVISOR DOUG MCGIVNEY WROTE, YOU CAN TOO!

Comments must be received by Monday at 4 PM
Regarding Application ID: 4-0124-00001/00112
FAX OR E-MAIL:

William J. Clarke
fax at: 357-2460
r4dep@gw.dec.state.ny.us
 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2005

TAG SALE BIG SUCCESS!
Your drop offs at the Cash residence and Spivy residence were numerous. The
KNGG Volunteers worked to near midnight Friday 9/23 setting up. And
volunteers started work at 6:30 Saturday morning pricing items, selling until 4:30
PM and cleaning up till 7:00 PM. It was a great day!
 
Our goal was to earn $2000. We earned $3600!
 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members and friends who
donated items for the sale.
 
For time donated to the above chores, I thank Ally Anderson Spivy, Abbey and
Larry Cash, Sue Chiafullo, Jack and Carol Corrigan, Dick Morrill, John Pickett,
Phyllis Teal, Jock Spivy and Jayne Zinke. We could not have done it without you.
WOW, WHAT A GREAT TEAM!
 
I thank Abbey and Larry Cash for donating their front yard from Friday night
through Saturday night and for the hospitality of inviting the public to participate.
 
A very special thanks goes to our coordinators, Ally Anderson Spivey and Abbey
Cash. They worked hard planning and making calls and then accepting the
goods. And if that wasn’t enough, they put in many hours from Friday afternoon
through Saturday evening moving tables, sorting, tagging, selling and cleaning up.
Our hats are off to Ally and Abbey! Thank you.
 
From those that donated to those that worked at the site, it could not have
happened without everyone working together toward one goal, a healthy KNGG.
Thank you.
 
Allen Schaefer, president
 
ABOUT THE ROUNDABOUT
Frustrated Motorist
To the Editor:
This afternoon I spent some quality time with my husband trapped in the new
roundabout at the intersection of Route 9/9H and State Farm Road.
I would like five minutes alone with the geniuses who decided this project
would be a good idea.
If their goal was to create confused, frustrated drivers and an extremely
hazardous situation, then they have succeeded admirably.
We will avoid this area in the future at all cost.
Donna Connors
Greenport
-- The Register-Star, Friday September 30, 2005
 
For more information on the roundabout, visit our web site at www.KNGG.org –
move down to ROUNDABOUT and click on your choice.  

TOWN WINS $10,000 IN SIGN CASE
KINDERHOOK – The Town of Kinderhook has collected $10,000 for a violation of
its sign ordinance by the (Cobble Pond Farms) Sunoco filling station on Route 9.
 
“We started an action in Supreme Court to restrain the sign, and at the same time
we started a violation action in Town Justice Court,” said Town Attorney Edward
McConville. “The (town) judge found the corporate defendant guilty and imposed
a $10,000 fine.”
 
The fine was converted to a civil judgment, according to Mr. McConville, which
was then turned over to Columbia County Sheriff. “The sheriff attached a bank
account of the defendant, seized the money, paid it to us,” he said.
 
The outcome of the civil action does not effect a case still before state Supreme
Court that seeks an injunction requiring the owner to remove the sign. “A
judgment in one action does not mean another court is bound by it,” said
McConville.
 
The Town Supervisor Doug McGivney said the currently displayed at the Sunoco
filling station, while smaller than the one that caused the original court action, is
still not in compliance.
 
“It will be on the (Town Board) agenda next month,” said Mr. McGivney. – Richard
Roth, The Independent September 30, 2005. 
For more information on the Route 9 Sunoco violation, on this web site – go to
CURRENT ISSUES and click on Sunoco, Kinderhook.
 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2005

IT'S NOW OR NEVER--
ARE TIRE BURNING EMISSIONS COMING TOYOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?
There isn't much time left. The Lafarge Comment Period ends on Monday,
October 3 at 4 PM. After that it is over. There are no more hearings, nor more
comment periods, no more nothing except possibly a cement plant burning tires
upwind of Columbia County, Rensselaer County and southern Albany County.

The good news- Tuesday I went to the DEC. -the comments against the proposal
were running 4-1 of those in favor. Those in favor were industry associations, tire
suppliers and manufacturers and elected officials in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania
where Lafarge has plants (can you say campaign contributions?)

The bad news-- There were exactly 61 opposing pieces of correspondence.
Some were FoH pre-printed postcards. Add to those the 45 who spoke against
the plant at both public hearings and it comes to a whopping opposition of just
over 100. Not exactly a groundswell.

Here's what we have to do--
After what we have already accomplished Friends of Hudson should be able to
stop this project. This is far less complicated and difficult than SLC was, although
it is a bit more obscure. At the very least we should be able to demand and get
stringent permit conditions that could improve air quality in the region instead of
allowing Lafarge to get a free ride from the DEC. Jeff Baker and CDM are
working hard, at considerable cost, to leave no stone unturned. Lafarge and the
DEC believe that FoH is the 500 pound gorilla. They won't continue to believe that
if our members don't weigh in.

Here are the major issues-
>>> Lafarge wants to burn whole tires when shredded tires would be significantly
better in terms of toxic emissions. They own a subsidiary that sources whole tires
from places like Sears and K-Mart. probably they get a tipping fee for taking them
(don't know that for sure). Then they save at least $1 million a year in the cost of
fuel.

>>> Lafarge's application uses data from shredded tires to project emissions.
Why? Especially since they own 9 whole tire burning plants in North America?
They are using misleading data and DEC is allowing them to get away with it.

>>> Against all logic and reason the DEC issued a Neg Dec on this
proposal--there will be no Issues Conference, no adjudication. They issued a draft
permit on the basis of Lafarge's application. Why?

>>> The draft permit allows Lafarge to increase their carbon monoxide emissions
by 99 tons per year. Other cement plants, burning whole tires at a higher
percentage than Lafarge's proposal have shown no increase in CO emissions.
Why is the DEC allowing this?

>>> Lafarge has consistently exceeded the upper limits of its air permit
conditions. The DEC has not issued any consent orders or enforcement actions,
calling these minor violations. We believe that a pattern of minor violations should
rise to a level of concern. Furthermore we believe that they haven't been so lenient
with other polluting companies in the area. Why?

>>> Northern Columbia and southern Rensselaer counties are directly downwind
of the Lafarge stack. Some are as close as 3 miles away. Yet the DEC has not
held a hearing on this in Columbia County. Yesterday in DEC files I found a letter
from Lafarge to DEC stating that they would not agree to another extension and
hearing in Columbia County.

Sorry to lecture, but:
Where is our outrage? Where is our concern? Where is our activism and our
citizenship? What does it take to send a quick letter or e-mail BEFORE IT'S TOO
LATE?

PLEASE, write, fax or e-mail today. You can refer to any or all the issues outlined
above. You can check our website (friendsofhudson.org) for more information.
You can call me (822-0334).

You don't need to be an expert to say "I am opposed to tire burning. I want an
extension and a hearing in Columbia County so that I and my neighbors can have
our voices heard."

If you haven't already, please sign our petition at
http://www.petitiononline.com/lafarge

Send comments (must be received by Monday at 4 PM) regarding Application ID:
4-0124-00001/00112 to:

William J. Clarke
NYSDEC Region 4 Headquarters
1150 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306

or fax at: 357-2460 or e-mail him at : r4dep@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Thank you.
Susan Falzone, FoH

I implore you to join us and write to the above.
Allen Schaefer KNGG

SEPTEMBER 22, 2005
REPORT: on DEC LaFarge Hearing of Sept.. 21st
 
Upon arrival at 7:00 PM, the auditorium of the Ravena High School was about 1/3
full. Four people spoke in favor of approving the LaFarge permit. Three were
consultants hired and paid by LaFarge and one was the president of the union
local representing members employed by LaFarge.
 
Attorney Jeff Baker, who has been retained by Friends of Hudson, Susan Falzon,
Deputy Director of Friends of Hudson and a gentleman representing Scenic
Hudson spoke against the LaFarge permit citing studies and research done by a
consulting firm hired by FoH and other research as well.
 
Members of KNGG, residents of Stuyvesant (including one Town Board member),
Chatham, Schodack Landing and Hudson spoke out against the permit. Only
three people from the west side of the Hudson spoke up against the application.
Supervisor Doug McGivney of Kinderhook was absent but he sent a
representative, Lenny Collins, to read his report to the DEC.  Many speakers from
Columbia County demanded that the DEC hold a hearing in Columbia County.
Why does the DEC think that the only area to be effected by this proposal is
Green County?  Crossing the Hudson to Ravena from various areas of Columbia
County can take from forty minutes to one and one half hours.
 
The most devastating fact that came out was how the DEC gave the LaFarge
application a “negative declaration” meaning that LaFarge will not be required to
file an environmental impact statement (EIS). Judy Grunberg pointed out that she,
owner of a small farm outside Chatham was required to file an EIS to put up a
barn for use as a performance space. Yet the large firm of LaFarge, who has
already been cited for polluting the air and breaking DEC regulations, is allowed
to go forward without filing an EIS. Where is the logic? Where are the safeguards
that are are supposed to protect our health?
 
KNGG Board member Abbey Cash pointed out that the DEC declared a negative
declaration for LaFarge because “it solved the problem of excess used tires in
the state and it gave LaFarge a monetary benefit. This is all being done at the
expense of the health of our local citizens. The DEC should be doing a better job.
You are playing Russian Roulette with our lives.”
 
A gentleman from Chatham accused the DEC of having a conflict of interest in
this situation. He reported that the DEC has been charged with the job of getting
rid of waste tires. Along comes LaFarge who tells the DEC we’ll get rid of these
tires for you by burning them, if allowed to do so.  Is this not a case of the fox
guarding the henhouse?
 
One contributor told of how he asked Mr. Clark, a DEC official, how they
determined this application as a negative declaration. Clark’s answer was that a
“model” was used as a comparison. What model? The full impact of burning tires
has yet to be determined. Scientists have not yet determined the toxicity of many
chemicals that would be released into the air. What model did the DEC use?
 
It was obvious that when the speakers hired by LaFarge spoke, the figures they
quoted were mostly from plants burning shredded tires, not whole tires which is
LaFarge’s proposal. Whole tires release more toxins when burnt. One woman
spoke of having spent extensive time in France where the French had learned to
make safe, noise reduced super highways out of used tires. And one man from
Baltimore brought in a rubber shingle like those he just used to cover his home.
There are many ways other than burning to get rid of used tires.
 
KNGG president Allen Schaefer stated, “One does not have to be rocket scientist
to be aware that the air we breathe is already polluted. Does it make any sense
to add more toxic pollutants to our air?”
 
He continued, “LaFarge is telling us that by burning 5 million tires per year they will
save a million dollars in fuel expense. I ask the DEC, how many millions will we
have to pay out in medical expenses to compensate for this? How many lives are
to be lost to save LaFarge this one million dollars? How can the DEC ask the
citizens of this state to be subject to the many dreaded illnesses caused these
toxic pollutants?
 
LaFarge has hired consultants to prove that burning whole tires in this kiln is safe.
These consultants were hired by LaFarge to do just this. Friends of Hudson hired
consultants also. They did not tell their consultants to prove that LaFarge’s
proposal is not safe. Friends of Hudson asked their consultants to look at every
aspect and report the findings. The findings say that this process is unsafe and
harmful to our health. I am more apt to believe Friends of Hudson’s consultants.
The LaFarge consultants inspire no credibility.
 
Tonight we heard from a Hudson woman who walks down Rossman Ave. every
morning to work. She can see the LaFarge smoke plum from Hudson, 16.5 miles
away across the Hudson. Another lady from Schodack Landing told us she lives
only 3 miles from the plant on the bank on the opposite side of the river and has a
frightfully close view of the plum.
 
The junction of US9 and Albany Ave. in Kinderhook, is only nine miles to Lafarge
and the plum can bee seen from many areas of Kinderhook as well. Columbia
County is very close to this plant and should be more involved in the examination
of the LaFarge application for a permit as should Albany County, Rensselaer
County, the Berkshires and western Connecticut. The members of KNGG
demand that the DEC hold a hearing in Columbia County.
 
Yes, we have concerns about breathing poisoned air. However we are also
concerned about the pollutants that fall in the rivers and lakes. These pollutants
will be found in the fish. People eat fish. Pollutants will fall on local farmland. The
vegetables will absorb the pollutants from the soil. People eat vegetables. Live
stock eats this vegetation as well and people eat beef, lamb, pork and chickens,
etc. We will be hit in many ways from many directions with this LaFarge
generated toxic pollution.
 
KNGG is appalled that a private citizen wanting to build a barn for performing arts
on her farm was forced to file a State Environmental Impact Statement, yet a
polluting giant such as LaFarge is not requited to file an Environmental Impact
Statement. Why and how are they getting away with this? I am told the mission of
the DEC is to protect the public. I certainly do not see this here tonight.
 
In conclusion, KNGG demands that LaFarge be required to file an Environmental
Impact Statement and we expect to see you (the DEC) at a LaFarge hearing in
the near future in Columbia County.
 
KNGG BENEFIT
TAG SALE
THIS SATURDAY 9/24
47 Broad Street, Village of Kinderhook

SEPTEMBER 19,2005
LAFARGE TIRE BURN UPDATE FROM FOH
At last week’s Public Information Meeting on Lafarge’s tire burning proposal the
language used by Lafarge and DEC to answer questions as well as their
comments afterwards made it clear that we are on the right track in our issues.
We heard information about how the DEC handles violations that will allow us to
make a stronger case against the permit and gave us even more basis for a
Clean Air Act citizen lawsuit that we are contemplating.

There were about a dozen and a half people other than DEC and Lafarge
employees at last night’s meeting. That provided us with the opportunity to ask
questions that revealed weaknesses in their arguments.

There were at least as many Lafarge supporters as opponents at this meeting.
That is new- Lafarge is now mobilizing employees and contractors.

We must show strength at the Public Hearing on Wednesday, September 21 and
we must send many more letters of opposition between now and October 3 when
the comment period closes. We don’t appear nearly as strong without a public
display of our strength.

In light of the present and future energy crisis, corporations of all kinds will be
seeking to burn tires (TDF) and other hazardous materials to reduce the cost of
operations and increase profits. We need to be more vigilant than ever. We
cannot allow the draft permit for Lafarge to be issued by the DEC. It presents
several significant problems:

Track Record
Lafarge has a poor track record with frequent Air Permit compliance deviances.
In the first 5 months of 2005 alone our experts have found 20 incidents when
Lafarge exceeded plume opacity limits by a significant percentage for a
significant period of time. Opacity is a surrogate for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
including heavy metals. The DEC should not consider this application until
Lafarge can provide an adequate explanation for its operating problems and
provide a plan for fixing them.

Whole vs. shredded tires and inconsistent data
It is significantly cheaper for Lafarge to use whole tires rather than shredded tires.
Lafarge proposes to burn whole tires at the rate of 6 per minute per kiln. Our
experts tell us that there is a statistically significant difference in emissions when
burning whole vs. shredded tires. Yet Lafarge insists that there is no difference.
On top of that, although they own 9 plants in North America that burn whole tires
the data they submitted to DEC do not come from their own tire burning plants.
Instead they used data from plants that burn shredded tires. The DEC should not
base a decision on this misleading data. They must insist that Lafarge provide
data from plants that are burning whole tires at comparable application rates to
their proposal for Ravena.

Increased emissions
The draft permit issued by the DEC allows an increase of 100 metric tons per
year of CO. Yet data from a plant that is burning whole tires at a higher application
rate than the Ravena proposal shows no increase in CO. The DEC should not
allow Lafarge this increase, especially since spikes in CO emissions often are
the result of incomplete combustion (more frequent with whole vs. shredded tires).
Incomplete combustion produces increased emissions of heavy metals as well as
dioxins and furans that are known to be carcinogens and developmental and
reproductive toxins.

TDF is not recycling
It is misleading for Lafarge to present this proposal as a solution to NYS’ scrap
tire problem. It is inappropriate for DEC to treat it as such. This is a proposal that
would enable Lafarge, by their own estimation, to save $1 million annually in the
cost of fuel. There is no guarantee that any of the tires Lafarge proposes to burn
will even originate in NYS. New York currently produces approximately 18 million
scrap tires per year. Even if Lafarge’s entire supply were to come from NY the
proposed 4.8 million would not come near to solving the scrap tire management
problem.

Furthermore, NYS has 30+ million stockpiled tires now that will not likely be used
by Lafarge. In contrast, the DOT, DEC and OGS of NY are engaged in a civil
engineering project that will use more than half of the current stockpile by 2007 in
civil engineering road building applications.

DEC needs to recognize that trying to solve the tire problem at the expense of the
health of our citizenry is unacceptable and not the solution to the dilemma of
disposal of tires.

There are better recycling and reuse options for New York’s scrap tire problem
that would not produce hazardous air pollution. NYS should develop scrap tire
management policies to support a more diverse set of strategies and create
markets and incentives for the development of solutions that are true recycling
rather than passively relying on the TDF proposals made by polluting industries

PRECEDENT
Finally if this permit is issued it will be a precedent setting decision regarding
TDF in the Hudson Valley. SLC Catskill is watching this proposal very closely as
are other plants throughout the Hudson Valley. Granting this permit will open the
door for other cement plants and industrial polluters up and down the Hudson
Valley to seek permits for TDF.

The Comment Period closes on October 3.

You must voice your opinion now!

We have all attended so many hearings and meetings during the SLC battle and
written so many letters. This is one letter and one hearing to prevent the DEC from
risking the health of our communities because one corporation has tried to create
an environmental argument in order to enhance its own bottom line.

We are gathering at the FoH office on Wednesday (9/21) at 5:45 so that we can
caravan and car pool and be sure to get there before 7 to sign up to speak in
case Lafarge calls out the troops.

Please let me know if you will be attending.

Wednesday Sept. 21 at 7 PM in the auditorium of Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk
H.S. on Route 9W in Ravena.

Directions:
On the west side of the river take Route 9W north or take the Thruway north to exit
21B-Coxsackie and at the exit make a right onto 9W north.

From this point it is 5.3 miles. The school complex is on left just past Lafarge’s
overhead conveyor. Take a left at the traffic light into the school parking lot. The
H.S. is the building on the right. The auditorium is toward the back across from the
other building, which is the Middle School. Before entering the building notice all
the football players, cheerleaders and runners who will probably be practicing on
the field. Then turn around and see Lafarge’s stack across the street.

To submit a written comment before October 3, send to:
William J. Clarke
NYSDEC Region 4 Headquarters
1150 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306

To sign our online petition go to:
http://www.petitiononline.com/lafarge

AUGUST 25, 2005

To see a report on the LaFarge Public Hearing of August 24, 2005 --- In the Left Index - Go to LAFARGE CEMENT PLANT and click on "Articles."

AUGUST 21, 2005

DEVELOPERS TRY TO AVOID ZONING CODE BY MOVING TOWN LINE! 

DEVELOPERS IN TOWN CONSIDER VILLAGE OPTION
By Joe Prout 
KINDERHOOK - The days of the five-hour Planning Board meetings are over, at least for now. 
The board recently encountered something its members couldn’t remember ever happening in recent years: no public hearings. Next month doesn’t look too productive either, since there was no new business proposed in August. 

Planning Board Chairman Ed Simonsen speculated that some developers are waiting until after the Town Board elections in November before bringing in their proposals. Simonsen’s term with the Planning Board expires at the end of December, and if the political majority of the Town Board changes, there might be
a different philosophical approach to town-wide development when new Planning Board members are appointed in January.

But there’s another change already in the works. Land owners with parcels either partially in Valatie (and partially in the Township) or directly next to it want to join the village (of Valatie).Valatie Mayor Gary Strevell wasn’t surprised by the news. “After all, we are a popular village,” the mayor said.

There are benefits to getting into the village. Anthony Buono is one of the three developers taking initial steps to change his lot’s boarders. Buono wants to get a 35-acre parcel off Rod & Gun Club Road into the village. He’s had a proposal before the Town Planning Board for months and it’s evolved, the developer tried
to incorporate a conservation subdivision. Buono’s proposal has a minimum lot size of five acres in the Town of Kinderhook. If he successfully joins the Village of Valatie, he could have minimum lot sizes of a
half acre, which neighboring parcels were designed with, Buono’s proposal could go from a maximum of 7 parcels to just less than 70. He noted that not all the land is suitable for homes and if the proposal adds a road, it would cut into the total number.  

Also, the village offers water and sewer services. Buono said that cuts down on costs, which makes the homes cheaper than something with a septic system. Buono doesn’t have an idea yet what he wants to do, in part because he’s just starting the process to join the village and half-acre zoning isn’t guaranteed. 
Strevell said at this point, the village’s sewage system capabilities are in question too. While the system is working at one-third of its capacity, he said it’s near or at its sewage concentration level. He said the village did a full build-out study when considering what the sewer system could do, but he said that didn’t account for adding parcels from the town.

Strevell confirmed there were three developers considering annexation into the village. Tim Holk’s proposal for Kinderkill Meadows was also before the Town Planning Board at one point, but that was later pulled at the town level. 

Strevell said the village plans to consider all three annexations at the same time in the future. He said it can be a complicated process that involves petitioning, environmental reviews and a referendum vote. “We don’t want people making up rules as they go along or going into panic mode as they make the rules,” Strevell
said.

Town Supervisor Doug McGivney said he was conceptually fine with any merge into the village, but he wanted to get more information on the matter first. He said adding parcels and potential residents could help the village with development of its infrastructure needs, and the town doesn’t lose out because it still taxes the
parcels since they’re still in the town.

Buono said it’s fair to pass the expense of sewer system expansion on to the new residents and expected any cost would be less substantial when spread over multiple years in a bond. “If that’s the way we can help the village, it’s better for all of us,” he said.

Would-be Village People: Town land owners start to join Valatie. Services and smaller sizes: Developers note having sewer and water systems, smaller lot sizes a plus. 

We’ve only just begun: The complicated process is only beginning, and the public has yet to weigh in. 
From the Register-Star – August 20, 2005 

KNGG COMMENTS:
What we see happening here is just another way for the developers involved to profit greatly. And could it be legal? Basically what they are trying to do is avoid the Zoning Code of the Town of Kinderhook by moving the Town line so they could incorporate their parcels within the village of Valatie where the zoning is more
relaxed (One house per 1/2  acre in the village as opposed to one house per 5 acres in the Town). Is this a valid reason to move the Town line?  

During its application process with the Town Planning Board, Widewaters requested the Village of Valatie for authorization to hook up to the village water supply and sewer system. They were advised in writing by the Valatie engineer that the system couldn’t handle the extra capacity and were turned down. Now,
how does the Village of Valatie expect to handle another possible 200 homes? The average number of children per household in new developments is 2.5 per house. 200 new homes would add approximately 500 additional children to the Ichabod Crane School System. Who will pay for this, Mr. Strevell and Mr.
McGivney? 

We have worked hard to get a good zoning code. Can we let these developers dump it by moving the Town Line? Once the Town parcels become a part of the Village, the parcel next to it will want to join and then the thee next door and so on.

Where will it end? Moving town lines to avoid zoning laws is not a precedent we want to set. 

A.S.

AUGUST 7, 2005

FINAL HEARING MONDAY
TO SAVE KINDERHOOK FROM SPRAWL. . .
Monday - AUGUST 8 - 6:45 PM - TOWN HALL
WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAW. IT IS POSSIBLE . . . BUT ONLY WITH YOUR HELP!
The law has been rewritten, but not yet approved.
If we want the Town Board's vote...
WE must get out to Town Hall and show our support. We must tell the Town
Board.
There are some in this community that do not agree with us and they will be out to
speak against the proposed change.
THIS IS YOUR ONE LAST CHANCE. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO MISS IT.
TO SUPPORT THE 40,000 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL MAXIMUM LAW
PLEASE ATTEND the 2nd PUBLIC HEARING!
Monday - AUGUST 8 - 6:45 PM - at the Town Hall, Niverville
This law would prohibit the type of buildings associated with sprawl.
We cannot fight sprawl without having the law supporting us.
* * * * * * * * * *
JULY 27, 2005
RESIDENTS FILE ARTICLE 78 LAWSUIT AGAINST PLANNING, VILLAGE
BOARDS
By Kate Kirschenheiter - Register-Star - July 26, 2005 
PHILMONT- Following the Village Board’s decision to amend the conservation
easement adjacent to Summitt Lake in order to allow for storm water retention
ponds for the Summitt Heights subdivision project, town residents have amended
the Article 78 lawsuit (they) filed against the Village Planning Board to include the
Village Board of Trustees. 
“We’ve obtained an order to show cause, which allows us to amend the petition to
include the Village Board of Trustees,” said attorney Marc Gerstman, who is
handling the proceedings for the villagers. “It also directs the respondents to
show cause why a preliminary injunction shouldn’t be granted.” 
Gerstman said the allegations being brought against the village state that the
boards violated the state Environmental Quality Review Act as well as violate
Article 49 of the Environmental Conservation Law. 
“Article 49 of the E.C.L. governs conservation easements in the state,” Gerstman
said. 
At a June Village Board meeting, the trustees approved with a split vote to amend
the 10.92 acre conservation easement to allow for the retention ponds which
would support the Summitt Heights development. 
They also declared a negative impact on the state Environmental Quality Review
Act (SEQRA) form, effectively stating that the development would not have
significant negative environmental impacts on the village.  
According to resident Christopher Reed, the board’s decisions were strongly
opposed by a number of village residents throughout the process. 
“The Village made a bad decision with that,” Reed said. We’re raising awareness
about that, as well as the quality of the environmental review that both the Planning
Board and the Village Board have done in connection with this development.” 
Reed along with a number of other villagers opposing the development and the
amendments to the easement has been holding informational meetings at various
village residences to inform the villagers about the issue. 
“We hope to share our knowledge of what this development on Summitt Heights
is about,” he said Thursday. “And to get people thinking about its potential
impacts on the village.” 
Regarding the July 19 meeting, “It was a good turnout,” Reed said. “There were a
number of people who are directly involved in this, about a half dozen, and then
another 8 or 10 who we had not seen before.” 
The next meeting is being held Thursday at 7p.m. at 9 Church St. in the village. 
“It’s really very low key,” Reed said. “We have some members of the community
who have been following this issue very closely and have educated themselves
and we are sharing that knowledge with others and hopefully we will see if we can
find out how other people feel about this development and the way it is being
handled by our village leaders.” 
Article 78 proceedings, a provision of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) give citizens in the community the right to challenge the way in which
their municipal officials review projects with environmental impacts.
“We are trying to hold the village to a higher standard in the way they approach a
development of this size and complexity,” Reed said. “We think that the impacts
are greater than what the village believes they are. We want that information up
front before we get into a situation that we’ll later regret.” 
Gerstman explained that the next step in this process is the answer from the
village boards and Philmont Ventures in regards to the order to show cause.
“We are pursuing the matter,” he said. “We think it’s unfortunate that the Village
Board decided that they could disregard the importance of a conservation
easement that a prior Village Board recognized as being very significant.” 
Mayor Philip Mossman deferred comment on the Article 78 to the village’s
attorney. Philmont Village attorney Robert Fitzsimons did not return calls for
comment as press time. 
JULY 22, 2005
TIRE BURNING PERMIT TO BE RELEASED FOR COMMENT
Just across the Hudson from Stuyvesant and only 9.2 miles from the traffic light in
the Village of Kinderhook sits the LaFarge cement plant already in production
with their smoke often billows in this direction. What's different now? LaFarge has
applied to the DEC for permits to burn old tires for fuel. Friends of Hudson has
been keeping us informed since March of 2004. Now things are getting crucial:

Important Memo from Friends of Hudson:

Friends of Hudson's attorney has been informed by the DEC that they are
releasing LaFarge's Tire Burning permit today for public comment.

Our attorney and engineers and I will be reviewing the application to prepare our
comments and to prepare information for members and concerned citizens so
that everyone understands the issues and can submit comments.

Important dates:
August 4-Public Information meeting in Selkirk
This will be a LaFarge "dog-and-pony show." This will not be an opportunity for
public comment but there certainly will be time for Q&A. It will be important to
attend--both to hear LaFarge's public presentation, but also to show the DEC, the
company and the press that there is a substantial amount of public concern.

August 25-Legislative Hearing
For public comments. We encourage every concerned individual to write as well
as attend this hearing to make a public comment,

September 2-public comment period closes

We will have a copy of the application tomorrow (7/22). Within a couple of weeks
we will know what issues we are concerned about. I will keep you all posted on the
status and provide specifics as soon as we all have reviewed the application.

It is critically important for us to get the word out-to speak to as many people as
possible. Please think about whether you can organize a house party for your
neighbors and friends so that I can come and present the issues and advice on
what the public can do.

Please call or e-mail me if you want to help with mailings, etc., host a small house
party, organize a big public information session, or if you have any questions.

Susan Falzon, Deputy Director
Friends of Hudson
(518) 822-0334
www.friendsofhudson.org

KNGG Supports Friends of Hudson in in its struggle to put tire burning at LaFarge
to a halt.

For more information on tire burning, go to LA FARGE at www.KNGG.org.
JULY 16, 2005
HEARING FOR CHANGING COMP PLAN & ZONING CODE
A fairly good crowd showed up Monday evening at Town Hall for the hearings:
a.) To change the Comprehensive Plan to show the maximum permitted space
allowed in a commercial building as 40,000. (Currently 80,000)
b.) To change the Town Zoning Code to show the maximum permitted space
allowed in a commercial building as 40,000. (Currently 80,000)

The first hearing at 6:50 pm was for the Comprehensive Plan. Several people
spoke. Most speeches were brief and to the point as we have been over and over
this for the past year.

KNGG President Allen Schaefer was first. “I would like to thank the Town Board
Members for their patience and for working so hard to bring these changes about.
A year ago this past May KNGG Board member Meg Moran stood in this very
room and proposed a moratorium to the Town Board on commercial building until
the Town could come up with a solution to oversized buildings. This past May the
board instituted a moratorium to give it time to amend the Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Code.

Changing the Comprehensive Plan to prohibit the building of commercial
buildings larger than 40,000 square feet, approximately the size of the Grand
Union, is essential to saving the rural small town character of Kinderhook from
further exploitation.

We all know what East Greenbush along Routes 9 and 20 and Fairview Avenue,
Greenport looks like today. One time in the past they looked similar to
Kinderhook. We don’t want to see Kinderhook go the route of those neighbors.

With good planning, there is room for growth, good growth and smart growth
without the sprawl. This is our first step in stopping sprawl. We don’t want to see
Kinderhook go the sprawl route. KNGG would like to see these amendments
passed.”

Among several others that spoke were architect Alvin Knoll and architect George
Shear. Although coming from different points of view, they both agreed the
amendments would be a good start. Pat Harbron asked the board, “If these
amendments get passed, what is there to stop a developer from putting in 40,000
square foot buildings up and down Routes 9 and 9H?”

Supervisor McGivney pointed out that the Plan requires that each 40,000 foot
structure be placed on a 6 acre or larger plot. Deputy Supervisor Vecelleo
explained that there isn’t enough commercial property left in Kinderhook for more
than 3 of these structures.

Someone else asked what provision there is for preventing the next developer
from getting a variance for a larger space. This is a very good question and it
remains unanswered.

New resident David Smith said that although had lived in Kinderhook only since
November of 2004, he strongly believes from his experience in Westchester that
passing these amendments would be a most positive step for Kinderhook and the
area.

Ally Spivey reminded the board of the surveys taken of the populace prior/during
the writing of the Comprehensive Plan. When it was being written, 40,000 Square
feet is what the plan called for and what the people expected. Some hoky-poky
occurred shortly before the signing and it was passed with 80,000 square feet.
“This is the time to return the Plan to its original intent.”

Supervisor McGivney announced the hearing for the same changes to the Town
Zoning Code. He added that if everyone who had spoken previously would like
their comments to apply to the Zoning Code hearing, the board would do so
unless someone had something to add. Schaefer commented, “For the record,
ditto (my previous comments.)”

Both hearings closed without anyone speaking out against the amendments.
However, this is not the end. In order to change these laws, there must be two
hearings.

For those of you who did not speak this time, or for those who may want to speak
again, there will be one more hearing before the vote is taken. It is expected that
this hearing will be held Monday August 8 at 6:45 PM.

Allen Schaefer would like to thank each and everyone who came out to Monday’s
hearing, “Your continued support is so very important to our success.”

KNGG TAG SALE IS COMING!
Watch for the September date. Now is the time to sort through your attic,
basement and barn and see what you really don’t need. Save it to donate to
KNGG for the tag sale.
JULY 9, 2005
IN ORDER TO SAVE KINDERHOOK FROM SPRAWL,
WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAW.
IT IS ABOUT TO BE DONE,  
BUT ONLY WITH YOUR HELP. . .
PURPOSE OF THE CURRENT MORATORIUM:
To give the Town Board time to prepare a new maximum permitted square
footage for new commercial buildings.
The code has been rewritten to reduce the current 80,000 sq. ft. permitted
maximum
to 40,000 sq. ft. This is reasonable. KNGG requested this change in May 2004.
The law has been rewritten, but not yet approved.
If we want the vote...
WE must get out to Town Hall and show our support by telling the Town Board.
There are some in this community that do not agree with us and they will be out to
speak against the proposed change.
THIS IS OUR ONE CHANCE. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO MISS IT.
TO SUPPORT THE 40,000 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL MAXIMUM LAW
PLEASE ATTEND the PUBLIC HEARING!
Monday - JULY 11th
6:50 PM - at the Town Hall, Niverville
Town of Kinderhook Board Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the
Density Control Schedule of
the Town Zoning Code so that the maximum size of commercial buildings
permitted to be erected in the Town is reduced from 80,000 square feet to 40,000
square feet
AND
Town of Kinderhook Board Public Hearing to consider Amendment No.1 to the
Comprehensive Plan so that the maximum size of commercial buildings permitted
to be erected in the Town is reduced from 80,000 square feet to 40,000 square
feet
6:55 PM at the Town Hall
Town of Kinderhook Board Public Hearing to add a provision to the Zoning Code
to increase the number of copies of preliminary plats (plans) which must be
furnished to the Planning Board for subdivision review from 7 to 10.
We need your support Monday night!
PLEASE COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF 40,000 SQ. FT. AMENDMENT
Please come out to speak out in favor of changing the maximum permitted size of
commercial buildings from the current 80,000 to 40,000 feet.
This law would prohibit the type of buildings associated with sprawl.
We cannot fight sprawl without the law being with us.

JULY 7, 2005
 
The Register-Star July 6, 2005
Town's attorney seeks reimbursement from KNGG for Article 78 court costs
By Joe Prout
KINDERHOOK -- Now that an Article 78 lawsuit challenging the Zoning Board of
Appeals' decision on Widewaters has been dismissed, the town is asking the
court to make Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth pay for expenses.
KNGG leader Allen Schaefer said there was already a ruling on the case, and the
opportunity for reimbursement came and went. He said to ask for money now is
“kind of small and mean spirited.”
KNGG challenged the ZBA’s decision to grant a roof variance for a shopping
center proposed by The Widewaters Group, a development firm out of DeWitt,
Onondaga County.
Widewaters sought a variance from the town code, arguing that a code-compliant
roof could not be built on its larger buildings. The ZBA ruled that the shopping
center’s largest building could have a flat roof.
KNGG challenged the ruling on a number of grounds that state Supreme Court
Justice Thomas McNamara found fault with, leading to his ruling against KNGG.
On June 27, attorney Marc Gold, who represented the town on this matter,
requested McNamara award reimbursement of costs relating to transcripts and
ZBA records. The bill for the document prepared came to $2,133.43.
James A. Muscato, part of KNGG’s legal team, argued against the request in a
letter to McNamara sent out the next day. Muscato laid out his argument in the
letter: “The Court has already decided that the town is not entitled to an award of
costs against the Kinderhook citizens group and there is no reason to revisit the
issue. The court’s judgment dated June 21, 2005 did not award costs to the
respondent town, and thus the request by the town has already been denied.”
Muscato went on to state if the town was entitled to statutory costs under the law, it
would only be entitled to nominal costs in the amount of $200. “The town’s
request is unreasonable and they have offered no justification…” Muscato wrote.
McNamara’s ruling didn’t specifically address expenses one way or the other.
Town Supervisor Doug McGivney said there is nothing wrong with requesting
reimbursement at this point. “Marc Gold is just doing his job,” the supervisor said
during a phone conversation Tuesday. “I don’t think that anyone should be
surprised at it.”
McGivney said he believes the town is entitled to nominal costs and
disbursement, and he said the town is within its legal time frame to request them.
He said the $2133.43 is money justly owed the town.”
But to make such a request now instead of during the hearing doesn’t sit well with
Schaefer. He said Town Board members have publicly stated they want to try and
mend fences with the parties involved, and slapping a bill on the group after the
case is done doesn’t do that.
“I think they missed the boat,” Schaefer said during an interview Tuesday night.
“It’s over. Let sleeping dogs lie.”
Schaefer pointed out that KNGG’s members were not pleased with the town’s
decision to pursue reimbursement. “The reaction from our membership is one of
outrage,” he noted.
In a world where getting something for free is rare....
Consider letters to the editor.
Nearly every newspaper includes this access for public opinion with their letters to
the editor. It is an incredibly effective way to get information to a large and
perhaps more diverse audience. I often use the 'letters' section to spot the
overlooked side of an issue. There are some newspapers where the letter's
section is the most entertaining. In any event it is free and newspapers generally
like people to use it. It often is the main forum for controversy and controversy
sells papers. Although it is free, it usually has a defined space. When space is an
issue it generally favors new contributors. We encourage KNGG members to
write letters. Be prepared to be attacked or challenged in subsequent issues but if
you stick to the facts you'll be in good shape. This may even create an entitlement
to respond to those attacks. More free press.
In writing a letter to the editor, keep it as short as you can while still making your
point.
A letter to the editor can be an effective way for individuals and/or organizations to
deliver important information to the public. The "letters" section in newspapers,
and radio and television stations that have a listener/viewer feed-back system,
exist to provide a forum for public comment or debate. The "letters" section is
widely read. Whether you are writing a letter to respond to "bad press" or to
reinforce "good press", there are a number of important points to keep in mind.
Whether it is to express an opinion, to set the record straight,
or to reinforce accurate information, writing a letter to the editor is one simple,
direct and effective way to communicate with the public.
KNGG urges you to write to the editor regarding Doug McGivney's statements
published in the above article. Be sure to include your mailing address and
telephone number. Send your e-mails to:
REGISTER-STAR
E-mail Address(es):
editorial@registerstar.com
INDEPENDENT, Letter to Editor
E-mail Address(es):
letters@indenews.com
CHATHAM COURIER
E-mail Address(es):
ccourier@localnet.com
SUPPORT THE 40,000 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL MAXIMUM LAW!
PLEASE ATTEND the PUBLIC HEARING
 
JULY 11th 6:50 PM - at the Town Hall, Niverville
 
Town of Kinderhook Board Public Hearing
to consider an amendment to the Density Control Schedule of
the Town Zoning Code so that the
maximum size of commercial buildings permitted
to be erected in the Town is reduced from 80,000 square feet to 40,000 square
feet

ALSO
Town of Kinderhook Board Public Hearing
to consider Amendment No.1 to the Comprehensive Plan so that the maximum
size of commercial buildings permitted
to be erected in the Town is reduced from 80,000 square feet to 40,000 square
feet
 
6:55 PM at the Town Hall
Town of Kinderhook Board Public Hearing
to add a provision to the Code to increase the number of copies of preliminary
plats which must be furnished to the Planning Board for subdivision review from 7
to 10.
 
We need your support!
Please come out to speak out in favor of changing the maximum permitted size of
commercial buildings from the current 80,000 to 40,000 feet.
 
This law would prohibit the type of buildings associated with sprawl.
We cannot fight sprawl without the law being with us.
 
Please show your support by coming out July 11th.
If you cannot make the meeting, please write your opinion and send it to

Kinderhook Town Board

PO Box P - Niverville NY 12130 
THE POLITICS OF LAND GRABBING

JULY 5, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING – JULY 11th
 
Town of Kinderhook Board Public Hearing
7/11/05 at 6:50 PM
at the Town Hall, Niverville
to consider an amendment to the Density Control Schedule of
the Code so that the maximum size of commercial buildings permitted
to be erected in the Town is reduced from 80,000 square feet to 40,000 square
feet

Town of Kinderhook Board Public Hearing
to consider Amendment #1 to the Comprehensive Plan
so that the maximum size of commercial buildings permitted to be erected in the
Town is
reduced from 80,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet

Town of Kinderhook Board Public Hearing
7/11/05 at 6:55 PM at the Town Hall
to add a provision to the Code to increase the number of copies of preliminary
plats
which must be furnished to the Planning Board for subdivision review from 7 to
10.
 
We need your support!
Please come out and speak out in favor of changing the maximum permitted size
of commercial buildings from the current 80,000 to 40,000 feet.
 
This law would prohibit the type of buildings associated with sprawl.
We cannot fight sprawl without the law being with us.
 
Please show your support by coming out July 11th.
 

*   *   *