COMMENTS OF MARK LITTEKEN

Treasurer and Member of the KNGG Board of Directors

October 15, 2002

NOISE

One impact that’s not addressed at all in the DEIS is the level of noise that the development will add to the area. Given the rural and residential nature of the area, sound travels surprisingly far here; and artificial noise such as that from generators and air conditioning etc. has a much greater impact here than in the urban or suburban area. Widewaters should address the noise problem in terms of the impact to this rural area. Acoustic experts should be consulted, and mitigation measures should be described in detail.

Noise caused by traffic is a major deficiency in the DEIS because the project will attract so much commercial and automobile traffic.  Don’t forget that the whole purpose of the project is to attract traffic.  While Widewaters is telling you and the rest of us in the town how little traffic this project will attract, they’re telling prospective tenants how much traffic it will draw. 

LIGHT

One of the most striking features of our town is the darkness of the night sky and the number of stars that are visible.  (Night skies unmarred by light pollution are one of the defining features of a rural area.) 

The Widewaters DEIS does not show that light pollution will be kept to acceptable levels for a rural area.  In discussions with the Town Planning Board, Widewaters has stated that the amount of light will be “acceptable” or “within standard limits.”  But there is no reason the town should suffer the “usual” level of light pollution.  The DEIS should discuss how modern, stricter standards for controlling light pollution will be met.  For example:

• Will outward facing signs be shielded so no light escapes skyward?
• Are light poles in the parking lot the minimum height possible?
• Are parking lot lights properly shielded to prevent stray light?

In discussion with the Planning Board Widewaters promised to lower the parking lot lights to, as I recall, thirty feet; but that specification was never incorporated into the DEIS as it should have been.

The DEIS describes only one lighting design; it does not discuss any alternatives, as required by SEQRA.  Widewaters should employ a professional light designer to arrive at several lighting plans that will minimize the light that would spill out and spills up from the site.

HOURS OF OPERATION

The effects of the project’s noise and light pollution are directly related to the hours of the strip mall’s operation.  The effects will be compounded the farther into the night that the center is open.

The DEIS should state the hours and levels of operation of the various types of expected tenants. This issue should be clearly addressed:

• Will the grocery store, or any of the other tenants, be open 24 hours a day?
• Will trucks be making deliveries late and throughout the night?
• How lat will the restaurant operation be open?
• What light levels are planned at times when businesses aren’t open to the public?

These and all other deficiencies that have been pointed out by others make it clear that this DEIS is not at all adequate. 

COMMENTS OF MARILYN KAPLAN

Architect

October 15, 2002

You may recall that I was a member of the Comprehensive Plan Committee.  I am also an architect working with many environmental reviews, regularly dealing with issues of aesthetic and visual impact.

In preparation of my review of the Widewaters DEIS, I went back to review my comments on the PDEIS.  Some of these were very similar to those that have been provided to the project applicant by the Planning Board and the Planning Board’s consultant Jim Green.  Admittedly mine went further is stating an expectation that this project’s architecture and site design should be an asset to the town, and be a clear indication of the quality of design that is appropriate and expected here in Kinderhook.

I also went back to the Comprehensive Plan, of which every page stems from a vision statement.  The vision statement speaks of Kinderhook’s unique history, agriculture, and rural character, and the need to control and manage development so that it maintains the ambiance of a small rural town.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in this proposed DEIS that responds to this mandate that is so central to the Comprehensive Plan.

I preface my comments on the inadequacies of the DEIS by saying the town’s unique history and rural character are our best and perhaps only defense against being swallowed up by the indistinguishable sprawl that has that has overcome the areas north of Albany to Saratoga, southeast of Albany through East Greenbush.  These areas, to my eyes, look like one long suburb that could just as well be in the state of Indiana as in the historic Hudson Valley.

The DEIS has some major flaws:

The inadequacies and errors related to traffic issues are best spoken about by others; but what is obvious, and reiterated so clearly by DOT, is that we are speaking about a complex project with many significant impacts.  A high level of information is necessary to make informed discussions that will ensure our safety.  Similarly, with respect to the design and scale of the proposed project, good, sound basic data is essential for making sound decisions.

Despite repeated requests for this information, little has been provided in this DEIS:

1.      No information on historic and/or archeological resources.

2.      No information on signage

3.      Inadequate information on lighting and placement of mechanical and service equipment.

The visual impact assessment is absolutely inadequate:  It uses only two spot locations, and only addresses visual concerns when trees would be fully in bloom.

The proposed building design---remember the Comprehensive Plan asks it to respond to the scale of this community and our history and rural character,

1.      Has no basis on the findings of the visual impact assessment.

2.      And includes no discussion of alternative designs.

Finally, the proposed site and landscaping design is equally inadequate:

1.      It doesn’t protect our views of the Catskill Mountains.

2.      It doesn’t provide protection at property lines.

3.      It doesn’t adequately screen at the east along Route 9H,

4.      It doesn’t look like it was prepared by a landscape architect, let alone one who had visited the site.

In conclusion, I’d like to respond to an implication of the DEIS; that the existing development in the town of Kinderhook is inconsistent, characterless, and lacks quality.

First off, despite you’re (the Planning Board) requests, the DEIS does not include photographs of any of the more recent projects that are successful, or photographs of other areas within the town.

Granted the commercial development along Routes 9 and 9H is less than ideal.  But it is, primarily small scale.  Like everywhere else, Kinderhook has its planning mistakes and certainly some were made by the Planning Board while I sat on that board.  But these are not so great or so overbearing that they should allow this project or any other development to dismiss Kinderhook as a special place.  In fact, we could say that these were our wake up calls, highlighting the critical need for real planning, and for the community and the Planning Board to grab hold of development before it swallows us up.

I must say I am confused about one thing.  Despite the Planning Board’s requests, and despite many of the comments that have been made by the public, this DEIS is almost identical to its previous draft.  I don’t know if its arrogance on the part of the developer that implies the community should have no say, or if its part of a well conceived strategy insistent on building the least expensive and most generic development possible.

Whatever the situation, the proposal is not compliant with the state SEQRA law and certainly not with the intent or specific language of the town’s Comprehensive Plan.

*  *  *