|
|
|
|
|
PAST ISSUES DUNKIN’ DONUTS siteat
Routes US9, NY 9H & State Farm Road apex in Kinderhook.
NOVEMBER 18, 2004 At the Planning
Board’s November 18th meeting, the board voted unanimously to give
Dunkin’ Donuts preliminary approval.
Approval was given providing the developer gets approval from the County
Health Department, NYS DOT, and some minor architectural details are taken care
of. The November
21ST issue of the Register-Star said, “Simonsen (Planning Board
Chairman) said three of seven board members believed that the proposed doughnut
shop could have an adverse impact on traffic once the roundabout replaces the
existing intersection with 9, 9H and State Farm
Road.” The
Register-Star, “Minot-Scheuerman and two others spoke out during the
environmental review, but a majority of the board felt there would be no major
impacts as a result of this proposal.
When the overall project came up for a vote, it was unanimously
approved.” The Register-Star
said, “Minot-Scheuerman said, the applicant’s positive approach to this project
helped his decision. He described
the applicant as “extremely cooperative” and added: ‘They really attempted to do
all they could.’” “The alternative
would have been to have the developer pay for a more extensive, more costly
study, Minot-Scheuerman said.” If three members
of the Planning Board were not convinced that this project can work and work
safely, why wasn’t the more extensive traffic study called for? Because an
applicant has a positive approach, it is not the reason for approving his
project. Many area residents, some
KNGG members, some not, argued at the Public Hearings about traffic impacts,
especially the illegally parked trailer trucks which are
already causing safety problems at nearby Stewarts and McDonalds because there
is no room for them to enter the parking lots. It has been pointed out to the Planning
Board by KNGG that there is a definite problem with getting cars off the road on
to the site because of lack of parking space.
It is beyond
comprehension that Gerald Minot-Scheuerman and two other board members were
against the project, yet they voted to approve it. There is something strange about this
planning board’s obsession of having to have unanimous approvals on all
projects. If any one member of the
board is doubtful about a project’s viability, they should feel free to vote
their conscience, no matter how the others vote. There should be no peer
pressure here. It appears that dissenters are expected to not be true to their
own convictions, but to vote with the majority, and to what end? There was a similar situation when the
Planning Board gave site plan approval to Widewaters. Is this board being told that the
majority will approve project X, therefore the board must give it a unanimous
blessing? It appears that this Planning
Board does not possess the faculty of reason. It doesn’t seem to be able to take
information from their experts, the public, various other experts and then
discuss and weigh it to come up with an approval or disapproval. It appears that
if this Planning Board is not specifically told by their “expert” that
there are definite adverse impacts, the Planning Board votes unanimously to
approve it. Hence the "experts" are given the role of planner and not the
planners
themselves.
Following
Letter Discussed by Planning Board At tonight's special Planning Board meeting, Chairman Ed Simonsen brought
up the serious problem of illegal truck parking just south of the NY9H and US9
intersection on NY9H and in doing so introduced the following letter. A resolution was made to send a letter to the Town Board to handle the
constant illegal truck parking. It would seem practicle for the Planning Board to discuss this at the
next Planning Board Hearing on the Dunkin' Donuts,' since its proposed site is
at the location discussed. Kinderhook
Neighbors for Good Growth Via email and Hand DeliveryOctober 27, 2004 Hon. McGivney, Supervisor and Ed Simonsen, Chairman Town Planning Board Members of the Planning Board Town of Kinderhook P. O. Box P Niverville NY 12130 RE: New place for illegal tractor-trailer parking near Stewart’s and McDonald’sDear Supervisor McGivney and Chairman Simonsen: At approximately 11:15 Monday morning, while driving north on NY 9H just prior to the US9 intersection, I noticed that the “No Parking” signs have been replaced by “No Stopping” signs. I believe that “No Standing” signs were asked for because they would be more restrictive. Which would be the more restrictive “No Stopping” or “No Standing?” I understand the danger posed by trailer trucks parking on this stretch of road causing difficulty entering/exiting McDonald’s and Stewart’s. A similar situation exists on the west side of NY 9H for people exiting Old Post Rd. Today I noticed that the “No Parking” signs on the west side of NY 9H have been removed and not replaced. On Monday, much to my dismay, I saw two south bound tractor-trailers parked, with their flashing lights on, in the center turn lane near McDonald’s and Stewarts. The drivers could not be seen and it obviously wasn’t an accident or a blown tire. Two drivers had illegally parked their trailer trucks to take advantage of the fast food and/or bank amenities. This is most likely a police problem and I suggest Supervisor McGivney to ask the local police to keep a closer watch on the area. One truck illegally parked here will give others ideas. I see no place for these big trucks to park while using the facilities of McDonald’s, Trustco Bank and Stewarts. Like water seeking its level, so will these trucks. We prohibit them from parking on the shoulders and they go to the center turn lane. Both US9 and NY9H are heavily trafficked by these large trucks. Their drivers find these facilities attractive for a rest stop and will continue to do so. This problem will not go away. It will increase as the traffic will and the police cannot be there at all times. There seems to have been no foresight by our traffic engineers who advised approval of McDonald’s and Stewarts where parking space is lacking, not only for tractor-trailers, but for automobiles as well. What disturbs me even more is the proposed Dunkin’ Donuts site next to McDonald’s. As a fast food vendor, they will attract additional truckers. Where will they park their rigs? Illegally in the center turn lane as well? The Dunkin’ Donuts’ parking area, as planned, has hardly enough room for cars, never mind a tractor-trailer or two. I recently stopped for gas and a donut at the Mobil Station at the NY9H and Route 66 intersection in Ghent. There was a large tractor-trailer unloading goods (many cartons, etc) for Dunkin’ Donuts. It appears that there is no room planned at the proposed Kinderhook facility for tractor-trailer deliveries. Will they be expected to park illegally and so close to the planned roundabout on NY 9H while they unload? We cannot discriminate against the trucker. Before this gets out of hand and we start getting law suits from truckers and from vendors that may claim we are keeping their customers away, I ask Mr. Simonsen and the Planning Board to please take a good look at the Dunkin’ Donuts situation. The donut shop will have outgrown its parking spaces soon after opening. If approved, more tractor-trailers will park dangerously in the NY9H center turn lane. We already have a dangerous situation as vehicles try to maneuver in and out of Stewart’s, Trustco and McDonald’s into the north and southbound traffic on NY 9H. Adding another fast food restaurant to this grouping will only add to the current dangers. And with the reality of the area being used more and more as a truck stop, it would be most advisable for Dunkin’ Donuts to find a more suitable location. To avoid compounding the parking issues for this area, I ask the Planning Board to turn this project down. Sincerely, Allen Schaefer, President PUBLIC HEARING at PLANNING BOARD The Public Hearing still continues on October 21st. Dunkin' Donuts continues to try to persuade the Planning Board that their business with car-park will fit on such a small site. As KNGG attorney, Jeff Baker, proclaimed, "This site leaves no room for deliveries by WD67 vehicles or for future expansion." At the September 16th meeting, Dunkin Dounuts presented yet antoher revised site plan so the public hearing was held open. At the Public Hearing on July 15, 2004, Dunkin' Donuts representatives presented a new site plan to comply with the ZBA ruling of July 1st. As neither the board nor KNGG were allowed time to review the new site plans, the Public Hearing is held open till August 19th. Letters and comments from the public are still being accepted.
VARIANCE REQUEST RESULTS ZBA Public Hearing Thursday July 1st - Town Hall 1. Signage
(Additional, not allowed by code.) DENIED
2. Lot
coverage. DENIED
(Wanted to cover
65% of the property. The code allows 50%.)
3. Setback. APPROVED
What does this mean? If they
conform with the code on signage, it may be possible to redesign the site
to allow for lot coverage as allowed by code.
Since they don't have to conform to the set back as allowed by
code, what, if any set back will they need to conform
to?
MAY 6, 2004 - At
the ZBA Public Hearing for Dunkin' Donuts request for three variances, the ZBA
determined that it was not possible to know if an adverse impact would be
created without seeing an updated traffic study of the area. The hearing
was then declared "open" untill a traffic study has been done and viewed by the
ZBA.
Below is a copy of the letter
written to the ZBA for KNGG by Attorney James Muscato II and presented to Chairman Egan at the ZBA Public Hearing on
May 6. 2004.
Young, Sommer ... LLC
Sean Egan, Chairman,Town of Kinderhook ZBA 11 Presidential Drive Kinderhook, New York 12106 RE: Dunkin Donuts/David Leal Dear Mr Egan: This letter is submitted to the Town of Kinderhook Zoning Board of Appeals on behalf of the Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth ("KNGG"). The purpose of this letter is to submit comments on the area variance sought by David Leal for the Dunkin Donuts project. As an initial point, the project, as proposed, would require an area variance for the setback minimums. While the Town Code does not specifically address undersized parcels, the ZBA should treat the issue as it would a non-conforming use and require an application for an area variance. Under the Town Code, where the non-conforming use is destroyed to the extent of more than 50% of the cost of replacement of the structure, the reuse of the parcel must conform to all of the zoning regulations of the Town Code. It is anticipated that the applicant will destroy the building currently located on the parcel, leaving only the foundation. Applying the above principles, in order to re-construct a non-conforming structure on the parcel, the applicant must apply for an area variance. Second, KNGG is concerned with the number, size and location of the signs proposed for the Dunkin Donuts. Overall, KNGG believes the design of the building is acceptable. However, the acceptability of the project is significantly reduced by the proliferation of signs proposed for the parcel. The unacceptability of the current proposal is exacerbated by the fact that the application for the area variance is deceptive and shows that the applicant is being less than frank with the Board regarding the amount of signage proposed. As stated in the Town Code, the purpose of the signage requirements is "to promote and protect the public health, welfare and safety by regulating existing and proposed outdoor advertising signs, window or door signs and outdoor signs of all types." When the Code drafters established the sign limitations, they took into account the balance between an attractive economic and business climate and the necessity of protecting the historic and rural character of the town. Thus, as the regulations stand, a compromise has already been achieved between business development and the community’s unique scenic vistas. The applicant seeks to eviscerate that balance by asking the ZBA to approve an area variance that would greatly exceed that permitted under the Code. Under the Code, an applicant is entitled to variance only for the minimum necessary to achieve its goal. Clearly, here, the excess of signs and total signage has gone beyond what is necessary to convey the identification of a Dunkin Donuts location. Moreover, the applicant has failed to explain why the excess number and total area of signage is the only feasible way to achieve what is being requested. The fact is, there is simply no need for any additional signage at this location beyond what is required under the Code. KNGG respectfully requests that the Town deny the area variance unless the applicant significantly reduces the amount of total signage and the number of signs proposed. The following are comments that KNGG has regarding the current proposal and its significant exceedances from the Code: - The applicant proposes six separate signs for the proposed Dunkin Donuts. The Code only permits three signs per building. (81-21)(P)(2)(c). - The applicant is seeking an area variance to double the signage permitted at the parcel (from the permitted 80 sq. ft. to 160 sq. feet). However, upon review of the plans, clearly the applicant is proposing over four times more than 160 sq. ft. Among other things, the Applicant fails to count both sign faces toward the total amount permitted under the Code. (81-21)(B). - The applicant failed to clearly mark the location of the signs on the existing site plan. (81-21)(D)(2)(a). - The directional signs exceed the six feet height limitation. (81-21)(M)(3). - The purported four feet, six inches sign with the Dunkin Donuts logo is not a directional sign and thus must be added to the total sign area permitted under the Code. (81-21)(M)(3). - The proposed monument sign exceeds the four feet height limitation. (81-21)(O)(2)(c). - It is unclear whether the two window signs proposed exceed the 20% of the area of the window limitation in the Code. (81-21)(O)(2)(e). - The free-standing sign proposed exceeds the 12 feet height limitation. (81-21)(O)(2)(c)(2). - The applicant fails to indicate the signage that will be located at or on the drive-through area. Again, KNGG understands that the applicant desires visibility for this commercial location. However, for this site in particular, visibility is not an issue because it is located at the apex of a (proposed) roundabout. There is nothing obstructing the visibility of the location from traffic traveling through the intersection of Routes 9 and 9H. The Board should not allow this application to set a precedent permitting excessive signage because it would significantly undermine the recent revisions to the Town Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Similarly, the Board should not allow a decision to allow excess signage undermine the efforts of the litigation against Sunoco. Finally, we are disappointed that the applicant misstated the nature of the variance sought from the ZBA. We note, it is the applicant’s burden to show that the ordinance restricts it, and, even assuming it does, the applicant must show what has been proposed is the minimum necessary. Clearly, at a parcel were visibility is not an issue, three times the amount of signage permitted under the Code is not the minimum necessary. Respectfully submitted, James A. Muscato II Young, Sommer . . . LLC Attorneys for KNGG DUNKIN' DONUTS - KINDERHOOK - UPDATES - SEE BELOW DUNKIN' DONUTS STIRS RHODE ISLAND COMMUNITY "No Dunkin’ Donuts on Our Main Street" The Associated Press, March 22, 2004 BRISTOL, R.I. - A citizen’s coalition is leading the charge against a New England institution: Dunkin’ Donuts. For weeks, Linda Arruda and as many as a dozen others have been meeting to stop the donut and coffee chain from building a store in the historic district of this quaint bayside town that’s home to the nation’s longest running Fourth of July parade. “I want to help the downtown Dunkin’ Donuts fail,” Arruda told The Providence Journal. A button reading “Do Not Donut” was pinned to her. “I will do my best to make it go out of business.” Some are pleased that there may be an occupant at the store front at the corner of Hope and State Streets that’s been vacant for months. But the Preserve Historic Bristol, formed in January after towns people learned of the Dunkin’ Donuts plan, see it as a threat. The group wants Bristol to ban or at least restrict so-called formula businesses. The Town Council is researching the legality of such a restriction, which, if adopted would make Bristol the first in New England to have such a law. “Bristol could lead the way,” Town Solicitor Michael Ursillo said. Joseph Prazeres, who owns five Dunkin’ Donuts franchises in the East Bay, plans to open the shop in May. He’ll apply for a remodeling permit this month, his attorney said. Local shop owners complain that the store will drive up rents. Preserve Historic Bristol collected 2,200 signatures in a petition opposing Dunkin’ Donuts, and mailed it to the company’s headquarters in Randolph, Massachusetts. Since then the group has sought to bar any business that’s required to have a standardized method of operation, such as décor and uniforms. Nationwide, nine towns in California, Florida, New York and Washington states, have bared such businesses. Stacy Mitchell, a researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, said losing one locally owned store can have repercussions. “You lose the distinctive character of your town,” she said. “You lose your sense of place.” The East Bay Chamber of Commerce said the town needs to look at both sides of the issue.
APRIL 1, 2004 - UPDATE ZBA declares Dunkin' Donuts application for a variance on lot coverage complete and sends letter to Planning Board requesting letter of recomendation. If letter of recomendation is acted upon by Planning Board this month, the ZBA Public Hearing on this variance could be held May 6h. Dunkin' Donuts already has a Public Hearing set for May 6th for two other variances: 1. Variance request to increase amount of signage to double what is allowed by code. 2. Variance request for setbacks. (See Below) 3. Variance requesr for lot coverage is pending. (See Below) March 4, 2004 - UPDATE The Public Hearing scheduled for today (March 4th) by the ZBA for
Dunkin' Donuts has been cancelled. The Town Code requires that the ZBA is to
request a referral from the Planning Board for the variances 45 days before the
date of any public hearing. The notice from the ZBA to the Planning Board
has not been received and therefore the hearing cannot go
forward.
February 19, 2004 - UPDATE
Dunkin'
Donuts presented new drawings
inclusive of sidewalks on Route 9 and use of a right of way between their
proposed site and McDonalds. The parking spaces have been enlarged to be
up to code. This now gives them a greater problem with lot coverage.
This will up their lot coverage to 70% when the allowance is only
50%.
Regarding recent traffic counts, the
DD attorney stated that the evening rush hour count is up by 10%. We are lead
to believe that the study was taken mid week of February 9th thru mid week of
the following week. Take into consideration that Presidents Day was the 16th
when the schools were closed as were many businesses. The schools were
actually closed the whole week. This would account for the difference in
the morning counts from the two years.
Planning Board member Don Gaylord
requested that a stastical model of the drive up queue be required by the
developer. Planning Board members are concerned that the rush hour queue to
the takeout window will back up on to Route 9H. DD did not object to
providing the queuing study but we are unclear if a resolution was passed to
require the study.
February 6, 2004 - UPDATE LET THE DONUTS' GAMES
BEGIN at the ZBA
Dunkin'
Donuts was told at the last Planning Board meeting by the town engineer
that they would need the following variances:
1. -
SIGNAGE -
They are allowed 80 sq. ft. They want double - 160! They think that
because
McDonald's has it
that they are entitled to it. McDonald's was approved under the "old"
code.
The code was rewritten for this very
reason, so that the entrance to Town would not look like a procession of sprawl
signage. Dunkin' Donuts wants a variance for larger signs.
2. -
SETBACK - They
intend to demolish the current retail building and expect to replace it
with a
cookie cutter "traditional" Dunkin' Donuts fast foods restaurant (with take-out
service) "on the same footprint" and foundation. They are required to have 75
ft. setback on a state highway. There isn't room on the triangular apex of land for
the setback.
3. - LOT
COVERAGE -
This was not discussed at the ZBA, however the building they want to put up
and its parking lot will take up 70% of the land, leaving only 30 percent for
green space. The code requires them to leave 50 percent as green
space. They want a variance to put up a building that is too large in
proportion to the available land. They will
need variances.
Dunkin' Donuts'
representatives showed up
at the ZBA last night with their site plans and drawings
which were supposed to have accompanied the application when it was submitted. The
ZBA accepted the application as complete and set a hearing for March 4th
pending the out come of research of the law regarding "grandfathering" by ZBA
attorney Marc Gold.
There was some
discussion as to whether or not the new Dunkin' Donuts building can be
"grandfathered" in under the
"old" code. If so Dunkin' Donuts will not have to comply with the new
code, especially with regard to setback (and lot coverage).
Dunkin' Donuts seem to believe that because they plan
to put their new building on an existing foundation that was approved under the old code
and built under the old code, it can be "grandfathered" in and compliance
would be to the old code. This would be quite a stretch if allowed,
especially because the current foundation was not constructed for or by
Dunkin' Donuts and the use would be changed from a
computer retail sales and repair facility to a restaurant.
Let the "new" code
work as the code is
intended. This is too dangerous an intersection for a fast foods restaurant
expecting to serve 2 cars per minute at their take-out window plus
walk-ins.
KNGG
attorney Jeff Baker wrote a letter to the ZBA explaining why these variances
should not be
granted. He also advised the board of the fact that
the Planning Board's hearing is set for March 4th, the same night
the ZBA
set their hearing. Jeff told them that there is a conflict here and
that he could not attend both
hearings. With the exception of one member, the ZBA were determined
not to set another date. As chairman Egan exclaimed,
"I am only responsible for the ZBA. I can not help
what other agencies do."
Maybe so. However it wouldn't hurt to cooperate
so the public could attend both hearings of
two proposed developments across the street from each
other. If one of the hearings were
rescheduled, KNGG members, the public and our attorney would be able to
attend the two hearings.
January 15, 2004 - UPDATE :
Dunkin’ Donuts
announced plans at the Planning Board meeting to demolish the building currently
occupied by Old Kinderhook Integrated Systems Solutions (OK Integrated) at the
busy intersection of Routes US9, NY 9H, State Farm Road and replace it with a
Dunkin' Donuts "traditional" template.
They plan a drive in takeout window in the rear and 28 seats inside. There will probably be a takeout counter inside as well. They plan on using the same parking space as the current occupant. Public water is available on the site and they plan to replace the septic system. The new building Dunkin' Donuts is
proposing is a traditional template from their computer generated
designs and looks similar to the outbuildings proposed by Widewaters. It is
planned with a light gray roof and gray siding. As proposed, trademark signage
dominates the plate glass windows in prominent trademark pink and orange, which
does not comply with the code. KNGG prefers Dunkin' Donuts to build a
copy of their Manchester Vermont building. Why should Kinderhook get the short
end of the stick? Surely Dunkin' Donuts can supply good photos of their
Manchester site to the Planning Board.
Lot Coverage If this building goes up, it will not be in compliance with the code because of "lot coverage." In the current code, 50% of the land needs to be left open for green space. With the plans presented, only 35% would be green. Set Back Set back is the distance the new building should be from the street. The lot is small. They do not meet this code requirement. Septic tank capacity They do not meet this requirement either. They claim ½ of the water intake goes out the window as coffee, not down the drain. Toxic spill Before being a computer shop and a bank, this site was occupied by a gasoline station. Pat Prendergast, Town Engineer, spoke of when he was on the property while the parking area was torn up after the gasoline station closed. He told of strong odors of what smelled of oil and gasoline coming from the opened ground. This needs investigation, especially if the parking area is to be moved or repaved. Traffic Ed Simonsen, chairman of the Planning Board, pointed out that this property at the intersection of Routes US9 and NY 9H was given approval for OK Integrated some years ago because the business was considered a low traffic generator. Since then the intersection has become much busier with more businesses in the area. Dunkin' Donuts is considered a high traffic generator. Dunkin' Donuts claims it would only generate 3% more traffic. They would count on pass-by traffic to stop in. Never the less a considerable amount of traffic will be diverted at the intersection to stop at Dunkin’ Donuts.Board member Don Gaylord stated, that in this case, "a traffic study would be appropriate." Several board members were concerned that during peak hours, when the restaurant is busy, and when cars are lined up for the take-out window, traffic would be backed up on to Route US9 and NY 9H waiting to get on to the property and to the take-out window. Dunkin’ Donuts expects 2 cars per minute will pull off the road to go to their takeout window. AND let's not forget that 2 cars per minute will exit the property on to the 2 highways. KNGG believes that this is not a good location for Dunkin' Donuts primarily because of the traffic situation and the site being at the apex of the triangle where the two major highways merge. The Planning Board must take into consideration not only Dunkin' Donuts but McDonald's, Stewart's, the Ichabod Crane School System, the Hudson River Bank drive-in, The Kleeber Agency shops, 4 Brothers, Van Allen Auto Body and, if approved, Widewaters Commons with its roundabout. We believe this will cause severe consequences. (It's getting to look too much like East Greenbush each month.) If Dunkin' Donuts wishes to do business in Kinderhook, they should choose a more appropriate and less dangerous location.THE APEX OF THIS INTERSECTION IS NO PLACE FOR A FAST FOOD DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT! July 17, 2003 - UPDATE: Dunkin’ Donuts has shown no desires of taking over the property at the intersection of US9 and NY 9H currently occupied by OK Integrated. Three months have passed since the Planning Board last heard from the applicant. Three months have elapsed and therefore the application was then closed by the Planning Board. April 17, 2003 - Jose Leal, applicant, appeared at the Planning Board meeting on April 17, 2003 stating that he wished to put a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise on the property currently occupied by a computer operation firm, located at the intersection where Route NY 9H merges into Route US9 across State Farm Road. At the time, the Planning Board had not received any plans from the applicant. Key points discussed: The condition of approval of the current occupant's business for that site was low traffic volume. A shared driveway with McDonalds from Keegan Road would be required. Septic Difficulties; Lot coverage issues; No brand identification of the building and signage. * *
*
|
