July 15, 2004

Mr. Edward Simonsen, Chairman                

Town of Kinderhook Planning Board

P.O. Box P

Town Hall                                                                  

Niverville, New York 12130

            Re: Widewaters - Findings Suggestions

Dear Mr. Simonsen and Members of the Planning Board:

            Set forth below are our proposed statements to be included in the findings statement which will support denial of the project.  Also set forth below are proposed findings consisting of conditions which should, at a minimum, be imposed if the Planning Board decides to approve the project.  KNGG’s offer of these proposed conditions does not mean that KNGG supports the project or that adoption of these conditions will allow the Planning Board to satisfy its legal requirements under SEQRA, and KNGG specifically reserves its right to seek judicial relief should it so decide.  Nevertheless, these conditions will help to mitigate the significant adverse impacts of the project.  We also note that we only received a copy of the accepted FEIS yesterday and we are still reviewing that document.  Therefore we reserve our right to supplement these suggestions in the coming days.

I.  Reasons for Denial

            A. Traffic

            1.         The FEIS has demonstrated that the project as proposed will result in significant adverse environmental impacts to the traffic conditions in the Town of Kinderhook.  The applicant originally proposed a 5-legged intersection for the intersection of Routes 9, 9H and State Farm Road along with the entrance to the shopping center.  That proposal was found to be fatally flawed by DOT, the Town’s consultants and consultants retained by interested parties.  The applicant has altered its proposal to provide for a 5-legged roundabout to replace the existing signalized intersection.  That proposal will dramatically change the nature of the road network in the community and the Planning Board is not certain that such a proposal is in the best interest of the town.

            2.         The applicant has not provided a detailed traffic study of the morning traffic that will be passing through the roundabout and the ability of the roundabout to handle that level of traffic growth into the future.  While the applicant has proposed a two-lane roundabout for the western edge of the roundabout to handle southbound traffic, there is no corresponding provision for increased growth for the northbound traffic.

            3.         The applicant’s traffic studies that were conducted used a 2% annual growth factor although DOT data at the time indicated that the annual growth factor was 2.4%.  Furthermore, a more recent traffic study prepared for a proposed Dunkin Donuts at the same intersection, demonstrated that the most annual growth factor is 5%.  The Planning Board finds that for the design of such a critical element of the town’s highway infrastructure the most conservative growth factor should be used which reflects the recent surge in growth in the Town and Columbia County and the importance of the 9/9H corridor to regional transportation.

            4.         Construction of the roundabout and its expected operation as described by the applicant’s experts and DOT is to provide a relatively seamless stream of traffic through the roundabout and onto the roads it services.  While that may relieve congestion at that intersection it will have the negative impact of increasing congestion on side roads where cars will not be able to enter traffic because of the constant flow.  Currently the flow is interrupted by the traffic lights, providing breaks for cars turning north on Rt. 9 from Maple Road and other roads.

            5.         The provision for a partial two-lane roundabout has the serious potential of providing a safety problem with merging traffic, particularly vehicles leaving the shopping center and traveling to Route 9 north, State Farm Road and Route 9 South.  All of that traffic will be required to cross over a lane to get to the single lane completing the roundabout.  That traffic will be competing with traffic already in the roundabout, especially traffic crossing lanes to proceed to Route 9H south.

            6.         The Planning Board concerns are not alleviated by DOT’s statements in support of the roundabout.  This is not a DOT sponsored project and the DOT project manager admitted to the Planning Board that he did not undertake a comprehensive traffic study and did not consider the impacts of the roundabout on adjoining roads or the entrances to nearby businesses.     

            7.         The EIS has failed to adequately consider all of the cumulative impacts of other projects currently proposed and likely to be proposed for the same area, particularly the pending Dunkin Donuts application that will exacerbate traffic problems in the immediate area.

            8.         The EIS recognizes that the intersection of Route 9 and Main Street while already at a Level of Service “F” will be significantly worsened by the traffic generated by the project.  While the applicant originally offered to pay a fair share for the installation of a traffic signal at that intersection, it has recently declined to do so or assure that a signal will be installed before the project is completed.  While the applicant is not responsible for the current condition at the intersection, it is responsible for making the condition at that intersection significantly worse.  Without assuring signalization, this is an unmitigated adverse impact that cannot be condoned by the Planning Board.     

            B.   Visual Impacts/Open Space

            1.         The project site presents unique views of the Catskill Mountains which are important to the character of the Town and are highly valued by the Town’s residents.  Construction of a project of this size serves to permanently alter the viewshed and change the character of the town.  The Planning Board recognizes that the Town Board re-zoned the parcel in 2001, but also notes that the Town did not undertake any environmental review at the time and thus left it to the Planning Board to make a determination as to the impacts of development on the parcel at the time of a particular application.  A smaller less intensive use of the site would maintain the visual character.

            2.         The landscaping and lighting plan do not provide adequate mitigation for the visual impacts of the project. The proposed vegetation is too sparse and immature to provide meaningful screening.  The proposed lighting standards are too tall and will provide unnecessary glare and light pollution changing the character of the area.

II.  Proposed Conditions

            A. Traffic

            1.         The safety and effectiveness of the roundabout are unproven and experience at other locations demonstrates that planning often does not reflect reality.  Therefore it will be necessary for a post-development study of the roundabout and a provision for improvements or alterations of the roundabout.  Since the project is being constructed by Widewaters and not with public funds, there is no assurance that public funds will be available for such work.  Therefore, Widewaters must post a bond or other security in the amount of _______ for a study of the roundabout’s safety and effectiveness to be conducted one-year after the roundabout and shopping center are in operation.  The bond shall be in a sufficient amount to cover the cost of the study and any necessary improvements to the roundabout including additional lanes, striping, reconfiguration and signage.

            2.         Education of residents as to how to navigate a roundabout is critical for its success and to minimize accidents.  Widewaters shall provide a public information campaign to the residents of the Town that shall, at a minimum, include a safety brochure mailed to each residence in the Town.

            3.         The traffic light at Main Street and Route 9 is critical to mitigating the adverse impacts of the project and it is not the Town’s responsibility to obtain funding for that light, nor is it the Town’s responsibility to obtain other public funding.  Since this is a problem that will be significantly worsened by Widewaters, it shall be a condition of the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first building in the shopping center that a traffic light be installed at that intersection.  Widewaters can either pay for the entire light or seek funding from DOT, however, installation of the light is necessary before the project begins operation and generating significant levels of traffic.

            B.   Open Space and Habitat

            1.         In the DEIS the applicant represented that the rear 9 acres of the site would be maintained as open space and as mitigation for the loss of wildlife habitat, except for the location of septic systems and wells.  To assure that the adverse impacts to loss of open space and wildlife habitat are mitigated as represented in the EIS, the applicant will be required to place a deed restriction on that portion of the property precluding its future development in any manner greater than that shown of the site plan approved for the project.

            C.   Visual Impacts

            1.         To mitigate the visual impacts of the lighting of the project the maximum height of the light poles in the parking lot shall be 12 feet measured from the ground level to the height of the fixture.

            We respectfully request that the Planning Board incorporate these findings and deny the project or at the minimum include these conditions for approval.

                                                                                    Very truly yours,

                                                                                    Jeffrey S. Baker