Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth

NOVEMBER 15, 2004

To the Editor:

An open letter to Doug McGivney

Supervisor

Town of Kinderhook

Dear Supervisor McGivney:

When we spoke at Kinderhook Town Hall last Thursday night (11/04/04) you asked me if I was sure about where KNGG is going with the Article 78 action we recently filed with the New York State Supreme Court.

You asked me, “Is KNGG doing the right thing?” I replied yes, I sincerely believe we are doing the right thing for the Town of Kinderhook. Your response was a doubtful look that implied KNGG was being un-neighborly in bringing an Article 78 action against the ZBA. Noticing copies of the Widewaters' transcripts of the ZBA meetings on your desk, I said I hoped you would read them and added, “They might help you understand where we, KNGG members who are also your constituents, are coming from.”

You emphasized that the Planning Board and ZBA members are volunteers, good people who are also “good neighbors.” You compared them to the volunteers who built the Town Park. Sadly, your comparison missed the point.

KNGG members, like ZBA members, are volunteers and neighbors also. But volunteers or not, the Town ZBA is not standing up for the best interests of Kinderhook. The ZBA and our town can greatly benefit from the experience and advice of professional planners. I therefore suggest:

A.    Encourage the Town Board to hire a planning/zoning professional or qualified administrator to sit in on meetings as a consultant to the two boards.



B.    Encourage the Town Board to require the ZBA and Planning Board members to complete training and continuing education courses as provided in Sections 267(2) and 271 (2) of the NY State Town Law.

There is much more at stake in this decision than the question of who is being neighborly and who is not.  As our Supervisor, you surely realize that by granting Widewaters a variance to build a flat roof the ZBA set precedents that severely weakened the design standards of Kinderhook’s “New” Zoning code, not just in this one case but in all future development in our town.  If KNGG had not filed an Article 78 action, there would have been no chance of recovering and protecting those standards when more big projects appear before the boards, as they surely will.

Sean Egan, Town ZBA Chairman, has said that precedence does not rule this ZBA. Mr. Egan doesn’t realize that the courts have already ruled in other cases that precedence does rule in ZBA area variances. If the Widewaters precedent is allowed to stand, just about any developer could come into our town and build just about anything they want, from a big box Wal-Mart to a big box Lowe’s.

Unfortunately, your appointees to the ZBA made an error that could cause the Town of Kinderhook to suffer greatly in future.  Like the town itself, your appointees look to you for leadership.  It is your duty to see that the Town Code is followed and upheld. It is a duty that comes before loyalty and affection for appointees.

Because the ZBA failed to adhere to correct procedure in this case, KNGG is now seeking to save the design standards of our zoning code. At this point, regrettably, an Article 78 action is the only way to do it.



Allen Schaefer

President

Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth

SEPTEMBER 27, 2004

To the Editor:

In its September 21 editorial, the Register-Star suggested that it’s fine for Columbia County residents to attend local planning meetings and town/village board meetings, as long as they are careful to not get overly involved, especially if they have moved here from another area.

Unlike the Register-Star, we take seriously our rights to express opinions regarding our government and the performance of public officials. Those who do not share our views have the same rights. We think better government comes from public discussion and debate. We object when some public officials opt to use the platform of their office to admonish citizens for presuming to criticize them rather than respond and engage on the issues.



We believe the Widewaters shopping center will have significant adverse impacts on the safety of our community and our quality of life, and that the plan approved by the Planning Board failed to mitigate these impacts. We believe, therefore, that a correct application of the facts and the law required the Planning Board to deny the application. The decision of the Planning Board does not change this view.

Engaging competent expert assistance from the beginning on issues such as traffic, landscape and building architecture, lighting, and noise abatement, would have given the Board an objective basis from which to assess the claims of Widewaters’ experts. KNGG and others urged the board to obtain such assistance. The assistance that the Board ultimately engaged made recommendations that even members of the Board criticized as unreliable and inadequate in various ways, yet the Board did not discount the reports of these experts accordingly.

The building design issue provides the most recent example of the Board’s shortcomings. Relying on the advice of a then-unlicensed architect retained by the developer, the Planning Board wrongly asserted that it is not possible for the buildings to comply with the Town Code, thus necessitating a variance. Even though a licensed, experienced architect (and a member of our own community) demonstrated how compliance could be achieved without a variance, the Board inexplicably embraced the developer's position in its recommendation to the ZBA.

Our letter referred to in the Register-Star editorial attacked no one personally. We expressed our disappointment, and disagreement, with the Planning Board's decision and the manner in which it was made. We criticized the Planning Board and our elected and appointed town officials, but the letter was in no way uncivil.

Many of KNGG’s members currently serve (or have in the past devoted countless hours to) the Town of Kinderhook, the Village of Valatie, the Ichabod Crane School District, the libraries, the fire and rescue squads, and other community boards and organizations. We are mindful of the commitment of time and effort our elected and appointed officials make, but we do not agree that this renders them immune from criticism or challenge. We express gratitude to the Board, and especially to Ed Simonsen, for their commitment to this difficult work.

We must decline, however, the Register-Star's suggestion that we applaud the Board for a job well done simply because the Board thinks it has done a good job. We note the irony of having -- of all institutions -- a newspaper in America advocating such obsequiousness. We cherish our right to challenge our government, and our involvement in KNGG stems from our sense of civic duty. We are not trying to drive anyone away.

We will continue to challenge our public officials and our neighbors to demand a better vision and future for Kinderhook. That's our mission. We will pursue it, and would like to see the Register-Star attend to its own journalistic mission. Too often, the newspaper parrots the positions of local officials on issues affecting our community without challenge, in-depth reporting, or analysis. Whether this is the result of laziness or bias, it makes the need for organizations such as ours all the greater.

Very truly yours,

KNGG Board of Directors

     Allen Schaefer

     Mark Litteken

     Alexandra Anderson Spivy
     Margaret Moran

     CC: Mr. Edward Simonsen, chairman

     And Members of the Town of Kinderhook Planning Board

September 13, 2004

E-mailed to The Chatham Courier, The Independent and The Register-Star on September 13, 2004

September 13, 2004

To the Editor:

Appropriate Design Should Mitigate Massive Big Box

The Independent has written a badly informed editorial ("Lower is Better in Widewaters Plaza" 9/10/2004). In advocating an industrial strength flat roof for the big box store, the Independent actively promotes the kind of outdated sprawl that has ruined so much of rural and suburban America.

Many design decisions already allowed by the Kinderhook Town Planning Board: a huge parking lot, building setbacks, massive structure not broken up into smaller units, industrial strength lighting, and minimal landscaping are permitting this developer to install what is a ghastly prototype for future development. A throwback flat roof only further exacerbates the old-fashioned cheap shot strip mall character of this shopping center.

As for better landscaping and open space requirements, Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth (KNGG) has championed these issues from the beginning. The Kinderhook Town Planning Board should have instructed the developer on these requirements in their final findings and conditions.

It was KNGG that proposed the enactment of a conservation easement on the back nine acres and the small green area at the entrance, which is now in the improved site plan. KNGG urges the Planning Board and the ZBA to exercise some muscle and require appropriate signage rather than allowing the developer to install the usual ugly, lit-from-interior branded signs. Signs should be small, wooden, and lit with directed spotlights that can be extinguished at closing.

Now for the truth about the alternative roofline: We must reiterate that architect Knolls’ proposed alternative design for a hipped roof on the monstrous 67,000 foot main building of the Widewaters strip mall meets the current Kinderhook zoning codes and does not require any variance. Mr. Knolls’ alternative design is not 60 feet tall. It is 40 feet plus a 12 X 12 foot smaller revised cupola.

Anyone who has seen the Hannaford’s store in Red Hook knows that a hipped roofline is far preferable to a flat roof on a structure that is already far too big. This because the hip roof design softens the harshness of the big box.

The Independent’s suggestion that building 4A (Hannaford) might incorporate
mixed-use space on a second floor is a reasonable suggestion and we recommended it to
the developer when the KNGG Board met with Marco Marzocchi on May 1, 2003.

The issue of the protection of the view has become a red herring. The Planning Board’s decision made that goal a fantasy. Widewaters argument that a flat roof will preserve the view is very misleading. The foreground clutter provided by the asphalt parking lot and its attendant forest of 30 foot tall lighting poles, plus the sheer mass of the giant big box that will occupy the southern part of the property, means that the Catskill view is irreparably compromised. The retention of the view comes with the pristine character of the field. Try looking at the Berkshires from Fairview Avenue in Hudson or drive up the hill behind the Price Chopper in Chatham. Look to the east and see how that big box destroys the view.

Now that the project has gotten the green light, if Widewaters is as concerned about the view as they would have the ZBA believe, they should change the plan. We suggest putting building 4/4A (Hannaford) on the north side of the plot where it wouldn’t block any view. Put the restaurant in the southeast corner and the remaining building in the southwest.

It is also crucial to remind the editors that New York State zoning laws advises that Zoning Board of Appeals should resist awarding variances when and wherever possible in order to preserve the strength of the zoning codes and to avoid setting terrible precedents for the future.

The KNGG Board of Directors

Allen Schaefer, President

Mark Litteken, Treasurer

Deirdre Leland, Secretary

Margaret Moran

Alexandra Spivy

July 29, 2003

To the Editor:

KNGG DID NOT MISREPRESENT FACTS

KNGG does its research before making any statements or any demands. We must know the facts before we can refute or complain about them to the press.

Subsequently, in reply to Ms. Debra Lane’s complaint published in the Register-Star on July 28, "A member of the KNGG Board of Directors has made and published statements including, ‘All existing traffic lights (signals) would be removed and this (intersection at Route 9, 9H and State Farm Road, Kinderhook) would become a completely un-signalized intersection.’ In addition the writer said, "There would be un-signalized cross walks at each leg of the intersection."

Unfortunately, if Ms Lane is concerned about these issues, she is rooting for the wrong team. She should look at the Widewaters SDEIS (Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement), the document that has been under discussion at the Town Planning Board Meetings she says she has attended. If she read the Widewaters proposal and plans for the roundabout, she would have seen no traffic signals mentioned in the description or on the plan for the roundabout.

On page 14, the SDEIS reads, "the capacity of a roundabout is fundamentally based on the ability of vehicles to merge into the circulating flow of traffic." One cannot merge if one has stopped or if one is going full speed through a green light. One must assume if there are no traffic signals for the cars, then there are no signals for pedestrians either.

On page 74, the SDEIS reads, "The following tables provide a summary of the level of operation expected on each approach to the intersection until unacceptable operations occur with the five legged signal of five legged roundabout."

What Widewaters is saying is that they are comparing a signaled intersection with the roundabout which is understood to be un-signalized. Otherwise, why compare?

On page 75 is the "RTE 9/9H ROUNDABOUT PLAN." There are no traffic signals shown on this plan.

Although Ms Lane is a member of Kinderhook Residents in Support of Hannaford Plaza, it appears that this group does not have access to the SDEIS, which is available to the public at the Kinderhook Town Hall, Valatie Library or Kinderhook Memorial Library. In future, I would suggest Ms Lane and KRIFHP to do their homework before making public statements against any credible organization.

KNGG would like to see traffic signals at this busy and dangerous intersection, especially because it is so close to the Ichabod Crane School System. School children are attracted to McDonalds, Stewarts and strip malls such as Widewaters propose to build with Hannaford for a tenant, and we, like the school system, are concerned about the safety of all those school buses merging into on coming traffic.

North of the site it is now difficult to make a left turn on to Route 9 from the Maple Lanes, Rapp Road, etc. One is able to get out on to Route 9 only when the traffic signal at the Routes 9/9H intersection turns red. Without the signalized breaks in traffic, it will be almost impossible to do it.

KNGG believes this intersection to be a dangerous choice for Widewaters and Hannaford to plan a strip mall. We would like to see them become more community minded and concerned enough for the safety of Kinderhook residents to choose location where traffic problems would be much less of an issue.

Allen Schaefer, President

June 19, 2003

To the Editor, The Independent, Hillsdale NY

MARZOCCHI - "KNGG is out to destroy this project."

I would like to thank the Independent for its coverage of the June 9th Kinderhook Town Board meeting.

I am writing in response to remarks made to the press by Marco Marzocchi, general counsel for the Widewaters Group, who have proposed a shopping mall at the intersection of Routes 9, 9H and State Farm Road in Kinderhook.

Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth (KNGG) which formed in April of 2002 is opposed to the Widewaters mall at its proposed location. The mall would be the cause of traffic safety problems on the 2 major highways and with the nearby Ichabod Crane School Campus. The mall will destroy 20 acres of prime farmland and views of the Catskill Mountains. There are other concerns such as the large scale of the project and water, noise, and light pollution.

Widewaters provided and distributed copies of the SDEIS to the Planning Board on May 15th. Our attorney requested a copy of the SDEIS from Widewaters for examination. Widewaters refused. Marzocchi has claimed that Widewaters wants to share information with the people but insists on leaving the people of KNGG out.

Marzocchi is also quoted as saying, "KNGG is out to destroy this project. If anyone can tell me why I should give them information just to degrade it …" The Register-Star then went on, "Marzocchi started adding (that) if the group is interested in an honest and constructive discussion on the topic his group would be in favor of that."

At Marzocchi’s request KNGG met with him to discuss the proposed mall KNGG shared with Marzocchi its concerns about the mall including the roundabout and the absence of traffic lights in his plans along the Route 9/9H corridor. We also made numerous suggestions for improving the aesthetic qualities of the mall.

Marzocchi left the meeting with a list of our concerns and agreed to look into them and schedule another meeting. That was May 1st. Today is June 17th. We have heard nothing from him.

In all fairness, Marzocchi has no right to claim KNGG is out to "destroy" this mall. If anything, we made suggestions to make it viable.

On Thursday, June 12th, the Planning Board met with Widewaters to discuss the acceptance of their SDEIS. They asked questions and briefed Widewaters on what was incomplete or missing in the document. Widewaters is scheduled to return with the answers in an amended SDEIS on June 19th.

The Register-Star reported in its June 14th issue that on June 12th Marzocchi said, "This is the location we have decided on. (Routes 9, 9H and State Farm Road)"

It is a SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) requirement for Widewaters to provide the Planning Board with alternate locations in the DEIS, or now, in the SEIS. In the DEIS, Widewaters said that they looked at other locations but didn’t like them. They have not supplied the alternate locations that they presumably considered, nor have they supplied the reasons for turning them down.

The DOT has told Widewaters that the roundabout is the only possible solution for mitigation of the extra traffic to be caused by their proposed mall at the current proposed location. However Widewaters’ plans for the roundabout must be acceptable to the Planning Board as well as the DOT.

Marzocchi continued, "The question is why doesn’t the Town want it there? I don’t believe the Town has a legitimate reason for not wanting it there."

The Town Planning Board has not told Widewaters they don’t want them to use this site. They have asked Widewaters to prove that there will be no adverse impacts at this site, should they put their mall there. If there are significant adverse impacts and they won’t be adequately mitigated, the Planning Board shouldn’t approve the project.

Furthermore the Planning Board requested Widewaters to provide the Planning Board with the type of materials they intend to use in building the roundabout and its dimensions. Widewaters did not provide this in the SDEIS

Marzocchi continued, "I think the people of Kinderhook have a right to know why then it’s taken us two years to get where we are."

Widewaters would not be going through the process of this Supplementary document to the original DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) had they produced the original document correctly and supplied the information asked for at that time.

The Town Planning Board has asked for a set of elevations drawings to give it an idea what the buildings will look like, what materials will be used, etc. From the current diagrams, the buildings look like they may not be in compliance with the Town Code. The Planning Board has been asking for these elevations since June of 2002 and hasn’t seen them yet. Marzocchi has been negligent in getting information back to the Planning Board when requested. Marzocchi’s statement is merely another ploy on his part to confuse the issues.

The Planning Board resolved in December of 2002 that Widewaters would be required to provide a SEIS. No time limit is required of the developer for this request. It took Widewaters an unusual length of time and they didn’t present this document to the Planning Board until May 15th.

It appears that Marzocchi’s complaint about the process taking over two years is merely a public relations stunt to win sympathy from the people of Kinderhook.

KNGG has played a constructive role in presenting our comments to the Planning Board, based on scientific studies and legal investigation. The Planning Board has worked hard examining all documents submitted to them to be sure that whatever is built will not be dangerous for the public or a liability to the Town of Kinderhook.

Allen Schaefer, President

Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth

May 29, 2003

To the Editor:

KNGG OBJECTIVES EXPLAINED

I am a member of the Board of Directors of Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth and am writing this letter in response to Robert Michaud’s letter that appeared in the May 23, 2003 issue. In his letter, Mr. Michaud questioned why there was little public uproar over the new Stewart’s on Routes 9 and said that he would like to better understand the objectives of KNGG. I will attempt to answer his question and explain the goals of our group.

KNGG was formed in April 2002 in response to the mall proposed for the 20-acre site at the Routes 9/9H intersection. We have taken an active role in the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process to ensure that the provisions of SEQRA, the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning Code are followed, and we have encouraged the developer to modify the project so that it is more reflective of the qualities that we love about our Town. We are appreciative of the efforts undertaken by the Town Planning Board and the professionals the Town has retained to study the impacts of the mall development.

As many are aware, in order to mitigate the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, the developer has proposed a one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Routes 9, 9H and State Farm Road. The "legs" to this roundabout would also include the entrance and exit from the proposed mall. All existing traffic lights would be removed; and this would become a completely unsignalized intersection. In addition, there are unsignalized crosswalks at each leg of the intersection to allow pedestrian access to the mall. In our opinion, this is an unsafe and unacceptable solution to the traffic problem that will be created by this project.

In KNGG’s view, the proposed mall is entirely different from the new Stewart’s. We have been to meetings at the Town level where the Stewart’s project has been discussed in detail. The impacts resulting from the construction of a relatively small convenience store and several other small-scale businesses are not the same as those that would result from the development of a mall in the magnitude of what Widewaters has proposed. For one thing, Stewart’s does not require the construction of a roundabout to handle the increase in traffic that is expected to result from its development.

KNGG is not anti-development; we welcome businesses and commercial enterprises that support the village scale lifestyle that the residents currently enjoy. KNGG supports development that works in harmony with our natural resources by preserving sensitive environmental areas and significant views, and embraces businesses that enable Town residents to live and shop in a community setting.

I would like to make clear that KNGG is NOT opposed to Hannaford, or the construction of a Hannaford in Kinderhook. Nor is KNGG opposed to increasing business opportunities in the Town so that the Town’s residents have shopping choices. However, KNGG is opposed to big box development and the construction of this mall at this site. I, for one, hope that Kinderhook never becomes part of the "homogenization of America" where there is no individuality or uniqueness among the businesses, and the "commercial strip" looks just like any other commercial strip in California, or Indiana, or Arkansas. The 200+ members of KNGG are proud of Kinderhook’s unique and varied history, and, to the extent possible, we will fight any attempt to destroy the qualities that make Kinderhook a special place.

In addition to becoming involved with the Widewaters project, KNGG has presented several educational programs about good growth, new urbanism, land conservation options, and modern farming that is in harmony with the environment. We would like to be a source for residents, businesspeople, and others about these topics and help the Town to create an environment that is welcoming to businesses and residents alike. I encourage interested members of the community to attend these programs in the future.

I hope that this has answered Mr. Michaud’s questions. We would be happy to answer any questions about our organization or our goals. KNGG may be contacted by email at kngg@berk.com or at P. O. Box 242, Kinderhook NY 12106.

Sara Richards, Member of the KNGG Board of Directors

November 28, 2002

To Editor, The Independent, Hillsdale NY

WIDEWATERS POOR LOSER - MUST SUBMIT SEIS

I am writing with regard to the front-page article of November 26th, "Developer Mulls Yanking Plaza." Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth (KNGG) was dismayed to read of Marco Marzocchi’s negative response to the resolution passed Thursday night by the Kinderhook Town Planning Board. At that meeting, the board unanimously voted that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) should be submitted, as a result of the inadequacies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) submitted in July by Widewaters.

It should come to Mr. Marzocchi as no surprise that the Planning Board is requiring SEIS. Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) the Planning Board has the responsibility to require a SEIS to address any inadequacies of the DEIS as well as the obligation to take a hard look at the potential environmental harm of the project. The purpose of submitting a SEIS rather than a FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) at this time is so the public will have a chance to review it. This is obviously what Widewaters does not want.

The technical and scientific findings of the submitted DEIS, especially related to the project's impact on water, soil and traffic, were grossly inadequate. These were cited by the planning board's own engineer, and were almost identical in content to those noted by the traffic expert and scientists retained by KNGG. Other problems noted with the DEIS were its use of data gathered in August when schools were out of session to represent the traffic at the nearby Ichabod Crane School Campus, and its silence on the required discussion of alternate project sites and the economic impact of the project, including on the Villages of Kinderhook and Valatie. The impact on historical sites of the Town and traffic in the Village of Kinderhook was completely ignored.

In its October 2nd letter, the NYS Department of Transportation wrote an extremely critical review of the DEIS: KNGG’s attorney Jeff Baker has indicated that the DOT letter was the most scathing critique he had ever seen come from that agency. A separate letter from the state Department of Environmental Conservation identified concerns for water pollution, soil percolation rates, and the adequacy of the aquifer to provide sufficient water for the project.

The Planning Board found the DEIS incomplete due to these issues and in the context of new information that had come to light since the DEIS was issued. Mr. Marzocchi should have been aware that the DEIS was inadequate. He had been at every planning board meeting and workshop I have attended since April. On many occasions, including the October 15 Public Hearing where 37 residents raised objections to the project as proposed, Mr. Marzocchi heard the concerns of the board members and the community. Widewaters own attorney, Lisa DiPoala-Haber, said to a reporter, "We are taking all comments from the public, both written and oral, into consideration." Apparently, they were not really listening.

At the October 15 public hearing our attorney Jeff Baker stated that the hearing "This is a waste of time." He knew that Widewaters would have to submit a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and that another public hearing would be required. In the November 26 article Mr. Marzocchi is quoted as saying "I think it’s regrettable because it will only add unnecessary time to the project". This comment discounts the responsibility of the board members to fully review proposed developments based on the zoning code and SEQRA. They would not be doing their job if they rushed their review of such a large-scale project that has the potential to cause irreversible harm to the environment as well as change the character of the community forever. Furthermore, as the original deficiencies were noted in the DEIS before acceptance, Widewaters pushed for acceptance anyway. All of the delays are Widewaters fault for failure to provide a complete and accurate DEIS.

Finally, Mr. Marzocchi states that Widewaters spent $50,000 on their proposal and made their best efforts to answer the concerns of the town and its residents. When in reality, most developers would expect to put out twice that amount for a proposal of a project of this magnitude. Widewaters just does not want to pay what they need to pay for a good DEIS to environmentally protect our citizens.

What Mr. Marzocchi neglected to mention are the costs incurred by the Town in attorneys’ fees, and the tremendous amount of additional time spent on the project by the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. And it is no surprise that there is no mention of the 125 members of KNGG who cared enough about the project to commit their time and money to diligently monitor the process.

The article ended with Mr. Marzocchi's quote "It doesn’t look like we are welcome in the Town of Kinderhook, unfortunately." I believe we should not welcome a developer who files suit against the town because it is merely requiring that the mandated review process be followed.

However, KNGG does invite and welcome development by businesses that respect the historic and rural nature of the Town and who look to become a true member in this unique community rather than to redefine it. KNGG will continue to be diligent in its efforts to further "Good Growth."

Allen Schaefer, President, Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth

September 22, 2002

To The Editor

KNGG POSITION JUSTIFIED

I am replying to a letter published in The Independent on September 20, 2002. In his letter, Robert Michaud of Valatie complains about the focus of Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth.

I would first like to set the record straight in correcting Mr. Michaud about the location of the Widewaters site. It is not located in The Village of Valatie, which in itself is a problem. The site is in the Town of Kinderhook. One of the ways The Village of Valatie would lose is due to the formula used to distribute sales tax revenues. The Village portion is determined by a ratio: the assessed value of the Village of Valatie compared to the value of Town property. The addition of a $10 million project in the Town of Kinderhook would increase the Town’s portion while decreasing the percentage for the Village of Valatie. Valatie’s total assessed value is $52 million. A $10 million strip mall, which represents 20% of the total value of the Village, would lead to a big decrease in Village revenue.

Mr. Michaud is concerned, and rightly so, by the chemicals left in his home soil by former farmers. It is those same chemicals that lay dormant in the soils of the Widewaters’ site at the junction of 9H, 9 and State Farm Rd. KNGG fears that the chemicals will be washed into the aquifer that we drink from by the enormous septic systems’ leach fields and from the draining of a retention pond created to catch parking lot run off waste water. Soil tests at the site show that the percolation rate is high, meaning that the liquids from the septic system will drain through the soil at a unsafe rate that is not acceptable by scientific research and not safe for our well water.

With regard to the four town planning board members "who voted to accept the impact study," if Mr. Michaud were on trial and the judge ignored much of the evidence that was in his favor, would he think this to be just? The situation here is much the same. By approving this PDEIS (Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement) without requiring corrections to parts of the PDEIS, the planning board previously found to be deficient, these four board members are like the judge that refused to see all the evidence before making a decision. In doing so, the planning board broke the law in not following the mandated SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) process. Unfortunately, it looks as though they had their mind made up before they ever saw any evidence or they would have let the process take its course.

Several people have said to me that this is a "done deal" because the land is zoned for business. Not entirely so. This application was filed in December 2001 before the "New Code" came into effect giving Widewaters the benefit of being reviewed under the "Old Code." I believe they did not want to be reviewed under the "New Code" because they did not want to adhere to the architectural requirements of the "New Code." However under the "Old Code" the 19-acre site is divided into two zones. The 10 acre zone along Route 9H is zoned Business and the rest of the property is zoned Agricultural/Residential. Widewaters’ understood this and planned to place their buildings in the business zone. Within this zone and according to the "Old Code," there are still many restrictions that Widewaters is not meeting. We only ask that Widewaters adhere to our local laws like the rest of us.

I see that Mr. Michaud and many other Kinderhook citizens have the same concerns as we do. In fact, we received a letter today asking why KNGG is not pursuing the various subdivision problems in Valatie, the Stewart’s project on Route 9H directly across from the Widewaters’ site and excessive traffic in the area, especially on Route 9 near the Ichabod Crane School.

To this end we have requested a review of the combined traffic impact of Stewart’s and the Widewaters’ strip mall. Additionally, we have been in discussion with the Town regarding the preparation of a traffic design study. Right now we can only anticipate more poorly conceived commercial development and the onslaught of sprawl along the Routes 9 and 9H corridor.

We are a new group, only four months old. We see the Widewaters’ strip mall as our most important focus at this time. If this strip mall is approved as proposed, it would be the first of many to follow. As volunteers our time and resources are limited. In the future we hope to continue working with the public and Town officials on less contentious projects that can preserve the charm, economy and quality of life in the Town of Kinderhook.

Allen Schaefer, President of Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth

August 5, 2002

To The Editor

Kinderhook Group Targets Widewaters’ Proposal

I wish to thank The Independent for its coverage of the efforts of Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth and Matt Sheehey for his reporting in the August 2, 2002 article, "Kinderhook Group Targets Widewaters’ Proposal." I am writing to advise you of two errors in that article.

First, I was misquoted. Mr. Sheehy wrote that I said, "We’re not against it," in reference to the proposed shopping center. Actually, my statement that we are not against it was in response to Mr. Sheehey’s question, "Why are you against the Hannaford Super Market?"

On behalf of Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth, I would like make very clear that what we are against is the size, location and design of the proposed Widewaters Commons Shopping Center. Hannaford, a tenant, would occupy only approximately half of the proposed mall, so we do not view Hannaford Brothers as the subject of our opposition.

Many in our community have expressed both a desire for a Hannaford Brothers grocery store in Kinderhook and concern about the potential impacts of the proposed Widewaters Commons Shopping Center, so it is not helpful or accurate to characterize concerns about the proposed shopping center as being anti-Hannaford. To do so obscures what is really at issue here: a proposed shopping center with five retail establishments, at least three of which will be high-traffic volume businesses, located at the busiest intersection in town in close proximity to the school campus.

To date, the developer, Widewaters, has ignored requests of the Town of Kinderhook Planning Board, the NYS Department of Transportation, and the various professional experts and advisors involved in the review of the proposal, for information sufficient to assess the potential impacts this shopping center would have on our local traffic and water supply, among other issues. To us, Hannaford is not the problem here; the problem is a developer seeking to exploit rather than serve our community.

The other error in the article was the statement as fact that the shopping center is expected to bring 200 jobs or more. Mr. Sheehy failed to point out that this is an unsubstantiated, hypothetical estimate of the developer, Widewaters. It also assumes full occupancy of the proposed shopping center, despite the fact that Widewaters has not secured tenants for each of the retail sites and the fact that we have currently vacant retail space in the area.

Moreover, that number is not off set by the lost jobs that reasonably can be anticipated if this shopping center is approved and local businesses are forced out. The number need not be based on uniformed speculation: the Planning Board can and should request copies of existing market analyses that show that this area can sustain two grocery supermarkets. Upon receipt of this evidence, a reliable assessment of the benefits of the proposed shopping center can be made. Meanwhile, The Independent should not report as fact the self-serving puffery of the developer.

Allen Schaefer, President, Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth

April 20, 2002

LETTER INSTRUMENTAL IN KNGG's FORMATION