NIVERVILLE--The state engineer who called the
Widewaters Group proposal "unconscionable" now says changes to Routes 9/9H
can make it work.
William
FitzPatrick, regional traffic engineer with the Department of
Transportation, wrote to the plaza developer last month about initiatives
that he says would make the roads safe for three curb cuts.
Those curb cuts
would bring cars in and out of the $10 million shopping center Widewaters
wants to build across from the Four Brothers restaurant.
But the Kinderhook Planning Board and many town
residents have expressed concern that putting a busy supermarket and shops
at the terminus of Route 9H threatens the safety of motorists and of
students at nearby Ichabod Crane.
Those
anxieties were confirmed in a DOT letter to the applicant in early
October, when Mr. FitzPatrick said adding a new leg to the four-legged
intersection between two secondary driveways is too dangerous a
concept.
The engineer, however, tells Widewaters in a November
13 letter that further talks with the firm's traffic consultant show that
two alternatives to the current 9/9H design could create a safe
environment for the plaza.
"Either
alternative will satisfactorily mitigate the potential traffic impacts of
the project as currently proposed," says Mr. FitzPatrick.
The first plan calls for relocation of a portion of
Route 9 northbound to Keegan Road and reconfiguration of the traffic
signal at the plaza site.
Mr.
FitzPatrick writes that access points for the Hannaford Bros. market and
the other commercial space would include a signalized access to 9/9H and
State Farm Road.
He says the plan
also allows for a "right-in-only drive" to the north of the light and a
"right-out-only drive" to the south by the McDonald's restaurant.
The second option DOT would apparently consider is
construction of a roundabout at the 9/9H and State Farm Road intersection
to accommodate "multiple legs, including the primary access to the
proposed development."
The
roundabout, adds Mr. FitzPatrick, would also provide for the right-in and
right-out points on either end of the 19-acre field Widewaters hopes to
buy and build on.
The developer,
despite claims last week that it might reconsider its desire to set up
shop here due to difficulties with the town, is upbeat about its plan.
And Widewaters
believes DOT will move promptly to upgrade the intersection.
"From Day One,
we've been willing to work with the DOT to come up with a plan that is
mutually acceptable," says Marco Marzocchi, a company representative.
He was a regular
this year at Planning Board meetings and special workshops, where he tired
to show how his firm plans to mitigate possible negative impacts.
But the board decided late last month that Widewaters
must submit a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to address
recently discovered concerns, including differences in traffic studies and
data used by DOT and the applicant.
The DOT's November 13 letter, however, was not
sent along to the Planning Board.
"It's certainly a
marked change with respect to their position on the project," says board
Chairman Ed Simonsen, whose board is the lead agency for the project
review.
He says
Mr. Marzocchi called the board's engineer for Widewaters review matters,
Jim Green, to inform him of the DOT's most recent opinion on the traffic
scheme.
DOT never called town officials about it.
"It doesn't appear we're being included in this
decision-making process," says Mr. Simonsen, who was expecting a fax of
the one- page letter yesterday from Mr. Green.
The DOT's alternatives for the 9/9H intersection pose
problems, he says, that need to be considered by town planners during the
project review.
Mr.
Simonsen worries the right-in access does not give motorists enough time
to slow down as they drive south on 9 towards the plaza.
And he's troubled
by the safety implications of added lanes on the major routes, which are
the main routes taken by residents headed to Rensselaer County.
"It becomes a
bigger issue than just this project when we start talking about rerouting
9 and adding a roundabout... How can we adequately evaluate it?" asks Mr.
Simonsen.
He
also spoke recently with business owners in the area of Keegan Road about
their concerns for the future should the DOT decide to go through with the
changes.
The merchants agreed to sit down for a meeting with
Mr. Simonsen, Kinderhook Supervisor Doug McGivney, and the mayors of
Kinderhook and Valatie villages, to find out more from the DOT engineers
and let them know their views.
Mr. FitzPatrick,
however, has yet to return the Planning Board's call on the matter.
Opponents
of the project are actively trying to block approval of the new
supermarket and shops for assorted reasons, including the threat to
traffic safety and the possibility building on the site will damage water
quality.
But
the Widewaters Group seems determined to stick around, and it would like
to bring in earthmovers and construction crews as soon as possible.
"We've discussed
timing with DOT and we've been assured by them that the timing of highway
improvements will not interfere with our project in any way," says Mr.
Marzocchi.
|
|
|
The
Independent - OCTOBER
24, 2002
The
challenge to Widewaters
|
|
EDITORIAL |
WATCHING TV the other night
we were struck by a brief report on a meeting in an Albany suburb. What's
happening there, at least as far as we could determine from this one brief
report, sounds strikingly like the battle raging in Kinderhook over yet
another strip mall proposal.
In the Albany
area community, a developer wants to build a new strip mall on a piece of
property zoned commercial. In Kinderhook, a different developer wants to
build along Route 9 on land that's mostly in a commercial zone. In each
community, a group of neighbors has turned out in force to block the
proposal.
The
two communities are quite different in size and character, but the
arguments advanced by both sides in both cases remind us that new forces
are at work even at a time when it seems all upstate New York would
welcome development with open arms.
We start with the
assumption that a new supermarket chain store would be good for
Kinderhook, especially one that would take over the store that used to be
part of the defunct Grand Union chain. The wholesale groceries company
that now operates the market doesn't want to be in the retail business,
but the Widewaters Group, which proposes a new plaza with a Hannaford
Brothers supermarket near the intersection of Routes 9 and 9H, could not
or would not occupy the existing plaza. That's a business decision we
won't question.
So why are some
people up in arms? Both the Albany and local cases have schools nearby,
which means parents are worried about increased traffic where their
children ride, drive or walk. In the case of the Widewaters proposal, the
plan has also set off alarm bells at the state Department of
Transportation, which issued a blistering critique of flaws in the
company's proposed traffic pattern.
We assume the DOT
pointed out deficiencies that should have been apparent from the outset.
And that raises the question of why a developer as experienced as
Widewaters would offer such a sloppy and potentially dangerous plan for
traffic flow. Do other parts of the plan contain similarly ill-advised
proposals?
In
the Albany area case as in Kinderhook opponents claim the developers have
also ignored community standards, citing water supply, light pollution and
sprawl.
Some
advocates of the plaza in Kinderhook believe these objections are ploys
intended to derail a legitimate business enterprise in an approved
location. They see the real source of the problem as a conflict with the
aesthetic standards of an articulate minority. We've heard the opponents'
concerns dismissed as a knee-jerk NIMBY reaction.
We don't agree.
The protesters in this case are middle-class, home-owning taxpayers. Their
views on the scope and style of local development fall well within
contemporary mainstream values. And one of the hallmarks of these values
is a more cautious and skeptical appraisal of the impact of new
development.
What's more, the
opponents represent precisely the group that tenants of the Widewaters
project hope to attract as customers. A bitter fight over a flawed
proposal that divides the community hardly seems the way to lure
shoppers.
We hope
Widewaters will rethink its proposal, taking into consideration all the
concerns expressed not only by the DOT but by residents worried about how
this project will affect their lives.
Eventually someone will build a new market somewhere
in Kinderhook that is both an asset for the residents and quite likely a
profitable venture. The historic architecture and magnificent views of the
town, not to mention its attractive demographics, present an exceptional
opportunity for some developer to create a model project tailored to the
needs of the community. The key to realizing that goal lies in
understanding that opposition to the Widewaters proposal is not marginal
NIMBY whining; it is the voice of the market speaking loud and clear. The
company would be wise to heed it.
|
|
The Independent
- October 18,
2002
Kinderhook Foes
of Widewaters Plaza Air Long List of Complaints
By Matthew
Sheehey
KINDERHOOK – Opponents of the Widewaters Group’s
plan to build a $10 million shopping plaza just north of Valatie had little new
to tell the Planning Board at Tuesday’s Public Hearing.
A
Putting a Hannaford supermarket and other retail space at
the end of Route 9H would be dangerous to walkers and drivers, unsightly, and
damaging to Kinderhook’s groundwater, rural character and historic charm, they
said again.
A
The long
list of complaints about the Widewaters application includes other topics, but
the speakers at a packed-to-capacity North Pointe this week devoted most of
their time to the Dewitt developer’s Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
A
Attorney
Jeff Baker, who represents Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth, reiterated his
contention that the center is “grossly out of scale and poorly designed” for the
19-acre lot across from the outlet of State Farm Road.
A
He kept
his remarks brief because the 90-member KNGG, whose several consultants, and
individuals with similar views have already submitted detailed written
statements to town planners for their consideration.
A
“If I
wanted this kind of development in my back yard, I would have stayed in
Greenport,” said Abby Cash, one of many at the hearing who said they do their
grocery shopping in Rensselaer County or near Hudson.
A
The
comments echoed the opinion of several of the speakers, but officials also heard
more technical presentations, including a 20-minute presentation by one resident
(civil engineer Charles Shattenkirk) on soil and water conditions, drainage, and
engineering points.
The State
Department of Transportation has also issued an opinion the Widewaters proposal
to add three access points at the busy intersection.
A.
“DOT
wrote the most scathing critique of a project that I’ve seen in 15 years in the
industry,” said Attorney Baker, the first of many speakers.
He also
condemned the Widewaters DEIS for failing to consider use of an alternative
building site, the proximity to Ichabod Crane’s main campus, and the possibility
of future commercial and housing developments in the vicinity.
“You have to take the opportunity to consider the
comprehensive planning needs of this intersection… You have the responsibility
to the community, not to an out-of-town developer,” Mr. Baker told the Planning
Board.
He went on to cite the opponent
group’s belief that the center’s four structures would degrade the water supply,
but he left time for others to chime in about their problems with the Widewaters
impact statement.
A
Architect Marilyn Kaplan, who served
on the town’s Comprehensive Plan Committee, cited missing details in the DEIS on
archaeology, history, and signage, as well as her disdain for the development’s
proposed landscape design.
She said she is also concerned that
the 9/9H corridor in the town of Kinderhook would look like the commercial
strips around Albany because Widewaters wants to build “the most generic and the
least expensive” development.
“The Town’s unique history and rural character are our best
defense in overcoming the suburban sprawl that descended on areas north of
Albany,” said Ms Kaplan.
A
Sara Richards of the Village of
Kinderhook said the DEIS does not address the plaza’s “growth-inducing impacts,” which could lead to more shopping
centers.
And she said, the applicant has
provided no data to support the need for the Hannaford’s supermarket, other
retail stores, and a space for a restaurant to be built.
Many residents, however, are anxious
for more shopping options and the new full and part-time jobs with benefits that
stores like Hannaford would bring.
But Ms. Richards also found fault
with the project’s lighting, potential for noise, and the possibility of
bringing new traffic to Valatie and Kinderhook villages.
She called the DEIS “incomplete,
dismissive, and insulting to the residents.”
Other speakers Tuesday said they
fear Widewaters project will hurt existing businesses, ruin air quality, help
clog residential streets, and transform the Kinderhook area into an “orange
smear in the night sky.”
A
But everyone agreed the new stores and the 500-space
parking lot that would serve them don’t fit in this town, despite commercial
zoning at the site.
“Once you change
the character of the community to one framed by strip malls, you can’t turn
back,” said Mrs. Cash, who
also asked the Planning Board to put aside personal preferences as it moves
forward with its review.
That
review will continue to be informed by public comment on the DEIS until November
15.
Register-Star
October 17,
2002
PUBLIC HEARING
ROUGH ON HANNAFORD (WIDEWATERS)
By Phil
Randell
KINDERHOOK-Residents of the Town of
Kinderhook, at Tuesday’s Planning Board public hearing, voiced strong opposition
to a proposed shopping plaza at the intersection of Routes 9/9H and State Farm
Road.
Residents could only comment on the draft environmental impact statement
submitted by the developer, the Widewaters Group. The proposed construction includes a
Hannaford supermarket.
S
Shortly
after Planning Board Chairman Edwin Simonsen thanked Marian and Bob Guerrero for
allowing the board to hold the hearing at the North Pointe Cultural Arts Center,
community members made presentations. Speakers were allotted five minutes each, and
attendees were allowed to donate their time allotments to
others.
A
Attorney Jeffrey Baker, representing the
Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth, was the first to speak against the
project, calling it “grossly out of
scale for the location and poorly designed.” Referring to an
Oct. 2 letter from the New York State Department of Transportation to
Widewaters, he said it was the “most scathing critique letter” that he had ever
seen from the DOT.
“I submit this hearing is a waste of
time,” Baker said. He
pointed out that (the) Widewaters Group will have to submit a supplemental DEIS,
and another public hearing would have to be scheduled. Using time
contributed by others, he continued to point out what his group states are
deficiencies in the plan, including an inadequate septic system. He also said that
Widewaters has collected traffic counts during August, without including any
projected data for three nearby schools.
In his
summation, Baker adopted the DOT comments on behalf of KNGG, insuring that
Widewaters has to address them.
A
Marilyn
Kaplan, an architect who was a member of the former Town of Kinderhook
Comprehensive Plan Committee, also criticized the DEIS on several issues. Her primary concern
was that the project conflicts with the town’s Comprehensive Plan since it does
not protect “the historic and rural character of a small town.” She said the
Comprehensive Plan was Kinderhook’s only protection against the type of sprawl
seen north of Albany.
A
Charles
Shattenkirk, a civil engineer and resident of Kinderhook for 49 years, garnered
laughs from the audience when he said that he had moved to the town “before it
was fashionable.”
Using his professional expertise, he punched holes in the Widewaters
document, covering a wide range of issues, including requirements for the
entrance/exit to the plaza parking lot, ground water flow, and the safety of the
neighboring water supply.
A
Shattenkirk said, “It would take a miracle to clean up the
water supply,” if the project was constructed according to Widewaters’
plans. Other
residents, dependent on wells for their water, voiced the same
concern.
A
In the
midst of an onslaught of opposition, Valatie resident Helen Schneider,*mother of four, said that the town is ready for the project
and needs it. Schneider was the only town resident who spoke in favor of the
project. She reminded the audience that the chief source of water pollution in
Columbia County is agriculture and was confident that the troublesome water
issues could be resolved with engineering expertise. She implored the
Planning Board and the developers to work out any technical issues that need to
be addressed.
Schneider
also said that she travels far to another Hannaford to do her grocery shopping
and subsequently does much of her other shopping outside the county. She believes that
Kinderhook businesses are losing much income because of the lack of a
competitive supermarket. She said that the project would be good for
the middle-class, “the economic backbone of the country.”
Finally Schneider pointed out that in 1980, when she was a
high school student, three of her classmates were “mowed down” in serious
traffic accidents at the 9/9H juncture. She is grateful that project has brought
attention to an intersection that has always been
dangerous.
A
Soon
after, former Planning Board member Margaret Moran spoke at length, criticizing
many sections of the DEIS. Moran is an attorney who has taken a hiatus
from legal practice to raise her children. She questioned how friendly Widewaters was to
the town; the developers had recently sued the town to insure that the Tuesday
hearing went on as scheduled. When she said that if she has represented
Widewaters, she would have taken a more collaborative approach than a
lawsuit. Many
attendees nodded in approval and wide spread kudos.
A
Moran
asked people not to lock themselves into positions of being either for or
against Hannaford.
She said that she shops at a Hannaford market and has relatives,
including a young nice, who works for the supermarket chain. Moran is not
against Hannaford; she is opposed to this particular site. She requested that
the Planning Board carefully evaluate the DEIS according to existing zoning
laws.
A
Other
residents spoke out about the homogenization of the American landscape, damage
to the scenic views surrounding the plaza, light pollution, noise pollution and
corporate greed.
A
Developer
representative Marco Marzocchi stood in the back of the room, quietly listening
to the comments.
While speaking to a reporter, Lisa DiPoala-Haber, an attorney from the
firm representing Widewaters, said, “We appreciate the opportunity to receive
public comment. We are taking all comments from the public, both written and
oral, into consideration, and the comments will be addressed in the
environmental impact statement. We believe the environmental review process
is working as it was intended by the legislature.”
A
To the
credit of the residents of the town of Kinderhook, as board members intently
listened to comments, the tone of meeting was respectful and orderly. At times, speakers
inserted humorous remarks into their presentations to break the tension in the
room.
*KNGG later learned that Ms Schneider is the
daughter of Planning Board Member Don Gaylord. Another Gaylord daughter is a Hannaford employee.
|
The Independent - October 11, 2002
State
DOT blasts K'hook plaza plan
|
| By: MATTHEW
SHEEHEY |
10/11/2002 |
|
NIVERVILLE--A state
Department of Transportation engineer says the Widewaters Group's plan for
the intersection of Routes 9/9H is "unconscionable."
William FitzPatrick, the DOT regional traffic
engineer in Poughkeepsie, made the comment in reference to the developer's
intention to add another leg to the four-legged intersection to serve its
proposed $10 million shopping plaza.
The
19-acre building site, which is just up the road from Ichabod Crane's main
campus and McDonald's, would get a total of 3 access points under the
Widewaters plan.
But Mr.
FitzPatrick, in a letter sent to the applicant October 2, says his
department finds that proposal "unacceptable in concept and in detail"
because it compromises public safety and disrupts the flow of traffic.
"As you are
aware, the existing geometry of the Route 9/9H/State Farm Road
intersection is less than desirable. Adding the proposed access drive to
this intersection would be unconscionable," writes Mr.
FitzPatrick.
Those comments come as some relief to the citizens
group that opposes the Widewaters proposal, Kinderhook Neighbors For Good
Growth, and echo the concerns of the chairman of the Kinderhook Planning
Board.
Allen Schaefer of the neighbors group
says the engineer's letter is good news for his cause. "According to our
attorneys, this is the strongest letter they have ever seen from DOT.
They're almost saying [Widewaters] has manipulated the numbers," he
says.
The DOT says building a one-way entrance to the plaza
from Route 9 as well as a two-way access road south of the central
driveway helps degrade air quality and "ultimately reduces the commercial
viability of the corridor."
That design,
continues Mr. FitzPatrick, seems like an attempt by the developer to
create an acceptable level of traffic at the five-legged intersection by
providing alternative routes to and from the 500-space parking lot.
"The sole
purpose, as we see it, is to allow the numbers to work at the primary
access point," he says, referring to the traffic study commissioned by
Widewaters.
Planning Board Chairman Ed Simonsen, who is leading
the town's review of the project, believes some "major modifications" will
have to be made it the developer wants to build its supermarket and shops
at the site.
Board members, residents and school officials have
all expressed concern since Widewaters unveiled its proposal over the
safety of pedestrians and motorists.
"What [the DOT
letter] does is affirm the concerns that some of us have had since the
proposal was presented. It expresses the concerns of the school and the
residents within and without the Town of Kinderhook," says Mr.
Simonsen.
He
says Widewaters has not put enough thought into the shopping center's
impacts on the entire county, which relies heavily on Routes 9/9H to
travel north.
"I'm so grateful
that DOT has examined the project in the depth that they have," says Mr.
Simonsen, who also seeks to safeguard access at existing businesses.
Widewaters issued a statement yesterday, October 10,
saying it welcomes the comments of the DOT regional traffic engineer and
its looks forward to working with that office and officials "in resolving
their concerns."
"The Widewaters
Group will continue to work closely with all the appropriate state and
local officials to assure highway safety for the center's customers,
employees, and all motorists and pedestrians who pass by the site," says
the statement from the Utica area company.
But Mr.
FitzPatrick points out to the developer that the DOT is considering a move
to re-route northbound traffic on Route 9 to Keegan Road, which Widewaters
must consider if it wants to build its plaza at the intersection.
The engineer also
says the only proposal DOT will consider is one that uses a "single full
movement access" from the development to the existing intersection.
Mr. Schaefer says
the Keegan Road initiative could take years to get off the ground, which
should prompt Widewaters to look into alternative properties.
"Maybe if it were
a few miles up the road it wouldn't be so bad, but it's unsuitable. What
we've complained about in the DEIS is that they haven't looked at
alternative sites, which is required by law," says Mr. Schaefer.
He's referring to the Widewaters preliminary
draft environmental impact statement, which seeks to show how the firm
will mitigate impacts on everything from vehicle and foot traffic to the
town's natural resources and scenery.
That document is
the subject of a public hearing Tuesday, October 15, at 7 p.m. at the
North Pointe center on Route 9 just north of the Village of Kinderhook
square.
Mr. Schaefer's group, Kinderhook Neighbors For Good Growth, filed a protest
with the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding placement of the plaza's septic
system.
The Planning Board decided that action would suspend
the hearing, but Widewaters took the town to court, prompting officials to
go ahead with the session Tuesday.
"The purpose of
the hearing is to gather comment from community members on the DEIS. It's
not a venue for expressing your desire to have or not have Widewaters
develop this parcel," says Mr. Simonsen.
In the meantime,
Widewaters has work to do to satisfy the DOT, which points out the firm
based its study on volumes of traffic measured on two days when classes
were not in session at Ichabod Crane.
The traffic
study also fails to consider future development that might come before the
Kinderhook Planning Board and other issues, says the DOT.
"We would also suggest that your consultant meet one
on one with our engineer before putting pencil to paper so that we may
guide you in your efforts," says Mr. FitzPatrick.
|
| ©The
Independent 2004 |
|
The Independent - October 8, 2002
K'hook
in court over plaza plan
|
| By: MATTHEW
SHEEHEY |
10/08/2002 |
|
NIVERVILLE--The Widewaters Group wants the town to go
ahead with a public hearing October 15 regarding its draft environmental
impact statement and has gone to court to make that happen.
The Kinderhook Planning Board, which is reviewing the
firm's application to build a $10 million shopping center at the Route
9/9H intersection, sent notice to the media last week that the hearing was
canceled.
But the cancellation, which stemmed from a
protest filed with the town Zoning Board of Appeals by opponents of the
project, was the subject of a restraining order issued late yesterday
afternoon by a state judge in Albany.
Planning Board Chairman Ed Simonsen, confirms
that his board is now prohibited from stopping the public hearing until
the judge rules Friday on whether the actions of Kinderhook Neighbors for
Good Growth can delay the
process.
The
group of residents had filed a protest with the ZBA regarding a decision
issued by Code Enforcement Officer Walt Simonsmeier on the proposed site
of the plaza's septic system on the back side of the 19-acre property.
Mr. Simonsmeier ruled that zoning
permitted Widewaters, which is planning a supermarket and several smaller
retail structures, to place its two septic tanks where it liked without
regard to size of the parcel, says Chairman Simonsen.
But the opposition group argued that
the division of the lot into two zones--two-thirds commercial and
one-third residential under zoning law--prohibits that practice.
"The
understanding [was], as long as there's a standing appeal, no further
action can proceed with regard to the project," says Mr. Simonsen, who
also contested the code enforcement officer's decision in a letter.
Now the ZBA will
have to make a decision or send the matter back to the Planning Board.
And a judge will
decide whether Kinderhook residents will be able to comment next week on
the Widewaters draft environmental impact statement.
"It's become a battle of the attorneys," says Mr.
Simonsen, whose board began its review of the controversial plaza and its
impacts last December.
In the
meantime, he and town planners here are contemplating an opinion on the
project's traffic impacts by the state Department of Transportation.
The DOT said in a
letter dated October 1 that it "will not accept any additional access
points to [the] signalized intersection" at Routes 9/9H.
The department also said a strategy for growth and
infrastructure should be developed while engineers consider rerouting
northbound traffic on Route 9 to Keegan Road.
"We're getting a
little bit complicated here," says Mr. Simonsen, putting it mildly.
Widewaters
attorneys were not available for comment yesterday afternoon.
|
| ©The
Independent 2004 |
NOTE: KNGG
interceded on behalf of the Town withdrawing demands to
stay Public Hearing, thus there being no
reason for a suit. Widewaters withdraws
suit. The hearing was held as scheduled on October
15.
Register-Star
October 1, 2002
CONTROVERSIAL NOTE CONTENTS
DISCLOSED
By Peter
Duveen
KINDERHOOK-
The identities of a note-passer and a note recipient at a recent Town of
Kinderhook Planning Board meeting came to light late last week, after opponents
of a proposed shopping center filed a Freedom of Information Law request for a
copy of the note.
“I did pass the note in question,” former Planning
Board member Don Haemmerlein told the Register-Star.
Haemmerlein said he passed a note to Planning Board member
Sal Martino (who was seated next to Don Gaylord) at the August meeting, and that
Martino had passed it back to him.
Haemmerlein provided a copy of (what he claimed was) the
note to the Register-Star.
A
The note (provided) primarily asks about the identity of
some of those in attendance. “Who is (Planning Board stand-in) Gerard
Minot-Scheuerman?
Where does he live? Who were the two people sitting at the table
in front of me?
Who was the gal on my right with glasses down on her nose?” the note
reads.
A
Haemmerlein said he forwarded a copy of the note to the
Planning Board, but Chairman Edwin Simonsen said he had not received
it.
A
Allen Schaefer, president of Kinderhook Neighbors for Good
Growth, a citizens’ group that opposes the proposed Widewaters Commons shopping
center, filed a Freedom of Information Law request for a copy of the note last
week. Schaefer
said he wanted to see if the note was written with the intention of influencing
the Planning Board’s vote.
A
On that night in August, the Planning Board, in a surprise
split decision, voted to accept a draft environmental review of the Widewaters
project without any changes, after the board had earlier agreed on long list of
additions and amendments to the document.
A
The vote, in conjunction with the note-passing incident,
aroused the suspicions of project opponents at the meeting.
A
Widewaters Group Inc., a developer, has applied to build a
shopping center at the north end of Route 9H that will include a Hannaford Bros.
Supermarket, a restaurant, and several retail outlets. The project is
mired in Planning Board deliberations and a state-mandated environmental review
process.
A
At last week’s Planning Board meeting, Simonsen said that
Schaefer had submitted a FOIL request for a copy of the note(s) passed at the
August meeting.
Board member Richard Anderson said he saw Haemmerlein pass a note to
board member Don Gaylord during the August meeting, but Gaylord denied receiving
any note.
A
Schaefer says he remains unconvinced that the note
Haemmerlein produced is the only one that was passed.
A
“How do we know that the note now being presented is the
actual or even all of the notes presented?” he asked. “Notes should never
be removed from the meeting room as they are part of the public record.”
Schaefer said the note should have been read aloud, since
it was part of a public meeting.
A
Schaefer characterized the note-passing as “suspicious
since it occurred during important Planning Board deliberations (just prior to
the vote to accept the DEIS).
A
Haemmerlein, who left the Planning Board in December when
his term expired, said he has been attending meetings on and off to keep up with
how the Widewaters application was progressing.
AA
He said he missed a few meetings after attending one in
April, and attended the August meeting to catch up. Haemmerlein said he
supported the shopping center proposal. “I have favored it right from the word
‘go,’” he said.
Haemmerlein said he believes the area can absorb another
supermarket besides the Grand Union Supermarket on Route 9 in Valatie. “There
are four super markets in Hudson-Greenport,” he said.
A
He said that including Stuyvesant, Kinderhook, North
Chatham and Chatham Center, “you have the same population with a single grocery
store.”
“I discount the fact that one is going to drive the other
out of business,” he said.
A
KNGG
QUESTION: Haemmerlein claims he gave the note to Sal Martino who was
seated next to Don Gaylord. If this is so, when Chair Ed Simonsen called
for disclosure, why
didn’t Martino volunteer that he received a harmless note and turn it
in? When
Richard Anderson named Gaylord as receiving the note, why didn’t Martino then
admit that he received the note and make a statement to that effect.
KNGG
NOTE:
Haemmerlein was seen sitting, conversing and exchanging papers with
Widewaters general counsel Marco Marzocchi shortly before he was seen passing
paper(S) to Gaylord which was shortly before Marzocchi who, out of order,
demanded that the Planning Board accept the DEIS as complete at that
moment.
A
Shortly after Marzocchi’s demand and Jeff Baker’s comments
on inadequacy, Gaylord moved that the Planning Board accept the Widewaters DEIS
as complete.
We can’t help but being suspicious of the proceedings of
August 22nd.
Register-Star
August 23,
2002
PLANNERS
REVERSE, FIND WIDEWATERS DEIS COMPLETE
By Peter
Duveen
KINDERHOOK –
Driven by something akin to a palace revolt, the Town of
Kinderhook Planning Board Planning Board Thursday voted to accept the draft
environmental impact by the developer of a proposed shopping center as
complete.
A
The vote took the rest of the board and many in attendance
at the meeting by surprise, particularly since the board originally intended to
ratify a letter that declared the DEIS submitted by the Widewaters Group for a
shopping center at the north terminus of Route 9H as inadequate in many
respects.
A
But during the review of the draft letter, board member Don
Gaylord remarked that much of what the board was doing should be part of the
public comment period that follows acceptance of the DEIS as
complete.
A
Widewaters Group representative Marco Marzocchi built on
similar line of reasoning, suggesting
to the board that it ratify the DEIS as is, rather than declaring it
incomplete and submitting a list of issues to be addressed.
A
The DEIS is part of the lengthy state-mandated
environmental review of any major construction project. Plans for the
shopping center include a Hannaford Bros. Supermarket, a restaurant, and as of
yet undefined retail space.
In response to Marzocchi’s statement, Jeffrey S. Baker, an
attorney representing Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth, a citizens’ group
that opposes the project, told the board the document “does not have the basic information that
allows you to go forward.”
“What they’re asking you to do is to be a rubber stamp,”
Baker said.
A
Planning Board Chairman Edwin Simonsen then called for a
vote on the letter declaring the DEIS inadequate, and to the surprise of many in
the room, board members Gaylord, Michael Leisure (Leiser) and Timothy Ooms voted
against it, enough to defeat the motion, 4 to 3.
A
Gaylord then introduced a motion to declare the DEIS
complete. The motion passed, with the same four members who voted the first
motion down voting in the affirmative in the second motion, and the other board
members, including Simonsen, voting against it.
A
Gaylord then proposed a motion affirming the board’s
objections to the DEIS – short of declaring it inadequate – relegating the
content of the letter to future public comment. The motion
passed.
A
Thursday’s board vote meant that Widewaters did not have to
incorporate a large number of changes into the document and resubmit it for
review by the planning board, a process would have taken at least a month, and
possibly much longer than that, to complete.
A
Simonsen criticized the board members for not voicing their
feelings while the board was reviewing the draft letter.
A
“I don’t understand how people can sit here (on this
board), go through this entire discussion, and not voice their dissent,” he
said. He
compared the board’s vote to “Alice in Wonderland.”
A
Planning Board Attorney Marc Gold seems equally baffled by
the board’s action, saying he was going to have to analyze what happened. “It’s
unusual to say the least,” Gold said.
A
Gaylord said the purpose of his action was to oppose
requiring Widewaters to resubmit a new DEIS. "We’re going to accelerate the whole process
by accepting a document that has already been prepared,” he said.*
A
But Baker told the Register-Star that the board might
eventually have to require the submission of what is called a supplemental DEIS
that would incorporate the Planning Board’s comments.
A
He said the town was
opening itself up to a lawsuit if the Planning Board did not conduct the
environmental review process properly.
A
Marzocchi appeared satisfied with the result. “We look forward to
receiving the public’s comment,” he said. He said Widewaters wanted to make a project “
that is a win-win opportunity for everyone concerned.”
A
While unhappy with the outcome of Thursday’s meeting, KNGG
President Alan Schaefer said the group would continue its work.
A
“We are not discouraged, and we will continue to oppose
this project as it is currently proposed,” Schaefer said.
A
The Planning Board set a date of Oct. 15 for a public
hearing on the DEIS, and a date of Nov.15 for the end of the 60-day public
comment period as required by law.
A
KNGG COMMENT: *Gaylord was appointed to
the Planning Board to protect the town by seeing that our codes are enforced and
state requirements are met by developers. As a member of the Planning Board, it is not
Gaylord’s function “to accelerate the whole process.” It is his job to
see that the process is carried out.
|
The Independent - July 30, 2002
Details
snag plaza plan
|
| By: MATTHEW
SHEEHEY |
07/30/2002 |
|
NIVERVILLE--Developers have a
lot of work to do before Kinderhook officials will even consider signing
off on the Widewaters plaza.
The Widewaters Group, which hopes to build a shopping
center at the intersection of Routes 9 and 9H, submitted a draft environmental impact
statement recently to the Planning Board for its consideration.
Planners must now decide if the document is
complete.
But James Green of Spectra Engineering, who advises
the board on the Widewaters proposal, told officials last week that he and
his firm's traffic consultant have suspended their review of the DEIS
because of "insufficient information."
Mr. Green's
letter of July 25 cites missing data on traffic, the architecture of the
shops, parking, compliance with the Town Code and the Comprehensive Plan,
tax contributions, waste and drinking water, drainage, lighting,
plantings, alternative considerations, and other matters.
For example, he
writes, repeated requests by his office and the New York State Department
of Transportation for revised traffic data and clarification on several
company analyses "have been totally ignored" by Widewaters.
And Mr. Green
points out that the plan detailed in the DEIS is different from the one
first brought before town planners late last year, in that the plaza is
larger by one building and has a lot more parking.
Planning Board
Chairman Edwin Simonsen agrees with the engineer after reading over the
inch-thick document and its nearly 4-inch appendix over the past 10
days.
"It's
been four months in preparation and we've had many special meetings on
this... It's discouraging because we've put so much time in," says Mr.
Simonsen, referring to his displeasure with the holes in the DEIS.
Widewaters representative Marco Marzocchi, who
has met with the Planning Board every few weeks or so to discuss how his
firm can meet the needs of the town, was not available for comment before
press time yesterday.
Mr. Simonsen and
the rest of the board meet Wednesday, July 31, at 7 p.m. at Town Hall here
to begin what is expected to be the weeks-long task of determining the
exact areas of concern in the Widewaters DEIS.
"It could take
months," says the chairman, whose board has 45 days from the time of
submission of the document to respond to the applicant.
Problems include, says Mr. Simonsen, the fact that
the Widewaters design calls for use of all 19 acres of the site despite
the fact that only 10 acres are zoned commercial.
And
architectural changes for the Hannaford store requested by planners many
weeks ago have been left out of the DEIS in favor of original plans that
Planning Board members told the developers were not
acceptable.
Confusion also exists over whether the
applicant will be subject to the old Town Code, which was still in effect
when part of the proposal was submitted.
Widewaters
does not believe it has to comply with Kinderhook's new zoning
regulations.
"They
[Widewaters] want the best of both worlds for themselves, but it's not
going to be that way... I don't think they like the fact that Hannaford's
was trying to be obliging," says Mr. Simonsen, who met previously
with the grocer's architect at a workshop meeting to discuss design
changes.
The DEIS is supposed to address impacts the proposed
supermarket and satellite structures will have on everything from traffic
on Route 9 to groundwater below the 19-acre field across the street from
Four Brothers.
Widewaters, which unveiled the project last
fall, has many in this community of 8,300 worried that the stores and the
almost 500 parking spaces at the site will raise the accident rate and
harm the quality of life.
Other residents believe the jobs, competition, and
tax benefits are needed here.
Mr.
Simonsen, responding to claims in letters to the editor that planners are
needlessly stalling the $10 million project, says the only party
responsible for the long review and the many meetings to come is the
developer.
"Nobody's holding
this up but them," he says.
|
| ©The
Independent 2004 |
|
The Independent - June 4, 2002
Market
meeting stirs passions
|
| By: MATTHEW
SHEEHEY |
06/04/2002 |
|
NIVERVILLE--The Kinderhook Planning Board hosted a
public meeting here last week to gather comment on the shopping plaza and
supermarket proposed for a field at the intersection of Routes 9 and 9H.
What the board heard didn't differ much from what was
said at a May 2 meeting hosted by the developer, the Widewaters Group of
Dewitt, and Hannaford Brothers, the Maine-based grocery chain that would
anchor the site.
But the crowd of just under 100 residents reminded
planners that the $10 million project is the source of a lot of anxiety
and, as is usually the case with large commercial proposals, disagreement
among the citizenry.
After a brief history of the
seven-month-old review process by board Chairman Ed Simonsen and Marco
Marzocchi of Widewaters, speakers took turns at the podium in the Main
Street firehouse to talk about their concerns.
"It's just business to these people. For us
it's a betrayal of what we adopted in the Comprehensive Plan," said one
Kinderhook resident, who called the plaza "wildly inappropriate" given its
size and location. She said local residential streets like
Bishop Nelson and McCagg roads would become clogged by the new traffic
headed to Hannaford and the stores and restaurant planned for three
smaller buildings at the site.
The town's zoning, however, permits commercial
development at the 19-acre field, which sits across the intersection from
the outlet of State Farm Road.
What is at issue
for the Planning Board is the impacts Widewaters could have on the
environment, the looks of this semi-rural town, existing businesses, water
use, pedestrian safety and traffic on what are already busy roads.
"I'm concerned about the school buses
entering from State Farm Road, the walkers, children crossing the road.
This is my primary problem with the building location," said Marcia
Anderson, a town resident.
She is a member of the Ichabod Crane Board of
Education, which is examining the potential impacts of the nearby plaza on
the school campus and on the hundreds of students, staff and parents who
travel there daily. "It's an accident waiting to happen," said Mrs.
Anderson, who called the field Widewaters wants to buy from the Samascott
family's orchard "the worst possible location in the Town of
Kinderhook."
Planners, who are waiting for the
developer's draft environmental impact statement to be submitted, did not
respond to comments at the 90-minute meeting, in accordance with ground
rules they set up previously.
They will,
however, return to their regular meeting schedule with a little bit more
knowledge of what the people of Kinderhook want for their municipality.
"I think property values would decline in this
area if we choose to become another East Greenbush or another Clifton
Park," said Gwen Schwarz. She was one of several speakers Thursday to
equate the proposal with the type of commercial growth happening in
Rensselaer and Saratoga counties, which have also experienced rapid
population growth in recent years.
"We're all going to have to share this tax burden.
This nice new shiny mall is going to come at a very high price for people
who can't afford it," said Dick Farrell, who believes Ichabod Crane will
have to enlarge if Hannaford and other stores are allowed to set up shop
here.
But Ellen Schneider, who recently moved back to here
after living in Albany, said many of her childhood friends live in towns
like Guilderland and Bethlehem to be closer to stores and the places where
they work.
She
admitted she was in the minority at the meeting, but she said the many
people she knows who support the project don't come out to meetings of
government bodies to talk about the need for more jobs and the like.
"I come from a
working class family, and we'd like to have another place to shop and the
possibility of getting a job with benefits... I think there's a lot more
people like me in the community," said Ms. Schneider.
But
Village of Kinderhook Mayor Jim Dunham worried Widewaters will change the
area's rural character and increase traffic in the villages, but he said
he'd wait for the environmental impact statement to comment further.
State Farm Road resident Meg Moran, a former Planning Board
member who helped draft the Comprehensive Plan, reminded the board it had
rejected a project several years ago due to traffic congestion.
She was one of
many speakers to call for an independent traffic study to be conducted due
to questions about the study submitted to the state Department of
Transportation by Widewaters, which compiled the plan last summer.
Ms. Moran said a
number of troubles with the flow of cars on Route 9 had not been
considered, including confusion at the exits of McDonald's and the Hudson
River Bank and Trust next to Ichabod Crane.
"The study is
stale at this point... To rely on this traffic study would be nothing more
than a passing glance," said Ms. Moran, an attorney who shops at the
Hannaford Brothers store in East Greenbush.
And she said
certain segments of Route 9 were deemed to be at 90% capacity two years
ago by the state DOT, which has reviewed the traffic study commissioned by
Widewaters and found its methods to be sound.
Ms. Moran also said the Comprehensive Plan allows for
small-scale commercial development on Route 9 between Maple Lane North and
Maple Lane South, but the Samascott's field was not included in that
stretch of road.
Still, she said,
the scope of the project is too big.
"This is being
characterized as a shopping center, but if you look at a family restaurant
and a drive-thru bank, the numbers would be significantly higher," said
Ms. Moran, referring to car traffic.
Widewaters has argued that the plaza will not
draw many more drivers to Route 9, which is targeted under the plan for
new turning lanes, pedestrian crossings and other changes.
Echoing claims
made by the applicant, State Farm Road resident Veronica Fix argued that
traffic on the main roads won't be increasing due to the new grocery store
and other buildings at the plaza.
"The traffic's
already there. They're not going to come from Utica to shop at
Hannaford's," said Mrs. Fix, who also welcomes the almost 200 hundred
full- and part-time jobs with benefits that Hannaford will bring.
She also said she
hasn't heard of any students being injured when crossing the road to go to
McDonald's. And she took issue with the negative assessment of life
further north on Route 9 in the more populous towns.
"I get so
frustrated hearing about East Greenbush and Clifton Park. East Greenbush
is more than [Routes] 9 and 20," said Mrs. Fix, referring to the
concentration of businesses on Columbia Turnpike.
But Marilyn Kaplan, another former Planning Board
member, said the design of the Widewaters project would be a better fit
for Central Avenue in Albany given the town of Kinderhook's "special
architectural needs."
"Unfortunately,
the design of this project is, in my opinion, very poor. I believe it is
cheating our community [to build a] bottom line strip mall with three
buildings stuck on it," said Ms. Kaplan.
The Planning Board will continue to talk
about points like that at a special workshop session here Wednesday, June
5, at 7 p.m. at the Town Hall, where Widewaters will be the sole subject
on the agenda.
Chairman Simonsen
encouraged the public to attend his board's meetings, and he encouraged
people with more to say to submit letters to the board.
He opened
Thursday's meeting with a moment of silence for Lena Simonsmeier, who died
early Thursday morning in a car accident in Stockport.
She was the
daughter of Kinderhook Code Enforcement Officer Walt Simonsmeier, who
works closely with the Planning Board on housing and business
proposals.
|
| ©The
Independent 2004 |
|
The Independent - May 8, 2002
K'hook
throng hears both sides in plaza debate
|
| By: MATTHEW
SHEEHEY |
05/08/2002 |
|
