|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE 78
ROOF VARIANCE
for a
flat roof on
Widewaters & Hannaford's BIG BOX
WIDEWATERS APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE,
KNOWING THEY NEED ONE
TO PUT A FLAT ROOF ON A COMMERCIAL BUILDING
UNDER THE NEW TOWN
CODE.
TO SEE COMMENTS TO THE ZBA ON THE
VARIANCE
by ARCHITECT Kate Johns AIA
by ARCHITECT Alvin
Knoll
by CONSULTANT Norman
Mintz
by PRESERVATION ARCHITECT Marilyn
Kaplan
Click on "Architectural
Evaluation"
A Brief Summary of Widewaters' Variance
Application Proceedings and
Public Hearings
SEPTEMBER 7,
2004 - UPDATE
A MATTER OF POST MEETING DECEPTION AT ZBAThursday night’s ZBA meeting adjourned at approximately 11:00 PM. After the meeting adjourned and after our attorney, Jeff Baker, and others left the building, Widewaters’ attorney John Hoggan approached ZBA attorney Marc Gold asking that Widewaters be given a “special” meeting so the ZBA could make a sooner determination on their variance for a flat roof. A This request came as no surprise. What did come as a surprise is that subsequently Chairman Sean Egan asked members of the ZBA (as they gathered their belongings to leave) to agree to set a special meeting to make a determination on Widewaters variance. ZBA member Richard Wetmore opposed any special treatment for Widewaters explaining that he felt they have been given too many privileges already. After Wetmore left the room the date of September 23rd was agreed upon. A What is unprecedented here is what they did and it is probably illegal that this “special” arrangement was made after the meeting had adjourned and not all the members were present. The press had departed and we found out by accident. Now is the time to ask why. SEPTEMBER 2,
2004 - UPDATE
KNGG FIGHTS IT OUT AT ZBA Tempers flew between attorneys on both sides Thursday night as KNGG fought tooth and nail with Widewaters. Widewaters is still insisting they cannot build their building 4/4A to comply with the code. The only way they want to build it is with a flat roof. Flat roofs are not in compliance with Kinderhook Town Code so Widewaters filed for a variance back in November of 2003.
The Planning Board made the grave
mistake of taking Widewaters word for their instance that only a flat roof was
possible and sent the ZBA a recommendation for the variance.
Right here is where the Town needs to do some rethinking: 1.
Widewaters knew the rules of the game when they applied to
the Planning Board and when they decided they wanted to be evaluated under the
"new" zoning code. 2.
Widewaters designed a footprint for a building
knowing they had no intention of complying with the code because they intended to fit it
with a flat roof. 3. When Widewaters showed up at the Planning Board to work on design, the Planning Board should have told them right there and then that the building was not in compliance. They should have been told THEN to redesign it so it would be in compliance with the code. 4. Instead they were invited to stay and work with the Planning Board and design with the Planning Board a building that everyone concerned knew was not in compliance with the code. WHY? Was the Planning Board not putting the cart before the horse? a Now Widewaters wants a variance from
the ZBA to build using a flat roof. KNGG emphatically says, “NO!” A Last night’s ZBA Public Hearing turned into a battle of wits between our attorney, Jeff Baker and Widewaters’ attorney, John Hoggan. A Architect Alvin Knoll explained his new design to the ZBA, demonstrating that a historic-type roof (under 40 feet tall) could be built on Widewaters footprint (using a cupola) and be in compliance to the code. A Widewaters’ Hoggan questioned Al Knoll but the questions turned into a grilling session which Jeff Baker promptly put a stop to.
Jeff Baker asked Widewaters’ architect, Michael O’Shea if he was licensed to practice in New York State. O’Shea hedged the question. Baker persisted. O’Shea admitted to having got his license only two weeks earlier on August 30, 2004. Here we have Widewaters presenting an architect with no license to the Planning Board who accepted his word that buildings 4/4A could be built ONLY with a flat roof.
The ZBA appears ready to accept the word of this young man with hardly any experience. Yet the ZBA appears not to want to accept the word of an experienced architect who's credentials KNGG has presented to them. WHY? A Last
month
Al Knoll submitted an
architectural drawing with measurements to the ZBA demonstrating again that Widewaters was
wrong. Marc
Gold, ZBA attorney, sent the plans to Jim Green at Spectra Engineering for
evaluation. a Green had his people evaluate our plans and sent a copy of the evaluation to everyone on the copy list, including Marco Marzocchi at Widewaters, EXCEPT KNGG.
Town engineer, Jim Green showed up with his architect. The architect testified to the ZBA that neither Wadewaters or KNGG has submitted engineering drawings. However from what he could determine from the renderings, both plans would appear to be safe.
For this reason and because the ZBA wanted a chance to look over Knoll’s newly submitted plan and his structural plan, no determination was made. It is expected that a determination will be made at the scheduled Thursday evening October 7th ZBA meeting.
After adjourning, some members of the ZBA made a deal with Widewaters to call a special meeting for the ZBA to make a determination on their variance on September 23rd.
KNGG wishes to thank everyone who has turned out and participated at these flat roof hearings since last November. It's been a pleasure to see community inrerest in what we are doing. a AUGUST 5, 2004
-UPDATE
This hearing for a roof variance for Widewaters, has been going on since November 17, 2003. It has been going on for so long that the ZBA has a new chairman and some new members.
Originally, in November of 2001, Widewaters applied to the Planning Board under the “old” code. Under the old code, the plot was divided in two parts. Approximately ½ of the land located nearest to Route NY 9H was zoned B-1 (business). The remainder of the plot was zoned A/R (agricultural/residential).
Widewaters wanted to place their buildings in the B-1 (business) Zone. Yet, they wanted to place their septic system in the A/R (agricultural/residential) Zone. Under the old code there were no architectural restrictions and the Widewaters could have built their buildings as originally designed.
Once it was determined that Widewaters would have to place their septic system in the B-1 Zone, on October 3, 2002, Widewaters attorney Lisa DiPoala-Haber announced to the ZBA that Widewaters would be judged under the “new” code.
However, under the new code, there are architectural restrictions that would apply, such as the type of roof design permitted. Under the new code, no flat roofs are allowed. The new code requires “traditional” buildings. Traditional architecture is the spirit of the new code.
Under the new code, the entire property became a B-1 Zone, which would allow Widewaters to place their septic system where they originally planned, in the area previously designated as an A/R Zone. Widewaters has voluntarily chosen to be reviewed under a code that has architectural restrictions. Widewaters knew this when they decided to change to the new code. They then returned to the Planning with the same plans in hand knowing they would need a variance to build this big box with a flat roof. This is not a hardship. It is a self-inflicted hardship.
They came back with the same big box footprint with the same flat roof only to complain they cannot build a roof in compliance the new code without going up eight stories. They were told by the Planning Board to go to the ZBA for an area variance, which they already knew.
In November of 2003, KNGG submitted plans by architect Alvin Knoll to the ZBA, showing that a traditional roof could be built for their footprint and would rise to an acceptable height but not eight stories. However, if Widewaters does not wish to follow Mr. Knoll’s suggestion, there are other ways a traditional roof could be designed for a building of 67,000 sq. ft. that would be in compliance to the code. It simply needs to be looked at and thought out by an architect that is willing to do more than cut and paste designs of previously designed buildings.
One of the problems we see with the big box is its massive structure. This structure can be broken up into smaller visual areas. Hannaford has built other acceptable buildings in other locations. Why does Widewaters insist it cannot be done in Kinderhook? Could it be that Widewaters is a big box developer doesn’t want it to leak out that they can really put up more acceptable buildings? Could it be that they just don’t want to invest money in a more acceptable building for Kinderhook?
Widewaters came to Kinderhook well aware of our codes. They have not proved that they cannot put up their big box design with a traditional roof in compliance with our new code. They cannot cry hardship because they choose to build under the new code when there were no restrictions when they applied under the old code. Widewaters should comply with the new code. After all, it was their choice. This variance should be denied.
The ZBA must stop and think seriously about precedence. For instance, let’s say Widewaters returns next year with an application for a Wal-mart and a Home Depot. Once again, the Planning Board will say, “Sorry, you need variances for these flat roofs.” So Widewaters comes to the ZBA, again asking for variances for two more flat roofs for big boxes. Will it then too late to think about precedence?
Widewaters or any other exploiter will remind the ZBA that the ZBA that gave it to Widewaters for Hannaford. The ZBA will be asked, “What is the difference?” This mistake should not be allowed to take place. Otherwise everyone else in line will expect the same treatment and Kinderhook will end up looking like Fairview Avenue and other similar locations cluttered by sprawl.
For these reasons, the ZBA needs to entertain the spirit of the new code and deny this variance.
* * * |
