Letters to the Editor

Letters written about the Partition Street Project and issues surrounding Saugerties Village land use and zoning.

Developers have the right to do what they want!

By admin | Published: December 22, 2009
cantine dam 2009

One of the most often repeated mantras heard from those in their uncritical acceptance of private commercial development is “developers have the right to do what they want with their own land.”  This is incorrect for many reasons:

Often they do not own the land but have a contract for purchase pending development approvals.

Development is subject to local, county, state and sometimes federal approvals.

Development is subject to local, county, state and federal laws and land use plans as well as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act which requires the consideration of alternate plans.

This specific proposal for the former Cantine Mill site overlooking the waterfall is subject to review and approval by the Village Planning Board of site plans, subdivision and special  use permit which may require conditions be met for approval.  The Village Board has already granted a zoning change to  permit a hotel, though not a conference center, reportedly without adequate public notice before the change. The complacent planning board appears to want to cave in and agree to virtually anything the developer wants to do. There will be one opportunity for members of the public to have three minutes to counter the claims of months and many thousands of dollars of presentations to the planning board to which the applicants have unlimited access. This is the same site for which the Mayor sought state funds nearly ten years ago for a public park and for which he applied for 2.5 million dollars two years ago to subsidize this private commercial development.

The applicants may own title to the land overlooking the waterfall, but they do not own one drop of the waterfall itself or the view of the historic creek and viewshed beyond, which have existed there for hundreds of years, though they wish to privatize and monopolize those features for their own commercial use. This site is of regional historic and scenic importance. The owners have the responsibility to treat it and us with respect. Martin Cantine gave us the unparalleled Cantine Field, home of the world famous Garlic Festival as well as hundreds of  baseball games every year. We need such vision and dedication to the public in this proposed Partition Street commercial development.

Barry Benepe

The writer is a retired professional planner, Member of the American Society of Consulting Planners, American Institute of Planners and Fellow of the American Institute of Architects.  He is also a member of the Saugerties Citiizens for Smart Development.

Posted in Letters to the Editor | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Everything will be fine, he’s a good man.

By admin | Published: December 22, 2009
partition street project access denied

Dear Editor:

I am trying to understand the role of the public in the development process, as I have been following the Partition Street Project.  Everyone says don’t worry everything will be fine and we should rely on the reputation of the developers.  I am diligently positive about the project, as I think it will be good for Saugerties, but I do want the applicants to follow the law. The New York State law requires a review and in the case of a project of this size and complexity, it requires a full review of all environmental impacts.  I know that the developers have hired professional consultants to help them in the review process, but they are trying to avoid the full review which would allow the public to participate in the consideration of alternatives.  Now what we are told is that this sketch plan is the only plan and there can be no changes. We have tried to meet with the developer.  We have tried to meet with our Congressman who in this case is also an investor in the project.  We have tried to get on the agenda of the Village Planning Board, but have been told we cannot be on their agenda unless we have an application for a project.  It appears to me that this is a shut out.  We can attend Village Planning Board meetings, but we cannot speak.  We can attend, but we cannot get on the agenda.  Yes, they held one Public Hearing, but that is inadequate for what we want to accomplish.  We want to sit with the applicants to share our ideas that we believe will make a better project.  This process of public participation has worked in many other towns and villages in our area.  We call on the Village Planning Board to not be intimidated or to buy into the ruse that the developer will walk away if they require him to follow the law and go through a full environmental review.  He will not walk away and we will all benefit from a better project. What it takes is for the Village Planning Board to recognize their role which is not to immediately acquiesce to the developer’s wishes, but to work to shape the future of the Village in the public interest.

Yours truly,

Saugerties Citizens for Smart Development
Judith Spektor
311 Van Vlierden Road
judithspektor@aol.com

Posted in Letters to the Editor | Leave a comment

A HOLD UP OR AN END RUN?

By admin | Published: December 22, 2009
neighbors fighting to preserve cantine dam view

Dear Editor:

There appears to be a lot of misinformation about the efforts of the Saugerties Citizens for Smart Development (CSD).  We are a community organization formed to support the Partition Street Project and to improve it.  We are in no way anti-business or trying to “hold up” the developer or kill the project.  In fact, our position is quite the opposite.

Everyone asks have we met with the owners of the property?  The answer is no because they will not meet with us.  We call upon the developers to work with us on a better plan that will add greatly to their project.  We propose a public walkway along the bluff on this project using a mere two percent of the property.  The walkway will be a magnet attracting visitors to Saugerties to view our “Niagara Falls.”  It will also enhance the outdoor dining experience serving as a people watching sight for restaurant patrons.  And it will not prevent private events that can be held on the second floor with a private balcony overlooking the falls.  It might also be closed, if necessary, for events.

We are told that it is highly unusual for a development of this size not to be required to submit a full environmental review.  Instead the owners are trying to do an “end run” around the law by picking and choosing the environmental impacts they study and not opening the process up to alternatives.  What are they afraid of?  If it is that we will hold them up for years with litigation, they should think again, as that is not our intention.  In fact what we want is to seek a middle ground where we can work together to come to a better project.  We are not in it to win it, but rather to come to accommodation in which the public interest is protected.  Shouldn’t the public funding in this project give the public a seat at the table?

SAUGERTIES CITIZENS FOR SMART DEVELOPMENT
Dave Minch

Posted in Letters to the Editor | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Citizens for Smart Development Calls Upon Hinchey To Help

By admin | Published: January 13, 2010
Our idea for a Cantine Mill Walkway

Immediate Release
January 12, 2010

Media: For more information, please contact
Barry Benepe, 845-246-6491 or barrybenepe@aol.com
Dave Minch, 845-246-2711 or architrek12477@yahoo.com
Drawing: Barry Benepe

Saugerties Citizens for Smart Development (CSD) calls upon Congressman Maurice Hinchey to tell the truth about the proposed Partition Street Project planned for Saugerties.  Congressman Hinchey’s statement that “there is no limitation on the views of the fall” is false on its face.  The Partition Street Project as proposed will block the views of the magnificent Cantine Mill Falls from the public.  The developer/owners of whom Hinchey is one provide two points that they call “public access.”  However, neither is adequate in size or placement.  One is known as the “snow dump” and is not shown on the plan, is not owned by the developers, and is far from the waterfall and blocked by trees.  The second site offered is on the southern most end of the project overlooking the hydro electric plant, not the waterfall.  The rest of the waterfront is blocked from public view and is privatized for the purpose of commercial ventures.  A third suggestion that has been made by the developer is that the public can go to the restaurant, order a glass of water, and enjoy the view.  CSD’s point of view is that with some planning real public access could be provided at the Partition Street Project which would become a regional attraction that would draw people to Saugerties and be a boost to the local economy and to the Partition Street Project itself.  What is proposed will cut off this possibility forever.
To add insult to injury the plan calls for the blasting of Nanny Goat Hill, an ice age formation unique in Ulster County, to build a two-tier overflow parking lot.  Let us not destroy what nature gave us (or to quote a Joni Mitchell song they plan to “pave [d] paradise and put up a parking lot”) in order to satisfy the occasional parking needs for special events.  CSD has many other approaches to offer the Congressman, if he would listen.
CSD, a group formed to provide public access to the waterfront with a walkway along the bluff, protect Nanny Goat Hill, reduce the amount of surface parking, and provide an attractive landscaped entrance with buildings that fit into the historic context of the Village of Saugerties was disappointed to learn that Congressman Maurice Hinchey, an owner of the Partition Street Project, seeks to divert public attention away from the real issues.  Hinchey says and we all — including CSD members — agree that the project will be good for Saugerties.  The issue is whether the Congressman will honor the community vision and the law.
When Congressman Hinchey discussed the planning of the Hudson Landing project in Kingston, he raised his concerns about the environment to make sure that the process was properly followed.  But in the case of the Partition Street Project the Congressman is promoting a double standard: one for his project and another for all other projects.  If the Congressman would just substitute “Saugerties” for “Kingston” in the attached press release and letter, the project could be improved and be better for Saugerties.
Why does the Congressman apply a double standard when it comes to the Partition Street Project?  Why is the process conducted without a full environmental review that is usually required in a project of this size and complexity?  Why are the Congressman’s constituents concerns being dismissed?
The Congressman attempts to de-legitimize the concerns of CSD because we are a “small group.”  This is irrelevant.  As the Congressman well knows the history of the environmental movement in this country is full of examples of the efforts of small groups of environmentally aware citizens making a huge difference. Our willingness to stand up for the environment and be heard, as others have done often against tremendous odds, is the kind of grassroots guts upon which the movement was built. How does the Congressman think groups like Scenic Hudson and Clearwater were born?

Attached is a letter from CSD’s attorney, Grant & Lyons, LLP that spells out CSD’s concerns including the closed nature of the environmental review, the double standard embraced by Congressman Hinchey, the original vision for this property as supported by Hinchey and Mayor Yerick, and the need for a positive declaration to be issued by the Village of Saugerties Planning Board in the State Environmental Review Act process.

cantine mill walkwayFLAT 400x266 Citizens for Smart Development Calls Upon Hinchey To Help

Barry Benepe's Drawing for Cantine Mill Walkway

Posted in Letters to the Editor | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Town and Village of Saugerties Comprehensive Plan

By admin | Published: January 19, 2010

To the Editor:
In 1999 the Town and Village of Saugerties, in a unique collaboration, had the foresight to adopt a Comprehensive Plan.  This Town and Village of Saugerties Comprehensive Plan “provides a legal basis for the specific land use regulations and other local government functions which govern the structure of the community in the future.”

Throughout this document great attention is given to providing for the preservation of the small town character of Saugerties.  Provisions repeatedly call for attention to scale and design compatibility as well as historic preservation.

This Comprehensive Plan is meant to give the public and private sectors a CLEAR statement of what the community will expect in development proposals.  The Village Planning Board might find it useful to reacquaint themselves with a number of points in this forward thinking plan.

Some points in particular that call for consideration in reviewing proposed plans for the Partition Street Project:

Section 8.9 in particular states: “make additional efforts to support the development of businesses appropriate in size and scale in the lower Partition Street area of the village.  This area is important because it links the Village business district to the riverfront.”

Section 10.10 “require new commercial and industrial development, wherever feasible, to shield parking lots to the rear or side of the structure.”

#11 The Hudson River and its tributaries are a valuable asset to Saugerties and have always played a significant role in its history.

Section 11.8 “explore transportation alternatives between the riverfront and the Village business center for both residents and visitors.”

This plan was established with public input.  It represents what is important to the community of Saugerties. What is the point of establishing a Comprehensive Plan if such plans can be summarily ignored by those appointed to enforce it?  We urge the Village Planning Board, as well as Mr. Struzzieri, Congressman Hinchey, and Mr. Mullen to consult the Comprehensive Plan in its decision-making regarding the Partition Street Project.

Virginia Luppino
John Bassler

Cc: Saugerties Village Board
Rep. Maurice Hinchey

Posted in Letters to the Editor | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

By admin | Published: January 19, 2010

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
December 22, 2009
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Dear Editor:
I am trying to understand the role of the public in the development process, as I have been following the Partition Street Project.  Everyone says don’t worry everything will be fine and we should rely on the reputation of the developers.  I am diligently positive about the project, as I think it will be good for Saugerties, but I do want the applicants to follow the law.
The New York State law requires a review and in the case of a project of this size and complexity, it requires a full review of all environmental impacts.  I know that the developers have hired professional consultants to help them in the review process, but they are trying to avoid the full review which would allow the public to participate in the consideration of alternatives.  Now what we are told is that this sketch plan is the only plan and there can be no changes.
We have tried to meet with the developer.  We have tried to meet with our Congressman who in this case is also an investor in the project.  We have tried to get on the agenda of the Village Planning Board, but have been told we cannot be on their agenda unless we have an application for a project.  It appears to me that this is a shut out.  We can attend Village Planning Board meetings, but we cannot speak.  We can attend, but we cannot get on the agenda.  Yes, they held one Public Hearing, but that is inadequate for what we want to accomplish.  We want to sit with the applicants to share our ideas that we believe will make a better project.
This process of public participation has worked in many other towns and villages in our area.  We call on the Village Planning Board to not be intimidated or to buy into the ruse that the developer will walk away if they require him to follow the law and go through a full environmental review.  He will not walk away and we will all benefit from a better project.
What it takes is for the Village Planning Board to recognize their role which is not to immediately acquiesce to the developer’s wishes, but to work to shape the future of the Village in the public interest.
Yours truly,

Saugerties Citizens for Smart Development
Judith Spektor
311 Van Vlierden Road, Saugerties
judithspektor@aol.com

Posted in Letters to the Editor | Leave a comment

Dear Congressman Maurice Hinchey

By admin | Published: January 19, 2010

Dear Congressman Maurice Hinchey,

The Partition Street Project will have a significant impact on the long-term economic future of Saugerties. The importance and magnitude of the project underscores the need to pursue a planning process that is thorough and conscientious. At the very least, the development plans should comply with the Saugerties Comprehensive Plan and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP).

The Saugerties Comprehensive Plans calls for “the development of businesses appropriate in size and scale in the lower Partition Street area of the Village.” The plan to dynamite part of Nanny Goat Hill is an indication that the current version of the Partition Street Project is NOT the appropriate size and scale for that area. Obviously, this plan requires some modifications.

The Cantine Mill property falls within the Esopus Creek Subunit of the Ulster North SASS (Scenic Area of Statewide Significance). According to the SASS, the project must be assessed to determine whether it is likely to “impair the scenic beauty of the scenic resource.” Impairment includes “the irreversible modification of geologic forms” which are “significant to the scenic quality of an identified resource.” Nanny Goat Hill is a geological form significant to the scenic quality of Saugerties. Blasting away portions of Nanny Goat Hill would be a blatant impairment of the scenic beauty of the area.

Furthermore, impairment includes “the addition of structures which because of siting or scale will reduce identified views.” The architectural and landscaping plans for the Partition Street Project should include public access to mitigate impairment of the view. The original project design from Ashokan Architects of Kingston, which were used to garner $780,000 in EDC grants, included public access along the bluffls. However, the original design was scrapped for the latest plans which restricts public access, obscures view, and includes sprawling parking lots threatening Nanny Goat Hill.

Albeit a private development on private property, public money was involved in the inception of this project. The public is a stakeholder in this project. The public will, as defined by the Saugerties Comprehesive Plan and LWRP, deserves full consideration, and the project should be modified to comply.

Signed,

Patrick Landewe Saugerties, NY

Posted in Letters to the Editor | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Challenge for Smart Growth on Esopus Creek 12 April 2010

By admin | Published: April 12, 2010

When the Village of Saugerties Planning Board meets in April and May to review, amend and approve (or disapprove) a plan for the proposed 500 seat restaurant (including the 400 seat banquet hall) and hotel proposed for the former historic Cantine Mill Site overlooking Esopus Creek, it will embrace an opportunity to leave a lasting contribution to the exceptional beauty and history of this community. The Planning Board has the unique responsibility, not only to enforce the provisions of the zoning law, but to carry out the visions contained in the Comprehensive Plan, the Lower Waterfront Revitalization Plan and the New York State Open Space Plan. Only the Planning Board has this special legal power under Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit with conditions to move the village forward, utilizing its own experience and vision to carry out its objectives to secure the best possible project.
The Planning Board should adopt the previously presented alternative plans which limit the parking on Nanny Goat Hill to a single lower level which will significantly reduce the cost of the project and the environmental damage to this exceptional geologic landmark. These alternative plans also provide a cliff top walkway and set the buildings back higher on the land to make a far more attractive and less costly development overlooking the valley with its scenic views. It would be a win-win solution for both the developers and the community. I hope the Planning Board will seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to leave a lasting imprint on our beloved village.
Barry Benepe 311 Clark Van Vlierden Road Saugerties, NY 845-246-6491
Posted in Letters to the Editor | Tagged , , | Leave a comment