It’s time for the silent majority to speak up about Stewart’s

To the Editor:

I'm writing to clarify some impressions that may have been left by last week's Enterprise report on the Altamont Village Board meeting.  I'd also like to respond to statements made by Jim Greene in his letter to the editor.  Both of these pieces concerned the proposed expansion of the Altamont Stewart's store. 

The paper reported that "the tide of public opinion turned toward support...." While it is true that letters were read and people spoke in support of the Stewart's expansion at the meeting, and few letters and speakers appeared against it, the public should know that Mayor James Gaughan had asked the audience to only come forward if they had something new to add.

Many people in opposition to the zoning change were in the audience, and many letters and speakers against change had been read and appeared at previous meetings. From what I hear, I believe the tide of public opinion has not changed, and remains opposed to the expansion plan.

The title of the Enterprise article was, "Public speaks up for bigger, better Stewart's." While it is also true, people should know that, per a discussion I had with Mayor Gaughan, the actual proposed building is no bigger than the present one.

And yes, the building aesthetics would be much better; however, what will be bigger is the parking lot, the number of gas pumps, the canopy over the pumps and the amount of lighting. Drive down Helderberg Avenue and imagine what this will look like. Do you feel the scope of the expanded commercial space will really be in keeping with the village character and surrounding neighborhood?

Also mentioned in the article was, "A public hearing on the Stewart's application was set for Sept. 1 at 7 p.m. when the results of the environmental review will be discussed.” True, but people should be aware that the specific purpose of the public hearing is for the board to receive input from residents about whether they should change the zoning law and extend the commercial zone into the Helderberg Avenue neighborhood.

And, yes, there will also be an agenda item to review the environmental study of the proposed expansion, which must occur before a change in the zoning law.  This study could also raise issues that would impact Stewart's proposed plan.

With regard to Jim Greene's letter, I'd like to clarify a couple of statements he made:

— Letting Stewart's expand is a golden opportunity to improve village aesthetics.  Aesthetics are not reserved for a structure only. What is not an improvement is increased asphalt, increased traffic and accompanying noise, increased parking lot, increased commercial lighting, removal of a stand of beautiful old trees that shield the current store from the adjacent neighborhood, removal of a century-old home (whether you like it or not), reduction of the number of rental units by two and reduced property values for neighboring homes.

What expansion of the business district does is encroach on an historic district that was protected by a board-ordered and approved comprehensive plan with requisite zoning laws, which was designed to protect the future of the village character, its historic neighborhoods, and a well-defined central business district to prevent development actions exactly like the one proposed; and

— "...No change at all...that is not an option." I'm not sure what Jim means by this.  Perhaps he is referring to Stewart's initial application, which simply asked to modify the building for increased non-public space.

I understand that Stewart’s initial plan did not adequately address traffic/aesthetic issues, so yes, change in that plan was necessary. However, somewhere along the way, expanding the business district to address Stewart's needs became an option.

But the public very clearly needs to know that no change in the zoning law to allow Stewart's expansion is very much an option.  Otherwise, why would the board ask for a public hearing? Many who read last week's paper surmised from Jim's statement that the Stewart's expansion and zoning change were a done deal. That, however, is simply not the case;

I asked the mayor where he stood on this issue and he said he wanted to wait and hear what people said at the public hearing before making his decision, and I take him at his word. He said it is time for the “silent majority” to speak up.

He told me that the members of the board are very much influenced by public input.  I know both the mayor and Dean Whalen very much understand and appreciate the  importance of  preserving the historic character of the village. I believe this was paramount in their election those many years ago.

So, please, if you do not want to see the many changes in the character of the area that will occur with the expansion, and therefore, don't want the zoning change approved at the next village board meeting on Sept. 1 at 7 p.m., do one of two things (or perhaps both):

— 1. Write a letter to the board stating your position or

— 2. Attend the meeting and speak.

You see, for many of us, it's not just about a structure. It's about retaining the feel of the village — its small-town character, its size and scope, its uniqueness. It's not about whittling away, a little at a time, at the historic neighborhoods for immediate and precedent-setting commercial accommodation.

We have done this in the past and have regretted it, and we will over time eventually lose the very essence of what makes Altamont, Altamont.

Kristin Casey

Altamont

More Letters to the Editor

The Altamont Enterprise is focused on hyper-local, high-quality journalism. We produce free election guides, curate readers' opinion pieces, and engage with important local issues. Subscriptions open full access to our work and make it possible.