To the Editor:
I am happy to see that the former home to Smith’s Tavern may once again be a restaurant, hopefully in the tradition of Smitty’s, as eloquently described in Dennis Sullivan’s recent column [“Smitty’s Tavern: A life-giving organ of Voorheesville’s collective self sold,” The Altamont Enterprise, Feb. 24, 2022].

I also look forward to the projects Business for Good has proposed. Hopefully, they will contribute to the revitalization of Voorheesville’s Main Street and our once vibrant and bustling “Railroad Town.”

As we move forward, the time has come to put to rest the assertions made by representatives of Stewart’s since 2016, which they have reiterated at every opportunity. They claim the village unfairly denied Stewart’s application, drafted the new zoning code to prevent them from building a new shop, and that the Voorheesville Planning Commission’s actions were inappropriate and intended to stymie their plans.

The history of Stewart’s application, the sale of Smith’s Tavern, the development and adoption of a new zoning code and the village’s comprehensive plan, as well as Stewart’s failed attempt to sue the village are all well documented in the pages of The Enterprise.

A review of this history reveals that Stewart’s lack of success in this matter was a result of their own arrogance and actions, including their decision to not proceed with their application after the planning commission issued a positive SEQR [State Environmental Quality Review] determination. They left the field!

In June 2016, after many years at the corner of Voorheesville Avenue and Main Street, Stewart’s came before the Village Planning Commission and presented a proposal for a new shop to be located at 112 Maple Ave. Coincidentally, the owners of Smith’s Tavern were ready to retire and wanted to sell 112 Maple Ave.

In May 2016, Stewart’s entered into a contract with the owners of Smitty’s with an option to buy the property (The Altamont Enterprise, Sept. 8, 2016). It is unfortunate that the sale and closing of Smith’s Tavern got conflated with the efforts of Stewart’s to expand and move to that location.

Over the course of the next 12 months, there were a number of planning commission meetings and a public hearing regarding Stewart’s application. During its review of the application, the members of the commission became increasingly concerned with the prospect of increased traffic, pedestrian safety, noise, pollution of the Vly Creek, and the potential for increased flooding along the Creek.

Per the planning process, the Commission had to make a State Environmental Quality Review determination on the application. Based on its concerns and those of the community, the commission issued a positive SEQR declaration at its June 13, 2017 meeting and asked Stewart’s to provide an environmental impact statement (The Altamont Enterprise, June 15, 2017).

Stewart’s, knowing that the planning commission would be making its SEQR determination at that meeting, went ahead anyway on May 5, 2017 and committed to the purchase of 112 Maple Ave. Asked by The Enterprise why Stewart’s exercised its option now, Chuck Marshall, who works in real estate development for Stewart’s, said, “It was a contractual obligation; it was the time frame.”

Asked what would happen if Stewart’s did not get the required permit, Marshall said, “We’ve never encountered that, so we don’t have a plan.” (The Altamont Enterprise, May 11, 2017)

So, in 2017, instead of working with the village to address its valid concerns, it appears Stewart’s plan was to sue the planning commission and ramp up its campaign of blaming the village for standing in their way — all well before the adoption of the comprehensive plan in June 2018 and the new zoning code in May of 2019.

Stewart’s decided not to sue the planning commission and officially withdrew its application for a new shop in January 2019. Stewart’s then threatened to sue the village in May 2019 and commenced an Article 78 proceeding against the village in September 2019 (The Altamont Enterprise, Sept. 30, 2019).

A judge ruled against Stewart’s on Nov. 30, 2020, “stating that the village’s zoning code was “reasonably related to legitimate government interests,” and that Stewart’s had, in its court filings, “failed to establish that the zoning code is arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional or unlawful. The company also failed “to identify a single procedural error” made by Voorheesville that would place it in violation of the state’s Village Law, the judge wrote.” (The Altamont Enterprise, Dec. 24, 2020)

Stewart’s asked that the ruling be overturned, but did not follow through with their appeal. (The Altamont Enterprise, July 16, 2021)

Stewart’s knew from the start that the village was talking about doing a comprehensive plan and updating its zoning code. And, according to the village attorney, Rich Reilly, “Stewart’s is aware an owner doesn’t have a vested right to use a property until it is engaged in that use … If the board decides to change zoning, it has the right to do it; Stewart’s proceeds at its own risk.” (The Altamont Enterprise, Sept. 8, 2016)

“Stewart’s has been fully aware of the process,” said Reilly of the comprehensive plan committee and its work. “They’ve had representatives at some of the forums.” (The Altamont Enterprise, Aug. 3, 2017) And finally, “… the “undisputed facts in the record show” the lawful process of updating the zoning code had started long before Stewart’s decided to buy 112 Maple Ave., which it did “with eyes wide shut,” Voorheesville’s January filing states.” (The Altamont Enterprise, Feb. 10, 2020)

Throughout the process, Stewart’s made comments and allegations that were simply not true in an apparent attempt to demean, derail, and discredit the legitimate work of the planning commission and the village board.

Stewart’s just assumed that, as Chuck Marshall was alleged to have said: “You can’t stop us!”

It turns out they were wrong.

Georgia H. Gray

Former chair

Voorheesville

Planning Commission

Editor’s note: Georgia H. Gray is married to Enterprise columnist and village historian Dennis Sullivan, whose column she references at the start of her letter.