To the Editor:
I attended the April 5 meeting of the Voorheesville Planning Commission to hear the continuation of the presentation by Business for Good for its restaurant and café to be located on South Main Street.

The plan calls for creating a parking lot with 26 spaces by demolishing 40 South Main Street, a century-old structure with moderate-income apartments that is an attractive feature of the old village. The parking lot would serve the proposed restaurant.

Prior to the meeting, I suggested in an email to the commission that, using data from the Voorheesville Main Street Plan, it was possible to identify almost 100 potential parking spaces of businesses within a two-minute walk from the restaurant with many less than a one-minute walk.

Under a shared-parking arrangement, the restaurant would pay for the use of these spaces when the businesses were closed in the evening. Signage would direct the restaurant’s patrons to the parking locations. This plan would avoid the need to create a parking lot at 40 South Main Street.

People can reasonably debate the desirability of saving 40 South Main Street or the workability of a shared parking arrangement.

However, what cannot be denied is the huge discrepancy between the 83 parking spaces required under the Voorheesville Zoning Law and the applicant’s proposal for 37 parking spaces, 26 at for the restaurant and 11 for the café.

I suggested that a parking consultant be engaged to look at the entire set of parking issues and potential solutions, pointing out that this action is required under the zoning law, given the facts presented.

Page 71 of the Voorheesville Zoning Law addresses parking and states:

“A written report submitted by an applicant, defining and documenting the feasibility of an increase or decrease in spaces, shall be prepared by a qualified parking consultant approved by the Planning Commission. Shared parking and on-street parking shall be encouraged or may be required by the Planning Commission if feasible alternatives exist.

“The final number and layout of parking spaces shall be determined by the Planning Commission based on the need to protect public safety and convenience while minimizing harm to the character of the community and to scenic historic, and environmental resources.”

At the meeting, some expressed the view that the proposed project is key to “revitalizing Main Street.” It would be helpful if those offering such views were more precise in describing what that would look like.

Right now, I know of only one commercial space on Main Street that is vacant, the former Phillips Hardware. I don’t know how “vital” Main Street was in the old days.

In 45 years of living in the village, I have seen a library, post office, grocery store, and ice cream store disappear, with the first becoming an office space/performance venue and the last three becoming rental properties.

Main Street could certainly use aesthetic improvements and these are well-described in the Voorheesville Main Street Plan. But how much of an increase of pedestrian and vehicular traffic is contemplated by those who seek Main Street’s revitalization? Where is the acknowledgement that Main Street is part of a small village and that development needs to fit within that reality?

Finally, those embracing revitalization scenarios should remember that the west side of Main Street consists almost entirely of single-family homes and apartments. In addition, there are numerous apartments on the east side. The quality of life of those residents also needs to be considered under any development plan.

Steven Schreiber

Voorheesville

Editor’s note: See related story.