To the Editor:

The Monday, June 8, Altamont Planning Board meeting is right around the corner. We hope that, in keeping with the village’s commitment to ensure that the Stewart’s plans add aesthetically to the village character, the board does not approve the current plans proposed by Stewart’s without major revisions.

Deciding the appearance of the new Stewart’s is a momentous decision. It will determine the visual look and feel of that corner of our business district for years and years to come.

Almost 50 years ago, Key Bank tore down a stately home and a beautiful brick bank building, indelibly altering the look and feel of that corner of Park and Main streets. Decisions like these should not be taken lightly and, most importantly, they should not be made under pressure from the developers.

Historic Altamont Inc., implores the planning board members to seek expert input on this matter. Oftentimes, architectural firms are consulted in municipal planning. Architectural historians can provide, and have already offered advice, on how to make the building reflect the predominant styles of the community.

The village has already agreed to so many of Stewart’s dramatic requirements, from rezoning a residential parcel to significant variances, that it’s not at all unreasonable for them to now help make the expansion palatable to the concerns of so many: a building that reflects our history, our uniqueness, and the charm of what defines Altamont.

One way to do this is by designing the façade of the store after the Inn of George Severson, or “The Wayside Inn,” that since 1785 stood on this site on the Old Schoharie Road, now Helderberg Avenue (see attached sketch).

Another way would be to seek guidance from the architects, artists, and historians who have already spoken out in public letters to the village and to this paper. We must not let a chain store decide what our village will look like for the next 50 years on that corner. We deserve better than that, especially after all the concessions that have already been made.

We realize that guiding Stewart’s to find a solution that is architecturally appropriate is an onerous task for the community members who serve on the planning board, so just as the board solicits input and advice from an engineering firm, so should it seek assistance architecturally before deciding on a design that simply does not respond to its historic setting.

Therefore, we feel it is imperative that at the June 8 meeting, the planning board not vote to approve the current proposed plans, and instead ask Stewart’s to return with a redesigned facade that better incorporates the village’s architectural heritage for consideration at the July meeting.

Please, planning board, you have the power and ability to make Stewart’s design an historically appropriate building that will reunite the community. We depend on you.

Tom Capuano

Historic Altamont Inc.