To the Editor:
This is what I wrote to the members of the Altamont Zoning Board since I will be unable to attend the June 28 meeting in person.

 I am writing to express my concerns regarding the variances being requested for the development of land bordered by Western Avenue and Schoharie Plank Road West, sitting behind existing residences.

We have established zoning ordinances defined to protect the community’s various assets and people’s investments. These regulate types of businesses and their locations, set-back definitions, road and sidewalk dimensions, and various other criteria.

Much of this zoning is to protect existing properties and to maintain both the visual and infrastructure aspects. Development is to adhere to the existing zoning criteria and definitions.

Variances should not be granted on weak or self-centered objectives without a very cautious reflection on the impact to the immediate surroundings, adjoining owners, or the village’s long-term planning and existing infrastructure capacities. Once a variance is granted, it provides a basis for future requests to be approved regardless of potential negative impacts as voiced when a variance is granted.

We are now confronted with a local developer who purchased land to develop. He went into that purchase transaction knowing and having had prior experience with the current existing local zoning and restrictions. And now after purchase he is applying for a variance in order to maximize his return on investment. Sort of a cart-before-the-horse situation.

Because the existing property boundaries do not meet existing requirements to establish a street (or road) due to existing boundary (width) size, the developer is in essence attempting to circumvent those defined zoning limitations by calling a street a driveway and allowing multiple dwellings sole access on that one very narrow parcel.

Now I do not know about everyone else in the village, but I have observed that it is rare for three people to continually agree to anything, especially when it comes to money and maintaining one common resource — such as a driveway. As maintenance is impacted and declines there would be a negative impact to the properties adjoining that narrow strip of land. Damages will most likely be incurred and expenses built up.

I urge the request to allow a common driveway (I really want to call it a street) be denied. In future years, there will be expenses to others beyond those homeowners sharing that common drive, either by the adjoining property owners or the village, that may end up accepting an additional variance and allow that “driveway” be transferred as a street and the village have to maintain it.

There is an existing simple solution to all of this and the concerns voiced by others. Let the free-market forces take over.

Instead of granting the variance request so the developer maximizes profit on land he knew had predefined limitations, let him purchase one of the adjoining properties thereby allowing him to tear it down and widening the existing boundaries such that a proper street or road can be built to clearly defined standards.

Sure it will cost him more. That is not my or the village’s concern.

A second solution would be to require a formal homeowners’ association be established to maintain the shared property and infrastructure. That latter should be written to protect the village and neighbors.

I cannot fault the developer for attempting to do this buildout as inexpensively as possible. But it should not fall upon the entire village to compromise at its expense for his gain.

Sam F. Crosby

Altamont