To the Editor:

Watching Monday night’s Altamont Planning Board meeting was yet another exercise in frustration over the inappropriateness of the Stewart’s project. At the previous meeting, Chuck Marshall brought up a photo of a “Victorian” treatment of the Altamont store as actually constructed in Latham.

Looking at the drawings and then comparing them to the photo of the actual store elicited 14 seconds of understandable stunned silence and a “No, no” from a couple of the planning board members.

Yet at last night’s meeting there was no mention about this. No attempt to address this terrible and inappropriate-for-Altamont building. When the board members saw it at the last meeting, the extremely negative response was involuntary.

At the virtual board meeting on Zoom, the viewers’ computer cameras show each person in attendance.  As the extended discussion on the lighting was concluding and it looked like the issue of the design was not going to be addressed, I held up a sign that read, “The board literally was stunned in silence upon seeing the actual building. Why is the board not asking for a redesign?”

As you might expect, the board did not address the issue and my visual was blackened out. If it were a live in-person meeting, and residents had signs, they would not be thrown out of the meeting.

The residents deserve a literal response to that question. It was not asked rhetorically but with the expectation that, if they think that design is appropriate, they should be able to articulate why, when their initial visceral reaction was stunned silence.

The issue of those industrial park bollards is another study in frustration. The issue came up and Chuck said that the nicer ones were special order and, when they get damaged, they’d have to special order again.

The correct response is: Change the design, raise the sidewalk so cars don’t run into the building, like the store in Delmar, or don’t do the project if you’re incapable of finding an appropriate solution.

In essence, what the planning board is saying is: Well, OK, if it’s too expensive (and that’s relative for a billion-dollar-plus company) for Stewart’s, we’ll let you put in industrial park bollards in our Victorian village.

At about 5:30 p.m. on Monday, someone sent me what a Stewart’s could look like from a Vermont village where apparently the various boards insist on appropriate design, architectural integrity, and stand up to large corporations.

We weren’t able to get it to the board members in time for consideration last night, but it does raise the question for the next meeting: Why can’t Altamont have something more appropriate? It’s obvious that other villages can.

We’ve offered excellent suggestions such as reproducing the Wayside Inn. Why not? The planning board should do better for Altamont.

Now that the village attorney is going to draft up the board’s conclusion document, in the name of transparency and respect for the residents, that document should be made available in time for residents to examine it and a public hearing held for a final discussion of the different points of view.

Remember, this will essentially alter Altamont forever.  

Harvey Vlahos

Altamont