To the Editor:

There has been a lot in the press and on social media these past couple of weeks about Stewart’s Shops’ decision to sue the village of Voorheesville for taking actions that would prohibit Stewart’s developing a store at the former Smitty’s Tavern property “Stewart’s sues Voorheesville to build  shop on Maple Avenue,” The Altamont Enterprise, Sept. 30, 2019] .

Unfortunately, some have framed the issues around whether or not the village wants a Stewart’s or not. While that is a quick and easy way to frame the issue, it is simply wrong.

Although there may be some opposed to having a Stewart’s Shop in Voorheesville, I don’t know of anybody who takes that position. I’ve never heard anybody on the village board of trustees, the planning commission, or the zoning commission say anything like that.

As for me, I grew up with Stewart’s in the places I lived, and shopped at Stewart’s in Voorheesville for the entire time I’ve lived here until its closing. In short, I liked having a Stewart’s Shop in the village, and I was pleased to support it as a regional business that employed some of our neighbors. I believe many other Voorheesvillians feel the same way.

The real question is not whether the village wants a Stewart’s Shop or not, but whether or not Stewart’s Shops’ specific proposal to locate a shop at the former Smitty’s Tavern property is a safe and sound proposal. After careful review of information provided by Stewart’s regarding its proposed development, the village planning commission, a group of village residents charged with reviewing development applications, identified a number of concerns that it felt may be detrimental to our community’s environment.

Therefore, the planning commission issued a “positive declaration” as part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process, which means the project was determined to have potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The planning commission was provided input from its engineering and environmental consultant, CT Male, as part of its review. The positive declaration was not a “like or dislike” decision, but one that resulted from a thorough and deliberative state-mandated process.

The Stewart’s lawsuit also challenges results of the village’s comprehensive plan and corresponding updates to our zoning law. The comprehensive plan outlines the community’s vision for the village of Voorheesville going forward.

It is intended, in accordance with the policies of New York State, to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the village. The process for developing the comprehensive plan followed state-of-the-art practice and New York State Law, and included extensive public outreach and public participation.

In fact, our planning consultant, Nan Stolzenburg, told us that the public participation we had in developing the comprehensive plan was some of the strongest she has seen in the communities she has worked with. For sure, there were diverse opinions and ideas that were brought to the table, but I’m confident the comprehensive plan is a document that reflects the community’s consensus as voiced throughout the plan’s development. 

So, this dispute isn’t about whether or not the village and its residents want a Stewart’s Shop. I believe that many would love to have a Stewart’s Shop in the village.

But it has to be done at a location and in a manner that protects the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the village. It should be done in a way that is consistent with the community’s vision as reflected in the comprehensive plan and corresponding zoning law.

So if anyone asks: “Why doesn’t Voorheesville want Stewart’s?”  what I’ll say is: “I would welcome Stewart’s in Voorheesville, as long as it is developed at a location and in a manner that complies with our zoning law and protects the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the Voorheesville.”

Richard Straut

Trustee

Village of Voorheesville