To the Editor:

Altamont has the most consistent collection of historic homes and business properties in the Greater Capital District. The quality of life, with our excellent schools and caring community, is what many are looking for today as they were in many generations past.

However, when commerce has invaded a village, it has often been with little interest in preservation of the heritage and history of the village, or our way of life.

The current debate to tear down a residence outside of the commercial designation of the village is a precedent that rings the alarm bell, as it very well could be a forerunner of unfortunate decisions to come, if we refuse to act wisely.

The whole Stewarts’ plan has had a strange past, as the village turned down a similar request to rezone three years ago when all Stewart’s wanted was, as I understood it, a larger store on the same property.

Without any village communication, Stewarts thereafter bought the house on 107-109 Helderberg Ave., right behind its existing location. Did Stewart’s think the village would now approve a massive parking lot, crossing out the residential protection of the Altamont comprehensive plan? 

That is now a reality, with the loss of two board seats by 13 and 8 votes respectively, which could have made a difference in the decisions made to protect and preserve.

The March election vote was close, recognizing a combination of public service and differences of opinion on Stewart’s expansion plan.

Much has been discussed regarding the plan. Many feared the complete loss of a popular convenience gas station and pantry store.

The requested enlargement of service seemed a good idea. 

They may have not known the plan violates the comprehensive plan for Altamont that protects residential property and the historic nature of the village.

So here we are with substantial pushback on the plan due to concerns presently and in the future, as the precedent would mean that the plan would and could be violated.

Following last year’s zoning change, and then the resulting opinions that have been expressed has been a head spin.

Why don’t we just catch-up on where are now as I understand it?

Stewart’s plan has been altered to a smaller store of 30-percent versus 40-percent enlargement ...

We must remember, however, that Stewart’s is moving into numerous small towns and villages, to compete with other convenience-type businesses, but we must also remember that it is up to each town to limit this growth when the essential character of the town is at stake. That should be our goal, as it has been throughout the history of our village.

We now have access to two very large stores, Stewart’s and Cumberland Farms when we turn off Route 20 to head to Altamont. These comprehensive convenience stores both have an imposing presence there, but does it follow that we need that kind of imposing structure in our midst? 

As a $1.5 billion business, Stewart’s is now pushing into numerous small towns as witnessed by the lawsuit against Voorheesville as well as other locations. Stewart’s has “pushed back” and so should we, against any action we do not need or want by any corporate “bully” as described in a recent Enterprise letter.

Recently, Stewart’s has disclosed in a town meeting that it will not leave Altamont, regardless of the outcome of a zoning change to allow residential encroachment.

It has been determined that many resistant residents are willing to accept a store size enlargement on the current lot. This recognizes the poor utilization of the present property. An initial enlarged replacement on the current lot is feasible, with greater ease of access and no loss of parking, especially since a recent request change is the repositioning of the current pumps.

What are the liabilities not mentioned? If the Helderberg Avenue house is destroyed, it breaks the comprehensive plan that gives future developers leverage to request additional intrusion into residential housing.

Removal of important green space, and mature trees would significantly increase high carbon-dioxide contamination, adding incremental air pollution against current green concerns for safety that such a larger gas station would inevitably bring.

Adding noise and congestion, and nightly light pollution at an already difficult-to-manage intersection, will do nothing to ease the traffic flow at the five corners.

Will there be new services that have a negative impact on local small businesses?

The consensus by National Village Preservation Association and leading architectural educational institutions is that the most vulnerable areas of villages need to be preserved as they set the tone for the village. Deepening invasiveness of poorly planned or irresponsible commercial ventures at the main intersections of any town can have a longstanding negative impact on the future town.

Stewart’s has not mentioned that a top priority is to demolish the house in order to not close their current store during renovation. Are we to believe we need, additionally, to support and patronize Stewart’s, keeping the store open during renovations, so that Stewart’s can build the larger store it would like?

In the end, if not changed, you will see a massive parking lot in front of the store. We all need to understand this proposed reality, and then decide if we see this change as a positive for Altamont.

Why so much unneeded space? Are we to expect the move to add four more or up to eight more pumps and a larger canopy? Even a five-way stop light?

Or, can we look forward and work a win-win solution for all parties involved?

Stewart’s gets a new presence, maybe even more inclusive of Altamont architecture, an improved access, with better parking and the village maintains the ability to protect our comprehensive plan, as we together fight to remain an example of the kind of village that progresses with care and caution. 

You need to express your opinion to the board and discuss with your concerns with friends and neighbors.

Let’s work and plan together to keep Altamont a place we are all proud to call our home!

Tom Sands

Altamont