To the Editor:

I am writing to comment on the Nov. 15 Enterprise article regarding Stewart’s Shops’ recent request to expand its Altamont store. In my view, many factors must again be considered in the Stewart’s request.

For one, the village’s 2008 comprehensive plan, which many community members tout as the most important guiding document, needs to be consulted. I believe the board needs to take into consideration whether the zoning request change is consistent or inconsistent with the Village Comprehensive Plan.

It also needs to remind itself that the plan serves as a guiding template so balanced judgments can be made, and should not be considered as a document from which one can cherry pick to give sole priority to one factor over another. Stewart’s plan needs to take into account preserving our history, as some community members will argue, but the comprehensive plan also encourages the promotion of the business environment, a view which is held with equal fervor by other community members.

Stewart’s prior application for a zoning change proved difficult to conclude the best ways to act. This difficulty has not substantially changed.

On the one hand, neighbors adjacent to the proposed project fear the encroachment on their neighborhood and feel its size will overwhelm the site. On the other, there are those who feel it is important to upgrade an aging facility for its employees and for the customers who patronize this store they believe serves the community and, by example, influences positively the conduct of business by other owners in the community.

Bottom line, the board needs to balance into the decision equation the importance of supporting a long-time business that has meant a lot to our community — a goal which is front and center in our comprehensive plan — as well.

The plans submitted last time by Stewart’s to refurbish the building on its current site ran into issues of safety and design that couldn’t be adequately addressed in concept hearings with our planning board. I understand that Stewart’s no longer plans to expand the number of gas pumps, nor place any dispensers near the creek bed, a welcome change — both examples that were not resolved last time.

The plan now includes additional architectural elements that would make the building more compatible with the architecture of the village. I would encourage the village board also to ask Stewart’s to look at the drainage on the adjacent street, with a view toward improvements that should be made.

Although the village board is not there to fine-tune plans, Stewart’s should be specific and clear to the village board about what it intends to do regarding the building, its placement, and other factors that are on the community’s mind. The details can be worked out later by the planning and zoning boards, but the village board needs to know with some specificity what is intended to help it make a decision regarding Stewart’s request.

The previous time Stewart’s came before the board, I hoped the outcome would be site appropriate, a building would be modernized, and the building would reflect the unusual character of our historic community. I hoped that the business choices would be appropriate but be measured and not overwhelming.

I did not like the formulaic proposals that depicted the building’s design and colors looking like most others throughout the region, paying little attention to those architectural features that would make it more aesthetically amenable to our community. I was concerned that Stewart’s was not willing to compromise on certain design features that were deemed essential to the Stewart’s predetermined model as it has in other communities.

Stewart’s attempts to build a new building in Voorheesville resulted in their board banning such formulaic buildings. If Stewart’s steps up to the plate to design the building as unique to Altamont and describes it at the village board level addressing these issues, I believe its request would fare much better this time around and not be met with the kind of resistance evident in Voorheesville. The planning and zoning boards then should be trusted to implement the specific design in a responsible way.

In the end, I felt the best chance for an updated and site-appropriate building to occur was on an expanded space, and for that reason I voted to accept the rezoning request two years ago. I hoped that a refurbished building could happen if the project were allowed to go forward and sent to our planning and zoning boards for their guidance.

This is where the project design elements rightfully belong in the end. The appointed members of these boards have the expertise, talent, and understanding that can make this happen and can work with the owner to guide the plan that will impact the neighborhood and village positively.

The village board, however, has to be convinced that basic issues are addressed first and a level of trust is established before it can approve the zoning change request.

I believe the village board has worked to enhance business opportunity in the village, and seeks to encourage our current businesses to thrive. Stewart’s has proved itself a good corporate neighbor and deserves some positive attention for seeking to improve its business and update its building, not vilification as an evil corporation as I have been told by some.

My hope was and is that the village would work together with Stewart’s to strike a sensible compromise to see what can be accomplished on the current site.

My vote last time was viewed as an unpopular one, but I made it true to my belief about the best balance of all the facts. The community showed intense interest in Stewart’s request two years ago, and I expect the same to occur this time.

I hope this time everyone looks carefully at all matters related to the village comprehensively and does not jump to judgment, but takes the time to study and consider all the factors at all levels before decisions are made.

James M. Gaughan

Altamont

Editor’s note: James M. Gaughan was mayor of Altamont from 2005 to 2017.