To the Editor:

I find it puzzling that, while absolutely all residents want Stewart’s to stay and improve their property, some have been convinced that absorbing the adjacent residential property is the only way to do this.  In fact, it should be the last choice of a number of valid, if not better, options.

But first I must point out that the proposed expansion plan not only permanently removes one house from the village but also removes significant value from the house next door (whose owners did not sign up for this).  Is anybody planning on compensating them $100,000 if Stewart’s expands its lot?

Let's review: Stewarts first came to the planning board with a proposal to extend just the back of the store, with no other improvements at all. The planning board said it really wanted the store itself to be redone to better reflect the character of the village, had an engineering study done on the first proposal, and asked Stewart’s to rework the plans using the existing site and come back with a new plan for the building.

As I understand it from many parties, it was the planning board that then brought up the idea of expansion as an easy solution to many of the site's issues.

Stewart’s came back with a second set of plans using the existing site, on which at first the planning board voted to schedule a public hearing.  But then, in the same meeting, Stewart’s offered as another option the expanded site plans with a new building.

The planning board then cancelled the motion for a public hearing on the plans for the existing site and went forward with the expanded site plans only.  Is this why the board of trustees seemed confused at the last board meeting and sent the plans back to the planning board?

If the planning board members were truly considering the overall health of the entire village (which I have been told they believe they are not chartered to and do only site plans as submitted), they would never have suggested sacrificing a house for more pumps or a bit of an easier parking situation.

While this may be a golden opportunity to have Stewart’s rebuild its store, there is no critical reason for expanding its lot.  Let's look at the new plans to see why.

The expanded plan calls for a building no larger (in fact, a bit smaller) than the existing building.  OK, so obviously inside space is not the issue!

It also adds four more parking spaces.  However, that number could be added today by doing what Stewart’s proposes on the side by the stream to get those spaces.  Doing that does not require the house next door and could be done as soon as possible (while removing the spaces angled the wrong way today, putting in a curb to enforce this change).

Also, while the actual maneuvering in the lot is a bit problematic when crowded, it is no more  than many other places.  Nobody has been killed and there has not even been a rash of accidents on the site.  This is a problem that simply does not have to be solved.

And now these expanded plans call for additional gas pumps. Do we really want more pumps?  There are already eight in the village and they are rarely all being used.

Sacrificing a house to increase the gas-pump count is an urban planning sin, especially when, in the end, we might end up having only six if Sunoco goes out of business.  No matter what is done, the village gas-pump count should not grow on that site (including kerosene).

Finally, one other reason for an expanded lot is that Stewart’s can stay open while it rebuilds; however, this is surely not our concern when considering a zoning change.  If this truly is a big deal, Stewart’s could set up a temporary store at the old Penguin site across from the State Employees Federal Credit Union.

So now it is our turn to say to the planning board: Allow plans to be presented at the Sept. 1 hearing that do not grow the Stewart’s lot at all.  This is not being against change, this is saying that the "improvements" proposed by this larger lot are not that at all; they are merely so Stewart’s can stay open during construction, add more pumps, and have an easier store to manage.  The other "improvements" are simply not important enough and some can be done today.

As I said months ago, Stewart’s gets more while we get less.  There is no way anybody can justify this zoning change and suggest we knock down a two-family house (which serves as a critical buffer to other homes) when there are equally good options for Stewart’s to work with.  We live in the "prettiest village" in the area; let's keep it that way.  Scale is important.

As residents, you could also come to the planning board meeting on Monday, Aug. 24, at 7 p.m. where the board will discuss the zoning change before the larger public hearing on Sept. 1.

If nothing is said, the public will be presented with only the plans that assume a zoning change, loss of a home, reduction in property values, and growth of a commercial district where fully one-quarter is already abandoned.

We want the planning board to reverse its suggestion that a zoning change should be made so Stewart’s can present a plan we can all live with and get on with it.

Robert M. Rabbin

Altamont

Editor’s note: The proposed Stewart’s shop is actually larger than the current one. See related story.