Comments at Newman Public Hearing

The time I am permitted to speak isn’t long enough to discuss all the problems with this project, all of the traffic and sprawl it will bring, the way in which it will cement Geneseo’s status as Genrietta, all of the many shortcomings of the DEIS, all of the conflicts between this proposal and the Town’s site plan and special permit regulations, or all the ways in which this proposal violates the Gateway Overlay District zoning. I will be submitting written comments on these issues.

For now, I will concentrate on the PDD law. I do not believe that a PDD law, no matter who wrote it, can be used to do what you are asking it to do. The planning of the Gateway favors light industrial and office uses, places strict limits on retail development, and expresses real concern about strip development, traffic, and sprawl.

The zoning of the Gateway reinforces this planning by limiting retail buildings to 35,000 square feet, requiring that all retail uses obtain a special permit, preventing any roads other than Volunteer Road from connecting to 20A or Lima Rd, requiring that all retail buildings be completely enclosed, and requiring that all retail buildings face Volunteer Rd.

Yet here we are with a proposal for a 170,000 square foot building with a garden center that takes access directly from 20A and that faces 20A. This violates the letter and the spirit of our planning and zoning.

I know we have a PDD law and that PDD laws provide flexibility. However, PDD laws are not magic wands or get out of jail free cards; they can’t be used to make all your problems go away. According to New York State law, PDD laws must work in furtherance of existing planning and zoning, not against it. State lawmakers were smart enough to foresee that local elected officials might be tempted to use a PDD law to get around planning and zoning rather than doing the hard work of developing a new master plan and new zoning.

This is not permissible. PDD laws may not be used to circumvent planning and zoning, to make an end run around the existing laws and policies of the community. And that is exactly what is being done here. Through the PDD law, the Town Board has sought to impose a completely new vision on the Gateway.

I have no issue with those members of the public who support this project. There are good discussions to be had about the costs and benefits of this type of development. However, elected officials and planning boards are not permitted simply to do what they want or what Newman wants or what they think the public wants. Your obligation is to the law. Your obligation is to enforce the zoning of the Gateway, enforce the requirements of the Scope, and respect the independence of the Planning Board.

Something done wrong can not be made right by making it look good or by the tax revenues its generates. Something done wrong must be done over.

Full Speed Ahead

With questions circulating about PDDG’s status in light of Corrin’s “compromise” position on Lowe’s, I would like to offer assurance that I and everyone else at PDDG headquarters remains focused on defeating Newman’s big box plans through every legal means.

We had anticipated that Corrin’s candidacy would distract him from the crucial work of defeating Newman and would raise questions about his relationship to PDDG, and we told him so. However, he was not to be dissuaded. That’s okay. It will have to be.

PDDG is a big tent. I, for one, have been surprised at who I have seen in there. We demand no oaths. The closest thing we have to a motto is quoted above. (I think it was PDDG firebrand Jim Allen who declared in a previous public meeting that we would “use every legal means” to defeat Newman.)

Fortunately, the election will soon be over and PDDG will be able to return to its core mission of preventing the reckless retail sprawl the PDD law was passed to allow. There can be no compromise on this position, and not because PDDG is doctrinaire or radical. There can be no compromise because Newman’s project presents Geneseo with a rare development trifecta: the wrong proposal done in the wrong way at the wrong time. Strike three.

While we can debate the merits of retail as an economic development strategy, there is much about this proposal that is beyond debate: the secretive ties between the town and the developer; the documents pertaining to those ties that have gone missing; the incompatibility of Newman’s proposal and the zoning of its proposed location; the interference of elected officials with the deliberations and independence of the planning board; the elimination of the master plan committee as it completed its work on a new and overdue vision for the town. Under these circumstances, compromise is capitulation.

For these reasons and more, PDDG will continue to oppose Newman’s plans. After we have succeeded and after we have elected a new town board, we can look forward to working as a community to review and renew our planning and zoning. It is at that time, in the full light of day and away from the pressure created by an outside developer, that compromise and consensus will be needed.

Until then, PDDG will stay focused on the business at hand. At the moment, we are challenging the legality of the scheduled public hearing on Newman’s proposal and preparing what are sure to be extensive written comments on the many problems with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Newman.

We appreciate your continued support and look forward to vigorously representing our shared concerns as review of Newman’s proposal continues.