Southern Ulster Times, Wednesday, April 25, 2018
3
Lloyd project criticized as ‘slight of hand’
Continued from page 1
questioned this point.
“Understanding what this building is
about, I assume there is a certain slight of
hand calling this converting this building
because when the new building is done
and it meets code, there won’t be a shred
of anything left of the old building,” he
said.
Jackman insisted to the board that,
“The structural members that are there
will still be there. There will be new
siding, we will be keeping the structure
in its entirety. We will not be lifting up
the roof [and] the two floors will fit in the
existing building.”
A week later, on September 22, 2016,
Jackman’s surveyor Patti Brooks told the
Planning Board that she had, “talked with
the architect to make sure that with the
adaptive reuse he was going to be able to
use the same roof structure that is there
right now and he assured me that he was
going to.”
Peter Brooks again pressed Jackman
on what part of the original structure
he was going to use. He responded, “As
you look at the building as it exits now,
the only thing that won’t be there is
the siding. The entire structure is being
salvaged... All of the structural members
that are there are going to stay there; 100%
of the building is being used. The siding is
going to be gone and everything else that
is there is going to be there...When the
town passed this law [adaptive reuse] this
was exactly the type of building that they
passed this law for.”
Dave Barton backed this assertion,
saying that he participated in writing the
Adaptive Reuse law to address possible
redevelopment of distressed buildings in
town.
“The intent then was that the
properties were more important than the
buildings. If the building had to come
down, it was the property that we were
most interested in...I think what is being
proposed now is in line with the intent of
the law,” he said.
At the October 20, 2016 Planning Board
meeting, Peter Brooks was still concerned
about the number of apartment units that
were being requested.
“As currently zoned it would be
eligible for only 7 units and I think there
is a question in some of our minds on
whether this will become an adaptive
re-use or a tear down and rebuild. If it is
the latter, I do not think it qualifies for the
expansive number of units. There may
be some middle ground between what is
The High Bridge Place residential apartment project in Highland is now under construction, having removed nearly all traces of the original
structure.
allowed by zoning and what could be done
that is more than 7 but less than 20 units,”
he said.
Jackman insisted that, “The entire
structure is being reused except for the
siding,” with Brooks responding, “No
offense, but I do not believe that.” Patti
Brooks said project architect, Scott
Dutton, would come to the next meeting
to address this issue.
At that following meeting of October
27, 2016, Peter Brooks asked [architect]
Dutton, “to clearly lay out which part of
the structure is staying and what part is
being removed. One of the issues is when
it is a tear down and when is it a re-use.”
Dutton stated, “I can tell you here
that the entire super structure of the
building is proposed to be maintained,
that means all of the columns and the
roof structure.”
At the Public Hearing of July 27,
2017 for this project, Planning Board
Chairman Dave Plavchak stressed that
the role of his board, “is to make sure
the applicant meets the zoning codes
that are established by the Town Board.
What appears in the code is what the
Planning Board adheres to.” This was
again highlighted by the Planning Board
at the final Public Hearing of August
24, 2017. The Board stated that they are
an, “administrative board whose duty
is to enforce the laws, not make them.”
Town Land Use Attorney Rob Stout, of
Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, echoed
this comment, noting that, “the Planning
Board’s role is to enforce the already
established zoning laws.”
The Tremont Hall project was approved
by the Planning Board on August 24, 2017
by a vote of 6 to 1. Chairman Plavchak
was the single no vote, taking issue with
the ingress/egress for the project.
In the approval, the Planning
Board states that the Adaptive Re-use
determination was made by Building
Department Director Dave Barton at the
Planning Board’s meeting in September
2016.
The public record shows that less than
a month after receiving board approval,
the property was sold to developer Keith
Liebolt for $320,000, with the name
of the project listed as High Bridge
Place.
At a recent emergency Town Board
meeting that was called by Councilman
Joe Mazzetti, a handful of residents
reiterated the concerns they brought
to the Planning Board throughout the
approval process. They sharply criticized
the developer and the hired professionals
for repeatedly promising that they would
keep most of the building during the
process and for the Planning Board for
allowing this to go forward when what
was promised is not what is being built on
the site.
Last week the members of the Planning
Board acknowledged the problems with
the town’s Adaptive Reuse law, saying
because it is so vague they were unable to
stop the project or compel the developer
to reuse the majority of the building.
The Planning Board has compiled a draft
Adaptive Reuse law that will add more
clarity to what it now lacks; moving from
a definition of one sentence to, “The
process of rehabilitating or converting
an existing building to a new use which
either preserves and saves significant
features of the existing building that
have historic value to the town or, if
significant portions of the building are
not preserved, creates a new use which is
more in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood. In either case, the new use
must conform to paragraph B of section
100.31, Permitted Uses.” This particular
paragraph limits the number of dwelling
units to six residential units per acre in
an Adaptive Reuse building when before
there was no density stipulation. The
board is also considering removing the
provision that “no buffer required” and
will add that “buffering and aesthetics
will be considered as part of the site plan
review based on the characteristics of the
site, the neighborhood and the proposed
new use.”