The redevelopment proposal to build an Aldi in the Village Edge South development district on Route 20, currently being reviewed by the village planning board, is still in progress, although a vote could come at the board’s next meeting on Oct. 10. The public hearing, which was continued on Sept. 12, remains open until at least the Oct. 10 meeting. There continues to be discussions of site plan review, including major items such as drainage and sewage, amount of parking, amount of green space and whether or not the Aldi can face – or have entrances – on Route 20.
After reviewing all the board minutes and documents in the case file, and talking to the major players in the case, one question keeps nagging us that we feel compelled to address: Is Aldi getting a fair shake at the planning board? Is the proposal being decided on its merits or on some subjective opinion on what is or is not “best” for the village? More specifically, have some members of the board come to the project predisposed to reject it based on their personal preservationist philosophies of how development should and should not occur in Cazenovia, therefore not giving their due diligence and objective consideration to the project? We think the answer to that is yes.
Our concern is not about whether or not Aldi gets approved or rejected, but about the appropriate workings of the planning board in assuring that all projects get a fair and objective hearing. Also, the lack of a fair hearing seems to us to offer a justification for the developers to sue the village if the project gets rejected – a possibility nobody wants.
To be fair, every member of a planning board – or any municipal board – comes to every decision they make with predisposed philosophies and ideas. But, it is their job to set those ideas aside and consider every issue with an objective and open mind, based on the merits of the case.
In the case of the Aldi proposal, we are concerned that planning board member Jennifer Gavilondo appears to have already made up her mind to reject the proposal even though the public hearing is still open and the developer continues to respond to board requests for changes and clarifications to the site plan. Jennifer’s husband, Carlos Gavilondo, also happens to be president of the Cazenovia Preservation Foundation and a leading (arguably the leading) and by far the most vocal opponent of the project. This relationship is troublesome to say the least.
Despite her response to our question that she has not made up her mind yet on whether to vote yes or no to the proposal, Jennifer Gavilondo’s words and actions suggest otherwise. It seems clear that in her mind the rejection of the proposal is a done deal.
In our nearly four years of witnessing her work on the planning board numerous times, we can say she is a smart, attentive member who asks tough and substantive questions about proposed projects, and she also has a predilection for philosophically opposing anything deemed “big box” or “strip mall” or not within the village “character.”
We fear this philosophy has overridden her objectivity in the case of Aldi.
At the Aug. 23 planning board meeting, according to the board-approved, final minutes, Gavilondo said it is “clear cut” that the Aldi proposal “doesn’t meet the laws.” She also said the proposal is “not appropriate for the site” and is “inconsistent with the vision of the community” at the time the VES guidelines were written.
This certainly sounds like she has already decided to reject the proposal. The developers have been amending their site plans to conform to the VES guidelines, including changing 23 of 25 recommendations by the board, and are continuing to do so. The public hearing is not even closed yet, which means more changes can be made.
The developers have changed the parking area numerous times by vastly reducing the number of parking spots created and adding large amounts of islands, trees, shrubs and other natural barriers, to a point even below the required minimum amount of parking for such a development. Yet parking designs continue to come up; while during the Set. 12 board meeting, according to the minutes, Gavilondo said, when discussing the residential parking aspects of the plan, which are not even up for site plan review yet, “I have a thing against parking lots.”
The planning board needs to be representative of the community it serves, which means both pro-growth and pro-preservation viewpoints should and must be considered. It is necessary to have that preservationist watchdog attitude on the board. However, both points of view need to be open minded and willing to compromise – without that, Cazenovia faces the same intransigence and gridlock on development issues that our state and federal governments are affected by every day.
Gavilondo has consistently filled the preservationist watchdog role on the village planning board since she took her seat. Cazenovia needs this perspective, but in the case of Aldi, she has clearly pre-judged the project as unacceptable and is no longer considering the merits, nor is she giving one iota of credence to the numerous concessions and changes that have been made by the Aldi developers. They have been exhaustively accommodating to the changes recommended or required to their plans, and their cooperative efforts demand the open minds and fair consideration of all members of the planning board.
We can have responsible economic growth in Cazenovia while also being mindful of preservationist philosophies. What we cannot have – and what we seem to have too often lately – is for that same preservationist attitude to condemn, block and reject every proposed project in Cazenovia while refusing to cooperate with, or even listen to, the other side of the debate.
Cazenovia deserves better than this.
