Editor,
In 1989 the Petrucci’s met substantial resistance to the proposed car lot at 16 Elm St. from the same neighborhood and many of the same neighbors. The Village of Warwick Planning Board acknowledged the neighborhoods concerns and on Mar. 5, 1990 and used this exact wording in addressing the “public controversy” saying “there is always a need for a transition zone between residential and industrial usage and the Village Planners have established this zone with this 40-foot buffer.”
There was peace and quiet and good relations reigned for 27 years. Page 10 item 16 of the March 1990 Full Environmental Assessment states: There would be no noise or odor impacts no operating noise in excess of local ambient noise levels and no removal of natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. That worked! Additionally, the decision to locate the storage lot came with a very minor six to eight vehicular trips per hour and just one light. A three-story bar with outdoor dining jammed up into the backyards of an entire neighborhood would have been unthinkable. It still is.
Only the zoning changed quietly in 2009 but the neighborhood still deserves consideration and protection. The Village Board, Planning Board and Zoning Board can’t justify this. The ZBA flat out ignored the advice of their own lawyer on the matter and teed up the most recent lawsuit in doing so. Mr. Petrucci probably never forget the neighborhood objections to the 1990 car lot. He still owns the property, he’s on the building permit and the permit says 4000 sq. ft but the reality on the architect’s plans shows 5286 sq feet. That’s 30% bigger than the permit. Try that at your house and see what the village and the neighbors do.
You can’t drive roughshod over your neighbors’ homes and then blame them when they perceive it as callous disregard. You can’t make up your losses due to flood zone changes out of the peaceful enjoyment of someone else’s home. The property owner, the bar owners and village boards appear to have disregarded and disrespected the neighbors and neighborhood at every turn from the beginning with the support of an old boy network that figured the neighbors could never rally to offer significant long-term resistance.
Just the fact that the site is allowed to molder as a neglected dump strewn with beer kegs and shabby windblown bar stools makes it very clear that the neighbors are incidental to the village and owner and the applicant. Frank P., John C., and almost everyone on village boards don’t want you to peek below the surface. It’s not pretty. We’ve paid taxes here for years. We’ve paid for representation and we’ve had lip service from the village. We’ve spent about $50,000 in legal and consultant’s fees defending our homes. It’s not just six people, it’s an entire community supporting this effort and they are watching this charade. It’s a quiet neighborhood not a barroom. It’s a community not a commodity no matter who’s selling it.
PATRICK GALLAGHER
