Withers 'pro-development' swipe at Meyers stings Airmont ZBA

By MICHAEL H. BERNSTEIN

(Letter Published: September 3, 2007)

As chairman of the Airmont Village Zoning Board of Appeals, I am writing to add my voice to the chorus of those who have criticized county Legislator Patrick Withers, D-Suffern, for his negative campaign literature. Withers and Joseph Meyers, deputy mayor of Airmont, are candidates for the county Legislature in District 12. They are facing each other in the Democratic primary in September.

Withers' campaign literature claims that the Airmont Village Zoning Board of Appeals has doubled the number of variances granted between 2002 and 2006, and that this statistic somehow demonstrates that Meyers is "pro-development." Since this statement (advertised as "fact") is remarkably uninformed, I feel compelled to set the record straight.

As a member of the board for the entire time in question my impression is that the number of variance applications received between 2002 and 2006 has remained relatively stable and, if anything has declined in the last year. Admittedly, I have not counted all of the applications submitted or variances granted over the past few years. If Mr. Withers or his staffers have actually gone to the trouble of counting all those applications in order to advertise these statistics, I suppose we will have to take him at his word.

But numbers in a vacuum do not really provide any information concerning the issue of "development" in the Village of Airmont. In actuality, the great majority of zoning variance applications we see are made by private homeowners seeking relief from zoning regulations in order to enhance or beautify their property by building an extension, enlarging a deck or adding a covered entrance. Granting these types of variances hardly constitutes evidence of a "pro-development" stance by the zoning board, yet Mr. Withers' zoning statistics are derived from counting just this sort of application. Conversely, applications dealing with the type of substantial commercial development, in the sense suggested by Mr. Withers in his campaign literature, are very few and far between, and I cannot recall any variance applications from a major developer over the time period in question, much less a variance granted on such an application.

Furthermore, I am confused by Mr. Withers' assertion that the number of zoning variances granted is somehow due to Mr. Meyers' influence. In fact, Mr. Meyers has nothing to do with the activities of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He is not, and has never been, a zoning board member and has no power to influence the board's decision on any application. Although Mr. Meyers has attended zoning board meetings from time to time, this was only as a spectator. By contrast, I am not aware of Mr. Withers attending any meeting of the zoning board, which are always open to the public. We encourage anyone who is interested in a particular application, or the activates of the Zoning Board in general, to attend.

In the end, using bald statistics to support an incorrect premise is misleading to the voters and undermines public confidence in our government institutions. By presenting misleading statistics as "fact" to support his smear campaign against Mr. Meyers, Mr. Withers has impugned the integrity of the Airmont Village Zoning Board. I find Mr. Withers' campaign literature objectionable. Instead of wasting time manufacturing mud to sling at his campaign adversary, Mr. Withers should focus his energy on addressing the substantial issues facing our community, which include real concerns about overdevelopment that is taxing our resources and local infrastructure to the breaking point.

The writer is chairman of the Airmont Village Zoning Board of Appeals.

Speak out

Join the conversation about development, politics and other issues in the Ramapo forum at LoHud.com/forums.

Follow talk on local politics in the "Inside Rockland" blog at LoHud.com/blogs.