Opus 40 article displayed ignorance of process
Regarding David Gordon’s Rock of ages: Fate of beguiling bluestone sculpture uncertain: The fate of Opus 40 has nothing to do with whether or not the Town of Saugerties Historic Preservation Commission recommends the historic designation of its additional parcels to the Town Board, but rather its fate will be linked to the competence of the Committee for Opus 40 Museum Inc.
Assuming that Mr. Gordon accurately quoted the various board members of the Committee for Opus 40 Museum Inc, then the project has a high probability of being doomed to failure. If the four board members quoted (Vernon Benjamin, Marjory Block, Hans Gunderud and Bob Karcy) actually believe that the things they said about the Town of Saugerties Historic Preservation Commission are factual, then it demonstrates that they are so uninformed as to put in question their judgments on issues concerning Opus 40 Museum.
To be specific:
Gordon writes that Mr. Benjamin is “concerned that the commission has, in the past, taken a very strict view of what can be done with properties designated as historic…” Vernon has no basis for making that statement. In fact, so far to date, all applicants who have asked to make certain changes on their historically designated properties have been granted the necessary Certificate of Appropriateness.
One would hope that Ms. Block, president of the Saugerties Historical Society, should know about the legal and technical functions of the Town Historic Preservation Commission. Yet her statement that “…the preservation commission has taken too rigid a position on historical accuracy in the past” is not based on fact, but on hearsay, and I challenge her to document it. As I understand it, the Dutch barn project of the society has been mired in controversy because a faction within the society wants to desecrate the structure. Perhaps Ms. Block is lashing out at those who want to protect the architectural integrity of the barn by attacking the town commission!
Mr. Gunderud, as a former building inspector in the counties of Westchester and Dutchess, taints the Town of Saugerties Historic Preservation Commission with a global smear when he says that “some of the boards go forward with more than they really have authority for.” I Googled the towns that Mr. Gunderud worked for (Yorktown and LaGrange) and neither of them have, as far as I can see, a town committee or commission that deals with historic preservation. Thus his statement seems to be no more than rationalizing his opposition to any action by the Town of Saugerties Historic Preservation Commission. Nice to know that he can engage in public bashing based on nothing more than guilt by an association that does not even exist.
That leaves Mr. Karcy, who attended the same meeting on July 18th that I did in my role as one of the commission’s five members. That he found the meeting confusing speaks more about him than the actual meeting. At no time was it even mentioned that the Town Historic Preservation Commission wanted to run the museum – a fact that he realized by the end of the meeting. If he had read any of the substantive material prepared by the commission for public distribution before the meeting or if he had read, on the town website, the law which the commission operates under, he would have understood from the start the purpose of the meeting.
I think rather than him being “…concerned that wealthy donors might be put off by excessive restrictions the historical commission might impose,” he should be more concerned with the negative view that potential donors will have of the caliber of the Board of the Committee for Opus 40 Museum Inc.
It is unfortunate that the article was slanted against the town commission by presenting four people whose views are so distorted by their own “turf” issues that they cannot clearly see what’s needed to protect and nurture Opus 40.
Susan Puretz
Town of Saugerties Historic Preservation Commission
By the book
In an apparent need to inject controversy about Opus 40 in the Saugerties Times of August 4, in an article entitled “Rock of ages” speaks of the concerns that Vern Benjamin and Marjorie Block have that the Historic Preservation Commission has been “very strict” and “too rigid” in requiring a certificate of appropriateness before demolishing or rebuilding a historically designated property. The commission is required by law to carry out this responsibility just as the Building Department must issue a permit to demolish or erect a structure or the Planning Board must issue a site plan approval before a private property in certain zones is developed. Vern and Marjorie have been extraordinarily committed to educating the public about and protecting our historic resources. They have devoted years of work and creative intelligence toward these ends, providing guidance and expertise which has certainly reinforced my own involvement.
As far as Opus 40 is concerned, I am sure we all agree that it is one of the great treasures of this town, with worldwide significance as a focal point of the bluestone quarrying industry as well as a unique piece of environmental art. Now that the town has decided not to pursue ownership to protect Opus 40, it is even more urgent for the commission to consider designation to guide development of the property in a compatible way to protect its unique historic character. I hope that the Historic Preservation Commission, the Opus 40 non-profit, and the Historical Society are all on the same page in this effort
As far as being too strict or rigid, the commission has been notably flexible in meeting the needs of the only two applicants to have sought certificates of appropriateness, the owners of the Wynkoop House and Snyder Farm. If Vern and Marjorie or the press had attended either of these open meetings they would have first-hand knowledge of the fair process. Neither attended public hearings on designations where their knowledge would have been most welcome.
Finally, the article misstated the provision of the law which allows the Town Board 45 days to disapprove or modify designation, but which does not require approval. Moreover, disapproval cannot simply be based on the owner’s not wanting to be bothered seeking a certificate of appropriateness any more than an owner not wanting to be bothered with obtaining a building or site plan permit. Also, seeking such approvals can be done at the same time so as not to unduly extend the process.
Barry Benepe
Saugerties
