Rezoning Lyon would go against long-range plan

I am writing to implore the members of the Bath Village Board to not allow the rezoning of the parcel of land at the corner of upper Liberty and East Washington Streets. To do so would go against numerous objectives recently accepted by the Village Planning Board in their Comprehensive Plan. On page 30,Issue 3 of the document, the necessity of maintaining a “small town atmosphere” is stated. Allowing business development in the form of a strip mall would certainly be a detraction from the need to maintain “the historic character of Village architecture” as stated in this issue. Putting such development on this plot would promote dangerous traffic patterns, another point mentioned in this issue.

On page 31 of the document, the Planning Board states as an objective to “preserve the historic character and traditions of the Village of Bath.” Certainly allowing demolition and rezoning of this site flies in the face of this point. One hope we have of promoting the village is to highlight our historic nature, appealing to and enhancing the visual appeal of our historic homes and businesses. Commercial development at this site would do exactly the opposite.

Perhaps the strongest arguments against rezoning can be found on page 34 of the planning document under Part C.--Economic Development. Under Objective 1, planners state the need to “promote appropriate development which will provide jobs for the Bath area residents. The proposed business under discussion for this site would not do this. Another drugstore in the village would simply mean moving employees from one site to another. Adding another such business would add NOTHING to the village it doesn’t already have! Listed under “Implementation of Strategies” is the need to “identify any properties within the Village of Bath, as well as in the immediate area outside the Village, which have development potential.” With vacant lots, empty storefronts, and already-established areas on the west end and north on Route 54, the necessity of tearing down a historic edifice in the park anchoring our village business district would seem extremely illadvised. As a final note, voices in opposition to this action have been heard at numerous Village Board meetings. How many voices in favor of the project of demotion and rezoning, other than those of the developers, have come before the Board?

Thank you for your serious consideration in this most important matter.

Mary F. Paddock Bath