USPS - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING
notes on the meeting & its aftermath below
Open Letter from Senk of he USPS - he tries to answer all our questions before the meeting!
FROM: The USPS Northeast Facilities Service Office
DATE: April 17, 2006
TO: Interested Parties, Aurora NY Post Office Project
The Postal Service has received well over 100 letters and emails from individuals and organizations asking questions and expressing interest in the Aurora NY post office project. I have answered some individually, but many of the same questions and concerns were expressed by numerous interested parties. I am aware that we have not met the guidelines for responses as set forth in the Community Relations Regulations, but no irrevocable actions have been taken by the Postal Service. Given the number of comments submitted by interested parties, I decided to allow sufficient time for comments to be submitted to enable me to prepare a response to similar inquiries made by numerous correspondents. The following is an effort to address many of those questions and concerns in one document.
Q: Has the project been approved?
A: Approval has been given to continue with the project of entering into a new lease for the Aurora, NY Post Office. The current lease expires in 2009(?). However, no location has been selected, and a number of Postal Service processes remain to be completed. There are multiple approvals required before a contract can be accepted for a new post office facility. These can be grouped into three categories: Conceptual approval, Due Diligence, and Funding approval.
In order to assist you in understanding where in the Postal Service process the project now stands, I offer the following information.
Following the contact Mayor Gunderson made with the Postal Service, a public meeting was held in January 2004, primarily to share information between the community and the Postal Service. During the subsequent months, conceptual approval documentation was being prepared and circulated within the Postal Service for internal review and approval. In anticipation of conceptual approval, a second public meeting was held in October 2004, and the New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was notified. Postal Service Headquarters granted conceptual project approval in March 2005, with the condition that the new lease would not require an increase in the rental cost of the leased quarters.
I met with Village officials last July and reviewed the project status and scope. Last Fall Postal Service Headquarters initiated a review of all current and proposed customer service facility projects nationwide in light of the possible impact that new technologies being developed may have on post office facility designs. At the end of December, 2005, Postal Service Headquarters gave approval to proceed with the Aurora, NY project.
This latest approval allows me to proceed with what I described as the Due Diligence phase of the project, during which several processes run more or less concurrently. I will formally notify the NY SHPO of the project and resume the 106 review process. Various other State agencies need to be notified.
Q: Will a traffic impact study be made?
A: At this time I cannot state whether a traffic study would be warranted. Traffic studies for leased facilities projects of this size, if required, are normally performed through the local permitting and review process.
As an agency of the Federal Government, the Postal Service is generally exempt from regulation by state or local governments. However, the lease contract the Postal Service uses generally requires that landlords to comply with all state and local codes and regulations that apply to privately owned property. The developer of a leased post office generally must comply with state and local codes and regulations as a contractual obligation with the Postal Service.
Q: Will a new post office be accessible to the handicapped?
A: A new post office facility will need to meet the requirements of the Architectural Barriers Act, which is the law that governs Federal facilities. The requirements of the law are very similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
Q: What is the status of the historic preservation review?
A: As stated above, the review has been initiated.
Q: In some of your previous correspondence you stated that “expansion of the present facility must be eliminated from future consideration” but also said that “expansion is still our first preference.” Aren’t these statements contradictory?
A: Yes, superficially they appear to be contradictory statements. The first statement addresses what could be done to alleviate the safety concerns within the confines of the property the Postal Service currently leases. There is not sufficient site area under the present lease to improve the loading facilities by expansion, so the existing leased property had to be eliminated from consideration. Since an expansion within the leasehold site cannot rectify the problem, other alternatives must be evaluated. One alternative would be for the Village to provide additional site area so that a safer loading platform could be added to the building. The Postal Service often solicits proposals for larger facilities, and accepts offers to expand the facility that it currently leases. There is a Postal Service policy to give preference to these expansions over moving to another location, if expansion is feasible. Thus, the second seemingly contradictory statement.
Q: Why is the delivery and pick up system a problem now? It’s been done that way for years.
A: In response to the Village’s request to consider relocating the post office, a detailed study was made of the present conditions. The safety issue related to the lack of a proper loading feature was identified during that study. Once identified, the safety issue needs to be addressed.
Q: Why were all interested parties not sent copies of your letter issued on 9/13/05?
A: The Community Relations regulations only require that the letter is posted on the post office bulletin board, which was done. However, I have developed a list of interested parties, and I will attempt to communicate more directly with interested parties in the future. If you have received this letter directly, then you are on the list of interested parties that I have developed.
Q: Section 110 (k) of the National Historic Preservation Act says that Federal agencies should not assist “an applicant who with intent to avoid the requirements of section 106 of this Act, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the grant would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse affect to occur, unless the agency, after consultation with the Council, determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse created or permitted by the applicant.” Why is the Postal Service ignoring this prohibition in order to cooperate with just such a developer?
A: The Postal Service is not ignoring this prohibition. It is assumed that this question was asked with regards to prior activities which were reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers. The information I have is that the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit to construct a dock after reviewing allegations of section 110k applicability. Apparently the Corps did not find enough merit in the allegations to withhold the permit. At this time, the USPS does not have any objective, concrete evidence that there has been any willful circumvention of the 106 review process as it applies to the Postal Service undertaking, or other Federal agency undertaking. If such information is found during the section 106 review process for the Postal Service undertaking, it will be addressed at that time.
Q: Will there be another public hearing on the post office relocation?
A: Yes. I plan to hold at least one additional public hearing to ensure everyone has an opportunity to be heard, and ask questions about the project. I have been in touch with Mayor Gunderson, and a public meeting is tentatively planned for May 17, 2006.
Q: What locations will the Postal Service consider?
A: All locations offered in response to a public solicitation will be reviewed and considered.
Please consider the above to be a continuation of the discussion begun over two years ago. It is certainly not the end. I will be available at the May 17 meeting to provide information and answer questions to the best of my ability. If questions arise that I cannot answer at the meeting, I will provide answers as soon as possible thereafter.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Senk
Manager, Real Estate
paul.j.senk@usps.gov
USPS initiates Section 106 Review prior to meeting,
even though one was completed two years ago
Northeast Facilities Service Office
May 9, 2006
James Warren
Historic Preservation Field services Bureau
PO Box 189
Waterford NY 12188-0189
Re: Aurora NY 13026 Main Office
Your File Number 04PR3910
Dear Mr. Warren:
I am writing to update you on the status of this undertaking.
As you may know, the Postal Service was contacted by the Village of Aurora in December 2003 and requested to consider relocating the present post office. The post office is located in a renovated former fire station owned by the Village. The lease expires in 2009. Subsequent to meetings with Village officials and residents by Facilities Service Office staff, Postal Service Headquarters approved a Facilities Planning Concept for a replacement facility on March 10, 2005. I believe that this is the appropriate date to mark the establishment of this project as an undertaking for the purposes of the Section 106 review process.
There has been a good deal of public involvement with this project. My office has received over 100 letters and emails from individuals and organizations regarding the possible relocation of the post office. I have created an Interested Party Contact List from these communications, and sent an information letter to all those on the list in response to the most frequently asked questions. I will continue to send out periodic updates to these interested parties as the undertaking progresses. Additionally, there is a public meeting scheduled at the Village Fire Station on May 17, 2006 at 6:30 PM. I will present a brief overview of the status of the undertaking at that meeting, and respond to questions.
I have taken the position that every individual or organization on my Interested Parties list will be treated as a consulting party. I believe that will be the best method to ensure that every concern is addressed and each recommendation considered.
Although the building which presently houses the post office has little apparent historic significance, there are many historic properties located in the Village, and there will likely be an affect on one or more of these resources. The currently suggested area of consideration for a relocated post office is along Main Street from Sherwood Road to Dublin Hill Road. Please advise if your office has information identifying historic or archeological resources that would be affected by a post office relocation within this area. I would also appreciate your referral of qualified consultants who could assist with the identification of historic properties and archeological resources, the evaluation of their significance, and the assessment of possible effects from the post office undertaking.
I will further consult with your office following the identification of specific locations being considered for a relocated post office. Until that time, please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Senk
Manager, Real Estate
Cc: Mayor Gunderson
Marilyn M. Fenollosa, National Trust for Historic Preservation
Dallan Wordekemper, USPS
OIC, Aurora NY 13026
PUBLIC HEARING 5/06: USPS Moves Pleasant's Project Ahead?
The USPS held a public hearing in Aurora on the postal relocation project on May 17, 2006 and proposed re-initiation of the required Section 106 Review by the State Historic Preservation Office. Some observations and the latest USPS communications below:
The USPS already had a Section 106 Review of this project, and they didn't like the results. The State Historic Preservation Office condemned the proposal. So, now the USPS wants to ignore that, and have a new review.
Aurora's 1901 School Building was partially gutted and significantly altered in anticipation of this project's approval. That's called anticipatory demolition, and it's a violation of the National Historic Preservation Act under Section 110k. As a federal agency, the USPS is prohibited from granting permits -- like USPS a lease -- to any developer who wilfully violates the NPHA. (Senk's invoking the Army Corps is inappropriate in that they don't have to comply with sections of the NHPA, but the Postal Service must.)
The National Trust for Historic Preservation submitted written comments for the hearing, explaining all this in detail to Mr. Senk.
In "resuming" the Section 106 Review on 5/9/06, Senk doesn't even mention the Old School House and pretends that there are other locations available on Main Street between Dublin Hill and Sherwood Roads! Insofar as Rowland will pay for the move ONLY if the postal facility is relocated into the Old School, his pretense is a farce.
Compare Senk's clever pretense with the original USPS presentation of the project to the State Historic Preservation Office by William Moncrief on 10/19/04. At this first public hearing, residents claimed they saw $$$ signs rolling over in his eyes, he was so eager to take advantage of Rowland's "generosity" in taking complete control of our village center.
Generally, the requirements of the old Architectural Barriers Act are more lax than those of the contemporary Americans with Disabilities Act. Senk expressed no intention that the USPS plans to match the access currently available in our present Post Office.
The relative handicapped in-accessibility of Rowland's planned facility and parking lot drew a lot of questions and concern from residents, some of which Senk seemed to share.
Rowland’s supporters behaved with such vicious rudeness towards anyone questioning the plan that several residents said they would submit written comments afterwards rather than speak in public. As always, the Village Trustees tolerated this inappropriate behavior, but this time they deplored the outcome in their subsequent meeting.
The Village Board did not "request" that the postal facility be relocated back in December 2003. The Village Board didn't become a supporter of this project until its 12/29/05 acceptance of the Memorandum of Understanding (the "parkland" bride). Did Senk's "detailed study" take place after that? May we please have a copy of that study?
There was no "public meeting" in January 2004. That was a private, unpublicized meeting of USPS and village officials.
United States Postal Service Northeast Real Estate Manager Paul Senk, who ran the public hearing in Aurora on May 17, has responded to individual concerns and questions submitted following the hearing; see below.
Dear Mr. Thoburn:
This is in response [5/31] to your questions, listed below:
Based on the schematic floor plan and draft site plan of the
proposed Heary Building project, the handicapped accessibility features shown
do not meet Postal Service requirements. The floor plan as shown does
not meet our current retail design requirements. There may also be
loading platform problems. It should be kept in mind that the designer
was not responding to a solicitation, and did not have our recent design
guidelines. All of these problems may be addressed and resolved
through a design development process....
Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:29 PM
Dear Mr. O'Hearn:
Thank you for your comments.
The Village of Aurora government has stated it's preference for a relocation of the post office to the Heary Building. Since the Village is the owner of the present post office building, renewing the lease does not appear to be a viable alternative at this time.
An alternate location for the post office will need to meet the current Architectural Barriers Act requirements for accessibility. If a new location would provide the same ease of access as the present facility has yet to be determined. However, the latest proposal I have for the Heary Building would not be acceptable....
