Friends of the Fishkill Supply Depot, New York's Valley Forge

Advocating the Preservation, Study, and Proper Interpretation of the Fishkill Supply Depot and Encampment

LETTER TO POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL

November 30, 2006

RE: “Historical group seeks state review of depot”; PKJ 11/30/2006

Dear Editor:

A Misrepresentation of Facts

From reading this article clearly, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation says that development on the (Crossroads, 10.47 acre) parcel has no effect upon [its] cultural resources, so Kyle Properties can claim that historical sites do not exist on that parcel. Let Kyle develop! Why the fuss, the petition?

A fuss because both the conclusion and the claim appear to be far from the truth.

Crossroads is within the 70 acre Fishkill Supply Depot on the National Register of Historic Places since 1974 to recognize its “historical and archaeological significance” and encourage its preservation.

Archaeological excavations within Crossroads between 1968 and 1974 found sites with evidence of a brass foundry, stone structures, wrought iron works and military occupation from the Revolution. These findings are noted for Crossroads in the archaeological report for the Hess Station [Touchdown, 1.3 acre] parcel. A comprehensive effort to follow up on these findings has not been completed.

There are two foundations within Crossroads, one identified as a barn. The archaeological report for Hess recognizes a “barn structure” reported earlier but …[says] this has not been satisfactorily proven. The historical and archaeological significance of these foundations and whether or not they date back to the Revolution, has not been determined.

Two “modern” homes were removed with development of Hess. One home was within Hess, the other on an adjacent half acre south within Crossroads.

The 1999 letter from the state preservation office to Greenhouse, Kyle's consultant, refers to Touchdown not Crossroads.

About 10 acres of Crossroads were never developed and archaeological reports provide ample reason to believe that historic sites exist and development will adversely effect cultural resources.

The correspondence from the state appears to be ambiguous or misrepresents the facts. The petition asks this entire matter be revisited and formally resolved for the record.

Respectfully,

Martin Byster