go to top

Hill Country Observer, April 2007
Columbia County megaplaza gets a green light
By FRED DALEY
Editor

GREENPORT, N.Y.

The biggest shopping plaza in Columbia County may soon be under construction after the Greenport Planning Board gave final approval to the project in late March, rejecting pleas to conduct a full environmental review.

The board ruled unanimously that the project, which would be about one-third of the size of the Albany area’s Crossgates Mall, poses no significant environmental impacts.
But critics of the project view that claim as absurd, and now some say they will go to court in an effort to overturn the town’s ruling and force a full environmental study. They have until April 25 to file a legal challenge.

The shopping complex, proposed by the Widewaters development group of Syracuse, will consist of three big-box stores, as well as a series of secondary tenants, on 128 acres along Route 9. It would be the northernmost of a series of shopping plazas on a 2-mile stretch of highway north of the Hudson city line.

Town Supervisor John Rutkey and others have argued that the project will give a boost to the town’s tax base and generate a windfall in sales taxes.

But critics have disputed those claims, and they say the project will draw a lot more traffic to Route 9 while burdening the town’s infrastructure and adding to light pollution and visual blight.

The county planning board reviewed the project last year and urged the town to require a full study under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The town of Stuyvesant also urged a full review, and so did Good Growth Columbia, a newly formed nonprofit group that aims to help towns in Columbia County to deal with development pressures.

Howard Brandston, the chairman of Good Growth Columbia, stressed that his organization is not fundamentally opposed to the shopping complex. But he said the plans presented by Widewaters could have been improved substantially if the project had been subject to a detailed environmental review.

If the town had ruled that the project posed significant environmental impacts, it could have hired independent experts – at the developer’s expense – to evaluate the shopping plaza’s potential effects on traffic, pollution, town water and sewer infrastructure and other factors.

Brandston wrote to the Greenport Planning Board in February on behalf of Good Growth Columbia, offering to help the town obtain professional planning and engineering advice for its review.

But the town never responded to the group’s offer, he said.

Now, Brandston said, he and other critics of the Widewaters project are prepared to fight the town’s decision in court. The project as currently planned, he said, will be bad for the county.

“It’s a typical strip mall,” Brandston said. “In my opinion, this is a detriment to the entire area.”

But Rutkey, the town supervisor, said he supports the Planning Board’s decision. Widewaters, he said, “has done everything that was asked of them.”

Rutkey acknowledged that the stretch of Route 9 north of Hudson already suffers from traffic congestion, but he said that was the case “before Widewaters was even thought of.” The traffic problems, he argued, are the responsibility of the state Department of Transportation to solve.

The Planning Board signed off on the developer’s traffic study without requiring further inquiry.

“They have a letter from DOT approving the traffic study, so apparently they feel comfortable with it,” Rutkey said.

The supervisor attended the March 26 meeting at which the Planning Board announced its decision, producing a report that spelled out its reasons for not requiring a full environmental review.

“The report was very thorough,” Rutkey said.

But Brandston painted a different picture of the meeting.

“They really did their homework; they covered all the bases to cover themselves – except that they didn’t take into account any of the public comment,” he said. “Widewaters got exactly what they wanted.”

Brandston estimated that the board’s report was about 30 pages long and was prepared in advance of the public meeting.

“It was obvious that this was a decision made before the meeting,” he said. “It was a fait accompli.”

But more than a week after the Planning Board decision, he said, no copies of its written ruling had been made available at the town hall, despite several requests from the public.

“It’s a statement of their attitude,” Brandston said. “How hard is it to put it in a copy machine and leave it at the town hall for anyone to pick up?”

go to top

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Notice of Complete Application
Date: 03/30/2007

Applicant: WIDEWATERS GROUP 5786 WIDEWATERS PKWY, PO BOX 3, SYRACUSE, NY 13214-0003

Facility: WIDEWATERS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT US RTE 9 - E SIDE - N OF PULCHER AVE & S OF CO RTE 20 GREENPORT, NY

Application ID: 4-1040-00077/00001

Permits(s) Applied for: I -Section 401 - Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification

Project is located: in GREENPORT in COLUMBIA COUNTY

Project Description

The applicant is proposing development of a retail shopping complex (Greenport Commercial Development Widewaters Group, Inc.) on an approximate 128 acre property located east of US Route 9 in the Town of Greenport. The project will involve the placement of fill into 0. 19 acres of the waters of the United States, including federal wetlands and 48 linear feet of intermittent stream to construct the commercial facility, the associated access roads and parking lots.

Availability of Application Documents

Filed application of Documents, and Department draft permits where applicable, are available for inspection under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Law during normal business hours at the address of the contact person.

State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Determination

Project is a Type I action and will not have a significant effect on the environment. A coordinated review with other involved agencies was performed and a Negative Declaration is on file.

SEQR Lead Agency

Greenport Town Planning Board

State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) Determination

A cultural resources survey has been completed. Based on information provided in the survey report the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has determined that the proposed activity will have no impact on registered or eligible archaeological sites or historic structures. No further in accordance with SHPA is required.

Availability for Public Comment

Comments on this project must be submitted in writing to the Contact Person no later than 04/20/2007.

Contact Person

MICHAEL T HIGGINS, NYSDEC, 1130 NORTH WESTCOTT RD, SCHENECTADY, NY 12306 (518) 357-2069

RSIT4/3#7134

go to top

Independent 3/30/07
www.IndeNews.com Online Poll Results

Poll Topic: As a condition of a permit for its proposed shopping plaza in Greenport, Widewaters should have to help pay for a connector road between Routes 9 and 66.

Results as of 3/29/07; 36 respondents. Polls are not scientific, but we hope they represent the sentiment of our readers.

go to top

Independent 03/30/2007
Shopping plaza wins approval
By: CHRIS SIMONDS

GREENPORT-"We'll be digging as soon as things start to dry out," says Marco Marzocchi, project manager for the Greenport Commons shopping plaza.
     The giant retail center planned by the Widewaters Group of Dewitt won site plan approval this week after the Greenport Planning Board issued a negative declaration of environmental impact-meaning the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and the developer won't have to prepare a lengthy environmental impact statement.
      Now opponents are mulling their options, which boil down to two: Take the town to court or throw in the towel.
      Preliminary plans for Greenport Commons show 565,000 square feet of commercial space on 120 acres on the east side of Route 9 just south of the Greenport-Stockport line. Access will be by three entrances, including one at the intersection of Route 9 and the northerly end of Joslen Boulevard.
      Mr. Marzocchi hopes for an opening sometime in the first half of 2008 of "a project that will bring shopping options, tax revenue and jobs to the Town of Greenport and surrounding communities."
      Along with traffic nightmares, light pollution and disruption of established businesses, say foes of the project.
      "To not have made a positive declaration on this plan is ludicrous," said Nina Sklansky, moving spirit behind the Greenport Neighbors Action Team (GNAT), after the unanimous Planning Board vote. "To insist that this project has minimal impact on the area is absurd. To not have the developer pay for independent studies is an abdication of responsibility to the community."
      Greenport Town Supervisor John Rutkey (R) disagreed: "I think the Planning Board did an excellent job, and Widewaters did everything that was asked of them."
      His colleague from Kinderhook, Democrat Doug McGivney, was perturbed that the Greenport planners ignored the finding of the County Planning Board that the project would have county-wide impact. (Widewaters' first foray into Columbia County was the Hannaford plaza in Kinderhook.)
      "Then why do we have a County Planning Board?" he asked at Tuesday's County Government Committee meeting when reminded that that board's findings are recommendations only, and are not binding on towns.
      Mr. McGivney said the Board of Supervisors "should look into" mounting an Article 78 action against Greenport and its planning board.
       "I couldn't support that," said Leo Pulcher (R-Stockport), whose town is just north of the plaza site, "going in and interfering with a town."
      "I'm tired," Mr. Rutkey said, "of people who don't want anything built in the county no matter where it is."
      An Article 78-a lawsuit in state Supreme Court challenging the action of a government agency-is about the only option left to those who want to see the Widewaters project changed, delayed, or derailed altogether. Ms. Sklansky, who wants it changed, said opponents are mulling their next move. They have 30 days from Monday, March 26-until April 25-to bring an action.
      Said Ms. Sklansky, "Frankly, from the first time Widewaters was mentioned at a Planning Board meeting, it seemed like a done deal, arrived at by people who thought no one was watching. I have no idea whether any of the materials supplied by anyone other than the developer were actually read by the entire board.
      "It seems obvious that the Planning Board members function in lockstep with one another-and, even more troubling, with the developer."
      To contact reporter Chris Simonds e-mail csimonds@IndeNews.com.

go to top

Register Star 3/27/07
GREENPORT: A green light for Widewaters
By Andrew Amelinckx

"It's time for us to move on from this project. It's been months and months," said a tired looking Don Alger, chairman of the Greenport Planning Board, after a three and a half hour meeting on Monday night.

Alger's statement preceded his asking that the board declare a "negative declaration" for the Widewaters shopping complex, which would result in the developer not having to pursue an Environmental Impact Statement.

After a unanimous "yes" vote, the board immediately approved the site plan, opening the flood gates for the largest retail development at 565,000 square feet in Columbia County history.

The reaction to the decision was immediate with one woman slamming the door on her way out, and another audience member interrupting the proceedings by asking if he could ask some questions before any further decisions were made. He was told that it was too late.

"They didn't seek any expert opinion other than those working for the developer," complained Howard Brandston, an outspoken critic of the development.

He felt that outside experts should have been brought in to review and assess the reports presented to the board. "I took a look at the proposed lighting," said the world-renown lighting specialist, "I felt it was inappropriate, and that's being kind."

The Greenport Planning Board's negative declaration flew in the face of the Columbia County Planning Board's suggestion, in December of 2006, that a full study under the state Environmental Quality Review Act be initiated before site plan approval.

The board, while reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, stated that there would be negative impacts to traffic and air quality, but that the impact would be "small to minimal."

Had the board given Widewaters a positive declaration, outside experts would have been brought in at the developer's expense, to confirm or refute the data collected.

"A project of this scale really requires the hiring of specialized consultants," mused Brandston, who then added , It's like going to a general practitioner to treat aplastic anemia, instead of going to a hematologist."

To reach reporter Andrew Amelinckx, call 828-1616, ext. 2267 or e-mail aamelincklr@registerstarcom.

go to top

Greenport
Widewaters rushes on, unconcerned about traffic congestion on Fairview
by Andrew Amelinckx
Register-Star, Thursday, March 15, 2007
 
"In regards to concerns about air quality expressed by members of the public, we asked our traffic consultants to look into that," said Marco Marzocci, a representative for Widewaters, Inc. "[and] based on their recommendations, we aren't required to do testing."
 
According to Marzocci, Widewaters wasn't obligated to test for air quality because the state regulations only require it for more congested traffic situations that what they expect for their 565,000-square-foot shopping center.
 
In a letter to the Greenport Planning Board, attorney Marc Gerstman, representing Greenport Neighbors, one of several grassroots organizations concerned with the development, said the traffic study by Creighton Manning was inadequate.  The deficiencies in the report, according to Gerstman, stem from the fact that the study was done during a period of unusually low traffic that doesn't reflect the true potential for problems.  He also said the study doesn't account for future residential development, which could dramatically increase traffic flow to the area.
 
Ken Wersted, of Creighton Manning, spoke to the Planning Board Feb. 27, and said that the impact wouldn't be that dramatic, with only a five-second delay per vehicle increase from what it is now.
 
"This is certainly not the right plan for the area," said Nina Sklansky, of Greenport, a concerned citizen who sat in on the special meeting on Wednesday.  "It's coming, obviously,but there are still major concerns that haven't been addressed."
 
Sklansky said the Planning Board should require the developers to perform a positive declaration of environmental impact, which would force Widewaters to hire independent experts at its own expense to verify or refute the developer's findings on critical issues such as traffic and economic impacts.
 
""They [the Planning Board] have been given material relating to these issues, and there has been no response," said a frustrated Sklansky.
 
Widewaters addressed the board's concerns, none of which were those expressed by Sklansky, Greenport [Neighbors] or Friends of Hudson, the other organization expressing concern about Widewaters' plans for the largest commercial development in Columbia County history.

go to top

Traffic experts duel over G'port plaza
by Chris Simonds
The Independent, Tuesday, March 6, 2007      

Greenport--Developers of the 565,000-square foot retail shopping center proposed for Route 8--now dubbed Greenportr Commons--defended their estimates of the project's traffic impact last week.
 
Critics of the project waited patiently for 2 hours to present the Planning Board with a traffic study of their own, one that sings a different song.

     The giant plaza proposed by the Widewaters Group will generate about 1,200 trips in and out during the peak period weekday afternoons, said the company's consultant, Ken Wersted, with Creighton Manning and 1,500 Saturday afternoons.

     He offered no current-use baseline for the stretch of Route 9 between the Wal-Mart plaza and the Atlantic Avenue intersection in Stottville.

     Mr. Wersted said "quality of service" at intersections near Widewaters Commons would decline somewhat, from Grade B to Grade C; that would translate to "about a five-second-longer wait."

     The consultant said the plaza's "area of greatest draw" will be from the south. He also predicted that about 20% of comings and goings would be via County Route 20 and Hill Street/Stottville Road-a route that involves hills and curves as well as the hair-raising intersection of Hill Street and County 20.

     In a brief period of public comment at the end of the meeting, Greenport resident Nina Sklansky, representing the Greenport Neighbors Action Team (GNAT), urged the Planning Board to require a full environmental impact study under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.

     "This [project] is coming," she said. "We all know it's coming-so let's make sure it's as fine as it can possibly be."

     The Planning Board can trigger the state Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review by issuing a positive declaration of environmental impact.

     Ms. Sklansky said in her cover letter to the board, "You would then be able to hire independent experts to examine the issues and their impacts and recommend mechanisms to avoid them. The [Greenport Planning Board] would choose the experts whose fees would be paid by Widewaters."

     GNAT submitted its own traffic study, distinctly hostile to the company's report, by engineer Brian Ketcham. Among flaws Mr. Ketcham said he found in the Creighton Manning Engineering study done for the developer:

• Trip generation rates lower than the  average reported by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), saying,  "... Not only do you low-ball trip generation rates but you then apply  adjustments to cut these low numbers by about a third. A careful examination of your analysis reveals internal inconsistencies and double counting leading  to a further under reporting of project impacts"
• Creighton Manning did not collect data for similar projects in similar locations
• Even with the alleged under-reporting, Widewaters Commons will double and even triple traffic volumes along Route  9
  

go to top

Register Star 2/28/07
Greenport: How wide the waters? Planning Board looks at developer's plans
By Andrew Amelinckx

A noticeable hush fell over the crowd gathered at the Greenport Town Hall when Don Alger, chairman of the Planning Board, called the Widewaters Group in front of the board.

Widewaters was there to present their findings on the impact the proposed building project would have on the traffic and wetlands of the area.

The 565,000-square-foot proposed shopping center, called the Greenport Commons Retail Development, would be located on 128 acres on the east side of Fairview Avenue and along the northern border of Greenport.

The board had previously expressed its concern over the impact the shopping center would have on traffic in the immediate area if it were built.

Ken Wersted of Creighton Manning Engineering, the 40-person firm from Albany that is consulting on the project, addressed the board saying, "on the peak time for weekdays, between 4 and 6 p.m. you are looking at 1,200 trips."

The increase in traffic flow wasn't stated outright, but Wersted made the analogy that if the analysis was "a report card," the shopping center's traffic impact would get a "C". When asked what the report card for traffic was now, he responded, "Probably a 'B."'

Wersted said the traffic analysis was done before Lowe's and Wal-Mart opened in Catskill, noting that the impact would be less severe without "the traffic from the other side of the river."

Carl Whitbeck, the attorney for the board, asked if there had been any impact studies specifically related to the increase in truck traffic due to deliveries. Wersted responded that they didn't evaluate trucks specifically but that it was part of the overall research.

Barbara Beall, the wetlands consultant for the project, said that there were 3.94 acres of regulated wetlands on the proposed site, but that Widewaters had chosen the plan with the least impact. The first proposal impacted 3.05 acres but their newest plan has, "evolved to isolate the impact to .7 acres."

During the presentation led by Steve Boisvert, a representative of Widewaters, there was an undercurrent of whispered  resentment from some members of the public who were there specifically in opposition to the plan, but unable to voice their concerns due to a lack of a public comment period.

To contact Andrew Amelinckx, call 828-1616 ext. 2267 or e-mail aamelinckx@registerstarcom.

go to top

Register Star 2/18/07
CLAVERACK: Two towns left high and dry in Widewaters lead agency decision
By John Mason

The Greenport Planning Board failed to notify all interested parties when it took on lead agency status in the Widewaters application for a shopping mall at the northern end of Fairview Avenue.

"Involved parties," those that must take action such as issuing or declining permits, were notified. However, two "interested parties," the towns of Claverack and Stockport, were not notified.

The issue arose at the recent Claverack Town Board meeting. At the same meeting, councilmen declined to take a stand on Widewaters, electing instead to forward a citizen's letter on to Greenport.

That citizen, Virginia Martin, also raised the issue of the lead agency notification. She said the Greenport Planning Board had passed a resolution in May 2006, saying they would notify a long list of involved and interested agencies, including Claverack, of their intention to take on lead agency status in the matter.

"Was Claverack informed?" she asked the board.

Nobody seemed to know of any such letter.

Town Clerk Mary J. Hoose later told the Register-Star that no such letter had been received and the Town Board had never voted on whether to grant the Greenport Planning Board lead agency status.

A June 27, 2006, Greenport Planning Board resolution names "involved or interested agencies" in the Widewaters review as the Greenport Town and Planning boards, the county Planning and Health departments, the state Department of Transportation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the towns of Stockport and Claverack.

The resolution directs that a "lead agency coordination letter be circulated among the various involved or interested agencies ..."

A letter mailed out three days later went to all those agencies as well as the town Highway and Water & Sewer departments, but not to Claverack or Stockport.

Stockport Supervisor Leo Pulcher said to his knowledge, his town had never received such a letter, and the Town Board had never voted on the matter.

But Pulcher said he would have been surprised to have received notification.

"I don't know why we'd be noticed, because it's not in our town," he said. "I don't know of any town that asks other towns. They notify the DOT, the DEC because of wetlands ..."

Planning Board Attorney Carl Whitbeck said Stockport and Claverack should get notices of the application as "interested parties," but since they are not "involved parties," are not entitled to pass on the lead agency matter. "If they didn't get [the letters], they're going to get [them]," he said.

Martin, in a letter to the Register-Star, said Stockport and Claverack, as neighboring towns who will be affected by the project, should have been informed, and she called the fact that the DEC was not noticed "astonishing."

But DEC spokesman Rick Georgeson said that the wetlands in the project are federal, meaning the Army Corps has jurisdiction, and there are no stream crossings. Either state wetlands or stream crossings would trigger DEC involvement, he said. The department does have to pass on the stormwater permit, but that doesn't involve SEQRA, Georgeson said.

At Monday's Town Board meeting, Martin asked the Town Board to use their bully pulpit to ensure the project gets a "hard look."

She asked the councilmen to request that the Greenport Planning Board require Widewaters to undergo a full state Environmental Quality Review, with a full Environmental Impact Statement. Martin said the project is "the largest commercial development ever proposed in Columbia County, a shopping center with 565,000 square feet of retail space."

She noted that the county Planning Board had already requested that Greenport require a full SEQRA review, including the EIS.

"Inasmuch as this project is sited on our own town's borders, and also is exceedingly likely to have, at the very least, a significant vehicular traffic impact, I hereby ask that the Town Board publicly acknowledge that the proposal has at the very least the potential for significant impacts on our town," Martin said, reading from her own letter dated Feb. 11. "In doing so, you would be joining both the city of Hudson and the town of Stuyvesant, which similarly have acknowledged this project's potential for impacts."

Councilman Clifford Weigelt asked Town Attorney Robert Fitzsimmons for his opinion on whether the town has any standing in the matter.

Fitzsimmons said, "As a neighboring municipality, you can always comment. [Or] you could forward Virginia's letter."

Resident Howard Brandston, founder of the countywide Good Growth Group, responded to the attorney's statement.

"When something like this has this much impact, it gives you standing," he said. "More than forwarding a letter—recommend a full SEQRA. This has countywide implications."

Deputy Supervisor William Blaauw, sitting in for Supervisor James Keegan, suggested postponing action until a fuller board was present. Councilman James Van Deusen was also absent.

"It's not an emergency," he said.

"It is an emergency," Brandston said, referring to the Greenport Planning Board meeting—7:30 p.m. Feb. 27, at which they could decide whether Widewaters will have to undergo a full SEQRA review.

Martin said the option had been mentioned of extending Humane Society Road, which is located in Claverack, as an alternate route to the shopping center, in order to relieve traffic on Fairview Avenue.

"It's a user road," Blaauw said. "We don't own that property. What you see is what we have a right to maintain. There's no ownership to the road except the people who live on it."

Fitzsimmons said he was assuming the Widewaters developer doesn't want to pursue that avenue.

"Wouldn't that have a big impact on the town of Claverack?" Martin asked.

"If that were to pass, they'd have to back up and get different permits," Fitzsimmons said.

Weigelt moved that Martin's letter be forwarded to the Greenport Planning Board. Councilman Michael Johnston seconded the motion, and it was approved by all three members present.

To reach reporter John Mason, call 518-828-1616, ext. 2272 or e-mail jmason@registerstarcom.

go to top

Independent 2/9/07
Special Widewaters meeting canceled

GREENPORT—A special meeting of the Planning Board scheduled for Thursday, January 15 won't take place, chairman Don Alger told the Town Board Wednesday.

The meeting was called at the request of the Widewaters Group, to review its traffic study for the 565,000-square-foot retail plaza it proposes to build on Fairview Avenue near the Stockport line. Also to be on the agenda was an update on Widewaters' discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers about 1.9 acres of wetlands on the 120-acre site.

"The applicant was not ready," Mr. Alger said. The next Planning Board meeting is Tuesday, February 27 at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall.—Chris Simonds

go to top

Register Star 2/9/07
Greenport/Stockport
Down and dirty: Officials discuss joint sewer system
By John Mason

A renovated and expanded, 1.35 million-gallons-per-day sewer system was the topic of a joint meeting of municipal officials from Greenport and Stockport Thursday afternoon. Stockport uses the Greenport system for its residents in Stottville and vicinity.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has instructed Greenport to have the new plant up and running by June 2009. The current plant has a permitted capacity of 830,000 gallons a day and on the average day receives about 75 percent of that.

But during wet weather conditions, peak flows reach 1.1 million gallons a day.

"These high flow rates indicate the presence of a high inflow and infiltration [I&I] problem," Engineer Ray Jurkowski told the councilmen. "Normally, the DEC would rather you take care of the I&I issue than expansion."

But realizing the town had done what it could to address the issue, the DEC is allowing it to move forward with expansion.

The current facility is located off Utility Road within the 25-year flood plain, and so is subject to flooding. It was built in the 1950s and upgraded to improve treatment and increase wastewater quality in 1977, and improved again to better handle I&I in 1991. The debts incurred in 1977 and 1991 are still being paid off, Jurkowski said.

The facility is not equipped to meet changes in regulations regarding ammonia removal, it lacks adequate grit removal, which caused a plant failure in 2004, the existing aerators are inadequate and the methods of solids handling are inefficient, he said.

Jurkowski recommended the plant be converted from a traditional activated sludge process to a sequencing batch reactor [SBR] process.

Under the current system, wastewater goes into a series of tanks.

During a storm event, "as a heavy flow comes in, what bugs you have would get washed away because there's so much volume in the tanks," Jurkowski said. "In 2004 ... a cold spell hit and the bugs could not regenerate. John [Water and Sewer Department Director John Mokszycki] had to bring in sludge from other facilities. This would not happen with the SBR system, which only uses one deep tank, with a smaller footprint and multiple tasks."

The new plant would cost $7.4 million at 2006 prices; but as construction costs are rising, this amount would increase to $8.5 million in 2008-2009, Jurkowski said.

Financing would be through a 30-year bond, which at 4.7 percent would result in a yearly payment of $552,937. Since Stockport's usage amounts to 15 percent of the total, Stockport's share of the annual payment would be $82,940 and Greenport's would be $469,997.

In Greenport, this would entail an increase of $1.99 per $1,000 of assessed value, or $298.50 per year for a $150,000 home. In Stockport, it would result in $163.12 hike per household.

When he heard about the $8.5 million bond, Greenport Councilman Tom Fleming asked, "How close are we to our debt limit?"

Town Attorney Carmi Rapport said, "We have plenty of debt limit flexibility."

Jurkowski encouraged both towns to look at their I&I: "if you reduce it, so there's less flow, there's less maintenance," he said. If the municipality treats the plant as an investment by taking care of it, its life expectancy can be pushed to 45 or 50 years.

Greenport Councilman John Porto asked whether there might be aid from the "newly elected senators" for a joint venture like this.

"Even if we get a point or two off the interest," said Stockport Supervisor Leo Pulcher.

They agreed to pursue that line of action.

The project schedule includes a public hearing on the bond anticipation note, a completed intermunicipal agreement and an engineering contract, all in March.

"That's pretty ambitious," Rapport said.

Pulcher stressed the need for more capacity: The new Columbia Springs project on Route 9 alone will add 110 units; and there are about 90 more acres that could be developed at some future time as well, he said.

The schedule calls for surveying to be done in April, the design to be 40 percent done in July and 80 percent in September, when it will be submitted to the DEC, permits to be obtained in February, 2008, contracts awarded in May, 2008, construction begun the following month, the plant placed on-line in June, 2009 and construction completed in September, 2009.

go to top

Hill Country Observer February 2007
Big-box tax impact: boon or bane?
Backers, critics dispute economic benefits of a Columbia County project
(opens in new window)

go to top

Register Star 1/27/07
Greenport: Widewaters gets approval from DOT
By Kate Birchenough

After addressing concerns posed by the state Department of Transportation, Widewaters Construction Corporation got the nod of approval with some slight alterations to their initial site plan.

Widewaters conducted a traffic study, to which the DOT, in a letter read at Tuesday's Planning Board meeting, stated that the plan was "acceptable and adequate and addresses the department's concerns regarding the traffic impact."

Initially, plans showed a left-turn lane at the northern and southern entrances to the plaza and upon recommendations from the DOT, the lanes were moved.

Now, the plans have a left-turn lane along the entire Route 9 front of the plaza, allowing people traveling southbound to enter the central driveway as well as the northern and southern entrances. Upon exiting though, the middle drive will allow right turns only.

Widewaters will also need to deed a 4 to 6-foot right of way to the state for the full length turning lane. Engineer Steven Boisvert of Bergmann Associates said the right of way would allow for the continuation of the bicycle path along Route 9.

The traffic impact study will be formally presented to the Planning Board during a special meeting 7 p.m. Feb. 15 at Town Hall.

go to top

Independent 01/26/2007
Plaza road plan wins OK
By: CHRIS SIMONDS

GREENPORT-With a tweak in their traffic plan, developers of the Widewaters shopping plaza have won approval from the state Department of Transportation, the Planning Board learned Tuesday.
      At the same meeting, the board got word that yet another drugstore chain may be coming to town.
      At the January Planning Board meeting, Widewaters representatives showed a revised sketch plan that includes a left-turn lane for southbound traffic running the full length of the plaza's frontage on the east side of Route 9/Fairview Avenue.
      Earlier plans called for left-turn lanes only near the northern and southern entrances to the plaza.
      The proposed Widewaters project calls for three large box stores set back from the highway and several smaller buildings closer to the road for a total of over a half million square feet of commercial space over 120 acres near the Stockport town line. Experts believe it is the largest commercial project ever proposed in the county.
      Addressing the new road plan, DOT Highway Work Permit Coordinator Glenn T. Boucher wrote to Widewaters, "We feel this plan is acceptable and adequate and addresses the department's concerns regarding the traffic impact associated with this development." The letter was read at the Planning Board meeting.
      Widewaters will deed to the state the strip of land needed for widening the roadway and providing a 4- to 6-foot-wide shoulder. With the full-length left-turn lane, southbound vehicles will be able to enter the middle of the three drives into the plaza, but the middle drive will still be limited to right turns only for exiting traffic.
      Consulting engineers described their noise study for the project, including measurements from five spots around the perimeter of the site requested by the Planning Board. According to the study, noise levels-currently 49 to 54 decibels-will increase no more than 4 decibels after the plaza is built. "According to New York Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines, a four decibel increase is unnoticeable," the engineers' report says.
      Other consultants summarized studies that found no significant visual impacts from the proposed plaza; and no impacts on endangered flora and fauna or ancient artifacts. Because the site is a possible nesting place for the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has asked that trees be cut during cold weather only, when the bats are elsewhere, presumably in Indiana.
      Still pending is a wetland study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of part of the 4.5 acres of wetland of which about 1.9 acres, according to project engineers, will be affected.
      Planning Board members had questions about lighting and aesthetics. Fixtures, project engineers said, will be of the down-aiming "shoebox" type to minimize light spill.
      Planner Michael Bucholsky, fearing a visual hodgepodge of national chains' colors and designs, urged developers to come up with a "more friendly ... locally oriented" look.
      "What are you going to call it?" asked board member George Super. "It would be nice if you had Greenport in the name."
      The Planning Board has yet to decide whether to require a full review of the 565,000-square-foot project under the state Environmental Quality Review Act.
      The board set a special meeting Thursday, February 15 to hear from Widewaters' traffic engineer, whose study has been faulted as insufficiently thorough; and to get an update on the developers' discussions with the Army Corps.
      Also at Tuesday's meeting, the board got a first look at plans for a 10,000-square-foot Walgreen's drug store planned for the southwest corner of Fairview Avenue and Joslen Boulevard, where Jimmy Mack's Polar Bar now stands.
      The project would also take the residential property just north of the Polar Bar. Developers are "in discussion" to acquire a third parcel, a narrow strip along Joslen Boulevard west of the intersection with Fairview, said Jason Dell of Malta-based Lansing Engineering.
      A sketch plan displayed by Mr. Dell showed a drive-through window on the north side of the building.
      Walgreen's would join the CVS and Eckerd Drug chains at the crossroads. Meantime, just to round out the presence of chain drugstores in the neighborhood, Rite Aid is in negotiations to buy Eckerd.
      Greenport also has full-service pharmacies at the Price Chopper supermarket and at the adjoining Wal-Mart. Those stores are further north on Fairview, closer to the proposed Widewaters plaza.
      To contact reporter Chris Simonds, e-mail csimonds@IndeNews.com.

go to top

Register Star 1/24/07
Greenport: Widewaters presents noise, visual, ecological findings
By Kate Birchenough

Widewaters Construction Corporation was back in front of the Planning Board Tuesday night to present various studies conducted at the Fairview Avenue site.

Engineer Steven Boisvert of Bergmann Associates, representing Widewaters, presented the board with a letter from the New York state Department of Transportation approving the traffic impact study which was conducted. Noted issues which were brought up by the town's engineer and fire marshall were also addressed in the plans.

Though the official traffic impact study was not presented Tuesday, the board scheduled a special meeting in February to review the study.

"This is just a re-development project" said Boisvert. "The area was once occupied by Price Chopper and Jamesway and another shopping area in the early 1990s, and those site plans were approved. We will improve aesthetics along Route 9.”

George Super, Planning Board member, was concerned with the facade of the stores along the Route 9 corridor and if they would fit in with the area.

"I think something with a more friendly look, a little regional flavor would be better than the block style stores," echoed Planning Board member Michael Bocholsky. "It would be nice to see the conceptual plans of the facade."

Boisvert assured the board there would be a "nice facade" noting the store fronts would be "better than it looks now."

A visualization study was conducted by Matt Chatfield of Bergmann Associates, who noted there were no adverse visual impacts for the surrounding area.

"If anything it's an improvement to the existing area,” he said.

The impacts were measured from 11 different points around the property, taking into consideration the Route 9 corridor. The three larger box stores in the back of the site are topographically depressed, and are not as visible from Fairview Avenue, as they are set back between 1,400 and 1,900 feet from the road.

Board members expressed concern as to what type of lighting will be used on the premises.

"When I'm driving on the Mass Turnpike heading from east to west, I see lights off in the distance, I often wonder what it is," said Bocholsky. "At night "at kind of visibility will it have?"

Board member Bob MacGiffert suggested at night when the stores were closed some of the lights could be shut off to conserve energy and reduce light pollution.

Though Boisvert was unsure how late the stores would be open, he said they are planning on using shoe box type lighting, aiming down, to illuminate the area for security purposes.

Another study presented to the board was a noise level study around the perimeter of the 120-acre parcel.

Boisvert said noise levels were monitored according to New York state Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines at five different locations - the southeast corner, the northeast corner, behind Dawnwood senior housing complex, behind the church and along the southern border behind a proposed retail store.

"Noise levels measured between 49 and 54 decibels on the site before construction," said Boisvert. "We then put the information into a computer model and modeled the projected noise levels, taking into consideration trucks, vehicles and roof top units.”

Boisvert projected the levels to range from 53 to 59 decibels around the perimeter of the site, noting the levels during the construction were not measured, because it is not a permanent phase. Bocholsky questioned how loud 59 decibels was.

"A typical conversation is 64 decibels," said Boisvert.

"I find that hard to swallow," retorted Bocholsky.

According to DEC regulations, if there is less than a four decibel difference, the noise levels are not noticeable.

Bernard Carr of Terrestrial Environmental Specialists Inc. conducted a wetland survey and an endangered, and threatened species survey of the area. With the property containing two wetlands, Carr and officials from DEC and Fish and Wildlife Service covered the area searching for anything that is protected.

The DEC pointed out some of the Indiana bats that have been roosting in the area during the winter time, specifically in larger trees or trees that have cracks or peeling bark. They went through the property and noted where the potential trees are, and notified DEC, who said there would not be an impact but, gave them a small time frame of when trees could be cut down.

Marco Marzocchi of Widewaters Construction Corporation said of the 4.5 acres of wetlands, the plans will disturb .19 acres of it. The only time the wetland is disturbed is for a roadway crossing, but most of the stream bed is left intact.

"The wetlands are in poor condition, they have non-native invasive species," said Marzocchi. "We want to replace the invasive species with plants to make it a healthy wetland and improve the tributary as well."

Jeanette Collamer of Collamer Associates provided archeological assistance with the study, doing cross sections of the property.

With nine known archeological sites, Collamer Associates divided the property into four sections, digging every 50 feet. Two sites along the southern side and behind a box store, will remain fenced off to protect them from being disturbed. Marzocchi said those areas were not being developed and will remain protected. Collamer said nothing with cultural affiliation was found during the cross sectioning.

The special meeting with Widewaters Construction Corporation and the Town of Greenport Planning Board is scheduled for 7 p.m. Feb. 15 at the Town Hall.

go to top

LittleTownViews.com 1/19/07
Study Suggests Greenport Retail Center Could Deliver a Surge in Crime Calls (opens in new window)

go to top

Editorial: Council makes an unwise choice
Independent 1/19/2007

KEEP YOUR NOSE out of your neighbors' business. That makes sense. But what if the moat your neighbors dug to hold their pet sharks causes your house to tilt so far that every time you turn over in bed you feel like you might slide out the window into the jaws of a very large, hungry fish?
      To prevent this nightmare from becoming reality you need to make sure the moat has firm walls to begin with and your neighbors agree to feed the sharks regularly. People usually call this good planning.
       Aldermen who control a majority of weighted votes on the Hudson Common Council could have opted for good planning this week. Instead, they turned down an opportunity to press for an in-depth study of the largest commercial project ever proposed for Columbia County.
       The Widewaters Group's mega-plaza on Route 9 in Greenport near the Stockport line would house over half a million square feet of retail space in three main buildings and several smaller structures. The site lies a mile or so north of the city, which sounds like enough distance to insulate Hudson residents from any direct effects of the project.
       But Fairview Avenue/Route 9 offers the only direct access to the proposed plaza entrance, and traffic congestion could stretch back into the city.
       The defeated resolution asks that Greenport require the developer to complete a full impact study under State Environmental Quality Review Act rules. Alderman William Hughes, who voted to kill the resolution, said that he agreed with its goal but preferred sending a letter. Alderman Robert Donahue blustered against telling Greenport what to do.
       Mr. Hughes' letter rationale amounts to waffling. Mr. Donahue's minding-our-own-business justification sounds plain nutty.
       We like the mega-plaza proposal in principle. But we have plenty of questions that only a full impact study can answer. And traffic tops our list, especially because Fairview Avenue leads directly to Columbia Memorial Hospital.
       Every Common Council member who believes the city might experience some negative effects from the proposal had an obligation to vote for the resolution. Letters have the force of hot air. A resolution expresses the will of the city.  
       And why does Mr. Donahue assume that a resolution from Hudson tells Greenport what to do? The city has a clear stake in this proposal, and the council owes Greenport the courtesy of sharing its concerns. Did it ever occur to the foes of the resolution that Greenport might actually welcome the input as a way of bolstering its case for a full impact study?  
       In the end, the mega-plaza resolution met defeat for reasons unrelated to its merits. It died because a new majority in the council seized the opportunity to settle old debts. Politics works that way sometimes: Good ideas get trampled in the pursuit of power.
       But by killing a resolution that could genuinely benefit the public, the new majority has miscalculated. Mr. Donahue and his supporters displayed either a lack of political maturity or a callous attitude toward the needs of the city.
       Unless they find a way to revisit this issue and adopt the resolution, they will have demonstrated that they care more about politics than the well-being of their constituents.

go to top

Independent 1/19/07
Feuding Dems split over plaza
By DIANA LADDEN

HUDSON-The split among Democrats controlling the Common Council came into sharp focus this week, as the council voted down two proposals supported by the party's leadership.

One of the two measures that came to the floor at the Tuesday, January 16, formal meeting of the council involved a resolution that would have urged the G