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 Greenport Planning Board to require a full State Environmental Quality Review Act impact study for the proposed Widewaters Group plaza. The other would have filled a vacant seat on the council.

Supporters of the resolution asking for the impact study hoped that Greenport officials would ask for a more detailed study of the traffic the new plaza would generate. The company plans to use a site on the east side of Route 9 for three large buildings and other, smaller ones, for a total of over 500,000 square feet. Experts believe it is the largest commercial project proposed for the county.

Those who opposed to the Greenport resolution said that Mayor Richard Tracy had already send a letter to the Greenport Planning Board expressing this opinion and that a resolution from the Common Council would be redundant. They also said Greenport might perceive it as rude and demanding.

At the council's informal meeting the week before, Alderwoman Carole Osterink (D-First Ward) said that a new, expanded traffic study "would encompass more of the traffic patterns these [proposed] stores would influence." She argued that a study already submitted by the developers did not investigate the impact on traffic south of the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Joslen Boulevard.

But at that earlier meeting Fifth Ward Alderman Robert "Doc" Donahue (D) came out against the resolution, asking, "Have officials from Greenport come into the city of Hudson and told us how to run our city?"

When Mr. Donahue reiterated his opposition at the meeting this week, Ms. Osterink responded that Alderman Donahue "should be ashamed of himself for not protecting his constituents in the Fifth Ward as increased traffic would have a great impact in that area."

When roll call vote was taken, Fourth Ward Alderman William Hughes, Jr., (D) voted against the resolution, explaining that he believes "a letter or a talk with town officials in Greenport might be more appropriate."

Because of the system of weighted votes used by the Common Council, Mr. Donahue and Mr. Hughes, joined by Second Ward Alderman Lyle Shook (D) controlled enough votes on the council to block the resolutions.

Common Council President Robert O'Brien (D) said that the project would turn boulevards like Joslen, Glenwood and Parkwood into shortcuts used by motorists hoping to bypass the intersection at Fairview Avenue and Green Street.

After the meeting, opponents of the resolution said they also feared the measure would have signaled an anti-business agenda.

But Ms. Osterink said supporters did not want to stop the proposed development; they simply wanted to have as much information on what the real ramifications were for Hudson as possible while alternative plans were still possible.

The council also blocked a resolution to appoint Claudia Bruce to fill a vacant seat left open by the resignation of Democrat Nora Hancock-Snead. The vacancy must be filled within 20 days after the resignation and, as the Common Council must give six days notice for a meeting to vote on this issue, the choice of the Fourth Ward alderman now goes to Mayor Richard Tracy

To contact reporter Diana Ladden, e-mail dladden@IndeNews.com.

go to top

Denied: Bruce nomination and Widewaters' resolution voted down
By Kate Mostaccio
Register Star 1/17/07

Two Common Council resolutions were defeated Tuesday night at the council's formal meeting. A resolution to appoint Claudia Bruce to the Fourth Ward seat vacated by Nora Hancock-Snead on Jan. I was defeated by a narrow margin of 1,002 of a needed 1,011 weighted votes. A resolution urging the Greenport Planning Board to require a full State Environmental Quality Review Act review of the proposed Widewaters development was also defeated.

[...]

Donahue also led the charge against the resolution concerning the 595,000 square foot Widewaters development proposal, reiterating what he said previously - that Greenport officials haven't come to the city of Hudson and told the city what it should do.

Osterink took him to task for his unwillingness to support such a resolution.

"The people most affected by traffic live in your ward, Alderman Donahue," Osterink said, pointing out a number of streets in his ward that would see increased traffic, including Green Street.

Donahue disputed those claims.

Hughes said he voted against the resolution because he felt a letter or a talk with Greenport officials might be more appropriate.

"I have concerns about traffic," he said. "I'm also in support of Greenport doing a SEQRA review. But I'm not in favor of telling them to do it."

O'Brien said the building of such a mall would likely turn the boulevards - such as Joslen, Parkwood and Glenwood - into shortcuts people took to avoid the main light at Green Street and Fairview Avenue.

Former mayor's aide Carmine Pierro Jr. contended that Lowe's, which opened in Catskill Commons last week, and the Wal-Mart Supercenter opening in the same plaza Friday, would mean Route 9 would see "30 percent less traffic" and a "severe loss of business" because of all the Greene County shoppers who would no longer cross the river.

Because the resolution was defeated, O'Brien asked if Osterink would draft a letter saying the same as the resolution, which she agreed to do.

go to top

Register Star 1/17/07
Correction

In the story "Board urges SEQRA for Widewaters," p. A1, Tuesday, the seventh paragraph should begin, "But Councilman Ron Knott said he had no indication that board was not doing a good job," with reference to the Greenport Planning Board.

go to top

Independent 1/16/07
Independent launches online plaza forum

HILLSDALE-The Independent has launched two new features at its website, www.IndeNews.com.

The first is a text forum for readers to post opinions and ideas about the proposal by the Widewaters Group for a multi-building shopping plaza on Route 9 in Greenport near the Stockport town line. The forum was begun several days ago without any announcement, and people have already posted there.

The Widewaters forum also features links to other websites that have information related to the project. The paper welcomes suggestions for other links.

The editors do screen all e-mail prior to posting it at the forum, and we reserve the right to decline to post any inappropriate message. But the paper does update the forum frequently, and so far all the messages received have gone online.

The other feature is a Readers' Photo Gallery, which allows readers to post photos they believe are newsworthy. The photos should be in the ".jpg" format and the file containing the photo should be no larger than 2 MB (two megabytes).

Those submitting must accompany the photo with a brief (30 words or less) description of what it shows, The paper does have space limitations on the number of photos an individual may post. And as with postings on the forum, The Independent reserves the right to decline to post material deemed inappropriate.

To post a comment on the Widewaters proposal or a photo, visit www.IndeNews.com, and scroll down the Top News homepage until you see the forum or the gallery. The instructions are there. For the forum, readers may also click on "Post a comment" at the top of the homepage.

Anyone who wants The Independent to consider comments or photos for publication in the print. edition of The Independent, please e-mail a copy to letters@lndeNews.com.

For more information online about the Widewaters proposal, use the Advanced search feature of the website to find stories. Type the keyword "Widewaters" in the full article window and specify "Last 6 months."

go to top

STUYVESANT: Board urges SEQRA for Widewaters
By John Mason
Register Star 1/16/07

The Widewaters controversy found its way up to Stuyvesant when the Town Board voted to send a letter to the Greenport Planning Board supporting the findings of the Columbia County Planning Board.

Widewaters has proposed a 565,000-square-foot shopping mall, the largest development ever proposed in the county, on Route 9 at the intersection of Joslen Boulevard. In its review of the project, the county Planning Board recommended to the Greenport Planning Board that it issue a "positive declaration," requiring the developer to complete a full Environmental Impact Statement under the state Environmental Quality Review Act.

Town resident Lee Jamison wrote to the board urging that it follow the lead of Hudson Mayor Richard Tracy, who wrote to the Greenport Planning Board about the traffic impact of the proposed mall, urging a full SEQRA review.

Jamison wrote that she hoped the Town Board would also ask for a full SEQRA.

Councilwoman Roz Gumaer suggested that if there were a SEQRA review, the board get involved as an interested party.

"I have every confidence in the Greenport Planning Board to handle this," said Councilman Rick Cummings.

But Councilman Ron Knott said he had no indication that board was doing a good job, but he did like the recommendations of the county Planning Board.

Resident Andrew DiGiacomo said the Greenport board "does not appreciate any of these recommendations" [raised by the county board] - "it doesn't want to give them much credence."

"Nobody's supporting or opposing the mall," Jamison said. "If a soccer field requires a SEQRA review, certainly a megamall should require it."

"There will absolutely be a SEQRA review," said Town Attorney Tal Rappleyea. "It's a matter of to what degree - short form, long form, Environmental Impact Statement ..."

He said it might be a little early to become an interested party, which should come after an agency has made a positive declaration and required the full review.

"My understanding is that if there's a negative declaration, there's no further environmental quality review," said resident Ned Depew. 'It's a short-circuiting of the environmental quality review process. Instead of waiting for the horse to get out of the barn, maybe lock the door, take action."

"You have to be careful about setting a precedent where other towns make a decision on this town," Rappleyea said, invoking "home rule."

Depew said the project would have a big impact on Stuyvesant in such areas as infrastructure, safety and traffic. If Stuyvesant opened a casino or a racetrack, other towns would have legitimate reasons to get involved, he said.

Supervisor Valerie Bertram cautioned that being an interested party would not give the town a say, and Depew responded that it would have value in term of peer pressure.

"I don't know if we should interfere with Greenport's ability to make a decision:' Knott said.

"Mayor Tracy thought it was important enough to send a letter." Gumaer said.

"All we ask is a full review," said Depew.

"What are we talking about?" asked Bertram.

A woman said the two issues were, one, writing to Greenport to urge a positive declaration, and two, if there is a positive declaration, asking for interested party status.

Referring to a decision allowing the burning of tires in a cement plant across the river, Jamison noted that "we're all living with the LaFarge neg dec--it's hard to get it changed."

"The county did a good job," Knott said. "The county should oversee these intermunicipal impacts. "

"Do you want to make a resolution supporting the county recommendations?" asked Jamison.

"I agree with the county, but I have issues with telling another town what to do:' Knott said.

"We're not telling them,” said Depew.

Bertram proposed a letter supporting the county's recommendations, and the board passed it unanimously, to applause.

Thursday's meeting also included a discussion of the traffic problems at Routes 26A and 9J. Bertram said the state would probably do a traffic study. Sentiment was voiced for a traffic light.

Knott suggested the Sheriff's Office could increase its patrols. Gumaer suggested a "thickly settled" sign. Jamison said she supported Councilman Brad Webster's idea of having a regular stoplight there.

[...]

go to top

Mega-plaza traffic sparks city debate
By: DIANA LADDEN
Independent 1/12/2007

HUDSON—Voices rose at the Common Council this week as aldermen, residents and the city's attorney debated whether Hudson has the right to ask for "a seat at the table" to review the mega-plaza in Greenport proposed by the Widewaters Group.
      The disagreement at the council's January 8 informal meeting centered on a resolution authored by First Ward Alderwoman Carole Osterink (D), chairwoman of the Planning and Land Use committee. Ms. Osterink drafted her measure in response to a request from Hilary Hillman, the city's Main Street manager. The resolution urges the Greenport Planning Board to require a full environmental review of the proposal and to undertake an expanded traffic study paid for by the developers.
      The proposed plaza on Route 9 near the Stockport town line, would have over 550,000 square feet of retail space, making it the largest commercial project ever proposed for the county. Potential traffic issues include both the vehicles of shoppers and trucks delivering to the proposed stores and restaurants. The developer has not yet said which stores will occupy the plaza's three main buildings and other, smaller structures.
      Fifth Ward Alderman Robert "Doc" Donahue (D) led the charge against the resolution, saying: "Have officials from Greenport come into the city of Hudson and told us how to run our city?"
      Ms. Osterink said that an expanded study of the impact of increased traffic from the project "would encompass more of the traffic patterns these stores would influence." She said that the study already submitted by the developers does not address traffic impacts beyond the intersection of Fairview Avenue (Route 9) and Joslen Boulevard.
      Second Ward Alderman Quintin Cross (D) said that Mayor Richard Tracy had already sent a letter to the Greenport Planning Board expressing his concerns and that this should be a sufficient indication of the city's views.
      Ms. Osterink countered that the resolution would simply be "backing up the mayor."
      City Legal Advisor Robert Gagen agreed that a resolution from the Common Council might be redundant in light of the mayor's letter. He also said the deadline had passed for submitting comments to the Greenport planners.
      Mr. Gagen said that any streets included in an expanded traffic study would be state roads under the jurisdiction of the state Department of Transportation and not the city. The state DoT "would take a position, not the Common Council," he said.
      Both Mr. Cross and Fourth Ward Alderman William Hughes, Jr. (D) proposed something less than a resolution, suggesting a meeting with the Greenport Planning Board instead of making demands.
      Ms. Hillman said that she had not expected any particular action to result from her letter and that although she is strongly in support of a full review under the state Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and an expanded traffic study, she did not mean her comments to be misinterpreted as directives on "how Greenport officials should do business on their own turf."
      A motion and a second sent the resolution to the full Common Council for a vote at the formal meeting, January 16, at 7 p.m. at City Hall.
      To contact reporter Diana Ladden, e-mail dladden@IndeNews.com.

go to top

Clarification
Register Star 1/10/07

In the article, "Council Debates resolution on Widewaters," in Tuesday's Register-Star, the resolution drafted by Alderwoman Carole Osterink in regards to the Widewaters development project in Greenport requests that the city be considered an "interested agency" and that the town of Greenport issue a positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and direct the applicant to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The article stated otherwise.

go to top

Independent 1/9/07
MEETING WATCH: Stockport

Meeting: Town Board, January 3, 40 minutes including a 10-minute executive session to discuss personnel issues.
Actions: Agreed to sponsor David Pulcher for the Columbia County Sheriff's Office Explorer program.
—Directed Town Attorney Jason Shaw to prepare a resolution amending the senior citizen and veteran tax exemptions.
Discussion with no action: Heard that the Town of Stockport has notified the Town of Greenport that it favors a full SEQRA review of the proposed Widewaters project on Route 9 south of the intersection with Atlantic Avenue.Appointments/resignations: Appointed Bill Elmendorf town highway superintendent to replace John Leach, who resigned last month. Mr. Elmendorf must run for election in November 2007 if he wishes to remain in the position.
Attendance: The full board and 8 members of the public.
Next meeting: Wednesday, February 7, 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall.-Richard Roth

go to top

HUDSON: City offers its two cents
By Kate Mostaccio
Register Star 1/5/07

Although Widewaters has proposed a development for Greenport, some Hudson City officials have begun taking steps to get involved in the process.

A letter submitted to the Common Council from Hilary Hillman, a Hudson resident who serves as the city's Main Street Manager, was the catalyst for a resolution that is currently in the works.

"We are going to introduce a resolution at Monday's informal meeting which is essentially based on Hilary Hillman's correspondence and will request the three things she recommends the city request," said Planning and Land Use Committee chairwoman Carole Osterink, D-First Ward.

In her letter, Hillman suggests the city urge the Greenport Planning Board to require a full State Environmental Quality Review Act, or SEQRA review; that the city request a full traffic study of the impacts on the city of Hudson, at the developer's expense; and that the city of Hudson request to have standing in the SEQRA process.

"I am in no way wanting to impede the growth of Greenport," Hillman said. "I am concerned that whatever is built in our region be well-planned for the future of all concerned."

In her letter to the Greenport Planning Board, which was copied to the Common Council, Hillman points out that Route 9 is the only road and truck route to service the proposed shopping center.

She further wrote that Route 9 weaves through residential and commercial areas of Hudson, which would have detrimental impact on traffic, air quality, roadways and quality of life for city residents and businesses.

The Widewaters project, as currently proposed, includes three primary retail tenants, with store sizes of 184,212 square feet, 103,000 square feet and 69,000 square feet respectively with an additional 60,000 square feet of outdoor retail space and more than 15 small and midsized retail spots.

The Common Council informal meeting will take place 7 p.m. Monday at City Hall. Any resolutions introduced at that meeting move on to the regular meeting of the council for consideration.

To reach reporter Kate Mostaccio call 828-1616, ext. 2269 or email kmostaccio@registerstarcom.

go to top

Register Star 1/5/07
Excerpt from GREENPORT: Town clerk gets salary boost
By Stephen Bendt

[...]

Board members heard reports from Ed Boulanger of the Greenport Police Department, Planning Board Chairman Don Alger and the town court.

Boulanger reported an investigation of property damage near the Livingston circle and that a 'person of interest' in that case will be interviewed sometime within the week. He also announced the interest of the department in sending an officer to a seminar on courtroom testimony, which would be of no cost to the town.

Court officials made the board aware of 2,365 criminal and traffic defendants heard in 2006. From fines and other court payments, the town court turned over $180,087.50 to the town.

Alger said the planning board had received letters from the Columbia County Chamber of Commerce, the Columbia County Planning Board and the   Greenport Fire Department with respect to the Widewaters application during the written correspondence portion of the public hearing. He said a comments will be considered before the board renders its decision.

Rutkey expressed confidence in the planning board's ability to make choices in the best interests of the town.

"I am sure you will make the right decision," he said to Alger.

To reach reporter Stephen Bendt, call 518-828-1616, ext. 2267

go to top

Editorial: View mega-mall in a positive light
The Independent, Friday, January 5, 2007
 
What type of store would you choose if you could pick any big retail business as your neighbor?  Would you want a Target, or a Neiman-Marcus with its fur and diamonds?  How about one of those wholesale places where they sell toothpaste in 50-gallon drums, or a military surplus outlet for the hard-to-find jet figher part, or a Frederick's of Hollywood?
 
If you live in Greenport or Stottville, you can play this game for real, now that the Widewaters Group has proposed a mega-mall on 128 acres on Route 9 just south of the Stockport line. The three main retail buildings would cover almost half a million square feet.

Widewaters also built the new Kinderhook plaza anchored by the Hannaford's supermarket. To put the new plan in perspective, the sizeable project in Kinderhook covers less than one-fifth the retail space proposed for Greenport. When complete, the mega-mall would dwarf any commercial project ever proposed in Columbia County.

Because the developer has yet to say what retailers it would bring to Greenport, people can only speculate about the stores and what impact they would have on the community.

That became clear last week when over 140 people turned out for a public hearing on the project site plan. The town Planning Board, which held the hearing, will eventually have to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and decide whether the project might have a significant impact on the local environment. If planners determine the mega-mall could have an impact, they must issue what SEQRA calls a "positive declaration." And that triggers a full environmental impact study complete with proposals to mitigate any unwanted effects.

On the other hand, the planners may issue a "negative declaration," meaning they anticipate no significant environmental impact. That would clear the way for the mega-mall without much further review.

Widewaters built a first-class project in Kinderhook, adapting its plan to the needs of the community. We believe the company will do the same in Greenport. The site makes sense, too: on a major state highway close to the existing sprawl along Fairview Avenue, marked only by the rusty steel frame of somebody else's failed dreams of commercial success. We fully expect that Widewaters will build its mega-mall and that people will want to shop there.

So what should the town do now to move this project forward? That seems clear. Issue a positive declaration.

Sounds crazy, right? After all, a positive declaration means a lengthy and expensive-for the company-environmental impact study. Some might view that as punishment for a reputable developer.

But look at it this way; Widewaters has all the resources and experience it needs to conduct this kind of a study in a timely way. And the resulting report, once the town accepts it, provides the company and the town with a certain amount of protection from future claims that they overlooked obvious problems or that they misled the public about the impact of the project.

An impact study gives members of the public a chance to see in detail what effect the project might have and to test their worries against hard data and expert opinions. And just maybe the study will uncover some overlooked impact the company can remedy now for a whole lot less than it will cost after the mega-mall gets built and someone says, Oops!

If town planners really think they know more than the experts that Widewaters would use for a full impact study, then they should go ahead and rubber stamp the mega-mall proposal with a negative declaration. But that approach only invites challenges guaranteed to delay the project or even derail it.

On the other hand, a positive declaration from the Planning Board, far from punishing Widewaters, would instead serve as a vote of confidence in the project. It would show that town officials believe this proposal can withstand rigorous public scrutiny and still come out looking like a good deal.

go to top

Mega-mall draws fans, foes
by Chris Simonds
The Independent, Friday, December 29, 2006

Greenport-- Based on an unscientific assessment of applause, supporters of the proposed Widewaters plaza on Route 9 slightly outnumbered opponents at the Planning Board's public hearing on the project site plan.

After listening to about 40 of the 142 people who crowded into the Moose Lodge, the board closed the public hearing. It will accept written comment through January 5.

The hearing began at 7:45, well before the advertised time of "at or near 8:15 p.m." No one was denied the opportunity to speak, though, and Chairman Don Alger was flexible in allowing more than the announced maximum of two minutes per person.

Many who supported the plan by The Widewaters Group to place 560,000 square feet of retail space on 128 acres just south of the Stockport town line said the project would increase the town's tax base, resulting in lower property taxes. They also foresaw a significant boost in sales tax revenue.

"I see people who are scared to death of losing their homes," said town Tax Collector Sharon Zempko. "We have to increase our tax base."

Opponents countered that the project will require more municipal services, the cost of which will outweigh any increase in the town's assessed value. Hudson resident Arlene Boehm, who said she came to this area because it's "a beautiful place with rolling farms," said she opposes "draining the infrastructure of the community."

Several who favored the project saw it bringing back Greenport's happier days.

"It was such a prosperous town," said Veronica Kenneally, a resident since she was four years old. "It saddens me to see how much industry we've lost. I'd like to shop in my home town." Many others echoed that sentiment, complaining about having to drive to Albany or Kingston for the things they need.

Said Ben Hall, who runs a business across Route 9 from the plaza site: "Most of the people I grew up with-they're not here anymore." Why? "There's nothing here."

"To keep young people here, we have to give them a reason to be here," said Ghent resident and Taconic Hills teacher Mark Clark.

"I remember when we could shop for everything in this area," said Town Supervisor John Rutkey. Pointing to a recent announcement of a retail center to be built near New Baltimore, he said, "That's more sales tax that will leave Columbia County and go to Greene County."

To opponents who predicted that the plaza will drive out existing businesses, John Mokszycki, who lives in Stockport and runs Greenport's Water and Sewer Department, said: "Those are the same fears people had when Wal-Mart came in."

For many, traffic was the big issue. Critics have already faulted Widewaters' traffic study, which covered Route 9 from Atlantic Avenue in Stockport south to the Wal-Mart plaza, as inadequate.

Lori Selden said she commutes from Stuyvesant to her restaurant, Mexican Radio, on Warren Street in Hudson, and traffic on Route 9 through Greenport is already heavy. She urged the Planning Board to "take a much bigger look at the traffic study."

City resident Ed Weir agreed, remarking that a fuller study would be in Widewaters' best interest because "traffic has got to be addressed if their project is to be successful."

"I don't understand why we have to have a study to tell us what we already know," said longtime emergency services volunteer Paul D'Onofrio. "It's time to reactivate DOT's Route 9 expansion that was shelved eight years ago."

Plaza supporter Albert Wassenhove, from Ghent, said the traffic component needs to be better engineered. Other than that, he said, "A tweak-tweak here and a tweak-tweak there, and you've got a good project."

"Traffic is always the Number One issue with a project like this, no matter what the community," said Widewaters representative Marco Marzocchi after the hearing. "We're not going to run away from that issue."

Some speakers said they could not take a position on the project because, as one put it, "We don't know enough." Each demanded that the Planning Board issue a positive declaration of environmental impact, triggering a full review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

Attorney Marc Gerstman, saying he represented a group called Greenport Neighbors, lectured the Planning Board on the importance of the SEQRA process.

Mr. Alger said the morning after the hearing that he could not predict when the board will decide whether to issue a positive or negative declaration on the environmental aspects of the project.

Mr. Marzocchi said that while there may not be a SEQRA Environmental Impact Statement per se, "the Planning Board is doing a full, thorough, SEQRA-level review, and we are reviewing voluntarily all of the potential issues that would be addressed " in an environmental impact statement.

The Planning Board's next meeting is Tuesday, January 23, at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall.

To reach reporter Chris Simonds e-mail csimonds@IndeNews.com.

go to top

Times Union
Plaza plans divide Greenport
Critics speak out, and the developer pledges to keep community concerns in mind
By ALAN WECHSLER, Business writer
First published: Friday, December 29, 2006

GREENPORT -- The stretch of Route 9 just north of Hudson is already home to Wal-Mart, Staples, Tractor Supply Co. and a host of other businesses. But the latest proposed shopping center threatens to dwarf all the rest -- a 565,000-square-foot big-box plaza that would house a home-improvement store, a discount department store, another large store, bank branches, restaurants and 15 other shops. No tenant names have been discussed.

A public hearing Tuesday night before the Greenport Planning Board brought out a standing-room-only crowd. While the project has many supporters, it also has its critics. Even the Columbia County Chamber of Commerce -- an organization generally known as a friend to business -- has some concerns about the project's aesthetics.

"We just want to have the best possible development," said David Colby, president and chief executive of the chamber. "Whatever happens out there is going to affect the community for the next 20 years."

The developer behind the proposal is Widewaters Group, a Syracuse-area company that has had both hits and misses in this region.

The company, which faces opposition to plans to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Ballston, developed a plaza in Kinderhook anchored by a Hannaford supermarket. That center didn't come without a fight, though: A local citizens' group filed suit to prevent the project, but the case was dismissed.

Last spring, Widewaters walked away from a plan to tear down the First Prize Center, a former meatpacking plant at the border of Albany and Colonie, and replace it with a Wal-Mart. The company said Colonie didn't offer enough support.

Widewaters also backed a 1998 plan for a Home Depot store at Exit 15 in Saratoga Springs, but controversy caused Home Depot to choose a site instead in nearby Wilton.

In Greenport, some in Town Hall support the project.

"I think it's something that's needed," Supervisor John Rutkey said.

He pointed out that across the Hudson River in Greene County, a Wal-Mart Supercenter was about to open in Catskill and Coxsackie was looking to open its own large shopping center.

"If we don't start taking care of our business in Columbia County, we're going to be losing business in Columbia County," he said.

Many of the project's supporters said the new stores would bring jobs and more tax revenue to the area. Detractors said they were worried about traffic on the already-busy Route 9, plus what the big stores would do to independently owned shops nearby.

One group, Greenport Neighbors, hired Albany lawyer Marc Gerstman to represent them at the public hearing. Gerstman called for the planning board to examine the project under the State Environmental Quality Review process.

Don Alger, chairman of the planning board, promised that all impacts from the project would be investigated. But some residents aren't so sure.

"I don't think the people in charge of this decision have even considered that it could possibly be negative," said Elizabeth Nyland, a town resident.

Greenport has no zoning laws.

Marco Marzocchi, general counsel for retail development at Widewaters, said the company planned to keep the community's concerns in mind.

He said the site now is occupied by an abandoned movie theater and a steel skeleton from a prior attempt to build a plaza. Before that, a supermarket and a department store operated there.

"It's a strong location and a very strong market," Marzocchi said. "The benefits of this project will outweigh all of the impacts."

The company hopes to open the plaza by early 2008.

Alan Wechsler can be reached at 454-5469 or by e-mail at awechsler@timesunion.com.

go to top

Chamber feedback

The Columbia County Chamber of Commerce offered these suggestions for a proposed retail center in Greenport:

-- Exterior lighting should be designed to eliminate light pollution.
-- Plants and berms should be built on perimeter to break up visual impact. -- Use more attractive materials than concrete block for the buildings' exteriors. Facades should match local architecture.
-- Ensure traffic needs are met with appropriately formatted entrances and exits.
-- Create appropriate setbacks for sidewalks, and include sidewalks inside parking lot.

go to top

Register Star, 12/28/06
Editorial: The deep end of Widewaters

There's much ado about Widewaters, the developers that have proposed a mall for the forsaken corner of Greenport where only a skulking rusty skeleton of a phantom K-Mart sits now.

This is not Columbia County's first dance with Widewaters; the same development group put a Hannaford in Kinderhook. Concerns from the community there mandated a traffic study, which determined a traffic circle was necessary. And, as anyone who has joined Mr. Toad for a wild ride around the narrow two-lane circle can attest - with five perilous opportunities to enter and exit - it's not for the faint of heart.

Now Widewaters has cast its glance on Greenport.

And while the developers have hoped to keep their plans low-key, revealing little information to the public about what their intentions are, our pages have been swamped with letters to the editor and op-eds about what the Apocalypse, as built by Widewaters, will look like.

We share many of the concerns of these letter writers.

Before the first shovel hits the dirt, a full State Environmental Quality Review must be done.

This isn't the 1950s, people. We understand our actions have an impact on the planet, so let's be clear about what we're getting into.

We're not so delusional as to think that if the Widewaters proposal is shot down that the site will revert to majestic wetlands where the plumed hornswoggle does its mating dance each April, but c'mon. Building something of the magnitude proposed demands environmental study.

We also need to know what the plan is for traffic. Fairview Avenue can be a frustrating experience for any driver who hasn't brought along a book or other hobby to keep entertained while sitting in traffic -- not that we recommend that, mind you.

Routing overflow traffic through the residential neighborhood of Joslen Boulevard isn't a practical solution. Those who know about this shortcut have already transformed the street into a speedway, putting kids and others in danger.

We're flattered that a developer believes in our county enough to invest in it. But deep pockets aren't enough.

Greenport is the gateway to Hudson, the county seat. Treat it with respect. Listen to its citizens' concerns, and be more forthcoming with information.

Because as things stand now, the silence of Widewaters is deafening.

go to top

Greenport
Crowd: Widewaters must do SEQRA review
by Stephen Bendt
Register-Star, Wednesday, December 27, 2006
 
It was a standing room only crowd at the Moose Hall on Town Hall Drive Tuesday night as the Greenport Planning Board held a public hearing to discuss the proposed Widewaters shopping center for Fairview Avenue.  Although very few people spoke out against the project, most said the public and the board need more information before it could be approved.
 
Approximately 100 members of the public signed up to speak at the hearing.  Most expressed similar concerns.
 
Chiefly at issue was how the project will affect traffic on Fairview Avenue, an area that already deals with bottlenecks and jams during high traffic times of the day.
 
"I don't understand why we need a traffic study to tell us what we already know.  traffic is heavy," said Paul D'Onofrio, Greenport's second assistant fire chief.
 
Many agreed with D'Onofrio, and said the traffic on Route 9 is already unbearable and should this new shopping enter come to town, it will only get worse.  As a result, some suggested the road by widened to accommodate increased traffic.  Since Route 9 is a state-controlled highway, that change would have to come through state DOT.
 
"Get on the phone and call DOT [and] call your state representatives," local resident Lee Stone said.  "Tell them you voted them in and you want a new Route 9."
 
Stone had heard it would not be possible to widen Fairview Avenue because some of the structures are too close to the highway, but he had an answer for that too.
 
"How are they going to widen it?" he asked before suggesting an answer.  "They can do anything with a bulldozer."
 
A landscape designer said he often avoids Fairview Avenue, in part because he finds it to be aesthetically unpleasant, but mostly because he cannot stand the traffic.
 
Kristen Craig, who lives directly across from the proposed location, said she has already seen an increase in traffic around the holiday shopping season--turning Fairview Avenue into a parking lot.
 
Another popular theme discussed by those who took the microphone was taxes.  Some said the new stores would increase the tax base, ultimately reducing taxes for the residents of Greenport, but others said the resources required to sustain the massive development would cause taxes to rise.
 
Greenport Tax Collector Sharon Zempko said she has seen numerous residents put for sale signs on their houses because they cannot afford the taxes any longer.  She contends the support from the large development would alleviate that problem.
 
James Sheldon of Galatin disagreed, and said big businesses would force local establishments into bankruptcy.  According to Sheldon, the consumer gets a very attractive offer from big box stores, but it comes at the expense of the local businesspeople, taxpayers and neighbors in the community.
 
Most in attendance were curious.  Several speakers demanded Widewaters reveal which businesses would be coming into the 128-acre complex.  Others pleaded with the board to not simply pass the project along without first undertaking full State Environmental Quality Review.
 
"I don't know enough about the project yet and with all due respect to the board, neither do you," Sheldon said.
 
Alan Coon, co-owner of the Spotty Dog in Hudson, stood at the back of the room and shouted when it was his turn to speak before being called up to use the microphone.  He asked the board to do a full SEQRA review.  Then, before he surrendered the microphone, said to the crowd, "Everyone here please support local businesses, they're dying."
 
Before calling the hearing to a close, Planning Board Chairperson Don Alger said the board will be accepting further comment only in written form and only for the next seven days. Correspondence may be mailed to 600 Town Hall Drive, Hudson, 12534.
 
The next meeting of the Planning Board will be at Town Hall on Jan. 23.

go to top

Greenport
County: Mall traffic needs more study
by John Mason
Register-Star, Wednesday, December 20, 2006
 
The Columbia County Planning Board sent the Widewaters Group's site plan review for a 565,000-square-foot outdoor shopping mall back to the Greenport Planning Board Tuesday with a long list of recommendations.
 
No tenants have been named for the mall. Widewaters representative Marco Marzocchi brushed aside a reference in the application to Wal-Mart moving across the street to take up residence in one of Widewaters' three magisterial big boxes, as just a worst-case-traffic scenario.
 
The Greenport planners will conduct a public hearing on the proposal Dec. 26, and could decide the same day whether the proposal should undergo the thorough State Environmental Quality Review, or be given a negative declaration, meaning public input would be over.  But the count Planning Board and Planning Department recommended the public hearing be kept open to a date after the holidays.
 
The Greenport Planning Board does not have to accept the recommendations of the county board.  But not to do so, it would need a supermajority vote and would need to inform the county board of its reasoning.
 
The mall would be located on 128 acres of land on the eastern side of Fairview Avenue at the northern border of the town.
 
Traffic patterns continued to be the number one concern.  Board members noted that Fairview is already frequently bumper-to-bumper.
 
The county Planning Department prepared the six-page response to the application, including recommendations, that was adopted and sent on by the county Planning Board.
 
The department recommended a more thorough traffic study than Widewaters has provided to date.  Since half the project shoppers are expected to come from the south, traffic will be increased on certain feeder roads.  Those specified were Joslen Boulevard, which connects to Harry Howard in Hudson; Livingston Parkway, which connects to Joslen; and Atlantic Avenue/County Route 20 in Stottville.
 
"All of these routes pass through established residential neighborhoods," says the report, recommending an expanded traffic impact study, the intent of which might be "to determine the condition of these roads as they relate to the projected increases in traffic, [and] in particular, the projected increase of traffic through the city of Hudson."
 
The planners also recommended that the traffic study include three future residential developments, the 100-plus Holmes Estates, on route 9 north of Atlantic Avenue; the senior housing complex to be located off Joslen Boulevard; and the 24-unit apartment complex under construction on county Route 20.
 
Finally, the planners recommended that the feasibility of alternative access options be explored, such as connecting the site to Route 66 either directly or via an extension of Humane Society Road or similar route; or using the abandoned trolley line to connect the new mall to Columbia Town Center.
 
Board member Art Koweek took this up later on.  County Route 20, which is the shortest way between 9 and 9H, is a "terrible, dangerous" road, he said.  "Would you contribute to building a road from 66 to your property?"
 
Widewaters representative Marco Marzocchi said he "would look at it."
 
Members Tim Stalker and Jonathan Walters agreed that connecting roads between the malls would make sense in cutting down Fairview traffic.
 
"We had a mechanism that worked [at the Hannaford plaza] in Kinderhook," Marzocchi said, suggesting that if it could be accomplished using the same mechanism it was a possibility in Greenport as well.
 
The Planning Board also addressed a number of other issues.
 
As to land use compatibility, the department said the adjacent lands in Stockport are within residential or hamlet districts "in which shopping centers are a prohibited use," and advised the Greenport board to explore whether a vegetative buffer along the northern property line would be helpful.  It was also suggested that screening be explored to protect residential property owners on the west side of Route 9.
 
The department also suggested that it be ascertained whether the site allows safe and efficient access of emergency vehicles, and whether law enforcement agencies will have the capacity to protect the development.
 
Facades and designs in keeping with "the vernacular architecture of Columbia County" were recommended, to take advantage of an opportunity "to create a distinctive site design that would serve as a gateway to the community."
 
Also recommended was a performance bond "for future removal of these structures and parking lots" should the mall go belly-up.  "This may prevent a scenario like the existing steel superstructure currently on site."
 
The department suggested that more data be collected on lighting and particularly its impacts on Greenport and Stottville residential areas.
 
Access to the mall by means other than cars was also a concern.  Since Columbia County's population is aging, with 22 percent projected to be 65 or older by 2015 and 28 percent by 2030, the report suggests public transportation from surrounding municipalities and residential developments with large senior populations be contracted with or provided.
 
And for those who choose to walk, the report recommends setbacks be adequate for sidewalks, which may at some point be required by the state Department of Transportation.
 
The plan for the mall came under some criticism from new board member Jonathan Walters.
 
"The design of the development seems to me as straight out of the 1970s," he said. "Are you guys up on the current thinking of suburban design--hiding parking, putting buildings out front, [not so much about] accommodating a sea of cars in a sea of asphalt?"
 
Site engineer Steve Boisvert, of Bergmann Associates, said they attend conferences on the new urbanism, and are aware of trends, but have to weigh them with the desires of their tenants.
 
Board member Leah Wilcox noted that, in its traffic study, the application proposes a scenario in which Wal-Mart leaves its present site and moves into the Widewaters center.  Marzocchi said it was just a "worst-case scenario."
 
"How could you design three buildings without a tenant in mind?" Koweek asked.
 
"We don't have tenants," Marzocchi said.  "We have made some assumptions.  We're negotiating with a number of users.  Some are competitors with each other; some will fall by the wayside."
 
He would not reveal what kind of market research the firm did in deciding to locate in Greenport, but he said it showed there was support for a mall.

go to top

Greenport: Financial analyst says mall deserves a hard look
Urges citizens to attend Dec. 26 hearing
by John Mason
Register-Star, Sunday, December 17, 2006
 
Dec. 26 is shaping up to be as important a day for Greenport as the day before.  It's the day that the Planning Board will hear the views of interested persons on the Widewaters shopping center proposed for Fairview Avenue at Joslen Boulevard.  More importantly, the board may also vote on whether the project will have significant environmental impacts.
 
If the board decides the proposed 565,000-square-foot shopping center, reportedly the largest development ever proposed in Columbia County, will not have such impacts, it will be a big present for the Widewaters developers, indicating probable clear sailing to approval.
 
However, it would probably also trigger a lawsuit from concerned citizens.
 
If the board decides the project will have significant environmental impacts, it will put a big holiday smile on the faces of a number of those concerned county residents, many of whom turned out for a talk on the issue by financial analyst James Sheldon Saturday morning at the Multiplex 8 Cinema in Columbia Center Plaza.  A positive declaration by the board would trigger the state Environmental Quality Review Act process.
 
Under SEQRA, an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared, describing the action, describing the action and the environmental setting, analyzing all environmental impacts related to the action as well as reasonable alternatives to the action, and identifying ways to reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts.  This is a time-consuming and expensive process, but under state law the costs are borne by the developer, not the municipality.
 
What kinds of projects usually necessitate a SEQRA review?  Know as Type I actions, they are those that "meet or exceed thresholds listed in the statewide or agency SEQR regulations," according to a brochure from the state Department of Environmental Conservation.  One of two examples cited in the brochure is "nonresidential projects physically altering 10 or more acres of land."
 
The Widewaters shopping center would be situated on 85 acres of land.
 
But Sheldon said the town has final authority.  "Just because the DEC gives guidance, doesn't mean it will be followed," he said.
 
Although Planning Board members have expressed the opinion that the development will help the town's tax base, "they don't have any evidence to justify that conclusion," Sheldon said.  "Studies seem to suggest a large commercial development tends to have significant negative consequences for taxpayers and the local economy."
 
The 565,000 square feet of selling space would be as much as Greenport now has in its existing four plazas, Sheldon said.  It would consume 5,600 [editor's note: should read 56,000] gallons of water a day and add 840,000 pounds of solid waste per year to the county landfill.
 
If successful, the mall would generate about $200 million in sales annually, compared to $500 million generated in all of Columbia County last year.
 
"But who's buying?" Sheldon asked.  "Those sales will come at the expense of existing sales."  Similarly for the work force, he said.  In a county with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the U.S., many of the 400 full-time and 400 part-time employees would come from existing businesses, he said.
 
Although the development would pay substantial sales tax to the town, it would also receive a substantial tax break of $400,000 a year, Sheldon said.
 
The costs to the town of water, sewer, police and fire protection, and roadwork would likely be much higher than the tax benefits to the town, he said.  Greenport presently has one of the county's highest tax rates, at $600 a person, compared to a regional average of $360.
 
The reason for this is that 40 percent of the town's taxes are going to finance the repair of its water and sewer systems:  The town is on the verge of a $7 million expansion and improvement of its sewage facilities that will add 370,000 gallons of additional daily usage.  Widewaters alone would take 15 percent of that, but would it pay for it?
 
No, said Sheldon.  The development's fees and taxes would be "nowhere near what would match its usage."
 
A Cape Cod study has shown, Sheldon said, that the costs per 1,000 feet of a large development "far outstrip its revenues."
 
The development would also have a negative effect on local private enterprise, Sheldon predicted.  First, nearby businesses in the same line as the big box stores that move in will be hurt.
 
Second:  When $100 is spent at a large retailer, $14 comes back to the local economy, in the form of employee salaries, reliance on local suppliers and professionals, and the like.  But, he said, if $100 is spent at a locally-owned business, $45 comes back to the local economy.
 
Why would a developer want to come into a county where the population and disposable income don't justify 565,000 square feet?  Sheldon asked.
 
The chains have learned that by flooding localities with an excess of capital, it's easier to capsize local businesses, he said.  Their only objective is to increase foot traffic.
 
"Once a large chain comes in, they have at their disposal a lot of money and influence to exert on local political officials," he said.  "If they're in here with that much square footage, they'll do whatever it takes to increase growth.  This is how sprawl begins."
 
Sheldon urged citizens to attend the Dec. 26 Greenport Planning Board hearing or contact board members and urge them to pass a positive declaration on the Widewaters SEQRA.
 
Board Chairman Don Alger was in the audience.
 
"Whether or not this is built, the town is saddled with [sewer costs]," he said.  "The assessment [at the site] is probably $2 million; if it's built up, $30 million.  Wal-Mart is assessed in the neighborhood of $7 million."  If you include Price Chopper and the other shops, that goes up to $14 million, he said.  As for traffic, go to Kingston or Albany and you'll find traffic, "there's no way to avoid that."
 
Sheldon said Widewaters would be using up a good portion of the town's state-mandated expansion of the sewer system, and that they should be required to contribute to the expansion costs.
 
"What troubles me," he said, "is that the town Water Department says the town can meet the 56,000 gallons [required for the Widewaters development daily] but the state mandate to expand doesn't jibe with that [statement]."
 
Elizabeth Nyland of Greenport said to Alger, "You're talking about traffic, but every single shopping center in Albany [Kingston, and others] has four lanes."
 
Alger said the state Department of Transportation wanted to widen Fairview 10 years ago, but for some reason they ran sort of money.  "I don't know, in the future it may be improved."
 
Nyland said it seemed to her that Greenport has the largest collection of retailers in the county, with the cost borne by less that 2,000 tax bills to its residents.  "Any extra cost the town bears in just us," she said.
 
"One fourth of the assessed property in the town is commercial," Sheldon said.  "That's a huge factor.  Are property taxes per person so much higher than average because it has a high proportion of commercial?"
 
"If business is so good in Greenport, what's causing the high tax rates?" asked Linda Mussman.
 
"One explanation could be because the cost of providing public services is so much higher than what's  coming into the town coffers," Sheldon said.
 
"So the only solution is to build more houses," said Mussman, bringing the discussion back to the problem of sprawl.

go to top

Independent 12/15/06
Widewaters plaza hits heavy seas
By CHRIS SIMONDS

HUDSON-The reception ranged from wary to hostile Wednesday as people from around the county weighed in on the Widewaters shopping plaza proposed for 128 acres at the north end of Fairview Avenue/Route 9 in Greenport.

The occasion was an information meeting of the County Planning Board, which received the site plan application from the Greenport Planning Board for its review and recommendations.

After hearing a presentation by Widewaters representatives and asking their own questions, the county planners allowed time for questions from the public, giving people their first chance to share their views on the project.

Greenport officials have required members of the public to follow the rules and wait to express themselves. The town Planning Board has said public comment will be received at a public hearing Tuesday, December 26, and Supervisor John Rutkey has said repeatedly that the Town Board is not the appropriate forum for discussion of the project while it is before the Planning Board.

Many in the audience expressed concern over the 550,000-square foot plaza's impact on traffic on Route 9. They said the developer's traffic study is inadequate because it covers only the stretch between the Wal-Mart center to the south and the Atlantic Avenue intersection to the north.

Several people pointed out that anyone coming to Widewaters from the east, south or west will have to come up Route 9 through Hudson or enter Route 9 at the Healy Boulevard intersection, causing congestion, they predicted.

"I think it's unconscionable," said Greenport resident Elizabeth Nyland.

"Warren Street is already jampacked," said antiques dealer Jennifer Arenskjold.

Another downtown businessperson, Lori Selden of Mexican Radio, was concerned about workers being drawn away from established businesses to staff shops in the new plaza.

Ms. Nyland said when she visited the Widewaters website she found the firm has "nothing else this large-your largest plaza is 220,000 square feet."

And when she looked at what's in those other plazas, she said, she found businesses that are already in place in Greenport. "They're going after our local businesses," she charged. "They're gonna move them up there."

A woman from Hudson bemoaned the proposal's lack of "human scale," and urged developers to push the property line back 10 feet from Route 9 to allow room for sidewalks.

Calling Greenport a "rural town," Gallatin resident James Sheldon predicted substantial additional costs for fire and police protection if the plaza is built. He questioned Water and Sewer Superintendent John Mokszycki's past statements that the town has sufficient capacity to provide those services to the plaza, noting that the town is under a consent order from the state to upgrade its sewer plant and plans a $7 million bond issue to do so.

County Planning Board Chairman Tim Stalker reminded the audience several times that his board does not approve or disapprove projects, but only reviews them and makes recommendations to local planning boards.

go to top

Columbia County: Residents, officials find Widewaters traffic plan inadequate
by John Mason
Register-Star, Thursday, December 14, 2006
 
Ask Greenport Planning Board members, and the proposed 565,000-square-foot mega strip-mall proposed for Fairview Avenue at Joslen Boulevard will be a big boon to the town's tax base.  But ask financial consultant and columnist James Sheldon of Gallatin, and the town's taxpayers will be the "big losers."
 
Columbia County residents got a chance to sound off on what one called the "largest single development ever proposed in Columbia County" Wednesday during an information session before the county Planning Board.  Forty persons crowded into the third-floor classroom at 401 State St., 25 to raise serious concerns or outright oppose the plan.  No one, except Greenport Chairman Dan Alger and Widewaters representatives, spoke in favor of it, and county board members also raised concerns.
 
Sheldon will speak about the economic issues of the plan 10 a.m. Saturday at the Multiplex Theater in Columbia Center Plaza.
 
The county Planning Board was getting its first look at the plans Wednesday, and will consider more fully at its regular monthly meeting 7 p.m. Dec. 19.  The board is allowed to ask for a 30-day extension before it makes its recommendation to the Greenport Planning Board.
 
The Greenport board will hold a public hearing on the matter Dec. 26, after which it may decide whether the project deserves a "negative declaration," allowing it to bypass the time-consuming requirements of the state Environmental Quality Review Act.
 
Site engineer Steve Boisvert, of Bergmann Associates in Albany, said the shopping center would be situated on 85 acres of a 128-acre parcel.  In the back of the parcel, there would be three large single-tenant stores, towards the front a series of buildings housing smaller tenants, and along Route 9, a line of banks, restaurants, gas stations and the like.
 
There would be three driveways on Route 9, Boisvert said.  There would be traffic signals at the northern and southern entrances.  A third entrance, in the center, would allow right turns in and out, but no left turns either way.  The roadway would be widened at the signalized entrances to accommodate turning lanes.
 
Widewaters' engineer Ken Wersted said a traffic study, finding the projected level of service "acceptable," was done between the Wal-Mart plaza to the south and Atlantic Avenue in Stottville to the north.  Planning Board member Cheryl Gilbert said this was "just the immediate area."
 
"Can we conclude the intersections further away are not impacted?" asked County Planning Director Roland Vosburgh.
 
"Yes," said Wersted, comparing the traffic pattern to the hub and spokes of a wheel.  At the hub, the shopping center, "we get acceptable levels of services," he said; as one moves out the "spokes," the traffic gets more dispersed.  But he also said he couldn't speak to the influence on other properties in the area.
 
"If the town is concerned about that, often they'll sponsor larger regional studies," Wersted said.
 
"Did you consider extra traffic on side roads?" asked Board Chairman Tim Stalker.
 
"That's difficult:  It depends on personal preference," Wersted said.
 
"If traffic backs up, people will skirt," Stalker said.  "Right now it gets backed up there.  People are skirting.  Have you been out in the field...Has anyone from Widewaters been sitting in that traffic jam?"
 
"We've studied the traffic at peak periods," Boisvert said.
 
"No, have you lived it?" asked Stalker.
 
"Its an issue that's out there," Wersted said.
 
Boisvert said the state Department of Transportation had "verbally blessed" the northernmost driveway, plans for which had been recently altered to line it up with Joslen Boulevard to the west.
 
As for the buildings, Boisvert said they will all be single-story, with most about 40 feet high in the facade, 22 to 23 feet inside the building, and 26 to 27 feet to the roof.  The buildings on Route 9 will be between 23 and 25 feet tall.
 
Stalker also wanted to know where the 800 employees--plus another 1,000 construction jobs-- would come from, given the county already has a low unemployment rate.
 
"They'll draw from the local pool," Boisvert said.
 
"Other stores on Fairview," Gilbert said.
 
Leading off the public comment, Alger said he was speaking as a resident.
 
"For 16 years," I've watched that mess up there," he said, referring to the skeletal frame of a never-built K-Mart on the site.  "I hope I don't see it another 16.  I've watched Greenport grow--if Catskill has all that business, it will draw from this county."  He said he was looking forward to an increased tax base for the county and city because of the project.
 
Cyndy Hall, representing the Concerned Woman of Claverack, said the group is not anti-development and supports "smart growth," but asked why this "megamall" is needed in Columbia County, where the workers would come from, and how it would affect other local businesses and traffic patterns.
 
Lori Selden, owner of Mexican Radio, said she couldn't imagine where 800 workers would come from "if they're not impacting the traffic."  She said her business draws from 150 miles and couldn't understand how Widewaters center would survive with its claim it would only draw from 20 miles.
 
Kirsten Craig said she lived across the street from the site and was concerned about lights, air quality, and traffic.
 
Peter Donahoe of Stuyvesant Falls said to the north of the site there are no major roads to the east and west, so the traffic would be affected all the way up Route 9.
 
Nina Sklansky of Greenport agreed that the traffic study was inadequate.  She said Route 66 will be more crowded that it is now, as will Joslen.
 
"A lot  of people have commented anything would be better than  what's there now," she said.  I maintain anything would not be better."  She added that she loved to shop.
 
Shelden said the center would put a great strain on the town's water system, the traffic would be greatly increased, and "the town is looking at potentially net deficits if the project is approved without mitigating factors."
 
Other speakers included Hudson Common Council members Ellen Thurston and Sarah Sterling, Hudson Main Street Manager Hilary Hillman, Hudson Public Works Commissioner Michael O'Hara, Hudson antique dealer Jennifer Arenskjold, Douglas Diaz of Stockport, Virginia Martin, Martin Davidson, Elizabeth Nyland, Chris Farrington and Greenport Town Councilmen Keith Mortefolio and Tom Fleming.

go to top

Independent 12/8/06
Supervisor shushes Widewaters talk

GREENPORT—Not here, not now was Supervisor John Rutkey's quick ruling when residents sought to raise the issue of the proposed Widewaters shopping plaza at Wednesday's Town Board meeting.

When Town Justice Robert Brenzel asked why the Planning Board's public hearing on the site plan for the 120-acre, 565,000-square-foot retail center couldn't be moved from the day after Christmas, Mr. Rutkey said, "That's his call," pointing to Planning Board Chairman Donald Alger.

Several in the audience murmured in dissatisfaction as Mr. Alger said, "That's the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting, and that's our policy."

"I've said before, Widewaters is not before this board," said Mr. Rutkey, "and we're not going to discuss it in this forum."—Chris Simonds

go to top

Independent 12/1/06
Widewaters gets public hearing Dec. 26
By CHRIS SIMONDS

GREENPORT-Over the objections of some residents, the Widewaters shopping plaza proposed for the east side of Route 9 near the Stockport line will have its public hearing before the Planning Board Tuesday, December 26.

By then, the Columbia County Planning Board is expected to have reviewed the application.

Once the public hearing is closed, the Planning Board can vote on approval of the site plan for the project, which would put 560,000 square feet of retail space in several buildings on 120 acres.

Before setting the public hearing at its meeting Tuesday, November 28, the Planning Board heard from Greenport Fire Chief Gary Mazzacano that Widewaters "accepts our [locations for] hydrants." Town Water and Sewer Superintendent John Mokszycki has already said his department can serve the plaza, and Assistant Fire Chief Paul D'Onofrio has found that roadways and curves on the site can handle emergency vehicles.

Access to a pond on the property remained a concern, with Planning Board Member Michael Bucholsky warning that "water is a magnet for small children" and questioning placement of parking for one of the three large retail buildings close to the pond.

"The Planning Board wants some kind of fencing," Widewaters representative Marco Marzocchi said after the meeting. "We believe a fence won't stop people from getting to the pond, but it could hinder rescue efforts. We're evaluating what to do."

Setting the public hearing on the day after Christmas brought cries of distress from some in the audience, who seemed to fear that a hearing at holiday time would be poorly attended. "This is a very large project," explained one woman.

Hollowville resident Howard Brandston said the hearing should take place after the first of the year because of "extraordinary circumstances."

Planning Board Chairman Donald Alger stood firm: "This is our policy and this is what we'll do," he said. "Everyone will have a chance to be heard."

The board also accepts written comment on the project, which should be sent to Greenport Planning Board, Town Hall, Town Hall Drive, Hudson 12534. Copies of plans and specifications for the project can be examined at the Town Hall during regular business hours.

In the past, Mr. Marzocchi has declined to say what businesses might come to the plaza on the grounds that "we haven't signed anyone yet."

Tuesday, though, he said Widewaters is "talking with restaurants like Panera Bread, Ruby Tuesday, TGI Friday's, Applebee's and Olive Garden. We're talking with all the retailers you can imagine-Target and Kohl's, among others." Mr. Marzocchi emphasized that these are conversations only; no deals have been struck and no commitments are in place.

He also said Widewaters has not yet closed on the property, which is under contract.

Besides site plan approval from Greenport, the developer needs approval from the Army Corps of Engineers because wetlands will be disturbed by the project. "We're working through their permitting process," Mr. Marzocchi said.

Widewaters also needs a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation, for its storm water control system.

To reach reporter Chris Simonds email csimonds@IndeNews.com

go to top

Independent, 11/17/06
Widewaters tweaks its megaplaza plan
Water, sewer and other details now headed to county planners
By CHRIS SIMONDS

GREENPORT-The Widewaters shopping plaza proposed for Route 9 at the north end of town took another step forward Wednesday as developers presented a revised site plan to the Planning Board.

At its meeting Tuesday, November 28 the board expects to forward the plan to the County Planning Board. The next step is a public hearing.

Developers of the 560,000-square-foot plaza on 120 acres east of Fairview Avenue and south of Stottville Road must also win approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for the project's effects on wetlands at the site. Officials believe the plaza is the largest commercial project ever proposed in the county.

The revised site plan slightly reduces the size of one of three large retail buildings and its parking area, to minimize impact on wetlands. Affected will be "maybe four acres" of wetlands, according to Widewaters Group representative Marco Marzocchi.

Widewaters has also addressed concerns about fire protection and water.

Greenport Fire Department Second Assistant Chief Paul D'Onofrio said Widewaters has shown that roadways in the plaza are wide enough, and curves gentle enough, to accommodate 75-footlong emergency apparatus.

And town Water and Sewer Superintendent John Mokszycki said the developer's plans include water lines connecting to the town's mains at the north and south ends of the plaza, "so they make a loop and we can always supply water in there."

Widewaters' engineers, Bergmann Associates, also responded to seven single-spaced pages of questions and comments from the Planning Board's engineer, Paul McCreary of Morris Associates.

Earlier Widewaters made peace with the state Department of Transportation by moving the northerly entrance to its plaza to a spot directly across Route 9 from the upper end of Joslen Boulevard. A traffic signal and turning lanes will control traffic there. The plaza will have two other entrances down Route 9.

Widewaters proposes to put up the county's largest shopping center on the 120-acre site east of Route 9, with 560,000 square feet of retail space in four large, three smaller multi-store, and five single-occupant buildings along Route 9, suitable for banks, restaurants or gasoline stations.

To reach reporter Chris Simonds e-mail csimonds@IndeNews.com.

go to top

LittleTownViews.com 11/13/06
Widewaters: Questions and Answers (opens in new window)

go to top

Independent, October 27, 2006
Widewaters sees light on traffic signal
By Chris Simonds

GREENPORT--Developers of a major shopping plaza on Route 9 just south of the Stockport line have blinked.

Their revised site plan, shown to the town Planning Board Tuesday, places the main entrance to the plaza directly opposite the intersection of Route 9 and the north end of Joslen Boulevard, with a traffic signal controlling vehicle movements.

The proposed new access road into the plaza includes a link to the Dawnwood senior housing facility.

The road accessing the mall would have one in-bound and two out-bound lanes, one for traffic turning right up Route 9 and one for traffic going straight across to Joslen or turning left onto Route 9 south. Route 9 would have turning lanes into the project for northbound and southbound traffic.

Earlier plans had the main entrance well south of the intersection, across from the Pulcher Motors bus parking area. The state Department of Transportation opposed that configuration.

Planning Board Chairman Donald Alger hinted strongly at that time the original plan was introduced that the developer, Dewitt-based Widewaters Group, had best resolve issues with the DOT before seeking the board's approval.

With that now done, the Planning Board set a special meeting Wednesday, November 15, at 7 p.m. at the Town Hall, at which Widewaters will submit its revised site plan and respond to questions and comments from Paul McCreary of Morris Associates, the board's engineer.

After Tuesday's meeting Mr. McCreary said, "We will be looking at the environmental studies and reports that the applicant has prepared." Those include noise, visual impact. archaeological and traffic studies. "They've done everything you would for a full Environmental Impact Statement."

Widewaters hopes that at its regular meeting Tuesday, November 28, the Planning Board will forward the application to the Columbia County Planning Board for its review, and set a public hearing on the application for late December or early January.

Widewaters proposes to put up the county's largest shopping center on the 120-acre site east of Route 9, with 560,000 square feet of retail space in four large, three small multi-store, and five single-occupant buildings.

Also at the Planning Board meeting Tuesday, Rick Cummings, owner of Mulhern Gas, announced that after 60-some years on Ten Broek Avenue, the business plans to move to a site on Industrial Tract behind the former Lorbrook factory.

"The neighborhood has kind of grown up around us," Mr. Cummings said. "It's become residential."

go to top