Friends of Hudson
PO Box 326
Hudson NY 12534
(518) 822-0334
www.friendsofhudson.org

 

December 26, 2006

Donald Alger, Chairperson, and
Members of the Planning Board
Greenport Town Hall
600 Town Hall Drive
Hudson, New York  12534
 
Re:            Application of Widewaters, Greenport
 
Dear Chairperson Alger and Members of the Board:
 
Thank you for this opportunity to address you with regard to Widewaters’ application for Site Plan and Subdivision approval.  My name is Susan Falzon.  I am a former Executive Director and currently a member of the board of Friends of Hudson and I am submitting this statement on behalf of Friends of Hudson.  Friends of Hudson proudly counts many Greenport residents among its members, along of course with taxpayers throughout the rest of Columbia County.  A significant majority of our members reside in Hudson, Greenport and Claverack and they will therefore be impacted by the Widewaters project if it is built.
 
Friends of Hudson, contrary to persistent rumors, has not taken a position against the Widewaters proposal.  How could we?  We do not, as this Board does not, have sufficient information upon which to make an informed decision in favor or in opposition to it.  We do however have concerns about the process through which this Application passes.
 
We are here tonight to respectfully urge the Greenport Planning Board to issue a Pos. Dec. and call for a Scoping under SEQRA.  We believe that this is the only way for Greenport’s taxpayers, residents and business owners to be confident that the Board has  adequately fulfilled its responsibility by giving this proposal the serious consideration it merits.  We believe that by conducting such a review the Board would be assuring that public concerns and questions have been adequately addressed and that possible present and future unintended consequences have been addressed to the extent possible. 
 
I have said, “adequately fulfill its responsibility.”  Many would say that the Board is doing its job by following the process required in the Code and in NYS law.  If that were its only responsibility this Board could become a rubber stamp for any application before it that seems to meet the letter of the law by having declared it so.  Any Applicant could submit reports from credentialed consultants to assure the Board that their project is desirable, safe and beneficial.  The Board could create a checklist of required documents and allowable parameters, check it off and be done.  But that could be also done by an administrative clerk or even be automated and done by a computer.
 
However, the Board has a discretionary role and responsibilities that could not be thus fulfilled.  Just because an Application is filed does not mean that the Applicant is entitled to approval.  Just because Greenport has no zoning does not mean that anything that wants to be built should be built.  The law clearly intends for this Board to go beyond rubber stamping.  The Applicant is entitled to a full and fair consideration of his proposal, and at the same time the public is entitled to know that you are giving that full and fair consideration.
 
You are in an unenviable position.  Having served on the Village of Athens ZBA for a number of years and as its Chair for a year I know what it is like to be faced with a large project that brings forward conflicting opinions, conflicting values and beliefs, and differing depths of understanding of the law, the regulations, and the rights and responsibilities of both the Applicant and the public.

It is a difficult and somewhat uncomfortable position in which you now sit.  I understand that some among you might want to approve this project with the least amount of fuss.  “After all,” you might say “The Applicant has prepared an EIS.  They do this all the time.  They have submitted documents supporting their request.  Greenport, and the County want to encourage business development.  Wouldn’t this project have economic benefit? Why not just approve this and get on with it?”

Why not?  Because that is not what is required of you.  It is one thing for a person, not in an official capacity such as yours, to hold such an opinion.  But as members of the Planning Board cannot make arbitrary decisions.  You are required to make informed decisions.  Informed by data, by assessment and evaluation of differing expert opinion and recommendations, informed by the needs and concerns of the public. 

Friends of Hudson has heard the concerns and arguments raised by Greenport Neighbors.  We commend them for their diligent research and raising issues in service of the Planning Board and taxpayers of Greenport.   We agree in every instance with the issues and concerns they have raised with regard to this proposal.

The economics of this proposal are, and should be, of primary concern.  Here is a project that is supposedly going to improve the economy of Greenport.  Yet the Applicant would be able to avoid an economic study if the Board considers the EAF to be sufficient to grant approval.  Greenport neighbors and financial analyst James Sheldon among others have disputed the assumption that this project would be an economic boon for Greenport.  An EIS is the vehicle for the Board to examine claims and counter-claims such as these, in a topic of such significance for addressing this issue.  Only by careful analysis of existing studies and your own economic study can the Board fully understand the tax and revenue implications and find ways to ensure the taxpayers that they will not suffer unnecessary economic burdens as a result of a project that was supposed to relieve them.

Impacts of increased traffic are also of concern.  Unless these impacts are fully recognized and considered an approval could cause irreversible change in the character and quality of life in Greenport and beyond.  A full EIS is also the vehicle for addressing this issue.  The Board might decide that increased traffic impacts, although significant should not be considered a show-stopper.  That is within your discretion.  But a full EIS would also enable you to acknowledge significant impact, rather than pretending (as the Applicant does in the EAF) that impacts would be negligible.  You could then, within the EIS decision-making process call for appropriate mitigations.

We urge you to issue a finding of significance, a Pos Dec and call for a Scoping.

To do so would lengthen the process.  However, it does not guarantee on outcome for or against.  After you have conducted the necessary review you might approve, approve with conditions and mitigation or reject the application.  In fact, even if you find that the project would have serious impacts you are under obligation to consider mitigation for these rather than denial.  And during the process the Board and the Applicant might find members of the public whose input could improve the project and generate public support for it. Why not instead treat members of the public as partners rather than adversaries?
It would take more time now to conduct an EIS rather than to approve or deny the project without an EIS.  If you do the right thing though and require an EIS you will be better able to make an informed decision.

In the end there will likely still be some disagreements.  There will likely be complaints regarding your decision, whatever it is.  However by then, although some might disagree with your judgment and conclusions none could dispute that you will have done your job with regard to the law and the needs of Greenporters and the concerns of the rest of Columbia County.

In conclusion, despite the discomfort and the potentially messy process that will ensue Friends of Hudson believes you would be wise to take the time now to avoid a hasty, ill-considered decision and its potential negative consequences.   It will be time well spent.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan Falzon
Member, Board of Directors