Tonight, this item appears under New Business on the agenda for the Greenport Planning Board.
Colarusso Quarry Co. – Application for Site Plan Review for a Haul Road from the Colarusso facility on Newman Road to the Hudson River Waterfront. (May require a coordinated review with the City of Hudson Planning Board).This same proposal was before the Greenport Planning Board six years ago, in January 2010. That time, the haul road was being proposed by O&G/Holcim; this time, it's being proposed A. Colarusso & Son, which acquired the Holcim property in Hudson and Greenport in 2014.
When this proposal was made more than six years ago, Cheryl Roberts, when city attorney for Hudson, sent a letter to O&G warning that "seeking approval from the Town of Greenport Planning Board in advance of a declaration of lead agency and undertaking a coordinated review . . . amounts to segmentation in violation of 6NYCRR 617.3(g)." This time, the Greenport Planning Board is acknowledging upfront that the project may require a coordinated review with the City of Hudson Planning Board.
As it did in 2010, the Valley Alliance has submitted a written statement about this proposal, which includes concerns about the South Bay Creek & Wetland, possible SEQRA violations, and traffic issues. The full text of the Valley Alliance's letter to the Greenport Planning Board can be read here.
One thing that's different today from the way things were in 2010 is that back then this is what the road going east from Route 9G looked like.
In January 2010, Gossips reported about the road being proposed: "From 9G east, it will be two lanes, each lane 12 feet wide, with shoulders." Today, the road going east appears to be exactly what was proposed in 2010. Gossips sources have reported that the road going east is 29 feet wide.
Also on the agenda for tonight's Greenport Planning Board meeting is an application to build "retail establishments at 161 Fairview Avenue." The address indicated is between McDonald's and the Gothic Revival house that survives from an earlier time. What impact the proposed commercial development will have on the house, which now appears abandoned, is not known.
Photo: Paul Barrett |
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Yes, it is significant.
ReplyDeleteFollowing are before and after measurements of the road's width, as determined by GIS-coordinated satellite photographs.
ReplyDeleteThe first figure is the distance from Route 9-G:
50 (in) = 14 feet wide in 2015, and 27.5 feet wide in 2016.
100 = 12 feet in 2015, and 29.5 feet in 2016.
150 = 13.5 feet in 2015, and 29.5 feet in 2016.
200 = 12.5 feet in 2015, and 30 feet in 2016.
250 = 11.5 feet in 2015, and 31 feet in 2016.
300 = 11.5 feet in 2015, and 28 feet in 2016.
350 = 11.5 feet in 2015, and 30 feet in 2016
400 = 11.5 feet in 2015, and 28.5 feet in 2016.
450 = 11.5 feet in 2015, and 28.5 feet in 2016
500' - 11.5 feet in 2015, and 29 feet in 2016.
550' - 11.5 feet in 2015, and 29 feet in 2016.
600' - 11.5 feet in 2015, and 27.5 feet in 2016.
650' - 11.5 feet in 2015, and 29 feet in 2016.
700 = 11.5 feet in 2015, and 31.5 feet in 2016.
750 = 11.5 feet in 2015, and 31 feet in 2016.
800 = 12 feet in 2015, and 31 feet in 2016.
850 = 12 feet in 2015, and 31.5 feet in 2016.
900 = 12 feet in 2015, and 30.5 feet in 2016.
Paul is a reasonable man, ask him to remove an equal volume of earth down at the Sloop's slip and the city gets a kickass kayak kiosk.
ReplyDeleteSorry, the first numbers above are in FEET - the distance from Rte 9G at which each width measurement was made.
ReplyDeleteFrom the 50-foot intervals of road-width measured before and after the roadwork, today's average road width beyond the original width of the dirt road is 17.66 feet.
Multiplied by 930 feet of causeway, that's 16,423.8 square feet of new road width.
To convert square feet to acres, 16,423.8 is divided by 43,560 (square feet per acre) to equal 0.377 acres, or 3/8 of an acre.
The new road adds 3/8 of an acre to the old dirt road you see in the above photo.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete