|Photo: Julie Metz|
Jurkowski submitted his comments on the revised project narrative on Monday, February 27. On Tuesday, February 28, the Greenport Planning Board went into executive session to discuss an issue having to do with Jurkowski. Presumably it was in this executive session that Jurkowski was told he would have to make a choice. He informed DePietro that he would be recusing himself from Hudson's review of the proposed haul road on Friday, March 3. Khosrova advised, "This board should decide if it wants to have another engineer," indicating that another engineer should be hired "if the board wants something more from an engineer than what Ray has already submitted." The board decided it wanted another engineer.
Another moment of interest came Planning Board member Clark Wieman asked about a meeting he'd heard about "with the Colarusso attorney and the mayor." Khosrova, who apparently was also part of the meeting, said the meeting was about the relationship between the City and Colarusso. Khosrova spoke of "public statements and acrimony" and "stuff in the papers" and said that a week ago it was decided that "getting the parties together would be useful." When Wieman asked if the outcomes of that meeting were relevant to the Planning Board's consideration of the project, he was told they were not. Soon after that, Khosrova assured that Planning Board that Colarusso had nothing to do with the Greenport Planning Board's demand that Jurkowski work exclusively for one planning board or the other.
In his presentation to the board, P. J. Prendergast, engineer for Colarusso, spoke of a benefit to Hudson of the proposed haul road that they had been overlooking: the elimination on the streets of Hudson of "retail traffic." The haul road would enable trucks coming to Colarusso from the south to pick up gravel and asphalt to avoid entering Hudson altogether. Instead they could turn right, before reaching the Hudson city limits, onto the stretch of the haul road going east from Route 9 to the quarry, thus avoiding traveling on Worth Avenue, Warren Street, Park Place, Columbia Street, and Green Street on their way to Newman Road and back. According to Prendergast, this would take 70 trucks a day off the streets of Hudson--35 coming and 35 going.
The volume of traffic to the dock remains an issue. On Thursday night, Prendergast maintained, as he has before, that "the project is not about expanding operations; it is about redirecting trucks to a remote area"--i.e., the causeway through South Bay. Khosrova made the point that if they declare the volume of traffic to the dock will not increase, it has to be known what the volume is now. Without that knowledge, there is no way of knowing if it has increased or not. "Why has this been neglected for so long by the applicant?" he asked. JR Heffner, vice president of operations for Colarusso, maintained that all the information was in the Creighton Manning study. "If it's buried in the document," said Wieman, "why do we have to dig for it?"
Wieman brought up the question of alternative routes, noting that one alternative--going between Route 9 and Route 9G along Route 23--was acknowledged but dismissed as being "not economically feasible." This route would be three times longer than the proposed haul road route. Khosrova commented, "DOT [Department of Transportation] won't like that." DePietro then observed, "They've been talking about the social benefit [of the proposed haul road], but they have had this opportunity all along." Prendergast responded to DePietro's comment, "The applicant is under no requirement to do any of this."
|Photo: Julie Metz|
COPYRIGHT 2017 CAROLE OSTERINK