The Chairman Regrets
At its July 25 meeting, after making a negative declaration, as lead agency in the SEQR process, on the proposed Colarusso haul road, the Greenport Planning Board announced it would begin its site plan review of the Greenport portion of the haul road with a public hearing, to be held on August 22 at 7:30 p.m. After announcing the public hearing, the chair of the Greenport Planning Board, Ed Stiffler extended an invitation to the Hudson Planning Board to join the Greenport Planning Board "at the table"--"to hear any public comments that may be made by the public and to give your Board a chance to comment on specifics of the details of the project that would be within the Town of Greenport."
Gossips has learned that Stiffler described how the joint hearing would be conducted in the following way:
The meeting would be called to order, the public hearing called to order and after reading of the notice, I would introduce your Board members and outline why you were invited. After all comments from the public have been made, I would turn to your Board for your comments. We will not be discussing any of the SEQRA questions, but I will also allow your Board to ask questions of the applicant concerning the site plan itself. Please remember that the discussions must limit them[selves] to the portion of the project located in the Town of Greenport.
According to information received, Tom DePietro, chair of the Hudson Planning Board, has respectfully declined the invitation on behalf of the board.
COPYRIGHT 2017 CAROLE OSTERINK
The good citizens of Greenport should be ashamed of their Planning Board. The "review" that they have conducted is an insult to one and all.
ReplyDeleteMr. Stiffler is referring to the fact that the SEQR process is now ended.
ReplyDeleteBut considering another fact, that the Greenport Planning Board as SEQR Lead Agency ignored significant repeated questions about the proposal from the City Planning Board, Chairman DePietro is right not to play along with the charade that Greenport cares about any comments other than those of the project sponsor.
In Greenport's "EAF Narrative" we read that "The Planning Board and their consultants thoroughly reviewed and considered all public comments."
Yeah right.
2 things... Did Tom just grow a pair of balls? Has anyone noticed that truck from the quarry are now using Union st from 7th to the post office turning left towards Power ave. Is there work going on at the prison 2 way use all day This has being going of for 10 days if not more.
ReplyDeleteThe weird thing is that Greenport actually sought Lead Agency status. They have shown absolutely no inclination to do a thorough and responsible review, so I'm wondering why they wanted to lead this review. WTF?
ReplyDeleteA [which I know you know]: In order to deliver a Negative Declaration.
DeleteThink: Widewaters.
Though I haven't been following closely, passing up an opportunity to join in a discussion about this issue, however flawed the ground rules, is a bad decision. You can't do "government by walkout" -- get into the arena -- it's a public meeting -- and speak up.
ReplyDeletePeter Meyer, you really ought to attend meetings and become well-informed about an issue before offering an opinion. The Greenport Planning Board has zero interest in doing a responsible review, and has been hostile to Hudson's interests at every step of the proceedings. Honoring them with our presence at their sham meetings doesn't accomplish anything, it only serves to legitimize a bogus process.
ReplyDeleteDear eastjeezus, no offense, but this is a fairly response to those can't make a meeting: you weren't there, shutup. That's wrong for two reasons: first, we get lots of information from outside the meetings and second, opinions can come from many directions and, in a democracy should be encouraged and respected. As to the substance of your comment: you presume to know motives (the GPB had "zero interest in doing a responsible job") and presume to speak for all of us ("Hudson's interests"). There's was not at all a "sham meeting" unless you consider the law a sham. To me, it looks like the GPB outfoxed Hudson and the Hudson Planning Board, rather than taking the opportunity to voice their oppposition, took their deflated football and went home. I happen to have sympathies with the residents of State and Columbia Streets who have to put up these trucks, but if you really think that GPB was so terrible and that all of Hudson was against the Haul road, why would you -- or any Hudson resident -- not support an opportunity for Hudson representatives to state their opinions? You don't legitimize a bogus process by not attending but by showing up and voicing your reasons why it is bogus. Have some faith in democracy!
DeleteDear eastjeezus, no offense, but this is a fairly common response to those can't make a meeting: you weren't there, shutup. That's wrong for two reasons: first, we get lots of information from outside the meetings and second, opinions can come from many directions and, in a democracy all should be encouraged and respected. As to the substance of your comment: you presume to know motives (the GPB had "zero interest in doing a responsible job") and presume to speak for all of us ("Hudson's interests"). There's was not at all a "sham meeting" unless you consider the law a sham. To me, it looks like the GPB outfoxed Hudson and the Hudson Planning Board, which should taken the opportunity to voice its opposition, instead of taking its deflated football and going home. I happen to have sympathies with the residents of State and Columbia Streets who have to put up these trucks, but if you really think that GPB was so terrible and that all of Hudson was against the Haul road, why would you -- or any Hudson resident -- not support an opportunity for Hudson representatives to state their opinions? You don't legitimize a bogus process by not attending it but by showing up and every public event forum and voicing your reasons why it is bogus. Have some faith in democracy!
Delete