Thursday, March 14, 2019

Albany Business Review on Stewart's

In a bit of serendipity, the Albany Business Review has an article this morning about Stewart's and its plan to build twenty new stores this year and remodel or expand at least a dozen others: "Stewart's Shops getting 'more aggressive' with store renovations."

Since the pay wall is likely to prevent some readers from reading the entire article, I'll quote some of the more relevant parts:
The convenience store chain could spend $55 million or more replacing smaller, older stores with shops that include extra space for prepared foods such as soup, sandwiches, meatballs and coffee. . . .
One of the biggest obstacles over the past few years, [vice president of facilities Chad] Kiesow said, is the time it takes to get new stores approved by local planners. . . .
Social media has given residents and property owners a platform to share concerns about development. That means Stewart's spends more time working with planning boards and attending public hearings before projects are approved. . . . 
[T]wo of the stores Stewart's is building this year have been in the works for three years. Another project was planned five years ago. . . .
Although Gossips is not exactly "social media," I will take credit for sharing concerns about Stewart's expansion here in Hudson. It's not clear exactly when Stewart's started planning for the new store at the corner of Green Street and Fairview Avenue, but two years ago, in March 2017, when Chuck Marshall started petitioning the Council to change the city's zoning laws to accommodate the company's expansion aspirations, they were already in contract to buy the two houses that must be demolished to realize their plans.

Stewart's is back before the Planning Board tonight, and the Planning Board will begin hearing public comment on the proposed project. The meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall.


  1. Matthew Fredericks proposal is far too logical and appropriate for Stewarts to fit into their clone mentality ... unfortunately.

  2. Vince et al, did anyone ever proposal alternative designs to Stewarts? Though I haven't followed the matter religiously, from reading Gossips, I only saw the NO's to Stewarts. Period. It was Stewarts itself that offered an alternative design. I have always argued that the naysayers should pay more attention to Galvan, which is probably worth more than Stewarts, owns almost 80 properties in Hudson, half of them not on the tax roll, has gutted and torn down far more historic properties than Stewarts (the two that it is acquiring are not even historic) -- and not a word (except for Carole). Where was the public hearing when Galvan dismantled a historic building in violation of the agreement, when it began remuddling the historic library without a Certificate of Appropriateness? And now, after acquiring a historic building near the railroad tracks, claims it has to tear it down. What? No public hearing? C'mon. We have one small company that has been a good neighbor, on one corner, providing great services for nearly 50 years and -- enough said.

    1. There is no excuse for either Peter.

      Galvan obviously owns this town.

      Proven exactly by your examples.