Here in Hudson today, we had a Stewart's surprise of the different nature. A Gossips source spoke with workers who are preparing the site for construction. He was told, and he in turn told Gossips, that three mature shade trees behind 160 Green Street, the house next door to the house Stewart's demolished, are to be taken down. The justification apparently is that the tree roots interfere with the retaining walls Stewart's is planning to build around the site. Among the trees destined to be felled is this oak tree.
Gossips followed the Planning Board review of Stewart's conscientiously, and I don't recall any mention of eliminating mature shade trees on an adjoining lot. One wonders if this had been mentioned if it would have made any difference.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CAROLE OSTERINK
Ouch, that's what SEQR reviews are for.
ReplyDeleteAre there any actions that could be taken by the City to ensure that they are not taken down? There is no replacing healthy trees of this size and age. It would be a real loss if they were felled.
ReplyDelete"Or perhaps Mr. Marshall is A. a decent, thoughtful person and/or B. a consummate professional."
ReplyDeleteI don't know when, but I'm gonna inquire.
DeleteEven so, SEQR was the public's opportunity - and for those in opposition to the plan their responsibility - to take a closer look.
Why is SEQR so poorly understood and underused?
What this post might have made clearer is that none of the trees are actually on Stewart's property. That's the reason the issue came up after the fact, and not because of anyone's alleged deceit.
ReplyDeleteNow that I've been to the site I know that Stewart's has offered replacement trees to homeowners who'll choose the species for themselves. That's generally what it takes to satisfy SEQR's concerns seeing as the law isn’t designed to merely frustrate progress.
I also learned that Stewart's is taking things further by addressing Bayley Blvd's stormwater issues. That's tree-related, too, insofar as trees are central to the water cycle.
So there was no dishonesty at work, nor did I suspect there was. Despite the calumny we've read in these pages Stewart's has maintained its honorable approach.
Yes Vincent, if you were taking a direct shot at me, I stand by my original statement that you accurately quoted.
ReplyDeleteFire away.
Susan