Neighbors of a proposed 298-unit development at 1530 State Route 9W in the Town of Ulster shared concerns last week about the impact both during and after construction could have on traffic, infrastructure and for Adams Fairacre Farms.
During a meeting of the town board held on Thursday, November 7, Steve Betcher, Adams’ construction project manager, said a possible access route to the proposed development through an embryonic right-of-way across lanes used by customers and delivery vehicles and could be calamitous to the farm market and garden center, particularly during the construction phase.
“That right of way is immediately adjacent to the rock outcrop on the north side of the driveway,” Betcher said. “That’s a major truck entry for us for deliveries and so on, as well as customer traffic in and out. If you’ve been there during holidays or weekends, it is a bottleneck back up area to begin with. So all that is to say, there really is no room for construction equipment on the property.”
Town building inspector Warren Tutt said the developer originally envisioned an access road running downhill from the project site to U.S. Route 9W, but he said he’d been pushing instead for construction trucks to use a separate driveway accessible from a turning lane at the U.S. Route 209 exit ramp.
The project in its present configuration would include two four-story, 74-unit apartment buildings; 15 two-story, ten-unit townhouse buildings; and a 7,850-square-foot central clubhouse.
Betcher said that Adams’ had spoken to both the developer, Rochester-based Whitestone Development Partners, and property owner Corey Halwick, former Town of Ulster wastewater superintendent and shared their concerns, and found the discussions amiable. Should the project continue moving forward, Betcher said Adams’ would like the town’s assistance in construction scheduling, phasing and durations so as to limit disruptions to their business.
“They become critical factors into minimizing interruptions or stoppage even of customer flow to and from the store,” Betcher said. “So looking forward, again, should the project progress, any developer agreements that are made with the developer and the town and interested parties, for example, should probably contain stipulated accelerated prosecution of the work: Night hours when necessary, appropriate, properly permitted and that stuff. In other words, the work cannot drag out.”
Betcher added that cutting into the rock outcrop to create more ease of access could also be disruptive.
“Adams’ have done it twice, cut into some of that rock,” he said. It’s a huge undertaking. So imagine something like that taking six months, whether it’s hammering or blasting a huge portion.”
Local residents also shared concerns about the proposed residential development, including Vicki Lucarini, who said she was “neither for or against” the proposal.
“What I am concerned about is its size,” she said. “This development could potentially add 289 cars, 289 to 578 cars on the road. How does a developer plan to accommodate the amount of traffic safely in and out of the development? (The area is) a mess, and you’re going to add more traffic to that?”
Developers maintain that after the project is completed, there would be an average of 87 vehicles leaving and 28 entering during peak morning hours; and afternoon peak hours would see an average of 93 vehicles entering and 55 exiting. They also estimate 61 vehicles entering and exiting during peak hours on Saturdays.
Regis Obijiski said he supported new housing in the community, but echoed traffic concerns, suggesting a connection from Tuytenbridge Road.
“There’s a dirt road off Tuytenbridge that looks like it leads to the north of that parcel that’s going to be developed,” he said.“If the developer could find a way to connect that, even purchasing a right-of-way by the developer to go to Tuytenbridge it would allow people to head right or left onto Route 32 or 9W…I think that would be a good ingress or egress for the developer to consider as an alternative to what’s there right now and try to expand it.”
Ulster resident Aimee DeChiara vehemently opposed the project.
“Listening to this, I can’t help but say, gosh, why Lake Katrine?” she said. “We’ve had Central Hudson, we had Bread Alone, now we’re having this big complex. I mean, why can’t it be somewhere else…?”
DeChiara said she too was concerned about escalating traffic relating to the proposed development.
“I can’t even get home from work without waiting,” she said. “It’s just insane. I can’t imagine the traffic. I can’t imagine that you could help that flow in any way based on the infrastructure that’s there right now…I’m just going to say totally against this, I can’t see it working. I really cannot.”
Representatives of Whitestone Development Partners were not in attendance at the public hearing and could not be reached for comment.
Join the family! 
