Proposed Warehouse and Truck Terminal Sparks Public Outcry

A proposed project for a new trucking terminal and warehouse on the border of Gardiner and Modena has caused great public outcry and concerns surrounding the planned development and impacts. 

The application was first submitted by Modena Developers, LLC, to the Town of Plattekill Planning Board on March 13, 2023 in the form of a site plan approval and special permits. These would allow for the development of the 451,050 square foot trucking terminal and warehouse facility on a 50.93 acre property at 1467 Route 44-55, Modena. It would include 116 parking spaces and 75 tractor/trailer loading docks. 

There are voices of support online in response to the project, seeing warehouse and trucking terminals as employment opportunities and as a bolster to the Town of Plattekill tax base; however, the cries of alarm have so far predominated. 

The proposed project is extensive in itself, with a potentially high impact on the rural area of southern Ulster County. The applicant estimated that 32 acres of the 50-acre site at 2021 Route 44 would have to be developed. 

This plot currently consists of forest, meadow and both federal and state designated wetlands. Adding up to 15 acres of impervious surface, an existing pond is also slated to be filled in. The facility is projected to utilize three million kilowatt hours of electricity annually and 1,725 gallons of water per day. Runoff impacts and wastewater treatment are thus being raised as pressing concerns by local environmentalists. 

Attorney David N. Yaffe of Hamburger & Yaffe, LLP sent a comprehensive letter on Gardiner’s behalf to Richard Gorres, Plattekill Planning Board chair on Jan. 23. The letter included copies of reports by ecologist John Benner, Erik Kiviat of Hudsonia and Gardiner Environmental Conservation Commission Chair Joan Parker.

Yaffe’s letter urged Plattekill to issue a positive declaration on the project’s Environmental Impact Statement, require “substantially more information and studies” from the applicant, reclassify the proposed facility’s use to be specifically “transportation-related and heavy-impacted area” and ultimately deny the application as a whole. 

A positive declaration on the project’s Environmental Impact Statement would mean the proposed development has a significant negative environmental impact on the community, and the preparation of an environmental impact statement should be required. A negative declaration means that the proposed development does not have any significant or potential negative environmental impact on the community. 

This argument for a positive declaration stems from the sheer size and scale of the project with consideration of the environmental context. According to Yaffe, “by no means can the [Plattekill] Planning Board rationally determine that there will be no environmental effect or that the identified environmental effects will not be significant.”

Yaffe’s conclusion reflected the current debate at hand with the potential development, calling for more consideration into the various effects the project will have on the physical landscape, surrounding towns and traffic patterns. “There is a multitude of information either missing from the application or misstated, which is necessary for proper consideration of the application by the Planning Board.” 

Beyond the physical alterations needed that raise concerns, the pressing issue of traffic impacts looms over residents of all surrounding areas as a point of contention. The traffic impact study issued in Jan. 2023 by Chittenango-based GTS Consulting categorizes the proposed shipping hub as a “minor overall traffic generator with approximately 50 vehicles entering/18 vehicles exiting during the morning peak hour and 23 vehicles entering/58 vehicles exiting during the evening peak hour.”

Many residents refuse to believe that the impact is “minor.” Roberta Clements, Town of Gardiner Environmental Conservation Commission member, observed that “By their own calculations there will be an additional 224 cars per day based on an eight-hour day. The applicant is assuming a 12–hour day with 270 trucks per day/11 trucks per hour – which is surely an underestimation, but at best is still unsustainable for the road and the community. This may be ‘minor’ traffic for the Cross Bronx Expressway, but is an exponential and unsustainable increase in these communities.”

In light of the project’s application, a petition was started in opposition to the warehouse and trucking terminal. Started on Jan. 10, 2024, the petition is to the New Paltz Town Board and the Town of Plattekill Planning Board. It is titled “Halt the Construction of a Massive Warehouse in Modena” and currently has 1,166 signatures with the next goal of 1,500. 

In addition to practical traffic concerns, Yaffe included in his report that “there is no discussion or report analyzing the local roads and bridges and their capacity and limitations.” Public voices criticizing the traffic report have repeatedly made the point that one of the bridges on Route 32 that trucks would need to use to reach a New York State Thruway entrance has a 17-ton weight limit. Many tractor/trailers would exceed this limitation, posing a practical issue to the mobilization of trucks out of the proposed terminals. 

Debates over the warehouse have also drawn county officials’ attention, with county executive Jen Metzger and four other members of the county legislature addressing the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT). In their letter was a demand for a more thorough investigation of road safety, arguing that “the existing traffic analysis is flawed and insufficient for decision-making purposes.” The letter sent on Feb. 29 to DOT regional director Lance MacMillan and regional traffic engineer Gerald Charleston was issued on the Office of the County Executive letterhead and co-signed by Ulster County legislators Kevin Roberts (D-12, Plattekill), Debra Clinton (D-16, Gardiner and Shawangunk), Megan Sperry (D-17, New Paltz and Esopus) and Limina Grace Harmon (D-20, New Paltz).  

On March 1, in a press release announcing the communication, Metzger wrote, “The potential volume and frequency of truck traffic from this kind of facility is a major concern for neighbors and surrounding communities, and there are issues like sight distances, speeds and the ability of trucks to safely navigate portions of the highway system that have not been adequately examined. Our communities have recently lost four young people to accidents on three different state roads, and we insist that the proper analyses are done for this project to protect public safety and reduce risks of such tragic losses in the future.”

When the story of this development gained traction in early 2024, many questions were raised as to why local residents discovered the development’s site plan and special use permit application which were filed with the town in March 2023, and the traffic study which was conducted in Nov. 2022. 

Obtaining copies of the pertinent documents was not made easy. The Town of Plattekill website does not provide links to electronic versions of the records so they could acquaint themselves with materials prior to public hearings. Instead, they were invited to visit Town Hall to view the documents in person, photograph them, pay for copies or submit a FOIL request, which allows members of the public to request records from New York State or local government agencies.

Additionally, the town does not offer a means to attend Town Board and Planning Board meetings remotely via Zoom, or to watch them on a YouTube channel. According to Hudson Valley One, accessing the minutes of meetings in order to determine when exactly the warehouse proposal was discussed and what was said about it led to the documents being instantly quarantined by antivirus software in every case. Thus, it remains unclear when the public hearing on this proposal commenced.

Francis Marison Platt, reporter for Hudson Valley One, reflected “No wonder many who are commenting on social media are drawing the conclusion that town officials are trying to sweep this controversial proposal under the rug.” Clouded with confusion and suspicion that the project was meant to maintain a low profile so as not to garner public opposition, the ultimate response from residents on various social media platforms has been intense, personal and detailed as to how this project would negatively impact the area. 

Patrick Cotter, a lifelong resident of Modena — hamlet of Plattekill — created the petition and has cultivated much of the early opposition efforts from residents. He remarked that this project would undoubtedly alter daily life in the area and threaten the “peaceful existence” that is valued by residents of the surrounding towns, including Plattekill, Gardiner, Wallkill and New Paltz. 

“This isn’t just about preserving what we have; it’s about protecting what makes us who we are. We must not allow such developments to rob us of our precious way of life or compromise safety in pursuit of commercial interests.” 

The petition concludes that “building a massive warehouse in a small-town setting can have numerous negative consequences for the local community including the loss of property value.” Alternatively, these projects should be located closer to major highway entrances and exits, as demonstrated by the Tesla warehouse in Newburgh. This then offsets the scale and size of commercial developments and protects well-being and safety of local livelihoods and communities, according to Cotter’s messages in the petition. 

“This project belongs near a thruway,” stated Gardiner resident Annie O’Neill. “It is fraught with dangerous possibilities — noise and air pollution, accidents, quality of living issues, environmental disasters and a host of other issues that are avoided when a truck leaves a major highway and has a depot near the exit or entrance.”

Personal accounts argue for the repurposing of vacant properties such as iPark 87/Tech City and Hudson Valley and Newburgh malls. Clements’ public letter in opposition of the project details how the proposed warehouse “needs to be scaled down to an appropriate size for the area, or not occur at all.”

“Three million kilowatt hours of electricity annually is an unacceptable burden on our already strained electricity grid. There should be ten acres of solar panels on the roof of that ten-acre building. They are seeking a height variance. They could be storing toxic or hazardous substances, fireworks or explosives.” Clements continued to detail in her perspective as a Gardiner resident how the proposed project cannot practically be woven into the environment, traffic patterns, or livelihood of the surrounding area without having lasting and detrimental impacts. In a broader sense, many fear what kind of trends in development the proposed project would cause. 

Gardiner resident Camilla D’Amico argued that it must “be considered what precedent would be set for the region by categorizing a facility of this size as ‘light industrial use.’  This could cause further depletion of the true industrial zones in the region.  If planning boards start to allow very large businesses to take up space in the less expensive rural areas, why would any business pay more to be in the proper industrial zones?”

D’Amico went on to argue that the Ulster County Economic Development Alliance should be consulted for their advice about the issue. “There may be very far reaching economic impacts that a short sighted decision would have.”

Public statements of opposition from residents in and around the potentially affected area also can be found in the website tim4gardiner.com, dedicated to stopping the development, with “Stop the Modena Mega Truck Warehouse” plastered on the home page. Elevating the notion that “public sentiment matters,” the website serves as a hub of information, personal accounts for opposing the warehouse and updates on the progress and public hearings regarding the project.

Don Lipton, Gardiner resident, argued for greater communication and transparency from the Plattekill Planning Board to the public. “The planning board is required by state law to adhere to the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. The board must make a positive declaration of significant environmental impact and require the applicant to complete a draft Environmental Impact Statement. The scoping session must be open for public comment.”

“Above all, the board must keep area residents and the local media informed of the board’s timeline.” In response to calls for transparency, the Gardiner Town Board established a committee to study and submit comments regarding the proposed Modena trucking terminal and warehouse in Plattekill. The committee consists of Gardiner residents Jean-Anne McGrane, Joe Benner, Joan Parker, Town Councilpersons Carol Richman and Michael Hartner, as well as the experts currently hired for the project by the Town Board: Attorney David Yaffe, Engineer Andrew Millspaugh and Hydrogeologist Paul Rubin. The committee is titled the Modena Trucking Terminal and Warehouse Study Committee. 

“We have asked for a gateway meeting which is something that would be done by the Ulster County Planning Board for projects that have ramifications beyond the scope of a specific municipality. That’s something that can only be requested by the town in which the proposal exists and so we have requested that Plattekill ask for a gateway meeting so we can get all of the players together at one table and talk. They are considering it,” said Hartner.

“We hope to demonstrate, influence and support the Town of Plattekill to come to the decision where the project has a positive declaration, which means that there would be significant, adverse impacts from the project and so that it would need to go through a full review which would include an environmental act statement,” said Parker, the Chairperson of the Gardiner Environmental Conservation Commission. According to Parker, the committee is currently on standby as they wait for the Town of Plattekill to take the next step and review all the information submitted by the committee.

“My concern is that people think we have this committee where our real object is to bring down something,” said Parker. “When really we’re just here to support the Town of Plattekill to make the appropriate decision.”

The project is tentatively on the agenda of the Plattekill Town Planning Board once again during their meeting on April 23, though the agenda has yet to be published. For future updates, visit https://town.plattekill.ny.us/government/planning-board.