Consultant: Traffic study ‘woefully’ lacking
The Cold Spring Village Board on Monday (March 3) adopted a report by two consultants detailing concerns with the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail.
In a meeting that lasted less than 15 minutes, Mayor Kathleen Foley and trustees Tweeps Phillips Woods and Laura Bozzi voted to adopt the report from Greenplan consultant Ted Fink and John Canning of Kimley-Horn Engineering. Trustees Eliza Starbuck and Aaron Freimark voted no.
Canning was hired by the village on Feb. 12 to analyze sections of the DGEIS dealing with traffic. Fink presented his draft report on Feb. 19 and revised it after input from the Village Board.
The final reports, prepared at a cost of $12,000, were forwarded to New York State Parks, the lead agency for the DGEIS, to meet a Tuesday deadline.
As proposed, the 7.5-mile Fjord Trail will connect Cold Spring and Beacon, with the southern terminus at Dockside Park, which is owned by the state and managed by the village.
The report identified 14 areas of concern, including:
- The role of the village in land-use approvals as an “involved agency,” including site-plan approval, identified in a 2017 scoping document has been reduced to “potential approval for possible sidewalk improvements,” Fink noted.
- The analysis of village planning documents is “selective,” relying only on policies favorable to HFFT, he said.
- Insufficient consideration is given to Cold Spring’s local setting, especially regarding community character, traffic and parking.
- The assessment of the impact of increased visitation on the village is insufficient, Fink said.
- The impact on emergency services requires detailed analysis with mitigation and/or alternatives for law enforcement, fire protection and EMS response, he said.
- There is a lack of clarity regarding future fiscal and management responsibilities of HHFT compared with other agencies, including the village, Fink said.
- The analysis of alternative routes is inadequate, he said.
- The proposed HHFT phasing is concurrent and doesn’t call for constructing trail segments north of the village first, which would allow mitigation measures to be tested and designs modified as needed, Fink said.
In an email to The Current, Starbuck said she voted against adopting the report because it was “produced at great cost to taxpayers [and] uses fearful speculation to justify predetermined opposition to the new park.” She added that “it shuts out the many residents yearning for the project’s benefits.”
Freimark said by email that the 143-page report “ballooned into an embarrassment” that he could not endorse. “We had an opportunity to focus on serious and solvable issues, but instead, it throws in every worry possible to try to bury the project in paperwork and delays,” he wrote.
In response, Foley said the Village Board’s review of the DGEIS was about “taking a hard look at a project, understanding its potential impacts” and identifying weaknesses. “We must assess if the potential generosity of HHFT ultimately costs the village too much financially and in quality-of-life impacts,” she said.
She said Canning’s comments underlined that the DGEIS is “woefully lacking” in its analysis of village parking and traffic, noting that the impact statement only addresses three village intersections and fails to evaluate impacts at Dockside.
According to the mayor, the Putnam County planning commissioner, Barbara Barosa, identified similar concerns in comments she submitted to state parks.
The complete response to the DGEIS by the Village Board and its consultants, along with submissions by the Historic District Review Board, planning and zoning boards and police and fire departments, are posted at dub.sh/CS-HHFT.
In other business…
- The Village Board on Wednesday held its first discussion on the 2025-26 budget. Foley highlighted new revenue sources, including paid parking and a hotel occupancy tax, along with a few “surprises,” such as film production fees and lower employee insurance plan premiums. At the same time, the village must address several costly infrastructure projects, such as dam repairs and fronting the cost of Fair Street repairs before being reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Under state law, the village must have a balanced preliminary budget by March 20.
- The wastewater system suffered a massive clog caused by “flushable” wipes, Foley said. “No matter what the packaging says, wipes do not break down,” she said.
- An electric vehicle charging station is planned for High Street near McConville Park.
Voting no because the planning consultant’s report identifies too many issues or omits public “yearnings” tells me Cold Spring Trustees Freimark and Starbuck deeply misunderstand land-use development and the SEQR [State Environmental Quality Review] process.
It also tells me that their strong personal bias toward this massive development drives them to deny the village access to subject-matter expertise and critical thinking to help inform its decision-making. The planning consultant’s role is to identify the issues with the DGEIS. It is the lead agency’s responsibility to require the applicant to solve them.
I respect Stephanie’s experience [as a former Village Board member], so I am interested in her interpretation of this: Every other response from villages, towns and other governmental agencies was four to eight or maybe 12 pages. Cold Spring’s response spanned 143 pages. Was that expensive paperwork necessary? Did those other boards misunderstand the process as much as she says we did?
A more concise and focused report could have made a stronger case for the critical improvements — yes, improvements — we need in the final plan. That was the point I made consistently in comments to my fellow board members.
Freimark is a member of the Cold Spring Village Board.
Cold Spring is a small, charming town with tiny streets and byways. It’s uniquely situated on a picturesque and historic spot on the Hudson. Surely Mr. Freimark understands why it’s necessary to thoroughly examine the impacts of this development, which will be immense. A boon for tourism, yes, for residents and wildlife? Not so much.
Since Cold Spring stands to be most heavily affected by this development, it’s in the village’s best interests to examine carefully, rather than to gloss over, any issues for the sake of expediency. Once it’s built, you can’t go back and recover what’s lost. Like the old carpentry rule, “Measure twice, cut once.”
Context is always important. There is a very simple reason that Cold Spring’s response to the DGEIS was longer than those of other municipalities: It was shaped by many voices, thoughtfully engaged by the Village Board. Commentators included our consulting planner and engineer (who conducted peer reviews), comments from our standing boards, and from the officer-in-charge of the Police Department and the fire company chief. Knowing that we did not have a unanimous position on the board, I made space for each trustee to submit his or her comments in the packet, so that minority opinions could be recorded. The two nay votes had their voice, in public session and in the document itself.
Although the trustees, as an “involved agency,” weren’t required to solicit guidance from staff and standing boards, the majority of us thought it was important to do so. The planning, zoning and historic district review boards asked solid, thoughtful questions from their areas of purview. Their reports helped to inform the Village Board response, which we presented in summary format and in detail. The full document can be found at tinyurl.com/2zxzcnbr. The consistency of comments is remarkable: The project sponsor has not sufficiently considered impacts on Cold Spring nor how to properly mitigate them. That consistency isn’t forced — it was reached rationally and independently by solid minds who know their jobs.
The Fjord Trail is the most consequential development in our village since the railroad in the early 1850s. The details of the project are important, and there isn’t a shortcut if we as trustees want to do our jobs properly. It’s unfortunate that Trustee Freimark is embarrassed by the cumulative work of our volunteer standing boards, the chiefs of our police and fire departments, and the licensed professionals we hired to review the DGEIS. They and we, as the Board of Trustees and an involved agency, must consider all the what-ifs, using the number of pages required to do so.
I thank our volunteers, our staff and our consultants for working hard on the village’s DGEIS response submission. I’m not embarrassed by your work. I am exceedingly proud of it and grateful for it.
Foley is the Cold Spring mayor.