After Village of Montgomery Planning Board Chairman Kevin Conero told the public they had plans to get second opinions on many concerns regarding the warehouse proposal on Route 211, residents finally had some hope. The board had plans to use an independent noise analyst, traffic consultant and aquifer expert, as well as looking into legalities. However, on top of residents still having concerns with the project, they also felt that the independent noise study wasn’t exactly what they expected.

To recap, the Route 211 project is a proposed four large warehouses for various uses, two 80,000 square feet (45 feet high) and two 60,000 square feet (35 feet high) along 211. The big issue with residents? The warehouses are right near a residential area, by Weaver and Union Street in the village. For months, locals have gathered together to advocate and show resistance to the project at village planning board meetings.

Last week, the public hearing for the project was reopened, and like the previous meeting, residents weren’t shy to share how they are feeling.

Principal of Engineering and Surveying Properties and project representative Ross Winglovitz gave a few minor updates, such as stating they are in compliance with all Department of Environmental Conservation requirements in regard to the “aquifer distance from existing wells.” He also noted many things they’re doing for noise mitigation, such as sound walls, roof top mounted HVAC equipment and more.

Conero asked about hours of operation. A lot of residents believe that set hours would help reduce any sound, traffic or lighting issues at night.

“I think we’d like to see the hours of operation coincide with what the village noise ordinances are,” said Conero.

Winglovitz responded, “We specifically have studied the noise and in both scenarios, you have significant restrictions during overnight hours.”

Despite this, residents are still concerned about noise.

A common speaker and Weaver Street resident, Jeff VanZandt, noted that no one did any studies in his backyard. “I think it’s really important for the board to take into consideration how much distance could potentially disrupt our peace and quiet. By setting hours of operation, [it] could limit that, which could be a great thing. The developers might not be too happy about it, but I think our peace of mind and our ability to enjoy our property is much more important to the board than the ability for the developer to make a profit,” said VanZandt.

Another Montgomery resident at meetings often is Don Berger, Chair of Residents Protecting Montgomery (RPM).

“I pulled up this noise study and I read and I read and I read it. This is not what we asked for. We wanted somebody to come in and do their own study, not to make comments about this study,” said Berger, who was piggybacked by others who stated that the new noise analysis felt like a review more than anything.

Union Street resident Karina Tipton commented about the aquifer study. “I did read the Sterling environmental aquifer report and it does conclude that the water quality will not be impacted. It doesn’t discuss the water quantity, or the impacts of the warehouses that are cited on this intake, so that’s something that was left out,” said Tipton.

Near the end of the meeting, Conero was ready to close the public hearing. “We should close the public hearing and issue a negative dec under that because we’ve addressed most of these environmental issues,” said Conero.

However, members of the public responded out loud, questioning why it would be closed if the second noise analysis hadn’t been done.

Later, Conero stated, “We’re at the point where we have to keep the public hearing open and we’re going to ask for the independent sound study.”

The public hearing will remain open, and there is also now a section on the village’s website where residents can access many documents related to this project.