“I’m not going to stand up here and say I’m for or against another warehouse on Neelytown Road,” said Montgomery resident Sylvie Rainaldi during a public hearing on Thursday. “I am just here to say that the application had no specific facts or evidence to demonstrate financial hardship and those are required by the moratorium.”

The Town of Montgomery currently has a warehouse and distribution center moratorium in place while the town reviews and updates its Comprehensive Plan. Last week the town board held a public hearing for a moratorium waiver at the request of RDM Group, at which the applicant was to demonstrate their “unnecessary and extraordinary hardship” due to the moratorium.

RDM hopes to build two distribution centers on Neelytown Road between the existing facilities of UNFI and FedEx. The 200,000- and 525,000-square-foot warehouses would rest on 63 acres of currently vacant land owned by MidHudson Industrial Park, LLC and Supreme Industrial Park, LLC.

“We believe that this location is primed for what we are planning to do there,” said Isaac Neuman of RDM Group.

Neuman said the current property owner had a previous deal that fell through “due to this moratorium” and the application notes that the seller “lost millions of dollars on that pending sale.” The application submitted to the board did not have any financial documentation attached.

While Neuman is aware that the moratorium is currently set to end in June, he said they cannot wait that long.

“We came to [the property owner] with a proposal to try and get something done, but we need to get it done in a certain amount of time in order to fulfill obligations to potential tenancies that we anticipated looking at the project,” said Neuman.

Barbara Lerner, a town taxpayer who sent a letter to the board, also did not believe the applicant had proved their case.

“When will we stop being the welcome mat for developers who propose projects with so little and often inaccurate information? The request for a waiver is just as troubling as the application itself,” said Lerner.

Lerner pointed out that the owner has held the property for 15 years.

“So for 15 years, in an area where development has gone virtually unchecked, they have chosen to hang on, waiting for greater financial gain on the sale,” said Lerner. “This is not unreasonable, however, are we supposed to believe that their choice to not sell for 15 years is suddenly a hardship because there is a moratorium in place?”
Lerner called the property an investment.

“Ownership does not entitle them to a substantial gain on their investment. Investing in real estate is always a gamble. Property values go up and down like every other commodity. It should never be the responsibility of the town or taxpayers to make their gambles pan out. It is not our responsibility to make sure they gain money,” said Lerner.

Town resident Don Berger pointed out that RDM Group currently has a controversial project in the pipeline in the neighboring town of Hamptonburgh, “less than half a mile away.”

That project entails 100,000- and 245,000-square-foot speculative distribution centers on a former family farm at 230 Neelytown Road North.

Berger questioned if it was the same project, but Neuman assured him that the two proposals are “totally separate, totally different” and the Hamptonburgh project “has nothing to do with this one.”

However, if both projects are approved and all four warehouses/distribution centers are built—for a combined total of 1,070,000 square feet—the residents, farms and other property owners on both sides of the town border could see an increase in traffic and other impacts.

“The town has not conducted a comprehensive traffic study that represents all the new warehouse development, nor has it ever taken into consideration the development projects in neighboring townships,” said Lerner. “How can they claim that this will not trigger a SEQRA action? Why has the board never looked at the cumulative impacts of these projects?”

Councilwoman Kristen Brown noted that the applicants had claimed that their project would not adversely affect the environment and the town and asked Neuman for a site plan or other material that would support the claim.

“I don’t have any site plans,” said Neuman. “I don’t think I would move into spending time and effort of site plans without knowing that I can proceed.”

When pressed about what the project actually entailed, Neuman could not provide that information either, other than to say it would be an “as of right use for the zoning allowed at that location.”

“I cannot at this point disclose or guarantee anything as for what we potentially have in mind for this project, but we are looking to add hundreds of jobs,” said Neuman.

Brown advised the applicant that the town’s comprehensive plan committee had approved the comprehensive plan to go out for public review the previous evening. She noted that there were changes in the document that, if adopted, could affect the project proposed by RDM.

“Until the comprehensive plan has been finalized and accepted, and the moratorium lifted, it would be a great disservice to the residents and taxpayers of the town of Montgomery to grant this waiver,” said Lerner. “We cannot continue to be known as the town where developers have an easy path with no regard for our future.”

Town attorney Will Frank explained that the board is considering the application for a waiver because they are “obligated under the moratorium law to consider it” and it doesn’t mean the board has taken any position.

The public hearing was to remain open for written comments from the public and potential additional submissions from the applicant to February 10. The board is required to make a decision within 30 days on the requested waiver, which means the board is expected to give its decision at their meeting on either Feb. 18 or March 4.

Other business
The board took no action on the proposed town leash law as they are reviewing the draft prepared by the town attorney. The law would only be for the town, outside the three villages, as the villages have their own laws. The law does not require dogs to be leashed while on the owner’s property.

The local law regarding town official salaries was set for March 4 at 6:30 p.m. The board also intends to discuss supporting St. Mary Cemetery during that meeting.