By Albert Amateau
State Supreme Court Justice Joan B. Lobis this week dismissed the lawsuit by Hudson Sq. residents, businesses and community groups challenging the city’s plan to build a three-district sanitation garage on Spring St.
The Jan. 11 ruling also dismissed the part of the suit that challenged the 2005 settlement that Friends of Hudson River Park reached with the city for a timetable to get the Department of Sanitation off of the Gansevoort Peninsula and Pier 97 to enable the piers to become part of the Hudson River Park.
The suit was filed at the beginning of last year to block the proposed 120-foot-tall garage for trucks and equipment from three sanitation districts on property now owned by UPS. The plan, presented to the public in 2005 and approved by the City Council in 2007, calls for a salt shed and diesel fueling in an area near the entrance to the Holland Tunnel that has been changing from industrial to mixed uses, including high-end residential condos.
Michael Kramer, who represents one of the plaintiffs, said on Jan. 13 that the challengers have not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling. “Of course, we are disappointed,” he said.
Phil Mouquinho, owner of the restaurant P.J. Charlton on Greenwich St., one of the plaintiffs, said he could not believe the ruling. The judge, he said, ignored the project’s impact on traffic and pollution in the neighborhood. Mouquinho, however, noted that even if Justice Lobis’ ruling stands up, other agencies including the Port Authority and the city Department of Transportation would have to approve aspects of the project as they come on line. “It’s not over ‘til it’s over,” he said.
However, A.J. Pietrantone, executive director of Friends of Hudson River Park, was gratified by the “correct ruling” but said the group, which advocates and raises funds for the five-mile-long Hudson River Park, was sympathetic to neighbors’ concerns and “hopes that a better alternative for the current plan can still be advanced.”
The ruling, however, said the plaintiffs had no standing to challenge the Friends settlement with the city even though the agreement mentions the Spring St. location. Justice Lobis agreed with city and state lawyers that the agreement merely cites Spring St. as one of several possible alternatives to the Gansevoort sanitation station.
The judge also rejected the claim that the plan was arbitrary and violated the city’s “fair share” principles. Justice Lobis also rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the Environmental Impact Statement and the city approval process were flawed.
Spokespersons for the city Law Dept. did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
