Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge Hurley to oppose proposed gas station at 28A, request town resolution to back Woodstock legal challenge

Town Board of Hurley · June 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Multiple residents warned that a proposed gas station and convenience store at the 28A intersection would increase traffic and construction congestion on a narrow country road and asked the board to pass a resolution opposing the project to support an Article 78 challenge in state court.

Several residents who live along 28A addressed the board to oppose a proposed gas station and convenience store planned near the intersection used by hundreds of local residents. Speakers described the road as narrow with no shoulders, noted recurring incidents that block the road, and warned that construction traffic and underground fuel‑tank installation would create congestion and safety hazards for emergency response and daily travel.

Commenters said the project would add turning movements at a complicated intersection and pointed to the history of local planning‑board denials in the neighboring jurisdiction and a developer’s subsequent Article 78 petition in state supreme court. One resident asked the Hurley Town Board to draft and vote on a resolution opposing the project and to submit that resolution to the court handling the Article 78 petition as evidence of adjacent‑town opposition.

Board members acknowledged the concern and took the request under advisement. Staff said they would follow up with the Woodstock planning office and the town attorney to determine whether a resolution from the town could affect the court’s consideration and to identify any necessary steps to draft and renotice such a resolution.

Why it matters: Residents contend the proposed development could increase traffic risk and temporary construction congestion on a narrow local road used by many households; adjacent‑town resolutions were cited as potentially persuasive evidence in the pending court challenge.