In addition to reporting on the meeting, Acheson shares the news that Colarusso's attorney John Privitera has informed the City, in a letter addressed to assistant city attorney Mitch Khosrova, counsel to the Planning Board, that his clients believe that it was unnecessary for the City to hire a new engineer to consult on the project. According to Privitera, the engineer's review of the project was complete when Ray Jurkowski was forced, by an ultimatum from the Greenport Planning Board, to recuse himself from consulting with the Hudson Planning Board. The following is quoted from Privitera's letter: "[Jurkowski] has documented that the engineering is complete on the Haul Road Improvement and Truck Traffic Diversion Project, we do not see why the delay or cost of a new engineer for the city is necessary."
Tonight is the public meeting--the first time the Greenport Planning Board will listen to comments from the public. The meeting begins at 6:30 in the theater of the Arts Center at Columbia-Greene Community College. The meeting is being described as "a Special Informational Meeting to receive input on the environmental aspects of the proposed Colarusso Haul Road." What follows is the notice of the meeting as it appeared in the Register-Star.
Tomorrow night, Wednesday, April 19, there is another meeting having to do with A. Colarruso & Sons and its activities on the Hudson waterfront. The Zoning Board of Appeals will be considering Colarusso's appeal of the Order to Remedy (OTR) issued in late January by Hudson Code Enforcement. The violation cited in the OTR is: "Replacement of concrete and wood bulkhead on loading dock without approval from the City of Hudson Planning Board as per Section 325.17.1(d) City of Hudson Code."
 |
| Google Maps |
COPYRIGHT 2017 CAROLE OSTERINK
Gossips, you were misled by the appellant's argument!
ReplyDeleteThe prescribed remedy was NOT to submit an application to "for site plan review," but merely to submit an application to the Planning Board. If anyone supposes they're the same thing, they aren't.
It was only weeks before Ray Jurkowski recused himself that the causeway's 80-year old, cement culverts suddenly appeared on the company's Site Plan. Now we're told that the engineering review was complete? I doubt that Mr. Jurkowski will agree to that.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to Mr. Jurkowski's standards, the company's engineer failed to include the culverts on any Site Plan since 2009. Consider what it means that every State and Federal agency who ever reviewed a Site Plan involving the South Bay causeway did so in total ignorance of the side-by-side culverts.
Approximately five and a half million gallons of river water passes through the culverts with each tide cycle. That's eight Olympic-sized swimming pools!
So why have the 24-inch-diameter pipes only appeared now (in February), and why are they only identified in the singular, as "culvert."
Every Site Plan has a "revisions" section at the margin of each page. Consistent with professional standards, the project engineer has dutifully recorded each change made to the document except for this one. In the 2017 Site Plan, the culverts appear at long last (as "culvert"), but no note of the revision is recorded anywhere.
No engineer who noticed this tiny detail added to the drawing alone would suppose that the engineering review was complete.
Now that the Planning Board's new engineers have noticed it, however, the company's funds for this sort of thing have dried up.
Pattern, anyone?
Correct, unheimlich. The company is trying to confuse the point of the OTR.
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding that the City removed the designation of the dock and surrounding waters as a "deep water port." Why did the City do that? And why now is everyone suddenly bringing back the disused framing? Doing so only favors the applicant.
It was called a "deep water port" in 2010, by the previous owner. The City's previous SEQR review followed the applicant in this characterization, until it didn't anymore, and all references to "deep water port" were struck from the May 2011 Environmental Impact Statement (which is found at the City website).
DeleteNow the phrase is back again.
Your right, Crito, the misnomer helps the applicant.
The PB has the right to retain consultants and charge fees back to the applicant throughout the process—not just some limited portion of the process determined by the self-interested applicant.
ReplyDeleteThe role of the engineers as consultants is not limited to a single pass over the application. It is an ongoing role, which may continue throughout the process, whether there are changes or not.
The PB, for example, may need to get advice from its experts on any number of things—say, something raised by the public during a comment period. Or clarifications on past advice. Given that Jurkowski recused himself (under apparent pressure from Colarusso and Greenport), and is no longer available to explain his past commentary, the PB must have a new engineer to interpret and continue his work.
Colarusso’s position suggests that it believes it has a problem with its application which cannot stand up to scrutiny. If the company were actually confident of its chances, it would not take such an overly-aggressive and legally insupportable position.
The PB has the right to retain consultants and charge fees back to the applicant throughout the process—not just some limited portion of the process determined by the self-interested applicant.
ReplyDeleteThe role of the engineers as consultants is not limited to a single pass over the application. It is an ongoing role, which may continue throughout the process, whether there are changes or not.
The PB, for example, may need to get advice from its experts on any number of things—say, something raised by the public during a comment period. Or clarifications on past advice. Given that Jurkowski recused himself (under apparent pressure from Colarusso and Greenport), and is no longer available to explain his past commentary, the PB must have a new engineer to interpret and continue his work.
Colarusso’s action might suggest that its attorney thinks the company has problems with its application,—problems which cannot stand up to further scrutiny. If the company were actually confident of its chances, it would not take such an overly-aggressive and legally insupportable position.
Odd, when a "little more fill and a little less use" happens on the sunny side of Warren, it's tragic. Over here on the dark side, it's just "necessary."
ReplyDeleteI'll bet when Vanderbilt came through, his attorneys convinced the lead agency that there would be no future need for Clinton's ditch.
This city has been going down hill ever since the HRRR separated us off from the Faithful.
We need better engineers, not lawyers.