A Series of Curious Circumstances
Gossips has more than once questioned the appropriateness of Carmine Pierro serving on the Planning Board. Pierro moved from Hudson to Taghkanic in 2013 but continues to own property in Hudson. He is registered to vote in Hudson, claiming as his residence 16 Paddock Place, a house that, according to the tax rolls, is owned by the Antoinette Shallo Trust.
Pierro, who served for many years as mayor's aide to Rick Scalera, was first appointed to the Planning Board by Scalera. In December 2015, as one of his last acts before leaving office, Mayor William Hallenbeck reappointed Pierro to the Planning Board for another two years.
The Planning Board is now reviewing the work done by A. Colarusso & Son at the dock, in violation of the City's zoning code, and the proposed expansion by Colarusso of the haul road through South Bay. Pierro's support for Colarusso in this process has often been on display. In July 2016, when Planning Board chair Tom DePietro called the proposal "controversial," Pierro demanded to know why, claiming that the proposal was merely an amendment to a plan that had already been approved by the Planning Board. That claim was incorrect. Pierro has often been vocal in his support of the proposed haul road, calling it "a great benefit to Hudson" and declaring of the dock, "It's a working dock, and it's going to stay a working dock."
So, here's an intriguing development. In recent months, the building at 111 Fairview Avenue has been undergoing some serious renovation. Originally a car dealership, Canape Brothers Chrysler (Pierro's father-in-law was one of the Canape brothers), the building had in recent years been the location of Hudson Health & Fitness. According to the tax rolls, the building is owned by Carlee Holdings, LLC (previous owner being Leitha Canape-Pierro), an entity with the same address as Pierro's Hudson pied-รก-terre: 16 Paddock Place.
There had been a "For Sale" sign on the building for quite a while, so when the transformation of the building began a few months ago, I was curious to now what was next for the building. After watching the display windows at the front being blocked up and the building painted black, Hudson's color du jour, I finally decided today to stop and take a look at the building permit on display, to see if it yielded any clues to the building's new reuse.
The name on the building permit provided no clues to its anticipated use but raised a few questions. It is Paula Colarusso, wife of Paul Colarusso, president of A. Colarusso & Son.
It is not known if Paula Colarusso bought the building from the Pierros or is leasing it. What does seem clear, however, is that the Pierros have some kind of financial relationship with the Colarussos that should require Cappy Pierro to recuse himself from the Planning Board review of the Colarusso dock and the proposed haul road, but so far it doesn't seem to have done that.
COPYRIGHT 2017 CAROLE OSTERINK
Carole, might that be Paul A Colarusso?
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to find out if City officials knew of this situation and failed to take action.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to know what kind of action the city can actually take.
DeleteWhether it is Paul A or Paula, the facts as presented raise the question of whether it is one of "the" Calarussos. If the answer is "yes," then there is at least an appearance of a conflict and that is the sine qua non for a public official to recuse him- or herself. I like Cappy, he's a nice guy. We've had our differences (I believe I was the first person to call him "the gentleman from Taghkanic" when we served on the Council together). I hope the answer to the central question is forthcoming and, if "yes," that he'll recuse himself from any deliberations and voting on the Calarusso matters.
ReplyDeleteBy 'the' Colarussos, do you mean those with a role in the management of the company, or is it enough that Pierro's new tenant would have a financial stake in Colarusso and Sons?
DeleteI don't know what John Friedman meant, but when I spoke of "the Colarussos" I meant Mr. and Mrs. Paul Colarusso (Paul and Paula), just as when I said "the Pierros" I meant Mr. and Mrs. Carmine Pierro (Carmine and Leitha).
DeleteHe should be removed from the position IMMEDIATELY no excuses
ReplyDeleteHere's is city code that provides clarity--
ReplyDeletehttp://ecode360.com/5079056
The big boy games that keeps Hudson for them.
ReplyDeleteGood work, Carole. He should absolutely recuse himself. This kind of nonsense has to stop.
ReplyDeleteAnd my heart sinks every time another "gloom and doom" black building appears. They're everywhere now, and black has never been an attractive colour for a building. When will these people figure out how bad it looks and how much people dislike it? The real estate owners who try to sell their black houses and buildings get an awakening when they put them on the market. Nobody wants them. They have no appeal. I was especially surprised when the car dealerships on Fairview painted their buildings black. It's a colour that represents untrustworthiness; which makes no sense at all when trying to sell cars.
ReplyDeleteAnd when the Colarusso application goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals - that is, when everyone finally grasps that City attorney Khosrova isn't too embarrassed to give counsel when he has no clue where the zoning districts are - then what will we say about Mrs. Pierro's role as a ZBA member?
ReplyDeleteThe Planning Board must reject the Colarusso application on the grounds of the zoning alone, so Mr. Pierro's recusal as a PB member won't be an issue for now.
It is Mrs. Pierro's potential conflict of interest that matters.
Mary Ellen Pierro, who is on the ZBA, is not Carmine Pierro's wife. I believe she is his sister-in-law.
DeleteAh! thank you. Your clarification will come as a surprise to many people hereabouts.
DeleteMy apologies to Ms. Pierro of the ZBA whom I've mistakenly wronged.
There is no conflict-of-interest.
The only reason there is complaints is because the name is Colarusso. What about the shady deals that other current and former aldermen have done? Are we just going to sweep them under the rug?
ReplyDeleteThis is a very pressing issue. That is why it's germane, and not because of the names involved.
DeleteOtherwise, please don't sweep anything under the rug if you have evidence of misdeeds.
Why not make yourself useful and find out why the FBI dropped its investigation of some of our current City officials after 2008.
It would be nice to find out why, but it seems that the focus of everyone these days in Colarusso. All of this energy should be focused on things that are much more important and needed in Hudson
DeleteYou are alone in not recognizing the single-most most important issue facing the City's future.
DeleteMoreover, the proposal leans on incorrect interpretations of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan, as proffered by Greenport, and a wholly uninformed view of the City's 2011 Generic Environmental Impact Statement and the GEIS's rationale for the City's last, comprehensive zoning amendments.
You're saying that none of that comprehensive planning work was important at the precise moment that nothing is more important.
That's your answer "why," which has nothing to do with "names."
Instead, it has everything to with a Statute of Limitations which is running out. That is the urgency which you cannot have known until now.
So Colarusso and the haul road are the most important issue facing Hudsons future? I feel that housing is a bigger issue, or how about keeping everything in Hudson affordable to locals who are low income families? Those issues are more important then Colarusso trying to move trucks off the city streets.
DeleteFirst, yours are general concerns, and there's no pressing plan that anyone's working on anyway. You might as well have said "sea-level rise" to my "Statute of Limitations."
DeleteSecond, people in affected neighborhoods ought to judge how pressing the truck problem is.
Finally, everyone must understand that the Colarusso company is not trying to get its trucks off City streets. The company aims to keep its trucks in the City until it gets what it wants from us, which is a zoning change.
After it supposes we'll change the zoning for a crisis the company itself is perpetuating, the plan acknowledges that trucks will continue using the State truck route from Columbia to 3rd Streets.
You wish to ignore a Statute of Limitations on a grossly insufficient review the plan? Your long-term concerns don't come anywhere near the urgency of this moment.
Herb,
ReplyDeleteColarusso is asking for new intersections on both of our major highways, a two-lane road thru South Bay, hundreds of trucks over a dangerous rail crossing at Broad St. And no new jobs or revenue for the City. If they get this approved, our waterfront is toast, which is a very big deal from an economic standpoint.
Has anything been done to remove Cappy from the Planning Board? Can he be removed? Hallenbeck appointed him who would have to remove him?
ReplyDeleteEveryone is quick to attack Colarusso. Do any of you actually know the Colarusso family? How about all of the money they donate to Hudson and Columbia County? Or how the company provides a decent amount of jobs to people that live in the city and the county? How about you guys donate that kind of money to the area? Colarusso doesnt have to do any of that, but he does.
ReplyDeleteHerb, it's pretty obvious by now that you ARE a Colarusso.
DeleteIn that case, let me say that I've had a lot of success showing people how your products are everywhere in Hudson, just as mining products are in evidence throughout the civilized world.
But we know that the high-friction material from Becraft is superior to any old aggregate, and prevents vehicles from slipping on countless County roads.
Everyone ought to be proud that this ancient stone, from lower the Devonian, is right here, and that we all have access to it through your mining technologies.
All of that aside, the Colarusso company must honor local laws. Its failure to do so imposes on other interests protected and even promoted by these laws.
It should not be a surprise that people with interests that are impacted by the lawbreaking will defend themselves, nor is it wrong for anyone to defend the law.
It is not your privilege to dishonor laws and the legitimate interests of others because you donate money to your favorite causes.
It seems to me that's your whole argument, which you're trying to dress up as being honorable.
I'd like to paint a picture for you of what the Colarusso proposal might have looked like had it honored local laws, though I wouldn't take the time here at the bottom of a forgotten thread.
Suffice to say, the honorable way forward for you was telegraphed during the discussions leading up to the 2011 zoning amendments. It appears in the gap which was deliberately left for the transportation of mining products in the South Bay. This deliberate gap was due to the City's careful avoidance not to be seen confiscating your predecessor's land and its uses.
The general perception is that that consciously drafted gap in the law, within which any landowner may reasonably develop, is not sufficient for the present company which simply demands more.
No one is being "quick to attack" the company, A. Colarusso and Son, Inc., unless the 2011 zoning amendments and the company's subsequent purchase of South Bay only just happened. No, this is already an old story, dating back 15 years at least.
It's fair to ask, what kind of society do you see yourself promoting here? How do you think it appears to reasonable people?
If you'd only honored the City's laws, but I don't suppose that you yourself believe that's what's happening. Nobody believes it.
Well let me assure you I am not a Colarusso. I do however know some of the Colarusso family. It seems that you will not be happy until the company is shut down and gone. Well that will never happen. Maybe Colarusso should just forget about the haul road and keep running the trucks through the city. You will never stop that from happening. Lets say you somehow managed to scare away the Colarusso company. What will that change? There will still be trucks going through Hudson. You have truck from Ginsbergs, Shoprite, Walmart, Price Chopper and many other businesses. Are you going to attack them all next?
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that I want the company harmed, then you've understood nothing that I wrote above.
DeleteWhere do I suggest any harm or lessening of existing rates of profit? I don't.
But rather than answering critical points of law, it appears that misrepresentation and calumny suffice as arguments for you. It is sufficient to cast your adversaries as straw men, inserting malice where none is found.
By referencing the company's "trucks through the city" in relation to the proposal, you even hint at a kind of extortion: Give us what we want or else.
The State truck route through the city is an unrelated issue on which I have no opinion, so you are also changing the subject.
Why not give Reason a try?
On further reflection you're right Herb, that you're not - nor could you be - a Colarusso family member.
ReplyDeleteThe Colarusso's I've met were likable individuals capable of engaging in reasonable and civil discourse. When we disagreed, we disagreed respectfully, reasonably, and with humor. That requires a measure of wisdom from all involved. I'm glad you reminded me of this, if only negatively.
If you know the family personally, then I suggest you try and be more like them.