The decision handed down by Supreme Court Justice Michael H. Melkonian on January 23 concludes:
City Code § 325-17.1 Core Riverfront C-R District plainly states that the commercial dock becomes subject to review by the Planning Board in the event of any alteration, improvement, or rebuild of a structure on the subject parcel, in whole or in part, for any purpose. To recite the exact language from the Code: § 325-17.1(D)(1): "Any existing commercial dock operation may continue to operate as a nonconforming use until such time as one or more of the actions or events specified in Subsection D above is proposed to be undertaken." The "events specified in Subsection D" include, in relevant part, "any land or improvement thereon be constructed, altered, paved, improved or rebuilt, in whole or in part, for any purpose." § 325-17.1(d)(1) continues: "Where one of the actions or events specified in Subsection D above is proposed, in addition to the provisions of Article VIII, and as more fully set forth on § 325-17.1F(2), the Planning Board shall impose additional conditions on such use as may be necessary. . ." Here, respondents rationally concluded that the erosion repair project was one of the "actions or events specified in Section D" triggering the termination of petitioners' right to continue to operate the commercial dock without conditional use permit and that SEQRA review for continued commercial dock operation is necessary.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in its entirely.This is good news for the City of Hudson and the waterfront.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CAROLE OSTERINK