Resignation of Planning Board Chair

The resignation of Walter Chatham as chair of the Planning Board was reported yesterday by Sam Pratt: "Chatham resigns." In his post, Pratt reproduced the email making known his resignation which Chatham had submitted to Mayor Rick Rector and Mayor-Elect Kamal Johnson, without explaining how he had come by it. Last night, Gossips received a statement from Chatham regarding his resignation and permission to publish all or any part of it. The greater part of Chatham's statement follows:

I hope that my anger at being berated by members of the audience for trying to do what we are legally charged to do in an open and impartial way doesn’t obscure the reality that confronts the Planning Board as Hudson's "point team" dealing with the haul road and dock application. 

I also hope that the rational part of my statement deploring the attempt to restrict information and [my] subsequent resignation will in some measure convey how strongly I feel that Hudson is being led into a trap; not by ACS [A. Colarusso & Sons] but by the vocal obstructionists who will not allow for any discussion of what the “conditions” of a conditional use permit could possibly look like. Without some idea of what we could do to control the negative aspects of the dock operation through a carefully considered set of legally defensible conditions, we have no possible way to move forward. There is no point in writing a CUP [conditional use permit] if it is going to be thrown out.

But some of our more vocal and active citizens (generally a good thing) don’t want to entertain this idea and believe that there will be a point where a combination of environmental concerns, legal maneuvers, and legislation will “save” Hudson from having to endure a gravel shipping operation on our waterfront. I believe that Justice Melkonian’s decision, which people keep calling a “great victory” for Hudson, essentially says, yes, the dock repair triggered the need for ACS to seek a CUP and for the Hudson Planning Board to either issue a CUP or provide legitimate reasons for denial. I know that said citizens will immediately argue that we need to do SEQRA (which is of course required in any case) and a full EIS. Maybe so, but how do we get there? We ask all of the questions that are necessary and then formulate scenarios that can lead to acceptable “mitigation of negative impacts”; or as I said before, we can decide that the whole operation is so deleterious to the health, well-being, and safety [of the city] that it should never get a CUP.

So what is the trap? We have had three-quarters of a year since the decision came down. I believe based on very sound advice that there is a point where this will go back into the court. If Hudson has not shown sufficient “good faith” in carrying out the actual as opposed to fantasy terms of what the Melkonian decision [prescribes] then I believe it will be taken out of Hudson’s hands, and it will be resolved without our having gained anything through negotiation, and our leverage will be lost. We have the power to do a lot now; but if the courts take it back that will be the end of it. What a waste!

I am out of the fight now, but I urge my successor to carefully study what the Melkonian decision actually says we must do and make a realistic risk assessment of the current impasse.