Despite the announced intention that the four presentations would take only ten minutes each, the Planning Board meeting tonight went on for three hours. Clark Wieman, who was sitting in for Planning Board chair Betsy Gramkow, decided to change the order of the agenda, allowing the presentation of the plans for 620 Union Street to go first. That presentation took a full hour.
When the meeting finally got around to the Colarusso issue, much of what was presented rehashed things that have things that have been said many times before. That's no surprise. The format of the meeting was designed to bring the new members of the Planning Board up to speed. Two statements, however, crystallized the dilemma for the Planning Board and may give a little hint about how this could all play out.
During the Colarusso presentation, the company's attorney, John Privitera told the Planning Board, "We have the right to a conditional use permit. You have the right to decide what conditions will be imposed." Later in the meeting, Stephen Steim, one of the new Planning Board members, asked, "Do we have authority to approve or deny conditional use permits, or just the power to impose conditions?" Unfortunately, Jeff Baker, counsel for the Planning Board, tends to speak only loud enough to be heard by the person to whom he is speaking, and so, seated toward the back of the room, I have no idea what he said in answer to Steim's question. The next audible thing came from Larry Bowne, another of the new members of the Planning Board, who said, with the intonation of a question, "We have the actual authority to deny?"
Update: Stephen Steim contacted Gossips this morning to say that, in answer to his question, Jeff Baker, counsel to the Planning Board, confirmed that the Planning Board has the power "to deny the permit application, not only to decide what conditions should be placed on it."
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
Why is it that Navigators rule the city shore over on the sunny side of Warren yet half of the city's shore is in the second ward where grants are given for Landlubbing tourists to invade?
ReplyDeleteRoom for hundreds of small watercraft and the North bay remains empty for seven years now.
Whenever it comes to public the use of municipal shore, Landlubbers are siempre piratas and Navigators are semper paratus.
DeleteIt seems that in Hudson there's perpetual need for sharpe lawyers telling future undiscovered half truths.
1.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that "We have the right to a conditional use permit" belongs in the same category as "It was a perfect conversation."
I think what Mr. Prendergast had never before seen in his career was an illegal action by a landowner which triggered, in local law, significant and continuing restrictions on the entire property.
So if you're the attorney for the property owner, how do you reverse a debacle of the applicant's own making (which you probably advised them on beforehand) and still salvage the greater proposal which nobody in the municipality wants?
With so few options it looks suicidal to use belligerence as a means to maximize the landowner's diminished rights, except that the verbal ploy is backed by the belligerent action of trucks on our streets.
Up to now, and with precious few exceptions, this combined tactic of word-and-deed has mostly fooled our own highly-paid consultants. After more than decade of milking the Environmental Justice angle, does anyone doubt that Mr. Privitera isn't expert at exploiting the next round of well-meaning advisors?
Even last night, following Mr. Dow's departure, the city attorney subtly reintroduced a distinction which makes the applicant's argument for them. Where the City Code defines the "dock operation" as any and all of the landowner's uses, our attorney suddenly collapsed and conflated the any-and-all into a discussion about "the dock" itself! Was he aware that we've all seen that too many times before?
The effect of this latest in our long history of self-goals was heightened by the fact that the conflation followed Mr. Privitera's admission about SEQR's application "with reference to the entire dock operation."
And so we learn again (and so does Mr. Privitera) that it's our own advisors we've got to keep our closest eye on.
2.
ReplyDeleteBut there was a second important admission when Mr. Prendergast stated that the company "can truck as much stone down there as they need now."
If that's the case, then why does anyone need a larger road?!
The hackneyed response to that question only works if you ignore the fact that the Core Riverfront Zoning District was specifically designed to address the city's Environmental Justice concerns in tandem with the landowner's property rights.
It irks me to now hear people lecture residents on "compromise" when we already attained a grand compromise which exacted sacrifices from all involved. (Speaking for myself, I had to swallow most of my ecological concerns for the greater good.)
As for solving the overall problem, the new District was tailor-made to accommodate "the preferred truck route alternative."
So what happened to that preferred alternative?
I bring great news! With the exception of two road crossings at State Routes 9 and 9G, the new landowner (since 2014) has all but completed 2011's solution to the rerouting of the trucks.
It's not out of the question that the existing private road, when used in the intended two directions of travel (for "ingress and egress," as stated in the Code) may itself afford an increase of volume. Does anyone know that that's not possible? It should have been studied long ago - even in 2011 - but it's a chance we'll have to take.
I wouldn’t worry, though, seeing as the current landowner "can truck as much stone down there as they need now."
What the next landowner may intend with the existing road or the now-proposed one is anyone's guess.