- Ken Dow's Comments on the Melkonian Decision
- Colarusso Presentation by John Privitera and Pat Prendergast
- Our Hudson Waterfront Presentation by David Konigsberg
- The Valley Alliance Presentation by Sam Pratt and Peter Jung
Thursday, February 13, 2020
Watch for Yourself
The part of Tuesday night's Planning Board meeting that had to do with the conditional use permits needed by A. Colarusso & Sons was videotaped by David McIntyre. That video record is now available in four parts on YouTube.
1.
ReplyDeleteOn the video, between 4:05 and 4:47, we hear the Applicant's attorney John Privitera acknowledging what our own highly-paid experts denied the city in December.
John Privitera to Planning Board (2/11/20):
"You still have as an involved agency to make a determination about how to apply the conditional uses - the conditional use considerations in the Code - to the City section of that haul road [sic], and of course, as Ken [Dow] said, you're free to engage in SEQR, you're going to engage in SEQR, as we've acknowledged with the respect to the entire commercial dock operation."
2.
The City Code defines the entire commercial dock operation to include "the transport and shipment of goods and raw materials, including loading and unloading facilities, and storage of such goods and raw materials, and associated private roads providing ingress and egress to or from such commercial dock operations" (§ 325-17.1 (D)(1)).
In a rare moment of redundant clarity, the Code also emphasizes that "commercial dock operations" include any and all activities conducted upon the private road (§ 325-17.1 (D)(2)).
https://ecode360.com/16031827?highlight=&searchId=5817944533140640#16031827
Darn, a "the" got slipped in where it didn’t belong, but the meaning is unchanged:
Delete"you're going to engage in SEQR, as we've acknowledged, with respect to the entire commercial dock operation."
Isn't the Planning Board the Lead Agency rather than an "involved" agency?
DeleteEverything is configured to diminish the adversary.
3.
ReplyDeleteTo appreciate how far we've come in a very short time, consider what the Planning Board's own advisors were claiming at the last meeting on December 10th. That was when the Board's previous attorney and its still-acting engineer agreed with the Applicant that the immanent SEQR review must be confined to the literal dock, and no further.
The Planning Board's engineer, whose hiring we now regret, had reinforced the company's opinion that questions about traffic volume were inapplicable. He was confirming the Applicant's negative answer to question D.2.j on the Environmental Assessment Form: "Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic?"
You read that right, it was our own engineer who explained that the Colarusso gate marked the limit of the pending environmental review, therefore an EAF question about traffic increases was irrelevant because once inside the gate "the trucks don’t come in contact with the public." (Does anyone know how much are we paying this guy?!)
Consider that it was only in December that the Board's previous attorney insisted (yes: insisted!) that no topic already considered in Greenport's environmental review may be a part of Hudson's forthcoming review.
The Board's previous Chairman seconded his advisors' "carefully considered set of legally defensible conditions."
Afterwards, one of the Board members explained to me that the Planning Board "has to follow the instructions of its lawyer."
Now, two months later, even the Applicant has abandoned the instructions of the Board's advisors in December.
Again, the Applicant's attorney on Tuesday: "As Ken said, you're free to engage in SEQR, you're going to engage in SEQR, as we've acknowledged with the respect to the entire commercial dock operation."
Over the last decade just think of the time and effort residents expended fighting the city's own overpaid advisors, often getting nowhere! It's not hard to see that ours is a broken, unworkable system.
I propose a special award for those incredibly rare city officials who possess the wherewithal and temerity to stand up to their own experts. Over the years we can recall one or two of these brave souls, but the first award should be given to new Planning Board member Larry Brown, who astounded all present when he questioned a legal pronouncement by a member of that most esteemed of priestly castes, a City Attorney.