The Longest Meeting

The Planning Board meeting last Tuesday went on for a staggering five hours, beginning at 6:00 and winding up just after 11:00 p.m. The meeting started with the continuation of the public hearing on Colarusso's application for conditional use permits for the dock and the haul road.

The public hearing didn't last very long. Planning Board chair Betsy Gramkow reported that she had received written statements from Peter Jung, David Konigsberg, Donna Streitz, Sam Pratt, and Timothy O'Connor. In the Zoom meeting, the board heard oral statements from David Konigsberg and Linda Mussmann. Koningsberg brought up issues of environmental, economic, and safety impacts and the need for public open space at the waterfront and concluded, "We hope the Board will not be sidetracked by a truck-on-the-street issue that is extremely serious but that should be resolved in ways other than selling out the future of our waterfront as a citywide asset." Mussmann stated that "many of the people who wanted to comment . . . cannot manage the technology," asserted that "the Fourth Ward is eager to have the Colarusso trucks off of our streets," and asked the Planning Board to "consider the people who live and walk on the north side of the city." She concluded: "We have waited a long time for a decision and hope you will see the impact on our community."

Planning Board member Larry Bowne then opined, "The lack of access is disturbing." Board member Steve Steim concurred. "We have not provided the right opportunity for the public to weigh in." The board unanimously decided to keep the public hearing open, but the Colarusso discussion didn't end there.

One of the topics taken up by the board was access to the 4.4 acres south of the dock whose ownership seems still to be in question, despite the evidence presented by The Valley Alliance in June 2013, confirmed by the City's own title search in October 2013, and reiterated in a memo from former city attorney Ken Dow in August 2019. John Privitera, attorney for Colarusso, asserted the driveway giving access to that parcel proposed by Ryan Weitz, the engineer from Barton and Loguidice retained by the Planning Board, was on land that belonged to CSX. He also noted that "the City has not proceeded on investigating its ownership," declaring "Colarusso has a deed for it, and they paid for it." Weitz demonstrated that the proposed access to the parcel was actually on City-owned land.

The issue of completing the Greenport section of the haul road was also raised. Constructing the Greenport section, which has been approved by the Greenport Planning Board, is all that is needed to get the gravel and asphalt trucks off Hudson streets. Privitera claimed, "DOT will not let us do anything without approval from you." P. J. Prendergast, engineer for Colarusso, called it "a matter of economics," saying, "There's no sense paving on the other side of 9G if they cannot pave through South Bay." Privitera added, "It's not just construction costs. It's the legality." He maintained, "They cannot begin part of the project without getting approval of the whole thing."

Jeff Baker, attorney to the Planning Board, disagreed. "In terms of SEQR segmentation," Baker told Privitera, "they could start building the Greenport section. There is no legal bar from them doing that now."

After two hours devoted to Colarusso, the Planning Board moved on to other business before it. First was the proposal to convert the barn at 60 South Front Street into event space, a wine shop, and maker space for retail sales.

There were questions about parking, the use of the outdoor garden planned for behind the building, hours of operation, and lighting. Baker advised that the application mischaracterized the project, maintaining that it required a conditional use permit. It was decided that the Planning Board would hold a public hearing on the project at its June meeting.

The next project was the plan to convert 620 Union Street into a boutique hotel--a project that had been presented to the IDA (Industrial Development Agency) earlier in the day. In his presentation to the IDA, David Kessler, the developer for the hotel, noted that, before the COVID-19 shutdown, Columbia County was the fastest growing tourism market in New York State and that in the near future a drive-to destination like Hudson would be key to success in the hospitality industry.

Concerns about parking were raised at the IDA meeting and continued at the Planning Board meeting. Mark Nadolny from Creighton Manning presented the findings of the traffic and parking study, which indicated that there were more than enough parking spaces in the area to accommodate the demand from the proposed hotel and that car trips generated by the hotel would increase driver delay at the corner of Seventh and Union streets by just one second. (It will be remembered that, in an effort to streamline the review process for development, Hudson did away with its offstreet parking requirements more than a year ago.) Bowne worried about other kinds of traffic in the area--"bikes, pedestrians, dog walkers." Board member Laura Margolis was concerned about deliveries in Cherry Alley, asking, "How much traffic are you adding to the alleyway?" Steim suggested the project might be the opportunity to rethink the angle parking along Seventh Street, calling it "the most unsafe" configuration for parking. 

Planning Board member Theresa Joyner suggested there should be a "pull-in" for dropping off guests and unloading luggage. What is planned is a reserved area on the street for drop off, such as exists for The Barlow on Warren Street. When Joyner was asked what she meant by a "pull-in," Bowne advised it was what architects called a porte cochere. Kessler explained that their intention was to preserve the old trees and expand the garden. The board was urged to "take into account what it does to the project if you demand a port cochere." As the renderings show, the plans for the hotel involve extensive gardens, which were designed by the landscape architecture firm Wagner Hodgson, located here in Hudson. Michael Phinney, the architect for the project, protested, "You would decimate the garden and lose one of the old trees." He also warned that adding two curb cuts would only exacerbate traffic problems. He said it was something they had already studied and asserted it would destroy the project. Planning Board chair Betsy Gramkow commented, "We don't want to lose parking spaces with curb cuts."

Gramkow finally suggested that they "take it all into consideration." It was agreed to hold a public hearing on the project in June.

The proposal for 502 Union Street was next on the agenda. The plans for converting the former warehouse turned office building into a community learning center had been presented to the Historic Preservation Commission the previous Friday. The HPC generally approved what was proposed but wanted to see more details before granting a certificate of appropriateness.

The Planning Board, more concerned with use than appearance, was puzzled by what were described as "four hotel suites" planned for the building. It was explained that the rooms would not be marketed to the general public but rather they would be places where visiting artists, performers, and lecturers at Hudson Hall, the Hudson Area Library, and other cultural venues could stay during their visits. Bowne wanted to see floor plans, and it was agreed that floor plans showing both the current configuration and the proposed configuration would be presented at the Planning Board's June meeting.

It was 10 p.m. before the Planning Board around to the final project before them: a proposal to expand BackBar temporarily into the open space at the front of the property to allow for social distancing, an anticipated requirement when restaurants and bars are permitted to serve on premises again. John Friedman, the attorney for BackBar, who was presenting the proposal, argued not unreasonably that the expansion was necessary for the business to survive because the restaurant is too small to be sustainable if the number of patrons must be cut in half.

Gramkow told the board she had already spoken with some of the neighbors--Peter Frank, who had complained about noise from BackBar in the past, and Fourth Ward alderman John Rosenthal, who lives across the street. She reported that no one she spoke with had a problem with what was proposed. The board, however, had lots of problems with the plan, which involves defining the area with planters and putting up tents. They wanted to know the dimensions of the planters and the height of the tents. They worried about access and egress and the safety of the heaters proposed for use in the tents. Mostly, they were unhappy with the drawing of the site plan that had been provided.

Friedman explained that their architect was not working during the pandemic, so he had drawn the site plan himself. Friedman argued that jobs and a business were at stake. Board member Clark Wieman chided, "If this was so urgent, you should have done a better job of presenting a drawing." Gramkow told the board, "I do not want to wait until the June meeting to approve this."

Baker suggested that the board make a list of things they wanted to see: a better rendition of the site plan; dimensions of the tents; details on the planters, lighting, and access. It was finally decided that the board would hold a special meeting on Monday, May 18, at 6:00 p.m., when it is expected they will have a "proper site plan."

At the IDA meeting on Tuesday, Mike Tucker expressed pleasant surprise that the hotel developer was "still interested in talking with us " and remarked about "everyone wanting to develop projects to help with our recovery." It certainly does seem pretty amazing and reassuring that in the midst of a pandemic, these four projects--an event space, a hotel, a community learning center, and a bar--are going forward.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK