Another Night Spent with the Planning Board
The Planning Board held another of its marathon meetings on Tuesday, this one lasting almost five hours. The board managed to wrap up a couple of the projects before them, granting site plan approval to 620 Union Street and 60 South Front Street.
The proposal for 620 Union Street is to redevelop the property, which was once the home of Robert and Sally McKinstry and more recently the Hudson Home for the Aged, as a boutique hotel. At Tuesday's Planning Board meeting, the developer presented responses to suggestions for change from a member of the public and a member of the Planning Board.
In June, Sam Pratt, who maintains an office at 609 Warren Street, submitted a letter to the Planning Board suggesting that (A) the height of the new addition to the building be reduced by 12 to 15 feet; and (B) the addition to set back "one to two truck widths" from Cherry Alley.
Pratt pointed out that land west of the McKinstry mansion had been open space since the 19th century (and probably long before that) and argued that the proposed addition to the building would negatively impact the buildings across Cherry Alley by blocking the light and obstructing the view. He submitted these drawings to illustrate his suggestions:
In response to Pratt's concerns, the developer conducted a full solar study, with included an animation to show the position of the sun and the light throughout the year. The animation demonstrated that there would be no difference in the amount of light reaching the rear of 609 and 611 Warren Street in the summertime, and in the winter, there would be a difference only for about two hours in the afternoon.
The developer also addressed the suggestion made by Planning Board member Theresa Joyner that there should be a circular drive for dropping off hotel guests instead of simply the two parking spaces on Union Street designated for unloading. One of the most appealing features of the plan for the hotel is the elaborate landscape plan meant to re-create the lawn and gardens that would have existed in the 19th-century, when Robert and Sally McKinstry maintained their large home as a boarding house of a very intellectual and philanthropic character. In its review of the proposed hotel, the Historic Preservation Commission was particularly impressed by the landscape plan, which is well researched and relies heavily on conventions of 19th-century landscape design.
Michael Phinney, the architect for the project, showed the Planning Board a drawing to illustrate the impact such a drive would have on the landscape plan.
Phinney noted that introducing the drive would destroy the existing plan for the gardens and the courtyard, sacrifice one of the two mature trees they are committed to preserving, turn the dining terrace into a "vehicular area," and eliminate four parking spaces on Union Street required for curb cuts. Joyner acknowledged, "This is unattractive," but added, "you only did one study," implying that there might be a better way to introduce a circular drive into the plan.
Although the Planning Board briefly contemplated keeping the public hearing open for another ten days, it was ultimately decided they would close the public hearing and move on with the process of approving the project. The board answered the questions on SEQR short form, made a negative declaration, and approved the project unanimously, with the condition that the developer, David Kessler, purchase thirty-one parking permits from the City of Hudson for offstreet parking, if they are available when the hotel receives its certificate of occupancy. (It should remembered that the Common Council amended the zoning code to do away with all offstreet parking requirements last year.)
Also approved during the Planning Board's nearly five hour meeting were the plans to convert the red barn at 60 South Front Street into a wine shop, a maker's studio, and event space.
On the subject of another project before the Planning Board, 502 Union Street, there were no public comments at Tuesday's meeting. Nonetheless, it was decided to keep the public hearing open for ten days to receive written comments.
The project will be taken up again at a special meeting of the Planning Board to take place on Monday, July 27, at 4:30 p.m.
On the topic of Colarusso and its conditional use permits, Ken Wersted of Creighton Manning presented a new truck study. The original truck study was done in 2016.
Responding to calls for Colarusso to get its trucks off Hudson streets by building the Greenport portion of the haul road, which was approved by the Greenport Planning Board in August 2017, John Privitera, attorney for Colarusso, explained, "The reason they will not build part of the haul road is because they could get sued. Building a portion of the project before they have approval for the entire project is a legal risk." In May, Jeff Baker, then counsel to the Planning Board, dismissed this argument, telling Privitera, "In terms of SEQR segmentation, they could start building the Greenport section. There is no legal bar from them doing that now."
During the public hearing, Linda Mussmann submitted a two-minute video that was a mashup of the videos she has been posting on her Facebook book calling on the Planning Board to get the gravel trucks off the streets by approving the conditional use permits. Hers was the only call for approval. Hilary Hillman, Sam Pratt, David Konigsberg, and Cynthia Lambert all called upon the Planning Board to deny the permits. Peter Jung announced that The Valley Alliance and Basilica Hudson had hired attorney John Lyons to represent them and called attention to the 3,000 to 6,000 interactions of gravel trucks and cars on Route 9 and Route 9G that would result from the haul road, after "two hundred years of unimpeded travel" on those two roads. Donna Streitz reminded the board of the Save Our Hudson Waterfront petition, now with close to 900 signatures, and of evidence of opposition to industrial activity on the waterfront "throughout the years." Steve Dunn confessed he was "reluctant to deny the permits except as a last resort" and advocated for a trestle over the railroad tracks to eliminate trucks having to travel on South Front Street and Broad Street to access the dock from the haul road.
Victoria Polidoro, who is now serving as counsel to the Planning Board, proposed a resolution to classify the action, name the Planning Board as the lead agency, and refer the project to the Columbia County Planning Board for its recommendation, the latter being a necessary step in the process. The choices for classifying an action are Type I, Type II, and Unlisted. Polidoro and Ryan Weitz, the engineer from Barton & Loguidice retained by the Planning Board, recommended that the action be classified as Unlisted, because it does not meet the threshold of either Type I or Type II. Polidoro assured the board that the process will be the same as for Type I and by calling it an Unlisted action "you have not removed any tools from your toolbox," but some members of the Planning Board became suspicious of the recommendation when Privitera agreed that Unlisted was the appropriate classification.
Polidoro also reminded the board, "You are stuck with the SEQR decision [on the haul road] made by Greenport. SEQR is going to be done only on the dock." Privitera warned, "Pos dec'ing it now [that is, issuing a Positive Declaration to trigger an Environmental Impact Statement] would be a legal mistake, and it would negate all the things we have agreed to do."
It was decided that voting on the resolution to classify the action as Unlisted would also be taken up at the special meeting on Monday, July 27, and that the public hearing on the Colarusso permits would be suspended for the time being and reopened in September.
The entire Planning Board Zoom meeting--all 4 hours and 48 minutes of it--can be viewed here. The next meeting of the Planning Board will be the special meeting to take place on Monday, July 27, at 4:30 p.m.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
It was a barely comprehensible jumble, but what Polidoro said was "SEQR's been done on the haul road. You're going to be reviewing the haul road for conditions for the conditional use permit, but you're stuck with the SEQR decision that the Town has made already. But you're doing a SEQR review on the entire dock operation within the City limits."
ReplyDeleteThat sounds alarmingly close to what Mr. Privitera might say, having none of the clarity of Ken Dow's winning defense when the same applicant now before the Planning Board actually sued the Planning Board on "nonsensical" grounds (Dow).
Mr. Dow secured the Board's full SEQRA authority, and Ms. Polidoro would be wise to study it.
And wasn't it hilarious to learn that of all the trucks passing TSL each day along the State Truck Route, Supervisor Mussman is ready to give the applicant everything it wants to remove 1.7% of the total truck numbers each morning and 1.1% of trucks in the afternoon.
ReplyDeleteThank you Clark Wieman for pressing that question.
Of course Ms. Mussman will say she's more concerned about trucks in the 2nd Ward, but no one in their right mind believes that!
I believe that Board member Larry Bowne was the first in years, and perhaps ever, to question the applicant on the 2011 compromise to use the existing, one-lane causeway road to connect with the widened and regraded (2015) private road through the woods to the mine.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, for the years the company's been pushing this proposal for a brand new road, it's just as if the 2011 SEQR study and its resulting "preferred alternative" (see above) never happened.
The applicant's engineer provided a novel response to Mr. Bowne, inasmuch as the landowner can use the upland road right now in two directions of travel.
However, the company still insists despite its predecessor's regular practice supported by the language of the Code ("a private causeway or private road that provides ingress to or egress from the property") that it can only use its one-lane road in a single direction.
The applicant's entire argument hangs on that single, flimsy fib.
Fortunately, that no longer floats with anyone, except perhaps Supervisor Mussman.
Must we wait until our typically disappointing experts grasp the Planning Board's full SEQR authority before we calculate (in square feet) that the proposed action is automatically a Type I action under SEQRA?
ReplyDeleteOur engineer and new lawyer do not comprehend the scope of this review.
Indeed, when I heard Ms. Polidoro on what the city is "stuck" with, my first thought was that it's more accurate to say that Greenport will be stuck with the City’s SEQR decision once the Planning Board scrutinizes the road, the waterfront, and everything else the Board must review as required by the Zoning Code.
Moreover, the reason the applicant prefers an Unlisted action and a potential CND is because a weaker Planning Board - say in three or six or ten years - can be lured, via the CND "tools," to a bargained approval through smaller and less meaningful mitigations. As an applicant, those are the exact tools you'd want to erode municipal resolve.
Unfortunately our book-smart engineer, surely a fine fellow, hears the word "tools" and is satisfied that tools are always good! That's a mistaken assumption.
Again, Clark Wieman's reticence to all of this was spot on, as if he'd actually studied the 2011 SEQR Findings Statement which urged any future Planning Board tasked with considering a conditional use permit to conduct an environmental impact statement which is "Supplemental" to the 2011 Generic EIS we conducted for a Type I action.
What makes this the best Planning Board in the city's history is that Mr. Wieman and probably others among his colleagues have undoubtedly studied the 2011 Findings Statement. For that alone I am grateful.
Is the Planning Board the only functioning government agency in the City. A 4hr 48 minute Zoom meeting? Holy Cow! And they've done it more than once? Compare these meetings to the ones pushing the Galvan Giveaway PILOT and the Swashbuckling STL law (or is it SNL?). Why do private property owners (remember Stewarts?) have to jump through a million government hoops while our elected officials plow right through the process, spending millions of taxpayer dollars with barely a study of need or long-term costs and benefits, much less worries about a ten-foot height reduction to get a little more sun.... Maybe the Planning Board could get involved in these boondogle PILOT projects and phoney regulatory laws. --p
ReplyDeleteA new hotel in Hudson? When all the current lodging places are empty? Great idea! Regarding the trucks? It's not just Colorusso. Stand on Third Street on any day and listen to the ADM, Walmart, Ginsberg's, Welsh Management trucks barreling into town every day. Huge, long tractor trailers plowing down our streets aren't just Colorusso (although they are just as much to blame). Get all trucks OUT OF HUDSON!
ReplyDeleteIt's the developer's money, it's the developer's property . . . it's a permitted use in the zoning district. On what basis could that project be denied?
DeleteDear Funky. Is that hotel owner asking for a government bailout? A 40-year PILOT?
ReplyDeleteTo give an idea of the ridiculousness of the Colarusso attorney’s typical assertions, the following quotes are all from the City’s successful defense against “the Petitioner’s” lawsuit in 2017.
ReplyDelete“Petitioners’ pleadings reflect a fundamental misunderstanding or mischaracterization of what the Respondent Planning Board is reviewing.”
“Several of the claims — specifically those in relation to conjectural ‘further’ regulation of the dock or haul road — ... are entirely speculative, devoid of facts, attack imaginary straw men, are only vaguely articulated, and are plainly not ripe for judicial review.”
“Petitioners’ challenge to the Planning Board’s pending SEQRA review is, however, so fundamentally misstated, and relies on so many irrelevancies, that it is almost bizarre.”
“Petitioners’ pleadings reflect a fundamental misunderstanding or mischaracterization .... fundamentally erroneous .... mainly irrelevant.”
“Not only is that not what the Code provides for, it doesn’t even make any sense.”
“Petitioners’ inconsistencies [are] however, merely a red herring. ... It is not only disingenuous to try to raise this settled question now, it is also misguided.”
“Petitioners’ contentions set out in their Memorandum in such respect are unattached to anything with any legal significance.”
“This Part is so rife with errors and misstatements that it is difficult even to respond to it. ... [It is] utter speculation to which the Court should give no credit.”
“Petitioners second paragraph is as wildly speculative (and inaccurate) as the first.”
“Calling their dock ‘fully-permitted’ is just factually wrong. The dock is a non-conforming use, not a permitted one."
“[T]here is no established factual basis for Petitioners’ claim that they have been treated arbitrarily per se."
“Petitioners’ interstate commerce claims do not get out of the starting blocks. ... Petitioners appear to misunderstand what constitutes discriminatory treatment in Commerce Clause matters.”
“[G]iven that Petitioners’ claims are unquestionably speculative, we have no facts at all. Petitioners seek instead the Court’s assent to formulate ... imagined wrongs.”
“Fundamental misunderstandings in some regards, and baseless speculations in others .... These inchoate and unripe causes of action must be dismissed.”
It’s not a permitted use in the district. It is a nonconforming use which per both the ZBA and a court decision requires a comprehensive review for a Conditional Use Permit. (Any lawyer who does not can’t be bothered to understand the difference between a Permitted Use and one requiring a CUP should stay away from land use law.)
ReplyDelete“Calling their dock ‘fully-permitted’ is just factually wrong. The dock is a non-conforming use, not a permitted one" - Ken Dow, 2017 Memorandum of Law (see above).
ReplyDelete