WHAT TYPE I MEANS
According to the State's SEQRA Cookbook, Type I actions are those which "are more likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment . . . and may require the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement," or DEIS. Type I actions also require coordinated review with other local, County, State, and Federal agencies.
Responding to Privitera's objections on behalf of Colarusso, Planning Board attorney Victoria Polidoro noted that the resolution finds the project has the potential to disturb 2.5 acres, "and is being reviewed ab initio," using the legal term for "from the beginning."
The Board found that the project exceeded the State-mandated threshold of disturbing 2.5 acres or more of land in proximity to a public parkland (the Henry Hudson Waterfront Park), as well as being in close proximity to important historic resources. The project is near at least two historic resources identified by the Board, not to mention the Union/Allen/South Front Street Historic District. It is now anticipated that the Board will move toward findings of potentially significant adverse impacts, and issue a Positive Declaration, which would require Colarusso to prepare a full DEIS. The company has fought unsuccessfully to stop the City from conducting such a review, losing appeals to the local Zoning Board of Appeals and a State Supreme Court judge, and arguing unsuccessfully to limit mitigations to minor alterations like planting forsythia bushes along a fence line. . . .
PERMIT DENIAL WOULD HELP BOTH OUR STREETS AND THE WATERFRONT
Colarusso has argued that approval is necessary to remove its own heavy trucks from Hudson streets, and proposes moving them to a two-lane truckway through the protected South Bay Creek & Marsh. But documents recently filed by the company indicate that approving the project will barely move the needle. Gravel trucks, the analysis concludes, represent only a small percentage of overall truck traffic on the state truck route that runs along Third, Columbia, and Green Streets.
"This means even if gravel trucks are totally removed, the great bulk of big trucks on our streets would remain," said Valley Alliance co-director Sam Pratt. "So we would be jeopardizing the tremendous potential of our waterfront without actually solving the problem on our streets," Pratt continued. "The only fast and sure way to stop the gravel trucks downtown is to deny the application, not approve it. Meanwhile, the City needs to work with the State and neighboring towns to redirect the State truck route on surrounding highways--precisely the subject of an upcoming study with funding secured by Assemblymember Barrett."
COMPANY FORFEITED ANY GRANDFATHERED RIGHTS
While Colarusso has been using the dock for gravel in recent years, a court decision found that under the Local Zoning Code written by City Attorney Cheryl Roberts in 2011, the Board now has the right and duty to review the nonconforming project from scratch. At the time, Roberts described the new codes as "very protective of the environment," and intended to address the concerns citizens had raised "about getting a handle on the port and the causeway."
Senior Department of State attorney William Sharpe likewise explained at the time those laws were passed that such projects "are not permitted under the new zoning as of right," adding that "at the point where something happens on the property . . . they're going to have to get a conditional use permit for the entire property."
The entire press release can be found here.
“the Board now has the right and duty to review the nonconforming project”
ReplyDeleteNow wait a minute, "nonconforming” is a technical zoning term which is totally misapplied here. What conceivable place does it have in this discussion? There is no part of Colarusso's property or operations which is "nonconforming."
Worse than that, by relying on misnomers we underestimate the actual hazard (of there being nothing nonconforming), but also the opportunity (to make up for that very loss), which is now faced by the city.
The time is past for slogans, now we must think.
There's even more hazard in the seeming absence of a plan beyond rejecting the application. I agree it’s a good start, but it's foolish not to plan beyond it.
Any lack of preparation will result in either the status quo ante, or in a lawsuit based on unshakable principles which the city may not - and should not – attempt to defend.
Any effort is doomed which lacks a solid plan to remove gravel trucks west of 3rd Street.
It isn’t just doomed, though, because a court can totally reverse any progress we think we’ve made in the last several years. We could be left with nothing, and all on a wager.
So what’s the plan beyond “No”?
Put another way, who’s NOT behind the plan in the 2011 waterfront program? In that plan - which is at least a plan! - the landowner would quit our streets to use its one-lane private road in two directions of travel, both to and from the mine.
Who doesn’t want that?? Even Linda Mussman would embrace it if she wasn't so busy giving away our waterfront.
And if you don't want a plan that took years to work out, then what’s your plan?
"No" is not a plan.
UNHEIMLICH .Can you again let us know who the owners of the gravel mine and its operation was in 2011. When did Colarruos start the transfer of stone onto barges,etc etc.What did C R & L M screw up
ReplyDeleteIt's worth noting that to the extent this review process has been lengthy and tedious, it's all the fault of the applicant. Colarusso challenged the City in court, claiming that the Hudson Planning Board has no authority to review their project. That lawsuit failed miserably, and set the process back for a year-and-a-half. And the company also refused to provide basic truck traffic data for 3 years, creating another backlog in the process.
ReplyDelete