Some History of Activity at the Waterfront

Recently, Sam Pratt brought to Gossips' attention documents found among others he received a few years ago in response to a FOIL request. They reveal some history relevant to the current situation regarding the Planning Board and A. Colarusso and Sons.

Back in October 1996, the Planning Commission granted site plan approval and a conditional use permit to allow salt to be delivered by barge to the dock, then owned by Independent Cement Co., and stored in the building located there. In August 2010, Sarah Sterling, then an alderman representing the First Ward, brought it to the attention of the Common Council that the salt was no longer being delivered by barge but was being trucked in and trucked out. She suggested that the parties involved--then Cargill (the salt operation) and Holcim (owner of the dock)--needed to go back before the Planning Commission for a review of the activities now being conducted at the dock.

Salt being stored at the dock in 2010

Sterling's initiative led to Peter Wurster, then Hudson's code enforcement officer, issuing a Notice of Violation, in September 2010, directing and ordering Cargill "to immediately cease and desist: 1) accepting any shipments of salt by means of transport other than via ship; and 2) storing any additional salt out of doors at this location."

In the Settlement Agreement reached between the City of Hudson and Cargill at the end of 2010, it was agreed that, among other things, Cargill would:

1. immediately and permanently cease and desist from transporting any salt to the dock;
2. remove all salt currently stored out of doors by May 1, 2011, and all of the treated salt currently stored inside the 25,000 square foot storage building by May 1, 2012; 
3. cease all operations at the dock by May 1, 2012;  
4. remove any salt residue from the water retention pond associated with the salt storage operations.

In sending the documents to Gossips--the record of the 1996 Planning Commission action, the 2010 Notice of Violation, and the 2010 Settlement Agreement--Pratt observed:

An interesting aspect of the settlement is the City’s strong assertion that Cargill was not allowed to deliver anything to the dock by truck.

Another is that Cargill was not allowed to store more than a small amount of salt at the site.

Furthermore, it shows that the City had at that time a strong interest in regulating not only truck traffic to the dock, and outdoor storage of materials there, but also a concern about the use of retention ponds there. 

All of this is very strong evidence that the Planning Board has a great deal of power to regulate and even end activities at the dock, contrary to the claims of people like Colarusso’s lawyer.

Asphalt being stored at the dock in 2017

COPYRIGHT 2022 CAROLE OSTERINK