In November 2021, the Planning Board made a positive declaration in the SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) process, requiring A. Colarusso & Sons to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). Colarusso responded by filing a lawsuit against the Planning Board, seeking an annulment of the Planning Board's positive declaration. In August 2022, a decision was handed down by Acting Supreme Court Judge Henry F. Zwack, the gist of which was: "[T]he haul road project is not the subject of further SEQRA review by the City of Hudson, and site plan approval is directed to proceed."
.jpg)
As such, to eliminate any doubt, and because petitioners are entitled to a decision by respondent on the haul road application, whatever that decision may be, Supreme Court's directive must be clarified. That said, the language of "site plan approval is directed to proceed" in the decretal paragraph of the court's order must be deleted and be substituted with "a decision on the haul road application is directed to issue forthwith." Finally, to the extent that respondent challenges that part of Supreme Court's order directing that the haul road application is not subject to further SEQRA review by the City, such challenge is without merit (see Matter of Gordon v Rush, 100 NY2d 236, 243 [2003]). Respondent's remaining contentions have been considered and are either unavailing or improperly raised for the first time in reply.
The Valley Alliance just now issued the following statement regarding the latest court decision:
Citizens are optimistic about a Thursday ruling by the New York State Supreme Court (Appellate Division, 3rd Judicial Department) in the long-running dispute between A. Colarusso & Sons and the City's Planning Board.
Resolving the latest lawsuit filed by Colarusso during the review, the ruling empowers the Planning Board to either immediately grant, conditionally grant, or deny one of its two applications, concerning the haul road.
In doing so, the court largely overturns a muddled decision earlier ruling by substitute judge Henry Zwack, whose language the appeals court has now modified.
Previously, Colarusso sued the Planning Board to stop its review of the project, but was denied in a stinging 2019 ruling by Justice Melkonian. This new ruling arises from yet another Colarusso lawsuit, which again held up Hudson's review in an attempt to block it completely.
"Throughout this process, Colarusso's legal obstruction has shown that they don't think their project can survive an actual review," said Valley Alliance co-director Peter Jung. "Its lawyers have imposed intolerable burdens on the volunteer Planning Board members."
"Colarusso keeps delaying and complicating everything in an effort to prevent the Planning Board's members from just doing their jobs," continued Jung. "They've also cost the City unnecessary legal fees. It's time for Colarusso to play by the same rules as everyone else."
"Though Greenport already did a superficial review of the haul road, Hudson's planners now have the right to reach their own conclusions, based on the existing record," added co-director Sam Pratt. "Hudson has never been bound by Greenport's much laxer rules and standards, no matter how many times Colarusso sues."
The new ruling also appears to leave in place the Board's ability to continue its thorough review of the second application, concerning dock operations.
The Valley Alliance has argued for the past 17 years that neither a "temporary" truck route through downtown Hudson nor an alternative route through the South Bay is good for the Waterfront's economic, social, cultural or environmental future. In the current dispute, over 1,000 citizens have called for both of those destructive uses to be denied, in favor of more widespread benefits to the whole community instead of a single company.
Before the current controversy, Jung and Pratt led the successful fight in 1999 to prevent a dry cleaning waste plant at the site of the Basilica, and the battle in 1998-2005 to stop the coal-fired St. Lawrence Cement project, which also would have involved a large dock facility.
"Again and again, going back to the 1980s or even earlier, diverse groups of local citizens have fought to make the Waterfront a vibrant center of Hudson civic life," recalled Pratt. "It is time for the goals of the forward-thinking 2005 ruling by the Department of State to finally be enacted, removing the industrial threats of noise, pollution and traffic, so that both real jobs and real fun can be had by all.". . .
COPYRIGHT 2023 CAROLE OSTERINK
Timothy O'Connor submitted this comment by email:
ReplyDeleteWithout having seen the City's defense, which is different than past practice when the public was granted at least some level of trust, it's impossible to know how poorly a job the City's lawyers did.
Granting the NYS Appeals Court even a modicum of competence, how was it remotely possible for the court to have misunderstood that the SEQRA Supplemental EIS, which was ordered by the Planning Board, pertained to the property's conditional use permit and NOT the "haul road" proposal. If it was argued properly then the court could not have made such a mistake.
The supporting document outlining the Supplemental EIS was the 2011 SEQRA Findings Statement, which provides the legal teeth of the SEQRA process. Hudson's Findings Statement was reviewed and signed off by the principal attorney of the NYS Department of State. So what, he didn't understand our Findings?
Probably the Findings were never mentioned in the City's defense because City Hall trusted the wrong lawyers again.
Well someone botched this big time, but good luck figuring out who.
It's a pathetic outcome, and beyond stupid. Then again, Hudson never wanted for stupidity.
The City’s lawyers did an excellent and thorough job. As we read it, decision empowers the Planning Board to both (a) grant, modify *or* deny the road permit; and (b) continue the SEQR review of the dock.
ReplyDeleteThe City as an involved agency can use Greenport’s record as the basis for its decision on the road, but crucially *it can arrive at different conclusions.*
Rather than going thru the review process like a normal applicant, Colarusso has pursued a strategy of delay and obfuscation. It's been seven long years since this mess began, and the company has imposed a huge burden on our City and its Planning Board. The amazing thing is that Colarusso is based in Greenport, their employees are from out in the county, and there is no upside to their gravel operation for those of us in Hudson, so why would we want them to dominate our waterfront? The root problem here is abysmal community self-esteem. Any town that valued its quality of life would have denied this crap application years ago.
ReplyDeleteThe best thing that could happen now is for the Hudson Planning Board to make sure that the Colarusso application gets reviewed under the 44 Coastal Consistency policies supervised by the NY Department of State. Those guidelines determine whether a proposed development is in alignment with the goal of protecting the Hudson River Estuary. In 2012 the Department designated South Bay as a Significant Fish & Wildlife Habitat, so it would seem that the agency would have keen interest in the matter, given that the Colarusso industrial 'haul road' would bi-sect the Bay. A review of the 44 state policies is what killed the St. Lawrence Cement proposal in 2005.
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ Peter. In our effort to spare the North Bay millions of gallons of street runoff annually, we worked very closely with the NYS DOS Office of Coastal Consistency. The most important thing we learned is that their review process is a total sham. (I'd be happy to provide details.) I realize that the Daniels decision was contingent upon a consistency review, but considering the same Office I experienced I'm convinced that was a one-off.
DeleteInstead, I believe that the Planning Board must now and very quickly! take on a tricky parsing operation. Because the City's approval of the waterfront program (LWRP) relied on the hope that the existing ONE-LANE road over the causeway would put a natural limit on the number of trucks reaching the waterfront, the Planning Board's issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP) should double down on a subject which, frankly, you've spent much more time on than I have: truck numbers.
That said, the Board's parsing operation will require that no aspect of the ongoing SEQRA review may refer to either of two things - or perhaps both depending on how you read Thursday's ruling: Permit no. 1) A "haul road" as the subject of the haul road proposal, and/or Permit no. 2) "transportation to and from the dock" within the CUP conditional use permit application.
If I was in charge, I'd do a SEQRA review of the private road for the CUP alone. The court was only clear that a SEQRA review could not be conducted for the haul road application, which no one was contesting anyway!
With little time to decide on the two applications, the Planning Board should look to the future of Hudson's waterfront by relying on those sections of the LWRP/GEIS which looked to limit truck traffic structurally, rather than regulating the trucks directly.
Unless the Planning Board is in a bold mood and wants to study the existing private road but not the [nonexistent] haul road, that would entail studying truck numbers without reference to the causeway.
Can that be done? It must be done! Truck numbers or "intensification of industry" as we used to call it is in your wheelhouse, not mine.
My own wheelhouse discovered that the review protocol in the Office of Consistency Review is a tragic joke (sorry Matt M., but it's true).
A consistency review nothing to count on, so count trucks instead. I'm convinced that the same threat of intensification which was our focus during the last of the LWRP planning meetings (e.g., 9/26/11) will provide the Planning Board with a lawsuit-proof justification for any decision it reaches.
And be ready, the Appeals court has ordered the Planning Board to reach a decision quickly.