The Valley Alliance and Our Hudson Waterfront are hailing the recent NYS Supreme Court decision as a vindication of the Hudson Planning Board and a win for the Hudson waterfront. Paul Colarusso, president of A. Colarusso & Sons, sees it quite differently. In an article that appears in the Register-Star today, Colarusso is quoted as saying, "We're very happy the decision turned out the way it did. It couldn't have worked out better for us." The article also attributes this statement to Colarusso: "The decision in effect overturned the planning board's claim that a second environmental review of the haul road proposal was necessary."
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 entire ruling can be found here.
Colarusso once again is condescending to the Hudson Planning Board, acting as if is members and its attorneys can’t read.
ReplyDeleteIf things “couldn't have worked out better” for Colarusso, the Court would have left the deeply flawed Zwack ruling in place. Instead, the Court changed his language in key ways.
As noted above, the Appeals court sided with *Hudson*, not Colarusso, in changing the language of the flawed Zwack ruling.
Elsewhere in the ruling, it states that the PB is not being ordered to approve the haul road, as Zwack’s sloppy language might have implied, but reinstated the Board’s ability to approve, modify or deny it.
Colarusso wanted the haul road issue settled in its favor. The Board can still deny it. The Valley Alliance will be sending a detailed memorandum to the Planning Board on exactly how they can do that, in a very straightforward and defensible way.
Without the haul road, the rest of the project at the dock becomes untenable, precisely for the reason that Mussmann and Colarusso’s few other proponents have said: Because the Columbia Street route, used to blackmail the community, is also unacceptable.
And under well-established law, the PB does not have to rule the same way as the lead agency (Greenport). It can ko
It also can deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application on separate grounds, as well as do full SEQRA and CUP reviews of all the remaining components of the project.
Timothy O'Connor submitted this comment by email:
ReplyDeletePaul Colarusso is doubling down on the "haul road" angle as if the Hudson Planning Board ever intended to put his giant road proposal through a second SEQRA review.
Fortunately Mr. Colarusso didn't fool the Appellate Court, so hopefully he isn't fooling the Planning Board either.
The Board's second job is to review the conditional use permit application through a SEQRA Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement as recommended by the 2011 SEQRA Findings Statement for the Core Riverfront District (at the City website under "LWRP," pp. 14, 15, 16, 17), and as the same recommendation was later sanctioned by Supreme Court Judge Melkonian. Last week the Appellate Court ruling confirmed it again by allowing it to stand.
That's to say that the task ahead is still to submit all conditional uses to a SEQRA review, which includes "transportation to and from the dock" in the words of the Appellate court. The court acknowledges that the existing road is part of the "dock operations," and all dock operations are conditional uses still subject to SEQRA. No changes there.
Naturally, Mr. Colarusso will focus on his only win, "cause of action 4" which concerns his road proposal and which nobody intended to put through SEQRA anyway.
Beginning at the bottom of p. 2, the Appellate court focuses on the 4th cause of action alone, which has nothing to do with the CUP review and everything to do with the proposal. That cause of action refers to no argument the City was making. The Planning Board was never planning a SEQRA re-do, which is why the City's motion to dismiss "did not seek dismissal of the fourth cause of action" (quoting from the judgement). No one was arguing to resubmit the "haul road" proposal to SEQRA which means that Mr. Colarusso, who can genuinely say that he won that point, didn't really win anything.
Note that nearly the entire judgement concerns the 4th cause of action which was always irrelevant.
What the City most wanted preserved was what it had previously established before Judge Melkonian.
For all its obliqueness and seemingly sloppy conflations, the Appellate Court has preserved what attorney Ken Dow secured for Hudson before Supreme Court Judge Melkonian - a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to scrutinize every conditional use on "the entire property."
I finally agree that this judgement is a huge win for the City. In the end, the court's conflations are of no account (e.g., "private haul road"). The Planning Board's two separate reviews are authoritatively differentiated by the court's decisive pivot at the bottom of p. 2.
Colarusso produces more bullshit than aggregate products. The Hudson Planning Board will be now be doing a site plan review of the 'haul road' proposition and ruling on it according to City zoning code. While Greenport might have completed the SEQRA portion of the review, Hudson still retains its full authority to enforce its zoning statute, as confirmed by DEC Commissioner Seggos.
ReplyDeleteThe engineering firm Barton & Lojuidice compiled a substantial list of impacts that Colarusso would impose on our waterfront zone, and those must be addressed. No doubt counsel for Colarusso will try to spin this, but there is no way to avoid a proper review under the zoning code. If the Planning Board tried to approve the haul road without a proper review, there would be an immediate legal challenge to their 'arbitrary and capricious' action.
Does this operation benefit Hudson in any way comparable to what it takes from us? So they sponsor the Flag Day parade and other pet causes. Seems like most of the revenue, jobs and taxes go to Greenport and outside our city limits. Time to put the interests of Hudsonians first. Greenport can kick rocks, figuratively, and in this situation, literally
ReplyDeleteUnion Jack, please explain what this operation takes away from the City.
DeleteLew, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the review and permitting processes.
DeleteIt's not what the operation takes away from the city now, but that SEQRA obliges the Planning Board to consider any and all eventualities contingent upon permissions granted.
Almost since the property changed hands in October 2014, unanswered questions about the company's future intentions, estimated by barge-and-truck numbers, have met with obfuscation, contempt, and lawsuits.
Rather than be open about its obvious expansion plans - upon permission of which Colarusso may immediately sell to the next owner - the company's methods of bullying Hudson have cost the city plenty financially, and years of time and thankless efforts on the part of the city's volunteer boards.
But it's not on grounds of the privations you're ignoring that I'd decline to issue a conditional use permit were I a Planning Board member.
Indeed, by what right is the company operating right now without a permit? I would've shut them down years ago.
They are a business fighting for their right to use their dock. I support them fully. They have every right to do what they are doing. Keep dividing this city with all this BS. Try focusing on affordable housing and the such. That seems to be much more of an issue in this great city. Our waterfront isn't designed like other areas. There is plenty of room for buisness and play!
ReplyDeleteI'm not only pro-business, I'm pro-mining. The Hudson Valley produces great limestone products and the Colarusso company is no exception. Also, I admire your loyalty.
DeleteSo I'm probably in the best position to inform you that the Colarusso company is not within its rights.
At present, the company is operating without a local permit, which is technically unlawful. They're able to do that because the City is giving them a total pass even though it gets no credit for that.
As for our rights to open new businesses and create new business plans, that can only be done within the limits of the law. Outside of that we have no rights.
The company has continuously either challenged or even ignored Local Law. When it lost its court challenges and was even lectured from the bench, that was proof positive that the company is not within its rights.
In this case the Local Laws were established before Colarusso bought the property. I know this because, along with many other residents, I actively helped shape those laws. Some, like me, will respect your loyalty. At the same time, though, you are incorrect and lacking in knowledge of the circumstances if you think "they have every right to do what they are doing." No, they really don't.
Now please factor in your own regard for the law, aside from your loyalty, to have some fellow-feeling for those who choose to honor Hudson's laws and maybe even helped forge them. From our perspective it looks like Colarusso thinks it can do anything it wants, and to hell with anyone else's rights and laws.
The record shows that Colarusso is wrong about this. You are also wrong in this. Sorry, but that's the truth.
Years ago someone quipped that "Colarusso bought a lemon." That's the truest, most succinct thing I ever heard on the matter.
Lew, it's a matter of undisputed historical record that Colarusso is not within its rights. Not before and not now.
ReplyDeleteIf you care about law and order (as I do), then your loyalty to the Colarusso company is misplaced.