Wednesday, September 27, 2023

A. Colarusso and Hudson

Today at 6:00 p.m., the Planning Board holds a public hearing on the application from A. Colarusso & Son for a conditional use permit to build a paved, two-lane road through South Bay. The public hearing takes place at the Central Fire Station, 77 North Seventh Street, and a full house is expected, both of opponents of increased industrial activity on the waterfront and supporters of Colarusso, described on Facebook this morning as "us ACTUAL LOCALS."

Photo: Our Hudson Waterfront
The City of Hudson has a bizarre and complicated relationship with A. Colarusso & Sons. Last year, the City accepted a $100,000 donation from the Colarusso family for the completion of the redesigned entrance to the Promenade Hill after it had been determined that the $1.1 million in DRI funds was more than a half million short of realizing the project as planned, while at the same time Colarusso was one of the contractors working on the project and Colarusso was suing the Planning Board (the second of two lawsuits Colarusso brought against the Planning Board) for making a positive declaration in its review of Colarusso's applications for condition use permits for its gravel operations at the waterfront. 

Now the City is in another weird situation with Colarusso. Last week, the Common Council authorized entering into a contract with Colarusso to construct the replacement Ferry Street Bridge. Tonight, the Planning Board holds a public hearing on Colarusso's application for a conditional use permit to build a paved, two-lane road through South Bay.

One thing Colarusso supporters like to remind people is that the company is more than a hundred years old, having been established in 1912 by its patriarch, Antonio Colarusso. That being the case, I decided to take a look the early days of the company and its relationship with the City of Hudson. In the first decade of the company, the Hudson Register and the Columbia Republican contained frequent reports of Antonio Colarusso being awarded contracts for various projects, in Hudson and around the county, including the "street to Oakdale Park" in 1917 and widening Mt. Merino Road in 1921. In several cases, Colarusso was the only bidder.

In June 1922, the Columbia Republican reported that Antonio Colarusso had purchased a large tract of land from the Hudson Orphan and Relief Association, land located behind the Hudson Orphan Asylum, then located at 400 State Street, to expand his brickyard. In September 1922, the Columbia Republican reported that Antonio Colarusso donated five loads of gravel to the Orphan Asylum to improve its driveway.

Antonio Colarusso served at least twice as Commissioner of Public Works in Hudson. He was appointed by Mayor Henry Galster at the beginning of 1921 but resigned later that same year, as the Chatham Courier reported, "in order to submit bids for street paving work which he was later awarded." He was appointed Commissioner of Public Works again in the 1940s by Mayor Earl Colwell but resigned again in July 1941 after a reported disagreement with Colwell over improvements to Harry Howard Avenue, which some complained at the time was a "cow path" leading to the "new half million dollar Hudson High school" (now Montgomery C. Smith), which had been completed in 1937. During his tenure as Public Works Commissioner in the 1940s, Antonio Colarusso also had a dispute with the city treasurer over the DPW budget.

Antonio Colarusso at a picnic sponsored by Atlas Cement, c. 1937
There are more recent examples of the intertwining of Colarusso and Hudson government. Charlie Butterworth, who was for years superintendent of the Department of Public Works in Hudson, found his way here in the late 1960s by way of a job at Colarusso. In 2002, Mayor Rick Scalera solved the problem of repaying the $11 million the City had borrowed to build a new water treatment plant with a "rent-to-own" scheme with Colarusso involving the 339 acres of land, in the quarry and over an aquifer, the City had purchased to provide a secondary water supply for Hudson after the drought that struck the Northeast in 1965.  

Tonight, the Planning Board holds a public hearing on a Colarusso project that has been before them since 2017--the review periodically interrupted by lawsuits brought against the Planning Board by Colarusso. Only two members of the current Planning Board, which at present is one member short, were on the board when the review was suspended as a consequence of Colarusso's second lawsuit. They have much to learn in order to get up to speed on this issue. One thing they should study carefully is Hudson's LWRP (Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan). For reasons that are complicated and hard to explain, the LWRP was never reviewed by the NYS Department of State, but it was adopted by the City of Hudson, and its content has force and validity. The LWRP makes it clear that the goal is to "sunset" heavy industrial activity at the waterfront not enable its continuation and intensification.

Looking back over the past six years, one sees how Colarusso has been bullying Hudson in order to get its way. In 2017, when the Greenport Planning Board gave approval for its portion of the proposed haul road, creating a direct route from the quarry to the dock, Colarusso could have built the portion of the road that passes through Greenport and gotten their trucks off Hudson streets. Instead they maintained that they--a company that builds roads--had to build the entire road, from the quarry to the dock, at one time, and continued to run their trucks through the streets of Hudson. Now, they are cynically arguing, through their attorney John Privatera, that approval of the paved, two-lane road they want to build through South Bay is a matter of "environmental justice."
COPYRIGHT 2023 CAROLE OSTERINK

4 comments:

  1. I've been here 35 years, which is probably longer than some of the "actual locals" have been alive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Likewise, I have been here over 40 years. two of the rather angry local speakers last night must have been in their 20's. Though I have to compliment the local lady who spoke about 'community' including all 'locals' and 'newcomers', and saying she had friends amongst both, as indeed I do, and that we needed to work together to find a solution.

      Delete
  2. South bay was used as a landfill back in the day. Colarusso's trucks would never match the pollution that is already there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In all due respect, saying that the LWRP is "content [with] force and validity" is putting it pretty mildly.

    Granted, most city and county officials view the LWRP as a catchall of policy intentions, but the waterfront program is anything but (and we'd be wise to suspect anyone who downplays the program's actual force and validity).

    Moreover, the state's refusal to approve the LWRP is irrelevant. In the 12 years since the city adopted it there's never been a need for that approval, nor is state-approval relevant in the present circumstances.

    For critics of the Colarusso proposal who struggle with the roughly 600-page LWRP and its accompanying SEQRA study (the GEIS), ask yourselves how attorney Ken Dow successfully defended the Planning Board against Colarusso's first lawsuit by quoting a taped conversation of the Common Council at its final LWRP meeting (even providing the court a link to the conversation's audio care of wavefarm.org).

    When quoting from the LWRP/GEIS process, Dow was citing what he called the "legislative history" of the Core Riverfront Zoning District. It was the following quotation from the transcript which led to the court's rejection of the self-same argument Colarusso attempted a second time in its second lawsuit!

    "It would be at the point where something happens on the property ... where ... the road needs to be regraded ... if that's regraded, *they're going to have to get a conditional use permit FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY*" [all emphases in the original].

    (As a strategic aside, the above sentence argues that it's to the city's advantage to process Colarusso's two PB applications simultaneously, much as Melkonian adjudicated the two lawsuits before him which were mutually reinforcing as a result.)

    The LWRP provides the explanation, and the GEIS the supporting justification, for a whole host of laws - principally zoning amendments - which were ratified by the Common Council and signed into law by the Office of the Mayor in 2011.

    With the available road alternatives even fewer in number today, the waterfront program's specific defenses vis-a-vis the mining industry should now be in sharp focus as the originally intended means to solve the city's Environmental Justice issue. Tragically for Hudson, too few have actually read and comprehended what's in the LWRP and GEIS (e.g., it's an utter travesty and collapse of Reason that the EJ issue is repeatedly revived by bad actors who are simply moving the goalposts).

    The Planning Board and the City have an obligation to honor the LWRP. Board members should take confidence in the fact that safeguards against runaway industrial growth at the waterfront are found throughout the legislative history of the Core Riverfront Zoning District. Properly understood and applied, they'll see the city through any number of Colarusso's frivolous lawsuits.

    ReplyDelete