The long holiday weekend is over, and now it's back to business as usual. In the week leading up to Winter Walk, Hudson's unofficial start of the Hanukkah-Christmas-Kwanzaa season, here is what's happening.
- On Tuesday, November 28, the Common Council ad hoc Parking Study Committee meets at 6:00 p.m. At their last meeting, on October 24, the committee heard a presentation from a representative of Duncan Technologies about converting our existing parking meters to "smart" meters. It is expected at this meeting the committee may hear a presentation from another company seeking to upgrade our parking system. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at the Central Fire Station, 77 North Seventh Street, and on Zoom. Click here to join the meeting remotely.
- On Wednesday, November 29, the Columbia County Housing Task Force holds its monthly meeting at 4:00 p.m. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at Columbia Economic Development Corporation (CEDC), 1 City Centre, Suite 301, and on Zoom. Click here to join the meeting remotely.
- On Thursday, November 30, the Planning Board is holding a special workshop session at 4:00 p.m., regarding the Colarusso haul road. The meeting is presumably a public meeting, taking place at the Central Fire Station, 77 North Seventh Street, but it apparently will not be a hybrid. Based on the discussion that preceded the decision to hold the special workshop session, it seems the purpose of the workshop is to settle on the conditions agreeable to Colarusso should the Planning Board grant its approval.
- On Friday, December 1, the Historic Preservation Commission meets at 10:00 a.m. At the November 17 meeting of the HPC, Victoria Polidoro, legal counsel to the HPC, reported a restoration professional had been hired by the applicant to opine on the removal of the limewash from 501 Union Street, where limewash was applied to the brick in violation of the conditions of the certificate of appropriateness. She said a proposed solution to the limewash issue would be submitted on December 1, and the HPC would review that solution on December 15.
At the November 17 meeting, Phil Forman, who chairs the HPC, reported he had done some investigating and discovered that, although two stop-work orders have been issued on the building, in neither case was that information communicated to the people doing the work. Polidoro opined that there needs to be a public hearing on the matter, because, as she explained, half the people who have spoken to her about the limewashed building love it and half hate it. That hardly seems an appropriate reason for a public hearing. Historic preservation is not a popularity contest. The December 1 meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at the Central Fire Station, 77 North Seventh Street, and on Zoom. Click here to join the meeting remotely.
The only conditions that can be of any interest to Hudson were implicitly accepted by Colarusso when it purchased the property in 2014.
ReplyDeleteBut was that purchase completed merely in anticipation of the ZBA's granting of variances? If so, then after nearly a decade why hasn't Colarusso pursued a single variance? Indeed, why are variances never a matter for discussion? Certainly the redesign of the long-proposed road-crossing at Rte. 9G, a redesign necessitated by the DOT's change of heart in 2017, obviously violates the boundaries of the Recreational-Conservation Zoning District. Somehow, though, and despite lengthy discussions and highly-detailed public comments submitted several years back, today's Board is wholly ignorant of the entrance's redesign vis-a-vis the actual Zoning Map.
In any event, that one change as precipitated by the DOT (among others on the causeway which date to Colarusso's initial proposal) will still require a use variance, and that in advance of any Planning Board approval. (For any Board members bereft of a civics education, the ZBA alone has the authority to issue variances.)
But as usual, nobody in local government - and not even the city's lawyers - comprehend the proper procedure, let alone the concrete specifics of the actual proposal.
And who doubts that the Planning Board will be sued for a third time, even if Colarusso gets nearly everything it wants beforehand? Isn't it a bit Chamberlain-like, then, to concede favors in advance of further punishments by this once-and-future plaintiff? Instead, why not remain faithful to the City's original solution to the problem faced by any owner of this property, which is to say the plan adopted into Local Law in 2011.
One thing is for sure, and Colarusso and its shareholders know they can bank on it: that Hudson is, always was, and always will be a ship of fools.
Agreed, conceding favors in advance does not seem to me like a good policy. What is this Planning Board thinking? Indeed everything has been laid out before.
DeleteThis special workshop held by the Planning Board on Thursday, where is this announced? I can't find a reference to it on the city's meeting calendar anywhere.
ReplyDeleteThe special meeting was agreed upon at the November 14 meeting. If you doubt it, you check the minutes of the meeting. But you're right. It does not appear on the City of Hudson calendar.
DeleteI believe it. That meeting went on forever and I left it at the same time as Linda Mussmann after my patience had been used up.
DeleteIf indeed the Planning Board is only going to address whatever Colarusso deems acceptable, then we have a huge problem. The Board hasn't even begun to do a serious review of all the impacts identified by their engineering firm, Barton & Loguidice.
ReplyDeleteThe entire time that Barton & Loguidice was reporting to the Planning Board, an uninterrupted series of mistaken legal advisors to the Board insisted that the proposed action was only west of the train tracks, and restricted to the immediate area of the Colarusso dock.
DeleteDespite the fact that the lawyers were ultimately proven wrong due to what I recognized as their collective "category error," the scope of the Planning Board's inquiry has remained limited ever since.
The Board's failure to consider a necessary use variance(s) is only one example of this. By neglecting to direct the applicant to the ZBA, the public has sufficient grounds to pursue an Article 78 challenge.
Indeed, we do have a one hell of a huge problem. The public input, both in person and on paper, to this issue has been enormous, besides and along with the voluminous paper trail from all of its various previous twists and turns. All of which should have made the people of Hudson's views about the Colarusso problem crystal clear to the Planning Board. If they now just turn around and roll over for Colarusso, it would seem as though the political future, as well as any hope of a prosperous economic future, for our town are pretty well finished. If Hudson can't and won't demonstrate the necessary sense of basic self-preservation required to properly address this issue, and just fearfully surrenders to its perennial nemesis and bully, where does that leave us? Might as well just rename the place Colarussoville or Galvintown, once and for all. There always seems to be enough energy to endlessly nit-pick about the historical accuracy of some window frame reconstruction in Hudson, but when it comes to an actually vital question of existential importance, no one ever seems to be home, at least as far as the local government is concerned. It's beyond pathetic.
ReplyDeleteLooks like we are going to have a two way gravel road and a huge dust problem on one side of town, and a bizarre block of high rises reminiscent of Co-Op City in the Bronx on the other side. It might be a good time to consider relocation before the property values tank.
ReplyDeleteColarusso has been using the waterfront for years. It has not affected property values as of now, has it? in fact, property values in Hudson have been increasing. And, it has not hurt Basilica or any of the other businesses down on front street.
DeleteWhile I agree that ACS has been for the most part a good neighbor to the city, there's really no way to know what affect its operations have on property values around either the quarry or the port. They might be higher than they were at the peak but for ACS. I'm sure an economist (or 2) can determine the impact (or mutually-exclusive impacts) but that would all be hypothesis. The same goes for the Basilica and the L&B Factory. I will say, in your defense, that the fact that Ben Fain is investing a great deal along S. Front Street does support your optimism. Or you're both misunderstanding what the impact will be simultaneously. Time will tell.
DeleteBTW, property values in the city aren't rising anymore. They're rather stagnant. Take a look at the Baba Louie's offering -- 2 buildings each with a going concern as a tenant: $2.5m. True, only 1 is in Hudson (but Barrington ain't no slouch of a town, either). So I'd say they've topped, at least for now.
My understanding is that the Baba Louie's sale price just includes the one building in Hudson, which is a relatively small 2-story and otherwise unremarkable building for Warren St., with 2 apartments above. That's more than 5x the 20-year-old purchase price. If it included the Great Barrington building, that would be a steal; but I assume they rent. Now for what the business is worth, that's questionable without seeing the books, and I would assume much of that value is in the owners and staff.
DeleteFrom what I've seen property values have continued to rise, especially under the $1M range, with many going into contract in around 2 weeks. A tiny, tiny cottage on Carroll St, just sold, over ask at $662 sq/ft, which is bonkers. However, I would agree that the over $1M market is stagnant, but that more due to interest rates and there are less people with all cash at that range.
All that aside, this town has historically seen several boom/bust cycles: post-whaling, post-vice, post-industry, urban renewal; and if some in City Hall get their way, post-preservation and post-hospitality.
As long our electeds run unopposed we'll keep getting steamrolled. Collarusso is going to steamroll over this, just like Galvan steamrolled over the stop work-orders on the apartments mentioned above. Bitching here on Gossips, speaking at meetings, writing letters... it doesn't matter. Two corporate giants will get their way and our government will say it's in the name of industry for the locals and social housing justice... and everyone else can deal with it. This city was beginning to thrive again these past 20 years due to the investment and sweat of entrepreneurs - despite City Hall. And now City Hall will put that to rest.
ReplyDeleteLook at how thriving the waterfront has been these past several weeks. The Peripheral wine event and the Basilica Farm and Flea brought in thousands of people to do business with dozens of small and local vendors. And we also saw an ambitious proposal to restore the Dunn Warehouse to provide a viable space for the community. But let's just throw that away for a gravel dump that will support a company and a few truckers from Greenport. Look at the waterfronts in Athens and Coxsackie, we're an embarrassment in comparison.
And had anyone noticed the renovations and investment we're seeing on State and Columbia streets? It's not just Warren/Union/Allen anymore. How much more do you think will happen once people get wind of the massive Urban Renewal thats being planned in the shadows, just a few blocks away.
It seems that the people that invested and revitalized this city in recent years have been tunneled visioned on their own works and not been paying attention to the bigger picture. What they haven't noticed is that while our current administration loves your votes (hey, we got rid of the good 'ol boys, yea equity), and they certainly LOVE your taxes (somebody has to pay for the PILOTS), they still resent you and are happy to bleed you dry until the golden goose is cooked. So your options are to either start paying attention, speak and vote to your interests, or sell while you're ahead and reinvest in a less dysfunctional municipality.