Gossips just received the following press release:
THREE GROUPS FILE ARTICLE 78 TO OVERTURN FLAWED
WATERFRONT DECISION BY HUDSON PLANNING BOARD
Three local organizations have filed an Article 78 proceeding in Columbia County Court to overturn a recent decision by the Hudson Planning Board. In December, the Board approved one of two permit applications for A. Colarusso & Sons for its destructive gravel operation at the City’s Waterfront, disregarding hundreds of letters, verbal comments and petitions from the public.
The groups are jointly represented by the Capital District office of Rupp Pfalzgraf, LLC, a large law firm with branches in Buffalo, Rochester, Saratoga Springs, New York City and Jamestown, as well as Albany.
“The Planning Board had the opportunity to choose a win-win option for the people of Hudson,” said Peter Jung, President of The Valley Alliance. “Denying the applications would stop gravel trucks from harming both downtown and the Waterfront,” Jung continued. “Instead, the Planners rolled over for a Greenport corporation which has put its own narrow self-interest over everyone else.” The Alliance has been working on Waterfront issues since 2006, submitting more than 20 detailed memos and legal briefs on the project—none of them mentioned by any of the Board members in their cursory discussion of the proposal.
“Since the beginning, we’ve sought a thorough review of negative impacts, given the huge economic and social potential of the River District," says Our Hudson Waterfront President David Konigsberg. “Despite concerns expressed by the city’s engineers, and a strong declaration from the previous Board in 2021, the current members disregarded both in rendering their recent decision.”
“For more than a decade,” Konigsberg added, “residents have called for an end to unregulated and steadily increasing gravel truck traffic in both the city and by the river.” OHW expects that Colorusso’s high capacity truckway will only make matters worse, enabling a massive jump in traffic at the waterfront, dampening public enjoyment and job-creating economic development. Since 2019, OHW has has focused on downsides to health, open space and community character, and thoroughly analyzed gravel truck traffic on the Waterfront and on city streets. It has also gathered a petition with more than 1,200 signatures explicitly voicing opposition to Colarusso’s plans.
"The private road serves and dock and gravel operations exclusively," explained Clark Wieman, President of the River District Economic Council, formed in 2023 to promote sound, sustainable economic development. Wieman noted that "The Planning Board's decision to permit doubling the road's size sets the stage for major intensification of industrial activity on the waterfront. This decision flies in the face of a 40-year trend toward low-impact service sectors, retail, light industry, and recreation. It violates the spirit and letter of Hudson's LWRP which envisions a mixed-use, sustainable waterfront. Most importantly, it ignores earlier Planning findings of potential significant environmental impacts of gravel operations, including negative impacts on the River District's character, now defined by these rapidly expanding businesses, recreation, and cultural sectors."
A summary of the Article 78 verified petition follows:
On behalf of three Hudson organizations, the firm of Rupp Pfalzgraf in Albany commenced a "special proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules for a judgment to annul, vacate, and in all respects void" the recent City of Hudson Planning Board resolution granting site plan and conditional use permit approval to Colarusso.
The 29-page petition concludes that the Court should annul the Hudson Planning Board's decision as arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.
The three main grounds presented for overturning this decision are:
(1) The Hudson Planning Board failed to determine that the Colarusso application is compatible with the City's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program as required under the City Code.
(2) The Board failed to make a determination that the conditional use permit is in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the district . . . and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent properties.
(3) The Board's determination to approve the site plan and conditional use permit contradicts and is inconsistent with its prior determination in 2021 to issue a positive declaration of significance ("pos dec") in relation to Colarusso's commercial dock operation, including its private roads of ingress and egress.
Specific portions of the City Code which the Planning Board failed to comply with, and/or treated in an arbitrary and capricious manner, include sections § 325-35.2(B)(1), (2), (5), § 325-34, 325-35(H), especially part (2), et al.
An example of the Board's basic failure to handle the application properly is that the City Charter (at § C32-5) requires the Board to refer projects like Colarusso's to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Review Board. However, this required referral did not occur.
Another example cited is the current Board's contradiction of its own prior findings in 2021, which concluded that Colarusso's commercial dock activities and associated haul roads are "out of character with the area around the project site," while also congesting, inhibiting, degrading, and potentially endangering the safety of pedestrians and vehicles in the Waterfront area.
To obtain a complete copy of the Verified Petition, email a request to hudsonbay@mac.com.
Well done, Valley Alliance, Our Hudson Waterfront and River District Economic Council. Thank you. Such flagrant disregard of the residents' well-documented wishes, comments and input over the last many years has to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteAh, yes, three extremely different groups two of which happen to be run by the exact same set of people. We all know that Valley Alliance and Our Hudson Waterfront are virtually indistinguishable.
ReplyDeleteI reserve my judgement as far as RDEC goes. Never heard of them until today.
Let's not kid ourselves here. It's not three groups. It's two people.
Meanwhile, the irony of Peter Jung and Sam Pratt suing Hudson to put those trucks back into the city should not be lost on anyone. Weren't it those two fellas who put the blame on the seven-year saga over the haul road on Colarusso's lawsuits exclusively?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHow typical of a Colarusso supporter to focus on personalities to try to distract from the substantive issues at stake:
DeleteNamely, after four decades of citizens and agencies and (some) politicians calling for a better Waterfront—one that serves all the people here—whether all those hopes and that potential will be surrendered to one, rich, secure, and very conservative Greenport corporation.
What matters is (a) what the City’s laws and plans say, and (b) whether the Planning Board followed those rules and guidelines.
The Article 78 shows that it did not.
But for the record: All three of these groups are separate. One was formed in 2006, another in 2019, and another in 2023. They all have different leadership.
In any case, as far as the law is concerned, it does not matter. If only one person or one group brought the Article 78, the appeal still needs to be heard and decided.
And yes, it remains that Colarusso has blocked the process multiple times going back a good seven years. They have filed appeals with the ZBA, in the courts, many of them duplicative, and all of them tying the issue up for years. Do citizens have a right to appeal at least once themselves? Or do only big corporations get to exercise their rights in 21st century America?
Sam, you remind us (not incorrectly) to focus on the substantive issues but then fail to identify what those are.
DeleteThey are certainly not a "better waterfront". I know the waterfront in its entirety. At its southern edge, it is used to put dry goods on boats that carry them to the city. This generates undeniably economic value to Columbia County.
Just north of it is a public park that is entirely underutilized. If folks were lining up to get into it - fine, I'd be willing to listen to you. But they are not.
I occasionally during the week drive down there in the middle of the day to hang out for a bit. I do it because I know I'll be by myself.
The "better waterfront" is a strawman. The waterfront in its current form is better than the one that you propose because it produces actual value. What you want is a pristine snow globe. If that's what you want hang out on Warren Street on a Tuesday and enjoy the solitude.
Until such time as an actual viable concept for the waterfront exists (the as of yet unratified LWRP is not that, by the way) the status quo must be preserved. A three-digit number of families is being sustained by what you call a big corporation. Your wording indicates a lack of understanding of this type of business.
I have no personal attachment to Colarusso, and if they truly were bad actors I'd be the first one to call them out.
My grandparents founded and ran a furniture company in Solingen, Germany that existed for 80 years. A company that at its peak employed around 200 people, just as Colarusso does now.
I base my allegiance on that experience and what my immediate neighbors here in Greenport say about Colarusso. They seem to have a high opinion of them and I do not see a reason to dissuade them of that.
The issues were specifically laid out in the joint press release and summary above, which apparently you did not read before posting a knee-jerk reaction.
DeleteThe post also provided an email address for anyone to obtain a copy of the full Verified Petition, if they wish to read about those issues in detail. But naturally you have not requested it.
(And yes, the rather limited support for Colarusso during public hearings came almost exclusively from residents of Greenport and employees of the company. The whole problem is that Hudson’s greatest asset—the whole riverfront district—should not be sacrificed for one Greenport company.)
DeleteTassilo, it would be really helpful if you would pay attention to the most basic facts of the matter. The Valley Alliance is working to get ALL trucks off both the Columbia St. route AND the waterfront. Sadly, the Hudson Planning voted to allow continued usage of the route thru the minority neighborhood. Watch the YouTube video of the meeting where the vote was taken-- it is impossible to imagine a more sloppy and pathetic civic proceeding. And further, the Planning Board received a huge amount of public input, 95% of it against the Colarusso proposition.
ReplyDeleteI followed that meeting live as it was unfolding. Everything you write here is disingenuous, as per usual.
DeleteThose 95%, do they include all the input from your various sock-puppet organizations, too?
All of a sudden, you are the champion of the "minority neighborhood"? And does the haul road increase or massively decrease the amount of trucks going through said minority neighborhood? I am being rhetorical of course.
I am looking forward to how you will attempt to spin this. As it stands right now, you are launching legal proceedings with the goal of putting the trucks back into the "minority neighborhoods".
You are not the friends of these neighborhoods, and never have been.
Some pro tips, Mr. Newcomer:
Delete1) Try engaging the actual arguments laid in the filing, instead of name calling and virtue signaling. 2) Try digging into the mountains of information, data and perspectives submitted over seven years of this battle--and no, not all from the same people. 3) Try learning a little something about recent decades of Hudson history, and the losses the city has suffered at the hands of old-boy politics. 4) Entertain the idea, for a moment, that we enjoy certain freedoms in a democracy. This includes citizens' right to appeal problematic government decisions, Including cases when a public agency has failed to do its job.
Does name calling working for you? Your opening salutation was insulting and immediatey turned me off on anything more you had to say.
DeleteThe majority of the minority neighborhood is below 3rd Street. The trucks turn onto 3rd street to head out of town. Not sure why this keeps being mentioned. The automobile traffic increase in Hudson is much more concerning.
ReplyDeleteTassilo, many of us have been working hard on Hudson waterfront issues for 25+ years. I don't recall hearing from you, or seeing you at any of the many proceedings. And you have not provided a convincing rationale for the Colarusso project. Please tell those of us who live and pay taxes here how we would benefit from a gravel dump and truck route on our waterfront. I am on that waterfront frequently, and can report that there is one guy pushing gravel around with a front-end loader, and the trucks are coming from points elsewhere. So what is the upside for Hudson in terms of employment or economics? Really looking forward to your answer, thank you.
ReplyDeleteAnd once again, those of us who are challenging the Planning Board are advocating for getting heavy truck traffic off BOTH the waterfront and out of the minority neighborhood.
I don't disagree with you that Hudson is in an awkward position here: Colarusso is located in Greenport and I would think that most of the economic benefits of Colarusso doing well will wind up in Greenport's coffers.
DeleteOn the flipside, Hudson also needs to recognize that it is the seat of Columbia County. Within the boundaries of Hudson lies the only deep-water port of the county. It does not have the right to shut it down, based on the above alone. It has to a degree a responsibility towards the county that surrounds it.
On the topic of trucks meanwhile, it would garner a lot of goodwill in municipalities like Greenport and Claverack if Hudson were to ensure that enterprises like Colarusso could still use the dock.
Hudson wants to eliminate truck through-traffic. The various options put forward by the truck study all critically depend on the compliance of surrounding municipalities. Unless they are willing to agree that most recent study was just a waste of $75k.
As a general note, I don't think that dividing things into strict geographic boundaries is helpful. I happen to not live in Hudson proper. But I might as well since I am just on the wrong side of Greenport Turnpike. Yet I spend a lot of time (and by association money) in Hudson. In my mind, Stockport, Claverack, Greenport, even Ghent, are all part of Hudson but you wouldn't think so if you only looked at how Hudson and its populace often acted.
Given that Greenport levies no corporate income tax, I'm somewhat at a loss to understand how that town gains any incremental economic benefit from Colarusso's financial performance, be it at the Hudson waterfront (reportedly just 2% of the company's gross revenues) or anywhere else.
DeleteAs far as "goodwill" from neighboring towns -- that's a straw man for sure: the City of Hudson already provides a good deal of its otherwise taxable inventory of real property to the County without any benefit. Both of Claverack and Greenport have refused to discuss relocating the truck route away from the city's crowded and narrow streets onto their exurban roads with their sparse populations. Hudson is the location for 99.99% or so of the county's affordable housing and what do we get for that (besides short property taxes from the owners)? No sir: if any municipality is owed some "goodwill" it's Hudson and not its neighboring towns.
I'd ask you to put your money where your mouth is, Persy -- every year, after you pay your property taxes in Greenport, make a donation to the City of Hudson for the difference between that payment and what you'd have owed the City if you weren't on the "wrong side" of Greenport Turnpike. After all, as you point out, you "might as well" live in Hudson.
TVP - when you've lived here for a while, you'll notice that many of the "noble natives" that you're patronizing happily distinguish themselves from Hudson, a place that many said was "such a dump" and "you'd be crazy to walk the streets there" for so many decades. Not all, but many do. And now some of these same people see Hudson as a place still full of poor people, but now also choc full of rich liberal pushovers, and, as John mentions above, are happy to push their town's NIMBY issues onto Hudson, all the while gleefully taking our tax dollars.
DeleteNo matter how much you try to be "not like the other transplants," the "locals" are not going to invite you to the BBQ at Copake Lake.
I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating: The ACS trucks aren't the only ones barreling through town, although not at the waterfront admittedly. Whenever Gossips posts pictures of tractor trailers getting stuck almost none of them are ACS trucks. While, yes, the gravel trucks are a menace the larger issue is getting the truck route out of Hudson altogether. Stand on Warren and 3rd for a half hour and count the number of 18-wheelers and similar commercial vehicles that pass by. I know Margaret Morris was working on a letter to the DOT. Whatever became of that?
ReplyDeleteJust like the 11 Warren St situation, this saga too is familiar: people in other parts of Columbia County exerting their personal (or friends) interests over the citizens who actually live and pay taxes in Hudson... and our supposed representatives that just let it happen.
ReplyDeletePictures speak louder than words. Thanks to the posted photo, enough said.
ReplyDelete