As a reminder, at
last week's meeting, following pleas from the public, Theresa Joyner, the PB
Chair, said that the Board would hold another vote at its March 11th
monthly meeting on whether to allow a Public Hearing on the Colarusso Dock
Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.), and in the meantime the public can write
to the PB to voice any concerns. Also, later in the meeting, the
Board voted to eliminate hybrid meetings in the future (after their
legal counsel advocated for elimination), thus requiring attendance in person.
- July 2019 to July 2020: The last PB public hearing involving the Colarusso dock operation was 5-6 years ago – (July 19, 2019 to July 14, 2020). The hearing involved two separate applications before the Board from A. Colarusso and Son Inc. for “conditional use permits with site plan components by a replacement bulkhead and proposed haul road improvements at 175 South Front Street.” Bottom line, one for the dock operation and one for the haul road.
- November 2019, Colarusso submitted an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to PB; the then Board Chair (Betsy Gramkow) said that “much information regarding the dock operations was still missing.”
- The public expressed concerns about not knowing about the volume of Colarusso trucks on city streets or at the waterfront.
- February 2020 – Board received site plan from Colarusso, for which they said they had been requesting for months.
- May 2020 – A PB member stated that the Board had been asking the applicant for truck traffic volume information for over three years.
- July 14, 2020 – On final day of the public hearing, Applicant advised the PB of results of a newly completed traffic study (7/9/20 report) it commissioned, performed by Creighton Manning engineering, which reported on Colarusso truck volume from 2014 through 2019 based on Colarusso truck load tickets. Subsequent to public hearing, PB’s engineering firm, Barton & Loguidice (B&L), evaluated CM’s report and submitted findings to PB in August 2020, after close of the public hearing.
- Only ONE member of current Planning Board, Theresa Joyner, was on the Board during the public hearing. She was appointed to PB in early 2020, and subsequently became Chair in March 2022.
- July 27, 2020, PB agreed to pass a resolution classifying the Colarusso application for continuation of existing commercial dock operation as a Type I SEQRA action. The Board subsequently commenced a SEQRA Part II and Part III reviews (conducted from August 2020 until November 2021).
- November 2021, the PB completed an Environment Assessment Form Part 3 review, which they passed unanimously that month. Board decided to adopt a Determination of Significance Positive Declaration. Colarusso subsequently sued the Planning Board for a second time, which prevented PB from continuing its review for approximately 20 months. One PB member commented that the PB spent hundreds of hours completing the EAF Part III. It contains a wealth of information, and addresses many issues that overlap with our City Zoning Code.
- August 2023, PB resumed its review of the haul road C.U.P. following a court’s decision pertaining to the haul road C.U.P. application. The PB proceeded with its review of the haul road C.U.P., which it subsequently approved December 2023.
- July 2024 - Court rendered decision on the remaining outstanding lawsuit by Colarusso against the PB.
- January 2025 – PB resumed discussion of the Colarusso Dock C.U.P. application following court’s decision.
- February 2025 – PB, in a split decision, voted to NOT reopen public hearing for the Colarusso Dock C.U.P. application. However, following pleas from the public agreed to vote again at the March 2025 meeting, and said that in the meantime, public can write to Planning Board to express any concerns. Planning Board also voted to eliminate “hybrid” meetings in the future after elimination was advocated for by their counsel.
Also, the PB discussed the right for the public to be heard at a public hearing. One individual (engineer?) commented that you’re going to give them one hearing, one public meeting, that’s all you’re going to do.
- There was much unknown to the PB and the public during the prior public hearing due to delays by the Applicant in furnishing requested information, such as critical truck traffic information. The results of a truck study commissioned by Applicant wasn’t presented to the PB until July 14, 2020, the last day of the public hearing. The Board’s engineering firm, B&L, reviewed the report and issued its’ findings to the PB after the close of the public hearing. [Report revealed that truck trip volume to/from the dock almost tripled from 2015 to 2019, to over 15,000 trips per year. Based on Colarusso’s proposed daily maximums, worst case scenario for our Core Waterfront District is up to 71,000 trips (or more) per year of 80,000lb gravel trucks with associated barge activity.]
- The nature of the PB’s review has changed significantly, as per the court’s July 2024 decision (it cannot be subject to a SEQRA Type 1 Action). The PB must evaluate the Dock C.U.P. application under the CITY ZONING CODES.
- Only ONE member of the current Planning Board was on the Board when the public hearing last took place.
- There have been significant and
wonderful business developments in our waterfront’s Core-Riverfront (CR)
District during the past several years.
Regarding hybrid
meetings, while the Board is not required to provide, they have been
doing so for the past 5 years, since the Pandemic. This has been a great
service and value to the public, as hybrid meetings allow the public to
participate remotely, to view meetings at a later date if they were unable to
attend, and provide full transparency to the meeting.
Another concern
is meeting space. Section 103 of the Open Meetings Law
requires that public bodies make reasonable efforts to hold meetings in rooms
that can “adequately accommodate” members of the public who wish to attend. In
addition to reducing transparency to the meeting, we are concerned that City
Hall will not provide ample enough space to adequately accommodate members of
the public for any contentious issue on the agenda (e.g., Colarusso Dock
C.U.P., Mill St Lofts)
Again we (OHW) urge you to write to the Planning Board, to express your concerns and/or requests.
It's still unclear to me what Our Hudson Waterfront's plan for the waterfront is. As far as the City of Hudson and official plans are concerned, there isn't one.
ReplyDeleteHudson came close in 2011 when it finished its LWRP and then failed to get it ratified by NYDOS (courtesy to some unhealthy sabotage by the likes of Sam Pratt and Peter Jung). As a result we now have imaginary entities like the Coastal Consistency Review Board edged into portions of the city code.
The only waterfront stakeholder with an actual credible plan is Colarusso: Their plan is to continue putting gravel on boats just as they have been doing since 2014 if memory serves me right. That is a tangible and good plan. These materials currently get shipped all the way to NYC. In absence of this dock (Columbia County's only deep-water port), they'd be put on diesel trucks. This would not be beneficial to anyone.
On the topic of public hearings, we've gone through this before and it yielded nothing. I've never seen a larger crowd of otherwise intelligent people be as undisciplined as I have in 2023: Every opposing comment to the Planning Board over the haul road application was off-topic and not one was within the scope of said application. The arguments brought forward then would be on-topic now since the application in front of the Planning Board currently is about the conditional use permit for the dock.
You only get to use a rifle cartridge once. As far as I can tell, the Colarusso opposition has used up their ammunition already, at a time when they shouldn't have. No fresh argument will emerge if the Planning Board decides to hold a public hearing.
If it wasn’t for Sam and Peter fighting off St Lawrence Cement Hudson would look like a Charles Dickens Novel coal-fired factory town.
DeleteColarusso is not the only stakeholder on the waterfront with a “plan.” Please see: Basilica, Ben Fain (Kittys, Caboose, Grapefruit, Wick, Kaz), Dunn Warehouse, the increasing public programming. They all produce jobs, taxes, and enjoyment for the actual residents of Hudson. As opposed to a greenport based company the has less than a handful of staff pushing around rocks and dust most of the time.
Speaking of actual Hudson residents, I’m still confused with your obsessive infatuation with Hudson’s politics. Maybe you can start a “Gossips of Greenport” and advance an agenda in your jurisdiction. Sure, I’m for charter reform and am not the biggest fan of our mayor, but when I see you basically stalking them online or trying to be in constant contact with OUR representatives, it gives me the ick.
Union Jack, point taken and I am aware of it. I recently found myself bored with my own actions and have already shifted gears.
DeleteAs far as the waterfront is concerned, it is what got me into the whole Hudson politics pickle in the first place. I am fully aware of what Ben Fain is doing down there, or Melissa. God bless them. It's all good.
What I don't care for is their view that they are entitled to a waterfront monopoly and that no one else gets to use it.
The reason that Basilica is struggling is not Colarusso and their use of the dock. Melissa explained it herself in that long interview that she gave to the library of voice and sound a little over a year ago. That business model relies on her ability to put these emerging artists that she wants to showcase in her venue up in reasonably-prized hotel rooms. Those don't exist anymore in Hudson. That's not Colarusso's fault.
She can maybe bring this up with Kamal and hope that he can pull a solution out of his hat. I doubt that he can, or anyone for that matter. She needs to make tweaks to her business if she wants it to continue to work.
And Ben's various ventures down there are no different. He is not affected by gravel being loaded onto boats. And if he is, why did he choose the locations that he chose? I have nothing against the guy. All I'd ask him is to be more considerate towards his neighbors.
Those two by the way were two of the protagonists behind the article 78 petition. I've rarely seen a lawsuit that was as dead on arrival as that one. It was an embarrassment.
Yet the city needed to allocate funds to defend against it (there's a common council resolution on record for that). Probably ate up a chunk of the taxes that Ben and Melissa previously produced.
Ever since I moved to Hudson in 2008, neither residents nor elected officials have shown much interest in developing the waterfront for recreational activities.
ReplyDeleteMany waterfront communities along the Hudson River have storage racks for kayaks, rowboats, and small sailboats. Hudson does not.
The Dunn Warehouse has sat derelict and unused for decades when it could have been used as a community boathouse, and the fenced-in yard around it could be used as a storage area for local residents to store their small watercraft.
Food for thought.
There is at least some movement now on the Dunn Warehouse which has been leased out. What exactly will happen there isn't entirely clear to me. All I know is that it is supposed to contain a pool. Last year the prospective tenants created a community survey asking the public what they wanted to see there. I am sure they've distilled the data and have come to some conclusion.
DeleteAs for the general unwillingness to talk about the waterfront, I agree with that assessment. The LWRP process that ultimately failed was probably traumatic enough that no one is keen to touch this again.
For a couple hundred bucks, the city could install kayak storage racks at both Henry Hudson Park and Oakdale Lake. When I ride the train to Hudson, I see such racks at the Inwood Canoe Club in NYC, Croton-Harmon, Ossining, and Cold Spring. What is Hudson waiting for?
ReplyDelete