On May 6, the Planning Board closed the public hearing on Colarusso's conditional use permit for its dock operations but agreed to accept written comments until May 30. It is not certain when the Planning Board will be taking up the issue again. The special meeting of the Planning Board has been scheduled for May 29, but the agenda for the meeting does not, appropriately, include the dock.
.jpg)
In the meantime, Our Hudson Waterfront has issued this press release, calling for the Planning Board to reopen the public hearing.
PLANNING BOARD IGNORES OWN RULES; SHUTS OUT PUBLIC
At the May 6 hearing on A. Colarusso & Sons' Conditional Use Permit for the dock, four of six Hudson Planning Board members voted to close public hearing--despite multiple requests to keep it open and before:
- Conducting a proper review under the City Zoning Code.
- Clarifying the full scope of review (which must include all dock operations).
- Receiving any response from the applicant regarding concerns raised.
Why Hearing Must Be Reopened
By closing the hearing, the Planning Board may have triggered a 62-day decision deadline under City Code §325-35.H.3(b), potentially rushing a decision that will shape Hudson's waterfront for decades. The board and public were not informed about this at any time during the meeting. Also the board failed to raise any concerns, comments or questions of the applicant (contrary to the hearing notice), nor did they request a response from the applicant before hearing closure.
This review should not be hurried. The Board must (at a minimum):
- Conduct a full, thoughtful review under 30+ applicable Zoning Code ordinances.
- Review hundreds of public letters.
- Require the applicant to respond to all public and board concerns.
- Ensure the waterfront remains a shared, people-centered space--not a heavy truck route.
Given the long-term impact to our waterfront, city, and economy, the public (including key stakeholders) deserves a continued formal role in a transparent process; the hearing should be reopened.
The hearing was notably more civil than in past years, marked by a shared intensity and vulnerability in the public's pleas for the board to give the matter proper attention. Speakers respectfully yet passionately voiced the need for strong conditions to ensure industrial operations coexist responsibly and in harmony with nearby waterfront businesses, the park, and the broader values of a city that treasures its waterfront, its residents, and its future.
Board Decision-Making and Leadership in Question
Chair Joyner pushed to close the hearing despite members expressing hesitation or wanting applicant responses. New member Veronica Concra, unsure and uninformed, was pressured to cast the deciding vote.
Joyner emphasized to the public that "a lot" of comments have been received, and inaccurately claimed "everybody here than came has sent in something, everybody," seemingly dismissing the need for further public comment.
Public Hearing Process Was Not Followed
The official public hearing notice stated that after the applicant presentation, board members would voice their concerns, comments and ask questions, and then the public would do likewise. Although the public was asked to speak, and they did for over 90 minutes, the board voiced no concerns.
Board Chair and counsel did not inform board members, or the public, about the 62-day decision clock. Regarding the applicant's response to the public's concerns, Victoria Polidoro (Board's counsel) advised that the applicant can respond before or after the hearing closes. Applicant's attorney T. J. Ruane claimed, "typically you wait until it is closed, and we make a response to all comments at once." Chair Joyner followed this suggestion by saying "Right," and then called for a vote to close the hearing without seeking further input from board members or counsel.
This deference to a historically evasive and sometimes deceptive applicant is unacceptable--especially since current and previous boards routinely keep application hearings open throughout deliberations, insist on applicant engagement, and allow public comment throughout.
Lack of Transparency and Accessibility
The May 6 hearing was held in a cramped space with insufficient seating, no virtual access, and poor sound quality. Although the board recorded and live-streamed the meeting, the public was not informed in advance of meeting.
Many attendees were forced to stand, and most could not hear the board or public speakers--board members did not use a microphone, and the speaker mic was inadequate. It's unclear if the board could even hear the speakers. Additionally, limited space prevented the public from displaying informational poster materials intended for the board to see.
This--as a whole--reflects poor planning and underscores the crucial need for reinstatement of hybrid meetings, the need to hold future meetings in a more accommodating space, and to provide an adequate sound system for the board and speakers. Board meetings must be transparent, and the public should not be shut out.
Inexperienced Board Lacks Context
Only one current member served during the 2019-2020 hearings. Three others were appointed in the last six months--one hasn't yet attended a meeting.
Widespread Public Opposition Ignored? Public in the Dark
More than 80 people attended the May 6 hearing. Nearly 300 comments have been submitted since 2019, including 80 thus far this year (click here for 2025 comments). Over 1,000 signed a petition in 2019 opposing the permit.
Recent letters from Our Hudson Waterfront (click here), the Valley Alliance (click here) and others, pose specific conditions (e.g., limits on truck volume and other concerns).
The public has long raised concerns about traffic, pollution, health, safety, and economic harm--consistent with Hudson's decades-long fight to reclaim and deindustrialize the waterfront from expanding gravel trucking and shipping operations.
As one letter put it (paraphrased): "Board members must uphold Hudson's vision--one that prioritizes public use and ecological value--and serve the long-term public interest."
Yet now, the public is shut out and in the dark. The hearing is closed and there's no transparency on the board's review scope, deliberations, or the applicant's responses. This is unacceptable. The hearing should be reopened.
What You Can Do
Email the Planning Board by May 30 to urge them to reopen the public hearing, and reinstate hybrid meetings. Send comments to Board Secretary at: lfenoff@cityofhudson.org.
These decisions will shape Hudson's waterfront, economy, and quality of life for decades. The public must be heard--before it's too late.
No compelling argument is made here why this should be allowed to continue any longer. After everybody had said their piece, Theresa asked if there were any other people present who wanted to add their testimony. That was met with silence.
ReplyDeleteI'd be okay with another public hearing only if the Planning Board were to stipulate that no one who was on the sign-in sheet for the hearing on May 8 would be allowed to speak again.
It becomes otherwise an infinite filibuster where the same people speak up and say the same things a second time. What is curious about this is that Colarusso does not need a timely decision on this. Their trucks are hauling and they will continue to do so right now.
There is another peculiarity here: The very people that routinely (and maybe rightly so) accuse the Planning Board of acting in a politically agenda-driven way are now the ones that want another public hearing.
If the Planning Board indeed acts in this manner, another public hearing will do nothing. If they don't, then maybe there's a way to convince them. However, not both of these things can be true at the same time. Those arguing for an extension of the public hearing need to make up their mind here.
It's time to move on. This public hearing, unlike the ridiculous one from September 2023, was productive in that most speakers asked for something reasonable. I expect that the Planning Board will heed the overwhelming plea for certain conditions to be placed on Colarusso's waterfront operation. I also expect that ACS will be fine with these conditions.
Anything beyond that, most notably most demands in this article, will remain a pipe dream.
The reason the hearing needs to be re-opened is because the Planning Board did not satisfy their agenda, as they outlined themselves, at the May 6th meeting.
ReplyDeleteAt the meeting the Planning Board handed out the following agenda: “CITY OF HUDSON PLANNING BOARD MEETING AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING -COLARUSSO’S DOCK Date:May 6, 2025”
On the agenda it stated the following: “The applicant will present, after which the planning board members will voice their concerns, comments and ask questions. Finally the public will be called upon to comment, voice their concerns, and ask questions pertaining to the presented application.”
The Planning Board didn’t ask one question of the applicant, nor did they allow the public to ask questions. They did not follow their own meet agenda and they closed the hearing! The public was left in utter confusion as to what process was taking place. In other words, the rug was pulled out from under the citizens of Hudson, and we were left with no understanding of the process the Planning Board was taking. Then they closed the hearing.
The Planning Board needs to show their engagement with this issue by asking questions of the applicant, allowing the public to ask questions of the applicant, and by reviewing Hudson City Codes to see if the applicant is acting within those codes. If they aren’t, the Conditional Use Permit needs to be denied. S. Reid
Questions from the Planning Board are on a per-need basis: If the PB doesn't have questions, it won't ask any.
DeleteThere's another thing that baffles me: If the Planning Board truly committed a procedural blunder here, how would from that arise the legal obligation to deny the applicant's application, as you stated at the end of your comment?
Surely, an administration's procedural error can never be to the applicant's detriment.