Last night, as Gossips reported, two things of significance regarding Colarusso happened at the Planning Board meeting: (1) It was revealed that Mayor Kamal Johnson was following through on his idea of creating a "multi-party working group" to "broker a compromise that addresses resident concerns while allowing the company [Colarusso] to continue operating"; and (2) the Planning Board voted five to two to reopen the public hearing on the conditional use permit for the Colarusso dock operations.
Today, the Planning Board received a letter from Colarusso's attorneys responding to these two developments. Regarding the mayor's plan to create a "multi-party working group," the letter asserts, "Under New York State law, the Planning Board has sole jurisdiction and obligation to review, deliberate, and render a decision on the Application." It further states, "There is no authority or mechanism under New York State law or the City of Hudson Code for the establishment of a 'task force' to review and deliberate or provide recommendations on an application before the Planning Board." The letter then makes this statement:
. . . the Applicant has respectfully declined to participate in the meeting with the Mayor's Office to "negotiate" or discuss permit conditions. Colarusso also does not agree that this meeting should delay or impact the Planning Board's review, deliberation, and determination on the Application.On the issue of reopening the public, the letter demands that the vote to reopen the public hearing be annulled and that Planning Board member Gabrielle Hoffmann, who made the motion to reopen the public hearing, recuse herself from the issue because she has an "impermissible bias toward the Applicant and the Application." The letter argues that the vote to reopen the public hearing "violates city code." The accusation of "impermissible bias" is based on a letter of concern written and submitted by Hoffmann before she was appointed to the Planning Board in which she states, "Big dangerous trucks, gravel dust and loud noises butting up against the only public waterfront access is hardly ideal."
Similarly, back in October 2020, Colarusso's attorneys accused two members of the Planning Board--Larry Bowne and Clark Wieman--of "conflict of interest or bias" in the Colarusso matter, Bowne because he allegedly had previously been associated with Our Hudson Waterfront, and Wieman because of his partner's previous activities with Our Hudson Waterfront.
The entire letter from Colarusso's attorneys, which was signed by T. J. Ruane. can be found here.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
Not surprising. Colarusso has been getting everything they want from our passive, pathetic Planning Board, so there isn't much incentive for the company to enter into some kind of conversation about brokering a deal. _ PJ
ReplyDeleteThe city better take this seriously or it's out another couple of hundred thousand dollars defending against a lawsuit it can't win. The accusation of a biased Planning Board is not new and led to a lawsuit before in 2021.
ReplyDeleteIf Gaby Hoffmann indeed submitted this email, and there's no doubt she did, she needs to distance herself from this application as far as possible and cannot be part of the deliberations. The email she wrote was, all things considered, relatively mild but it's enough to tarnish the Planning Board and its current composition when it comes to this application.
The whole calamity we're in right now is of course entirely the mayor's fault who - as per usual - gets the timing all wrong and instead of leading from the front is purely reactive.
It's worth noting that in eight years, nobody from Colarusso or City Hall has addressed the simple question-- "How is a gravel dump and industrial truck route good for Hudson?" Where is the upside for the citizens and taxpayers who live in the City? - PJ
ReplyDeleteA very simple response: Hudson's zoning code doesn't ask this question.
DeleteLegal realities exist. The Planning Board, as well as the whole city administration, need to operate within the framework of that code.
Tassilo is telling on himself here — that he hasn’t actually read the City code. Multiple provisions empower the Planning Board to promote and protect the health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the City and its citizens.
DeleteSam, what you are stating is entirely undisputed. In fact, at the May 8 public hearing (where you weren't present) I was one of many people who encouraged the Planning Board to set reasonable conditions.
DeleteBut Peter's claim that there's some sort of moral mandate in the zoning code to ask who benefits most from a particular business enterprise is ridiculous.
The Code at 325-17.1 (D)(1) declares an imperative to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents living in close proximity to commercial docks and the public while recreating and using public facilities adjacent to commercial docks as authorized in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP).
Delete325-35.2.B(8) (b) explicitly allows for consideration of whether and how a project will strengthen or harm the economic base of the harbor area, encourage tourism through preservation, enhancement and protect historic, scenic and recreational interests.
325-34 A. states that in reviewing Conditional Use Permits, the Planning Board shall take into consideration the public health, safety and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the public in general and of the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular.
325-34.A (2) asserts that any proposed use shall be of such location, size and character that, in general, it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the district in which it is proposed to be situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent properties. t Plannin
§210-2 A. declares it to be the public policy of the City of Hudson to maintain and reduce, whenever necessary, the ambient noise level in the City so as to preserve, protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare and the peace and quiet of the inhabitants of the City;
foster the convenience and comfort of its inhabitants; and facilitate the enjoyment of the natural, cultural and historic attractions of the City. (Ditto for odor, light, flood hazards, etc.)
Lastly: The general provisions for the Planning Board to interpret the City Code (per 325 Article XII) note that the requirements set forth shall be treated as the *minimum* requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare.
None of what you are saying here is on the face of it wrong since you are just quoting from the zoning code.
DeleteWhat I find baffling however is your unwillingness, or inability, to learn from your past blunders. You were involved in an article 78 petition against the city in 2024 where key complaints were based on the provisions of §325-35.2.
During the legal proceedings (and before it was thrown out for lack of standing), all the complaints referencing this article had to be withdrawn because that article isn't legally functional. It presupposes the presence of a Coastal Consistency Review Board which we don't have due to the LWRP's failure to obtain state approval in 2011. You know this yourself because you were one of the driving forces behind the sabotage of the LWRP.
Yet, here you are still referring to this thing as if it was real. The irony of course is that it would now be quite handy for your cause had the LWRP passed.
Aside from that, sure, there's plenty of bits in the zoning code that talk about ecological, health and other concerns. But all of them still need to be proved. Proof that a lightly used dock for the purpose of putting little pebbles on boats poses an existential threat to Hudson's population is not something you were ever able to deliver.
1) You accept that that sloppy judicial opionion was right. Not everyone does. 2) The Article 78 was regarding SEQRA and the so-called haul road, which had been reviewed by Greenport. We are talking here about a Conditional Use Permit review under Hudson’s code. Totally different animal. 3) There are multiple citations above. You only manage to selectively nitpick one. 4) The City didn’t even try to get the State to adopt the LWRP because it knew DOS would require them to fix its many flaws. I know the guy who ran that part of DOS—he said only two places in the whole state put themselves in that position. Hudson’s leadership has been so beholden to Greenport interests that it just never pushed it. You want to blame citizens who pointed out these problems for the City’s failure, got it.
DeleteIn any case: Bottom line is Peter’s point remains salient both from a common sense and a regulatory standpoint. No one can articulate a reason why this benefits Hudsonians. Its proponents don’t even try.
1) I accept realities. I am not qualified to ascertain whether it was sloppy or not. I however noticed that you folks didn't take it up one level to the appellate court. Were you not confident that there was enough slop?
Delete3) I nitpick only when it serves my purposes. The question I have for you is why you included it in your enumeration if you knew it was bogus. Whenever I state a falsehood as fact (and I am sure it happens frequently enough), I do it by accident only.
Colarusso proponents have on numerous occasions articulated reasons for why a family-owned, union-wages paying company that is situated in walking distance to Hudson provides benefits to the city.
I hate to get involved in a dispute between two very competent disputants, but I don't understand why we can't have a deep-water port and kayak rentals. Most of the gravel wrecking our streets these days is going to well-heeled home-owners fixing their basements and/or other improvements -- it's not about the port. Besides, isn't there a dedicated roadway through the South Bay for such trucks. It's time for some reindustrialization -- with rules. --peter meyer
DeletePeter, you are kind of taking the words out of my mouth. I am not proposing to shut down everything at the waterfront and turn it into the port of Rotterdam. Different uses currently co-exist at the waterfront and they can continue to do so.
DeleteA lot of the arguments against the Colarusso dock are in my opinion fabricated. The problem of these trucks passing through Columbia St was real but that has been (or is being) addressed.
You can discuss the finer points of the haul road crossing 9G if you want and the dangers this poses but surely a solution for that could be found that doesn't involve shutting down the dock.
Careful re-industrialization is really something the city should look at. Just as importantly, the little of it that we have left, just outside of Hudson, should be preserved.
We don't have to look that far into Hudson's past to know that when one of these business shuts down, nothing replaces them. When Kaz closed in 2008, that killed 300 local jobs. It's been empty and unproductive ever since. Ben Fain's plan to put a grocery store in there can't happen soon enough. I hear it's slated to occur in 2028.
Is Kamal Johnson once again proving that he is not fit for the office of mayor, or, for that matter, any official capacity at City Hall? He's looking more and more like a child in a sandbox, isn't he? What the hell are we paying this guy to do for us?
ReplyDeleteThis Mayoral and Waterfront Planning Board malfeasance could impact all of the other projects in front of the board.
ReplyDeleteAbsolute clown show.
It will take Joe or Peter years to clean up this mess. Imagine what else we will discover when Kamal and Tom leaves office.
Well, the smart and successful candidate usually requests that the state audit the City's books very shortly after taking office.
DeleteAs predicted, Colarusso saw these “Kamp Kamal Accords” for the election pandering farce that they are and aren’t playing along. My personal hunch is the mayor knew this wouldn’t go anywhere and has no interest in the waterfront unless he can give it away to his tax subsidy hungry developer friends. He was hoping this would distract long enough to keep the waterfront contingent at bay and forget that his neglect of the Planning Board and low expectations for the future of our city is what got us here in the first place.
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion and what I’ve written to the Planning Board, like most residents and business that are actually in Hudson, is that strict guidelines should be put in place to ensure Colarusso or any future owners do not significantly increase or change their current operations so that we can all benefit and utilize the waterfront. But I also think that all applicants deserve a fair and expedient review process and to not be surprised when they protect their interests with any legal means possible.
This is an excerpt from Gabrielle Hoffmann’s letter of concern — “Big dangerous trucks, gravel dust and loud noises butting up against the only public waterfront access is hardly ideal… we are hoping that steps can be taken to secure as much protection to this important resource as possible.”
ReplyDeleteThis isn’t biased, it’s common sense. An industrial gravel and truck operation sharing access with our only riverfront park has never been ideal.
Our city code requires that conditions be placed on operations near the waterfront. Gabrielle expressed a clear, responsible concern for public safety and the protection of a vital community resource—exactly the kind of perspective we should want on the Planning Board.
Yet Colarusso’s lawyers are trying to twist her words into a conflict of interest. It’s a bad-faith argument, and part of a broader pattern: anyone who raises reasonable concerns about this operation is met with legal threats, pressure, and attempts to disqualify them. This is bullying—plain and simple—and it’s meant to intimidate both the public and the officials who represent them.
Gabrielle should not give in to these tactics by recusing herself. She was speaking for the community—just as countless others have. It’s not just her opinion—it’s how almost everyone in this city feels.
Alex, please do me a favor and be more cautious with your choice of words. Colarusso defending their economic interests does not constitute "bullying". In front of the courts, they have an overall winning track record.
DeleteThat particular word has a history here and turned a public hearing in late September of 2023 into an an especially raucous affair. It's entirely unnecessary and you, running for public office, should know better.
Gaby meanwhile is speaking only for parts of the community. I do not know how big this part is relative to the other one but I believe it's not as lopsided as it's often made out to be. Do not ascribe her views to everyone else in the city.
Just like many other folks here, I appreciated how Gaby carried herself during the most recent Mill St hearing. I know also that she is in principal a good addition to this Planning Board. I would think she is the type of independent mind that will not be coercible by Kamal and thus we would like to keep her.
As far as Colarusso's C.U.P. is concerned, she still has to take a step back and cannot be a part of this. I remind you of a lawsuit in 2021 where Colarusso explicitly accused the PB of bias, and won.
You refer to "a lawsuit in 2021 where Colarusso explicitly accused the PB of bias, and won." It is true that Colarusso prevailed in the 2021 lawsuit, but NOT on the bias allegations. The case was decided on entirely different grounds and the Court explicitly declined to decide the allegations of bias. See pages 2-3 of the Decision and Order.
DeleteTassilo, Gaby is perfectly within her rights to state an opinion about prioritizing the health and safety of the public, particularly children, at the waterfront. What is not permitted is holding a bias that would appear to prevent her from hearing and weighing new information. Where do you see the bias in the letter?
DeleteYes, it’s not jury duty.
DeleteKD: The way these lawsuits work is that the plaintiff floods the zone and adds as many complaints as they can. An accusation of bias in the PB, whether spurious or not, always presents an additional item that the defendant will have to respond to.
DeleteI absolutely disagree with the prevailing view here that this will just be cavalierly brushed aside by a court.
That said, I don't even think ACS will need this particular bias complaint. The Planning Board, but foremost the mayor, has turned the proceedings over this application into enough of a mockery at this point.
I'm familiar with how these lawsuits work. I was the attorney who defended the Planning Board in Colarusso's first lawsuit (in 2017) and won a complete victory with all of Colarusso's claims dismisseed. I have read in the last couple of days over 30 New York cases on bias and recusal and the case law indicates that this "bias" claim would go nowhere. See, for example, Segalla v. Planning Board of the Town of Amenia, 204 A.D.2d 332, and Eadie v. Town Board of the Town of North Greenbush, 47 A.D.3d 1021. You should be able to find them on Google Scholar.
DeleteAlso, Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v. Fleming, 156 A.D.3d 1295; Webster Associates v. Town of Webster, 59 N.Y.2d 220.
DeleteA few additional points: 1) One can “flood the zone” with as much garbage as one wants. In the 2017 lawsuit that I litigated, Colarusso asserted 17 causes of action, every one of which was dismissed. What matters is claims with merit. None of their 2017 claims had merit, and this purported “bias” claim doesn’t, either. 2) I’d also note that your fear of spending “a couple of hundred thousand dollars” is—or should be—rather overblown. The total cost (lawyer fees, document production, court costs—everything) to the City to litigate and completely prevail on all 17 claims in the 2017 lawsuit I litigated was $12,554. Not nothing, but a far cry from hundreds of thousands. 3) The Planning Board’s obligation is to issue a determination on the merits of the matter that comports with the requirements and limitations of the zoning code and is rationally based on the information in the record. The Board should not act, or fail to act, or modify its determinations, out of fear of a challenge by either proponents or opponents of the application, which would be a corruption of the process. 4) I think you are getting ahead of yourself in assuming that Colarusso is going to sue. I don’t think anyone has any idea what determination the Planning Board is going to issue on this application—I certainly don’t. 5) The bottom line is that, in any case, speculation about a potential lawsuit has no place in the Planning Board’s consideration of the matter. The Board must concern itself only with making a rational determination based upon the merits, bound by the law and facts and within the parameters of discretion granted by the zoning code—and nothing else. (It is crucial for the Board to recognize that the law imposes both limitations as to what it may do as well as obligations as to what it must do.) It is entirely within the Board’s reach to accomplish this.
DeleteKen, I wasn't necessarily predicting that there is going to be a lawsuit. Any lawsuit from either side is a worst-case scenario that to me would indicate a failure and inability of two opposing parties to talk to each other .
DeleteBut we have seen that here in Hudson. The Valley Alliance's article 78 petition filed, IIRC, January last year was a manifestation of that. And principally, it's still the same two parties. Three, if you count the Planning Board, now with a somewhat different composition.
As for the bias accusation, the cases you quote seem to involve Article 18 of the Municipal Law. My understanding is that a conditional use permit does not constitute a "contract" in the sense of Article 18 and so the Conflict of Interest provisions in this article wouldn't actually apply anyway. Which makes me wonder if the rather crafty Colarusso attorneys are thinking of something else.
By the way, you seem to be quoting me ("a couple of hundred thousand dollars"). I don't believe I ever wrote these words anywhere (maybe a different, but related, comment thread?). Seems odd to ascribe them to me.
I quoted from your first comment on this thread--the second comment overall on this thread--June 12, 11:07 pm. See above.
DeleteTassilo, it would be helpful if you would inform yourself before participating in a public forum. Review of an industrial proposition has an economics component, wherein the Planning Board is empowered to assess potential upsides vs. the downside impacts. Do you actually believe that our community ought to just accept whatever a corporation proposes, regardless of the fact that the environmental downsides obviously out-weigh the economic benefits?
ReplyDeleteTassilo, the "moral mandate" you mention does indeed exist in the form of the Planning Board's responsibility to serve the citizens and taxpayers of Hudson. You insult our community by suggesting that we are so naive and gullible that we should accept a lousy deal in which we would get almost new jobs or revenue, while accepting a massive amount of dangerous and noxious truck and barge traffic, increased blasting in the quarries on Newman Rd., and the visual blight that accompanies a gravel operation sited immediately next to our waterfront park. And further, it's a near certainty that at some point Colarusso will sell to a bigger global firm, and then we will be stuck with a nightmare scenario that could have been avoided.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine being a person who wants to go ahead with a noisy, dirty gravel operation in spite of substantial community opposition. As a business person, I would feel awful to file multiple lawsuits and create a ruckus in my community for eight years. If I was that unwelcome, I'd pack up and leave.
ReplyDeleteI'm baffled by the fact that Colarusso wants to proceed in spite of the fact that even if they get permits to operate, they are going to face determined citizen opposition forever. There will be constant vigilance by citizens who care about the waterfront, lawsuits, and a steady drip, drip of harassment of the company. I can't imagine being a business person who is willing to function under adverse circumstances.
ReplyDeleteWhich makes me think that Colarusso selling out to a bigger firm is the most likely outcome-- they would have to be nuts to operate here, given the fact that the road ahead is not going to be a whole lot of fun.
~ PJ
I don't understand why you can't have a deepwater port loading/unloading gravel and pretty canoe and kayak docs, wedding event venues, and the rest.... This isn't an either/or location..... -=peter meyer
Delete