As Gossips reported on Wednesday, the Planning Board is holding a public hearing on Colarusso's application for a conditional use permit for their dock operations on Tuesday, July 15--this after closing the public hearing on May 6 and taking part, represented by Theresa Joyner (chair) and Randall Martin, in the mayor's clandestine meeting of stakeholders on June 25. The public hearing takes place at 6:30 p.m. at the Central Fire Station, at virtually the same time the Common Council holds its regular monthly meeting at City Hall. (The Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m.) Exactly what the Planning Board expects to accomplish from this public hearing is unclear, but word is that Joyner, chair of the Planning Board, will not be present. She is reportedly away on vacation until the end of next week.
.jpg)
1 The Planning Board has not yet discussed the public's comments in an open forum. They were to do this at their July 8th monthly meeting the public could respond on July 15th.
When will the Board discuss public comments received thus far in an open forum? The public should be allowed to respond afterwards.
2 The Planning Board has yet to begin their review of the dock C.U.P. application against the City Zoning Code or discuss/determine "conditions."
When will the Board commence its review? The public should not be shut out from being able to ask questions or provide input during this process.
3 We had concerns about the Mayor initiated "work group" meeting that was supposed to take place June 13th. Colarusso's attorney wrote to the Board on June 12th declining participation, but subsequently the meeting did take place on June 25th.
Who attended meeting, what transpired, and what was the outcome? Development of conditions should not be based on a negotiation with the applicant.
4 Colarusso attorney's June 12th letter to the Board:
- requested the recusal of Gabrielle Hoffmann from the Planning Board on the basis of bias.
- claimed that "the decision to reopen the public hearing was made to delay the board's deliberation on Colarusso's application to facilitate Johnson's working group. . . ."
In our opinion, this claim is incorrect. The Board made clear at their June meeting that its review would not be delayed or influenced by the Mayor's initiative. OWH's letter to the board addressed this issue.
5 The Planning Board should require a response from the applicant on the public comments received thus far, and the applicant should be required to respond to the Board's requests and concerns when raised.
The applicant should not be dictating to the Board when it will provide comments. The public should have an opportunity to ask questions and raise issues and concerns after the applicant responds. The applicant has shown time and time again to provide misinformation to the Board. The most recent case in point is their attorney's June 12th letter to the Board.
6 In our opinion, Chair Joyner and Gene Shetsky have exhibited bias against the public from the beginning of this year, when they opposed reopening (or closing) of the public hearing on votes taken on Feb. 11th, May 6th and June 11th. It appears this is based on their assumption that the "comments are the same" and they won't hear anything new.
In our view, this indicates closed-mindedness and unwillingness to hear valid concerns from the public, and is a false assumption. One wonders if they have or will read the hundreds of public comments submitted since 2016 on the dock permit application.
7 The Planning Board should keep the public hearing open beyond July 15th, in fact throughout the entire review process.
Closing it prematurely would be a disservice to the public. The first public hearing involving the dock permit application was open for a year (July 2019-July 2020), and during that time, the applicant had NOT provided crucial data on truck volumes. Truck volume data was provided on the final day [of] the initial public hearing.
And as we've said before, all but one (the Chair) of the current Board members are new to the board and have no direct prior background on the issues/history. However, there is a very large record of correspondence, reports and public comment on the subject on the Planning Board's webpage from 2016 through current, that is available to them. Many of the public have this historical knowledge and can be a vital asset to the Board by bringing to light critical information from the past that should not be discounted or forgotten.
It is important to bear in mind that Colarusso is seeking a conditional use permit. Here is what the code has to say about conditional use permits (§ 325-34). The boldface has been added by Gossips.
On application and after public notice and hearing, the Planning Board may authorize the issuance by the Building Inspector of permits for any of the conditional uses specified in this chapter. In approving such use, 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, and may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be required in order that the result of its action may, to the maximum extent possible, further the expressed intent of this chapter. . . . the nature and intensity of operations involved in or conducted in connection therewith, its site layout and its relation to access streets shall be such that both pedestrian and vehicular traffic to and from the use . . . will not be hazardous or inconvenient to, or incongruous with, or conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
Theresa Joyner missed the last PB meeting as well.
ReplyDeleteYeah. She is on vacation.
DeleteFunny that someone who commits to chairing arguably the most important board for the city, that only has to meet once a month, can’t plan their vacations around that one commitment.
Delete