We've had a little respite from having to think about the Planning Board and its review of Colarusso's application for a conditional use permit, but it's time to bring our attention back to it. Time permitting, the dock application may be discussed at the Planning Board meeting next Tuesday, October 14. The next Planning Board meeting wholly devoted to the dock application is scheduled for Tuesday, October 28.
In the meantime, Donna Streitz of Our Hudson Waterfront has shared her thoughts about the Planning Board meeting that took place on September 23.
 |
| Photo: Our Hudson Waterfront |
Reflections on 9/23/25 Special Meeting
The meeting centered on the Applicant's attorney T.J. Ruane's 9/19/25 letter to the Board--essentially a presentation limited to selectively chosen issues, omitting major public health, safety, and welfare concerns. Discussions during the meeting never got to public comments, which will be addressed at the next meeting.
Board member Gaby Hoffmann raised critical points throughout the meeting, for example about scope of review. The Applicant still argues review should cover only bulkhead repairs, but the Board's attorney confirmed it encompasses the entire dock operation.
To view the recorded meeting, click here.
Following are some of our concerns raised by the meeting:
Public Comments
The Board has not yet discussed or deliberated on the extensive public input gathered since 2019.
- From our review, over 100 letters (July 2019-July 2020) appear missing from the Planning Board's online portal, to which the Planning Board members and the Applicant were directed to go by the Chair to review public comments. (Missing correspondence is included elsewhere on PB's webpages--Correspondence, Applications, and Minutes.)
- As Sam Pratt noted in his 5/6/25 letter to the Board (click here), all comments since the original July 2019 hearing are part of the record and must be reviewed by the Board before any vote.
- Hilary Hillman's 7/14/25 letter (click here) documents the volume of public comment submissions and highlights listing of some key documents, for the Board's review.
The Planning Board has an obligation to review all correspondence submitted since the original public hearing notice in July 2019. These should also be reviewed by the Applicant.
Conditions Discussion
Because the meeting discussion was driven by the Applicant's 9/19/25 letter, the Board focused narrowly on the Applicant's 9/19 letter topics (e.g. dust, aesthetics), omitting critical issues of concern raised by the public.
Examples of key issues still unaddressed:
- Air quality (diesel emissions of trucks and barges, not just dust)
- Pedestrian and traffic safety (Broad/Front St and Amtrak crossings)
- Climate Adaptation Project and Colarusso's proposed pedestrian bridge
Conditions addressing these, and many other issues, appear in OHW's 5/27/25 letter (click here), which consolidates a comprehensive list of recommendations from the Valley Alliance (William Demarest III Esq.), OHW, and C-R District business owners, with input from former Chair Betsy Gramkow.
The Board must review and deliberate on these and other public recommendations.
Misinformation and Legal Misunderstandings
In our opinion, it appears that the Board is being provided with misinformation or misunderstandings. Following are some which surfaced during the discussion about expansion of use at the dock:
- LWRP--In regard to LWRP-related Zoning Code provisions, the Board's attorney incorrectly indicated that the LWRP is only a "guidance" document, because it was not approved by the State. In fact, Hudson's 2011 LWRP was adopted by the Common Council and Mayor as local law; it is part of the Zoning Code, enforceable regardless of State-approved status. The LWRP's lack of State approval simply means that the City does not qualify for significant State and Federal aid to improve the Waterfront.
- Vested Rights--Contrary to statements by the Applicant's and Board's counsel, the dock's nonconforming use rights were lost when unapproved repairs were performed on the bulkhead. Independent opinions submitted to the Board by attorneys William Demarest III (click here and scroll down) and Ken Dow (click here) confirm this, establishing that a Conditional Use Permit is required for the entire dock operation.
- Jurisdiction--The Applicant claims the Board's jurisdiction ends at the shoreline. This does not appear to be correct. Impacts on the dock, park, ecosystem, and neighboring uses are reviewable regardless of property boundaries, and also since barge operations tethered to the Hudson dock are clearly within the City jurisdiction.
The boundaries of the City's actual property line should be researched.
These are significant issues, reliance on which can drive Planning Board discussions and decisions. These conflicts should be critically reviewed and the record, and information provided to the Board, corrected, as applicable.
In regard to jurisdiction, the Planning Board should consider impacts of activities in the River that would affect the dock, the Park, etc. Also, a review should be performed to determine whether or not the City's property line extends into the Hudson River.
Truck and Barge Volume
The Applicant seeks a 284-trip daily truck limit, matching the haul-road permit. At that rate, trucks would pass every 5 minutes, 11 hours/day (Mon-Thu) and 10 hours/day (Fri)--with barge traffic scaling up accordingly (potentially six barges docked simultaneously).
This represents major intensification with serious air-quality (e.g., diesel fumes and fugitive dust) and impacts on public access, recreational park-use, and water-use implications.
The Board should consider all public health, safety and welfare issues associated with intensified volume of truck and barge volume, including among other things, diesel fumes, fugitive dust, pedestrian access and traffic safety at crossings, etc. Both daily and annual truck volume limits should be considered to minimize potential harmful impacts to the public associated with intensified truck and barge traffic.
Air Quality
Some Board members suggested air-quality studies can't differentiate emission sources. This is incorrect.
According to the U.S. EPA, advanced modeling can "estimate the relationship between sources of pollution and their effects on ambient air quality" and "determine the relative contributions by source." Click here.
Therefore, source-specific air modeling should be used to assess truck and barge emissions affecting park users and nearby residents.
The Board should engage an air-quality expert to inform appropriate conditions, and possible conduct a baseline study.
Hours and Days of Operation
Current haul-road limits: Mon-Thu 7 AM-6 PM, Fri 7 AM-5 PM; no weekends/holidays ( ≈ 250 days/year).
The Applicant seeks dock operations up to 360 days/year (7 AM-7 PM)--110 days more than the haul-road, and nearly five times the 2015 activity levels (i.e., 77 operational "haul" days per 2020 Creighton Manning Truck Study).
The Code's 7 AM-7 PM window of dock operations does not grant unlimited daily operations. Enabling year-round dock operations (involving loading and unloading barges), including weekends and some holidays, will negatively affect the peace and tranquility of the waterfront for the recreating public at the Park and on the water, and create potential health, welfare and safety hazards (e.g., negative impacts from diesel fumes, fugitive dust and noise from loading/unloading, barge traffic, views from the Park and the River).
Dock use should be capped, at a minimum, to match haul-road limits; weekend exceptions should be limited to a few and require Code Enforcement approval.
Noise
Questions arose regarding zoning of the Core-Riverfront (C-R) District, in regard to nuisance noise level requirements.
The Board should request clarification from the Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) on applicable nuisance noise limits for the dock and surrounding areas in the C-R District Code standards vary, as follows: Residential 55 dB(A), Commercial 65 dB(A), Industrial 70 dB(A), Conservation/Recreation 55 dB(A).
Urgency and Due Diligence
Some Board members expressed frustration with the long review and desire to "just get it done." The Applicant complains that this review has been going on for 8 years.
The delays stem from the Applicant's own actions--withholding truck data for three years and suing the Board twice causing extended delays. For example, the dock permit review which began in July 2019, virtually ended July 2020, and was just resumed by the Board January 2025. That 5-year gap was due to lawsuit delays of the Applicant's own making. In our opinion, the Planning Board is not at fault, and should not feel compelled to rush its review and decision.
The Board must fulfill its duty to balance the Applicant's rights with the City's obligation to protect and enhance the waterfront, ensuring decisions are lawful, equitable, and consistent with Hudson's long-term goals and Zoning Code protections for public health, safety, and welfare.
Donna could really do with an attorney that proofreads these write-ups and also explain to her what these documents that she is referring to actually say.
ReplyDeleteWhen the PB attorney pointed out that the LWRP is a guideline, she was referring to §325-35.2 which was the bit that Gaby Hoffmann had come across. That section as well as §325-6 B are null and void without state approval of the LWRP.
Hudson's current zoning is a totally different matter. That came out of the process of crafting the LWRP and never required state approval since the council passed it as a local city law. But it does contain references to processes and boards that, due to the lack of state approval, cannot exist such as the Coastal Consistency Review process as laid out in article VIII of chapter 325.
After the last PB workshop, I sent an email to Margaret and Tom asking them to please remove it from the city code. It continues to cause confusion.
The letters by Ken Dow and Bill Demarest meanwhile do not state what Donna thinks they state. All they say is that the entire dock operations are now subject to a conditional use permit due to the dock repair done in 2017 that happened without obtaining prior approval from the Planing Board.
No one contests that and TJ Rouane has said so numerous times himself. What is however important here is that the "entire dock operation" refers only to operations on the dock itself and excludes the haul road.
Finally, there is no "major intensification" anywhere to be found in this CUP application. The 284 one-way truck trips are a condition of the haul road application that was granted in December 2023. Colarusso is operating under this ceiling right now and the current application can neither raise nor lower it.
1. Max - what do you think is the best solution for these conflicting interests at the waterfront?
ReplyDelete2. Gossips - we observe that you have the ability to use other title colors that are higher contrast ;-)
The conflicting interests are predominantly to be found in Hudson itself. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that ACS - a business - thinks and operates like a business. Hudson meanwhile does not think like a municipality that incorporates its citizens under one umbrella.
DeleteI've been watching old city meetings on Dan Udell's youtube channel, back from the Tiffany Martin era. There were a number of public meetings on the topic of the DRI but also get-togethers over the fate of the Dunn Warehouse. It's pretty apparent that nothing has changed since then. There is still zero consensus on what this waterfront should be.
My pet project for a while has been to pitch a do-over of the LWRP to anyone willing to listen. It would kill so many birds with one stone: you can fix the ambiguous zoning, have a shared vision for what should happen down there (not everyone will ever agree but you just need a critical mass) and you open up the city to grants.
If there ever was a good use for Peter's harmony- and consent-inducing citizens' assemblies, this is it. The LWRP is normally too big of a task for such an assembly but you could nonetheless create a commission in the way you create an assembly (via sortition for example to ensure it's reasonably inclusive and representative). Then, have them slowly work towards a plan.
At this point you have a rough plan and only then (not before) you hire a consultant to rewrite this into something proper for NY State Department of State to approve.
An elected leader, a mayor for example, could get this process started. I am aware that Hudson didn't have a mayor for close to six years and, if things go poorly, might not have one for another two years.
Maybe that's when the Council president can step in. Or the supervisors of the First, Second and maybe Fourth Ward should band together. Their wards all have some affinity to the river.
That's how I would try to solve it.