Last night, the Common Council held a public hearing followed by a special meeting on a local law to clarify Section 325-17.1 of Chapter 325 of the city code. You are urged to read the entire proposed law (it's just two pages), but here are some important paragraphs:
Subsection (1) of subdivision D of section 325-17.1 of the Code of the City of Hudson ("the Code") authorizes the Planning Board to issue a conditional use permit for "Continuation of existing commercial dock operations for the transport and shipment of goods and raw materials, and associated private roads providing ingress and egress to or from such commercial dock operations, as such uses existed on the effective date of this L.L. No. 5-2011"; . . .
section 325-29 of the Code provides that any type of nonconforming use "shall not be enlarged, extended or placed on a different portion of the lot or parcel of land occupied by such use on the effective of this chapter, nor shall any external evidence of such use be increased by any means whatsoever. . . .
The clarification was intended to reinforce the spirit of LWRP zoning, adopted in 2011, which identified dock operations as a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use is defined as a land use that was legal when it was established but does not conform to the standards of the current zoning law. Nonconforming uses are tolerated, but, as the code makes clear, are not something that should be expanded or intensified.
During the public hearing, which can be viewed here, the first to speak was Colarusso attorney T. J. Ruane. He asserted Colarusso would be the only business affected by the law, which he called an "unconstitutional, impermissible act by the City Council." He claimed the proposed law would "put Colarusso out of business and put people out of work." He went on the predict, "All it is going to do is result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and millions of dollars in damages."
 |
| JR Heffner and T.J. Ruane at the public hearing last night |
The other eight people who spoke during the public hearing supported the law, calling it a "commonsense solution" that created a balance of industrial activity with recreational uses and commercial and cultural uses at the waterfront and supported the long-term vision of the LWRP (Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan), which, Ben Fain correctly noted, "was never intended to enable industrial expansion on the waterfront."
Just before the public hearing was closed, Ruane approached the bench and handed a piece of paper to Council president Tom DePietro. What it was is not known.
When the special meeting began about a half-hour after the public hearing was closed, the Council immediately went into executive session. No reason was given for the executive session, but since Crystal Peck, counsel to the Council was present, it can be surmised that the purpose was for the Council to receive legal advice from its attorney. It is not known what that legal advice was, but a statement made by Mohammed Rony (Second Ward) before his no vote suggests that Peck's advice to the Council only reinforced Ruane's bullying and legal intimidation. Rony stated: "I would like to revitalize the waterfront and give it back to the people, but we also have to preserve the financial health of the City at the same time."
When vote was taken, Margaret Morris (First Ward), Rich Volo (Fourth Ward), and DePietro voted in support of the proposed law; Rony, Dewan Sarowar (Second Ward), and Gary Purnhagen (First Ward) voted no; and Jennifer Belton (Fourth Ward), Vicky Daskaloudi (Fifth Ward), and Shershah Mizan (Third Ward) abstained. Lola Roberts (Third Ward) and Dominic Merante (Fifth Ward) were absent from the meeting.
The video of the special meeting can be found here.
Gossips has learned that yesterday, hours before the public hearing and the special meeting, members of the Common Council received FOIL requests from Colarusso's attorney asking for all email and text messages that mentioned Colarusso and any correspondence with people (they were named specifically) known to be advocates for eliminating or limiting industrial activity at the waterfront.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
I could have sworn Shershah is dead. Are you sure he was there? I mean, he hasn't done anything in all his years on the council -- are you really sure he's not dead. I think he died.
ReplyDeleteWho brought the law forward in the first place? Did any of those that abstained state a reason for their abstention? I sure wish anyone who winds up in leadership positions on the council next term has consensus building skills, understands the value of caucusing and working things out before they move things to the Council. There is value to knowing in advance that you have the votes to pass things of this much importance. If you don't have the votes to pass it, work harder and get them.
ReplyDeleteI was unable to figure out the provenance of this proposed law. As far as I can tell, it did not pass through the legal committee but it was briefly discussed in the regular council meeting of June 17. The Planning Board also mentioned it at the last Colarusso workshop.
DeleteNot knowing where and how a proposed law came about is a peculiar quirk of the DePietro council. I hope that her successor will be a little more transparent in this respect.
Part of me thinks that the Colarusso FOIL revolves around that question, too.
This whole thing is just plain weird. I want the waterfront to be utilized for smarter development and deindustrialized. But the city has to do it the right way. The lawsuits from either side are inevitable, so the city should be more professional about how this is dealt with, both in the PB and CC. And yes, one of Margret Morris’s plans as CC Prez is to have more transparency and notice about upcoming bills and resolutions, that they have clear sponsors from the council and that they are not surprises. This has been Tom’s method of running the council, bills written by special interests groups and astroturfing groups based outside of Hudson, put on their desks at the 11th hour so the member have no time to investigate or do due diligence. That’s why they call him Tom “Rush Job” DP.
DeleteI've have learned a little more since my last post. I will say that Tom was only a side culprit, albeit still a culprit. The fact that we heard nothing about the proposal here on Gossips is almost certainly not a coincidence, nor because Carole missed something.
DeleteIt was a valiant effort given the circumstances and the goal but it gets a demerit for failing to get the required votes considering Hudson's financial situation (maybe include more council members next time you try this), and being entirely unconscionable.
I remain hopeful that that the new council will spend its energy on passing good legislation and not do childish things prompting article 78 petitions that essentially write themselves.
We have NO representation in the Third Ward. Neither Shershah, nor Lola Roberts will respond to constituents or represent us to the City Council. Actually Roberts replied once to me when I submitted my family’s concerns about Colarusso ruining any chance at Hudson having a beautiful and publicly used waterfront. She took the time to tell me how she felt. I asked her how she was representing our views to the City Council, and she never responded. I guess they’re just there for the benefits? I know who I’m not voting for in November.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Sienna, it looks as though Lola will be back for another two years of doing nothing since she and Justin Weaver are the only two running for our ward.
DeleteLola came out of nowhere two years ago, and I am certain that she is the mayor's and council president's stooge. It's council members like her and Shershah who keep Hudson in the dark ages, whether they show up to meetings or not!
It is not Justin Weaver who is running in the Third Ward. It is Jason Foster, who previously served as Commissioner of Public Works.
DeleteYes, got my J's crossed up.
DeleteWhy would anyone abstain unless they simply can't grasp the matter at hand? If you don't understand what you are expected to vote on, ASK QUESTIONS UNTIL YOU DO UNDERSTAND. Then vote! And if you still want to abstain, please explain why.
ReplyDeleteThere are candidates running in the 3W?! None have reached out with so much as a postcard let alone knocking on my door. I’m still convinced that Shershah is dead. When did Lola Roberts move here? Are you sure she is an alderman? She’s never even tried to contact me or solicit my vote.
ReplyDeleteMy Vote on Local Law B
ReplyDeleteAt Thursday’s Common Council meeting, I voted no on Local Law B. I came in ready to support it because I share the community’s concern about the impacts of current operations on our residents health, especially residents of the First Ward and the city’s health at large. However, after reviewing the details, I came to believe that this law would not withstand a legal challenge. It simply would not achieve the goals its supporters—and I—share. Passing a law that would almost certainly fail in court would only burden taxpayers with costly litigation and delay real solutions. My vote was not against reform, but for pursuing an approach that is legally sound, effective, and in the best long-term interest of Hudson’s residents.
— Gary Purnhagen
Common Council First Ward
I commend you for flat-out voting no rather than the tacit nay via abstention.
DeleteIt was the right vote. This proposed amendment, if passed, would have prompted litigation that would have written itself.
Thank you Gary, do you blog your thinking on these laws and votes elsewhere? You wrote something a while back about your Good Cause Eviction Law vote and you seem to have deleted it on FB?
DeleteI did post my thoughts about that law on a few community pages, and they were posted on this blog. The Admin. for one page took it down as political. The post is still up on other pages
DeleteThank you Gary - can you please point us to one of those pages. Or perhaps consider posting on your blog.
DeleteThank you and have a good weekend
This would be a very defensible law, primarily because it is a continuation and clarification of lawful limits already in effect. Zoning Code section 325-29 (which predates 2011) sets out restrictions on nonconforming uses. It enumerates several restrictions and goes on to state “nor shall any external evidence of such use be increased by any means whatsoever.” As of 2011, the dock operations became a nonconforming use and subject to that provision. Therefore, under EXISTING law, there could have been no lawful INCREASE after 2011 in the EXTERNAL EVIDENCE of the use ongoing at the dock. Carrying this limitation further—into the present and future—is section 325-17.1(D.)(1), which provides that the following conditional use may be allowed: “Continuation of existing commercial dock operations * * * AS SUCH USES EXISTED on the effective date of this L.L. No. 5-2011.” Plainly, Section 325-17.1(D.)(1) does not restrict the dock any more than it was already restricted under 325-29. The proposed law at issue now does not add any additional restrictions, either. Its effect would be to ensure the use of clear and objective parameters for establishing compliance with the restrictions already in the law, as set out in 325-29 and 325-17.1(D.)(1). In fact, the numbers in the proposed new law allow for greater activity at the dock than what was ongoing in 2011. The other important factor is that Colarusso bought into this situation—the dock was already a nonconforming use when they bought it in 2014. They have never had any lawful right to increase the external evidence of the dock use beyond what was ongoing in 2011—minimal activity, by most accounts. Courts give very short shrift to owners that buy a nonconforming use and then complain about the limitations that they are subject to and are not disposed to bail out such owners. The view of courts in such situations is pretty consistent: “If they didn’t like the limitations on the property, they shouldn’t have bought it.” As the only lawyer who actually won his case against Colarusso, I would happily and confidently defend of this law against a challenge.
ReplyDeleteThank you KD, This is why a number of council members voted to table the bill to allow us time to further discuss this.
Delete