Gossips' earlier post announcing the existence of a draft resolution granting a conditional use permit to Colarusso for its dock operation was titled "Our October Surprise," not because it contained anything surprising (at that point I had not yet read the resolution), but because its appearance at this point was unexpected and seemed premature. There are issues that remain unresolved. And there is the little matter of the Planning Board never discussing and deliberating on the hundreds of public comments received since 2019.
As it turns out, there are some surprising things in the resolution. Assuming the resolution was written by the Planning Board's legal counsel, Victoria Polidoro, it is surprising how often the LWRP (Local Waterfront Revitalization Program) is cited in the resolution to justify the continued existence of Colarusso's gravel operation at the dock, given that at the October 14 meeting of the Planning Board, Polidoro adamantly maintained that the LWRP was not legally binding. What is also surprising (although it shouldn't be, because it's been done before) is how the resolution manages to pull quotes from the LWRP while ignoring the spirit of the document, which is (to paraphrase), "We are tolerating the current use of the dock because we have to, but we don't want this use to continue ad infinitum, and we certainly don't want it to expand or intensify."
.jpg)
The statement in the resolution most callous and unsympathetic to Hudson's economic development and efforts to reclaim its waterfront is this, which appears in the resolution's Conditional Use Permit Findings:
The Project is the continuation of an existing dock use on the Hudson waterfront, which currently operates without any conditions. Many non-industrial businesses have opened near the waterfront while the dock has been in unfettered operation, including Kitty’s and Basilica Hudson, so the existing dock use has not been a significant deterrent to such businesses. The conditions placed on the conditional use permit will ensure that the continued dock operations do not impact the orderly development of adjacent properties.
The "conditions placed on the conditional use permit" allow 284 truck trips a day, a number that has never been achieved during the "unfettered operation" of the dock. It was during that time of "unfettered operation" that "the existing dock use has not been a significant deterrent to such businesses [as Kitty's and Basilica Hudson]." Were Colarusso to run 284 truck trips a day, which is what the resolution allows, it would mean there would be a truck coming or going every two and a half minutes. It's hard to imagine that would not be a significant deterrent to the continued success of Basilica Hudson, Kitty's, and the Caboose.
Also as part of the conditions in this resolution is the removal of the old cement silo, referred to as "the existing tower." In 2020, it was discovered that peregrine falcons, an endangered species in New York State, were nesting in the silo. So, if the falcons haven't found another nesting site, it might be hard to fulfill that condition. Besides, it's not the silo that obstructs the view from Henry Hudson Riverfront Park. The picture below shows the view of the Hudson-Athens Lighthouse completely obliterated by just one barge moored at the Colarusso dock.
Imagine when there are six, extending two by two out into the river.
The draft resolution is included at the end of the agenda for tonight's Planning Board meeting, which can be found here. The meeting takes place at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall. It will also be livestreamed on YouTube. Click here to find the link to the livestream.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
Corrigendum: Donna Streitz of Our Hudson Waterfront informs me that a Creighton Manning truck study done in 2020 found Colarusso hit the 284 daily trips number twice during the five-year period between 2015 and 2019. The number 284 was originally derived by engineers as an estimate of the maximum number of trips the haul road could handle. The draft resolution puts no annual limit on the number of truck trips, so there is nothing to prevent Colarusso (or some subsequent owner) from running 284 trips a day every day, except on Sundays and six major holidays.
It all comes back to the Mayor. He appointed that lackluster cast of Planning Board members, who are basically happy to be in the role of bystanders. It's a little known fact that the Planning Board is not just a permit review entity, but is in fact charged with actually planning. LOL... PJ
ReplyDeleteWhile the resolution is as weak as the mayor is lazy and uninterested in doing his actual job, the reliance on the LWRP, in and of itself, makes perfect sense in the preamble clauses even if the document itself lacks the force of law: it is the most recent comprehensive statement of the public’s hopes and desires for the waterfront. The use of out of context partial quotes to justify this terrible resolution is merely weak lawyering.
ReplyDeleteBut the meta message of the resolution is how clearly craven and insincere the mayor and at least the chair of the PB are. This is an attempt at accomplishing something — anything — before Election Day. I get Kamal’s panic. He’s unemployable given his track record of nothing and looks to be jobless come January (do unseated politicians qualify for unemployment?). But who on the PB wants their legacy to be this resolution? I mean the mayor is clearly bought and paid for. But did anyone on the PB get a payday or the promise of one for a particular outcome? If not, what explains such nonfeasance? Such willingness to fail to craft a reasonable and workable resolution to one of the city’s most important open issues.
My tongue is no where near my cheek. The language of the resolution is guaranteed to lead to years of litigation. And not just about the hawks. The language is so broad in the executory sections as to be likely unenforceable.
Frankly, it’s a fitting coda to this mayor’s tenure and his PB’s years’ long malfeasance in this matter: a sop to his new best friend and source of campaign cash, 200+ truck trips a day and dead birds.
There is a happy medium where all stake holders at the waterfront can coexist. Unfortunately, getting there requires leadership and hard work. None of the municipal players give the public any reason to hope when they behave this way.
simple solution to all the whining - elect a new mayor and buy out Colarusso.
ReplyDeleteAgree with the first part. The second… with what money?
DeleteAgree with John that they’ve pushed this up before the election. But not as a win before Election Day, because I assume most voters, especially first ward are against this. But it was to ensure one of Kamal’s largest benefactors this election, Colarusso, gets the approval they seek before a (hopefully) new mayor and planning board get established. If I was mayor, I would ask at least 4 of them to resign. Either way, the mayor and this planning board will cost us a fortune in legal fees for years to come.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the Planning Board would approve a level of operation that allows for a truck to arrive or leave every 2 1/2 minutes per 8 hour work day is insane, it is a total giveaway to big business, and a big middle finger to Hudson's residents. This CUP trashes the LWRP's goal of establishing a balance between all of the public and commercial interests at the waterfront, privleging a private business that pays minimal taxes in Hudson, and ravages Hudson's fragile infrastructure with its' heavy trucks. It is the very definition of intensification of use, and a massive increase in operation over what was intended for the dock, by the language of the LWRP zoning, and the voluminous public comment that informed it. From the beginning of this long, tortuous process, ACS consistently obfuscated and misinformed the public and Hudson's government about the true scope of their intentions at the waterfront. It was obvious, from segmenting the private road review from the dock in order to game the system, through repeated disingenuous claims that ACS "has no plans to grow our business" at the dock, or that the main reason for the project was "getting the trucks off the street." It was always one, big giant pile of BS. The bottom line: it was never about public safety, and always about massive profits and the future ability to hang a for sale sign on one of the largest pit mines in NYS, now with a dedicated and unified private road directly to Hudson's waterfront. In the end, Theresa Joyner and Victoria Polidoro behaved as if they were in the pay of ACS, rather than acting in the best interest of the public. They both should be ashamed.
ReplyDeleteIf memory serves right, the haul road application came first, then ACS did dock repairs without filing for a permit with the Planning Board and that is what triggered the necessity for the application that is in front of the board now.
DeleteThere was never supposed to be more than just the haul road application and it could therefore not have been intentional.
Yes, that is true, except ACS most likely understood that they needed to include the dock in their project proposal, but chose to leave it out of the initial review to screw Hudson out of involvement in the review and more early scrutiny, proceeding with the fiction that the private road project was just a public safety effort to alleviate a truck traffic problem that they created, rather than part of a major mining development project linking the Beecraft mine to a local port. The repairs triggered what they tried to dodge. ACS filed for the private road application in Greenport, correctly betting that the useless Greenport Planning Board would except ACS's fairytale: that their road literally led to nowhere. The dock was effectively segmented from a unified review, which is technically illegal under NYS SEQRA law.
ReplyDelete('haul road" is a mining term, and it's use by the the wider public was a mistake. As far as local law is concerned, and for framing, it should have been referred to as the "private road" which is all it is. The wide use of "haul road" was an early victory for ACS. For instance, ACS repeatedly said the road was "one way." What? They own the road and can use it in any direction they choose, it's like saying you can only pull into your driveway, but not back out. It was so dumb, but no one ever pushed back. The years of "haul road" framing made people abandon practical sense, in favor of chasing mining nonsense that only benefited ACS's bottom line.)