In 2016, Ken Dow, who was then the city attorney, brought attention to a problem with Chapter 188, Paragraph 5, of the code, which makes reference to "a disorderly house or a house of ill fame." The meaning of this archaic language is "brothel or house of prostitution," but the Hudson Police Department was applying the law to situations that involved people hanging out at a house or apartment making noise and engaging in objectionable activity that disrupted the neighborhood, an application that would not hold up in court. Strangely, that paragraph in the code has not been altered, but presumably the HPD has stopped misapplying it.
In 2006, the Historic Preservation ordinance, Chapter 169 of the city code, was amended to add this seventh requirement for the Historic Preservation Commission:
The Chairperson of the Planning and Land Use Committee of the Common Council shall be the liaison between the Historic Preservation Commission and the Common Council and shall report to the Common Council regularly on the actions and proposed actions of the Historic Preservation Commission.
In 2008, when Rob Perry became president of the Common Council, he eliminated the Planning and Land Use Committee, but no one bothered to go back and amend the code to eliminate this reference to the role its chairman in relation to the HPC.
In 2025, Victoria Polidoro, legal counsel to the Planning Board, is using this definition from Chapter 325, Article XIII, of the code as the basis of her opinion that the city's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) does not have the force of law:
LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION AREA (LWRA) or COASTAL AREA
That portion of New York State coastal waters and adjacent shorelands located within the boundaries of the City of Hudson, as shown on the coastal area map on file in the office of the Secretary of State and as delineated in the City of Hudson Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.
Because the city's coastal area map is not "on file in the office of the Secretary of State," Polidoro maintains that Hudson's local waterfront revitalization area does not exist, "So even though we have provisions, there's no area that triggers those provisions."
At the Planning Board meeting on October 28, Gabrielle Hoffmann said, "I have spoken with the Department of State, I have case law here, the Municipal Home Rule Law states that we can use our LWRP as a legally binding part of our zoning code." Polidoro reiterated her position that, because no map was filed with the Department of State, there is no Local Waterfront Revitalization Area and told Hoffmann, "I can't change my opinion on this."
Is it possible that Polidoro's opinion is based on another example of detritus in our zoning code? The definition in question was added to the zoning code in 2011 by Local Law No. 5 of 2011, when the LWRP was adopted by the Common Council. In 2016, when it was confirmed that, for whatever reason, the LWRP had never been submitted to the Department of State for review, no one had the presence of mind to comb through the code to see how that situation might impact the LWRP zoning adopted by the Common Council, and certainly no one had the foresight to predict that this one definition would be used to negate the legality of the LWRP zoning. Had anyone done so, it seems the Common Council could have amended the definition to delete the words "as shown on the coastal map on file in the office of the Secretary of State," and we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

The definition of LWRA is not the only thing that is broken in Hudson's zoning code. Another point of contention recently was if the Coastal Consistency Review process can be applied in Hudson through some other means. Gaby claims it can be, Victoria says it can't.
ReplyDeleteNY State DOS makes a strong implication that the whole shebang specifically requires an approved LWRP: https://dos.ny.gov/local-consistency
It doesn't strictly speaking say that a municipality can't roll its own equivalent review process but I would think that the way this process is described in Hudson's code intrinsically tethers it to an LWRP that the city anticipated would get submitted and approved.
Trying to necromance this part of the code into something useful and applicable is a fool's errand. The council needs to redo this from scratch. Even better, the city has another go at an LWRP.
The Planning Board and their attorney Polidoro have been using the fear of extensive litigation as a rationale for rolling over for Colarusso. But in the process, they are preparing the ground for a lawsuit filed by we the people. If Gabby Hoffman already has NYDOS confirming her point of view, Polidoro might consider changing her attitude. ~ PJ
ReplyDeleteThat's obvious, the people have to sue them, top to bottom, administratively and personally.
DeleteIf I was the city and had to chose who I'd prefer to file an article 78 petition, it would be you the people.
DeleteIf you file the petition, both the city and Colarusso are respondents and the city can pretty much bank on ACS's attorneys to do most of the heavy lifting.This is what happened last year.
If Colarusso files it, the city has to fend that off by itself and can't fall back on anyone else to help it.
If ultimately such a petition would even get to the stage of the court considering merit is yet another question. Last year's petition blew up because the petitioners didn't have standing. Do they have standing now?
Tassilo, the problem is that there is no chance that our Planning Board is going to put any meaningful limitations on the Colarusso operation, so there is no reason for the company to file a lawsuit. The only suit that might be forthcoming is from the citizen's side. ~ PJ
ReplyDeleteFor eight years I've been asking why in the world our political leadership is inclined to live with the Colarusso mess, given its many serious downside impacts and total lack of any upside, and the vociferous objections from the community. No one has even attempted to answer the question. It's as though it's a fait accompli, an inevitability that we somehow have to accept. WTF???
ReplyDeleteAttempting to answer my own question, my best guess is that we are still living in the aftermath of an old industrial culture, where the peasants just can't manage to raise their voices for fear of aggravating The Man.
~ PJ
Yes, but in this case the peasants have been raising their voices, their representatives simply haven't caught up with the times and continue to bow before the altar of corporate industrialists.
DeleteBringing suit requires standing. Standing requires damage. Speculative arguments aren’t enough. And shit outcomes from PB votes don’t suffice either. Vote for a real mayor. Vote for a city manager. Vote for a rooster — just don’t vote for the current mayor and his cronies. Change requires change.
ReplyDeleteWell said John, well said.
DeleteHard truths!
Delete