Tonight's Planning Board meeting begins at 5:30 p.m. instead of the usual 6:00 p.m. The extra half-hour at the beginning of the meeting is for the purpose of discussing the proposed clarification to Section 325-17.1 of the city code. This clarifying amendment was sent to the city and the county planning boards, as a matter of course, for a recommendation, a recommendation that is in no way binding on the Common Council.
One wonders why this proposed clarification is causing so much uncertainty and angst. It actually seems pretty straightforward. The zoning in the city's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), which was adopted by the Common Council in November 2011, designates the dock operation as a nonconforming use. The reason for making the dock operation a nonconforming use was to prevent the expansion or intensification of the dock operations beyond what existed in November 2011, when the zoning was put in place, to ensure that whatever went on at the dock could coexist with the use of the adjacent park and the public and private investment happening in proximity to the dock.
During the five years the LWRP was being developed and finally adopted (2006-2011), O&G Industries, headquartered in Connecticut, in an agreement with St. Lawrence/Holcim, was hauling aggregate from the quarry to the river to be loaded on barges at the dock. According to the code, the activity at the dock that existed in 2011 was not to be expanded or intensified. When A. Colarusso & Sons purchased the property from St. Lawrence/Holcim in 2014, the LWPR zoning and its restrictions were in place. Unfortunately, no one thought to document and memorialize the level of activity that existed at the dock or the number of trucks traveling between the quarry and the dock in 2011.
Earlier this year, Donna Streitz did the hard work of investigating and piecing together available information to determine what the level of activity was in 2011--the level that, according to the code, "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 date of this chapter, nor shall any external evidence of such use be increased by any means whatsoever." Streitz's findings are the basis for the proposed amendment to clarify Section 325-17.1.
This isn't the first time problems have arisen because an initial set of data had not been established in 2011. In 2017, Colarusso widened its road through South Bay, from Route 9G to the dock. At the time, the question was raised if the widened road encroached on the Recreational Conservation (R-C) District. The question could not be answered because the actual width of the Core Riverfront (C-R) District, as it extends through South Bay, had never been established. It was simply a green line on the zoning map. There was no way to determine where the C-R District ended and the R-C District began in the protected wetland that was once South Bay.
The proposed amendment to Section 325-17.1 is an opportunity to clarify the intent of the zoning by establishing a baseline for activity at the dock, to ensure that the LWRP vision for the waterfront--a vision that restricted the existing industrial use and balanced it with the recreational and nonindustrial uses developing around it--could be realized.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK
The uncertainty likely originates in trying to tease legislative intent today from the actions/inactions of the aldermen and women nearly 20 years ago. The draft LL itself states that there is no authority for any of the figures it cites. And I remember those debates -- and don't recall any hard numbers being bandied about. But I could be wrong. At this distance, it's all uncertain.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am asking myself is why this council, presumably at the behest of Margaret, decided to invoke the Planning Board here.
DeleteIt's pretty clear that initially the PB didn't know what to do with it. At tonight's meeting, Ron Bogle tried to reframe that council's homework as an assignment to state if this legislative change would make the code clearer and thus easier in the future for the PB to discuss applications pertaining to it.
Given that the proposed change to the town code replaces an unanswerable clause (amount of truck traffic in 2011) with an arbitrary and synthesized number, the question is rhetorical. It of course makes it clearer: It adds a concrete number.
But later into the meeting, during Ken Dow's section, Ron asks if this isn't actually purely legislative. The answer is yes and therefore, this should have never been submitted to the Planning Board in the first place.
The council can do whatever they want with this. Margaret put it on the council's agenda when she didn't need to. If she believes this change should happen, she should act accordingly and with clarity, move forward with it and not involve an agency of the executive branch that has no business in this.
Max, lacking for drama in Greenport these days?! This is a non-controversy.
DeleteMargaret asked the City agency tasked with being expert in our Zoning Code to weigh-in on a zoning issue. Is that really notable or questionable? It seems rational to me. Particularly in the area of zoning.
More than any other part of the City Code, zoning is the most complex. Unlike any other Article that I can think of, Zoning is the only one that is designed in a hierarchical structure. This alone makes any changes to one portion susceptible to inadvertently affecting another, unrelated section of the Article. It's like pulling a loose thread in a sweater only to have the entire garment unravel.
So for a generalist (and all the alder folks are generalists as to our Zoning Code except perhaps Henry Haddad due to his profession), it makes sense to seek expert opinion and guidance. The fact that only the legislature can amend the law (there's a breakthrough thought - tell the mayor) is neither here nor there: legislators can reach out to technocrats, and technocrats can reach out to legislators, to craft or amend legislation.
It was referred to the Planning Board because section 325-40 of the Zoning Code requires all proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to be referred to the Planning Board. Referral is not a matter of discretion or judgment--it's a mandatory requirement of the Code.
DeleteA Planning Board Chair that:
ReplyDelete1: Writes down and reads important statements.
2: Leads with bridging statements and common ground:
"We have a journey ahead of us as a City, and that journey is going to be a challenge, it is going to challenge our individual and our institutional abilities to conduct complicated business... and clarify where there is ambiguity that just helps clean the process going forward."
"Wherever we can reduce ambiguity, we should try to do that"
Youtube: https://youtu.be/pw6TyLSAsL8?t=2020
Maybe Mr. Bogle and Mr Forman can honor us with other municipal tours of duty at the end of their PB and HPC terms.
Thank you gentlemen.
Why can't the city concentrate on the more important issues instead of continually beating this dead horse? How about maintaing the numerous pocket parks along Warren? How about providing support for improving the 7th St park? How about stop kicking the can down the street for years regarding improving the sidewalks? How about addressing the boat club's monopoly on the river front? Sheep being led by a group that won't let it rest until they get it theier way.
ReplyDeleteIt’s almost as if people don’t follow what’s happening in local government or understand how it all works.
DeleteBecause having a waterfront park that is negatively impacted by an adjacent industrial use *IS* more important than pocket parks (certainly) and sidewalk repairs (possibly). Hudson is decades behind the times on this. Riparian communities throughout the country have turned away from waterfront industrial use. No amount of Winter Walk payola will offset what Hudson loses by Colarusso’s continues presence at that specific location.
ReplyDeleteDon’t forget the Flag Day fireworks, Or the basketball warmup uniforms for our state quarterfinalists. Or the the perpetual winning bids for roadwork that cracks apart after one winter. Or buying our second reservoir for a pittance.
Deletemore people - especially tourist - pass by the pocket parks than the waterfront. As far as the 7th St Park it is uaually the 1st thing people see coming in to Hudson. Ther is nothing to do at the waterfront so fixing up the park and approving the Dunn building improvements should be the priority.
Delete