Framing the Discussion

The Planning Board's "workshop" on the proposed clarification of Section 325-17.1 of the city code started out with a statement from Ron Bogle, who chairs the Planning Board. It will be remembered that the proposed amendment had been referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Bogle's comments were meant to frame the discussion, and, as he explained, he had prepared his comments in writing "since I want to select my words carefully." This is in part what Bogle said:

Our task is not to resolve the broader controversy. Others have those responsibilities, including the Common Council in its legislative role and, where appropriate, the courts in their judicial role.

Our opportunity is narrower, but I believe it is equally important.

We can help strengthen the City's decision-making process by remaining disciplined in our role and providing constructive advice from the perspective of the municipal body--the planning board--that will ultimately administer this section of the Zoning Code.

With that in mind, I would like to suggest that we focus our discussion on the question that I believe is uniquely within this Board's remit.

Does the proposed amendment provide clear, objective, and administrable standards that future Planning Boards can apply fairly, consistently, and predictably?

I do not believe it would be particularly constructive for today's discussion become a reconsideration of the Conditional Use Permit, any potential or pending Article 78 proceeding or other action, or the broader policy debate surrounding the waterfront.

Nor do I believe we have been asked to determine what occurred at the dock in 2011 or to resolve competing legal interpretations that may ultimately be addressed elsewhere.

Instead, I hope we can focus on questions such as:

• Does the proposed language provide sufficient clarity for future administration?
• Are the standards objective and capable of consistent application?
• Would future applicants and Planning Boards understand what evidence and findings would be required?
• Are there provisions that would benefit from additional clarification or definition?

If we can answer those questions thoughtfully, I believe we will provide the Common Council with something that only this Board can provide: practical advice from the body that will be responsible for administering whatever legislation the Council ultimately chooses to adopt. . . .

Bogle's attempt to frame the conversation and focus on process rather than content failed. Veronica Concra declared that what he was asking was not possible:

You're saying don't look at it thinking about the past or the future, past litigation or future litigation, when to me this seems a direct consequence of past and present litigation. . . . If this is adopted, and if Colarusso does come back to us, we then would be taking and applying it to Colarusso.

It is clear the Columbia County Planning Board could not see the issue in the way Bogle was framing it either. The County Planning Board recommended that the amendment not be enacted. The following is quoted from the letter that communicated the recommendation:

There is only one commercial dock operation in the Core Riverfront District. These proposed amendments would apply to a single, existing commercial use, on land controlled by a single property owner, A. Colarusso & Sons, Inc. . . . 

It is highly likely that the adoption of this local law will result in a decrease in the number of jobs, and have negative effects on the labor force and the economy in Columbia County and beyond. The dock is operated by a major employer and the proposed restrictions on truck trips and material tonnage could result in a significant loss of business.

It is worth noting that the Columbia County Planning Board currently has no representative from Hudson. The seat designated for Hudson has been vacant for several years now, but for many prior years Hudson was represented on the County Planning Board by the late Arthur Koweek, who was famously quoted in an article in Hudson Valley magazine for December 1984 as saying of our waterfront and the Hudson River: "It's an industrial area. Let them go out of town to get access to the river. . . It's not a recreational river. It's to move raw materials."

In his presentation, Ken Dow, counsel to the Council, stressed that the proposed amendment was not creating a new problem or a new question. It was simply addressing a question that already existed. "The whole point of it is to clarify what is already in the code"--code that predates Colarusso's acquisition of the property in 2014. Dow also said, "The point of the amendment is filling in the missing data. It gives specific numbers that are fact-based." Dow used the expression "to put meat on the bones" more than once to describe the effect of the amendment. 

The discussion went longer than had been anticipated, and the public hearing scheduled for 6:00 p.m. had to be postponed fifteen minutes. Despite Bogle's argument that "anywhere we have the opportunity to clarify, we should take it . . . to reduce ambiguity," the Planning Board could not come to an agreement on how to respond, so Bogle said he would draft a letter to the Council expressing the Planning Board's "advisory opinion." At Concra's insistence, he assured them it would be a "balanced statement." 

It all seems moot at this point. When legislation is referred to the City and County planning boards for a recommendation, the boards have thirty days to respond. The requests were sent to the planning boards on May 29. The County Planning Board submitted its response on June 16. The Common Council is not obligated to follow the recommendations even when they are submitted in a timely fashion.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Corrigendum: Alex Madero, First Ward supervisor, just informed me that at the Board of Supervisors County Government Committee meeting on Wednesday, July 15, Charles Millar was appointed for a three-year term as the Hudson representative to the Columbia County Planning Board. Millar previously served, from 2023 to 2026, as the community member of the Hudson Industrial Development Agency (IDA). Presumably Millar had not yet been appointed when the recommendation was made regarding the proposed amendment to the city code.