At the July meeting of the Common Council, Council president Margaret Morris updated the Council on the proposed clarification to Section 325-17.1 of the city code, the amendment that would establish the level of activity at the dock that existed in 2011 when the code in the city's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program was adopted, which states that the level of activity "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 by increased by any means whatsoever."
At last night's Planning Board meeting, at the end of a meeting that went on for close to three hours, Ron Bogle, chair of the Planning Board, brought up the proposed amendment and explained: "The president of the Common Council has withdrawn that, so it is no longer on the agenda. It is no longer a matter for us to be concerned about."
It turns out that on Friday, August 4, Morris sent an email to members of the Common Council and to Bogle, announcing her decision and explaining her reasoning. The following is quoted from that email:
After careful consideration, I have decided not to bring the LL [local law] regarding 325-17.1 of the City code forward for a vote.
The following is my reasoning.
Currently there is litigation pending regarding the Conditional Use Permit [CUP] granted by the PB [Planning Board] to Colarusso for the Dock.
As I see it, there are two possible outcomes.
- The court can decide that there is no issue with the CUP
- The court can send the issue back to the PB and request that they address the language in the code relating to "as such use existed in 2011"
Under the first scenario, even if enacted, this LL will have no impact on either the current owner of the dock or a future owner.
Under the second scenario, if enacted, the LL and code revision could serve to provide metrics to the PB. However, the PB has all of the information and research that was submitted to the Common Council by Donna Streitz when she first submitted her draft of a LL in February. The metrics that were used in the CC draft LL increased the volume from the 2010 data, in an effort to reach a compromise that would allow the current owner of the dock to continue their current usage of the dock. However, it is clear that Colarusso does not accept this compromise.
Given that the PB has access to all of the information that was submitted to the CC, I have come to the conclusion that our best course of action, and the course of action that best serves the City, is to await the outcome of the current litigation and allow the PB, if the matter is sent back to them, to respond. . . .
And so it goes. Colarusso can stop sending lawyers to Common Council and Planning Board meetings.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK
Don’t be sad …. WOH did work for HHA. Maybe TJ Ruane will be back!
ReplyDeleteJokes aside: if the Common Council can focus on fixing the City Charter amd keepinf the budget under $20m, many of these issues are more fixable in the long-term.
If responsible taxpayers are all spread over 20 issues, very few things will get fixed…if we focus on one or two at a time, we can make progress.
Sequencing matters.