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chair of the Planning Board, brought up the proposed amendment and explained: "The president of the Common Council has withdrawn that, so it is no longer on the agenda.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.
I am not unhappy that this finally died on the table and Margaret's explanation is rational and makes sense.
ReplyDeleteWith one caveat maybe: The current Article 78 petition is predicated on the assertion that the Planning Board acted in a legislative capacity when they issued the approval for the conditional use permit on account of the fact that they interpreted the ambiguities of § 325-17.1(D)(1) in a certain way.
If this application gets tossed back to the Planning Board, wouldn't they run into the same issue given that this provision is still ambiguous in the city code? Or could they circumvent this by referring this specific question to the ZBA?
I’m relatively new to Hudson, and absolutely love it here. However one thing I can’t wrap my head around is why the riverfront is so bad relative to what it could be. It’s frankly embarrassing but also reaffirming that people still want to visit in lieu of a nice waterfront area.
ReplyDeleteI hear a lot about the industrial activity and understand to an extent why that’s an impediment to development. That said, does the industrial waterfront activity preclude the City from developing more active green space and other amenities for residents such as cafes, shops, restaurants and bars?
Welcome to Hudson.
DeleteHudson Brewing is trying to buy the Dunn Warehouse (abandoned building by the park).
Ben Fain (Kitty’s/Caboose) basically bought up everything behind him (Cross St./Tanners Ln./Kaz Wharehouse) and wants to develop all sorts of things there. But he’ll probably get a lot of pushback because it’s unfashionable for many people in Hudson to like new things unless paid for by the taxpayers.
As UJ said, the most promising thing on the waterfront is currently the Dunn Warehouse story. The Hudson Brewing Company is trying everything to buy it and move their brewery from the Antique Warehouse in there. They've recently run into a snag whereby half a million dollars they thought they had in the bag revealed themselves to be fictitious thanks to boneheaded negligence by the previous mayor's office.
DeleteThe Ben Fain plan just popped up recently. I think it's workable but a bit on the bland side based on what we were shown. There's a lot of room for improvement there.
The industrial activity that currently remains on the waterfront is in my opinion not the reason for why the waterfront looks the way it does. The topic itself for some reason is just very polarizing. Even here on this site, there is no agreement on what should happen with the Dunn Warehouse. One group wants it to stay with the city whereas another group wants it sold to the brewery.
Welcome to Hudson, Gossips Queen... Completely agree. As another relatively new Hudson resident, this is one of the things I find most baffling. We have this extraordinary riverfront that could be such a wonderful hub of activity — inviting green space, restaurants, cafés, shops, recreation — and yet somehow successive City administrations have been unable to get their collective act together and realize even a fraction of its potential.
DeleteHudson has so much going for it. Imagine if the waterfront actually matched the rest of the city — and if residents and visitors could comfortably walk between the two without dodging speeding cars and heavy-haul trucks.
Hudson's waterfront, like all waterfronts these days except the White Cliffs of Dover, are subject to repeated floods of the type that used to be called "100 year floods." But they happen 2x a year now. So it's difficult to get insurance to build there, and thus financing. Because governments don't do that kind of investments, especially those with significant budget shortfalls and stressors.
DeleteThere's also the working nature of the waterfront -- there's a commercial docking facility at the southern end, and once again, the City lacks the resources to condemn the property via eminent domain (if there was political will to do which I don't think actually exists).
Beyond that, if Hudson's waterfront was lined with bars and restaurants, a chichi shops selling muumuus and straw hats, well, then Hudson would be as generic as most other town's waterfronts.
And most weekends, the parking lots are full from people walking along the water, hanging out on the benches, playing soccer, using the ferry and the public boat launch, and attending events at the Boat Club. It's hardly abandoned property.
We're a fairly artistic town with a gritty, post-industrial aspect. It's part of our history and, many find, our charm.
Honestly, we can have both industry and commercial/park use down there. We already do. That’s not to say hold everyone accountable so that we can share the benefits. I’ve been going down to the park frequently this year, many times when there are multiple barges being loaded, and I don’t find it that offensive. Hopefully the berm and trees that they planted will only help. They’re finally using the haul road and getting those trucks off the street is a good thing.
DeleteThe Hudson River side of NYC has parks and bars right next to the sanitation trash barge transfer dock. It will be fine. I’m sure the lawsuits and legal posturing will continue, but I’m personally over it. People want to develop down there anyway. There’s plenty of other things to concentrate on.