Dear Ms. Joyner and Planning Board Members:
We are writing to express our concern over the November 1, 2023, letter to the Board from John
Privatera, attorney for A. Colarusso and Sons, filed after the Public Comment Period. In his
letter, Mr. Privatera attempts to discredit points made by Our Hudson Waterfront (OHW), the
Valley Alliance (VA), and Grant & Lyons LLP and others. This letter is riddled with falsehoods
and inaccuracies and it demands the following point-by-point rebuttal. Given that, we
respectfully request that you accept this rebuttal, along with Mr. Privatera’s letter, as part of the
public hearing record.
In addition, we are concerned about the process that led to acceptance of this letter, which in
effect allows the applicant, not the citizens of Hudson, to have the last word.
At the end of the public hearing on September 27, during a brief exchange between Mr.
Privatera and the Board, we learned that Mr. Privatera was asked—in a side conversation with a
Board Member—to submit a “final statement” after reviewing all letters submitted, “including the
letters we haven’t seen yet.”
The problem with this is twofold. First, our understanding of Planning Board procedure is that
nothing is to be discussed between Board and applicant outside of public hearing environment,
with exception allowed for client/attorney privilege. Second, a review of the NYS DOS guidelines
on public hearings (revised 2023 and attached) shows no provision for applicants to submit
comments after public hearing has been closed. Nor does it seem appropriate for the applicant
to introduce new arguments or claims without the public having the opportunity to address them.
Our submission, then, is an effort to balance closing arguments in this proceeding.
Major Points
Mr. Privatera’s letter contains numerous falsehoods and inaccuracies. Following are some of the
most important examples.
Identification of subject as “Approval of the Truck Diversion Project” (Page 1)
As we’ve pointed out previously, this proposal should be accurately described as an application
for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and site plan review for the haul road. As noted by VA in its
August 8, 2023, letter to the Board, this language, promotional rather than descriptive,
minimizes and spins the project, using the applicant’s preferred lens of “minor improvements.”
In truth, this project is a major enlargement allowing much higher truck volume. Please refer to
VA’s August 8 letter for details.
Claim that Valley Alliance, Our Hudson Waterfront and Grant & Lyons LLP are
“attempting to mislead the Planning Board for purposes of serving their own agenda…”
(Page 2)
This comment could not be further from the truth—and it is insulting. All of our correspondence
and findings have been carefully researched, considered, and provided to the Board as clear,
factual information to assist in carefully reviewing the CUP and site plan applications. For
example, information on truck volume provided to the Board in our August 24, 2023, letter came
directly from the 2020 truck study prepared by Creighton Manning, engineer for Colarusso and
Sons. As stated in VA’s October 9, 2023, letter to you, in 2021 the Board determined the
Colarusso project was out of step with other development and misaligned with the city’s
priorities. Further, the existing findings of the Board and your consultants have been the basis of
hundreds of specific and heartfelt comments from citizens, organizations and attorneys during
multiple public hearings and written comment periods over the past seven years.
Claim that “Colarusso’s dock operation is an ongoing, allowable, and permitted use
under the City Zoning Code and is not part of the Project application before the Planning
Board for review. (Page 2)
This statement is patently false. Colarusso lost its temporary, grandfathered nonconforming use
permit in 2017 under the LWRP (Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan), the cause being illegal
work on the dock. The truth is that the company has operated without a permit of any kind for
the past six years. The dock operation CUP and site plan review are currently on hold due to the
pending lawsuit.
Claim that “the only question before the City Planning Board is whether there are any
additional conditions to be imposed on the improvement of the haul road beyond those
already offered by Colarusso” (Page 2)
This is also patently false. As communicated to the Board in VA’s September 5, 2023, letter,
there are six different reviews before the Planning Board:
- Haul road conditional use permit (Hudson, unfinished)
- Haul road site plan review (Hudson, unfinished)
- Haul road SEQRA review of the haul road (Greenport, finished)
- Dock conditional use permit (Hudson, unfinished)
- Dock site plan review for the dock (Hudson, unfinished)
- Dock SEQRA review (unfinished)
Claim that the Project proposes to divert thousands of trucks each year from the City
streets to a remote privately-owned haul road.” And that “this will make City streets
safer.” (Page 2)
These comments narrowly acknowledge benefits to one area of the City (e.g., Columbia St and
Green St) by removing some gravel trucks but ignore negative impacts to other areas of the city
where the trucks would be rerouted. Among other impacts, the proposed haul road will create
dangerous crossings at two major entry/exit points to the City (Route 9G and Route 9), the
Amtrak rail line, and at ingress/egress points to the City's waterfront area and nearby historic
resources.
In addition, gravel trucks will NOT be fully removed from city streets, since Colarusso continues
to assert a right to run trucks through the streets as needed, citing three common circumstances
where this would occur: 1) When blasting on the east side of the quarry prevents passing truck
traffic; 2) When haul road is flooded (likely an increasing occurrence given haul road is in a flood
plain); and 3) whenever market opportunities dictate.
Charge that there is no factual support that the project will increase truck traffic and
claim that “the Town (of Greenport)... and their engineer fully examined the traffic impact
of developing the haul road as two lanes, as well as the functioning of the culverts and
found no environmental concerns in approving the Project.” (Page 3-10)
As we clearly stated in our August 24, 2023, letter to the Board, the Greenport Planning Board’s
SEQR approval of the haul road was based on underestimated truck volume (20 trips per day,
2,000 truckloads/4,000 trips per year), and assumed that volume would not increase over time.
However, these estimates and assumptions have already been proven false: Actual truck
volumes have been much higher, almost tripling from 2015 to 2019 (5,460 in 2015 to 15,180 in
2019). And this, as reported by Creighton Manning, engineering firm for Colarusso, in “less than
half the maximum potential operating days;” the room for growth is huge. In addition, as we’ve
previously pointed out, the Greenport Planning Board sidestepped or underplayed potential
issues raised by the city’s consultant, Barton & Loguidice, in their 4/18/17 and 5/19/17 letters to
the Greenport Board Chair.
While Colarusso has committed to a daily limit (142 truckloads/284 truck trips per day), it has
not agreed to an annual limit. Per Creighton Manning truck studies, the company has typically
operated at “less than half the maximum potential” days. This suggests the strong possibility
that maximum days (250) will become the norm, not the outlier. The bottom line is that, in fact,
Colarusso will increase its actual days of operation by running trucks up to 250 days per year,
driving significantly higher volume than Hudson has experienced in prior years.
A final point here: As stated in our October 6, 2023, letter to the Board, profit margins are razor
thin in the gravel business (per Colarusso, $2 per ton). This means that growth is the ONLY
model that makes sense—and by growth, we mean massive growth. Our argument (and worry)
is that with permits in place, gravel mining and transshipment will soar, either under the direction
of Colarusso or through a sale to a larger company that has deeper pockets and zero allegiance
to Hudson.
Re City’s appeal of Greenport’s Negative Declaration, the claim that “This fully litigated
court decision and order is a final determination regarding the environmental impacts …
and is binding on the City Planning Board. These issues are closed and cannot be reexamined or relitigated.” (Pages 5-7)
This, again, is false. While Greenport, indeed, completed a SEQR review on the haul road, this
in no way precludes the Hudson Planning Board’s right and obligation to conduct the other
reviews before it (see p. 2). Also, as stated in OHW and VA’s October 9, 2023, letter to the
Board, “Your unique powers of review, including the ability to deny this permit, were supported
by the 2016 ruling from DEC Commissioner Basil Seggos. Despite giving lead agency status to
Greenport for the SEQRA review of the haul road only (not for the CUP), his decision affirmed
that in designating the Greenport Town Planning Board to serve as lead agency for the haul
project, this decision in no way limits the jurisdiction or responsibilities of other involved and
interested agencies--particularly the City Planning Board…”
Denial that the project will result in dust, increased visual impacts, and public access
impacts and claim that “the Project only includes improvement of the privately-owned
haul road, which is not adjacent to or near Basilica Hudson, the Amtrak Station, or Henry
Hudson Park” (Page 6-8)
Claims that the project will have no impacts on Basilica Hudson, the Amtrak Station or Henry
Hudson Park, and other interests are not only questionable, but narrowly focused on a portion of
the haul road and fail to consider negative impacts on major highway crossings (Routes 9 and
9G), the Amtrak crossing, ingress/egress points to the City's waterfront area, and nearby historic
resources.
Insistence that the Project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (page 7)
The Comprehensive Plan supports a greener waterfront—not increased industrial activity. Per
the Plan’s Project Summary (p. 58): “Quality of life is a catchall term used to describe the noneconomic amenities a community has to offer, including features like open space, cultural
events, recreational opportunities and scenic views, among others. Increasingly, people are
placing a higher value on these amenities and searching for places that are cleaner, greener,
smaller, and offer high quality of life amenities. A better quality of life creates jobs. When a
community is cleaner, safer, and more attractive to residents, it also becomes a better place to
do business.”
Additionally, as stated in our August 24, 2023, letter to the Board: “The Board’s November 18,
2021 Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 3, offers a number of key observations
and conclusions—among them, that “Multiple State decisions and policies support a greener
waterfront.”
It continues: “The Hudson Vision Plan, Comprehensive Plan, the 2005 Secretary of State’s
Coastal Consistency determination on the St. Lawrence proposal, and Department of State
guidance on the draft LWRP, call for the City to enact a plan that zones out incompatible,
industrial uses at the Waterfront. Even the recent Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI)
application, which recognizes the Applicant’s dock operations, notes that ‘Recent organic,
entrepreneurial development of the BRIDGE District have primed Hudson for the inevitable next
phase of its revitalization which includes re-imagining the waterfront for expanded public use
and enjoyment.”
Regarding Colarusso’s proposal, the Planning Board has noted that “the Proposed Action has
the potential to impact open spaces, namely, the South Bay. The South Bay, as well as the
Private Road which passes through it, have been identified by the City’s 1996 Vision Plan and
2002 Comprehensive Plan as a potential future open space and recreation resource. The
Applicant has not adequately considered and addressed impacts to the future use of these
areas as part of the Project.”
Further, Barton & Loguidice 4/18/17 and 5/19/17 letters to Greenport Planning Board found
that Colarusso’s proposal was inconsistent with both the City of Hudson Comprehensive Plan
(2002) and its draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan–LWRP (2011). The Comprehensive
Plan noted that “increased barge operations may have a profound impact on the future
redevelopment efforts of the City’s waterfront.” The LWRP reaffirmed this sentiment, and
recommended rezoning of the waterfront from industrial to a core riverfront district, stating:
“Modernization of the existing port operations, including any man-made modification to the road
surface of the causeway, would be subject to the standards for Conditional Uses in the Core
Riverfront (C-R) zoning district, all necessary city and state coastal consistency reviews and
compliance with necessary environmental review.” B&L also stated use of the South Bay
causeway is not an acceptable long-term solution to accommodate transport to the dock unless
satisfactory mitigation can be provided.”
The Planning Board’s EAF Part 3, also noted that “The Hudson Vision Plan, Comprehensive
Plan, the 2005 Secretary of State’s Coastal Consistency determination on the St. Lawrence
proposal, and Department of State guidance on the draft LWRP call for the City to enact a plan
that zones out incompatible, industrial uses at the Waterfront.”
Denial that the Project is inconsistent with the City Zoning Code—that, based on SEQRA
findings, the Columbia County Planning Board and the New York State Supreme Court “
unanimously found that the Project complies with the City’s Zoning Code.”(pages 7-8)
As stated in VA’s September 5, 2023, letter to the Board, the Planning Board is empowered
under the LWRP to assess the entire project and its cumulative impacts on the City, since the
whole operation (the road and the dock) have been rendered non-conforming and un-grandfathered.
Privatera’s comment that City Code expressly states that the purpose of the C-R District
is to ‘encourage a mixture of compatible uses’ and also expressly states that
‘continuation [of the] private roads providing ingress and egress to or from [Colarusso’s
Dock] is one of those uses.” (page 8)
The City Code does NOT support an intensification of truck traffic. For example:
- §325-17.1.D of the Zoning Law provides that “continued use of a dock operation is permitted as a conditional use, as such use existed as of the effective date of LL 5-2011.”
- §325-1.A (6) of the Zoning Law provides for “Protection of limited areas for industrial use and the encouragement of a mix of uses in the local waterfront revitalization area boundary.” Hudson Planning Board Environment Assessment Form (EAF) Part 3 (#17 Consistency with Community Plans, p. 21-22) states “The Planning Board finds that the proposed intensification of the industrial use is in sharp contrast with the mixed-use development existing at the waterfront.”
A massive industrial operation at the waterfront was not part of the goal of the LWRP 2011
zoning and Comprehensive Plan. §325-35.2.B(8) (a) of the LWRP directs the city to “restore,
revitalize and redevelop deteriorated and underutilized waterfront areas for commercial,
industrial, cultural, recreational, and other compatible uses (Policies 1, 1A, 1B, 1C);” The
Planning Board, in its EAF Part 3 noted, however, that “the increased truck traffic, with its
attendant impacts on dust, noise and vibration, will make it more difficult for mixed residential
and commercial uses to move into the area in the future.”
The Board also found “ that the intensification of the use is inconsistent with the City’s 1995-
1996 Vision Plan, continuing with the 2000 Comprehensive Plan and LWRP, in which city
residents have made clear their desire for a greener, more sustainable waterfront. Public
access, recreational opportunities, habitat restoration, environmental quality, and appropriate
commercial development are consistently listed as top priorities.”
Further, the Board noted that “The LWRP sought to create ‘a vision which will serve the City and
the State long after those involved today are forgotten’ (p. 338). Although the LWRP includes the
continuation of uses at the deep port, it does not support a significant intensification of the use. The 2009 DGEIS for the LWRP was based on significantly less truck traffic, and seasonal use,
and the zoning adopted pursuant to the LWRP specifically authorizes the use as it existed in
2011. The Hudson Vision Plan, Comprehensive Plan, the 2005 Secretary of State’s Coastal
Consistency determination on the St. Lawrence proposal, and Department of State guidance on
the draft LWRP call for the City to enact a plan that zones out incompatible, industrial uses at
the Waterfront.”
Privatera’s claims the haul road is aligned with the “restore, revitalize and redevelop”
provision because its purpose is to “redevelop the deteriorated and underutilized
causeway for continued commercial use” (page 9) [underline emphasis added]
This is a major stretch. The LWRP provision applies to “waterfront” areas, not to Colarusso’s
“causeway.”
Privatera also claims alignment with the LWRP directive to “protect and enhance historic
resources. (Policy 23), writing: “The Project as proposed will protect and enhance any
historic resources with the City along the current truck route because it will remove
trucks to the privately-owned haul road.” (page 10)
Again, this is a major stretch. While the proposed project will remove some gravel trucks from
certain areas of the city, they will then be rerouted to another area of the city–near waterfront—
where they will impact areas of ingress/egress between the haul road and waterfront and pass
by historic resources. And again, even with a CUP in place, gravel trucks will still use City
streets, as Colarusso continues to assert its right to use them as needed.
The Planning Board in its EAF Part 3 (Impacts on Historic and Archeological Resources, p. 11)
reported that it had “identified potential moderate-to-large impacts to buildings and districts
listed on and eligible for listing on the National and State Register of Historic Places, finding that
the Proposed Action would result in the introduction of visual elements which are out of
character with the immediate vicinity of the Project site.... Since the 2009 DGEIS, additional
historic resources have been studied and deemed eligible for listing on the State and National
Registers of Historic Places.”
Privatera’s comment Re Secretary of State’s 2005 Decision (page 10)
In the runup to development of the LWRP, the New York Secretary of State, in his 2005 Decision
on St. Lawrence Cement Plant’s Permit (page 10), reviewed Hudson’s Zoning Code and found
that §325-1A (5) calls “Gradual elimination of nonconforming uses.” The Hudson Planning
Board, in its EAF Part 3 (#17 Consistency with Community Plans, p. 22) also notes that “The
Hudson Vision Plan, Comprehensive Plan, the 2005 Secretary of State’s Coastal Consistency
determination on the St. Lawrence proposal, and Department of State guidance on the draft
LWRP call for the City to enact a plan that zones out incompatible, industrial uses at the
Waterfront. Wrote the Board:
“In a 2005 Coastal Consistency Determination, Secretary of State Randy Daniels recommended that a new waterfront zone be created right away for the benefit of City and County residents. (p 10-11). Adopting language directly from pp. 85-88 of the Hudson Vision Plan, then Secretary of State Daniels’ decision outlined the exact manner in which that rezoning should take place with an unusual degree of specificity. He noted: “Based on this review of Hudson’s past planning and implementation activities, it is clear the City’s waterfront has been and will continue to be transformed from a private industrial waterfront to a public waterfront for boating, tourism, commercial and other compatible uses.”Privatera’s denial that the Project will negatively impact the City’s Waterfront (Page 11)
This is false. In addition to all of the above, we believe that considering the Haul Road outside
the context of its purpose is classic segmentation, illegal under SEQRA, and a disservice to
Hudson. Colarusso’s haul road is interrelated with Colarusso’s dock operation. The haul road
has no purpose without the dock, the dock has no use to Colarusso without the haul road—and
it is together that they will create negative impacts on the Waterfront and City as a whole.
In its September 5, 2023, letter to the Board, VA noted that SEQRA requires that cumulative
impacts be assessed—with no “segmentation” of review allowed by law. This means that even if
a court has said that Greenport’s SEQRA review of the haul road governs that application, the
impacts of the activity on the road, South Bay and City streets still must be looked at
cumulatively in the context of the dock review. To the clear extent that permitting the dock would
immediately touch off local impacts from increased two-lane truck activity to reach the dock, that
activity is a legitimate concern and required subject of the dock SEQR, since the haul road
serves no purpose without the dock.”
Conclusion
We firmly believe that the Planning Board’s responsibility is to weigh hard facts and potential
outcomes, This is why we have worked so hard to provide information that is thoroughly
researched and factual. Real numbers are critical because real numbers don’t lie. And the
numbers surrounding this application are telling us that intensification of industrial activity on the
Waterfront has already begun. And approval of the conditional use permits for the haul road and
the dock will make it worse—potentially much worse.
How many trucks, ultimately, will Colarusso run to the dock? Nobody really knows and the
company resists limitations on annual truck volume. How many days in the year will the
waterfront be inundated with gravel trucks—as many as 250? Again, no one knows and the company won’t say. How often will Colarusso hit or exceed its proposed maximum of 284 truck
trips a day? The company claims that can’t be regulated. It’s up to the gravel market.
Given this, we believe it’s best to keep in mind that Colarusso’s growth/profit, not Hudson’s
welfare, is the real point of the haul road. Its primary purpose is not to get trucks off the streets,
but to ramp up trucking and shipping from the dock, whether by Colarusso as it rapidly expands
its client base down river, or by a larger company that buys the operation with permits in place--one with deeper pockets than Colarusso and zero allegiance to the City of Hudson.
Thank you for considering these points—and as ever, thank you for all your work as volunteers
in service to our City.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Streitz
David Konigsberg
Our Hudson Waterfront
No comments:
Post a Comment