At the Planning Board meeting on August 8, A. Colarusso & Son was back before the Planning Board after a twenty-month hiatus, caused by Colarusso's lawsuit against the Planning Board. At that meeting, Sam Pratt, co-director of The Valley Alliance, warned the Planning Board, all but two of whose members were not on the board when Colarusso initiated its lawsuit, about the "applicant's attorney, who is quite willing to mislead you and sue you."
 |
| Photo: Our Hudson Waterfront |
Yesterday, Pratt and Peter Jung, co-directors of The Valley Alliance, delivered a letter to the members of the Planning Board identifying the ways in which Colarusso and its attorney have attempted to mislead the Planning Board. The letter opens in this way:
When a lawyer for Colarusso was asked for truck data at your most recent meeting, this was his reply:
“Would you ask Stewart’s how many ice cream cones they sell?”
This sarcastic reply conveniently ignored recent local history: In fact, from 2017-2019 Hudson agencies
including the Planning Board conducted a detailed review of a Stewart’s project at Green and Fairview.
Stewart’s was asked a ton of questions about its operations. Board members quizzed the company in
detail about the volume of activity generated by its reconfigured lot and new building. In the end,
Board questions led to the project being altered in many ways. Moreover, the City made Stewart’s post
a $200,000 Community Host Agreement to offset road maintenance.
Unlike Stewart’s, Colarusso’s representatives have displayed a constant unwillingness to provide basic
answers to simple questions—the type always asked of all applicants. This disrespect for Hudson
requirements, along with other efforts to deflect questions and muddy issues, extends to the
company’s repeated lawsuits against your agency.
We mention this episode by way of an introduction to written comments we promised to provide,
giving a partial inventory of how this applicant and its representatives keep trying to mislead your
Board about both the project and the process. We hope this will be more than a routine exercise in that
it touches upon many of the core issues central to your review.
The letter goes on to identify and refute eight myths that are being perpetuated in the lengthy review of Colarusso's application to construct a paved, two-lane road through South Bay. What follows is the list of myths, with quotes from the letter that summarize the rebuttal.
Myth #1: "Years of delays"
If the applicant truly wants an end to the process, their lawyers should stop trying to block the process. All of the "delays" have been caused entirely by Colarusso's own lawsuits, which have sought to block the Planning Board from finishing the process.
Myth #2: "The Planning Board Lost"
Colarusso has so far brought two lawsuits against the City. Their first suit was an utter disaster for the
applicant. Acting Justice Melkonian completely rejected the company’s claim that its project was
exempt from review by Hudson. A second lawsuit brought by Colarusso is still pending in court, and
has only been partially adjudicated.
Myth #3: "Force majeure"
Force majeure is when you have to cancel plans because your home and neighborhood have been
destroyed by a hurricane. Force majeure is not when a gravel company has to wait a few hours before
running another truck to a dock. This applicant seems to have confused minor obstacles to maximizing
profit with Acts of God.
Myth #4: "We already have those permits"
Another thick wool blanket that Colarusso tried to pull over your eyes at the last meeting was the
suggestion that permits from other agencies can substitute for Hudson’s permitting process.… Fact: Applications to the Planning Board are separate and distinct from other agencies. They have to be
decided on Hudson’s terms, not those of other agencies such as DEC, Army Corps or DOT. Hudson’s
code has different requirements and standards than other agencies. All applicants must conform with
the City’s code, regardless of whether pieces of the project were approved by other agencies.
Myth #5: "The environmental review is over"
There are effectively six different reviews to conduct, each of which must take environmental
considerations into account.… Of the six … only one may be considered "over”—the one that was completed by Greenport
instead of Hudson, without consideration for the specifics of the Hudson code.
Myth #6: "Questions from 2017 are not on the table"
On the contrary: All questions about the five extant reviews remain on the table—for the simple reason
that the Planning Board continues to be blocked by lawsuits from deciding upon these applications.
Myth #7: "The Comp Plan supports the project"
The Planning Board itself has extensively cited and adopted documents which provide detailed
citations of the Comp Plan as a key reason why a full, extensive review of the Colarusso project must
be conducted.
Myth #8: "Colarusso seeks 'environmental justice'"
Let’s be clear here: The environmental justice problem on downtown streets is one for which Colarusso
bears full responsibility.
The entire letter can be read here, and Gossips recommends it.
There is a Planning Board meeting next week, on Tuesday, September 12, but Colarusso is not on the agenda for that meeting. Instead there is to be a public hearing on the Colarusso application on Wednesday, September 27.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CAROLE OSTERINK