Last week, Theresa Joyner, chair of the Planning Board, sent a letter to Seth Kearney and Andy Learn, the architect and engineer respectively for the Mill Street Lofts project, asking them to respond to six issues raised by Jason Foster in his letter to the Planning Board. Those concerns were:
- The site work for this project will be intensive. The retaining walls appear quite tall and must be over-excavated to install waterproofing and drainage. More trees will need to be cut down than are indicated in the renderings.
- There is uncertainty about whether the path connecting Mill Street to Third Street will be a pedestrian staircase or a fully paved road.
- The bus service planned for Mill Street needs to be confirmed with the agency providing the buses. This should be part of the project records.
- The project plans include a "hammerhead" turnaround for fire trucks. While this is a common solution used infrequently during emergencies, if the same hammerhead is proposed for use by the community and school buses, they will need to perform K-turns in the middle of the Empire State Trail adjacent to Charles Williams Park multiple times a day.
- Emergency egress routes from both buildings should be clearly reviewed and marked on the site plan.
- The floor plans for the subgrade levels require clarification, and they should be included in the site plan.
In addition to these "public concerns," the Planning Board added a couple of their own:
- We request that the applicant correct their renderings of the site to show the actual building elevation as being below the hill, along with the connecting path to Third Street, and the path to open space, show the actual open space, the cul-de-sac for bus and vehicle turnaround, and a possible sidewalk.
- The applicant should also include and show on their site plan and rendering sufficient lighting around the following areas:
- Walking space in back of the building, the path to the open space, and lighting in the open space if provided.
- The path from Mill Street to Third Street.
- The cul-de-sac for bus and vehicle turnaround, and a possible sidewalk.
These are the renderings that Kearney has provided thus far for the project.
Joyner's letter to Kearney and Learn can be found
here. Foster's letter, which inspired Joyner's communication, can be found
here.
Last week, the Planning Board also heard from the public about another project before them: the Colarusso dock on the river, adjacent to Henry Hudson Riverfront Park.
Donna Streitz and David Konigsberg, representing Our Hudson Waterfront, submitted a letter to the Planning Board reminding them of the following:
There is a very large record of public comment on the C.U.P. [conditional use permit], much of which came in before or during the 2020 pandemic. Based on the inventory of documents on the Planning Board’s webpage, from 2019 through 2020 there are 106 letters to the Planning Board (93 from individuals and 13 from groups).
The fact that the review has been so delayed does not mean that those comments are any less essential than those which are made at current meetings. As most of the current Board members joined the Board after that time, has a packet been prepared for all Board members’ review containing all those comments? If not we recommend that this be done.
As with the haul road, we would like to point out that ACS [A. Colarusso & Sons] has no right to automatic approval of a C.U.P. The Board has the ability to say no to it under the City Code. As you are aware, any decision the Board makes has to be fully consistent with the criteria which are set forth in the Code for Conditional Use Permits. Again, ACS has no “as of right” established entitlement to this permit.
It is critical to keep in mind during your review the substance of the issue–that is
truck traffic and barge volume due to the intensification of industrial activity at the
Dock. The intense trucking, unloading, loading, and barge activity will harshly impact both
the neighboring City park, nearby businesses, the ecosystem of South Bay (i.e., Significant
Habitat status of South Bay as prescribed by NYDOS), and also residents overlooking the
area, for example on Allen and Union streets. Such objections are fully described in the
record of comments referred to above.
As a reminder, history has shown that actual Colarusso annual truck volume between the
ACS Quarry and the Dock almost tripled, from 5,460 trips (2015) to 15,182 trips (2020)
to/from the Dock, despite the fact that the number of haul days were notably fewer than the
potential maximum of 365 days (haul days ranged from 65 to 200 per year).
What’s in store for the future of the City of Hudson’s riverfront if ACS gets its way? Unlike
many of our neighboring communities up and down the river (e.g., Athens, Catskill Point,
Beacon, Troy) who have valiantly fought to either reduce or eliminate industrialization of a
precious natural resource—their Hudson riverfront—Hudson’s waterfront is facing intensified
reindustrialization. How so?
ACS proposes to run up to 142 truckloads (284 truck trips) per day, up to 250 days per
year (365 days minus weekends and holidays). Thus, the maximum potential, which the
Board must consider, is up to 71,000 truck trips per year (13 times the 2015 volume). And it
could be worse, as Colarusso has repeatedly claimed that its volume cannot be regulated,
and that it has the right to increase the maximum beyond its “284 per day” proposal. . . .
The Planning Board meeting takes place tomorrow, Tuesday, February 11, at 6:30 p.m. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Zoom. Click here to join the meeting remotely. COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
.jpg)
