25 Problems with Colarusso’s application

1. The application clearly requires a Coastal Consistency Review before any activity can take place, including referral to the New York State Department of State (NYS DOS) for review
2. The application clearly requires an Impact Assessment and Habitat Impairment test requirements of the NYS DOS Significant Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat designation made for South Bay Creek & Marsh
3. The application requires a Floodplain development permit per Chapter 148 of the City Code, as noted by the Board’s engineers et al.
4. The application clearly requires the necessary “hard look” under SEQR, as it represents a major project with far-reaching and potentially significant adverse environmental impacts; a short form EAF is not adequate, and a positive declaration (“pos dec”) should be made
5. A scoping hearing should be held to properly assess the range of impacts to be reviewed, with the applicant then required to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for review;
6. Colarusso has lost its previous ‘grandfathered’ nonconforming use status under the City Code, and must now submit to a complete review of all of its operations in Hudson in accordance with the City Code enacted as part of the LWRP
7. The applicant unsuccessfully sued the City of Hudson to block this review; their lawsuit and its claims were rejected in toto by Justice Melkonian; the Planning• The Board has a clear right to deny the application or impose limitations on operations per Justice Melkonian’s ruling of 2019
8. Under the City of Hudson Code § 325-34 et al, the Planning Board likewise has a clear right to deny a Conditional Use Permit entirely, if it proves impossible to mitigate all impacts resulting from the project adequately to protect neighboring homes, businesses, and public spaces; or impose limitations on all dock operations and impacts resulting from their permitting to protect the same
9. Approval would result in chaos at three essential arterials of the City (Route 9, Route 9, and the Broad Street crossing), as the volume of truck traffic would cause routine backups and potential accidents
10. The application is not in accordance with a 1982 Common Council vote to prevent any further development in South Bay south of the former L&B factory building
11. The application fails to acknowledge and address that the action includes activities either within a wetland and/or within the 100-foot DEC wetland “checkzone”
12. The application fails to establish pre-development noise levels as required by Section 325.17.1F(2)(b) and Chapter 210 of the City Code, and contains no projections or analysis of potential noise impacts resulting from the action
13. The applicant has self-servingly (and rather ludicrously) argued that there are no neighboring homes, businesses or public sites that would be impacted by the action, despite many such receptors being well within range of impacts from noise, dust, air emissions, and other potential impacts; approval would certainly harm the interests of neighboring homes, businesses and members of the more general public seeking to enjoy public roads, parks and other spaces close to the site of Colarusso’s action
14. The application is incomplete, lacking basic data and impact assessments required by both SEQR and the City Code, and is replete with either errors or misleading statements; for example, it fails to provide even the most rudimentary data and assessments of obvious impacts from dock operations which would result from the action, e.g. barge sizes and frequency, effects from turbidity on the Hudson River and the riverbed, materials stockpiling and storage, stormwater management and runoff, oil and fuel spillage, fugitive dust from loading and unloading materials, air pollution from barge and tug activity, et al.
15. There is no unified application for all activities under review, making it impossible for the public to comment properly, raising significant issues of segmentation
16. There is no full “site plan” contained in the application as one would normally expected to find
17. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Hudson Comprehensive Plan of 2001
18. The proposal is inconsistent with both the specific findings and broad policy goals of the State Coastal Consistency determination by the Secretary of State of 2005 for the Hudson Waterfront and South Bay area
19. The application is inconsistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan of 2011
20. Colarusso does not in fact own 4.4 acres of public land within its Waterfront properties, as established by the Valley Alliance’s research in State and City archives, and a title search commissioned by the City in 2013 which the Common Council President announced had verified our research
21. The 4.4. acres is public land on the River ideally suited for public recreation and a park, or other development; under the City code, potential impacts to this site must be assessed and mitigated, or the project cannot be approved if such impacts cannot be adequately addressed
22. The proposal in multiple ways fails to meet the clear standards for a Conditional Use Permit under the City Code
23. A serious question remains about both the existing boundaries of the so-called “haul road” and the new boundaries of the proposed two-lane paved road, in particular in relation to which zones or districts the path passes through, and this must be resolved by the Board prior to rendering any decision
24. In response to a query from the Board’s counsel, the applicant has admitted that it has “no” permits for dock operations from other agencies; in addition to and triggered by this de novo review by the Board, all such operations should be brought to the attention of agencies with authority over such matters such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NYS DEC, NYS DOS, NYS OGS, et al.; we call upon the Board to notice the review to these agencies and forward them the full permitting materials
25. Any approval of this application as it stands today would be on its face premature at best, arbitrary and capricious at worst, as the Board has yet to obtain answers to questions and issues raised by its own attorneys, consultants and Board members, as reflected in its own briefs, memoranda and minutes