The Valley Alliance

In setback for gravel project, Hudson Planning Board declares waterfront proposal is ripe for a full review

JOINT NEWS RELEASE FROM THE V.A. & OUR HUDSON WATERFRONT

The Hudson Planning Board voted last week to classify the proposed A. Colarusso & Son, Inc. project at the City’s waterfront as the type of action which requires the most stringent level of scrutiny 

The Hudson Planning Board voted 5-0 last Monday to declare the Colarusso gravel project a Type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, known as SEQRA, over objections from the Greenport company’s attorney, John Privitera.

The proposal could result in hundreds of daily truck trips to and from a dock at the Hudson waterfront, where gravel would be stockpiled and then loaded onto barges. Colarusso lost any grandfathered rights to such activities after it made unpermitted modifications to the dock in 2016, triggering a full Conditional Use Permit review under the City Code.

State visualization of the Waterfront — with no gravel operation

WHAT TYPE I MEANS

According to the State’s SEQRA Cookbook, Type I actions are those which “are more likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment... and may require the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement,” or DEIS. Type I actions also require coordinated review with other local, County, State and Federal agencies.

Responding to Privitera’s objections on behalf of Colarusso, Planning Board attorney Victoria Polidoro noted that the resolution finds the project has the potential to disturb 2.5 acres, “and is being reviewed ab initio,” using the legal term for “from the beginning.”

The Board found that the project exceeded the State-mandated threshold of disturbing 2.5 acres or more of land in proximity to a public parkland (the Henry Hudson Waterfront Park), as well as being in close proximity to important historic resources. The project is near at least two historic structures identified by the Board, not to mention the Union/Allen/South Front Street Historic District.It is now anticipated that the Board will move toward findings of potentially significant adverse impacts, and issue a Positive Declaration, which would require Colarusso to prepare the full DEIS. The company has fought unsuccessfully to stop the City from conducting such a review, losing appeals to the local Zoning Board of Appeals and a State Supreme Court judge, and arguing unsuccessfully to limit mitigations to minor alterations like planting forsythia bushes along a fence line.

ORGANIZATIONS REACT

“We are extremely grateful to the Planning Board for its vote last night,” said David Konigsberg, co-director of Our Hudson Waterfront, adding that “The Type I designation rightly presumes serious impacts on the surrounding environment and neighborhoods.” OHW is among the citizen groups which have expressed strong concerns about the proposal, and has gathered over 1,200 petition signatures challenging it. 

“In particular, these truck traffic and gravel loading operations could have a harsh impact on the public park next door, as well as the many historic structures nearby which include homes, businesses and cultural destinations,” Konigsberg continued, echoing two main factors cited in the Board’s decision.

Residents and groups have raised a host of potential issues with the project, including noise, dust, diesel truck emissions, traffic concerns, impacts on the neighboring public park, compatibility with City planning goals and community character, among many others.

“The waterfront can and should be a boon to the whole City of Hudson, not just one out-of-town company,” said Peter Jung, co-director of The Valley Alliance, which has opposed the project, submitting numerous reports detailing the legal and policy reasons to deny the permit.

“This unique area on the Hudson River can provide much-needed benefits to residents and visitors alike, from public space to good jobs,” added Jung, who was part of the planning committee which obtained a $10 million Downtown Revitalization Initiative grant for Hudson. ”With both State and private investment, the waterfront is fast becoming the most dynamic part of Hudson. But that can’t continue, with Colarusso blighting the area at everyone else’s expense.”

The Valley Alliance has advocated for nearly 15 years that the Hudson waterfront will generate far more economic, social, recreational, cultural, and ecological benefits if it is not saddled with heavy industrial activity which puts all other uses at risk.

Alan Neumann, President of Historic Hudson, lauded the Board for including the potential impact to historic properties in its resolution: “We have lost so many of our historic resources below Second Street in Hudson since 1965. The ones that remain are vital to connecting our future in the waterfront area to our vibrant city and to our history.”

OHW member Donna Streitz wrote “We strongly believe that the SEQR review is essential to determining the environmental impact of Colarusso’s request on Hudson and its waterfront. We envisioned a Hudson waterfront as a vibrant and beautiful place for people to enjoy, and not as an industrial site for gravel dumping, shipping, and all of its inherent conflicts with the natural environment and recreational use.” Streitz expects to submit an update to the groups’s large petition expressing concern about the project with additional names to the Board prior to its next meeting.

In addition, prior to the vote, the steering committee of the Hudson Business Coalition submitted a letter in early July stating that “We urge the Planning Board to respect the wishes of Hudson’s business community and deny the permits for the haul road and the dock… Hudson’s waterfront revitalization program was many years, and many taxpayer dollars, in the making. Zoning laws were put into effect as of 2011, with the aim of limiting and ultimately eliminating industrialization of the waterfront area. As such, the zoning laws should be the guiding ordinances for the use of the waterfront and surrounding areas.”

Other groups and officials, such as Assembly member Didi Barrett and Scenic Hudson, have submitted letters expressing a strong interest in the outcome of the review.

PERMIT DENIAL WOULD HELP BOTH OUR STREETS
AND THE WATERFRONT

Colarusso has argued that approval is necessary to remove its own heavy trucks from Hudson streets, and proposes moving them to a two-lane truckway through the protected South Bay Creek & Marsh. But documents recently filed by the company indicate that approving the project will barely move the needle. Gravel trucks, the analysis concludes, represent only a small percentage of overall truck traffic on the state truck route that runs along Third, Columbia and Greene Streets. 

“This means even if gravel trucks are totally removed, the great bulk of big trucks on our streets would remain,” said Valley Alliance co-director Sam Pratt. “So we would be jeopardizing the tremendous potential of our waterfront without actually solving the problem on our streets,” Pratt continued. “The only fast and sure way to stop the gravel trucks downtown is to deny the application, not approve it. Meanwhile, the City needs to work with the State and neighboring towns to redirect the State truck route on surrounding highways—precisely the subject of an upcoming study with funding secured by Assembly member Barrett.”

COMPANY FORFEITED ANY GRANDFATHERED RIGHTS

While Colarusso has been using the dock for gravel in recent years, a court decision found that under the Local Zoning Code written by City Attorney Cheryl Roberts in 2011, the Board now has the right and duty to review the nonconforming project from scratch. At the time, Roberts described the new codes as “very protective of the environment,” and intended to address the concerns citizens had raised “about getting a handle on the port and the causeway.”

Senior Department of State attorney William Sharpe likewise explained at the time those laws were passed that such projects “are not permitted under the new zoning as of right,” adding that “at the point where something happens on the property… they’re going to have to get a conditional use permit for the entire property.”

#    #    #

If you would like a copy of the full resolution passed by the Hudson Planning Board, or for more information about this release, please email us.

Newly-obtained documents reconfirm that Hudson owns Waterfront land

Title firm advised City that Valley Alliance was correct, and that no further research was needed

Surveyor’s diagram locating the 4.4 acres which the City illegally sold in the early 1980s, which under State law still belong to Hudson

 

Documents newly-obtained by the Valley Alliance further demonstrate that the City of Hudson does own 4.4 acres of disputed land along the Hudson River. The citizens’ organization obtained the documents via Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests, the County Real Property office, and other sources.

A 2013 memorandum shows that a local title insurance firm contacted by the City agreed with the Valley Alliance’s legal analysis of the waterfront land, previously thought to be privately owned.

The City reached out in 2013 to Arcadian Abstract after attorney Kenneth J. Dow submitted extensive documentation and legal analysis regarding the riverfront acreage—then occupied by the Holcim corporation, and now by A Colarusso & Son.

The owner of Arcadian, Charles F. Foote, wrote to then-City attorney Cheryl A. Roberts regarding the “Holcim US Inc. Riverfront Parcel” that “I have reviewed the documentation left with me concerning the above. I am in agreement with Mr. Dow’s correspondence.” Foote further stated that materials already provided to the City by another title company, Sneeringer Monahan, were sufficient and “any further work that we or someone else could do would merely be a duplication of work already completed.”

Weeks later, the Common Council President formally announced, “We do own it… according to the title company.” City records posted online show that the Council minutes recorded this announcement, and were approved without changes the following month. City documents now reveal the basis for that announcement.

“This waterfront land should be open for all the people of Hudson to enjoy,”said Alliance co-director Sam Pratt on Monday. “For nearly 72 months, the City has had all the evidence it needs to bring this prime waterfront land back into public use.

State law clearly states that such lands could not have been sold except under very specific conditions—not met at the time of the 1981-2 transfer. Without a prior Act of the Legislature, its sale to a mining company was illegal and nullified.”

Colarusso currently has an application before the Hudson Planning Board which has drawn over 100 attendees at each of the last two meetings. More the 4 out of 5 speakers have expressed concerns about the plan, and over 800 people have already signed an online petition calling for better uses of the Waterfront.

Alliance also obtains deed by which Hudson acquired land

The Valley Alliance has also located the 1969 indenture by which the City of Hudson obtained the 4.4 acres from Lone Star Cement in the County’s records.

After acquiring the acreage, Hudson used the land as a “Firemanic Training Center.” As noted in Alliance comments from both 2010 and 2019, Council records from the early  1980s refer to this land by that title, further emphasizing their public value.

“The City still owns this land. All of the claimed ‘sales’ following the 1969 deal with Lone Star are automatically void by State law,” said co-director Peter Jung. “It’s strange that the City feels the need to keep re-checking its work over and over again. Normally, a City defends its own people’s interests. It’s time to get this settled, rather than engaging in any further delays or bureaucratic misdirection. This is the people’s land.”

Hudson fire truck parked on or near the Waterfront parcel (date unknown; photo provided by Carole Osterink, via Neal Van Deusen)

In June 2013, the Valley Alliance revealed the results of its painstaking research into the matter. That research included review of two years worth of Council minutes, County deed records, enlisting a surveyor to locate the acreage, requesting a search by the State Legislative Librarian with assistance of the Preservation League of New York, and retaining an attorney to verify its discovery.

This led to the City reaching out to Arcadian, learning that Foote agreed with Dow’s assertions, and the Council President announcing that “we do own it.” Dow, who later served as the Planning Board’s own attorney and won a sweeping court ruling in January against Colarusso’s attempt to stop local review of their waterfront activities, wrote to the Board on his own behalf this summer:

Under the laws of New York and well-established principles that go back many, many years, the purported 1981 conveyance of the 4.4 acres to Holcim (subsequently to Colarusso) is a nullity. The law treats it as never having happened. Because the City had no authority to give up its rights and title to the parcel, the City’s title and rights to the parcel cannot be abandoned, forfeited, or lost, no matter what City officials do or fail to do, and no matter how much time passes.

Despite Arcadian’s expert opinion, Dow’s analysis, and the Council’s own statement of ownership six years ago, the City has yet to assert its rights, and has ignored these lands’ occupation by Holcim and Colarusso. Mayor Rick Rector recently asked for authorization from the Council to conduct another search on the same topic.

Impacts on public land must be part of Planning Board review

Colarusso is seeking a conditional use permit to make nearly 300 truck transits per day hauling gravel to the Waterfront. Immediately north of the proposed loading operation is the City’s existing public park; to the south are the 4.4 acres. (Note: Dow previously was employed by the Planning Board, winning an important State Supreme Court decision against Colarusso in January 2019.)

As Dow wrote more recently:

The Planning Board has no basis or authority to treat the parcel as anything but City-owned waterfront property… [It] would be making a serious mistake to proceed on the basis of Colarusso’s ownership of the 4.4 acres. The status of this parcel is fundamental to evaluating the dock operations’ impact on “adjacent properties.”

Though City ownership of the 4.4. acres has an important effect on the Hudson Planning Board’s review of the Colarusso application, leadership of the Board has seemed reluctant to take up the matter. Local zoning laws [for example, at §325-34(A.)(2) and § 325-17.1 of the Hudson code] clearly require review of impacts from projects on neighboring public land.

# # #

For copies of any of the documents mentioned above, including the Arcadian letter, 1969 Deed, Dow’s memos, et al., please email via this link

Attend the 2nd Colarusso hearing this Tuesday!

The Valley Alliance urges all residents to attend the second public hearing this Tuesday on Colarusso’s troubling waterfront application. The hearing will be held this Tuesday, August 13th, at 6 pm at Hudson Hall, a/ka/ the Opera House:
 

DATE & TIME: Tuesday, August 13th @ 6 pm
LOCATION: 327 Warren Street

Get there early to get a good seat! Turnout at the the first hearing was strong, with standing room only, and 77% of speakers either opposed or expressing concerns about the company’s plans.

Continued strong attendance is important to ensuring that a full and rigorous review gets performed.

The Waterfront is Hudson’s biggest opportunity, and this is a turning point in the City’s history. Protecting Hudson’s waterfront is vital to both the growth of Hudson’s economy, and to improving social cohesion in this diverse city. 

Image of the Hudson Waterfront from I Love NY. No gravel barges or trucks are included.

Citizens should not be strong-armed into choosing between trucks endangering downtown and trucks spoiling their waterfront. We reject both.

This false choice has been presented to help just one Greenport corporation to exploit Hudson’s greatest asset, at the expense of everyone else. 

Your participation on Tuesday can help move Hudson toward securing a real, forward-looking waterfront development — one which generates significant new jobs, recreation, cultural and social opportunities to the greatest number of people.

If you would like to receive an information sheet including a list of potential issues and questions which need to be raised on Tuesday, please respond to this email and we will get directly in touch with you.

We look forward seeing you on Tuesday!

—Peter Jung & Sam Pratt
For The Valley Alliance

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

The Waterfront should benefit everyone

... NOT JUST A SINGLE CORPORATION

Beyond what has already been accomplished on Warren Street, Hudson needs a second major engine for economic growth—one which spreads the wealth and the enjoyment of its status as a “river city” to the whole community.

That second engine is already parked in the City’s garage, but has been sitting idle for decades.

Due to the inaction of politicians and obstruction of a few big corporations, Hudson’s waterfront has not delivered anything close to the recreational, cultural, social and job benefits it could. 

This untapped potential is the key to Hudson remaining a genuinely diverse place, allowing everyone to share in its improved features and fortunes. Without it, the City’s possibilities will be stunted.

The possibilities are endless, if it’s done right. But there isn’t enough space at the moment, and much of it is compromised by industrial activity which benefits few but harms many.

Now, after decades of debate and controversy, another public hearing is coming up on the latest shortsighted idea—one which benefits narrow private interest over the public good. Like Holcim and O&G before them, Colarusso is trying to lock up control of the Waterfront for generations to come, at the expense of its neighbors and the wider community.

It’s a move which would prevent even the grandchildren of today’s youngest residents from ever fully enjoying the benefits of Hudson’s unique position on the River.

The impacts of Colarusso’s plans would be far-reaching, harming homes and businesses nearby, spoiling the use of nearby public parks and lands, and impairing the health of the South Bay wetlands and Hudson River. The problem remains that harsh industrial impacts make the rest of the City’s goals all but impossible to achieve. Their  proposal includes:

• Up to 284 trucks every day crossing the Amtrak rails at Broad Street, a roughly 400% increase;

• A two-lane paved highway through South Bay;

• Dangerous truck crossings over two major entrances to the City, across both Route 9 and Route 9G;

• An undisclosed number and size of barges idling near the Waterfront park;

• A similarly-undisclosed quantity of stockpiles of dusty materials at the dock.

Trucks backed up at the Broad Street crossing while passengers disembark from Amtrak

Let’s remember: While claiming to be a good neighbor, Colarusso made changes to the Waterfront without seeking permits. An ordinary Hudson homeowner often needs permission to make even small alternations to their home; Colarusso seems to have thought they were above such rules.

Next, Colarusso actually sued the City in to prevent it from reviewing its unpermitted action—and lost in court. And then they tried to refuse to reimburse the Planning Board for the cost of the review, flouting a law on the books since the late 1990s.

Its underhanded legal strategy attempts to blackmail Hudson into caving in to their demands. Starting in 2006, they and their predecessors introduced harsh new truck traffic to the 1st and 2nd Wards, again without permission. They did so without reaching out to the community. And they did so for the express purpose of using this new threat to make demands: Give us what we want, and then we’ll stop putting your streets at risk.

We believe that truck traffic should be eliminated on both the City’s streets and in the South Bay. The City has all the tools necessary to protect both, but for years has failed to exercise them.

Meanwhile, this company has benefited mightily from City, County and State public contracts paid for by taxpayers. It existed for nearly a century without access to the Waterfront, and without running trucks through Hudson and dumping gravel into floating steel hoppers on the River.

The Waterfront is not crucial to Colarusso’s corporate fortunes; but the Waterfront is crucial to Hudson’s future. This underutilized zone of the City has been a regular source of controversy for several generations now. A truly forward-looking and legally-defensible decision by the Planning Board can end this cycle to the benefit of the full Hudson community.

Alliance creates archive of key Waterfront documents

The Valley Alliance has created an archive of essential background documents and links for understanding the history, development and future potential of the City of Hudson Waterfront. 

The archive can be viewed at this link.

Documents will be added from the Alliance’s extensive records over time. Currently, they are organized into three categories: links to materials at other sites; memos and submissions by The Valley Alliance; and other useful records in the organization’s files.

If you have materials which you would like to see added to this collection, which is intended to be permanent, please contact us via email.

No more development in South Bay, said Hudson Common Council—in 1982

View of Hudson’s South Bay in the 19th Century by Hudson River School artist Sanford Gifford, looking southwest from what is now 3rd Street/Route 9G

 

Alliance presents new research and past precedents to new Hudson Waterfront Advisory Steering committee

HUDSON, N.Y. (4/14/16) — Aldermen in the City of Hudson unanimously promised not to further develop the famous South Bay, enshrining their promise with a 1982 vote related to the construction of the L&B furniture factory. Despite this forgotten pledge, this area has remained a constant source of conflict and controversy.

On Tuesday, copies of Common Council Resolution No. 5, dated July 20, 1982, were distributed to the newly-reconstituted Waterfront Advisory Steering Committee (WASC) by Valley Alliance co-founder Sam Pratt. Originally created in 2006 but inactive for the past few years, 14 members of the new WASC were appointed by Mayor Tiffany Martin Hamilton this month. The 1982 vote, unanimously agreed to by all nine aldermen present, resolved that:

“the City of Hudson will take no affirmative action seeking to develop fresh water wetland HS-2 in the South Bay area generally and more particularly located in a southerly direction from a line to be placed as evidenced by red monument markers on the scaled drawing which is annexed hereto…”

The resolution was approved by Council President Albert “Turk” Traver, along with aldermen Apicella, Barringer, Formichelli, Fowler, Hoffman, and Jablanski. Also in favor were Alderman Al Kritzman, who in the 1990s served as the City Assessor, and Alderman Bill Allen, who later was elected Mayor.

“Years ago, a member of the Columbia County Sportsmen’s Association tipped me off that someone should look into the agreements surrounding the construction of L&B in Hudson,” Pratt explained to the Committee on Tuesday, referring to the old name of the building behind Basilica Hudson. “He said there was controversy over building in the South Bay, particularly from sportsmen, and that an agreement had been made to satisfy their concerns. It took a lot of digging through microfilm in libraries and submitting FOIL requests before the resolution finally turned up.” Pratt also thanked City Clerk Tracy Delaney for her assistance in producing documents.

Detail of City of Hudson map attached to Common Council resolution, showing the locations where markers were to be placed south of the L&B factory building

Asked by WASC members what the 1982 language meant, Pratt said an example of an “affirmative action” by the City which would be barred by the resolution might for example be the approval of an Planning Board application to build there. The Council’s passage of certain provisions of its Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP), authorizing truck traffic and changing zoning in the area, similarly would have been an “affirmative action” in direct contradiction of the Council’s pledge.

“It’s kind of astonishing, given the amount of public debate and controversy about this area that this promise by the Council was never remembered,” Pratt added. “It certainly might have changed a few things, and averted a lot of arguments and expense. We hope it still can.”

The Valley Alliance previously supported the successful designation in 2012 of the South Bay Creek and Marsh as a protected “Significant Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat.” That State designation means that any projects requiring review for consistency with its “coastal” policies must undergo a separate review to ensure they do not threaten the natural resources of this area. Map from South Bay Creek & Marsh designation showing wetland HS-2, annotated by the Valley Alliance to show area Common Council vowed not to develop

The Alliance in 2013 likewise unveiled legal research showing that 4.4 acres thatHudson was planning to buy or swap with a developer in exchange for other favors were actually already owned by the City itself, due to its early 90s failure to legally transfer the acreage to the St. Lawrence Cement company. The City eventually conceded that the Alliance’s research was correct, and the land transfer did not proceed.

(Pratt, a former Clearwater board member, mentioned to the WASC that a boat-builder for the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater had once wanted to site his educational and commercial operation on these 4.4 acres, before Hudson improperly transferred them to the cement company.)

Historical Background Presented to WASC

Map from South Bay Creek & Marsh designation showing wetland HS-2, annotated by the Valley Alliance to show area Common Council vowed not to develop

On Tuesday, the Alliance also presented a large packet of documents to the Advisory Steering Committee, detailing past studies, decisions, controversies, and other history related to the much-contested Hudson Waterfront area.

This included a review of a 1977 Columbia County Planning land use planning study, the 1980s Octane Petroleum fight, the Americlean toxic waste proposal in the late 1990s, the Hudson Vision Plan in the ’90s and Comprehensive Plan at the turn of the century, the St. Lawrence Cement proposal denied in 2005, the formation of the WASC, and the LWRP process which began in 2006, more. For instance, the Army Corps of Engineers in the early ’90s showed interest in a restoration project for South Bay, an idea Prat suggested might be revisited.

At the suggestion of 1st Ward Alderman Rick Rector, who was in attendance in the audience, The Valley Alliance is going to build an archive of the above materials and many others in its possession, so that both officials and members of the public can familiarize themselves with both the history of the Waterfront, and decisions guiding future planning in the area. These will be posted in the next 10-14 days at: www.hudsonwaterfront.org

“I’m delighted to see Hudson Mayor Tiffany Martin-Hamilton taking positive steps toward improvement of our waterfront, and very much appreciate those who have stepped up to serve on the new committee,” said Alliance co-founder Peter Jung. “The Valley Alliance has a substantial archive of relevant materials which we are glad to share with the community as the process moves forward.  Our waterfront can become a major recreational, ecological and cultural resource as well as an economic engine for the City.”

# # #

For copies of any of the documents mentioned above, including the full 1982 Common Council resolution, please email [email protected] or call 518-755-6624

Alliance FOILs City, State to determine status of Waterfront acreage

Two Freedom of Information Law requests were sent by The Valley
Alliance today to the City of Hudson and New York State Department of State.

The requests, which require a response, seek records verifying or allaying our previously-raised concern regarding the transfer of 4.4 acres of land along the waterfront.

As set forth in detail last month, our group has reason to believe this transfer was not properly made in 1981— meaning that the City likely still owns that acreage (and thus does not need to trade away special privileges to Holcim to obtain them).

Regardless of whether the City is still contemplating any land deal with Holcim, we believe Hudson has both a right and an obligation to inventory and safeguard its property.

For example, if the City in fact still owns the 4.4 waterfront acres, that has both fiscal and liability ramifications. And it also presents a new opportunity for positive development and public recreation.

Copies of the two FOIL requests can be downloaded via the links below:

• FOIL to State   |   • FOIL to City

Holcim gets fined $700,000...

Source: CBS News Baltimore

...  at their Hagerstown, Maryland plant for “unlawful modifications from 2003 to 2007 that resulted in significant net increases in sulfur dioxide emissions without first obtaining a required permit.”

Isn’t that just the kind of company people want to steward our local waterfront, coexist with non-polluting business, and respect the safety of neighboring recreational activities, from picnickers to kayaks?

Is Hudson negotiating with Holcim for the City’s own property?

LEGEND: Green area — 4.4 acres sold in 1981 • Surrounding blue area — 9.97 acres offered by Holcim • Overlay: City of Hudson parcel map 

CITY MAY ALREADY OWN 4.4 ACRES OFFERED BY HOLCIM IN LAND DEAL

Group seeks advisory opinion from State and City on whether 1981 sale obtained necessary Legislative approval

 

HUDSON, N.Y. (3 JUNE 2013) — The City of Hudson likely owns almost half the acreage it seeks to acquire from a private cement company, according to a legal memorandum from attorney Kenneth J. Dow on behalf of The Valley Alliance.

The memorandum to State and City agencies details an Alliance investigation into the status of 4.4 acres situated within a larger package of nearly 10 acres. (See survey diagram on next page). The Swiss-owned company Holcim proposes to exchange 9.97 acres for special treatment over the next 50 years.

Dow’s memo notes that since 1913, State law has included firm rules about selling publicly-owned waterfront land—and that law has been regularly upheld in the courts. Noting that City Attorney Roberts had secured a legal opinion on this topic from Department of State counsel William Sharp in 2012, in relation to the Furgary Boat Club dispute, Dow states:

Specifically, for the past 100 years, General City Law § 20 has barred the alienation of waterfront lands. Absent specific and express authorization from the New York State Legislature, the City of Hudson would have had no power to alienate its waterfront lands. As far as we can ascertain, no such legislative authority was ever obtained. ... [H]aving exhausted all obvious avenues for determining whether this sale was properly conducted—and finding no evidence that it was—my client requests that your agencies verify whether an Act of the Legislature was passed in relation to this sale.

The Alliance’s search included Council minutes from 1980-1982, deeds for the lands on file with the Columbia County Real Property Department, microfilm news reports of Council meetings, and a review by a State Legislative Librarian, performed at the request of the Preservation League of New York State.

City of Hudson officials in 1981 (click to enlarge)

“We’ve searched in good faith for evidence that this was done correctly, but have found none,” said co-director Sam Pratt. “So now we’re turning that research over for an official opinion. Since these same lands are now the subject of a highly controversial negotiation, a speedy resolution is needed.”

“Lone Star Cement owned this parcel, then it was used as the Firemanic Training Center,” explained Pratt. “It extends into the River and covers most of East Jesus and Sandy Beach. The Council’s 1981 minutes show that City Hall was in a rush to make another deal happen for L&B and Power Avenue, but realized at the last minute it needed some parcels from the cement company. In their hurry, it looks like the City skipped a crucial legal step. If so, that means the people still own this part of the waterfront.”

“It’s up to the City and State to protect the public interest, by making absolutely sure they are not negotiating to acquire their own property,” Pratt said. “If permission was never secured from Albany to sell these acres, then Holcim would be ‘giving’ Hudson its own land in exchange for 50 years of special privileges. If officials can produce proof to the contrary, so be it.”

“Just weeks ago, diligent local citizens provided evidence that ultimately convinced the City of Hudson that Standard Oil did indeed have a presence south of what is now the Holcim dock,” said Jung. “That revelation increased the possibility that the 10 acres of land that the City hopes to get back in its ill- conceived deal might be polluted.  And now on top of that, it seems likely that half of the land involved in the proposed transaction might very well be owned by the City already, as a consequence of a legally flawed real estate sale. It doesn’t matter if it was in 2011, or 1981, or 1951—the law was on the books.”

So far, the ongoing negotiation with Holcim has not been consummated despite a Hudson Common Council resolution authorizing it, as the company’s representatives have delayed signing what appeared to be a sweetheart deal in their favor. The Valley Alliance has raised additional objections to the deal, including the constitutionality of today’s elected officials preventing future officials from exercising their statutory powers. After defending the deal at first, frustrated Hudson officials have since threatened to use eminent domain to acquire the area (a practice City Attorney Roberts and some aldermen had previously described as legally impractical).

“After 26 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars, the City still has truck traffic on its streets, gravel loading next to its park, and a Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan that the State seems reluctant to approve,” Jung continued. “After all this time, it’s amazing that new problems keep arising about the integrity of that Plan. That’s what happens when a review process dismisses public input, and a city doesn’t even have a required Waterfront Advisory Committee in place.

“The tax-paying citizens of Hudson deserve more due diligence from their officials,” concluded Jung.

RELATED DOWNLOADS:

• Legal memorandum from Kenneth J. Dow, Esq. [PDF]
• Advisory opinion from William Sharp to City Attorney Cheryl Roberts [PDF]
• 1981 Minutes of the Hudson Common Council [PDF]
• Deed records from Columbia County Real Property Department [PDF]
• Large-format survey of estimated location of acreage at issue  [TIF]