Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'll call the June 9th meeting of the Hudson Planning Board to order. Lynn, would you call the roll, please?

Mr. McAuliffe?

Here.

Mr. Stewart?

Here.

Ms. Fowler? Here. Mr. Woodhull? Here. Mr. Heigl? Here. Ms. Black? Here. Mr. Schatzky?

Here.

Mr. McCormick?

Here. Mr. Stadlish? Here. Regular meeting, business. First is approval of payment for any invoices that were received. Do we have invoices to approve?

We have two from Governor Henry. Yes. Number 19138 for $1,395. And another invoice number 19137 for $1,800. Motion to approve is in order.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Second item under bills is the release of escrow.

We have escrow that we're holding and all bills have now been

I think it's those that are looking to identify.

Yes, there are 8. 702, 704 Columbia Street, which is Savannah Hudson property to Austin Sound Street Farm, where the radio station used to be. DG's Wine Bar.

You also indicate the amounts. We don't have that.

7072 North Main Street, that was part of the Dinko District side.

7072 was about the separation of the two apartments, two buildings?

Yes. Sumat, Red Front, 22 Park Place, 735 Columbia Street, They withdrew their application. That was Lodeb's Oasis, 519 Columbia Street, next to the parking lot, 202 and 204 Lauren, and then 1012 North 2nd. They merged a lot. And another Gavin project, 6575 North 7th Street. That was

Yeah. Okay. Second. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Second item under regular meeting business is the approval of the minutes of May 12th and 28th as previously distributed. Are there edits or corrections to the minutes?

She didn't see for me for me.

I don't understand them.

Motion to approve the May 12th agenda from the next in order.

We'll get them next.

Okay, so I got that in the second pool in May 12th.

Well, that's what I'm guessing.

Second.

Yes, that's okay. Hold on. Chair Waldo. Yes. Mr. Shefsky. Yes. Ms. Black. Yes. Mr. Feinbaum.

Yes. Yes, yes, and finally under regular meeting business. If there are any liaison reports from Nathan or Peter, Nathan, can you hear us? Okay. Do you have any liaison reports or updates from your.

Work with, um, I do not, um. I have an intention to, um. ring up or sort of remind them that there's a public hearing, but I have not done so.

May I ask, where are you calling in from, Nathan?

I am in the Czech Republic, of all places.

So, Peter, any updates on the resolution? Okay. All right. No more regular business when we move into old business, and we have one applicant on the agenda tonight. Thank you. 360 State Street. Welcome.

Thank you. Thanks again for hearing it. Quick update, we received some comments. Thank you, late last week. Most of the comments are informational. There are still a few comments on the second plan, except they are minor. I intend to address most of those who have been noticed on the plans. We'll look at the limited disturbance myself very closely. All the other comments are informational or pending. The pending comments are the water and sewer specifically. I went to a sewer department and discussed it with them. They made note of the fee for the increase in the sewer use and the fact that it would need a New York City DC approval as well. And I'm here to ask if that can be a condition of improvement that you can gather as a condition. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Fantastic. At this time, then, I would like to ask the board to consider setting a public hearing date for next month, if that's available.

Is that an order? Yeah, I went through our engineer's comments and they do seem to be relatively minor, but that can address any anticipation with the public hearing. And as the African state, there were some things that were pointed out, still waiting on the well served letter to the extension, all that talk about that being a condition. So it's in the board's schedule, the public hearing, if it seems appropriate.

If the board approves, I would recommend that we make it a part of the July uh regular meeting agenda um which would be july 4th what's the date on there no the 14th should be july 7th tuesday 14th okay so uh a motion to schedule public hearing to july 14th at 6 p.m at the council chambers would be in order okay jane second um

Mr. Caldwell. Yes. Mr. Schertzky. Yes. Ms. Black. Yes. Mr. Michael. Yes. Mr. Falker. Yes. And Mr. Spieth. Yes.

Okay. Congratulations. Anything else for the engineering board? No, it was very light as he had specified. Everything's laid out in our comment letter. And we did recommend public hearing on 12th of this afternoon. We can do this. Just clean up with this plan. Okay. Great.

And we'll have a response from county planning maybe next week. Okay.

Good. Good. Appreciate that.

Thank you.

There's no further old business. New business is going to be a two-part discussion. The city has requested some action from the planning board. And I've asked Andrew to kind of lay out what the issue is. And then we have the time between now and our July meeting to individually kind of understand what this action would represent.

Andrew, you want to brief us a little bit on this? Sure. I'll just go over briefly what the City Council is asking and how it got to us. So City Council is considering this new local law in pursuant to Hudson City Code 3024-40. Any proposed amendment, they have to send it over to the Planning Board for a review and recommendation. So code provides we, as the Planning Board, have 30 days to render such a report and recommendation. from the first regularly scheduled meeting after the referral. So accordingly, our time period runs from today and our next meeting is as we stated the 14th. So I think it would be appropriate for the board to consider the local law tonight and then maybe reflect on it and could come back to the next meeting as we formalize this report. So let's get over what the city cameras will actually refer. They're doing a, local law to amend the code section excuse me my computer's not not loaded up cheat i'm just gonna grab it from them so they're amending one of the code sections and this is specifically related to uh regulations down in the docking area i think the board's probably familiar with everything going on down there i don't know how many board members were members of this board at the time of the project this is And are awaited to, so the city wants to amend the code to provide clarity about what the planning board may consider. If it were to have another application pending before it about uses permitted in the doubt. And obviously, this is about the color Rousseau proceeding, which is currently under an article 70 proceeding. There is active litigation surrounding this. As I think the board is aware. uh the articulated concern to me from the city council was this if such a if the court were to send that application back to the planning board the planning board would have to interpret the political code section which is 30 25 17 1 d1 and the city council wants to put in specific parameters for the planning board's consideration. And those parameters are the conditions of approval that this planning board previously put on the Colin Russo project for the conditional dock operation. Now, if the city council could not move forward with this, then the planning board would be interpreting and applying this section where it is considering uses as existed on the effective date of local law number five of 2011. And that's a little less than clear, because I don't know if there's exactly a known quantity. I know there was some research done back then. There were significant reports and comments provided to this board. But cutting through all that, this is the City Council's effort to simplify and to give an explicit direction about that code section, because obviously the planning board can't interpret the code and relies on the legislative body of the city through council. And this would be their explicit language that the planning board would then apply. Now, what are the planning board's options? I think, and this is before most of our time, this local law or a substantially similar one was referred to this board sometime last year. And the planning board declined to make a recommendation on it. They deferred back to the city council's discretion, which is an option for this board. But the city council is going through the required steps, sending it through the local law to this board for a report and recommendation. and really just wanted to open it up to the board and see how you all want to proceed. And I do think it would make sense for the board to digest it a bit and read through it, maybe come back with any questions they had so we could properly make a recommendation or take some sort of action. And I should also point out that this board, in acting on this referral, is only for completing an advisory opinion we as a board don't get to adopt anything it's just simply a recommendation to the city council where by means of an example this board could say that's great we should adopt it and city council could decline or this board could say we recommend not adopting it and city council could elect to adapt it it's really an advising piece and the common council

their next meeting is after our next meeting. So one option is that we, as Andrew suggested, that we take this information, digest it during the next month, and then we'll have it on the agenda for the July meeting. I would just put a footnote. This may trigger some people's reactions because it was a painful process for the planning board last year and for the community. But I think this is not a, this doesn't rise to that level of decision-making by the planning board. And I think as we all become more familiar with it, we'll see it's a somewhat small administrative step just to help clean up the language in the city code. So any discussion or questions tonight? Any alternative points of view that need to be shared?

I'll just point it back to you. You mentioned Article 70. What is that exactly? to say it was on a proper step in litigation.

Right. So what part of a 70 just generally is when someone challenges an action of or any other board, but challenges an action of a board arguing that it should have been different or was arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence. There are a few that the city's currently involved in, shouldn't really comment on active litigation, but just pointing out that there are.

south and we have two currently where the planning board is named in those suits and it's a little bit like a lawsuit-like suit um and it just it's it's why these meetings it's so important that we create a solid record of our works and that's how we defend ourselves if we do get challenged through a legal action like this is that our the records that linda keeps really cumbersome the credibility of our work and that fins our decision making. So any other comments or observations about this issue for tonight, Peter?

I guess I just have a question about what it means to report and what do you expect? It's not like we're voting on something. Is there an expectation that we have one that way so that we make some unified decision? I'm just sort of curious what that feels like.

I'll just read the comment section. Normally it would be you present the opinions of the planning board. If the board could agree on a position, that would make it easier, but I'm not opposed to drafting one that sets forth all the prevailing viewpoints. Now, the code section there states as follows. Concerning a proposed amendment or change in text of this chapter, the planning board shall make an inquiry and determination concerning these areas. Whether the change is consistent with the aims and principles embodied in the chapter, which areas land uses, buildings, and establishments in the city will be affected by the change and how the indirect implications of such change and whether such proposed amendments consistent with the aims of the comprehensive plan. A lot of points of consideration, but I will point out that the board is not limited to these that are wanting to go beyond that scope

I just try to run back for clarity about understanding.

The problem is that there's a vague, difficult to enforce clause in 325.70 through the parties that code that talks about the core of a reference to see our district to device that it's one of the conditional use section and D for one, which has to do with that continuation of existing commercial dock operations not even better as such uses existed on on the date that this law was enacted in 2011. so if it was happening in 2011 it can continue kind of like the current code says yes and so they're proposing but then this event this is a i'm seeing language that talks about 2540.

Pointing forward is the amendment session. I think this, yeah, the, the council sent that over just so we know the procedure in which it's been amended. I see.

I, I read it as specifying explicitly a certain number of truck trips that happened in 2011. is that. Like, I, I find that a little bit hard to follow just honestly, um, is that. Your understanding as well of what it specifically is doing.

it's like stipulating a fact you know right that is not currently specified correct it seems like in my my interpretation here is that the city council is trying to clarify this and set a solid number and also incorporate planning boards previously uh adopted and implemented conditions of approval and that's in section b i through and one percent

This is just another. And I I should just point out this would not impact the.

Approved project as it currently exists on subject to litigation and everything else going on.

So I'm sensing some uncertainty about this, and that's fine.

I think what we're dealing with is clarity. It's not that there's discomfort. I think we just need to understand. And that's why we recommended that we not vote on it tonight to give the board an opportunity to live with this, get more information, do whatever research you feel you need to do, and then we'll come back next week, next month. So we can still... discussed tonight. Sarah, I can see your ears turning.

Well, I mean, I never, I've never had an opportunity to talk about the minutiae. But I don't think, I didn't comprehend this before we got here. So now I'm just reading and trying to understand.

Linda, is there anything we're missing that you're aware of? Any further comments on this new business? Questions?

Are there any questions that should be answered before we end the discussion that the board members could take away with them to better delve into this and anticipate your next meeting? This is something that was just catering recently, right? It's a lot to the story.

No law and new law. So yes, we need time to review it and present. If we have a question on any of the issues proposed to the bad papers, you can follow up on any more advice that should be holding to the meeting.

I think you could direct it to the chair and the chair could reach out to me with any questions that need to be answered. And of course, I could always seek some further clarification from the city council's attorney.

It might be helpful to get a more awesome kind of description of a non-legal case. it might be a little easier for us to process that. So maybe you and I can try to find a place where we can get that information. So we'll try to do that in the period between meetings.

And this is just how, I guess I'm curious about just the overall process, less about the content of the local law, but we're in a brand process that just gets triggered when they consider a law and they put something forward to the planning brand. This is just sort of a structural process.

This could be a lot of changing anything right well yeah within the parliament section of the code that's like the planning work has to have an opinion on those supports and it also goes to the county planning board about those fans and then once the clock is up and we've reported to them then they they hold a vote and as you said they can go one way or another they're all the city council also required to conduct a public hearing on this by city acting on it and i'm not aware that one has been scheduled yet So there is some time before any action could be taken.

I have a question about, you know, I don't know for the newer members if they understand the effect that this is going to have, right? This seems like a small change, but it's a huge, it's going to have a huge effect. You know, it essentially undo everything and, partially closed down. I mean, after they built, I think, a $1 to $2 million private road, right? So, I mean, is this something that is going to have more, you know, legal litigation tied to it if it's brought into effect?

Well, that's not an easy question to answer, but I should point out, I think it's the city's intent where, city council's intent, where this code section might not be necessary, where if it would not change the approval as it is.

Yes, I understand, but they're essentially putting this in effect in case it does get sent back to the planning board, at which time it will have a big effect on our new decision that we have to make, right?

That would be constrained by the increase of external evidence.

Yeah, so I mean that would be essentially, you know, everything, every, they wouldn't, be able to bring all those trucks in and then therefore the dock operations would slow down, right? So.

The planning board would be bound by, if the application were to come back and this were the code and the law at the time the board was considering it, it would be bound by this. So yes, that's it.

So I guess what I'm asking is, is not that like, what follows after that? Because this is going to create on the office, you know, this issue has created waves, big waves on whatever side that you feel is appropriate, right? So this obviously is going to create waves for Palo Russo and limit what they're able to do. And so we'll putting such an effect on the law, what does that mean? Like, does that mean now we're looking at another article You know what I'm trying to say? It's just such a drastic change in, you know, in light of that, okay, we might get a second bite of the apple, so to speak, and now all of a sudden we're putting this law in, and it just seems like, I don't know. Like, how is it going to play out long term, I guess?

If I knew, I would tell you.

Yeah. I mean, will it be subject to this? Could it be subject to it? Certainly could. Okay.

Those are good points, Veronica. One of the things that, one of our options, we have three options. We can vote to support this change. We can vote to not support the change, or we can ignore it. So in a way, our role may be somewhat inconsequential because it's the city, excuse me, the county council that will actually make the decision.

Yeah, no, I understand. I was just curious because this is obviously going to cause waves one way or the other, right? And, you know, I think it'll be a lot of,

we kind of just yeah well let's do our homework between now and the next meeting and if you have questions in the interviewing time let me know and i'll direct them as best i can i'll see if we can't get a write-up that feels a little bit more comprehensive that helps us understand and i appreciate the seriousness with which the board is taking this because it does have history and it has a future so and we're right in the middle of it so our role is is not

Um, it's not to be, uh, advice takers, but I'm sure you can be, I'm sure that you have quite contentious.

I have, I have like a question just like on the factual nature here. Um, so I, I, I, I have struggled to understand the proposed legislation, just like what it actually does versus what was approved. Um, by the planning board last year. And so if anyone is able to break down for me how the 2011 baseline amount would be different under this and how the 10,000 trips, part B, I guess, of the change in legislation would be different than the previously approved with conditions. I'm just, like, trying to understand what this actually changes versus the previous approval for CalRusso so I can actually understand what we're, like, so I can have an informed opinion about what to recommend. And so I think that's the, like, one little bit of fact that would be helpful for me over the next, you know, few weeks as we're looking into this.

I think that's a great point, you know, and I think just so that you know, the few of us that have been through it before, I mean, we would probably be speculating to what this would affect, you know, and then the people who aren't, you know, I just think it would be great for everybody to have, like, a solid concrete, like, this is what, you know, could potentially affect and change.

Yeah, if that if that project was was being evaluated today, what would be materially different? I think that would just like A versus B. And the current legal language is really hard to for me to parse, at least to understand that.

Yeah, the previous board approved the conditional use for medical costs. Article 78 was fine, but it's still in the courts or whatever it may be. This proposal by the Common Council will have no effect on that board decision.

Unless it gets remitted back, as we have to decide again.

As we have to decide again, based upon this.

Based upon whatever the law would be, if that's what it's going to be.

Well, that could mean any vested rights arguments or anything like that. But yes, it would be something. Generally, the planning board applies the code as written at the time that reviews an application.

Okay. But I mean, I know we're winding up this section, but let's just say that this new section gets amended or revised. Would there be anything retroactively in the past that would be considered foilable? Like under the old terms, like can they use any material from the previous decisions of VETS and whatever ED said on doing following?

Potentially, but generally it's not in this law that you couldn't use Things from an old approval that's no longer valid to support or argue for a new approval, especially with a new code section. That doesn't mean the argument won't be made. So we'll be ready at the right.

And I, I know we are short on time, but if we could just maybe spend the five minutes, really. Because I'm not going to, if I walk away understanding this better, I'll have to be more of an understander better when studying. But so I don't actually, I'm not actually locating what the proposed change to the law is.

I think it might be the second page, the second LARF and italics. Is this it? On the second page and italics down here? Oh, yeah. So the idea is, what counts today?

Yeah, because the findings and purposes are not . And then just to step back, it's like the section of the code says, this was allowed here, C, permit abuses, public loss, . And then it's like, well, here's just a visual review sentence. These are the things that are not those things that are already approved by law.

It's either side by side or a red line.

Yeah, that is, I'm pulling up the current code section.

And so the thing there to continue to resist impartial thought operations to the transport of children and buildings as such use has insisted on the effect of treatment. Any resisting impartial thought operation may continue to operate as a non-performable use until such time as one or more reactions

So the language says that they are amending that section to add new sub paragraphs, A and B is public. So you go to that section one, continuation of existing commercial doc operations, and then you flip it over. And it's my understanding that A and B are the new ones. That's the brand. Yeah. So if you look at the code as it exists now, that one section starting with continuation, there's no A and B.

Okay, so there's no change to subsection one, and then it's just adding subsection one.

So is the actual effect here that it says explicitly that the board can do what it did effectively, which is limit

um Colorado using or in like imposed conditions that are the ones listed which are the ones the board implemented I got I'm just like trying to follow the legislative intent like it's confusing more in the abstract yes where it's saying this board would consider these uh mitigation measures for any application uh in the dot core district And then it's explicitly taking the board's 10, I think, conditions of approval and adding them to the code. So it's codifying what the board already did.

But it's also attaching them to an increase in trips. I don't know if it's 10,000 trips. It increases the permissible limits. It seems to renegotiate the condition. It says increases the permissible limits material provided those 10 are constructed, put in place, employed, or maintained on or in relation to the dock course of operation. Subject to all those. Right.

So it's inventing a hard limit and then putting the built-in mitigation measures.

So the question is, is that 10,000 and the 275, is that where the other applicant, potential applicant, is at now? Yeah, or they already weigh above that and this doesn't really apply to them and this just applies to somebody else new who comes along with the new application.

It looks like over the bottom and the top it's saying who's 2011 the low end. It's putting a cap in there definitely. And then the planning board determines.

That's why we need the, you know, figures comparing it to me under this law.

Well, from what I understand, it's two subtractions.

they're this are not there so it's like it's just a whole thing clarifying this absolutely yeah having a process and that is either sometime between now and the july meeting or at the july meeting we asked the city to present this in a open meeting answering our questions presenting it in a way that we can understand Either we schedule a special meeting that would be a single item of the adjustment. That would be this, or we could ask them to present, you know. July meeting any a reaction to that suggestion.

That sounds reasonable. Yep.

sound useful yeah i mean i think i think they all need a lot more clarity to really understand you know if this is so would your preference be to do it during the meetings so that we actually are informed when we come into the meeting next time which i think sounds like a pretty good idea um and maybe can we do meetings strictly remotely or do we

be able to do that i pulled up your city code here and i think it does permit for authorization of meetings via video conferencing yeah all public bodies boards and committees of the city are authorized to use video conferencing technology to conduct their public meetings i don't know there's a lot more constraints about it around that yeah you might have it for an issue yeah i mean if we're not voting on something it's just an informational meeting normal workshop

there would be no anticipated action and then we would be better prepared if we do the interim meeting and that gives us a chance individually to get additional information we needed before we actually come to the meeting and we're actually just going to take it any any any thoughts about let me reframe it differently i'm going to recommend that we schedule a special workshop meeting between now and July 14th for the purpose of inviting the city to explain to us in a lot of the detail that we are all comfortable with what they're really asking us to vote on. Is that a workable idea for us? That is. Okay. So Linda and I will work with you to find a date, and I will reach out to either through you, Andrew, or directly to the city to see if we can get them to do this presentation for us.

I confirm we're complying with all open meetings law.

And if we are able to do so legally, we'll do it virtually. It makes it easier for everybody. Does that sound all right? It sounds. Okay.

This conversation improved my reading comprehension vastly.

Well, I think the cause of the history, I think we want to be super smart about this.

Yeah. It was really, it was really... And that's putting it like, like, I mean, I just off the top of my head and, and Kaylee and Jean may remember this, but I think we approved them for, was it 280 a day truck trips? I mean, 10,000 will be, be met really quickly, you know, so they're approved for currently, I think many more than the 10,000, you know, so kind of being able to compare, you know,

That's maybe 35 days, I think.

Yeah, it's 27 a day.

Yeah, so that's a huge, you know, that's a big, that's a big difference. And I think there's just so much to consider that the things that Colorado says did do to mitigate things and to make this as best as possible for the city, you know, and to just I don't know. I think we just have to see the comparison to Ridley.

So I'm going to ask a favor. We'll be reaching out to you using the Outlook email. And I'm really hopeful to get a quick turnaround so we can get this date in the calendar. So watch your email over the next few days and so that we can lock this thing down. And we're going to try to do it in the next two weeks, 10 days, like that. So any further discussion on this item in the agenda? further discussion any other items that need to be brought to the attention yes sir okay then a motion to adjourn is in order i'll make that second um and we're jenny