Planning Board - Regular Meeting

No, not yet.

Are you back on over there, too? Okay, so we're back on. This is part two. We're back on. We're back live. The most important thing is that our secretary can, you know, I don't have a phone number. I'm sorry. I have an email, but just What you want me to say? No, I'm back. I want to text Linda to let her know we're back on.

No, it's back up.

Okay, we're back on. So wait a minute. Is this Yes, exactly.

She's back. So, you know, everything gets recorded for the motions and how we all Yes. All right. Gabby is going to direct us to um the items that she had placed today. Chang what page we

We're on page five, number two. to fix. I'm waiting for you. Yeah, this this was sent to us late today. No, I sent it yesterday. Let me see. No, when she finished it. Oh, yeah. Okay. Where should they go? Number two. Page five. Number two. Oh. Oh, right on. It's true. Number two here. Findings. No, he's he's right. Right there. Number two.

Oh, I see it. Sorry. So, when it says many non-industrial businesses have opened near the waterfront while the dock has been in unfettered operation, including kitties and basilica. So, the existing dock does not appear to have been a significant deterrent to the establishment of such businesses. Go ahead. Oh, first of all, this just feels sort of subjective. How can we know if it's Many bit many people have come before us who want to open businesses down there and said that this operation would be a deterrent. Um I'm not sure how we can make a statement like this. It's I thought we changed this last summer. I thought we did too.

Yeah, we did talk about that. We just talked about it wasn't changed in the next draft. There wasn't a change. Yeah, we didn't talk about it because it's kind of to describe the operations as unfettered. They've been operating at a much more limited capacity than we're talking about them operating. So that doesn't feel totally accurate and but they I mean just factually there are no conditions on inspiration right now. That's where that's coming from. Okay. Sure. So yeah meaning right but you can change the word but that's that's why it says that without any conditions at this current from our point of view we're supportive of the statement I think

the law clauses are the point of them is to put together a strong record so that this application isn't a feudal exercise that just gets shot down by a project proponent. I mean it's supposed to be I mean if this is a resolution to approve why would we be taking out statements and putting in statements that are either contradictory or inconsistent or weak in the resolution. So that would be my request is that the board vote to keep that statement.

This is a resolution to approve at the moment with conditions that are being imposed and that are being discussed and one and those conditions are very much in part to protect future economic development. And we've been told by many people who have plans in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that this operation operating unfettered would be a huge deterrent to those businesses. So I find this statement misleading. Okay. What does the board think? What do you want to do? Um either we keep the stage that we had at number two and see it all. Did you have to change or we can we can change it to the operation? I'm [clears throat] talking the characterization now.

Well, why don't you just take unfettered out? That's what I'm saying. Take the characterization out and just leave it and does not that's the one that was proposed by Gabby. The one that was proposed by Gabby would take unfathered out. No. And so we're taking unfettered out. And then do you want it sounds like there's discussion just leaving it at their businesses have opened and taking out does not appear to have been a significant deterrent. I mean we've been told by the house developers and the don warehouse developers that it would be a deterrent. So it just seems in direct opposition. Talking about the businesses that are there.

Yeah. I would say I would say if you if you took out unfettered put a period at operations and then just pick it up with conditions place. Okay. Great. Anybody else have anything to say to that? I would say that we take out unfathered just in near the waterfront while the dock has been in operation. Period. They'll pick it up. The conditions placed on a conditional use permit will ensure that the continued dock operation does not uh should be does not impact the orderly development of adjacent products that do not. Okay. Do we need to read that?

No, I got it. And it's accurate and it reflects it reflects the condition. So, does anyone need it written? I mean read again the way we want to write it. Sorry. You you get a period after operation. What about including kitties in facilities? No, that's that's removed. That's okay. I'm going to let um Victoria's going to read it as we just No, but I think everyone understands what it says. Does everyone understand everyone? How does everyone Okay, good to

So it says have opened near the waterfront while the dock has been in operation. Period. Okay. Then I said the conditions placed on the condition permit [clears throat] will ensure that the continuous dock operations did not just

Randle's proposing to take out including Kitty and Basilica Hudson. So the existing dock use does not appear to have been a significant deterrent to the establishment of such business. So the question is does the board want to remove that language, modify the language? In other words, this is the new language to um number two. So, do we want to agree to that? Everybody ready? What he said, period after operation, take out the next two two and a half lines and then start with a new sentence based on right. This is the this is conjecture. Okay?

You know, does this conjecture so it's the characterization as conjecture doesn't make sense to me to be put there. You hear me clear? Yes, but I need a majority because agree that's okay. Could you read it again with with the changes? Randle just read it. I can read the whole thing with the changes so they can all hear it at the same time from the top or from what? Many many non-industrial businesses have opened near the waterfront while the dock has been in operation. Period. conditions placed on the conditional use permit. We'll ensure and then it moves on.

We'll ensure the continued dock operations and that should be not do not because that's not the condition of operation does not impact the orderly development of a decent propert it's grammatically correct do not operations that's okay. Okay. So everybody Okay, listen. We're going to move on. Did everybody understand the meaning of the new word? Do we agree? Yes. Yes. Yes. Agree. Okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We all agree. All right. Done. We'll move. Next.

The next one is on page nine and either the language was already changed or I mis read it. It's uh irrelevant. So, we can skip that one. So the next time okay what are you saying not to look at it number page number nine which one we can skip that one so the next I only have one more and it is well so I know on nine it does say the project shall not indeed act public access to or enjoyment of the city's public park and you're saying delete that

I either the language was changed already or I misread read that it said does not, but it says shall not. So that's different, right? I misread that it says does not. And my argument was we can't say it doesn't impede enjoyment of the park because many people say it it it does, but it's saying shall not. Okay, it does say shall not, but but moving forward, these are findings and findings are subjective. So the board these are the board's findings. So this is the part of the resolution where you say whether you agree or disagree with these findings. And so it's okay to have subjective statements because this is how the board of the majority is going to feel.

I was saying I disagree with that shall not language is fine necessarily a bad thing. Okay. So you say leave it as it is. Do not change it. Yes. We've already agreed on this so we have to say page 11. Would you say page 11? Page 11. Page 11. Which one number? Page 11. Number 10.

The court order. The court by order and decision in a Colorado Riso and Sun versus City of Hudson planning board determined that the applicant has vested rights in the dock as a continuing use, but did not determine the extent of the vested use. I have a problem with the word determined. It wasn't a determination. It was dict. It the case had nothing to do with vested rights. I mean it's up to the court but it was a statement in the case

but the case it wasn't a finding in the it wasn't legally binding a determination is is is a holding it means it's essential to the case's outcome and creates binding precedent dicta is just an observation being made and this was an observation being made and in fact he even said I'm not going to really comment on this because this is not what the case is about. So if we use the word determined is misleading. I think he determined that manifested rights but did not determine the scope of those vested rights as was clearly stated in the decision. I disagree. I think a determination the words of the resolution to make it weaker so that it's more open to public attack. I mean if the board could just vote pass on this, we can move on because we have 52 conditions that were added to this. We're never going to get anywhere.

We're going to get to it. Don't worry about it. This is the process that's happening. Okay, Gabby, what are you saying? Okay. I'm saying I would like to remove either the entire clause or the word determined needs to be changed because it's misleading. Not you on this. This is exactly what the quot said, but the word determined is legally misleading. Opinion of one person. We're going to vote on it if he if other if everybody if the rest of the board feels the same way we'll take it. But if not, we are moving on. Okay. Okay. So, anybody else on the board have anything like want to change the signage? Oh, right here.

No, it's it's exactly what the said she says. Okay. So, is actually what you said. I mean, I don't think it was dicta. Da is like an aside like, oh, by the way, the cement tower is or something, but but this is we could say we could say state wasn't a determined. But isn't this exactly the what they have rights? The the part the last part of the clause is from case the word determined. He doesn't say I hereby determined. So you could say stated. Okay. That the applicant has at bested rights. I mean it's stated in the decision. Stated. Okay. All right. Okay. We take stated. Anybody else?

Any disagreement with this change and determine the stated because it is. Yeah. does just say it. Oh, this is because petitioners have vested rights. Then can you read the footnote? So it's stated. No, that's that's I mean yeah the court declines by which this provision says to address the exact scope of the vested rights. Okay. Can I say something? Can I say something? That's not necessary. We are talking about the changing stated we're going to move on. We just can't get stuck on little things on things that just is not going to help us any. So we're going to say the determined what you read.

Yeah, we're going to change it from say it didn't say determined. So we're saying that it's relevant in the state language. It's a relevant difference between So we already terminology dated. So is there a reason why we're lingering on this? No, we agree. No, we're not. No, we're not. Okay. What's the difference between what this says determined and what the board is saying stated? Determined makes it sound as though the court made that decision, which I believe they did. In the opinion, stated is a little bit less. It's it's that it was written in the decision.

Okay. Is that your interpretation? That's correct. So, we can change it to stated. No, I agree with attorney that the court said more accurate description of what the court said was that they determined they said this is because we have vested rights. One at a time. This is a resolution. It's a factual recitation. Honestly, this is not the important part of this resolution. This is just providing a factual background. So, I'm fine with the word.

So, once we use the terminology because the applicant and then just if we say stated it just says you know it was stated in the determination from the stated in the letter from the but oh but she's got to linger but why not use the the language that was in the record you could say because right we can and because that's the language and we don't have to say it we can leave it as it is that's what I'm trying to get and why can I ask why this statement is in here at all

because it's it's setting the history of the project. How did we get to where we are right now? It's been how many years? So, I think it's important when you go back and look at history and how we got to where we are. But if there's an argument to be made about vested rights, then we have to like then what does that mean? It means that they're still under the non-conforming use limitations and that means, you know, then there's that's zero evidence of an increase in use. I mean, the vested rights is tied to the non-conforming use and we're here for a CUV. So, it seems

the second half of the paragraph nullifies the first saying they have vested rights, but they're under charges. So, it doesn't really pointing out that it is okay. So, this whole thing is attached to non-conform. What do we want to do? Leave it in. Leave it in house or stated or determine or determined. We can do stated or or verbatim. The words that were stated verbatim. All right. What do you say, J? What are you saying there? I'm saying either way. Stated or stated or stated or because because the applicant has best.

How about I just pull from the decision. That's what I'm saying. That's what I just said. I'm just gonna do that. State that. Okay. So, got it. I'm adding it in. No, but read what you're doing. Yeah. Once she finish this, she's going to read read it before we um make a decision.

State that quoteers have vested rights in the dock as a preexisting nonconforming use. End quote. but declined to address. Exactly. Uh, okay. Declines to address the exact scope of petitioners rights. Okay. So, that's exactly what the court order says. It's accurate and it's non it's not biasing in in any it's not biasing. Okay,

we all agree. Yes. Let's move on. Done. No. No. The line before it suggests the following edits deletion of number nine. Well, it was nine, I believe. Yeah, it was it became 10. It was number nine and now it's number 10. So she doesn't deleted the entire thing, but retrieved it. So now we're back to where we left off from 12. Yes. Now we go to page number 12 in our document. Number four.

Number four. Okay.

Sorry. Okay. Victoria, would you read that to us? SHF or requires the applicant to comply with the best management that is planned for the dock and to implement the following measures at all times during doc operations to control potential death impacts. Anybody have anything they want to say about the um is there anything left out cuz this has been discussed but um anything left out that needs to be added or

I'm sorry I just I just have to check we're buying this please start that again. Please repeat that. We're on condition four which requires them to comply with their best management plan. Yeah. including this been discussed around that. So hold on. So we specify

the applicant shelves comply with the approved best management practice approved by whom? You. Okay. There's a plan they submitted and it's incorporated into this project. So if you approve the project, you are thereby approving the plan as part of the project.

And some of the things that are highlighted AV, C, D, E, and F. And um the statement underneath this I would make a correction or alteration in item four to remove during dock operations. What did you say the applicant shall comply with the approved plan and shall implement following measures at all times to control potential destiny do operations. Okay. At all times. control.

All right. So, well, I mean, if they end up having a problem, then it just cut them and they just good. Thank you. So, is is we have another is in another section where we talk about the maintenance of the road of the public road. I think that's coming out and D. No, but then No, this actually refers to something different. I had a thing about No, it's coming up. It's coming up. It's coming. I just want to make sure that this time.

Okay. The office maintain breakfast and fifth control activities including sweeping and watering frequently and she'll include this information in the annual compliance report required by the condition number 17. That's okay. Well, good. Oh, what do you mean by um by the um the insurance of trucks also shall be swept on a regular basis? What is that? I think how's a regular basis? I find Oh yeah, you must um daily whenever needed

daily. It's in the rest of it. You do talk about how often it should be swept as we're going. Hold on to that question because it's there. It's okay. Yeah. But but I think it's in that she did mention daily. Well, that was a proposed condition by a member. So, we you can talk to the planner about best management practices, but if there is no one if there are no doc operations for a period of time,

does it make sense to require it daily? Well, if they have a dust problem over there, but there was but I think the operation is almost under the emphasis to begin with. Well, that's what we operation. Yeah, that's what we're deliberating on. They're going to be working every day on a reasonable basis work. No, because it's recently one of the Where are we exactly? Uh C uh on page 13. C

I mean E, excuse me. The internal truck route and paved dock surface shall be swept on a regular basis to maintain cleanliness and process. And then someone else in there gives some. How often? No, it's it's it's only here. So the discussion in the findings is just factual. It's just findings and report. These are the actual finding conditions. No, it's no like reference to other sections of the

So I mean I read this on a regular basis as defined to maintain cleanliness. So when they're not operating and there's no piles down there for some reason, we wouldn't be sweeping because we really don't need to maintain no piles. Right. It's defined by two main cuz nobody works. Nobody is on your dock other than you. Okay. No other commercial right entity can come on that dock and operate. [clears throat] Any questions? Can we move on? Can we approve this and move on? Approve. Okay. Are we um is there a claim we're just going to go through and then we can respond after?

No, you can respond as we've come because once we leave this, we want to not have to go back. I think it might be better to go through and then have us respond because then we have to go back. Correct. Yeah. Because we'll respond. Yeah. We already have responded to in writing almost all of these except of the additions that were today which we can respond to. So if you guys want to go forward, we can respond. Correct. You don't have the ones that we made today. Right. And I mean then respond to those in the next day or two. Yeah. Um but I just think it'll just hold up everything if we argue about every time.

All right. The only the only change I'm making I'm taking out 17 because the conditions have already changed numbers. So I'll just put a placeholder. 17. No in condition 17 that's required in condition 17. I'll put a placeholder. Okay. Now we're on um page 13 number five. Section five. Yeah. The do operation align of the city of Hudson noise control law chapter 210 of the city code and with the following operational uh practices to maintain potential noise impact. Minimize

minimize potential noise impact. And then we have A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. And number six.

Any questions on me? I had a set an addition. I had an addition about just noise monitoring because a lot of times a facility will make noise and not realize the level of noise, the level of intrusion that it is to to to the neighborhood because they're because you're used to it. You have a hard. You're going about your your your daily routine. And I wanted to have a proviso that says something about install permanent noise monitoring uh mon monitoring at park facing the boundaries. We have that at the end.

Yeah, it's in uh it's it should be in the earlier but it's not in it's not but no it should be in the earlier one he received but it's not in the latter one. It is it's in the latter one too. Okay. Let but it's there. Yeah. Okay. So, you you placed Gabby stuff with long did not identify page numbers for Thanksg.

Okay. Number eight. Are we all in agreement with that? It's a recommendation of our board member. Anybody [clears throat] vehicle is equipped with backup realizing one warning signal system that state um what was that? We're not sure that no this is what Gabby suggest age but is it already in there? It was somewhere else, but it's uh we Yeah, we're on 58.

I think part of it's included as a but it was expand to lights dedicated spot for I don't know what those are. Yeah, that's what we're trying to figure out what it's all what's the difference. The difference between A and H. age is more okay. You said that it's more spec it's more specific. It does provide items saying instead of just low volume um mittens could be lights or dedicated spotters which I believe are people right that's what your point is like a person

so what I think she's what she's noting where these funds so dedicated spot is to include people are there anything else other than so I mean just a question does the board want to add this I mean one question is I mean it says it shall utilize the least noise emitting a warning system. So who makes that even determination that it is that to that level? I mean that's a problem. No after after nobody's going to make that determination, right? In other words, it's enforcable. It's not well we could enforce it right now by saying this is the system we have to use, but if there's a change in technology,

you know, there's going to be an awareness issue. The first one said shallow employ.

That was a and then H is saying basically just adding to if the technology improves or changes then it will just have to be updated as such when the permit is reviewed you know up for renewal. It just means that it has to keep up with that ever improving technology. No, I understand what that means. But the way that the way that the approval process works, something gets approved and then it's gone if we don't have control over it. And

why can't we just I'm sorry. Why can't we just leave it if if we wanted to take Gabby's suggestion say any equipment or vehicles equipped with backup warning shall utilize the least noise embedding warning systems that meet applicable state and federal safety requirements? That's it. Yeah. Well, the the question from to a I mean it's just the questions from the slander was who determines that it's the least restrictive system when they go to enforce this. But if you have to go to court because you have an issue with noise, right, and you have to go before the judge, right?

Who makes the decision here that they are or aren't using the least noise emitting warning system? It's going to have to be subjective in nature. So they I mean that we're within the code and we're adding white noise on top of that any reasonable and [clears throat] I don't think it's reasonable to ask for that to trend with technology just to get quieter. We're already within the code [clears throat] and this is you know a permanent condition and we'll have to consistently make a determination of what's the least. So A says it and H says it differently. So do we want to just leave H

or just and yeah and just leave it to A and not add H. What do you guys think? Awesome. I mean I think H is I mean A is saying it's all bad at all. Yeah. Yeah. I really do. [clears throat] H I suggest No, it's a A is saying it all. Not a A. I suggest we keep A. Anybody else agree with that? Fine with that. Sometimes we got Okay. Well, we got a majority. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Sorry, Randall.

Yeah, we just voted on something. We want to cast your vote. We're going to keep a That's fine. Okay. All right. So, we're keeping a disregard. Okay. We're on page 14, number six. Down the line.

The following truck safety practices shall be implemented at all times during DAC operations to ensure public and pedestrian safety. Um, there's a maximum speed limit. It needs to be posted. When a truck is stopped, the driver needs to notify other trucks traveling to and from the dock the radio or other equivalent. Oops. Truck serving the dock shall comply with the operational hours, rules, and regulations with the fall road permit and shall not use the hall road outside of the approved hours of operation. And the applicant must ensure that all truck drivers including independent volers receive written notice and instruction regarding the safety procedures prior to um operating on the site. At least the old things that they agreed with.

Well, they basically [clears throat] were and so we put our comments and objections that all of the conditions except for the ones that were added. Are you objecting to these conditions in our written? I know, but that came late. So it's I mean if we can go through and that's why I was offered to read the conditions we had already agreed to there might be a faster way to get to where we want to go rather than what would be objective about about this on number six H six A B C and D H14 you have any except this

and not that your objection but So I'll be quick. So uh we started at four, but I would just suggest that the applicant shall comply with the following conditions rather than say complying with the food best management plan and then these conditions as well because it's just easier just to have one set of conditions than and then the conditions. There might be other things in that best management plan that have been incorporated into the project. I think we pulled that

rather than them say that rather take the conditions in the best management plan and put them in the permit. So there's one set of rules rather than a permit you have to comply with and then a best management plan that we have to comply with that everyone thinks said the same thing but no you have to comply with the best management plan. This was just intended to show some of I mean maybe I can just take these out they threw up but the plan is more expensive than these five conditions isn't it? No. Okay. So, this was

and several of these have been rewarded as so I'll just for instance so um the like the last statement under F that coloro shall maintain dust control activities include sweeping. I think it's completely ridiculous and unreasonable to make us keep records of sweeping and watering activities at the dock. I mean, we're already required to comply with the BMPPS and the code enforcement officer has the authority and jurisdiction to enforce the code and the the city code and our permit. It seems completely I mean it seems unreasonable to add a condition in Paluso that we have to self-report every time we sweep the dot or self-report compliance for the permit. So, so you're not objecting to the best management practices. You're objecting to the additional language that's been proposed that requires an annual report.

That and 4F says to any spill materials onto roadways shall be properly cleaned up. That's the way we had phrased it. This adds any materials spilled or tracked onto roadways. Right? So, some materials spilled on. So there's already best management practices to deal with material that is going to be on trucks where it doesn't get tracked onto we can't be responsible to go around the entire CR district and sweep up tire marks when they could have come from any business down there. I mean the Amtrak station, the CSX road, the entire thing is unpaved. There's many unpainted parking lots down there.

So it's rather we'd rather focus on best management practice that we can control on our site rather than be responsible to clean up. This was intended to be tracking from your truck. But how was it determined that a tire truck mark came from a colony truck? I don't I don't I don't read track as truck mark. The thing I think it means material that material spilled like well spilled like the truck fell over, right? So you I'm just saying you're suggesting another word. We've suggested responses to all of these conditions. Yeah. And I can go through all of those tonight if you want to.

Yeah. It doesn't. But now we're getting back into the they're going back and forth. We should establish the conditions and then let them respond to it. We are. But I think there's a I think we're both misunderstanding this word traffic

is worry that material is spilled onto the road. Right. And a variety of vehicles can track it into a variety of directions. They don't want to be chasing down all of these directions to sweep it up, right? I mean, we're willing to do stuff on our site to our trucks to prevent that from happening. But it's a commercial district. It's a mixeduse dis. There are commercial businesses everywhere that are going to be tracking dust. There's dust issues that have been cited at a number of surrounding businesses. But I was only impressed that that's what that meant just for we think spilled would just be more clear for us. So we know what we have to comply with. So I mean I I defer to the engineer because these these commissions came from

well in consultation. Sure. So how do you suggest that this Well, do we have to designate that it's material spill from his truck or a contractor contract someone doing either someone doing business with them? And I think I I'm in agreement with you on this point that I think of the board go through and then we can propose our conditions in writing then the board can have a decision. These are the ones that we wanted. Here's what Colin Russo is offering as a resolution of this matter and the board can just vote because if [clears throat] we go through line by line we're drafting on the fly and it begins. Okay. So let's yeah that that in other words let's

wait. So, for the record, are you withdrawing the uh the threat to hold us in content if there's no vote tonight? Yeah, there's a st if continue. We have to say we had to have a vote. It said so, but it meant that we can't continue. If the board gives us something to go back with the board is just going to continue to threatened by everybody's threatening us. Yeah. But that doesn't work. That does not move my decision. No, no, I'm just I'm just asking because because you did say it. If the if the board goes through the rest of the conditions and gives us some homework and a fine, we will we can understand. I think that's the public.

Okay. So, he's saying let's go through what we have on paper now. Yeah. Discuss it. Gave it to you and then you will respond and then you know everybody agree with that for the I'm just catching up. That is what Randle said. Okay. Randle said it first. Okay. So, where Brandon? Oh, we're page 14, number six. Okay. So, are we back to page 14?

Page 14, number six. Does anybody on the planning board have anything to uh want to change or add to this? If not, we go to number seven because I have something I want to add here. Number seven as part of six. Wait, this six. This is six. This is number seven part of six. Scroll. Scroll down. No, you're right. Okay.

It's not part of it's following. All right. Right. That's right. Okay. So, um, anybody have anything they want to add or change with numbers, uh, page 14, number six, ABC, B, C or D? If not, we'll go to number seven. I just wanted to add something there. Uh where you know I was down there and I didn't see any. We did go through six. We did. But go ahead. Okay.

Where we are? Yes. I'm I'm hoping I'm catching. We're just going to the next meeting on the 18th. I want to turn this around, have some time to sit, think about it. Right. Don't send it to us on a day of please. That's not fair. I understand, but the resolution was posted Friday. I worked as hard as I could. No, he's not. I hope not. He's just talking. He can talk. All right. Number six. Six is acceptable to everyone. ABC 6 ABC. Okay. Number seven. Okay. Number seven.

Um I was down there. I didn't see any, you know, I was down in the area and what I didn't see and I might have missed it as now I've se I've noticed the gates cuz the trucks are running. So the gates are open at uh route nine and also nine chief I don't see and when you cross the tracks to go and the gates are open to the young dot and there's nobody there's no signs that says p private property do not enter no trans where are they? I didn't see him. I didn't see him.

I I didn't see him. I'm not kidding. That's what I was saying. You saw I saw because I'm like if nobody's there, nobody may have known anything about Kaluso and his doc as of 2021 222, but right now everybody knows about it and you may become a attraction for visitors. Oh, let me go see what they're doing over there. So, you know, it's better to protect the public to make sure the signage is there. Do not enter private property. I'm I'm serious. Nobody, you know, tell me I was I didn't even know you until Yeah, I knew you, but I know. But you are everywhere now.

And people will come and say, "Oh, I want to go over it again." So, make sure those signs are there that that tell people don't come. We were even thinking about a camera, but that's up to you. Just keep Okay, that's seven. Who knows? Everyone's number seven. Everybody's filled with seven. Yes. And they said to I didn't see some.

Okay, number eight. I kind of read these already, but go ahead. Any questions on it? Okay, but we're back up against this number BMP this best management management. I think it's okay to reference the plan. That's why they gave it to us. That's right. And it's enforceable if the approved project. Okay.

And you do kind of make notes of the part of that point you're talking about. Oh, you're saying their best management their management plan they they have provided the best management practices plan as part of the project that was you know viewed and commented on. Okay. So that's that's what this is. Okay.

No comments on

Yeah. When the consultant want to add something on item nine.

I don't know how the applicant can be responsible for the condition of a public street that's maintained by the city. Oh, okay. You one of the things that was the thought process in this was that because the bridge is there, the bridge has been built going to the park, it is suspected that most visitors and residents will take the bridge going to the park and crossing the tracks will probably most likely be by Koso. So, the um what's the road? Doc Street and what front street? What's the name of street? the the the two portions of the city road that you cross to go into your dock. That's what we're talking about. That is that area

by the railroad tracks. By the railroad tracks because we were thinking that now that the bridge is there, access to the water park is going to be where most people are going to pay. I think the question was about the legality of a private applicant maintaining public road. Well, I was trying to identify the public road we were talking about. Just that little section of the public road that they ride on to go just to their dock. And the only people that would probably be going that way would be people that's going out. Is that called Rick's Point? The beat the birds point but but they would be the majority

user of can the city recoup a fee for maintain maybe they don't maintain it. Can the city recoup the reasonable fee for the, you know, the resurfacing of that road, repairing of the pothole, potholes on that road that are generated by the traffic from the applicants. Well, you guys will kind of business impact fee. Yeah. And it's not something that's generally authorized. Well, I would propose that they just maintain it. You do have the gravel. No, they can't. They can't. I think at best they could do is maybe scoop something up they've spilled onto the public.

Yeah, we're talking about wear and tear on that road. Like why should the public pay for the you know for the 274 day trips that happen and wear that road down that is done by the do the same for the truck route that goes through the city. I mean we maintain that and we don't try charge all the different truck drivers. Well, the truck route is is a route that runs, you know, inter county, you know, it's it's a state determined and all of those heavy trucks run on it. Hudson maintains it by our money and not the if it's a state route on the state. Well, it goes through Hudson though. Oh, when it gets to Hudson, the state route, the city. Oh, you know, I know

I always thought that they got money from the state. Well, I never asked, so I guess that's what I get for thinking about it. Oh, but you're saying that the impact fee is is improper in this particular instance. No, it's it is I would say it's we have not made fundings for an impact fee. This is not a new road. This is and it's not used and the whole road was already approved. Now you're looking at dock operations, right? But it's a different road. It's a different road. the ingress and egress. I'm just asking I'm curious about that because you know we are asking the residents to pay for this [clears throat]

a road that's going to be used in this type of volume this type of increasingly heavy volume on the road and as I said he can't even if he wanted to we can't ask him to repair the road because he doesn't legally have the right to do that but that road is going to need significant repair given the weight of the trucks given the size of the aggregate or material that they're going to be carrying that's no different in the last 15 years that Calver has owned the dot. But but now we're here for a permit that we get to talk about these things because of

I I just don't see how you can single them out when you have a truck route with tons of trucks going through it every day and they're wear and tearing and then also now we have to figure out what portion of the potholes are contributed by them. Well, it's not even So, we have no there's just to move past this so we can keep going through, but we don't have the authority to clean or generally sweep city streets, nor can we fix them, nor can we like appoint the DPW to say who's liable for damage to city streets? It's just done by New York laws. So, when are impact fees appropriate if not in a case of Well, they're not appropriate for this application. So, I take that.

I can't answer that. I can't answer that off the top. It's not appropriate for here. That's the answer about impact fees, but they're generally not allowed in New York law. There's been a few cases where likeuation fee has been statutoily authorized. How about this for this for number nine? Is it is it authorized or it's not? Okay. So, let's Well, we are keep it on number nine. Okay. But we are including we are saying that it is included in the root that we gave them. You're saying the whole route includes the [clears throat] whole road as was previously approved went to basically the fence of the right which includes these roads which are public roads. Correct. Mhm.

But now we're saying but there's no but but now he's saying there's there's no uh responsibility like if the pothole becomes right on the on the city street they can't fix it. I didn't ask them to. That's why I'm saying the impact fee but the city will be able to fix it just based on that. But you if if it's illegal, I can I can give you some information. No, I sent you stuff on this, you know, listen if it's inappropriate for this. Well, Randall and I are both curious. So, we just at another time. Why don't we vote on that? That's exactly what I was moving to. Okay. The impact fees, but you're voting on whether you want me to research impact fees.

No. No. Okay. No. So take it out. Sounds like Okay. So nine and 10. What are we doing? Yeah. So are we taking out nine instead of 10 says same thing some? Okay. Should remove the 9 or 10. Let me go back. We're going to remove it. I mean do we agree? Let me look at it. Okay. Come on. I don't I think this is a question that should be 10. That's one. too. I'm fine with taking it out. Okay, YouTube. I'm not say take it out. Listen, I'm doing this and that. You need time to look at the issues as well.

The majority. Okay. So, I Well, I get a vote, too. So, let me just look at it. I have a moment to look at it. Sorry about it. Don't get mad. Don't get mad because you're doing a free work. [laughter] Victoria, can you tell me the password for getting you online? I just got kicked offline with the one I was using. Um, I don't know. So, I am on Wait, I think I'm You're not I'm not So, I'm on city meetings. I don't even want

I don't even I can't say it aloud. I can but I can't get or maybe pass a piece of paper or somebody. Hold on. Let me So So that's all right. 910. Okay. So 9 and 10 is being removed. I have a thing.

You go to the bathroom. Okay. Let's take five minutes. Go to the bathroom. break. I got you. Okay. Do you want to If you just

Go another two hours now.

Does anybody want something? No, I have another song. There really does. Okay, we're back on. Yes. The microphone has nothing on it, Randall. Is it supposed to have green now? One, two. Yeah. And this You can't see my thing. Sorry. Okay.

Okay. We resumed the meeting at 8:41 p.m. Planning meeting for November the 12th, 205. We are now on page 15, number 11. So this said the applicant shall maintain all storm water management facilities drainage structured and centuring the dust all in good working condition. U based on the discussion we just had, you may want to say um you know located shall maintain all or applicant own. Yeah. Well, they're not going to maintain city, right? [clears throat and cough]

Yeah. And then in the next sentence where it says sediment debris and oil dis residuals which shall be removed as necessary to ensure proper drainage we just say and prevent elicit discharge. Why are you going to say just to the river is if it goes somewhere other than the river you just don't want elicit discharges. So um read it we're preventing all elicit discharges not just ones to the Hudson River in case they go a different direction. Right. Are we all in agreement with number 11? Absolutely. Do do you currently have a warm water pollution prevention plan?

Sorry. Does Russo currently have a storm water pollution prevention plan?

No. Had we discharged into the Hudson? Well, when the previous own discharge and um no swifts don't get they get cancelled. Oh, that was the swift for the hall. No, it was fuller than that. It was a discharge. I could really Yeah. In our response would been any just that Congress would apply all local state regulations to service just as because that would cover this term and if it permit changes it would just cover all

but you don't currently have an PPP or an SPDES permit. We do not have a speed uh SPE permit. We do not have a speedy bird. We don't have any point source discharges from the property on this slip. I would have to get back to that. Okay. So, we're good with we want to move on to I thought any industrial activities were you don't need a speedies for industrial activities at the not not all. It's ones that are listed or applicable. Yeah. by by code.

Yeah. And that's why it would be covered by that's why we suggested any state well a plentiful state law that covers storm water.

And you don't have any runoff when you when you wet down the piles. But that came from Christian. Okay. So that's so it all goes to the retention bas. Oh, you have a property flows to the retention bas. And then where does that go? Into the into the graph. Okay, it's not okay. [snorts] We're good. Uh, what are we on? Number 12, right? So, I'm highlighting that just so we can confirm because um again some of this language came from Chris from Chris. So, so when he gets back, we're verified because I don't know. Yeah. And it might it might be that it's now expired after all this time. It's the explanation of the need.

I think we get that language to work. I mean, it's not our language to work. I don't think that's part 12. Applicant shall maintain an up-to-date emergency response and contact plan needs to be on file with the city. Um, it shall be reviewed annually, although it doesn't say by whom and updated as necessary. Could be say it should be reviewed by the should be submitted. reviewed, updated, and submitted annually. Yeah, I don't think that's

updated. Submitted annually by the applicant.

Submitted where? Annually by it says submit fire department, police department, and code enforcement officer. that we're and will these um reports be made public? Everything is subject to foil. Okay. Should we ask a copy that also go to county council? And I mean you can I don't know whe the council wouldn't have to for it to get it from the code of enforcement. they can get it, but I mean the common council generally doesn't have enforcement authority, but if they wanted to get it to review, they would Yeah, it wouldn't be bad for the city government to to know and have it

without going through the clerk's office or the file clerk's office. Yeah. The clerk is the if we keep our records for the county. Yeah. Yeah. And that's that's what I've said. Okay. Say city clerk and a few city clerk's office. This way the spoilers will come to the clerk's office. Okay. Number 12. Number Dr. Young is going to read. So it says all materials. [snorts] All material stockpile shall be contained and maintained in a manner that prevents offsite mitigation of dust or Huh. Migration.

Oh, migration, I'm sorry. Of dust and material into storm drains or the Hudson River. Questions, changes. So, we we're having a we have a suggestion here just to put a period after material so that we don't want any migration, not not just storm drain offsite migration. Yeah. Is it? Okay. So, we read it. says, "All material stockpile shall be contained and maintained in a manner that prevents offsite immigration of dust or material." So to get rid of them in the star, correct?

Okay. 14. All exterior lighting shall be extinguished within 1 hour after the sa c sessation of active dock operations except for security lighting necessary for safety and surveillance. Security lighting shall be the minimum illumination required and directed downward to avoid glare onto adjacent properties or the Hudson River, which is what they've already agreed to.

Yeah, the site plan has all the proposed lighting and submitted a phototric uh survey that was approved that shows that there's no offsite impacts. So, it's a full site point. Yep. So 15 14. No. So this one updated to include the discussion about events in advance.

Um it's it's not ideal from an enforcement perspective because it could be hard. Um I mean what is an event? How large does an event have to be in order to be uh subject to this? So it it's there for discussion. I thought they to

So one thing I did do though, I went back and looked at the narrative that was submitted to the county planning board as part of the application. And in that narrative, um they said that the operations would be limited on Saturday and Sunday from Saturday to noon. That's they were talking about the unloading and I I went back and looked at the narrative. So the operation said 7 to the dock. Yeah. Not the not about the loading and the unloading of the

the county did conflate the all road application with the dock operation at some points in that letter. But the narrative that was submitted to the county did say 7 to 12. Oh, that's the that's what we submitted to the No, the narrative. We wrote a nar just to

Oh, be quick. We wrote a narrative and at that time we had suggested we could the question was could we would reasonably reduce our hours. So, we went back and we wrote in the narrative. We crunched the numbers and to remove weekend operations which is impacted gives us too much. So, we offered to increase the hours during the week by 1 hour. So it says 7 to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and reduce till noon on Saturday and Sunday. After further discussion with the playboard attorney, I think it became clear pretty fast that the code limited 77 wouldn't be able to extend hours during the week. So at that point, if you look at the hours that were in front of the county, they said a reduction to 84 hours, which is pretty much if you look at what we're offering now, consistent with that. Um,

well, so it says it says on page two, uh, Monday through Thursday 7 to 6, Friday 7 to 5. That's for trucking. And then unloading would be Yeah. 7 to 8:00 p.m. and then 7 to noon on Saturday and Sunday. Correct. And so when then we at the following meeting with the meeting minutes, it was determined pretty quickly. Well, it's the code that sets the max of 7 to seven. and the planning board wouldn't have authority to even give us the extra hour during the day. So that's why we're saying now we'd be amendable to 7 to 5 on Saturday, 7 to noon on Sunday. And this is what you submitted to the county, the Columbia County. Yeah.

Right. So not the city of Hudson planning. No, it was submitted to the city of Hudson planning board. But this is what was referred to the county planning board by the city of Hudson. Okay. But in the county's approval letter, they have very different hours. Yeah, I think if you read it though, it seems to me the county was including the hauling the truck operations because in a few places they say no trucking during the hours. When I read it, I saw it as being um they were talking about the operation of the dock in regards to the loading and unloading of the trucks. They talk nothing about the other operations that take place on the dock after they are moved and

they do in the approval letter. I have it right here. I mean, they they definitely do. It says that the dock will not be operating on the weekends. So, once again, the county, you know, I haven't seen everything that was submitted to the county, but somehow they walked away with information that the op the dock would not be operating on the weekends. That's why I pulled the narrative that was submitted. And so I can see why it's confusing because it does say there would be no trucking and dock operations during but then it says dock operations. It would eliminate trucking on the weekends and then it talks about loading and unloading hours separately.

And when I read it I took it as being directly re related to the oper the loading and the unloading of the trucks even though it stated that when I read it that's what I understood. So when you read it, you understood something else, but I read it to understand it only was in relationship to what you're doing loading over your trucks, not the barges and the other stuff that you need. So

well, when it says the applicant has proposed to modify hours of operation at the dock, limiting them to weekdays between the hours of 7 to 6, Monday through Thursday, and 7 to 5 on Friday. I understand what it says because that's what it says plainly. in the approval letter thereby reducing loading and unloading from 84 to 75 hours and if you do the math what you just read that's like 50 hours. So they conflated the time. They didn't write that we would still offer to operate on the weekend. And it's the hours that they found the reduction in that they based their findings on. And this board has already voted to say that this wasn't an issue and that we were moving past it.

And another thing you have to say, wait a minute, this is a recommendation from the county. It is not binding. It doesn't tell us who to do. It recommends. So we have to also take that into consideration, too. Sure. based on what information were. But what didn't you just so the the hours the week were the weekend hours that you just mentioned a minute ago? 7:05 and 7 to 12 and 7.

Yeah. And we had taken a look at the resolution that was prepared post on Friday. We took a look at the resolution and we came up and the conditions and came up with a list of conditions that we circulated to the board. Albe it was today. I didn't expect everybody to be able to take a look at it, but we were scheduled for the 18th. So, there we reduction in hours of operation at the dock to 7 to 5 on Saturdays and 7 to noon on Sundays. From what I can remember, I remember it was going to be seven days a week. There was some gesture to the hours on Saturday and Sunday. Yeah. And that they would

yield to um any events that was happening. And I remember that being told out of detail 7 to 12 on Saturday. If there's no event and then you work to 5, but they would have to check with the event coordinator for the city a month in advance. Sunday there was a discussion and I think we said no work on Sunday. Is that right? We we didn't come to any decision. No, we did come to go back to it.

Okay. So, let's discuss it now. The proposal is by the applicant. Uh but but just for clarity, are you still so you're still willing to accommodate events? Is it the position of client to still account positions on Sabbath? So to operate the business, we can't operate the business based on the social calendar of the city of Hudson. Like we can't check it. We have no idea what procedure it is and somebody could just book the calendar out for the whole year and then a business shuts down. I'm I'm just asking.

So no, it's not a part of it. We ran out of set hours like every other business in New York State. And what we offered was a significant reduction. We've already reduced hauling which was the big impact that everybody was worried about. So now we said 7 to 5 on Saturdays and 7 to noon on Sundays. And that's integral because if we cannot finish the voting on Saturday, we needed at least the morning on Sunday to finish that before Monday comes. Why can't you finish it on Monday? Because we have more boats coming in because most boats leave on Sunday. Okay. So, uh, I mean, I'm just saying that's what our offer was as a reasonable resolution. Okay. Can you repeat what your offer was? 7 to 5 on Saturday is 7 to

No. Uh, Monday to Friday. Monday to Thursday. 7 to 7. 11 to 7. Monday to Thursday. 75. Monday to Thursday. Friday. Friday. 7 to 7. That is the Okay. 7 to 7. Okay. Let me say 7 to 7. Monday to Friday. Correct. I would like to say something. Wait, let me finish. And then the weekends 7 to 5 on Saturday. 7 to 5 Saturdays. Right. That's what I'm writing down. And 7 to what? On Sundays? 7 to noon on Sundays. Holidays and and no holidays. The same holidays as defined.

Okay. And closed on on major holidays. And would you still uh we did say something about if there's an event that you I mean the city can always reach out and they'll do what they can to accommodate but we can't have it in the permit that we're going to operate around the city. Okay. That was closed on holiday. So everybody understand what the applicant has said and that's also included in writing in what we need to look back at it. And we have something from one of the board members which is Gabby has suggested uh we limit the operation from 7 a.m. to 7 to 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday

and prohibited on all weekends and holidays stay better. Can we back up just for a second because originally when I was writing down some things I thought I heard be hearing wrong. I thought you said 7 to 6 Monday um through Friday, Saturday 7 to 5 and then Sunday 7 to noon and I thought prior to that you had said there was a discussion of wanting to maybe but you found out we can't do that increase those hours or asked the board to increase your hours through the weekday. So I didn't hear that you were proposing 7 to 7 to 7 Monday through Friday. Well, that's what they are now.

Yeah. Is that right? So now I'm getting confused. All right. I'll do that. I'll be very quick. Yeah. They were 7 to 7 days a week for hauling and loading and unloading in CO. Okay. Then in the hall road permit, we agreed because the whole road traffic is a big impact the board was concerned about. We agreed to limit the hours to 7 to 7 to 6 Monday through Thursday. Okay. 7 to 5 on Friday and no hauling on Saturday or Sunday. Okay. Okay. So now for the dock, we can load and unload per the city code 7 to 7 7 days a week. 7 to 7. Now that's what we can do now.

Yeah, that's what in other words they you're confused now. Right now the city program commits to load and unload 7 to 7 days a week on the dock. Let's be clear. Loading and unloading is barges. load and unload RJ operation work the whole road only you only go to six Monday through Thursday on Friday and no on weekends and no on on the holidays that are permanent deliveries to do right

yeah so now they're proposing 7 to 7 Monday through Friday 7 to 5 on Saturday 7 to 12 on noon on I mean on Sunday and closed on uh all holidays uh same holidays as trucks. Okay. And um I just stated with Gabby, but Gabby, you want to talk about that?

Yeah, I want to say something. Um over the last few meetings, some different things have been said about me by different members. Jean, you suggested I was trying to prolong the process or something like that. Just no. I know. But can you talk about that? Yeah, I'm getting there. You can time me with the three minutes or whatever you want, but I think I have a right to speak.

Um, Veronica, the last time you said I was trying to take something away from Russo, you said I shouldn't be doing my own research and, you know, trying to learn more and understand this project on the internet. Maybe micro peach next time. I I feel like being clear about what my intention is here might just be useful for this discussion about ours because there is a vision for the future of the city of Hudson. It has been in the works for decades starting with the vision plan, the comprehensive plan, the reasoning in 2011, the LWRP. Most recently, Wendy, I can't remember her last name, was in front of this board proposing the climate adaptive design for the park that is abuts the dock operations and would be greatly impacted by these hours of operation. I'm here to protect this vision, to protect the future of the city of Hudson, Hudson present, its economic viability, and that is all to say, its residents. If we give Coloradoo everything they say they need, like you need to work on Saturdays, we're taking away from the city of Hudson. We are taking away from the future of the city of Hudson, and we're taking away from from its residents. We are here to protect Hudson, its future, and its residents. We are not here to worry about how you make back the money that you have invested. That's your problem. We are allowed to impose conditions, including ours, that could be as limiting as Monday through Friday, if we so choose. And I think we need to be empowered to do that. You're annoyed that this has taken so long and you want to hold us in contempt of court if we don't vote on your timeline. You've taken us, you've taken us to court twice. This has been slowed down because of lawsuits that you brought. Let her talk, please. She's got a couple more minutes. Finish.

I do have a couple more minutes. Yeah. Oh, this riverfront, the core riverfront is the only area, Veronica. I don't want to take something away from them for a hip coffee shop. This is the only area left in this city for any real economic development at this scale. And this city needs that. We clearly have financial problems. They're going to be raising they're going to be raising our taxes again soon. It is the only area of the city that we have a chance for real economic development so that this city can survive. Okay. And there are between done warehouse and path I've been interrupted a few times. So if you're really going to

one more minute,

there are tens and tens probably hundreds of millions of dollars of development that are at stake here in addition to the businesses that are already down there like the Antiques Warehouse Kitties and Basilica that probably are bringing in our half a million to a million dollars in tax revenue now and employing dozens and dozens and dozens of residents of Hudson. Um they I think pay $50,000 a year in taxes and don't employ any residents of the city. Is that right? I'm not sure what they're offering the future of Hudson, but we're here to protect that future and the future economic development plans that are that are going to be essential for this city to survive. So, I think we need development, we need tax revenue, we need employment opportunities. And I don't see where else that's going to happen except for down there. And if Saturdays and Sundays that operation is going unfettered, that's going to be an issue.

Okay. And I 10 seconds. Okay. I'll take another three minutes. Another Okay, that's it. I want to address you, Gabby. Gabby, this is how you feel. I know I'm only representing myself. There's seven members on this board. Seven. And we all have our individual folks. So, because it annoys you does not mean it annoys the rest of us. Please. I'm only speaking for myself.

No, you you you're speaking when you say we. You're speaking for you. Everybody understands that. So please, you came on the board. He was the last one over. You haven't caught up yet. A lot of time has been spent answering your questions, trying to keep you up to date. But it just doesn't matter what he said. So all I'm saying to you, this is you. We've got seven members and the majority of this board will the majority vote will be the deciding vote. So understand that. Don't attack us [snorts]

because we don't agree with you. If if if one of us don't agree with you, just because you want it don't mean we want it. If we don't agree, [clears throat] accept that, please. Okay. You wrote something saying you don't understand how we understand everything because you don't understand it. Excuse me. You wrote a um an email saying it was hard to get the records and you can't believe that everybody on this board is up to date because of the difficulties you're having getting the information you need. Extremely difficult to find records on.

I and I thought that was the meaning to say that because I don't have a problem with it. I don't know if anybody else does, but to say something like that. So please keep it to your understanding or misunderstanding or lack of understanding. Okay. I had my three meetings. Now, do you have anything else you want to say about the dock operations? Cuz that's what we are and that's where we are. Yes. I'm defending my position that they should not. You just asked me if I have anything more to say. Can you let me finish my sentence? I am defending my stance that it should not the dock operations should not operate on the weekends. Okay. And we do we agree with that

because the future of the city depends on protecting our waterfront. So okay so let's just talk about hours of operational impact. So the board has the rights and the obligation to set hours of operation for the business to the extent it's needed to mitigate impacts right because it's a business and businesses we generally don't regulate hours of operation of a business. So in order to regulate the doc operation you have to be able to enumerate what the harm is of for instance if you're eliminating on the weekend. I totally understand that. So, you know, I totally understand that. It's been said to us a hundred many of times.

You're right. I get that. But I just want to be clear. The harm isn't necessarily future vision. It has to be a harm stemming from the operation itself. You've said that to us. I understand it. You're saying it again. Is there anyone else on this? We have to make sure that we're looking at the present situation. Of course. So that's not

we had we had talked we had talked about this extend about operations. One suggestion is 7 a.m. to uh 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and no weekends or holidays. Okay. the applicant is and I mean we had talked about we had talked about allowing it to be 7 to 7 and then the weekends I don't know I think Sunday we were talking about none whatsoever doing nothing on a Sunday

when I when I was talking the last meeting I was talking Saturday 7 to 12 [clears throat] without an event 7 to 5 and none on Sunday it was discussed but there's no um you know vote on that. Yeah. So what what do you want to propose? Am I going to propose? Yeah. 7 to 7 to 7. 7 on Saturday. No from Monday to Friday. I think that's fine. Keep it as it is. 7 to 7 Monday to Friday. Monday to Friday 7 to 7. Okay. Saturday 7 to 12. If there's no event, they got a problem with that. Okay.

Um and on Sunday, well, how do you define an event? The city has a coordinator. Event coordinator that they they applied for a permit to have an event at the waterfront park that gives you the date, the time, how many people are going to be there. I'm having a birthday party for my daughter there on Saturday. Is that a permit? Did you get a permit? Well, we asking a question. The public event we just said if you got a permit. It's a per people have to go upstairs get a permit to have things in that park. Did you go upstairs to get a permit? Okay. But

I'm I'm Let me just I'm I'm trying to make a point that the public park is not an event space. It's a park that people use at will. They bring their kids down to play ball. They take their dogs on a walk in the morning. In fact, when there's an event there, you notice the dog operations less because there's music and there's a lot of people. It's at 8 o'clock in the morning when you're walking your dog and you want to meditate over the beautiful mountains and the the the operations are happening then that it's most annoying. So, I I I find it aggravating that we talk about it like it's an event space. It's a public park. It's meant to be quiet and peaceful and accessible and protected for all residents all of the time. Okay, Gabby, you gave your submission. Let's finish.

You're saying wait a minute. You said 7 to 7 Monday through Friday, Saturday 7 to 12. 7 to 5 unless there's an event going on. Okay. 7 to 5 by the city. And I think the permit process 50 people more. Okay. Okay. And then Sunday, no. No Sunday. No holiday. No holidays. Okay. Anybody else have a proposal for the human? Right. So we have three proposals. We have proposal from do this. I I would be okay with seven to wouldn't say seven. No what day? On Saturday

7 to 5 unless there but I I think the the event 7 to 12. Yeah. I think the permit I think there's a point to be made to say that um trying to link that to the I would just make that the hard and fast 72. Yeah. But then but then I do then Sunday maybe because I think that from what I can see most of the major bigoted or Saturdays I would give more time on Sunday and then and then usually like to three I would go to whatever seven to three

just for just for the record at the last meeting multiple I mean I completely agree with the planning board attorney it has to be tied to an impact and it's not just an arbitrary decision of what should they get because it's a compromise in what project opponents think that they should be completely be gone. So you have to it's on the burdens on the planning boards to find and tie that to an impact. And at the last meeting, several members of the board said that they were either on the dock itself while we were operating or at Rick's point and said they could not tell we were operating. And we also have the BMPs and we have the noise study. and we're offering, not being required yet, offering to put in a million dollars worth of improvements to this property to make sure that the silence you hear now is even deafened even further. So, that's why we feel that 7 to noon um or 7:00 to 5 on Saturday and 7 to noon on Sunday is reasonable and anything less is just going to harm the business but not provide any benefit to the residents. I mean it has to be necessary to protect the recreated park.

We we understand that and I think a lot of us were thinking of uh the the the attitude whatever. There are some people that want to look at tugboats and No, you're right about that. They don't have You're right about that. They they are out there. I've had people tell me that they like to feed the birds and look at what you're doing.

Okay. weird train, but I've had to keep say that. Okay. So, um I now I I can't go my memory, but I think we just we talked about the allowing it and then you when it's an event, do you work with the work with you? It was suggested and we responded in writing. Um we can't operate the business based on an event calendar. We have to have a set time. Yeah,

I appreciate the idea. I get what we're trying to do, but it's something that it's it causes us an issue two years down the road when someone blocks out the entire events calendar or it, you know, we have to assume that they're all going to be taken. Well, I'm going ask a question. Anybody feel that the operations that are doing this going to impact the safety or the public as Well, I think the operating impact public safety while they're residents or while they're recreating their operation to do that on the weekends, Monday, Friday. And uh does anybody feel that there's no trucks limit?

We looked at the calendar. We saw approximately 20 events from June to September for 2025 and they all happened with us operating and there's not been a complaint. Yeah, I I I agree with that. to I mean does do anybody here feel that their operations during the time the doc operation during these times would have an impact advers the public while they're

well I well I I think the adverse impact was that you'd have more barges necessarily queuing up to be loaded during the summer during and that then could maybe add an impediment to recreation But if you have two or if you limit the hours on the weekends, the barges are still going to arrive. So they're going to build up if they're not loaded and moved out. They're still going to be there because they don't they come to the doctor somewhat. So question about one more quick question. We're not going to move the bars. We're going to stay with we're going to finish. Yeah. But if you wanted to look in those days,

does that make a huge material difference? Just I'm just curious. like a seven to five and a seven like how I said it but if we flip the days does that make I'm just curious yeah just curious Saturday's going to be one of them that if you don't finish your Saturday you're try to finish yeah it'll be a problem because of the the offer is 7 to 5 Saturday 7 to noon on Sunday just warm up as a about what they're offering.

No, I understand question. Do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do we feel that their operation whether 7 to 7 days a week will impact the public in a negative way because if we don't what do we have available the office they don't agree well I think it's a yes and no I think it's here. I mean, say something discussion is out. I I think I think it's Yeah, I think it's to what degree is it going to impact the public? Obviously,

what what degree do you think they're impact the public? It's your opportunity to tell them. I want to know. All right. They've been in operation forever, however long you've been at. The park has been open. Events have been going on down there. I've been down there. Different events. I used to run the events years ago when I was in the mayor's office. And was the park there? Yeah, there was that was just a little thing. Well, anyway, no, I don't see I don't see I don't see an impact on on this or the or the park, right? Everything goes on.

Members have said it, couple different said it. um operations going on. You don't even know they're going on. But are you taking into effect the in the accelerated impact of this? This will mean more than ever before. Well, we have no conditions now and then we're going to have conditions. So, it's actually going to be better with the conditional use permit. That's what it's all about. We have 7 to 7 days a week right now for 15 years. And we have no none of these million dollars worth of conditions or that we have offered on the table. No screening. Well, I mean there's some but you in theory you haven't scaled up to what you're asking for either at that except for twice.

No, but is in this permit is less than what we're doing now. That's there's no scale up like we're operating right now with no conditional use permit. I get that you're saying the volume of your operation would in in in the maximum volume or truck loads would be scaled up more than what you're doing now for the most it doesn't change the operation which is operating within the code whether you load one barge or four barges ramp up we're not waiting for a conditional use permit to ramp up when the condition use permit gets issued it hinders our ability because the code provides us with broader ability ability to operate. So the conditions are going to mitigate and limit the [clears throat]

it's a total cap. No, I'm just saying you're making it seem like once we get the permit, then there's going to be a launch of business. And that's what we've been saying this entire time. That's not the case. We have no condition use permit. We're just operating 7 to 7 days a week. And only till 2024 do we have a limit on trucks. Before that, it was like every other business. We can have 300 trucks a day. We don't know. So now we're putting the dishes that they only could do a certain amount. So what was the impact you thought that uh lightning? Yeah. Well, the same as you have dust, you have pollution, you have you know all all the things that we have. That's all that's all being handled by them.

Gabby from loading and unloading this. Yeah. Yeah. Gabby,

I mean, I have all the same thoughts I've had. The loading and unloading of multiple barges during the weekends creates Yeah. dust and air pollution and noise pollution. I do have a question about barges since Randall brought them up because I do think that multiple barges on a Saturday or Sunday when people are going out canoeing and kaying would be an issue. And I came across in the 2020 I think it was project narrative something that surprised me that said um under operations that aggregate and/or asphalt millings are delivered to the site by trucks where it is stockpiled awaiting a barge. A large barge 3,300 tons can be loaded in a day. um when a large order is received and needed to be filled quickly up to two barges 3,300 ton each are filled in a day. So are you saying in the project narrative from 2020 that you only fill up to two barges? They they put five what was it 5,000 tons a day?

Yeah. I mean we put a bar holds 8,000 tons. We've explained that it was the old This is right. This is in other words, it stated that they can bring up on a day there 142 trucks. Yeah. Correct. Brings a total of 500,000. Was it 500,000 or 5,000? 500,000. 500,000. 5,000 5,000 tons. Yeah. And a barge the largest barge can hold 8,000 tons, right? Okay. But you do have smaller barges. Yes. So the maximum tonnage they could bring one day is 5,000 and they're

unlimited trucks, right? So I think that was before all of this came about. Yeah, we just submitted that maybe in the last month or so of explaining that. But that's all based on these I mean go back please try to deal with what we have now not go back to what do you mean go back to 2020 something you just read something from this the same because that's the application that we're dealing with. This is this is what they said. This was the original application. Oh. So he said the same thing 5,000 tons of different on

15.

Yeah. Okay. So um you know do you feel that do you think that do you the operations as it is the applicant has requested do you do you think it has any impact what we thought of the question is does the loading and unloading of barges during weekend hours when there is no trucking result in an impact that needs to be mitigated through a reduction in hours of operation. Yeah.

Okay. Um, Dr. Young, I'm sure it might have some impact, but like you've talked about a little bit maybe, but uh think it's that significant. I mean because we all because they've been you know in operations what Monday through through Saturday already seven days a week and I mean I tried to go down on the weekend too but few times and you saw nothing right

nothing I didn't I didn't pick up a large amount of noise you know I did a few times you know, just a bar, you know, a barge in a tugboat, you know, a few times go past on a Saturday or Sunday, but that was pretty much it. I mean, but I'm needed to hear I've been there for for years. So, I have no issue with it.

N and I personally have been down there for many events. Um, and I've never heard anyone say, "Boy, this event would be great if Russos wasn't there." I've never heard that. Um, I've lived there my entire life. I've been to Flag Day. I've been to uh community events there in the evening, during the day. Um, I've hear people complain about bars playing music too loud.

Um, I've heard complaints about trucks uh on the truck route. Um, I've heard people complain about the city of Hudson. I've not heard people complain specifically about Karusas when they're out of the park. So, I feel it it it um if the impact is there, it's not substantial enough for people to complain. Um they're also offering to do as many things, it seems as possible, to mitigate the noises or deaths um that could arise from the operations. So, I say no. And I say no, too. I mean I kind of go all over. Okay.

I mean since 2020 and since they I became chair and this came application not and I've had people say to me that they feed the birds. They go in the morning they feed the birds and they enjoy what they see. That's and that was unusual. You know, honestly, I get I hear more noise from the train station and all the cars that are coming by really fast. My block

and I do hear the noise. I'm not sure where it comes from, the brewery or somewhere. Well, all we saying there that the language everyone putting is the mitigated the mitigated or this their suggested thing of reducing their taking five hours off of their um Sunday off their schedule on Sunday. So, did you offer that? So, seven offer. Okay. Yeah. So, are we in agreement with that? So I hope so. So then 15 then the change. I mean obviously the holidays are going to be there.

Uh we're not going to formally include the festivals but we will include the the amended Sunday hours and the major holidays still remain New Year's, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor, Thanksgiving is the trucks. One note on that before I put it. I did put it in the market. One of the findings said all to like Paul on major holidays and says including but not limited to it should just it was defined as those holidays. So not issue in the future.

No no we were okay with the exact same language as the hall road for the holidays. All right. So um you want to read it? Okay. The doc operation shall be limited to Monday to Friday 7 to 7, Saturday 7 to 5, Sunday 7 to noon, and closed on all major holidays as I just just add that just because doc operations seems a little vague. The code focuses on loading and unloading. That's what we were suggesting. So we have to say unloading and unloading

operations. Uh operations we have to say the barges. you know, just if we have to go down to to do maintenance on a on a a loader or go down and pick something up or, you know, we just didn't want it to be construed as nobody can be on the site. I mean, there are things that happen around the site that are, I mean, clearly have no impact uh offsite as so loading and unloading would include the trucks and the barges, not the trucks. No, just the trucks are already gone. Trucks are not. Oh, so that's just on the weekends, but Monday to Friday is loading. Well, we're leaving Monday to Friday. You say Monday to Friday. So, just say loading and unloading operations at the dock. Oh, might you still be moving materials around?

Are you still requesting that? Loading unloading on any transportation. Okay. And everything is put there already out of Friday, right? On your site to be loaded on the barge

because there's no Okay. Look, are we also So, we're also talking about the Monday through Friday operations because we were focused on the weekend before, but if we're talking about Monday through Friday, I have a question because there's obviously massive impact Monday through Friday with truck traffic. And all this time we've been talking about this 284 number as if it's the number. But I was so confused by the Columbia County Planning Board's approval saying that you we're going to take 14 to 16,000 trucks off of city streets with the Hall Road. I wondered how they came up with that number, 16,000 trucks a year because it's so different than what we're talking about here with 284 max a day. And so I went back to files that were very difficult to find on the planning board portal even though they're relevant to this review and I found that actually the number 284 is not the only number talked about at all. In fact, it was only twice that that maximum was hit. And the real number is 24 or 48 average a day which would change dramatically the impact that operations would be having on the public Monday through Friday. So, I just want to point out that the Greenport seeker review and everything that's come before and after that have completely different numbers than what we what I've been led to believe everything was based on. And those numbers are 24 loads a day, 48 round trips.

This is from Kraton Manning study 2016. crate manic multiple crate manning studies in 2016 and the 2020. So the impact obviously is huge with truck traffic on broad and front streets for the current situation and for the future of Hudson which we are here to talk about and that is based on this number that everybody here has just accepted that you guys can do 284 a day but actually Greenport didn't make their decision based on that number and nor did the Colombia County Planning Board and in your own proposals and in your own words, you say over and over again that it's a different number and that you're not going to increase truck going. So, I have a real problem accepting that we are going to just let the trucks run rampant on the streets and have a huge impact on the city based on this kind of inaccurate or misleading information.

Okay. So, Gabby, what do you see as a reasonable amount? No, no, we don't. Go back to talking about talking about hours of operation. Listen, this was said when she said and we, you know, we kind of planning a degree and voted to strike the reference that because we have a hall road permit binding on this. Yeah, we I think everybody understand but the whole road permit talks about daily averages of 48 and twice in a year 284. That's very different. Only person that understand this is one member of your seven member. And how about like hundreds of public comments?

I'm not the only person who feels this way. Gabby, please call yourself. Are we now on number where are we now? Number 16. So, I've sent an email to the planning board about this. I'm following up with an attachment later. I thought I had another week before we were having this meeting um which was pulled up a week early which I think is slightly disrespectful to the members and to the public but I do intend for it to be shared with the members of the board because I believe that we've been misled with this 284 number and built an entire permit around a number that nobody else used to make a determination.

It's again what you feel only speaking for myself. Let me say that one more time. I'm 16 now. Thank you. Uh 16 requires 16 16 requires the applicant to maintain the bulkhead and tabbacks in accordance with its permit. It also requires an inspection every two years by engineer and that they repair it. And so you will recall that this is what triggered the permit in the first place is

right and we're generally okay. We have language that we'll propose in writing that we're okay with and it's generally inspecting the bulkhead and the tiebacks but it's just nuance because the tiebacks are actually underneath the pavement. So it's you're really looking at the bulkhead and if the bulkhead's not a good repair then you would address it accordingly. But the no objection for us on we've suggested some it feels worry to but yes we You're comp you're complying with the purpose. Yeah. And you can take a look what we're offering if we think it's the exact same effect, but it's just

now these inspections are they uh the final uh report is that submitted to this code enforcement officer inspections that are going to this we're not asking here that we propose to keep the bulkhead in good working condition which is a general terminology they use in a permit. So it would be on us. So if the code enforcement officer came and said this is not good working condition, he could say listen this is going to be a violation and we would do something about it. So what we had suggested was keep the bulkhead of the tiebacks in good working condition and that we be authorized to make any necessary repairs with appropriate permits.

But are you required now to do these inspections or is this something new from us? It's what we do on a regular basis ourselves for you do your own. Yeah.

Okay. But we are requiring it here. So any condition if adopted would require it on a schedule but they do it. But I just want to add that the uh the report be sent to the uh code enforcement officer and maybe a copy to the clerks so it can be accessible by the public village board. Okay. I mean you know uh we welcome you. You've been you know you're part of the community but you just can't be invisible over there anymore. You've been invisible, but you're not now. So, every business over there, if any thing happens, their reports,

I think the code enforcers gets involved. So, we just want you to submit just submit it to the copy to the code enforcer and copy to the city clerk. This way if it's it could be you know it could be accessed by this access to the army floor of engineers and no all you have to do is go online and there it is. No and the CEO if he gets a copy of it it's there. You'll have to involve the city clerk. No, because when when the public goes to look for something, they usually put the request into the inputs and they will tell them where to go to the CEO.

Sure. And that's and that's why the leg said was just we keep it in good repair. Anyway, we need to repair something, we'll do so, but having the repair documentation like what's the public going to do it? It's our doc. I mean, if I understand that, but I understood Teresa was asking for a copy of the inspection report. Right. That's what I'm saying. Fine. annual injection report is send it you know add the CEO in the city folks thank you respond CEO about the court doesn't need it

well they're official record files most people go to them get records and then if they have it they don't have to tell somebody to go someplace else and get it makes it easier the [clears throat] Yeah, I understand. All right. Number 17.

Okay. without use for the transport of hazardous and for toxic materials as defined in article 27 of New York State Environmental Conservation Law or for the shipment of natural gas, natural gas liquids, liqufied natural gas, synthetic gas, unusable or for fuel or mixture of natural gas and such synthetic gas. Um, incinerated ash and solid waste. That's a lot. What is incinerated ash? That's like a lot.

Well, um, you know, there was no for sewer district. That's two incinerators. So, you know, material is put in there. It's incinerated and I can easily adjust. So, we're not permitted already under the code. They're only permitted to do goods and raw material. I don't know if it's so in other words, we're saying here that they can't do it even if somebody brings it here to be we could do it any permanent or not. Is all of this defined in article 27? I didn't know that. I don't know.

Yeah. So our comment in response to that was we've already proposed the board that you know the code says goods and raw materials we would be amendable to a condition said goods and raw materials shall not include I mean art 77 is hazardous waste that's the only term that that's defined in here in there so we would I mean we'd be of course okay to say no hazardous waste we wouldn't be able to do it anywhere but these other materials I'm not sure what what they're tied to what impact conditions received from the board members. Okay. Was that you? Yeah. Well, solid you were obviously doing solid waste or incinerated ash or the

incinerated ash would be a waste, right? Would be a waste. Yes. So you say already is already you're already prohibited from any type of waste any all types of waste. The only non fertilizer is so we can remove that. Is fertilizer considered a raw material? Yes. Or a good that you that you currently uh Oh, we do not currently ship fertilizer. But it could be a good. It could be a [clears throat] good. That's my point. So I think we can reward this to say shall be limited to goods and raw materials which shall not include and then we'll keep some of this language because it's more protective.

Yeah. um in the event that we're arguing over whether you know incinerated ashes but this one is not a big but yeah I would like that fertilizer because that is not just odor and I I don't see odors in but there's there's already code condition see a lot of these fertilizer could be we run into an issue where we're going to start picking up random arbitrary goods I did see that and but there are

let's just say it was this x material that you said like, "Well, we don't want let's say liqufied natural gas or something like that." I don't know if this to be true, but for example, there could be other state and federal laws that likely are that cover the shipment of those things. So, we would need to be permitted. We there would be safety precautions we would have to follow. So, even if the code said, "Yeah, you could do hazardous waste." We'd still have an entirely different state federal permitting scheme that would protect the public. So fertilizer as a good for example, this isn't because we want to take fertilizer, but it's just so we don't create an enormous list of things that are excluded. There's code provisions that say that you cannot do any act in the city of Hudson that produces a noxious odor. So there's already code protections against those things. So I just don't want to get into like everyone tossing in random goods and raw materials without anything in the record suggesting that any of these goods and raw materials have any impact. um because there's safe travel and transport of materials every day down these streets that no one knows about because they just don't have an impact.

That's true. But but presumably your business that their business might get sold might get transferred to other businesses and that's why even though you had no intent on having those materials. Well, I didn't say we don't have any intent. I said we should be allowed under the code to be able to do that. And if someone came to us and said, "Listen, there's farming that's going on over here and we have goods, fertilizer, raw materials that we want to ship and it's cheapest to do up the Hudson, that's what the board is there for. That's the whole LWP and the code." I think the board has uh discretion here if because of proximity to the park and you know the things that keep coming up if there's something that is naturally smelly all the time um to to limit it.

Yeah. Yeah. But there's nothing in the record to say that it is naturally smelly. fertilizer is correct. They can't be transported packages. I'm going to reward this to say the dock is all right with the language. Use of the dock shall be limited to transport of goods and raw materials and shall not include without limitation and then we'll continue with the list of things that will be specifically excluded but it's not um inclusive right. So though there are other things that will not be allowed if it's not a good or raw material, but at least it includes those things you've identified as you definitely don't want

and they're okay with with that decline. So we're going to respond and you can either say so put it in there for Yeah. I mean I think ultimately it's going to be the board's decision. So but I I mean I understand what their concern is, but he's also having that obligation. Absolutely. Is there anything else we could have missed here that can create a Well, that's why that's why not limited. Okay, that's because we became a fishing pool.

Okay. Number 18. The applicant shall implement and maintain the approved spirit protection and response protocol on file with the planning board and the CEO. The protocol shall include procedures for spill prevention, containment, cleanup, and reporting. Spill response equipment such as absorbent materials, booms, and contaminant supplies shall be maintained on site and kept as good working order at all times.

Any questions on anything? I'm good with it.

Are we good with it? Okay. 19. The applicant shall install and maintain a traffic monitoring system at the dock entrance capable of recording all vehicle entries and exits. The system may consist of an automated vehicle counter, a GPSbased monitoring system, or an equivalent method. The monitoring system shall be fully operational prior to the resumption of full dock operations. Records of vehicle trips shall be retained for a minimum of three years and made available with the CO upon request.

I mean, if we're going to put a limitation, we need to have no figures to back that limitation up. We're saying two 284 a day or whatever annual trips. We need a mechanism for measuring what that is. You mean to assure that that day don't go over. Exactly. You agree with that? No. We Okay, let's do I don't I don't agree with this. I So So So I trust that

I trust Cal Russo's and maintaining the 284 limit. I don't see a problem with that with them. I mean, they've agreed to several things we've already suggested to them. they went over and abort some of the things that they did already west. So I don't have a problem with Karuso's um honesty and the limitations of the trust and I don't think this is necessary. And so the question is, do we want to keep 19 or strike 19? Right. We still need to keep it because everything needs a check and balance. Thank you.

I would like to keep it to not a matter of not trusting. It's just gives further documentation. Keep it keep it. I say it. So two two the part I would strike. Um it said the monitoring system shall be fully operational prior to resumption of full bus operations. I don't know. They're they already have black operations. So, I would just strike that one sentence. Okay. How are they going to keep the numbers? You weigh every truck that comes out of your quarry going to the dock. When do you weigh it? When it comes out of the quarry or when it gets to the dock, right?

Okay. So, every truck that comes out of your dock more than likely is going to the quarry or it's not. It's not. I mean every every truck that comes out of your quarry is going to the doctor. No, not not every truck. Um, not every truck. Okay. Every truck that goes to the dock is being weighed at the cooperation. Okay. So, you have a count of every truck every day that goes to the dock and the code enforcement officer. Okay. So, that's the Yes. So, that's your the GPS monitor. Okay.

Yeah. So this physician in our response with this is already in place. They already keep track and the code of course officer can ask for any information which in sociation we have to give this. So it's already in place. So we're good except for um it's not called this GPS based mind system. Well, no. It's an object of an option. We know this because we're already keeping we're not putting GPS systems on the trucks, but we already keep track of our truck. If the code enforcement officer wants to ask this question about they can do it, we're not going to be subject to conditions where we have to self-report our compliance with the permit.

But you do have a check of you do have a record of correct. But what about what about trucks that are private haulers that aren't coming from Colorado? Yeah. How do you keep track of them? There are a lot of uh the tickets tickets that generated tickets will tell you if they would be included with the 284. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So there's a record of all trucks. So that's why we object to installing equipment or self-reporting to the CEO, the CEO. That's the division between the planning board. The planning forces set conditions. The code enforcement officer enforces the conditions.

Okay. So, this can I mean, you took a vote in the bond to keep it. I mean, you can take out the GPS monitoring system, but I still think it's a bad idea to if you're already using the system. What What's the big deal with keeping that that portion in retail? We shouldn't have to report our compliance with the permits to the code force officer. No other business in the city of Hudson has to. But it's just they have to be reasonable and tied to an impact. You're not just reporting it doesn't mean it's a more likelihood that we're going to violate our permit. The code enforcement officer can come by anytime and inspect the books. Okay. The only thing you don't have is this GPS monitoring system.

No, we object to the entire condition because we already have it in place and there's it's not tied. It's completely outside the purview of this review. Well, but if you already do it, why don't you go check it? Yeah, because this requires us to self-report it to the GPS. Consists of an automated GPS counter, right? But it says upon request. That means same thing. What you do? If you'll accept it from the Corey, we we can adhere to it. Yeah. But we didn't want to build a whole new system at the dock. Oh, that's what this Okay. Yes. No. If you have a system that can verify how many trucks

we can't this this is an approval for the dock. So we can't as part of this permit or put anything on the on the to we have like right now I can look on my phone and tell you how many trucks went to the dock. Okay. But they do have a system that allows you could reward this just to say the applicant shall maintain records of vehicle trips and provide them a and providing that data. Where you getting that data from? I think from a ticket. Yeah. Okay. From a scale ticket. Scale tickets. Okay. Yeah. I think and and that's DOT. You need to that's also regulated by the DOT. It's the same ticket that the trucker gets certified weight going down highway. In other words, they have a

so it's part of an official it's a part of official chain of verification. Correct. And this one happens to say barge. And what I will say is I object to it because it's already in the code. the program member already has the ability to come by and say you have a permit says 284 are you in compliance this we believe you're not I'd be willing to to amend that based on the fact that I guess you yeah I actually wanted to hear what Victoria was actually saying for her to finish her sentence based on this you know Victoria is saying we could just re keep it but just revert

well I was suggesting alternative language there that just saying the applicant shall maintain records of vehicle truck trips to the dock and you know provide such records to the CEO upon request. The fact that what they're providing are tickets that are also regulated by the state and require make them official. So I feel comfortable with that's an official thing. It's not just them writing and and just doing a checklist and saying we did this. So that yeah, but that compliance with the change that she wants to change number 19. Yeah, that that's it's it's a verified thing to me. So I I feel I feel that the public good is is so can we amend our vote to keep number 19 but just change the wording? Yeah.

Is there such thing as amending your vote? No. We're going to amend your rea No, we're going to amend the vote. She said yes. So we mustn't official keep the 19 keep 19 and just change the word. Right. Right. Okay. To to to a ver we could change the language to a verified a system which it is being able to be independently verified or I like what there is just you got it. Okay.

No no no no. What are you writing? Just so I want to know languages. I mean I have not totally written it. I just take notes but uh it will say something like applicant shall maintain records of all truck trips to the dock and provide such records upon request to the CEO and we'll keep in that the records have to be maintained for a minimum of three years. We agree with that. So we agree. Okay. Can we move to 20ish? The applicant shall very periodically review all complaints and comments made to the CEO.

Okay. Uh what put that in here? So I think this came out of the the concept that we were going to do a we were going to put that right. We were going to put a public complaint not just for that but for for any business like a 311 that the city has.

Yeah. and some and so notification would come in and say this business is doing X thing and this is my issue with it and then the city would then that would then go to the code enforcer where applicable and then they would come to you and you respond to code enforcer I mean that system's already in place so you could place so that's why we said we object to this I don't even know how it would be the law so can we scratch this one because it's already in place and if the city do put put in a complaint thing with 31 which I think they have something. Yeah. Yeah. They we could do that. We we could do that part and then you forward the complaint. Yeah. Right. It's just part of the chain of what we'd like to see happen. They don't have to do it. We we can do that

cuz once if the complaint comes in and doesn't get it, he's going to go out. Exactly. Yeah. But can we just change that to something that we recommend that the common council No. No. You can't No, not in yours. I understand. Not for you. Not for you. No. So we want us we're going to scratch it. Oh, we're going to eliminate 20 for that. Yeah. Yes. Okay. We agree. Yes. Okay. Now we go 21.

Who's reading it? You want me to go for it? Number 21. By January 30th of each calendar year, the applicant shall submit an annual compliance report to the CEO demonstrating compliance with all ongoing conditions of this approval and with any applicable DEC permit requirements. The report shall cover the preceding calendar year and shall include at a minimum uh number one a summary of daily and annual truck trip uh totals from the traffic monitoring system demonstrating compliance with the 284 trip. And two, documentation of dust control and sweeping activities under the approval of the best management practice plan. And three, rec uh records of bulkhead and tieback inspection and maintenance. Next, please. Four, confirmation of landscaping, lighting, and fencing maintenance. Five, a summary of any spill incidents and responses. and sits any other required documentation demonstrating adherence to approval to the approve approved site plan set and all permit conditions. And it says the report shall be signed by a responsible corporate officer or site manager and where applicable by a licensed professional engineer certifying that the information provided is accurate to the best of their knowledge. It's very worried. Yeah. um uh that came from a lot of stuff

and some of it to be done that came from a member. So again like with the GPS the point of the permit is to put the conditions that we're supposed to abide by. It's not supposed to usurp the jurisdiction of the code enforcement officer. So we're find out who member supposed to look at you and D. What was the thought behind this? Because it is wordy and it looks it sounds redundant when I read. Well, the whole I I think I don't know if it was me but the whole idea is to have a comprehensive report at the end of the year saying that you've complied with all of the things that you need to comply with,

but the code enforcement officer can already confirm that. So, we're not going to be subject to a condition. The planning board has no authority to require us to confirm or certify with an engineer compliance with our own permit. So, no other business has to do that. You're What we're here to do is to make the conditions. The code enforcement officer enforces the conditions. So, it it seems ridiculous that we'd be the only business that has to certify compliance with state and federal permits to the code enforcement officer. Well, well, maybe maybe not the state, but like we only have one code enforcement officer. Obviously, can't be every place, you know, in the city at all times.

And yet, this board is special use permits and approvals all the time. And none of those businesses and none of those residences have to ever I mean I'm here all the time and I've never heard a condition where you have to self-comply with the code department. I just want to be clear. Yeah. And we object to to any condition that asks us for this.

Well, the reason is because the city has a single code enforcement officer that has to, you know, review applications throughout the entire city. And the idea here was that um perhaps in lie of putting a durational limit on the permit um having them just you know provide a report saying yep we understand our conditions and we've been complying with them. I mean I understand maybe a professional engineer and and those kinds of certifications might be a bit much but I I don't think a report an annual report saying you know we we understand our conditions we've reviewed them things get lost in time. I don't think it's that ownorous and just submit it to the code. Don't do it. But but you know if that can talk about what should be included in that.

Well, if if if if you're going to be periodically reviewed the the permit is going to be periodic. Don't you want that record to be able to say to substantiate this is what we've done rather than just and rather just than not have it and have it open to well did you do this and did you not do this? I don't know how those

I mean we'll respond in writing if we just want to move on it's already 10 plus. So, do you guys this? I mean, what I when I saw it, you want to give it respond to it. I got one point for it. Uh, what do I have to unmute? Anybody have any more comments on this? I mean, thank you.

They already demonstrated their compliance and the trouble side. They already know we have a way to get out of it. Uh, we already talked about the dust control and sweep and activity. So, I don't know. I lost track of one bullet point one and two. Um, this was just I mean it seems like we've already talked about some of these things in so you decided 22 monitoring. Yes.

Logically speaking, this is my issue with this outside of the fact that it's completely ridiculous is so you're asking us to say are you in compliance? Yeah, we'll just say, "Yeah, sure. We're compli." What does that get the code of force master? The [snorts] code of enforce master has to go down there and certify compliance himself. What we say about our own compliance is irrelevant to his determination, right? But the records indicate that and show the pattern of of your compliance. For who? For the code enforcement officer.

Yeah. For the for the for the for anyone in the city that can take a look and say, "Okay, they're complying with this." the code is the only person in the state who can do that to be very clear. So, and it's his job to enforce the code and to enforce the permit. It is not a reasonable condition to put in a special use or conditional use permit to make a business self-certify compliance with the permit. Nor would it be a legally binding document. I mean, we would just say, "Yeah, we're in compliance." And then then so I just don't understand what it what it does or what it gets to. And if your attorney has told you it has to be tied to mitigating an impact and we're already subject to these conditions. So you're telling me that if we you just subject to this conditions and we don't self-report by self-reporting we're further mitigating impacts. It it doesn't make any sense.

No, you're documenting your mitigation. Takes some time. I've been here for five years. So I think what they're also saying we've been here a long time. We we we're we're all neighbors. We we're like, hey, but we're willing to follow conditions to mitigate impacts. We're not going to sit here and talk for hours about self-reporting or other conditions that are just aimed at I mean, they're just not aimed at accountability. Accountability. Hold it. We can explain a thousand times. Say planning board. I know it's imposed conditions, not to enforce the zoning code.

TJ, we can we can ask it and you can say no. But do we want to keep it as a board? Do we wanna, you know, construct it? Uh, we want to rewrite, right? How about you? But, you know, he he makes a good point. um you know um if I can call you TJ um makes a good point but I also am wondering like with this particular summary were you hoping that we would go beyond the CEO as uh some form of data?

No, no, no, not really. Not necessarily. I I think that if we're going to be if you want to evaluate the continuing compliance of a of an applicant, rather than just trying to catch them doing something, having them establish a record to say this is what we've done. in that packet. These are the amount of trucks. This is, you know, this is our logs. This is our pollution monitoring. This is all this these are all these records that are telling us the city that this applicant is doing what they need to do on the waterfront of this city. But I think I can I can additional use permit. Let let patina and Randle get

I think what I'm hearing from the applicant is that's already being done. And that upon CEO they're already logging it upon CEO request or when CEO goes down there they can see the logs. Am I wrong? Do you you have to keep some kind of log for trucks but to ask us to confirm that confirm landscaping. I mean, what does that even mean? Maintenance. Confirmation of landscaping, lighting, and fencing maintenance. They're looking for our opinion. No, but they're confirmation of maintenance. But there's already requirements to do it. No. And and that's a visual thing. If you don't do it, but you'll know it. Wait, we can move on.

I'm not sure why you're fighting this one. This is just you're going to you have to comply with the condition. So, just don't. This is asking you I mean again if there's wording that is that if it's too far or too much we could talk about that but you have to comply with the condition. So this is just asking you to document yes we complied with all our conditions this year. Thank you. Okay we were voting to strike it or leave it. So we had one person okay we got on Dr. Young but yes striking or leader. Can you skip me for a second and let me just process? Okay. Um, I'd like to see what they have to say. I mean, unless they're just going to say, "No, we're not going to do it." Which kind of sounds like that's the

Well, they can choose to say that, but we don't have to I I would like to see I think Leave it. Yes. Leave it. Leave it. Okay. So, it's strike it. Strike it. Strike it. Leave it. Leave it. Leave it. Leave it. That's four. Okay. And that's what we have to do to move on. Let me skip through this. Okay. Sabin has been in front of us the longest and we're going to do everything we can.

Okay. Now we're on page 17, number 22. Now here you're saying you're putting Random Martin's name. These are all well these are all the new ones that were received after the first draft was okay the philosophy the philosophy of all of these is that we're granting a permission to do something in the city as at a scale that has never been done in the city if they were to uh do their do their business to capacity

to the capacity of which the 284 trucks which they have. My thing is I want to make sure that the city has the ability to understand has this increased pollution, has this increased dust. We don't we we we didn't say we're going to do a baseline because it was too expensive and and and when they said, you know, we couldn't direct sources. But now if we go on then we can say this year it was this and now this year was this and set it in a direction that we don't want. Okay. So this way we can that's what I was asking. Go ahead, Brandon. Can you read your read your read what you put in from 22 to 29?

So these are the applicants shall install real time a particular amount of PM 2.5 and PM 10 air monitoring the property boundaries adjacent to the Henry Hudson Riverfront and provide volume reports. That would be in the thing that I'm saying a permanent noise monitoring uh device. Wait a minute. Number 22. Let's see what you're talking about there. Well, it's I mean really all I mean it's the the same assumption is all tied in to say if we're going to have that report these are things that part of that

yeah 22 that's good I mean we don't have a base model so if we install the real time monitors what are we then comparing that against year to year month to month it establishes it establishes a baseline But if the but if the permit is issued, no matter what the air what are you saying? No matter what the air monitor is saying, what is it to do?

Well, one of the conditions that I propose is that the permit has to come up for renewal every 3 years. So if we see that air pollution is going through the roof in those last three years, then the renewal process will be different. Well, so if you look at section 32534C of the code, it specifically talks about renewal and air quality pollution would be completely irrelevant. It was only if the code enforcement officer finds that the permit as originally issued. We're not in compliance with that and we're given a cure period to bring it back in. No, it can be up for renewal just for the hell of it. We've had that conversation a number of times. We have I not I feel capable.

There's already air quality monitoring in the city of Hudson and we object to this because it's not where is not in the city. It's in the vicinity, but it's definitely not in the city except on the waterfront. The brain board members can install them if they like, but we're not going to accept that as a So, we want to know 22. You put it in there, Randall. Okay. So, um anybody else on the planning board? Well, I'll get to you. Gabby have any questions about it? Do we want to leave it? Because they're going to apply reply to this. So, do we want to leave it like this or do we want to I mean again the question what what do you do with the information? So, in other words, he's looking to monitor it year to year, month to month, day to day, whatever.

Right. But so there's no trigger though if if the approval goes forward. There's no trigger to do anything with that information unless you do put a durational condition on your permit and then it's just information for you to consider, right? And it and it would be directly relevant for the for the code for the code enforcer to see this is what's going on. Otherwise, how does he know? Jurisdiction to enforce air quality. That's BEC and EPA clean air act which we've explained. But if he found something wrong, could he repeat? He will report it to the right people. What is wrong?

In the full environmental assessment form from 516 when the question was asked, does the proposed action include or will it use on-site one or more sources of air emissions including fuel combustion, waste, incineration, and other processes or operations? The answer was yes. When it was asked, will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open air operations or processes such as foyer lymph operations? The answer was yes. So, if you guys yourselves are saying, "Yeah, we're going to be producing this stuff." Why would the city of Hudson not want to know how much of it is pumping into our park and city? Why wouldn't we want to monitor that to protect our res? And you can and you should, but I'm just saying it's notable condition to put on a business owner because it's not within your authority to

Of course it is. Okay. I mean, we're just get a judge. You're here for a cup and one of our conditions could be that you have to monitor the air quality in your industrial. It's a commercial. Okay. It's industrial use. Okay. It's a commercial use. Okay. Are we going to You're saying it's not industrial. Okay. Listen. Hello. So that's a good idea. Um well we're going we're going to struggle to figure out the pollution of the trains and I think exactly that is something we have talked about. How can you tell us coming? They're not going to get any better. They're going to get worse. Is that

because first of all there are we've been offered many examples. I can hold them up if I have the time of air of of monitors that can read specific places. Also the train there is a baseline for that. It comes in every few hours. There's a certain number of them a day. What is going to be the changing factor are going to be operations at the dock. Voted on this many weeks ago that it was not an issue. But consultant had said that it possible. Well, yes and possible that this coming from agree. Yes. Okay. Oh, no. I wanted to I want you to say that.

I was going to say if you want me to get back with until talk about item 22 and report back. Well, I'll do that. Okay. So, we're going to leave it until we I'm going to leave it for uh for consultants review. Yeah, I'm wait a minute. Do we as a board seven members agree with that? I'm fine with that. You know, I'm reading a little bit right here about the real time PB2 monitor. Would you have chip GPT? Yes or no? G. Okay. Okay. So, we're leaving 22 um for the um consultant.

In the letter that Christian wrote about air quality monitoring, he ended it by stating that we didn't want any more data because it might invite legal action. And I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to make decisions based on potential legal action, but based on what is healthy and safe for the residents of this city. Okay. So I would prefer Yeah. Another 23 going to 23. We are leaving. I'm just making a point. We're leaving 23 same thing. It's always that's the same. Okay. So that's that's for your review. That's 22 and 23 is together.

I don't think there's anything to do with that. I mean either you're random what's what's 20 you want to just read a minute somebody on the board wants you to stop at a certain one we can do that 23 a uh a permanent noise monitoring device shall be installed to ensure compliance with noise thresholds set forth in uh what's I can't 210- 210-6 of the city code you want me to read I just I just want to you're going to speed read my own thing.

Okay. Um yeah. So that's that one. So permanent noise monitoring devices. What the purpose of that would be our noise study confirmed the engineers approved it that we are well within at full max that we could possibly do. And and if there ever was putting noise out there because he doesn't believe it, he can do so. And I believe that if there's ever a complaint about you're making an exorbitant amount of noise, I think the police and gunpoint.

Yeah. And I think that's that's all over the city. I mean, you can have a bar or event that's having noise. I said earlier, you have loaded, you have unloaded, you have you have different noise events. Often times then they can a dark operation. You might have a noise event and by the time somebody hears it and reports it, it's it's over. It could be like a half an hour, an hour. You know, it's not like the turnaround time and say, "Oh, you know, this dropped or this is scraping or this gear is stuck and that's making noise. You're really going to be able to stop and identify it. If you have if you have noise monitor, then you know, right at a certain time this happens."

Yeah. But how are we supposed to tell that it's our operations that are setting the noise monitor? The noise directional monitoring is directional. The the noise study clearly stated that at the boundaries of the property that our operations were actually less than the ambient of the surrounding area because it's commercial and it's Amtrak. So if you put a noise monitor there and face it, you're not going to be able to tell where the noise is coming from. And we're already in compliance. So there is no reason to make us pay for a continuous monitoring system when our experts have already concluded on the record that there is no noise issue and that is that's why we want to move on.

That is true. Do we want to keep this or strike it? The board it can be removed. Jean 24. Um well I was at one. Okay. Um Gabby. Yeah, I think all monitoring is positive. Victoria, I mean Veronica strike Victoria, you're not part of this board. Even though some people think you are, but you're not. Okay. Okay. Striker strike 24. Yeah, that's what I want a third party audit now cuz Yeah, I was like I was like 24 and 25 cuz we dealt with

Oh, 25 is right. Okay. 26. Oh yes sorry. So the applicant shall designate a community leaison office to handle inquiries regarding dust truck traffic. You have the same the applicant shall post a that's we don't have to do that part of it the whole thing. Well no you already had the CEO doing that addressing that issue. Correct. Well, well, the the the idea is that a liaison could then again because we said the CEO kind of has a lack of a job for yourself. [laughter]

No, not the CEO. The CEO can contact us directly and you have somebody that answers questions. Correct. Okay. So, you don't want TO COMMUNALLY ANSWER. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? [laughter] NO, just put an application just so you'll be the you get all this information and then spy the keeping the community liaison and straightening everything up. Okay. Do we want to strike it or keep it? Strike it. I'll be dedicated. Is it yes or no to random? Yes or no? that that we've had strike or keep.

Yes. Okay. Gabby. Sure. What? Which one? Let's keep it.

Gabby's fill that be the right person. I know. I'm pretty sure I could do it, but I mean fun it tonight. We all Okay, let's go to 27 random. Okay,

doesn't hurt to have a little humor every applicant shall transition to tier 4 compliant uh or electrical material handling equipment uh as units are replaced. So as you upgrade, you already said you're going to replace the diesel motors with electrical motors. So if if we can if he can the diesel generator if if we can get permission to do it. So the way we've drafted is that within a certain period of time we will seek approval to get that done because we don't know if Nack will put their foot down and say you can't do it. But this is asking us to replace material [clears throat] handling. What would be the purpose of that?

Again to reduce noise. So let me know any anything that's wrong. I don't know that any of these electrical material handling equipments are less noisy and our noise experts already said there's no noise impact even with non-elect electrical equipment even at full operation with every single piece of equipment we have going on at the same time. There was no that's not what it was. That's what we said. There was no noise impact. Correct. So what would be the point of requiring electrical equipment? Didn't you say something about they said there was no noise hopper. Oh okay. So electric hopper. We are seeking approval to replace the diesel generator that powers the conveyor hopper y with three-phase power which is

this is asking us to replace all of the equipment with electrical equipment at the dock. Oh say material handling. So material handling would be a loader. Oh so we're talking about the same thing. I'm I'm saying you're assuming if the diesel loader is tier four, which it is, right? So this we were going to go through all of these and then you were going to respond at the end. He can respond now. We don't have come back to that. So what other questions

truck the loaders truck running down there tier four and so when you get new wouldn't be tier three if it was new I I know it's going to be the latest integrity right if you got a new piece and it wasn't available to the pre that's not concerned about what I'm concerned about is that it's just like a condition for a condition sake there's no it's not tied to an impact noise and pollution exactly but who's to say that any tier torque applied to electrical material and the equipment is any noisier or there's any more pollution impact. There's like nothing in the record to suggest that's the case.

Well, if something is electrical instead of running on diesel, it's going to have less pollution. That's not that's not necessarily true. What? There no emissions. Yeah, there was no You're saying a diesel generator and an electric generator the same amount of pollution? I'm saying there's nothing in the record to suggest that and it's a condition just for condition sake thing. I'm just saying in addition you buy a piece of equipment and it wasn't to come in electric or tier compliance and we want to buy that go we should be able to buy that piece of equip. I want to vote whether we're going to keep this or strike it. Okay. I see you random keep it Gabby keep it. Okay perfect sense

Dr. Young. So the tier four is dealing with like your trucks, your loader, anything else under tier four. Can someone explain what tier four is? Randall, explain what tier four is. I'm a different expert.

She can tell them. Okay, let's go. Let's finish the vote. So far, I got three. I got two. Uh, what do you say, Dr. Young? Strike or what? Let's remove that. Okay, Jean. Strike. Okay, we're striking number. What was it? 247. 27. Okay. Please don't have 28 random It's strict environmental regulations. That's what tier 4 is. It's emission standards. Okay. 28 random meaning. Yeah, that's addressed earlier. Yeah, we already exactly

so strike number 28 is already addressed 29 random the conditional similar to where we said for the conditional use permit shall be submitted for renewal every two years after that date after the date of this resolution the planning board to conduct a compliance review that's that's 20 29 29 So you're saying that the uh special use permit should expire within two years. It should be up for renewal. Up for review in two years. Okay. We were cuz I went to a class on that and kind of stated that you could No, it said it said you could

Well, your your interpretation is saying that you could change, right? Yeah. You're saying that you could non-transferable, right? You were talking about, right? Not it is. It is. Oh, it's not it can't be revoked unless it's can be revoked for non-compliance. Non-compliance. So, does this is this a legally? So, your your code says, and I'm just going to read it.

The planning board may require that conditional use permits be periodically renewed. Such renewal shall be granted following public notice and hearing may only be withheld upon a determination by the building inspector that such conditions um that have been prescribed by the planning board in conjunction with issuance of the original permit have not been or are being no longer complied with. And then there's a 60-day opportunity for the cure to cure. So, uh, there is an opportunity to renew the condition to renew the permit, but it's only based on the conditions you have and it has to be renewed unless there's an issue.

And that's why I kind of wanted the documentation so that you would have a record. So, it was kind of an undisputable, you know, uh, evidence or tracking of what the company's performance is, which makes that renewal a lot easier, more straightforward. That was my point. But it it's not saying we could just arbitrarily renew every two years. So it's not saying that you can't. You don't have to. You don't have to require that it be periodically renewed. You may require it. Thank you.

And so from our point of view, obviously we did a dock repair and we've been before this board for eight years and the condition are supposed to be permanent conditions. And we do not want a permit that is going to be have this permit for two years, have this permit for two years. I mean this business cannot operate if it's consistently in front of the planning board. We want conditions that you guys are comfortable with and then we want to just operate the business. And what was the reasoning behind this random renewal?

Again, it was a safety valve for the city. if they determined that this operation for a variety of different reasons, non-compliance being one of them, wasn't a good fit or whatever, going forward, that they would be able to then have a discussion with you or the new owner or whoever was operating the business at the time to say, um, this this [clears throat] [snorts] company and these practices are not what we want in in compliance with what the with the guidelines that we've set forth. Again, that's why I had the mom figure, which would make it simpler to say we have look, this is this, this is that report, that's that report, and it will make it easier to have an undisputed uh a track record for what you're doing. But, but either way, I think that it's incumbent upon the city that's growing, that's changing, and that's looking forward to be able to say, is are the requirements being met, and is the public being safe? Is the public recreation not impacted and is public safety not impacted?

So in 15 years we've only had one notice of violation from the code enforcement officer. So we've never and that was because of the dock fair which we did to protect the recreate public. So there's no record here that this is necessary at all and it's clear that if we're brought in front of this board again it's just going to be another eight years. I mean we have spent more money than any applicant in the city of Hudson I guarantee on an application suing us. Okay. But um forward looking, this is forward looking, not backward looking. And I just want to quote something that that the New York State DEC commissioner said in 2016,

which came through the public comments. Thank thank you so much to the public for all the hard work and helping us navigate this. Giving lead agency status to Greenport, the Hall Road Review, and designating the Greenport Town Planning Board to serve as lead agency for the Hall project. This decision in no way limits the jurisdiction responsibilities of the other involved and interested agencies, particularly the city planning board. And I encourage the town planning board to seek and use the expertise of the city and planning board as well as the DEEC and DOT in evaluating potential impacts, if any, and developing viable alternatives to mitigate or avoid any identified significant adverse impacts. Look, we didn't get to do a secret review of the dock operations at the park. It is up to us to do everything we can to protect our residents and to protect the future of Hudson. And if monitoring noise and air quality and having you come up for review every two or three years to make sure that all of a sudden you're not polluting our children's lungs is something we can do. We are tasked to do that nothing to do with

DJ. The next question is um Victoria. Now this I want to ask you too this two-year review. What exactly does it entail? Well, it it would it would first of all, you'd have to go over and say, "Were there violations?" It can only tell what's in the code. It can't tell anything else. I'm saying I'm what would provoke what would provoke a a a way the way it's drafted right now. Yeah. It wouldn't be based on an enforcement action. It would it would be automatic. They would have to come back in and resubmit for review. But that's not what you No, but then the second part of it,

the second part of it though is that the board is only allowed to consider compliance with the conditions in this resolution, right? I have a question. Um if they do break one of these conditions um yeah I mean does is it up to this the court enfor code enforcement to you know will it be an automatic chain reaction and have them right here? No, no,

no. If if let's say they have a violation, the way violations normally go is that uh you get a letter from the code enforcement officer and if you don't comply with it, he can take you to the local justice court to force compliance or he can take you to Supreme Court to get an injunction. Um you generally don't come back before the planning board. So if it came back to the planning board, what could we do any different? Um, could we change anything? Could we revoke it? I mean, is it I'm sorry.

It may only be withheld upon a determination by the building inspector that the conditions have not been complied with even after they had 60 days to fix any errors. So, meaning that it only will if they don't comply with the conditions of the resolution, then we do something. Right. It's just a after if the CEO is telling you that they haven't complied, let's say there's scoff laws and they're ignoring the CEO, then the planning board at that point, I suppose, could um withhold the renewal, but that's after the CEO make his report to us. Right. Right. And we're giving a chance to fix the problem.

Exactly. But during that time, what attorney is saying is that at any point in time, the code enforcement officer has jurisdiction to send a notice violation to any business in the city of Clemson for any provision of code or any permit and can bring you to court for failure to do so. So, it's not as if you have to wait for permit renewal to be enforced upon. Okay?

No. And and we're not we're not in intending to truncate that process, but all we're saying is at the end of the day, the planning board can then say, let's say one violation, two violations. You know, I'm just saying, you know, whatever the whatever the reasoning was that those things occurred, maybe you understand, but let's say for whatever reason you or whoever takes on the business becomes a repeat viol [clears throat] violator of of of of a provision that we have, we need this provides a mechanism to say you've you have violated this provision seven times and and the planning and the CEO has noticed this and brought you for action. and there wasn't a cure. It allows us to then say, you know, this is now how we need we need to re-evaluate this special use permit. I I don't foresee that this is an issue with you, but it again gives the city the opportunity to then deal [clears throat] with a situation like that.

So, you're not meaning so in your in this um sentence, you're not meaning they automatically come back every two years only if there's a violation or we was the language. That's what I wrote. But they the language could be changed. It could be four years. It could be three years. I I just I'm just So come back reason, but just come back for review. They don't have to have a violation of English. Is that what you're saying? Well, I in theory you'd want them you and in theory you'd want a review to you know you'd want a violation to be able to Exactly. So I don't think that's not what the code that's not but and that's not just saying either. The code says that we can just require that the permit be periodically renewed. We don't have to have a reason to do it, right? We don't necessarily.

So, we're just saying we could You had two years, I had three years in mine. How often that complaint, right? For now, unless you know, selling law could be changed. I mean, there's there's other things in the meantime, but right now the threshold for we do not make law here. People don't like the code. This is the wrong This is the wrong board to come to, right? But it is the as she's there's discretionary you know I I I gave that as no the periodic rebuke period the per the aspect of the intervals of the period is is discretionary

you could choose a durational period or no period at all that is up to the board I think it needs to be sub period and if you want to go to three years I'd be okay with going to three years and again why are we doing that have we done that with you also could do this for the chicken permit, the chicken keeping permits, every conditional use permit in the city.

You should be able to do this to give somebody's house not done this for any Okay, that's what I wanted to hear. You know what? But we can at least that I'm aware of. Now that I know that we can for tickets for any Well, the chickens were going to be living on 12 acres right next to the city park. I think we would ask them to come up for renewal every two or three years. Okay, we're going to vote as a I mean I think this is I think you need to vote in my opinion if you want to consider this then you can worry about gears or circums.

Do you want to have a durational limit on the conditional use permit and require renewal? Yes, I think it's a yes for you Gabby. Yes, no. No, no, it's a no. Okay. Now, Gabby, you have uh 32 30. You have questions number 30 all the way to number 55. And some are missing. I hate to say. Well, that's enough. What we're going to What we're going to do, we're going to break for another few minutes. No, let's No, we're back.

We're stop. We'll break it for another five minutes, please. Of course. And then we're going to let Gabby go through her stuff. Gabby, please make it as quick. Read it. We'll decide it and we move on. And once again, right? And once we get through with that,

that's what we'll be submitting to you for your Okay. All right. Five minutes. And I want to hang everybody at the same chocolate without nuts. I haven't made random

There you go. We call the planned board meeting um November date is this 12th 12 12 call back to order at 10:42. I lost the date. Okay. Now, we're going to go through um conditions from on page number 17 all the way to the end uh from one of the board members. So, from number 30 to 55. Gabby, I have a question. Why are we forcing ourselves to stay here till almost 11 when we have a special meeting on the books for we have other applicants, Gabby, that to start reading? We have many more booklets in Palusa.

I I was under the impression that the 18th meeting was a special meeting. That's the impression you were under but we have that's what was stated at the last meeting. Yes. Start with doc use limited to shipping of equipment and stone gravel or aggregate material to and from the quarry in Greenport in accordance with the Hall permit. So rather than go on and on about what they can't do, I think we should just say what they can do. So if you tissue,

didn't we elaborate on that? Didn't we say somewhere also in here that just no hats are just interiors? So was it doesn't amit say what they can do? Redundant. Well, this so this this would limit it only to uh Karuso's own aggregate. So they couldn't ship anything else. But that's not what they do. They do other stuff, right? Well, right. This is the option that Okay. So, we're putting the limit on the business on their business now. Yes or no? Yes. You'd be limiting their business to only uh transporting aggregate from the commerce aquarium. So, do we want to do that as a board? Oh, I see what you're saying. I'm glad

that it's a little different than the other condition. Yes. No. No. It's not harmful or hazardous. I don't see why. So, it's a no. No. Not the young. No. Jean. No. Randle. So yeah, July 3. Okay, Gabby, of course. No. So it's a no. That's so a no for number 30. Okay. 31. G

C will expire if Colorado has not completed all landscaping and construction related to conditions within 18 months of the date of approval unless they have acquired an extension from the planning board. I don't have a problem with that. All except I would say construction related to the the the building conditions or something like that the that structure whatever you want to call it the one that that's what I was thinking about in terms of doing the repair on right and so ourselves are uh in our response you'll see that they'll say within one year permit issuance. So anything that it doesn't exist now that is supposed to exist under the permit we give ourselves or we're offering up a time frame to do that. Okay.

But requiring that the per and then that would be a permit condition basically the same thing except you're giving yourself less time than I'm giving you. Yeah. She's giving you 18 months and and she's giving you actually more time than I was thinking about giving you. It's just whatever time frame need they do. So I think 18 months is I mean if we're going to keep this do we want to keep this? I I'm fine. We want to keep 18 months. Yeah, I'm going to reward it and make it um move it down. But yes, I guess why why would we keep his his own timet? Because I was suggesting that with particular conditions and I would say like a condition is condition all landscaping shall be implemented as said more than the sip line. We would say within one year I think 18 months is a good

Yeah, we can just we can and that that covers any that'll be full condition that we will agree to. And that will cover anything that's um that's beyond your control. Like if we had a blizzardy or something, you know, they have a stop. Go ahead. Number um Okay. So, we're going to keep 31. You're going to reword it, right? 32. Right. 32 is not transferable to any other owner or entity. Well, by law, it would run with the land. So, we But but in my staff landing permit with public land. You're additioning it to the property.

I know they do, but do they have to is my question? Yeah, I think that's a law. I that's that has not been been it is a law. I had a I went to a class on it is a law. If you want to change it, you have to change the law. It is a law. We talked about Oh, it's not it's the code. You're saying if it's not if it's not specifically law code if you want that it should run with the man feature of the code right no no it's a law it's a law uh department of state yeah we have it right here

I mean they could they could supersede it but zoning regulation says New York state department and not the user doesn't matter if owns it or someone else owns it as long as they're complying with the approval and the conditions And right there's no change in impact. Why? It doesn't matter. That was my thought. Exactly. It's a different name tied to it. They'll still have to comply with all the conditions except for Yeah. No, I went to I went to a class with the county and it's right here conditional use permit and that's what he talked about. He talked about this at first. We thought well maybe not but it is people try to do the variance. It's two times and it's not just not enforcable and also special use permits in this city. It's also gasoline stations, drive-ins, a lot of things.

33. Okay. 33. Okay. So, 32 a strap is enough. Yes. It has to be. It's not. It's enough. And forgive me, I haven't looked at the latest submission um from Sweet Tree. So, maybe this is redundant, but a 50 foot wide buffer of native trees and shrub shrubs shall be installed along the eastern property boundary. address and we already submitted the site plan that's already been approved in a sense. So we're amendable to the condition that says you will install all construct all landscaping or plan the landscaping in consistent with the site plan that was approved. Correct.

So there was a question though because um when I started looking through the changes you sent it looked like you had eliminated the burn on the north south on the west western property line. That was when Chris came down the board here came down to the site and you crossed it out of the resolution on the site plan. It's on the BMS on it. If I crossed out that you were not going to do a BB in the resolution, I think because I said BMS is what I didn't Okay. Yeah. To be clear, any resolutions passed, we are agreeable to put the both BMS that we had agreed in the site plan. So this is redundant of what we've already agreed. Okay. So that's redundant.

But Gabby, were you looking for it to be wider? Is that why you put 50 feet or is there was there something different? I think this is a condition that I wrote, you know, I before maybe we had the review of the sweet tree. Um, so I wasn't sure what the Yeah. How many feet it was covering. So we can get rid of 33. Right. Today I was eliminated the most updated site plan. If you look on the site plan, it should indicate burm and trees on the west side. Burm and shrubs on the north side because that burm is much higher. So be able to put trees and going all the way

and we had Kevin submit because I think somebody reflects like what's the number of trees? What's the type of trees will be? But that's all in the sweet report. So that's on it. Okay. Okay. Um all plantings should be native and maintained in perpetuity and immediately replaced um if diseased or dying. Planting should be inspected every 6 months for signs of distress and shall be replaced if need be. Inspected by well by the applicant. So we just want to make sure there are not dying trees.

We have a landscaping note two. It said landscaping shall be maintained with don specimens replaced within five business days or next planting season. Um but I think the landscape was here at least but but this adds like the inspection requirement. How else can we make sure that the trees are maintained and not left to be you know to disease or die. I think that that's keep in good working condition and early enforcement officer if he believes that they're not he can site us for a violation. Yeah.

And I mean that's a visual thing you can see is not the only thing it's a visual thing for any public member. So um well so the I mean compare to condition two and see if you want to supplement that language condition say I think 34 is handled by right it is handled so with strap 30 I mean do we want to strap it because it's already mentioned someplace that's

okay I can't see that conditions too it's in two and then there's the like right now it's in the annual report that they report on the status of the land go to strap 34 35 I have a quick question we get a little more than five business days to change that I appreciate we'll go comment afterwards Let's just keep moving forward. 35. Six days. Six days. Let's keep let's go to 35, please. You go to 35. I will say 5 days is quick. I would say five. Five to 10 days or 5 to 14 days.

Six days. Give

35 35 please. Truck traffic at dock shall be restricted to an annual limit of 15,000 trips to and from with a peak maximum condition of 284 per day to be estimated to occur approximately twice per year. And if we go to the engineers report's report um from 2019 as part of the application Jr. himself says the trip the truck trips generated by the project varies from an average of 24 loads per day to a maximum of 142 loads per day as um and and from that number you derive one drives as did the county planning board that that would be approximately 14 to 16,000 trucks annually.

All right. Do the 284 trucks per day. Uh is that covers everything? Well, that to be twice per year. Twice per year. What is that? What I don't understand what this is. Yeah. What are you saying here? The board last meeting already had a condition that limited the amount of trucks already folded to take. Yeah, we know that. But what's being said here in number 30? It's reducing the limit to 16,000 trip instead of 34 daily. instead of saying you can have 284 twice a year. Oh. Oh, no. Uhuh. I'm not gonna say no. Uh that the truck trips have already been decided.

None can deal with. Okay. Based on something you're reading from the past. Yes. But that's the application is all of these documents from the past and the planning board already reviewed, issued us a permit for join. Yes. But this is a different permit. This is a different permit. Those two permits were separated. You can tell me why, but this is a different permit. And I'm making the argument that the impact of 284 trucks every day is massive and unnecessary. And in your own words, you never have operated at that level except twice during the year. And all of the applications, all the permits you have, the DOT permits, the green court secret review, everything are based on these numbers.

And the New York had all that information. still issuing us as a board so we can move on. What year is that from the 2016 man? This is from 2019. Hold it. Stop it. Stop it. We are going to vote so we can move on. But do people understand what No, you understand. We do understand. You just don't understand it our way. Don't get mad at us cuz we don't understand what you're trying to do. We don't agree. Okay. Do I mean Trump has already decided? I have to cuz you don't know how you're sounding when you talk to us.

I'm asking everybody understands the numbers from the Kraton Manning and the Barton and the Judic documents that the Hall application and the Green Court seeker review were all based on because I had to look really really hard to find them and I did. And what I found was that again and again and again it says that the truck volume is the average 24 loads per day. And again and again it says with no expectation of intensification or increase. So we are now about to issue a permit that increases it by 18 times. You already which will no this permit TJ not the whole road permit. This permit Gabby we are going to move on.

No but I'm making my point. How why does permit in be struck Travis? We are about to issue a permit that says that they could run 280. It's not in here. What do you mean? There's you already have a permit that's issued and it's has but we can put limitations on that. No, you cannot. Yes, we can. Of course, we can we can say how many trips go in and out of the not do we just wrong? You you know you talk about me disrespecting you, but you disrespect the Okay, enough. You made your point. You're lying to us. We You made your point. I have something to say.

Okay. Um, I'm starting to find it insulting you keep asking the Lord over and over again if we understand these things as if we don't. And just because we don't have the same opinion as you doesn't mean that we don't understand them because this hasn't been discussed since I've been doing this application. We're not taking it back and we've already discussed this. You wasn't here and now you want to discuss these Manning drug studies and all of these numbers that went into the Greenport. Okay. You know what? We're moving on. 35 The truck numbers have already been voted on. Uh, do we want to go back?

But I do want to go back to we we took them out before because I thought we were going to just redis. I don't understand why we don't have a truck limit in this because we already have a truck limit in our home. Wait a minute. Going to the dock. Yeah. Yeah. The truck limitation, the numbers of from the quarry to the dock is already established. 284 from the Corey to the dock. Okay. So, now we're moving on. Do we want to Do we want to keep this in or move on? Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or no? Yeah, I would keep. Okay, Gabby. Yes or no? Well, no. I

Okay. Do we want to keep number 34 scraping? We've already made the decision on 35. Yes or no? I say scrap it. What you say? Are we on number 35? Yes. about the u um you've seen the truck. I'm not going to strike that strike. Uh I vote to strike it. This is the number one way we can protect. We are going we're moving on. You know you you know you just because you can't get your way, man. You're really something.

Every time truck numbers are talked about, it's only talked about as 28. Is that number 36 documents? Is that number 36, Gabby? So, it hasn't been discussed. Number six, Gabby. Is that Is that number 36? We're going to You're not saying We are going to number 36 before we're going to number 36. You insist that we be here at 11 and I can't hear what the lawyer wants to say in response to my very valid question about the fact that this is the number one. No. Okay. So, go to number 36, please. Victoria, would you like to tell me what you were going to say?

I was going to explain that the Kraton Manning reports and those reports were all for the Hall River. So, the board did have discussions when it was doing the Hall Road application, but we did discuss this a little bit at the last meeting, too. I had the numbers and I addressed the numbers from some of the road. Well, when I said the numbers, TJ said, "Those numbers are false. Where did they come from?" And I found where they told you not to listen to TJ when we told TJ not to talk. So, you know, you know, I mean, TJ, you're going to keep this going. Please stop talking.

So, at at this rate, there will be there could be a truck every two and a half minutes going through downtown Hudson, which greatly impacts the area. And if if this gets sued with an article 78 suit because we're allowing that, I'm making a point that I think it's a mistake. Okay, I understand. But the the permit the permit for the Hall Road was already issued and they already built the Hall Road. Yeah. So, someone already sued and they lost the stat. This is a different permit. The whole road wasn't there wasn't a secret review about what is good for the city of Hudson. That's a different permit. Gabby, can we go through this? A quarterly report shall be provided to the planning board which spec which specifies the number of daily truckloads to and from. We've already gone through this with you L. Okay. So, stop.

The planning board tried to issue a pause on the dock operations based on the truck traffic. That's what happened the last time around. You have already explained. Please, we have to move on. If you're going to take our time for one person, not fair to the rest of us. Okay. So, 36 is is a strap. No, let's go to 37, Gabby, please. Any increase in volume would need a variance granted by the CV ZBA. Increase in volume meaning increase in the muse. Truck volume. I don't think that's a ZBA thing because if you increase your volume

the ability to request more volume but I don't know if that would be the problem. Right. So the zoning board grants variances from the limits in the zoning law. So if they want to increase beyond what the zoning law says that would be invariant. What does the law the zoning cover? There are limits on uses in the zoning law. That's why they give us a noise study. We can say if we want to increase truck volume we come back to the planning board. That's what we would do. We would want to amend it permit if there was an increase in of more than I guess%. Sure. I have no objection. So that's a so that that shouldn't be in there.

No, but if everyone wants it should not be in there. Strike it. Okay. Strike it. Let's move on to 38, please. No materials maybe sort of at the dock other than gravel and aggregate. Back the same issue we just discussed. I don't think so. Should we all? Okay. Number 39, Gabby. I'm just looking at the ones that weren't included here and wondering.

So, one that wasn't included was that Colorado must maintain uh Can we go to 39? Wait. Well, I think we skipped them. Let her go through. Kathy, I know. But if we Let's do what's here. Okay. And then she could add what's not here. 39. Bulk storage, handling, processing the transportation of materials beyond the currently mined products. Any change in material, for example, limestone, which has finer partic particles, will require review and approval by the planning board. 40 and 41 are all about material being stored at doc. We we just had a vote on that. So I would say

um this is 39. No, the permit at you're working on the permit, but the code allows raw materials and goods. And so 39 says that if they're changing the the tax aggregate tax aggregate that they have to come back in for reviews if they got the permit. Yes. Right. So I think that's what the permit will say that any change of use.

Um well right now it's it's the broader aggregate is what you voted on a few conditions up just aggregates generally uh not not by um how fine they are. Okay. Do you are you transporting limestone currently? Yes.

Really? So again, the pling board just went through a condition that tried to limit it more than what we had previously agreed on and the board need to strike it. So I think it only makes sense to strike this and the other ones that deal I mean they're all just repetitive different conditions develop material being hand over. Sure. Okay. 39 questions from anybody else. strike it or do I have a a majority vote? Right. All right. 41 the dock 40 also was striking because we just got 39.

That's a repeat. Okay. So strike 40. Yeah, that's okay. 41. The dog shall not be used as storage for storage or for the shipment or receipt of construction and demolition debris materials. What do you need an example of what that would be or it's a certain kind of Yeah. Debree material stuff like that would be a raw material. So we can I can add this as

an example. It's a waste. I mean it was one of those comments earlier when we talked about things ash because it's already said okay so no because it's already said is but is that clear though is it differentiation that can be used it's not this stuff is not raw material it's safe material no it's not it has to go to like a cd landfill that's permanent like stockpile it on site and we can't ship waste anywhere. Okay. 42.

Material piles stored on site shall not exceed 25 ft in height and should be properly covered when not being actively worked on, including material sitting on docked barge when not active. Didn't you say about I think the planning board this came up few meetings ago. They voted that water was sufficient and the best way to control dust and it just be unfeasible to cover the piles because they're so big. But what happens at night when the water dries and then the wind kicks up and it blows the dust all over when somebody's not there watering it down. Well, I'm saying if the board voted and thought water was sufficient and that covers not

Oh, yeah. Because covers we said might blow off when nobody's there. There's no there's no way of holding them down. Well, well, and that's why we brought in an earlier comment to say not, you know, to to have a particular to go, you know, offsite versus like to the Hudson River to take care of this. I mean, whether you want a maximum hike or not, I don't know what Yeah. Did we talk about that? I think we did talk. And you said that the the hat was 25 ft. Oh, I don't know. So the 25 Okay, from now it's in the side. But in the earlier thing about not letting it run off, how is that achieved at night when it's not being watered down?

I tell you truth, I think when they water it down, it's usually a puddle there. Well, it's I mean it Well, the screening is to help with the dust. I mean, the screen will help with the dust. I mean, it depends on the conditions. It depends how dry it is. It depends how much watering down they did, what size the pile is. Yeah. So, so if there are 25 foot piles of limestone that are uncovered at night, I think it only makes sense to have air quality monitoring making sure that it's not creating hazardous conditions. I mean, I probably just voted. I'm just making a point here that these I did. I just confused.

Okay. So, um questions [clears throat] on 42. Well, it sounds like whether or not you need to make it a condition. The site plan states the pilot won't be more than 25 ft. Yeah. And they said that is now you need them covered. We already talked about covering could be dangerous because when nobody said I covered them both. Yeah, I still think we could cover. That's what we're saying. And um what uh cover and

I mean I think you could cover them. It's just a question of whether that's like feasible, right? I mean well I think if we cover them then we get more of them and but you're talking about the barge side, right? stock the piles and we already No. Yeah. Yeah. But yeah, I think we there was a conversation about why it was impractical to cover the piles but not the barers. Like she's got the bar. We're talking about piles. No. And on the bar here. Well, it should have been. It was in the previous stop there. Was it 42? Sitting on docked barge when not active. Yeah. Yeah.

You mean sitting in the barge? Yeah. But we're on 42. Yes. Yes. That stuff is if we don't have an ability to to cover the barges, you know, not our barges. Once they're loaded, they're they go down the river and cover. Yes. Okay. So, but they travel on the trucks. Remember, cover boots, right? Right. But if they're docked sitting there with piles on it at the Riddler, you know, we we could have something to say about that, but not nobody wants. I know. But you don't p do you pile them above the top of the box. So the bar is like often times are just flat surfaces.

Yeah. In other words, nothing goes above the top of the goes the whole way like that all the way to New York. Let me finish please. I got a question. When you're loading them, do you ever leave them that way uh stockpiled high like that or or that's when they're ready to go? They're loaded up ready to go and they do come over the side. They are But those do you leave those? Yes. Overnight and stuff like that time. Yeah. Yeah.

But that's why we're proposing the screening is because that'll be there permanently. See, I wasn't under the impression that um they went that high cuz I've seen barges and I never seen them be higher than the rim itself. But um how about if you so cover them? I mean, why can't they just be to the rim? It depends what barge it is. Some, you know, some are hopper barges. They go down. So, a lot of that I'm not going to see. But then they have deck barges that'll be above the surface. But the coast guard doesn't require any of this on the house.

But that is the point. If you're leaving them there, how can it be watered down or the dust kept at a minimum? Okay. How warm does the water last wet and wet and you won't get dust all once you wet it down. It the surface will dry, but there's there's not going to be any dust brush. Yeah. that we have to water the dust and maintain it so it avoids offside impact. So all of this I think would be included in that.

Okay. All right. So you guys understand I mean we all do we want to do we want to scrap this because what they're saying is that they're going to take care of this is and I can understand what you're saying Gabby that you know they do if they're sitting there and stop will there be dust and they're saying not really so draft keep it well I think she was concerned that when it dries if it does dry what is it produce continuing to produce is that what I was hearing you know, but they understand that it's not that when you water it and it's in the barge, it doesn't get dried.

It's basically when you wet the surface, you're basically washing the fine particles off the surface. Yes. We're just talking about huge amounts bigger, you know, this permit will say bigger than anything that's been down there before of all sorts of material. some of it very fine that is just sitting there uncovered on the water on the barge or on the dock and it can't be watered down 24 hours a day and that dust is going to blow around and it is a city park right next to the dock and it is worth trying to find ways to do everything we can to keep that dust from being in our air that we and our children breathe

let's see what the points like that we have earlier conditions in there that apply to you know It can't migrate off site. But how when you say it can't migrate off site, how are they doing that? Just by watering it down, but that's up to us. But that's actually but but to some degree that comes down to their means and methods of how they're going to they could water it, but how they could cover it if they wanted to. So the question comes down to are you gonna are you going to dictate what they're going to do for their means and methods to make it happen or are you going to set a condition out that they need to meet that it doesn't vibrate

because you like what what is not your job can you can it be covered no cuz now I'm told I was thinking of the stock pile on the dock but now we're talking about the dog isn't B dock in barge. I have to look into it to see if you can even cover it. I don't really

I don't think you can cover it on the dock. We talked about that. So on the barge, does it have a weight that No, the barges don't come with covers. I mean, they don't come with any listening to the African. I mean, I'd have to look. I don't have an answer if they absolutely can. I'm going to be looking to see how big the piles are. You know what I mean? But how big? It's 25t tall. I mean, it's what 50 ft wide probably a two. I think it's all labeled in the same. Yeah. Is it? Yeah. All right. So, we can table this and look into it and get I can we can look for Oh, do we agree? What do we think the stat or look into it? Look into it. That's right. Okay. So, number 42

43. We already went through that with Rand. Yeah. Okay. So, scrap that. 44. This is the parking or idling. That's in there. We've already done that. Scrap 44 45. I think this is already in there. Shall we apply that? 46. That's in there, too. Well, no, this is more specific. 46. It's dark sky compliant. That the lighting shall be facing down and be dark sky compliant. Although, I did find in an EAF that they said there would be no outdoor lighting. But if there is going to be that it'd be dark sky compliant which is not unusual. Is that on the site plan and

the all so we took the because we started getting like multiple plans we folded the lighting plan. It's all the landscaping the lighting is all on the site plan and so uh the lighting is on there and we have a phototric survey that shows there's no offsite impact from the lighting that we're going to have. I think the question was are they currently they may not be not right now but well can I mean what does that mean you know explain to me Gabby what does what does that mean it it means that they they don't emit uh glare up yeah upward they're facing down but they're facing down but I think that's the lights yeah the lights have facing down but I think he also admitted that or is indicated in something that I read that they

well some what they said is they don't have the migration off the site. Dark sky is similar but a little bit different. I don't know that that's unreasonable. I would It's a little more specific. It's a little more specific. I don't think that's unreasonable for a planning board to consider that. You would want to consider it. Yes. Yes, sir. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. We'll consider. So, I'll I'll reword that. We're going to need revision of the site plan. Okay. Number 47. And I think he don't you already have motion activated uh security by think ones that can be dark sky. I don't think we have an issue with that but some of the security line that has to be otherwise right

but that will be motion detected the security. Yeah, that's one thing somewhere in there. Gabri said that somewhere. So 40 said it was Wait, no, no, no. Sorry. I'm confused about what was just said. If it's security lighting, it's not motion activated. There's lights down there now that are on when the sun goes down. And so they're timed. They're dead. So those would have to be dark sky compliant in my condition. So that there are no upward- facing lights at night. And they are not now. We can make them start sky playing. Okay, great. Thank you. I was only counting there was a safety light that needed to be a certain way at the dot for

but the issue. Okay, how about number 47? That was number 47. 47 is about right. Yeah, but we just sort of talked a little bit about that. I thought somebody just said that the security lighting was motion activated except for what isn't and that that would become dark sky compliant. But can you confirm? I mean we need you don't have motion activated to show what each light is. Okay. But do you have motion motion activated? Is the security motion or is it just based on on uh you know darkness? We kind of did talk about that that if somebody enters your plant when you're not there.

Yeah. So, can we make it motion activated just so it's less light? But but now the new ones are more infrared. So, they see day for light. So, you don't even need the light at all. Like a new security survey was the purpose of that is to show that there are no offsite currently. Exactly. All right. So, um motion activated is not a need for it or is it a need? I mean, I don't see what the harm is. I should Okay. I think I think we can pass it because we'll address it in our response. Okay. Okay. So, we'll keep it. So, you say keep it and you simple response.

Okay. 48. Barges attached to the dock should not extend beyond the northern and southern ends of the western dock bulkhead and should not block or hinder access and navigation of recreational boats on the Hudson River to and from the Henry Hudson Riverfront Park. Beyond the southern I like it. What's the western dark? Do we want to keep this? Yes. A good question. Maybe turn. I don't know what you mean. Wasn't even

I think in your thing he didn't say where it was directions. We're just saying not extending north, right? The do the dock is facing west, correct? Yes. Right. So that's the western dock bulkhead and not extending north beyond it or so to the to the northern end and southern end of that dock. We have south beyond it. So property all the way down through. Oh yeah, because you that's where you store the um do you store?

It depends on sometimes we're south of that way we handle the north is we make sure the kayakers can get in the inlet where the repair was done. Right. So we're way south of the park, but we do uh consider and make sure that they can get access to that. So it wouldn't be a problem to say that you wouldn't extend beyond the northern end. Well, the northern end we go by a little bit, but we're not talking about up at the park. We're talking about right at our property line where the bulk of pair was, which is an inlet where the kayakers may be. So, you said that you would potentially the bodies would protrude.

They go a little further north where the inlet is always over. Yes, we could revert it to say bar just showing up off the inlet. But heard, you know, for the rest of I I would think language could be approved. So number 49, we're moving on. Um, the barges and boats attached to the dock shall be limited to lighting that is required to comply with federal and state navigational laws. Oh, we've already

they don't they don't have control of the barges. Okay. But the tugboat does have a light. I saw it. And some of the barges do as well. Well, let me ask this. If so, boats coming in to dock at the dock, those barges dock. No, no. At at [clears throat] the at the at the uh the park at the waterfront. Okay. How would you if if they are dark? If the barges are, you know, a dark color, black, whatever, which I think they normally are. How if they're not lit, they have they have same they are quiet and those lights are on like all the time like in the evening same thing

they're on the corner. Okay with federal and state navigation law. So this is it's already done says 50. We're moving along. We're getting there. Will that

dollar shall grant an easement to the city of Hudson over the north side of the commercial do parcel adjoining the Henry Hudson Riverfront Park for maintenance and pedestrian only used to facilitate access maintenance and use of the southern section of Henry Hudson Riverfront Park as demonstrated in climate adaptive design of Henry Hudson Riverside Park. The pedestrian easement should connect to the statewide trail system if possible. Um, you I I mean I address it in a minute, but I believe you guys were in discussion about even paying for that pedestrian bridge. What? Like the railroad bridge from the that that exists now that goes from the

No, no, no. I think we talked about us not dictating whether people could get on your property. There was a finding in the resolution that essentially said a commercial property is not an appropriate place especially when there's park. Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the adaptive design, the climate adaptive design that was in front of this board in March before my time here, which is a huge project to redesign the whole park. They want to take that final about something that was supposed to be done that that they pulled out of doing but people they don't they're not going to do it now.

No, they mentioned I'm going to try to pull it up. They mentioned that. Bay. Oh, some plan mentioned that they would let me just let me just No, no, I right. I I think you guys There is There is a big huge park plan in the works. That was No, I was showing you the site if you I didn't know what No, I wasn't saying to you. That's all right. Sorry. Um, so do you remember in March when the adapt the climate adaptive design park? Are you talking about an agency that came in and said they were going to design the park or do it was a woman named Wendy? Somebody other than Kaluso. Correct.

Right. Okay. So, we're talking about a third party coming in saying they're going to design the park. Has nothing to do with your application here. So, go ahead. I just want to make sure who we're talking about here. Yeah. There is a huge project in the works for the park and a redesign of the park. In that redesign, this Look, you guys have it. You have the bridge in this plan. Right here. It's right there. Does that make sense? Yeah, there's a little railroad bridge. I'm sorry. So, we're asking for an ement. Who? The public. You ask them for easement for the public.

I I Yeah. Oh, so just to answer your question. Sorry. So our property line ends here. Yeah. Right. So we can't create an easement over property. We don't got to pay for something. There's no your property line is there here. If it's halfway up and doesn't see how this first and here comes in the property line is It's here on ground, but it's estimated through the water here and then here. Well, I apologize. I thought it went over to here. And there was not a discussion about

um at some point in an nice discussion in good faith with the city of Hudson and the Department of Public Works and assemblage for funding and construction of the pedestrian bridge. That that was before the planning board. So, I don't know. You know I that was not before the plan. I know I'm talking I'm asking Paul so I think it was talked about we just cut back to the basics and we just went to work on them for a minute. Okay. That's all none of us recall talking about. Okay. All right. So So um 50 strap get rid of it. Yes. Well, I mean, I would still

I would still vote to put it in, but uh Gabby Young strike remove. Okay. 50 is removed. Wait a minute. It's a no. Okay. 51. Gabby, please. Well, that's that that was what I was just asking about. And so 51 is a no. Okay. 52. Colorado Sun shall retain an engineering firm to perform a traffic safety study and evaluate the feasibility and cost of installing sidewalks on Front Street and Broad Street and along the road. Oh, what? Uh I think the traffic signed to but to talk about installing sidewalks just like Pipes Nest did and you asked Pites Nest to do more of

Yeah. They said no. And you didn't back me on that. That wasn't on the their site plan. They built a sidewalk on the site plan and this and there's no traffic down there. This is a huge amount of pedestrian traffic along a road with no sidewalks that they're going to have 284 trucks on a day. It's reasonable to talk about a sidewalk. A sidewalk where along front and broad street going where to the dock. I I don't the front the part that they cross go straight to that dock. Youth Bridge also has a pedestrian sidewalk. Yeah. But what about going walking to the antique warehouse and walking to the basilica? They don't have anything to do with that.

Yes, they do. Their trucks are along that road. That's the hall route. Okay. Do we agree with that? Yes or no? Okay. But they're not in front of us for a condition. Strike. Yes or no? Uh Randall, we need your vote. Yes or no? Strike. Yeah, it's not there properly. Gabby is your Yes. Strike doc. I already said strike. Okay.

52 is a strike. It's enough. 53 please. In a potential partnership with Columbia Land Conservancy and the Hudson Sloop Club, Colorado Sun shall fund and implement the replacement of the existing 36 inch culvert under the Hall Road with a box culvert or bridge structure designed to restore full tidal flow to the South Bay. What are you saying? Would you like me to read it again? No, I'd like you to explain it. What do you ask for? This wasn't Wait, wait, wait. I want him I want her to kind of uh I mean, this was written a lot about in the public comments, so I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

See, I asked you to explain it. Now you want to say, "Well, you can't understand it." No, I'm I'm I'm merely saying this was addressed a lot in the public comments, and the sloop club, I believe, was in conversation at some point. So, you're asking them to replace an existing 36 in. It's on the hall, though. Yeah, it's not it's not on the property. It's on the hall. When we studied the hall road, that was a part of the study, and those roads were found to be in good working condition. If any organization wants to come about the hall, correct? Okay. But no. Okay.

You can tie this to the hall road when it's convenient. But when it's not convenient, you say that's about the hall road. But when you say it's already been approved by the hall road, it's very cherry. It's fine. Obviously tie the conditions. You have to tie the conditions to the a specific impact from the dot. And so I'm just saying a 36 inch cover tying to the dock. I don't

Well, the dock operations are the reason for the 284 trips, right? If there was no dock operations, there wouldn't be all those trucks on our streets and the South Bay wouldn't be potentially under threat from the Hall Road. So, it is tied to the dock operations. These two things are tied together, which is why they should have been one permit, but they're not. Which keeps bringing us back to this very annoying conversation. us.

Yes, we are having a conversation say something that she said we're cherrypicking. We're actually being consistent. We're saying we're not going to address the 284 drug trips because it's already been addressed in the whole road. As we're saying here, the culberts had already been existed during the whole world permit. So, you're wrong and you're mischaracterizing it. We have been consistent. But the 284 trips can be addressed regarding the dock operation. Those go to the dock. It's not a separate thing. simply brought it up to address the statement that you just made and I'm simply responding. Do we want to keep 53 or scrape strap? Yes or no, please. I want to keep Okay. Um Randall, what's 53?

53. Yeah, we're on. Um doc Jean Strike. Strike. Okay. Strike. Randall, you want to vote? Yeah. I feel like it is so Okay. So it's two keep the rest strike is a no 53 54 G please 54 is redundant with 52 although I okay so parcel which I know nobody would vote for anyway so okay 50 55 we've already gone over this all right I want 55

we said that's going to be for I think we went through and Victoria is saying the rest of your stuff was kind of the same. Well, I mean there were things that the speeding permit. Yeah. Uh the time of the dock operation was going to protect them. So I mean I must have heard something else. No, I hadn't had a chance to see which ones. I was just trying to look through them. Can I just ask a question about the So, the building So, it's still in there that the that the grain tower that's coming down

and then that and and where's the language on the maintenance of the building? That's um yeah, look at the beginning. Then it says conditional use permit findings. Yeah. What? I'm just You don't 18 months. Randy wants to know where is it? The language for the building for the No, the preparation the repair of the building. It was in it was it was in the conditions, but it's also already in the same. Yeah,

good. Okay. And the silos too, right? Is this a president? They said we said okay

remove indicating the removal of the nonoperational power. Okay. So now we have some of them I'm leaving in because we don't have time to we're going to send so this resolution is going to be reprint. I'll send it around based on to look at it again. No, you're gonna send it to um everyone, you're gonna send it to um DJ DJ and then TJ's going to respond to it. Yes. Okay. So, as soon as you get that, okay, put a response as soon as you can. Try not

as soon as you can. Please, if you guys going to give this on the same day, we might as well not we're not doing this again this time. No, I understand that. I cannot work faster than a Friday through Tuesday turn just you know so we're doing everything we can to get this application several applications we have like 17 applications not done right yes so the meeting is there any other business oh yeah uh let's approve the bills I make 18.

Well, the 18th is going to be much shorter. I know. You can build on the 18th or not. Oh, yeah. We can Oh, no. We want to get them paid because we don't have that long, you know. Approve all the bills. Does he have to read them? Yeah. He's got for them to be recorded. So, excuse me. We got to start. Barton and Lagonas Davis 116 2025 say 13,682 is thank you so approve approve approve can I get a motion to approve the bills make a motion to approve it and I'll second that all in favor

I Okay, next bill no um Barton Luch had a billionart Martin Luther. Thank you. You didn't have a bill. Take care. All right. Can I get a motion to now? No. Wait. Got something else. Approve the minutes. Oh, can we approve the minutes for the dates I said because they're back. I make a motion. We going to approve 99 923 and 10 9 and 1028.

I make a motion to approve all those minutes that you noted above and then and all in favor. Okay, that's it. Okay. Can I get a motion to motion? I make a motion. All in favor? Okay. No, that's 11:36. You say it. No. You can write yourself.