Planning Board, Regular Meeting

1. 0:50Okay. So, I'll call the June 9th meeting of the Hudson Planning Board to order. Lyn, would you call the RO, please? >> Here. Mir >> here. >> Miss here. >> Mr. Woodhog. Mr. Michael, Miss Black, Mr. Chef >> here. >> Corn established regular meeting business. First is approval of payment for any invoices that we received to be invoices to approve. We >> have two from Ryan Gener. >> Yes. Okay. >> Number 1938 for $1,395. and another invoice number 19137 for $1,800. >> Motion to approve the order. >> Second. Okay. Linda.
2. 1:54>> Yes. >> Mr. Sper. >> Yes. >> Miss Conra. Yes. Mr. >> Yes. Yes. Um, second item under bills is a release of escrow. We have escrow that we're holding and all bills have now been paid against those escrow list. Can you identify? >> Yes, there are eight. 70274 Columbia Street which is Savannah Hudson property to also 7 Street Park where the radio station's wine bar also indicate the amounts you don't have that 7072 North Street that was part of the depot district signed
3. 3:00maybe >> 7072 was that the uh um separation of the two apartments two two buildings >> yes uh suma rent 22 parkplace uh 735 Columbia Street they went through their application that was little So raise this 519 Columbia Street next to the parking lot. 202 204 Lauren and then 1012 North Second they merged a lot and another G project 6575 North 7th Street District. >> Yeah. Motion to approve release of these escro is in order second >> Mr. Bao
4. 4:02>> yes >> yes >> M black >> yes >> Mr. Michael >> yes >> Mra Mr. fear. >> Yes. Second item under regular meeting business is the approval of the minutes of May 12th and 28th as previously distributed. Are there edits or corrections to the minutes? >> She didn't see the made for meeting minutes. >> Motion to approve the May 12th agenda order. >> We'll get them next. >> Okay. I said I got that and the second for the May 12th approval. >> Well, that's what I was asking. >> Second. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um Bald. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schvsky. >> Yes. >> Black. >> Yes. >> Mr. Michael. >> Yes. >> Yes. Mr. Spear. >> Yes. >> And finally under regular meeting business uh if there are any liaison reports from Nathan or Peter. Nathan,
5. 5:06can you hear us? Okay. >> Do you have any liaison reports or updates from your work with uh um I do not. Um I have an intention to um bring up or sort of remind them that there's a public hearing. Um but I have not done so. >> May I ask where where are you calling in from? I am in the Czech Republic of all places. >> So, Peter, any updates on the reservation? Okay. >> All right. U more regular business when we move into old business and we have one applicant on the agenda tonight. >> Uh 360 State Street. Welcome. Thank you. Thanks again for hearing it. Um quick update. We received some comments. Thank you. uh late last week. Most of the comments are informational. There
6. 6:07are still a few comments on the site plan except they are minor. Um I intend to um address most of those with notes on the plans. We'll look at the limited disturbance myself very closely. Um all the other comments are areformational or pending. The pending comments are the uh water and sewer specifically. I went to uh the sewer department and discussed it with them. They made note of the fee for the increase in the sewer use and the fact they would need interstate DDC approval as well and I'm here to ask if that can be a condition of approval gathered as a condition. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Fantastic. Um at this time then I would like to ask the board to consider setting a public hearing date for next month if that's available. >> Is that an order? Yeah, there I went through our engineers comments and they do seem to be relatively minor that the applicant can address in anticipation with the public hearing and as the applicant stated there were some things that were pointed out. Still waiting on the will serve letter to DC extension
7. 7:10all that talked about that being a condition. So it's in the board's perview to schedule the public hearing if it deems appropriate. If the board approves, I would recommend that we make it a part of the July uh regular meeting agenda. Um, which would be July 4th. What is the date on? No, the 14th should be July 7th. >> 14th. >> So, a motion to schedule the public hearing for July 14th at 6 p.m. at the council chambers would be in order. J second. Um Jerry, >> yes. Mr. Short, Miss Black, Mr. Michael, >> yes. >> Yes. And Mr. Speed, >> yes. >> Okay. Congratulations. Anything else for >> uh No, it was very light as he had um specified. Everything's laid out in our comment letter and we did recommend
8. 8:12public hearing at 12:30. and it's just clean up of this plan. So, great. >> And we should have a response from county planning maybe next week. >> Okay, good. Good. Appreciate that. Thank you. >> Uh there's no further old business. New business is uh it's going to be a two-part discussion. Um the city has requested some action from the planning board. Uh and I've asked Andrew to kind of lay out what the issue is. And then we have uh the time between now and our July meeting to individually kind of understand what this action would represent. Uh Andrew, you want to brief us a little bit on this? >> Sure. I'll just go over briefly what the city council is asking and how it got to us. So city council is considering this new local law pursuant to Hudson City Code 3024-40. Any proposed amendment? they send it over to the planning board for a review and recommendation. So code provides we as the planning
9. 9:15board have 30 days to render such a report and recommendation from the first regularly scheduled meeting after the referral. So accordingly our time period runs from today and our next meeting is as we stated the 14th. So, I think it would be appropriate for the board to consider the local laws tonight and then maybe reflect on it. Could come back to the next meeting and we can formalize this report. So, let's get over what the uh city council actually referred. They're doing a local law to amend the code section. Excuse me. My computer's not not loaded up. sheet. I'm just gonna grab that from you. So, they're amending one of the code sections and this is specifically related to uh regulations down in the docking area. I think the board's probably familiar with everything going on down there. I don't know how many board members were members of this board at the time of the project
10. 10:18this is kind of related to. So, the city wants to amend the code to provide clarity about what the planning board may consider if it were to have another application pending before it about uses permitted in adoption. And obviously, this is about the Karuso proceeding, which is currently uh under an article 78 proceeding. There is active litigation surrounding this as I think the board is aware. Uh the articulated concern to me from the city council was that if such a if the court were to send that application back to the planning board, the planning board would have to interpret the applicable code section, which is 3025171 D1. And the uh city council wants to put in specific parameters for the planning
11. 11:20board's consideration. And those parameters are the conditions of approval that this planning board previously put on the Karuso project for the conditional dock operation. Now, if the city council could not move forward with this, then the planning board would be interpreting applying this section where it is considering uses as existed on the effective date of local law number five in 2011. And that's a little less than clear. So, I don't know if there's exactly a known quantity. I know there was some research done back then. There were significant reports and comments provided to this board. But cutting through all that, this is the city council's effort to simplify and to give an explicit direction about that code section because obviously the plane board can't interpret the code. It
12. 12:22relies on the legislative body of the city through council and this would be their explicit language that the planning board would then apply. Now what are the planning board's options? I think and this is before most of our time. This local law or substantially similar one was referred to this board sometime last year and the planning board declined to uh make a recommendation on it. They deferred back to the city council's discretion, which is an option for this board, but the city council is going through the required steps sending it to the local law to this board for a report recommendation. And really just wanted to open it up to the board and see how you all wanted to proceed. And I do think it would make sense to board to digest it a bit and read through it, maybe come back with any questions they had so we could properly
13. 13:26make a recommendation or take some sort of action. And I should also point out that this board in acting on this referral is only per uh completing an advisory opinion. We as a board don't get to adopt anything. it it's just simply a recommendation to the city council where by means of an example this board could say that's great you should adopt it and city council could decline or this board could say we recommend not adopting it and city council could elect to adopt it it's really an advisor piece and the common council their next meeting is after our next meeting so one option is that we as Andrew suggested that we take this information digest it during the next month and then we'll have it on the agenda for uh the July meeting. I would just put a footnote. Uh this may trigger some people's reactions because it was a painful process for the planning board last year and for the community. But I
14. 14:30think this is not a this doesn't rise to that level of of decision making by the planning board. And uh I think as we all become more familiar with see it's it's a somewhat small administrative step uh just to help clean up the the language in the in the uh city code. So uh any discussion or questions tonight any any alternative points of view that need to be shared? Uh just just have a point of clarification. You mentioned article 78. What is that exactly? You said it was article 78 litigation. >> Right. So what article 78 just generally is when someone challenges an action of PL or any other board but challenges an action of a board arguing that it should have been different or was arbitrary or capriccious not supported by substantial evidence and there are few that the city's currently involved in shouldn't really comment on active mitigation but just pointing out that there are some there
15. 15:32and we have two currently where the planning board is named in those suits and it's a little bit like a lawsuit like being sued. Um, and it just it's it's why these meetings it's so important that we create a solid record of our works. That's how we defend ourselves if we do get challenged through a a legal action like this is that our the records that Linda keeps really becomes the the credibility of our work and and defends our decision making. So, um, any other comments or observations about this issue for tonight? Peter, >> I guess I just have a question about what it means to report and what what is that? What are the expect? It's not like we're voting on something. Is there an expectation that we have one so that we make some unified decision? I'm sort of curious what that what the bill. >> So I'll just read code section and normally it would be you present the opinions of the planning board if the board could agree on a position that
16. 16:34would make it easier but I'm not opposed to drafting one that sets forth all the prevailing viewpoints. Now the the code section there states as follows. Concerning a proposed amendment or change in text of this chapter, the planning board shall make an inquiry and determination concerning these areas. Whether the change is consistent with the aims and principles embodied in the chapter. Which areas, land uses, buildings and establishments in the city will be affected by the change and how the indirect implications of such change and whether such proposed amendments consistent with the aims of comprehensive plan. A lot of points of consideration, but I will point out that the board is not limited to these. If I want to go beyond that scope, >> I just try to run back for clarity of my own understanding. The problem is that there's a vague
17. 17:38difficult to enforce clause in 3217 parties of code that talks about the core river district and defines that. It's we're in the conditional use section of D part one >> which has to do with yeah continuation of existing commercial dock operations the as such uses existed on on the date that this law was enacted in 2011. So that if it was happening in 2011 it can continue kind of what the current code says. >> Yes. And so they're proposing, but then this a this is a I'm seeing language that talks about 2540. 2540 is the amendment section. I think this Yeah, the council sent that over just so we know. >> I see >> the procedure in which it's being amended. >> I see. I I read it as specifying explicitly a certain number of truck trips that
18. 18:42happened in 2011. Is that like I I find that a little bit hard to follow just honestly. Um is that your understanding as well of what it specifically is doing? >> Stipulating a fact, you know, right that is not currently specified. >> Correct. It seems like my my interpretation here is that the city council is trying to clarify this and set a solvent number and also incorporate planning boards previously uh adopted and implemented conditions of approval. And that's in section B I through 1%. This is just >> and I I should just point out this would not impact the uh approved project as it currently exists while it's subject to litigation and everything else going on.
19. 20:04So, I'm sensing some uncertainty about this. >> I think that's fine. I think what we're dealing with is trying to get clarity, not this, it's not there discomfort. I think we just need to understand and that's why we recommended that we not vote on it tonight to give the board an opportunity to live with this get more information do whatever research you feel you need to do and then we'll come back next week if next month though we can still discuss tonight Sarah I can see your beers turning >> well I mean I never I'd love an opportunity to talk about the minutia um public but I I don't think I I didn't comprehend this before we got here. So now I'm just reading and I understand where >> is there anything we're missing that you're you're aware of. Okay. >> Any further comments on this new business questions? >> Are there any questions that should be answered before we end the discussion that board members could take away with them to better
20. 21:07delve into this and anticipate next meeting? Well, this is something new just came recently, right? New law. So, yes, we need time to we if we have a question on any of the issues to bad papers, you can read to the meeting. I think you could direct it to the chair and the chair could reach out to me with any questions that need to be answered. And of course, I could always seek some further clarification from city council's attorney if that might be helpful to get a more wholesome kind of description of a non-legal ease. It might be a little easier for us to to process that. So maybe you and I can share find a place where we can get that information. So we'll try to do that in a period between
21. 22:09meetings and this is this is just how I guess I'm curious about just the overall process less about the content of the local law but we're in a we're in a process that just gets triggered when they consider a law and they put something for to the planning brand. This is just sort of a structural process, right? >> This this could be a law changing anything, right? >> Well, yeah, within the part of the section of the code that's like the planning board has to have an opinion on what I support. >> It also goes to the county planning as well as the city >> and then once once the the clock is up and we've reported to them, then they they hold a vote and as you said, they can vote one way or another. They're all the city council also required to conduct a public hearing on this by our city acting on it and I'm not aware that one has been scheduled yet. So there is some time before any action could be taken. I have a question about um you know I don't know for the newer members if they understand
22. 23:12the effect that this is going to have right this seems like a small change but it's a huge it's going to have a huge effect uh you know it'll essentially undo everything and partially close down belos I mean after they built I think a1 to2 million dollar private road right So, I mean, is this something that is going to have more, you know, legal litigation tied to it if it if it's brought into effect? >> Well, that's not an easy question to answer. But I should point out I think it's the city's intent where city council's intent where this code section might not be necessary where if it would not change the approval as it is. Yes, I understand. But they're essentially putting this in effect in case it does get sent back to the planning board, at which time it will have a big effect on our new decision that we have have to make, right?
23. 24:14>> Would be constrained by the this increase of external evidence. >> Yeah. So, I mean, that would be essentially, you know, everything every they wouldn't be able to bring all those trucks in and then therefore the dock operations would would slow down, right? So >> the plane board would be bound by if this the application were to come back and this were the code in the law at the time the board is considering it it would be bound by this. >> So yes that's accurate. So I I guess what I'm asking is is not that like what follows after that because this is going to create on the opposite you know this issue has created waves big waves on whatever side that you feel is appropriate right so this obviously is going to create waves for karuso and you know limit what they're able to do and so will putting such a an effect on the law
24. 25:18what does that mean like does that mean now we're looking at another article uh you know you know what I'm trying so it's just such a it's such a drastic change in in you know in light of that okay we might get a second bite of the apple so to speak and now all of a sudden we're putting this law in and it just seems like I I don't know like I how's it going to play out long term I guess If I knew, I would tell you. Yeah, it's >> I mean, will it be subject to this? Could it be subject to >> Okay, >> those are good points, Veronica. One of the things that one of our options, we have three options. We can vote to support this change, we can vote to not support the change, or we can ignore it. So, in a way, our role may be somewhat inconsequential because it's the city, excuse me, the common council that will actually make the decision. >> Yeah. No, I I understand. I I was just curious because this is obviously going to cause waves one way or the other, right? And you know, I think >> it'll be a lot of what we've kind of
25. 26:21just >> Yeah. >> Well, let's do our homework between now and the next meeting. And if you have questions in the intervening time, let me know and I'll direct them as best I can. I'll see if we can't get a write up that that feels a little bit more comprehensive that helps us understand and I appreciate the seriousness with which the board is taking this because it does have a history and it has a future. So, and we're right in the middle of it. So, our role is is not is not to be bystanders. >> I'm sure you can be I'm sure that you're aware it's quite contentious of all. >> Yeah, I know. I have I have like a I a question just like on the factual nature here. Um so I I'm I I have struggled to understand the proposed legislation just like what it actually does versus what was approved um by the planning board last year. And so if anyone is able to like break down
26. 27:25for me what the how the 2011 baseline amount would be different under this and how the 10,000 trips the part B I guess of the um the change in legislation would be different than the previously approved with conditions. Um, I I'm just like trying to understand what what what this actually changes versus the previous approval for Kuso so I can actually understand what we're like so I can have an informed opinion about what to recommend. And so I think that's the the the like one little bit of fact that would be helpful for me over the next, you know, few weeks as we're looking into this. I I think that's a great point, you know, and I think just so that you know the few of us that have been through it before, I mean, we would probably be speculating to what this would affect, you know, and then the people who
27. 28:28aren't, you know, I just think it would be great for everybody to have like a solid concrete like this is what could, you know, potentially affect and change. >> Yeah. If that if that project was was being evaluated today, what would be materially different? I think that would like and just like a versus b and the current legal language is really hard to for me to parse at least to understand that >> the previous board approved the condition article 78 was and it's still in the courts or whatever it may be this proposal by the common council will have no effect on that >> that board decision >> unless gets permitted back to us and we have to decide again >> and then we have decide again based upon this >> based upon whatever the law will be the law >> without giving any tested rights arguments or anything like that there but yes it would be generally the planning board applies the code as
28. 29:30written at the time it reviews the application >> but I mean I know it's I know you're winding down this section but let's just see that this that this new section gets you know amended or revised. Would there be anything retroactively in the past that would be considered foilable? like under the old terms like can can they use any material from the previous decisions or effects you know whatever whatever you decide on going forward >> potentially but generally if it's not in this law then you couldn't use things from an old approval that's no longer valid or it's more argu for a new approval especially with a new code section that doesn't mean the argument won't be meaningful so we'll be ready otherwise Can I I hope um we have a short meeting tonight, but if we could just maybe spend the five minutes because I'm not if I walk away understanding this better, I'll be more likely to understand it better instead. But so I I don't actually I'm not actually locating
29. 30:33what the proposed change to the >> I think it might be the second page. The second large main italics second >> is this it on the second page in italics down here. >> Oh yeah. So the idea is the counts today. >> Yeah. because the findings and purposes are not >> and then just to step back it's like this section of the code says this is what's allowed here see per uses publication towards voting and then it's like here's uses these are the things that are not those things that are already approved by side by side. >> Yeah. >> Or a red line. >> Yeah. That is now I'm pulling up the hard section. And so looking to continue to existing
30. 31:40commercial operations to the transport as such uses existed on the effective any partial operation may continue to operate as a use until such time as one or more reactions. So the the language says that they are amending the section to add new sub paragraphs A and B is follow. So you go that's section one continuation of existing commercial doc operations and then you flip it over and it's minus that A and B are the new ones. >> That's the brand. >> Yeah. >> Was there an A? So there is if you look at the code as it exists now that one section starting with continuation there's no A and B. >> Okay. So there's no change to subsection one and then it's just adding. So is the is the actual effect here that it says explicitly that the board can do
31. 32:46what it did effectively which is limit um Coloradouso using or like imposed conditions that are the ones listed which are the ones the board implemented like I I'm just like trying to follow the legislative intent like it's confusing to me >> more in the abstract yes where it's saying this board would consider these mitigation measures for any application in the core river district >> and then it's explicitly taking the board's 10 I think conditions of approval and adding them to the code. So, it's codifying what the board already did, >> but it's also attaching them to increase in >> trips. No, there's 10,000 trips. It increases the permissible limit up. It seems to some degree renegotiates condition. It says >> increases the permissible limits up to the greater of 10,000 truck round trips
32. 33:49and 270,000 5,000 tons of material provided those are constructed, put in place, employed or maintained on or in relation to the docuation >> subject to all those. >> Right. So letting a hard limit and then putting the delta in mitigation measures. >> So the question is is that 10,000 and the 275 is that where the other applicant potential applicant is at now? >> Yeah. >> Or are they already way above that? And this doesn't really apply to them and this just applies to somebody else new who come comes along with the new application. >> It looks like a bottom and a top. It seems 2011 the low end. >> They're putting a cap in there definitely. rather than the planning board determined >> that's why we need the >> the you know previous comparative under this law >> well from what I understand these two subractions >> are not there so it's like it's just subject
33. 34:55I'm having a having a process going and that is either sometime Between now and the July meeting or at the July meeting, we ask the city to present this in a open meeting answering our questions, presenting it in a way that we can understand. Either we could schedule a special meeting that would be a single item on the agenda that would be this or we could ask them to present the July meeting. Any any reaction to that suggestion? Y >> that sound useful for >> yeah I mean I think I think we all need a lot more clarity to really understand you know if this is >> so would your preference be to do it
34. 35:59during the meetings so that we actually are informed when we come into the meeting next month, which I think sounds like a pretty good idea. Um, and maybe can we do meetings strictly remotely or do we are we able to do that? I pulled up here city code here and I think it does permit for authorization of meetings via video conferencing. Yeah, all public bodies, boards, and committees of the city are authorized to use video conferencing technology to conduct their public meetings. >> Yeah, I remember hearing a lot more constraints about it around that. >> Yeah, you might have a forum issue. >> Yeah, I mean, if we're not voting on something, it's just an >> information more of a workshop >> and there would be no anticipated action at that. >> No. And then we would be better prepared if we do the interim meeting then that gives us a chance individually to get additional information if we need it before we actually come to the meeting and where action is going to be taken. any any any
35. 37:04thoughts about looking for the refrain? I'm going to recommend that we schedule a special workshop meeting uh between now and July 14th for the purpose of inviting the city to explain to us in a level of detail that we are all comfortable with uh what they're really asking us to vote on. Is that a is that a workable idea for us? >> That is okay. So, Linda and I will work with you to find a date and I will reach out to either through you, Andrew, or directly to the city to u see if we can get them to do this presentation for us. And I confirm we're complying with all open meetings on that. >> Yeah. >> And if we are able to do so legally, we'll do it virtually. Makes it easier for everybody. Does that sound all right? >> Okay. >> This conversation improved my reading comprehension vastly. Well, I I think because of the history I think we want to be super smart about this.
36. 38:05>> Yeah. And >> it was it was really it was really >> and that's what I get lately. I mean I just off the top of my head and and Kaylee and Jean may remember this but I think we approved them for was it 280 a day truck trips. I mean 10,000 will be meet be met bet really quickly. >> Yeah. >> You know, so they're approved for apparently I think many more than the 10,000, you know. So kind of being able to compare, you know, that's 35 days of drugs, I think. >> Yeah. >> 27 a day. >> Yeah. So that's a huge, you know, that's a big that's a big difference. And I think there's just so much to consider that the things that Palarus did do to mitigate things and to make this as best as possible for the city, you know, and to just
37. 39:08I I I don't know. I think we just have to see the comparison to really >> So, I'm going to ask a favor. uh we'll be reaching out to you using the Outlook email and I'm really hopeful to get a quick turnar around so we can get this date in the calendar. So watch your email over the next few days and and uh so that we can we can lock this thing down and we're going to try to do it in the next two weeks, 10 days like that. So um any further discussion on this item in the agenda? Any further discussion? Any other items that need to be brought to the attention? Yes, sir. Okay. >> Then a motion to adjurnn is in order. >> Second. Um and we're

Timestamps link to the corresponding moment on YouTube. Auto-transcribed, contains speech-recognition errors. Not an official record.