Hudson waterfront site visit draws residents’ concerns over flooding, dust, security and remediation

Planning Board members and residents on Tuesday raised repeated concerns about flooding, dust, security and potential hazardous materials at the Colarusso-owned site at 175 South Front Street after a planning-board site visit.

The board kept the application active and directed residents to submit written comments for the record; members said they would revisit the item at the board’s next meeting on March 11.

Why this matters: The property sits at Hudson’s waterfront and the discussion centered on whether the applicant’s mitigation measures address floodplain risk from the Hudson River, how materials would be handled and secured on site, and what oversight state agencies such as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) would exercise. Residents said the issues affect adjacent neighborhoods and a nearby public park.

At the start of the discussion the board summarized what it observed on a recent site visit: the applicant described transporting aggregate and stone and said it did not anticipate handling hazardous materials on site. Residents and at least one board member voiced skepticism that the application adequately addressed flooding from the Hudson River and local runoff.

"The issue of the Hudson River flooding, I don't think it's really been addressed in anything that they presented," said Lloyd K. Koevding, a resident who spoke during the public hearing. The transcript shows the applicant responded that the proposed building would be constructed "well above the flood line" and that the site grading and a ditch would convey upstream flow and reconnect it to the municipal drainage.

Residents pressed for more detail about the applicant’s mitigation. The transcript records the applicant saying the project excavates two cubic yards for every cubic yard of fill placed on the floodplain: "For every cubic yard of fill they're filling in the floodplain, they're excavating 2 cubic yards," a project speaker said.

Public-safety and site-security concerns were a recurring theme. Board members and neighbors said the existing gate and fence appear climbable and asked for stronger measures. Several speakers said they preferred vegetative screening and brush cleanup along the riverfront rather than heavy metal fencing. "My first comment is that I think the city, as well as as well as the, Colarusso, have to do brush cleanup and maintain those areas," said Jenny Saska, who participated in the site visit.

Dust control and traffic impacts were also raised. Board members said special-permit conditions include dust-control requirements; residents asked the board to require paved surfaces or other measures so fine particulates do not become airborne. One participant asked that the board clarify whether oversized loads (for example, large transformers) would use residential streets or alternate truck routes.

On oversight and jurisdiction, the board and commenters acknowledged limits to local authority: state and federal permits cover many activities at the waterfront. A planning-board speaker summarized the distinction: hazardous and waterway permits are overseen by DEC and federal agencies or port authorities, not the local planning board. The transcript records a text message relayed during the meeting that "the hazardous is governed and permitted by DEC."

What the board directed: The planning board did not close the public comment period. Instead, members asked the applicant to respond to the written list of site-visit observations and told residents to submit written comments for the record. A board speaker asked the public to "please take a minute, write them, send them to us so we can read them." The board announced it would revisit the application at its March 11 meeting.

Context and next steps: The transcript indicates the applicant and board members discussed remediation options, exterior aesthetic changes, tree planting and whether an existing silo on the site remains a hazard or a local landmark. Board members asked staff to repost the permitting limits and prior approvals so all parties have the same baseline documents before the next review. The board also said it will schedule a planning-board site visit to view areas of neighborhood concern before the next meeting.

Ending: The item remains under active review. The board’s direction to accept written public comments and to revisit the matter at the March 11 meeting sets the immediate schedule; the board and residents also signaled interest in further coordination on vegetation, security and dust-control measures that could be added as conditions if the permit proceeds.