In 2006, the building that stood at 406 Warren Street was demolished--in a locally designated historic district, without a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition. Cohen wanted the site cleared so that he could construct the entrance to his proposed hotel in that spot.
Chapter 169-8 B of the Hudson city code is very clear about the conditions for demolition in a historic district and the expectations after demolition has occurred:
Demolition shall be permitted only after the owner of the site has submitted and obtained design approval of his/her plans for new development under the provisions of this chapter, including an acceptable timetable and guarantees, which may include performance bonds for demolition and completion of the project. In no case shall the time between demolition and commencement of new construction or lot improvement exceed six months.Cohen got a demolition permit from Peter Wurster, the code enforcement officer, without a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission, his plan for the new construction in the vacant space was never approved by the HPC, there was no timetable or guarantees, and the lot has been kept vacant for eight years, with no improvement beyond the construction of a fence/mural, but the City has never taken any punitive action against Cohen.
Last September, another demolition permit was issued for one of the town houses on North Fourth Street. Again, the demolition permit was issued without a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission, this time because it was considered to be an emergency. The building had to be demolished in the interest of public safety.
Two things prompted Alderman John Friedman (Third Ward), who chairs the Legal Committee, to bring up the situation at Warren and Fourth streets last night. The first was a report that a brick had fallen from the demolition site on North Fourth Street narrowly missing someone walking below on the sidewalk; the second was someone else expressing an interest in acquiring the property and developing it as a hotel. Friedman said he wanted to bring the issue up with the Legal Committee "because it is a particularly sticky wicket."
Council president Don Moore inquired about the stability of the remainder of the buildings, and it was suggested that the City should require an engineer's report attesting to their stability. Friedman said he wanted to invite Cohen to a Legal Committee meeting, with the goal perhaps of getting Cohen to enter into a consent agreement. Friedman suggested that agreement might be Cohen promising "in eighteen months, I'll have a C of O (certificate of occupancy) for the whole building."
Meanwhile, it's been eight years since the project was before the Planning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission. The former never granted site plan approval, the latter never granted a certificate of appropriateness, and at the time it was rumored that Cohen was intending to change the design for the hotel, which had been presented to both commissions.
COPYRIGHT 2014 CAROLE OSTERINK
Or how about enforcing this law from the City Code:
ReplyDelete169.13 “Maintenance and repair required”
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance and repair of any exterior architectural feature of a landmark or property within an historic district which does not involve a change in design, material, color, or outward appearance. No owner or person with an interest in real property designated as a landmark or included within an historic district shall permit the property to fall into a serious state of disrepair so as to result in the deterioration of any exterior architectural feature which would, in the judgment of the Historic Preservation Commission, produce a detrimental effect upon the character of the historic district as a whole or the life and character of the property itself. Examples of such deterioration include:
A. Deterioration of exterior walls or other vertical supports;
B. Deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members;
C. Deterioration of exterior chimneys;
D. Deterioration or crumbling of exterior stucco or mortar;
E. Ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, or foundations, including broken windows or doors; and,
F. Deterioration of any feature so as to create a hazardous condition which could lead to the claim that demolition is necessary for the public safety.
It would be great if the town enforced the law
ReplyDeleteWhat an embarrassment that place is for this town.
ReplyDeleteEight years of nothing but removal of historic structure while the plastic disco ball plays on in the 3rd floor window.
Why is it that Eric Galloway's buildings throughout town and in historic districts are permitted to lie idle and boarded up for years? Why isn't the Legal Committee addressing all of the offenders in this City? It's important that a law be placed on the books which would limit the amount of time an owner has to complete the renovations to their property or face stiff fines. Galloway has been warehousing his properties, some for 7 years or more, keeping them boarded up, vacant and unkept. Is this what we want visitors to see when they enter the City e.g. his building located on the corner of Warren and N 3rd with windows and doors boarded up, and full of rats, right on the corner of Warren and N 3rd St? Come on, we can do better than this.
ReplyDelete@Standing Strong: There's been no shortage of focus on Galloway over the past few years. And, during those years, there has been a lot of work done on many of his properties. It's refreshing to see the focus shifted to someone else for a change. You asked "Why isn't the Legal Committee addressing all of the offenders in this City?" Agreed.
DeleteWard, my objection is two fold. We both agree that other offenders should be identified and their failure to rehabilitate their properties addressed, with appropriate monetary penalties following.As for Eric Galloway, yes, he completes some of his projects, and has work put into a few, but that doesn't give him a free pass or a pat on the back for doing what he deems profitable only; his having some of the highest number of real estate holdings in the City of Hudson, many in prominant locations but which remain boarded up for years, should be focused on and legally remedied for his failure to complete his projects in a reasonable time frame. 7 years is not reasonable. True he's not the only violator, but one that clearly stands out quantitatively from the rest.
ReplyDeleteAs you asked and I agreed, "Why isn't the Legal Committee addressing all of the offenders in this City?" I'm for enforcement in which all violators are targeted, as opposed to the arbitrary tactics employed to date. If one individual owns the lion's share of violations then he will receive a proportionately-appropriate amount of attention.
ReplyDeleteWhenever the topic of shuttered buildings is raised, and all cry 'Why is this allowed?' inevitably it is insinuated that Galvan has done nothing with their vast real estate holdings except evict the occupants and board up the windows. We all know that this is not true and I was merely pointing that out.
To tread lightly along the top of a slippery slope, I would suggest that Galvan has done very good things with some of their buildings and has been a positive source of support in the community. I am not suggesting that this entitles them to “a free pass or a pat on the back," but it should be considered in the larger context of what other developers are (not) doing in Hudson.
It would be a daunting task to equitably enforce chapter 169.13 “Maintenance and repair required” of the city code and, as a result, it isn’t generally enforced. Imagine telling every home owner whose chimney needs repointing or who isn’t keeping paint coatings intact on their porches, steps, cornices, and windows so that the sun’s UV rays and precipitation are destroying historic fabric that they are:
“…permit[ting] the property to fall into a serious state of disrepair so as to result in the deterioration of any exterior architectural feature which would, in the judgment of the Historic Preservation Commission, produce a detrimental effect upon the character of the historic district as a whole or the life and character of the property itself.”
Because, technically, that’s the law in Hudson.
“…permit[ting] the property to fall into a serious state of disrepair so as to result in the deterioration of any exterior architectural feature which would, in the judgment of the Historic Preservation Commission, produce a detrimental effect upon the character of the historic district as a whole or the life and character of the property itself.”
ReplyDeleteExactly what the city's thirty year assault on North dock has produced.
Hudson has a "Legal Committee" ??????????????
ReplyDeleteYes. It's not a committee of lawyers. It's a standing committee of the Common Council. There has been a Legal Committee for as long as there has been a Common Council in Hudson--about 200 years now.
Delete