It Isn't Easy Being Green Street
Gossips has in the past lamented the fate of Green Street, which in 1798 was "a road through a piece of woods leading from the County road" and around 1890 was one of Hudson's earliest "suburban" neighborhoods--a tree-lined street dotted with houses.
Green Street has suffered a lot in the past two centuries. A hundred years ago, the house shown below--one of the finest residences in Hudson in 1905--stood at 24 Green Street. It doesn't exist anymore. The same is true for the houses that were replaced by the buildings (both originally car dealerships) that are now the Hudson Grand Buffet and the offices of Dr. Ibrahim Rabadi.
Although much has been lost, many of the historic houses on Green Street survive. Sadly for those houses, what was once "a road through a piece of woods" is now the most heavily trafficked street in Hudson. The two truck routes that pass through Hudson converge on Green Street. And the effrontery and abuse Green Street must endure isn't limited to trucks. Two projects that came before the Planning Board last night are evidence of that.
The first is 67 Green Street, formerly Cumberland Farms, now Quick Mart, at the corner of Green Street and McKinstry Place.
What's being proposed to the Planning Board is expanding the size of the existing building at the back and on the McKinstry Place side and adding a second story to create three two-bedroom apartments, each approximately 1,000 square feet. Part of the expansion of the retail space will involve a kitchen area at the back of the building, which will include a grill, to prep sandwiches that will be sold in the expanded convenience store.
Questions were raised about an exhaust fan for the grill, and there seems to be a problem. The back wall of the proposed expansion will only be 6.5 feet from the property line with 17 McKinstry Place. State code requires that vents and exhaust fans be a minimum of 10 feet from any lot line.
At the Planning Board's next meeting, scheduled for February 11, the applicant will be back with additional information about the proposed expansion, including elevation drawings that will show what this building will look like with a second story perched on top. A public hearing is expected to take place on March 11.
Another Green Street transformation is just across the street, at 78 Green Street, where a very large--24 feet at its highest point--black metal building was constructed in the wrong place. The drawing below shows where the building was supposed to be built--behind 86 Green Street--and where the building was actually built--behind Enterprise Car Rental at 78 Green Street.
It is hard to figure out exactly who knew what when, but the problem seems to have come to a head when Craig Haigh, Hudson's code enforcement officer, refused to issue a certificate of occupancy to the building because it had not been constructed in the location that had been approved by the Planning Board in the site plan review. Bizarrely, the same code enforcement officer had been inspecting the building at various times throughout its construction, but it seems never to have dawned on him that the building wasn't where the site plan approved by the Planning Board indicated it was supposed to be.
Members of the Planning Board voiced their opinion that the building was out of compliance with the site plan they had approved and therefore should be taken down and moved to where it was supposed to be. Planning Board chair Don Tillson declared he would not sign off on a site plan amendment (which is what the architect for the building, who appeared before the Planning Board, sought) just so the building could get a certificate of occupancy. But Andy Howard, new counsel to the Planning Board, advised that the board needed to consider the project again as if it were a brand-new site plan submitted for review. That process will begin on February 11, and a public hearing is expected to take place on March 11.
When asked why the building was constructed in the wrong place, the architect explained that cost was the reason. Building it where it wasn't supposed to be allegedly saved $100,000.
It was also revealed at last night's meeting that the owner of the property--who owns 78 and 86 Green Street and everything in between--wants to demolish the little house where Enterprise Car Rental is located. The house, whose facade was crudely adapted for commercial use, no longer looks the way it does in this picture. There is now a black metal building looming up behind it, and it is surrounded by blacktop and parked cars.
As compromised as it already is, Green Street really should be designated a historic district, to protect the buildings of architectural significance that survive.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
So, you build a building in a place that wasn't approved by the Planning Board and counsel for the Board advises that the board needs to "consider the project again as if it were a brand-new site plan submitted for review." So what's the point of getting approval BEFORE you build? Sounds like the 900 Green Street bait-and-switch scheme: oops, we really didn't mean we were going to "move" the historic house....
ReplyDelete@ Pete--As I understand it, getting the owner to move the building will require an injunction, so the Planning Board must first establish that there are problems with the current site that would have prohibited them from granting site plan approval.
DeleteAlso, there is the real question of who knew what when? The code enforcement officer was inspecting this building all along, but it seems that it was only when he was called on to issue a certificate of occupancy that the fact it had been built in the wrong place became an issue.
I have to confess when this building first started going up it struck me that it wasn't where I thought it was going to be, but since members of the audience rarely get to see the plans submitted to the Planning Board, I thought it was just my misunderstanding of what they had approved. What puzzles me is why members of the Planning Board didn't raise the alarm. Two of them live on McKinstry Place. The street is one way, and they cannot go anywhere (unless on foot) without driving straight toward this building. They should have known the site plan they approved. Why wasn't a red flag raised and a stop-work order issued before the building got to the point of needing a certificate of occupancy?
Carole, it's obvious that a mistake was made. The only question now is Who Pays for it? Unfortunately, in Hudson there is a long tradition of making mistakes on the backs of the taxpayers. So, in the case of 900 Green, the body representing the public determined that it was in the best interests of the public to "move" the building. That was based on the preference the public has put on historic buildings (backed up by long-standing state and federal public policies). So, when the owners of 900 Green violated the clear directive from the Planning Board and dismantled 900 Green, in effect, they violated a City regulation. Are there consequences for violating City regulations? Try parking on the wrong side of the in Snow Emergency. Violating an order of the Planning Board should be no different. Just as the Public does not pay for my wrong-side-of-street parking, so we should not have to pay for violations of Planning Board orders.
DeleteHi Carole, Thanks for this timely post. 17 McKinstry is my house, and obviously I'm upset about these latest developments. This began last summer, when the owner, with no notice, began cutting down the row of trees next to my driveway. Technically it's his property so he was within his rights, but it was my only barrier between my property and the rather unattractive backside of his building. He told me his plans regarding the expansion, and I questioned the setback issue. He said he was consulting with his architect and would keep me informed. The latest development is his attaching a cigarette advertising poster to the one remaining tree right at the foot of my driveway, facing up McKinstry and much closer to my house than his store. I asked him if he could move it and he said he's trying to advertise to the hospital workers. I've called the Codes office about this, but haven't gotten a reply.
ReplyDeletePutting up a sign advertising cigarettes to attract hospital workers? I love that. The hospital should be complaining about it and encouraging its employees to adopt more healthy lifestyles.
DeleteThat is funny. These are the hospital workers that must park on mckinstry place because there are not enough parking garage spaces. And, the same workers who litter their "butts" all over my neighborhood. I'm worried about my lovely street and community.
ReplyDeleteIt is sad to see the beautiful postcard of Green Street. The remaining houses show what it might once have been. My own house is on Green Street but faces Aitken Avenue and is nearly 100 years old -- not historic by Hudson standards, but a nice old lady nonetheless. Yet I can testify that living on Green Street is a misery. The truck exhaust eats the paint off my house, and sifts inside to coat everything with a black film. The noise is such that it drowns out conversations held inside the house, while trying to talk to neighbors in my street requires pantomiming. Those sleeping in bedrooms on the Green Street side of the house must wear earplugs. Our intent to live in Hudson and locate our business here was rudely abridged by the reality of living on Green Street. It is fixable; other towns have done it. There is no real will to do so in Hudson.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a kid, we used to pass two old Victorian houses just above the corner of State and Green on our way home from the Community Theater...usually aro' 11pm...By then they were a bit run down and seemed spooky to our gang so we would run past them...I understand an elderly lady lived in one, and wouldn't hurt a flea, but our childhood imaginations got the better of us and we thought she was a witch.Too bad the houses didn't exist now and be renovated by those who have the means to do so..
ReplyDelete