 |
| Image: Google Maps |
When the application was received, Council president Tom DePietro handed it off to the Economic Development Committee. At its meeting in January, the committee decided to give itself a month to study the proposal. At the February Economic Development Committee meeting, Marshall was there to pitch his plan and answer questions, and so were members of the public, who had nothing to say in support of the proposal. At the end of the discussion, a comment by Halloran--in July, the only member of public who spoke in favor of the project and now an alderman and a member of the Economic Development Committee--about needing to understand the "new law" presaged that the Stewart's request for a zoning change and proposed Local Law No. 9 of 2017 were about to be conflated. In fact, they are quite different, but the distinctions between them are getting obliterated.
In February, in response to comments from the Columbia County Planning Board, DePietro sent Local Law No. 9 back to the Legal Committee. At the next meeting of the Legal Committee, which took place on February 28, it was revealed that the Legal Committee had referred Local Law No. 9 to the Hudson Planning Board for a recommendation. At the Planning Board meeting, which took place on March 8, there was no discussion of Local Law No. 9. Instead they discussed the Stewart's proposal to create a Green Street Overlay District. Speaking of the proposal, Planning Board member Clark Wieman asked, "How is this not spot zoning?" Planning Board chair, Walter Chatham responded, "I think they are trying to grab a bunch of other buildings to make it not spot zoning." Chatham read an email from Halloran which, in its reference to Third Street, seemed to conflate totally the zoning overlay requested by Stewart's and proposed Local Law No. 9. Chatham told the board that the code enforcement officer Craig Haigh was suggesting that "if two items in the code were rejiggered, the Planning Board could review this without amendments."
After some discussion, during which Planning Board member Ginna Moore said she thought the proposed overlay district was a "horrible idea," and Wieman said, "Expanding in an area that is mostly residential is a bad idea," Chatham concluded: "In principle, we support that an existing building should expand, but we don't support rezoning an entire neighborhood." He then suggested that the Planning Board "do Craig a solid and support what he suggested."
But what had Haigh suggested? No one on the Planning Board seemed to know exactly, so Gossips called Haigh to find out. He explained his idea that eating and drinking establishments, and presumably gas stations and convenience stores and a host of other commercial enterprises, should become conditional permitted uses in the R-2 district, which would make them conditional permitted uses in the R-3, R-4, and R-5 districts as well. In effect, any and all commercial uses would be permitted in residential districts anywhere in Hudson--with the notable exception of the R-1 district--so long as they were approved by the Planning Board. To follow that suggestion might simplify things, but it would make Hudson more like Greenport, where there is no zoning, and where the Planning Board, one project at a time, makes the decisions that shape the character of the town without any overarching, publicly agreed-upon vision for the community to guide them.
So it seems the Stewart's proposal is going back to the Legal Committee, where it started a year ago, and where Local Law No. 9 is awaiting a recommendation from the Planning Board. The next meeting of the Legal Committee is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, March 28, at 6:15 p.m., in City Hall.
COPYRIGHT 2018 CAROLE OSTERINK
Local Law No. 9, which I had a hand in drafting, only allows existing non conforming use parcels (or what were non conforming uses, which have not been converted to residential uses), to go before the planning board for a conditional permit to change to another non conforming use. Any residential parcel in a residential district would not be entitled to seek a permission to convert to a non residential use.
ReplyDeleteThe Stewarts' proposal with respect to its expansion involves removing two residential uses, so Stewarts would not be eligible under Local Law 9 to go before the planning board with that proposal. However, its overlay district would entitle the owners of the affected parcels to convert from residential uses, and tear down residential buildings, as a matter of right. Local Law 9 as described above on the other hand does no such thing.
So the two proposals are indeed apples and oranges to each other, and it does appear that the two have been conflated, which is most unfortunate.
Oh great, so nobody knows what they are doing because the incessant bickering has created divisions so great on the council that there is no institutional memory passed from term to term.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps the council is just weaponizing incompetence to stall and hope Stewart's decided to just take out their gas pumps in that location, like they did when faced with a very similar problem in their Red Hook location (the one by the diner).
If in fact no one on the council counter-proposes that Stewart's remove their gas pumps, which they probably will do if they can't build a new building, then eventually there WILL be a council that allows them to do whatever they want.
This problem needs to be addressed by a council that has a vision of the development of Hudson. This council could do it, but its members need to take their jobs more seriously.
VISION is the operative word - or lack thereof !
DeleteI'm agin it! Why would we want to further commercialize what was once a lovely residential street? Green should have less commercial property, not more, and we don't need a larger Stewart's. Greenport obviously doesn't care what happens to it, and it is basically nothing but ugly urban sprawl now. Is that what we want to happen to Hudson as well? It's already starting, and it's not pretty. Hudson has charm because it is a city of businesses that are one of a kind, not chains, and I hope that there would be restrictions in place that no more chains would be allowed to go in. If you make Hudson look like any other place, with the same businesses as every other town, people won't come any more, and we would lose a major source of income with tourism. Huge mistake. So stop commercializing, already. It's a real no-brainer. Just say NO.
ReplyDeleteWhat's most interesting in this on-going discussion is that NO ONE, not a single other poster or any public officials who read this blog and these comments regularly, ever responds to the posts regarding what happens to the employees who earn hourly wages, some who also receive benefits and stock options. Apparently economic diversity isn't encouraged or relevant in Hudson. And clearly there is zero respect for those non-creative economy workers.
ReplyDeleteAnd no one ever responds to the comments posted here regarding the fifty years of property and sales tax Stewart's has paid. Of course, were the conversation about another, perhaps trendier business, the tax issue would be framed in terms of "investment in the city", and there would be genuflecting at the altar of THAT business.
So job retention and taxes are not worth addressing. That's very interesting.
As to the two privately owned houses, I thought in America if you owned a piece of property, you got to sell it to whom you wanted to sell it to.
And, as I recently said at a meeting, which neither the blog nor the Register Star opted to report, but which made more than one member of the Economic Development Committee sit up a little straighter, was that perhaps Stewart's should not only buy both of those houses, but NOT demolish them, and instead keep them vacant for fifteen years.
Different rules for different applicants, clearly.
Susan
Nobody has mentioned employees losing their jobs because no jobs are being lost. Stewart's has not threatened to leave that location if they can't get their way and expand. If they don't expand, the facility will continue to operate as it now does.
DeleteSorry for the delay in responding, I was traveling for work and attempted to post on my phone which didn't pan out (clumsy fingers/small screen).
ReplyDeleteHere's verbiage from the February 23rd discussion entitled "Not Taking "No" For an Answer" where I was quoted as saying "If we are unsuccessful, we will operate it as long as we can," and "The long-term situation is that nonconforming uses get pushed out." He then suggested that if Stewart's left, some other business that didn't provide as many hours of work for as many employees might take its place.
Both of these statements are accurate. There will come a breakpoint where the store's profitability will decrease because of issues that can't be solved with a can of paint. These are the fundamental obsolesces of real estate when you've been at the same location for 45 years....
Currently with 240 hours worked in the store and an average hourly wage of $12.64, we pay out $157,000 in annual wages. With an approximate 15% increase in volume we anticipate that increase to rise to $181,000 in annual wages. This does not include the three partners (called "partner" because they own part of the company) receiving health care benefits and seven who are participants in the Employee Shop Ownership Program (ESOP). Essentially, small businesspeople.
And yes, if we leave, the potential exists for someone to convert the property to a conforming use, but because of the income generating potential with vested rights, the likelihood is the non-conformity continues. Should a sole proprietor purchase the location, the supporting jobs disappear, along with the health benefits and the stock options all while operating a tired building with poor pedestrian amenities, outdated architecture and inferior offerings.
A summary of the impact on wages, a draft version of the Host Community Benefit Agreement detailing the improvements to the intersection signalization, and other pertinent information stemming from my recent Economic Development Committee appearance will be submitted to the members of the Legal Committee and to the Council as a whole, next week.
The process Stewart's seeks to move forward is permitted by the City code, and the only means we can see for updating the building and improving the layout, while increasing the safety for all pedestrians and vehicles, whether they are Stewart's customers or not, simultaneously.
Chuck Marshall
Stewart’s Shops Corp
Sorry for the delay in responding, I was traveling for work and attempted to post on my phone which didn't pan out (clumsy fingers/small screen).
ReplyDeleteHere's verbiage from the February 23rd discussion entitled "Not Taking "No" For an Answer" where I was quoted as saying "If we are unsuccessful, we will operate it as long as we can," and "The long-term situation is that nonconforming uses get pushed out." He then suggested that if Stewart's left, some other business that didn't provide as many hours of work for as many employees might take its place.
Both of these statements are accurate. There will come a breakpoint where the store's profitability will decrease because of issues that can't be solved with a can of paint. These are the fundamental obsolesces of real estate when you've been at the same location for 45 years....
Currently with 240 hours worked in the store and an average hourly wage of $12.64, we pay out $157,000 in annual wages. With an approximate 15% increase in volume we anticipate that increase to rise to $181,000 in annual wages. This does not include the three partners (called "partner" because they own part of the company) receiving health care benefits and seven who are participants in the Employee Shop Ownership Program (ESOP). Essentially, small businesspeople.
And yes, if we leave, the potential exists for someone to convert the property to a conforming use, but because of the income generating potential with vested rights, the likelihood is the non-conformity continues. Should a sole proprietor purchase the location, the supporting jobs disappear, along with the health benefits and the stock options all while operating a tired building with poor pedestrian amenities, outdated architecture and inferior offerings.
A summary of the impact on wages, a draft version of the Host Community Benefit Agreement detailing the improvements to the intersection signalization, and other pertinent information stemming from my recent Economic Development Committee appearance will be submitted to the members of the Legal Committee and to the Council as a whole, next week.
The process Stewart's seeks to move forward is permitted by the City code, and the only means we can see for updating the building and improving the layout, while increasing the safety for all pedestrians and vehicles, whether they are Stewart's customers or not, simultaneously.
Chuck Marshall
Stewart’s Shops Corp