City attorney Andy Howard laid out the options for moving forward: the committee could move the proposal to the full Council with the recommendation that it be approved; they could move it to the full Council with the recommendation that it be denied; or they could consider some "hybrid" solution to the situation.
Committee chair John Rosenthal (Fourth Ward) suggested he would prefer the "hybrid option" and a public hearing. Committee member Rich Volo (Fourth Ward) said he was not OK with Craig Haigh's suggestion, which would make commercial uses permitted conditional uses, subject to approval from the Planning Board, everywhere in the city except for the R-1 district (the R-1 district is primarily the mid-20th century neighborhoods off Harry Howard Avenue); he was not inclined to go forward with the overlay; and he was not OK with "knocking down six housing units." He said he would be OK with asking Stewart's for another proposal.
Howard suggested that, instead of asking Stewart's for another proposal, he could draft a zoning amendment that would address the Stewart's situation and also the problem the previous Council was hoping to remedy with the ill-fated Local Law No. 9 for 2017--the problem of buildings with historic commercial uses ending up in residential districts. The committee--Rosenthal, Volo, Tiffany Garriga (Second Ward), and Shershah Mizan (Third Ward)--agreed to have Howard proceed with the "hybrid option." Howard's draft for a new zoning amendment will be ready for discussion at the next Legal Committee meeting, which is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, May 23, at 6:15 p.m.
COPYRIGHT 2018 CAROLE OSTERINK
The committee's fear of dealing iwth the real economic development and housing issues in Hudson is causing them to make mountains out of mole hills on a fairly straightfoward economic improvement for Hudson. First, Stewarts has been there for a good 40 years, giving jobs and a lot of ice cream and gas to thousands of Hudsonites. Second, we are not "allow[ing] Stewart's to demolish two houses," we are allowing two homeowners to tell their houses! Isn't this America? I am a firm believer in historic districts and the community claim on the value of that history, but this is not a historic district and the anti-Stewarts people are trying to lay claim to a bogus public ownership of private property that goes far beyond the law or the needs of the community. I ask the committee to stop wasting public funds on this question and address itself to the many issues of economic development, historic preservation, and low-income housing that are all over our town, in abundance. Let Stewarts continue to serve our community!
ReplyDeleteI was advised that my comment was littered with typos and it is. I apologize. I was also advised that the Stewarts issue is not about historic preservation -- and I know that, which is why the Committee and the Council should not be interfering with home owner's right to sell his/her house. To try to impose a low-income housing rule on this sale is not only unprecedented (as far as I know there is no such law in Hudson) it is, as I'm suggesting, hypocritical when we have landlords all over the city, one who even claims to be in the low-income housing business, the Committee and the Council is ignoring while they hold dozens of apartments off the market and raise the rents on dozens of others.
DeleteNothing is keeping these home owners from selling their homes -- it's just that Stewart's bought an option on them and so they are bound by those terms. That was their right of contract in action.
DeleteOdd argument here. Most people selling their homes want the best price possible and in a free market, competition would dictate a price. In this case, the City wants to regulate that price; in fact, it's probably safe to say that Stewarts is offering them prices they couldn't otherwise get. A contract is irrelevant here, in that buyers and sellers always sign contracts.
DeleteThe City wants to regulate the price? Stewart's knew that the City's zoning prohibited them from expanding, yet they entered into contracts with these two property owners with the expectation that they could get the City to change its zoning to accommodate them. The sellers knew the sale of their property was contingent upon a zoning change. To bring these property owners and their right to sell their property into the argument is specious.
DeleteCarole, this is a straw man argument. Look at the stories about the sale of garages in Hudson. What is considered acceptable practice on these properties -- the prospective buyer will buy the garage if he gets permission to tear it down -- has become some sort of arm-twisting when Stewarts wants to make the same kind of deal. The analogy is not at all specious. Besides, why is Stewarts asking for a zoning change? Again, it's the City that is acting the enforcer/bully here. And it is the City's demands that are impacting the price of the houses. You can take these questions all the way to the Supreme, but one thing is clear at this moment, these property owners can get much more from Stewarts for their houses than they can from an individual thinking of buying rundown apartments behind an ugly commercial property! I don't think there is any question that the city (and by extension its laws, codes, regulations, committees) is preventing these homeowners, for the time being, from getting the highest and best prices for their homes.
DeleteStewart's does not "serve" the community. They are a business, not a charity, and all their products are unhealthy: gas, cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets, pornography, and all sorts of obesity causing low quality food. Their public bathroom attracts drug users who have overdosed in the bathroom.
ReplyDeleteThe store's alarm frequently goes off in the middle of the night, causing the police to show up, sirens blaring - often for a false alarm. During the day, it is the most busy intersection in the entire city. It sucks to live near a gas station!
We're talking about tearing down apartment buildings in order to let a 1 billion dollar company build a bigger gas station. No one who lives in this neighborhood wants it, except those few who will make a lot of money from selling the apartments to be demolished.
The most American thing that can happen is a small, local, representative government standing up against the interests of big business and protect their working class neighborhood from ever expanding, globe warming, capitalist blight.
I don't understand how a neighborhood in a more prestigious part of Hudson can refuse a DOG PARK, and this neighborhood has no choice but to have a larger gas station shoved down it's throat.
We all are hoping that Stewart's is kicked out of the neighborhood. There is no argument of "convenience for food." Shoprite is literally 5 minutes away from this location. There is a gas station at the top of the Park in Hudson, and gas station in Greenport. I know SUVs have low mileage, but they can generally make the .9 miles between the Speedway on Green Street, and the Valero on Fairview. The Stewart's, located roughly midway between those two gas stations, is unnecessary and undesirable.
Good points against further commercialization in a neighborhood.
DeleteVince, how is sprucing up an existing business "further commercialization"? There are plenty of things the Common Council can and should do to protect neighborhoods from commercialization, this is not one. I'm guessing that the anti-Stewarts folks are trying to roll back the clock 50 years, but this is not the way to do it. I'd believe the anti-Stewarts crowd if they had a plan to take all businesses out of the "neighborhood." That would be a rational and fair approach.
DeleteMr. Duke, if Stewarts wasn't "serving the community," would it still be in business? Serving the community is the foundational ethic of America, one that even our antiques and art dealers understand: customers keep us in business. Those same rules apply to fancy food shops and to gas stations. Charities, for better worse, don't have to abide by these harsh supply-and-demand community service rules.
DeleteStewart's began this process by assuring the City that regardless of the outcome of their application, they had no plans to leave their current location. Over the course of the application process, this assurance has evolved from departing "eventually" to departing "soon". Stewart's has been "serving the community" by operating a busy and profitable business at this location for the better part of 50 years; much of this time in full awareness of the fact that they were grandfathered as a non-conforming use. Why would they now wish to close up a money-making venture; why would they now threaten to cease "serving the community" if their zoning application is denied? If Stewart's does not wish to continue making money at this location that is certainly their right, and only Stewart's can determine if this is a sound business decision, or merely an empty threat. I dare say that another business which sells milk, bread, gasoline and lottery tickets can easily be found to step into their shoes.
DeleteMaybe because Stewarts has some class: they don't want to continue in the their current, ugly, and outdated quarters. Everyone else gets to improve their quarters -- not Stewarts?
DeleteIt really is great to see such diversity in the comments. Makes one think. I must say both have their good points.
ReplyDeleteShop Rite might well "literally 5 minutes away from this location" by personal car and/or taxi. If you're on foot, either because you can't afford a personal car (here you go: ECONOMIC diversity - unless that kind of diversity doesn't apply), are elderly and no longer drive and can't afford a taxi, ShopRite is a lot farther away than five minutes, most especially from November through March.
ReplyDeleteLast time I looked, Shop Rite and Price Chopper both sell cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets and pornography, although to be honest, I've never had cause to seek out pornography ANYWHERE.
As for overdoses in the exterior entrance bathroom, well, you might be shocked, stunned, fall off that high horse in disbelief to know that there have been overdoses in interior entranced bathrooms in coffee shops and bars on Warren Street.
And I'm most interested specifically, very specifically, in your opinion on the many, many, many, many rental units that are kept empty now, and have been for years and years.
Susan
Bravo, Susan.
ReplyDeleteBravo Peter. There won't be a problem when they tear down that guesthouse on Allen St. and turn it into Motel 6.
ReplyDeleteActually, Michael, I'm hoping for one of those Holland Tunnel chains and look forward to the hours and hours of Common Council meetings debating the appropriateness of the neon lights advertising "rates by the hour."
Deletesurprise! frequent riders on affortable housing carasoul demand housing demolition for gas station update
ReplyDeleteBut weren't the developers of The Wick also aware of the zoning that was in place, and (take your pick) asked, requested, demanded, bullied . . .to ultimately get a use variance?
ReplyDeleteOr, (of course) was that different?
And my goodness, Sheena Salvino and Mike Tucker are certainly laying low on this one. I thought their jobs required they engage regarding all economic development, not just the flashy, shiny, photo-op/feel good stuff. Last I knew, on-the-books-jobs-with-benefits-and-profit-sharing were good positives in a community. It's almost like they're afraid to enter the community conversation.
I have to admit I don't understand the phrase "affordable housing carousel"; during the years I worked in affordable housing, I cannot remember a single woman with children, an elderly widow or widower, or a young adult leaving an abusive home situation, completing an application for affordable housing, considering it a carousel ride, or anything close to a fun event.
And I haven't heard a single person "demand" that any housing be demolished.
But then, I haven't heard the answers to the very specific questions I've put forth regarding taxes and jobs and an intersection partnership and all the vacant, long time vacant housing that remains vacant.
Just a deafening silence.
Susan