The final project considered by the Planning Board last night in its meeting that went on for more than three hours was a request for revisions to the site plan for 708 State Street and 65-75 North Seventh Street, a.k.a. "The Depot District." There were three things that constituted the revisions, as explained by Dan Hubbell, who was standing in for the Galvan Foundation's regular attorney Charles Gottlieb: (1) phasing; (2) revisions to site plan; (3) subdivision.
The phasing plan presented divides the project into three parts. The first phase, which at this point is effectively completed, is the restoration of the historic Hudson Upper Depot and its adaptive reuse as a craft brewery. The second phase is the construction of the building on the east side of North Seventh Street, the building originally described as "market rate," and the parking lot at Sixth and Washington streets. The third phase is the construction of the building on the west side of North Seventh Street, the building originally described as "affordable housing."
The revisions to the site plan primarily involve changes to the facade of the building at 708 State Street to create more variety in ground floor storefronts--something that was suggested by the Historic Preservation Commission. Replacing the outdoor swimming pool that was originally proposed for the building with a "nice courtyard" was also mentioned.
The subdivision involves dividing the 708 State Street parcel into two parts: the part at the front, where the historic railroad depot is located, and the part at the back, along North Seventh Street, which is the site of one of the proposed apartment buildings, to have the new address 76 North Seventh Street. The request also involves merging the lots on the west side of the street, which are now three separate parcels, into a single parcel, which would be the site of the second proposed building.
There is some urgency regarding approval of the phasing plan. A certificate of occupancy, necessary for the brewery to open, cannot be issued until the Planning Board approves the phasing plan which would effectively separate that project from the larger project. Last night, the Planning Board bundled the three requests into two: the subdivision, which will require a public hearing; and the site plan revisions. The phasing plan is part of the latter.
Regarding the site plan revisions, Planning Board member Larry Bowne insisted that the revisions needed to be reviewed by a consulting engineer. He recalled how a deck had been constructed on the depot building that was too close to the railroad tracks. He suggested that changes had been made to the brewery plan without review by the Planning Board, or "We approved something we didn't realize we were approving." He also mentioned "drawings out there that show buildings that are not before us," referring to the contextual renderings that have been presented to the Historic Preservation Commission. From a general sense of mistrust about the project, Bowne insisted that the Planning Board hire an engineer to review the amended plans--to do, as Victoria Polidoro, legal counsel to the Planning Board, described it, "a side-by-side review of the approved plan and the revised plan."
Polidoro advised the board that the amended site plan needed to go to the county planning board for a recommendation. Unless this can get on the agenda for that board's April 19 meeting, another month will be added to the review process. The Hudson Planning Board has scheduled public hearings on the subdivision and the amended site plan amendments for May 10.
The Planning Board granted site plan approval for the adaptive reuse of the depot building in December 2019. The changes to the site plan now being proposed apply only to the apartment building.
Dan Kent of the Galvan Foundation asked, not unreasonably, that the phasing plan be separated from the other considerations so that it could be approved independently. He told the Planning Board, "This is holding up the opening of the brewery." Montgomery Bopp, the owner of the brewery, questioned what a review by an engineer had to do with the brewery building, which is now complete, and asserted that meeting minutes show that the deck in question had been reviewed by the Planning Board. He appealed to the Planning Board to approve the phasing plan to allow the brewery to get its certificate of occupancy. He said it took a month to a month and a half to make their beer, and they couldn't start the process until they knew when the certificate of occupancy would be issued lest they end up having to throw out all the beer.
Commenting on the current impasse, Craig Haigh, code enforcement officer, said, "That whole project over there has been changed and altered and changed and altered. It is not the fault of the City of Hudson."
Still, to this observer, it is not clear why the Planning Board could not have approved the phasing plan, which seems straightforward enough, thus enabling the brewery to get its certificate of occupancy and make plans for opening.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CAROLE OSTERINK
What is truly troubling and, in my mind, a big red flag of things to come, is the fact that GALVAN (or their contractor) built the rear patio of the brewery too close to the train tracks. The outer edge of most of the 100 foot width of the patio is exactly 4 feet from the nearest rail and about a foot and a half (at most!) from a passing train. GALVAN went ahead and installed the porch for a public seating area as close to the train tracks as possible, directly along the property line. And they recently admitted their mistake, and so they will be moving the porch back another 8 feet, according to a recent submission of theirs to the PB. Who does this but amateurs (or worse, idiots)? And that is who we have building two enormous apartment buildings on little 7th Street and possibly a 30-room hotel and bar on little 4th Street - an amateur who will try to get away with anything and everything they can, thinking Hudson won't enforce anything. An amateur who doesn't actually give one crap about the welfare of Hudson. B Huston
ReplyDeleteThe City Code is clear (see Section 325-35(A)(3): No certificate of occupancy for a structure or use subject to site plan development plan review shall be issued until ALL (emphasis added) the requirements for such approval and any conditions attached thereto have been met.
ReplyDeleteThis is mirrored in 325-35(A)(3) and 325-35(B). The Code mentions nothing about "phasing." Clearly, a CO cannot be issued until "the land is developed...in conformity with an approved site development plan or an amendment of any such plan."
That's all true, and that's obviously why the certificate of occupancy is not being issued, but the apartment building was never part of the site plan that was approved for the brewery, and the brewery was not part of the site plan that was approved for the apartment building, and it was not made clear at the Planning Board meeting what, if any, amendments to the site plan impact the brewery.
DeleteJohn Friedman submitted this comment by email:
ReplyDeleteHaving worked with Craig Haigh many times over the years that he’s been CEO, I say with certainty that he is a champion of, and strongly believes in, a property owner’s right to do with his/her property what that owner wants as long as it’s within the relevant code. He is not a bug-bear about compliance but he does require it. If he says there are issues then it behooves the PB, in their execution of the people’s work, to take his expert opinion and analysis seriously and on face value. That is, the burden of proof for any attempt to amend a previously approved site plan (either before or after the fact) is properly on the party seeking the amendment and in this case that’s Galvan.
I wondering if the Social Justice Warriors will be raising their voice and submitting a list of demands to be imposed on the developer? Certainly the installation of bunks on the floor of the Depot brewery to accommodate the homeless is forthcoming...
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the sidewalk that GALVAN tore out three months or more ago in front of the building supposed to hold the brewery is, for about 25 feet, still unreplaced and is a mix of dirt and gravel. I think that a dirt and gravel path is not considered an actual SIDEWALK. No, not if you give a crap about pedestrians, especially those not too stable on their feet. B Huston
ReplyDelete