At the June meeting of the Planning Board, Lou Pierro, the principal of the group proposing to construct an apartment building on Fairview Avenue between Parkwood and Oakwood boulevards, noted that the project had been before the Planning Board for a year, and there was still no decision. Walter Chatham, the architect for the project, reviewed the changes that had been made to the project based on requests from the Planning Board. The project, as currently proposed, has 30 one- and two-bedroom apartments; one commercial space, which Pierro intends to use as his law office; and 26 offstreet parking spaces intended for tenants.
- Reduce the number of apartments from 30 to 15 and make 5 of them three-bedroom units
- Make the 26 offstreet parking spaces assigned spaces--15 for tenants, 6 for workers in the commercial space, and 5 for visitors
- Add sidewalks and crosswalks to Oakwood, Parkwood, Paddock Place, and Glenwood and add a sidewalk on Fairview Avenue from the proposed building to Aldi's at Fairview and Healy Boulevard in Greenport.
- Five more apartments, bringing the total to 20, would be acceptable if the last five were designated "affordable," which was defined as affordable to households with incomes of 80 percent of the area median income (AMI).
COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK
Sounds much better and corrective to me. After all, the job of the Planning Board isn't to rubber stamp these projects, but to plan and to manage them to prevent negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Let's hope they are as proactive when it comes to the other totally out of proportion and misplaced projects, like the ones proposed for Mill and State Streets.
ReplyDeleteThis is an overreach by people who have no comprehension of the neighborhood. Fairview is not Warren St and what they want to watch out for the beighborhood - well you have gas stations, dollar stores, pizza and beauty parlors. Meanwhile just down the street you have The Falls.
DeleteThis subcommittee suggestion is in actuality really good. The lowers density alleviates most of the concerns raised by residents in proximity to the proposed projects and it is in fact in line with what the developers perceive to be their target demographics.
ReplyDeleteThey said that they didn't need parking for every unit because those young professionals they were targeting wouldn't necessarily have nor want a car. The new side-walk leading from the development up to Aldi would organically connect it, and this whole section of the fifth ward, to the lower commercial strip on Fairview Avenue.
If you now also add a few trees to this corridor, all of a sudden you have something that by Hudson and Greenport standards could be considered walkable.
I am surprised by how much confusion or disagreement there is in the comments about what the Planning Board can do, and cannot do.
ReplyDeleteHow can we, as a community, come to a shared understanding of what the Planning Board can, and cannot, do?
Read the relevant statutes and cases?
DeleteI think it's because the mandate of Planning Board is in itself contradictory. I am constantly struggling with this myself. John Friedman talked about this a couple of days ago:
Delete"If a plan is as of right then they [Planning Board] can only ask about ancillary issues that may be affected by a comprehensive plan or a strategic plan or damn near any plan adopted by the council. But it’s the council that makes policy. Not the PB. They may and often do suck at their job but that’s what their job is."
This proposed project is within the prescribed zoning and from that perspective, the PB would have to greenlight it. But then there's these ancillary issues that gives the PB some discretion.
But what they are specifically, I can't tell and I reckon no one can with absolute certainty. I guess that's sometimes why these proceedings wind up in front of a court.
John,
DeleteWhat statutes, cases or other relevant documents would you suggest we read to come to a shared understanding of what the Planning Board can, and cannot, do?
I'd have to assume that when the property was designed, it was done so as to make the number of units profitable for the developer. So cutting that number in half (not a small percentage) seems excessive and then requiring that of the 15 1/3 of them be 3-bedrooms. The requirement of 5 units be made "affordable" further alters the building's financial profile. These late-in-the-game changes makes me think that the PB doesn't want this to be built. Have any of these requirements been placed on other buildings like the Upper Depot developments?
ReplyDeleteOn the nose, Wowser. This is agency activism without even the chimera (in light of the end of Chevron deference which I disagree with but that's another story) of legislative delegation. Once again it seems the PB is determined to ensnare itself and the City (and, by implication, its taxpayers) in costly litigation to no good end.
DeleteIt would seem that this is more a personal vendetta against Pierro. I recall several years ago when there was a battle because he wanted to put self storage units there.
DeleteWhy on earth should they have to deal with sidewalks as far away as Glenwood and Aldi's. And that's in Greenport, not Hudson? Isn't that the purview of the towns, not an apartment owner surely.
ReplyDeleteBecause they don't want it built. Why? Because the PB is anti housing I guess. At least it seems that way from the cheap seats.
DeleteExactly, they have no power to regulate outside city limits
DeleteAdd crosswalks in Hudson? Only the DPW and/or the police commissioner has the authority to do that! Create a sidewalk on Fairview? That's a state route, only the DOT has that authority! The last thing that lot needs is an apartment building, however big. But if I were the owner I would appeal the PB's decision (lawsuit? article 78?) on the grounds of overreach, absurdity and incompetence.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't yet a resolution that could be appealed. Currently it's still in the state of negotiation where the PB stated what it would like to see. The applicant will get a chance to respond.
DeleteI also don't see a reason that different city agencies couldn't talk to each other when it comes to the installation of a crosswalk.
Communication between departments, boards and committees in Hudson? It is virtually unheard of and impossible! I think they all gave up on the idea long, long ago.
DeleteIs it just me or does it seem that this iteration of the Planning Board is deliberately delaying any development, as if directed to do so, that isn't tied to the mayor's vision for Hudson (Galvan, Mill St., Bliss, publicly subsidized, etc)? Each month, the old business backlog stretches out the agenda; and each month, a different applicant seems to politely ask, even beg, for the board to come to a decision. The usual reply they get from the chair is a bumbling "oh my, well.... there's just much to think about here. These things take time... Please refill your escrow balance and we'll have more questions next month."
ReplyDeleteAs many don't seem to understand, the Planning Board is not there to provide wish fulfillment for squeakily wheeled neighbors. They don't get to design projects and they don't get to choose what type of business opens on private property. They don't get to say they want an apartment building vs a hotel, they don't get to say a butcher rather than a baker. They are trying to kill projects through the expenses of delay and repetitive design changes. They are keeping this up so we can await the new comprehensive plan that is currently being crafted and sandbagged so the current regime can attempt to codify their bad ideas long after the electorate wises up and moves the city forward. There's no consistency to this Board. In the same meeting, they'll poo poo on a hotel on Warren St. because "we need housing," all while eviscerating the economic model for proposed housing on FAIRVIEW AVE, on a blighted corner between hair salons and pizza takeout. The only things these projects have in common is that they are being purposed by relatively small time entrepreneurs who are footing the bills themselves and not asking for tax exemptions and subsidies. Note when the Bliss redesign, mayor's projects on Mill/state St. come before the board, how they'll demure their similar concerns they've had about private projects - as they did with the Depot District. Density, traffic, parking, infrastructure upgrades? No problemo!
Get ready for the next round of Article 78 lawsuits. Don't worry, only taxpayers get to foot the bills.
The way forward is smart continued economic growth that increases the tax base for the city, while at the same time increasing quality housing stock that increase supply, and not burdening current homeowners and renters via tax brakes for predatory developers.
PS: At least we can view Planning Board meetings in real time or immediately after because Randall Martin seems to be the only person in Hudson who knows how to use a computer since Michael Hoffmann left.
Who wants to live near all that constant loud traffic? It would make anyone loopy and angry. At least the Falls is set back quite a bit from an equally busy street. That's smart and respectful. This one on Fairview is dumb and disrespectful. Ask the owner if he would like to live there.
ReplyDeleteBill, what about all the houses up and down all the streets in Hudson. Hard to escape any traffic in the city. Noise is everywhere.
ReplyDelete