Mill Street Residents and Mill Street Lofts

Theresa Joyner, chair of the Planning Board, has on a few occasions made self-congratulatory statements about how the Planning Board listens and protects the interests of Hudson residents. It happened when Walter Brett had concerns about the boutique hotel proposed for the old Elks Lodge expanding into the space behind his house. It happened again when residents of the Boulevards expressed their opposition to the apartment building proposed for Fairview Avenue, on land abutting their homes. For some reason, she doesn't seem to be feeling the same solicitude when it comes to the residents of Mill Street who are worried about the impact of a 70-unit apartment complex on their narrow little dead-end street.

Yesterday afternoon, the Planning Board held a special meeting, the purpose of which was to discuss the eighteen questions that comprise Part 2 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) and then vote to make a negative declaration. Only five of the seven members of the Planning Board were present (Joyner, Gene Shetsky, Bettina Young, Gini Casasco, and Ben Forman), but the number was sufficient to take the action proposed. The available seats in the Council Chamber were filled, primarily with residents of Mill Street, who often found it difficult not to protest some of the statements being made.

Cassondra Britton, legal counsel to the Planning Board, led the board through the questions on the FEAF, each time suggesting the appropriate answer. It was acknowledged there would be impacts from the proposed project on surface water (Question 3). ground water (Question 4), and on flooding (Question 5). The site is in a flood plain after all. It was also acknowledged there would be potential impacts on plants and animals (Question 7). The site is the habitat of three endangered bat species. Britton told the board that, in the interest of the bats, the applicant intended to postpone any tree removal until the bats had begun their hibernation, which is expected to happen in November. (Bats hibernate in the ground.) Gossips visited the site this morning and discovered that some kind of excavation on the site has begun, possibly relating to soil testing. Residents of the street reported that, in the process of whatever work is being carried out, trees are being knocked down.

In the review of the FEAF, most interesting were the items Britton suggested would have no impact. One that evoked a response from the audience was the determination that the proposed project would have no impact on open space and recreation (Question 11). The proposed project would fill what is now an open space--a playing field--with two apartment buildings and a 57-space parking lot. It will be remembered that when ownership of this parcel, which had been the playground for Charles Williams School, was transferred to the City of Hudson in 1983, it was done with the expressed intention that the land be used as a park and/or for recreation. If that did not happen, ownership would revert back to the school district. People who grew up in Hudson remember that the men's softball league played its games on that field. Justifying her No impact response regarding open space and recreation, Britton claimed, "There is no history of it being used by the City for recreation since the City acquired it in 1983." If that were actually the case, the school district should probably have reclaimed it long ago. 

People who live on Mill Street can attest that the lot has been and is used as a playing field. If City recognition of the lot as a recreational area is needed, here's one documented example. In 2009, when there were complaints about people playing soccer in Henry Hudson Riverfront Park, Mayor Rick Scalera suggested this field as an alternative site. As reported in the Council minutes for August 18, 2009: "[Scalera] stated the Charles Williams Field was maintained and could be utilized an an alternative for the waterfront park."

Another FEAF answer that provoked a reaction from the audience was No impact in response to Question 13, regarding impacts on traffic. The developer commissioned a parking and traffic study that concluded: "Thus, the Mill Street Lofts development traffic is not expected to cause any significant impact in overall operation. In addition, the 50 parking spaces proposed on the site will sufficiently accommodate the anticipated parking demand for the Project." That study can be found here. Despite what the study claims, it's hard to imagine this narrow, dead-end street accommodating 57 cars coming and going from a 70-unit apartment complex.

And what happens when the planned improvements to Charles Williams Park proposed by The Spark of Hudson are realized, bringing even more people to this quiet little street? At one point in the discussion yesterday, a resident of the street asked the Planning Board members: "Have you ever driven down there?" 

Perhaps the most insensitive No impact response was that to Question 18: Consistency with Community Character. Mill Street is a row of single-family homes--some very old, others quite new. In fact, a new house was constructed on the street within the past year. Five of the houses--houses built by Habitat for Humanity in 2006--are one-story. The others are two-story. Mill Street is unique in Hudson, part of the city but yet separate from it and quite different in character. In 2017, the residents of Mill Street opposed siting a dog park in Charles Williams Park, worried it would negatively impact their neighborhood. Among their concerns then was "increased traffic on our quiet street." 

Looking back, the dog park, which today is happily sited a block or so away from Mill Street, would have been a minor change to the neighborhood compared with having 70 new households on their quiet street of just eleven homes. A resident of the street told Gossips this morning that he valued stepping out of his house in the morning and seeing green space and trees. Replacing that with four-story buildings and a parking lot will be a huge alteration in the character of the neighborhood. At a recent meeting of the Planning Board, a Mill Street resident lamented that he had purchased his house on Mill Street believing the land around him would always be preserved for parks and recreation and now that has changed.     

In defending the notion that the proposed project would have no negative impact on community character, Britton argued that the area was zoned R-4, and the zoning allows four-story buildings, if as that alone were a measure of compatibility with the neighborhood. She was actually wrong about that. The project is now before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) seeking an area variance to build four-story buildings because three stories is the maximum height permitted in the R-4 District. The ZBA is holding a public hearing on the project tonight at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. 

When it came to voting on issuing a negative declaration, three of the five members present (Joyner, Shetsky, and Casasco) voted in favor of the negative declaration, and two (Young and Forman) voted against. Four affirmative votes were needed. (A negative declaration is a determination that a project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and does not require an Environmental Impact Report.) The developer wanted that negative declaration to happen before the end of August so they could apply for state funding for the project. It is not clear what will happen next.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK