Gossips has reported on the Planning Board's concerns about density and the effects on the health, safety, and welfare of community of traffic created by the 30-unit apartment building proposed for Fairview Avenue, adjacent to the section of the city known as "the Boulevards."
On Wednesday, August 21, at 6:00 p.m., the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is holding public hearings on the 70-unit project proposed for Mill Street, known as Mill Street Lofts, and the 24-unit project proposed for the corner of State and Fourth street, known as State Street Lofts.
Mill Street Lofts requires two variances. The first is to construct four-story buildings in the R-4 zoning district, where the maximum permitted height is three stories. The second is to reduce the dimensions of the parking spaces from 10' x 20', which is specified in the city code, to 9' x 18'. When the application for the variances was submitted to the ZBA, it was accompanied by this letter from Mayor Kamal Johnson.
State Street Lofts requires six variances, five of them having to do with lot coverage and usable outdoor space and one to reduce the size of parking spaces from 10' x 20' to 9' x 18'. The application for each variance was accompanied by a letter from Johnson, which contains the same language and message as the letter about Mill State Lofts.
It will be remembered that both these buildings are part of a project initiated at the beginning of 2022 by City government.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK
The bias against privately funded development is clear. Projects that would build the tax base: restaurants, hotels, and market rate housing is nitpicked and delayed for more than a year. At the same time larger scale taxpayer funded projects are getting rushed through. All of a sudden they don't care about parking, sidewalks or traffic.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone who currently lives on Mill St is reading this: get a lawyer. It's your quality of life and property value on the line. The rushed process for funding deadlines make it vulnerable to delays. There is a lot that can be disputed with the school board changing the deed from perpetual park use, as well as flooding and environmental concerns. It's well worth a fight.
This blog is insidious to Hudson and encourages toxic engagement with bias rather than productive civil conversations. It is much better to go to Planning Board meetings or any city meetings for that matter rather than sit behind a screen and comment behind closed doors. It is not lost on me or other folks of this city that only projects that improve owners' property values are looked positively on and everything else is pushed aside, called into question or calls for lawsuits. It takes truly miserable, privileged, and narcissistic people to spend time complaining online rather than being active in their community. At least the people on these boards are volunteering their time for the city which right or wrong is better than anyone who comments or writes for this blog will ever be. I am remaining anonymous to avoid the most certain scrutiny that will come with this, if this comment passes Caroles test, but rest assured, those who actually care about equity and the wellbeing of all not just the wealthy and white will prevail.
ReplyDeleteI love irony with my coffee on Monday mornings. An anonymous writer, using a nom de pen, decries the anonymity of those engaging in civil conversation. And yes, 99.9% of the conversation on this blog is highly civil. Just because you may disagree with a stated position does not make the taking of such position uncivil in and of itself. Moreover, the use of written polemics is a very American way for citizens to engage in the public discourse. Which, by the way, is not mutually-exclusive with either public service or in-person public engagement. Again, disagreeing with you or anyone else doesn't make the disagreement necessarily uncivil.
DeleteBut the fact of the matter is that you champion those who "do" for the sheer "doing" when, clearly, they're "doing" it in an arbitrary and inequitable manner. Why would one project -- which requires multiple zoning variances and is unfunded -- be rushed through an approval process when another project which requires neither variances nor public financing be subjected to what amount to desperate (likely over-)reaches of the Zoning Code? Why would the former be OK when it utterly and completely alters the character of its situs and the latter is suspect because it is as of right within its zoning district? I believe I know what your bigoted answer is. What I don't understand is where the City's Corporation Counsel is while the PB rapidly ensures another costly court loss for the City.
Hudson Resident, identity politics aside, I wouldn't label the residents of Mill St. stereotypically rich or white. Do the residents of the boulevards have more of a say about their neighborhood than those on Mill St? Doesn't seem "equitable" to me. Interesting that you would question working and middle class Hudson residents for looking out for their quality of life and protecting their largest investment, while at the same time championing the rushing of projects that serve the interests of wealthy out of town developers. The very same wealthy developers that will then ask struggling residents to foot the bill via PILOTs and other tax exemptions. Despite the promise of "equity and wellbeing" being pushed by the developers and their astroturfed nonprofits, many of us see it for the scam that it is.
DeleteIt's both uninformed and discourteous to label Carol and The Gossips of Rivertown as harmful to Hudson. Carol has made significant contributions to our city: she served on the Hudson City Council, established a city park, and is deeply involved in numerous initiatives, including Historic Hudson. Recently, she was honored with a local community service award in recognition of her extensive work. This blog remains the sole source of local news focused exclusively on Hudson and Columbia County, fostering a more engaged and informed community.
ReplyDelete