Wednesday, September 11, 2024

News from the Planning Board

The Planning Board meeting on Tuesday night went on for just shy of four hours. There were several projects considered, and Gossips will report on them one at a time, beginning with Mill Street Lofts, the project being proposed for the playing field on the south side of Mill Street. 


The discussion of the project opened with a presentation by Kearney Realty & Development Group of the amenities they have added to the plan for the site in response to concerns expressed at the August 20 meeting about traffic and transportation. These amenities are described in the letter submitted to the Planning Board on August 26:
  1. Bus Shelter. As discussed during the meeting, the Applicant will work with the City and County to provide a bus route to the project. This shelter will be located at the end of the proposed pedestrian connection between the project and Mill Street to maximize the convenience to future residents.
  2. Fire Apparatus Turnaround. A hammerhead turnaround has been added that complies with Appendix D of the NYS Fire Code. This turnaround will utilize the existing paper street adjacent to the project which will require construction of a third box culvert to convey flow around the site to the proposed stilling basin and the City drainage infrastructure. The turnaround will be adequate to allow buses associated with the proposed bus route to turnaround.
  3. Bicycle Repair Station. A bicycle repair station is proposed along Mill Street to benefit future residents and riders on the Empire State Trail. 
  4. Scenic Overlook Station. A sidewalk has been extended to a bench at the western end of the site at the top of the proposed retaining wall where residents can enjoy the undeveloped open space on the subject property and adjacent to it.
It wasn't pointed out that a bicycle repair station is something of a redundancy given that there is already a bicycle repair station about 500 feet away at the Empire State Trail trailhead at the corner of Dock Street and North Second Street.

During the public comment period, Mill Street resident Faith Gilbert expressed concern about the "improper and possibly illegal use of park land," alluding to the deed restrictions that required the land to be used as a park or for recreation. She suggested that the Planning Board was "expediting the project for the sake of the developer" and recalled that at the August 20 special meeting there seemed to be an effort to persuade the members who had voted against making a negative declaration to change their minds. She asserted that the project would result in a 600 percent increase in neighborhood density and told the Planning Board, "Every household on Mill Street agrees this is a bad fit for the site." She concluded, "The Planning Board should honestly assess the project's impact."

Three Hudson elected officials--Linda Mussmann, Fourth Ward Supervisor; Rich Volo, Fourth Ward Councilmember; Margaret Morris, First Ward Councilmember--were present at the meeting and expressed concerns about the project and its negative impacts on the neighborhood. In his comments, Volo pointed out that this project would negatively impact five houses built by Habitat for Humanity, which he described as "housing that works in this city," enabling homeownership and building generational wealth. In her comments, Morris reiterated the suspicion that the project was being expedited, observing, "This project is moving forward more quickly than other projects." Theresa Joyner, who chairs the Planning Board, told Morris, "It's a perception and not a fact." Despite Joyner's denial, Planning Board member Susan Vernovage Foster later asserted, "This project does seem to be fast-tracked."

Six members of the Planning Board were present for the meeting on Tuesday, as compared with five who were present for the special meeting on August 20, when they failed to have enough votes for a negative declaration. On Tuesday, attorneys Victoria Polidoro and Cassondra Britton and engineering consultant Chris Bertram, from Barton & Loguidice, took turns leading the board through the eighteen questions of Part 2 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the answers they had agreed to on August 20. Of interest was the discussion about Question 11: Impact on Open Space and Recreation. Residents of the neighborhood had given ample testimony that the space was regularly used, for close to two decades, as a playing field, but the Planning Board decided that since the City of Hudson had never officially designated it as such during the forty years it owned the field, its informal recreational use and its value as an open space didn't matter. 

Even more interesting was the discussion relating to Question 18: Consistency with Community Character. Although the residents of Mill Street and almost everyone else think this 70-unit apartment project is completely inappropriate for the site and completely out of character with the neighborhood, the Planning Board decided to define things a bit differently. According to Joyner, with the apparent agreement and support of Planning Board member Randall Martin, the "community" with which this project should be compatible is "not just one block but the whole area"--"the high-rise and everything around that lower part of Hudson." 

When the question of making a negative declaration on the project--meaning that the project will not create significant environmental harm or that environmental impact has been mitigated to a less than significant level--came to a vote, five of the members present (Martin, Gini Casasco, Bettina Young, Gene Shetsky, and Joyner) voted in favor, and only one (Vernovage Foster) voted against. Young had voted against making a negative declaration on August 20 but changed her mind. The other dissenter on August 20, Ben Forman, was absent from Tuesday's meeting.

The entire discussion and vote can be viewed here, beginning at 1:22:15 and ending at 3:17:38.

Interestingly, this evening, Gini Casasco, who voted in support of the negative declaration, posted this on the Facebook group "Unfiltered Hudson."


That grassy field where the kids in the picture are playing, informally and unofficially, is certainly reminiscent of the grassy field on Mill Street, the site of this proposed development.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK

20 comments:

  1. The bicycle repair station idea just shows that the Kearney people aren't paying attention and likely haven't walked around the area. What a joke! I'm surprised they didn't offer a dog park for the tenants and Mill Street residents.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really don't understand this year's revision of the Planning Board.

    They are what feels excessively antagonistic over the Boulevards project on Fairview Ave and yet they appear very eager to rubberstamp the Mill St Lofts. Some of their concerns over the Boulevards should doubly apply to Mill St Lofts which has a significantly heavier footprint yet somehow they don't.

    I don't buy Theresa's and Randall's reasoning that Mill St Lofts are in character for that neighborhood. It's close to Bliss Tower only in the sense of how a crow flies. In every other way it's not in character. It may well be the only spot in Hudson that's not in walking distance to any commercial activity. It should be the last spot where you would put 70 housing units.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are these apartment going to be Affordable Housing or Market? I wouldn't think this would be a great location for market rate apartments given that it is a "far" walk to the amenities of Warren Street. If you are trying to entice people who can afford market rate, then there should be some amenities within walking distance. It is such an unappealing (for me) area to pay 2000+ for an apartment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These apartments will not be market rate. They are described as "affordable," but I'm not sure if the parameters for affordability have been defined. This project and the building proposed for Fourth and State streets make up an affordable housing project initiated and promoted by Mayor Kamal Johnson.

      Delete
    2. Excellent. Indeed, sometimes those "affordable" parameters are not really affordable. I think this is a perfect location for this type of housing. I think the residents of this area and Hudson in general should do everything possible to make sure this type of housing is produced, especially those who benefited from the builds by Habitat for Humanity. It is really terrible people are trying so hard to stop affordable housing, everyone deserves affordable housing and healthcare. We should all be championing builders who are willing to put in the effort and investment for this type of housing. I applaud them and are in awe of their patience it must take to deal with the people fighting against it.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are they white? What a racist comment. That aside, the sad fact is this project would never have been placed in a "white" part of Hudson. The targeting of low income neighborhoods for housing projects and exploitation by developers is what is both racist and typical, not the opposition to it. This comment and this exploitive development project, are examples of classic abusive behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @TheLuckyDog - Mill Street is diverse along racial, religious, and economic lines.

    But even if the residents of Mill Street were entirely Norwegian, Nepali, or Namibian—ethnically, nationally, and linguistically—why not evaluate their case based on merit rather than melanin?

    Are you familiar with Godwin's Law? It's an internet adage asserting that 'as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches certainty.'

    Perhaps we should coin 'Hudson's Law'—especially relevant under the current Mayor and Council President—which posits that whenever you disagree with someone (or with the Mayor or any unwise public housing initiative), the probability of being compared to a racist, regardless of whether your actions, decisions, or words discriminate based on race, approaches certainty.


    ReplyDelete
  8. The majority of people who live in Hudson are white. As is the case in the US as a whole. It’s not remarkable, then, that most of any local group is white.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ LuckyDog

    So initially, you implied that the concerned residents were racist. Now, in your latest comment, you walk that race-based comment back... but now you imply that because there was a Trump bumper sticker in the general vicinity of Warren Street, "one could wonder if these people speaking out were more concerned with the additional diversity."

    First—I will not address at this time your broad and likely unfair categorization of half the nation. I am but a friendly neighborhood immigrant… I pay taxes, but can't vote or stand for office. 

    Second — can you provide evidence to show that the proposed new residents of the proposed new Mill Street development would have a different composition than the current residents?

    How could you possibly know the composition?

    We don't even know the target income levels for the new development yet. Furthermore, the Columbia County, NY, poverty rate is almost 50% greater among "Asians" than "Black or African American." So if the development were made available to the most at risk community it would be equally, or more, asian.

    Third—in the last 2016 Presidential election, Clinton defeated Trump by only 373 votes in Columbia County, and nearly 1000 City of Hudson residents voted for Trump. So, do you propose that almost 50% of Columbia County and 20% of City of Hudson residents not have a voice or vote?

    What’s next… people who prefer Stewart's Coffee over Supernatural should be run out of town?  ;-)

    LuckyDog—I am sure you are well-intentioned and smart. Why not engage with the substance of the matter? I would love to hear your reasoning and build on shared facts.

    For example:
    - If homeowners purchased a property from the city to build a family home and were given assurances that they live next to an inviolable State and City park prior to their purchase, do they have legal rights that are being abridged?
    - If the large multi-story apartment is being built on a floodplain, could that lead to more flooding, damage to that building over time, and therefore more costs for the city and the residents? Recall that Bliss Towers' elevator is inoperable most of the time because of the unstable foundation and soil.
    - Columbia County has a population density of approximately 90 people per square mile. The city of Hudson's population density is approximately 2,800 people per square mile. (30X more dense)
    - Is it wise to further increase Hudson's density so rapidly, in a floodplain, when Hudson's schools, healthcare, parking, and other public utilities are struggling to keep up? And everyone complains of no good jobs in Hudson.
    - Is it lawful that this project has been fast-tracked at more than twice the rate, with half the parking and other considerations, compared to other equivalent projects that have been kept in limbo for years?
    - Have there been any undue influence or retaliation against members of the Planning Board?

    More broadly, if, as you say LuckyDog, "we should all be supporting affordable housing", would it now be more wise, more moral, more "just" to use the same amount of public funds to build twice the number of housing units just 500 or 1000 meters away in an appropriate, safe, and lawfully zoned area with better access to the amenities and affordable groceries?

    Luckydog, I await your reasoning and facts with bated breath.


    *NYS Community Action Survey, 2022

    ReplyDelete
  10. Also, @Hudsonite—

    First, it’s a almost dozen families, not "six houses."

    Second, ideally, Hudson should be one big community and one big neighborhood. Yet, for some historical reason, this town—effectively the size of a large public high school—has ten elected Ward Representatives, a Mayor, and a Council President. This seems like a lot of elected officials for a town of its size.

    Perhaps that’s the root of some of the politics? But I digress…

    Third, it’s curious that when one area, say Front Street or North 1st Street, has concerns, those residents are immediately labeled a "community" or "neighborhood." City leadership immediately asserts, in public meetings, that they ought to have certain privileges because they are "from here," even though, by their own public admission, their parents moved to Hudson in the 1980s or 1990s.

    But when Mill Street residents—or, for that matter, families from the Furgary Boat Club & Shantytown, whose lineage dates back to the 19th century—use terms like "community" and "neighborhood," some dismiss it as "tacitly absurd" like you did in your comment, or others use other pejorative framings, and no inherited privileges are encouraged.

    Obviously, this is America, and thanks to the First Amendment, we can all say what we want and I encourage you to do exactly that.

    I just thought, dear @ Hudsonite, that you could help us understand why Mill Street doesn’t constitute a "neighborhood" in a city that has not formally designated sub-neighborhoods? Am I missing something about what "neighborhood" means in Hudson, NY?

    Also, are you friends with (Council President and public servant) Tom Depietro? You share many views with him and maybe you would enjoy meeting IRL.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm soliciting funders for a nuclear waste dump at the corner of 5th & Warren. Am pretty sure that our Planning Board will be cool with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ha ha!

      That is both funny, and perhaps unintentionally ironic Peter... the premature closure of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in 2021 in Hudson Valley led to a total reliance on fossil fuels... right as a global natural gas prices sky-rocketed and electricity cost per megawatt doubled to $50 in Hudson Valley.

      Another example of short-term thinking and "well intentioned" plans that lack common sense.

      Delete
  12. Virtually everyone who pays rent, a mortgage and tax bills will agree that housing should be more affordable. So should food, gas and everything else. Converting that universal frustration into the concept of a housing crisis and using it as a basis for selling a public park, (at a discount and with tax breaks,) to developers for exploitation, feels a bit manipulative to me. At the very least I would think a plan like this would be subject to a public referendum.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I wonder how much of the newly built affordable housing will be occupied by people who are already in Hudson? I won't be surprised if we are watching a replay of 1971, when economically disadvantaged people came here in great numbers to fill the subsidized housing. If that is what is taking place now, it's incredibly stupid, short-sighted policy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So just closing the loop here...

    @TheLuckyDog deleted his/her race based comment, explained that he/she had no ill intent, and walked it back. Thanks and no problem.

    @hudsonite (possibly, but we don't know for certain, Tom DePietro's intentional or unintentional doppelganger) has not yet responded with a reasoned view why Mill Street does not constitute a neighborhood but other streets in Hudson do. 

    @Hudsonite - if you change your mind please be in touch.

    Smart people change their minds when the facts change.

    hello @ HudsonCommonSense.com

    ReplyDelete