Friday, March 14, 2025

Back to Mill Street Lofts

At the Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, Sean Kearney and Andrew Learn presented the latest renderings for Mill Street Lofts, one of which has already been shared on Gossips. 


As Gossips readers have already seen, the facades of the buildings have been "dressed up"--with changes in material and pseudo oriels. At the meeting on Tuesday, Planning Board member Gini Casasco asked what the rationale was for the changes in the facade design. Initially, Kearney said they were giving the Planning Board alternative designs from which to choose. When Casasco asked again why they had made the changes they had, Kearney, who is the architect for the project, used the terms "Victorian" and "Second Empire design" when talking about the original design (shown below) and went on to explain, "We thought it didn't translate as well to the larger building, so we tried to break it up."  


The expectation that the Colarusso dock operations would be on the agenda brought a different group of people to the meeting, some of whom spoke out about the project. Nicole Vidor told the board, "The building is totally out of proportion" to the surrounding neighborhood. Jennifer Belton, who represents the neighborhood on the Common Council, said, "No one on Mill Street thinks this is a good idea." She brought up the current residents' concern about privacy, because the proposed buildings are so high. She told the board a resident had told her the prospect of the buildings looming over her house was like "burying her while she was still alive."

Sean Roland said he was generally supportive of the project but said, "A lot of work could be done to make the facade more attractive." He went on to say, "Housing is important, but making it attractive is important, too." He also stressed that creating a path from the development to Third Street was important and shouldn't be dismissed because it would be hard and expensive. He concluded, "Nothing that is worth it is ever easy," and said that "hard" was not specific enough to be accepted as an excuse for not doing something.

Henry Haddad reiterated the need for "contiguous foot traffic flow to the city." He told the representatives from Kearney, "If you're building these massive structures, you need connection to the city." Haddad raised concerns about flooding. The project is to be heated and cooled with geothermal, and Haddad predicted, "The geothermal system is going to flood eventually, and that will be an extremely costly repair." Andrew Learn, the project engineer, assured him, "We are fully compliant with all flood plain requirements."

Mill Street on December 18, 2023  Photo: Lance Wheeler 
Belton predicted that the consequence of the new development and its flood control efforts would be that the houses across the street will be flooded. Learn told her, "We're not making it worse." Belton called what's being proposed "a good project in the wrong place." She went on to say, "Seventy units in a flood plain with a nonpermeable surface in front of it--if mold develops in your building, where are you going to move all the people? They will be unhoused."

Tony Stone questioned the positioning of the buildings, suggesting that putting the buildings flush with the street instead of having a parking lot in front would be a better layout. He was told the buildings were positioned where they are because "we need to keep as much of the building out of the flood plain as we can." Stone attempted to respond to that, but Theresa Joyner, who chairs the Planning Board, interrupted and told him he could "write in if he wanted."

The public hearing on this project will continue at the Planning Board's next meeting, which is scheduled for April 8.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

10 comments:

  1. It's a typical diversionary tactic to propose changing the design, as if the complaints against this project were related to the appearance of the building's facade. The problems with this location have nothing to do with the facade, it is simply an absurdly inappropriate location for an apartment building. I assume the next step is for the board to approve the project claiming the developer addressed the problems by modifying the design.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, I’m against this project because of location, scale and financial burden… aesthetics ain’t one of them. Let’s face it, anything new in rental apartments these days are going to be built the cheap 5-over-1 method. I laughed when that guy said he supports the project but it should be attractive, then suggested it should have a brick facade. I assume he’s never budgeted a construction project

    In general this meeting was a circus: confusing format and agenda & inconsistent public comment rules. Some people are cut off and told to send an email or come back in a month, while others were allowed to endlessly drone on and directly litigate the applicants. If they kept to a fair and consistent rule of order, the meetings would run faster and they would have a chance at getting through their backlog.

    Also, what’s with the new appointees? One shows up late and the newest one didn’t even appear. This is more like a failed state. It’s not fair to the people and it’s not fair to the applicants. Even the projects you personally don’t support deserve a fair and expedient process.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This project will not survive an Article 78 petition after all of Theresa Joyner's errors and the historical land / park issues.

    This is a good example of how current Mayor Kamal Johnson, and the people he appointed to the Planning Board, will cost a private developer a lot of capital.

    Not to mention all that Planning Board and City Hall time would have been better allocated to scattered-site housing and medium-density housing types (so-called Missing Middle Housing) like duplexes, triplexes, and townhouses that bridge the gap between single-family homes and high-rise apartments.

    Of course developers in that category might be scared off by the new Rent Control laws, and private owners might hesitate based on the uneven and extreme property taxes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hugo, the rent control law exempts any property with a CO from 2009 forward for 30 years from the date of issuance. It also sunsets in 10 years. The big developers building housing in Hudson will be exempt, not the long term landlords without a recent CO.

      Delete
    2. Homes and units built after 2009 are exempt from “the Rent Control Laws” (ie, Good Cause Eviction) for 30 years. If you’re going to oppose something, you should know what it is.

      Delete
    3. Thank you Kristal and Chris for the correction!

      I stand corrected on the 2009 onwards point. I know Kristal is always so good on the technical aspects.

      But my larger point stands that the City of Hudson can do a lot more to be pro business, pro developer and less political theatre...

      How long before Tom and Claire Cousins start pushing for The Rent Emergency Stabilization for Tenants (REST) Act (S4659/A4877)

      Delete
    4. Hugo, I believe we'll have the initial push for REST at tomorrow's CC meeting.

      Not maybe a big surprise after the city during good-cause eviction invited the crazies to sit at the table.

      Delete
    5. TVP - which specific bits of the REST Act do you find objectionable?

      Delete
    6. Chris, the vagueness of it. It's designed to give municipalities leeway to prove there's a housing emergency since under the current rules, most municipalities don't meet the threshold.

      This being Hudson, I can't see how this won't lead to the city being in a perpetual state of housing emergency as political leadership will see fit.

      That said, the requirements for a housing emergency as currently stated in law need to be overhauled.

      Delete
  4. Flood zones maps present current conditions, while flooding is predicted to be on the rise.
    What will flooding look like in 20 years ? It seems like the wrong design for its location.

    ReplyDelete