At tonight's informal Common Council meeting, amendments to Chapter 325 of the city code to facilitate the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will be introduced. The amendments being proposed can be found here. The primary goal of the amendments is to make Hudson residents eligible for the grant program administered by RUPCO should that program be funded and offered again.
The amendments were discussed at the Common Council Legal Committee meeting last week, and some changes were made based on the discussion during the committee meeting. The amendments originally specified that an ADU could only exist as an accessory to an owner occupied principal dwelling. Councilmember Jennifer Belton (Fourth Ward) objected to that, imagining a scenario in which a homeowner had to relocate temporarily, with the intention of returning, but during that time rented out the principal dwelling. If owner occupancy of the principal dwelling was a requirement for the ADU, the ADU could not have a tenant during the time the owner was away.
Council president Tom DePietro also questioned the owner occupancy requirement, asking, "Why can't someone who owns a rental property build an ADU on the property?" He argued that allowing owners of investment properties to build ADUs addressed the same issue of creating more housing.
Councilmember Margaret Morris, who chairs the Legal Committee, suggested that Belton's concern could be addressed by allowing the property owner a two-year absence. This is the language currently in the proposed amendments:
At the time of application for a Building Permit, the parcel on which the ADU is proposed to be located must be the primary domicile of the property owner. The property owner shall maintain their primary domicile in either the principal dwelling or the ADU for at least continuous 12 months from the time the certificate of occupancy is issued for the ADU.
Laws governing ADUs typically specify that ADUs—either as freestanding structures or as additions to existing structures—must be located behind or beside the building. Belton insisted that building an ADU in front of the principal building should be allowed, arguing that there were several places in the Fourth Ward where building an ADU in front of an existing building would be appropriate.
I could think of only one such example, on North Fifth Street, where a carriage house located at the back of the lot was rehabbed as a residence by the artist Frank Faulkner in 2008.
 |
| Photo: Rural Intelligence |
Strangely, this site is not one of the locations Belton had in mind. Rather, in a conversation with Gossips, she cited locations on State Street. Gossips found two buildings on State Street set far enough back from the street to allow an ADU to be constructed in front of them—one in the 500 block and another in the 400 block. One of the buildings appears already to an accessory building, since it does not have its own address.
The amendments currently being proposed make no specifications about where ADUs can be located in relation to the principal house.
It is expected that the amendments will be discussed by the full Council at tonight's informal meeting. The meeting, which begins at 6:00 p.m., is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Microsoft Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
Follow-up: When the amendments regarding ADUs were introduced at the informal Common Council meeting on Monday, May 12, Councilmember Vicky Daskaloudi (Fifth Ward) said it was important that an ADU be located behind or at the side of the existing house. Councilmember Margaret Morris (First Ward) suggested that this statement in the proposed amendments covered that: "Alteration to the principal residence to accommodate an ADU shall be designed to retain its exterior appearance as a single-family dwelling as viewed from the street." Crystal Peck, counsel to the Council, said this was not sufficient and agreed to add language to the amendments specifying that an ADU must be located behind or at the side of the principal building.
Tom DePietro has been going back to this play for years. Sit on a meaningful piece of legislation until just before the election (when earlier enactment could have made a real difference) hoping that voters have enough short-term memory to give him credit for passing something meaningful, and too little long-term memory to recall how petty, incompetent, and morally vacuous he is the rest of the time.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats, be better.
Having said that, it does seem odd to me that if the goal is to increase housing, there isn’t an allowance for both non-owner occupied and multi-family structures, which exist throughout the city.
I guess the housing justice director is too preoccupied with her other duties to tend to policy.
This one didn’t have much to do with Tom. Margaret shepherd this one through the legal committee and really fixed it up from an awful first draft that the attorney amalgamated from other city’s laws. However I agreed with Tom’s point mentied in this article. There’s really no difference between adding an additional dwelling unit and multifamily homes. The state zoning code already requires all the stuff that makes it qualify for occupancy, and the current city long or short term rental laws would still have jurisdiction over these properties, just like everyone else. This is mainly a zoning issue and Margaret is trying to keep it simple.
DeleteI agree. If the goal is to increase housing, then what’s the point of an owner occupied requirement?
DeleteThe council should consider revising the schedule of bulk and area regulations. Reducing the set back and increasing lot coverage requirements would make the development of ADUs much simpler than it is now.
Agree with Kristal. This mainly has to do with the zoning setbacks, which people get variances for anyway. Building code, historic preservation (if in a district), and city codes still apply. On top of that, if you get this Plus One funding, you’ll have to abide by their additional restrictions. The whole thing seems like a worthy effort to help infill development. Something that could work well with Hudson given its limited city limits. However all of the restrictions and logistical challenges building in Hudson make building new structures quite challenging and expensive. I have experience in this area and I really don’t think there are many people who would both meet the income limits for this funding, while also having the wherewithal to finance the rest of the build. An additional dwelling structure is essentially the same as building an additional house—you have to excavate a foundation, frame it, interior, roof, plus gas, electricity, water/sewer (which may need to connect to the outside systems separately or tench it to the main home). If you can pull all that off, then your property taxes go up as soon as the closed permit gets forwarded to the assessor. Then, if you qualified for the grant, you're supposed to pay off the additional financing, utilities and property taxes, while only being allowed to rent long term, possibly below market… Yeah, that’s a tough equation to solve.
DeleteAnd John, if you do want an example of Tom manipulating the timing of the agenda for his political gain, look no further than the rest of the agenda. Three or more virtue signaling non-binding resolutions that have no effect in Hudson, including support for this “REST Act.” Which of you happen to go to the state legislative tracker it shows that there’s been no action on it since it was first introduced to committee, no hearings, no votes, no momentum since it was written in February. The session is almost over and the legislature is packing their bags. But Tom saves this for the last council meetings before the primary, while coordinating with DNC aligned SuperPAC astoturfers like For The Many; and I will admit, also our homegrown IRS 990 non-filing grifters. They will make a fuss and waste the council’s time while our streets are torn apart and our budget continues to go towards the red.
DeleteI saw that one on the agenda. It’s just such an obvious (and empty) virtue signal I thought to stay on-topic.
DeleteCorrection: “DSA” aligned SuperPAC. Spellcheck is changing the parties on me :)
DeleteMany Hudson residents are already eligible to apply for the next round of Plus One ADU funding, provided they live in a district that allows multiple dwellings (for example, R3 and R4). These amendments would extend that eligibility city-wide, but there are quite a few homeowners who are eligible right now (provided they meet the other criteria, most important of which is the 100% of AMI household income limit).
ReplyDeleteHello Chris! Can you please share more details on where we can apply? Thank you.
DeleteLucky:
Delete✅ Qualifications
Homeowner Eligibility:
• Income Limits: Household income must be at or below 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI). For instance, in Columbia County, the 2024 limits are:
• 1-person household: $82,066
• 2-person household: $93,734
• 3-person household: $105,532
• 4-person household: $117,200

• Ownership and Residency: Applicants must own and occupy the property as their primary residence. Ownership can be in the form of a fee simple title, trust, or LLC, provided the applicant resides in the home. 
• Property Type: Eligible properties include single-family homes (1–4 units) where ADUs are permitted by local zoning laws. 
Property Eligibility:
• Zoning Compliance: The property must be located in a municipality that allows ADUs. 
• Code Compliance: Properties should be free of significant building or housing code violations unless such issues are directly related to the ADU project and will be addressed during construction. 
⸻
💰 Benefits
• Grant Funding: Eligible homeowners can receive up to $125,000 in grant funds for ADU construction or renovation. In New York City, the maximum grant amount is $175,000. 
• Comprehensive Support: The program offers assistance throughout the project, including:
• Design and permitting
• Budgeting
• Environmental assessments
• Contractor selection
• Construction oversight
• Post-construction monitoring
 
• Increased Housing Options: ADUs can provide rental income for homeowners and offer affordable housing solutions for renters, including family members, caregivers, or community members. 
⸻
⚠️ Post-Construction Restrictions
• Regulatory Agreement: Homeowners must enter into a 10-year regulatory agreement, committing to:
• Renting the ADU as a long-term, year-round residence
• Maintaining the property in good condition
• Not using the ADU for short-term rentals (e.g., Airbnb)
  
• Affordability Commitment: In some areas, homeowners must agree to rent the ADU at an affordable rate to tenants earning up to 80% of the AMI. 
• Monitoring: Program administrators will conduct biennial site visits and require annual certifications to ensure compliance with program terms. 
• Repayment Clause: If the homeowner sells the property or fails to comply with program requirements within the 10-year period, a portion of the grant may need to be repaid on a declining balance basis. 
⸻
🏡 Local Administration
The Plus One ADU Program is administered locally through partnerships between municipalities and nonprofit organizations. In Columbia County, for example, RUPCO oversees the program. 
To determine eligibility and apply, homeowners should contact their local program administrator. 
Lucky - this program is not currently open for Hudson residents, but should be relatively soon. Union Jack has most of it right*, but if you are interested in the program, your best source will be Daniel Kilpatrick at RUPCO: dkilpatrick@rupco.org
Delete*those aren’t the AMIs for Columbia County, and there is more flexibility in the program than that text indicates; for example, your municipality doesn’t need to explicitly allow ADUs. Some towns allow more than one residential dwelling on a parcel without calling either an ADU, and that works too.
Chris, to clarify, is the 100% AMI limit based on Hudson or CC?
DeleteUnion Jack - they are the same number. While every municipality has its own median income, HUD’s Area Median Income is a bit different, and has become the ‘measuring stick’ for most housing subsidies. In rural areas, the AMI typically covers entire counties.
DeleteHUD recently released the 2025 AMIs here: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2025/2025summary.odn?STATES=36.0&INPUTNAME=NCNTY36021N36021*3602199999%2BColumbia+County&statelist=&stname=New+York&wherefrom=&statefp=36&year=2025&ne_flag=&selection_type=county&incpath=&data=2025&SubmitButton=View+County+Calculations
Thank you for the info!
Delete