News from the HPC Public Hearing

Full disclosure: I, in collaboration with Ronald Kopnicki and Matt McGhee, submitted the application to the Historic Preservation Commission for local landmark status to be granted to the Dunn warehouse. That application can be found here, along with supporting statements from Kopnicki and McGhee. 

The expectation going in was that, after Friday morning's public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission would make the recommendation to the Common Council that the Dunn warehouse be designated a local landmark, and the Council would vote on it at its November meeting. But things didn't quite work out that way.

The City's historic preservation law requires that the owner of the property, in this case the City of Hudson, be notified of a proposed designation fourteen days before the public hearing (Chapter 169-4. C). The HPC failed to do this, and, as a consequence, the public hearing must be held open until official notification is made and the owner, represented by the mayor's office, can be present at the hearing. Despite the fact that there had been no official notification, mayor's aide Justin Weaver was present at the public hearing.

After I made a brief statement about why the Dunn warehouse merited designation, reiterating the information presented at the September 26 HPC meeting and what appears in the application--that the State Historic Preservation Office has twice determined the building to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the building is one of the last survivors of Hudson's industrial past, and it deserves the protections that the HPC offers to historic structures--Ronald Kopnicki made this statement:

Last month, I spoke in favor of designating the Dunn Warehouse on the grounds that it is a surviving, material example of Hudson's historic industrial waterfront and not a mere allusion to that history. Today, I'm going to argue in favor of designation in terms of a broadening of the idea of what it means to be a landmark and a broadening of the constituency for historic preservation.

Structures of many different architectural styles, of different historic uses, representing the history and activities of many different groups are qualified for preservation on aesthetic and cultural grounds. The Dunn Warehouse is one of these. (You may remember, in the context of this inclusiveness, your designation of Old Shiloh Baptist Church in response to the call of Rev. Ed Cross, a designation which I and others supported.) Preserved and repurposed, the Dunn Warehouse can serve an ever larger and more inclusive community and stand as a linchpin of Hudson's revived waterfront.

In its first go-around on the adaptive reuse of the Dunn Warehouse, the City administration was strongly committed to such reuse. This time its commitment may not be so certain. To the administration, I say: if you want adaptive reuse, support designation. To this Commission, I say: If you want to make adaptive reuse more certain, vote for designation.

Matt McGhee, another of the collaborators in presenting the application, called the building "an asset to the city and the people" and said, "It should be protected."

Margaret Morris, First Ward councilmember, spoke in "strongest support" of the designation, noting that its visibility on the waterfront is very important and that the previous proposal for the building had been "consistent with connecting it to the waterfront and preserving it for adaptive reuse." 

Justin Weaver, who said he was there representing the City, declared the City was fully in favor of the designation. He explained that the fact that the City was insisting the HPC follow process specified in Section 169-4. C of the code did not mean the City was not fully in favor of the designation and did not recognize "the beauty, history, and majesty of the building." 

Mayoral candidate Lloyd Koedding expressed his strong support for the designation, concluding his statement with, "If I were mayor, which could happen, I would see that it gets done and that it gets done right away."

Code enforcement officer Craig Haigh, who strangely was present for the meeting although the public hearing was the only thing on the agenda, set the cat among the pigeons by asking if a conditions report had been done on the building, opining that it didn't make sense to designate the building if it were beyond repair and unsalvageable. Responding to Haigh's concerns, I cited the adaptive reuse study done by Saratoga Associated in 2015 and a study done in 2019 by a structural engineer with Chazen Companies, consultants in implementing the DRI projects. I also suggested that CGS Group (a.k.a. Dunn & Done LLC) might have done some structural studies as part of their due diligence. Weaver said if such studies existed, they would be on the city website on the DRI page. I checked. The Saratoga Associates study is there but not the study and short-term stabilization plan done by the Chazen engineer. There is, however, a Gossips post that provides evidence of its existence.

Regarding the question of the building's structural condition, HPC member John Schobel said it shouldn't prevent designation. HPC chair Phil Forman concurred, saying he didn't think it should affect their process.

Morris brought up the fact that the Dunn warehouse was one of the City's DRI projects and $1 million had been allocated for its restoration and adaptive reuse, but the reissued RFP for the building indicated that $1 million was no longer available. She wondered why the $1 million had been redirected. Weaver told her that if the $1 million were not redirected to another city project it would be lost. Weaver's statement doesn't clear up all of the questions surrounding this apparent redirection of funds. If the $1 million had to be redirected to another city project, logic suggests they should go to the development of the Furgary Fishing Village as a public park. It is a city project and a DRI project. But if what John Madeo of Mountco has been saying is true, the plan is to redirect the $1 million to the Hudson Housing Authority redevelopment, which is not a City of Hudson project.

In any event, the public hearing on the designation will continue on Friday, November 14. Given that the Common Council holds its regular meeting on Tuesday, November 18, it is still possible for the HPC to make its recommendation in time for the Council to vote on it at its November meeting.

Between now and November 14, the HPC is accepting written comments. The names of the members of the HPC and their City of Hudson email addresses can be found here.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK