Hudson's historic preservation ordinance, Chapter 169 of the city code, was adopted in 2003 and "amended in its entirety" in 2005. The purpose of the ordinance is defined in the code as follows:
It is hereby declared, as a matter of public policy, that the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of landmarks and historic districts are necessary to promote the economic, cultural, educational, and general welfare of the public, inasmuch as the identity of a people is founded on its past, and inasmuch as the City of Hudson has many significant historic, architectural, and cultural resources which constitute its heritage, this chapter is intended to:
A. Protect and enhance the landmarks and historic districts which represent distinctive elements of Hudson's historic, architectural, and cultural heritage;
B. Foster civic pride in the accomplishments of the past;
C. Protect and enhance Hudson's attractiveness to visitors and support stimulus to the economy thereby provided;
D. Insure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient development of the City; and
E. Promote stewardship through education, advisement, and consultation.
The Historic Preservation Commission exists to carry out the law, yet at its meeting on February 27, Phil Forman, who chairs the Historic Preservation Commission, made this statement regarding the purpose of the HPC: "We're here to help people get their projects done. We're not here for preservation as an abstraction." You can hear him make this statement here at 2:01:53.
Forman's interpretation of what the Historic Preservation Commission is about was on full display at today's HPC meeting. The commission was continuing its review of the new construction proposed for 309-311 Union Street. It will be remembered that on February 27 the HPC agreed that, "contingent on the approval of the proposed design, the Commission will not oppose demolition." The approval of the design was a pretty significant thing. Not only would the approval of the design trigger approval of the demolition of a historic house, but it would also determine what would be introduced into the homogeneous fabric of a block in one of the city's historic districts. Despite the magnitude of the decision, Forman was seemed intent on pushing the project forward.
At its March 13 meeting, the HPC had suggested that the proposed new house be situated farther back on the lot, to align with the houses on either side and to replicate the dominant pattern on the block of sidewalk, planting bed, porch, and then house. At today's meeting, the applicant reported that the plan was now for the porch to be four feet back from the property line and six feet back from the sidewalk.
The HPC also expressed concern about the windowless side walls. (Shown in the first set of drawings below.) The drawings presented today showed two more windows on those walls--one more small window near the front on the first floor and a larger window toward the back on the second floor. (See the second set of drawings below.)
When HPC member Miranda Barry observed that the side windows were "not in the style of the other windows in the house," the architect explained they were "trying to create wall space for furniture." HPC member John Schobel expressed that opinion the windows proposed would not "negate the enormity of that wall." Cara Cragan, the architect member of the HPC, told the architect, "The little windows suggest suburban context and dumb down the other things you've done." The architect argued that he didn't want the windows to dictate the interior layout.
In the end, it was decided that a two-over-two window, the same size as the windows on the front of the building, would replace the little window on each side nearest the front porch. Forman, expressing concern about holding up the process, suggested that the change in the windows be a contingency for a certificate of appropriateness. He called for a vote on whether or not the application was complete. The commissioners agreed that it was. Forman then indicated they were ready to vote on granting a certificate of appropriateness.
It was then that Henry Haddad, councilmember from the First Ward, where the site is located, called for a public hearing on the design, stressing the importance of the decision and alleging what was being proposed "is not built for quality of life; it is built for profit." Forman told him, "We're in the middle of a vote. We're not doing this."
Forman then made a motion to "waive a public hearing and instruct the city attorney [Victoria Polidoro] to prepare a certificate of appropriateness."
The roll call vote started, but got sidetracked when Schobel declared he was voting no to waiving a public hearing. Forman objected, "We gave these folks every reason to believe we would approve this project." HPC member Hugh Biber added, "People are entitled to build houses." Barry commented, "If we open this up to the public, the real issue will be the demolition."
Forman went on to say, "There has to be some limit in code or on practice where we do not put people through an unlimited gauntlet of opinion. This is new construction. There are a lot of ways to do new construction. If Cara and I had our way, we would probably be looking at stainless steel with a swoop on the top."
The vote went forward, with five members (Forman, Biber, Cragan, Barry, and Paul Barret) voting in favor of granting the certificate of appropriateness, and only one (Schobel) opposed. The seventh member of the commission, Jeremy Stynes, was absent from the meeting. Schobel declared the decision, "Great risk to a beautiful block and great risk to our patrimony."
After the vote was taken, Ronald Kopnicki, attending remotely, asked to be recognized, but Forman refused to let him speak. The meeting was over in less than an hour.
In defending the project and urging that the project move forward, Forman asserted, "We agreed with the engineering report." That report can be found here. What the HPC seemed also to take into consideration in making their decision was the applicant's claim that repairing the foundation of the house would cost $500,000.
At the February 13 meeting of the HPC, Barrett suggested that the applicant seeking to demolish the house at 309-311 Union Street speak with the owner of 34 South Front Street. At that same meeting, Schobel referenced 116 Union Street was an example of a building that had been brought back from near ruin. The applicant contacted the owner of 34 South Front Street, who said that the building's foundation had been in good shape when he embarked on the restoration. The applicant did not contact the owner of 116 Union Street, who is Henry Haddad and who would undoubtedly have told them exactly what he told Gossips after he reviewed the photographs of the foundation provided as evidence of the need for demolition: "Those pictures are every pre-reno basement in Hudson. I just did 116 Union. It's more than twice that size and was in far worse state. I did it for $165K with local, never left Columbia County carpenters."
Haddad might have provided this same information to the HPC this morning had Forman given him a chance.
Haddad has real experience with these things. He also rescued and restored the house at 66 North Third Street, bringing it from what's shown in the first picture below to what's shown in the second.
No comments:
Post a Comment