News from the Planning Board

Last night, the Planning Board began its task as lead agency in the SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) process for the proposed Hudson Housing Authority redevelopment project by considering the eighteen questions in Part 2 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF). That whole discussion can be viewed here, beginning at 46:17.

Beginning the SEQR process was the first of several steps outlined by Planning Board chair Ron Bogle. The next will be a design review, then an engineering review, then a public hearing, and finally board action. In preparation for the design review, which is expected to begin at the May meeting of the Planning Board, Bogle explained that the architect, Quncie Williams of Alexander Gorlin Architects, was unclear about what information the board was seeking. It will be recalled that at the March meeting of the Planning Board, when Peter Spear asked for renderings that were closer to reality, and Bogle asked of the renderings, "Are they conceptual illustrations, or do they really reflect what is currently planned to be built?" (the renderings have been around since the fall of 2024), Williams responded, "Architects deal with intent. . . . My intent is to have this built as it's shown." 

Williams (left) at the March meeting of the Planning Board with one of the two renderings

To assist Williams in understanding the Planning Board's expectations and concerns regarding the design, Bogle said the board was submitting a set of questions about the design. Those questions--more areas of concern than questions--can be found here. Several of them address issues of context and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. One in particular asks: "Stepping back, please describe how the project as a whole fits within its context."

Similarly, questions 17 and 18 in Part 2 of the FEAF address, respectively, "Consistency with Community Plans" and "Consistency with Community Character." When they got to the latter question, Bogle asked if "community character" referred to "the immediate neighborhood, or is it something beyond?" Planning Board member Veronica Concra responded, "If it's already existing, how could it inconsistent? I don't understand. It's the exact same thing, just newer and safer." 

Bogle went on to say, "I think based on what we know right now, we'll know more at the next meeting when we have our design review, but directionally it feels like they are representing what they believe is consistent with the neighborhood."

Sara Black, recently appointed to the board and previously on the HHA board, agreed with Concra that what was being proposed could not possibly be inconsistent. She added, "Compared to Schuyler Court and the townhouses . . . I don't have an architectural problem with the community character."

It's worth pointing out that Concra and Black live in parts of the city that are far away from the HHA site, about as far away as you can get in a city that's only a little more than two square miles. Peter Spear, who lives only a block or so away, offered this opinion: "I think there's legitimate questions about the scale and the degree to which it fits with the scale of the neighborhood that it's in."

When Black made a comment about the proposed project being totally consistent with the urban renewal neighborhood in which is was located, Spear responded, "This is where things get complicated, because the comprehensive plan requires that we repair the harms of urban renewal and that repairing the harms of urban renewal in the built environment orients the design toward the historic character of the neighborhood."

The review of the proposed design is expected to happen at the May meeting of the Planning Board, which is currently scheduled to take place on May 12. 

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK