Last night, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the Hudson Housing Authority's proposal to construct new buildings on their site at 41 North Second Street. The community space at the Central Fire Station was nearly filled to capacity. Among the notables spotted in the room were Mayor Joseph Ferris, architect Alex Gorlin, and Fourth Ward supervisor Linda Mussmann.
At the outset, Planning Board chair Ron Bogle suggested, "The subject matters that might be most useful are focused around your observations as a neighbor or of the neighborhood--comments about traffic, safety, design, environmental issues, or other matters that you believe are relevant for our review." Of the thirteen members of the public who commented, only three touched upon the issues Bogle suggested. The rest presented some version of the argument that the people currently living in Bliss Towers deserve new and safe housing (no one is disagreeing) and people who have been forced to leave Hudson deserve to come back (there is no guarantee that can happen). Among the people urging the Planning Board act expeditiously to grant site plan approval were many of the usual suspects--Kaya Weidman of Kite's Nest, Bill Hughes, Claire Cousin, Abdus Miah--and some we don't hear from as often--Nona Walthour and Kim Singletary, neither of whom lives in Hudson.
Of the three speakers whose comments related to the issues Bogle suggested, Alan Weaver, who chaired the HHA Board of Commissioners in 2018-2019, when HHA last had plans for redevelopment, reminded the board that the earlier plans were abandoned because the land on the north side of State Street was determined to be unstable and unable to support the building to be constructed there. He noted that the building now being proposed for the site is even larger than the one proposed earlier. Weaver called the current plan "out of scale with the current neighborhood" and questioned the need to build so many units when there were now, according to some accounts, only 84 tenants in Bliss Towers. Of the current proposal, he asserted, "We don't know what it's going to cost; we don't know what it's going to look like." He called for a project that would be of benefit to Hudson and not just to the developer and urged that the project not be approved until all the information was available.
Britt Zuckerman, a landscape architect, pointed out that the site plan involves destroying mature trees, noting that the Second Ward is "the least planted of any ward." She criticized the overall design, calling it "towers around a park . . . with no streetscape engagement." She said the design "segregates residents and creates a dead zone."
Carla Sadoff expressed the opinion that too many things that she considered "red flags" were being ignored--mentioning specifically the issues with the soil and management during construction. She asked rhetorically, "Is there sufficient information to the Planning Board? Does the Planning Board have any doubts about what is being presented to them?" She concluded by saying, "There are too many things that have been said, that have been discovered, that have been revealed that leave certain things in question that make me question the immediate acceptance of this."
The entire hearing can be viewed here. Spenser Walsh from the Register-Star, Jeanette Wolfberg from The Columbia Paper, and Roger Hannigan Gilson from the Times Union were all present at the hearing so there will soon be several other accounts of what transpired.
The Planning Board is accepting written comments about the project until its next meeting, which takes place on August 11. Comments can be submitted by email to the Planning Board clerk Linda Fenoff at lfenoff@cityofhudson.org.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK
84 individuals live in Bliss (now confirmed).
ReplyDeleteEach would get to live in a brand-new apartment that costs about $800k + to build if this is approved, (timing not guaranteed).
But only 6 to 8 people showed up to the hearing, a very critical one about their "community" and homes" less than a mile away.
Not exactly roaring support for Dodson or the MountCo plan.
~
Ask a sincere question about a troubled agency building on unstable soil and you're "greedy" and "selfish." (The last public meeting on this issue)
Raise SEQRA in a professional and measured way to make the proposing housing better for the inhabitants, and you are, to quote one speaker last night:
"pseudo intellectual kinda nimby hiding behind numbers," aesthetics are "a dog whistle," and you're "kinda cowardly and sort of sad."
No one against the proposal attacked the residents. The inverse is not true.
That's why the sensible middle stops showing up.
Should we do a "In their own words" Special Report of this and the previous meetings. The RestoreNY one was beyond words.
ReplyDeleteJust a few moments from last night:
1 - Claire Cousin (elected public figure), saying
"There's no jobs (in Hudson) that match the cost of living" while arguing for the accelerated approval of the 2 phases.
Ok - so then why 2.5x the number residents (84 to 300+) on a concentrated site if there are
a) "no jobs" and b) no jobs that pay well, for the current residents?
2 - Alan Weaver (former public official and HHA Board member) calmly and politely addressing core SEQRA concerns, and after casually sliding a piece of paper onto the Planning Board members' table that we later find out is a soil and engineering report....
stating that the soil on the parcel could not support a *smaller* building than what is now being proposed. The firms involved then (PRC/Duvernay + Brooks team) was more reputable, larger, and vertically integrated than MountCo.
Then he goes on to say that "what you are looking at is adding 4 Providence Halls to the second ward"
For those watching at home, Weaver's comment, and deposit of that report in the public record, is the Bliss version of Jack Hornickel, also a thoughtful and genteel presence, explaining to the Planning Board with evidence a few years ago that Mill Street is a park (and flood zone) and cannot be alienated.
Now look how Mill Street ended up....
Reading the comments, most speakers treated this as a "what do we want for Hudson" conversation. It isn't one.
Site plan review is a narrow, standards-based check: does the project follow the zoning code, is it safe, does it fit the neighborhood, is it consistent with the City's own published plans.
Bogle said exactly that at the start. Three of thirteen speakers answered the question he asked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Environmental_Quality_Review_Act