At the Common Council Safety Committee meeting on August 3, Code Enforcement Officer Nick Fox proposed three changes to the city code. Two of them have to do with the demolition of buildings.
Fox pointed out that Section 91-3 C of the code lists demolition as the first option for removing a structure from the Vacant Building Registry. Fox is proposing, appropriately, that demolition be the last resort. Here is his reasoning:
While demolition is, in some cases, an appropriate means of protecting public safety, I believe it should generally be considered a last resort after reasonable opportunities for rehabilitation have been evaluated or determined to be impractical. The purpose of the Vacant Building Law should not only be to eliminate unsafe structures, but also to encourage the rehabilitation, preservation, and productive reuse of buildings whenever feasible. Demolition certainly has its place, particularly where a structure poses an imminent hazard or is beyond repair. However, where rehabilitation remains a viable option, preserving existing buildings often better serves the interests of neighborhoods, property owners, historic preservation, housing availability, and the long-term tax base of the City.
Fox's proposed amendments to Section 91-3 C, which prioritize returning buildings to appropriate occupancy or use, can be found here.
Fox also suggested changes to Chapter 97 of the code, the chapter on demolition. He pointed out that Section 97-3 F currently places the responsibility for protecting adjoining or adjacent properties on the owners of those properties. Of this situation, Fox stated:
I believe this responsibility should instead rest with the property owner and/or contractor performing the demolition. The party undertaking the demolition is in the best position to anticipate potential hazards, implement appropriate protective measures, and conduct the work in a safe and responsible manner. Accordingly, I believe the owner and/or contractor performing the demolition should be responsible for protecting all persons, buildings, structures, utilities, vehicles, and properties that may be affected by the demolition activities. Furthermore, any damage resulting from those activities should be promptly repaired or restored by the responsible owner and/or contractor at no expense to the affected property owner.
Fox also pointed out that Chapter 97 "contains limited requirements regarding the condition in which a property must be left following demolition." The consequences of this are readily seen in at the corner of State and Seventh streets, where the Galvan Foundation demolished a historic building, the original home of the Hudson Orphan Asylum, in 2019.
Seven years later, the site remains a fenced hole in the ground. These pictures were taken today.
Fox is suggesting the following addition to Section 97-3, as item K:
Upon completion of demolition, the property owner and/or contractor shall restore the site to a safe, clean, and finished condition. The site shall be backfilled, compacted, and graded to a finished grade that provides proper drainage and eliminates hazardous depressions, exposed foundations, or other unsafe conditions.
Upon completion of the work, all temporary fencing, construction barriers, warning devices, and other temporary protective measures associated with the demolition shall be removed unless otherwise required by the Code Enforcement Officer or applicable law.
The resulting vacant lot shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition and shall remain in compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Hudson and NYS Property Maintenance Code. Under no circumstances shall the property be left in a condition that constitutes a public nuisance, blighting influence, or hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare.
Fox's suggestions for changes to Chapters 91 and 97 will be introduced to the Common Council at its informal meeting tonight.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK
Is Mr Fox willing to pay for the added charges of fixing a jalopy instead of buying a new car for less $. This will only discourage new contruction and the properties will be left derelict because of cost effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteWhy would this amendment have any impact whatsoever on new construction? Literally all it does is reorder the options for vacant building plans (rehab, maintain or demo) and give vacant building owners an incredibly low bar to hop over (“rehabbing this property isn’t in my budget”).
DeleteVacant building annual registration fees start at $1,000 and scale up to $5,000. Vacant building owners who are out of compliance with the existing ordinance, whether through failing to register or failing to submit a plan, are subject to fines of up to $1,000 per day per violation. How many vacant building associated fees has Hudson collected to date? Which vacant buildings have plans associated with them? Where can we find the annual report?
Note: the ordinance refers to 91-6 - Penalties several times, yet the Penalties action is 91 - 7.
If the past six years of housing price inflation hasn’t impelled the owners of currently vacant buildings to get going on rehabs, likely little else will. Fine them until they sell them. Hudson doesn’t need any more slumlords.