Another Night with the Planning Board

The main event at Tuesday night's Planning Board meeting was deliberation in preparation for making a decision on the Hudson Housing Authority's redevelopment proposal. A decision was not formally made at Tuesday's meeting, which went on for two and a half hours. Instead the Planning Board agreed to hold a special meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, October 19, to vote on the proposal, after the Planning Board and the public has had a chance to see and study the proposed resolution and its conditions.

Not surprisingly, the alternative "Bliss Gardens" plan submitted by Project7Hudson was not mentioned at the meeting, although the letter from Carla Sadoff, introducing the plan, and a letter from Friends of Second Street, both submitted on Monday, October 12, now appear in the Planning Board portal. The letter from FoSS specifies eleven conditions that should be imposed should the Planning Board decide to grant site plan approval.

Before the Planning Board began its discussion and deliberation, HHA executive director Jeffrey Dodson, who stormed out of the previous Planning Board meeting in a fit of pique, said the site plan review process "has tested our character," but he assured the board, "We are determined to make a better use of the space we have."

When members of the Planning Board had the opportunity to question the applicant, Peter Spear returned to the issue of the number of entrances to the buildings. The issue is based in this statement made in a document submitted to the Planning Board by the applicant in May:

Residents access the buildings directly from public sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and landscaped open spaces, with multiple street-level entrances distributed across each building. Rather than concentrating circulation into a single centralized lobby, entrances are organized to serve smaller residential groupings, so each entry supports a limited number of units. The approach reinforces a neighborhood-scaled residential character and allows residents to enter their homes close to the street or open space, much like traditional walk-up and small shared-entry buildings throughout Hudson.

Alex Gorlin of Alexander Gorlin Architects, who presumably wrote the statement since it was made in response to questions addressed to the architect, maintained that "at no point did we ever have more than one entrance" and stated, "Whatever I said previously was incorrect."

Before the Planning Board began its deliberations on the proposal, Andrew Clark, legal counsel to the Planning Board, read Chapter 325-35 H (2) of the city code, which outlines the grounds for making a decision in the site plan review.

In considering whether to approve a site plan or site plan amendment, the Planning Board shall take into consideration the public health, safety, and general welfare, the general purpose and intent of this chapter, the comfort and convenience of the public in general and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular, and shall base such decision upon the following grounds:

(a)  Maximum safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic access and egress.

(b)  Site layout (including location, power, direction and time of any outdoor lighting of the site) which would have no significant adverse impact upon any adjoining or nearby properties by impairing the established character or the potential use of properties in such districts. Any adverse impacts must be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.

(c)  The reasonable screening, at all seasons of the year, of all playgrounds, parking and service areas from view of the adjacent residential properties and streets.

(d)  Conformance of the proposed site development plan with the City of Hudson Comprehensive Plan and, where applicable, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, including any applicable policies contained in the LWRP.

(e)  In applicable cases, a drainage system and layout which would afford the best solution to any drainage problem.

(f)  All water bodies, wetlands, steep slopes, and other areas of scenic, ecological and historic value shall be preserved insofar as possible. All site preparation activities shall be conducted with the goal of retaining stormwater on the site.

(g)  Landscape treatment should be provided to enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and visual corridors and provide shade.

(h)  No material or equipment, other than as shown on an approved site plan, shall be stored in the open if it would be substantially visible from adjoining properties and public roads. Storage of equipment and materials should be within wholly enclosed structures approved for such use or should be screened from view by fencing or landscaping, or a combination of fencing and landscaping, as determined by the Planning Board.

(i)  Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height, location, design and signage of each building should be compatible with its site and the existing and historic character of the surrounding neighborhood. Adaptive reuse of existing structures is strongly encouraged.

Conformance with the comprehensive plan being one of the criteria for making a decision, the idea that the project should correct the harm done by Urban Renewal in Hudson, an idea based on a statement found on page 51 of the current comprehensive plan, Hudson 2035, inspired a spirited exchange between board members Sara Black and Spear. In the exchange, Black called the project "a generational lift that the city has been working towards ever since Bliss Towers was known to be structurally compromised," while Spear maintained the project as proposed "is a repeat of the institutional-scale development of Bliss Towers. It is Bliss Towers laid on its side." The entire exchange is worth listening to and can be heard here, beginning at 1:40:07 and ending at 1:47:39.

Regarding the comprehensive plan and its influence on the Planning Board's decision making, Clark pointed 0ut that "conforming to the comprehensive plan is only one of eight conditions, where no one is controlling." Ron Bogle, who chairs the Planning Board, said that he had asked the city attorney, presumably that was Andy Howard, about the legal status of the comprehensive plan. Bogle reported that he was told the comprehensive plan is "an aspirational document designed to inform future zoning, and it has no power of law."

During the meeting, the idea of requiring a performance bond for the demolition of Bliss Towers was discussed at some length. The demolition is now part of Phase 2 and, accordingly to the construction timeline for the project, is likely to happen in December 2029. Regarding the possibility of making the demolition part of Phase 1, John Madeo of Mountco said, "This project is financially stressed now. Adding demolition would make the project infeasible." He added they had tried to get a preliminary letter of commitment from the state about funding for Phase 2, but the state would not do that.

Clark advised that a demolition bond would exceed the Planning Board's authority because demolition is not part of the application currently before them. Black pooh-poohed the concern that Bliss Towers, which she described as a "nine-story collapsing building full of asbestos," would be allowed to "just sit there," saying, "It's in nobody's interest to have Bliss remain, so why are we wasting time on it?"

In lieu of a demolition bond, it was decided that the resolution would contain the condition that HHA shall apply for site plan approval for Phase 2 within twenty-four months or return to the Planning Board to revisit the SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) approval. Madeo commented, "In twenty-four months, Phase 1 will be in construction, and the state will see we can deliver."

At one point, Kali Michael voiced a concern about the impact an increase in population density might have on the city. Revonda Smith, who chairs the HHA Board of Commissioners, rose to respond, claiming that Hudson has lost 80 percent of its Black population and saying, "We just want to being our people back."  

After the meeting had gone on for close to two hours, Bogle, explaining that he wanted to speak as a member of the Planning Board and not the chair, said, "There are two main topics here: one is a home for our neighbors; and the other is a piece of architecture that significantly participates in the fabric of our community and in some ways really defines the fabric of our community." Saying he wanted to set aside the housing issue, which he said he agreed with 100 percent, Bogle went on to make this statement:

I spent thirty years in the architectural world, working with architects, planners and urban planners and landscape architects and developers, mayors, education leaders, creating designs for cities, neighborhoods, schools, waterfronts, and affordable housing communities. So, I've come away from that with two powerful perspectives. One is I believe deeply in the power of design to transform communities and to improve quality of life. It's sort of one of my central beliefs that design matters and we should care deeply about the fabric that we create in our communities and our neighborhoods. I also have a pretty strong perspective on good urban design. . . . 

When we talk about design, I'm accustomed to it being a creative process, where there's give and take and back and forth. That's not how the Planning Board works. This is not a creative process. In fact, it's pretty dry and procedural. . . . 

What we do is not about discussing design excellence. The zoning code does give us an architectural role, and it is to do with compatibility, but frankly the compatibility bar is set pretty low. . . . The City of Hudson does not have a written commitment to design excellence. . . . And we need to think about that as a community, because, as I said before, design excellence elevates life. It inspires people. It gives worth. It gives value. It gives dignity. Compatibility is not the same thing as architectural excellence. . . . 

Compatibility is complicated in this particular situation because, in the '70s, the civic leaders at the time changed the nature of the environment around Bliss Tower and created a challenge around what are we trying to be compatible with exactly. Where do we compare ourselves?

I think HHA wisely looked to Hudson more broadly rather than saying we want to be compatible with the people across the street, we're going to step back and look at Hudson writ large and see how do we design a compatibility result that fits with Hudson. 

This is their view. This is what they present. So they recognized, unlike Bliss Tower, which could be Anywhere USA--it was built with materials that don't belong here, the scale was out of scale, it doesn't address the street.

There's so many things about Bliss Tower that are being addressed, and whether or not they're addressed in a way that makes us happy is sort of beside the point, because that's not what we're asked to do. We're asking: Show us how you demonstrate the fact that this is architecturally compatible.  

Bogle then proceeded to enumerate how the project as proposed improves upon what exists--Bliss Towers--to achieve compatibility with the architecture of Hudson.  

• Instead of one nine-story building, there are two (three when Phase 2 is complete) four- or five-story buildings.
• Instead of blond brick, the color of the brick proposed is warmer and more in keeping with the color of the brick of Hudson's historic buildings.
• Instead of a tower in the field, the buildings are actually lining the street. 

Bogle concluded, "I recognize the effort. Whether I agree with the solution is outside of my role as a Planning Board member."

At the special meeting on Monday, October 19, the Planning Board all vote on whether to grant or deny site plan approval. The meeting takes place at 8:30 in the morning, so it's clear the vote will be the only thing that happens at that meeting. 

Before the meeting takes place, the resolution granting site plan approval, with its conditions, will be made available to the Planning Board and the public. In addition to the condition that Phase 2 be presented to the Planning Board within twenty-four months, there are a number of conditions specified by the Planning Board's engineering consultant, enumerated in this document, and two more agreed to by the board: that all the trees used in the landscaping be chosen from the Conservation Advisory Council's list of approved species (suggested Nathan Woodhull); and that all HVAA equipment installed on the roofs of the buildings be shielded from view by the buildings' parapets (suggested by Bogle).

Monday morning's meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely. 

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK