HHA and the Planning Board

Spenser Walsh's article in the Register-Star about Wednesday night's special Planning Board meeting has a strangely sanguine headline: "Hudson board, Bliss developers resolve differences after tense meeting." The title doesn't quite gibe with what Gossips observed happening. 

One of the goals of the meeting, as defined by Planning Board chair Ron Bogle, was to "close the loop on the public hearing." There were more than 300 comments from the public, to which the applicant responded with 225 pages of information. 

To facilitate the board's discussion of the project, Bogle proposed a "round robin." Board members would take turns asking questions of the applicant, uninterrupted by other members of the board. The only board member who had difficulty adhering to that format was Sara Black, who twice interrupted when it was Peter Spear's turn to ask questions and get answers from the applicant.

Nathan Woodhull was first to pose questions. Woodhull, who formerly served on the Conservation Advisory Council and is now the liaison between the Planning Board and the CAC, expressed concern about trees, particularly along the border between HHA property and Schuyler Court. Constructing Building A and creating a parking lot extending from Columbia Street and to State Street along the border with Schuyler Court involves eliminating a number of mature trees.

Woodhull also asked about sustainability, LEED certification, and the risk that Phase 2 may not happen in a timely fashion. The demolition of Bliss Towers and Columbia Apartments is currently part of Phase 2. 

Responding to the concerns about demolition and phasing, John Madeo of Mountco said they could bifurcate the demolition from Phase 2, but if they cannot get financing to demolish the buildings, they will fold the demolition into the cost of Phase 2.

When it was Peter Spear's turn to ask questions, he returned to the topic of number of entrances to the buildings, particularly Building B, to be constructed along the north side of State Street. 

Spear's questions about the number of entrances were prompted by a statement that appears in a document submitted to the Planning Board in May, in response to questions asked of the project architect. That document can be found here. The following is quoted from page 7:

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. This 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 found throughout Hudson.

Currently, the plans for the buildings have a single entrance leading to what Spear characterized as an "institutional lobby." At the September 8 meeting of the Planning Board, when Spear bought up the issue, he was told by Alex Gorlin, principal of the architectural firm that designed the project, that the change was based "entirely on security." At last week's meeting, Spear wanted to know what the advantages were of having a large institutional lobby. 

Responding to Spear's questioning, John Furst, attorney for the project, referred to the passage Spear referenced as an inconsistency, noting that the same document describes what they are proposing now. Furst maintained they had never proposed multiple entrances and multiple lobbies, asserting that the elevations presented had never changed. Spear challenged the notion that the statement he referenced was an inconsistency, saying, "It's not an inconsistent description. It's a description of a different building. . . . You abandoned something that was more human for something that was institutional, and that troubles me."

Pressed for an answer, Furst admitted the information about entrances and "neighborhood-scaled residential character" was an attempt to align the project with the city's comprehensive plan, because, "There are sentences in the comprehensive plan that support that." The information submitted in May was responding to questions about how "the proposed development relates to Hudson's scale, character, and public realm" and how it aligns with the comprehensive plan. Having exposed what might be seen as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the project to make it seem more compatible with the character of Hudson and with the goals of the comprehensive plan, Furst tried to trivialize the situation by telling Spear, "I apologize. You got us. We made a mistake. If you're looking for an aha, gotcha moment, you got me. Congratulations." The entire interchange between Spear and Furst can be viewed here, beginning at 49:00.

Later on the meeting, when Bogle asked if there could be separate entrances for the ground floor apartments, he was told by Daralynn Wiener, project manager for Aufgang Architects, a second architectural firm involved with the project, "We have to treat everyone in the building equally."

Spear also raised the issue of "right to return," which he indicated some people thought applied to anyone who had lived in Hudson and moved away because of a shortage of affordable housing. Strictly speaking "right to return" applies to people who had lived in public housing and were relocated during the construction of new public housing. Since everyone currently living in Bliss Towers and Columbia Apartments will be relocated to one of the new buildings before the existing buildings are demolished, the concept of "right of return" does not apply. Madeo, however, said they could create a preference for people who used to live in Hudson, but the state would determine what preferences can be imposed.

In her questions, Veronica Concra focused on vibration monitoring, wanting to understand how it would be carried out. She was told by the project engineer that construction always creates vibration. The plan that he then described involves a construction assessment of nearby buildings, with inspectors entering the buildings to assess the current condition so that claims of damage from vibration can be substantiated; vibration monitors throughout the site; and a plan to repair buildings that might be damaged by the vibration.

In his comments, Bogle said he was having trouble connecting the design proposed with the words "human scale" and "human experience," asking, "What are we creating along State Street that gives people a place to go? What is interesting when you walk along State Street and where are you going? How do people experience outdoors?" He indicated that he wanted to have that conversation at the Planning Board's next meeting on October 13.

Bogle also mentioned retail spaces and spaces for not-for-profits that were talked about early on. Madeo said the plans that were submitted to the Planning Board never included retail space, but he did acknowledge that retail was once a part of the plan. He said they at one point had a potential retail tenant--a green grocer--but that fell through, so they decided not to risk creating retail space and having no tenants and chose to use the ground floor for additional dwelling units.

Bogle suggested that, because the board had received "many plans, drawings, narratives, responses, revisions, and supporting documents" over the course of the review, HHA should assemble, before the Planning Board's next meeting on October 13, a "final, organized application package that clearly documents the project we're being asked to approve." He suggested the package should include "an index identifying the current plans and drawings that together constitute the proposed project" and "a detailed narrative describing the architectural and site design features of the final proposal." He suggested the narrative should describe "the significant elements of the buildings and the site," including:

• building massing and facade articulation
• entrances and ground-floor treatment
• materials, colors, and finishes
• the relationship of the buildings to the street and pedestrian environment
• landscaping and public spaces
• rooftop and mechanical screening
• other architectural and site design features HHA believes are important to the character and compatibility of the project

He added, "For Building B in particular, the narrative should identify the physical features HHA is relying on to create the smaller scale architectural character and pedestrian experience that have been described during this review."

Needless to say, Furst, the attorney for the project, objected to the request. Surprisingly, however, Bogle's proposal got little support from members of the Planning Board. In the face of objections, Andrew Clark, attorney for the Planning Board, stated, "It's not a herculean undertaking of creating some new document. It's what's already before this board. It's just to bring it front and center to make it simple and efficient."

Elaborating on his request and his reasons for making it, Bogle told the board:

We don't have defensible plans that say, "This is what these buildings are going to look like." We have some renderings, but renderings are--well, we used to call them "eye candy," and that's not an insult. It's just that they're made to look pretty and to be exciting, but they aren't construction documents that show what the materials are and what it's actually going to look like. And I think it would be helpful for us to have some kind of guideline that is kind of framing the ultimate appearance of the buildings, and, in my opinion, we shouldn't vote on the site plan just based on some renderings in terms of the aesthetic and the nature of the community character. I think we need something a little more tangible.

To Gossips' knowledge, these are all the renderings showing the project as it is currently being proposed that have been presented to the Planning Board. All of them assume the completion of Phase 2.

At this point, Jeffrey Dodson, HHA executive director, interrupted the proceedings and rose to say:

Do you know how frustrating this is to live in a building or work in a building where it is a detriment to people? We're going through this circus activity. Are you serious? People's lives are at stake, and I've held my composure for the most. Like this is an urgent issue. Why doesn't anybody else understand that? It's that critical.

When Bogle asked him to sit down, Dodson stormed out of the room and out of the building.

The meeting adjourned for a ten-minute break, after which Bogle stressed that his request would not postpone a final vote. It seems in the end Madeo agreed to put the suggested package together.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK