Friday, February 21, 2025

Conflicting Visions for Partition Street

Last Friday, the "Me & Mini Me" proposal for 123 Union Street was the subject of a public hearing by the Historic Preservation Commission. Those speaking at the public hearing agreed that the design of the accessory building being proposed was inappropriate.


Henry Haddad, who with painstaking accuracy is restoring a house across the street from 123 Union Street, maintained that there is no precedent in the Northeast for an outbuilding that was a replica of the main house. He called what is being proposed "Disneyland" and "cookie cutter" and completely out of character. He cited the carriage house behind 115 Warren Street (the Seth Jenkins House constructed in 1795) as an example of new construction (the carriage house was built in the early 2000s) that is the right scale and the right period design for its status as an accessory building. 


Matt McGhee similarly called the design "out of character with Hudson," saying it could be better thought out. He expressed the opinion that it would be "more appropriate if it looked like what you would expect in Hudson."

Walter Chatham, the architect for the project, questioned the assumption that the proposed building was out of character. "If the original building is in character, why isn't what's proposed in character?" He asserted, "The current vision is not to build something 'garage-y,'" going on to say, "Hudson is in need of housing, and this is an opportunity to create more housing."

Ronald Kopnicki expressed the desire to see examples from the Northeast of 19th-century outbuildings that replicated the main building. 

When the public hearing was over and the HPC began its discussion of the project, Paul Barrett expressed the opinion that the accessory building is too much like the house. He also said he was concerned about the scale. Kim Wood observed that the outbuilding being proposed is almost as large as the original house, saying it is more a replica than a miniature version. She was concerned about overcrowding on the lot.

  

John Schobel crystallized the problem when he said, "Auxiliary buildings are usually not designed to mimic the main building. This does not look like an outbuilding. It looks like another house." He told Chatham, "Neither the public nor the commission shares your vision of Partition Street as a street of nice little houses." 


It was ultimately decided that Chatham would come back to the HPC in a month with a new design and with renderings that showed the scale of the proposed building in the context of what would be around it.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Thursday, February 20, 2025

A Call to Action from Our Hudson Waterfront

The following letter was written by Donna Streitz on behalf of Our Hudson Waterfront. 

Call to Action! If you're concerned about the future of Hudson and our waterfront, and/or about what happened at the February 11th Planning Board meeting, write to the Planning Board to voice your concerns. Also, mark your calendar for the next meeting on Tuesday, March 11th, 6:30pm at City Hall, and plan to attend in person if you’re able (as there will be no opportunity to join remotely).

As a reminder, at last week's meeting, following pleas from the public, Theresa Joyner, the PB Chair, said that the Board would hold another vote at its March 11th monthly meeting on whether to allow a Public Hearing on the Colarusso Dock Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.), and in the meantime the public can write to the PB to voice any concerns. Also, later in the meeting, the Board voted to eliminate hybrid meetings in the future (after their legal counsel advocated for elimination), thus requiring attendance in person.

Following is a little important background information based on research of Planning Board (PB) minutes dating back to 2019:

    BACKGROUND
  • July 2019 to July 2020: The last PB public hearing involving the Colarusso dock operation was 5-6 years ago – (July 19, 2019 to July 14, 2020). The hearing involved two separate applications before the Board from A. Colarusso and Son Inc. for “conditional use permits with site plan components by a replacement bulkhead and proposed haul road improvements at 175 South Front Street.” Bottom line, one for the dock operation and one for the haul road.
    • November 2019, Colarusso submitted an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to PB; the then Board Chair (Betsy Gramkow) said that “much information regarding the dock operations was still missing.”
    • The public expressed concerns about not knowing about the volume of Colarusso trucks on city streets or at the waterfront.
    • February 2020 – Board received site plan from Colarusso, for which they said they had been requesting for months.
    • May 2020 – A PB member stated that the Board had been asking the applicant for truck traffic volume information for over three years.
    • July 14, 2020 – On final day of the public hearing, Applicant advised the PB of results of a newly completed traffic study (7/9/20 report) it commissioned, performed by Creighton Manning engineering, which reported on Colarusso truck volume from 2014 through 2019 based on Colarusso truck load tickets. Subsequent to public hearing, PB’s engineering firm, Barton & Loguidice (B&L), evaluated CM’s report and submitted findings to PB in August 2020, after close of the public hearing.
    • Only ONE member of current Planning Board, Theresa Joyner, was on the Board during the public hearing. She was appointed to PB in early 2020, and subsequently became Chair in March 2022.
  • July 27, 2020, PB agreed to pass a resolution classifying the Colarusso application for continuation of existing commercial dock operation as a Type I SEQRA action. The Board subsequently commenced a SEQRA Part II and Part III reviews (conducted from August 2020 until November 2021).
  • November 2021, the PB completed an Environment Assessment Form Part 3 review, which they passed unanimously that month. Board decided to adopt a Determination of Significance Positive Declaration. Colarusso subsequently sued the Planning Board for a second time, which prevented PB from continuing its review for approximately 20 months. One PB member commented that the PB spent hundreds of hours completing the EAF Part III. It contains a wealth of information, and addresses many issues that overlap with our City Zoning Code.
  • August 2023, PB resumed its review of the haul road C.U.P. following a court’s decision pertaining to the haul road C.U.P. application. The PB proceeded with its review of the haul road C.U.P., which it subsequently approved December 2023.
  • July 2024 - Court rendered decision on the remaining outstanding lawsuit by Colarusso against the PB.
  • January 2025 – PB resumed discussion of the Colarusso Dock C.U.P. application following court’s decision.
  • February 2025 – PB, in a split decision, voted to NOT reopen public hearing for the Colarusso Dock C.U.P. application. However, following pleas from the public agreed to vote again at the March 2025 meeting, and said that in the meantime, public can write to Planning Board to express any concerns. Planning Board also voted to eliminate “hybrid” meetings in the future after elimination was advocated for by their counsel.

Also, the PB discussed the right for the public to be heard at a public hearing. One individual (engineer?) commented that you’re going to give them one hearing, one public meeting, that’s all you’re going to do.


We strongly feel that a public hearing for the Colarusso Dock C.U.P. should be held by the Planning Board for a number of reasons, including:

  • There was much unknown to the PB and the public during the prior public hearing due to delays by the Applicant in furnishing requested information, such as critical truck traffic information. The results of a truck study commissioned by Applicant wasn’t presented to the PB until July 14, 2020, the last day of the public hearing. The Board’s engineering firm, B&L, reviewed the report and issued its’ findings to the PB after the close of the public hearing. [Report revealed that truck trip volume to/from the dock almost tripled from 2015 to 2019, to over 15,000 trips per year. Based on Colarusso’s proposed daily maximums, worst case scenario for our Core Waterfront District is up to 71,000 trips (or more) per year of 80,000lb gravel trucks with associated barge activity.]
  • The nature of the PB’s review has changed significantly, as per the court’s July 2024 decision (it cannot be subject to a SEQRA Type 1 Action). The PB must evaluate the Dock C.U.P. application under the CITY ZONING CODES.
  • Only ONE member of the current Planning Board was on the Board when the public hearing last took place.
  • There have been significant and wonderful business developments in our waterfront’s Core-Riverfront (CR) District during the past several years.

Regarding hybrid meetings, while the Board is not required to provide, they have been doing so for the past 5 years, since the Pandemic. This has been a great service and value to the public, as hybrid meetings allow the public to participate remotely, to view meetings at a later date if they were unable to attend, and provide full transparency to the meeting.

Another concern is meeting space. Section 103 of the Open Meetings Law requires that public bodies make reasonable efforts to hold meetings in rooms that can “adequately accommodate” members of the public who wish to attend. In addition to reducing transparency to the meeting, we are concerned that City Hall will not provide ample enough space to adequately accommodate members of the public for any contentious issue on the agenda (e.g., Colarusso Dock C.U.P., Mill St Lofts)

Again we (OHW) urge you to write to the Planning Board, to express your concerns and/or requests.

Charter Change Debate

At the first public gathering about the Citizens' Initiative for Charter Change, Michael Chameides evoked the name of Elon Musk and DOGE in protesting the premise that Hudson would run more effectively and professionally with a City Manager/Council form of government. Last week, Caitie Hilverman, executive director at The Spark of Hudson, equated fiscal responsibility with soulless profit seeking in a post published on imby.com: "Hudson Is Not a Corporation--And It Shouldn't Be Run Like One."   

Today, the response to Hilverman's post from the Hudson Citizens Initiative for Charter Change appears on imby.com: "Hudson Charter Change Initiative." 

Wednesday, February 19, 2025

Work Begins at the Crescent Garage

Gossips has been following the plans for the restoration and adaptive reuse of the Crescent Garage at Warren and Eighth streets since they were first presented to the Historic Preservation Commission in September 2022. 


Yesterday, work on the project began. To mark the occasion, the following press release was issued:
Today, the groundbreaking ceremony was held to herald the rehabilitation of the long dormant former Crescent Garage on upper Warren Street in Hudson. Thanks in part to a $1.3 million Restore New York grant from Empire State Development, the Crescent Building redevelopment seeks to breathe new life into a historic, vacant building, transforming it into a dynamic hub for creativity, sustainability, and community. Projected opening for the building is 2027.
The 18,000-square-foot building, originally constructed in 1916 as a premier showroom and garage for cars, will undergo a complete adaptive reuse to house an arts space, a film production studio, live-work artist lofts, and a rooftop event space.
Once a symbol of industrial vitality, the Crescent Garage has been vacant for many years, waiting for a vision that could restore its architectural significance and enrich the community. This revitalization project will not only restore the building's original character but will also integrate cutting-edge sustainability practices, making it a model for future historic preservation efforts in the region.
The ownership group which includes Ian Hague of Ancram, NY, Daniel McCabe of Hudson, NY, and Kris Perry, Hudson, NY, who is project manager and design consultant, said, "We're committed to balancing historic preservation with architectural and sustainable building innovation. We hope The Crescent Building redevelopment can serve as a beacon of sustainable development, blending the past with a forward-thinking, environmentally conscious future."
A Vision for Sustainability and Community Impact
The renovation will feature all-electric mechanical and energy generation systems as well as thorough weatherization to create a sustainable site. The building, powered by renewable energy sources, will set an example for how historic buildings can be retrofitted to meet modern sustainability standards. The project has already earned recognition, having been awarded a Restore New York grant in 2023, in partnership with the City of Hudson. Developers are currently working with National Grid to secure additional funding through their Main Street Revitalization Program to help cover critical weatherization and energy systems installations.
A Catalyst for Growth and Creativity
In addition to its environmental contributions, the Crescent Building will be a vital community resource. The project includes 6,500 square feet of office space designed for a film production company.
The 3,000-square-foot event space will become a vibrant venue for community programming, film screening, gallery events, performances, and private gatherings with a projected 100+ events per year. This space will employ local businesses including caterers, photographers, chefs, and artisans, generating new economic opportunities for Hudson's small business community.
A New Home for Artists
The second floor of the Crescent Building will feature three live-work artist lofts, providing housing for local artists and professionals. This addition comes at a crucial time for Hudson which, like many small upstate municipalities, faces a severe housing shortage. By incorporating living spaces into the project, the Crescent Building will contribute to alleviating the community's ongoing housing situation.
A Collaborative Vision for the Future
The Crescent Building will also be part of a growing network of sustainable energy projects in Hudson, including Basilica Hudson, Red Barn Hudson [The Caboose], and Kite's Nest. Together, these projects will form an innovative green energy ring that demonstrates the power of sustainable practices across various sectors from commercial to educational to cultural and community organizations.
"We believe the Crescent Building will help showcase how historic spaces can evolve into thriving sustainable spaces for the future," said Perry, the project's team leader. "We are creating something truly exceptional for Hudson--an anchor for future growth, a space for creativity, and a model for sustainability," said the ownership group of Hague, McCabe and Perry.
About the Crescent Building Project:
The Crescent Building's transformation is spearheaded by a group of local artists and entrepreneurs dedicated to revitalizing Hudson's upper Warren Street corridor. The project seeks to promote balance between culture, education, and creative discourse--fostering a vibrant community space while contributing to a broader economic revitalization of the city. With support from local artists, engineers, and construction professionals the Crescent Building promises to be a cornerstone in Hudson's future--a place where history and innovation intersect.

Word from "the Other Side of the Tracks"

At the end of the Planning Board meeting last Wednesday, Theresa Joyner, who chairs the Planning Board, proposed that they accept an invitation to make a site visit to "the other side of the tracks"--the other side of the railroad tracks from the Colarusso dock, which, having operated without one since January 2017, is seeking a conditional use permit from the Planning Board. 


The following is quoted from a letter from Ben Fain sent to the Planning Board last week:
I wanted to thank you again for your offer to reevaluate the potential for a Public Hearing on the Colarusso Dock Conditional Use Permit.
As a very close neighbor to the dock we are extremely concerned about the consequences this decision will have on our work and hopes for the future of Hudson’s waterfront.
Our businesses (Kitty’s, Grapefruit Wines, The Caboose, The Wick, Robert Taylor House restoration and soon to come Kaz redevelopment) have grown considerably over the last few years. It’s hard to believe but we currently have over 82 full time employees (with plans for significantly more), and almost 4m in payroll in 2024, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars in Hudson property tax we gladly pay. 
To that end, we wanted to share a memo that may provide additional insights into the Conditional Use Permit for Colarusso dock operation discussed in previous meetings. 
This memo outlines specific considerations established by court rulings regarding the authority of the planning board to impose limitations on the dock operation. 
As you’ll see, counter to what the city attorney represented at the last meeting, this memo shows definitively that the court rulings authorized the Planning Board to impose significant conditions on the entire dock operation, not just the bulkhead.
"additional conditions on such [continued] use [of the dock] as may be necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents living in close proximity to commercial docks and the public while recreating and using public facilities adjacent to commercial docks. . . ."
Examples of conditions:
Section 325-17.1(F)(2) imposes special conditions for commercial dock operations. These are mandatory conditions that a commercial dock operation subject to a conditional use permit must comply with. The Planning Board can certainly impose conditions that facilitate and flesh out these conditions.
Such mandatory conditions include: 
    • Dust, smoke, gas, odor or air pollution shall not adversely affect the surrounding area
      • The Planning Board could impose conditions requiring dust suppression
      • The Planning Board could impose limits on the use of the dock for receipt of odor emitting materials (e.g., noxious chemicals, solid waste)
    • Compliance with the City Noise Ordinance
      • Control measures including barriers, landscaping, and low volume back-up warnings on heavy equipment could be required
    • Limits on hours for loading and unloading from dock and truck arrival and departure times (i.e., 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. set in Code) 
    • Truck engine idling is prohibited 
    • Light sources shall not be visible beyond the lot lines (subject to lighting necessary for safety) 
      • The Planning Board could require certain types of down facing, dark sky compliant lighting 
    • Visual impacts shall be minimized and direct views from public locations protected. Outdoor storage of goods and materials shall be screened 
      • Could require barriers or landscape plantings to block views 
      • Could require construction of a building to screen storage of goods and materials
    • Public access to and from the river shall be incorporated 
      • Could require pedestrian safety and access measures on the property if needed 
    • Preservation of natural features, wetlands, wildlife

Tuesday, February 18, 2025

We've Always Had the Power

Tonight, the Common Council voted to prohibit trucks not making deliveries within the City of Hudson from proceeding beyond the turnoff to The Warehouse, which is the point at which Route 9G is no longer a designated access highway. As a consequence, trucks passing through Hudson will no longer be allowed to travel on Third Street or Columbia Street.


When the resolution was introduced tonight, Council president Tom DePietro moved to table it until the Council could hold a special meeting "in a week or two." He argued that "many people were unaware that this was coming up" and claimed the resolution "hasn't really been circulated that well." DePietro, who lives on Worth Avenue, expressed the opinion that trucks denied the right to pass through Hudson on Route 9G "will most likely shift to Route 9," which enters the city from the south on Worth Avenue.

Although DePietro moved to table the resolution, his motion was not seconded, so the vote went forward. There were eight ayes, two abstentions, and one nay. Those who voted in support were Jennifer Belton (Fourth Ward), Vicky Daskaloudi (Fifth Ward), Dominic Merante (Fifth Ward), Margaret Morris (First Ward), Gary Purnhagen (First Ward), Mohammed Rony (Second Ward), Dewan Sarowar (Second Ward), and Rich Volo (Fourth Ward). The two councilmembers representing the Third Ward--Shershah Mizan and Lola Roberts--abstained. DePietro voted no.

At one point, DePietro suggested the mayor could veto the resolution. If that were to happen, a two-thirds vote of the Council could override the mayor's veto. The resolution passed tonight with a two-thirds majority, so at least one councilmember would have to change his or her vote for an override of the mayor's veto to fail.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Mark Your Calendars

Assemblymember Didi Barrett's Women's History Event this year celebrates Joan K.  Davidson. The event takes place on Sunday. March 9, from 2:00 to 3:30 p.m. at Hudson Hall. 

Update on Tonight's Common Council Meeting

The resolution that would prohibit trucks passing through Hudson from traveling on Third and Columbia streets is on the agenda for tonight's Common Council meeting. If you are interested in witnessing the vote on this monumental legislation, the meeting, which begins at 6:00 p.m., is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Microsoft Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.
 
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Hecate Virtual Town Hall Tomorrow

The front page article in today's Register-Star announces a virtual meeting to take place tomorrow, Wednesday, February 19, about the controversial Shepherd's Run Solar Project: "Hecate to host virtual meeting on proposed Copake solar project." According to the article, "Representatives of the company plan to give an update on the ongoing project, and residents of Copake and the surrounding area will be able to give feedback on the project."


To register to join the meeting, click here.

A New Member for the Planning Board

For a while, after Susan Foster and Ben Forman resigned from the Planning Board in September 2024, the Planning Board was short two members. In November, Kali Michael, who had been on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, was appointed to the Planning Board. Since then, the Planning Board continued to be one member short until recently. Gossips has learned that the Planning Board now has a seventh member: Ashraf Chowdhury.  
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Monday, February 17, 2025

A President of Our Own

On Presidents Day, it seems appropriate to consider Martin Van Buren, the eighth president of the United States. Born in Kinderhook on December 5, 1782, Van Buren was the first president to be born in the United States and the only president to be born in Columbia County. He is also the only president for whom English was a second language. He grew up speaking Dutch. 

Van Buren had a few connections to Hudson. He was born just months before Thomas and Seth Jenkins set out from Nantucket in search of a safe harbor for their families and ships. Their search ended, of course, when they discovered Hudson, then known as Claverack Landing. 

According to Wikipedia (as quoted by The Hudson Wail), Van Buren moved to Hudson in 1808, "seeking a better base for his political and legal career." It is believed that Van Buren's law office was located in this house which once stood near the intersection of Columbia Turnpike and Union Turnpike. The house was demolished in 2000 or thereabout to create a parking lot for Columbia Memorial Hospital.


There is a new biography of Van Buren, written by James M. Bradley and published by Oxford University Press, titled Martin Van Buren: America's First Politician. The book was reviewed today in the Times Union by David Levine: "The other Hudson Valley president." On the evening of Presidents Day, the review is recommended reading. It will make you want to read the book.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Sunday, February 16, 2025

Meetings and Events in the Week Ahead

In a week that begins with Presidents Day and ends with the birthday of the country's first president, George Washington, everything is taking place on one day. 
  • On Tuesday, February 18, the Common Council Finance Committee meets at 5:15 p.m. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Microsoft Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.
  • At 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 18, the regular monthly meeting of the Common Council takes place. Although a resolution regarding it does not yet appear on the agenda for the meeting, it is expected the Council will vote on accepting the recommendation contained in the ad hoc Truck Route Committee's final report. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Microsoft Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely. 
  • Also at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 18, the Hudson Housing Authority Board of Commissioners holds its monthly meeting. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person in the Community Room at Bliss Towers and on Zoom. Click here to join the meeting remotely.
  • And, as if not enough was happening on Tuesday, February 18, there's a Housing Fair happening at The Spark of Hudson, 502 Union Street, from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. The notice of this event, which seems to have appeared only on Instagram, indicates that it is being presented by The Spark of Hudson in collaboration with the City of Hudson's Housing Department, but the purpose of the meeting is described in this way: "Learn about new housing grants and connect with local organizations offering housing resources, financial assistance, and tenant support." 
  • On Wednesday, February 19, a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals had been scheduled, but that meeting has been canceled. 
And that's it for the week.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Proceed with Caution

Earlier this month, the Common Council Legal Committee took up the issue of ADUs (accessory dwelling units) and began a discussion of what needed to be done to facilitate the construction of ADUs in Hudson. Among the zoning changes that will have to be made is increasing the permitted lot coverage. Lot coverage currently for one- and two-family dwellings in all residential districts except R1 is 35 percent.

At the Historic Preservation Commission meeting this past Friday, a project was presented that involves new construction behind 105 Union Street.

Photo: Zillow
The proposal is to construct a 30-foot addition to the original house and a garage with a studio or storage space above it at the back of the property, leaving a 10-foot "courtyard" in the middle.


The project will need area variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and it was not clear if the HPC's decision or the ZBA's should go first. HPC member Miranda Barry said, "Usually we wait until after they get ZBA approval." Code enforcement officer Craig Haigh advised, "If HPC doesn't find it appropriate, there's no point in going to the ZBA." 

HPC member John Schobel expressed the opinion that the size of what was being proposed was out of scale and the density inappropriate. Nevertheless, the HPC will hold a public hearing on the project, to take place on Friday, February 28, at 10:00 a.m.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Parking Advisory

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Although you won't run the risk of getting a ticket by leaving your car on the even side of the street tonight, you will be making it impossible for the Department of Public Works to clean up that side of the street before the temperatures drop and what is now snow and slush turns to ice. On the request of DPW, Gossips urges readers to move their cars to the odd side of the street as soon as possible, so that DPW can clear the snow and slush on the even side.  

Tomorrow is Presidents Day, one of the eight holidays on the eve of which alternate side of the street rules for overnight parking are suspended. The others are:
  • New Year's Day
  • Martin Luther King Day
  • Memorial Day
  • Independence Day
  • Labor Day
  • Thanksgiving Day
  • Christmas Day 
So, if you want to leave your car mired in the snow until morning, you can do so without running the risk of being ticketed.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Saturday, February 15, 2025

Hudson's "Bosom Buddies"

On Tuesday, a brilliant example of AI appeared on Instagram. Inspired by the opening credits for the short-lived sitcom Bosom Buddies (1980-1982), which starred Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari, the Instagram video, created by The Rivertown Collective (which has no ties to The Gossips of Rivertown), features Hudson's three mayoral contenders--Kamal Johnson, Peter Spear, and Billy Blowers--and includes an unexpected cameo. For those who eschew Instagram, the video is now on YouTube and can be viewed here.


Yesterday, Trixie's List, which I like to think of as the Arts and Entertainment complement to The Gossips of Rivertown, published an interview with the creator of the anonymous meme account: "Interview with Henry Hudson of The Rivertown Collective, Hudson's New and Innovative Meme Account." If you haven't read it already, you should.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Friday, February 14, 2025

The Building of a Village

In April 2013, Gossips published an account of the development of Mt. Ray Estates, the condo community on Academy Hill, overlooking the city and encroaching on our historic cemetery: "Five Easy Pieces." I recommend everyone read that post before continuing with this one.

When that post was written, the second spurt of building Phase II of the development was beginning. Phase II, shown in the plan below, involved a total of 28 units.  

Plan for Phase II

Nine of the units were built in 2006; another ten were built in 2013. 

Phase I and Phase II--Google 2025

Now, almost twenty years after the site plan for Phase II was approved by the Planning Board, by a vote of four to three, the project is coming back to the Planning Board seeking approval for the final nine units of the project. The following is the narrative describing what is proposed:
The Applicant is proposing to construct three (3) three-unit townhouse style residential buildings similar to other buildings in the Mount Ray Estates Planned Unit Development (PUD). The infrastructure for the PUD was previously installed, including water, sewer, stormwater, electric, cable, and roadways.
The three (3) new buildings were planned for in the original PUD so all impacts were previously discussed and approved. Since the PUD legislation has lapsed, a renewal of the PUD is requested.
The site plan shows the buildings in the original design position. The nine new units will add some additional traffic (15-18 trips in the AM & PM peak hours), a few school age children (5-10), approximately 3,000 gallon per day of water and sewer use and will be very similar in style and character as the existing neighborhood.

The presentation to the Planning Board on Tuesday and the board's subsequent discussion can be viewed here, beginning at 1:03:30.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Thursday, February 13, 2025

Ear to the Ground

Here's an interesting bit of information, which I learned recently and share without comment. Kenneth Kearney, founder and president of Kearney Realty & Development Group, the developer, chosen by the City to create affordable housing in Hudson, now proposing the problematic Mill Street Lofts and State Street Lofts, sits on the Board of Directors of Hudson Valley Pattern for Progress, the research group whose recent study concluded that, even with all of the income-restricted housing projects currently being proposed for Hudson, we still need more. 

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Wednesday, February 12, 2025

Another Account of the Planning Board Meeting

The following account of last night's Planning Board meeting was written by Donna Streitz, representing Our Hudson Waterfront, and is published here with permission.

PLANNING BOARD FREEZES OUT PUBLIC
What happened at last night's monthly Planning Board meeting is a perfect example of why we sorely need a different form of governance in our City. In a split decision, the Planning Board voted to NOT allow a Public Hearing for the Colarusso Dock Conditional Use Permit application, as one had already been held and closed years ago (2020 or 2022?, 3-5 years ago!) It was only following fervent pleas by the Public in the room to reconsider their vote that Theresa Joyner, the Board Chair, relented somewhat and said that the Board would hold another vote at the March monthly meeting and in the meantime the public can write to the PB to voice any concerns.
To add insult to injury, later in the meeting the Board voted to eliminate "hybrid" meetings in the future, thus meeting attendance MUST be in person. So those of us who cannot make it out to City Hall, and sit through their usually lengthy meetings before getting to a subject of interest, will be out of luck. And for those who attend, heads up, be prepared for standing room only (maybe in the hallway) given the seating capacity at City Hall.
Is it a coincidence that there were "technical difficulties" accessing last night's Zoom meeting following the Gossips and IMBY postings about the meeting? Some of us who waited patiently for over a half an hour to get let into the Zoom meeting finally were able to get in when we received an alterative Zoom link that was circulated by the Board's stenographer. This link did not allow for interaction with the Board. However, that wouldn't have mattered as the Board refused to allow public comments (at least during the Colarusso Dock C.U.P. application discussion).
What to do? If you want to make a statement and express your dissatisfaction:
1) Sign the petition for Charter Change. It may not be perfect, but it's a start. If you haven't already signed and would like to, there's still time. Attend tonight's Charter Change meeting at 6:30 p.m. at Saint Florian (342 Warren St.), to learn about it and/or sign; go to the Saturday Farmers' Market (there's usually a table for the Charter Change group); or request a "house call" via the CC group's webpage--click here for link. (Note: To sign, must have been registered in Hudson prior to last November election). 
2) Write to the Planning Board to voice your concerns. I'll provide follow-up email in the next few days with information on how and where to send, including email address list.
In my opinion, what's happening with the Mill Street application, and what I fear will happen to our waterfront due [to] the anticipated approval of the Colarusso C.U.P. application, and the future of our City of Hudson for the matter, is a travesty. Sadly, I fear that this Planning Board and our Mayor's legacy will be the downfall of Hudson unless something drastically changes. Let's make a statement and let them know that this is NOT acceptable.

Frustration and Exasperation at the City Hall

Last night's Planning Board meeting, which was advertised as a hybrid meeting, turned out not to be. The Zoom link provided on the City of Hudson website did not work. The meeting presumably started at 6:30 p.m., but it wasn't until 7:04 p.m. that Randall Martin, who is the board's "tech person," sent a new link, one to a livestream of the meeting on YouTube, to just three people: Council president Tom DePietro, Planning Board clerk Linda Fenoff, and me. The first half hour of the meeting was not captured on video, nor will it be reported in the meeting minutes. 

When I tuned in to the livestream, the board was talking about their visit to the Colarusso dock. Gini Casasco talked about the City and Colarusso collaborating to plant trees that would screen the dock from view from riverfront park. Gene Shetsky worried about security and suggested that the area needed to be locked and gated. Martin brought up the issue of scope of operation, citing the giant transformers that were recently delivered there. "We need to nail down what is going to be received there," said Martin, noting that the initial application was for "aggregate and stone."


Responding to Martin's concern, Cassondra Britton, legal counsel to the Planning Board, claimed it was a Type 2 action and hence the Planning Board could not control what was shipped and received at the dock. She went on to say that the state regulates what materials can be shipped on the Hudson River, maintaining, "The Planning Board is not the agency that regulates that." JR Heffner, Colarusso's vice president of operations, argued that the Planning Board "can decide about what was repaired but not the entire operation." In fact, the unauthorized repairs to the dock ended the grandfathered nonconforming use status of the dock operation and triggered the need to seek a new conditional use permit. The latest court decision annulled the Planning Board's positive declaration, preventing the Planning Board from doing further examination of the environmental impacts of the dock operations, but it did not confine the Planning Board's review to "what was repaired."

When the question of a public hearing was raised, Britton said one was not required. There had already been a public hearing four years ago. It was up to the Planning Board to decide if they wanted to hold a  public hearing at this time. Casasco and Shetsky expressed opposition to a public hearing. Martin, however, made a motion to hold a public hearing, "because the people need to be heard." The motion was seconded by Bettina Young. In the vote that followed, Martin, Young, and Kali Michael voted aye; Casasco, Shetsky, and Theresa Joyner, who chairs the Planning Board, voted nay. Since four votes were required for the motion to pass, it failed. (It should be voted that the Planning Board is one member short and has been for the past six months.) 


Audience members Tony Stone, Ben Fain, and Nicole Vidor objected strenuously to the decision not to hold a public hearing, maintaining that much has changed at the waterfront in four years' time and asking for one more chance to be heard. Joyner told them to submit their comments in writing, and the board would use those comments to decide if the concerns merited a public hearing. At one point, Joyner told Vidor, who questioned the process, "If you don't want to write them, don't come here and tell me what to do." 

At the end of the meeting, there was a discussion of the board's perennial issues with hybrid meeting technology. Although most city meetings are now using Microsoft Teams, the Planning Board continues to use Zoom. Britton pointed out there was no longer a legal obligation to do hybrid meetings and suggested the board do meetings in person only. It was not clear if the plan going forward is to do meetings that are in person only, as meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeals are, or to livestream and record the meetings. Either way, going forward, anyone who wishes to speak at a Planning Board meeting will have to show up in person at City Hall.

One hopeful thing happened at the end of the meeting. Joyner told the board that they had been invited to make a site visit to "the other side of the tracks," in other words, the businesses and residences that are impacted by the activity at the dock. Joyner was careful not to mention who had invited them, but Gossips knows it was Ben Fain, whose enterprises in the vicinity include Kitty's Market and Restaurant, The Caboose, The Wick Hotel, the restoration of the Robert Taylor House, and the redevelopment of the Kaz warehouses. It was decided that the Planning Board would accept Fain's invitation and make a site visit.

The recording of the meeting can be viewed here.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

And Then There Was One . . .

A couple of weeks ago, it seemed there might be three people challenging Tom DePietro for the position of Common Council president: Dominic Merante, Margaret Morris, and Claire Cousin. Cousin was quick to deny she was considering a run for Council president. Today, Merante announced his decision not to run for Council president with this statement:
After much thought and reflection, including conversations with my family, friends, and constituents of the Fifth Ward, I have decided not to pursue the position of President of the Common Council for the City of Hudson at this time. Instead, I will continue my campaign to represent the Fifth Ward on the Common Council.
Over the past seven years, I have built a solid reputation for advocating on behalf of the residents of the Fifth Ward. My working relationship with Fifth Ward Councilmember Vicky Daskaloudi has been one of mutual respect and collaboration, allowing us to effectively address the issues that matter most to our ward's residents. Together, we have represented the Fifth Ward with honor and integrity.
While I believe I could make a positive impact as President of the Common Council, my greatest dedication and honor remain in representing the Fifth Ward. It is here that I feel I can best serve the people of Hudson, and I am committed to continuing that work.
Thank you to everyone who has supported me throughout the decision-making process. I look forward to continuing my work on behalf of the Fifth Ward and the City of Hudson. Together, we can keep making progress for our community.

Dominic Merante

Photo: Facebook

Tuesday, February 11, 2025

The Recommendation About the Trucks

Last night, at the informal Common Council meeting, members of the ad hoc Truck Route Committee presented their final report and recommendation. The recommendation: to prohibit trucks not making local deliveries from traveling through the city on Third Street and Columbia Street.


Last year, extensive investigation by Councilmember Margaret Morris (First Ward) and Jason Foster, who was then Commissioner of Public Works, discovered there was no legal obligation for Hudson to allow trucks to travel on Route 9G any farther than the turnoff to the building now known as The Warehouse. Back in the 1980s, the stretch of Route 9G, from Route 23 to that point, was designated a federal access highway for the benefit of L&B Furniture, which was located in that building. (L&B Furniture ceased to exist around 2008.) It was never intended that truck access extend beyond that point, but for the past forty or more years Hudson has unnecessarily put up with trucks passing through Hudson on Third and Columbia streets, negatively impacting the health, safety, and quality of life for Hudson residents and visitors.

Hudson cannot prohibit truck traffic from passing through the city altogether. The city must provide a route for trucks to pass through the city. The truck route that enters Hudson on Worth Avenue and goes along the east side of the Public Square is a federal access highway and needs to remain. 

The findings of a study by Transtec Group, which evaluated the streets involved in both truck routes, support eliminating the 9G route. Transtec found that Third and Columbia streets showed significant areas of distress at the surface and sublayers and should receive full replacement, including the sublayer, to last for twenty years. This would require extensive closure and would be logistically difficult if not impossible. The alternative is repaving every five years, at an estimated cost of $800,000 each time. Transtec found the Worth Avenue route to have a stiffer and more sound pavement structure, which will require maintenance repaving every ten years, at an estimated cost of $800,000 each time or $1.6 million over twenty years. Maintaining the Route 9G truck route through Hudson would cost the City more than twice as much as maintaining the Route 9 truck route over the course of twenty years. Smoother streets, together with lowering the speed limit, which has already happened, will reduce the negative impact of truck traffic.

Councilmember Mohammed Rony (Second Ward), who served on the Truck Route Committee, said of the recommendation to prohibit through trucks from using Third and Columbia streets, "Part of our strategy is to make going through the city a nuisance." He spoke of the legally required route through the city being the most annoying one, encouraging trucks to bypass the city altogether.

The Truck Route Committee's report can be found here. The presentation by the Truck Route Committee and subsequent discussion can be viewed here, beginning at 1:55:06.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK