At a glance
Thursday's Legal Committee meeting was a preview of what's headed to the full Council this month. The big items: a parking agreement with Columbia County for its new 11 Warren Street offices, an amended lease for the Pocketbook factory's parking at the fire station, and a developer's request to rezone a large waterfront parcel for the proposed Waterfront Village project. The committee also previewed a Safe Streets grant resolution and heard a council member's proposal for a 'payment-in-lieu-of-parking' program.
010:18
11 Warren Street: a parking deal with the county
The committee reviewed a proposed agreement giving Columbia County reserved parking near its new offices at 11 Warren Street.
Key points
- The county bought 11 Warren Street and is moving offices in — including the Board of Elections for the fall, the public defender, and another office — but the building's own lot cannot hold all the county employees.
- The proposed agreement would give the county guaranteed reserved parking along the building's Warren Street frontage (14 spaces) and on First Street, on weekdays from roughly 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with the county paying 90% of the city's going parking rate.
- The committee chair argued the deal protects nearby residents — if county employees had to pay for Warren Street parking, they would push into surrounding residential streets — and provides the city guaranteed revenue.
- Members and the public raised concerns: the loss of a designated handicap parking space on Warren Street, and parking pressure on the Baptist church across the street during funerals and events.
- The county will provide signage for the city's review and approval; members noted the county had declined an alternative proposal to build and meter a shared parking lot.
A note on the transcript
This page is built from YouTube's automatic captions. The transcript has no speaker labels and garbles many names and figures, so this summary describes speakers by role and rounds numbers where the transcript was unclear. Check anything important against the city's official minutes.
0211:19
The Pocketbook factory lease, and a noise question
The committee reviewed an amended lease for the Pocketbook factory's parking at the fire station, and a resident raised the building's noise.
Key points
- The original lease was signed before DPW and the fire department were consulted, and did not account for their needs for snow removal and event and training access.
- Under the revised lease the leased area is reduced, and DPW and the fire department have signed off; the tenant must still get site plan approval from the Planning Board before paving and adding signage.
- A member noted the factory is required, under its Planning Board agreement, to provide 40 fixed parking spaces or buy permits, and questioned whether parking will be adequate for a large building with guest rooms, a restaurant, a bar, and a 200-person event space.
- In public comment, a resident asked whether a sound-mitigation plan exists for the factory and whether it covers noise from rooftop mechanical equipment, not just events.
- The chair said noise compliance is a matter for code enforcement, which has been taking decibel readings. Members discussed amending the city code to account for the duration of a sound and for HVAC 'droning' — noting New York City sets a 42-decibel limit for HVAC at the property line, versus Hudson's 45 at night.
Connections
The Pocketbook factory's parking lease and noise complaints also came up at the Code & Infrastructure Committee on May 11 and the Council's May 18 informal meeting, where a lease amendment was distributed for a vote.
0332:55
Waterfront Village: a rezoning request reaches the Council
The committee took up a developer's petition to rezone a large riverfront parcel for the proposed Waterfront Village.
Key points
- The parcel includes the Wick Hotel, a warehouse planned as a grocery store, and other properties near the riverfront, and was presented to the Planning Board the night before.
- The parcel currently carries three different zoning designations; the petition asks to rezone it all to RSC-2, which allows mixed residential and commercial use and would permit the proposed apartment building.
- The chair said the committee does not need to act now — the petition must go through the Planning Board process — but put it on the agenda so members can study it over the coming months, treating legal counsel as a consultant rather than each member researching independently.
- Members and the public raised concerns including the five-story height of the proposed residential building, its effect on views of Mount Merino, and whether a zoning change rather than a variance is appropriate.
- Legal counsel explained that 'use variances' are generally barred when a buyer purchases property already zoned against the intended use, which is likely why the developer is seeking a rezoning rather than going to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
0447:00
A Safe Streets grant heads to the full Council
The committee briefly previewed a federal safety grant resolution going to the full Council.
Key points
- A resolution will go before the full Council on Monday to authorize applying for a federal Safe Streets grant, with a representative of the firm preparing the application present to explain it.
- The application deadline falls on the same day as the Council's formal meeting later in the month, so the resolution will be voted on Monday.
0548:24
Payment-in-lieu-of-parking: rethinking parking minimums
A council member presented a proposal for a payment-in-lieu-of-parking program as a way to fund parking and transit improvements.
Key points
- Under 'payment-in-lieu-of-parking' (PILOP), developers who do not build required parking would instead pay into a dedicated trust fund for transit and parking improvements.
- The proposal sketched possible terms: applying minimums only to spaces over 6,000 square feet (exempting most of Warren Street), one space per 400 square feet of floor area, a flat fee of roughly $10,000 per missing space, and reduced ratios for residential units.
- A member supported treating residential development differently but cautioned that reinstating parking minimums could conflict with the intent of the city's 2019 reduction.
- The committee asked the council member to identify specific locations where the fund's money could create parking before drafting anything with legal counsel.
Read the full transcript
0:18Start. >> Okay. Camera. >> Is everybody on? >> Mhm. We're recording. Okay. Good. Uh, calling the legal committee meeting May 14th to order. Begin with roll call. Uh, Claire Cousin. Yes. Uh Danny is here, Jason Foster, Margaret Mars. Um so we're going to begin with uh the 11 War Street parking contract. If you could pull that up, Logan. So, um, this will be going to the, uh, informal and to the formal this month. Um, a little background here, as you're aware, uh, the county purchased 11 Street and
1:23is moving offices into that building. Um the uh board of elections will be there for the fall elections. Um the uh public defender is moving in there and uh blanking on what the third office is. Uh pearl pearl. That's right. So um one of the issues is that the parking lot in front of that in the lot in the building lot itself is insufficient to provide parking for all of the uh county employees. And so we had meetings with the last administration. Uh Jenny came to some meetings as well, uh some parking committee people with the county to discuss the possibility of um allowing them um guaranteed parking in front of the building on Warren Street and also on First Street. Um the negotiations went back and forth that
2:26this would be guaranteed income to the city. they are going to pay 90% of the going rate uh for the reserve parking spaces. Uh if our parking rate goes up, it's still at 90% so their rate will go up. Um the uh you know, as I say, it's it's guaranteed revenue at the moment. That stretch of Warren Street um during the day is not typically in use for parking. There are very few uh parking there. Um but probably the most important thing I think from the point of view of uh life uh quality of life for the residents in that part of of uh Hudson is that if the county employees have to pay for parking on Warren Street, uh they will be looking for parking on Colombia uh Union and on Allen putting pressure on the residents in that part of town. uh who will then find
3:29themselves trying to park on Warren Street and so forth. So um this is the agreement that was reached um open for questions. I think it's a good thing for the residents. Uh I think the guaranteed income is good for us. Um do we wish that that building had not been purchased by the county? Yes, we do. >> It was and here we are today. So that's uh that's it. Uh questions from the from the committee. >> I do have a question. Um in the creation of this version, was there consideration taken for the church? And we know what parking looks like if there's ever a funeral. >> I'm sorry. Can you speak up? >> The church across the street Baptist Church. Is there has there been consideration taken for both congregation? If there's an event happening, if there's a funeral happening, we've seen what parking looks like. Why that church is full? Sometimes funerals do happen during the week. Is there some process that they could take to reserve some of the parking?
4:31>> That's not part of this agreement. >> That's what I'm asking to be taken into consideration is that if there's a funeral happening at Shiloh, those 14 parking spots that would be on Warren Street would then make funeral goers have to park far away from the church. So, is there something to be considered? >> Also, I just want to mention for the record that there was another um proposal made by the parking committee to them >> which they uh did not agree to at all. Um which would have been the creation of the parking lot. Um they would line and pave it. we would meter it for people that were not employees >> and that I thought would have win for everyone. Um but didn't happen. >> Um my question is it names the number of spaces. I assume we're talking from the border their property line on the west
5:38and their property line to the south on First Street. um >> none of the spaces in front of the story building. >> They mapped out the spaces and the number of spaces that they're going to have and they took into account the uh the um fire hydrant. >> Okay. >> So, it's basically the full stretch on Warren Street in front of their building, >> but not in front of the neighbor, >> not the old Casori. >> Yeah. >> So, let me see. >> Not from Front Street up. We're asking >> the parking spots along the parcel frontage of 11 Warren Street. There are 14, so it's their frontage. Um, okay. >> And then it would be not >> or to be located on First Street, >> which I assume would not be beyond the alley that's behind them. >> Uh, I'd have to see a map. I can't answer that. >> Yeah. And then my other question was about the handicap spot. um seems to be the assumption that that
6:42the handicap spot that I guess is on Warren Street now. They they mentioned a a handicap spot. I assume there's one on Warren Street now. >> Well, the way the way that the handicap parking is working right now is that anyone with a handicapped uh sticker or license plate can park anywhere >> anywhere they want >> and they do not have to pay. But they're what they're saying is they're moving it off of Warren Street to their property. If I'm reading it correctly, >> I'm sorry. >> The handicap parking spot that is currently designated on Warren Street in front of the building shall be removed and the county will probably provide on-site handicap parking. >> That's right. So that is like there are spaces on the site itself in front of the building. One of those they they will have handicap parking there. But but is there one on Warren Street? It doesn't matter because you can park wherever you want if you have a handic that handicap spot is going to be moved
7:48in front of the building. So if if you look at the building and there's a there's parking area in front of it behind the wall there will be a handicap spot in that in that row of space. >> Yes. But if some if a handicapped person who was not attending the county building to the county building >> would would they they could park anywhere they'd like. >> But if there's no parking left and the handicap person is looking for a handicap spot, that designation is gone. So there will be no designated handicap spots on Warren. >> No, because you can park anywhere. >> Right. that if every parking spot is full, if you don't have a handicap sticker, you can't park in the handicap spot. >> Correct. >> So, if every parking spot is filled and a handicap person still needs a parking spot, that designated area is not there anymore >> is what the question is. >> Uh that is correct. >> That's that's what he's like. Eliminating that takes handicap parking off of that lock. >> Right. But what I'm saying to you is I
8:50get it that if you don't have a a handicap sticker, you can't park in a handicap spot. If you go down Warren Street at any time of the day during the week, there are plenty of parking spots. >> But you're making you're making that block unaccessible. In the event that all of that parking is taken, any patron of the church, First Street corner store, if they're going to visit a family member, there will be no designated handicap parking spots. That's correct. Blocking. >> That's correct. >> That makes it inaccessible. >> Maybe we could >> um the parking will be restricted from I think it's 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. And then after that, it is available to anyone in the city. It's also available on weekends and they are making their parking lot inside the wall available to the city residents. >> How will that be clear? >> Uh that there will be signage they and they are putting up signs and they are
9:54going to be responsible for them. Margaret, just out of curiosity, have you heard anything about because I haven't heard anything in a while from Linda or anyone else um Linda being my rep for the county um about the what this thing is going to look like because now I'm now I'm thinking about signage and blah blah blah. I mean, their signage is pretty ugly looking for the rest of the buildings that they own. >> They will provide signage to the city for review and approval. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions from the committee? So, this will be out the informal and um then at the formal later this month. Um, any questions from the public? Okay.
11:01>> Just looking at the map and it does seem like the spaces match what you said. 11 on Orange Street and four >> right >> before Charity. >> It's and it's all on there. It's on the Premier Grove there. >> Yes, I'm agreeing. >> Okay. Next item is pocketbook uh Luxon lease at the fire station lot. Uh for those of you who were not on the council last year, um we had done a lease for the puck factory uh to use parking behind or in front of the firehouse. Um the lease, you know, they had they paid the, you know, they signed it. They paid the city the uh dollar amount for the lease etc. And then it was discovered that DPW and the fire department had not been included in the discussions and the number of spaces and the area that was being leased to them was going to create
12:05problems for DPW with regard to snow removal and for um the firehouse when they were having events etc. So um with the new administration uh we revisited this whole lease and um DBW and the fire department uh worked with Baka book to identify uh the number of spaces that would be available for lease. So it's a reduced area. Let me pull up the lease agree the amendment. Uh >> yeah. Uh so it's a it reduced the number the amount of space that they're they are getting which will uh work for the firestone for DPW. um they're you know they have agreed that they will work with the firehouse if they're having you know a large event. They will make sure that the firehouse is aware of it in case they have people going and parking over there
13:08to make sure it doesn't conflict with anything going on at the firehouse. Um they will be repaving this and putting in lines and so forth once it goes through it has to go through a process with the planning board and site plan approval and so forth. So, we decided to bring this amendment back even though it's not a new lease. It's just modification of the old lease and this will be going to the uh informal and formal this month addressing the parking. They can't put signage up or do any investment right now because they you know they need to get a sign off in the planning board. But um it really is kind of critical for the people living around the pocketbook factory that this parking situation be addressed as quickly as possible. So that's why we want to bring this forward as soon as we can. >> I am very curious why the DPW needs to dump snow in that particular parking lot. Do you know, Jason? I I was thinking they could just go a block away
14:10and put it at Oakdale where nobody is really using that space. >> I I don't they it's traditionally where they put it and that's what I >> That's why because it's traditional. >> Well, I think part I think it does drain. >> Okay. >> Down to that like they built the culvert. >> Okay. >> Or there is a culvert that goes under the Glenwood. >> Okay. >> And that ravine right there. So I think the runoff and they actually I think they also improved that hill. >> Okay. >> With uh piping and things. So I I think there is a runoff advantage. >> Okay. >> Whereas um that would be my guess. But it also does mention firefighter training which I don't I don't I don't know if I've ever seen that but this this mentions not only DPW but firefighter training. >> Firefighter training. Yes. Oh yeah. That that right that is that was one of the issues that the bar has had with the lease that was put in place without their
15:10>> cons wasn't just DPW was >> no no it wasn't just you no >> are they doing the actual training in the lot >> no they need parking >> well some just need parking >> no they whenever they have events and training at the firehouse y >> and what had been agreed to by the previous administration had not been reviewed by either of those parties and the firehouse was like oh hang when we do our training, we have people coming in from we need that space. >> Yeah. >> So that was one of the concerns. >> Yeah. >> Anything else on this from the committee? >> Is 34 spaces enough? >> No. Um well here in the uh in the agreement with the planning board um and I misspoke at our last full council meeting um they were required to provide 40 fixed spaces or to purchase 40 permits from the city for municipal lots. >> Okay. So in 2025, you know, while this none of this had been disordered, uh they purchased 40
16:13permits in the municipal locks. Um they are still required to have 40 fixed spaces. So I would assume that this means that they will now need to make up the balance to come up to 40 by purchasing permits. >> Should we put that in somewhere? >> It's not in the lease because it's already part of the agreement with the planning board. It's part of the final resolution. Yeah. and it says that they have to have 40 fixed spaces. >> Again, for the record, I would just like to say that that is a 70,000 square foot building with 55 guest rooms, a bar, a bath house, a restaurant, an and a 200 person event space. So if they do well and you know I hope that they do I don't know I don't know what the parking solution for that going to be saying I think we need some rules around this
17:18so that the planning board isn't left to just make these decisions by themselves and that we you know the the neighbors in this this neighborhood are paying for it now. >> Yeah. Are you talking about I mean for if we're going to inform the the planning board that's more about changing parking regulations. >> That's what I'm saying. >> We have to change. >> Yes. >> We can't do retrospective. This is what was agreed to. Yeah. With the CRO and um this is what we got. >> Okay. Any hands raised? >> No. >> Questions from the room? Okay, >> Margaret. >> Yeah, sorry. >> Hey, Margaret. >> I'm gonna >> Can you hear me? >> Yeah. Sorry. >> Sorry, I couldn't raise my hand. I apologize, but I I just want to step back to the 11 War Street. Um, >> yes. >> I'm not agreeing with the handicap parking be removed as that parking is
18:23normally a little bigger. uh for vans and that have uh ramps. So, I don't know if that's a good idea that we remove that option off the street um because sometimes vans can't park in a in a normal spot. So, by removing that, we we are removing uh accessibility and access uh for uh a van that's that's needs that spot. Now, another question is on the weekends if there's spots available at the county, will the church be able to use those spots during during >> Okay. Now, is that part of is that written down somewhere? >> Um, I don't know whe I have to check. I will check that before we review it in the um I have to go back and pull it back up. >> Um, >> okay. >> That lot of times has had a change across it. I know that's now but >> yeah I don't think so >> uh the the limitation on the parking is
19:27only weekdays during working hours and uh it is open all of that parking is then open to residents the rest of the time. Um then it hang on they're going to install the signage. Um, I do not believe, Dominic, that it was put in there, but I do know that they are going to allow residents to use their lot in off hours, which by the way, um, they currently do. Um, I'm going back to this. So, uh, the the county does not issue parking tickets, but some police department issues parking tickets. And today, the county lot across from what used to be Helsinki. In the evenings, that was
20:31always available for people to park in if they were going to Helsinki. And that was discussed with them last year. but they do not restrict residents from using county lots in the evening and they do not issue tickets. So that's not something that um it's not it's not written into this that they will make that available but county people have always been able to park in county lots. >> Oh because at 610 at 610 state I believe there's signage on the fence that they can't park there >> but I maybe maybe they remove them. I don't know about I don't know about 610. I do know that when Helsinki was in operation, the county lot across the street was where people parked >> and it was never an issue. >> Okay. >> I think currently 11 War Street is blocked for construction. I don't think >> at the moment at the moment. >> At the moment it's under construction. Correct. >> Yeah. >> And online from Toronto. >> Go ahead. >> Hi. I want to bring this up. It may not
21:35strictly be gerine because it doesn't refer to parking. Uh I had wanted to ask a question at the planning board in the past, but I didn't get an opportunity to having to do with sound or noise and I the question had to do with a sound mitigation plan for the pocketbook factory which I think was part of the final a you know agreement and the permission granted for the project to go forward. I could not find the text of this anywhere on the planning board portal. Uh so my question was if there is such a plan does it relate only to noise or sound from events or to uh noise from the mechanicals which I believe was the burden of one of the neighbors complaints at at the uh common council meeting. And I think this I think excuse me let me just finish. This is an issue along with the issue of parking that perhaps should be brought up uh before the council and and brought before the
22:38planning board. Thanks. >> So um this was part of the um requirements in the certificate of occupancy and uh the sound litigation was something that was addressed. I want to talk first about events uh and they are subject to all of the decel uh levels that are in the city code right now. Um, it is an issue and I understand what you're saying about not being able to find the explicit language because the resolution finally passed which Linda shared with me which explicitly talks about the parking parking spaces but it doesn't go into all of the detail about the various mitigation um efforts that were agreed to during the planning board approval process. Um however the sign off on the certificate of occupancy was code enforcement um affirming that this was in place and they are required to abide by the noise levels in our code. Um so it's really a matter for code
23:42enforcement and they are very active on this right now. Um, I did a tour of their building about six weeks ago and they showed me all of the mitigation strategies they have in place for events. They have uh a sound engine here on site who takes readings outside the building when they have events. Um, they have buffer panels that they put in the windows to prevent the sound from uh going out. But it really comes down Ron more to code enforcement. And I do know that our code enforcement officer uh has a uh meter uh sound meter, a desk group reader and that he has been going around in the evenings. He's gone around the neighborhood uh and he has gone to other people's properties and has done readings at different times during the day and the evening uh to evaluate their compliance with the city code. >> So is he measuring? >> It really is. It really is something that needs to go to code enforcement.
24:45And I know that Nick Fox is very active in evaluating the status of the sound. >> Is he measuring he's measuring the sound from the mechanicals? >> He's measuring the sound. >> Um, you can't you can't separate what sound you're measuring. So if if I am saying that in my yard the the sound level is excessive, he is going and measuring the sound level in my yard to determine whether or not it is in compliance with code. >> But that is also that's the sound from the mechanicals. It's not just sound from events. >> Well, yes. I mean that's correct. >> Separate the two, >> right? But but if you if you go to a neighboring yard at noon and you measure the sound level in that space at that time, you're going to be capturing what sound that yard is experiencing. It doesn't it doesn't have kind of different levels of readings for where
25:47the sound is coming from. Do you see? >> So my question my question was sorry just a moment just a moment. Um, I I know you both have we have two hands raised to front the committee. I know you both have questions and we'll get to you in a second, but I want to finish Ron's comments. Let's go. >> Go ahead. >> I just wanted to I I just wanted to say what I read about sound mitigation on, you know, in the final resolution seemed to have to do with sound from events, music and so on and not have to do with the mechanicals. So I was wondering if there is anywhere if there is a sound mitig mitigation agreement. Is there a text of this anywhere that one can read to see >> where is it >> in the code? Just Google it. >> No >> no but so there was no no excuse me. >> I know there there are regulations in the code and I think the regulations in the code have to do with sound from events. I'm not sure. I will look at it
26:50again. I was wondering if I may finish if there was a specific text of a specific agreement in reference to this application which had to do with what was required to mitigate sound either sound from events or sound from the mechanicals. And I looked at the uh planning board portal and I could not find any such text. And I was wondering if anyone knew if there was a printed text of this particular agreement for this particular resolution, not a general requirement for the city, which I'm sure exists, and probably also for the state. And you know, I don't know if if this if such a text exists. If there is one, I would like to be able to read it. Thanks. I haven't been able to pull it myself, but SECRA covers that. The project got approved and they had to go through the SER process and and part of the residential quality of life assessment that they're taking has to do with the
27:53the noise of the mechanical systems that get approved in the application. If I'm assessing that correctly, then in the SRA approval is where you would find that they met the qualifications for the application. So it wouldn't be a separate planning board text that is in the sound mitigation where they're considering event space sound. It's in the secret process. That was a consideration that was taken when they decided that there were no so that's >> okay. Thanks. Thanks very much. and and Ron also, you know, I had also looked for similar documents and gone back and the the final resolutions the the process the approval process goes through multiple phases and the real uh and the the code enforcement officer participates in that process. And so for the certificate of occupancy to be issued, the code enforcement officer has to basically attest that everything that
28:58was agreed to is in compliance. Um so that I also was looking for a similar document. Jen, >> um I I would really like to work together, this body, work together to maybe amend the code so that not just a particular decel reading but the duration of a particular sound is also considered because even if that sound is lower than the decibel reading that might be considered disturbing. Now, if it drones on forever and ever, it might drive you a little crazy. So, I think that's an important consideration. you want to add? >> Um, I just I did some research and New York City seems to have the best code on
30:01this and they specifically address HVAC units at 42 dB at the property line. That's their approach. So, they'll be >> a little more stringent than ours, right? But since it's referring to HBC, it implies joining on >> 42 instead of our >> after we go to 45. >> It's 45 at night. >> Okay. >> And there it's 70 at one of our requirements. One of them is 70 I think in commercial. Um it varies by location and by time of day. >> I thought it was 900 p.m. >> It's 10 p.m. I have it right up here. It's 210-6 in our city code. >> You got one more hand. Go Carol. >> Carol, >> thank you. I just wanted to go back to the issue of parking in county lots. Um when the when Helsinki was getting its um its site plan review and site plan
31:06approval, the deal with that parking lot, that county parking lot was worked out at that time. It is not across the board that the county allows allows other than employees to park in their lots. And if you um will notice, there are brand new signs at the parking lot that's used for um for the the farmers market that indicate that the parking is for county employees only. So, you may want to add that to the agreement with the county for 11 Warren Street because it's not something that they allow across the board. >> Thank you. We will uh I will contact them and ask about that. Um when we discussed this with them last year um and this is simply what was said was that they do not issue tickets. HPD issues tickets and they don't have an
32:12issue with city with non-county employees using locks after fire. >> I've heard them say that too. >> Yep. But I think pro I think Carol I like the suggestion of having that explicitly addressed in uh 11. I did not realize that that had been explicitly worked out with Helsinki because that was the standard was to park in that lot for Helsinki events. Okay. Anything else? Um let me go back to my agenda. Did I see that agenda? Let's see if you talk about pocketbook. Okay. Uh are we ready for waterfront village? >> Uh sure. Are we finished with uh pocketbook and 11 more? Okay. Um the war privilege. So last month we received the common ground received a package uh copies for each of us and one for our uh uh legal council uh requesting a zoning
33:17change. Uh let me just pull this up um to uh let me find that. This is uh a property. It's it's a one parcel but there are three different zoning codes currently there. This is a parcel done near the riverfront that includes the wick. It includes the warehouse that Ben Feain is planning to have as a grocery store, uh kitties, uh some properties on Cross Street, uh parking area, the a large area in front of the hotel. Uh and he has a plan that he has presented yesterday to the planning board um for development of a apartment complex. um some upgrades to the wick I believe and then the uh grocery store and this petition was submitted to the council
34:21for a zoning code change. At the moment there are three different zoning codes in effect in the parson that he owns and they are asking to have this changed to RSC2 which is city residential special commercial too uh which allows for mixed use residential and commercial and would allow for uh building of the apartment building. So I put this on the agenda just at this point we don't need to do anything right away. Um, I just want you all to be aware of this, to look at it, uh, and do whatever research you want to do, looking into um, the the codes and you know what this would imply. Um, it needs to go through uh, the planning board process anyway. So, for now, we don't need to take any action on it, but I just wanted to put it out there so that we have it on our list of um, upcoming things to consider. Um could you explain to me why it's for us
35:24and not for zoning board of appeals? >> Because this is a request. Uh and it's I thought the same thing myself. The zoning board of appeals would address waiverss but if we're going to actually make a change to zoning in the city that would need to go through the council. >> Okay. So that initially I thought yes this when I when Ben first gave it to us I said why is this not just going to the zoning board >> right >> but we would have to actually do and if you look at some of the exhibits and their local laws that are in there that change the zoning for particular areas within the city and that's how it happens that's why it's on our desk >> um it seems that Tanner's Lane would be the most impacted that I believe that is true. But um I did not I was unable to attend the planning board meeting last night and I think that the planning board did bring up the issue of Tammer's link. >> Yeah. Um I think we'll need some legal advice on this.
36:27>> Oh yes. We're not doing anything with it right now. >> It's on the agenda as we've received this and in the coming months we need to be looking at it and evaluating it. >> Yes. But but I guess what I'm saying and I'd almost rather treat the legal as a consultant in this matter because if we're all out here doing research, I think it's a lot to consider. >> I'm so I'm suggesting as we go forward, >> yes, we will Yes. >> Ken Dao as more of a consultant to present to us to help us make the decision. >> Absolutely. Um, I thought there was a couple things in their proposal that um that didn't match with what I was looking at in the old WRP. >> I do not have an opinion on it right now because as you say, we need advice. >> I have put it here so we don't lose track of it. Okay. >> And this is something in the next month or two we need to take a look at and we need to talk. I also want to consult
37:30with the planning board. >> Sure. But it's just there as a >> placeholder. This is something we will be considering in the coming months. >> And I think they imply in their application the biggest impact of this is the height of the residential building which they show at five stories. And I think I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying that's that's the biggest consideration on >> how the zoning is handled. >> Any hands raised? >> Margaret? Yeah, you got uh Dom I think wants to talk then. >> Yeah, Dominic, go ahead. >> So, why this is on the table? I I know that HHA is looking for a zoning chain also with one of their properties uh that they're going to be purchasing uh that they're putting the town houses on. It's currently, I think, single family. So, I don't know if this can be incorporated somehow into uh looking to see how that can be done at the same kind of time or how that can
38:33be put into play since that's um on on the way to our desk. >> Are are you sure, Dominic? Because I think what I heard was they were actually looking more for a variance and that that was not coming our way. That they were looking and they asked the code code enforcement uh former code enforcement officer if if it all could be treated as general commercial. Um, >> at the at the last HCDPA meeting, uh, I thought that that's what they brought up and, uh, that they were needing a zoning change for be because I don't know if they need a variance or because it's it's I think it's um, uh, commercial. I can't remember what it was, but it it's only for single family houses or something and they're going to be doing uh, two um, town houses. So, I mean that >> there might be two issues because there was also an issue with their um where I think there's currently town houses
39:38like um just below Bliss Towers. They were going to put a four or five story building there. So, there might be two issues going on zoning wise for them. >> Yeah. I all I know is this this property is owned by CD uh HCDPA and that they're they're looking to purchase it, but they can't do anything, you know, without changing the zoning in terms of uh moving forward with their plans. But I can check in in more at this month's meeting, but just to let you know that you guys know that that could be a possibility for a zoning change for that property. >> Okay. I think I was talking about a different the the main property next to Bliss Towers. >> Yeah. Yeah. You're talking about the current uh property that they're going to be tearing down and putting up uh the phase one property, the the building, >> right? >> This this is this this is a separate property that they'll be purchasing for the town houses. >> I understand that. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Any other hand? >> Yeah.
40:39>> Okay. Round. >> Okay. I I wanted to speak about uh in the various illustrations included with the architectonica proposal particularly number 13 which was the one that was posted on gossips of rivertown and which has the waterfront village sign. Uh this seems not to be a realistic illustration in terms of the relationship of the two existing elements with one another namely the caboose and the crane. uh unless the cr unless the caboose is supposed to be moved because if you're looking at the crane from a perspective where the hook is to your right, you're looking down toward basically down toward the train station in the river. And currently the location of the caboose is not to the left of the crane, it's to the right of the crane. I did go down there and and and look at the scene and unless this is intended as a supposed to be a kind of capricio of the
41:41plan in which various elements are kind of you know compressed together in a compressed space in a kind of foreshortened perspective. Uh this is not something that can I think can be relied on as a realistic portrayal of the plan. So, so I would, you know, maybe it wasn't intended to be a realistic portrayal of the plan, but I would I would exercise a certain amount of caution when looking at these illustrations without having had the opportunity to ask Architectonica about it, you know, at a meeting. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And now Matt McGee would Matt would Matt McGee would also like to say something. >> Yes. Uh I one of the concerns I have is for the one of the outstanding features of our city is is that we have wonderful vistas
42:45and they're very significant and the view of Mount Marino will be interfered with by the fivestory building and the mechanicals on top of it. And I think that this vista is very important. It's was revered by artists of the Hudson River School and it should be protected and it's a important historic feature of Hudson that this is a visible view and an uninterrupted of of Mount Marino and I think we should protect it. And also on the zoning uh according to their presentation they only want to use they only have a small area that needs to be changed and I don't see why it couldn't be a variance instead of an all over change that could affect other areas.
43:51Thank you. >> Thank you. Um Margaret, can I can I speak for a second? I'd like to respond just a moment. I would like to respond to the two comments that we just had. >> So, I want to be very clear on something here. U Ron or Matt, >> we're not the planning board. >> Yeah. >> And I understand the issues that you're raising. It is not for us to evaluate whether or not this is a good project, not a good project, whether there are concerns, whether architecturally this is appropriate and so forth. That's really not our area and um the only thing that we have been asked to do uh in this appeal is to look at exchange. That's it. And we're not doing that tonight. We're not doing it this month. Um I want to see what goes on in the uh planning board. Um I have similar questions. My initial idea was why do we need to do this? Is this not a zoning
44:55board of appeals issue and so forth? So, this is we're just, you know, putting this here. This came into us a request for a zoning change. Uh, just FYI, we will be looking at this over the next couple of months, but we are nowhere near sufficiently informed right now to even have an opinion. >> Uh, sorry, who is trying to speak? >> Ken. >> Ken. >> Sorry, >> Ken. Yes, >> it's Ken Dao. One of the things I was going to say, well, one of the things I wanted to say was pretty much what you just said. This is just a an initial procedural thing to consider or request and that it needs to go through an extensive review and consistency with a comp plan, all kinds of things that the planning board needs to do. So, by no means is this, you know, a foregone um you know, step um you know, enactment. Um so, there'll be a lot to be looking at. Second thing is in relation to it, when people say why can't they get a variance? Generally speaking, if if um someone wants to do a use that's not allowed by the code, it would require a use variance. And under
46:00New York law, uh there are a couple things about use variances. One of them being that they're essentially barred in the case where someone purchases um a property after when when there is already zoning in effect on that property. Um, essentially zoning use variances are generally granted only when someone owns a piece of property and it's subsequently zoned in a way that precludes them from using it in in other ways. But if the zoning is already in place when somebody purchases it, there there's plenty of case law on this, they're essentially barred from getting a use variance. Um there are rare exceptions, but that that's so if this is something that's not that is a a prohibited use in any in that in part of that land, um they're really in all likelihood barred from getting a use variance. Um and so that's why probably why they're asking for a zoning change. >> Thank you. Any other ones? >> Okay. Um,
47:05see, uh, I put safe streets. I added this to the agenda because it was loaded at Longford this evening. There is a, uh, resolution going before the full council on Monday uh, relating to an application for a safe streets um, uh, grant. uh the representative from the company that is working on this application will be present on Monday. Um I will put it at the beginning of the agenda. So this is just an FYI that this will be on the meeting on Monday and we will have somebody who will be able to present uh the whole rationale behind that. Okay. >> And similar to the last time we're hoping to vote on it. We yes this is a situation where um the deadline for the application is actually the same day as our formal meeting which is the 26 I think the Tuesday. Uh so we will be voting on this resolution on Monday. So if you would make sure that you read it,
48:09it has already been posted. Um make sure you read it so that you're ready with any questions. But we have uh that member we a representative from the organization that's working on this application attending on Monday. Okay. Um next up old business. Um I had sent out the agenda uh earlier in the week and uh Jenny asked to add so those of you who are looking at the agenda that was posted um Jenny had asked that we add a uh more information on uh payment in blue parking. Uh she had some additional uh information to share. Her document has been shared electronically so it is online. So I'm going to hand it over to Jenny. So um I sent this to you guys via email too. So you should have the new two pages which is six and seven. Um and basically it just explains how payment in le of parking works and um so it's how it works is it's an alternative to
49:14mandates. So de developers can bypass strict minimum parking requirements uh for new build new builds and renovations. Um it's uh a dedicated trust fund. So all monies that uh would come in would go into a trust fund to be used for transit and parking. Um uh local governments can use the money to construct refurbish shared uh surface lots, multiple level parking garages, um uh district walks, bus trolley systems, etc. Calculation methods. Municipalities generally charge a uniform flat fee per missing stall. So, if we were to put back into place some kind of parking minimum, which I'm not I'm not I understand the reasons for taking away the parking minimums, which were to make
50:18it the city more healthy and to make it a lot more walkable and to try and push people into that kind of thinking. I I understand that and I understand that um providing parking is very expensive for developers, but if we did this in a way that was less um uh uh less than what it used to be. So, for example, um what our parking minimums were previous to 2019, they were um one parking space per every 300 square ft of space in a building. But if we made that somehow a little bit more palatable to people and put something like this in place, we would have a fund. and if a fund for um repaving, for lining, for um signage, for beautifification, for maybe a an EV
51:24trolley. And for example, I on the seventh page, I kind of gave some some of my ideas about how this could work. Um, so if we decided to put minimums back in place, um, uh, I was thinking maybe it could apply to spaces that were over 6,000 square ft. Um, so that would leave out most of Warren Street. Um, so we wouldn't be requiring small businesses to build parking. Um uh and uh then I was thinking maybe it's one parking space per 400 square ft of floor space. Um before it used to be like I said it was 300 square ft. Each missing parking space would require a flat fee of $10,000. Other municipalities are charging 15 to
52:27$25,000 for each space that's missing. um residential. We could do something that's a little bit easier than what I've been reading from other municipalities. Again, maybe it's studio. Uh if you have a studio, it's.5 spaces. If it's a onebedroom, one space. And then for each additional bedroom, uh 0.5 space. Again, the for hotels, maybe we could do some kind of combination of these things. When you read through um other municipalities parking minimum rules and parking rules in general, they're very very specific. I'm thinking we could leave this a little bit more open and keep it kind of simple. If you do the math, for example, for an 18,000 square foot uh building with 45 employees,
53:31um that would be a contribution to pileup or $450,000, which would essentially give you the amount of money you'd need to buy an AV trolley and pave our municipal parking lots. >> I really like the idea of having something different for residential developments. >> Okay. >> Um I'm not saying anything else negative about anything else you suggested, but that one there I think the planning board has struggled with and I don't think it matches the intent of the original reduction that was done in 2019. >> Right. Um I just think it's realistic that at any income level um jobs are needed and jobs require cars in this area. Yeah. And >> um >> Yep. >> So I I think your suggestion is is pretty good in that in that regard. >> Any other ideas
54:35or comments? Maybe I could work with Mr. Dao on this. I'm I guess I'm you put a lot of links so I want to look into the links and the things that I'll look into myself are just like where there's um implementation challenges. I think that's something that people will care very deeply about. And then >> yeah, >> how long have the other places that you put as examples had this in place? like have they been able to get the alternative parking solutions up and running yet or is it something that they're still building towards being able >> Well, I know that for example um uh Port Jefferson because our our parking consultant was from Port Jefferson and they are with the list that I gave you guys about the places that I had researched that actually do this. Um they are the closest in density to us and in population. Um
55:39I know that they are doing this and have been doing it and they've done it with great success. >> Have they built? Yes, they are. They are building and they do have transit available to people. >> So did they have transit before? >> I'm not sure. I could reach out to Kevin and ask, but >> there's there's a train station right in the heart of Port Jeff. It's also where the ferry is and there's a lot of public transportation and the density is a little different from our density. I think those are the questions that harbor >> what's the measure of success so far? >> Well, feel like >> when I suggested that you know we have these pinch points in town and when I suggested that we needed additional parking and the way to do that would not be to go out but to go up. I know that even a small parking garage is going to cost us 15 to20 million dollars. We never will have that money ever, ever,
56:43ever. And even if we were to go out for grants to get that money, we're going to have to, you know, there's going to be interest on the money that we're borrowing in order to do it before we get grant money. So, we need to do something in order to mitigate costs to us as a city. And I I just thought this was a good idea. So I think um before you um you know start trying to draft something with Kim um can you come up with some specific plans as to where in the city the money would be used like let's say you are talking about municipal lots or whatever exactly where would the parking that would the city would then create be located? I have mentioned that before. >> Okay.
57:43>> The lot that you were recommending for the county was is a spot. >> There's also we could do it in the large lot that's across from Amtrak. We could also do it, which would be great because we're going to need parking down there for sure. We could also do it at 7. >> Make make a list of locations and spaces and so forth. So there's a think there's a an actual like plan and >> okay >> this is >> if we were to do this this is what we would where we would be able to potentially add parking or you know come um yeah I mean I think that would be the the next thing. So just practically where would this parking exist? Um, alternatively, as I mentioned, liking the residential idea that could be done without that change could be made without talking about pilot. >> Yeah, >> we could we could consider just a change to the way that residential developments are handled,
58:43>> right? >> And then the next one that comes to mind is hotels, which I don't have as good an idea on. I like this what you've done for residential. Hotels, I think, are the next most challenging one. >> It's a it's pro it's The way that I was thinking about it is you could take the spaces that are, let's say, we'll take pocketbook for example. You take the spaces that are are not guest rooms and you make that one thing and then you take the guest rooms as another and then you put them together. So, guest rooms would be one space per room or something or a half space per room and then the the square footage would be another and then you add them together and you come up with what you need. Um, and it could be um I'm not saying that it needs to be again one space per 300 square ft. It could be less than that cuz
59:47but it's we we need to do something. We can't just sit on our hands. This is >> we could do stepwise. We if if people agree with me at all about the residential ones being different. That could that could be not that hard to do. >> Yeah. >> That's not complicated. >> Okay. Any hands? >> No. Any other comments from committee? Members of the public, you're very quiet. Uh, any other business? Okay. Can I have a motion to adjourn? >> Motion to adjourn. >> Thank you. >> Second. Um, second. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. >> All in favor?
About this page
Hudson AI transcribes, summarizes, and connects the public meetings of the City of Hudson so any resident can follow what the city is deciding without attending every meeting. This page covers one meeting; see the full archive.
How it was made
The meeting video was transcribed automatically; the transcript was then organized into sections and summarized. The raw transcript is above — every claim can be checked against it.
What to be skeptical of
The transcript is an automated transcript and contains speech-recognition errors; names and numbers may be wrong. This page has not been reviewed by a human. Nothing here is an official record — the city's official minutes are authoritative.