At a glance
The Legal Committee met Wednesday evening to discuss two items: roadway center lines and a payment-in-lieu-of-parking proposal. Council Member Jason Foster (Public Works Committee) presented evidence of serious accidents on Green Street, Prospect Avenue, and other high-traffic roads, arguing that federal standards require striping on roads with 6,000 or more vehicles per day. The committee agreed to ask the DPW superintendent for a cost estimate to stripe Green, Prospect, and Upper Warren streets. The committee also reviewed a proposal by Jen Belton to reinstate parking requirements for new development and allow developers to pay into a dedicated fund when they cannot provide parking on-site. The discussion surfaced legal questions about state authorization and the need to tailor requirements by business type.
Roll call and agenda
The Legal Committee convened at 6:00 PM on June 18. Members present: Jen Belton, Jason Foster, Margaret Morris. Clark Fridley joined remotely later. Two agenda items: center lines on roadways and payment-in-lieu-of-parking.
Key points
- Committee chair called the meeting to order and took roll.
- Agenda set: center lines on roadways, presented by Council Member Jason Foster (Public Works Committee), and payment-in-lieu-of-parking, presented by Jen Belton.
Accidents on Green Street and other roads
Jason Foster presented photographs and data showing a pattern of rear-end collisions on Green Street, where drivers drift into parking lanes or drive down the center of the road. Similar accidents have occurred on Prospect and State streets.
Key points
- Foster witnessed one accident at 81 Green Street where a white pickup truck drove in the parking lane, rear-ended a Jeep, and pushed it 25 feet into another truck.
- A similar accident at 128 Green Street involved a driver completely leaving the travel lane and hitting a parked car.
- Foster submitted FOIA requests to the police department and found about 10 similar accidents over the past five years on Green, Prospect, and State streets.
- Green Street has opposite-side parking, leaving one side of the street open at night. Drivers get used to driving in parking lanes or down the middle of the road, increasing speeds.
- A photo of Green Street showed a white car parked on the sidewalk to avoid losing mirrors, and a moving vehicle driving four feet from the curb, outside the travel lane.
Federal standards for roadway striping
Foster cited the federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which requires center lines on roads with 6,000 or more vehicles per day and recommends them on roads with 4,000 or more.
Key points
- The MUTCD is a federal standard for traffic control devices, adopted by New York State. States can add to it but not reduce it.
- MUTCD language: roads with 6,000 vehicles per day shall have center lines (mandatory). Roads with 4,000 vehicles per day should have them (recommended).
- Hudson roads with 6,000 or more vehicles per day: Worth Avenue, Third Street, Green Street, Prospect Avenue, Fairview Avenue, and Upper Warren Street.
- Columbia Street does not exceed 6,000 vehicles per day, according to the traffic count data.
- Foster noted that while there is no enforcement arm checking compliance, failure to meet MUTCD standards could be a legal issue for the city.
Foster pointed out that no agency polices MUTCD compliance, but the standard could become relevant in a lawsuit following an accident.
Proposed scope: Green, Prospect, Upper Warren
Foster proposed starting with center lines and edge lines on Green, Prospect, and Upper Warren streets. The committee discussed whether to expand to roads that should have striping (4,000 vehicles per day) and how to fund ongoing maintenance.
Key points
- Foster proposed beginning with Green, Prospect, and Upper Warren. Worth Avenue already has center lines. Third Street has some lines but is off-center.
- Committee discussed striping roads with 4,000 or more vehicles per day (the should standard), including State Street and Upper Columbia Street near the hospital.
- The city currently budgets $7,000 per year for painting crosswalks and lines. Foster suggested doubling that budget.
- CHIPS (state highway funding) can be used to stripe roads when they are paved, but cannot be used to refresh striping in less than 10 years. A separate city budget line is required for maintenance.
- Margaret Morris suggested requiring striping on any newly paved road, but Foster noted CHIPS restrictions would still prevent using state money for restriping.
The committee agreed to ask DPW Superintendent Rob Perry for a cost estimate to stripe Green, Prospect, Third, and Upper Warren streets.
Green Street requires edge lines, not just center lines
Margaret Morris argued that Green Street needs white edge lines marking parking lanes, not just a yellow center line. She compared Green to Union Street, where parked cars make the travel lane obvious.
Key points
- Morris pointed to the photo of 128 Green Street, showing that a yellow center line alone did not prevent a driver from using the parking lane as a travel lane.
- On Union Street, which also has one-side parking, drivers do not use the parking side as a travel lane because cars are parked there and speeds are lower.
- Green Street has commercial traffic, so at night there are few parked cars. Drivers do not perceive Green as having parking lanes.
- Morris proposed white fog lines (edge lines) on both sides of Green Street to demarcate parking lanes. Foster confirmed Green is 40 feet wide, enough for two 8-foot parking lanes and a 24-foot travel way.
- Morris suggested stenciling the word 'parking' on the pavement, though the legal basis for that was unclear.
Hampton Boulevard bike path
Jen Belton raised concerns about the Hampton Boulevard multi-use path, where residents report cars driving on the path because it is not clearly marked.
Key points
- Belton said neighbors near the Hampton Boulevard trail are upset because there is no sidewalk and people are driving on the path.
- She said the path needs to be painted to differentiate it from the street. She saw a police car parked on the path.
- Foster agreed that striping is needed on Hampton Boulevard as well.
Public comment on striping
A member of the public questioned whether striping would solve the problem if drivers are rear-ending parked cars, suggesting driver behavior is the issue.
Key points
- The commenter noted that 10 accidents in two years involving rear-end collisions suggest erratic driving, not just a lack of striping.
- The commenter questioned whether striping would prevent accidents if drivers are traveling at high speeds or driving recklessly.
Payment-in-lieu-of-parking proposal, introduction
Jen Belton introduced a proposal to reinstate parking requirements for new development and allow developers to pay into a dedicated fund when they cannot provide parking on-site. The fund would be used for parking and mobility improvements.
Key points
- Belton summarized the proposal: Hudson faces pressure to balance housing production, historic preservation, walkability, economic development, and parking demand. Many infill and adaptive reuse projects cannot provide off-street parking.
- A payment-in-lieu-of-parking program would allow developers to contribute fees when required parking cannot reasonably be provided. Funds would be dedicated to parking and mobility improvements.
- Hudson had parking minimums until 2019. The old requirement was one parking space per 300 square feet of building area. Developers routinely sought variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
- In 2019, the city eliminated all parking minimums without creating a replacement framework. The Planning Board now reviews parking case-by-case but has no guidelines.
- Belton proposed reinstating parking requirements and creating a payment option, using examples from other municipalities.
Belton has been researching the villages of Port Jefferson and Mount Kisco, which have implemented similar programs. She has phone calls and emails out to staff in those municipalities.
Legal questions: state authorization
City Attorney Ken Dow raised legal questions about whether the city has statutory authority to create a payment-in-lieu-of-parking program and what conditions might be required.
Key points
- Dow said the policy questions are up to the committee, but the city needs to establish that it has statutory authority to create a payment-in-lieu program.
- He compared the proposal to in-lieu-of-recreation fees, where towns can require developers to either build recreational facilities or pay into a park fund. Those programs have strict legal requirements, including a study documenting the need.
- Dow said the city may need to conduct a parking study, establish a documented need, and ensure the fee is commensurate with the established need.
- He also raised the question of whether the city needs individualized state authorization to create such a program.
- Margaret Morris noted that when the city reduced the speed limit to 25 miles per hour, state law required a traffic study by a traffic engineer. A similar requirement might apply here.
Dow said he would look into whether the city has the legal authority to create a payment-in-lieu-of-parking program and what conditions might be required by state law.
Parking requirements: residential vs commercial
The committee discussed reinstating parking requirements for residential and commercial development. Belton proposed a threshold of 3,000 to 4,000 square feet for commercial projects. Morris argued that parking needs vary by business type and a one-size-fits-all approach would not work.
Key points
- Belton proposed parking requirements for residential development and for commercial projects over 4,000 square feet. She set the threshold at 4,000 square feet to avoid affecting small businesses like restaurants on Warren Street.
- Morris supported reinstating residential parking requirements. She questioned how the proposal would apply to hotels and larger commercial projects.
- Belton noted that hotels in the downtown that cater to train travelers may not need a parking space for every room.
- Morris argued that parking needs vary by business type. A grocery store requires parking close to the entrance so customers can load groceries. Payment-in-lieu would not solve that problem. A hotel or office might be able to use remote parking.
- Morris cited a historical example: an independent grocer considered opening a store at the city's parking lot but decided the project was not viable without adjacent parking.
- Belton said she has a more detailed breakdown by business type in a different document. She offered to provide it.
Morris noted that the pre-2019 parking law required parking for every table in a restaurant, which was one reason the law was considered unrealistic and eventually eliminated.
Examples: 11 Warren, Pocketbook factory, grocery store
Belton cited recent projects that created parking problems: the 11 Warren hotel, the Pocketbook factory redevelopment, and a proposed grocery store at the municipal parking lot.
Key points
- Belton said 11 Warren, a hotel with no parking, created a real problem. She wished the payment-in-lieu program had been in place before that project was approved.
- She also cited the Pocketbook factory and a proposed Calvin Pollard project as examples of developments that would have created parking demand.
- Morris said a grocer looking at the municipal parking lot site decided the project was not viable without parking adjacent to the store. Payment-in-lieu would not have solved that problem because customers would not walk two blocks with groceries.
- Belton said payment-in-lieu would allow the city to build more parking or improve existing lots with better surfaces, signage, and landscaping. The fund could also pay for a shuttle bus between municipal lots.
Two-step process: requirements first, then payment option
Morris suggested a two-step process: first, reinstate parking requirements with reasonable thresholds. Second, create a payment-in-lieu option for cases where on-site parking is not feasible. Some businesses might not be allowed to use the payment option.
Key points
- Morris proposed establishing reasonable parking requirements first, then creating a payment option as a separate step.
- She argued that certain businesses, like a grocery store, should not be allowed to simply pay in lieu of providing parking because their business model requires adjacent parking.
- Belton agreed that some businesses would choose to provide parking because paying the fee would hurt their business. She said hotels have proven they will push the issue.
- Belton argued that many businesses would be willing to pay into the fund if it meant the city could afford better parking infrastructure: paved lots without potholes, striping, signage, landscaping, or shuttle service.
Belton agreed to bring a more detailed proposal to the next meeting, with parking requirements broken down by specific business types.
Public comment: parking authority and end goal
A member of the public asked what the end goal is: how many parking spaces would the fund build, and where? He suggested the city consider creating a parking authority that could issue bonds.
Key points
- The commenter said he would need to see a specific project or goal: how many spaces would the fund create, and where?
- He suggested the city consider a parking authority, which could issue bonds and handle parking as a separate enterprise.
- Belton said her proposal includes a goal. She also noted that the parking committee's earlier proposal called for creating a parking bureau, with the hope that it would eventually become a parking authority.
Belton referenced the parking committee's earlier proposal, which called for creating a parking bureau as a first step toward a parking authority.
Adjournment
The committee adjourned.
Key points
- A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting ended.
About this page
FUTURE HUDSON is an experiment in civic engagement: every public meeting of the City of Hudson since January 2026, transcribed and made readable, 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 automated 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.