At a glance
The Legal Committee spent most of an hour on the Mill Street sale. Jack Hornickel, of the Mill Street Neighborhood Legal Action, walked the committee through two draft resolutions he had sent them: one declaring the city-owned ball field parkland and terminating the sale to developer Kearney on that basis, and one arguing the extension keeping that sale alive is unenforceable. The committee took no vote. It agreed to seek advice from the city attorney and the Council's own attorney in a closed session before bringing anything to the full Council. The rest of the meeting covered three code changes proposed by Nick Fox, the city's new code enforcement officer: one adding third-party inspectors on large projects, which the committee sent back to the Safety Committee for more detail, and two on vacant buildings and demolition, which it sent forward.
Roll Call, and Mill Street Documents Back on the Table
The committee opened with roll call and turned straight to Mill Street. The chair said the documents had been submitted to the full Council at its last meeting but never discussed there.
Key points
- Jack Hornickel, of the Mill Street Neighborhood Legal Action, was invited to present research he had sent the Council on the parkland status of the Mill Street site.
- He had also submitted two draft resolutions for the committee to consider.
- The chair framed the parkland research as the basis for the first of those resolutions.
- One member was noted as absent.
The roll call is garbled in the automated transcript and the names it produces do not match the Council roster, so no members are named on this page.
A Century of Use: The Case That Mill Street Is Parkland
Hornickel summarized a body of research drawn from municipal plans on the city website and the property's deed, arguing the Mill Street site has functioned as public parkland for about a hundred years.
Key points
- The 1983 deed from the school district to the city carries a parkland dedication clause, in writing.
- The site began as the ball yard and playground for the Charles Williams School up the hill.
- He said he found Register-Star coverage of a city softball league that ran from Memorial Day to Labor Day, with games three nights a week, for 25 to 30 years starting in the 1970s.
- The site has appeared in municipal plans repeatedly since as part of Charles Municipal Park.
- He described current use: children playing soccer two nights before the meeting, kids on dirt bikes the day of it, cross-country skiing in snow, and regular mowing by the Department of Public Works.
- He said the city's own grant application to build the playground on the north side of the street acknowledged the south side was already a ball field, and that money was awarded on that basis.
The year of the playground grant application was given as approximately 2006, with the speaker saying he thought that was the date.
What Parkland Status Would Actually Mean
Hornickel explained the legal consequence: land a municipality holds out to the public as parkland cannot be sold or put to another use without approval from the New York State Legislature.
Key points
- Dedication can be express, in writing, or implied through a municipality's actions.
- He said the legislature grants five to 10 such approvals a year, citing a recent one in Kinderhook, and called it a matter of course.
- That step was not taken for the Mill Street sale.
- He was explicit that a parkland declaration would not mean the site can never be built on, only that any sale or other use would have to go through the state.
- One member observed that the city asking the school district to remove the deed's reverter clause is itself an acknowledgement that the land had been parkland.
- Another member said the previous administration's response, when the research was first presented a year ago, was that no formal declaration had ever been made, and that this was not offered as a legal opinion.
The Second Resolution: Asking the Council to Void the Contract
The second draft resolution asks the Council to terminate the sale contract outright. Hornickel rested it on a New York case in which a court voided a city's contract to sell waterfront property.
Key points
- He cited Gladsky v. City of Glen Cove, where Glen Cove contracted to sell waterfront property, the contract did not contemplate that state legislative approval was necessary, and the court found the contract itself void.
- He said a state law covering waterfront and park property puts both at a similar level of protected status, and that the parkland doctrine comes mostly through court decisions reaching the same place.
- He said the Mill Street contract, drawn up in January and May of 2023, contains no description of the property and was signed without a title search.
- The deed restriction was uncovered later, by the developer's own title search.
- One member called the parkland declaration itself largely symbolic and said the real substance is the second request, voiding the contract.
- Hornickel disagreed that it was only symbolic, saying that when he first presented the research a year ago, no one believed him.
- Another member said declaring the land parkland could expose the city to further litigation on top of the case already pending, and wanted that risk kept in view.
The automated transcript renders the case name two different ways in the same meeting, as Gladsky v. Glencoe and as Klatsky v. City of Glen Cove. The first spelling matches a real New York decision on the sale of municipal waterfront property and is used here.
The Contract Extension, and Two Sites the Developer Never Pursued
The discussion turned to an extension of the sale contract signed by the mayor without Council approval, and to a broader argument that the developer never pursued two of the three sites the deal was built around.
Key points
- Hornickel said the extension was a material change to the contract that the Council never approved, and that in his opinion it is unenforceable.
- He pointed to a resolution the Council passed last month reasserting its authority to review changes to real estate contracts.
- If the extension does not hold, he said, the original May 3 closing date stands and has long passed.
- He said the legislative authorization to sell any city property to Kearney was conditioned on development of all three sites, and that State Street and Rossman Avenue were never pursued.
- Members recalled that Mill Street and State Street were bound together in one contract while Rossman Avenue was handled separately, and that they did not know why.
- One member said the failure to pursue State Street was the more compelling argument, and noted the contract requires due diligence in seeking funding.
- The same member cautioned that a closing date written as on or before, without time-is-of-the-essence language, can be read more broadly, and said that question needs legal advice.
Members discussed the Rossman Avenue arrangement from memory and said several times that they did not have documentation of it.
The Lawsuit, the Flooding, and Where the Committee Landed
A member raised whether the residents' own lawsuit is what pushed the closing past its deadline. The committee ended the Mill Street discussion by agreeing it needs legal advice before acting.
Key points
- One member said it felt like a tactic if the lawsuit itself is what forced the closing past May 3.
- Hornickel said the case carries no restraining order, injunction, or automatic stay, and that the city could technically sell the property right now, which he called an outrageous thing to do but possible.
- He argued the city is in a position of crossed defaults: it cannot sell Mill Street on a plan he called inadequate for the site, while the developer has made no effort on the other two sites.
- Another member said plainly that they are not in favor of the current project, and that the lawsuit is one of several unresolved issues rather than the only thing standing in the way.
- Hornickel described flash flooding at his intersection during recent rain, saying the road was closed for most of the day and that a neighbor's door camera showed the water arrive in about 15 minutes.
- He raised a payment to the school district that he said was never authorized, and said the Council needs to address it.
- The chair closed the item by saying the committee will seek legal counsel and then bring both resolutions to the full Council.
The committee agreed to arrange a closed attorney-client session with the city attorney and the Council's attorney before the resolutions go to the full Council. The chair said the Council's attorney was out of town and that the next Monday was probably too soon.
Three Code Changes from the New Code Enforcement Officer
The committee turned to three amendments to the city code submitted by Nick Fox, the city's new code enforcement officer. The chair said the committee was reviewing them for major questions before they go to the full Council.
Key points
- The three changes cover building permits (chapter 93), vacant buildings (chapter 91), and demolition (chapter 97).
- Members spent several minutes sorting out which document went with which chapter number.
- One member said repeatedly that it would help to have a lawyer present for the review.
Chapter 93: Independent Inspectors on the City's Largest Projects
The building-permit change would let the city require a third-party reviewer on large or complex projects, paid by the applicant through escrow. The committee agreed the idea is sound but sent it back to the Safety Committee for a narrower definition.
Key points
- The chair said the change addresses a very small code enforcement department facing a growing pipeline of projects, and gave the hotel under construction as the kind of project it has in mind.
- The reviewer would be selected by the code enforcement department, not the developer. The chair called that distinction very important.
- One member described how special inspectors usually work in practice, hired by the applicant trade by trade, and questioned whether that model fits.
- The chair said she questions the independence of a reviewer whose client is the developer, while acknowledging that professional standards of independence exist.
- Members worried the current language is too general and could read as replacing the code enforcement officer with an outside company inspecting an entire property.
- The committee agreed to send it back to the Safety Committee and ask the code enforcement officer to explain the scope he intends and what he is basing it on.
Chapter 93 goes back to the Safety Committee rather than to the full Council.
Chapter 91: Vacant Buildings, and a Registry With Nothing In It
The vacant-building change reorders the options an owner has so that demolition is a last resort rather than the first one listed. The discussion widened into how few vacant properties the city has on record at all.
Key points
- The chair said the current code lists demolition first among three choices, and that the change establishes a hierarchy in which other options are considered before demolition.
- The amendment also puts weight on the owner informing code enforcement of their plan for the building.
- A resident said they had asked the city for its vacant housing registry earlier in the year and were told there were no records of any vacant properties.
- The same resident described a county-wide effort with Partners for Progress to identify and classify distressed and vacant properties, and suggested the city coordinate with it.
- A member noted the city has never enforced the existing registration requirement or the fines attached to it.
- The code defines a vacant building through combinations of unoccupied with unsecured, improperly secured, unsafe, or in violation. A building that is unoccupied and properly secured does not require registration.
- That exclusion produced the longest disagreement of the meeting, between a member who said a secured but empty building still hurts a neighborhood over time and another who said an owner cannot be compelled to use their property.
- The committee agreed to ask its attorneys what the city can legally do about a property that is maintained, secured, and carries no code violations.
A member gave a figure for how many such lots exist in the city, but the number is garbled in the automated transcript and is not reproduced here.
Two specific addresses were named in this discussion as examples of empty buildings. They are left off this page because the claims about them are not verifiable from the transcript.
Chapter 97: Demolition, and Who Pays for the Neighbor's Wall
The demolition change shifts responsibility for a neighboring building's safety onto the party doing the demolition, and adds requirements for the condition a cleared site must be left in.
Key points
- The chair said the current code, where there is no party wall, puts the burden on the owner of the building that is not being demolished, and called that a scenario that makes no sense.
- The new language makes it the responsibility of the property owner or contractor in all cases involving demolition.
- The current code does not address what condition a site must be left in when a building comes down and nothing is built in its place.
- The amendment adds requirements for backfilling, drainage, and no exposed foundations, so a lot is not left as an open pit.
- A member raised sites where remaining foundation walls act as retaining walls for neighboring properties, and asked how backfilling would work there.
- The chair said the intent is to fill the pit so the fences can come down and the retaining structure ends up underground.
- The committee agreed to send this one to the full Council, then adjourned.
Chapters 91 and 97 go to the full Common Council. The meeting adjourned at about 67 minutes.
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.