At a glance
Hudson's Historic Preservation Commission met Friday, August 28, 2026, and approved several routine sign, siding, and window applications before turning to a major enforcement matter: the city's code enforcement officer presented detailed findings of extensive, unapproved work at two properties, the long-running Hudson Public Hotel project at 402-404 Warren Street and a residential rehab at 123 Union Street, both now under stop-work orders. Commissioners were told both property owners must file entirely new applications addressing every violation before work can resume, and that some of the changes, including removed historic marble and replaced original windows, may be irreversible and could lead to fines or prosecution. A smaller item involved a county-owned property in the historic district that has not yet responded to requests that it come before the commission for review of exterior work already underway.
Opening & Minutes
The commission opened its August 28 meeting with Commissioner Stein attending online, and approved the draft minutes from its August 14 meeting without objection.
Key points
- Commissioner Stein joined online; one commissioner, whose name the transcript renders as Paul Barrett, was noted absent.
- The commission approved the August 14 draft minutes on a voice vote with no recorded objection.
Consent Agenda: Three Certificates of Appropriateness Approved
The commission approved three straightforward items without discussion: a hand-painted interior sign, restoration of original wood siding, and a minor amendment to a previously approved storefront.
Key points
- A painted interior wall sign for Major's Tailor, roughly 5 feet by 4 feet, was approved.
- At 4042 North 6th Street, the owner's plan to remove vinyl siding and restore and repair the underlying original wood clapboard was approved.
- At 537 Warren Street, the restaurant formerly known as Mexican Radio was approved to amend a previously granted certificate of appropriateness, changing the design of inward-swinging doors on the building's pocket-park side.
New Applications: A No-Show, a Sign, and a Window Job
Of three new applications on the agenda, one had no applicant present and will likely return at a future meeting; the other two, a sign and a set of replacement windows, were found complete and approved.
Key points
- A fence application for 702-704 Columbia Street was called twice with no one present in person or online to speak for it; the commission moved on without acting on it.
- A sign application for 359 Columbia Street, a 34-by-34-inch single-sided wood sign on a roughly 15-foot wall, well within the code's size allowance, was found complete. The commission waived a public hearing and directed the city attorney to prepare a certificate of appropriateness.
- At 45-50 East Allen Street, the owners requested approval to remove old storm windows and install 11 new aluminum-clad windows with white trim, matching the existing single-pane, one-over-one style, across both floors of the building.
- One second-floor window with colored glass, treated as a decorative pocket window, will be left in place rather than replaced.
- A commissioner asked whether the commission had precedent for reviewing window replacements on part of a duplex whose other half is under separate ownership; staff said the commission cannot control what the other owner does but could encourage a future match.
- The East Allen Street application was found complete, the commission waived a public hearing, and directed the city attorney to prepare a certificate of appropriateness; staff said the paperwork typically takes about two weeks to finalize.
11 Warren Street's Unreviewed Work
A commissioner described writing informally to Columbia County asking that exterior work already underway at 11 Warren Street, a county-owned property in the historic district, come before the commission for review; the county has not yet responded.
Key points
- Commissioner Phil Forman said he had written what he described as a polite note to the county noting that exterior work, including new generators and a staircase, had already begun at 11 Warren Street, and suggesting the county bring the work before the commission.
- Code Enforcement Officer Nick Fox followed up with a formal notice stating the review is required under chapter 169 of the city code, not merely a suggestion.
- As of the meeting, the county had not responded despite two follow-up emails; the city attorney, Andy Howard, agreed to call the county's attorney directly.
- Commissioners agreed to give the county another two weeks to respond.
11 Warren Street is a separate, county-owned property; it is not to be confused with 402-404 Warren Street, the unrelated hotel project discussed later in this meeting.
The city attorney is expected to call the county's attorney; commissioners agreed to give the county about two more weeks to respond.
Code Enforcement Explains Its Role in Two Stop-Work Orders
Before presenting violation findings at two properties, the city's code enforcement officer laid out, in detail, how enforcement of historic preservation approvals works and why two stop-work orders were issued the prior week.
Key points
- The commission's job is to review proposed work and issue a certificate of appropriateness; once granted, it is code enforcement's job, not the commission's, to inspect the completed work against what was approved.
- Investigating a possible violation involves inspecting the site and materials, reviewing plans and commission minutes, and interviewing people involved, before any enforcement action is taken.
- Stop-work orders were issued the previous week on two separate projects, 402 Warren Street and 123 Union Street, after code enforcement found the approved certificates of appropriateness had been violated.
- Under the process described, an applicant found in violation must return to the commission to account for the differences and explain them; the commission then decides whether the unapproved changes can stand or must be undone.
- No work beyond removing fencing and barriers is permitted at either site until that process concludes; further violations found afterward could be referred for prosecution, with possible fees, fines, or penalties including imprisonment under the relevant code chapter.
The transcript addresses this speaker both as "Officer Fox" and, elsewhere, by his first name, Nick; both refer to Code Enforcement Officer Nick Fox.
Violations Found at 402-404 Warren Street (Hudson Public Hotel)
Code enforcement detailed multiple ways work at the long-running Hudson Public Hotel project departed from its 2023 approval, including missing marble, unapproved lighting and siding, and hundreds of windows installed without review.
Key points
- The property's certificate of appropriateness was granted March 24, 2023, to Walter Chatham, architect, on behalf of the Galvan Foundation, with 10 conditions attached, including a requirement to return to the commission for approval of windows, doors, and light fixtures.
- Original marble columns and beams called for in the approval are missing entirely and have been covered with cement board; a porcelain tile with a printed marble pattern was found on site, apparently intended as a substitute, but was never brought back for approval.
- Seven gooseneck light fixtures were installed without commission approval.
- Ninety-five windows have been installed without ever coming back to the commission for approval.
- The approval required any corrugated metal siding to be unpainted, galvanized or ungalvanized metal; black-painted corrugated siding has been installed instead.
- A door opening on Warren Street has been downsized from its original dimensions, suggesting doors have already been selected without commission review.
"Hudson Public Hotel" and the address 402-404 Warren Street are used interchangeably in the meeting for this project. The applicant's name and the foundation's name are corrected here from garbled forms in the automated transcript ("Walter Chadam" and "the Galvin Foundation").
Violations Found at 123 Union Street
Code enforcement found that windows and doors marked to remain on the approved plans were replaced anyway, some openings were bricked up entirely, and heat pumps were installed without review, one of them blocking the view of the single historic window left in place.
Key points
- Approved plans marked certain front windows to remain as existing historic windows; all of them, including basement windows, have since been replaced.
- Two windows approved to be replaced with 9-over-9 panes to match the building's existing style were instead installed as 6-over-6, and a third window meant to become a 9-over-9 was eliminated and bricked into a wall.
- At the rear of the building, one window opening that was supposed to remain has been bricked up, and a door opening that was supposed to be replaced with a matching 9-over-9 window has also been bricked up instead.
- A kitchen window that was approved to be enlarged was instead installed smaller than before.
- All three rear exterior doors were replaced without approval; no east-facing elevation drawings were ever submitted, though the floor plan called for those windows to remain, and they were replaced anyway except for one large custom window.
- Two wall-mounted heat pumps with exterior line sets were installed on the east side without approval; one blocks the view of the single historic window that was preserved.
Commission's Response: New Applications Required, Work Halted
Commissioners thanked the code enforcement officer for the investigation and agreed both property owners must file all-new applications addressing every violation; several raised concern that some changes, including lost historic material, may not be reversible.
Key points
- Commissioners agreed there was little point debating specifics of either project until the applicants, identified as Walter and Josh, return with new applications addressing each documented violation.
- The city attorney advised that once a certificate of appropriateness has been approved and then violated, the original application no longer has standing; the property owners have no standing before the commission until new applications are filed on both properties.
- A commissioner, John, raised concern that some alterations, including removed historic marble and replaced windows, may be irreversible, and suggested the commission look at how other historic preservation commissions elsewhere have handled similar cases before it rules on the new applications.
- Another commissioner cautioned that a property owner cannot avoid restoring lost historic material simply by having already destroyed it.
- The code enforcement officer said that if changes prove irreversible, further enforcement action, including appearance tickets and fines, is likely, and asked to learn exactly when the unapproved windows were installed at both properties.
- Stop-work orders at both properties remain in place and cannot be lifted until new certificates of appropriateness are issued.
The 123 Union Street applicant referred to here as Josh is possibly Josh Moon, but that surname is unconfirmed.
Both property owners must submit new applications addressing every documented violation before work can resume at either site; no date was given for when those applications are expected.
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.
About coverage of this body
Meetings of the Historic Preservation are uploaded to the city YouTube channel by members on a best-effort basis (not by the city audiovisual coordinator, who posts only the Common Council family, Planning Board, and HCDPA). If a meeting of this body is missing from the archive, it usually means the recording was not uploaded. See the archive index for the full coverage note.