Planning Board - Regular Meeting

So we have quorum and the meeting is in order.

The first item of the regular meeting business is the approval of invoices. Do we have invoices to act on tonight?

Yes, we do.

Would you please?

We have four. Meridian Engineering.

only thirteen thousand six hundred and twenty five dollars and cities absolutely motion to approve jean people are not speaking tonight so i have to repeat your name for the record yes Yes.

And Pete, you're spared.

Yeah.

Woodhull.

Yeah, approved.

We're going to now approve the minutes from the August 11th meeting as distributed previously. And are there any edits or corrections to the minutes?

Hearing none, move approval. One. Eight at this time. Good.

Woodhull.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Black. Yes. Yes.

And the final item of business is any announcements? I have one. Our attorney is not very eager tonight, and his office was unable to send a stand in. So if there are issues of legal in nature, then we need legal opinion. I'm going to ask the board that we set those aside and either reach out to Andrew in writing after tonight or wait until the next regular meeting. Are there other announcements before we go on?

There are ongoing conversations between the Planning Board and the Historic Preservation Commission, but I don't know that I have anything to report.

I don't have anything to report. That was not a last conservation commission meeting.

Before we move into our business tonight, I want to outline the one item on the agenda that's 41 North 2nd Street. We have several components of our meeting tonight that address that particular application. First, we're going to have a public hearing, and I'll be making introductory comments for that in a moment. Following the public hearing, we've been instructed by council that we need to comment on our site visit so that we get that into the public record. And this is not an evaluative conversation. It's just, when was it? Who was there? What did we do? We'll have an opportunity later in the agenda for any questions or issues that might have come up on the site visit. Following that brief discussion, we'll turn the meeting over to Rich, who will give us an update on the engineering work that we've been doing, identifying the work that's complete and other ongoing projects that still need to be attended to. We will then deal with the first round of public hearing questions. This was up through August 9th, from the beginning of the public hearing until August 9th. You'll recall we developed 16 pages, I think, of questions falling into nine different categories of issues. The advocate didn't want to be non-responsive, so they sent us 44 pages of answers. So we are going to ask Jen and colleagues to let us have an opportunity to ask follow-up questions from their responses to that activity. Then we have additional questions that we need to address to the applicant for public comments that occurred from August 9th to September 1st, which was the end of the deadline for the written comments to be made. And so I have four suggested topics that we will discuss then. And then finally, we will open up the conversation to board member questions or issues. So in the first part, we're dealing with public hearing issues. In this last section, we'll be dealing with any ongoing questions that board members might have. It's a lot to cover, but it's an important word. And I think we'll go ahead and get underway now. But before I do, any questions about the process going forward?

No, but I always feel sensitive about people who are coming at the last minute who maybe didn't get to sign up. So I just wanted to say, if you're in the back and want to get on the public comment record, come up here and get your name.

Sorry, I have one question. Yes, of course. I'm John First, I'm the attorney for the applicant. We have some consultants here, so we got to give some presentations at some point. It might preemptively answer some of your questions, because there has been a lot of updates that have occurred since our last submission. So we've got a traffic consultant, we have an architect, we have a site civil engineer, we have an environmental consultant, at some point, we would like to see you present each of our results.

Yeah, we can answer some of the questions. That presentation after Rich makes his general overview. Does that sound? Well, it's my own idea.

Sandy, if I forget, please remind us. I just want to comment for a second on our arrangements at night. There are an awful lot of people back. There's been a flight of waves back, and I'm worried about people being able to hear. I just don't see any way that we could get any more people up in this part of the room, though. Is there a space planner here that might be able to help?

There is a little bit of space in this corner. If people who are currently standing want to stay over there, there is some room in this corner.

There were chairs, you could add another row.

I don't know. Do you have any learning modules? I don't know.

There's not one.

I think two chairs there.

Yeah, I don't think we can tell. Well, yeah, people come back from time to time. Yeah. Yeah. Two seats out of here if anybody wants to come. You can still turn it.

We want to add to it.

I'm sorry. Yeah.

Without objection, we're going to reorder the agenda. We're going to put the engineering conversations up front before the public hearing. This gives more content to those who are assembled here and may help inform your comments when the public hearing is reopened. So why don't we start, Rich, with your report? There does need to be time for more Q&A. Is that after the report or after the meeting?

They're going to do that to their board, because the board may have questions specific to them, and then they may want to have some discussion afterwards. Okay, so we put together a comment memo dated September 8th, and we broke out the memo by starting it out with remaining approval issues from the technical standpoint, of course. uh and then uh potential items that we thought could be a condition of approval uh to break that out for the board so the the first item of uh approval issues of something that the applicant has to give to the board prior to uh considering a final approval would be uh the cba uh variance um there and then says number one number two is there's some talk within the application about uh Second Street and if part of it were to close, close down, but we didn't see any detail on it. We don't believe that's part of the application, but there are still some some notes that we'd like that clarified. Maybe that can be touched on into next presentation. The confirmation formal confirmation of water waste water capacity from the city. New York State CDC approval for the sewer extension. And then the stormwater permit, and then anything associated with the brownfields work. We're looking to get the EC approval on that to close that out so we all know 100% what that involves. The right-of-way improvements, to have any other right-of-way improvements signed off by the City Department of Public Works. And then confirmation, this is actually to the planning board as far as looking at the parking areas and make sure that you're satisfied with any of the screening that's being proposed or if enough screening isn't proposed, that that's something that's discussed amongst the members. And to show the fire truck turning plans that we've mentioned, but we haven't seen those yet. particularly with the northern, the work on the northern side, because I believe that that truck would have to go underneath a portion of the building. And then number eight, the big site plan set with all set plan sheets, the architectural, lighting, landscape, et cetera. There was originally a full set, but then it's been pieced, so we'll have to see all that together. And then confirmation of the architectural plans, we identified the required building materials that this board would like to see. So that was something that we've asked for. So you know exactly what materials that we've approved. And then provide a comprehensive construction logistics and construction management plan. That was part of the responses. We thought that was a great idea. So we'd like to see that. And the applicant has offered to provide that too. The then number 11 is provide a detailed construction traffic and Yeah, the construction or the construction of traffic logistics plan. And then confirm a list of the pre-construction survey areas. So they offer to do a pre-construction survey. What we think is that they should give you those areas that they're going to do the pre-construction survey so that you can evaluate and make sure everything is covered. They don't have to do the pre-construction survey for you, but give you the outline of where that's going to happen. And then the items that we think could be possible conditions of the approval are the final acceptance of the SWIFT, the DEC sewer extension approval, and then the city DPW approval for water and sewer connections. Okay, that's everybody done. Turn it over to you.

Great.

Again, so my name is John First. I'm the attorney. Go ahead. It's okay. I'm sorry. I can ask later. Fantastic. So we're going to provide a brief presentation. There's been a lot of questions and comments that have come up, especially from the site visit. So we figured we'd bring our whole team here to kind of give a presentation, some updates. Hopefully it answers many of your questions, maybe some of the questions. You know, we've been very busy since the last meeting, as the chairman had mentioned. We have a 46-page response memo. We had a site visit with the planning board. I know our engineer has been working with your engineer kind of addressing all the comments that are outstanding. So without further ado, I'd first like to turn it over to Jeffrey. He is the executive director of the Lexington Housing Authority. And then I think John Maddy of Mountain Fountain, who's a development partner, is also going to say a few words. And then we'll have each consultant come up and give an update presentation.

Good evening, everyone. Thank you for coming out for this project that we have going on. That's a for pulling so much attention. I just want to thank the planning board for coming out to the site and doing the site visit and doing this due diligence. And I'm not going to hold you because we have a lot to cover. We brought a lot of people to talk to you. So John Madigan, are you here? I'd like to introduce John Madigan, the director of development for Monaco to have some words with you and introduce you.

Thanks, Jack. Good evening, everybody. And again, I would echo Jeff's comments about the board coming out to the site. We know it's a lot of extra work for you guys, but I think it really is very helpful for a project like this. A couple of quick things. I know you may not believe this, but I was happy to see so many people out here. I probably will disagree with a lot of what they have to say, but that's fine. The more information that comes before this board, the more information the board has before they make the decision, the better decision you guys are going to be able to make. So we're very supportive of that. Just looking around faces, I see a lot of people I haven't seen before. So I would just like to do two things. One is suggest that they take a look at the planning portal. There's a lot of information on that. A lot of information that we've submitted about the project. Maybe they're aware of it already, maybe they're not, but it's certainly it's helpful information. Similarly, the housing authority has a website where we've answered a lot of questions that have been asked before. So maybe some of the questions that we hear tonight We already have the answers to, but if not, that's fine. But one way or another, anybody who's interested in this project should be looking at the planning board's portal on the Housing Authority website. Those are key items. A couple of other quick things. I do want to comment on Rich's comments. I can't write as fast as you spoke, but I went through the checklist pretty quickly. We agree with, I think, everything that Rich said. I've got one comment that I may have a a definition of how we address it. But the things that Rich said that we have indicated that we will provide to the board, such as the materials for the logistics plan, a few other plans like that we're working on. We expect to have them for the board within the next two weeks, okay? And you'll have that in advance so that you'll be able to look at it. Again, they'll be put up on the portal, I presume, by the board, and we'll put it on the Housing Authority's website. I want to say this because this may get lost in the sauce sometimes. The project that you had before you didn't just fall out of the sky. There are so many competing goals of development like this, and they don't always mesh together. We need a certain number of units. We want to provide as much green space as possible. We don't want to build the buildings too tall. We want to have traffic flow. We want a lot of these things. Again, we've been working on this for years. We've had public meetings about it outside of the planning board. We've had a lot of comments about it. So the plan that you have before you represents our best effort to balance all of those goals. We could get a lot more green space. if we built a nine-story building, right? We don't think you guys want a nine-story building. We don't want a nine-story building. So there's got to be trade-offs, which we would see in any project. But I just want to bring that to the forefront of the discussion. So as we address some of these things, they're not one-offs. It's not just, well, you're not giving us this. We're giving you what we think we can give you in relation to all the other goals that we think everybody wants. And I think that that's important. So I'm going to stop now. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, if you want to go into public comment or if you want some of our engineers to discuss what we have. I think it's important that the record be prepared. The information that you've got really outlines the project in great detail. We're going to emphasize some things, particularly we want to talk about brownfields. We want to talk about some of the other issues that have been raised. So if you want to do that now, we can do that now.

Yeah, I think we should go ahead and pursue this conversation, give the board an opportunity to ask questions, and then we'll transition into public comments.

Sorry, Brownfield? Sorry, Brownfield, since that was the last thing mentioned.

introduce yourself please yeah i'm a travel with pbdi environmental consultant to the project team um like they mentioned i'm here to talk about the brownfield portion of the property i have a few things i want to talk about in response to some of the comments and questions we received so one where we are in the breakfast cleanup program timeline two what the proposed remedy is and three what safety controls that remedy entails um so one We have submitted the remedial investigation report to the New York State DEC and DOH for review and comments. We haven't received any substantive comments on that report yet to date. I believe it only went in a couple of weeks ago. So not to bore everyone with the bureaucratic red tape or timeline that is the DEC, but it could be a little bit longer before we get anything back from them.

I do have like a timeline question though, because of our timeline around potentially tonight closing the public hearing that like 60 days that you're expecting that or on typically a I would say maybe a month from initial submittal to having a substantive comments a written comment letter from the state on that report so I don't want to speak for the whole board but at least for me I would like to get on it before we at least before we vote on the applicant, have all of the steps in place. And so I just want to make sure, whatever we do with you, all of the technical documents are fully in place.

Yeah, to speak to the rest of the steps in the program, there are more steps in the program after review and comment on the remedial investigation report. Once they have reviewed all the data, we're going to prepare what's called the remedial action work plan, which is going to lay out the proposed remedy of the property, which will, to jump to point number three, It's going to be what's called the Track 4 remedy. What that consists of is essentially a cover system and a subsequent depressurization system for vapors and groundwater restriction, which is common on most brownfield cleanup program sites. I said it on a webinar this year where I think over 50% of the brownfield sites go after a Track 4 remedy. It's the cover system itself consists of in green spaces, a two foot clean soil cover, or in non-green spaces, you're talking about hard skates, which consists of your foundation, your sidewalks, your asphalt. So basically what that's trying to do is to eliminate the direct exposure pathway to any remaining soil contaminants on site. And then your sub-slab depressurization system for your vapors, very common to a radon system if anyone has those. It's the exact same science behind that. It's capturing vapors while they accumulate underneath the slab and evacuating them into the ambient air above the building. A lot of data and design goes into that to determine, one, the size of the system, the amount of lagoons underneath, but also whether or not any scrubbing needs to happen at the roof before it gets exhausted in the atmosphere. And HBC and DOH reviews all of that before anything's approved. And then the last bit is the groundwater use restriction, which is not a problem here, obviously, because the property is serviced by municipal water for both purposes.

This may not be directed to you, but there are two issues on that side. One is the brownfield and the other is the soil condition. And both of those have to be addressed, I assume, fairly simultaneously. How has the planning for that developed? How do you navigate those two? Both are solvable, but solvable at the same time.

In terms of scheduling of earthwork for a typical development, earthwork for a brownfield remediation?

Who we're talking about, I think we're around this going is the design plan for the geotechnical improvements versus the brownfield work that you have to do. And somehow those two have to work together, almost marry together if you were. So I think that's where you were going with that.

Yeah, I feel like people are concerned that in the process of soil stabilization, we will agitate the contaminants, which it would also be helpful if you could clarify what the contaminants are and if they're, I don't know. If they're unique to that site. Yeah, yeah, yeah, actually.

I think I've already had your comment behind me once that question came up, but to answer it from a brownfield standpoint, the contaminants we're talking about what you find in urban fill up and down the Hudson Valley. Any site that's been previously disturbed improved upon whether it be former industrial or residential. We're talking about the inbuilt of warmer structures into basements. We're talking about the building degrees, construction, demolition degrees. And with that comes usually semi-volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. I know all that sounds scary, but in reality, those contaminants are highly common in New York State. And actually, New York State D.C. started cracking down on applications for inclusion in the rapid cleanup program to disallow them into the program based on that data solely because it's so ubiquitous in New York State.

So during this site visit, we know that there's a bunch of sampling wells. I was just curious if you know what you're sampling out of those.

Yeah.

Yeah, we sampled it for the full suite of parameters that your state would expect for a rapid-clean program site. It includes things, DOCs, SGOCs, metals, PCBs, pesticides, herbicides, PFAS, 1,4-dioxane, everything underneath the sun, which is what you have to do to be included in the rapid-clean program. They want to rule out everything. And what we found there, are largely naturally occurring metals, manganese, magnesium, things that anyone could find in their potable well if you live outside of the city limits. Yeah. And is that, are we expecting that report?

Or like- Yeah, it will be included in the RFRs, correct. So it's mainly metals? Yes. And volatiles as well? No volatiles, mainly metals, yeah. Okay. So then we're not talking about so much the collection system and the scrubber. You had mentioned

yeah is this yes for the vapor yes yep but yeah i've been on a lot of uh much worse off sites besides with uh chlorinated solvents in groundwater and in the vapor and even though sites don't require scrubbing um it takes a lot for a site to require that uh just by nature of the percent of a contaminant in that load going into the atmosphere so and then are any of the samples in groundwater or is it just soil soil vapor, and groundwater. So is that all three that there's hits on? They're largely the hits in terms of the site contaminants here. Those semi-polygrain compounds and heavy metals were in the upper three to four feet across the site, which is typical of, again, urban infill for old basements and structures. There wasn't much to speak of deeper than that. Groundwater, again, was naturally occurring metals, and the soil vapors, there wasn't a lot to speak of at all, honestly. The fact that we're putting in a subsiding pressurization system also speaks to the site's inclusion in HCR's process. They require a vapor mitigation system for radon.

Yeah, and it's the same.

I think to go back to the scheduling question about geotechnical and the agitation of soils during that process, It's going to be the same regardless of any agitation of the soils on site, whether it be for geotechnical, stabilizing, or just general earth work on site. What's going to be happening there is anytime there's a shovel in the ground, we have to enact what's called a community air monitoring plan as a function of the Brownfield Clean for dust, a particular matter down to PM 10, which I'm sure we all kind of got used to hearing after all the wildfires and everything like that. So it's stuff you can't see with your naked eye. Obviously, dust generation at a construction site, you can see to some extent if it's very negligent, but this is going to be measuring down to something we're not going to be able to see. And with that data, we're going to be receiving that real time on our phones to a project manager back in the office. and also to the construction manager outside. So if there's any exceedances of background upwind concentrations in the downwind instrumentation, meaning that something could be migrating off-site, then general earthwork practices would be enacted with spraying down stockpiles or delaying of work if there's inclement weather with a lot of wind, things like that, then covering stockpiles, whatever it may be.

From a layman's perspective, building on a ground field,

Sounds unwanted. But the process you're talking about results in a situation that's not unhealthy for residents. Is that correct? Yeah. And that's the objective, I assume, is that you want a healthy site that you're going to build. Exactly right. And brownfield remediation is a, it's been a practice that's been conducted for decades now.

Yeah. Yeah, this is not a very signed in its third or fourth iteration now, with a lot of different background attack credits and how that goes. But yeah, it's been around for a while and it keeps getting re-signed. I think it just got signed for another 10 years. So it's not going anywhere. It's, in my opinion, better than building on new virgin land when there's something that could be built on. Otherwise, that could be sitting there defunct for a long time otherwise. Any questions?

Additional questions?

I guess I also, I heard some chatter at the site visit, and this is like a new perspective to me, but basically what's in the land there is what's in the land all over Hudson.

you have a basis if you're like a professional opinion on that just by sheer number of sites that i've investigated in hudson and up and down the house in valley we do a lot of work in the cities in that kfc vegan newberg hengston hudson when we put a sort of warning in the ground we more or less know what we're going to find before we send the samples off to the labs based visually what we're seeing if we see infill construction demolition breeze it's going to be those things that we talked about before so the site is is there a reason why this site has been designated as a brownfield or it's like through a great deal of uh contention with the state it was a fight for us to get the site into the program because it truly is not that contaminated uh we tried getting another portion of the site into the program and they deemed it not acceptable because it was even less contaminated so question questions um is there any expectation for any of the material to need to leave the site Just based on the site's general cut-fill analysis, if they have excess soils, it'll have to leave the site, and anything leaving the brownfield site will have to be properly characterized and then sent to a permitted landfill. There is the ability to reuse it on another site if it meets that site's acceptable use. I have a couple of brownfield sites where we are able to get a beneficial use determination, what the state puts out for solid waste regulations. for reuse of that soil on another site, which is a green initiative of theirs. But if the soils can remain on site, yeah, absolutely. There's nothing that we found so far, at least that what we're putting in our remedial action work plan, that would qualify as a quote unquote hotspot removal. Just didn't find anything to support that data bias.

So, and then to bring it back to the geotechnical part, basically in summary, you're saying anytime we're cutting into the surface of the soil, whether it's to clear a foundation or to regrade or to, I don't actually, I'm not sure I could accurately describe the geotechnical engineering, but I assume there's like a compression of the soil. So when that portion of the land is opened up for the process, it would be treated with the caution due to

contaminated material. Yeah. And ground disturbance activities are going to be hand in hand with our community, our monitoring program.

So you have any other questions for Connor? I think that was a good review. Thank you. So now I'm going to segue because there were some questions that came up that were technical. So we have Brian Berger, our licensed PE, And he'll talk about that, because I think there's, it came up during the conversation.

Right. Hi, Brian Brooker, licensed professional engineer at CSED. Our firm, Western and Samson, prepared geotechnical report, which typically isn't submitted to planning review, but it's submitted to building department and everything for construction. So since it became an issue, It was submitted on the portal. Everyone can read it. I also understand there was a previous geotechnical report by Flory, which we know them. And the two reports are generally the same because the ground hasn't changed since the boring. We did a number of borings on the site much greater in detail than the previous report because we had both sides of the stream. studied, including around the existing building that's there now. What was found, of course, is below the grade is a clay, silty clay soil, mostly clay. Some of the board is 100, 110 feet, ball clay still all the way down there, which is actually below the Hudson River level. So there's moisture in the clay. different densities. So the geotechnical improvements that need to go on, and both reports, Fillory and our report indicated that construction of this type is going to require soil improvements. And that's something that we can do. There's many ways to do a soil improvement. The recommended way is something that we'd call aggregate peers. So, You know, a borehole is opened up down like 60 feet and rammed aggregate is placed and rammed in place to displace the soil and compact it to a greater density at the depth that the support is expected. So those are then tested to make sure that there's adequate bearing and the rammed aggregate is brought to the surface where it's placed is underneath the foundation so that this the bearing weight of the foundation is on these aggregate piers and we would be able to achieve three to four thousand pounds per square foot of load if you're familiar with that um throughout the site uh so that is the planned improvement that was done uh and recommended for this building. This building isn't quite that heavy. It's a wood-framed structure on top of a concrete and steel kind of structure for the first floor. So we call that a podium. And then four stories of wood. So it doesn't weigh the same as a concrete and steel building that's like the other tower is nine stories. That's got a lot more intense barren on the soil. But with that being taken care of, it's almost a conventional type of construction. Once the aggregate piers are supporting the load and we distribute the loads to those piers, the construction would go pretty quickly.

Any comments, Rich? Yeah, quickly, I would just ask to describe the size of the hole that you anticipate and then the size of the aggregate that's built

That would be in the detailed report from the geotechnical side that when we get the actual recommended sizes and diameters, that will happen through testing. So I can't give you that right now. We do have a consultant that will be performing design build. So it's a delegated construction. and that they will, if you're interested, will send you the reports prior to the work and during the work. Because what they discover during the work, they may have to go deeper, they may have to go wider. You know, they need to provide what I just told you. The end result is that we have 3,000 to 4,000 PSI of support. And so that's done through the actual work and testing. That would happen even with piles. I mean, you drive piles, you think you're going to go 60 feet, sometimes you're going to go 80 feet, sometimes you're going to go 100 feet, because you don't know what you're really going to find until you get down there. And as long as you have a way to keep going, so maybe they're going to go 80 feet. But right now, their initial calculations are something like 60 feet.

I see, because we've done sample pores that are like, you know, columns, but once you actually open up where the aggregate piers need to go, you might learn something about the density of compaction, like in the material before that, but beneath it, because you were saying there's like a lot of moisture and density variation in the substrate.

Right. So what happens is you're taking two-inch splits from when we're doing the plantings, And we do many . And the geotechnical report is in the file. You can look at where the forings were done, what the results were. Every foot is characterized. But that goes into how to do the . But instead of 20, there's going to be hundreds. So you're going to be finding out when you're putting the advocate peers in exactly what you need to do to provide the proper support. And if you need to move more than you anticipate, then you move more than you anticipate. Any other questions?

Yeah. So based on the public comment, a lot of people are concerned about a couple of things here. And then I can hear the concern brewing and you say, we don't know how big it's going to be. So I'm wondering if there's like a range or we're not talking about like, excavating and ramming the whole substrate of the slide.

No, they're only a few feet in diameter. They're not the entire site.

So we can range four to six feet in diameter, basically as a footing. Yes. And then what about vibration and compaction? That's a big concern. And how long does the space take?

So you do have vibration and we will be monitoring vibration, but typically rammed earth the rammed aggregate is less vibrating than pines because they're not stiff. They absorb the energy by displacing the rock to the side, which is how you compact the soil with it because it spreads out and it absorbs the energy rather than creating a wave that travels. So typically, it's less intrusive than actually driving files would be.

And then what's the length? I mean, you may not be able to provide this precise estimate, but you know, how long would neighbors have to be dealing with vibration? I live in sort of training, so my husband is on time, but I'm curious, like how, yeah, what's the impact?

We could give you a, you know, an estimated time.

Are we talking months? Are we talking months? Is it like a...

Well, probably a month, but let me get the answer to you correctly from the designers to what his equipment, how fast his equipment will move through the site.

And then what do you know about the vibration monitoring process?

Well, typically we start with a site study of all the adjacent properties doing a pre-built survey. looking for cracks and whatever. So we can just know that nothing has changed. The vibration that we try to keep it under is a half a foot per second wave. And that's typically what you would see in New York City and what you can see anywhere. And that's on the low side. Even in New York City, we're allowed to go up to at least one. We don't expect large displacements with this method.

Would it be reasonable for us as a condition of approval to set up masks or is there a mask in the code already? If there is one in New York City, that seems like a reasonable thing that we could, like I had no idea about any of this, like what is normal for a municipality or for a planning board.

Which agency governs this kind of thing, because the code enforcement, right? There's going to be routine inspections at this construction site. So, you know, I don't know what the plan is for this.

Well, I think your role is to help with the concerns of the neighbors on this particular subject. And that's why the question is being asked. So it's interesting to hear that it's not going to be driven by us. You're not going to have as much noise. The vibration is less, but it would be good if you could submit what you were talking about with, say, here's the parameters that we intend to work within. And then that way the planning board has that cool understanding. And then the public has the understanding of what to expect.

There was a particular concern, I think, from the owner, 72nd, 72 North 2nd Street. It's like a historic church building that's adjacent to the site. And like how close any of these pilings are to that, I think it's like, was a concern from the closest neighbor concern. Well, the building is out of shape. Yeah.

so i think it goes right up to the property line that'll also play into their reconstruction inspection that they committed to doing as well too where all the companies are engaging properties from being reviewed right so you can see from this site that

Most of that property is bounded by a parking lot. The parking lot slopes down from the road, so it's going into the existing . So there's a wall here that's elevated. So the parking lot is below the adjacent grade. OK. We can't really see.

No. OK.

So that would be along here. And so the only place where we have a building, this L piece sticks towards the church that's been, I believe, it's now a home, right? Yeah, it's not church, right? Okay, so that's the closest that it will get. But it will be driven, it appears, in this area to support the building there. building here is a little bit lighter because it's missing the whole first floor uh because there's a drive for the fire truck to get underneath the building so um the whole first floor is a tunnel um and so that build that part is only a three-story above that.

I remember from the site of the visit that there isn't much of a setback at all. Like that building goes right up to the property line. So I think what we're saying is that the more information you can give us about how you're going to make sure that that property line and the neighbors are taken care of with regards to vibration, I think would be better.

Okay.

We can address that. I wanted to, I mean, one of the issues was that we have a competitive engineers report that came to a very different conclusion. Can you speak directly to the difference in your approach and their approach and where you agree and where your assessment sort of disagrees?

I haven't. What are you talking about?

Yeah, they came to a different conclusion. I just don't think they could afford to move forward on this condition.

Yeah, I mean, it said you can't build this. You can't build this site. without ground improvement. Now, the aggregate peers we're talking about are not cheap. It's not doing nothing, which costs very little. You have to do quite a bit to make sure that you have a reasonable foundation to support the building properly.

So there wasn't a difference in an evaluation, there was just sort of a willingness to do that?

No, there wasn't. Well, aggregate peers is something that's sort of new, It's not that new, but it's a better, it's got more friction with the soil. It's got a desert brick. It does better densification than piles. So if you looked at, that's why the original Fort Lauderdale report recommended ground improvement. He didn't say piles. Because the piles would be very long, extremely expensive, and you know, their performance is, you have to get enough resistance along it from friction. So you don't know whether you're going to be driving 120 foot piles or 80 foot piles. You got to pay per foot. So if you're trying to do a budget for a project and you don't know how much money that is going to cost, it could blow the budget. And in this case, My guess is that's probably what happened. They discounted doing piles because of the cost. And then it was like, well, if you're not going to do ground improvement, there's other ways to do ground improvement. You could do dynamic compaction. We opted not to do that because dynamic compaction is taking a giant hammer and slamming the ground over and over and over for long periods of time. And that would be objectionable in our destination. Thank you.

One more question. I have one more question. So in the June 30th SWB, there was brave sites found. And then in the 8.6 or 8.5 SWB revision, that's removed. And in the public comment, answers that was referenced without being an error. I just want to understand the nature of the error. If it was a clerical or if there's like an engineering outlet, is there, I'm only like pedantic about this because there's a set of like really strict New York state requirements around brave sites. And so if there's any chance at all of that, I'm still waiting to learn.

Yeah, I think it was a clerical error.

I think it carried over. investigation and that means into the current report. OK, joking about that.

Yes, now there was that was there was a project where that was an issue and on the Swift and it got left in there, but it can work, but it has nothing to do with the site.

OK, there's no graves.

I just wanted like yeah. That's why it was only in the text.

What's that? I said that's why it was only in the text. Yes, yes.

Yes. Earlier, I think you said half a foot per second, but did you say half an inch per second?

Half an inch.

Okay, I was about to say. I think half an inch is like a major size thing. But it seems like, yeah, half an inch sounds like what the limit is in the city for a good Google 12.

All right. That's all. Thank you for that presentation. That was very helpful.

And thanks for working with questions. Anytime. We've got two more consultants. Since you have bored out with all the engineering, maybe I'll have the architect come up. The engineer's your best part. Hello, everyone.

I'm Daryl Wiener. I'm one of the architects for Alping Architects. We are working on the design of the building. I'm Daryl Wiener.

basically we understand here for how much space is needed and such some buildings are a little bit larger but we've tried to break them down to a few pedestrian size we don't we don't there's no way to get a building for 102 units make it really small but we're not doing a bliss tower tall building we're spreading everything out we're breaking these down keeping the rhythm up that townhouses that exists in that general area we're trying to mimic the ideas to make everyone feel like they belong um they're four stories they're they're the same height as most of the other buildings in the area and such where we want people it doesn't matter whether it's an affordable housing project or a regular market housing everyone deserves the same level of care and appreciation of where they've touched

um you need to speak to there are some questions about if alternative configurations were considered alternative design schematics i guess my question is how did you i don't know if you can speak to some of your part of it yeah i was missing part of the beginnings of that and you know there were there was a there was way back in the beginning there was an rfp that was put out with the fight by the hudson housing authority

where they give you a number of competitions and such, trying to get different designs and such. So somewhere along the line, now we've won the contract, and I believe we have worked on several different versions and such. It comes down to also the efficiency and the cost of what we're trying to do. A lot of little buildings, a lot of cost, a lot more construction, there's a lot more juggling and such. So we want to give everyone a really connected place to live, but we also don't want to make it look like an industrial building. It's your home. You need to live someplace you have to live in.

Thank you. Just to follow up on his question, I think we presented this to the board, but when the first presentation prior to this board, was seven stores. So we looked at a number of different designs, the heights of the buildings, the location of the buildings. These are part of the discussions that we had where we had public meetings and invited people to come in and comment on them. And that development evolved over time. We heard very clearly from board members, from the public, What we came in with was a seven story building. That was the first sort of formal proposal. You heard very clearly that that's not what the board was looking for. That's our sense of evaluation of the board and the public. So we went back and we revised it. We dropped the height of the buildings. We moved the location of the buildings. One of the things we should say, and this is because this is important again, talked before about trade-offs, right? It's very critical that we have a certain mass of number of units to make the project economically feasible. One of the issues that we have in this development is that the project was approved as a RAD development by HUD a number of years ago. With that approval came a designation of certain rents for the people that were in Bliss and Columbia. And those rents are very, very low. So in order to balance that, we need to have a certain number of units at rents that are a little bit higher so that we can economically carry the building. That also addresses an issue which is sort of outside the board's purview, I think, but it's interesting information is in terms of the income next. We've heard two different comments. First is you're concentrating all low-income people on this site. that you're creating together by putting all the low-income people in second comment we heard is we're creating we're allowing people with higher incomes to come in okay and we shouldn't we shouldn't be doing that we should be addressing the low income households that need to help so again this project that we're proposing is a balance okay we have to address uh we have to get a certain number of units to make the unit mix and the rents mix to make it work but at the same time we're addressing a mixture of income some what HUD would call extremely low income, very low income, and low income. And one of the things we're going to be submitting to the board, again, it's outside of the board's purview, but I think it's interesting information, is we'll give you a list of those definitions of what the incomes are so you can see. But that's part of the evolution of this project. Yes, the question, did the project change? Then yes, the design before Daryl was involved did have different buildings and locations and heights.

And the removal of retail from the first floor was a financial decision because you couldn't make the numbers work.

That's correct. That's a good catch. I didn't mention that there was there was a we had at one point we had a proposed user for that retail and that that evaporated. So we don't have that. It was an economic decision. We're able to put five units in that space that creates a real rental income that we can count on.

We are engineers that requested a list of specified materials that are going to be used in the project. Yes, the status of both.

Is that been passed and answered or is that I think that's where we're in the process of putting together the material boards. We're getting all of our samples and starts to put together. You'll have you'll have that within the next few weeks.

There's been a lot of comments about. What could be errors or could be shifting plans that don't get followed through, For example, I think there's one part where maybe 99 one-bedroom units are listed, and then another part of a material, of the same material, it might say 93, which is a huge deal to me, but I'm curious, like, what, when there's, I guess my curiosity is, is the unit distribution set or might there be some last minute configurations? And then a question for us is, does that matter if it's not a huge slinging population, but is that normal for things to kind of- Normally some things- To move a wall.

Some things we move a wall or we're moving some things around and all of a sudden it doesn't work well as one bedroom or it works better as a three bedroom or four cell. The unit count that we're at is pretty standard at this point. It might change depending on the request from the Hudson Housing authority and such they're trying to find if they have a family they know they need a specific configuration for and such one of the things we provide for is there's usually five percent two percent of units that are set aside for mobility people mobility impairment people with hearing impairment one of the four bedroom units might not be a mobility unit but if there's someone that has an authority knows is it going to need a four-bedroom unit and they are going to need the mobility Component to that will adjust our plans and such to bring that into the project.

If I could add one more thing. One of the things that happened in terms of bedroom distribution, which I think is important in terms of impact on the community. If you look at this, we're going right now 135 units on the site. We're going to 166. 31 more units. But the bedroom distribution is changed. Okay, we're reducing the number of four bedrooms. We're adding the number of one bedrooms. So that's going to have a lesser impact on the community in terms of number of people on the site, impact on the school district and services. So again, these are all trade-offs that, as you say, evolve over a period of numbers of change, but it wasn't a random decision. It was within the context of the whole project.

So we're going to be getting revised? table of that.

The numbers that you have now are the numbers that we get drunk out of.

The discrepancy in the answers that were provided to the questions from the public, there are different numbers and different answers for the number of bedrooms. It could have just been a, I guess it's most likely just a proofreading.

yeah so let's let's make sure i guess for the board that there's one final maximum number that's the one to choose and then that's what they approve is the maximum if you choose to do less then that's fine but they're going to improve on that i i think that it would be good if we could just yeah have it consistent it wasn't it it was we're talking about the difference between 99 like 96 to 90 whether it's just one minor difference yeah that's totally normal construction within construction as of the

Life evolves. Things change. We're listening to our client, which is the home, the housing authority.

I have questions about the difference. There's a very different description. It sounds like a very different building in the answers to the questions that we gave you guys in May versus what arrived in August. How many street-level entrances does each building have? And the answer said, residents access the buildings directly from public sidewalks, paths, open spaces, with multiple street level entrances distributed across each building. Rather than concentrating circulation into a single centralized lobby, entrances are organized to serve smaller residential groupings, so each entry supports a limited number of units. This approach reinforces a neighborhood scaled residential character, and allows the residents to enter their homes close to the street or open space, much like traditional walk-up and small shared entry buildings found throughout Hudson. So we asked how many units are served by each entrance. Two primary residential entrances are located along State Street, complemented by an additional entrance at the rear of the building that provides direct access from the parking area. One of the State Street entrances is the lines of the community room and shared building amenities, including the management office, creating a welcoming and clearly identifiable point for both residents and visitors. This approach avoids the feel of a large institutional lobby, while supporting intuitive wayfinding, accessibility, and a stronger sense of ownership and familiarity among residents. The next question was, how does the entry and circulation design compare to Hudson's typical residential patterns? And those patterns are frequent street-facing doors, entrance and serving small groups of units, and a direct relationship between homes, sidewalks, and public space. In August, the answer changed because we asked again, because no number had been given in response to the question. And it said, Building A, we asked, clarify whether residents of each building will primarily enter through a single principal entrance and lobby. If so, identify the anticipated number of residential units served by each principal entrance and describe whether multiple principal residential entrances or a more distributed entry configuration was considered, and if so, why this configuration was selected. Buildings have one primary entrance to the building, and this is for security. This is a very dramatic shift. These sound like two different buildings. This is my question. Let me finish, though. There are two for Building B due to the relationship of the site and how the building is to be approached, but they both bring someone to the same location. Building A has 58 units by this entrance, and Building B, 102 units. Yeah, so can you explain how the building... So when I read the first description, I hear about small favorite scale. When I hear the second description, it in fact characterizes institutional scale as a problem to be avoided. And yet you show up in August, you change the answer dramatically, and you actually present an institutional scale lobby as a solution for security purposes. So can you explain why there's such a dramatic difference? And I think it's one more thing. It feels significant because that description was in May. It was sort of before the secret vote. That seems like a wild mischaracterization of the actual building.

I can understand that and such. There are multiple entrances in. The primary entrance that everyone will be using will be the main lobby entrance. That's where you're coming in for all the mailboxes and such. There are other smaller entrances that would be probably key or coded for people to get in and out, but the primary entrance that serves everything is the one. In the larger building, in our building B, we have two entrances, one back from State Street, one coming from the parking area. It's going to be a very big atrium and very welcoming. We have a lobby area.

I understand what you're describing as B1, right? It's the current set of B1. What I'm asking is, there was, before, when we asked you a direct question about how this building was designed, it was designed in smaller units. and entry serving smaller numbers of units because there is a benefit to residents for living in smaller sized units.

I think this is an important question, but I also think it's a visual question. I think it would be very helpful to have some kind of visual representation of what you're describing because it's difficult to imagine and we may not all be imagining the same thing. architecture is going to be a subject when we get our specifications on materials. If we can ask you to develop a fulsome answer to Peter's observation and question, so that we can all kind of share that in a visual way, I think that would be, would that be helpful, Peter? Yes, absolutely.

I think you framed the question pretty thoroughly, and if that... No, I understand the question, and I see where you're coming from on it, so...

I think, Alex, you have another architect on the call. Alex, I don't know if you have anything to add. Have you heard the question from the board member about the entrances?

Yes. The change was based entirely on security and even in market rate houses, as well as affordable, one entrance is what is desired. Otherwise, it's insecure and also cost and accessibility because they all have to be handicapped accessible and you'd have to have multiple, multiple elevator banks, which would make it prohibitive in cost because they all have to be accessible. Now, visually, the exterior still gives the impression and shows... a division of townhouse scale architecture, which is based on Warren Street. And as well, as Jane Jacobs said, it's also about eyes on the street. So even though there are not multiple entrances, you still have many, many windows at ground level so that people can see what's going on. as well as the bay windows, which allow you to see up and down the street as well.

Isn't the eyes on the street argument that actually the more street life you have actually at street level, the more activity you have, and that's a sense of protection. So there's two different security strategies represented in different design choices. And you have, as you said, trade-offs to be made. So there was a moment in this plan when you have one strategy for security that was based on a neighborhood scale, human scale development that had more connection between people and their neighbors and the people in the street.

The scale has not changed. The scale is still neighborhood change. The scale is still based upon the neighborhood. It has not changed at all. And the visual aspect of the building from the exterior is of divisions and breaking down the scale through materials through insets and parapets and everything has been done to keep the scale at the residential level here.

Aesthetically from the outside, I understand that that might be the case, but for a resident living in a building that's a one institutional lobby versus a building- It's not an institutional lobby at all. It's a double height space. Your own response in May, please allow me to finish, indicated it argued against an institutional lobby and argue for rather than concentrating circulation into a single centralized lobby, entrances are organized to serve smaller residential grouping. So each entry supports a limited number of students that seems to take a position on the benefits of a smaller scale development for the experience of residents, not for my aesthetic enjoys it.

Actually, I think Jeffrey or John Madio should expand upon this.

I think also, I do think there's a certain neighborhood quality to people sitting on stoop and watching for each other that is different than institutional security. I think there's a balance there in different ways of providing security to people watching up for each other that is different than small groups. I don't think it evolves in this conversation personally, but I do think there's a different kind of neighborhood yet different ways. And security can come from neighbors as well as from

There are secondary meetings in and out. They're just not the primary. For example, on the 8th building, there will be eventually a back entrance to come in from the Eventful Park and such. You don't have to walk all the way around the building to get in. There will be other ways in, but you still have to go to the same area to get to the elevator.

It's also a second entrance on state street also to the community room as well.

Entries 300 foot walls, no ground floor activation and no, no, no. Yeah, right. Hotel entrance. Exactly. Okay.

Ten minutes ago, I asked that we put this on another agenda, that the client or the applicant, excuse me, come prepared with visuals so that we can understand, as a group, we can understand what these words mean and give us time to really be in a more prepared way to deal with this simple issue.

And I also could feel this meeting spinning out of control. So what I would like to do is make a specific request to the applicant that you be prepared. We may decide tonight to have a second meeting in September, but that should have to be decided. So perhaps within two weeks or at least by October meeting. I think that we need a deep dive on what you're talking about. So is that request clear?

Yes. Any other architectural questions? I have the traffic in and I'll quickly go over some things. I promise it'll be quick.

Like yourself, I don't actually care so much about the numbers. But there were some other small discrepancies in the answers. So the office... Is it okay if I send them? There's a whole bunch of weird... I didn't make them clear. Yeah.

We'll receive anything you guys send to us. We'll go very far about it.

Anything else?

We have one final presentation.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Crown Health Commission. For the record, my name is John Canning. I work for Kimberley Horn. I'm a professional engineer licensed to practice in the state of New York and have over 30 years of traffic engineering experience. We've conducted multiple studies for this application. and they were submitted to your board, reviewed by your consultant. Phase one, which is the subject of this application, is a request for approval for 135, no, 166 residential units, which is 31 more than the building there now. As such, we'll only add approximately 15 more trips to the surrounding roadway network to study multiple intersections in the area. The intersections currently experience good traffic operating conditions, qualify as an endless service B or better on a scale from A to F. Delays are projected to increase by less than a second. That's specific to the engineer's question regarding state fleet. And the construction logistics plan, we will have a specific work zone traffic control construction logistics plan. We work with the city. Typically, this consists of identifying a truck route to make sure that all construction vehicles use this relatively appropriate relative from the site. We'll make sure that construction traffic activity and construction workers do not impact parking in the neighborhood. And we will maintain appropriate access for emergency medical services, emergency services. The closure of State Street is one of the least used streets in the area because it's kind of on the backside of town. So it's anticipated at this point in time that State Street may be closed during construction. to facilitate construction activity would minimise the impact to the other streets in the neighbourhood. There's about 100 trips in the business area to State Street, which is not a very big number. We've studied the diversion of those trips to Columbia Street, which is the next street over, and that analysis indicates that the impacts will be similarly nominal. For Clareley, it's not proposed to close State Street after construction at phase one, But we did study it as part of phase two of this project for SICO-related issues, because if we didn't, we might be told that we were segmenting the process, which is impervisible. So I just want to make clear that it's not proposed as part of this application to close State Street permanently. And if that were ever proposed, it would require a whole further review by the city. So that's basically the traffic in a nutshell.

I'm happy to answer any specific questions you may have.

Where do you start?

I did see a big flutter of reactions about the idea that, just like it's not quite a comment yet, but that, so you're saying that per your professional assessment, the current traffic pattern, that it would be less disruptive in the surrounding neighborhoods to close the state street between 2nd and Front where there's no driveways or places to go, where it's just a freeway to get down. That's correct. That's correct. Maybe take a right to the dog park.

Yes.

So traffic would just continue another block and go down Columbia Street.

That's exactly what it's intended.

And that that's meant to reduce the impact on the traffic or like the staging of materials. Exactly.

Exactly. So the staging materials, pouring concrete, lifts, stuff like that require heavy vehicle equipment. And typically what you do is you close lanes, divert pedestrians over to the other side. And so you can If it's approved by the city, we'd have to work through the process with the city. It's a temporary condition for the construction traffic management, but then you can take care of all the bigger truck activities and not have the pedestrians anywhere near us. And it is an inconvenience to go over one block. But in my opinion, it's a temporary condition. It's not a significant inconvenience.

It's fine.

I guess that's all.

There was some confusion about State Street at our site.

One member of the HHE team declared it was going to be made one way. There was also confusion about the location of the curve in relationship to the width of the street. And we requested at the site visit that we be prepared to show us exactly what the configuration and and a new substitute would be after phase one. Are you prepared to do that now or are we going to pick that up in our next meeting?

I would prefer to pick that up in the next meeting because that's the specific location of the curve. It's not something that I was asked to address and I'd like to just inform the site civil engineering. Am I remembering that right? There's a lot of confusion about that. So just to be clear, permanently following instruction for phase one, it's not proposed to make state speed one way or no ways. Basically, it's supposed to keep the state of the stream the way it is. So there is parking proposed on one side. There will be minor modifications to the curb associated with that.

Once again, this would be helpful for us to be able to see what the plan is. Absolutely. Any other questions? All right. Thank you all very much. That was a very detailed report. Do you feel well? Yes. So now, thank you for those who've come to speak for your patience while we went through this, but it gives you a real flavor of the exciting work that we do. Really, really exciting stuff. Well, Nathan gets very excited about this. So we're going to open the public hearing, reopen the public hearing, and we need motion to reopen public hearing. So moved.

Second, please, team. Yes. Black. Yes.

Spear.

Yes.

Yes. So a few ground rules.

This is the third public hearing we've had through oral comments, plus several weeks of of the opportunity for written comments. The deadline for written comments is September 1. We'll decide after tonight's hearing whether or not we are ready to keep going or close the public hearing. Just a couple of ground rules. Each speaker is allotted three minutes. That's not to limit what you say, but that's to create a balanced and fair circumstance so that everybody gets the same opportunity. for this public hearing, but for all public hearings, so that there is transparency and fairness in terms of opportunities to speak. We've had over 300 public comments, both written and verbal, and the board takes these comments seriously. It's a vital part of our process. As you may have heard earlier, from the launch of the public hearing until August 9th, Rather than trying to respond to each question individually, we analyzed the questions and created nine categories that the questions fell into and then constructed questions for the applicant around those nine categories. So it's a serious contribution to the record. One of the things that we ask is that you address your comments to the planning board and not to other members of the audience tonight. This is an opportunity for you express your opinion, but it's not a question and answer session. The board is here to listen and to learn from your lived experiences, from your point of view, from your history about the project. As I said, we received a lot of comments, and I want to mention that some of the comments that we received are raising subjects that are not matters that the planning board is charged with deciding. It's not that they're not important. They're just not in our lane, so to speak. Issues like, well, HHA's financing model, or tenant eligibility, or HHA management, or the broader questions of housing, affordable housing policy. Those are the domain of other folks. So it's not that we don't care about that. And as individual citizens, we may have opinions about that. But around this table, our focus is more on massive scale neighborhood compatibility, site design, pedestrian environment, traffic, parking, emergency access. Those are the kinds of issues that we deal with. So you may stand up today and say we don't need affordable housing. Well, you certainly have the right to express that, but it's just not a matter that that the planning board takes into consideration as we evaluate the application that's before us. Also ask that we treat this like a neighborhood meeting. generally neighbors with each other. So I ask that you be civil and thoughtful and respectful of your neighbors. And we look forward to hearing your comments. And Linda is going to be calling folks up to speak. And my partner, Gene, is going to be the timekeeper. And he'll give you a warning at, what about 30 seconds or? Yeah, 30 seconds. 30 seconds, okay. 30 seconds.

Linda? David?

Who was signed up first? That was your name. Hi, my name is Doug Meyer. I'm a resident. I actually live on 1 Second Street. And there's just a lot of statements and questions that I just want to throw out here. One of the first things that I'm really kind of concerned with is the timeline. I have not heard from anyone that's been up here yet what really the timeline is. Just let's start with the remediation. and then doing the borings. I don't know what the timeframe for that is. And I think that's a very important thing when you're talking about the neighborhood itself, because this construction project, if you can't give us the timeline on that, construction doesn't even start until that's finished. So how long is the construction from the beginning to the end of phase one, phase two? Because I think it was a great thing that the traffic, sorry, I don't know your name, mentioned that they would maybe be closing off State Street between 2nd and Front Street for staging and everything else, which I think is great. But being on North 2nd Street brings up a lot of other issues because you're going to have the redirection of the parking lot of 51 spaces that has never been on North 2nd Street before. Coming onto North 2nd Street, it's going to be almost directly opposite of Rope Alley. So you're going to have almost two intersections right there. So you're going to have, I was reading yesterday, they're proposing or guessing 125 in the morning, maybe 115 cars, which they say is nominal. In addition to that, I don't think that's really nominal because North Second Street is not that busy the street. With parking, especially when you get into certain sections that it can be difficult for two cars to pass when there's parking on both sides. I was also really curious because I've looked at the plans many, many times and I've never seen where's the sanitation going to be picked up? Is that another thing that's going to happen through that portal that goes into the parking area? And if it is, then is there enough space? I know that they're talking about the fire trucks being able to turn around with the radius, but will sanitation trucks, where are all the deliveries going to go to? Whether you're talking, you know, UPS, the post office, any others, all maintenance vehicles, where are they going to go through? Are they going to now go through North 2nd Street? Because right now, sanitation for the Bliss Tower is on State Street, and it's like really open and right there. So that's one of my big kind of concerns. In addition to how long is this going to take? How long as residents in this area are we going to be surrounded by all of this construction, all these trucks, all of this kind of upheaval. Is it going to be years? You know, you've got phase one, you've got phase two. There's just so many little issues here. Mr. Gorlin had stated that the actual, the building itself is in keeping with Hudson. It is actually not. You have not only four stories, but you have five stories when you go down into the lower areas where you're pouring Columbia and North Second, or when you're going further on State Street down and becomes a five story building. So now we're really in Hudson. Do we have four and five story buildings on the Main Street? Is it time? I have a lot more to say.

Thank you. You know something I forgot to mention?

Does not apply. Let's keep this nice and special and we'll work through the makers next. We need Ali. I'm with Steve Gallagher. I'm going to focus on fiscal issues. And I may have some facts wrong. And you're free to correct me if I am wrong. But my impression may be unbelievable, but it costs $80,000 per student. And half of it divided with the state of New York. So it would be half of that. And the number of affordable units is going to increase from about 100 units to 276 units. I have the numbers right. And my concern is if Most of these residents are not paying taxes, given the burden on the school system, that it's going to force a tax increase for the city. And once there's a tax increase, then the value of the homes goes down, and then you've got to raise the taxes even further. to close the gap. And you end up arguably with kind of a downward spiral in the health. So that is something I hope this planning commission considers very seriously and very carefully. What is going to be the physical impact on the city because If I'm right, we need to take another look.

Thank you very much.

Jessica.

Hi, my name is Jessica. I have prepared bullet points. Some of these things were slightly addressed, but let me just continue. Signified housing requires more than maximizing unit count. Dignity needs natural light. usable green space, safe places for children, manageable traffic, adequate parking and buildings that connect residents to the surrounding neighborhood. It also means listening to the people who will actually live there rather than treating density of funding formulas as ends in themselves. The current record does not yet show that the proposed density is supported by sufficient infrastructure, open space, parking, neighborhood integration or residence input. A larger unit count is not automatically a better community and replacement housing should not simply exchange one set of deficiencies for another. These require a plan that demonstrates dignity, livability, and appropriate density before approval.

Thank you, Jessica.

Anya. Can I give my time to Doug?

So we're kind of where I kind of left off. I mean, I was talking about the time frame and one of the things that does concern me and a lot of the residents in the neighborhood

is what is going to happen. We know what we're looking at right now is phase one. And phase two, we're really not talking about. But phase one is done. All the residents move over into the phase one complex. Then if something happens with the financing, and I know that's not in your all's purview, but if something were to happen with the financing, what does that mean for phase two? In phase two, the first thing in phase two is actually tearing down the demolition of a the Bliss Tower and the Columbia apartment buildings. So are those just going to sit there derelict? I mean, the state, and is there a plan on actually tearing that down? And then if they don't do that, then the other part of the building for phase two wouldn't be built. I mean, there's a lot of issues there that are kind of concerning. And then you're also talking, you know, what is, as I said before, what is the actual timeframe on these things? I just, it's, There was another gentleman talking earlier about the set. You all were talking about the setbacks and the church and the parking lot and the L-shaped part of the building that comes out, which it's not setback at all. It is directly on that property line, which when you're looking at it from North Second Street, you're looking at four and five story building that between the church property and State Street, you're looking at over a hundred feet worth of mass of the building. that's almost directly on the sidewalk. Four stories, it's not really in keeping with Hudson and the architecture of townhouses and neighborhood. Then when you go from State Street to Columbia Street, you're having another enormous mass. They're planning on a huge inner park, which is great, but it's turning its back to the community itself because that whole section on North 2nd Street between State and Columbia is just this massive building with windows, four and five stories. And if you want to look at it from a pretty standpoint, from something that is compatible with Hudson, it just does not fit the bill. It becomes this enormous institution that is right on the street and is not friendly to the neighborhood at all. I think that those are most of the points that I want to make. I also do want to address one of the things that the gentleman was talking about, because the traffic is very concerning to me as well. Currently now, we only have 75 units that are being occupied in the Bliss Tower. I think maybe there's one unit within the Columbia Apartments. So there's not that many cars. And the parking lot that's there off of State Street is right in the park, where All the remediation needs to be done. That has, I think, 26 spaces. And at this point, even those 26 spaces, maybe 18 or 19 is when most people are there. But when you're looking at 51 parking spaces that are on North 2nd Street, that's really concerning to us because they're going to be exiting and entering. And again, where are all these deliveries going? I have not seen anything. on any of the plans where sanitation goes, where deliveries, how is that working? And it's also kind of scary, too, because we were just hearing that there is only one entrance, one lobby entrance into the building.

So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you.

Sharon, Brian? Well, I think it was my part where I was going to say this pretty much answered by one of the gentlemen that spoke earlier, so I'll say to pass. And just go, Marcus, if you can.

Is she talking to me?

It was confusing because you were . Thank you. Good evening.

Portability housing and responsible planning really must go together. Portability does not eliminate coordinated planning questions this Board must consider. A project of this size affects traffic, parking, drainage, construction safety, emergency access, green space, surrounding streets, and city services. These issues affect the BLIS residents as well as the surrounding neighborhood. The current record does not clearly show how these impacts are going to be evaluated, what standards are being applied, or what mitigation will be required when the problems are identified. The importance of creating affordable housing should call for more scrutiny. Please require a complete record accessible to all on these impacts before granting final approval. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Marcus. Hi.

So, one...

Sorry. Yeah. So, I'm sorry. Okay. So, let me start. My name is Nidalee. I'm HUD's new resident. So, Friends of Second Street We've heard that Mayor Ferris recently described the BLIS Phase 1 redevelopment as funded and non-stopable at this point. If that accurately represents our current situation, we respectfully ask the Mayor to confirm and explain it publicly. If this specific plan is already irreversible and not subject to change in scope, why is the Planning Board continuing a public hearing? Why is the Zoning Board still considering variances? and what meaningful decision remains for either the planning board or the public. I've learned of previous meetings and forums leading up to where we are today, but I've also become increasingly aware of how unaware most of us in residence are of the details of this plan. We ask for clarification on exactly what has been funded, what work is actually being done, and if it's true that the project cannot be stopped or changed in any way at this point. We also ask this board to affirm that this review remains independent and that public participation can still influence a project's size, design, conditions, and ultimate approval. Otherwise, this public process becomes a little more than a formality. Thank you. Tell me your name again. Yes, sir. Meade, M-E-A-D-E, surname A-L-I. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for your comments.

Are you all set on names? We're going to get back into it. We need to be back. Okay. I want to make sure you have opportunity for names.

The next.

My name is Jeanette and I'm a Hudson resident. This proposal would be more than double the development size. The existing 135 apartments become 276 and that increase of 141 units. Even at an average of 2.1 people per apartment, the completed development could house roughly 500 million residents. That is substantial concentration of people and activity on this site. Yet the current record does not provide a clear final population projection for bedroom mix. At full build out, the plan provides 174 parking spaces with model peak demand of 167, only a seven space cushion. Questions also remained about traffic, emergency access, school enrollment, sanitation, and demands on city services. Please require reliable population, parking, and service impact analyses before approving a development of this scale.

Thank you, Janet.

Lloyd.

Dear Lloyd, you've all been getting your voice to reason.

Savior of the Tree of Peace, and now originator of the Shimmer Methodity, seeking ethical restoration through sovereign humanity, sacred honor, and spiritual harmony. So this project, now I'm also been an observer of the municipal process.

I've watched a lot of these meetings. I've been to more planning board meetings than some planning board members. So I'm actually quite impressed with the developer.

I mean, I know what they went through. I was there two years ago. They were looking for $2 million for a grant they didn't get for the demolition of the building. Okay, that didn't happen. But at that time, I said, who thinks this building is not coming down?

You look at the facts.

I will tell you one thing from the site visit that kind of piqued my curiosity was this word hydrolysis. Now, you look into the engineer probably understands what i'm talking about if you look at hydrolysis that is the degradation of the material concrete you know that the slabs of the existing building are made up of the rest of each one that for people walk so i said at the last meeting this building is coming down whether it comes down from or it comes down through some sort of labor managed construction process And I got to tell you, a very impressive mock-up and their work and how they maneuvered and managed and shifted and adjusted to the various, you know, things that came up. So I would say it's not a perfect world.

And moving forward, I don't see another plan.

And if there was another plan, it would be something worthy of considering. But currently, we have this plan. Now, this developer has really been quite accommodating and flexible and willing to listen and hear and adjust and make the changes. And we have what we have now. Is it perfect?

No, it's not a perfect world. It'll probably never be perfect. There's always going to be something wrong. But that's just, you know, that's just the material, that's just the, you know, the ground that we're, you know, we're coming from.

I'm a supporter of the project. Right now, about 84 units or 75 units out of, what, was it 130, 235? You know, that's like taking away three stories from the building, the existing building.

It's not an eight-story building.

Functionally, it's a five-story building with three extra floors that, you know, are a hazard.

So, I'm in favor.

Thank you, Lord. That is me.

Hiya.

Okay.

And higher one. Higher one. Then we have Katie Elkerman. She also left. So, people that. Yes, yes. Bill Foreman. Here. Thanks very much.

Thanks, Chairman.

Thanks, Planning Board. I would love to advocate for this project. I'd love to see stuff getting built in Hudson and get involved, and I can't advocate for this project. It actually makes no sense to me. It feels to me like what we're doing is solving problems at a level of detail in behalf of the builder. And I don't see the flexibility there since they're sticking to their economic model in terms of number of units, et cetera, that they need to meet their numbers. It does not, in my mind, relate to the urgency of the need to take care of the folks at Bliss And that should happen within a year, not three years. It doesn't relate to a fundamental tragedy about Hudson that needs to be addressed, which is multi-generational poverty. And there's nothing in the history of housing projects that would suggest that helps that.

It's a more complicated and more cohesive answer to that.

And there's nothing, in this project that demonstrates that we accept what the good life is and can be an option for everyone, which is greenery, trees, open spaces, sitting outside, picnics. The damn thing doesn't even have a grocery store or a cleaner or simple amenities that would make life possible to have some joy. i think the project should be reconsidered i think the planning board needs to step back and say who are we working for to make the builder wealthy on this project or for the people of the city of hudson do you have something great thank you

I personally, when I think of quality of life cleaners, not one of the first things that come to mind.

When I heard your question asked, Peter, my immediate visualization, since I might have stayed in a hotel or two, big scale, if you are in a back-end hotel room, there are secured entrances for people that are staying on that side of the building. That's what I'm envisioning, not one entrance to lobby for everybody. Tenants have secured access to other points of the building, if I'm correct in that. Maybe they can do a better job visualizing that, but that's what I'm hearing. As far as quality of life, some of these families have lived in this type of neighborhood, a dense neighborhood, since the inception of Bliss Towers. You're projecting onto them that a beautiful townhouse and spread out housing is what defines the character of a neighborhood that they have either decided to live in or would like to continue living in, their relationship to their neighbors. It has been articulated at meetings that many of you have never attended at the housing authority. Most of this design came from hearing tenants that do attend meetings and what they would like to see for their property. So understood, we're all neighbors. We live in the city of Hudson. Many of you live close to list towers, but you don't live in list towers. And there are two residents here that have been here since the beginning and continue to show up. and listen to some of these comments. They share their feedback with developers. One of them sits on the Housing Authority Board. I think it's very brave of them. And I think their public comments need to be almost more important when we're considering what quality of life for this property actually is. Thank you.

I'd like to ask if there's anyone else that would like to speak.

We have two individuals that raised their hand. First, the speaker. Hi, I'm Eli. I live on State Street.

I was going to speak, but I hear that it's the quality of life some, and about how people are worried that it's going to be just like a solid block of building. And that the green space in the middle turns its back on the city, which is, it seems so silly to me because that's, I mean, I live on the city street. That's exactly what my building is. That's exactly what all the buildings on my street do. I have a backyard, you know, no one's allowed in my backyard. I turn my back on the city every day. I sit in my own little project green space and I think it's silly to think that our other neighbors shouldn't be able to enjoy that same kind of like I'll live a building, but we all enjoy growing our own lighters.

And in regards to my grocery store, growing my own lighters, I'll live here. So I think we all enjoy this.

Thanks. Hi, my name is Dan McMullen.

I live in Hudson, and I have a studio on Rope Valley. Can you speak up? My name is Dan McMullen. I live in Hudson. I have an artist studio on Rope Valley. which is where i work and um i uh used to public speaking but i am concerned about the density i don't think that this project can't be came back to the drawing boards uh there are 75 residents i don't see why they can't build a building for 75 residents and then uh continue on 135 to build a uh a project for 276 uh it just seems like it's

the landscape of our neighborhood where I live. Also, we've had problems with water in our home on Robinson Street and in our apartments there and in the basements. And I'm concerned about this aggregate. Peers, I don't really know what the analysis of that really is. a huge problem in basements on Robinson Street with water, and I don't know if this is solving that problem. Bliss Towers, since it was built in 1973, has had problems with water. I don't know how the AHA has addressed these problems. There's never been proper maintenance to that building. Going forward, I don't know if Mount Co, which is based in Scarsdale, I don't know if they're aware of

I don't know if they're invested 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 50 years in this project that they're building. Are they going to manage this project? Is HHA going to manage this project? What's going to happen in 10 years for this building? What's going to happen in 20 years, 30 years?

These are the problems that we've had with them. So I'm very concerned about that. We live in Hudson.

And I'm going to sit down because I had a flu shot yesterday. I feel so well. Thank you for coming here. So I have a question about long-term durability. I'm concerned that is Malibu going to manage this? Is HHA going to manage this? What's going to happen to this building in 10 years? What's going to happen in 20 years? What's the problem you have with this tower? Is it the residents you've got a problem with? And are we taking care of the resident supplies in a proper way?

you dan claire just one more comment i also wanted to express i have full faith in the planning board to do their due diligence secret is a huge part of the planning work process so many of the questions that were asked of the planning board do get addressed by secret if it doesn't pass secret then that means that the quality of life is severely affected so if they determine that it doesn't affect your quality of life, I would remind you this is why this board is put in place. If there are other candidates that you think could do a better job at the planning board process, you should probably nominate them.

I'd be happy to vacate my seat until I'm out.

It's the last person.

Okay. Okay.

Please introduce yourself. My name is Estelle Houskon. I live here in Westland.

Could you say your name one more time?

Esra Özkan. Thank you. My question is, are there any other alternative site analysis being completed? Because building on the site, the soil conditions will be costly, and also demolition of the lease powers when the new construction is finished, so close proximity to the newly built residences will be a problem. Yeah, and residence protection during construction. Before approval, there will be a detailed construction and resident protection plan addressing the demolition and hazardous materials. But yes, alternative site analysis platforms and I would like to see that.

Thank you for your comment. One last call for public comments. One last call.

I know it's online.

It's online, but I know public hearing is just for in person. Sorry. Any other public comments? Okay, Board, thank you all for participating in this process. Your contributions are vital to helping us make an informed and aware decision. And as I said before, all of your comments will go into public record, and we will take into consideration your thoughts, your points of view, your recommendations, and your questions. I now turn to the Board to discuss whether or not we continue the public hearing with an adjournment. or if we close the public hearing.

I have a procedural question. What's the guiding logic here? Because I feel like there's, I don't want to artificially constrain us to that 62-day window. That said, I feel like the public comment record is deep. And we've read it. A lot of it's the same points made over and over. But I don't think we're going to learn or hear anything new Personally, but I don't know. Yeah, but it's also. Presumably we could. Close it at the next meeting. Have another meeting like this. Uhm? We could, you know, we could vote. Sooner or later, as long as it's within that 62 day window. So that was like it's our job to determine we've heard it not be so good, or is it to start this 62 day clock that we need to educate

I feel like that's my, I'm basically exactly where you are. I think that I would describe at this point. No, no, no, no. I feel like we've heard a lot of comments and a lot of them are highly overlapping. If you look back at all the hundreds of them there are at this point. But I do have the same question that you do around procedure and there's stuff that we have not received from the APOC and and do we get ourselves, all of us, like both in like a weird... I think you addressed that there's a way to work around this, but when we were chatting in the sidebar, we should probably have that conversation as a whole at work. Do we have any questions here? Yeah.

Well, without any of your... I hesitate to talk about the legal, but I believe I understand this, and those on the board can correct me where I'm wrong, but I think our job is to feel, to reach a conclusion that we have heard, we've thoroughly heard the public's point of view, and I would agree that I feel like we have. And it's been rich, and it's been deep, and it's been all over the place. But that's kind of what we want, right? So if we vote to close, then we are required to take action on the application within 62 days.

Seven days a week, or does that count Sundays, or is that? It's 62 days. One of the things that I think we can maybe discuss with the applicants if there is a possibility, depending on the amount of time that they need and the volume of information coming back, they could relax that. They could agree to give a little bit more time to that.

I certainly will work with the board. You know, I was just speaking to John Maggio. If the board feels more comfortable leaving the public hearing open, we're fine with that. The board are rather close to public hearings. That's fine as well. Whatever submissions we're making are really just amplifications and more detail of what we've already presented. So we're not going to be putting in any new information. So I think the board is free to close the public hearing if they want. And obviously, once you close the public hearing, starting with Bach, we would work with the board with a reasonable time frame to extend that time if needed.

I see. So the clock is to protect the applicant from if it does not take action.

But leave as consent. By initial consent, we can extend it later. Any other thoughts or comments?

My only thought is what do we do with that time? Are we deliberating on conditions and are we using the time? Yes. And how much time do we give ourselves to work through those?

I think that I would be persuaded that we keep having public meetings, people work, they make an effort to be here, they make an effort to bring their point of view. But if we feel like we've really heard the whole story, then is that really fair to extend it just because we had a process question that we're trying to protect ourselves from?

We do, but I would love to know if other people think we should leave it open. But I feel like we've heard every flavor of a series of different speakers.

So the chair would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Do we have a vote, Slickard? We have a vote.

Woodball.

Yes.

Speer.

Yes.

Schatzky.

Yes.

Vogel.

Yes.

Blacks. Yes. Congress. Yes.

Thank you. Thanks again. We're going to take a 10-minute break, so folks can hang around.

You're welcome, but if you'd like to get out of here and maybe have a light.