Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Oh, meeting to order.

Planning Board of Hudson. Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Waldron.

Michael. Ms. Black. Mr. Shensky. Mr. Farmer. Mr. Farmer.

Mr. Farmer. Mr. Farmer.

Mr. Farmer. Mr. Farmer. Mr. Farmer.

Mr. Farmer. Mr. Farmer.

Before we get underway, a couple of announcements. First of all, this is a special meeting of the planning board. We felt that there was too much business for this month to conduct in that meeting. And there's a lot of heavy lifting occurring tonight in this meeting. So we call for a special meeting. I want to acknowledge the board and our consultants and others for giving up another night of your personal time to serve the community. on this important project and the other projects as well. Second announcement is that Peter Spear was called out of the city for business and was very unhappy that he had to miss this meeting because he understands the heft of the topics that we're dealing with tonight. Those are my two announcements. Any other comments or announcements before we get into the business of the evening?

Yes, I would like to make.

Sorry?

I think most people who have been following the recent public media talk about this project may have seen a concern expressed in the Register Star and gossips about whether or not my participation in the discussion of the HHS project constitutes a real or perceived conflict of interest. Before I was appointed, because I previously served As a board, as a member of the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority from January 2025. Till when I resigned prior to being appointed to this board and we spoke, I believe the mayor spoke with the city attorneys and I had a chance to speak with the planning board attorney and Ron did as well before my appointment and just out of respect for our neighbors and this process and the applicants. I just want to clarify that I do not by any stretch of the imagination, any sort of legal threshold for a conflict of interest. I have no financial interest in this project. I'm not financially or relationally involved with any of the applicant's party other than, you know, I see Nick's office at a barbecue every now and again. And I think the matter of a perception of a conflict of interest, I think John Friedman in the Register Star was quoted as saying that I would be appointed to rubber stamp of projects that I had developed. And that wasn't my experience on the Housing Authority Board. I was appointed after the majority of the development work had been decided on, including all the sort of resident feedback. Most of what I learned about this project, I learned the same way other members of the public might have by going to the HHA meetings. I was never a member of the development committee. I essentially in no way shaped this development. I went back and checked for minutes from my appointment. We never voted on this project. I never really weighed in steps of substantively on the configuration of the project. I think I at one point later in the process asked a question in public, you know, how can the commissioners be sort of supporting this process? But so I thought there public or personal feedback on this, but I have received clearance from legal counsel to participate fully as a member of the planning board. And I think that might be all I have to say.

This is a point of clarification. The planning board is appointed by the mayor. And in this matter, the planning board itself, including the chairman, has no particular authority or position to make any determination. It would be Sarah's decision alone to decide how she wanted to engage on this particular project.

So thank you for sharing that point of view.

And now, if there are any other comments or questions or discussions before we get into our business. Tonight, we're dealing with three major topics. The first will be continuing dialogue between engineers on the engineering issues that have been raised. And Tom has spent a little more time talking about where we are in that process. But I want to acknowledge and thank both teams, the HHA engineering team and our team, for working, not just working in planning board meetings, but working in between the meetings and really working through the kind of detail that has to be done with and to approval. The second thing we'll be hearing tonight is a presentation from Alexander Gorlin, who is the design architect on the project. I anticipate this will be the most thorough presentation we'll have on this topic. And I think it will help answer a lot of questions that we've been dealing with in a maybe more piecemeal way. And I think Alex's willingness to come up from the city the goodness to make this presentation will really help not only help us understand sort of the context, philosophy, sort of intellectual guidelines that helped shape this project, but also more effectively how it really fits within the context of our community. So we're looking forward, Alex, to your presentation. And finally, Andrew will take us through the next stage as a seeker, which will be the Q&A that we had started before. There are two possible action items tonight. Yes, two. We may decide to take action on CEQR, which means we may decide that there's either a positive or a negative determination. And we may be deciding tonight on scheduling the public hearing. And the public hearing, while we continue to work on the details of the ongoing application, the public hearing really becomes the capstone of the process before the board ultimately makes the decision on the application. So the public hearing gives the voice of the public an opportunity to be a part of the record and to bring their lived experiences into the conversation. So it's an important part of the process. Many other boards and agencies in Hudson have public comment at every meeting that our process is a prolonged process and the public is not invited to be a part of the conversation until all of the data and all of the information has been brought forward. So it's a different kind of a structure than many of the other organizations have found, but it's an important part of the process. So with that, I'd like to go ahead and turn it over to Tom to begin us on down the path with the engineering work. Thank you. So our office reviewed this. Oh, I shouldn't forget. I wanted to remind Jeffrey and Rhonda to make opening comments before we get into the meat. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening Chairman Vogel and planning board members. Thank you for allowing us to be here again. We're pleased to be here to once again present the housing authority redevelopment initiative. I'll lay a background. You all are aware that the housing authority at home manages 135 units called Bliss and Columbia, Bliss Towers and Columbia Apartments. Prior to my arrival, there was a comprehensive physical news assessment that was completed. The conclusion was that the building was obsolete, inefficient, and not viable for rehabilitation. As a result, full replacement is not just recommended, but necessary. We are fortunate, we have a really great team. We have our development partners who have years of experience in affordable housing. They've developed thousands of units throughout the region. Myself, who brings lived experience as I was a public housing resident, as well as working in the industry for a number of years. And our board of commissioners who are dedicated to ensuring that the housing authority mission is obtained. So we have been very intentional and thoughtful about how we crafted our plan, our development plan. And, you know, with that, we've designed a place that's going to have better amenities, a good housing, and sustainable long-term viability. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to LaVonda, who's going to who's our board chair, proud to say she's our board chair, who is also a lifelong Hudson resident. I mean, she's going to share her perspective on the project as well as her experience.

Thank you for that, Jeff. Thank you guys for being here. As Ron said, I really appreciate you guys taking out the time to see us and have a special meeting. As you all know, I was born and raised in the Hudson House and Authority. I've been now on the board for six years this month, so to see us here is just like absolutely amazing. I never thought that they would even come. And yeah, I just want to say with the board really took their time and we had Nick as our interim director really finding an executive director to make this contribution, which they're going to be able to find on final code, which has been like absolutely amazing. And then Alex on top, he just puts a cherry right on top. And are they here tonight? And they just really, and they kept the group on top and I'm not going to carry on as you guys know what my deal is. I'm just very excited to see this, you know, start happening and something coming about. So thank you all for being here.

Thanks, Chair Brady. Thanks, Kevon. So let's get underway.

Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would just like to... For the record, my name is John Mathew. I'm the executive vice president of Malco Construction and Development Corp. We're the housing authority's partner. Several years ago, the housing authority went through an open public process to select a development partner. The city was involved in that. City staff was involved in the interviews and reviewing the applications. Malco was selected, and we've been working with the housing authority since then. Just want to spend just a couple of minutes Um, to give a larger perspective, I know what your responsibilities are to review the site plan, but for interests of transparency for the public, I just want to give you a couple of words on where we are in the process. This is a long process. The primary funding for this project is going to come from the New York State Division of Homes and Community Renewal, the Housing Finance Agency. It's the primary source of funding for affordable housing in the state right now. It is a competitive process. We are in competition with other housing authorities to get a limited source of funding. The Housing Finance Agency usually has financing closings two or three times a year. Right now, we've been told that we've been slotted for potential closing in December of this year if we have all of our approvals in place, meaning site plan approvals, building permits, and all the other financing. I think that you should know that We've already received for this project several commitments of funding from the state through the pro-housing application process, several million dollars there. The project has been approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for a brownfield site, okay, which allows us to remediate some of the existing conditions on the site and provide some additional funding for the project. and also the downtown revitalization initiative, we've received funding under that program as well. So a lot of the financing is already in the works, and we're moving towards December closing, hopefully. And I can't emphasize enough, the competition for these funds is significant, as you can imagine. Just very briefly, and the architects will go into this in much more detail so that you have an idea. You're all familiar with Bliss Towers. There's 135 units on the site now between Bliss Towers and Columbia Apartments. Through extensive studies, it was determined that it really wouldn't be prudent to try to renovate those buildings. Rather, a proper approach after talking with our architects and engineers and the state is to provide new housing. which gives us an opportunity to really create a new environment. And the architects are going to talk about how this gives us the opportunity to create a development that's really more in keeping with the Hudson community than a nine-story masonry building, which we're going to take down. So the application you have before you is just 466 units, three buildings, and it's a townhouse site, two four-story buildings. We spent a lot of time with the community over the course of the last couple of years talking about design and bringing people in and getting their input. So the design that the architects are going to talk to you about is something that we've refined. I'm not saying it's final, but we spent a lot of work on it. So we're anxious to get your input into it. And I'm going to stop there and then ask John first, our attorney, to do the planning piece. I wanted to create that outline so that the public is aware of where we are and what we're doing. We're continuing to have discussions with the state and the state has been very responsive. This is a priority project to the state to get this stuff. So thank you very much. Are there others that are speaking?

Just not the planning board engineer talk. I think we, you know, I think they're very good comments. So our office was asked to review the submission that came out May 14th. It looked like that submission was made a lot to address a lot of the comments and discussion at the last planning board meeting, focusing on the general site plan, landscaping, lighting, architecture, things like that that the planning board asked for at the last meeting. It was also focused on a lot of the secret process with EAF materials and supporting materials included in that. So our office went through that. We also went through the prior engineers comments and we issued just a sort of mirroring of the approvals that are needed that are on the eaf already we're already known we just like to say that early on because this one is going to kind of work as a checklist as these comments are addressed we'll keep them in here and we'll say common address or comment remains and try to explain things further um so the site plan that was submitted was pretty much the same site plan you've seen in the last submission and one of our one of our primary comments on that was just to make sure that we incorporate um the townhouses properly So the townhouses are in a different zone. They're in the R4 zone, and there's been some discussion about how to make that work because a lot of the setbacks don't really work. So I know there's discussion about having that either be ZBA variances or potential zone change to GC like the rest of the other sites.

So I can answer that question. So we did make an application to the zoning board for about seven area variances, mostly with respect to setbacks, front yard, side yard. maximum lock coverage, as well as number of dwelling units. So the application has been submitted. We are tentatively scheduled for the ZBA meeting on June 17th, I believe it is.

Okay. There was a separate plan as well for that townhouse site that was with the ZBA that I think was, it was submitted, but I don't know if it was reviewed because based on comments, it looks like we didn't see it. A separate sheet in there? That's just dealing with the R4 zoning site, yes.

I didn't see that in the submission. Okay. Well, it's submitted to the zoning board.

So maybe the question is, was he submitting to the planning board? Because he's probably not reviewing the zoning board, so.

Yes, if it went to the zoning board, we would have probably started. That might be good, so it would be good. Probably get to get a look at that and confirm that the variance you're asking for all the ones that are genuine.

Does anybody's determined that the code enforcement officers are doing that down next to CBA attorney? So my understanding is the process is the code enforcement officer who's the one that's yes has jurisdiction to make those determinations and interpret the code will issue a letter kind of confirming. OK, yes, you need these variances or maybe we missed one. Maybe we don't need one. So we hope to have that letter within the next couple of weeks. And then we'll have a preliminary meeting before the zoning board, and they'll kind of confirm the code enforcement officer's determinations and make sure we get everything right for the public hearing notice.

Okay. And then our comments kind of tagged onto that. If that process was going to be long-winded, if you wanted to consider moving that piece of it to phase two, that might be something you could consider.

I think we want to, you know, we've had that conversation internally, but it's a very important component and piece of this project. to get those townhouses up and running sooner rather than later. So I think the goal right now is to include them in phase one. Obviously, if we hit some bumps in the road, we're going to have to reassess.

So I think our letter was pretty clear in a lot of the comments. We're available if anybody has questions on those things, but we tried to focus on the big ticket items, like confirming the water wastewater availability, which is a process through the city that I'm thinking people are familiar with here.

The zoning, the EAF approvals.

And then we focused on a lot of the the seeker stuff. So draft part three narrative was offered. We went through all the details on that. That draft part three looks at all the different potential impacts and speaks to how or if they're going to be. adverse or major in any way and addresses those. That was very helpful to have the draft on and we made some comments on that and shared it with the planning board here. Minor comments that are just going to make it a little stronger and clarify some stuff. I think we also reviewed the traffic report, the parking reports. And while they were well put together and everything like that, they didn't necessarily match the numbers on the plan. So that was one of our comments too, just to make sure all the charts and tables in the plans matched the reports or the reports matched the reports.

And I think that's about the good highlight on our comments. Unless there's any other questions or somebody has such a fact.

No. I don't have any issues with adjusting the comments. If you want to go through them one by one, we can, but I don't see anything that doesn't

I don't have any to go through one by one, but like I said, if there's questions on what we would ask for is when a brief submission was made, if there could be a response letter to these comments saying how you're addressing them, that's very helpful. That's how we do it every time.

Thank you. So we'll resume this conversation at the June meeting and hopefully bring it to conclusion.

And there may be a new submission that addressing some of these, in which case there'll be a new letter saying comment address potential.

And I appreciate that you submitted all your materials by the deadline for this meeting. There's a lot of materials all in one afternoon. Somebody was, somebody was talking about it. But just to get it on the record, our deadline for the June 9th meeting would be what, Lincoln? It was two weeks prior. Sorry. 15 days.

Those are too late. Well, that's right.

Oh, my gosh. You have no time. It's tomorrow. Jeff and I will talk and see if we can negotiate that a little bit so you have a little bit more time. We'll chat after the meeting tonight. Thank you. Anything else on the engineering discussion?

I don't know if you want our site civil engineer to kind of go through the site plan real quick before we turn it over to Alex and his architectural review.

Yes, that would be helpful. Get everybody's bearings. Okay.

I don't know if you can see the plan. Well, it's hard for the public and for the planning board to see it at the same time, but maybe present it from over there.

I think that's fine. So if you're all familiar with the streets involved, North 2nd Street is here.

State Street is here. Columbia Street runs parallel to State Street at the bottom of the page. The Bliss Tower sits here, which is eight stories. So you see it very much. I think I saw it coming in on the roof. And then there's some lower townhouses or kind of units along this side. This is what we call phase two between Columbia Street, State Street, and North 7th Street. On the site, this area over here is grass. It has a parking lot. It has like a little gazebo area and another building over here. That is all planned to be demolished and turned into this building, which is shaped like that. On our site plan, you can see that we highlighted that we're going underneath the building with the parking lot. and parking behind the building off of State Street. And the building is located along the frontage of State Street, sort of like the streetscape. It's here in downtown. Then there's across the street, across State Street. In this location, there's a couple of little buildings, a couple of little parking areas, but that's the area for the second part of this. phase one. So this building and this building will be built first. The applicant then plans to move the tenancy from this building and these buildings into the new facilities, clearing up the ability for us to come back and get a new plan approved for the phase two, which you can see is a quite nice parcel. It was towered right here. So in that case, the building would be L-shaped and it's on Columbia Street instead of State Street, making for a usable open space right in the middle of the project. A couple of things that we did from the last time that you saw it. We originally had a parking lot in this location and we determined with John Canning, our traffic consultant, that extra parking there is not necessary. So we'd like to make that into a temporary open space play area for the duration of the time when this is under construction. Once this is finished, then this would be restored to a parking lot and the recreation area would be relocated to the open space in the center of the project. So that's That was a comment somebody made, and it was a good one. So we decided that was what we would do. Along this area here, we have some retaining walls. Coastal grades drop off sharply right at this area. There's a forest, and if you look here, you'll see that it drops off. The rest of the site slopes gently. From State Street to here, we have, I believe, like 15 feet or 20 feet to drop down the street, even though it doesn't look steep, it's a long way and it drops quite a bit. So the building appears to be, you know, out of the ground here. And Alex will talk about how that is treated architecturally, but it's incorporated into the design. So the design, the entrance, Everything is all designed to accommodate, you know, ADA parking, direct access to a lobby, elevators to the various floors, and similarly over here, there's a grade change between here and over here. So this is about the average grade where this entrance is. And there's also a proposed space under here, which is also even with the grays from the street on State Street. So then the last thing we talked about was the townhouses. The units are here. There's actually three lots, which will combine into a single lot and then provides for four townhouse units. And I think there's actually six units in the four buildings. So they're not all uniform. Behind it is a small parking lot that serves it. In terms of stormwater, we're going to have underground stormwater retention basins located here. Phase two will have one located in this area. And then phase one has another one in this area. And then there's some underneath this just to handle the impervious area that we're creating and any stormwater impacts. I don't know if there's, as far as parking, John has a parking study. He established how many parking spaces we needed, and so we provided that amount of parking spaces throughout. This phase two, the plan right now is to have additional parking to be under the building along Columbia. So that's partially an upgrade on-grade parking in this location. That's about it. I don't know if you have any questions. Phase one is approximately 2.28 acres, 160 units. Parking space is 131. A1 has bedrooms 92. B1 has 166. This is A1. This is the B1 building. Phase two will have 116 units in this building here and 37 additional parking spaces once we have this turned back into parking. And the town homes are six solar units, six parking spaces, and it's 0.155 acres. This piece is three. point eight, seven acres. So this is much larger than the combination of these two areas. We're not proposing separate lots. This will be one parcel, right? We're going to be subdividing this.

We are. I have several tax parcels. Okay, so we're going to do subdivision line for this for a three-month mortgage. Correct. And then we did submit a subdivision application with reliability on site back in October.

Oh, yeah.

Okay. Forgot about that. I'm sorry. Okay. So that's my presentation, unless you have any questions.

We're good. Any questions like this? As the board's always gotten to see with me, I'm going to come out soon. concerns at this point. And so I really . Two points. I guess I just had a question about, I know there's an ongoing project to do sewage separation that has made its way slowly. I think Up to the corner? Yeah, it's here all the way. And here it's already separated. That was basically my entire question.

That was a clear project by the city. Not very much.

So we as a city have a problem that is like across the entire city. Similar in a For one of our sewers, it's all combined into one sewer pipe. So like drains from Partscape go into the same as sanitary waste. And it's a problem because of the closure rates. And so the city, it's like a $500 million, 50-year-long project. The city is undertaking the state support to split that apart so that there's a sewer, a sewer, et cetera. And that's great because then we, when it rains, there's not an overflow back.

I see. And so, yeah, that makes sense from what I know about how this other part of the city.

We have the plans for the original separation, which was not too long ago. Of course, the river is down here. And so they naturally started at the low end, you're going to separate it. You want to start at the sewage treatment plant and the water discharge through the Hudson and work your way back up. I don't have plans for here, but I know that here it has been done already.

Other questions? Comments? Yes.

It's just a minor one. I think you said the parking lot in phase one, there's going to be a retaining wall? Yes. Because there's a slope?

Yes.

Is there going to be any sort of fencing around that as well?

Yes. The plan shows provokes fence around top, obviously for safety, because there'll be a large drop off. We can't just have it without fence.

I just didn't hear that. That was all.

I didn't say it. That's why I didn't hear it. But that's not, of course, we'll have fences. We have that along here. There's also a lower retaining wall here. Well, we don't want any cars driving off, so we have that room for a guide rail, a fence, and all the safety that you would need for that.

Sorry, our comment letter included something on that, too. I have to detail that as well. So it's all the same thing, and we wanted to make sure it was clear.

Yeah. I have one other question, which is the part of the building that is, sorry, essentially pictured, or where the second floor overhangs?

Yeah, the lobby comes in on the lower floor and then the main floor. On the second floor. Right. So this is elevation 70. This is elevation 60. So this is coming in 10 feet below the, probably 12 feet below this first floor of this building.

I think we're talking about the parking lot interest on 2nd Street, is that what you're talking about?

Yeah, that's what I was asking about. Is that parking lot interest? Where there's the second floor on here, there is no first floor in this area. You drive through and there's only a second floor apartment. I think, Jean, at the last meeting you brought this up as well, but I feel like there is a, I do have a, just not a concern really, but I think just like from just like the board feeling fully comfortable with the And just like making sure that there's no concerns at all. It would be really good to have a letter from the fire department, just like a letter saying, no concern around access to the back parking lot and back of the building through that sort of arch tunnel feature. Just because I have no idea like what their The fire trucks can fight fire from the street here.

I don't think that the fire department would come into a different parking lot.

Brian, we met with the fire department and that's why he's searching these eyes underneath the building so they can get their equipment through.

I don't know if it's a letter to them.

I don't think they probably would do it.

Yeah, I have no idea. I'm not quite a person. I think it's great, those meeting items, but I just want to make sure that it's in the project record and document as a sort of setting. Thank you. Other questions or comments?

More about just like resident building access and narrative way. I'm looking at B1 in particular. I see one

I don't want to move over.

Before we move on, I want to make a comment, mostly for the record, and on behalf of Peter Spear, who had expressed some concerns that I'm sympathetic with. And that is, as we approach this project, the comprehensive plan address the one issue it addressed was that we should seek to correct the harm that was done during the urban renewal period in our communities. And so we want to reflect the fact that the board is cognizant of that, and I believe that the applicant is cognizant of that, and I believe we'll be hearing some ways that the project is addressing those harms that were created. But one of the issues that most cities struggle with is how to break up the megablocks, the big blocks that were created when these urban projects were created. In this instance, Chapel, which on the other side of 2nd is long . Chapel from 2nd to 1st was closed. There wasn't a 1st Street connection between State and Columbia. But in the non-business, in the non-meeting times when we've had conversations, we've explored different ideas about how we might address that. without completely disrupting the project, the idea of opening chapel between second, what would be first would be, it's just would be unacceptable and undoable. But we kicked around the idea about, could you open first street between Columbia and state? Because there's a parking lot there that's in the same footprint as first street. So I think in the end, I think we want to, first of all, acknowledge that we are paying attention to the conference plan. Two, we are exploring ways that we can achieve some of the objectives of the plan within the context of the real world. But we'd also like to, I mean, I even explored with Andrew the idea of putting some conditions on approval so that some future planning board and some future HHA applicant, when they start rebuilding the space between what would be 1st Street and 2nd Street, that they really give consideration to reopening Chapel in that superblock and opening First Street. But as Henry said, we really can't commit future planning boards to obligations. So I think maybe just as a gesture that we are cognizant that our role is to help implement the comprehensive plan. So these are conversations that we're having, explorations that we're having, but also I think will be informed better after the presentation on architecture because the connections that Mr. Worley will make in terms of how they responded to some of the issues of the decisions that were made in the 70s that were made by people who I'm sure were strong civic leaders, but their context was different than ours. And so we're making as much progress as we can in this project and hope the future HHA and planning where teams can make even further changes to address those farms. So with that, I think that would conclude our engineering discussion. Anything else you want to add? Anything? Okay. Thank you, sir. And Nathan, did you have something else? Yeah, I'd say thank you.

Yes, Alexander? Yeah, sure. First.

i'll refer to this later but this is a little longer than third the uh that shows the sequence of events uh from the existing bliss tower uh sitting alone on its hill anti-urban what is what i have i i mean let's try the drawing show this but And then phase one would include, it's really to emphasize how it's essential that this tower be taken down. I don't think there's any question about that. Well, I think it's possible because also these townhouses, which have very few people in them, are very close to phase one construction. And then after, people are decanted into the uh, first phase, then phase two would be built and that would create this wonderful open green space in the center.

So, and now I will present.

So thank you for the opportunity to present, uh, to recap the history of the project actually from and of Hudson and how it will fit into the city of Hudson as well as our qualifications to do affordable housing. So I'm Alex Borland of Alexander Borland Architects and the team is Ari Upgang. I'm the design architect. He is the executive architect and that was chosen to expedite the project to make it more efficient. And our developer who I have worked with actually over the past 15 years doing a number of award winning projects. So let's start. So since 1999, I've been involved with affordable housing. This is 500 modular townhouses in East New York on landfill across from Jamaica Bay And this was built over time for the Nehemiah Housing Development Fund, which is a community organizing group that organizes faith-based congregations for political power.

And this was built over a 10-year period.

They were built in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Next. And trucked to the site and assembled on site. And they're surfaced with hardy plank. And there are 10 different colors. bay windows and a base to break up the mass and the length of these blocks.

Next.

And then these are the projects that I've done with Joel Mountie.

The Brook and the Bronx for breaking ground, which is for 100% affordable, as well as two projects for breaking ground.

So he must have been happy with one of them. In each case, they're urban buildings.

This is a street wall building. And the idea of Breaking Ground is to have the supportive services, the common services assembled in the corner and to provide a landmark for the community. And the idea was that it's designed not to look affordable, but to look like market rate housing because everyone should have a dignified place to live.

And this is also in Boston Grove and at both of these, won various AIA awards.

And then this was done, just completed last year for another nonprofit in the Bronx, Communalight. And they actually wanted a kind of Latin flair because it's in a Puerto Rican community and the colors relate not only to the logo in an abstract way, but to the ideas of Latin American colors and of various flags of the countries. And this is by Ari Alfgang, if you want to mention shortly.

So we wanted to show some lower-rise mid-rise projects, some of it will be proposing tonight. I'm glad you're on with Fleetwood Pursuit, which is in Westchester County. That's a market rate housing project, comprising four buildings adjacent to the Fleetwood train station. On the right, you have Weirfield Street in Brooklyn. Again, that one, that's also a market right there. A four-story building. So that one would be useful.

that was around .

And then from my experience in doing affordable housing in the last 25 years, I co-edited a book called Housing the Nation, Social Equity, Architecture, and the Future of Affordable Housing that assembles 20 different essays by various experts everywhere from economics to racial issues, materials, of sustainability and then a portfolio of projects at the end of the book. So I have a copy on the desk for the planning board for your perusal.

Next. And so in all our projects, we always do research into the history of the site.

And until now, we've never really discussed how this project fits into the history of Hudson, New York. So as you know, it was originally land of the Mohegan Indians, the indigenous tribes. Then the Dutch had a small settlement here called Krimerak Landing. And then in 1783, two proprietors from Antarctica and New Bedford, whalers, decided they would establish a city at the end of the Navajo part of the Hudson River.

to escape from the America, if America didn't work out. And the British came back to seize the New York City. So they picked a site that was a promontory that actually specifically for the South Bay and the North Bay. And our site was originally at the extreme edge of the city. And in fact, that slope was the bluff overlooking North Bay. So our site

is actually in the original sector of the city, near the whale fishing box over here. And from the beginning, it was a very strict grid, which had service alleys in between the main streets. So as Ron had said, in between Warren and Diamond Street, there were these service alleys, not unlike Philadelphia. Next. This is from 1838. That's the earliest map we found.

This is 1848 when the railroad was put in, and at that point that blocked the harbor.

And in fact, people thought that that was the end of Hudson, but it reinvention itself as an industrial town, including cement factories, which became controversial in the 90s, as you know. And again, our site is right here. And again, you see the whole city is about a grid, a grid of streets and blocks. That, in fact, is the problem with Bliss Tower. It's Niger. It destroys the street and the block.

Next.

These are just, you know, to show various maps of the city. 1851. Next. And this is 1871, and this is our site here. And then at that point, there was still South and North Bay, although there were no docks there. And then these are some, Projects, I mean they chose various buildings in Hudson and engrave them to show kind of how you know illustrative buildings of the city, which are mainly masonry. So here we have this tower, which as you see, sits apart from the street grid. It's it's it's actually a good example of bad urbanism. So this is the bad urbanism. modern architecture on the work of Le Corbusier, who started the idea, he wanted to destroy the street, which he thought was dark and dingy, and to create towers in the park that would be filled with sunlight, air, and greenery. And he called it the Radiant City. So this is a good example of the bad Irvington. But as you see, it has no relationship to the street. It sits alone, especially the land around it is, in a sense, leftover. It has no definition.

And the Latin definition is part of the danger because there are no eyes on the street, as the great urbanist Jane Jacobs talked about.

And the idea of a great city or a community, like the village in Manhattan or Warren Street is that the people can watch what's going on in the city and on the street and it makes it safer. So next.

And this is actually, actually I'll go back for one second.

I want you to see this. This is actually literally taken from Corbusier's model from 1920, next, of the Arabian city.

So this tower is actually based on a Parisian model. So it has very little to do with Hudson.

And this was Le Corbusier in the arrogant modern architecture gesture to impose his will on, he in fact had planned to tear down the Marais district in Paris to build this. And then over time, unfortunately, most housing developments in the United States copied that model and they often fail because they became unsafe, they were not maintained properly, and the climax of it was in 1972 when the project crew at Daigo in St. Louis was literally blown up and demolished. So here we are today.

Next.

So the idea of what we're doing is to bring back the streets, and this shows how we're pulling the streets back, buildings that we're doing are all street facing buildings, each one of them, and they create a central green open space in the center. And so now you mentioned the alley here, but that actually hasn't been there for a long time, as far as I know.

However, and as you know, North First Street was not there, but we're proposing to bring it back.

So that's one of the issues. Next. And again, showing the build-out in phase two, showing the buildings that define the street, and in relationship to the comprehensive plan, it first should be noted that the first note in the comprehensive plan, the very first thing is there should be more affordable housing in Hudson. In fact, it's mentioned 130 times in the comprehensive plan. So and the second part is no displacement, which we are not doing better open space, which we fulfilled. So I think what we were planning to do and sustainability, you'll see we're planning solar panels on the roof and green roof as well. And we're really trying to bring back the bustling urbanism of Hudson. We did some research. This is from a movie, Odds Against Tomorrow, with Harry Belafonte. It's not a very happy movie, but it is actually set in Hudson. And in 1959, when Warren Street was filled with cars, and I follow, it's actually down the center. And that's Mr. Belafonte.

And I look to the

the texture of the city on Lawrence Street to pull that into what we're doing, and especially the scale and the use of brick and big windows of a kind of dark green color, which could be copper, but that we're working on the materials right now. Next. And then also again, the scale is broken down to these three. We're doing four story buildings, but they're in keeping with the general of the city itself. And this is a very important diagram. This shows the idea that the green open space should take its place along the, as Olmsted did in Boston, the Emerald Necklace of parks, starting with the Seventh Street Park, and then the Courthouse Square, the various

pocket parks, Charles William Park and Promenade Park.

So this is in fact the same sizes and 1.6 meters. And it could be designed wonderfully to become one of the great parks of the city. So I see this not simply as building the housing blocks, but the park itself, the green open space is a positive feature that would shape the city just as

these parts are important to . So this shows very graphically phase one and the problem with leaving a blizz tower.

And it shows the general concept of breaking the mass down into smaller vertical parts with big windows and vertical window and pairs of vertical windows to create a smaller scale that relates to the existing texture of our city. And also opening up 1st Street here and parking it on the side. And then this would be phase two. And then you can see the solar panels and the green roofs as well. And then the change in elevation is almost 15 feet actually from 2nd Street,

to 1st Street down here.

So that's a significant drop, but that relates to the whole nature of Hudson, which is on this promontory, which is why it was selected as a city overlooking the Hudson. And these are some renderings we did to show the general's feeling and sensibility. This would be phase two of the open park with the street wall buildings defining the park. and also small-scale windows and bay windows at the living rooms and brick and party plank mixture to give texture and variety and to break up the mass of these buildings. There would be the entrance, the main entrance here, and then another entrance next.

Oh, this is looking down State Street. And we had initially also talked about Maybe pedestrianizing this, but that's another conversation.

But I think it's because my office is on Broadway, which has been pedestrianized. Radically in the city. Lots in common with State Street and Broadway. And then it shows where these views were taken on real team actor. Next. And then this is the entrance to the

community centers.

So this activates the lower part of the building and it would be open and there's also a fitness center there and programmatically it would be worked out whether these things are open to the public or not. But definitely the community center would be a public amenity to create more social connection, which is also mentioned in the comprehensive plan.

Next. And this is looking down from

the parking lot at 1st Street, looking up towards the community center and the main entrance there. This still has parts of phase two, so rather than the townhouse blocks there.

Next.

And these are elevations that we can look at in more detail. And again, the main living rooms have the big windows, and people can look down the street at either end, again, making it safer. And these are the plans, again, showing the entrance, the main entrance lobby, which is double height. So it's a very expansive space with seating on either side. And that can also become a place of meeting, not only for the residents, but you know it could be open for events to the community as well. And the entrance to the community room at the lower level here and fitness center.

Next. And then this is B1 and this is A1.

And A1, the lower level, has an entrance to the Hudson Housing

authority, housing authority of the lower line. And I think another thing.

Next. And this is just to recount again the whole history here, because we had on September 17th, 2024, a open workshop at the housing authority to discuss and elicit responses from the public, from the residents, although it was open to everyone, I think, as to how the one and a half acre space would be programmed.

So I made a list of 18 different ways of using the park, putting children's playground, dog runs, physical fitness areas, again, using the slope for an amphitheater or sledding. And then people made comments and they posted the comments on board. So there has been thought into this space for quite a while. Oh, and then this was just to show, again, an important city, Savannah, in which the entire city is organized around the green space, around the parks. So this was Planned in 1733, around 22 parks, each of which is about the same size as the green space of the Woods Tower site. So again, this is to show proportionally that you can do a lot with the green space that is available.

And this just shows the various potential uses for the park. Actually, it wasn't anything, it was a fragrance garden for visually handicapped. And vegetable gardens, so. All right, so that's basically the . Thank you, Mr. Grohler.

Questions or comments?

What's the current brain space?

Really, I was going to say there's It's just the space around the towers. I don't think it's really planned.

It's hard to act on. Yeah.

I was just wondering if it's expanding, if this isn't creating more space or...

It's creating more space because we're taking down the tower that's taking up the space in the middle of the site.

I understand that, but it's also being replaced by a building as well, a different shape.

I would say we're definitely making more open space.

And the space that we're planning will be defined clearly.

It won't feel like leftover space. Because a lot of the space now is also sloping down from the tower to the street. And as well as not only from the tower, but from the townhouses. So it's really, I would say most of it is not very usable.

I do remember there being some discussion about open, like actually opening, maybe even shifting building A. That's the one that was kind of going behind Ingalls Towers where, right, and shifting it to actually maybe in the future make it possible to reopen 1st Street. No, no, this plan allows for

uh let's go back to the it's a it reaches a parking lot to me but it will it's a parking lot but i i think um it could be uh it could also be seen as a street i think it needs to be designed that's right and i think uh your idea was to uh make it into a street or establish it so to the west any development that goes on would do You could even have setbacks and say things that could be.

The good news is there's no building that occupies that footprint. So it doesn't foreclose the opportunity in some future way to reopen the block across from Columbia Street.

We don't own all that land. We don't own all that land. And the existing buildings on Columbia Street are for construction. location so we can't move them until it's placed and we have a little chicken and egg so where the building sits right now if we cannot relocate those pens during the short they can stay in place and then on the flip side in the back not enough land for a full street so that we don't own the land on the other side oh i think it's meaningful anyway

Yeah, but so it's all about the city.

That house, it's a different development.

Yeah, looking at it over here now, there's like no contiguous, you couldn't walk very easily. I guess you'd have to walk over some of the next, I'm just looking at Google Maps right now with that part, but yeah. So it does sort of read like a reopening of State Street, but it's not a road.

Right, it wouldn't be ideal to be having parks and people backing out into a road. Right. That's not ideal.

Right. Yeah, you would have parallel spots, right? Parallel. Any other questions for Mr. Gruden?

Can you talk about how I think you've indicated on some of the drawings, but it was actually hard for me to interpret the site plan and how residents in all the buildings have access to the park. I think even the phase two building.

Let's go to the plan. To the actual plan.

So this is State Street here.

And the main entrance is here. And so you would cross State Street here. before you could enter from the community area, which is also will be an exit from the interior.

But I mean, all residents will have access directly to the park.

I mean, well, to the streets. This might be an engineer question more than you, but is there any thought of establishing a crosswalk there? Like it feels like that's going to be an actual point between the park and what's there.

Yes, I think that would be good. Yeah, that would be good.

well i mean the pictures look very nice looks like images from the summertime but as regarding it of course it gets cold eventually hudson so on the buildings will be well into the incident what's exactly oh yes

We need it all. We have a higher master of the answer of all this. And all the windows are double insulated. Yeah. And probably ceiling deck units.

You know, you need the pot and heating and air conditioning. Every room has its own heating and air conditioning.

And then like in the event of like, you know, major snow storms, like, you know, 12 inches and above, I mean, there would be like proper, you know, there'd be ways for residents to, you know, leave the building without, you know, too much disruption.

Well, they're looking at building now where they got 12 feet of snow.

Yeah, that would be part of our management responsibility.

I think this would be easier to plow now because the roads will be more literally. It's not like you have to, right now you don't have to walk up a hill. Right, right.

Especially if it's icy or that's it, that's it. Other questions for the board?

Comments?

This was a very helpful presentation.

And since four of the board members are new, this was really helpful for us as well. I know that the board members that have been around have seen more than we have. But I feel well informed about the plan at this point.

And thanks again for participating.

are now going to move into the third segment of our meeting and that's uh andrew's going to take us through the next secret process i think i should just set the stage for everyone you remember we were going over the part two of the secret process last time that's the long form eaf part two that contains those 18 uh potential impacts

Yeah, I need to actually put down where your doctor comes.

I'll give you a second to catch up, but if you remember, it goes through questions whether there's an impact on land, the impact on genealogical features, surface water.

Where the first drought came from.

Part two.

I have a hard copy here. So.

I feel like every time I'm like searching for them.

So we all good to start here. So if you remember, there were just the board answered a majority of these questions and found that no for small impact maker. However, there were, I think, four points that the board said we might need more information on. And I understand the applicants submitted some information to that effect and to Perth Board's request. So I'll just go through some of our comments we have highlighted. Go up to the question 11, impact on open space and recreation. Question C, the proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area with few such resources. so i think we just heard some discussion about the open space from the presentation there does the board feel they have enough information about the open space the project to make a determination on that point yeah what's their own subsequent submission i know it's just i guess like i don't remember like where our gap in the thing was yes how many of these information i'm surprised that we

I think it was a little unclear what was replacing some of the stuff.

Actually there's been like an excellent update since because I had a concern about the phase

between phase one and phase two.

Yeah, I think that's what he was addressing, your question was that parking area would become a temporary playground or recreation.

Yeah, and I think as a result, I think it's an incredibly great solution. Yeah. Yeah. So does this cover both phases of this part of the ESC?

Yeah, it's inclusive of the whole phase of the project as fully constructed. So we can take into consideration the green space that we'll talk about between the The building tonight.

OK. I have no. All good on that point, so I'll move on to the next.

So we answered no or small on that.

So I'll move on to the next one. That's prompt 13. Sub point D. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. And my comment note there was the board requested additional information

pedestrianization of State Street and potential traffic pattern changes.

I don't think you got it.

I think that the pedestrianization of State Street has been taken off.

Yeah, that's what I kind of hope too.

That was my understanding as well. And I think some of the confusion might be some of the narrators in the portal are older narratives that might still suggest that's still part of the case. But I think it'd be good to hear from the applicants if that's still to come.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. For the record, my name is John Canyon. I work for Kildee Horn. I'm a traffic engineer and a licensed professional engineer. So we performed two traffic studies for this project. One without pedestrianization of State Street. So we assume all 276 units would replace the 135 that are there and the street network would stay the same as it is. And then the second one, because we're considering Seeker, we want to make sure we cross all our T's, dollar eyes, and cover all the bases, assumes all 276 apartments are built replacing 135, and assumes that State Street is pedestrianized so you can no longer drive along it. I'm not saying that that's going to happen, but we have evaluated the potential traffic impact of pedestrianization from a traffic perspective. Obviously, if you're a pedestrian, you can still walk on State Street, It would divert 100 vehicles in the busiest hour from State Street over to Columbia Street. Our intersection capacity analysis indicated that all intersections would operate at level of service B or better. In fact, all of them would be level of service A, except one, I can't remember which one. Level of service runs from A, which is the best, like in school, to F, which is not so good. The greatest increase in delay would be on the order of a second and a half, for when you come southbound out of North 1st Street onto where it intersects with State Street now. I think that's history. Yeah, because we're pushing traffic over there. Maybe go from 1.4 seconds to 7.5 seconds, which is inconsequential. So in short, we've analyzed it without pedestrianization. We've analyzed it with pedestrianization. There's no potential impact. The applicant is not applying at this stage to do pedestrianization. It's not applying to do phase two. It's just looking for a secret clean bill of health that if it applies in the future and a future board determines that pedestrianization is a good thing, I'm not saying whether it is or not, that the secret aspect of it as to whether it will have an impact on traffic has already been addressed.

Thank you. Right. The report said it would be imperceptible Like just the current traffic load, right?

Yes, it was about one car per minute or something. That's correct. Yeah, that was a good way to look at it.

Yeah, but the secret, the evaluation we're doing tonight is based on a non pedestrianized state street. So we evaluated it both ways.

But the plan currently shows it as staying.

The plan shows it as staying. It's not being applied for a bus. If it were applied for in the future, we'd look at it.

While we have you, I'd love to ask about your concern whether or not the parking lot that extends north from 1st Street becomes an ad hoc street because people are trying to do a shortcut from Columbia to St. And now you've got a competing use for parking, backing out and other people driving.

So the answer is it's not a concern of mine. And the reason is there's really nothing on State Street. If you go down State Street, you've got the existing Bliss Tower and you've got playground on the right. Once you get beyond First Street, on the right side, it falls off into the, I think what's down there is the sewage treatment plant. And on the left side, there's a hill that backs up to all of the houses, but it's their backyards. You can't even climb up there. So no, I don't think anybody really wants to go there. So from a perspective of, you know, if I want to go for a quiet walk with my dog, it's great.

I would say that this is a negative impact. In fact, I think it improves circulation.

It gives us someone like walking. I've got another point of crossing that block. So if folks agree, that would be what I'd suggest. Okay.

Okay. So based on that, Ford will find no or small impact on transportation. And then moving on to the next one, 14. sub a the proposed action will require a new word or an upgrade to an existing substation my note here was the board required whether an electrical update is required the napkin was to provide a load letter from the utility and provide a building square foot calculation and related in relation to keeping the cool i think this was engineering

Well, that would be how you would be able to determine that. You need to know how much power you're using, so you know how much surplus power there is in the grid. That's not something we can provide. It would need to be provided by the applicants.

With that, can you speak on that?

Yeah, I don't think we have a little bit yet, but I think the point is what is currently there is obviously outdated and now it's energy efficient. What will be proposed will have to meet the New York State Energy Code. all the requirements and i think the architect and joel had kind of went into some of the factors as far as the the uh the energy star of like the new multi-family construction so um the code has obviously been changed and updated over the last 34 years in fact over the last couple years the code has been much more strict and stringent so i think the at the end of the day there's probably not going to be much of an impact because you have to along the building space but the building's going to be much more efficient.

The question is specifically, it's not like it's, do we need a new substation? Do we know that yet?

That, I can't answer that, but we'll have to get back to you on that. Again, it's a multifamily development. It's not an industrial. It's not a data center. You know, it's just the typical kind of thing.

I believe we filed for the low level. I think we did. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.

No, just to add, it's a nice talk. Based on what the board has, if it feels comfortable determining the no or small impact would occur from, based on what the applicant is stating here, it's going to be an energy efficient building. They're applying for the, or they have applied for the load letter. And the board should also be mindful that this is just one question out of 14 in this impact on human health.

uh section that the board says you know we're small and back down yeah the grid is huge what powers the city so i think we're talking about a drop in the bucket of that and that's more of a big statement but without numbers that's the best i can offer i'm looking for the eaf because i know there's questions i'll see if they answered that in one specific advice i'm also trying to contextualize some of these other

like 2,500 megawatt hours per year of electricity, are you like using that? Proposed action made on heating and cooling 100,000 square feet of building area. What's, those are things that I think we didn't know, like the square footage of the building area.

Yes, that was the other question. I remember in the last meeting, it was like whether we were above or below 100,000 square feet. Yeah. I think we are above 100,000. We are, once we know. Buildings? Yes. And I think that's why you checked the box after.

Driving forces to a type one action. So 100,000 square feet.

Based on our engineers observation, it doesn't sound like this is an issue.

And there's also the fact that the electric company has the required circuit. So if they, if they need to upgrade their equipment, which they'll have to do eventually with all the solar cars and everything anyway, and just progress, they will have to update stuff eventually. Will this project be the catalyst to that? I personally doubt it.

All right.

And again, this is just one point of consideration in the section of the impact.

2,500 megawatt hours is enough energy to power 350 average U.S. households, according to .

So are we okay with this?

And that's how many total are there, but there's already how many existing there. So that's really not adding that whole number.

I think that's why I wanted the same thing about the square footage. I don't think we're adding 100,000 more square feet from the list.

Now you're moving that quantity over. I'm not an engineer, but you're probably pretty close.

I also believe the project proposal is to put solar on the roof. I think this is actually a really clean project.

Yeah, between updated fixtures and solar on the roof, there's a lot of potential for using less. Yeah. But until somebody puts the numbers on it, it's hard to say.

Yeah, and it's just, I mean, I think the electricity usage reduces some of the narratives of using heat pumps instead. I think it will probably be more electricity usage, but, like, way near as a result, I suspect. Unless there's objection, I would recommend this being a little noted.

Okay, moving on, I have one more. Point 16, in fact, on human health, there's a completed emergency spill remediation or a completed environmental site remediation on or adjacent to the site of the proposed action. There's just, my note says the board expressed concern about the brownfield status. I think that was touched on tonight. I don't know if the board has any additional questions about that that were not previously answered.

There was also a good description in the part three that was offered about how the Brownfield site work would happen and how the monitoring, the environmental monitoring will happen during construction for all the VDC requirements.

So based on that, that is the part two.

Are we okay with that? From your perspective, it didn't seem like a good plan. It didn't seem like a good plan,

Well, the plan is vague right now. It's not a specific plan on how they're doing remediation. That'll be between them and the DEC. But the fact that they're acknowledging DEC oversight on it, that they need the permits and all the right things have to be done for that, then that we know the DEC is going to have a proper oversight.

Awesome. So those are all my notes from the part two of the EA.

So is the board satisfied with our part two review? Any further comments on that? Because after part two, the board can turn to part three, potentially issue a determination of significance. Now, in connection with potential determination of significance, there was a draft part three narrative as the board seen and or reviewed that narrative provided. And just to go over what that is, that's worked on by the applicant, our engineer and legal side of it. It goes through. It gives a detailed analysis of these 18 points of consideration. It sets forth how the board may determine that no significant adverse impacts will be had on each of those. I think it is 18. Yeah, 18 points.

Are we talking about file loaded on 514 draft EAM Part 3? Yes. I wasn't able to. I don't know.

I don't think so.

it's still working okay well i'll just start going over a bit it's kind of a long documentary pages it goes through each section with a bit more of a fine tooth comb and speaks on some potential impacts that the board raised and identified and further addresses how they will not be an impact or prevent a significant adverse impact on the land so based on if the board agrees with the content there and then it would potentially be proper for the board to go ahead and issue a determination of significance on the project are we ready to take some questions

And before I go that far, see if our engineer has any comments.

There were some minor comments I added to it, very minor comments. One was about the floodplains where they said there was no 100 year or 500 year floodplain on the site where it looked like a small portion of the corner of the site did have a 500 year floodplain on it, which isn't a major issue because there's no buildings in it and there'd be no impact to it. So that was just a clarity wording matter for that. And then if I could just see this please. The impact on plants and animals. We wanted to look at it a little harder and add some more language in there that we took out of a DEC letter that kind of concluded a lot of the species that are flagged as potential endangered species. A lot of them are sturgeon and water-based creatures that there's no water on the site, so there's no concern with that. And then the two that we needed to look at a little closer was the peregrine falcon and the bald eagle. And the letter from the DEC that was response to our lead agency spoke to that and said that there's no nest nearby and they had no concern with that. that's something that's in the file and that we added some words suggested some language to be added to this to specifically reference that letter something that i can't get this part to load but this yeah and the one last thing i think i mentioned on that I just didn't know if when we talk about the impact of STEM resources, if the planning board wanted to talk about how they review the architectural lighting, landscaping, and other presentations and found anything specific. That's not it. We have none of these things we're thinking you need to add, but it's things if you want to put it on the record, this is your formal record that says you took a hard look and showed what you took a hard look at.

I think of the architecture board created a sort of five page set of issues, questions and topics that we want to be reported on. They reported both in a zero written statement and it was very responsive. And then Mr. Groen's presentation tonight. And so that is, I think, a topic that's been well handled and well covered.

Do you want to put wording in something that you found, you know, that you found, what kind of conclusion you had? Do you want to put that wording in or do you want to leave it as it was drafted? That's really up to you. And I left a blank for you.

I don't think we should opine on the design because that's outside of the scope of our...

So we could just nix that comment and it would stay in the long-time without it. This is the impacts on aesthetic resources. I propose to add a comment that said the Planning Board has reviewed the architectural, lighting, and landscaping presentations provided and found. I wanted you all to put your wording in there if you wanted to.

This isn't on, you're looking at, this is not there.

This is something I added too. I had these minors suggest like track changes and share just before the meeting with the chairperson. I have it here if you want to take a look at it. But I pretty much just read it for you. These are choices I'm offering to make this record stronger.

I'm sorry, where are the track changes? That's the problem. Is that what we should,

I think it only got emailed to the legal group. This was today.

So I have no idea.

Your suggestion is that it would make our discrimination stronger.

If you wanted to say some specific thing you found about the aesthetics, if you wanted to, that's not up to you. I feel a little more strongly about editing the floodplain language, which is very minor, and the species. That's the main thing.

I think all we can say about aesthetics is that the applicant has been responsive to the board, thorough, and provided a wholesome and transparent overview of the overall plans for the project. I just don't feel like we need to be making architectural record judgments on the design. And I believe they responded many ways to the comprehensive plan and they have responded in many ways to the character and nature of scale and uh density of architecture in the city those are permanent comments that i would feel comfortable with but i don't want to say that buildings are pretty and we

You don't have to add anything to it. The proposed action will not introduce visual elements fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood context, as shown in the proposed Elevations Protection Plan.

That's fine.

Is the Board happy with removing that potential addition, just proceeding as is? Because ultimately you're just determining that there's no significant adverse impact to the aesthetic resources by virtue of the project.

I feel a little silly about not seeing the red line and I wonder if it's here if you're not sure yeah yeah it's really minor I'm sure it's future yeah and I want to just give it give a place for the board to put in extra input because this was to be clear this was progressed by the applicant's terms this was prepared by any fundamental but we reviewed it it was we agreed with everything we thought we could add some language to it most of these notes I signed your Yes, they they then they comment to put it on.

And then that part about the surgeons.

And that just just that clarified the damage.

And then this is sort of what just to read this for record, the planning board has reviewed their architectural writing, right, and then found, which is kind of a repeat of what was set as showing them.

Yeah, that's fine. I just want to make sure you guys over here.

And then there's consistency with maybe plans. It says C. This is the thing right here.

Both actions not anticipated result in significant adverse impacts to consistency or can be. Does anyone want to say anything?

Are you okay with this?

Okay. I would entertain a motion to negative determination of significance to this project. Anybody ready to make that move? We'll be good. We have a motion to issue a negative determination of significance for the project. Is there a second? Second. And we'll give it to Ron, unless you guys want to argue about it. Linda, would you call the roll?

Ms. Black? Aye. Ms. Schatzke? Aye. Mr. Speaker? Absent. Chairman Vogel? Yes.

Nate? Nathan?

Aye. Yes. Okay, the motion passed and the determination has been made.

One last item to consider for this meeting, and that's whether or not we're ready to schedule a public hearing. I circulated dates earlier and received some responses. The 20th was not available because of conflicting meetings. So we're looking at either the 21st or the 22nd of July. Um, let's just take a moment and look at our calendars. And Jeff, on behalf of your group, are those dates available for you? And it would be what I'm proposing is a one night public hearing, but a 10 day open window for anyone who might want to write a letter or response. So it would be extended from July Either the 21st, 22nd, or the end of the month, basically. So what we have to determine tonight is the actual date, the meeting location, when to check the availability of the fire station, and being available in those two months.

Okay.

Andrew, you remember the notification requirement, the time? Do we have enough time to do the notification for public hearing?

Yeah, this for July will be fine. Okay. Yeah. We'll get it posted and Any applicable notice, any referrals in anticipation of the meeting? I think we have to refer this to the county again, obviously, and circulate the determination of significance to all the lead agencies and interested agencies.

Is there consensus around the date, the 21st or the 27th?

My preference is the 21st. All right. I'd entertain a motion to schedule the public hearing for July 21st. at july june so july 21st 6 p.m to be confirmed by the fire fire station i think we should say fire station and then if it gets changed we would update the notice accordingly because there is time before it has to get posted and we'll provide proper notice so i'd entertain motion the public hearing for the hha project july 21st 6 p.m that's fire stations the public here will be open for 10 days to receive any written communication from the public

I'll make that motion. The motion's been made, Nathan. I'll give it a second, and please call the roll. Ms. Black? Aye. Ms. Jaschensky? Aye. Mr. Borgo? Aye. Mr. Woodhull? Aye.

Ms. Conro? Yes. Mr. Michael?

Aye. Folks, we've learned some happy little things tonight. Yes.

I think we talked a little bit just for the new board members purpose, like what the format of the public hearing will be. And mostly I'm actually really interested in, and Peter was as well, we talked about this after the last meeting, having more of a public discussion about what it means to repair the harms of urban renewal. I've heard a lot about this in terms of restoring the built urban form. I think stably rehousing all the residents of Bliss Towers is the most significant way to repair the harms of urban renewal. As well as frameworks that are outlined in the comprehensive plan are largely not architectural. They're about creating and preserving affordable housing and creating policies like a right to return. So I just wondered if that was like, does the board have as a public hearing just for the public, or does the board also speak? You have a chance to have that dialogue in another place.

It's generally just the public raising their comments with the board, because obviously, as you see, we don't have public comment every night. And it's specifically about the project the public hearing is about. So the board, the public, bring up any comments they see fit. The board is not guiding the public hearing, and it's not exactly a back and forth. Normally, people have a set amount of time. Right. To get up there and raise their points and address it with the board.

Right.

And the board can gather information through these public hearings, sometimes get some new facts for consideration, or take it, consider it. I hope that answers your question.

That makes sense. I really was just, Peter and I were interested in having a dialogue about that in public.

And ultimately, we need the applicant's team to respond to the comments so that they're addressed.

We can talk about that.

Thanks for raising that issue and unless it's up the business before the planning board tonight, I would take a motion for each of us.

I think just make sure you are more procedural questions. Do you have to make a motion to refer to accounting planning or is that so that normally it's an administrative action industry?

Unless this board normally does munches. So if you do a motion then please. Would you give us the wording please? Someone should move to refer the application which said that I called the accounting planning board.

Nathan is making that motion. Yes. I'm second. Change seconds. Linda will call rule.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Thank you.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. So we will see HHA back in our June meeting to continue the discussion on engineering issues. But as far as other issues, I think that that's the only remaining open open issue. So thank you all for giving your evening and for participating in the meeting. Thank you, Chairman of the Planning Board. Now I'll take a motion to adjourn.