Planning board keeps Mill Street public hearing open after engineers, neighbors debate flood, drainage and trail plans

The City of Hudson Planning Board on April 8 kept the public hearing open on a proposed development on Mill Street and set a continuation for May 13, after engineers described stormwater and floodplain mitigation and neighbors questioned whether the project would increase flooding in the low-lying neighborhood.

The board heard a technical presentation from the project civil engineer and other members of the applicant team about grading, a proposed hammerhead turnaround, trail connections and stormwater design, followed by more than an hour of public comment from neighbors who said the site floods from multiple directions and worried new development would worsen existing conditions.

The developer’s civil engineer, Andy Howard, told the board the design includes a full “hammerhead” turnaround at the end of Mill Street that “complies with New York City Fire Code requirements” and can be installed without disturbing the adjacent trail. Howard also said the team worked with the city’s Department of Public Works and that DPW “have no objection to this design.”

On the issue of the trail connection to North Third Street, Howard said the slope is steep — he cited existing slopes exceeding 40 percent at some locations and said the proposed alignment still contains sections of roughly 23 percent slope and about 12 feet of stairs. “This is a very steep trail, not something that would be recommended to construct or to maintain,” he said, adding that stairs would be frequently damaged because of nearby utility poles and maintenance equipment. The project team said it has been in contact with the Columbia Land Conservancy about a separately proposed trail on an adjacent city parcel and that the two efforts could be coordinated through an easement, grading work or financial contribution.

On stormwater and floodplain questions, the project team said the site-wide stormwater controls are designed to meet New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) standards for on-site runoff and to meet FEMA-based floodplain regulations as adopted by the city. Howard said the team’s submissions include a narrative and calculations showing the post-development flow off the site will match existing flow under DEC standards, and that the building floor elevations are being set above the regulatory flood elevation used in the jurisdiction’s flood study. He also said the applicant’s wetlands biologist reported no wetlands on the site.

Neighbors pushed back. Jessica Belvin, identified in the record as a fourth‑ward council member, and a string of residents described repeated flooding events at and near the intersection of Second and Mill streets and questioned whether on-site retention — including underground retention beneath a proposed parking area — would prevent the larger problem of standing water in the intersection and along routes residents use to evacuate during storms. Several speakers said water approaches the site from multiple directions and that existing municipal drainage (including a 24‑inch pipe) appears undersized; one participant said a 24‑inch pipe “is definitely undersized” and suggested the city consider 48‑ or 54‑inch replacements.

Resident spokesman Jack and other neighbors asked the board to require a drainage analysis showing pre‑ and post‑development flows at the property line and downstream impacts on Mill Street and nearby homes. “You need to prove to us that that amount of water is not gonna negatively impact the downstream neighbors,” one resident said. The applicant’s team acknowledged that their retention measures are intended to control runoff generated by the site, not to accept all stormwater that arrives from off‑site, and said the city and other property owners would be necessary partners in any broader improvements.

Board members and staff repeatedly emphasized the distinction between discussion and formal approval. Board member Margaret said the engineer must return with additional information to demonstrate concerns have been addressed and argued the public should be allowed to hear that updated material. After extended public comment and board discussion about whether to keep the hearing open for verbal comment or to close it but accept written comments, the board voted to continue the public hearing to May 13 and keep the record open for additional materials and comments.

Next steps the board required: the applicant must submit (1) final stormwater calculations and drainage plans that show pre‑ and post‑development flows, (2) a simplified mitigation drawing identifying where material will be removed and where compensatory excavation will occur in the floodplain, (3) final grading sections for the trail and sidewalk connections, and (4) documentation of coordination with Columbia Land Conservancy and DPW on trail access and any proposed changes to municipal drainage infrastructure. The board will review those materials before any final vote.

The public hearing record remains open; the board scheduled the continuation for its May 13 meeting to allow time for the applicant’s next submission and for additional public comment.