Developers and neighbors spar over Mill Street housing plan as planning board opens hearing

The City of Hudson Planning Board opened a public hearing March 11 on a proposed housing development near Mill and Second streets and heard roughly two hours of testimony from the developer and more than a dozen residents and local advocates.

The proposal, presented by representatives of Kearney Realty Group and civil engineer Andy Leonard of CDL, would place new residential buildings, parking and site infrastructure on a sloping parcel near existing neighborhood streets and a recreational field. Developers described revisions to the site plan made in response to board and public comments, including reduced tree‑clearing limits, additional planting islands in the parking area and a proposed bus shelter and sidewalk access to Second Street. Neighbors pressed the applicants on stormwater management, floodplain risk, trail connections, bus access and on‑site turnaround for service vehicles.

Why it matters: the site sits below nearby hills and has a history of surface flooding, residents said, and the project would add impervious surface and new residents to a location with limited sidewalk and transit access. The planning board heard technical responses from the applicant but left the record open; no permit or site‑plan approval was granted at the meeting.

Developers’ updates and technical responses

At the start of their presentation, the team said they had revised architectural renderings and tightened tree‑clearing limits, pulling the clearing line back behind Building 1 and reducing clearing at the end of Building 2. The applicant said they changed the large painted parking apron in the center of the site into a planted island and added landscaping along each building’s frontage.

On the trail connection between Third Street and Mill Street, the civil engineer said new topography information showed slopes in places approaching 50 percent, well above typical trail construction guidance (the team cited U.S. Forest Service trail guidance as an engineering reference). That steep grade means a durable, accessible ramp or stair connection would be very challenging and costly, the applicant said.

Transit, bus shelter and turnaround

The applicant said county transit maintains stops near State and Second and would deviate up to three‑tenths of a mile from its fixed route to serve nearby residents; the transit operator told the project team that on‑demand pickups required 24 hours’ notice. The developer proposed a bus shelter at the Mill/Second trailhead and sidewalks to provide safer pedestrian access to that stop; they said the shelter would be installed when demand and the transit authority’s routing supported it.

Several neighbors said on‑demand pickup was not an adequate substitute for a regular bus stop near the site. “Asking 60, 70 people who don't have cars to call 24 hours ahead is not acceptable,” one commenter said, urging a committed stop at the corner rather than relying solely on deviation or on‑call service.

Wetlands, floodplain and stormwater

Residents and multiple board members pressed the developer on wetlands and flood risk. The applicant said a wetland biologist had previously inspected the south side of the parcel and concluded it did not meet wetland criteria; the team agreed to refile that delineation with the record and to resubmit the report. The transcript records a public concern that New York State DEC updated wetland regulations on Jan. 1 and that any new delineations should reflect those rules.

On flooding, the applicant said they will comply with all floodplain development requirements and outlined a stormwater approach that includes underground detention chambers beneath portions of the parking area and a dry detention basin (a grassy depression that detains and releases stormwater). The team also said it would “over‑excavate” in the floodplain portion of the site as part of compensatory storage and that first‑floor elevations would be set to meet FEMA and local floodplain standards.

Parking, circulation and emergency access

Neighbors raised multiple circulation concerns: narrow streets, parking supply, and whether delivery, service and emergency vehicles could safely enter, turn around and leave without overshooting the site or blocking the neighborhood. The developer said site geometry provides internal turnaround and that emergency and school buses could use the site circulation; opponents urged formal letters from the fire department and school bus operator confirming the arrangement.

Sustainability and building design

The applicant told the board the buildings are being designed to high efficiency standards: they said the project team expects a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)‑style performance and anticipates using geothermal systems for heating, cooling and hot water and adding solar. The team also presented alternate façade treatments to break up large wall surfaces and reduce perceived bulk.

Public testimony and outstanding items

Public commenters raised recurring themes: long, steep pedestrian trips to existing bus stops; parking shortages; noise and privacy impacts for homes across the street; and worry that the site sits partly in mapped flood areas. Several speakers recommended the board require a study of a pedestrian connection to Third Street, a firm commitment from transit for a stop at the corner, and documented sign‑offs from the fire department and school bus provider.

No formal approvals; next steps

The planning board did not vote to approve or deny the application at the March 11 meeting. The developer agreed to upload the wetland delineation letter and to provide additional drawings (updated landscaping plans, facades and stormwater details). The public hearing record remains open; the applicant indicated they will return with a more complete submission at a future meeting once the outstanding engineering, wetland and transit documentation is filed.

“Once we have the updated materials,” the civil engineer said, “we’ll coordinate with the board and respond to the comments.”

The planning board did not set a final decision date at the hearing.