Housing plan reduced to four stories, adds units; subsurface borings, parking and contamination cited as next steps

Mark Cole, a project representative for the Hudson redevelopment, told the Hudson Housing Authority that a redesign has reduced the primary residential buildings from five stories to four and increased first-phase unit counts, while subsurface borings, parking and contamination cleanup remain outstanding issues.

Cole said the change — dropping one story so the buildings can be constructed in wood rather than heavier structural systems — should reduce construction costs by “probably going to save over $1,000,000 just by dropping a floor,” while keeping similar unit mixes. He described the current plan as roughly 60–66 units across Building A and Building B and six townhouse units (including two five‑bedroom townhouses).

The reduction in height, Cole said, “blends with the community better and it also reduces the construction cost,” and allows the design to retain open courtyard space even as parts of the buildings are cantilevered to create covered drive-through access.

Why it matters: the redesign affects construction cost, unit count and neighborhood character, and state reviewers and the local planning board want additional technical information before approving the site plan.

Board and staff context: Cole said the project team has presented the redesign to the planning board and that “the mayor was there. A couple of the city council people were there,” and that the planning board responded favorably to the reduced height. He said the project team expects to receive subsurface borings results in about “a month or 2,” and intends to return to the planning board by July with revised site engineering, drainage and parking information.

On subsurface risk and cleanup: several residents asked directly about soil contamination. One public commenter asked, “So why are we building on contaminated grounds?” Cole replied, “They’re removing all the contamination…we’re gonna remove any contamination that’s here. And so we won’t be building back on contamination. Right.” He said the current borings and environmental work are intended to quantify contamination and the extent and cost of required cleanup.

Cole differentiated two distinct geotechnical concerns: structural support and contamination. He told the authority, “There are a number of different things…you can put in piles, you can put in mat foundation. Once we get the reports back, then we can figure out what we need to do. That will be built into the budget.” He added that the team will include a contingency above projected construction costs to account for unknowns encountered once excavation begins.

Parking and site layout: the planning board requested a consolidated environmental review and asked the applicant to show the whole project (phase 1 and phase 2) to evaluate parking impacts. Cole said there is currently no municipal minimum parking requirement for this area, and that the project retained a traffic and parking consultant. He said the consultant’s preliminary analysis indicates the site should provide “sufficient parking spaces, on-site,” but that final determination will be part of the planning board review and may require shifting courtyard/open space to accommodate more stalls.

Funding and timing: Cole said the state housing agency has been engaged and that the redesign should make the project more acceptable to state reviewers because of the reduced construction costs. He also noted that the project recently qualified for a Qualified Census Tract (QCT) designation effective Jan. 25, which “gives us like a huge boost, for our tax credits” and reduces the gap funding needed. Cole described the broader federal funding picture as uncertain and said the state has signaled continued commitment.

Next steps and timeline: the team will complete additional borings and environmental testing over the coming weeks and incorporate those findings into updated site engineering and budget estimates. Cole told the authority the project team expects to return to the planning board in July and will provide an update to the housing authority before the authority’s June meeting.

Ending: Authority members thanked the project team and residents for questions. No formal board action was taken on the redesign during the meeting; the authority awaits the borings, the traffic/parking report and the planning board’s review before any approvals are requested.