Planning commission denies front‑yard Laurel Lake villas, approves rear units

The Hudson Planning Commission on Sept. 8 denied the proposed front‑yard villas in Laurel Lake’s major site plan application but approved the rear buildings that had previously received conditional approval. The action followed a lengthy public hearing in which staff, the applicant and residents discussed tree removal, the project’s relationship to an Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI), wetlands and whether new units conflict with the city’s recently adopted comprehensive plan.

Staff advised the commission that the applicant had revised the site plan to pull most proposed work outside the IEI and to reconfigure Building 2 to a single‑unit layout to match a Board of Zoning Appeals conditional‑use finding. Mr. Sugar (staff) said in his report that staff overlaid previous and revised plans so the commission could “see the differences.”

Applicant Jeff Jardine of Riverstone said the latest changes were intended to avoid disturbance of the IEI and reduce impacts to trees and grading. “We are actually not clearing any trees within that ecological index area,” Jardine told commissioners during the presentation, noting efforts to pull project limits back and to relocate a storm manhole away from the IEI. Tony Berardi, CEO of Laurel Lake, said outreach to residents had produced mixed reactions but that “the vast majority” of residents spoken with supported moving the project forward.

Commissioners repeatedly pressed on three technical points: whether wetlands or “Waters of the U.S.” jurisdiction might be implicated and what Army Corps or state coordination would be required; whether sanitary‑sewer and stormwater improvements can be implemented without harming downstream water quality; and whether the site falls within the city’s wellhead protection area (identified in the code as 12.07.08), which some commissioners argued could prohibit new institutional uses there. Staff and the applicant said wetlands were present on the property but that, based on the applicant’s wetland delineation, Buildings 1, 2 and 5 were not within the consultant’s mapped wetland limits; they also said coordination with Soil & Water and state/federal agencies would be part of the permitting process if impacts were identified.

Several commissioners cited a policy conflict with the city’s comprehensive plan, adopted in late 2024, which includes language directing the city to limit expansion of large‑scale living facilities in certain locations. After deliberation, a motion to deny the entire application failed, but the commission later approved a motion to deny Buildings 1, 2 and 5 as inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and to approve the remaining rear units (the buildings previously approved by the commission and sustained by the BZA). The motion passed by roll call vote, 5–2.

The commission’s action means Laurel Lake may move ahead administratively with the approved rear buildings; the denied front units were removed from the current approval. Commissioners said that technical conditions — including confirmed stormwater/storm‑pond design, tree protection measures, any required Army Corps permitting and clear documentation about the wellhead protection determination — should be resolved before any building permits are issued for the approved portions.

Chair Norman closed the matter after the vote and thanked the applicant and staff for their work. The applicant was excused from the hearing.