Hudson Planning Commission denies school plan that would widen Middle School driveway and remove Saywell House

The Hudson Planning Commission voted 7–0 to deny a conditional-use request from Hudson City Schools to widen the driveway at Hudson Middle School, a change that would have required demolition of the historic Saywell House.

The commission’s decision followed staff testimony and an applicant presentation that framed the change as a response to dismissal-time stacking onto North Oviatt Street. City staff summarized a post-construction traffic analysis recommending a widened entrance (two lanes in, one out for several hundred feet) to create substantially more on‑site queuing. "This additional storage would take at least 28 additional vehicles off of Oviatt Street," staff told the commission.

The commission’s rejection turned on multiple factors commissioners said remained unresolved: incompatibility with surrounding residential and historic-area character, unsettled alternatives identified in the district’s own traffic study, concerns about screening and buffer yards, and questions about whether the district had pursued less‑intrusive options first. Commissioner Nystrom, who moved to reject the application, and several colleagues pressed the district on earlier design decisions and whether active management or other options proposed in the traffic study had been tried.

Opponents in the public record urged the commission to preserve the Saywell House. Susan Newman, representing the Hudson Heritage Association, said the house is an important streetscape element and warned that demolition would further erode historic fabric. "We do not feel that a 3 lane driveway integrates into the existing framework of the neighborhood," she said.

Hudson City Schools representatives acknowledged the district had abated hazardous materials in the house and held an auction with no bids. Tom Barone, the district’s director of operations, told the commission: "We actually didn't receive any offers," when asked about attempts to sell or relocate the house.

After hearing testimony from staff, the applicant, residents, and preservation advocates, the Planning Commission adopted the motion to deny. The chair announced, "The motion carries 7 to 0. The application is denied." The commission also flagged several outstanding code and design concerns that would need to be addressed before any similar proposal could be resubmitted.

Next steps: The district may revise the application and decide whether to pursue alternatives identified in its traffic analysis or to offer more detailed mitigation and restoration measures before returning to the commission.