Historic board denies Kepner’s Main Street door after dispute over standards

The Hudson Architectural & Historic Board of Review on April 22 denied approval of a recently installed front door at a North Main Street business, concluding the replacement did not meet the board’s historic‑district standards. The board approved the applicant’s signage proposal but voted to deny the door application under the AHBR’s discretionary standards.

The matter returned to the board after staff reported the applicant had submitted a response to prior board comments. Applicant counsel Joseph Kernan told the board that the owner now proposes to keep the existing metal door and add an etched logo on the glass ‘‘to match the other doors on Main Street,’’ and that the application was changed after reviewing other nearby storefronts. ‘‘What we are proposing is that the door remain as it is and we will etch the logo on the front of the door to match the other doors on the other sides,’’ Kernan said.

Board members pressed for precedent and consistency. One member said the core issue is preserving ‘‘the historic character of Main Street,’’ and questioned whether the commercial metal door reflects the architectural character of the building. The property owner said he replaced a failing residential door after it was torn off the hinges and that the new door was necessary for safety and to lock the business.

Discussion escalated around whether similar doors elsewhere on Main Street had been approved historically and whether the applicant was being treated differently. The applicant’s counsel argued there was an equal‑protection concern, and after the vote he told the board, ‘‘We believe that we have been treated differently and that there has not been equal protection under the law, and we will go from here.’’

Faced with unresolved questions and potential legal implications, the board recessed into executive session to consult with counsel. After returning to public session, a motion was made to approve the signage element of the submittal and to deny the door request under the AHBR approval/discretion standard (section 2‑1 of the development code). The motion passed by voice vote.

Staff said it will research whether similar doors were formally approved in the district and will follow up with the applicant. The applicant recorded for the minutes that they plan to consider next steps outside the board process.

What happens next: Staff will follow up with the applicant and research past approvals on Main Street to inform any enforcement or further review. The board’s denial applies to the door as presented; any future changes would require a new application.