News

Council outraged over proposed transitional housing

Hudson-Catskill Newspapers

HUDSON — The transitional housing proposed for the former Charles Williams School at Third and Robinson streets is likely to face opposition from Hudson’s Common Council.

It was reported in Monday’s Register-Star that Charles Williams will be named as the proposed site for the county’s transitional housing in a grant application to the New York State Office of Temporary Disability Assistance. Funding for the housing would be through NYSOTDA’s Homeless Housing Assistance Program.

At the council’s formal meeting Tuesday, Alderwoman Wanda Pertilla, I-2nd Ward, expressed displeasure with the fact that the site was named before the council had been informed.

“No one has notified this body about that building,” she said, adding that it shouldn’t be printed in the newspaper before it comes before the council.

“I agree, and you took my speech away,” Alderman Richard Goetz, 5th Ward, said when Pertilla had finished speaking.

During the meeting, Pertilla also referred to the Board of Supervisors’ actions as “arrogant.”

Hudson Mayor Rick Scalera gave the council a rundown of his conversations with Art Baer, chairman of the Columbia County Board of Supervisors. He related that Baer had mentioned the opportunity for the county to apply for the grant over lunch Monday. Scalera was told that the county would save $100,000 per year, of which the city would receive $50,000 a year for three years.

According to Scalera, Baer was under the impression that the grant was due Friday. Scalera planned to present the idea to the council at Tuesday’s meeting. He spoke to representatives from Peter Young Industries — which would operate the transitional housing facility — learning that the application was actually due at 5 p.m. Monday.

According to Scalera, after informing Baer of this, he and Social Service Commissioner Paul Mossman decided to proceed with the application anyway, knowing that it was too late, and that it had not received necessary Hudson Common Council approval.

Mossman told the Register-Star Monday that if it wasn’t approved, the tardy application would serve the purpose of having it “on record that Columbia County is looking to do such a project and lay the foundation for future applications and initiatives.”

Scalera had a different perspective. “Whatever they did, they did for P.R. purposes only,” he said. “There’s no reasonable reason to put an application in, knowing it’s too late.”

He also felt it was irresponsible of the Board of Supervisors to allow the information to get into the paper, knowing that he’d be presenting the information to the council Tuesday.

Alderman Abus Miah, D-2nd Ward, expressed displeasure that the proposed site was in the Second Ward.

“Another dumping in my ward,” he said. “We don’t know what kind of people are coming.”

Hudson Second Ward Supervisor Edward Cross has been involved with the search for transitional housing for six or seven years.

“Charles Williams was one of the alternatives,” he told the Register-Star after the meeting, “but it was not written in stone. Charles Williams was just one fish in the pool, so to speak.”

“[Tuesday’s] paper was the first time we know that this was happening,” Cross continued, adding that there were a lot of questions surrounding the proposal, and that a decision would not be made until all the questions were answered. One of the questions refers back to Miah’s concern over who exactly would be living in the transitional housing. “We need to remove the clouds about the occupants,” Cross said.

According to Hudson Fourth Ward Supervisor William Hughes Jr., the Hudson supervisors never knew that the county was looking to submit the grant application.

“It’s a direct slap in the face to us,” he said.

Hughes feels there is a need for transitional housing in the county, which is currently located in motels throughout Columbia County, especially a facility that would educate and train residents. For Hughes, the main question now is why transitional housing would be moved in at the same time the county is trying to move the Department of Social Services to the Ockawamick School in Claverack.

“The county doesn’t want to have those discussions together,” he said.

The supervisors were asked what other locations were options. Cross mentioned Ockawamick, and Hughes mentioned Greenport because of its greater access to jobs for occupants.

“If DSS moves to Ockawamick, transitional housing should be placed right next to it,” Scalera said, since those who would need transitional housing would require the services of DSS as well.

Cross agreed. “We shouldn’t be spending money on anything,” he said after the meeting, but added that if the money is spent to purchase Ockwamick, “that’s right where the transitional housing should go.”

Scalera noted that Young runs many successful operations, and the municipalities he contacted had nothing but praise for them. He felt that Young deserved an opportunity to come before the council to talk about the type of transitional housing he provides, to clear up any misconceptions about what it is and who may be living there. He will be invited to do so at a future meeting.

Also Tuesday:

n The council received a presentation from O&G Industries, the trucking firm that hauls aggregate from a quarry located off of Newman Road through the city of Hudson to the waterfront. The quarry is owned by Holcim Cement, and O&G is in a long-term agreement with them. Kenneth Faroni, planning and permit coordinator for O&G Industries, explained that his company commissioned a study to explore alternatives to traveling through Hudson. The most viable alternative is to use roadways that go through Holcim-owned property: A new entrance from the quarry onto Route 9 would be created; the trucks would cross Route 9 and travel on roads once utilized as railroad beds. The trucks would then cross Route 9G and proceed to the waterfront along the South Bay Causeway.

These roads would be upgraded at O&G’s expense. “It’s the more appropriate alternative for all concerned,” Faroni told the council. He explained that O&G’s lease with Holcim allows the to make any improvements necessary.

Faroni told the council that his company would be moving forward in seeking necessary permits, though he added that because of this lengthy process, improvements would not be made this year.

In response to council concerns, Faroni said that in the meantime, a memo would be sent to the truck drivers to stick to the city’s speed limit, and not utilize their jake brakes to cut down on noise.

n The council unanimously voted to amend the city’s water regulations. Council President Robert Perry Jr. explained that the changes were twofold. The first change would eliminate suspension of billing based on the honor system. From now on, landlords will be billed for all available properties, regardless of vacancy. If a landlord wants billing to cease, water will be shut off at the curb.

The second change sees the water and sewer billing cycle changed from a May 1 through April 30 fiscal year, to a Jan. 1 through Dec. 31 fiscal year, which the city adopted nearly 10 years ago.

According to the resolution, the changes will take effect on Jan. 1, 2009.

n The council unanimously voted to place the revised adult entertainment zoning law on their desks for consideration. If passed, the local law would amend the city’s zoning law to allow adult entertainment businesses as a conditional use in all three of the city’s industrial zones, with some restrictions.

The adult zone must be 1,000 feet from a school, playground, place of worship, residence, or another adult establishment.

A previous version of the law was voted down at the council’s June 17 meeting. The opposition to that version rested mainly on the fact that the zone would have only been in one ward, with no others sharing the burden.

Hudson has three industrial zones, and only two of them — the North Bay area, which is in the Second Ward, and the South Bay, which is in the First Ward — would be able to host adult businesses under the new law. The third industrial zone, which is the Hudson Avenue area south of Union Street, would be excluded because of the 1,000-feet restriction.

Reader Comments

Submit a Comment