Popular Searches
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Share
Council does nothing on fire houses
By Hallie Goodman
Hudson-Catskill Newspapers
HUDSON — Many proposals were voted on during Tuesday’s regular meeting of the Hudson Common Council. But none as contentious as those regarding two of the city’s historic fire houses.
The first, formerly Rogers Hose, located at 342 Warren Street, concerned a request made by Attorney William J. Spampinato on behalf of his unnamed client. Spampinato asked the city to remove certain deed restrictions on the property. The building is currently owned by Gloria Farran, who intends to sell it. Spampinato represents the potential buyer, who is interested in opening a restaurant in the firehouse.
The current restrictions prohibit the alteration to the interior and exterior of the building. Unlike some of the other Hudson firehouses, Rogers Hose does not have any remaining historic details inside the building. Those who have seen the interior describe it as having faux wood paneling throughout.
However, the deed restrictions for Rogers Hose have the exact same wording as those placed on the C.H. Evans firehouse, which is now Spotty Dog Books and Ale.
“C.H. Evans was the first to have these restrictions because it has beautiful wood work.” said Common Council President Robert Perry Jr. “However, when it came time to sell Rogers Hose, the lawyer merely copied the deed and changed the address.”
The Common Council voted on two proposals to lift deed restrictions from Rogers Hose.
The first proposal released all restrictive covenants. This proposal differed from the proposal that had been discussed at the informal Common Council meeting.
Perry defended the changes, saying, “My recollection from the legal committee was that we were OK with removing all of the restrictions because everything involving the exterior would be subject to the Historic Preservation Commission and Sight Planning review and all city ordinances regarding signage. We felt that those exterior restrictions were redundant as they were already addressed elsewhere in the code.”
Aldermen Carole Osterink D-1st Ward, Ellen Thurston, D-3rd Ward, Carrie Haddad, D-1st Ward, Abdus Miah D- Ward and Christopher Wagoner, D-3rd Ward voted against this version, defeating the proposal.
Osterink said the version of the proposal presented at the informal meeting named three specific covenants that would be removed. “The reason I even questioned [this version] was that those specifics were gone. We had one [in which] we knew very clearly what was being deleted, but then to have this sort of blanket thing was very disturbing.”
Wagoner said he was not sold on the proposal because he felt there were too many unclear details.
“I got a story that the woman wanted a restaurant — others have said that she wants to sell the building in actuality and that this [request] has something to do with the buyer.”
The second proposal was to lift three of the restrictions having to do with interior and signage. In an act of apparent retaliation against the aldermen who had voted down the first proposal, Robert Donahue Sr., D-5th Ward voted no. Wagoner also voted no, as did Sheila Ramsey, D-4th Ward, defeating the proposal.
When reached for comment Wednesday, Ramsey said she felt that she was not informed enough to make a decision. “I needed to know more. I just felt like I didn’t have enough information.”
Wagoner, the only alderman to vote against both proposals, said, “I got one to look at for a week and another to look at for about 10 minutes. I wasn’t happy with either one of them. If anything, I support protecting buildings.”
As the second proposal was defeated, Mayor Rick Scalera stood up and said “I have to get out of here, Governor (David) Patterson used the word dysfunctional today. We’ll, I’ve seen it all right here. A person wants to open a restaurant in the city of Hudson and you do this.” Scalera then left the meeting.
Afterward, Scalera said, “some of these councilmen need to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves what service they are providing for the city and their constituents. I can understand how people who want to do business in this community decide not to.”
According to Scalera, Spampinato has said repeatedly that his client does not want to invest in a restaurant in the city if she has to go through so may government officials, doesn’t want to go in front of the Historic Preservation commission, and then back in front of the city of Hudson.
Afterward, Haddad said, “When certain members of the Common Council vote no on something simply because other members voted yes it seems like its not serving the community. It’s so counterproductive. I really hope it doesn’t discourage them from continuing their project. Everyone on the council is really in support of new businesses.”
“I can say that this was about as embarrassing as it gets. You had aldermen who voted one way just to spite other members,” Perry said after the meeting.
The council next turned its attention to the latest lease proposal from Charles Davi, who wants to lease Washington Hose, located at Front and Warren streets, in order to open an ice-cream shop/bakery there.
Ramsey then announced, “I’ve been asked by a woman named Genevieve who lives in Hudson Terrace and is no longer able to drive, to say that she has been waiting for something to open in the firehouse.”
Ramsey said the woman was excited about the possibility of a restaurant. Alderman Wanda Pertilla, I-2nd Ward, agreed that the area was underserved.
“There’s nothing down at that end. We need some vitality, something that can bring something to the community,” she said.
The lease proposal presented three options at the end of a requested five-year lease. First, that the city extend the lease to Davi for another five years. Second, that that city offer Davi the right of first refusal should it decide to sell the property. And third, that if the city chooses to evict Davi at the end of five years, it would refund the money that Davi had invested in improvements.
The final option drew much concern from aldermen. Thurston and Miah each felt the idea of refunding money to Davi was a bad one. Wagoner agreed, saying that in Manhattan, tenants often build out lofts at great expense and never get any money back when their lease is up.
Miah said that there was no way to know if Davi would do the kind of improvements that the city would want or like.
Supervisor William Hughes, who was in the audience said, “I think when you are talking about having moneys reimbursed you can have a specific list. The city does not want to end up with a oven. Put that in the agreement, i.e. we as a city will pay for windows.”
Davi assured the aldermen that, “the language between the city of Hudson’s attorney and my attorney will protect Hudson.”
Osterink said her take on the proposed lease was that the city was “going to end up selling it to him, leasing it to him forever or paying him back.”
On Wednesday she added, “the whole question of the city having to pay for the improvements that he’s made... that’s a deal breaker for me.”
Haddad said that she felt an inequitable amount of time and attention had been paid to Davi’s proposal compared to the offer from Historic Hudson, which has also expressed an interest in renting the space and making improvements. Pertilla disagreed, saying the issue had continually been in the paper.
“He [Davi] has been here, they [Historic Hudson] need to reach out to us, they can come on in. We shouldn’t have to reach out.”
Perry said that the matter of Washington Hose would require further discussion.
“I’d really appreciate if you could give me a time frame,” said Davi. “The weather is my worst enemy in that old building.”
Perry said it would be brought up at the Legal Committee meeting next week, then the informal meeting of the Common Council the following week, then the regular meeting of the Common Council the week after that.
“I appreciate your honesty,” said Davi.
Then, Hughes stood and again dressed the committee from the audience.
“This firehouse issue that we just went through, it’s absolutely deplorable. At a time when we have the highest tax rate — you are still stalling for another business to come into the city. We right now have a reputation of being the most unfriendly city [to businesses] not only in this county but statewide. This is absolutely deplorable. I hope you guys sitting on the council really realize that what comes first are the taxpayers. I’m worried about people eating, I’m worried about people being able to afford their homes. I’m not worried about the color of the sign hanging on the wall. Hopefully, some of you guys understand that too.”
HUDSON — Many proposals were voted on during Tuesday’s regular meeting of the Hudson Common Council. But none as contentious as those regarding two of the city’s historic fire houses.
The first, formerly Rogers Hose, located at 342 Warren Street, concerned a request made by Attorney William J. Spampinato on behalf of his unnamed client. Spampinato asked the city to remove certain deed restrictions on the property. The building is currently owned by Gloria Farran, who intends to sell it. Spampinato represents the potential buyer, who is interested in opening a restaurant in the firehouse.
The current restrictions prohibit the alteration to the interior and exterior of the building. Unlike some of the other Hudson firehouses, Rogers Hose does not have any remaining historic details inside the building. Those who have seen the interior describe it as having faux wood paneling throughout.
However, the deed restrictions for Rogers Hose have the exact same wording as those placed on the C.H. Evans firehouse, which is now Spotty Dog Books and Ale.
“C.H. Evans was the first to have these restrictions because it has beautiful wood work.” said Common Council President Robert Perry Jr. “However, when it came time to sell Rogers Hose, the lawyer merely copied the deed and changed the address.”
The Common Council voted on two proposals to lift deed restrictions from Rogers Hose.
The first proposal released all restrictive covenants. This proposal differed from the proposal that had been discussed at the informal Common Council meeting.
Perry defended the changes, saying, “My recollection from the legal committee was that we were OK with removing all of the restrictions because everything involving the exterior would be subject to the Historic Preservation Commission and Sight Planning review and all city ordinances regarding signage. We felt that those exterior restrictions were redundant as they were already addressed elsewhere in the code.”
Aldermen Carole Osterink D-1st Ward, Ellen Thurston, D-3rd Ward, Carrie Haddad, D-1st Ward, Abdus Miah D- Ward and Christopher Wagoner, D-3rd Ward voted against this version, defeating the proposal.
Osterink said the version of the proposal presented at the informal meeting named three specific covenants that would be removed. “The reason I even questioned [this version] was that those specifics were gone. We had one [in which] we knew very clearly what was being deleted, but then to have this sort of blanket thing was very disturbing.”
Wagoner said he was not sold on the proposal because he felt there were too many unclear details.
“I got a story that the woman wanted a restaurant — others have said that she wants to sell the building in actuality and that this [request] has something to do with the buyer.”
The second proposal was to lift three of the restrictions having to do with interior and signage. In an act of apparent retaliation against the aldermen who had voted down the first proposal, Robert Donahue Sr., D-5th Ward voted no. Wagoner also voted no, as did Sheila Ramsey, D-4th Ward, defeating the proposal.
When reached for comment Wednesday, Ramsey said she felt that she was not informed enough to make a decision. “I needed to know more. I just felt like I didn’t have enough information.”
Wagoner, the only alderman to vote against both proposals, said, “I got one to look at for a week and another to look at for about 10 minutes. I wasn’t happy with either one of them. If anything, I support protecting buildings.”
As the second proposal was defeated, Mayor Rick Scalera stood up and said “I have to get out of here, Governor (David) Patterson used the word dysfunctional today. We’ll, I’ve seen it all right here. A person wants to open a restaurant in the city of Hudson and you do this.” Scalera then left the meeting.
Afterward, Scalera said, “some of these councilmen need to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves what service they are providing for the city and their constituents. I can understand how people who want to do business in this community decide not to.”
According to Scalera, Spampinato has said repeatedly that his client does not want to invest in a restaurant in the city if she has to go through so may government officials, doesn’t want to go in front of the Historic Preservation commission, and then back in front of the city of Hudson.
Afterward, Haddad said, “When certain members of the Common Council vote no on something simply because other members voted yes it seems like its not serving the community. It’s so counterproductive. I really hope it doesn’t discourage them from continuing their project. Everyone on the council is really in support of new businesses.”
“I can say that this was about as embarrassing as it gets. You had aldermen who voted one way just to spite other members,” Perry said after the meeting.
The council next turned its attention to the latest lease proposal from Charles Davi, who wants to lease Washington Hose, located at Front and Warren streets, in order to open an ice-cream shop/bakery there.
Ramsey then announced, “I’ve been asked by a woman named Genevieve who lives in Hudson Terrace and is no longer able to drive, to say that she has been waiting for something to open in the firehouse.”
Ramsey said the woman was excited about the possibility of a restaurant. Alderman Wanda Pertilla, I-2nd Ward, agreed that the area was underserved.
“There’s nothing down at that end. We need some vitality, something that can bring something to the community,” she said.
The lease proposal presented three options at the end of a requested five-year lease. First, that the city extend the lease to Davi for another five years. Second, that that city offer Davi the right of first refusal should it decide to sell the property. And third, that if the city chooses to evict Davi at the end of five years, it would refund the money that Davi had invested in improvements.
The final option drew much concern from aldermen. Thurston and Miah each felt the idea of refunding money to Davi was a bad one. Wagoner agreed, saying that in Manhattan, tenants often build out lofts at great expense and never get any money back when their lease is up.
Miah said that there was no way to know if Davi would do the kind of improvements that the city would want or like.
Supervisor William Hughes, who was in the audience said, “I think when you are talking about having moneys reimbursed you can have a specific list. The city does not want to end up with a oven. Put that in the agreement, i.e. we as a city will pay for windows.”
Davi assured the aldermen that, “the language between the city of Hudson’s attorney and my attorney will protect Hudson.”
Osterink said her take on the proposed lease was that the city was “going to end up selling it to him, leasing it to him forever or paying him back.”
On Wednesday she added, “the whole question of the city having to pay for the improvements that he’s made... that’s a deal breaker for me.”
Haddad said that she felt an inequitable amount of time and attention had been paid to Davi’s proposal compared to the offer from Historic Hudson, which has also expressed an interest in renting the space and making improvements. Pertilla disagreed, saying the issue had continually been in the paper.
“He [Davi] has been here, they [Historic Hudson] need to reach out to us, they can come on in. We shouldn’t have to reach out.”
Perry said that the matter of Washington Hose would require further discussion.
“I’d really appreciate if you could give me a time frame,” said Davi. “The weather is my worst enemy in that old building.”
Perry said it would be brought up at the Legal Committee meeting next week, then the informal meeting of the Common Council the following week, then the regular meeting of the Common Council the week after that.
“I appreciate your honesty,” said Davi.
Then, Hughes stood and again dressed the committee from the audience.
“This firehouse issue that we just went through, it’s absolutely deplorable. At a time when we have the highest tax rate — you are still stalling for another business to come into the city. We right now have a reputation of being the most unfriendly city [to businesses] not only in this county but statewide. This is absolutely deplorable. I hope you guys sitting on the council really realize that what comes first are the taxpayers. I’m worried about people eating, I’m worried about people being able to afford their homes. I’m not worried about the color of the sign hanging on the wall. Hopefully, some of you guys understand that too.”
Share this Article
 |
 |
|
| Bus accident sends 3 to hospital | Who’s moving to Ockawamick? It could be anybody |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of registerstar.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
