The Pine Plains Planning Board opened a public hearing Wednesday, June 11, on the Hudson Company’s plan to consolidate operations into a 50,000-square-foot manufacturing campus at 2436 Route 83. Residents praised the project’s potential economic benefits while raising concerns about noise, traffic, and the impact on nearby lakes. The hearing remains open for written comment through July 16.
Jamie Hammel, founder of the Hudson Company, told the board the proposed mill and showroom would bring together operations now split between leased spaces in Hudson and Pine Plains.
“Over time we built a pretty great business,” Hammel said. “We now employ about 35 people. We do about 700 projects a year, ranging in size from little mantels for somebody’s fireplace, to probably our most famous project, the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York. We are a very well respected specialty wood flooring company.”
The company has been in business since 2010. “I think we are a great employer in this town,” Hammel said. “We have a very positive relationship with our landlord, the Durst organization, but we have outgrown that space…It is not suitable for the staff that we have been recruiting over the last 15 years.”
The project before the board includes a site plan, special use permit, and lot line adjustment at 2436 Route 83. According to Caren LoBrutto, senior planner with LaBella Associates, the proposed campus would feature stormwater treatment infrastructure where none currently exists. It would also repurpose an existing 17,000-square-foot warehouse.
Hammel said operating hours would be 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., with fewer than 30 vehicles during peak hours and truck deliveries planned during off-peak times. “The site traffic would not rise to the threshold requiring state-level traffic mitigation,” LoBrutto said.
Concerns voiced by the public reflected a broad cross-section of the community.
Gail Mellow, chair of the Pine Plains Conservation Advisory Council, asked the board and applicant to protect nearby water bodies. “I hope the project has the lowest possible impact on the lakes,” she said.
Pine Plains resident Scott Chase voiced support but requested pedestrian infrastructure to accommodate the creation of a public trail through the property in compliance with Pine Plains’ comprehensive plan which established the creation of a rail trail as a goal.
Architect Tom McElroy, who lives and works on Myrtle Avenue, raised concerns about traffic routes, noise, and lighting.
Another Myrtle Avenue resident, Bill Abrams, who lives within 500 feet of the proposed project’s property, focused his concerns on potential noise. “The pitch of the noise of a saw is dangerous for hearing,” he said.
Charles Wessler, who resides approximately 1.5 miles from the proposed mill, expressed traffic concerns at the intersection with Route 82.
“We’re all about the community, we already submitted a proposal, we submitted some options for a trail through the property, to provide pedestrian crossings and make connections between the railroad beds and Pine Plains,” Hammel said. “I support it for the town, and for my team.”
Hammel emphasized the company’s environmental stewardship. “There is a byproduct from our process, no chemicals, just sawdust,” he said. That sawdust is turned into briquettes for heating and animal bedding.
The applicants confirmed compliance with dark-sky standards.
According to LaBella Associates, a 61-page sound analysis by Crawford & Associates, commissioned by the Hudson Company, found that noise from the proposed operations would not raise ambient levels by more than six decibels — the threshold for significant impact under state Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines. While the applicants did not specify the exact projected increase during the meeting, they emphasized that the anticipated sound levels would remain below that threshold.
Hammel said the main sources of sound would be beam saws, which “do not operate continually,” and a central dust collector.
An unresolved business use on an adjacent parcel briefly stalled progress on the application during the hearing when Dale Mitchell, who still owns a 6.8-acre parcel adjacent to the Hudson Company’s main site, requested permission to install a sign advertising aTAPNZ Mini Homes business. That parcel, which Mitchell has agreed to sell to the Hudson Company for potential septic expansion, is included in the company’s pending site plan application.
Planning Board Chair Michael Stabile noted that when board members conducted a site visit earlier that day, they saw two additional manufactured homes had appeared on the property. “New buildings shouldn’t be showing up while we’re reviewing another application,” Stabile said.
Mitchell explained that he and Hudson Company founder Jamie Hammel had discussed a leaseback arrangement in which he would continue operating on the site for two years following the sale. He said the new buildings were part of that plan, serving as display units for sale. But Hammel’s team said they were unaware the structures would remain or that Mitchell intended to continue using the property as a business.
The history of the site complicated matters further. Mitchell originally received a six-month permit from the Planning Board in 2019 to sell off remaining sheds located on the property. He later submitted — but withdrew — an application under the name Apex to sell manufactured homes. Since then, board members said, new buildings have appeared without new approvals.
“It’s the same business that’s been there the whole time,” Mitchell said, insisting the activity had been continuous. But Stabile countered that the previous business had ceased, and a proposed nursery plan had been dropped in the interim. “Clearly the use has discontinued and you engaged in the application process,” he said.
Town Attorney Warren Replansky said that if Mitchell’s use of the land had lapsed for more than a year, as it appeared to have, then the new activity would require its own application and could not proceed without being folded into the Hudson Company’s plan. “You created a real can of worms here,” Replansky told Mitchell. “We can’t go ahead and do a site approval of this portion of the property which is under review for the Hudson Company.”
Replansky added that if the Zoning Enforcement Officer determines the use had not lapsed, Mitchell could continue operating until the Hudson Company plan is approved — at which point the business would have to cease. Otherwise, a new and separate site plan would be required, potentially throwing off plans for the Hudson Company.
Mitchell ultimately offered to step back. Walking up to Hammel, he placed a hand on his shoulder and said he would remove the structures if they jeopardized the project. “If this is going to be a big problem for Jamie, then I will remove the buildings from the property [at the time of the sale],” he said.
The board voted unanimously to keep the public hearing open and scheduled its continuation for July 16 at 7:35 p.m. Written comments can be submitted via email to planningboard@email.gov.
In other matters, the board reviewed a proposal by HTWO Properties for a lot line adjustment at 1814–1816 and 2812 Church Street. Steven Hobson, who owns a climate-controlled storage facility, plans to consolidate three parcels into two, selling the house in front and expanding storage to the rear. A public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for July 16 at 8 p.m.
The board also approved a lot line adjustment on Schultz Hill Farm Road to expand an existing 1.7-acre parcel by 905 square feet, allowing the property owner to build an accessory dwelling unit for aging parents. A public hearing on the required special use permit is scheduled for 8:15 p.m. on July 16.