Legal description of Hudson's city boundaries

[Kevinstat]

The census tract is also the basis to award certain federal funds based on the statistics for the tract. In my area there were a great number of census tracts that were split between 2000 and 2010, even in old established neighborhoods with little or no growth. From a local standpoint those splits could aid the application for funds.

When the Census made tract splits they got rid of the old number and created new tract numbers. That made the 2010 tracts more useful locally and avoid any confusion with past data sets. For example in 2000 I lived in 8415.02. There was minimal new construction in the tract during the decade, but it was split into 8415.03 and 8415.04. The old number went out of service for 2010 and beyond.

If Hudson wanted a change, the Census could also assign new numbers to the revised tracts as they did in my area in the last decade.

That appears to have been an ordinary split. 8415.02 had 6918 persons in 2000. 8415.03 and 8415.04 had 3923 and 3294 in 2010 (at total of 7217, or 4.3% growth).

Census tracts have 1200 to 8000 residents with 4000 being the ideal. Had there not been a split the tract would have been 180% of the ideal. With the split, the smaller tract is 82% of the ideal and the other is 98% of the ideal.

The Census Bureau does not define census tracts for the purposes of garnering federal grants. Congress is free to ignore their advice. The Census Bureau will do custom ACS tabulations.

In any case, it makes no census to run a census tract boundary through a complex of rent-subsidized apartments. For statistical purposes, you would prefer less variation within census tracts, and more variation between census tracts.

I thought I'd do this before you get one of those cases of multi-layer quotes where the quotes are all attributed to the wrong person (I deleted the inner-most quote-citation for jimrtex in the last post that caused that error).

Color codes are by block group.

Green is CT 12, BG 1;
Purple is CT 12, BG 2;
Pink is CT 13, BG 1;

From looking at your various posts on this topic, I gather your position shifting the census tract boundary in Hudson is as follows (and I'll throw in my take on your position on whether a proposed area should at least be divided by a block line for good measure):

Your C (doesn't involve a census tract change): you definitely support moving this area from 12-1007 to 12-1004.

Your B: you support moving this area from CT 13 to CT 12 (from 13-1000 to 12-1004), although perhaps not as emphatically as your support for the move of C.  Even if the census tract line is kept, you at least marginally support B being removed from 13-1000 (becoming its own block in this case).

Your A: you definitely support this area being removed from 13-1002.  You marginally prefer it remaining in CT 13 (becoming its own block in this case).  If it is to be moved to CT 12, you definitely support it being combined with (added to) 12-2000, and that's the only reason your support for its remaining in CT 13 is marginal (if I'm correct in that assumption) rather than strong.

Remaining area of CT 13 north of the extension of Warren Street: You emphatically oppose the idea of this area moving to CT 12.  You support this extension becoming a block line from Front Street to the more westerly of the two RR tracks.  Regarding that extension going beyond that, to the shoreline or beyond to the municipal/county line in the Hudson River, you're meh at best (perhaps less seeing the point of going beyond the shoreline).  You also may doubt the Census Bureau would do that, and you definitely doubt the Census Bureau would make any of the extension of Warren Street a revised Census Tract line.  I'm not sure if Muon2 realized that your strongest opposition was against this shift, rather than the shift of A and B (and indeed, you support the shift of B) above.

[jimrtex]

I thought I'd do this before you get one of those cases of multi-layer quotes where the quotes are all attributed to the wrong person (I deleted the inner-most quote-citation for jimrtex in the last post that caused that error).

Color codes are by block group.

Green is CT 12, BG 1;
Purple is CT 12, BG 2;
Pink is CT 13, BG 1;

From looking at your various posts on this topic, I gather your position shifting the census tract boundary in Hudson is as follows (and I'll throw in my take on your position on whether a proposed area should at least be divided by a block line for good measure):

Your C (doesn't involve a census tract change): you definitely support moving this area from 12-1007 to 12-1004.

Your B: you support moving this area from CT 13 to CT 12 (from 13-1000 to 12-1004), although perhaps not as emphatically as your support for the move of C.  Even if the census tract line is kept, you at least marginally support B being removed from 13-1000 (becoming its own block in this case).

Your A: you definitely support this area being removed from 13-1002.  You marginally prefer it remaining in CT 13 (becoming its own block in this case).  If it is to be moved to CT 12, you definitely support it being combined with (added to) 12-2000, and that's the only reason your support for its remaining in CT 13 is marginal (if I'm correct in that assumption) rather than strong.

Remaining area of CT 13 north of the extension of Warren Street: You emphatically oppose the idea of this area moving to CT 12.  You support this extension becoming a block line from Front Street to the more westerly of the two RR tracks.  Regarding that extension going beyond that, to the shoreline or beyond to the municipal/county line in the Hudson River, you're meh at best (perhaps less seeing the point of going beyond the shoreline).  You also may doubt the Census Bureau would do that, and you definitely doubt the Census Bureau would make any of the extension of Warren Street a revised Census Tract line.  I'm not sure if Muon2 realized that your strongest opposition was against this shift, rather than the shift of A and B (and indeed, you support the shift of B) above.

Currently there is a tangle of lines in the area.



Green: Lines used as block lines in 2010 and future.
(a) Hudson shoreline including excursion into North Bay.
(b) Dock Street east of Front Street.
(c) Front Street south of Dock Street.
(d) Stream/bayou east from North Bay (poorly aligned with actual water)

Orange: Lines that exist but not used as block boundaries in 2010 or future:
(a) Railroad north of trestle bridge.
(b) Centerline of stream/bayou just east of railroad tracks.

Cyan: Statistical lines from Dock and Front Street to center of North Bay channel and on out to middle of the Hudson River. Boundary between CT 12 and 13.

Red + Orange: "Front Street" and statistical line across North Bay. There is indefinite access from Dock Street to the boathouses, and the area appears to be fenced. It appears that there is a clear route down Dock Street and then north just east of the RR tracks. This "Front Street" does not align with Front Street south of Dock Street. The only reason for having "Front Street" appears to be connect to non-used statistical lines across North Bay. It is possible that the statistical line just to the east was an alternative alignment of Front Street, that was converted to a statistical line when it was discovered that no street exists there.  The red and orange lines are suggested to be deleted.

Orange: Statistical line just west of trestle bridge. Apparently used to connect Hudson shoreline. Not used and suggested to be deleted.

Railroad tracks: Currently the railroad tracks through Hudson are inconsistently used. The block boundary starts on the west track, but then switches to the railroad wye on the branch to the cement plant across South Bay. This track know longer exists and has been pulled. The rail bed is visible, though covered with vegetation. It is suggested that this non-existent feature be deleted. After the wye, the block boundary is then the west track. It switches to the east track at Broad Street, apparently because there is a misclassified 10-foot section on the west track south of Ferry. At Ferry, the west track is used up to the north bay estuary. Midway over the trestle bridge, the east track is used. North of the bridge neither track is used, since it is immediately adjacent to the Hudson River and North Bay (no land other than the rail bed proper).

My suggestion:

West track from southern city limits to Ferry Street is block boundary.

Neither track is used between Ferry and North Bay trestle bridge, replaced with  the escarpment. This creates a block bounded by: Hudson River shoreline, Ferry Street, Escarpment, Dock Street, statistical line (northward extension of Front Street), south shoreline of North Bay to Hudson River shoreline.
This block is uninhabited, but links two main access points to river.

West track across trestle bridge, links the Hudson Shoreline used for the eastern bounds of the blocks in the Hudson River. It is this switch that cuts off 'B' and causes 'C' to be shifted between blocks ('C' is lterally the space between the tracks over the northern part of the trestle bridge.

Neither track north of North Bay (continues current practice).

It makes more sense to me that 'B' is part of the North Bay estuary block, rather than an odd-tongue off the Hudson River. But this does require a census tract boundary change. The area is water and uninhabitable. If a tract boundary change can not be done, then simply chop off 'B' as a separate block.

There is no reason to adjust the CT boundary, particularly through the middle of a rent-subsidized apartment complex that was created in an urban renewal process that eliminated all the streets west of Front Street.

I have suggested that Promenade Hill Park could be used as block boundary connecting Front Street to the Escarpment at Warren. This would simplify separation of  the two parts of the apartment complex (there is about a 300 foot gap between buildings here).



Red: extraneous street. Deleted.

Powder Blue: park boundaries. Added, hold as block boundary.

Purple: escarpment. Added, hold as block boundary.

Railroad tracks. Do not hold as block boundary (west track is current block boundary).

This creates 4 blocks:

(1) Ferry Street to park, Front Street to escarpment (southern 5 units of Hudson Terrace)
(2) Promenade Hill Park (uninhabited)
(3) Park to Dock Street, Front Street to escarpment (northern 8 units of Hudson Terrace)
(4) Ferry Street to North Bay estuary, escarpment to Hudson River, including area 'A' north of dock street.

If the current ward boundaries are maintained, then (1) and (3) would be in wards 1 and 2, respectively.

[jimrtex]

Suggested Block Boundaries:



Continuing block boundaries.

Most of the boundaries are streets that would continue to be block boundaries, and are dark blue. Streets that did not form block boundaries in 2010, and will not be used in 2020 are not shown.

Other features that would continue to be block boundaries are in lighter blue shades:

(1) City limits not coincident with streets.
(2) Parcel boundaries (south edge of Hudson Correctional Institution, coincident with city limits)
(3) Limits of Hudson Correctional Institution.
(4) Statistical line separating census tracts (north from Front Street and Dock Street to center of North Bay estuary, through trestle bridge to middle of Hudson River).

Added hydrographic features to be used as block boundaries.

(1) Stream(s) eastward from 2nd and Mill Street to Underhill and Oakdale ponds and beyond.
(2) Underhill and Oakdale Pond.

Added Streets that form parts of block boundaries.

(1) Mill Street between 2nd Street and 3rd Street.
(2) Dugway bike trail between 3rd Street and Lucille Drive.
(3) Cherry Alley between City Hall Place and 5th Street.
(4) Rope Alley between 6th Street and 7th Street.
(5) Dock Street west of Front Street.

Counter-proposal for small triangular blocks.

The Census Bureau proposes to eliminate three small triangular blocks, which are really traffic islands. They would eliminate one side of the triangle as a block boundary. I would eliminate a different side.

(1) Carroll Street, Short Street, and Prospect Street. The Census Bureau would eliminate Short Street. I suggest eliminating Prospect Street. This avoids the division of Short Street into two segments, and instead truncates the west end of Prospect Street as a block boundary.

(2) Green Street, Columbia Street, and State Street. The Census Bureau would eliminate Columbia Street. I suggest eliminating State Street. Columbia Street is a ward boundary, and this would leave a gap in Hudson's longest street. Immediately to the west, Columbia Street is a US Highway. Instead the east end of State Street would be truncated.

(3) Columbia Street, Columbia Turnpike, and Prospect Avenue. The Census Bureau would eliminate Columbia Turnpike. Columbia Turnpike is a ward boundary, and the Census Bureau had a non-existent connection of Columbia Turnpike to Columbia Street east of the tip of Prospect Avenue.

Roads and Streets that continue to exist but would not be block boundaries (in red)

(1) Faxon Avenue north of Storm Avenue. Currently this forms a block with a driveway to Union Turnpike. With the deletion of the driveway, this leaves Faxon Avenue as a stub.

(2) East Court Place south of the Power Avenue into the Hudson Correctional Institution. There is no need for block boundaries within the prison since the prison itself will be a census block. East Court Place continues to be the main public access route to the prison.

(3) South Bay Causeway Truck Route. This replaces the railroad which no longer exists, but is a block boundary. This is a private road, and while it exists and is visible, serves no purpose as a block boundary.

Changes west of Front Street.(in cyan)

Demarcation of Promenade Hill Park, and use of the escarpment to the west, will place the northern and southern parts of the Hudson Terrace apartments in different blocks, which correspond to the ward boundary since 1855.

Changes in Railroad Usage

(1) The railroad between Front Street and Union Street; and State Street and Fairview Avenue will be used as block boundaries (as they were in 2000). This will provide a cleaner limit to residential areas south of Allen Street and Union Street; and a separation between neighborhoods off Green Street and the boulevards.

(2) More consistent use of west track of mainline along Hudson River.

(a) West track from southern city limits to Ferry Street. Currently the block boundary switches to the no-longer existent wye into South Bay, and to the east track between Broad Street and Ferry Street. The switch here is due to a misclassification of 10 feet of the west track as a non-railroad.
(b) Use of escarpment between Ferry Street and Dock Street, instead of railroad tracks.
(c) West track across trestle bridge over North Bay estuary, to connect Hudson River shoreline.
(d) Continued non-use as block boundary north of trestle bridge, where tracks are immediately adjacent to Hudson River.

Street Extensions

(1) Clinton Street west of 5th Street (and extension) to Harry Howard. This is currently defined in the census database, and was used in 1990 to delimit the block bounded by Harry Howard Avenue, Washington Street, and 5th Street, Clinton Street (and extension). The extension is in the city-owned Clinton Street right-of-way.

(2) 3rd Street north of Robinson Street (and extension) to Mill Street. The extension is in the 3rd  Street right-of-way. The playground area at the southwest corner of Mill Street and the 3rd Street right has that intersection as its address in tax records (it doesn't have a street address). 3rd Street including the extension has been a ward boundary since 1815.

(3) Ferry Street west of Front Street (and extension) to Hudson River. Ferry Street is the most obvious connection of the street network to the the river, since it crosses the railroad tracks, and the short extension is to the former ferry landing to Athens (New York).

[jimrtex]

The Notch Part I



The Columbia Tax office shows the yellow triangular property as being in Greenport, with an address of 101 Paul Avenue (Ten Broeck Lane runs into Paul Avenue at Columbia Turnpike). There is what looks like an old farm house on part of the property.

But the property line for the cemetery clearly does not match the cemetery. Recall that when the city purchased the property for the Cedar Park Cemetery it was in Greenport. The Hudson Burial Ground across Ten Broeck Lane was in the original city limits, but they were running out of space. After the Town of Greenport sought to tax the property owned by the city of Hudson, Hudson had the legislature annex the area to the city.

At that time the legislature was responsible for the city's charter. A charter change was made by passing a bill. Every few decades, a bill would be passed that consolidated all the interim changes into a single text. Thus the charter of the city of Hudson was simply a statute. Since the purpose of the annexation was to bring the cemetery property into the city limits, it is inconceivable that the legislature would have done anything other than follow the property survey. It is equally as inconceivable that the cemetery property line would not follow the layout of the graves.

The red line is the city limits as shown on the tax office web site. It does follow the line of graves, but it crosses Ten Broeck Lane. The 1990 census maps show the census tract boundary west of Ten Broeck Lane, but the city limits on Ten Broeck Lane. This really doesn't make sense, since the census tracts in Columbia County are aligned with city/town boundaries.

Columbia County had 9 Block Numbering Areas (BNA) in 1980, but they did not correspond to town boundaries. BNA were somewhat equivalent to census tracts for rural areas, but appear to be designed merely to be used for numbering blocks. Over time BNA have been subsumed into the concept of census tracts.

1980 Columbia County BNA (Hudson is in BNA 9906 and 9907, but they both extend outside the city.



Detail of BNA in Hudson. The boundary line between 9906 and 9907 meanders through city, 3rd Street, Warren Street, 5th Street, Prospect Street, Short Street, Washington Street, 5th Street, Clinton Street, 6th Street, goat path, Paddock Place, Oakwood Boulevard.



In 1990, 20 (BNA) census tracts were established in Columbia, corresponding to the 19 towns and city, with Hudson having tracts 12 and 13. In 2010, Census Tract 4 in Kinderhook was divided into 4.01 and 4.02.

In any event, by 2000 the census tract boundary had been adjusted to Ten Broeck Lane, and in 2010 the alignment with the actual street was refined. The Census Bureau prefers that city limits are snapped to street lines, since their primary concern is that houses with street addresses are enumerated in the correct city, etc.

And it is possible that Ten Broeck Lane has shifted. For example, gravediggers might have moved the road so that they could bury more bodies.

White House in triangle on property tax maps. It is somewhat hidden from the street.



Here is view from the south.



The larger building to the north is in the more likely location for the notch. I had though it might be associated with the cemetery (undetaker) but it is actually separate. An oddity is the large paved parking lot. On the east side there is an outside stairway, which suggests that it was possibly an old school, with an emergency exit.

But it could be used as a residence. Why is the red car there?

[jimrtex]

The Notch Part II



There are two census blocks in the cemetery with a population.

Census Tract 13, Block 4016, the brown block facing on Columbia Turnpike, has seven persons. I believe this may be a superintendent's residence. The building off to the right is a garage or storage building. The open area on the east side of the block is an active area of the cemetery. It appears that the cemetery is getting full, with most of the other active areas in the extreme southern and eastern parts of the cemetery. So I think the 7 residents is probably legitimate.

Census Tract 13, Block 4015, the blue horn-shaped block to the east of Ten Broeck Lane has two persons.  The only building is in the lower left corner.

Google's map view shows the area around the (superintendent's residence?) as not being part of the cemetery, nor the building along Ten Broeck. I do not know what their source is.



Here is the same area in satellite view.



Someone did a very bad job of digitizing the roads in the cemetery and getting them recognized as streets. In the 2010 census, these were used to mark off about 20 census blocks. The census bureau has now reclassified these as "statistical lines", and does not intend to use them as block boundaries. I have suggested that they be deleted entirely.



For example, you can see the eastern side of the horn sort-of following the road, and then slipping to connect with the city limits, and then jumping back to the vicinity of the road, and splitting into two roads.

The Census Bureau has realigned real streets to match reality. So the census bureau has "Ten Broeck Lane" (census location) in fidelity with Ten Broeck Lane (satellite). The census aligns the city limits with Ten Broeck Lane. This doesn't mean that they necessarily think the city limit is on the road, but they prefer that statistical lines be snapped to nearby visible features, to avoid problems with two lines overlapping each other. As long as the street alignment does not misplace any houses into the wrong jurisdiction, it does not matter.

So the census bureau has the location of Ten Broeck Lane pinned down, and they have associated that portion of the city limit with Ten Broeck Lane.

The green lines are where the census bureau has the city limits. They are at least parallel to the cemetery boundaries. In 2010, they were "parcel of property boundaries", and the city limits were parallel to them. Now they are now "statistical lines", and are held as block boundaries since the census bureau is using  them as they city limits.

The census bureau may have realized that they weren't the property boundary since they chop off part of the cemetery. So now it is simply an indication of where the city limits are. It really doesn't matter since they are counting living persons only - except if they counted people living in Greenport.



The building was present in the above 1963 topo sheet, and is visible in 1952 aerial photos. I can see it being a 1920-1930 era school building, with 2 classrooms up and two down, and an office on the front. If there was a principal, he might also have taught class. On the east side, there are four outside doors, with those from the top floor connecting to what looks like a metal stairway, as an outside fire escape.

We can't really make any deductions from the topo sheet about the city limits. At the bottom of the heel there is an irregular boundary, yet the city charter has this in two segments. There is a creek in that area, and it may not be possible to utilize all the cemetery property. So someone may have conflated "area suitable for graves" with "cemetery property" with "city limits".

[jimrtex]

The Notch Part III

This map shows the original city limits after the detachment of Greenport, and before the two annexations. The map is rotated slightly counterclockwise so that the southern and northern city limits are parallel to the edge of the plate. See compass rose in Hudson. The ward boundaries are right where they are now, except the 5th Ward had not been created. Notice how 5th Street extended would not have cause any problem at this time.



The city charter (from 1855) showed the city limits as of that date. These were first defined in the statute that detached the town of Greenport from the city of Hudson. The south, east, and north limits of Hudson, form a notch in the Greenport city limits. Some of the text from the 1855 charter remain in the current charter.



The first part (down to the red line) defines the starting point as a buoy in the Hudson River somewhere a bit north and east of the lighthouse. If we knew where Mr Goodwin's dock was, we could determine where the buoy was. The Black Rock on Mt. Merino may still be there.

The second part (down to the orange line) define the southern limits, in two segments:

(1) 3828 feet, 141.19 degrees azimuth.
(2) 6336 feet, 104.36 degrees azimuth

The turning point is a willow tree that is (was) a little bit east of 3rd Street. A chain is 66 feet, a link one hundredth of a chain. A magnetic declination of 5.47 is used in the calculation. The old road is now Ten Broeck Lane.

The third part (down to the green line) describe the limits along Ten Broeck Lane. It ends on the north side of Union Turnpike at what is now Paul Avenue. At the time, Columbia Street only included the  segment between Park Place and the junction of Columbia Turnpike and Union Turnpike.

(1) 435.6 feet, 57.86 degrees azimuth
(2) 689.7 feet, 38.86 degrees azimuth
(3) 396 feet; 50.36 degrees azimuth
(4) 290.4 feet; 28.36 degrees azimuth
(5) 1036.2 feet; 17.11 degrees azimuth

If we measure the distances along Paul Avenue and Ten Broeck Lane, we see that the line is a reasonable facsimile for the  definition in the charter.



The bearings are also similar, from north to south, the bearing is roughly:

(1) NE by E
(2) NE by N
(3) NE
(4) NNE
(5) N by E

The road does start out more east than north, followed by a longer segment that is more northerly, then a segment that is more easterly, and two segments that are much more northerly. It is possible that the road has been shifted a bit, lengthening the long segment south from Union Turnpike, and introducing a sharper bend in the road.

The original city limit was said to follow the road, and the road now appears to follow the city limit in the charter.

Continuing, the fourth part, down to the blue line, describe a single line for the remainder of the eastern boundary:

(1) 5676 feet, 6.36 degrees azimuth.

This limit was modified by an annexation in 1915 of the area between Union Turnpike and Fairview Avenue to Graham, and the eastern part of the boulevards. The boundary from just north of Oakwood Boulevard to the northeast corner of the city is the original boundary. The old road leading from Hudson to the Print Works is Joslen Boulevard just beyond where Harry Howard Avenue joins it. The northeast corner is much closer to the road (6 feet west of the fence along the road) than shown on census maps. This is somewhere in the baseball or softball fields for the high school. The northernmost part of the school grounds is in Greenport.

The fifth part, down to the purple line, is the northern city limit. No distance is given, only a bearing:

(1) (to channel of river, or Greene County line) 280.51 degrees azimuth.

The sixth part, to the gold line, is the western limit along the county line in the Hudson River.

[jimrtex]

The Notch Part IV

At its March 23, 1897 meeting, the Common Council approved this statute that had been enacted by the legislature, to annex the Cedar Park Cemetery. The city had purchased the land for the new cemetery in 1895, but because it was within the Town of Greenport, there was an issue whether Greenport could tax the property. Hudson then sought to have the land annexed to the city. In seeking legislative relief, they specifically got authority to get a survey of the property done. Thus the annexation matches the cemetery property.



The statute describes the annexed area. This description has been incorporated into the city charter. The cemetery was surveyed counterclockwise beginning at Columbia Turnpike and Paul Avenue. The city charter describes the city limits in counterclockwise order, so these segments have been inserted into the charter in reverse order, and with the bearings reversed 180 degrees. I have converted the bearings to degrees azimuth, based on an 1895 magnetic declination of 9.80 degrees west.

Part 1, between red lines, describes the starting point, which is on the south side of Columbia Turnpike at Ten Broeck Lane, which separates the old (Hudson Burial Ground) and new (Cedar Park Cemetery) cemeteries.

Part 2, to green line, describes the line along Columbia Turnpike to Newman Road.

(1) 817 feet, 120.87 degrees azimuth.
(2) 433 feet, 121.17 degrees azimuth.

Note that the current charter (and an 1925 version) gives a distance of 817 feet, while the annexation statute says 816 feet. I think the charter is correct (see next segment).

Part 3, to blue line, describing the line along Newman Road (in 1897 Berridges' quarry road).

(3) 1627 feet, 189.62 degrees azimuth.

The statute says 783 feet, but this makes no sense, since it would make the area substantially smaller than the 47 acres stated in the statute. There may have been a transcription error. The version shown above is from the Common Council minutes, not the statute passed by the legislature.

Part 4, to orange line, describing the southern part of the boot heel.

(4) 553 feet, 255.80 degrees azimuth.
(5) 457 feet, 278.72 degrees azimuth.

Part 5, to purple line, describing the western part of the boot heel.

(6) 1172.5 feet, 23.62 degrees azimuth.

The statute says 626.2 feet, while the charter says 1172.5 feet. I believe the charter is correct.

Part 6, to brown line, describing the south boundary of the cemetery east of Ten Broeck Lane.

(7) 641 feet, 284.85 degrees azimuth.

Part 7 to gold line, describing the closure to the existing (in 1897) city limit.

(8) 264 feet, 13.53 degrees azimuth.

The statute gives a bearing of "north 29 degrees, 25 minutes (omitted)" with no indication whether it is east or west of north. This also repeats the next bearing of north 29 degrees, 25 minutes west. Either the survey split two consecutive segments into two parts, or there was a bizarre coincidence of adjacent segments having exactly the same angle but, opposite directions from magnetic north, but they happened to omit a necessary part of the description, or there was a transcription error and they ran two segments together. I think that this error is the case.

The charter gives an angle of "south 23 degrees, 20 minutes west". I have assumed that the charter is correct. Since the charter reverses, the directions, this would be equivalent to north 23 degrees, 20 minutes east, for this segment.

Part 8 to pink line the final connection to the center of Ten Broeck Lane.

(9) 16.5 feet, 320.78 degrees azimuth.

This is a short segment to reach the existing city limit (in 1897). This is where the current city limits switch from the original city limits, to traverse the cemetery annexation.

The last segment (8) before this small segment to get to the center of the road is northerly with just a small easterly component. The city limit reached Ten Broeck Lane from the south, not the east. This creates the notch.

Part 9 to lime line closes the annexation description.

(10) 877 feet along existing city limit (ie Ten Broeck Lane) to start of annexation description (south side of Columbia Turnpike).

Since this is where the annexed area joined the city, it is no longer part of the city limits.

The cemetery annexation has been spliced into the original city limits. The charter now reads:

"...to the center of the old road passing through the farm formerly owned by Charles Evarts; thence along the center of said old road north sixty-three degrees and twenty minutes east (N 63° 20' E) six chains and 60 links; thence north forty-four degrees and twenty minutes east (N 44° 20' E) 10 chains and 45 links; thence north fifty-five degrees and fifty minutes east (N 55° 50' E) six chains; thence north thirty-three degrees and fifty minutes east (N 33° 50' E) one chain; thence, as the magnetic needle stood in the year 1895 at right angles from center of said old road south twenty-nine degrees twenty-five minutes east (S 29° 25' E) 16 1/2 feet; thence south twenty-three degrees twenty minutes west (S 23° 20' W) 264 feet to lands of Everts Ten Broeck; thence south sixty-five degrees twenty-one minutes east (S 65° 21' E) 641 feet; thence south thirty-three degrees twenty-five minutes west (S 33° 25' W) 1,172 1/2 feet to a stone monument; thence south seventy-one degrees twenty-nine minutes east (S 71° 29' E) 457 feet to a stone monument; thence north eighty-five degrees thirty-six minutes east (N 85° 36' E) 553 feet to a stone monument near an elm tree, on the north side of Berridge's quarry road; thence along the northerly side of Berridge's quarry road, north nineteen degrees twenty-five minutes east (N 19° 25' E) 1,627 feet to the westerly side of the Columbia Turnpike; thence northerly along the westerly side of the Columbia Turnpike, north forty-nine degrees two minutes west (N 49° 2' W) 433 feet; thence continuing along the westerly side of the Columbia Turnpike north forty-nine degrees twenty minutes west (N 49° 20' W) 817 feet to the center of Paul Avenue; thence northerly along the center of Paul Avenue to the northerly side of the Union Turnpike; ..."

Part 1, in red, is the same as the original charter. Here we have reached Ten Broeck Lane, and are proceeding north.

Part 2, in orange, has been modified. Originally, this segment was 4.40 chains (290.40 feet). It has been reduced to one chaing (66 feet). This is where the cemetery splice begins.

Part 3, in blue is the cemetery splice. Note that distances are now specified in feet, and compass directions are based on the 1895 magnetic declination.

Part 4, in lime green, now simply specifies a northerly course along Paul Avenue, with no distance. In the original version, this was part of 15.70 chain (1036.20) segment that started south of Columbia Turnpike, which was superseded by the cemetery annexation.

Not shown above is the description of the second annexation (out Union Turnpike to Graham Avenue, and out Fairview Avenue past Oakwood Boulevard).

[jimrtex]

The Notch Part V

We can calculate where we think the city limits are.



The red stars represent the boundaries around the Cedar Park Cemetery annexed in 1897. Beginning at Paul Avenue and Columbia Turnpike, they proceed east on Columbia Turnpike, and then south on Newman Road. They then go west, and north around the boot heel. There is then a westerly segment, and finally a northerly segment to each the edge of the road. The orange star is the final 16-1/2 feet to the center of the road. Because of this  short distance, the orange star partially overlays the final red star. The order of the stars is the opposite of the charter, because we are working from the known point of Ten Broeck Lane/Paul Avenue and Coumbia Turnpike. In the legal description, this point is on the south side of Columbia Turnpike (in 1897), while I have placed it at the intersection of the census lines. Thus my stars are slightly north of their true location. There may be smaller errors due to use of the wrong magnetic declination (this would rotate everything), and perhaps my not fully understanding how to mesh projections.

The greater excursion around the boot heel is probably correct. If it is included then, the annexed area is about 47.6 acres. The statute says "forty-seven acres more or less". Using the city limit on census maps gives and area of about 44.9 acres, even excluding the notch.

The gold stars represent the original boundary along Ten Broeck Lane, beginning on the north side of Union Turnpike (or Columbia Street and Paul Avenue in modern terms). The green star represents where the splice occurs. The distance between the gold stars on either side is 4.40 chains (290 feet). The green star is 1.00 chain (66 feet) north of the gold star to its south. Ideally, the green and orange stars would be coincident. They are separated by about 35 feet. The starting point for the gold stars is in the center of Columbia Street and Paul Avenue, while the legal definition is the north side of Union Turnpike in 1825. Thus they are slightly further south in this image. The intersection of Paul Avenue and Columbia Street may have been modified to make it more perpendicular, and also further from the curve when Columbia Street transitions to Union Turnpike. In 1825, it was a single straight shot from the first gold star south of Columbia Turnpike to the gold star north of then Union Turnpike. Now Paul Avenue is slightly more northerly than Ten Broeck Lane. This would move the gold and green stars further east.

The gold stars are slightly to the west of Ten Broeck Lane. This may be due to an error in placement of the starting point, but the road may have moved. It was described as an old road 200 years ago, so it was likely little more than a pair of wagon ruts. The road might shift to the downhill side (to the east). And any formal widening to pave the road or improve drainage would be away from a cemetery.

The southernmost star is coincident with a tiny deflection in southern boundary. The census bureau has deliberately colocated its definition of the city limit to match Ten Broeck Lane. The census bureau considers anybody east of Ten Broeck Lane to be in Greenport, and anyone to the west to be in Hudson. The small deflection may represent a connection between the actual limit, and Ten Broeck Lane.

This is a closeup of the notch area.



The red line is the likely city limit, just outside the cemetery lane, but with the notch to the north, rather going directly west to Ten Broeck Lane. It is parallel to the cyan line, the the census bureau uses for the city limit, but runs across the city limit.

The gold line is the the original city limit, projected backwards from Union Turnpike and Ten Broeck Lane (now Columbia Street and Paul Avenue). South of the green star it remains the city limit. At the gold star south of the green star it should be about 28 feet west of the red line, which would put it pretty close to the centerline of Ten Broeck Lane.

According to the city charter Ten Broeck bears to the left about 22 degrees; but in actuality it  bears a bit more to the right. It appears that Ten Broeck Lane has been shifted east at this point, perhaps so there is a straight shot on Ten Broeck Lane where the old and new cemeteries adjoin each other.

There is also a fenced area in the cemetery, about 20 feet by 30 feet, that almost reaches the pavement on Ten Broeck Lane. The southeast corner of the fence is within a foot or two of the pavement.



There appears to be a gate or sign facing the roadway. It could be a family cemetery, or possibly a cemetery for blacks or Jews. In any event, the road could have been routed to the  east to barely miss it.

This is a portion of the  map from the 1940 census which was based on a 1932 map prepared by the Department of Public Works. I've marked some lanes that are clearly visible in satellite images that show that we have correctly located the notch.



According to the 2010 Census, 2 persons were living in a single housing unit in Census Tract 13, Block 4015. The only plausible location is the building in the notch.

7 persons were living two housing units in Census Tract 13, Block 4016, in a family of five and a family of two. There is possibly an apartment on the back side of the house.

[muon2]

When did the maps start showing the city line to include the notch? In other words who introduced what seems to be an error?

Also, it appears that Ten Broeck lane shifted at some point. Is that shift part of the problem?

[jimrtex]

When did the maps start showing the city line to include the notch? In other words who introduced what seems to be an error?

Also, it appears that Ten Broeck lane shifted at some point. Is that shift part of the problem?

We may be referring to two different things as the notch.

There is a big excursion up Ten Broeck Lane and then east, south, east, north, and west around the new (Cedar Park Cemetery).

And there is what I am referring to as "the notch" is where the city limits make a 143 degree turn, and go south for 260 feet.

In either case, they are the result of the 1897 annexation of the new cemetery. The old cemetery (Hudson Burial Ground) was (and is) to the west of the Ten Broeck Lane. In 1895 The City of Hudson purchased some land in Greenport for expansion of the cemetery. Greenport was going to assess property taxes. The city was going to protest the taxes, but to be sure decided to get the legislature to annex the property (by amending the charter). In the 1896 and 1897 minutes of the Common Council it was recorded that the committee preparing the legislation sought a surveyor to make sure that the annexed area matched the cemetery property.

When the Town of Greenport was detached from Hudson in 1837, the boundary followed an "old road" that is today known as Ten Broeck Lane (note that there is also a Ten Broeck Road and Ten Broeck Avenue in the general area. The Ten Broeck family was quite prominent through the Hudson Valley, not only in Columbia County). The city limits state that bearings should be based on an 1825 magnetic declination. My guess is that the lines had been surveyed a few years before the legislature finally passed a bill.

This is the only part of the city limts that followed a physical feature (not counting the center channel of the river), and a white oak and willow tree that marked turning points.

Ten Broeck Lane was an "old road" even at that time, so was probably a pair of wagon ruts.

The Ten Broeck Lane portion of the city limits was surveyed in 5 segments. These had bearings of

57.86, 38.86, 50.36, 28.36, and 17.11 (azimuth angles, assuming the that the magnetic declination in 1825 was 5.43 degrees west). Azimuth angles are measured clockwise from true North.

The first and third segments are east of northeast (45 degrees), while the second segment is north of northeast. The road still follows this pattern, east of northwest, then bearing more north, and then bearing more east.

The fourth segment does not exist, instead of bearing more northerly, the road bears more east. The final segment does exist.



In this image, the fourth segment is between the two gold stars on either side of the green star. The road has clearly been shifted here (or not surveyed correctly when the city limit was established). The final segment is now longer.

That the gold stars are generally west of the road may not mean anything. I don't know where Ten Broeck Lane reached the northern side of Union Turnpike in 1825. Ten Broeck Lane is now called Paul Avenue and has a slightly more northerly course, perhaps to produce a more perpendicular intesection with Columbia Street. I may have use the wrong magnetic declination which would rotate the whole string of gold stars around my presumed origin. Distances on my projection might not match distances on the ground, or distances and bearings in the charter may not match reality.

There is a fenced area of the cemetery, about 20 feet x 30 feet with the red and orange stars in the southern part of it. You can see it as a lusher green in this image. The southeast corner of the fence is extremely close to the roadway. If the road were there first, you would never permit the fence to be built. If a drunk driver cuts the inside of that corner, he'll clip the fence.

But if the fenced area with graves in it were there first, you would route the road around it. There is either a gate or a sign on the road side of the fenced area. It is possible that it is not actually part of the Hudson Burial Ground.

The cemetery annexation splices into the original city limits at the green star in the fourth segment. The fourth segment was originally 4.40 chains (290.40 feet). The fourth segment is now one chain (66 feet). The remainder of the fourth segment and all of the fifth segment are no longer in the charter (the portion of the fifth segment along Paul Avenue is still included, but includes neither a distance or bearing).

I do not know how they determined that the splice occurred at one chain into the 4th segment. The statute for the annexation only describes the annexed area, and gives a distance of 872 feet along the existing city limit to close the loop around the new cemetery. Someone at a later date, incorporated the annexation into the overall charter description (and also made corrections to the cemetery annexation description).

But I just realized that they might have measured the one chain along the road, instead of along a bearing of 28.36 degrees azimuth. This would rotate the green star around the gold star to the south. That is the correct charter interpretation is that the remainder of the 4th segment is "66 feet along the road" rather than "66 feet at a bearing 28.36 degrees azimuth that follows the road".

The annexation has a short segment of 16-1/2 feet to get from the center of the road, and is said to be perpendicular to the road. The bearing is in fact perpendicular to the current road and not to the 28.36 degrees stated in the charter.

The second to last red star has to be at the southwest corner of the new cemetery. Its calculated location is too far north. The distance from that corner northward to the road matches the 264 feet in the annexation statute, and in the charter. And the distance from that point northward to Columbia Turnpike matches the 872 feet in the annexation statute.

The charter is now literally incorrect except for "thence along the center of said old road ...". The distances and bearings are descriptive rather than defining.

The historical atlases are from middle to late 19th century before the annexation. The annexation occured in 1897. There is an 1895 15-minute USGS topo sheet that was updated numerous times (IIRC until 1931). None of them show the cemetery annexation. The topo sheets are not necessarily accurate in any case. There are topo sheets that show the northern city limits roughly parallel to the street grid, when the northern city limits are much closer to east-west.

The 1940 census map shows the notch. It is based on a print of a 1932 map by the Department of Public Works, on which someone had marked the city limits and ward boundaries and enumeration districts with a crayon or marking pencil. Because of the thickness of the mark, the actual fineness of the cut is obscured.

Later 7.5-minute topo sheets do not have the notch, nor do census maps. There is large scale map showing the sewage system that show the notch at the wrong place.

"When did the maps start showing the city line to include the notch? In other words who introduced what seems to be an error?"

I'm confused by the part in red. The error is the omission of the notch. The city charter has the notch in it. The 1932 city map had the notch. Modern census maps do not.

[muon2]

By include the notch I meant that the building and land in the triangular notch became part of Hudson. From your description it would seem that notch was not in Hudson as of 1940. What is the earliest map that shows the notch area included in Hudson? That narrows the window to when the change took place, which I am referring to as a error since there seems to be no legal evidence of a change.

[Torie]

Do I need to download "python modules" with the download of QGIS?  I want to make some suggestions to the NY guy, but just a few, not zillions, which will just drive them away. Pick your shots baby.

OK, go QGIS open with a blank page, and got the sample up. So where do I get the data set for Hudson that shows all those hydrology features you are putting up and what not that I cannot see on Google Maps? Is this going to give me access to more visible physical features?

And where did you get the below super clear image from?

[jimrtex]

Do I need to download "python modules" with the download of QGIS?  I want to make some suggestions to the NY guy, but just a few, not zillions, which will just drive them away. Pick your shots baby.

OK, go QGIS open with a blank page, and got the sample up. So where do I get the data set for Hudson that shows all those hydrology features you are putting up and what not that I cannot see on Google Maps? Is this going to give me access to more visible physical features?

And where did you get the below super clear image from?

When you installed QGIS it installed about 6 programs. Be sure you are running:

QGIS Desktop 2.14.2  (don't worry about the last number, they put out new versions frequently).


Go to here 2020 Census Program Phases and download BBSP Using Your Own Software Participant Guide [PDF] 2.6MB

This is the guide for the New York state guide, assuming he is using his own GIS, and it explains how to make "suggestions" to the census bureau.

Then jump down the page to "Partnership Shapefiles", and select 2016 Partnership Files and then select New York, Columbia County, and Submit. You will get a zip file containing two other zip files.

partnership_shapefiles_15v2_36021.zip

contains the shapefiles for Columbia County (the census code for New York is 36, the census code for Columbia County is 021). Unzip those.

partnership_shapefiles_15v2_36.zip

contains some shapefiles for New York State as a whole. You probably won't need it, but it won't hurt to unzip it.

Drag this file into QGIS (be sure to get the .shp file)

PVS_15_v2_edges_36021.shp


For the images, click on Web on the top menu, Open Layers Plugin, Google, Satellite Map.

[jimrtex]

Do I need to download "python modules" with the download of QGIS?  I want to make some suggestions to the NY guy, but just a few, not zillions, which will just drive them away. Pick your shots baby.

They should be included in the QGIS download.

Are you getting the shapefiles from the Census Bureau or from the New York guy?

All my suggestions are in a edges shapefile.

An "edge" is a polyline (a series of vertices), a polyline is like a polygon, except it is not closed (some edges are closed, because they start and end at the same point. For example, the edge representing the shoreline of Underhill Pond is continuous because it does not connect with any other edges.

An edge has a starting and ending "node", which are the starting and ending vertices of the edge. Because they have a start and an end, edges have a direction.

Edges may not cross, so most edges join other edges at a node. For example Robinson Street is represented by two edges. (1) 2nd Street to Strawberry Alley where it connects to Robinson Street west of the former Charles Williams School; (2) Strawberry Alley to 3rd Street.

At the node at Robinson Street and 2nd Street, the first Robinson Street edge joins two edges representing 2nd Street north and south of Robinson. At Strawberry Alley, the two Robinson Street edges join the edge representing Strawberry Alley. At 3rd Street, the second Robinson Street edge joins two edges representing 3rd Street, north and south of Robinson Street.

An edge does not have to join any other nodes. The edge representing Mill Street joins two edges representing 2nd Street (and an edge representing a stream west of 2nd Street) at its western end. The node at the eastern end does not join any other edges.

An edge has at least two vertices, but may have more to help refine the shape. The edge corresponding to Robinson Street has three vertices, with a vertex between the two ends. Strawberry Alley has five vertices, with the middle three describing the curve from a path parallel to Robinson to the north-south connection to Robinson Street.

A face is bounded by a closed path of edges. A block is comprised of one or more contiguous faces. A face may have holes. For example there is a face corresponding to Underhill Pond, and then a face for the area around it - Harry Howard, the loop around the inner Westwind units, Harry Howard, Paddock Place, driveways around the middle school, the goat path south to 6th and Glenwood, 6th Street, Clinton Street, the extensions of Clinton Street.

The Clinton Street extension is an edge, and so there is a face bounded by Harry Howard, Clinton Street extension, Washington, and 5th Street.

The census block corresponds to three faces, the large face, the Underhill Pond face, and the "block" south of Clinton Street.

Currently, the Census Bureau does not intend to use the edge corresponding to the Clinton extension as a block boundary. What we are "suggesting" to the census bureau is that they use that edge as a block boundary, which then makes the face a block.

[jimrtex]

This is pretty interesting.

What is Hudson's Conservation Advisory Council

Our inventory will produce both a written description and a digital map. It will incorporate many
types of information including (but not limited to)
• property boundaries, and whether properties are public or private, built or unbuilt
• topography, slopes and erosion problems
• natural habitats and the presence of rare or threatened species
• water features, drainage courses, wetlands and flood zones
• tree canopy and street trees
• existing and proposed water, stormwater and sewer lines
• historic districts and sites, and other cultural resources

See General Municipal Law (GMU) Section 12-F

Does Columbia County have a Conservation Advisory Council? Any of the towns or villages in the county?

[jimrtex]

Do I need to download "python modules" with the download of QGIS?  I want to make some suggestions to the NY guy, but just a few, not zillions, which will just drive them away. Pick your shots baby.

OK, go QGIS open with a blank page, and got the sample up. So where do I get the data set for Hudson that shows all those hydrology features you are putting up and what not that I cannot see on Google Maps? Is this going to give me access to more visible physical features?

"A shapefile" actually consists of several files, in particular a ".shp" file that contains the raw coordinates, and a ".dbf" dBase file that contains the attributes of each edge, block, etc. When you drag a ".shp" file into the viewing area, QGIS is also getting the associated ".dbf" files. We are using QGIS to view and edit the "shp" and ".dbf" files.

You can open the ".dbf" file with Excel. Open a file in Excel, select ".dbf" as the extension and browse to the directory and open PVS_15_v2_edges_36021.dbf  You can't write a .dbf file with Excel, but that does not matter, this is just to help explain what we are doing. The actual editing is done in QGIS.

The edges have the following fields:

STATEFP   State code (36 for New York)
COUNTYFP      County code (021 for Columbia)
TLID   Line ID. This is permanent for the US. Each edge has a unique ID.
TFIDL   Face to the left.
TFIDR   Face to the right.
MTFCC      MAF/TIGER Feature Classification code. This indicates whether an edge is a street, hydrology feature, statistical line, etc.
FIDELITY   This is used by the Census Bureau.
FULLNAME   Name of feature eg "Robinson St"
SMID      This is used by Census Bureau
SMIDTYPE   This is used by Census Bureau
BBSPFLG   Whether edge was suggested block boundary for 2010.
CBBFLG   Whether the Census Bureau intends to use the suggested block boundary for 2020.
BBSP_2020   Our suggestion for block boundary use for 2020.
CHNG_TYPE   Change type: "AL" add line, "DL" delete line, "CA" Change attributes.
JUSTIFY   Justification for change (free form text).
LTOADD   Street address ranges on left and right side of edge.
RTOADD   
LFROMADD   
RFROMADD   
ZIPL   Zip code on left and right side of edge.
ZIPR   
EXTTYP   Census Bureau Use
MTUPDATE   Census Bureau Use

The New York State guy could call up the Census Bureau and tell them to delete line 415689732, and the census bureau would tell him to send an update file with line 415689732 marked as 'DL'. This would also be true for Torie and the New York state guy. Since I have already proposed a set of suggestions in the format that the Census Bureau wants (AS I UNDERSTAND IT), it would be easiest to get that to Torie and the New York state guy and the Census Bureau. Somewhere along the line it might be discovered that I made a mistake, but that can be fixed.

Since we aren't making changes one-by-one via a phone call or e-mail, I don't see a reason for limiting the number of changes. Every change that I have suggested has the JUSTIFY field completed. And we can include a narrative explaining the changes.

[jimrtex]

I just noticed that the proposal for development of the Kaz site refers to it as Montgomery Street. This suggests that the segment of street between 2nd Street and Tanners Lane, is actually Montgomery Street - or that the developers decided that Montgomery was a better name than Cross or Tanners, or 2nd Street.

Have there been safety issues raised about the lack of access to the east end of Tanners Lane, particularly if the hotel is short of parking?

I just noticed the drop off in this area down to the former South Bay. At Deer Alley and Cross Lane it appears that there is a house with a rather spectacular view off to the southwest.

ZBA minutes for 2016 don't appear to being posted on the city website.

[Torie]

This is pretty interesting.

What is Hudson's Conservation Advisory Council

Our inventory will produce both a written description and a digital map. It will incorporate many
types of information including (but not limited to)
• property boundaries, and whether properties are public or private, built or unbuilt
• topography, slopes and erosion problems
• natural habitats and the presence of rare or threatened species
• water features, drainage courses, wetlands and flood zones
• tree canopy and street trees
• existing and proposed water, stormwater and sewer lines
• historic districts and sites, and other cultural resources

See General Municipal Law (GMU) Section 12-F

Does Columbia County have a Conservation Advisory Council? Any of the towns or villages in the county?

The conservation group started last year. It's relatively new.

[Torie]

I just noticed that the proposal for development of the Kaz site refers to it as Montgomery Street. This suggests that the segment of street between 2nd Street and Tanners Lane, is actually Montgomery Street - or that the developers decided that Montgomery was a better name than Cross or Tanners, or 2nd Street.

Have there been safety issues raised about the lack of access to the east end of Tanners Lane, particularly if the hotel is short of parking?

I just noticed the drop off in this area down to the former South Bay. At Deer Alley and Cross Lane it appears that there is a house with a rather spectacular view off to the southwest.

ZBA minutes for 2016 don't appear to being posted on the city website.

Montgomery "street" is a tiny alley at the moment. It was closed off long ago. Cross street at the moment is effectively a dead end, although you can drive through the alley in back of the Hotel site and drive through a parking area to get to Front Street. No safety issues were raised. The Hotel allegedly has a five year lease from CSX for the parking area.

[jimrtex]

This is pretty interesting.

What is Hudson's Conservation Advisory Council

Our inventory will produce both a written description and a digital map. It will incorporate many
types of information including (but not limited to)
• property boundaries, and whether properties are public or private, built or unbuilt
• topography, slopes and erosion problems
• natural habitats and the presence of rare or threatened species
• water features, drainage courses, wetlands and flood zones
• tree canopy and street trees
• existing and proposed water, stormwater and sewer lines
• historic districts and sites, and other cultural resources

See General Municipal Law (GMU) Section 12-F

Does Columbia County have a Conservation Advisory Council? Any of the towns or villages in the county?

The conservation group started last year. It's relatively new.

I know. What I was interested in was their digital map (see above).

I assume you are familiar with the concept of layers in a GIS, where you can overlay different pieces of information.

While their focus is open areas and conservation it necessarily includes human activities.

If there were a publicly-accessible Hudson GIS, there could be layers with accurate ward boundaries, and zoning maps, and zoning variance application maps, as well as the location of ash borers. I am suggesting that there could be more integration, and they could be looking at adding the layers of their particular interest.

I just realized that the property office has included this layer of interest:

[jimrtex]

I just noticed that the proposal for development of the Kaz site refers to it as Montgomery Street. This suggests that the segment of street between 2nd Street and Tanners Lane, is actually Montgomery Street - or that the developers decided that Montgomery was a better name than Cross or Tanners, or 2nd Street.

Have there been safety issues raised about the lack of access to the east end of Tanners Lane, particularly if the hotel is short of parking?

I just noticed the drop off in this area down to the former South Bay. At Deer Alley and Cross Lane it appears that there is a house with a rather spectacular view off to the southwest.

ZBA minutes for 2016 don't appear to being posted on the city website.

Montgomery "street" is a tiny alley at the moment. It was closed off long ago. Cross street at the moment is effectively a dead end, although you can drive through the alley in back of the Hotel site and drive through a parking area to get to Front Street. No safety issues were raised. The Hotel allegedly has a five year lease from CSX for the parking area.

You currently have Cross Street, that becomes 2nd Street south of the stairway as it jogs south. It then goes east along the Montgomery Street right of way, but it appears to be referred to as 2nd Street. Is that actually correct? It then becomes Tanners Lane.

There is the portion of Montgomery Street off of S 3rd Street that dead ends. Throughout the area streets are cut off because of the slope going down to former South Bay. The Cross Street-S 2nd Street-Montgomery Street-Tanners Lane marks the shoreline. To the south it was probably under water at least at high tide.



There used to be an extension (on census maps) from the tip of Tanners Lane to S 3rd Street to create a block boundary. It appears that there may be informal access.

At the tip of Tanners Lane, you are about 1/3 of a mile from Front Street, and it seems like there might be safety issues with additional development and only one route in. The Kaz property has an outlet onto Tanners Lane where the schematic appears to have placed some townhomes (or are those rowhouses in Hudson?).

[Torie]

The Kaz proposal involves work-living spaces.

[jimrtex]

The Kaz proposal involves work-living spaces.

"includes residential, retail, co-working office, and live/work spaces"

Those five units on Tanners Lane look like townhouses to me.