Established in 2006, KingstonCitizens.org is a non-partisan, grassroots, volunteer organization committed to nurturing transparency in local government through citizen engagement and participation.
Please subscribe to keep updated on the latest events concerning our community. (*required)
By Rebecca Martin
On Thursday, March 23 at 6:30pm, a public hearing on the Forward Citywide Form-Based Code draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. (“DGEIS”) will occur at Kingston City Hall. Currently, the hearing is scheduled to occur in the Common Council’s conference Room 1 indicating that the city is not anticipating many residents to attend.
UPDATE: The meeting will be moved to council chambers
KingstonCitizens.org has requested that it be moved to council chambers in order to accommodate more members of the public. Community members can make the same request by calling or writing Bartek Starodaj, Director of Housing Initiatives at (845) 334-3928 or bstarodaj@kingston-ny.gov
“Resolution 50 of 2023, that passed on March 7, 2023 when the Common Council, the lead agency for the Form-Based Code State Environmental Quality Review (“SEQR”), voted to accept the draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“DGEIS”) as complete in scope and content. The Common Council also voted to schedule a public hearing on Thursday, March 23th with an open public comment period that will continue through April 10th. ”
An important moment for the public and housing in the City of Kingston
Although we are nearing the end of the citywide Form-Based Code process, the Kingston Common Council as Lead Agency of the State Environmental Quality Review (“SEQR”) as a type 1 action has an obligation to hear from and respond to the public in its determination of whether or not the DGEIS is either adequate or deficient.
We continue to fully support a Form-Based Code for Kingston as well as the city and the council in its work to create a unique code for the Kingston community. To do that, we have identified some questions and concerns out ahead of Thursday’s public hearing. It’s important that the public is confident that the council is guided by Kingston-centric data that takes into account pandemic conditions so that the code, once passed, is inclusive to make housing affordable for all.
Affordable Housing vs. Low Income Housing
In the City of Kingston, we have often heard people speak about Affordable Housing and Low Income housing interchangeably when they are not the same.
Affordable housing defines properties that take up less than 30% of a renter’s income. Low Income housing describes residences designed to support renters struggling to keep up with rising rental costs. These distinctions are important for our new code so that Low Income families are not left behind.
According to HUD’s Median Family Income Calculation Methodology and Income limit definitions, Low Income ranges from 51% – 80% Annual Median Income (“AMI”). If the city sets Affordable Housing at 80% AMI, then according to these figures, we are at the high end of AMI for Low Income housing and may not be attainable in this climate for our Low Income families in Kingston. Furthermore, if the city plans to privatize its public housing authority units as it is currently doing, what will happen to the Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) and Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI) families living here now? We need more definitions, requirements and incentives for other categories in order to address the housing crisis in the City of Kingston.
Ulster County vs. City of Kingston Median Income
In the DGEIS, Ulster County rather than City of Kingston median incomes are guiding affordable. At a glance, according to the US Census (2021), the City of Kingston median income is $58,840 while in Ulster County for the same period is $71,010. That sample alone proves that there are tangible differences between the two.
So why is the code using Ulster County rather than City of Kingston data for the city’s unique zoning code? In the public comments of the Kingston Community Review (Draft 2.0, line 105), staff wrote that the Ulster County Area Median Income figure is referenced “because HUD does not publish AMI levels specific to Kingston,” and that, “the current draft is simplified to reference the applicable HUD definition.”
Is the council confident that HUD does not publish AMI levels for Kingston, and is it in our community’s best interest to “simplify” during a housing crisis to turn Ulster County’s AMI into law? What is the Ulster County AMI doing or not doing to provide opportunities and access for more people who live in the City of Kingston now?
Developers may be able to opt-out of 10% Affordable Units with Payment-in-Lieu-of Affordable Housing
A Payment-in-Lieu-of Affordable Housing (“PILOAH”) is included in the Kingston Form Based Code 3.0, page 114 , where the criteria is not clearly defined, as criteria would be set and adopted by the Kingston Common Council at some later date. Here, the developer is provided an option to make a Payment-in-Lieu of Affordable Housing instead of providing on-site affordable or workforce housing units into an Affordable Housing Fund.
On March 16, Bartok Starodaj provided the council with a presentation on the housing changes to the Form-Based-Code and at that time, was not able to go into any detail about the municipalities where a PILOAH is successfully implemented or provide examples of policy of how an Affordable Housing Fund is used.
Since an Executive Order was issued in December 2020, all applicants requesting site plan approval with the City of Kingston’s Planning board building more than 5 units of housing anywhere in the City are required to have at least 10% of its units affordable without any loopholes.
Where did the PILOAH come from and is it wise for the council turn it into law in the code before policies are clearly defined? What should be considered is continuing to require 10% affordable units for all housing projects as well as to include more income ranges than is currently required now as affordable.
Council sets a special meeting to approve the Stony Run Apartments deal ahead of the Form Based Code public hearing as well as the code for housing criteria becoming law.
As the City of Kingston works on defining housing for development in its code, the council has set-up a special meeting on March 22nd to consider approving a deal with Aker Cos that would allow the developer to raise rents in vacant units unilaterally to the maximum amount allowed by the agreement or 120% AMI. An approval for 120% AMI in any capacity would preempt both the public hearing on March 23 and the Form-Based-Code process before it concludes.
Next steps
1. Attend the upcoming public hearing on the Forward Citywide Form-Based Code draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) on Thursday, March 23 at 6:30pm at Kingston City Hall. If you cannot attend in person, written comments may be emailed to Bartek Starodaj, Director of Housing Initiatives, via bstarodaj@kingston-ny.gov or dropped off at the City Clerk’s Office. Consider the following items on housing:
2. Attend the Special Common Council meeting on March 22nd at 7:30pm at Kingston City Hall.
Attention historic preservation enthusiasts and newbies: Kingstoncitizens.org contributor Marissa Marvelli is hosting two free presentations at the Kingston Library that you should know about. The first one, Saturday February 18, is an introduction to researching buildings in Ulster County. She’ll also talk about historic rehabilitation tax credits. The second one, Saturday March 11, will feature Derrick McNab, one of Kingston’s greatest fonts of knowledge when it comes to restoring historic buildings.
Saturday February 18, 1pm: Research Your Historic House with Marissa Marvelli – Got an old house? Curious about who lived there or when it was built? Bring your questions to Marissa Marvelli, a Kingston local and an award-winning historic preservation professional. She’ll show you the available resources to help you become an expert on your home. Historic maps, deeds, census records, newspaper archives, city directories and other materials contain a treasure trove of information waiting to be mined.
Saturday March 11, 1pm: Ask a Historic Restoration Expert: Discussion with Derrick McNab – Wondering what to do with your old windows? Got roof repair issues? Thinking about installing new insulation? Want to avoid a bad masonry job? Wondering if your contractor is right for the job? In March, program organizer Marissa Marvelli will hand the mic over to Kingston-based Derrick McNab, an expert in all things pertaining to historic building restoration. His many skills include decorative paint work, plastering, woodworking and finishing, masonry restoration, and slate roofing and repair. He will discuss common restoration and maintenance issues and practical approaches to addressing them.
A (Working) Preservation Guide for Historic Property Owners and Enthusiasts in Ulster Co., NY. Last month, Marissa Marvelli shared a working GOOGLE DOCUMENT with the public and a goal of it becoming a comprehensive preservation guide for Ulster County. Marissa is a real treasure and we give her thanks for all that she does for Kingston and Ulster County.
Last year, KingstonCitizens.org was was one of 140 organizations that signed onto a letter urging the Governor and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation to deny the renewal of the permit for the Norlite Hazardous Waste Incinerator in Cohoes, NY to support our important Hudson Valley Solid Waste Management partners Lights Out Norlite. That effort was successful in getting the state to stop the “illegal” burning of AFFF toxic firefighting foam at the plant – though they continue to operate the plant on an expired permit right next door to a public housing authority.
PAUSE (People of Albany United for Safe Energy), the 350.org affiliate in the Capital District, is urging climate justice groups your organization to sign on to a letter to the State Attorney General asking her to support the motion by Lights Out Norlite to intervene in the lawsuit her office, along with DEC, has filed against the Norlite hazardous waste incinerator and aggregrate facility in Cohoes NY.
The letter outlines why the AG should support giving the residents who live by this public nuisance the right to have a strong voice in the litigation to finally clean up – and hopefully shut down – this facility that that has been polluting an environmental justice community for decades. While it is the judge in the case that will make the ultimate decision, it would be good to have the AG supporting it; we expect that NYS DEC as usual will oppose giving citizens a voice, and Norlite will oppose.
Since the judge may rule on the motion to intervene in early February, we need to convince the AG to not oppose the motion as soon as possible. We plan to send the letter by Friday, February 3.
If you are a climate justice group, you can sign the letter here. Visit links to the complaint and memo of support from Lights Out Norlite.
By Rebecca Martin
Kingston Meadows, a planned 60-unit senior citizens housing complex behind the Holiday Inn off Washington Avenue and located in a flood plain (Watch the video. One of the planning board members, who is an affordable housing developer, publicly stated that she had a parent in a senior housing project and wouldn’t want her parent situated in this project site. She was a no vote), went before the City of Kingston’s Planning Board on January 17. The proposal called for a three-story, 65,145-square-foot building comprising 58 one-bedroom units and two two-bedroom units.
This is at least the third time that this project has appeared before the City of Kingston planning board. One of the benefits of doing advocacy work in Kingston for nearly 20 years is that I’ve got some institutional memory. I encourage residents to pay attention to this proposal. We don’t want our elders living in a new, profitable construction surrounded by an unintended moat. They deserve better.
This is what I recall.
In 2011, the Ulster County Planning board voiced significant concerns relating to the “public safety and the completeness of the information provided” read the three-page report at that time. Worries about “seasonal flooding, rail trail connections and site access” were raised by the Ulster County planning board’s review process. It was our understanding at that time that if there was a public subsidy request for the project, it went against the Ulster County Planning Board, the NYSDEC, and State Infrastructure Act funding, and could therefore not be approved.
Two years later in 2013, the Kingston Planning Board decided that the proposed senior citizen complex would not have significant impacts regardless of the Ulster County planning boards concerns. The project laid dormant.
Now, nearly ten years later, the proposal has emerged again and the City of Kingston planning board granted site plan approval to the project, once more overruling the Ulster County planning board’s referral that stated the project should not be approved.
The minutes to the Ulster County planning board for December and January are not yet available. But you can WATCH the Kingston Planning Board discussion from January 17, 2023.
RESOURCES
1. Ulster County Planning Board recommendation letter from (2012): “The Ulster County Planning Board reviewed this proposal for site plan approval in January, 2011. As part of that review the Board recommended that the project be disapproved as the “UCPB has significant concerns as it relates to public safety and the completeness of the information provided to the extent that it believes the project should have a positive declaration under SEQRA.” This re-submittal answers some of the objections raised in 2011, but in the UCPB’s opinion, the project still has multiple issues that argue against its approval.”
2. City of Kingston Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) “The City of Kingston Conservation Advisory Commission has been following this proposed development project since 2012. The CAC is resubmitting comments made in 2012 and2016. This type of project, a valuable asset to our community with additional housing for the senior demographic, still presents issues with effects on Esopus Creek and flooding of the Creek.
The SEQR Negative Declaration should be reconsidered at this time.”
Photo credits: Kevin Smith, Woodstock Land Conservancy 8/24/22
By Rebecca Martin
Cooper Lake is located in the Town of Woodstock and is the largest natural lake in the Catskill Mountains. It stores water from the Mink Hollow Stream in addition to water that reaches the lake from its nearly 9 square-mile watershed.
It is also the City of Kingston’s primary drinking water source.
The City of Kingston Water Department was founded on May 27, 1895 by a special act of the New York State Legislature to provide potable water to the residents of the City of Kingston. It is a financially and administratively independent department within the City of Kingston funded by drinking water users (and not tax dollars) and is governed by the Board of Water Commissioners. The Board is a continuously sitting body and each member is appointed to a five (5) year term by the Mayor. The Mayor is also a voting member of the Board and the Kingston Common Council assigns a liaison in January of each year to monitor their business.
The Early History of Water, Woodstock and Kingston by Richard Heppner
Our area is in the midst of a drought. At the same time, important dam construction at Cooper Lake is underway in order to bring the dam into compliance to meet the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulations. It’s a project that’s been in the works for many years.
In preparation, last July Cooper Lake was lowered by 10 feet below its maximum capacity and that level must be maintained throughout the dam work that is scheduled through November of 2023. The process began before our current drought emergency that has escalated and was raised to Stage II on August 11.
At times like these, Kingston is fortunate to have a secondary drinking water source – the Ashokan Reservoir. Many communities that I work with haven’t got a plan B. Although the infrastructure is not yet connected, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) has run pipes under Route 28 at Basin Road and part way down Sawkill so that the Kingston Water Department would be able to tap into the reservoir if they ever needed to. They never have – until now.
In the early 2000’s, the Town of Ulster signed a long standing agreement to purchase 700,000 gallons per day (GPD) whether they used all of it or not from the Kingston Water Department making them one of our largest drinking water users. That agreement was recently brought to a halt because of the seriousness of the drought. Now the town is working to provide Kingston with 200,000 GPD to help us through this critical time, even when they are also experiencing drought conditions and cut-backs. The residents in the Town of Ulster deserve our gratitude.
Kingston Water Department and “surplus water”
Nearly 10 years ago, the City of Kingston was on the brink of selling 1.75 million GPD of our municipal drinking water supply to the California based company Niagara Bottling at Tech City in the Town of Ulster. Had they succeeded, they would have secured their first large drinking water bottling facility in our region and would have taken every drop for all the years they were here to bottle and to sell. For those following the changes at the Tech City site, Niagara would have likely impacted the recent trajectory of any progress seen today. And given Niagara’s track record, we might have been in a heap of trouble now. It’s one thing to negotiate with your neighbors. It’s a whole other matter to do the same during drought conditions with a corporation who have savvy lawyers and deep pockets. Luckily, with the support of many community members, organizations and elected officials, we nipped that proposal in the bud in just five months and sent Niagara packing.
Side bar: We still have Niagara Bottling on our google alert. We’ve been following them around the country for the last seven years and share information about our strategies with municipalities interested who are struggling as we were. We’ve had some success, too – in communities located in Texas and Wisconsin.
Back in 2014 when Niagara was a looming threat, we learned about Kingston’s safe yield (by definition, the safe yield of any water supply is the maximum dependable water supply that can be withdrawn continuously from a supply during a period of years in which the driest period or periods of greatest deficiency in water supply is likely to occur) being 6.1 million GPD. For Kingston’s drinking water supply, that period continues to be the drought of 1957 that lasted 3 months. Kingston’s safe yield was said to be accurate when we inquired. We were told changes were slow.
Also in 2014, community member’s concerns were said to be “hysterical”, as the City of Kingston had surplus water to sell and the East Coast was water rich. Their messaging gained no traction with us.
Here is some interesting data from old posts about droughts in the Hudson Valley:
Given the recent trends, is it time for us to take another look at our safe yield and consider climate? I think so. Although Cooper Lake was reduced 10 feet to its maximum capacity last year for important dam work, it seems clear that no one anticipated a drought a year later that would exacerbate our current situation.
Drinking Water Budgets
There is such a thing as drinking water budgets, or an accounting of all the water that flows into and out of a project area. The Kingston Water department once told us that they have one. Through our FOILs in 2014 and 2015 we never successfully acquired a copy. If our safe yield is 6.1 million GPD then we don’t want to overuse or over promise what we can deliver. A water budget keeps track of our current residential and business use and should also take into account future development project commitments.
In a report from 2007 for the proposed Hudson River Landing Development, it stated that the City of Kingston had a daily water usage of 3.28 million GPD. In 2014, we were told that that number increased to 3.5 million GPD. Where are we today? Outside of our own concerns about drought and drinking water, how does Cooper Lake’s current levels inform us about groundwater resources and the rapidly dropping water table area-wide? What about our neighbors public supply wellheads and thousands of private wells?
We’re sharing these photos – thanks to Kevin Smith of the Woodstock Land Conservancy – to illustrate that this crisis is real. The photos speak for themselves and it’s heartbreaking to see this natural waterbody in such a state. Beyond that, the water that flows through your pipes to your home or business is treated drinking water from Cooper Lake meant to keep you nourished and alive. At the very least, it’s a teaching moment. We shouldn’t ever take drinking water for granted.
Our drinking water supply levels are a real emergency. Follow the requests from City of Kingston officials and be mindful every day of how you borrow from Cooper Lake. Consider everyone and everything.
In addition to previous mandatory restrictions on water usage, the following measures will be in effect:
“You know there has been a fair amount of public input on the project…” (laughs).
“I’ve had bullhorns in my face, Dennis. I got it.”
At a recent Kingston Planning Board meeting, the Kingstonian development team provided an overview of the current project in preparation for a full presentation for the planning board and the public on Monday, May 9. Following the presentation, a public hearing has been scheduled on Tuesday, May 17 for the public to weigh in on the project’s site plan and special use permit approval.
The Kingstonian project development team was present that evening and that included Dennis Larios (President of the Engineering firm Brinnier & Larios), Michael Moriello (Environmental Attorney) and developer Brad Jordan (Herzog Supply Company). Absent again was JM development principal Joseph Bonura. Brad Jordan explained that they had a new partner since they presented their original application, a developer from South Carolina who would be helping to build and finance the project.
Some of the notable items discussed that evening include:
READ: The Kingstonian Project will require 343.5 parking spaces per Kingston’s zoning code
In August of last year, KingstonCitizens.org reported on Central Hudson’s “Gas Village” training facility in the Town of Ulster that destroyed 28 Acres of Forest. The impacted community members who live next to the Central Hudson project and that are sandwiched between the CSX train tracks and Lower Esopus Creek in the Towns of Ulster and Saugerties have been organizing since then. After a recent stormwater flooding event, the group submitted the following letter to their local officials:
“Dear Mr. Quigley and the Town of Ulster Board,
Glenerie Boulevard and Katrine Lane residents experienced a major emergency on Friday, April 8th, as rainwater running off from the 28-acre deforested Central Hudson training facility site ran under the CSX tracks and flooded onto neighbors’ homes and yards — running under our properties and gushing into the already degraded Esopus Creek. The fire department could do nothing until the waters receded, and even the DEC came out to file a report.
As you can see, the water was within mere feet of reaching our cars and homes and caused damage to sheds and tools.
VIEW: Photos and videos of the flood damage
As tempting as it might be to attribute this flooding to the 4 inches of rain that came down the night before or to climate change exclusively, the primary cause of the recent flooding was that the NYC DEP did not provide adequate storage in the Ashokan Reservoir for springtime rains. They could not increase their storage when the predicted rainfall of 3 inches increased to 4 inches.
We are concerned that NYCDEP will provide no storage (especially this August and September), and if we receive a tropical storm, we can expect another damaging flood. The DEP had promised you that they would decrease the possibility of flooding, and we ask that you demand DEP provide the flood protection they promised.
The Central Hudson Facility project has only added to the flooding problem. According to longtime residents who have lived here for 35 years, they have never seen our streets flood like this nor seen runoff pour into the creek under their homes and so rapidly.
And the only variable/change is the Central Hudson facility site under construction that has been clear cut and now destroyed for decades – an environmental disaster facilitated by the sale of Bread Alone’s connector parcel to Central Hudson’s headquarters.
The exact site of the cascading flood on April 8th corresponds to the precise rock removal and the thinnest part of the tree removal line on the construction site. Clearly, the systems and streams that drain the new construction site, Central Hudson parking lot, and the Micron parking are wholly inadequate.
Currently, three existing pipes, approximately 30 inches in diameter, and the discharge from the new retention pond, flow through an undersized culvert and pipe into a small stream with deep and steep slopes. The velocity of the flow has eroded the stream banks and undermined the foundation of homes.
The Town should have addressed this problem long ago when the Micron parking lot was constructed. The Town should require Central Hudson to construct a retention basin for the three pipes, a larger culvert beneath the tracks, and enlargement and bank stabilization of the stream into the Esopus.
This community is standing together, but our concerns are falling on deaf ears on officials at the state, county, Town, and Central Hudson levels — those seemingly only caring about the bottom line. They don’t live here, so they don’t experience the daily harmful effects they’ve approved and created.
We are fed up with being ignored and irate since we questioned these potential dangers months ago. We demand that the multiple environmental impacts that this project has created due to the Town’s negligence be ameliorated by the Town, DEP, and Central Hudson at once before things get worse.
Regardless of the Town of Ulster’s lack of notification to the site’s perimeter residents — (over 60% of us had no idea it was coming and indeed would have shown up in the public comment period), the Town, as the lead agency, failed in its due diligence.
We are being affected directly as the potentially toxic flood water dumps into the creek but the thousands of neighbors downstream on the Esopus into the Town of Saugerties are being affected by this project too.
If this was an affluent community, we are convinced that a project as massive as this would cease to exist. Instead, our working-class neighborhood has been literally squeezed between two environmental disasters – the CenHud Facility and the muddy Esopus Creek due to the Ashokan releases.
Considering climate change at the very minimum, this project and ALL its impacts on the residents and our environment should have been studied thoroughly before getting anywhere near approval and a “NegDec” decision.
Within a mere 3 months of your premature approval, Central Hudson clear-cut 28 acres of absorbant forestland, emptying the site of its porous floor and rootbed; displacing millions of birds and wildlife, and then subsequently removed tons of stabilizing rocks near the CSX tracks over four months of dynamite blasting to create retention ponds.
And because this project was rubber-stamped, none of these actions were studied or vetted regarding their real-world impact on the surrounding neighborhood, the CSX train trackbed, and the Esopus Creek, nor the toxicity of the existing site’s soil.
Central Hudson’s retention pond plan has failed; the massive potentially toxic runoff is running under our properties and gushing into the Esopus Creek. It seems we have endured the unending construction, blasting, vehicle noises, and inconvenience they have created for the last six months for no good reason.
In addition, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) filed by CenHud was grossly flawed and didn’t disclose the site was within wetlands. If sustainability experts or professionals had been hired to evaluate the project, that omission would have been rectified and the situation professionally assessed — but even the site’s officially contracted developers and landscapers involved in the site planning fail to display any modern-day sustainability or permaculture expertise or interest.
Instead, your Board pushed the project through to create revenue and increase Ulster County’s tax base, and as a result:
– The DEC levied a $37,500 daily violation to CenHud for dumping waste into the Esopus Creek last November
– For those of us on well water, we may have potential drinking water contamination from toxic runoff
– Many of us experienced dust and soot downwind of the site, compromising the air we breathe
– The CSX trains are infinitely louder because of the deforestation, disturbing residents’ sleep, and work schedules
– The millions of birds, wildlife, beneficial insects, and even bears are all displaced due to 28 acres of trees being clear cut
– 5 longtime neighbors have already moved because of the site blasting and construction noise
– Our property values have been forever affected by the site’s existence
– Legacy trees in our yards have fallen because of the four months of dynamite blasting in the rain and 10 hours of daily pneumatic hammering vibrating our houses
– Light and noise pollution from 9W traffic and the storage facility drown our dark sky and peaceful environment because the forest screening is gone… and now…
– Floods – because the retention ponds Central Hudson built and assured us would contain the runoff do not work
– Increased insurance costs and claims resulting from the damage
– Add to that, the flooding weakens the land under the CSX tracks because now there is no shale buffer, and now we have to worry about a train derailment in our front yards
As much as we like lower taxes and bringing jobs to our community, our quality of life, the environmental impact, and our property values matter more. Clearly, our adjacent residential community was not prioritized when greenlighting this project. There should have been a balance. How much more money, time, and inconvenience will it cost now to fix these situations because they weren’t adequately addressed from the onset?
Since we initially reached out in concern in March of 2020 and then again in June of 2021, when the project restarted after pandemic delays, we have been polite, respectful, and cooperative.
We have tried to work with Central Hudson at quarterly virtual meetings (our next one is in June TBA) to make suggestions without any real significant progress to ameliorate these effects (even offering a comprehensive 10-page proposal to offset their impact on us) — but this latest event is too much and falls squarely on the Town, DEP, and CenHud’s shoulders.
Our immediate demands (paid for by the Town and/or CenHud and at NO EXTRA COST to Ulster County taxpayers):
1. We would like a study conducted and a short-term and long-term solution implemented for how the runoff will be dealt with on Glenerie Blvd. Eastern Parkway, 9W, and Katrine Lane in subsequent storms
2. Testing of drinking water for any of us on well water
3. We would like an acoustic engineer to study what can be done in the way of landscaping or infrastructure to absorb the additional train and traffic noise, and then a solution implemented based on their recommendations
4. We would like an expert to recommend screening and planting solutions to give us back some quality of life, cleaner air, and visual privacy from the site with absolutely no more clearcutting whatsoever
5. We want CSX to inspect the tracks from the crossing at Eastern Parkway to the switching station along the Glenerie Blvd. side to make sure the flooding has not compromised their tracks
6. Demand DEP provide the flood protection they promised
7. Community benefits: We can’t safely swim in the creek or hike the forest trails now, so we would like nearby public space dedicated or donated for recreational use for our kids and dogs to offset what’s been taken. This would partially compensate for the unbelievably negative impact and inconvenience this project has had on our community.
Your hasty approval of this project has created emergencies and environmental disasters on multiple levels. As tax-paying citizens, residents, and neighbors, we demand accountability by the Town of Ulster and Central Hudson and retroactive solutions. We look forward to your timely response before any of these situations deteriorate further. “
Sincerely,
50+ Esopus Creek Neighbors
Esopuscreekneighbors@gmail.com
“But Shaut said that the city’s hands were effectively tied by Mott’s order. ‘We have to do it in person because that’s what the judge told us to do,’ said Shaut, who said she consulted city legal attorneys about the issue. So unless the judge tells us something different, it will be in-person.’” Council to Take Back Fair Street Extension, For Now (Kingston Wire)
By Rebecca Martin
Yesterday, KingstonCitizens.org launched a petition to request that the City hold the upcoming Fair Street Extension public hearing as either a hybrid or virtual meeting in order for the community to have the opportunity to participate during a time of high Covid infections. In 24 hours, 88 residents have signed.
In a recent news story, President Andrea Shaut says that the city’s “hands are tied” and that the public hearing must be in person due to a directive by Judge Mott. However, there is nothing in the stipulation that suggests the meeting should be in-person only.
In the transcript of the meeting during which the stipulation was settled, it is clear that the City of Kingston’s Corporation Counsel requested the in-person meeting, not Judge Mott, who would go on to provide an opinion, not an order: “Look, it’s you guys who are complaining about it. If there is going to be any potential for a problem in this next one, I think that can be totally averted if it’s in-person.”
The public shouldn’t be punished at a time of high Covid infections by being denied the option to participate virtually. Please SIGN THE PETITION to request a hybrid or virtual Fair Street Extension public hearing on January 12.
On December 2, 2021, the City held a public hearing which took place as a hybrid remote/in-person meeting, based on the modifications to the Open Meetings Law by NYS Chapter 417 of the Laws of 2021. The Hearing was overrun with technical errors that led to a legal action including an affidavit filed by City of Kingston resident James Shaughnessy (who paid for his own representation in order to participate) who was present – in person – that evening. Mr. Shaughnessy’s comments were not heard through Zoom or on YouTube due to the technical difficulties.
Judge Richard Mott issued a stipulation that rescinded the Kingston Common Council vote on December 7 that approved the partial abandonment of Fair Street Extension. The judge required a new public hearing to be set for January 12 at a location that could accommodate 200 people under Covid restrictions. That location must be designated by the Kingston Common Council no later than December 24.
In a letter dated December 27 and submitted to the City of Kingston Corporation Counsel Kevin Bryant, Alderperson-at-large Andrea Shaut and the Honorable Richard Mott as a follow-up to his stipulation, the lawyer Wayne Thompson, wrote on behalf Kingston resident James Shaughnessy regarding the Common Council’s proposal to abandon Fair Street Extension and identified the following:
“…the order (stipulation) included the directive that the City name a location for the hearing by December 24. As of the time of this writing, counsel has not been notified of the location nor has any information regarding this important hearing been put on the City’s website calendar.”
He also wrote that given the current surge of Covid-19 cases at this time, the circumstances dictate the necessity for modifications to the original order (stipulation) to protect the safety and heath of the public that would include a hybrid meeting and that if the City chooses, it could hold an in-person meeting only at a later date when the current surge of infections have passed.
“…the City must safeguard the health and safety of its residents and take steps to ensure that any interested member of the public can fully participate in the (January) public hearing.”
The City of Kingston will hold a new public hearing on Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 6:30pm (location TBA) that will lead to a new vote on the proposal for a “partial abandonment” of Fair Street Extension. With many questions coming forward from Community members, we have pulled together the best information that we could gather so that it could live in one place. We’ll update this post as more information comes in.
Why is there a new public hearing?
On December 2, 2021, the City held a public hearing which took place as a hybrid remote/in-person meeting, based on the modifications to the Open Meetings Law by NYS Chapter 417 of the Laws of 2021. The Hearing was overrun with technical errors that led to a legal action including an affidavit filed by City of Kingston resident James Shaughnessy (who paid for his own representation in order to participate) who was present – in person – that evening. Mr. Shaughnessy’s comments were not heard through Zoom or on YouTube due to the technical difficulties.
Judge Richard Mott issued a stipulation that rescinded the Kingston Common Council vote on December 7 that approved the partial abandonment of Fair Street Extension. The judge required a new public hearing to be set for January 12 at a location that could accommodate 200 people under Covid restrictions. That location must be designated by the Kingston Common Council no later than December 24.
Will the public hearing be hybrid?
In the stipulation, Judge Mott states that, “A new public hearing with respect to the partial abandonment of Fair Street Extension is to be held January 12, 2022, at 6:30 P.M. at a location to be determined that can accommodate at least 200 people under applicable COVID restrictions…”.
As it pertains to Covid restrictions, according to Part E of Chapter 417 of the Laws of 2021 amends Article 7 of the Public Officers Law (“the Open Meetings Law”) that went into effect on September 2, 2021, it says that any local body “…shall be authorized to meet and take such action authorized by law without permitting in public in-person access to meetings and authorize such meetings to be held remotely by conference call or similar service, provided that the public has the ability to view or listen to such proceeding and that such meetings are recorded and later transcribed.” This remains in effect until January 15, 2022. Given the concerns of both the Delta and Omicron variants, a hybrid public hearing would be most appropriate.
What does it mean that the Council vote in December on the “Partial Abandonment” of Fair Street Extension was “Rescinded” and what happens after the new public hearing in January?
Judge Mott’s stipulation included “rescinding” the council vote in December and requiring both a new public hearing and another council vote. The resolution will likely go in front of the council on Tuesday, February 6. Of note, there will be four new council members who haven’t yet had an opportunity to voice an opinion on Fair Street. These are Ward 1, Barbara Hill, Ward 2, Carl Frankel, Ward 5, Naimah Muhammed, Ward 7, Michael Oliveri (their official city information will be available on the City of Kingston’s website following the first council meeting/swearing-in in January, 2022).
If I provided public testimony or submitted written comments during the December public hearing, should I speak or submit again in January?
Yes. Everyone should plan to speak or resubmit their comments in January, as it’s not clear whether or not the old record will be counted given the flaws and – this will be the new Council members’ first opportunity to engage.
Where can I review Resolution 251 “Requesting Authorization of Partial Abandonment of Fair Street Extension and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute any and all documents necessary”
The materials for the public hearing can be found on the City of Kingston, NY website on their calendar for December 2, 2021 “Public Hearing”. The resolution itself can be found HERE
The Developers and several of our elected officials say that the public knew all along that the closure of Fair Street Extension would be necessary for the Kingstonian project to proceed.
As part of the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR), the Kingstonian project’s Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and application (see page 2), states that the Kingston Common Council would decide on the “sale or lease of land” (21 North Front Street) and “closing of Fair Street Extension.” Because of the EAF, the public anticipated the opportunity to engage with its Council through robust processes in both cases following the environmental review. The Mayor, however, had other plans and placed the 21 North Front Street public land sale into the hands of the Kingston Local Development Corporation, an appointed body, of which he is the President, which was not listed in the developer’s EAF. He also changed the original action of “closing” Fair Street Extension to a “partial abandonment.”
Fair Street Extension is an active public street. What would the process be to discontinue it?
“The rights of the public in city streets are unable to be given away, and may only be sold in limited circumstances. (NYS General City Law § § 20(2), (7)).” If Fair Street Extension were to get through that first test, then the Planning department would determine whether or not the street is used as a public thoroughfare (it has been, and continues to be). The City would then be required to follow the requirements set forth in Chapter 355 of the City of Kingston Code.
Kingston’s Assistant Corporation Counsel points to the City of Kingston’s Charter C14-1 Sub B, that states that the Department of Public Works may exercise “…the following powers and duties: to lay out, open, extend, alter, widen, straighten, construct or discontinue streets…” as a determining factor in deciding Fair Street Extension’s fate. How the city intends to work around its own code in this case to discontinue an active public street is unclear.
Why wouldn’t the city follow its own code when discontinuing a working public street like Fair Street Extension?
In February 2021, Mayor Steve Noble was reported as saying “… the city might not have to go through a formal process of transferring ownership of what is now Fair Street Extension to a private developer as part of the proposed Kingstonian project….the land transfer process originally envisioned may be unnecessary because the short thoroughfare connecting Schwenk Drive and North Front Street will remain public space as an entrance to the Kingstonian parking garage.” What part of the law is the Mayor referencing that would allow an active public street to forgo a formal process?
What is the value of Fair Street Extension?
A current fair market value of Fair Street Extension, if it exists, has not been made available to the public. What’s more, the majority of Kingston’s Common Council voted in favor of giving away Fair Street Extension, a public asset, without that crucial information.
What are the community benefits for an exchange of Fair Street Extension and how do we know the public is getting a good deal?
Without knowing the value of Fair Street Extension and all relevant public assets, there isn’t any way to know whether the community benefits are a good deal for all Kingston and Ulster County residents.
The community benefits in exchange for tens of millions of dollars in public funding (see below) start with a parking garage and additional public parking space. The Kingstonian developers promised a 420-space parking structure with at least 250 spaces devoted to public parking, however based on our zoning code, the Kingstonian residential, commercial retail space and boutique hotel requirements will lead to a net loss of public parking spaces.
New floor plans were recently submitted to the City, and the amount of public parking has been further reduced due to the increase in residential parking:
ORIGINAL FLOOR PLANS (1/21/19)
Apartment Parking: 51
Other Parking 359
Total: 410
MOST RECENT FLOOR PLAN (11/4/21)
Residential: 234
Public, Hospitality, and Retail: 203
Total: 437
Additionally and eventually, the cost of public parking at that location would become privatized and managed by the developer.
Other claimed benefits include a couple of public bathrooms located inside the Kingstonian, 14 affordable housing units (that were hard won by the community as the developers and our elected officials initially rejected adding affordable units to this project), jobs that are primarily below living wage for an individual or couple with one child (in Ulster County and the City of Kingston), commercial retail space and hotel rooms.
How much public funding has already been provided to the Kingstonian developers?
The Kingstonian developers have received:
Read Village or New Paltz Mayor Tim Rogers “Why does the Kingstonian need a local PILOT if it’s in a Federal Opportunity Zone?”
The public is still in the dark about the value of Fair Street Extension (which will be eliminated), the municipal parking revenue that will be lost once the public lot is sold, and the cost of any infrastructure upgrades the City will undertake to accommodate the project.
What traffic study did the Kingston Planning Board use as guidance for the Kingstonian project’s environmental review process?
The traffic study that the Kingstonian developers provided and that guided the Planning board throughout the Kingstonian SEQR process was prepared by Creigton Manning on July 23, 2019. In the study, they describe “intersection turning movement counts” conducted at the study area intersections on Thursday, May 9, 2019 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., with the exception of the North Front Street/Frog Alley intersection, which was counted on Wednesday June 19, 2019. In addition, traffic associated with the existing driveways on Fair Street Extension was “observed.” This traffic study focuses on the weekday PM peak period only.
After more questions from the Planning board, on October 7, 2019, the board received a letter from HVEA engineers essentially confirming the results of the study.
Later, at the request of Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro LLC, a Peer Review for the Kingstonian project’s Traffic Study (11/23/21) created by Brian Weinberg, PE of Langan Engineering was submitted to the City. It outlined several significant problems with the Creighton Manning traffic study and approach:
What does a negative declaration in SEQR mean going forward for all necessary permit approvals?
On December 16, 2019, the Kingston Planning Board voted 5-0 in favor of a negative declaration of significance for the massive Kingstonian project in the Stockade Historic District (that included Fair Street Extension). A negative declaration in SEQR means that the Planning Board, as the lead agency for the review, sees “no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” The environment in SEQR also includes traffic, community character, historic preservation, economic development and more.
When the environmental review process is complete, agencies listed in the applicant’s Environmental Assessment Form as having discretionary authority in this project can proceed with their reviews. What remains is the Kingston Common Council (closing of Fair Street Extension); Kingston Planning Board (site plan approval and special use permit); Zoning Board of Appeals (area variance); Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (design approval). The Planning Board’s negative declaration determination will be factored into these future decisions. Any of the potential environmental factors already reviewed during SEQR may not be reconsidered.
Unfortunately, our Council (as an involved agency) missed every opportunity to ask questions publicly to the Planning Board during that critical time.
RESOURCES
“No one likes to look at PILOT arithmetic” by Mayor Tim Rogers, VoNP
“Kingstonian: Listen to the Community / Escuchar a La Comunidad” Kingston Tenants Union
“Planning Board sees no potential impact on character of Stockade District by Kingstonian Project (with video)” KingstonCitizens.org
In a LETTER DATED DECEMBER 3rd submitted by attorney Victoria Polidoro from Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro, a request was made to the Common Council regarding the public hearing for 9-17 & 21 N. Front Street and Fair Street Extension.
“On December 2, 2021, the City attempted to hold such a public hearing which took place at a hybrid remote/in-person meeting pursuant to the modifications to the Open Meetings Law (the “OML”) by NYS Chapter 417 of the Laws of 2021 (the “Chapter 417”). However, due to various issues, including but not limited to technical issues, the purported Hearing violated the Open Meetings Law, did not afford the public an adequate opportunity to meaningfully participate, and cannot form any basis for a Common Council vote on the discontinuance of the Street. For these reasons, the Common Council must schedule a new public hearing during a proper meeting conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.”
Polidoro said that the meeting failed to comply with the current Open Meetings Law. “Throughout the meeting, the audio broadcast over both Zoom and YouTube dropped repeatedly, and often during public comments. Entire speakers provided comments in person that were never broadcast over Zoom or online. As a result, the many members of the public that chose to attend the Hearing remotely were deprived of the opportunity to contemporaneously listen to what occurred at the meetings in direct violation of the OML. Despite having been promised that those online would be called intermittently with those testifying in person, the Common Council instead chose to remedy their technical issues by calling all commenters present in the Council Chambers first. Those physically present in the Common Council Chambers disproportionately consisted of the developers spearheading the project, their close associates, and union members in the region who stand to gain from the Project being constructed. The overwhelming testimony in favor of the closure of Fair Street Extension and in support of the project likely had a chilling effect on the many speakers who testified via Zoom against the proposal who were mostly relegated to the last hour of public testimony as a result and had a disparate impact on their ability to participate as a result. This deprivation materially affects the legitimacy of the public hearing because the public was unable to meaningfully participate.” she wrote. “As a result of, among other issues, the hour-plus of technical difficulties and delays, the Hearing commenced much later than was scheduled to, was paused several times, and ultimately dragged on late into the night with no apparent end in sight. We observed multiple remote participants leave the meeting before they were given an opportunity to participate because the Hearing was being unreasonably delayed and because it was unclear whether they would ever actually be given an opportunity to speak.”
“We appeal to the Council’s sense of decency and equity,” wrote Polidoro. “Its members know that what occurred at the Hearing was a technical disaster and that it directly affected the ability of the public to participate. The Councilmembers are public servants that have an obligation to act for the benefit of the residents of Kingston and that obligation has not yet been fulfilled with respect to the abandonment of the Street. Basic principles of fairness should lead the Council to schedule a new public hearing in order to solve these issues and prevent a tainted meeting from purportedly supporting the decision to give away a public street for private development with minimal, if any, benefit to the public. The Project is months, if not years away from ever receiving final approvals and would not benefit from the Street being closed in the interim. There is absolutely no need for the Council to rush to vote on the abandonment at this time. Any decision to plow ahead with the abandonment despite a patently deficient public hearing raises obvious questions regarding the Council’s intent in doing so.”
If the Council moves ahead with a vote at its next meeting, an action will be filed at 3:00pm on Monday, December 6, 2021, at the Ulster County Supreme Court seeking, inter alia, a temporary restraining order enjoining the City of Kingston Common Council from considering the Resolution to Discontinue Fair Street Extension at their meeting to scheduled to be held on December 7, 2021 or at any time until a new and legally compliant public hearing on the proposed road abandonment is held.
The image above is a page from the LETTER submitted by Victoria Polidoro (12/2) that includes a peer review of the original traffic study that guided, in part, the Kingstonian environmental review process. The peer review begins on page 47.
On Thursday, the Kingston Common Council held a public hearing on a proposal for “partial abandonment” of Fair Street Extension. The hybrid meeting (held both online and in person at City Hall) was over three hours long due to technical problems that created big gaps in the audio and streaming service. Many of the public in attendance gave up and logged out of zoom (there were nearly 100 people on zoom earlier in the evening).
City of Kingston’s lack of preparedness for Hybrid Meeting
The lack of preparedness by the city for such an important public hearing has got to be highlighted. In September, Governor Hochul extended virtual public meetings. Education Council Consortium Co-Chair Shino Tanikawa said “Conducting hybrid meetings has been extremely challenging for Citywide and Community Education Councils and participation by the members of the public has plummeted since the OML waiver expired in late June. To exacerbate the issue, the infection rates have climbed to over 4%…making many parents weary of in-person meetings. I am deeply grateful for Governor Hochul’s initiative to allow public bodies to return to virtual meetings. We will be able to enhance participation and fulfill our responsibilities more effectively and without compromising our health.”
Why is the city hosting hybrid meetings before they are able, and why go back to hybrid right now anyway with new infections on the rise in Ulster County?
At least one member of the public, Kingston City resident and President of the Board of Education (an elected position) James Shaughnessy, read his comment while the streaming system was down. It lead to his testimony not being captured on video. Upon learning this, Jim called into zoom and asked for the opportunity to re-read his comments so that they were recorded and was denied.
We were able to get a copy of his testimony where he writes:
“I would like to make a few general comments about the Kingstonian project. It was one year ago today that the Kingston city school board voted against approving the Kingston PILOT. I personally had aspersions cast against me by the developers and several prominent politicians for my vote. I would like to say that I have always silently objected to saying this project is by local developers. I am of the opinion that the Bonura Hospitality Group is the prime behind this project. I have often wondered if Joe Bonura, Jr has ever slept a night in Kingston. Thankfully, the IDA didn’t approve a 99 year PILOT like the Bonura Group was granted for a Poughkeepsie apartment complex.”
New Peer Review for Kingstonian project Traffic Study
What was important and new that evening was a peer review of the first traffic study, that in part guided the Kingstonian environmental review process, created by Brian Weinberg, PE of Langan Engineering. Weinberg brought to light several important key points during his testimony on Thursday:
1. “The traffic impact study by the Kingstonian developers only looked at one peak hour, while you would typically study the two peak hours, that would typically include both the morning and evening peak hours, but the study only looked at the PM peak hour”
2. “Key intersections were left out of the study area and thus the intersection capacity analysis was not completed. Along these corridors include certain intersections along Green Street, John Street and Clinton Street that would see between approximately 35 and 100 additional vehicle trips per hour….left out assessments of critical links such as Frog Alley and North Front Street where there would be a substantial number of diverter vehicles that would turn left from Schwenk Drive onto Frog Alley. Along Frog Alley there’s a fire station, and with the high volume of additional diverted traffic that would be sent onto Frog Alley could potentially affect fire station operations.”
3. “During construction of the project while Fair Street is closed and before any other pedestrian accommodations are built, pedestrians would have to travel a longer way to get between Schwenk Drive and North Front street which could be difficult especially for pedestrians with disabilities.”
Public comment period open until Monday 12/6 at 5:00pm. Council set to vote on Fair Street Extension on Tuesday
The council left the public comment period open through Monday, December 6th at 5:00pm, a standard practice. The legislation is on their agenda to discuss during Caucus and then the resolution is likely going to be up for a vote during their full council meeting on Tuesday. There is an open public comment period during the full council meeting where the public will have a final opportunity to advocate. Good Cause Eviction is also on the agenda, with a first reading of this local law (a vote would follow after its second reading in January).
Facebook Event: Fair Street Ext. Public Hearing Comments Open until 12/6 at 5pm.
Facebook Event: CoK Council Caucus 12/6 at 7pm.
Facebook Event: CoK Full Council Meeting and Open Public Comment 12/7 at 7:30pm.
Public Comment Highlights
Jennifer O’Donnell
“How many of you saw the film The Lost Rondout made by our friends and neighbors? It was a beautiful and sad story about our community being torn apart by big interests, bigger than ourselves. Spaces that we all shared and paid for through work, through taxes, through our small family businesses, and by the promises of economic development were destroyed by some very powerful government actors.”
Cheryl Schneider
“If the Kingstonian can’t make a buck doing it the legit way without us giving away our streets and our schools and our tax money, then maybe they have a sucky business plan and they need to reconsider and move out of the way and make room for somebody who can…this is not about the people of Kingston it’s about profit for a handful of people who happen to be real cozy with a lot of elected officials.”
Tanya Garment
“This development is going to be a pretty sweet deal free land and not only the parking lot also a public park and now a public street…they will get money to rebuild the warehouse that Herzogs changed from a building and made it to a warehouse. They’re going to get money to pay for the foundation of the structure above the free land. They’re going to get money to build a bridge to funnel people into Jordan’s other (Herzog’s) property. They’re going to get excusals from offering the amount of parking that our code currently requires. They’re going to get tax breaks to cover the parking that they are building and then it’s also in an Opportunity Zone so theoretically the Kingstonian project could be a 100% covered by public funds….We are just talking about this now, towards the end of the process, as this is the way that the city determined the process. The process did take a long time, part of that was the DRI process and people did try to talk about the closing of the street at that time but the elected officials that were questioned about it refused to disclose it.”
Patrick Logan
“The traffic that currently uses Fair Street Extension will necessarily be routed elsewhere, and the associated traffic impacts will be felt throughout the Stockade and cause congestion that will diminish the historic ambiance of the neighborhood. In particular, traffic along Clinton Avenue, a quaint street that served as the city’s very first historic district, will be increased fourfold.”
Sarah Wenk
“Issue of fair street is being brought up now after so much time well some of us have been raising questions about this for years I brought pictures of backed up traffic on North front street to more than one hearing the traffic implications of this closure are enormous and the traffic study was laughable and is quite roundly rebuked by the new study…”
Jennifer Armstrong
“During the November 11th Dover Kohl (Form-Based-Code) presentation, Dover Kohl discussed several big ideas to inform the new zoning code after collaboration with city residents in a series of community engagement events. Included in these core concepts were small scale as of right developments, relationships of buildings to streets and surrounding buildings re-evaluating how much parking we really need, and improved public transport walkability and more complete streets. The progress presentation also highlighted the importance of maintaining small block size and avoiding street closures. Closing Fair Street at this time would be a disservice to the taxpayers investment and rezoning.”
Ilona Ross
“I feel compelled to debunk a few misconceptions about this project. It is not privately funded, it is publicly funded with cash from New York State, property tax breaks and the Opportunity Zone boondoggle. The developer’s own application puts their investment at around six million dollars and the tens if not hundreds of millions that a few rich individuals will take home comes from the pockets of the people of Kingston, Ulster County and New York.”
Rose Quinn
“…I don’t understand why anyone would look to Brad Jordan or anyone at the plaza for any expertise on pedestrian or bicycle safety…”
Justin Hoekstra
“There’s a lot of good development spots where you can build a bunch of luxury housing. Having to tear down an old warehouse and having to shut down and give away a public street in order to build this luxury high-rise in uptown is nuts.”
Victoria Polidoro
“In 2011, the City of Kingston supported a plan which identified the fair street extension as an important roadway connection to uptown Kingston and a potential catalyst for smart redevelopment along Schwenk drive. You are now foreclosing these future smart growth opportunities at the same time that you’re doing a zoning revision by discontinuing the connection between the stockade area and the area immediately outside of it…how can you as members of the common council sworn to act in the public interest approve of this without knowing exactly what will be discontinued and without a plan for what happens between now and potential construction 15 years in the future?”
Rashida Taylor
“Tonight’s meeting should have been postponed as there was a lot of technical difficulties and a lot of people who wanted to make statements who were unfortunately unable to stay through the meeting…this project has never been centered in the community and it doesn’t meet our needs. It’s not for us the real residents of Kingston. The real Kingstonians are being asked to bankroll this project…”
Rebecca Rojer
“I want to express my vehement opposition to the abandonment of Fair Street Extension, as it continues to be the safest and most direct bicycle route to the plaza allowing cyclists to access groceries, UCAT, and the Midtown Linear Trail…I fear our leaders are making a terrible mistake handing this public asset to private developers and for free no less.”
Phil Erner
“Once there was a wicked wicked plan, Kingstonian was its name. To house the wealthy and the few while poor folks could not stand…”
By Rebecca Martin
The public is tired of the Kingstonian project. But the meaning of the Fair Street Extension public hearing on Thursday of this week stretches beyond that, and is another blatant example of our local government not doing its job to protect the interests of the community at large. Over the course of many years we’ve watched lawmakers orchestrate the Kingstonian project process to get the result it wants to appease some pretty powerful interests.
Earlier this month, the council was ready to pass a resolution that would allow all of the approvals for a public street to become an entrance ramp to a parking garage (that will be open to the public, but owned privately, though funded with public dollars) for luxury apartments in Uptown Kingston. It was only when an outside lawyer stepped in to present a real legal threat to their business-as-usual that they aborted that plan to find some other way to outwit a potential future lawsuit with teeth. In the meantime, they passed the items that they could last month and waited to tackle the real hardship of ‘abandoning’ a public street (which may or may not even be what they are doing) for a time when they had a new plan in place. Our council president set up a public hearing (Twice. First on 12/9 and then it got moved up to 12/2, likely to accomodate a full council vote on 12/7. Tricky and complicated. How would the public ever know?) without being able to explain what the city was doing.
The public won’t have any clarity until next Monday – or someday in the future when a resolution shows up in the council’s agenda packet – following the public hearing. At which point, the only thing the public can do (if their plan differs from what we know today) is to show up again during the full council meeting to speak during the general public comment period. At which time, the council will already know how it intends to vote. As it stands, your public comment on both occasions will likely not have any impact. It’s simply a box to check to allow the city of Kingston to….avoid a lawsuit.
The public’s strongest position is to write to the council president to request that she pull the public hearing and schedule it for after the time that there is a resolution that outlines clearly what the council intends to do with Fair Street. This advice is not meant to be a tactic. It’s an effort to assure that our lawmakers are upholding good government and process, because we can’t afford to further erode those things, not ever and certainly not now. Our democracy is in a real vulnerable place. If we can’t assure it locally, then it’s going to be tough to imagine we can do it anywhere else. That’s the real emergency.
Write to: City of Kingston Council President: ashaut@kingston-ny.gov and copy your council member.
If lawmakers disagree with this assessment, then ask them to put in writing what they intend to do with Fair Street Extension and to clearly outline the process, including to point to the laws that support that process in our code/charter/state.
Back in August, we reported on the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation Training Center and “Gas Village”, a new construction in the Town of Ulster. With a speedy environmental review process, the Town of Ulster Town Board determined that the project would have no significant adverse environmental impacts.
Construction on the site destroyed nearly 30 acres of forest located in the Lower Esopus Creek watershed. Complaints about stormwater, erosion and turbidity started to roll into the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and on October 29th, a notice of violation (NOV) was issued for the projects State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit for stormwater discharges caused by construction activity. On that very same day, another NOV was issued for another contentious local project known as “850 Route 28” also for stormwater pollution.
In the case of Central Hudson, the state wrote that, “At the time of the inspection, the water quality in the wetland was indicative of pollution from discharges from stormwater runoff related to construction activities. This is a violation of Article 17 of ECL. Please be advised that violations of the ECL are subject to penalties of up to $37,500 per day per violation.”
A final determination on enforcement is not yet known, though we are all pleased by the DEC’s initial action.
What is a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit?
On the NYSDEC’s website, it says that ‘”New York is rich in surface and groundwater resources”, it says on the . “Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) entitled “Water Pollution Control” was enacted to protect and maintain these valuable resources. Article 17 authorized creation of the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program to maintain New York’s waters with reasonable standards of purity.
The SPDES program is designed to eliminate the pollution of New York waters and to maintain the highest quality of water possible– consistent with public health, public enjoyment of the resource, protection and propagation of fish and wildlife and industrial development in the state.
New York’s SPDES program has been approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the control of surface wastewater and stormwater discharges in accordance with the Clean Water Act. However, the SPDES program is broader in scope than that required by the Clean Water Act as it controls point source discharges to groundwaters as well as surface waters”.
RESOURCES
VIEW Central Hudson “Gas Village” training facility in Town of Ulster Destroys 28 Acres of Forest (KingstonCitizens.org)
WHAT: Common Council Public Hearing: Abandonment of Fair Street Extension for the Kingstonian Project
WHERE: The meeting is hybrid, to be held at Kingston City Hall at 420 Broadway (council chambers) and on ZOOM
Meeting ID: 814 3291 1874
Passcode: 2crVt5vzOr dial in by phone:
+1 646 558 8656
Meeting ID: 814 3291 1874
Passcode: 57325016
WHEN: Thursday, December 2 at 6:30pm. View the City of Kingston’s FACEBOOK event.
SUGGESTIONS FOR YOUR TESTIMONY: A public hearing seems premature. The city has yet to confirm whether or not Fair Street Extension can be offered for sale before discussing a public bid at fair market value.
By Rebecca Martin
Following an October 14th Common Council Finance and Audit Committee meeting, Kingston lawmakers were poised to approve a plan to abandon and close a portion of Fair Street Extension to through traffic to make way for the Kingstonian proposal, a luxury apartment development in Uptown Kingston, and the centerpiece of Kingston’s Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) that was awarded by former Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Just days before the full council planned to vote, Victoria Polidoro of the law firm Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro submitted a letter to the city on behalf of her client, a landowner in Uptown Kingston, that said if lawmakers proceeded as planned the “City will not be following the requisite procedure for the closing of a public street and subsequent conveyance of an interest in the former street bed”. That procedure included a public hearing. The firm threatened a temporary restraining order “until all statutory requirements were followed”.
“The rights of the public in city streets are inalienable, and may only be sold or conveyed in limited circumstances” she wrote. According to Kingston’s city code and NYS general city law, “…to discontinue a City of Kingston Street, the Code first requires the City Planner to establish a list of streets or portions of streets which are no longer used as ‘public thoroughfares’ and are now vacant”, which is not the case for Fair Street Extension. “The Code then directs the circumstances under which these streets are to be offered for sale, with sale as the only provided for manner of conveying or otherwise disposing of a street.”
“There will be a public hearing before a vote”
Although the City code is clear, the differences of opinion about the process steps to abandon a street by the council has been confusing for the public. Early in October, we were told by Council President Andrea Shaut with certainty that, “…there will be a public hearing before a vote” as outlined in the City code. However, a week later, the Council Finance and Audit Committee members passed a resolution “endorsing a plan to abandon and close a portion of Fair Street Extension to through traffic” without any discussion about the process and no mention of a public hearing. When a constituent followed up, Ward 3 Alderman Rennie Scott Childress (the democratic majority leader and chair of the Finance and Audit Committee) said “…a public hearing would be called for (only) if the City were selling or otherwise disposing of the property”.
Did Kingston’s Corporation Counsel find some clever new hook? Were our council members being placed in a position to defend their decision by saying that the process doesn’t apply to a street if it is being given away? A local street, like all infrastructure, is a public good built on generations of investment by Kingston families. How could our city be so frivolous?
Prevailing Wage and former Governor Cuomo’s exemption for Downtown Revitalization Initiative projects like the Kingstonian
Although the City of Kingston set the original public hearing to occur on December 9th, without any explanation, it was moved up a week to December 2nd. This move by corporation counsel was likely made to allow the public hearing and council vote to occur within the same month (as the next full council meeting is on December 7th). The Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission will also be busy reviewing recent project changes during their December 2nd meeting (the same date and time as the Fair Street Extension public hearing) for an approval, and likely soon. All that’s left is the site plan approval by the Planning Board and variance change by the Zoning Board of Appeals. There is a sense that these approvals are being rushed and out of step, and at the expense of both the public and the process.
In a recent article in the New York State Bar Association “New York to Require Contractors to Pay Prevailing Wages on Certain Private Projects“, they write: “On April 3, 2020, New York lawmakers passed a $177 billion budget bill that significantly expanded the application of prevailing wages on construction projects in the state. While previously the payment of prevailing wages had been reserved for public construction projects only, the new bill expands the prevailing wage requirement to certain private projects for the first time in our state’s history….The law, which becomes effective on January 1, 2022, extends prevailing wages to projects that previously both sides may have viewed as “private,” where total project costs exceed $5,000,000 and where the project receives 30% or more of its total construction project costs from public funds.”
The Kingstonian project costs are well over $5 million and they are also receiving more than 30% of their cost through public funds (consider the DRI funding, grants, PILOTs). But former Governor Andrew Cuomo slipped in an exemption for construction projects from prevailing wage requirements even if they otherwise met the foregoing criteria. Guess which ones? “Projects funded by § 16-n of the Urban Development Corporation Act or the Downtown Revitalization Initiative“ making the Kingstonian currently….exempt.
Ironically, during the November Ulster County Industrial Development Agency meeting, Rose Woodworth brought up the new rules for prevailing wage. “…We don’t know the rules because there’s supposed to be a board that was set in place to define it. The prior governor never got that far and the current governor has not gotten that far yet so it’s just a lot up in the air”.
The ball is in Governor Hochul’s court, and Cuomo’s unscrupulous DRI exemption could be struck by the board that she will (or has already) established.
If we are aware of this, then it is without any doubt the City and project developers are too. It is likely motivating them to push hard to get everything in place while they are still exempt. Prevailing wage, if ever applied to the Kingstonian project, would likely make it too expensive to build.