FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO.

EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ULSTER
---------------------------------------------------------------------
61 CROWN STREET, LLC; 311 WALL STREET, LLC;
317 WALL STREET, LLC; and 323 WALL STREET
OWNERS, LLC,
VERIFIED PETITION
Petitioners,
Index No.:
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil
Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) Assigned Judge

- against -

CITY OF KINGSTON COMMON COUNCIL, MAYOR

OF THE CITY OF KINGSTON STEVE NOBLE,

Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------

Petitioners 61 Crown Street, LLC, 311 Wall Street, LLC, 317 Wall Street, LLC, and 323

Wall Street Owners, LLC (collectively, “Petitioners”), by and through their attorneys

Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro LLP and Lewis and Greer P.C., as and for their Verified Petition,

allege as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a CPLR Article 78 proceeding brought to annul a resolution of the

Respondent City of Kingston Common Council (the “Common Council”) adopted on February 2,

2021, adopting changes to the City of Kingston Zoning Ordinance.

2. In the Spring of 2020, the Common Council proposed new amendments to Zoning

Ordinance §405-27.1 (the “Zoning Amendment”). A copy of the Zoning Amendment is attached

hereto as Exhibit A.

3. The Zoning Amendment amends the permitted uses in the Mixed-Use Overlay

District (“MUOD”) and further reduces the affordable housing requirements in the MUOD from
1

1 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

20 percent to 10 percent for all residential developments containing five or more housing units.

4. In adopting the Zoning Amendment, the Common Council failed to perform its

statutory duties under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). The Common

Council failed to comply with its procedural and substantive requirements under SEQRA when it,

among other things, misclassified the Zoning Amendment under SEQRA as an Unlisted Action,

thereby subjecting it to a reduced level of environmental scrutiny, failed to take a hard look at the

Zoning Amendment’s environmental impacts, and failed to adopt a written, reasoned

Determination of Significance, i.e., a Negative Declaration or a Positive Declaration.

5. Therefore, this proceeding seeks to annul the February 2, 2021, resolution of the

Common Council adopting the Zoning Amendment amending Zoning Ordinance §405-27.1. The

resolution and Zoning Amendment must be invalidated due to the Common Council’s failure to

comply with both the procedural and substantive mandates of SEQRA.

PARTIES

6. Petitioner 61 Crown Street, LLC is a duly created limited liability company

organized in the State of New York which owns certain properties located at 61 Crown Street and

156-162 Green Street, identified as tax parcel numbers 48.330-3-10 and 48.330-3-28.100,

respectively. These properties are located in close proximity to the Project and are within the

MUOD and the National Register-listed Kingston Stockade Historic District (“KSHD”).

7. Petitioner 311 Wall Street, LLC is a duly created limited liability company

organized in the State of New York which owns certain property located at 311 Wall Street,

identified as tax parcel number 48.331-1-16. Petitioner 311 Wall Street, LLC’s property is located

in close proximity to the Project and is within MUOD and the KSHD.

8. Petitioner 317 Wall Street, LLC is a duly created limited liability company

2 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

organized in the State of New York which owns certain property located at 317 Wall Street,

identified as tax parcel number 48.331-1-15. Petitioner 317 Wall Street, LLC’s property is located

in close proximity to the Project and is within MUOD and the KSHD.

9. Petitioner 323 Wall Street Owners, LLC is a duly created limited liability company

organized in the State of New York which owns certain property located at 323 Wall Street,

identified as tax parcel number 48.331-1-13. Petitioner 323 Wall Street, LLC’s property is located

in close proximity to the Project and is within the MUOD and the KSHD.

10. Upon information and belief, the Common Council is a duly created body

established pursuant to the New York General City Law, whose authorized powers include, among

other things, the authority to amend the City of Kingston Zoning Ordinance.

11. Upon information and belief, Steve Noble is the duly elected Mayor of the City of

Kingston, whose authorized powers include, among other things, the authority to sign City of

Kingston Common Council resolutions to amend the City of Kingston Zoning Ordinance.

STANDING

12. Petitioners are injured by the Zoning Amendment in that the change to Zoning

Ordinance §405-27.1 affects them and its adoption was subject to various procedural deficiencies.

13. Petitioners own and operate property within the MUOD, the zoning district which

is the subject of the Zoning Amendment.

14. The Zoning Amendment thereby directly affects Petitioners, as it regulates the use

of Petitioners’ properties and other properties in the zoning district in which Petitioners properties

are located.

15. As a result of the Common Council’s failure to comply with SEQRA and

adequately consider the environmental impacts of the Zoning Amendment, Petitioners stand to

3 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

suffer, among other things, the following harms: impacts to traffic due to a potential influx of new

multifamily residential uses; increases in noise due to a potential influx of new residents in the

otherwise quaint KSHD; increases in solid waste production due to changes in permitted uses and

a potential influx of new residents; adverse effects on the unique character of the KSHD, a

nationally recognized historic resource; and adverse effects on existing patterns of population

distribution due to changes in the types of residential uses permitted in the MUOD and changes in

the requirements for residential uses throughout the City.

16. As a result of the Common Council’s improper procedure in adopting the Zoning

Amendment, Petitioners stand to suffer, among other things, the following harms: decreased

property values as a result of the adverse changes to the unique and quaint KSHD; and decreased

enjoyment of their properties due to the various changes to the character of the neighborhood, as

described above.

VENUE

17. Pursuant to CPLR §§ 7804(b) and 506(b), this proceeding is properly venued in

New York Supreme Court, Ulster County.

BACKGROUND

18. The City of Kingston Zoning Ordinance regulates the use of land within the City

by establishing zoning districts and then restricting what uses may be made of property in each

district. Kingston Code §405-7 et seq.

19. Property may only be “used, designed or arranged” and buildings “erected, moved,

altered, rebuilt or enlarged . . . in conformity with all regulations, requirements and/or restrictions

specified in this chapter for the district in which such building or land is located.” Zoning

Ordinance §405-7.

4 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

20. Among these districts is the MUOD, an overlay district meant to provide

regulations that supplement the applicable zoning regulations of the underlying zoning district that

otherwise apply to the property within the MUOD.

21. Prior to the Zoning Amendment, the MUOD provisions of the Zoning Ordinance

at §405-27.1(D), among other things, established specific additional uses that may be permitted

within the MUOD, stating:

The following uses are subject to the issuance of a special permit by the
Planning Board in accordance with the provisions of §405-32 of this
chapter:

(1) The conversion of existing commercial or industrial buildings, or

sections of them, into residential apartments and went/live [sic] of
which some will be dedicated as affordable housing. Such uses will
be subjected to §405-30, Site development plan approval.

(2) Site and building enhancements that promote a mixed-use, mixed-

income, pedestrian-based neighborhood. Such uses will be
subjected to §405-30, Site development plan approval.

See the original version of Zoning Ordinance § 405-27.1 attached hereto as Exhibit B.

22. In addition, prior to the Zoning Amendment, the MUOD provisions at §405-

27.1(E)(1) included the following requirement: “At least 20% of the residential units in the

adaptive reuse of commercial or industrial buildings, of five or more units, shall be established as

affordable housing units for rental to qualified affordable housing tenants.” Ex. B at 3.

23. In the Spring of 2020, the Common Council Laws and Rules Committee began

reviewing the proposed Zoning Amendment, which would establish new affordable housing

requirements in the City that would halve the affordable housing requirements for the MUOD and

allow the construction of new buildings with multifamily housing within the MUOD

24. By resolution dated May 5, 2020, the Common Council referred the proposed

Zoning Amendment to the City of Kingston Planning Board, Ulster County Planning Board, and

5 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

the City of Kingston Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission. A copy of the resolution

authorizing this referral along with a copy of the proposed amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit

C.

25. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned referral also contained a notice

that the Common Council intended to act as Lead Agency in a review of the amendment pursuant

to SEQRA and requested the other entities’ consent thereto.

26. By letter dated May 19, 2020, the City of Kingston Planning Board consented to

the Common Council serving as lead agency and provided comments on the draft amendment. A

copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit D.

27. By letter dated May 19, 2020, the City of Kingston Historic Landmarks

Preservation Commission consented to the Common Council serving as lead agency and provided

no further comment. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit E.

28. By letter dated June 3, 2020, the Ulster County Planning Board responded to the

referral with recommendations, requiring that the Common Council revise the proposed

amendment to include new calculations for determining affordable rent levels and to not include a

waiver provision for the City of Kingston Planning Board. A copy of this letter is attached as

Exhibit F.

29. At its February 2, 2021, meeting, the Common Council voted to adopt a resolution

that, among other things, overrode comments of both the City of Kingston and Ulster County

Planning Boards, found that “the amendments to the City Code of the City of Kingston are unlisted

actions under SEQRA and that no further environmental review is required,” and adopted the

Zoning Amendment. A copy of this Resolution with the Zoning Amendment attached is attached

hereto as Exhibit G. A video recording of the Common Council meeting can be found at

6 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBQuf7cPULA. The Zoning Amendment is discussed at

2:18:57 to 2:23:57.

30. The Common Council discussion focused only on the affordable housing

requirements in the Zoning Amendment, despite the fact that the Zoning Amendment changed the

permitted uses within the MUOD provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

31. As noted above, prior to the Zoning Amendment, the permitted uses in the MUOD

were listed in Zoning Ordinance §405-27.1D, stating:

D The following uses are subject to the issuance of a special permit by

the Planning Board in accordance with the provisions of §405-32 of
this chapter:

(1) The conversion of existing commercial or industrial

buildings, or sections of them, into residential apartments
and went/live [sic] spaces of which some will be dedicated
as affordable housing. Such uses will be subjected to §405-
30, Site development plan approval.

(2) Site and building enhancements that promote a mixed-use,

mixed-income, pedestrian-based neighborhood. Such uses
will be subjected to §405-30, Site development plan
approval.

See Ex. B at p. 3.

32. The Zoning Amendment changed the permitted uses in the MUOD to the following:

B. Uses permitted by Right.

(1) The adaptive reuse of existing commercial and industrial

buildings to include rental multifamily housing and which
encourage mixed use, mixed income, pedestrian
neighborhoods.

(2) The new construction of buildings to include rental

multifamily housing and which encourage mixed use, mixed
income, pedestrian neighborhoods.
See Ex. A at 3.

33. Upon information and belief, the City did not post an Environmental Assessment

7 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

Form (“EAF”) Part 1 for the Zoning Amendment on the City of Kingston website or include one

in the agenda packets for the Common Council’s meetings at which the Zoning Amendment was

discussed.

34. Petitioners are unaware of any evidence that the Common Council properly

completed an EAF Part 1 for the Zoning Amendment.

35. Petitioner’s counsel submitted a request for records under the Freedom of

Information Law (“FOIL”), which sought the following:

Any and all records relating to environmental reviews performed regarding

the amendment to the City of Kingston Zoning Law approved by the
Common Council on or about February 2, 2021, to adopt affordable housing
requirements in the City and amend the Mixed-Use Overlay District
provisions of the City of Kingston Zoning Law (the “Amendment”).

These records may include but [] are not necessarily limited to any
Environmental Assessment Form prepared for the Amendment pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), any Negative
Declaration adopted pursuant to SEQRA for the Amendment, and any
analysis or supplemental documentation supporting the City’s findings
under SEQRA regarding the Amendment.

Any correspondence received by, sent by, or among officials, agents, or

employees of the City of Kingston relating to the above.

See a copy of the request attached hereto as Exhibit H.

36. After conducting a review for records that were responsive to the FOIL request, the

City of Kingston City Clerk responded by stating, among other things, “An Environmental

Assessment Form was not prepared and there are no additional documents since no environmental

review was performed pursuant to the provisions of seqra.” See a copy of this correspondence

attached hereto as Exhibit I.

37. On February 16, 2021, Petitioners moved to amend their pleadings in a separate

proceeding challenging actions of the City of Kingston Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to

its interpretation of Zoning Ordinance § 405-27.1. Index No. EF2020-2205. The amended

8 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

pleadings would have included new causes of action against the City of Kingston Common

Council regarding its failure to comply with SEQRA, as described herein.

38. On May 17, 2021, the Hon. Richard Mott, J.S.C. issued a Decision/Order finding

that the Zoning Board of Appeals’ determination of was proper and that the Petitioners lacked

standing to bring the underlying action against the Zoning Board of Appeals and dismissed the

petition. The Decision/Order then found that Petitioners’ cross-motion to amend their pleadings to

bring new causes of action against new respondents was moot, as there was no longer an active

case with pleadings to amend. See Index No. EF2020-2205, NYSCEF Doc. No. 53.

39. Petitioners have now commenced the present proceeding, which is not tied to the

underlying case in Index No. EF2020-2205 and still raises live causes of action which are not

moot.

40. Of note, however, is Respondent City of Kingston Common Council’s response to

Petitioners’ motion in the previous case raising these issues regarding SEQRA compliance.

41. The City of Kingston Assistant Corporation Counsel admits under penalty of

perjury in his Affirmation that the City’s conclusions and procedure under SEQRA were flawed

and not in compliance with the applicable statute and regulations. See the Affirmation of D.

Gartenstein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

42. At Paragraph 16, Assistant Corporation Counsel concedes that the language in the

Common Council’s resolution adopting the Zoning Amendment, which plainly contradicted

SEQRA’s implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR 617, “was somewhat inaccurate.”

43. At Paragraph 17, Assistant Corporation Counsel goes on to state that “the Council

should have completed a short form EAF clearly stating that the action had no environmental

impact.”

9 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

44. At Paragraphs 17 and 26, Assistant Corporation Counsel apparently accepts the fact

that the City’s SEQRA review was patently insufficient, and even informs the Court that the City

will have to revisit the legislation to correct these errors.

45. Based on the content of the resolution adopting the Zoning Amendment, the

statements of the City Clerk, and the Affirmation of the City’s Assistant Corporation Counsel, it

is clear the Common Council did not review Parts 2 or 3 of an EAF at the Common Council’s

February 2, 2021, meeting.

46. There was no discussion of the Zoning Amendment’s environmental impacts at the

Common Council’s meetings, including the February 2, 2021, meeting at which it determined that

the Zoning Amendment was an Unlisted Action under SEQRA and that no further review was

required. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBQuf7cPULA. at 2:18:57 to 2:23:57.

47. The Common Council never made written findings supporting a determination

under SEQRA and never adopted a Negative Declaration for the Zoning Amendment pursuant to

SEQRA.

48. The Common Council never published notice of a Negative Declaration regarding

the Zoning Amendment in the New York State Environmental Notice Bulletin.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(THE COMMON COUNCIL VIOLATED
THE PROCEDURAL MANDATES OF SEQRA
WHEN ADOPTING THE ZONING AMENDMENT)

49. Petitioners reallege all the foregoing allegations set forth in this Petition with the

same force and effect as though set forth herein at length.

50. The procedural requirements of SEQRA must be strictly followed.

51. In adopting the Zoning Amendment, the Common Council failed to follow several

procedural mandates of SEQRA regarding the classification and review of the Zoning

10

10 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

Amendment, which warrants its annulment.

A. The Common Council Misclassified the Action

52. SEQRA requires an approving agency to identify whether an action is a “Type I

action” which is more likely to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement and

requires an environmental review, a “Type II action”, which has been determined to have no

significant environmental effects and requires no further environmental review, or an unlisted

action, an action which is neither Type I nor Type II but which still requires environmental review.

53. The Zoning Amendment is a Type I action under SEQRA but the Common Council

misclassified it as an Unlisted action.

54. As noted above, prior to the Zoning Amendment, permitted uses within the MUOD

were limited to:

D. The following uses are subject to the issuance of a special permit by

the Planning Board in accordance with the provisions of §405-32 of
this chapter:

(3) The conversion of existing commercial or industrial

buildings, or sections of them, into residential apartments
and went/live [sic] spaces of which some will be dedicated
as affordable housing. Such uses will be subjected to §405-
30, Site development plan approval.

(4) Site and building enhancements that promote a mixed-use,

mixed-income, pedestrian-based neighborhood. Such uses
will be subjected to §405-30, Site development plan
approval.

See Ex. B at p.3.

55. The Zoning Amendment changed the permitted uses to the following:

B. Uses permitted by Right.

(1) The adaptive reuse of existing commercial and industrial

buildings to include rental multifamily housing and which
encourage mixed use, mixed income, pedestrian
neighborhoods.

11

11 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

(2) The new construction of buildings to include rental

multifamily housing and which encourage mixed use, mixed
income, pedestrian neighborhoods.

See Ex. A at p.3.

56. The MUOD includes the Kingston Stockade District among other areas of the City.

57. Upon information and belief, the source of which is a review of the Ulster County

Parcel Map, the Kingston Stockade District alone comprises more than 40 acres.

58. Pursuant to SEQRA, “the adoption of changes in the allowable uses within any

zoning district, affecting 25 or more acres of the district” is a Type I action. 6 NYCRR 617.4(b)(2).

59. Type I actions are presumed to have a significant adverse environmental impact

requiring a Positive Declaration and the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

6 NYCRR 617.4(a)(1).

60. The Common Council failed to classify the Zoning Amendment as a Type I action,

instead classifying the action as “Unlisted” and thereby subjecting the amendment to a reduced

level of environmental scrutiny.

B. The Common Council Did Not Prepare the Requisite Forms when Reviewing the Zoning
Amendment

61. In evaluating an action’s environmental impacts, an agency must first review an

EAF then make a Determination of Significance as to whether the action has even the potential to

have an adverse environmental impact.

62. Actions which have the potential to have an adverse environmental impact must

receive a Positive Declaration, subjecting them to further review. It is only when an action does

not even have the potential to have a significant adverse environmental impact that a reviewing

agency may adopt a Negative Declaration, ending the environmental review.

63. The Common Council failed to prepare the requisite forms upon which it could

12

12 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

make a Determination of Significance.

64. Pursuant to SEQRA, when reviewing a Type I action, such as the Zoning

Amendment, an agency must first evaluate a Full EAF Part 1 and thereafter prepare a Full EAF

Part 2 and Part 3. 6 NYCRR 617.6(a)(2).

65. The Common Council failed to evaluate and prepare Full EAF Parts 1, 2, and 3 for

the Zoning Amendment, as required by SEQRA.

66. By the City Clerk’s own admission, she was unable to locate any EAF for the

Zoning Amendment and stated, “An Environmental Assessment Form was not prepared and there

are no additional documents…” Ex. I.

67. By the City of Kingston Assistant Corporation Counsel’s own Affirmation, the

Common Council failed to prepare and review these forms. Ex. J.

68. Instead, the Common Council merely noted that it believed the action was an

Unlisted action under SEQRA and that it was not subject to any further review.

69. Even if the Zoning Amendment were properly classified as an Unlisted action,

making such a classification would not, as the Common Council indicated, release the action from

further review. The Common Council would still be required to, at the very least, prepare Short

EAF Parts 1, 2, and 3 and make a Determination of Significance.

70. Absent the requisite evaluation of EAF Parts 1, 2, and 3 for the Zoning Amendment,

the City’s environmental review under SEQRA was impermissible and arbitrary and capricious.

C. The Common Council Failed to Make Written Findings

71. Pursuant to SEQRA, when making a Determination of Significance, an agency

must make its findings “in a written form containing a reasoned elaboration and providing

reference to any supporting documentation.” 6 NYCRR 617.7(b)(4).

13

13 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

72. As a result of its failure to prepare EAF Parts 2 or 3 for the Zoning Amendment,

the Common Council never adopted a written Determination of Significance.

73. By the City Clerk’s own admission, she was unable to locate any EAF or other

relevant documents because “no environmental review was performed pursuant to the provisions

of seqra.” Ex. I.

74. The only written analysis of the Zoning Amendment’s environmental impact

appears to be a single sentence in the Common Council’s resolution, stating that the “Common

Council of the City of Kingston finds that the amendments to the City Code of the City of Kingston

are unlisted actions under SEQRA and that no further environmental review is required.” Ex. G.

at p. 1, second “Whereas” clause.

75. Not only is this conclusion flawed as a matter of law, it offers no actual analysis of

the Zoning Amendment’s potential for adverse environmental impacts.

76. The failure to provide a written analysis violates the procedural requirements of

SEQRA.

D. The Common Council Failed to Publish its Determination of Significance

77. Pursuant to SEQRA, a notice of a Type I Negative Declaration or any Positive

Declaration must be published in the New York State Environmental Notice Bulletin (“ENB”). 6

NCYRR 617.12(c)(1).

78. Due to the Zoning Amendment’s status as a Type I action, any Determination of

Significance regarding the action would be required to be published in the ENB.

79. Upon information and belief, the Common Council failed to publish a

Determination of Environmental Significance for the Zoning Amendment in the ENB as required

by SEQRA.

14

14 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

E. The Procedural Violations of SEQRA Nullify the Action

80. Based upon the foregoing, in performing its environmental review of the Zoning

Amendment pursuant to SEQRA, the Common Council misclassified the action, failed to review

or prepare the requisite forms for a Type I action, failed to make written findings, and failed to

publish notice of its Determination of Significance.

81. Due to these violations of SEQRA’s procedural mandates, the Common Council’s

February 2, 2021, Resolution adopting the Zoning Amendment must be annulled.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(THE COMMON COUNCIL FAILED TO TAKE THE REQUISITE
“HARD LOOK” AT THE ZONING AMENDMENTS’ POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS PURSUANT TO SEQRA)

82. Petitioners reallege all the foregoing allegations set forth in this Petition with the

same force and effect as though set forth herein at length.

83. SEQRA requires a reviewing agency to identify all relevant areas of environmental

concern for an action, analyze those areas of environmental concern (take a “hard look”) and, in

adopting a Negative Declaration, provide a detailed reasoned elaboration for its determination. 6

NYCRR 617.7(b).

84. The Common Council’s failure to discuss the environmental impacts of the Zoning

Law during its meetings demonstrates it failed to identify relevant areas of environmental concern

or analyze those areas of environmental concern.

85. Furthermore, the record reveals scant, if any, written analysis of the Zoning

Amendment’s environmental impacts.

86. By the City Clerk’s own admission in response to a request for environmental

review documents relating to the adoption of the Zoning Amendment, “[a]n Environmental

Assessment Form was not prepared and there are no additional documents since no environmental

15

15 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

review was performed pursuant to the provisions of seqra.” Ex. I.

87. The Common Council’s only finding regarding environmental impacts appears to

be one sentence in its resolution adopting the Zoning Amendment: “The Common Council of the

City of Kingston finds that the amendments to the City Code of the City of Kingston are unlisted

actions under SEQRA and that no further environmental review is required.” Ex. G. at p. 1, second

“Whereas” clause.

88. In addition to containing incorrect conclusions regarding the application of SEQRA

to the Zoning Amendment (see Petitioner’s First Cause of Action), this single sentence utterly fails

to “identify the relevant areas of environmental concern,” “thoroughly analyze the identified

relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the action may have a significant adverse

impact on the environment,” and set forth “a reasoned elaboration” for the Common Council’s

purported findings, as required by SEQRA. 6 NYCRR 617.7(b)(2)-(4).

89. Among the areas of concern the Common Council was obligated to identify and

“thoroughly analyze” include impacts to air quality, noise, traffic, or solid waste production by

allowing these types of construction and land uses in the MUOD, all of which are considered part

of the environment under SEQRA. 6 NYCRR 617.2(l); 6 NYCRR 617.7(c)(i).

90. The Common Council was also obligated to identify and “thoroughly analyze” the

potential “impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological,

architectural, or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character,” all of

which are considered part of the environment under SEQRA. 6 NYCRR 617.2(l); 6 NYCRR

617.7(c)(v).

91. The Common Council was also obligated to identify and “thoroughly analyze”

impacts to “existing patterns of population concentration, distribution or growth,” which

16

16 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

constitutes part of the environment under SEQRA. 6 NYCRR 617.2(l). The halving of the

affordable housing requirement within the MUOD, coupled with the new imposition of an

affordable housing requirement throughout the City could have widespread impacts that the

Common Council never considered.

92. The Common Council’s complete lack of consideration for or analysis of these

potential impacts cannot constitute a “reasoned elaboration” and falls far short of the requirements

of SEQRA.

93. The court need only look at the level of analysis done during the initial adoption of

the MUOD overlay regulations (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit K) to see that the

Common Council’s most recent negative declaration was not based on a hard look. In 2005, when

adopting the first set of uses permitted within the MUOD, the Common Council considered the

impact of those potential new residential units on traffic, community facilities, community

character and socio-economics.

94. The Common Council is now permitting an undetermined number of new

residential units in the MUOD and is altering affordable housing requirements throughout the City

without consideration of whether such units would exacerbate traffic and parking issues, would

detract from the character of the neighborhood, or impact city resources such as fire, water, schools

and recreational areas.

95. The Common Council failed to thoroughly analyze relevant environmental impacts

and failed to provide a reasoned elaboration for its findings under SEQRA. Therefore, its

determination of non-significance, if its statement in the resolution adopting the Zoning

Amendment can even be called a determination, is arbitrary and capricious and the resolution

adopting the Zoning Amendment must be annulled.

17

17 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court enter an Order and Judgment

overturning the Common Council’s resolution adopting the Zoning Amendment and awarding

Petitioners such further and other relief as the Court shall deem just and proper.

Dated: June 2, 2021

Rhinebeck, New York

RODENHAUSEN CHALE & POLIDORO LLP LEWIS & GREER P.C.

By: By:_/s/Scott Greer______________

Victoria L. Polidoro, Esq. J. Scott Greer, Esq.
Attorneys for Petitioners Attorneys for Petitioner
55 Chestnut Street 510 Haight Avenue
Rhinebeck, NY 12572 Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
(845) 516-4323 (845) 454-1200

18

18 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

19 of 20
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2021 05:41 PM INDEX NO. EF2021-1496
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2021

20 of 20