Kingston - City, developer dispute studies

KINGSTON - City officials say a plan for a 1,750-unit housing complex on the Hudson River complies with both state and city waterfront revitalization guidelines, countering an argument a local environmental group.

City Planner Suzanne Cahill said two reports on the proposed Hudson Landing project and on opposing studies by Friends of the Kingston Waterfront bear out that conclusion.

One of the reports was compiled by Daniel Simone, a representative of AVR Acquisition Corp., the Yonkers-based project developer. The other one was done by George James, one of several consultants hired by the city, at the developer's expense, to oversee the project.

"The reports from our consultant back up the position that the project as it is currently proposed is consistent with the city's local waterfront revitalization plan, and with the state's coastal policies," Cahill said.

Mayor James Sottile said in a prepared statement that "the reports indicate this project will be a benefit to the community."

"The development as designed and presented follows the policies of smart growth," Sottile said. "We are cleaning up a long-vacant industrial site. The project meets the objectives of the city of Kingston for growing our tax base in a responsible manner."

The statements from Cahill and Sottile followed two studies of the Hudson Landing project that said the proposed development violates both the city's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, which was adopted in the mid-1990s, and state coastal development guidelines.

One of those reports was done by Scenic Hudson, a Poughkeepsie environmental group that is a member of Friends of the Kingston Waterfront.

Jay Burgess, a Scenic Hudson spokesman, said the organization had not reviewed the AVR or James reports.

"We are requesting copies of the reports and will be able to comment after reviewing them," Burgess said.

The studies submitted to the city by the Friends of the Kingston Waterfront concluded that the housing unit project would have "unacceptable visual impacts" within the city and from various points in Dutchess County. Those impacts are in direct violation of the city's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, according to a press release from Scenic Hudson.

The city studies say something different.

James, in his report, called into question the accuracy of Scenic Hudson's data.

"Their aggressive uses of assertions unsubstantiated by hard data and objective criteria is a form of intellectual bullying that has now become an unfortunate part of the record regarding this project," James said. "Hudson Landing is not too dense but consistent with existing densities in the city of Kingston. (The) Hudson Landing site is urban and is at the center of Ulster County's urban area."

Simone, who has represented AVR at numerous public meetings on the Hudson Landing project, said there would be no lessening of public enjoyment of Hudson River views because of the project.

"While the revised project remains directly visible from public places within the Mid-Hudson Historic Shorelines Scenic District, the (developer) does not believe there is a basis for a claim that the project would clearly interfere with or reduce the public's enjoyment and/or appreciation of public views," Simone said.

Simone also described Scenic Hudson's report as "flawed, replete with erroneous statements and misrepresentations."