‘SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF ULSTER ‘CREDA, LLC, NOTICE OF MOTION TO. INTERVEN} Petitioner, Fora judgmen: pursuant to CPLR Article 78 Dee ersoaest against - Assigned Judge Hon. Richard Mott CITY OF KINGSTON PLANNING BOARD, CITY OF KINGSTON, IM DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, HERZOG SUFPLY CO,, INC., KINGSTONIAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, PAGE PROPERTIES, LLC, ‘and BLUE STONE REALTY, LLC, Respondents PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the affirmation of Victoria L Polidoro, Esq, swom toon the 20th day of February, 2020, the notice and petition heretofore served herein, and the proposed petition of movants attached hereto, a motion pursuant to CPLR 1013 willbe made ata Supreme Court of the State of New York, Ulster County, located at 285 Wall Street, City of Kingston, County of Ulster, State of New York, on the 18 day of May, at 9:30 am. or as soon thereafter as counsel ean be heard, for an order permitting 61 CROWN STREET, LLC, 311 WALL STREET, LLC, 317 WALL STREET, LLC, 323 WALL STREET OWNERS, LLC, 63 NORTH FRONT STREET, LLC, 314 WALL STREET, LLC, and 328 WALL STREET, LLC (the “Intervenors” to intervene in the above-enttied action in the diseretion ofthe court, 4irecting that Intervenors be added as party petitioners and allowing Intervenors to serve a peltion setting forth their claims within 20 days after the entry of an order granting this mation, upon the grounds that the claims of Intervenors and the main action have @ common question of | law or fact, and for such other and further relief as may be just, proper, and equitable‘The above-entited action was brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to annul a resolution of the City of Kingston Planning Board adopted on December 16,2019. Pursuant to CPLR 2214(6), answering affidavits, ifany, are required to be served upon the undersigned atleast seven (7) days before the return date ofthis motion. Dated: 20" of February, 2020 Rhinebeck, New York bt Te: ‘Victoria L, Polidoro, Esq RODENHAUSEN CHALE & POLIDORO LLP Attorney for Movants '55 Chestnut Street Rhinebeck, NY 12534 (845) 516-4323, Enily Svenson, Esq, Autorney for Petitioner CREDA, LLC 442 Catherine Street, Suite C-107 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Planning Board ofthe Cty of Kingston 420 Broadway Kingston, NY 12401, City of Kingston 420 Broadway Kingston, NY 12401 JM Development Group, LLC 2975 Route 9W South ‘New Windsor, NY 12553, Herzog Supply Co., Ine. 151 Plaza Road Kingston, NY 12401, Kingstonian Development, LLC 2975 Route 9W New Windsor, NY 12853 Page Properties, LLC2975 Route 9W New Windsor, NY 12553 Blue Stone Realty, LLC 200 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401‘SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER Application of , AFFIRMATION IN (CREDA, LLC, ‘SUPPORT OF MOTION ‘TO INTERVENE, Petitioner, Index No.: BF2020-253 For a judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78 Assigned Judge st Hon, Richard Mott oe CITY OF KINGSTON PLANNING BOARD, CITY OF KINGSTON, JM DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, HERZOG SUPPLY CO, INC., KINGSTONIAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, PAGE PROPERTIES, LLC, and BLUE STONE REALTY, LLC, Respondents STATEOFNEW York) county orputeusss }* Visor Por, xan tomy dl anit opie inte cout of he Se ot New Yr, de pea of py fis ss 1. tama per ofRoenhasen Cae & oid LLP atoms fr 6 CROWN STREET, LLC,311 WALL STREET, LC, 17 WALL STREET, LLC 525 WALL STREET OWNERS, LLC 62 NORTH FRONT STREET, LLC, 34 WALL STREET, LC. and 328 WAL STREET, LLC, proposed intervenors in this action (the “Intervenors”) and am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances herein, Lam submitting this affirmation in support of Intervenors’ application to intervene inthis matter pursuart to CPLR 1013, 2. The above-entitled action was brought by the Petitioner CREDA, LLC against theRespondents pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to annul the City of Kingston Planning Board's December 16, 2019 determination that, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (*SEQRA"), the Kingstonian development project proposed for certain property wit the City of Kingston will not have significant sdverse environmental impacts, 3. The above-eitled action was commenced by the fling ofa Notice and Petition, copies of which are annexed hereto. 4. Upon information and belie, subsequent othe service ofthe Notice and Petition thereupon, Respondents appeared inthe above-entitled action o seek a 90-day extension of time to espond to Petitioners pleadings. 5. Upon information and belie, Petitioner Cred, LLC has not objected tothe requested extension of time 6. Intervenors seeks to intervene in the above-caied action because they seek to assert alam that has a common question of law or fact with the above-entited action, namely that the Cty of Kingston Planning Board erred when determining tha, pursuaat SEQRA, the Kingstonian development project proposed for certain propaty within the City of Kingston will ‘not have significant adverse environmental impacts 7. ‘Theclaim of nervenors, as set out inthe proposed Petition of Intervenors, copy of which is annexed hereto, and the main ation havea common question of aw or fact in that both allege thatthe City of Kingston Planning Board did not perform an adequate SEQRA review of the proposed Kingstonian project's potential to have significant adverse impacts on the ‘environment. Both the main action and Intervenor's claims concem whether or not the City of Kingston Planning Board took the requisite “hard look” at tke development's likely impacts to, among other things, historic resources and community character.8 Intervention ky Inervenors will not unduly delay the determination ofthe above- cniiled action because, upon information an belief, Respondents have already requested an extension of time in which to respond to Petitioner CREDA, LLC's Petition fled erein uni May 18,2020, Allowing Intervenors to intervene in this ation would not delay te proceedings as Respondents would be permitted to respond to Intervenors claims within the same extended timeframe, 9. Intervention by Intervenors wil not prejudice the substantial right of any party thereto because ofthe nascent character ofthis proceeding. The Petition herein was filed on January 16,2020, Upon information and belief, Respondents have requested 290 day extension ‘oftime in which to respond tothe Petition and will be abe to adequately respond oIntervenors claims, which ae similar character to those made by Petitioner CREDA, LLC in the original Petition filed hers, 10, Moreover, upon information and belief, Respondents have not taken any action in reliance upon the current status ofthese proceedings. The Kingstonien developmen project that isthe subject of this Atle 78 proceeding doesnot have final approval from the Panning Board or other involved agencies which would allow construction to begin, and the intervention of Intervenors would not cause delays in development of the projec. 11, No previous application forthe reliet herein prayed for has been rade, WHEREFORE, deponent respectfully asks for an order permitting Intervenors to intervene in the above-entiled action in the disereton of the cour, directing tha Intervenors be ‘added as party petitioner, and allowing Intervenors to serve their annexed petition and a ‘memorandum of law within 20 days after the entry of an order granting this motion, and for suehother and further relief as may be just, proper, and equitable. Dated: 20 of February, 2020 Rhinebeck, New York ria L. Polidoro, EsqSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ULSTER CREDA, LLC ce ‘VERIFIED PETITION For a judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR eee against “Assigned Judge CITY OF KINGSTON PLANNING BOARD, CITY OF Hon- Richard Mo KINGSTON, JM DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, HERZOG SUPPLY CO,,INC., KINGSTONIAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, PAGE PROPERTIES, LLC, and BLUE STONE REALTY LLC Respondents ‘SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER CREDA, LLC, 61 CROWN STREET, LLC, 311 WALL STREET, LLC, 317 WALL STREET, LLC, 323 WALL STREET OWNERS, LLC, 63 NORTH FRONT ED ete STREET, LLC, 314 WALL STREET, LLC, and 328 Pa Te WALL STREET, LLC Petitioners, “Assigned Judge Hon. Richard Mott For a judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR against = CITY OF KINGSTON PLANNING BOARD, CITY OF KINGSTON, JM DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, HERZOG SUPPLY CO. INC., KINGSTONIAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, PAGE PROPERTIES, LLC, and BLUE STONE REALTY LLC Respondents. Petitioners, 61 Crown Sweet, LLC, 311 Wall Steet, LLC, 317 Wall Street, LLC, 323Wall Street, LI {C, 317 Wall Street, LLC, 323 Wall Street Owners, LLC, 63 North Front Street, LLC, 314 Wall Steet, LLC and 328 Wall Steet, LLC, (“Petioners") by and through their attorneys, Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro LLP, as and for heir Verified Petition respectfilly allege as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. Thisis a CPLR Anicle 78 proceeding brougt to annul a resolution ofthe City of Kingston Planning Board “Planing Board" adopted on December 16,2019, detemining hata proposed mixed use building incorporating 8 420 ca garage 143 apartments, 32 room boutique hotel, and 9,000 square fot reuilfestaurant space, pedestrian plaza and walking bridge located the intersetion of Fair Steet and N Front Street the “Pret”, within the National Register listed Kingston Stockade Historie District (*KSHD"), along with the rezoning of approximately (0.313-acres of property to accommodate the same, would not havea significant adverse impact ‘on the environment (the “Negative Declaration”) A copy ofthe Negative Declaration and its ‘solution ate anened hereto ws Exhibit A. 2. The Projectis located on several parcels of property inthe City of Kingston at 9- 17 & 21N Front Street and 51 Schwenk Drive, ax parcels 48,80-1-25, -26, 24.120 (the Property”) 3. The Negative Declaration resolution was adopted in contravention ofthe procedural and substantive requirements of the State Enviroamental Quality Review Act (SEQRA") and its implementing regulations in that, among other errors, the Planning Board failed to identify the relevant areas of environmental concern and failed to take the required “ard look” atthe areas of concern. 4. Petitioners intend to amend or supplement this petition as may be necessary toinclude further municipal ations and approvals related tothe Project. PARTIES 5. Petioner 61 Crown Stet, LLC isa duly created limited liability company organized in the State of New York which owns certain properties located at 61 Crown Stret and 156-162 Green Stet, identified as tax parcels 48.330-3-10 and 48.330-3-28.100, respectively. Petitioner 61 Crow Street, LLC's properties are located in lose proximity tothe Project’s Property and are within the National Register. ied KSHD. 6. Petitioner 311 Wall Steet, LLC is 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 48.3311 16, Petitioner 311 Wall Steet, LLC's propery is located in close proximity tothe Projets Proper and is within the National Repster-isted KSHD, 7. Petitioner 317 Walt Steet, LLC isa duly created limited lability company organized in the State of New York which owns certain property located at 317 Wall Stet, demifed as tx parcel 48.331-1-15, Petitioner 317 Wall Stest, LLC's propery is located in close proximity tothe Projets Property and is within dhe National Registeristed KSHD. 8 Pettoner 323 Wall Sweet Owners, LLC is a duly created limited liabiliy ‘company organized inthe State of New York which ov certain propery located at 323 Wall See, idemified a tax parcel 48.331-1-13. Petitioner 323 Wall Stet, LLC's property is located in close proximity to the Projects Property and is within the National Register listed KSHD. 9. Petitioner 63 Nomth Front Stet, LLC isa duly created limited liability company organized in the State of New York which owns certs propery located at 63 North Font ‘Stree, identified as tax parcel 48.314-2-15. Petitioner 63 North Front Stret, LLC's property islocated in close proximity to tho Projects Property and i witht the National Regiate KSHD. 10, Petitioner 314 Wall Steet, LLC isa duly created limited liability company organized inthe State of New York which ovis certain property located at 314 Wall ret, identified as tax parcel 48.331-210, Petitioner 314 Wall Stee, LLC's property is locate in close proximity to the Project's Property and is within the National Registerlsted KSHD. 11, Petoner 328 Wall Sueet, LLC is a duly created limite ibiity company ‘organized inthe State of New York which owns certain propery located at 328 Wall Steet, identified as ax parcel 48.331-2-4, Petitioner 328 Wall Sweet, LLC's property is located in lose proximity to the Project's Property andi within the National Register-isted KSHD 12, The Petitioners are supportive ofthe concept of a mixed-use redevelopment project, ut take serious issue withthe lack of diligence performed bythe Planning Board during its environmental review andthe masive size, scope and appearance ofthe structures which will negatively impact the KSHD. 13, Petitioners willbe injure by the Project ait willimpact thir enjoyment of thet respective properties. The Project involves the construction of a massive mixed use development ina nationally recognized historic district which ha the potential to negatively impact the historic sources and character of the KSHD. The Project also involves changes to traffic low including the closure ofthe Far Street Extension, The Project wll permanently alter the historic character of the KSHD, in which Petitioners’ properties are located, and will nterfere with the ‘appearance and environment ofthe district. Petitioners purchased their properties in pat due to the unique sting ofthe KSHD which the Project will now disrupt. 14. Petitioners have standing to pursue the claims asserted herein because they areowners of el propery inthe City of Kingston and have unique property and pentona interests that wil be adversely affected by the proposed Project. 15. Petitioners interests are within the zones of intrest that SEQRA is intended 1 protect. 16. Upon information and belief, Respondent City of Kingston Panning Board (the “Planning Board") is a duly created body established by the City of Kingston pursuant to New York General City Law Anicte 3, whose authorized duties include, among other thing, the authority to review actions pursuant to SEQRA. 17, Upon information and belief, Respondent JM Development Groug, LLC isa New ‘York limited ibility company with offices at 2975 Route 9W South, New Windior, NY, anda developer of andor applicant forthe Project 18. Upon information and belief, Respondent Herzog Supply Co, nei duly created New York business corporation with ofices a 151 Plaza Road, Kingston NY, and the owner in whole or in part of real property located at 9-17 Front Steet and 51 Schwenk Drive ientfied as tax parcel nos. 48.8026 and -24.120, whichis a portion ofthe Projet Property. 19. Upon information and belief, Respondent Kingstonian Development, LLC is New York limited lability company with offices at 2975 Route 9W South, New Windsor, NY, and a developer of andor applicant for the Project. 20. Upon information and belief, Respondent Page Properties, LLC isa New York limited lability company with offices at 307 Cypress Steet, Liverpool, NY, and a developer of and/or applicant fr the Projet. 21. Upon information and belief, Respondent Ble Stone Realy, LLCs a New York limited lability company with offices at 200 Fair Street, Kingston, NY, and has an interest intheProject. Collectively, Respondents herein, withthe exception ofthe Planning Board, are referred tw hereafier as the “Applicans.” VENUE 22, Pursuant to CPLR §§ 7804(b) and 506(b), this Anicle 78 proceeding is properly ‘venved in New York Supreme Court, Ulstet County. BACKGROUND A. History of the Stockade District 23. The KSHD comprises approximately 32.11 acres of uptown Kingston which once housed the Kingston stockade. A copy of the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. 24. This section ofthe City of Kingston was laid out as a Dutch village in the mid- seventeenth century. The ste ofthe village was “carefully chosen in elation to topography on a high dela-like plain which provided good drainage, as well as effective strategic protection from, attack.” Ex. Bat p. 6, 25. In 1658, alog stockade was completed to fortify the village, and the strets along, the boundaries ofthe stockade are sill seen in modem uptown Kingston. Ex. Ba 6 26. Since its establishment, the KSHD has had tremendous historical significance. ‘The setlement became the first capital ofthe State of New York, hosted a consttatonal «convention to permit the framing of New York's Constitution, and contained the First Term of the New York Supreme Cour, as presided over by future U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Jay Ex. Bat6. 27. Atpresent, over 300 years aftr its establishment, remnants ofthe historie Dutchsettlement are evident, The street patterns ae intact, and the area contains colonial-era Dutch stone houses. Moreover, even the development that has occurred since the colonial era has contributed tothe KSHD’s historic character; “The district contains a number of building{s] ‘Which individually exemplify the city’s architectural development from the seventeenth through twentieth centuries, Together, however, with the street pattems and landseaping they form an ial and irreplaceable part of the historical heritage of Kingston and of | New York Stat.” Ex. B at 6 B. Proposed Development in the Disiriet 28. The City of Kingston owns a parcel of land located partly within the KSHD which ‘was formerly developed witha parking garage. Upon information and belief, inthe spring of 2008 the City demolished the garage as a result of poor maintenance thereof. 29. On October 27, 2016, the Common Council published “Request for Qualifications #K6-10, Adaptive Development of Uptown Parking Sites for Mixed Use” (the “RFQ”). A copy of the RFQ is annexed hereto as Exhibit C. 30. The RFQ sought responses “from qualified developers to design, construct and ‘operate a mixed use development on three separate parcels owned currently by the City of Kingston” Ex. C. at 1. 31, Upon information and belief, the Common Council awarded the RFQ to Respondent Blue Stone Realty LLC. 32. Upon information and belief, the Project has been assigned to JM Development Group, LLC, Page Properties, LLC, and Herzog Supply Co., Inc, which eventually proposed the Project and submitted applications to the City of Kingston Planting Board for ste plan and special use permits forthe same.33. The Project seeks to construct a 420 car garage, 143 apartments, 32 room boutique hotel, and 9,000 square foot retai/estaurant space, pedestrian plaza and walking bridge at the Property, which is located within the Cty of Kingston's Centeal Commercial ("C- District. All ofthe Property except tnx parcel 48-80-1-24.12is also located within the City of Kingston's Stockade Mixed Use Overlay *MUO") District. 34. On June 3, 2019, after having received ste plan and special use permit applications forthe Project, the Planning Board established itself as Lead Agency forthe Project pursuant to SEQRA, meaning that it would perform the requisite environmental review of the Project inorder to determine the Project's potential to adversely affect the environment and Whether addtional environmental reviews of the Project were necessary. I the Projet has even the potential to havea significant adverse environmental impact, then the lead agency must adopt “Positive Declaration” requiring that Draft Environmental Impact Statement DEIS") be prepared It is only when an action does not have the potential to havea significant adverse impact onthe environment that a Negative Declaration may be adopted. 35.. On March 18,2019, the Planning Board cones classified the Projet asa Type {action under SEQRA. Type I actions are presumed likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact. 6 NYCRR 617.4(a\), 36. Among the mat als submited tothe Planning Board bythe Applicants was a Full Eavironmental Assessment Form Part | (“FEAP") dated November 27,2018, The FEAF is meant to describe and contextualize a proposed setion and isthe primary source of information fora lead agency in determining whether an action has the potential to havea significance ‘verse environmental impact. 37. Since the submission of the FEAF over a year before the Planning Board adoptedits Negative Declaration, the Project has changed signficanly. Fourteen new resins units and an extra floor were added tothe Projet’ apartment building. 38. Despite these changes othe Project, the Panning Board didnot reuie the Applicants to submit new or revised FEAF. 39. Upon information and belie, throughout its environmental review ofthe Projet, ‘the Planning Board has received dozens of oral and writen comments regarding tne various ‘ways in which the Projest will adversely impact the environment, including ner all, impacts to aesthetics and visual esoures, archeological and historical resources, water resources, character, and trai. 40. Infact, the Planning Board has even received input from an Interested Agency under SEQRA describing the ways in which the Project will impact historic resources, which are considered a part ofthe environment under SEQRA. 6 NYCRR 617.2(). 41, On December 16, 2019, the Planning Board adopted its Negative Declaration, finding that the Project does not have even the potential to have a significant adverse environmental impact. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (FAIL ‘OMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURAL RE JENTS OF ‘SEORA) 42, Petitioners repeat and reallege all the foregoing allegations se forth in this Petition withthe same fore and eet as though set for herein at length. 43, The procedural requirements of SEQRA mus be stctyfllowed, 44, The Planning Board fuled wo full the requirements of SEQRA by, among other things, filing to require a FEAF that included all project components and changes. 45. ‘The FEAF thatthe Planning Board relied on when making its NegstiveDeclaration did not account for the inereased size ofthe Project, which grew in both size and scope since the submission of the applic 46, ‘The FEAF also fil to ident all equired approvals, including a request rezone of portion of the Project are by the Common Council 47. AREAF is required for ll Type factions. 6 NYCRR 617.62). 48, The Planting Board acted in contravention of SEQRA by isuing a Negative Declaration without a complete FEAF and its Negative Declaration must be annulled AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (FAILURE TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT IMPACTS TO HISTORICAL RESOURC! 49. Petitioners repeat and rallege al the foregoing allegations set forth in this Petition with the same force and effet as though set forth herein a engi. 50, SEQRA requires a reviewing agency to idem all elevant areas of environmental concer, analyze the areas of environmental concem (the “hard ook”) and in scoping a Negative Declaration, to provide a dtiled reasoned elaboration forts determination, 6NYCRR§ 617.700). 51, Inthe Full EAF Part, the Planning Board identified a potently large impact on store and archeological resources 52, The potential for just one significant impact is sufficient o require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. 6 NYCRR § 617,70}. 53, The Project will adversely impact the KHSD. The KHSD is defined not only by its historic past, but also the fact that that past i sil elected in its present characte, The Project woul interfere with that histori resource by constructing a massive, out of sale, and ‘out of character ixed-use development.‘54. One means by which the Project will mpact the KSHD is through visual impact 58. Upon information at bli the main building forthe Project wl be 7 store tall. ‘A building ofthis sale will dwarfs surroundings and eliminate the unique, quaint, historic character that defines the Stockade Distct, The Negative Declaration fis to substantively study and consider his impact, a its basis fora finding of no impact focuses almost entrly on ‘whether certs additional units onthe Project's seventh floor ae visible from the surounding area. See Ex. A a 47. The discussion hardly considers the overall impact ofthe tusture on the visuals ofthe District. 56. The Kingstonian is “ou of context with the vernacular architecture ofthe stockade district... and may compromise the authenticity ofthe district.” Aff of R, Bei an 47. 57, The Kingstonian is “ou-of-scale” withthe KSHD and “would present an outsized adverse visual and contextual impact on the architectural and histori character of both the [National Register-lised KSHD and the locally designated Stockade (Area) Landmark District.” AME of K. Culhane $30, 58, Moreover, the Project threatens to develop over one of the features that was the basis forthe Stockade District’ location. The stockade was established a its location in order to take advantage ofa bluff in the local topography. The fact that this bluffs stil relatively inact is ‘notable and contributes tothe historic character of the District. Ex. Bat 6, The Project proposes ‘o construct a building starting in the Stockade District and expanding down and over the bluto the northeast ofthe District, thereby eliminating a feature that contributed to both the Disrit’s founding and its present historial value. 59. The loss ofthe landscape above the reek, and its replacement witha bulky and dense new development, would adversely visually impact the approach to the historic district aswellas the experience fom within the KSHD. Both ofthese mpacts have been dismissed by the KPB as Lead Agency inits negative declaration, AfZK.Cultane [31 60. Inaddition, the Planning Board's reasoning that the Projets visual impact does not warrant a Positive Declaration is awed and based onthe incorrect standard, In analyzing the extent to which the Applicants have purportedly mitigated theimpacs ofthe Project, the Planning Boar stated in its Negative Declaration that its salted thatthe visual impacts of| the project have been thoroughly examined and mitigated othe maximum extent practicable Therefore, nove of ese cas of envionment conver iene ws ners large ae Significant” Ex. A a 46, 61. The Planning Board based its decision on its bei that the impacts have been “mitigated tothe maximum extent practicable.” A Lead Agency must base its decision on \whether or not an aeton has the potential to have a signiicantadverse environmental impact, not whether it believes an impact has been parally mitigated. 6 NYCRR 617.71). 62. Involved Agencies have identified potential acts o historic resources, bu the Planning Boar dismissed thes concerns. 63. By eter dated September 19, 2019, the New York State Ofie of Parks, Recreation, and Historie Preservation (“OPRHP") provide its pinion on the Project and its potential impact on historic resources. A copy of the ltt ‘annexed hereto as Exhibit “D." 64. OPRHP noted thatthe Project would result ina visual intrusion onthe historic stockade boundary: “North Front Street i the traditional district boundary marked by a distinet natural drop-off down toward the Esopus Creek. This natural contour clearly marks the northem boundary of the historic 1658 stockade. The lower portion tothe north ofthe district now contains moder buildings and the shopping plaza further to the north, but th historic boundary remains readily apparent and continues to characterize the district. The newconstruction would significantly alter the northern district boundary and ‘would be clesrly visible from within the historic district.” Ex. D at 1 65. OPRHP also noted that, though there are now varity of building types and styles within the KSHD, the Project as proposed is ou of chancter and would not mesh withthe existing neighborhood: “The new construction is monolithic compared with the surrounding istrict, Though the curently proposed design attempts oreference the histori sting and surrounding architecture, we believe that a much greater effor is warranted fora construction of this sale.” Ex, D at 2. 66. Based om its review ofthe Project, OPRHP corcluded that “In accordance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards, and based on our comments above, we believe tha the ‘proposed development will have adverse effects to the Kingston Stockade Historie Distrie.” Ex. D at 2 (emphasis added), 67. The Planning Board failed to seriously consider his input, simply noting that it Aisagred with OPRHP’s conclusions and that the Applicant has attempted o mitigate these impocts. As noted above, mitigation, but not elimination, ofa significant averse environmental impact in no way justifies a Negative Declaration. Moreover, the simple and conclusory dismissal of OPRHP's conclusions further demonstrates that the Planning Board did not take a “hard look” atthe Project's adverse envtonmental impacts. 68. The City of Kingston Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (“HLPC") submited letter to the Planning Board on September 6, 2015, expressed concems about the loss of archacologial features, and called fr ongoing dialogue egerding the HLPC’s concems about the visual impscts on the historic dstct. HLPC calle for “careful consideration to the impacts con the dist." There is no further evidence tht such an evaluation has taken place to the satisfaction of the HLPC as an Involved Agency, nor in satisfition ofthe terms of ts enabling Blegislation, (Ex. E. HLPC leter) 69, Pursuant tothe above, the Planning Board failed to thoroughly analyze impacts om historic resources and failed to provide a reasoned elaboration for its Negative Declaration. “Therefore, its determination of non-significance is arbitrary and capricious and must be annulled. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (FAILURE TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT IMPACTS TO COMMUNITY (CHARACTER) 70. Petitioners repeat and reallege all the foregoing allegations set forth in this Petition with the same force and effect as though set forth herein at length. 71, SEQRA requires a reviewing agency to identify all relevant areas of environmental concern, analyze the areas of environmental concern (the “hard look") and, in adopting a Negative Declaration, to provide a detailed reasoned elaboration for its determination. NYCRR § 617.7(b). 72. Inthe Full EAF Part 2, the Planning Board failedto identify and consider a potentially large impact on community character. 73, The Planning Board briefly discusses community character within the Negative Declaration’s subsection on historic resources but fails to substantively discus the potential impacts, The glossing over of impacts on community character by the Planning Board does not satisfy the requirement of taking a “hard look” atthe issue 74, The Planning Board concludes thatthe Project wil not have a significant adverse impact on community character because the uses proposed are purportedly allowed by special permit and because the mixed-use plan will further the goals ofthe MUO District. 75, The Planning Board’s conclusion is flawed and cannot support its SEQRA, ‘determination because itis based on whether the Project complies with the City’s Zoning Law, “not whether the Project will have an impact on the environment, As descrited in deal above, the Project will have significant adverse impact on he character ofthe surrounding community — the KSHD. 76. The Distt i defined by its quaint and historic character. Two interested agencies and many members ofthe public commented onthe negative effets thatthe Project ‘would have on the KSHD. See Ex. D, wherein OPRHP advised the Planning Board that the Project would have adverse effects onthe KSHD. ‘7. While well designed projects can eniance and complement a historic distict, public experience ofthe KSHD would forever be undermined by the poor planning and incompatible design represented bythe Project. Once built, the archaeological and cultura landscape features would be lost forever, and along with them the sense of place and sale inherent in the KSHD", AEF. K. Culhane 35. 78, ‘The Projects ou of sale withthe KSHD and with standards promulgated by the Secretary ofthe Interior for any work that will potentially impact historic resources. Af K. Culhane 1924, 25 79. Standard 9 of the Secretary of Interior's standards states that “New addons, exter > alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships tht characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the ‘ld and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportior, and ‘massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.” fT. K. Culhane 424 80. The Project elevations depict a “gaping maw ofa parking garage ona physical and visual axis with historic Fair Stet, replacing the histori Fair Stret Extension” which “does ‘not meet the Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards, a itis a jarring divergence from the historic 15rhythm of the district, its historic street patter, as wel asthe commercial streetwall's scale, features, and proportion.” Aff. K. Culhane 425. 81, The materials and syle ofthe Project are also incompatible with the KSHD and Standard 9. “The many colors and textures of the fgade its lack of visual cohesion; and is confusing composition are not compatible with the historic distiet’s features sig, seale, proportion or massing as demanded by the Standards.” AFT. K, Culhane $26 82, These impacts ae dismissed as insignificant inthe Negative Declaration, 89. ‘The Neyative Declaration fils wo consider te impacts ofthe pedesttan walking bridge on the uptown business community, which would divert pedestrians into apsivately- ‘owned strip mall outside ofthe KSHD. 84, The Negative Declaration fils to provide the required written elaboration on why ‘he Project will not have an impact o community character, other than its analysis thatthe Project will eomply with zoning 85, The Planning Board's conclusory statement thatthe Project will net result any significant impacts on the characte of community is arbitrary, capricious, not supported by the record, and the Negative Declaration mist be annulled AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (FAIL .KE_A HARD LOOK AT ARCHAEOL SOURCES 86. Petitioners repeat and realege all the foregoing allegations set forth inthis Petition withthe same fore and effect as though set fort herein at length, 87, SEQRA requires reviewing ageney to idemify all relevant ares cf vironmental concer, analyze the areas of enviromental concem the “hard lock) and, in adopting a Negative Declaration, to provide a desiled reasoned elaboration fr its determination NYCRR §617.7(6), 1688. The Planning Board failed to give a had ook to the impacts ofthe Project on anchacologicl resources, 89. Aphase 1A Cultural Resources Investigation was prepared by the Applicants? consulta, Joseph E. Diamond, PRD. A copy ofthe repo is tached as Exhibit “F. The report found «high likelihood of finding archeological deposits elated to the petiod of significance of ‘he KSHD within the proposed Project area and recommended ational testing. 90, Despite this recommendat 3m, the Planning Board filed to require the secommended additional testing before deternining Una the Project would no have ai adverse impact on archaeological resources. 91. Instead, the Planning Board is allowing aditonal testing to take place during construction. Monitoring during construction has the potential to miss important artifacts as backhoes or other harmful constuction methods can quichly tum over di. If archaeological resources ate found during construction it will be too lateto redesign the Project toa impacts to such resources. 92, Moreover, “monitoring during construction has the potential to slow construction in the case of significant find, therefore there is lite incentive forthe Project developers to take this recommendation seriously ort conduct archacologicl investigations withthe level of detail required for useful or insightful data recovery.” AML K. Culhane 20, 93. Phase I archacologicl investigations and, if warranted, Phase Investigations, ke place before the Planning Board makes its determination of significance. 94. Without the results of such additional archeological inves tions, the Negative Declaration is arbitrary and capricious and not based on substantial evidence. WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court enter a Judgment and 7ed Petition in its entirety and awarding judgment to Petitioners as, (@) —Annulling and vacating the Planning Board's Negative Declaration for the Project; and (©) Awarding Petitioners such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, with the costs and disbursements ofthis proceeding. Dated: February 20, 2020 Rhinebeck, New York RODENHAUSEN CHALE & POLIDORO LLP By 8 chk Victoria L Polidoro, Esq Atiomeys for Petitioners 55 Chesinut Street Rhinebeck, NY 12572 (845) 516-4323‘VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK) dss COUNTY OF DUTCHESS ) ‘VICTORIA L. POLIDORO, being duly swom,deposes and says 1 am an atomey with Rodenhausen Chale & Poidoro LLP, counsel for Petitioners and ‘familia withthe relevant facts herein, Ihave ree the foregoing Vetted Petition and know the conten thereof, and the same are rue to my knowledge, excep those matters therein which ‘ar alleged upon information and belie, and I believe those matters tobe true. The basis of my ‘nowledge is my review of Petiones'eeord andor consulations with Petitioners. This verif- cation is made pursuant to CPLR 3020(d)(3) beceuse Petitioners are not located inthe same rl VICTORIA. POLIDORO county where their attomeys’ office is located. to before me LY ay of Febery 20% WA gQ= ‘Notary Public Shane NISSEN Now PUBLC-SATE OF NEW TORE iy commlsan pes Way 27, 206822,