The very vocal Town of Ulster residents opposed to the idea of building 298 units of housing on the ridgeline above the north end of Route 9W's Big Box Corridor will be happy to know that the Ulster County Planning Board doesn't think much of it either.

The county board's power in the matter is advisory only — last word goes to the Ulster Town Board — but its Jan. 29 summary memo to the town of its Jan. 8 review of the project points out significant hurdles for the project's developers, City of Rochester-based Whitestone Development Partners. The town board can overrule even nominally “required” changes with a majority plus one vote.

Transportation issues are the board's objection number one, calling the developer's proposed access plan “problematic at best.”

“The design as proposed exacerbates an existing problematic intersection with already long queues at the lighted intersection by adding 87 additional trips at the AM peak, 93 at the PM, and 61 at the Saturday peak.” the memo states. “The board notes that the issue here is not the intersection's capacity or road network but rather the access through Adams Fairacre Farms' site. Absent a substantial redesign of this access point, it is doubtful that adequate access can be achieved without a traffic safety problem and long delays.”

The county board suggests this could be addressed by a connector road that is part of the Ulster County Transportation Council's recently completed Route 9W Mobility Plan. But Town of Ulster Supervisor James Quigley III told Kingston Wire that he “estimates — and this is only a guess, no studies have been done — the connector road could cost anywhere from $5-10 million and would have to cross five property lines.”

The county board offered a harsh assessment of the project's affordability and took the occasion to also slam Ulster town government in this regard.

“Affordable housing units are not proposed as part of this development,” the memo states. “The Town of Ulster now has at least 1,100 new housing units proposed. Still, it has yet to propose a single affordable housing unit or seek to update its zoning statute to meet the demand for housing at a price point affordable to renters living at income of 60 percent of average median income [AMI] for the county, let alone 80 percent of AMI. The Town of Ulster seems to believe that 'filtering up' is an effective policy for creating affordable units. Still, it would require developers to accept rents well under market value (sub $1,200 for two-bedroom units) for that to occur.”

The county board went on to advise the Town of Ulster:

“The UCPB strongly encourages the town to join the Ulster County Housing Smart Communities Initiative, become certified, develop a housing action plan, and regulate affordable housing set-asides in its zoning statute to meet the needs of its community members, particularly those who work the lower-wage service jobs of the very corridor in which this project is proposed.”

“The Town of Ulster has 880 multi-family units, more than half of them subsidized,” Quigley told Kingston Wire in reply. “How much more are we supposed to carry?”

The county board notes that the project lacks official reviews for fire safety, stormwater and historic preservation matters — the plan includes demolition of a centenarian former hotel/mansion — as well as studies of sustainability — “it is unclear what heating and energy resources the project will utilize,” the memo states.

As for the project's visual impact, a matter that concerns a much larger audience than the Town of Ulster alone, the memo states, “It is unclear what visual impacts the site will have, particularly the proposed four-story buildings, from the ridge line in all directions, whether from the Catskills to the west or the Hudson River and across to the east. A visual impact analysis is required as a condition of approval. The use of photo simulations so that the reviewing bodies understand how the proposal will fit into the ridgeline and the hillside behind Adams Fairacre Farms is an important community character issue for the surrounding area. As noted in other reviews for proposals in this town, this project is particularly notable given its topographical features.”

Quigley offered no opinion on the project's likelihood of success. “We've had two town hearings where adjacent property owners and the public have expressed their concerns,” he said. “The county planning board now weighs in with their concerns. The outcome is going to be governed by how the developer responds to the concerns, the collective concerns that have been heard so far.”

“There's a continuum of cooperation here,” Quigley continued. “It's going to be a judgment decision based upon the developer's response to the concerns. If the developer's responses fall within the relevant body of rules and regulations, and the town as approving authority is arbitrary and capricious and says no, we're gonna get sued.”

Kingston Wire has reached out to Whitestone Development Partners for comment but has not heard back.