Sailor”™s Cove as currently constituted may be doomed.
The proposed 380-unit housing project on the west bank of the Hudson River in Kingston was essentially shut down by the city planning board, which on July 12 unanimously decided to halt its review of the project.
The developers are crying “foul” and have taken the issue to the courts.
The decision leaves wiggle room that may allow a developer to push the project forward, but given the ongoing acrimony between the board and developer Polaris 771 of Ohio, the site”™s future is murky.
The planning board wrote that “through the many years this (developer) has been before it and finds that the applicant simply has not presented either adequate analysis of the significant potential adverse impacts of the project nor adequate funds to the city to allow it to do the job with its own consultants,” the board stated in a resolution. The project was first proposed in 2002.
There are two legal matters pending against Kingston filed by Polaris, one seeking repayment of some $90,000 developers say the city overcharged to hire expert help to review the proposal, and the second seeking to compel the city to accept as complete the project”™s environmental review.  ?“We tried to settle this thing, but it didn”™t work out,” said James Sweeney, an attorney in Goshen who is serving as counsel for Sailor”™s Cove-771 Polaris. He said that, in addition to the ongoing suit to recover the $90,000 in consultant fees the city allegedly overcharged, he has updated the main litigation against the city, with an article 78 proceeding seeking to compel the city to complete the final environmental impact statement (FEIS).
“That suit says to the city, ”˜Do your job,”™” said Sweeney, who maintains that state environmental law known as SEQRA requires that the “lead agency” in charge of reviewing a project proposal complete the FEIS.
The cases are filed in state Supreme Court in Ulster County. No judge has yet been assigned. The suit seeking repayment for consulting fees requires an answer by July 31. The Article 78 proceeding is answerable by August 10.
