RISELEY & MORIELLO

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Richard F. Riseley
Michael A. Moriello
111 Green Street
Post Office Box 4465 Tel: (845)338-6603
Kingston, New York 12402 Fax:(845)340-1614
E-Mail: nianirfr@aol.coni

May 31, 2017

City of Kingston Common Council

c/o Ms. Lynn Eckert, Chairperson
Laws & Rules Committee
City Hall
420 Broadway
Kingston, New York 12401

HAND DELIVERED

RE: RUPCO Landmark Place Affordable Housing Project:

Procedural and Substantive Law Governing Elected Officials
Dear Ms. Eckert and Committee Members:

In anticipation of the June 8, 2017 Law and Rules Committee

Public Hearing upon the Rezoning Petition of my client, RUPCO, Inc., I
offer the following memorandum for your consideration.

On May 8, 2017 the City of Kingston Planning Board issued a SEQRA

Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the Landmark
Place Project. This Decision was made after months of comprehensive
review which included various involved agencies, professional
reports/studies and public participation.

^^ting the pendency of the environmental review of the Landmark

Place Project, the Planning Board was presented with evidence that
there is an acute need for affordable senior citizen housing within
the City of Kingston. This existing condition has been recognized, of
record, by the Planning Board within the environmental findings for
the project [see Negative Declaration, at paragraph 9].
the inception of the Landmark Place Rezoning Petition,
project opponents have sought to politicize this matter by attacking
the planned occupants of this affordable housing for formerly homeless
senior citizens. Unfortunately, this tactic has been adopted by at
least one Common Council Member in public forums.

In addition, various biased and conclusory public pronouncements

have been made within a certain January 22, 2017 proposed Resolution
which was formerly offered for consideration by several
councilpersons; to which a January 26, 2017 response was forwarded by
your writer [copies annexed].

Political Influence. It is my opinion that Councilman

Mills has pre-judged my clients Zoning Petition and has
attempted to utilize her position as a Common Council Member to
wield political influence on behalf of and in league with
project opponents based upon the affordable housing aspects of
the Landmark Place Project. This pandering to those working at
variance with a lawful affordable housing project is wholly
inappropriate and could expose the City of Kingston to
substantial monetary liability, bandmaster Montgomery, LLC v.
Town of Montgomery, Index Number 8125/04, Sup. Ct., Orange
County (September 18, 2006), Owen, J., cross app. dismd, 54 AD3d
407 (2008), aff'd, 54 AD3d 408, app. dismd, 11 NY3d 864 (2008).
Continental Building Company v. Town of North Salem, 625 NYS2d
700 (1995).

Unconstitutional Exclusionary Zoning. Based upon the

foregoing, it appears that Councilwoman Mills may be attempting
to utilize her own predilections against the project to
interfere with the substantive requirements of the City of
Kingston Zoning Law, New York State Statutes and Federal Law, in
order to invidiously exclude affordable housing.

In this regard, it is critical to remember that under New

York State Law, the City of Kingston is required to provide a
properly balanced and well-ordered housing plan for the entire
community, while considering regional housing needs and
requirements. Berenson v. Town of New Castle, 38 NY2d 102
(1975), Kurzlus v. Incorporated Village of Upper Brookville, 51
NY2d 338 (1980), United States of America ex rel. Anti-
Discrimination Center of Metro New York, Inc. v. Westchester
County, New York, Stipulation and Order of Settlement and
Dismissal, Case No. 06Civ.2860-DLC, Cole, J (2009).

Councilwoman Mills is certainly entitled to her opinion and

she is free to speak the same against the Landmark Place Project
for justifiable reasons as a duly elected public official.
However, as a City Official, she is not entitled to engage in a
course of action which is at variance with New York State Law
and which may result in discriminatory effect under Federal Law.

Ms. Mills and various members of the public opposition have

sought to cloak their unconstitutional bias with conclusory
rhetoric by speculating that there is a higher and better use
for the property. First, the argument is flawed in that the
record reflects (see, e.g., letter of Joseph Kirchoff) that such
alternate uses are not in fact viable. Second, the prope^^y is
not owned by the City of Kingston. Third, none of these
arguments avoid the reality that r^z^ning is necessary to i\nlock
any viable use of the property.
 Therefore, these arguments against rezoning for this
application can only be seen as unlawfully targeting the
protected affordable housing use. Accordingly, any later
rezoning by the Common Council for a use the opponents find more
palatable would be actionable. See, Sections 804(a) and 804(b)
of the Fair Housing Act, Oranqetown v. Maaee. 88 NY2d 41 (1996).
foregoing, the applicable law is clear that an
intent to discriminate against affordable housing and/or resultant
discriminatory effects upon affordable housing, without specific
intent and which are aided by elected officials, present actionable
offenses at law. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v.
Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.,135 U.S. 2507 (2015).
that a copy of this Memorandum be entered into
2017 Public Hearing. Committee's June 8,

Thanking you for your consideration, thi

fifi.lvKiSu

orieTTo

MAM:def
Enclosures
cc: RUPCO
Daniel Gartenstein, Esq.
Kevin Bryant, Esq.
Hon. Steven Noble
Ms. Suzanne Cahill
Dennis Larios, PE
Scott Dutton, RA
[all via e-mail]