|
Hurley has a problem with business development.
On one side are three developers, each engaged in litigation with the town for what they claim are unfair and opaque decisions to stymie their projects: A market-rate housing complex at the old West Hurley High School, a glamping resort at the old Twin Lakes site, and a Dunkin’ store at the intersection of Rts. 28 and 375.
On the other side are a group of residents and town officials whose collection of grievances stand in opposition to these projects moving forward: Traffic fears, a preference for smaller mom-and-pop businesses, worries about noise and strain on utilities, and a general attitude towards preserving open space and prioritizing quality-of-life issues.
Caught in the middle are roughly six thousand Hurley residents with little to no history of civic participation or awareness of these issues. Who could blame them? With busy lives and only a handful of news articles to go on, it’s hard to comprehend the complex issues at play when choosing to develop or not develop these large projects.
Meanwhile, as the future of Hurley hangs in the balance – mired in lawsuits and disagreement – the town continues to move forward with its Comprehensive Plan process, though only a small fraction of its residents have participated.
Hurley residents who wish to have a say in their town’s future must ask some important questions: How and why are each of these projects being opposed? Are they being opposed for legitimate issues specific to each project, or is there a more coordinated effort to prevent certain types of projects from being developed in general? What are the benefits and drawbacks of each project? How do Hurley officials plan on preserving quality of life with the pressure of an ongoing housing crisis, lack of jobs and dearth of business opportunities? What will be the impact of these ongoing lawsuits on taxpayers, and who is to blame for those costs?
Hurley residents deserve to have the necessary facts and context to make an informed decision.
WEST HURLEY SCHOOL HOUSING
In 2017, the former West Hurley Elementary School was sold for $800,000 to Kerry Danenberg, a developer known for owning many millions of dollars worth of mixed-use and residential buildings in Brooklyn. His original vision of converting the defunct school into a 46-unit market-rate complex predates the current housing crisis. Even then it was met with open arms by the Hurley Planning Board, who were eager to see the deteriorating structure put to use and back on the tax rolls.
Sentiments began to change as details and rumors of the development emerged over the following years, coming to a head in April of 2019. Danenberg addressed a packed-house board meeting with over 100 residents, most of them organized and unified in skepticism. Chief among their concerns were the project’s impact on the environment and utilities, the possibility of non-residential development at the site, and the reputation of the developer in light of misconduct alleged by tenants of his Brooklyn properties.
Danenberg rebutted each concern at the meeting. He cited ongoing work to ensure issues around environmental impact and utility use would be properly managed. He explained there were no plans to develop anything other than market-rate housing at the site. And he dismissed the controversy as a ploy by tenants to stiff him on rent, actions which he was fighting in court.
Few attendees accepted these assurances, and from that meeting on, it was clear that a group of Hurley’s most influential residents would stand steadfast in opposition to the project.
The following month, the town called an emergency meeting which eventually led to the enactment of a 90-day moratorium on multifamily residential projects. In response, the developer floated the idea of opening an Orthodox Jewish School at the site instead, noting it would “generate no tax revenue for the town going forward.”
Then in October 2020, the town revised its zoning code in such a way that effectively prevented Danenberg from developing the project he had proposed. He was undeterred.
A lawsuit came in February of 2021, challenging the board’s actions, which ultimately led to the board being forced to repeal its zoning change due to their failure to meet existing legal requirements.
In August 2021, the Hurley Planning Board reluctantly approved Danenberg’s application for a site plan and special use permit. But soon after, the Planning Board went dark, according to the developer’s legal council. A sign-off by the town was needed on the site map, but amidst the ongoing lawsuit, the Planning Board wasn’t budging. And so the project sits today, in limbo, awaiting further legal maneuvering to compel the board towards approval, or alternatively, a judicial decision supporting the town’s legitimate right to refuse the project.
All sides eagerly await resolution, but it’s quite unclear what that resolution will be.
HURLEY HOUSE GLAMPING
Around the same time as some Hurley residents were organizing opposition to housing being developed at the old school, another large development project was emerging, this one at the old Twin Lakes site.
Luxembourg-based real estate developer Arizona Investissements submitted a proposal in early 2019 to renovate the site’s existing 14 units, add 42 additional luxury ‘glamping’ units, and erect 10 pop-up tent sites. The development would also include construction of driveways, sewer lines, water lines, a wastewater treatment plant and drainage infrastructure. Their vision was to turn the dilapidated “one-star” property into an upscale tourist destination called Hurley House.
Almost immediately, organized opposition began to form, with members of the neighborhood around Twin Lakes voicing concerns about the potential impact of the resort on their quality of life. Those opposed generally viewed the developer as an outsider exploiting the community for profit rather than enhancing it through an influx of visitors contributing to the local economy.
In May 2019, Hurley approved zoning changes to allow the development. The following November, the Planning Board approved the developer’s special-use permit. Still, residents were worried about traffic, noise and other disruptions, and several Hurley residents challenged the decision in court.
In a decision filed in May 2020, the state Supreme Court agreed with the opposition, overturning the permit approval on the technical grounds that the town lacked a category for what the developer was proposing.
In May 2021, however, the Hurley Zoning Board approved the development, and opposition seethed. One neighbor of the project, who had started a petition to stop it, hurled vulgarities at the meeting, and a month later sued the Zoning Board to declare its resolution supporting the glamping resort null and void.
Then came the most bizarre twist of all: Hurley’s Code Enforcement Officer ruled that if the developer failed to complete the project within a year, they should be subject to applying for a special use permit all over again.
This is an odd development, considering that all parties understand it can and typically does take more than a year to complete a project of this scale. In another strange turn, residents who attended the meeting to voice opposition generally did not address the issue at hand, instead reiterating complaints that traffic or construction noise would negatively impact their quality of life. Unsurprisingly, the developers responded by challenging the decision in September 2022.
Today, as with the housing project proposed for the old school, another major development for the town languishes in legal and procedural purgatory. It took several years and untold thousands in legal fees to get here, and neither residents nor the developer currently know exactly where this is going.
DUNKIN’
Can you imagine a Dunkin’ at the intersection of Route 28 and Route 375, at the former site of Booked by Barthel Travel and Allstate?
Developer John Joseph of Southern Realty & Development, moved to make this vision a reality in 2021, but again, town officials and a group of vocal locals rose up to oppose the project. Their complaints were familiar, focusing on traffic and increased activity causing a danger and nuisance to local residents.
The Dunkin’ proposed for the space would have drive-through lanes to accommodate up to 21 vehicles, with two menu boards to service customers, which is a first for Dunkin’ locations in Ulster County.
Board members and residents worried that traffic was already bad at the intersection, and adding a Dunkin’ would make the situation worse, and even dangerous. The Department of Transportation (DOT) was not of the same opinion, giving approval to the developer’s traffic plans.
As town officials described what specifically didn’t work for them traffic-wise, the developer said they were willing to do whatever it takes to assuage concerns, but after working with the DOT for six months on the issues, they were told the board’s mitigation requests were not possible, and the original plan was fine and legal.
Still the board disagreed, overriding the DOT out of fear the traffic situation would get worse. One board member cited the fact that a Kingston Dunkin’ has problems with backed-up traffic as his reason for denying the Dunkin’ at Rts. 28 and 375. In January 2022, the developer’s application was denied after the board determined the traffic issues were “unfixable”.
You already know where this is going. The state Supreme Court vacated the Planning Board’s denial of the Dunkin’ application, citing numerous violations of Planning Board procedure. The judge called the decision “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law”. When Hurley immediately filed notice to preserve the right to appeal the judge’s finding, town officials had – for the third time – stumbled into lengthy litigation in their efforts to deny a developer the ability to become a key player in Hurley’s community. Like the other projects, the future of Dunkin’ in Hurley is a big, expensive question mark.
HURLEY RESIDENTS WILL DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Taxpayer costs of fighting litigation continue to add up. The housing crisis rages unabated. Businesses continue to struggle to establish themselves in the town. Should the preservation of open space and quality of life take priority over addressing other serious issues? That will be up to the Hurley residents who decide to participate in their civic duty to shape their town’s future.
| 
