Ulster County committee postpones vote on rail-with-trail policy for Undesignated U&D corridor

The Ulster County Legislature's Housing & Transportation Committee voted 5-2 to postpone consideration of Resolution 275, which would amend a 2014 county policy to allow a "rail with trail" along the undesignated section of the Ulster & Delaware Railroad corridor.

The postponement motion followed more than an hour of debate over feasibility, environmental risk and process. Legislator Stewart urged delay so the legislature could receive reports from county planning and economic development, investigate possible land swaps to enlarge the Stony Hollow parcel offered as a compromise and commission an unbiased engineering study paid for by the county. "I would like to hear reports from planning and economic development. I would like to look into this land swap idea," said Legislator Stewart.

Why it matters: the undesignated section includes constrained segments — notably a 2,700-foot high-fill stretch at Stony Brook and a rock cut — that members and earlier consultant reports identified as difficult to widen without affecting wetlands. The committee's decision pauses any policy change while members seek more technical, legal and community information.

Most important facts: Legislator Stewart and others cited measurements and past engineering work in arguing for delay. The committee heard that the rock cut averages about 18 feet in width and that the top of the high-fill section averages about 13 feet, both substantially narrower than the roughly 34 feet recommended by AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). A 2015 county-commissioned engineering memo (Stone Consulting) flagged the 2,700-foot Stony Brook fill as a "fatal flaw" to a rail-with-trail alignment in that segment without significant work that could affect adjacent high-quality wetlands; the committee referenced that 02/2015 dated work during discussion. Several members also requested a noise study for areas near Dreamland Studio.

Discussion details and concerns: committee members voiced concern about prior interactions between the county and the Catskill Mountain Railroad (CMRR). Legislator Stewart summarized a history in which CMRR in 2016 dropped litigation and accepted a five-year operating permit in exchange for not opposing certain trail projects; more recently, the county issued a 2024 cease-and-desist letter alleging unauthorized operations including use of speeder cars, brush clearing, herbicide application, crossing rights-of-way and installation of fixtures without county permission. The transcript indicates some grant awards tied to CMRR are on hold.

Several members pressed for neutral, county-funded engineering work rather than studies paid for by stakeholders. Legislator Nolan said a neutral engineer should be selected and paid through a county RFP so the report would not appear biased: "...the way to keep financial considerations from coming into play is not to let them come into play. It is to have an entity that is independent, neutral, do the hiring and do the paying." Other members supported forming a subcommittee to define criteria and next steps during the postponement period.

Process and next steps: the committee approved the postponement, with the chair directing that a subcommittee be formed to lay out questions and criteria for any follow-up studies. Members asked for reports from county planning and economic development and investigation of land-swap opportunities to enlarge the half-acre Stony Hollow parcel that county staff had proposed as part of a compromise. The committee did not set a fixed return date for the item at the time of the vote.

Vote and formal action: The motion to postpone Resolution 275 carried 5-2. Committee leadership said they would convene a subcommittee to develop specific criteria for additional studies and reports before reconsidering the resolution.

What was not decided: the committee did not adopt any engineering scope, select consultants, or approve funding for a study during the meeting; no final policy change was approved. Members also did not adopt a fixed timeline for the postponement.

Community context: speakers noted strong, divided public sentiment along the corridor: some residents told legislators they prefer no railroad in their backyard and favor a trail, while some property owners and towns reportedly support the railroad for tourism. The committee repeatedly emphasized that any independent technical work should be county-run and procured through a formal RFP.

Ending note: committee members asked clerks for copies of the special committee resolution and said they would return with specific subcommittee criteria and requests for planning and economic development reports before bringing the measure back for a vote.