Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Penrose‑led Golden Hill development: board delays change to CO rule, seeks traffic engineer analysis
Summary
The Planning Board postponed action on a proposed amendment that would allow temporary certificates of occupancy in advance of a permanent Route 32 traffic signal, asking staff and engineers to return with a technical analysis of what a temporary signal can safely handle and clarifications on gate repairs and schedule.
The City of Kingston Planning Board voted to table action on an amendment to earlier approvals for the Golden Hill (Penrose) development after a lengthy public and staff discussion about traffic safety, a damaged emergency gate and a proposed temporary traffic signal.
Dennis Toyos, representing the project, said the developer is “working to install a temporary traffic signal off‑site ahead of occupancy for these buildings and are committed to collaborating with the city and city engineer in order to implement a plan that will ensure public safety.”
Why it matters: The Golden Hill project includes multiple residential buildings with hundreds of units (the contractor’s schedule presented to the board lists Building A — 80 units including 22 supportive units — for completion September 17, with other buildings and the community/daycare building following in October). A prior planning resolution had blocked issuance of certificates of occupancy until the permanent traffic signal on Route 32 was operational. The developer requested relief so the city could issue temporary COs tied to a temporary signal and other safety conditions, allowing phased occupancy to proceed months before the county’s permanent signal installation.
Key points raised in the meeting: - Schedule and occupancy: Project materials gave target completion dates: Building A (80 units) Sept. 17; Building B (48 units) Oct. 30; community/daycare August 29; townhomes in September/October. The developer said lease‑up is estimated at 30–40 units per month after initial occupancy. - Traffic signal timing: The county’s contractor estimated a November date for the permanent signal; the developer and county requested an August 15 deadline for a temporary signal so the community building and initial leasing could occur with traffic controls in place. - Gate repairs and access: The site’s emergency gate had been damaged twice after it was installed; the team reported new parts are ordered and repairs were expected in early June. The county requested the gate remain closed to public traffic until a safe signal is operating; the nursing facility nearby had requested open access because of resident needs, complicating the timing. - Public safety and capacity: Staff and board members pressed for a technical opinion from the city engineer and a traffic engineer about what traffic volumes a temporary, radar‑triggered signal could safely accommodate, and whether the board should limit the number of temporary COs (or units) issued before the permanent signal is installed.
Board action and next steps: After extended discussion the board voted to table the amendment request and directed staff to obtain a traffic‑engineering analysis that specifically addresses the capacity and safety of the proposed temporary signal, and to return the item at the next meeting with those findings and a recommended cap, if any, on units or COs prior to permanent signal installation.
Ending: The board’s tabling preserves the prior condition in the planning resolution while the city, county and developer coordinate engineering details and timing. Staff and the applicant agreed to return with engineering documentation — including confirmations from the city engineer and the signal contractor — before the board considers any modification to the CO condition.
