Kingston zoning board denies variance for multifamily use near closed landfill

KINGSTON — The Kingston Zoning Board of Adjustment on Tuesday denied a variance request to permit multifamily residential development in a C‑2 commercial zone and continued a separate density variance in the town’s aquifer protection district to June 12.

The board voted to deny the variance to Article 109.6 that would have allowed multifamily units in the C‑2 zone, finding that "the proposed residential use threatens health, public safety, and welfare due to the proximity to the landfill and the unknown effect on the aquifer beneath the proposed number of units," language the board adopted as its finding of fact.

The denied application, presented by Barry Geier of Jones and Beach Engineers for applicant RGNH Construction, sought approval to build three commercial pads, 50 multifamily units and 25 duplexes on Map 40, Lots 15–18. Geier told the board the request included two variances: one to Article 109.6 to allow multifamily in C‑2 and a second to Article 201.4(a) to permit the requested density in the aquifer zone, which he summarized as roughly "4 bedrooms per acre of upland." He said the planning board would review any conditional‑use and hydrogeological study if the project advanced.

Public commenters and board members cited the nearby closed landfill and potential groundwater risks as central concerns. "The landfill is a potential time bomb waiting to explode," said Mr. Coombs, a resident who spoke during public comment, summarizing testing and monitoring concerns documented by local and regional waste authorities. Mr. Coombs cited state and regional guidance on development near closed landfills and described cases in which contaminants and methane migrated off‑site.

Another resident, Michael Debateto of 8 Dolover Lane, argued the application violated section 109.6, which he said "clearly prohibits residential construction in the commercial Zone C‑2," and Article 201.4(a), which sets lot‑size and density requirements for the aquifer protection district. Debateto urged the board to deny the variances to protect groundwater and public health.

The board reviewed written comments from the town’s fire and police chiefs. The fire chief noted the town’s existing age‑restricted assisted‑living facility receives about 300 calls per year and that additional residential units would likely increase staffing needs; he reiterated that any site‑specific concerns about access or fire lanes would be addressed if and when the planning board reviewed the project. The police chief wrote that increased population and businesses can raise calls for service, traffic enforcement needs and noise complaints, and that banks or late‑hour restaurants may increase security and traffic concerns.

Board members repeatedly returned to the landfill proximity and uncertainty over what, if any, buried contaminants could do to local groundwater or laterally migrate. After extended deliberation, the board concluded the spirit of the ordinance — which had been written to prohibit residential use in this commercial area in part after the landfill closure — would not be observed by granting the variance.

Following the denial of the Article 109.6 variance, the applicant asked to continue consideration of the Article 201.4(a) density variance in the aquifer protection district. The board set that hearing for June 12 and noted that updated plans must be filed 10 business days before the meeting. The board chair advised the applicant that a notice of decision on the denied variance would be issued within five days and that the applicant has 30 days to appeal.

The board’s action on the mixed‑use/multifamily variance was a formal denial; the density and aquifer‑zone request was continued so the applicant can confer with the client and supply any additional materials requested by the board and by regional reviewers.

Looking ahead, the board noted that if the applicant obtains the variances, the project would still require a conditional‑use permit and a hydrogeological study before the planning board could approve development in the aquifer protection district.