Ulster County legislators postpone rail-with-trail policy vote after feasibility, noise and conflict concerns

Ulster County legislators voted to postpone consideration of Resolution 275, a proposed amendment to the county's rail-with-trail policy for the Ulster & Delaware Railroad Corridor, after extended debate over engineering feasibility, potential noise impacts and questions about process and conflicts of interest.

Legislator Larry Stewart, who asked that the matter be delayed, read a prepared statement detailing topographic constraints in the "undesignated" section of the corridor. Stewart said the corridor includes "the rock cut" that "varies in width" and a "2,700 feet of high fill section" that in places is "60 feet high," and added that those stretches are "far narrower than the 34 feet recommended by AASHTO." He urged the committee to seek planning and economic development reports, investigate a land swap to enlarge the quarter-acre Stony Hollow parcel and commission independent engineering and sound studies before voting.

Stewart also framed the discussion with local-safety concerns and process history: "Violence or threats of violence have no place in local government and they should be condemned and avoided at all costs," he said, referring to prior tensions surrounding the project and to disputes between the county and the Catskill Mountain Railroad.

Other members raised constituent concerns about having a railroad next to residences. One member noted repeated calls and emails opposing a railroad in backyards and said residents "have actually said they would like nothing or a trail." A separate legislator asked for an impartial engineering review and argued the county should pay for a neutral study through an RFP rather than accept reports funded by stakeholders.

During debate, Legislator Maloney questioned whether the committee chair should participate, raising the prospect that the chair owns nearby property and suggesting a legal opinion before further involvement. A committee member responded that while it is legitimate to ask about possible conflicts, "there's not a direct implication of anything" in terms of personal financial gain; members agreed the question should be examined if needed.

The committee discussed how to define the postponement’s scope, with several members recommending formation of a subcommittee to set specific criteria, collect needed reports and move the work forward. Ultimately the motion to postpone passed by voice vote, recorded as five in favor and two opposed.

The committee directed staff to collect planning and economic-development input, consider the land-swap option for Stony Hollow, seek a neutral engineering assessment, and add a noise (sound) study to the list of follow-up work. The postponement means the resolution will return for further consideration only after those steps are taken or the subcommittee reports back.