Protesters on Town Hall Road make their feelings known about the proposed 250-megawatt lithium-ion battery plant in advance of a Thursday, July 24, 2025, Town Board meeting. (William Kemble photo)
It’s significant that County Executive Jen Metzger voiced in on the Terra-Gen project because she brings a rare combination of local authority and deep, statewide climate expertise. As a former New York State Senator and chair of the Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee, Metzger was a key crafter of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) – New York’s landmark climate law that sets some of the most ambitious clean energy and emissions reduction targets in the nation. Her leadership helped shape the very policies driving energy development today. Now, as Ulster County Executive, she plays a critical role in ensuring that the local implementation of those policies reflects community priorities and environmental standards. Her involvement ensures that energy projects serve not just the state’s climate goals, but also the long-term interests of residents – protecting local ecosystems, promoting equity, and maximizing public benefit.
There is clear precedent for this kind of engagement in Ulster County. During his tenure as Ulster County Executive, Mike Hein stepped into a controversial proposal by GlidePath – the Lincoln Park Grid Support Center in the Town of Ulster. Initially designed as a natural gas–powered peaker plant, the project raised widespread concerns due to its fossil fuel reliance and proximity to residential neighborhoods.
Although county executives typically refrain from interfering in town-level land use decisions, Hein made it clear that the project warranted broader scrutiny. His involvement underscored that while counties should respect local autonomy, they also have a responsibility to act when broader public health or environmental impacts are at stake. Thanks in part to his leadership and sustained grassroots and environmental advocacy, GlidePath ultimately withdrew the fossil fuel elements and resubmitted a battery-only project at that time. Hein’s actions set an important example: county executives can and should weigh in when projects carry regional implications, especially when their leadership can help move development in a cleaner, more community-focused direction.
A positive declaration for Terra-Gen’s environmental review is crucial because it ensures we thoroughly examine what’s before us. If this proposal receives a positive declaration and moves into the scoping process, we are actively collaborating with experts, community leaders, and environmental planners to inform and strengthen our comments.
Should Terra-Gen decide to seek a new location for their large project, we will need a clear plan to help us envision how to engage with smaller, community-focused battery storage projects in Ulster County.
Tonight, the City of Kingston’s Laws and Rules Committee took an important first step toward potentially reforming the city’s charter by discussing the establishment of a charter commission. This could finally open the door to revisiting – and possibly repairing – a deeply flawed process that has shaped Kingston’s local government for the past three decades.
In 1993, Kingston voters approved a significant change to their form of government: adopting a city manager system intended to professionalize executive leadership. However, the transition was quickly reversed. Within a year, a new charter was pushed forward that abandoned the city manager idea and introduced a strong mayor model – albeit hastily and with obvious political motivations.
Rather than carefully reworking the charter to reflect a new system of checks and balances, the revised document simply replaced the words “city manager” with “mayor”. The result was a version of the charter that gave enormous executive power to the elected mayor, stripping away the oversight and balance originally granted to the common council under the city manager model.
READ: How Kingston Got It’s “Strong Mayor” Form of Government.
As early as 2006, Kingston community members have pushed for city charter reform, despite strong resistance from the city’s Democratic leadership, which has repeatedly defended the status quo and blocked meaningful change.
Tonight’s discussion about forming a charter commission presents a meaningful opportunity to rethink how Kingston is governed and whether the current charter serves its people. Throughout this effort, dedicated residents – working to protect their families, neighbors, and the broader community – have often been bullied, belittled, or ignored as they were made to fight to uncover hidden truths about the past, while exploring forms of government.
I attended tonight’s meeting and appreciated how smoothly the conversation unfolded, thanks in part to years of community advocacy. Still, there was no acknowledgment of the institutional memory behind this work. One council member casually claimed the city’s credit for bringing the City of Beacon’s administrator to Kingston to discuss forms of government, an event that was organized by KingstonCitizens.org in 2014, without any support or interest by City of Kingston elected officials.
The Laws and Rules Committee, chaired by Ward 9 Alderwoman Michele Hirsch, will hold a special meeting on July 23rd at 5pm to discuss proposed local law language to establish the charter commission. As we understand it, to move forward, Kingston must follow New York State law (Article 9 of the State Constitution), which requires the city to adopt a local law clearly defining the commission’s size (or method to determine it), whether members are appointed or elected, and the selection process.
The council also discussed using a Citizens’ Assembly to select charter commissioners – a method we strongly support. A Citizens’ Assembly randomly selects a diverse group of residents who reflect the community’s demographics, including race, age, gender, experience, and expertise. If done well, this approach fosters broad civic engagement, reduces political bias, and ensures diverse voices in decision-making. We believe this method should extend to all Kingston’s boards, committees, and commissions appointments.
Over the next several months, it will be crucial that the city clearly explain the process to the community to build trust and avoid fears of rushed decisions. For a charter commission, proper staffing and resources are essential. An experienced and unbiased consultant (dig deeper than Pattern for Progress, Kingston) can guide the commission in reviewing and revising the charter and in deciding how to present proposals to voters. Ten years ago, funding for this type of project was available through the Dyson Foundation. If the city moves forward, it should actively seek funding opportunities. Aside from the comprehensive plan and form-based-code, this is one of the most critical investments the city can make. It must not cut corners – it needs to get this right.
We support the Kingston Common Council’s effort to create a charter commission. If the process is properly resourced, fair, transparent, and inclusive, then in a few years the City of Kingston could finally have a charter that truly reflects proper checks and balances – regardless of which form of government is ultimately adopted. While this would be a major step forward, there is still much work to do to ensure our city continues to grow more equitable, accountable, and responsive to all its residents.
A rehearing has officially been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the 18th-century Sleight-Tappen House and is scheduled for September 11. This will be treated as a new application, and will not require a unanimous vote, as is typically the case with rehearings. This procedural detail, aligned with the city code, represents a meaningful shift in how the case will be handled going forward.
WATCH the hour long meeting The matter during the July 10th ZBA meeting drew strong public participation, both in person and through written comments. The presence of residents and the quality of public comments underscored the importance of transparency, accountability, and informed decision-making. Speakers brought valuable expertise in policy, restoration, and architecture, helping clarify the broader implications for historic preservation. While the decision to grant a rehearing is a step in the right direction, the meeting also highlighted procedural concerns. The ZBA’s chair, Anthony Tampone, Jr., acknowledged these concerns, particularly regarding the speed of the decision-making process, the withholding of important documents, and the absence of key stakeholders. Communication gaps and notification issues were noted. Although ZBA members are not responsible for issuing notifications, these breakdowns must be addressed to ensure future proceedings are both fair and fully informed. The review and appeal process must be protected from circumvention, and all actions moving forward should be held to the standards outlined in local code.
The next ZBA meeting on this matter will take place on September 11 at 6:00pm. Continued public attention and engagement will be essential in ensuring a fair outcome.
On July 2 Terra-Gen presented its proposal for a 250 MW battery energy storage facility at the former John A. Coleman Catholic School site, located at 430 Hurley Ave in the Town of Hurley. The proposed location borders the Town of Hurley, the City of Kingston, and lies adjacent to a Potential Environmental Justice Area (PEJA). This project has raised concerns about environmental risks and land use compatibility.
What was promoted as a “community meeting” turned out to be a one-way Zoom presentation, where only Terra-Gen and its consultants were allowed to speak. The public could submit written questions interpreted by the consultants, but many questions went unasked during the session, and there was no opportunity for open dialogue. While Terra-Gen has promised future meetings, with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) currently underway, meaningful public engagement for a project of this size and nature should only begin after a Positive Declaration.
During their zoom presentation, Terra-Gen said the facility can power 250,000 homes for just four hours when fully charged. The project’s consultants said that the risks were “apples to oranges” compared to other similar projects and that this facility is safe. That might be true, but we’re not taking their word for it. The proposed site is directly surrounded by residential neighborhoods and lies close to vulnerable populations. This is not an industrial zone – it’s a community where people live, raise families, and expect a safe and stable environment. Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) carry real risks, including fire, explosion, and toxic chemical release. These are not theoretical dangers. Placing this type of infrastructure so close to homes and the nearby Esopus Creek could lead to negative environmental and public health impacts
When asked about potential impacts to the Esopus Creek and local water quality – particularly if firefighting water runoff could harm the ecosystem – Terra-Gen representatives deferred to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the EPA, providing no specific answers. That kind of uncertainty alone justifies a positive declaration and the need for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and scoping process under SEQRA.
There’s no doubt we need more renewable energy projects – and reliable ways to store that energy – if we’re going to ever successfully move away from fossil fuels. But even green projects must be done responsibly. Moving too quickly or cutting corners can lead to serious risks, especially with large-scale battery storage systems. Proper environmental review ensures that these projects are safe, well-sited, and truly beneficial to both the community and the environment.
Under SEQR, once a lead agency is established through the coordinated review process (which can take up to 30 days), that agency then has 20 days to determine whether the proposed project may have any significant adverse environmental impacts. If the project is classified as a Type I action—as is the case with a 250MW battery storage facility—and even one potentially significant impact is identified, the lead agency must issue a Positive Declaration. This triggers the need for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), ensuring that environmental risks such as fire hazards, chemical use, and community impacts are thoroughly studied. Public scoping is also required, allowing the public and involved agencies to help identify key concerns early in the review process and ensure a focused, transparent environmental analysis.
As of now, the Town of Ulster has not issued a SEQRA determination. This makes the July 24 Town Board meeting a pivotal moment for the public to urge the Town Board to take the necessary steps to ensure this project receives the full scrutiny it warrants:
Issue a Positive Declaration under SEQRA
Provide a 90-day public comment period
Hold at least two public scoping meetings
We urge the public to show up and demand a process that prioritizes public participation and community input every step of the way.
Sleight-Tappen House in 1880 (Friends of Historic Kingston Collection)
By Marissa Marvelli
Yes, this is a loaded headline, especially on the eve of our nation’s birthday. In an era when many democratic norms and institutions are being forsaken, why should we care about a local issue involving a longtime civic club comprising women who cherish their ancestral connections to our country’s founding?
This is about standing up for good government, and good government must begin at home. What began as a run-of-the-mill debate about historic windows in 2022 has today morphed into an existential threat to the legitimacy of the city’s Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC). What’s the worth of any local law if it’s not upheld?
Some Background
Kingston’s Wiltwyck Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) was formed in 1892. Its first regent was Mary Isabella Forsyth, whose family donated Forsyth Park. In 1907, the group purchased the 18th-century Sleight-Tappen House, located at the intersection of Green and Crown streets in the heart of the Stockade district, to serve as its new chapter house. They hired local architect Myron Teller to rejuvenate the downtrodden building. It was one of his earliest “restoration” commissions for which he would become renowned and inspire Kingston’s preservation culture. In 1969, the house was designated a local landmark by the nascent Landmarks Commission. Five years later, it was deemed a contributing resource in the new local and National Register-listed Stockade Historic District. A local landmark medallion was later mounted to the building’s facade.
Over the subsequent 118 years, the chapter has used the house for meetings and events. Wiltwyck DAR is a 501(c)(3) charity. On publicly available 990 filings required of tax-exempt entities, the chapter summarizes its mission as “historical preservation to educate community on a historical home and events.” They open the house to the public on rare occasions, such as during the biennial reenactments of the 1777 Burning of Kingston. This historic house museum is otherwise inaccessible to the public.
Sleight-Tappen/DAR House at 106-122 Green St, June 2025.
Willful Ignorance
In 2021, a question over the fate of the house’s window shutters triggered outreach by the city’s planning director, Suzanne Cahill, to the chapter’s leadership, explaining that “any work which is proposed for the exterior…must be reviewed and approved by” the HLPC. The chapter had been before the commission before, most recently for the approval of a perimeter fence in 2008. Despite this proactive outreach, in March 2022, the chapter ordered 32 Marvin Ultimate replacement windows without applying for a permit from the HLPC. This oversight was reported by a whistleblower, and the DAR was instructed to apply for approval from the commission.
In April 2022, during the first of what would be four hearings and meetings for the application (there was a second round in 2024-2025), the commission probed the chapter’s regent, Selina Guendel, about the necessity to replace historic fabric on what is a “very significant, high-profile building.” In a later hearing, another commissioner described the building as “so standalone, almost like a fishbowl,” noting how all four of its elevations are visible from the street, and how the windows are character-defining. They requested evidence that the windows were beyond repair and whether their restoration had been explored as an option. Commissioners also asked to see the proposed replacement window to compare it with an existing historic sash.
Guendel outlined the chapter’s reasoning for replacing the windows:
She claimed all 32 windows were replaced in 1910 by Myron Teller, so they are not historic. Preservationist note: A feature need not be original to be historic. Regardless, these windows appear in historic photos taken before the 1907 renovation.
The windows were “extended beyond their life use.” Preservationist note: The lifespan of a historic wood window can be extended indefinitely if it is properly maintained or restored.
Marvin units have better energy performance. Preservationist note: This frequently cited argument warrants more explanation than can be provided here. For now, historic windows paired with storm windows have comparable energy performance at a much lower cost. Additionally, this is a historic house museum that is often unoccupied; therefore, energy performance should not be a primary factor in this decision.
The new windows will be “exactly the same” as the historic sash and “you won’t notice a difference.” Preservationist note: It is extraordinarily challenging for a manufactured window to match a historic one. Marvins and the like are merely imitations, like the buildings at Disney World. They can be customized only to the extent that they roughly fit the window opening, match the number of lights (panes), and paint color. The fast-growth wood used in windows today isn’t comparable to old-growth.
What was not revealed in the first meeting was that the chapter had already ordered the windows.
Comparison of a contemporary replacement window with a historical photo of the same house with its old sash. Note how the replacement window doesn’t fill the full opening like the historic units and must be padded. The muntins (dividers) are fatter to accommodate the thickness of the insulated glass. Also, the house’s settling is made more obvious with the perfect squareness of the insert.
The HLPC worked in good faith to gather the facts before rendering a decision, including requesting an evaluation of the existing windows by a qualified expert and seeking an advisory opinion from the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), which oversees the Certified Local Government program. SHPO quickly submitted a formal opinion stating, “The application materials do not make a convincing argument for replacement of the historic wood windows. We support the HLPC’s request for a conditions/assessment survey, prepared by a qualified historic preservation consultant.” The applicants reluctantly complied with some of the information requests, providing a window assessment from a general contractor, Harley Davis, who is the contractor for the replacement project (and who also happens to be the son of the chapter’s treasurer, Kaaren Davis). Not surprisingly, he recommended replacement. In the absence of a qualified assessment, the HLPC lacked sufficient findings to support approval according to its review criteria. The application was therefore unanimously denied by the HLPC in August 2023.
Throughout the review process, the DAR maintained that they are preservationists and that they did not know they needed approval because they did not think their building was on a “historic registry.” They also contend that the unofficial guidelines published by the Friends of Historic Kingston, an advocacy group rather than a regulatory agency, provided all the guidance they thought they needed. “It says in-kind replacement does not need approval!” What they did not do was call the City of Kingston’s Planning Office.
The Present Crisis
After a failed attempt to appeal the decision in the State Supreme Court due to the petition being filed past the statute of limitations, the DAR returned to the HLPC to restart the process with the intent of appealing again. The HLPC heard the new application at its February and April meetings this year. The commission funded an independent assessment of the windows by a qualified restoration contractor, Stacy Caputo of Bridge Lane Restoration. Her shop had been responsible for the recent restoration of the historic wood windows of the Ulster County Courthouse on Wall Street. The DAR refused her access to inspect the windows from the interior. Based on an exterior survey, she found that the historic windows were in “sound condition and can be fully restored.”
Without new evidence to support window replacement, the HLPC issued its second unanimous denial of a preservation permit, called a Certificate of Appropriateness. The DAR’s lawyer, James Bacon, who is also a judge in New Paltz, immediately filed a hardship appeal with the HLPC, a procedure that has rarely been pursued. That too was unanimously denied because the “alleged hardship was self-inflicted.” The decision also lists the multiple grant programs available to a non-profit like the DAR for window preservation, which would alleviate some of the financial loss.
This time around, instead of filing an Article 78 proceeding in the State Supreme Court, the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) served as the appellate body after a hardship appeal was heard by the HLPC. (These procedural changes merit a separate explanation.) Like the HLPC, the ZBA is a volunteer body appointed by the mayor. It typically hears appeals about use and area variances. It does not have experience or expertise with HLPC review procedures or criteria. Yet, on June 12, it considered the appeal of the HLPC decisions brought by Judge Bacon. During a torturous nearly three-hour-long hearing, involving extended executive sessions with the assistant corporation counsel, the members of the ZBA struggled to understand which decision to base its appeal upon, the Certificate of Appropriateness denial or the hardship denial. They eventually decided upon the former.
Even though it is specified in the ZBA’s procedures that the HLPC must be notified of an appeal in advance of the hearing, the HLPC and its staff learned of the hearing after the fact. The ZBA’s public agenda was not posted to the city website beforehand either. As a result, no representatives of the HLPC or members of the public were present to testify or rebut the many misstatements and falsehoods made by the DAR and Judge Bacon during this hearing. The HLPC record presented to the ZBA was limited and curated in such a way to favor the DAR. Regardless, it appears that the oral testimony of the DAR and their lawyer served as the primary evidence for the ZBA. When one member asked his colleagues if they should table the decision to allow more time to review the record, they agreed it was not necessary and continued. No examination of the existing or proposed windows is apparent in the video recording. The five-member board’s deliberation on the preservation review criteria (2:07:45) is challenging to watch, as their discussion lacks clarity and seems to rely more on assumptions than on a thorough understanding of the facts.
So What? It’s Just Windows
The issue extends beyond the windows. By unanimously voting to overturn the HLPLC’s thoroughly documented and well-reasoned Certificate of Appropriateness, the ZBA seemed unaware of the gravity of their decision, effectively dismissing the HLPC’s meticulous work, which was supported by specialized training and expertise. This action undermines the HLPC’s authority to protect the city’s architectural heritage. Why invest substantial time and effort in following procedure and compiling a clear record if another review body can so easily disregard it? What is the purpose of a preservation law if violations will be permitted by the ZBA? This case has demanded countless hours from the HLPC’s commissioners and staff, advocates, and consultants, largely because the applicant—a tax-exempt charity whose primary reason for existence is to be the stewards of a historic house museum—has persistently refused to accept the HLPC’s decisions. This sets a concerning precedent for future rulings.
What’s Next
In a special meeting held June 24, the HLPC agreed to submit a letter to the ZBA requesting a “re-hearing” of the appeal. This consideration has been placed on the ZBA agenda for its Thursday July 10 meeting (6:00pm, Kingston City Hall located at 420 Broadway, Conference Room 1)According to ZBA’s procedure, there must be unanimous agreement to schedule a re-hearing. The public is encouraged to testify in person or to submit written comments. Anyone who cares about preservation or about good government is urged to speak up. Written comments may be emailed to ZBA’s administrative clerk, Amee Peterson: ap*******@*********ny.gov. The sooner the ZBA receives it, the better.
It is not yet clear what will happen if the ZBA does not agree to a re-hearing. The HLPC is already at work on seeking to amend the appeal procedure in the administrative code, but that will not serve this specific case. The HLPC’s staff and volunteer members should be commended for their professionalism, diligence, and patience in this matter. Mayor Steve Noble, too, should be commended for his appointments and hires to this commission. Preservation is only as strong as the people who support and defend it. Buildings can’t preserve themselves.
And why does preservation matter? As the late architect Nathan Silver once wrote, buildings are vessels of human history. Their details give depth to our daily existence. They remind us that we have been here before. There is still so much to learn from them if only we listen.
– Marissa Marvelli is a professional historic preservationist. She served on the HLPC from 2016 to 2019.
The house in 1906 before the Myron Teller updates. (LOC)
The house today with ivy engulfing the west elevation, June 29, 2025.
The house in 1906 before the Myron Teller updates. (LOC)
The house today with ivy engulfing the west elevation, June 29, 2025.