Town of Ulster Town Board Member Clayton Van Kleeck gets a standing ovation.
It was a great night for local advocacy. Community members turned out to call for a Positive Declaration and thorough environmental review of the proposed Terra-Gen project.
At the public meeting, TownOfUlsterCitizens.org’s Laura Hartmann(listen at: 38:34) and Regis Obijiski(listen at: 57:38), as well as Town of Hurley’s Jillian Fried(listen at: 52:53) were among some of the excellent speakers, each delivered powerful testimony.
The meeting turned tense when Town Supervisor Jim Quigley raised his voice at constituents during public comment. In response, Town Board Member Clayton Van Kleeck stepped in, reminding the Supervisor that board policy prohibits speaking back to the public during comment periods and to “tone it down.”
Van Kleeck then made a formal request for the town’s attorney and planner to prepare a draft resolution for a Positive Declaration, calling the Terra-Gen proposal “possibly the largest and most significant project they’ve had in front of them in decades, perhaps ever.” He asked that the draft be ready for review and discussion at the October 2 workshop meeting (listen at: 1:19:47), and that the town lawyer and planner be present.
Thanks to Town of Ulster Town board member Van Kleeck for his stewardship.
Months have passed since the 20-day window to issue a Positive Declaration came and went, yet the Town of Ulster, acting as lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), has not made a formal determination on the Alcazar Battery Energy Storage Project (Terra-Gen). Instead of fulfilling its obligation to conduct a thorough and transparent review, the Town has continued to request additional studies from the developer, seemingly in an effort to justify a Negative Declaration. This approach undermines the purpose and spirit of SEQR, which is to ensure an impartial and comprehensive environmental review. See 6 NYCRR § 617.6(b)(3)
The SEQR review began prematurely, before the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) was complete. Under SEQR, the lead agency is required to review the FEAF for completeness before circulating a Notice of Intent to act as lead agency. This includes identifying all involved agencies with discretionary decisions, such as permit approvals or PILOT agreements, to ensure they are properly included in a coordinated review. Failing to do so at the outset undermines the integrity of the entire process. The FEAF was ultimately resubmitted in June, following our May 28, 2025 blog post “From Fossil Fuel To Clean Energy: The Lithium-ion Battery Project in the Town of Ulster,” which exposed significant gaps and brought critical missing details to light.
Without a Positive Declaration, the current status of the Town of Ulster Town Board’s SEQR review remains unclear to the public. With each passing month, the Town has been working with the developer to obtain studies and information to address outstanding questions, however, much of this has occurred without public transparency or involvement.
As advocates, we can walk through the regulations to make the case for a Positive Declaration. We are returning to the resubmitted FEAF to identify at least one significant potential adverse environmental impact that should have triggered a Positive Declaration under SEQR and required a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the start. By reviewing the FEAF alongside SEQR regulations, we aim to show there is evidence to require a Positive Declaration and a full environmental review, despite the Town’s ongoing requests for additional studies and other efforts to move the project toward a Negative Declaration.
The significant potential impacts we have identified include, but are not limited to:
Potential conflicts with County plans to protect open space and farmland;
Potential impacts of emergency services relying solely on a volunteer fire department with limited capacity;
Residential housing located just 22 feet away, including vulnerable populations such as children, elders, and people with disabilities;
A NYSDEC-designated potential Environmental Justice area immediately adjacent to the project;
The need for a thorough analysis of alternatives to ensure the best environmental and operational outcomes (Alternative Site Analysis);
Potential impacts to wetlands, endangered species, impaired waterbodies like the Lower Esopus Creek, and historic resources.
To agencies responsible for permits or other discretionary decisions (such as deviated PILOT agreements), it is important that they have the opportunity to fully participate in the environmental review process, a right ensured by a Positive Declaration. Relying on a Negative Declaration issued by the Town may limit their ability to request additional studies or raise concerns later on without appearing to contradict the Town’s findings.
We urge the Town of Ulster to end decision-making behind closed doors and stop requesting studies without public input. The Town must comply with SEQRA by issuing a Positive Declaration and move forward with a full Environmental Impact Statement immediately.
###
Potential Significant Environmental Impacts vs. SEQRA Criteria and FEAF Page Reference
1. Land use may conflict with Ulster County Open Space Plan and Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan
§617.7(c)(1)(iv)(viii) & (vi): Substantial change in land use including agricultural/open space and a major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy
Page 2
2. Ulster County IDA and project (deviated) PILOT
PILOT agreements are included in the FEAF because they require approval from agencies like Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs), which have discretionary authority over the project. Since these financial incentives can influence whether a project proceeds, their approval is part of the environmental review to ensure all decisions affecting the project are fully considered under SEQR. READ“Strife over tax breaks and tradeoffs: It doesn’t have to be like this”
Page 2
3. Emergency services served by Spring Lake Volunteer Fire Department
§617.7(c)(1)(x): The creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above consequences (hazard to human health)
Page 3
4. Stormwater changes
§617.7(c)(1)(i): Increase in potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage issues
Page 5
5. Impacts to nearby waterbodies or wetlands
§617.7(c)(1)(i) and (iii): Impact on unique natural characteristics; wetlands
Page 5
6. New demands for water
§617.7(c)(1)(i): A substantial adverse change in ground or surface water quality
Page 5
7. Need for new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities
§617.7(c)(1)(i): Potential conflict with adopted infrastructure plans or unknown impacts
Page 6
8. New outdoor lighting and visual impacts
§617.7(c)(1)(ii): Impacts on a threatened or endangered species of animal or plant, or the habitat of such a species; or other significant adverse impacts to natural resources
Page 8
9. Proximity to housing (22 feet); vulnerable populations (children, elders, people with disabilities);
§617.7(c)(1)(vii): The creation of a hazard to human health
Page 10
10. Potential Environmental Justice areas within proximity of the project
Commissioner’s Policy 29 (CP-29) is a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) directive focused on Environmental Justice. It guides how the DEC incorporates Environmental Justice considerations into its decision-making and SEQRA reviews. CP-29 requires identifying if a project affects minority or low-income communities, assessing potential disproportionate environmental impacts, ensuring meaningful community involvement, and taking steps to avoid or mitigate those impacts. The policy promotes fair treatment and meaningful participation of all communities in environmental decisions.
Page 10
11. Impacts to Lower Esopus Creek, a state-designated impaired waterbody (not acknowledged in the application)
§617.7(c)(1)(i),(ii) & (iv): Impacts on significant water resources; drainage/water quality concerns
Page 11
12. Impacts to threatened or endangered species (Bald Eagles, Indiana Bat, Monarch Butterfly)
§617.7(c)(1)(ii): Impact on threatened or endangered species or habitat
Page 12
13. Impacts to a historic building or district
§617.7(c)(1)(v): Impact on historic or archaeological resources
Just seven days before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is scheduled to re-hear the appeal of the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission’s (HLPC) decision regarding the Sleight-Tappen House at 106-122 Green Street, the attorney for the Wiltwyck Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) has requested a postponement, citing that neither he nor his clients are available to attend. He has also stated that he will be unavailable the following month as well.
The September 11th hearing date has been on the calendar since July 10th, when the ZBA determined that a re-hearing was justified. It has been referenced repeatedly in court filings related to the DAR’s ongoing attempt to overturn the city’s stop-work order—a matter we covered in our August 20th post.
Given the DAR’s past legal actions, this last-minute postponement request has prompted concern within the community. Many are questioning whether this could contribute to further delays in the process, and whether it risks undermining public accountability and trust in the system.
We urge the City of Kingston to reschedule the hearing for the earliest possible date that accommodates all parties, and to hold a special meeting if the DAR cannot attend the October 9th date as well.
We also urge the City to keep its stop-work order in full effect until the review process is complete and a building permit has been issued, or until the matter is resolved in the courts. As of now, nine first-floor windows on the front and rear elevations remain covered with black plastic. Hon. Sharon Graff, who is presiding over the DAR’s petition, recently clarified,“Pending further order of this Court, the Stop Work Order remains in effect and any work currently underway should be ceased pending determination of the pending proceeding and/or further order of this court.”
However, with the windows obscured and no clear visibility into the site, it is difficult, if not impossible, to verify whether the stop-work order is actually being observed. This lack of transparency has heightened concerns, especially in light of the past disagreements over the interpretation of rules and court directives by the parties involved.
In Defense of Kingston’s Historic Preservation Law
This week, ahead of the now-postponed September 11th ZBA re-hearing, a community-funded five-minute film was released to educate the ZBA and the public on the importance of upholding Kingston’s historic preservation law. The video—available HERE—features six experts in local history, preservation, and policy, including City Historian Taylor Bruck and West Chestnut Street author Lowell Thing.
100% of the donations raised supported the work of professional videographers and an editor to produce a film that speaks to not only this preservation effort, but to the larger importance of protecting our shared history and resources. It’s a story about what’s at stake when preservation is overlooked, and what’s possible when the community comes together to defend the places they love.
This project was led by Kingston-based preservation professional Marissa Marvelli, who contributed significant time and personal funds to bring this story to life. Thanks, Marissa!
Click on image to hear construction noise after 6:00pm.
By Rebecca Martin
Imagine being jolted awake at 7:00 a.m. on a weekday by the sound of heavy machinery and the persistent, high-pitch truck backup alarms—not once, but week after week for months. This is the reality for at least one Midtown Kingston resident, who is dealing with the ongoing noise from new construction in their neighborhood. They report that construction often begins before the city’s legally allowed start time, disrupting early mornings and weekends. The noise ordinance specifies the maximum decibel levels allowed, yet construction regularly exceeds those limits on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Despite filing complaints with the Kingston Planning Department, contacting their Common Council representative, and calling the Kingston Police Department multiple times, the noise persists.
Under Kingston’s municipal code, construction is allowed to take place Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., excluding holidays. If a developer or contractor wishes to work outside of those hours, they must apply for a special permit and demonstrate an “unreasonable hardship” that justifies the exception. This safeguard is meant to protect residents from excessive noise and disruption during times traditionally reserved for rest.
In this case, it appears that these special permits are being issued without requiring proof of hardship, and that 7:00 a.m. start times are regularly approved. This is happening despite a previous decision by the city’s Laws and Rules Committee, which, as we understand it, reviewed and declined a proposal to change the official start time to 7:00 a.m., maintaining the 8:00 a.m. start as a standard that best serves the interests of Kingston’s residents. (Minutes from the January 2018 meeting are not readily available on the City of Kingston’s website).
These claims point to a significant gap between what the ordinance requires and how it is being implemented. The result, the resident says, has been ongoing exposure to high-decibel construction noise for 55 or more hours per week, with limited opportunities for relief. They also report calling the Kingston Police Department on multiple occasions when work began before 8:00 a.m., and that in many instances, police intervened and stopped the work, suggesting that violations had, in fact, occurred.
This situation raises broader concerns about the city’s enforcement mechanisms. Is it appropriate for the police to be solely responsible for responding to construction noise violations? Officers already carry heavy workloads, and their presence may not be the most effective or proportional response to ongoing quality-of-life issues like this. There may be a need for additional oversight, accountability, or alternative avenues of enforcement within the Building Department or other city structures.
Importantly, the Planning Department and Planning Board must ensure that construction plans are reasonable and feasible within the allowed hours and decibel levels so that “emergencies” like excessive rain in the spring do not constitute a “hardship.” Permitting exceptions without scrutiny not only undermines the ordinance, it also places the burden on residents to prove that something is wrong.
It’s important to recognize that managing noise on construction sites—and adhering to the city’s noise ordinance hours—helps protect construction companies from fines, lawsuits, and reputational damage. The cost of doing business should include investments in site preparation and noise-reducing measures. While many construction companies worry about costs, staying compliant with noise regulations can prevent bigger problems down the road.
There is growing research on the psychological effects of chronic noise exposure, showing a strong correlation with increased stress, sleep disruption, anxiety, and even increased rates of violent crime. This isn’t just a matter of inconvenience—it’s a public health issue.
This experience mirrors other complaints we’ve heard in recent years and highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in how construction permits are managed. The core issue remains: residents have a right to quiet enjoyment of their homes, and if city departments are issuing permits that conflict with the law—or failing to require the documentation the law demands—residents deserve to know.
The point isn’t to stop construction or block development. It’s to ensure that progress doesn’t come at the expense of the people who already live here. Ordinances like Kingston’s construction noise rules exist to protect public health and community livability. If they are being ignored or circumvented, then residents have every right to ask why and to demand better.
If you are experiencing similar issues, for now, you can report noise violations by calling the Kingston Police Department’s non-emergency line at (845) 331-1671. You can also contact the City Planner’s office at (845) 334-3957 or email pl******@*********ny.gov. Finally, consider reaching out to your Common Council representative to share your concerns and request that the issue be addressed at the policy level.
As always, we encourage residents to engage with their local government, ask questions, and push for transparency. Your voice matters—and your peace of mind does, too.
