kingstonnavigator

Kingston Hotel Faces Violations After Inspection

by

By Rebecca Martin

At last evening’s Town of Ulster Board meeting, Warren Tutt, the building inspector for the Town of Ulster, provided an overview of his inspection of the Kingston Hotel. On September 18, 2025, he conducted a four-hour inspection, gaining access to 61 of the hotel’s 66 rooms. Every room inspected was found to have violations.

WATCH the recorded meeting on Facebook. Starts at 1:31:31

He reported issues ranging from mold to bed bugs and cockroach infestations. Even the six vacant rooms had violations, and he stated those rooms should not be offered until they are fully brought up to code.

The Kingston Hotel was originally approved by the Town to operate as a transient hotel, but it is now being used as long-term housing—without any of the infrastructure required to safely support that use. There are no proper kitchen facilities, no legal multi-family approvals, and none of the protections expected in regulated residential housing.

When asked why the inspection didn’t happen earlier, Supervisor James Quigley responded, “BOCES.” He noted that the building department had been tied up with other projects and only initiated the inspection about five weeks ago, after a report by Kingston Wire brought public attention to the issue.  But people have been talking about the poor conditions at the Kingston Hotel for much longer than that. 

As for how the inspection was carried out, the building inspector explained that there are three legal ways to gain access: permission from the owner, permission from a registered tenant over 18, or a court order. In this case, the owner provided him a key.

The Town issued a Notice of Violation, giving the property owner 30 days to fix the problems, with a deadline of October 31st. 

Supervisor Quigley confirmed that the Ulster County Executive’s office has been briefed on the findings. According to Quigley, County officials were “shocked” by the report.

Policing of the property has also increased. Quigley said that the Ulster Police Department has been monitoring the hotel for nearly two years. In September, the Town entered into a formal agreement with the property owner to provide additional patrols, with the owner billed monthly for the added presence.

“There’s a concern for the safety of the people living there, and for the surrounding community.” Supervisor Quigley said. 

According to the Ulster County Comptroller’s report released in April 2025, emergency housing costs are substantial and growing. By 2024, the cost per room for emergency housing is $102.86.  For the Kingston Hotel, if all 66 rooms were occupied year round, the total would be $6,788.76 per day, or $2,477,897 per year. That’s a significant amount of money for the Kingston Hotel.  So why is maintenance being deferred?

“This is a commercial relationship between the County and the owner,” Quigley said. “They have the responsibility to apply pressure to bring the building into compliance.”

The Town has not yet determined what enforcement action it will take if the property is not brought up to code by October 31st, though options include issuing further violations or pursuing legal action.

When hotels and motels end up being used for long-term housing, shouldn’t they be required to meet at least the bare minimum standards of a studio apartment? This stopgap solution that costs taxpayers millions each year and yet families are left to live in unsafe and unhealthy conditions. If property owners are making a profit by effectively operating these rooms as unintended long-term housing, where is the accountability? Are there any requirements in place to enforce safe, livable conditions? There should be. The ongoing neglect is inhumane. 

 

ADDITIONAL READING

Lessons from Kingston, NY  (Tenants PAC)

Families stuck for years in Hudson Valley motels, ‘just trying to survive’ (TIMES UNION)

Update on the Terra-Gen Battery Storage Proposal – Positive Declaration Issued

by

By Rebecca Martin

Last night (October 2), the Town of Ulster Town Board, acting as lead agency, voted to issue a Positive Declaration (Pos Dec) under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) for the proposed Terra-Gen battery energy storage project. This important step formally acknowledges that the project may have significant environmental impacts and requires a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Two motions appeared to be cast during the meeting. The first was for the board to approve the Positive Declaration (Pos Dec) resolution (see page 50 “meeting documents”) —contingent on a letter from Terra-Gen’s attorneys stating they would not sue the Town over the decision or to table it.  The second was to formally adopt the resolution.

We were surprised the Town chose to pass the resolution during a workshop meeting—without setting the public scoping period—despite public requests for a 90-day comment window. Typically, both actions occur together during a regular legislative session, as scoping is automatic with a Pos Dec. We’ll have to wait to see how the board handles this at the next Town Board meeting. Still, we appreciate Board Member Clayton Van Kleeck’s leadership and the thoughtful questions he raised—especially in contrast to continued misleading statements about legal risk that have caused confusion and delay.

For months, Supervisor James Quigley publicly claimed that issuing a Pos Dec could expose the Town to legal action. As recently as the September 25 meeting, he responded angrily to a resident request for a Pos Dec and a 90-day scoping process: “I’ll call for a Pos Dec right now, and then we can get sued.”

These repeated warnings were not only misleading—they were legally unfounded. A Pos Dec is a routine requirement under SEQR when a project has one potential significant environmental impact. It does not oppose or block a project; it merely initiates a full environmental review. Suggesting that complying with SEQR invites litigation misinformed both the Board and the public and fostered unnecessary fear around fulfilling a basic obligation.

For those who continue to claim that issuing a Pos Dec would appear to be a result of public pressure: if you read the Town’s own resolution, you’ll see it explicitly identifies the potential impacts that the public has been raising for months (see page 50 of “meeting documents”). The record shows that the Town recognized the same environmental concerns the community has long voiced—proving that the decision was based on substance, not simply public outcry.

In fact, during last night’s meeting, Terra-Gen’s attorney Rob Panasci (Young/Sommer LLC) said that the company does not oppose the Pos Dec. When directly asked by Van Kleeck whether Terra-Gen would sue over the decision, Panasci responded:

“We’re not suing. I don’t know if there was some implication of that? We wouldn’t be able to sue you if you issue a Pos Dec.”

Despite this clear statement, the Board still insisted on a formal letter from Terra-Gen confirming no lawsuit would be filed—an unusual and unnecessary step that underscores the months of misinformation from the Supervisor and the town’s legal counsel.

Ironically, it was later stated on the record that Terra-Gen preferred a Pos Dec be issued sooner rather than later—exactly as SEQR intends for a project of this scope.

The next step is the public scoping process, which defines the content of the Environmental Impact Statement. We expect the Town Board to outline the scoping process and address the community’s request for a 90-day public comment period at the next town board meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 16.

Town of Ulster Town Board Workshop: “Positive Declaration” in SEQR for Terra-Gen Lithium-Ion Battery Project

by

(click on image and turn to page 50 to review the resolution for a positive declaration in SEQR)

By Rebecca Martin

Tomorrow, the Town of Ulster Town Board will hold a workshop to discuss the next steps in the environmental review of the proposed Terra-Gen lithium-ion battery storage facility — a large-scale battery storage project that has drawn both interest and concern from the community.

At the heart of the discussion is the issuance of a “Positive Declaration” under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process (see page 50 to review the resolution). This means the Town Board could (and it should) determine that the project may have significant environmental impacts, and a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required.

What Is a Workshop?

A workshop is a working session where the Town Board meets to discuss issues in greater detail, but no formal decisions or votes are typically made. Unlike regular Town Board meetings, workshops are more informal and play an important role in preparing for major decisions.

Part of tomorrow’s workshop will focus on reviewing a Positive Declaration for the Terra-Gen (Alcazar) proposal (see page 50), which is included on the agenda.

The public may provide comments at the beginning of the meeting, limited to agenda items only and three minutes per speaker. At the end of the meeting, the public will also have an opportunity to comment on non-agenda items.

About the Terra-Gen Project

Terra-Gen, a U.S.-based renewable energy developer backed by Alcazar Energy, has proposed building a utility-scale lithium-ion battery energy storage system in the Town of Ulster. The facility is designed to store electricity and discharge it during times of peak demand — a critical function for supporting the transition to renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which produce power intermittently.

In the short term, the energy stored in the facility will likely come largely from the existing regional electric grid, which is still primarily powered by fossil fuels. This reflects the current energy mix in the area, and while it may limit the immediate climate benefits of the project, battery storage remains an important tool for grid stability and for enabling greater integration of renewables over time.

Based on the developer’s application, community members, elected officials, and subject-matter experts have identified a range of concerns, including fire risk, emergency preparedness, and the facility’s proximity to residential neighborhoods. Under SEQR, all that is required is one potential adverse significant environmental impact to justify a Positive Declaration—and several have already been identified. If issued, the Town Board’s Positive Declaration would trigger a full environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), ensuring these concerns are thoroughly examined before any decisions are made.

What Happens Next?

If the Town Board issues the Positive Declaration, it commits to a more thorough environmental review under SEQR, starting with a public scoping phase to identify which impacts must be studied. Terra-Gen will then prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), followed by a public comment period and hearings. After reviewing feedback, a Final EIS will be prepared, and the Town Board will decide whether the project may proceed.

This process allows the public and experts to weigh in on key environmental, safety, and land use concerns before final decisions are made.

It is not yet clear whether a majority of the Town Board supports the Positive Declaration. Tomorrow’s workshop should clarify who supports or opposes it, and why.

Crucially, the public should request a 90-day public comment period for scoping to be included in the town’s resolution. While the town may approve only 60 days, this extra time is essential for thorough review and meaningful input. Without this request, the town risks defaulting to the minimum 30-day SEQR requirement, which many believe is insufficient for the complex issues at hand.

What to Expect at Tomorrow’s Workshop

While no vote will take place at this workshop, it marks an important step in the process and gives residents a chance to better understand the Town’s next steps. It also signals that some of members of the Town Board are taking the environmental and safety concerns seriously, rather than rushing the project forward.

The workshop will be held tomorrow, Thursday, October 2, at 7:00 p.m at Town of Ulster Town Hall located at 1 Town Hall Drive in Lake Katrine. For more information, including the agenda and materials, please visit the Town’s Google folder.  

If you can’t make it tomorrow, you can send in your public comment to be placed on the record. Encourage the town to issue a positive declaration and 90-day public scoping process.  Submit your comments by 3:30pm tomorrow to the Town of Ulster’s Town Clerk Suzanne Reavy at:  sreavy@townofulster.ny.gov

Van Kleeck Calls for Draft Positive Declaration Resolution on Terra-Gen to Be Workshopped October 2

by
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.

No More Delays: Town of Ulster Town Board Must Issue a Positive Declaration for the Terra-Gen Proposal

by

 

By Rebecca Martin

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 

Potential Impact SEQRA Criteria (§617.7(c)) FEAF Page
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 Page 13

DAR Requests ZBA Hearing Be Delayed; Community-Funded Video Released

by

Group Editorial

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!

Kingston’s Noise Ordinance Exists But Is It Being Enforced?

by
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.

We’ve seen firsthand that individual residents can drive meaningful change when it comes to noise issues. In 2021, Kingston resident Lisa Darling confronted a different kind of disruption: the relentless sound of high-pitched backup alarms coming from a nearby NYS Department of Transportation (DOT) facility operating through the night. When she first raised the issue, she was told nothing could be done. But through persistence, collaboration with neighbors, and support from local and state officials, Darling succeeded in persuading the DOT to pilot—and ultimately adopt—quieter, OSHA-approved white noise alarms. Her advocacy didn’t just bring relief to her neighborhood; it led to a policy change affecting 60 DOT facilities statewide. Her story is a powerful reminder of what’s possible when residents speak up, stay engaged, and push for solutions through the right channels.

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 planning@kingston-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.

UCAT’s Route Changes Are Premature Without a Clear Plan for the Hub

by

By Rebecca Martin

ACTION UPDATE: On August 27, the Ulster County Transit Riders and Intermodal Advisory Committee (TRIAC) recommended steps to reduce service disruption and rider hardship caused by the closure of the Kingston Plaza bus hub. To maintain access and convenience for UCAT riders, they propose allowing buses to pick up and drop off passengers anywhere along routes within the City of Kingston using a flag system. They also recommend redirecting routes that previously ended at Kingston Plaza to either Westbrook Lane and Clinton Avenue or Fair Street and Schwenk Drive. Additionally, intersections where at least three bus routes meet should be designated as official stops. These temporary measures aim to ensure continuity of service, allow for rider feedback, and support data collection to inform the Route Optimization Plan (ROP). TRIAC emphasizes that no major changes to UCAT routes or schedules should occur until they are thoroughly evaluated and approved through the ROP’s formal public planning process.

###

Ulster County Area Transit (UCAT) is preparing to make significant changes to its bus routes and schedules on September 15 (pushed back from the original date of September 10). These changes include the relocation of the central bus hub from Kingston Plaza to Development Court in the Town of Ulster. But before these changes go into effect, the public deserves some answers.

Kingston Plaza has been a key transfer hub – centrally located and well connected to neighborhoods, businesses, and other transit routes.  Replacing it without a clear, accessible alternative that has been publicly vetted raises serious concerns.  Development Court, the new proposed location, is difficult to reach on foot and lacks safe access for cyclists, making it effectively car-dependent.  Riders might also be required to pass through a Sheriff’s Department screening and use restrooms inside the Department of Social Services building.  

According to advocates, Ulster County says the move is purely practical – county owned and large enough – but the implications matter. Transit infrastructure should reflect dignity, access and equity. Public transportation needs to remove barriers, not create new ones. 

Here’s the central question: Was there ever a formal agreement – an MOU, lease, or other document – between the County and Kingston Plaza allowing UCAT to operate a hub there? If so, what were the terms, and why did they end? If not, how was the location justified and sustained for so long? The County Executive’s press release made no mention of this loss, leaving riders and the public in the dark.

More importantly, whatever arrangement supported the original hub should inform its replacement. Was the Kingston Plaza hub selected because of proximity to services, foot traffic, or centrality? Those criteria still matter – and Development Court likely fails on most of them. It’s isolated, lacks walkability, and does not serve as a natural transfer point for riders moving through Kingston.

The County already owns property within the City of Kingston that could serve as more appropriate locations for a transit hub – including surface lots at the County Office Building uptown and the Midtown medical building. These sites could be reconfigured to support transfers and even include parking solutions. Public properties like 25 Field Court – located next to the Midtown Linear Park – also deserve serious consideration, especially since moving the hub away from Kingston Plaza would cut off transit access to the trail. That trail was promoted as a key part of broader efforts to reconnect Midtown after decades of disinvestment, urban renewal, and the construction of Route 587. Dietz Stadium is another strong option – directly across from Trailways and close enough to Kingston Plaza to preserve current route patterns. Academy Green, while more limited in access, could function as a smaller satellite hub for uptown, which is also facing service cuts. And if public funds are already going toward the Kingstonian parking garage, why not leverage that facility to provide covered, centrally located transit access? Whatever site is ultimately selected, it must be publicly owned and backed by a formal agreement. Relying on informal or “de facto” hubs on private property leaves riders vulnerable to abrupt changes—as we’re seeing now.

The process behind these changes is also troubling. The County’s Route Optimization Planning effort is still underway, and the public was told that any major route revisions would follow scenario vetting, community feedback, and field testing. These steps have not yet happened. So why is a new schedule being launched now?

Other issues persist in the proposed changes. Some neighborhoods that lost service during the Citibus-UCAT merger in 2019 – such as Wilbur, Clifton Avenue, and the Avenues – remain underserved today. Expanded service within the City of Kingston has been discussed since 2017, and more frequent routes were promised during the merger process, but many areas still lack adequate coverage.  Significant gaps in midday and evening service make transit unreliable for workers and students. On-request stops require riders to call dispatch – a system that doesn’t work well for those without phones, with limited reception, or when dispatch isn’t available to answer. Fixed-route coverage remains weak in parts of the county like Milton and Marlborough, and some routes still operate in only one direction – resulting in long, inefficient trips. Finally, it’s unclear what happens to service on weekends. Will Kingston Plaza continue to function as a hub on Saturdays and Sundays? If so, weekday riders are being forced into a less functional system than weekend users

This is not the time to push through half-complete changes. The County should pause the route overhaul and focus solely on re-establishing a viable, accessible hub within the City of Kingston. No other service changes should proceed until the public process is complete and riders have a clear, centralized place to connect.

Public transportation should be simple, intuitive, and equitable.  It’s not charity, and it’s not just for those without other options. Yet too often in our area, we treat transit like a social safety net rather than the essential public good that it is: something that benefits everyone.  

People with cars have a certain kind of privilege – access to flexible schedules, faster commutes, and more freedom of movement. A strong transit system helps level the playing field by offering real mobility to all, regardless of age, income, or ability. That means investing in a service – not cutting it, and not making it more complicated. 

Transit is not just about buses and routes – it’s about access, dignity and connection. Before we redraw the map, we need to answer the public’s questions, respect the planning process that’s already underway, and make sure the system is improving – not unraveling. 

Riders deserve more than a detour. They deserve a say.

Preserving Our History and the Laws That Protect It

by

By Group Editorial

This summer marks 50 years since Kingston’s Stockade Historic District was added to the National Register of Historic Places. Recognized for its rare “cross strata” of 18th, 19th, and 20th-century architecture, the Stockade tells the story of a city that has evolved over centuries. A year before that federal recognition, Kingston took action to preserve its legacy locally, establishing both the Stockade Area and the West Strand as the city’s first historic districts. These protections came in direct response to the devastating loss of the Rondout neighborhood during urban renewal. 

But historic designation is not about freezing a neighborhood in time. Preservation is about moderating change so that the story of a place can continue to evolve without losing the qualities that make it special. Kingston’s Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC) is charged with moderating that change. Unlike half a century ago, there are well-established national standards, procedures, and resources in place to support its work and findings.  

So what exactly are we preserving through designation? The preservation debate today is rarely about whether a whole neighborhood or even a single building should remain in place. It’s instead about preserving the definition of a historic place in terms of the quality of its image, or the degree of pixelation. Take, for example, the Sleight-Tappen House on Green Street, owned by the Daughters of the American Revolution since 1907 (and that we’ve been reporting on recently). What value does an 18th-century stone house still hold if it’s stripped of its historic windows and its openings filled with 32 generic mass-manufactured inserts? 

This isn’t simply a design issue. It’s a choice between doable, authentic preservation and initiating a cycle of costly, short-lived replacements that future generations will inherit.

But as we work to preserve our built environment, we also have to protect the integrity of the laws that make it possible—not just preservation law, but the full legal framework that upholds fairness, accountability, and public trust. 

The HLPC held seven hearings over three years and ultimately ruled that the historic windows at the Sleight-Tappen House—many dating to the 1800s, possibly even earlier—could be repaired. That decision reflects not just sound preservation values, but a clear, consistent application of the law. And thanks to our region’s network of restoration experts, this path is both practical and cost-effective.

Preservation is also an economic driver. It stimulates commercial development, draws tourism, sustains skilled trades, and stabilizes property values. Kingston’s identity as a historic city isn’t branding—it’s a civic asset. But that identity depends on following through when the laws we’ve put in place are challenged.

The current case surrounding the DAR House isn’t just about windows. It involves unpermitted work, a city-issued stop-work order, and a court petition by the DAR to retroactively legalize construction.

Despite a court-imposed deadline of August 22 to respond, the City of Kingston’s Corporation Counsel (and chair of the Ulster County Democratic Committee), Barbara Graves-Poller, has refused to act.  She has informed the Common Council that her office lacks the resources and doubts the city’s chances of success. The refusal comes despite the Council’s unanimous written request, submitted on August 14, urging the City to take legal action to defend Kingston’s laws.  (**)

Meanwhile, the DAR and its contractor have resumed work, despite the stop-work order still being in effect. Over the weekend of August 16–17, eight more window openings were covered in black plastic, suggesting more removals. The Building Safety Division was again alerted.

Taped to the front door, just beneath the official stop-work notice, was a copy of Judge Graff’s signed Order to Show Cause, which the DAR and their attorney wrongly interpreted as permission to continue work. That misreading misled not only them but some in the community.

On August 19, Judge Graff issued a direct clarification:

“To clear up the apparent ambiguity, this Court’s July 28, 2025 Order to Show Cause does not include a temporary restraining order. Accordingly, and to clarify, the stop-work order is not held in abeyance. 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…”

In other words, the DAR, their legal team, and those who backed their interpretation were wrong. The stop-work order remains fully in effect. Any continued construction is illegal.

While the Friends of Historic Kingston, through attorney Sean Denvir, have stepped up to intervene and seek clarification, the City’s own legal department has stayed silent.

Although charter reform is under discussion, that process could take years. In light of this situation, the Common Council might have a more immediate option: to pass a local law authorizing the hiring of its own attorney and clerk. Even if the positions can’t be funded this year, establishing the legal authority to appoint independent staff is the most urgent and effective step the Council can take to uphold Kingston’s laws, protect the public interest, and ensure accountability.


** Added on Thursday, August 21:  From KingstonCitizens.org:  The petition was filed on July 25, and the Order to Show Cause was issued on July 28. As of now, the city has not responded. The deadline to do so is this Friday. Comments regarding Barbara Graves-Poller was shared through several sources in response to ongoing questions about whether the city intends to act. If there’s a plan in place — or if Corporation Counsel has a different explanation — the city should issue a statement.

Help Protect Local Leadership – Support Legal Defense for Acting Ulster County Clerk

by

By Rebecca Martin

What: Ulster County Legislature meeting and vote on Resolution No. 375, concerning funding to defend Acting County Clerk Taylor Bruck

Where: Ulster County Legislative Chambers, 6th floor, County Office Building, 244 Fair Street, Kingston, NY 12401.

When: Tuesday, August 19, starting at 7:15 pm. Arrive early to sign up to speak and get a seat.

Why: The public is encouraged to attend and speak in support of the resolution to protect local government integrity and stand behind Acting County Clerk Taylor Bruck.

Can’t attend? Watch the meeting live on the Ulster County Legislature’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@UlsterCountyLegislature

###

The Texas Attorney General is trying to force New York to enforce a Texas judgment against a Hudson Valley doctor who prescribed abortion pills to a Texas patient. Acting Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck has refused, citing New York’s shield law protecting providers of Telehealth abortion care. Bruck expects a lawsuit to challenge this law, which, if it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, could threaten abortion protections nationwide.

On Tuesday, August 19, the Ulster County Legislature will vote on Resolution No. 375, which would allocate funding to hire a civil rights attorney to defend Acting County Clerk Taylor Bruck against this lawsuit. The resolution proposes transferring $50,000 from the County’s contingency fund to cover legal services, as the County Attorney’s Office has determined that outside counsel is needed for this specialized representation.

The resolution passed through both the Laws, Rules and Government Services Committee and the Ways and Means Committee on August 14, and now heads to the full Legislature for a final vote on August 19.

The public is encouraged to attend and speak in support. The meeting takes place in the Ulster County Legislative Chambers, on the 6th floor of the County Office Building at 244 Fair Street, Kingston, NY 12401. It begins at 7:15 PM, and those wishing to speak should arrive early to sign up and get a seat.

If you can’t attend in person, you can watch live on the Ulster County Legislature’s YouTube channel HERE.

This is not a partisan issue – it is a test of whether local government will stand up for the rule of law and defend its own public servants from politically motivated attacks. A “no” vote on this resolution is effectively a vote to let Texas dictate how Ulster County officials carry out their duties. It undermines New York values and sends a dangerous message: that outside forces can weaponize the courts to intimidate local leaders and erode civil rights without consequence.

Good government means protecting the integrity of our institutions and supporting the people who serve our communities. Those concerned about the up-front cost should also consider the financial, legal, and moral consequences if Ulster County doesn’t take action. The greater risk is in doing nothing.

Thanks to the Ulster County Legislature for their leadership. 

 

ADDITIONAL READING:

Ulster committees agree to set aside defense funds for clerk in abortion fight with Texas (Daily Freeman)

Texas attorney general sues New York county clerk over abortion ruling (Times Union)

 

 

The People’s Guide to Local Government​: Civics 101 – How to Engage with Power, Process, and Purpose in the City of Kingston

by

 

KingstonCitizens.org is gearing up to sponsor a free, ongoing training series, open to all levels of experience – featuring both in-person and remote sessions. These trainings are designed to help Kingston community members better understand how local government works and to equip them with the knowledge, tools, and confidence to be informed, effective, and engaged civic participants.

There has never been a more important time to be a collaborative, informed community member at the local level. We’ll be announcing training dates soon.

To stay informed and receive updates, join our mailing list or follow us on Facebook.

Ulster County Executive Jen Metzger Voices in on Terra-Gen Project Environmental Review

by
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)

“This is a project that is industrial-scale, and not one I would want to be located so close to residential areas…I strongly urge the town to issue a positive declaration in the state environmental review process to ensure the project gets a hard look.” –  Town of Ulster pressed for deep dive on Coleman High site battery plant plan (Daily Freeman)

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.

###

RESOURCES

Ulster Town Board hears from opponents of proposed lithium-ion battery plant

Take Action: Demand Positive Declaration and 90-Day Scoping for Terra-Gen Battery Project at Ulster Town Board Meeting on July 24

Community Demands Transparency in Terra-Gen Battery Project Review in the Town of Ulster

From Fossil Fuels to Clean Energy: The Lithium-ion Battery Project in the Town of Ulster

Kingston Considers Revisiting Its City Charter – A Chance to Right a Longstanding Wrong

by

By Rebecca Martin

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.

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

KingstonCitizens.org City of Kingston Charter process and materials

UPDATE:  ZBA Grants Rehearing – Next Meeting Set for September 11  

by

By Marissa Marvelli

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.

READ:  GUEST EDITORIAL: Local Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution Battling Against Kingston’s Historic Preservation Law

Take Action: Demand Positive Declaration and 90-Day Scoping for Terra-Gen Battery Project at Ulster Town Board Meeting on July 24

by

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.

TAKE ACTION (Visit the Facebook Event)

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.