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 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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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: apeterson@kingston-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.
A proposed 250-megawatt battery energy storage facility in the Town of Ulster is drawing increased scrutiny from local residents and officials. The project would install lithium-ion batteries housed in 14-foot-tall containers across nearly 12 acres of the former John A. Coleman Catholic High School property adjacent to the City of Kingston and Town of Hurley. There are many names being mentioned, but our understanding – based on the application submitted to the Town of Ulster – is that the project is called the Alcazar Energy Storage Project. It is being developed by U.S.-based Terra-Gen (Vice President Mark Turner), a subsidiary of Masdar , the renewable energy company owned by the Abu Dhabi government, and funded by the international clean energy investor Alcazar Energy. You should inquire who is who. It’s all pretty confusing.
On June 18, the Town of Ulster hosted a public meeting where dozens of residents raised concerns about the project’s safety, transparency, and potential environmental and financial impacts at the end of the meeting. At the end of the meeting, Hurley Town Supervisor Mike Boms, representing the neighboring community that borders the project site, asked important questions – something great to hear. You can listen to the public comments starting at approximately 54:42 in the audio file available in the Google Doc files linked above.
Virtual Community Meeting Scheduled for July 2
In response to public pressure, Alcazar Energy (the project applicant) has scheduled a virtual community meeting on Tuesday, July 2 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss potential adverse impacts of the project on residents in Ulster, Hurley, and the City of Kingston. Questions can be submitted in advance to: info@ulstercleanenergy.com . Terra-Gen Vice President Mark Turner is expected to respond live.
While this meeting is a welcome opportunity for engagement, it would have been far more beneficial if held before the developer submitted their application, which triggered the formal environmental review process under SEQR. Early engagement could have helped shape the project in a way that better reflects community needs and concerns.
Backtrack on SEQR: Concerns Emerge Over Review Process
Under SEQR, any government agency not listed in the EAF can be excluded from the review process, even if they have decision-making authority over permits or financial incentives.
The Town is now completing Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the EAF, steps often reserved for the end of the review process just before issuing a Negative Declaration (a finding of no significant impact).
This project clearly meets SEQR’s legal threshold for issuing a Positive Declaration, which requires preparing a full Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and initiating a public scoping process. The scoping process is vital for public input, and to identify and evaluate potential significant environmental impacts, such as battery fire safety, emergency response, and other risks. Under SEQR, the presence of just one potential significant adverse impact is enough to trigger a Positive Declaration.
A Positive Declaration also ensures the public can formally shape the scope of environmental studies, keeping the process transparent and accountable. While SEQR customarily allows for a 30-day public scoping period, given the size and complexity of this project, the public should advocate for an extended 90-day scoping period to ensure sufficient time for review and input.
For a simple explanation of SEQR, read “The SEQR Cookbook” a process overseen by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The process requires state and local government agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their actions (the project) during their decision-making process.
PILOT Concerns: Who Pays, Who Decides?
Community members should use the July 2 meeting to ask critical financial and procedural questions. Chief among them: Does Terra-Gen plan to apply for a Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) agreement through the Ulster County Industrial Development Agency (UCIDA)?
If so, why is UCIDA missing from the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)? SEQR requires that all involved agencies be disclosed at the outset, and omitting UCIDA could exclude tax-related impacts from the formal environmental review.
Even more significantly, if the PILOT deviates from New York State’s standard PILOT schedule – as many large energy projects do – then the City of Kingston Board of Education should likely be listed as an involved agency, since school districts are entitled to approve or reject deviated PILOTs.
In addition, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) may also be involved if public energy incentives are sought. A 2019 PV Magazine article identified over $8 million in NYSERDA incentives initially offered to a previous developer (GlidePath) for a nearby site, though smaller in scale (25MW). Whether those incentives are still available or being pursued by Terra-Gen remains unclear and should be addressed.
Strategic Siting: Are Standalone Batteries the Best Fit?
Critics point out that battery storage projects this large are most effective when co-located with major renewable energy generation, such as large wind farms. Terra-Gen is already developing:
Yet this proposed battery facility is not located near any such generation. In Ulster County, we have been focused on developing more local solar farms, but they are intermittent and typically consumed on-site, meaning there’s little excess to store and shift during overnight hours. Without a viable renewable energy source to pair with, some question the value of a large standalone battery facility in the Town of Ulster (and especially lithium-ion) if they rely on fossil-fuel-generated grid electricity during peak times.
Take Action
Before moving forward, the Town of Ulster should send the EAF back to Alcazar for revisions to include all relevant agencies such as potential UCIDA, the City of Kingston School District, NYSERDA, and others. The Town should then issue a Positive Declaration under SEQR, recognizing the clear potential for significant environmental impacts, and approve a 90-day public scoping process. These critical steps guarantee a thorough environmental review, meaningful public involvement, and proper consideration of all impacts. SEQR’s effectiveness depends on strict adherence to these requirements to protect the community’s health, safety, and well-being.
Key Questions to Ask Terra-Gen
Will Terra-Gen apply for a PILOT through UCIDA? If yes, why is UCIDA missing from the EAF?
Since the project site is within the City of Kingston School District, which would be affected by any deviated PILOT impacting school tax revenues, why is the school district not listed as an involved agency in the EAF?
Why are other likely involved agencies like NYSERDA omitted? If Terra-Gen is pursuing grants, subsidies, or renewable energy credits through NYSERDA, why are these programs and the agency not disclosed in the EAF?
Questions for the Town of Ulster as Lead Agency
Under SEQR, a Positive Declaration must be issued if there is potential for even one significant adverse environmental impact. Given the scale and nature of this project, isn’t a Positive Declaration clearly warranted?
Will the Town commit to a 90-day public scoping period to provide the community with adequate time and opportunity to shape the scope of the environmental review and ensure all concerns are fully addressed?
The SEQR process may seem intimidating at first, but if you break it down into smaller steps, it’s actually quite easy to understand. If you have any questions about how it works, I can try to help. Feel free to call me at 845-750-7295.
We support battery storage and want to see more renewable energy in our community, but it must be done correctly. Your voice matters. Keep working with your elected officials to ensure transparency, accountability, and a thorough environmental review before this project moves forward.
The NYS Potential Environmental Justice Area that includes residential neighborhoods adjacent to the former John A. Coleman Catholic High School, located at 438 Hurley Ave. in the Town of Ulster (sandwiched between the City of Kingston and Town of Hurley).
By Rebecca Martin
When GlidePath first came to the Town of Ulster in 2017 with a proposal to build a 20-megawatt power plant fueled by natural gas and diesel, our community responded swiftly and decisively. The plan called for industrial-scale fossil fuel combustion in the heart of a 120-acre forest, just 680 feet from homes. Two smokestacks were slated to rise 30 feet above the treetops, threatening public health, neighborhood character, and the environment.
This proposal became the catalyst for the formation of TownOfUlsterCitizens.org, a grassroots organization that rallied neighbors and experts alike to demand a better solution. Their work played a vital role in redirecting the proposal toward a renewable-ready battery storage facility, a clean energy technology that GlidePath had already implemented elsewhere in New York.
The Power of SEQR and Public Engagement
Crucial to transforming the GlidePath project in 2017 was New York’s State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process, which requires thorough environmental review and public input. Thanks to this process, and elected and appointed officials responsive to informed public pressure, the project was paused and ultimately reimagined.
The result: a battery-only “peaker” facility relocated from the forest to an appropriate industrial zone. While the COVID-19 pandemic delayed its progress, the facility received extensions and GlidePath made a written commitment to permanently conserve 109 acres of the original forested site. This was a rare and meaningful win for clean energy, public health, and local conservation.
Unfortunately, the project stalled before the community could see the technology in action or deepen its understanding of how battery storage can work responsibly in our region.
A New Proposal Emerges: Terra-Gen’s Battery Storage Facility
Today, a new proposal is on the table from Terra-Gen, a U.S.-based renewable energy developer backed by Alcazar Energy, a major international clean energy investment firm.
On May 15, the Town of Ulster Town Board issued a letter of intent to serve as lead agency under SEQR, officially launching the state-mandated environmental review process.
We’re sharing this update now to ensure the public is informed and engaged from the very beginning, because this project, like the one in 2017, raises critical questions.
What’s Missing in the Application?
Our early review of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) shows some gaps. There could be others.
The site lies within the City of Kingston School District, which should be considered an involved agency if public subsidies like a PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) are sought.
The Ulster County Industrial Development Agency (UCIDA) is not named but would likely play a role if public financing is involved.
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan references are vague. The site spans both residential and commercial zones. Are battery facilities permitted uses?
The site is near the Lower Esopus Creek, a state-designated impaired waterbody, but this is not acknowledged in the application.
No reference is made to the Ulster County Open Space Plan (2010) or Natural Resources Inventory (2023).
Impacts to drinking water supplies are unknown.
The site borders a Potential Environmental Justice Area (PEJA). While not technically within one, its adjacency means nearby communities should be meaningfully considered in outreach and review.
Fire Safety
Battery storage is a critical clean energy solution, but it must be implemented with full awareness of the risks, including fire. Some community members have expressed deep concern about the risk of fire associated with large-scale lithium-ion battery storage, particularly when proposed so close to homes.
In this case, residents are living just 22 feet from the proposed project site. That kind of proximity dramatically raises the stakes. A serious fire event could threaten the safety of families and first responders.
On September 18, 2023, a fire broke out at a Terra-Gen battery storage facility in Valley Center, California, releasing thick black smoke. As of now, a full report on the cause has not been made public. This incident underscores the urgent need for rigorous fire prevention, risk assessment, and emergency response planning, especially when battery storage facilities are proposed near residential neighborhoods.
Where We Stand
Remember, we are volunteers just like you and are doing our best to understand any project of concern that is in front of us. We support clean energy and battery storage. But like in 2017, we demand that these projects be built responsibly, transparently, and in the right locations.
The gaps in the Terra-Gen proposal mean it’s too soon to say whether this site is appropriate for such a large-scale project. That’s why we’re calling for a rigorous review.
Take Action
Call for a Positive Declaration
Once the lead agency accepts its role under SEQR to lead the environmental review, it has 20 days to determine whether the proposed action may result in one or more significant adverse environmental impacts (6 NYCRR §617.7). If so, the agency is required to issue a Positive Declaration, which triggers the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and begins a public scoping process. The public should advocate for a Positive Declaration and request a 90-day scoping period to ensure robust public participation in the environmental review.
Ask the Right Questions
Contact the City of Kingston School District Board of Education: Ask whether they plan to be listed as an involved agency in SEQR if a PILOT is proposed
Reach out to the UCIDA: Ask if they are aware of any public financing requests from Terra-Gen, and if they should be included in the review.
Urge Ulster County to Step In
As an involved agency, request that the Ulster County Planning Department to review the FEAF now, during the lead agency coordination phase, and request a positive declaration in SEQR.
Request that they recommend:
Amending the application to acknowledge the Lower Esopus Creek as an impaired waterbody;
Inclusion of the Open Space Plan and Natural Resources Inventory, and any impacts based on them;
Consideration of local NYS potential environmental justice impacts.
Encourage neighbors and local groups to stay informed, participate in hearings, and submit comments.
Battery storage can be a powerful tool for a cleaner energy future, but only if it’s done right, with community voices at the center, public health prioritized, and full transparency throughout the process. The Town of Ulster has an opportunity to lead with integrity and foresight. Let’s make sure they get this right, together.
The Brookhaven Landfill sits in the backyard of our friend Monique Fitzgerald—an environmental justice organizer and co-founder of the Brookhaven Landfill Action and Remediation Group (BLARG). Monique lives in North Bellport, a predominantly Black and Latino community with the lowest life expectancy on Long Island and the second-highest asthma rate in Suffolk County. “The Brookhaven Landfill is the site of a major crisis,” Monique says, “polluting the air, land, and water of surrounding communities.”
In a recent letter to The Suffolk Times: “Waste to Energy Argument Doesn’t Hold Up“, she warned: “Labeling incineration as ‘renewable energy’ rewards polluters and harms vulnerable communities…Covanta (Reworld) Hempstead has repeatedly violated environmental standards. DEC’s failure to conduct in-stack monitoring has left critical gaps in understanding the true extent of pollution from this site. The Town of Brookhaven’s $1 million settlement falls far short of remediating the harm done to the community.”
Currently, Ulster County legislators are in talks with Sullivan County about exploring the potential of a ReWorld incinerator in Sullivan County that would require 500,000–900,000 tons of waste per year. Sullivan produces just 120,000; Ulster produces 140,000. They’d need additional counties to partner in order to get their waste tonnage to meet ReWorld’s required threshold for operation. A 20-year commitment would lock both counties into a polluting system, and seriously undermine any credible path toward Zero Waste.
This is not an easy subject, and there are many moving parts around managing Ulster County’s waste. For now, please consider attending tomorrow’s Ulster County Legislature meeting to speak during public comment.
Take action.
The public must act now to shut down any discussions about polluting incineration or so-called “waste-to-energy” projects for our trash in Ulster County, whether proposed in our county or elsewhere. Although these talks are currently happening in committee and not yet on the full county legislature’s agenda, the public can still make its voice heard. Community members are encouraged to show up at legislative meetings and speak during the public comment period on this issue before harmful decisions are made in the background.
WHAT
Provide public comment during Ulster County Legislature meetings
WHERE
Ulster County Legislative Offices located at 244 Fair Street, 6th floor
WHEN
The next one is Tuesday, May 20 at 6:45pm. They meet third Tuesday of each month
HOW
Sign-up to speak after 6:00pm on the 6th floor of the county building. Comments must be no more than 2-minutes in length (approximately 260 words)
TALKING POINTS
To help you further, we’ve created this FACT SHEET with more information.
Manage Waste Locally and Responsibly: Ulster County must take responsibility for its own waste instead of sending it to other communities that bear the environmental and health impacts.
Say No to Incineration and so-called “Waste-to-Energy”: Incinerators and so-called “waste-to-energy” facilities pollute the air, harm frontline communities, and undermine real solutions to the waste crisis. These private businesses profit by burning more trash – not less – discouraging recycling, composting, and waste reduction.
Ulster County 2020 Solid Waste Plan: The county’s 2020 Solid Waste Management Plan focused on zero waste strategies and not incineration. That commitment should be upheld, not reversed.
Support a Zero Waste Implementation Plan: Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency (UCRRA) is working toward a Zero Waste Implementation Plan. They must be supported to finalize this plan and create a public, transparent timeline so residents and legislators can track progress, support efforts, and avoid unexpected policy shifts.
Support Proven Waste Reduction Strategies: Ulster County should explore successful models like Vermont’s Universal Recycling Law (Act 148), fully implemented by 2020, bans food scraps from landfills, significantly increasing composting efforts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and implement initiatives such as “pay-as-you-throw” programs. These approaches incentivize waste reduction and help shift us away from a throwaway culture toward more responsible, sustainable behavior.
WHAT Provide public comment during Ulster County Legislature meetings
WHERE Ulster County Legislative Offices located at 244 Fair Street, 6th floor
WHEN The next one is Tuesday, May 20 at 6:45pm. They meet third Tuesday of each month
WHY Urge the Ulster County Legislature to focus on managing our waste locally and transparently. They must say no to polluting incineration or so-called “waste to energy” projects that are toxic, polluting and false solutions. The public deserves a clear, accessible roadmap that outlines the county’s plans, proposed policies, and legislation posted on a public-facing web page. These steps should be guided by the Zero Waste Hierarchy, prioritizing waste reduction, reuse, and responsible resource management.”
HOW Sign-up to speak after 6:00pm on the 6th floor of the county building. Comments must be no more than 2-minutes in length (approximately 260 words)
A collaborative post by KingstonCitizens.org and TownOfUlsterCitizens.org
New York State is known for its progressive environmental policies, but its waste management practices tell a different story. Every day, trash from cities like Kingston is hauled more than 500 miles round trip to Seneca Meadows, the state’s largest landfill, located in Seneca Falls, a small community of approximately 8,800 people. 1 These residents unfairly bear the burden of much of New York State’s waste – pollution, heavy truck traffic, foul odors, and long-term environmental degradation. With the landfill’s permit up for renewal, residents are calling for its closure by December 31, 2025, 2 and we fully support their demand.
Despite knowing for nearly a decade about the impending closure of Seneca Meadows, Ulster County still lacks a clear county-wide plan for responsibly managing its own waste.
Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency (“UCRRA”) currently sends 140,000 tons of Municipal Solid Waste (“MSW”) and Construction & Demolition (“C&D”) debris to the Seneca Meadows landfill in Seneca Falls, which is approximately 253 miles each way, averaging 12 trips a day, six days a week. 3
At the same time, several of our Ulster County Legislators think incineration and other so-called “waste-to-energy” projects are a solution to waste management, but incineration is just another harmful approach that exposes those living nearby to toxic pollutants like dioxins, mercury and other highly toxic metals, nitrogen oxides (triggers asthma attacks) and fine particulate matter that threaten public health and the environment. The process also generates toxic ash that is also being landfilled in a more concentrated, dangerous form. Incineration doesn’t solve our waste problem; it compounds it.
Furthermore, it is inefficient at producing energy. For instance, the trash incinerator in Peekskill (the largest in the Hudson Valley) produces only 1/10th as much electricity as the Cricket Valley gas-fired power plant. 4
“Trash incineration is the most expensive and polluting way to manage waste or to make energy,” said Mike Ewall, Executive Director of Energy Justice Network and one of our longstanding, key partners. “It is dirtier than landfilling and, as the state has documented, is more polluting than coal burning.”5
The disparity in New York’s environmental policies
The push for incineration and then the continued reliance on exporting our trash to landfills and incinerators in other counties and states reminds us of our fracking moratorium. In 2014, the state banned hydraulic fracturing (fracking) due to its environmental and health risks. However, we continue to import fracked gas from other states.
New York’s climate goals also expose another contradiction: the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) project. This hydropower initiative brings energy from Quebec to New York, but it comes at the cost of flooding rivers and disrupting ecosystems in Canada, displacing Indigenous communities in the process. 6
If we are serious about environmental justice, New York must stop neglecting the communities bearing the brunt of our waste. The state has a history of greenwashing – promising change while allowing harmful practices to persist. Real progress means addressing our waste locally, not shifting the burden onto others.And instead of relying on harmful waste management methods like incineration or exporting trash to landfills and incinerators in other counties and states, we must focus on reducing waste at its source through systemic change, and develop our own in-county, publicly-owned disposal capacity to handle our own waste responsibly. This includes mandating composting to divert organic material from landfills and incinerators, banning single-use plastics and excessive packaging, and holding manufacturers accountable for the waste their products generate. Public education is crucial, as people need to understand the environmental impact of their consumption and what they can do to reduce it. Waste management solutions should be localized, equitable, and designed to serve, not burden, communities.
In Ulster County, composting should be mandatory, just like wearing a seatbelt. Just as seatbelt laws protect public safety, mandatory composting is essential for reducing waste, cutting methane emissions, and conserving valuable resources. It’s an easy, effective way for everyone to contribute to responsible waste management because, like seatbelt laws, it’s about the collective good, not just individual choice.
Reducing waste instead of investing in polluting alternatives In 2024, the Sullivan County Legislature began exploring the development of a so-called “Waste to Energy” plant in the county. In January, Ulster County Legislator Kevin Roberts persuaded Sullivan County to pass a resolution opposing a landfill in Wawarsing, suggesting that Ulster County might instead partner with Sullivan to bring a Covanta facility to the region. 7
In April, a bipartisan group of Ulster County legislators and guests toured Covanta’s incinerator in Westbury, Long Island – a troubling sign that outdated, polluting waste management strategies are still being considered. Since the tour, proponents have been actively circulating Covanta presentations and research in support of a regional so-called “waste to energy” facility. At the May meeting of the Energy and Environment Committee, committee members – including three legislators who participated in the tour – held an extended discussion on the potential benefits of bringing this polluting plant to the region. 8
Let’s be clear: incineration is not a solution. Studies have shown that incineration (and landfilling toxic ash) is 2-3 times more harmful for health and environment than going directly to landfills without burning first, and most of the landfill impacts can be reduced if we keep food scraps and yard waste out of them by composting. Instead of doubling down on harmful infrastructure, our leaders need to work with the public to develop systems that reflect the principles of the Zero Waste Hierarchy. This framework defines Zero Waste as the conservation of all resources by means of responsible production, consumption, reuse, and recovery of products, packaging, and materials without burning and with no discharges to land, water, or air that threaten the environment or human health. It offers a guide for real systemic change that prioritizes waste prevention and community well-being.
Ulster County already has a promising composting program, with plans in the works for its expansion. Our county legislators should focus on engaging the public to support the Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency in investing in this program, rather than touring incinerators. It’s a non-starter. Take action.
The public must act now to shut down any discussions about polluting incineration or so-called “waste-to-energy” projects for our trash in Ulster County, whether proposed in our county or elsewhere. Although these talks are currently happening in committee and not yet on the full county legislature’s agenda, the public can still make its voice heard. Community members are encouraged to show up at legislative meetings and speak during the public comment period on this issue before harmful decisions are made in the background.
WHAT Provide public comment during Ulster County Legislature meetings
WHERE Ulster County Legislative Offices located at 244 Fair Street, 6th floor
WHEN The next one is Tuesday, May 20 at 6:45pm. They meet third Tuesday of each month
WHY Urge the Ulster County Legislature to focus on managing our waste locally and transparently. They must say no to incineration or so-called “waste to energy” projects that are toxic, polluting and false solutions. The public deserves a clear, accessible roadmap that outlines the county’s plans, proposed policies, and legislation posted on a public-facing web page. These steps should be guided by the Zero Waste Hierarchy, prioritizing waste reduction, reuse, and responsible resource management.”
HOW Sign-up to speak after 6:00pm on the 6th floor of the county building. Comments must be no more than 2-minutes in length (approximately 260 words)
The house in 1906 before the Myron Teller updates. (LOC)
The house today with ivy engulfing the west elevation, June 29, 2025.
