Civics

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.

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.

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

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.

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

by
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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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. 
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

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

by
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.

The plan: to build 300 industrial lithium-ion batteries in 14-foot-tall containers covering nearly 12 acres of a 15-acre property at the former John A. Coleman Catholic High School in the Town of Ulster, near the borders of Kingston and Hurley.

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.

Elevate Community Voices

  • Review Environmental Justice maps and determine what additional outreach is required;
  • 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.

Development and Environment go Hand-in-Hand

by

Local marketing and public relations consultant Raleigh Green’s recent commentary “Housing vs. Environmentalists” (August 21, 2024) starts with several wrongheaded assumptions that demand correction. In contrast to Green’s conjecture, development and environmental protection aren’t incompatible; Ulster County and New York State do provide explicit guidelines for developers; and the affordable housing crunch isn’t a result of environmental policies.                                                                             

For starters, Green relies upon a tired old dichotomy that pits development against the environment. Few in politics believe that sustainable development is equivalent to being anti-development. As a consultant for developers, Mr. Green should know well established zoning and planning trends have produced longstanding guidelines with incentives for Smart Growth. The most successful and responsible developers apply this approach. 

Green falsely asserts that no one knows where building is supposed to happen in Ulster County despite the fact that the Ulster County Open Space Plan has been readily available to the public since 2007.  Moreover, all successive policy adoptions have tracked this plan in identifying priority and growth conservation areas.  In fact, following the guidance from the Open Space Plan, municipalities have had the opportunity to change their zoning to limit development in outlying areas and strategically promote it where infrastructure already exists. The Open Space plan makes clear to planners and policy makers where development should occur. In short, municipalities have changed zoning plans to encourage this mindful approach.

Nor is Ulster County’s lack of affordable housing a result of a purported tension between development and the environment. Instead, the lack of affordable housing is a consequence of a complex set of factors including a failed political will to implement plans for over two decades. In 2005, the Ulster County Housing Strategies Plan clearly mandated the development of affordable and mid-income housing. Without committed political support, affordable housing projects stalled. Increasingly, the community and policymakers have recognized a need for decisive action, making a renewed and concerted effort to plan and implement affordable housing. For instance, the Ulster County planning office has developed a Housing Smart Communities initiative that encourages communities to change their zoning codes to support  Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The governor has generated financial support for homeowners who are willing to build ADUs in communities that have adopted this zoning strategy. Zoning changes that accommodate ADU’s relieve short-term housing pressure. 

Green falsely states that town zoning effectively bans any form of building. The zoning law emerges directly from a community’s comprehensive plan.  Those laws help to organize how land is developed within a municipality, providing rules and principles for land use. The very essence of zoning is not to ban building but to guide it and protect investments by assuring that developers comply with the law. 

The City of Kingston just revamped its zoning code in significant ways to redress the housing crisis and provide clarity about development. The new Kingston code allows for more types of housing within a walkable distance while incorporating standards that encourage diversity. 

Green further contends that Ulster County is unclear about protected lands.  Yet local and state laws explicitly provide guidelines and standards for protecting wetlands, water resources, historic sites, and endangered species and their habitats, as part of “critical environmental areas.” Any capable development team can utilize The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), to save time and money by an initial site assessment, which is required prior to a full submission to planning boards. Furthermore, these environmental laws are not unique to Ulster County: They are universal in New York State. 

Ulster County has plenty of space for development that fulfills housing needs, protects the environment, and enables Mr. Green’s clients to make profits. The county’s open space plan plainly identified “priority growth areas” that could accommodate a significant amount of housing, while also reducing the carbon footprint that sprawls into open spaces with no infrastructure. The consonant goal is to protect land rich in natural resources while creating more complete and equitable communities. The most successful developments harmoniously achieve both goals. 

Economic data tells us that new luxury housing development in our rural open spaces does not bring revenue to local governments. Instead, tax rolls are actually highly burdened by sprawl.  Housing, developed away from community centers, adds substantial fiscal burdens to municipal budgets, including public infrastructure, road maintenance, and emergency services costs. Those expenses far outstrip the taxes residents in developments pay. These municipal losses don’t include the tax breaks often given to developers to encourage their projects. On the other hand, development in areas with existing infrastructure is both fiscally responsible, more environmentally sustainable, and profitable.

When communities develop in priority growth areas, they efficiently utilize the infrastructure already paid for by the public. With transportation networks in place, workers and families find affordable housing with easier access to work and schools and seniors are able to age in place with greater services available to them. This is not social engineering – it’s democracy. When communities rather than private developers decide for themselves how to address citizens’ needs in a way that reflects their values, they exercise self-government. By working within the policy guidelines of documents like the Open Space Plan and the county’s housing initiatives, municipalities can engage with developers in ways that harness the public good for development. The path to cooperation and coordination is one that requires developers and their paid consultants to be transparent, cultivate trust, and develop a consensus rather than to dictate plans and to pursue backroom deals. No one advocates a hardline against development; rather, citizens want Smart Growth. 

Mr. Green may ask where his clients may find and build housing with existing infrastructure? Only a failure of imagination can lead to such a question. In Kingston, we have existing infrastructure in need of development in Midtown and the Rondout. In the Town of Ulster, the Hudson Valley Mall awaits development from someone with vision. These are just a few examples. 

Mr. Green criticized the Woodstock Land Conservancy (WLC), implying that the organization was obstructionist to developers and to those advocating for affordable housing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Green is no neutral observer who simply seeks answers from WLC. The Kingston Wire neglects to mention that Mr. Green is a paid consultant for developers.  As an ethical matter, both Kingston Wire and Mr. Green should be open about his affiliation with developers. Transparency would bolster the journalistic integrity of the Kingston Wire and provide readers with a better context in which to evaluate Mr. Green’s argument. The WLC plays a valuable role in our community and has consistently stood shoulder to shoulder with citizens against projects that threatened our municipal drinking water source (Niagara Bottling’s effort to bottle and sell Kingston’s municipal water source) and air quality (Glidepath’s peaker plant project 600 hundred feet from a residential area in the Town of Ulster). WLC has also championed affordable housing. 

Like so many other actors on the political landscape, Mr. Green creates division by perpetuating an outdated narrative about the tensions between the environment and development. The two are not opposed – they’re congruous. Now more than ever we need developers, consultants, elected officials and policymakers who understand that we need effective investments that promote equitable economic and sustainable growth. Development is not an either/or proposition when it comes to sustainability, inclusion, and investment. Developers and consultants can make a good living while respecting the community’s zoning and environmental regulations. Contrary to what Mr. Green believes, we all know that communities need developers to achieve affordable housing goals. But, no one advocates for rudimental, undifferentiated development. Instead, smart development helps everyone.

KingstonCitizens.org
Rebecca Martin, Lynn Eckert, Sarah Wenk, Marissa Marvelli, Tanya Garment, Giovanna Righini

TownOfUlsterCitizens.org
Laura Hartmann

Can Ulster County Commissioners run for Party Chair?

by

By Rebecca Martin

In early March of 2020, we sought out Ashley Dittus, Democratic Commissioner at Ulster County Board of Elections and Roger Rascoe, Chair of the Ulster County Republican Committee, to ask a series of questions regarding the process of running for chair of the Ulster County Democratic and Republican parties. 

This was of particular interest after learning back then that Ashley planned to run for the Democratic county chair seat while holding the position of Commissioner for the Board of Elections. It struck me as being potentially riddled with conflicts.

Now in September and with the upcoming county party leadership organizational meetings, a conflict emerged between the old and the new.  Larissa Shaughnessy, chair of the Ulster County Young Democrats, put out a public statement, “…a spreadsheet document owned by Ashley (Dittus) was shared with our sitting Congressmember’s campaign staff and labels several Young Democrat members whom she suspects of not supporting her candidacy for Chair with the comments “kill” and “maim”.

Following the discovery, Ashley was asked by many influential party members to step down from her bid to lead the Ulster County Democratic party and instead, to continue to focus her efforts as Commissioner for the Board of Elections.

In a letter written by Pat Courtney Strong, a member of the County Democratic Committee who has run for both State Senate (2018) and Ulster County Executive (2019), she outlined many shared concerns. 

“When I ran for the State Senate in 2018, I had the opportunity to meet many terrific, hard-working Democrats from the five-county area that comprises the 46th Senate District…In one of the counties, the Democratic Elections Commissioner was also the Democratic Party chairperson….it was not a good situation—both in “optics” and reality. It makes the party leadership appear to be a small, insular group that doesn’t welcome new voices. And it was plain to see that there is an inherent conflict in one person holding the two positions. It means that this individual has the responsibility of recruiting candidates—encouraging people she/he believes can win—as well as disseminating information to all candidates in a fair manner. It means that, as a county employee, the commissioner presents a budget to the county legislature—and then holds influence over those same people as party chair when they are candidates. These are just two of many conflicts that can arise…”

On Thursday of last week, Ashley withdrew from the race.

Read more…

The Need for Charter Reform Becomes Obvious and Urgent

by

Editorial Board

In a surprise February 3 press release, Mayor Steve Noble announced a major proposal to restructure the Departments of Public Works (DPW) and Parks & Recreation, which would greatly expand the current role of the Superintendent of DPW to oversee both departments. The Mayor’s proposal also creates a new Deputy position who would oversee several divisions, including parks maintenance, recreation programming, environmental education programs, along with sanitation. He even had a person ready to provisionally fill this new position immediately: his wife, Julie Noble, who is currently a city environmental education and sustainability coordinator.

Not surprisingly,  his proposal has not been received well. There have been cries of nepotism and ethics charges have been filed. Members of the Common Council, who had little or no warning of this proposal before it was announced to the public, have expressed unusual hesitation. However, there may be a silver lining in this mess.

READ: Kingstoncitizens.org’s “City Government is not a Mayor’s Oyster: The Restructuring of DPW, Parks & Recreation and Nepotism”

Kingston’s city charter in its current form gives the Mayor considerable power. He alone appoints all commissions and boards. He hires and fires officials, not all of whom have the credentials necessary for the particular role. The silver lining? His egregious heavy-handedness has a lot of people talking about the need for charter reform. The Mayor himself has supported charter reform in the past, and at the Common Council’s Laws & Rules Committee on February 19,  he admitted that the charter was outdated and expressed his desire to work in partnership with the Council to update it in a comprehensive manner.   

VIDEO of Laws and Rules Committee meeting on February 19, 2020. 

Why charter reform now?

According to the New York Department of State’s ‘Revising City Charters In New York State’ technical series, a city charter, “…is the basic document that defines the organization, powers, functions and essential procedures of the city government. It is comparable to the State Constitution and to the Constitution of the United States. The charter is, therefore, the most important single law of any city.”

Those who have followed KingstonCitizens.org know that for the last decade, reforming Kingston’s charter has been a major goal of ours.  That’s because in 1993, after many years of hard work by citizens with support from folks like the local Chamber of Commerce and League of Women Voters, there was a referendum to change Kingston’s form of government to a City Manager form.  It passed overwhelmingly. However, Kingston’s newly elected and popular Mayor, T.R. Gallo (who had also served briefly on the charter commission but stopped showing up some say in protest of the City Manager discussion) was unhappy with the new charter as it would diminish the powers of his office.  Swiftly, Gallo put together his own charter commission only a few months into the new charter’s passage. As Tom Benton describes it in his commentary “How Kingston got its ‘strong mayor’” in the Kingston Times, “As for the proposal itself, it was rather ingeniously constructed by taking the newly adopted charter and merely replacing the words “city manager” with “mayor” throughout. There were some other modifications, of course,  but that was the essence of it. And here was the effect: Under the adopted charter, the city manager was given very broad and powerful executive authority, the governmental check on that authority being control and supervision by the Common Council. Under the new proposal, an elected mayor would have the same broad authority, but would be entirely free from any such control or supervision by the council. Strong mayor, indeed!”   Kingston voters approved a “strong mayor” form of government by a narrow margin.  “…The city manager charter adopted a year earlier was consigned to history without ever having been tried and the era of the strong mayor was ushered in.”      This is the reason why—by design and by accident—Kingston’s executive branch has the power that it has without sufficient checks and balances.  

Charter reform introduced by Kingston Common Council in 2019.

As recently as  June 2019, Ward 9 Councilmember Andrea Shaut—who now serves as the Council President—introduced the subject of charter reform to the Laws & Rules Committee, which she then chaired. It was her desire that there be a collective effort to educate themselves and the community about the value of revising the charter to reflect the current needs of Kingston. 

While it was a welcome first step, her Council colleagues did not see a pressing need for action and the effort did not advance.  We are optimistic that its time has arrived.

READ: KingstonCitizens.org, “Education is Key. Common Council Takes Up Charter Revision Discussion”

Next steps

There are a host of reasons, all simple and sensible, why we have always thought that Kingston should return to a City Manager form of government.  Because it is unconstitutional to require that candidates for Mayor to have certain qualifications to hold the office beyond being a U.S. citizen and above a certain age,  our local government is led by individuals who learn on the job (hopefully) and who can restructure the administration to suit their agenda and biases. With a City Manager or administrator form of government, there are still officials popularly elected to represent the community.  The advantage of having a City Manager is that they have skills and experience specific to government administration. If they do well in their position, they can remain no matter who is elected. The same would be true for any department head.  

As practical-sounding as our opinion may be, it’s only one in a city of 24,000 people. To change the form of government is serious business. It has to be a community-based conversation guided by an unbiased facilitator. The product of this effort would be a revised charter for voters to adopt by referendum.  

We appreciate the Mayor and Council members’ support of charter reform. If they are at all serious about it, then we believe that the Mayor’s proposal to merge departments should be thrown out. An acting Superintendent of Parks & Recreation can be appointed and they can spend the next few months working with the Superintendent of the Department of Public Works to identify any tasks under Parks & Recreation that are better suited for DPW. Together, they can submit a list of recommendations to the Mayor for his consideration. 

It’s been 25 years since our city charter was last examined in a comprehensive manner. It is the responsibility of the community at large to insist that it happens. The time has never been more right.

KingstonCitizens.org Challenges Kingstonian Applicant’s Zoning Interpretation and Citizen Action of New York Submits FOIL Request to City of Kingston

by
City of Kingston Zoning Map. The boundaries of the Uptown MUOD mirror those of the Stockade Historic District shown in gray.

By Rebecca Martin

For months, many concerned citizens have asked the City of Kingston to provide its interpretation of the Mixed Use Overlay District—an overlay that adds a 20% affordable housing requirement to any adaptive reuse project with five or more residential units—as it relates to the Kingstonian project, a new construction that does not include affordable housing. This interpretation should have been provided to the applicant in writing prior to the start of the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process.

Presumably, it should be easy enough for the City to upload this existing document to the Planning Office’s project page for the Kingstonian. If not, then the public can FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) it. If such a document does not exist, then the City ought to provide an explanation about how it assists applicants with complicated zoning interpretations.

On August 16th, in a letter oddly addressed to just three private citizens, the City of Kingston Corporation Counsel’s office outlined its process for the current Zoning Officer to issue a formal interpretation of the “relevant sections of the Code.” The letter states that any additional submissions or written arguments regarding the proper interpretation may be sent to the Zoning Enforcement Officer on or before the close of business on August 30th. 



Click on image to read the Corporation Council’s formal zoning interpretation process letter for the MUOD and the Kingstonian Project.

On August 28th, the attorney representing the Kingstonian applicant, Michael Moriello, submitted his written interpretation of the MUOD, concluding that “…there has been no waiver or violation of any zoning law 20% affordable housing requirement with respect to issuance of a Special Use Permit, as affordable housing guidelines do not apply to new construction within the Mixed Use Overlay District under the City of Kingston Zoning Law.”      


Click on image to read the Kingstonian applicant’s interpretation of the MUOD as it pertains to the Kingstonian Project.

On August 30th, the City forwarded that interpretation via email to the same three citizens with the instruction that “…written responses to the arguments submitted will be accepted for a period of one additional week.” That deadline is today, September 9th. 

So today, KingstonCitizens.org, assisted by attorney and counselor at law Emily B. Svenson, submitted a letter to the City of Kingston’s Zoning Officer rebutting the applicant’s attorney’s interpretation.  


Click on image to read KingstonCitizens.org and attorney Emily B. Svenson’s letter to the City of Kingston’s Zoning Officer rebutting the applicant’s attorney’s interpretation

What follows is a condensed version of our letter:

“KingstonCitizens.org is a non-partisan, grassroots, volunteer organization. Its purpose in commenting is to advocate for fair and proper application of the City’s zoning code, in accordance with the group’s ongoing advocacy for equitable housing, historic preservation, and environmental protection to benefit the Kingston community. Particularly for a project that is receiving significant public funding, it is vital to ensure that the project truly benefits the community.”

“In response to the applicant’s recent submittal, we respectfully ask that you expand your interpretation to determine whether the code authorizes new construction of residential uses at the proposed Kingstonian location. As this letter will show, it does not.”

“The applicant’s strenuous argument that the provisions of the MUOD do not apply to the Kingstonian raises an important question: Does the MUOD support the project at all?”

“The only authorization within the MUOD to establish a residential use is by converting an existing structure into apartments or live/work spaces. As the applicant agrees, that type of adaptive reuse would be subject to affordable housing requirements.”

“If the City of Kingston Common Council had intended for the MUOD to allow construction of new housing complexes, it would have written that into the overlay district. It did not. The Council was clearly attempting to facilitate the adaptive reuse of outdated buildings, while ensuring the resulting apartments would include affordable units. It defies logic to posit that the Council intended to simultaneously allow new construction of apartments without affordable units. Indeed, nothing in the code authorizes that use.”

“Because there is no authorization within the zoning code for new construction of housing at this location, we ask that you issue a determination that the project does not conform to the zoning code. The applicant would have multiple options to proceed, including pursuing a use variance or zoning change, or modifying the project to conform to the code.”

Citizen Action of New York submits FOIL to City of Kingston 

Meanwhile, on September 6th, Citizen Action of New York submitted a FOIL request to the City of Kingston for all communications between  the applicable City staff identified in the Kingstonian applicant’s Environmental Assessment Form and Addendum letter: 

“…copies of all records and documented communications, including written correspondence and emails between former City of Kingston Building and Safety Division Deputy Chief Tom Tiano, City of Kingston Fire Department Fire Chief Mark Brown, Kingston Planning Director Suzanne Cahill, City of Kingston assistant planner Kyla Haber and the Kingstonian applicant and development team from January 1, 2018 – May 1, 2019.”

Citizen Action also requested a 45-day extension of the review process for the Kingstonian applicant’s zoning amendment application in order to give the organization time to review the forthcoming information provided by the City. These communications may shed light on any discussions that the City had with the applicant regarding the interpretation of the zoning for the Kingstonian project site prior to the commencement of the project’s SEQR process.

Click on image to read Citizen Action of New York’s FOIL request to the City of Kingston and 45-day process extension.

What’s next?

On Wednesday September 11th, the Planning Board will convene for a special meeting to discuss the studies and comments it has received in relation to the Kingstonian project’s potential environmental impact. While it is unlikely that the Board will issue its SEQR determination at this meeting, the discussion should shed some light on the viewpoints of the individual members.  

VIEW Facebook event

Zoning, the Mixed Use Overlay District, Comprehensive Plans and the Kingstonian Project

by

A comprehensive plan is a powerful document in New York State that creates a framework for making important decisions while guiding growth and development. Kingston’s own plan, adopted by the Common Council in April 2016, quite forcefully calls for an affordable housing requirement in new developments:

“Strategy 1.1.2: Require affordable housing for any new or expanded residential building or development project.  The City should consider expanding the number of projects that must provide a ‘fair share’ of affordable housing. Currently, affordable housing is only required for projects taking advantage of the mixed-use overlay district provisions.” (p. 21, Kingston 2025)

The City of Kingston continued to promote that goal in its 2017 Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) application in which the Kingstonian Project was proposed:

“Housing development in the Stockade Business District (SBD) has been limited, and a significant percentage of renters in the SBD and surrounding area are cost burdened, spending more than 30% of their incomes on housing costs.”  (Executive Summary of the City of Kingston’s 2017 DRI application).

However, in February of 2019, the developers of the Kingstonian Project submitted an application that includes 129 market-rate residential units in the Stockade District. The mandate for affordable housing that is outlined in Kingston’s Comprehensive Plan seems to be ignored with this substantial project.

Read more…

Brooklyn Real Estate Management Company Negatively Impacts Quality of Life in Ulster County.

by

 

Last evening, we attended the Sunset Gardens Tenant Association meeting at the Town of Ulster’s Senior Center.  One after another, tenants of apartment complexes in the Towns of Ulster and Esopus spoke of the shocking disrepair, unsafe conditions and treatment of those living at Sunset Gardens (ToU), Lakeshore Villas (ToE) and Black Creek Road (ToE).  Special thanks to Laura Hartmann and all of the citizens from Sunset Gardens who had the courage to organize.

The culprit – E & M Management – the real estate investment and management company based in Brooklyn, NY is mostly new to the area, gobbling up apartment complexes that include “68 apartments across from the Rondout Creek” in downtown Kingston and a vacant parcel near the Maritime Museum to build the “Kingston Waterfront Plaza”, a mixed-use project.  There is speculation that they are looking at Dutch Village, too – in uptown Kingston.

Although the planning process in Kingston is complete for their new build downtown – with a negative declaration in SEQR which is absolutely unbelievable – we are continuing our efforts to advocate for an improved development process for our planning department and planning board. We will keep a close eye on this company and work with our neighbors to assure that if E & M and all of their LLC partners want to come to our community, it is not on their terms.

Thanks to Clark Richters of The Kingston News for filming the event, brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org.

 

The Irish Cultural Center Gets a Pass to Move on to Site Plan Review

by

 

 

Click on the image of the map provided in the ICC’s FEAF regarding their parking waiver request.

CITIZEN CALL TO ACTION

Attend the Planning Board’s public hearing and speak to the ICC’s Site Plans and Parking Waiver.

WHEN:
Monday, April 16th, 2018
6:00pm

WHERE:
City Hall Council Chambers, 420 Broadway in Kingston

VIEW
The ICC Site Plan from March of 2018

 

by Hillary Harvey

On March 8, 2018, the Irish Cultural Center of the Hudson Valley (ICC) got a pass from the City of Kingston’s Zoning Board of Appeals to move on to the Planning Board’s Site Plan Review when it overturned another City Commission’s decision.

BACKGROUND

In what appears to be the City of Kingston’s first-ever appeal of a Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC) decision, the ICC appealed the September 25th, 2017, decision by the HLPC to deny the application a preservation notice of action, the approval necessary for the application to obtain a building permit from Kingston Building and Safety.  HLPC commissioners cited concerns

HLPC commissioners cited concerns with:

  • the width of the building
  • the proposal’s harmony with existing buildings and the desired character of the neighborhood
  • relation of the proposed building to neighboring buildings surrounding it
  • and proportion (how it fits in overall with the district)

The Zoning Board of Appeals heard evidence on the appeal and decided that the HLPC had approved the application in the past. They rendered their decision to overturn the HLPC’s decision and issue the preservation notice of action itself on March 8, 2018..

We looked for another instance where an HLPC decision was appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals in the City of Kingston but weren’t able to find any evidence of one.  The City’s Corporation Counsel together with the ICC’s lawyer determined that next step in an appeals process from their interpretation of the City’s Zoning Law for the HLPC:

§ 405-69 Appeals. 

Any person aggrieved by an action of the Commission in disapproving or limiting a preservation notice of action application and the Zoning Board’s support of such Commission action may bring a proceeding to review in a manner provided by Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules in a court of record on the ground that such decisions are illegal, in whole or in part.

What Are the Next Steps in the Process for the Public? 

On March 19th, 2018, the ICC returned to the City of Kingston’s Planning Board for Site Plan Review and a Parking Waiver request.  The Planning Board decided at that meeting to schedule a public hearing on those two elements of the application to be held on Monday, April 16th. 

The Site Plan has been updated to address some of the comments from the HLPC. The ICC is required by the City to provide 55 parking spaces, based upon calculations of the square footage of the building.  The ICC is offering to provide 8 parking spaces in a private parking lot next to the proposed building.  They are requesting a Parking Waiver for the remaining 47 spaces based on the availability of municipal and street parking within 400 feet of the ICC property.

Call to Action

Citizens are invited to attend the Planning Board’s public hearing and speak to the ICC’s Site Plans and Parking Waiver on Monday, April 16th, 2018, beginning at 6:00 pm. Kingston City Hall is located at 420 Broadway in Kingston.

Talking Points

PARKING:

*The ICC would be but one element of commercial activity in the Rondout.  Nearby restaurants, museums, and waterfront attractions already compete for parking.  The ICC’s proposed uses and inability to provide sufficient parking for itself would increase stress on other local businesses and Rondout economic development.

*The Rondout neighborhood is a deeply residential neighborhood where the majority of housing does not have driveways and residents rely upon street and municipal parking, particularly in the event of snow emergency parking restrictions.  The ICC would greatly increase stress on residents in relying heavily on municipal and street parking by preventing them from finding parking near their homes.

*The ICC’s proposal to use municipal lots for their parking needs would take away from mandated public access to the Marina and other water-based activities as outlined in the LWRP.

SAFETY (We don’t want the construction site to become an attractive nuisance.):

* The construction site needs to be secured with sturdy fencing or security guard every day.

ACCESS:

* Any closure of Company Hill Path will affect business and restrict public access to a National Register of Historic Places site.

LOGISTICS:

* What kind of funding do they have to complete the construction in a timely manner?
* What is their timeframe for construction?  What happens if they don’t meet the timeframe?

REQUEST:

  1. Don’t make a decision on the application on the same night as the public hearing.  The Planning Board members need time to digest the information submitted at the public hearing and in some cases, may need to conduct further research.  A vote that evening would appear to be a rush to approve the project.
  2. Deny the parking waiver.
  3. If site plan approval is granted, it should be contingent upon:
    1. No banquet hall use allowed, as the ICC promised.
    2. No noise permits granted and no outside speakers.
    3. No uses not fully enclosed in a structure allowed.
    4. Additional changes to the exterior should be reviewed by the HLPC.
    5. Only upon satisfactory answers to safety, access, and funding questions above.

—
Hillary Harvey is a journalist, and a zoning code activist, working for transparency and responsible development that considers the welfare of residents and small businesses. Together with her neighbors, she runs Grow the R-T Responsibly , a neighborhood collective dedicated to that cause.  A yogi and devoted traveler, she lives in an old house in Kingston’s historic Rondout district with her college sweetheart and their three muses.

KingstonCitizens.org’s Early Years. It All Began With a Ward Group.

by

By Rebecca Martin

While cleaning out boxes of old materials, I came across three of the original “Ward 9 Community Group” newsletters from back in 2007.  We’ve been at this a long time.  The Ward 9 Community Group was the effort that ultimately established KingstonCitizens.org as it is known today.

Enjoy these.

 

June 21st, 2007 (Click on image for full newsletter)

Our monthly educational forum featured former Mayor James Sottile and GAR Associates to discuss the revaluation process in Kingston.   The outcome, some residents saw their taxes double within a years time.

Minutes from a prior month’s educational forum on Sex offenders and current County Laws with former legislators Frank Dart and Jeannette Provenzano as well as DA Don Williams and more.

July 19th, 2007  (Click on image for full newsletter)

Our monthly educational forum featured the historian Lowell Thing to discuss how to care and repair your historic Bluestone Sidewalk.

Minutes from a prior month’s educational forum on GAR Associates and Former Mayor James Sottile to explain the revaluation process, and more.

August 16th, 2007  (Click on image for full newsletter)

Our monthly educational forum featured then Director of SUNY Ulster Retired and Senior Volunteer Program “Volunteering in your community: citizenship can make a difference!”   The following month, we hosted the first educational forum on updating the City of Kingston Comprehensive Plan with Jennifer Schwartz Berky, Suzanne Cahill and Dennis Doyle.  There were over 100 citizens in attendance!

Minutes from a prior month’s educational forum on caring for your Bluestone Sidewalks with Lowell Thing, and more.

 

WHAT TO EXPECT: Public Comment Brainstorming Session on Sunday, March 4th from 10am – 5pm and a Question About Eminent Domain.

by

WHAT TO EXPECT

VISIT: Our Facebook Event Page

On Sunday, March 4th, a Public Comment Brainstorming Session will occur at the Town of Ulster Senior Center located at 1 Town Hall Drive in Lake Katrine, NY (adjacent to the Town of Ulster Town Hall).

Citizens will have the opportunity to work together with experts to draft strong comments of concern for study as it pertains to the Lincoln Park Grid Support Center, a gas-fired power plant being proposed in the Town of Ulster.  Participants will work with a projected Google Doc. The afternoon will be facilitated by Rebecca Martin (KingstonCitizens.org), Laura Hartman and Regis Obijiski (TownOfUlsterCitizens.org).  Please bring your computer and any materials you wish to share with others.

As this is a ‘potluck’ affair, citizens are invited to bring a dish to share.  Food will be organized and served throughout the day thanks to Vince Guido.

This event is open to all citizens, NFP and municipal leaders wanting to contribute.

Sponsored by TownOfUlsterCitizens.org with support from KingstonCitizens.org


SCHEDULE AND EXPERTS


10am – 11:30am: ON EMISSIONS AND NOISE
Experts on Hand will include Evelyn Wright, Energy Economist, Sustainable Energy Economics, and member of Citizens for Local Power

11:30am – 1:30pm: ON COMMUNITY CHARACTER, COMMUNITY SERVICES, RUPTURES/FAILURES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Experts on hand will include Kevin McEvoy

1:30pm – 2:30pm: ON FLORA AND FAUNA
Experts on hand will include Nora Budziack

2:30pm – 4pm: ON WATER (SURFACE, GROUND, WETLANDS, STORM WATER, WASTEWATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE)
Experts on hand will include TBA

4pm – 5pm: ON SOCIOECONOMIC, FISCAL AND ALTERNATIVES
Experts on hand will include Audrey Friedrichsen, Land Use and Environmental Advocacy Attorney, Scenic Hudson

VISIT  ToU “Proposed Project” page for all relevant Lincoln Park Grid Documents.

 

By Rebecca Martin

On Sunday, March 4th, Citizens of Ulster County (and beyond) are invited to a Public Comment Brainstorming session in the Town of Ulster.  The event, created to support citizens in creating Scoping comments for the proposed Lincoln Park Grid Support Center project, a gas-fired peak power plant project in the Town of Ulster, will occur from 10am – 5pm at the Town of Ulster Senior Center (1 Town Hall Drive) in the Town of Ulster.

With a positive declaration announced on February 1st, the Town of Ulster (as Lead Agency) also released the Draft Scope for the proposal. Coalition partners (that include Catskill Mountainkeeper, KingstonCitizens.org, Scenic Hudson, Riverkeeper, CAPP – NY and Sierra Club Mid-Hudson Valley) and the public requested through letters and petitions a 90 day public comment period.  The Town approved 50 days, instead of 30 – making the deadline for public comment to be Thursday, March 22nd.

What is Scoping in SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) and why is it so important to the public and a project such as the proposed GlidePath Lincoln Park Grid Support Center, a gas-fired peak power plant in the Town of Ulster?

The purpose of scoping is to narrow issues and ensure that the draft EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) will be a concise, accurate and complete document that is adequate for public review.

The scoping process is intended to:

  • ensure public participation in the EIS development process;
  • allow open discussion of issues of public concern; and
  • permit inclusion of relevant, substantive public issues in the final written scope.

The scoping process can also allow the lead agency and other involved agencies to reach agreement on relevant issues in order to minimize the inclusion of unnecessary issues. Finally, scoping should help the sponsor avoid the submission of an obviously deficient draft EIS.

In a recent document provided to us by Andy Willner (founder of NY/NJ Baykeeper), he outlined for the public “SEQR for GlidePath Scoping”:

The Scope of Work shall require the applicant to:

  • consider relevant environmental impacts, facts and conclusions as required under SEQR; 
  • assess relevant environmental, social, economic and other adverse impacts; 
  • certify  how this project can be consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations 
  • assess how the action avoids or minimizes adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

 This is the “teeth” of SEQRA, and the only provision which clearly takes it beyond a mere environmental full disclosure procedure, and requires substantive results:

  • Therefore by including these analyses in the required scope of work the agency will have the information to enable it to consider fully the environmental consequences and to take these consequences into account when reaching a decision whether or not to approve an action. 

The scope of work shall include language that requires the applicant to prepare an EIS that must assess:

  • the environmental impact of the proposed action including short-term and long–term effects, 
  • any adverse environmental effects, 
  • any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, 
  • and “growth inducing aspects” of the proposed action.

The Scope of Work must require the applicant to consider all viable alternatives:

  • ………….contain an evaluation of “alternatives to the proposed action. The analysis of alternatives has been called the “driving spirit” of the SEQRA process.  The “range of alternatives must include the no-action alternative,” and “may also include, as appropriate, alternative: 
    • sites; 
    • technology; 
    • scale or magnitude; 
    • design; 
    • timing;
    • use; 

The Scope of work requires the applicant to assess the cumulative Impacts to water, air, wildlife, and quality of life:

What are the cumulative impacts? 

  • These are impacts on the environment that result from the incremental or increased impact of an action(s) when the impacts of that action are added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 
  • Cumulative impacts can result from a single action or a number of individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 
  • Either the impacts or the actions themselves must be related. 
  • Cumulative impacts must be assessed when actions are proposed to or will foreseeably take place simultaneously or sequentially in a way that their combined impacts may be significant. Considering the cumulative effects of related actions insures against stratagems to avoid the required environmental review by breaking up a proposed development into component parts which, individually, do not have sufficient environmental significance.” 

Because it is often difficult to distinguish between segmentation and the failure to address cumulative impacts and courts often muddle the concepts the applicant must include in its scope of work information to assist the agency in determining whether or not the project will both address cumulative impacts and avoid segmentation:

  • SEQRA generally prohibits “segmentation,” which is defined as “the division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are addressed under this Part as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance. Accordingly, “[e]nvironmental review of the entire project is required before ‘any significant authorization is granted for a specific proposal.’ The SEQRA regulations prescribe the basic contents of an EIS 

In the EIS, the lead agency is required to 

  • identify the relevant areas of environmental concern, 
  • take a “hard look” at them, 
  • and make a “reasoned elaboration” of the basis for its determination.

Additionally because this is a complex process the agency shall require the applicant to provide not just access to all of its consultants work products but funds to assist the agency in analyzing the materials to enable it to make a determination.  The agency may use these funds to hire professional engineers, environmental consultants, and for legal advice.

 

IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS:

VISIT  ToU “Proposed Project” page for all relevant Lincoln Park Grid Documents.

VIEW:  SEQR and GlidePath by Andy Willner

VIEW: SEQR Scope of Work by Andy Willner

 

 

HEADS UP: ON EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE TOWN OF ULSTER.

At the Town of Ulster Town Board Workshop meeting on March 1st, an item on eminent domain near the proposed Lincoln Park Grid Support Center project lands certainly caught my attention.

During the meeting, Supervisor James Quigley’s description of “Discussion on start of Eminent Domain Proceedings on a portion of Parcel SBL 48.12-1-20, corner of Miron Lane and Sottile Blvd, owned by Kingston Landing Development Corp”  seemed to indicate nothing more than the opportunity for the Town to acquire a parcel via eminent domain that would allow its entrance to the transfer station to be free and clear forevermore.

Later, during the public comment period, Town of Ulster citizen Dan Furman asked the Town Board, “….isn’t this what GlidePath is buying?”

“Yes. You’re absolutely right….the eminent domain takes it away from them before they buy it.”  said Supervisor Quigley.

The Town Board has given permission for a survey to take place, and for Town of Ulster lawyers to start drafting paperwork for the transaction to be approved at the next Town Board meeting (on March 15).

To be sure, it is recommended that citizens look into this land agreement more fully and request an explanation as to the suddenness of this transaction and whether or not it is an emergency situation.  If it is not, then perhaps it’s wise to request that the Town of Ulster delay any activity on lands that involves GlidePath and the Town of Ulster until the SEQR review is complete. 

LISTEN  Town of Ulster Town Board Workshop Meeting.

@ 6:28 – 9:06  – An explanation by the Town of Ulster Town Supervisor James Quigley on the need for eminent domain, where there is no mention of GlidePath.

@ 28:23 – 29:00 –  Town of Ulster Citizen Dan Furman inquires whether or not the parcel under discussion re: eminent domain is a part of what GlidePath is looking to acquire.  “Yes, you are absolutely right” says Supervisor Quigley.