Civics

GUEST POST Sleepless in Kingston: What I Learned about Train Horns and the Search for Quiet Zones

by

By Dan Nelson

My partner and I moved back to the East coast in spring 2023 after 35 and 25 years, respectively, living in Oakland, California. We managed to find a rental in Kingston (not easy!), which fortunately turned out to be a loft, so it had built-in studio space. Otherwise we would have been looking for studios in a market where they’re more expensive than the Bay Area (!). Our neighborhood in Oakland was mostly quiet at night, but some nights and early mornings featured muscle cars peeling out, fireworks (almost nightly in the 2-3 months leading up to July 4th), public fights, crazy people yelling on the sidewalk, etc. We were no strangers to sleep disturbance, but we had no idea about the freight trains of Kingston.

For about a year in 2024-25 we were looking for a house to buy. After looking at fifty-ish houses in person, being outbid on two, withdrawing a bid on one money pit, and unsuccessfully asking for a small contingency on the fourth house, the fifth house we bid on became ours. We knew it was one block from a rail crossing, but we had heard only one train pass during a brief daytime visit to the house, and were ready to end the search. We moved into the house, about 450 ft. from the Flatbush Ave. rail crossing, in February. 

As is probably obvious to anyone living here, there are many trains at all hours of the day and night. Kingston seems to be the only town or city of any size between Albany and New York City through which freight trains pass, all of which are operated by CSX. There are six rail crossings in Kingston proper, all in a one-mile stretch through our most densely-populated neighborhood. Publicly available info showed that there are 20 to 30 trains passing through Kingston in any given 24-hour period.

In March, after looking into what the law dictated about train signals, the first person I messaged about train noise was Suzanne Cahill, the Planning Director for the City of Kingston: “Despite only being required to sound one short and one longer horn (of undefined lengths) at each crossing, the trains routinely sound many blasts of an average of four seconds each, before during and after crossings. These blasts are of the same length and frequency at 4 AM as they are at 4 PM, in other words, regardless of the amount of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The vibrations—a result of poorly maintained tracks, some say—shake our entire house, rattling mirrors and furniture and waking us up a few times per night…..”

Peter Criswell, a former co-worker of mine who had since become an Ulster County representative, directed me to Bob Dennison, the Alderman for Ward 6 on the City of Kingston Common Council. In response to the first of several emails I would send, Bob (CC-ing Mayor Steve Noble and Kingston Common Council President Andrea Shaut) included a link to the Ulster County Quiet Zone Study (2024). I had already stumbled upon a study from 2006. He summarized the City’s take on it: 

“The cost of establishing a Quiet Zone in the City is significant and beyond the resources of the City at this time. 

“As you know, sounding the train horn is required when a train crosses a public street. There are four city streets crossing the tracks at grade close to your house which is part of the problem. 

“I know the Mayor is in conversation about the trains moving through the city with CSX but they are regulated by the Federal Government and mostly outside of our control. I suggest you contact our federal representatives for more information. 

“I understand and share your frustration. I hope the study is useful.”

A friend of a friend, who lives in Midtown near the Foxhall and Ten Broeck crossings and who was losing as much sleep as we were, had also been in contact with the City, and his take was that they were not prepared to do anything. Though it at first felt like the City was brushing us off, my impression now is that they are concerned and had already done a lot to look into possible solutions, including applying for a federal grant to establish a quiet zone.

Having read the 2006 study and noting that the busiest and most accident-prone crossings were Foxhall and Flatbush, my takeaway was that, in the 45-year period covered by the report, there were about 15 incidents involving vehicles or pedestrians being struck by trains, resulting in 4 fatalities and a number of injuries. It also appears that many, if not all, of these incidents occurred before the installation of the enhanced crossing protections that exist today, including the flashing crossing gates that were added roughly a decade ago (if anyone can confirm this, I would appreciate it). I asked myself and the City: 

  • What specific safety risks are the train horns intended to address, and are there alternative safety measures that could provide comparable protection while reducing noise impacts on nearby residents? 
  • How has the anticipated safety benefit of the horns been evaluated against the potential impacts on the thousands of residents who may be affected by nighttime noise throughout the year? 
  • What evidence exists regarding the frequency and likelihood of incidents that train horns are intended to prevent, and how was that weighed against the public health and quality-of-life impacts of routine horn use? 
  • How does the decision-making process balance the goal of preventing rare but serious incidents with the ongoing impacts that noise may have on residents, particularly during overnight hours? 

I still wanted to know what the City was prepared to do to address this chronic problem. I’d been in touch with Natalie Lincoln at Congressman Pat Ryan’s office and, while I was encouraged that they were looking into the matter, the conversation seemed to be going in circles. 

One thing that stood out was that neither the City nor Peter Criswell had mentioned the $1M grant secured by Senators Schumer and Gillibrand for the Safe & Accessible Flatbush & Foxhall Project. Even though a huge benefit to establishing a quiet zone was to eliminate train honking, the stated goal of it was to replace safety measures like horns with other safety measures in the form of physical markings and barriers to keep people and cars from wandering onto the tracks. I naturally wondered whether elements of a future quiet zone were already being contemplated as part of that work. At a minimum, there seemed to be potential overlap between the two efforts. If the City is already investing in crossing safety improvements, it seems reasonable to ask whether those improvements could also advance the long-term goal of reducing or eliminating routine train horn noise through a quiet zone designation. 

Natalie, who was extremely helpful and responsive, shared a substantial amount of information from the FRA (Federal Railway Administration), which I tried navigating. But by that point, I felt as though I was being bounced between different levels of government. The City had directed me to my federal representatives, and the FRA materials seemed to show that the necessary steps would ultimately need to be initiated and carried out at the local level. It started to feel a bit like a classic “Ask your mother” / “Ask your father” situation!

Natalie also explained that Kingston would likely be less competitive for the next round of Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program funding than larger communities such as Port Jervis. That made me wonder what steps the City could take on its own, or in partnership with state and federal agencies, rather than waiting for a future grant opportunity that may or may not materialize. 

Bob Dennison burst my bubble: 

“The Safe and Accessible Flatbush Foxhall Project does not include work necessary to establish a quiet zone. It’s primarily a pedestrian safety improvement project. It will include improvements to rail crossing but not to the extent necessary to make a quiet zone. 

“The biggest hurdle to a quiet zone is cost. In my experience the railroad will not participate in the cost of establishing a quiet zone. The list of requirements the FRA sent you is intimidating and it is typically their expectation that the local government will do the work and bear the cost necessary to establish the zone. 

“Some of the requirements, like closing low volume crossings, can be done by local government. Other improvements like new gates and fencing the railroad right of way are expensive and need cooperation of the railroad. 

“Of course the Railroad’s preference is to grade separate the crossings which is very costly and very difficult to implement, requiring  Right of Way acquisition and years to accomplish. As well as significant impact to the surrounding area. [“Grade separation” means to put passenger and freight traffic on different levels using overpasses and underpasses.]

“I suggest you reach out to the NYSDOT Rail Safety Unit in Albany. The Director is Ray Hessinger. I know this sounds like another hand off, but I understand your concern and think you will find them helpful.”

The list of infrastructure needed to establish a quiet zone didn’t seem particularly long: flashing gates, center lane delineators, safety markings, signage, and fencing. Hadn’t the City already implemented the flashing gates sometime between the 2006 and 2024 safety studies? If so, couldn’t this grant help fund some of the remaining items? It sounded like fencing around some of the crossings would be a significant expense, but the report focused that need mainly in the area around Broadway, where high school students cut across the tracks–a daytime activity, right?

At the end of the day, maybe the simplest, cheapest and easiest solution would be for trains to just not blow the horn more than they needed to. 

Meanwhile, Natalie assured me that the City was assiduously pursuing grant opportunities on more than one front:

Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program. The last round was in 2024 in the Biden Administration. We are waiting on the next round to be announced. It may be a combo FY25-FY26 Grant which combines two funding years into one application. 

Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program: This program provides funding for highway-rail or pathway-rail grade crossing improvement projects that focus on improving the safety and mobility of people and goods. Same timeline as the CRISI Program, keeping an eye on the latest found round. You can read about the funding we helped secure for Port Jervis through this program below.

“It is a little bit of a chicken/egg issue, but I know the safety concerns on Flatbush/Foxhall are being taken very seriously by the city. 

“I think the Ulster County Transportation Council might be a good place to direct some of these questions. You can read their old study on Kingston Quiet Zones from 2006 which might provide some helpful background too.“  

I filled Natalie in on what I’d learned from the City and she said:  “I think Bob is right, the hardest part is the cooperation of the railroad [CSX]. They really throw a wrench in the gears….”

At this point it was clear that there was not very much in the way of persuasion or cajoling that could be done. It all seemed to boil down to the willingness – and the funding – to implement the specific physical improvements required for a quiet zone,  all without any participation from CSX. 

Which brings us to the May 8th Town of Ulster council meeting, where not only did some citizens complain about the train noise, but Councilman Mike Schatzel did as well. Schatzel, who lives approximately 1,000 feet from the tracks and/or a crossing, spoke about the issue from his own experience. (Again, we live half that distance from a crossing.) The meeting was covered by the Daily Freeman, which reported that Schatzel: 

…acknowledged that reports of homeless people being near the tracks could be related to the change in horn use.

“There is no consistency on how the horns are blown,” he said. “Sometimes it’s one or two (short horns), sometimes they don’t let off on it until they get to Staples, maybe even farther. … There’s one particular guy that (on) Sunday night he just likes to lay on it from (Neighborhood Road) to Dunkin’ Donuts in Kingston [about 2 miles – DN]. He just won’t let up.”

Some residents said the issue is “extremely disruptive.”

“We have noticed a significant and concerning increase in train traffic along with unusually loud noise levels,” wrote residents Simone Garzella and Robert Canfield.

“Some trains in particular have been extremely disruptive at all hours of the day and night,” they wrote. “We are routinely being woken up between midnight and 5 a.m. During the day, it often feels as though we are living inside a train station.”

The piece quoted Town of Ulster Supervisor James Quigley, who had said CSX has been told of the complaints but received only standard responses.

“As a government, we jokingly call trying to deal with the railroads as trying to talk to God,” he said. “They don’t talk back. When I sent the email the other day to the representative that I usually communicate with at CSX, his short reply was ‘Thank you, but we comply with all federal railway administration requirements.’”

Quigley said a study previously undertaken by Kingston to determine whether rail crossings, including some in the town of Ulster, should be updated to allow train conductors to limit the number of times a horn is needed.

“Those intersections would require major engineering improvements,” he said. “If you were to go on to Grant Avenue, which is a four-lane crossing of the CSX tracks with a median, a grass median, and curbing in the middle, a quiet zone would produce gates that absolutely prevent any vehicle from entering onto the crossing, which gives the CSX railroad the right to change the horn patterns.”

Schatzel’s observation that there was a lot of inconsistency in horn use, and at times some particularly aggressive-sounding train horns, resonated with us. I think of it in the context of car drivers: the difference between a brief tap of the horn to signal that the light has changed and laying on the horn for five seconds is significant. A long horn blast communicates urgency, anger or danger. When you are on the receiving end of that sound, note your physiological response. Now imagine that same response occurring while you are asleep. How does the body react on a subconscious level?

The CSX Media Relations Director Austin Staton was at the meeting. The article noted his claim that the federal regulations give guidelines “…with specific guidance on timing and volume….” He’s correct that horn volume is specific: between 96 and 110 dB. The “timing” specifies a certain distance, confusingly not a linear distance but a time to destination: 15 to 20 seconds before the train’s lead car reaches the crossing. But in the “two long, one short and one long blast” at each crossing, the regulations don’t specify the duration of the blasts.

In CSX’s view, one or both of these things would need to happen to change their behavior: enhanced safety infrastructure such as gates and medians, and concrete information about when and how long CSX engineers are sounding their horns. In fact, after a couple of exhausting months dealing with this issue, I was ready to give up and accept what many people had said: “You’ll get used to it.” Until, that is, Staton said,

 “If you can’t give me specific locations and times I can’t speculate on this,” he said. “We understand the frustration of the community but…if you want me to give an answer, I need specific locations and timing.”

Well I’m a musician, and I’ve made recordings. My first idea to see – and raise – Staton’s bluff was to put a microphone outside our window and connect it to a laptop with a program that is sound-activated and could record horn frequency, duration, and decibels. What I ended up doing was pointing a Zoom recorder toward the crossing and recording about ten nights in a row between 8 PM and 8 AM, as well as several 24-hour periods, capturing train signals. The times, frequency, and durations can now be noted in a spreadsheet. 

Next will be to set up a decibel meter next to the crossing, one that can connect to an app and be sound activated, ideally also noting the time. Walking to work in the Rondout a few days a week, on different routes that take me past two to three crossings, I’m only sometimes able to catch a decibel reading. The last one was 109.5, just 0.5 dB below the maximum – and equivalent to, for example, a hair brushing against skin.

Note that, as is clearly stated on the websites of companies like Union Pacific and BNSF, railroads appear to be uniformly and strongly opposed to quiet zones, which they claim is for safety reasons.

I emailed Councilman Schatzel about my efforts on May 13th, expecting a swift response and imagining that we might be clinking beer steins in solidarity before long, but three weeks later and still no reply. 

I’d copied Natlie (from Congressman Pat Ryan’s office) who responded that the Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) and Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) programs had released their FY25-26 Notices of Funding Opportunity (NoFOs!). In other words, grants were now open for applications. I passed this along to Bob Dennison, who forwarded it to Ruth Ann Devitt-Frank, Director of Grants Management for Kingston, and John M. Schultheis, P.E., City Engineer. 

What they had to say was disappointing. After pinning my hopes on what seemed like the only viable tool available to encourage CSX to change its behavior—federal funding to help Kingston meet federal safety requirements —Ruth Ann said that the project cost of the quiet zone project would fall way below the amount of the grant, and so would not be eligible: 

“The Crossing Elimination program requires a minimum total project cost of $1 million. City Engineer John Schultheis estimated that closing Gage and Ten Broeck and constructing embankments to create Quiet Zones would be about $20,000 – we could also include new signage, but would not be near the minimum. John’s recommendation is that we instead consider adding the project to the city budget to be handled by city staff. We’ll request consideration for the 2027 budget and continue to look for other funding sources.

“John has also done some exploration about the 4-quadrant gates solution and concluded it isn’t desirable as there’s a high upfront cost with ongoing annual maintenance. The City would be responsible for covering that cost estimated to be $15,000 a year. His recommendation is that the City look at installation of non-traversable medians instead of gates.  

“We could apply for these measures under the CRISI program instead of the Crossing Elimination Program. However, a benefit cost analysis (BCA) is required as part of the CRISI application; the City doesn’t currently have the staff capacity to take on development of a BCA. We’re also not convinced the outcome of a BCA would be competitive enough to win an award.

“All that said, we do hear and share your frustration.”

So a quiet zone would cost the City too much, but not enough to qualify for a grant.

John clarified:

“…Closing Gage and Ten Broeck alone will not allow the city to request establishment of a quiet zone.  Additional work would be needed at 4 other crossing locations. Those may or may not be solved by the non-traversable medians, closure, or other means.  Further, one of the crossing locations is a private road in the cemetery and is not under city control.  More study is needed to determine whether a quiet zone is possible and if so the best path.”

At that point, I was left confused—weren’t there already four-quadrant gates at all six crossings? And it began to sound like the goalposts were moving, with medians and other measures being framed as either sufficient or insufficient depending on the location. 

On May 18th, my email to Ray Hessinger at the NYSDOT got a response from his colleague Brian Galvin, an Intermodal Transportation Specialist. Brian requested more information, which I immediately provided. As of June 1st, I hadn’t heard back. 

One question I have not yet raised directly is whether a noise ordinance could apply here. Cities can regulate noise from music, car horns, lawn equipment and power tools, so why not trains? Looking closely at Kingston’s noise ordinance suggests it applies to private entities, which would likely exclude CSX or be preempted by federal law. 

Natalie, in response to Ruth Ann and John’s messages, said, 

“It seems the City has done its due diligence to look into the programs, sadly it is a complicated set of programs and they are extremely competitive. I work with the City’s grants team often and they are experts!

“I just attended a briefing  by the FRA with other Congressional staff on both programs and they shared that the FY2023-2024 application round received  374 applications totaling $10,278,893,840.16 in requests  but they only had $2,478,391,050.00 in funding available. I am flagging this for my colleague to see if we can identify future opportunities to help Kingston study the quiet zone.”

Or the City could just tell CSX to divert the tracks around Kingston? Couldn’t they? It’s not clear how Kingston is benefitting at all from its “relationship” with CSX.

 

 

Take action: 

  1. If you’d like to join our growing group to discuss this issue and identify solutions, please contact Dan Nelson at thedannelson [at] proton.me. 
  2. Attend KingstonCitizens.org’s upcoming webinar on rail safety on Wednesday, June 17 at 6:00pm with Jess Conard of Rail Watch.

 

Guest Editorial: “Moving at the Speed of Need” – Revising New York’s Environmental Laws for Housing and Environmental Justice

by

By Jennifer O’Donnell, Hone Strategic LLC

New York is currently at a high-stakes crossroads in urban and environmental policy. Whether we are discussing the Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP) in New York City or the proposed State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) revisions in Albany, the mandate is clear: we must ‘build at the speed of need’ to solve our housing crisis. I see a recurring structural risk in these ‘fast-track’ models. Speed is a necessary objective, but it cannot be achieved by dismantling the very review processes that ensure development is compatible with our physical, historical, and climate limits. True efficiency in land use isn’t about bypassing scrutiny; it’s about refining it to incentivize growth where it is most sustainable. My analysis suggests a deeper structural risk.

Moving at the Speed of Need

Last week, NYC’s new Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP) underwent its first real-world tests (see Shelterforce story). With the Mamdani Administration and the Department of City Planning aiming to reduce review times from seven months to just 90 days, the “Manhattan Plan” is officially in motion.

I view this as a fascinating yet precarious crossroads, similar to the one we face with SEQRA in New York State.

There is consensus that the status quo is broken. We need at least 100,000 new homes in New York City and have a shortage of more than 800,000 in New York State, according to figures being used in Albany. However, the “Fast Track” approach requires more than just speed—it requires adaptation, resilience, and agency.

The new measures emphasize the 12 community districts with the lowest affordable housing production. While increasing density is a mechanical solution to the supply crisis, we must be cautious not to lose the character that defines our 19th-century commercial streetscapes.

I believe this new era calls for three key pillars:

  • Adaptive Integrity: Speed should facilitate the adaptive reuse of historic structures. “The greenest building is the one already built” (i.e., embodied energy is more environmentally sound than new construction) is a longstanding motto of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
  • Climate-Resilient Infrastructure: The ELURP includes “climate-resilient infrastructure.” This must be a priority, ensuring regenerative land management is integral to every new urban site plan.
  • Community Agency: Streamlining should not equate to silencing. 

True success in expediting occurs when developers engage early and authentically, rather than waiting for a 90-day clock to start.

The objective is not merely to construct “units,” but to develop neighborhoods. To my fellow planners and developers: How are you preparing for the January 2027 rollout of the full “City of Yes” framework? Are we ready to build at the speed of need while preserving the quality our unique city demands?

Let’s Go Further: Focusing Reforms on Sustainable, Environmentally Just Housing

As Albany nears a final budget agreement, a critical debate is unfolding over SEQRA. While the goal is to accelerate housing, the current legislative language contains technical gaps that could undermine local planning.

“….focusing growth precisely where it is most sustainable: in areas already served by robust infrastructure, transit access, and walkable neighborhood centers. Rather than allowing sprawl to hide behind vague definitions, these changes ensure that ‘fast-tracked’ housing is built in the locations best equipped to support it”

In my work as an environmental strategist and urban planner, I’ve raised these issues with state leadership. Here’s what matters most:

  1. The “Disturbed” Definition: Current proposals broadly define “disturbed land” to include maintained lawns. This risks bypassing reviews for subsurface archaeological resources and critical pervious landscapes.
  2. The Sprawl Loophole: We must ensure that a minor existing road or structure isn’t used to classify a massive greenfield site as “previously disturbed,” allowing large-scale sprawl to skip traditional environmental scrutiny.
  3. Infrastructure Reality: Fast-tracking cannot ignore physical limits. Without mandatory water and sewer capacity analysis, we risk overwhelming local systems and degrading environmental health.

Critically, adopting these technical refinements will not hinder the delivery of new housing. On the contrary, by narrowing the ‘previously disturbed’ and ‘mixed-use’ definitions, the State provides a clearer, more predictable roadmap for the development community. These revisions act as a strategic incentive, focusing growth precisely where it is most sustainable: in areas already served by robust infrastructure, transit access, and walkable neighborhood centers. Rather than allowing sprawl to hide behind vague definitions, these changes ensure that ‘fast-tracked’ housing is built in the locations best equipped to support it, thereby reducing the likelihood of the very infrastructure failures and legal challenges that currently stall production.

While many advocates, including Ulster County Executive Jen Metzger, suggest that “tweaking” the bill to include affordability and sustainability standards is enough, my analysis suggests a deeper structural risk. While I support those goals, adding “criteria” to an exemption is an honor-system approach. The review process itself is the only way to verify infrastructure capacity and prevent industrial-scale energy users from hiding behind residential facades and honor the intent of CLCPA’s climate and environmental justice goals.

SEQRA is not a substitute for local planning and zoning, but it is the essential “hard look” that ensures development is compatible with a community’s physical limits. Efficiency must not come at the cost of evidence-based decision-making.

Ultimately, the goal of these recommendations—whether tightening the definition of ‘previously disturbed land’ upstate or ensuring community agency within the ‘City of Yes’ framework —is to move from a culture of delay to one of strategic acceleration. 

By ensuring our environmental reviews are precise rather than permissive, we provide a clearer, more predictable roadmap for developers while protecting our aging infrastructure and the character of our neighborhoods. We do not have to choose between housing production and environmental integrity; in fact, the most resilient housing is that which respects the ‘hard look’ required by our state and city laws. As we move toward full implementation of these new frameworks, let’s ensure we are not just constructing ‘units,’ but developing the sustainable, equitable neighborhoods that the next generation of New Yorkers deserves.

Jennifer O’Donnell is the founder of Hone Strategic.  She has lived in the Hudson Valley since 2004, where she has worked with numerous communities and organizations to plan and implement projects in historic sites and neighborhoods. Prior to this, she was a cultural heritage specialist and planner at the World Bank, where she was involved with World Heritage sites and cities in over 30 places abroad. Jennifer was also a design and construction project manager for many historic buildings and cultural institutions in her native New York City.  She has Masters’ degrees from Columbia University in Urban Planning and Real Estate Development, a BA in Art History from SUNY Stony Brook, and studied conservation at UNESCO’s ICCROM program in Rome, Italy.

KingstonCitizens.org Announces Spring Webinars on State Environmental Review, Zero Waste Solutions, and Civic Engagement—With Opportunities for Public Action

by

KingstonCitizens.org invites community members and advocates in Ulster County to participate in a series of spring webinars focused on proposed changes to state environmental review, local zero waste solutions, and civic engagement—including Charter Reform—equipping the public with knowledge and opportunities to take action.

These events are free.  Please register below to learn how you can engage locally on these issues. 

 

Thursday, March 26 at 6:00pm

The Future of Environmental Review in New York State — What It Means for Local Communities
With special guest Drew Gamils, Senior Attorney, Hudson Riverkeeper

Register: https://hostyurl.com/HH1Ezx

New York State is at a critical moment. Proposed changes in the State budget could significantly alter how environmental review is conducted—raising serious concerns about impacts on public health, community voice, and environmental protection.

For decades, the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process has served as a vital tool for municipalities. SEQR plays an essential role in helping local decision-makers fully evaluate development projects. It ensures a comprehensive, holistic review of local issues—examining traffic, cumulative impacts, environmental risks, and more. Importantly, SEQR is the only process that requires developers to identify and mitigate these impacts before projects move forward.

Now, swift and potentially harmful amendments being considered as part of the state budget—expected to be adopted by the end of March—could weaken these protections. These changes may limit thorough review, reduce accountability, and ultimately jeopardize the health and well-being of communities across New York. The public deserves to understand what’s at stake—and what can be done.

Participants will learn:

  • What SEQR is and why it matters
  • How proposed budget changes could impact environmental review
  • What these changes mean for local communities
  • The status of pending SEQR regulations
  • How to take action

 

Sunday, April 12 at 7:00pm

Ulster Toward Zero Waste
With special guests Greenway Environmental Services and others TBA

Register: https://hostyurl.com/unUSlP

There is no “away” in throw-away.

What if much of what we call “waste” could instead become a resource? By reducing waste at the source, expanding reuse, separating organics, and recycling properly, communities are showing we can dramatically cut what gets discarded. Communities like New Paltz are already demonstrating practical, local solutions. The New Paltz model shows how community-based systems can reduce waste while turning organic materials into valuable compost.

This webinar will explore the model and how similar approaches could be replicated at all 18 transfer stations across Ulster County, building on existing infrastructure and county investments to create sustainable waste management practices. Before Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency (UCRRA) commits Ulster County to costly new infrastructure—such as a $100M+ “put or pay” project that depends on more waste rather than less—Ulster County needs a Zero Waste Implementation Plan (ZWIP) guided by experts familiar with our local systems and inclusive of all key stakeholders, ensuring that reduction, reuse, recycling, and organics recovery are prioritized.

KingstonCitizens.org is pleased to host Greenway Environmental Services and other special guests to explore what’s possible—and why a locally informed, collaborative ZWIP should come first.

For more information, visit our website:  Ulster Toward Zero Waste

 

Monday, April 13 at 6:00pm

Civics 101: The People’s Guide to Local Government
With special guest Ward 9 Alderwoman and Majority Leader Michele Hirsch, who will join during the second hour to discuss the upcoming City of Kingston charter reform process and how the public can get involved.

Register:  https://hostyurl.com/2nOJ7i

Strong communities start with an informed public. Civics 101 gives everyone in Kingston the tools to understand, engage with, and shape local government—strengthening good government and building people power.

Participants will:

  • Explore the City of Kingston’s website and learn how local government works
  • Hear directly from staff and elected officials as they share their expertise and explain the processes they oversee
  • Gain practical tools and strategies to participate confidently in public life

The second hour will feature a focused discussion on City of Kingston Charter Reform and how the public can get involved with special guest Ward 9 Alderwoman and Majority Leader Michele Hirsch.

Kingston’s Zoning Board of Appeals reverses its June DAR House decision, siding with the HLPC—and why this case matters to every Kingston resident 

by

Screenshot of Zoom recording from Dec. 11 ZBA meeting

By Marissa Marvelli

On Thursday, December 11, nearly six months after its last deliberation, the five-member Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) unanimously reversed its June 12 decision regarding the historic Sleight-Tappen/DAR House windows. Over three hours, the board, led by chair Anthony Tampone Jr., carefully applied the preservation review criteria that guide the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC) in evaluating changes to landmark-designated buildings and districts. Members repeatedly cited the extensive record compiled since 2021, when the Wiltwyck Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) was first notified that exterior work on the building required review. Assistant Corporation Counsel Matt Jankowski aided the board in drafting a detailed decision typical of the HLPC.

During deliberations, Tampone and other members acknowledged that the board had been misled back in June about the proposed replacement windows. Contrary to the DAR’s prior assertions, the windows are not “exact replicas” of the existing historic windows; they are generic replacements. Tampone explained that he personally confirmed  this by contacting a Marvin window representative, who said that the measurements that were taken were only of the overall openings, and not any of the other window details. The board engaged in a lengthy discussion about the special qualities of historic windows, how they differ from modern replacements, and how the cumulative effect of 32 rigidly square contemporary windows would diminish the architectural integrity of one of the Stockade’s significant historic buildings. Members also noted that, in a 2023 affidavit, the DAR itself admitted that restoring the historic windows would have been more cost-effective. Board members struggled to understand why they did not go that route. The costs associated with replacements have undoubtedly increased since the chapter engaged in a protracted legal dispute.

The DAR’s attorney, James Bacon, a sitting judge in New Paltz, was the sole representative of the applicant present. The board permitted him to testify before their deliberation began. Much of his case consisted of recycled arguments already refuted or dismissed by both the ZBA and HLPC. Most notably, Bacon again asserted—incorrectly—that only federal recognition of a building’s individual significance permits regulatory control over exterior features. The City of Kingston, a certified local government with a historic preservation ordinance, has the authority to carry out municipal responsibilities for its historic preservation program. It is largely carried out by its trained and qualified commission, the HLPC, which reviews and approves exterior changes to its locally designated landmarks and in local historic districts. The DAR House is both an individually designated landmark (since 1969) and a contributing building in the Stockade Historic District. The building’s—or district’s—listing on the National Register of Historic Places is irrelevant to the City’s authority in this matter.

Generously interpreting an old brochure of preservation guidelines, Bacon repeated the DAR’s justification for failing to seek HLPC approval before expending $65,000 on Marvin replacement windows in March 2022, the same month Kingston Planning Director Suzanne Cahill contacted the chapter for a second time to confirm that exterior work required review. The DAR has previously admitted that it did not consult the City of Kingston’s administrative code before proceeding.

The credibility of the DAR’s case was further undermined when Chair Tampone questioned Bacon’s submission of what was plainly an AI-generated query summary as an exhibit for the record. Under questioning, Bacon explained that he was unaware the document was AI-generated and that it had come from Kaaren Davis, the chapter’s treasurer, and originated with her son, Harley Davis, whom Bacon stated is also the contractor for the window replacement project. Bacon agreed it should be removed from the record, adding that he would not have accepted such a submission in his own court.

What was made abundantly obvious last night is the urgent need to address the ambiguity in Kingston’s administrative code. A questionable interpretation by the Corporation Counsel forced the ZBA to serve as a de facto landmarks commission without the requisite training, expertise, or experience. While the ZBA members should be applauded for their thoughtful deliberation last night, they should never have been put in the position of re-deciding the HLPC’s certificate of appropriateness decision rather than its subsequent hardship denial. A code amendment is now being prepared for Common Council adoption in the new year.

What’s Next?

The unanimous ZBA decision is not the end of this advocacy effort. The DAR will likely return to court for judicial relief, where a single judge, Honorable Sharon Graff, could overrule the hundreds of hours expended by city staff, volunteers on the HLPC and ZBA, and advocates to review, uphold, and defend Kingston’s preservation law. Graff is more likely to side with the DAR—and possibly award them financial compensation—in the absence of a response from City of Kingston’s Corporation Counsel Barbara Graves-Poller, who, to date, has not publicly acknowledged the DAR’s article 78 petition filed in State Supreme Court on July 25, despite the frivolous nature of the suit.

Civic engagement is not episodic; it’s a daily practice. Meaningful change, whether in historic preservation, zoning reform, affordable housing, or charter reform, is a long game that depends on sustained public participation. Almost without exception, high-stakes conflicts like the DAR House case expose the weaknesses in our democracy. Here, that weakness is Kingston’s strong-mayor form of government, codified in our three-decades-old “city manager” charter. Just weeks after receiving a controversial $30,000 salary increase, Graves-Poller continues to operate within a system in which her office serves at the mayor’s pleasure. With Mayor Steve Noble up for re-election in 2027, this structure inherently discourages independent representation of the Common Council when disagreements between the two branches arise. The DAR House case is simply the latest instance in which this flaw has been exposed.

 

Call to Action: 

  1. Demand a strong legal defense. Write to Mayor Steve Noble and urge him to direct the Corporation Counsel’s office to defend the hard work of the HLPC, ZBA, and city staff on the DAR matter in court. These volunteer boards and public servants followed the law and deserve the city’s full backing in court. Letters can be emailed to SN****@*********ny.gov or mailed to Office of the Mayor, 420 Broadway, Kingston, NY 12401.
  2. Show up and speak out. Use the public comment period at monthly Common Council meetings to urge the Council to have its own staff, specifically, an independent counsel and independent clerk. This independence is essential for good governance and for the Council to effectively carry out its responsibilities, especially as it prepares to oversee the city charter review process in 2026-2027, a process the Mayor recently declined to support. The next council meeting is on Wednesday, December 17. The following hearing will be Tuesday, January 6, when four new council members, including myself, will be sworn in.

 

Background Reading

“Preserving Our History and the Laws That Protect It”  KingstonCitizens.org, Aug. 20, 2025

“Local Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution Battling Against Kingston’s Historic Preservation Law”   KingstonCitizens.org, July 3, 2025

“Kingston slaps stone house with stop-work order over window renovations”  by Brian Hubert, Daily Freeman, July 25, 2025.

 

Correction (December 15, 2025): This post previously misstated the year of the Mayoral election. It is in 2027 and has been corrected here.

Register today: Civics 101: The People’s Guide to Local Government

by

 

Registration open!  Civics 101:  The People’s Guide to Local Government 
Facilitated by Rebecca Martin, co-founder of KingstonCitizens.org

Strong communities start with an informed public. Civics 101 gives everyone in Kingston the tools to understand, engage with, and shape local government — strengthening good government and building people power.

  • Explore the City of Kingston’s website and learn how local government works.

  • Hear directly from staff and elected officials as they share their expertise and explain the processes they oversee.

  • Gain practical tools and strategies to participate confidently in public life.

We especially encourage young people to attend — as elders, we are mentors, and we want to help you learn how to engage. Your current and future participation is critical! If you are a teacher in the Kingston City School District or a professor at Bard College, please share this opportunity with your students. We’re working on a Spanish translator and will provide a living document of all topics and resources discussed for future reference.

It’s free. It’s virtual. It’s for everyone.  Register today and help build a stronger, more engaged Kingston.

For more information, visit KingstonCitizens.org or contact ou*********@***il.com

 

2026 Sessions 

REGISTER: Tuesday, January 13, 6-8pm
Second hour: Discussion on school and property tax
With special Guest: Town Supervisor Tim Rogers

REGISTER: Monday, April 13, 6-8pm
Second hour: City of Kingston Charter Reform
With special Guests: Ward 9 Council member Michele Hirsch

REGISTER: Tuesday, July 14, 6-8pm (POSTPONED)
Second hour: Discussion on City of Kingston’s Payments-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) 
With special Guest: City of Kingston Assessor Daniel P. Baker

REGISTER:  Tuesday, October 13, 6-8pm (POSTPONED)
Second hour: Discussion on City of Kingston’s Boards, Committees and Commissions
With special Guest: City of Kingston Mayor Steve Noble

 

###

About Rebecca Martin: Rebecca is a seasoned organizer and advocate with over 20 years of experience in coalition-building, strategic communications, and civic engagement. Originally from Maine, she has lived in the Hudson Valley since 2000, where she has worked to empower communities and promote government transparency. In Kingston, NY, she co-founded KingstonCitizens.org, leading initiatives such as the successful campaign to stop Niagara Bottling from purchasing the city’s municipal water supply and a Water Powers Referendum to secure public oversight of future water sales. As the first Executive Director of the Kingston Land Trust, she launched nationally recognized programs in urban agriculture, rail trail development, and the protection of African-American heritage sites.  At Riverkeeper, she served as Campaign Manager and Director of Community Partnerships, where she helped establish the Hudson 7, and co-founded the Water Justice Lab in Troy, NY.  She currently serves as Source Water Protection Coordinator for the Hudson 7 and managed a major report on the threat of landfill leachate to drinking water. In 2025, she joined Beyond Plastics as Director of Community Partnerships and Training, where she is building a Community Partnerships Program and leading grassroots advocacy and speaker trainings in the fight against plastic pollution.

Thanks to local artist Anna Gilmore for her work in designing our civics logo.

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 pl******@*********ny.gov. Finally, consider reaching out to your Common Council representative to share your concerns and request that the issue be addressed at the policy level.

As always, we encourage residents to engage with their local government, ask questions, and push for transparency. Your voice matters—and your peace of mind does, too.

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, quarterly, remote training series, open to all levels of experience. 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: ap*******@*********ny.gov. The sooner the ZBA receives it, the better.

It is not yet clear what will happen if the ZBA does not agree to a re-hearing. The HLPC is already at work on seeking to amend the appeal procedure in the administrative code, but that will not serve this specific case. The HLPC’s staff and volunteer members should be commended for their professionalism, diligence, and patience in this matter. Mayor Steve Noble, too, should be commended for his appointments and hires to this commission. Preservation is only as strong as the people who support and defend it. Buildings can’t preserve themselves.

And why does preservation matter? As the late architect Nathan Silver once wrote, buildings are vessels of human history. Their details give depth to our daily existence. They remind us that we have been here before. There is still so much to learn from them if only we listen.

– Marissa Marvelli is a professional historic preservationist. She served on the HLPC from 2016 to 2019.

The house in 1906 before the Myron Teller updates. (LOC)

The house today with ivy engulfing the west elevation, June 29, 2025.

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