Development

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.

SIGN THE PETITION: Kingston Common Council must uphold its affordable housing mandate and provide constituents with a full accounting of Kingstonian public funds

by
Kingstonian
View of the Kingstonian and its private swimming pool. Rendering by Mackenzie Architects.


Dear Members of the Kingston Common Council, 

We write regarding the zoning amendment request for the Kingstonian project. The Ulster County Planning Board has reviewed the proposed amendment and has determined that, as presented, it is inconsistent with the City’s zoning and Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment is to be adopted, the County has required changes, particularly the inclusion of affordable housing. We urge the Council to make the changes the County requires. Affordable housing is a critical need in Kingston, and there is no reason that a project receiving substantial public subsidies should escape the responsibility to supply affordable units.

Ulster County and the City of Kingston have an affordable housing crisis, with 55% of residents county-wide spending over 30% of their income on rent. When the City adopted the Mixed Use Overlay District in 2005, it called for 20% affordable units per project. Kingston’s 2025 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2016, took the mission city-wide, calling for affordable units in all new residential developments throughout the city. Kingston is the only city in the Mid-Hudson region currently pursuing coverage under New York State’s new rent control laws to rein in its spiraling housing costs.

Applying the City’s affordable housing requirements to the proposed 131-unit Kingstonian project would bring much needed affordable units to Kingston families. In contrast, allowing construction of a luxury housing development with no affordable units would only worsen the housing crisis by further gentrifying Uptown and Kingston overall.

If the Common Council has determined that every developer in the city should provide affordable units at their own expense, then the heavily-subsidized Kingstonian project cannot be excused from providing the same.  

The Ulster County Planning Board warned in its letter that “it is disquieting that there is little disclosure of the public investment needed to bring the project to fruition.”  

The community is aware of at least $6.8 million in taxpayer-funded grants:

* $3.8 million from Governor Cuomo’s Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI);

* $2 million has been granted by the Empire State Development Corp; 

* A $1 million Restore NY Grant.

Here’s what our community remains in the dark about:

* The value of tax breaks through the Ulster County IDA, which may excuse the developer from paying sales and mortgage taxes, as well as portions of its city, county and school taxes;

* The value of all municipal real estate that will be contributed to the project, including Fair Street Extension, which will be eliminated, and the city parking lot parcel on North Front Street;

* The municipal parking revenue that will be lost once the public lot is sold. 

* The cost of any infrastructure upgrades the City will undertake to accommodate the project. 

* Any other public grants, tax credits, or subsidies the Kingstonian is seeking.

Therefore, we make two requests of the Common Council:

1. Do not amend the zoning map without also making the changes to the text of the zoning that the County requires. In particular, clarify that new multi-family housing must include affordable units.

2. Step up to your fiduciary responsibilities and provide the community with a full accounting of the public subsidies expected by the Kingstonian project. Ensure that all decisions requiring Common Council approval, including discretionary approvals and funding awards, have been identified and included in the SEQRA review. 

We look forward to your response.

SIGN THE PETITION: Kingston Common Council must uphold its affordable housing mandate and provide constituents with a full accounting of Kingstonian public funds (via change.org)

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

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

By Rebecca Martin

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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


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

What follows is a condensed version of our letter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citizen Action of New York submits FOIL to City of Kingston 

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

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

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

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

What’s next?

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

VIEW Facebook event

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

by

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

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

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

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

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

Read more…

VIDEO: Ianucci Development (formerly “Super Garage”) Public Informational Meeting

by

 

Last night, the developer Robert Ianucci hosted a public informational meeting in the Rondout, where we learned that his initial design was nothing more than “a concept.”  (Architect Paul Jankowitz @ 59:00 on Tape #1)

The public made some great points and suggestions, although a highlight for me, was the idea to create an architectural competition, to lay out guiding principals and then to invite some of the youngest and brightest architects from all over the world to consider what could be built there.  “It doesn’t have to be traditional – and anyway,  what you’re proposing doesn’t reflect the architecture of old Kingston at all.”  (Starts at 00:00 on Tape #2).

The location is nestled into a residential area and nearby Riverview Baptist Church and the AJ Williams-Myers African Roots Library – communities essential to engage going forward.

Some of Kingston’s best organizers were present, including Ann Loeding who is collecting names for upcoming meetings and to solicit comments going forward.  If you wish to be included, please contact her at:  aboatgrrl@yahoo.com

Thanks to The Kingston News for recording the meeting, brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org.

(Photo credit:  Clark Richters)