Just seven days before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is scheduled to re-hear the appeal of the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission’s (HLPC) decision regarding the Sleight-Tappen House at 106-122 Green Street, the attorney for the Wiltwyck Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) has requested a postponement, citing that neither he nor his clients are available to attend. He has also stated that he will be unavailable the following month as well.
The September 11th hearing date has been on the calendar since July 10th, when the ZBA determined that a re-hearing was justified. It has been referenced repeatedly in court filings related to the DAR’s ongoing attempt to overturn the city’s stop-work order—a matter we covered in our August 20th post.
Given the DAR’s past legal actions, this last-minute postponement request has prompted concern within the community. Many are questioning whether this could contribute to further delays in the process, and whether it risks undermining public accountability and trust in the system.
We urge the City of Kingston to reschedule the hearing for the earliest possible date that accommodates all parties, and to hold a special meeting if the DAR cannot attend the October 9th date as well.
We also urge the City to keep its stop-work order in full effect until the review process is complete and a building permit has been issued, or until the matter is resolved in the courts. As of now, nine first-floor windows on the front and rear elevations remain covered with black plastic. Hon. Sharon Graff, who is presiding over the DAR’s petition, recently clarified,“Pending further order of this Court, the Stop Work Order remains in effect and any work currently underway should be ceased pending determination of the pending proceeding and/or further order of this court.”
However, with the windows obscured and no clear visibility into the site, it is difficult, if not impossible, to verify whether the stop-work order is actually being observed. This lack of transparency has heightened concerns, especially in light of the past disagreements over the interpretation of rules and court directives by the parties involved.
In Defense of Kingston’s Historic Preservation Law
This week, ahead of the now-postponed September 11th ZBA re-hearing, a community-funded five-minute film was released to educate the ZBA and the public on the importance of upholding Kingston’s historic preservation law. The video—available HERE—features six experts in local history, preservation, and policy, including City Historian Taylor Bruck and West Chestnut Street author Lowell Thing.
100% of the donations raised supported the work of professional videographers and an editor to produce a film that speaks to not only this preservation effort, but to the larger importance of protecting our shared history and resources. It’s a story about what’s at stake when preservation is overlooked, and what’s possible when the community comes together to defend the places they love.
This project was led by Kingston-based preservation professional Marissa Marvelli, who contributed significant time and personal funds to bring this story to life. Thanks, Marissa!
This summer marks 50 years since Kingston’s Stockade Historic District was added to the National Register of Historic Places. Recognized for its rare “cross strata” of 18th, 19th, and 20th-century architecture, the Stockade tells the story of a city that has evolved over centuries. A year before that federal recognition, Kingston took action to preserve its legacy locally, establishing both the Stockade Area and the West Strand as the city’s first historic districts. These protections came in direct response to the devastating loss of the Rondout neighborhood during urban renewal.
But historic designation is not about freezing a neighborhood in time. Preservation is about moderating change so that the story of a place can continue to evolve without losing the qualities that make it special. Kingston’s Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC) is charged with moderating that change. Unlike half a century ago, there are well-established national standards, procedures, and resources in place to support its work and findings.
So what exactly are we preserving through designation? The preservation debate today is rarely about whether a whole neighborhood or even a single building should remain in place. It’s instead about preserving the definition of a historic place in terms of the quality of its image, or the degree of pixelation. Take, for example, the Sleight-Tappen House on Green Street, owned by the Daughters of the American Revolution since 1907 (and that we’ve been reporting on recently). What value does an 18th-century stone house still hold if it’s stripped of its historic windows and its openings filled with 32 generic mass-manufactured inserts?
This isn’t simply a design issue. It’s a choice between doable, authentic preservation and initiating a cycle of costly, short-lived replacements that future generations will inherit.
But as we work to preserve our built environment, we also have to protect the integrity of the laws that make it possible—not just preservation law, but the full legal framework that upholds fairness, accountability, and public trust.
The HLPC held seven hearings over three years and ultimately ruled that the historic windows at the Sleight-Tappen House—many dating to the 1800s, possibly even earlier—could be repaired. That decision reflects not just sound preservation values, but a clear, consistent application of the law. And thanks to our region’s network of restoration experts, this path is both practical and cost-effective.
Preservation is also an economic driver. It stimulates commercial development, draws tourism, sustains skilled trades, and stabilizes property values. Kingston’s identity as a historic city isn’t branding—it’s a civic asset. But that identity depends on following through when the laws we’ve put in place are challenged.
The current case surrounding the DAR House isn’t just about windows. It involves unpermitted work, a city-issued stop-work order, and a court petition by the DAR to retroactively legalize construction.
Despite a court-imposed deadline of August 22 to respond, the City of Kingston’s Corporation Counsel (and chair of the Ulster County Democratic Committee), Barbara Graves-Poller, has refused to act. She has informed the Common Council that her office lacks the resources and doubts the city’s chances of success. The refusal comes despite the Council’s unanimous written request, submitted on August 14, urging the City to take legal action to defend Kingston’s laws. (**)
Meanwhile, the DAR and its contractor have resumed work, despite the stop-work order still being in effect. Over the weekend of August 16–17, eight more window openings were covered in black plastic, suggesting more removals. The Building Safety Division was again alerted.
Taped to the front door, just beneath the official stop-work notice, was a copy of Judge Graff’s signed Order to Show Cause, which the DAR and their attorney wrongly interpreted as permission to continue work. That misreading misled not only them but some in the community.
“To clear up the apparent ambiguity, this Court’s July 28, 2025 Order to Show Cause does not include a temporary restraining order. Accordingly, and to clarify, the stop-work order is not held in abeyance. Pending further order of this Court, the stop-work order remains in effect, and any work currently underway should be ceased pending determination of the pending proceeding and/or further order of this Court…”
In other words, the DAR, their legal team, and those who backed their interpretation were wrong. The stop-work order remains fully in effect. Any continued construction is illegal.
While the Friends of Historic Kingston, through attorney Sean Denvir, have stepped up to intervene and seek clarification, the City’s own legal department has stayed silent.
Although charter reform is under discussion, that process could take years. In light of this situation, the Common Council might have a more immediate option: to pass a local law authorizing the hiring of its own attorney and clerk. Even if the positions can’t be funded this year, establishing the legal authority to appoint independent staff is the most urgent and effective step the Council can take to uphold Kingston’s laws, protect the public interest, and ensure accountability.
** Added on Thursday, August 21: From KingstonCitizens.org: The petition was filed on July 25, and the Order to Show Cause was issued on July 28. As of now, the city has not responded. The deadline to do so is this Friday. Comments regarding Barbara Graves-Poller was shared through several sources in response to ongoing questions about whether the city intends to act. If there’s a plan in place — or if Corporation Counsel has a different explanation — the city should issue a statement.
A rehearing has officially been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the 18th-century Sleight-Tappen House and is scheduled for September 11. This will be treated as a new application, and will not require a unanimous vote, as is typically the case with rehearings. This procedural detail, aligned with the city code, represents a meaningful shift in how the case will be handled going forward.
WATCH the hour long meeting The matter during the July 10th ZBA meeting drew strong public participation, both in person and through written comments. The presence of residents and the quality of public comments underscored the importance of transparency, accountability, and informed decision-making. Speakers brought valuable expertise in policy, restoration, and architecture, helping clarify the broader implications for historic preservation. While the decision to grant a rehearing is a step in the right direction, the meeting also highlighted procedural concerns. The ZBA’s chair, Anthony Tampone, Jr., acknowledged these concerns, particularly regarding the speed of the decision-making process, the withholding of important documents, and the absence of key stakeholders. Communication gaps and notification issues were noted. Although ZBA members are not responsible for issuing notifications, these breakdowns must be addressed to ensure future proceedings are both fair and fully informed. The review and appeal process must be protected from circumvention, and all actions moving forward should be held to the standards outlined in local code.
The next ZBA meeting on this matter will take place on September 11 at 6:00pm. Continued public attention and engagement will be essential in ensuring a fair outcome.
Sleight-Tappen House in 1880 (Friends of Historic Kingston Collection)
By Marissa Marvelli
Yes, this is a loaded headline, especially on the eve of our nation’s birthday. In an era when many democratic norms and institutions are being forsaken, why should we care about a local issue involving a longtime civic club comprising women who cherish their ancestral connections to our country’s founding?
This is about standing up for good government, and good government must begin at home. What began as a run-of-the-mill debate about historic windows in 2022 has today morphed into an existential threat to the legitimacy of the city’s Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC). What’s the worth of any local law if it’s not upheld?
Some Background
Kingston’s Wiltwyck Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) was formed in 1892. Its first regent was Mary Isabella Forsyth, whose family donated Forsyth Park. In 1907, the group purchased the 18th-century Sleight-Tappen House, located at the intersection of Green and Crown streets in the heart of the Stockade district, to serve as its new chapter house. They hired local architect Myron Teller to rejuvenate the downtrodden building. It was one of his earliest “restoration” commissions for which he would become renowned and inspire Kingston’s preservation culture. In 1969, the house was designated a local landmark by the nascent Landmarks Commission. Five years later, it was deemed a contributing resource in the new local and National Register-listed Stockade Historic District. A local landmark medallion was later mounted to the building’s facade.
Over the subsequent 118 years, the chapter has used the house for meetings and events. Wiltwyck DAR is a 501(c)(3) charity. On publicly available 990 filings required of tax-exempt entities, the chapter summarizes its mission as “historical preservation to educate community on a historical home and events.” They open the house to the public on rare occasions, such as during the biennial reenactments of the 1777 Burning of Kingston. This historic house museum is otherwise inaccessible to the public.
Sleight-Tappen/DAR House at 106-122 Green St, June 2025.
Willful Ignorance
In 2021, a question over the fate of the house’s window shutters triggered outreach by the city’s planning director, Suzanne Cahill, to the chapter’s leadership, explaining that “any work which is proposed for the exterior…must be reviewed and approved by” the HLPC. The chapter had been before the commission before, most recently for the approval of a perimeter fence in 2008. Despite this proactive outreach, in March 2022, the chapter ordered 32 Marvin Ultimate replacement windows without applying for a permit from the HLPC. This oversight was reported by a whistleblower, and the DAR was instructed to apply for approval from the commission.
In April 2022, during the first of what would be four hearings and meetings for the application (there was a second round in 2024-2025), the commission probed the chapter’s regent, Selina Guendel, about the necessity to replace historic fabric on what is a “very significant, high-profile building.” In a later hearing, another commissioner described the building as “so standalone, almost like a fishbowl,” noting how all four of its elevations are visible from the street, and how the windows are character-defining. They requested evidence that the windows were beyond repair and whether their restoration had been explored as an option. Commissioners also asked to see the proposed replacement window to compare it with an existing historic sash.
Guendel outlined the chapter’s reasoning for replacing the windows:
She claimed all 32 windows were replaced in 1910 by Myron Teller, so they are not historic. Preservationist note: A feature need not be original to be historic. Regardless, these windows appear in historic photos taken before the 1907 renovation.
The windows were “extended beyond their life use.” Preservationist note: The lifespan of a historic wood window can be extended indefinitely if it is properly maintained or restored.
Marvin units have better energy performance. Preservationist note: This frequently cited argument warrants more explanation than can be provided here. For now, historic windows paired with storm windows have comparable energy performance at a much lower cost. Additionally, this is a historic house museum that is often unoccupied; therefore, energy performance should not be a primary factor in this decision.
The new windows will be “exactly the same” as the historic sash and “you won’t notice a difference.” Preservationist note: It is extraordinarily challenging for a manufactured window to match a historic one. Marvins and the like are merely imitations, like the buildings at Disney World. They can be customized only to the extent that they roughly fit the window opening, match the number of lights (panes), and paint color. The fast-growth wood used in windows today isn’t comparable to old-growth.
What was not revealed in the first meeting was that the chapter had already ordered the windows.
Comparison of a contemporary replacement window with a historical photo of the same house with its old sash. Note how the replacement window doesn’t fill the full opening like the historic units and must be padded. The muntins (dividers) are fatter to accommodate the thickness of the insulated glass. Also, the house’s settling is made more obvious with the perfect squareness of the insert.
The HLPC worked in good faith to gather the facts before rendering a decision, including requesting an evaluation of the existing windows by a qualified expert and seeking an advisory opinion from the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), which oversees the Certified Local Government program. SHPO quickly submitted a formal opinion stating, “The application materials do not make a convincing argument for replacement of the historic wood windows. We support the HLPC’s request for a conditions/assessment survey, prepared by a qualified historic preservation consultant.” The applicants reluctantly complied with some of the information requests, providing a window assessment from a general contractor, Harley Davis, who is the contractor for the replacement project (and who also happens to be the son of the chapter’s treasurer, Kaaren Davis). Not surprisingly, he recommended replacement. In the absence of a qualified assessment, the HLPC lacked sufficient findings to support approval according to its review criteria. The application was therefore unanimously denied by the HLPC in August 2023.
Throughout the review process, the DAR maintained that they are preservationists and that they did not know they needed approval because they did not think their building was on a “historic registry.” They also contend that the unofficial guidelines published by the Friends of Historic Kingston, an advocacy group rather than a regulatory agency, provided all the guidance they thought they needed. “It says in-kind replacement does not need approval!” What they did not do was call the City of Kingston’s Planning Office.
The Present Crisis
After a failed attempt to appeal the decision in the State Supreme Court due to the petition being filed past the statute of limitations, the DAR returned to the HLPC to restart the process with the intent of appealing again. The HLPC heard the new application at its February and April meetings this year. The commission funded an independent assessment of the windows by a qualified restoration contractor, Stacy Caputo of Bridge Lane Restoration. Her shop had been responsible for the recent restoration of the historic wood windows of the Ulster County Courthouse on Wall Street. The DAR refused her access to inspect the windows from the interior. Based on an exterior survey, she found that the historic windows were in “sound condition and can be fully restored.”
Without new evidence to support window replacement, the HLPC issued its second unanimous denial of a preservation permit, called a Certificate of Appropriateness. The DAR’s lawyer, James Bacon, who is also a judge in New Paltz, immediately filed a hardship appeal with the HLPC, a procedure that has rarely been pursued. That too was unanimously denied because the “alleged hardship was self-inflicted.” The decision also lists the multiple grant programs available to a non-profit like the DAR for window preservation, which would alleviate some of the financial loss.
This time around, instead of filing an Article 78 proceeding in the State Supreme Court, the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) served as the appellate body after a hardship appeal was heard by the HLPC. (These procedural changes merit a separate explanation.) Like the HLPC, the ZBA is a volunteer body appointed by the mayor. It typically hears appeals about use and area variances. It does not have experience or expertise with HLPC review procedures or criteria. Yet, on June 12, it considered the appeal of the HLPC decisions brought by Judge Bacon. During a torturous nearly three-hour-long hearing, involving extended executive sessions with the assistant corporation counsel, the members of the ZBA struggled to understand which decision to base its appeal upon, the Certificate of Appropriateness denial or the hardship denial. They eventually decided upon the former.
Even though it is specified in the ZBA’s procedures that the HLPC must be notified of an appeal in advance of the hearing, the HLPC and its staff learned of the hearing after the fact. The ZBA’s public agenda was not posted to the city website beforehand either. As a result, no representatives of the HLPC or members of the public were present to testify or rebut the many misstatements and falsehoods made by the DAR and Judge Bacon during this hearing. The HLPC record presented to the ZBA was limited and curated in such a way to favor the DAR. Regardless, it appears that the oral testimony of the DAR and their lawyer served as the primary evidence for the ZBA. When one member asked his colleagues if they should table the decision to allow more time to review the record, they agreed it was not necessary and continued. No examination of the existing or proposed windows is apparent in the video recording. The five-member board’s deliberation on the preservation review criteria (2:07:45) is challenging to watch, as their discussion lacks clarity and seems to rely more on assumptions than on a thorough understanding of the facts.
So What? It’s Just Windows
The issue extends beyond the windows. By unanimously voting to overturn the HLPLC’s thoroughly documented and well-reasoned Certificate of Appropriateness, the ZBA seemed unaware of the gravity of their decision, effectively dismissing the HLPC’s meticulous work, which was supported by specialized training and expertise. This action undermines the HLPC’s authority to protect the city’s architectural heritage. Why invest substantial time and effort in following procedure and compiling a clear record if another review body can so easily disregard it? What is the purpose of a preservation law if violations will be permitted by the ZBA? This case has demanded countless hours from the HLPC’s commissioners and staff, advocates, and consultants, largely because the applicant—a tax-exempt charity whose primary reason for existence is to be the stewards of a historic house museum—has persistently refused to accept the HLPC’s decisions. This sets a concerning precedent for future rulings.
What’s Next
In a special meeting held June 24, the HLPC agreed to submit a letter to the ZBA requesting a “re-hearing” of the appeal. This consideration has been placed on the ZBA agenda for its Thursday July 10 meeting (6:00pm, Kingston City Hall located at 420 Broadway, Conference Room 1)According to ZBA’s procedure, there must be unanimous agreement to schedule a re-hearing. The public is encouraged to testify in person or to submit written comments. Anyone who cares about preservation or about good government is urged to speak up. Written comments may be emailed to ZBA’s administrative clerk, Amee Peterson: apeterson@kingston-ny.gov. The sooner the ZBA receives it, the better.
It is not yet clear what will happen if the ZBA does not agree to a re-hearing. The HLPC is already at work on seeking to amend the appeal procedure in the administrative code, but that will not serve this specific case. The HLPC’s staff and volunteer members should be commended for their professionalism, diligence, and patience in this matter. Mayor Steve Noble, too, should be commended for his appointments and hires to this commission. Preservation is only as strong as the people who support and defend it. Buildings can’t preserve themselves.
And why does preservation matter? As the late architect Nathan Silver once wrote, buildings are vessels of human history. Their details give depth to our daily existence. They remind us that we have been here before. There is still so much to learn from them if only we listen.
– Marissa Marvelli is a professional historic preservationist. She served on the HLPC from 2016 to 2019.
The house in 1906 before the Myron Teller updates. (LOC)
The house today with ivy engulfing the west elevation, June 29, 2025.
Last week, the Kingstonian project development team that includes Michael Moriello (legal), Dennis Larios (engineering) and Scott Dutton (architect) joined the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission’s (HLPC) monthly meeting to discuss the required Preservation Notice of Action and demolition permit that the developers will need to proceed.
Click on image to watch the HLPC meeting with Kingstonian development team
HLPC chairman Mark Grunblatt outlined concerns raised in a letter dated 9/6/19 for the developers to prepare to address during their upcoming presentation and public hearing in January.
They include:
Clarifying the boundaries of the Historic District and whether or not they cover Schwenk drive;
A plan to preserve and properly handle any archeological artifacts found during demolition and construction by a certified archeologist professional;
Addressing visual impacts to the historic district and surrounding area;
Address potential damage to neighboring properties when demolition and construction begins.
City of Kingston Assistant Corporation Council Dan Gartenstein noted that the project’s State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) negative declaration decision had fully resolved several of the issues identified by the chairman that evening, and that the Preservation Notice of Action items would pertain to some items such as visual impacts and demolition.
Dutton said that the team is working to define their plans and that they were not making any dramatic changes, only refinements and improvements to the visual and facade, to take it to “another level”. Moriello added that there would be no dramatic moves, and that although SEQR had concluded, the applicant could continue on with visual impacts and analysis.
Gartenstein said that according to the City of Kingston’s code 405-49 (Building Permits), the project would require an application for a building permit for demolition, and that the building safety division would notify the commission, who would reply to the request for demolition. When asked if a demolition permit had yet been requested, the Kingstonian attorney answered that it had not.
As a side note, we would be remiss if we didn’t point out the irony that while the Friends of Historic Kingston (located only blocks away from the Kingstonian project) and others host exhibits mourning the demolition of the Kingston post office and urban removal, we continue to tear down buildings and this time, in the heart of Kingston’s historic district. “History teaches us that we learn nothing from history” is fitting here.
The Applicants’ attorneys will prepare information to present to the commission and members of the public regarding the necessity to demolish the building at the next HLPC meeting on December 2. Moriello pointed out that according to 405-65 (d), a public hearing will be required, suggesting that the presentation and public hearing could all be held on the same day. City of Kingston Planning Director Suzanne Cahill said that the city should hold off scheduling a public hearing until the materials were released, and that it would not be fair to the public to not have those materials in order to make comments in December.
A public hearing will likely be set in January, 2022. The Commission tabled the application until their next meeting on December 2.
ADDITIONAL SELECTED RESOURCES: by historic preservation specialist Marissa Marvelli
Without any significant changes proposed by the developers, the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has chosen to unsee the adverse impacts that it had identified in September 2019 in the course of its review of the Kingstonian. The only rational explanation for this unexpected and illogical about-face is that this is the result of political pressure exerted by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and by extension, Governor Andrew Cuomo.
According to a February 14 letter to the ESDC from John Bonafide, Director of the Technical Division Bureau at SHPO, “After considering the material presented at our meeting and the subsequently submitted information, we have found that the evolution of the proposal has addressed many of the open preservation issues raised by this office.” However, the only change that has been made since his office last reviewed the project in September is that the Schwenk Drive portion of the development grew another story. Impacts that were identified in the agency’s September19 letter, such as the project’s size, its monolithic scale, and its eradication of Fair Street Extension, have not been mitigated in the least.
SHPO’s comments on the Kingstonian are part of a consultation mandated by Section 14.09 of the New York Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law. It is required for projects that are funded, licensed or approved by state or federal agencies. The Kingstonian is set to receive $3 million in funding from the ESDC. The majority of the project site lies within the National Register-listed Stockade Historic District.
We do not know yet how this will impact the active Article 78 suit filed by a consortium of Uptown business entities against the City of Kingston and the developers. SHPO’s latest findings do not detract from the main premise of the lawsuit—that the Kingston Planning Board failed to take a “hard look” at the facts of the project during the State Environmental Quality Review.
SHPO’s findings also do not negate the project’s pending review by the local Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission, whose responsibility it will be to scrutinize the design details big and small, something that SHPO does not do in its review.
As KingstonCitizens.org has reported in the past, the developers of the Kingstonian are the beneficiaries of substantial taxpayer-funded state grants. In addition to the $3 million from the ESDC, they have been awarded $3.8 million from Cuomo’s Downtown Revitalization Initiative Grant. They are also likely to seek an unknown sum of municipal tax breaks through the Ulster County IDA. In addition to all of that and perhaps of most value, they have a political leader like Mayor Steve Noble for a partner, who over the course of the past year, has seemingly gone out of his way to use the powers of his office to influence the outcome of the project’s regulatory review, whether by having his corporation counsels mislead and bully individuals, removing members of the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission, or by seeing to it that the zoning law is disregarded.
From the recent effort to merge departments and provide his spouse a new position with increased pay to creating positions for housing initiatives, this mayor’s determination to muscle through his agenda with or without the Common Council’s consent—and sometimes at the expense of others—is infuriating. The pressure on the Council to unquestionably support the Kingstonian is great. We hope they hold the line for our community.
Note: For an excellent in-depth background on the developers of the Kingstonian and the origins of the project, listen to the August 16, 2019 episode of “The Source with Hillary Harvey” on RadioKingston.
On September 26th, a joint meeting was held between the Kingston Planning Board, Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC) and the Heritage Area Commission (HAC) to review a new design presented by the Kingstonian project’s architect Mackenzie Architects from Burlington, Vermont. The new design was triggered by a letter submitted by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on September 19th stating that their current project design would indeed have “adverse effects to the Kingston Stockade Historic District.” It’s what historic preservation advocates had been saying from the start and why, in part, they had advocated for a positive declaration in SEQR. As you may recall, all that is required for a positive declaration (Pos Dec) for a Type 1 action in the State Environmental Quality Review process (SEQR) is for there to be a single potentialadverse environmental impact. SHPO’s letter is confirmation of at least that.
In what typically takes months to address, the architect created a new design in a week’s time (between SHPO’s letter on 9/19 and the special joint meeting on the 9/26), comparing his ongoing process to Beethovan (video #1 starts at 16:46).
The Kingston Planning Board ultimately tabled the discussion. The HLPC also moved to table further consideration. The HAC did not have a quorum so did not vote.
I presume that the architects new design will be submitted to SHPO with comments from the meeting for further comment. The planning board agreed to set a special meeting in October.
The next planning board meeting is scheduled to occur on Monday, October 21 at 6:00pm. Currently, their agenda lists no detail.
The following video is a document of their discussion. Public comment takes place at the top of Video #1.
The meeting was filmed by The Kingston News brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org.
Last week the Kingstonian project team made a formal presentation to the City of Kingston Planning Board, the lead agency in the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process for the proposal. They have made similar presentations over the past couple of weeks to both the Heritage Area and Historic Landmarks Preservation Commissions’.
It was determined that the Planning Board would request more information regarding the traffic and visual impact studies. A joint meeting between the Kingston Planning Board, Heritage Area and Historic Landmarks Preservation Commissions’ will occur sometime in October. In the meantime the Kingston Planning Board is still waiting for comments regarding the studies acquired by the applicant from the Ulster County Planning Board, Department of Transportation and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
In closing, the applicant’s attorney volunteered to fill out the EAF Part Two of the SEQR process for the Planning Department and Assistant Corporation Counsel’s review. He will proceed once the outstanding comments from the remaining boards and agencies were collected and the joint meeting described above occurs.
We will be interested in reviewing this document, particularly Sections 17 (c) and 18 (c).
Click on image to review a blank “Full Environmental Assessment Form(EAF)Part 2 – Identification of Potential Project Impacts“
The next full Kingston Planning Board meeting will occur on Monday, September 16th at 6:00pm. Currently, there is nothing on the Agenda for the Kingstonian project. Visit the City of Kingston’s website and scroll down to ‘meeting events’ to review agendas to check throughout the day on the 16th to see whether or not any new Kingstonian items have been added to the planning board agenda (or visit us on Facebook for updates). We don’t anticipate any major decisions to be made this month.
VIEW the Transcription of the Planning Board’s Special Kingstonian Project meeting.
Video #1(Filmed by the Kingston News and brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org)
Public Comment 3:25 – 6:10: Gai Galitzine, Resident of Kingston 6:22 – 9:00: Ilona Ross, Resident of Kingston 9:24 – 11:06: Jane Eisenberg, Resident of Town of Ulster
11:17 – End: Kingstonian project team presentation
Video #2(Filmed by the Kingston News and brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org)
00:00 – End: Kingstonian project team presentation (continued)
On Tuesday, May 21, KingstonCitizens.org in partnership with the Kingston Tenants Union hosted a public educational forum on SEQR 101. Video from our event was created by The Kingston News brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org.
The event’s AGENDA is available with valuable links to resources on page two.
Thanks to Jennifer O’Donnell for bringing her knowledge and experience on the subject to our community.
In this image taken from the SEQR Cookbook, the top line “POSITIVE DECLARATION” illustrates robust public input for a pos dec determination in SEQR with many steps and opportunities. The bottom line “NEGATIVE DECLARATION” illustrates a neg dec determination where the review process concludes and there is no further opportunity for the public to participate as it relates to environmental impacts.
By Rebecca Martin
A recent Kingston Times article reported a claim by a member of the Kingstonian development team: “Dennis Larios is a civil engineer with long experience in Kingston. He’s currently working with JM Development Group on the Kingstonian project. Earlier this month, in a Facebook post, Larios suggested that his clients would likely walk away from the project if the planning board issues a “positive declaration of environmental significance.”
A day later, the Daily Freeman reported that a second member of the Kingstonian development team suggested that a determination of significance (and likely a negative declaration) would not be made for a very long time, as they had not yet provided the lead agency with all of the necessary information.
Attorney Michael Moriello said in a statement, “It is beyond presumptuous for these opponents to attempt to subvert the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review process by insisting upon a positive declaration of environmental significance before any potentially large impacts have had an opportunity to be identified and mitigated….Because we intend to follow all environmental review requirements and as we have not yet provided all of the necessary information and studies, we do not anticipate a determination of significance under SEQRA for (a) fairly lengthy period of time….we are confident that we will ultimately obtain a negative declaration of environmental significance so that the vast majority of city residents, visitors and business owners will ultimately benefit from the environmental review and the Kingstonian’s attendant economic, cultural and employment benefits.”
When SEQR begins, a series of specific actions are to take place starting with a 30-day window for the involved agencies to approve or deny the request for lead agency. An involved agency may also “state their interests and concerns regarding selection of lead agency and potential impacts of the overall action” (SEQR handbook, page 66, item #5). That’s exactly what the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission has done as a responsible involved agency along with three interested State agencies which submitted comments to the Kingston Planning Board within the 30-day window for lead agency selection or the 20-day window for determination of significance which I describe next.
Leslie Melvin reads her public comment, the letter submitted by the HLPC to the Kingston Planning Board on March 11th recommending a positive declaration in the SEQR process, at last evening’s public hearing on the proposed Kingstonian Project
After providing public comment for the proposed Kingstonian Project during its public hearing last evening, Leslie Melvin, a citizen volunteer who was serving on the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC), resigned.
Melvin submitted her letter of resignation following her public speaking.
Dear Mayor Noble,
Merging the HAC and the HLPC has been a publicly-stated goal of yours for the last few years despite failing to convince either commission, or the Common Council, of the plan’s merits.
With your recent decision to not renew Marissa Marvelli and Alan Baer’s appointments—and by appointing HAC commissioners to fill those newly created vacancies — you have effected your own de facto merging of the HAC and HLPC.
To be clear, these efforts appear to only serve one administration’s own short-term interests – they are not in the best interest of the residents of the city of Kingston, and they are certainly not in the interest of preserving what we know to be irreplaceable in the city we love.
This is no way to treat dedicated and knowledgeable professionals, this is no way to treat volunteers, and this is no way to treat constituents. In such a troubling political climate, we expect our leaders to honor an obligation to guarantee transparent, fair processes, and to encourage the exchange of information, free from undue influence. You’ve sent a clear signal that volunteers, working on behalf of the city and its residents, can only expect conditional support.
I am saddened to submit my resignation from the HLPC, effective immediately.
Co-sponsors include: Kingston Tenants Union, Midtown Rising, Rise Up Kingston, Citizen Action of New York Mid-Hudson Valley Chapter, Nobody Leaves Mid Hudson and KingstonCitizens.org
MORE It is not expected that the planning board will make any decisions on the 10th.
A regular planning board meeting will occur on Monday, 4/15 where the planning board may decide on the items listed in the 4/10 AGENDA (lot line deletion, site plan / special permit and SEQR determination (pos or neg dec))
WATCH Marissa Marvelli address the HLPC
2:10 – 6:47
On Wednesday, April 4th, Marissa Marvelli and Alan Baer were invited into the Mayor’s office and abruptly learned that they would not be reappointed to the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission, even though both wished to continue to serve. Under the charter, the Mayor has sole authority to appoint or remove members of all boards, committees and commissions. There is no oversight of those decisions by the Common Council.
Marissa Marvelli is a historic preservation specialist with a master’s degree in the discipline from Columbia University. Alan Baer is an architect educated at the University of Cincinnati with continuing education at Xavier, Pratt, RPI, and Harvard. He had served on the HLPC for 17 years. Both are Kingston residents.
The decision is believed to be part of the Mayor’s plan to merge the Historic Landmarks Preservation (HLPC) and Heritage Area Commissions (HAC). “Streamlining,” as it’s known, has been a contentious concept in the City of Kingston for years. It was included as a goal in the City of Kingston’s draft Comprehensive Plan by the consultant Shuster-Turner Associates (who were also involved in our 1961 Comp Plan that some experts say ushered in Urban Renewal in Kingston) and later removed after preservationists from around the city and the State Historic Preservation Office warned of its implications for Kingston’s standing in the state.
To everyone’s surprise, the goal to streamline reappeared in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Zoning Recommendations that were released to the public in January of 2018. As Comp Plan Zoning is meant to reflect the goals of an adopted Comp Plan, many felt it had no business being there. Before a new Comp Plan Zoning group had been established, the executive branch delivered legislation to streamline commission to be reviewed by the Common Council. At that time, we had no idea what the motivation was for the City.
At last evening’s meeting of the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC), the Commission as an involved agency in the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) for the proposed Kingstonian Project put forward a motion to amend the agenda to include a discussion of the Kingstonian Project and its “potential significant environmental impacts” pertaining to historic preservation. With the clock ticking on a 20-day window for the Planning Board, as lead agency, to make a Positive or Negative Declaration in SEQR (the deadline being March 20th), the HLPC’s March meeting would have effectively been their last opportunity to discuss their concerns as a collective body. Apparently it was the desire of the entire Commission to have this discussion placed on its March agenda beforehand, but their request was not honored by the Commission’s administrative staff in the Planning Department.
VIDEO ONE: 4:00 – 20:00
KingstonCitizens.org found it deeply troubling that the City of Kingston’s Planning Director — who is both affiliated with the Planning Board as Lead Agency (meant to be an impartial body responsible for administering the environmental review process) and as staff of the executive branch that wrote the successful Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) application to secure the $10 million dollar grant to be used in part to fund the Kingstonian Project — spent nearly 15 minutes trying to dissuade the Commission from amending their agenda to include a discussion of the project and its potential impacts as it pertained to the historical, archeological and community character of the project. The Commissioners had also requested that the item be placed on the agenda, but Suzanne Cahill, who now is responsible for the HLPC’s administrative duties, would not agree to do so.
The HLPC is one of 10 involved agencies that will have a discretionary decision to make for the Kingstonian Project. Although anyone can point out potential significant environmental impacts, it is required in the SEQR regulations for the Commission in their capacity to “state their concerns (of the)…potential (environmental) impacts of the overall action”.
In the SEQR Handbook, Page 66, “How is the lead agency chosen?” it says about all Involved Agencies:
“The agency undertaking a direct action or the first agency to receive a request for funding or approval should circulate a letter, Part I of the EAF, and a copy of the application, including a site map, to other potentially involved agencies. That agency may choose to indicate its desire to serve as lead or may point out that its jurisdiction may be minimal compared to other agencies. If it has indicated a desire to become lead agency, it may also note its intended determination of significance. The letter should request all other involved agencies to state their interests and concerns regarding selection of lead agency and potential impacts of the overall action. The letter should also note that an agency’s failure to respond within 30 days of the date of the letter will be interpreted as having no interest in the choice of lead agency and having no comments on the action at this time.”
“Dan,” said Kingston Planning Director Suzanne Cahill, as a seemingly last resort for support of her efforts to squash the item from the agenda. “I’m with you,” replied Dan Gartenstein, the City of Kingston’s Assistant Corporation Counsel, who serves at the pleasure of the Mayor. “I don’t think this item should be discussed if it was not on a publicly distributed agenda…based on open meetings law.” However, there is no reference to agendas in the NYS Open Meetings Law.
Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given or electronically transmitted to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy-two hours before such meeting.
Public notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be given or electronically transmitted, to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a reasonable time prior thereto.
The public notice provided for by this section shall not be construed to require publication as a legal notice.
If video conferencing is used to conduct a meeting, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public that video conferencing will be used, identify the locations for the meeting, and state that the public has the right to attend the meeting at any of the locations.
If a meeting will be streamed live over the internet, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public of the internet address of the website streaming such meeting.
When a public body has the ability to do so, notice of the time and place of a meeting given in accordance with subdivision one or two of this section shall also be conspicuously posted on the public body’s internet website.
KingstonCitizens.org is all for good policy, but the City of Kingston’s elected and appointed officials have a responsibility to not mislead the public or its citizen volunteer commissioners at any time. In the case of the Kingstonian Project, the meeting filmed last night raises the question of whether it is even possible for any municipal body to be lead agency and remain impartial in SEQR given what it stands to gain in a public/private partnership. Maybe, but the perceived errors in the actions of city staff last night ought to be enough to inspire the Planning Board to follow the rules to the letter to insure a transparent process.
VIDEO TWO: 5:34 – 18:08
The HLPC discusses the potential significant environmental impacts as it pertains to historic preservation for the proposed Kingstonian Project.
The project site has the potential to yield information important in history or prehistory, such as evidence of the former presence of the stockade which crossed on or near to this site and/or other previously unknown archaeological resources. Such evidence was unearthed nearby on Clinton Avenue in 1970. This site has been identified as archaeologically sensitive by the NY State Historic Preservation Office.
This project involves the demolition of an existing architectural resource in the Stockade Historic District and may seek to replicate this resource, which has the potential to create a false historical record.
This project involves new construction in the Stockade Historic District. Potential impacts include those that are construction-related, such as falling objects, vibration (from blasting or pile-driving), dewatering, flooding, subsidence, or collapse. The project’s close proximity to two architectural resources—the Senate House and grounds and the John Tremper House at 1 North Front Street—may negatively impact them if adequate precautions are not taken.
New construction may impact the visual context of the district, including the architectural components of the district’s buildings in this area (e.g. height, scale, proportion, massing, fenestration, ground-floor configuration, style), streetscapes, skyline, landforms, and openness to the sky. The project may also impact the visual context of the Senate House, a significant state landmark.
This project proposes changes to a significant historic landscape feature of this historic district: the bluff, an important element to interpreting the district’s history. The National Register nomination for the Stockade Historic District recognizes the following:
“To this day, the boundary lines of this stockade are formed by Green Street, Main Street, Clinton Avenue, and North Front Street and are still intact. Also, amazingly enough, almost the entire bluff promontory forming the perimeter of this area, elevated above the lowland, is still comparatively intact. Therefore, of the three first settlements in New York State—Albany (Fort Orange, New York (New Amsterdam), and Kingston—it is only Kingston that the authentic elements of an original fortification remain. Documents indicate that this log palisade was in existence until the early eighteenth century, having been kept in repair as protection against later Indian raids. While this area at present is surrounded by commercial development, aerial photography has recently indicated the existence of outlines suggesting that the angle itself may as yet be relatively undisturbed. This area forms a sharp bluff and this may account for its preservation.”
This post was updated December 21, 2018, to clarify two details. Firstly, the assistant corporation counsel, who provides legal counsel to the city’s commissions and boards, insisted to the Commission that the transcript of the final hearing would be sufficient for explaining the rationale of the Commission’s decision in lieu of a thorough written decision. Secondly, frequent intrusions in the commission’s final deliberations were made by the applicant and their lawyer and not other members of the public.
***
“The purpose...is to provide for the promotion of the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public through the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and preservation of landmarks and Landmark Districts. The legislative body declares that it is in the public interest to ensure that the distinctive landmarks and Landmark District shall not be injuriously affected, that the value to the community of those buildings having architectural and historical worth shall not be impaired and that said districts be maintained and preserved to promote their use of the education, pleasure and welfare of the citizens of the City of Kingston and others.” Legislative Intent of the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission, City of Kingston Administrative Code §405-63
The HLPC failed in its review of the ICC—not on principle but on procedure. The final written decision of the HLPC is inadequate in describing the Commission’s reasons for its denying approval for the ICC.No member of the Commission was directly involved in the composition of the written decision, a concern that was raised by members in the weeks following the final hearing. In response, the assistant corporation counsel for the City of Kingston, who provides legal counsel to the city’s boards and commissions, insisted that the transcript would be sufficient for conveying the commission’s rationale. That transcript, which by default became the primary record of the hearing, documents a circuitous deliberation by Commissioners with frequent intrusions by the applicant and their lawyer. The record further reveals the difficulty that Commissioners had in interpreting the criteria for review as outlined in the code, because the language is too vague and weighted towards the consideration of changes to individual buildings rather than new construction in historic districts. In this light, it is not difficult to see why the ZBA and this judge concluded that the HLPC’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.”
One of the fundamental duties of the HLPC when reviewing proposed changes in a historic district is to ensure that the character of the historic district is maintained, and “prevent construction, reconstruction, alteration or demolition out of harmony with existing buildings insofar as character, material, color, line and detail are concerned, and thus to prevent degeneration of property, to safeguard public health, promote safety and preserve the beauty of the character of the landmark or Landmark District.” (City of Kingston Administrative Code §405-64 D)
No single detail defines a historic district’s character. It is the multitude of details taken together that creates a distinctive environment and sense of place. Such character-defining qualities include the relationships of buildings to each other and to the street. Do the buildings form a continuous streetwall or are they spaced apart? Are they situated directly at the street or are they set back from it? What was the historical development trend that led to their existence? Is there a discernible rhythm or pattern of details, be it building sizes, roof massing, cornices, or windows? Many districts have multiple rhythms. Character is also defined by the type of buildings, their construction, and scale—the architecture of a single-family dwelling is different than that of a store-and-loft building in terms of massing, façade proportion, materiality, fenestration, and building features like porches and storefronts.
The qualities described above are aesthetic ones. It is incumbent on members of the HLPC to consider all of them when considering the appropriateness of new construction in a historic district, be it an addition to an existing structure or a wholly new building on a vacant site.
The house in 1906 before the Myron Teller updates. (LOC)
The house today with ivy engulfing the west elevation, June 29, 2025.
