At last evening’s Town of Ulster Board meeting, Warren Tutt, the building inspector for the Town of Ulster, provided an overview of his inspection of the Kingston Hotel. On September 18, 2025, he conducted a four-hour inspection, gaining access to 61 of the hotel’s 66 rooms. Every room inspected was found to have violations.
WATCH the recorded meeting on Facebook. Starts at 1:31:31
He reported issues ranging from mold to bed bugs and cockroach infestations. Even the six vacant rooms had violations, and he stated those rooms should not be offered until they are fully brought up to code.
The Kingston Hotel was originally approved by the Town to operate as a transient hotel, but it is now being used as long-term housing—without any of the infrastructure required to safely support that use. There are no proper kitchen facilities, no legal multi-family approvals, and none of the protections expected in regulated residential housing.
When asked why the inspection didn’t happen earlier, Supervisor James Quigley responded, “BOCES.” He noted that the building department had been tied up with other projects and only initiated the inspection about five weeks ago, after a report by Kingston Wire brought public attention to the issue. But people have been talking about the poor conditions at the Kingston Hotel for much longer than that.
As for how the inspection was carried out, the building inspector explained that there are three legal ways to gain access: permission from the owner, permission from a registered tenant over 18, or a court order. In this case, the owner provided him a key.
The Town issued a Notice of Violation, giving the property owner 30 days to fix the problems, with a deadline of October 31st.
Policing of the property has also increased. Quigley said that the Ulster Police Department has been monitoring the hotel for nearly two years. In September, the Town entered into a formal agreement with the property owner to provide additional patrols, with the owner billed monthly for the added presence.
“There’s a concern for the safety of the people living there, and for the surrounding community.” Supervisor Quigley said.
According to the Ulster County Comptroller’s report released in April 2025, emergency housing costs are substantial and growing. By 2024, the cost per room for emergency housing is $102.86. For the Kingston Hotel, if all 66 rooms were occupied year round, the total would be $6,788.76 per day, or $2,477,897 per year. That’s a significant amount of money for the Kingston Hotel. So why is maintenance being deferred?
“This is a commercial relationship between the County and the owner,” Quigley said. “They have the responsibility to apply pressure to bring the building into compliance.”
The Town has not yet determined what enforcement action it will take if the property is not brought up to code by October 31st, though options include issuing further violations or pursuing legal action.
When hotels and motels end up being used for long-term housing, shouldn’t they be required to meet at least the bare minimum standards of a studio apartment? This stopgap solution that costs taxpayers millions each year and yet families are left to live in unsafe and unhealthy conditions. If property owners are making a profit by effectively operating these rooms as unintended long-term housing, where is the accountability? Are there any requirements in place to enforce safe, livable conditions? There should be. The ongoing neglect is inhumane.
Two motions appeared to be cast during the meeting. The first was for the board to approve the Positive Declaration (Pos Dec) resolution (see page 50 “meeting documents”) —contingent on a letter from Terra-Gen’s attorneys stating they would not sue the Town over the decision or to table it. The second was to formally adopt the resolution.
We were surprised the Town chose to pass the resolution during a workshop meeting—without setting the public scoping period—despite public requests for a 90-day comment window. Typically, both actions occur together during a regular legislative session, as scoping is automatic with a Pos Dec. We’ll have to wait to see how the board handles this at the next Town Board meeting. Still, we appreciate Board Member Clayton Van Kleeck’s leadership and the thoughtful questions he raised—especially in contrast to continued misleading statements about legal risk that have caused confusion and delay.
For months, Supervisor James Quigley publicly claimed that issuing a Pos Dec could expose the Town to legal action. As recently as the September 25 meeting, he responded angrily to a resident request for a Pos Dec and a 90-day scoping process: “I’ll call for a Pos Dec right now, and then we can get sued.”
These repeated warnings were not only misleading—they were legally unfounded. A Pos Dec is a routine requirement under SEQR when a project has one potential significant environmental impact. It does not oppose or block a project; it merely initiates a full environmental review. Suggesting that complying with SEQR invites litigation misinformed both the Board and the public and fostered unnecessary fear around fulfilling a basic obligation.
For those who continue to claim that issuing a Pos Dec would appear to be a result of public pressure: if you read the Town’s own resolution, you’ll see it explicitly identifies the potential impacts that the public has been raising for months (see page 50 of “meeting documents”). The record shows that the Town recognized the same environmental concerns the community has long voiced—proving that the decision was based on substance, not simply public outcry.
In fact, during last night’s meeting, Terra-Gen’s attorney Rob Panasci (Young/Sommer LLC) said that the company does not oppose the Pos Dec. When directly asked by Van Kleeck whether Terra-Gen would sue over the decision, Panasci responded:
“We’re not suing. I don’t know if there was some implication of that? We wouldn’t be able to sue you if you issue a Pos Dec.”
Despite this clear statement, the Board still insisted on a formal letter from Terra-Gen confirming no lawsuit would be filed—an unusual and unnecessary step that underscores the months of misinformation from the Supervisor and the town’s legal counsel.
Ironically, it was later stated on the record that Terra-Gen preferred a Pos Dec be issued sooner rather than later—exactly as SEQR intends for a project of this scope.
The next step is the public scoping process, which defines the content of the Environmental Impact Statement. We expect the Town Board to outline the scoping process and address the community’s request for a 90-day public comment period at the next town board meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 16.
(click on image and turn to page 50 to review the resolution for a positive declaration in SEQR)
By Rebecca Martin
Tomorrow, the Town of Ulster Town Board will hold a workshop to discuss the next steps in the environmental review of the proposed Terra-Gen lithium-ion battery storage facility — a large-scale battery storage project that has drawn both interest and concern from the community.
A workshop is a working session where the Town Board meets to discuss issues in greater detail, but no formal decisions or votes are typically made. Unlike regular Town Board meetings, workshops are more informal and play an important role in preparing for major decisions.
The public may provide comments at the beginning of the meeting, limited to agenda items only and three minutes per speaker. At the end of the meeting, the public will also have an opportunity to comment on non-agenda items.
About the Terra-Gen Project
Terra-Gen, a U.S.-based renewable energy developer backed by Alcazar Energy, has proposed building a utility-scale lithium-ion battery energy storage system in the Town of Ulster. The facility is designed to store electricity and discharge it during times of peak demand — a critical function for supporting the transition to renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which produce power intermittently.
In the short term, the energy stored in the facility will likely come largely from the existing regional electric grid, which is still primarily powered by fossil fuels. This reflects the current energy mix in the area, and while it may limit the immediate climate benefits of the project, battery storage remains an important tool for grid stability and for enabling greater integration of renewables over time.
Based on the developer’s application, community members, elected officials, and subject-matter experts have identified a range of concerns, including fire risk, emergency preparedness, and the facility’s proximity to residential neighborhoods. Under SEQR, all that is required is one potential adverse significant environmental impact to justify a Positive Declaration—and several have already been identified. If issued, the Town Board’s Positive Declaration would trigger a full environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), ensuring these concerns are thoroughly examined before any decisions are made.
What Happens Next?
If the Town Board issues the Positive Declaration, it commits to a more thorough environmental review under SEQR, starting with a public scoping phase to identify which impacts must be studied. Terra-Gen will then prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), followed by a public comment period and hearings. After reviewing feedback, a Final EIS will be prepared, and the Town Board will decide whether the project may proceed.
This process allows the public and experts to weigh in on key environmental, safety, and land use concerns before final decisions are made.
It is not yet clear whether a majority of the Town Board supports the Positive Declaration. Tomorrow’s workshop should clarify who supports or opposes it, and why.
Crucially, the public should request a 90-day public comment period for scoping to be included in the town’s resolution. While the town may approve only 60 days, this extra time is essential for thorough review and meaningful input. Without this request, the town risks defaulting to the minimum 30-day SEQR requirement, which many believe is insufficient for the complex issues at hand.
What to Expect at Tomorrow’s Workshop
While no vote will take place at this workshop, it marks an important step in the process and gives residents a chance to better understand the Town’s next steps. It also signals that some of members of the Town Board are taking the environmental and safety concerns seriously, rather than rushing the project forward.
The workshop will be held tomorrow, Thursday, October 2, at 7:00 p.m at Town of Ulster Town Hall located at 1 Town Hall Drive in Lake Katrine. For more information, including the agenda and materials, please visit the Town’s Google folder.
If you can’t make it tomorrow, you can send in your public comment to be placed on the record. Encourage the town to issue a positive declaration and 90-day public scoping process. Submit your comments by 3:30pm tomorrow to the Town of Ulster’s Town Clerk Suzanne Reavy at: sr****@*************ny.gov
Town of Ulster Town Board Member Clayton Van Kleeck gets a standing ovation.
It was a great night for local advocacy. Community members turned out to call for a Positive Declaration and thorough environmental review of the proposed Terra-Gen project.
At the public meeting, TownOfUlsterCitizens.org’s Laura Hartmann(listen at: 38:34) and Regis Obijiski(listen at: 57:38), as well as Town of Hurley’s Jillian Fried(listen at: 52:53) were among some of the excellent speakers, each delivered powerful testimony.
The meeting turned tense when Town Supervisor Jim Quigley raised his voice at constituents during public comment. In response, Town Board Member Clayton Van Kleeck stepped in, reminding the Supervisor that board policy prohibits speaking back to the public during comment periods and to “tone it down.”
Van Kleeck then made a formal request for the town’s attorney and planner to prepare a draft resolution for a Positive Declaration, calling the Terra-Gen proposal “possibly the largest and most significant project they’ve had in front of them in decades, perhaps ever.” He asked that the draft be ready for review and discussion at the October 2 workshop meeting (listen at: 1:19:47), and that the town lawyer and planner be present.
Thanks to Town of Ulster Town board member Van Kleeck for his stewardship.
On July 2 Terra-Gen presented its proposal for a 250 MW battery energy storage facility at the former John A. Coleman Catholic School site, located at 430 Hurley Ave in the Town of Hurley. The proposed location borders the Town of Hurley, the City of Kingston, and lies adjacent to a Potential Environmental Justice Area (PEJA). This project has raised concerns about environmental risks and land use compatibility.
What was promoted as a “community meeting” turned out to be a one-way Zoom presentation, where only Terra-Gen and its consultants were allowed to speak. The public could submit written questions interpreted by the consultants, but many questions went unasked during the session, and there was no opportunity for open dialogue. While Terra-Gen has promised future meetings, with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) currently underway, meaningful public engagement for a project of this size and nature should only begin after a Positive Declaration.
During their zoom presentation, Terra-Gen said the facility can power 250,000 homes for just four hours when fully charged. The project’s consultants said that the risks were “apples to oranges” compared to other similar projects and that this facility is safe. That might be true, but we’re not taking their word for it. The proposed site is directly surrounded by residential neighborhoods and lies close to vulnerable populations. This is not an industrial zone – it’s a community where people live, raise families, and expect a safe and stable environment. Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) carry real risks, including fire, explosion, and toxic chemical release. These are not theoretical dangers. Placing this type of infrastructure so close to homes and the nearby Esopus Creek could lead to negative environmental and public health impacts
When asked about potential impacts to the Esopus Creek and local water quality – particularly if firefighting water runoff could harm the ecosystem – Terra-Gen representatives deferred to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the EPA, providing no specific answers. That kind of uncertainty alone justifies a positive declaration and the need for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and scoping process under SEQRA.
There’s no doubt we need more renewable energy projects – and reliable ways to store that energy – if we’re going to ever successfully move away from fossil fuels. But even green projects must be done responsibly. Moving too quickly or cutting corners can lead to serious risks, especially with large-scale battery storage systems. Proper environmental review ensures that these projects are safe, well-sited, and truly beneficial to both the community and the environment.
Under SEQR, once a lead agency is established through the coordinated review process (which can take up to 30 days), that agency then has 20 days to determine whether the proposed project may have any significant adverse environmental impacts. If the project is classified as a Type I action—as is the case with a 250MW battery storage facility—and even one potentially significant impact is identified, the lead agency must issue a Positive Declaration. This triggers the need for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), ensuring that environmental risks such as fire hazards, chemical use, and community impacts are thoroughly studied. Public scoping is also required, allowing the public and involved agencies to help identify key concerns early in the review process and ensure a focused, transparent environmental analysis.
As of now, the Town of Ulster has not issued a SEQRA determination. This makes the July 24 Town Board meeting a pivotal moment for the public to urge the Town Board to take the necessary steps to ensure this project receives the full scrutiny it warrants:
Issue a Positive Declaration under SEQRA
Provide a 90-day public comment period
Hold at least two public scoping meetings
We urge the public to show up and demand a process that prioritizes public participation and community input every step of the way.
A proposed 250-megawatt battery energy storage facility in the Town of Ulster is drawing increased scrutiny from local residents and officials. The project would install lithium-ion batteries housed in 14-foot-tall containers across nearly 12 acres of the former John A. Coleman Catholic High School property adjacent to the City of Kingston and Town of Hurley. There are many names being mentioned, but our understanding – based on the application submitted to the Town of Ulster – is that the project is called the Alcazar Energy Storage Project. It is being developed by U.S.-based Terra-Gen (Vice President Mark Turner), a subsidiary of Masdar , the renewable energy company owned by the Abu Dhabi government, and funded by the international clean energy investor Alcazar Energy. You should inquire who is who. It’s all pretty confusing.
On June 18, the Town of Ulster hosted a public meeting where dozens of residents raised concerns about the project’s safety, transparency, and potential environmental and financial impacts at the end of the meeting. At the end of the meeting, Hurley Town Supervisor Mike Boms, representing the neighboring community that borders the project site, asked important questions – something great to hear. You can listen to the public comments starting at approximately 54:42 in the audio file available in the Google Doc files linked above.
Virtual Community Meeting Scheduled for July 2
In response to public pressure, Alcazar Energy (the project applicant) has scheduled a virtual community meeting on Tuesday, July 2 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss potential adverse impacts of the project on residents in Ulster, Hurley, and the City of Kingston. Questions can be submitted in advance to: in**@***************gy.com . Terra-Gen Vice President Mark Turner is expected to respond live.
While this meeting is a welcome opportunity for engagement, it would have been far more beneficial if held before the developer submitted their application, which triggered the formal environmental review process under SEQR. Early engagement could have helped shape the project in a way that better reflects community needs and concerns.
Backtrack on SEQR: Concerns Emerge Over Review Process
Under SEQR, any government agency not listed in the EAF can be excluded from the review process, even if they have decision-making authority over permits or financial incentives.
The Town is now completing Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the EAF, steps often reserved for the end of the review process just before issuing a Negative Declaration (a finding of no significant impact).
This project clearly meets SEQR’s legal threshold for issuing a Positive Declaration, which requires preparing a full Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and initiating a public scoping process. The scoping process is vital for public input, and to identify and evaluate potential significant environmental impacts, such as battery fire safety, emergency response, and other risks. Under SEQR, the presence of just one potential significant adverse impact is enough to trigger a Positive Declaration.
A Positive Declaration also ensures the public can formally shape the scope of environmental studies, keeping the process transparent and accountable. While SEQR customarily allows for a 30-day public scoping period, given the size and complexity of this project, the public should advocate for an extended 90-day scoping period to ensure sufficient time for review and input.
For a simple explanation of SEQR, read “The SEQR Cookbook” a process overseen by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The process requires state and local government agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their actions (the project) during their decision-making process.
PILOT Concerns: Who Pays, Who Decides?
Community members should use the July 2 meeting to ask critical financial and procedural questions. Chief among them: Does Terra-Gen plan to apply for a Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) agreement through the Ulster County Industrial Development Agency (UCIDA)?
If so, why is UCIDA missing from the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)? SEQR requires that all involved agencies be disclosed at the outset, and omitting UCIDA could exclude tax-related impacts from the formal environmental review.
Even more significantly, if the PILOT deviates from New York State’s standard PILOT schedule – as many large energy projects do – then the City of Kingston Board of Education should likely be listed as an involved agency, since school districts are entitled to approve or reject deviated PILOTs.
In addition, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) may also be involved if public energy incentives are sought. A 2019 PV Magazine article identified over $8 million in NYSERDA incentives initially offered to a previous developer (GlidePath) for a nearby site, though smaller in scale (25MW). Whether those incentives are still available or being pursued by Terra-Gen remains unclear and should be addressed.
Strategic Siting: Are Standalone Batteries the Best Fit?
Critics point out that battery storage projects this large are most effective when co-located with major renewable energy generation, such as large wind farms. Terra-Gen is already developing:
Yet this proposed battery facility is not located near any such generation. In Ulster County, we have been focused on developing more local solar farms, but they are intermittent and typically consumed on-site, meaning there’s little excess to store and shift during overnight hours. Without a viable renewable energy source to pair with, some question the value of a large standalone battery facility in the Town of Ulster (and especially lithium-ion) if they rely on fossil-fuel-generated grid electricity during peak times.
Take Action
Before moving forward, the Town of Ulster should send the EAF back to Alcazar for revisions to include all relevant agencies such as potential UCIDA, the City of Kingston School District, NYSERDA, and others. The Town should then issue a Positive Declaration under SEQR, recognizing the clear potential for significant environmental impacts, and approve a 90-day public scoping process. These critical steps guarantee a thorough environmental review, meaningful public involvement, and proper consideration of all impacts. SEQR’s effectiveness depends on strict adherence to these requirements to protect the community’s health, safety, and well-being.
Key Questions to Ask Terra-Gen
Will Terra-Gen apply for a PILOT through UCIDA? If yes, why is UCIDA missing from the EAF?
Since the project site is within the City of Kingston School District, which would be affected by any deviated PILOT impacting school tax revenues, why is the school district not listed as an involved agency in the EAF?
Why are other likely involved agencies like NYSERDA omitted? If Terra-Gen is pursuing grants, subsidies, or renewable energy credits through NYSERDA, why are these programs and the agency not disclosed in the EAF?
Questions for the Town of Ulster as Lead Agency
Under SEQR, a Positive Declaration must be issued if there is potential for even one significant adverse environmental impact. Given the scale and nature of this project, isn’t a Positive Declaration clearly warranted?
Will the Town commit to a 90-day public scoping period to provide the community with adequate time and opportunity to shape the scope of the environmental review and ensure all concerns are fully addressed?
The SEQR process may seem intimidating at first, but if you break it down into smaller steps, it’s actually quite easy to understand. If you have any questions about how it works, I can try to help. Feel free to call me at 845-750-7295.
We support battery storage and want to see more renewable energy in our community, but it must be done correctly. Your voice matters. Keep working with your elected officials to ensure transparency, accountability, and a thorough environmental review before this project moves forward.
The NYS Potential Environmental Justice Area that includes residential neighborhoods adjacent to the former John A. Coleman Catholic High School, located at 438 Hurley Ave. in the Town of Ulster (sandwiched between the City of Kingston and Town of Hurley).
By Rebecca Martin
When GlidePath first came to the Town of Ulster in 2017 with a proposal to build a 20-megawatt power plant fueled by natural gas and diesel, our community responded swiftly and decisively. The plan called for industrial-scale fossil fuel combustion in the heart of a 120-acre forest, just 680 feet from homes. Two smokestacks were slated to rise 30 feet above the treetops, threatening public health, neighborhood character, and the environment.
This proposal became the catalyst for the formation of TownOfUlsterCitizens.org, a grassroots organization that rallied neighbors and experts alike to demand a better solution. Their work played a vital role in redirecting the proposal toward a renewable-ready battery storage facility, a clean energy technology that GlidePath had already implemented elsewhere in New York.
The Power of SEQR and Public Engagement
Crucial to transforming the GlidePath project in 2017 was New York’s State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process, which requires thorough environmental review and public input. Thanks to this process, and elected and appointed officials responsive to informed public pressure, the project was paused and ultimately reimagined.
The result: a battery-only “peaker” facility relocated from the forest to an appropriate industrial zone. While the COVID-19 pandemic delayed its progress, the facility received extensions and GlidePath made a written commitment to permanently conserve 109 acres of the original forested site. This was a rare and meaningful win for clean energy, public health, and local conservation.
Unfortunately, the project stalled before the community could see the technology in action or deepen its understanding of how battery storage can work responsibly in our region.
A New Proposal Emerges: Terra-Gen’s Battery Storage Facility
Today, a new proposal is on the table from Terra-Gen, a U.S.-based renewable energy developer backed by Alcazar Energy, a major international clean energy investment firm.
On May 15, the Town of Ulster Town Board issued a letter of intent to serve as lead agency under SEQR, officially launching the state-mandated environmental review process.
We’re sharing this update now to ensure the public is informed and engaged from the very beginning, because this project, like the one in 2017, raises critical questions.
What’s Missing in the Application?
Our early review of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) shows some gaps. There could be others.
The site lies within the City of Kingston School District, which should be considered an involved agency if public subsidies like a PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) are sought.
The Ulster County Industrial Development Agency (UCIDA) is not named but would likely play a role if public financing is involved.
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan references are vague. The site spans both residential and commercial zones. Are battery facilities permitted uses?
The site is near the Lower Esopus Creek, a state-designated impaired waterbody, but this is not acknowledged in the application.
No reference is made to the Ulster County Open Space Plan (2010) or Natural Resources Inventory (2023).
Impacts to drinking water supplies are unknown.
The site borders a Potential Environmental Justice Area (PEJA). While not technically within one, its adjacency means nearby communities should be meaningfully considered in outreach and review.
Fire Safety
Battery storage is a critical clean energy solution, but it must be implemented with full awareness of the risks, including fire. Some community members have expressed deep concern about the risk of fire associated with large-scale lithium-ion battery storage, particularly when proposed so close to homes.
In this case, residents are living just 22 feet from the proposed project site. That kind of proximity dramatically raises the stakes. A serious fire event could threaten the safety of families and first responders.
On September 18, 2023, a fire broke out at a Terra-Gen battery storage facility in Valley Center, California, releasing thick black smoke. As of now, a full report on the cause has not been made public. This incident underscores the urgent need for rigorous fire prevention, risk assessment, and emergency response planning, especially when battery storage facilities are proposed near residential neighborhoods.
Where We Stand
Remember, we are volunteers just like you and are doing our best to understand any project of concern that is in front of us. We support clean energy and battery storage. But like in 2017, we demand that these projects be built responsibly, transparently, and in the right locations.
The gaps in the Terra-Gen proposal mean it’s too soon to say whether this site is appropriate for such a large-scale project. That’s why we’re calling for a rigorous review.
Take Action
Call for a Positive Declaration
Once the lead agency accepts its role under SEQR to lead the environmental review, it has 20 days to determine whether the proposed action may result in one or more significant adverse environmental impacts (6 NYCRR §617.7). If so, the agency is required to issue a Positive Declaration, which triggers the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and begins a public scoping process. The public should advocate for a Positive Declaration and request a 90-day scoping period to ensure robust public participation in the environmental review.
Ask the Right Questions
Contact the City of Kingston School District Board of Education: Ask whether they plan to be listed as an involved agency in SEQR if a PILOT is proposed
Reach out to the UCIDA: Ask if they are aware of any public financing requests from Terra-Gen, and if they should be included in the review.
Urge Ulster County to Step In
As an involved agency, request that the Ulster County Planning Department to review the FEAF now, during the lead agency coordination phase, and request a positive declaration in SEQR.
Request that they recommend:
Amending the application to acknowledge the Lower Esopus Creek as an impaired waterbody;
Inclusion of the Open Space Plan and Natural Resources Inventory, and any impacts based on them;
Consideration of local NYS potential environmental justice impacts.
Encourage neighbors and local groups to stay informed, participate in hearings, and submit comments.
Battery storage can be a powerful tool for a cleaner energy future, but only if it’s done right, with community voices at the center, public health prioritized, and full transparency throughout the process. The Town of Ulster has an opportunity to lead with integrity and foresight. Let’s make sure they get this right, together.
Last month, we received a call from a resident who learned that the Town of Ulster was facilitating discussions with a water bottling plant poking around Enterprise Drive and Boices Lane.
A decade ago, the proposed Niagara Bottling project abandoned its controversial plan to build a plant near TechCity that would have drawn water from the city of Kingston’s reservoir after a five month long coalition effort led by KingstonCitizens.org. “Any impact that we might have made is a reflection of strong resolve, partnerships, commitment, patience and perseverance by us all. It is a great illustration of Democracy at work in the Hudson Valley.” we were quoted saying back then. KingstonCitizens.org went on to change the water powers law with a referendum to protect the Kingston community in November of 2015. The coalition of partners included The Woodstock Land Conservancy, Riverkeeper, Esopus Creek Conservancy, Food and Water Watch, SaveCooperLake.org, Catskill Mountainkeeper, NYPIRG, The Wittenberg Center, Mid-Hudson Sierra Club, Red Hook Conservation Advisory Council, Clark Richters and Kingston News, SUNY Ulster Environmental Club, Scenic Hudson, Sustainable Saugerties, Slow Food Hudson Valley, Town of Woodstock, Town of Red Hook, City of Kingston Common Council and Conservation Advisory Council and Kingston and Woodstock NY Transition.
Recently, with the support of our sister group the TownOfUlsterCitizens.org, a FOIL request was submitted to learn as much as we could about a proposed water bottling plant in 2024 before alerting City of Kingston officials and our independent water board. What we learned was that although some water tests were requested by the unknown company, according to Supervisor James Quigley, the project was thought to be “dead”.
In 2014 and 2015, the City of Kingston residents unambiguously told our local, county and state officials that we don’t want our municipal drinking water to be bottled and sold. Also, it is even clearer today that current climate conditions (such as recurring and more severe droughts) and the unrelenting growth of the bottled water industry are masking our current water crisis and hindering efforts to provide reliable drinking water for all.
We remain vigilant.
RESOURCES:
WATCH: August 14, 2024: Kingston Water Board discusses, briefly, KingstonCitizens.org’s outreach and Supervisor James Quigley’s FOIL response letter. “Water tests were requested, but no application was submitted. It was a non-starter at this time.”
READ: KingstonCitizens.org letter to the Kingston Water Board re: a Potential Water Bottling Plant/Facility in the Town of Ulster in 2024
READ: Supervisor James Quigley’s FOIL letter response
In August of last year, KingstonCitizens.org reported on Central Hudson’s “Gas Village” training facility in the Town of Ulster that destroyed 28 Acres of Forest. The impacted community members who live next to the Central Hudson project and that are sandwiched between the CSX train tracks and Lower Esopus Creek in the Towns of Ulster and Saugerties have been organizing since then. After a recent stormwater flooding event, the group submitted the following letter to their local officials:
“Dear Mr. Quigley and the Town of Ulster Board,
Glenerie Boulevard and Katrine Lane residents experienced a major emergency on Friday, April 8th, as rainwater running off from the 28-acre deforested Central Hudson training facility site ran under the CSX tracks and flooded onto neighbors’ homes and yards — running under our properties and gushing into the already degraded Esopus Creek. The fire department could do nothing until the waters receded, and even the DEC came out to file a report.
As you can see, the water was within mere feet of reaching our cars and homes and caused damage to sheds and tools.
As tempting as it might be to attribute this flooding to the 4 inches of rain that came down the night before or to climate change exclusively, the primary cause of the recent flooding was that the NYC DEP did not provide adequate storage in the Ashokan Reservoir for springtime rains. They could not increase their storage when the predicted rainfall of 3 inches increased to 4 inches.
We are concerned that NYCDEP will provide no storage (especially this August and September), and if we receive a tropical storm, we can expect another damaging flood. The DEP had promised you that they would decrease the possibility of flooding, and we ask that you demand DEP provide the flood protection they promised.
The Central Hudson Facility project has only added to the flooding problem. According to longtime residents who have lived here for 35 years, they have never seen our streets flood like this nor seen runoff pour into the creek under their homes and so rapidly.
And the only variable/change is the Central Hudson facility site under construction that has been clear cut and now destroyed for decades – an environmental disaster facilitated by the sale of Bread Alone’s connector parcel to Central Hudson’s headquarters.
The exact site of the cascading flood on April 8th corresponds to the precise rock removal and the thinnest part of the tree removal line on the construction site. Clearly, the systems and streams that drain the new construction site, Central Hudson parking lot, and the Micron parking are wholly inadequate.
Currently, three existing pipes, approximately 30 inches in diameter, and the discharge from the new retention pond, flow through an undersized culvert and pipe into a small stream with deep and steep slopes. The velocity of the flow has eroded the stream banks and undermined the foundation of homes.
The Town should have addressed this problem long ago when the Micron parking lot was constructed. The Town should require Central Hudson to construct a retention basin for the three pipes, a larger culvert beneath the tracks, and enlargement and bank stabilization of the stream into the Esopus.
This community is standing together, but our concerns are falling on deaf ears on officials at the state, county, Town, and Central Hudson levels — those seemingly only caring about the bottom line. They don’t live here, so they don’t experience the daily harmful effects they’ve approved and created.
We are fed up with being ignored and irate since we questioned these potential dangers months ago. We demand that the multiple environmental impacts that this project has created due to the Town’s negligence be ameliorated by the Town, DEP, and Central Hudson at once before things get worse.
Regardless of the Town of Ulster’s lack of notification to the site’s perimeter residents — (over 60% of us had no idea it was coming and indeed would have shown up in the public comment period), the Town, as the lead agency, failed in its due diligence.
We are being affected directly as the potentially toxic flood water dumps into the creek but the thousands of neighbors downstream on the Esopus into the Town of Saugerties are being affected by this project too.
If this was an affluent community, we are convinced that a project as massive as this would cease to exist. Instead, our working-class neighborhood has been literally squeezed between two environmental disasters – the CenHud Facility and the muddy Esopus Creek due to the Ashokan releases.
Considering climate change at the very minimum, this project and ALL its impacts on the residents and our environment should have been studied thoroughly before getting anywhere near approval and a “NegDec” decision.
Within a mere 3 months of your premature approval, Central Hudson clear-cut 28 acres of absorbant forestland, emptying the site of its porous floor and rootbed; displacing millions of birds and wildlife, and then subsequently removed tons of stabilizing rocks near the CSX tracks over four months of dynamite blasting to create retention ponds.
And because this project was rubber-stamped, none of these actions were studied or vetted regarding their real-world impact on the surrounding neighborhood, the CSX train trackbed, and the Esopus Creek, nor the toxicity of the existing site’s soil.
Central Hudson’s retention pond plan has failed; the massive potentially toxic runoff is running under our properties and gushing into the Esopus Creek. It seems we have endured the unending construction, blasting, vehicle noises, and inconvenience they have created for the last six months for no good reason.
In addition, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) filed by CenHud was grossly flawed and didn’t disclose the site was within wetlands. If sustainability experts or professionals had been hired to evaluate the project, that omission would have been rectified and the situation professionally assessed — but even the site’s officially contracted developers and landscapers involved in the site planning fail to display any modern-day sustainability or permaculture expertise or interest.
Instead, your Board pushed the project through to create revenue and increase Ulster County’s tax base, and as a result:
– The DEC levied a $37,500 daily violation to CenHud for dumping waste into the Esopus Creek last November
– For those of us on well water, we may have potential drinking water contamination from toxic runoff
– Many of us experienced dust and soot downwind of the site, compromising the air we breathe
– The CSX trains are infinitely louder because of the deforestation, disturbing residents’ sleep, and work schedules
– The millions of birds, wildlife, beneficial insects, and even bears are all displaced due to 28 acres of trees being clear cut
– 5 longtime neighbors have already moved because of the site blasting and construction noise
– Our property values have been forever affected by the site’s existence
– Legacy trees in our yards have fallen because of the four months of dynamite blasting in the rain and 10 hours of daily pneumatic hammering vibrating our houses
– Light and noise pollution from 9W traffic and the storage facility drown our dark sky and peaceful environment because the forest screening is gone… and now…
– Floods – because the retention ponds Central Hudson built and assured us would contain the runoff do not work
– Increased insurance costs and claims resulting from the damage
– Add to that, the flooding weakens the land under the CSX tracks because now there is no shale buffer, and now we have to worry about a train derailment in our front yards
As much as we like lower taxes and bringing jobs to our community, our quality of life, the environmental impact, and our property values matter more. Clearly, our adjacent residential community was not prioritized when greenlighting this project. There should have been a balance. How much more money, time, and inconvenience will it cost now to fix these situations because they weren’t adequately addressed from the onset?
Since we initially reached out in concern in March of 2020 and then again in June of 2021, when the project restarted after pandemic delays, we have been polite, respectful, and cooperative.
We have tried to work with Central Hudson at quarterly virtual meetings (our next one is in June TBA) to make suggestions without any real significant progress to ameliorate these effects (even offering a comprehensive 10-page proposal to offset their impact on us) — but this latest event is too much and falls squarely on the Town, DEP, and CenHud’s shoulders.
Our immediate demands (paid for by the Town and/or CenHud and at NO EXTRA COST to Ulster County taxpayers):
1. We would like a study conducted and a short-term and long-term solution implemented for how the runoff will be dealt with on Glenerie Blvd. Eastern Parkway, 9W, and Katrine Lane in subsequent storms
2. Testing of drinking water for any of us on well water
3. We would like an acoustic engineer to study what can be done in the way of landscaping or infrastructure to absorb the additional train and traffic noise, and then a solution implemented based on their recommendations
4. We would like an expert to recommend screening and planting solutions to give us back some quality of life, cleaner air, and visual privacy from the site with absolutely no more clearcutting whatsoever
5. We want CSX to inspect the tracks from the crossing at Eastern Parkway to the switching station along the Glenerie Blvd. side to make sure the flooding has not compromised their tracks
6. Demand DEP provide the flood protection they promised
7. Community benefits: We can’t safely swim in the creek or hike the forest trails now, so we would like nearby public space dedicated or donated for recreational use for our kids and dogs to offset what’s been taken. This would partially compensate for the unbelievably negative impact and inconvenience this project has had on our community.
Your hasty approval of this project has created emergencies and environmental disasters on multiple levels. As tax-paying citizens, residents, and neighbors, we demand accountability by the Town of Ulster and Central Hudson and retroactive solutions. We look forward to your timely response before any of these situations deteriorate further. “
Back in August, we reported on the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation Training Center and “Gas Village”, a new construction in the Town of Ulster. With a speedy environmental review process, the Town of Ulster Town Board determined that the project would have no significant adverse environmental impacts.
Construction on the site destroyed nearly 30 acres of forest located in the Lower Esopus Creek watershed. Complaints about stormwater, erosion and turbidity started to roll into the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and on October 29th, a notice of violation (NOV) was issued for the projects State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit for stormwater discharges caused by construction activity. On that very same day, another NOV was issued for another contentious local project known as “850 Route 28” also for stormwater pollution.
In the case of Central Hudson, the state wrote that, “At the time of the inspection, the water quality in the wetland was indicative of pollution from discharges from stormwater runoff related to construction activities. This is a violation of Article 17 of ECL. Please be advised that violations of the ECL are subject to penalties of up to $37,500 per day per violation.”
A final determination on enforcement is not yet known, though we are all pleased by the DEC’s initial action.
What is a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit?
On the NYSDEC’s website, it says that ‘”New York is rich in surface and groundwater resources”, it says on the . “Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) entitled “Water Pollution Control” was enacted to protect and maintain these valuable resources. Article 17 authorized creation of the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program to maintain New York’s waters with reasonable standards of purity.
The SPDES program is designed to eliminate the pollution of New York waters and to maintain the highest quality of water possible– consistent with public health, public enjoyment of the resource, protection and propagation of fish and wildlife and industrial development in the state.
New York’s SPDES program has been approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the control of surface wastewater and stormwater discharges in accordance with the Clean Water Act. However, the SPDES program is broader in scope than that required by the Clean Water Act as it controls point source discharges to groundwaters as well as surface waters”.
RESOURCES
VIEW Central Hudson “Gas Village” training facility in Town of Ulster Destroys 28 Acres of Forest (KingstonCitizens.org)
Last week, we met a resident who lives on Glenerie Boulevard in Lake Katrine. Her home is sandwiched between the Lower Esopus Creek and the CSX train tracks. We got the call because of the ongoing muddy releases in the Lower Esopus Creek and offered to come and look to see the creek from her property.
In December of 2020, she had witnessed the massive muddy pollution released into the Lower Esopus from the Ashokan reservoir first hand during an unprecedented storm event. A mix of rain and snow melt resulted in 63 billion gallons of water flowing into the Ashokan reservoir during a 48-hour period, making it one of the largest runoff events in the history of NYC’s water supply.
The releases turned the Lower Esopus into a thick chocolate milk colored mess, and the harms to the creek have been ongoing throughout the spring and summer months. Furthermore, our area has experienced heavy rains this year, leading to the Town of Ulster recently issuing an alert that more releases from the Ashokan reservoir were to be expected. New York City had measured the rainfall in July to be 5.31 inches at the reservoir, more than the area typically receives for the entire month and falling into the 90th percentile conditions for runoff.
Climate change is no longer some future existential threat. It is here, now.
During our visit, we learned about a recent clearing of nearly 28 acres of forest between 9W and Glenerie Boulevard. “It’s now a huge hole in the ground and none of us were informed it was even happening, “ she said. With the daily dynamite blasting, residents complained and were finally given an auto bot call an hour before and loud horns moments before each incoming blast. Residents reported damage to their foundations and roofs.
“What is it?” we asked. Turns out, it’s a large training facility and Gas Village project for Central Hudson. How did we miss this?
When we left, we made several calls to local advocates to find out if they were familiar with the project. Most were as surprised as we were. After some digging, we learned that Central Hudson purchased property in this area to the south. For the present project, they purchased a separate 56 acres from Carriag Properties, an apparent Callanan Industries affiliated entity and needed a 1+ acre lot line adjustment from Largay LLC (Bread Alone) to connect the two parcels. The lot line adjustment occurred in 2019 at the Ulster Planning Board and Town Board together with site plan approval. No one appeared at the public hearing. At that time it appeared from the Town minutes that various residents were focused on Glidepath (a fossil fuel project that was proposed in the Town of Ulster that we, along with residents, NGOs and county representatives, were able to transition into a battery storage proposal outcome).
Residents who own property on Glenerie Boulevard are faced with three serious environmental and economic harms: Muddy pollution from the Ashokan Reservoir into the Lower Esopus Creek; a freight train that carries hazardous materials (such a Bakken crude oil); and now, deforested lands that many believe has displaced thousands of animals in order to build a Central Hudson training facility and outdoor gas ‘village’. Where are the Town of Ulster representatives? Where is the county?
The Town of Ulster is notorious for bad planning and projects that are shortsighted and potentially harmful to their community and our area at large. They were nearly successful in selling the City of Kingston’s drinking water supply back in 2014 (Niagara Bottling Company) and welcomed a fossil fuel power plant a few hundred feet from a residential neighborhood (Glidepath). Luckily, both projects were forever changed for the good by the hard work of local advocates.
Unfortunately, with the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation Training Center’s speedy environmental review process completed some two years ago where the Town Board as lead agency found that the project would have no significant adverse environmental impacts and made a determination of nonsignificance within a month’s time. It’s anyone’s guess what the residents living nearby can expect.
This project caught us by surprise, so there is a lot of catching up to do. It’s uncertain what long game strategies there can be. But in the short term, Town of Ulster residents should demand that the Town Board implement environmental oversight of any future developments.
The Town of Ulster is one of the few municipalities in Ulster County that has rejected the implementation of a Conservation Advisory Council (CAC). CAC’s are important bodies created by a municipal board to advise local agencies on development, management and the protection of natural resources. Even though residents have asked for and offered to participate in a CAC for nearly a decade, the town board, led by Supervisor James Quigley did not support it.
In June of this year, graduate students from the Center for Environmental Studies at Bard College alongside the volunteer advocacy group TownOfUlsterCitizens.org presented the results of a gap analysis of strengths, opportunities and recommendations for funding options for enhanced resilience in the Town of Ulster, a framework that was taken directly from the Climate Smart Communities initiative. The group was hoping that the town would join the more than 248 municipalities throughout the state and take the Climate Smart pledge. Quigley refused the request to work with and aid the Bard students in preparing the Gap Analysis, then rejected working with residents to pursue their recommendations. The town board agreed.
Additionally in June, the Town of Ulster – one of the impacted communities on the Lower Esopus Creek – declined to submit comments to the New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation during the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on behalf of their constituents. Again the town board, led by Supervisor James Quigley, did not support it.
There is an election this fall, where Supervisor Quigley is up for re-election. Without anyone running against him, he is sure to win another four years. There are also two town board seats up for grabs, but they, too, haven’t any real competition. It is so important that we nurture new leadership in the Town of Ulster. If you are a resident there, consider challenging future elections. They have it in mind to keep passing the baton to those who think like the current administration does. Get in there.
TAKE ACTION: In the short term, Town of Ulster residents are encouraged to join members of TownOfUlsterCitizens.org to insist that the Town of Ulster take the Climate Smart pledge. Residents can also demand that the town initiate a Conservation Advisory Council in order to help shape good protections for its remaining natural assets. Consider asking them how you can run for office in your town. Contact: to******************@***il.com
A Timeline of Transactions: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation Training Center
1982-1983: Callanan Industries buys land located at N.Y.S. Route 9W and Eastern Parkway in the Town of Ulster. The Covenant is not mentioned in these documents that turns up later on.
10/25/12: NOTORANGE, INC. & Mary A. Orange sold land to Largay LLC (Bread Alone) for $10.00. The land is also mentioned later in the Lot Line Revision Map.
1. Callanan Industries sells the 56.43 acres to Carraig Properties.
6/4/18: Contract for sale from Callanan Industries Inc. to Carraig Properties LLC.
7/31/18: Callanan Industries Inc. sells 56.43 acres of land to Carraig Properties LLC. for $70,000
2. Central Hudson starts preparing for their application by having an Existing Conditions map drawn and then a lot line revision map based on a plan to swap land with Bread Alone.
3. The application is submitted. Bread Alone is not yet under contract with Central Hudson, but is helping, by signing a consent letter, that is submitted along with the applications/site plan/etc.
“The Applicant, Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, is proposing to construct a 40,351 square foot Training Academy that will feature offices and classrooms, a separate 31,358 square foot indoor training area and an outdoor gas ‘village’ containing (6) 120 square foot residential training buildings, (1) 800 square foot commercial training building, (1) 240 square foot apartment training building, and simulated electric transmission and distribution pole yards. A 41,550 square foot Electric Transmission and Distribution Primary Control Center will be developed adjacent to the proposed Training Academy. The site will tie into an existing municipal water main and a request to extend the existing municipal sewer district will be made to allow connection to an existing sanitary sewer pressure line. The buildings will utilize proposed parking areas on the north and south of the Training Academy and Primary Control Center providing 226 parking spaces. The project area is a 56.51 acre wooded site located on New York State Route 9W and Eastern Parkway. The project area is situated in Highway Commercial (HC) and 1-Family Residence District (R-30) Zoning Districts. A 1.8 acre land swap with the adjacent site, Bread Alone (Largay, LLC), is also proposed.”
3/12/19: Date on the Existing Conditions document prepared for Central Hudson
7/30/19: Date of Submission Letter addressed to the Planning Board. Did they obtain (or need to) a zoning variance for the 1-family Residence district portion? (need to look at zoning code and ZBA agendas and minutes)
“The applicant, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, is seeking site plan, special use permit and lot line realignment approval for the development of a 56.51-acre parcel located in the Highway Commercial HC) and 1-family Residence (R-30) zoning districts. The proposal includes a 1.8-acre land swap with the adjacent Bread Alone site to allow Central Hudson to access the proposed Training Center, Primary Control Center, Training Annex and outdoor training facilities through their site.”
FEAF Part 1 with attachments and Draft Part 2 and 3; The Proposed Action from the Environmental Assessment Form;
As it pertains to the Lower Esopus Creek, in the Environmental Assessment Form, the applicant does not acknowledge being within a waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway. The Lower Esopus Creek is a designated inland waterway
Project Narrative: “The project site is currently a 56.51-acre vacant lot …..The area of the new development currently includes wooded area, unregulated streams and a Federal Wetland in the southwest corner of the parcel. The proposed improvements will result in approximately 28.7 acres of disturbance”;
4. The State Environmental Quality Review (SEQRA) process and public hearing are wrapped up in about 2 months.
8/15/19: The Town of Ulster initiates Lead Agency status in the SEQR Type 1 Action – Coordinated review
9/19/19: The Town of Ulster Town Board issues a Negative Declaration in SEQR. REVIEW resolution (page 17)
“WHEREAS, the Town of Ulster Town Board, as Lead Agency issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration on September 19, 2019 on the Proposed Action (Lot Line, Site Plan and Special Permit)…”
10/3/19: Special Permit public hearing. REVIEW resolution (page 17)
“WHEREAS, the Town of Ulster Town Board…opened and closed its Special Permit public hearing on October 3, 2019…”
5. Carraig Properties LLC sells 56.43 acres of land to Central Hudson.
12/10/19: Having gone to contract just 2 1/2 months after the Callanan Industries/Carraig Properties sale, Carraig Properties LLC. sells 56.43 acres of land to Central Hudson for $630,000, nine times the price they paid. In the deed, the land has a covenant that prohibits “overburden” (a term that in this case is a product of mining).
Did Callanan Industries know that this was (evidently) purchased to sell to Central Hudson? Would that include clear cutting?
Central Hudson purchased a large piece of land, which the subdivision map calls “Glenerie Lake Park”, from Carraig Properties LLC (who, as per the 7/31/18 deed listed above, held the deed for less than a year after purchasing it from Callanan Industries LLC). This piece of land had a covenant attached to it (that may prohibit clear cutting) that prohibits “overburden” (a term that in this case is a product of mining), which was also in the deed from it’s previous sale, less than a year prior.
“…Land swap with the adjacent Bread Alone site to allow Central Hudson to access the proposed Training Center, Primary Control Center, Training Annex and outdoor training facilities through their site.”
1/10/20 or 1/16/20 (handwriting): Frank Almquist signs the Lot Line Revision Map, as Town of Ulster Planning Board Chair.
8. Bread Alone and Central Hudson essentially swap two small pieces of land, to connect Central Hudson’s older land and newer land, as was planned in the second steps.
9/30/20: Contract for sale from Largay LLC (Bread Alone) to Central Hudson
9/30/20: Contract for sale from Central Hudson to Largay LLC (Bread Alone)
12/02/20: Largay LLC (Bread Alone) sells 1.7 acres to Central Hudson for $100,000
12/02/20: Central Hudson sells 1.8 acres to Largay LLC (Bread Alone) for $100,000
Central Hudson already owned land, just below the Bread Alone Land. In order to connect their old land with their new land, Central Hudson traded a section of their new land with a section of Bread Alone’s land.
Business transactions between Largay LLC (Bread Alone) Bank of Greene County are also listed on UC Deeds filed on the same date (12/22/20)
