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

by

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

2026 Sessions 

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

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

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

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

 

###

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

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

Welcome to KingstonCitizens.org!

by

Established in 2006, KingstonCitizens.org is a non-partisan, grassroots, volunteer organization committed to nurturing transparency in local government through citizen engagement and participation.

Please subscribe to keep updated on the latest events concerning our community. (*required)

* indicates required



Unknown

 

How Local Governments Can Speak Up for Dignity and Safety in NYS

by

By Rebecca Martin

Across New York, communities are looking for ways to protect community members, strengthen public trust, and ensure that government resources are used responsibly. Two bills currently in the State Legislature offer one path forward: the Dignity Not Detention Act (S316/A4181) and the New York For All Act (S2235/A3506A).

Based on our initial reading and understanding of the legislation:

The Dignity Not Detention Act would end the state’s and local governments’ participation in immigration detention. It prohibits New York from entering into new contracts to detain people for federal immigration purposes, requires termination of existing agreements within 90 days, and bans private companies from operating immigration detention facilities in the state. State and local agencies would also be prohibited from providing financial support, incentives, or zoning approvals for detention centers. The goal is to keep families together, protect human dignity, and ensure that taxpayer money be used for public services, not federal immigration enforcement. The Assembly’s companion bill, A4181, mirrors these provisions.

The New York For All Act complements S316/A4181 by limiting when and how state and local agencies may inquire about or share someone’s immigration status. It would apply to police, school officials, probation departments, and other local agencies, ensuring that residents can access essential services like education, healthcare, and housing without fear of triggering federal enforcement. Its Assembly counterpart, A3506A, carries the same intent and reinforces protections across the state.

Together, these bills reflect the state’s commitment to responsible governance and community safety. They make clear that New York’s laws should protect community members, support families, and maintain trust between communities and public institutions.

Local Governments Have Historically Taken Action

Several municipalities in New York State formally expressed support for these bills in 2025 through memorializing resolutions, a long-standing tool for local governments to communicate their positions to the State Legislature and the Governor. There may be others, but these were the three we identified most easily. As the legislation moves through committees in early 2026, with the goal of reaching the floor for a vote, local municipalities now have the opportunity to join or renew these earlier efforts.

  • City of Hudson (Columbia County): Adopted resolutions supporting both S316/A4181 and S2235/A3506, calling on the State to end local and private participation in immigration detention and to limit inquiries into residents’ immigration status.
  • City of Rochester (Monroe County): Passed a resolution urging the Legislature and Governor to pass the New York For All Act (S2235/A3506).
  • New York City Council: Passed non-binding resolutions supporting the goals of NY4All and related immigrant protections, reinforcing that local governments should not enforce federal civil immigration laws.

These examples show that communities across New York, large and small, can support state legislators working to pass this legislation in 2026 by speaking up for dignity, safety, and the responsible use of public resources. Local municipalities play a key role in amplifying these voices.

Local Context: Past and Present

Communities are also confronting federal immigration enforcement proposals on the ground. In Chester, Orange County, federal authorities have floated plans to convert a vacant warehouse into an ICE processing or detention facility as part of a nationwide network of potential sites – and history shows this is unlikely to be the last such proposal. 

In 2008, Orange County entered into a contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to house federal detainees in the county jail, explicitly framing detention as a revenue-generating opportunity, with county officials citing millions of dollars in projected income.  

Today, local officials and residents in Chester have raised serious concerns about the lack of formal notice and potential impacts on public safety, infrastructure, and community well-being. In our area, elected leaders, including U.S. Rep. Pat Ryan and State Senator Michelle Hinchey, have publicly opposed the plan and launched petitions and letters urging the proposal to be abandoned. Hundreds of local residents have packed village meetings and voiced opposition, showing that federal immigration policies have real, local consequences and that state-level guidance, such as  S316/A4181 and S2235/A3506 is essential. 

What These Resolutions Mean

Memorializing resolutions are formal statements adopted by local legislative bodies to urge the State Legislature and Governor to act on specific legislation. While they do not change the law on their own, they are an important tool of democratic governance because they  place a municipality on record, reflect local values, and help build momentum for statewide action.

Taken together, these resolutions reassert the shared purpose of local governance, which is to provide services, ensure public safety, and uphold civil rights, not to administer federal immigration detention or enforcement.

For communities considering a similar action, we have prepared a model memorializing resolution based on examples from the few municipalities that have adopted resolutions to date (shared above). It can be adapted to fit your community’s local context. Local officials are encouraged to consult with their state Senator or Assembly Member as needed, and members of the public can urge their local government to take this step—a protective action that simply supports the state’s ongoing work to safeguard our communities all throughout NYS.  

Update (1/25/26)

In a recent briefing, historian Heather Cox Richardson said that in Congress today, just a small number of Republican members — as few as 16 — could side with Democrats and block certain actions, demonstrating how a very small group of lawmakers can make a decisive difference in outcomes. Richardson reminds us how important constituent engagement is, especially with Republican members of Congress who may be pivotal in determining whether these unconstitutional federal actions move forward or not.

“Elected Republicans could stop this tonight if they wanted to. You know how many Republicans that would take? 16 Republicans voting with the Democrats. In a country of 340 million people, 16 people could stop this…call your Republican members of Congress.”

Start at this point in the clip HERE. After, please watch from the top.

16 VOTES. It’s outrageous and unacceptable that just sixteen more members of Congress could determine whether this is stopped.

Call your congressional representative, especially if they’re a Republican and demand they join colleagues to put an end to this now.

Canopies and the Loss of Main Streets

by

By Jennifer O’Donnell

Note: This paper is based on research originally conducted for the Ulster County Planning Department 2010, in my capacity as deputy director, to provide technical assistance to a group of approximately 40 property owners in Uptown Kingston who signed a petition and letters in support of removing the canopies at that time.*

Canopies and the Loss of Main Streets

For over a decade, the city of Kingston, New York, has been the site of a passionate and often polarized debate regarding the future of the “Pike Plan” canopies in its historic Stockade District. As crews prepare to begin the long-awaited removal of these structures in the coming week, the local conversation mirrors a much larger national movement toward reclaiming the transparency and architectural integrity of the American Main Street. While the research overwhelmingly supports the removal of mid-century “modernizations” to foster economic revitalization and a more authentic pedestrian experience, it is important to pause on the logistics of the current plan: it should be noted that this piece does not endorse the commencement of this work during the winter months. Executing masonry-sensitive demolition in freezing conditions poses significant risks to the underlying historic facades—ranging from moisture-trap damage to the cracking of fragile brickwork—and requires urgent discussion to mitigate long-term structural harm.

Understanding the national precedent for canopy removal can provide a roadmap for Kingston’s future, provided the physical execution respects the very history it aims to reveal.

The National Shift Toward Canopy Removal

The move away from these structures represents a rejection of the “suburban mall” aesthetic in favor of the authentic “Main Street Experience.” Research from the National Trust for Historic Preservation indicates that these canopies actually accelerated downtown decline by obscuring historic architecture and reducing retail visibility.The revitalization of American downtowns through the removal of 1960s and 1970s street canopies (often called “modernizing” or “slipcovering”) is a well-documented shift in  urban planning.

During the peak of urban renewal, property owners often “modernized” their 19th-century brick buildings by covering them with aluminum panels or modern canopies. The dramatic process of stripping away these 1970s additions across the country revealed the original masonry and intricate cornice work underneath. By removing these covers and canopies, the buildings regained their “transparency,” making the storefronts feel open and inviting to modern shoppers.

Research from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and various municipal case studies indicates that these canopies—once intended to save downtowns—actually accelerated their decline by obscuring historic architecture and reducing retail visibility.

  • Key Visual Elements of Success:
    • Daylighting: Restoring the upper glass sections (transoms) of storefronts.
    • Rhythm and Scale: Replacing a continuous, monolithic canopy with individual building identities, which makes a walk down Main Street feel more varied and engaging.
    • Wayfinding: Without the canopy, pedestrians can see landmarks and cross-streets more easily, improving the “navigability” of the CBD.

The Era of the “Modernized” Main Street (1950s–1970s)

During the peak of urban renewal, downtown property owners and city planners attempted to compete with enclosed suburban malls by “modernizing” historic facades.

  • “Slipcovering” and Canopies: Owners often covered 19th-century brickwork with metal “slipcovers” (prefabricated aluminum panels) and installed continuous sidewalk canopies.
  • The Intent: These structures were designed to provide a uniform, mall-like appearance and protect shoppers from the elements.
  • The Result: Instead of drawing customers, these additions effectively “erased” the unique character of the street, making downtowns look like “unsuccessful, roofless versions of the malls they were trying to imitate.” [1]

Why Canopies Became Obsolete

By the 1980s and 90s, research began to show that these physical barriers were detrimental to the central business district (CBD) for several key reasons:

  • Loss of Merchandise Visibility: The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) found that “lack of storefront visibility by motorists” and pedestrians made retailers less likely to lease space. When people cannot see the goods or the “life” inside a shop from the street, they are less likely to enter. [2]
  • The “Shadow” Effect: High-profile canopies often created dark, cavernous sidewalks that felt unsafe or neglected. In many cities, these shadowed areas became magnets for loitering, further discouraging shoppers.
  • Maintenance and Deterioration: Many of the 1970s materials (aluminum, plastic, and low-grade steel) did not age well. As they became rust-streaked or dented, they signaled a “declining” district rather than a modern one. [3]

The National Trust’s “Main Street” Philosophy

The National Trust for Historic Preservation launched the Main Street America program in 1980 specifically to counter the “urban renewal” damage of the previous decades.[3]

  • Preservation Brief 11: This seminal document argues that the storefront is the most important architectural feature of a commercial building.4 The Trust advocates for removing 1960s-era “modernizations” to reveal the original “transom lights” and “cornice lines” that give a building its identity. [4]
  • The Merchandising Argument: The Trust notes that “sensitive rehabilitation of storefronts can result not only in increased business… but also provides evidence of the owner’s stake in the community.” [5]

Financial Evidence: The Impact of Removal

Cities that removed these canopies and pedestrian malls have seen significant measurable improvements in their property values and tax bases.

 

    City

 The Intervention

Economic / Financial Impact
Buffalo, NY Removing the 1987 Pedestrian Mall (reopening Main St) Private property value along the corridor had decreased by 48% during the mall era (1987-2001). Reopening the street and removing barriers led to a massive resurgence in retail occupancy and property investment. [2]
Rogers, AR Facade restoration & canopy removal Rental rates jumped from $0.40 per sq. ft. to $8.00–$12.00 per sq. ft. after the city removed “modernized” covers and restored historic storefronts. [6]
Raleigh, NC Removing Fayetteville St Mall (2006) After reopening the “dead” pedestrian mall to traffic and visibility, downtown Raleigh saw its development pipeline explode to over $7.4 billion in new investment. [7]
Jacksonville, IL Pilot Canopy Removal Project A single canopy removal project in the downtown square inspired over 20 additional private facade restoration projects, significantly increasing local property tax assessments. [8]
Kalamazoo, MI Reopening the “First Mall” (1998) After removing blocks of the mall to allow traffic and better visibility, the city reported that the shift helped reverse a 40-year decline in downtown retail sales. [9]


Research Conclusions

Modern consumers prioritize the “Main Street Experience”—defined by authenticity, walkable historic character, and high-quality “window shopping.”

  • The “Transparency” Factor: According to the Texas Historical Commission, “increased visibility and enhanced property appeal resulting in greater income potential for tenants” is the primary financial driver for removing 1970s canopies. [3]
  • The Return of the Street: Research from Smart Growth America and Main Street America confirms that “people-centric” design, which emphasizes seeing and being seen, is the most effective way to compete with e-commerce, as it offers a tactile, social experience that a “mall-style” canopy cannot replicate. [10]

 

Endnotes & Citations

*    Kingston Citizens, “Pike Plan: Nearly 90% of the Special Tax Stakeholders are in Favor of Permanent Removal” (as of 12/31/2010)” 

  1. National Trust for Historic Preservation, The Main Street Approach to Revitalization
  2. NACTO, Pedestrian and Transit Mall Case Studies Summary (Buffalo and Chicago data)
  3. Texas Historical Commission, Main Street Before and After: Economic Benefit of Facade Restoration
  4. National Park Service, Preservation Brief 11: Rehabilitating Historic Storefronts
  5. [Jandl, Ward, National Trust for Historic Preservation/NPS Research on Storefront Merchandising]
  6. Arkansas Heritage, The Economic Impacts of the Arkansas Main Street Program
  7. Downtown Raleigh Alliance, State of Downtown Raleigh Report 2024
  8. Jacksonville Main Street, Impact Report on Canopy Removal and Downtown Rebranding
  9. Project MUSE, The Kalamazoo Mall and the Legacy of Pedestrian Malls
  10. Smart Growth America, Main Streets as Places of Economic Resilience

 

Illustrated Success Stories

These stories and images below provide a visual timeline of the “before” images, which often feature overhangs that block light and obscure facades and storefronts of buildings, while the “after” images highlight the restoration of transparency, natural light, and historic architectural detail.

These examples show the dramatic change in street-level visibility once 1960s-era structures are removed, allowing the original “transom” windows (the small windows above the main storefront) to once again bring light into the buildings.

The Great Unveiling: Reclaiming the American Main Street

In the 1960s, cities across the U.S. sought to mimic the climate-controlled convenience of suburban malls by installing massive metal and concrete canopies. This image showcases the “before and after” of a typical restoration, where the removal of these heavy overhangs allowed natural light to flood the sidewalks once more. This restoration instantly improved the visibility of retail window displays and highlighted the unique architectural character that malls simply cannot replicate.

During the peak of urban renewal, property owners often “modernized” their 19th-century brick buildings by covering them with aluminum panels or modern “slipcovers.” This image illustrates the dramatic process of stripping away these 1970s additions to reveal the original masonry and intricate cornice work underneath. By removing these covers and their associated canopies, the building regained its “transparency,” making the storefront feel open and inviting to modern shoppers.

Jacksonville, Illinois, serves as a premier case study for canopy removal. The city’s downtown square was once dominated by heavy concrete overhangs that created a dark, tunnel-like atmosphere. Their pilot project in the downtown square demonstrated that removing the heavy concrete and metal canopies made the square feel like an outdoor “living room” again rather than a dated transit hub. By removing these structures, the city transformed its Central Business District from a dated, decaying corridor into a vibrant open-air “living room.” This visual comparison demonstrates how removing physical barriers can spark a ripple effect of private investment and facade improvements across an entire district.

The Square Transformation

 

Rogers, Arkansas: Economic Revitalization through Facades

Rogers serves as a primary financial example of how restoring visibility leads to higher lease rates. Note how the “after” storefronts prioritize large display windows that make merchandise visible from both the sidewalk and the street.

 

About Jennifer O’Donnell, Hone Street Strategic   Jennifer has lived in the Hudson Valley since 2004, where she has worked with numerous communities and organizations to plan and implement projects in historic sites and neighborhoods. Prior to this, she was a cultural heritage specialist and planner at the World Bank, where she was involved with World Heritage sites and cities in over 30 places abroad. Jennifer was also a design and construction project manager for many historic buildings and cultural institutions in her native New York City.  She has Masters’ degrees from Columbia University in Urban Planning and Real Estate Development, a BA in Art History from SUNY Stony Brook, and studied conservation at UNESCO’s ICCROM program in Rome, Italy.  She is fluent in French, Italian and Spanish. In addition to her work as a planner and historic preservationist, Jennifer has an active civic life as a leader, volunteer and board member leader in numerous sustainable development organizations. 

Request a Zero Waste Implementation Plan Before Ulster County Commits to New Costly Waste Projects

by


By Rebecca Martin

Recently, a coalition of partners sent a letter to Ulster County urging the completion and public release of a Zero Waste Implementation Plan (ZWIP) before any major new waste infrastructure projects move forward — like the proposed Global NRG facility.  Submission (redacted) and Cost Proposal (redacted).

Ulster County promised Zero Waste back in 2019, committing to reduce waste, reuse materials, compost organics, and protect the environment. Yet more than six years later, there is still no clear plan showing how the County will get there. Now, Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency (UCRRA) is preparing to move forward with a massive anaerobic digestion facility — a $100 million “put-or-pay ” project that would process all of the County’s municipal solid waste and potentially accept waste from neighboring counties.

What are the concerns?

  • The facility would rely on mixed-waste inputs, risking contamination of compost and soil amendments.
  • Contracts could include long-term “put-or-pay” obligations, locking the County into decades of disposal and limiting future waste reduction.
  • The plan includes injecting biomethane into the existing fracked-gas system, raising environmental and climate concerns.
  • High costs could divert funding away from proven Zero Waste strategies like reduction, repair, reuse, recycling, and composting.

Without a completed ZWIP, Ulster County risks overbuilding expensive infrastructure that could undermine its Zero Waste goals. The County’s own UCRRA Reform Committee has confirmed that new systems and laws, including separating food scraps and organics, are needed to meet Zero Waste targets. These changes cannot happen without a guiding, publicly adopted plan.

What a credible Zero Waste Implementation Plan must do:

  • Follow the internationally recognized Zero Waste Hierarchy, prioritizing reduction, reuse, repair, recycling, and composting — prohibiting incineration.
  • Include clear timelines, measurable milestones, and phased pilot programs.
  • Invest in core infrastructure like Resource Renovation/Reuse and Repair Centers.
  • Be regularly updated and publicly reviewed, with stable funding mechanisms.

The request:

  • Pause all new major waste infrastructure decisions until the ZWIP is complete and formally adopted.
  • Remove the silos and convene a collaborative planning process with the Legislature, County Executive, UCRRA, community advocates, and other stakeholders.
  • Complete, adopt, and publicly release a plan that ensures infrastructure decisions support, rather than undermine, the County’s Zero Waste commitment.

The Zero Waste Hierarchy is achievable, operationally defined as a 90% reduction in landfill disposal without incineration, and communities around the world are proving it works. Ulster County residents deserve a transparent, credible roadmap before any irreversible infrastructure decisions are made.

TAKE ACTION TODAY

SIGN OUR PETITION Request a Zero Waste Implementation Plan Before Ulster County Commits to Costly New Waste Infrastructure.

IF YOU LIVE IN ULSTER COUNTY:  Pass a memorializing resolution in your community to support the completion and adoption of an Ulster County Zero Waste Implementation Plan.
If you live in a municipality within Ulster County, we’ve developed this tool kit that provides our coalition letter, an FAQ and draft memorializing resolution calling on “Ulster County to Complete and Adopt a Zero Waste Implementation Plan Prior to Advancing Major Waste Infrastructure Projects”

Ulster County Must Finish — and Adopt — Its Zero Waste Implementation Plan

by

 

By Rebecca Martin

Ulster County is on the verge of making a major, long-term decision about how it handles trash—before completing the work it already committed to do.

Despite years of discussion and a formal zero waste policy adopted by the Ulster County Legislature in 2019, the County’s Zero Waste Implementation Plan has still not been completed or adopted. That unfinished work now looms large as the Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency (UCRRA) advances negotiations for a costly project.

At a Friday, December 12 board meeting, the UCRRA board granted Executive Director Marc Rider authority to negotiate with London-based developer Global NRG for a “cutting-edge” solid waste disposal facility. The proposed project would occupy five acres adjacent to the UCRRA complex at 999 Flatbush Avenue (State Route 32). Global NRG would lease the land but build, own, and operate the facility—at an estimated cost of $100 million.

According to a recent article, the facility would take in all of UCRRA’s municipal solid waste, forecast at 107,100 tons in 2025, with claims that landfill disposal would be reduced by 70 percent. Rider described a mixed materials recovery system using conveyor belts, magnets, and AI-driven optical sorting before converting trash into gas.

These promises may sound appealing—but gasification-style “waste-to-energy” systems raise concerns about air quality and toxic byproducts. These technologies have known environmental and operational uncertainties, including the need for a guaranteed, long-term supply of trash—risks undermining zero waste goals.

What makes this moment especially troubling is that Ulster County’s Zero Waste Implementation Plan remains unfinished.

While the County adopted a zero waste policy in 2019, the practical roadmap for how to achieve it—the implementation plan—has stalled repeatedly. At one point, approximately $10,000 was allocated toward advancing the plan, yet it was never brought to completion. Now, responsibility for finishing it rests with the Legislature, which would need to pass a budget amendment in the 2026 budget to complete the work. Without that action, the plan could be delayed yet again, potentially for years.

This matters because zero waste is not a slogan; it is a strategy. A true zero waste approach prioritizes waste reduction at the source, organics diversion, reuse and repair, and steady decreases in disposal. Entering into a long-term agreement for a facility that depends on a constant flow of trash risks creating incentives that conflict with the waste reduction strategies zero waste is meant to promote.

Ulster County should not lock itself into an expensive, high-risk waste-to-energy project while the Zero Waste Implementation Plan—promised years ago—remains unfinished and unfunded, pre-empting the very waste-reduction strategies the County claims to support.

TAKE ACTION:  Call your Ulster County Legislator to discuss this problem, and urge them to amend the budget to complete, adopt, and fully fund our Zero Waste Implementation plan—and put it to work. With each year of delay, we risk relying on projects that do nothing to reduce waste at the source or expand composting—a status quo we can no longer afford.

READ: Ulster agency eyes 70% reduction of garbage going to landfills with trash-to-gas system 

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

by

Screenshot of Zoom recording from Dec. 11 ZBA meeting

By Marissa Marvelli

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s Next?

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

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

 

Call to Action: 

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

 

Background Reading

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

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

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

 

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

CALL TO ACTION: Defend Kingston’s Preservation Law – ZBA to Rehear Sleight-Tappen/DAR House Window Appeal November 13

by

By Marissa Marvelli

After a summer of intense actions and counteractions, followed by a two-month lull, the appeal by the Daughters of the American Revolution Wiltwyck Chapter (DAR) will finally be reheard by the Kingston Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on Thursday, November 13, at 6:00 p.m. This hearing has already been postponed twice at the DAR’s request, as their attorney was unavailable in September and October. The ZBA has stated that it will not delay the hearing any longer.

At this hearing, the ZBA will consider new testimony and review the full record of the April 2025 decision by the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC), which denied the DAR a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace all 32 historic windows with Marvin insert units. At the July ZBA meeting, when the board considered whether to rehear the appeal, Chair Anthony “Junior” Tampone acknowledged procedural flaws in its June 12 hearing, during which his board initially overturned the HLPC’s decision. The flaws included the rushed decision-making process, the withholding of important documents, the absence of key stakeholders, and the inadequate public notice.

This case has always been about more than windows. It is about respecting and upholding the well-founded decision of a trained and qualified commission. The HLPC carefully reviewed the DAR’s window replacement application over multiple meetings, developing thorough findings to support its two denials of a Certificate of Appropriateness in 2023 and 2025, as well as its subsequent denial of a hardship claim.

There are striking parallels between the Wiltwyck DAR’s actions and the recent destruction of the East Wing of the White House: a disregard for the embodied history of an important building, an ignorance of the past, and a blatant failure to follow proper procedures. If local laws are to retain their purpose, they must be vigorously defended in situations like this. Fairness, accountability, and public trust are the bedrock of democracy—principles that a patriotic organization like the DAR should honor.

CALL TO ACTION

  • ATTEND the Nov. 13 meeting at City Hall. Bring a friend. The ZBA needs to see that the public is invested in getting this right.
  • TESTIFY at the hearing about the importance of upholding our preservation law and honoring the hard work of Kingston’s volunteer boards and commissions.
  • WRITE a letter emphasizing that our local laws must be upheld and that the ZBA should not overturn well-founded HLPC decisions.
    • All written comments must be received by 2:00 p.m. on Monday November 10. Comments may be emailed to Amee Peterson at apeterson [at] kingston-ny.gov, hand-delivered or placed in the drop box outside of City Hall. Use the subject line: “ZBA Meeting Comment November 13, 2025 – DAR House Rehearing.

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

  1. Top 10 Things to Know About the D.A.R. House Review, Google Doc with links
  2. Timeline of DAR House window replacement effort, Google Doc with links
  3. “Preserving Our History and the Laws That Protect It” KingstonCitizens.org, Aug. 20, 2025
  4. “Local Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution Battling Against Kingston’s Historic Preservation Law”  KingstonCitizens.org, July 3, 2025
  5. “Kingston slaps stone house with stop-work order over window renovations” by Brian Hubert, Daily Freeman, July 25, 2025.

 

Kingston Hotel Faces Violations After Inspection

by

By Rebecca Martin

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. 

Supervisor Quigley confirmed that the Ulster County Executive’s office has been briefed on the findings. According to Quigley, County officials were “shocked” by the report.

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. 

 

ADDITIONAL READING

Lessons from Kingston, NY  (Tenants PAC)

Families stuck for years in Hudson Valley motels, ‘just trying to survive’ (TIMES UNION)

Update on the Terra-Gen Battery Storage Proposal – Positive Declaration Issued

by

By Rebecca Martin

Last night (October 2), the Town of Ulster Town Board, acting as lead agency, voted to issue a Positive Declaration (Pos Dec) under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) for the proposed Terra-Gen battery energy storage project. This important step formally acknowledges that the project may have significant environmental impacts and requires a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

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.

Town of Ulster Town Board Workshop: “Positive Declaration” in SEQR for Terra-Gen Lithium-Ion Battery Project

by

(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.

At the heart of the discussion is the issuance of a “Positive Declaration” under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process (see page 50 to review the resolution). This means the Town Board could (and it should) determine that the project may have significant environmental impacts, and a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required.

What Is a Workshop?

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.

Part of tomorrow’s workshop will focus on reviewing a Positive Declaration for the Terra-Gen (Alcazar) proposal (see page 50), which is included on the agenda.

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

Van Kleeck Calls for Draft Positive Declaration Resolution on Terra-Gen to Be Workshopped October 2

by
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.

No More Delays: Town of Ulster Town Board Must Issue a Positive Declaration for the Terra-Gen Proposal

by

 

By Rebecca Martin

Months have passed since the 20-day window to issue a Positive Declaration came and went, yet the Town of Ulster, acting as lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), has not made a formal determination on the Alcazar Battery Energy Storage Project (Terra-Gen). Instead of fulfilling its obligation to conduct a thorough and transparent review, the Town has continued to request additional studies from the developer, seemingly in an effort to justify a Negative Declaration. This approach undermines the purpose and spirit of SEQR, which is to ensure an impartial and comprehensive environmental review.  See 6 NYCRR § 617.6(b)(3)

The SEQR review began prematurely, before the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) was complete. Under SEQR, the lead agency is required to review the FEAF for completeness before circulating a Notice of Intent to act as lead agency. This includes identifying all involved agencies with discretionary decisions, such as permit approvals or PILOT agreements, to ensure they are properly included in a coordinated review. Failing to do so at the outset undermines the integrity of the entire process. The FEAF was ultimately resubmitted in June, following our May 28, 2025 blog post “From Fossil Fuel To Clean Energy: The Lithium-ion Battery Project in the Town of Ulster,” which exposed significant gaps and brought critical missing details to light.

Without a Positive Declaration, the current status of the Town of Ulster Town Board’s SEQR review remains unclear to the public. With each passing month, the Town has been working with the developer to obtain studies and information to address outstanding questions, however, much of this has occurred without public transparency or involvement.

As advocates, we can walk through the regulations to make the case for a Positive Declaration. We are returning to the resubmitted FEAF to identify at least one significant potential adverse environmental impact that should have triggered a Positive Declaration under SEQR and required a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the start.  By reviewing the FEAF alongside SEQR regulations, we aim to show there is evidence to require a Positive Declaration and a full environmental review, despite the Town’s ongoing requests for additional studies and other efforts to move the project toward a Negative Declaration.

The significant potential impacts we have identified include, but are not limited to:

  • Potential conflicts with County plans to protect open space and farmland;

  • Potential impacts of emergency services relying solely on a volunteer fire department with limited capacity;

  • Residential housing located just 22 feet away, including vulnerable populations such as children, elders, and people with disabilities;

  • A NYSDEC-designated potential Environmental Justice area immediately adjacent to the project;

  • The need for a thorough analysis of alternatives to ensure the best environmental and operational outcomes (Alternative Site Analysis);

  • Potential impacts to wetlands, endangered species, impaired waterbodies like the Lower Esopus Creek, and historic resources.

To agencies responsible for permits or other discretionary decisions (such as deviated PILOT agreements), it is important that they have the opportunity to fully participate in the environmental review process, a right ensured by a Positive Declaration. Relying on a Negative Declaration issued by the Town may limit their ability to request additional studies or raise concerns later on without appearing to contradict the Town’s findings.

We urge the Town of Ulster to end decision-making behind closed doors and stop requesting studies without public input. The Town must comply with SEQRA by issuing a Positive Declaration and move forward with a full Environmental Impact Statement immediately.

###

Potential Significant Environmental Impacts vs. SEQRA Criteria and FEAF Page Reference 

Potential Impact SEQRA Criteria (§617.7(c)) FEAF Page
1. Land use may conflict with Ulster County Open Space Plan and Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan §617.7(c)(1)(iv)(viii) & (vi): Substantial change in land use including agricultural/open space and a major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy Page 2
2. Ulster County IDA and project (deviated) PILOT PILOT agreements are included in the FEAF because they require approval from agencies like Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs), which have discretionary authority over the project. Since these financial incentives can influence whether a project proceeds, their approval is part of the environmental review to ensure all decisions affecting the project are fully considered under SEQR.   READ “Strife over tax breaks and tradeoffs: It doesn’t have to be like this” Page 2
3. Emergency services served by Spring Lake Volunteer Fire Department §617.7(c)(1)(x): The creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above consequences (hazard to human health) Page 3
4. Stormwater changes §617.7(c)(1)(i): Increase in potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage issues Page 5
5. Impacts to nearby waterbodies or wetlands §617.7(c)(1)(i) and (iii): Impact on unique natural characteristics; wetlands Page 5
6. New demands for water §617.7(c)(1)(i): A substantial adverse change in ground or surface water quality Page 5
7. Need for new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities §617.7(c)(1)(i): Potential conflict with adopted infrastructure plans or unknown impacts Page 6
8. New outdoor lighting and visual impacts §617.7(c)(1)(ii): Impacts on a threatened or endangered species of animal or plant, or the habitat of such a species; or other significant adverse impacts to natural resources Page 8
9. Proximity to housing (22 feet); vulnerable populations (children, elders, people with disabilities); §617.7(c)(1)(vii): The creation of a hazard to human health Page 10
10. Potential Environmental Justice areas within proximity of the project Commissioner’s Policy 29 (CP-29) is a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) directive focused on Environmental Justice. It guides how the DEC incorporates Environmental Justice considerations into its decision-making and SEQRA reviews. CP-29 requires identifying if a project affects minority or low-income communities, assessing potential disproportionate environmental impacts, ensuring meaningful community involvement, and taking steps to avoid or mitigate those impacts. The policy promotes fair treatment and meaningful participation of all communities in environmental decisions. Page 10
11. Impacts to Lower Esopus Creek, a state-designated impaired waterbody (not acknowledged in the application) §617.7(c)(1)(i),(ii) & (iv): Impacts on significant water resources; drainage/water quality concerns Page 11
12. Impacts to threatened or endangered species (Bald Eagles, Indiana Bat, Monarch Butterfly) §617.7(c)(1)(ii): Impact on threatened or endangered species or habitat Page 12
13. Impacts to a historic building or district §617.7(c)(1)(v): Impact on historic or archaeological resources Page 13

DAR Requests ZBA Hearing Be Delayed; Community-Funded Video Released

by

Group Editorial

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!

Kingston’s Noise Ordinance Exists But Is It Being Enforced?

by
Click on image to hear construction noise after 6:00pm.

By Rebecca Martin

Imagine being jolted awake at 7:00 a.m. on a weekday by the sound of heavy machinery and the persistent, high-pitch truck backup alarms—not once, but week after week for months. This is the reality for at least one Midtown Kingston resident, who is dealing with the ongoing noise from new construction in their neighborhood. They report that construction often begins before the city’s legally allowed start time, disrupting early mornings and weekends. The noise ordinance specifies the maximum decibel levels allowed, yet construction regularly exceeds those limits on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Despite filing complaints with the Kingston Planning Department, contacting their Common Council representative, and calling the Kingston Police Department multiple times, the noise persists.

Under Kingston’s municipal code, construction is allowed to take place Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., excluding holidays. If a developer or contractor wishes to work outside of those hours, they must apply for a special permit and demonstrate an “unreasonable hardship” that justifies the exception. This safeguard is meant to protect residents from excessive noise and disruption during times traditionally reserved for rest.

In this case, it appears that these special permits are being issued without requiring proof of hardship, and that 7:00 a.m. start times are regularly approved. This is happening despite a previous decision by the city’s Laws and Rules Committee, which, as we understand it, reviewed and declined a proposal to change the official start time to 7:00 a.m., maintaining the 8:00 a.m. start as a standard that best serves the interests of Kingston’s residents. (Minutes from the January 2018 meeting are not readily available on the City of Kingston’s website).

These claims point to a significant gap between what the ordinance requires and how it is being implemented. The result, the resident says, has been ongoing exposure to high-decibel construction noise for 55 or more hours per week, with limited opportunities for relief. They also report calling the Kingston Police Department on multiple occasions when work began before 8:00 a.m., and that in many instances, police intervened and stopped the work, suggesting that violations had, in fact, occurred.

This situation raises broader concerns about the city’s enforcement mechanisms. Is it appropriate for the police to be solely responsible for responding to construction noise violations? Officers already carry heavy workloads, and their presence may not be the most effective or proportional response to ongoing quality-of-life issues like this. There may be a need for additional oversight, accountability, or alternative avenues of enforcement within the Building Department or other city structures.

Importantly, the Planning Department and Planning Board must ensure that construction plans are reasonable and feasible within the allowed hours and decibel levels so that “emergencies” like excessive rain in the spring do not constitute a “hardship.” Permitting exceptions without scrutiny not only undermines the ordinance, it also places the burden on residents to prove that something is wrong. 

It’s important to recognize that managing noise on construction sites—and adhering to the city’s noise ordinance hours—helps protect construction companies from fines, lawsuits, and reputational damage. The cost of doing business should include investments in site preparation and noise-reducing measures. While many construction companies worry about costs, staying compliant with noise regulations can prevent bigger problems down the road.

There is growing research on the psychological effects of chronic noise exposure, showing a strong correlation with increased stress, sleep disruption, anxiety, and even increased rates of violent crime. This isn’t just a matter of inconvenience—it’s a public health issue. 

This experience mirrors other complaints we’ve heard in recent years and highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in how construction permits are managed. The core issue remains: residents have a right to quiet enjoyment of their homes, and if city departments are issuing permits that conflict with the law—or failing to require the documentation the law demands—residents deserve to know.

We’ve seen firsthand that individual residents can drive meaningful change when it comes to noise issues. In 2021, Kingston resident Lisa Darling confronted a different kind of disruption: the relentless sound of high-pitched backup alarms coming from a nearby NYS Department of Transportation (DOT) facility operating through the night. When she first raised the issue, she was told nothing could be done. But through persistence, collaboration with neighbors, and support from local and state officials, Darling succeeded in persuading the DOT to pilot—and ultimately adopt—quieter, OSHA-approved white noise alarms. Her advocacy didn’t just bring relief to her neighborhood; it led to a policy change affecting 60 DOT facilities statewide. Her story is a powerful reminder of what’s possible when residents speak up, stay engaged, and push for solutions through the right channels.

The point isn’t to stop construction or block development. It’s to ensure that progress doesn’t come at the expense of the people who already live here. Ordinances like Kingston’s construction noise rules exist to protect public health and community livability. If they are being ignored or circumvented, then residents have every right to ask why and to demand better.

If you are experiencing similar issues, for now, you can report noise violations by calling the Kingston Police Department’s non-emergency line at (845) 331-1671. You can also contact the City Planner’s office at (845) 334-3957 or email pl******@*********ny.gov. Finally, consider reaching out to your Common Council representative to share your concerns and request that the issue be addressed at the policy level.

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

UCAT’s Route Changes Are Premature Without a Clear Plan for the Hub

by

By Rebecca Martin

ACTION UPDATE: On August 27, the Ulster County Transit Riders and Intermodal Advisory Committee (TRIAC) recommended steps to reduce service disruption and rider hardship caused by the closure of the Kingston Plaza bus hub. To maintain access and convenience for UCAT riders, they propose allowing buses to pick up and drop off passengers anywhere along routes within the City of Kingston using a flag system. They also recommend redirecting routes that previously ended at Kingston Plaza to either Westbrook Lane and Clinton Avenue or Fair Street and Schwenk Drive. Additionally, intersections where at least three bus routes meet should be designated as official stops. These temporary measures aim to ensure continuity of service, allow for rider feedback, and support data collection to inform the Route Optimization Plan (ROP). TRIAC emphasizes that no major changes to UCAT routes or schedules should occur until they are thoroughly evaluated and approved through the ROP’s formal public planning process.

###

Ulster County Area Transit (UCAT) is preparing to make significant changes to its bus routes and schedules on September 15 (pushed back from the original date of September 10). These changes include the relocation of the central bus hub from Kingston Plaza to Development Court in the Town of Ulster. But before these changes go into effect, the public deserves some answers.

Kingston Plaza has been a key transfer hub – centrally located and well connected to neighborhoods, businesses, and other transit routes.  Replacing it without a clear, accessible alternative that has been publicly vetted raises serious concerns.  Development Court, the new proposed location, is difficult to reach on foot and lacks safe access for cyclists, making it effectively car-dependent.  Riders might also be required to pass through a Sheriff’s Department screening and use restrooms inside the Department of Social Services building.  

According to advocates, Ulster County says the move is purely practical – county owned and large enough – but the implications matter. Transit infrastructure should reflect dignity, access and equity. Public transportation needs to remove barriers, not create new ones. 

Here’s the central question: Was there ever a formal agreement – an MOU, lease, or other document – between the County and Kingston Plaza allowing UCAT to operate a hub there? If so, what were the terms, and why did they end? If not, how was the location justified and sustained for so long? The County Executive’s press release made no mention of this loss, leaving riders and the public in the dark.

More importantly, whatever arrangement supported the original hub should inform its replacement. Was the Kingston Plaza hub selected because of proximity to services, foot traffic, or centrality? Those criteria still matter – and Development Court likely fails on most of them. It’s isolated, lacks walkability, and does not serve as a natural transfer point for riders moving through Kingston.

The County already owns property within the City of Kingston that could serve as more appropriate locations for a transit hub – including surface lots at the County Office Building uptown and the Midtown medical building. These sites could be reconfigured to support transfers and even include parking solutions. Public properties like 25 Field Court – located next to the Midtown Linear Park – also deserve serious consideration, especially since moving the hub away from Kingston Plaza would cut off transit access to the trail. That trail was promoted as a key part of broader efforts to reconnect Midtown after decades of disinvestment, urban renewal, and the construction of Route 587. Dietz Stadium is another strong option – directly across from Trailways and close enough to Kingston Plaza to preserve current route patterns. Academy Green, while more limited in access, could function as a smaller satellite hub for uptown, which is also facing service cuts. And if public funds are already going toward the Kingstonian parking garage, why not leverage that facility to provide covered, centrally located transit access? Whatever site is ultimately selected, it must be publicly owned and backed by a formal agreement. Relying on informal or “de facto” hubs on private property leaves riders vulnerable to abrupt changes—as we’re seeing now.

The process behind these changes is also troubling. The County’s Route Optimization Planning effort is still underway, and the public was told that any major route revisions would follow scenario vetting, community feedback, and field testing. These steps have not yet happened. So why is a new schedule being launched now?

Other issues persist in the proposed changes. Some neighborhoods that lost service during the Citibus-UCAT merger in 2019 – such as Wilbur, Clifton Avenue, and the Avenues – remain underserved today. Expanded service within the City of Kingston has been discussed since 2017, and more frequent routes were promised during the merger process, but many areas still lack adequate coverage.  Significant gaps in midday and evening service make transit unreliable for workers and students. On-request stops require riders to call dispatch – a system that doesn’t work well for those without phones, with limited reception, or when dispatch isn’t available to answer. Fixed-route coverage remains weak in parts of the county like Milton and Marlborough, and some routes still operate in only one direction – resulting in long, inefficient trips. Finally, it’s unclear what happens to service on weekends. Will Kingston Plaza continue to function as a hub on Saturdays and Sundays? If so, weekday riders are being forced into a less functional system than weekend users

This is not the time to push through half-complete changes. The County should pause the route overhaul and focus solely on re-establishing a viable, accessible hub within the City of Kingston. No other service changes should proceed until the public process is complete and riders have a clear, centralized place to connect.

Public transportation should be simple, intuitive, and equitable.  It’s not charity, and it’s not just for those without other options. Yet too often in our area, we treat transit like a social safety net rather than the essential public good that it is: something that benefits everyone.  

People with cars have a certain kind of privilege – access to flexible schedules, faster commutes, and more freedom of movement. A strong transit system helps level the playing field by offering real mobility to all, regardless of age, income, or ability. That means investing in a service – not cutting it, and not making it more complicated. 

Transit is not just about buses and routes – it’s about access, dignity and connection. Before we redraw the map, we need to answer the public’s questions, respect the planning process that’s already underway, and make sure the system is improving – not unraveling. 

Riders deserve more than a detour. They deserve a say.