Kingston Preservation Committee Scrutinizes Adam Center Historical Accuracy While Advancing Multi-Year Cemetery Restoration Plan
Key Points
- Maple Street conservation project aims to protect Stony Brook and enable future dam breaching for fish passage
- Committee requested a revised Adam Center application to include historical research and expert preservation credentials
- Old Burying Ground restoration proposed as a $75,000 first-phase of a three-year gravestone preservation plan
- Jones River Watershed Association Drew House application requires additional language regarding public tours and school access
- Gray Beach basketball court resurfacing project faces scrutiny over eligibility as a maintenance expense versus rehabilitation
- Final project votes and a public hearing are scheduled for March 2026 following application revisions due in late January
- Committee budget includes over $800,000 in undesignated funds available for upcoming community projects
The Kingston Community Preservation Committee convened on January 8, 2026, to review a diverse slate of applications ranging from land conservation to historic site rehabilitation. Chair Brian Payne opened the session by guiding the committee through an initial review of the affordable housing trust transfer, which remains a standard annual procedure. The focus quickly shifted to conservation efforts as Matt Penella presented two significant land acquisition proposals. Matt Penella explained that the Maple Street project aims to protect Stony Brook wetland resources, stating, We'd like to be able to breach the dam at Maple Street for resilience and for fish passage.
The committee also reviewed a proposal to purchase a four-acre parcel to secure permanent access to the Haway Preserve, a move intended to prevent potential conflicts with future private developers.
The most pointed discussion of the evening centered on the Adam Center’s application for column and facade replacement. Chair Brian Payne expressed significant reservations regarding the lack of documented historical research in the proposal, arguing that the project felt more like a routine repair than a preservation effort. Brian Payne noted, Generally speaking, I feel like they're approaching this more like a facilities project and not a historical conservation or restoration project.
Committee member Alexander Graham questioned the procedural next steps for the applicant, asking, Are you asking him to fill out a new application? Is that what you're asking?
Linda Ragosta highlighted the structural urgency mentioned by the town's facilities manager, noting, The building structurally isn't... that's my point,
though the committee ultimately insisted on seeing more detailed "means and methods" to ensure historical accuracy before moving forward.
Progress was smoother for the Old Burying Ground restoration, which proposed a $75,000 first phase of a three-year plan to save 240 deteriorating gravestones. Megan Hickey praised the long-term vision of the project, stating, I think when time comes that this is really complete... this could really be a very important spotlight historical site for the town of Kingston.
Similarly, the Jones River Watershed Association’s application for the Drew House was commended for its high-caliber consultation with historic experts, though members requested more explicit language regarding public benefit. Suzanne Haggerty provided financial context during the budget review, noting that the committee has significant undesignated funds available, stating, Undesignated you can pull from for any project... and that has 800 and change.
The committee concluded by reviewing a $250,000 request from the Recreation Department to resurface basketball courts at Gray Beach. While members acknowledged the safety hazards caused by tree roots, they questioned whether the project qualified as "rehabilitation" or "maintenance," the latter of which is ineligible for Community Preservation Act funding. The committee requested additional information regarding the original funding source of the courts and a commitment for long-term maintenance from the town. Following the project reviews, Motion Made by Sheila Vaughn to approve the minutes of September 4, 2025. Motion Passed 7-0. Subsequently, Motion Made by Sheila Vaughn to approve the minutes of November 6, 2025. Motion Passed 6-0-1, with Dorothy MacFarlane stating, Second
to facilitate the vote. The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 PM.