The developers behind the proposed Zena Homes subdivision are challenging Woodstock Planning Board member Eugenie “Genie” Tartell’s continued participation in the project’s review, citing her ownership of nearby land and what they described as her prior opposition to the development.
Tartell acknowledged owning a vacant, approximately three-acre parcel off Lauren Court, across the road from property owned by Zena Development LLC. The parcel is not where she lives, she said, and she rejected the contention that owning it automatically requires her recusal.
Zena Homes proposes 30 houses on approximately 107 acres in the Town of Ulster. Because the parcel is effectively landlocked, its only proposed entrance is Eastwoods Drive in Woodstock, giving Woodstock’s Planning Board authority over the road improvements and related permits.
“Just having a three-acre parcel on a property, an unbuilt property, is not a reason to necessarily recuse a board member,” Tartell told The Overlook.
The dispute became public in a Sept. 22 letter from developers Eddie Greenberg and Evan Kleinberg to the Planning Board. The letter objects to what they described as repeated studies and shifting demands during the project’s nearly three-year review.
The developers said they would no longer finance studies or consultant reviews that they believe duplicate work already completed. Applicants are responsible for the cost of Woodstock’s outside consultants through an escrow account.
“We are not going to fund another study every time the same issue is raised again,” Greenberg and Kleinberg wrote. They asked the board to identify any specific question that remains unresolved, explain why the existing record does not answer it, and state what information is still needed before the application can proceed to a public hearing and decision.
The letter also devotes a section to Tartell.
“We also remain very concerned about Eugenie Tartell’s continued participation in this application,” they wrote, citing her “status as a neighboring property owner, her prior opposition to the project, involvement with the WLC Facebook group and her continued participation in the Board’s review.”
The developers said her continued participation raised “serious procedural fairness and due process concerns.”
During a Sept. 30 walk-through of the property, Greenberg and Kleinberg said they learned about Tartell’s parcel after a Lauren Court resident contacted someone associated with the development. They also alleged that Tartell had gone door to door encouraging neighbors to oppose the project.
The Overlook could not independently corroborate that allegation. Tartell denied it.
“I don’t have time to go and knock door to door to my neighbors,” she said, calling the assertions behind the recusal request hearsay. “This project is not going to make a difference in my lifestyle. It’s not going to affect my home.”
Tartell questioned why the developers had focused on her among the Planning Board’s members.
“Why me?” she said. She encouraged The Overlook to examine the public record, specifically mentioning the Planning Board’s Nov. 6, 2025, meeting.
A transcript of that meeting prepared by the Stop Zena Development coalition shows the board discussing whether the subdivision should have a second access road, the possible use of sprinklers to address fire-safety concerns, and the environmental damage another road could cause. The board did not decide the requested waiver.
The developers wrote that the recusal question had been formally referred to Woodstock’s Ethics Board. Tartell also said an ethics review was underway and that she expected to meet with the board.
The Planning Board declined to comment on the developers’ allegations or say whether it had asked Tartell to recuse herself. The Ethics Board did not confirm whether it was reviewing Tartell, noting that preliminary findings and proceedings involving alleged violations are confidential.
Under Woodstock’s ethics code, the Ethics Board may open a confidential preliminary investigation based on a complaint, a disclosure statement, a request from a town official or Ethics Board member, or its own initiative. If it determines that a violation may have occurred, it must notify the official in writing and provide an opportunity to respond. The official may also request a hearing.
If the board finds reasonable cause to believe a violation occurred, it notifies the official, any complainant, the town supervisor, and the Town Board. For a serious violation, the Ethics Board may recommend disciplinary action—including a warning, reprimand, suspension, or removal—to the Town Board. The town supervisor must report back within 30 days on what action, if any, the Town Board took.
Tartell said she would recuse herself if the Ethics Board advised her to do so, adding that she was “not going to jeopardize this project.”
Woodstock’s ethics code requires recusal when an official’s action could benefit that official financially or otherwise, or create a reasonable appearance of a conflict or impropriety. New York law does not automatically disqualify a Planning Board member merely for owning nearby property, making Woodstock’s broader local standard central to the review.
The Planning Board is also considering waiver requests that Greenberg and Kleinberg describe as four technical waivers covering two principal issues: whether the subdivision may rely on one access road, and how Eastwoods Drive must be constructed.
Woodstock’s subdivision standards generally require developments of 20 or more lots to have two connections to existing roads. Zena Homes instead proposes using Eastwoods Drive as the sole entrance, arguing that another road would cross the Zena Woods Critical Environmental Area and require approximately 5.6 additional acres of clearing.
The second issue involves Woodstock’s requirements for a 20-foot-wide asphalt road with 4-foot graded shoulders. The developers propose widening Eastwoods Drive, which varies from 10 to 19 feet, to a uniform 20 feet and extending it another 1,200 feet. At the Planning Board’s request, it would remain gravel. The plans also omit full shoulders along approximately 900 feet within wetland buffer areas.
“The waivers that we are asking for are making the project less impactful,” Greenberg said during the walk-through.
Kleinberg said denying the single-access waiver would not necessarily stop the project because the developers control another potential route.
“If they don’t grant that waiver, it doesn’t block the project,” he said. “We have a second way out.”
That alternative, he said, “would require a lot more disruption of the land.”
During the walk-through, Greenberg and Kleinberg pointed out wetlands, existing clearings, drainage channels, and culverts they said would be repaired as part of the project. They said they had designed the road to minimize tree clearing and move construction away from wetland areas wherever possible.
“We want this to be low impact,” Kleinberg said. “We want this to be considered responsible development.”
The developers have also said they offered to sell the land outside the proposed subdivision to the Woodstock Land Conservancy at its appraised market value, though they have not committed to keeping that land permanently undeveloped if no sale occurs.
At the Planning Board’s Sept. 17 meeting, attended by about 75 opponents, Vice Chair Judith Kerman said relying on one road could complicate an evacuation if a tree fell or a wildfire threatened the development. Building another road through the protected area presented its own problems, she said.
“You’ve given us two bad options,” Kerman told the developers’ attorney.
The board’s attorney said the central question is whether granting the waivers would adversely affect public health and safety. The board plans to obtain recommendations from its planning and engineering consultants before scheduling a public hearing. No hearing date has been set.
“If there are concrete concerns that are outstanding, tell us and let’s talk about them,” Kleinberg said. “If not, it’s time. We’ve done it. It’s time.”
Greenberg said the challenge to Tartell was not intended as a personal attack.
“We want a fair process,” he said.
Noah Eckstein is the editor-in-chief of The Overlook. Send correspondence to noah@theoverlooknews.com.
