The developers of Zena Homes pressed the Woodstock Planning Board to move toward a decision at an Oct. 22 public hearing, while more than 40 opponents called for additional scrutiny of the proposed subdivision’s sole access road.
The 30 homes would be built in the town of Ulster, but the development would be reached through Eastwoods Drive in Woodstock. About 100 people attended the hourslong hearing at Mescal Hornbeck Community Center, the first of several public hearings on the proposal.
Developers Evan Kleinberg and Eddie Greenberg appeared with their attorney, Alec Gladd of Cuddy & Feder. In his opening statement, Kleinberg said the project had already undergone extensive review.
“What concrete issue have we heard that has not already been studied, reviewed and addressed?” Kleinberg said. “At this stage in the review process, we believe that there should now be a clear and finite path toward a decision without unnecessarily repeating work that has already been completed.”
Opponents said previous traffic and environmental studies ordered and paid for by the developers in Ulster were flawed or incomplete, and urged the Planning Board to require additional independent reviews. Among those speaking against the project were Eastwoods Drive homeowners Tana and Tommy O’Sullivan and Woodstock Environmental Commission co-chair Susan Paynter.
The hearing focused specifically on the developers’ minor subdivision application, which would reconfigure lot lines, reducing three parcels to two in Woodstock’s R5 zoning district, where Eastwoods Drive is located.
The developers are also seeking two waivers: one from a requirement for a secondary access road, and another from a requirement for 4-foot graded shoulders along about 900 feet of the road in wetlands or wetland buffers.
The dispute over additional review follows Ulster’s negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act in August. A positive declaration would have required an environmental impact statement before the project could move forward in Ulster’s review process.
After receiving the negative declaration, the proposal returned to the Woodstock Planning Board. At a Sept. 17 meeting, board members discussed gathering additional input from planning consultant Nan Stolzenburg, a civil engineer, and an environmental consultant from Hudsonia before deciding on the developers’ application.
John Lyons, the Planning Board’s attorney, said the board planned to bring back Hudsonia, a nonprofit dedicated to environmental research and education, and was soliciting a civil engineering consultant.
Kleinberg’s opening statement echoed a Sept. 22 letter submitted to the Planning Board objecting to additional environmental, engineering, or traffic studies. The developers said Ulster’s negative declaration rendered additional studies of issues already reviewed unnecessary.
In a Sept. 24 letter to the board, Gladd wrote that the developers were not legally obligated to pay for what they considered “duplicative” consultant reviews ordered by the board.
The letter cited earlier consultant reviews. Those included an August 2025 review by traffic consultant Stephan A. Maffia and an October 2025 review by Hudsonia environmental consultant Erik Kiviat.
Kleinberg said in an interview that the developers would consider further review of relevant issues that had not already been studied, but would not agree to pay for reviews they considered repetitive or irrelevant.
O’Sullivan and others from the Stop Zena Development community coalition also questioned whether the proposal complies with Section 280-a of New York’s Town Law, which sets road-access requirements for building permits.
Opponents cited a 2024 determination by former Woodstock zoning enforcement officer Francis “Butch” Hoffman addressing Eastwoods Drive’s compliance with the law. Hoffman identified an open development area designation from the Woodstock Town Board or a variance from the Woodstock Zoning Board of Appeals as possible routes to compliance.
The determination also identified Planning Board approval of a subdivision map showing the road, pursuant to sections 276 and 277, as a route to compliance. Gladd said reconfiguring the lots from three to two parcels through minor subdivision approval would bring Eastwoods Drive into compliance with Section 280-a.
Gladd also said the developers decided Oct. 16 to include paving the entire length of Eastwoods Drive in their proposal, rather than leaving the road unpaved, as the Planning Board had previously requested. Leaving the road unpaved would have required an additional waiver, Gladd said.
Hudsonia’s June 2025 review, included with its October addendum, said keeping the road as a gravel surface would “probably have less wildlife impact than blacktop.”
“This new revelation of paving the road presents a whole new slew of impacts yet to be discovered,” said Andy Mossey, executive director of the Woodstock Land Conservancy, during the hearing.
Opponents also raised drainage concerns about paving the road. Other commenters questioned the safety of a sole access road in case of fire, potential effects on protected species living in the proposed development area, and tree removal required for construction of the subdivision in Ulster.
Greenberg defended the single access road in an interview.
“I don’t know what more we could do on the single access road,” he said. “It’s compliant.”
Gladd said the developers met with Woodstock Fire District commissioners on Sept. 10 to present their plan and discuss fire-code compliance. He said the commissioners identified no issues with the single access road and that the proposed sprinklers would make the plan compliant with state fire code.
The developers’ Oct. 16 submission calls for sprinklers in all 30 homes and argues that a second access road would require additional clearing in the Zena Woods Critical Environmental Area. The Planning Board must still decide whether to grant the requested waiver from Woodstock’s secondary-access requirement.
Lt. Baris Demirel, of the Woodstock Fire Department’s Company 1, said at the hearing that the developers had approached the fire districts and spoken with commissioners, and that everything on that end “sounded perfectly fine.”
“We’re not responsible for the development. It’s going to be Sawkill and Ruby, and if they’re going to call on manpower or extra help, Woodstock will go to those as they come to ours,” he said, adding, “None of it seems out of the ordinary.”
The developers’ submission included Sept. 10 Woodstock Board of Fire Commissioners minutes recording no concerns about the single road. The minutes identified the Ruby Fire District in Ulster as the authority responsible for fire protection decisions and said Woodstock would await Ruby’s decision before commenting or acting.
The developers have also challenged Planning Board member Eugenie Tartell’s participation in the review. Their Sept. 22 letter cited her status as a neighboring property owner as grounds for recusal and said the question had been referred to the Woodstock Ethics Board.
Tartell attended Thursday’s hearing as a Planning Board member. She and the other board members did not speak during public comments. The Planning Board declined to comment on the recusal matter.
Kleinberg and Greenberg said they plan to submit a written response to public comments for the record in the coming days.
On a motion by Vice Chair Judith Kerman, the board voted to keep the public hearing open. The next session on the minor subdivision application is scheduled for Nov. 5 at Town Hall, 76 Tinker St., Woodstock. The meeting begins at 6 p.m.
Isabella Schoonover is a staff reporter for The Overlook covering Woodstock, Saugerties, Hurley, and surrounding Ulster County communities. Send correspondence to isabella@theoverlooknews.com.
