Opponents of Zena Homes are weighing two potential court challenges and focusing on Eastwoods Drive, the development’s proposed access route through Woodstock, after the project cleared two hurdles in the Town of Ulster last week.

The Woodstock Land Conservancy and Stop Zena Development, a community group, held a meeting for residents and supporters in Woodstock on Tuesday, Aug. 18, a week after the Ulster Planning Board determined that the proposed 30-home subdivision would not have significant adverse environmental effects.

The finding, known as a negative declaration, allows the project to proceed without a full environmental impact statement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.

The Ulster Zoning Board of Appeals then denied an administrative appeal by the conservancy, which argued that the Town Board, rather than the Planning Board, should oversee the environmental review.

The conservancy said the Ulster Planning Board has never issued a positive declaration, which requires a full environmental impact statement, while the Town Board has. Ulster Supervisor James Quigley said that comparison did not account for the different applications the boards review. Ulster’s zoning code gives the Planning Board authority over subdivisions and site plans involving individual structures or additions smaller than 2,500 square feet. The appeals board ruled that the proposed homes would stand on separate lots and their floor areas could not be combined to trigger Town Board review.

“We had a double hit back-to-back: a jab and a sucker punch,” said Andy Mossey, the conservancy’s executive director.

Despite the setbacks, Mossey said the conservancy has “at least two potential legal challenges moving forward.”

One would seek state Supreme Court review of the appeals board’s ruling through an Article 78 proceeding, the type of lawsuit used to challenge government actions in New York. Mossey called that step “highly likely.” Under state law, the conservancy has 30 days after the decision is filed with the town clerk to begin the case.

The other potential Article 78 proceeding would challenge the Planning Board’s environmental determination. Mossey said the conservancy’s lawyers advised it to wait until the board completes site plan review and makes a final decision on the project.

A provision enacted in May as part of the state budget says the deadline for challenging an environmental determination begins when an agency’s decision to approve or disapprove a project becomes final and binding.

The conservancy expects a challenge to the environmental determination to cost at least $70,000 over the coming months, Mossey said. He said the organization has spent $86,891 on legal work related to the project, including its unsuccessful effort to contest the Planning Board’s authority.

“We always thought that more scrutinous review was very necessary for this project,” Mossey said. “It just makes sense. And there are a lot of people who really care about this and oppose this.”

The proposed subdivision would place 30 homes on about 106 acres of a 624-acre property spanning Ulster and Woodstock. Although the homes would be built in Ulster, their only proposed access would be an expanded Eastwoods Drive in Woodstock.

While Ulster continues to review the project, the conservancy is shifting its focus to Woodstock, where the Planning Board must consider the proposed widening and extension of Eastwoods Drive.

The narrow gravel road serves five homes. Eastwoods Drive resident Tana O’Sullivan said construction and traffic generated by 30 more homes could disturb the wetlands along the road.

“It’s a pretty incredible wetland over there,” O’Sullivan said. “There is an environmental concern about digging up wetland, filling it in with gravel and widening it so that trucks and cars can go down.”

Zena Homes developer Evan Kleinberg disputed the conservancy’s criticism of the environmental review and called its challenge to the Planning Board’s authority a procedural effort to delay the project. He said the group was applying its own standard for what constitutes a significant environmental effect.

“The conservancy is intentionally creating confusion about our project,” Kleinberg said.

Kleinberg also said he was pleased the project had advanced in Ulster and expected the remaining approvals to move quickly. He agreed that the project didn’t require a full environmental impact statement.

The development’s location has also raised questions about which fire department would serve the homes. Kleinberg said he had spoken with Woodstock fire officials and was told the department could handle calls from the subdivision. He said Ulster and Woodstock would still have to determine which department would be responsible and how the costs would be divided.

Woodstock Fire First Assistant Chief Kevin Peters did not confirm any agreement between the towns over responsibility or costs at this time.

Because the subdivision would be reached through Eastwoods Drive, Woodstock firefighters would be the first to respond, Peters said. He said the project would affect the department by adding calls.

“We get enough calls as it is,” Peters said. Speaking personally, he said he didn’t want the project to move forward.

Kleinberg and fellow developer Eddie Greenberg said about 500 acres of the property, all in Woodstock, would be left undeveloped if the subdivision moves forward. An earlier plan for the property, called Woodstock National, proposed 191 homes, a golf course, and a helipad in 2023. It was scrapped after public opposition.

Kleinberg said the developers have offered several times to sell the undeveloped land to the conservancy. According to Kleinberg, the conservancy rejected each offer. Mossey said the conservancy’s “number one goal” is to buy the property in its entirety, including the 106 acres slated for development in Ulster.

“We didn’t buy the land to give it away for free. If they want to purchase the land in its entirety, feel free to make an offer,” Kleinberg said.

He said he and Greenberg bought the 624-acre property for $7 million and have since spent $2 million on engineering, legal fees, and environmental studies during the review process.

The conservancy urged supporters to contact the Woodstock Planning Board and participate when it accepts public comments on the proposed road. No date has been set for the developers’ next appearance before the Woodstock board.

Noah Eckstein contributed reporting.

Isabella Schoonover is a staff reporter for The Overlook covering Woodstock, Saugerties, Hurley, and surrounding Ulster County communities. Send correspondence to isabella@theoverlooknews.com.