Clinton ZBA reopens question of road access for CECNY '6 Senses' project; no decision as litigation continues

The Town of Clinton Zoning Board of Appeals heard several hours of public comment and attorney argument on whether the town’s June 4, 2024 resolution condition — that Hyde Park denials be reversed “pursuant to a final nonappealable decision” before the Planning Board may resume review — has been satisfied. After public statements from counsel, residents and economic‑development supporters, the ZBA took no final determination; it entered executive session to review attorney work product and pending litigation and scheduled additional board consideration at a special meeting on Sept. 18.

The dispute centers on access to a 224‑acre parcel in Clinton proposed for an expanded conference center (referred to by proponents as the 6 Senses/CECNY project). Access to the Clinton parcel crosses an 8.4‑acre parcel in the neighboring Town of Hyde Park. In June 2024 the Clinton ZBA concluded the amended Clinton application could not proceed to the Planning Board because the Hyde Park denials prevented the legally required access; the ZBA’s language required a "final nonappealable decision" reversing those denials.

Counsel for CECNY, Victoria Polidoro, told the ZBA that Hyde Park’s adoption of Local Law No. 1 of 2025 and the parties’ stipulation of settlement satisfy the board’s condition. Polidoro said the Hyde Park local law expressly deems prior administrative determinations “null and void” where they conflict with the new law and that the stipulation was so ordered by the court, meaning it produced a nonappealable disposition for that matter. “Those Hyde Park denials, as you define them, have now been reversed,” Polidoro said, asking the ZBA to allow the Clinton Planning Board to resume environmental and site-plan review.

Opponents, led by attorney Warren Roplansky, argued the local law and stipulation are subject to legal challenge and therefore do not constitute a final, nonappealable determination. Roplansky noted that multiple petitions and hybrid Article 78 proceedings challenging Local Law No. 1 and the stipulation are pending in Dutchess County Supreme Court, and he urged the ZBA to uphold its original requirement until court review is complete. “To date, there has been no final nonappealable decision permitting the application process for this facility to move forward,” Roplansky said in his submission to the board.

Speakers for and against passage addressed the board during a long public hearing. Supporters included Mike Oates, president and CEO of the Hudson Valley Economic Development Corporation, who described regional economic benefits and urged expedited review by the planning board. Several residents and business owners — including Wendy Maitland, who said she represented parties who had looked at the site and preferred the current proposal to dense residential development — also spoke in favor. Opponents and resident-intervenors urged caution, highlighted pending litigation and argued Hyde Park’s local law was enacted after litigation and may be subject to reversal.

Town attorney Shane Egan advised the board on the difference between a decision that is nonappealable and one that is nonchallengeable, and he noted there is an active court challenge (a hybrid Article 78/declaratory judgment action) pending that seeks to annul Local Law No. 1 and the stipulation. Egan observed that the July stipulation was served with notice of entry and that a number of the Hyde Park administrative rulings identified in the ZBA’s June 2024 resolution have been nullified by the local law or addressed by the stipulation, but he also said the board must decide whether its original language required a court‑final, unchallengeable outcome or merely the practical restoration of legal access.

After public comment and attorney presentations, the board voted to close the public hearing, convene an executive session to consider attorney-client work product and pending litigation, and revisit the issue at a special meeting tentatively set for Sept. 18 at 6:30 p.m. The board said it did not expect to make a final determination the same night and emphasized the matter raises primarily a legal interpretation of the ZBA’s prior condition rather than a policy judgment about the project’s merits.