Residents urge Rhinebeck to press lawsuit against IHG/Six Senses resort plan; board schedules attorney‑client session

A sustained public comment period at the Rhinebeck Town Board meeting centered on the board’s recent legal action related to a proposed Six Senses (IHG) resort in neighboring towns. Dozens of residents, civic groups and at least one economic development official addressed the board, and the meeting ended with the board moving to an attorney‑client session to discuss possible further legal steps.

Speakers who identified themselves as residents and regional stakeholders urged the board to stand by its lawsuit challenging what they called “spot zoning” and potential environmental harm from the resort proposal. Tess Lundberg, who identified herself as a Hyde Park resident, told the board that she appreciated the town’s “decision to take legal action” and that local protections for habitat, water quality and community character were at stake. Several other residents described the project area as a significant biodiversity zone and said the land hosts a high diversity of turtle species.

Mike Coats, president and CEO of the Hudson Valley Economic Development Corporation, said he and his organization support the project broadly but nonetheless told the board he had provided public materials summarizing the project and noted the public filing that says about 3.5 acres of new disturbance would occur from the proposal. Multiple other residents and civic‑group representatives said they opposed the project on environmental and zoning grounds and supported Rhinebeck’s legal challenge.

One speaker who identified herself as Wendy Maitland, a Rhinebeck resident and the broker who facilitated the property sale to Six Senses, said she was concerned about the town spending taxpayer money on litigation in another municipality, asked about the cost to Rhinebeck taxpayers, and said she was uncomfortable about potential counsel conflicts where an attorney represents multiple parties in related matters. The board replied that as an abutting municipality it has standing to protect its comprehensive‑plan interests and that the town’s leadership was committed to defending local land‑use law.

After public comments, a board member moved to go into an attorney‑client session to discuss “possible joining another lawsuit.” The meeting record shows the board chose to hold that closed session; the board did not record any formal vote summaries about joining a specific additional lawsuit in the public record during the meeting.

The public comments show a high level of local interest: speakers included neighborhood residents, conservation advocates, members of civic groups, and representatives of local business and economic development organizations. Many urged the board to proceed with legal action; a smaller set of speakers raised concerns about cost, process and conflicts of interest.