Daily Freeman By William J. Kemble
PUBLISHED: April 18, 2024 at 8:00 a.m.
TOWN OF ULSTER, N.Y. – A closer inspection of the Zena Homes application for 30 single-family residences includes a traffic study that opens the possibility that developers could increase the dwelling units by declaring 22 houses as duplexes.
Supervisor James Quigley on Wednesday said the figures should have been part of an April 9 presentation with clarification from developers on why there is a vague aspect to their filing. Among unanswered questions is when town officials were going to be given an explanation for why references included for duplexes were not part of the public discussion.
“The whole (106.6-acre) parcel is zoned R-60 and R-60 doesn’t make a zoning use determination on a parcel-by-parcel basis,” he said. “If they’re asking for a 32-lot (residential and neighborhood common space) subdivision, it’s all or none for duplexes.”
Under the full build-out used by the traffic study for Eastwoods Drive, there would be vehicles from 52 residential units on the Zena Development LLC property in the town of Ulster as well in the town of Woodstock on three parcels that could be developed and one parcel that is already developed.
Quigley considers the absence of information during the April 9 presentation to the town Planning Board and an audience of about 80 people as a way for developers to have observers try to figure out “which shell is the pea under.”
Developers in the 128-page application focus on the 30 lots for single-family homes. However, in the project narrative, there is a sentence saying that some of the lots can accommodate two-family duplex dwellings “in order to provide flexibility and different housing affordability options” without providing any further explanation of how that applies to approvals needed for the project.
A representative for the project on Wednesday wrote in an email that “there are only a handful of lots that even would qualify for more than one home, and that would ultimately be decided by the buyer. Our traffic study takes that into account plus multiple other levels of contingency.”
Developers are contesting a March 26 determination from Woodstock town code enforcement officer Francis Hoffman, who cited town codes involving subdivisions as the reason a Planning Board review is needed to construct a 1,423-foot-long driveway from Eastwoods Drive even if the housing would be in the town of Ulster.
“As no division of any (Woodstock) parcel of land into two or more lots, plots or sites is proposed the Chapter 202 Subdivision of Land regulations should not apply,“ wrote Alec Gladd, attorney for Zena Development.
The letter also contends that Woodstock cannot apply wetlands and watercourse protection standards to the construction of the driveway because developers would not be working in a regulated area. They added that the project should not be considered in its entirety because it is “explicitly exempt from site plan review because it …will continue to serve an exempt use (which are) one- and two-family dwellings.”
Developers also informed Woodstock officials that driveway maintenance would be through a homeowners association. That troubled Quigley, who said Ulster town code would require access to the Zena Homes development from a road owned by a town, county or the state.
“There is a prohibition in the town code on the length of a private road to get to a development,” he said. “Why would we allow access to a development in the town of Ulster across a private road, in another municipality, that exceeds our code length.”