Double Standards & Missed Opportunities: Inside the Flawed Six Senses Review

A 4-Hour Marathon Meeting, Unfair Rules, and the Unfinished Fight to Protect Our Community

On April 7th, the Clinton Planning Board held a grueling, four-hour meeting regarding the proposed Six Senses resort. Despite the marathon session, the meeting ended with no final decision on the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process.

While the dynamics of the meeting were deeply frustrating, there is real reason to stay hopeful. We are showing up, we are armed with independent science, and it is making an impact. Here is a breakdown of where we stand, what went wrong, and why your voice is more critical than ever.

1. The Good News: Our Voices Are Breaking Through

Despite the chaos, our community’s advocacy is working. At least three Board members are asking the right questions and pushing back on the developer. They raised critical concerns about the massive impacts this project will have on our wetlands, our groundwater, and the sheer, unprecedented scale of a 240-guest resort with 150 employees in our rural corridor.

Furthermore, the data proves that we are a united front. While Six Senses has attempted to present misleading statistics, the facts show that over 85% of Clinton and Hyde Park respondents want a Positive Declaration. You can view the revised spreadsheet data in our previous news post (here).

2. The Frustrating Reality: A Double Standard

Unfortunately, the April 7th meeting also put a glaring double standard on full display. The public was strictly told that the comment period closed on March 27th. Yet, the developers were unfairly allowed to submit voluminous new materials, deliver a fresh presentation, and bring in a team of their consultants to actively argue their case.

Worse, the process at the dais broke down in real-time:

• A Biased Consultant: The Town’s Planning Consultant abandoned any pretense of neutrality, arguing strenuously on behalf of Six Senses rather than advising the Board objectively.

• Legal Confusion: The Board relied heavily on their non-lawyer consultant for highly technical SEQRA guidance, while their own attorney sat by in silence.

3. The Danger of a “Negative Declaration”

Because of this legal confusion, a few Board members are rushing to vote for a “Negative Declaration” (Neg Dec), mistakenly believing they can just require the developer to agree to things like a conservation easement or size reductions later on.

This is legally incorrect, and it is the biggest threat to our region right now.

Under New York State law, issuing a Negative Declaration means the Board is officially stating that this massive development will have no significant impact on the environment.

• If they issue a Neg Dec: The town legally loses its power to impose strict environmental mitigation conditions. They cannot force the developer to reduce the size of the project. They cannot legally mandate permanent conservation easements. They give up their leverage.

• If they issue a Positive Declaration (Pos Dec): The developer is legally forced to undergo a full environmental review. Crucially, a Pos Dec is the only mechanism that requires the developer to actively study and present project Alternatives—such as a significantly reduced footprint that actually fits our community character.

A Positive Declaration is not a punishment; it is the legally required tool to ensure the town takes a “hard look” at a project that threatens shared waterways like the Crum Elbow.

4. Take Action: Keep the Pressure On!

If the developer is allowed special treatment to keep arguing their case past the deadline, we will not stop either. We cannot let a biased process dictate the future of the Hudson Valley.

For a deeper dive into the legal and scientific flaws of the current proposal, please read our Attorney Letter and our Expert Consultant Letter.