Town Board Meeting Minutes 09-08-2008

TOWN OF RHINEBECK TOWN BOARD MEETING MINUTES

FOR SEPTEMBER 8, 2008

 

 

PRESENT: Supervisor Thomas Traudt 21 residents

Councilman Arthur 'Dod" Crane

Councilwoman Ellen Silverstein

Councilman Dan Staley

Councilman Bruce Washburn

Counsel Pamela Richardson

 

At 6:55 Supervisor Tom Traudt called this meeting to order and then lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

September 9^th primary election for Independent, Conservative and Working Families Parties ONLY from 12 noon to 9 pm.

 

September 21^st - Music on the Lawn at Recreation Park pool area from 2-4 pm.

September 24^th - Senior Expo at the Fairgrounds from, 9:30-2 hosted by Rhinebeck's Aging Committee and Red Hook Senior Committee

 

September 27^th - Winter Gymnastics and Basketball sign-ups at Town Hall from 9-12 noon.

 

C.A.C., Rhinecliff Advisory Council, Rhinecliff Waterfront Committee and Open Space/Affordable Housing Committee are seeking new members. Applications available in Town Clerk's Office.

 

BUSINESS

1. Accept Final Scoping Document

State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR)

Final Adopted Scoping Document

Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Proposed Adoption of Town Comprehensive Plan
Amendments to Town Zoning Law
and Freshwater Wetlands Law
Town of Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, NY

Description of the Proposed Actions

The proposed actions are the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Rhinebeck entitled The Rhinebeck Plan, adoption of Amendments to the Town Zoning Law and adoption of a Freshwater Wetlands Local Law. The current Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan was adopted on June 5, 1989. This means that much of the information provided, especially the socio-economic data, is almost 30 years old. Community values are based upon a 1985 public opinion survey and the regional trends that affected Rhinebeck's growth up to that point have shifted. The Town Zoning Law was adopted on June 12, 1989 and, currently the Town does not have a Local Law regulating freshwater wetlands.

Today, development pressure in Rhinebeck comes primarily from the south. Since World War II, growth has steadily moved outward from New York City - initially in Westchester, Bergen and Nassau Counties. In the 1960s, as land in those counties was developed, growth moved on to available land in Rockland and Suffolk Counties. Now, growth has moved to a new ring of suburbs, located 45 to 75 miles away from Manhattan. Dutchess County, as well as Orange, Putnam, Ulster and eastern Suffolk Counties, are situated within this ring, and these are the areas that experienced most of the region's growth in recent decades. While population in the core counties surrounding New York City has either declined or remained substantially unchanged in recent decades, in the counties making up the "outer ring" of the metropolis, population has expanded.

Rural areas such as Rhinebeck have experienced market pressure for residential development from people who work within commuting distance of New York City, and wish to live where open space is still available. Developers from the metropolitan area are also looking in Dutchess County and elsewhere in the Hudson Valley for lands that are available for development. This trend is expected to continue as people seek a more rural lifestyle, and as developers run out of places to carry on their development activities within the suburbs closer to New York City. As people are drawn to rural areas like Rhinebeck however, the very qualities that attract people in the first place, are transformed as the community "builds-out" its remaining available lands with housing. As discussed in the Proposed Comprehensive Plan, Rhinebeck is currently zoned for a suburban style of development with all lands designated for one, three and five acre lots.

These and other trends have affected housing prices, which have increased significantly. In 1980, the mean (average) value of an owner occupied house was $52,783. According to the US Census, this figure was $151,350 in 2000. Median (middle) value was even higher in 2000 at $174,500. In May of 2006, the lowest "for sale" price of a single family home in Rhinebeck on the Mid-Hudson Multiple Listing Service was $264,000. According to the same source, the average price of a single-family home in Dutchess County in 2005 was $396,678. The implications of this on residents' ability to afford a home have been dramatic. For example, someone making 80 percent of the median family income for Dutchess County,[1] the lowest price home currently on the market for $264,000 would be out of their reach. The assumptions include someone making 80 % of the Dutchess County year 2000 median income of $53,853, a 10% down payment, a fixed rate 30 year mortgage at 6%, and 30% of total household income devoted to housing payments, excluding property taxes. The annual mortgage payments total $18,044.10, which would be 42% of the household income of $43,082. To counteract this existing problem, the Proposed Comprehensive Plan presents a 25-point Inclusionary Housing Program as summarized in Section II(A)(d)(iii) below.

In spite of the development trends occurring in Rhinebeck and the region as a whole (as more fully described in the draft Comprehensive Plan) Rhinebeck has largely maintained the special qualities of a rural and agricultural community. The Town of Rhinebeck has a rich historical and cultural past spanning over 300 years of European settlement and several thousand years of pre-historic habitation by Native Americans. Much of Rhinebeck's unique legacy is recognized in two large historic districts and many scattered historic sites throughout the town. The town is home to a portion of a National Historic Landmark District, the State Mid-Hudson Historic Shorelands Scenic District, the Estates District Scenic Area of Statewide Significance, New York State Scenic Byways and locally designated Scenic Roads, and a New York State Coastal Zone area. It is also within the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area and the state's Hudson River Valley Greenway.

This Draft Scoping Document has been prepared by GREENPLAN Inc. and AKRF for the Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck, Lead Agency for the SEQR review of the proposed actions. The Town Board will prepare a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) under 6 NYCRR 617.10(b), the implementing regulations for the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The document will be prepared in a generic format because adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Freshwater Wetlands Law will have a wide application, will affect properties throughout the Town, and will have generic or common effects.

As discussed in the SEQR Regulations at 6 NYCRR 617.10(a) "A generic EIS may be used to assess the environmental impacts of...an entire program or plan having wide application or restricting the range of future alternative policies or projects, including new or significant changes to existing land use plans..." The adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan will not, by itself, authorize any new uses of land. That can only occur after the Zoning Law Amendments have been adopted, as recommended in the Proposed Comprehensive Plan, after all necessary site specific SEQR reviews have been conducted for any new proposed uses and only after all approvals (such as subdivision, site plan, and special use permit approval) have been secured from the Town of Rhinebeck as well as approvals from other agencies.

To prepare the proposed Comprehensive Plan, the Town Board appointed a 22-member Comprehensive Plan Committee, comprised of Rhinebeck residents including planners, architects, land use experts, business owners, town officials and others, representing diverse backgrounds and interests, to prepare the Plan. The Committee worked for more than three years to create a plan that addresses the attitudes and reflects the choices of the majority of Rhinebeck residents. The Committee sought out the preferences and priorities of townspeople through a detailed, town-wide survey, eleven visioning sessions and more than 200 Committee meetings, workshops, and forums. The community values that emerged include averting sprawl and preserving open space; preventing "big box," franchise and formula businesses, as well as strip development, and preserving Rhinebeck village as the town's commercial center; providing diverse housing choices that are affordable to Rhinebeck's workforce, new workers and fixed income residents; and connecting the town, village and Hamlet of Rhinecliff with sidewalks and biking trails.

 

The Plan addresses most aspects of life in the town, including: economic growth; affordable housing; home-based work; agriculture and open space; historic resources; fire districts; water/sewer; transportation; and recreation, scenic, and cultural resources, among myriad others. Regional issues, especially affordable housing and conservation of natural resources that transcend municipal boundaries, were studied and considered and more than 400 actions were developed and recommended for adoption by the Town Board. During the planning process, the Town Board appointed an Open Space and Affordable Housing Committee to study these issues in depth. The Rhinebeck Open Space and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, which resulted from the Committee's efforts, has been included in the Proposed Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, a Biodiversity Assessment was commissioned by the Town Board, resulting in a report by Hudsonia Ltd. entitled Significant Habitats. This report has been added to the Proposed Comprehensive Plan as well.

 

The proposed Amendments to the Zoning Law have been designed to be consistent with the ± 400 actions recommended in the Plan. They have also been designed to be consistent with the Dutchess County Greenway Compact Program guidelines, with the recently approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and with the Amendments made to the Planning and Zoning enabling laws in New York State Town Law primarily during the 1990's. New Zoning Districts have been created and a variety of land uses have been added or removed from the list of allowable uses. To implement the "Centers and Greenspace Plan" in the Proposed Comprehensive Plan, residential densities have been increased in parts of the Town deemed appropriate for compact development and decreased in other parts of the Town deemed more appropriate for rural, agricultural, forestry and open space uses. Neighborhood Infill Overlay Zoning Districts are proposed to allow for infill development and potentially additional affordable housing in select hamlet areas; neighborhood extensions are proposed to allow residential development on smaller (e.g., 6,000 square foot lots) in areas adjacent to the Village and the hamlet of Rhinecliff; and application of density bonuses for additional affordable housing, additional open space, or public access to open space are proposed for new development.

 

Conservation subdivision design is proposed to be used as a tool for most new residential development in the Town. New standards governing lighting, signage, noise, landscaping, parking, stormwater management, affordable housing, habitat management, solar energy/green building construction, and traditional neighborhood development, among others, have been added.

 

The proposed Wetlands Local Law has also been designed to be consistent with the actions recommended in the Plan. Wetlands larger than 12.4 acres in size are regulated by the State of New York and wetlands that are connected to navigable bodies of water are regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Many smaller wetlands, however, are not regulated at all in the Town of Rhinebeck. This includes but is not limited to intermittent woodland pools, which have been identified by the Town of Rhinebeck Significant Habitats study as "one of the most imperiled habitats in the region." New York State agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of State encourage municipalities to protect wetlands through adoption of local regulatory legislation. The proposed Local Law would require the issuance of a Wetlands Permit, by the Town Planning Board, before certain development activities could be initiated within wetlands and an adjacent upland buffer area.

DGEIS Introduction

The proposed Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) will assemble relevant and material facts, evaluate reasonable alternatives, and be analytical but not encyclopedic. It will also be clearly and concisely written in plain language that can be easily read and understood by the public. Highly technical material will be summarized and, if it must be included in its entirety, it will be referenced in the DGEIS and included in an appendix.

This Draft Scoping Document represents issues and known concerns identified by the Town Board. Public Scoping was originally conducted during May of 2006. At that time, the Town Board prepared a Draft Scoping Document and held a public scoping session on May 22, 2006. Subsequent to the 2006 public Scoping Session, the Town Board decided to include in a comprehensive SEQR analysis the proposed Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law. Additional public scoping will be conducted. Public input was sought on the Draft Scoping Document through circulation of it to all Interested Agencies, through publication of a "Notice of DGEIS Scoping" in the Gazette Advertiser, through availability of the Draft Scoping Document at Town Hall, the Starr and Morton Memorial libraries, at http://www.Rhinebeck-NY.gov for viewing or downloading and through a public scoping session to be held at 6:45 PM on August 14, 2008 at Town Hall. There was also a period for additional written public comment on the Draft Scoping Document that ended on August 25, 2008.

This document is intended to serve as the foundation for the identification of potentially significant adverse impacts pertinent to the proposed actions and appropriate mitigation measures. It is also intended to eliminate consideration of any impacts that are irrelevant or non-significant.

The DGEIS will be written in the third person without use of the terms I, we, and our. Narrative discussions will be accompanied to the greatest extent possible by illustrative tables and graphics. All graphics will clearly identify the subject item. The DGEIS will group each issue identified into one Existing Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation section to permit more expedient and efficient review. Footnotes will be used as the form of citing references. All assertions will be supported by evidence. Opinions that are unsupported by evidence will be identified as such.

The DGEIS may incorporate by reference, in accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(7), all or portions of other documents, including EISs that contain information relevant to the subject DGEIS. This is to avoid duplication of relevant environmental information that is readily available, such as the information on natural and cultural resources found in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Any other documentation used will be briefly described, its applicable findings summarized, the date of preparation provided and such documents will only be referenced if they are available at the Town Hall for inspection.

Draft GEIS Contents

Cover Sheet listing preparers, title of action, DGEIS identification, location, Lead Agency, and relevant dates (i.e. date of acceptance, date of public hearing, final date for acceptance of comments).

Table of Contents including listings of tables, figures, maps, charts, and any items that may be submitted under separate cover (and identified as such).

I. Executive Summary

The Executive Summary will include a brief description of the proposed actions and a summary of potential environmental impacts, with issues of controversy specified, and proposed mitigation measures. A summary will be provided of the actions required of the Town Board as well as others, such as the Town Planning Board and the Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development. Alternatives to the proposed actions will be summarized here.

II. Description of the Proposed Action

This portion of the DGEIS provides a description of the proposed actions, including background and need, location, and identification of appropriate governmental actions.

A. Project Purpose, Need and Benefits

a. Background and history including the planning process, public participation components and studies completed for the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Zoning Law and Wetlands Local Law.

b. Proposed Comprehensive Plan

i. The Town and surrounding areas will be identified on a map and the regional context will be illustrated. Other relevant maps that could contribute to an understanding of the proposed Comprehensive Plan will also be provided.

c. Proposed Zoning Amendments:

i. The proposed zoning map changes will be identified, described and mapped. Describe the rationale for the proposed districts.

ii. The proposed Zoning text amendments will be identified and described

d. Public Need and Benefits:

i. The potential consequences of a likely conventional suburban development scenario of the Town, under existing Zoning, will be discussed.

ii. The public need and potential benefits, including social and economic considerations, of an alternative development scenario of the Town as recommended by the Proposed Comprehensive Plan, will be discussed including a review and discussion of the literature on the subject of the costs and benefits of environmental regulations.

iii. Decreasing the density of development in most of the Town may have an effect on the cost of housing in the community. To compensate for this potential effect the Proposed Comprehensive Plan's Open Space and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan element and the Proposed Zoning Law includes a comprehensive inclusionary[2] zoning program, that addresses: priority mixed-use and mixed-income higher density growth centers; allowing multi-family and other types of non-single family housing throughout the Town; allowing construction of accessory apartments in existing residences, accessory structures or new construction; requiring that 20 percent of all dwellings in new housing developments be set aside as permanent affordable dwellings; and other measures to avoid the possibility of creating exclusionary[3] zoning.

B. Location

a. Town location in the context of the Hudson River Valley region will be described.

b. Existing Zoning and Land Uses in the Town and surrounding areas will be illustrated and discussed.

c. Rhinebeck is home to a portion of a National Historic Landmark District, the State Mid-Hudson Historic Shorelands Scenic District, the Estates District Scenic Area of Statewide Significance, New York State Scenic Byways and locally designated Scenic Roads, and a New York State Coastal Zone area. It is also within the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area and the state's Hudson River Valley Greenway, to name just a few of the designations that have recognized the town's exceptional natural and cultural characteristics. Rhinebeck is also a member of the Greenway Compact. Each of these designations will be discussed together with a discussion of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan's, Zoning Law's and Freshwater Wetlands Law's consistency with such designations and their implications for planning in Rhinebeck.

C. Implementation

a. SEQR Process

b. Reviews and Approvals

III. Alternatives

The following alternatives will be discussed in the DGEIS. Each alternative will be analyzed to ascertain: a) consistency with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives; b) feasibility for provision of and opportunities for a range of housing including market-rate and affordable units; c) ability to protect the Town's community character including its natural, scenic, and cultural (historic) resources; and d) the ability of each alternative to avoid significant adverse impacts. Each alternative will also be evaluated so that, at the conclusion of the SEQR process and following public hearings on the Proposed Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Local Law, the Town Board can select the proposed actions, an alternative to the proposed actions or some variation of the proposed actions and/or alternatives. Where possible, the alternative analyses will include quantitative data.

The ability of each alternative to meet affordable housing needs will be ascertained through an accounting of the possible number of affordable housing units under each Zoning scenario. The number of affordable housing units will be derived by applying a factor to the total number of dwelling units permitted in any one area. The factor will be determined by identifying the dwelling types (e.g., single-family, two-family, or multi-family) permitted in each area and the relative likelihood that two-family and multi-family dwellings would be created given the provisions of the Zoning. This number will be factored against a calculation of the local and regional need for affordable housing. It is anticipated that the Dutchess County Department of Planning is preparing such a calculation and that the local and regional need for affordable housing will be made available during the time that the Town is preparing the DGEIS. If that is not the case, the DGEIS will include an assessment on local (Town and Village of Rhinebeck) need for affordable housing based upon sources available to the Town.

The effects of the alternatives on natural resources will be evaluated generically using the inventory already assembled as part of the comprehensive plan process. Evaluations of individual Comprehensive Plan and Zoning components will highlight the intended purpose to provide further protection of the environment.

Traffic levels for the alternatives will be provided in a quantitative fashion based upon the analysis already completed by AKRF on potential traffic impacts of the Astor Flats TND on the intersection of Route 9 at Market Street and Route 9 at Route 9G. This analysis will be described and differences between development with the Astor Flats TND and without will be described to show the relative effects of additional density at key locations within the Town versus more dispersed development throughout the Town.

The effect of each alternative on cultural resources will be described based upon how well the alternatives are able to guide growth in relation to the existing historic district and individual historic resources. Cultural and historic resources are a key component of the Town's overall community character so that analysis, earlier in the EIS, will also evaluate potential impacts on historic resources.

Community services, infrastructure, and economic and fiscal considerations will use the existing fiscal impacts analysis as a base and describe, generally, the potential impacts of new growth. The second analysis of potential population growth by 2025 will be used to refine the analyses contained in the full build-out.

A. No Action Alternative. Describe a scenario where none of the three actions are taken. Describe a scenario where some variation of the no-action alternative, namely one or two of the three actions is taken but not all three.

B. Existing Zoning with Conservation Subdivision Provisions. Analyze whether the goals and objectives of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan can be achieved only through the application of conservation subdivision with 40 to 50 percent mandatory open space.

C. Modifications to the Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law. Analyze all of the current components of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law but with a modified Zoning map that retains the existing 3 acre zoning district (i.e. R3A), reduces the mapped area for both the proposed HP20 and RA10 Zoning districts, and provides additional one (1) acre zones in selected areas to allow for individual development of single family residences.

D. The 2006 Comprehensive Plan Committee Draft Comprehensive Plan. Analyze the draft Plan completed by the Comprehensive Plan Committee and presented to the Town Board in April of 2006. This Plan included a recommendation for a traditional neighborhood development adjacent to the Hamlet of Rhinecliff, a recommendation for a mandatory 10% set aside for affordable housing, and other actions that have now been modified by the Proposed Comprehensive Plan.

E. Remove the Astor Flats TND from the Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law. This alternative would test what happens if the Astor Flats TND component cannot be achieved and the remainder of the Plan and Zoning proposals are implemented. This alternative will pay particular attention to what happens if the affordable housing that is incorporated into this component of the Plan and Zoning cannot be achieved.

F. Alternative Density for Historic Preservation (HP20) District. Consider potential impacts of an alternative zoning strategy for the Historic Preservation (HP20) District that would allow one dwelling unit per ten (10) gross acres of land with a minimum requirement of 80% open space preservation. Dwelling units could be transferred between non-contiguous parcels within the Historic Preservation District. Density bonuses could also be applied, with a cap of approximately one unit per four acres of land, for provision of public access to trails, additional open space, senior housing or affordable housing, or preservation of working agricultural properties. Other provisions and restrictions would apply and will be described in the DGEIS.

G. Miscellaneous Alternatives. Evaluate the potential impacts of options to the following key provisions of the Proposed Action:

a. Consider allowance for senior housing by Special Permit instead of through a floating zone;

b. Consider removal of the requirement for deductions for environmentally sensitive lands ("net-out provisions") from the calculation of permitted density;

IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, Mitigation

This section of the DGEIS will include three separate sections: an assessment of the existing Townwide environmental conditions, future without the proposed actions and potential generic impacts of the proposed actions. The future without the proposed actions section will analyze how the Town will grow and change without any changes to the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law. The potential impacts section will analyze and evaluate potential impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law. Any proposed mitigation measures will be discussed, as appropriate, for each of the major issues identified in this Scoping Document.

A. Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

a. Existing and Potential Land Use and Zoning:

i. Describe existing and potential land use and zoning in the Town. A build-out analysis of the current Zoning Law, developed for the Proposed Comprehensive Plan, will be discussed. The alternative build-out scenario, also developed for the Proposed Comprehensive Plan, will be contrasted with the current Zoning build-out to illustrate the differences that exist between the current and proposed comprehensive plans. The analyses will provide quantitative data where possible. The Comprehensive Plan committee and its consultants have previously prepared a land use build-out analysis and fiscal impact analysis, which will be used as a basis of discussion. This analysis evaluated the potential full build-out of undeveloped land within the Town and the potential fiscal implications that the new residential population would have on the community. The EIS will summarize this material and present a second analysis that looks at potential effects of a roughly 20-year timeline. By focusing on a 20-year planning horizon, and using trend data on population growth and housing development, a second analysis will be provided to bracket the higher estimates of the full build-out. Population projections prepared by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) and relied upon by the Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council (PDCTC) and Dutchess County Planning Department; 1990 and 2000 United States Census Bureau data; and Town of Rhinebeck Building Department data (number of building permits issued for new residential dwellings) will be used to estimate future residential population by 2025. For non-residential development, recent "Retail Market Place" data provided by ESRI, Inc. (a national firm that provides Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software and geographically-coded demographic and economic data) will be used to see how much new development could be supported by the existing population within the Town of Rhinebeck. A suitable growth factor will be applied to account for demand from new residential populations and to provide a "reasonable worst case scenario."

ii. Discuss maximum potential development density (generic build-out) for proposed land uses in the Town.

iii. Discuss whether proposed land uses are compatible with the rural, scenic, natural and historic character of the Town. Address the extent to which the proposed Plan will prevent the proliferation of additional suburban sprawl throughout the Town. Address the economic feasibility of development under the proposed Plan and Zoning, specifically in areas where down zoning is proposed.

iv. Discuss how compact growth centers are consistent with the goals and intent of the existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law. Discuss conformance of the proposed actions with relevant Dutchess County planning documents including Directions and Greenway Connections, other Hudson River Valley Greenway guidance documents as well as the plans and programs developed by State and other agencies.

v. Discuss potential impacts and appropriate mitigation for the actions.

b. Agricultural Resources

i. Identify agricultural districts, active agricultural lands, historic agricultural structures, prime agricultural soils and discuss regulatory requirements and land classifications in the Town.

ii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation including the Proposed Action's potential impact on the viability of maintaining present agricultural land for agricultural purposes.

iii. Agricultural Resources

c. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program

i. Describe the consistency of the Proposed Action with each of the policies of the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.

B. Socio-Economics, Affordable Housing, and Senior Housing

a. Identify existing socio-economic conditions including population growth, population density, demographic characteristics, household income and family income, educational attainment, employment, housing conditions, with particular emphasis on affordable housing and senior housing.

b. Analyze the economic feasibility of requiring 20% affordable housing considering both use of private lands and town-owned lands. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation including consideration of requiring 10% affordable housing and allowing senior housing by special permit.

C. Water Resources

c. Surface Water: (wetlands discussed in separate section)

i. Locate and describe surface water resources in the Town that may be affected by future development.

ii. Discuss federal and state surface water regulations.

iii. Describe drainage patterns and flooding potential.

iv. Discuss stormwater management including potential impacts on 100-year floodplains and stormwater quantity and quality.

v. Describe potential impacts to surface water features resulting from increased stormwater from new development.

d. Ground Water:

i. Identify and describe important aquifers in the Town.

ii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation.

C. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology

a. Vegetation:

i. Using the Significant Habitat study prepared by Hudsonia, discuss general vegetative communities and habitat types in the Town.

ii. Identify possible presence of unique, rare and/or endangered, threatened and special concern species through contact with the New York State Natural Heritage Program and the US Fish & Wildlife Service.

iii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation.

b. Wildlife:

i. Identify possible presence of unique, rare and/or endangered, threatened and special concern species through contact with the New York State Natural Heritage Program and the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Discuss the Town's on-going biodiversity project.

ii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation.

c. Wetlands:

i. Identify locations of State and federal wetlands within the Town.

ii. Discuss State and federal compliance requirements for any future land use development within freshwater wetlands as well as adjoining upland areas. Discuss proposed freshwater wetland regulations. Describe potential impact on wetlands from Proposed Action with and without proposed freshwater wetland regulations.

iii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation.

d. Geology:

i. Identify and discuss soil types, depth to bedrock, depth to water table and potential effects on development.

ii. Identify and discuss topography and steep slopes.

iii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation.

D. Transportation

a. Traffic:

1. Discuss existing traffic patterns and volumes in the Town, based upon recently completed traffic studies and AADT[4] counts. Where information is available from such studies, describe physical and operating characteristics.

i. Estimate maximum potential traffic generation rates resulting from the build-out analysis of existing Zoning and alternative development scenarios, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual. Greater emphasis will be placed on the potential traffic generation of the priority growth centers. The potential for reduced traffic congestion in the Town, as a result of reduced densities, will be discussed.

ii. Identify intersections of concern in the Village and Town, based upon the data from existing traffic studies.

iii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation measures as identified in the Town's 2006 Traffic Study.

iv. Discuss the potential need for future traffic improvements, including traffic calming measures, connections to existing public roads and streets, or other alternative transportation management methods.

b. Public Transportation:

i. Discuss current and potential public transportation services in the Town that may be available to serve future development including road-based public transit such as shuttle services.

ii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation.

c. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment:

i. Discuss the existing and potential pedestrian and bicycle system available to serve the Town. Address pedestrian and bicycle access, trails and pathways. Describe potential for dedicated bicycle and pedestrian lanes.

ii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation.

E. Community Services and Infrastructure

a. Police and Fire/Emergency Protection:

i. Describe existing police services and fire/emergency services provided by the Town and/or Village and any cooperative agreements in existence that could be affected by the recommended Proposed Comprehensive Plan. Describe any changes to emergency response times from new development.

ii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation.

b. Utilities:

i. Discuss availability of electric, natural gas, and cable, Internet, and telephone services in the Town.

ii. Discuss potential need for expansion of existing services.

d. Water and Wastewater:

i. Discuss existing and projected future availability and adequacy of water supply and wastewater treatment.

ii. Estimate maximum water use requirements and sewer requirements based on the existing and alternative buildout scenarios.

iii. Discuss potential improvements that may be required to serve future development with and without the Plan and mitigation measures.

F. Cultural Resources

a. Historic and Archaeological Resources:

i. Identify the presence of known historic and archaeological sites within the Town. Identify areas with the potential for additional discovery.

ii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation including the creation of incentives for the protection of historic and archaeological resources.

b. Community Character

i. Discuss the existing and proposed future character of the Town under both the existing zoning build-out and proposed zoning build-out scenarios.

ii. Describe the potential character of the proposed land use scenarios and how they will conform to and/or enhance community character.

iii. Discuss the use of design standards or guidelines.

iv. Discuss the extent to which the proposed TND and other priority growth districts could lead to or detract from creation of greenbelts around the Village and Hamlet of Rhinecliff. Discuss potential impacts of priority growth areas on adjoining residential lands including potential increased noise, light, and air quality impacts.

v. Effects of the build-out on community character will be ascertained, among other ways, through the use of theoretical development of parcels based on aerial photography. These layouts will describe how development could happen on typical parcels given different zoning approaches and different requirements for open space and natural resource protection. These studies will be supplemented by photographs of existing development throughout Rhinebeck showing different residential densities and different development patterns.

G. Economic and Fiscal Considerations

a. Describe and discuss the existing Town and School District tax base.

b. Discuss potential revenues to the Town and School District generated from the existing zoning build-out and the proposed alternative build-out including the potential impact on property values from the Proposed Action, and whether there would be impacts on the Town's potential future tax base and revenues. The potential impacts on property values will be addressed by relying on planning and legal literature on the subject, which has been carefully studied in a number of other jurisdictions.

c. Discuss the potential costs of providing services, including additional school services, based upon the build-out analysis and consultation with local school districts.

d. Discuss funding alternatives for the provision of community services, such as special improvement districts for lighting, drainage, water, and sewer as well as the potential for a development improvement district so that affected parcels contribute to property enhancements in priority growth areas.

V. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

This section of the DGEIS will identify impacts that are likely to occur despite mitigation measures, and will compare the beneficial and adverse implications of these unavoidable impacts.

VI. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

This section of the DGEIS will focus on the impacts discussed in previous sections that will require an irreversible and irretrievable outlay of resources.

VII. Growth Inducing Aspects

This section of the DGEIS will generically describe how adoption of the proposed Plan might affect local business, sensitive environmental settings, traffic congestion, population characteristics, and community services. The extent to which the Proposed Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law may induce growth in surrounding communities, and the potential impacts of such growth elsewhere, will be described. Analysis in this section will draw on accepted planning principles but will also include a discussion of the proposed Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on intermunicipal cooperation, beginning with the Comprehensive Plan Committee's discussions with the Northern Dutchess Alliance and the Village of Rhinebeck.

VIII. Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources

Due to the generic nature of this document, it will not be possible to discuss direct methods of conserving energy for these actions since no land development activities are being authorized by the actions. However, potential energy types and sources to serve future development will be identified and discussed. Energy conservation measures and other energy strategies, such as encouraging non-renewable sources of energy in the Town, will be identified and discussed.

IX. Appendices

The appendices will include background information relevant to the proposed actions such as important excerpts from other relevant SEQR documents (includes Positive Declaration, Final Scoping Document, Notices, Town Board Resolutions), correspondence, references, and other supporting materials.

Interested Agencies:

Town of Rhinebeck Clerk

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan
Committee

Town of Rhinebeck Conservation
Advisory Council

Town of Rhinebeck Highway Department

Town of Rhinebeck Planning Board

Town of Rhinebeck Zoning Board of
Appeals

Village of Rhinebeck Board of Trustees

Village of Rhinebeck Planning Board

Village of Rhinebeck Police Department

Village of Red Hook Board of Trustees

Town Board of the Town of Red Hook

Town Board of the Town of Milan

Town Board of the Town of Clinton

Town Board of the Town of Hyde Park

Town Board of the Town of Esopus

Town Board of the Town of Ulster

City of Kingston Chief Executive Officer

Rhinebeck Central School District

Hyde Park Central School District

Red Hook Central School District

Rhinebeck Fire District

Rhinecliff Fire District

Hillside Fire District

Morton Memorial Library

Starr Library

Northern Dutchess Alliance

Dutchess County Department of Health

Dutchess County Department of
Planning and Development

Dutchess County Department of Public
Works

Dutchess County Water and Wastewater
Authority

Dutchess County Sherriff

NYS Department of Agriculture and
Markets

NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation

NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and

Historic Preservation

NYS Department of State (Coastal
Management and Local Government)

NYS Department of Transportation

Hudson River Heritage

Hudson River Valley Greenway

Pace University Land Use Law Center

Scenic Hudson

Northern Dutchess Hospital

Arthur Brod, Jr., AICP

J. Theodore Fink, AICP

Warren Replansky, Esq.

Graham Trelstad, AICP

Michael Zarin, Esq.

 

Dan Staley motioned and Bruce Washburn seconded to approve the following:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby accepts the Final Scope dated September 8, 2008 and directs its consultants to prepare the DGEIS for the Zoning Law, Comprehensive Plan and Freshwater Wetlands Law in accordance with the final scope. All were in favor, passed unanimously.

 

On motion from Dan Staley and second from Ellen Silverstein the following:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board is hereby directed to submit its comments on the Zoning Law, Comprehensive and Fresh Water Wetlands Law to the Town Board in accordance with Article XII of the Zoning Law no later than November 14, 2008.

 

Carried unanimously.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

At 7:00 Supervisor Traudt opened the public hearing for C.S.I. Developers, LLC Variance request from the Town Land Use Moratorium Local Law. Town Counsel Pamela Richardson explained this request is for CSI to move forward to the Planning Board for the site plan approval process. She read Section E from Local Law 6 of 2007 stating that "no variance shall be granted by the Town Board unless the Town Board shall find and determine, and shall set forth in its resolution granting such variance, that:

(i) Failure to grant the variance to the applicant will cause the applicant "unnecessary hardship" as that term is defined in ~267-b(2)(b) of the Town Law, which hardship is substantially greater than any harm to the general public welfare resulting from the granting of this variance. Unnecessary hardship shall not constitute the mere delay in being permitted to make application for a building permit, subdivision, special permit, Site Plan approval and/or other approval during the period of this moratorium.

(ii) The grant of the variance will clearly have no adverse effects on any of the Town's goals or objectives as set forth in the Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan, and the use, project or activity will not be detrimental to the community's resources or character as described in the Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan' and

(iii) The project or activity for which the applicant seeks a variance is in harmony and consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and with any interim data, recommendations and/or conclusions which, to date, have been promulgated, produced or drafted by the Town's Consultants as recommendations for amendments to, or the enactment of new, Land Use Laws or Regulation.

 

Neil Alexander from Cuddy & Feder LLP is representing CSI Developers, LLC. He explained the property is located on the west side of Route 9G, north of intersection with Route 9, between the Ford dealership and IXL Fitness Center. This property was subdivided in 2004 from the lands of Stanton Tremper, Jr. CSI is seeking to build a 2-story building with a 10,000 square foot footprint. The hardship is that the moratorium has always been extended and expanded. We have looked at what is acceptable within the Table of Uses. Under current zoning only a Special Permit is required. It is an extreme hardship to ask the applicant to keep waiting while the Town develops its new Comprehensive Plan. The building will be aesthetically and architecturally sophisticated.

 

Ellen Silverstein asked what the total square footage will be and Mr. Alexander replied the footprint will be 10,000 square feet; about 9,300 square feet will be leased of which 7,000 will be retail and 2,000 for medical offices. The second floor will be approximately 8,000 square feet; 3,000 for business and 5,000 for medical facilities. He feels waiting does not serve a purpose. This will be a great tax base with no addition in school population. The basement will be for ancillary services to support the businesses within the building. Dan Staley pointed out that these details would be ironed out with the Planning Board.

 

Meg Crawford, C.A.C. Chairman stated her committee has reviewed this project and it is extremely concerned that this building is being proposed in a very wet area.

 

Sally Mazzarella is seriously disappointed that the applicant has come before the Town Board tonight for a public hearing without any sketches or drawings in their presentation. There is a serious disagreement of scale and scope of this proposal. The people of Rhinebeck, through a survey, view our town as a rural community and don't want a "Big Box" feeling. It is ridiculous to not consider the basement in the square footage when you are renting that space. This request is a gross expansion of what is being purposed in the Comp Plan. The Wetland issue is of major concern. Our current timeframe for adoption of the Comp Plan is 3 months and I don't see a serious hardship here. This would also set a precedent.

 

Mr. Alexander responded that this is not a "Big Box" development, which is a gross injustice. Rhinebeck was at the same point in the Spring of 2006 with the Comp Plan process and I cannot hold my breath for it being adopted within the next 3 months. The Army Corps of Engineers have stated that this will not damage the wetlands. We just want to process an application with your Planning Board. We have a right to review this application before them.

 

Dod Crane said the Comp Plan has progressed and questioned Mr. Alexander why he would make such a statement. Mr. Alexander stated that in May of 2006 Zoning was presented with a public hearing in June of 2006. In the SEQR process you need a public hearing and that is now scheduled for October 2008. From the SEQR standpoint this process has not progressed. Dod stated the October 2008 public hearing includes not only the Comp Plan but our Zoning Law and Freshwater Wetlands so we have made progress. Neil still feels the Town is not a single step farther along in the SEQR process. There is no reason for the moratorium to follow the adoption of the Comp Plan. All this applicant wants is to go before the Planning Board. There is no guarantee that that the moratorium will not be extended again. The DGEIS and FGEIS turn around on a 600 page document is almost impossible.

 

Dod believes we will complete our task in 3-6 months. Please re-consider and come forward when we are done. The Town Clerk was asked to forward copies of this application to Michael Zarin and Warren Replansky for review. Neil feels that in time the development will comply with the new Comp Plan. We are willing to work amicably.

 

On motion from Dod and second from Dan this public hearing was continued to September 22^nd at 7:00 pm.

 

BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. Dan Staley motioned and Dod Crane seconded to authorize Supervisor to sign Hold Harmless Agreement with the Rhinecliff Hotel.

 

WHEREAS, on July28, 2008, the Town Board issued a resolution (the "July Resolution") in support of the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy for the Rhinecliff Hotel (the "Applicant"); and

 

WHEREAS, the July Resolution was conditioned, among other things, upon the provision for permanent maintenance of the private improvements located in the Town Rights of Way on both Grinnell Street and Shatzell Avenue (the Improvements"); and

 

WHEREAS, as part of that process, the Applicant has now provided certain assurances to the Town Board regarding the maintenance and operation of the Improvements as set forth in a "Hold Harmless and Maintenance Agreement, signed by David Chapman on September 2, 2008 (the "Hold Harmless Agreement"), and

 

WHEREAS, the Town Board now desires to authorize the Supervisor to execute the Hold Harmless Agreement in connection with the maintenance and operation of the Improvements;

 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT,

 

The Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute the Hold Harmless Agreement in connection with the maintenance and operation of the Improvements.

 

Motioned by Dan Staley Seconded by Dod Crane

 

Roll Call Vote:

 

Supervisor Traudt aye

Councilmember Washburn aye

Councilmember Staley aye

Councilmember Silverstein aye

Councilmember Crane aye

 

3. Dan Staley motioned and Dod Crane seconded to approve Town Hall usage for Senior Dance on October 18^th from 1-4 pm with Cathy Washburn organizing. All were in favor.

 

4. Dod Crane motioned and Dan Staley seconded to approve Town Hall usage on Tuesday afternoons for a weekly Senior Games Day directed by Joanne Gelb.(times to be determined). Motion carried unanimously.

 

5. Dod Crane motioned and Ellen Silverstein seconded to authorize naming of Library Park Lane per Village of Rhinebeck approval. Dan is not comfortable with this name. A letter has been received from former Village Mayor Peter Sipperley summarizing the dedication of David Traver throughout the years. Mr. Traver was instrumental in starting the recreation programs back in the 1970's when he was Supervisor of the Town. Michelle Donner supports the Village Board proposal and questioned why the Town is voting on this. It was explained that 911 Emergency Response is requiring the Town approval also since the road will actually be throughout the Thompson Mazzarella Park which is in both the Town and Village. Tess McKellen feels that Library Park Lane says exactly what it is. The Town Clerk explained the road will eventually be moved per D.O.T. authority and will possibly lead to the Community Center at the back of the park. There is a lot more in this recreation complex than just a park and a library. Tom Traudt would like to hear from the public. No vote was taken; it was tabled for more public response.

 

6. Dan Staley motioned and Bruce Washburn seconded to approve August 14^th and August 28^th meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.

 

7. On motion from Dan Staley and second from Dod Crane abstract 9, vouchers 1007-1068, checks 3987-4026 for $68,840.53 were unanimously approved for payment.

 

8. Dan Staley motioned and Dod Crane seconded to approve Cap Project #27 abstract 3 vouch 4-6 for $1,260.43 and Cap Proj Stone Church Fields ABS 2 V2 for $2,000.00. All were in favor.

 

9. WHEREAS, the Transfer Station is requesting 2 new light duty hoppers; and

WHEREAS, the Transfer Station has a quote from Stor-Quip System, Inc for 2 Wright Light Duty Hoppers, volume capacity 1 cubic yard, weight capacity 4,000 pounds for $1,662.72 including shipping;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town for Rhinebeck authorize the purchase of 2 new light duty hoppers from Stor-Quip Systems, Inc. to be paid from 01 07 8160 200 equipment line;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bookkeeper is authorized to make the following budget amendments

01 07 8160 440 Repairs -$700.00

01 07 8160 200 Equipment line +$700.00

 

Offered by Dod Crane Seconded by Dan Staley

 

Ellen Silverstein explained that Nancy has needed this piece of equipment for quite awhile. It scopes up the garbage and puts into the containers. With prices going up, it makes sense to purchase 2 now. All the other equipment at the Transfer Station is in good shape so there are funds availed in the above accounts.

 

Roll Call vote Councilman Crane aye

Councilwoman Silverstein aye

Councilman Staley aye

Councilman Washburn aye

Supervisor Traudt aye

 

Certified this 8^th day of September 2008 by Town Clerk

 

10. Dan Staley moved with Ellen Silverstein seconding to accept the resignation of Jack Conklin from the Rhinecliff Waterfront Committee. Motion carried unanimously.

 

11. Dan Staley motioned and Dod Crane seconded to accept the resignation of Marcus Mello from the C.A.C. Motion passed 5-0.

 

DISCUSSION

1. Comp Plan budget

 

Tom is worried since the Comp Plan budget is already over by $100,000. Dan wants to know where the money is coming from. Dod would like Shelly to give the Board a budget to actual report as soon as possible. We need to know our actual expenses so we can mange our expenditures for the remainder of the year. He would rather risk spending some of our reserve funds and do the Comp Plan correctly. We need some analysis work done and manage the big picture. Bruce feels we started on the right track tonight with asking the Comp Plan consultants to estimate their costs. Ellen suggested maybe bringing expensive items to the Board's attention first before purchasing. Tom said the Budget/Control Committee is actively working on a new Procurement Policy. Bruce said the Technology and Budget/Controls Committees are meeting together on October 18^th. Ellen pointed out that Nancy Cunningham has told her that the Transfer Station budget has never been balanced. We need to generate more money up there.

 

2. Rotary has agreed to purchase the $775 bike rack for the dock area. All they are asking in return is to have their name on a plack according to Dan. Dan motioned and Ellen seconded to approve the recognition of the Rotary Club of Rhinebeck donation be placed on the bicycle rack. All were in favor.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 

At 8:25 this meeting was unanimously adjourned on motion from Dod Crane and second from Dan Staley.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara Cunningham

Town Clerk

---