Rhinebeck DGEIS 102408 Web

TOWN OF RHINEBECK
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING LAW, AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS

LAW
DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
October 24, 2008
Lead Agency: Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck
Prepared by: AKRF, Inc.

Greenplan, Inc.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING LAW, AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS LAW
DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Project Name: Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Freshwater Wetlands

Law
Project Location: Town of Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, NY
Lead Agency: Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck
80 East Market Street
Rhinebeck, NY 12572
Lead Agency Contact: Mr. Thomas Traudt, Supervisor
80 East Market Street
Rhinebeck, NY 12572
Prepared By: AKRF, Inc.
34 South Broadway
White Plains, New York 10601
&
Greenplan, Inc.
302 Pells Road
Rhinebeck, New York 12572
Special SEQRA Counsel: Warren Replansky, Esq.
Michael Zarin, Esq., Zarin & Steinmetz
Date of Acceptance as Complete: October 27, 2008

Public Hearing Date: November 17, 2008
Public Comment Period Ends: December 1, 2008
This document is the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the above-referenced project. Copies are
available for review at the office of the Lead Agency and on the Town of Rhinebeck web-site (www.Rhinebeck-
NY.gov). Comments are solicited and may be submitted to the Lead Agency.
Table of Contents
Chapter I: Executive Summary ............................................................................................... I-1

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action ................................................................... II-1
Chapter III: Alternatives ...................................................................................................... III-1
Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation...........................................IV-1
A. Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy..............................................................................IV-1
B. Socioeconomics, Affordable Housing, and Senior Housing.........................................IV-15
C. Water Resources ...........................................................................................................IV-19
Surface Water................................................................................................................IV-19
Groundwater..................................................................................................................IV-23
D. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology ...................................................................................IV-27
Vegetation .....................................................................................................................IV-27
Wildlife .........................................................................................................................IV-33
Wetlands........................................................................................................................IV-37
Geology.........................................................................................................................IV-40
E. Transportation ...............................................................................................................IV-42
F. Community Services and Infrastructure........................................................................IV-53
G. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................IV-56
Historic and Archaeological Resources ........................................................................IV-56
Community Character ...................................................................................................IV-59
H. Economic and Fiscal Considerations ............................................................................IV-63
Chapter V: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................................ V-1
Chapter VI: Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources............................VI-1
Chapter VII: Growth-Inducing Aspects ............................................................................. VII-1
Chapter VIII: Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources.....................VIII-1
Appendix A: SEQRA Positive Declaration

Appendix B: SEQRA Final Scoping Document
Appendix C: Comparison of Proposed Zoning Law to Existing Zoning Law
i 10/24/08
Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS
List of Figures Following Page

II-1. Centers and Greenspace Plan ......................................................................................II-14
II-2. Existing Zoning Districts.............................................................................................II-14
II-3. Proposed Zoning District Map ....................................................................................II-14
II-4. Proposed Zoning District Map, Hamlet of Rhinecliff .................................................II-14
II-5. Astor Flats TND Illustrative Plan................................................................................II-14
III-1. Alternative 1: No Action/Existing Zoning .................................................................. III-2
III-2. Alternative 3: Modifications to the Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law III-2
III-3. Alternative 4: 2006 Comprehensive Plan.................................................................... III-2
IV-1a. Parcel 1—Existing Zoning ........................................................................................ IV-14
IV-1b. Parcel 1—Proposed Zoning....................................................................................... IV-14
IV-6. Traffic Study Area..................................................................................................... IV-42
IV-7. 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes, Weekday AM Peak Hour (Non-Event).................. IV-44
IV-8. 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes, Weekday Midday Peak Hour (Non-Event)............ IV-44
IV-9. 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes, Weekday PM Peak Hour (Non-Event) .................. IV-44
IV-10. 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes, Saturday Midday Peak Hour (Non-Event)............. IV-44
IV-11. 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes, Saturday Midday Peak Hour (Event)..................... IV-46
IV-12. 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes, Sunday Midday Peak Hour (Event) ....................... IV-46
IV-13. Traffic Accidents: 2000-2005.................................................................................... IV-46
IV-14. Project Generated Traffic Volumes, Weekday AM Peak Hour ................................ IV-48
IV-15. Project Generated Traffic Volumes, Weekday Midday Peak Hour .......................... IV-48
IV-16. Project Generated Traffic Volumes, Weekday PM Peak Hour ................................. IV-48
IV-17. Project Generated Traffic Volumes, Saturday Midday Peak Hour and Sunday........ IV-48
Midday Peak Hour
IV-18. 2017 Future Traffic Volumes, Weekday AM Peak Hour (Non-Event)..................... IV-48
IV-19. 2017 Future Traffic Volumes, Weekday Midday Peak Hour (Non-Event)............... IV-48
IV-20. 2017 Future Traffic Volumes, Weekday PM Peak Hour (Non-Event) ..................... IV-48
IV-21. 2017 Future Traffic Volumes, Saturday Midday Peak Hour (Non-Event) ............... IV-44
IV-22. Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths, Weekday AM Peak Hour ................ IV-50
IV-23. Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths, Weekday Midday Peak Hour .......... IV-50
IV-24. Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths, Weekday PM Peak Hour................. IV-50
IV-25. Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths, Saturday Midday Peak Hour ........... IV-50
IV-26. Photographs: Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds (AM) .... IV-50
IV-27. 2017 Future Traffic Volumes, Saturday Midday Peak Hour (Event)........................ IV-50
IV-28. 2017 Future Traffic Volumes, Sunday Midday Peak Hour (Event).......................... IV-50
IV-29. Photographs: Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds (Midday)....... IV-50
IV-30. 2017 Traffic Conditions with No Event at the Fairground........................................ IV-52
IV-31. 2017 Traffic Conditions with Event at the Fairground.............................................. IV-52
IV-32. Typical Patterns of Development .............................................................................. IV-60
10/24/08 ii DRAFT
Table of Contents
List of Tables
I-1. Results of Preliminary Build-Out Analysis ..................................................................I-12
I-2. DGEIS Build-Out: New Dwelling Units, Low-Range and High-Range Estimates......I-13
I-3. DGEIS Build-Out: New Dwelling Units, Zoning District Summary ...........................I-14
I-4. DGEIS Build-Out: Population Density Comparison ....................................................I-15
I-5. Town of Rhinebeck: Number of Building Permits Issued for New Dwellings ............I-16
I-6. 10-Year Build-Out: Population Density Comparison...................................................I-16
II-1. Conventional Suburban Development (CSD) compared with Traditional ...................II_5
Neighborhood Development (TND)
II-2. Survey of Low Density Zoning Regulations .............................................................. II-12
IV-1. Results of Preliminary Build-Out Analysis .................................................................IV-4
IV-2. DGEIS Build-Out: New Dwelling Units, Low-Range and High-Range Estimates.....IV-6
IV-3. DGEIS Build-Out: New Dwelling Units, Zoning District Summary ..........................IV-6
IV-4. DGEIS Build-Out: Population Density Comparison ...................................................IV-8
IV-5. Town of Rhinebeck: Number of Building Permits Issued for New Dwellings ...........IV-9
IV-6. 10-Year Build-Out: Population Density Comparison..................................................IV-9
IV-7. Parcel Analysis: Summary.........................................................................................IV-10
IV-8. Parcel Analysis: Parcel 1 Details ...............................................................................IV-11
IV-13. Surface Water Features ..............................................................................................IV-20
IV-14. Vegetative Habitats....................................................................................................IV-28
IV-15. Plant Species of Conservation Concern.....................................................................IV-29
IV-16. Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern................................................................IV-34
IV-17. LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections..................................................................IV-44
IV-18. Level of Service Analysis Results: 2007 Existing Traffic Conditions (Non-Event) .IV-46
IV-19. Future Trip Generation ..............................................................................................IV-48
IV-20. Level of Service Analysis Results: 2007 Existing and 2017 Future Conditions .......IV-48
IV-21. Queue Length Analysis Results: 2007 Existing, 2017 Future, and 2017...................IV-50
Mitigation Conditions (Non-Event)
IV-22. Level of Service Analysis Results: 2007 Existing, 2017 Future Conditions .............IV-52
and 2017 Mitigation Conditions (Non-Event)
IV-23. Projected Need for Emergency Service Providers.....................................................IV-55
DRAFT iii 10/24/08

Chapter I: Executive Summary
A. INTRODUCTION
The Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck (the “Town Board”) is considering a set of related
actions: adoption of a Comprehensive Plan, adoption of a revised Zoning Law, and adoption of a
local law protecting wetlands. In one important sense the individual actions are integral to one
another: both the Zoning Law and the wetlands local law implement specific recommendations
of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Each of the individual actions was also developed in a
coordinated fashion to ensure consistency. As such, the individual actions comprise a Proposed
Action described and analyzed in this DGEIS. This DGEIS evaluates the cumulative effect of
each element of the Proposed Action. For clarity, however, each action is described individually
within this chapter. It is important to note that the Town Board will, by necessity, take individual
action on each element of the Proposed Action or may choose to take action on only certain of
the elements.
This document is a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) for the Proposed
Action and evaluates the potential for any environmental impacts that could result from the
Proposed Action. This DGEIS was prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQRA) (Article 8 of Environmental Conservation Law) and its implementing
regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617). This DGEIS incorporates by reference each of the documents
that comprise the Proposed Action. Information contained in the Comprehensive Plan, in
particular, is relevant to description of existing conditions and analysis of potential impacts of
individual or collective recommendations within the Comprehensive Plan. The State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) allows for the inclusion by reference of certain
documents when those documents are available for full public review. This practice avoids
unnecessary duplication of information found elsewhere and allows for a more concise
environmental impact statement.
On July 14, 2008, the Town Board declared itself Lead Agency for the SEQRA review of the
Proposed Action, identified the Proposed Action as a Type 1 Action under SEQRA, and adopted
a Positive Declaration indicating that the Proposed Action may result in one or more significant
adverse impacts (see Appendix A). The Town Board also received a draft Scoping Document at
its July 14, 2008, meeting, which document was prepared by consultants to the Town and which
was also made available to the public.
On August 14, 2008, the Town Board held a publicly-noticed scoping session to receive public
input on the draft Scoping Document . Written comments were solicited until August 25, 2008.
On September 8, 2008, after considering the public comments received during the public
scoping sessions as well as written comments received, the Town Board adopted a final Scoping
Document (see Appendix B).
DRAFT I-1 10/24/08

B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The proposed Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan (also referred to as “The Rhinebeck Plan”) has
been designed to serve as a guide for the Town’s immediate and long-range protection,
enhancement, and development. Its overall vision, based on public input, is to reinforce
Rhinebeck as a rural community. More than a thousand residents helped the Comprehensive
Plan Committee outline how to accomplish this.
The proposed Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan has been prepared during a five-year planning
process, initiated after the Town Board recognized that there were development trends occurring
in the Hudson Valley for which the Town was not prepared. The prior Town of Rhinebeck
Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1989; consequently, much of its background information,
especially the socio-economic data, was over 20 years old. Community values were based upon
a 1985 public opinion survey. New York State’s Legislative Commission on Rural Resources
prepared, and then the New York State Legislature enacted, sweeping changes to the planning
and zoning enabling acts beginning in the 1990’s to the present. Regional trends have also been
affecting the way Rhinebeck has been growing, with telecommuting, applications for approval of
large-scale housing developments in the Town and surrounding communities, and demand for
second homes representing the greatest challenges. To address these changes, the Town Board
determined that a new Comprehensive Plan was called for; the Board determined that it would
appoint a diverse citizen based “special board” to prepare the comprehensive plan. The
Comprehensive Plan Committee, as it became known, was initially composed of 23 members
representing long term and new residents, local realtors, professional architects and professional
planners, an environmental attorney, business owners and business executives, members of the
Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board, School Board, Conservation Advisory Council,
Village residents, the County Legislator, and the Town Historian.
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. Figure II-1 shows the Plan’s
“Centers and Greenspace Plan,” which summarizes many of the recommendations in the Plan for
directing new growth to areas around the existing Village of Rhinebeck and other hamlets, while
preserving the historic and natural character of the surrounding areas.
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
10/24/08 I-2 DRAFT

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.
PROPOSED ZONING LAW

Existing Zoning Districts are shown in Figure II-2. Proposed Zoning Districts, as contemplated
as part of the Proposed Action, are shown in Figure II-3 and Figure II-4. There are currently 10
Zoning Districts in the Town. The proposed Zoning map identifies 25 Zoning Districts and three
overlay districts. The principal changes to the Zoning Map are described below along with a
brief rationale. A more complete rationale for each of the proposed districts can be found in
Article II of the proposed Zoning Law, which is referenced herein.
• The current Residential 3 Acre (R3A) District, which encompasses most land east of Route 9
in the Town, has been renamed as the Rural Countryside (RC6) (6 acre) District. This district’s
boundaries remain largely unchanged in the proposal with one exception. An existing R1A
District southeast of the Village of Rhinebeck has been proposed to become the RC6 District.
The purpose of this change is to recognize the lack of available central sewer services from the
Village in this area of the Town. The existing R1A District was anticipated to be provided with
water and sewer services in the 1989 Master Plan and Zoning Law.
• The Residential 5 Acre District, which encompasses much of the land west of Route 9 in the
Town, has been split principally into two new Zoning Districts: the Historic Preservation (HP20)
(20 acre) and Rural Agricultural (RA10) (10 acre) Districts. A portion of the R5A District has
been retained east of and south of the Hamlet of Rhinecliff to recognize the existing settlements
that have evolved at the five-acre density in this area of the Town. The Holy Cross site has been
included in areas to retain the 5 acre density due to its unique characteristics as a former
institutional property with the presence of a now abandoned boarding school on the site. The
existing R5A District has been proposed to be renamed the Residential Low Density (RL5) (5
acre) District.
• The Residential 1 Acre (R1A) District encompassed a strip of land north of the Village on
the west side of Route 9 and a strip of land west of the Village and encompassing the Hamlet of
Rhinecliff. The R1A area north of the Village was anticipated to be served by water and sewer
services, which is no longer recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The R1A area west of the
Village has been retained for many of those properties lining Rhinecliff Road up to the Hamlet
of Rhinecliff but renamed as the Residential Medium Density (RM1) (1 acre) District. This area
is served by Village of Rhinebeck community water supplies. The Rhinecliff Hamlet Extension
(Rc-HE) District is proposed immediately northeast of the Hamlet of Rhinecliff, is intended as a
walkable extension of the Hamlet, and has been designed to retain the one acre density but be
subject to the proposed conservation subdivision and traditional neighborhood design standards
found in Articles V and VIII of the proposed Zoning Law.
• The existing Land Conservation (LC) District applies to the Ferncliff Forest. The LC District
has been expanded to include lands that are currently encumbered with conservation easements,
are the largest State protected wetlands in the Town, or are owned by organizations such as
Scenic Hudson, The Nature Conservancy or Winnakee Land Trust for preservation purposes. A
new subset of the LC District, the LC-Trails District has been created along two linear paths in
the Town, the former Hucklebush railroad line and the Central Hudson Gas and Electric power
DRAFT I-3 10/24/08

line. The intent of the LC-T District is to work with the landowners towards establishment of
future trails on these lands.
• A new Civic (CIV) District has been established to recognize Town, Village and Civic
organization ownership of community facilities in the Town.
• The Office Research Park (ORP) District has been retained, but has been reduced in size.
Some of the ORP lands are now proposed for the RA10 District, to recognize their current
residential land use. The remainder have been proposed for a new Gateway North (Gw-N)
District. The Gw-N District is intended to accommodate hospitality uses at the northern entrance
to the Town from Red Hook.
• The Highway Business (HB) and Highway Business Park (HBP) districts have been split
into several new districts. These include the proposed mixed use Traditional Neighborhood
Development (TND) district on the west and east sides of Route 9 north of the Village (see
Figure II-5). Some of the proposed TND area is currently zoned as R3A on the east side of
Route 9. The Route 9/9G intersection is proposed for the Crossroads Business (Cr-B) District.
The HBP District has been renamed and retained in the area along the west side of Route 9G
north of Old Post Road. A portion of the current HB district west of Route 9 and south of the
9/9G intersection is proposed as the Community Business South (CB-S) District. The HBP
District on Route 9G and Kalina Road has been renamed the Community Business North (CB-
N) District.
• The General Business District immediately north of the Village on Route 9 has been
retained.
• A portion of the R1A District immediately north of the Village on the west side of Route 9
has been proposed as a Village Gateway District where higher density housing would be
permissible due to the potential availability of Village water and sewer services.
• The current Gateway (G) District immediately south of the Village on Route 9 has been
proposed to be retained as the Gateway South (Gw-S) District.
• The existing nursery and farm market on Route 308 immediately east of the Village has been
proposed as a Gateway East (Gw-E) District from its current R3A designation to recognize its
current business use that supports agriculture in the Town.
• The core of the Hamlet of Rhinecliff is currently zoned as R1A. Few, if any, of the existing
developed and undeveloped parcels in this area have one or more acres of land. Most
development activity must be subject to variances from the Town Zoning Board of Appeals. A
new Rhinecliff Hamlet (Rc-H) District has been proposed to recognize the unique characteristics
of the Hamlet and to shift control of development from the variance process of the Zoning Board
to the Special Use Permit review process of the Planning Board.
• The two existing trailer parks in the Town, one on Route 9 near the 9/9G intersection and the
other on Old Post Road have been proposed to be designated the Neighborhood Residential (NR)
District to recognize the unique characteristics of these areas, that presently accommodate
affordable housing in the Town.
• The CSX railroad right of way along the Hudson River is now proposed as the Rail
Transportation Corridor.
• One parcel in the Hamlet of Rhinecliff has been proposed as the Rhinecliff Hamlet
Transition (Rc-HT) District to recognize its past use as a mixed use property (i.e. the
10/24/08 I-4 DRAFT

Sugarbowl), and its location as a transition property between the residential areas along Kelly
Street and the Rhinecliff Business District.
• The Rhinecliff Business (Rc-B) District has been retained; however, the boundaries have
been altered by including several new properties and excluding several other properties.
• The proposed Zoning Law contains three overlay districts. The Rhinecliff Overlay (Rc-O)
District has been proposed to add additional special design requirements for new development in
the area historically referred to as Rhinecliff. The design requirements are proposed to recognize
the unique qualities of the Hamlet and to subject new development to such requirements. This
includes the proposed Rc-HE, Rc-H, RM1 and a portion of the proposed RL5 Districts. The
Neighborhood Infill Overlay (NI-O) District applies in the Rock City and Lake Sepasco areas of
the Town. This District has been proposed to allow development to occur at densities consistent
with the small lots that exist in these two hamlet areas. The Mining Overlay (MI-O) District is
the only area of the Town where mining currently exists. It is proposed to recognize the
usefulness of the products produced to allow continued mining activities on the parcels where it
is currently permitted.
• A floating District has been created to encourage senior housing. This district is not mapped.
Application of the Senior Housing Floating (SH-F) District can be established through the
Zoning amendment procedures of Articles XII and VI(D)(37) of the proposed Zoning Law.
The proposed Zoning amendments are summarized in relation to the existing Zoning Code in a
table included as Appendix C of this DGEIS. The Table consists of four columns. The first
column identifies the Article of the current and proposed Zoning laws. The second column
identifies the subsections in each Article of the current and/or proposed Zoning laws. The third
column identifies the existing section of the current Zoning Law (or in some cases a separate
Local Law that was previously adopted by the Town Board but that has now been incorporated
into the proposed Zoning Law). The fourth and final column identifies the changes that have
been proposed to the current Zoning Law as explained in italics typeface. If there are no changes
proposed in a particular subsection from the current Zoning Law, there is no text explanation
provided in column four. Some uses and sections have been removed or replaced by new
sections. These new sections, which are proposed for the Zoning Law, will not have any text
explanation appearing in column three.
PROPOSED WETLANDS LOCAL LAW

For preparation of the proposed Wetlands Law, a number of model laws (such as the Dutchess
County Environmental Management Council’s Model Wetlands Law) and adopted local
freshwater wetlands laws from other local governments around the State were researched and
used. Also used in the preparation of the proposed Wetlands Local Law were relevant guidance
and reference documents prepared by agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Dutchess County
Environmental Management Council, the Conservation Foundation, the International Ramsar
Convention on Wetlands, and the Wildlife Conservation Society. Other sources of information
on the proposed Wetlands Local Law included legal publications by Pace University and Clark
Boardman Callaghan.
The proposed Wetlands Law is consistent with the New York State Constitution, Article XIV, §
4, which states in part:
DRAFT I-5 10/24/08

“The policy of the state shall be to conserve and protect its natural resources and scenic
beauty and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural lands for the
production of food and other agricultural products. The legislature, in implementing this
policy, shall include adequate provision for the abatement of air and water pollution
and of excessive and unnecessary noise, the protection of agricultural lands, wetlands
and shorelines, and the development and regulation of water resources.”
Further, the proposed Wetlands Law is consistent with the declared policy of Article 24 of the
New York State Environmental Conservation Law governing freshwater wetlands which states
in part:
“It is declared to be the public policy of the state to preserve, protect and conserve
freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived therefrom, to prevent the despoliation and
destruction of freshwater wetlands, and to regulate use and development of such
wetlands to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetlands, consistent with the
general welfare and beneficial economic, social and agricultural development of the
state.”
Article 24 also encourages local governments to adopt local regulations governing freshwater
wetlands. The proposed Wetlands Law has not been proposed to implement the New York State
Freshwater Wetlands permit requirements nor the regulations currently administered by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The proposed Wetlands Law has been
designed to create more concerted local regulatory control over freshwater wetlands than exists
now under the State and Federal wetland protection laws.
The proposed Wetlands Law is consistent with New York State Town Law’s mandate that “All
town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant
to this [§ 272-a] section.” The Wetlands Law reflects the wishes of Town residents whose input
was sought during an extensive public participation process, as described above, as part of a five
year planning process to update the Town’s planning and zoning rules. A broad consensus was
reached from these public participation techniques that certain actions needed to be taken to
preserve the environmental quality, rural character, natural resources and open space of the
Town and guide development in an orderly, disciplined manner.
Locally, smaller watersheds are at risk due to actions on the landscape that do not consider the
impacts to water resources, either locally or regionally. Recent federal Supreme Court decisions,
e.g. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, No. 99-1178 (January 9, 2001), have effectively eliminated the Army Corps'
jurisdiction over "isolated" wetlands, thus allowing for dredging and filling activities to occur
without oversight by any governmental unit and with no regard to the function of the wetland, its
upland area, and the watershed of which it is a part. Such isolated wetlands have been identified
in the Significant Habitats study completed by Hudsonia (see Appendix 6 in Volume 2 of the
proposed Comprehensive Plan) as one of the most imperiled habitats in the region. The study
identified 193 “intermittent woodland pools” in the Town.
The purpose of the Wetlands Law is to protect water quality and quantity by utilizing a
watershed based approach. The cycle of water is a complex system of inter-related components.
The Wetlands Law is designed to limit development from occurring within a wetland and its
associated upland buffer areas. Some activities, which are known to be detrimental to water
quality (such as septic systems), are prohibited while other activities are regulated to evaluate
potential environmental impacts and to ensure proper construction procedures are conducted.
10/24/08 I-6 DRAFT

The Wetlands Law seeks to examine the impacts of development on the relationships of multiple
components of the surface water system before construction activities are authorized, but does
not preclude development or limit the underlying density of the Zoning District in place on any
property.
The Wetlands Law does not alter the regulations of the underlying Zoning Districts in any way
including density, bulk or area. The Wetlands Law sets distancing requirements in relationship
to wetlands in the Town and prohibits acts which are known to potentially pollute or destroy
water resources or water quality upon which the Town and the region depend.
The definition of what constitutes a wetland is based upon the commonly accepted scientific
standard developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is their 1987 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. This establishes a scientific approach to the
identification of wetlands based upon the presence of one positive indicator from the each of the
three parameters identified by the Corps (i.e. soil, hydrology and vegetation) to make a positive
freshwater wetland determination. This is significant because it does not regulate all wet areas
within the Town unless they meet the Federal government’s long established criteria as outlined
above. The proposed Wetlands Law establishes an associated buffer area, similar to the New
York State adjacent areas concept, which has been found by wetland scientists as integral to the
protection of water quality. The Wetlands Law establishes regulated acts and a process and
procedures by which an applicant can achieve their development goals while ensuring the
protection of wetlands.
C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requires the evaluation of a range of
reasonable and feasible alternatives in addition to the evaluation of the Proposed Action. This
Chapter describes the alternatives, some of which were developed (and analyzed) as part of the
Town Board’s deliberations and development of the Proposed Action.
In April 2006, the Comprehensive Plan Committee (CPC) submitted a draft Comprehensive Plan
to the Town Board for its consideration.1 The Comprehensive Plan developed by the CPC was
prepared pursuant to §272-a of New York State Town Law and was the subject of numerous
public hearings held by the CPC. The 2006 Comprehensive Plan document became the basis for
further deliberations and revisions made by a Task Force established by the Town Board
comprising CPC members and Town Board members. The current proposed Comprehensive
Plan (part of the Proposed Action) was a result of the Task Force’s deliberations and discussions.
The Task Force also discussed other alternatives, principally associated with the Zoning Map
and key provisions of the proposed Zoning Code, which are described below and analyzed
within this DGEIS, to assess whether the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan could
be achieved.
It should be noted that the majority of policy recommendations contained in the proposed
Comprehensive Plan are contained in each of the alternatives analyzed in this DGEIS. Key
differentiators between the alternatives are recommendations pertaining to the Zoning Map (e.g.,
the proposed location and coverage of proposed zoning districts), proposed allocation of density
within new centers of compact growth (e.g., the proposed Astor Flats Traditional Neighborhood
1
The CPC submitted a Comprehensive Plan but did not submit (nor was the CPC charged with creating) a
draft Zoning Law or Wetlands Local Law.
DRAFT I-7 10/24/08

Development (TND) and Rhinecliff Neighborhood Extension), and the provisions for affordable
housing or senior housing. Where it is not specified that a policy or recommendation of the
proposed Comprehensive Plan is different within an alternative, it is assumed that the policy or
recommendation of the proposed Comprehensive Plan applies.
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The Town Board may consider taking no action with respect to either the Comprehensive Plan,
the proposed Zoning Amendments, or the proposed Wetlands Local Law. A decision to take no
action would mean that the previous Comprehensive Plan would remain in effect and that the
existing Zoning Code and Zoning Map (see Figure III-1) would also remain. Taking no action on
the proposed Wetlands Local Law would mean that the Town of Rhinebeck would not regulate
activities in and around wetlands.
ALTERNATIVE 2: EXISTING ZONING WITH CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION

PROVISIONS
This Alternative evaluates whether the goals and objectives of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
can be achieved by retaining the existing Zoning Map (and the permitted residential densities
within each Zoning District) and Zoning Code but revising the provisions for subdivision of
residential properties to require new subdivisions to follow a Conservation Design Subdivision
process. The Conservation Design Subdivision process would replace the Conventional
Subdivision process (i.e., the existing subdivision regulations) that divides properties into lots
based simply on a minimum required lot size and compliance with certain design standards for
roads and other improvements but without integral consideration of environmentally sensitive
lands or culturally important elements of the property (e.g., historic houses, historic stone walls,
existing hedgerows, or scenic views).
Under the Conventional Subdivision process, an applicant for subdivision of a residential
property would prepare a preliminary plat that divides the land into individual parcels based
simply on the requirement to provide a minimum lot size with appropriate access on a road or
roads that meet Town specifications. Areas of environmentally sensitive lands (e.g., wetlands or
steep slopes) would not be deducted from the gross area of the property before calculating
permitted density and could be split by individual lot lines. This practice of arranging lots
oftentimes results in (or requires) an arrangement of houses that does not preserve community
character or environmental features and does not preserve significant quantities of unfragmented
open space.
The Conservation Design Subdivision process, on the other hand, begins with an assessment of
the existing environmental and cultural features of the land to be subdivided, an identification of
primary conservation areas (environmentally sensitive features), secondary conservation areas
(cultural features such as stonewalls or hedgerows that provide character to a site), and includes
the requirement for preservation of a significant portion of the property as unfragmented open
space (usually 50 percent of the property). House lots and roads are then located outside of areas
to be preserved, whether primary or secondary conservation areas, without specific regard to any
minimum required lot size (except as required for on-site wastewater treatment systems and/or
on-site water supply wells). Under a Conservation Design Subdivision, the land would be
subdivided into an equivalent number of lots as under a Conventional Subdivision, but 50
percent of the land would be preserved as open space and the environmentally sensitive features
would be protected by locating development further from their boundaries.
10/24/08 I-8 DRAFT

ALTERNATIVE 3: MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE

PLAN AND ZONING LAW
Alternative 3 reflects discussions held by the Comprehensive Plan Task Force and Town Board
following receipt of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan from the CPC. Alternative 3 contains all of
the same components as the Proposed Action but with a modified Zoning Map that retains the
existing 3-ac zone, reduces the area mapped for both 10-ac and 20-ac zoning, and provides
additional 1-ac zones in select areas to allow, potentially, for development of individual single-
family residences not part of a larger subdivision (see Figure III-2). The proposed Conservation
Design Subdivision provisions would be included in Alternative 3.
ALTERNATIVE 4: THE 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE DRAFT

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Alternative 4 represents the work of the CPC as it was transmitted to the Town Board in April
2006. The 2006 Comprehensive Plan is largely similar to the current proposed Comprehensive
Plan except that it included: a) an approximately 90-unit Rhinecliff Neighborhood Extension
(also referred to as a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)) on undeveloped land at the
northern end of the hamlet; b) a recommendation for a mandatory 10 percent set aside for
affordable housing; and c) a smaller area of land east of the hamlet of Rhinecliff designated for a
proposed 5-acre residential zoning district. The Village Gateway North Zoning District was not
included in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. Several other minor differences to the proposed
Zoning Map (see Figure III-3) exist between this Alternative and the Proposed Action including
the number of lots within the proposed Land Conservation district and the names of proposed
Zoning Districts. These minor differences do not significantly affect the overall amount or
distribution of new dwelling units or commercial development.
ALTERNATIVE 5: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING LAW

WITHOUT THE ASTOR FLATS TND
Alternative 5 is identical to the Proposed Action with the exception of the area proposed for the
Astor Flats Traditional Neighborhood Development. Alternative 5 contemplates a continuation
of the Highway Business Park (HBP) and Highway Business (HB) Zoning Districts, which
would allow only commercial uses on these parcels located off Route 9. All other Zoning
Districts would remain as they are in the Proposed Action.
ALTERNATIVE 6: ALTERNATIVE DENSITY FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION

(HP20) DISTRICT
Alternative 6 is included in this DGEIS in response to public comment from land-owners in the
proposed Historic Preservation (HP20) Zoning District. Alternative 6 considers an alternative
zoning strategy for the HP20 Zoning District that would allow one dwelling unit per ten (10)
gross acres of land with a minimum requirement of 80 percent open space preservation.
Dwelling units could be transferred between non-contiguous parcels within the Historic
Preservation District. Density bonuses could 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.
DRAFT I-9 10/24/08

ALTERNATIVE 7: MISCELLANEOUS ALTERNATIVES

In its deliberations over the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law and in response to
public comments during the scoping process, the Town Board determined that it would be
prudent to analyze potential impacts of: a) permitting senior housing by Special Permit instead
of through a floating zone; and b) removal of the requirement for deductions for environmentally
sensitive lands (“net-out provisions”) from the calculation of permitted density. These specific
policies are evaluated as part of this Alternative and are considered separate from any alternative
Zoning Code or Zoning Map treatments.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND

MITIGATION
LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY

A build-out analysis was conducted to project how much development could occur on
undeveloped or underutilized properties and what the impact of that development on community
services and the environment might be. Build-out analyses were conducted for the 2006 Draft
Comprehensive Plan and than updated for the Proposed Action.
Original Build-Out Analysis
In preparing the proposed Comprehensive Plan, the Town conducted a Build-Out Analysis (also
referred to herein as the “Original Build-Out Analysis”) to estimate the potential impacts of
growth under the current zoning and the proposed zoning. The Original Build-Out Analysis
Report dated December 4, 2005, is included as Appendix 2 to the proposed Comprehensive Plan,
and is included by reference herein.
A build-out analysis is a planning exercise that “estimate[s] the impact of cumulative growth
upon a town’s land areas once all the developable land has been consumed and converted to uses
permitted under the current regulatory framework” (Manual of Build-Out Analysis, Center for
Rural Massachusetts). The Original Build-Out Analysis conducted for the Town of Rhinebeck
determined that if all of the buildable land were developed as currently zoned, eventually
Rhinebeck would look like a typical suburban community with single-family homes on one-,
three-, and five-acre lots spread throughout the landscape, and commercial strip development
spread along Routes 9 and 9G in an auto-dependent manner. This is the potential for land use
development currently written into the Zoning Law. This pattern of development, sometimes
referred to as sprawl, would result in low-density residential subdivisions providing a poor mix
of homes, jobs and services. Activity centers would be limited to the Village and the Route 9/9G
strip, and there would be limited options for safe walking and biking (except in the Village and
hamlet). The result would be the addition of 3,408 new residential dwelling units and 9,781 new
residents (at 2.86 residents per household).1 If the Town does nothing to refine its current
planning and zoning practices, the consequences would likely take the form of the build-out
analysis results described in the report.
1
Note that the Original Build-Out Analysis uses an estimate of average family size as calculated by the
United States Census Bureau, not the calculated average household size of 2.41 (for households in the
Town outside of the Village of Rhinebeck). The DGEIS Build-Out Analysis uses the average household
size.
10/24/08 I-10 DRAFT

The Original Build-Out Analysis also analyzed potential impacts of the Zoning Map that was
being considered at that time. That Zoning plan, which is largely similar to the Proposed Action,
would result in new growth in the Town occurring in designated priority growth areas located
adjacent to existing centers, coupled with a continuation of the dominant pattern of sparsely
settled rural ands in the remainder of the Town.1 This development pattern, known as smart
growth, would strengthen and direct development towards existing centers, resulting in compact,
mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods in the traditional neighborhoods, and the preservation of
open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas in the remainder of the
Town. It would also be a method for achieving needed affordable housing in the Town. As
determined by the Original Build-Out Analysis, the then-proposed zoning would result in 1,408
new dwelling units and 4,041 new residents.
The Original Build-Out Analysis estimated that the result of build-out under existing zoning
would be the addition of 3,408 new residential dwelling units and 9,781 new residents. In 2003,
the Town of Rhinebeck had a population of 5,005 residents. The implication of this build-out is
that the Town’s population would triple to 14,785 people. The 9,781 additional residents,
including 1,528 school children2, would require 10 new paid police officers and 10 paid fire
fighters, new town facilities and more classrooms and other space to accommodate the additional
school children. The dwellings that these new residents would live in would require the
construction of about 3,500 additional septic disposal systems generating more than 1.6 million
gallons of sewage per day discharged to the ground, and these dwellings would also depend
upon 3,500 new groundwater wells. There would be more than 1,486 acres of additional land
(7% of the Town’s remaining land areas) devoted just to impervious surfaces like roads,
driveways and structures. Projected vehicle trips in the Town (generated by the residential
development alone) would be more than 34,000 additional trips per day by an additional 6,800
vehicles on the road, and these vehicles would need to travel to or through the Village or on
Routes 308, 9 or 9G.
It should be noted that the Original Build-Out Analysis for the existing zoning only examined
what would happen if the Town were built out with single-family homes. However, under the
existing zoning, Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and Planned Residential Development
(PRD) could create large-scale developments almost anywhere in Rhinebeck that could nearly
double build-out compared to single-family homes. Under the existing zoning, density bonuses
are available to developers who construct central water and sewer facilities for new subdivisions,
who build PRDs or construct other specific types of permitted development. Because PRDs and
PUDs were not incorporated into the build-out analysis, the analysis potentially understates the
amount and scale of new development that would be permissible under the existing zoning.
1
Subsequent to when the Original Build-Out Analysis was conducted, a few changes were made to the
Zoning Map. The 110-acre Holy Cross property, originally proposed to be included in the Historic
Preservation 20 acre (HP20) District, was retained in the Residential 5 Acre (R5A) District, resulting in
an increase of approximately 20 dwelling units over the number estimated in the build-out. In addition,
the proposed Rhinecliff Traditional Neighborhood District (RC-TND) was replaced with the Rhinecliff
Hamlet Extension (Rc-HE) District, which would potentially result in approximately 45 dwelling units
rather than 90 as originally estimated. Thus, these changes to the Zoning Map would result in
approximately 20 fewer dwelling units than originally estimated in the build-out analysis.
2
The Fiscal Impact Analysis conducted for the Town by Peter Fairweather, AICP estimated that the
current zoning would generate 1,262 school age children, slightly fewer than estimated in the build-out
analysis.
DRAFT I-11 10/24/08

The defining concept of the proposed Comprehensive Plan is to accommodate a modest amount
of growth while keeping available a base of land for rural uses while maintaining an overall
population density at or below 150 persons per square mile, the threshold for a “rural” town as
designated by the New York State Legislative Commission on Rural Resources. The Original
Build-Out Analysis estimated that the then-proposed Zoning would result in 1,408 additional
dwelling units and 4,041 new residents. Potential impacts of the then-proposed zoning would be
significantly less than the existing zoning. Population would increase to a total of only 9,046
persons, including 497 additional school children, requiring only one additional paid police
officer and one additional fire fighter. Additional water usage and sewage generated would be
only 674,000 gpd, and trip generation would be only 14,080 vehicle trips per day. The results of
the Original Build-Out Analysis showing potential impacts under the current zoning and the
proposed zoning are summarized in Table I-1.
Table I-1
Results of Preliminary Build-Out Analysis
Current Zoning Proposed Zoning*
Additional Dwellings 3,408 1,408
Additional Residents 9,781 4,041
Additional School Age Children 1,528 497
Additional Vehicles on Road 6,816 2,816
Additional Vehicle Trips per Day 34,080 14,080
Acres of New Roads 513 212
Acres of Impervious Surfaces 913 377
New Police Officers 10 1
New Fire Fighters 10 1
Additional Water Consumed 1,613,800 gpd 674,000 gpd
Additional Sewage Generated 1,613,800 gpd 674,000 gpd
Notes: * -- 2006 Comprehensive Plan
Source: Build-Out Analysis Report, December 4, 2005 (see Appendix 2 of the Comprehensive Plan).
DGEIS Build-Out Analysis

A second build-out analysis was completed for the DGEIS to reflect changes in the Proposed
Action since the Original Build-Out Analysis was completed (specifically changes to the
proposed Zoning Map), and to analyze the Alternatives being considered in this DGEIS.
The “DGEIS Build-Out Analysis” follows essentially the same methodology as the Original
Build-Out Analysis to estimate the possible number of new dwelling units that could be
constructed. The DGEIS Build-Out Analysis uses updated Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) data and analysis tools that were not available at the time the Original Build-Out Analysis
was completed; thus there are some differences between the DGEIS Build-Out Analysis and the
Original Build-Out Analysis. However, for purposes of comparing between the Proposed Action
and each of the Alternatives in the DGEIS, these differences would not make any difference as
the Proposed Action and each of the Alternatives is considered with the same methodology
within the DGEIS Build-Out Analysis.
It should be noted that in calculating potential future populations, the DGEIS Build-Out
Analysis and discussion of the results uses the average household size as calculated by the
United States Census Bureau for households located in the Town of Rhinebeck outside of the
10/24/08 I-12 DRAFT

Village of Rhinebeck (2.41 persons per household) instead of the average family size for the
Town of Rhinebeck (2.87 persons per family). The DGEIS Build-Out Analysis also uses the
total land area of the Town outside the Village (34.64 square miles) as reported by the US
Census Bureau.
The DGEIS Build-Out Analysis also reports a range of potential new housing units per
Alternative based on the calculation of “High-Range Estimate” (full build-out of all remaining
undeveloped or underdeveloped lands) and “Low-Range Estimate” (full build-out of all
remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped lands with a 25 percent deduction to account for
inefficiencies of development which must accommodate for roads, stormwater management
infrastructure, and irregularities in parcel shapes. Both the High-Range Estimate and the Low-
Range Estimate do account for environmentally sensitive lands (wetlands, floodplains, hydric
soils, and steep slopes) by deducting these areas from gross parcel acreage.
While the GIS analysis was done on a parcel-by-parcel basis, the analysis results are
summarized by Zoning District for each Alternative. Table I-2 summarizes the Low-Range
Estimate and the High-Range Estimate of projected new dwelling units for the Proposed Action
and each of the Alternatives. Table I-3 provides the detail by Zoning District for the High-Range
estimate only.
Build-out estimates of non-residential (i.e., commercial) development based simply on available
land supply also tend to overstate the amount of new development that is likely to occur. Instead,
demand for new commercial business can be estimated using an evaluation of market capture
rates. “Retail Market Place” data provided by ESRI, Inc. (a national firm that provides GIS
software and geographically-coded demographic and economic data) were consulted to see how
much new development could be supported by the existing population within the Town of
Rhinebeck. A market capture analysis looks for differences in the existing supply (expressed in
terms of dollars of retail sales) within a Town and existing demand (also expressed in terms of
dollars) by the Town’s population for specific goods and services. When the supply is less than
70 to 80 percent of the demand, then there is “leakage” of those demand dollars into different
geographic areas. In the case of the Town of Rhinebeck there is a significant leakage of dollars
for general merchandise stores (including department stores) typically to the Kingston area.
Table I-2
DGEIS Build-Out: New Dwelling Units, Low-Range and High-Range Estimates
Alternative Low-Range Estimate (du’s) High-Range Estimate (du’s)
Proposed Action 1,224 1,552
Alt. 1: No Action 2,357 3,142
Alt. 2: Conservation Subdivision 2,357 3,142
Alt. 3: Modified Plan/Zoning 2,163 2,817
Alt. 4: 2006 Comp. Plan 1,199 1,517
Alt. 5: No Astor Flats 944 1,232
Alt. 6: Alt. Density HP Zone 1,355 1,700
Alt. 7a: Senior Housing Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action
Alt. 7b: No Net-Out 1,838 2,370
Notes: High-Range Estimate represents full build-out of undeveloped or under-developed parcels
within each Zoning District while accounting for environmentally sensitive areas.
Low-Range Estimate represents an allowance for a development inefficiency factor of 25% to
accommodate roads, stormwater management infrastructure, and irregularities in parcel
shapes.
DRAFT I-13 10/24/08

Table I-3
DGEIS Build-Out: New Dwelling Units, Zoning District Summary†
Proposed
Zoning District Action* Alts. 1 & 2** Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7b
R1A/RM1 38 583 79 35 38 38 61
R3A -- 1,850 1,810 -- -- -- --
R5A/RL5 31 709 355 8 31 31 42
RC6/R6A 790 -- -- 789 790 790 1,432
RA10/R10A 75 -- 89 76 75 75 149
HP20/R20A 125 -- 51 131 125 273 193
VG/NRW 128 -- 68 68 128 128 128
TND 320 -- 320 320 -- 320 320
Rc-HE 45 -- 45 90 45 45 45
Totals 1,552 3,142 2,817 1,517 1,232 1,700 2,370
Notes: † - Using High-Range Estimate of dwelling units for build-out.
* - The build-out for Alternative 7a is the same as the Proposed Action; only the manner in
which Senior Housing is permitted is changed between the Proposed Action and Alternative
7a.
** - The build-out for Alternatives 1 and 2 are the same as only the manner in which
residential dwellings are located within a property changes.
*** - The build-out for Alternative 6 differs from the Proposed Action only within the Historic
Preservation (HP20) Zoning District. For Alternative 6 an alternative density calculation based
on one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10) gross acres is contemplated.
Current retail sales for general merchandise stores are estimated at $1,894,896 in the Town of
Rhinebeck compared to the potential demand from Rhinebeck households of $8,625,078. That
difference of $6,730,182 in unmet demand can be translated into a department store of anywhere
from 33,651 square feet to 44,868 square feet (using multipliers of $200 of sales per square foot
and $150 per square foot, respectively). In simplest terms, a typical-size Kohl’s or Marshall’s
could satisfy unmet demand for general merchandise from existing Rhinebeck residents. That
unmet demand would likely increase with new Town residents, resulting in additional
commercial development; however, it is not anticipated that significant new commercial
development (beyond 100,000 square feet) would be likely in the immediate future.
Table I-4 compares the results of the DGEIS Build-Out Analysis for the Proposed Action and
each of the Alternatives with the desired target set by the Comprehensive Plan of retaining a
population density at or below 150 people per square mile. As indicated in Table I-4, the Town’s
year 2000 and current population (estimated in 2005) were both less than the threshold density
for a rural community as defined by the New York State Legislative Commission on Rural
Resources. However, even using a mean estimate of new dwelling units for the Proposed Action
and each Alternative (and not the High-Range Estimate), neither the Proposed Action nor any of
the Alternatives are able to achieve the desired threshold maximum of 150 people per square
mile.
Comparing between the alternatives, the Proposed Action and Alternatives 4 and 5 are
noticeably different from Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7b. Alternative 1 and 2, the No Action
Alternative and the Existing Zoning with Conservation Subdivision Design, are more than
double the desired population density reflecting the effects of the existing zoning (and the
10/24/08 I-14 DRAFT

potential impacts as described in the Original Build-Out Analysis). Alternative 3, which includes
more one-acre and three-acre parcels would result in a significantly higher full build-out than the
Proposed Action, would result in a higher population density than the Proposed Action.
Alternative 6, which would allow for more than double the potential development within the
Historic Preservation Zoning District by virtue of its smaller base lot size (10 acres as opposed to
20 acres) and its allowance to calculate lot count based on gross, not net, acreage, also results in
a significantly higher population density than the Proposed Action. Alternative 7b, which
assesses the effect of not relying on net-out provisions for environmentally sensitive lands within
a residential subdivision in any Zoning District, shows comparable results to Alternative 6 and is
also higher than the Proposed Action.
Evaluation of Future Population Density
Build-out analyses are often criticized for painting an unrealistic (and bleak) future for land-use
and population over an indefinite time period. Because a build-out analysis conducted in this
fashion reflects only land supply and not forecasted demand for new development, it tends to
overstate the level of development that a community is likely to experience in the future and the
potential impacts of new development. By focusing on a 20-year planning horizon, and using
trend data on population growth and housing development, a different estimate of future
population can then be prepared to bracket the higher estimates of the full build-out.
Table I-4
DGEIS Build-Out: Population Density Comparison
Alternative New dwellings* Town Future Pop.** Population Density***
2000 Census**** 0 4,685 135.2
2005 Estimate***** 0 4,870 140.6
Proposed Action 1,388 8,618 237.2
Alts. 1 & 2 2,750 11,495 331.9
Alt. 3 2,490 10,871 313.8
Alt. 4 1,358 8,143 235.1
Alt. 5 1,088 7,492 216.3
Alt. 6 1,518 8,528 246.2
Alt. 7b 2,104 9,941 287.0
Notes: * - Reflects mean of Low-Range and High-Range Estimates.
** - Estimates for each Alternative assume 2.41 persons per household and base population
of 4,870 persons per 2005 estimate.
*** - Uses US Census Bureau figure of 34.64 square miles of land area in Town of
Rhinebeck.
**** - Town outside of Village.
Source: ***** - From Dutchess County Department of Planning, “Population Forecasts 2005-2025”
Population projections prepared by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

(NYMTC) and relied upon by the Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council (P-
DCTC) 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) can be used to estimate future residential population by
DRAFT I-15 10/24/08

2025. From that, using current estimates of average household size (2.41 persons per household)
an approximate number of new housing units can be obtained.
The P-DCTC/NYMTC data estimate Town of Rhinebeck population growth of 20.9 percent
from 2000 to 2025 (0.76 percent annual growth). This estimate compares well with 1990 to 2000
population trend data for Dutchess County as a whole, which grew 8 percent between 1990 and
2000, and the Village of Rhinebeck which grew 12.9 percent in the same time period. (It should
be noted that the Town of Rhinebeck population actually declined 3.1 percent between 1990 and
2000). By this estimate, the year 2000 population of 4,685 persons (Town outside of Village) is
anticipated to increase to 5,665 persons in the year 2025. These 980 new residents would require
approximately 407 new housing units (at 2.41 persons per household). (That increase in the
number of housing units represents a 43.6 percent increase over the total number of housing
units in the Town outside the Village).
A separate calculation of the average number of building permits issued in the Town of
Rhinebeck for new residential construction reveals that approximately 44 building permits were
issued on an annual basis between 2001 and 2006 (see Table I-5). If this trend were to continue,
the 407 new housing units projected by P-DCTC/NYMTC could potentially be constructed in a
10-year period. Table I-6 indicates that it is possible that the desired threshold of 150 people per
square mile could be maintained over the next 10 years provided that the elements of the
Proposed Action that direct new growth into designated centers (such as the Astor Flats TND)
are implemented. As Table IV-6 shows, if the 320 potential dwelling units considered for the
Astor Flats TND were implemented and the remaining 120 new units were distributed across the
rest of the Town, the effective density of the Town outside the Village and the new Astor Flats
TND area would be below the 150 person per square mile target. However, if all of the 440 new
housing units were distributed across the Town and not in priority growth areas, population
density would exceed the 150 person per square mile target within the first 10 years of future
build-out.
Table I-5
Town of Rhinebeck: Number of Building Permits Issued for New Dwellings
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Building 44 60 19 24 14 100
Permits
Average annual number of building permits 44
Source: Dutchess County Department of Planning.
Table I-6
10-Year Build-Out: Population Density Comparison
Alternative New dwellings Town Future Pop. Population Density
Town wide 440 5,930 171.2
Town outside of Astor 120 5,159 148.9
Flats TND**
Note: ** - Considers density in areas of Town outside of the proposed Astor Flats TND with the
320 dwelling units at Astor Flats constructed.
10/24/08 I-16 DRAFT

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Law

As indicated in the build-out analysis completed for this DGEIS, full build-out of remaining
undeveloped or underdeveloped lands in the Town of Rhinebeck would result in population
density exceeding the 150 people per square mile threshold for the definition of a “rural”
community. However, projections of likely development levels over the next 10 years indicates
that it is possible that the desired threshold of 150 people per square mile could be maintained
provided that the elements of the Proposed Action that direct new growth into designated centers
(such as the Astor Flats TND) are implemented. As summarized in Table IV-6, if the 320
potential dwelling units considered for the Astor Flats TND were implemented and the
remaining 120 new units were distributed across the rest of the Town, the effective density of the
Town outside the Village and the new Astor Flats TND area would be below the 150 person per
square mile target. The parcel-level analysis also reveals that the Proposed Action would not
significantly affect the feasibility of developing undeveloped land within the Town of
Rhinebeck. Application of the proposed Zoning Law to these parcels reveals that a meaningful
amount of development, sometimes nearly comparable to potential development under existing
conditions, is possible. As such, the Proposed Action would avoid potential impacts to the
Town’s rural character.
Alternatives
The results of the build-out analysis for each of the Alternatives are described in detail above. In
summary, each of the Alternatives would result in significantly different levels of future build-
out. Alternatives 1 and 2, which rely on the existing Zoning Map would result in approximately
double the amount of development potential under the Proposed Action and would present
threats to the Town’s existing land use and community character. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 are
similar to the Proposed Action in terms of future build-out and would preserve the overall
community character as well as the Proposed Action. Alternative 3 would result in significantly
higher levels of future development and may compromise community character by resulting in
greater numbers of single-family homes on smaller (1-acre to 3-acre lots). Alternative 7a would
result in development levels identical to the Proposed Action. Alternative 7b would result in
significantly higher levels of development on each property that could result in greater impacts
to environmentally sensitive areas which contribute to the Town’s community character.
Under the 10 year projection, if all of the 440 new housing units were distributed across the
Town (as in Alternatives 1 and 2) and not in priority growth areas, population density would
exceed the 150 person per square mile target within the first 10 years of future build-out. For
each of the other Alternatives, the 10 year build-out would result in similar comparative impacts
to the Proposed Action as with the full build-out comparison, just with fewer total units.
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES

Since the Proposed Action would result in beneficial impacts to the Town and would not result
in any adverse impacts, no mitigation is required.
DRAFT I-17 10/24/08

SOCIO-ECONOMICS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND SENIOR HOUSING

The Comprehensive Plan and the Open Space and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
include detailed demographic analyses that describe a population in the Town of Rhinebeck that
is aging as a result of two factors: 1) existing Rhinebeck residents aging in place, and 2) a
decline in younger individuals and families as a result of increasing home prices that force them
to look for housing elsewhere. Another trend evident in the data is the increasing gap between
median home prices and median salaries, especially for the 47 percent of Rhinebeck households
that make less than the median income. Median incomes have not kept pace with the 80 percent
increase in median home prices. As median home prices increased over the last decade (prior to
the decline experienced in the middle of 2008), and as the supply of apartments stayed level, the
amount of housing that was affordable to younger individuals, seniors, or an individual or
household making less than the median income decreases. This “housing affordability gap”
threatens the socioeconomic character and economic diversity of the Town.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The proposed Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning Law that would implement the
recommendations of the Plan, includes a number of recommendations to increase the diversity of
the housing stock to improve the affordability of housing to a range of existing and future
Rhinebeck residents. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Zoning Law: 1)
permit increased density in priority growth areas; 2) increase opportunities for two-family and
multi-family dwellings (both new construction and conversion of existing structures); 3) relax
the standards for accessory dwelling units throughout the Town; and 4) include provisions for
mandatory affordable housing.
Examples of specific measures to increase the availability of affordable housing include a
requirement that 20 percent of all new residential units be affordable and the creation of zoning
districts that allow for increased affordability. For example, the proposed zoning calls for the
creation of the Astor Flats TND and Rhinecliff Neighborhood Extension zones that allow higher
density residential development that is generally lower in cost on a per unit basis that detached
single family homes on large lots.
The proposed Zoning Districts adjacent to the community’s existing centers (the Village of
Rhinebeck and the Hamlet of Rhinecliff) would allow a much higher density for residential
development than is currently permitted. Lands in the Astor Flats area, for instance, are currently
zoned Residential 3 Acre (R3A), permitting a density of 1 dwelling unit per 3 acres. The
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) District, which is proposed for the Astor Flats
area, would permit a residential density of 4 dwelling units per acre in the residential
neighborhood and 6 dwelling units per acre in the Main Street area. The Illustrative Plan of the
Astor Flats TND included in both the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Zoning Law could
accommodate approximately 320 dwelling units, an increase of 287 dwelling units over the 33
estimated units that could be developed on these lands as currently zoned. The proposed Astor
Flats TND also includes a requirement that 20 percent of the dwelling units constructed in this
area be affordable. Similarly, the proposed Rhinecliff Hamlet Extension (Rc-HE) District would
permit approximately 45 dwelling units, 32 dwelling units more than currently permitted.
Allowing more dwelling units on smaller, more affordable lots adjacent to the existing centers
10/24/08 I-18 DRAFT

would offset the potential impacts on housing affordability resulting from the reduction in
permitted density in outlying areas of the Town.
Additional opportunities for affordable housing would be provided by the relaxed standards for
two-family, multi-family, and accessory dwellings. Section D.1 of Article VI would be amended
in the proposed Zoning Law to permit two-family dwellings to be developed by new
construction, not just by conversion. New construction of two-family dwellings would be
permitted in all residential Zoning Districts as-of-right, except for the Rhinecliff Hamlet (Rc-H)
and Rhinecliff Hamlet Extension (Rc-HE) districts. The latter would require a special permit
would be required. Similarly, Section D2 of Article VI would substantially expand where new
multi-family dwellings could be constructed to include the Rural Countryside (RC6) and Village
Gateway (VG) Districts, in addition to the RM1 District (which is currently the only district
where new multi-family can be constructed). In the RC6 District, up to 4 units in a multi-family
structure could be constructed, and up to 6 units per structure would be allowed in the VG and
RM1 Districts. For the conversion of existing structures for multi-family use, Section D3 of
Article VI would be amended to substantially expand where multi-family dwellings by
conversion would be allowed. Currently only the one acre (R1A/RM1) Zoning Districts allow
this use. The proposed Zoning would allow the conversion of a single family to a multi-family
dwelling in all residential districts, provided certain conditions were met. These amendments
would allow for increased development of more affordable two-family and multi-family
dwelling units.
In terms of accessory dwelling units, the proposed Zoning (Article VI Sections D4 and D5)
would ease the current restrictions on an accessory dwelling within an existing principal
structure by allowing for the expansion or an addition to the structure to accommodate the
accessory unit. The proposed Zoning would also expand the allowance for an accessory
apartment in a detached accessory structure by increasing the allowable square footage devoted
to the use, allowing up to two accessory units in accessory structures (in addition to the principal
dwelling and an accessory dwelling in the principal structure) for a total of 4 dwelling units on a
parcel. If 4 units were sought, then one would be required to be affordable. Finally, Section D6
would be amended to expand the current Elder Cottage Housing Opportunity (ECHO) provisions
by allowing a “cottage dwelling” to be placed on a lot as an accessory dwelling unit. While an
ECHO unit had temporary implications in the current zoning, a cottage home has more
permanent implications. These provisions would increase affordable housing opportunities in the
Town.
The proposed affordable housing provisions in Article V Subsection CC of the proposed Zoning
would add a requirement for new development to construct 20 percent of the units as affordable
housing, or pay an affordable housing fee, donate land for affordable housing, or some
combination of these, with potential density bonuses granted for providing specific community
benefits.
With respect to senior housing, the proposed Zoning includes a Senior Housing-Floating (SH-F)
District (Article VI Subsection D.37). The Floating District can be considered in the HP20,
RA10, RC6, RL5, and VG Zoning Districts (subject to certain minimum acreage standards) and
would require approval of a Zoning Map change by the Town Board and a Special Permit and
Site Plan review by the Planning Board. The proposed Zoning caps the total number of senior
housing units in any one development at 120 units (20 percent of which must be affordable) with
a maximum density of 2 dwelling units per gross acre of land. Other criteria apply to the Senior
Housing-Floating district and would need to be met in order for the proposal to be accepted.
DRAFT I-19 10/24/08

These provisions would ensure that a full range of housing opportunities, including opportunities
for individuals with low and moderate incomes, would be provided in the Town. These
provisions would address any potential adverse impacts on housing affordability resulting from
the decreased permitted density proposed in certain Zoning Districts in the Town.
Alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2, which retain the existing Zoning Law and Zoning Map, would not result in
any enhancements to the Town’s ability to facilitate new affordable housing units. Single-family
development on one-acre lots is not generally considered to be a successful strategy for
achieving large numbers of affordable housing units, even though it may be feasible given
certain favorable conditions such as the price of land. The predominance of available land within
the R3A and R5A Zoning Districts would not result in any significant numbers of new
affordable units. Further, limitations on where multi-family or two-family dwellings could be
built would further limit options.
Alternative 3 would result in similar amounts of affordable housing as the Proposed Action. In
theory, because of the increased amount of land zoned within the R1A and R3A Zoning
Districts, it may be more possible for an individual to purchase a piece of land and construct a
single-family residence not as part of a larger subdivision. The DGEIS Build-Out Analysis for
this Alternative indicates that approximately 5,500 acres of land within the R1A and R3A
Zoning Districts could be made available for development in this fashion. This does not
guarantee that these dwelling units would necessarily be affordable. It does provide a greater
level of control by the individual home-owner/home-builder seeking to control costs by not
making that individual subject to costs passed on by a land developer seeking to sell lots in a
residential subdivision.
Alternative 4 would also result in similar amounts of affordable housing as the Proposed Action.
However, due to the increased size of the Rhinecliff Neighborhood Extension in Alternative 4,
which envisions up to 90 dwelling units in this area, there may be the possibility for a few more
affordable units than in the Proposed Action.
Alternative 5 would have significantly fewer affordable units than the Proposed Action due to
the loss of the Astor Flats TND, which is anticipated to yield approximately 60 affordable
dwelling units. Under Alternative 5, the residential units considered at Astor Flats would not be
relocated elsewhere to the Town. That opportunity for affordable housing would be lost.
Alternative 6 would increase the residential density within the Historic Preservation Zoning
District to almost twice the amount as considered in the Proposed Action. Under the proposed 20
percent mandatory affordable housing provision of the proposed Zoning Law, this increase in
residential units would yield a higher number of affordable units.
Alternative 7a would permit senior housing units as-of-right through a special permit review
process as opposed to through a floating zone. This change would, in theory, make senior
housing developments easier to approve and thus more feasible. While senior housing units are
an element of a diverse range of housing options within a town and are often provided in multi-
family dwelling units, they are not necessarily affordable. Thus, there is no real change between
Alternative 7a and the Proposed Action with respect to the level of affordable units that would
be provided.
Alternative 7b would allow approximately 800 additional dwelling units when compared to the
Proposed Action. Using the proposed 20 percent mandatory affordable housing requirement, this
10/24/08 I-20 DRAFT

Alternative would yield approximately 160 more affordable housing units than the Proposed
Action.

Since no significant adverse environmental impacts to socioeconomics, affordable housing, and
senior housing were identified, no mitigation is required.
WATER RESOURCES
SURFACE WATER
Erosion and subsequent sedimentation of surface waters is the greatest potential adverse
environmental impact resulting from construction activity. Additional impervious surfaces
associated with new development have the potential to adversely affect water quality by
increasing the amount of runoff. In addition, increased stormwater runoff rates and volumes can
result in increased flooding.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan has established an objective to prevent erosion and control
stormwater runoff through the careful application of erosion control measures and protection of
steeply sloped lands, including the bluffs along the Hudson River.
The Proposed Action includes a number of measures such as amendments to the Town’s Water
Resources Protection Overlay zone and new methods of calculating residential densities in
Article IV Section C of the proposed zoning law to protect sensitive areas.
GROUNDWATER
The proposed Comprehensive Plan recognizes a need to protect the Town’s environmentally
sensitive areas, including groundwater, in order to ensure an adequate supply of safe drinking
water. To preserve the quality and quantity of groundwater resources and ensure a safe and
adequate water supply for present and future generations, the proposed Comprehensive Plan
establishes as an objective the need to “Protect surface and groundwater resources and natural
drainage areas -- particularly existing and potential public water supplies. In sensitive aquifer
recharge areas, prohibit activities that could pollute the groundwater.” There are 11 specific
actions detailed in the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter IV that are intended to protect the
Town’s groundwater.
TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY
VEGETATION
The Town of Rhinebeck contains a diversity of habitats and plant species of conservation
concern which are vulnerable to the adverse impacts often associated with development and
construction. The consequences of land development can include widespread habitat
degradation, habitat fragmentation, and the loss of native biodiversity. The proposed
Comprehensive Plan recommends 12 specific actions relative to vegetation in the Town. These
policies, if implemented, would have beneficial impacts on vegetation in the Town.
In addition, Article V, Section Y of the proposed Zoning Law would establish specific
provisions for Habitat and Natural Resource Management. The proposed Zoning Law would
also permit conservation subdivision as-of-right, and would require a special use permit for
DRAFT I-21 10/24/08

conventional lot-by-lot development. This would limit the amount of vegetation clearing that
would occur sites being developed. Thus, the recommended policies of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan and the implementation of those policies in the proposed Zoning Law
would have beneficial impacts on vegetation, particularly on species of conservation concern.
While the proposed Zoning Map would reduce permitted density in outlying areas of the Town,
it would permit an increase in density in the proposed TND District and in the Rhincliff Hamlet
Extension. These areas consist primarily of upland hardwood forest and upland meadows which
are the two most common habitat types in the Town. The lands proposed to be rezoned for the
TND District are adjacent to a large existing commercial development located along Route 9,
and are therefore likely to have a high density of non-native species. Small areas of upland and
wet meadow are present in this area, but the wetlands are already severely degraded and appear
to be the result of runoff from the large adjacent parking lot that serves the commercial uses.
A small portion of these lands are located along the westernmost edge of the large unfragmented
upland meadow that Hudsonia has identified as the Mill Road priority conservation area. The
small portion of the proposed Rc-HE District located in this area is located in an area where the
meadow is already bisected by an existing road. The remaining lands in the Mill Road priority
area would be zoned HP20 or would remain RL5, with conservation subdivision as a permitted
use.
Therefore, no significant adverse environmental impacts to vegetation are anticipated as a result
of the proposed TND or Rc-HE District and the Proposed Zoning of these lands for an increased
level of development.
WILDLIFE
Habitat fragmentation is among the primary threats to biodiversity. While some species and
habitats may be adequately protected at a relatively small scale, many wide-ranging species
require unbroken blocks of habitat. Landscapes with interconnected networks of unfragmented
habitat are more likely to support a broad diversity of native species and the ecological processes
and disturbance regimes that maintain those species. The Town of Rhinebeck still contains many
large habitat patches, and careful siting of new development can protect these patches and
maintain corridors between them.
One objective of the proposed Comprehensive Plan is to inventory important wildlife
communities and protect and restore them through the preservation of natural areas and
greenspace corridors. To achieve this objective, the Plan recommends six specific actions.
As detailed in Chapter IV, the Plan also recommends designating several significant ecological
areas as Critical Environmental Areas. The designation of these areas as CEAs under SEQR
would provided additional review and added protection of these areas during the SEQR review
of development proposals in these areas, a beneficial impact on plant species of conservation
concern.
The extent of impacts to vegetation and wildlife from new development is largely a function of
how much the existing habitat is fragmented by residential structures, roads, and other disturbed
areas. Where habitat is preserved intact, there is a greater likelihood that the structures and
functions of those habitats will be maintained and the vegetative and wildlife species that rely on
them will be protected. Where new development is created in landscapes without regard to
habitat, incremental losses occur that can accumulate to significant levels given the sensitivity of
some species to human activity.
10/24/08 I-22 DRAFT

The proposed Zoning Law would overhaul the existing regulations with the intention of reducing
fragmentation to habitat. Therefore, it is intended to reduce potential impacts to wildlife.
WETLANDS
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), wetland loss
nationwide was estimated at 300,000 acres per year during the 1970's and 1980's.1 In New York
State, by the mid 1980's, it has been estimated the state lost sixty percent (60%) of its wetland
base. Through the enactment of the Federal Clean Water Act, there has been improvement in
both the national and state wetland loss, but it has not been completely deterred. In the case of
coastal states, such as New York, it has been noted that these states are losing wetlands to
development more rapidly than inland states. In the absence of regulations governing wetlands
smaller than the New York State Freshwater Wetland threshold of 12.4 acres, wetland loss is
potentially a continued negative environmental impact.
As documented in numerous scientific references used to draft the Plan and associated
regulations, the direct loss of wetlands or the degradation of wetlands, can have impacts on a
number of ecological functions occurring within wildlife habitat. Wetlands also serve to
attenuate flood waters. Wetland loss decreases the natural ability of the land to accommodate
flood waters and diminishes the amount of pollutant removal and groundwater recharge that
occur within healthy wetlands. These are important components for ensuring the quality and
adequate quantity of drinking water. The loss or degradation of wetlands creates the potential for
more costly water treatment options and/or flood control infrastructure.
The greatest threat to wetland function is the direct loss of wetlands due to filling, draining or
discharging of toxic materials. Wetland loss or degradation can occur if structures (including
stormwater management facilities or sewage disposal structures) are placed within wetlands, or
if vegetation (including trees and brush) are removed, or if soil or gravel mining, feedlot
operations or motorized vehicles are utilizing wetland areas. All of the aforementioned activities
are prohibited by the proposed law and are intended to provide beneficial impacts by retaining
wetlands in their natural state.
The Town recognizes there are situations where it would be necessary to conduct land activities
in and around wetlands. In these situations, such as dredging, grading or excavating, limited
construction within the associated buffer area of one hundred feet (100'), docks or dams, repair
or modification to existing structures, activities associated with altering wetland hydrology (such
as water control devices) and wetland restoration project, the proposed law sets forth regulations
for obtaining permits and provides for review and approval by the Planning Board. By crafting
the legislation in this manner, the Town is following very similar procedures as does the State in
its review of wetland permits, which fall under their jurisdiction.
The Proposed Action includes adoption of a new local Freshwater Wetland law that is intended
specifically to protect wetlands that now fall outside the regulatory jurisdiction of either the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation or the United States Army Corps of
Engineers. The definition of wetland included in the proposed local law is based upon the
accepted methodology for identifying wetlands based upon three characteristics (vegetation, soil
and hydrology) and does not rely upon size as a determining factor. This expands the level of
1
NOAA. Habitat Connections: Wetlands, Fisheries and Economics, Part 5. Obtained online at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatconservation/publications/habitatconections/num5.htm.
DRAFT I-23 10/24/08

protection to smaller wetlands that remain at risk currently and which do not fall under the
jurisdiction of the State or Federal governments.
Thus, the Proposed Action itself would not have any significant adverse impacts to wetlands and
it is intended that the proposed Freshwater Wetland law would serve to protect wetlands from
encroachment or direct impact by future development. The parcel-level analysis of potential
impacts of the Proposed Action on development potential or feasibility for certain sites revealed
that the Proposed Action would result in slightly lower, but still comparable, levels of
development on each parcel as exists now without local wetland protection.
GEOLOGY
According to the very generalized Geologic Map of New York (Fisher et al. 1970), the bedrock
geology of Rhinebeck is fairly uniform. The Town’s topography varies from the steep banks
along the Hudson River to the level and undulating area of central Rhinebeck to the steep slopes
and hillier terrain in the eastern section of the Town. Development on steep slopes (greater than
15% gradient) is of concern because soils erode readily, they are unsuitable for roads and
driveways, and on-site septic systems cannot be sited on them. The soils in the Town of
Rhinebeck were examined to identify agricultural soils and the suitability of the soils to
accommodate development, in particular, septic systems. The analysis revealed that nearly the
entire Town maintains some characteristic which could limit the use of septic systems. The
Town also has an abundance of soils of statewide importance and large pockets of prime
farmland soils that are most productive for crops and vegetables but are also attractive for
development because they are typically flat lands with suitable percolation rates. However,
agricultural soils that area converted to other uses are permanently taken out of production,
which has become an increasing problem in the region.
In order to address potential impacts to soils and problems that have occurred elsewhere with
septic systems, it is essential that development densities be appropriate to the soil conditions.
The Comprehensive Plan Committee reviewed the Dutchess County Aquifer Study in its
consideration of the most appropriate density levels in the various areas of the Town to ensure
that permitted densities did not exceed the carrying capacity of the soils. Soils that are most
suitable for agriculture have been mapped and could be avoided to the extent possible by the use
of conservation subdivision, which is required under the Proposed Action. The policies in the
Comprehensive Plan are intended to reduce potential impacts on geology during site
development.
TRANSPORTATION
The Proposed Action comprises a set of public policy actions intended to guide development
within the Town of Rhinebeck for the foreseeable future. Typically, a Traffic Impact Study (TIS)
included in an environmental impact statement assesses future operating conditions for traffic
associated with a specific project or new development. A project-specific TIS inventories and
analyzes information relevant to existing traffic flow and projected traffic flow in the future both
with and without the proposed project for the roadway network immediately surrounding the
project site. For a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, such as this one, the project site
covers the entire Town and considers potential development of different types and at
undetermined times well into the future. As such, it would not be appropriate to conduct a
traditional Traffic Impact Study (TIS) on the Proposed Action as too many factors would be
10/24/08 I-24 DRAFT

speculative (including how much development would happen in any one year and at what
locations) and would result in analysis results not altogether meaningful.
However, since the Proposed Action includes a recommendation for increased density within
certain priority growth areas in close proximity to the Village of Rhinebeck, and the Astor Flats
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) in particular, it is possible to analyze the
potential effects of this potential development along with an amount of “background” growth
attributable to development both within and outside the Town of Rhinebeck. Since the Astor
Flats TND comprises a large majority of potential new residential units and commercial
development over the next 20 years and is located along Route 9 between Route 9G and Route
308, which serve as the primary corridors for travel within the community, analyzing potential
traffic effects of this development option on these roadways and their intersections effectively
captures potential future operating conditions from a significant component of growth under the
Proposed Action.
Thus, the TIS prepared for this DGEIS considers the potential impacts to traffic operating
conditions at the two principal intersections in Town—U.S. Route 9 at Market Street (NYS
Route 308) and U.S. Route 9 at NYS Route 9G—from a combination of the Astor Flats TND
and background growth in other areas of the Town or surrounding communities. These two
signalized intersections were analyzed as they would likely see the greatest impacts from
additional traffic associated with new development of the Astor Flats TND and residential
development elsewhere in the Town. The TIS analyzes conditions for weekday peak morning
and evening periods and weekend periods, with analysis of weekends both with and without a
major event at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds. The event condition assessed was for the
Antiques Fair (during the Memorial Day weekend) and not the Dutchess County Fair. The
Antiques Fair is typical of the type of event that occurs more frequently at the fairgrounds. The
Dutchess County Fair is a special one time a year event. Since a ten-year planning horizon is
generally seen as an appropriate planning horizon for traffic conditions, the year 2017 was
selected as the analysis year for future operating conditions.
The TIS concluded that there would be the following notable changes in LOS as a result of the
Proposed Action:
• The westbound East Market Street approach at U.S. Route 9 would decline from LOS E to
LOS F during the Saturday Midday peak hour.
• The northbound U.S. Route 9 approach at East Market Street/West Market Street would
decline from LOS C to LOS F during the Weekday PM peak hour.
• The southbound U.S. Route 9 approach at East Market Street/West Market Street would
decline from LOS C to LOS F during the Weekday Midday and Weekday PM peak hours
and from LOS D to LOS F during the Saturday Midday peak hour.
• The eastbound NYS Route 9G through/right-turn lane group at U.S. Route 9 would decline
from LOS D to LOS E during the Weekday AM and Saturday Midday peak hours, and from
LOS E to LOS F during the Weekday PM peak hour.
• The westbound NYS Route 9G through/right-turn lane group at U.S. Route 9 would decline
from LOS E to LOS F during the Weekday PM peak hour.
• The northbound U.S. Route 9 through/right-turn lane group would decline from LOS D to
LOS F during the Weekday PM peak hour.
DRAFT I-25 10/24/08

During event conditions there would be the following notable changes in LOS:
• The westbound East Market Street approach at U.S. Route 9 would decline from LOS D to
LOS E during the Saturday Midday peak hour.
decline from LOS D to LOS F during the Saturday Midday peak hour.
LOS E during both the Saturday Midday and Sunday Midday peak hours.
It is important to note that LOS E and F conditions during the peak hour are not uncommon
operating conditions at the intersection of two major state roads. The LOS E and F conditions
are indicative of congestion and drivers may have to wait for more than one green cycle to clear
the intersection. In addition, during peak hour conditions, drivers will utilize side streets and
alternate routes to avoid congested roadways and intersections. During non-peak hours (the
majority of the day), these approaches operate at better LOS conditions (LOS D or better).
The existing HCM analysis generally shows good operating conditions at both intersections.
However, at the intersection of U.S. Route 9 and East Market Street/West Market Street during
the Saturday midday peak hour, the westbound East Market Street approach does operate at LOS
E (traffic is busy during the weekend at this intersection which is in the center of Town). At the
U.S. Route 9 and NYS Route 9G intersection the eastbound (through and right-turn) and
westbound (through and right-turn) NYS Route 9G movements also experience LOS E
conditions during the weekday PM peak hour. This reflects busy traffic conditions during the
commuter peak hour traveling on U.S. Route 9 and the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge (which is
accessed via NYS Route 9G). In 2017 without mitigation (improvements), several intersection
approaches would operate at LOS F at both intersections during the Weekday Midday, PM, and
Saturday Midday peak hours.
During events, the existing HCM analysis generally shows good operating conditions at both
intersections. However, at the intersection of U.S. Route 9 and East Market Street/West Market
Street during the Saturday Midday peak hour, the southbound U.S. Route 9 approach does
operate at LOS F (traffic is busy during the weekend at this intersection which is in the center of
Town). At the U.S. Route 9 and NYS Route 9G intersection the eastbound (through and right-
turn) NYS Route 9G movements experience LOS E conditions during the Sunday Midday peak
hour.
In 2017 without mitigation (improvements), several intersection approaches would operate at
LOS E and F at both intersections during the Saturday and Sunday Midday peak hours during
events.
MITIGATION
Several mitigation measures have been identified to improve the operating conditions of certain
intersections under the build condition.
Restriping the westbound East Market Street approach to form two 11-foot lanes, prohibiting on-
street parking approximately 100 to 200 feet back from the approach, and retiming the traffic
signal would improve LOS and delays. Without these measures, there would be LOS F
conditions during the peak hours, but LOS D or better during much of the day.
10/24/08 I-26 DRAFT

It is also recommended that, for the traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. Route 9 and East
Market Street/West Market Street, the latest traffic controller technology be implemented by
NYSDOT.
Adding an exclusive right-turn lane to eastbound NYS Route 9G at the intersection of U.S Route
9 at NYS Route 9G and retiming the traffic signal would improve LOS and delays as shown in
Table 6. It is also recommended that, for the traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. Route 9 and
NYS Route 9G, the latest traffic controller technology be implemented by NYSDOT. Another
possible measure is to reconstruct the intersection as a roundabout (a measure discussed in the
Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan).
The impacts at the two intersections would be mitigated and the overall intersection LOS would
be D or better (generally considered acceptable operating conditions). There would be three
intersection movements (the through/right-turn movement at the northbound and southbound
approaches at the intersection of U.S. Route 9 and NYS Route 9G and the left-
turn/through/right-turn movement at the southbound approach at the intersection of U.S. Route 9
and East Market Street/West Market Street) where the LOS would be E.
There is some limited additional capacity available at the intersection with the improvements in-
place to accommodate general growth or small sized proposed development projects. Another
measure to improve operating conditions even with the improvements in-place would be to
provide a secondary point of access/egress to the TND possibly via NYS Route 9G. This would
help to distribute traffic more evenly throughout the area without all the project generated traffic
concentrated on U.S. Route 9. In addition, shuttle service from the TND site to Market Street
and the train station would also reduce the traffic generation from the TND site.
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Fire protection services in Rhinebeck are provided by volunteers in three fire districts. The
Village has a part-time police department that provides contract services to the Town. The Town
also contracts with the County Sheriff’s Department to conduct police patrols of town facilities
and recreation areas. Dutchess County Sheriff’s Department and the State Police provide
additional police protection for the town. Central to medical services in Rhinebeck is Northern
Dutchess Hospital, a non-profit institution located on Route 9 on the corner of Montgomery
Street. The Town of Rhinebeck is served by the Rhinebeck Rescue Squad, which is supported by
the Northern Dutchess Paramedics, a commercial ambulance service that provides advanced life
support.
The Original Build-Out Analysis conducted as part of the Comprehensive Plan indicates the
need for approximately 10 new fire fighters and 10 new police officers (or about 1 new fire
fighter and police officer for every 1,000 new residents) should the additional development
allowed by existing zoning be realized. The DGEIS Build-Out Analysis results in a projected
need for new fire fighters and police officers slightly lower than what was predicted by the
Original Build-Out Analysis. Under the Proposed Action only 6 new emergency service
providers (3 fire fighters and 3 police officers) would be required to serve the larger community.
The cost of providing emergency services is almost entirely borne by the residential property
owners through property taxes. The Original Build-Out Analysis estimates that the cost of
additional emergency services can be borne by increased property tax revenue coming from new
residential construction, but does note that the costs do escalate as the population increases.
DRAFT I-27 10/24/08

There are no evident shortfalls in medical services. The numerous physicians and clinics in
Rhinebeck and the diverse services provided by the Northern Dutchess Hospital serve much of
northern Dutchess County.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Rhinebeck has a rich cultural past spanning over 300 years of European settlement and
thousands of years of pre-historic habitation. This legacy, which is outlined in detail in Chapter
12 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, is recognized in several historic districts of state and
national significance.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends that all future land use decision-making in the
Town should consider sites that are currently listed, or may be listed, on the National Register of
Historic Places. It establishes an objective to “Protect historic resources and require new
development within historic districts or near historic sites to be consistent with the existing
setting of the site, taking into account the history, existing architecture and character of the
surrounding area.” To implement this objective, the Plan recommends 8 specific actions as
described in Chapter IV. The proposed Zoning Law would serve to implement a number of these
recommended actions. Therefore the Proposed Action would encourage the retention and
restoration of historic buildings in the Town, a beneficial impact on historic resources.
COMMUNITY CHARACTER
The Town’s community character is a composite of a number of factors, principally the elements
of the natural and physical environment, but also including the substantial number of historic
resources within the community. Community character is also defined by the residential and
commercial activity within the Town and the Village of Rhinebeck as well as the periodic events
at the Dutchess County Fair Ground that attract visitors to both the Town and Village.
As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, the existing community character is defined as “rural” – “a
landscape where the predominant feature is the natural environment, such as open space,
farmland, woodlands and water bodies, and where development intrusion is minimal.” The
Comprehensive Plan includes the following language describing community character in the
Vision Statement that sets the overall policy direction for the Comprehensive Plan: “Our guiding
principle is that Rhinebeck is an exceptional place because of its desirable rural attributes,
outstanding scenic, natural and historic resources, and thriving village and hamlet centers.” This
Vision Statement reflects the results of the community survey in which 84 percent of
respondents “Strongly Agree” that “Rhinebeck’s rural/small town atmosphere is a major
strength” and 56 percent Strongly Agree (with another 30 percent “Agreeing”) that “Rhinebeck
should stay rural by guiding growth to areas around the Village and hamlets.”
The proposed Comprehensive Plan identifies three different scales of development to be applied
within the priority growth areas: Hamlet Infill Development, Neighborhood Extensions, and
Traditional Neighborhood Development. The Town of Rhinebeck includes several historic
hamlets that can incorporate additional development consistent with the character of the hamlet
and surrounding areas. The proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends that a hamlet infill
zoning strategy should be developed for the hamlets of Sepasco and Rock City. It also
recommends that a separate zoning strategy be developed for the hamlet of Rhinecliff that
10/24/08 I-28 DRAFT

recognizes the unique nature of this built-out area, allowing residential densities in Rhinecliff in
keeping with the historic exiting level of development, and a greenbelt surrounding the hamlet.
In addition, the Plan recommends ensuring that existing hamlet roads are not widened, but rather
maintained as rural, country roads; developing and integrating design standards into the Zoning
Law that recognize the uniqueness of the hamlet’s architecture and streetscapes; and limiting the
square footage of new dwellings and additions to prevent proliferation of oversized, out-of-
character homes. These recommendations would be implemented by the Rhinecliff Overlay (Rc-
O) District in the proposed Zoning Law (Article VI, Section E), which includes special use and
bulk regulations designed to maintain the historic integrity of the hamlet. The new regulations
would apply to additions to existing structures, new construction, and other site features such as
landscaping, lighting, parking, building height, fencing and setbacks. These regulations would
have beneficial impacts on the hamlet’s character.
The Neighborhood Extension and Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Districts
would permit development at levels that match the prevailing pattern of existing development
within these areas. Within those areas, the predominant use would be single-family dwellings,
but some amount of two-family and multi-family residential would be permitted to increase the
potential for providing affordable housing. The TND District would permit a compact, mixed-
use neighborhood where residential, commercial, and civic buildings are in close proximity to
each other. This is a planning concept that is based on traditional small town development
principles and would enhance the existing small town, rural community character. These
recommendations for Neighborhood Extension and Traditional Neighborhood Districts have
been implemented in the proposed Zoning Law. By allowing for village-scaled density in and
adjacent to existing settled areas, development levels in areas outside the hamlets and villages
can be reduced without adverse impacts on housing affordability. Coupled with the use of
conservation subdivisions in the proposed HP20, RA10, RC6 and the existing RL5 Districts
which would surround the infill and extension areas, the proposed Zoning provisions would
ensure that the greenbelts defining the edge of the hamlets and village are maintained.
Preservation of the historic “town and country” development pattern of the Town, which would
result from the proposed Zoning, is a beneficial impact on community character.
In contrast to the existing Zoning, which would change the Town from a rural community to a
suburban community, the proposed Zoning included in the Proposed Action would direct new
growth into a pattern that continues and strengthens the Town’s existing rural character.
It is important to note that the proposed Zoning does not rely exclusively on large minimum lot
sizes to retain the Town’s community character. Such a zoning strategy is often referred to as
“large-lot zoning” and does not, on its own, result in beneficial results to community character.
Large-lot zoning is often synonymous with suburban sprawl. The proposed Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning envision a distribution of new residential development between priority growth areas
and the lands outside these areas. This sort of balanced and comprehensive management of
growth is more likely to result in longer-term benefits and preservation of community character.
The proposed Zoning includes new lighting standards, new standards for landscaping, screening
requirements, and the need for street trees. In the TND District, the maximum gross floor area
for a food and grocery store would be limited to 40,000 square feet to ensure compatibility with
existing community character. These standards, which would supplement the Town’s adopted
Design Standards already used by the Planning Board, would have beneficial impacts on
community character.
DRAFT I-29 10/24/08

ECONOMIC AND FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS

Most of the Town falls within the Rhinebeck Central School District. Small portions of the
Town are in the Hyde Park Central School District and the Red Hook Central School District.
The Original Build-Out Analysis conducted as part of the Comprehensive Plan includes a
detailed projection of future capital and operating costs for the Rhinebeck Central School
District. At full build-out, it is projected that the additional 1,500 new school-age children
generated by new residential construction would require the construction of approximately $50
million of new facilities. With annual capital costs approaching $1.9 million and an increase of
approximately $18 million in operating costs for the additional 1,500 students, the Rhinebeck
Central School District would experience a net fiscal impact of $811,000 annually.
Since the Proposed Action reduces the total future build-out, it results in smaller increases to the
school budget as compared to existing zoning under the No Action Alternative. Residential
development typically does not pay for itself with respect to school taxes. Each new household
typically generates greater costs to the school district than it generates in revenue. However, by
providing a range of housing options for different households at different life-cycle points, it is
possible to generate property tax revenue without significantly increasing the costs to the school
district. Apartments for young singles or couples or empty-nesters are an example of a
residential type that generates property tax (the owners of rental units do pay property taxes)
without generating significant numbers of school-age children. Thus, the inclusion of multi-
family housing under the Proposed Zoning would tend to minimize potential impacts to the
school district.
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined as those that meet the following two criteria:
• There are no reasonably practicable mitigation measures to eliminate the impact.
• There are no reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action that would meet the purpose and
need of the action, eliminate the impact, and not cause other or similar significant adverse
impacts.
This DGEIS evaluates the Proposed Action and alternatives at a generic level. The DGEIS
indicates that there were no potential adverse impacts identified for the Proposed Action. The
DGEIS did not, nor could it, evaluate potential site-specific impacts that may result from
development of parcels based on the proposed Zoning Law. As such, future site-specific
environmental impact assessments of development proposals may identify unavoidable adverse
impacts; but those impacts would be more a function of the site-specific conditions or the
development program and not a function of the Proposed Action.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

The Proposed Action would not directly result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment
of resources. To the extent that specific development encouraged by the Proposed Action occurs,
the building materials used, energy and electricity, and human effort expended in the
construction process would be considered irretrievably committed. It should also be noted that
the decisions to adopt the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Law, and the Wetlands Local Law
are, in fact, reversible.
10/24/08 I-30 DRAFT

GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS

The Proposed Action is intended to establish a vision for the future of the Town of Rhinebeck
(through the proposed Comprehensive Plan) and to manage new development in a manner that is
consistent with the vision (through the proposed Zoning Law and the Wetlands Local Law). The
Proposed Action in itself will not result in new development and will not result in conditions that
will make development any more, or any less, likely to occur within the Town of Rhinebeck.
The Proposed Action simply modifies the permitted densities, locations, and permitted or desired
configuration of new development.
Future development permitted by the Proposed Action would likely generate additional
residential or commercial populations, additional traffic, additional demands on community
services, and additional pressure on environmental resources. The Proposed Action will reduce
overall levels of development when compared to existing Zoning.
To the extent that the Proposed Action reduces permitted development levels within the Town,
market demand for that development may cause increased interest in development in
neighboring communities. However, the Proposed Action does include a land use strategy based
on well-considered plans for local and regional growth management that includes priority
growth areas where new residential and commercial development is encouraged (and permitted
densities are increased over existing permitted levels) to minimize the amount of development
that would occur distant from existing centers. This provision may offset some of the potential
displacement of growth from lower-density portions of the Town into surrounding communities.
It should also be noted that the Proposed Action was developed in collaboration with the
Dutchess County Department of Planning, Northern Dutchess Alliance, and the Village of
Rhinebeck and includes recommendations for a number of intermunicipal actions to manage
growth in a regional fashion.
EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES

The Proposed Action would not, itself, consume any energy nor would it have a direct impact on
the energy supply system. However, development made possible by the Proposed Action could
lead to increased energy usage above existing conditions. Given that the Proposed Action
contemplates a reduction in total potential development levels compared to what existing Zoning
would permit, it is likely that total energy utilization would also be less than what would be
expected under the No Action alternative. Ï
DRAFT I-31 10/24/08

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action
A. INTRODUCTION
The Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck (the “Town Board”) is considering a set of related
actions: adoption of a Comprehensive Plan, adoption of a revised Zoning Law, and adoption of a
local law protecting wetlands. In one important sense the individual actions are integral to one
another: both the Zoning Law and the wetlands local law implement specific recommendations
of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Each of the individual actions was also developed in a
coordinated fashion to ensure consistency. As such, the individual actions comprise a Proposed
Action described and analyzed in this DGEIS. This DGEIS evaluates the cumulative effect of
each element of the Proposed Action. For clarity, however, each action is described individually
within this chapter. It is important to note that the Town Board will, by necessity, take individual
action on each element of the Proposed Action or may choose to take action on only certain of
the elements.
This DGEIS incorporates by reference each of the documents that comprise the Proposed
Action. Information contained in the Comprehensive Plan, in particular, is relevant to a
description of existing conditions and analysis of potential impacts of individual or collective
recommendations within the Comprehensive Plan. The State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) allows for the inclusion by reference of certain documents when those documents are
available for full public review. This practice avoids unnecessary duplication of information
found elsewhere and allows for a more concise environmental impact statement.
This chapter also provides background discussion of the development of the Proposed Action
and describes the purpose and need for the Proposed Action.
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan (also referred to as “The Rhinebeck Plan”) has
been designed to serve as a guide for the Town’s immediate and long-range protection,
enhancement, and development. Its overall vision, based on public input, is to reinforce
Rhinebeck as a rural community. More than a thousand residents helped the Comprehensive
Plan Committee outline how to accomplish this.
The proposed Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan has been prepared during a five-year planning
process, initiated after the Town Board recognized that there were development trends occurring
in the Hudson Valley for which the Town was not prepared. The prior Town of Rhinebeck
Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1989; consequently, much of its background information,
especially the socio-economic data, was over 20 years old. Community values were based upon
a 1985 public opinion survey. New York State’s Legislative Commission on Rural Resources
prepared, and then the New York State Legislature enacted, sweeping changes to the planning
DRAFT II-1 10/24/08

and zoning enabling acts beginning in the 1990’s to the present. Regional trends have also been
affecting the way Rhinebeck has been growing, with telecommuting, applications for approval
of large-scale housing developments in the Town and surrounding communities, and demand for
second homes representing the greatest challenges. To address these changes, the Town Board
determined that a new Comprehensive Plan was called for; the Board determined that it would
appoint a diverse citizen based “special board” to prepare the comprehensive plan. The
Comprehensive Plan Committee, as it became known, was initially composed of 23 members
representing long term and new residents, local realtors, professional architects and professional
planners, an environmental attorney, business owners and business executives, members of the
Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board, School Board, Conservation Advisory Council,
Village residents, the County Legislator, and the Town Historian.
Historically, the town’s population has been increasing at a high rate – up to 25 percent per
decade, from the 1950’s to the 1980’s. This rate of increase slowed during the 1980’s and
1990’s. Following a recessionary period, IBM-Kingston closed in the early 1990’s and many
residents left the area. Rhinebeck’s “big-box” retail store closed and population declined
between 1990 and 2000.
A new period of growth has re-emerged in this decade. During 2002 and 2003, Rhinebeck’s rate
of population increase was the fourth fastest in Dutchess County (1.9%) exceeding the county’s
as a whole during this same period (1.1%). Second home development has accelerated due to the
attractiveness of the community to urban dwellers. A June 26, 2004 New York Post article refers
to Rhinebeck and Red Hook as “The Next Hampton.” Wealthy individuals from the New York
metropolitan area have been increasingly investing in land – primarily second homes.
Telecommuting and the Internet have allowed others the freedom to work from more remote
locations, such as Rhinebeck. This largely rural town has also become attractive to those seeking
privacy and a safe refuge from city life, particularly after the events of September 11, 2001.
These and many other factors are changing the town’s landscape in new and unpredictable ways.
If present trends continue under Rhinebeck’s current plan and land use controls, until the town is
essentially built-out, the community will no longer be recognizable as a rural community.
Housing has also been affected by these changes. According to the Mid-Hudson Multiple Listing
Service, sale prices of homes in Dutchess County continue to climb. The median single-family
home price in July 2005 was $340,000, up from $300,000 in September 2004 – a 13 percent
increase in just nine months. In October 2003, the median home price was $275,000,
representing a nearly 24 percent increase in less than two years. The rental housing market has
been similarly affected. In 2005, a Dutchess County worker needed to earn $19.19 per hour to
afford a two-bedroom apartment at the fair market rate of $998 per month. The implications of
this on residents’ ability to afford housing have been dramatic.
To address these and other trends, The Rhinebeck Plan outlines residents’ overall vision for
future conservation and development of the town. Rhinebeck’s vision emerged through a five
year planning effort that included: eleven visioning sessions in the community; more than 200
Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan Committee and Subcommittee meetings; forums on open space,
affordable housing, the special features of Rhinecliff, a build-out analysis and its fiscal
implications, and traditional neighborhood development; workshops with the Pace University
Land Use Law Center staff, Northern Dutchess Alliance, the Conservation Advisory Council,
Village Zoning Commission and Town officials; an Internet Web site, where all Plan documents
were posted, and issues could be discussed in an electronic forum; bi-weekly newspaper feature
columns; a public opinion survey which garnered better than a 20 percent response rate; plan
10/24/08 II-2 DRAFT

involvement by school children through classroom activities; and community outreach efforts of
the diverse Comprehensive Plan Committee.
A Community Values Report was prepared for the Comprehensive Plan (see Volume 2,
Appendix 1). The Report contains a full discussion of the community visioning process
including the top priorities of residents, the public opinion survey results, together with an
analysis of the principal findings, and a list of 1,584 suggestions developed by survey
respondents. A number of more detailed resident viewpoints are presented as well as charts
illustrating the survey results. The involvement by Rhinebeck Central School District,
Elementary, Middle and High School students is also provided in the Report.
Given the public expressions garnered during the public participation methods discussed above,
the Comprehensive Plan Committee reviewed the goals and objectives in the 1989 Town of
Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan to determine whether they are still valid today. They were
refined and supplemented, and some were eliminated, to respond to the community values as
well as a series of background studies described below.
One of the next steps in the planning process was preparation of a “build-out analysis” and
report. The analysis estimated the impact of cumulative growth upon the Town’s land areas,
once all the developable land has been consumed and converted to uses permitted under current
Zoning regulations. Build-out analysis is a tool designed to assist residents and decision-makers
in understanding, ahead of time, the impacts that development may have on the community. It
identifies public services that need to be built, expanded or improved to accommodate growth,
and can help Town officials estimate the costs and revenues required by local government to
meet changing needs. It also helps to identify resource constraints (fiscal or environmental) that
may impede new development. Build-out analysis helps in the selection of policy alternatives to
accommodate or mitigate new development that will occur. It can also foster identification of
appropriate land uses and the density of land use in the community.
The “prescription” for land use development emerged from the build-out analysis (see Volume
2, Appendix 2 of the Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan). The analysis proved that, if nothing is
done to change the Town’s Zoning and other regulations, eventually Rhinebeck would appear
more like a typical suburban community, with some 187,757 square feet of additional
commercial development spread out mainly along Routes 9 and 9G in a sprawling, auto-
dependent manner. All residentially-zoned vacant lands that can be developed with single family
houses would be developed, with an additional 3,408 one, three, and five-acre lots spread
throughout the community. Activity centers would be limited to the village and the Route 9/9G
strip, and, except in the village and hamlet of Rhinecliff, there would be limited options for safe
walking and biking.
In 2003, the Town of Rhinebeck had a population of 5,004; however, by build-out, the
population would jump to 14,785 – almost triple what it is today. The 9,781 additional residents,
including 1,528 school children, would require ten new paid police officers and ten paid fire
fighters, new Town facilities and more classrooms and other space to accommodate the
additional school children. More than 3,400 additional septic disposal systems, generating about
1.6 million gallons of sewage per day discharged to the ground would be needed, considering
residential needs, and the additional dwellings would add more than 3,400 new groundwater
wells. There would be more than 1,486 acres of impervious surfaces, like roads, driveways, and
structures (7% of the Town’s remaining undeveloped land area). Projected vehicle trips in the
Town, estimated to be more than 34,000 additional trips per day by an additional 6,800 vehicles
DRAFT II-3 10/24/08

on the roads, would be made to or through the village, on Route 308, Route 9, Route 9G and
other roads.
The build-out analysis only examined what would happen if the Town were built out with
single-family homes. However, Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and Planned Residential
Developments (PRD), which are currently encouraged in the Zoning Law, could potentially
create large-scale developments almost anywhere in Rhinebeck. Under current zoning, density
bonuses are available to developers who construct central water and sewer facilities for new
subdivisions, who build PRDs, or construct other specific types of permitted development.
Because PRDs and PUDs were not incorporated into the build-out analysis, the analysis
understates the amount and scale of new development that would be permissible under current
zoning.
There were an endless variety of possible scenarios that could be analyzed for the build-out
analysis, given the many existing tools in the Zoning Law potentially available to a real estate
developer. Engaging in an alternative build-out analysis of the existing zoning tools would
produce an encyclopedic document, the usefulness of which would be limited because of the
speculative nature of those analyses. The Build-Out Report concluded that it is far more
important to concentrate on the policy implications of the current Zoning Law and to develop a
plan for altering the current zoning regulations to be more in line with the policies developed in
The Rhinebeck Plan.
The community values process described fully in Volume 2, Appendix 1 of the Comprehensive
Plan clearly identified a strong dislike for the potential transformation of the rural town to a
sprawling suburban community. The Committee, in response, looked at available alternatives to
accommodate development in a more responsive and responsible way. The Committee
determined that most new growth in the community should be directed towards designated
locations identified as “priority growth areas,” similar to the village’s and hamlet’s traditional
19th Century compact development patterns, coupled with a continuation of the dominant
pattern of sparsely settled rural and agricultural lands in the remainder of the town. Five priority
growth areas were selected, as shown on the Centers and Greenspace Plan as Figure 5.1 in
Volume 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. These included an area immediately west of the village
and north of Rhinecliff Road, the Astor Flats area north of the Fairgrounds on the east side of
Route 9, the westernmost portion of the Creed property adjacent to the hamlet of Rhinecliff and
the hamlets of Rock City and Lake Sepasco. These areas were selected for a variety of reasons.
The most important criteria included:
• Strengthening existing centers
• Proximity to already developed areas
• Serving new development in a pedestrian-oriented manner
• Lack of significant environmental constraints
• Potential to preserve important farmland and other open space
• Adequate highway infrastructure
• Access to or potential access to public transportation
• Access to existing water and sewer services that can be extended or improved to serve the
new development (except in Rock City and Lake Sepasco where only limited infill potential
exists).
10/24/08 II-4 DRAFT

The Comprehensive Plan found that the cost of providing infrastructure and municipal services
is higher with sprawl type development than with more compact growth. Studies in California
and Florida have shown these extra costs to be on the order of $20,000 per residential unit.
Similarly, a study by Rutgers University comparing sprawl development in New Jersey with a
more compact infill development found a differential of about $25,000 more per residence in the
sprawl development. According to more than 80 Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies,
conducted over the past 20 years by the American Farmland Trust (AFT), working lands return
more revenues to the community than they demand in services while residential development
does not cover the costs of the additional demand for services.
In Rhinebeck, the build out analysis looked at the impacts, including fiscal, of conventional
suburban (or sprawl type) development patterns (as prescribed by the Zoning Law), contrasted
with the proposed Comprehensive Plan’s development pattern in designated locations, coupled
with sparsely settled rural and agricultural lands elsewhere. The results of the analysis are
presented in Table II-1 for conventional suburban development (CSD) and alternative traditional
neighborhood development (TND) scenarios, compared with current development in the Town.
Table II-1
Conventional Suburban Development (CSD) compared with
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)
Dwellings Population Pop. Density Fiscal Costs
Current 1,416 4,063 120 ppl./sq. mi. Current Town
Development* Budget
CSD under 3,408 Additional 9,781 Additional 410 ppl./sq. mi. -$932,557
Current Zoning
TND under 1,409 Additional 4,044 Additional 239 ppl./sq. mi. +$1,657,079
Alternative Zoning
Notes: * - As of 2000.
Rhinebeck’s current Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Subdivision Regulations were
subjected to a “Smart Growth Audit” as recommended by the American Planning Association.
The results can be found in Volume 2, Appendix 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Audit was
intended to help decision makers select the planning tools needed to implement a smart growth
strategy. According to the American Planning Association, “A smart growth audit is similar to a
financial audit, except the subject matter investigated and the principles applied are
different…Where the financial auditor focuses on accounts and finances, the smart growth
auditor focuses first on plans and policies, and second on the programs, regulations, and budgets
that relate to development and community building. Where the financial auditor uses generally
accepted accounting principles as benchmarks for evaluation, the smart growth auditor uses
generally (or locally) accepted principles of smart growth. Both types of auditors produce a final
report with findings and recommendations on how existing practices equate with, or depart from,
the accepted principles.”
The Town’s existing 1989 Comprehensive Plan, existing Subdivision Regulations, and existing
Zoning Law were examined for the Smart Growth Audit. The Audit concluded that numerous
changes were required to the three documents if the Town were to adopt a smart growth strategy.
The full results of the audit can be found in Volume 2 of the Comprehensive Plan. Topics
DRAFT II-5 10/24/08

covered in the audit include land use, housing, transportation, environment, infrastructure, and
intermunicipal concerns.
A comprehensive survey and inventory of all historic sites was undertaken for the
Comprehensive Plan by the Town Historian, Nancy Kelly. The results of the survey can be
found in Volume 2, Appendix 4 of the Comprehensive Plan and Figures 12.1 and 12.2 in
Volume 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. The survey includes properties listed on the National and
State Registers of Historic Places, the National Landmark District, and locally designated
historic sites. A total of 336 properties or sites have been identified within the Town as
historically significant. Volume 2, Appendix 4 of the Plan contains a narrative summary of the
history and significance of these properties.
During the planning process, the Town Board appointed an Open Space and Affordable Housing
Committee to prepare a detailed implementation plan. The Committee, working with Phillips
Preiss Shapiro Associates, Inc. presented a final report to the Town Board in August of 2007
entitled “Town of Rhinebeck Open Space and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan” (the
“Implementation Plan”). The complete Implementation Plan can be found in Volume 2,
Appendix 5 of the Comprehensive Plan.
As stated in the Implementation Plan, “The prime innovation of the Rhinebeck Plan and this
Implementation Plan is the search for shared solutions to an apparent conundrum that as land is
preserved the more desirable (hence more valuable and more costly) living in Rhinebeck will
become; and as more housing is induced to leverage mixed-income development, the less open
space preservation might be possible. The Rhinebeck Plan and this Implementation Plan also
recognize that the current housing, even on lots of one and three acres, is very expensive and that
more innovative zoning is required to promote housing that is affordable.”
The Implementation Plan also detailed strategies that illustrate that it is not only possible to
produce affordable housing while at the same time maintaining rural character, but that such
strategies are, in fact, interrelated:
• The ranking system for open space priorities put less value on sites that were highly suited to
mixed-income, TND, and cluster subdivisions.
• Right-to-farm laws include group quarters for workers.
• Incentives and mandates promote the combination of mixed-income housing with open
space preservation.
• Additional incentives and mandates promote “green” site planning, infrastructure and design
features.
• Hamlet overlay zones encourage infill housing in order to mitigate new development on
open space.
• The cottage home concept supports both affordable housing and TND and conservation
subdivision principles.
These are only examples. They illustrate that this Implementation Plan, as with the Rhinebeck
Plan, look at land preservation and affordable housing as merged and compatible goals. The
vision is to maintain Rhinebeck’s current level of economic diversity to the extent possible,
without jeopardizing the physical and scenic resources; and conversely, to protect these
resources in a way that still allows substantial development focusing on affordable housing
needs.”
10/24/08 II-6 DRAFT

A comprehensive survey and inventory of all significant habitats was conducted for the
Comprehensive Plan by Hudsonia, Ltd. The report, completed in July 2007 and entitled
“Significant Habitats in the Town of Rhinebeck, Dutchess County New York,” can be found in
Volume 2, Appendix 6 of the Comprehensive Plan (the “Hudsonia Report”). According to the
Hudsonia Report:
“Hudsonia biologists identified and mapped ecologically significant habitats in the
Town of Rhinebeck during the period January 2006 through May 2007. Through map
analysis, aerial photograph interpretation, and field observations we created a large-
format map showing the location and configuration of these habitats throughout the
Town. Some are rare or declining in the region or support rare species of plants or
animals, while others are high quality examples of common habitats or habitat
complexes. We identified 32 types of significant habitats. Among our more interesting
finds were 193 intermittent woodland pools, several wet clay meadows larger than 5
acres (2 hectares), two meadow complexes covering more than 200 acres (81 hectares),
eight kettle shrub pools, and an oak-heath barren.
In this report we describe each of the mapped habitat types, including their ecological
attributes, some of the species of conservation concern they may support, and their
sensitivities to human disturbance. We address conservation issues associated with these
habitats, provide specific conservation recommendations, and discuss the places in
Rhinebeck that we believe should receive priority in conservation and planning efforts.
We also provide instructions on how to use this report and the map, both to review site-
specific proposals and as a guide for town-wide conservation planning and decision
making.
The habitat map, which contains much ecological information unavailable from other
sources, can help the Town of Rhinebeck identify the areas of greatest ecological
significance, develop conservation goals, and establish conservation policies and
practices that will help to protect biodiversity resources while serving the social,
cultural, and economic needs of the human community.”
The Comprehensive Plan also undertook an inventory, analysis and evaluation of plans prepared
by other governmental or quasi-governmental organizations that affect Rhinebeck (“Government
Report”). The full Government Report can be found in Volume 2, Appendix 7 of the
Comprehensive Plan. There were a total of 18 plans reviewed and analyzed for the
Comprehensive Plan, prepared by State and County agencies or locally. According to the
Government Report:
“The Town of Rhinebeck is located in the historic Hudson River Valley, a region of
national significance that has occasioned an unusually large number of studies and
plans. In developing The Rhinebeck Plan, the Comprehensive Plan Committee reviewed
State, regional, and local plans to determine which recommendations supported the
community’s vision and should be included in the Plan. Summaries of these plans are
described below. The plans are arranged chronologically under the appropriate
heading, and each is numbered. The numbers that appear in parentheses in the
following evaluation identify the plans from which the recommendations originate, and
direct the reader to the fuller discussion in the summaries.
DRAFT II-7 10/24/08

One common theme in all of the plans reviewed is the need for regional planning. The
2000 Countryside Exchange report (13), for instance, emphasizes the need for
‘proactive regional planning to ensure that future growth enhances the region’s
historical settlement pattern, protects the character of the countryside, maintains a
thriving agricultural base, and preserves the many historic sites in the area.’ This
recommendation echoes a key element of the Dutchess County comprehensive plan
Directions (10) to ‘adopt a regional perspective on land use, transportation and natural
resource protection.’ While Rhinebeck only has legislative control over the land within
its borders, it shares common concerns, problems, and resources with other
communities in the region. It has often been noted that natural resources span municipal
boundaries, and thus will only be effectively protected through regional planning. Roads
also cross municipal boundaries, and since land use and transportation are inextricably
linked (as noted in a number of the plans), development in one community can impact
transportation networks in neighboring towns. These are just two examples that
illustrate the crucial need for adopting a regional perspective to ensure that each
community realizes its individual goals.”
The Comprehensive Plan, in part, is based upon this Government Report, and it recommends
that the Town initiate a dialogue with its municipal neighbors to begin the process of planning
intermunicipally.
Prior to completion of the draft Comprehensive Plan by the Comprehensive Plan Committee, a
Zoning Subcommittee was created to begin the process of drafting amendments to the Town
Zoning Law, that would implement the many recommendations being developed for the
Comprehensive Plan. The Subcommittee was chaired by Sally Mazzarella. It included the
Chairman and another Member of the Town Planning Board, the Chairman of the Town Zoning
Board, the Town Historian, and two other Comprehensive Plan Committee Members, one of
which (Kay Verilli) was involved in the development of the 1989 Town Master Plan and
subsequent Zoning Law. Meeting on a weekly basis from May 2005 until June 2007, the
Subcommittee developed a series of recommended changes to the Zoning Law that became the
basis for the Town Board’s proposed Zoning Law.
Working with the Town’s Planning and Legal consultants from 2006 to 2008, the Town Board
created the proposed Zoning Law and Wetlands Law. Numerous model zoning laws or adopted
zoning laws and ordinances were examined by the Comprehensive Plan Committee, the Zoning
Subcommittee, the Town Board, and/or Town consultants. These included existing zoning
regulations or model zoning regulations found in the surrounding towns and the Village, other
local municipalities in the region and State, and from around the nation. State of the art land use
control recommendations by the American Planning Association (APA) were consulted,
including relevant monthly issues of the APA’s Zoning Practice from 1984 through the present.
A wide variety of other reference and scholarly publications were also consulted by the
Comprehensive Plan Committee, Zoning Subcommittee, Town Board and/or its consultants in
the preparation of the proposed Zoning Law and Wetlands Law including but not limited to:
• Well Grounded: Local Land Use Law and Practice by John F. Nolan (Pace University
School of Law’s Land Use Law Center)
• Breaking Ground: Planning and Building in Priority Growth Districts, A Guide for Local
Leaders (Land Use Law Center, Pace University School of Law and Yale School of Forestry &
Environmental Studies
10/24/08 II-8 DRAFT

• Preserving Natural Resources through Local Environmental Laws: A Guidebook for Local
Governments by John Nolan (Land Use Law Center of Pace University School of Law)
• New York Zoning Law and Practice by Robert M. Anderson (Lawyers Co-Operative
Publishing Co.)
• Management and Control of Growth: Issues, Techniques, Problems, Trends (The Urban
Land Institute)
• The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook by David Listokin and Carole Walker (Center for
Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University)
• Alternative Techniques for Managing Smart Growth by Irving Schiffman (Institute of
Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley)
• Local Regulation of Adult Businesses by Jules B. Gerard (Clark Boardman Callaghan)
• Nature Friendly Communities: Habitat Protection and Land Use Planning by Christopher
Duerksen and Cara Snyder (Island Press)
• Rural by Design by Randall Arendt (American Planning Association)
• Affordable Housing: Technical Resource Guide by Nolan Associates (Dutchess County
Department of Planning Division of Housing and Community Development)
• New York State Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy by the NY State Division of
Housing and Community Renewal
• Accessory Apartments in Single-Family Housing by Martin Gellen (Center for Urban Policy
Research at Rutgers University
• Preservation of Rural Character and Protection of Natural Resources by Patricia E. Salkin,
Esq. (Albany Law School Government Law Center)
• Placemaking: Developing Town Centers, Main Streets, and Urban Villages by Charles C.
Bohl (Urban Land Institute)
• Crossroads, Hamlet, Village, Town: Design Characteristics of Traditional Neighborhoods,
Old and New by Randall Arendt (American Planning Association)
• Codifying New Urbanism: How to Reform Municipal Land Development Regulations by
Congress for the New Urbanism (American Planning Association)
• Conservation Area Overlay District: A Model Local Law by Patricia Black (Pace University
Land Use Law Center for the Metropolitan Conservation Alliance)
• The Small Town Planning Handbook by Thomas Daniels, John Keller, Mark Lapping
(American Planning Association)
• The Architectural Pattern Book: A Tool for Building Great Neighborhoods by Urban Design
Associates (W. W. Norton & Company)
• How Superstore Sprawl Can Harm Communities: And What citizens can do about it by
Constance E. Beaumont (National Trust for Historic Preservation)
• The Zoning Dictionary: Resource Materials for Planners by Bob Lehman (Lehman
Associates)
• A Survey of Zoning Definitions by Tracy Burrows (American Planning Association)
DRAFT II-9 10/24/08

• Site Planning by Kevin Lunch and Gary Hack (The MIT Press)
• Community by Design: New Urbanism for Suburbs and Small Communities by Kenneth B.
Hall and Gerald A. Porterfield ( McGraw- Hill)
• Smart Code Version 9.0 by Andres Duany, Sandy Sorlien, William Wright (Duany Plater-
Zyberk & Co.)
• Model Smart Land Development Regulations by Stuart Meck, FAICP; Marya Morris, AICP;
Kirk Bishop; and Eric Damian Kelly, FAICP (Research Department, American Planning
Association)
• Communities by Design: Influencing Your Community’s Quality of Life (American Institute
of Architects)
• Costs of Sprawl – 2000, TCRP Report 74 by Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council (Federal Transit Administration)
• Grappling with Growth What to Do When You Want a Strong Economy and a Great Place
to Live by Michael Kinsley (Rocky Mountain Institute)
• Paying for Growth, Prospering from Development by Michael J. Kinsley and L. Hunter
Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute)
• From Wall Street to Your Street: New Solutions for Smart Growth Finance by Robert E.
Lang, Jennifer LeFurgy, and Steven Hornburg (Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech)
• Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation and Getting to Smart Growth 2:
100 More Policies for Implementation by the Smart Growth Network (International City/County
Management Association)
• Malls Into Main Streets: An Indepth Guide for Transforming Dead Malls into Communities
by Congress for New Urbanism (US Environmental Protection Agency)
• Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact by Reid Ewing (Rutgers University), Rolf Pendall (Cornell
University), Don Chen (Smart Growth America)
• From Policy to Reality: Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development by Minnesota
Planning (Minnesota Environmental Quality Board)
• Smart Growth at the Frontier: Strategies and Resources for Rural Communities by Barbara
Wells (Northeast-Midwest Institute)
• American Planning Association Policy Guide on Smart Growth by Chapter Delegate
Assembly, Ratified by Board of Directors (American Planning Association)
• Smart Growth is Smart Business by National Association of Local Government
Environmental Professionals and the Smart Growth Leadership Institute
• Downzoning and Rural Land Markets: A review of two recent studies in Maryland and New
Jersey by Dr. Jeffrey Michael, Dr. Raymond Palmquist, and Dr. George Parsons (Maryland
Center for Agro-Ecology, Inc.)
10/24/08 II-10 DRAFT

An adult use study was also completed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Committee work. This
resulted in a report that was integrated into the 2006 Draft Comprehensive Plan at page 4.56 to
page 4.77. According to the study, “Adult uses are essentially self-defined as any enterprises that
exclude minors, or which are required by law to do so, in order to allow the sale of sexually
related materials or services in one form or another. Examples of adult businesses include adult
bookstores, adult video and/or novelty stores, topless/bottomless bars, adult hotels and motels,
adult movie theaters, escort agencies, massage parlors, peep shows, and the like.
The Plan evaluated concerns with regard to the secondary adverse impacts that may result if
adult uses were established within the Town, and makes recommendations with respect to land
use regulations that would avoid or minimize the potential impacts of such uses.
A Survey of Low Density Zoning regulations was undertaken for the proposed Comprehensive
Plan and proposed Zoning Law. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether other
communities in the Hudson Valley and elsewhere had proposed and/or implemented very low
density rural zoning. The results of the survey are presented in Table II-2.
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

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. Figure II-1 shows the Plan’s “Centers and Greenspace Plan,” which summarizes
many of the recommendations in the Plan for directing new growth to areas around the existing
Village of Rhinebeck and other hamlets, while preserving the historic and natural character of
the surrounding areas.
DRAFT II-11 10/24/08

PROPOSED ZONING LAW

Existing Zoning Districts are shown in Figure II-2. Proposed Zoning Districts, as contemplated
as part of the Proposed Action, are shown in Figure II-3 and Figure II-4. There are currently 10
Zoning Districts in the Town. The proposed Zoning map identifies 25 Zoning Districts and three
overlay districts. The principal changes to the Zoning Map are described below along with a
brief rationale. A more complete rationale for each of the proposed districts can be found in
Article II of the proposed Zoning Law, which is referenced herein.
• The current Residential 3 Acre (R3A) District, which encompasses most land east of Route
9 in the Town, has been renamed as the Rural Countryside (RC6) (6 acre) District. This district’s
boundaries remain largely unchanged in the proposal with one exception. An existing R1A
District southeast of the Village of Rhinebeck has been proposed to become the RC6 District.
The purpose of this change is to recognize the lack of available central sewer services from the
Village in this area of the Town. The existing R1A District was anticipated to be provided with
water and sewer services in the 1989 Master Plan and Zoning Law.
Table II-2
Survey of Low Density Zoning Regulations
Density
Location Stated Purposes District (ac/du)
Resource Management Zones are privately owned Resource 42.7

Adirondack Park Agency, areas deemed suitable for residential uses, Management
NY agriculture, and forestry throughout the six million
acre Adirondack Park.
The NYSDEC publication, “Local Open Space NA 40 - 80

New York State Dept. of
Planning: A Guide to the Process” provides
Environmental
recommendations designed to help protect sensitive
Conservation
resource areas and to buffer sensitive areas
The Regional Plan Association’s 2007 Southeast NA 25 up to

Orange County Land Use Study, prepared in 100
partnership with the Orange County Planning
Regional Plan Association
Department, recommends the use of low density
zoning for agricultural, forest, and rural conservation
overlay districts.
Within the integrated approach to planning and Transect T2, 20

design envisioned by the SmartCode, developed by Rural Zone (average)
the architecture firm Duany Plater-Zyberk, the Rural
Zone is one that promotes conservation of open
SmartCode, Version 9.2
lands and local character, while balanced by other
zones that promote higher density in walkable and
mixed-use neighborhoods with a diversity of housing
options and vibrant downtowns.
Rural Residential RR-10, RS-10 10
Low Density Residential RL-5, RS-5 5

Town of Washington, NY
Medium Density Residential RM-2 2
High Density Residential RH-1 1
10/24/08 II-12 DRAFT

Shawangunk Ridge Protection District SP-3 20
Town of Shawangunk, NY Shawangunk Ridge Protection District SP-2 10
Shawangunk Ridge Protection District SP-1 5
Rural Agricultural: To promote agriculture, forestry, RA 10

recreation, land conservation and low-density
Town of Amenia, NY residential uses
Rural Residential: To allow residential uses in a RR 5

rural setting
Agricultural Business District (proposed) AB 6

Town of Red Hook, NY
Limited Development Option (proposed) AB 20
Town of Milan, NY Rural Space Overlay (proposed) RS-0 10
Carroll County, MD Agricultural District A 20
Sliding scale unit allocation in the Mountain Land NA 14 - 68

Clarke County, VA
Area
Baltimore County, MD Resource Conservation District RC-2 50
Montgomery County, MD See attachment for Townships in the county NA 25
Model Zoning Ordinance: see other examples in NA 23.5

Lancaster County, PA
attachment
York County, PA See attachment for Townships in the county NA 25
Rapho Township, PA Agricultural Zone A 20
East Donegal, PA Agricultural Zone A 25
Marin County, PA Agriculture and Conservation District A60 60
Multi-Use District: To protect land and other open MU-160 160

space resources; to reduce unreasonable
requirements for public utility and service
expenditures through uneconomic and unwise
Box Elder County, UT dispersal and scattering of population; to encourage MU-80 80
use of the land, where appropriate, for forestry,
grazing, agriculture, mining, wildlife habitat, and
recreation; to avoid excessive damage to
watersheds, water pollution, soil erosion, danger MU-40 40
from brushland fires, damage to grazing and
livestock raising, and to wildlife values; to avoid the
premature development of lands by discouraging
intensive development until the ultimate best use of
the land can be recommended by the Planning
Commission
Rural Residential: To promote and preserve in RR-10 10

appropriate areas conditions favorable to agriculture
and to maintain greenbelt spaces. These districts RR-5 5
are intended to include activities normally and
necessarily related to the conduct of agriculture and RR-1 1
to protect the district from the intrusion of uses
inimical to the continuance of agricultural activity
DRAFT II-13 10/24/08

• The Residential 5 Acre District, which encompasses much of the land west of Route 9 in the
Town, has been split principally into two new Zoning Districts: the Historic Preservation (HP20)
(20 acre) and Rural Agricultural (RA10) (10 acre) Districts. A portion of the R5A District has
been retained east of and south of the Hamlet of Rhinecliff to recognize the existing settlements
that have evolved at the five-acre density in this area of the Town. The Holy Cross site has been
included in areas to retain the 5 acre density due to its unique characteristics as a former
institutional property with the presence of a now abandoned boarding school on the site. The
existing R5A District has been proposed to be renamed the Residential Low Density (RL5) (5
acre) District.
• The Residential 1 Acre (R1A) District encompassed a strip of land north of the Village on
the west side of Route 9 and a strip of land west of the Village and encompassing the Hamlet of
Rhinecliff. The R1A area north of the Village was anticipated to be served by water and sewer
services, which is no longer recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The R1A area west of the
Village has been retained for many of those properties lining Rhinecliff Road up to the Hamlet
of Rhinecliff but renamed as the Residential Medium Density (RM1) (1 acre) District. This area
is served by Village of Rhinebeck community water supplies. The Rhinecliff Hamlet Extension
(Rc-HE) District is proposed immediately northeast of the Hamlet of Rhinecliff, is intended as a
walkable extension of the Hamlet, and has been designed to retain the one acre density but be
subject to the proposed conservation subdivision and traditional neighborhood design standards
found in Articles V and VIII of the proposed Zoning Law.
• The existing Land Conservation (LC) District applies to the Ferncliff Forest. The LC District
has been expanded to include lands that are currently encumbered with conservation easements,
are the largest State protected wetlands in the Town, or are owned by organizations such as
Scenic Hudson, The Nature Conservancy or Winnakee Land Trust for preservation purposes. A
new subset of the LC District, the LC-Trails District has been created along two linear paths in
the Town, the former Hucklebush railroad line and the Central Hudson Gas and Electric power
line. The intent of the LC-T District is to work with the landowners towards establishment of
future trails on these lands.
• A new Civic (CIV) District has been established to recognize Town, Village and Civic
organization ownership of community facilities in the Town.
• The Office Research Park (ORP) District has been retained, but has been reduced in size.
Some of the ORP lands are now proposed for the RA10 District, to recognize their current
residential land use. The remainder have been proposed for a new Gateway North (Gw-N)
District. The Gw-N District is intended to accommodate hospitality uses at the northern entrance
to the Town from Red Hook.
• The Highway Business (HB) and Highway Business Park (HBP) districts have been split
into several new districts. These include the proposed mixed use Traditional Neighborhood
Development (TND) district on the west and east sides of Route 9 north of the Village (see
Figure II-5). Some of the proposed TND area is currently zoned as R3A on the east side of
Route 9. The Route 9/9G intersection is proposed for the Crossroads Business (Cr-B) District.
The HBP District has been renamed and retained in the area along the west side of Route 9G
north of Old Post Road. A portion of the current HB district west of Route 9 and south of the
9/9G intersection is proposed as the Community Business South (CB-S) District. The HBP
District on Route 9G and Kalina Road has been renamed the Community Business North (CB-
N) District.
10/24/08 II-14 DRAFT

C
D
199
Figure II-1
C
D
Town of
Town of Red
Red Hook
Hook
Centers and
Greenspace Plan
199
Rock
£
¤9 City
Priority Greenspace Criteria

Priority
Agricultural Land
Agricultural Land // Agricultural
Agricultural Soils
Soils
Sepasco Gateway Locations to Town or Village
Gateway Locations to Town or Village
C
D
308
Long Views
Long Views (Catskills,
(Catskills, Hudson,
Hudson, Multiple
Multiple Fields)
Fields)
Frontage on
Frontage on Major
Major Roads Hudson // Highly
Roads // Hudson Highly Visible
Visible
Important Habitat
Important Habitat and/or
and/or Natural Features
Natural Features
7
6
5
4
103
Astor Settings for
Settings for Historic
Historic Structures
Structures
Flats
C
D Development Likely
Development Likely -- Conservation
Conservation Subdiv.
Subdiv. Design
Design
N
9G
752
6
5
4 Potential for
Potential for Public
Public Access
Access Trail
Trail
R I V E R
H U D S O
Town of
Town of
Milan
Milan
Legend Village Center
Hamlet Center
Limit Mixed-Use Emerging Center
Center to 1/4 Mile Hudson River Greenway Trail
Radius for "Park Once Existing Regional Bike/Hike Trail
and Walk Around" Core Proposed Greenway Trail Connections
Water / Wetlands / Floodplains
Priority Greenspace (See Criteria Above)
Protected Greenspace
C
D
308
Rhinebeck 7
6
5
4 101 1/2 Mile Radius: Walkable
from Edge to Center,
Major Greenspace Parcels
Parcel Lines
Primarily Mix of
Municipalities
Housing Types
Rhinecliff
419
7
6
5
Prepared for the Town of Rhinebeck

Comprehensive Plan by
£
Dutchess County
¤9
C
D
9G
Town of
Town of Clinton
Clinton Department of Planning & Development
785
6
5
4
January 2006
N
Scale: 1" = 4000 Feet
784
6
5
4
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Comprehnsive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS
Town of
Town of Hyde
Hyde Park
Park
N
Figure II-2
Existing Zoning Districts
Map, Town of Rhinebeck
Sources: Zoning data was obtained from the
Dutchess County Department of Planning and
Development.

March 2008
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
N
Figure II-3
Proposed Zoning District
Map, Town of Rhinebeck
(See Figure II-4 for Hamlet of
Rhinecliff detail)
Sources: Tax parcels were obtained from the

Dutchess County Office of Real Property.
The LC-T line representing the former

Hucklebush Railway (originally known as
the Rhinebeck C&T Railroad) right-of-way
is an approximate location only. Final
determination of the location of the trail Comprehensive Plan by
will be made on a project by project basis
during Planning Board review.
Updated July 2008
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
N
Figure II-4
Proposed Zoning District
Map, Hamlet of Rhinecliff
(See Figure II-3 for Town of
Rhinebeck detail)


Updated July, 2008
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
10.2.08
10.2.08
Figure II-5
Figure II-5
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS Astor Flats TND Illustrative Plan
• The General Business District immediately north of the Village on Route 9 has been
retained.
• A portion of the R1A District immediately north of the Village on the west side of Route 9
has been proposed as a Village Gateway District where higher density housing would be
permissible due to the potential availability of Village water and sewer services.
• The current Gateway (G) District immediately south of the Village on Route 9 has been
proposed to be retained as the Gateway South (Gw-S) District.
• The existing nursery and farm market on Route 308 immediately east of the Village has
been proposed as a Gateway East (Gw-E) District from its current R3A designation to recognize
its current business use that supports agriculture in the Town.
• The core of the Hamlet of Rhinecliff is currently zoned as R1A. Few, if any, of the existing
developed and undeveloped parcels in this area have one or more acres of land. Most
development activity must be subject to variances from the Town Zoning Board of Appeals. A
new Rhinecliff Hamlet (Rc-H) District has been proposed to recognize the unique characteristics
of the Hamlet and to shift control of development from the variance process of the Zoning Board
to the Special Use Permit review process of the Planning Board.
• The two existing trailer parks in the Town, one on Route 9 near the 9/9G intersection and the
other on Old Post Road have been proposed to be designated the Neighborhood Residential
(NR) District to recognize the unique characteristics of these areas, that presently accommodate
affordable housing in the Town.
• The CSX railroad right of way along the Hudson River is now proposed as the Rail
Transportation Corridor.
• One parcel in the Hamlet of Rhinecliff has been proposed as the Rhinecliff Hamlet
Transition (Rc-HT) District to recognize its past use as a mixed use property (i.e. the
Sugarbowl), and its location as a transition property between the residential areas along Kelly
Street and the Rhinecliff Business District.
• The Rhinecliff Business (Rc-B) District has been retained; however, the boundaries have
been altered by including several new properties and excluding several other properties.
• The proposed Zoning Law contains three overlay districts. The Rhinecliff Overlay (Rc-O)
District has been proposed to add additional special design requirements for new development in
the area historically referred to as Rhinecliff. The design requirements are proposed to recognize
the unique qualities of the Hamlet and to subject new development to such requirements. This
includes the proposed Rc-HE, Rc-H, RM1 and a portion of the proposed RL5 Districts. The
Neighborhood Infill Overlay (NI-O) District applies in the Rock City and Lake Sepasco areas of
the Town. This District has been proposed to allow development to occur at densities consistent
with the small lots that exist in these two hamlet areas. The Mining Overlay (MI-O) District is
the only area of the Town where mining currently exists. It is proposed to recognize the
usefulness of the products produced to allow continued mining activities on the parcels where it
is currently permitted.
• A floating District has been created to encourage senior housing. This district is not mapped.
Application of the Senior Housing Floating (SH-F) District can be established through the
Zoning amendment procedures of Articles XII and VI(D)(37) of the proposed Zoning Law.
DRAFT II-15 10/24/08

The proposed Zoning amendments are summarized in relation to the existing Zoning Code in a
table included as Appendix C of this DGEIS. The Table consists of four columns. The first
column identifies the Article of the current and proposed Zoning laws. The second column
identifies the subsections in each Article of the current and/or proposed Zoning laws. The third
column identifies the existing section of the current Zoning Law (or in some cases a separate
Local Law that was previously adopted by the Town Board but that has now been incorporated
into the proposed Zoning Law). The fourth and final column identifies the changes that have
been proposed to the current Zoning Law as explained in italics typeface. If there are no changes
proposed in a particular subsection from the current Zoning Law, there is no text explanation
provided in column four. Some uses and sections have been removed or replaced by new
sections. These new sections, which are proposed for the Zoning Law, will not have any text
explanation appearing in column three.
PROPOSED WETLANDS LOCAL LAW

For preparation of the proposed Wetlands Law, a number of model laws (such as the Dutchess
County Environmental Management Council’s Model Wetlands Law) and adopted local
freshwater wetlands laws from other local governments around the State were researched and
used. Also used in the preparation of the proposed Wetlands Local Law were relevant guidance
and reference documents prepared by agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Dutchess County
Environmental Management Council, the Conservation Foundation, the International Ramsar
Convention on Wetlands, and the Wildlife Conservation Society. Other sources of information
on the proposed Wetlands Local Law included legal publications by Pace University and Clark
Boardman Callaghan.
The proposed Wetlands Law is consistent with the New York State Constitution, Article XIV, §
4, which states in part:
“The policy of the state shall be to conserve and protect its natural resources and scenic
beauty and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural lands for the
production of food and other agricultural products. The legislature, in implementing this
policy, shall include adequate provision for the abatement of air and water pollution
and of excessive and unnecessary noise, the protection of agricultural lands, wetlands
and shorelines, and the development and regulation of water resources.”
Further, the proposed Wetlands Law is consistent with the declared policy of Article 24 of the
New York State Environmental Conservation Law governing freshwater wetlands which states
in part:
“It is declared to be the public policy of the state to preserve, protect and conserve
freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived therefrom, to prevent the despoliation and
destruction of freshwater wetlands, and to regulate use and development of such
wetlands to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetlands, consistent with the
general welfare and beneficial economic, social and agricultural development of the
state.”
Article 24 also encourages local governments to adopt local regulations governing freshwater
wetlands. The proposed Wetlands Law has not been proposed to implement the New York State
Freshwater Wetlands permit requirements nor the regulations currently administered by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The proposed Wetlands Law has been
10/24/08 II-16 DRAFT

designed to create more concerted local regulatory control over freshwater wetlands than exists
now under the State and Federal wetland protection laws.
The proposed Wetlands Law is consistent with New York State Town Law’s mandate that “All
town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant
to this [§ 272-a] section.” The Wetlands Law reflects the wishes of Town residents whose input
was sought during an extensive public participation process, as described above, as part of a five
year planning process to update the Town’s planning and zoning rules. A broad consensus was
reached from these public participation techniques that certain actions needed to be taken to
preserve the environmental quality, rural character, natural resources and open space of the
Town and guide development in an orderly, disciplined manner.
Locally, smaller watersheds are at risk due to actions on the landscape that do not consider the
impacts to water resources, either locally or regionally. Recent federal Supreme Court decisions,
e.g. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, No. 99-1178 (January 9, 2001), have effectively eliminated the Army Corps'
jurisdiction over "isolated" wetlands, thus allowing for dredging and filling activities to occur
without oversight by any governmental unit and with no regard to the function of the wetland, its
upland area, and the watershed of which it is a part. Such isolated wetlands have been identified
in the Significant Habitats study completed by Hudsonia (see Appendix 6 in Volume 2 of the
proposed Comprehensive Plan) as one of the most imperiled habitats in the region. The study
identified 193 “intermittent woodland pools” in the Town.
The purpose of the Wetlands Law is to protect water quality and quantity by utilizing a
watershed based approach. The cycle of water is a complex system of inter-related components.
The Wetlands Law is designed to limit development from occurring within a wetland and its
associated upland buffer areas. Some activities, which are known to be detrimental to water
quality (such as septic systems), are prohibited while other activities are regulated to evaluate
potential environmental impacts and to ensure proper construction procedures are conducted.
The Wetlands Law seeks to examine the impacts of development on the relationships of multiple
components of the surface water system before construction activities are authorized, but does
not preclude development or limit the underlying density of the Zoning District in place on any
property.
The Wetlands Law does not alter the regulations of the underlying Zoning Districts in any way
including density, bulk or area. The Wetlands Law sets distancing requirements in relationship
to wetlands in the Town and prohibits acts which are known to potentially pollute or destroy
water resources or water quality upon which the Town and the region depend.
The definition of what constitutes a wetland is based upon the commonly accepted scientific
standard developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is their 1987 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. This establishes a scientific approach to the
identification of wetlands based upon the presence of one positive indicator from the each of the
three parameters identified by the Corps (i.e. soil, hydrology and vegetation) to make a positive
freshwater wetland determination. This is significant because it does not regulate all wet areas
within the Town unless they meet the Federal government’s long established criteria as outlined
above. The proposed Wetlands Law establishes an associated buffer area, similar to the New
York State adjacent areas concept, which has been found by wetland scientists as integral to the
protection of water quality. The Wetlands Law establishes regulated acts and a process and
procedures by which an applicant can achieve their development goals while ensuring the
protection of wetlands.
DRAFT II-17 10/24/08

C. PUBLIC PURPOSE AND NEED

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, are discussed, including a review and discussion of the literature on the subject of the costs
and benefits of environmental regulations.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
There are benefits to be gained by the adoption and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan,
proposed Zoning Law and Wetlands Local Law. These include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Economic Benefits: Studies overwhelmingly show that real estate values remain stable in
communities with high quality open spaces, protected scenic viewsheds and intact historic
resources. In fact, protected open space, beautiful views and remnants of a community’s
collective history increase the attractiveness and value of adjacent properties, which in turn
increases the tax base. Preserving open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical
environmental areas is one of the basic principles of smart growth because it attracts high quality
residential and business development, which are then located in selected areas deemed most
appropriate for the common good of the entire community. Cost of services (roads, plowing,
police and fire protection and the like) are controlled. Farmland and forested areas provide
working landscapes that generate income for residents and tax revenues for Town government.
Historic properties are adaptively reused to remain economically viable. Employment
opportunities can grow, and the vitality of the community is sustained.
Environmental Benefits: Conserving natural and cultural resources allow biological diversity
(biodiversity) to remain intact and the community to remain healthy. Preserved wetlands
continue to filter out pollutants, prevent flooding, and protect drinking water. Open vegetated
farm fields and forested hills cleanse the air and absorb storm water runoff, which, in turn,
reduces erosion and danger of flooding. The adverse effects of roads and the chemicals that
wash off in rain and snow are reduced, and the harmony and balance of nature is more
sustainable.
Community Benefits: The goals and success of preserving the rural, scenic, natural and
historic character of the Town can be measured in the number of farms saved and acres of
wetlands preserved, but there are also community benefits that, while perhaps intangible, are just
as powerful for residents. Residents develop pride of place and join together to become a
community. Residents feel they are part of a place in the world where their lives become more
worthwhile and more meaningful.
Since the adoption of the Town Master Plan and Zoning Law in 1989, a number of significant
changes have occurred in the Town. The Town of Rhinebeck has undergone dramatic change.
Population growth has resulted in the development of a number of new single-use residential
subdivisions, along with a greater scattering of homes throughout previously undeveloped areas
of the Town. Since this development has been primarily single-use, it has also resulted in greater
traffic as residents must drive to shop and work. New large scale developments in surrounding
towns as well as the potential for such developments in Rhinebeck have created public concern
about protecting the Town’s rural character. The Comprehensive Plan reflects the wishes of
Rhinebeck residents to reject the sprawling, single-use development pattern, mandated by the
current Zoning, in favor of more compact, mixed-use neighborhoods separated by surrounding
10/24/08 II-18 DRAFT

rural, agricultural and other open space lands. To achieve this goal requires adoption of a new
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law.
Moreover, in the years since the current Zoning was adopted, the Town has benefited from the
rise of tourism, especially historic tourism, as a major industry in Dutchess County. The Town
must take concerted action to protect and enhance its nationally significant cultural resources
and its small town community character in order to promote and foster this industry. As the
overall economy of the Hudson Valley continues its shift away from manufacturing and
agriculture toward service, information and tourism, new Zoning Laws must be adopted to
strengthen local businesses and foster a more diverse economy in the Town. Forces originating
outside the Town and the Hudson Valley have lead to the changes occurring in the past decade
to the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. The proposed Zoning Law has been designed to
meet the Town’s current economic and development needs and implement recommendations of
the proposed Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan including fostering agriculture as a
desirable land use in the Town.
Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan will assist in establishing a blueprint for growth
and conservation in the Town into the near future, and will provide a rational basis for changes
in the Town’s land use regulations.
ZONING LAW
Adoption of the proposed Zoning Law will result in the following public benefits:
• Implement the policies of the proposed Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan and
create conformance with that document, as discussed elsewhere in the Draft GEIS.
Section 272-a of the New York State Town Law requires that all land use regulations
must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan.
• Preserve open space by permitting conservation subdivision development throughout the
Town, by subjecting conventional subdivisions to the Special Use Permit standards of
the Zoning Law, and by establishing a variety of other planning tools.
• Create conformance with Dutchess County Plan, “Directions,” particularly the goal to
“preserv[e] permanent open space and creat[e] recreational areas at minimal public cost
by encouraging the use of cluster subdivision, or requiring subdividers to contribute to a
recreational fund.”
• Fully utilize the Town's existing conditions, modes of living, and community
preferences to accommodate the Town's anticipated growth, induced by population
trends in Dutchess County and the Hudson Valley.
• Reduce the costs of infrastructure and create greater community cohesiveness by
encouraging compact development in areas already fully or partially served by water
and sewer systems, rather than promoting a sprawling pattern of development together
with scattered individual water and sewer systems throughout the Town.
• Provide expanded opportunities for economic development by increasing the areas in the
Town where commercial development can occur and by allowing greater flexibility for
Home Occupations, which are a rapidly growing sector of the job market.
• Provide expanded opportunities for affordable housing through the proposed Affordable
Housing Program described in Article V, Section CC of the Zoning Law and through
DRAFT II-19 10/24/08

greater flexibility for allowing multi-family housing as well as accessory apartments in

residences, and existing or new accessory buildings.
• Provide for a more comprehensive set of design regulations affecting new development
so that architectural and landscape elements are more in keeping with the traditional and
nationally significant historic character of the Town.
• Allow for greater control of the siting and design of new construction so that the
significant scenic, historic and natural resources in the Town are protected to the
greatest extent possible.
• Promote agriculture by removing barriers to farming, including the right to farm and the
right to market farm products, by encouraging conservation subdivision development,
and by permitting agriculture by right in all districts.
• Allow for new mixed use growth centers that reflect the principles of traditional
neighborhood design through the TND, Rhinecliff Hamlet Extension and Village
Gateway districts.
• Provide for a greater variety of housing styles, types, costs, and values.
• Reduce traffic by re-establishing pedestrianism as a primary form of mobility. This will
occur by constructing sidewalks and pedestrian ways in developed areas, and by
improving pedestrian paths that link significant resources throughout the Town.
Pedestrianism will also be encouraged by incorporating small-scale commercial
development which neighboring residents can potentially walk to, and by permitting low
impact and regulated Home Occupations.
• Reduce local traffic on major arterial roads by creating the TND District with a grid
pattern of streets.
• Create greater safety on main arterial roads by reducing the number of potential curb
cuts, especially on Routes 9G and 9.
• Foster community pride through the establishment of gateways that proclaim the quality
of life and the sense of place associated with the Village.
• Protect the beauty of the Hudson River shoreline by regulating the siting of new
development within 1,000 feet of the River.
• Create conformance with the Dutchess County Plan, Directions. The proposed Zoning
revisions are consistent with goals of the County Plan, and particularly support the
following:
- Promoting a land use pattern that strengthens traditional community centers and
provides for the economical provision of services and facilities by concentrating
development in and adjacent to existing hamlets.
- Encouraging development in areas served by central water and sewer services, and
providing these services in areas of existing concentrated development.
- Strengthening the local economy by encouraging a diversified economic base.
- Protecting agricultural lands and promoting the economic health of the agribusiness
community, especially within agricultural districts.
- Promoting tourism by protecting the County’s historic and visual environment.
10/24/08 II-20 DRAFT

- Supporting land use plans and regulations that preserve the historic and scenic character
of areas adjacent to existing national historic sites.
- Providing a greater variety of housing styles, types and values.
- Developing design guidelines to achieve high architectural quality in residential and
non-residential construction.
- Limiting commercial and residential strip development that results in multiple access
points along state and county roads.
- Encouraging alternative means of transportation, particularly pedestrianism.
- Establishing transportation systems, such as service roads, bikeways, and the
development of new roads, to preserve the traffic volume capacities of state and county
roads. In particular, preserving the traffic volume capacity of Route 9 through
community planning and zoning actions that concentrate land use development, limit
access to Route 9, and require the use of service roads.
- Establishing off-street parking standards that are an aesthetic and ecological asset to the
community, particularly through the use of landscaping and landscape islands, and by
locating parking lots behind buildings.
- Developing entrances to communities in an attractive manner that complements the
overall character of the community and preserves scenic vistas.
- Preserving stonewalls to define community identity and provide continuity with its
cultural heritage.
- Preserving and maintaining the quantity and quality of the county's surface and
groundwater resources.
- Limiting development on steep slopes, ridgelines, wetlands, and other significant natural
areas.
- Improving public access to the Hudson River and maintaining and improving the beauty
of the Hudson River shoreline.
• Create conformance with the Greenway Connections: Greenway Compact Program and
Guides for Dutchess County Communities, particularly the policy framework
(Greenway Connections pages 19-20), Guides A through E, and the following
principles: reinforcing centers as primary growth areas; fitting outlying development
into the natural landscape to preserve farmland and open spaces; pulling together
separated subdivisions and commercial districts into more connected neighborhoods or
mixed use centers; creating an integrated system of scenic roads and streets, bike routes,
open space corridors, waterways and sidewalks; improving public access to the Hudson
River; promoting tourism; coordinating development with central water and sewer
systems; and streamlining the review process. In 2004, Rhinebeck became a
participating Greenway community and adopted the Greenway Compact Program and
Guides for Dutchess County Communities as a statement of land use policies, principles
and guides (“Greenway Connections”).
• Create conformance with New York State’s Quality Communities Interagency Task
Force Report State and Local Governments Partnering for a Better New York (January
DRAFT II-21 10/24/08

2001), particularly the following Quality Communities Principles: revitalize downtowns;

promote agriculture and farmland protection; conserve open space and other critical
environmental resources; enhance transportation choices and encourage more livable
neighborhoods; encourage sustainable development; involve all members of the
community in creating, implementing and sustaining the vision of a quality community.
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 include a comprehensive inclusionary 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 any exclusionary zoning.
D. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
LOCATION
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, State Scenic Byways, and a Coastal Zone
area. It is also within the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area and the state’s Hudson
River Valley Greenway. The National Heritage Area designation is one of only 24 such
designations nationwide.
Rhinebeck is located in the heart of New York State’s Mid-Hudson Valley in Northwestern
Dutchess County. Rhinebeck is bordered by the Towns of Red Hook to the north, Milan and
Clinton to the east, Hyde Park to the south, and the Town of Ulster and Esopus and the City of
Kingston to the west. The Village of Rhinebeck forms the heart of the Rhinebeck community.
There are a variety of land uses and land use patterns that contribute to Rhinebeck’s unique
character. In general the Town consists of low-density rural uses predominated by forests, open
fields, and agriculture. This overall rural character is also complemented by various commercial
uses and some areas of higher density residential development in and around the traditional
hamlets and the Village of Rhinebeck.
Residential uses are scattered throughout the Town among various agricultural uses, farmlands,
and open fields. Overall residential density in the Town is less than 150 persons per square mile
which classifies the Town as a rural community.
The Village of Rhinebeck and the Hamlet of Rhinecliff are the two prominent higher density
centers within the Town. The Town, by law, cannot control zoning within the Village. Although
land use within the Village of Rhinebeck was not considered by the proposed Comprehensive
Plan, residents throughout the public participation components of the Plan preparation
recognized the important role of the Village as a commercial and residential center. The Hamlet
of Rhinecliff, and, to a lesser degree, other hamlets such as Rock City, Wey’s Corners, Hillside,
10/24/08 II-22 DRAFT

Sepasco, Eighmyvile, and Wurtemburg, provide evidence of historic land use patterns with
compatible uses on smaller lots. All of the hamlets within the Town currently consist of
primarily residential development, but a small amount of commercial space also exists within
some of the hamlets.
Rhinecliff is the largest of the Town’s hamlets. Rhinecliff’s position atop cliffs along the
Hudson River provides scenic vistas of the Catskill Mountains, the historic Rondout section of
Kingston, and Port Ewen across the river. Rhinecliff is also the site of an Amtrak train station,
the Rhinecliff Hotel, a small Chinese restaurant, a post office, public library, and a volunteer
firehouse.
The towns surrounding Rhinebeck are largely rural towns with many similarities to Rhinebeck.
Red Hook is slightly larger than Rhinebeck in terns of population and development, with two
Villages within its corporate limits. Clinton and Milan have very limited commercial
development with many residents there depending upon Rhinebeck and Red Hook for their retail
and employment needs. Both towns also send their children to Rhinebeck or Red Hook schools.
The Town of Hyde Park is an exception, with its more suburban style zoning that has resulted in
a current population of more than 20,000. Hyde Park also has more extensive commercial
development than Rhinebeck with much of Route 9 and Route 9G lined with retail, institutional
and industrial developments. Across the Hudson River, in Ulster County, the Town of Esopus is
a largely rural community with one small hamlet (Port Ewen). The Town of Ulster surrounds the
City of Kingston and has become a center for big-box developments along Route 9W.
Residential development is scattered throughout the Town of Ulster and little land use controls
exist, since the Town lacks Zoning regulations. The City of Kingston is a well developed,
historically significant compact city on the banks of the Hudson River and Rondout Creek. The
City is home to more than 25,000 residents with a variety of retail, industrial and residential
development.
PLANNING CONTEXT
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.
NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DISTRICT.

The Hudson River Historic Landmark District is a 30-square-mile cultural landscape on the
eastern shore of the Hudson River. Rhinebeck is in the heart of the District which stretches from
Staatsburg to Germantown and is composed of several villages that are traditional rural
communities. From its singular origins as a Dutch colony, with its peculiar semi-feudal system
of colonial government, its remarkable diverse ethnic populations and its rigid class structure,
the region holds a unique position in the settlement and social history of the Nation. The origins
of permanent settlement begin about 1688 and continue to the present time. The district is also
notable for the preservation of its aristocratic estates and gilded age mansions. These remarkable
DRAFT II-23 10/24/08

county seats, together with the sedate Dutch homesteads, rustic German tenant farms, and
industrious Yankee towns, create a rich landscape.
Rhinebeck’s Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands Laws have been specifically designed
to be complementary with the National Historic Landmark designation.
NEW YORK STATE MID-HUDSON HISTORIC SHORELANDS SCENIC DISTRICT.

In 1980, the Commissioner of the NYSDEC designated the Mid-Hudson Historic Shorelands
Scenic District under Article 49 of the Environmental Conservation Law. Subsequently, the
Heritage Task Force for the Hudson River Valley, Inc., commissioned the Hudson River
Shorelands Task Force to develop a management plan for the district. The plan makes
recommendations for on-going maintenance, enhancement of visual amenity, and preservation
of the resources.
Features identified as having the potential to detract from the district’s scenic quality include the
following:
• Modern roadside development, parking lots and commercial signs along Routes 9 and
9G.
• Contemporary suburban housing, especially where it detracts from scenic views.
• Industrial scale development and large-scale institutional development, with parking lots
and traffic.
• Utility lines.
• Private house construction on the river outside the established river landings.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Wetlands Laws have been designed to avoid
these features.
ESTATES DISTRICT SCENIC AREA OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE

Portions of the Town of Rhinebeck lie within the Estates District Scenic Area of Statewide
Significance (SASS), which consists of the Hudson River and its eastern shorelands in
Germantown, Clermont, Red Hook, Rhinebeck, and Hyde Park. Most of the SASS is included in
the 30 square mile Hudson River National Historic Landmark District designated in 1990 as the
nation’s largest landmark district. In addition, the SASS contains three historic districts listed on
the State and National Registers of Historic Places: the Clermont Estates Historic District, the
Sixteen Mile Historic District, and the Town of Rhinebeck Multi-Resource District.
Subunits of the Estates District SASS located in the Town of Rhinebeck include: Astor Cove
subunit, River Road subunit, Mount Rutsen subunit, Rhinebeck Center subunit, Rhinecliff Road
subunit, Rhinecliff subunit, Rhinecliff Woods subunit, Mill Road Meadows subunit, and
Vanderburgh Cove subunit.
Scenic roads identified in Rhinebeck include: Rhinecliff, Morton and South Mill Roads, and
parts of the road also known as County Route 103; Route 199 from its junction with Route 9G
west to the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge.
Whether within or outside a designated SASS, all proposed actions subject to review under
federal and State coastal acts or a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program must be assessed to
determine whether the action could affect a scenic resource and whether the action would be
likely to impair the scenic beauty of the scenic resource. Impairments include:
10/24/08 II-24 DRAFT

• The irreversible modification of geologic forms, the destruction or removal of

vegetation, or the modification, destruction or removal of structures, whenever such
elements are significant to the scenic quality of the resource
• The addition of structures, which because of siting or scale will reduce identified views
or which because of scale, form, or materials will diminish the scenic quality of an
identified resource.
To ensure such impairments do not occur, the following siting and facility-related guidelines are
set forth:
• Siting structures and other development such as highways, power lines, and signs back
from shorelines or in other inconspicuous locations to maintain the attractive quality of
the shoreline and to retain views to and from the shore.
• Clustering or orienting structures to retain views, save open space, and provide visual
organization to a development.
• Incorporating sound, existing structures (especially historic buildings) into the overall
development scheme.
• Removing deteriorated and/or degrading elements.
• Maintaining or restoring the original landform, except when changes screen unattractive
elements and/or add appropriate interest.
• Maintaining or adding vegetation to provide interest, encourage the presence of wildlife,
blend structures into the site, and obscure unattractive element, except when selective
clearing creates views of coastal waters.
• Using appropriate materials, in addition to vegetation, to screen unattractive elements.
• Using appropriate scales, forms and materials to ensure that buildings and other
structures are compatible with and add interest to the landscape.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Wetlands Laws have been designed to
implement these guidelines. In addition, the Town’s adopted Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program, which has been officially approved by the State of New York and the Federal
government, incorporate these factors.
NEW YORK STATE SCENIC BYWAYS AND LOCALLY DESIGNATED SCENIC ROADS
The Heritage Task Force for the Hudson River Valley, Inc., which was established in 1980 by
the New York State NYSDEC, prepared a study regarding the protection and enhancement of
certain roadways in the Hudson River Valley. The report identifies roads recommended for
designation as scenic roads under Article 49 of the Environmental Conservation Law of New
York State, along with recommended measures to protect, preserve and enhance the scenic road
system, and maintenance and management guidelines. The purpose of the Scenic Roads Program
is to assist in protecting, preserving, and enhancing the scenic resources of the Hudson Valley
and to nurture a sense of awareness and appreciation of these resources on the part of residents
and visitors.
A quality rating system was developed to define the value of visual resources within the road
system. A “Class A Scenic Road Corridor” represents the highest scenic quality rating and
contains the greatest number of positive scenic elements. For these corridors, the highest degree
of protection is recommended. A “Class B Scenic Road Corridor” has a somewhat lower degree
DRAFT II-25 10/24/08

of scenic quality, and a “Class C Scenic Road Corridor” serves as an important link between
roads of higher scenic quality.
Rhinebeck is located in the Estates Historic District, an 18 mile stretch between the Mills,
Vanderbilt, and Roosevelt homes to the south and Clermont to the north. Features of this district,
include: exquisite historical estates, recreational importance, historical significance, ecological
significance, some strip commercial, excellent views to the River, scenic district class, stone
walls and houses, rural farms.
The Estates Historic District is located within the 20-mile Mid-Hudson Historic Shorelands
Scenic District, the State’s first official scenic area designated under Article 49 of the
Environmental Conservation Law. All roads nominated for designation in this area are Class A
Scenic Roads. Roads located in Rhinebeck nominated for scenic road designation in the Mid-
Hudson Historic Shorelands Scenic District Management Plan (1983) include:
• Route 9 from the intersection with South Mill Road to the intersection with Old Post
Road in the Village of Rhinebeck
• Morton Road from the intersection with South Mill Road to the intersection with
Rhinecliff Road
• Rhinecliff Road from the intersection with Morton Road to the intersection with River
Road
• River Road/Annandale Road from the intersection with Morton Road to the intersection
with Route 9G in Red Hook
• Astor Drive from the intersection with River Road to the intersection with Old Post
Road in the Village of Rhinebeck
• Mt. Rutsen Road from the intersection with River Road to the intersection with Old Post
Road just north of the Village of Rhinebeck
• Hook Road (Upper and Lower) from the intersection with River Road to the intersection
with Old Post Road
• Route 9G from the intersection with Old Post Road in Rhinebeck to the
Dutchess/Columbia County line
• Route 199 from the intersection with Route 9G to the Ulster County line via the
Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge
No recommendations for enhancements were made for roads in the Mid-Hudson Historic
Shorelands Scenic District. Recommendations for enhancing other scenic roads include:
improving the immediate road right-of-way by adopting scenic road maintenance and
management guidelines (e.g., regarding guide rails, shoulders, vegetation, side slopes, and
directional signs); land use modifications adjacent to and within the viewshed of the road, which
impact the visual quality of the road corridor; development of a “visitor contact” system, such as
informational and educational signs, scenic overlooks and rest areas, picnic areas, visitor centers,
hiking trails, bicycle routes, camping areas, environmental education centers, historic sites,
museums and parks, etc.
The Comprehensive Plan has recommended that the scenic roads be designated as Critical
Environmental Areas (CEA’s) under SEQR. This is an action that is being contemplated
following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law.
10/24/08 II-26 DRAFT

NEW YORK STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Town of Rhinebeck has adopted a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). The
LWRP has been incorporated into the New York State Department of State’s Coastal
Management Program, with concurrence by the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM). In accordance with the LWRP, the Supervisor of the Town of Rhinebeck
and the Town Board are responsible for overall management and coordination of the LWRP.
Each Town agency is responsible for determining whether its actions are consistent with the
LWRP. A Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC), as presently constituted pursuant to Town
Code Chapter 118 in its entirety of all appointed members of the Town’s Conservation Advisory
Council, has been and will continue to be appointed by the Town Board to make
recommendations to the Town Supervisor, the Town Board and other responsible Town agencies
involved in the financing, permitting or approval of projects within the Local Waterfront
Revitalization Area (LWRA) concerning consistency of actions with the Coastal Policies.
Actions within the LWRA include the demolition of historic buildings, which are addressed in
Article V, Section BB of the proposed Zoning Law.
Whenever a proposed action is located with the LWRA, the local agency under whose
jurisdiction that action falls must, prior to approving or permitting, funding or undertaking the
action, seek the advice of the WAC. The WAC’s advice is then presented in writing and
includes, along with its consistency recommendation, any suggestions for modifications the
referring official or agency might consider that would make the proposed action more consistent
with the LWRP or help advance the LWRP policies and standards.
Upon receipt of the WAC’s report, the local agency with jurisdiction to approve or permit, fund
or undertake the proposed action must consider the recommendations of the WAC, and make its
determination as to whether the proposed action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable
with the LWRP or, absent such a finding, either recommend or impose, as pertinent,
modifications that would have to be incorporated in the proposed action to merit a determination
of consistency with the LWRP.
HUDSON RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

The mission of the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area Program is to recognize,
preserve, protect and interpret the nationally significant cultural and natural resources of the
Hudson River Valley for the benefit of the Nation. The Hudson River Valley National Heritage
Area was established by Congress in 1996 and is one of 40 federally designated Heritage Areas,
funded through the National Park Service and Department of the Interior by annual
appropriations.
In National Heritage Areas, residents, businesses, governments and non-profit organizations
collaborate to promote conservation, community revitalization and economic development
projects. Through the facilitation of a local coordinating entity, such as a private non-profit
corporation or a public commission, residents come together to improve regional quality of life
through the protection of shared cultural and natural resources.
This cooperative approach allows National Heritage Areas to achieve both conservation and
economic growth in ways that do not compromise local land use controls. Designation
legislation does not provide the coordinating entity or any Federal agency authority to regulate
land. Long-term National Heritage Area success depends upon the willing support and activities
of partner organizations and residents, who collaborate from the very beginning to develop and
DRAFT II-27 10/24/08

implement an area's mission and goals. Participation in projects and programs is always
voluntary with zoning and land-use decisions remaining under the jurisdiction of local
governments. In addition, the coordinating entity is also prohibited from using the Federal funds
it receives through enabling legislation to acquire real property.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Wetlands Laws have been designed to be
complementary with the National Heritage Areas designation.
HUDSON RIVER VALLEY GREENWAY AND GREENWAY COMPACT

Greenway Connections is the sourcebook that describes the Greenway Compact program in
Dutchess County. The book describes the benefits of the Compact program, presents inspiring
ideas and practical solutions to land use development issues, and illustrates guidelines for
everyday design decisions by municipal boards.
The Greenway Compact is a voluntary partnership between the Hudson River Valley Greenway
Council and the Town of Rhinebeck, among other local municipalities in Dutchess County. The
Town of Rhinebeck joined the Compact in 2005. The Greenway works with Compact
communities, like Rhinebeck, to accomplish five complementary goals:
1. Natural and cultural resource protection;
2. Economic development, including agriculture, tourism, and urban redevelopment;
3. Public access;
4. Regional planning; and
5. Heritage and environmental education.
The Town of Rhinebeck, as a member of the Compact program, agreed to work with
neighboring communities and other Compact members to implement projects that are
compatible with the goals and policies outlined in Greenway Connections. The Town also
agreed to amend its Zoning Law and Subdivision Regulations to state that planning review of
proposed development projects should take into consideration Greenway Connections and
agreed that, whenever appropriate, any new or amended land use regulation should be consistent
with the Greenway Compact Program. The Greenway Guides have been reviewed and
recommendations for integrating them into Rhinebeck’s Zoning Law have been proposed.
E. IMPLEMENTATION & APPROVALS REQUIRED
SEQR PROCESS
This Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) will be subject to a public
comment period, during which a Public Hearing will be held. Following the close of the public
comment period on the DGEIS, a Final GEIS (FGEIS) will be prepared that will include a
response to all substantive comments received on the DGEIS, corrections or modifications that
are considered appropriate to the DGEIS, and the FGEIS will incorporate the DGEIS by
reference. Following a period where members of the public and interested agencies are given an
opportunity to consider the DGEIS and FGEIS, the Town Board will adopt a Findings
Statement. This will conclude the SEQR review process.
10/24/08 II-28 DRAFT

REVIEWS AND APPROVALS

The Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck has sole authority to adopt the proposed
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law. The Comprehensive Plan is proposed for
adoption under §272-a of New York State Town Law. Amendments to the Zoning Law are
proposed for adoption under §265 of New York State Town Law, Article XII of the Rhinebeck
Zoning Law, as well as §10 of the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law. The Wetlands
Local Law is proposed for adoption under §10 of the New York State Municipal Home Rule
Law.
Under Article XII of the Rhinebeck Zoning Law, all proposed zoning revisions must be referred
to the Planning Board for an advisory report prior to the public hearing. The proposed revisions
to the Comprehensive Plan may be referred to the Planning Board for review. The Dutchess
County Department of Planning and Development must review the proposed Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Law under § 239-m of the General Municipal Law. Ï
DRAFT II-29 10/24/08

Chapter III: Alternatives
A. INTRODUCTION
The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requires the evaluation of a range of
reasonable and feasible alternatives in addition to the evaluation of the Proposed Action. This
Chapter describes the alternatives, some of which were developed (and analyzed) as part of the
Town Board’s deliberations and development of the Proposed Action.
In April 2006, the Comprehensive Plan Committee (CPC) submitted a draft Comprehensive Plan
to the Town Board for its consideration.1 The Comprehensive Plan developed by the CPC was
prepared pursuant to §272-a of New York State Town Law and was the subject of numerous
public hearings held by the CPC. The 2006 Comprehensive Plan document became the basis for
further deliberations and revisions made by a Task Force established by the Town Board
comprising CPC members and Town Board members. The current proposed Comprehensive
Plan (part of the Proposed Action) was a result of the Task Force’s deliberations and
discussions. The Task Force also discussed other alternatives, principally associated with the
Zoning Map and key provisions of the proposed Zoning Code, which are described below and
analyzed within this DGEIS, to assess whether the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan could be achieved.
It should be noted that the majority of policy recommendations contained in the proposed
Comprehensive Plan are contained in each of the alternatives analyzed in this DGEIS. Key
differentiators between the alternatives are recommendations pertaining to the Zoning Map (e.g.,
the proposed location and coverage of proposed zoning districts), proposed allocation of density
within new centers of compact growth (e.g., the proposed Astor Flats Traditional Neighborhood
Development (TND) and Rhinecliff Neighborhood Extension), and the provisions for affordable
housing or senior housing. Where it is not specified that a policy or recommendation of the
proposed Comprehensive Plan is different within an alternative, it is assumed that the policy or
recommendation of the proposed Comprehensive Plan applies.
Chapter IV, “Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation,” analyzes potential
impacts within each Alternative.
B. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The Town Board may consider taking no action with respect to either the Comprehensive Plan,
the proposed Zoning Amendments, or the proposed Wetlands Local Law. A decision to take no
1
The CPC submitted a Comprehensive Plan but did not submit (nor was the CPC charged with creating) a
draft Zoning Law or Wetlands Local Law.
DRAFT III-1 10/24/08

action would mean that the previous Comprehensive Plan would remain in effect and that the
existing Zoning Code and Zoning Map (see Figure III-1) would also remain. Taking no action
on the proposed Wetlands Local Law would mean that the Town of Rhinebeck would not
regulate activities in and around wetlands.
ALTERNATIVE 2: EXISTING ZONING WITH CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION

PROVISIONS
This Alternative evaluates whether the goals and objectives of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
can be achieved by retaining the existing Zoning Map (and the permitted residential densities
within each Zoning District) and Zoning Code but revising the provisions for subdivision of
residential properties to require new subdivisions to follow a Conservation Design Subdivision
process. The Conservation Design Subdivision process would replace the Conventional
Subdivision process (i.e., the existing subdivision regulations) that divides properties into lots
based simply on a minimum required lot size and compliance with certain design standards for
roads and other improvements but without integral consideration of environmentally sensitive
lands or culturally important elements of the property (e.g., historic houses, historic stone walls,
existing hedgerows, or scenic views).
Under the Conventional Subdivision process, an applicant for subdivision of a residential
property would prepare a preliminary plat that divides the land into individual parcels based
simply on the requirement to provide a minimum lot size with appropriate access on a road or
roads that meet Town specifications. Areas of environmentally sensitive lands (e.g., wetlands or
steep slopes) would not be deducted from the gross area of the property before calculating
permitted density and could be split by individual lot lines. This practice of arranging lots
oftentimes results in (or requires) an arrangement of houses that does not preserve community
character or environmental features and does not preserve significant quantities of unfragmented
open space.
The Conservation Design Subdivision process, on the other hand, begins with an assessment of
the existing environmental and cultural features of the land to be subdivided, an identification of
primary conservation areas (environmentally sensitive features), secondary conservation areas
(cultural features such as stonewalls or hedgerows that provide character to a site), and includes
the requirement for preservation of a significant portion of the property as unfragmented open
space (usually 50 percent of the property). House lots and roads are then located outside of areas
to be preserved, whether primary or secondary conservation areas, without specific regard to any
minimum required lot size (except as required for on-site wastewater treatment systems and/or
on-site water supply wells). Under a Conservation Design Subdivision, the land would be
subdivided into an equivalent number of lots as under a Conventional Subdivision, but 50
percent of the land would be preserved as open space and the environmentally sensitive features
would be protected by locating development further from their boundaries.
ALTERNATIVE 3: MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE

PLAN AND ZONING LAW
Alternative 3 reflects discussions held by the Comprehensive Plan Task Force and Town Board
following receipt of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan from the CPC. Alternative 3 contains all of
the same components as the Proposed Action but with a modified Zoning Map that retains the
existing 3-ac zone, reduces the area mapped for both 10-ac and 20-ac zoning, and provides
additional 1-ac zones in select areas to allow, potentially, for development of individual single-
10/24/08 III-2 DRAFT

N
Figure III-1
Alternative 1:
No Action/Existing Zoning
Sources: Zoning data was obtained from the
Dutchess County Department of Planning and
Development.

March 2008
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
10.22.08
CBN
R20A R5A
LC-T
GN R1A Legend
ORP
LC R1A
Proposed Zoning
Land Conservation (LC)
LC
Land Conservation Trails (LC-T)
BP
RTC
R20A
R3A
R5A Historic Preservation (R20A)
RNE
LC CB
CBS NRN RB Rural Agricultural (R10A)
Residential 5 Acre (R5A)
R10
INSET 2 R5
A Residential 3 Acre (R3A)
A
D
Residential 1 Acre (R1A)
TN Hamlet District (HD)

LC-T
HD Neighborhood Residential North (NRN)
R20A Neighborhood Residential West (NRW)
ad
NVG
Rhinecliff Neighborhood Extension (RNE)
o
INSET 1
er R
R
Gateway North (GN)
ut
R iv
308 Northern Village Gateway (NVG)
e9
e
NRW out Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND)
G
R
ORP Office Research Park (ORP)
R1A
R3A
BP
Business Park (BP)
RB RNE LC Community Business North (CBN)
Community Business South (CBS)
N
R3A
G
CB
R5A Gateway (G)
HD INSET 1 Crossroads Business (CB)
d
S
R1A
e9
oa
NR
CB
N Rhinecliff Business (RB)
0A
ll R
R ou t
Rail Transportation Corridor (RTC)

R1
A
Mi
LC-T
R5
Hamlet Overlay Zone
R5A
D
RTC
TN
R5A
INSET 2
R2
0A
N
R20A
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure III-2

Miles
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Alternative 3: Modifications to the Proposed
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law
N
Figure III-3
Alternative 4:
2006 Comprehensive Plan


January 2006
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Chapter III: Alternatives
family residences not part of a larger subdivision (see Figure III-2). The proposed Conservation
Design Subdivision provisions would be included in Alternative 3.
ALTERNATIVE 4: THE 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE DRAFT

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Alternative 4 represents the work of the CPC as it was transmitted to the Town Board in April
2006. The 2006 Comprehensive Plan is largely similar to the current proposed Comprehensive
Plan except that it included: a) an approximately 90-unit Rhinecliff Neighborhood Extension
(also referred to as a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)) on undeveloped land at the
northern end of the hamlet; b) a recommendation for a mandatory 10 percent set aside for
affordable housing; and c) a smaller area of land east of the hamlet of Rhinecliff designated for a
proposed 5-acre residential zoning district. The Village Gateway North Zoning District was not
included in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. Several other minor differences to the proposed
Zoning Map (see Figure III-3) exist between this Alternative and the Proposed Action including
the number of lots within the proposed Land Conservation district and the names of proposed
Zoning Districts. These minor differences do not significantly affect the overall amount or
distribution of new dwelling units or commercial development.
ALTERNATIVE 5: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING LAW

WITHOUT THE ASTOR FLATS TND
Alternative 5 is identical to the Proposed Action with the exception of the area proposed for the
Astor Flats Traditional Neighborhood Development. Alternative 5 contemplates a continuation
of the Highway Business Park (HBP) and Highway Business (HB) Zoning Districts, which
would allow only commercial uses on these parcels located off Route 9. All other Zoning
Districts would remain as they are in the Proposed Action.
ALTERNATIVE 6: ALTERNATIVE DENSITY FOR THE HISTORIC

PRESERVATION (HP20) DISTRICT
Alternative 6 is included in this DGEIS in response to public comment from land-owners in the
proposed Historic Preservation (HP20) Zoning District. Alternative 6 considers an alternative
zoning strategy for the HP20 Zoning District that would allow one dwelling unit per ten (10)
gross acres of land with a minimum requirement of 80 percent open space preservation.
Dwelling units could be transferred between non-contiguous parcels within the Historic
Preservation District. Density bonuses could 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.
ALTERNATIVE 7: MISCELLANEOUS ALTERNATIVES

In its deliberations over the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law and in response to
public comments during the scoping process, the Town Board determined that it would be
prudent to analyze potential impacts of: a) permitting senior housing by Special Permit instead
of through a floating zone; and b) removal of the requirement for deductions for environmentally
sensitive lands (“net-out provisions”) from the calculation of permitted density. These specific
policies are evaluated as part of this Alternative and are considered separate from any alternative
Zoning Code or Zoning Map treatments. Ï
DRAFT III-3 10/24/08

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
A. LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Aside from the small stores and restaurants in the Village of Rhinebeck, commercial
development within the Town of Rhinebeck has been focused along the Route 9 corridor and
Route 9G north of the Village. Establishments along Route 9 include the Stop & Shop grocery
store, William’s Lumber, several auto related uses, a bank, a small plaza of stores and offices, a
pet supply store, and a nursery/florist which are located approximately 1 mile north of the
Village Center. The Dutchess County Fairgrounds which periodically draws in large crowds for
various events, most notably the Dutchess County Fair held every August, is also located along
Route 9 between the Village and Stop & Shop. At the intersection of Routes 9 and 9G there are
several car dealerships, gas stations, a self storage center, and other small businesses, including a
restaurant. Minimal commercial development has occurred along Route 308 east of the Village
where commercial uses are limited to a nursery and farm market.
The Town of Rhinebeck is divided into three residential and six non-residential zoning districts
as shown in Figure 5.2 in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. The residential districts in the
Town – R1A, R3A, and R5A – essentially provide for 1, 3, and 5 acre residential lots.
As discussed in Chapter 1 of the Comprehensive Plan, Rhinebeck wishes to maintain its rural
character. In addition, the Town aims to meet the New York State Legislative Commission on
Rural Resources’ definition of rural, defined as a community with a population density below
150 persons per square mile.
Recent development trends discussed in the proposed Comprehensive Plan have shown that this
zoning configuration does not meet the goals established in the proposed Comprehensive Plan or
even the previous 1989 Master Plan. Build-out under the current Zoning Law would result in the
town eventually reaching 410 persons per square mile, far more than double the density (of 150
persons per square mile) New York State has set for a rural community.
The majority of the area currently mapped for 1 acre zoning was planned for development under
the assumption that municipal services from the Village of Rhinebeck would be extended to the
area. As indicated in the current Zoning text, the 1 acre zoning district was established with the
intention of allowing more concentrated medium density development that could potentially be
served by municipal water and sewer service. Since sewer and water services were never
extended to the area, the 1 acre zoning district is generally considered inappropriate for
advancing the goals of the Town of Rhinebeck.
The existing 3 acre zoning district (R3A) was created with the intention of preserving rural
character in important areas by allowing only low density residential development, even though
the physical character of the land and proximity to travel routes made the location favorable for
development. The existing 3 acre zoning still allows development at densities that are too high to
DRAFT IV-1 10/02/08

support the Town’s goal of maintaining its rural character at a density below 150 persons per
square mile. As discussed in the Build-Out Analysis (Volume 2, Appendix B of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan), the 3 Acre zoning would still allow for construction of approximately
1,933 new dwelling units in this area of the Town.
One area of primary concern within the Town is the area currently zoned R5A for 5 acre
residential development. The 5 acre zoning covers some of Rhinebeck’s nationally renowned
scenic and Historic Districts. The district was created with the intention of allowing limited
residential development in an effort to preserve the sense of openness in the Town’s scenic and
agricultural areas and respect the environmental sensitivity and aesthetic quality of these lands.
As a result of increasing development pressures and as indicated in the Build-Out Analysis
(Volume 2, Appendix B of the proposed Comprehensive Plan), the 5 acre zoning was found to
lack the necessary elements to meet the Town’s goals. For example, much of the area north of
the Village, between River Road and Route 9 is characterized by wetlands, steep topography,
prime agricultural soils, or soils considered as limiting factors for septic systems. Consistent
with the Town’s goals of protecting these resources, the 5 acre zoning for these areas is believed
to be inadequate. Similarly, many of the areas along the Hudson River Shoreline are largely
undeveloped and characterized by historic estates and scenic areas such as the “Estates District”
Scenic area of Statewide Significance. In these areas, even the 5 acre zoning district could
potentially allow for significant land use changes to take place that would alter the character of
Rhinebeck and adversely affect the historic and scenic resources as discussed in Chapter IV of
this DGEIS.
The non-residential districts include the Highway Business Park District (HBP), Rhinecliff
Business District (RB), Gateway District (G), General Business District (GB), Highway
Business District (HB), and Office Research Park (ORP). These non-residential districts allow
for commercial development at various intensities. Generally, the existing non-residential
districts in the Town are appropriately located for some commercial development. However,
there is a need to amend the use regulations to prevent commercial development that would be
incompatible with the overall character of the Town or a particular neighborhood in which non-
residential zoning districts are mapped. The proposed Zoning Law has addressed these
recommendations discussed in the proposed Comprehensive Plan.

A build-out analysis was conducted to project how much development could occur on
undeveloped or underutilized properties and what the impact of that development on community
services and the environment might be. Build-out analyses were conducted for the 2006 Draft
Comprehensive Plan and than updated for the Proposed Action.
Original Build-Out Analysis
In preparing the proposed Comprehensive Plan, the Town conducted a Build-Out Analysis (also
referred to herein as the “Original Build-Out Analysis”) to estimate the potential impacts of
growth under the current zoning and the proposed zoning. The Original Build-Out Analysis
Report dated December 4, 2005, is included as Appendix 2 to the proposed Comprehensive Plan,
and is included by reference herein.
A build-out analysis is a planning exercise that “estimate[s] the impact of cumulative growth
upon a town’s land areas once all the developable land has been consumed and converted to uses
permitted under the current regulatory framework” (Manual of Build-Out Analysis, Center for
10/24/08 IV-2 DRAFT

Rural Massachusetts). The Original Build-Out Analysis conducted for the Town of Rhinebeck
determined that if all of the buildable land were developed as currently zoned, eventually
Rhinebeck would look like a typical suburban community with single-family homes on one-,
three-, and five-acre lots spread throughout the landscape, and commercial strip development
spread along Routes 9 and 9G in an auto-dependent manner. This is the potential for land use
development currently written into the Zoning Law. This pattern of development, sometimes
referred to as sprawl, would result in low-density residential subdivisions providing a poor mix
of homes, jobs and services. Activity centers would be limited to the Village and the Route 9/9G
strip, and there would be limited options for safe walking and biking (except in the Village and
hamlet). The result would be the addition of 3,408 new residential dwelling units and 9,781 new
residents (at 2.86 residents per household).1 If the Town does nothing to refine its current
planning and zoning practices, the consequences would likely take the form of the build-out
analysis results described in the report.
The Original Build-Out Analysis also analyzed potential impacts of the Zoning Map that was
being considered at that time. That Zoning plan, which is largely similar to the Proposed Action,
would result in new growth in the Town occurring in designated priority growth areas located
adjacent to existing centers, coupled with a continuation of the dominant pattern of sparsely
settled rural ands in the remainder of the Town.2 This development pattern, known as smart
growth, would strengthen and direct development towards existing centers, resulting in compact,
mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods in the traditional neighborhoods, and the preservation of
open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas in the remainder of the
Town. It would also be a method for achieving needed affordable housing in the Town. As
determined by the Original Build-Out Analysis, the then-proposed zoning would result in 1,408
new dwelling units and 4,041 new residents.
The Original Build-Out Analysis estimated that the result of build-out under existing zoning
would be the addition of 3,408 new residential dwelling units and 9,781 new residents. In 2003,
the Town of Rhinebeck had a population of 5,005 residents. The implication of this build-out is
that the Town’s population would triple to 14,785 people. The 9,781 additional residents,
including 1,528 school children3, would require 10 new paid police officers and 10 paid fire
fighters, new town facilities and more classrooms and other space to accommodate the
additional school children. The dwellings that these new residents would live in would require
1
Note that the Original Build-Out Analysis uses an estimate of average family size as calculated by the
United States Census Bureau, not the calculated average household size of 2.41 (for households in the
Town outside of the Village of Rhinebeck). The DGEIS Build-Out Analysis uses the average household
size.
2
Subsequent to when the Original Build-Out Analysis was conducted, a few changes were made to the
Zoning Map. The 110-acre Holy Cross property, originally proposed to be included in the Historic
Preservation 20 acre (HP20) District, was retained in the Residential 5 Acre (R5A) District, resulting in
an increase of approximately 20 dwelling units over the number estimated in the build-out. In addition,
the proposed Rhinecliff Traditional Neighborhood District (RC-TND) was replaced with the Rhinecliff
Hamlet Extension (Rc-HE) District, which would potentially result in approximately 45 dwelling units
rather than 90 as originally estimated. Thus, these changes to the Zoning Map would result in
approximately 20 fewer dwelling units than originally estimated in the build-out analysis.
3
The Fiscal Impact Analysis conducted for the Town by Peter Fairweather, AICP estimated that the
current zoning would generate 1,262 school age children, slightly fewer than estimated in the build-out
analysis.
DRAFT IV-3 10/24/08

the construction of about 3,500 additional septic disposal systems generating more than 1.6
million gallons of sewage per day discharged to the ground, and these dwellings would also
depend upon 3,500 new groundwater wells. There would be more than 1,486 acres of additional
land (7% of the Town’s remaining land areas) devoted just to impervious surfaces like roads,
driveways and structures. Projected vehicle trips in the Town (generated by the residential
development alone) would be more than 34,000 additional trips per day by an additional 6,800
vehicles on the road, and these vehicles would need to travel to or through the Village or on
Routes 308, 9 or 9G.
It should be noted that the Original Build-Out Analysis for the existing zoning only examined
what would happen if the Town were built out with single-family homes. However, under the
existing zoning, Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and Planned Residential Development
(PRD) could create large-scale developments almost anywhere in Rhinebeck that could nearly
double build-out compared to single-family homes. Under the existing zoning, density bonuses
are available to developers who construct central water and sewer facilities for new subdivisions,
who build PRDs or construct other specific types of permitted development. Because PRDs and
PUDs were not incorporated into the build-out analysis, the analysis potentially understates the
amount and scale of new development that would be permissible under the existing zoning.
The defining concept of the proposed Comprehensive Plan is to accommodate a modest amount
of growth while keeping available a base of land for rural uses while maintaining an overall
population density at or below 150 persons per square mile, the threshold for a “rural” town as
designated by the New York State Legislative Commission on Rural Resources. The Original
Build-Out Analysis estimated that the then-proposed Zoning would result in 1,408 additional
dwelling units and 4,041 new residents. Potential impacts of the then-proposed zoning would be
significantly less than the existing zoning. Population would increase to a total of only 9,046
persons, including 497 additional school children, requiring only one additional paid police
officer and one additional fire fighter. Additional water usage and sewage generated would be
only 674,000 gpd, and trip generation would be only 14,080 vehicle trips per day. The results of
the Original Build-Out Analysis showing potential impacts under the current zoning and the
proposed zoning are summarized in Table IV-1.
Table IV-1
Results of Preliminary Build-Out Analysis
Current Zoning Proposed Zoning*
Additional Dwellings 3,408 1,408
Additional Residents 9,781 4,041
Additional School Age Children 1,528 497
Additional Vehicles on Road 6,816 2,816
Additional Vehicle Trips per Day 34,080 14,080
Acres of New Roads 513 212
Acres of Impervious Surfaces 913 377
New Police Officers 10 1
New Fire Fighters 10 1
Additional Water Consumed 1,613,800 gpd 674,000 gpd
Additional Sewage Generated 1,613,800 gpd 674,000 gpd
Notes: * -- 2006 Comprehensive Plan
Source: Build-Out Analysis Report, December 4, 2005 (see Appendix 2 of the Comprehensive Plan).
10/24/08 IV-4 DRAFT

DGEIS Build-Out Analysis

A second build-out analysis was completed for the DGEIS to reflect changes in the Proposed
Action since the Original Build-Out Analysis was completed (specifically changes to the
proposed Zoning Map), and to analyze the Alternatives being considered in this DGEIS.
The “DGEIS Build-Out Analysis” follows essentially the same methodology as the Original
Build-Out Analysis to estimate the possible number of new dwelling units that could be
constructed. The DGEIS Build-Out Analysis uses updated Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) data and analysis tools that were not available at the time the Original Build-Out Analysis
was completed; thus there are some differences between the DGEIS Build-Out Analysis and the
Original Build-Out Analysis. However, for purposes of comparing between the Proposed Action
and each of the Alternatives in the DGEIS, these differences would not make any difference as
the Proposed Action and each of the Alternatives is considered with the same methodology
within the DGEIS Build-Out Analysis.
It should be noted that in calculating potential future populations, the DGEIS Build-Out
Analysis and discussion of the results uses the average household size as calculated by the
United States Census Bureau for households located in the Town of Rhinebeck outside of the
Village of Rhinebeck (2.41 persons per household) instead of the average family size for the
Town of Rhinebeck (2.87 persons per family). The DGEIS Build-Out Analysis also uses the
total land area of the Town outside the Village (34.64 square miles) as reported by the US
Census Bureau.
The DGEIS Build-Out Analysis also reports a range of potential new housing units per
Alternative based on the calculation of “High-Range Estimate” (full build-out of all remaining
undeveloped or underdeveloped lands) and “Low-Range Estimate” (full build-out of all
remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped lands with a 25 percent deduction to account for
inefficiencies of development which must accommodate for roads, stormwater management
infrastructure, and irregularities in parcel shapes. Both the High-Range Estimate and the Low-
Range Estimate do account for environmentally sensitive lands (wetlands, floodplains, hydric
soils, and steep slopes) by deducting these areas from gross parcel acreage.
While the GIS analysis was done on a parcel-by-parcel basis, the analysis results are
summarized by Zoning District for each Alternative. Table IV-2 summarizes the Low-Range
Estimate and the High-Range Estimate of projected new dwelling units for the Proposed Action
and each of the Alternatives. Table IV-3 provides the detail by Zoning District for the High-
Range estimate only.
Build-out estimates of non-residential (i.e., commercial) development based simply on available
land supply also tend to overstate the amount of new development that is likely to occur. Instead,
demand for new commercial business can be estimated using an evaluation of market capture
rates. “Retail Market Place” data provided by ESRI, Inc. (a national firm that provides GIS
software and geographically-coded demographic and economic data) were consulted to see how
much new development could be supported by the existing population within the Town of
Rhinebeck. A market capture analysis looks for differences in the existing supply (expressed in
terms of dollars of retail sales) within a Town and existing demand (also expressed in terms of
dollars) by the Town’s population for specific goods and services. When the supply is less than
70 to 80 percent of the demand, then there is “leakage” of those demand dollars into different
geographic areas. In the case of the Town of Rhinebeck there is a significant leakage of dollars
for general merchandise stores (including department stores) typically to the Kingston area.
DRAFT IV-5 10/24/08

Table IV-2
DGEIS Build-Out: New Dwelling Units, Low-Range and High-Range Estimates
Alternative Low-Range Estimate (du’s) High-Range Estimate (du’s)
Proposed Action 1,224 1,552
Alt. 1: No Action 2,357 3,142
Alt. 2: Conservation Subdivision 2,357 3,142
Alt. 3: Modified Plan/Zoning 2,163 2,817
Alt. 4: 2006 Comp. Plan 1,199 1,517
Alt. 5: No Astor Flats 944 1,232
Alt. 6: Alt. Density HP Zone 1,355 1,700
Alt. 7a: Senior Housing Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action
Alt. 7b: No Net-Out 1,838 2,370
Notes: High-Range Estimate represents full build-out of undeveloped or under-developed parcels
within each Zoning District while accounting for environmentally sensitive areas.
Low-Range Estimate represents an allowance for a development inefficiency factor of 25% to
accommodate roads, stormwater management infrastructure, and irregularities in parcel
shapes.
Table IV-3
DGEIS Build-Out: New Dwelling Units, Zoning District Summary†
Proposed
Zoning District Action* Alts. 1 & 2** Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7b
R1A/RM1 38 583 79 35 38 38 61
R3A -- 1,850 1,810 -- -- -- --
R5A/RL5 31 709 355 8 31 31 42
RC6/R6A 790 -- -- 789 790 790 1,432
RA10/R10A 75 -- 89 76 75 75 149
HP20/R20A 125 -- 51 131 125 273 193
VG/NRW 128 -- 68 68 128 128 128
TND 320 -- 320 320 -- 320 320
Rc-HE 45 -- 45 90 45 45 45
Totals 1,552 3,142 2,817 1,517 1,232 1,700 2,370
Notes: † - Using High-Range Estimate of dwelling units for build-out.
* - The build-out for Alternative 7a is the same as the Proposed Action; only the manner in
which Senior Housing is permitted is changed between the Proposed Action and Alternative
7a.
** - The build-out for Alternatives 1 and 2 are the same as only the manner in which
residential dwellings are located within a property changes.
*** - The build-out for Alternative 6 differs from the Proposed Action only within the Historic
Preservation (HP20) Zoning District. For Alternative 6 an alternative density calculation based
on one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10) gross acres is contemplated.
10/24/08 IV-6 DRAFT

Current retail sales for general merchandise stores are estimated at $1,894,896 in the Town of
Rhinebeck compared to the potential demand from Rhinebeck households of $8,625,078. That
difference of $6,730,182 in unmet demand can be translated into a department store of anywhere
from 33,651 square feet to 44,868 square feet (using multipliers of $200 of sales per square foot
and $150 per square foot, respectively). In simplest terms, a typical-size Kohl’s or Marshall’s
could satisfy unmet demand for general merchandise from existing Rhinebeck residents. That
unmet demand would likely increase with new Town residents, resulting in additional
commercial development; however, it is not anticipated that significant new commercial
development (beyond 100,000 square feet) would be likely in the immediate future.
Table IV-4 compares the results of the DGEIS Build-Out Analysis for the Proposed Action and
each of the Alternatives with the desired target set by the Comprehensive Plan of retaining a
population density at or below 150 people per square mile. As indicated in Table IV-4, the
Town’s year 2000 and current population (estimated in 2005) were both less than the threshold
density for a rural community as defined by the New York State Legislative Commission on
Rural Resources. However, even using a mean estimate of new dwelling units for the Proposed
Action and each Alternative (and not the High-Range Estimate), neither the Proposed Action nor
any of the Alternatives are able to achieve the desired threshold maximum of 150 people per
square mile.
Comparing between the alternatives, the Proposed Action and Alternatives 4 and 5 are
noticeably different from Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7b. Alternative 1 and 2, the No Action
Alternative and the Existing Zoning with Conservation Subdivision Design, are more than
double the desired population density reflecting the effects of the existing zoning (and the
potential impacts as described in the Original Build-Out Analysis). Alternative 3, which includes
more one-acre and three-acre parcels would result in a significantly higher full build-out than the
Proposed Action, would result in a higher population density than the Proposed Action.
Alternative 6, which would allow for more than double the potential development within the
Historic Preservation Zoning District by virtue of its smaller base lot size (10 acres as opposed
to 20 acres) and its allowance to calculate lot count based on gross, not net, acreage, also results
in a significantly higher population density than the Proposed Action. Alternative 7b, which
assesses the effect of not relying on net-out provisions for environmentally sensitive lands within
a residential subdivision in any Zoning District, shows comparable results to Alternative 6 and is
also higher than the Proposed Action.
Evaluation of Future Population Density
Build-out analyses are often criticized for painting an unrealistic (and bleak) future for land-use
and population over an indefinite time period. Because a build-out analysis conducted in this
fashion reflects only land supply and not forecasted demand for new development, it tends to
overstate the level of development that a community is likely to experience in the future and the
potential impacts of new development. By focusing on a 20-year planning horizon, and using
trend data on population growth and housing development, a different estimate of future
population can then be prepared to bracket the higher estimates of the full build-out.
DRAFT IV-7 10/24/08

Table IV-4
DGEIS Build-Out: Population Density Comparison
Alternative New dwellings* Town Future Pop.** Population Density***
2000 Census**** 0 4,685 135.2
2005 Estimate***** 0 4,870 140.6
Proposed Action 1,388 8,618 237.2
Alts. 1 & 2 2,750 11,495 331.9
Alt. 3 2,490 10,871 313.8
Alt. 4 1,358 8,143 235.1
Alt. 5 1,088 7,492 216.3
Alt. 6 1,518 8,528 246.2
Alt. 7b 2,104 9,941 287.0
Notes: * - Reflects mean of Low-Range and High-Range Estimates.
** - Estimates for each Alternative assume 2.41 persons per household and base population
of 4,870 persons per 2005 estimate.
*** - Uses US Census Bureau figure of 34.64 square miles of land area in Town of
Rhinebeck.
**** - Town outside of Village.
Source: ***** - From Dutchess County Department of Planning, “Population Forecasts 2005-2025”
Population projections prepared by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

(NYMTC) and relied upon by the Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council (P-
DCTC) 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) can be used to estimate future residential population by
2025. From that, using current estimates of average household size (2.41 persons per household)
an approximate number of new housing units can be obtained.
The P-DCTC/NYMTC data estimate Town of Rhinebeck population growth of 20.9 percent
from 2000 to 2025 (0.76 percent annual growth). This estimate compares well with 1990 to 2000
population trend data for Dutchess County as a whole, which grew 8 percent between 1990 and
2000, and the Village of Rhinebeck which grew 12.9 percent in the same time period. (It should
be noted that the Town of Rhinebeck population actually declined 3.1 percent between 1990 and
2000). By this estimate, the year 2000 population of 4,685 persons (Town outside of Village) is
anticipated to increase to 5,665 persons in the year 2025. These 980 new residents would require
approximately 407 new housing units (at 2.41 persons per household). (That increase in the
number of housing units represents a 43.6 percent increase over the total number of housing
units in the Town outside the Village).
A separate calculation of the average number of building permits issued in the Town of
Rhinebeck for new residential construction reveals that approximately 44 building permits were
issued on an annual basis between 2001 and 2006 (see Table IV-5). If this trend were to
continue, the 407 new housing units projected by P-DCTC/NYMTC could potentially be
constructed in a 10-year period. Table IV-6 indicates that it is possible that the desired threshold
of 150 people per square mile could be maintained over the next 10 years provided that the
elements of the Proposed Action that direct new growth into designated centers (such as the
Astor Flats TND) are implemented. As Table IV-6 shows, if the 320 potential dwelling units
considered for the Astor Flats TND were implemented and the remaining 120 new units were
10/24/08 IV-8 DRAFT

distributed across the rest of the Town, the effective density of the Town outside the Village and
the new Astor Flats TND area would be below the 150 person per square mile target. However,
if all of the 440 new housing units were distributed across the Town and not in priority growth
areas, population density would exceed the 150 person per square mile target within the first 10
years of future build-out.
Table IV-5
Town of Rhinebeck: Number of Building Permits Issued for New Dwellings
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Building 44 60 19 24 14 100
Permits
Average annual number of building permits 44
Source: Dutchess County Department of Planning.
Table IV-6
10-Year Build-Out: Population Density Comparison
Alternative New dwellings Town Future Pop. Population Density
Town wide 440 5,930 171.2
Town outside of Astor 120 5,159 148.9
Flats TND**
Note: ** - Considers density in areas of Town outside of the proposed Astor Flats TND with the
320 dwelling units at Astor Flats constructed.
Effect of Proposed Action on Typical Residential Properties

To evaluate potential effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives on the feasibility of land
development within the Town, a GIS analysis was performed to identify large parcels in
different locations within the Town that have significant development potential. Candidate
parcels were identified using data on natural resources (e.g., wetlands, steep slopes), historic
resources, protected properties (e.g., parklands), and existing and proposed zoning. The five
candidate sites selected for evaluation were chosen for illustrative purposes and are not intended
to recommend a particular development scheme. As such, the orientation of the parcels and any
contextual information on location have been altered for the purpose of this analysis. These lots,
however, represent actual conditions. Potential build-out of each parcel applied standard zoning
parameters of minimum lot size and frontage. Under proposed zoning, no minimum lot size is
required for each individual lot, but a 1-acre standard is applied to allow for on-site septic
systems and individual wells. The layouts provided are considered typical of what could be
developed under a traditional subdivision where zoning dictates a minimum lot size and under a
proposed Conservation Development Subdivision where lot sizes are varied to allow for greater
protection of environmentally sensitive features.
Data from each parcel were then summarized in a table showing total land area, constrained
land, and the number of units that could likely be achieved using both existing zoning and
proposed zoning. Several different lot count estimates are provided for the existing and proposed
scenarios: 1) lot count calculated off of gross acreage (e.g., total land area divided by minimum
lot size per dwelling unit); 2) lot count calculated off of net acreage (e.g., total land area minus
DRAFT IV-9 10/24/08

constrained land then divided by minimum lot size per dwelling unit); and 3) lot count based
upon the sketch layout which takes into account the shapes of the parcels and an initial
evaluation of regulatory compliance with respect to lot shape, lot configuration, and protection
of natural resources. In several instances, the theoretical lot count using either gross or net
acreage could not be achieved in the sketch layout because of the extent of constrained land. (It
should be noted that the figures show prime farmland wherever it occurs on each parcel; the area
of prime farmland is not deducted from the gross acreage to achieve a lot count.)
Finally, it should be recognized that New York State public health regulations typically limit the
size of any new residential subdivision to 49 lots. Any residential subdivision of 50 lots or more
must provide public water and wastewater systems, which significantly increases the cost to the
land developer; thus, many developers presumably would opt for a 49 lot subdivision served by
individual on-site wells and septic systems.
Table IV-7 summarizes the results of this parcel capacity analysis.
Table IV-7
Parcel Analysis: Summary
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
Parcel Area Lot Size Expected* Actual** Lot Size Likely***
1 455 ac. 5 ac. 72 63 20 ac. 22
2 71 ac. 3 ac. 19 20 10 ac. 7
3 55 ac. 3 ac. 15 15 6 ac. 9
4 648 ac. 5 ac. 103 69 10 ac. 64
5 39 ac. 3 ac. 10 11 6 ac. 6
Notes: * - “Expected” development is a calculation of gross lot area divided by required minimum lot
size and includes an 80 percent development efficiency factor.
** - “Actual” development is the number of lots that were able to be achieved in the sketch
layout.
*** - “Likely” development under Proposed Zoning reflects the same calculation as
“Expected” development using a different required minimum lot size. Under Proposed Zoning
individual lots do not have to meet the Lot Size requirement, but average lot size must meet
the standard.
Parcel 1
Parcel 1 is a 455.7-acre parcel located south of the Village. The parcel is largely constrained by
steep slopes, wetlands, streams, and the flood plain in one portion, while another portion appears
to be suitable for development. Based upon the existing 5-acre zoning, expected development of
this lot would yield up to 72 lots (assuming a development efficiency of 80 percent); however,
only 63 lots could be achieved (see Figure IV-1a) in a conventional subdivision layout.
Under the proposed 20-acre zoning, the same parcel could accommodate 22 lots (see Figure IV-
1b) in a conservation subdivision. The conservation subdivision would use only 6.2 percent of
the total parcel area and preserves 94.6 percent of the parcel as open space. In addition, the
conservation subdivision is set back from the street and screened by vegetation to allow
preservation of rural character including important features of the parcel such as the hedgerows,
rock walls, streams, wetlands, forested areas, and steep slopes.
10/24/08 IV-10 DRAFT

Table IV-8
Parcel Analysis: Parcel 1 Details
Acres/Lots
Total Land Area 455.67
Constrained Land
Wetlands 12.59
Floodplain 14.16
Steep Slopes 26.57
Total Constrained 53.32
Net Buildable Area 402.35
Existing Zoning Analysis
Minimum Lot Size (acres per dwelling unit) 5 ac
Lot Count using Gross (Total) Acreage 91.13 du
Lot Count using Net Buildable Area 80.47 du
Lot Count achieved in sketch layout 63 du
Proposed Zoning Analysis
Residential Density (acres per dwelling unit) 20 ac
Open Space Requirement 80%
Notes: 1) Areas of constrained land in multiple categories (e.g., wetland and floodplain) have not been
double-counted. 2) Prime Farmland Soils are identified on the sketch layout for reference only, but
are not deducted from Total Land Area. These notes apply to each table in this parcel analysis.
Table IV-9
Acres/Lots
Constrained Land
Wetlands 0.85
Floodplain 0.00
Steep Slopes 0.10
DRAFT IV-11 10/24/08

Parcel 2
Parcel 2 is a 70.6-acre parcel located east of the Village. While there are some areas of steep
slopes and a small wetland and pond, the parcel is largely unconstrained and is ideal for
development. Under the existing 3-acre zoning, expected development of this lot would yield 19
units, although actual layout could achieve 20 lots in a conventional subdivision (see Figure IV-
2a). The proposed 6-acre zoning would allow 11 lots on the parcel with 80.4% of the parcel
preserved as open space (see Figure IV-2b).
Parcel 3
Parcel 3 is a 55.4-acre parcel located southeast of the Village. These agricultural fields are
largely unconstrained by natural features and, under existing 3-acre zoning, expected
development would yield 15 lots. The conventional subdivision layout was able to achieve all 15
lots (see Figure IV-3a). The proposed 6-acre zoning, would allow 9 lots on the parcel with
82.7% of the parcel preserved as open space (see Figure IV-3b).
Parcel 4
Parcel 4 is a 648.1-acre parcel located northwest of the Village. The parcel is heavily constrained
by wetlands and contains significant areas of contiguous forest. Under the existing 5-acre
zoning, expected development would yield 104 lots; however, the sketch plan was able to
accommodate only 69 lots given several large areas of wetland (see Figure IV-4a). Under the
proposed 10-acre zoning, a substantially similar number of lots (64) could be achieved and
would result in significantly improved wetland and forest preservation (see Figure IV-4b).
Parcel 5
Parcel 5 is a 39.38-acre parcel located in the northeast corner of Town. The parcel has few
environmental constraints. Under the existing 3-acre zoning, expected development would yield
10 lots; however, the sketch plan was able to accommodate 11 lots (see Figure IV-5a). Under the
proposed 6-acre zoning, 6 lots could be achieved with at least 80 percent of the land being
conserved in a forest conservation area (see Figure IV-5b).
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

As indicated in the build-out analysis completed for this DGEIS, full build-out of remaining
undeveloped or underdeveloped lands in the Town of Rhinebeck would result in population
density exceeding the 150 people per square mile threshold for the definition of a “rural”
community. However, projections of likely development levels over the next 10 years indicates
that it is possible that the desired threshold of 150 people per square mile could be maintained
provided that the elements of the Proposed Action that direct new growth into designated centers
(such as the Astor Flats TND) are implemented. As summarized in Table IV-6, if the 320
potential dwelling units considered for the Astor Flats TND were implemented and the
remaining 120 new units were distributed across the rest of the Town, the effective density of the
Town outside the Village and the new Astor Flats TND area would be below the 150 person per
square mile target. The parcel-level analysis also reveals that the Proposed Action would not
significantly affect the feasibility of developing undeveloped land within the Town of
Rhinebeck. Application of the proposed Zoning Law to these parcels reveals that a meaningful
amount of development, sometimes nearly comparable to potential development under existing
conditions, is possible. As such, the Proposed Action would avoid potential impacts to the
Town’s rural character.
10/24/08 IV-12 DRAFT

Table IV-10
Acres/Lots
Constrained Land
Wetlands 1.29
Floodplain 2.40
Steep Slopes 0.91
Table IV-11
Acres/Lots
Constrained Land
Wetlands 217.15
Floodplain 6.02
Steep Slopes 4.61
DRAFT IV-13 10/24/08

Table IV-12
Acres/Lots
Constrained Land
Wetlands 3.31
Floodplain 0.00
Steep Slopes 2.74
Alternatives
The results of the build-out analysis for each of the Alternatives are described in detail above. In
summary, each of the Alternatives would result in significantly different levels of future build-
out. Alternatives 1 and 2, which rely on the existing Zoning Map would result in approximately
double the amount of development potential under the Proposed Action and would present
threats to the Town’s existing land use and community character. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 are
similar to the Proposed Action in terms of future build-out and would preserve the overall
community character as well as the Proposed Action. Alternative 3 would result in significantly
higher levels of future development and may compromise community character by resulting in
greater numbers of single-family homes on smaller (1-acre to 3-acre lots). Alternative 7a would
result in development levels identical to the Proposed Action. Alternative 7b would result in
significantly higher levels of development on each property that could result in greater impacts
to environmentally sensitive areas which contribute to the Town’s community character.
Under the 10 year projection, if all of the 440 new housing units were distributed across the
Town (as in Alternatives 1 and 2) and not in priority growth areas, population density would
exceed the 150 person per square mile target within the first 10 years of future build-out. For
each of the other Alternatives, the 10 year build-out would result in similar comparative impacts
to the Proposed Action as with the full build-out comparison, just with fewer total units.

Since the Proposed Action would result in beneficial impacts to the Town and would not result
in any adverse impacts, no mitigation is required.
10/24/08 IV-14 DRAFT

10.1.08
Legend
Property Boundary
Sketch Parcel Boundaries
Streams
Constrained Land
Slopes > 25%
Wetlands
DEC Wetland 100ft Buffer
Flood Plain
Prime Farmland
Conventional subdivision of a 455.67 Acre

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Parcel under existing 5 Acre Zoning allows
Feet
for approximately 63 lots at 5 acres each.
Figure IV-1a
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS Parcel 1 - Existing Zoning
10.1.08
Legend
Property Boundary
Conservation Areas
Slopes > 25%
Forest Conservation Area
Hedgerow Conservation Area
Stream Conservation Area
Wetland Conservation Areas
Flood Plain Conservation Area
Prime Farmland Conservation Area
Conservation subdivision of a 455.67 acre

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 parcel under proposed 20 Acre Zoning with
Feet 1 Acre lots allows for 20 lots and preservation
of 94.6% as open space.
Figure IV-1b
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS Parcel 1 - Proposed Zoning
10.1.08
Legend
Property Boundary
Streams
Constrained Land
Slopes > 25%
Wetlands
Flood Plain
Prime Farmland
Conventional subdivision of a 70.63 acre

0 200 400 600 800 parcel under existing 3 Acre Zoning allows
Feet for approximately 20 lots at 3 acres each.
Figure IV-2a
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS Parcel 2- Existing Zoning
10.1.08
Legend
Property Boundaries
Conservation Areas
Slopes > 25%

0 200 400 600 800 parcel under proposed 6 Acre Zoning with
Feet
1 Acre lots allows for 11 lots and preservation
Figure IV-2b
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
10.1.08
Legend
Property Boundary
Constrained Land
Slopes > 25%
Wetlands
Streams
Flood Plain
Prime Farmland

0 200 400 600 800
Feet Parcel 3 - Existing Zoning parcel under existing 3 Acre Zoning allows
Figure 3a for approximately 15 lots at 3 acres each.
Figure IV-3a
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
10.1.08
Legend
Property Boundary
Conservation Areas
Slopes > 25%

0 200 400 600 800 parcel under proposed 6 Acre Zoning with
Feet
1 Acre lots allows for 9 lots and preservation
Figure IV-3b
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
10.1.08
Legend
Property Boundary
Streams
Constrained Land
Slopes > 25%
Wetlands
Flood Plain
Prime Farmland

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 parcel under existing 5 Acre Zoning allows
Feet for approximately 69 lots at 5 acres each.
Figure IV-4a
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
10.1.08
Legend
Property Boundary
Conservation Areas
Slopes > 25%

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 parcel under proposed 10 Acre Zoning with
Feet
1 acre lots allows for 42 lots and preservation
Figure IV-4b
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
10.1.08
Legend
Property Boundary
Streams
Constrained Land
Slopes > 25%
Wetlands
Prime Farmland
Flood Plain
0 100 200 300 400 Conventional subdivision of a 39.38 acre

Feet parcel under existing 3 Acre Zoning allows
for approximately 11 lots at 3 acres each.
Figure IV-5a
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
10.1.08
Legend
Property Boundary
Conservation Areas
Slopes > 25%
Streams
Wetlands
Flood Plain

0 100 200 300 400 parcel under propsoed 6 Acre Zoning wich
Feet
1 acre lots allows for 6 lots and perservation
of 81.5 percent open space.
Figure IV-5b
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
B. SOCIOECONOMICS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND SENIOR

HOUSING
The Comprehensive Plan and the Open Space and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
include detailed demographic analyses that describe a population in the Town of Rhinebeck that
is aging as a result of two factors: 1) existing Rhinebeck residents aging in place, and 2) a
decline in younger individuals and families as a result of increasing home prices that force them
to look for housing elsewhere. Another trend evident in the data is the increasing gap between
median home prices and median salaries, especially for the 47 percent of Rhinebeck households
that make less than the median income. Median incomes have not kept pace with the 80 percent
increase in median home prices. As median home prices increased over the last decade (prior to
the decline experienced in the middle of 2008), and as the supply of apartments stayed level, the
amount of housing that was affordable to younger individuals, seniors, or an individual or
household making less than the median income decreases. This “housing affordability gap”
threatens the socioeconomic character and economic diversity of the Town.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Comprehensive Plan includes the following information on housing characteristics within
the Town of Rhinebeck:
“In 2000, Rhinebeck’s housing was 69 percent single-family detached units, 5.5 percent
single-family attached units, 4 percent mobile homes, and 21 percent multi-family units.
In comparison with neighboring municipalities, Rhinebeck has a higher percentage of
multi-family units… . The percentage of mobile homes is roughly comparable with
Dutchess County and surrounding communities, with the exception of Clinton, which
has only 1 percent, and Hyde Park, which has 9.6 percent. Sixty-seven percent of
occupied units in Rhinebeck are owner-occupied and 33 percent are renter-occupied.
“While Rhinebeck has a high proportion of multi-family units, it also has a very low
vacancy rate. In 2000, Rhinebeck had a total of 3,255 housing units, of which 3,001
(92.2 percent) were occupied. Of the remaining units, 4.4 percent were for seasonal,
recreational or occasional use, leaving a vacancy rate of only 3.4 percent, the majority
of which was in the rental sector. Housing professionals typically recognize a vacancy
rate of 5 percent as the benchmark of an optimally functioning housing market. When
the vacancy rate drops below the five percent benchmark, the scarcity of available units
creates greater competition, which accelerates rent increases and drives up housing
costs. These conditions may be occurring in Rhinebeck, as reflected in the high
percentage of households (25.6 percent) which are cost-burdened, defined by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development as paying more than 30 percent of
gross income for housing. This is slightly higher than in Dutchess County as a whole,
where 24.1 percent of residents are cost burdened. The scarcity of affordable housing
can be particularly difficult for senior citizens on fixed incomes, single-income families
and entry-level employees.
“The median value of owner-occupied units in Rhinebeck in 2000 was $168,300, which
is higher than the median of $154,200 in Dutchess County. However, a survey of the for-
sale housing market undertaken by the Dutchess County Smart Growth Housing Task
Force [2001] indicates that between 2000 and 2002, the median sales price of a single-
family home in the county increased 36 percent. A household would need to make
DRAFT IV-15 10/24/08

$70,000 to afford the median priced house of $210,000. Contract rent in Rhinebeck
($714 per month) was comparable to that in Dutchess County ($707 per month).
Housing costs have increased even further since surveys were taken.”
The Open Space and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan provides further evidence of the
characteristics of housing within the Town:
“The housing stock in the Town of Rhinebeck is predominately owner-occupied.
According to the 2000 Census, 75 percent of the Town’s 1,600 occupied housing units
were owner occupied, compared to 66 percent nationally. In terms of average household
size, renter households are smaller (at 1.8 persons per unit) than owner-occupied
households (at 2.5persons per unit).
“The bulk of housing units in Rhinebeck are more than 30 years old, particularly the
rental stock. Of the 25 percent of the housing units that are renter-occupied, 44 percent
were built before 1939, and 75 percent were built before 1970.
“Rental housing is a key housing resource for young people in Rhinebeck. The 2000
Census reports that 35 percent of Rhinebeck’s rental units are held by a householder
under 34 years of age, though just 25 percent of the Town’s population falls into this
age group. Brokers corroborate that young singles and families drive the demand for
rental units.
“Rhinebeck’s real vacancy rate is low enough that supply is restricted and home prices
and rental costs escalate. A 5 percent vacancy rate is generally considered a sign of a
healthy market. According to the 2000 Census, Rhinebeck’s overall vacancy rate was 8
percent; but more than half of that figure, 4.4 percent, can be explained by units that are
vacant due to seasonal/weekend use. Since 2000, the availability of both owner- and
renter-occupied housing has been decreasing rapidly. An analysis of the Dutchess
County Housing Market in 2003 reported vacancy rates of 1 percent for owner-occupied
units and 4 percent for renter-occupied units. In interviews, local brokers corroborated
these figures.”
While the market trends for senior housing are not specifically analyzed in either the
Comprehensive Plan or the Open Space and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, the
Implementation Plan does note that “the Town’s changing demographic profile points to
particular housing needs for the elderly and young adults.” The Implementation Plan also notes
that “Rhinebeck’s seniors often reside in large homes that they are hard-pressed to keep up,
financially and physically.”
The current Zoning Code allows Senior Citizen Housing at 4 dwelling units per acre with a cap
of 80 units per facility, but requires the facility to be associated with a nursing home in existence
on September 1, 1991 (Section VI.B(37)). The age restriction in the current Zoning Code is 62
years or older, except that a facility created as a PRD or as a condominium by invoking the
regulations in Part 25 of the Attorney General Rules and Regulations for Age Restricted
Condominiums would allow a minimum age of 55 or over.

The proposed Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning Law that would implement the
recommendations of the Plan, includes a number of recommendations to increase the diversity of
10/24/08 IV-16 DRAFT

the housing stock to improve the affordability of housing to a range of existing and future
Rhinebeck residents. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Zoning Law: 1)
permit increased density in priority growth areas; 2) increase opportunities for two-family and
multi-family dwellings (both new construction and conversion of existing structures); 3) relax
the standards for accessory dwelling units throughout the Town; and 4) include provisions for
mandatory affordable housing.
Examples of specific measures to increase the availability of affordable housing include a
requirement that 20 percent of all new residential units be affordable and the creation of zoning
districts that allow for increased affordability. For example, the proposed zoning calls for the
creation of the Astor Flats TND and Rhinecliff Neighborhood Extension zones that allow higher
density residential development that is generally lower in cost on a per unit basis that detached
single family homes on large lots.
The proposed Zoning Districts adjacent to the community’s existing centers (the Village of
Rhinebeck and the Hamlet of Rhinecliff) would allow a much higher density for residential
development than is currently permitted. Lands in the Astor Flats area, for instance, are currently
zoned Residential 3 Acre (R3A), permitting a density of 1 dwelling unit per 3 acres. The
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) District, which is proposed for the Astor Flats
area, would permit a residential density of 4 dwelling units per acre in the residential
neighborhood and 6 dwelling units per acre in the Main Street area. The Illustrative Plan of the
Astor Flats TND included in both the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Zoning Law could
accommodate approximately 320 dwelling units, an increase of 287 dwelling units over the 33
estimated units that could be developed on these lands as currently zoned. The proposed Astor
Flats TND also includes a requirement that 20 percent of the dwelling units constructed in this
area be affordable. Similarly, the proposed Rhinecliff Hamlet Extension (Rc-HE) District would
permit approximately 45 dwelling units, 32 dwelling units more than currently permitted.
Allowing more dwelling units on smaller, more affordable lots adjacent to the existing centers
would offset the potential impacts on housing affordability resulting from the reduction in
permitted density in outlying areas of the Town.
Additional opportunities for affordable housing would be provided by the relaxed standards for
two-family, multi-family, and accessory dwellings. Section D.1 of Article VI would be amended
in the proposed Zoning Law to permit two-family dwellings to be developed by new
construction, not just by conversion. New construction of two-family dwellings would be
permitted in all residential Zoning Districts as-of-right, except for the Rhinecliff Hamlet (Rc-H)
and Rhinecliff Hamlet Extension (Rc-HE) districts. The latter would require a special permit
would be required. Similarly, Section D2 of Article VI would substantially expand where new
multi-family dwellings could be constructed to include the Rural Countryside (RC6) and Village
Gateway (VG) Districts, in addition to the RM1 District (which is currently the only district
where new multi-family can be constructed). In the RC6 District, up to 4 units in a multi-family
structure could be constructed, and up to 6 units per structure would be allowed in the VG and
RM1 Districts. For the conversion of existing structures for multi-family use, Section D3 of
Article VI would be amended to substantially expand where multi-family dwellings by
conversion would be allowed. Currently only the one acre (R1A/RM1) Zoning Districts allow
this use. The proposed Zoning would allow the conversion of a single family to a multi-family
dwelling in all residential districts, provided certain conditions were met. These amendments
would allow for increased development of more affordable two-family and multi-family
dwelling units.
DRAFT IV-17 10/24/08

In terms of accessory dwelling units, the proposed Zoning (Article VI Sections D4 and D5)
would ease the current restrictions on an accessory dwelling within an existing principal
structure by allowing for the expansion or an addition to the structure to accommodate the
accessory unit. The proposed Zoning would also expand the allowance for an accessory
apartment in a detached accessory structure by increasing the allowable square footage devoted
to the use, allowing up to two accessory units in accessory structures (in addition to the principal
dwelling and an accessory dwelling in the principal structure) for a total of 4 dwelling units on a
parcel. If 4 units were sought, then one would be required to be affordable. Finally, Section D6
would be amended to expand the current Elder Cottage Housing Opportunity (ECHO)
provisions by allowing a “cottage dwelling” to be placed on a lot as an accessory dwelling unit.
While an ECHO unit had temporary implications in the current zoning, a cottage home has more
permanent implications. These provisions would increase affordable housing opportunities in the
Town.
The proposed affordable housing provisions in Article V Subsection CC of the proposed Zoning
would add a requirement for new development to construct 20 percent of the units as affordable
housing, or pay an affordable housing fee, donate land for affordable housing, or some
combination of these, with potential density bonuses granted for providing specific community
benefits.
With respect to senior housing, the proposed Zoning includes a Senior Housing-Floating (SH-F)
District (Article VI Subsection D.37). The Floating District can be considered in the HP20,
RA10, RC6, RL5, and VG Zoning Districts (subject to certain minimum acreage standards) and
would require approval of a Zoning Map change by the Town Board and a Special Permit and
Site Plan review by the Planning Board. The proposed Zoning caps the total number of senior
housing units in any one development at 120 units (20 percent of which must be affordable) with
a maximum density of 2 dwelling units per gross acre of land. Other criteria apply to the Senior
Housing-Floating district and would need to be met in order for the proposal to be accepted.
These provisions would ensure that a full range of housing opportunities, including opportunities
for individuals with low and moderate incomes, would be provided in the Town. These
provisions would address any potential adverse impacts on housing affordability resulting from
the decreased permitted density proposed in certain Zoning Districts in the Town.
Alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2, which retain the existing Zoning Law and Zoning Map, would not result in
any enhancements to the Town’s ability to facilitate new affordable housing units. Single-family
development on one-acre lots is not generally considered to be a successful strategy for
achieving large numbers of affordable housing units, even though it may be feasible given
certain favorable conditions such as the price of land. The predominance of available land within
the R3A and R5A Zoning Districts would not result in any significant numbers of new
affordable units. Further, limitations on where multi-family or two-family dwellings could be
built would further limit options.
Alternative 3 would result in similar amounts of affordable housing as the Proposed Action. In
theory, because of the increased amount of land zoned within the R1A and R3A Zoning
Districts, it may be more possible for an individual to purchase a piece of land and construct a
single-family residence not as part of a larger subdivision. The DGEIS Build-Out Analysis for
this Alternative indicates that approximately 5,500 acres of land within the R1A and R3A
Zoning Districts could be made available for development in this fashion. This does not
10/24/08 IV-18 DRAFT

guarantee that these dwelling units would necessarily be affordable. It does provide a greater
level of control by the individual home-owner/home-builder seeking to control costs by not
making that individual subject to costs passed on by a land developer seeking to sell lots in a
residential subdivision.
Alternative 4 would also result in similar amounts of affordable housing as the Proposed Action.
However, due to the increased size of the Rhinecliff Neighborhood Extension in Alternative 4,
which envisions up to 90 dwelling units in this area, there may be the possibility for a few more
affordable units than in the Proposed Action.
Alternative 5 would have significantly fewer affordable units than the Proposed Action due to
the loss of the Astor Flats TND, which is anticipated to yield approximately 60 affordable
dwelling units. Under Alternative 5, the residential units considered at Astor Flats would not be
relocated elsewhere to the Town. That opportunity for affordable housing would be lost.
Alternative 6 would increase the residential density within the Historic Preservation Zoning
District to almost twice the amount as considered in the Proposed Action. Under the proposed 20
percent mandatory affordable housing provision of the proposed Zoning Law, this increase in
residential units would yield a higher number of affordable units.
Alternative 7a would permit senior housing units as-of-right through a special permit review
process as opposed to through a floating zone. This change would, in theory, make senior
housing developments easier to approve and thus more feasible. While senior housing units are
an element of a diverse range of housing options within a town and are often provided in multi-
family dwelling units, they are not necessarily affordable. Thus, there is no real change between
Alternative 7a and the Proposed Action with respect to the level of affordable units that would
be provided.
Alternative 7b would allow approximately 800 additional dwelling units when compared to the
Proposed Action. Using the proposed 20 percent mandatory affordable housing requirement, this
Alternative would yield approximately 160 more affordable housing units than the Proposed
Action.

Since no significant adverse environmental impacts to socioeconomics, affordable housing, and
senior housing were identified, no mitigation is required.
C. WATER RESOURCES
SURFACE WATER
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The most recognizable natural feature in Rhinebeck is the Hudson River, which provides
outstanding scenic, historic and recreational amenities. The Town shares an eight-mile border
with the Hudson River along its western edge. Rhinebeck has four watershed areas, all of which
ultimately drain to the Hudson River. These include the Landsman Kill, which drains the largest
area in the Town, a subwatershed that drains directly to the Hudson, the Saw Kill, which
Rhinebeck shares with Red Hook to its north, and the Crum Elbow Creek, which drains into
DRAFT IV-19 10/24/08

Hyde Park to the south. The Town’s four watershed areas have been mapped and appear on
Figure 9.5 in the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
Within New York State, all fresh waters are classified by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) as either “AA,” “A,” “B,” “C,” or “D.” Classes AA through
B are regulated by the state. Waters classified as A, B or C can also have an added standard of
(T) or (TS). The (T) indicates the waters support or have the potential to support a trout
population, and (TS) means it supports or has the potential to support trout spawning. All waters
that have a (T) or (TS) designation are regulated, including those with a classification of C. Each
stream can have different classifications in different reaches depending upon its characteristics
and uses. In addition to the regulated stream, an area 50 feet from the mean high water mark of
the stream is subject to the Protection of Waters regulations and a permit may be necessary for
any land disturbance activities.
Rhinebeck has seven DEC regulated waterbodies, including streams or reaches of streams, and a
lake. In addition, there are numerous non-regulated streams in the Town. Surface waters in the
Town have been mapped and described in greater detail in the proposed Town of Rhinebeck
Comprehensive Plan. Their water quality classes are identified in Table IV-13.
Table IV-13
Surface Water Features
Waterbody Classification
Hudson River B
Sepasco Lake B
Muddler Kill D
Rhinebeck Kill D
Fallsburg Creek D
Crum Elbow Creek A and A(T)
Landsman Kill C, C(T), and D
Sources: NYSDEC.
Floodplains provide relief from floodwaters, filter impurities, and control sediment along the
river and stream banks. They are characterized as either 100-year floodplains, which have a one
in one hundred (1%) chance of occurring in any one year, and 500-year floodplains, which have
a one in five hundred (0.5%) chance of occurring in any one year. Both the 100-year and the
500-year floodplains in the Town are depicted on Figure 9.3 of the proposed Comprehensive
Plan.
The Town currently has a Water Resources Protection Overlay (WRP-O) District which requires
Planning Board approval of a special use permit for development activities in, or within 100 feet
of, certain streams and wetlands.

Erosion and subsequent sedimentation of surface waters is the greatest potential adverse
environmental impact resulting from construction activity. The increased rate and volume of
stormwater runoff resulting from additional impervious surfaces associated with new
development has the potential to adversely effect water quality. The potential for erosion and
10/24/08 IV-20 DRAFT

sedimentation of surface waters is of particular concern adjacent to protected water bodies, and
in areas of steep slopes, such as the bluffs along the Hudson River. In addition, increased
stormwater runoff rates and volumes can result in increased flooding.
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed Comprehensive Plan has established an objective to prevent erosion and control
stormwater runoff through the careful application of erosion control measures and protection of
steeply sloped lands, including the bluffs along the Hudson River. To achieve this objective, the
Plan recommends the following actions:
1. Amend the Zoning Law to require all new development and re-development to comply with
New York State’s Stormwater Design Manual and the New York Guidelines of Urban Erosion
and Sediment Control. Enact requirements for sediment control of all development activities.
Make these documents available for use by town officials and residents.
2. Guide land use decision-making in the Coastal Zone through the use of The Rhinebeck Plan
and its implementing regulations, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) and the
Greenway Guidelines.
3. Maintain the dominant forest cover of the lands sloping toward the Hudson River during
subdivision and/or other approvals by restricting development up to the 100-foot contour, or for
a distance of 600 feet inland from the River’s edge, whichever is greater.
4. Encourage owners of land bordering the Hudson River to use ecologically sound vegetation
protection practices, and discourage or regulate re-grading of lands up to the 100-foot contour,
or a distance of 600 feet inland from the River’s edge, whichever is greater.
5. Exclude such sensitive lands as wetlands, streams, and steep slopes of 25% or more when
calculating density in a conventional subdivision or a conservation subdivision. Develop criteria
and standards to govern siting of structures to avoid such areas by establishing specific building
envelopes on subdivision plans.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan would also establish a Town policy to prevent flooding by
controlling runoff rates and volumes, specifically by amending the Zoning Law to require all
new development and re-development to be in compliance with New York State’s Stormwater
Design Manual and the New York Guidelines of Urban Erosion and Sediment Control.
The purpose of the above policies is to protect surface waters from erosion and sedimentation
and to prevent flooding by controlling runoff rates and volumes. These policies would have
beneficial impact on surface water resources. They would be implemented by a number of
proposed amendments to the Zoning Law.
Zoning Law
The proposed Zoning Law would include new provisions establishing minimum requirements
for controlling stormwater runoff, soil erosion and sedimentation of surface waters for new
development activities by implementing the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation’s suggestions for local control. These provisions, which appear in Article V,
Section Z “Stormwater Management,” would apply to all land development activities, with a few
exceptions, such as agriculture, forestry, routine maintenance, previously approved land
development activities, and various activities of a minor nature, such as installation of fences,
signs, and home gardening, etc. With these exceptions, all land development activities in the
Town would require submission of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and, as
DRAFT IV-21 10/24/08

recommended by the proposed Comprehensive Plan, stormwater management practices would

be required to comply with New York State’s Stormwater Design Manual and the New York
Guidelines of Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. These requirements would provide greater
assurance that land development activities in Town would not result in erosion and
sedimentation of surface waters, and would provide better controls to minimize flooding, all
beneficial impacts.
To address potential impacts of stormwater runoff and erosion on the Hudson River, Article V,
Section F of the Zoning Law (Development Near Streams, Rivers, Wetlands and Other Water
Bodies) and the Town’s existing WRP-O District regulations in Article V, Section T have been
amended to require a special use permit for development activities within 1,000 feet of the
Hudson River. Within this area, no construction, filling, excavation, clearing of mature trees six
inches in diameter at breast height or greater, grading or other alteration of the natural landscape
or application of fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides would be allowed without the prior issuance
of a special use permit by the Planning Board. These provisions would allow the Planning Board
to ensure that development activities within the regulated area would not result in erosion and
water quality degradation to the Hudson River caused by surface runoff. The provisions would
also ensure that the proposed activity would not adversely affect neighboring properties with
regards to existing flood flows, flood storage, storm barriers and water quality. These are all
beneficial impacts on surface waters.
Article IV Section C of the proposed Zoning Law would amend the current method of
calculating permitted residential density. Currently, residential density is calculated in terms of
minimum lot area per dwelling unit. The proposed Zoning Law would provide for a maximum
residential building potential, which would be based on net density per dwelling unit, defined as
the ratio of dwelling units to the land area of the lot after subtracting non-buildable areas,
including 100-year flood plains, wetlands, regulated wetland buffers, ponds, streams, and steep
slopes over 25% gradient. This provision would implement the Comprehensive Plan’s
recommendation to exclude sensitive lands such as wetlands, streams, and steep slopes when
calculating density, and would allow for greater protection of these resources and associated
ecosystems during the development review process, all beneficial impacts.
Finally, the proposed Zoning Law would incorporate the procedures approved as part of the
Town’s adopted LWRP (Article 1, Section E) to ensure greater enforcement of the policies of
the LWRP during the review of actions by agencies in the Town.
The adoption of these provisions would implement the policies of the proposed Comprehensive
Plan to minimize potential impacts of erosion and sedimentation of surface waters as a result of
construction activity and to prevent flooding by controlling runoff rates and volumes. These
would be beneficial impacts on surface water resources.
Alternatives
While the existing Water Resources Protection Overlay (WRP-O) District would still apply in
Alternatives 1 and 2 and would limit the amount of development within 100 feet of water bodies,
the other provisions of the Proposed Action that seek to guide land use development in
accordance with natural features would not be implemented. Thus, while some protection of
water resources would exist under Alternatives 1 and 2, those protection measures would not be
as protective of the resources as the Proposed Action.
Potential impacts to water resources from Alternatives 3 through 7a would be essentially
identical to those of the Proposed Action. Alternative 7b would result in greater levels of
10/24/08 IV-22 DRAFT

residential development which would result in greater amounts of stormwater runoff that would
then have potential impacts on surface waters.

Since no significant adverse environmental impacts to surface waters as a result of the Proposed
Action were identified, no mitigation is required.
GROUNDWATER
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Aquifers are underground reservoirs that serve as the primary drinking water resource for many
residents in Rhinebeck. Aquifers in the Town of Rhinebeck were identified by the Dutchess
County Water and Wastewater Authority in 1993, and are shown in Figure 9.6 of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan. These aquifers are broken into three different zones of concern: Zone 1,
Zone 2, and Zone 3.
Of primary concern is Zone 1 where permeable deposits directly overlay the aquifer.
Contaminants can move directly downward to the aquifer with little or no natural filtration.
Protection of the Zone 1 areas is critical to maintain a clean drinking water supply and to avoid
costly, if not impractical, remediation efforts. Zone 1 aquifers underlie the Village of Rhinebeck,
extending into the Town to the immediate west and south. In the eastern portion of Town,
running from Route 308 down along White Schoolhouse Road, there is a Zone 1 aquifer with a
north-south orientation.
Zone 2 aquifers contain less permeable deposits located up gradient from the aquifer. These
areas contribute recharge to the aquifer through both overland runoff and ground water flow.
Contaminant pathways are generally longer and slower in Zone 1 than in Zone 2. Zone 2
aquifers are located adjacent to the Zone 1 aquifers.
Zone 3 areas contribute to streams and eventually infiltrate the aquifer. There is a large expanse
of Zone 3 aquifer located south and east of the Village underlying areas along Burger Road, Vlei
Road and east to beyond Route 9G and Wurtemburg Road.
While there is concern about the protection of the water quality of the Town's aquifers, there is
also concern about the amount and sustainability of water usage. Dutchess County recently
updated its 1982 "Gerber Report," which evaluated the County’s aquifers, estimated rates of
aquifer recharge, and calculated sustainable housing density thresholds specifically related to the
use of individual wells and septic systems. The update, entitled “Dutchess County Aquifer
Recharge Rates and Sustainable Septic System Density Recommendation” prepared by The
Chazen Companies in April 2006 (hereinafter “Dutchess County Aquifer Study”), recommends
maximum average density levels, based on aquifer recharge rates and soil types, to provide
greater assurances of sustainable groundwater supplies in the County. As can be seen on Figure
6 of the Dutchess County Aquifer Study, the majority of soils in the Town of Rhinebeck fall into
the density level range of 2.1 to 3.7 average acres/dwelling unit, with some areas in the range of
6.4 average acres/dwelling unit, for sustainable septic system densities. It should be noted that
the County’s recommendations are for average density not individual lot sizes, and should be
paired with cluster (conservation) development.
DRAFT IV-23 10/24/08

The Town’s current WRP-O District regulates land uses in designated aquifer areas and
prohibits certain uses in these areas, such as the disposal, storage or treatment of toxic,
hazardous and solid waste material, etc.
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed Comprehensive Plan recognizes a need to protect the Town’s environmentally
sensitive areas, including ground and surface waters, in order to ensure an adequate supply of
safe drinking water. Groundwater resources are critical to future development in Rhinebeck.
Since most of the Town relies on well water for domestic needs, it is essential to ensure that
there is an adequate supply for future growth, and to protect this supply from potential pollution.
To preserve the quality and quantity of groundwater resources and ensure a safe and adequate
water supply for present and future generations, the proposed Comprehensive Plan establishes as
an objective the need to “Protect surface and groundwater resources and natural drainage areas --
particularly existing and potential public water supplies. In sensitive aquifer recharge areas,
prohibit activities that could pollute the groundwater.”
To implement this objective, the Plan recommends the following actions:
1. Amend the aquifer overlay zone (in the WRP-O District) to ensure concerted protection and
preservation of the quality and quantity of groundwater resources that the Town depends on for
its present and future water supplies. When amending the Zoning Law and map, implement the
recommendations of Dutchess County’s “Gerber Report” [Dutchess County Aquifer Study] on
aquifers and its aquifer protection and sustainable use goals.
2. Regulate densities and land uses in aquifer and aquifer recharge areas to permit maximum
recharge and to protect water quality.
3. Require open space development [i.e., conservation subdivision] for residential subdivisions
in the aquifer overlay district [in the WRP-O District], in order to reduce the amount of
impervious surfaces.
4. Prohibit use of infiltration basins unless surface water quality flowing into the infiltration
basin is essentially pollutant-free, in order to ensure that groundwater is protected.
5. Adopt performance standards (such as enclosed buildings or structures), for the storage of:
animal wastes, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides; petroleum tank storage; and salt and coal; to
ensure prevention of seepage of these substances into groundwater.
6. Amend the Zoning Code to adopt requirements for innovatively managing stormwater with
such techniques as those that increase local infiltration rates, reduce runoff from impervious
surfaces, improve groundwater recharge, and reduce flooding and pollution problems for new
developments, as well as for retrofits, wherever possible – as described by the Low Impact
Development Center (www.lid-stormwater.net), a U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
funded clearinghouse for aquatic resource protection.
7. Urge the Town to continue to concertedly apply the requirements of the WRP-O District; to
revisit the current requirements to ensure they are consistent with the Plan’s recommendations
and amend them and the Zoning Map by adopting the proposed Water Resources Overlay Map
found at the end of Chapter 9 of the Comprehensive Plan. Work with surrounding towns to
10/24/08 IV-24 DRAFT

ensure that there is regional watershed-based cooperation for all development near wetlands,
surface waters and other environmentally sensitive water resource areas.
8. Regulate development within and adjacent to wetlands, streams and flood-prone areas.
9. Encourage the Dutchess County Health Department to require septic system inspections,
including dye tests, upon sale of improved properties.
10. Conduct a public education program on the appropriate use and alternatives to pesticides,
herbicides and fertilizers. Assign the CAC the responsibility to create the educational materials
for use in the program.
11. Restrict all types of commercial use that could adversely impact or degrade water resources,
including but not limited to: gasoline stations, petroleum bulk storage, dry cleaners and other
ventures that use hazardous materials and wastes.
The above recommended actions are designed to implement the objective to protect groundwater
quality and quantity, a beneficial impact on groundwater resources.
Zoning Law
The proposed Zoning Law would implement a number of the Plan’s recommended actions
(some of the above recommendations would be implemented by other means than the Zoning
Law). Aquifers in the Town have been delineated on the Proposed Water Resources Overlay
Map in the proposed Zoning Law. Development activities in these areas would be regulated by
Article V Section T of the Zoning Law, and would require a special use permit. The WRP-O
District regulations have been amended to include performance standards for the storage of
animal wastes, fertilizers, pesticides etc. in an enclosed building or structure to prevent seepage
of these substances into groundwater. In addition, Article V Section T would prohibit types of
commercial uses that could adversely impact groundwater, such as gasoline stations and bulk
gas and petroleum products storage, in the aquifer protection area of the WRP-O District. These
amendments to the Zoning Code would afford better protection of groundwater resources, a
beneficial impact.
The Dutchess County Aquifer Study was consulted in amending the proposed Zoning Map.
Areas of the Town where a majority of the lands have been recommended by the Dutchess
County Aquifer Study for a maximum average density of one dwelling unit per 2.1 to 6.4
average acres are proposed to be rezoned from R3A (the 3 acre district) to Rural Countryside 6
(which would permit a maximum average density of one dwelling unit per six acres). The RC6
District recognizes the pattern of rural-density development in an area of the Town where
significant environmental constraints are abundant, including all of the lands that overlay the
Town’s aquifers with the exception of a very small area immediately to the south of the Village
of Rhinebeck and to the west of Route 9 (a portion of which would remain zoned as a Gateway
district (GW-S) and a portion of which would be rezoned Historic Preservation 20 acre). As
recommended by the Dutchess County Aquifer Study, the proposed reduction in permitted
density would ensure the adequate dilution of wastewater discharges from septic systems and
thereby provide a greater assurance of available, sustainable potable water supply for Rhinebeck
residents, a beneficial impact.
The proposed Zoning Law would permit conservation subdivision as-of-right, and would require
a special use permit for conventional lot-by-lot development. These provisions would protect
groundwater resources by allowing the Planning Board to require conservation subdivision
where it finds significant water resources, including aquifer and aquifer recharge areas, on sites
DRAFT IV-25 10/24/08

proposed for development. Under the provisions of Article V Section I (Conservation

Subdivision), the Planning Board would be authorized to deny a Special Use Permit for a
conventional subdivision and require a conservation subdivision if it determined that a
conventional subdivision would have adverse impacts on aquifer or aquifer recharge areas.
These measures would maintain the quality of the groundwater resources, which the Town
depends on for its present and future public water supply, a beneficial impact.
The proposed Zoning (Article V Section T4(a)(viii)) would prohibit the installation or use of
stormwater runoff infiltration basins unless surface water quality flowing into the infiltration
basin is of sufficient quality that groundwater would be protected, a beneficial impact on
groundwater resources.
Development within and adjacent to wetlands, streams and flood-prone areas would be regulated
as discussed in the preceding section on surface waters and in the section on wetlands in section
D(c) below. Since aquifers are significantly linked to surface water resources, they are
vulnerable to both point and non-point pollution. Protection of surface water resources thus
results in beneficial impacts on groundwater quality.
The proposed Zoning amendments would include a new section on stormwater management
(Article V Section Z). The purpose of this new section is to establish minimum requirements for
the control of stormwater runoff, soil erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. The proposed
stormwater management regulations would apply to all development activities, subject to review
and approval by the Planning Board under subdivision, site plan, and/or special permit
regulations, with a few exemptions relative to agriculture, forestry, routine maintenance,
previously approved plans, and minor activities. With these exceptions, all land development
activities in the Town would require submission of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in
accordance with Section Z. As noted above, aquifers are significantly linked to surface water
resources and are therefore vulnerable to both point and non-point pollution. Protection of
surface water quality through the adoption of the proposed stormwater management regulations
would have beneficial impacts on groundwater quality.
As recommended by the proposed Comprehensive Plan, stormwater management practices
would be required to comply with New York State’s Stormwater Design Manual and New York
Guidelines of Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. In addition, as recommended by the Low
Impact Development Center and the proposed Comprehensive Plan, the proposed Zoning Law in
Article V Section B.7 includes recommended low impact stormwater management design
techniques, including, for instance, the use of rain gardens and bioretention; vegetated swales,
buffers, and strips; permeable pavers, permeable asphalt, permeable concrete; soil amendments;
impervious surface reduction and disconnection; and pocket wetlands. These techniques would
reduce runoff from impervious surfaces, increase infiltration rates, and improve groundwater
recharge, all of which are beneficial impacts.
Finally, it should be noted that in addition to reducing permitted density in outlying areas of the
Town where aquifers and other environmentally sensitive resources are located, the proposed
Zoning Law would concentrate new development in the proposed traditional neighborhoods. As
noted in the Dutchess County Aquifer Study, “[c]oncentrating most new development in and
around traditional mixed-use, walkable cities, villages and hamlet centers is still one of the best
strategies to protect natural resources and the rural countryside, which provides significant
filtering and recharge of our groundwater resources.”
10/24/08 IV-26 DRAFT

Alternatives
The key to protecting groundwater resources is minimizing the number of new individual on-site
wastewater treatment systems (septic systems), minimizing the amount of new impervious
surface areas, and protecting contiguous areas of forested or meadow land to allow for
groundwater recharge. Thus, any of the alternatives that reduce overall development levels from
existing Zoning would result in better protection of the Town’s groundwater.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in more development, greater disturbance of forested and
meadow land, and more impervious surface areas than the Proposed Action. These differences
would result in less groundwater recharge generally and, where it does occur, greater potential
for contamination from pollutants from septic systems, lawn fertilizers and pesticides, and
impervious surfaces. Thus, Alternatives 1 and 2 would not be as protective of groundwater
resources as the Proposed Action.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would result in comparable levels of development when compared to the
Proposed Action and so would have comparable impacts to the Town’s groundwater.
Alternative 6 would result in significantly higher levels of development within the Historic
Preservation district, but comparable levels of development elsewhere. Thus, Alternative 6
might result in slightly less protection of the Town’s groundwater resources within the Historic
Preservation district than the Proposed Action, but comparable impacts Town-wide.
Alternative 7a would not significantly change the amount of development as compared to the
Proposed Action and so would have comparable effects on the groundwater. Alternative 7b
would result in significantly more development than the Proposed Action and, like Alternatives
1 and 2, would result in greater disturbance of forested and meadow land and more impervious
surface areas compared to the Proposed Action so would be less protective of groundwater
resources.

Since no significant adverse environmental impacts to groundwater as a result of the Proposed
Action were identified, no mitigation is required.
D. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY
VEGETATION
EXISTING CONDITIONS
General vegetative communities and habitat types in the Town of Rhinebeck have been
identified, mapped, and extensively studied by Hudsonia Ltd. The results of Hudsonia’s field
work are presented in their July 2007 report “Significant Habitats in the Town of Rhinebeck,”
which appears as Volume 2, Appendix 6 to the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
According to Hudsonia, of the total 36.2 square mile area comprising the Town of Rhinebeck
(excluding the Hudson River area), approximately 84% of the Town was mapped as significant
habitat. Figure 3 in the Hudsonia report identifies blocks of contiguous undeveloped habitat
within the Town. Several types of common habitats cover extensive areas within these blocks.
For example, approximately 56% of the Town (excluding the Hudson River) is forested, 19% is
DRAFT IV-27 10/24/08

open meadow (agricultural areas and other managed and unmanaged grassland habitats), and
14% is wetland.
Some of the habitats identified by Hudsonia are rare or declining in the region and support rare
species of plants or animals, while others are high quality examples of common habitats or
habitat complexes. In total, Hudsonia identified 32 different kinds of habitats in the Town, which
they consider to be of potential ecological importance. Among the more interesting were 193
intermittent woodland [vernal] pools, several wet clay meadows larger than 5 acres, two
meadow complexes covering more than 200 acres, eight kettle shrub pools, and an oak-heath
barren.
Although the mapped areas represent ecologically significant habitats, all have been altered to a
variable degree by past and present human activities. Most or all areas of the upland forests, for
example, have been logged repeatedly in the last 300 years. Many forested areas lack the
structural complexity of mature forests. Many of the wetlands in the Town have been
extensively altered by human activities such as damming, filling, draining, and railroad and road
construction. Purple loosestrife, one of the most widespread plants in marshes and wet meadows
throughout the Town, was introduced to the region in the 1800s and has since displaced many
native wetland species.
The three general habitat types in the Town of Rhinebeck are the upland, wetland, and Hudson
River habitats. Ecologically significant habitats associated with these three general habitat types
as documented by Hudsonia are listed in Table IV-14 and are described in detail in the Hudsonia
Significant Habitat study in Appendix 6 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
Table IV-14
Vegetative Habitats
Upland Habitats Wetland Habitats Hudson River Habitats
Upland hardwood forest Hardwood & shrub swamp Hudson River rocky island
Upland conifer forest Conifer swamp Estuarine rocky shore
Upland mixed forest Mixed forest swamp Supratidal railroad causeway
Red cedar woodland Intermittent woodland pool Freshwater tidal swamp
Crest/ledge/talus Buttonbush pool Freshwater tidal marsh
Oak-heath barren Kettle shrub pool Tidal tributary mouth
Clay bluff and ravine Marsh
Upland shrubland Wet meadow
Upland meadow Calcareous wet meadow
Orchard/plantation Wet clay meadow
Cultural Spring/seep
Waste ground Constructed Pond
Open water
Stream
Source: Hudsonia Ltd., Significant Habitats in the Town of Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York,
July 2007.
On March 21, 2003, the Town contacted the New York State Natural Heritage Program,
requesting information on unique, rare and/or endangered, threatened and special concern plant
species and significant ecological communities. Correspondence from the Natural Heritage
10/24/08 IV-28 DRAFT

Program dated June 14, 2004, indicates that, based on their database, the feature that most
clearly stands out in the Town is the Hudson River, including Vanderburg Cove. The Hudson
River is a tidal river that includes several submerged aquatic vegetation beds (SAV beds). In the
middle of the river north of Rhinecliff, the middle flats are a shallow area that has a large SAV
bed.
The Vanderburg Cove is a freshwater bay of the Hudson River that is fed by two small
tributaries. Significant ecological communities found in this area include a 117 acre freshwater
tidal marsh and freshwater intertidal mudflats, both of which are rare habitats in New York State
and are of a very high quality in this location. Rare plants found in this area include the spongy
arrowhead and estuary beggar ticks.
Other rare plants found in Rhinebeck according to the Natural Heritage Program database
include the swamp cottonwood and button-bush dodder.
Plant species of conservation concern potentially associated with habitats in the Town of
Rhinebeck are listed in Appendix C of the Hudsonia Significant Habitats report in Appendix 6 of
the proposed Comprehensive Plan. These include plants listed by New York State as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Rare (R), and Special Concern (SC); by the New York State
Natural Heritage Program ranks (S1, S2, S3, SNA); and Hudsonia’s regional ranks (RG). Table
IV-15 lists the plant species identified by New York State as of conservation concern that are
potentially associated with the three general habitat types in the Town of Rhinebeck.
Table IV-15
Plant Species of Conservation Concern
clustered sedge (T, S2S3) swamp cottonwood (T, S2) yellow harlequin (S3)
reflexed sedge (E, S2S3) winged monkey-flower (R, S3) clustered sedge (T, S2S3)
slender knotweed (R, S3) featherfoil (T, S2) wild lupine (S3)
smooth cliffbrake (T, S2) false hop sedge (R, S2) river birch (S3)
Emmons’ sedge (S3) spiny coontail (T, S3) estuary beggar-ticks (R, S3)
yellow harlequin (S3) buttonbush dodder (E, S1) heartleaf plantain (T, S3)
small-flowered crowfoot (T, S3) small-flowered agrimony (S3) terrestrial starwort (T, S2S3)
goldenseal (T, S2) Schweinitz’s sedge (T, S2S3) Drummond’s rock-cress (E)
shrubby St. Johnswort (T, S2) ovate spikerush (E, S1S2) slender knotweed (R, S3)
field-dodder (S3) swamp birch (T, S2) kidneyleaf mud-plantain (S3)
slender pinweed (T, S2) Frank’s sedge (E, S1) Fernald’s sedge (T, S2S3)
rattlebox (E, S1) Bush’s sedge (S3) Long’s bittercress (T, S2)
blunt mountain-mint (T, S2S3) downy ground-cherry (E, S1) spongy arrowhead (T, S2)
small skullcap (S3) goldenclub (T, S2)
devil’s-bit (T, S1S2) American waterwort (E, S1)
riverweed (T, S2) heartleaf plantain (T, S3)
goldenseal (T, S2) swamp lousewort (T, S2)
cattail sedge (T, S1) winged monkey-flower (R, S3)
Davis’ sedge (T, S2) smooth bur-marigold (T, S2)
Notes: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; R = Rare; SC = Special Concern
S1, S2, S3, SNA = NYS Natural Heritage Program ranks
RG = Hudsonia Ltd. Regional rank
Source: Hudsonia Ltd., Significant Habitats in the Town of Rhinebeck, July 2007.
DRAFT IV-29 10/24/08

Comprehensive Plan
The Town of Rhinebeck contains a diversity of habitats and plant species of conservation
concern which are vulnerable to the adverse impacts often associated with development and
construction. The consequences of land development can include widespread habitat
degradation, habitat fragmentation, and the loss of native biodiversity. The proposed
Comprehensive Plan recommends the following actions relative to vegetation in the Town:
1. Encourage use of native and non-invasive non-native species for landscaping and discourage
use of invasive plant species. Make information about native and invasive plants available at
Town Hall, the libraries, and on the Town’s website. Stipulate that all new landscaping in the
Zoning Law (primarily for commercial sites) makes use of non-invasive native plants.
Encourage the County and the State to plant native species alongside roadways, in roadway
medians, or on other lands under their ownership or management.
2. In new subdivisions, discourage the conversion of indigenous plant life on a site to
manicured lawns and gardens using non-native and/or non-indigenous plants by providing
educational materials to residents and newcomers. Set performance standards for the clearing of
native vegetation in new subdivision.
3. Minimize the clearing of vegetation and preserve important vegetation and habitat by
amending the Zoning Law to require the use of conservation subdivision design on parcels
where forests or significant trees exist.
4. Request that the Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development map significant
stands of forest, five acres and greater in size, as a tool for the Planning Board and CAC.
5. Design new conservation regulations to allow for development based upon the carrying
capacity of the land, so that it is compatible with natural resources and preserves and protects
ecosystems in their entirety. Accomplish this by minimizing fragmentation of the landscape,
maintaining biodiversity and protecting unique environmental features.
6. Create standards to protect, conserve, enhance, restore and maintain significant natural
features and the ecological connections between them. Designate open space development [i.e,
conservation subdivision] as a permitted use. Subject conventional subdivision to the special use
permit requirements of the Zoning Law.
7. Integrate the information contained in the Town’s “Significant Habitat Study” into the site
plan and subdivision review and SEQR review processes.
8. Use the baseline inventories, combined with other regional data, to develop a biodiversity
plan and map, which can then be used to make biologically sound decisions during the planning
process.
9. Work with adjacent towns and continue to work with Hudsonia Ltd. to develop strategies for
protecting bio-diversity in Rhinebeck. Continue to train CAC members and volunteers in
biodiversity assessment.
10. Limit development, to the greatest extent possible, to already existing fragmented areas
through the use of open space development [i.e., conservation subdivision]. Plan for new
development to maintain ecological connections and protect critical resources so that further
fragmentation does not occur.
10/24/08 IV-30 DRAFT

11. Work with local land trusts to acquire conservation easements to help preserve
environmentally sensitive lands.
12. Designate the following as Critical Environmental Areas (CEA): Ferncliff Forest, Snyder
Swamp, Vlei Swamp, Vanderburgh Cove, Suckley Cove, Astor Cove, and the hillsides above
these coves which are critical to the area’s ecology and significant for their natural conditions.
All of these areas contain significant habitats with plant species of conservation concern. The
designation of these areas as CEAs under SEQR would provide additional review, and add
protection of these areas during the SEQR review of development proposals, resulting in a
beneficial impact on plant species of conservation concern.
These policies, if implemented, would have beneficial impacts on vegetation in the Town.
Zoning Law
Several suggestions from the Plan relate to the Town Board taking specific actions related to
local regulations including Zoning. The following provisions in the proposed Zoning Law would
implement these actions. Article V, Section W would establish landscaping standards for the
Town, which would require that: existing vegetation be preserved as much as possible by
minimizing clearing in new developments; existing trees six inches or more in diameter at breast
height, or trees of lesser diameter but determined by the Planning Board to be locally important
such as rare or unusual species, be preserved to the maximum extent practical, and; that
landscaping be designed to facilitate conservation of the environment through the inclusion of
native plant material and the retention of existing natural vegetation.
These provisions would have beneficial impacts on vegetation, particularly on species of
concern, by minimizing disturbance to vegetation and by reducing the impacts of invasive
species. Since non-native and invasive species can displace native species and disrupt
ecosystems, and since species of conservation concern are the most vulnerable to displacement,
the recommendations to utilize native and non-invasive plant materials would be a particularly
beneficial impact for rare, threatened, and endangered plant species.
Article V, Section Y of the proposed Zoning Law would establish provisions for Habitat and
Natural Resource Management. This section of the Zoning Law would require, where
appropriate, the inclusion of habitat assessments as part of the planning and design review
process. The habitat assessment would survey the existing environmental conditions of the site,
identify areas of ecological sensitivity, determine what the impact of the proposed development
would be, and propose mitigation. Hudsonia’s Significant Habitat Study could be used as the
basis for the habitat assessments, thereby integrating the important information contained in this
study into the site plan, subdivision, and SEQR review process. One specific area of concern
identified to be included as part of the assessment is the presence of protected species of plants
as defined by the State and/or federal governments. These provisions would have beneficial
impacts by protecting plants of conservation concern that are vulnerable to the adverse impacts
often associated with development and construction.
The proposed Zoning Law would permit conservation subdivision as-of-right, and would require
a special use permit for conventional lot-by-lot development. These provisions would protect
vegetation resources by allowing the Planning Board to require conservation subdivision where
it finds important vegetation and habitat on sites proposed for development. The Planning Board
could use these provisions to ensure the protection of species of conservation concern; to
minimize the clearing of vegetation on a site; and to limit new development, to the greatest
extent possible, to lands where existing forests have already been fragmented (rather than further
DRAFT IV-31 10/24/08

fragmenting existing large tracts of forested lands), thereby maintaining biodiversity, all
beneficial impacts. Under the provisions of Article V Section I (Conservation Subdivision), the
Planning Board would be authorized to deny a Special Use Permit for a conventional
subdivision and require a conservation subdivision if it determined that a conventional
subdivision would have adverse impacts on vegetation. These measures would ensure greater
protection of important vegetation, including species of conservation concern, a beneficial
impact.
In the proposed Zoning the existing Article VI, Section D 48 has been amended to increase
jurisdiction over marinas, boat clubs, boathouses, docks, ramps and moorings within 1,500 feet
from the banks of the Hudson River; to add consideration of such uses on submerged aquatic
vegetation, and; to prohibit fuel dispensing, as outlined in the Town’s adopted LWRP. As noted
by the NYS Natural Heritage Program in correspondence dated June 14, 2004, planning issues
that might affect the Hudson River ecosystem include river access, boat launches and shoreline
development. The added provisions proposed as part of the action would have beneficial impact
on aquatic vegetation.
The recommended policies of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the implementation of
those policies in the proposed Zoning Law would have beneficial impacts on vegetation,
particularly on species of conservation concern.
Zoning Law
It should be noted that while the proposed Zoning Map would reduce permitted density in
outlying areas of the Town, it would permit an increase in density in the proposed TND District
(from one dwelling unit per 3 acres, as currently zoned, to 4 dwelling units per acre in the
residential neighborhood and 6 dwelling units per acre in the Main Street area). As shown on
Figure 2 of the Hudsonia Significant Habitat study (in Appendix 6 of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan), the area where the TND District is proposed primarily consists of upland
hardwood forest. This is the most common habitat type in the region. Forests of all kinds are
important habitat for wildlife, particularly extensive forested areas that are unfragmented by
roads, meadows, trails, utility corridors, or developed lots, which are increasingly rare in the
region. Most of the forested areas in Rhinebeck that have high densities of detrimental non-
native species are adjacent to fields, roads, trails, and other developed areas. The lands proposed
to be rezoned for the TND District are adjacent to a large existing commercial development
located along Route 9, and are therefore likely to have a high density of non-native species.
Moreover, these lands have not been included by Hudsonia in their priority conservation areas
(areas where biodiversity conservation efforts would be particularly effective), as shown on
Figure 11 of the Hudsonia Significant Habitat study. Small areas of upland and wet meadow are
present in this area, but the wetlands are already severely degraded and appear to be the result of
runoff from the large adjacent parking lot that serves the commercial uses. No significant
adverse impacts to vegetation are anticipated as a result of the proposed Zoning of these lands
for an increased level of development.
The lands proposed for the Rc-HE District consist primarily of upland hardwood forest and
upland meadow, the second most common habitat type in Rhinebeck, typically dominated by
grasses and forbs. A small portion of these lands are located along the westernmost edge of the
large unfragmented upland meadow that Hudsonia has identified as the Mill Road priority
conservation area. The small portion of the proposed Rc-HE District located in this area is
located in an area where the meadow is already bisected by an existing road. The remaining
lands in the Mill Road priority area would be zoned HP20 or would remain RL5, with
10/24/08 IV-32 DRAFT

conservation subdivision as a permitted use. No significant adverse environmental impacts to

vegetation are anticipated as a result of the proposed Rc-HE District.
Alternatives
See the discussion below under “Wildlife” for a comparative analysis of impacts to vegetation.

Since no significant adverse environmental impacts to vegetation were identified, no mitigation
is required.
WILDLIFE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Vanderburg Cove is a freshwater bay of the Hudson River that is fed by two small
tributaries. Vanderburg Cove and the tidal portion of the tributaries is a migratory fish
concentration area and a waterfowl and raptor conservation area. Rare birds include peregrine
falcon, bald eagle, and pied-billed grebe. The New York Reptile and Amphibian Atlas has 142
records of 30 species of reptiles and amphibians in Rhinebeck, including a number of vernal
pool dependent species such as forest salamanders, blue spotted salamander, and marbled
salamander. This indicates that the Town has some high quality forests. For a fuller
understanding of wildlife species of concern in the Town of Rhinebeck see the Hudsonia study
included as Volume 2, Appendix 6 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
Wildlife species of conservation concern potentially associated with habitats in the Town of
Rhinebeck are listed in Appendix C of the Hudsonia Significant Habitats Report included in
Volume 2, Appendix 6 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. These include species listed by
New York State as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Rare (R), and Special Concern (SC); by the
New York State Natural Heritage Program ranks (S1, S2, S3, SNA); Hudsonia’s regional ranks
(RG); and bird species listed by Partner in Flight as high conservation priorities at the
continental (PIF1) and regional (P1F2) level. Table IV-16 lists the wildlife species listed by the
State as of conservation concern that are potentially associated with the three general habitat
types in the Town of Rhinebeck.

The Proposed Action is intended to minimize impacts of new development on natural systems
including upland and aquatic resources. By minimizing upland disturbance, the Proposed Action
would reduce surface runoff and therefore would result in improved conditions to surface waters
including the Hudson River compared to existing conditions. With the Proposed Action the
Hudson River would be able to continue to provide habitat to a number of important recreational
and commercial fish species, including the federally endangered shortnose sturgeon.
Habitat fragmentation is among the primary threats to biodiversity (Hudsonia, Significant
Habitats, page 73). While some species and habitats may be adequately protected at a relatively
small scale, many wide-ranging species, such as barred owl, and red-shouldered hawk, require
large, unbroken blocks of habitat. Many species, such as wood turtle and Jefferson salamander,
need to travel among different habitats to satisfy their basic needs for food, water, cover, nesting
and nursery areas, and population dispersal. Landscapes that are fragmented by roads, railroads,
DRAFT IV-33 10/24/08

Table IV-16
Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern
Jefferson’s salamander (SC) blue-spotted salamander (SC) wood turtle (SC, S3)
blue-spotted salamander (SC) marbled salamander (SC) spotted turtle (SC, S3)
marbled salamander (SC, S3) northern cricket frog (E, S1) Pomatiopsis lapidaria (snail) (S3)
eastern box turtle (SC, S3) spotted turtle (SC, S3) osprey (SC)
spotted turtle (SC, S3) wood turtle (SC, S3) bald eagle (T, S2S3B)
Blanding’s turtle (T, S2S3) Blanding’s turtle (T, S2S3) northern harrier (T, S3B, S3N)
wood turtle (SC, S3) eastern box turtle (SC, S3) least bittern (T, S3B, S1N)
eastern hognose snake (SC,S3) red-shouldered hawk (SC) American bittern (SC)
worm snake (SC, S2) prothonotary warbler (S2) harbor seal (S3)
northern copperhead (S3) bald eagle (T, S2S3B)
northern harrier (T, S3B, S3N) American bittern (SC)
northern goshawk (SC, S3N) least bittern (T, S3B, S1N)
red-shouldered hawk (SC) king rail (T, S1B)
Cooper’s hawk (SC) cerulean warbler (SC)
sharp-shinned hawk (SC) northern harrier (T, S3B, S3N)
golden eagle (E, SHB, S1N) piled-billed grebe (T, S3B, S1N)
bald eagle (T, S2S3B) sedge wren (T, S3B)
osprey (SC) Henslow’s sparrow (T, S3B)
loggerhead shrike (E, S1B) Indiana bat (E, S1)
golden-winged warbler (SC) Dion skipper (butterfly) (S3)
yellow-breasted chat (SC) grey petaltail (dragonfly) (SC, S2)
clay-colored sparrow (S2) tiger spiketail (dragonfly) (S1)
vesper sparrow (SC) osprey (SC)
arrowhead spiketail (dragonfly)
grasshopper sparrow (SC)
(S2S3)
Henslow’s sparrow (T, S3B) mocha emerald (dragonfly) (S2S3)
upland sandpiper (T, S3B) sable clubtail (dragonfly) (S1)
sedge wren (T, S3B) brook floater (mussel) (T, S1)
common nighthawk (SC) clam shrimp (R)
whip-poor-will (SC)
Acadian flycatcher (S3)
cerulean warbler (SC)
Kentucky warbler (S2)
long-eared owl (E, S2)
short-eared owl (E, S2)
Indiana bat (E, S1)
small-footed myotis (bat) (SC,S2)
Edward’s hairstreak (butterfly)
(S3S4)
northern hairstreak (S1S3)

dusted skipper (butterfly) (S3)
northern oak hairstreak (butterfly)
(S1S3)
Source: Hudsonia Ltd., Significant Habitats in the Town of Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York, July 2007.
10/24/08 IV-34 DRAFT

utility corridors, and developed land limit animal movements and interactions, disrupting
patterns of dispersal, reproduction, competition, and predation. Habitat patches surrounded by
human development function as islands. Species unable to move between habitats are vulnerable
to genetic isolation and possible extirpation over the long term. Landscapes with interconnected
networks of unfragmented habitat are more likely to support a broad diversity of native species
and the ecological processes and disturbance regimes that maintain those species. The Town of
Rhinebeck still contains many large habitat patches, and careful siting of new development can
protect these patches and maintain corridors between them.
Comprehensive Plan
One objective of the proposed Comprehensive Plan is to inventory important wildlife
communities and protect and restore them through the preservation of natural areas and
greenspace corridors. To achieve this objective, the Plan recommends the following actions:
1. Integrate the information contained in the Town’s “Significant Habitat Study” into the site
plan and subdivision review process and SEQR review process.
2. Adopt standards that require biodiversity assessment for proposed development. Apply the
standards during the SEQR review of development applications, thereby ensuring that adequate
effort is being expended--at appropriate times of year, using appropriate techniques--to assess
wildlife resources on a parcel. Have the assessment prepared by a Town Board-appointed
biodiversity consultant or qualified biologist, and the applicant assume financial responsibility
for it.
3. Use the baseline inventories, combined with other regional data, to develop a biodiversity
plan and map, which can then be used to make biologically sound decisions during the planning
process.
4. Work with adjacent towns and continue to work with Hudsonia Ltd., to develop strategies
for protecting bio-diversity in Rhinebeck. Continue to train CAC members and volunteers in
biodiversity assessment.
5. Limit development, to the greatest extent possible, to already existing fragmented areas
through the use of open space development [i.e., conservation subdivision]. Plan for new
development to maintain ecological connections and protect critical resources so that further
fragmentation does not occur.
6. Work with local land trusts to acquire conservation easements to help preserve
environmentally sensitive lands.
The Plan also recommends designating the following significant ecological areas as Critical
Environmental Areas (CEA): Ferncliff Forest, Snyder Swamp, Vlie Swamp, Vanderburgh Cove,
Suckley Cove, Astor Cove, and the hillsides above these coves which are critical to the area’s
ecology and significant for their natural conditions. All of these areas contain significant habitats
with wildlife species of conservation concern. The designation of these areas as CEAs under
SEQR would provide additional review and added protection of these areas during the SEQR
review of development proposals in these areas, a beneficial impact on plant species of
conservation concern.
The following two additional actions recommended by the Plan would also have beneficial
impacts on wildlife by minimizing fragmentation of the landscape, and maintaining biodiversity:
DRAFT IV-35 10/24/08

1. Design new conservation regulations to allow for development based upon the carrying
capacity of the land, so that it is compatible with natural resources and preserves and protects
ecosystems in their entirety.
2. Create standards to protect, conserve, enhance, restore and maintain significant natural
features and the ecological connections between them. Designate open space development [i.e,
conservation subdivision] as a permitted use. Subject conventional subdivision to the special use
permit requirements of the Zoning Law.
Zoning Law
The proposed Zoning Law would implement a number of these recommended policies. For
instance, Article V Section Y would establish provisions for Habitat and Natural Resource
Management. This section of the Zoning Law would require, where appropriate, the inclusion of
habitat assessments as part of the planning and design review process. The habitat assessment
would survey the existing environmental conditions of the site, identify any areas of ecological
sensitivity, determine what the impact of the proposed development would be, and propose
mitigation. Hudsonia’s Significant Habitat Study could be used as the basis for the habitat
assessments, thereby integrating the important information contained in this study into the site
plan, subdivision, and SEQR review process. One specific area of concern identified to be
included as part of the assessment is the presence of wildlife of conservation concern and
protected animals as identified by the State and/or federal governments, including, but not
limited to, breeding birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals. These provisions would have
beneficial impacts by protecting wildlife that is vulnerable to the adverse impacts often
associated with development and construction. Moreover, the use of conservation subdivision to
limit new development, to the greatest extent possible, to lands where existing forests have
already been fragmented rather than further fragmenting tracts of forested lands would have
beneficial impacts on wildlife by protecting travel corridors between habitats that many species
depend on for their survival.
The proposed Zoning Law would overhaul the existing regulations pertaining to residential
cluster development, with a new emphasis on conservation, open space, and use of an illustrated
four step design process. The new provisions would permit conservation subdivision as-of-right,
and would require a special use permit for conventional lot-by-lot development. The minimum
amount of required open space would be increased. These provisions would protect wildlife
resources by allowing the Planning Board to require conservation subdivision where it finds
important wildlife, habitat, and wildlife corridors on sites proposed for development. Under the
provisions of Article V Section I (Conservation Subdivision), the Planning Board would be
authorized to deny a Special Use Permit for a conventional subdivision, and require a
conservation subdivision, if it is determined that a conventional subdivision would have adverse
impacts on wildlife, such as fragmenting a significant habitat block or locating roads or
development in areas that would prevent wildlife from traveling between different habitats.
These measures would ensure greater protection of wildlife, particularly species of conservation
concern, a beneficial impact.
The extent of impacts to vegetation and wildlife from new development is largely a function of
how much the existing habitat is fragmented by residential structures, roads, and other disturbed
areas. Where habitat is preserved intact, there is a greater likelihood that the structures and
functions of those habitats would be maintained and the vegetative and wildlife species that rely
on them would be protected. Where new development is created in landscapes without regard to
10/24/08 IV-36 DRAFT

habitat, incremental losses occur that can accumulate to significant levels given the sensitivity of
some species to human activity.
Alternatives
Alternative 1 would continue the pattern of development required by the existing zoning, which
results in greater levels of disturbance for the same amount of residential development as
allowed under the Proposed Action. Larger residential lots require greater amounts of
disturbance for clearing the sites and for building roads to access the sites; thus more impacts to
habitat and wildlife.
Alternative 2 would require conservation subdivision development, which would, theoretically,
preserve intact areas of habitat much like the Proposed Action. Alternative 2 would still,
however, result in greater amounts of total development than the Proposed Action and, thus, a
greater level of overall disturbance within the Town.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would all have comparable levels of development to the Proposed
Action and would result in a similar pattern of development based on conservation subdivision
design. Thus, each of these alternatives would have comparable impacts to habitat and wildlife
as the Proposed Action.
Alternative 6 would lead to an increase in development within the Historic Preservation district
which may lead to more disturbance to habitat and wildlife in this area. However, in general,
Alternative 6 would have a comparable level of disturbance town-wide.
Alternative 7a would have comparable impacts to habitat and wildlife as the Proposed Action.
Alternative 7b would result in considerably higher levels of development than the Proposed
Action and would, thus, have greater potential for impacts to habitat and wildlife.

Since no significant adverse environmental impacts to wildlife were identified, no mitigation is
required.
WETLANDS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Wetlands serve a large number of valuable ecological functions including, but not limited to,
water purification during groundwater recharge, stormwater retention, flood control, and wildlife
habitat. As shown on Figure 9.1 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, a total of 39 state
regulated and 46 federally regulated wetlands (some of which overlap) are located in the Town
and Village of Rhinebeck. Together, these regulated wetlands consume approximately 11% of
the land in the Town and Village. Many more wetlands that are considered to be “isolated” are
also present in the Town, but these wetlands are not currently subject to either state or federal
regulations.
The State Freshwater Wetlands Act provides protection for freshwater wetlands 12.4 acres in
size and greater. The Federal Clean Water Act provides for the US Army Corp to have
jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters, wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters,
non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the
tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (for example,
DRAFT IV-37 10/24/08

typically three months), and wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. This leaves smaller
"isolated" wetlands unprotected by either the State or Federal government.
According to the Significant Habitats study, large wetland complexes located in the Town
include Snyder and Vlei swamps, an area between Ackert Hook and Knollwood roads, an area
southwest of the Village between Route 9 and Mill Road, and an area north of the Village
between Route 9 and Old Post Road. There are several tidal wetlands along the Hudson River
including Astor and Vanderburg Coves. Hudsonia also identified 193 intermittent woodland
[vernal] pools in the Town. Vernal pools are significant because they are productive breeding
areas for a variety of amphibians. Vernal pools are typically considered "isolated" wetlands
because they generally do not drain into waters which are navigable and would fall under
jurisdiction of the Federal government. This leaves this highly productive type of wetland
virtually unprotected.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), wetland loss
nationwide was estimated at 300,000 acres per year during the 1970's and 1980's.1 In New York
State, by the mid 1980's, it has been estimated the state lost sixty percent (60%) of its wetland
base. Through the enactment of the Federal Clean Water Act, there has been improvement in
both the national and state wetland loss, but it has not been completely deterred. In the case of
coastal states, such as New York, it has been noted that these states are losing wetlands to
development more rapidly than inland states. In the absence of regulations governing wetlands
smaller than the New York State Freshwater Wetland threshold of 12.4 acres, wetland loss is
potentially a continued negative environmental impact.
As documented in numerous scientific references used to draft the Plan and associated
regulations, the direct loss of wetlands or the degradation of wetlands, can have impacts on a
number of ecological functions occurring within wildlife habitat. Wetlands also serve to
attenuate flood waters. Wetland loss decreases the natural ability of the land to accommodate
flood waters and diminishes the amount of pollutant removal and groundwater recharge that
occur within healthy wetlands. These are important components for ensuring the quality and
adequate quantity of drinking water. The loss or degradation of wetlands creates the potential for
more costly water treatment options and/or flood control infrastructure.
The greatest threat to wetland function is the direct loss of wetlands due to filling, draining or
discharging of toxic materials. Wetland loss or degradation can occur if structures (including
stormwater management facilities or sewage disposal structures) are placed within wetlands, or
if vegetation (including trees and brush) are removed, or if soil or gravel mining, feedlot
operations or motorized vehicles are utilizing wetland areas. All of the aforementioned activities
are prohibited by the proposed law and are intended to provide beneficial impacts by retaining
wetlands in their natural state.
The Town recognizes there are situations where it would be necessary to conduct land activities
in and around wetlands. In these situations, such as dredging, grading or excavating, limited
1
NOAA. Habitat Connections: Wetlands, Fisheries and Economics, Part 5. Obtained online at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatconservation/publications/habitatconections/num5.htm.
10/24/08 IV-38 DRAFT

construction within the associated buffer area of one hundred feet (100'), docks or dams, repair
or modification to existing structures, activities associated with altering wetland hydrology (such
as water control devices) and wetland restoration project, the proposed law sets forth regulations
for obtaining permits and provides for review and approval by the Planning Board. By crafting
the legislation in this manner, the Town is following very similar procedures as does the State in
its review of wetland permits, which fall under their jurisdiction.
The Proposed Action includes adoption of a new local Freshwater Wetland law that is intended
specifically to protect wetlands that now fall outside the regulatory jurisdiction of either the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation or the United States Army Corps of
Engineers. The definition of wetland included in the proposed local law is based upon the
accepted methodology for identifying wetlands based upon three characteristics (vegetation, soil
and hydrology) and does not rely upon size as a determining factor. This expands the level of
protection to smaller wetlands that remain at risk currently and which do not fall under the
jurisdiction of the State or Federal governments.
Thus, the Proposed Action itself would not have any significant adverse impacts to wetlands and
it is intended that the proposed Freshwater Wetland law would serve to protect wetlands from
encroachment or direct impact by future development. The parcel-level analysis of potential
impacts of the Proposed Action on development potential or feasibility for certain sites revealed
that the Proposed Action would result in slightly lower, but still comparable, levels of
development on each parcel as exists now without local wetland protection.
Alternatives
Alternative 1 would continue the pattern of development required by the existing zoning, which
results in greater levels of disturbance for the same amount of residential development as
allowed under the Proposed Action. Larger residential lots require greater amounts of
disturbance for clearing the sites and for building roads to access the sites; thus more potential
impacts to wetlands.
Alternative 2 would require conservation subdivision development, which would, theoretically,
preserve intact areas of wetlands much like the Proposed Action. Alternative 2 would still,
however, result in greater amounts of total development than the Proposed Action and, thus, a
greater level of overall disturbance within the Town.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would all have comparable levels of development to the Proposed
Action and would result in a similar pattern of development based on conservation subdivision
design. Thus, each of these alternatives would have comparable impacts to wetlands as the
Proposed Action.
Alternative 6 would lead to an increase in development within the Historic Preservation district
which may lead to more disturbance to wetlands in this area. However, in general, Alternative 6
would have a comparable level of disturbance town-wide.
Alternative 7a would have comparable impacts to wetlands as the Proposed Action.
Alternative 7b would result in considerably higher levels of development than the Proposed
Action and would, thus, have greater potential for impacts to wetlands.
DRAFT IV-39 10/24/08


Since no significant adverse environmental impacts to wetlands were identified as a result of the
Proposed Action, no mitigation is required.
GEOLOGY
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The Town of Rhinebeck is located in the north western portion of Dutchess County and lies
along the shores of the Hudson River. According to the very generalized Geologic Map of New
York (Fisher et al. 1970), the bedrock geology of Rhinebeck is fairly uniform. The western two-
thirds of the Town is underlain by the Austin Glen Formation composed of Austin Glen
Graywacke, which is formed from poorly sorted, rapidly deposited sediment that eroded from
the rapidly rising Taconic Mountains to the east during the Taconic Orogeny (Ruedemann
1942). Part of this area once sat at the bottom of Lake Albany, a glacial lake that formed 15,000
years ago and stretched from Glens Falls to Poughkeepsie (Isachsen et al. 2000). The eastern
third of the Town is hillier, and is underlain by the Mount Merino, Indian River, Stuyvesant
Falls, and Germantown formations, composed of several different types of shale, including
Indian River shale and Mount Merino shale, and pockets or interbedding of slate, sandstone,
limestone, quartzite, dolostone, and carbonate-clast conglomerate (Fisher and Warthin 1976).
The surficial material is primarily glacial till, and there are many areas with exposed or nearly
exposed bedrock. The main areas of glacial outwash deposits are in and around the Village of
Rhinebeck, in the valley traversed by Route 308 and White Schoolhouse Road from Rock City
to Crum Elbow Creek, and in a narrow band along the Hudson River just north and south of
Astor Cove. Generalized bedrock geology is depicted on Figure 1 in Appendix 6 (Town of
Rhinebeck Significant Habitat Study) of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Town’s topography varies from the steep banks along the Hudson River to the level and
undulating area of central Rhinebeck to the steep slopes and hillier terrain in the eastern section
of the Town. In the eastern section of Town, several hilltops exceed 600 feet in elevation. Figure
9.10 in the proposed Comprehensive Plan depicts areas of steep slopes in the Town. Figure 9.9
shows elevations in shaded relief. Development on steep slopes (greater than 15% gradient) is of
concern because soils erode readily, they are unsuitable for roads and driveways, and on-site
septic systems cannot be sited on them. These areas, if disturbed, require far greater maintenance
over time than gentler slopes of less than 15%.
Soils information can be used to make a wide variety of land use decisions. The Dutchess
County Soil Survey identifies the basic soil characteristics and classifications, and also provides
information on issues such as the suitability of soils for agriculture, the potential for construction
including building sites, septic and road locations, and evaluation of erosion potential. The soils
in the Town of Rhinebeck were examined to identify agricultural soils and the suitability of the
soils to accommodate development, in particular, septic systems. The importance of locating a
septic system (individual or community) is crucial in Rhinebeck where central sewage disposal
systems are likely to be limited to the proposed Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)
District.
Hydric soils—soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough
during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part—can be used for
agricultural purposes and are not suitable for septic systems. Additionally, these soils are an
10/24/08 IV-40 DRAFT

identification factor for freshwater wetlands. The extent of hydric soils in the Town can be seen
in Figure 9.8 of the Comprehensive Plan.
In determining the suitability of soils to accommodate a septic system, analyses of several soil
characteristics which can limit the placement of a system were mapped. These characteristics
include depth to rock, hydric soils (discussed above), poor filter, prime farmland and soils of
statewide importance, and depth to the water table (wetness). The analysis revealed that nearly
the entire Town maintains some environmental constraint that could limit the use of septic
systems. In some cases, an engineering solution might be utilized to overcome the obstacle.
However, these systems are typically costly and may not be appropriate to provide adequate
water quality protection. The soils suitability map can be found in Figure 9.8 in the
Comprehensive Plan.
In terms of agriculture, the Town has an abundance of soils of statewide importance and large
pockets of prime farmland soils. These soils, the most productive in terms of crops (including
hay and pasture land) and vegetables, are also attractive for development because they are
typically flat lands with suitable percolation rates. However, agricultural soils that are converted
to other uses are permanently taken out of production, which has become an increasing problem
in the region. Moreover, while agricultural soils can be used for septic systems, they are also
more permeable and may not provide enough filtration to remove contaminants, such as nitrates,
thus allowing them to reach wells and other waterbodies. Prime farmland soils and soils of
statewide importance are shown in Figure 9.8 in the Comprehensive Plan.

If Rhinebeck is to avoid the problems that have occurred elsewhere with septic systems, it is
essential that development densities be appropriate to the soil conditions. As discussed in the
section on groundwater above, the Comprehensive Plan Committee reviewed the Dutchess
County Aquifer Study in its consideration of the most appropriate density levels in the various
areas of the Town to ensure that permitted densities did not exceed the carrying capacity of the
soils. Soils that are most suitable for agriculture have been mapped and could be avoided to the
extent possible by the use of conservation subdivision, as discussed previously. Potential
impacts of the Proposed Action on steep slopes have been discussed previously in the analysis of
surface water impacts. No significant adverse impacts to geology are anticipated as a result of
the Proposed Action.
The potential impacts to geology associated with each of the alternatives is similar to the
discussion of potential impacts to the Town’s groundwater resources, see above.

Since no significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified, no mitigation is
required.
DRAFT IV-41 10/24/08

E. TRANSPORTATION
EXISTING CONDITIONS
ROAD NETWORK
The automobile and the road network are the predominant mode of travel in Rhinebeck. As
commonly occurs in low-density rural communities, a network of smaller Town roads serves
residential areas outside the Village while County and State collector and arterial roads collect
traffic from the Town roads and provide access to the Village, other commercial areas, other
communities, and larger State highways. As also commonly occurs in rural communities, these
County and/or State roads often intersect in a village where, historically, most people would
come to conduct business or to meet socially. The Town of Rhinebeck is no different and the
major State roadways that cross the community serve the essential role of carrying residential
and commercial traffic within and through the Town. The three major routes intersect within the
Village of Rhinebeck and just north of the Village in the area of Town known as Astor Flats
(these two areas are collectively referred to as the “study area” in this analysis of traffic
conditions) (see Figure IV-6). Each of these three major routes is described below.
U.S. Route 9. U.S. Route 9 is a Federal rural arterial that generally runs in a north-south
direction and is under the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Transportation
(NYSDOT). U.S. Route 9 generally provides one moving lane in each direction and varies in
width between 40 and 44 feet within the study area. South of its intersection with West Market
Street/East Market Street (NYS Route 308), U.S. Route 9 is designated as Mill Street. Just north
of its intersection with West Market Street/East Market Street (NYS Route 308), U.S. Route 9 is
designated as Montgomery Street (and then as Spring Brook Avenue). Just north of its
intersection with NYS Route 9G, U.S. Route 9 is designated as Albany Post Road. Based on
field observations, the pavement along U.S. Route 9 is generally in good condition.
NYS Route 9G. NYS Route 9G is a rural arterial that generally runs in a north-south direction
and is under the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT).
NYS Route 9G generally provides one moving lane in each direction and is approximately 42
feet wide within the study area. Based on field observations, the pavement along NYS Route 9G
within the study area is generally in good condition.
East and West Market Street (NYS Route 308). East Market Street and West Market Street are
rural arterials that generally run in an east-west direction and are under the jurisdiction of the
New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). East and West Market Streets
connect at their intersection with U.S. Route 9. East Market Street is also designated as NYS
Route 308 and generally provides one moving lane in each direction. West Market Street also
generally provides one moving lane in each direction. East Market Street is approximately 42
feet wide. West Market Street is approximately 54 feet wide. Based on field observations, the
pavement along East and West Market Streets within the Village is generally in good condition.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES

Pedestrian facilities are found in the Village of Rhinebeck and to a more limited extent in the
hamlet of Rhinecliff. Aside from the 20 Mile Trail which allows walking and biking along a
signed route on a network of Town, Village, County, and State Roads, no other pedestrian or
bicycle facilities, such as dedicated hiking, biking, and walking trails, paths or sidewalks exist in
10/24/08 IV-42 DRAFT

10.2.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
UT
E
9G
AD
RO
ST
PO
D
OL
RIVER ROAD
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
SP
Northern
Dutchess
Hospital
AS
TO
R
RO
AD
MULLBERR
Y STREET
ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
PARSONAGE
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ET
ERY
CHESTNUT STRE
STREET
REET
RHINECLIFF ROAD LIVINGSTON ST
E. MARKET STREET 0 1000 2000 FEET

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Intersections to be Analyzed
Figure IV-6
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS Traffic Study Area
the public rights-of-way in the town. Designated bicycle routes exist in the Village and on State
and County roads, but these are simply trail blazed (signed) bicycle routes along existing roads.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Amtrak, the nationwide rail passenger line, provides service from stations at Poughkeepsie and
Rhinecliff. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, a subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority, provides passenger service from Grand Central Terminal in New York City on two
lines to the southern half of Dutchess County. The Harlem Line in eastern Dutchess County runs
as far north as Amenia with stops at Dover Plains, Wingdale, and Pawling. In the western part
of the county the Hudson Line serves Poughkeepsie, New Hamburg, and Beacon.
Bus service in the Town of Rhinebeck is provided by the Dutchess County LOOP System and
private lines. The LOOP System provides both express (commuter) and mid-day service
throughout the county. Rhinebeck residents are served by a LOOP commuter route, which
operates Monday through Friday and serves the Tivoli to Poughkeepsie corridor (Express A).
Midday service runs Monday through Saturday and also connects Tivoli to Poughkeepsie. All
LOOP buses can be hailed or will stop along their routes where the bus can stop safely. The
LOOP service will provide stops at the Stop & Shop. In addition to these four routes, the
Northwest Special Express provides service to sheltered workshops for handicapped residents.
This bus runs from eastern Rhinebeck to workshops run by the Association for Retarded
Children (ARC) in LaGrange and Rehabilitation Programs Inc. (RPI) in Poughkeepsie.
Mountain View Coach Lines and Shortline also provide service both within Dutchess County
and to various regional destinations, including New York City. In addition, van shuttles provide
transportation to the three major airports in the New York metropolitan region.
The County operated Dial-A-Ride service has been suspended in the Town but efforts are
underway to provide for the transportation needs of the elderly. This is a service that is arranged
on a town-by-town basis throughout the County. The service provides door-to-door
transportation for eligible handicapped and senior residents.
TRAFFIC OPERATING CONDITIONS
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Methodology

The operation of signalized intersections in the study area was analyzed applying the
methodologies presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). This procedure
evaluates signalized intersections for average control delay per vehicle and level of service
(LOS).
LOS for the signalized intersections is based on the average control delay per vehicle for the
various lane group movements within the intersection. Control delay is equal to stopped delay
times 1.3. This delay is the basis for a LOS determination for individual lane groups, each
approach as a whole, and the overall intersection.
The control delay criteria for the range of service levels for signalized intersections are shown in
Table IV-17.
DRAFT IV-43 10/24/08

Table IV-17
LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level-of-Service (LOS) Control Delay Per Vehicle
A ≤ 10.0 seconds
B >10.0 and ≤ 20.0 seconds
C >20.0 and ≤ 35.0 seconds
D >35.0 and ≤ 55.0 seconds
E >55.0 and ≤ 80.0 seconds
F >80.0 seconds
Sources: Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.
For illustrative purposes, Figures IV-26 and IV-27 show photographs depicting typical
traffic conditions at the Route 9/Market Street intersection for an AM peak hour condition
without an event at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds and a weekend midday condition with an
event at the Fairgrounds. Although the HCM methodology calculates a volume-to-capacity (v/c)
ratio, there is no strict relationship between v/c ratios and LOS as defined in the HCM. A high
v/c ratio indicates substantial traffic passing through an intersection, but a high v/c ratio
combined with low average delay indicates an optimization of traffic flow—when an approach,
or the whole intersection, processes traffic close to its theoretical maximum with a minimum
amount of delay. However, very high v/c ratios—especially those greater than 1.0—are often
correlated with a deteriorated LOS. Other important variables affecting delay include cycle
length, progression, and green time. LOS A and B indicate good operating conditions with
minimal delay. At LOS C, the number of vehicles stopping is higher, but congestion is still fairly
light. LOS D describes a condition where congestion levels are more noticeable and individual
cycle failures (a condition where motorists may have to wait for more than one green phase to
clear the intersection) can occur. Conditions at LOS E and F reflect poor service levels, and
cycle breakdowns are frequent. The HCM methodology provides for a summary of the total
intersection operating conditions. The analysis chooses the two critical movements (the worst
case from each roadway) and calculates a summary critical v/c ratio, delay, and LOS.
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds
Existing non-event traffic conditions in the study area were established based on traffic counts
conducted on Friday, April 13 and Saturday, April 14, 2007. The data collection program
consisted of manual counts conducted at study area locations.
Figures IV-7, IV-8, IV-9, and IV-10 show the roadway volumes in the study area for existing
conditions for the peak hours analyzed. It is important to note that traffic volumes along the
study area roadways may not necessarily balance because of the presence of various sinks and
sources (e.g. driveways) that are located between intersections.
The peak hours of the roadway network are generally as follows:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour – 8:30 AM to 9:30 AM
• Weekday Midday Peak Hour – 12:45 PM to 1:45 PM
• Weekday PM Peak Hour – 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM
• Saturday Midday Peak Hour – 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM
10/24/08 IV-44 DRAFT

10.2.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
UT
110
240
E
15
9G
35 105
190 275
195 55
ROUTE 9G
AD
30
110
165
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
SP
300
65
35 E. MARKET ST.
Northern
65 85
Dutchess 60 80
Hospital 20 55
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
RO
MULLBERR
AD
50
40
235
Y STREET
ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
REET
ERY
CHESTNUT ST
LIVINGSTON ST.
STREET
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-7
2007 Existing Traffic Volumes
TOWN OF RHINEBECK Weekday AM Peak Hour (8:30-9:30 AM)
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds
10.2.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
UT
125
230
E
20
9G
70 65
205 200
130 45
ROUTE 9G
AD
90
235
305
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
SP
130
315
50 E. MARKET ST.
Northern
125 120
Dutchess 80 100
Hospital 40 70
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
RO
MULLBERR
AD
70
25
260
Y
STREET
PLAT T AV
ENUE 08
E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ERY
ET
CHESTNUT STRE
LIVINGSTON ST.
STREET
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-8
TOWN OF RHINEBECK Weekday Midday Peak Hour (12:45-1:45 PM)
10.2.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
UT
145
255
E
30
9G
40 140
330 520
185 60
ROUTE 9G
AD
85
210
330
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
SP
380
70
35 E. MARKET ST.
Northern
110 120
Dutchess 175 120
Hospital 40 50
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
RO
MULLBERR
AD
45
70
505
Y STREET
ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ERY
ET
CHESTNUT STRE
LIVINGSTON ST.
STREET
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-9
TOWN OF RHINEBECK Weekday PM Peak Hour (4:00-5:00 PM)
10.2.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
UT
110
290
E
40
9G
85 280
205 30
295 160
ROUTE 9G
AD
40
50
260
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
SP
155
340
80 E. MARKET ST.
Northern
100 205
Dutchess 115 35
Hospital 120 165
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
RO
AD
40
50
MULLBERR
245
Y
STREET
PLAT T AV
ENUE 08
E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ERY
REET
CHESTNUT ST
LIVINGSTON ST.
STREET
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-10
TOWN OF RHINEBECK Saturday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM)
The data were then analyzed using the HCM methodology to compute delays, v/c ratios, and
LOS as described above.
As shown in Table IV-18 the movements/approaches of the signalized intersections in the study
area generally operate at LOS D or better (LOS D or better generally indicates acceptable
operating conditions) under 2007 Existing Conditions during the peak hours analyzed with the
following exceptions:
• The westbound East Market Street approach at U.S. Route 9 operates unacceptably at LOS E
during the Saturday Midday peak hour.
• The eastbound NYS Route 9G through/right-turn lane group at U.S. Route 9 operates
unacceptably at LOS E during the Weekday PM peak hour.
• The westbound NYS Route 9G through/right-turn lane group at U.S. Route 9 operates
unacceptably at LOS E during the Weekday PM peak hour.
It is important to note that LOS E conditions during the peak hour are not uncommon operating
conditions at the intersection of two major state roads. LOS E conditions are indicative of some
congestion and drivers may have to wait for more than one green cycle to clear the intersection.
During non-peak hours (the majority of the day), these approaches operate at better LOS
conditions (LOS D or better).
Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds
Existing event traffic conditions in the study area were established based on traffic counts
conducted on Saturday, May 26 and Sunday, May 27, 2007 during the Antiques Fair. This event
was held over the Memorial Day weekend. While traffic levels for this event are not nearly what
they would be for the annual Dutchess County Fair, the combined effect of the Antiques Fair and
holiday weekend traffic provide a very conservative analysis of likely traffic conditions.
Figures IV-11 and IV-12 show the roadway volumes in the study area for existing conditions for
the peak hours analyzed. It is important to note that traffic volumes along the study area
roadways may not necessarily balance because of the presence of various sinks and sources (e.g.
driveways) that are located between intersections.
The peak hours of the roadway network are generally as follows:
• Saturday Midday Peak Hour – 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM
• Sunday Midday Peak Hour – 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM
The data were then analyzed using the HCM methodology to compute delays, v/c ratios, and
LOS as described above.
As shown in Table IV-18 the movements/approaches of the signalized intersections in the study
area generally operate at LOS D or better (LOS D or better generally indicates acceptable
operating conditions) under 2007 Existing Conditions during the peak hours analyzed with the
following exceptions:
• The southbound U.S. Route 9 approach at East Market Street/West Market Street operates
unacceptably at LOS F during the Saturday Midday peak hour.
• The eastbound NYS Route 9G through/right-turn lane group at U.S. Route 9 operates
unacceptably at LOS E during the Sunday Midday peak hour
DRAFT IV-45 10/24/08

ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
Figure IV-13 shows the most recent six years of traffic accident data for the two study area
intersections compiled from the Dutchess County Traffic Safety Board records (compiled from
Local, County, and State agencies) for the period of January 1, 2000 through December 31,
2005. A review of these data shows that the intersection of U.S. Route 9 & NYS Route 9G
experienced the highest number of accidents (13) in 2003, followed by 8 accidents per year in
both 2001 and 2002, and 4 accidents per year during the remaining years (2000, 2004, and
2005). The intersection of U.S. Route 9 & East Market Street/West Market Street experienced
much fewer accidents during the same time period with the greatest number of accidents (2)
occurring in 2004, followed by 1 accident in 2003, and 0 accidents in 2000, 2001, 2002, and
2005.
OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS APPROACH

The Proposed Action comprises a set of public policy actions intended to guide development
within the Town of Rhinebeck for the foreseeable future. Typically, a Traffic Impact Study
(TIS) included in an environmental impact statement assesses future operating conditions for
traffic associated with a specific project or new development. A project-specific TIS inventories
and analyzes information relevant to existing traffic flow and projected traffic flow in the future
both with and without the proposed project for the roadway network immediately surrounding
the project site. For a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, such as this one, the project site
covers the entire Town and considers potential development of different types and at
undetermined times well into the future. As such, it would not be appropriate to conduct a
traditional Traffic Impact Study (TIS) on the Proposed Action as too many factors would be
speculative (including how much development would happen in any one year and at what
locations) and would result in analysis results not altogether meaningful.
However, since the Proposed Action includes a recommendation for increased density within
certain priority growth areas in close proximity to the Village of Rhinebeck, and the Astor Flats
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) in particular, it is possible to analyze the
potential effects of this potential development along with an amount of “background” growth
attributable to development both within and outside the Town of Rhinebeck. Since the Astor
Flats TND comprises a large majority of potential new residential units and commercial
development over the next 20 years and is located along Route 9 between Route 9G and Route
308, which serve as the primary corridors for travel within the community, analyzing potential
traffic effects of this development option on these roadways and their intersections effectively
captures potential future operating conditions from a significant component of growth under the
Proposed Action.
Thus, the TIS prepared for this DGEIS considers the potential impacts to traffic operating
conditions at the two principal intersections in Town—U.S. Route 9 at Market Street (NYS
Route 308) and U.S. Route 9 at NYS Route 9G—from a combination of the Astor Flats TND
and background growth in other areas of the Town or surrounding communities. These two
signalized intersections were analyzed as they would likely see the greatest impacts from
additional traffic associated with new development of the Astor Flats TND and residential
development elsewhere in the Town. The TIS analyzes conditions for weekday peak morning
and evening periods and weekend periods, with analysis of weekends both with and without a
10/24/08 IV-46 DRAFT

10.2.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
UT
240
E
55
85
9G
75 95
215 275
250 80
ROUTE 9G
AD
120
245
255
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
SP
120
314
85 E. MARKET ST.
Northern
95 170
Dutchess 120 130
Hospital 60 115
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
RO
AD
60
70
MULLBERR
380
Y
STREET
PLAT T AV
ENUE 08
E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ERY
REET
CHESTNUT ST
LIVINGSTON ST.
STREET
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-11
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds
10.2.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
UT
120
245
E
15
9G
50 50
240 240
285 115
ROUTE 9G
AD
80
175
275
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
SP
120
215
20 E. MARKET ST.
Northern
75 170
Dutchess 50 85
Hospital 65 45
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
RO
AD
50
45
MULLBERR
275
Y
STREET
PLAT T AV
ENUE 08
E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ERY
REET
CHESTNUT ST
LIVINGSTON ST.
STREET
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-12
TOWN OF RHINEBECK Sunday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM)
Table IV-18
Level-of-Service Analysis Results :
2007 Existing Traffic Conditions
2007 Existing Conditions
Wkdy. AM Peak Hour Wkdy. MD Peak Hour Wkdy. PM Peak Hour Sat. MD Peak Hour
Control Lane v/c Delay v/c Delay v/c Delay v/c Delay
Intersection No. Type Approach Group Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS
U.S. Route 9 @ 1 Signalized Eastbound DefL 0.19 21.6 C 0.52 25.7 C 0.42 24.1 C 0.34 22.3 C
East Market Street/West Market Street TR 0.13 21.0 C 0.25 22.1 C 0.40 23.5 C 0.41 22.6 C
Westbound LTR 0.45 24.2 C 0.60 27.1 C 0.58 26.4 C 1.02 78.3 E
Northbound LTR 0.45 17.8 B 0.53 18.8 B 0.87 33.8 C 0.52 19.7 B
Southbound LTR 0.53 18.9 B 0.76 25.9 C 0.68 22.4 C 0.95 47.6 D
Intersection 20.0 B 23.9 C 27.3 C 44.4 D
U.S. Route 9 @ 2 Signalized Eastbound L 0.14 24.7 C 0.26 27.2 C 0.15 23.4 C 0.25 25.6 C
NYS Route 9G TR 0.86 46.0 D 0.72 34.9 C 0.95 59.2 E 0.87 45.3 D
Westbound L 0.17 24.0 C 0.12 23.3 C 0.14 24.5 C 0.43 28.6 C
TR 0.87 45.1 D 0.52 27.1 C 1.04 77.5 E 0.55 28.5 C
Northbound L 0.28 25.2 C 0.56 29.7 C 0.58 32.2 C 0.14 25.0 C
TR 0.40 25.6 C 0.76 35.4 D 0.92 54.9 D 0.66 32.3 C
Southbound L 0.39 26.5 C 0.48 27.4 C 0.59 32.1 C 0.40 26.6 C
TR 0.55 29.0 C 0.58 29.9 C 0.67 34.8 C 0.72 34.9 C
Intersection 36.1 D 31.1 C 54.1 D 34.2 C
Notes:
L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service.

Sat. MD Peak Hour Sun. MD Peak Hour
Control Lane v/c Delay v/c Delay
Intersection No. Type Approach Group Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS
U.S. Route 9 @ 1 Signalized Eastbound DefL 0.37 22.7 C 0.26 21.3 C
East Market Street/West Market Street TR 0.31 21.6 C 0.20 20.6 C
Westbound LTR 0.90 47.9 D 0.60 25.8 C
Northbound LTR 0.93 44.1 D 0.56 20.3 C
Southbound LTR 1.16 114.3 F 0.61 21.6 C
Intersection 65.0 E 22.2 C
U.S. Route 9 @ 2 Signalized Eastbound L 0.23 23.3 C 0.15 23.3 C
NYS Route 9G TR 0.85 41.9 D 0.94 55.4 E
Westbound L 0.22 25.4 C 0.32 27.5 C
TR 0.74 35.0 D 0.59 29.2 C
Northbound L 0.67 35.0 C 0.46 29.0 C
TR 0.81 40.6 D 0.74 35.7 D
Southbound L 0.19 25.1 C 0.42 26.9 C
TR 0.67 32.6 C 0.56 29.2 C
Intersection 36.0 D 36.6 D
Notes:
UP
10.1.08
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
2000 - 4 2003 - 13
RO
UT
2001 - 8 2004 - 4
E
9G
2002 - 8 2005 - 4
AD
RO
ST
PO
D
OL
RIVER ROAD
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
SP
Northern
Dutchess
Hospital
AS
TO
R
RO
AD
MULLBERR
Y
STREET
ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
PARSONAGE
2000 - 0 2003 - 1
MONTGOM
T
ROU
2001 - 0 2004 - 2
BEECH
2002 - 0 2005 - 0
ERY
ET
CHESTNUT STRE
STREET
REET

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-13
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS Traffic Accidents: 2000 - 2005
major event at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds. The event condition assessed was for the
Antiques Fair (during the Memorial Day weekend) and not the Dutchess County Fair. The
Antiques Fair is typical of the type of event that occurs more frequently at the fairgrounds. The
Dutchess County Fair is a special one time a year event. Since a ten-year planning horizon is
generally seen as an appropriate planning horizon for traffic conditions, the year 2017 was
selected as the analysis year for future operating conditions.
FUTURE 2017 CONDITIONS
Projected Development
A combined analysis of future operating conditions which includes traffic associated with the
Proposed Action and background growth (No Build traffic) was prepared.
The Astor Flats TND is proposed to be developed on the east side of U.S. Route 9, just south of
its intersection with NYS Route 9G, within the Town of Rhinebeck. A mix of residential, retail,
and medical office development is contemplated for the site, as described in the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan. For traffic modeling purposes, the TND was assumed to include
approximately 160 condominium units, 160 rental apartments, 40,000 square feet of retail
development, and 60,000 square feet of medical office space. It was also assumed that the TND
would be built and fully occupied by 2017.
In addition, the Town anticipates that the Phase II and Phase III of The Gardens residential
complex are to be completed by 2017 which would comprise approximately 168 condominium
units (and, thus, the balance of the anticipated 440 new housing units by 2017). These residential
units were included in the analysis of Future conditions as traffic from the Gardens would use
the intersections analyzed in the study. If Phases II and III of The Gardens are not actually
completed, a similar amount of development could reasonably be expected from other
background growth within the Town.
No major roadway improvements in the study area roadway network were identified.
Trip Generation
Table IV-19 shows the trip generation rates used to compute the vehicle trips generated by the
proposed TND as well as by The Gardens Phase II and Phase III development. These rates were
developed based on information presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition (for Land Use Codes #220--Apartment, #230--Residential
Condominium/Townhouse, #720--Medical-Dental Office Building, and #820—Shopping
Center). In acknowledging some trips to the TND will originate from traffic that is already
passing the site on the adjacent roadway, pass-by trips were taken into account when applying
the trip generation vehicle trips to the roadway network. Pass-by trips represent vehicles that
will stop at the site before continuing on to their primary destination. Given the mix of land uses
anticipated of the TND, a conservative pass-by rate of 20 percent was applied to the retail
component of the TND. In addition, it is anticipated that there will be a small percentage of
internal trips between the uses on the project site. However, no internal trip capture rates were
included in this analysis, thereby representing a conservative analysis of the potential trip
generation for the proposed land uses. Including the pass-by credits, it is estimated that the
TND, along with The Gardens Phase II and Phase III would generate approximately 414 new
trips during the Weekday AM peak hour (189 entering, 225 exiting), 436 new trips during the
Weekday Midday peak hour (209 entering, 227 exiting), 620 new trips during the Weekday PM
DRAFT IV-47 10/24/08

peak hour (292 entering, 328 exiting), and 614 trips during the Saturday and Sunday Midday
peak hours (332 entering, 282 exiting).
Projected Vehicular Assignment
For the purpose of estimating the likely distribution of project-generated trips to and from Astor
Flats and the Gardens, a directional distribution of vehicle trips was created for each peak hour
using the existing travel patterns in the network, census data, and Journey-to-Work data. Figures
IV-14, IV-15, IV-16, and IV-17 show the projected vehicle trips for the Weekday AM, Weekday
Midday, Weekday PM, and Saturday Midday/Sunday Midday peak hours, respectively.
Traffic Conditions
The projected traffic volumes described above were added to the No Build traffic volumes to
estimate the Build traffic volumes. Figures IV-18, IV-19, IV-20, and IV-21 show the 2017
Future traffic volumes for the Weekday AM, Weekday Midday, Weekday PM, and Saturday
Midday peak hours, respectively. Table IV-20 presents a comparison of the 2007 Existing and
2017 Future conditions for the study area intersections.
Under the 2017 Future conditions there would be the following notable changes in LOS for the
following study area intersections:
• The westbound East Market Street approach at U.S. Route 9 would decline from LOS E to
LOS F during the Saturday Midday peak hour.
decline from LOS C to LOS F during the Weekday PM peak hour.
• The southbound U.S. Route 9 approach at East Market Street/West Market Street would
decline from LOS C to LOS F during the Weekday Midday and Weekday PM peak hours
and from LOS D to LOS F during the Saturday Midday peak hour.
• The eastbound NYS Route 9G through/right-turn lane group at U.S. Route 9 would decline
from LOS D to LOS E during the Weekday AM and Saturday Midday peak hours, and from
LOS E to LOS F during the Weekday PM peak hour.
• The westbound NYS Route 9G through/right-turn lane group at U.S. Route 9 would decline
from LOS E to LOS F during the Weekday PM peak hour.
LOS F during the Weekday PM peak hour.
Mitigation measures to improve operating conditions are presented below in “Conclusions &
Potential Mitigation Measures”.
10/24/08 IV-48 DRAFT

Table IV-19
(1)
Future Trip Generation
Weekday AM Peak Hour
ITE Trip # #
Development
Building Component Land Use ITE Land Use Generation Total # In' Out'
Size
Code Rate Trips % In % Out Trips Trips
Condo Apts. (for sale units) 160 Units 230 Resid. Condo/Townhouse 0.44 70 18% 82% 13 57
(TND)
Rental Apartments 160 Units 220 Apartment 0.55 88 29% 71% 26 62

(TND)
General Retail 40,000 sq. ft. 820 Shopping Center 1.03 41 61% 39% 25 16
(TND)
Medical Office 60,000 sq. ft. 720 Medical-Dental Office 2.48 149 79% 21% 118 31
(TND) Building
(The Gardens, Phases II & III)
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: AM Peak Hr. 422 194 228
(2)
with 20% Pass-by Trip Credit for Retail Component: 414 189 225
Notes:
(1) Based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers
(2) Pass-by trips represent vehicles that already exist in the traffic network that will stop at the site before continuing on to their primary destination
Weekday Midday Peak Hour

ITE Trip # #
Development
Size
(TND)

(TND)
(TND)
(TND) Building
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: MD Peak Hr. 455 218 237
with 20% Pass-by Trip(2) Credit for Retail Component: 436 209 227
Notes:
Table IV-19 (Continued)
Future Trip Generation (1)
Weekday PM Peak Hour
ITE Trip # #
Development
Size
Condo Apts. (for sale units) 160 Units 230 Resid. Condo/Townhouse 0.52 83 0.64 0.36 53 30
(TND)
Rental Apartments 160 Units 220 Apartment 0.67 107 0.61 0.39 65 42
(TND)
(TND)
(TND) Building
Condo Apts. (for sale units) 168 Units 230 Resid. Condo/Townhouse 0.52 87 0.64 0.36 56 31
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: PM Peak Hr. 650 306 344
(2)
with 20% Pass-by Trip Credit for Retail Component: 620 292 328
Notes:
Saturday Midday and Sunday Midday Peak Hours

ITE Trip # #
Development
Size
(TND)

(TND)
(TND)
(TND) Building
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: Sat. Peak Hr. 654 352 302
with 20% Pass-by Trip(2) Credit for Retail Component: 614 332 282
Notes:
10.2.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
UT
E
27
9G
35 9
ROUTE 9G
AD
8
33
24
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
Astor
Flats
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
SP
33
57
8 E. MARKET ST.
Northern
9 35
Dutchess
Hospital
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
The
RO
MULLBERR
AD
62
Gardens
Y
Y
STREET
WA
GAR
DEN The
Gardens ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ERY
ET
CHESTNUT STRE
LIVINGSTON ST.
STREET
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
STREET
SCALE
SOUTH
Figure IV-14
Project Generated Traffic Volumes
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS
10.2.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
UT
E
36
9G
18 18
ROUTE 9G
AD
20
20
39
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
Astor
Flats
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
SP
49
20
49
E. MARKET ST.
Northern
18 45
Dutchess
Hospital
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
The
RO
MULLBERR
45
AD
Gardens
Y STREET
Y
WA
GAR
DEN The
Gardens ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ERY
REET
CHESTNUT ST
LIVINGSTON ST.
STREET
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-15
10.2.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
UT
35
E
9G
47 12
ROUTE 9G
AD
15
59
45
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
Astor
Flats
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
SP
104
59
15 E. MARKET ST.
Northern
12 47
Dutchess
Hospital
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
The
RO
MULLBERR
AD
83
Gardens
Y
Y
WA
The
STREET
DEN
GAR
Gardens
ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ERY
REET
CHESTNUT ST
LIVINGSTON ST.
STREET
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-16
10.2.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
UT
73
E
9G
44 29
ROUTE 9G
AD
25
37
62
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
Astor
Flats
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
Astor
OLD
AD
Flats
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
SP
37
25
62
E. MARKET ST.
Northern
29 44
Dutchess
Hospital
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
RO
The
73
AD
MULLBERR
Gardens
Y STREET
Y
GAR
DEN
WA
The
Gardens
PLAT T AV
ENUE 08
E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ERY
ET
CHESTNUT STRE
LIVINGSTON ST.
STREET
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-17
Saturday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM)
TOWN OF RHINEBECK & Sunday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM)
10.1.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
UT
110
269
15
E
9G
35 105
190 275
232 65
ROUTE 9G
AD
41
149
199
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
Astor
Flats
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
SP
360
98
44
E. MARKET ST.
Northern
77 120
Dutchess 72 83
Hospital 38 55
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
The
RO
50
44
298
AD
Gardens
MULLBERR
Y
WA
Y STREET
GAR
DEN The
Gardens ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
T
MONTGOM
ROU
ET
CHESTNUT STRE
ERY
LIVINGSTON ST.
STREET
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-18
2017 Future Traffic Volumes
10.1.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
125
272
UT
20
E
9G
70 65
205 200
149 66
ROUTE 9G
AD
118
266
360
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
Astor
Flats
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
189
375
SP
76
E. MARKET ST.
145 165
Northern
Dutchess
88 108
Hospital 46 70
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
The
RO
70
31
306
AD
Gardens
MULLBERR
Y
WA
DEN The
Y
GAR
Gardens ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ET
ERY
CHESTNUT STRE
LIVINGSTON ST.
STREET
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-19
10.1.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
145
299
UT
30
E
9G
40 140
330 520
238 75
ROUTE 9G
AD
101
273
379
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
Astor
Flats
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
129
496
SP
53
E. MARKET ST.
133 172
Northern
Dutchess
181 131
Hospital 49 50
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
The
RO
45
87
600
AD
Gardens
MULLBERR
Y
WA
DEN The
Y
GAR
Gardens ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ERY
ET
CHESTNUT STRE
LIVINGSTON ST.
STREET
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-20
10.2.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
110
373
UT
40
E
9G
85 280
205 30
349 199
ROUTE 9G
AD
58
86
326
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
Astor
Flats
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
192
105
404
SP
E. MARKET ST.
141 279
Northern
Dutchess
120 35
Hospital 127 165
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
The
RO
40
50
328
AD
Gardens
MULLBERR
Y
WA
DEN The
Y
GAR
Gardens ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ERY
ET
CHESTNUT STRE
LIVINGSTON ST.
MILL ROAD
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-21
Table IV-20
2007 Existing and 2017 Future Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday Midday Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Saturday Midday Peak Hour
2007 Existing 2017 Future 2007 Existing 2017 Future 2007 Existing 2017 Future 2007 Existing 2017 Future
Lane v/c Delay v/c Delay v/c Delay v/c Delay v/c Delay v/c Delay v/c Delay v/c Delay
Intersection No. Approach Group Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS
U.S. Route 9 @ 1 Eastbound DefL 0.19 21.6 C 0.25 22.2 C 0.52 25.7 C 0.68 32.4 C 0.42 24.1 C 0.58 28.2 C 0.34 22.3 C 0.55 26.0 C
East Market Street/West Market Street TR 0.13 21.0 C 0.18 21.5 C 0.25 22.1 C 0.28 22.4 C 0.40 23.5 C 0.43 23.8 C 0.41 22.6 C 0.43 22.9 C
Westbound LTR 0.45 24.2 C 0.53 25.4 C 0.60 27.1 C 0.71 30.7 C 0.58 26.4 C 0.70 30.3 C 1.02 78.3 E 1.20 138.8 F
Northbound LTR 0.45 17.8 B 0.55 19.2 B 0.53 18.8 B 0.62 20.7 C 0.87 33.8 C 1.12 98.3 F 0.52 19.7 B 0.65 22.5 C
Southbound LTR 0.53 18.9 B 0.74 24.5 C 0.76 25.9 C 1.11 94.9 F 0.68 22.4 C 1.19 125.9 F 0.95 47.6 D 1.26 155.5 F
Intersection 20.0 B 22.8 C 23.9 C 50.4 D 27.3 C 82.0 F 44.4 D 98.2 F
U.S. Route 9 @ 2 Eastbound L 0.14 24.7 C 0.14 24.7 C 0.26 27.2 C 0.26 27.2 C 0.15 23.4 C 0.15 23.4 C 0.25 25.6 C 0.25 25.6 C
NYS Route 9G TR 0.86 46.0 D 0.93 58.3 E 0.72 34.9 C 0.76 37.0 D 0.95 59.2 E 1.06 89.6 F 0.87 45.3 D 0.96 61.3 E
Westbound L 0.17 24.0 C 0.21 25.7 C 0.12 23.3 C 0.17 24.0 C 0.14 24.5 C 0.18 26.6 C 0.43 28.6 C 0.56 31.7 C
TR 0.87 45.1 D 0.87 45.1 D 0.52 27.1 C 0.52 27.1 C 1.04 77.5 E 1.06 82.1 F 0.55 28.5 C 0.55 28.5 C
Northbound L 0.28 25.2 C 0.38 26.7 C 0.56 29.7 C 0.64 32.3 C 0.58 32.2 C 0.77 40.9 D 0.14 25.0 C 0.26 28.4 C
TR 0.40 25.6 C 0.50 26.7 C 0.76 35.4 D 0.92 52.4 D 0.92 54.9 D 1.06 91.2 F 0.66 32.3 C 0.85 44.4 D
Southbound L 0.39 26.5 C 0.39 28.5 C 0.48 27.4 C 0.48 27.4 C 0.59 32.1 C 0.59 32.1 C 0.40 26.6 C 0.40 26.6 C
TR 0.55 29.0 C 0.61 30.5 C 0.58 29.9 C 0.68 33.0 C 0.67 34.8 C 0.78 40.7 D 0.72 34.9 C 0.91 53.2 D
Intersection 36.1 D 39.1 D 31.1 C 36.4 D 54.1 D 69.5 E 34.2 C 44.5 D
Notes:

Saturday Midday Peak Hour Sunday Midday Peak Hour
2007 Existing 2017 Future 2007 Existing 2020 Future
Lane v/c Delay v/c Delay v/c Delay v/c Delay
Intersection No. Approach Group Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS
U.S. Route 9 @ 1 Eastbound DefL 0.37 22.7 C 0.54 25.9 C 0.26 21.3 C 0.41 23.2 C
TR 0.31 21.6 C 0.34 21.8 C 0.20 20.6 C 0.22 20.8 C
East Market Street/West Market Street Westbound LTR 0.90 47.9 D 1.02 74.8 E 0.60 25.8 C 0.70 29.1 C
Northbound LTR 0.93 44.1 D 1.12 99.8 F 0.56 20.3 C 0.70 24.0 C
Southbound LTR 1.16 114.3 F 1.58 294.5 F 0.61 21.6 C 0.93 46.5 D
Intersection 65.0 E 151.6 F 22.2 C 31.9 C
U.S. Route 9 @ 2 Eastbound L 0.23 23.3 C 0.23 23.3 C 0.15 23.3 C 0.15 23.3 C
NYS Route 9G TR 0.85 41.9 D 0.91 50.5 D 0.94 55.4 E 1.01 75.0 E
Westbound L 0.22 25.4 C 0.31 26.8 C 0.32 27.5 C 0.42 29.9 C
TR 0.74 35.0 D 0.74 35.0 D 0.59 29.2 C 0.59 29.2 C
Northbound L 0.67 35.0 C 0.81 45.1 D 0.46 29.0 C 0.58 31.8 C
TR 0.81 40.6 D 1.01 77.7 E 0.74 35.7 D 0.94 60.0 E
Southbound L 0.19 25.1 C 0.19 25.1 C 0.42 26.9 C 0.42 26.9 C
TR 0.67 32.6 C 0.85 44.6 D 0.56 29.2 C 0.74 35.6 D
Intersection 36.0 D 49.0 D 36.6 D 47.4 D
Notes:
Queue Analysis
Queue length is another measure of intersection operations. Queue length measures the length
of the line of cars waiting to pass through the intersection.
Figures IV-22, IV-23, IV-24, and IV-25 show the estimated average vehicle queue lengths at
each approach at the intersection of U.S. Route 9 and East Market Street/West Market Street that
would occur during the Weekday AM, Weekday Midday, Weekday PM, and Saturday Midday
peak hours, respectively. The queue lengths are shown for the 2007 Existing, 2017 Future, and
2017 Mitigation (where recommended) conditions. Figure IV-26 shows photographs of the
Weekday AM peak hour and the types of queues that are generally experienced at each
approach. With the proposed mitigation measures in place, the queue lengths would be reduced;
however, in many cases they would still exceed those of existing conditions. The most dramatic
reduction in queue length would be along the westbound East Market Street approach where a
second lane would be striped (see “Conclusions & Potential Mitigation Measures”). The re-
striping would reduce the queue length to better than existing conditions. The maximum queue
of 41 cars (approximately 820 feet) would occur under 2017 Future conditions on the
southbound U.S. Route 9 approach during the Saturday Midday peak hour. With the mitigation
measures that are presented below in “Conclusions & Potential Mitigation Measures,” this queue
length would be reduced to 29 cars (approximately 580 feet).
Table IV-21 shows the estimated average vehicle queue lengths (both in number of cars and
distance in feet) at the U.S. Route 9 and East Market Street/West Market Street intersection for
2007 Existing, 2017 Future, and 2017 Mitigation conditions.
The projected traffic volumes described above were added to the No Build traffic volumes to
estimate the Build traffic volumes. Figures IV-27 and IV-28 show the 2017 Future traffic
volumes for the Saturday Midday and Sunday Midday peak hours, respectively. Table IV-19
presents a comparison of the 2007 Existing and 2017 Future conditions for the study area
intersections.
Under the 2017 Future conditions there would be the following notable changes in LOS for the
following study area intersections:
• The westbound East Market Street approach at U.S. Route 9 would decline from LOS D to
LOS E during the Saturday Midday peak hour.
decline from LOS D to LOS F during the Saturday Midday peak hour.
LOS E during both the Saturday Midday and Sunday Midday peak hours.
Mitigation measures to improve operating conditions are presented below in “Conclusions &
Potential Mitigation Measures”.
DRAFT IV-49 10/24/08

Due to the increased traffic volumes generated by events at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds,
the queue lengths at the approaches at the study area intersections would likely equal or exceed
those that would occur during non-event conditions. Figure IV-29 depicts typical queue
conditions at the Route 9/Market Street intersection on a Saturday midday with an event at the
Fairgrounds. With the mitigation measures that are presented below in “Conclusions & Potential
Mitigation Measures,” these queues would be reduced in length.
ALTERNATIVES
While the full potential build-out under each of the Alternatives analyzed in this DGEIS varies
considerably (see Section IV.A, “Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy”), potential development
over the next 10 has been established under each of the Alternatives as approximately 440 new
housing units and up to 100,000 square feet of commercial space. From a traffic impact
assessment perspective, the key difference between the different Alternatives is the extent to
which new residential units are separated from commercial areas and places of gathering
(schools and cultural facilities). The more separated the new units are from each other and
commercial and cultural areas, the more likely people are to drive from their houses to these
other locations. While this traffic may not be as concentrated at certain points as traffic
originating at or destined to a denser area (the Village or the Astor Flats TND), the number of
vehicular trips and their length (which combine to compute Vehicle Miles Traveled, or VMT)
would typically be greater than the number and length of trips in denser areas where a mix of
land uses exists and where alternative modes of transportation (e.g., bicycling, walking, or
public transportation) would be possible.1
Thus, to properly analyze potential traffic impacts between the Alternatives, one must consider
not simply the traffic operating conditions at particular intersections but rather the effect on
VMT and mode choice.
Alternative 1, which would result in a large number of new housing units on lot sizes ranging
from one acre to six acres would not result in any development in mixed-use areas with a density
high enough to support meaningful numbers of trips by bicycle, walking, or public
transportation. Thus, virtually every trip made between residences, or residences to work or
culture would require an automobile and would be several miles long. VMT under Alternative 1
would likely be higher than the Proposed Action.
Alternative 2 would not change the total number of dwelling units that could be built but would
alter the configuration of those dwelling units in the landscape in such a way that certain trips
could be made by walking or bicycling, but only likely between nearby residences. However, no
formal priority growth areas would be created that could achieve the higher density needed to
sustain public transportation.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would have similar impacts as the Proposed Action. Each of these
Alternatives contemplates creation of the Astor Flats TND and other priority growth areas within
which walking and bicycling trips would be more feasible. The density and scale of the Astor
Flats TND also makes public transportation more feasible for select routes within the Town.
1
Transportation studies have identified 12 dwelling units per acre as a threshold needed to support public
transportation service.
10/24/08 IV-50 DRAFT

10.2.08
N
REET
CHESTNUT ST
MONTGOME
OA
KS
TR
STREET
LIVINGSTON
RY STREET
EE T
Rhinebeck
Antique Rhinecliff Savings
CENTER STREET
Center Bank Driveway

Driveway CB
GARDEN STREET
C
B C
C C ET
C E. MARKET STRE
W. MARKET STREET B CVS

B Driveway
Beekman Arms
Queing Lengths Driveway
2017 Future Conditions
Level of Service (LOS) M&T Bank
Driveway
B Approach LOS STREET
SOUTH
B Overall Intersection LOS1, 2007 Existing Conditions
C Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Future Conditions
1 The average delay per vehicle for the intersections as a whole is found by
adding the product of the approach flow rate and the approach delay for all
approaches and dividing by the total intersection flow rate. Figure IV-22
Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths
10.2.08
N
REET
CHESTNUT ST
MONTGOME
OA
KS
TR
STREET
LIVINGSTON
RY STREET
EE T
Rhinebeck
Antique D Rhinecliff Savings
CENTER STREET
Center F Bank Driveway

Driveway C
GARDEN STREET
C C C
D C
C C ET
C C E. MARKET STRE
W. MARKET STREET B B CVS

C Driveway
Queing Lengths Beekman Arms
2007 Existing Conditions Driveway
2017 Mitigation Conditions
Driveway
SOUTH
C Overall Intersection LOS1, 2007 Existing Conditions
D Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Future Conditions
C Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Mitigation Conditions
adding the product of the approach flow rate and the approach delay for all Figure IV-23
approaches and dividing by the total intersection flow rate. Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths
10.2.08
N
REET
CHESTNUT ST
MONTGOME
OA
KS
TR
STREET
LIVINGSTON
RY STREET
EE T
Rhinebeck
Antique D Rhinecliff Savings
CENTER STREET

Driveway C
GARDEN STREET
C C C
F C
C C ET
C D E. MARKET STRE
W. MARKET STREET C D CVS

F Driveway
Driveway
SOUTH
C Overall Intersection LOS1, 2007 Existing Conditions
F Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Future Conditions
D Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Mitigation Conditions
adding the product of the approach flow rate and the approach delay for all Figure IV-24
10.2.08
N
REET
CHESTNUT ST
MONTGOME
OA
KS
TR
STREET
LIVINGSTON
RY STREET
EE T
Rhinebeck
Antique E Rhinecliff Savings
CENTER STREET

Driveway D
GARDEN STREET
C D D
F F
C E ET
D D E. MARKET STRE
W. MARKET STREET B B CVS

C Driveway
Driveway
SOUTH
D Overall Intersection LOS1, 2007 Existing Conditions
F Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Future Conditions
D Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Mitigation Conditions
adding the product of the approach flow rate and the approach delay for all
Figure IV-25
10.2.08
SB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS B Conditions 1 EB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS B to C Conditions 2
NB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS A to B Conditions 3 WB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS C Conditions 4
Figure IV-26
Photographs: Non-Event Conditions at the
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS Dutchess County Fairgrounds (AM Peak Hour)
Table IV-21
Queue Length Analysis Results :
2007 Existing, 2017 Future Conditions, and 2017 Mitigation Conditions
Average Queue Length (car length)/(ft.) Average Queue Length (car length)/(ft.)
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday Midday Peak Hour
2007 Existing 2017 Future 2017 Mitigation 2007 Existing 2017 Future 2017 Mitigation
(car (ft.) (car (ft.) (ft.) (car (car (ft.) (car (ft.) (car (ft.)
Intersection Approach lengths) lengths) lengths) lengths) lengths) lengths)
U.S. Route 9 and
East Market Street/West Market Street
West Market Street Eastbound 2 40 2 40 144 7 4 80 5 100 5 100
East Market Street Westbound 5 100 6 120 242 12 7 140 9 180 4 80
U.S. Route 9 Northbound 6 120 8 160 365 18 8 160 10 200 9 180
U.S. Route 9 Southbound 9 180 13 260 101 5 12 240 28 560 22 440
Average Queue Length (car length)/(ft.) Average Queue Length (car length)/(ft.)
Weekday PM Peak Hour Saturday Midday Peak Hour
2007 Existing 2017 Future 2017 Mitigation 2007 Existing 2017 Future 2017 Mitigation
(car (ft.) (car (ft.) (car (ft.) (car (ft.) (car (ft.) (car (ft.)
Intersection Approach lengths) lengths) lengths) lengths) lengths) lengths)
U.S. Route 9 and
East Market Street/West Market Street
West Market Street Eastbound 5 100 6 120 5 100 5 100 6 120 6 120
East Market Street Westbound 7 140 9 180 5 100 16 320 26 520 7 140
U.S. Route 9 Northbound 17 340 33 660 24 480 7 140 10 200 8 160
U.S. Route 9 Southbound 11 220 34 680 24 480 20 400 41 820 29 580
10.22.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
323
UT
55
85
E
9G
75 95
215 275
298 113
ROUTE 9G
AD
148
286
326
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
Astor
Flats
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
157
110
379
SP
E. MARKET ST.
126 214
Northern
Dutchess
125 136
Hospital 67 115
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
The
RO
60
79
455
AD
Gardens
MULLBERR
Y
WA
DEN The
Y
GAR
Gardens ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ERY
ET
CHESTNUT STRE
LIVINGSTON ST.
MILL ROAD
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-27
10.22.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
ROUTE 9
120
328
UT
15
E
9G
50 50
240 240
333 148
ROUTE 9G
AD
108
216
346
RO
RIVER ROAD
ST
PO
D
OL
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
Astor
Flats
TATOR
AD
RD.
T RO
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
GB
RIN
ROUTE 9
157
279
SP
45
E. MARKET ST.
106 214
Northern
Dutchess
55 91
Hospital 72 45
AS
TO
W. MARKET ST.
R
The
RO
50
54
350
AD
Gardens
MULLBERR
Y
WA
DEN The
Y
GAR
Gardens ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
MONTGOM
T
ROU
BEECH
ERY
ET
CHESTNUT STRE
LIVINGSTON ST.
MILL ROAD
RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Figure IV-28
TOWN OF RHINEBECK Sunday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM)
10.22.08
WB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS D Conditions 1 NB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS D Conditions 2
EB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS B to C Conditions 3 SB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS E to F Conditions 4
Figure IV-29
Photographs: Event Conditions at the Dutchess
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS County Fairgrounds (Saturday Midday Peak Hour)
Alternative 5 would have impacts more similar to Alternatives 1 and 2. In Alternative 5, the
Astor Flats TND is not contemplated and, thus, the higher density of activity that would promote
alternative mode choice would not be achieved. Residential development would tend to be
scattered throughout the Town at lower densities that do not promote walking or bicycling and
would not sustain public transportation. Thus, Alternative 5 would result in higher VMT than the
Proposed Action.
Alternative 6 would have very similar transportation impacts as the Proposed Action. The
variation in density in the Historic Preservation District would not significantly alter the overall
density throughout the Town, but the benefits of density in the priority growth areas would allow
for increased likelihood of alternative modes of transportation.
Alternative 7a would also have very similar transportation impacts as the Proposed Action,
except that the provision of senior housing in higher net densities might allow for an even
greater number of trips by walking or private jitney as senior housing developments tend to offer
both walking trails and private van service as amenities to its residents. It should be noted that
provision of senior housing may provide an ancillary benefit of greater mobility in general to
seniors as seniors in single-family residences often decrease driving as a result of isolation or
loss of ability.
Alternative 7b would have substantially similar transportation impacts as the Proposed Action.
The effect of eliminating the net-out provisions from the Zoning Code would not substantially
change the transportation patterns of residents.
CONCLUSION & POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES
NON-EVENT CONDITIONS AT THE DUTCHESS COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS

the Saturday midday peak hour, the westbound East Market Street approach operates at LOS E
(traffic is busy during the weekend at this intersection which is in the center of Town). At the
U.S. Route 9 and NYS Route 9G intersection the eastbound (through and right-turn) and
westbound (through and right-turn) NYS Route 9G movements also experience LOS E
conditions during the weekday PM peak hour. This reflects busy traffic conditions during the
commuter peak hour traveling on U.S. Route 9 and the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge (which is
accessed via NYS Route 9G).
LOS F at both intersections during the Weekday Midday, PM, and Saturday Midday peak hours.
Again, it is important to note that LOS F conditions during the peak hour are not uncommon
operating conditions at the intersection of two major state roads. During non-peak hours (the
majority of the day), LOS D or better conditions would prevail.
Table IV-22 shows the 2007 Existing, 2017 Future, and 2017 Mitigation conditions for
intersections that experience impacts during the Weekday AM, Weekday Midday, Weekday PM,
and Saturday Midday peak hours. Figure IV-30 summarizes possible mitigation measures to
address these impacts.
DRAFT IV-51 10/24/08

Potential Mitigation --U.S. Route 9 and East Market Street/West Market Street
signal would improve LOS and delays as shown in Table IV-21. Without these measures, there
would be LOS F conditions during the peak hours, but LOS D or better during much of the day.
NYSDOT.
Potential Mitigation --U.S. Route 9 and NYS Route 9G
Table IV-21.
It is also recommended that, for the traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. Route 9 and NYS
Route 9G, the latest traffic controller technology be implemented by NYSDOT.
Another possible measure is to reconstruct the intersection as a roundabout (a measure discussed
and recommended in the Comprehensive Plan).
As shown in Table IV-22, the impacts at the two intersections would be mitigated and the
overall intersection LOS would be D or better (generally considered acceptable operating
conditions). There would be three intersection movements (the through/right-turn movement at
the northbound and southbound approaches at the intersection of U.S. Route 9 and NYS Route
9G and the left-turn/through/right-turn movement at the southbound approach at the intersection
of U.S. Route 9 and East Market Street/West Market Street) where the LOS would be E. LOS E
generally reflects congested conditions where drivers experience delays that can exceed one
cycle length. It is important to note that these movements are not failing (LOS F) and it is not
uncommon to have some movements operate at LOS E even if the overall intersection LOS is D.
There is some limited additional capacity available at the intersection with the improvements in-
place to accommodate general growth or small sized proposed development projects. Another
measure to improve operating conditions even with the improvements in-place would be to
provide a secondary point of access/egress to the TND possibly via NYS Route 9G. This would
help to distribute traffic more evenly throughout the area without all the project generated traffic
concentrated on U.S. Route 9. In addition, shuttle service from the TND site to Market Street
and the train station would also reduce the traffic generation from the TND site.
EVENT CONDITIONS AT THE DUTCHESS COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS

the Saturday Midday peak hour, the southbound U.S. Route 9 approach does operate at LOS F
(traffic is busy during the weekend at this intersection which is in the center of Town). At the
U.S. Route 9 and NYS Route 9G intersection the eastbound (through and right-turn) NYS Route
9G movements experience LOS E conditions during the Sunday Midday peak hour.
LOS E and F at both intersections during the Saturday and Sunday Midday peak hours. Again, it
is important to note that LOS E and F conditions during the peak hour are not uncommon
10/24/08 IV-52 DRAFT

Table IV-22
Weekday AM Peak Hour
2007 Existing 2017 Future 2017 Mitigation
Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay
Intersection Approach Group Ratio (spv) LOS Group Ratio (spv) LOS Group Ratio (spv) LOS Mitigation Measures
U.S. Route 9 @ Eastbound L 0.14 24.7 C L 0.14 24.7 C L 0.14 24.7 C
NYS Route 9G TR 0.86 46.0 D TR 0.93 58.3 E T 0.47 27.7 C
R 0.27 16.0 B
Westbound L 0.17 24.0 C L 0.21 25.7 C L 0.19 24.1 C
TR 0.87 45.1 D TR 0.87 45.1 D TR 0.87 45.1 D Add eastbound Route 9G exclusive right-turn
Northbound L 0.28 25.2 C LT 0.38 26.7 C LT 0.38 26.7 C lane.
TR 0.40 25.6 C R 0.50 26.7 C R 0.50 26.7 C
Southbound L 0.39 26.5 C L 0.39 28.5 C L 0.39 28.5 C
TR 0.55 29.0 C TR 0.61 30.5 C TR 0.61 30.5 C
Intersection 36.1 D 39.1 D 30.7 C
Weekday Midday Peak Hour

U.S. Route 9 @ Eastbound DefL 0.52 25.7 C DefL 0.68 32.4 C DefL 0.70 36.7 D -Restripe Westbound East Market Street
East Market Street/West Market Street TR 0.25 22.1 C TR 0.28 22.4 C TR 0.33 25.5 C approach to form two 11-foot lanes.
Westbound LTR 0.60 27.1 C LTR 0.71 30.7 C LTR 0.48 26.9 C -Prohibit parking on Westbound East Market
Northbound LTR 0.53 18.8 B LTR 0.62 20.7 C LTR 0.56 17.1 B Street approach approximately 100 to 200
Southbound LTR 0.76 25.9 C LTR 1.11 94.9 F LTR 0.97 49.6 D feet back from approach.
Intersection 23.9 C 50.4 D 33.4 C -Retime Signal
Weekday PM Peak Hour

U.S. Route 9 @ Eastbound DefL 0.42 24.1 C DefL 0.58 28.2 C LTR 0.63 30.3 C -Restripe Westbound East Market Street
East Market Street/West Market Street TR 0.40 23.5 C TR 0.43 23.8 C approach to form two 11-foot lanes.
Westbound LTR 0.58 26.4 C LTR 0.70 30.3 C LTR 0.52 28.1 C -Prohibit parking on Westbound East Market
Northbound LTR 0.87 33.8 C LTR 1.12 98.3 F LTR 0.97 47.0 D Street approach approximately 100 to 200
Southbound LTR 0.68 22.4 C LTR 1.19 125.9 F LTR 0.99 53.8 D feet back from approach.
Intersection 27.3 C 0.00 82.0 F 42.9 D -Retime Signal
NYS Route 9G TR 0.95 59.2 E TR 1.06 89.6 F T 0.71 33.5 C -Add eastbound Route 9G exclusive right-turn
R 0.26 15.9 B lane.
Westbound L 0.14 24.5 C L 0.18 26.6 C L 0.15 19.8 B
TR 1.04 77.5 E TR 1.06 82.1 F TR 1.01 68.0 E
-Retime signal
Northbound L 0.58 32.2 C LT 0.77 40.9 D LT 0.74 37.8 D
TR 0.92 54.9 D R 1.06 91.2 F R 1.01 74.4 E
TR 0.67 34.8 C TR 0.78 40.7 D TR 0.81 43.3 D
Intersection 54.1 D 69.5 E 49.8 D
Notes:
spv = seconds/vehicle
Saturday Midday Peak Hour
Westbound LTR 1.02 78.3 E LTR 1.20 138.8 F LTR 0.78 35.5 D -Prohibit parking on Westbound East Market
Northbound LTR 0.52 19.7 B LTR 0.65 22.5 C LTR 0.55 16.6 B Street approach approximately 100 to 200
Southbound LTR 0.95 47.6 D LTR 1.26 155.5 F LTR 1.04 67.6 E feet back from approach.
Intersection 0.00 44.4 D 0.00 98.2 F 43.3 D -Retime Signal
NYS Route 9G TR 0.87 45.3 D TR 0.96 61.3 E T 0.40 24.9 C
R 0.36 16.3 B
TR 0.55 28.5 C TR 0.55 28.5 C TR 0.55 28.5 C Add eastbound Route 9G exclusive right-turn
Northbound L 0.14 25.0 C LT 0.26 28.4 C LT 0.26 28.4 C lane.
TR 0.66 32.3 C R 0.85 44.4 D R 0.85 44.4 D
TR 0.72 34.9 C TR 0.91 53.2 D TR 0.91 53.2 D
Intersection 34.2 C 0.00 44.5 D 34.7 C
Notes:
Saturday Midday Peak Hour
Westbound LTR 0.90 47.9 D LTR 1.02 74.8 E LTR 0.72 33.6 C -Prohibit parking on Westbound East Market
Northbound LTR 0.93 44.1 D LTR 1.12 99.8 F LTR 0.91 35.4 D Street approach approximately 100 to 200
Southbound LTR 1.16 114.3 F LTR 1.58 294.5 F LTR 1.22 135.3 F feet back from approach.
Intersection 65.0 E 151.6 F 70.2 E -Retime Signal
-Implement Event Traffic Management Plan
NYS Route 9G TR 0.85 41.9 D TR 0.91 50.5 D T 0.48 27.8 C -Add eastbound Route 9G exclusive right-turn
R 0.34 17.8 B lane.
TR 0.74 35.0 D TR 0.74 35.0 D TR 0.74 35.0 D
-Retime signal
Northbound L 0.67 35.0 C LT 0.81 45.1 D LT 0.74 37.1 D
TR 0.81 40.6 D R 1.01 77.7 E R 0.91 49.2 D
TR 0.67 32.6 C TR 0.85 44.6 D TR 0.76 34.3 C
Notes:
Sunday Midday Peak Hour

NYS Route 9G TR 0.94 55.4 E TR 1.01 75.0 E T 0.51 27.6 C -Add eastbound Route 9G exclusive right-turn
R 0.37 17.5 B lane.
TR 0.59 29.2 C TR 0.59 29.2 C TR 0.59 29.2 C
-Retime signal
Northbound L 0.46 29.0 C LT 0.58 31.8 C LT 0.54 29.7 C
TR 0.74 35.7 D R 0.94 60.0 E R 0.87 45.4 D
TR 0.56 29.2 C TR 0.74 35.6 D TR 0.68 31.5 C
Notes:
10.2.08
UP
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
• Add an Exclusive Eastbound NYS
UT
E
Route 9G Right Turn Lane (Widen
9G
the Approach)
• Retime Traffic Signal to Optimize
AD
RO
Operations
ST
PO
D
OL
• Install Latest NYSDOT Traffic
Controller Technology
RIVER ROAD
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
• Consider a Secondary Access to

the TND (Possibly Route 9G)
• Consider a Roundabout for NYS

TATOR Route 9 and NYS Route 9G (As
Discussed in the Rhinebeck
AD
RD.
T RO
Comprehensive Plan)
POS
OLD
AD
RO
OK
RO
ASTOR RO
GB
RIN
SP
AD
Northern
Dutchess
Hospital
• Prohibit Parking for Approximately
100 - 200 Feet on the Westbound
East Market Street Approach and
MULLBERR
Restripe to Two Lanes

Y STREET
• Retime Traffic Signal (Increase

Route 9 Green Time)
ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
PARSONAGE
MONTGOM
T
• Install Latest NYSDOT Traffic ROU
BEECH
ET
ERY
CHESTNUT STRE
STREET
REET

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Intersections Analyzed
Figure IV-30
2017 Traffic Conditions
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS with No Event at the Fairground
UP
10.2.08
PER
HO
OK
N
RO
AD
RO
• Add an Exclusive Eastbound NYS
UT
E
Route 9G Right Turn Lane (Widen
9G
the Approach)
• Retime Traffic Signal to Optimize
AD
RO
Operations
ST
PO
D
OL
• Install Latest NYSDOT Traffic
RIVER ROAD
MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD
9 E
UT
RO
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
• Consider a Secondary Access to

the TND (Possibly Route 9G)
• Consider a Roundabout for NYS

Route 9 and NYS Route 9G (As
Discussed in the Rhinebeck
Comprehensive Plan)
TATOR
AD
RD.
• Consider Prohibiting Parking for
T RO
Approximately 100-200 Feet on the

POS
Northbound Route 9 Approach

OLD
AD
RO
• Implement a Traffic Management

OK
RO
ASTOR RO
Plan (e.g. Use of Personnel at Key

GB
RIN
Intersections to Direct Traffic During

SP
Event Conditions at the Fairground)

AD
Northern
Dutchess
Hospital
• Prohibit Parking for Approximately
100 - 200 Feet on the Westbound
East Market Street Approach and
MULLBERR
Restripe to Two Lanes

Y STREET
• Retime Traffic Signal (Increase

Route 9 Green Time)
ENUE 08
PLAT T AV E3
PARSONAGE
MONTGOM
T
OU
• Install Latest NYSDOT Traffic R
BEECH
ET
ERY
CHESTNUT STRE
STREET
REET

W. MARKET STREET
SCALE
STREET
SOUTH
Intersections Analyzed
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Figure IV-31
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS 2017 Traffic Conditions with Event at the Fairground
operating conditions at the intersection of two major state roads. During non-peak hours (the
majority of the day), LOS D or better conditions would prevail.
Table IV-22 shows the 2007 Existing, 2017 Future, and 2017 Mitigation conditions for
intersections that experience impacts during the Saturday and Sunday Midday peak hours.
Figure IV-31 summarizes possible mitigation measures to address these impacts.
Potential Mitigation --U.S. Route 9 and East Market Street/West Market Street
signal would improve LOS and delays as shown in Table IV-21.
With these improvement measures in-place, the southbound Route 9 approach would continue to
operate at LOS F and the overall intersection LOS would be E on Saturdays. Without these
measures, there would be LOS F conditions with significantly higher delays during the peak
hours on Saturdays.
On Sunday this intersection would operate at overall LOS C with the approaches operating at
LOS D.
NYSDOT. A traffic management plan (e.g. use of personnel to direct traffic at key locations)
during events at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds is also recommended.
Potential Mitigation --U.S. Route 9 and NYS Route 9G
Table IV-22.
Another possible measure is to reconstruct the intersection as a roundabout (a measure discussed
and recommended in the Comprehensive Plan).
On Saturday with these improvement measures in-place the northbound Route 9 through/right-
turn movement would operate at LOS D and the overall intersection LOS would be C.
On Sunday with these improvement measures in-place the northbound Route 9 through/right-
turn movement would operate at LOS D and the overall intersection LOS would be C.
F. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Fire Protection and Ambulance Services

Fire protection services in Rhinebeck are provided by volunteers in three fire districts: the
Rhinebeck Fire District, the Rhinecliff Fire District and the Hillside Fire District. The Town
DRAFT IV-53 10/24/08

contracts with the local fire stations to provide continuous coverage for the Town within the
districts.
The Rhinebeck Fire Department was founded July 7, 1834, and was originally comprised of two
separate companies which merged in 1963. In 1970, the Rhinebeck Fire Department expanded to
include the Rhinebeck Rescue Squad. The Rhinebeck Fire District serves Rhinebeck village and
the northeastern half of the town. It has an eight-bay firehouse built in 1973, located at 76 East
Market Street across from the Town Hall and within Village Hall. The district has two class “A”
pumpers, a 110-foot aerial truck, a rescue pumper equipped with the “Jaws of Life” and air bags
for lifting heavy objects, and an ambulance that is certified “Basic Life Support,” and carries a
defibrillator.
The Rhinecliff Fire District serves most of the northwestern and western quarter of the town.
The three-bay brick firehouse dating to the 1920s, is located on the corner of Shatzel and
Orchard streets. It has two pumpers, one mini pumper and an ambulance.
The Hillside Fire District serves the southern quarter of the town. The three-story firehouse has
three bays and is located on Fox Hollow Road near the intersection with Route 9. It was built in
the 1920s. The district has one pumper, one tanker and one rescue truck. Over 200 volunteers
staff the three fire districts.
Police
The Village has a part-time police department that provides contract services to the Town. The
Police Department is currently housed at the Fairgrounds property but may move to a more
centralized location if one becomes available. The Town also contracts with the County
Sheriff’s Department to conduct police patrols of town facilities and recreation areas. Dutchess
County Sheriff’s Department and the State Police provide additional police protection for the
town. The County has a substation on Route 308 near Sepasco Lake. The State Police maintain a
barracks on Route 9 south of the village.
Medical Services
Central to medical services in Rhinebeck is Northern Dutchess Hospital, a non-profit institution
located on Route 9 on the corner of Montgomery Street. Northern Dutchess Hospital is part of
the Health Quest health care system, which includes Vassar Brothers Medical Center, Putnam
Hospital and other affiliates. The hospital has 68 beds, and is currently undergoing expansion to
provide a new Emergency Room, to enlarge and modernize all the patient rooms and to enlarge
and modernize the operating room suites.
Northern Dutchess Hospital is a full-service hospital offering primary care, general and
specialized surgery (including breast surgery), orthopedic surgery, and ear-nose-and throat
surgery. In addition to a broad range of medical and surgical services, the hospital provides
emergency services, comprehensive out-patient services, and physical and occupational therapy.
Also located at the hospital are the Neugarten Family Birthing Center, which was the first
hospital-based birthing center in New York State when it opened in 1985, the Center for
Wellness and Rehabilitation and the Paul Rosenthal Rehabcare Center. The Thompson House, a
100-bed skilled nursing facility affiliated with the Northern Dutchess Hospital, offers sub-acute
rehabilitation and long-term care. The hospital’s current staff totals 116 practitioners offering
health care services in approximately 30 specialty areas.
On hospital property at 14 Springbrook Avenue is the Dutchess County Mental Health Clinic,
one of the clinics of the Dutchess County Department of Mental Hygiene. The clinic provides
10/24/08 IV-54 DRAFT

out-patient mental health services that include intake and assessment counseling and follow-up
work. Also on hospital grounds is the newly opened Women’s View, which offers pelvic floor
rehabilitation, nutritional counseling, acupuncture and educational lecture series to the public. At
the corner of 47 West Market and Oak Street is another facility of the Department of Mental
Hygiene, the Rhinebeck Continuing Treatment Center, which offers psychiatric mental health
treatment to chronically mentally ill residents of the northern Dutchess area.
The Rhinebeck Rescue Squad, which is supported by the Northern Dutchess Paramedics—a
commercial ambulance service that provides advanced life support—provides paramedic
services to the Town.
In addition to the Thompson House, Ferncliff Nursing Home is a skilled nursing facility with
328 beds. Another such facility, The Baptist Home, has 120 beds. Arbor Hill, currently under
construction on Route 308, will have between 80 and 100 dwelling units for seniors.

In a community without a large commercial component, calculation of the necessary numbers of
emergency service personnel is based primarily on a per capita calculation: the more residences
the Town has in the future, the more personnel would be required. Thus, the cost of providing
emergency services is almost entirely borne by the residential property owners through property
taxes.
The Original Build-Out Analysis conducted as part of the Comprehensive Plan indicates the
need for approximately 10 new fire fighters and 10 new police officers (or about 1 new fire
fighter and police officer for every 1,000 new residents) should the additional development
allowed by existing zoning be realized. The DGEIS Build-Out Analysis results in a projected
need for new fire fighters and police officers slightly lower than what was predicted by the
Original Build-Out Analysis. However, comparison of the Proposed Action with the alternatives
reveals significant differences (see Table IV-23).
Table IV-23
Projected Need for Emergency Service Providers
New Emergency
Alternative New Dwelling Units* New Residents Service Providers**
Proposed Action 1,388 3,345 6
Alternatives 1/2 2,750 6,628 14
Alternative 3 2,490 6,001 12
Alternative 4 1,358 3,273 6
Alternative 7b 2,104 5,071 10
Notes: * - Mean of Low-Range Estimate and High-Range Estimate.
** - Assumes 1 new fire fighter plus 1 new police officer per 1,000 new residents.
Under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 4 and 5, only 6 new emergency service providers (3
fire fighters and 3 police officers) would be required to serve the larger community. Alternatives
DRAFT IV-55 10/24/08

1/2, 3, and 7b would require twice as many emergency service providers. Alternative 6 would
require only 2 more than the Proposed Action.
The Original Build-Out Analysis estimates that the cost of additional emergency services can be
borne by increased property tax revenue coming from new residential construction, but does
note that the costs do escalate as the population increases. Certainly, the reliance on volunteer
fire fighters offsets much of the cost of providing fire protection. Assuming that new volunteers
can be identified among the new residents, then there should be a pool of prospective new fire
fighters in new development within the Proposed Action and each of the alternatives. The
availability of new volunteer fire fighters is oftentimes directly linked with the amount of
affordable housing within the Town. Providing a range of housing options, affordable to a cross-
section of the general population, would help to ensure a larger pool of potential volunteers.
There are no evident shortfalls in medical services. The numerous physicians and clinics in
Rhinebeck and the diverse services provided by the Northern Dutchess Hospital serve much of
northern Dutchess County.
G. CULTURAL RESOURCES
HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Rhinebeck has a rich cultural past spanning over 300 years of European settlement and
thousands of years of pre-historic habitation. This legacy, which is outlined in detail in Chapter
12 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, is recognized in several historic districts of state and
national significance. In 1979, the National Historic Landmark District (one of the largest in the
nation) was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This area, a portion of which is
located in Rhinebeck, also includes the historic shorelands scenic district. A town-wide Multiple
Resource District that includes 37 sites (44 significant structures) has also been added to the
National Register. Additional historic sites, including stone houses and other examples of
colonial vernacular architecture, with many unusual and interesting design features, are scattered
throughout the Town.
As shown on Figures 12.1 and 12.2 in the proposed Comprehensive Plan, the entire east bank of
the Hudson River within the Town of Rhinebeck falls within the Hudson River National Historic
Landmark District. The National Park Service describes the District as holding “a unique
position in settlement and social history of the nation. Sedate Dutch homesteads, rustic German
farms, industrious Yankee towns, and Gilded Age mansions all contribute to a rich landscape
fabric, remarkable for its integrity and its preservation.”
The magnificent homes of the National Historic Landmark District span more than two
centuries. They represent the architectural and social history of the times, and served as
residences of several successful and powerful New York families. Included in this group of
estates is Ferncliff, home of the Astor family. Farther south at Ellerslie, Levi P. Morton, who
was vice president of the United States under Benjamin Harrison, made his home. During his
tenure as ambassador to France, Mr. Morton formally accepted the gift of the Statue of Liberty
from the citizens of France to the citizens of the United States.
While the estates assumed additional importance through the role that many of their occupants
played in state and national history, the special significance of the area is derived from its
10/24/08 IV-56 DRAFT

location along the Hudson River, with views of the Catskill Mountain range adding a dimension
that rivals and enhances its historic and architectural significance.
The Mid-Hudson Historic Shorelands Scenic District covers the east bank of the Hudson River,
from Hyde Park to Germantown. The section within Rhinebeck extends eastward from the
centerline of the Hudson to a line 500 feet east of Lemon Lane, Hook Road, Old Post Road and
Route 9. It offers panoramic views of the River, with impressive landscapes enhanced by the
Catskill Mountains to the west.
In 1983, the Hudson River Shorelands Task Force completed a management plan for the Mid-
Hudson Historic Shorelands Scenic District under contract with New York State. The plan
contains a detailed inventory of scenic resources, land use, and tourism and recreation sites
within the district, and proposals for recognizing and protecting the integrity of the district’s
uniqueness. It presents specific recommendations for managing viewsheds, natural complexes,
architecture, estate grounds, townscapes, the pastoral countryside, stonewalls, railroad rights-of-
way and campuses. These recommendations, and the planning, zoning, and project review
mechanisms that can be used to implement them, have been reviewed as part of the research
work for the proposed Comprehensive Plan and should be considered part of the background
documentation for the Plan.
The Rhinebeck Village Historic District, designated in 1980, includes almost 400 buildings,
which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Beekman Arms, located in the
center of the community, claims recognition as the oldest continuously operating hotel in the
nation. It preserves the flavor and character of colonial America. Several surveys of the areas
adjacent to the established districts are in progress, and are expected to result in further listings
on the National Register.
The first three sites in the Town to be listed on the National Register included the Delamater
House in the Village, the Old Stone Church Complex on NYS 9, and the Sands Estate at the
junction of Route 9G and Route 308. The Delamater House, designed in 1844 by Alexander
Jackson Davis in carpenters’ gothic manner, is considered a classic example of Gothic Revival
architecture. The Old Stone Church, built in 1786, is typical of front-towered church design of
the Georgian period. The Robert Sands Estate burned shortly after listing. The Town Board has
designated the Quitman House (the Old Stone Church parsonage) and Wilderstein as local
landmarks.
A number of intact historic resources are clustered in Wurtemburg in the southeast corner of
Rhinebeck, near the Clinton town line. Four historic properties – the Pultz farmhouse, Marguardt
Farmhouse, John H. Traver Farmhouse and St. Paul’s Lutheran Church – are located there, along
a one-mile stretch of Wurtemburg Road.
Wurtemburg was a farming community of Palatine settlers during the 18th and 19th centuries.
The Pultz Farmhouse dates from the early settlement period (circa 1750) and is the oldest extant
structure in Wurtemburg. The Marguardt Farm includes a federal-style farmhouse dating to
1810, and a late-1700s Dutch-type barn. The Traver Farmhouse dates to 1876, and has a
Baroque Italianate façade. A Dutch barn from the late 18th century is also on the site. The focal
point of the historic buildings in Wurtemburg is St. Paul’s Church which was begun in 1802 and
remodeled in 1861. A parsonage and burial grounds are grouped with the church.
The New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), located within the Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), maintains an inventory of archaeological sites
that have been reported across the state. While this inventory is not a complete listing of all
DRAFT IV-57 10/24/08

known archaeological sites in the state, it is utilized by towns, counties and other state and
federal agencies to help determine archaeologically sensitive areas and identify where a survey
would be appropriate. According to this inventory, archaeologically sensitive areas in the Town
(areas with the potential for archaeological discovery) are primarily associated with the National
Historic Landmark District and the historic sites in the Village of Rhinebeck. Archaeologically
sensitive areas contain one or more variables that make them likely locations for evidence of
past human activities.
Specific known sites where historic and prehistoric artifacts have been discovered have been
inventoried by the State and by the Town. In 2007, Rhinebeck commissioned Craig Vogel to
inventory known archaeological sites in the Town where pre-historic artifacts have been found.
Mr. Vogel’s study, “Town of Rhinebeck Archaeological Sites,” includes a map of parcels where
artifacts have been found, a listing of all such properties by Section, Block and Lot number, and
two CD’s of extensive interviews that he conducted with a large number of professional
archaeologists. Mr. Vogel’s study supplements the State’s mapping, which also includes historic
archaeology. All of the site specific information in both the state inventory and the Vogel study
is sensitive and is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act; detailed information regarding
specific archaeological sites cannot be revealed in this document nor any other public document
by law.
The Historic Properties maps (Figures 12.1 and 12.2) in the proposed Comprehensive Plan and
Appendix 4 of the Plan identify the complete list of all National Register sites, together with
other important historic sites in the Town.
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends that all future land use decision-making in the
Town should consider sites that are currently listed, or may be listed for listing, on the National
Register of Historic Places. It establishes an objective to “Protect historic resources and require
new development within historic districts or near historic sites to be consistent with the existing
setting of the site, taking into account the history, existing architecture and character of the
surrounding area.” To implement this objective, the Plan recommends the following actions:
1. Establish historic district zoning, architectural review procedures and local landmark
standards to protect the rich cultural resources of the community.
2. Nominate historic buildings and districts for state and National Register of Historic Places
designation. Where historic structures do not qualify for such designation, create criteria to
govern local designation.
3. Allow adaptive re-use of historic structures to help preserve them by permitting such a range
of uses as multi-family housing, bed and breakfasts or tourist guesthouse operations, providing
that the re-use is subject to performance standards as part of special use permit requirements
(which include protection of the historic structure).
4. Develop a list of all historic properties in the town, to be coordinated by the town historian,
including historic properties of national, state and local significance on the list.
5. Develop standards governing the installation of fences that are compatible with the town’s
unique natural, scenic and historic character. Promote the use of stonewalls, when feasible.
10/24/08 IV-58 DRAFT

6. Identify existing architectural elements that have historic value (i.e. stonewalls, wells and
culverts), and incorporate them into any proposed site development as assets to be preserved.
7. Charter the town historian with coordinating an archaeological resource inventory and
preparation of an archaeological sensitivity map which identify areas in Rhinebeck to be
protected and make it part of the Plan once completed.
8. Preserve archaeological resources by carefully considering sensitive archaeological zones
identified by New York State and local archaeologists during the SEQR reviews of proposed
developments. File newly discovered sites with the State for inclusion in its databases.
Zoning Law
The proposed Zoning Law would implement a number of these recommended actions. Article V,
Section BB (Historic Buildings) would include provisions that would encourage the adaptive re-
use of existing historic buildings in the Town to preserve and enhance their architectural or
historic integrity and the district in which they are located. The provisions would broaden the
uses allowed by special permit to include business and professional offices, an artisans shop and
gallery, and an antiques shop, and would relax the dimensional standards governing those
permitted uses. Up to four (4) residential dwelling units would be allowed on the lot(s) proposed
for an Adaptive Reuse Special Use Permit, provided the Planning Board made a Finding that
associated renovations, alterations, extensions or additions satisfied stated objectives pertaining
to the restoration of the structure and/or site. These provisions would apply only to historic
buildings that have been designated by the Federal and/or State governments as contributing
historic structures listed on the National and/or State Registers of Historic Places, the Hudson
River National Historic Landmark District, or by local designation by the Town Board of the
Town of Rhinebeck. These provisions would encourage the retention and restoration of historic
buildings in the Town, a beneficial impact on historic resources.

Since no significant adverse environmental impacts on historic and archaeological resources as a
result of the Proposed Action were identified, no mitigation is required.
COMMUNITY CHARACTER
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Town’s community character is a composite of a number of factors, principally the elements
of the natural and physical environment, but also including the substantial number of historic
resources within the community. Community character is also defined by the residential and
commercial activity within the Town and the Village of Rhinebeck as well as the periodic events
at the Dutchess County Fair Ground that attract visitors to both the Town and Village.
As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, the existing community character is defined as “rural” – “a
landscape where the predominant feature is the natural environment, such as open space,
farmland, woodlands and water bodies, and where development intrusion is minimal.” The
Comprehensive Plan includes the following language describing community character in the
Vision Statement that sets the overall policy direction for the Comprehensive Plan: “Our guiding
principle is that Rhinebeck is an exceptional place because of its desirable rural attributes,
outstanding scenic, natural and historic resources, and thriving village and hamlet centers.” This
Vision Statement reflects the results of the community survey in which 84 percent of
DRAFT IV-59 10/24/08

respondents “Strongly Agree” that “Rhinebeck’s rural/small town atmosphere is a major

strength” and 56 percent Strongly Agree (with another 30 percent “Agreeing”) that “Rhinebeck
should stay rural by guiding growth to areas around the Village and hamlets.”
Figure IV-32 depicts typical existing patterns of development within the Town of Rhinebeck.
Areas with typical one-acre subdivisions are characterized by a regular pattern of houses
fronting on residential local streets with manicured front lawns and gardens. Areas with typical
three-acre subdivisions retain certain elements of the one-acre areas, such as the mailboxes and
light posts at the end of driveways, but the manicured lawns tend to be replaced by areas of more
natural vegetation. Nevertheless, within this typical subdivision pattern, one can still sense by
the number of mailboxes and driveways that this is a predominantly residential landscape. In
areas of predominantly larger lots of 10 to 20 acres, on the other hand, the pattern shifts toward
more of a natural setting in which driveways off of State and County roads lead past wetlands
and forested areas to residences that may not be seen from the roads, or larger estate properties
that might integrate a small agricultural operation (such as a horse farm or pasture). Much of the
land area in the Town of Rhinebeck is characterized by the larger properties and the natural,
scenic, and cultural attributes they retain.
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed Comprehensive Plan identifies three different scales of development to be applied
within the priority growth areas: Hamlet Infill Development, Neighborhood Extensions, and
Traditional Neighborhood Development. The Town of Rhinebeck includes several historic
hamlets that can incorporate additional development consistent with the character of the hamlet
and surrounding areas. The proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends that a hamlet infill
zoning strategy should be developed for the hamlets of Sepasco and Rock City. It also
recommends that a separate zoning strategy be developed for the hamlet of Rhinecliff that
recognizes the unique nature of this built-out area, allowing residential densities in Rhinecliff in
keeping with the historic exiting level of development, and a greenbelt surrounding the hamlet.
In addition, the Plan recommends ensuring that existing hamlet roads are not widened, but rather
maintained as rural, country roads; developing and integrating design standards into the Zoning
Law that recognize the uniqueness of the hamlet’s architecture and streetscapes; and limiting the
square footage of new dwellings and additions to prevent proliferation of oversized, out-of-
character homes. These recommendations would be implemented by the Rhinecliff Overlay (Rc-
O) District in the proposed Zoning Law (Article VI, Section E), which includes special use and
bulk regulations designed to maintain the historic integrity of the hamlet. The new regulations
would apply to additions to existing structures, new construction, and other site features such as
landscaping, lighting, parking, building height, fencing and setbacks. These regulations would
have beneficial impacts on the hamlet’s character.
The Neighborhood Extension and Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Districts
would permit development at levels that match the prevailing pattern of existing development
within these areas. Within those areas, the predominant use would be single-family dwellings,
but some amount of two-family and multi-family residential would be permitted to increase the
potential for providing affordable housing. The TND District would permit a compact, mixed-
use neighborhood where residential, commercial, and civic buildings are in close proximity to
each other. This is a planning concept that is based on traditional small town development
principles and would enhance the existing small town, rural community character. These
10/24/08 IV-60 DRAFT

10.22.08
Typical 1 Acre Subdivision Typical 3 Acre Subdivision
Typical 10 Acre Subdivision Typical 20 Acre Subdivision
Figure IV-32
TOWN OF RHINEBECK
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS Typical Patterns of Development
recommendations for Neighborhood Extension and Traditional Neighborhood Districts have

been implemented in the proposed Zoning Law. By allowing for village-scaled density in and
adjacent to existing settled areas, development levels in areas outside the hamlets and villages
can be reduced without adverse impacts on housing affordability. Coupled with the use of
conservation subdivisions in the proposed HP20, RA10, RC6 and the existing RL5 Districts
which would surround the infill and extension areas, the proposed Zoning provisions would
ensure that the greenbelts defining the edge of the hamlets and village are maintained.
Preservation of the historic “town and country” development pattern of the Town, which would
result from the proposed Zoning, is a beneficial impact on community character.
To improve the character of new development, the proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends
that the Town:
1. Expand the existing commercial design guidelines to include all types of new development
or re-development, including civic, institutional, large-scale residential and rural (non-farm)
development.
2. Prepare design guidelines based upon the Greenway Guides A1 through A4, which
addresses: vegetation clearing; retention of rural landscape elements, hedgerows and stands of
trees; building placement and siting (especially near water bodies); use of farm roads and
country lanes; maintenance and enhancement of scenic views; sensitive siting of utilities; and
use of farm conservation and development plans on active farmland, which allow homes to co-
exist with farms.
3. Incorporate illustrative design standards into the Zoning Law.
4. Subject all new commercial and residential development that would be subject to site plan
approval, or as a condition of Planning Board approval, to the design standards.
5. Place limitations on the size of retail buildings to ensure they are at a scale in keeping with
the community. Individual retail buildings should be the size and scale of the traditional retail
businesses in the village center.
6. Use design standards to define principles for siting houses around a site’s natural features.
Place buildings on the edges of fields next to woods, or on the slopes of ridges and hills, as
situating a home in a highly visible location, such as the middle of an open field or on the crest
of a hill, intrudes upon the rural landscape and detracts from scenic views.
Zoning Law
In contrast to the existing Zoning, which would change the Town from a rural community to a
suburban community, the proposed Zoning included in the Proposed Action would direct new
growth into a pattern that continues and strengthens the Town’s existing rural character.
It is important to note that the proposed Zoning does not rely exclusively on large minimum lot
sizes to retain the Town’s community character. Such a zoning strategy is often referred to as
“large-lot zoning” and does not, on its own, result in beneficial results to community character.
Large-lot zoning is often synonymous with suburban sprawl. The proposed Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning envision a distribution of new residential development between priority growth areas
and the lands outside these areas. This sort of balanced and comprehensive management of
growth is more likely to result in longer-term benefits and preservation of community character.
DRAFT IV-61 10/24/08

The proposed Zoning includes new lighting standards, new standards for landscaping, screening
requirements, and the need for street trees. In the TND District, the maximum gross floor area
for a food and grocery store would be limited to 40,000 square feet to ensure compatibility with
existing community character. These standards, which would supplement the Town’s adopted
Design Standards already used by the Planning Board, would have beneficial impacts on
community character.
Finally, the proposed Zoning, as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, provides siting
design standards for conservation subdivisions (Article V Section I). The potential impact on
community character of the build-out under the proposed Zoning, in conjunction with the siting
standards of the conservation subdivision provisions, is illustrated in the layouts described under
“Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy” (see Figures IV-1a to IV-5b). As clearly shown by these
illustrations, the result of the existing zoning would be the conversion of open space lands to lot-
by-lot development with houses spread evenly over the landscape and no undivided remaining
open space lands. In contrast, the proposed zoning would reduce density and cluster
development on portions of the properties, leaving the remaining lands in open space. This
would not only protect resources of conservation value, such as wetlands, farmlands,
floodplains, steep slopes, and large tracts of forested lands, it would also allow a moderate
amount of development while conserving the Town’s rural landscape and small town character,
all beneficial impacts. It should also be noted that the parcel-level analysis revealed that in some
instances development capacity of certain parcels would not change significantly between
existing Zoning and proposed Zoning as a result of the environmental constraints on the land.
The proposed village-scale development in the priority growth areas could have the potential to
have adverse impacts on adjoining lands resulting from increased noise, light and air quality
impacts. To address these potential impacts, the proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends that
the Town develop standards to control excessive noise in commercial and residential zones and
to control light pollution. The proposed Zoning has implemented these recommendations in
Article V, Section X, which creates new standards for the control of unwanted noise in the
Town, and Section V, the new lighting standards which would require shielding and prohibit
light trespass beyond the property boundary. Potential air quality impacts from increased traffic
would be minimized or avoided altogether by the provision of a mix of land uses, interconnected
streets, sidewalks and small lots, all of which would create a pedestrian-friendly environment
and encourage walking. The existing Zoning, on the other hand, forces people to drive by
separating different land uses and by locating houses at a distance from each other, frequently on
cul-de-sacs that are not internally connected to neighboring subdivisions. The proposed Zoning
would thus include provisions that would avoid or minimize potential impacts of the proposed
priority growth areas on noise, light, and air quality.
Alternatives
The essential difference between the Proposed Action and each of the Alternatives is the
allocation of new development to different Zoning districts at different densities. The Proposed
Action contemplates a strategy of encouraging new growth in priority growth areas such as the
Astor Flats TND, the neighborhood extensions, and the gateway zones. This increased density is
balanced by lower density throughout the rest of the Town which recognizes and seeks to protect
the natural and cultural features of the Town.
Figure IV-32 identifies the typical look of residential development at different densities within
the Town of Rhinebeck. The greater the number of 1-acre and 3-acre lots (as considered in
Alternatives 1/2 and 3), the more the character of the Town will shift from a rural community
10/24/08 IV-62 DRAFT

with unfragmented forested and agricultural land to a suburban community with residential
subdivisions. Alternatives 4 and 6, like the Proposed Action, would balance the allocation of
new residential development between the priority growth areas and the lower-density residential
districts in a manner that would preserve larger areas of forest and agricultural land. Alternative
6 would have more residential units within the Historic Preservation district which may
compromise slightly the integrity of this area and decrease the protection of historic resources
and the rural landscape in this area; but with good design, these potential issues may be
overcome. Alternative 5 would likely result in similar changes to community character as
Alternative 3 (e.g., more suburban character), as the approximately 320 dwelling units
contemplated at Astor Flats TND would be reallocated to single-family dwellings in the other
Zoning districts. The resulting commercial zoning in the Astor Flats area would likely result in
additional highway strip commercial development in that location. Alternative 7a would have
impacts similar to the Proposed Action. The total amount of development under Alternative 7a is
comparable; although it might be more feasible for senior housing to be approved under
Alternative 7a. Development of senior housing facilities, provided that they meet the design
criteria established to protect community character, can complement the existing rural character.
Alternative 7b, which would result in significantly higher levels of development than the
Proposed Action, would have comparable impacts to community character as Alternative 3. The
greater number of residential units would have to be accommodated within the existing
landscape, meaning there would be greater amounts of disturbance to forested areas and
agricultural land than contemplated under the Proposed Action.
H. ECONOMIC AND FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Most of the Town falls within the Rhinebeck Central School District. Small portions of the
Town are in the Hyde Park Central School District and the Red Hook Central School District.
Each of these districts provides a full range of elementary and secondary education.
The Rhinebeck Central School District was organized in 1924 as a merger of a number of
smaller school districts. The district covers an area of over 70 square miles in parts of three
towns in Dutchess County. All of the Rhinebeck Central School District facilities are located
within the Village of Rhinebeck. Currently, the school system is organized into three different
levels of grades located in two school facilities. The Chancellor Livingston Elementary School
(K to grade 5) was built in 1967 in the southeast corner of the Village. It has a current
enrollment of 529 students. The Bulkley Middle School (grades 6 to 8) is now located on the
second floor of the Rhinebeck High School/Bulkley Middle School building, constructed in
1950-1952, on North Park Road but expanded to accommodate the Middle School in 1996.
Current enrollment is 307 students. Current enrollment at the Rhinebeck High School (grades 9
to 12) is 409 students.
Total enrollment in the Rhinebeck Central School District is currently 1,245 students.
Enrollment has remained relatively stable, with slight increases and declines over the years. In
1987, for instance, total enrollment in the district was 1,200 students, as cited in the 1989
Comprehensive Plan. The total capacity of the three Rhinebeck School buildings is
approximately 1,500.
In 2003, voters approved a $23 million bond referendum for a new auditorium, gymnasium and
sports fields, and to update existing facilities.
DRAFT IV-63 10/24/08


The Original Build-Out Analysis conducted as part of the Comprehensive Plan includes a
detailed projection of future capital and operating costs for the Rhinebeck Central School
District. (While portions of the town are located within the Hyde Park Central School District
and the Red Hook Central School District, the majority of the town – and the majority of the
projected build-out – would be located within the Rhinebeck Central School District. It is
assumed that the small number of additional school-age children generated by new residential
development in the Hyde Park and Red Hook districts could be handled without significant
expense). At full build-out, it is projected that the additional 1,500 new school-age children
generated by new residential construction would require the construction of approximately $50
million of new facilities. With annual capital costs approaching $1.9 million and an increase of
approximately $18 million in operating costs for the additional 1,500 students, the Rhinebeck
Central School District would experience a net fiscal impact of $811,000 annually.
Any alternative, therefore, that reduces the total future build-out would result in smaller
increases to the school budget as compared to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1/2).
Residential development typically does not pay for itself with respect to school taxes. Each new
household typically generates greater costs to the school district than it generates in revenue.
However, by providing a range of housing options for different households at different life-cycle
points, it is possible to generate property tax revenue without significantly increasing the costs to
the school district. Apartments for young singles or couples or empty-nesters are an example of
a residential type that generates property tax (the owners of rental units do pay property taxes)
without generating significant numbers of school-age children. Thus, any of the alternatives that
include multi-family housing would tend to minimize potential impacts to the school district.
Ï
10/24/08 IV-64 DRAFT

Chapter V: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined as those that meet the following two criteria:
• There are no reasonably practicable mitigation measures to eliminate the impact.
• There are no reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action that would meet the purpose and
need of the action, eliminate the impact, and not cause other or similar significant adverse
impacts.
This DGEIS evaluates the Proposed Action and alternatives at a generic level. The DGEIS
indicates that there were no potential unavoidable adverse impacts identified for the Proposed
Action. The DGEIS did not, nor could it, evaluate potential site-specific impacts that may result
from development of parcels based on the proposed Zoning Law. As such, future site-specific
environmental impact assessments of development proposals may identify unavoidable adverse
impacts; but those impacts would be more a function of the site-specific conditions or the
development program and not a function of the Proposed Action.
Ï
DRAFT V-1 10/24/08

Chapter VI: Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
The Proposed Action would not directly result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment
of resources. To the extent that specific development encouraged by the Proposed Action occurs,
the building materials used, energy and electricity, and human effort expended in the
construction process would be considered irretrievably committed. It should also be noted that
the decisions to adopt the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Law, and the Wetlands Local Law
are, in fact, reversible. Ï
DRAFT VI-1 10/24/08

Chapter VII: Growth-Inducing Aspects
The Proposed Action is intended to establish a vision for the future of the Town of Rhinebeck
(through the proposed Comprehensive Plan) and to manage new development in a manner that is
consistent with the vision (through the proposed Zoning Law and the Wetlands Local Law). The
Proposed Action in itself will not result in new development and will not result in conditions that
will make development any more, or any less, likely to occur within the Town of Rhinebeck.
The Proposed Action simply modifies the permitted densities, locations, and permitted or
desired configuration of new development.
Future development permitted by the Proposed Action would likely generate additional
residential or commercial populations, additional traffic, additional demands on community
services, and additional pressure on environmental resources. The Proposed Action will reduce
overall levels of development when compared to existing Zoning.
To the extent that the Proposed Action reduces permitted development levels within the Town,
market demand for that development may cause increased interest in development in
neighboring communities. However, the Proposed Action does include a land use strategy based
on well-considered plans for local and regional growth management that includes priority
growth areas where new residential and commercial development is encouraged (and permitted
densities are increased over existing permitted levels) to minimize the amount of development
that would occur distant from existing centers. This provision may offset some of the potential
displacement of growth from lower-density portions of the Town into surrounding communities.
It should also be noted that the Proposed Action was developed in collaboration with the
Dutchess County Department of Planning, Northern Dutchess Alliance, and the Village of
Rhinebeck and includes recommendations for a number of intermunicipal actions to manage
growth in a regional fashion.
Ï
DRAFT VII-1 10/24/08

Chapter VIII: Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources
The Proposed Action would not, itself, consume any energy nor would it have a direct impact on
the energy supply system. However, development made possible by the Proposed Action could
lead to increased energy usage above existing conditions. Given that the Proposed Action
contemplates a reduction in total potential development levels compared to what existing Zoning
would permit, it is likely that total energy utilization would also be less than what would be
expected under the No Action alternative.
Ï
DRAFT VIII-1 10/24/08

Appendix A
SEQRA Positive Declaration
Appendix B
SEQRA 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
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law
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. 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
1
The 80% of median income is a benchmark used by the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development and is in common use to define what constitutes affordable housing. For 2000, it was
$53,853 in Dutchess County.
Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008) Page 2

income residents; and connecting the town, village and Hamlet of Rhinecliff with sidewalks and
biking trails.
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

inclusionary2 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 exclusionary3 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.
2
Inclusionary zoning is achieved when a municipality exercises its zoning authority to allow for the
provision of multi-family and other housing types that are more affordable than large-lot single family
housing.
3
Exclusionary zoning is defined as local zoning that prevents non-affluent households from living in the
community. Where exclusionary zoning has been found to exist, it can be declared unconstitutional by the
courts.

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 downzoning 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.
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.
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.
D. Transportation
a. Traffic:
1. Discuss existing traffic patterns and volumes in the Town, based upon
recently completed traffic studies and AADT4 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.
4
AADTs are collected by county and state agencies and consist of Average Annual Daily Traffic on roads.

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.
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.
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.
b. Utilities:
i. Discuss availability of electric, natural gas, 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 Board of the Town of Milan

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan Town Board of the Town of Clinton
Committee Town Board of the Town of Hyde Park
Town of Rhinebeck Conservation Town Board of the Town of Esopus
Advisory Council
Town Board of the Town of Ulster
Town of Rhinebeck Highway Department
City of Kingston Chief Executive Officer
Town of Rhinebeck Planning Board
Rhinebeck Central School District
Town of Rhinebeck Zoning Board of
Hyde Park Central School District
Appeals
Red Hook Central School District
Village of Rhinebeck Board of Trustees
Rhinebeck Fire District
Village of Rhinebeck Planning Board
Rhinecliff Fire District
Village of Rhinebeck Police Department
Hillside Fire District
Village of Red Hook Board of Trustees
Morton Memorial Library
Town Board of the Town of Red Hook
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.

Appendix C
Comparison of Proposed Zoning to Existing Zoning
Town of Rhinebeck: Guide to Existing Zoning Compared to Proposed Zoning
Article Section Existing 1989 Zoning Law Proposed 2008 Zoning Law
I Title, Scope and Purposes Zoning Law Scope and Purposes
A Title Title
B Scope Purposes - Revised to reflect the proposed Comprehensive Plan goals.
C Enacting Legislation and Purposes Scope
D Local Law No. 1 of 2004 Greenway Compact Program and Guides
E Adopted by Town in 2007 and approved by State and Federal Governments Local Waterfront Revitalization Program - Incorporates procedures approved
as part of the Town’s LWRP.
F How to Use This Zoning Law - New section explaining the Zoning Law.
G Jurisdiction - New section clarifying how the Zoning Law is applied.
H Severability - Old section XIV(C)
I Supersession of Inconsistent Laws, if any - New section to address the
proposed Zoning Law’s reliance on New York State’s Municipal Home Rule
Law.
J Interpretation, Conflict with Other Laws - Old section XIV(A)
K Effect of Existing Violations - Old section XIV(B)
L Periodic Review Required - Old section XIV(D)
M Effective Date - Old section XIV(E)
II Establishment of Zoning Districts Establishment of Zoning Districts
A Zoning Districts Zoning Districts - All proposed Zoning Districts are described in greater detail
B Zoning District Map Zoning Districts Maps - Town, Rhinecilff and Water Resources Zoning maps
now clearly shown in color. A number of new residential and non-residential
Zoning districts have been created to address Comprehensive Plan
recommendations.
C Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries
D Delineation of Flood Hazard Zones Delineation of Flood Hazard Zones - Updates references to where Federal
floodplain maps can be found.
E Application of Zoning District Regulations Application of Zoning District Regulations
III Use Regulations Use Regulations
A District Schedule of Use Regulations District Schedule of Use Regulations - Clarifies how the Planning Board should
treat “generic” types of uses. Adds Town as subject to Use Table. Adds
factors the Town should use in dealing with another agency’s projects in the
Town (such as a Village, County or State project). Use Table amended to
add new uses and delete others.
IV Area and Bulk Regulations Area and Bulk Regulations
A District Schedule or [sic] Area and Bulk Regulations District Schedule of Area and Bulk Regulations - Adds Town projects subject
to Regulations. Adds factors the Town should use in dealing with another
agency’s projects in the Town (such as a Village, County or State project).
Updates bulk regulations to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan
recommendations.
B Existing Lots of Record Existing Non-Conforming Lots of Record
C Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Maximum Net Density Per Dwelling Unit - “Maximum net density”
determination proposed as basis for permissible number of dwelling units in
subdivisions and site plans, taking focus off “minimum lot area per dwelling
unit.”
D Height Exceptions Height Exceptions - Adds reference to special exceptions for wind generators
and solar collectors in Article V, Section M.
E Corner Lots Corner Lots
F Architectural Features Permitted in Required Yards Architectural Features Permitted in Required Yards
G Accessory Structures Accessory Structures - Special exceptions for gas canopy structures removed.
H Distance Between Principal Buildings on Same Lot Distance Between Principal Buildings on Same Lot
I Modification of Front Yard Setback/User Highways and Other Substandard Modification of Front Yard Setbacks
Rights-of-way
J Minimum Lot Width and Frontage Exceptions and Modification for Residential Minimum Lot Width and Frontage Exceptions
Lots
K Transition Requirements Between Zoning Districts Transition Requirements Between Zoning Districts
L Lands Designated as Freshwater Wetlands, Under Water or Subject to Freshwater Wetlands and Floodplains - Adds reference to the need for
Periodic Flooding compliance with the proposed Freshwater Wetlands Law.
M Special setbacks on Scenic Roads and in Scenic Areas - Creates special
setbacks on designated scenic roads for new development, but excludes
agriculture and forestry.
V Supplementary Regulations Supplementary Regulations
A General Performance Standards Environmental Performance Standards - Adds verifiable standards for
measuring nuisances such as noise, lighting, vibrations, etc.
B Off-street Parking and Loading Standards Off-street Parking and Loading Standards - Adds emphasis on parking lot
aesthetics and landscaping, protecting water quality, and finding a reasonable
balance between parking space need, requiring too many spaces, and using
creativity to reduce supply.
C Sign Standards Sign Regulations - Updates regulations to be consistent with recent caselaw,
clarifies permit procedures, adds “prohibited signs” section, allows for
amortization of non-conforming signs, and includes a new design criteria
section.
D Fences and Walls Fences, Gates and Walls - Adds “gates” to regulations. Adds 15’ setback for
highway snow removal. Allows for higher or solid wall fences by Special
Permit (instead of a ZBA variance). Requires a Special Permit for fences
within 50’ of a designated scenic road.
E Excavation as Part of Site Preparation Excavation as Part of Site Preparation - Clarifies the definition of excavation
and adds a reference to stormwater management compliance.
F Development Near Streams, Rivers, Wetlands and Other Water Bodies Development Near Streams, Rivers, Wetlands and Other Water Bodies - Adds
reference to Town Wetlands Law, federal wetlands, and within 1,000 feet of the
Hudson River.
G Development Within the Flood Fringe Overlay (FF-O) District Development Within the Flood Fringe Overlay (FF-O) District - Adds agriculture,
conservation and forestry as exempt from overlay regulations.
H Home Occupations Home Occupations - Adds performance standards for home occupations to
emphasize that impact on a neighborhood is more important than the use.
Expands the list of uses that cannot be considered home occupations.
I Residential Cluster Development Conservation Subdivisions - Complete overhaul of residential cluster
development with a new emphasis on conservation, open space, and use of an
illustrated four step design process. Includes a purposes subsection. Makes
conservation subdivision a permitted use and conventional subdivision a
Special Permit Use. Increases the minimum amount of required open space.
Adds standards for protected open space, lands adjacent to agriculture and
scenic areas, and conserving large blocks of open space on adjoining parcels,
clarifies open space ownership options, and encourages community septic
systems.
J Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Requirements Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Requirements
K Sanitary Disposal Areas and Facilities Sanitary Disposal Areas and Facilities
L Swimming Pools Swimming Pools - Clarifies need for compliance with New York State
requirements.
M Solar Access Solar and Wind Energy Systems - Adds statement about Town policy to
encourage solar and wind energy systems, relaxes requirements for building
permits, and establishes greater flexibility on maximum height of a structure
when it involves a solar or wind energy system.
N Required Screening for Non-Residential Uses Required Screening for Non-Residential Uses
O Agriculture Agriculture - Establishes a Town policy to encourage agriculture, to exempt
most farm structures from site plan approval, to establish an expedited site
plan review process for those that do, to exempt farm structures from bulk
requirements governing height and setbacks, and to require new residential
dwellings near a farm to file deeded declarations about the benefits and
potential nuisances of agriculture. Updates regulations on agriculture with
recent changes to NY State Laws.
P The Keeping of Farm Animals on Non-Farm Parcels The Keeping of Farm Animals on Non-Farm Parcels - Changes are made so that
non-farm and farm parcels are more consistent.
Q Roadside Stands Roadside Stands - Permits larger roadside stands.
R Alternate Care Facilities Alternate Care Facilities
S Outdoor Storage in Residential Districts Outdoor Storage in Residential Districts
T Development within the Water Resources Protection Overlay (WRP-O) District Water Resources Protection Overlay (WR-O) District - Clarifies need for a
Special Permit and Site Plan approval in the District, adds a map of the District,
creates a means for a landowner to challenge the map based on expert
testimony, and adds references to the Town’s floodplain and proposed
Wetlands Laws.
U Preservation of Natural Features: Design Standards - Creates new design
standards for uses subject to subdivision, site plan, and special use permits in
such areas as placement of structures, visibility, landscaping, tree removal,
lighting, erosion control, and biodiversity.
V Lighting Regulations - Creates new lighting standards for uses that require
subdivision, site plan, and special use permits that includes shielding, light
trespass, street lighting, and recommended outdoor lighting types.
W Landscaping Standards - Clarifies and expands what is required for proposed
uses that need site plan and if applicable, subdivision approval from the
Planning Board. Includes design standards, screening requirements, and the
ned for street trees.
X Noise Regulations - Creates new standards for control of unwanted noise in
the Town. Lists types of noise to be controlled, establishes maximums noise
disturbance levels, allows for specific exceptions, and establishes a special
permit process for limited times and purposes.
Y Habitat and Natural Resource Management - Introduces habitat management
as part of the subdivision, site plan and special use permit processes of the
Town. Uses Hudsonia’s Significant Habitat to serve as a basis for habitat
management but also includes the need for site-specific habitat assessments
where necessary.
Z Stormwater Management - Establishes minimum requirements for controlling
stormwater runoff, soil erosion and sedimentation of surface waters for new
land development activities by implementing the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation’s suggestions for local control.
AA Green Building Standards - Adds a new Town program to require that buildings
be constructed to be resource-efficient and conserve energy by meeting LEED
certifications.
BB Old Town Code Chapter 78 entitled “Historic Buildings Protection Law,” Historic Buildings - Chapter 78 would be repealed upon enactment of this
adopted by the Town Board in 2004, to comply with the Local Waterfront section of this Zoning Law.
Revitalization Program.
CC Affordable Housing - Creates a new program, recommended by the Open
Space and Affordable Housing Committee’s Implementation Plan, that adds a
requirement for new development to construct “inclusionary” affordable
housing, or pay an affordable housing fee, or donate land for affordable
housing, or some combination of these, with potential bonuses granted for
providing specific community benefits. The program does not become
effective until additional Zoning amendments or other laws are added.
VI Special Permit Uses Special Use Permit Requirements
A General Standards Intent and Purposes - Added an Intent and Purposes section to clarify what
was expected by the Special Use Permit process.
B Additional Specific Requirements Special Use Permit Application Procedures - Existing subsections VI(E)
through (K) have been moved here so that it is clear up front what the permit
application procedures are for a Special Use Permit. Updates procedures with
recent changes to NY State Town Law.
C Standards within the Flood-Fringe Overlay (FF-O) District General Standards - The General Standards from the Existing Zoning Law have
been expanded to include consideration of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan,
Design Standards (Appendix A of the proposed Zoning Law), LWRP, and
Greenway Connections as part of the Special Use Permit review.
D Communications Facilities and Towers Additional Specific Standards for Certain Uses: (Old Subsection B)
1 Two-family dwelling (by conversion) in the R5A, R3A, R1A and RB Districts Two-family dwelling by conversion or new construction - Expands the
Special Permits by allowing for two-family dwellings to be developed by
new construction, not just by conversion, in all residential Zoning districts.
The units must resemble a single family in outward appearance and one of
the units must be owner-occupied.
2 Multi-family rental dwelling (new construction) in the R1A District Multi-family dwelling (new construction) - Substantially expands where
new multi-family dwellings can be constructed to include the Rural
Countryside (RC6) and Village Gateway (VG) districts, in addition to the
RM1 District (i.e. the only existing location where new multi-family can be
constructed). In the RC6 District, up to 4 units in a multi-family structure
can be constructed, and up to 6 in the VG and RM1 districts. The structure
must resemble a single family dwelling in outward appearance.
3 Multi-family rental dwelling (by conversion) in the R1A District Multi-family dwelling (by conversion) - Substantially expands where multi-
family dwellings, by conversion, can be approved. Currently only the one
acre (R1A/RM1) zone allows this. The Zoning proposes that all residential
districts would allow for the conversion of a single family to a multi-family
dwelling, provided certain conditions are met.
4 Accessory dwelling unit within the principal structure (by conversion or Accessory dwelling unit within the principal structure - Eases the current
new construction) in the R5A, R3A, R1A and RB Districts restrictions on an accessory dwelling within an existing structure by
allowing for an expansion or addition to the structure to accommodate it.
5 Detached accessory dwelling unit (by conversion or new construction) in Detached accessory dwelling unit - Expands the allowance for an
the R5A, R3A, R1A and RB Districts accessory apartment in a detached accessory structure by increasing the
allowable square footage devoted to the use, allowing up to two accessory
units in accessory structures (in addition to the principal dwelling and an
accessory dwelling in the principal structure) for a total of 4 dwelling units
on a parcel. If 4 units are sought, then one must be affordable, the
Planning Board must consider other factors such as “green” features and
conservation design requirements. Accessory structures created for an
accessory apartment should appear related to the principal dwelling (such
as a gatehouse or other traditional rural structure).
6 Elder Cottage Housing Opportunity in the R5A, R3A and R1A Districts ECHO or Cottage Housing unit - Expands the current ECHO unit provisions
by allowing a “cottage dwelling” to be placed on a lot as an accessory
dwelling unit. While an ECHO unit had temporary implications, a cottage
home has more permanent implications.
7 Home Occupation, Class 2 Class 2 Home Occupation
8 Alternate care facility Alternate care housing facility - Updates the alternate care Special Use
Permit requirements to comply with recent caselaw.
9 Cemetery Cemetery
10 Church of other place of worship House of worship - Applies bulk regulations for each Zoning district to all
houses of worship.
11 Crematorium or mausoleum - Eliminated from Use Table. Reserved - Crematoriums and mausoleums eliminated from Use
Regulations.
12 Library, museum or performing arts center Library, museum or performing arts center - Establishes special density
regulations applicable to these uses.
13 Nursery school or day-care facility Nursery school or day-care facility - Clarifies that the density applicable to
such uses is the same as that required per dwelling unit in each district.
Requires access from a State or County highway if more than 15 children
are involved.
14 Educational institution Educational institution - Substantially expands the requirements for
education institutions by establishing special bulk regulations, design
standards, noise and lighting standards, health and safety and housing
requirements.
15 Hospital Hospital - Increases the minimum lot area and prohibits on-site
incineration.
16 Not-for-profit or other non-commercial outdoor recreational use or facility Not-for-profit or other non-commercial outdoor recreation - Prohibits use
of motorized vehicles (like go-carts and ATV’s), and increases the total size
limits of a building constructed from 3,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet.
17 Rod and gun club Rod and gun club - Eliminates rod and gun club from the R5A District,
increases minimum acreage from 100 to 150 acres, increases building
setbacks and target ranges from property lines from 300’ to 900’, prohibits
use of lead shot or tracer bullets, imposes hours of operation, noise
controls, use of National Rifle Association guidelines, requires a written
declaration of all club activities and operations, and provides the Planning
Board with greater authority to impose special conditions on the use.
18 Other Not-for-profit membership club Not-for-profit membership club - Increases setbacks from 50’ to 100’ and
clarifies the minimum required acreage for the use.
19 Children’s camp or day camp Children’s camp or adult day camp - Increases minimum acreage from 5
acres to 50 acres, requires plans for public address and lighting on the site,
and requires a written health and safety plan to be submitted.
20 Building material supply and sales, including lumberyard Building material supply and sales, including lumberyard - Requires
screening by natural vegetation or other suitable buffering and prohibits
outdoor storage in front yards.
21 Commercial boarding or breeding kennels Commercial boarding or breeding kennels - Requires compliance with
noise and landscaping regulations, increases minimum site area from 10 to
20 acres, increases setbacks for kennels or dog runs, and encourages
compliance with American Veterinary Medical Association guidelines.
22 Conference center Conference center - Increases the required acreage to 100 acres for the
first 40 rooms with a maximum of 80 rooms. Requires noise and lighting
plans to be in compliance with Town standards.
23 Convenience store Delicatessen - Convenience store use replaced with delicatessen use.
Gasoline sales at a delicatessen not permitted.
24 Food and grocery stores Food and grocery stores - The maximum size of a food and grocery store
reduced from 60,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet.
25 Gasoline station or automobile service facility Gas station or automobile service facility - Added pump station limits to 4,
architecture must be consistent with the community, no outdoor storage or
display permitted, and none located within one mile of another gas station.
26 Hotel or motel Hotel or motel - Minimum lot area increased from 3 acres to 10 acres, with
a cap of 60 guest rooms.
27 Public or boarding stable or riding academy Public stable/riding academy
28 Shopping center Conventional subdivision development - Shopping center use replaced
with “Conventional Subdivision Development.” To qualify for a
conventional subdivision Special Use Permit, the applicant must
demonstrate the advantages of a conventional subdivision instead of a
conservation subdivision.
29 Auto rental or sales and large equipment rental or sales Auto rental or sales and large equipment rental or sales - Added
restrictions on displays used to advertise the sale of autos.
30 (Reserved) Special permit uses within Rhinecliff - Added special permit conditions
unique to Rhinecliff that are found in Article VI, Sections F and G.
31 Contractor’s yard or establishment Contractor’s yard or establishment - Added a prohibition on processing of
materials on the site and retail sales.
32 Extractive operations and soil mining Extractive operations and soil mining - Added prohibition on processing
on-site any materials imported from other mining sites. Updated the
regulations to be consistent with the New York State Mined Land
Reclamation Law. Added Mining Overlay District that limits future mining
to the parcels where mining is currently permitted.
33 Public or franchise utility station or structure Public or franchise utility station or structure
34 Planned Unit Development Warehouse including self-storage - Planned Unit Development replaced by
warehouse including self-storage. Special conditions include 250’
setback, limitations on visibility by landscaping, and compliance with the
Town Design Standards.
35 Boarding and/or Rooming House Farm market - Boarding or rooming house replaced by Farm Market.
Special conditions include requirement that the market be accessory to a
farm, limited to 2,000 square feet for each 20 acres of farm property, must
sell products produced on the farm or regionally, may sell prepared foods,
and sponsor farm and harvest festivals.
36 Enriched housing for the elderly Automated Teller Machine (ATM) - Enriched housing for the elderly
provisions incorporated into “alternative care housing” and replaced by
ATM’s. ATM’s must be located within the interior of a building due to
excessive lighting requirements of the New York State ATM Safety Act.
37 Senior citizen or elderly housing development Senior citizen or elderly housing development - New provisions governing
senior housing are controlled through the Zoning amendment process by
allowing such developments only in a Senior Housing-Floating District.
Minimum acreages are established by Zoning District, the 4 step
conservation design process is used to lay out the development, the
maximum number of dwelling units is limited to 120 with 20% dedicated as
affordable, and an environmental impact statement is required prior to any
Zoning amendment.
38 Private stable Country Inn 1 - Private stable is replaced by Country Inn 1, which requires
a minimum of 20 acres, a minimum of 6 guest rooms and a maximum of 12
guest rooms with accessory recreational uses allowed.
39 Animal husbandry Country Inn 2 - Animal husbandry is replaced by Country Inn 2 in the
Historic Preservation (HP20) Zoning District, which requires 250 acres, a
minimum of 50 and a maximum of 100 guest rooms, suites or guest
cottages, access from a State highway, and a variety of ancillary
recreational and other guest facilities, including a golf course.
40 Major excavation, but not including uses classified under this Local Law as Major excavation and/or tree clearing - Clear-cutting of trees added to
extractive operations or soil mining major excavation, which requires a Special Use Permit.
41 Golf course or country club Golf course or country club with a golf course - Minimum lot area of 110
acres added. Other new requirements include detailed plans for public
address and lighting systems, preparation of a natural resource
management document, and preservation of undeveloped open space
areas through a conservation easement.
42 Bed and breakfast establishment Bed and breakfast establishment - Increases the allowance for guest
rooms and guests from 3 and 6 to 5 rooms and 10 guests respectively.
43 Commercial recreation or amusement facility Commercial recreation facility - “Amusement facility” has been removed
from consideration as a commercial recreation facility.
44 Fast-food or drive-in restaurant Fast-food establishment - Fast food establishments allowed in the TND
District only, a drive-in or drive-through service is prohibited, recreation or
amusement facilities prohibited, must preserve the community’s character
and appearance, and must avoid the nationwide trend of standardized fast
food offerings.
45 Funeral home Funeral home
46 Veterinarian’s office or animal hospital (fully enclosed) Veterinarian’s office (fully enclosed) - Added Special Permit requirements
for a kennel, if a veterinarian’s office includes boarding of animals that are
not sick or recuperating.
47 Sawmill and related uses Sawmill and related uses - Increased setback requirements for a sawmill
from residences and water resources, added compliance with noise
regulations, added restrictions on hours of operation, and provisions for
waste recycling.
48 Marinas, boat clubs, docks, and boat ramps Marinas, boat clubs, boathouses, docks, ramps and moorings - Added
boathouses and moorings to list of uses, increased jurisdiction over all
uses to 1,500 feet from the banks of the Hudson, added consideration of
such uses on submerged aquatic vegetation, and prohibited fuel
dispensing, as outlined in the LWRP document.
49 (Reserved) Passive adult uses - New uses added in accordance with United States
Supreme Court’s “First Amendment” rulings. Prohibits such uses from
locating within 1,000 feet of a residential use, school, house of worship,
day care, park, playground or other recreational facility. Limits the size to
2,500 square feet and set forth a number of other special site plan
requirements designed to minimize the adverse impacts of such uses on
the community and neighborhood.
50 (Reserved) Bus Garage - Adds special conditions for a bus garage including minimum
lot of 10 acres, storage in fully enclosed buildings, and requires the same
compliance with special conditions as gas stations and auto service
facilities.
51 Guest cottage Guest cottage
52 Use of Town Design Standards - Requires that light manufacturing uses be
subject to the Town’s Design Standards and Environmental Performance
Standards.
53 Flood-fringe Overlay District standards - Exempts agriculture and forestry
from the requirements of the Flood-fringe Overlay District.
54 Communications facility and tower - Adds requirements for camouflaging
of towers by vegetation or design, encourages use of existing buildings for
antennas, and establishes special design standards for accessory
buildings.
E Special Use Permit Application Procedure Rhinecliff Overlay (Rc-O) District - Creates special use and bulk regulations
designed to maintain the integrity of the Hamlet of Rhinecliff. New
regulations apply to additions to existing structures, new construction, and
other site features such as landscaping, lighting, parking, building height,
fencing, and setbacks. The Special Permit review process by the Planning
Board replaces what had previously been largely a Zoning Variance
process by the Zoning Board. Provides for waivers of the requirements
under certain circumstances.
F Reimbursable Costs Rhinecliff - Hamlet Transition (Rc-HT) District - Adds special mixed use
provisions, designed to address appearance, parking, lighting and signs,
on a parcel that acts as a transition from the Rhinecliff Business District to
the surrounding residential district.
G Effect of Special Use Permit Approval See new Section “B” above.
H Expiration of Special Use Permit See new Section “B” above.
I Revocation of Special Use Permit See new Section “B” above.
J Integration of Procedures See new Section “B” above.
K Relief from Decisions See new Section “B” above.
VII Site Plan Review and Approval Procedure Site Plan Review
A Sketch Plan Conference Purposes - Adds a purpose to explain the intent of the Site Plan regulations.
B Application for Site Plan Approval Site Plan Approval Required - Exempts agriculture, forestry and conservation
from most Site Plan requirements.
C Site Plan Design Criteria Uses Subject to Site Plan Approval - Adds Site Plan approval as a requirement
for new uses within the Flood Fringe Overlay District, within a historic site or
adjoining an historic site, within a scenic district, within 1,000 feet of the
Hudson River, or in an area designated for future trails. Adds use of the
Subdivision Regulations for review of condominiums, which may be the
functional equivalent of a subdivision. Clarifies submission requirements.
Updates procedures with recent changes to NY State Town Law and SEQR.
D Planning Board Review of Site Plan Sketch Plan Conference
E Planning Board Action on Site Plan Application for Site Plan Approval
F Reimbursable Costs for Site Plan Review Site Plan Design Criteria - Expands the design criteria used by the Planning
Board in their review of a Site Plan.
G Performance Guarantee Planning Board Review of Site Plan - Updates review requirements to be
consistent with NY State Town Law.
H Inspection of Improvements Planning Board Action on Site Plan - Updates requirements to be consistent
with NY State Town Law.
I Integration of Procedures Reimbursable Costs for Site Plan Review - Refers applicants to Article XIV, the
new location for Fee reimbursement procedures.
J Relief from Decisions Performance Guarantee
K Inspection of Improvements
L Integration of Procedures
M Relief from Decisions
VIII Planned Residential Development District Traditional Neighborhood Development District
A Intent and Objectives Intent - The entire Planned Residential Development District has now been
replaced by the Traditional Neighborhood Development District in the Astor
Flats area. The TND would permit higher density mixed-uses in a traditional
“village-like” setting, designed to retrofit the commercial strip on Route 9 north
of the Fairgrounds. Maximums have been set on the number of dwelling units
and non-residential uses, a minimum of 20% affordable housing is required,
and form-based regulations replace the more rigid prescribed use and bulk
regulations of the Zoning.
B General Criteria Purposes
C Review and Approval Procedure The TND Community
D Relationship to Other Requirements Applicability
E Effect of Conditions Required Approvals
F Pre-existing Conditions
G Site Plan Exceptions
H Application Types
I Minor Applications
J Major Applications
K Density & Site Development Calculations
L Environmental Review
M Provision of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
N Maintenance of Open Space
O Subdivision of Land Within the Astor Flats TND
P Elements of the TND
Q Allocation of Uses
R Standards Applicable to Main Street Area and Residential Areas
S Main Street Area
T Residential Neighborhood Areas
U Civic Uses
V Street Requirements
W TND Specific Definitions
IX Non-conforming Uses and Non-complying Structures and Bulk Non-Conforming Uses and Structures
A Non-Conforming Uses Non-conforming Uses - This entire Article has been updated to comply with
recent changes made to New York State Town Law and well as recent
caselaw governing non-conforming uses.
B Non-Complying Buildings Repair or Alteration of Non-conforming Buildings
C Restoration After Damage Restoration After Damage
D Termination of Certain Uses and or Structures Termination of Certain Uses and/or Structures
E Completion of On-going Construction Completion of On-going Construction
F Increase in Volume of Use
G Compliance with Environmental Performance Standards
H Application for Special Use Permit or Site Plan Review
X Administration and Enforcement Administration and Enforcement
A General Purpose and Intent - This entire Article has been updated to comply with
recent changes made to New York State Town Law and the New York State
Fire Prevention and Building Code.
B Powers and Duties of Zoning Enforcement Officer Definitions
C Penalties for Violation Code Enforcement Officer and Inspectors
D Effect of Existing Violations Zoning Enforcement Officer
E Building Permits
F Construction Inspections
G Stop Work Orders
H Certificates of Occupancy
I Certificate of Use
J Filing of Administration Decision at Time of Appeal
K Notification Regarding Fire or Explosion
L Unsafe Buildings and Structures
M Operating Permits
N Fire Safety and Property Maintenance Inspections
O Complaints
P Record Keeping
Q Program Review and Reporting
R Violations
S Fees
T Intermunicipal Agreements
U Reimbursement for Professional Services
XI Zoning Board of Appeals Zoning Board of Appeals
A Creation, Appointment and Organization Creation, Appointment and Organization - Where applicable, Article XI has
been revised to comply with recent changes to New York State Town Law.
B Powers and Duties Powers and Duties
C Procedure Procedure
D Effect of Appeal Relief from Decisions
E Relief from Decisions Rehearing
F Rehearing Other Provisions of Town Law Section 267-a
XII Amendments Amendments
A Initiation Initiation - Added reference to the Senior Housing Floating District application.
B Report of the Planning Board Legislative Act - Clarifies that Zoning amendments are a legislative act at the
sole discretion of the Town Board.
C Town Board Procedure Report of the Planning Board
D Town Board Procedure
XIII Definitions Definitions
A Terms Used Throughout this Zoning Law Defined Terms Used Throughout this Zoning Law Defined - Changes made to the Zoning
Law have been reflected in changes to the definitions section. New Zoning
provisions with special definitions that are used principally if not exclusively in
new Zoning requirements are reflected in special definition sections below.
B Terms Used Principally, if not exclusively, within Section VI(D), Communication Terms Used for Communication Facilities and Towers
Facilities and Towers
C Terms Used for TND District
D Terms Used for Building Code
E Terms Used for Historic Buildings
F Terms Used for Lighting Regulations
G Terms Used for Sign Regulations
H Terms Used for Noise Regulations
XIV Interpretation and Application Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses (Local Law No. 2 of 2006)
A Intent
B Professional Fees
C Escrow Accounts
D SEQR Review
XV Greenway Connections See Article 1, Section D
Appendix A: Town of Rhinebeck Design Guidelines
Appendix B: Flood Damage Prevention Law (Local Law No.1 of 1987)

Rhinebeck DGEIS 102408 Web

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rhinebeck DGEIS 102408 Web

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING LAW, AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS

DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

October 24, 2008

Lead Agency: Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck

Prepared by: AKRF, Inc.

Project Name: Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Freshwater Wetlands

Date of Acceptance as Complete: October 27, 2008

Chapter I: Executive Summary ............................................................................................... I-1

Appendix A: SEQRA Positive Declaration

List of Figures Following Page

DRAFT iii 10/24/08

DRAFT I-1 10/24/08

B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

10/24/08 I-2 DRAFT

PROPOSED ZONING LAW

DRAFT I-3 10/24/08

10/24/08 I-4 DRAFT

PROPOSED WETLANDS LOCAL LAW

DRAFT I-5 10/24/08

10/24/08 I-6 DRAFT

DRAFT I-7 10/24/08

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

ALTERNATIVE 2: EXISTING ZONING WITH CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION

10/24/08 I-8 DRAFT

ALTERNATIVE 3: MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE

ALTERNATIVE 4: THE 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE DRAFT

ALTERNATIVE 5: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING LAW

ALTERNATIVE 6: ALTERNATIVE DENSITY FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION

DRAFT I-9 10/24/08

ALTERNATIVE 7: MISCELLANEOUS ALTERNATIVES

D. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND

LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY

10/24/08 I-10 DRAFT

DRAFT I-11 10/24/08

DGEIS Build-Out Analysis

10/24/08 I-12 DRAFT

DRAFT I-13 10/24/08

10/24/08 I-14 DRAFT

Population projections prepared by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

DRAFT I-15 10/24/08

10/24/08 I-16 DRAFT

Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Law

PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES

DRAFT I-17 10/24/08

SOCIO-ECONOMICS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND SENIOR HOUSING

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Law

10/24/08 I-18 DRAFT

DRAFT I-19 10/24/08

10/24/08 I-20 DRAFT

PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY

DRAFT I-21 10/24/08

10/24/08 I-22 DRAFT

DRAFT I-23 10/24/08

10/24/08 I-24 DRAFT

DRAFT I-25 10/24/08

10/24/08 I-26 DRAFT

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DRAFT I-27 10/24/08

HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

10/24/08 I-28 DRAFT