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.RhinebeckNY.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 II-1. II-2. II-3. II-4. II-5. III-1. III-2. III-3. IV-1a. IV-1b. IV-2a. IV-2b. IV-3a. IV-3b. IV-4a. IV-4b. IV-5a. IV-5b. IV-6. IV-7. IV-8. IV-9. IV-10. IV-11. IV-12. IV-13. IV-14. IV-15. IV-16. IV-17. IV-18. IV-19. IV-20. IV-21. IV-22. IV-23. IV-24. IV-25. IV-26. IV-27. IV-28. IV-29. IV-30. IV-31. IV-32.

Following Page

Centers and Greenspace Plan ......................................................................................II-14 Existing Zoning Districts.............................................................................................II-14 Proposed Zoning District Map ....................................................................................II-14 Proposed Zoning District Map, Hamlet of Rhinecliff .................................................II-14 Astor Flats TND Illustrative Plan................................................................................II-14 Alternative 1: No Action/Existing Zoning .................................................................. III-2 Alternative 3: Modifications to the Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law III-2 Alternative 4: 2006 Comprehensive Plan.................................................................... III-2 Parcel 1—Existing Zoning ........................................................................................ IV-14 Parcel 1—Proposed Zoning....................................................................................... IV-14 Parcel 2—Existing Zoning ........................................................................................ IV-14 Parcel 2—Proposed Zoning....................................................................................... IV-14 Parcel 3—Existing Zoning ........................................................................................ IV-14 Parcel 3—Proposed Zoning....................................................................................... IV-14 Parcel 4—Existing Zoning ........................................................................................ IV-14 Parcel 4—Proposed Zoning....................................................................................... IV-14 Parcel 5—Existing Zoning ........................................................................................ IV-14 Parcel 5—Proposed Zoning....................................................................................... IV-14 Traffic Study Area..................................................................................................... IV-42 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes, Weekday AM Peak Hour (Non-Event).................. IV-44 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes, Weekday Midday Peak Hour (Non-Event)............ IV-44 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes, Weekday PM Peak Hour (Non-Event) .................. IV-44 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes, Saturday Midday Peak Hour (Non-Event)............. IV-44 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes, Saturday Midday Peak Hour (Event)..................... IV-46 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes, Sunday Midday Peak Hour (Event) ....................... IV-46 Traffic Accidents: 2000-2005.................................................................................... IV-46 Project Generated Traffic Volumes, Weekday AM Peak Hour ................................ IV-48 Project Generated Traffic Volumes, Weekday Midday Peak Hour .......................... IV-48 Project Generated Traffic Volumes, Weekday PM Peak Hour ................................. IV-48 Project Generated Traffic Volumes, Saturday Midday Peak Hour and Sunday........ IV-48 Midday Peak Hour 2017 Future Traffic Volumes, Weekday AM Peak Hour (Non-Event)..................... IV-48 2017 Future Traffic Volumes, Weekday Midday Peak Hour (Non-Event)............... IV-48 2017 Future Traffic Volumes, Weekday PM Peak Hour (Non-Event) ..................... IV-48 2017 Future Traffic Volumes, Saturday Midday Peak Hour (Non-Event) ............... IV-44 Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths, Weekday AM Peak Hour ................ IV-50 Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths, Weekday Midday Peak Hour .......... IV-50 Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths, Weekday PM Peak Hour................. IV-50 Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths, Saturday Midday Peak Hour ........... IV-50 Photographs: Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds (AM) .... IV-50 2017 Future Traffic Volumes, Saturday Midday Peak Hour (Event)........................ IV-50 2017 Future Traffic Volumes, Sunday Midday Peak Hour (Event).......................... IV-50 Photographs: Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds (Midday)....... IV-50 2017 Traffic Conditions with No Event at the Fairground........................................ IV-52 2017 Traffic Conditions with Event at the Fairground.............................................. IV-52 Typical Patterns of Development .............................................................................. IV-60

10/24/08

ii

DRAFT

Table of Contents

List of Tables I-1. I-2. I-3. I-4. I-5. I-6. II-1. II-2. IV-1. IV-2. IV-3. IV-4. IV-5. IV-6. IV-7. IV-8. IV-9. IV-10. IV-11. IV-12. IV-13. IV-14. IV-15. IV-16. IV-17. IV-18. IV-19. IV-20. IV-21. IV-22. IV-23.

DRAFT

Results of Preliminary Build-Out Analysis ..................................................................I-12 DGEIS Build-Out: New Dwelling Units, Low-Range and High-Range Estimates......I-13 DGEIS Build-Out: New Dwelling Units, Zoning District Summary ...........................I-14 DGEIS Build-Out: Population Density Comparison ....................................................I-15 Town of Rhinebeck: Number of Building Permits Issued for New Dwellings ............I-16 10-Year Build-Out: Population Density Comparison...................................................I-16 Conventional Suburban Development (CSD) compared with Traditional ...................II_5 Neighborhood Development (TND) Survey of Low Density Zoning Regulations .............................................................. II-12 Results of Preliminary Build-Out Analysis .................................................................IV-4 DGEIS Build-Out: New Dwelling Units, Low-Range and High-Range Estimates.....IV-6 DGEIS Build-Out: New Dwelling Units, Zoning District Summary ..........................IV-6 DGEIS Build-Out: Population Density Comparison ...................................................IV-8 Town of Rhinebeck: Number of Building Permits Issued for New Dwellings ...........IV-9 10-Year Build-Out: Population Density Comparison..................................................IV-9 Parcel Analysis: Summary.........................................................................................IV-10 Parcel Analysis: Parcel 1 Details ...............................................................................IV-11 Parcel Analysis: Parcel 2 Details ...............................................................................IV-11 Parcel Analysis: Parcel 3 Details ...............................................................................IV-13 Parcel Analysis: Parcel 4 Details ...............................................................................IV-13 Parcel Analysis: Parcel 5 Details ...............................................................................IV-14 Surface Water Features ..............................................................................................IV-20 Vegetative Habitats....................................................................................................IV-28 Plant Species of Conservation Concern.....................................................................IV-29 Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern................................................................IV-34 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections..................................................................IV-44 Level of Service Analysis Results: 2007 Existing Traffic Conditions (Non-Event) .IV-46 Future Trip Generation ..............................................................................................IV-48 Level of Service Analysis Results: 2007 Existing and 2017 Future Conditions .......IV-48 Queue Length Analysis Results: 2007 Existing, 2017 Future, and 2017...................IV-50 Mitigation Conditions (Non-Event) Level of Service Analysis Results: 2007 Existing, 2017 Future Conditions .............IV-52 and 2017 Mitigation Conditions (Non-Event) Projected Need for Emergency Service Providers.....................................................IV-55

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 (CBN) 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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

“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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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 singlefamily 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 Additional Dwellings Additional Residents Additional School Age Children Additional Vehicles on Road Additional Vehicle Trips per Day Acres of New Roads Acres of Impervious Surfaces New Police Officers New Fire Fighters Additional Water Consumed Additional Sewage Generated Notes: Source:

Current Zoning

Proposed Zoning*

3,408 9,781 1,528 6,816 34,080 513 913 10 10 1,613,800 gpd 1,613,800 gpd

1,408 4,041 497 2,816 14,080 212 377 1 1 674,000 gpd 674,000 gpd

* -- 2006 Comprehensive Plan 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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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 LowRange 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 Alt. 1: No Action Alt. 2: Conservation Subdivision Alt. 3: Modified Plan/Zoning Alt. 4: 2006 Comp. Plan Alt. 5: No Astor Flats Alt. 6: Alt. Density HP Zone Alt. 7a: Senior Housing Alt. 7b: No Net-Out

1,224 2,357 2,357 2,163 1,199 944 1,355 Same as Proposed Action 1,838

1,552 3,142 3,142 2,817 1,517 1,232 1,700 Same as Proposed Action 2,370

Notes:

DRAFT

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.

I-13

10/24/08

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

Table I-3 DGEIS Build-Out: New Dwelling Units, Zoning District Summary† Zoning District

Proposed Action*

Alts. 1 & 2**

Alt. 3

Alt. 4

Alt. 5

Alt. 6

Alt. 7b

R1A/RM1 R3A R5A/RL5 RC6/R6A RA10/R10A HP20/R20A VG/NRW TND Rc-HE

38 -31 790 75 125 128 320 45

583 1,850 709 -------

79 1,810 355 -89 51 68 320 45

35 -8 789 76 131 68 320 90

38 -31 790 75 125 128 -45

38 -31 790 75 273 128 320 45

61 -42 1,432 149 193 128 320 45

1,552

3,142

2,817

1,517

1,232

1,700

2,370

Totals 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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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**** 2005 Estimate*****

0 0

4,685 4,870

135.2 140.6

Proposed Action Alts. 1 & 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7b

1,388 2,750 2,490 1,358 1,088 1,518 2,104

8,618 11,495 10,871 8,143 7,492 8,528 9,941

237.2 331.9 313.8 235.1 216.3 246.2 287.0

Notes:

Source:

* - 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. ***** - 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 (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) can be used to estimate future residential population by

DRAFT

I-15

10/24/08

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 Building Permits

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

44

60

19

24

14

100

Average annual number of building permits Source:

44

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 Town outside of Astor Flats TND**

440 120

5,930 5,159

171.2 148.9

Note:

10/24/08

** - Considers density in areas of Town outside of the proposed Astor Flats TND with the 320 dwelling units at Astor Flats constructed.

I-16

DRAFT

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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 buildout. 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Law 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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 multifamily 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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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.

•

The northbound U.S. Route 9 approach at East Market Street/West Market Street would decline from LOS D to LOS F during the Saturday Midday peak hour.

•

The northbound U.S. Route 9 through/right-turn lane group would decline from LOS D to 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 rightturn) 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 onstreet 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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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 leftturn/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 inplace 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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-ofcharacter homes. These recommendations would be implemented by the Rhinecliff Overlay (RcO) 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, mixeduse 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 multifamily 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

Chapter I: Executive Summary

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

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, autodependent 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

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) Current Development* CSD under Current Zoning TND under Alternative Zoning Notes:

Dwellings

Population

Pop. Density

Fiscal Costs

1,416

4,063

120 ppl./sq. mi.

3,408 Additional

9,781 Additional

410 ppl./sq. mi.

Current Town Budget -$932,557

1,409 Additional

4,044 Additional

239 ppl./sq. mi.

+$1,657,079

* - 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

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 largeformat 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 sitespecific 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

• 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

•

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 PlaterZyberk & 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

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

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

DRAFT

II-11

10/24/08

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 (ac/du)

Location

Stated Purposes

District

Resource Management Zones are privately owned areas deemed suitable for residential uses, agriculture, and forestry throughout the six million acre Adirondack Park.

Resource Management

42.7

Adirondack Park Agency, NY

New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation

The NYSDEC publication, “Local Open Space Planning: A Guide to the Process” provides recommendations designed to help protect sensitive resource areas and to buffer sensitive areas

NA

40 - 80

NA

25 up to 100

Regional Plan Association

The Regional Plan Association’s 2007 Southeast Orange County Land Use Study, prepared in partnership with the Orange County Planning Department, recommends the use of low density zoning for agricultural, forest, and rural conservation overlay districts.

Transect T2, Rural Zone

20 (average)

SmartCode, Version 9.2

Within the integrated approach to planning and design envisioned by the SmartCode, developed by the architecture firm Duany Plater-Zyberk, the Rural Zone is one that promotes conservation of open 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

Medium Density Residential

RM-2

2

High Density Residential

RH-1

1

Town of Washington, NY

10/24/08

II-12

DRAFT

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

Shawangunk Ridge Protection District

SP-3

20

Shawangunk Ridge Protection District

SP-2

10

Shawangunk Ridge Protection District

SP-1

5

Rural Agricultural: To promote agriculture, forestry, recreation, land conservation and low-density residential uses

RA

10

Rural Residential: To allow residential uses in a rural setting

RR

5

Agricultural Business District (proposed)

AB

6

Limited Development Option (proposed)

AB

20

Town of Milan, NY

Rural Space Overlay (proposed)

RS-0

10

Carroll County, MD

Agricultural District

A

20

Clarke County, VA

Sliding scale unit allocation in the Mountain Land Area

NA

14 - 68

Baltimore County, MD

Resource Conservation District

RC-2

50

Montgomery County, MD

See attachment for Townships in the county

NA

25

Lancaster County, PA

Model Zoning Ordinance: see other examples in attachment

NA

23.5

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 space resources; to reduce unreasonable requirements for public utility and service expenditures through uneconomic and unwise dispersal and scattering of population; to encourage 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 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

MU-160

160

MU-80

80

MU-40

40

Rural Residential: To promote and preserve in appropriate areas conditions favorable to agriculture and to maintain greenbelt spaces. These districts are intended to include activities normally and necessarily related to the conduct of agriculture and to protect the district from the intrusion of uses inimical to the continuance of agricultural activity

RR-10

10

RR-5

5

RR-1

1

Town of Shawangunk, NY

Town of Amenia, NY

Town of Red Hook, NY

Box Elder County, UT

DRAFT

II-13

10/24/08

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

• 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 (CBN) District.

10/24/08

II-14

DRAFT

Figure II-1

C D

199

Town of of Red Red Hook Hook Town

C D

199

Rock City

£ ¤9

Centers and Greenspace Plan Priority Greenspace Criteria Priority

308 C D

Agricultural Land Land // Agricultural Agricultural Soils Soils Agricultural Gateway Locations to Town or Village Gateway Locations to Town or Village Long Views Views (Catskills, (Catskills, Hudson, Hudson, Multiple Multiple Fields) Fields) Long

Sepasco

Hudson // Highly Highly Visible Visible Frontage on on Major Major Roads Roads // Hudson Frontage Features Important Habitat Habitat and/or and/or Natural Natural Features Important

7 6 5 4

103

H U D S O N R I V E R

Astor Flats

9G C D

752 6 5 4

Town of of Town Milan Milan

Settings for for Historic Historic Structures Structures Settings Development Likely Likely -- Conservation Conservation Subdiv. Subdiv. Design Design Development Potential for for Public Public Access Access Trail Trail Potential

Legend

Village Center Hamlet Center Emerging Center

Limit Mixed-Use Center to 1/4 Mile

Radius for "Park Once and Walk Around" Core

Hudson River Greenway Trail Existing Regional Bike/Hike Trail Proposed Greenway Trail Connections Water / Wetlands / Floodplains Priority Greenspace (See Criteria Above)

308 C D

7 6 5 4

101

Rhinebeck

1/2 Mile Radius: Walkable from Edge to Center, Primarily Mix of Housing Types

Protected Greenspace Major Greenspace Parcels Parcel Lines Municipalities

Rhinecliff

419 7 6 5

Prepared for the Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan by £ ¤9

C D 9G

Town of of Clinton Clinton Town

Dutchess County Department of Planning & Development January 2006 N

785 6 5 4

Scale: 1" = 4000 Feet

784 6 5 4

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehnsive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS Town of of Hyde Hyde Park Park Town

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.

Prepared for the Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan by March 2008

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehnsive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

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 will be made on a project by project basis during Planning Board review.

Prepared for the Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan by Updated July 2008

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehnsive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

N Figure II-4 Proposed Zoning District Map, Hamlet of Rhinecliff (See Figure II-3 for Town of Rhinebeck 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 will be made on a project by project basis during Planning Board review.

Prepared for the Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan by Updated July, 2008

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehnsive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

10.2.08

10.2.08

Figure II-5 TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Figure II-5

Astor Flats TND Illustrative Plan

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

• 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

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: •

•

•

•

•

•

•

DRAFT

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

II-19

10/24/08

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

•

•

•

•

• •

• • • • •

-

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

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

-

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

•

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 MidHudson 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

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter II: Description of the Proposed Action

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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.

Prepared for the Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan by March 2008

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehnsive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

10.22.08

CBN

LC-T LC

ORP

GN

R20A R1A

R5A R1A

Legend Proposed Zoning

R5A

LC

Land Conservation Trails (LC-T)

RTC

R3A CB

RB

CBS NRN

Historic Preservation (R20A)

RNE

R20A

BP

LC

Land Conservation (LC)

Residential 5 Acre (R5A)

A R10

INSET 2

Rural Agricultural (R10A) Residential 3 Acre (R3A)

TN D

R5 A

Residential 1 Acre (R1A) Hamlet District (HD)

ad

LC-T

er R o

NVG

Rhinecliff Neighborhood Extension (RNE) Gateway North (GN) Northern Village Gateway (NVG) Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) ORP

Business Park (BP)

RNE

LC

CB S CB

R1A

R5 A

R ou t e9

d oa Mi ll R

R1 0A

INSET 1

Community Business South (CBS)

N

G

Gateway (G) Crossroads Business (CB)

NR

N

LC-T

Rhinecliff Business (RB) Rail Transportation Corridor (RTC) Hamlet Overlay Zone

R5A

TN D

R5A RTC

Community Business North (CBN)

R3A

R5A

HD

Office Research Park (ORP)

BP

R3A

R1A

RB

Neighborhood Residential West (NRW)

G e9

R

e out

ut

R iv

R

NRW

Neighborhood Residential North (NRN)

INSET 1

o

308

HD R20A

INSET 2 0A R2

N R20A

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Figure III-2

Miles

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Alternative 3: Modifications to the Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law

N Figure III-3

Alternative 4: 2006 Comprehensive Plan 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 will be made on a project by project basis during Planning Board review.

Prepared for the Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan by January 2006

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehnsive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 nonresidential zoning districts are mapped. The proposed Zoning Law has addressed these recommendations discussed in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 Additional Dwellings Additional Residents Additional School Age Children Additional Vehicles on Road Additional Vehicle Trips per Day Acres of New Roads Acres of Impervious Surfaces New Police Officers New Fire Fighters Additional Water Consumed Additional Sewage Generated Notes: Source:

10/24/08

Current Zoning

Proposed Zoning*

3,408 9,781 1,528 6,816 34,080 513 913 10 10 1,613,800 gpd 1,613,800 gpd

1,408 4,041 497 2,816 14,080 212 377 1 1 674,000 gpd 674,000 gpd

* -- 2006 Comprehensive Plan Build-Out Analysis Report, December 4, 2005 (see Appendix 2 of the Comprehensive Plan).

IV-4

DRAFT

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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 LowRange 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 HighRange 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 Alt. 1: No Action Alt. 2: Conservation Subdivision Alt. 3: Modified Plan/Zoning Alt. 4: 2006 Comp. Plan Alt. 5: No Astor Flats Alt. 6: Alt. Density HP Zone Alt. 7a: Senior Housing Alt. 7b: No Net-Out

1,224 2,357 2,357 2,163 1,199 944 1,355 Same as Proposed Action 1,838

1,552 3,142 3,142 2,817 1,517 1,232 1,700 Same as Proposed Action 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† Zoning District

Proposed Action*

Alts. 1 & 2**

Alt. 3

Alt. 4

Alt. 5

Alt. 6

Alt. 7b

R1A/RM1 R3A R5A/RL5 RC6/R6A RA10/R10A HP20/R20A VG/NRW TND Rc-HE

38 -31 790 75 125 128 320 45

583 1,850 709 -------

79 1,810 355 -89 51 68 320 45

35 -8 789 76 131 68 320 90

38 -31 790 75 125 128 -45

38 -31 790 75 273 128 320 45

61 -42 1,432 149 193 128 320 45

1,552

3,142

2,817

1,517

1,232

1,700

2,370

Totals Notes:

10/24/08

† - 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.

IV-6

DRAFT

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

Table IV-4 DGEIS Build-Out: Population Density Comparison Alternative

New dwellings*

Town Future Pop.**

Population Density***

2000 Census**** 2005 Estimate*****

0 0

4,685 4,870

135.2 140.6

Proposed Action Alts. 1 & 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7b

1,388 2,750 2,490 1,358 1,088 1,518 2,104

8,618 11,495 10,871 8,143 7,492 8,528 9,941

237.2 331.9 313.8 235.1 216.3 246.2 287.0

Notes:

Source:

* - 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. ***** - 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 (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) 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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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 Building Permits

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

44

60

19

24

14

100

Average annual number of building permits Source:

44

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 Town outside of Astor Flats TND**

440 120

5,930 5,159

171.2 148.9

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 2 3 4 5

455 ac. 71 ac. 55 ac. 648 ac. 39 ac.

5 ac. 3 ac. 3 ac. 5 ac. 3 ac.

72 19 15 103 10

63 20 15 69 11

20 ac. 10 ac. 6 ac. 10 ac. 6 ac.

22 7 9 64 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 IV1b) 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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Table IV-8 Parcel Analysis: Parcel 1 Details Acres/Lots 455.67

Total Land Area Constrained Land Wetlands Floodplain Steep Slopes Total Constrained Net Buildable Area

12.59 14.16 26.57 53.32 402.35

Existing Zoning Analysis Minimum Lot Size (acres per dwelling unit) Lot Count using Gross (Total) Acreage Lot Count using Net Buildable Area Lot Count achieved in sketch layout

5 ac 91.13 du 80.47 du 63 du

Proposed Zoning Analysis Residential Density (acres per dwelling unit) Open Space Requirement Lot Count using Gross (Total) Acreage Lot Count using Net Buildable Area Lot Count achieved in sketch layout

20 ac 80% 22.78 du 20.12 du 20 du

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 Parcel Analysis: Parcel 2 Details Acres/Lots 70.63

Total Land Area Constrained Land Wetlands Floodplain Steep Slopes Total Constrained Net Buildable Area

0.85 0.00 0.10 0.95 69.68

Existing Zoning Analysis Minimum Lot Size (acres per dwelling unit) Lot Count using Gross (Total) Acreage Lot Count using Net Buildable Area Lot Count achieved in sketch layout

3 ac 23.54 du 23.23 du 20 du

Proposed Zoning Analysis Residential Density (acres per dwelling unit) Open Space Requirement Lot Count using Gross (Total) Acreage Lot Count using Net Buildable Area Lot Count achieved in sketch layout

10 ac 80% 7.06 du 6.97 du 7 du

DRAFT

IV-11

10/24/08

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 IV2a). 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 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.

10/24/08

IV-12

DRAFT

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Table IV-10 Parcel Analysis: Parcel 3 Details Acres/Lots 55.44

Total Land Area Constrained Land Wetlands Floodplain Steep Slopes Total Constrained Net Buildable Area

1.29 2.40 0.91 4.60 50.84

Existing Zoning Analysis Minimum Lot Size (acres per dwelling unit) Lot Count using Gross (Total) Acreage Lot Count using Net Buildable Area Lot Count achieved in sketch layout

3 ac 18.48 du 16.95 du 15 du

Proposed Zoning Analysis Residential Density (acres per dwelling unit) Open Space Requirement Lot Count using Gross (Total) Acreage Lot Count using Net Buildable Area Lot Count achieved in sketch layout

6 ac 75% 9.24 du 8.47 du 9 du

Table IV-11 Parcel Analysis: Parcel 4 Details Acres/Lots 648.14

Total Land Area Constrained Land Wetlands Floodplain Steep Slopes Total Constrained Net Buildable Area

217.15 6.02 4.61 227.78 420.36

Existing Zoning Analysis Minimum Lot Size (acres per dwelling unit) Lot Count using Gross (Total) Acreage Lot Count using Net Buildable Area Lot Count achieved in sketch layout

5 ac 129.63 du 84.07 du 69 du

Proposed Zoning Analysis Residential Density (acres per dwelling unit) Open Space Requirement Lot Count using Gross (Total) Acreage Lot Count using Net Buildable Area Lot Count achieved in sketch layout

10 ac 80% 64.81 du 42.04 du 42 du

DRAFT

IV-13

10/24/08

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

Table IV-12 Parcel Analysis: Parcel 5 Details Acres/Lots 39.38

Total Land Area Constrained Land Wetlands Floodplain Steep Slopes Total Constrained Net Buildable Area

3.31 0.00 2.74 6.05 33.33

Existing Zoning Analysis Minimum Lot Size (acres per dwelling unit) Lot Count using Gross (Total) Acreage Lot Count using Net Buildable Area Lot Count achieved in sketch layout

3 ac 13.13 du 11.11 du 11 du

Proposed Zoning Analysis Residential Density (acres per dwelling unit) Open Space Requirement Lot Count using Gross (Total) Acreage Lot Count using Net Buildable Area Lot Count achieved in sketch layout

6 ac 80% 6.56 du 5.56 du 6 du

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 buildout. 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.

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

0

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Conventional subdivision of a 455.67 Acre Parcel under existing 5 Acre Zoning allows for approximately 63 lots at 5 acres each.

Figure IV-1a

Parcel 1 - Existing Zoning

10.1.08

Legend Property Boundary Sketch Parcel Boundaries

Conservation Areas Slopes > 25% Forest Conservation Area Hedgerow Conservation Area Stream Conservation Area Wetland Conservation Areas DEC Wetland 100ft Buffer Flood Plain Conservation Area Prime Farmland Conservation Area

0

500

1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Conservation subdivision of a 455.67 acre parcel under proposed 20 Acre Zoning with 1 Acre lots allows for 20 lots and preservation of 94.6% as open space.

Figure IV-1b

Parcel 1 - Proposed Zoning

10.1.08

Legend Property Boundary Sketch Parcel Boundaries Streams

Constrained Land Slopes > 25% Wetlands DEC Wetland 100ft Buffer Flood Plain Prime Farmland

0

200

400

600

800 Feet

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Conventional subdivision of a 70.63 acre parcel under existing 3 Acre Zoning allows for approximately 20 lots at 3 acres each.

Figure IV-2a

Parcel 2- Existing Zoning

10.1.08

Legend Property Boundaries Sketch Parcel Boundaries

Conservation Areas Slopes > 25% Forest Conservation Area Hedgerow Conservation Area Stream Conservation Area Wetland Conservation Areas DEC Wetland 100ft Buffer Flood Plain Conservation Area Prime Farmland Conservation Area

0

200 400

600

800 Feet

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Conservation subdivision of a 70.63 acre parcel under proposed 6 Acre Zoning with 1 Acre lots allows for 11 lots and preservation of 80.4% as open space.

Figure IV-2b

Parcel 2 - Proposed Zoning

10.1.08

Legend Property Boundary Sketch Parcel Boundaries

Constrained Land Slopes > 25% Wetlands DEC Wetland 100ft Buffer Streams Flood Plain Prime Farmland

0

200

400

600

800 Feet

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Parcel 3 - Existing Zoning Figure 3a

Conventional subdivision of a 55.44 acre parcel under existing 3 Acre Zoning allows for approximately 15 lots at 3 acres each.

Figure IV-3a

Parcel 3 - Existing Zoning

10.1.08

Legend Property Boundary Sketch Parcel Boundaries

Conservation Areas Slopes > 25% Forest Conservation Area Hedgerow Conservation Area Stream Conservation Area Wetland Conservation Areas DEC Wetland 100ft Buffer Flood Plain Conservation Area Prime Farmland Conservation Area

0

200

400

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

600

800 Feet

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Conservation subdivision of a 55.44 acre parcel under proposed 6 Acre Zoning with 1 Acre lots allows for 9 lots and preservation of 82.7% as open space.

Figure IV-3b

Parcel 3 - Proposed Zoning

10.1.08

Legend Property Boundary Sketch Parcel Boundaries Streams

Constrained Land Slopes > 25% Wetlands DEC Wetland 100ft Buffer Flood Plain Prime Farmland

0

500

1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Conventional subdivision of a 648.14 acre parcel under existing 5 Acre Zoning allows for approximately 69 lots at 5 acres each.

Figure IV-4a

Parcel 4 - Existing Zoning

10.1.08

Legend Property Boundary Sketch Parcel Boundaries Forest Conservation Area Hedgerow Conservation Area

Conservation Areas Slopes > 25% Stream Conservation Area DEC Wetland 100ft Buffer Wetland Conservation Areas Prime Farmland Conservation Area Flood Plain Conservation Area

0

500

1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Conservation subdivision of a 648.14 acre parcel under proposed 10 Acre Zoning with 1 acre lots allows for 42 lots and preservation of 91.3% as open space.

Figure IV-4b

Parcel 4 - Proposed Zoning

10.1.08

Legend Property Boundary Sketch Parcel Boundaries Streams

Constrained Land Slopes > 25% Wetlands DEC Wetland 100ft Buffer Prime Farmland Flood Plain

0

100 200 300 400 Feet

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Conventional subdivision of a 39.38 acre parcel under existing 3 Acre Zoning allows for approximately 11 lots at 3 acres each.

Figure IV-5a

Parcel 5 - Existing Zoning

10.1.08

Legend Property Boundary Sketch Parcel Boundaries

Conservation Areas Slopes > 25% Forest Conservation Area Hedgerow Conservation Area Streams DEC Wetland 100ft Buffer Wetlands Flood Plain

0

100 200 300 400 Feet

TOWN OF RHINEBECK Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Conservation subdivision of a 39.38 acre parcel under propsoed 6 Acre Zoning wich 1 acre lots allows for 6 lots and perservation of 81.5 percent open space.

Figure IV-5b

Parcel 5 - Proposed Zoning

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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 forsale 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 singlefamily home in the county increased 36 percent. A household would need to make

DRAFT

IV-15

10/24/08

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

$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. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Law 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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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 multifamily 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. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 Sepasco Lake Muddler Kill Rhinebeck Kill Fallsburg Creek Crum Elbow Creek Landsman Kill

B B D D D A and A(T) 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. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 Upland hardwood forest Upland conifer forest Upland mixed forest Red cedar woodland Crest/ledge/talus Oak-heath barren Clay bluff and ravine Upland shrubland Upland meadow Orchard/plantation Cultural Waste ground

Source:

Wetland Habitats Hardwood & shrub swamp Conifer swamp Mixed forest swamp Intermittent woodland pool Buttonbush pool Kettle shrub pool Marsh Wet meadow Calcareous wet meadow Wet clay meadow Spring/seep Constructed Pond Open water Stream

Hudson River Habitats Hudson River rocky island Estuarine rocky shore Supratidal railroad causeway Freshwater tidal swamp Freshwater tidal marsh Tidal tributary mouth

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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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 Upland Habitats

Wetland Habitats

Hudson River Habitats

clustered sedge (T, S2S3) reflexed sedge (E, S2S3) slender knotweed (R, S3) smooth cliffbrake (T, S2) Emmons’ sedge (S3) yellow harlequin (S3) small-flowered crowfoot (T, S3) goldenseal (T, S2) shrubby St. Johnswort (T, S2) field-dodder (S3) slender pinweed (T, S2) rattlebox (E, S1) blunt mountain-mint (T, S2S3)

Notes:

Source:

DRAFT

swamp cottonwood (T, S2) yellow harlequin (S3) winged monkey-flower (R, S3) clustered sedge (T, S2S3) featherfoil (T, S2) wild lupine (S3) false hop sedge (R, S2) river birch (S3) spiny coontail (T, S3) estuary beggar-ticks (R, S3) buttonbush dodder (E, S1) heartleaf plantain (T, S3) small-flowered agrimony (S3) terrestrial starwort (T, S2S3) Schweinitz’s sedge (T, S2S3) Drummond’s rock-cress (E) ovate spikerush (E, S1S2) slender knotweed (R, S3) swamp birch (T, S2) kidneyleaf mud-plantain (S3) Frank’s sedge (E, S1) Fernald’s sedge (T, S2S3) Bush’s sedge (S3) Long’s bittercress (T, S2) 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) E = Endangered; T = Threatened; R = Rare; SC = Special Concern S1, S2, S3, SNA = NYS Natural Heritage Program ranks RG = Hudsonia Ltd. Regional rank Hudsonia Ltd., Significant Habitats in the Town of Rhinebeck, July 2007.

IV-29

10/24/08

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 nonnative 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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 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. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

Table IV-16 Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern Upland Habitats

Wetland Habitats

Hudson River Habitats

Jefferson’s salamander (SC) blue-spotted salamander (SC)

blue-spotted salamander (SC) marbled salamander (SC)

wood turtle (SC, S3) spotted turtle (SC, S3)

marbled salamander (SC, S3) eastern box turtle (SC, S3) spotted turtle (SC, S3) Blanding’s turtle (T, S2S3) wood turtle (SC, S3) eastern hognose snake (SC,S3) worm snake (SC, S2)

northern cricket frog (E, S1) spotted turtle (SC, S3) wood turtle (SC, S3) Blanding’s turtle (T, S2S3) eastern box turtle (SC, S3) red-shouldered hawk (SC) prothonotary warbler (S2)

Pomatiopsis lapidaria (snail) (S3) osprey (SC) bald eagle (T, S2S3B) northern harrier (T, S3B, S3N) least bittern (T, S3B, S1N) American bittern (SC) harbor seal (S3)

northern copperhead (S3) northern harrier (T, S3B, S3N) northern goshawk (SC, S3N) red-shouldered hawk (SC) Cooper’s hawk (SC) sharp-shinned hawk (SC)

bald eagle (T, S2S3B) American bittern (SC) least bittern (T, S3B, S1N) king rail (T, S1B) cerulean warbler (SC) northern harrier (T, S3B, S3N)

golden eagle (E, SHB, S1N) bald eagle (T, S2S3B) osprey (SC) loggerhead shrike (E, S1B) golden-winged warbler (SC) yellow-breasted chat (SC) clay-colored sparrow (S2)

piled-billed grebe (T, S3B, S1N) sedge wren (T, S3B) Henslow’s sparrow (T, S3B) Indiana bat (E, S1) Dion skipper (butterfly) (S3) grey petaltail (dragonfly) (SC, S2) tiger spiketail (dragonfly) (S1)

vesper sparrow (SC)

osprey (SC) arrowhead spiketail (dragonfly) (S2S3) mocha emerald (dragonfly) (S2S3) sable clubtail (dragonfly) (S1)

grasshopper sparrow (SC) Henslow’s sparrow (T, S3B) upland sandpiper (T, S3B) sedge wren (T, S3B) common nighthawk (SC) whip-poor-will (SC) Acadian flycatcher (S3) cerulean warbler (SC) Kentucky warbler (S2)

brook floater (mussel) (T, S1) clam shrimp (R)

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:

10/24/08

Hudsonia Ltd., Significant Habitats in the Town of Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York, July 2007.

IV-34

DRAFT

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Law 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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 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 twothirds 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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 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. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES Since no significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified, no mitigation is required.

DRAFT

IV-41

10/24/08

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

N

HO

OK

RO AD

E UT RO

OL

D

PO

ST

RO AD

9G

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

RIVER ROAD

SP

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

R TO

AS

Northern Dutchess Hospital

Y STREET MULLBERR

AD RO STREET

W. MARKET STREET

Intersections to be Analyzed

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

08

E3

T OU

R

BEECH

ERY

MONTGOM

RHINECLIFF ROAD

ET

PARSONAGE

ENUE

PLAT T AV

CHESTNUT STRE

REET

LIVINGSTON ST

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-6

Traffic Study Area

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

Table IV-17 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level-of-Service (LOS)

Control Delay Per Vehicle

A B C D E F

≤ 10.0 seconds >10.0 and ≤ 20.0 seconds >20.0 and ≤ 35.0 seconds >35.0 and ≤ 55.0 seconds >55.0 and ≤ 80.0 seconds >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

RO AD

9G

15 240 110

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

105 275 55

35 190 195

ST PO

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

RIVER ROAD

110 165 30

RO AD

ROUTE 9G

Y STREET MULLBERR

AD RO

W. MARKET ST.

ENUE

PLAT T AV

08

E3

T OU

R

BEECH

ERY

MONTGOM

REET CHESTNUT ST LIVINGSTON ST.

STREET

Intersections to be Analyzed

85 80 55 40 235 50

R TO

AS

W. MARKET STREET

E. MARKET ST.

65 60 20

Northern Dutchess Hospital

RHINECLIFF ROAD

35 300 65

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-7

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

2007 Existing Traffic Volumes Weekday AM Peak Hour (8:30-9:30 AM)

Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

10.2.08

UP

PER

HO

OK

RO AD

9G

20 230 125

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

65 200 45

70 205 130

ST PO

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

RIVER ROAD

235 305 90

RO AD

ROUTE 9G

50 315 130

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET ST.

R TO Y MULLBERR

AD RO

W. MARKET ST.

25 260 70

AS

120 100 70

125 80 40

Northern Dutchess Hospital

STREET ENUE

ERY

ET

W. MARKET STREET

Intersections to be Analyzed

R

CHESTNUT STRE

LIVINGSTON ST.

STREET

RHINECLIFF ROAD

08

E3

T OU

BEECH

MONTGOM

PLAT T AV

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-8

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

2007 Existing Traffic Volumes Weekday Midday Peak Hour (12:45-1:45 PM)

Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

10.2.08

UP

PER

HO

OK

RO AD

9G

30 255 145

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

140 520 60

40 330 185

ST PO

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

RIVER ROAD

210 330 85

RO AD

ROUTE 9G

R TO Y STREET MULLBERR

AD RO

70 505 45

AS

120 120 50

W. MARKET ST.

ENUE

PLAT T AV

08

E3

T OU

R

BEECH

ERY

MONTGOM

ET

CHESTNUT STRE

LIVINGSTON ST.

STREET

W. MARKET STREET

Intersections to be Analyzed

E. MARKET ST.

110 175 40

Northern Dutchess Hospital

RHINECLIFF ROAD

35 380 70

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-9

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

2007 Existing Traffic Volumes Weekday PM Peak Hour (4:00-5:00 PM)

Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

10.2.08

UP

PER

HO

OK

RO AD

9G

40 290 110

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

280 30 160

85 205 295

ST PO

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

RIVER ROAD

50 260 40

RO AD

ROUTE 9G

80 340 155

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET ST.

R TO Y MULLBERR

AD RO

W. MARKET ST.

50 245 40

AS

205 35 165

100 115 120

Northern Dutchess Hospital

STREET

Intersections to be Analyzed

R

REET CHESTNUT ST LIVINGSTON ST.

STREET

W. MARKET STREET

08

E3

T OU

BEECH

ERY

MONTGOM

RHINECLIFF ROAD

ENUE

PLAT T AV

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-10

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

2007 Existing Traffic Volumes Saturday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM)

Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 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

RO AD

9G

85 240 55

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

95 275 80

75 215 250

ST PO

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

RIVER ROAD

245 255 120

RO AD

ROUTE 9G

85 314 120

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET ST.

R TO Y MULLBERR

AD RO

W. MARKET ST.

70 380 60

AS

170 130 115

95 120 60

Northern Dutchess Hospital

STREET

Intersections to be Analyzed

R

REET CHESTNUT ST LIVINGSTON ST.

STREET

W. MARKET STREET

08

E3

T OU

BEECH

ERY

MONTGOM

RHINECLIFF ROAD

ENUE

PLAT T AV

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-11

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

2007 Existing Traffic Volumes Saturday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM)

Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

10.2.08

UP

PER

HO

OK

RO AD

9G

15 245 120

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

50 240 115

50 240 285

ST PO

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

RIVER ROAD

175 275 80

RO AD

ROUTE 9G

20 215 120

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET ST.

R TO Y MULLBERR

AD RO

W. MARKET ST.

45 275 50

AS

170 85 45

75 50 65

Northern Dutchess Hospital

STREET

Intersections to be Analyzed

R

REET CHESTNUT ST LIVINGSTON ST.

STREET

W. MARKET STREET

08

E3

T OU

BEECH

ERY

MONTGOM

RHINECLIFF ROAD

ENUE

PLAT T AV

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-12

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

2007 Existing Traffic Volumes Sunday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM)

Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

2

U.S. Route 9 @ NYS Route 9G

Signalized

Control Type Signalized

Lane Approach Group Eastbound DefL TR Westbound LTR Northbound LTR Southbound LTR Intersection Eastbound L TR Westbound L TR Northbound L TR Southbound L TR Intersection

2007 Existing Conditions Wkdy. AM Peak Hour Wkdy. MD Peak Hour Wkdy. PM Peak Hour Sat. MD Peak Hour v/c Delay v/c Delay v/c Delay v/c Delay Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS 0.19 21.6 C 0.52 25.7 C 0.42 24.1 C 0.34 22.3 C 0.13 21.0 C 0.25 22.1 C 0.40 23.5 C 0.41 22.6 C 0.45 24.2 C 0.60 27.1 C 0.58 26.4 C 1.02 78.3 E 0.45 17.8 B 0.53 18.8 B 0.87 33.8 C 0.52 19.7 B 0.53 18.9 B 0.76 25.9 C 0.68 22.4 C 0.95 47.6 D 20.0 B 23.9 C 27.3 C 44.4 D 0.14 24.7 C 0.26 27.2 C 0.15 23.4 C 0.25 25.6 C 0.86 46.0 D 0.72 34.9 C 0.95 59.2 E 0.87 45.3 D 0.17 24.0 C 0.12 23.3 C 0.14 24.5 C 0.43 28.6 C 0.87 45.1 D 0.52 27.1 C 1.04 77.5 E 0.55 28.5 C 0.28 25.2 C 0.56 29.7 C 0.58 32.2 C 0.14 25.0 C 0.40 25.6 C 0.76 35.4 D 0.92 54.9 D 0.66 32.3 C 0.39 26.5 C 0.48 27.4 C 0.59 32.1 C 0.40 26.6 C 0.55 29.0 C 0.58 29.9 C 0.67 34.8 C 0.72 34.9 C 36.1 D 31.1 C 54.1 D 34.2 C

2

U.S. Route 9 @ NYS Route 9G

Signalized

Control Type Signalized

Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service.

No. 1

Intersection U.S. Route 9 @ East Market Street/West Market Street

2007 Existing Conditions Sat. MD Peak Hour Sun. MD Peak Hour Lane v/c Delay v/c Delay Approach Group Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS Eastbound DefL 0.37 22.7 C 0.26 21.3 C 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 Eastbound L 0.23 23.3 C 0.15 23.3 C 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

Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds

Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service.

No. 1

Intersection U.S. Route 9 @ East Market Street/West Market Street

Table IV-18 Level-of-Service Analysis Results : 2007 Existing Traffic Conditions Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds

10.1.08

UP

PER

HO

OK

N 2003 - 13 2004 - 4 2005 - 4

E UT RO

OL

D

PO

ST

RO AD

9G

2000 - 4 2001 - 8 2002 - 8

RO AD

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

RIVER ROAD

SP

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

R TO

AS

Northern Dutchess Hospital

Y MULLBERR

AD RO

STREET ENUE

STREET

W. MARKET STREET

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

R

ET

CHESTNUT STRE

REET

LIVINGSTON ST

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

08

E3

T OU

BEECH

ERY

RHINECLIFF ROAD

PLAT T AV

PARSONAGE

2003 - 1 2004 - 2 2005 - 0

MONTGOM

2000 - 0 2001 - 0 2002 - 0

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-13

Traffic Accidents: 2000 - 2005

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds 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.

•

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.

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). 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

Building Component

Weekday AM Peak Hour ITE Development Land Use ITE Land Use Size Code

Trip Generation Total # Rate Trips % In

# In' % Out Trips

# Out' Trips

Condo Apts. (for sale units) (TND)

160

Units

230

Resid. Condo/Townhouse

0.44

70

18%

82%

13

57

Rental Apartments (TND)

160

Units

220

Apartment

0.55

88

29%

71%

26

62

General Retail (TND)

40,000 sq. ft.

820

Shopping Center

1.03

41

61%

39%

25

16

Medical Office (TND)

60,000 sq. ft.

720

Medical-Dental Office Building

2.48

149

79%

21%

118

31

230

Resid. Condo/Townhouse

0.44

74

18%

82%

13

61

194 189

228 225

Condo Apts. (for sale units) (The Gardens, Phases II & III)

168

Units

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: AM Peak Hr. (2) with 20% Pass-by Trip Credit for Retail Component:

422 414

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

Building Component

Weekday Midday Peak Hour ITE Development Land Use ITE Land Use Size Code

Trip Generation Total # Rate Trips % In

# In' % Out Trips

# Out' Trips

Condo Apts. (for sale units) (TND)

160

Units

230

Resid. Condo/Townhouse

0.37

59

48%

52%

28

31

Rental Apartments (TND)

160

Units

220

Apartment

0.48

77

48%

52%

37

40

General Retail (TND)

40,000 sq. ft.

820

Shopping Center

2.39

96

48%

52%

46

50

Medical Office (TND)

60,000 sq. ft.

720

Medical-Dental Office Building

2.68

161

48%

52%

77

84

230

Resid. Condo/Townhouse

0.37

62

48%

52%

30

32

218 209

237 227

Condo Apts. (for sale units) (The Gardens, Phases II & III)

168

Units

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: MD Peak Hr. with 20% Pass-by Trip(2) Credit for Retail Component:

455 436

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

Table IV-19 (Continued) Future Trip Generation (1) Building Component

Weekday PM Peak Hour ITE Development Land Use ITE Land Use Size Code

Trip Generation Total # Rate Trips % In

# In' % Out Trips

# Out' Trips

Condo Apts. (for sale units) (TND)

160

Units

230

Resid. Condo/Townhouse

0.52

83

0.64

0.36

53

30

Rental Apartments (TND)

160

Units

220

Apartment

0.67

107

0.61

0.39

65

42

General Retail (TND)

40,000 sq. ft.

820

Shopping Center

3.75

150

48%

52%

72

78

Medical Office (TND)

60,000 sq. ft.

720

Medical-Dental Office Building

3.72

223

27%

73%

60

163

230

Resid. Condo/Townhouse

0.52

87

0.64

0.36

56

31

306 292

344 328

Condo Apts. (for sale units) (The Gardens, Phases II & III)

168

Units

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: PM Peak Hr. (2) with 20% Pass-by Trip Credit for Retail Component:

650 620

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

Building Component

Saturday Midday and Sunday Midday Peak Hours ITE Trip Development Land Use ITE Land Use Generation Total # Size Code Rate Trips % In

# In' % Out Trips

# Out' Trips

Condo Apts. (for sale units) (TND)

160

Units

230

Resid. Condo/Townhouse

0.47

75

54%

46%

41

35

Rental Apartments (TND)

160

Units

220

Apartment

0.52

83

50%

50%

42

42

General Retail (TND)

40,000 sq. ft.

820

Shopping Center

4.97

199

52%

48%

103

96

Medical Office (TND)

60,000 sq. ft.

720

Medical-Dental Office Building

3.63

218

57%

43%

124

94

230

Resid. Condo/Townhouse

0.47

79

54%

46%

43

36

352 332

302 282

Condo Apts. (for sale units) (The Gardens, Phases II & III)

168

Units

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: Sat. Peak Hr. with 20% Pass-by Trip(2) Credit for Retail Component:

654 614

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

10.2.08

UP

PER

HO

OK

RO AD

9G

27

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

35

9

ST

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

PO

RIVER ROAD

33 24 8

RO AD

ROUTE 9G

Astor Flats

STREET ENUE

PLAT T AV

08

E3

T OU

R

BEECH

ERY

MONTGOM

ET

CHESTNUT STRE

LIVINGSTON ST.

STREET

W. MARKET STREET

Intersections to be Analyzed

62

Y MULLBERR

The Gardens

RHINECLIFF ROAD

35

W. MARKET ST.

AD RO

Y WA

R TO

DEN

GAR

E. MARKET ST.

9

Northern Dutchess Hospital

AS

The Gardens

8 57 33

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-14

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Project Generated Traffic Volumes Weekday AM Peak Hour (8:30-9:30 AM)

10.2.08

UP

PER

HO

OK

RO AD

9G

36

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

18

18

ST

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

PO

RIVER ROAD

20 39 20

RO AD

ROUTE 9G

Astor Flats

R TO

The Gardens

ENUE

PLAT T AV

ERY

Intersections to be Analyzed

R

REET CHESTNUT ST LIVINGSTON ST.

STREET

W. MARKET STREET

08

E3

T OU

BEECH

MONTGOM

RHINECLIFF ROAD

45

Y STREET MULLBERR

Y WA

45

W. MARKET ST.

AD RO

DEN

GAR

E. MARKET ST.

18

Northern Dutchess Hospital

AS

The Gardens

20 49 49

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-15

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Project Generated Traffic Volumes Weekday Midday Peak Hour (12:45-1:45 PM)

10.2.08

UP

PER

HO

OK

RO AD

9G

35

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

47

12

ST

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

PO

RIVER ROAD

59 45 15

RO AD

ROUTE 9G

Astor Flats

08

E3

T OU

R

REET CHESTNUT ST LIVINGSTON ST.

STREET

W. MARKET STREET

Intersections to be Analyzed

ENUE

PLAT T AV

BEECH

ERY

MONTGOM

RHINECLIFF ROAD

W. MARKET ST.

STREET

The Gardens

47

83

Y MULLBERR

AD RO

Y WA

R TO

DEN

GAR

E. MARKET ST.

12

Northern Dutchess Hospital

AS

The Gardens

15 104 59

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-16

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

Project Generated Traffic Volumes Weekday PM Peak Hour (4:00-5:00 PM)

10.2.08

UP

PER

HO

OK

RO AD

9G

73

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

29

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

PO

ST

RIVER ROAD

37 62 25

ROUTE 9G

RO AD

44

Astor Flats

POS

RO AD

R TO

The Gardens

ENUE

PLAT T AV

ERY

Intersections to be Analyzed

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

R

ET

CHESTNUT STRE

LIVINGSTON ST.

STREET

W. MARKET STREET

08

E3

T OU

BEECH

MONTGOM

RHINECLIFF ROAD

73

Y STREET MULLBERR

Y WA

44

W. MARKET ST.

AD RO

DEN

GAR

E. MARKET ST.

29

Northern Dutchess Hospital

AS

The Gardens

25 62 37

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OLD

Astor Flats

OK

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-17

Project Generated Traffic Volumes Saturday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM) & Sunday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM)

10.1.08

UP

PER

HO

OK

RO AD

9G

15 269 110

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

105 275 65

35 190 232

ST PO

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

RIVER ROAD

149 199 41

RO AD

ROUTE 9G

Astor Flats

ENUE

ERY

MONTGOM

44 298 50

PLAT T AV

08

E3

T OU

R

ET

CHESTNUT STRE

LIVINGSTON ST.

STREET

W. MARKET STREET

Intersections to be Analyzed

Y STREET MULLBERR

The Gardens

RHINECLIFF ROAD

120 83 55

W. MARKET ST.

AD RO

Y WA

R TO

DEN

GAR

E. MARKET ST.

77 72 38

Northern Dutchess Hospital

AS

The Gardens

44 360 98

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-18

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

2017 Future Traffic Volumes Weekday AM Peak Hour (8:30-9:30 AM)

Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

10.1.08

UP

PER

HO

OK

RO AD

9G

20 272 125

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

65 200 66

ST

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

PO

RIVER ROAD

266 360 118

ROUTE 9G

RO AD

70 205 149

Astor Flats

Y MULLBERR

The Gardens

ENUE

PLAT T AV

ERY

Intersections to be Analyzed

R

ET

CHESTNUT STRE

LIVINGSTON ST.

STREET

W. MARKET STREET

08

E3

T OU

BEECH

MONTGOM

RHINECLIFF ROAD

165 108 70 31 306 70

W. MARKET ST.

AD RO

Y WA

R TO

DEN

GAR

E. MARKET ST.

145 88 46

Northern Dutchess Hospital

AS

The Gardens

76 375 189

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-19

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

2017 Future Traffic Volumes Weekday Midday Peak Hour (12:45-1:45 PM)

Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

10.1.08

UP

PER

HO

OK

RO AD

9G

30 299 145

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

140 520 75

ST

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

PO

RIVER ROAD

273 379 101

ROUTE 9G

RO AD

40 330 238

Astor Flats

Y MULLBERR

The Gardens

08

E3

T OU

R

ET

CHESTNUT STRE

LIVINGSTON ST.

STREET

W. MARKET STREET

Intersections to be Analyzed

ENUE

PLAT T AV

BEECH

ERY

MONTGOM

RHINECLIFF ROAD

172 131 50 87 600 45

W. MARKET ST.

AD RO

Y WA

R TO

DEN

GAR

E. MARKET ST.

133 181 49

Northern Dutchess Hospital

AS

The Gardens

53 496 129

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-20

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

2017 Future Traffic Volumes Weekday PM Peak Hour (4:00-5:00 PM)

Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

10.2.08

UP

PER

OK

RO AD

40 373 110

9G

280 30 199

ST

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

PO

RIVER ROAD

86 326 58

RO AD

85 205 349 ROUTE 9G

HO

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

Astor Flats

Y MULLBERR

The Gardens

08

E3

T OU

R

ET

CHESTNUT STRE

LIVINGSTON ST.

MILL ROAD

W. MARKET STREET

Intersections to be Analyzed

ENUE

PLAT T AV

BEECH

ERY

MONTGOM

RHINECLIFF ROAD

279 35 165 50 328 40

W. MARKET ST.

AD RO

Y WA

R TO

DEN

GAR

E. MARKET ST.

141 120 127

Northern Dutchess Hospital

AS

The Gardens

105 404 192

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-21

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

2017 Future Traffic Volumes Saturday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM)

Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

Saturday Midday Peak Hour 2007 Existing 2017 Future Lane v/c Delay v/c Delay No. Approach Group Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS 1 Eastbound DefL 0.37 22.7 C 0.54 25.9 C TR 0.31 21.6 C 0.34 21.8 C Westbound LTR 0.90 47.9 D 1.02 74.8 E Northbound LTR 0.93 44.1 D 1.12 99.8 F Southbound LTR 1.16 114.3 F 1.58 294.5 F Intersection 65.0 E 151.6 F 2 Eastbound L 0.23 23.3 C 0.23 23.3 C TR 0.85 41.9 D 0.91 50.5 D Westbound L 0.22 25.4 C 0.31 26.8 C TR 0.74 35.0 D 0.74 35.0 D Northbound L 0.67 35.0 C 0.81 45.1 D TR 0.81 40.6 D 1.01 77.7 E Southbound L 0.19 25.1 C 0.19 25.1 C TR 0.67 32.6 C 0.85 44.6 D Intersection 36.0 D 49.0 D

Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service.

U.S. Route 9 @ NYS Route 9G

East Market Street/West Market Street

Intersection U.S. Route 9 @

Weekday Midday Peak Hour 2007 Existing 2017 Future v/c Delay v/c Delay Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS 0.52 25.7 C 0.68 32.4 C 0.25 22.1 C 0.28 22.4 C 0.60 27.1 C 0.71 30.7 C 0.53 18.8 B 0.62 20.7 C 0.76 25.9 C 1.11 94.9 F 23.9 C 50.4 D 0.26 27.2 C 0.26 27.2 C 0.72 34.9 C 0.76 37.0 D 0.12 23.3 C 0.17 24.0 C 0.52 27.1 C 0.52 27.1 C 0.56 29.7 C 0.64 32.3 C 0.76 35.4 D 0.92 52.4 D 0.48 27.4 C 0.48 27.4 C 0.58 29.9 C 0.68 33.0 C 31.1 C 36.4 D

Sunday Midday Peak Hour 2007 Existing 2020 Future v/c Delay v/c Delay Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS 0.26 21.3 C 0.41 23.2 C 0.20 20.6 C 0.22 20.8 C 0.60 25.8 C 0.70 29.1 C 0.56 20.3 C 0.70 24.0 C 0.61 21.6 C 0.93 46.5 D 22.2 C 31.9 C 0.15 23.3 C 0.15 23.3 C 0.94 55.4 E 1.01 75.0 E 0.32 27.5 C 0.42 29.9 C 0.59 29.2 C 0.59 29.2 C 0.46 29.0 C 0.58 31.8 C 0.74 35.7 D 0.94 60.0 E 0.42 26.9 C 0.42 26.9 C 0.56 29.2 C 0.74 35.6 D 36.6 D 47.4 D

Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds

Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service.

U.S. Route 9 @ NYS Route 9G

Intersection U.S. Route 9 @ East Market Street/West Market Street

Weekday AM Peak Hour 2007 Existing 2017 Future Lane v/c Delay v/c Delay No. Approach Group Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS 1 Eastbound DefL 0.19 21.6 C 0.25 22.2 C TR 0.13 21.0 C 0.18 21.5 C Westbound LTR 0.45 24.2 C 0.53 25.4 C Northbound LTR 0.45 17.8 B 0.55 19.2 B Southbound LTR 0.53 18.9 B 0.74 24.5 C Intersection 20.0 B 22.8 C 2 Eastbound L 0.14 24.7 C 0.14 24.7 C TR 0.86 46.0 D 0.93 58.3 E Westbound L 0.17 24.0 C 0.21 25.7 C TR 0.87 45.1 D 0.87 45.1 D Northbound L 0.28 25.2 C 0.38 26.7 C TR 0.40 25.6 C 0.50 26.7 C Southbound L 0.39 26.5 C 0.39 28.5 C TR 0.55 29.0 C 0.61 30.5 C Intersection 36.1 D 39.1 D

Table IV-20

Weekday PM Peak Hour 2007 Existing 2017 Future v/c Delay v/c Delay Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS 0.42 24.1 C 0.58 28.2 C 0.40 23.5 C 0.43 23.8 C 0.58 26.4 C 0.70 30.3 C 0.87 33.8 C 1.12 98.3 F 0.68 22.4 C 1.19 125.9 F 27.3 C 82.0 F 0.15 23.4 C 0.15 23.4 C 0.95 59.2 E 1.06 89.6 F 0.14 24.5 C 0.18 26.6 C 1.04 77.5 E 1.06 82.1 F 0.58 32.2 C 0.77 40.9 D 0.92 54.9 D 1.06 91.2 F 0.59 32.1 C 0.59 32.1 C 0.67 34.8 C 0.78 40.7 D 54.1 D 69.5 E

Saturday Midday Peak Hour 2007 Existing 2017 Future v/c Delay v/c Delay Ratio (sec) LOS Ratio (sec) LOS 0.34 22.3 0.55 26.0 C C 0.41 22.6 0.43 22.9 C C 1.02 78.3 1.20 138.8 F E 0.52 19.7 0.65 22.5 C B 0.95 47.6 1.26 155.5 F D 44.4 D 98.2 F 0.25 25.6 C 0.25 25.6 C 0.96 61.3 E 0.87 45.3 D 0.56 31.7 C 0.43 28.6 C 0.55 28.5 C 0.55 28.5 C 0.26 28.4 C 0.14 25.0 C 0.85 44.4 D 0.66 32.3 C 0.40 26.6 C 0.40 26.6 C 0.72 34.9 0.91 53.2 D C 34.2 C 44.5 D

Level-of-Service Analysis Results : 2007 Existing and 2017 Future Conditions Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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 restriping 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. Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds 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.

•

The northbound U.S. Route 9 approach at East Market Street/West Market Street would decline from LOS D to LOS F during the Saturday Midday peak hour.

•

The northbound U.S. Route 9 through/right-turn lane group would decline from LOS D to 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). Mitigation measures to improve operating conditions are presented below in “Conclusions & Potential Mitigation Measures”.

DRAFT

IV-49

10/24/08

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

W. MARKET STREET

KS OA EE T TR

10.2.08

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

GARDEN STREET Beekman Arms Driveway

C C

M&T Bank Driveway

Rhinebeck Antique Center Driveway

RY STREET

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.

MONTGOME

Queing Lengths 2007 Existing Conditions 2017 Future Conditions Level of Service (LOS) Approach LOS B B Overall Intersection LOS1, 2007 Existing Conditions C Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Future Conditions

N

SOUTH

STREET

CVS Driveway

ET E. MARKET STRE

Figure IV-22

Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths Weekday AM Peak Hour (8:30-9:30 AM)

B

C C

Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

B

B C

CB

Rhinecliff Savings Bank Driveway

STREET LIVINGSTON

REET CHESTNUT ST

CENTER STREET

W. MARKET STREET

KS OA EE T TR

10.2.08

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

GARDEN STREET Beekman Arms Driveway

C

M&T Bank Driveway

Rhinebeck Antique Center Driveway

RY STREET

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.

MONTGOME

Queing Lengths 2007 Existing Conditions 2017 Future Conditions 2017 Mitigation Conditions Level of Service (LOS) B Approach LOS C Overall Intersection LOS1, 2007 Existing Conditions D Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Future Conditions Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Mitigation Conditions C

N

C C

D

C D C

C C C C

STREET

CVS Driveway

SOUTH

Rhinecliff Savings Bank Driveway

ET E. MARKET STRE

Figure IV-23

Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths Weekday Midday Peak Hour (12:45-1:45 PM)

B B C

F

STREET LIVINGSTON

REET CHESTNUT ST

CENTER STREET

W. MARKET STREET

KS OA EE T TR

10.2.08

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

GARDEN STREET Beekman Arms Driveway

M&T Bank Driveway

Rhinebeck Antique Center Driveway

RY STREET

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.

MONTGOME

Queing Lengths 2007 Existing Conditions 2017 Future Conditions 2017 Mitigation Conditions Level of Service (LOS) B Approach LOS C Overall Intersection LOS1, 2007 Existing Conditions F Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Future Conditions Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Mitigation Conditions D

N

C C C

D

C F D

C

C

C

C

STREET

CVS Driveway

SOUTH

Rhinecliff Savings Bank Driveway

ET E. MARKET STRE

Figure IV-24

Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths Weekday PM Peak Hour (4:00-5:00 PM)

C D F

F

STREET LIVINGSTON

REET CHESTNUT ST

CENTER STREET

W. MARKET STREET

KS OA EE T TR

10.2.08

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

GARDEN STREET Beekman Arms Driveway

E

C C D

M&T Bank Driveway

Rhinebeck Antique Center Driveway

RY STREET

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.

MONTGOME

Queing Lengths 2007 Existing Conditions 2017 Future Conditions 2017 Mitigation Conditions Level of Service (LOS) B Approach LOS D Overall Intersection LOS1, 2007 Existing Conditions F Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Future Conditions Overall Intersection LOS1, 2017 Mitigation Conditions D

N

D F D

D

E

D

F

STREET

CVS Driveway

SOUTH

Rhinecliff Savings Bank Driveway

ET E. MARKET STRE

Figure IV-25

Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

Estimated Average Vehicle Queuing Lengths Saturday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM)

B B C

F

STREET LIVINGSTON

REET CHESTNUT ST

CENTER STREET

WB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS C Conditions 4

NB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS A to B Conditions 3

Figure IV-26

Photographs: Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds (AM Peak Hour)

EB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS B to C Conditions 2

SB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS B Conditions 1

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

10.2.08

Approach

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Intersection

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

U.S. Route 9 and East Market Street/West Market Street West Market Street East Market Street U.S. Route 9 U.S. Route 9

Approach

Intersection

U.S. Route 9 and East Market Street/West Market Street West Market Street East Market Street U.S. Route 9 U.S. Route 9

5 7 17 11

2 6 8 13

40 120 160 260

2017 Future (car (ft.) lengths)

144 242 365 101

100 140 340 220

6 9 33 34

120 180 660 680

2017 Future (car (ft.) lengths)

4 7 8 12

5 5 24 24

100 100 480 480

5 16 7 20

5 9 10 28

100 180 200 560

5 4 9 22

100 320 140 400

6 26 10 41

120 520 200 820

2017 Future (car (ft.) lengths)

6 7 8 29

120 140 160 580

2017 Mitigation (car (ft.) lengths)

100 80 180 440

2017 Mitigation (car (ft.) lengths)

Average Queue Length (car length)/(ft.) Saturday Midday Peak Hour

80 140 160 240

2017 Mitigation 2007 Existing (car (ft.) (car (ft.) lengths) lengths)

7 12 18 5

2017 Future (car (ft.) lengths)

Average Queue Length (car length)/(ft.) Weekday Midday Peak Hour

2017 Mitigation 2007 Existing (ft.) (car (car (ft.) lengths) lengths)

Average Queue Length (car length)/(ft.) Weekday PM Peak Hour

40 100 120 180

2007 Existing (car (ft.) lengths)

2 5 6 9

2007 Existing (car (ft.) lengths)

Average Queue Length (car length)/(ft.) Weekday AM Peak Hour

Table IV-21 Queue Length Analysis Results : 2007 Existing, 2017 Future Conditions, and 2017 Mitigation Conditions Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds

10.22.08

UP

PER

OK

RO AD

85 323 55

9G

95 275 113

ST

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

PO

RIVER ROAD

286 326 148

RO AD

75 215 298 ROUTE 9G

HO

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

Astor Flats

Y MULLBERR

The Gardens

ENUE

PLAT T AV

ERY

Intersections to be Analyzed

R

ET

CHESTNUT STRE

LIVINGSTON ST.

MILL ROAD

W. MARKET STREET

08

E3

T OU

BEECH

MONTGOM

RHINECLIFF ROAD

214 136 115 79 455 60

W. MARKET ST.

AD RO

Y WA

R TO

DEN

GAR

E. MARKET ST.

126 125 67

Northern Dutchess Hospital

AS

The Gardens

110 379 157

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-27

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

2017 Future Traffic Volumes Saturday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM)

Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

10.22.08

UP

PER

HO

OK

RO AD

9G

15 328 120

E UT RO

ROUTE 9

N

50 240 148

ST

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

OL

D

PO

RIVER ROAD

216 346 108

ROUTE 9G

RO AD

50 240 333

Astor Flats

Y MULLBERR

The Gardens

ENUE

PLAT T AV

ERY

Intersections to be Analyzed

R

ET

CHESTNUT STRE

LIVINGSTON ST.

MILL ROAD

W. MARKET STREET

08

E3

T OU

BEECH

MONTGOM

RHINECLIFF ROAD

214 91 45 54 350 50

W. MARKET ST.

AD RO

Y WA

R TO

DEN

GAR

E. MARKET ST.

106 55 72

Northern Dutchess Hospital

AS

The Gardens

45 279 157

SP

ROUTE 9

RIN

GB

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-28

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

2017 Future Traffic Volumes Sunday Midday Peak Hour (1:00-2:00 PM)

Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fair Grounds

SB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS E to F Conditions 4

EB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS B to C Conditions 3

Figure IV-29

Photographs: Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds (Saturday Midday Peak Hour)

NB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS D Conditions 2

WB Approach Route 9/Market Street - LOS D Conditions 1

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

10.22.08

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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 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 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). 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. 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

Potential Mitigation --U.S. Route 9 and East Market Street/West Market Street Restriping the westbound East Market Street approach to form two 11-foot lanes, prohibiting onstreet parking approximately 100 to 200 feet back from the approach, and retiming the traffic 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. 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. Potential Mitigation --U.S. Route 9 and NYS Route 9G 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 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 inplace 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 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. 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

Southbound

Northbound

Westbound

L TR L TR L TR

Lane Approach Group Eastbound DefL TR Westbound LTR Northbound LTR Southbound LTR Intersection Eastbound L TR

Lane Approach Group Eastbound DefL TR Westbound LTR Northbound LTR Southbound LTR Intersection

0.14 1.04 0.58 0.92 0.59 0.67

24.5 77.5 32.2 54.9 32.1 34.8 54.1

C E C D C C D

L TR LT R L TR

2007 Existing v/c Delay Lane Ratio (spv) LOS Group 0.42 24.1 C DefL 0.40 23.5 C TR 0.58 26.4 C LTR 0.87 33.8 C LTR 0.68 22.4 C LTR 27.3 C 0.15 23.4 C L 0.95 59.2 E TR

2007 Existing v/c Delay Lane Ratio (spv) LOS Group 0.52 25.7 C DefL 0.25 22.1 C TR 0.60 27.1 C LTR 0.53 18.8 B LTR 0.76 25.9 C LTR 23.9 C

2017 Future 2017 Mitigation v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Ratio (spv) LOS Group Ratio (spv) LOS Mitigation Measures 0.58 28.2 C LTR 0.63 30.3 C -Restripe Westbound East Market Street 0.43 23.8 C approach to form two 11-foot lanes. 0.70 30.3 C LTR 0.52 28.1 C -Prohibit parking on Westbound East Market 1.12 98.3 F LTR 0.97 47.0 D Street approach approximately 100 to 200 1.19 125.9 F LTR 0.99 53.8 D feet back from approach. 0.00 82.0 F 42.9 D -Retime Signal 0.15 23.4 C L 0.16 24.5 C 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. 0.18 26.6 C L 0.15 19.8 B 1.06 82.1 F TR 1.01 68.0 E -Retime signal 0.77 40.9 D LT 0.74 37.8 D 1.06 91.2 F R 1.01 74.4 E 0.59 32.1 C L 0.63 33.9 C 0.78 40.7 D TR 0.81 43.3 D 69.5 E 49.8 D

2017 Future 2017 Mitigation v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Ratio (spv) LOS Group Ratio (spv) LOS Mitigation Measures 0.68 32.4 C DefL 0.70 36.7 D -Restripe Westbound East Market Street 0.28 22.4 C TR 0.33 25.5 C approach to form two 11-foot lanes. 0.71 30.7 C LTR 0.48 26.9 C -Prohibit parking on Westbound East Market 0.62 20.7 C LTR 0.56 17.1 B Street approach approximately 100 to 200 1.11 94.9 F LTR 0.97 49.6 D feet back from approach. 50.4 D 33.4 C -Retime Signal

2017 Future 2017 Mitigation 2007 Existing Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Approach Group Ratio (spv) LOS Group Ratio (spv) LOS Group Ratio (spv) LOS Mitigation Measures Eastbound L 0.14 24.7 C L 0.14 24.7 C L 0.14 24.7 C 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 lane. Northbound L 0.28 25.2 C LT 0.38 26.7 C LT 0.38 26.7 C 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

Intersection Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service. spv = seconds/vehicle

U.S. Route 9 @ NYS Route 9G

Intersection U.S. Route 9 @ East Market Street/West Market Street

Weekday PM Peak Hour

Intersection U.S. Route 9 @ East Market Street/West Market Street

Weekday Midday Peak Hour

Intersection U.S. Route 9 @ NYS Route 9G

Weekday AM Peak Hour

Table IV-22 Level-of-Service Analysis Results : 2007 Existing, 2017 Future Conditions, and 2017 Mitigation Conditions Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds

Southbound

Northbound

Westbound

L TR L TR L TR

Lane Approach Group Eastbound DefL TR Westbound LTR Northbound LTR Southbound LTR Intersection Eastbound L TR 0.43 0.55 0.14 0.66 0.40 0.72

28.6 28.5 25.0 32.3 26.6 34.9 34.2

C C C C C C C

L TR LT R L TR

2007 Existing v/c Delay Lane Ratio (spv) LOS Group 0.34 22.3 C DefL 0.41 22.6 C TR 1.02 78.3 E LTR 0.52 19.7 B LTR 0.95 47.6 D LTR 0.00 44.4 D 0.25 25.6 C L 0.87 45.3 D TR

Intersection Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service. spv = seconds/vehicle

U.S. Route 9 @ NYS Route 9G

Intersection U.S. Route 9 @ East Market Street/West Market Street

Saturday Midday Peak Hour 2017 Future 2017 Mitigation v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Ratio (spv) LOS Group Ratio (spv) LOS Mitigation Measures 0.55 26.0 C DefL 0.81 51.9 D -Restripe Westbound East Market Street 0.43 22.9 C TR 0.53 28.3 C approach to form two 11-foot lanes. 1.20 138.8 F LTR 0.78 35.5 D -Prohibit parking on Westbound East Market 0.65 22.5 C LTR 0.55 16.6 B Street approach approximately 100 to 200 1.26 155.5 F LTR 1.04 67.6 E feet back from approach. 0.00 98.2 F 43.3 D -Retime Signal 0.25 25.6 C L 0.25 25.6 C 0.96 61.3 E T 0.40 24.9 C R 0.36 16.3 B 0.56 31.7 C L 0.51 29.1 C 0.55 28.5 C TR 0.55 28.5 C Add eastbound Route 9G exclusive right-turn lane. 0.26 28.4 C LT 0.26 28.4 C 0.85 44.4 D R 0.85 44.4 D 0.40 26.6 C L 0.40 26.6 C 0.91 53.2 D TR 0.91 53.2 D 0.00 44.5 D 34.7 C

Table IV-22 (Continued) Level-of-Service Analysis Results : 2007 Existing, 2017 Future Conditions, and 2017 Mitigation Conditions Non-Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds

L TR L TR L TR

Westbound

Southbound

Northbound

L TR

Eastbound

Lane Approach Group Eastbound DefL TR Westbound LTR Northbound LTR Southbound LTR Intersection

0.22 0.74 0.67 0.81 0.19 0.67

0.23 0.85 25.4 35.0 35.0 40.6 25.1 32.6 36.0

23.3 41.9 C D C D C C D

C D L TR LT R L TR

L TR

2007 Existing v/c Delay Lane Ratio (spv) LOS Group 0.37 22.7 C DefL 0.31 21.6 C TR 0.90 47.9 D LTR 0.93 44.1 D LTR 1.16 114.3 F LTR 65.0 E

2017 Future 2017 Mitigation v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Ratio (spv) LOS Group Ratio (spv) LOS Mitigation Measures 0.54 25.9 C DefL 0.77 47.8 D -Restripe Westbound East Market Street 0.34 21.8 C TR 0.43 28.0 C approach to form two 11-foot lanes. 1.02 74.8 E LTR 0.72 33.6 C -Prohibit parking on Westbound East Market 1.12 99.8 F LTR 0.91 35.4 D Street approach approximately 100 to 200 1.58 294.5 F LTR 1.22 135.3 F feet back from approach. 151.6 F 70.2 E -Retime Signal -Implement Event Traffic Management Plan 0.23 23.3 C L 0.27 25.6 C 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. 0.31 26.8 C L 0.29 26.0 C 0.74 35.0 D TR 0.74 35.0 D -Retime signal 0.81 45.1 D LT 0.74 37.1 D 1.01 77.7 E R 0.91 49.2 D 0.19 25.1 C L 0.19 23.3 C 0.85 44.6 D TR 0.76 34.3 C 49.0 D 34.6 C

2017 Future 2017 Mitigation 2007 Existing Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Approach Group Ratio (spv) LOS Group Ratio (spv) LOS Group Ratio (spv) LOS Mitigation Measures Eastbound L 0.15 23.3 C L 0.15 23.3 C L 0.17 24.8 C 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. Westbound L 0.32 27.5 C L 0.42 29.9 C L 0.38 27.3 C 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 Southbound L 0.42 26.9 C L 0.42 26.9 C L 0.42 25.6 C TR 0.56 29.2 C TR 0.74 35.6 D TR 0.68 31.5 C Intersection 36.6 D 47.4 D 31.0 C

Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service. spv = seconds/vehicle

Intersection U.S. Route 9 @ NYS Route 9G

Sunday Midday Peak Hour

Intersection Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service. spv = seconds/vehicle

U.S. Route 9 @ NYS Route 9G

Intersection U.S. Route 9 @ East Market Street/West Market Street

Saturday Midday Peak Hour

Table IV-22 (Continued) Level-of-Service Analysis Results : 2007 Existing, 2017 Future Conditions, and 2017 Mitigation Conditions Event Conditions at the Dutchess County Fairgrounds

10.2.08

UP

PER

N

HO

OK

RO AD

E UT RO 9G

• Add an Exclusive Eastbound NYS Route 9G Right Turn Lane (Widen the Approach)

OL

D

PO

ST

RO AD

• Retime Traffic Signal to Optimize Operations

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

RIVER ROAD

• Install Latest NYSDOT Traffic Controller Technology

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)

SP

RIN

GB

AD ASTOR RO

RO

OK

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

Y STREET MULLBERR

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

Northern Dutchess Hospital

• Retime Traffic Signal (Increase Route 9 Green Time)

W. MARKET STREET

Intersections Analyzed

08

E3

T OU

R

BEECH

STREET

RHINECLIFF ROAD

ET

PARSONAGE

ERY

MONTGOM

• Install Latest NYSDOT Traffic Controller Technology

ENUE

PLAT T AV

CHESTNUT STRE

REET

LIVINGSTON ST

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-30

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

2017 Traffic Conditions with No Event at the Fairground

10.2.08

UP

PER

N

HO

OK

RO AD

E UT RO

OL

D

PO

ST

RO AD

• Retime Traffic Signal to Optimize Operations

9G

• Add an Exclusive Eastbound NYS Route 9G Right Turn Lane (Widen the Approach)

RO UT E

9

MOUNT RUTSEN ROAD

RIVER ROAD

• Install Latest NYSDOT Traffic Controller Technology

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) • Consider Prohibiting Parking for Approximately 100-200 Feet on the Northbound Route 9 Approach

RO AD

OLD

POS

RD.

T RO AD

TATOR

SP

RIN

GB

AD ASTOR RO

RO

OK

• Implement a Traffic Management Plan (e.g. Use of Personnel at Key Intersections to Direct Traffic During Event Conditions at the Fairground)

Y STREET MULLBERR

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

Northern Dutchess Hospital

• Retime Traffic Signal (Increase Route 9 Green Time)

W. MARKET STREET

Intersections Analyzed

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

08

E3

T OU

R

BEECH

STREET

RHINECLIFF ROAD

ET

PARSONAGE

ERY

MONTGOM

• Install Latest NYSDOT Traffic Controller Technology

ENUE

PLAT T AV

CHESTNUT STRE

REET

LIVINGSTON ST

E. MARKET STREET

SOUTH

STREET

0

1000

2000 FEET

SCALE

Figure IV-31 2017 Traffic Conditions with Event at the Fairground

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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 Restriping the westbound East Market Street approach to form two 11-foot lanes, prohibiting onstreet parking approximately 100 to 200 feet back from the approach, and retiming the traffic 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. 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. 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 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 IV-22. 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). On Saturday with these improvement measures in-place the northbound Route 9 through/rightturn 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/rightturn movement would operate at LOS D and the overall intersection LOS would be C. 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.

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 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 Alternative

New Dwelling Units*

New Residents

New Emergency Service Providers**

Proposed Action Alternatives 1/2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7b

1,388 2,750 2,490 1,358 1,088 1,518 2,104

3,345 6,628 6,001 3,273 2,622 3,658 5,071

6 14 12 6 6 8 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 crosssection 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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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 MidHudson 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-ofway 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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 reuse 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. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 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-ofcharacter homes. These recommendations would be implemented by the Rhinecliff Overlay (RcO) 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, mixeduse 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

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Wetlands DGEIS

TOWN OF RHINEBECK

10.22.08

Typical 20 Acre Subdivision

Typical 10 Acre Subdivision

Typical Patterns of Development

Figure IV-32

Typical 3 Acre Subdivision

Typical 1 Acre Subdivision

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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 coexist 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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

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 lotby-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

Chapter IV: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

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

Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law DGEIS

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 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 MidHudson 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 prehistoric 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

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law income residents; and connecting the town, village and Hamlet of Rhinecliff with sidewalks and biking trails. The Plan addresses most aspects of life in the town, including: economic growth; affordable housing; home-based work; agriculture and open space; historic resources; fire districts; water/sewer; transportation; and recreation, scenic, and cultural resources, among myriad others. Regional issues, especially affordable housing and conservation of natural resources that transcend municipal boundaries, were studied and considered and more than 400 actions were developed and recommended for adoption by the Town Board. During the planning process, the Town Board appointed an Open Space and Affordable Housing Committee to study these issues in depth. The Rhinebeck Open Space and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, which resulted from the Committee’s efforts, has been included in the Proposed Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, a Biodiversity Assessment was commissioned by the Town Board, resulting in a report by Hudsonia Ltd. entitled Significant Habitats. This report has been added to the Proposed Comprehensive Plan as well. The proposed Amendments to the Zoning Law have been designed to be consistent with the ± 400 actions recommended in the Plan. They have also been designed to be consistent with the Dutchess County Greenway Compact Program guidelines, with the recently approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and with the Amendments made to the Planning and Zoning enabling laws in New York State Town Law primarily during the 1990’s. New Zoning Districts have been created and a variety of land uses have been added or removed from the list of allowable uses. To implement the “Centers and Greenspace Plan” in the Proposed Comprehensive Plan, residential densities have been increased in parts of the Town deemed appropriate for compact development and decreased in other parts of the Town deemed more appropriate for rural, agricultural, forestry and open space uses. Neighborhood Infill Overlay Zoning Districts are proposed to allow for infill development and potentially additional affordable housing in select hamlet areas; neighborhood extensions are proposed to allow residential development on smaller (e.g., 6,000 square foot lots) in areas adjacent to the Village and the hamlet of Rhinecliff; and application of density bonuses for additional affordable housing, additional open space, or public access to open space are proposed for new development. Conservation subdivision design is proposed to be used as a tool for most new residential development in the Town. New standards governing lighting, signage, noise, landscaping, parking, stormwater management, affordable housing, habitat management, solar energy/green building construction, and traditional neighborhood development, among others, have been added. The proposed Wetlands Local Law has also been designed to be consistent with the actions recommended in the Plan. Wetlands larger than 12.4 acres in size are regulated by the State of New York and wetlands that are connected to navigable bodies of water are regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Many smaller wetlands, however, are not regulated at all in the Town of Rhinebeck. This includes but is not limited to intermittent woodland pools, which have been identified by the Town of Rhinebeck Significant Habitats study as “one of the most imperiled habitats in the region.” New York State agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of State encourage municipalities to protect wetlands through adoption of local regulatory legislation. The proposed Local Law would require the issuance of a Wetlands Permit, by the Town Planning Board, before certain development activities could be initiated within wetlands and an adjacent upland buffer area.

Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008)

Page 3

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law

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).

Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008)

Page 4

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law 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

Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008)

Page 5

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law 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.

Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008)

Page 6

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law 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.

B.

C.

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. 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. 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.

Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008)

Page 7

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law D.

E.

F.

G.

IV.

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. 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. 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. 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;

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

Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008)

Page 8

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law

ii. iii.

iv.

v.

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.” Discuss maximum potential development density (generic build-out) for proposed land uses in the Town. 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. 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. Discuss potential impacts and appropriate mitigation for the actions.

b. Agricultural Resources

Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008)

Page 9

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law 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 100year 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.

Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008)

Page 10

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law b. Wildlife: i. Identify possible presence of unique, rare and/or endangered, threatened and special concern species through contact with the New York State Natural Heritage Program and the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Discuss the Town’s on-going biodiversity project. ii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation. c. Wetlands: i. Identify locations of State and federal wetlands within the Town. ii. Discuss State and federal compliance requirements for any future land use development within freshwater wetlands as well as adjoining upland areas. Discuss proposed freshwater wetland regulations. Describe potential impact on wetlands from Proposed Action with and without proposed freshwater wetland regulations. iii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation. d. Geology: i. Identify and discuss soil types, depth to bedrock, depth to water table and potential effects on development. ii. Identify and discuss topography and steep slopes. iii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation. D.

Transportation a. Traffic: 1. Discuss existing traffic patterns and volumes in the Town, based upon recently completed traffic studies and 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.

Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008)

Page 11

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law b. Public Transportation: i. Discuss current and potential public transportation services in the Town that may be available to serve future development including road-based public transit such as shuttle services. ii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation.

c. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment: i. Discuss the existing and potential pedestrian and bicycle system available to serve the Town. Address pedestrian and bicycle access, trails and pathways. Describe potential for dedicated bicycle and pedestrian lanes. ii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation. E.

Community Services and Infrastructure a. Police and Fire/Emergency Protection: i. Describe existing police services and fire/emergency services provided by the Town and/or Village and any cooperative agreements in existence that could be affected by the recommended Proposed Comprehensive Plan. Describe any changes to emergency response times from new development. ii. Discuss potential impacts and mitigation. b. Utilities: i. Discuss availability of electric, natural gas, 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:

Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008)

Page 12

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law i. ii.

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

Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008)

Page 13

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law VI.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

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

Growth Inducing Aspects

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

Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources

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

Appendices

The appendices will include background information relevant to the proposed actions such as important excerpts from other relevant SEQR documents (includes Positive Declaration, Final Scoping Document, Notices, Town Board Resolutions), correspondence, references, and other supporting materials. Interested Agencies: Town of Rhinebeck Clerk Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan Committee Town of Rhinebeck Conservation Advisory Council Town of Rhinebeck Highway Department Town of Rhinebeck Planning Board Town of Rhinebeck Zoning Board of Appeals Village of Rhinebeck Board of Trustees Village of Rhinebeck Planning Board Village of Rhinebeck Police Department Village of Red Hook Board of Trustees Town Board of the Town of Red Hook

Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008)

Town Board of the Town of Milan Town Board of the Town of Clinton Town Board of the Town of Hyde Park Town Board of the Town of Esopus Town Board of the Town of Ulster City of Kingston Chief Executive Officer Rhinebeck Central School District Hyde Park Central School District Red Hook Central School District Rhinebeck Fire District Rhinecliff Fire District Hillside Fire District Morton Memorial Library Starr Library

Page 14

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law 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.

Final Adopted Scoping Document (September 8, 2008)

Page 15

Appendix C Comparison of Proposed Zoning to Existing Zoning

III

II

Enacting Legislation and Purposes

Local Law No. 1 of 2004

Adopted by Town in 2007 and approved by State and Federal Governments

C

D

E

Application of Zoning District Regulations

E

A

Delineation of Flood Hazard Zones

D

District Schedule of Use Regulations

Use Regulations

Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries

M

C

Effective Date - Old section XIV(E)

L

Zoning District Map

Periodic Review Required - Old section XIV(D)

K

B

Effect of Existing Violations - Old section XIV(B)

J

Zoning Districts

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. Interpretation, Conflict with Other Laws - Old section XIV(A)

I

A

Severability - Old section XIV(C)

H

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.

Use Regulations

Delineation of Flood Hazard Zones - Updates references to where Federal floodplain maps can be found. Application of Zoning District Regulations

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. Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries

Zoning Districts - All proposed Zoning Districts are described in greater detail

Establishment of Zoning Districts

Jurisdiction - New section clarifying how the Zoning Law is applied.

Local Waterfront Revitalization Program - Incorporates procedures approved as part of the Town’s LWRP. How to Use This Zoning Law - New section explaining the Zoning Law.

Greenway Compact Program and Guides

Scope

Purposes - Revised to reflect the proposed Comprehensive Plan goals.

Title

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law Zoning Law Scope and Purposes

G

Establishment of Zoning Districts

Scope

B

F

Title

A

Article Section Existing 1989 Zoning Law I Title, Scope and Purposes

Town of Rhinebeck: Guide to Existing Zoning Compared to Proposed Zoning

V

Modification of Front Yard Setbacks

Height Exceptions

Corner Lots

Architectural Features Permitted in Required Yards

Accessory Structures

Distance Between Principal Buildings on Same Lot

Modification of Front Yard Setback/User Highways and Other Substandard Rights-of-way Minimum Lot Width and Frontage Exceptions and Modification for Residential Lots Transition Requirements Between Zoning Districts

D

E

F

G

H

I

General Performance Standards

Off-street Parking and Loading Standards

Sign Standards

B

C

Supplementary Regulations

A

M

L

K

Lands Designated as Freshwater Wetlands, Under Water or Subject to Periodic Flooding

Distance Between Principal Buildings on Same Lot

Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit

C

J

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.” Height Exceptions - Adds reference to special exceptions for wind generators and solar collectors in Article V, Section M. Corner Lots

Existing Lots of Record

B

Environmental Performance Standards - Adds verifiable standards for measuring nuisances such as noise, lighting, vibrations, etc. 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. 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.

Freshwater Wetlands and Floodplains - Adds reference to the need for compliance with the proposed Freshwater Wetlands Law. Special setbacks on Scenic Roads and in Scenic Areas - Creates special setbacks on designated scenic roads for new development, but excludes agriculture and forestry. Supplementary Regulations

Transition Requirements Between Zoning Districts

Minimum Lot Width and Frontage Exceptions

Accessory Structures - Special exceptions for gas canopy structures removed.

Architectural Features Permitted in Required Yards

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. Existing Non-Conforming Lots of Record

District Schedule or [sic] Area and Bulk Regulations

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law Area and Bulk Regulations

A

Article Section Existing 1989 Zoning Law IV Area and Bulk Regulations

Excavation as Part of Site Preparation

Development Near Streams, Rivers, Wetlands and Other Water Bodies

Development Within the Flood Fringe Overlay (FF-O) District

Home Occupations

Residential Cluster Development

Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Requirements

Sanitary Disposal Areas and Facilities

Swimming Pools

Solar Access

Required Screening for Non-Residential Uses

Agriculture

The Keeping of Farm Animals on Non-Farm Parcels

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Existing 1989 Zoning Law

E

Article Section D Fences and Walls

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. The Keeping of Farm Animals on Non-Farm Parcels - Changes are made so that non-farm and farm parcels are more consistent.

Swimming Pools - Clarifies need for compliance with New York State requirements. 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. Required Screening for Non-Residential Uses

Sanitary Disposal Areas and Facilities

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law 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. Excavation as Part of Site Preparation - Clarifies the definition of excavation and adds a reference to stormwater management compliance. 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. Development Within the Flood Fringe Overlay (FF-O) District - Adds agriculture, conservation and forestry as exempt from overlay regulations. 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. 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. Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Requirements

BB

AA

Z

Y

X

W

V

U

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

T

Outdoor Storage in Residential Districts

Outdoor Storage in Residential Districts

S

Alternate Care Facilities

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law Roadside Stands - Permits larger roadside stands.

Alternate Care Facilities

Existing 1989 Zoning Law

R

Article Section Q Roadside Stands

VI

Multi-family rental dwelling (new construction) in the R1A District

Multi-family rental dwelling (by conversion) in the R1A District

Accessory dwelling unit within the principal structure (by conversion or new construction) in the R5A, R3A, R1A and RB Districts

3

4

Communications Facilities and Towers

D

2

Standards within the Flood-Fringe Overlay (FF-O) District

C

Two-family dwelling (by conversion) in the R5A, R3A, R1A and RB Districts

Additional Specific Requirements

B

1

General Standards

Special Permit Uses

Existing 1989 Zoning Law

A

Article Section CC

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. 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. Multi-family dwelling (by conversion) - Substantially expands where multifamily 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. Accessory dwelling unit within the principal structure - Eases the current restrictions on an accessory dwelling within an existing structure by allowing for an expansion or addition to the structure to accommodate it.

Intent and Purposes - Added an Intent and Purposes section to clarify what was expected by the Special Use Permit process. 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. 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. Additional Specific Standards for Certain Uses: (Old Subsection B)

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law 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. Special Use Permit Requirements

Elder Cottage Housing Opportunity in the R5A, R3A and R1A Districts

Home Occupation, Class 2

Alternate care facility

Cemetery

Church of other place of worship

Crematorium or mausoleum - Eliminated from Use Table.

Library, museum or performing arts center

Nursery school or day-care facility

Educational institution

Hospital

Not-for-profit or other non-commercial outdoor recreational use or facility

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Existing 1989 Zoning Law Detached accessory dwelling unit (by conversion or new construction) in the R5A, R3A, R1A and RB Districts

6

Article Section 5

House of worship - Applies bulk regulations for each Zoning district to all houses of worship. Reserved - Crematoriums and mausoleums eliminated from Use Regulations. Library, museum or performing arts center - Establishes special density regulations applicable to these uses. 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. 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. Hospital - Increases the minimum lot area and prohibits on-site incineration. 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.

Alternate care housing facility - Updates the alternate care Special Use Permit requirements to comply with recent caselaw. Cemetery

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law Detached accessory dwelling unit - Expands 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 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). 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. Class 2 Home Occupation

Other Not-for-profit membership club

Children’s camp or day camp

Building material supply and sales, including lumberyard

Commercial boarding or breeding kennels

Conference center

Convenience store

Food and grocery stores

Gasoline station or automobile service facility

Hotel or motel

Public or boarding stable or riding academy

Shopping center

Auto rental or sales and large equipment rental or sales

(Reserved)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Rod and gun club

Existing 1989 Zoning Law

18

Article Section 17

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. Auto rental or sales and large equipment rental or sales - Added restrictions on displays used to advertise the sale of autos. Special permit uses within Rhinecliff - Added special permit conditions unique to Rhinecliff that are found in Article VI, Sections F and G.

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law 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. Not-for-profit membership club - Increases setbacks from 50’ to 100’ and clarifies the minimum required acreage for the use. 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. Building material supply and sales, including lumberyard - Requires screening by natural vegetation or other suitable buffering and prohibits outdoor storage in front yards. 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. 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. Delicatessen - Convenience store use replaced with delicatessen use. Gasoline sales at a delicatessen not permitted. Food and grocery stores - The maximum size of a food and grocery store reduced from 60,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet. 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. Hotel or motel - Minimum lot area increased from 3 acres to 10 acres, with a cap of 60 guest rooms. Public stable/riding academy

Public or franchise utility station or structure

Planned Unit Development

Boarding and/or Rooming House

Enriched housing for the elderly

Senior citizen or elderly housing development

Private stable

Animal husbandry

Major excavation, but not including uses classified under this Local Law as extractive operations or soil mining

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Major excavation and/or tree clearing - Clear-cutting of trees added to major excavation, which requires a Special Use Permit.

Extractive operations and soil mining

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law Contractor’s yard or establishment - Added a prohibition on processing of materials on the site and retail sales. 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. Public or franchise utility station or structure

Existing 1989 Zoning Law Contractor’s yard or establishment

32

Article Section 31

Bed and breakfast establishment

Commercial recreation or amusement facility

Fast-food or drive-in restaurant

Funeral home

Veterinarian’s office or animal hospital (fully enclosed)

Sawmill and related uses

Marinas, boat clubs, docks, and boat ramps

(Reserved)

(Reserved)

Guest cottage

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Existing 1989 Zoning Law Golf course or country club

42

Article Section 41

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Guest cottage

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law 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. Bed and breakfast establishment - Increases the allowance for guest rooms and guests from 3 and 6 to 5 rooms and 10 guests respectively. Commercial recreation facility - “Amusement facility” has been removed from consideration as a commercial recreation facility. 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. Funeral home

VII

Reimbursable Costs

Effect of Special Use Permit Approval

Expiration of Special Use Permit

Revocation of Special Use Permit

Integration of Procedures

Relief from Decisions

F

G

H

I

J

K

Sketch Plan Conference

Application for Site Plan Approval

Site Plan Design Criteria

Planning Board Review of Site Plan

Planning Board Action on Site Plan

A

B

C

D

E

Site Plan Review and Approval Procedure

Special Use Permit Application Procedure

Existing 1989 Zoning Law

E

54

53

Article Section 52

Application for Site Plan Approval

Site Plan Approval Required - Exempts agriculture, forestry and conservation from most Site Plan requirements. 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. Sketch Plan Conference

Purposes - Adds a purpose to explain the intent of the Site Plan regulations.

Site Plan Review

See new Section “B” above.

See new Section “B” above.

See new Section “B” above.

See new Section “B” above.

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law Use of Town Design Standards - Requires that light manufacturing uses be subject to the Town’s Design Standards and Environmental Performance Standards. Flood-fringe Overlay District standards - Exempts agriculture and forestry from the requirements of the Flood-fringe Overlay District. 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. 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. 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. See new Section “B” above.

VIII

Application Types Minor Applications Major Applications Density & Site Development Calculations Environmental Review Provision of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Maintenance of Open Space Subdivision of Land Within the Astor Flats TND

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

Required Approvals

H

Effect of Conditions

E

Applicability

Site Plan Exceptions

Relationship to Other Requirements

D

The TND Community

G

Review and Approval Procedure

C

Pre-existing Conditions

General Criteria

B

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. Purposes

F

Intent and Objectives

A

Traditional Neighborhood Development District

Relief from Decisions

M

Planned Residential Development District

Integration of Procedures

Relief from Decisions

J

L

Integration of Procedures

I

Inspection of Improvements

Inspection of Improvements

H

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law Site Plan Design Criteria - Expands the design criteria used by the Planning Board in their review of a Site Plan. Planning Board Review of Site Plan - Updates review requirements to be consistent with NY State Town Law. Planning Board Action on Site Plan - Updates requirements to be consistent with NY State Town Law. Reimbursable Costs for Site Plan Review - Refers applicants to Article XIV, the new location for Fee reimbursement procedures. Performance Guarantee

K

Performance Guarantee

G

Article Section Existing 1989 Zoning Law F Reimbursable Costs for Site Plan Review

Residential Neighborhood Areas Civic Uses Street Requirements TND Specific Definitions

T

U

V

W

X

Stop Work Orders Certificates of Occupancy Certificate of Use Filing of Administration Decision at Time of Appeal Notification Regarding Fire or Explosion

G

H

I

J

K

Zoning Enforcement Officer Construction Inspections

Effect of Existing Violations

D

Code Enforcement Officer and Inspectors

F

Penalties for Violation

C

Building Permits

Powers and Duties of Zoning Enforcement Officer

B

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. Definitions

Administration and Enforcement

E

General

A

Administration and Enforcement

Application for Special Use Permit or Site Plan Review

Completion of On-going Construction

H

Completion of On-going Construction

E

Termination of Certain Uses and/or Structures

Compliance with Environmental Performance Standards

Termination of Certain Uses and or Structures

D

Restoration After Damage

G

Restoration After Damage

C

Increase in Volume of Use

Non-Complying Buildings

B

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. Repair or Alteration of Non-conforming Buildings

F

Non-Conforming Uses

A

Non-Conforming Uses and Structures

Main Street Area

S

Non-conforming Uses and Non-complying Structures and Bulk

Standards Applicable to Main Street Area and Residential Areas

R

IX

Allocation of Uses

Q

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law Elements of the TND

Existing 1989 Zoning Law

Article Section P

XIII

XII

XI

Effect of Appeal

Relief from Decisions

Rehearing

D

E

F

Town Board Procedure

C

Terms Used for Building Code Terms Used for Historic Buildings

E

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. Terms Used Principally, if not exclusively, within Section VI(D), Communication Terms Used for Communication Facilities and Towers Facilities and Towers Terms Used for TND District

Terms Used Throughout this Zoning Law Defined

Definitions

Town Board Procedure

D

C

B

A

Definitions

Report of the Planning Board

B

D

Initiation - Added reference to the Senior Housing Floating District application.

Initiation

A

Legislative Act - Clarifies that Zoning amendments are a legislative act at the sole discretion of the Town Board. Report of the Planning Board

Amendments

Amendments

Other Provisions of Town Law Section 267-a

Rehearing

Relief from Decisions

Procedure

Procedure

C

Reimbursement for Professional Services

U

Powers and Duties

Intermunicipal Agreements

T

B

Fees

S

Creation, Appointment and Organization - Where applicable, Article XI has been revised to comply with recent changes to New York State Town Law. Powers and Duties

Violations

R

Creation, Appointment and Organization

Program Review and Reporting

Q

A

Record Keeping

P

Zoning Board of Appeals

Complaints

O

Zoning Board of Appeals

Fire Safety and Property Maintenance Inspections

N

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law Unsafe Buildings and Structures Operating Permits

Existing 1989 Zoning Law

M

Article Section L

XV

XIV

Escrow Accounts SEQR Review

C

D

Appendix B: Flood Damage Prevention Law (Local Law No.1 of 1987)

Appendix A: Town of Rhinebeck Design Guidelines

See Article 1, Section D

Professional Fees

B

Greenway Connections

Intent

Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses (Local Law No. 2 of 2006)

A

Interpretation and Application

Terms Used for Noise Regulations

H

Proposed 2008 Zoning Law Terms Used for Lighting Regulations Terms Used for Sign Regulations

Existing 1989 Zoning Law

G

Article Section F