[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6624612,"mediaKeyId","2765615-a8021064a067f2830bf567a970679d2a","parentId",2765615,"title","Rhinebeck planning board accepts application for 546 Old Wertberg Road; raises questions on garage height, septic and frontage","audioSeconds",1375,"startMs",236000,"endMs",1611000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2765615-a8021064a067f2830bf567a970679d2a&start=236&end=1611","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2765615-a8021064a067f2830bf567a970679d2a/thumbnail_236000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6624612/Rhinebeck/Dutchess-County/New-York/Rhinebeck-planning-board-accepts-application-for-546-Old-Wertberg-Road-raises-questions-on-garage-height-septic-and-frontage","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624612-9822639de0083bab36ad4432ce8d2fb9/orig.mp4?Expires=1776231466&Signature=krI-nBcF1ISL~UpFCSsixT~WFgIkd0yUe-T7zmKpNGDWSayl9CAFsn3NFY~6LSq5U07-DyOk49lRKvHaMr6Ju7SH-Vnk5txvtNpe3ybSNW0hlgwPGkJRicf8J0gFPzScu-fmotPFvelM1Mb~0SMy77yXWNxjS1YdBCBSw9bkXqpI1qHxgk~2OPRPV6a2rKMo0FEwa6~1igtbRANvZxhKS~Hk~Oofu0mSSuCPT6DA5IPsgoEArUVYhI6G0Ci7o4AOoxdWkk5Qrr7WpzGl19e9PNOO4hv-9aV8IyPKuWKN0V6U8-IQRASNtg7y0GAtkHN5G7ksRW44q92-bXXhc-2l6g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Dutchess County","date","2025-03-25T21:09:20.617Z","article","An architect representing Justin and Kate McLeod presented a revised site plan for 546 Old Wertberg Road, part of the historic Markhart Farm subdivision, and the Rhinebeck Planning Board accepted a procedural resolution to treat the submission as adequate for further review and to schedule a public hearing for April 21.

The application calls for a new 5,989-square-foot, five‑bedroom single‑family home and a detached 1,479‑square‑foot four‑car garage, plus a new septic system, landscaping, and limited site clearing. Architect Carl Hanson told the board the property was previously approved for a four‑bedroom house and that the applicants added a fifth bedroom in the basement after a pre‑construction meeting prompted the change; the design team has submitted the revised septic sizing to the Dutchess County Department of Health and said DOH comments to date were minor.

Board members raised several substantive issues they said must be resolved before final approval. Planning Board Member Jim (last name not specified in transcript) flagged the garage peak as shown on the plans at 21 feet, while the town’s accessory‑structure standard limits such structures to 20 feet; he asked the applicant to confirm whether the measurement was peak height or average building height and said he would recheck the code. The board also asked for clarity on whether the existing well shown on plans would be used and whether the well met required separation distances from the proposed septic field.

The applicant reported they plan to use an existing well and have submitted the proposed septic design to DOH and to the Dutchess County environmental agency for a sanitation determination. The design team said they have chosen a heat‑pump system and proposed vegetative screening for the equipment, dark‑sky‑compliant down‑lighting, a tar‑chip driveway, blue‑stone walkways and native stone veneer and cedar/shingle materials to match the historic farm context.

Board members also discussed archaeology and historic preservation. The applicant commissioned a Phase I‑A archaeological survey by Beth Selig of Hudson Cultural Resources; the consultant reported no remains of a previously recorded Dutch barn and deemed the site low sensitivity, recommending that a deeper Phase I‑B excavation was not warranted given prior grading and earlier investigations nearby. Board members asked the applicant to overlay the historic barn footprint on the site plan so the board could see its relationship to proposed construction.

Wetland buffer and flagging details were another topic. Jim asked for the formal wetland flagging report and recommended placing temporary fencing along the 100‑foot buffer during construction, particularly when digging near the septic area. He said the applicant must label the 100‑foot buffer explicitly on plans and provide flagging documentation.

The board discussed yard/frontage issues created by the lot’s two road frontages. Jim advised that because the parcel is bounded by roads on two sides it may have two front yards under the zoning code, which would make the proposed accessory structure (the detached garage) appear in front of the principal structure from one frontage and could therefore require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. He said the planning board cannot conclude whether a variance is necessary until the zoning administrator confirms the interpretation.

The Planning Board voted to accept a draft procedural resolution classifying the application as Type II under the town’s review (no further coordinated review required for certain state permits), to circulate materials to outside reviewers (CME, Hancock, Dutchess County planning), and to schedule a site visit and public hearing on April 21. The board instructed the applicant to provide the wetland flagging report, clarify garage height measurements on the elevations, add lighting locations and dark‑sky notes to elevations, and confirm well/septic separation details.

What happens next: the board will circulate the application to consultants and agencies, the applicant will provide the requested clarifying materials and the board will hold a public hearing on April 21. The planning board noted that if the zoning administrator determines a variance is required for the accessory structure placement the applicant will first need a ZBA determination before the planning board can grant final site plan approval.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Town of Rhinebeck Planning Board Meeting 03/17/2025","oneSentenceSummary","An architect representing Justin and Kate McLeod presented a revised site plan for 546 Old Wertberg Road, part of the historic Markhart Farm subdivision, and the Rhinebeck Planning Board accepted a procedural resolution to treat the submission as adequate for further review and to schedule a public hearing for April 21.","taxTitle","Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York","taxId",62384,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6624597,"Planning board continues site plan public hearing on driveway dispute at Packard Cook/Ackerd Hook Road to April 21",2335,5098000,7433000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2765615-a8021064a067f2830bf567a970679d2a&start=5098&end=7433","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2765615-a8021064a067f2830bf567a970679d2a/thumbnail_5098000.jpg","/articles/6624597/Rhinebeck/Dutchess-County/New-York/Planning-board-continues-site-plan-public-hearing-on-driveway-dispute-at-Packard-CookAckerd-Hook-Road-to-April-21","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624597-eb505aff962077a6e1ba18a09a99574c/orig.mp4?Expires=1776231466&Signature=eupedHkw5tlDOf0iebmpjv2WqQzWJA2ANNVyzCdWYyFV7A4LojpJcAdZGnKdjWSFp8DbZ5c6rs0aikL2qHeA8qSk51Qvz0bHBXFTasI-QRfR4tao7DkqDXdb~aGnuf8YML-KPCT3bBwdtEnqUFXcrli7kvYVB6MAPygunBKGH0sVhEqbj0bLj-qzYgYn4~RHeFJW~xtmGYVHGBEAHvCt4Mfih-V59fR0m9bQtG92IKIfmKiV7uGcusQwr3KwbU62o3kpOSF9yEdNv~MKPKjWipXFUOQQEN9KKHoff5k0~B0UFuEyw2wdCuw2mEpxzvF8UwiBlxQzHCkVAtrDR1WL5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Rhinebeck Planning Board continued a public hearing on a contested single‑family site plan because applicants and the board have not agreed on where the driveway should connect to the public road network. Neighbors and board members have repeatedly urged the applicant to use the established Barrett/Veratilen (referred to in the transcript as Barrett Tyler) Road easement rather than creating a new cut on Packard Cook Road (sometimes transcribed as Ackerhook/Ackerd Hook), citing historical map notes, safety concerns with sightlines and the existing town roadway layout.

Planning staff and board members summarized the history of the parcel and earlier subdivisions showing a common access easement that the board says was intended to serve lots in the area; the applicant has argued that a neighboring lot used a different access arrangement and said they prefer the Packard Cook Road location. The board requested a clear, written statement from the applicant by the April meeting confirming which driveway alternative they intend to pursue and asked the applicant to provide engineering plans (graded sections, cut/fill, retaining walls, slope stabilization and drainage) if they intend to pursue the Packard Cook Road cut.

Board members noted an outstanding stop‑work/notice of violation related to prior on‑site activity that will have to be addressed as part of any final approval; they also pointed out that remediation or mitigation required by enforcement would affect the final site plan approval. Several board members cautioned against spending significant engineering dollars if the applicant intends to follow the board’s preferred route (Barrett/Veratilen Road) because the design approaches are substantially different and could require more tree removal and slope cuts on the Packard Cook option.

The Planning Board voted to continue the public hearing to April 21 and asked staff to send a letter to the applicants asking them to state by that date whether they will proceed with the Packard Cook driveway or adopt the Barrett/Veratilen access and to provide associated engineering documentation if they propose the Packard Cook cut.

","The Rhinebeck Planning Board continued a public hearing on a single‑family site plan because the applicant has not yet decided whether the driveway will connect at Packard Cook Road or via an existing Barrett/Veratilen easement; the board asked the applicant to confirm the chosen route and to supply engineering plans for any Packard Cook cut by April 21.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6624602,"Subdivision concept for Pilgrim's Progress area delayed; board wants legal and ODA clarity for landlocked lots",466,3727000,4193000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2765615-a8021064a067f2830bf567a970679d2a&start=3727&end=4193","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2765615-a8021064a067f2830bf567a970679d2a/thumbnail_3727000.jpg","/articles/6624602/Rhinebeck/Dutchess-County/New-York/Subdivision-concept-for-Pilgrims-Progress-area-delayed-board-wants-legal-and-ODA-clarity-for-landlocked-lots","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624602-f7077df89501251d2d3c7b5d880e22af/orig.mp4?Expires=1776231466&Signature=EaiASYhnax-Td4UbdYzNrFyvo00C9IRqo7bGl6AiY~u6VDRYvH-FradbhXY8dlPuT0ox~fpQkKjlCTOMSxSWGAF6ZULo52I38ZH~iBOCr6oEMQYSc49R3WmZmUBjx1Jx48928UTZAg8TnWmA6sKOrXhO~21zOpVVUlDkuip6sZtStDoyh6A-J1iKbQszeovGHTw0V0ZUwI1jTenyTHUqmss-nu-mYLUJaMUeNRV9Y05YAHfEHUZuqoMUqnAsfjaugmaGaEdwHm5LuMUuLlenUuUSgFdRUw203v9NiMLCozat63vac96QWvo0rKPBGe77RCxUs7Xb2TiAHC~siNZQ~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A proposed subdivision that would create large “estate lots” reached the Rhinebeck Planning Board but was not placed on a public hearing calendar. Applicant representative Nick Bussell described a plan to subdivide a parcel into multiple large lots with egress beneath Central Hudson transmission lines; Bussell said he and his team have filed required Central Hudson applications for access beneath the lines and own the corner parcel where the egress would begin.

Planning board members expressed concern that the submission lacks written legal analysis showing the lots can be subdivided without standard road frontage. The board’s consultant and staff reminded the applicants the town code requires either frontage on a public road or an Open Development Area (ODA) approval by the Town Board to create lots without direct frontage. The board advised the applicants to consult with town counsel (John Lyons cited in the discussion) and to confirm whether the parcel is actually landlocked or whether a surveyed boundary places the parcel with legal access elsewhere (the applicants said they are investigating whether a surveyed map may show a different boundary).

Board members also said the submission must include the multi‑step analysis required by the town code when a developer opts for a conventional (lot‑by‑lot) subdivision rather than the conservation‑subdivision default. The conservation‑subdivision process requires demonstration that the conservation alternative is not feasible before the board will accept a conventional layout; the planning board said the packet presented lacked the required analysis, mapping and justification to make that showing.

Given those outstanding legal and procedural issues — confirmation of frontage/access, ODA needs and the conservation‑subdivision analysis — the board declined to schedule a public hearing and asked the applicants to return with written clarifications and any required easement documentation and ODA filings. Planning staff advised the applicants to meet with town counsel, supply documentation from Central Hudson on the access application, and follow up with the planning office to resubmit when the legal questions have been addressed.

","Developers proposing estate lots with access under Central Hudson power lines were told to resolve legal frontage, open development area (ODA) requirements and easement/utility approvals before the board will schedule a public hearing.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6624606,"Planning board to seek town engineer review after Rhinebeck Villas developers present revised hotel plan; public hearing set for April 21",2056,1644000,3700000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2765615-a8021064a067f2830bf567a970679d2a&start=1644&end=3700","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2765615-a8021064a067f2830bf567a970679d2a/thumbnail_1644000.jpg","/articles/6624606/Rhinebeck/Dutchess-County/New-York/Planning-board-to-seek-town-engineer-review-after-Rhinebeck-Villas-developers-present-revised-hotel-plan-public-hearing-set-for-April-21","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624606-1367e36b832b9c41a0a0bae215101ca2/orig.mp4?Expires=1776231466&Signature=NzbZLysEUZ1dVf6nEfXj5us1whIPaF-5jsUJ7eu9vuP42CDyaM~~2Q8rCaEmvgGCSsmWQy5ctI-PLEspjLtUglMEar3HSXOUNgGMWOZlVfTpZjdpqDagDS5FGkrXkrLxs9KE2WAGp8uwE4wFs1M8D58hWNcSCJLNYJqbtkkoEFXxl5Yjrlrw~fkZN5eB3v5-6AbtOjf2QeMfd8lm5-EzYm3qhoKRIRKWztitxwqMj1Pr-282236eBdsUE9iVJCP5ylD5UHLQ4ygHEKV~TzAKnNhnZ3iFjNqqhFTG7IbcqzPa0c5gyzsgqR-zn~d9oxddDFaSliA852TUHwjxFfDMkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Developers for Rhinebeck Villas LLC presented an updated site plan for a hotel/motel cluster on the southern portion of a 3.5‑acre parcel along Route 9G and asked the Rhinebeck Planning Board for guidance on next steps. The board agreed the plans have advanced enough that they should be circulated to the town’s designated engineer (CPL) and county agencies and scheduled for further review and a public hearing on April 21.

Project representatives said the current scheme proposes four buildings: an administration building with mixed use (lobby, business office, maintenance and a resident apartment) and three hotel buildings, serving up to 60 rooms overall and complying with zoning limits (buildings kept under the town’s 8,000‑square‑foot threshold). Architect and project team members described a hybrid hotel/motel building type with covered exterior walkways and conditioned lobbies, elevator access for handicap circulation and building massing intended to step down with the site topography.

Civil engineer Skip Francis of Creighton Manning described several substantive changes since the team’s prior presentation: a reduction in overall parking to 84 spaces based on published hotel parking ratios, replacement of an on‑site septic bed with a packaged wastewater treatment plant coordinated with Dutchess County Department of Health, and a 72‑hour pumping test that the team’s well consultant (WSP) said demonstrated usable well capacity. Francis said h2m Inc. has applied to DEC and that the DEC jurisdictional determination and SHPO coordination remain outstanding but in progress.

Fire department access was a primary topic. Board members and the developer said firefighters had expressed concern that the proposed single primary access routed through the administration building could be blocked if that structure were involved in a fire. The applicants proposed a low‑impact, permeable service drive between buildings (a non‑paved, breakaway surface capable of supporting fire apparatus) to provide a secondary egress for emergency access; the fire chief previously recommended improved circulation and the applicant said they will study the suggested service drive and share details with the board.

Board members also urged the team to forward their materials to the town’s consulting engineer for an early peer review; the board authorized referral to the town engineer (CPL) and asked staff to place the project on the next agenda after that review. The applicants said they would welcome an early engineering review to reduce later back‑and‑forth and accepted the board’s request to place the file on the town engineer review escrow schedule.

The planning board voted to schedule further discussion and a continuation/public hearing on April 21 and to circulate the application to CPL for technical review. The board also noted other outstanding agency steps: a DEC wetland jurisdictional determination expected soon, SHPO coordination for archaeology/historic concerns, and DEC/DOH reviews tied to wastewater treatment and well capacity.

What happens next: the applicant will arrange additional materials requested by the board and the planning staff will refer the submission to the town engineer; pending that review the board will hold a public hearing on April 21 for broader public input.","Rhinebeck Villas LLC returned with revised drawings for a multi‑building hotel and administrative complex along Route 9G; the board reduced parking and the applicants moved from a septic bed to a packaged treatment plant and agreed to send plans to the town engineer and county agencies before a public hearing on April 21.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6624591,"Planning board finds Rhinebeck Sport & Spine sign acceptable but flags Mike’s Tree Service sign as violating size/typeface limits",380,7238000,7618000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2765615-a8021064a067f2830bf567a970679d2a&start=7238&end=7618","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2765615-a8021064a067f2830bf567a970679d2a/thumbnail_7238000.jpg","/articles/6624591/Rhinebeck/Dutchess-County/New-York/Planning-board-finds-Rhinebeck-Sport-Spine-sign-acceptable-but-flags-Mikes-Tree-Service-sign-as-violating-sizetypeface-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624591-a75a5d9b68a50601c8fed56d50834c6f/orig.mp4?Expires=1776231466&Signature=J-vKH9WTJMhjT9g8ju2WQXZEZVfXuq3f6tK76nwPOREaoUfOpBKMlQWgSbivrcWw81525UNHarrzCBLjDGYjrD5C0HEnUrBjSsoBl8z0IWnlhpMxevt0-Sh7H20ezWgvfSLuNXZOrT-fog5J~YNnMXyoJw4S2r359BHFHZW91y1MG5gFxK4WMVWipCPZMspV2-51iLPpR8~2pUL9U5YNeBbjf8PN01KmlAthF3FThX7d7DEMpcmsbXk~pe79FZQJSF9cXh1tiPTjImFgltHx5Nf48OPeCz0Z7lJcQqSc9iHMREpOtdQXf7k7oltNjXWHkiwBC~l1lsNxmhHbfj~upw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Rhinebeck Planning Board reviewed two commercial sign installations and concluded Rhinebeck Sport & Spine’s new sign complies with the town’s sign code, but that the sign installed for Mike’s Tree Service does not meet the permitted typeface coverage and should be corrected.

Planning staff reported that the signs placed in front of the businesses did not match the graphic design approved previously; the zoning officer referred the matter to the board because the installed Mike’s Tree Service sign appears to exceed the town’s 60% maximum typeface coverage for its sign area. The board examined the applicant‑provided photos and a rough area breakdown prepared by planning staff comparing the approved layout to the installed signs.

Staff estimated that the Sport & Spine sign fell within allowable coverage and did not recommend action; several board members also expressed aesthetic preferences but said those are separate from code compliance. By contrast, the Mike’s Tree Service sign was estimated to exceed the allowed typeface area even under generous allowances for measurement error. Board members said the change from the approved artwork is a violation of the permit and that the business should either reinstall the previously approved sign or apply for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

A referral resolution recorded the board’s recommendation: accept the Sport & Spine sign as meeting the code and recommend that the Mike’s Tree Service sign be returned to the approved design rather than granting a variance. The motion passed with a majority vote; one board member dissented on aesthetics but supported enforcement of the code. Planning staff will notify the property owner and the zoning enforcement officer of the board’s findings.

","After reviewing installed signs, the board concluded the Rhinebeck Sport & Spine sign meets code but that the recently installed Mike’s Tree Service sign exceeds the permitted typeface coverage; board recommended the business reinstall the originally approved design rather than seek a variance.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Rhinebeck planning board accepts application for 546 Old Wertberg Road; raises questions on garage height, septic and frontage

Planning board continues site plan public hearing on driveway dispute at Packard Cook/Ackerd Hook Road to April 21

Subdivision concept for Pilgrim's Progress area delayed; board wants legal and ODA clarity for landlocked lots

Planning board to seek town engineer review after Rhinebeck Villas developers present revised hotel plan; public hearing set for April 21

Planning board finds Rhinebeck Sport & Spine sign acceptable but flags Mike’s Tree Service sign as violating size/typeface limits