Rhinebeck planning board continues review of workforce housing project after hours of testimony

The Rhinebeck Planning Board on Tuesday continued its public hearing on a proposed workforce housing development after lengthy technical presentations and sustained public comment, setting the next hearing date for Aug. 18.

The board’s engineering reviewer, Christian Poggi, told the board the project team and town have been addressing long-running review issues dating to September 2024 and that most technical reviews are well advanced but still need “buttoning up.” Poggi said the site “disturbs much more than 5 acres,” which triggers post-construction stormwater requirements, and that the project team has submitted a stormwater pollution prevention plan. He told the board the applicants estimate about 3,500 cubic yards of material would be removed from the site and said that could amount to roughly 300 truck trips overall if removed by dump truck; the applicant later described a likely construction pace of roughly 10–20 truck trips per day during active hauling periods.

Poggi and other reviewers identified outstanding permitting and design items the board should watch for: Department of Transportation (DOT) final work permits for the site entrance, Department of Health comments on water and sewer connections, Army Corps and DEC interactions for wetlands, and final stormwater treatment details given shallow bedrock on parts of the site. Poggi recommended coordination with the town highway superintendent and suggested a developers’ agreement or plan notes to address any town-road damage from construction traffic.

Edie Garner, the project civil engineer with CPL, summarized recent plan changes and noted utility, sewer, drainage and DOT submissions are in progress. Garner also said the layout had not materially changed since the prior submission and that DOT and the health department had returned initial comments.

Residents raised multiple concerns in public comment, including traffic and safety at the Route 9/entrance intersection, truck traffic during construction, tree loss and long-term maintenance of landscaping. Chuck Jacobs, a nearby resident, said the curved, hilly section of roadway near the proposed entrance can be hard to cross and described the intersection as dangerous, saying drivers “are doing 50” on that stretch. Wells Manor residents asked for a meeting with the applicant and for clearer information about blasting, noise and daily construction impacts for an elderly population nearby.

John Clark, a member of the Village Planning Board, and others from the village planning process urged the planning board to design the site to support future pedestrian connections to the village, including tree lawns and on-street parking to create a more “village-like” street edge. A representative of the applicant told the board the project was designed to extend a future road to the applicant’s adjoining parcel and that the owner would not sell the adjacent parcel, saying the design anticipates future connectivity to the village.

On technical matters the board discussed: the project team has submitted the short Environmental Assessment Form (short EAF) tied to the town’s environmental review process; the developer has executed village water and sewer agreements to allow service connections; the team is proposing bioretention and detention practices, and has documented why infiltration-based green infrastructure is limited in places because of bedrock; and electric vehicle charging stations proposed appear to be Level 2 chargers. Board members and reviewers also discussed tree-retention requirements in the town code and a three-year maintenance obligation for newly planted vegetation.

The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) has already taken a straw poll to grant requested variances and has scheduled a formal ZBA vote for Aug. 20, the planning board was told. The planning board voted to continue the public hearing to Aug. 18, with no final vote on site plan approval this evening.

The board asked applicants to provide revised materials before the next meeting that address DOT work-permit submittal and final comments from the health department, DEC/Army Corps wetlands coordination and a more detailed plan note strategy for construction traffic and road repair. Several board members urged clear documentation about how and when rock removal or blasting will be done and whether material can be reused on-site for grading.

The hearing remains open and the planning board encouraged written comments and asked the applicants to provide requested materials in the next submission period.