Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Wetlands Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stadsburg Holdings site plan discussion focuses on wetlands, easements and potential trail reservation
Summary
The planning board reviewed revisions to the Stadsburg Holdings site plan (group 9G) and received updates on wetlands delineation, Central Hudson easement coordination, DOT road‑cut permitting and reservation of land for a future rail‑trail corridor.
The Rhinebeck Planning Board discussed changes to the Stadsburg Holdings LLC (Group 9G) site plan and special‑use application for property associated with Floyd Shelton, including an updated landscaping plan, adjustments to avoid development within wetland boundaries and outstanding easement approvals.
The applicant reported that wetlands on the site were delineated and the plan was adjusted so there is no development within the wetland boundary or its 100‑foot setback. The project team said the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) visited the site and has been emailed; DEC staff verbally agreed with the delineation but declined to provide a written jurisdictional determination. The applicant asked the board whether the planning board wants them to pursue a certified jurisdictional determination given DEC’s site visit and email agreement.
The applicant said Central Hudson must sign off on work near its easement; the applicant has been in contact with Central Hudson but has not yet received written approval. The project also will trigger stormwater review because the proposed disturbance exceeds one acre, and the applicant is pursuing the required stormwater and DOT road‑cut permits for use of a previously existing road cut.
Board members and staff raised the site’s inclusion in the Land Conservation Trails (LCT) zoning district, which protects the former Hucklebush rail corridor for potential future multiuse trail use. Staff recommended reserving the side‑yard area (about 30–35 feet) to preserve the corridor for future trail or conservation uses and noting that reservation on plans so the acreage isn’t penalized when calculating density.
Board members suggested adding fencing or boulders as low‑impact barriers where appropriate, and asked the applicant to update the site plan to show the chosen landscaping alternative (the applicant had submitted two options, one with a small gathering area).
The board did not take a final vote; members asked the applicant to pursue outstanding agency letters (Central Hudson, DEC jurisdictional determination if the board wants it) and to return with clarified landscaping and documentation.
