Rhinebeck opens hearing on workforce-housing rezoning; decision continued to June 9

The Town Board of Rhinebeck opened a public hearing May 20 on a proposed local law to rezone a parcel between Aster Drive and Rhine Cliff Road (tax parcel 6170002233360000) to permit an affordable workforce housing development in the village gateway (VG) workforce housing district. The board said it will keep the hearing open and continue consideration at its next meeting on June 9, after referrals to town committees and other agencies are returned.

The proposed rezoning is tied to a concept plan the board has reviewed and a negative declaration the town board issued during its environmental review, meaning the board concluded the proposal did not require a draft environmental impact statement under its review. If the board adopts the local law, the project will proceed to site-plan review before the planning board; construction can commence only after those steps are completed.

Why it matters: the rezoning would create a floating workforce-housing zone on land adjacent to village water and sewer, enabling development the town and village have sought for years to add affordable units near the village center. Supporters say the project would increase locally available housing and help local businesses; opponents and advisory boards raised concerns about site design, tree removal, topographic alteration and pedestrian access.

Developer and board context Ken Carney of Carney Realty Group, who identified himself as the developer on the project, told the board his firm does not use vinyl siding (they use hardy plank), that the buildings will be site-built rather than prefabricated and that his company will retain and manage the units rather than sell them. He said the firm has New York State Department of Transportation conceptual approval for road work and has arranged for school-bus pickups on site with the Rhinebeck Central School District.

Town staff and the board said the town board has acted as lead agency for environmental review and adopted a concept plan and the local law’s text that lists the reports and submissions considered. The board also said it has sent referrals to the county planning department (which replied in broad support and called the matter local concern), the planning board, the conservation advisory board and the waterfront advisory committee; the hearing will remain open until those referrals return.

Public comment—support and concerns Craig Olsheski, a member of the town planning board speaking as a resident, said he supports workforce housing but urged that the planning-board site-plan process be allowed to ensure walkability, adequate outdoor space and compatibility with the town’s character. “With the proposed action, the town board seems prepared to preemptively override the determination of the planning board before any such hearing or review has taken place,” he said.

Members of the Conservation Advisory Board, represented at the meeting by Vincent Delaveca, said the CAB supports workforce housing in principle but raised multiple process and environmental concerns. Delaveca said the CAB submitted comments as early as June 2022 and has received no formal response, creating the appearance of exclusion from a role the CAB says the town code requires during concept review (transcript reference: town code 125763). He said the current site plan proposes extensive grading, tree removal and rock outcrop disturbance that conflict with the comprehensive plan, the local waterfront revitalization program and the town’s scenic-roads provisions. He also cited New York State Environmental Conservation Law Article 8 and urged the board to ensure the town met the “hard look” standard required for large-scale regrading and stormwater impacts.

Opponents also raised design and access issues. A resident who previously served as a realtor said the absence of studio units would force multiple occupants into one apartment and reduce privacy and dignity for single-person households. Cornelia Gallo, a village resident, said she is concerned that residents of the new units will not necessarily work locally and that the site’s assumed vehicle ownership (1.5 cars per unit) may underestimate traffic impacts on the village intersection used for egress.

Supporters said the site is appropriate. Steve Rosenberg, who helped create the town’s open-space and affordable-housing committee, said the location was anticipated in the town’s 2009 comprehensive plan and is appropriate because it is adjacent to village water and sewer and walkable to the village center. John Clark, a village planning-board member and resident, cited the village planning board’s January letter supporting construction of 80 affordable apartments in the town’s village gateway zoning and urged that delays make projects less affordable. Other residents described the proposal as long-planned and argued the developer and town should move forward while leaving design details to the planning-board site-plan review.

Next steps and dependencies The town board said it will hold the public hearing open and continue the matter at its June 9 meeting at 6 p.m. for consideration after referrals return. If the board adopts the local law at a subsequent meeting, the planning board will conduct site-plan review, during which architecture, landscaping, sidewalk connections, screening and other design elements would be considered.

Votes at a glance At the same meeting the board approved several procedural and consent items unanimously, including motions to hire recreation staff (motion read as "2025-1405, recreation hires"), to add an employee to the pool ("2025-147"), a contract with Crawford and Associates for a grease trap for a pavilion (motion number read as "2025-147 Crawford and Associates"), a cleanup date for Rhinecliff Pocket Park ("2025-148"), a letter in support of inclusion in the Harriet Tubman Scenic Byway ("2025-1409"), the preliminary accounts-payable abstracts ("2025-150") and capital-project abstracts ("2025-151"). Each motion was moved, seconded and passed unanimously; the board did not record roll-call tallies on the record.

What the record shows and what it does not The town board repeatedly said it has relied on the submissions made by the applicant and adopted a concept plan and a negative environmental declaration; the board also said additional referrals and planning-board review remain necessary. The meeting record does not include a final vote on the rezoning local law; the board explicitly continued the public hearing to June 9 so outstanding referrals and committee input can be received and considered.