Rhinebeck planning board continues review of 100‑acre conservation subdivision after residents raise contamination and water‑supply concerns

The Rhinebeck Planning Board continued the public hearing on a proposed conservation subdivision covering roughly 100 acres after residents and board members pressed for more technical review and testing.

Greg Tripp, a consultant with GPI, told the board the project team has begun outreach to local land trusts and submitted responses to comments from CPL, and that DEC guidance is being sought to clarify a previously issued jurisdictional determination. “We’ve started that process,” Tripp said, and the applicant will issue a formal comment‑response letter before the next hearing.

Speakers and consultants spent much of the session focusing on how the site plan handles streams, driveway access and the conservation easement. A planning‑board adviser who reviewed the Rhinebeck Natural Resource Inventory map warned the proposal currently requires at least two stream crossings and said substantial bridge work would be necessary to carry construction and emergency vehicles. The adviser noted one recent bridge replacement project’s engineering and construction costs approached $100,000.

Residents urged the board to require further testing before permitting construction. “We don’t know what the soil looks like there. We don’t know what the water is,” said Jeff Carter, who said he provided DEC records to the board and asked that the applicant conduct broader soil borings and water tests to confirm there were no buried dumps or contaminants on or near the site. Nancy Schomel, another neighbor, said her private well has been unusable and that she has submitted a New York State private‑well testing notice; “I have not been able to drink my own water because it’s contaminated,” she said.

The applicant and its consultants said they have provided substantial materials and that targeted testing and bedrock probes are possible options, but also stressed such work requires the board to identify specific locations and contaminants to test for. “We need baseline information about where to look and what to look for,” a planning official said. Consultants noted that some targeted probes and a limited number of soil samples could be affordable and would provide useful information for SEQR Part 2 review.

Board and staff members recognized multiple technical items remain open — including stormwater design, septic/percolation details, bedrock locations and a final traffic/driveway determination with DOT. Members discussed options for clustering lots, forming an HOA, and creating a land trust to manage conserved acreage, but noted some changes would require code adjustments or variances.

After hearing public testimony and consultant input, the board voted to continue the public hearing to May 18, 2026, and asked the applicant to submit outstanding materials and a summary of the remaining technical items by email in advance of the next session. No final determinations were made on contamination allegations, and the board said it would use the additional materials to determine whether further sampling is required.