Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rhinebeck planning board continues review of large conservation‑subdivision and hotel proposal amid wetlands, water and contamination concerns
Summary
The Town of Rhinebeck Planning Board continued its review of a multi‑lot conservation subdivision and hotel project and directed staff to draft a Part 3 SEQR write‑up after lengthy discussion about DEC wetland jurisdiction, wastewater siting, a 72‑hour well test and neighbors' requests for more testing and safeguards.
The Town of Rhinebeck Planning Board on a late‑evening session continued a months‑long review of a large conservation‑subdivision and hotel proposal and asked planning staff to draft a Part 3 environmental review based on the Part 2 SEQR discussion.
The applicant’s representative, Sean Kemp, told the board that consultants have been coordinating with state and county agencies on jurisdictional wetland mapping and on stormwater and wastewater design. Kemp said the project team has submitted a 72‑hour pump test and laboratory analyses prepared by WSP and that the County Department of Health issued a sewage‑flow confirmation letter finding the projected daily flow acceptable pending DEC review.
Board members and neighbors focused much of the meeting on two questions: whether DEC’s jurisdictional mapping over the site—and recent clarifications about which map the agency will use—changes permit needs, and whether the available well testing and historical materials justify requiring additional independent testing or a more extensive SEQR response. Several board members noted that DEC and DOH retain technical jurisdiction over wetlands and wastewater, and that the planning board typically defers to those agencies’ regulatory expertise on specific permit standards.
Neighbors urged stronger safeguards. Mark Weeder read a prepared statement urging “additional independent testing to ensure that this project will not have a long‑term impact on neighboring wells and groundwater” and suggested an escrow or other financial guarantee to cover potential future well remediation. Another commenter asked the board to reconsider the planned location of the wastewater treatment facility, arguing it should be sited closer to the hotel to simplify oversight and maintenance.
Applicant consultants acknowledged some older letters in the record that describe historical concerns and said they have been in contact with DEC to clarify jurisdictional questions; they also described design choices intended to minimize site disturbance, such as using preserved open space and limiting stream crossings. The project team said they will continue outreach to local land trusts about long‑term conservation ownership but have not yet secured a land‑trust partner; instead they plan open‑space ownership through a homeowners association if needed.
After extended discussion, the board voted to direct planning consultant Jim (staff) to prepare a draft Part 3 SEQR write‑up reflecting the Part 2 findings and the technical issues raised at the meeting. The board also agreed to continue the public hearing and circulate the draft for review before making a final SEQR determination; dates discussed for the continuance included June 1 and June 15.
The next procedural steps are clear: the planning staff will post the Part 3 draft for public review, the board will receive any redlines or additional materials from the applicant, and the board will consider the Part 3 before deciding whether further study (an environmental impact statement) is required. The public hearing remains open.
