Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board continues Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome master-plan hearing, asks for traffic study and fuller wetlands review
Summary
The Red Hook Planning Board continued public comment on the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome master plan to June 15, 2026, asking the applicants to provide a site-specific traffic study, a more complete Environmental Assessment Form addressing wetland buffers and vernal-pool impacts, and clearer definitions of proposed special events.
Chair Sam Phelan said at the June 1 meeting that the Planning Board would continue the public hearing on the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome master plan to the board's next meeting on June 15, 2026, after a night of public comment and technical testimony that left several questions unresolved.
Residents and nearby property owners raised a string of concerns about the scope and likely impacts of the Aerodrome’s proposed master plan, which would add building area, define new accessory uses, and formalize activity across a longer calendar. Tomas Wise told the board he was not opposed to the Aerodrome itself but objected to the scale and to what he described as possible unauthorized uses, saying the board should either deny the application or require further study. Multiple neighbors raised worries about traffic, noise from air shows, the visibility of new hangars and their effect on viewsheds, and potential reductions in property values.
Amy Shein, speaking for the Sawkill Watershed Community, told the board that the submitted Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) “was not complete” and did not adequately describe impacts to wetlands, wetland buffers or native wildlife; she asked the board to require a more complete EAF and a field verification by an appropriate wetland scientist. The board and applicant representative Kelly Libolt confirmed that wetlands had been delineated and that a DEC jurisdictional determination had been provided and is included in the master-plan materials, but residents pressed for additional detail about wetland buffers and whether vernal pools had been identified.
An independent traffic study presented by licensed engineer Stephan Maffia, retained by a neighbor, concluded that the proposal to expand building areas and extend operating days would increase the intensity of operations and could raise traffic on narrow local roads. Maffia said the materials provided by the applicant lacked site-specific trip-generation data and suggested that board-required traffic analysis should identify peak-hour flows on the affected roads. Board member Ariadne Montare countered that the increased square footage is intended primarily for airplane storage and that a Master Plan addresses broader issues, with more detailed site-plan review to follow for each phase.
Board members summarized the information they would need before taking action: a site-specific traffic study using trip-generation comparables appropriate to the Aerodrome’s operational profile; a revised EAF or supplemental studies that explicitly describe wetland buffers, any vernal-pool resources, and proposed activities within buffer zones; clearer definitions and examples of “miscellaneous” versus “special” events, including anticipated attendance and whether events would be indoor or outdoor; and a statement of how the Aerodrome intends to protect habitats and native species. Planning staff and consultants also requested a formal response memo from the applicants addressing the major issues raised at the hearing.
The hearing was continued to June 15 to allow the applicants to supply the requested materials. Attorney Jennifer Gray confirmed the continuation for the public record. No vote on the master plan was taken at the June 1 session.
The continued hearing is scheduled for the Planning Board’s next regular meeting on June 15, 2026. Interested parties were encouraged to submit written comments and any additional technical reports before that meeting.
