Comp-Plan

IMPORTANT MEETING TODAY
The Rhinebeck Town Board will meet in the Hamlet to hear the Rhinecliff Hamlet Advisory Council’s presentation on the Comp Plan and the Zoning Law. Rhinecliff residents are strongly urged to attend this meeting.

Where: Rhinecliff Firehouse

When: Thursday, April 14, 7 p.m.

The Rhinecliff Hamlet Advisory Council will give Rhinecliff residents a preview of the presentation it plans to give to the Town Board concerning the Comp Plan and the Zoning Law. Residents are strongly urged to attend this meeting to give the Council feedback on its planned presentation.

Where: Rhinecliff Firehouse

When: Thursday, April 10, 7 p.m.

To: Members of the Rhinebeck Town Board
Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan
Date: July 24, 2006

In the three years since participating in the Rhinecliff visioning session, I have attended many, if not most, of the intervening Comprehensive Plan meetings and public hearings. I also served as a member of the Rhinecliff Zoning subcommittee. I have unfortunately come to the conclusion that the members of the Comprehensive Plan Committee believed that they knew what was best for the town from the beginning and that the so-called process was all about supporting their original conclusions.

In their zeal to promote their plan, the Comprehensive Plan Committee missed out on the opportunity to include the community in the process and to learn from the experience of similar communities. One of the greatest failings of this Plan is that it does not include the work of Randall Arendt. Randall is the author of more than 20 publications, including “Rural by Design”. Mr. Arendt’s work is particularly well suited to the needs of our community. Other failings of the plan include the misguided use of “Smart Growth” to promote “Traditional Neighborhood Developments” (TNDs) in Rhinecliff and on Route 9, and the failure to include zoning specifications for the hamlet of Rhinecliff.

I believe that the Comprehensive Plan Committee’s reliance on “Smart Growth” is misguided and that the principles of Smart Growth have been poorly applied. “Smart Growth” is perhaps the best Orwellian name ever. How can anyone oppose smart growth? Would you rather plan your community around dumb growth? Smart Growth is a huge movement financed by developers who love density and infrastructure, and is supported by land conservancy groups who cannot see the forest for the trees. That aside, let’s look at how the Comprehensive Plan Committee applies the principles of Smart Growth to their plan.

Of the ten “Principals of Smart Growth”, there are three that are site specific.

1 Create Walkable Neighborhoods…
walkability, according to most experts - including the Congress of New Urbanism, is ¼ mile of flat open land with something worth walking to.

2 Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities…
directs development towards existing communities already served by infrastructure, seeking to utilize the resources that existing neighborhoods offer - i.e. water, sewer, stores, roads and parks.

3 Provide a variety of transportation choices

The biggest problem with the so-called TNDs is that they have been fixed in their locations without any supporting studies of environmental impacts and constraints, traffic impacts, and walkability.

The only rational place to locate a Smart Growth TND would be directly adjacent to the village. This is where all of the infrastructure is and the only place that would be walkable to the village and its services, the Star library, the pool and the proposed Thompson Mazzarella park.

I am very troubled that the Comprehensive Plan Committee continues to suggest that their TND experts, invited to address the committee and community, were supportive of the proposed TNDs. There is no supporting documentation in the plan. I was at this meeting and I would conclude that these experts were anything but supportive. I would like to see something in writing that indicates exactly their professional conclusion about these TNDs and their proposed locations.

At one hearing I asked that the Committee provide three examples of successful TNDs that are similar in size and circumstance to the proposed Rhinebeck TNDs. The subsequently provided examples are nothing like the proposed TNDs, and include mostly urban and suburban developments. One example was in a brown field in urban Denver. In all examples, the TNDs were developed on flat land. I have spent a lot of time looking for TNDs similar to those proposed in Rhinecliff and on Route 9, and have been unable to find any. This leads me to conclude that there was something seriously wrong with the process that led to these proposals.

It has been more than two years since the Comprehensive Plan Committee came to Rhinecliff with their plan to drastically expand the hamlet through the addition of the TND. There have been small modifications, but it is essentially the same plan that appears in the final document today. Frustrated by this plan, a group of Rhinecliff residents informally organized and began to look into alternatives. We found that the most recent work of Randall Arendt on Conservation Subdivision Design seems to be perfect for our community. We went as far as to demonstrate how this concept could be applied to the Creed property (the location for the proposed TND). A great deal of time and effort was put into a presentation that we made to the Comprehensive Plan Committee. This presentation can be viewed at rhinecliff.org. The reaction from the Rhinecliff community was great; the reaction from the Comprehensive Plan Committee was completely dismissive.

Believing that Conservation Subdivision Design was a very important but completely overlooked planning tool, we continued advocating for its inclusion in the plan. At one Comprehensive Plan Committee meeting, I was told by the Committee Chair that they had been using Conservation Subdivision Design for years and that it is already in the plan.

When the first draft of the plan was presented, the words Conservation Subdivision Design appeared once in quotes, but none of the provisions were spelled out. There was a recommendation that any developer wanting to subdivide would have to watch a video “Conserving Rural Character”. This video was produced by the Center for Rural Massachusetts in 1988 and was in fact narrated by a younger Randall Arendt. In my comments in response to the proposed plan I pointed out that the video was terribly out-of-date. I even provided two recent videos to the Comprehensive Plan Committee.

In the Comprehensive Plan Committee’s written responses to the Public hearing on December 12, 2005, the Committee acknowledged the error and stated on page 21:

“The video by Randall Arendt noted by the commenter is one of several that have been produced over the years on conservation subdivision design. The Committee will ensure that the most recent efforts by Mr. Arendt to illustrate Conservation Subdivision Design concepts are available at Town Hall.”

In the final draft of the Plan, Conservation Subdivision Design again appears only once in quotes and the video is the same 1988 video from the first draft. I wonder if it will be available on VHS or BETA.

As a member of the Rhinecliff Zoning Subcommittee, I would also like to point out that despite repeatedly voting to retain the current 1-acre zoning in Rhinecliff, the plan fails to include any zoning recommendation for the hamlet. It is the only place in town for which the Committee has made no zoning recommendation.

Based on all of my involvement with the Comprehensive Plan Committee, my inevitable conclusion is that the Committee decided what they wanted to push on the community from the beginning and never even looked to see what tools are available and being used by the best communities to preserve rural character.

My first involvement in this process was more than three years ago, as a participant in the Rhincliff visioning session. The overwhelming response of the residents of the hamlet was - and still is - that the hamlet should be protected by a greenbelt and that any development in the area be very limited.

I urge the Town to take a serious and critical look at the Plan and adjust its many inconsistencies. Part of this process should include examining the work of Randall Arendt and other conservation tools used successfully by similar communities.

The Town should also, through the Comprehensive Plan, clearly state.

“Due to the historic importance of Rhinecliff and the surrounding area, its fragile narrow streets and natural constraints, it is inappropriate for any significant increases in density. Rhinecliff should to be protected by a well-defined greenbelt.”

Thank You

Andrew Sheppard

July 21, 2006

Dear Supervisor Block, the Comprehensive Plan Committee and Members of the Rhinebeck Town Board:

This letter focuses on a situation that merits consideration in plans for our area’s future: traffic safety in Rhinecliff.

A car nearly clipped a woman when jogging. A school bus and car collided on a sharp curve. Cars killed three cats next door, and a dog down the street. An older lifelong resident who likes to walk says, “You wouldn’t believe how cars fly by.” And drivers rushing to catch the train often blow right past the stop sign – a shock to a mother waiting to cross with a baby carriage. Speeding cars and trucks are a concern each and every day on Kelly Street.

We live on Kelly Street with our two young children, Lily, aged 2, and Nicholas, aged 4. More than a dozen other young children also live along this street. We walk with our children to the library, to the post office and to the river’s edge. We walk a lot – it’s part of why we love Rhinecliff.

Attached is a field investigation that we commissioned because we were so concerned about traffic safety:

1. Chazen Engineering identified non-compliance with stopping site distance requirements at nine locations along Kelly Street. Nine locations failed to comply with Dutchess County Department of Public Works (DCDPW) standards, among them four locations that also failed to comply with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The report also found “difficult pedestrian travel” and “no pedestrian travel ways”.

2. A petition signed by residents of 30 houses along Kelly Street asked the Town of Rhinebeck to arrange for a qualified traffic engineer to meet with residents and discuss options for a lasting solution.

3. The petition and engineering report were submitted to the Town of Rhinebeck in April 2003 and again in April 2005.

No effective action has been taken. Several yellow signs posted last year make no impact on speed, according to the New York State Highway Design Manual and our experience.

We do have options: squeeze lanes with curbs and paint, alter the road surface, reclassify the street so the double lines can be repainted white, return curves to four-corners, create paths or pedestrian walkways, add highly visible “Welcome to …” signage, conduct driver awareness campaigns, and enforce a legal speed limit of 25 mph or less. Let’s discuss these options and others.

While the number of cars may be low today, traffic pressure is certain to increase. And although the engineering report covers only one street, people in all parts of the hamlet tell us that they are concerned about traffic. Development proposals surround Rhinecliff but no professional, comprehensive, effective plan to manage traffic is on the table.

Real dangers go unaddressed; we need action now before volume grows.

Sincerely,

Chris Gould and Susan Guthridge-Gould

Town Board
Town of Rhinebeck
80 East Market Street
Rhinebeck, NY 12572

To the Supervisor and Members of the Town Board:

I doubt if any serious issues regarding the Comprehensive Plan have yet to be adequately addressed before you so the following are some random thoughts.

FYI, I have a home in Rhinecliff since 1980 and have been a year-round weekender during 1980-82 and from1996 to the present, during the interim keeping in touch with visits, the Gazette-Advertiser, and Rhinecliff and Rhinebeck friends.

I.  It’s about re-zoning with minimal harm.

The draft Comprehensive Plan is ambitious to the extreme—it addresses so many issues that the reason for its existence gets lost:  i.e., setting the rules and spirit for land use in the Town of Rhinebeck for years to come.  

In his excellent letter to you dated June 19, 2006, Michael Trimble stated the challenge concisely:
It is not how much land you require in a building site that matters, but the carrying capacity of the land to support a proposed use without causing environmental, economic or aesthetic harm.  
To this I would add “or a significant reduction in the quality of life currently enjoyed by the community”.   

A comprehensive plan is the required preliminary to new or modified zoning.  If the Town Board can achieve a Comprehensive Plan that rezones without causing environmental, economic or esthetic harm and avoids significant deterioration of the high quality of life we now enjoy in Rhinebeck, it will have done us a great service.  

II. Rhinecliff:  Rhinebeck’s discardable asset
 
The draft Plan greatly underestimates the present and future value of Rhinecliff to the Town.  The Plan appears to regard Rhinecliff as a random collection of ragtag houses that once housed Rhinebeck’s servant class and now can be subjected to development with impunity.  
To the contrary, Rhinecliff is Rhinebeck’s underappreciated gem and future asset.  Most of its homes have undergone or are undergoing major renovations.  Rhinecliff residents are architects, artists, photographers, writers, economists, lawyers, journalists, restaurateurs and psychologists.  Its eclectic atmosphere is an attraction not otherwise present in Rhinebeck.  It has the river. And it is small; people know one another and meet and mix in ways that is impossible to simply create.  

Arbitrarily tacking on population density and modern housing will dilute Rhinecliff’s unique appeal and possibly even reverse it.  Rhinebeck should be encouraging this unique community that most towns would fight hard to obtain.

III. They gain; we lose.  

We must ask who wins and who loses.  The developers of course are here to make profits—very large profits.  Most of them will not live in Rhinebeck; those that do clearly don’t mind that much will be lost.  

The residents will not make profits:  projections of increased housing prices beyond the increases already occurring are highly speculative and unlikely to occur.  Far worse, current residents will lose many of the elements of Rhinebeck living that they value the most:  its rural character, the lovely roads, unspoiled woods, clean air, quiet days and nights without the sounds of population, and the ability to see the stars.  We in Rhinecliff would get congestion, busy streets and air, noise and light pollution. Some speculate that Rhinecliff would get sewers at the expense of the developers; but no developer is going to pay for the very expensive lines and individual hookups.  Some say Rhinecliff could have a commercial district; but we don’t need to be a “little Rhinebeck Village”.   And anyone who has successfully run a retail operation will tell you that Rhinecliff is far short of the market numbers—by an order of magnitude—needed to sustain a shop or service location and that commuters shop at home, not by their train station.

Some bargain.  Rhinebeck residents give up the ambiance that brought them here so a few people can make a huge amount of money.  It’s a deal to turn P.T. Barnum green with envy.

IV. For the record:

I agree with Michael Trimble’s eloquent letter critiquing the “TND” approach of the draft Plan.  

I agree with Kerry Trueman’s letter that walkability is much more complex and difficult to achieve than the Plan assumes and that Rhinecliff provides little or no potential for walkability other than casual strolling.  (How can it be a walkable community if its children cannot walk to school?)

I believe that the Town will not be able to protect the beauty of River Road, Morton Road or Mill Road if even a fraction of the development now proposed is permitted to be built.  All three will either be widened or will no longer be safe for jogging, cycling, or even casual drives.

The Town must confront with urgency and creative planning the coming crisis around the Rhinecliff train station.  Traffic at the station already is dominated by Ulster County residents with many more expected.  Additional parking will only attract more cars.  Shuttle buses are never accepted by commuters.  Long-term solutions likely include convincing Amtrak and Metro North to open an additional station at Barrytown or Staatsburg by limiting further expansion in Rhinecliff.  

A greenbelt around Rhinecliff will address some of the problems of growth we have uncovered in this process but it can only be part of the solution.

Affordable housing in a Town with such uniformly high property costs is likely to be achieved only by approving individual multi-family housing units scattered around the Town and second units on individual properties.  Creating large affordable housing areas will require unacceptable subsidization by the Town either through tax concessions or the granting of unwanted additional density.  And, affordable housing is extremely difficult to maintain for the long term.

V.  Irrelevancies and red herrings

It is possible to eat lunch in the middle of Madison Avenue and 86th Street in Manhattan if you eat fast.

I commend the Board for its careful, thoughtful and transparent approach to finalizing this crucial Plan.

With best regards,

Barry Nemmers

To: The Rhinebeck Town Board
Re: Rhinecliff TND - Comment on The Draft Rhinebeck Comp-Plan
Date: July 24, 2006

As a part-time resident of Rhinecliff for the last six years, I have been following the evolution of The Rhinebeck Plan and participated in the Rhinecliff “visioning” sessions held at the Morton Library. In addition, I founded a website in order to provide the Rhinecliff community with information and an on-line forum. I mention this to make it clear I care deeply about our historic hamlet.

While I have numerous concerns regarding the comprehensive plan, I shall narrow the focus of these comments to certain aspects of the proposed Rhinecliff “TND.”

According to the definition of a TND (a basic unit of New Urbanism,) it should ideally provide for a five minute walk ( ¼ mile) to civic buildings, transportation etc. Previous comments have addressed the fact that the proposed Rhinecliff TND is not located within the bounds of walkability, so I will not re-visit that point. Even if the proposed TND were to be placed within 100 feet of the train station, it would not qualify as a TND.

Here is why:

In appendix 7 - public hearing comments and response, The Comprehensive Plan Committee states the following:

“ the post office, library, fire house and retail services exist within walking distance of the proposed Rhinecliff TND. Both TNDs are transit accessible, the Astor Flats served by the Loop bus line and the Rhinecliff TND served by Amtrak. Both TNDs are designed so that residents can “park once and walk” so additional vehicular traffic should be limited accordingly. It is also hoped that additional residential development in the hamlet will support limited commercial development in the existing Rhinecliff Business District”

This one response from the plan committee reveals its primary rationale for placing additional density in the hamlet of Rhinecliff and labeling it a TND. However, this statement is contradicted by data in the plan itself and by reality.

1- “..The Astor Flats [is] served by the Loop bus line and the Rhinecliff TND [is] served by Amtrak. Both TNDs are designed so that residents can ‘park once and walk’”:

This statement is completely contrary to the plan’s own findings. Appendix 1, page 18 depicts a chart titled “Place of Work.” In reviewing the chart, which lists 11 geographic regions and “other,” 13% of Rhinebeck residents work in the “New York Metro Area” and 1% work in Albany. According to the plan’s own chart, 86% of Rhinebeck residents can’t utilize the Rhinecliff Amtrak station for commuting to and from work. It simply does not service their place of work. In addition, the plan designates at least 10% of the Rhinecliff TND units as “affordable or work-force housing” available to “households making 80% of the town’s median income ($52,679 in 2000).” I applaud the concept of affordable housing, but residents of “work-force” housing are not going to be Amtrak commuters. Given these facts, provided by the plan itself, one can extrapolate that approximately 10 of the 90 proposed homes would have residents that could even utilize the Amtrak station for commuting. How can the committee suggest that the TND residents can “park once and walk” when the overwhelming majority won’t utilize the Amtrak station according to the committee’s own metrics?

The total number of people in the Town of Rhinebeck who commute via public transportation, including taxis, is only 109 according to the 2000 census. This is an insignificant percentage of the community. It defies every known statistic about our town to imply any significant number of residents will use public transportation.

2- “The post office”: Currently the Rhinecliff post office serves the hamlet with PO box service. This is an extremely small branch and it is likely it could not support the additional residents of the TND, in which case it would be absorbed into the Rhinebeck post office. Has the committee ever contacted the US Postal service to see how the tiny Rhinecliff post office would be impacted when carrier delivery starts? It seems likely the post office would close and be absorbed by Rhinebeck’s post office. This has already happened in Barrytown and parts of Kingston. What metrics are being used to plan a community around a tiny rural post office?

3- “retail services exist…”: Rhinecliff’s tiny business district currently includes one retail business, a restaurant. Even if one or two more businesses were to open, it is disingenuous to state there are “retail businesses” people will walk to. What are the specific retail businesses the committee is referring to?

Given that Rhinecliff offers so few civic amenities within any conceivable distance, the TND should be labeled what it is, sprawl. It is a poorly planned expansion of our beautiful historic hamlet into the surrounding countryside. The committee states that its plan for Rhinecliff’s expansion is based on an 1860 plan for expansion of the hamlet. In 1860 the train station ran local trains, the dock was filled with boats and ferries, the hamlet was filled with hotels and businesses and the car had not yet been invented. Given the changes that Rhinecliff has experienced in the last 146 years, how can the committee rely on a plan designed in 1860?

In light of the inconsistencies noted above and the numerous questions raised by other residents, I applaud the Town Board’s decision to retain a nationally renowned planner such as AKRF to review the plan independently. It is vital to the integrity of the process that someone of unquestionable authority and independence review and critique the plan’s merits. If the plan is truly as good as the committee claims, they should welcome the unbiased scrutiny of such an expert.

Sincerely,
Matthew Rosenberg

In early 2004 a group of Rhinecliff residents got together to offer a conceptual alternative to the Comp-Plan's proposed Rhinecliff TND. This alternative planning strategy was based on the idea of a conservation subdivision. Click HERE to view the document. (THIS IS A VERY LARGE FILE, PREPARE TO WAIT)

To: Members of the Rhinebeck Town Board
Re: Rhinecliff TND
Date: July 20, 2006

“Smart Growth,” by definition, relies on “walkability.” Unlike sprawl, which spreads unchecked till it becomes The Blob That Ate Your Town, Smart Growth features “mixed use” development, in which businesses and residences are situated within easy walking distance of each other, and apartments are located above shops. In theory, you can take care of all your daily errands without needing to drive.

The proposed Rhinecliff TND is being hailed as so-called Smart Growth, which is pretty odd when you consider the fact that Rhinecliff doesn’t actually offer the kind of walkability that Smart Growth is supposed to promote.

Yes, I know we’re nicely situated near a train station; in fact, that’s the reason my husband and I bought our house on Kelly Street in the first place. We needed a place we could get to from the city via mass transit, because, you see, we don’t drive.

So what’s it like to live in Rhinecliff without a car? Well, it’s great to be able to walk home from the train station. And I ride my bike down to the station to pick up the morning paper. We walk to the post office and the library, too.

At some point during the day, though, we like to eat. Actually, make that several times a day. And when it comes to food, there isn’t any in Rhinecliff, except for the China Rose restaurant, and whatever I can grow in my yard that the woodchucks and birds are kind enough to leave me.

So, unless you’re the sort of person who could live on Chinese take-out, at some point, you have to leave the hamlet to stock your pantry. And I’m betting dollars to donuts (mmm, donuts) that you do it by car.

On Sundays, we can bike to the Rhinebeck Farmers' market and stock up on all kinds of wonderful local produce and other foodstuffs. But like most Rhinecliff residents, we buy a fair amount of staples at Stop ‘n’ Shop or Hannaford.

How do we get there? We rely on the kindness of neighbors with cars. Because it’s just not feasible to walk two or three miles to buy your groceries, even if you were blessed with the superhuman strength that it would require to carry all those bottles of water and cartons of broth back.

And the people who’d live in the proposed TND wouldn’t walk to the supermarket, either. Practically speaking, it’s not possible for the average person to live in Rhinecliff without a car. I should know.

Do the math. The TND calls for adding 90 units to the hamlet of Rhinecliff, which currently has less than 200 households. The DeColas would also like to build dozens of additional units at the other end of town. We can safely assume that each of these additional households will include at least one, and possibly two, cars.

I spend an inordinate amount of time puttering in my front garden, so I’m well aware of the traffic patterns on Kelly Street, which ebb and flow with the time of day. There’s a rush of cars in the morning, followed by a midday lull during which you could indeed eat your lunch in the middle of the street (leftover Chinese, perhaps?) if you were so inclined. Traffic picks up again in the mid-to-late afternoon and drops off in the evening.

Much of Rhinecliff is, as its name implies, nestled into a cliff, with tiny houses clustered on narrow roads. Rhinecliff residents who walk, jog or bike along our roads on a regular basis have to dodge drivers who go barreling through our hamlet as if it were a thruway. Our neighbors have lost numerous pets to drivers who were tearing down Kelly Street too fast to avoid hitting a dog or cat. Parents with strollers are keenly aware that they may have to step aside when a car swerves round the corner without seeing them.

The proposed development would increase the number of cars in Rhinecliff significantly, reducing whatever existing “walkability” Rhinecliff currently offers. What’s smart about that?

The Village of Rhinebeck, unlike Rhinecliff, is the very model of “walkability,” with its mixed-use neighborhood in which residents can walk to all kinds of businesses and amenities. It’s the only part of our community that does, in fact, have any real potential for “Smart Growth.”

So why not build the proposed development where it would actually make the most sense?

Well, maybe because some people are determined to preserve as much open space as possible. And that’s understandable. Everybody likes rolling pastures and perfectly weathered old barns. On the other hand, when was the last time you heard someone say, “I love it here, but this place sure could use a few more condos?”

But the Powers That Be have determined that there must be some development, somewhere. So what we’ve got, here, is an attempt to dump the density in Rhinecliff, which would let Rhinebeck keep its open space while complying with the demand for development.

There’s actually nothing smart about the proposed growth at all. If the development is not situated within walking distance of such amenities as shops, banks, restaurants, etc., the people who occupy these new households are going to get in their cars, just like the rest of us, and drive to town. It seems to me that the streets of Rhinebeck are already pretty congested with traffic, especially on weekends, and parking doesn’t seem all that easy to find, either. And don’t forget to take into account the fact that the construction at the Gardens is only one-third completed; how many additional drivers will that bring?

If the planners really want smart growth, why are they ignoring the need to place the development in a location that offers genuine walkability? The current plan, if implemented, would strain the geographical limitations of Rhinecliff; it would also bring many more cars into the town of Rhinebeck. When you build housing that requires people to get into their cars and drive just to buy the basics, that’s not smart growth, it’s sprawl. Let’s be honest about it.

Kerry Trueman

I am sorry to say that, having followed the Comprehensive Plan meetings consistently and having studied the present Proposed Comprehensive Plan and its backup material as well as I could, I am unable to support its basic goal. The saving of every possible square inch of open space does not seem a sensible goal to me. Like others I like open space, but so do I like motherhood and apple pie – which is how that Visioning question was asked. At any rate, it is how the preserved open space fits into a coherent plan that we should be examining here.

Nor do I support the TNDs as a solution to exclusionary zoning. I agree with the statement made at the hearing that the Stop and Shop high density zone is badly located and, in any case, would prove almost impossible to bring about.

The Rhinecliff TND is worse. It would add over 50% in population to an already fragile, historic hamlet. That the anticipated inhabitants would use Amtrak and walk the steep route to and from the station rain or shine, snow or sweltering heat, is highly unlikely. So too is that any great number of TND residents would use Amtrak with its current high charges. In addition, Rhinecliff offers none of the ordinary requirements for households – bread and milk, vegetables, chickens and laundry soap, for instance. To be viable, any new commercial endeavor in the hamlet must depend on a plentitude of purchasers from outside the hamlet. Even a small coffee shop would have a tough time surviving on the immediate population.

However, I was glad to see the reliance the Plan placed on the Critical Environmental Area designation. It is a useful planning device. Certainly it would work for Rhinecliff which is attractive because it is a unique melding of the natural environment and the built environments; houses in Rhinecliff are placed in varying patterns because the steep, rocky topography dictates that is how they must be.

It would be a big help to readers of the proposed plan to have a large, easily readable map of Rhinecliff with clearly marked topography lines. There is none. In fact, the only map in the Proposed Plan book that shows Rhinecliff at a readable scale is the proposed zoning map and it is misleading; having no topographic lines, it implies the land is flat. Many of the lots in the existing hamlet are so steep they are unbuildable. (This may explain why, as late as December 2005, the Planning Committee thought that over twenty lots in the existing hamlet could be built upon and were surprised to learn that at most only two or three were.)

Not even schematic lot lines appear on the proposed TND area. Among the myriad questions the TND poses, in addition to the watercourses and upland terrain, are:
To what open space will its residents have public access; the very small areas labeled green indicated seem entirely inadequate.
Will the proposed one way road through the TND to Rhinecliff Road be used as a short cut from the hamlet to the village.
Will Orchard Street be used as a route to Route 9S that by-passes the village; it is little more than an asphalted trail supported by a laid stone wall that is known to be crumbling as I write.

I also believe Design Standards should not be included in the Comprehensive Plan. That level of detail is too great. Moreover, mimicking goneby styles does not necessarily promote good design; rather it runs the danger of promoting a “cute” rather than a lively environment. (Is only Rhinecliff subject to such stringent design controls or is the rest of Rhinebeck?) Could not many of them be included in the Building Code or some other instrument. From my fifty years of working with zoning ordinances and neighborhoods, I have come to believe that when too much power resides in one agency, even good plans can go awry.

Finally, I understand the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, twenty years in the making, is now close to passage by the town and the state. (The Proposed Plan erroneously assumed it had been passed.) It is important for the Proposed Comprehensive Plan to state how it and the zoning ordinance will relate to the powerful LWRP. That is, which controls? One or the other or both or even one in certain cases and the other in other cases?

In conclusion, I do not believe that the goal of the Comprehensive Plan of preserving every possible bit of open space should be accomplished at the expense of the historic hamlet which already has enough difficult pedestrian and automobile problems to solve because of its rocky and very steep topography. There are other solutions, but, although I have attended comprehensive plan meetings on a regular basis, I have never heard of their being explored.

Cynthia Owen Philip

[Background: What is a TND?]

To: Members of the Rhinebeck Town Board

Re: Draft Comprehensive Plan

Date: June 19, 2006

The draft Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan is based upon the assumption that the Town of Rhinebeck is a rural community and that a majority of Rhinebeck residents believe that it should remain a rural community. Economically, Rhinebeck ceased to be a rural community some time ago. Agriculture’s primary contribution to our ‘rural character’ is the visual appeal of open space, low density population distribution, and the lack of public infrastructure (water/sewer) that a rural community has traditionally enjoyed. Our ‘rural character’ is a fortunate by-product of our agricultural origins, and it is this by-product that we currently enjoy and that the Comp. Plan should be seeking to preserve.

In addition, as a community we would like to preserve the natural heritage and resources that the Town still possesses, the biodiversity and the intact habitats biodiversity depends upon. We would like to provide housing opportunities for all segments of our community, recognizing that in a market-based economy, the options for housing compatible with (and viable in) a rural setting are not going to mirror those found in urban and suburban settings.

The draft of the Comprehensive Plan proposes a number of significant changes to the Town’s current zoning in an attempt to meet the goals of rural preservation, natural resource conservation and affordable housing. The overall intent of the Plan is excellent, many of its proposals being both plausible and worth attempting. Others are, in my view, misguided and counterproductive. I have, since their inception, opposed the two proposed TNDs. My opposition stems from my having concluded that the primary justifications given for their inclusion in the Plan, open space preservation and the creation of affordable housing, have never been substantiated. The Plan also emphasizes the importance of preserving both the Village of Rhinebeck and the hamlet of Rhinecliff as Rhinebeck’s community, cultural and economic centers. Creating competing centers (TNDs) is clearly counterproductive to that goal.

To be specific, the Rhinecliff TND is proposed for one of the most costly pieces of property in the Town at this time. There is no infrastructure in place in the Town that can be reliably employed to service this TND which will require public water and sewer. The Village may be able to supply water; it can not supply sewer service. If the proposed spa is built in the Village and the Gardens project is ever completed, what excess water capacity the Village may possess today may not be available tomorrow. When the actual costs of developing the infrastructure needed for the Rhinecliff TND are taken into consideration, it is hard to imagine how any portion will be affordable without offering the developer a generous density bonus.

The requirement for central water and sewer will impact more than the cost of the TND. It will require the expansion of current water facilities (Village water or County water currently waiting at the Hyde Park Town line being the most likely candidates), as well as construction of a new sewer treatment facility. To offset costs of both initial construction and future operation, any new facilities will be built to include a user base greater than that of the proposed TND. An expanding user base will be especially important over time to help off-set the inevitable rise in maintenance and operation costs. With public water and sewer available, the Rhinecliff TND will grow over time. The introduction of public water and sewer in once rural communities often has a tendency to encourage the spread of rampant residential development. The Rhinecliff TND is also located on land adjacent to the last dairy farm in Rhinebeck. If you look across Dutchess County, as housing has consumed inactive farmland, neighboring dairy farms have disappeared and the usual new ‘crop’ is more housing.

Along Route 9 north of the Village, we have businesses such a busy lumber yard and a supermarket, businesses that outgrew the Village. Auto-related businesses have located there, as have a fuel oil depot and a large, retail nursery. All these businesses tend to be noisy, produce odors and are traffic generators. They are where they are because they do not make good neighbors in a residential setting. This is where a residential development, a TND, should be located? The often expressed idea that the TND will ‘refit the strip’ and make it more ‘village-like’ is wishful thinking. A lumber yard is a lumber yard , a supermarket a supermarket and tire and muffler shops will remain tire and muffler shops, noisy, smelly and traffic generators. Unless the intent is to chase these businesses from the Town, the original intent of locating them outside the residential neighborhoods of Rhinebeck should be respected.

The Route 9 TND also raises the issue of viability. There is no infrastructure available to the site and multiple property owners. The Route 9 TND is supposed to be a major contributor to affordable housing in the Town. If its viability is as uncertain as I believe it to be, its contribution to affordable housing is illusory.

The Plan does specify a number of viable affordable housing options, some of which we are already employing. The availability of accessory dwellings in a rural setting is viable, affordable (removes the cost of land from the cost of the accessory housing unit), and we know it works. Expanding the use of multi-family housing thoughout the Town should also help. In many instances, these housing options can be serviced by existing, on-site groundwater and sewage disposal systems, and that can also help save on housing costs. Hopefully, the Open Space/Affordable Housing committee will provide means with which the Town can partner with others to create additional affordable housing options that will work within a rural context.

The Plan proposes to ‘up-zone’ the Town, using 20, 10 and 6 acre zoning districts for the most part. The TNDs have been touted as the ‘insurance’ against claims that the up-zoning will create an exclusionary land use plan, the exclusion being affordability. There has recently been some discussion that those individuals of means who prefer a more urban setting will also be excluded if the TNDs are not included in the Plan. This latter charge flies in the face of the Plan’s stated intent to preserve Rhinebeck’s rural character. For those wanting a more urban setting, the choices abound and I do not believe Rhinebeck needs to be or should strive to be all things to all people.

As to the affordability issue, I do not believe that the TNDs offer a reliable guarantee that they are either viable or likely to offer affordability if they are built. If the demonstrably viable affordable options mentioned above do not fend off a claim of exclusionary zoning, the proposed zoning districts could be changed to 10, 5 and 3 acre districts, with strict adherence to requirements that 2/3 to 3/4 of each proposed lot within any subdivision in the Town be deemed ‘buildable’. Wetlands, watercourses, buffers, steep slopes over a designated percent would be considered unbuildable and their area deducted in determining a parcel’s ‘buildability’. It is not how much land you require in a building site that matters, but the carrying capacity of the land to support a proposed use without causing environmental, economic or aesthetic harm. By focusing upon buildability, mandating clustering for all major subdivisions and using our biodiversity/habitat maps in guiding the creation of those clusters, we can protect significant open space, support a continuation of the farming that still exists in Rhinebeck and protect the equity interests of our local property owners, all the while refuting claims of exclusionary zoning.

Michael Trimble

Rhinebeck, NY