Town Board Meeting Minutes 10-14-08

Posted on: 10/29/2008

Date of Minutes:

10/14/2008

TOWN OF RHINEBECK TOWN BOARD MEETING MINUTES

October 14, 2008

PRESENT: Supervisor Thomas Traudt 27 residents

Councilwoman Ellen Silverstein

Councilman Dan Staley

Councilman Bruce Washburn

Highway Superintendent Kathy Kinsella

Counsel Pamela Richardson

ABSENT: Dod Crane

At 6:45 Supervisor Traudt opened this meeting and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance at the Rhinecliff Firehouse.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

October 18^th - Saturday Afternoon Dance at Town Hall from 1-4 with Swing

Dance lessons from 12:30-1:00

October 18^th - Morton Memorial Library ribbon cutting ceremony for new

handicapped ramp at 2:15

October 24^th - Black China rock band will be performing at Town Hall at 7 pm.

Sponsored by Recreation Committee

October 27^th - Rhinecliff leave pick up

November 1^{st -} Rhinebeck Science Foundation Discovery at Chancellor

Livingston School from 11-2

November 21^st - Middle-age Musician night at Town Hall at 7 pm.

Planning Board is seeking new members in 2009. Applications available in Town

Clerk's Office

PUBLIC HEARING

At 7:00 the Supervisor opened this public hearing continuation for CSI Developers, LLC for a Use Variance. Neil Alexander, counsel for CSI Developers, stated this application was originally submitted on September 22, 2008. Hopefully the Board will grant CSI their request. Town Counsel Pam Richardson explained that the applicant has asked for a variance from the moratorium for a 20,000 square foot building on Route 9G. They can request this waiver and this is the third and final public hearing, which will be closed tonight. Comments have been received from Dutchess County Planning, Town of Rhinebeck Planning Board, Morris & Associates and Warren Replansky.

Monique Segarra feels that extending the moratorium was a sound decision. We need to keep the integrity of our town in place. She hates to see this process being piecemealed. She is trying to understand the lawsuit process, since the attorney is mentioned in the lawsuit does the Town need to hire outside counsel. Supervisor Traudt is comfortable with staying with our Town Attorneys since the application has been circulated to the Town Engineer, County Planning and our Planning Board. Ellen asked Mr. Alexander how big CSI Developers is and he replied this is a small partnership with Rob Stumbo and Patrick Carella.

Ms. Richardson stated that if the Board grants this variance then the Planning Board receives the application and they consider the merits of the application. The Town Board only considers if the application should move forward onto the Planning Board. The Planning Board would determine the actual substance of the request. Supervisor Traudt feels that if this actually happens our new zoning law and Comprehensive Plan will probably be in place and they will have to follow the new guidelines. Councilwoman Silverstein is concerned if another application comes forth with a variance request how do we ever deny a request if we grant this application tonight. Councilman Staley feels each case is considered on its own merit.

Town Counsel Pam Richardson read the following resolution:

Granting a Variance from the Provisions of Section 3 of Local Law No. 6 of 2007

WHEREAS, in connection with proposed revisions to its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law, on July 9, 2007, the Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck (the "Town Board"), adopted Local Law No. 6, 2007, entitled "A Local Law Imposing a Moratorium on Major Subdivisions and on Specified Development and Types of Uses within the Town of Rhinebeck for an Additional Period of One (1) Year", which is also commonly known as "the Moratorium";

WHEREAS, Local Law No. 6, 2007 extended the Moratorium adopted in 2006, and originally adopted in 2005;

WHERAS, on July 21, 2008 the Town Board adopted Local Law No. 3, 2008 which further extended the Moratorium to December 31, 2008; and

WHEREAS, recent changes to the timetable for adoption and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law may require further extension of the Moratorium beyond December 31, 2008;

WHEREAS, Section 3 of the Moratorium is entitled "Actions Prohibited by this Moratorium"; and, among other things, prohibits the Planning Board from accepting or reviewing any application for..."site plan approval, for a project which involves new construction of a commercial building which exceeds 8,000 square feet of gross floor area..."; and

WHEREAS, Section 6 of the Moratorium is entitled "Variances" and establishes a procedure by which the Town Board may grant a variance from the application of any provisions contained in the Moratorium; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6 of the Moratorium, on August 6, 2008, CSI Developers, LLC ("Applicant") submitted an application to the Town Board for a variance from the provisions of the Moratorium; and

WHEREAS, on August 11, 2008, the Town Board accepted the Applicant's variance application and scheduled a public hearing for September 8, 2008; and

WHEREAS, on September 8, 2008, the Town Board opened the public hearing and heard comments from all who wished to speak and also invited and accepted written comments from the public; and

WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued to September 22, 2008 and further continued to October 14, 2008;

WHEREAS, Applicant proposes to construct a 20,000 square foot commercial building to be used for retail and business, medical or dental offices, plus a basement to be used for ancillary purposes to the first and second floor primary uses only; and

WHEREAS, Applicant has committed to limiting the retail portion of the proposed building to less than 8,000 square feet; and

WHEREAS, if granted, the variance would allow Applicant to submit an application to the Town of Rhinebeck Planning Board (the "Planning Board") for site plan approval of a new commercial building which exceeds 8,000 square feet of gross floor area (the "Variance Application");

WHEREAS, as authorized by Section 6(B) of the Moratorium, on August 15, 2008, the Town Board referred the Variance Application to the Dutchess County Department of Planning, the Planning Board, the Town of Rhinebeck Zoning Board of Appeals, the Town of Rhinebeck Comprehensive plan Committee, and the various consultants to the Town;

WHEREAS, on August 29, 2008, the Dutchess County Department of Planning noted that the proposal is consistent with the existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, but that it might not be consistent with the proposed Freshwater Wetlands Law that is currently under consideration by the Town Board and recommended that the "Board rely upon its own study of the facts in the case with due consideration of the above comments";

WHEREAS, on September 10, 2008, the Planning Board of the Town of Rhinebeck (hereafter, the "Planning Board") recommended that the Town Board approve Applicant's request for a variance from the Moratorium, "so as to permit Applicant to make an application for site plan approval to the Planning Board for a proposed commercial building in excess of 8,000 square feet of gross floor area on NYS Route 9G in the HBP District";

WHEREAS, on September 19, 2008, the Engineer to the Town issued a comment letter to the Town Board;

WHEREAS, the Town Board believes that the Planning Board is best equipped to apply the zoning law and good planning principles to the substance of the site plan application;

WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the application and related materials, minutes of the hearings, written comments submitted by the Applicant and members of the public in connection with the public hearing, the reports prepared by the Planning Board, Dutchess County Planning, and Morris Associates;

WHEREAS, all testimony and materials have been carefully considered and the following pertinent facts noted:

(a) the subject parcel is comprised of approximately 7.7 acres located on the West side of Route 9G to the north of the intersection of Routes 9 and 9G; and

(b) the subject parcel is located in the HBP (Highway Business Park) zoning district; and

(c) there are several commercial uses near the subject parcel, including IXL Indoor Sports Facility, Smithers Tool and Machine Product facility, a car dealership and Self Storage facility; and

(d) the proposed uses of the subject parcel are permitted by right, subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board, under the current zoning code; and

(e) the proposed uses of the subject parcel are permitted by right, subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board under the Draft 2008 Zoning Law.

WHEREAS, prior to granting a variance from the Moratorium, the Town Board must find:

(a) that failure to grant the variance will cause the Applicant "unnecessary hardship" as defined in Town Law §267-b(2)(b), which hardship is substantially greater than any harm to the general public welfare resulting from the granting of the variance;

(b) the grant of the variance will clearly have no adverse effects on any of the Town's goals or objectives as set forth in the Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan and the use, project or activity will not be detrimental to the community's resources or character as described in the Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan; and

(c) the project or activity for which the Applicant seeks a variance is in harmony and consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and with any interim data, recommendations and/or conclusions which, to date, have been promulgated, produced or drafted by the Town's Consultants for amendments to, or the enactment of new, Land Use Laws and Regulations.

WHEREAS, following consideration of the application, recommendations of the Town's consultants and Dutchess County Planning and public comment, the Town Board finds:

(a) it is unlikely that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law will be adopted prior to expiration of the Moratorium, thus prompting the need for a further extension of the Moratorium beyond December 31, 2008; and

(b) the Applicant asserts that it has sought to develop the subject parcel since its acquisition in 2005. However to date, the land remains vacant and undeveloped. As a result of the continued vacancy of the subject parcel, together with poor economic conditions and increasing costs of construction and financing Applicant is unable to limit development on the subject parcel to less than 8,000 square feet and still realize a reasonable return. Under the circumstances, the moratorium stands as an obstacle to any development on the subject parcel, resulting in an unnecessary hardship warranting the granting of this variance; and

(c) the proposed uses on the subject parcel are permitted as of right pursuant to both the current zoning law and Draft 2008 Zoning law; the proposed uses are consistent with other commercial development in the surrounding area and therefore, grant of the variance will not have an adverse effect on any of the Town's goals or objectives as set forth in the proposed Comprehensive Plan, nor will it be detrimental to the community's resources or character as described in the proposed Comprehensive Plan; and

(d) as noted by the Dutchess County Planning Department, the Planning Board and other public commentators, the proposed activity for which the Applicant seeks a variance is consistent and in harmony with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Draft 2008 Zoning Law.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT,

Pursuant to the authorization granted it in Section 6 of Local Law No. 6, 2007, the Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck hereby APPROVES the application of CSI Developers, LLC for a variance from the provisions of Section 3 of Local Law No. 6 of 2007, to allow the Applicant to submit, and the Planning Board to consider, an application for site plan approval of a new commercial building consistent with the materials presented, and representations made, by the Applicant during this variance review process.

BUSINESS

Motion by Dan Staley and second by Bruce Washburn to approve the above CSI Developers, LLC Resolution.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

Councilmember Washburn aye

Councilmember Staley aye

Councilmember Silverstein nay

Councilmember Crane absent

Supervisor Traudt aye

Certified this 14^th day of October 2008

by Town Clerk Barbara Cunningham

At 7:15 on motion from Dan Staley and second from Bruce Washburn this public hearing was unanimously closed.

On motion from Dan Staley and second from Ellen Silverstein, pursuant to GML, authorization is hereby given to Town Clerk to return bid bonds for Vanderburgh Cove project. The Town Clerk will return P & D Electric and Pioneer Electric bid bonds. Carried unanimously.

Dan Staley motioned with Bruce Washburn seconding to approve the September 22^{nd &} October 7^th Town Board minutes. All were in favor.

The following schedule for departmental and committee workshops with the bookkeeper for the 2009 budget were unanimously approved for October 20^th (General Fund), October 24^th (Highway), and October 28^th (Part Town Fund)at 5:00 on motion from Ellen and second from Bruce.

Dan motioned and Bruce seconded to hire Michael Lown as MEO at Highway Department at $14.64 starting October 20, 2008 per Kathy Kinsella recommendation. All were in favor.

On motion from Dan and second from Ellen the 2009 Material bids as follows per Highway Superindent's recommendation were unanimously approved:

Fuel Oil #2: price per gallon delivered

KOSCO: NY consumer posting + 11.9 cents/gallon

(Journal of Commerce New York Tank Car Reseller Average)

Diesel Fuel: price per gallon delivered

KOSCO: NY consumer posting + 20.5 cents/gallon
NY State bid contract
Dutchess County bid contract

Unleaded Gasoline: price per gallon delivered

KOSCO: Mobil Newburgh reformulated + 22 cents/gallon
NY State bid contract
Dutchess County bid contract

Asphalt Cold Patch

Green Patch $7.00/50# bag delivered

Bituminous Asphalt Applications (emulsions and cutbacks): price per type, per gallon delivered and at plant; prices are subject to asphalt price adjustment

Refuse all bids - NY State bid contract

Bituminous Concrete: price per ton at plant; subject to escalation based on terminal cost

Callahan Industries
- 403.11 Type 1 Base $69
- 403.13 Type 3 Binder $69
- 403.15 Shim Course $84
- 403.16 Type 6 Top $73
- 403.18 Type 7 Top $76
- Cold Patch $82
- Cold Patch delivered $87

Calcium Chloride: flaked, per bag

Refuse all bids - will buy as needed based on price comparison.

Liquid Calcium Chloride:

NY State bid contract

Liquid Magnesium Chloride: per gallon delivered

NY State bid contract

Crushed Stone:

Colarusso & Son

price per ton at plant price per ton delivered

¼: $10.75 $16.65

3/8" $10.75 $16.65

½" $10.75 $16.65

5/8" $11.00 $16.90

¾" $10.50 $16.40

2-3" $10.75 $16.65

FSF 0-10" $11.00 $16.90

Grass Seed

Refuse all bids - will buy as needed based on price comparison.

Gravel:

Colarusso & Son

price per ton at plant price per ton delivered

Quarry Item #4 $8.00 $13.90

ROB $5.50 $11.40

J. D. von der Lieth & Sons

price per yard at plant price per yard delivered

Item #4 Gravel $14.50 $19.50

Mulch Hay

J.D. von der Lieth & Sons
- $3.00/bale at yard
- $5.00/bale delivered

Sand:

J. D. von der Lieth & Sons (lower bid from Colarusso is for a different consistency)

price per yard at plant price per yard delivered

Washed $13.50 $18.50

Topsoil: price per yard at plant

Southern Columbia Sand & Gravel
- Regular Blend - $19.50
- Extra Humus - $24.50

Catch Basins:

Expanded Supply Products (Delivery not included)
- 24x24x24 $192 each
- 24x24x36 $240 each
- 30x30x30 $240 each
- 36x36x48 $488 each
- 48x48x48 $775 each

Culvert Pipe and connector bands/split couplers (delivered prices): (Accept both bidders for ADS N-12, accept Galvanized from Chemung)

Chemung - per foot

ADS N-12 Galvanized

6" $2.11 $4.96

8" $3.34 $6.58

10" $4.77 $8.22

12" $5.83 $8.57

15" $7.58 $10.78

18" $11.23 $13.02

24" $17.49 $17.54

30" $27.48 $22.51

36" $35.44 $27.63

48" $61.26 $37.35

ESP - ADS N-12 - price per foot

6" $2.11

8" $3.34

10" $4.77

12" $5.83

15" $7.58

18" $11.23

24" $17.49

30" $27.48

36" $35.44

Tailing:

Colarusso & Son
- $7.75/ton at plant
- $13.65/ton delivered

6. Dan motioned and Ellen seconded to approve the new timeline for DGEIS per our planners as follows:

10/24/08 - DGEIS submitted to Town Board

10/2708 - DGEIS accepted by Town Board as adequate for public review

11/17/08 - Public Hearing on DGEIS (anticipate closing DGEIS and Actions Public Hearings on that date.)

12/01/08 - Public Comment period ends.

Thereafter the Board and consultants will work on the FEIS and the RFEIS comment period will be set. Then the Findings statement will be prepared. The final vote on all actions will be by the end of December or early January. This part of the schedule will be dictated by the number and nature of changes made by the Board to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Freshwater Wetland Law.

Dan moved with Ellen seconding to authorize highway department disposing their printer model #84440 which is 3 years old. Kathy Kinsella pointed out that repair costs were only $100 less than purchasing a new one.

Dan Staley motioned and Ellen Silverstein seconded to accept John Varricchio's resignation from the Planning Board effective December 31, 2008. Dan pointed out that Jack has served on the Planning Board for 35 years. All were in favor.

Nicholas McCausland's letter of resignation from the Planning Board effective December 1, 2008 was unanimously accepted on motion from Dan and second by Bruce.

Cemetery Toro lawn mower needs new deck estimate from Conway's $1,400. held over since Dan has only received 1 bid.

Waterfront Committee wants to put wanes coating on the ceiling of new pavilion material estimate is $821.76.

Ellen motioned and Dan seconded to approve the LWRP Coastal Assessment Review Form per Ted Fink's request. The Town Clerk will forward to the C.A.C. and Waterfront Committee for review.

Town of Rhinebeck Waterfront Consistency Review

Proposed Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, and Wetlands Law

In accordance with Local Law No. 2 of 2007, the Town of Rhinebeck Waterfront Consistency Review Law: "Actions to be undertaken within the coastal area shall be evaluated for consistency in accordance with the following summary of LWRP policy standards, which are derived from and further explained and described in

Section III (Policies) of the Town of Rhinebeck LWRP, a copy of which is on file in the Town Clerk's office and available for inspection during normal business hours. Agencies which undertake direct actions must also consult with Section IV (Proposed Uses and Projects), in making their consistency determination. The action must be consistent with the policies to:

1. Restore, revitalize and redevelop deteriorated and underutilized waterfront

areas for uses dependent on a waterfront location and compatible with the

historic and scenic character of the area (Policy 1).

2. Encourage tourism through preservation, enhancement and/or appropriate

resources of historic, scenic and recreational interest (Policy 1A);

3. Retain and encourage the development of water dependent uses on or near

coastal waters (Policy2);

4. Ensure that development occurs where adequate public in fracture is

available (Policy 5);

5. Streamline development permit procedures (Policy 6);

6. Protect and preserve fish and wildlife habitats of local importance and those

which DOS has identified as significant, from human disruption and

chemical contamination (Policies 7, 7A,7B, 7C, 7D, 7E and 8);

7. Maintain and expand the recreational use of existing fish and wildlife

resources (Policy 9);

8. Maintain, promote and expand commercial fishing opportunities (Policy 10).

9. Minimize flooding and erosion hazards through proper siting of buildings

and structures; protection of natural protective features; construction of

carefully-selected, long-term structural measures; and the use of

appropriate non-structural means (Policies 11,12,13,14,15 and 17);

10. Public funds shall be used for erosion protection structures only where

necessary and in an appropriate manner (Policy 16);

11. Safeguard vital economic, social and environmental interests in the coastal

area when major actions are undertaken (Policy 18);

13. Maintain and improve public access to the shoreline and to water-related

recreational resources, while protecting the environment and adjacent land

uses (Policies 19, 20, and 20A);

14. Encourage and facilitate water-dependent and water-enhanced recreational

resources and facilities near coastal waters (Policies 21, 21A and 21B);

15. Encourage the development of water-related recreational resources and

facilities, as multiple-uses, in appropriate locations within the shore zone.

(Policy 22);

16. Protect and enhance scenic and aesthetic resources (Policies 23, 23A);

17. Protect and enhance scenic and aesthetic resources (Policies 24A, 24B,

24C and 25);

18. Conserve and protect agricultural lands (Policy 26);

19. Site and construct energy facilities in a manner which will be compatible with

the environment and contingent upon the need for a shorefront location and

in such a manner as to avoid adverse environmental impacts when in

operation (Policies 27 and 40);

20. Undertake ice management practices to avoid adverse coastal impacts

(Policy 28);

21. Protect surface waters and ground waters from direct and indirect discharge

of pollutants and from overuse (Policies 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and

38);

22. Ensure that dredging and dredge spoil disposal are undertaken in a manner

protective of natural resources (Policies 15 and 35);

23. Ensure that any transportation, handling or disposal of hazardous wastes

and effluent is undertaken in a manner which will not adversely affect the

environment (Policy 39);

24. Protect air quality (Policies 41, 42, and 43) and

25. Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands (Policy 44)."

APPENDIX A

COASTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (CAF)

A. INSTRUCTIONS (Please print or type all answers)

1. Applicants, or in the case of direct actions, Town of Rhinebeck agencies, shall complete this CAF for proposed actions which are subject to the consistency review law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Rhinebeck agency in making a determination of consistency.

2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the policies and explanations of policy contained in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), a copy of which is on file in the Town of Rhinebeck Clerk's office. A proposed action should be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area.

3. If any questions in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent with the LWRP policy standards. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards, it shall not be undertaken.

B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION

1. Type of agency action (check appropriate response):

(a) Directly undertaken (e.g. capital construction, planning activity, agency

regulation, land transaction) ü

(b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) _____

(d) Agency undertaking action: Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck

2. Describe nature and extent of action: The Town Board has proposed adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Rhinebeck, amendments to the Town's Zoning Law and the adoption of a Wetlands Local Law. The proposed Comprehensive Plan addresses most aspects of life in the Town, including: economic growth; affordable housing; home-based work; agriculture and open space; historic resources; fire districts; water/sewer; transportation; and recreation, scenic, and cultural resources, among myriad others. Regional issues, especially affordable housing and conservation of natural resources that transcend municipal boundaries, were studied and considered, and more than 400 actions were developed and recommended for adoption by the Town Board. During the planning process, the Town Board appointed an Open Space and Affordable Housing Committee to study these issues in depth. The Rhinebeck Open Space and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, which resulted from the Committee's efforts, has been included in the Proposed Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, a Biodiversity Assessment was commissioned by the Town Board, resulting in a report by Hudsonia Ltd.

entitled Significant Habitats. This report has been added to the Proposed Comprehensive Plan as well.

The proposed Amendments to the Zoning Law have been designed to be consistent with the ± 400 actions recommended in the Plan. They have also been designed to be consistent with the Dutchess County Greenway Compact Program guidelines, with the recently approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and with the Amendments made to the Planning and Zoning enabling laws in New York State Town Law primarily during the 1990's. New Zoning Districts have been created and a variety of land uses have been added or removed from the list of allowable uses. To implement the "Centers and

Greenspace Plan" in the Proposed Comprehensive Plan, residential densities have been increased in parts of the Town deemed appropriate for more compact development and decreased in other parts of the Town deemed more appropriate for rural, agricultural, forestry and open space uses. Conservation subdivision design is proposed to be used as a tool for most new residential development in the Town. New standards governing lighting, signage, noise, landscaping, parking, stormwater management, affordable housing, habitat management, solar energy/green building construction, and traditional neighborhood development, among others, have been added.

The proposed Wetlands Local Law has also been designed to be consistent with the actions recommended in the Plan. Wetlands larger than 12.4 acres in size are regulated by the State of New York and wetlands that are connected to navigable bodies of water are regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Many smaller wetlands, however, are not regulated at all in the Town of Rhinebeck. This includes but is not limited to intermittent woodland pools, which have been identified by the Town of Rhinebeck Significant Habitats study as "one of the most imperiled habitats in the region." New York State agencies, such

as the Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of State encourage municipalities to protect wetlands through adoption of local regulatory legislation. The proposed Local Law would require the issuance of a Wetlands Permit, by the Town Planning Board, before certain development activities could be initiated within wetlands and an adjacent upland buffer area.

3. Location of action: Town of Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York

4. Size of site: Not applicable

5. Present land use: agriculture, residential, commercial, industrial, transportation

(train station, bus garage), recreation, vacant (forest, wetlands), water dependent

uses, water-enhanced uses

6. Present zoning classification: Land Conservation (LC), Residential 5-Acre

(R5A), Residential 3-Acre (R3A), Residential 1-Acre (R1A), Highway

Business Park (HBP), Rhinecliff Business (RB), Highway Business (HB),

Planned Residential Development (PRD), and four overlay districts: Flood-

Fringe Overlay (FF-O), Planned Residential Development Overlay (PRD-O),

Planned Unit Development Overlay (PUD-O), Water Resources Protection

Overlay (WRP-O)

7. Describe any unique or unusual land forms on the project site (i.e. steep slopes, swales, ground depressions, other geological formations): Hudson River bluffs, Mt. Rutsen, Ferncliff Forest, Snyder Swamp, Vandenberg Cove, Suckley

Cove, Astor Cove, Sturgeon Point Cliffs

8. Percentage of site which contains slopes of 15% or greater: Varies throughout the waterfront conservation area

9. Streams, lakes, ponds or wetlands existing within or contiguous to the project area? (1) Name: Hudson River, Landsman Kill, Rhinebeck Kill, Fallsburg Creek,

Mudder Kill, Crystal Lake, Snyder Swamp

(2) Size (in acres): not applicable

10. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the agency, the

following information shall be provided: Not applicable

(a) Name of applicant:__________________________________________

(b) Mailing address:____________________________________________

(d) Application number, if any:_________________________________

11. Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency?

Yes___ No ü If yes, which state or federal agency?___________________

C. COASTAL ASSESSMENT (Check either "Yes" or "No" for each of the following questions)

1. Will the proposed action be located in, or contiguous YES NO

to, or have a potentially adverse effect upon any of

the resource areas identified on the coastal area map:... ___ ü

(a) Significant fish or wildlife habitats? ___ ü

(b) Scenic resources of local or statewide significance? ___ ü

(d) Natural protective features in an erosion hazard

area................................................ ___ ü

If the answer to any question above is yes, please explain in Section D any measures which will be undertaken to mitigate any adverse effects.

2. Will the proposed action have a significant effect upon: YES NO

(a) Commercial or recreational use of fish and wildlife

resources?.......................................... ___ ü

(b) Scenic quality of the coastal environment?.......... ___ ü

uses?............................................... ___ ü

(d) Operation of the State's major ports?............... ___ ü

(e) Land or water uses within a small harbor area?..... ___ ü

(f) Stability of the shoreline?......................... ___ ü

(g) Surface or groundwater quality?.................... ___ ü

(h) Existing or potential public recreation

opportunities?...................................... ___ ü

(i) Structures, sites or districts of historic, archeological or cultural significance to the Town of Rhinebeck, State or nation?............. ___ ü

3. Will the proposed action involve or result in any of the following: YES NO

(a) Physical alteration of land along the shoreline,

land under water or coastal waters?................. ___ ü

(b) Physical alteration of two (2) acres or more of land

located elsewhere in the coastal area?.............. ___ ü

(c) Expansion of existing public services or infrastructure in undeveloped or low density areas of the coastal area? ___ ü

(d) Energy facility not subject to Article VII or VIII of the Public Service Law? ___ ü(e) Mining, excavation, filling or dredging in coastal waters?..................................... ___ ü

(f) Reduction of existing or potential public access

to or along the shore?.............................. ___ ü

(g) Sale or change in use of publicly-owned lands

located on the shoreline or under water?........... ___ ü

(h) Development within a designated flood or erosion hazard area?........................................ ___ ü

(i) Development on a beach, dune, barrier island or

other natural feature that provides protection

against flooding or erosion?........................ ___ ü

(j) Construction or reconstruction of erosion protective

structures?......................................... ___ ü

(k) Diminished surface or groundwater quality?.......... ___ ü

(l) Removal of ground cover from the site?.............. ___ ü

4. PROJECT Not applicable

(a) If a project is to be located adjacent to shore:

(1) Will water-related recreation be provided?.......... ___ ___

(2) Will public access to the foreshore be provided?.... ___ ___

(3) Does the project require a waterfront site?......... ___ ___

(4) Will it supplant a recreational or maritime use?.... ___ ___

(5) Do essential public services and facilities presently exist at or near the

site?................ ___ ___

(6) Is it located in a flood prone area?................ ___ ___

(7) Is it located in an area of high erosion?........... ___ ___

(b) If the project site is publicly owned:

(1) Will the project protect, maintain and/or increase the level and types of

public access to water related recreation resources and facilities?........ ___ __

(2) If located in the foreshore, will access to those and adjacent lands be

provided?..................... ___ ___

(3) Will it involve the siting and construction of major energy

facilities?........................... ___ ___

(4) Will it involve the discharge of effluents from major steam electric

generating and industrial facilities into coastal facilities?................. ___ ___

space or recreation area?........ ___ ___

(d) Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be

important to the community?........... ___ ___

(e) Is the project site presently used for commercial fishing or fish

processing?.............................. ___ ___

(f) Will the surface area of any waterways or wetland areas be increased or

decreased by the proposal?......... ___ ___

(g) Does any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally important

vegetation exist on this site which will be removed by the

project?.......................... ___ ___

(h) ill the project involve any waste discharges into coastal

waters?.......................................... ___ ___

(i) Does the project involve surface or subsurface liquid

waste disposal?.......................................... ___ ___

(j) Does the project involve transport, storage, treatment or disposal of solid

waste or hazardous materials?....... ___ ___

(k) Does the project involve shipment or storage of petroleum

products?...................................... ___ ___

(l) Does the project involve discharge of toxics, hazardous substances or other

pollutants into coastal waters?...... ___ ___

(m) Does the project involve or change existing ice management

practices?.................................... ___ ___

(n) Will the project affect any area designated as a tidal or freshwater

wetland?................................... ___ ___

(o) Will the project alter drainage flow, patterns or surface water runoff on or

from the site?................ ___ ___

(p) Will best management practices be utilized to control storm water runoff into

coastal waters?.................. ___ ___

(q) Will the project utilize or affect the quality or quantity of sole source or

surface water supplies?................ ___ ___

(r) Will the project cause emissions which exceed federal or state air quality

standards or generate significant amounts of nitrates or

sulfates?......................... ___ ___

D. REMARKS OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: (Add any additional sheets to complete this form.)

The proposed actions are consistent with the LWRP policy standards. In fact, many specific aspects of the proposed actions are designed to implement the LWRP policy standards, include the following:

1. In the proposed Zoning Law, the inclusion of new outdoor lighting standards,

landscaping standards, and sign design criteria; the emphasis on parking lot

aesthetics and landscaping; the requirement to camouflage telecommunications

towers by vegetation or design; the requirement for site plan approval for new

development within an historic site or adjoining an historic site or within a scenic

district within 1,000 feet of the Hudson River; the requirement for special setbacks for new development on designated scenic roads and the requirement of a special permit for fences within 50 feet of a designated road; and the inclusion of provisions to encourage the adaptive re-use of historic buildings will preserve and enhance the historic and scenic character of the waterfront revitalization area and its historic resources, consistent with Policies 1A, 23, 23A, 24A, 24B, 24C, and 25.

2. In the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Law, the establishment of a Town policy to encourage agriculture; to exempt most farm structures from site plan approval; to establish an expedited site plan review process for structures that do require site plan approval; to exempt farm structures from the bulk requirements governing height and setbacks; to require new residential dwellings near a farm to file deeded declarations about the benefits and potential nuisances of agriculture, will encourage the conservation and protection of agricultural lands, consistent with Policy 26.

3. In the proposed Zoning Law, the identification of conservation subdivision as a

permitted use and conventional subdivision as a special permitted use, and the

increase in the minimum amount of required open space for a conservation

subdivision, in addition to the reduction of density on most lands in the waterfront

revitalization area, will implement the Policies cited above in 1) and 2) to preserve historic and scenic resources and to conserve agricultural lands.

4. In the proposed Zoning Law the inclusion of boathouses and moorings to the list of special permitted uses would encourage development of water-dependent

recreational uses and public access to the Hudson River consistent with Policies 1, 2, 9, 19, 20, 20A, 21, 21A and 21B

5. In the proposed Zoning Law, the prohibiting of fuel dispensing for marinas, boat clubs, etc. would protect fish habitats and maintain fishing opportunities consistent with Policies 7, 7A, 7B, 7C, 7E, 8, and 9.

6. In the proposed Zoning Law, replacing the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Planned Residential Development (PRD) Districts, which could result in large-scale developments almost anywhere in Rhinebeck, with the proposed Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) District would ensure that development occurs where adequate public infrastructure is available, consistent with Policy 5. Moreover, by locating residential uses in close proximity to other uses (retail, office, institutional, etc.), the TND District would minimize the need for vehicular trips, which would protect air quality consistent with Policies 41, 42, and 43.

7. The propose Wetlands Local Law would protect wetlands not regulated by the State or the Army Corps of Engineers, including vernal pools, some of the most sensitive habitats, consistent with Policy 44.

8. The incorporation of the procedures approved as part of the Town's adopted LWRP in the proposed Zoning Law would ensure greater enforcement of the policies of the LWRP during the review of actions by agencies in the Town.

If assistance or further information is needed to complete this form, please contact Town of Rhinebeck Town Clerk at 80 East Market Street, Rhinebeck, New York 12572.

Preparer's Name: Thomas Traudt Telephone Number: (845) 876-3409

Title: Town Supervisor Agency: Town Board Date: October 14, 2008

Dan motioned and Ellen seconded to approve Abstract 10 vouchers 1128-1202, checks 4077-4118 for $123,466.92. All were in favor.

Capital Project #38 Abstract 7 for Ballantine Communications voucher 2 for P A system for Recreation and Town Hall usage for $2,492.87 and Cap Project #27 voucher 7 abstract 4 to Williams Lumber for $2,654.06 were unanimously approved on motion from Ellen and second from Dan.

Dan motioned and Ellen seconded to accept the opportunity from Senator Saland to purchase a skid steer at State Contract price of $18,731.00. Cynthia Baer said the Waterfront Committee has some issues with the Saland grant. We sent a letter to the Town Board and then Senator Saland awarded us $14,000 for fenders at the dock. The fenders are only going to cost $10,000 so we have $4,000 left and want to put in an irrigation system. She understands that this $4,000 might go towards the purchase of a skid steer. It doesn't seem fair to arbitrarily take this money from the Waterfront Committee for a bobcat which is not primarily for the dock use. Dan replied we are still waiting for the installation fee for the fenders so we are not sure what amount of money remains.

Supervisor Traudt tried to explain that the bobcat funds are not coming from this grant. In May, when the Waterfront Committee sent the Town Board a letter, I then met with the Senator and he said $14,000 could be used for the bulkhead fenders instead of the original request of motorboat docks. He didn't say we could even have it until I met with his office and then they approved it.

Herman Tietjen stated he originally applied for this grant 2 ½ years ago for the motorboat docks when he was the Town liaison to the Waterfront Committee. By the time we got through the engineering study and approvals in December 2007, the bid was awarded and then the new Town Board was elected and they nixed the proposal. It lay in limbo until I rejoined the Waterfront Committee this year and then I realized the money was still available. Working with Cynthia Baer we re-drafted a letter for bulkhead fenders. I worked with the Coast Guard so we could make sure of ordering the proper fenders. We are now waiting for the hardware plate, the fenders have been delivered. We still have our $28,000 and need clarification. He is bothered that the dock does not seem to have priority now. We should build up the dock area with grant money not the taxpayer's money. We must convince the Senator to okay other improvements at the dock. The irrigation system and trench are estimated for a cost of $5,800. We need to save our beautiful grass. There is no reason it cannot come out of this grant. It is important for the Town Board to put this whole package together and fast before we lose the grant money. He asked if the Committee could meet with the entire Town Board.

Cynthia Baer reminded the Board that in January 2008 the Committee was looking at a walkway along the waterfront but it was too expensive and we realized we needed a feasibility study for the dock area and applied for a DEC Feasibility Grant. Then the spring flood came which eroded the area, we have not just been sitting around as Mr. Tietjen stated. Then we were at the point where we applied and received a FEMA grant for $10,000 for the grass and clean up of the area. Now the irrigation system is important to save the grass.

Ellen Silverstein stated as the only Board member here tonight from the old Town Board, she thinks it is totally inappropriate for Mr. Tietjen to blame the Democrats for this grant not being used. There were other problems with the grant request. The old Town Board asked the Town Engineer to study the original proposal and the engineer stated was not proper at this time and the river tides were another issue. The Town Board relied on his input. It is not appropriate for politics to enter into this discussion; we are all here to make the Town a better place to live and work in.

Kathy Kinsella asked why a skid steer is being requested and Tom Traudt replied it is a broad based idea to help move items around, clear lots, recreation fields and parking lot maintenance. Bruce Washburn pointed out that the newly constructed pavilion was built out of Town funds and the sprinkler system was tabled not disapproved. Cynthia Baer still feels the Waterfront Committee is entitled to this $28,000 grant. We are all hard working on the Committee and have accomplished a great deal over the years,

Lance Rentzel, liaison to Waterfront Committee from Rhinecliff Advisory Committee, thanked the Waterfront Committee for all they have done. Please listen to their ideas and concerns.

Bruce Washburn's view is that there is a Capitol Project for the Waterfront and we can build a plan and use both grant money and tax dollars. Cynthia asked why should the Committee members volunteer their time, write grants and then the Town Board doesn't listen to our views. Bruce pointed out that we don't have the money yet. The plans must be acceptable to the State. A grant goes to the Town not to a Committee.

Tom Holsapple stated this grant was earmarked for the waterfront and should stay there. Susan Silverman thinks it would be wise for the Waterfront Committee and the Town Board to all meet together with the Senator's office.

Ellen understands that is the Board votes against the bob cat we could lose the grant; is not an either/or situation. We have no choice. If I thought we could get the irrigation system, I would vote against the skid steer. Tom reassured Cynthia that the Waterfront would get its money through budgeting. Ryan Dowden suggested changing the wordage to exclude skid steer and just say vehicle or other acceptable item, keep the motion simple. Tony Todisco feels we all share the same goal which is that dock is due money but the Town cannot afford to lose this grant. Do the irrigation and part of the bobcat if that is what is required. Andy Sheppard said you could a lot of days of a skid steer for this amount of money. It might be better just to not spend the states money. Please listen to our concerns here tonight. Michelle Donner questioned whether there might be something that is more appropriate.

Bernard Spiegel asked if approval for the bobcat is given, is the money lost for the dock area. Andy Sheppard doesn't see any compelling reason for the town to purchase a skid steer. Supervisor Traudt pointed out that personal equipment was used by our maintenance department to clean up the erosion at the dock area after the flood. At this point Bruce suggested tabled this until the budget process. Cynthia is confused about this conversation - did you just ask for bobcat acceptability. Tom replied yes, the Senator's office wants to give us this money. We just need to be within his perimeters: upgrading Town Hall computer or vehicle. This will benefit the entire town. We are just trying to get the most out of the state grant. All were in favor of original motion to accept the opportunity to purchase a skid steer.

On motion from Ellen and second from Dan the 2009 Budget Public Hearing was set unanimously for November 6^th at 5:00 in Town Hall.

DISCUSSION

Dan Goldman, PANDA Station Manager, has been asked by the Red Hook Town Board if their Town Board meetings can be broadcast on PANDA on Monday nights which means Rhinebeck would be switched from Monday to Wednesday night. He is requesting Rhinebeck's approval to make the change. After much discussion the Board decided they want to keep the Monday night airing. Town Clerk will notify PANDA.
Committee and job applications - Town Clerk wants to know who gets copies of returned applications. The Town Clerk's office has always given copies to the Board members and Committee chairman. After much discussion, for the time being the Town Board and liaison will decide if the Committee chair receives a copy. Ellen and Bruce will report back to the Board in November on Committee responsibilities.
Update on the walk over bridge roof in Rhinecliff. Dan reported that there are leaks which make the bridge very slippery in the winter when it freezes. We are working with the State to correct the problem.
Dan reported that the Rotary Club has donated $750 for the bike rack at the dock.
Waterfront Committee would like permission to rent a boat for next year Waterfront day and to put down the deposit. Cynthia Baer said there is $2,000 allotted for a historical boat for 3 years. Now the Committee is thinking about having the Clearwater Sloop or a steam tugboat for Waterfront Day. We really want people to be able to board the boat and go out on the river. The Coast Guard boat which has been coming does not allow passengers on the river. Dan reported that Shelly said there is $717 left in the Waterfront Day allocation. Tom feels there is a liability issue here and asked Dan to check with Greg or Adam Rakow and report back to the Board.
Dan attended a DEC meeting last week and the Town now has new flood maps.

ADJOURNMENT

At 8:55 on motion from Ellen and second from Dan, this meeting was unanimously adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara Cunningham

Town Clerk

NAVIGATION

Town Board Meeting Minutes 10-14-08