DRAFT North Broadway Corridor Land Use and Zoning Study

Prepared for:

Village of Red Hook Board of Trustees 7467 S Broadway Red Hook, NY 12571

Prepared by:

Last Revised February 2026 Version 2

|Contents Page|Contents Page| |---|---| |I.|Introduction and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1| |II.|Baseline Conditions .............................................................................................................. 2| ||A. Demographics and Housing .............................................................................................. 2| ||Demographics ...................................................................................................................... 2| ||Housing ................................................................................................................................ 4| ||B. Existing Land Use ............................................................................................................. 7| ||C. Zoning ............................................................................................................................ 10| ||D. Historic Resources ......................................................................................................... 15| ||E. Mobility and Parking ....................................................................................................... 20| ||F. Utilities .......................................................................................................................... 21| ||G. Environmental Considerations ........................................................................................ 22| |III. Zoning Considerations .................................................................................................... 22|| ||A. Cookingham Property ..................................................................................................... 22| ||B. Underutilized Properties ................................................................................................. 24| ||C. Observations .................................................................................................................. 24| ||D. Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 27| |List of Tables|| |1.|Village of Red Hook Population ............................................................................................... 2| |2.|Household Size ...................................................................................................................... 3| |3.|Units in Structure ................................................................................................................... 4| |4.|Year Structure Built ................................................................................................................ 4| |5.|Housing Units by Tenure ......................................................................................................... 5| |6.|Number of Bedrooms ............................................................................................................. 5| |7.|Village of Red Hook Population and Housing ........................................................................... 6| |8.|Uses Allowed within the Study Area by Zoning District............................................................ 11| |9.|Select Dimensional Requirements by Zoning District ............................................................. 13| |10. Historic Properties within Study Area .................................................................................... 15|| |List of Images|| |1.|Excerpt of Dutchess County Map, David Burr, 1829 .................................................................. 1| |2.|Village of Red Hook Average Residential Sales Price, 2016-2025 .............................................. 6| |3.|Buildings on the Cookingham Farm Property ........................................................................... 7| |4.|Vacant Fallow Lands for Afordable Housing Site ..................................................................... 8| |5.|North Ridge Apartments ......................................................................................................... 8| |6.|Red Hook Business Park Rear Parking Area .............................................................................. 9|

i

Contents (cont.)

Page

List of Images (cont.)

7. CVS Properties ....................................................................................................................... 9 8. Red Hook Traditional Building Concept ................................................................................. 15 9. Burial Ground Marker ........................................................................................................... 17 10. Excerpt from 1867 Beers Map ............................................................................................... 19 11. Multifamily Dwelling Architectural Concept ........................................................................... 23 12. Connection between the RUPCO and Ross Properties ........................................................... 24

List of Figures

(follows Page 27)

1. Village Location

2. Study Area Location

3. Aerial of Study Area

4. Land Use

5. Zoning

6. Land Use and Zoning

7. Historic Resources

8. Topography

9. Wetlands, Waterbodies and Floodplains

Appendix A: Traffic Calming Measures

ii

I. Introduction and Purpose

The Village of Red Hook retained Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC, to evaluate existing conditions and potential zoning options for the Study Area, which extends along North Broadway to the Village’s northerly border with the Town of Red Hook. To the extent that this report and its findings are adopted by the Village Board of Trustees, it would be considered an addendum to any previously adopted Village of Red Hook Comprehensive Plan.

The historic Village of Red Hook is an approximately 1.1 square mile incorporated Village within the Town of Red Hook, Dutchess County, NY. The Town is the most northerly community within Dutchess County and its westerly boundary is within the Hudson River.

The Village of Red Hook (“Village”) is located south centrally within the Town ( see Figure 1 ), founded in 1894. Historically, it was known as Lower Red Hook and grew from a hamlet situated at the crossroads of a road system which connected the Hudson River to inland farm communities, as well as a post road extending from Albany to New York City. North Broadway within the Village is the northerly segment of this historic crossroads around which the Village grew – it is also current day NYS Route 9.

&: Vepaket

Image 1 Excerpt of Dutchess County Map, David Burr, 1829.

Historic maps of the Village show that many of the buildings along North Broadway were already with

shops and residences by 1858. Cherry Street and Graves Street had already been laid out.

The purpose of this Study is to review the North Broadway corridor, including the Cookingham property and determine whether the underlying zoning should be amended to encourage development of the underutilized properties, and offer new opportunities to promote land uses compatible with “Smart Growth Principles”[1] including mixed land uses, compact building design, range of housing, walkable neighborhoods, supporting a variety of transportation choices, and allowing additional uses which may not presently be allowed.

This Study supports the shared values of the Village of Red Hook that promote healthy and sustainable neighborhoods. These values include the following:

• preserve the traditional neighborhood scale and historical aspects of the area;

1 As per the NYS Smart Growth Community Planning Program, Smart Growth supports and integrates four key themes: equity, economy, environment, and energy/climate.

1

• enhance the pedestrian experience by creating safe, walkable neighborhoods with attractive landscaping and building design supporting a welcoming, connected community

• • calm vehicular traffic by creating and/or refurbishing the Village’s interconnected network of narrow, tree-lined streets with sidewalks and paths that disperse traffic and reduce the length of automobile trips by offering multiple routes for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and connecting those streets to existing and future developments

• • ensure that buildings and landscaping contribute to the physical definition of streets as public spaces;

• • provide a range of housing types, sizes and price levels to accommodate a variety of age and income groups, household sizes, and residential preferences;

• • ensure developments are compatible with historic Village lot sizes, housing sizes and varieties, and building patterns, and will create a strong sense of community identity and neighborhood feeling experienced in traditional rural settlements;

• • support economic development opportunities that activate and energize the surrounding mixed-use neighborhood; and

• promote local economic development that expands employment opportunities for community members and contributes to a thriving Village economy.

Figure 2 illustrates the Study Area within the Village of Red Hook. The Study Area includes a portion of the Cookingham property within the Village of Red Hook, centered around Camp Lane. It also includes properties primarily with frontage along Old Post Road and North Broadway, extending to about Cherry Street. Figure 3 presents an aerial view of the Study Area.

II. Baseline Conditions

A. Demographics and Housing

Demographics

This section presents a snapshot of the Village’s demographics and housing stock as a basis for considering the Village’s present and future housing needs. According to the 2020 Decennial Census, and the 2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the Village of Red Hook had an estimated population of 2,275 persons and 1,069 total households in 2024.

2

In 2024, it was estimated that the average household size was 2.10 persons, and the average family size was 2.82 persons[2] . Table 2 provides a breakdown of household size for all renter and owneroccupied housing units.

In 2024, the median household income was $107,411, and the total housing units were 1,150 dwellings.

The median age of a person residing in the Village was 45.7 years, compared to a median age of 40.1 years statewide. Approximately 27.7 percent of all residents were 65 years and older, while statewide, 18.9 percent of the population is within this age segment.

In terms of income, the median household income in the Village ($107,411) was higher than that statewide ($85,820). In the Village, families had a median income of $111,667 while married couple families have a median income of $151,806. Nonfamily households had a median income of $49,212. The percent of persons below the poverty level in the Village was 7.9 percent, compared to 14.0 percent in New York State.

For the population that is 25 years and older in the Village, 17.4 percent had a high school degree or equivalent, 9.3 percent had some college, and 9.3 percent had an associate’s degree. Approximately 19.7 percent of the population had a bachelor’s degree, and 37.4 percent had a Graduate or professional degree. Approximately 59.6 percent of residents 3 years of age and older are enrolled in kindergarten through 12[th] grade.

In terms of employment, 77.8 percent are employed as private wage and salary workers. An additional 13.4 percent work for local, state or the federal government, and 8.8 percent are selfemployed. Approximately 20.9 percent work from home.

Most employees work locally – the average travel time to work was 19.9 minutes. Statewide, the average travel time was 33.2 minutes. Most residents are employed in educational services, health care and social assistance industries (34.8 percent). This could reflect the Village’s proximity to

2 A Census “household” includes all people who occupy a single housing unit (house, apartment, mobile home, or room) as their usual place of residence. It consists of either one person living alone or a group of people (related or unrelated) living together. A “family” is specific type of household defined as two or more people, including the householder, who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption and live together. It is common for the average household to be smaller than a family household as the former includes single persons.

3

Bard College as well as persons employed by the Red Hook Central School District. Approximately 8.5 percent of residents are employed in retail trades, while 12.1 percent are employed in manufacturing industries.

Housing

This section provides a snapshot of the Village of Red Hook’s current housing stock. Of the 1,150 housing units present in the Village in 2024, 93 percent were occupied, and 7 percent were vacant. Of the occupied housing units, 39.3 percent were inhabited by married couple/cohabiting households. Male and female householders with no spouse/partner presented occupied 60.7 percent of all housing units. Of the male and female households with no spouse/partner present, householders living alone occupied 39.2 percent of those households.

Most of the housing in the Village consists of single-family detached dwellings.

Approximately 19.8 percent of all housing units were constructed prior to 1939. Since 2000, 25.6 percent of the Village’s housing stock was constructed. Almost half the Village’s housing stock has been constructed since 1980.

|Table 4 Year Structure Built|Table 4 Year Structure Built|Table 4 Year Structure Built| |---|---|---| |Occupied HousingUnits|Estimate|Percent| |2020 or later|26|2.3| |2010-2019|126|11.0| |2000-2009|141|12.3| |1980-1999|255|22.2| |1960-1979|126|11.0| |1940-1959|248|21.6| |1939 or earlier|228|19.8| |Total|1,150|100.2*| |Source: 2022 American Community, U.S. Census Bureau.

• Due to rounding.|||

4

Table 5 provides a snapshot of the number of renter-occupied housing units in the Village. In 2023, approximately 1/3 of all housing units were renter occupied – this represents a reduction in the percentage compared to 2017. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated migration from the New York City metropolitan area into the Hudson Valley, driven largely by the rapid expansion of remote and hybrid work arrangements[3] .

Much of the Village’s occupied housing stock consists of 3-bedroom dwellings. According to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the Village has more studios and 1-bedroom dwellings than 4 or morebedroom dwellings.

||Table 6 Number of Bedrooms|Table 6 Number of Bedrooms|Table 6 Number of Bedrooms| |---|---|---|---| ||Bedrooms|Estimate|Percent| ||0|39|3.4| ||1|236|20.5| ||2|178|15.5| ||3|573|49.8| ||4 or more|124|10.8| ||Total|1,069|100.0| ||Source: 2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimates,U.S. Census Bureau.||| |||||

A review of the data in Table 7 suggests that the Village has been adding more housing units than population in the past 50 years. Between 2000 and 2015, it is noted that two major developments were constructed. One is Red Hook Commons – 94 apartments for low-income seniors with a majority of one-bedroom and some two-bedroom apartments built between 2006 through 2008. The other development is Knollwood Commons, consisting of 20 townhome dwellings - 15 with one bedroom and 5 units with two bedrooms. The project started in 2008 and was completed in 2014. Two buildings along the frontage of Fire House Lane have commercial/retail spaces on the ground level and 4 residential apartments in the upper story of each building for a total of 8 apartments, completed in 2015.

3 https://www.timesunion.com/hudsonvalley/news/article/pattern-for-progress-income-migration-report19539547.php

5

The number of persons per dwelling unit has generally been decreasing and the Village consists of smaller households, which is reflected in the population and household data. This is also reflective of a community where few of the dwellings have four bedrooms – fewer bedrooms are correlated with smaller households. This trend should be considered when determining housing needs.

|The number of persons per dwelling unit has generally been decreasing and the Village consists of smaller households, which is reflected in the population and household data. This is also reflective of a community where few of the dwellings have four bedrooms – fewer bedrooms are correlated with smaller households. This trend should be considered when determining housing needs.|The number of persons per dwelling unit has generally been decreasing and the Village consists of smaller households, which is reflected in the population and household data. This is also reflective of a community where few of the dwellings have four bedrooms – fewer bedrooms are correlated with smaller households. This trend should be considered when determining housing needs.|The number of persons per dwelling unit has generally been decreasing and the Village consists of smaller households, which is reflected in the population and household data. This is also reflective of a community where few of the dwellings have four bedrooms – fewer bedrooms are correlated with smaller households. This trend should be considered when determining housing needs.|The number of persons per dwelling unit has generally been decreasing and the Village consists of smaller households, which is reflected in the population and household data. This is also reflective of a community where few of the dwellings have four bedrooms – fewer bedrooms are correlated with smaller households. This trend should be considered when determining housing needs.|The number of persons per dwelling unit has generally been decreasing and the Village consists of smaller households, which is reflected in the population and household data. This is also reflective of a community where few of the dwellings have four bedrooms – fewer bedrooms are correlated with smaller households. This trend should be considered when determining housing needs.|The number of persons per dwelling unit has generally been decreasing and the Village consists of smaller households, which is reflected in the population and household data. This is also reflective of a community where few of the dwellings have four bedrooms – fewer bedrooms are correlated with smaller households. This trend should be considered when determining housing needs.|The number of persons per dwelling unit has generally been decreasing and the Village consists of smaller households, which is reflected in the population and household data. This is also reflective of a community where few of the dwellings have four bedrooms – fewer bedrooms are correlated with smaller households. This trend should be considered when determining housing needs.|The number of persons per dwelling unit has generally been decreasing and the Village consists of smaller households, which is reflected in the population and household data. This is also reflective of a community where few of the dwellings have four bedrooms – fewer bedrooms are correlated with smaller households. This trend should be considered when determining housing needs.| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |Table 7 Village of Red Hook Population and Housing|||||||| |Year|Total Population|Population Change|Percent Change|Total Housing Units|Housing Units Change |Percent Change|Persons per Unit| |2024|2,275|300|+15.2%|1,150|+147|14.7%|1.98| |2020|1,975|+14|+0.7%|1,003|+56|+5.9%|1.96| |2010|1,961|+156|+8.6%|947|+153|+19.2%|2.07| |2000|1,805|+11|+0.6%|794|+34|+4.5%|2.27| |1990|1,794|+102|+6.0%|760|||2.36| |1980|1,692|+12|+0.7%||||| |1970|1,680|--|---||--|--|--| |Source: U.S. Census Bureau,2024. Data obtained from the decennial census data for eachyear.||||||||

According to Patterns for Progress Hudson Vally Regional Market Report, Dutchess County's Median Sale Price in 2019 was $290,000. In 2025, it rose to $465,000 - or a +60.3% increase. As per the website https://pad.tax.ny.gov/salesSearch, the Median Sale Price in the Village of Red Hook in 2019 was $232,000. In 2025, it rose to $674,000 - or a +291% increase. According to the NYS Department of Taxation & Finance Real Property Sales Web Data, sales prices have more than doubled – refer to Image 2 . The data exclude undeveloped lots and rental apartments.

==> picture [262 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Image 2. Village of Red Hook Average Residential Sales Price, 2016- 2025. ----- End of picture text -----

Overall, like much of Dutchess County and the Hudson River Valley, housing prices have increased in large part due to the demand created by residents moving from the NYC metropolitan area during COVID. COVID-era pricing for single-family homes has become the baseline for Village real estate transactions. This trend in the Village’s housing market means homebuyers looking to start out or to retire here are being priced out entirely. To alleviate this strain and maintain the Village’s variety of residents, the housing stock needs to expand.

6

B. Existing Land Use

The Study Area consists of a mix of vacant, agricultural, commercial, and residential uses (refer to Figure 4 ). Starting at the north end, the Study Area is dominated by agricultural properties owned by RTC Farm, LLC (Cookingham Farm or properties). While identified as being in “fruit crop” use, several properties on the east side of North Broadway have been fallow. In addition, both Cookingham properties contain dwellings on them as well as accessory agricultural buildings. The westerly property contains an older structure dating back to the 1880s-1900s. The Cookingham properties are located within NYS-certified agricultural districts. Except for the 12-acre parcel which has been set aside for housing, the remainder of the landholding within the Village is protected by conservation easement and is not available for development.

Image 3. Buildings on the Cookingham Farm Property.

The easterly side of the property was subdivided in 2022. The southerly portion of the property is vacant and slopes upward toward the Village water tower. The remainder of the parcel contains numerous structures – according to the filed subdivision map (Map 7753C), three dwellings, a trailer, an office, three barns, and numerous sheds are present.

7

Image 4. Vacant fallow land for proposed affordable housing site. Village water tower in the background of photo on right.

Traveling south on North Broadway and on the west side of the road, many of the dwellings are buffered and screened from the road by Memorial Park, which occupies the land between Old Post Road and North Broadway. The park has memorial monuments, a sidewalk, benches and acorn lighting as well as a memorial garden. The land use consists almost exclusively of single-family detached dwellings extending to Moul Drive. Exceptions include a two-family dwelling and a vacant flag-shaped lot. In addition, a dwelling identified as “residential with commercial use” – the “The

Numerous commercial buildings line North Broadway on the east side of the road extending from the Cookingham properties to Cherry Street. An exception is an apartment complex tucked behind – it consists of 2, 2-story buildings with a total of 8 units- the density of the lot is about 1 dwelling unit per 3,600 square feet. In addition, the apartment complex is on a landlocked lot and is obtaining access to North Broadway via easement.

Image 5. North Ridge Apartments – land in the rear slopes to the top of a small ridge which is part of the Ross vacant lot.

8

Traveling south is a 1.5-story building with a nail salon and dog groomer, a one-story Greek restaurant, and a recently renovated 2-story building with a hair salon and Italian restaurant. Adjoining the restaurant is the Red Hook Business Park (former Silver Lake Dairy complex), which contains numerous small businesses including an antique and auction business, fabric shop, and other commercial uses. Much of the rear portion of the property is underutilized parking and storage area.

Image 6. Red Hook Business Park rear parking area.

The CVS pharmacy is a one-story retail building with a small pocket park constructed in front of the building offering benches and acorn lighting. Of note, it is the one more modern commercial building that does not have parking to the front – parking is located to the side and rear of the building. It is also contained on two properties, with a large parking lot and stormwater basin behind the main building. The rear parking area appears to be underutilized and could be considered for alternative uses.

==> picture [163 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Image 7. CVS is located on two properties. ----- End of picture text -----

To the south of CVS is a single lot which contains three buildings before reaching Cherry Street - two of the buildings front to North Broadway. One building houses a radio

broadcaster, and the other building is Historic Red Hook at the Elmendorph Inn. Historic Red Hook Story Studio is located along Cherry Street on the same lot – the three buildings are 1.5-2 stories in height. Parking is also located to the rear of the Inn, and the public sidewalk is textured in this location. Unlike other locations, the sidewalk is along the curb edge; there is not a grassy landscaped verge between the sidewalk and road. While this is true elsewhere in the Village, the lack of on-street parking does not provide a perceived “buffer” as it does within the center of the village.

9

To the south of Cherry Street, the two properties that front on Broadway within the Study Area are a one-story Stewarts Shops and a one-story diner. Parking and pavement encircle these buildings and the streetscape conveys an older strip commercial appearance.

The Study Area encompasses properties along Cherry Street. Buildings are not served by any public sidewalks along this street. Between the CVS parking lot and Cherry Street are three single-family dwellings and one two-family dwelling. Lot sizes are about 7,500 square feet, and the dwellings have 40-50 feet of lot frontage. Buildings are 1-2 stories. On the south side of Cherry Street to Graves Street is an apartment building complex, and two single-family dwellings. The apartment complex consists of two buildings with 4 units each, which is a density of one dwelling unit per 1,750 square feet on this lot.

An entrance to the CVS building forms an intersection with Cherry Street at Graves Street. East of Graves Street and on the south side of Cherry Street are single and two-family dwellings. On the north side of a lot with two residential single-family dwellings. Next to this parcel is the Methodist Episcopal Cemetery. Adjoining the cemetery is a large 7-acre vacant parcel (the “Ross” lot) which extends north to the Cookingham properties. Beyond the vacant lot, single and two-family dwellings continue along Cherry Street.

C. Zoning

As per the adopted Village of Red Hook zoning map (last revised 6/13/22), the Study Area is located within three (3) zoning districts:

• R-20,000 Residential 20,000

• R-10,000 Residential 10,000

• General Business

Figure 5 illustrates zoning within the Study Area. The Cookingham properties, the Ross lot, and dwellings on the west side of North Broadway, and Memorial Park are zoned R-20,000. On the east side of North Broadway, extending below Cherry Street and including properties up to Graves Street, the properties are zoned General Business. Within the Study area, three parcels on the west side of North Broadway at its intersection with Cherry Street are also zoned General Business. Lastly, properties that are along Cherry Street, and to the east of Graves Street, are zoned R-10,000.

The Village of Red Hook’s land use regulations are contained in Chapter 200, Zoning, of the Code of the Village. The zoning chapter describes the purpose of each zoning district:

• R-20,000 - The land uses most appropriate in this district include lower-density single-family residences and the public facilities which complement them (e.g., parks and schools). Residential lot sizes would be determined by the capacity of the land to absorb septic waste, but would, in no case, be less than 20,000 square feet per dwelling unit. The relatively undeveloped character of these areas provide opportunities for preserving open space, especially through clustering.

• R-10,000 - The land uses most appropriate in this district include higher-density single-family residences and the public facilities which complement them (e.g., parks and schools). Residential lot sizes would be determined by the capacity of the land to absorb septic waste,

10

but would not, unless served by central sewage facilities, be less than 20,000 square feet per dwelling unit. The relatively concentrated character of residences within this district provides opportunities for extending amenities, such as sidewalks, utilities and streetlighting.

• General Business - The land uses most appropriate in this central commercial area include those business appealing to pedestrians, as well as institutions and public facilities with community-wide orientation. In addition, the upper floors of commercial structures may provide limited opportunities for accessory residences, especially for seniors.

Table 8 additional standards which must be applied during the review process. The table is generally broken down by open space and recreation related uses, residential uses, and commercial uses. As per recent zoning amendments, the General Business zone does not allow residential uses except those that existed prior to June 30, 2021 . Figure 6 compares the existing land use to the zoning boundaries within the Study Area

11

|Table 8 Uses Allowed within the Study Area by Zoning District|Table 8 Uses Allowed within the Study Area by Zoning District|Table 8 Uses Allowed within the Study Area by Zoning District|| |---|---|---|---| |Allowable Use|R20,000|R10,000|General Business| |Bars or taverns|||P| |Clubhouses|||P| |Credit agencies other than banks|||P| |Drugstores|||P| |Eatingand drinkingestablishments|||P| |Financial establishments|||P| |Food stores|||P| |Funeral homes|||P| |Furniture stores|||P| |General merchandise stores|||P| |Grocerystores|||P| |Hardware stores|||P| |Home furnishingand equipment stores.|||P| |Hotels|||P| |Insurance agencies.|||P| |Inns|||P| |Legal services.|||P| |Libraries.|||P| |Medical and health services.|||P| |Miscellaneous retail stores, including the making of articles to be sold at retail on the premises, provided that any such manufacturing and processing shall be incidental to the retail business… |||P| |Mixed use in upper foors of commercial uses|||A| |Motels|||P| |Motion-picture theaters,other than a drive-in |||P| |Ofices,business/professional|||P| |Places of assembly|||P| |Real estate establishments|||P| |Restaurants|||P| |Services,miscellaneous/personal/professional|||P| |Theaters|||P| |Tourist homes|||P| |Video rentals and or sales|||P| |Automobile sales area |||SUP| |Bakeries employingnot more than fvepersons|||SUP| |Drive-through window|||SUP| |Garages, public|||SUP| |Laundries,coin-operated,and drycleaners|||SUP| |Nursingor convalescent homes|||SUP| |Wholesale businesses|||SUP|

12

Table 8

• Have to be legally in existence as of June 30, 2021. P = Permitted use. SUP = Special Use Permit requiring Planning Board approval. A = Accessoryuse.||||

Note that the General Business zone allows the following use: “Residential mixed use precedent as to uses in existing context .” The zoning chapter does not appear to define or regulate this use, although allowed by special use permit. It is believed this relates to the zone’s intent, which is to allow residences in upper story apartments, especially for seniors. However, in Section 200-31 of the zoning which regulated multifamily dwellings and apartments, the zoning states that there is no limit on the number of apartments permitted in a mixed-use or commercial building provided a minimum of 600 square feet of habitable floor area per apartment is provided, adequate provision is made for water and wastewater and all other dimensional requirements are met. Also, in buildings with more than five apartments, at least 20% of the apartments shall have two or more bedrooms. The required number of units shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number. It is presumed in the General Business district that some amount of commercial space must remain within any building with apartments as multifamily buildings are not otherwise permitted in this zone. The development would also require adequate sewer and water service.

In terms of bulk requirements, the R20,000 and R10,000 generally have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. However, in the R10,000 zone where central sewer is available, the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. The R20,000 allows cluster development. The General Business zone does not appear to have any minimum lot area requirement.

The following are certain dimensional standards applicable to the zoning districts.

|Table 9 Uses Allowed within the Study Area by Zoning District|Table 9 Uses Allowed within the Study Area by Zoning District|Table 9 Uses Allowed within the Study Area by Zoning District|Table 9 Uses Allowed within the Study Area by Zoning District| |---|---|---|---| |Dimensional Requirement|R20,000|R10,000|General Business| |Minimum Lot Area(sf)|20,000|10,000*|| |Maximum Percent Coverage|15%|15%|65%| |Maximum BuildingHeight|||| |Feet|35|35|45| |Stories|2.5|2.5|3.5| |Notes:

• With central sewer.||||

13

Within the R-20,000 zone, the zoning allows “cluster for large scale development.” As part of site plan approval, the Planning Board may waive the front, side and rear yard requirements, except that the net lot area (exclusive of streets and other public open space) per dwelling unit is not less than 20,000 square feet and the minimum distance between buildings shall not be less than 30 feet. By applying this to a five-acre lot, for example, this would yield 10 dwellings if there were no streets or open space. As this is allowed as part of the site plan process, it is presumed all dwellings would be located on one lot.

It is noted that development within the Village is subject to the Pattern Book and Architectural Design Guidelines appended to the zoning. In addition, the Greenway Compact Program and Guides for Dutchess County Communities, as amended from time to time, have been adopted as part of the zoning as a statement of land use policies, principles and guides. See

https://www.dutchessny.gov/Departments/Planning/Greenway-Connections-Guides.htm

At present, none of the districts within the Study Area allow multifamily dwellings – the General Business zone allows pre-existing multifamily housing that existed in 2021.

In reviewing the other zoning districts set forth in the zoning chapter, the Neighborhood Mixed Use District explicitly allows multifamily dwellings (six dwelling units per acre), and allows townhomes, senior housing, and live-work units. It also allows apartments as accessory dwelling units in a mixed-use building. The zone also appears to allow many of the same commercial uses that are found within the Study Area.

The Village of Red Hook zoning incorporates illustrative sketch plans of what has been intended, in terms of the pattern of development, within the Study Area – these were added to the zoning in 2017. The design comes from the Pattern Book – refer to Image 8 .

The Red Hook Neighborhood Extension Illustrative Sketch Plan envisioned that the Cookingham property would be developed with a combination of small to large lots. A parking lot located behind buildings that front to Route 9 would remove parking from the fronts of the buildings. Paralleling the CVS driveway from Cherry Street would be a road which would provide access through the Ross lot, on the east side of the cemetery. The road would intersection with another road coming from Route 9, and then extend into the Cookingham property.

The sketch plan does not identify what uses were intended for the buildings but illustrates building footprints. As shown, the sketch plan does not appear to preserve the onsite barn buildings on the Cookingham property.

14

Any potential concept plan would have to take into consideration topography and potential bedrock considerations. The layout that is shown in Image 8 may not be achievable when these constraints are taken into consideration. But the intent is evident; the concept envisioned platting the Cookingham and Ross properties and introducing a gridded street pattern comparable to what exists in the Village today.

Image 8. Red Hook Traditional Building Concept.

D. Historic Resources

As per the Introduction, the Village of Red Hook is a historic community, and a number of properties within the Study Area are listed, or eligible for listing, on the National and State Registers of Historic Places. While not listed, many residential buildings within the Study Area date to the late 1800s – early 1900s. As per the Pattern Book, future development is to consider the historic nature of the environs within which any new development or expansions occur.

Historic properties/buildings are described in Table 10 . Figure 7 shows the location of the properties within the Study Area.

|Historic properties/buildings are described inTable 10.Figure 7shows the location of the properties within the Study Area.|Historic properties/buildings are described inTable 10.Figure 7shows the location of the properties within the Study Area.|Historic properties/buildings are described inTable 10.Figure 7shows the location of the properties within the Study Area.|Historic properties/buildings are described inTable 10.Figure 7shows the location of the properties within the Study Area.| |---|---|---|---| |Table 10 Historic Properties Within Study Area|||| |Name|Address|Designation|Description| |Martin Homestead|7605 N. Broadway|NRE;SR|USN 02749.000001| |Residence ca 1937|7581 Old Post Road|NRE;SR|USN 02749.000072| |Residence ca 1850|7579 Old Post Road|NRE;SR|USN 02749.000071| |Residence ca 1890|7575 Old Post Road|NRE;SR|USN 02749.000070| |Grand Dutchess B&B ca 1880|7571 Old Post Road|NRE;SR|USN 02749.000069| |HalfwayDiner|North Broadway|NR;SR|90NR00449 -| |Elmendorph Inn Source: The New York State Historic Preservation Office|North Broadway Source: The New York State Historic Preservation Office|NR;Sr |90NR00450 | |Source: The New York State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)Cultural Resource Information System,2024.||||

15

Except for the Martin Homestead, the NYS Historic Preservation Office CRIS database does not contain information on the three residences and Grand Dutchess B&B. The below descriptions are taken from the CRIS website and other sources, including Historic Red Hook (https://www.historicredhook.org/ ).

Martin Homestead : The Martin Homestead sits on a 1.49-acre parcel of land and is eligible for the State and National Register for its local significance under Criterion C as an intact example of vernacular architecture in the Hudson Valley from the late 18th century. The original building block was built c. 1777 and is a one-and-one-half story residence featuring a side gable roof that slopes down to a full-length porch that covers the five bay façade and divided Dutch door entrance. The front door is in the traditional divided Dutch style, graced by a mid-eighteenth-century Egyptian Revival brass door knocker with distinct sphynx design featuring the likeness of Queen Victoria. The 2 foot thick stone walls sit upon a rubble stone foundation and support a hewn timber frame. The result is a center hall floorplan. A c. 1880 expansion to the stone house resulted in a one-and-one-

half story, clapboard, addition. The asymmetrical west elevation (rear) features a full length hippedroof porch, and a gable above the rear entrance which interrupts the otherwise flat roof of the

addition. The windows of the older section of the house are a mix of eight-over-twelve and six-oversix paned double-hung windows, with original second-story casement windows, and a modern casement window punctuating the east side of the kitchen ell. Double-hung and modern casement windows are used in the rear addition. The interior retains several architectural characteristics dating to the time period including rough-hewn beams, wide-plank wood floors, fireplace mantels, although several fireplaces have been enclosed, exposed wooden beams and original iron hardware on several doors both interior and exterior. Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation from 1936 shows that the exterior and the floorplan have changed very little since that time. The current owners indicate a barn directly opposite the Martin Homestead was part of the historic farm property.

was said to have built the homestead starting in July of 1776. The home of Hendrick Martin, his father, is located at the end of Willowbrook Lane. The Martin family were Palatine Germans who initially settled the West Camp/Kaatsbaan/Saugerties area prior to establishing their home in Red Hook in approximately 1750. The design of the Martin Homestead reflects German building traditions, including a basement kitchen with large open hearth and bee-hive oven. This design is not as common in other predominantly Dutch examples of Hudson Valley stone houses.

The property was passed down through the Martin family for generations, culminating with Gottlieb’s grandson Edward Martin who was a lucrative businessman who eventually became president of the Rhinebeck and Connecticut Railroad. The current owners document that when Edward died in 1893, he bequeathed the farm to his niece Serena Martin (1837 – 1924), the daughter of his brother Henry Gilbert, who had lived with and kept house for him for many years. Upon Serena’s death, the farm was passed to her niece and nephew, Elizabeth Martin (1855 – 1929) and her brother Edward Montgomery Martin (1863 – 1933). After Edward Montgomery Martin’s death, the home was purchased by Oakleigh Thorne Cookingham, Sr. and his wife Clara.

Mr. Cookingham named the farm Applewood and set about planting the farm with apple trees, and in a short time the farm became one of Dutchess County’s most successful orchard operations. Mr.

16

Cookingham, Sr. served as Red Hook Town Supervisor from 1936 to 1940, and again from 1942 to 1947. Mr. Cookingham, Sr. died in 1967, with his wife residing in the house until her death in 1988. His son, Oakleigh Cookingham, Jr. oversaw a contracting and excavating business based out of the old barn opposite the house on U.S. 9. Following the death of his first wife, Mr. Cookingham, Jr. and his second wife, Jacqulyn Potter Cookingham, lived in the home, where Jacqulyn was noted for her DAR sponsored tours. Following Mr. Cookingham’s death in 2011, and Jacqulyn’s subsequent decline over the next several years, the house was sold to its current owners in 2020, making them only the third family to have continuously owned the home during its history, with the Martin family in residence from 1776 until 1933 (157 years), and the Cookingham family residing there from 1933 until 2020 (87 years).

Elmendorph Inn : The Inn, built 1750-1770, may be the oldest existing building in the Village of Red Hook. It is the only remaining gambrel-roofed structure in the Village.

Originally built as a simple farmhouse, by 1785 it was an inn that served as a popular stopover on the four-day stagecoach run between New York City and Albany. In 1796, the owner, George Sharp, son of a Palatine leader from the original settlement at East Camp (modern Germantown), sold the inn to Cornelius Elmendorph, the current building's namesake.

Over many years, the inn served as a stagecoach stop, courtroom, tavern, site of Town Board meetings (before the Village's incorporation) and a kindergarten.

Halfway Diner : The Halfway Diner, now known as the Village Diner, is a Silk City prefabricated metal diner manufactured by the Paterson Vehicle Company of Paterson, New Jersey, in l951. The diner was installed at its current location in ca. l957. Originally commissioned for use at a location south of Red Hook and on U.S. 9 in the town of Rhinebeck, it was moved twice locally in the

intervening years before being moved to Red Hook in 1957, where it has remained ever since. The Halfway Diner, built in 1951, is an intact example of the type of streamlined, stainless steel diner that the Paterson Vehicle Company introduced in 1949 and manufactured until 1952. Silk City diners changed their designs roughly every four years in the post-World War II period. It was standard practice for the company to include a manufacturer’s tag that included a serial number, consisting of year of manufacture, followed by the diner’s number. For example, the Halfway Diner’s manufacturing tag reads #5113, thereby

identifying it as the 13th diner built in 1951. The tag with this serial number is on the interior above the entrance door. The diner is a long, rectangular box of welded steel-frame construction, with an arched roof and exterior monitor that is not

Except for the Elmendorph Inn and the Diner, National Register eligible properties are clustered on the west side of North Broadway and Old Post Road.

Image 9. Burial Ground marker.

17

United Methodist Church Cemetery: Although the Burial Ground has a historic marker, it does not appear to have been listed or determined to be eligible as of the date of this report. In about 1848, Gilbert Fraleigh and others sold to the church for $1.00 the land on Cherry Street that became the Methodist Cemetery. Graves dating from 1844 to 1941 are in this cemetery. One notable decedent that has an historical marker is the grave of Alexander Gilson (1824-1889). Alexander, a noted African American horticulturist, was the head gardener for Montgomery Place, the residence of the Livingston, Barton, and Hunt families, for about 50 years. He is credited with cultivating Begonia Gilsonii, Aschyranthus Gilsonii, and other plant varieties.

Historic Building Patterns: Portions of the Study Area are representative of the historic gridded building pattern within the Village. Specifically, buildings and lots from Cherry Street south were platted mostly into rectangular lots and front to a gridded street pattern. Interestingly, it appears that Augustus Martin, son of Gottlieb Martin, owned the Elmendorph Inn (he converted it back to a residential building upon its acquisition) as per an 1867[4] map of the Village, as well as the five parcels on the north side of Cherry Street to the east. An excerpt from the Beers map illustrates the 1867 northerly “edge” of the Village with Cherry Street shown centrally. The dwellings along Cherry Street and North Broadway are also shown on a map dating to 1858 without the lots (John E. Gillette Map). An article from Historic Red Hook[5] indicates that the small lot residential dwellings in the area were often for workers who were employed in local industries such as tin, chocolate and tobacco establishments. The small parcels along Cherry Street are generally 40-50 feet wide and 150 feet in depth. Dwellings have small front yards, and all have a small front porch, usually running the length of the front façade. With a few exceptions attached garages are not present, as they were constructed before the invention of the automobile in the United States. As per the Historic Red Hook article, residents have indicated that the village roads have been widened over time – this appears to have resulted in the removal of street trees once present along the local roads including Cherry and Graves Streets although a few are still present. Even with any pavement widening, street widths are around 22-23 feet wide. Along North Broadway, dwellings maintain larger front yard setbacks, but the buildings still have front porches. Sidewalks are present along North Broadway, and the paved road is about 30-32 feet in width. Street trees are present, although more have been preserved on the west side of the street, as the overhead utility poles line the east side, limiting tree locations. North Broadway, being a prominent street, also has more substantial and ornate residential buildings. Behind homes to the rear of the lots are often accessory barns and carriage houses, some of which have been converted to dwelling units. The historic building patterns should be considered as part of any new development or redevelopment.

4 Frederick Beers, 1867.

5 https://www.historicredhook.org/blog/cherry-and-graves-streets

18

Image 10. Excerpt from 1867 Beers Map.

new development would be required to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding the need for additional archaeological investigations. >

19

E. Mobility and Parking

The Study Area is served by the following roads:

• Village. Within the study area, it is a two-lane road with a north bound and southbound travel lane. The lanes are striped with a passing lane striping headed northbound.

• Old Post Road, is a small semicircular Village roadway which parallels Route 9 from Park Avenue to approximately Cherry Street. It is a two-way road with a northbound and southbound lane. Lanes are not striped. There are stop bars and stop signs at either end of the road’s intersection with North Broadway.

• Park Avenue is a two-lane village road that intersects with Old Post Road at a stop sign and stop bar-controlled intersection. It has a westbound and eastbound lane.

• Cherry Street intersects with North Broadway at the southern end of the Study Area. It allows two-way traffic with westbound and eastbound lanes and no pavement striping. A stop bar and stop sign on Cherry Street at the intersection.

• Graves Street dead ends at the CVS driveway. The Village road allows two-way traffic with north and south lanes and is not striped.

• Camp Lane is a small private drive serving the Cookingham property.

Within the Study Area, sidewalks are present on the west side of Route 9 within Memorial Park. Park Avenue also maintains a sidewalk on the south side of the road. The sidewalk continues along Old Post Road southbound and on the west side of the road where the sidewalk continues into the Village center.

Along North Broadway on the easterly side of the road, sidewalks begin at the CVS property, and continue into the Village Center. In front of the CVS, the sidewalk is wider and there is a grassy verge protecting pedestrians. As mentioned previously, in front of the Elmendorph Inn property, the sidewalk consists of older decorative pavers. Major overhead utility lines are located on the east side of the road making it difficult to landscape (street trees) below the lines.

Note that some of the curbing along North Broadway appears to be granite. However, curbing at the CVS and north of the property are concrete, where curbing is present.

Old Post Road has a mix of different curbing types.

Curbing and sidewalks along Cherry Street end near the intersection with North Broadway. There are no sidewalks along Cherry Street or Graves Street.

To the extent that any development occurs on the Cookingham property, consideration should be given to extending the sidewalks on the east side of North Broadway. Sidewalks and curbing would also allow for additional channelization of traffic from the commercial properties. This may affect the location of off-street parking on several properties, which may be located within the state rightof-way. At a minimum, any new development or redevelopment should be required to install sidewalks on the east side of North Broadway.

In addition, there is a preference to interconnect residential neighborhoods as is the pattern throughout most of the Village. While Tower Street ends at the water tower and the Cookingham

20

property, there is insufficient right-of-way to be a road connection; pedestrian access should be considered. Ultimately, additional access to the Cookingham property would be needed, and the Ross parcel should be evaluated for this purpose. Because of intervening topography, the possibility of linking the Ross property to a proposed parallel road extending from Grave Street and then north may not be possible but should be evaluated as well.

Finally, when the Cookingham property residential layout is designed, some consideration should be given to segregating farm related traffic along Camp Lane with residential development traffic if possible.

NYSDOT will also have input regarding any new access roads onto Broadway (State Route 9).

F. Utilities

The Study Area is served by a recently updated wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The wastewater treatment plant is located on a Village-owned parcel located to the west of Red Hook Commons senior housing[6] . The municipal SPDES permit for the facility was renewed in 2020 and 2025 is effective to 2030. Treated effluent discharges to a tributary of the Saw Kill. The capacity of the entire system is 75,000 gpd, which includes 25,000 gallons per day (gpd) at the existing plant which was constructed originally for Red Hook Commons, and 50,000 gpd at the new plant which was constructed by the Village. The WWTP does not have any additional excess capacity at this time and would need to be expanded to serve additional properties within the Village, including the proposed RUPCO project described further below. The Village is seeking funding which would allow a plant expansion to accommodate additional development within the Village As part of the Phase II feasibility study for sewer expansion, the RUPCO and Ross properties within the Village are being considered.

According to the 2017 sewer map and 2021 as-built drawings prepared by CT Male Associates, the sewer line runs behind and on the east side of properties that front to North Broadway. The line crosses Cherry Street in a northerly direction on the Elmendorf Inn property. It then runs along the CVS properties southerly property boundary until it again turns northward through the access drive and parking lot for CVS. It continues north behind the buildings and ultimately terminates by the two apartment buildings and does not extend into the Cookingham property. On the west side of North Broadway, the sewer line travels generally behind the buildings to just north of the road’s southern intersection with Old Post Road.

According to the Village of Red Hook Annual Drinking Water Report, the Village water system serves over 2,730 people through 868 service connections. The water is from eight (8) active drilled wells that draw from an underground aquifer. The water is disinfected with sodium hypochlorite within the pump house facility to inactivate microbiological contaminants prior to distribution. In 2023, the water system was in compliance with applicable State drinking water operating, monitoring and reporting requirements. The NYSDEC 2022 Water Withdrawal Form indicated that the average daily withdrawal from the system is 239,000 with a maximum daily withdrawal of 444,000 gallons per

6 The plant is located on the former PERX property

21

Firehouse Lane.

Within the Study Area, properties are served by the Village’s public water supply system and the Village has some capacity to serve additional users. In terms of sewer service and according to the tax assessment roll, most of the properties are not identified as being served by public sewer. Although the properties may be within a Village sewer district, many parcels may not be connected.

G. Environmental Considerations

highest elevations in the Village. On the Cookingham property, elevations are approximately 280 feet above mean sea level (msl). The Village’s water tower, just south of the parcel, is situated on this same ridgeline. The Ross property also has a small ridgeline that rends from north to south, and elevations exceed 250-260 feet msl. In comparison, along North Broadway by Old Post Road, the elevation is approximately 223 feet msl. Thus, any development on these upper elevations is likely to be prominent and possibly visible from other locations, unless development is situated on the lowest portions of the site or between the hilltops. Steep slopes are associated with these ridgelines and hillsides. Refer to Figure 8 .

An unnamed pond is located on the preserved portion of the Cookingham property and may be federally regulated. Given the prevailing elevations, the pond drains to the north, and surface waters drain to the Saw Kill outside the Study Area, which ultimately enters the Hudson River to the west. In 2028, this wetland will likely become a state-regulated wetland. Refer to Figure 9.

Floodplains are not present in the Study Area. A review of the EAF mapper notes that Bald Eagle habitat is potentially present in the Study Area.

III. Zoning Considerations

A. Cookingham Property

In and around September 2023, the Town of Red Hook, Scenic Hudson, and the Dutchess Land Conservancy partnered to acquire Cookingham Farm properties totaling approximately 224 acres in order to preserve about 169 acres of active farmland. A portion of the Cookingham farm is located within the Study Area. As part of the acquisition, 108 acres of farm area, including 63 acres of prime farmland, are to be protected. Approximately 12 acres within the Village of Red Hook have been excluded for purposes of accommodating an affordable housing development.

The Town of Red Hook has been working with the Rural Ulster Preservation Company (RUPCO), a nonprofit housing organization, toward the organization acquiring 12 acres of land which is within the Study Area. RUPCO has been seeking funds to construct the housing and infrastructure for the project. At this time, the concept has been to construct 40 units of affordable and mixed-income housing, with 20 single-family homes and up to 20 units of multifamily rental housing. The project also proposes to adaptively reuse an existing barn on the site. One concept proposes multifamily housing situated at the front of the property along Route 9, with 20 single-family dwellings situated

22

in the higher elevations of the site, but below the ridgetops. RUPCO has estimated that the total wastewater flow for the proposed concept would be 10,640 gpd. Added to other flows at the plant, the plant capacity was estimated to be 47,440 gpd, which would necessitate an expansion. Further, the property was not included in the original sewer district boundary. Potable water is available to serve the project, although infrastructure would need to be extended. RUPCO has requested $4.15 million to construct the housing from the Momentum Fund.

The site is presently zoned R-20,000. If the project site is situated on 12 acres, this would result in up to 24 dwelling units using a cluster development option. This would not serve RUPCO’s density needs.

Image 11 is an illustration of multifamily housing. As per the Patterns Book, the development will need to consider the surrounding architecture of other buildings and fit into the Village’s historic and architectural building patterns.

Image 11. Multifamily Dwelling Architectural Concept. Barn is shown to the left.

23

B. Underutilized Properties

Within the Study Area, there are additional vacant and underutilized parcels. These include:

• Ross property, which consists of 7 acres. This parcel is constrained somewhat by steep slopes and may be constrained by bedrock.

• The Red Hook Business Park property is 2.6 acres and is significantly underutilized. Much of the rear portion of the property is gravel parking which is not utilized.

• CVS property, which totals 2.3 acres. The back portion of the property (a separate lot) was constructed for additional parking, but it appears to be underutilized. It would be useful for a parking utilization study to be conducted for this lot.

==> picture [124 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

RUPCO Ross ----- End of picture text -----

Image 12. Connection between the RUPCO and Ross properties.

As per the Red Hook TND concept plan, and with the availability of sewer, there are opportunities to better arrange for the redesign and reuse of these properties and connect them internally with interior drives that do not rely on Route 9 for access. As per the TND concept, a parallel road could be developed which extends from Graves Street through the back of the CVS building through to the Cookingham property. This could allow for additional housing opportunities similar to the apartments to be located behind the commercial buildings facing North Broadway.

Consideration also should be given to connecting the Ross property through the Cookingham property. The east end of this property is more gently sloping and abuts the Cookingham property. Given more steeply sloping lands between the apartment buildings and the Ross property, full connection between North Broadway through the Ross property to the RUPCO site may not be achievable.

Apartments above buildings could also be considered, which is presently allowed within the General Business zone.

C. Observations

The North Broadway corridor is a major gateway in the Village and is unique from other areas of the Village. In considering any future zoning, the intended evolution of the Study Area’s growth needs to be expressed. The west and east side of North Broadway are very different, with the west side being almost exclusively in residential uses; these residential buildings are generally older historic buildings separated from one another by manicured lawns and greenery. The landscaped front yards also separate it apart from the North Broadway-Route 9 corridor commercial appearance to the east.

24

The pattern of a gridded village roadway network generally ends at Cherry Street. To the north of Cherry Street on the east side of North Broadway, where the pattern is reminiscent of more conventional, strip commercial development with parking in front of and surrounding stores and buildings. Unlike the Village’s central business district, with its historic row style buildings, buildings fronting to the sidewalk and on-street parking rather than front yard parking lots, the North Broadway commercial area is dominated by parking and impervious surfaces. In the central business district, some buildings achieve a height of three stories; within the North Broadway area, commercial uses are typically in 1-2 story buildings. The Grand Duchess and another residence on the west side of Broadway achieve a 3-story building height. Along North Broadway, there is “space” between buildings to accommodate lawns and landscaping for residential properties, and parking and driveways for commercial properties.

higher density, attached building pattern exhibited in the center of the Village as one travels into the northerly agricultural areas of the unincorporated Town. Introducing a dense building pattern along North Broadway may take away from and compete with the central business district and the uses there. While the TND concept portrayed a layout which could be accommodated in the Study Area, it does not realistically consider that most buildings will remain and would not be demolished to accommodate the conceptual layout.

Broadway, make it more pedestrian friendly, and yet respect the more open character of this area of the Village and limit potential impacts of denser development on the residential neighborhoods along the west side of North Broadway. The preferred scale of development is no more than 2-2.5 stories within the Study Area.

It is contemplated that commercial uses should continue to front to North Broadway – apartments could be contemplated in the upper stories of buildings. Infill mixed use and residential development could occur to the rear of the commercial buildings that front to North. Any street or driveway should attempt to incorporate the more traditional gridded pattern of the Village but be adjusted to accommodate the sloping hillside on the Ross property and the RUPCO site. Road and driveway interconnections are favored between the properties, to limit the need for multiple curbs and turning movements on Route 9, which created a better pedestrian atmosphere. However, it is acknowledged that there may be some limitations because of topography.

The Village of Red Hook has been contemplating zoning changes within the North Broadway area to accommodate potential future development on the Cookingham Properties, as well as to consider whether the existing zoning allows the Village to achieve the traditional neighborhood design sought for this area of the Village, as conceptualized in a sketch plan incorporated into the Patterns Books, which is an element of the zoning chapter. The following observations are made:

• RUPCO cannot achieve its housing density utilizing the existing R-20,000 zoning. The R- 10,000 and the R-20,000 do not permit multifamily housing.

• The General Business district could be extended northward to capture the multifamily housing and barn concepts, but it only allows mixed use buildings.

25

• The Village could consider rezoning the east side of the Study Area within the GB zone and R-20,000 zone to the NMU zoning district. The NMU zone would appear to allow uses on minimum lots of 10,000 square feet, including single-family detached dwellings. It also allows multifamily housing. Further, it could then allow alternative housing, such as townhomes, within this northerly gateway area. The one drawback is that it only allows any building to have a maximum footprint of 2,000 square feet, which could create noncomplying bulk situations with the existing buildings in the GB zone.

• If the Village wants to consider only rezoning the RUPCO property, it could rezone it to NMU. It could include the Ross property, which would benefit from the additional types of housing allowed within the zoning district, as well as the higher density when compared to the R- 20,000. The Village could also rezone the apartments to the south of the Cookingham property to make it a conforming use. Note that the footprint restrictions in the NMU zone would still apply. This could be addressed through some new language in the zoning chapter. This would also not achieve the Village’s objective to introduce additional new housing on the GB zoned properties in the Study Area.

• The Village could create a new zoning district which would allow the uses anticipated on the RUPCO site and allow additional opportunity to introduce residential uses on the GB zoned properties. It could then be tailored to ensure that noncomplying conditions are not created for existing uses and buildings.

• Incentive zoning would allow for additional residential and nonresidential development to occur on properties within the Study Area, provided particular benefits are provided to the Village. Incentive zoning is permitted as per Section 7-703 of the New York State Village Law. Specifically: “a village board of trustees is hereby empowered…to provide for a system of zoning incentives, or bonuses, as the village board of trustees deems necessary and appropriate…The purpose of the system of incentive, or bonus, zoning shall be to advance the village's specific physical, cultural and social policies in accordance with the village's comprehensive plan and in coordination with other community planning mechanisms or land use techniques. The system of zoning incentives or bonuses shall be in accordance with a comprehensive plan within the meaning of section 7-704 of this article.” This could be used, for example, as a method of creating a shared parking area behind existing buildings along North Broadway. The owners could be incentivized and allowed to build additional development, e.g., infill commercial buildings, to achieve this objective. It could also be used to require that a percentage of housing be set aside to be affordable to existing households.

• The zoning could include a combination of the above.

and stakeholders. Any zoning option will need to consider the ability to serve higher density housing with public sewer. In addition, any new development must comply with the Village’s architectural and design standards – given the National Register eligible properties located in the Study Area, this will be important.

26

D. Goals and Objectives

The following goals and objectives are expressed for the North Broadway Corridor Study Area:

1. General Land Use. Allow a diverse mix of residential and nonresidential uses.

   • a. Continue commercial development along the easterly frontage of North Broadway.

   • b. Allow for limited mixed use (apartments above stores) along the easterly frontage.

   • c. Allow for properties to be developed with multiple uses, e.g., a residential building and a commercial building could be situated on the same lot. Buildings that are solely used for residential development would not front to North Broadway.

   • d. Protect the existing residential uses and character on the west side of North Broadway.

   • e. Protect and acknowledge the remaining agricultural uses on the Cookingham property as part of any zoning effort.

2. Housing. Encourage a diversity of housing.

   • a. Encourage a diverse mix of single-family, two-family and multifamily uses on the east side of North Broadway.

   • b. Encourage a diverse range of market rate and affordable rental and for purchase housing.

   • c. Consider allowing incentives to ensure that some percentage of new housing within the Study Area remains affordable for a defined period of time. Incentives would include additional housing units than permitted at this time.

   • d. Allow less density on sloping hillsides, and encourage more housing where constraints are not present.

3. Commercial. Allow commercial uses to continue and allow for the expansion of additional commercial uses on the east side of North Broadway.

   • a. Consider whether the CVS property requires the second rear parking lot, and if it is not needed, allow it to be redeveloped for commercial or residential uses.

   • b. Protect the Cookingham Farm barn and adaptively reuse it for commercial purposes.

   • c. Continue to allow retail, personal service, office, restaurants, outdoor dining, and similar uses which could cater to the Village at large and the new residential development in the Study Area.

   • d. Consider adding an innovative “makers community” to uses that are allowed.

   • e. Consider value added food production activities as allowed as part of the new zoning.

   • f. Consider appropriately scaled hospitality uses.

4. Utilities. Expand utilities to achieve the other goals and objectives of the Study.

   • a. Expand the wastewater treatment plant capacity and extend sewer lines to service the RUPCO and Ross sites and ensure there is sufficient capacity for any infill development.

   • b. Underground utilities in new development.

5. Streetscape and Parking. Continue and extend the more traditional historic Village streetscape into the Study Area.

   • a. Encourage a gridded, interconnected street/driveway system with connected sidewalks which are integrated into the streetscape.

   • b. Connect the Ross property to the RUPCO property when laying out new development and the street/pedestrian network.

   • c. Add street trees and other landscape enhancements along all drives and sidewalks.

27

• d. Work with local utility companies to underground or relocate utility poles which limit expansion of the pedestrian network and installation of landscaping.

  • e. Extend sidewalks north along North Broadway to the RUPCO site.

  • f. Where possible, gradually eliminate parking in front of buildings in favor of parking to the side and behind buildings in order to accommodate landscaping and streetscape amenities (e.g., benches).

  • g. Incentivize and explore creation of a single, combined Village parking area behind commercial buildings on the east side of North Broadway.

  • h. Review the feasibility of additional on-street parking in the Study Area.

  • i. Consider installing a parallel road/driveway that runs north-south from the CVS parking lot entrance along Cherry Street into the RUPCO site. Introduce on-street parking.

  • j. Introduce decorative pavers or grassy verges along North Broadway as part of the pedestrian system and to create a cohesive appearance.

6. Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety. Encourage and/or facilitate traffic calming measures and pedestrian safety measures. Appendix A includes a sample list of various design measures to achieve this goal.

   • a. Consider “Road Diet” measures to slow through traffic. Curb extensions, painted bicycle lanes, and edge lines are examples.

   • b. Construct well-designed interconnected walkways and sidewalks to improve the safety and mobility of pedestrians. Pedestrians should have direct and connected networks of walking routes to desired destinations without gaps or abrupt changes.

   • c. Install visual cues that remind drivers that they share a public right-of-way with pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable users. This could especially be implemented along Route 9 at the gateway into the Study Area. Examples include speed limit signing or gateway signage.

   • d. Improve crosswalk safety. Consider this especially along Route 9 to slow traffic – crosswalks and beacons are examples of safety measures.

   • e. Consider traffic modifications, including street closures, one-way traffic, speed humps, and other design improvements.

7. Community Character. Acknowledge that the Study Area is a transitional area between the Village’s central business district and low-density land use traveling north to the Town. Allow the community character to evolve from a more conventional commercial appearance to one which incorporates new infill development but at a lower density than the center of the Village.

   • a. Protect the wooded ridgelines which are visible from different vantage points within the Village when integrating development.

   • b. Buffer new development appropriately from the historic residential buildings on the west side of North Broadway.

   • c. Utilize a combination of landscaping or fencing to buffer residential uses from new infill development.

   • d. Consider a small Village pocket park or commons within which new residents could recreate on the east side of North Broadway. This could be accommodated on the RUPCO site.

   • e. Adhere to existing Village architectural guidelines. For new development, architecture should be designed to be consistent with the scale and massing of historic village

28

• e.g., the modern farmhouse.

  • f. The scale of new development should allow for the incorporation of landscaping and greenspace between buildings. The Village does not favor lengthy building massing as it is not consistent with the existing streetscape. Buildings are to be no more than 2-2.5 stories in height, or 35 feet.

  • g. Protect any existing National Register eligible buildings in the Study Area and use them as architectural models when designing new infill development.

8. Implementation. Explore options to achieve the goals and objectives set forth in this Study.

   • a. Adopt this Study as an addendum or a separate “mini” comprehensive plan for the North Broadway Study Area.

   • b. Consider new alternative concept layouts for the Study Area which incorporate existing buildings but allows interconnected and infill development.

   • c. Continue to pursue the feasibility of sewer expansion.

   • d. Pursue grants which provide funding incentives for new housing.

   • e. Consider NY Forward funding.

   • f. Request additional alternative concepts for the RUPCO site which meets the goals and objectives of the Study Area, including potentially allowing additional housing units.

==> picture [286 x 263] intentionally omitted <==

29

FIGURES

==> picture [286 x 263] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [549 x 694] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Sheff / a at , ! Saugerties Peps S") Woodstock C 4 | f Pine Plains Shokan Bethel Millerton hokan servoir Kingston Hurley 5 Port Ewen { Ellerslie Sharon Amenia Millbrook sh ite New Paltz Dover Plains High Plains Poughkeepsie New P Myers Corner Hopewell Junction New Milford Walden Pawling Montgomery Gardnertown Newburgh New Windsor Lake Carmel Clarence Fahnestock Memorial State Park Danbury Village of Red Hook Mahopac Dutchess County Municipalities Kiryas Joel Figure 1 North Broadway Study Village Location ws Be ee NPV Sources: NYS GIS, 2024 Red Hook, NY Scale: 1 inch equals 6.3 miles ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [540 x 720] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

ik ow 5 bs VY Ser IF \ ee 8 SAS HRA LU i] ae] Abe ~ee SEE nn a ae | apo co | A Betrf KLUESS i K/ ; neces | = Z| Village of Red Hook Streets Surface Water Study Area la Red Hook Parcels peat TF Sizer Rune Ly |< He kcdS oe\innenea ioa Figure 2 Study Area Location North Broadway Study Sources: NYS GIS, 2024 Scale: 1 inch equals 0.3 miles Red Hook, NY NPVp f s Simm har e C a ute 199 R i u be ent R d oo ke o Ro t t ret S Gra Fisk St R er o d m E Market St K Gl P H Amh O Orlich Rd m t Eldridge Ln ilton b Dr W Market St Metzger Bir Bird w rst Rd et orry Rd Fru R d bridge Dr La rc okingham Ln n O n ge Rd n Rd Echo Blue o a o R Cherr n Middle Rd C a C Colbur R Ln y Rd S d Echo Va d BeekmanRd Firehous d Ln cco Ln a d t Mi all n Rd i lett a h d R m Rd y lley West de a Zipser Ln H Fraleigh St Garden St T w Moul Dr Prince St Ben Moul S Dr aint e e John St Tob Park Ave Park Ave t B agh i n Moxie Ln n Dr Albany Post R ne ll R f n s o Ln Rd a o n A r r r d i s an e t Rd z le u M Willow Brook Ln e N Baxter C e C d p t m n S d W roadway n S t L S p a i roadway B G D B N Rd d r GlenView Dr N R ra S Broadw C ay e ff A o a Bassett Ln e H d R L offman M d h ods Rd St Church v m m Po Farms Pos d t o Rd t Te Smith St a L n St Lu Av lay e F arm R d St Phillips d Post d Ol n Old n t e illard r lly Ln erry St o d at a Ad h c Chur o tensi x E e m our D Graves St y Post Rd n r Hol Ln St es v Gra R lan Thompson St Franklin St low o d Dr H ms Rd n Su Ter d Seymour Dr r r Ln l an n Tower St Tower St Marg Roger Ct Lown Ln d m s Rd St ly Alba arga c M W Eliz O n e Ln M d u J R ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [717 x 535] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure 3 Aerial of Study Area North Broadway Study Ss.47 <a .¥ | , Red Hook, NY = Village of Red Hook Streets Study Area Red Hook Parcels Sap ONE ae a pe!Sa EEBSLVom = a e e aaaaR a Ge Source: Dutchess County GIS, 2024 Scale: 1 inch equals 0 miles Margaret St E Market St Bird St d mp Ln Blue Ech Cherry o Rd St Ca oul Dr W Market St R M Park Ave Saint John St Old Post Willow Brook Ln adway o N Br Church St Extension Graves St Tower St ----- End of picture text -----

rss KS

} LS SY [_\ a LC

Figure 4 Land Use

North Broadway Study Red Hook, NY Village of Red Hook Streets e e Surface Water Study Area Red Hook Parcels Property Class Single Family Residential Two Family Residential Mixed Use Residential Apartment Commercial Residential Vacant Commercial Community Services Agricultural

Source: Dutchess County GIS, 2024 Scale: 1 inch equals 0.07 miles

==> picture [720 x 541] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure 5 Zoning “ey North Broadway Study Red Hook, NY Village of Red Hook Red Hook Parcels Streets ie a a Surface Water Study Area SLE Cy Zoning District R-20000 - Residential - 20,000 IS R-10000 - Residential - 10,000 GWB - Gateway Business GB - General Business Source: Dutchess County GIS, 2024 Scale: 1 inch equals 0.07 miles eeom AL =SiA= Margaret St Bird St d et mp Ln CherrySt Ca E Mark St oul Dr R M Park Ave Saint John St Old Post Willow Brook Ln N Broadway Extension Church St Graves St Tower St ----- End of picture text -----

Figure 6 Land Use & Zoning " / North Broadway Study Red Hook, NY Village of Red Hook 2 : Streets R-20000 Surface Water y —_ 7 [ Zoning Districts e— Red Hook Parcels Property Class Single Family Residential Two Family Residential Mixed Use Residential — Apartment GB Commercial Residential Vacant Commercial Community Services R-10000 Agricultural R-10000 Source: Dutchess County GIS, 2024 e. ~—f Town of Red Hook Assessment Roll, 2024 Scale: 1 inch equals 0.07 miles pavaie:iceBL

==> picture [720 x 518] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

1 - Martin Homestead 2 - Residence, ca. 1937 3 - Residence, ca. 1850 Figure 7 4 - Residence, ca. 1890 Historic Resources 5 - Grand Dutchess B&B, ca. 1880 6 - Elmendorph Inn 7 - Halfway Diner (Village Diner) 8 - Village of Red Hook Water Tower 1 North Broadway Study Red Hook, NY Village of Red Hook ML? CS U — Streets 2 Surface Water ar/e ; 3 Study Area ] SA Z NRHP Eligibility 4 Eligible 5 Listed aye | r Not Eligible 8 Red Hook Parcels 6 7 ra f h Source: Dutchess County GIS, 2024 Scale: 1 inch equals 0.07 miles J rHAGESy Margaret St E Market St Bird St d Route 199 mp Ln Blue Ech Cherry o Rd St Ca oul Dr W Market St R M Park Ave Saint John St Old Post adway o N Br Extension Church St Graves St Tower St ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [718 x 553] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure 8 c Topography Ae North Broadway Study Red Hook, NY Village of Red Hook Study Area Streets IFS at. E — Surface Water 2 ft. Contours Red Hook Parcels Seay Ac Source: Dutchess County GIS, 2024 Scale: 1 inch equals 0.07 miles eeHy AN Tesat re| Al ney 2 0 2 8 arg 250 2 26 M 240 220 aret St 2 Bird St 6 d 220 220 20 220 0 3 70 ft 240 mp Ln 20 230 2 0 220 ft 2 Cherry 0 ft 220 0 220 St 2 Ca 0 220 2 0 4 6 2 0 4 oul Dr 270 ft 2 2 0 ft 0 270 R M 8 Park Ave 0 Saint John St 7 2 4 26 0 ft 0 ft 0 ft ft 0 0 ft d Post 2 ft 2 Ol 5 220 0 2 Willow Brook Ln 0 ft ft adway 2 0 0 2 5 0 2 o N Br 2 ft ft ft 2 ft 0 2 26 ft ft 2 ft ft 250 2 ft Church St Extension ft ft 2 ft ft ft ft Graves St 0 ft ft ft 2 2 230 ft Tower St 2 6 ft ft 2 2 ft ft 2 ft ft 2 ft ft ft ft ft ----- End of picture text -----

Figure 9 Wetlands, Waterbodies, Floodplains North Broadway Study Red Hook, NY KO Village of Red Hook S Streets Sf X—| [_] | Surface Water telies 4 . Study Area NWI Wetlands Red Hook Parcels Note: Floodplains are not present within the Study Area. Le P e Source: Dutchess County GIS, 2024 Scale: 1 inch equals 0.07 miles oS AG ea ak See A ceoan WA NPV

APPENDIX A

EXAMPLES OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES

==> picture [141 x 142] intentionally omitted <==

Traffic Calming Measures

The measures below represent a wide variety of traffic calming measures. The selection of traffic calming measures will depend on the functional classification and role of the roadway within the Village.

• A. Road Diets ( A Road Diet can be a low-cost safety solution when planned in conjunction with a simple pavement overlay, and the reconfiguration can be accomplished at no additional cost. Typically, a Road Diet is implemented on a roadway with a current and future average daily traffic of 25,000 or less. source) • Blub Out or Curb Extension • Chicanes • Choker or Neckdown • Diverter • Driveway Link • Median • Reducing number of Lanes • Roadway narrowing • Bicycle Lanes • Roadway narrowing with edge lines • Diagonal Parking • On street parking • staggering parking

  • B. Improved Pedestrian walkways: Well-designed pedestrian walkways, shared use paths, and sidewalks improve the safety and mobility of pedestrians. Pedestrians should have direct and connected network of walking routes to desired destinations without gaps or abrupt changes. In some rural or suburban areas, where these types of walkways are not feasible, roadway shoulders provide an area for pedestrians to walk next to the roadway, although these are not preferable. (source)

    • ADA- Compliant Designs

    • Chicanes

    • Widening Sidewalks/Narrowing Streets and Traffic Lanes - These techniques provide a flexible way to take back space from the street for non-motor-vehicle uses. Traditional traffic engineering calls for 12- to 13-foot lanes, citing "traffic safety" standards - but newer evidence shows that lanes as narrow as nine feet can still be safe for driving. Source

    • Providing for a landscaped buffer between pedestrians and traffic

    • • Lighting pedestrian pathways

  • C. Visual Cues to influence Driver Behavior: using visual cues that remind drivers that they share this public right-of-way with pedestrians and other vulnerable roadway users: • Gateway signage (welcome to / wayfinding signs)

    • Repeating Landscaping to signify that new ‘area’

    • Repeating Design Treatments, flag poles with flags, signs

    • Street Trees that frame and narrow roadway vistas

• Human Scale in the public right of way Benches, trash receptacles, planters, clocks, way-finding signage.

• Speed limit signing

• Driver speed limit feedback

D. Improving Crosswalk safety:

• Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements

• Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) source

• Intersection Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Refuge Island Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Islands (Pedestrian crashes account for approximately 17 percent of all traffic fatalities annually, and 74 percent of these occur at non-intersection locations.1 For pedestrians to safely cross a roadway, they must estimate vehicle speeds, determine acceptable gaps in traffic based on their walking speed, and predict vehicle paths. Installing a median or pedestrian refuge island can help improve safety by allowing pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time. source)

• • Striped Cross walks • Striped No-Parking zones • No parking curb paint & No parking road signage • Raised crosswalks

• E. Traffic modifications: • Full Street Closure / Woonerf (vehicle-free plaza) • Modified T-Intersection • Partial Street Closure • Speed Humps & Speed Tables • Transverse rumble strips / markings • Raised Intersections • Mini-Circle / Roundabouts and Mini-Roundabouts • Curb radius reductions • Curb ramps • Semi diverter • Diagonal diverter • Right in right out island • Raised median through intersection

• Examples of various traffic calming measures are available for review at: - - -

• https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed management/traffic calming eprimer