Neighbors press safety and view concerns as board continues hotel parking hearing to May 4

A contentious public hearing on an amended site plan to add parking at the hotel on Grenell/Correll Street drew multiple residents on April 6, who warned that new on‑site spaces would harm a widely valued green view and create pedestrian and traffic safety hazards on a narrow, curved street. The board continued the hearing to May 4 to gather additional technical reviews.

The applicant proposed keeping two ADA spaces and adding up to eight more on site (raising the total shown in the presentation to 10 on‑site spaces). The design team described aesthetic changes (pavers, new cedar fence replacing a painted picket, adjusted landscaping) and removal of a parallel space to reduce conflicts; they said the plan would improve an existing degraded view area compared with its earlier condition.

Multiple speakers opposed the parking expansion. A resident testified that the lawn is "one of the most beautiful streets anywhere in Rhinebeck" and urged preserving the public view. John Modell, a nearby resident, said: "It seems like a real shame to park seven cars on a million‑dollar view." Others raised site‑distance and safety concerns—warning that drivers unfamiliar with the sharp bend and steep grade may be surprised and that backing maneuvers by vehicles could endanger pedestrians and residents who walk that route. One longtime property owner said prior large events produced congestion when the hotel operated as a banquet hall, and expressed concern about late‑night noise and buses.

Staff reminded the board that the current application concerns creation of parking spaces only, not re‑approval of the existing hotel or banquet operations, and noted that prior approvals included leased spaces from Amtrak to meet a 22‑space minimum. The highway superintendent previously approved site distance in 2022; members asked staff to reconfirm with the highway department whether site‑distance conditions remain acceptable given current conditions.

Because the highway superintendent is still expected to provide an updated assessment, and because public safety and view impacts were heavily contested in public comment, the board voted to keep the public hearing open and continue the item to May 4. The board asked the applicant to return with updated plans reflecting fence and lighting decisions and to provide additional information about parking strategy and off‑site arrangements for large events.